I SHALL NEVER GIVE UP MY SOAPBOX!
So as some of you loyal readers may have noticed, I’m writing yet another post this weekend. Why? Well, I have time on my hands, it’s a holiday weekend, and I’m in the midst of a Stargate SG-1 marathon that requires little of my concentration. Also, I’ve wanted to write all of these for some time now. I’m sure that was a frightening glimpse into my life without my significant other around… oh well, we must all endure.
Anyways, back to this posting.
Of course, I’m going to start in the American League Western Division. I know, I grew up in Northwestern Washington and frankly, I don’t care.
THE SEATTLE MARINERS WILL WIN THE AL WEST
This is a classic case of the little engine that could. Last year they were coming off of a 101 loss season and expectations couldn’t have been much lower. Despite being outscored by 52 runs (640-692), they posted an 85-77 record, good enough for a third place finish in the division.
To be clear, I’m not saying that they’re going to win the West because they are a great team. They have excellent chemistry on their roster and arguably had one of the greatest offseasons in Major League Baseball, adding former Cy Young winner Cliff Lee to Cy Young contender Felix Hernandez. The top of their rotation will be one of the best in baseball as will the top of their lineup with perennial 200 hit-man Ichiro Suzuki and the addition of Chone Figgins from the Angels of Southern California (past that it gets murky).
The Mariners new management improved upon a team that overachieved and had some significant injury issues as well. On top of that, the Angels suffered great losses from a very good team that will still be competitive. However, the psychological edge that the Angels have had for the past few years over this division is broken due to their relatively lackluster offseason. This is one of the most wide open divisions in baseball for many reasons, one of which that I didn’t even mention is the fact that if the Texas Rangers are able to pitch at all this upcoming year, they’ll be just as dangerous as anyone else.
CLIFF LEE AND FELIX HERNANDEZ WILL BOTH COMPETE FOR THE CY YOUNG
This prediction isn’t terribly bold. First of all, Felix Hernandez was 19-5 with a 2.49 ERA and 217 strikeouts last year en route to a second place finish in the Cy Young voting (to Zach Grienke). After an up and down first 5 full seasons in Cleveland, Cliff Lee developed into one of the best pitchers in the league. After his 22-3 season in 2008, Lee split time last year between Cleveland and Philadelphia and still went 14-13 with a 3.22 ERA and pitched much better than those numbers would imply. Most importantly, he is going from a ballpark that has been a haven for hitters ever since its opening (Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia) to a stadium that has been very kind to pitchers (Safeco Field in Seattle).
Put that in the hopper and it gives the Mariners two bona fide candidates for the Cy Young award and a solid argument for the best pitching rotation in baseball.
THE YANKEES WILL WIN THE AL EAST
REALLY outside the box on that one but one of the more obvious divisions to predict this coming year. They won the division last year and won the World Series and they’ve actually gotten better. Well, the first two are facts and the third is my opinion but they wanted to get younger and they succeeded, essentially swapping Curtis Granderson for Johnny Damon. If the Yankees get the 2009 version of Granderson (.249/.327/.453 BA/OBP/SLG) they’ll still be well off in that swap because of Granderson’s ability to play the outfield and run the bases.
If however, they get the 07-08 version of Granderson (.292/.363/.524), the Yankees might be even better than the team that just won 103 games as well as the World Series.
TIM LINCECUM WILL NOT WIN A THIRD STRAIGHT CY YOUNG AWARD
In two full seasons, Lincecum has been one of the best pitchers in baseball, going 33-12 with a 2.55 ERA and 526 strikeouts (MLB best) in just 452.1 innings pitched while garnering back to back Cy Young awards. This offseason he’s been in the news a bit more than he or the Giants would like, first with the marijuana incident and then the arbitration case that could have been much more disastrous than it ended up being and ultimately resulted in a 2 year, $23 million contract avoiding a potential arbitration nightmare on one or both sides.
Having said this, it’s not uncommon, and in fact it’s quite common, for professional athletes to have outstanding years when they stand to garner a huge contract the following offseason and then follow up the contract with a somewhat disappointing year in the first year of their new contract. It’s not that their trying less, it’s just that there is a bit of a relief that they got their new deal.
Tim Lincecum earned $650,000 last year and won the Cy Young and the year before that he earned $405,000. Over the next two years he’ll make $23 million and if he’s smart with money that will set him up for the rest of his life, despite the fact that he’s only going to be 27 when this contract expires. There is the possibility that he continues to dominate the National League for years to come and eventually challenges all-time records of all kinds.
There is also the possibility that he relaxes, having gotten his huge contract (at least compared with his last contracts, not compared to the league in general) and proceeds to fall apart as a player. I hope with every shred of my being that the latter does not come to pass but there are many temptations in the world today for a twenty-something guy with tens of millions of dollars at his disposal.
I predict that there will be a letdown from his unbelievable Cy Young form of the past two years but he will still pitch well with moments of brilliance this coming year. He just won’t become the third pitcher ever to win 3 straight Cy Young Awards (Greg Maddux from 1992-1995 and Randy Johnson from 1999-2002).
ALBERT PUJOLS WILL WIN THE NL MVP AWARD
Ok seriously? He’s been in the top 3 of MVP voting 7 times in 9 years, including 3 seconds and 3 MVP awards. His career lows, LOWS mind you, are a .314 batting average, 32 home runs, and 103 runs batted in. His worst OPS was .955 in 2002, which was still 51% better than league average (according to the OPS+ metric).
And he’s done all of this while playing Gold Glove caliber defense. Really bold of me to predict that one huh?
JOE MAUER WILL WIN THE AL MVP AWARD
Nobody in baseball plays a more difficult position better than he does. His days of hitting .350 as a catcher are definitely numbered and his shift to first base is inevitable to maintain his bat but while he does stay at catcher, we will be treated with every game he plays.
All I hope for Joe Mauer is that he stays healthy and humble and brings a World Series title to Minnesota.
THE YANKEES WILL BEAT THE MARINERS FOR THE AL CROWN
Cliff Lee will get frustrated by the Yankees yet again as he and Felix Hernandez combine to win three games but also leave two games with leads that the bullpen ultimately loses for them.
THE PHILLIES WILL BEAT WHOEVER THEY PLAY IN THE NLCS
They have too much talent for the rest of the National League and the biggest move they made this offseason was replacing one Cy Young winner (Lee) with another (Halladay).
THE YANKEES WILL BEAT THE PHILLIES AGAIN IN THE WORLD SERIES
The last time that two teams repeated as American and National League Champions also involved the New York Yankees. They played the LA Dodgers in 1977 and 1978, winning both times. It’ll happen again this year when Curtis Grandserson inexplicably steals two bases on one play late in game 6…
I leave you with this interesting note for any of you who doubt that the Yankees are the premiere franchise in professional sports in this country and arguably, around the world.
There have been 55 players that have won 5 or more World Series rings, topped by Yogi Berra with 10. Of those 55, only 4 did not win at least one with the Yankees and 39 of those 55 won all their rings with the Yankees. Those 55 players combined to win 322 World Series rings and 278 of them were won with the Yankees. Next on the list were the Philadelphia/Oakland Athletics (24 rings), the Boston Red Sox (9), the St. Louis Cardinals (4), and the Toronto Blue Jays (2). No other team was represented more than once.
Only 14 times has a team won consecutive World Series and six of those times, it was done by the Yankees. Of those 14, only 4 of them extended beyond two years. The Oakland Athletics of 1972-1974 won three straight titles and then the Yankees from 1936-1939, 1949-1953, and 1998-2000 won 4, 5, and 3 straight respectively.
Hate the Yankees all you want because they spend more on payroll than the government spends on welfare (ok, not really but it’s a lot). Hate them because their fans and to a certain extent the team carry themselves with an arrogance that is just annoying as hell. Whatever you do, don’t dare try to say they aren’t good.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Does the Super Bowl Make or Break a QB?
Much has been made over the past week about how Super Bowl XLIV affected the legacy of Peyton Manning as well as his place in NFL history. First of all, I have to say that I believe this to be ridiculous. Manning does more for the Colts offense than any quarterback has ever done for any team in NFL history. He is the de facto offensive coordinator for that team and has done so brilliantly in the past 12 years since being drafted out of Tennessee.
I said it shortly after the Super Bowl ended, and I’ll say it many more times, Manning and the Colts didn’t lose this game; the Saints won it. Peyton Manning executed a near perfect touchdown drive the first time he touched the ball in the second half. Without the onside kick and score to start the half by the Saints, that would have put the Colts up 17-6 and with the solid but not flashy Colts defense with Manning clicking, that might have been too much for the plucky underdogs. Sean Payton took risks and was determined to throw the Colts off guard every chance he got.
In my mind this brings up a larger issue. Is the Super Bowl a jinx for some quarterbacks and how important is quarterbacking play at football’s highest level?
Well, the first part of that question is bordering on impossible to answer. The second, however, is easily quantified and yes, I went to all the trouble to quantify it. When I looked at these numbers, I did not just include the starting quarterbacks, I included everyone who threw a pass attempt for each team in the Super Bowl. For instance, in Super Bowl V, Earl Morrall went 7-15, Johnny Unitas went 3-9 and Sam Havrilak (a wide receiver) threw one pass and completed it so the Baltimore Colts completed 11-25 passes for the game.
In the first 44 Super Bowls, the team that had the better passer rating as a team went an astonishing 40-4. Even more astonishing is the disparity between the two. The passer rating for winning teams is 104.0 while the rating for the losing team is 60.0. The largest such disparity occurred in Super Bowl XXIV, when San Francisco’s passer rating was 145.4 and Denver’s rating was 24.5. The four quarterbacks who had the better passer rating on the losing team were Bret Favre (Super Bowl 32), Jake Delhomme (38), Matt Hasselbeck (40), and Kurt Warner (43). In achieving that feat, Jake Delhomme also became the only quarterback to have a passer rating over 100 while throwing the ball more than 10 times.
A large factor in this rating disparity is due to turnovers. The winning teams have thrown just 24 interceptions (highlighted by Joe Montana’s 0 interceptions in 122 career Super Bowl pass attempts) in 44 Super Bowls while the losing team has thrown an astonishing 91 interceptions (highlighted by Rich Gannon’s 5 interceptions in Super Bowl 37).
Going back to the first part of that question I asked; is the Super Bowl a jinx for some quarterbacks? To answer that, I think you have to look at the circumstances surrounding the game. You are facing one of the best defenses in the league in front of 50,000 (in a small stadium) people while hundreds of millions of people are watching on TV. There is the pregame circus and the halftime show which is longer than a normal NFL halftime. Also, at least when it comes to the first time quarterbacks, there can sometimes be some jitters and butterflies which can cause passes to get away from them due to the adrenalin rush they are sure to be feeling.
The most interesting part is that virtually no quarterback performs as well as he does during the regular season. Most of them perform far above and beyond their normal performance or completely flop on the game’s biggest stage and there is plenty of evidence to support that claim. Honestly, one of the closest to his normal performance is Peyton Manning. In two Super Bowls, he has gone 56-83 for 580 yards with 2 touchdowns and 2 interceptions for a passer rating of 85.4 against his career passer rating of 95.2.
Arguably the starkest case is John Elway. There is no question that he is a Hall of Famer and there’s no question that he belongs in the discussion for one of the best quarterbacks ever to put on pads. Many people remember his last two years in which the Broncos were a juggernaut and won both Super Bowls. However, if you look at his performance in the Super Bowl, his influence on his teams was much more that of a leader than a great passer. For instance, his passer rating in his first Super Bowl against the New York Giants was 83.6 (not too bad, above average for certain) and in his last Super Bowl against the Atlanta Falcons was 99.2 (definitely very good), but his rating in the three Super Bowls between those two was 35.4. At this point, I choose to point out one of my favorite factoids about the NFL passer rating formula; if every pass you throw falls incomplete, your passer rating is 39.6. In those three games, Elway completed just 41.9% of his passes (36-86) and threw 6 interceptions against just 1 touchdown.
Does this make Elway a bad quarterback? Of course not. His first three Super Bowls came against a Bill Parcells led defense, a Joe Gibbs led defense, and the 49er’s juggernaut that most teams had trouble playing within 20 points of. The fact of the matter is that Elway was a gunslinger who performed much better in a balanced offense than a passing led attack. He had his share of big games but he was never asked to carry a team game after game the way Peyton Manning is.
The flipside of the coin is Joe Montana. He was great in the regular season and was somehow heads and shoulders better in his four Super Bowl victories. His passer rating in 4 Super Bowls was 127.8, helped mostly by the fact that he threw 11 touchdown passes and was never picked off in those four games.
And finally, another interesting note; if you had one game to win and you had to choose between these seven quarterbacks, who would you pick?
Jake Delhomme
John Elway
Dan Marino
Ben Roethlisberger
Phil Simms
Johnny Unitas
Doug Williams
If it was me, and I didn’t know that this is a trick question, I would probably put some combination of Elway, Marino, and Roethlisberger in my top three (Big Ben was stupendous on the winning drive against the Cardinals). Now, I understand that looking at passer ratings in a vacuum doesn’t always work but it is usually a good first look at a quarterback’s performance. When one looks at these seven QB’s passer ratings, it tells a very different story than their careers do.
150.9 - Phil Simms
127.9 - Doug Williams
117.1 - Jake Delhomme
66.9 - Dan Marino
64.1 - Ben Roethlisberger
59.3 - John Elway
34.7 - Johnny Unitas
In closing, I’ll say this. Quarterbacks are judged by how they perform in the Super Bowl for better or worse. Dan Marino was one of the best quarterbacks in NFL history and set numerous records in his career. The thing that many people judge him by though is that he only played in one Super Bowl and got blown out by the 49er’s.
For comparison, without looking it up (I had to) guess how many World Series Ted Williams and Hank Aaron combined to play in and win. Williams is widely considered to be one of the best hitters of all time and Hank Aaron courageously endured unimaginable persecution en route to the all time home run title. Neither of their careers seems to be defined by the number of World Series that they played in or won.
How a player performs in the playoffs and league championships should be used as a tool to help define who the player was. It should not completely define who a player was or what their legacy is. It’s unfair to a great player like Dan Marino that his legacy is “tarnished” because of his Super Bowl record.
I’m all for it enhancing a player’s legacy (Joe Montana, Tom Brady, Terry Bradshaw, Bart Starr, and Kurt Warner amongst others), I just don’t like it replacing a player’s legacy.
By the way, Ted Williams played in the 1946 World Series and did not win while Hank Aaron played in the 1957 and 1958 World Series against the Yankees and was victorious in 1957.
I said it shortly after the Super Bowl ended, and I’ll say it many more times, Manning and the Colts didn’t lose this game; the Saints won it. Peyton Manning executed a near perfect touchdown drive the first time he touched the ball in the second half. Without the onside kick and score to start the half by the Saints, that would have put the Colts up 17-6 and with the solid but not flashy Colts defense with Manning clicking, that might have been too much for the plucky underdogs. Sean Payton took risks and was determined to throw the Colts off guard every chance he got.
In my mind this brings up a larger issue. Is the Super Bowl a jinx for some quarterbacks and how important is quarterbacking play at football’s highest level?
Well, the first part of that question is bordering on impossible to answer. The second, however, is easily quantified and yes, I went to all the trouble to quantify it. When I looked at these numbers, I did not just include the starting quarterbacks, I included everyone who threw a pass attempt for each team in the Super Bowl. For instance, in Super Bowl V, Earl Morrall went 7-15, Johnny Unitas went 3-9 and Sam Havrilak (a wide receiver) threw one pass and completed it so the Baltimore Colts completed 11-25 passes for the game.
In the first 44 Super Bowls, the team that had the better passer rating as a team went an astonishing 40-4. Even more astonishing is the disparity between the two. The passer rating for winning teams is 104.0 while the rating for the losing team is 60.0. The largest such disparity occurred in Super Bowl XXIV, when San Francisco’s passer rating was 145.4 and Denver’s rating was 24.5. The four quarterbacks who had the better passer rating on the losing team were Bret Favre (Super Bowl 32), Jake Delhomme (38), Matt Hasselbeck (40), and Kurt Warner (43). In achieving that feat, Jake Delhomme also became the only quarterback to have a passer rating over 100 while throwing the ball more than 10 times.
A large factor in this rating disparity is due to turnovers. The winning teams have thrown just 24 interceptions (highlighted by Joe Montana’s 0 interceptions in 122 career Super Bowl pass attempts) in 44 Super Bowls while the losing team has thrown an astonishing 91 interceptions (highlighted by Rich Gannon’s 5 interceptions in Super Bowl 37).
Going back to the first part of that question I asked; is the Super Bowl a jinx for some quarterbacks? To answer that, I think you have to look at the circumstances surrounding the game. You are facing one of the best defenses in the league in front of 50,000 (in a small stadium) people while hundreds of millions of people are watching on TV. There is the pregame circus and the halftime show which is longer than a normal NFL halftime. Also, at least when it comes to the first time quarterbacks, there can sometimes be some jitters and butterflies which can cause passes to get away from them due to the adrenalin rush they are sure to be feeling.
The most interesting part is that virtually no quarterback performs as well as he does during the regular season. Most of them perform far above and beyond their normal performance or completely flop on the game’s biggest stage and there is plenty of evidence to support that claim. Honestly, one of the closest to his normal performance is Peyton Manning. In two Super Bowls, he has gone 56-83 for 580 yards with 2 touchdowns and 2 interceptions for a passer rating of 85.4 against his career passer rating of 95.2.
Arguably the starkest case is John Elway. There is no question that he is a Hall of Famer and there’s no question that he belongs in the discussion for one of the best quarterbacks ever to put on pads. Many people remember his last two years in which the Broncos were a juggernaut and won both Super Bowls. However, if you look at his performance in the Super Bowl, his influence on his teams was much more that of a leader than a great passer. For instance, his passer rating in his first Super Bowl against the New York Giants was 83.6 (not too bad, above average for certain) and in his last Super Bowl against the Atlanta Falcons was 99.2 (definitely very good), but his rating in the three Super Bowls between those two was 35.4. At this point, I choose to point out one of my favorite factoids about the NFL passer rating formula; if every pass you throw falls incomplete, your passer rating is 39.6. In those three games, Elway completed just 41.9% of his passes (36-86) and threw 6 interceptions against just 1 touchdown.
Does this make Elway a bad quarterback? Of course not. His first three Super Bowls came against a Bill Parcells led defense, a Joe Gibbs led defense, and the 49er’s juggernaut that most teams had trouble playing within 20 points of. The fact of the matter is that Elway was a gunslinger who performed much better in a balanced offense than a passing led attack. He had his share of big games but he was never asked to carry a team game after game the way Peyton Manning is.
The flipside of the coin is Joe Montana. He was great in the regular season and was somehow heads and shoulders better in his four Super Bowl victories. His passer rating in 4 Super Bowls was 127.8, helped mostly by the fact that he threw 11 touchdown passes and was never picked off in those four games.
And finally, another interesting note; if you had one game to win and you had to choose between these seven quarterbacks, who would you pick?
Jake Delhomme
John Elway
Dan Marino
Ben Roethlisberger
Phil Simms
Johnny Unitas
Doug Williams
If it was me, and I didn’t know that this is a trick question, I would probably put some combination of Elway, Marino, and Roethlisberger in my top three (Big Ben was stupendous on the winning drive against the Cardinals). Now, I understand that looking at passer ratings in a vacuum doesn’t always work but it is usually a good first look at a quarterback’s performance. When one looks at these seven QB’s passer ratings, it tells a very different story than their careers do.
150.9 - Phil Simms
127.9 - Doug Williams
117.1 - Jake Delhomme
66.9 - Dan Marino
64.1 - Ben Roethlisberger
59.3 - John Elway
34.7 - Johnny Unitas
In closing, I’ll say this. Quarterbacks are judged by how they perform in the Super Bowl for better or worse. Dan Marino was one of the best quarterbacks in NFL history and set numerous records in his career. The thing that many people judge him by though is that he only played in one Super Bowl and got blown out by the 49er’s.
For comparison, without looking it up (I had to) guess how many World Series Ted Williams and Hank Aaron combined to play in and win. Williams is widely considered to be one of the best hitters of all time and Hank Aaron courageously endured unimaginable persecution en route to the all time home run title. Neither of their careers seems to be defined by the number of World Series that they played in or won.
How a player performs in the playoffs and league championships should be used as a tool to help define who the player was. It should not completely define who a player was or what their legacy is. It’s unfair to a great player like Dan Marino that his legacy is “tarnished” because of his Super Bowl record.
I’m all for it enhancing a player’s legacy (Joe Montana, Tom Brady, Terry Bradshaw, Bart Starr, and Kurt Warner amongst others), I just don’t like it replacing a player’s legacy.
By the way, Ted Williams played in the 1946 World Series and did not win while Hank Aaron played in the 1957 and 1958 World Series against the Yankees and was victorious in 1957.
Memories of the Decade - Major League Baseball Edition
This decade started with the New York Yankees hoisting the World Series Trophy and ended the same way. In between, 7 different teams won the World Series, showing a display of parity which other sports claim to have. While the teams that make the playoffs have looked similar throughout the decade, those playing for the sport’s highest championship have varied greatly. In all, 14 different teams, nearly half the league’s teams have played for the World Series Title.
This decade has seen a team tie the record for most wins in a season (116 by the 2001 Mariners) and it’s also seen a team nearly tie the record for losses in a season (119 by the 2003 Tigers). It has seen the single season home run record fall (73 by Barry Bonds in 2001) as well as the all-time home run record (762, also by Barry Bonds). This decade saw 4 players win their 300th game (Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, and Randy Johnson) as well as 7 players who have hit their 500th career home run in this decade (Bonds, Ken Griffey Jr., Sammy Sosa, Alex Rodriguez, Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez, and Gary Sheffield).
Since that last list involves goading the elephant over there in the corner of the room, I’m just going to get this over with and discuss the single overriding thing that I’ll take away from this decade, for better or worse.
STEROIDS
Steroids. I hate talking about it and perpetuating the story but you can’t discuss this decade of Major League Baseball without talking about it. The problem is that baseball, until recently, hasn’t had much of a substance abuse policy. Amphetamines ran rampant back in the 80’s and a number of the games brightest stars were known cocaine users. Tim Raines, one of the best base-stealers in the game’s history, was once quoted as saying the reason that he always dove into bases head first was so he wouldn’t break the vials of cocaine that he had in his back pocket.
First, I must digress. Baseball is not necessarily a sport where being the strongest player also means you’re the best player. It is also the only sport where practices, between the months of April and October, are virtually non-existent. All you do is play games. In the NFL, you can afford to feel terribly on Tuesday and Wednesday if you’re fully recovered by the time Sunday rolls around. In baseball, the odds are very good that you have games on Sunday, as well as Tuesday and Wednesday. Players want to play at 100% so that they can put up better numbers and either A) help their team win, B) pad their individual stats, or C) both. It is a fact that steroids quicken your body’s ability to repair itself, so they would be ideal for a sport that can be so detrimental to particular body parts (like a pitcher’s arm).
My problem with the steroid era is that it went from “acceptable”, in the sense that people knew it was going on and allowed it to keep going, to completely taboo. There is a lot of potential truth to the sentiment that the head honchos of baseball allowed things like this to go on to attempt to repair baseball after the 1994 strike.
There are many reasons why home run totals have gradually gone up and up to the point where they are now and honestly, only one of those reasons is steroids. For instance, when baseball was played in the Polo Grounds in New York, while the distances down the right and left field lines were ridiculously short, it was over 500 feet to straight away center field. Conditioning programs are better, the players are stronger, and the pitchers throw harder (making it much easier to hit the ball 400 feet, all else being equal). Lastly, assuming 14 players and 11 pitchers on every roster, when Babe Ruth set the single season home run records in 1927 there were only 16 teams in the league, meaning Ruth could have faced as many as 77 different pitchers in that season. Over the course of his career, Babe Ruth hit home runs against 216 different pitchers. To contrast, Barry Bonds could have conceivably faced as many as 320 pitchers during his 2001 season in which he hit 73 home runs and over the course of his career, he hit home runs against 449 different pitchers. The obvious question is what does that mean? If we were to assume that there are, say 200 good or great pitchers in the world, then in 1927, every pitcher Ruth faced would have fit into that category. On the flip side, if we make that same assumption, in 2001 there were 200 good or great pitchers and due to expansion, there were 120 other that might have been average or worse.
This is a very crude model but it has definitely contributed to the increase in home runs. Has steroids had an effect on baseball? Absolutely. I can’t speak for the pitchers that have faced Mark McGwire or Barry Bonds or who have had to face Roger Clemens, but I’d much rather face those guys when they’re a touch off or are nursing a tweaked muscle rather than when they’re at 100%.
Lastly, on this note. Do I believe that the sole purpose of taking steroids as a baseball player is to increase strength? No. Do I think that all those who took steroids welcomed the added strength in addition to the added resiliency? Absolutely.
2003 VOLUNTARY DRUG TESTS
So, I lied about the “lastly” note. One more issue I would like to address is the list of 104 players that was obtained and is leaking name by name over the course of the last 6 years. All I will say is this is nothing short of ridiculous. The players that took part in that survey did so on the condition of anonymity and personally, I’ve done my best to not hold it against anybody whose name appeared on that list because that information should never have been made public.
I also think it’s somewhat despicable that whoever has the list is leaking one name at a time when it would be the most embarrassing for players in baseball. If there’s one thing I want to forget about the most from this past decade, it’s the handling of that list.
Ok, enough about steroids…
NEW YORK YANKEES
When I sat down and tabulated my top memories from this decade, I found that many of them concerned Major League Baseball’s standard bearing franchise so I decided to dedicate an entire section to them.
First of all, the last decade ended with the Yankees winning three of the last four World Series titles (in 1996, 1998, and 1999) and then they won another one in 2000 against the New York Mets. In October of 2001, on the heels of the devastating World Trade Center attacks, the Yankees made it to the World Series again against the Arizona Diamondbacks and they were carrying the hearts and minds of New Yorkers after September 11th.
In their 5 World Series appearance between 1996 and 2001, the only time that they faced a stiffer test would have been their first one when they were facing the defending champion Atlanta Braves with the three-headed monster at the top of their rotation with Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz. In 2001, they faced a Diamondbacks team littered with veterans and again, a dynamite combination at the top of their rotation with Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling.
In the first two games in Arizona, Johnson and Schilling held serve and won both games. After stealing Game 3 at home, the Yankees then won Game 4 and 5 on the strength of walkoff home runs by Derek Jeter and then Scott Brosius. After that, it appeared that they were headed for their 5th championship in six years. Randy Johnson pitched the Diamondbacks to a 15-2 win in game six which evened the series at 3 games apiece. Then in Game 7, Curt Schilling was pulled in the 8th inning after allowing a second run that allowed the Yankees to take a 2-1 lead. After Miguel Batista got one out, Randy Johnson came into the game in relief and got all four batters out.
In the bottom of the 9th, the unthinkable happened. Against Mariano Rivera, the greatest closer in baseball history, Mark Grace led off with a single. Then the wheels really came off. Damian Miller bunted the ball back to Rivera and in an attempt to get pinch runner David Delucci, Rivera threw the ball away, allowing both runners to advance safely. Jay Bell then bunted again and again it was Rivera that fielded the ball. Unlike the first time, he made the play and got the lead runner at third base.
The killing blow really came on the next batter, although it wasn’t the winning play. Tony Womack got a cutter up and in and laced the ball down the right field line, scoring one run and putting runners on second and third with only one out. After hitting Craig Counsell, Luis Gonzalez made a very ill-conceived swing at another cutter up and in but fortunately the infield was drawn in for a play at the plate and it got over the infield’s head and barely onto the outfield grass.
That night was really the night that the Yankees dynasty came to an end. Since that run in which they won 5 American League Pennants and 4 Worlds Series over the course of 6 years, they have won the AL East 7 times in 8 years but despite that, they have only been to the World Series twice and won it once, this past year. It’s difficult to say that they haven’t been successful with the games they’ve won but they still haven’t been able to replicate the success they experienced in the late 1990’s. However, this certainly hasn’t stopped them from trying, which brings us to our second Yankees point…
PAYROLL
The New York Yankees have spent over $1.5 billion on payroll alone. There are 22 individual seasons in which a player was paid more than $20 million in salary. 14 of those paychecks were paid by the New York Yankees (although in fairness, it should be noted that 9 of those paychecks were given out to Alex Rodriguez).
Many people would say that this wild spending is bad for baseball and a salary cap should be put in place. I, however, disagree. Of the four major North American sports, no league has had as many different teams win the league’s championship in the past decade as in Major League Baseball (8) and only the NFL has had as many different teams in the championship game as in baseball (14) and, you must remember, the NFL has 32 teams while Major League Baseball only has 30. Dynasties come and go and right now, there isn’t one at the highest level of baseball.
The only thing the Yankees have proven is that you can buy a division championship but you can’t buy a World Series and that is why baseball doesn’t need a salary cap.
2001 SEATTLE MARINERS MATCH A 95 YEAR OLD RECORD
In the summer of 2001, the Seattle Mariners won in every way possible. It started with a 20-5 record in April and they never looked back, going 20-7 in May, 18-9 in June and July, 20-9 in August, and 15-6 in September, and 5-1 in October for a total record of 116-46, matching the 1906 Cubs for the most wins in a single season in Major League history.
They scored 927 runs over the course of the regular season and much more amazingly, they only allowed 627 runs, fewer than 4 per game. For comparison, the 1998 Yankees team that went 114-48 and won the World Series scored 965 runs and allowed 656. While the lineup wasn’t the most feared in the league, they were one of the more efficient due to a ton of veterans that fit together perfectly. With the emphasis on getting on base and driving players in, they succeeded. They had 6 players with an on-base percentage over .350 and four of those were over .380. The true testament to this team was their pitching staff.
Of their regular starting pitchers, John Halama had the highest ERA at 4.73 and only 17 of his 31 appearances were starts. Their top three starting pitchers (Freddy Garcia, Aaron Sele, and Jamie Moyer) benefitted from their efficient offense and good defense and put forth excellent numbers, combining to go 53-17 with a 3.35.
As a team, they finished first in the league in runs, second in batting average, first in on-base percentage, fourth in OPS, and first in OPS+. Their pitchers finished first in ERA, fourth in ERA+, first in WHIP, and they were the only team in the league to allow fewer than 8 hits per 9 innings.
The thing I remember about this team wasn’t the overwhelming power of either their lineup or their pitching staff because, frankly, it wasn’t there. They finished 18th in home runs and 20th in strikeouts that season. What I do remember is they did all the little things correctly that help you win baseball games. They hit their cutoff men, preventing their opponents from taking the extra base and on the other side, they took the extra base whenever the opportunity presented itself, putting pressure on their opponents and forcing them into mistakes.
If you were going to compile an instructional video for how to play the game of baseball at its most fundamental level and you were only allowed to use footage of one team, this would be a very good one to use and perhaps the best. I know, go ahead and say it, I’m a homer… I already acknowledged this and of all the teams I’ve watched and followed, this was one of my all time favorites.
Those are the things I remember the most from the past decade in baseball and I can’t possibly express how much I look forward to the next one… until next time…
ROCK ‘N’ FIRE!!!
This decade has seen a team tie the record for most wins in a season (116 by the 2001 Mariners) and it’s also seen a team nearly tie the record for losses in a season (119 by the 2003 Tigers). It has seen the single season home run record fall (73 by Barry Bonds in 2001) as well as the all-time home run record (762, also by Barry Bonds). This decade saw 4 players win their 300th game (Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, and Randy Johnson) as well as 7 players who have hit their 500th career home run in this decade (Bonds, Ken Griffey Jr., Sammy Sosa, Alex Rodriguez, Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez, and Gary Sheffield).
Since that last list involves goading the elephant over there in the corner of the room, I’m just going to get this over with and discuss the single overriding thing that I’ll take away from this decade, for better or worse.
STEROIDS
Steroids. I hate talking about it and perpetuating the story but you can’t discuss this decade of Major League Baseball without talking about it. The problem is that baseball, until recently, hasn’t had much of a substance abuse policy. Amphetamines ran rampant back in the 80’s and a number of the games brightest stars were known cocaine users. Tim Raines, one of the best base-stealers in the game’s history, was once quoted as saying the reason that he always dove into bases head first was so he wouldn’t break the vials of cocaine that he had in his back pocket.
First, I must digress. Baseball is not necessarily a sport where being the strongest player also means you’re the best player. It is also the only sport where practices, between the months of April and October, are virtually non-existent. All you do is play games. In the NFL, you can afford to feel terribly on Tuesday and Wednesday if you’re fully recovered by the time Sunday rolls around. In baseball, the odds are very good that you have games on Sunday, as well as Tuesday and Wednesday. Players want to play at 100% so that they can put up better numbers and either A) help their team win, B) pad their individual stats, or C) both. It is a fact that steroids quicken your body’s ability to repair itself, so they would be ideal for a sport that can be so detrimental to particular body parts (like a pitcher’s arm).
My problem with the steroid era is that it went from “acceptable”, in the sense that people knew it was going on and allowed it to keep going, to completely taboo. There is a lot of potential truth to the sentiment that the head honchos of baseball allowed things like this to go on to attempt to repair baseball after the 1994 strike.
There are many reasons why home run totals have gradually gone up and up to the point where they are now and honestly, only one of those reasons is steroids. For instance, when baseball was played in the Polo Grounds in New York, while the distances down the right and left field lines were ridiculously short, it was over 500 feet to straight away center field. Conditioning programs are better, the players are stronger, and the pitchers throw harder (making it much easier to hit the ball 400 feet, all else being equal). Lastly, assuming 14 players and 11 pitchers on every roster, when Babe Ruth set the single season home run records in 1927 there were only 16 teams in the league, meaning Ruth could have faced as many as 77 different pitchers in that season. Over the course of his career, Babe Ruth hit home runs against 216 different pitchers. To contrast, Barry Bonds could have conceivably faced as many as 320 pitchers during his 2001 season in which he hit 73 home runs and over the course of his career, he hit home runs against 449 different pitchers. The obvious question is what does that mean? If we were to assume that there are, say 200 good or great pitchers in the world, then in 1927, every pitcher Ruth faced would have fit into that category. On the flip side, if we make that same assumption, in 2001 there were 200 good or great pitchers and due to expansion, there were 120 other that might have been average or worse.
This is a very crude model but it has definitely contributed to the increase in home runs. Has steroids had an effect on baseball? Absolutely. I can’t speak for the pitchers that have faced Mark McGwire or Barry Bonds or who have had to face Roger Clemens, but I’d much rather face those guys when they’re a touch off or are nursing a tweaked muscle rather than when they’re at 100%.
Lastly, on this note. Do I believe that the sole purpose of taking steroids as a baseball player is to increase strength? No. Do I think that all those who took steroids welcomed the added strength in addition to the added resiliency? Absolutely.
2003 VOLUNTARY DRUG TESTS
So, I lied about the “lastly” note. One more issue I would like to address is the list of 104 players that was obtained and is leaking name by name over the course of the last 6 years. All I will say is this is nothing short of ridiculous. The players that took part in that survey did so on the condition of anonymity and personally, I’ve done my best to not hold it against anybody whose name appeared on that list because that information should never have been made public.
I also think it’s somewhat despicable that whoever has the list is leaking one name at a time when it would be the most embarrassing for players in baseball. If there’s one thing I want to forget about the most from this past decade, it’s the handling of that list.
Ok, enough about steroids…
NEW YORK YANKEES
When I sat down and tabulated my top memories from this decade, I found that many of them concerned Major League Baseball’s standard bearing franchise so I decided to dedicate an entire section to them.
First of all, the last decade ended with the Yankees winning three of the last four World Series titles (in 1996, 1998, and 1999) and then they won another one in 2000 against the New York Mets. In October of 2001, on the heels of the devastating World Trade Center attacks, the Yankees made it to the World Series again against the Arizona Diamondbacks and they were carrying the hearts and minds of New Yorkers after September 11th.
In their 5 World Series appearance between 1996 and 2001, the only time that they faced a stiffer test would have been their first one when they were facing the defending champion Atlanta Braves with the three-headed monster at the top of their rotation with Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz. In 2001, they faced a Diamondbacks team littered with veterans and again, a dynamite combination at the top of their rotation with Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling.
In the first two games in Arizona, Johnson and Schilling held serve and won both games. After stealing Game 3 at home, the Yankees then won Game 4 and 5 on the strength of walkoff home runs by Derek Jeter and then Scott Brosius. After that, it appeared that they were headed for their 5th championship in six years. Randy Johnson pitched the Diamondbacks to a 15-2 win in game six which evened the series at 3 games apiece. Then in Game 7, Curt Schilling was pulled in the 8th inning after allowing a second run that allowed the Yankees to take a 2-1 lead. After Miguel Batista got one out, Randy Johnson came into the game in relief and got all four batters out.
In the bottom of the 9th, the unthinkable happened. Against Mariano Rivera, the greatest closer in baseball history, Mark Grace led off with a single. Then the wheels really came off. Damian Miller bunted the ball back to Rivera and in an attempt to get pinch runner David Delucci, Rivera threw the ball away, allowing both runners to advance safely. Jay Bell then bunted again and again it was Rivera that fielded the ball. Unlike the first time, he made the play and got the lead runner at third base.
The killing blow really came on the next batter, although it wasn’t the winning play. Tony Womack got a cutter up and in and laced the ball down the right field line, scoring one run and putting runners on second and third with only one out. After hitting Craig Counsell, Luis Gonzalez made a very ill-conceived swing at another cutter up and in but fortunately the infield was drawn in for a play at the plate and it got over the infield’s head and barely onto the outfield grass.
That night was really the night that the Yankees dynasty came to an end. Since that run in which they won 5 American League Pennants and 4 Worlds Series over the course of 6 years, they have won the AL East 7 times in 8 years but despite that, they have only been to the World Series twice and won it once, this past year. It’s difficult to say that they haven’t been successful with the games they’ve won but they still haven’t been able to replicate the success they experienced in the late 1990’s. However, this certainly hasn’t stopped them from trying, which brings us to our second Yankees point…
PAYROLL
The New York Yankees have spent over $1.5 billion on payroll alone. There are 22 individual seasons in which a player was paid more than $20 million in salary. 14 of those paychecks were paid by the New York Yankees (although in fairness, it should be noted that 9 of those paychecks were given out to Alex Rodriguez).
Many people would say that this wild spending is bad for baseball and a salary cap should be put in place. I, however, disagree. Of the four major North American sports, no league has had as many different teams win the league’s championship in the past decade as in Major League Baseball (8) and only the NFL has had as many different teams in the championship game as in baseball (14) and, you must remember, the NFL has 32 teams while Major League Baseball only has 30. Dynasties come and go and right now, there isn’t one at the highest level of baseball.
The only thing the Yankees have proven is that you can buy a division championship but you can’t buy a World Series and that is why baseball doesn’t need a salary cap.
2001 SEATTLE MARINERS MATCH A 95 YEAR OLD RECORD
In the summer of 2001, the Seattle Mariners won in every way possible. It started with a 20-5 record in April and they never looked back, going 20-7 in May, 18-9 in June and July, 20-9 in August, and 15-6 in September, and 5-1 in October for a total record of 116-46, matching the 1906 Cubs for the most wins in a single season in Major League history.
They scored 927 runs over the course of the regular season and much more amazingly, they only allowed 627 runs, fewer than 4 per game. For comparison, the 1998 Yankees team that went 114-48 and won the World Series scored 965 runs and allowed 656. While the lineup wasn’t the most feared in the league, they were one of the more efficient due to a ton of veterans that fit together perfectly. With the emphasis on getting on base and driving players in, they succeeded. They had 6 players with an on-base percentage over .350 and four of those were over .380. The true testament to this team was their pitching staff.
Of their regular starting pitchers, John Halama had the highest ERA at 4.73 and only 17 of his 31 appearances were starts. Their top three starting pitchers (Freddy Garcia, Aaron Sele, and Jamie Moyer) benefitted from their efficient offense and good defense and put forth excellent numbers, combining to go 53-17 with a 3.35.
As a team, they finished first in the league in runs, second in batting average, first in on-base percentage, fourth in OPS, and first in OPS+. Their pitchers finished first in ERA, fourth in ERA+, first in WHIP, and they were the only team in the league to allow fewer than 8 hits per 9 innings.
The thing I remember about this team wasn’t the overwhelming power of either their lineup or their pitching staff because, frankly, it wasn’t there. They finished 18th in home runs and 20th in strikeouts that season. What I do remember is they did all the little things correctly that help you win baseball games. They hit their cutoff men, preventing their opponents from taking the extra base and on the other side, they took the extra base whenever the opportunity presented itself, putting pressure on their opponents and forcing them into mistakes.
If you were going to compile an instructional video for how to play the game of baseball at its most fundamental level and you were only allowed to use footage of one team, this would be a very good one to use and perhaps the best. I know, go ahead and say it, I’m a homer… I already acknowledged this and of all the teams I’ve watched and followed, this was one of my all time favorites.
Those are the things I remember the most from the past decade in baseball and I can’t possibly express how much I look forward to the next one… until next time…
ROCK ‘N’ FIRE!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
