Search THT:

Or you can search by:

January 23, 2012

Carmona points out an MLB inequity

Goodbye Fausto! Hello Roberto!

As reported last week, 28-year-old Fausto Carmona is Roberto Hernandez Heredia and perhaps 31 years old.

There are implications here for Carmona-Heredia, for the Indians and, most importantly, for professional baseball and the uneven way it deals with international players.

Since being released on bail, The Sinkerballer Formally Known as Fausto has been apologetic but tight-lipped. He reportedly paid for a false identity that may have incorrectly represented his age. He may have been making periodic payments to maintain the false identity. He eventually balked at paying and somebody talked, leading to his arrest.

He is not the first Latin-American player to take this route. (Last year's most publicized example was Leo Nunez.)

So Heredia lied. But did he do anything wrong to the game of baseball? Does lying about your age and name affect anything about playing the game?

It does not.

While the lies are certainly deplorable, they do not affect the player's ability on the field. People will say that, because his age is uncertain, it could be advantageous for him to have people think he is younger. It could lead to larger bonuses and salaries. He’ll appear more successful since his ability will be compared to that of players younger than him.

But these are issue of deceit based on the current economic model and do not affect the play on the field.

If the same player was actually three years YOUNGER, would we be willing to rectify the situation financially? What happened, as before, is a player found a way to take advantage of the economic system in baseball. For him to be successful, he still had to demonstrate ability and skill.

In doing so, he allegedly broke laws in at least two countries* but he never de-skilled the game. While the misreported younger age would have been helpful during his development, the lying did not give him specific extra ability, or his ability to ignore Lake Erie Midges that Joba Chamberlain could not. Carmona’s lies do not hurt the on-field play of baseball.

* I have no idea if Canada would say anything about a player such as Carmona entering the country with false paperwork. I’m not even sure Canada would prosecute, but I am fairly certain that it is against Canadian law.

When looking at a situation like Carmona’s, I look directly at those running Major League Baseball and the teams. Lying about one’s identity is so advantageous for a specific set of players that it outweighs the risk of punishment. Instead of demonizing players like Carmona and Nunez, it is time to look at the system.

In Japan, younger players are able to develop in a system that gives them the ability to play in their homeland with the possibility of moving to the major leagues in America. In Latin America, players feel the need to break the law to be part of the system. So in one week, Yu Darvish, who has never pitched in even the minor leagues in America, got a $60 million contract after a team paid $51.7 million for the right to give him that contract. During that same week, we learned that, once again a player lied about his identity in an effort to get a portion of that amount of money.

In the end, both players will succeed or fail based on what they do on the field. How they got the opportunity doesn’t affect their ability on the field.

Major League Baseball needs to address the differences. If baseball officials are going to continue to encourage teams to deal individually with international players, they need to address the extreme differences in the system. It is not an easy task. How can baseball expect players not to take the route of Carmona and Nunez when the Darvish situation points out the inequity?

As for the Indians:

While Carmona has not lived up to the promise he flashed in 2007, he has shown, when healthy, to be able to provide a decent set of 30-plus starts and 200-plus innings each year.

In conjunction with this news, it appears the Indians finally pulled the trigger on obtaining Kevin Slowey. The Indians have been interested in him anyway, so this was not in direct relation to Carmona’s issues, but the trade was probably hastened. Carmona will likely end up on the restricted list, leaving the Indians with a hole in the rotation but with an extra $7 million. The Indians gave up Zach Putman, a young pitcher who may have competed for a bullpen position this year.

The Indians have other options for the rotation. David Huff and Jeanmar Gomez will be among those who compete with Slowey for spots behind Justin Masterson, Ubaldo Jimenez, Josh Tomlin and Derek Lowe. In the end, the Indians' depth should be able to cover for Carmona's absence with limited hardship.
Posted by: Mat Kovach

December 02, 2011

The Papelbon tradeoff

Setting the stage

Once upon a time, the Philadelphia Phillies signed Jonathan Papelbon to four-year, $50 million contract with a $13 million vesting option for 2016. Since Papelbon was a Type-A free agent, the Phillies also surrendered their first-round pick—31st overall—to the Boston Red Sox as part of the signing.

A short while later, the owners and players agreed to a new five-year Collective Bargaining Agreement which called for several substantial changes, which included releasing all relievers from traditional Type A status. Clubs would not have to give up a draft pick in return for signing a Type A reliever.

Formerly, Type A status was best viewed as a tax. Teams might view a particular reliever as worth $6 million for one year, but if Type A status was attached, the reliever would be paid considerably less. The value of the lost draft pick offset a chunk of the reliever’s value. In that sense, the new CBA was a boon for all relievers who would have unfairly lost income due to arbitrary rules.

However, the rule change was not retroactive. The Phillies must still surrender their first-round pick.

One man’s theory

At first sniff, this smells unreasonable. It appears that the Phillies were penalized for acting decisively in the free agent market. To apply different rules at different points of the offseason is bizarre.

But maybe the Phillies weren’t penalized. What if the Phillies knew about the impending changes and still decided to sign Papelbon before the agreement? Why would they do that?

With the new CBA in place, Papelbon’s bargaining position would have improved. While most view his contract as a gross overpayment, it’s not unreasonable to think that he could have gotten an additional $4-8 million added to the deal without the draft pick “tax.” The Phillies, already treading dangerously close to the luxury tax threshold, may have decided that saving a few dollars in the contract was more valuable than the draft pick.

There are a couple of reasons why the Phillies might feel this way. Free agents Jimmy Rollins (if he signs elsewhere), Ryan Madson and Raul Ibanez will net the Phillies several early draft picks. Trading the 31st pick for several million dollars in contract savings seems fairly reasonable for a team that should gain several picks somewhere around No. 31.

The Phillies’ draft profile also should be considered. They are widely known to focus on players with the best tools. These players are usually raw, athletic types who lack polished baseball skills.

As an example, in 2008, the Phillies selected Anthony Hewitt with the 24th pick. Hewitt was regarded as the most athletic player in the draft, but his baseball skills left much to be desired. Hewitt’s tools never developed into skills. The Phillies went on to take several other similarly toolsy players early in that draf,t including Zach Collier, Anthony Gose (part of the trade for Roy Oswalt) and Jason Knapp (part of the trade for Cliff Lee).

This tools-oriented approach to drafting doesn’t require a preponderance of early picks. High-ceiling, raw athletes abound in the first several rounds of the draft. The Phillies acquired their top pitching prospect—Trevor May—with the 136th pick of the 2008 draft. At the time of the pick, he was a high-ceiling, projectable pitcher with a sloppy delivery.

The last reason might be the most important. It was speculated on Twitter that Papelbon might have retained Type A status anyway, assuming Boston made a sufficiently large qualifying offer. In this case, signing Papelbon early carries additional value: It takes him off the market before Boston could make an offer worthy of Papelbon’s attention.

Bottom line

Might the Phillies have known about the impending changes to Type A status but chosen to sign Papelbon anyway? It’s certainly possible.

The Phillies probably saved several million dollars in major league payroll by signing Papelbon early. This will either help them avoid paying the luxury tax or reduce their burden.

They might have viewed the pick as entirely fungible. Since they will receive several similar picks before the end of the offseason, they can still aim at the same players. They won’t be particularly concerned that nearly major league-ready talent is scarce at that part of the draft since they typically pick players who take four or more seasons to develop.

And Papelbon might have ended up with Type A status anyway.

So… Maybe the Phillies were retroactively screwed, or maybe they knew what they were doing all along.
Click for more...

Posted by: Brad Johnson

July 05, 2011

Quiz results: DH debate

Interleague is in the rearview mirror once again, millions of cookouts were conducted Monday and a gazillion firewords lit up the night skies. What a great country.

One of the freedoms we hold in America is the right to vote. This applies much more significantly to our elected offices, but that doesn't mean sharing our opinions on baseball should be put on the back burner. After all, elections are merely annual events, while we can debate the greatest sport ever invented 24/7/365.

This week's poll dealt with the always-controversial designated hitter rule. With interleague play renewing discussions of whether the DH is a boon or a bane to the sport, you had the opportunity to cast your vote and have your say.

Here are the results:

Click for more...

Posted by: Greg Simons

June 29, 2011

Pop quiz: What to do with the DH?

After a three-game appetizer in mid-May, baseball is in the midst of feeding its fans a steady two-and-a-half-week diet of interleague games. Some fans enjoy the taste, while others would rather swallow ground glass.

To each his own, right? Well, no, where would the fun be in that?

Aside from abrogating the purity of the single-league schedules, interleague play also introduces the conundrum of the designated hitter.

How can American League teams be expected to compete with one of their vital bats on the bench? How can National League teams match up against their Junior Circuit brethren when they don't have a thumper to insert into the lineup opposite the AL's full-time hitter?

Usually, this wrinkle is played out according the host team's rules. Well, actually, it always is, but occasionally it doesn't seem that way.

Click for more...

Posted by: Greg Simons

June 23, 2011

Why’s pitching so good? Look at a 2010 rule change

Aren't we talking about 2010 and 2011 being Years of Pitchers? I find this interesting for many reasons.

{exp:list_maker}It would seem perfectly reasonable to argue that the effects of PEDs and greenies being out the game is hurting the batter.
Perhaps the ball has changed slightly, giving the advantage to the pitcher.
There has has been enough time for teams to develop a newer crop of younger pitchers, much better equipped to handle today's modern batter.
Also, we could just be having a regression of sorts.
Perhaps pitching might be catching up to batting.
{/exp:list_maker}

Not like a rule change may have helped, right?

Okay, it was termed a clarification more than a rule change, but it just might surprise you.

Rule 8.02(a)(1) was clarified:

The pitcher shall not:

While in the 18-foot circle surrounding the pitcher’s plate, touch the ball after touching his mouth or lips, or touch his mouth or lips while he is in contact with the pitcher’s plate. The pitcher must clearly wipe the fingers of his pitching hand dry before touching the ball or the pitcher’s plate. EXCEPTION: Provided it is agreed to by both managers, the umpire prior to the start of a game played in cold weather, may permit the pitcher to blow on his hand.

Now in 2009 it read:

(a) (1) Bring his pitching hand in contact with his mouth or lips while in the 18 foot circle surrounding the pitching rubber. EXCEPTION: Provided it is agreed to by both managers, the umpire prior to the start of a game played in cold weather, may permit the pitcher to blow on his hand.

Yes, it was clarified that a pitcher can be on the mound and touch his hand to his mouth but he just has to clearly whip his hand dry.

Now, I have touched on the possible reason for the rise and fall of the spitball previously and while the pitch has slowly been losing favor* it is not completely out of the game.

Remember the rule clarification again: The pitcher is allowed to bring his pitching hand to his mouth while on the mound*.

* Wink, just make sure you dry your hands before stepping on the rubber.

I wasn't surprised by the rule change at the start of the 2010 season. Mariano Rivera had his "spitball'' spotted during the playoffs. While Rivera does not throw a spitball** and the controversy was because of the angle of the video, this change can help head off any unneeded issues.

**The spitball is a very difficult pitch to control while Rivera's control is just too pinpoint. Also his wrist snap, so vital for the spin needed for his cutter, requires a grip that would make throwing a spitter next to impossible.

BUT, we did have a rule change that would make it very easy load up a pitch. Before you argue that modern video wizardry would make it impossible, ask a magician to show you a sleight of hand trick. Videotape it. You'll have limited success, if any, of seeing something you know is happening. If you get lucky, you might learn the trick. Videotape yourself. See if you can catch yourself.

Now in reality, this rule change would help players who may try to throw what I call a loaded spitball. Instead of attempting to shoot the ball out from between their thumb and fingers like a watermelon seed, they would load up one side of the ball. This would cause the ball to break more than usual***.

*** I am greatly reducing the complexity of this. I'm trying to not include math on this post.

There lies the larger issue when searching for an increasing in spitballs.

Spitballs are not a mythical powerful, paralyzing, perfect, pachydermous, percussion pitch handed down from Bugs Bunny. They are a fastball thrown with little or no spin, much like an R.A. Dickey knuckleball if thrown conventionally. If the pitcher is just loading the side, it will look much like a slider.

This makes it incredibly difficult to search for spitters via PITCHf/x.

But, we have to wonder. Did Major League Baseball make it easier for a pitcher to add to his arsenal and could it be contributing to the past few Years of the Pitchers?
Posted by: Mat Kovach


Click here for more THT Notes.