The Hardball Times -- Chris Lund http://www.hardballtimes.com/main Baseball. Insight. Daily. en studes@hardballtimes.com Copyright 2013 2013-05-23T08:50:15+00:00 Five questions: Toronto Blue Jays http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/five-questions-toronto-blue-jays2/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/five-questions-toronto-blue-jays2/#When:06:45:15
Fast forward a couple weeks and the acquisition of NL Cy Young Award winner R.A. Dickey further reinforced the pitching staff, giving Toronto another bona fide front line arm.

This team has speed at virtually every spot in the field, depth in the rotation and a potentially electric bullpen. The Jays will be an exciting group to watch regardless of how their season plays out, but it remains to be seen whether they will be capable of reaching the lofty expectations many have set for them.


Will the team find a way to stay healthy?


The 2012 Blue Jays came in with quite a bit of hype in their own right, though not nearly as much as this season's incarnation does. Realistically last season's team ought to have hit 81-85 wins with the available personnel. However, injuries took hold all over the field and in the pitching staff and the Jays mustered a 73-89 record.

Injuries are obviously a part of any sport. Each team in baseball warrants a health-related question heading into this season. Still, the Blue Jays have quite a bit more cause for concern than many. Last season the Blue Jays were forced to use 21 position players and 33 pitchers (34 if you count the two innings thrown by Jeff Mathis).

The only key players to not miss any significant time due to injury were Edwin Encarnacion, Colby Rasmus, Ricky Romero, Henderson Alvarez, Darren Oliver and Casey Janssen. With the exception of Oliver, each of those Jays played through injuries at some point of the season.

What's also concerning on this front is the extensive injury history of many of their key acquisitions this offseason. If this season is to end well, they will need key contributions from Josh Johnson in the rotation, and Jose Reyes in the lineup. Both have missed significant time in recent years. Depth players like Emilio Bonifacio and Maicer Izturis, who will be relied upon for their versatility, also have a knack for picking up ailments here and there. Should the Blue Jays lose one or more of their middle infielders at a time, there will be reason to temper expectations.

If this team stays healthy, it will be productive and competitive. But, while the Jays are more equipped to deal with losses than they were a year ago, problems to significant pieces will be a major setback to any serious aspirations.

How will Jose Bautista fare?


Injuries to joints are always cause for concern. With a mess of bone, ligament and tendon comes any number of things that can go wrong during the recovery process.

Coming off wrist surgery to repair a tendon injury which caused instability in his left wrist, Bautista could produce anything in 2013. It's certainly unlikely that he'll surpass the 50-home run mark once again, but if he can regain his form as a consistent power hitter in the middle of a lineup that should be more effective getting on base, he will be a massive asset.

The emergence of Encarnacion takes the weight off of Bautista's shoulders to a degree, but having the most prolific power hitter of the last three seasons play a meaningful role would make the Jays an explosive opponent.

Two natural comparisons for Bautista's issue are David Ortiz and Rickie Weeks.

Ortiz, relative to Bautista, decided to forego the procedure in 2008 and struggled, posting the three lowest WAR seasons of his time in Boston to date (1.9, 0.3 and 2.6) before rebounding in 2011 with a 4.1 WAR.

Weeks, meanwhile, opted to have the surgery and, in the subsequent season, set a career high in home runs with 29.

Bautista is already expected to be in decline by virtue of his age (32), but if Weeks is an indication of what recovery is like after surgery, there should be room for optimism in Toronto.

How will John Gibbons handle Adam Lind?


There have been few things more infuriating for Blue Jays fans over the last couple of seasons than the play of Adam Lind. Not only has he been underwhelming in his performance, he was grossly mismanaged in the eyes of many by former manager John Farrell.

Lind has failed to produce a wRC+ over 100 since his breakout 2009 season, when he posted a 140 mark. The frustration for fans doesn't stem from his production as a whole, but the manner in which he was set up to fail.

Lind is an effective hitter against right-handed pitching, but against lefties he is a black hole in the lineup, with a career wRC+ of 59. Yet, for whatever reason, Farrell's Jays insisted on leaving Lind in the lineup—batting fourth, no less—to face left-handed pitching.

If Gibbons can effectively manage Lind, the Jays will benefit immensely. He can be productive, as evidenced by his career wRC+ of 120 against righties, and offers power to the lineup as well as solid defensive play when he takes the field at first base.

Even if it means relying on the likes of Rajai Davis, Bonifacio or Izturis to fill in against a left-handed pitcher, the team as a whole would be much better served by using Lind exclusively against right-handers. They need him creating runs, not outs, and he is incapable of producing the former against a left-handed pitcher.


Will the bullpen be consistent enough?


The Blue Jays have done well to bolster a bullpen that cost them many games early on during the 2012 season. Casey Janssen thrived as the team's closer and Darren Oliver was a quality setup man, despite his advanced age.

The team was dealt a blow early on when Sergio Santos was forced to undergo shoulder surgery. He appears to be on track to return for Opening Day 2013, however, and reportedly feels as good, if not better, than he did prior to his injury last season.

Janssen is also recovering from shoulder surgery. He is on track to return at some point in March.

With two key pitchers coming back from operations, and Oliver turning 43 there will be a lot of weight placed on pitchers who aren't necessarily trustworthy.

Steve Delabar and Esmil Rogers will bring heat out of the bullpen. Delabar consistently touches the mid-90s with his fastball and throws a nasty splitter. Rogers possesses a full arsenal of pitches, including a fastball that hits the high 90s in addition to swing-and-miss breaking pitches. Neither pitcher is particularly proven—Delabar had a 0.6 WAR in half a season with Toronto in 2012, while Rogers had a 0.8 WAR between Colorado and Cleveland—but both have the tools to get the job done.

Brett Cecil and Aaron Loup will be relied upon to be left-handed specialists. Cecil has been in a steady decline as a starter since his 2.6 WAR in 2010, but fared well against left-handed batters last season, limiting them to a .268 wOBA. He should be able to carve out a niche in that role. Loup was a pleasant surprise for general manager Alex Anthopoulos. There weren't high expectations for him coming into last season, but he posted a 0.9 WAR in 30.2 innings. While a thicker book on how he operates may cause a decline in his numbers, he has been successful at the major league level and is cut from the traditional specialist mold.

The theme here is there are plenty of capable arms, but not many sure things. Other pitchers like Brad Lincoln, Jeremy Jeffress, J.A. Happ and Chad Jenkins will be in the mix in various capacities, but with the perceived depth of the starting rotation—one that should eat a lot of innings—the bulk of the load will fall on the explosive arms at the back of the bullpen. How they hold up will decide much of the season, particularly in competitive AL East games.

Which Brett Lawrie is the real Brett Lawrie?


Last season was, if not a step back for Lawrie, a step to the side. In 125 games, Lawrie produced a WAR of 2.9, just 0.2 higher than the 2.7 he posted in his first 43 games at the major league level.

The plateau can largely be explained by the dip in his power numbers. He hit 11 home runs in 536 plate appearances, a substantial drop from nine in 171 during his 2011 stint.

And the power decline can be explained by his over-zealousness at the plate. While he had a 5.9 percent jump in his contact rate, he attacked pitches that could be put into play and not necessarily driven. If Lawrie is to continue his development, he'll need to get back to a more patient approach at the plate and focus on driving pitches.

The good news is that Lawrie will be put in much more favorable positions to succeed. Last season, Farrell often relied upon Lawrie as a leadoff hitter despite his ability to hit for power. While it is unfair to put Lawrie's struggles squarely on misuse, his placement in the batting order did him no favors.

With Reyes and Melky Cabrera at the top of the lineup and Bautista and Encarnacion locking down the middle, Lawrie should be in his best position to thrive yet. He will no longer be a focal point for opposing pitchers.

Moreover, off the field, Lawrie's role in the Jays marketing scheme has diminished from a year ago. With an influx of new faces and big names, the pressure will be off the lone Canadian in the lineup to bring the franchise back to glory. Again, while his struggles can't be attributed to the pressure away from the field of play, lifting that burden ought to help, particularly for a player who actively tries to make things happen.

The less pressure he feels to force his game in order to be the star, the better for the Jays.

This season will be the best indicator we have yet of where Lawrie's career will be headed. His strength and athleticism indicate that his power numbers should return. The pressure on him will be minimal. There will be ample amount of talent around to help him succeed.

Lawrie will be a key to the Jays' success this season and, provided his development continues as planned, he should hit the 4.0 WAR mark this season and play a key role in the team's success. Conversely, if he hovers closer to 2012's production, it will be clear that the expectations set for him were too ambitious.

To summarize, if the Jays can stay healthy, have a productive Bautista, handle Lind properly, get quality relief pitching and see progress from Lawrie, they will be in the conversation to not only make the playoffs, but potentially contend for a World Series title. With so much talent up and down the roster, the Blue Jays will be a handful for any team they come up against.

Click here to learn about THT's download subscriptions.]]> Chris Lund 2013-03-12T06:45:15+00:00 AL East and parity in 2013 http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/al-east-and-parity-in-2013/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/al-east-and-parity-in-2013/#When:05:05:15
Payroll juggernauts in New York and Boston made the division a financial behemoth, while market inefficiency experts Tampa Bay eliminated the remaining wiggle room. Toronto put together teams capable of beating the best outside of the division, but struggled against the three AL East juggernauts. Baltimore plateaued as a 65-70 win team under the circumstances before a 2012 explosion.

Many argued that any AL East team could win the World Series in any given year. It would be tough to argue against that logic. Even some of the poorer Orioles teams had enough talent to assert themselves against non-division opponents. Yet, as we look ahead to 2013, the AL East appears to be in an unfamiliar state of disarray.

The Yankees and Red Sox both appear to be very expensive, mortal teams. The Tampa Bay Rays have several question marks on their roster. The Toronto Blue Jays have completely overhauled their roster, though how it will play out on the field remains to be seen. The Baltimore Orioles have stood pat thus far after a dream season one year ago.

The AL East seems as wide open as ever. Five teams are roughly capable of competing with one another, though many would score the Rays, Jays and Yankees as the favorites to come away with the division crown. Yet, with so much parity in the “toughest division in sports”, there has never been more reason to feel that the AL East has wandered into vulnerability.

Looking back at the 2012 season, each team's WAR reflects the notion that the AL East is the strongest division in the league. By combining each team's pitcher and hitter WARs into a type of team WAR, we get a sense of where each team stood.

The Yankees, who won the division, had a team WAR of 51.1. The mathematically defiant and eventual wild card winning Orioles had a team WAR of 31.9. Third place Tampa Bay had a team WAR of 45.5. The Blue Jays had a team WAR of 23.4, the Red Sox 34.5.

With an average team WAR of 37.3 in the division, the AL East ranks second in 2012 behind the top-heavy, four team AL West, which averaged a team WAR of 41.7, on the strength of Oakland (41.8), Texas (50.4) and Los Angeles (47.4). In the majors, the AL East ranks third in average team WAR with the NL East averaging a team WAR of 40.5.

There are two caveats to this, of course.

The AL East's average WAR was negatively impacted last season by the Blue Jays' staggering injury woes. The team was forced to rotate replacement level players in and out of the roster as a result of injuries to key players like Jose Bautista and Brandon Morrow. Consider that Bautista had a WAR of 3.2 in just 92 games while Morrow had a staff high WAR of 2.4, despite making 11 fewer starts than team leader Ricky Romero who posted a career worst WAR of 0.5.

A healthy 2012 Blue Jays conceivably cements the AL East's status as juggernaut. Unfortunately, sports aren't that simple.

Second, the AL West will have Houston join the fold next season. The Astros had a major league low 17.6 team WAR in 2012 and, like the Orioles, haven't done much to tweak their roster. If we retroactively drop the Astros in to the AL West, the AL East has the higher average WAR. It should be noted, however, that making the retroactive switch gives the NL Central the highest average team WAR in baseball at 40.68.

The shift of the Astros may play a starring role in how the balance of power amongst divisions is decided in 2013.

While the almost certain dogfight that will take place is sure to entertain baseball fans during 2013, how the AL East stacks up against other competition is largely a mystery. With so much turnover among Tampa Bay and Toronto’s rosters, New York and Boston’s clear reason for concern and Baltimore’s uncertainty, it’s difficult to project how they will fare.

If we continue using the team WAR model I've suggested above, the division becomes very congested.

Based on 2012 production, The Yankees, with their only notable activity being the addition of Kevin Youkilis, have had their team WAR drop by 10.2 thus far.

The Orioles have stood pat for the most part though, given some of their subtractions, have increased the team's WAR by 0.1.

The Tampa Bay Rays have lost many players via free agency and trade, and have had their team WAR drop by 11.6, though it should be noted that the addition of Wil Myers should positively impact that number.

The Blue Jays have been the busiest of the five, increasing the team's WAR by 17.8 with notable additions in Jose Reyes, Josh Johnson, Melky Cabrera and R.A. Dickey.

The Red Sox have acquired a number of veterans and increased their team's WAR by 7.8. (The new number includes Mike Napoli, whose deal has yet to be finalized.)

How does the new division stack up based on these new numbers? The Red Sox would have the highest team WAR at 42.3, followed by the Blue Jays (41.2), the Yankees (40.9), the Rays (33.9) and finally the Orioles (32.0). The disparity between first and last (10.3) is the smallest margin in the league. And, as I mention above, the consensus appears to be that Toronto, Tampa Bay and New York are the division favorites. Not Boston, which leads under this framework.

While the AL East still stacks up as a relatively strong division on paper, the NL East looks like it could be a challenger, as does the NL Central now that it is Astros-free and with a Chicago Cubs team that has strengthened its pitching staff. The AL West should also stay in the discussion, though the Houston effect takes away from its formidability.

With all of this in mind, the AL East could easily regain its possession of the toughest division title. A resurgence from a Mark Teixeira or Jon Lester or Romero could easily tilt the tables the AL East's direction.

Going forward, we can assume that the group is solid. Opponents will dread playing any of its inhabitants. Its inhabitants will dread playing one another.

It stands to be a year of increased parity within the division, yet each contender within the division comes an entirely noteworthy set of questions that could drastically alter 2013’s narrative. How will the Yankees recover at their age? Are the Red Sox talented enough? Can the Rays score enough runs? Will the Blue Jays have the requisite consistency? Can the Orioles do it again?

Do you think the AL East is still the best division in baseball?

Click here to learn about THT's download subscriptions.]]> Chris Lund 2012-12-21T05:05:15+00:00 On Hall of Fame voting http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/on-hall-of-fame-voting/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/on-hall-of-fame-voting/#When:08:19:15
The nature of the debates has shown the vulnerability—and ultimately, the fallibility—of the voting process. Handing baseball writers the keys to the proverbial car comes with obvious flaws. As with any human process there are positive and negative biases to go along with personal agendas.

In the AL MVP vote, many writers voted for Miguel Cabrera out of a genuine belief that he was the most valuable player in the league, but many also voted for him out of spite toward the stats community. A win for Cabrera was a loss for the so-called "geeks," and many columns reflected that mindset the next morning.

Now we see a new slanted contingent voting for the Hall of Fame. While several newly eligible players are certainly controversial for many reasons—be they personality or PED related—the split among voters has been interesting in its public nature. Many have been open in their outright refusal to vote for certain players because of checkered pasts.

The question here, of course, has to be asked: If writers are so openly willing to speak about their biases against players, should they still be voting?

As I’ve mentioned in this space before, the purpose of the Hall of Fame is to preserve history, honor excellence and connect generations. While the meaning of “Most Valuable Player” is inherently ambiguous—history suggests that perhaps Most Outstanding would be a better term—the onus is on Hall of Fame voters to uphold those aforementioned values, regardless of their personal motives.

The players who have been voted in already raise some eyebrows. Not because of their worthiness but, rather, the fact that they weren’t unanimous. Babe Ruth received only 95.13 percent of the vote to get in; who were the 4.87 percent of writers who thought Ruth wasn’t worthy of a Hall induction that year? Joe DiMaggio earned only 88.84 percent of the vote. Roberto Alomar received 73.7 percent of the vote on his first ballot, yet received 90 percent of the vote on his second. What made his legacy that much better later?

In any system there are going to be flaws, but perhaps it’s time to try another one. Any time you have a group of individuals who have happily accepted their role as kingmakers, you risk abuses of power. The unwritten first ballot rule, while admirable in theory, doesn’t affect a player’s status in the Hall at all. While it may be a dated example, if everyone with a vote couldn’t agree that Babe Ruth ought to be in the Hall of Fame, then we ought to find out the names of those who declined and revoke their votes.

The Steroid Era in baseball happened. There’s no denying it. The evidence is everywhere for us to see. Our individual opinions on how this ought to affect the legacies of those who indulged with PEDs is another issue.

The logical step for baseball after all that has gone on is to—colloquially speaking — own it. Acknowledge that it happened. Acknowledge that it was allowed to happen. Only then can the game move on in an appropriate way.

For writers voting on the Hall, now is not the time to make a political stand. Part of the reason the steroid problem—if we want to term it that—was allowed to grow is many writers chose not to follow up on leads they were given. To hold a flimsy standard against these players not only accomplishes nothing for baseball’s history, but also erases the notion that the media who chose to build these figures up are not partially culpable for these legacies.

The Baseball Hall of Fame seeks to preserve history, honor excellence and connect generations. The steroid era is part of its history, and glossing it over does nothing to help future generations understand what happened. While the excellence we witnessed may be an inconvenient truth for some, it happened..

The Baseball Writers Association of America is authorized to elect players to the Hall of Fame. The onus is on those writers to do justice to the excellence and history of baseball, not to bestow honors on particular players from the position of moral arbiters.

This isn’t the appropriate ballot for politicking. Own the past and move forward.

Click here to learn about THT's download subscriptions.]]> Chris Lund 2012-11-30T08:19:15+00:00 Vetoing a trade won’t fix Miami http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/vetoing-a-trade-wont-fix-miami/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/vetoing-a-trade-wont-fix-miami/#When:07:59:15
In the Marlins, we have a team backing out of a sudden “win now” philosophy under questionable pretenses. Ownwe Jeffrey Loria is obviously not the most highly thought of individual in many locations, and he can now add Miami to that list after his public lobbying for shared funding of Marlins Park.

In the Blue Jays, we have a team looking to capitalize on an unusually vulnerable AL East with plenty in the cupboard. Their ownership group ranks among the wealthiest in baseball and after a trying season both on and off the field, they have done well to not only change the public perception of the franchise, but immediately boost the name value of the roster.

So why the commotion?

The Blue Jays are free from fault here, putting together a reasonable baseball deal while spending within their means to improve their roster. The cause for suspicion falls squarely on Miami.

While the Marlins did acquire solid talent from the Blue Jays farm system in addition to three serviceable big league players, the team’s motives look incredibly questionable. Much of their funding for a brand new facility was contingent on a commitment to win immediately and fill the building. An unprecedented spending spree a year ago appeared to turn the tide in that direction. This week, the team has effectively undone all of that work.

The deal is unlikely to be vetoed. Not only is there no precedent for Selig to make that type of move, but from a purely baseball perspective there are many who would happily argue that the Marlins got fair value in the deal, if not even a little ahead. I, for one, disagree, but the issue as it has been drawn out in media circle, is not based around the trade at all, but rather the Marlins’ ties with the city of Miami.

If we’re examining this from a baseball operations perspective, an argument against such a massive salary swap is in an indirect argument for a salary cap or structured financial system. This type of framework would likely come with a salary floor and, in turn, ensure that teams couldn’t dump salary as Miami historically has. However, since there does not appear to be any interest in such a change in the financial structure of the major leagues, it would not make sense to nix the trade on this basis.

The key issue here is the series of promises made between the Marlins ownership group and Miami-Dade County which stand to alienate the Marlins fan base in the short term and potentially cripple the franchise. If the doomsday scenario plays out the way many project, the Marlins will be forced to relocate or contract from Major League Baseball and Miami will be left with a $634 million white elephant stadium. The city contributed $508 million of that.

Major League Baseball did play a role in this. MLB was active in the proceedings between Miami and the Marlins and suggested that baseball could no longer exist in the city if a new facility wasn’t delivered. What baseball officials didn’t expect, however, was they may have inadvertently killed it by pushing for the building altogether.

The issue here isn’t whether the Marlins needed a new park—by all accounts they did—but how they went about it. Not only has Loria raised the suspicions of fans, but many owners have questioned his practices with respect to revenue sharing and reporting accurate financial numbers for the team. Now, after he's undone the promises he appeared to be following through on, the issue becomes whether he can be trusted by fans or baseball again.

The trade itself must be approved. If the dealmakers for the teams agreed to go ahead with this trade, the league has to respect it. If the consequences from the trade mean future provisions are put in place to keep similar trades from occurring, so be it. Alter the Collective Bargaining Agreement in the future. This trade itself should not be a platform for making sweeping changes across the board. It is an entirely valid swap within the framework of the major leagues.

What MLB can do, and do immediately, is begin holding its owners to a higher standard of conduct. Jose Reyes & Co. have nothing to do with the conduct of Loria or his executive group, they were merely pawns in the process. A year ago, Reyes, Heath Bell and other Marlins were talking about their franchise’s commitment to winning multiple World Series in Miami. Now we know the commitment didn’t extend very far beyond the dressing room.

If MLB wants to make a point with an investigation, it ought to start at the top. This trade is just a microcosm of how the Miami Marlins franchise has been allowed to operate. For professional baseball in Miami to succeed, the league needs an owner who wants to run it in an equally professional manner.

Click here to learn about THT's download subscriptions.]]> Chris Lund 2012-11-16T07:59:15+00:00 Taking the good with the bad http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/taking-the-good-with-the-bad/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/taking-the-good-with-the-bad/#When:05:20:15
While they may be able to turn around a fastball or run a lot faster or display considerable amounts of skill at spitting sunflower seeds, baseball players—professional or otherwise—are obviously no exception. It’s a regular occurrence to have a news brief come across our sports pages, televisions, radios or home pages informing us that ballplayer X has had a brush with the law.

Some incidents are more dire than others, but it happens, and when it does, it has a higher profile than when it happens to the average human being. The modern professional roster is both large and perpetually in flux. With every report of a transaction in local markets comes a brief history of the newly arrived player. For that distinct percentage with a legal history, the spotted portion of their past tends to be highlighted rather distinctly. In many cases, it overshadows what they are capable of doing as a ball player.

The question that has piqued my interest in all of this is to what lengths ought baseball franchises go to ensure that they not only put a good product on the field, but one that meets a high moral standard off the field.

All too often this debate turns into a loosely mediated “think of the children” shouting match. Teams ought not trot out troubled athletes because their presence sends mixed messages to the youth. I ask that we scrap this idea altogether for the sake of sanity. I have yet to meet a person who grew up watching baseball in the 1950s and '60s who conclusively linked Mickey Mantle’s social exploits to his swing, though perhaps that is the final frontier for historical analysts.

The ethical debate with troubled players and filling out a roster extends well beyond how a segment of fans will react to an athlete’s presence on their favorite team. What is a franchise willing to tolerate for results? That question goes well beyond the bleachers and hits the office of every agent, executive and owner in baseball.

Another common thread of logic in this context is the “if I did this at my job, I’d be fired,” argument, which I also would like to dispose of. The fact is these athletes generate millions of dollars in a much more results-based environment with a staggeringly short time span attached to their careers.

Baseball players are incredibly lucky to play a game for a living, and many are given much more leniency than the average person. There is no denying either of these points. However, to analogize both the benefits and challenges associated with being a professional athlete to the standard day job without misrepresenting either side is nearly impossible. There is very little middle ground.

In examining this issue, my key question is at what point do a player’s past indiscretions become tolerable? There is obviously no easy answer.

Take Miguel Cabrera. A quick internet search will provide you with varying numbers and incident reports at different levels surrounding the Tigers star. Many of these troubles are alcohol-fueled. Had any number of similar incidents involved a lesser player, they might have been promptly dispatched from their team. However, we are dealing with Miguel Cabrera—arguably the best hitter in the game—and he has been afforded additional opportunities accordingly.

A similar series of events have unfolded around 2004’s first overall draft pick, Matt Bush. Bush had been given numerous opportunities to catch on with the Padres, Blue Jays and Rays but burned each bridge with either a legal transgression or violation of team policies. Yet, these teams stuck by him in hopes that he would unlock his potential and overcome his personal issues. His career appears to have run its course as he is currently in jail.

These are just two instances where exceptions are made for the exceptional. Each year there are similar cases where players are disposed of for similar transgressions accompanied by less talent. One may even wonder if Josh Hamilton would have been afforded a chance at returning to baseball had it not been for his immense talent and pedigree as a first overall pick. Now we wait and see if his numerous off the field issues affect the contract he’ll receive as a free agent, though had he not slumped badly during the past season they would more than likely not be an issue.

I don’t profess to have an answer the issue; it is too complex and far-reaching to be conclusively solved in a single column. It is clear to me, however, that a balance must be struck. Not only do people get into trouble as it is, but money and fame are obviously adept catalysts for these problems—opening doors previously unreachable.

While the demands of the industry are extreme, I believe you would be hard-pressed to find a general manager willing to put together a team of jailbirds if it meant a 100-win season. It may not be entirely obvious at times, but a large portion of professional sports is dedicated to brand management and there is nothing that a team or league executive loathes more than having to deal with questions of a player’s legal troubles.

Teams hold out for those moments of triumph that mask the cautionary tales a player may bring with him. A player's public image is largely dependent on how many batters he struck out or he fared at the plate. At some point, though, with an increasingly vocal fan population, you'll need more than the occasional Band-Aid to fix the wounds.

If exceptions continue to be made for the supremely talented, we ought to expect the same characters to transgress. The same process will garner the same results and it is likely that MLB and its subsidiaries will have to reconsider their stance on players with legal histories. Modern media and social groups have more resources at their disposal to turn up pressure, and so long as baseball lives in the public forum it will have to answer to its public.

It's not an easy topic to tackle, but scrutiny has never been higher and it will only continue to grow.

How do our readers think Major League Baseball and baseball at-large ought to approach players with legal problems?

Click here to learn about THT's download subscriptions.]]> Chris Lund 2012-11-09T05:20:15+00:00 On old school and new school values http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/on-old-school-and-new-school-values/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/on-old-school-and-new-school-values/#When:08:42:15 Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout, has dug up a debate that appeared to have been partially buried as we trudge forward into the future. It may be completely ludicrous to many, but alas, here we are once again. The never-ending "old school vs. new school" tussle.

The discussion surrounding Cabrera as AL MVP was minimal until the Triple Crown became within striking distance. When he ultimately clinched it—the first player to do so in 45 years—the old school unanimously clamored for the simultaneous anointment of Cabrera as the MVP.

Not so fast.

On the other end of the spectrum was Angels wunderkind Mike Trout. Quite simply, Trout put together one of the greatest rookie seasons in baseball history, and one of the greatest single seasons in the modern era. Unfortunately, much of this isn't readily apparent and we must dig deeper and use advanced metrics to truly capture what a phenomenal year Trout had.

Wrapping up the season with these two stars pitted against one another in the spotlight set an interesting tone of analytical condescension throughout the playoffs. As someone who digested as much playoff baseball as I could muster, I can safely say that the opportunities for one side to take a jab at the other were not wasted.

The silliness of a commentator using the example of a seeing-eye ground ball beating a shift as a platform for demeaning the concept of statistics is almost impossible to express. Yet, unfortunately, this is the climate for discussion once again.

Quite simply, the climate for reasonable debate has become untenable.

One doesn't need to be well-versed in Zen concepts to understand that eventually the two parties will need to meet somewhere in the middle and from there on out they can live in harmony. Baseball has actually created an interesting platform for this false dichotomy as it is the first sport to truly have a pronounced and influential statistics-based community.

Basketball, football and hockey are all seeing those communities grow in North America while soccer's metrics are gaining more acceptance overseas, but insofar as math being used to aid and evaluate on-field products, baseball still reigns supreme.

As such, there is no proven method on how to weld these parties together and baseball will have to take the lead on the issue. Eventually sports and stats will live in harmony; they just need someone to show the world how.

While I don't know where or when this debate will resolve itself, I have an idea on how to get started and it has to do with altering rigid ideas of value.

From the old school perspective, it's time to acknowledge that stats aren't invented by pencil pushers. These are metrics extracted from watching games play out and breaking them down to ensure they properly represent what transpired. The notion that advanced statistics are fictional beings hellbent on fraying sport at its very fabric is a truly puzzling phenomenon.

In the case of baseball, these are events which take place in a baseball game. The fact that they are extracted and analyzed differently than convention has historically dictated changes nothing from game play to evaluation. The ability to get greater depth when evaluating a player should be welcomed as a good thing.

Statistics isn't a catch-all word for evil. Batting average, home runs and runs batted in are all statistics as well. They just don't paint as clear a picture of a player's ability as others do, though they do play a role. It's possible to give credence to old school stats while acknowledging new school interpretations are worthwhile.

For the new school, it's time to acknowledge that old school concepts do matter. They may not lend value to the purposes of advanced metrics, but they do affect the game itself and painting with a wide brush is a dangerous precedent, as we all know.

Take the concept of pitcher wins, for example. We know that, for the purposes of evaluating a pitcher's quality, wins are irrelevant criteria. However, to say that they simply do not matter disregards the weight they hold in baseball circles. Managers will try to get pitchers in line for wins, and pitchers regularly admit to altering their approaches in order to earn a win on their record. Ergo, pitcher wins matter because they affect games. That,, in turn, affects data.

The same goes for other traditional concepts like RBIs. While having more RBIs doesn't make one batter better than another, the quest to create RBI situations for particular hitters influences lineups and in-game strategy which, in turn, affect other, more pertinent offensive outputs. RBIs influence in-game decisions, which means they matter, despite the fact that they don't anoint one batter as more valuable than another as well as weighted runs created, for example.

As baseball trudges forward, its community of analysts and fans need to reach a resolution of some sorts, and this will require give and take between the two schools of thought. It's time to alter our definitions of what "matters" and accept that another half of the circle brings value on some level, even if it does not directly correspond to the information we are seeking. It's possible to name Mike Trout the MVP while acknowledging that the Triple Crown is a compelling accomplishment, and vice versa.

Flippant dismissals of one party by the other don't lend themselves to progress. Acknowledging that the other lends value, though not necessarily in the same ways, is a start and ought to be a focus going forward.

The sooner we can bring these two closer together, the better.

What do our readers think can be done to constructively weld the links between the old and new schools of thought?

Click here to learn about THT's download subscriptions.]]> Chris Lund 2012-10-31T08:42:15+00:00 Much ado about the rules http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/much-ado-about-the-rules/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/much-ado-about-the-rules/#When:09:25:15
While some rules certainly need to be implemented or abolished outright (replay), and others need to be tweaked (collisions), the question of how to approach rules on an individual basis becomes an interesting debate.

In a case like the infield fly rule, the rule, on the surface at least, seems to have a deserving place in the game. The ability to essentially force an error for the greater good of the defense with no adverse consequences tilts the game in favor of the defense by putting baserunners at their total mercy. The rationale behind it is clear.

However, one could also argue that it’s entirely within the defense’s right to do that. If the pitcher has been able to force an infield fly, the offense ought to be at the mercy of the players behind him. It’s chincy, sure, but if you don’t like it, hit it further than that and until you do, don’t complain.

An interesting example of rules which are constantly broken was raised by Tom Tango at the The Book Blog earlier this week. Mr. Tango raised the rule which states a pitcher must keep a foot on the rubber through the duration of his delivery, and produced four images of prominent pitchers who do no such thing. The interesting issue with this rule is that, if a manager or player were to consistently protest a pitcher’s delivery, eventually it would have to be enforced and the offender would be called for an illegal pitch every time he breaks the rule.

Now, in this case it would be easy enough to argue that it is a victimless crime. The difference between a pitcher dragging his foot off the rubber mid-delivery and a pitcher leaving his foot back is virtually negligible. Surely if it were anything more than semantics it would be an issue raised more often. However, it also necessitates the question of how to enforce these rules. If, in this case, the back foot is a non-issue, why keep the rule in place? Or, if it ought to be there, why not enforce it stringently?

It’s easy to go down the rulebook and pick through what we think should be changed, implemented or abolished. Instant replay surely seems to be a no-brainer at this point, even with the theoretical delays it may pose. Perhaps a limited challenge system like the one used in the NFL would do well in this context with an extra umpire—much like soccer’s additional official—brought along strictly for manning the replay booth to cut down on conference delays. If a call is worth making, surely it’s worth getting right.

Additional examples may include the two mentioned earlier, the infield fly or pitchers’ deliveries—or perhaps abolishing collisions at the plate to cut down the risk of Ray Fosse or Buster Posey calibre injuries. Many would argue that you can’t bowl over a player at any of the other corners of a diamond, and home plate should be no different.

These are issues which must be looked at closely, and there are many more out there.

While the postseason has, thus far, provided a seemingly unusual amount of controversy in this context, it is equally an opportunity to be seized by baseball brass in order to guide the game forward. The NHL has made many strides on this level with their annual Research and Development Camp, which is held each year prior to the pre-season. The camp is used as a litmus test for rule change ideas with non-NHL players, and has birthed many ideas on how to alter the game of hockey.

Perhaps it’s time for Major League Baseball to pony up and do the same if we are to avoid confusion and vitriol when the most important games of the year are to be played.

If these rules have been subject to such criticism in a relatively short period of time, it’s only a matter of time before others leave us scratching our heads. Any problem can be addressed at a press conference after it happens, but the real work ought to be done in cutting them out before they rear their heads.

What rules would you readers like to see changed, implemented or abolished?

Click here to learn about THT's download subscriptions.]]> Chris Lund 2012-10-18T09:25:15+00:00 Should reputation overrule recent performance? http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/should-reputation-overrule-recent-performance/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/should-reputation-overrule-recent-performance/#When:08:56:15 Tim Lincecum has been one of the most puzzling narratives of the 2012 season. Lincecum, a two-time Cy Young Award winner, finds himself in the latter end of the worst season of his career. Granted, the worst season of Tim Lincecum’s career is an accolade many pitchers would strive for, but it has been a far cry from “The Freak” we’ve come to know and love.

The cause of his problems is wholly up in the air. The choice to abandon his slider early this season as well as a dip in velocity seemed to indicate an injury. As the season progressed, however, the velocity slowly crept back up and the slider made a return to his arsenal. There is still reason to be confused.

The Hardball Times’ Kyle Boddy investigated the matter and attributed much of Lincecum’s struggles to a drastic amount of weight loss which not only points to the decrease in velocity but also appears to have altered his unique mechanics. An increased side trunk tilt has given his delivery a much "looser" effect, and as a result may be causing the difficulty in locating his pitches.

Regardless of what has caused the decline, Lincecum's handling has been an personnel question. The Giants have trotted Lincecum out all season, every fifth day, despite middling results. While a FIP of 4.18 and xFIP of 3.82 suggest that it hasn’t been nearly as terrible as some would have you believe, the fact is it has been difficult to watch. Lincecum has been visibly frustrated with his performance on the mound and many Giants fans, in turn, have been frustrated with the team's refusal to diminish his role.

Consequently, it was no great surprise when Lincecum was held out of the Giants’ playoff rotation in favor of Ryan Vogelsong and Barry Zito behind Matt Cain and Madison Bumgarner.

Interesting in this scenario is how much players—pitchers or fielders—are owed based on reputation.

Lincecum has been the top pitcher in the National League twice in his career, twirled a gem in Game Five of the 2010 World Series to clinch the Giants’ first championship since 1954 and has been the face of the franchise since his rookie season.

If you’re wondering who has meant the most to the post-Barry Bonds Giants, look no further than Tim Lincecum. If anyone has earned the benefit of the doubt with his franchise during a rough year, it has to be Lincecum.

The easy juxtaposition in this scenario is that of Lincecum and Barry Zito. In Zito, the Giants have had an albatross of a contract to match the burden he has placed on their rotation since joining San Francisco in 2007. His WAR of 2.0 in 2009 has been the best season Zito can lay claim to since signing a 13-year, $126 million deal after the 2006 season.

We’re all familiar with the horror stories.

The irony sets in, however, when we look at what Zito has done this year compared to what he did in the Giants' 2010 championship season, when he was ultimately left off the postseason roster.

In 2012, Zito will start Game Four of the Giants’ NLDS series with the Reds on Wednesday afternoon even though he has been worse in 2012 than he was in 2010, when the Giants had a roster with less pitching depth than the current squad. In 2010 Zito posted an FIP of 4.25, an xFIP of 4.58 and a WAR of 1.6. In 2012, he has posted a FIP of 4.49, xFIP of 4.92 and WAR of 0.8.

To follow up my earlier question of what we owe those with impressive reputations, why give Barry Zito the benefit of the doubt through five terrible seasons?

Lincecum hasn’t been the Lincecum of old, which is an entirely obvious and fair point. However, it doesn’t make sense to punish Lincecum for not being able to reach the standard he set so high for pitchers all over baseball, let alone himself. Moreover, the Reds have hit left-handed pitchers (Zito) much more effectively than right-handers (Lincecum) n 2012.

Against left-handed pitchers the Reds are the sixth most prolific team in baseball and third among National League squads, boasting a team wRC+ of 104. Against right handers, only the Chicago Cubs and Seattle Mariners were less effective than the Reds’ wRC+ of 87. Essentially, the Giants have not only opted to move the better pitcher to the bullpen, but also the pitcher with the more favorable match-ups.

To the Giants’ credit, Lincecum appears to be adjusting to his role nicely. In Game Two he pitched two scoreless innings, allowing just a single hit and striking out a pair of batters. On a per-inning basis, he looked as solid as he has all season. However, one is left wondering if perhaps that is a sign he should have been toeing the rubber to start the game in the first place.

With greatness in baseball comes expectation—expectation that has been earned through on-field exploits. While many players can claim to have had a more impressive season than Tim Lincecum has had this year, few pitchers, if any, who can claim that they have brought more to their organization over the past five seasons than Lincecum has to the Giants.

Forming a lineup is a process that not only consists of activating the names who give you the best chance at success at the times they are most likely to be successful, but also managing egos and reputations to ensure that those who have come to expect something are satisfied. It may not always be a particularly pleasing way of doing business, but it’s the way each workplace functions in some capacity.

Regardless of Tim Lincecum’s struggles in 2012, he ought to be a starter for the San Francisco Giants this postseason. Not only is he plenty qualified, but nobody has done it better for the past half decade. The season hasn't matched the reputation, but not many modern seasons have or will.

Click here to learn about THT's download subscriptions.]]> Chris Lund 2012-10-10T08:56:15+00:00 On broadcasting expectations http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/on-broadcasting-expectations/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/on-broadcasting-expectations/#When:07:48:15
As the playoffs near and the number of teams playing baseball begins to dwindle, our decisions over who we want to watch or listen to will be made for us, and there will be many teams that are still playing games with relatively unsavory broadcast teams in the booth.

The question that has piqued my interest is: What can we reasonably expect from a team’s broadcast?

The classic example of an eye-roll inducing broadcaster is former major leaguer Hawk Harrelson, who does television play-by-play for the Chicago White Sox. Harrelson is known for his "distinct" calls:— “He gone”—every time a White Sox pitchers gets a strikeout -- and “Yeeeeeaaaassss”—every time something goes right for the Sox—stick out.

Most see Hawk’s antics as over the top silliness. I find it to be an annoying type of hilarious because I’m easygoing and am inclined to laugh at these things. But this divergence in opinion also led me to consider what we ought to expect from a broadcaster.

Many people are quite adamant about not listening to Harrelson, or any other number of like-minded play-by-play men. It’s simply too hard for them.

At Fangraphs, Carson Cistulli "polled the audience" in February and had readers rank each television and radio broadcast team in baseball on a scale that factored analysis, charisma and overall ability into what makes a broadcast team good.

Which team finished dead last on the TV side? Hawk Harrelson’s Chicago White Sox broadcast, of course. By contrast, it was Vin Scully’s Dodgers home broadcasts that took the honor of top television broadcast. (Note: If someone reading this sentence hasn’t heard Vin Scully call a game, you aren’t living life. Rectify this.)

Now, I may diverge from the opinion of the masses here and argue that these two men are not categorically unlike one another. In terms of execution they couldn’t be further apart. Scully’s approach is steeped in nuance and simplicity while Harrelson is about as subtle as a foghorn in your bedroom.

Categorically speaking however, they each have elements which make them quintessentially them. Scully’s storytelling is absolutely brilliant, tying together Dodgers history with anecdotes on current players and the goings-on of a game. Harrelson’s unique delivery and over the top style make him completely distinct from anyone else. And on the issue of "homerism," whether we choose to admit it or not, every home broadcaster is a homer for his team, Scully included.

When we put it all together, the primary difference here is Scully's style is more widely enjoyed than Harrelson's. However, both men have their own flair.

Broadcasters are there not only to relay what’s going on in a game, but to provide insightand do so in an entertaining way. They can’t be faulted for being homers, even if it is often utterly over the top, as Mr. Harrelson is prone to being.

The demands of a national broadcast are clearly much different. Objectivity is at a much higher premium than in a local broadcast because you are meant to transcend regional audiences. Blatant favoritism in this instance is much harder to stomach. You’re not supposed to pander to a fan base the way some local broadcasters feel feel compelled to.

I raised the question at the top: What can we reasonably demand from a particular team’s broadcast?

We should expect an accurate portrayal of what’s happening, reasonable insight as to why things are happening the way they are, and to be entertained in a way that makes us want to stay there. If you were looking for a gold standard, Vin Scully is a classic case and baseball rightfully cherishes him for it.

You can say what you will about the Hawk Harrelsons of the world—broadcasters who polarize an audience—but they’re entertaining, and I’ll gladly take that over the broadcasters who bring plenty of substance and no style. Harrelson may drive you insane, but he delivers on all rightful expectations you ought to have from a broadcast.

As we near the postseason with the White Sox appearing more and more poised to make the playoffs, perhaps you’ll consider giving Hawk a try. You may grind your teeth, you may laugh with tears at times, but you’ll be hard-pressed to say there’s something else like it. Perhaps that makes it as good as it gets.

And because of that, you can put it on the board. Yes!

Click here to learn about THT's download subscriptions.]]> Chris Lund 2012-09-19T07:48:15+00:00 Do two wild cards make 2012 more exciting? http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/has-two-wild-cards-made-2012-more-exciting/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/has-two-wild-cards-made-2012-more-exciting/#When:06:06:15
Major League Baseball expanded its relatively rigid playoff structure in 2012 with the addition of a second Wild Card spot. Part of the intention was, of course, to make the stretch run more exciting for more teams and fan bases. You can't totally tune out some teams because you never know, they might just sneak in there. After an unprecedented finish to 2011, MLB thought it would be a decent idea to let the good times roll with added suspense.

Objectively speaking, there is no staggering difference between the old system and the new system. Two teams get to play what is essentially a "coin flip" game, with the winner going on to play the division winners in the traditional Division Series. Now, instead of a scenario in which teams can tie for a Wild Card spot and get their play-in tiebreaker, they don't need to tie and get to play the tiebreaker anyway. Now, a tiebreaker for the second Wild Card spot—that would be real fun.

Two coin flips!

But, has the addition of that second spot in 2012 fundamentally altered the suspense we are subject to, or is it just another bell or whistle on top of an already exciting race to the finish line?

There is evidence to suggest that teams have approached the system differently. Surprise contenders such as Oakland, Baltimore, Pittsburgh and the Los Angeles Dodgers have had additional reason to actively seek reinforcements to prepare for the chance to play in to playoff baseball.

The Pirates fell just short one year ago and they are even more compelled to push to the finish than they were a year ago. Similarly, the Dodgers could be equally compelled to wheel and deal on the basis of winning the NL West, but the play-in potential is there and they are prepared for both.

Conversely, the cautionary tale that is 2011 could be looming large over the 2012 season.

In the AL, five teams are within the same striking distance of the top Wild Card spot that Tampa Bay captured in Game 162 last season. Oakland, Baltimore, Tampa Bay, Detroit and the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim are all within the 9.5 game precedent set by the Rays in 2011. Similarly, if we use that as a marker, there are four teams within 9.5 games of the top NL Wild Card spot.

Even if there were just the one spot, it still appears that plenty of teams would be legitimately in the discussion of Wild Card contention.

What can we take away from this?

It's not apparent that we can effectively call the addition of the second Wild Card spot a success in its first year. While it has been fun to effectively include more teams in the playoff race discussion, the margin separating the Wild Card teams from one another would have ensured a tight, exciting race regardless of whether the coin flip game ever existed.

St. Louis would be 3.5 games back of the Braves and Baltimore would be a half game back of the Athletics. The other teams in each respective race would be clustered tightly enough that they would be in the conversation no matter what.

While the allure of the Wild Card game will no doubt keep stronger hopes afloat in fan bases on the outer rim of Wild Card contention such as Pittsburgh or Anaheim, the fact is that even if we were to re-institute the one Wild Card system tomorrow, there would still be enough of a race to set up a photo finish. The stretch run in 2012 has nothing to do with a change in the rules. It's simply good, exciting baseball.

Click here to learn about THT's download subscriptions.]]> Chris Lund 2012-09-05T06:06:15+00:00