ESPN greatest MLB season of all-time bracket

ESPN has an interactive bracket of the 32 greatest MLB seasons of all-time. As a player can only make the list once, obviously it isn't the best 32 seasons, period, but it is a neat list. For fun, here is how I would rank the seasons, with the ESPN ranking in parenthesis next to it.

1.       Babe Ruth, 1921 (1)

2.       Honus Wagner, 1908 (9)

3.       Barry Bonds, 2001 (2)

4.       Mickey Mantle, 1956 (4)

5.       Joe Morgan, 1975 (5)

6.       Tris Speaker, 1912 (24)

7.       Carl Yastrzemski, 1967 (8)

8.       Ty Cobb, 1911 (12)

9.       Ted Williams, 1941 (3)

10.   Lou Gehrig, 1927 (6)

11.   Cal Ripken Jr., 1991 (14)

12.   Robin Yount, 1982 (11)

13.   Stan Musial, 1948 (7)

14.   Johnny Bench, 1972 (31)

15.   Jackie Robinson, 1949 (20)

16.   Ernie Banks, 1959 (23)

17.   Alex Rodriguez, 2000 (15)

18.   Mike Piazza, 1997 (29)

19.   Willie Mays, 1962 (10)

20.   Joe DiMaggio, 1941 (16)

21.   Jimmie Foxx, 1932 (19)

22.   Rogers Hornsby, 1922 (13)

23.   Sammy Sosa, 2001 (25)

24.   Ricky Henderson, 1990 (21)

25.   Albert Pujols, 2003 (17)

26.   Eddie Collins, 1913 (27)

27.   George Brett, 1980 (26)

28.   Mike Schmidt, 1980 (28)

29.   Ken Griffey Jr., 1997 (18)

30.   Rod Carew, 1977 (30)

31.   Hank Aaron, 1957 (22)

32.   Hack Wilson, 1930 (32)

The BPP All-Time Dream Project

Graham Womack of the baseball blog Baseball Past and Present has a project up where you can vote for your all-time lineup. The idea being if you could pick one player for each position, no bench, relievers, etc., who would you take. If you want to look at the players Graham thought most worthy or to submit a vote, click here. Below is the team I would choose, including the lineup order I would put them in.

1. Barry Bonds, LF: While you could certainly pick Ted Williams as your LF (or possibly Stan Musial or Rickey Henderson), I take Bonds because of his amazing offense and defense. Even if you throw out his late "steroid" years, I think he still is a great fit. Take his 1990 season (age 25), where he led the NL in slugging while also stealing 52 bases.

2. Willie Mays, CF: Ty Cobb would fit here perfectly as well. Frankly, good arguments for Tris Speaker, Mickey Mantle, Oscar Charleston, or Joe DiMaggio. But it's Willie Mays. He's on the team.

3. Babe Ruth, RF: This is pretty easy as he is the best player of all-time. He also works as an emergency pitcher in case anything happens to my starter. Apologies to Hank Aaron.

4. Josh Gibson, C: Between the statistics available and the opinion of him at the time, he has a compelling argument as a legendary slugger and greatest catcher of all-time. If you wanted to choose Johnny Bench or Yogi Berra, I could see that.

5. Lou Gehrig, 1B: If I had more flexibility, I might go with Stan Musial as my 1B, but he is correctly listed as a LF, and I can't argue with the choice of Gehrig, although I could understand people choosing Jimmie Foxx or Albert Pujols.

6. Rogers Hornsby, 2B: If you want to go with Eddie Collins or Joe Morgan or even Jackie Robinson, I can understand that, but I couldn't pass up Hornsby's hitting prowess from the 2B position. Also, I love that my 1-6 hitters alternate between lefty and righty (although that isn't as big a deal if the other team also doesn't have relievers).

7. Mike Schmidt, 3B: He is pretty clearly the best 3B of all-time, who hits for power and played great defense. Apologies to Eddie Mathews (ironically a teammate of Aaron).

8. Honus Wagner, SS: As much as I wanted to put Cal on this team, I had to go with Wagner. Consideration could also go to John Henry Lloyd or Alex Rodriguez.

9. Cy Young, P: There are plenty of great candidates for pitcher. Walter Johnson. Christy Mathewson. Bob Gibson. Sandy Koufax. Tom Seaver. Roger Clemens. Lefty Grove. Nolan Ryan. Pete Alexander. Warren Spahn. Pedro Martinez. Randy Johnson. Kid Nichols. Satchel Paige. Smokey Joe Williams. That is 15 names right there off the top of my head who would be perfectly great choices. But at the end of the day, I have to go with the pitcher whose name has been chosen to honor the best pitcher each season. It helps that having thrown the most innings in the history of baseball, I don't have to worry about him tiring in extra innings.

The Talent on the Cleveland Indians from 1994-2001

As Peter’s post about the Nationals pitching staff indicated, baseball season is right around the corner, and so the pieces here should pick up. I have a couple posts that I stored up during the winter that I’ll be posting before I start commenting on more current events.

Over at the Hall of Merit, talk has started on the upcoming 2013 election (congrats to Rafael Palmeiro, Rick Reuschel, and David Cone for being elected in 2012) and with Craig Biggio being eligible, discussion has focused on how he compares to Roberto Alomar and Jeff Kent, both of whom spent some time with the Cleveland Indians during their recent glory days in the mid-1990s and early-2000s. It got me thinking about how much great talent came through Cleveland from 1994-2001, and what a team would look like if you compiled the best players to have played for Cleveland for any length of time during that period. How much or how well they played for Cleveland during this time is irrelevant—I’m looking at the career values of anyone who played on those Cleveland teams and constructing an all-time team. You could make a great team from the players who didn’t make the cut. Below is the lineup and pitching rotation for this hypothetical team:

1. Kenny Lofton, CF: I was a huge fan of Lofton when he played. I loved how much range he had in CF, his line-drive corkscrew swing, or how he ran the bases with daring. As a great defensive CF with a 114 wRC+, he has a pretty decent argument for the Hall of Merit (I don’t see how he gets over 5% on the Hall of Fame ballot, regardless of his credentials), although I would bet the casual fan doesn’t imagine Lofton that way. I think this is partially because of the caliber of teammates he had in Cleveland, but Lofton was hurt arguably more than any other player by the 1994 strike. When the strike hit, he was having his big career year, hitting .349/.412/.536 with 60 SB while playing excellent defense in CF (he won a Gold Glove that season) while on a pennant-contending Cleveland team, the first Cleveland team over .500 since 1986. But instead of there being debate over whether he should have won the MVP over winner Frank Thomas or the other worthy candidate Ken Griffey Jr., all the focus on baseball was on the strike. And while Lofton was still a great player after the strike, he didn’t have any MVP seasons like Thomas or Griffey to boost his reputation as a great player. Nevertheless, I always think of him first when thinking of these great Indians teams, so I’m glad he made the cut and is batting leadoff.

Didn’t quite make the cut for this position: Ellis Burks

2. Roberto Alomar, 2B: Alomar only spent three seasons with the Indians (1999-2001) but they were all great seasons (he hit .323/.405/.515 over the three years while averaging 35 steals a season). Shockingly, after Alomar left Cleveland, his career fell off the proverbial cliff and he was basically done as a player. Coincidentally, Cleveland’s winning streak also came to a halt after Alomar left, so it was an end of an era all the way around.

Didn’t quite make the cut for this position: N/A

3. Jim Thome, DH: The only question regarding Thome was where to put him in the field, as he started his career in Cleveland at 3B and has played a lot of 1B in his career. Of course, he didn’t play either position particularly well, so DH is probably the best fit for him. There is no doubt about his ability to hit enough for DH, as his 604 home runs are good for eighth all-time, and he should pass Sammy Sosa for seventh easily this season.

Didn’t quite make the cut for this position: Albert Belle (from 1994-1996, his lowest slugging percentage was .623!); Harold Baines

4. Manny Ramirez, LF: Another masher for the middle of the lineup whose best position is DH, but at least Ramirez can be entertaining in the outfield. From 1999-2006, Ramirez’s lowest wRC+ was 151. Another way to think of how great a hitter Ramirez was: in Lofton’s great 1994 season I referenced earlier, his wRC+ was 153—Ramirez’s career wRC+ is 152.

Didn’t quite make the cut for this position: Brian Giles; Juan Gonzalez

5. Eddie Murray, 1B: The first player who did not have a great season in Cleveland (and there are more coming), he was still very valuable for the Indians in 1995, hitting .323/.375/.516 and providing veteran leadership for an inexperienced Indians team that made it to the World Series. I also like that he is the 1B on this team because it leads into the most inexplicable thing regarding the 1995 Indians: how did a team with this much talent end up with Paul Sorrento as their starting 1B? According to FanGraphs, he was worth .6 WAR in 1995; that was a positive view, however, as Baseball-Reference has him being worth .1 WAR that season. Needless to say, he was not on the Indians in 1996 (of course Seattle didn’t learn from Cleveland’s mistake, as they gave him plenty of meaningful at-bats). I don’t understand why in 1995, they didn’t let Murray play 1B, shift Belle or Ramirez to DH, and bring up Brian Giles to play the vacant corner OF spot. If they were worried about Murray’s ability to play 1B and/or stay healthy due to his advanced age, that is one thing, but I’m confident Belle or Ramirez couldn’t butcher 1B anymore than they did the OF, opening up a spot for Giles. Not only would they have been better in 1995, they would have been better in later seasons as well as Giles would have developed quicker and reached his potential sooner, possibly leading to Cleveland not trading him to Pittsburgh. It is just mystifying that Sorrento had such a large role on that team and is a credit to the rest of the talent on the team that they made the World Series anyway.

Didn’t quite make the cut for this position: Julio Franco;

6. Dave Winfield, RF: I had forgotten that Winfield was also on that 1995 Indians team to provide veteran leadership and timely hitting—probably because he hit .191/.285/.287 (a 50 wRC+), and it proved to be his last season in baseball. Not remembering Winfield, I thought Giles would get the 3^rd OF spot. For their careers, Murray and Winfield were basically equals as hitters, but I put Murray one spot ahead of Winfield in the lineup because he is a switch-hitter and because he actually contributed positively for the Indians in his career.

Didn’t quite make the cut for this position: David Justice

7. Jeff Kent, 3B: The toughest part of this mental exercise was choosing Kent over Giles. I ultimately decided that the overall value of Kent playing 3B, Thome playing DH, and Ramirez playing LF was greater than Giles playing LF, Thome playing 3B, and Ramirez playing DH, but it is close. I think Kent’s offensive production compared to fellow 2B or 3B is greater than Giles’ compared to corner OFs, and I’d rather have Ramirez’s mangled defense in LF than Thome’s at 3B, the more important defensive position. But I admit it is a close call and could go either way. For what it’s worth Giles’ 136 career wRC+ would be the third best on this team, behind only Ramirez and Thome. But Kent’s 122 wRC+ is nothing to sneeze at either, and he isn’t lacking pop—he slugged .500 for his career.

Didn’t quite make the cut for this position: Matt Williams

8. Sandy Alomar Jr., C: So I initially thought Victor Martinez would qualify here, but he didn’t start with the Indians until 2002 (if Martinez had made the team, then Lofton’s career 114 wRC+ would have been 8^th best on the team—ridiculous). But like Lofton, Alomar is one of the Indians I initially think of when thinking about the 1990s teams, and while he is not of the caliber of anyone else on this team, he is a solid defensive catcher who can keep the pitching staff (and hopefully Ramirez) in line. He would have become an all-time hero in Cleveland if they had won the 1997 World Series, as he hit .367/.406/.600 with 2 home runs and 10 RBI against the Marlins.

Didn’t quite make the cut for this position: N/A

9. Omar Vizquel, SS: This team really doesn’t need any more offense, so it is fitting that this team has a defensive anchor at arguably the most important defensive position on the field. You could argue that Vizquel and Alomar made the most graceful double play combination in baseball history when they were with the Indians together. Vizquel also had his one good offensive season when Alomar was there, hitting .333/.397/.436 in 1999.

Didn’t quite make the cut for this position: Tony Fernandez

To sum up, that is three already Hall of Famers in the lineup, and five others where you can make an argument that they belong in Cooperstown. Not too shabby. But how does the pitching rotation look?

1. CC Sabathia: Sabathia is still adding to his career totals, but he already deserves to be the ace of this rotation. He also provided the most value to the Indians, although he just barely made the cutoff for this team as he premiered in 2001.

2. Orel Hershiser: Hershiser rejuvenated his career coming to Cleveland in 1995 and provided to the pitching staff what Murray provided to the lineup. Hershiser particularly left his mark in the 1995 playoffs, as he won four games and only gave up six earned runs in 35.1 innings. He was one of the big-game pitchers of his era, as his career postseason ERA is 2.59 in 132 innings, and his run of 59 scoreless innings to end the 1988 season is simply remarkable.

3. Dwight Gooden: Gooden probably had a bit of a better career thanks to his monstrous peak than Hershiser, but I rank Hershiser higher due to his impact with the Indians. You can make a good argument that Gooden’s 1985 season was the greatest pitching season all-time and that his prime in the late 1980s makes him a worthy candidate for the Hall of Fame or Merit.

4. Chuck Finley: Usually my memories of baseball from when I was younger more or less match up with what the stats indicate, but for whatever reason I instinctually think of Finley as a bad baseball pitcher, whereas he was actually quite good. It’s possible his 5.54 ERA with the Indians in 2001 might have something to do with that, but he wasn’t nearly that bad—his FIP was a respectable 3.94 that year. He was also 38 that year, so it is not as if this season was during his prime. Nevertheless, he only had 2.5 years in Cleveland, and I couldn’t rate him above Gooden, even though you can make a case of it based on their total careers.

5. Jack Morris: With apologies to Dennis Martinez, Bartolo Colon, Mark Langston, and Tom Candiotti, I chose Morris as the 5^th starter for this team. If Hershiser’s impact was similar to Murray’s, than Morris’ with the Indians was like Winfield’s (although Morris was on the 1994 team and then retired rather than 1995). While I don’t support Morris for the Hall of Fame, I do believe there is a lot of value in the amount of innings he threw. He threw more innings than anyone else in the 1980s and the 3,824 for his career is very impressive. And ultimately, a huge innings eater like this is really good for a fifth starter.

The pitching staff doesn’t quite matchup with the lineup, but then again it doesn’t have to. The sports gods have not been very kind to Cleveland, but from 1994-2001 the fans of Cleveland got to witness many great players—even if not all of them played great for the Indians.

Should the Nats Employ a Six-Man Rotation?

Ever since the Nationals signed Edwin Jackson to a one year, $11 million contract, the team has faced something of a conundrum: what should they do with all of their pitching? Looking at the roster as currently constructed, Stephen Strasburg, Jordan Zimmermann, earlier offseason acquisition Gio Gonzalez, and now Jackson are firmly set as the top 4 pitchers in the rotation. Chien-Ming Wang is likely the 5th starter by default, since he is out of options and cannot be traded until May since he technically signed as a free agent during the offseason. That leaves John Lannan as the odd man out of a 5-man rotation, but the Nats owe Lannan $5 million this year, and that’s a lot of money to pay a minor league pitcher.

The Nats have shopped Lannan around on the trade market, but they are unlikely to get a good return on a guy like Lannan. My fellow Crazy-(Good)-Eighter Drew first suggested to me that the Nats could use a 6-man rotation in order to extract some value from Lannan at the major league level, and now that Adam Kilgore has summarized the roster situation going into spring training, I’m beginning to think such an arrangement might be possible, if a little complicated.

Ideally, adding a sixth man would be a simple matter of moving a pitcher destined for the bullpen into the starting rotation. As Kilgore points out, though, the Nats already have seven pitchers bound for the bullpen, and none of them are John Lannan. Drew Storen, Tyler Clippard, Henry Rodriguez, Sean Burnett, and newly-signed Brad Lidge are all pretty much entrenched. Meanwhile, both Tom Gorzelanny and Ross Detwiler are out of options, meaning the Nats would almost certainly lose the rights to these players if the team attempted to send them to the minors. Would the Nats dare carry 13 pitchers on their roster, leaving only 12 position players?

Kilgore predicts Rick Ankiel will be the starting centerfielder on Opening Day, but Ankiel will likely be part of a (decidedly unsavory) platoon with Mike Cameron, who would start against opposing lefties. That leaves 4 other players on the bench: back up catcher Jesus Flores, 5th outfielder Roger Bernadina, and utility infielders Mark DeRosa and Steve Lombardozzi. Kilgore correctly points out, though, that Lombardozzi really ought to be playing every day, yet he is currently blocked by Danny Espinosa and Ian Desmond in the middle infield. I contend that the Nats should leave Lombardozzi in Syracuse for further development and keep Lannan on the major league roster as a 6th starter. Sure, having 13 pitchers on the roster carries some risk, especially in the National League where multiple pinch hitters are needed per game, but at this point I should point out an added benefit of a six-man rotation in the Nats’ current situation.

The Nats have several pitchers, namely Strasburg, Zimmermann, and Wang, whose innings will be limited this season due to recent health concerns. If the Nats intend, as I’m sure they do, to play meaningful games in September and (if they catch a few breaks) October, then they will surely want their best pitchers available. A six-man rotation to start the season allows the Nats at least some of this flexibility, as it would allow Strasburg and Zimmermann an extra day of rest. One of the pitchers will inevitably get hurt, at which point the Nats can revert to a traditional five-man rotation. Or Lannan will impress to the point that the Nats will start to receive palatable trade offers. To me, the benefits of giving Strasburg and Zimmermann a chance to contribute late in the season, combined with nurturing the development of Lombardozzi and avoiding paying $5 million to a minor league player outweigh the costs of giving a pitcher an extra plate appearance every once in a while at the beginning of the season.

Craig Biggio Not a Hall of Famer?

Adam Darowski from Beyond the Boxscore (BtB) recently polled the BtB readership regarding a list of players who are not yet on the Hall of Fame ballot but who he thinks are deserving of enshrinement and wanted to know who the readers thought should get in and who will get in. While the results as a whole are interesting, the one thing that really surprised me was that Craig Biggio was considered unworthy of the Hall of Fame by the readers and that they also felt the BBWAA would not vote him in either. Of all the players who first become eligible in 2013, I figured Biggio had the best shot of being honored (which does not mean he is the most deserving, but that is another post entirely).

Biggio seems to fit the “old school” view of a great player. He was a gritty, hustling player (414 career stolen bases at a 77% success rate) who moved around the diamond in the interests of his team. He played for 20 seasons, all with the Astros, and was a seven time All Star and twice finished in the top five for MVP voting. He also got to the magical number of 3,000 hits—there are no players that have been eligible with 3,000 hits not in the Hall of Fame (Biggio and Derek Jeter are not eligible yet, and Pete Rose has been suspended indefinitely).

Biggio also seems to fit the “new school” view of a great player. His 117 wRC+ from weak-hitting positions (catcher, second base, and centerfield) made him extremely valuable. Baseball-Reference gives him 66.2 WAR, while FanGraphs gives him 70.5 WAR. Both metrics put him at the 10^th best 2B WAR in history. Now you could certainly argue that Biggio is not one of the top ten 2B of all-time, but Bill James argued back in 1998 that Biggio was the fifth best 2B of all-time. And even if you want to knock Biggio slightly out of the top ten, isn’t he still a worthwhile Hall of Famer?

But what most shocked me about the results is that Biggio has something going for him that most contemporary hitters do not—no steroid suspicions.  Biggio is listed as 5’11’’ and 185 pounds on Baseball-Reference, and he never hit more than 26 home runs in a season (and that being in Minute Maid Park, which really helps right handed power numbers). He never bulked up and put up crazy power numbers, as evidenced by his respectful but not impressive .433 career slugging percentage.

So why is there no love for Biggio and the Hall of Fame? Honestly, I’m not sure.  But it will be interesting to see how the BBWAA’s actions compare to the estimates of the BtB readers.

Veteran's Committee Doesn't Do Enough

Much has been made of Ron Santo’s well-deserved induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame, but unfortunately not enough attention is being paid to the plight of the other prominent Chicago superstar on the ballot, Minnie Minoso. While not everyone is glossing over the Veteran’s Committee‘s decision, there is nowhere near the level of outrage about Minoso’s displacement as there should be.

Part of the reason people were so upset that Santo had not been enshrined was because he had a multidimensional impact on baseball. His caliber of play and career statistics practically speak for themselves: A career 125 wRC+, including 342 home runs and 1,108 walks, combined with good defense at 3B, a position that has been fairly scarce of great players, easily puts Santo as one of the ten best 3B of all-time based purely on the numbers. But Santo was about so much more than the numbers. He and teammate Ernie Banks were so popular in Chicago and around the nation because it was so obvious they loved playing baseball and appreciated how lucky they were. Baseball at its core is a game and is supposed to be fun, and Santo never forgot it. Santo’s heel-clicking after every Cubs win was the perfect embodiment of this mindset. Santo also became an inspirational figure when it was discovered that he was able to play at such a high level while having diabetes, proving the disease can be manageable and that it can’t stop people from doing great things. For all these reasons, Santo was obviously worthy of being a Hall of Famer.

Even though Minoso spent much of his career in the same city as Santo, for whatever reason his cause has not been picked up with the same fervor, even though his impact on the game also goes way beyond his statistics. Minoso could hit (his career 132 wRC+ is greater than Roberto Clemente’s), run (he stole 205 career bases and his presence was integral for the “Go-Go Sox” style of play to be successful), and fielded LF very well. Unfortunately, his career was fairly short, as his performance dropped off a cliff after 1961, which makes his numbers borderline for the Hall of Fame (although I believe on the inclusive side of the line). But what is important to remember is that Minoso is one of baseball’s racial pioneers and that his career was adversely affected by the segregation present in baseball. Minoso’s first year in baseball was 1951 at age 25, where he burst onto the scene, hitting .326/.422./.500 and leading the league with 14 triples and 31 stolen bases. If Minoso had been white instead of a black Latino, his talent would have gotten him into the majors much sooner.

Roberto Clemente is normally thought of as the leading pioneer for Latin American players, and rightly so. However, it is important to note that when Clemente entered the majors in 1955, Minoso had already been a star for four years, and had shown that Latin American players could be successful at the highest levels. For me, I view Minoso as the Latin American version of Larry Doby. Besides their playing statistics being remarkably similar, I see Doby’s ability to be a star CF as justifying taking a chance with Willie Mays, just as Minoso’s ability justified taking a chance on Clemente. The success of players such as Doby and Minoso were important at the time to prove that Jackie Robinson wasn’t the exception or an aberration, but that MLB needed to open its doors fully to the African American and Latin American populations. This has been appreciated with Doby, as he is in the Hall of Fame. Why not so with Minoso?

If I had a vote on the Veterans Committee, I would have voted for Santo, Minoso, Ken Boyer and Luis Tiant. I can understand Boyer and Tiant not being selected as their statistics are borderline, and that they don’t bring a whole lot else to the table (besides Tiant’s awesome wind-up). But it seems that Minoso could be destined to be another player unrecognized by the Hall of Fame for his greatness, and that seems quite unjust considering all he contributed to baseball.

Rizzo's Final Offer to Buehrle

Adam Kilgore reports that the Nats' final offer to Mark Buehrle was 3 years, $39 million. Fangraphs' contract crowdsourcing results had Edwin Jackson getting 3 years, $31 million. Going into the offseason, Jon Heyman projected Jackson to get 3 years, $36 million. Did I mention that Jackson's and Buehrle's numbers over the past three years are eerily similar?

A Better Fit for the Nats than Mark Buehrle

Let’s have a little thought experiment. Here’s the statistics over the past three years for Mark Buehrle:

2009: 213.1 IP, 4.43 K/9, 1.9 BB/9, 3.84 ERA, 3.4 WAR
2010: 210.1 IP, 4.24 K/9, 2.1 BB/9, 4.28 ERA, 3.7 WAR
2011: 205.1 IP, 4.78 K/9, 1.97 BB/9, 3.59 ERA, 3.4 WAR

Pretty decent and consistent numbers. But you already knew that Buehrle is decent and consistent. That’s why the Marlins just signed him to a 4-year, $58 million contract, snatching him away from Mike Rizzo and the Nats, who considered Buehrle their number one priority coming into the offseason. Rizzo seems to have balked at both the size and duration of the contract, and I think I have an idea as to why. Take a look at the numbers over the last three years from this mystery player, who we’ll call Mr. X for now:

2009: 214 IP, 6.77 K/9, 2.94 BB/9, 3.62 ERA, 3.6 WAR
2010: 209.1 IP, 7.78 K/9, 3.35 BB/9, 4.47 ERA, 3.8 WAR
2011: 199.2 IP, 6.67 K/9, 2.79 BB/9, 3.79 ERA, 3.8 WAR

Mr. X is practically identical to Buehrle. Yes, Mr. X gives up more walks than Buehrle, but he also gets significantly more strikeouts. It should be noted that Mr. X is right handed, while Buehrle is a southpaw and therefore a slightly rarer commodity, but I would argue Mr. X has been slightly better over the last three years, so they’re essentially the same value. Here’s the catch, though, Mark Buehrle is 31 years old, but Mr. X is only 28. So who is this mystery player, and why is he important? Mr. X is none other than Edwin Jackson, and he’s important because he’s also on the free agent market this winter.

My guess it that Rizzo heard the price for Buehrle, looked at Jackson, and thought, Why should I commit 4 years and $58 million to this 31-year-old, when I could pay $36 million over 3 years for this 28-year-old who might actually be better? Sure, Buehrle has a longer track record, but a track record that only extends to 2009 didn’t stop GMs from fawning over C.J. Wilson (Wilson before 2009: 1.3 WAR. Since: 12.5 WAR). Now, Jackson is a Scott Boras client, and the Nats do have a history of paying exorbitantly for Scott Boras clients (Jayson Werth, anyone?), but even if Rizzo ends up signing Jackson to, say, $50 million over 4 years, is that such a terrible deal (especially when you consider that Jackson has been worth over $15 million each of the last three years according to Fangraphs dollar value metrics)? Now that Wilson has been snatched up by the Angels, Edwin Jackson is certainly the best free agent starting pitcher available, but he might have been the best fit for the Nationals all along.

My Regular Season Baseball Awards

So this is a bit late, but here are my choices for the regular season awards this year. Note instead of Silver Slugger/Golden Glove, I just picked the best player at each position.

NL MVP:
1. Matt Kemp
2. Roy Halladay
3. Clayton Kershaw
4. Ryan Braun
5. Joey Votto
6. Jose Reyes
7. Troy Tulowitzki
8. Cliff Lee
9. Justin Upton
10. Pablo Sandoval

NL Cy Young:
1. Roy Halladay
2. Clayton Kershaw
3. Cliff Lee
4. Ian Kennedy
5. Cole Hamels
6. Matt Cain
7. Chris Carpenter
8. Tim Lincecum
9. Madison Bumgarner
10. R.A. Dickey

NL ROY:
1. Craig Kimbrel
2. Wilson Ramos
3. Brandon Beachy
4. Vance Worley
5. Danny Espinosa

All-NL Team:
P: Roy Halladay
C: Yadier Molina
1B: Joey Votto
2B: Brandon Phillips
3B: Pablo Sandoval
SS: Jose Reyes
LF: Ryan Braun
CF: Matt Kemp
RF: Justin Upton

AL MVP:
1. Jacoby Ellsbury
2. Jose Bautista
3. Justin Verlander
4. CC Sabathia
5. Dustin Pedroia
6. Ian Kinsler
7. Curtis Granderson
8. Miguel Cabrera
9. Evan Longoria
10. Ben Zobrist

AL Cy Young:
1. Justin Verlander
2. CC Sabathia
3. Jered Weaver
4. Felix Hernandez
5. Dan Haren
6. James Shields
7. C.J. Wilson
8. Doug Fister
9. Justin Masterson
10. Ricky Romero

AL ROY:
1. Michael Pineda
2. Brett Lawrie
3. Desmond Jennings
4. Dustin Ackley
5. Ivan Nova

All-AL Team:
P: Justin Verlander
C: Alex Avila
1B: Miguel Cabrera
2B: Dustin Pedroia
3B: Evan Longoria
SS: J.J. Hardy
LF: Alex Gordon
CF: Jacoby Ellsbury
RF: Jose Bautista
DH: David Ortiz

Playoff predictions

Short and sweet predictions, before the postseason starts. Note this is what I think will happen, not what I want to happen.

Divisional series: Yankees, Rangers, Phillies, Brewers
Championship series: Yankees, Brewers
World Series: Brewers

Will post my thoughts on regular season awards sometime this weekend.

What's in a Name? Plenty, When It Comes to NFL Quarterbacks.

Good quarterbacks tend to have good names. Johnny Unitas. Joe Namath. Roger Staubach. There are dozens of examples of all-time great quarterbacks who have names that sound like their bearers were destined to become all-time great quarterbacks. Now, not all of the best quarterbacks have the best names-- someone who doesn’t know who Fran Tarkenton is might hear his name and think he’s a daytime talk show host, for example-- but in general, if you want your son to grow up to become an all-time great quarterback, it would behoove you to give him a strong name.

So what makes a great QB name? Well, they’re usually short and simple, without too many consonants, and they evoke a blue collar work ethic as well as the intelligence you’d expect from a strong leader. Joe Montana might be the best possible example. When George Lucas and Steven Spielberg were coming up with a name for the perfect action hero, they had to settle for Indiana Jones because Joe Montana was already taken. Neither ‘Joe’ nor ‘Montana’ would work quite as well under other circumstances. Imagine if Joe Montana wanted to go by ‘Joseph Montana.’ Would we think of him as one of the greatest QBs to ever live? I’m not so sure. Steven Young just doesn’t have the same ring to it as Steve Young. Dan Marino is a great name, but Joe Marino just doesn’t work quite the same. Before people start accusing me of racial bias when it comes to QB names, I should point out that Donovan McNabb and Warren Moon are both great QB names. Randall Cunningham, on the other hand, sounds like a member of the Nantucket polo club. File Cunningham under the exceptions column with Tarkenton.

Still, Bart Starr, Jim Kelly, Terry Bradshaw, John Elway, the list goes on and on of good QBs with good names. On the other end of the spectrum, when you hear the name Sage Rosenfels or J.P. Losman, and then learn that they’re trying to be quarterbacks in the NFL, you can’t help but think they have an uphill battle. It’s not a perfect predictor, but the correlation between quality of name and quality of quarterback seems pretty strong. Looking at all the currently relevant NFL QBs (starters, and QBs who are normally starters but are currently injured), Sage Rosenfels is not among them, so none of them are completely without hope, and frankly, it’s a pretty solid crop of names. Because I’m the type of person who does pointless things, I put them into groups with ratings from 1 to 10 (1 being Sage Rosenfels, 10 being Joe Montana):

The 1s: Again, no Sage Rosenfels, so this category is empty.

The 2s: Kerry Collins, Kevin Kolb, Ben Roethlisberger-- Not a fan of alliteration in quarterback names. Collins is hurt even more by his first name, and I still have to take a second to remember that ‘Kolb’ is pronounced ‘Cobb,’ not ‘Coalb.’ Roethlisberger is like getting shot in the face with a machine gun that fires consonants. I looked up how to spell ‘Roethlisberger’ twice and it still looks wrong.

The 3s: Rex Grossman, Andy Dalton, Luke McCown-- ‘Andy’ and ‘Luke’ are given names that just do not inspire confidence (Lucas and Andrew would both be better, I think), and Rex Grossman is just... disgusting. Mike Shannahan ought to switch to John Beck as his starter just for the name upgrade.

The 4s: Matt Cassel, Josh Freeman, Kyle Orton, Philip Rivers, Tarvaris Jackson-- I think ‘Josh’ and ‘Kyle’ suffer from the Andy and Luke syndrome, while I think Cassel’s name would rate higher if it were spelled ‘Castle.’ I like ‘Rivers’ as a last name, but Philip is just tough to work with. Even a switch to ‘Phil’ would not help much. Saying the word ‘Tarvaris’ makes you sound like you have a mouthful of marbles. Not exactly what you want from your quarterback’s name.

The 5s: Mark Sanchez, Joe Flacco, Jason Campbell, Chad Henne, Ryan Fitzpatrick-- ‘Sanchez’ has rather unfortunate and inappropriate connotations, and ‘Flacco’ looks like it could have unfortunate and inappropriate connotations. I wanted to rate Fitzpatrick higher because of his performance so far this season, but... consonants. Campbell and Henne are here because... eh, they just don’t do it for me.

The 6s: Eli and Peyton Manning, Colt McCoy-- Some people might disagree with me putting these names so low, and I’ll admit that they are pretty solid, but to me they’re just on the wrong side of cowboy cliche to vault into the upper echelons.

The 7s: Matt Ryan, Matt Hasselbeck, Matthew Stafford-- See what I did there? In Hasselbeck’s case, he’s just got too many consonants to put him up higher, while ‘Ryan’ just doesn’t fit with Matt as well as it could. I think Mark Ryan would be much better. Matthew Stafford, on the other hand, would benefit greatly from a switch to Matt Stafford. That would vault him at least into the next group, occupied by another Matt...

The 8s: Matt Schaub, Tony Romo, Jay Cutler, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Michael Vick: ‘Cutler’ evokes a nice cut of beef, like prime rib. The rest are just sturdy, strong names. The story of Vick’s name is interesting. In college, he went by Michael, but when he got to the pros wanted everyone to start calling him ‘Mike’. Now the consensus seems to have settled back on Michael. I don’t know whether it was his choice or people just decided, “You know, Mike Vick sounds kind of stupid, we’re gonna stick with Michael.” Either way, an excellent choice to switch back.

The 9s: Donovan McNabb, Cam Newton, Sam Bradford-- These are tough to top. I already mentioned McNabb, and I have high hopes for Cam Newton and Sam Bradford based on their names alone. It’s still early in their respective careers, but so far this season, they appear to be headed for QB greatness, and their names might have something to do with that. Just pure excellence. That leaves us with just one level to go, and really, we all knew from the start only one man could occupy the top tier, only one quarterback currently in the league has a name that can compare to Joe Montana...

The 10: Tom Brady-- really there’s not much to say. Just the perfect combination of surname and given name. It’s as if Jesus Christ and Albert Einstein got together and came up with the perfect QB name, and then descended from the heavens and imparted this name onto Brady’s parents because they got bored up in heaven with the Trent Dilfers and the Kent Grahams of the world and wanted to create the greatest possible NFL quarterback. They knew that when it comes to quarterbacks, names matter.

Happy Birthday Cal!

Times are bleak for Orioles fans, so it is only appropriate that we step back and appreciate Orioles great Cal Ripken who celebrated his birthday (August 24^th) yesterday. Ripken’s legacy is usually discussed in terms of his career accomplishments—2,632 consecutive games played, 3,184 hits, 431 home runs, 19 All-Star games, etc., and he is universally regarded as one of the top five shortstops of all-time. Sometimes overlooked, however, is that he had some truly amazing individual seasons, with the best being 1991.

In 1991 Ripken won the Home Run Derby, All-Star Game MVP, Silver Slugger, Gold Glove, MVP, AP Player of the Year, and Sporting News Player of the Year. He had a .323/.374/.556 triple slash line with 210 hits, 46 doubles, 34 home runs, and an MLB leading 368 total bases. The .556 slugging percentage was second in the majors, ahead of notable sluggers Barry Bonds, Frank Thomas, Ken Griffey Jr., Rafael Palmeiro, Jose Canseco, Albert Belle, Cecil Fielder, and Will Clark. His OPS of .940 was third best in baseball (162 OPS+), as was his wOBA of .407 (156 wRC+). Combine this great hitting with great fielding (both Baseball-Reference and FanGraphs have only Tony Gwynn being a better fielder in baseball in 1991) and the positive positional adjustment for playing shortstop, and Ripken easily leads both Baseball-Reference (11.0) and FanGraphs (11.1) in Wins Above Replacement (rWAR and fWAR respectively). Ripken was the only player to reach above 8.3 in either rating, which includes pitchers.

To get the best feel for Ripken’s dominance, however, is to compare him to the other shortstops that played enough to qualify for end of season awards. Barry Larkin was the only shortstop who hit remotely in the same stratosphere as Ripken (.302/.378/.506, .884 OPS, 143 OPS+, .399 wOBA, 152 wRC+), but he only played in 123 games and was not as great a defender. Ripken’s defense and durability matter significantly, as Larkin and the next-best shortstop in baseball, Ozzie Smith, combine to roughly equal the value of Ripken (combined 10.5 rWAR, 11.2 fWAR). The disparity is even more striking if you consider only American League shortstops. The other four AL shortstops (Travis Fryman—even though he played a bunch of 3B, Mike Gallego, Ozzie Guillen, and Alvaro Espinoza) to have enough plate appearances to qualify for end of season awards combined for 10.3 rWAR and 11.3 fWAR. Ripken was simply playing shortstop at a level that was unrivaled by his contemporaries in 1991, and has rarely been reached in the history of baseball.

The only disappointing part of Ripken’s season was that the Orioles were still an absolutely dreadful team. Their 67-95 record was the second-worst in the American League, and they finished 24 games behind the Blue Jays in the division. It is scary to think about how that team would have done if Ripken had not had his historic year. According to Baseball-Reference, Ripken produced 11 of the 20.3 rWAR Orioles position players produced, and the pitchers collectively only produced 0.5 rWAR. FanGraphs is kinder to the rest of the Orioles, as the O’s position players other than Ripken accumulated 15.8 fWAR. Unfortunately, Orioles pitchers sported a 4.59 ERA (the worst in baseball) even though their FIP was 4.07, and the Orioles hitters were not good enough to lift the pitching. Obviously none of this was Ripken’s fault—as voters appreciated by awarding him the MVP—and it is good to remember that special individual effort in these hard times—especially when you realize Adam Jones, Nick Markakis, Matt Wieters, and J.J. Hardy (the Orioles four best position players) have combined for 9.0 rWAR and 11.1 fWAR this season.

Feeling bad for Toronto and Tampa fans

For the Tampa Bay Rays and the Toronto Blue Jays (and theoretically, the Baltimore Orioles), the margin for error is so small because they have to compete directly with the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox, the juggernauts of baseball. It is natural to wonder what Tampa and Toronto would be able to accomplish if they played in any division other than the AL East. Well, one way to examine the issue is with Baseball-Reference’s Simple Rating System (SRS), which measures the number of runs/game each team is better or worse than the average team. The factors used to determine this are run differential and strength of schedule. Tampa and Toronto have an SRS of .4. While that may not look impressive, the only teams with a better SRS are the Yankees (1.7), Red Sox (1.3), Phillies (1.1), and the Rangers (.9), with the Braves also having a rating of .4. By this system, four of the top eight teams in all of baseball are in the AL East, and the Rays and Blue Jays are better than any team from the AL Central, NL Central, or NL West. While this might be a bit hyperbolic, it seems clear that the Rays and Blue Jays would be able to compete in any of those divisions. Fans of those teams could be getting excited over a pennant race, instead of knowing that their season is going nowhere.

And in case you’re wondering how the Orioles would be outside of the division—they would still be awful.  The only teams with a worse SRS than the Orioles’ -.9 are the Cubs (-1 SRS) and the Astros (-1.2 SRS). So put the Orioles in any division besides the NL Central, and they are still comfortably in last. Put the O’s in the NL Central, and they might not be last, but they wouldn’t be anywhere near the top either.

Lack of talent for Orioles shows in standings

As we enter the last two months of the regular season, the Orioles have only four position players who have accrued more than one win above replacement this season according to Baseball-Reference and Fangraphs: Adam Jones, Matt Wieters, J.J. Hardy, and Nick Markakis (both have all four as above 1 WAR and have no other Orioles position players reaching that threshold). According to Fangraphs, all non-DH Yankee position player starters have over 1 WAR, and Baseball-Reference lists seven (Derek Jeter being the only one not to have accrued 1 rWAR yet). The four Orioles have a combined 9 fWAR—Curtis Granderson and Alex Rodriguez have combined for 8.8 fWAR. Jones, Wieters, Hardy, and Markakis have combined for 6.9 rWAR—or .3 rWAR below the sum of Brett Gardner and Granderson’s rWAR. The picture is not any prettier looking at the rest of the division. Carl Crawford is the only Boston starter with a fWAR below one, and Scutaro joins him according to Baseball-Reference, leaving seven Red Sox with 1+ rWAR (like the Yankees). Adam Jones’ team-leading 2.8 fWAR and Matt Wieter’s team-leading 2.3 rWAR are dwarfed by Dustin Pedroia’s 6.7 fWAR and 6.1 rWAR. Tampa has seven players with 1+ fWAR and nine players with 1+ rWAR. Toronto has a similar amount of +1 WAR starters—but they also have arguably the best player in baseball in Jose Bautista and a resurgent Yunel Escobar who are clearly superior to anyone on the Orioles.

The pitching viewpoint isn’t any prettier. Zach Britton has the highest fWAR, but that is damning with faint praise, as he has only accumulated 1.7 fWAR. Worse, in his last two divisional starts he has pitched a combined one inning (!) and allowed 17 runs (but only 13 earned…). Regardless of whether you prefer rWAR or fWAR for pitching, each team has at least one dominant pitcher where the Orioles have none. Ricky Romero for Toronto, James Shields and David Price for Tampa, Josh Beckett and Jon Lester for Boston, and CC Sabathia for New York clearly outclass any of our pitchers. Even more galling is how our division rivals are able to turn retreads such as Freddy Garcia, Bartolo Colon, and Matt Albers (former Oriole) into valuable pitchers while the Orioles turn retreads Mike Gonzalez and Kevin Gregg into even worse retreads, and transform the team’s most promising pitcher, Brian Matusz, into a pitcher who has been worth -.5 fWAR and -.9 rWAR.

Today, the standings show the Orioles 25 games behind the Yankees in the division (and 24 behind the Red Sox). The reason is simple—the Orioles do not have anywhere near the talent that the rest of the teams in the division do. And as this is not likely to change anytime soon, Orioles fans should become even more accustomed to residing in the basement in the AL East.

Jonny Gomes???

Let me tell you a little secret: I actually kinda like Jonny Gomes as a baseball player. He’s the type of guy who can add real value in the right situation. From a strictly offensive perspective, I like the idea of Gomes platooning with Laynce Nix in left field for the Nats. The guy crushes lefties, to the tune of a .281/.377/.511 career line versus southpaws.

Alas, the National League requires players to play in the field, and let’s just say that’s not Jonny Gomes’ forte. He’s got a career UZR of -38 in the outfield, and anyone who watches him can see why. Maybe he’s not as bad a fielder as Adam Dunn, but he’s also not nearly as a good a hitter as Dunn (was). Gomes really ought to just be a DH, and even then, he should probably be platooning with someone who can hit right handed pitching (Gomes’ line against righties this year: .171/.305/.354 in 199 PAs. Ouch.). From what Mike Rizzo said in his press conference following the trade, it doesn’t sound like the Nats intend to use him in the field much, but more as a situational bench guy who comes in against lefties. And that sounds about right, but why would the Nats trade for a guy like that?

Now, it’s not as if they gave up a whole lot for Gomes. Bill Rhinehart has been a great story this year, tearing up Double-A with a .280/.375/.579 line, but at 26 years old, Rhinehart is only 2 months younger than Ryan Zimmerman, so he’s not exactly a prospect. Chris Manno is probably the highlight of the deal for the Reds, since he’s only 22, but he’s also a strictly relief pitcher who’s still in A ball. Again, not much of a prospect.

The Nats acquired a right handed bat off the bench for two (essentially) organizational guys, and to be honest, I can see myself liking the move, with one caveat: this is the type of move contenders make. The Nats saw a weakness on their roster (a dearth of right handed hitters off the bench) and made a move for a solid veteran to fill the void, and it makes the team marginally better right now. A solid move for a contending team. But the Nats aren’t contenders this year. And at age 30, Jonny Gomes is not going to get any better in the years to come. How exactly does this move help the Nats organization in the future?

Sure, Gomes projects as a type B free agent, which could yield a supplemental draft pick for the Nats, but that’s assuming Gomes rejects an arbitration offer. He’s already been non-tendered twice in his career, and there’s not a whole lot of teams on the lookout for a DH who cannot hit righties. What’s the incentive for Gomes to reject arbitration? Where else is he going to go? And if he accepts arbitration, are the Nats really comfortable paying a guy $1.75 mil (the value of his current contract and in the range of what Gomes is likely to get from arbitration) for a situational bench player who is likely to decline even further next year? Honestly, the only rationale I can see for the Nats to acquire Jonny Gomes is to then use him in a trade for some other player.

My initial thought (or perhaps the word is hope) was that the Nats had some other deal in place, much like the deal yesterday that sent Colby Rasmus to the Blue Jays. The Nats have a long standing interest in the Rays’ center fielder B.J. Upton, and I look at the Rays roster and see that they have the left handed hitting Johnny Damon as their DH. Against lefties this year, Damon’s running a .255/.306/.368 line, good for a measly .298 wOBA. The Rays also lack organizational depth at the catcher position. The more I look at a (purely hypothetical) trade where the Nats send one of their catchers (Norris, Ramos, or Flores) and Gomes to the Rays for Upton, the more I see a good fit for both sides. The Nats get their center fielder for the long term while the Rays not only get a guy who could help them contend this year if they feel they’re still in the hunt, but also a long term option at catcher. If the Nats plan to use Gomes as a throw in for that sort of trade, then I’ll be really happy and, frankly, impressed with Mike Rizzo’s cunning. If not, then I just don’t see the point of trading for Jonny Gomes. Time will tell.

Blyleven And His Contemporaries

Tomorrow, Bert Blyleven will be officially inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, after finally getting enough votes on his 14^th year on the ballot. Rich Lederer of Baseball Analysts did a great job of explaining why Blyleven is worthy of the honor and rallying support for him, and if you have not read any of his pieces I would suggest doing so. I thought I would compare Blyleven to two of his contemporaries, Nolan Ryan and Steve Carlton, and see how he compares.

Many writers initially left Blyleven off their ballots because he seemed more of a “good for a long period of time pitcher” as opposed to a “great pitcher.” I think part of this has to due to an initial unflattering comparison between him and Ryan and Carlton (although the fact that many of these writers voted for Jack Morris might mean I am giving them too much credit). Blyleven won a lot of games—287, but not as many as Ryan (324) or Carlton (329). Blyleven struck out a lot of batters—3701, but not as many as Ryan (5714) or Carlton (4136). Blyleven threw a lot of innings—4970, but again, not as many as Ryan (5386) or Carlton (5217.2). The same phenomenon occurred with ERA—Blyleven’s 3.31 career mark is higher than both Ryan’s 3.19 and Carlton’s 3.22. From these statistics, it would seem Blyleven was clearly an inferior pitcher compared to Ryan and Carlton (although still fantastic). But you could make the argument that Blyleven was just as good, if not better, than Ryan and Carlton.

While Blyleven has the highest ERA of the three, when you normalize it for park factors and run scoring environment (ERA+), he has the best ERA+ of 118 (compared to Ryan’s 112 ERA+ and Carlton’s 115+). This is because Blyleven’s home parks were usually more hitter-friendly, and that he missed the late 1960s run depressing environment that Ryan and Carlton were able to start their careers in. Also, Blyleven was significantly better at not walking batters. While everyone knows Ryan has the most strikeouts of all time, he also gave up the most walks of all time, giving 2795 batters a free pass to first base. Carlton “only” walked 1833 batters, while Blyleven gave free passes to 1322 batters. This led Blyleven to have the best WHIP (walks and hits/innings pitched) of the three (1.198 vs. 1.247 for both Ryan and Carlton) and best K/BB ratio (2.80 vs. Carlton’s 2.26 and Ryan’s 2.04).

Due to these factors, Blyleven ends up with more Wins Above Replacement (WAR) according to Baseball-Reference (90.1 vs. Ryan’s 84.8 and Carlton’s 84.4). Now, this does not definitively mean that Blyleven was better than Ryan and Carlton, but it does show that he is an equal to Ryan and Carlton. Which means he is a very deserving Hall of Famer.

Addendum to Peter's Jayson Werth Piece

Jayson Werth fWAR: 0.4
Jayson Werth contract: $126 million

Carl Crawford fWAR: 0.0
Carl Crawford contract: $142 million

Melky Cabrera fWAR: 3.3
Melky Cabrera contract: $1.25 million

Melky Cabrera has been worth 8.25 Jayson Werth's this season (although Cabrera's rWAR is only 1.9 compared to Werth's 0.4...and Crawford's -0.5!)

Sometimes you never know when it comes to baseball...

Zach Greinke's Enigmatic Season

Peter wrote earlier today about one of the biggest acquisitions this past offseason in Jayson Werth, but another, Zach Greinke, has had an equally bizarre season. After starting the season on the disabled list, Greinke has a K% (strikeouts/total batters faced) of 30.9% (the highest among any starter in the majors this season) with a low BB% (walks/total batters faced) of 5.2%. His ground ball/fly ball ratio of 1.29 is the highest of his career. These are the peripherals the Brewers expected when they traded for him to be the ace of their rotation who would lead them to the playoffs. But there is one problem: Greinke currently has a 5.04 ERA.

So what is going on? One problem for Greinke is his 15.3% home run to fly ball ratio (HR/FB), which is roughly twice the rate of last season. Furthermore, hitters have a BABIP (batting average on balls in play) of .343 against him and his left on base percentage (LOB%) of 55.9% is easily the lowest of his career and ninth worst this season by any major league starter. While a lot of this can probably be attributed to poor luck (pitchers often see their BABIP fluctuate wildly from season to season), one cannot automatically assume that Greinke’s numbers will improve due to regression to the mean to some of his uglier numbers. First, his unflattering statistics might not regress back to the mean this season, just as in his stellar 2008 season when his HR/FB ratio ended at 4.5%. Furthermore, even if his HR/FB, BABIP, and LOB% all improve, it is possible that his K% and BB% will also drop the rest of the season, negating some to all of the previous effects. It will also not help his cause that the Brewers are not a good defensive team. This can be seen by advanced defensive statistics (-1.9 UZR/150, -2 DRS) or by the eye test (watching Prince Fielder, Ryan Braun, Yuniesky Betancourt, and Casey McGehee field is not fun for fans of defense). There is also the possibility that he is having some sort of issue while in the stretch which makes it more difficult for him to escape jams, allowing for more runs to be scored against him than expected (although that is strictly conjecture and I have no proof to support this).

When weighing everything, it is still remarkable that Greinke’s ERA is 5.04 ERA. His FIP (fielding independent pitching) of 2.86, xFIP (expected fielding independent pitching) of 2.13 and SIERA (skill independent earned run average) of 2.17 all indicate that Greinke’s results are way out of line with what could be expected. Even his tERA, an ERA estimator that involves all batted ball types, comes out at 3.50, still a run and a half lower than his ERA. So how do you value Greinke’s season so far? Fangraphs, which bases its wins above replacement (WAR) statistic based on FIP, gives Greinke 1.9 WAR this season, tops on the Brewers staff (even though due to injury he has only thrown 80.1 innings) and 45^th among all MLB starters this season. Baseball-Reference’s WAR, however, involves sequencing of events, and therefore runs allowed. Greinke has been worth -.4 WAR this season according to Baseball Reference, meaning the Brewers would have had better results with a pitcher called up from the minors. Fangraphs and Baseball-Reference also disagreed on Greinke’s value last season, as his Fangraphs WAR was more than double of his Baseball-Reference WAR (5.2 vs. 2.3).

Whichever you think is more indicative, the Brewers need better results from Greinke. Among starters with at least 60 innings pitched, Greinke has the highest differential between his ERA and his FIP. Besides his magical 2009 season, he has never had a tERA lower than 3.50 (which it currently is at and was at last year), which is not exactly ace material. For the Brewers to cash in on their gamble to go all-in to make the playoffs this year in a competitive NL Central, Greinke will have to respond like CC Sabathia did for the Brewers three years ago and put up dominant numbers that resonate in the spreadsheets and on the scoreboards.

An Examination of the Jayson Werth Deal

image courtesy of UPI.com

Last season, Jayson Werth submitted a stellar .296/.388/.532 line with 27 homers to finish off a 3 year span of sustained excellence in which he averaged over 5 WAR per season. This past offseason, the Nats rewarded him with a contract that will pay him $126 million through his age 38 season. The Nats thought they were getting a cornerstone outfielder with some good pop who would, along with Ryan Zimmerman, lead the team into October within the next few years, once Bryce Harper, Stephen Strasburg et al were ready.

So far this year, Werth has been a vast disappointment, posting a below average .215/.319/.362 line with only 9 home runs and looking overmatched in right field to boot. In sum, Werth has “amassed” a paltry .4 WAR through 89 games played, putting him on pace for less than 1 win above replacement for the entire season. To put that number in perspective, Corey Patterson has .8 WAR for the season, and when Corey Patterson outperforms your $17 million right fielder, something has gone terribly wrong. All this ineptitude has elicited boos and chants of “Werth-less” from the crowds at Nationals Park, and did I mention that there’s still 6+ more years left on his contract? Is it even possible to defend such failure?

Well, maybe? First, we should start with the contract. According to Fangraphs, Werth was worth over $20 million each season from 2008 to 2010. The Nats are paying Werth $10 million this year, and that salary will gradually increase until 2015, when Werth will make $21 million per year through 2017, when the contract expires (thanks to Cot’s Baseball Contracts for the details). So by those figures, if Werth were able to somehow return to his 2010 production level and sustain that performance through the end of the contract, the Nats would actually be slightly underpaying Werth. Had he been, say, 26 at the time of the deal was made, this contract would be much easier to defend.

Alas, Jayson Werth is 32 years old and is only going to get older. No one in their right mind thought he would be able to sustain that performance for 7 more years when he signed that contract. The contract becomes even less defensible when we consider that the Nats will be paying Werth more money at the stage of his career when he will almost certainly be his least productive. At the time of the deal, Nats execs rationalized the back-loaded nature of the contract by saying that the team will be contending within the next couple years, which will lead to more attendance, and in turn, more revenue, which will make it easier for ownership to afford the contract in its twilight years. Now I must say that I admire the confidence of the Nationals front office, not to mention their ability to spin for the sake of PR, but you should pay players how much they ought to be paid, not how much you’re able to afford based on your “potential” (read: not yet existant) revenue. If the Nats fail to reach their potential (very possible) and the Jayson Werth contract leaves ownership hamstrung in 2015 or sooner, you can bet on a lot of upset (former?) Nats fans.

Another rationale behind the deal was the notion that the Nats “needed” to overpay to show potential free agents that they were “serious” about paying the money it takes to win. This logic sounds good, until your team ends up like the Chicago Cubs or Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, paying half decent players like Alfonso Soriano and Vernon Wells exorbitant amounts of money to lose baseball games. Well run organizations pay players what they deserve (or, in the case of the Tampa Bay Rays, less than that).

I think we can conclude that the Jayson Werth contract is a bad one, but that being said, it’s not my money. The Lerners have, by all accounts, pretty deep pockets. As long as the team continues to grow into a contender, a bad contract doesn’t really matter. And my primary concern is just that: how much will Jayson Werth contribute to a Nats contender? Looking at his line from this year, there is not a lot to love, but Werth’s peripheral numbers suggest he is the same player he has been for the past three years. For 2011, his BB% (12.3%) and K% (23%) are right in line with his career figures (12.3% and 24.5%, respectively), which suggests that his approach at the plate has not changed much, if at all. His .257 BABIP is, however, nearly 70 points below his career average, which accounts for his career-low batting average. He’s still making contact, and once those balls start falling in for hits, he’ll be back in the .260-.270 range that’s been his career norm, with an OBP of around .360.

The greater concern for Werth this season has been his lack of power. His .140 ISO so far this year is 60 points below his career average. His ground ball rate is a career high 45%, and the transition to Nationals Park has not been good, as his HR/FB has dropped to a career low 10%. Those figures become even more unsettling when you consider that at over 400 PAs for the season, Werth has now reached the point where batted ball percentages begin to stabilize, according to fangraphs. That being said, his career high 13.1% popup rate should come down, so there is still hope for improvement in terms of power. ZIPS projects a .244/.346/.424 line for Werth for the rest of the season, and that seems about right, maybe even a little conservative. Werth is a good player who has suffered from poor luck so far this season, but he should turn it around for the rest of this season. The problem is, with the Phillies and Braves in control of both the division and wild card races, the Nats are not contenders this year. More important than this year for the Nats is whether Jayson Werth will contribute to a potential contender in the years to come.

The short answer? It’s not looking good. According to Baseball Reference, the players who are most stastically similar to Jayson Werth through their age 31 seasons are Brad Hawpe and Jeffrey Hammonds. That’s not a good sign. Now, Werth is almost definitely a better player than either of those guys, but the track record for players like Werth after age 32 is just not great. Werth’s career batting line is .261/.361/.466. Through his age 31 season, Trot Nixon rocked a decidedly Werth-like .278/.366/.478 line, including a peak at ages 29 and 30 when he posted wOBAs of .412 and .379, respectively. Sounds a bit like Jayson Werth, no? After 32, Nixon batted .256/.356/.364. I bolded the slugging percentage because, well, ouch. And the Nats could very well be paying $126 million for that. Jayson Werth may buck the trend, and maintain some semblance of his former self through the rest of the contract, but the odds are not in his favor. This could get ugly.

What should the Nats offer in a trade for Colby Rasmus?

As Joe Strauss of the St. Louis Dispatch recently reported, the St. Louis Cardinals might soon put Colby Rasmus on the trade market. Formerly a highly touted prospect, the 24-year-old center fielder sports a career .259/.333/.442 triple-slash in two and a half years in the big leagues. In his report, Strauss cites difficulties between Rasmus and manager Tony La Russa as a possible motivation for GM John Mozeliak to make a move, and based on Rasmus’ minor league career, I imagine that the Cardinals front office expected better than the .329 wOBA they’ve gotten from him this year. That said, it will still take a pretty good haul to pry Rasmus away, and the Cardinals seem to want at least one starting pitcher, with Strauss mentioning the Tampa Bay Rays and their stable of arms as a possible trade partner.

Given the Nats well documented interest in B.J. Upton, they would presumably at least inquire on Rasmus as well, and are probably even more interested in Rasmus, since he is younger and under contract through 2014. Indeed, if Rasmus could continue to play even a passable CF, his bat would be a significant upgrade over Roger Bernadina, and acquiring him would add another solid young position player to the Nats core of Zimmerman, Espinosa, Ramos, and Desmond. So what exactly would it take to get him? The short answer is, obviously, we don’t really know. But as stated previously, the Cardinals probably want the deal to center around a starting pitcher.

In his most recent chat, Dave Cameron suggested that both the Rays and the Cardinals would at least have to think about a Rasmus for James Shields swap, if it came up in negotiations, and I would definitely have to agree from the Cardinals perspective. Shields has been ace-caliber this season and has a very team-friendly contract with club options starting next year through 2014. His performance this year might even improve if he were to get out of the AL East, and the Cardinals rotation would look pretty formidable for this year’s pennant race. He will be 30 by next season though, and is coming off a very rough year in 2010, so he’s unlikely to maintain this level of performance too much longer, and may in fact fall off dramatically.

Still, if a pitcher of that caliber is the price, then the only way the Nats could match it would be Jordan Zimmermann, who has been the Nats best pitcher this year and is under team control through 2015. JZ, with his 2.58 FIP and miniscule 1.64 BB/9, was my pick for the all-star team from the Nats; he looks fully recovered from Tommy John surgery from a year ago, and at 25, there’s still room for improvement. He’d be a tough player for the Nats to give up under any circumstances, but he does have a history of injuries, and unless he can increase his strikeout rate (6.42 K/9 this year, 7.62 career), his ceiling is as a #2 starter in a good rotation. The Nats just don’t have a ton of pitching depth, though, and JZ seems like the perfect guy to follow Stephen Strasburg in the rotation once Strasburg returns from his own ligament replacement surgery, so I just don’t see GM Mike Rizzo making that kind of move.

That being said, I’m not so sure it would take a guy like Zimmermann to get Rasmus. As Steve Slowinski points out, it will be pretty difficult for the Cardinals to get good value for Rasmus at this stage, since the Cardinals will want to base his value on potential, while other teams will want to buy based on his career thusfar. With that in mind, perhaps the Nats could try to package one of their veteran pitchers with a prospect to get Rasmus. Livan Hernandez is a fan favorite, sure, but his talents are wasted on this year’s Nats team; he’d make for a solid back of the rotation starter for the Cards to rest their bullpen during the dog days of August. Jason Marquis could fill a similar role, and maybe after reuniting Dave Duncan, Marquis could turn back the clock for a couple months to his 2004 season with the Cardinals, when he sported a 3.71 ERA.

Naturally, the more vital part of the equation from the Nats perspective is which prospect they would give up. The Cardinals would probably have interest in a guy like Derek Norris even though they have Yadier Molina, but I don’t imagine the Nats giving up their consensus #2 prospect for Rasmus. Beyond that though, the Nats farm system doesn’t feature too much in the way of bats, so the Cardinals would probably ask for someone like A.J. Cole or Sammy Solis, both of whom were on the Nats top 10 prospects lists of various publications. Brad Peacock has been dominating AA this year, sporting a ridiculous 5.61 strikeout-to-walk ratio in 98 innings so far this season. At 23, Peacock is probably closer to the majors than the other two, which may increase his value to the win-now Cardinals.

As you might have surmised by now, the question posed in the title of this post is a tough one. Colby Rasmus is a solid every day player who is still young enough to have potential for greatness, and the Nationals are interested in an every day center fielder to anchor their outfield for the next several years. But Rasmus has been merely a good player so far in his career, not a great one, and it’s tough for a team like the Nats to give up big time prospects in exchange for a player whose track record suggests only a decent player. I think if the Nats offered one of Peacock, Cole, or Solis plus either Livo or Marquis for Rasmus, it’d be a fine deal for the Nats. I doubt it'd be enough for John Mozeliak, but I don’t think the Nats ought to offer more.