TDA Bullpen - Our Writers' Blog

Saturday, May 01, 2004

Since I've got the May 01 dateline to myself, I'll post a few quick comments about the first game I attended this season. Actually, the game, a 1-0 (which should be read as "one-nil" since the Twins generated about as much offense as a soccer team playing it close to the vest) win by the Angels, was pure anticlimax compared to what happened in the pre-game activities, at least in my view.

Tuesday is the 20th anniversary of the game in which Dave Kingman hit a ball into one of the vents in the Metrodome roof. He participated in a homerun hitting contest before the game tonight. The idea is that some randomly chosen fan goes up against a celebrity hitter and the Twins' mascot. If John Q. Public wins the derby, he gets two roundtrip airfares to anywhere in the continental US. Each guy gets seven hacks, and most homers win. Home plate is placed about 20-30 feet from second base, so it's roughly 250 feet to straightaway center field.

The way the derby unfolded, JQP went 0-for-7. Then Kingman steps up and needs one swing to get warmed up before putting the next three pitches into the seats. He then gets one of the last three to go, with the two that stayed in the park coming off of pitches that an ump probably calls as balls. Kingman steps out of the box with 4 dingers, then.

The mascot steps up to the plate wearing his costume. He also needs one swing to get going before putting three straight out of the park. Then he looks at a couple of pitches mixed in with his last three swings. The pitches taken were similar to the ones Kingman hacked at in the end of his run. Mr. Mascot hits two more out in his last three tries to pull out a 5-4 win over Kingman.

That's right, a guy in a mascot suit beat Dave Kingman and his 442 career major league homeruns in a homer derby on the strength of laying off of two bad pitches where Kingman took his hacks at similar offerings. Just one more example of how proper pitch selection = heady goodness. It's also Exhibit Z as to why Kingman will never make the Hall of Fame.

posted by Tom Renbarger 11:24 PM

Interesting proposal, David. Your plan would diminish to some extent the worries about lending stars to the World Cup, but it doesn't get rid of the problem completely. You need to cultivate a working relationship with Commissioner Selig.

I think sooner is better for the start of festivities, but I'm a little worried that if it happens too soon it may kill the project before it has a chance to flourish. In particular, if a World Cup was played in 2005, there might not be enough time to iron out the logistics of getting some star power injected into the games.

I'd suggest 2006 as the year things should happen. If there's enough of a demand for the series, pushing things back one year will allow something to go forward that, while perhaps not perfect, is not too imperfect to kill things at the outset. Even the folks running MLB should be able to get something workable in place with that extra year. Plus the extra year will allow for some proper buildup of the World Cup. We're not hearing much of anything about it this year at the level of, say, Hawk and DJ getting excited about the prospects of a WC.

posted by Tom Renbarger 12:25 PM

Friday, April 30, 2004

Follow the Caribbean Series

I've seen a decent amount international baseball. In fact, I've seen the game played at the professional level in five different nations. It occurs to me that the World Cup could learn a lot from the Caribbean Series. For those that don't know, the Caribbean Series pits the champions of the Mexican, Dominican, Puerto Rican and Venezuelan Winters Leagues against each other early each February. Instead of watching teams like Australia in the proposed World Cup, we should restrict the tournement to the cream of the crop. Take the winner of the World Series and the Japan Series as your first two teams. For the third slot, pick the winner of the Caribbean Series. That team would have to play through their Winter League season, their playoffs, and then beat out the other good teams in the tropics to represent. The final team can be Cuba, if politics allow, or there could be an at-large bid.

This takes some steps to solving one potential problem. Since teams as a whole go to the World Cup, the management will be that team's management. You don't have to worry about some stranger blowing out your best starter's arm in honor of the flag, you just have to be willing to take the heat and say "I want to win the World Series too." Now we take another page from the Caribbean Series. The teams that show up aren't exactly the same squads that battled through November, December and January. Each team is allowed to take a small handful of players from their respective league in order to give their team a turbo boost. Since the Caribbean teams now must follow "The I-Rod Rule" which limits the talent they can put on their roster, we can give the Caribbean team more slots, and allow them to cherry-pick from MLB rosters. Of course, MLB should be allowed to replace those players. For example, set the replacement number to 5. So the Japanese and MLB teams would be allowed to make five replacements on their rosters (there would be a gentleman's agreement concerning overuse of players not normally on a team's roster). Then suppose the Dominican team won the Caribbean Series. Since they aren't allowed to have the likes of Sosa and Pedro on their winter rosters, they get to pluck ten from MLB. If the World Series team lost two Dominicans in this process, they are allowed to chery pick an additional two players from the rest of MLB (with the caveat that they can only pick US citizens).

This method is tried-and-true and would lead to a much higher level of competition. The four teams would play a double-round robin over six days with the possibility of a championship game. This should be started early in March, when the NCAA hoops tourney consists mainly of mismatches. With the proper formula, this can work. Of course, Bud is running the show here...

posted by David 6:40 PM

The Crank Speaks Out

As much as I'd normally be tempted today to weigh in on the biggest Craw in my Baseball Bonnet, historically speaking, the anti-trust-exemption inspired maldistribution of the markets, since it's one of the topcis of the day here in the Bullpen, I wanted to comment a little bit on the World Cup concept.

This is the best idea, ever, to come out of the Commissioner's office. OK, it didn't really come out of the Commissioner's office, but since the Czar is pumping it up these days, we'll pretend it is.

There's no "good" time to schedule a World Cup. The NHL seems to have regretted its decision to interrupt the hockey season during the Olympics to allow its players to effectively play a Hockey world cup and has been progressively retreating from the idea because they really didn't see the "bounce" it would have. There's zero chance MLB will give up on the gate for 30 teams for even a couple of weeks in the summer, and if the World Cup were played in November, not only would it further conflict with the busy fall sports season, it would probably fall prey to baseball ennui by a public that has just had a World Series and a set of very, very tired ballplayers. So March or nothing is the likely time for such an event.

But the NHL lesson is a good case in point about why I think the event would be a success. The players took the Olympics too seriously. Mario Lemieux played himself out of steam that could've been saved for the playoffs. Many other players played far more shifts than they would in the normally relatively-meaningless NHL regular season. It may have been the allure of Olympic gold (remember Roger Clemens "retirement" and how quickly it ended once the US squad was eliminated from Olympic qualification?), and it's possible a fake new "World Cup" will get all the attention from players that an opening series in Japan does -- all negative. But if the idea is allowed a few years to mature on its own, I strongly suspect it will become an event that would truly rival the "World" Series for the attention of the baseball public and would begin to make inroads into the public at large.

Americans may not take the international competition seriously. (How else to explain our abysmal record in Olympic baseball?) But you can bet the players from around the world would, most especially if it's a chance to beat us at our own game. Anybody who's had a taste of the Caribbean World Series knows that major leaguers playing in the winter leagues will leave it out on the field for a chance to compete on a nationalistic basis.

Part of me is ambivalent about this idea. What I do like about both the NHL and MLB these days is that the leagues are truly representative of the world-class of athletes in their sports, but that they're mixed around. You look at most MLB teams, it's representative of the rainbow of baseball, and to me that's a good thing. We have enough cheap nationalism in other areas not to have to taint sports with it (and anybody who's seen what parochial hooliganism has done to Soccer knows the dangers inherent in starting to associate strong feelings about sports with a national or ethnic identity.) The Ryder cup controversies in recent years show even "gentlemanly" games are subject to sudden devolution into pettiness when supposed national honor is put at stake. Good Lord, some players who've opted out of Davis Cup competition have been exorciated for lack of "patriotism", as if winning a Tennis trophy meant anything at all about a country's values and value.

Yet it's the oddly fractured nature of world baseball that probably would ovecome that. Unlike soccer-football, the number of countries with serious baseball leagues and/or signficant numbers of players is limited, and the same teams would be in the hunt for a (short) World Cup even everytime, probably limiting the win-at-any-cost frenzy of the Soccer World Cup. The US, Canada, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Japan, and Cuba are it; if you add in Puerto Rico (which, as I scream at the TV screen everytime some broadcaster calls it a foreign country, is part of the US!) and allow it to compete separately, as it does in Olympic and international amateur events, that makes seven "teams". If you took the rest of the Caribbean-Latin countries and Venezuela and made a false "Caribbean Basin" team, you could probably field another credible team, and then let South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia form a "Pacific Rim" team, there's another one. (Yes, yes, I know there are Olympic teams all over the place from other countries, but half the players in a given Olympic year are really Americans.)

Cuba, of course, is a whole 'nother story, since the politics of the situation, exhibitions against the Orioles a few years ago notwithstanding, probably would prevent it from competing.

So let's say there are eight teams that might compete in a World Cup. I know the people of Mexico, the DR, and Japan would take it seriously, and the US market is big enough that enough people would take it seriously to be worthwhile. You would, in turn, certainly be able to convince enough players to play. So the key issue is: would the MLB owners? The answer to that question is very simple: fiat from the Commissioner's office that prevents any team from explicitly prohibiting a player from participating in a World Cup. I realize subtle pressures will be applied that will prevent some players from participating, but it can't be enough to really hurt any one good team.

And we're talking all-star teams here. Assuming a 25-man roster, and about two weeks for the Cup, you could have a round-robin round the first week, followed by best two-of-three elimination semifinals and finals in the second week. Half the players would be back in spring training a week after it began, everybody after two weeks. You can bet that players would arrive in spring training in good shape. Pitching is always a concern here, but rules enforced allowing no pitcher to throw more than 5 innings in a game and 10 innings total in the entire tournament would not only protect the pitchers, it would provide a little bit of a level playing field so a team couldn't just cruise on one or two dominant arms (and thus, for example, ruin the Red Sox' chances at a World Series championship just so Pedro Martinez can bring home the Cup for the D.R.)

What is particularly laudatory here is the idea it should be done as early as 2005. Why wait until everything is "perfect"? Start playing some games and see how it goes.

I'm under no delusions this will ever get to be like a Soccer World Cup -- the biggest event in sports, period, because it's for a sport played virtually everywhere and which is played in short one-game matches. But it could really be a great way of sandwiching the MLB season maybe every third year with something special, and would be a source of pride in many countries that are progressively being sucked dry of their talent by MLB. We don't want to kill baseball in Japan, for instance, even though we're taking their best players right now -- we want it to be part and parcel of the same community.

Game on, er, whatever. Let's do this.

posted by The Crank 3:44 PM

$$$ and Baseball's World Cup

Charles, interesting thoughts on the proposed World Cup. I think you go right to the main flaw, teams will be very unlikely to give up star players. What about that insurance? Well, right now my scorebook is one of the key exhibits in a case between the Tampa Bay Devil Rays and their insurance company. He missed 2000 and 2001 with a combined salary of $18M. Why? Some think he blew out his arm pitching in the Caribbean Series. I was there and took good notes, that's why the lawyers have my scribblings.

Player contracts are investments. Teams offer a player X because they think that the player will actually generate Y for the team. Only insurance doesn't cover Y, it pays X. So whatever return on investment the team was thinking about isn't covered, only the payroll cost. As a result, players who are good bargains, players with large Y-X's, won't be seen anywhere near the World Cup. This covers up-and-coming stars who haven't hit the jackpot of free agency. Albert Pujols is a good example here. If Barry Bonds was lost for a year, the Giants would lose out on much more than his $18M salary. The Giants will be very unhappy if Barry is anywhere near the World Cup.

And of course, all of this ignores the fact that the viewing public has very strong television habits for Thursday-Sunday during March Madness. I predict that this will be like the "we'll relocate to Miami" experiment that the Caribbean Series attempted a few years back. It might look like a good idea on paper, but there are too many fatal flaws.

posted by David 8:20 AM

Thursday, April 29, 2004

Jayson Stark of ESPN.com answered the FAQ about the possibility of a 2005 World Cup of Baseball the other day and I'm left wondering about one of the problems:

The biggest issue in the World Cup is that it would have to be played in March during Spring Training. Why is this such a problem? The way I see it is, yes, it is a great way for players to prepare for the upcoming MLB season (call it competitive spring training), but do we honestly believe that teams are going to allow their best players to go? Here's what Mr. Stark had to say:

"But let's just say the commissioner, the union and all the top people in the sport have a major vested interest in having this World Cup succeed -- and there's a really good chance they'll be communicating that to every owner, every GM and every player who might wind up on somebody's team. Insurance will be offered -- to both players and teams. Every effort will be made to assemble the best coaching and training staffs around. And, at least subtly, pressure will be applied. If even one team balks, it opens the door for every team to balk. So it's expected that more high-profile players will take part than you might think."

Insurance isn't going to make The Boss sweat any less when Godzilla steps up to the plate for Japan. One could argue that players get injured during the spring anyway, but they're not doing that in an atmosphere with the whole world watching. The regular season could be affected even more than it is now by March games: Starting pitchers' arms will wear out earlier. Knees will get creakier. You get the idea.

While the idea of a World Cup is fantastic in theory, I'm not sure we'd see it play out to its fullest potential. I'm not saying it would be a situation where minor league nobodys would play against each other, but the star power that would fuel a worldwide audience's attention won't be there simply because contracts are paid by owners. Maybe Mr. Stark is right, but I think baseball has to deal with a couple of its black eyes (we won't get started on steroids, even though drug testing issues are out of the way) before it creates the ultimate World Series.

posted by Charles Curtis 10:08 AM

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

Now that Torii Hunter is finally back from his strained hammy and Shannon Stewart has gotten past a niggling hamstring of his own, I finally got my wish of seeing Stewart, Doug Mientkiewicz, and Corey Koskie in the top three slots of the Twins' lineup. 4-5-6 went Hunter, Jacque Jones and Lew Ford, who has been raking it while filling in first for Hunter in CF and now for Matthew LeCroy at DH.

That top six responded with all 11 Twins hits tonight, including Jones's game-winning three-run homer in the bottom of the 9th. Minnesota turned around a 4-1 deficit through 7 against Toronto to get a 7-4 win. Last Friday the Twins came back against the Royals after being down 5-1 through 7 to win 7-5. Jones and Koskie are showing no ill effects from the lingering injuries they had last year (in addition to seven homers combined each has stolen four bases), Stewart is drawing a walk a game and Mientkiewicz has supplied his usual steady production.

The Twins are 13-7 despite having their entire starting rotation perform somewhere between the levels of scuffling and train wreck. Check here and take a look at the ERAs of the guys who don't have zeroes in the GS column. Not good. I don't know how many more six-run 8th-and-9th-inning rallies the Twins have in them this season, but I do know that Radke, Santana, and Lohse are way too good to continue to struggle the way they have out of the gate. Their hitting will probably cool off some (how many times has Henry Blanco driven in 10 in a two-week span?) but the big three in the Twins' rotation definitely has the ability to pick up that slack.

Once LeCroy and Joe Mauer come back, the Twins will be a pretty deep team. As I pointed out in the Twins preview, their lineup will be stacked with above average performers 1 through 7. Given that it's only a matter of time before the rotation snaps out of it, you have to like the Twins' chances based on their first 20 games.

posted by Tom Renbarger 12:25 AM

Tuesday, April 27, 2004

My article on Pete Rose and greenies seems to have hit a nerve. I got a good amount of e-mail basically saying that people should just leave to poor man alone. Another line of thought is "How much could greenies help you? Steroids can help you add 20 pounds of muscle to your body, but how large an effect do greenies have?"

The answer is simple. I don't know. There's never been a peer-reviewed double-blind study with a sample size large enough to give a good measurement. We do know that many baseball players took them in the 1960s and 1970s. They seemed to think that they had some effect. How large, if any? Again, we have no way of knowing for sure.

On the other hand, we do know how many more hits Rose had than Cobb. Pete finished with 4256 to Ty's 4189 (that's what baseball-reference.com says, I'll trust them). Okay, get out Mr. Calculator. Pete had 67 more hits, divide by a little more than four thousand, and we get 1.6% In other words, if greenies had a 2% positive effect on getting hits, then that covers Rose's margin.

How much would a two percent effect be? Well, in a typical Pete Rose season you could pencil him in for about 210 hits, so 2% would mean roughly 4 hits. In other words, an extra hit every six weeks.

Could greenies have an effect so small that they just get swamped in the noise? Well, if there's one thing we can say about Pete, it's that he gave us a large sample size. Charlie Hustle had 14052 career ABs, and a batting average of .303. Treating this as a binomial distrbution, the variance would be 14502 * (.303) * (.697). Taking the square root of this results in 55. So the noise on Rose's hits comes in at roughly 1.3%, so if greenies were even a 2% effect, they weren't being submerged in random chance.

Pete Rose's 4256 is like Gaylord Perry's 314 wins, or for that matter, Jose Canseco's MVP trophy. Those are all in the books, and nobody has made a fuss to change history. That's the precedent we should be looking at.

posted by David 1:24 AM