You’ve probably read Joe Sheehan’s nifty explanations of his AL and NL All-Star ballots. In summary, Joe’s theory is that you don’t fritter away an All-Star spot on a player who’s had a hot two months preceded by season upon season of mediocrity. Instead, you give the spot to a proven, top-tier performer who, ideally, is also enjoying a strong first half. I couldn’t agree more with that philosophy.
Today, I’m going to begin extending Joe’s balloting hermeneutics to the minor leagues. By that I mean I’m going to name my personal level-by-level minor league All-Stars. In the very low minors, where I’m beginning this series, it’s difficult to distinguish fluke performance from genuine skills growth–the track record either isn’t substantial or isn’t there at all. It’s when I get to the upper levels of the minors that I’ll get to wield my variant of Joe’s philosophy. By way of example, I’m not going to hand out any spots to the Hiram Bocachicas of the world. Irrespective of his merits, he’s not a highly valuable prospect by any standard. What I’m going to do is give spots to those who are not only performing well in the early months of the 2004 season, but also are doing so in tandem with legitimate prospect status.
Baseball exists in two parallel universes. It serves two masters. It has a foot in two worlds. It straddles a fence. It balances on two horses like a rider at an old west show…and so on and so forth.
On the one hand, it must entertain its paying customers and viewers. On the other, it is the prime directive of its participants to succeed. Often, these two missions are at odds (although you would never get most of the men inside the game to admit to that).
While some plays are completely frustrating on a strategic level, they serve to entertain the paying customer and home viewer. These are, for the most part, the plays that have long been called into question by the analytical sector of the baseball community. Even those of us in that community cannot deny that when they occur, they can be visually dynamic and bring a jolt to the heart while they’re happening. It is only afterward, when the dust has settled and the nitro pills we so desperately require have done their good work that we call into question the logic of such moves–no matter how much they may have thrilled the eye while they were underway.
There’s been a swell of interest in injuries, pitcher workloads, and sports medicine that’s been making me very happy lately. Slate, for instance, has a very interesting piece up on sports injuries. At the same time, I’ve heard that you’ll want to check out ESPN Magazine next week for something by yours truly. Add in the growing influence of the legions of fantasy players who want to know why so many of their players are on the DL, and injury analysis is hot. I’ll also tip my cap to folks like PBATS, ASMI, Rick Wilton, and RotoWire. Now, it’s time we try and make a difference. Because if continue to work, flip answers like “Players aren’t as tough as they were back in my day” or “It must be steroids” will disappear into the mist, like they very well should.
Powered by wheatgrass juice, on to the injuries…
Brad Sullivan, RHP, Age 22; A’s 1st round pick in 2003 out of the University of Houston
2004 Stats: 64 IP, 39 SO, 23 BB, 4.92 RA
Sullivan was a strikeout machine in college, but he’s been anything but in his brief pro career. His velocity is reportedly down from his days in Houston–he topped out at 91 the night I saw him–and he’s striking out a mere 14% of California League batters this season, an abysmal percentage for any pitcher, let alone a power guy.
The Matt Cain/Sullivan matchup I saw was an interesting contrast in pitching motions. As I wrote Wednesday, Cain’s motion was smooth and easy, with lots of leg drive. Sullivan’s delivery seemed much more effortful, with a lower arm slot and a very heavy whip of the arm as he throws. It’s a similar delivery to fellow ex-Cougar Ryan Wagner (although not at Wagner’s level on the painful-just-to-watch scale). It’s too early to give up on Sullivan–he’s in the perfect organization for developing minor league pitchers–but at the moment he looks like the latest casualty of college overuse.
Just as it did last year, trade season kicked off well before the July 31
deadline, with three teams making acquisitions designed to get them into
October, while another made perhaps the biggest gain of the day by trading
away a player.
The Mets and Astros started the day by swapping veterans. Houston traded right
fielder Richard Hidalgo to New York for right-handers
David Weathers and Jeremy Griffiths. The
‘stros have been trying to deal Hidalgo almost since the day they signed him
to a four-year, $32-million contract after his monster 2000 season. For their
money, they got one comparable season (2003), one mediocre one (2001) and one
disaster (2002). This year, Hidalgo had a big April (.341/.364/.622) and then
fell apart, dropping to .256/.309/.412 at the time of the deal.
The other big piece missing from OBP is the fact that reached on error
(ROE) has also been excluded. If you watch enough baseball, thoughts start
to creep into your head, wondering whether certain players can “generate”
errors to get on base. The poster boy for this line of thinking is
Ichiro Suzuki (or Ichiro! if you live within 100 miles of
Derek Zumsteg). Ichiro!’s speed and batting style certainly appear to make
defenses rush, maybe bobbling a few more balls and leaving him standing on
first after a routine ground ball for anyone else. Others may argue that
there’s a case for players who hit the ball harder than others. Perhaps
they too generate errors, but instead of speed making fielders rush, it’s
the velocity of the ball forcing the error. Thus, since those ROE are the
result of some talent of the batters and not necessarily the fault of the
defense, those plate appearances, rather than being counted against OBP,
should be counted for OBP.
There are several problems with this line of thinking. First and
foremost, there’s still the inherent problem of the official scorer and his
tendencies to rule various identical events as hits or errors, depending on
other factors not relevant to the play at hand. Players who play in front
of “hometown” official scorers will have more of their borderline calls
ruled as hits than players whose scorers who hold the defense to a higher
standard.
Second, there may be a difference between infield and outfield
ROE. While there’s certainly an argument that players can generate ROE in
the outfield by hitting a plethora of nearly fieldable line drives, most of
the influence we’re searching for empirically comes from infielders and
their rush to throw out a speedy runner.
It’s been an unusual postseason in NCAA baseball this year. Until 1998, the postseason tournament began with 48 teams playing in six-team, double-elimination brackets which were played over four days. This created a lot of drama, but it didn’t create great baseball, as you frequently ended up with a freshman waterboy pitching on Sunday afternoon. Under this format, upsets were the norm, and the field that reached the College World Series in Omaha was usually a rather motley crew of survivors.
In 1999, though, the NCAA moved to a 64-team field, adding a week to the postseason and switching from six-team regionals to four-team events in the first round. Under this format, the favorites flourished. Although upsets happened often enough to keep everyone on their toes, the fields in Omaha have been stronger from 1999 to 2003. This year, however, the apple cart has been overturned.
Jimy Williams has gone bunt crazy for the Astros. The Cardinals are on pace to post one of the best road records in history. The Rangers need sustained good pitching to stay in the race. These and other news and notes in today’s Prospectus Triple Play.
As much as it annoyed me, being a Pistons fan, to see that coverage of the NBA Finals was focused far more on the Lakers’ demise (MEDVEDENKO TO TEST FREE AGENT WATERS!) as it was on Detroit’s ascent (blue team wins championship in five games), there’s a lot to be said for the presence of a villain. The Lakers have been so good for so long–so annoyingly, purple-and-goldenly good–for so long, that it was one hell of a story to see them go down to defeat, even if it came at the hands of a largely unfamiliar and anonymous team whose low-scoring style made them the basketball equivalent of the 1906 Cubs.
Lest you accuse me of some sort of Midwestern provincialism, it’s worth noting that the rest of the country agreed–the Finals were the highest-rated in years. David Stern agreed too, and it was refreshing to hear him confess, during a halftime interview, that the presence of a franchise like the Lakers was good for his league, drawing lots of eyeballs and putting lots of butts in the seats.
Now that baseball has the sports stage more or less to itself–the NHL finals concluded two weeks ago, with the Dayton (OH) Green Hornets defeating the Saskatoon Moosecatchers in a thrilling seven-game series–it’s worth considering whether a similar phenomenon manifests itself in our preferred sport.
The state of umpiring today is amazing. While umpires are devoid of the kind of personality that, say, Ron Luciano had, as a group they have improved so markedly since baseball broke their union that it’s amazing to watch old games on ESPN Classic. Umpires today are faster to get into position and more observant. They’re willing to consult other umps who might have a better view of a disputed play. They’re far more professional than their predecessors.
I am more convinced than ever that the umpires have demonstrated the need for better strike zone measurement tools. We haven’t heard much about Questec this year, due in part to Tom Glavine enjoying a bounceback year. But I watch so much baseball it frightens small children, and I see blown balls and strike calls all the time. And I don’t even mean close calls, either, I’m taking about clearly up, down, or off the plate and my favorite, Ye Olde Hit the Target Strike. Like the other parts of the umpire’s game, it’s gotten better, but it’s still not as good as it needs to be.
The Angels’ Disabled List is thinning out. Nomar’s back for the Red Sox. Paul Abbott slides into the fifth starter’s role with the Phillies. And the Practically Perfect Backup Catcher earns his stripes as a starter for the Blue Jays. These and other happenings in today’s Transaction Analysis.
The Angels could find a new sheriff at third base soon, while the Cubs have exceeded all offensive expectations, and Lyle Overbay has been the driving force in the Brewers surprising success. All this and more news from Anaheim, Chicago and Milwaukee in your Wednesday edition of Prospectus Triple Play.
Halfway through the month of June, three months are in the books since spring training opened. While nothing has been decided on the field yet, we were supposed to see significant changes off the field, with the switch from survey drug testing to actual drug testing. Not only are we yet to see the first positive test, there’s been no decrease in injuries, power, or any of the expected indications that steroids have been rooted out. Worse, with the callup of Derek Turnbow by the Angels, both players with publicly known positive steroid tests are in the major leagues. While those tests were outside the purview of MLB, it still shows that the public relations around this issue are beyond the people in charge. MLB is sitting on a timebomb with the BALCO trial leaking out the list of positive tests, so I’d like to see something more being done. I can only hope that the negotiations on increased testing are the next step.
Despite some happy reports from the Bronx, the Yankees made the decision to give Kevin Brown more time to heal. With Mike Mussina also likely to miss a start, the team decided that they would need another pitcher, so Alex Graman is likely to be called up. Brown’s back didn’t get worse, but the Yanks are erring on the side of caution, hoping that the rest will keep Brown more effective down the stretch. While Brown will miss two starts, there’s no indication that this will go longer than the fifteen days.
It’s hard to beat minor league baseball for a low-cost, low-hassle evening at the ballpark. I’ve been spending quite a few of my evenings lately in California League parks, mostly checking out teams in that league’s Northern division. Today and Friday I’ll run down some of the prospects on the five teams in that division, covering the High-A affiliates for the Giants, Rangers, A’s, Rockies, and Devil Rays.
There’s no rigorous method for choosing prospects listed here. In particular, the omission of certain players (like Vince Sinisi and John Hudgins in today’s piece) shouldn’t be read as a dismissal of them as prospects.
You’ll recall that last week I took a gander at the top five most underrated hitting prospects in the game. This time, it’s the pitchers. I believe I amply qualified myself last week, but I’ll say again that calling anything “overrated” or “underrated” is horribly, terribly, awfully subjective and assumes I have some sort of internal, ruthlessly accurate method of reading the hype tea leaves. I don’t, but I can juggle.
Once again, the criteria are that a player didn’t appear anywhere on BP’s Top 50 Prospect List and has reached at least the High-A level this season. If nothing else, you can dance to it…
Closest Matchup (Teams with records most resembling one another): Texas @ Cincinnati
Anyway you smack the numbers around, the Reds are riding for a fall. As we all know, teams that get outscored the way they have don’t fare well in the long run. Going into last night’s game against Philadelphia, the Reds had been outpolled by 24 runs. This put them five or six games ahead of where they should be, depending on which version of the Pythagorean you want to use. Having said that, you can find that entire 24-run differential in their meltdown against the A’s last week. If you toss that series away, they’d actually be 284-284 in runs scored and runs against. This still means they’re playing over their heads, but not by as much. Are we letting one disastrous series get in the way of assessing them honestly? On the other hand, that disastrous series helped call attention to the fact that this was a team riding a little too high.
Do you miss the time when a 34-28 record was a 34-28 record? You know, back in the good old days, when they didn’t used to clog the mind by putting the number of runs a team scored and allowed right there so you could make your own value judgments. Actually, newspapers still don’t do that. Instead, they give us streak info and interleague play records. What is interesting is that the NFL standings have had the points for and against since…well, ever since I can remember. When you think about it, with a smaller schedule, NFL PF/PA can get skew a lot worse than a baseball record can. I’d like to see newspaper sport sections leap into the 21st Century and start including runs scored and runs against, wouldn’t you?