Life of Boswell

Tom Boswell is one of my sportswriting heroes. Boz has written eloquently about baseball and sports for some forty years now. I have also talked with him at various events, and he’s an extremely nice man who, it seems to me, usually has an interesting view of the world and of sports. His back-to-back columns on the Sugar Ray Leonard-Roberto Duran fights — the first where Duran mauled Leonard, the second where Leonard mocked Duran into saying “no mas” — is like a sportswriting clinic. You could teach entire classes on just those two articles.

There, now that I am done telling you how I feel about the man and his work, I must say that I read this from the man and I find myself sitting here in stunned and rather gloomy silence. I have actually read several columns the last couple of days that make what appears to be Boz’s main point — the main point being, I guess, that baseball writers are becoming too geeky and VORPy, and are ignoring what is obvious and right in front of their faces. And this is best proven by the baffling MVP choice of Albert Pujols over Ryan Howard for MVP.

Yes, I’ve read other columns along these lines, but the other columns I’ve read were from hometown Phillies writers or people I do not have any particular opinion about. I love the Boz. I respect the Boz. I read columns from the Boz and, even if my starting opinion is precisely the opposite of his, I find myself halfway through thinking, “Well, maybe he’s right and I’m wrong.”

And yet this column is overwhelmed with such twisted logic that I’m sitting here doing all sorts of Shawn Johnson mental gymnastics in order to come to some sort of peaceful resolution between my love of the Boz and this opinion wreckage.

The key line in Boz’s column seems to be this:

When stats WILDLY contradict common sense, always doubt the stats.

That sounds good. It really does. I read that sentence, once, twice, five times, and each time I read it I liked the rhythms of it, I liked the construction, I liked the use of all-capital letters in WILDLY. When stats WILDLY contradict common sense, always doubt the stats. Yes, this seems a solid premise.

Only, you know what? It isn’t. It is, when you think about it, a horrifying premise — I cannot believe that Tom Boswell, my hero, really believes that. Common sense says that the universe revolves around the earth. Common sense says that thunder clapping means God’s angry. Common sense says that when your car is sliding you want to turn your wheel away from the skid. Common sense says that a fast guy with no power who might or might not get on base is the perfect guy to put in the leadoff spot. Common sense that the queen of spades is the middle card. Common sense says that if you put Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg together, you will get an entertaining movie. Common sense says that the best way to hit a golf ball far is to swing harder. Common sense says a lot of incredibly stupid things and if you are going to automatically choose common sense over, you know stats and facts and results, well, that’s a good way to crash into trees and lose your shirt in a card game and get stuck with Omar Moreno.

But, forget that for a moment. There’s a larger point … so let’s remember the line: When stats WILDLY contradict common sense, always doubt the stats. Boz was using this line to point out that the gulf of a difference in VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) between Pujols (96.8) and Howard (35.3) is so massive that it simply cannot be right, it bends common sense. I mean, that says Pujols is, what, 61 VORPies better than Howard, that just seems wrong, wrong, wrong. And based on the Rule of Boswell you have to doubt the veracity of VORP.

Now, one thing I should say is that I don’t really see how the huge difference in VORP really cuts against common sense. Pujols hit 106 points higher than Howard. His on-base percentage was 123 points higher. His slugging percentage was 110 points better. It doesn’t seem too much of a stretch that Pujols had a much, much better season and that this would be dramatically reflected in their VORP. And VORP does not even consider the massive differences in their defensive ability (Pujols is a better first baseman) or their base-running ability (Pujols is a better baserunner) or their various splits (Howard was more or less helpless against left-handed pitchers). It seems pretty obvious from just about any angle you look at that Albert Pujols is a much better player than Ryan Howard, and he had a much, much, much, much, much, much, much better season — would say at least 61 VORPies better.

But — I told you there would be some mental gymnastics here — let’s play along. Let’s say that the VORP difference does indeed give pause … hmm, this says that Pujols was three-times the player that Ryan Howard was in 2008, and that just doesn’t pass the smell test. So where can we turn to offer a little common sense in this sea of numbers confusion?

Here’s what Boz says: “Sometimes you have to underline the obvious; for example a first baseman with 146 RBIs is ‘more valuable,’* especially when he plays on a first-place team, than a first baseman (Pujols) with 116 RBIs on a fourth-place team.“

*I’m not entirely certain why Boz put ”more valuable“ in quotes. I have this friend who does that, who puts those little air-quotation marks around the strangest words. He will say things like, ”I have ‘to’ go to the bathroom,“ or ”This chicken salad is very delicious ‘but a’ little bit dry.“

OK. So here’s where we are now. Tom Boswell, who just crushed VORP for the way it crosses logic (and, later in the article, he does the same for runs created, OPS and TOTAL AVERAGE, which he invented), now explains that the only way to judge these two men, the only logical and common-sense way to measure the 2008 baseball achievements of Ryan Howard and Albert Pujols, is to look at:

1. The number of RBIs they drove in.
2. The finish of their teams.

That’s it. Don’t analyze beyond that. In fact, to quote Boswell’s next sentence, ”Don’t analyze beyond that.“ See? The man who is basing his entire argument on that Boz Premise (to remind you: when stats WILDLY contradict common sense always doubt the stats) is now choosing RBIs — FREAKING RBIs — over common sense. I mean RBIs. Do we need to really go over this RBI thing again?

And I know that Boz understands that Pujols is a much better player because he spends the next paragraph pointing out that, yes, Howard can’t field, and yes Pujols outhit him, and yes Howard strikes out a lot while Pujols walks a lot. He knows this to be true. But you know the Seinfeld line about how impressed he is that the Chinese are sticking with chopsticks (”Oh, they’ve seen he fork. They don’t care. They’re sticking with the chopsticks”). Well, Boz is sticking with those RBIs.

And he follows with these gems:

”But none of it outweighs Howard’s RBI total, built on his .320 average with runners in scoring position.“ Pujols hit .339 with runners in scoring position and reached base more than half the time.

”For what it’s worth, Howard wasn’t even in the top half dozen in baseball in runners on base when he came to the plate.“ This is true; Howard was eighth with 483 runners on base. But you know what? That’s a lot of runners. A LOT of runners. That’s 47 more runners than Pujols. And Pujols was also intentionally walked 34 times (to Howard’s 17).

”(Howard) is Mr. Multi-Run Homer.“ Howard hit 26 of his 48 homers with men on base, that’s 54%, which is pretty good. League average is closer to 44%. Pujols was at 46%. However is should be noted that Howard also CAME UP up with men on base a touch more than half the time. And while Pujols hit six homers with multiple men on base (including a slam), Howard hit five. I’m not reserving ”www.MisterMultipleHomer.com“ just yet.

King Kaufman over at Slate Salon (sorry King) wrote something the other day that I really liked. He wrote that the methodology for some voters seems to be: “Figure out who you like as MVP, then fashion the current year’s definition of ‘valuable’ to fit.”

I think that’s about right. I understand why people would want to vote for Ryan Howard as MVP. It fits a neat story line. We don’t want our MVPs to just be the boring ol’ best player — no we want them to be superheroes, we want to ascribe to them some sort of mystical talents that lift teams above their modest means and carry them to unforseen heights. We want to believe that the MVP — and the MVP alone — could have lifted them higher than they’ve ever been lifted before.

Sure, the Phillies were defending division champs. Sure, they have better players than Ryan Howard, including the guy who plays right next to him. Sure, they had a couple of very good left-handed starters and a closer who did not blow a save. Sure Ryan Howard, coming into September, had been absolutely terrible (.234/.324/.490 — but lots of ‘dem RBIs!). Sure the Phillies pitchers gave up three runs or less in 12 of the last 16 games as the Phillies overcame a sinking Mets team.

Sure, we all KNOW that baseball is a team sport, and that one player can only do so much, and that if Albert Pujols would have been in Philadelphia instead of Ryan Howard his numbers might have forced a Florida recount. Sure. But it’s so much more poetic to give the credit to Ryan Howard, who had an excellent September and banged some big home runs down the stretch. It’s so much more fun to believe the most valuable player always plays on the best team, and that he wills his team to victory with his great strength and will and heroism and timely home runs. The trouble is that this doesn’t really resemble life. And it means sometimes ignoring everything you know to be true and, instead, spreading the gospel of RBIs.

Boz, in the column, proceeds to explain why K-Rod should have won the American League MVP, but I’m to tired to go into that.

Mussina Redux

I just got an email from Tyler Kepner at the New York Times, who wrote today’s story about Mike Mussina. I bring this up because I mentioned in the last post that, based on the story, I seemed to be sort of an island with my feeling that Mussina is a slam-dunk Hall of Famer. But Tyler says that he got 40 responses from writers, and 32 of them said they would vote for Mussina as a Hall of Famer. That’s more than 75% — which is enough to get him in. And it shows that, actually, lots of people see Mussina the way I see him.

This touches on a larger topic that I started writing in another blog post — I think this has been a very good year for the Baseball Writers Association. Yes INDIVIDUALLY there have been some rather quirky and cranky ballots and opinions, but as a group the voters:

1. Chose Tim Lincecum over Brandon Webb for Cy Young even though Webb had more victories.
2. Chose Cliff Lee over K-Rod for Cy Young even though K-Rod set the saves record.
3. Chose Albert Pujols over Ryan Howard for MVP even though Howard had more homers and RBIs and had a big September and played for a team that reached the playoffs.

I see all of these as promising signs that the BBWAA as a whole is tilting toward more nuanced reasoning and thought. Lincecum had a measurably better year than Webb — so did Johan Santana, who finished behind Webb, but that’s down-ballot and not especially important.

Lee and a whole bunch of other people — including a handful of relievers — had better years than K-Rod.

And Albert Pujols was about 200 times better than Ryan Howard this year. You know, Howard really had a very pedestrian .251/.339/.543 season, and even that was aided by his bandbox of a ballpark. I don’t even think Howard was especially close to being the MVP of the PHILLIES, much less baseball, and I don’t think he should have been anywhere near the second-place MVP. But the point remains: Howard didn’t win. The right guy did. The voters got it right*.

*I guess I shouldn’t say much more until we find out who wins the AL MVP. If K-Rod wins that (or, to a lesser extent, Morneau) then I take it all back.

While we’re here, I would like to make one more point about Mussina. Brilliant reader Thomas offers this thought-provoking comment:

“But my thought about Moose is always this: if you were the opposing team facing him during a pennant race, were you ever frightened that you wouldn’t be able to get to him? He never had that invincible aura about him that the top pitchers of the day (Unit, Pedro, Clemens/Steroids, Schilling, Maddux) had. I know this is a rather weak argument against him, but it fits in there somewhere doesn’t it?“

I think there’s a real point here — sports is fun BECAUSE we do have emotional feelings about people. I can remember precisely how terrorized I used to get when John Elway got the ball with the Broncos down by four in the fourth quarter. And, being a Browns fan and later a Kansas City Chiefs writer, I was right to be concerned — Elway didn’t miss much. But what interests me here is how often our emotional feelings are just WRONG, how often conventional thinking is just WRONG.

For instance, when I read Thomas’ comment I thought — yeah, that sounds about right. Of course, when you compare anyone to Unit, Pedro, Clemens and Maddux — four of the, say, 15 greatest pitchers who ever lived — it’s hard to come out looking good. But then I thought … wait a minute: Is that really true? Did those guys really pitch better in those pennant races? Really?

Unfortunately, I didn’t have time to do some kind of involved sweeping study. But I figured as a test-case, I would take a quick look and see how each of those pitchers pitched in September during their careers.

And, I found precisely what I was looking for: Mussina pitched as well or better than any of those guys.

Mike Mussina in Sept/Oct.: 44-21, .676 winning percentage, 2.86 ERA, 517 Ks, 130 walks.
Randy Johnson in Sept./Oct: 51-17, .750 WP, 2.95 ERA, 790 Ks, 230 walks.
Pedro Martinez in Sept./Oct: 28-27, 509 WP, 3.19 ERA, 496 Ks, 126 walks.
Roger Clemens in Sept./Oct: 53-35, .602 WP, 3.27 ERA, 745 Ks, 261 walks.
Greg Maddux in Sept/Oct: 62-49, .558 WP, 3.42 ERA, 565 Ks, 157 walks.
Curt Schilling in Sept./Oct: 34-25, .576 WP, 3.63 ERA, 494 Ks, 114 walks.

So Mussina has the best September ERA, the second best winning percentage and an outstanding strikeout to walk.

Now, does this prove anything? Of course not. It’s only a snapshot. Every September isn’t a pennant race. Every pennant race game isn’t in September. But I think that, often enough, our image of people is simply colored by, you know, our image of people. Mike Mussina was not celebrated as a dominant and scary pitcher — Thomas is right, he never gave off that aura — but maybe that is our failing. He was pretty damn good, even in September, even without that aura.

Sunday Tidbits (3:50 p.m. updated)

Thought it might be fun to have sort of a live-blogging Sunday — just constant little updates throughout the day. Anyway, it sounds fun NOW (10 a.m. West Coast Time). It might not sound like much fun later in the day, but hey, let’s see how it goes:

* * *

9:57 p.m. Not sure if this Tidbits idea worked but hey, it’s over now.

Before calling it a night, though, I should say that I absolutely agreed with Herm Edwards’ decision to go for two at the end of the game. The Chiefs defense was shot, the offense wasn’t much better, and anyway San Diego should be a LOT better than the Chiefs. You get a two-point try to win, I very much respect a coach willing to take the shot.

Of course, I’m cool with the second guessers too — it’s fun to second guess. The one thing I DO NOT respect however are people who don’t second guess the DECISION to go but second guess the PLAY that was called. I’ve already gotten a few emails along those lines. They definitely would gone for two but they would have called something else — the Chiefs called a semi-rollout pass that was designed to get the ball to Tony Gonzalez. It failed miserably. “So fine he goes for it,” one emailer wrote, “but what the hell was that play call?”

So let me get this straight: You agree with going for two but you would have preferred a play that would have, you know, worked. Yeah. Good thinking.

* * *

3:57 p.m. Well, maybe that’s why they coach. Chiefs have ball first down at Chargers 45 now with two minutes left. So you could say the strategy paid off. I guess. We’ll see where it goes.

* * *

3:50 p.m. OK, here’s just where I disagree with coaches. It’s fourth down and five from the San Diego 45 yard line, Chiefs down a touchdown and there is less than five minutes left in the game. The Chiefs punted. I just don’t get it, I don’t. You are 1-8. There is absolutely nothing to lose. You aren’t going to get much more than 30 yards in field position — and that’s at most.

I don’t get it. Maybe it will work. The Chiefs just got a sack and look like they will get the ball back. But I still don’t get it.

* * *

3:40 p.m. Rivers just threw a touchdown pass to give the Chargers a 20-13 lead. The cannon fired. The Chargers are going to win this game, I suspect, but based on what I’ve seen they might want tone down their expectations around here. And, hey, there is still 6:55 left … you never want to give Tyler Thigpen that much time. Depending on who “you” are.

* * *

3:21 p.m. Another interception thrown by Phillip Rivers — this time it looked like Chiefs defensive lineman Tank Tyler got a piece of Rivers’ arm as he threw. That in itself is news — do you know how many sacks the Chiefs have this year? Um, that would be four. As in: 4.0.

* * *

2:25 p.m. Phillip Rivers must be reading the blog … he just threw one of the worst interceptions imaginable, one of those “Oh, I didn’t know they were playing with SAFETIES — that’s not FAIR!” interceptions.

The Chiefs promptly follow with one of those things that drive me absolutely insane … they got the ball with about a minute and a half left and three timeouts. They run the ball, a clear indication that they are trying to run out the clock and go into half leading. OK, I don’t agree with it but it’s a plan. THEN, though, after letting the clock run down, they throw the ball and get first down and quickly call a timeout. So now, apparently, they’re going to try and score. Then on first down nobody’s open so Tyler Thigpen runs out of bounds, and the Chiefs are back trying to run out the clock. I mean, make up your mind, show some commitment.

* * *

2:08 p.m.: Another horribly ill-advised pass by San Diego’s Phillip Rivers, another Chargers field goal, another firing of the cannon. Another thing they do in San Diego is play the “San Diego Super Chargers” song after every score.

The key lyrics:

San Diego Super Chargers!
San Diego Chargers!
San Diego Super Chargers!
San Diego Chargers!
Charge!

We’re coming your way,
We’re gonna dazzle you with our super play.
The time has come
You know we’re shooting for nu-u-u-mber one.
With thunderbolts and lightning
We’ll light up the sky,
We’ll give it all we’ve got, and more
With the Super Charger try!

The Super Charger try. Yeah.

* * *

1:48 p.m.: And the Chargers score a field goal — the cannon goes off. You know, I keep hearing how good Chargers quarterback Phillip Rivers is. And on television he looks great. But every time I see him actually play, he’s brutal. He just missed a wide open receiver on third down. I guess there are some athletes like that … who for whatever reason are either much better or much worse than normal when you see them. Maybe that’s a blog post later.

* * *

1:45 p.m.: Chiefs lead Chargers 7-0. The Tyler Thigpen Experience still seems to be working well. And the cannon has not gone off yet.

* * *

1:07 p.m.: They have a cannon here in San Diego that they fire every time the Chargers score. I have nothing personal against the Chargers. But I HATE that cannon and so hope they never score.

* * *

11:48 a.m.: So, I have to admit that I am enjoying the fact that the Detroit Lions are about to go 0-9 WAY more than I probably should. The reason for this is that my good friend Michael Rosenberg, Detroit Free Press columnist extraordinaire, was absolutely mocking me early in the year by saying that Chiefs would go winless and that I would be stuck chasing them around the country. You know, like I haven’t had to watch ENOUGH bad sports in Kansas City.

And now … yeah, it’s Rosey chasing the winless team around the country.

It reminds me of one my favorite media stories: This was before the Opening Ceremonies in Atlanta and we were discussing who might light the torch. And we somehow determined that it would probably be the great hurdler Edwin Moses. The reason we decided this, I think, is because the equally great Dayton columnist Tom Archdeacon was in our group, and basically we were busting his chops. Moses is from Dayton.

“Oh yeah, Arch, it’s going to be Edwin Moses, you better get ready. You’re going to have to write a huge story about Edwin Moses tonight on deadline. You better get ready.”

Arch looked a bit ashen, to be honest with you. It’s hard to imagine a tougher column to write than having to throw together a major, front page thing about Edwin Moses on about a six minute deadline. Then you would have to rewrite it. And rewrite it again. And again. The group, seeing that Arch looked genuinely worried, busted his chops even harder. And, as I remember it, the guy who was loudest and most passionate in the ribbing was current ESPN media-mogul Pat Forde. He was working for the Louisville Courier-Journal then, and he was just going on and on about it: “Oh yeah, Arch. What’s your deadline? 11:15? I’d say that Edwin Moses will run out there at about 11:13.” He was relishing Arch’s worry way, way, way, too much.

You know what’s coming of course. That night, Edwin Moses did participate in the torch-lighting ceremony. But you will note he did not light the torch. He was a flag bearer. No, the torch went from Evander Holyfield to Janet Evans and then we watched as Janet Evans took the torch to a trembling presence up at the top. … That trembling presence was, of course, Muhammad Ali.

Yeah, that would be Louisville’s Muhammad Ali.

At 3 a.m., after writing and re-writing his story about 20 times, Pat Forde made a call to a friend and shouted into the phone: “I just got screwed worse than any writer in the entire world.”

Justice, that’s what it was. Kind of like Detroit’s soon to be 0-9 record.

* * *

10:13 a.m.: Take a look at this …

2005: .388 OBP, 46 homers
2005: .387 OBP, 40 homers
2006: .365 OBP, 40 homers
2007: .386 OBP, 40 homers
2008: .386 OBP, 40 homers

That would be Adam Dunn. I don’t know if he likes baseball at all but he sure seems pretty consistent about it.

* * *

10:09 a.m.: OK, so how about this. I’m in San Diego, of course, and my buddy Pop Warner just texted me and said that since I have to stay out West for work stuff tomorrow, he can get us tickets to go see a conversation between Dave Eggers and John Hodgeman, and maybe an invitation to meet Eggers afterward. I have to do that, right? It’s probably too late for a poll on it but … I mean I have to do that, right?

* * *

10 a.m.: Wow, I’m noticing some serious cockiness in the San Diego papers before the Chiefs-Chargers game. Headline in The San Diego Union-Tribune: “Ripe for the kicking?” And there’s a column and an analysis basically demanding that the Chargers kick the living hell out of the Chiefs. I suspect that will happen — the Chiefs stinkiosity* is not a state secret — but hey, you know, the Chargers are pretty lousy too, they are coached by freaking Norv Turner, they gave up a billion points to the Saints last week. I mean there’s just something about a bad team acting like they’re not bad that is really irritating. At least the people around the Chiefs know their place.

*I remember there was this show once — I think it was that Kirk Cameron* show — where a high school girl wrote this article for the school paper, only she peppered it with all sorts of big words and high-fallutin’ phrases. The teacher said “This stinks.” And when she protested, he said, “Oh, I forgot who I was talking to. This paper perpetuates is replete in stinkiosity.” I always liked that. (Thanks to brilliant reader Matt for the correction).

**I guess Kirk Cameron is now a Christian Evangelist who has a daily radio show. Man, the things you learn from Wikipedia.

Gold vs. the Bible

OK, so you may know that I’m on the John Dewan Fielding Bible panel. I’ve been on the panel since the beginning despite my obvious lack of any sense. The panel this year included (among others):

Hal Richman: The man who invented Strat-o-Matic and — this is absolutely true — has been one of the most astute judges of baseball defense for many years. The Strat-o-Matic defensive rankings have, more often than not, been much more accurate than what has been out there as conventional wisdom. Hal, for instance, was one of the first to realize that Bernie Williams was a freaking lump in center field toward the middle/end of his career.

John Dewan: In my opinion, he and his people at Baseball Info Solutions are the cutting edge for studying defense. There are quirks in their system, of course, but basically they break down every single play, chart it, compare across the league, and I think the Dewan plus/minus comes closer than anything before to giving us a real sense for defensive performance.

Rob Neyer: The guy who writes all the Rob Neyer books.

Tom Tango Fan Poll: Uses results from the awesome defensive polling that Tom does on his site.

Bill James: The guy who writes all the Bill James books.

Mat Olkin: Stats wizard who consults several big league clubs.

Mike Murphy: Popular talk radio show host in Chicago and founding member of the Bleacher Bums.

Me: Unqualified.

The Gold Gloves, meanwhile, were voted on by managers and coaches. I’m not sure how seriously they take the voting, how much work they put into it, whatever. But they obviously see the players up close all the time, which is an advantage and disadvantage at the same time.

So, for fun, let’s compare the awards and see what we can pick up from it.

First base
AL GG: Carlos Pena, Rays
NL GG: Adrian Gonzalez, Padres
Fielding Bible: Albert Pujols, Cardinals

Comment: Everyone is in agreement that Pena is a good first baseman — he finished fourth overall in the Bible voting, though as a group we Fielding-Bible-Thumers all thought that Casey Kotchman AND Mark Teixeira, the two first baseman in last year’s big deal, were better defensively.

Huge disagreement in the National League, though. The Biblers are absolutely convinced as a group that Pujols has been the best defensive first baseman each of the last three years. And we didn’t even think Adrian Gonzalez was a Top 10 defensive first baseman.

To be honest, I’m not at all sure how this even happened — Pujols is SO good defensively, and he’s also the best hitter in baseball, I for the life of me cannot figure out why he keeps getting screwed on this award.

I have a guess, of course, and I realize it will sound crazy — but I doubt it’s as crazy as picking Adrian Gonzalez over Pujols in the first place. Here goes: I think Pujols keeps getting jobbed because he is right-handed. I’m being semi-serious here. I think a left-handed first baseman just fits the eye better. It LOOKS so much cooler. I think we imagine of slick fielding first baseman to be in the image of Keith Hernandez, Don Mattingly, Wes Parker, Mark Grace — sure, there have been righties who have won multiple Gold Gloves at first base like George Scott and Vic Power. But I still think there’s some rightism going on here.

Second base
AL GG: Dustin Pedroia, Red Sox
NL GG: Brandon Phillips, Reds
Fielding Bible: Brandon Phillips, Reds

We’re all more or less in agreement here. Brandon Phillips had a terrific year defensively. And Dustin Pedroia finished fourth in the Bible voting — in the American League he only finished behind Mark Ellis, who only played 117 games. We have peace in our time.

The biggest disagreement seems to be: How good a defensive player is Chase Utley? I picked him first overall because of his remarkable defensive numbers (the guy finished +47 in the Dewan this year, which was BY FAR the best total for any player at any position. That numbes means, on video observation, he made 47 more players than the average second baseman, which is staggering).

Thing is, many people think Utley is actually a very average or even below average second baseman. Hal Richman and the Tango Poll — two excellent sources — picked him 10th, and my Star partner Bob Dutton, who has a good feel for these things, watched Utley play during the playoffs and World Series and felt like he was pretty dreadful out there. Very weird.

Shortstop
AL GG: Michael Young, Rangers
NL GG: Jimmy Rollins, Phillies
Fielding Bible: Jimmy Rollins, Phillies

We all agree Rollins was terrific defensively, though I am a big fan of Atlanta’s Yunel Escobar and picked him No. 1 overall (with Rollins second). The Michael Young thing is, as mentioned, beyond explanation. He did not finish in the Top 10 in the Bible voting, and it’s worth pointing out again that I had never spoken to anyone in baseball who thought Young was a good defensive shortstop. This one just came out of nowhere*.

*Especially because Young was not even very good offensively in 2008. You know how sometimes a good offensive year will get the managers and coaches excited and make them overestimate a players defensive value and give him a Gold Glove (see Palmeiro, Rafael). Well, Young had his worst offensive year in quite a while. He hit .284/.339/.402 and punched up a 96 OPS+. He missed the All-Star Game for the first time in five years. Sorry, That was wrong. Either way, I have no idea how this happened to be honest with you.

Third Base
AL GG: Adrian Beltre, Mariners
NL GG: David Wright, Mets
Fielding Bible: Adrian Beltre, Mariners

Beltre was an almost unanimous choice in the Bible — he got first place on eight out of 10 ballots, and second place on the Tange Poll behind the estimable Scott Rolen.

It’s interesting, the general perception is that the National League has significantly better defensive shortstops — Rollins, Hardy, Escobar, Jack Wilson, Cesar Izturis, etc. But I would say that most believe the American League has the better third basemen with Beltre, Longoria, Rolen, Crede, Jack Hannahan. The Bible voters, for instance, would have given Wright the NL award too, but he finished sixth overall.

Left field
AL GG: None
NL GG: None
Fielding Bible: Carl Crawford, Rays

One of these days, the Rawlings Gold Glove people will realize that they really should stop lumping all outfielders. It’s ridiculous, really. All six Gold Glove outfielders were center fielders (Ichiro did move back to right at some point) — which is absolutely absurd. There were only 20 center fielders (again, including Ichiro) who played enough games to qualify for the ESPN fielding statistics, and SIX of them won Gold Gloves, about one in three. If you play center field in the big leagues, winning a Gold Glove is like being the seventh caller to the radio station.

Carl Crawford is obviously a bit of an oddity — he’s a left fielder who has the speed and instincts to play center. He has been, by far, the best defensive left fielder in the game for years. He has never won a Gold Glove.

Center field
AL GG: Grady Sizemore, Indians; Torii Hunter, Angels; Ichiro (part-time), Mariners.
NL GG: Shane Victorino, Phillies; Carlos Beltran, Mets; Nate McClouth, Mistake.
Fielding Bible: Carlos Beltran, Mets.

I think it’s a shame that they picked three center fielders in the American League (including Ichiro) but failed to pick the best one, since that was clearly Minnesota’s Carlos Gomez. I picked Gomez second in baseball behind Beltran, but everyone here knows how much in the tank I am for Beltran. Throw some lie-detector wires on me, I might tell you that Gomez is even better; he’s a defensive phenomenon really. He gets to everything, and he plays with all kinds of crazy energy; I find it hard to believe that the managers missed that. Torii Hunter has aged to the point where I would now describe him as a “classy” center fielder* but Gomez is what Hunter was eight years ago.

*Brilliant centerfielders age to become classy centerfielders. Beautiful women age to become classy women.

We all agree on Sizemore and Beltran — they’re terrific defensively. It seems to me the managers fell a bit too in love with Victorino, but you can see why. He’s the kind of player managers and coaches love — “I wish we had one of THOSE on our team.”

Nate McClouth is, as mentioned on a previous post, such a bad choice that it defies explanation — he makes Michael Young look like Ozzie. McLouth scored a minus-40 on the Dewan, making him the least effective defensive player in baseball. You may not believe in the Dewan system — hey, McLouth made only one error — but there’s no way that it could be THAT WRONG. The system says very clearly that Nate McLouth needs to be taken out of center field immediately before more people get hurt. Meanwhile, the managers and coaches gave him a Gold Glove. Crazy.

Right field
AL GG: Ichiro (part time), Mariners
NL GG: None
Fielding Bible: Franklin Gutierrez, Indians.

I was talking the other day about the Kansas City Royals and how they seem to only be chasing players who have low on-base percentages. And in the middle of it, I seemed to downgrade Frankie Gutierrez. So let me clarify my position a little bit — I like Gutierrez a lot and think he would actually be an excellent pickup for someone, even the Royals. He is a superior right fielder and, you would expect, he would be an outstanding center fielder. And he hit pretty well the last month and a half or so of the season. And he’s still pretty young, and he has some offensive talents. I wasn’t trying to downplay those talents — I’m actually a fan — I was just making the point that the Royals, after harping on on-base percentage, have not publicly targeted a single person with even a league average on-base percentage.*

*A couple of people have brought up that the Royals, in addition to their stunning lack of on-base percentage, also have a tremendous lack of slugging percentage and so why not concentrate on that?

They certainly can and should concentrate on adding some power, especially from within (i.e. Give Kila Ka’ahue a real chance to be your starting first baseman). But there are two reasons why I don’t think it’s nearly as important as improving their on-base percentage.

1. OBP is significantly more important than slugging when it comes to scoring runs.

2. The Royals, by virtue of their payroll problems, cannot afford to build their team around other people’s sluggers.

Catcher
AL GG: Joe Mauer, Twins
NL GG: Yadier Molina, Cardinals
Fielding Bible: Yadier Molina, Cardinals

There is mostly agreement here, though the Dewan people who watch every play are not particularly impressed with Mauer’s defense. I thought — looking at the numbers and from my own observation — that Kurt Suzuki had a fabulous defensive year. He threw out 37% of stolen base attempts which is excellent, he only made four errors, he only had five passed balls, he seemed nimble and solid behind the plate to me. But nobody really seems to agree with me.

Pitcher
AL GG: Mike Mussina, Yankees
NL GG: Greg Maddux, (Soon to be retired?)
Fielding Bible: Kenny Rogers, Tigers

The fact that they give out a Gold Glove to freaking pitchers, who are not allowed to catch their own pop-ups, but don’t give one out to left or right fielders is really a disgrace. I’m writing my congressman.

Reliever Ratings 2008

One of the great things about being a voter on John Dewan’s Fielding Bible panel is I get my Bill James Handbook before it is sold into stores. I love getting stuff early. And, more, I love my Bill James Handbook. Every year they add some great new statistic like one that breaks down how managers do their jobs:

Least effective intentional walkers in 2008 (bomb reflects multiple runs scoring after the walk):

1. Ron Washington (Texas), 20 out of 44 bombed (45.4%)
2. Eric Wedge (Cleveland), 11 out of 28 bombed (39.2%)
3. Cito Gaston (Toronto), 6 out of 16 bombed (37.5%)
4. Bud Black (San Diego), 17 out of 61 bombed (27.9%)
5. Joe Maddon (Tampa Bay), 8 out of 29 bombed (27.6%)
6. Dave Trembley (Baltimore), 12 out of 44 bombed (27.2%)
7. Bobby Cox (Atlanta), 20 out of 80 bombed (25%)

The best intentional walker? Tony La Russa, of course. Only one out of 21 bombed.

The book will break down other things, like the best base runners:

The 2008 best baserunners, excluding stolen bases:*

This list would measure going the number of extra bases a runner gets going from first to third on a single (average runner makes it 27% of the time) second to home on a single (average runner makes it about 59% of the time), first to home on a double (average runner makes it 43% of the time) and also takes into account the extra bases picked up on wild pitches, passed balls, balks, sac flies:

1. Matt Holliday, +28
(Holliday was 15 for 26 going first to third which is amazingly good, 17 for 24 going second to home, 5 for 6 scoring on a double from first, and he took 23 bases, which is a lot. True, you could argue that Holliday is helped by the immense size of Coors Field, but really the guy’s an excellent baserunner).
2. Curtis Granderson, +27
3. Nate McLouth+27
(The Gold Glove was a farce, but he’s a really good ballplayer)
4. Kelly Johnson +26
5. Shin-Soo-Choo, +26

Every year, like I say, they add all sorts of fun new statistical additions to the the handbook. This year, they added a section called “21st Century Bullpen” which breaks down relievers and makes the very logical case that in today’s baseball, bullpen pitchers probably should be assigned positions since they do such very, very different jobs. We already have closers, and then we have a vague collection of set-up men, lefty-specialists, long-men, guys who you bring in to get double play grounders, bridges and so on. And we try to judge them all, more or less, on the same outdated statistics like ERA and won-loss record, and this is absurd.

Anyway, Bill has some real ideas about fixing that, and you HAVE to buy the book and read all about it. For today, I’m more concerned with something else Bill and the guys did: They took all the closers and broke up their their save opportunities into three simple categories:

1. Easy Save. This is a save when the first batter faced is not the tying or go-ahead run.
2. Tough save: This is a save when the tying or go ahead run is already on base when you take over.
3. Regular save: Everything else.

Simple enough. Here’s a little info on each type of save.

1. Easy save: This represents more than half — 58% to be exact — of all save opportunities. And last year all relievers were successful on 87% of their easy save opportunities. Remember, that’s ALL relievers — not just specified closers. People who you would describe as closers (pitchers who had more than 10 save opportunities last year) were actually successful about 92% of the time — or to put it in perspective, more often than almost any NBA player make free throws or field goal kickers make 30-yard field goals. A real closer should not blow easy saves.

2. Tough save: Almost never happens anymore — except with Mariano Rivera who was five-for-five in tough save opportunities last year.Most managers bring the closer in to start a clean ninth inning, so tough saves only happen about 5% of the time. And relievers finish them off about 22% of the time. Again, full-time closers do considerably better than that — they close out about 55% of tough saves.

3. Regular save. Most people would call a regular save a “tough” save because, in most cases it would mean starting the ninth inning with just a one-run lead. Regular saves make up 37% of all save opportunities, and all relievers close them out 57% of the time. Real closers finish them off 72.5% of the time — as they should since, for the most part, real closers get paid more money.

OK, so this is what we’re working with. So, naturally, I had to come up with an utterly meaningless formula to determine who is the best closer because, you know, that’s what I do. Using the percentages Bill offered, I figured out how many more (or fewer) saves a closer than a replacement closer. And then, using my utterly inept math skills, I came up with a CLOSER+ number that attempts to tell you how much better a closer is than average. The average, of course, is 100.

Here goes nothing:

Best closers in 2008 (20 or more save opportunities)

1. Mariano Rivera, Yankees
Expected saves: 27
Actual saves: 39
CLOSER+: 145

I’m was thinking about doing a bigger piece on Mariano Rivera — I’m fascinating by the guy’s ability to get people out for a decade and more with, essentially, one pitch. Plus, I have this theory that I’m working on that Rivera has been even more valuable than his reputation, but for a very odd reason. My thinking is this: Because Rivera has been SO good, there have been very, very, very, very few back pages of the New York Post or New York Daily News that read like this:

Down The River-a
Yankees Blow Game In Ninth

or

BOMBERS BOMBED
Mariano falters late and Pinstripers Lose Again

See, we all know that nothing sucks the life out of a fan base more than the local heroes blowing a late lead. I don’t know if it has a measurable effect on the team — I haven’t studied it — but it definitely seems to have an effect on the general atmosphere, the energy level, the manager’s enthusiasm, the talk radio tenor and so on. These things are multiplied in New York. And basically, in the case of Mariano, one guy has more or less eliminated that negativity from the equation.

I don’t know … just something I’ve been thinking about.

2. Brad Lidge, Phillies
Expected saves: 31
Actual saves: 41
CLOSER+: 132

I got the nicest call from Brad Lidge’s grandmother the other day. In this crazy business, you get all sorts of phone calls, from people who hate your guts, to people who love you, to people want something you don’t have (like free tickets or time with Tiger Woods). But then you get a nice call from Brad Lidge’s grandmother, and it’s just, you know, nice.

3. Jonathan Papelbon, Red Sox
Expected saves: 31
Actual saves: 41
CLOSER+: 129

The formula goes goes into fractions which is why Papelbon’s expected and actual saves are the same as Lidge’s but his CLOSER+ is a touch lower. At least I think that’s the reason. Papelbon was four for four in tough saves, which is much better than Lidge (who was not given a tough save opportunity all year). But he was just 15 for 20 on regular saves (while Lidge, of course, did not blow a save opportunity all year long).

4. Joakim Soria, Royals
Expected saves: 32
Actual saves: 42
CLOSER+: 128

I go back and forth, back and forth, back and forth on whether or not the Royals should try to make Soria a starter. I talk with one person who says they should and that makes sense to me for all the reasons you might expect:

– A great starter is much more valuable than a great closer.
– Soria came up as a starter and has multiple pitches and such an easy deliver that he seems a natural.
– Think about a Soria-Greinke-Meche rotation — that’s a pretty exciting thing. That, potentially anyway, could be up there with any team in baseball. Throw in a seemingly rejuvenated (or maybe just “juvenated”) Kyle Davies, and our beloved Banny, and the No. 1 pick of the 2006 draft, I mean, yeah, that would be exciting.
– If it doesn’t work for whatever reason, put him back.
– I get the sense — though he’s a tough guy to read — that Soria would like to be a starter.

So, I’m on that bandwagon. Then I talk to someone else who says there’s no way the Royals should make him a starter, and I find myself nodding — that makes too for all the reasons you might expect:

– Soria is already a dominant closer and there’s no telling how he would be as a starter. You don’t fool with one of the few things you have done right in a decade.
– There are very, very, very, very few examples of a guy who begins his career as dominant closer being made into a dominant starter. In fact, when I went back to try and find one, I pretty much rolled snake eyes.
– If he fails as a starter, you may ruin him as a closer too. You may not, but there’s always a risk. Part of Soria’s brilliance seems to be that he feels invincible. You would hate to mess with that.
– There’s a great feeling in the clubhouse with Soria closing things out — everyone knows that if they get to the late innings with a lead they will almost certainly win. You would hate to mess with that either.
– Who would close? Hochevar? Ram Ram? Jeff Montgomery?

Both of these line of thinking make some sense to me. So, in the end, where do I come down? I would say that at this moment, if I’m playing with someone else’s money, yeah, I would at least try to make Soria a starter. I think it would have an excellent chance of working, and I think if it didn’t work for some reason I think he would be able to regain his dominance in the pen. Plus … I’m serious, how can you not get excited about a Soria-Greinke-Meche top three?

Of course, I could be convinced otherwise.

5. C.J. Wilson, Texas
Expected saves: 19
Actual saves: 24
CLOSER+: 126

6. Brian Wilson, San Francisco
Expected Saves 33
Actual saves: 41
CLOSER+: 125

Lyin’ in bed just like Brian Wilson did
Well I am …
Lyin’ in bed just like Brian Wilson did

So I’m a-lying here, just staring at the ceiling tiles
and I’m thinking about, oh, what to think about
Just listening and relistening to Smiley Smile
And I’m wondering if this some kind of creative drought

7. Joe Nathan, Twins
Expected saves: 31
Actual saves: 39
CLOSER+: 124

8. Bobby Jenks, White Sox
Expected saves: 24
Actual Saves: 30
CLOSER+: 122

9. K-Rod, Angels
Expected saves: 52
Actual saves: 62
CLOSER+ 119

He had one tough save all year — which he converted — and he was slightly better than the average closer on the easy and regular saves. I’m not sure how other relievers would have handled 69 save opportunities from a mental standpoint. And it’s significant that he pitched on consecutive days 29 times, more than any other closer. But from a pure pitching quality standpoint, I think there are about probably 10 to 15 other pitchers who, given the same opportunities as K-Rod, would have smashed the save record last year.

10. Brian Fuentes
Expected saves: 25
Actual saves: 30
CLOSER+: 119

And a quick list of worst closers, 20 or more opportunities:

Worst: J.J. Putz, Seattle
Expected saves: 16
Actual saves: 15
CLOSER+: 94

The CLOSER+ number is a bit misleading because a 100 closer is actually pretty lousy. The number 100 comes from the average of ALL relievers, not just closers. An average “closer” is actually closer to 115. If that makes any sense at all. Which I’m sure it doesn’t.

Other struggling closers in 2008: Billy Wagner (100 CLOSER+), Ryan Franklin (100 CLOSER+) and Jonathan Broxton (103 CLOSER+).

Not So Hot Stove Talk

Wow, yeah, the commenting on that last post got pretty nasty — probably the nastiest I’ve seen round these parts since the great Chief Wahoo debate. No, really, it got even nastier than that. I even had to delete two comments that broke my Hitler rule — first time I’ve ever had to do that. Finally, as you may have seen, I just closed it off. The talk was going nowhere but down. I saw Tuesday as a day to say, regardless of politics, “Look how far America has come.” Others saw it as a day when the majority of Americans were duped by a potentially sinister force. Everyone has had their say now. We’ll go back to baseball.

Emotional times.

* * *

So you know that Royals GM Dayton Moore has talked pointedly about improving the Kansas City Royals on-base percentage in 2009. And then you know the Royals traded for Mike Jacobs, a first baseman who had a .299 on-base percentage last year. I didn’t like the move at all — not so much because of the specific trade itself but because I think that every baseball move, especially relatively major moves that will affect the big league club, should fit into a larger plan. My gut feeling is that this did not fit into any plan. My gut feeling is that some people in the organization kind of liked Mike Jacobs, the 32 homers he hit last year looked juicy, and they grabbed him. I think that sort of narrow strategy fails more than it succeeds.*

*And I know some people see Jacobs as a future trade chip … I don’t see that at all. The Royals got Jacobs for a reliever who doesn’t strike out batters and has had injury issues. What makes anyone think that teams out there at deadline time will be dying to get Mike Jacobs?

But Jacobs is just one man. Here are three Hot Stove rumors the Royals have been involved with:

1. A trade for Jeff Francoeur (A pitcher like Luke Hochevar?).
2. A trade for Yuniesky Betancourt (Billy Butler?).
3. A trade for someone like Cleveland’s Franklin Gutierrez (Mark Teahen?)

Now, let’s say right up front that NONE of these will happen. Right? Please? Trades are tough to pull off, and I would like to believe that this is just idle talk, and the Royals don’t really want to make any of those moves. Frankly. if the Royals really would trade to get 28-year-old arbitration eligible Mike Jacobs and then trade away 22-year-old Billy Butler … well, they wouldn’t. I feel confident in saying they woudn’t do that. They just wouldnt’ do that. And also, they would not do that.

But let’s say that these rumors are based in some reality — let’s say that the Royals have at least thought seriously about each of these moves. That — the idea that the Royals actually would TARGET these players — is a much, much scarier proposition that just dealing for Mike Jacobs. Heck, even I’ll admit that Jacobs could help the club — especially if the Royals would limit his at-bats (never, and I mean NEVER put him out there against a lefty), if they would bat him down in the lineup, if they would limit his exposure at first base. I don’t think the Royals will do these things, but they certainly could.

Thing is, if the Royals really want Francoeur and Betancourt and Gutierrez — um, that’s a very, very bad sign that the on-base percentage talk is just talk. Imagine this lineup:

LF: David DeJesus (.360 lifetime on-base percentage)
2B: Mike Aviles (.354 — in 419 career at-bats)
RF: Jeff Francoeur (.312)
DH: Jose Guillen (.323 and falling fast)
1B: Mike Jacobs (.318 — and OBP has fallen every season in the big leagues)
3B: Alex Gordon (.332 though improving — he could move up in the lineup)
CF: Franklin Gutierrez (.308 — in 807 at-bats)
C: Miguel Olivo (.275 OBP — the Royals just named him the starter).
SS: Yuniesky Betancourt (.305 OBP)

This, we are led to believe, is the Royals dream lineup for 2009. That’s just about as bad an OBP lineup as you could possibly put out there without creating an actual mutiny. I think I know Dayton Moore. He just wouldn’t do that. Yes, he traded for Mike Jacobs. Yes they re-signed Miguel Olivo and named him the starter. Yes these rumors are more than a little bit scary. But … I think that Dayton is a smart baseball man. I think he’s just a bit frustrated last season did not go better and he’s eager to do SOMETHING and that has made him a little bit edgy to start the off-season. I expect he will settle in. The Royals really do have a promising team right now — Bill James says they could win 85 to 90 games next year with what they already have. I’m not sure I’m willing to go to 90 games, but with some breaks I think they could break .500. Just: Stay with the plan.

Remember: OBP. OBP. OBP.

* * *

OK, so Jeff Francoeur had a 72 OPS+ last year, which is, well, you know, abysmal. My question is: Can he really rebound from that? I hear from numerous scouts that he will because of, you know, his will, his leadership, his intensity, whatever. But that’s not my question. What I mean is, historically, has any young outfielder ever had a 72 OPS+ type season and then gone on to great success?

Well, it seems that nineteen young outfielders (25 and younger) have had a 75 OPS+ or worse since the end of World War II.

Of the 19, Johnny Damon (who had a 73 OPS+ his first full season) went on to a great career. Of course, Damon is a very different player from Francoeur and he also had his dreadful season when he was, essentially, a rookie. Lloyd Moseby and Brian McRae had some good seasons after their bad one.

Who else/ Endy Chavez made a really nice catch in the playoffs. Omar Moreno led the league in plate appearances, stolen bases, outs and caught stealing multiple times. Juan Pierre became Juan Pierre.

Vince Coleman stole a lot of bases.

Del Unser proved useful in a part-time role later in his career. Dan Meyer was even better than useful for expansion Seattle in ‘77 — he fought with Ruppert Jones and Leroy Stanton for the MVP of that first Mariners team (Stanton probably was the MVP).

Rick Manning (who TWICE sunk below 75 OPS+ before he was 26) proved to be a hero to a certain politically-challenged blogger, and Willy Taveras (who also went sub-75 twice) inspired this Buck O’Neil exchange:

Buck: This guy looks like Willie Mays.
Me: Really? This guy? You think so?
Buck: No, I mean he LOOKS like Willie Mays. Look at his face.

Darren Lewis managed to get 4,081 at-bats with a career OPS+ of 72. That’s flat amazing stuff.

Most career at-bats for an outfielder with a sub-75 OPS+.

1. Darren Lewis, 4,081
2. Tom Goodwin, 3,846
3. Brian Hunter, 3,347
4. Tony Scott, 2,804
5. Eric Owens, 2,353

Jim Busby hit .300 one year, hit 12 homers one year, stole 26 bases one year. They weren’t the same year.

Chuck Carr stole 58 bases the year he had a 74 OPS+ so he was given another thousand or so at-bats. Rick Bosetti was never given another chance. Mike Hershberger stuck around for quite a while and had a nice year as a part-timer with Oakland in ‘68. Eric Yelding stole 64 bases, which allowed him to get a few more at-bats despite his lifetime 66 OPS+. Peter Bergeron petered out badly — he followed his awful full season with a .211/.275/.285 in 375 at-bats.

Whitey Herzog learned to walk in part-time duty and became an excellent manager.

So, based on this, I would say that based on precedent, no, Francoeur cannot come back from this.

* * *

OK, so all along I thought that the reason Derek Jeter kept getting Gold Gloves, against pretty much all logic, was because of his name, his charisma, his batting average, his ability to make that cool-looking jump throw.

But, apparently, it has nothing to do with that. Apparently the reason Derek Jeter kept winning Gold Gloves is … American League managers and coaches have absolutely NO IDEA what a good defensive shortstop looks like.

I say this because they just gave Texas’ Michael Young a Gold Glove. That’s not a misprint. Michael Young.

Here are Michael Young’s Dewan plus/minus numbers the last three years:

2006: -10 (28th in baseball)
2007: -15 (32nd in baseball)
2008: -7 (27th in baseball).

So, according to those numbers, Michael Young has pretty consistently been a well below average defensive shortstop. And that certainly has been his reputation. There are, to be fair, other defensive numbers where Young performs better — his 4.59 range factor this year was fourth among everyday shortstops and he only made 11 errors.

But the reason this one is so shocking is that, as far as I can tell, NOBODY EVER THOUGHT he was a good defensive shortstop. I’m not even considering numbers. That’s based on old-fashioned baseball scouting. The best thing I’ve ever heard a scout say about him is that he’s average defensively. That’s the best thing. Most scouts I’ve talked to think he’s a second baseman masquerading as a shortstop, he doesn’t have the arm for the position, he can’t go to his left at all, he’s shaky going back on pop-ups and so on.

The interesting thing — and the reason that the AL shortstop Gold Glove is such a cluster every year — is that no shortstop in the American League has grabbed the title as a great defensive shortstop. Bill James ranked Erick Aybar as the best defensive shortstop in all of baseball, but he only played 96 games last year. Orlando Cabrera still plays it pretty well, though he’s aging. Do you know who led all American League shortstops in Dewan plus/minus last year? That would be Kansas City’s rookie Mike Aviles.*

*That probably shows there’s a kink in the system — Aviles is adequate at short, I think, because he has a good arm and positions himself pretty well. But I don’t think anyone, including Aviles himself, thinks he’s special defensively.

So, yes, AL Gold Glove at shortstop is definitely a vacant title … but Michael Young? Really?*

*And I should add here that Young did not even have a good offensive season. He hit .284/.339/.402 in a great hitters park.

* * *

Brilliant Reader Justin makes a Gold Glove point that I left out — Pittsburgh center fielder Nate McLouth won a Gold Glove. It might be the worst choice in the history of the award.

From Justin:

Nate McLouth, who at an astounding mind-blowing -40..

that’s MINUS-FORTY…

… in center field, is the proud recipient of an NL gold glove. I think -40 is the very lowest figure in baseball this year at any position; it’s certainly in the bottom five.

In a way this is even worse than giving Rafael Palmeiro a gold glove the year he mostly DH’d, because, you know, at least they didn’t KNOW what kind of fielder Palmeiro was.

Justin is absolutely right. I’m looking at my Dewan Plus/Minus leaders here and Nate McLouth was absolutely the worst defensive player in baseball last year.

Nate McLouth, -40 in center.
Brad Hawpe, -37 in right
Mike Jacobs, -27 at first base (but he hit 32 homers!)
Jim Edmonds, -26 in center (in part because he’s 294 years old)
Delmon Young, -25 in left
Pat Burrell, -20 in left

I’m trying to imagine how this happened, how the single least effective defensive player in the game won a Gold Glove. i think it comes down to a single number: 1. That would be the number of errors Nate McLouth made this year. That means when he got to a ball, he caught it. I’ve always said it: Managers, most of the ones I know, are drawn to players who don’t do stupid things, even if they don’t do especially good things either.

Also Nate did have a nice offensive year.

* * *

I have come up with a new relief pitcher formula that I was going to unveil here but instead I’ll make it a separate post later today.