My 25-Man Roster

Here is the team I would put together from players I have seen in my lifetime. I set the beginning at 1973, and I had to see the players in their prime. I can’t take Bob Gibson or Harmon Killebrew. The list of honorable mentions would be long. Bonds and ARod would be locks if it weren’t for their steroid use.

I didn’t exactly go about this by selecting the best player at each position. Whether or not it turned out that way would be a fun discussion. I went with ten pitchers and a six-man bench. This is the only context in which I advocate the existence of the DH.

Check it out:

Rotation

Tom Seaver

Randy Johnson

Greg Maddux

Steve Carlton

Pedro Martinez

I love my rotation. No lineup gets comfortable against my guys. It isn’t just the simple lefty/righty balance; I have the soft tossing, strike zone sniping, fifteen pitch arsenal deploying Maddux to break up the power arm monotony.

Bullpen

Rollie Fingers

Mariano Rivera

Billy Wagner

Trevor Hoffman

Dennis Eckersley

My bullpen requirements were these: 1) dominance; 2) at least one lefty; 3) at least one guy who would go two-plus innings if needed. Rivera closes, Eck sets up. Wagner is obviously my lefty, and Hoffman was tough on lefties as well. Fingers is my long guy who can also own any other role.

Lineup/Batting Order

DH  Rickey Henderson

2B   Joe Morgan

1B   Eddie Murray

3B   Mike Schmidt

CF   Ken Griffey Jr.

C     Johnny Bench

RF   Ichiro Suzuki

LF   Tim Raines

SS   Omar Vizquel

My favorite part of this lineup is at the bottom. Henderson at the top is automatic. Morgan excelled in the two hole, and then you have big power through the sixth spot.   Opposing pitchers will obviously try to get to Vizquel’s spot, but he will frequently be batting with speed aboard. The lineup pretty much resets at the seven hole with Ichiro essentially leading off, and if opponents choose to pitch around Raines, who walked a lot more than he struck out, then Vizquel sees fastballs.

Bench

Ted Simmons

Pete Rose

Roberto Alomar

George Brett

Robin Yount

Vladimir Guerrero

My bench doesn’t create much drop off, if any, when they start. I was looking for a blend of quality depth and flexibility. Simmons, Rose, and Alomar all switch-hit, with Rose backing up four positions. Yount backs up shortstop and center field, having won an MVP at both spots. Brett is my lefty hitting alter-ego to Schmidt, and Guerrero shares DH duties and fills in at right field. I have quality hitting and defense at every position from both sides of the plate, with speed and power in abundance.

Decisions, omissions, honorable mentions       

Bonds and ARod would have been no-brainers, and would have added two of the best hitters of my time. Bonds was everything a hitter can be, plus speed and gold glove defense. ARod would have added offensive production at shortstop almost as good as Bonds. Excluding those two made this more interesting.

I’m thinking my shortstop selection would draw the most skepticism, but I think Vizquel is as good a shortstop as Ozzie, and a better hitter. I bypass Ripken as well, sacrificing offense for superior defense. I would actually put Jeter ahead of Ripken, but at shortstop, I’ll be a stickler for defense.

Many would probably choose Ivan Rodriguez as a second catcher; some might choose him first. I already had my right handed power hitting elite defensive catcher. I went with Bench first, and chose Simmons as my backup, mostly because he gave me another switch-hitter, an excellent hitter with power, and a very good defensive backstop. Posada has similar qualifications, but I’ll take Simmons. 

The 25^th man became the toughest decision. I needed a DH who could back up Ichiro in right field, a superb hitter with pop. Gwynn lacked the power, and Dave Parker was tempting. Reggie Jackson, Manny Ramirez, Albert Belle, Kirby Puckett, Andre Dawson – not all right fielders, but they all came to mind. I was finally torn between Willie McGee and Vlad Guerrero. I cherish the batting title winning switch hitter who is just as good from either side, runs like a blur, possesses legitimate gold-glove defense, and can play any outfield position. But my squad already has enough guys who hit for average and only occasional pop. McGee, except for the switch hitting, replicates Ichiro. I already have the clone left fielders in Raines and Henderson. It’s a clone I really like. So I made Vlad my 25^th player.

Nolan Ryan and Roger Clemens are probably the two big starting pitcher snubs, but I’ll stick with my choices.

Who’s on your squad?    

Triple Crown, Schmiple Crown

It has been so long since a player won the Triple Crown that maybe I just don’t know what I’m talking about. Admittedly, as a fan, I feel obligated to glorify baseball’s past and stand resolute against any kind of change, but I always thought winning a Triple Crown would be what baseball experts would call “very good,” and something Major League hitters would “want to do.”  Evidently, the Triple Crown has gone the way of the wool uniform and the high stirrups – it’s just not fashionable anymore. Maybe, like the all-glove/no-hit infielder, it has become obsolete (the Triple Crown has been Felix Millaned). Perhaps the game has passed the Triple Crown by. Baseball isn’t played the same way as it once was. It happens. The era of the hundred-stolen-base season is way behind us. No pitcher throws three hundred innings anymore, or throws twenty complete games, and no hitter leads his league in homers, ribbies, and average; those accomplishments must have outlived their usefulness. There’s just no need for that kind of production I guess. Or maybe the saber guys have finally made their point: those stats aren’t very meaningful, so why try to lead the league in such antiquated, passé categories. So I just figured the fact that nobody wins Triple Crowns anymore was because that distinction is a part of baseball’s yesteryear, a relic, something that used to mean something, but that no modern ballplayer opts for anymore. Today’s baseball has grown smarter than that.

Come to find out, the Crown wasn’t even that highly regarded when it used to occur. It is just like an aging baseball fan to feel as though the collective mind of the baseball world was more intelligent the farther back in time you go, and has regressed over the years. I think about the olden days and I am filled with admiration for the heroes whose epic feats brought them the coveted and prestigious Triple Crown. But I had no idea that the Triple Crown was the baseball equivalent to something clever in a realm of some cultural reference that is just obscure enough that it will seem original, something that would appear impressive and remarkable in theory, but in actuality doesn’t garner huge accolades. The exact apt reference eludes me. I had no idea that, when a player has won a Triple Crown in the period since they started giving out MVP awards, that player’s chance of winning the MVP award was just a little better than fifty-fifty. It has happened nine times, and four of those players failed to earn enough votes to win their league’s MVP award. I had thought that, back in the day when players still tried for the Crown, it was a big deal. I was way off.

The market for the Triple Crown began strong in 1933, as both leagues boasted winners (both in Philadelphia). Jimmie Foxx won the AL MVP that year, but when Chuck Klein was outvoted in the NL by Carl Hubbel, a pitcher who didn’t even win the pitching Triple Crown, the winds of a sharp downturn began to blow. The trend continued into 1934, ultimately leading to a disastrous total crash when Crown winner

Lou Gehrig came in a staggering fifth in AL MVP voting. The Triple Crown was so devalued that pitching Triple Crown winner Lefty Gomez only finished third, behind Mickey Cochrane and runner-up Charlie Gehringer. By the time Joe Medwick revived the Crown by garnering MVP honors in 1937, the damage had been done: never again would a National League player decide to win another Triple Crown.

Ted Williams was apparently the last to get the news about the demise of the Triple Crown. After losing out to Joe Gordon in the MVP voting after his Triple Crown in 1942, Teddy Ballgame martyred himself another Crown in 1947, losing the MVP to Joe DiMaggio (of course, DiMaggio won MVP honors in 1941 as well on the strength of his 56 game hit streak. Williams hit .406 for the whole season, a higher average than DiMaggio hit for during his streak, which was good enough for second place in the MVP polls). In each instance, it appears Williams was actually punished for his conspicuous production of questionable value. In a classy move, Mickey Mantle chose to win a Triple Crown in ’56 (probably as a nod to his old adversary), but in an ironic reversal, Mantle was awarded the MVP.

The Triple Crowns Frank Robinson and Yaz won were more a reflection of the rebellious anti-establishment activism of the ‘60s than a return to a mythic golden age. The anti-anti-establishment saw through their ploy and awarded
each an MVP.

I actually thought, before analyzing the data, that a Triple Crown season would pretty much lock up an MVP award. Instead, you might as well flip a coin. It’s still a good season, but unless you do other stuff besides Triple Crown stuff, like whatever it was the four guys ahead of Gehrig did in ’34, or the stuff only real insiders know about, like DiMaggio in ’47, then you’re just spinning your stat-padding wheels.               

This One's For You, Andre Dawson, And You Too, Ernie Banks

I will take this portion of the blog space/time to get a minor point of baseball irritation off my chest. It isn’t relevant at the moment, since MLB won’t be selecting its Most Valuable Players for several months, but I kind of just woke up thinking about it and went with it.

I’ve argued for a long time that baseball’s MVP award is simpler than the baseball writers will allow it to be. It is not a philosophical puzzle. The award should go to the player with the most outstanding performance of the season. That title, in itself, is often worthy of the kind of tasty debate baseball people live for. In fact, deciding which player had the best year should be the only issue at hand for an MVP voter or commenter. We don’t need the etymology or the interpretive permutations of meaning for the word “valuable”. We don’t need to arbitrarily add qualifying requirements which don’t officially exist, like when we insist that an MVP play for a playoff team (a notion widely accepted as an unwritten rule). All an MVP has to do is have the best season out of all the players in his league.

The baseball writers who vote, by thoughtfully considering their reasons, rightfully exercise diligence in their selections. They get it right far more often than not, but they sometimes stray into the realm of overanalysis. According to Wikipedia, the criteria for choosing a most valuable player were left intentionally undefined, providing a fruitful opportunity for interpretive debate. That can be productive. Hyper focusing on solving the mystery surrounding the word “valuable” has, I think, led to the cult of the playoff team prerequisite. After all, according to this line of thinking, how valuable can a player be if he doesn’t spur his team into the playoffs? How valuable to his team’s success can a player be, if his team has little success?

The flaw with this requirement is that, the way I understand it, players outside the pennant race have no value.  That’s curious. And ridiculous. And it directly contradicts voter guidelines. There is no mention of this prerequisite in the MVP criteria handbook (which also doesn’t exist), but, instead, there is a reminder that playing on a playoff team is specifically not a requirement:  

BBWAA members assigned to the National League Most Valuable Player committee are told, “There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.
“The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931: (1) actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense; (2) number of games played; (3) general character, disposition, loyalty and effort; (4) former winners are eligible; and (5) members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.”  http://www.opposingviews.com/i/what-are-the-guidelines-for-mlb-mvp-voting

Does the best player on the best team have more value than the best player on an also-ran team? I say no, not necessarily. A player isn’t responsible for overcoming the limitations of his team, nor is he due the praise for team success. The MVP is an individual award given in a team sport. It is not a team award. The team’s fortunes are rewarded or punished in the standings and the playoff race. The MVP award shines a light on one player’s performance in each league.

If, for argument’s sake, we allow ourselves to color outside the lines in order to favor players only on playoff teams, then I might as well indulge in a construct equally artificial in rebuttal. My point is this: wouldn’t the player with the best season, playing on a non-contending team and having the most value to that team, also carry the most value if he were put on any team in the league? Wouldn’t that player tip the scales of a pennant race if thrust onto any contending team? The MVP is a league award given for individual performance in a team game. The best individual performance in the league would most benefit any team in that league. That’s value, if we want to play the interpretation game.

I don’t think I’d be breaking any news to suggest that the interpretive wiggle room, when misused, has most often come to justify the selection of a player more popular with writers than another. Matt Kemp should have been MVP last year, and I think playing for a playoff team, not popularity with the writers, is what won it for Ryan Braun. But I remember feeling like Albert Belle should have won in 1995 instead of Mo Vaughn (though Edgar Martinez might have been even better). Belle was reputedly in the sporting media’s doghouse. Ted Williams was notoriously at odds with sportswriters, and although he actually won two MVP awards, he probably should have won three more. I thank Ernie Banks and Andre Dawson for making my point for me, and I tip my hat to the writers who voted them MVP without sniffing the postseason.   

All-Time Italian MLB Team

With the recent recall of Alessandro (Alex) Liddi, the first MLB player born and raised in Italy (See   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Liddi), I got to thinking about the greatest Italian-American team of all-time (as noted by surname).  The list is impressive (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Italian_Americans_in_sports#Baseball).  One may posit that Italians have had their fair share of great ballplayers.  Here is my list:

C: Yogi Berra (Honorable Mention: Roy Campanella, Mike Piazza, Ernie Lombardi, Joe Garagiola, Chris Canizzaro, Francisco Cervelli)
1B: Phil Cavaretta (HM: Joe Pepitone; Dolph Camilli, Rico Brogna)
2B: Craig Biggio (HM: Tony Lazzeri; Marco Scutaro; Ken Aspromonte)
SS: Phil Rizzuto (HM: Frank Crosetti; Rich Aurilia; Gary DiSarcina)
3B: Ron Santo (HM: Robin Ventura; Sal Bando; Gary Gaetti; Ken Caminiti; Bob Aspromonte)
OF: Joe DiMaggio; Carl Furillo; Rocky Colavito (HM: Dom DiMaggio; Bernie Carbo; Tony Conigliaro; Rico Petrocelli; Chris Denorfia; + Al Gionfriddo & Cookie Lavagetto - for defensive purposes)
DH: Jason Giambi (HM: Steve Balboni; Rocco Baldelli; Pete Incaviglia; Rico Brogna; Mike Pagliarulo) - pragmatically, you may want to put Campanella or Piazza here
Utility: Frank Catalanatto: (HM: Nick Punto; Mickey Morandini; Lou Merloni; Mike DiFelice; Mark DeRosa; Tony Graffanino; Mark Loretta; Lee Mazzilli; John Cangelosi (Pinch-Runner))
SP: Frank Viola; Johnny Antonelli; Vic Raschi; Tom Candiotti; Sal Maglie; (HM: Barry Zito; Ralph Branca; John Montefusco; John D'Acquisto; Larry Gura)
RP: John Franco (HM: Dave Righetti; Dave Giusti, Calvin Schiraldi - at least as mop-up man)
Coaching Staff: Manager: Tony LaRussa; Coaches: Joe Torre; Tommy Lasorda; Mike Scioscia; Joe Girardi; Terry Francona; Jim Fregosi; Leo Mazzone (Pitching Coach); Joe Amalfatano; Joe Altobelli, Frank Lucchesi

My basic conclusions from this list is that there is a relative paucity of great Italian pitchers and first basemen and relative plethora of Italian catchers and managers.  Torre, Scioscia, and Girardi are examples of this intersection.  I gave the nod to LaRussa because of his unlikely win last year.  Phil Cavaretta was the first Italian manager, however, this helped give him the nod at 1B.  Other close calls at 2B, 3B, OF, & SP.  I gave the utility honor to Catalanatto because of his multiple positions, relative longevity, & the fact that he was on the 2009 World Baseball Classic for Italy (along with Liddi, Punto, Piazza, Cervelli, and Denorfia).  I'm sure others will pitch in their two cents.  Let me know what you all think.  Cheers, dk

PS Odd Fact: Ralph Branca once won 17 consecutive games on the TV show Concentration in 1963.  He is the father-in-law of Bobby Valentine.  Branca was relieved by Sandy Koufax in his last spring training game.  Koufax's first major-league strikeout was Bobby Thomson.  

More Purpose Statement Thoughts......

I had some follow-up thoughts about Dean’s Purpose and History piece, many of which seemed to form a general disclaimer about us being smart and knowledgeable about baseball or anything, or in any way entertaining, or even very articulate. I don’t want to have to live up to anything, and I’m getting tired of letting people down. But screw it – Dean can write anything he wants in here. That’s the deal. Love it or leave it!

I have an idea to perk up participation in here. I’m operating under the assumption that Dean and I will be the only ones visiting the blog on purpose, so we have to invent ways to ensnare those who stumble in and then trick them into contributing.

I’m not sure even how much accidental exposure this place will luck into, so if we can spark off small brushfires of our own ridicule, and I think we can, others may pop in to throw a sucker punch on their way to somewhere else. But I daydream….

Anyway, I’ve visited many baseball fan sites and blogs, and I can say with certainty that condescension and ridicule are easy to come by. In fact, I think baseball-oriented blogs have a sort of magnetic pull that attracts snide insults and name-calling. The Pied Piper wishes he could attract rats so easy. The formula is loosely this: claim to be smart and know baseball, assume a firm opinion, and then back it up with nothing but private anecdotes, hearsay, and other personal opinions. Maybe some real facts. Fish in a barrel.

But this train of thought leads me to wonder: why blog in the first place? Is a blog’s success measured only by the volume of visitors, posts, “hits”, “views”? What if I just want a place to write stuff that makes me sound smart, especially about baseball? I wouldn’t need/want the interference of other readers asking questions and refuting my genius point-making. Plus, even though I could do that by “blogging” in a private journal, this would be public, which adds to its importance and means that I have finally made it. I’m a writer, and if you don’t believe me, why don’t you go check out my blog. I mean our blog, right Dean?

Also, if people do read and comment, that could lead to discussions and those sometimes require a moderator and that is just more work for Dean.

So, on second thought, the trick is to have a blog that people don’t visit or contribute to. Check!

Come to think of it, the blog’s very existence validates its crucial necessity – it wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t meaningful. This blog is liberated from the influence of corporate funding, with no threat of ever becoming shackled thusly, so it is potentially a platform for unencumbered liberty and advocacy, but really just about baseball and stuff. It is perfect already, except for maybe the title, so, in the words of Jeff Spicoli, “don’t hassle it.”  

American Baseball Volume 2 Notes

I have been reading American Baseball Volume 2: From the Commissioners to Continental Expansion, by David Quentin Voigt (1970, University of Oklahoma Press).  It has provided some memorable quotes that I would like to share.  A couple of notes on my posts in that I try to provide: (1) references for each post; (2) links to further explore topics; and (3) a personalized Dean Comment for each post:

Indeed, 493 major league players (out of 2750 or 18%) in the silver age of baseball were college men, a type much sought by managers like Mack and Branch Rickey, who urged their scouts to scour the campuses for promising talent (Voigt, 1970, p. 64; Lee Allen, “Notebooks containing statistical data on baseball players.”).  Dean Comment: Billy Beane was not really a pioneer in collegiate recruiting compared to Mack and Rickey, but here is a link to an interesting and recent NY Times article on Beane.

(The daily hazards of major league baseball players) include social dangers from contact with shady characters and designing females.  Called “baseball Sadies,” the latter sometimes trapped or blackmailed those who enjoyed their favors.  In a tragic incident, Chick Stahl of the Red Sox, distraught over fear for exposure, swallowed carbolic acid and died in agony at the age of thirty-four (Voigt, 1970, pp. 71-72; Baseball Digest, September, 1959, p. 63; Reach’s Official Baseball Guide, 1908, p. 393). In an 1898 interview, Stahl reported that he had 23 siblings. "We had just enough in our family to make a couple nines--eighteen boys and half a dozen girls” (SABR Biography of Chick Stahl).  Dean Comment: While the reason for his suicide has been widely disputed (See SABR), the conditions were ripe for blackmail in a different era.  Question: Why hasn’t anyone made a movie of the Chick Stahl story?

(Joe) Jackson was often goaded by fans who asked him to spell simple words, a cruel treatment that drove him to unprintable replies (Voigt, 1970, p. 57)). Dean Comment: Imagine being in the crowd and hearing this…the ultimate heckle.

Despite an epileptic condition which sometimes attacked him while on the mound, and despite a growing taste for liquor, (Grover Cleveland) Alexander pitched eighty shutouts and 250 victories in the years 1911-1921 (Voigt, 1970, p. 59).  Dean Comment: This averages to 23 wins and over 7 shutouts per season.  He finished with 373-208 lifetime record.(See Baseball Reference.com statistics on Alexander).

(Walter) Johnson entered the majors (in 1907) with little more than a blazing fast ball, but after two years of maltreatment by bunting batters, Johnson learned his trade.  By 1910 his blazing speed and fielding agility aroused the baseball world.  When the American League began keeping earned-run averages in 1913, Johnson posted a 1.09 mark for 346 innings (Voigt, 1970, p. 60 – His ERA was actually 1.14 according to Baseball Reference.com statistics on Johnson).  Dean Comment: This season from Johnson could have single-handedly won a fantasy league for someone back in 1913 (I know, they didn’t exist back then…).  Apart from his 243 strikeouts, his 0.780 WHIP was most impressive.

Facing the “Big Train” for the first time in 1916, Jimmy Dykes never saw the first pitch and was amazed when told by the umpire to take his base.  When Dykes asked why, the umpire pointed to his cap, which had been clipped by the pitch and knocked completely around so that the bill faced backwards (Baseball Magazine, December 1912, pp. 25-28, 104-106; Baseball Digest, January-February, 1957, p. 54). Dean Comment: Perhaps Jimmy Dykes started the whole trend of wearing backwards baseball caps?

After all, it was just one game that stamped Fred Merkle as the anti-hero of the century.  Indeed, that black day of September 23, 1908, introduced the epithet, “bonehead” into the American language.  It had previously been an “anemic and almost meaningless word”; but shortened to “boner” it became a favorite description of a pathetic performance (Voigt, 1970, p.63).  Dean Comment: Yes, baseball is America, although I don’t know what Merkle would have thought about today’s use of the word “Boner.”  Perhaps he could have been a spokesperson for Viagra?

Rube Waddell’s treatment in 1913 stands as a monument to avaricious exploitation (by owners).  Playing with the Browns, Waddell ended the season in debt, as he was billed $1000 for breaking a no-drinking pledge, another $750 loaned him for his wife’s alimony and $700 for various miscellaneous disciplinary fines (Voigt, 190, p. 66).  Dean Comment: Compare this to today’s salaries…

(Ty Cobb) prudently invested in the Coca-Cola Company, a move that eventually made him a millionaire. Most men would have mellowed at such a turn of fortune, but Cobb in retirement was embittered to the point of doubting his choice of a career.   At this stage, he told James T. Farrell that if he had his life to live over, he would have chosen a medical career (Baseball Digest, April, 1946, pp. 57-58). Dean Comment: The tragic manner of his father’s death (his mother apparently mistook him for a burglar and shot him), may have jaded Cobb for life.  The fact that the greatest player of all-time wanted to do something else baffles me.

Welcome to Our Blog: Purpose and History

Thanks for visiting our baseball blog.  Our purpose is to shed some light on major league baseball as fans for fans.  Our meeting  is somewhat fateful - it is pretty fair to say that we have both never met another more knowledgeable and interested in baseball.  This is in many parts an experiment to recreate the baseball conversation between bartender (Jim) and patron (Dean).   This blog recreates some of these conversations and we figure that we can perform this is a timely manner because we have no problems writing, with Jim an English major graduate and Dean an ex-professor.  In summarizing these conversations, they are usually informative and laden with dry humor and research.  We hope others can chime in our conversation.

Pragmatically, when watching a game together Dean usually provides play-by-play and Jim chips in on color commentary.  This is both dispositional and situational because Dean has lecturer tendencies and is facing the bank of TVs with no interruptions. Jim is more reserved and prone to the occasional one-liner using baseball vernacular.  Multiple games are also on simultaneously and the analysis usually focuses on close games or when the Dodgers or Orioles are playing at the time.  Our in-game analyses (pitch-by-pitch & strategy speculation) will be discussed as well as trivia, predictions, stories, and anecdotes.  This is how we interact as hardcore fans.  We hope that our type of baseball discussion rings true with other fans.  

Given recent technological advances, we would be remiss to not consider multimedia channels for our grassroots baseball fan blog.  We can share occasional audio and video clips, but would like to focus on writing about interesting baseball questions and predicaments and getting others to lend their own two cents.  One new way to effectively market our message is through Twitter.  Twitter allows 140-character quips to go viral and can be used to promote thought evoking conversations between people who are knowledgeable or fascinated on a topic.  Our blog is linked to Twitter to get our message out faster and recruit followers and contributors to our discussion.  We hope to write thought-evoking headlines to stimulate interest in a meaningful discussion regarding our baseball obsession.  I have no idea where this is going, but Play Ball!