on Fehr

So Donald Fehr is retiring after this baseball season.  Fehr was the man in charge of the Major League Baseball Player’s Association for a 26 years.  A Mr. Howard Bryant defends Fehr here, singing his praises.

Um…here’s the thing.  Bryant just glosses over one of the biggest issues of Fehr’s reign: his treatment of performance enhancing drugs (heretofore PEDs, aka “steroids”, simplistically).  Bryant basically says he stood tall, and he looked good in front of Congress while Selig didn’t.

One of the main ideas of the column is in this quote:

But if Don Fehr is on your side, you are tremendously better off for it. He does his job, which is to protect the interests of his players; and he has done it exceedingly well at a time of great assault against American unionism in general.

..and maybe, most of the time, that’s true.  However, I think there’s a semantic difference between what Bryant says Fehr is good at and what Fehr’s job calls/called for him to strive for.  Fehr is to work in the best interest of his players, and since sometimes, the best interests of the majority of the players will fly in the face of the best interests of a few of the players.  When possible, Fehr should seek to appease both, but that’s not always possible.  The PED issue is one such scenario: despite Bryant’s argument from relativity that baseball was in the same boat as other pro sports leagues, he isn’t excused from doing the right thing just because it goes beyond the status quo.

What Fehr should have done is protected the interest of the majority (here, probably somewhere between 90-95%) of players by pushing MLB for stringent drug testing.  First, it’s the right thing to do, and second, it would have garnered some goodwill for the union, who is usually viewed as greedy and loathsome when the MLB and MLBPA lock horns (despite the fact that such conflicts usually don’t reveal either side to smell like roses – both teams and players are looking out for themselves, typically, thus both appear greedy.  Exceptions occur when they’re fighting for increased retirement benefits right now, because, especially in football, such benefits are embarassingly slim, but I digress…).

But Fehr did not work for those 90-95%; he “protected” the minority, a minority which in some cases was violating federal laws.  The ripple effect here was that basically every player, and especially those who were successful, was viewed with suspicion.  It’s certainly not what Fehr desired, but it was the predictable outcome of turning a blind eye to PEDs.  Despite all the intelligence Bryant talks up in the article, Fehr turned in a disappointing performance on the issue his era of baseball will largely be remembered for, and that’s unacceptable.

*[note: obviously, some in the newsmedia basically treated PEDs like some sort of national tragedy, but considering that the same people say incredibly dumb things like "if you're not cheating, you're not trying," and write books with apparently tons of very, very questionable information and sources, it is incredibly hypocritical and largely driven by page view hunger, misunderstanding the actual issues, inciting debate, etc.  This press, it seems, did not hurt MLB very much, given its ever-increasing popularity, but did hurt the players.  Fehr also might have preempted that had he pushed for PED testing in, say, 2000 or something.]

Will it never stop?

I interrupt this paper writing spree to bring you this .  Seriously, will silly, easily refuted nonsense like this go on forever?  I’m too lazy/busy to look it up, but I’m almost certain that BP (among others) has done comparative studies on such things.

Okay, so relievers’ ERAs are lower than starters, as a rule.  There are obvious reasons for this.

1. Many of them enter games and allow current baserunners to score.  This goes on someone else’s ERA.  Often, that someone else is the starter, and starters also have to clean up their own messes.
2. Coming in for 1, 2, or 3 inning outings is much, much different than starting a game.  Both classes of pitchers go 100% all the time, but it manifests itself differently.  It’s why relievers come out blazing, starters like surgeons.
3. Even if a player is equally valuable on a per-inning basis (or even twice as valuable) as a reliever, top starters throw about three times as many innings.  Good relievers, in a season that could be classified in a range from “mostly healthy” to “completely healthy” over the course of a season, throw 60 to 80 innings, on very rare occasions hitting 100 innings a year.  Good starters, in the same range of health, will throw between 180 and 240.

Ugh.  I get really disappointed in journalism sometimes.  Or, more accurately, I find that a lot of journalists are mediocre-at-best, still others are fine writers/reporters but should keep their opinions/”strategery” to themselves, and some very rare breed are good writers and smart strategists.

my turn

I suppose that I can’t let this week get away from me without throwing my predictions out there, too.  Here are Wyatt’s, in case you missed them.

Mine:
AL
East:  Rays (although their decision to send David Price to the minors at the start of the year concerns me – I’d say he’s at least their 4th best pitcher.  Also, the three best teams in the AL are in this division, and I like the O’s longterm, too.)
Central:  Indians (love their hitters, their pitching is sketchier, but everyone else in the division has bigger question marks)
West:  Angels (I feel strangely confident that they’re the best team in the division)
Wild Card:  Red Sox (their depth is tremendous – and the Yankees’ A-Rod absence for the first few weeks will be just enough to put Boston in front)
MVP: Grady Sizemore

NL
East:  Mets (I like the Sheffield addition, at the very least for some depth.  They might have to find someone other than Delgado for 1B, though.  Also, Matt Stairs and Jayson Werth of the Phillies are great complements for one another, aren’t they?)
Central:  Cubs (and I don’t think it’s particularly close)
West:  Diamondbacks (this is basically a coinflip division between the Backs and the Dodgers)
Wild Card:  Dodgers (I expect the Mets, Phils, Braves, Diamondbacks, and Dodgers to be duking this out into late September – the West teams just play in a slightly weaker division.  I also think the Rockies might actually surprise some folks, no joke)
MVP:  Albert Pujols

NLCS:  Cubs over Mets in 6 (for my sanity, please, only six)
ALCS:  Red Sox over Rays in 7
World Series: I’m not going there…yet.

Cubs’ Possible Trade Targets and Home/Road Splits

In case you haven’t noticed, the Cubs keep coming up in Jake Peavy trade rumors.  Apparently, along with the Braves and Dodgers, they are one of the finalists to nab him.  I’m frankly a little surprised; I’m not sure where these teams match up – the Cubs don’t have any real overwhelming, top-flight prospects (at least, not any they’d be willing to trade), and the Padres are looking for a handful of guys just like that.

I’m mainly here to point out that Peavy’s road ERA over the last 3 years is 1.01 runs HIGHER than his home ERA.  That’s okay, he’s still a great pitcher, and while he’s greatly helped by his home park, there could be other factors.  It just seems like you might want to weigh that in a decision to trade for him.

Still, I’d love to see the Cubs go get him, especially if they can keep Soto (no brainer), Samardzija, Vitters, and Ceda (probably in that order of importance).  I like Felix Pie, but I think that ship has sailed with the announcement that Fukudome and Johnson will platoon in center next year.

And that decision leaves right field open.  One of the most interesting names being batted around for that spot right now is Jeremy Hermida of the Florida Marlins.  Hermida is a nice role player with a little upside – he was a top prospect, and he’s struggled with motivation (mediocre teams can do that to ya) and some injuries.  He fits nicely in the Cubs’ plans by batting left-handed, too.  I have no idea what it would take to move him, but I do know that his three year home/road splits are more encouraging. Not also that he hits lefties well enough that he wouldn’t necessarily require a platoon partner (although that might be ideal – in fact, the Cubs might actually already have him in Mark DeRosa, who could play the outfield against opposing left-handers with, say, Ronny Cedeno starting at second).

Of course, this is all a bit pie-in-the-sky right now, but we’ll start to see pieces fall into place soon, I think.

Next time:  drawing a parallel between the Red Sox of the decade’s first half and the Cubs teams of current vintage with regards to offseason plans.

Why isn’t Ryan Howard DHing?

Okay, so Greg Dobbs has appeared in 24 career games at first base as far as I can tell, but he’s a pretty average defender at 3rd base, a position that takes much more skill than 1st base.  Ryan Howard may have a name that would be recognized by people who only watch Fox’s Saturday Game of the Week, but he is, by all accounts, a pretty poor defensive first basemen.  I have no idea why Charlie Manuel, a man paid to make decisions like this, has decided his team has a better chance of winning with Howard in the field.

Similarly, I have no idea why he continues to bat Howard and Chase Utley, two lefties, one with huge platoon issues (Howard) and the other with normal platoon issues back to back against a team that has a bullpen with a gaggle of quality lefties.  Jayson Werth utterly owns lefthanded pitching, and Pat Burrell is no slouch of a hitter – putting either one of those guys between the two lefties makes so much sense it should be default.  Are these little things?  Absolutely – but all the Phillies have to do to be the 2008 World Series champions is win three of their next six games, and in an evenly matched series, forcing Joe Maddon to make decisions like, “should I let JP Howell face Jayson Werth with 2 outs and a runner on second in the 6th inning? Or should I pull Howell, hope Balfour can get Werth, and worry later about whether I should burn David Price now, which might burn me the next time through the order” can be the difference.

Pre-Game 2 Blurb

I don’t really feel like last night’s game changes my feelings about the series at all.  I still think the Rays will win, and I still think it’ll be a relatively lengthy series.  They’ll have the better starting on the mound every time that the Phils don’t run Hamels out there.

Sheehan on the Series (EDIT)

Baseball Prospectus’s Joe Sheehan has posted his Prospectus Today article, and it’s a fine piece of journalism.  Read it here (not a subscription-only piece as of right now).

Basic premise:  The Phillies best chance in this series is to win when Cole Hamels starts and steal one or two other games.  Sheehan advocates using Hamels on short rest not just in game 4, but again in a potential game 7.  I’m with him wholeheartedly here – the Rays, as I said yesterday, are just the better baseball team, but Philly can maximize their chances of a Series win by getting Hamels on the mound as much as possible.

EDIT:  The comments over there are quite good so far, too (7 posted as of now).  BP has a quite intelligent reader base, and the discussion on their newly added comment threads is top notch.

~~~~~~

Canceled classes are the best.  Get well soon to my World Poly prof.

Quick Thoughts

This would be pretty awesome.  Means nothing, but would be cool nonetheless.

____________

Also, I’m picking Tampa Bay in 7.  Just a hunch – I think the Phils will take a couple behind Hamels and maybe win a high scoring game 4 (Blanton vs Sonnanstine in Citizen’s Bank Bandbox).  Tampa’s homefield advantage and overall higher talent level will prevail.

____________

Wyatt Watch.  Probably ought to be a Dauthan Watch, too.

Enjoy the series.

Postlude to a facebook Message

Wyatt’s reply:

Just be glad you’re being broken in “slowly.” If you were watching this game on the World’s Greatest Network, Hawk would be informing you of all types of information you would be surprised to learn.

Georgy Handsome always wins.

He is the straw that stirs this blog’s drink.

So I just sent a message to Wyatt which included the following:

“I think during the summer, I get numb to bad baseball commentary because I watch so much ball through media where that sort of chitchat is common. But then I just spent the last month and a half just reading box scores and reading BP and like-minded news sites, and I had forgotten how bad some commentary could be. I learned this while watching the White Sox/Twins just now, as they said silly things about how Jon Danks, since he was young, could probably throw about 3.8 million pitches tonight on 3 days rest. Harold Reynolds also talked about how he always liked hitting 9^th because “you could do a lot of things” because the 1 and 2 hitters were up next – apparently this gave you license to go willy nilly on the bases.”

[end quote from my message to Wyatt]

When you think about it, White Sox-Twins is just about the perfect storm for bad commentary.  Why?  Thanks for asking.  The Twins have been ridiculously successful this decade by being really, really good at drafting and development (I’m counting the Rule V pick of Johan Santana as a D and D success).  That’s basically the entirety of why they have been great.  Oh, and because Brian Sabean had a fever and the only prescription was more AJ Pierzynski, even at the cost of Francisco Liriano, Boof Bonser, and Joe Nathan.  However, the mainstream media likes to make them a smallball story.  Sure, they don’t hit very many home runs, I won’t dispute that, but they have had really, really good pitching and defense during their success.  Having Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau in the middle of the lineup recently has helped, too.  But the Twins have won in spite of their Nick Punto/Christian Guzman-pre-LASIK/Luis Rivas/Carlos Gomez/Jason Tyner-@DH-occasionally jones, not because of it.

On the other hand, the White Sox of recent vintage have hit a lot of home runs (actually, it seems like the White Sox of every vintage have hit a lot of home runs, but I’m speaking especially of their recent renaissance years).  In reality, they’ve been just about the typical Weaver Ball team – pitching, defense, and the three run home run.  This year has been less about defense (23rd in the Majors in defensive efficiency, the percentage of balls in play converted into outs), so it’s even more true that this Sox team plays a style of game that many oldtimey media types do not find aesthetically pleasing.  Therefore, they make team quality judgments about it.  Obviously, people who hit home runs are lazy and don’t understand “the way the game was meant to be played.”  Actually, a guy I live next to just came in and said something to the effect of “all the White Sox do is hit home runs.”  I actually had to convince him that the team that allowed 15 fewer runs than the Twins this season was actually pretty good at pitching.

All this to say…I mean, there is a lot of room for error tonight based on surfacy player/team value judgments.

If I get some time soon, I’d like to post on the guys who would win my awards, provided I got a vote.  As it is, I’ll have to settle for voting in the Internet Baseball Awards, I guess.