AL East

It feels good to hate the Yankees again! Yes, after an offseason of spending in New York, the new-look Yankees plan on contending—big time. Anything short of a Championship is unacceptable, we are told. Yet Boston remains the team to beat and Tampa Bay would love to prove that 2008 wasn’t a fluke. Chances are Baltimore and Toronto will fade away—around the middle of April or so—and we’ll have an old fashioned divisional race for most of the season with at least two (and quite possibly three) strong teams. 

 1. Boston

2. Tampa Bay

3. New York

4. Baltimore

5. Toronto

Boston is still a very good team. World Champs two years ago and nearly pennant winners last year, there’s no good reason why Boston won’t be in the mix throughout the year. Boston is dangerously complete across the field, particularly when Lowell returns. Penny is still a question mark in my opinion, but they can afford that so long as he’s pitching 5th. And if he has any success recalling his former self, he’ll be the best number 5 starter in the AL. Most of the concerns I’ve heard about Boston this offseason focus on injuries to positions players. Sure this is something to worry about, but no one has been lost for the season and they still have a ton of money to use should there be a demonstrated need. The Boston bench will be out to prove themselves, and the wins may be tougher against a solid division (and maybe even upgraded Central), but they have to personnel and experience to make picking against them a tough choice.

While it’s easy to think that Tampa Bay has proven themselves in the fundamental way that suggests they will be contending for years to come, I don’t see them as competitive as they were in 2008. What they had last year, in addition to solid play, was the fact they they were Tampa Bay—chronic underachievers. Everything good thing that happened was amazing, unprecedented, and motivating and helped push them to the pennant. That force is gone and will need to be replaced be a slight improvement in play, if they are to repeat.

On paper, it’s hard to come up with reasons to put the Yankees in third place. They spent major money in the offseason to fill glaring gaps, and are newly strong in starting pitching and hitting. While it’s anyones guess as to what happens this summer in New York, I believe the Yankees will be fun to watch simply because of the expectations placed on them. In lieu of a prediction—strengths and weaknesses—I’m simply going to explore a few scenarios that could pop up this season. Despite some true career highlights, CC entered May last year going 1–4 with a 7.88 ERA. Try doing that in New York. AJ Burnett, another major offseason pickup, will also be fun to watch under pressure. Burnett signed a tremendous contract for a guy who has only won more than 12 games once in a 10-year career. He’s also never really played on a contender or in must-win situations, having sat out nearly all of 2003 in Florida. The Yankees also didn’t address their bullpen in the offseason, something that could come back to haunt them if the starters are puling their weight but the wins aren’t coming. And while there are other scenarios to keep an eye out for, the last one I’ll mention simply has to be A-Rod. If Rodriguez overachieves this season, there will be some questioning. And if he underachieves, there will be some scrutinizing. How will be handle himself and his teammates? Big payrolls equal big egos and in the end, the Yankees could be taken down by their own chemistry.

The Orioles may play better than they did in 2008, but it’s apparent that they don’t have the depth to compete with the Sox, Rays, and Yankees. Baltimore is very young term, interspersed with mediocre veterans. A number of position players had decent numbers in 2008, but somehow, the mix just doesn’t work. Roberts, Markakis, Huff, and Mora are solid players, but the remainder of the lineup is weak. And, with all due respect to the run producers, they don’t constitute a presence in the lineup that causes the opposing team to change strategy much. Compound this with an untested rotation and I predict Baltimore will see its 12th straight losing season in 2009.

Toronto has been mediocre in recent years—years that may soon be thought of fondly. Outside of Halladay, the now Burnett-less rotation can’t compete with the remainder of the division. And the offense is likely to suffer as well. 2008 team leaders in offense could be had for the meager production of .291, 20 HR, and 79 RBIs. While this may improve slightly, the Jays don’t have personnel put up any memorable numbers. Toronto picked up virtually no one in the offseason, which in 2009 is practically a baseball sin. Expect them to pay for it, too, with a long, bottom-feeding summer.

AL Central

Over the last few years, the races in the AL Central have been among the best in the league. For example, the White Sox won the division last year in Chicago in a 1-0 Division playoff game against the Twins. Turns out that the game would have been played in Minnesota had the 2009 rules been in effect. And who could forget 2006, when the Twins became the first team to win the division on the last day of the season without ever having previously been in first place during the season. In a division with five teams there is bound to be some disappointment, but, by the same logic, there is also an increased chance for competition at the top. I see the AL Central settling out to be something like this:

1. Minnesota

2. Cleveland

3. Kansas City

4. Chicago

5. Detroit

Love ‘em or hate ‘em, the Twins have been fun to watch ever since 2001, when they roughly took their present form. They are solid fundamentally and I have trouble finding glaring problems with any aspect of their game. With Cuddyer (hopefully) back and the addition of All-Star Joe Crede the lineup should only improve, even if that improvement is only slight. The Twins didn’t have a great defense last year, but that’s to be expected when fielding one of the youngest teams—particularly in the outfield—in the league. And with few changes in a solid pitching staff, I expect the Twins to win the AL Central the way they have in the past—without fanfare or fireworks.

Mark DeRosa may prove to be the best offseason acquisition by any AL team. It certainly stands to wonder why the Cubs let him go. Combine this with the additions of Kerry Wood, Carl Pavano, Travis Hafner, and Victor Martinez and I don’t see how you can’t be excited as an Indians fan. Expectations are high after last year, and why not; there are countless examples of teams who have shed a franchise player and have gone on to compete and even improve. The Indians certainly have it in them to contend and the main reason I have them in second place and not first is simply consistency and the unknown impact of a fresh lineup.

The Royals—like Texas in the West—are my team to watch. I poured over individual and team statistics to try and find justification for them to be the Tampa Bay Rays of 2009. I couldn’t find it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Meche, Greinke, Bannister, and Davies likely won’t be leading the league in wins or ERA, but they are young and solid, traits that may even be better than statistics. They have demonstrated an ability to pitch a lot of innings and and post double-digit wins. If the Royals can turn out solid starts and maintain their capable bullpen presence from last year (even with some new additions), they should easily be able to keep their team in games. The offense is what needed the real work (12th in 2008), though I doubt Mike Jacobs can do enough to really bump up production. Without another bat in the lineup, he may be limited and I would liked to have seen the Royals go after someone else, even a short-term Abreu or Dunn would have helped.

Most people didn’t think the White Sox would be competitive last year. And without Carlos Quentin (.288, 36, 100 in 130 games) I doubt they would have been. The Sox also significantly cooled off in the second half last year (partly without Quentin, I might add) and coasted to a divisional tie by playing one game over .500 in the second half. Without any major additions, I’m banking on Carlos cooling off and a few less wins against the upgraded Indians and Royals.

After virtually being crowned as World Series Champs last March, the Tigers opened the season going 0–7 and, in my opinion, never really recovered. How could such a thing happen, we asked? I believe the Tigers have an age-identity issues. That is, the Tigers have tremendous young talent, but have felt compelled to import All-Stars from the 1990s—namely Renteria, Sheffield, and Rodriguez. Is it related to the fact these people played for Leyland a decade ago in Florida? Surely a team needs balance; youth and enthusiasm tempered by experience and wisdom, but this mix that Detroit has concocted simply doesn’t work. I respect Jim Leyland—chain smoking and everything–but I think he needs to take a serious look at the young talent on this team and shed some of the veterans. There’s potential in Detroit, but potential doesn’t win games. And I doubt the Tigers will either.

AL West

Today begins the first of six Friday posts that will each feature one major league division. I’m opting to go West to East and AL to NL, for no real reason. These predictions are worthless, in my opinion, just as any prediction is. It’s all a lot of talk just to get the gears primed for the regular season. Feel free to tell me where I’m wrong, or email your own predictions and I’ll include them.

1. Los Angeles

2. Texas

3. Oakland

4. Seattle

I wish there were something more exciting to look into regarding the AL West, but the simple fact is that not much has happened during the offseason to challenge the Angeles recent dominance. I see the Angeles as definately losing something with the departure of Teixeira and K-Rod, but they are still a solid core of guys spending a lot of the season beating up on three weaker teams. The Angeles know how to win (in the regular season, at least) and I don’t see why that won’t change in 2009.

Hopefully, Texas will challenge Los Angeles more than they did as a second place team last year. They can obviously hit—something that shouldn’t change this year even with the departure of Bradley—but there is also no reason to think their pitching will have improved at all from last year. A 1-2 punch of Millwood and Padilla is hardely a threat as both continue to get older and post higher and higher ERAs. And the young arms that will likely filter into the rotation during the year can in no way be seen as credible at this point. There certainly could be a surprise or two, but not five. Hopefully Texas—a team similar to the 2006 Phillies—can slug their way up the standings.

Oakland has been a challenge to understand for the past several years, and 2009 is no exception. Beane’s young roster was overachieving until the past few seasons. Is it a coincidence that they have also provided so many contenders with trade-deadline players? I suppose it’s unwise to ever forecast a Billy Beane team, but I don’t know how they will have dramatically improved from last year. Holliday and Giambi should bump them up from being the worst offense in the AL, but with Harden and Blanton out of the rotation, it’s hard to expect anything more than mediocre pitching from such a young group of starters.

And even with Griffey, it’s hard to see the Mariners contending. They have to be better than last season, especially their pitching. Most people think Bedard will step up this year, and I agree that he is a much better pitcher than what Seattle saw last year (when they rarely saw him). But their offense is still questionable, as is their closer. They also wouldn’t suffer from a new logo. How great would it be to see Junior on opening day sporting the old royal blue and gold?

In my opinion, a lot of the AL West’s play can be explained by youth. There is a lot of young pitching in this division, and should one team be able to develop a couple guys ahead of schedule, they could give the Angeles a run for their money. But at this point, the Angeles have been on cruise control for so long it’s hard to see that happening. The biggest question in this division I think will be the Rangers. In a division with stronger pitching, I wouldn’t have predicted 2nd place. But coming off a confident second half and with a strong offense, they are a threat. If one or two bats go quiet, however, and the rotation pitches anything below average, they could easily be spending a lot of time near the bottom.

Spring Training Posts (and comments)

Over the winter, I was torn between staring at an outdated post and posting something that I wasn’t really behind—just something for the sake of an offseason post. I refrained, opting to stem the tide of offseason baseball babble, but lately the temptation has become too great. So I have resolved to post throughout spring training and more frequently during the season. While I generally classify spring training and pre-season prediction writing right up there with a tight Cassie Edwards novel, I will admit that it might help me catch up with what’s happened these last few months and at least prime my already-starved baseball appetite. By September, who remembers or much less cares about anything anyone said or wrote in March! Nobody. But we have to start somewhere. 

My goal is to dedicate six weeks of spring training to six posts, each one on a separate division. I aim to discuss the major changes for the teams in the division and how things might turn out, given these changes and what we saw last season. Aside from predicting a division winner (or something like that), I won’t get into wins and losses, playoff scenarios, or individual awards. Not only do I have no clue how those things will look, but I doubt anyone does. I encourage readers of this blog (yes, all three of you) to post comments about my thinking and predictions. Let me know where I am off the mark, and what is the basis of your claim. What I am really attempting to do is get my mind around the upcoming season while simultaneously starting a conversion. I look forward to reading your comments.

A Pre-Playoff Look at the National League, or Why the Mets Won’t Make the Playoffs

What a month it’s been for the National League! In the Central, the Cubs have finally proven to be mortal, the Brewers canned their manager in the midst of a precipitous downward spiral, and the Astros are the hottest club in baseball as they do their best impression of the 2007 Rockies. Isn’t this what makes baseball so bizarre, though? You can play like a mediocre AAA team until September, and then, as long as you can reel off some impressive win streak, you are completely within the playoff picture. I’ve always been an advocate of the idea that all wins are equal – that is, a win in April is the same as a win in September. And it is, insofar as an April win is one you might not need to worry about having lost later. But the potential momentum generated from a September win is often far more valuable than the victory itself, and most of what we are so glued to in these final weeks is really more of a momentum struggle.

Meanwhile, over in the West, the Diamondbacks have won a meager 6 games since Barack Obama became the official candidate of the Democratic party. That was nearly a month ago. And as long as we’re invoking political comparisons, it appears the Guiliani campaign has taken over the Dodgers and is implementing their strategy of pouring it on at the end after a paltry showing throughout the regular season. Let’s hope the results are better the second time around. To the West I can only say, Good Luck.

As for the East, it should suffice to say that this is the Phils year to lose it. They have to be the clear favorite over the Mets, who remain the only competition with two weeks remaining. (Note: As I’m writing this, the Mets have just lost two in a row to the Washington Nationals who have taken it upon themselves to pitch like the 1963 Los Angeles Dodgers as the Mets offense has also adopted their 1963 form.) Until the Mets demonstrate that they are, in fact, over last year’s collapse, they are the underdogs. And, perhaps more importantly – or at least more tangible – is that they have one of the worst bullpens in baseball; a component of any club that can become increasingly important as starters wear down in September.

The Mets simply cannot be considered a serious contender without the ability to competently finish the last innings of a game. They have something like 9 blown saves, they are a league leader in lost leads after the 7th inning, they own a tremendously high bullpen ERA, and as if that weren’t enough, at the top of this garbage heap stands Luis Ayala, eagerly waiting to walk the first two batters of the ninth inning. Yes, that Luis Ayala. The Ayala that the Washington Nationals told was free to work elsewhere because his services in the bullpen of the worst team in Major League Baseball weren’t needed. Now he’s closing for one of the best teams (by record) in the National League? That’s like one of those George Bush promotions, where you get a better job the worse you perform. Maybe if he loses the division on the last day of the season the Mets will make him their pitching coach. It’s all like that old Kingman line: Having Ayala close games for you is like having Willie Sutton guard your bank. The only things the Mets have to be thinking right now is: Can Billy Wagner pitch right-handed? The Mets can score some runs, but they have to be thought of as the second place team in the East. This is another year Charlie Manuel can’t afford to let slip away, or he might just be looking for work elsewhere – say, the North Pole? There’s no question he could easily fit into Santa’s clothes at this point.

While this whole show proves frustrating to most of us, it is what makes baseball thrilling and mind-bending and the slight chance of victory at any level is what keeps us coming back. The whole playoff picture could, and likely will, change before the season is over, so any thoughtful predictions can only be compared qualitatively to another. I’ll be glued to the Internet these next few weeks, and, like most people, look forward to reworking this entire scenario and rescinding most of my comments when the final pitch of the regular season is complete. 

SERA, Anyone?

The week before the All-Star game, the New York Mets achieved a somewhat remarkable feat that became utterly impressive with the aid of an unusual scarcity surrounding it. I’m referring to a period within their July 10-game win streak that involved four shutouts in six games and five consecutive games surrendering three or fewer hits. Perhaps the fact that the Koufaxes and Drysdales; Madduxes, Smoltzes and Glavines; and Johnsons and Shillings of baseball have never achieved it applies the real gloss. In fact, it had never been accomplished in the modern-era.

The point I’m trying to make here is not to laud the New York Mets, but to comment on pitching statistics. If pitching performances like this are so rare and the mean number of innings a starter pitches has dropped over the years, then why is the fundamental descriptive pitching statistic based on a nine-inning performance? Aside from the fact that virtually no one pitches nine innings in a start anymore, it becomes dubious to make an accurate extrapolation of the “unaccounted for” innings comprised in an ERA. For example, if pitcher A only ever throws 6 or 7 innings, why do we give equal weight to innings 8 and 9 when describing his capacity to give up runs? If he’s continually pulled from the game for diminishing returns, shouldn’t the ERA reflect a higher value? I’ll ignore the inherent problems of basing a 9-inning ERA on a relief pitcher and focus on an alternative to a starting pitcher’s ERA.

I appreciate sabermetrics, although my knowledge is limited. And what I’m discussing here isn’t sabermetrics – just a tweak of common, existing measurements to achieve a superior description of a starting pitcher’s abilities. What I propose is to set ERA aside (retain it, however, as it will always have historical value) and begin to use a new statistic I call starting ERA, or SERA. Instead of a single value, SERA is a hyphenated value: median innings per start – average earned runs per start.

For example, take a pitcher who throws six games with innings pitched 5, 6, 6, 7, 6, 7 and earned runs in those starts as 3, 2, 1, 1, 3, 1. This pitcher’s SERA would be “6–1.83” or, he averages 6 innings per start while giving up 1.83 runs in a start (regardless of its duration). Not bad. Using a median value for innings per start will provide for a better descriptor than would an average, as an average would be more appropriate when the pitcher throws nearly as many innings per starts above his average than below. A median value will be more sensitive to pitchers who have more starts with fewer innings than their average, while at the same time not punishing those who are “average” pitchers.

The second part of SERA, the average earned runs per start, is simply the total earned runs over a given number of starts. This value reflects only the relationship between earned runs and games, and does not take into account any innings pitched. For example, if Pitcher A makes two starts and gives up 5 runs in 2 innings and 1 run in 7 innings, his average earned runs per start is simply 3. Despite the fact that 3 is not a good descriptor of 5 or 1, this value will be a better descriptor with more games started. And not basing this figure on any conceived inning value (9 innings, innings per start, etc.) allows the user to quickly understand how many runs a pitcher is forecast to give up per start, ignoring all other variables.

Statistics are always tricky and the forum of baseball perhaps exacerbates this point ad nauseam, while simultaneously providing a deluge of raw data to be processed and critically thought about. But how many times do we need to hear about a player’s batting average in day games as a visitor on the west coast? Or what about a pitcher’s dominance over a certain batter, ignoring the fact that they have only faced each other 3 times? That’s not to say there aren’t useful statistics out there or even entertaining ones, like the 2008 Baltimore Orioles’ inability to win a game on a Sunday.

Hilarious? Yes. Informative? No.

Statistics, like anything else, are only as powerful as the individuals using them. We should work to have them more accurately describe baseball while making sure not to sell wacky facts as inferential statements. By simply stopping for a moment and asking What is this number really telling us?, we can often learn more than by applying a descriptive number to a situation is was not designed to describe.  

Interleague Dismay

Monday morning signified a special time for me on the baseball calendar, a time I have come to look forward to over the past ten years. Sometime around midnight Sunday the final interleague matchup of the 2008 season was in the books and officially marked the start of meaningful, competitive baseball. Gone are the ridiculous matchups of Diamonbacks vs. Royals, Tigers vs. Padres and Marlins vs. Angels.

Interleague play first started in 1997; introduced by commissioner Bud Selig as an attraction to boost attendance in the wake of the 1994 strike. Though I wish I could write that I have been against it from its inception, I was permissive the first year or two, erroneously thinking that some intercity matchups would be worth the side effects. However, shortly into this experiment it was obvious that there was little to no reason worth keeping interleague play around. Midseason AL-NL matchups have butchered schedules, created ridiculous and oft overbearing travel and, perhaps most importantly, taken some of the wind out of World Series matchups.

Outside of playoff baseball, schedules rich in divisional matchups once provided an addition level of intensity to the 162-game summer. Season series against division rivals were a kind of season within a season, whether the two teams were competitive that year or not. Often, entire seasons would be magnified by their performance in a September divisional series. How did the Cubs do against the Cardinals this year? Were the Sox pummeled by the Yanks in the regular season and still able to make the playoffs?  With fewer divisional games, these late-season series have less background and if they are more intense, it is certainly artificial. Expansion – which I am not against – has diluted divisional play, though it can be argued it is worth the price, as expansion happens relatively rarely and new league rivalries can be fostered. On the other hand, interleague play siphons off around six series, or three weeks, of intra-league baseball.

With the second phase of interleague play, the introduction of alternate or rotating division matchups, came the possibility of added travel. Certain divisional pairings can be an unfair burden on unlucky teams. As if the 2008 New York Mets needed any more problems, they spent half of May and June on the west coast, thanks to interleague play. The problem for the Mets, however, was that these games required four separate transcontinental flights. It’s no wonder Willie Randolph was fired on the west coast – he was spending half his time there. I’m not trying to baby anyone, but that type of schedule would be very demanding for any profession. And I won’t get into the complexities of rainouts and other ways and already egregious schedule can become absurd.

And as if all this weren’t enough of a smear on Major League Baseball, once October rolls around the true interleague play – the interleague play for which we have waited all year – has about a 1 in 3 chance of being a rematch of a June series. World Series rematch? Aren’t these only supposed to happen when the two teams met in a previous year’s World Series? All of a sudden, the sole week that we as baseball fans hold sacred has been tainted by interleague play. Postseason announcers interpolate too much into previous, substance-deficient matchups, while some of the virgin excitement has been released.

And to those who enjoy seeing stars from other leagues come to town, I suggest getting over it. There’s no rule in baseball that mandates every player must to see every ballpark. Take a road trip to the closest NL or AL city. Or, better yet, with the way players move around these days, just sit tight and you might be surprised.

I respect that baseball will innovate, expand, and try new ways. All good things do. Many introductions have generously made the game better, safer and have allowed a wider audience to enjoy the game. I also recognize that baseball is business; hell, I think players deserve the salaries they get. But when it comes to modifying schedules – virtually the only thing in baseball that teams don’t have control over – let’s keep it a level playing field. It may have been a good idea at some point, but the experiment has surely produced dubious results.