94 years and counting

2008-09-15T19:45:00.004-05:00

On September 14, 2008, something pretty awesome happened. Enough of that. I want to tell you the story of a sober night at Wrigley Field in 1995. The day was a Monday. The date was September 25.

I remember a fairly sparse crowd. According to the box score, fewer than 19,000 folks showed up to watch a (barely) .500 team take the field. Such stars as Sammy Sosa and Mark Grace were to be joined by other present and future greats as Luis Gonzalez, Howard Johnson, and Scott Servais.

However, this night would belong to an upstart 26 year old from El Paso, TX. This night would belong to Frank Castillo.

Castillo was a 6th round draft pick in 1987. He showed a good arm and rose through the minor league system. When he debuted in 1991, his star was rising. As a 23 year old, he threw over 200 innings. He was never really the same. I don't know what happened to him in 1994, but I'm sure the strike didn't help.

There was one exception. His 1995 turned out to be an outlier on an otherwise mediocre career. He tossed 188 innings of 128 ERA+ ball. He only gave up 179 hits and had a pretty good 135/52 K/BB ratio. His 3.21 ERA and 1.23 WHIP only earned him a 11-10 record for a 73-71 Cubs team. He would never be anywhere near this good again. His last regular year in the bigs was 163 IP in 2002 for Boston.

But to go back to that cool, September night. The Cardinals were in town. They were not a good team. They would finish the year 62-81. The outfield wasn't too bad. Brain Jordan was a two-sport "star". Ray Langford was still 28 and in his prime. Bernard Gilkey was near the end of his best year with the Cardinals. The following year he'd have a breakout year for the Mets. By breakout, I mean fluke.

The rest of the lineup featured two-time All-Star Scott Cooper. I shit you not. John Mabry was putting the finishing touches on an absurdly mediocre rookie season. He finished 4th in RoY voting. I shit you not. David Bell was a 22 year old up and comer. He never did up nor come. In 1995, however, he was still seen as a future All-Star. No, I didn't type that with a straight face.

Facing this formidable lineup, Frank Castillo would bravely take the mound. The Cubs were certainly not going to win anything, and most of the 19,000 paid customers stayed home.

I was at the game with 3 friends, all of us just out of college. We were young and naive. We had no idea what we were about to see.

The game started out innocently enough. The Cardinals were mowed down in the top of the first, just a 2 out walk to Langford kept the inning from being a perfect one.

The game was really over by the end of the first. Luis Gonzalez scored on a two-out wild pitch by Alan Benes to put the Cubs up 4-0. The game never got close. Benes only lasted 3.2 innings, as the Cubs scored three more in the fourth.

I'm not sure when I first noticed what was going on. I would guess it was around the 5th inning or so. For certain, none of us were making any kind of a big deal about it.

By the middle of the 7th, it was no longer a joke. Frank Castillo was throwing a NO HITTER. Frank Castillo. No hitter. Going into the 8th inning, Castillo had already struck out 10 Cardinals. I can only assume that the two walks he gave up, to Langford in the 1st and Trip Cromer in the 7th, were on blown calls by the ump. No Cardinal had even sniffed 2nd base.

In the top of the 8th inning, Castillo was to face the Cardinals' 5-6-7 hitters. Castillo got Mabry and Bell to ground out on 7 pitches, before striking out 2-time All Star Scott Cooper for his 11th K. He would go to the ninth, looking for three outs for a no-hitter. And I am there.

The Cubs would go quietly in the bottom of the eighth. It doesn't matter. This is Frankie Castillo time, bitches.

Castillo took his warm-ups sitting at fewer than 100 pitches. He was dealing and showed no signs of letting up. He was facing the bottom of the order, plus Bernard Gilkey. Stupid Bernard Gilkey.

The first guy he faced was Terry Bradshaw. What? No, seriously. I have no idea who he is, but I assume it's not the annoying hick who was almost a Bear. Castillo made short work of the 54 year old, striking him out looking on 4 pitches. D'ur. 2 out left.

Next came Mark Sweeney. The less talented, slightly more retarded of the flying Sweeneys. Sweeney, staring history right in it face, made the Great Castillo work a bit, before feebly striking out on 6 pitches. Castillo now had 13 strikeouts. He was one out away from the first Cubs no-hitter in 23 years.

Along came Bernard Gilkey. I hate the St Louis Cardinals. They are the sucks of suck. Here was Frank Castillo, about to no-hit these fuckers. Sometimes, it's just not to be. I don't remember, but I think Gilkey worked the count to 3-1 against Castillo. Castillo then made the only bad pitch of the night. Gilkey didn't miss the fastball, hitting the ball as far as one could without leaving the park. He didn't stop running until he made it to third. The NO-HITTER was not to be.

I have seen the Cubs play the Cardinals more than any other team. I saw Kerry Wood strikeout 9 Cardinals in a 7 inning win in his fourth start, 5 days before he struck out 20 Astros. I saw all three games of an opening weekend sweep that included two come from behind wins, including a Derek Lee grand slam in 2005, well before the wheels flew off.

And, I saw Frank Castillo throw 8.3 innings of no-hit ball.

Thank you to baseball-reference.com for filling in the blanks.

2004-02-23T13:25:00.000-06:00

We have moved. We have decided to maintain the site as "94 Years and Counting" rather than change it to 95; a reference to the year the site was developed. Anyway, for yet another site containing insane ramblings from yet another die-hard Cub fan, click here.

2003-10-22T14:25:00.000-05:00

POST SEASON RANT VOLUME I

One week ago today, we were all reeling from the Cubs collapse in Game 6 of the NLCS vs. Florida. While the stunning turn of events were still raw, we reminded ourselves not to fret. That, had we known in March that we would be looking at Game 7 at Wrigley Field with Kerry Wood facing Mark Redman, that we would like our chances.

But deep down, I think we all knew better--even if we said otherwise. Personally, I had convinced myself that I would RATHER have Wood than Prior in a winner-take-all Game 7; I convinced myself that momentum doesn’t carry over, that this is just what we have to go through to finally get what is undeniably ours.

Deep down, however, I sort of suspected that Game 6, not unlike Game 4 in San Diego in 1984, was the game we HAD TO HAVE and, having lost it, it would haunt us.

So, even though we lived through the agony and ecstasy of Game 7; through Kerry Wood falling behind 3-0 immediately, through his awesome game-tying home run, through Moises’ go-ahead shot, through Kerry resorting to his wild ways and having the nerve to walk Brian Banks—Brian friggin’ Banks; are you kidding me?!?—and subsequently frittering the lead away for good, through the Cubs swinging at every pitch that Josh Beckett, on TWO DAYS REST, would throw up to the plate, rather than waiting him out, through Kyle “I’m-Glad-Someone-Else-Washes-My-Laundry” Farnsworth trotting out to the mound and, because he apparently felt nostalgic for the 2002 season, squatting over and crapping his pants, and, finally, for those Cub fans who haven’t seen enough of him, through one last agonizing appearance by Dave Veres…

Even though we lived through that painful night when the Florida Marlins clinched the pennant at Wrigley Field, the memory that sticks with us, and will continue to stick with us through the winter is, in actuality, not the events of Game 7, but rather the last 1 5/6 innings of Game 6.

I need to get this off my chest. Just about everywhere I’ve looked, everybody has adopted the politically-correct stance that Steve Bartman was not to blame for the Cubs’ loss.

I disagree. This pud cost us a chance to appear in our first World Series in 58 years. Period.

I understand that Mark Prior was out of gas, and that Dusty should have had Joe Borowski up in the eighth inning after Rodriguez singled to make the score 3-1 (if not after ball four to Castillo, which also went for a wild pitch).

I understand that Alex Gonzalez royally screwed up a play that had been automatic all year, that had he only concerned himself with getting ONE out, rather than trying to be a hero and getting two, that wouldn't have fumbled the ball, and ended up getting none.

I understand that the aforementioned Mr. Poopy Pants, Farnsworth, when he needed, more than at any other time during the season, a strikeout, he instead left a fastball out over the outside of the plate, and that Jeff Conine was able to hammer it deep enough to right field to score the go-ahead run.

I understand that Sammy Sosa, in what will hopefully (although unlikely) be his last selfish, grandstanding, STUPID play as a Cub, lofted one of his patented helium balloon throws to HOME, in an absurd attempt to cut down the go-ahead run rather than into the INFIELD, allowing Mike Lowell to advance to second, removing the force, and forcing Dusty to have the urine-soaked Farnsworth issue another IBB (I mean really now, how often do you see a runner tag from first on a fly out to right, especially a guy that would have trouble beating Eric Karros in a footrace? Criminal)

I understand that, with another opportunity to redeem himself, Farnsworth allowed the immortal Mike Mordecai, he of the 8 RBI during the season, to hit a two-out shot off the wall, driving in three runs.

I understand that it is the personnel on the field who should be held responsible; that Dusty, Gonzalez, Sosa and Farnsworth collectively drove the Cubs out of the game, and I understand that there was still another game to be played, even after they lost Game 6.

But let’s all the cut the crap here. I’m not looking for a scapegoat, I’m just calling it like I see it. And the truth is, Steve Bartman, in his best demonstration of modern fandom, immersed himself into the game, and allowed all of the subsequent events to be set in motion.

I’ve had people try to tell me that, if it was ME who was in that situation, that I would have done the same thing.

Between sips of his cancer-causing fat burner, the one he endorses so he’ll get a free year supply and won’t have to actually WORK his fat ass off, Sox fan Fred Huebner of the SCORE was saying so the very next morning. During the week, I would hear from various friends and family (mostly Sox fans) that THEY would have lunged for the pop up, and they knowingly claimed that I would have, also. The celebrity-obsessed puff writer Richard Roeper, also a Sox fan, said that “99 out of 100 fans” would have done the same.

Really? I didn’t I know I was part of such a small minority (1%?). As much as I’ve enjoyed ribbing White Sox fans, I’ve always considered them to be as knowledgeable as they come. Guess I was wrong. I didn’t know Sox fans would be so eager to exclaim, for all the world to hear, that they are no more enlightened than fans in San Diego, or Houston--or Miami, for that matter. I would have thought that we needed only to look at the ALCS, when fans in Boston yielded to Trot Nixon so he could take a home run away from the Yankees. But evidently, if you’re a White Sox fan, it is more important that you attempt to grab a live ball than it is for your team to be given a chance to reach the World Series. I guess after 25 years of fireworks, jumbotrons, stereo speakers, and “the best food in baseball” in their park, Sox fans are evidently not as interested in the game that is being played in front of them as much as I had previously thought.

And they say Cub fans aren’t into the game. Huh. Well there’s at least ONE Cub “fan” who’s not into the game.

It wasn’t instinct that forced Bartman to go for the ball. It wasn’t instinct that had the six other nimrods reaching for it. It was ignorance, and a complete lack of regard for the game that was being played on the field. Pure and simple.

Bartman’s friends and family claim that he is a “die-hard” Cub fan, and Bartman himself later claimed he was sick at what happened but that he got caught up in the moment and had his “eyes glued to the ball”

But that’s exactly the point here. He had his eyes glued to the ball. As far as I’m concerned, that is a damning statement. His eyes weren’t on the field, but on the ball, because—oh goody—NOW he has a chance to catch a foul ball, circumstances be damned. For those of you that sympathize with Bartman, put yourselves in his shoes. I know many of you think you have done so already but, if you consider yourself to be a die-hard fan, you would see it like this:

You’re sitting in the front row. You’re a die-hard fan so you are absolutely PUMPED that this could be the night that the Cubs clinch their first pennant since 1945. However, you’re still nervous. Mark Prior has been laboring, there’s a runner on second base and, even though the Cubs have a three-run lead, these are the CUBS, after all, and you’re not relaxing until this one’s in the bag. The batter, Luis Castillo, is battling an obviously tiring Prior. Castillo works the count full. He swings. It’s a pop up. Oh God stay fair stay fair--c’mon Moises. Oh shit, the ball’s coming right to us but, BECAUSE I’M IN THE FRONT ROW, it won’t necessarily be out of play. Moises may still have a chance to make the 23rd out of the game. Look up in to the air, ball’s coming closer. Look out toward the field, Moises is coming closer. Ball. Moises. Ball. Moises. GET BACK! GET BACK. C’mom Moises! YEAH! YEAH! FUCKING AWESOME! ATTA BOY MOISES. WOO! Four outs away, baby!!!

I’ve been to over two hundred Cubs games in my life, going back to 1979. It’s not hard for me to realistically visualize what I would do if I were sitting in Bartman’s shoes, or headphones, or what have you.

But that’s not what happened, is it? No Steve Bartman, frustrated, repressed former ballplayer, little league coach (26 year old w/o kids coaching little league…’sup with that?), North Shore yuppie, Abercrombie turtleneck-wearing, arrogant Golden Domer…is he hoping, beyond hope that the ball will stay in play, and the Cubs will be four outs from the pennant? No, this asswipe has his eyes on the ball because he has a chance to catch it. Even though he’s seated in the front row, this is his chance. His ONE chance. Hey--even Bartman’s dad said that he “taught” his kids “to catch a foul ball” Way to go, pops. Even though your son didn’t have to heed your senseless advice, by doing so you’ll have to correspond with him via e-mail from now on. Not to mention that you didn’t teach him very well, dad, because your son looked like a cross between Corky Thatcher and Larry “Bud” Melman in flailing at the popup.

We all know what happened after Steve Bartman’s baseball fantasy camp moment. Prior, who was on fumes to begin with, was visibly upset, tried to lobby for an interference call (which it wasn’t, technically), and then couldn’t recover, throwing ball four in the dirt. And then Dusty, Gonzalez, Farnsworth, and Sosa put the game out of reach with their own indelible marks. But c’mon. Look at the replay. Moises had the ball pegged. He timed his jump. There’s little doubt that he would have caught the ball and, if he had, the Cubs would be winning 3-0, with one runner on base, and two outs in the eight inning. Even if Prior gave up a moonshot to Rodriguez, the tone would still be positive. If that happened, and Cabrera hits the three-hopper to Gonzalez, Gonzo doesn’t worry about starting a spectacular double play, takes his time, and guns down the slow-footed Cabrera. Assuming the Cubs then would not have scored in their half of the eighth, the Marlins would be looking at a two-run deficit in the ninth inning, with their #5, #6 and #7 hitters due up. In other words, no Pudge. Should have been a gimme. But Steve Bartman evidently didn’t see it that way. Evidently, he felt that the 3-0 lead was secure enough that he could begin taking outs away from his supposed “favorite” team.

Just because a guy says he’s a Cub fan doesn’t make him a real Cub fan. This guy not only enforced the stereotype of Cub fans as ignorant yuppies not interested in the action on the field, but he did something, because of his self-centered, fantasizing sensibility, much, much worse.

He cost the Cubs the pennant.

2003-10-14T09:24:00.000-05:00

FOR THE LOVE OF MIKE ROYKO, CAN WE PLEASE STOP WITH THE BILLY GOAT REFERENCES?

Many people think they understand the suffering endured by Cub fans. Sportswriters with no particular feel for both Chicago and baseball resort to churning out the supposed Billy Goat Curse which was, in reality, a public relations stunt pulled off by William "Bill" Sianis, owner of the Billy Goat Tavern and Uncle of the Billy Goat's present-day owner, Sam Sianis. People who call themselves journalists are effectively spitting on Mike Royko's grave by insisting on this tired, lazy reference, for it was Royko who long contended, and even had, as the topic in his last column before his death, that the curse was a joke and that it was PK Wrigley's inaction on signing black ballplayers that doomed the franchise beginning in the 50's, and "not some damn goat". Royko was a constant patron at Bill Sianis' bar, wrote an excellent eulogy for him when he died, and was like a brother to Bill's nephew Sam. Long after Sam took over the bar after his uncle's death, Royko and Sam Sianis were best of friends. The Greek and the Pollock.

Of course, this only proves why Royko was head and shoulders above his peers. Here was his friend, who benefited from every reference to the curse, and Royko who was, as always, operating without an agenda, refused to help his friend out. Why? Because it's a bunch of hokum. I would say shame on all writers who continue to engender this myth, but for the fact that most of them are shameless in the first place.

But here's a thought...

Even IF this Billy Goat Curse had merit, it would fail to explain a much more troubling trend, a more dubious record that extends long before 1945 and Sianis' goat.

EVEN if the CUBS, God willing, were to just win one of these next two flipping games and GET to the World Series, they will resume battle with a record that they currently share with the Dodgers.

The BROOKLYN Dodgers.

Da Bums. The group from New York who lost in '16, 20', '41, '47, '49, '52 and '53...seven consecutive Series losses until they broke it in '55 (and went on to win 5 more in LA). It's so f%$#ked up that the Dodgers actually had to catch up to the CUBS to tie the record! The Cubs lost in '10, '18, '29, '32, '35, '38, and '45. It was the Cubs' record, and Brooklyn tied it. Think about that for a moment. The team that only exists on paper, and in many long-suffering Brooklynites' memories, the stumbling, bumbling, fumbling, Bums from Brooklyn, as legendary as they were, would be relieved of one last ignominy if the Cubs, were they--again, God willing--able to get in to the World Series, and then lose the Series. Were the Cubs to get there and lose, they will add a chapter to their mostly miserable history--most consecutive World Series losses (EIGHT).

So shove that Billy Goat where the sun doesn't shine. If the Cubs win tonight or tomorrow, I'll be interested in seeing what tired, lazy substitutes for true analysis will stand in for the Goat when these hacks realize that the Cubs will be in a position to break a 50-year old tie of dubious distinction.

2003-10-13T11:00:00.000-05:00

In watching Pedro Martinez "OLE!" a bullrushing, 72-year old Don Zimmer and drop him on his bulbous, metal encased head, I flashed back to that warm May afternoon in 1984 when the 53-year old Zimmer, then coaching third base for Jim Frey's NL Central Division Winning Cubs, was dropped to the Wrigley Field turf by an enraged Mario Soto of Cincinnati, causing Zim to swallow his chew and practically ralph.

Anybody remember that?

What is it with this guy (Zimmer) and hot-tempered Latin pitchers? It makes me wonder about the ethnicity of the pitcher, whoever he was, who beaned Zim as a young player, leaving him in a coma for a while and subsequently requiring him to wear the aforementioned metal in his head?

Hmmm. Don't know about you, but I'm just more than a little freaked out that both instances happened in seasons where the Cubs would go on to be one game from the pennant with three games to go. Gulp.

2003-10-04T14:00:00.000-05:00

My favorite quote from this article...

In the sixth inning, for his chef's special, Wood even struck out Chipper Jones on a split-fingered changeup he almost never throws -- but "he's been working on that," said catcher Paul Bako. Which was news that will no doubt thrill hitters across the globe.

2003-10-04T12:15:00.000-05:00

The Curse of Coming Close...

The Cubs are up two games to one on the Braves. Matt Clement will be trying to go pitch for pitch with Wood and Prior, because, well, we'll kick Russ Ortiz's ass...

But here's what I really want to talk about...the Boston Red Sox.

Being a Cubs fan, I'm almost guilted into having some sort of sympathy for the Boston Red Sox. Screw the Boston Red Sox.

HBO's Real Sports just did a piece on what would happen if the Red Sox were to win the World Series. All these people were talking about how great it would be, but...what would happen the next day? They think that somehow the mystique of the Red Sox would be worn off. Some would have nothing to root for. What would happen next? Screw that...

Since 1945, the Red Sox have won 4 pennants and 2 division titles. 2003 is their 3rd wild card appearance. Everyone knows about 1975 and 1986...Somehow, I'm supposed to feel sorry for a bunch of chumps who have come within a few mere outs of winning the World Series? Screw them.

If I taste the World Series, I want the whole damn thing...lovable losers tag be damned. The Red Sox fans have no perspective. I'd trade the rest of Sammy Sosa's career for a World Series. I'd trade the Bulls 6 championships for a World Series. I'd trade Wrigley Field for a World Series.

Screw the Red Sox. They can keep feeling sorry for themselves, I'll be celebrating the World Series on the northside for about 3 1/2 months...till pitchers and catchers report again...and then, we'll do it again.

Go Cubs!!!

2003-09-17T14:14:00.000-05:00

GREETINGS FROM THE END OF THE WORLD.

I'm listening to the game right now (2-0 Cubs vs. Mets, third inning, Cubs 1.5 GB Houston), and Pat Hughes just announced the matchups this weekend for Pittsburgh.

Cruz/Zambrano vs. Fogg/Torres
Clement vs. Vogelsong
Prior vs. OLIVER PEREZ.

I swear, I would have beamed had I heard, say, Randy Johnson or, since this is the Pirates, Rick Rhoden 1984...I would have scoffed, chortled, wheezed, coughed etc....but OLIVER PEREZ. THAT freaks me out. Sumpin' give mojo weird, bad feeling. Didn't this freak shut out BOTH Chicago teams, including your beloved earlier this year?

I tell you what--this is how a common Cubs fan can think. I'm worried because Prior's going up against Oliver Freaking Perez?!?

Shoot me dead now.

2003-07-21T16:27:00.000-05:00

Right now, I think the Cubs should refrain from making any trade.

I've gone back and forth on this subject, from hysterical, on the edge-of-the window manic to hopelessly resigned, but what it comes down to is this:

-- This team is more than one ballplayer away from doing any damage in the playoffs, especially now that Patterson is done.
-- The Cubs will not get more than one excellent ballplayer, so why burn up a prospect, just get one, and still get swept 3-0 by Atlanta?
-- This Cubs team, as currently constituted, could still win their lousy-ass division.
-- Making the playoffs will be fun.
-- Getting swept won't be.
-- Making the playoffs, and getting swept, with THIS god-awful bunch, and not having to have dealt any prospects in the process would be fun. After all, even this lousy club could get lucky. If it wasn' for Javy Lopez' one-out, ninth-inning homer in '98, THAT lousy club could have snuck into the second round, where things reeaaaly get interesting.
-- Making the playoffs, and getting swept, with THIS god-awful bunch, and having dealt a top prospect to do so would suck major ass.

So I'm on board, until I change my mind again. Let's ride the Trendidad Hubbard/Tom Goodwin platoon in Center, play Martinez at third--or even call up Hill, cut Troy "Thief" O"Leary and move Grudz to third so long as he doesn't bitch about it, and see if this patchwork quilt could outlast Houston's tired bullpen and ST. Louis' broken-down rotation.

And then, after they've been swept, we'll bid a fond adieu to Misters Karros and Grudzielanek, a not-so-fond adieu to Lenny Harris and Jose Hernandez, and then Jim Hendry REALLY starts to earn his paycheck, makes some tough decisions--mainly either ship Sammy out or convince him that he needs to play left field, in which case you try to unload Alou--and then make a play for BOTH Mike Lowell and Brian Giles.

Now THAT would be fun.

2003-07-11T15:53:00.000-05:00

MY $0.02 AT THE ALL-STAR BREAK, AS IF ANYBODY GIVES A SHIT

I’ll reserve judgment on Dusty until the season’s over. His track record reflects an annual tradition of finishing strong, so I’ll hold my tongue and see what happens.

Grudz— Wow. We finally caught a flippin’ break. We were happy to get him and Karros, even though we figured that Grudz and Karros were done, because it allowed us to get rid of that sweaty prick Hundley. And these two lead the team in hitting? And we’re hovering around .500? And Hundley’s on the DL for the Dodger? Again? Jeez, with such good fortune around here for once, I’m afraid to see what happens next.

Gonzalez— Swish. Swish. Swish. Swish. Crack. Every so often, Alex hits one….reeeall fucking hard. The clutch homers this guy kept hitting became downright creepy, no? Who the fuck is that late-inning freak? Why, that’s our slick-fielding, .250 hitting, 150 times whiffin’ shortsop. We knew his defense would look much better this year without him having to throw the ball to that Rodin sculpture at first, and it has. On balance, he’s barely adequate overall. If it weren’t for his dramatics, his standing would be waaay down..

Patterson-- Could be a blessing that he’s out. C’mon, he’s 23, and he gets to jump off a sinking ship and get the medical treatment of a millionaire. Go. Get healthy. And then get hungry, come back fresh and go .310/25/100 with 40 SB’s (hey I know it’s an ACL tear, but this is 2003. They will remake him). Frankly, his numbers for this year were declining, and the team was starting to suck ass anyway. Spare him the ignominy of getting swept 3-0 by the Bravos in the NLDS again, because that’s all that would have happened WITH him. His numbers declined last year, too, but a lot more suddenly—at least he carried this year’s hot start through May, making his numbers after June appear respectable (.298 with more RBI’s than all of last year). Who knows? Maybe next year he’ll make it strong through August, and the year after that, he’ll dominate for a whole season. Much to look forward to here, hopefully.

Sosa—Got beaned, played hurt, went on the DL, cheated, got caught, got punished. He’s off the All-Star team, and he trails Rondell White, among others, in NL homeruns. In case you can’t tell, this is not one of Sammy’ best years. Needs to produce a giant “fuck you” to the NL pitchers in the second half, and start hammering them to right, to center, to left, all over the goddamn ballpark. Needs to stop politicking every close pitch. His evolution as a hitter has enabled him to do this on occasion, and he used this practice prudently last year, but now he goes to the well every time he disagrees. That’s not a lifetime right—when you’re batting .290 and whiffing a lot, you look like Todd Hundley when you’re constantly looking back. Of course, to really look like Hundley you’d also need a bucketful of sweat and a beery, glass-eyed look in your eyes, but that’s beside the point. Sammy needs to strap in and beat ass. Recent flashes of his, like the game he and Kerry won vs. the Fish the other day, make you wonder if he’s back, or if it’s just that—a flash, and his bat really has slowed down.

Alou—Technically, he’s the Biggest Clutch Hitter on the team, but he’s also had the most opportunities. Swings at the first pitch a lot. From my seats down the left-field line, I ask him where he’s supposed to be so soon that he would treat his AB like it was a virus. He normally doesn’t respond to me. At least he's a threat in this lineup, which is more than you can say for most of the guys on this team, even if he does lead the league in Checked Swing Foul Balls. All in all, still somewhat disappointing, but with this putrid offense, the Cubs would likely be further out of it without Moises’ modest contribution.

Eric Karros/Hee Sop Choi—Like Grudzielank with Hill, a lot of saberweenies were positively angst-ridden at the prospect of Karros “stealing” time from the rookie Choi. Now I don’t doubt these fans’ allegiance to the Cubs, but the problem with newfangled statistical toys is that, when they become fashionable, fans tend to stick to them, subsequently develop an agenda, and next thing you know, these Cub fans are sounding like paranoid conspiracy freaks, and screeching about how Baker’s predilection for veterans is why Hill and Choi won’t be playing, and this all fits in to the Tribune Co. not worrying about performance as much as the bottom line, blah blah blah blah fucking blah—shut the fuck and look at some facts. Hill is an unproven young player who had a terrible spring, went to Iowa, where, upon seeing 10% as many cameras and microphones as in Chicago, went into a funk and is currently batting .260. Choi looked to be the real deal, and probably will be the real deal real soon, but he started to struggle in his first full big-league season, and then hit his head on the dirt, forcing Baker to play Karros every day. Karros has effectively taken the job from Choi, and in all honesty, should be get more of the starts the rest of the way, so long as the Cubs have a chance to make the playoffs. To hell with the splits career-wise, Karros, playing for one more multi-year contract, is flat out hitting the ball this year. Against everybody. He’s a veteran, who’s been better with the glove than most of us would have thought. Choi is a rookie batting .240. I believe in Hee Sop. But it’s not like they’re dumping him for Karros. There’s no Gaetti principal for 2004 as it pertains to Karros. He’s outta here. But let’s not ruin our good fortune by sticking to an agenda. It makes us look like a bunch of fucking ingrates. Choi, barring injury, will be manning first base for the next twelve years, at least. It’s just that now, as this team finds itself with something on the line, Karros should be getting more of the starts. Period.

And when Karros leaves the Cubs after the season, we’ll all remember him fondly for his professionalism at being a part-time player for the first time in his career, his homerun against Juan Acevedo, and his offensive contributions overall, wherein a Karros at-bat instills more hope for the Cubs offense than an at-bat from pretty much anybody else on the team. Me, I’ll always remember that he was the man who was pinch-run for by the 40-year old Lenny Harris. What a slow motherfucker. But when/if he returns to Wrigley as a member an opposing team, I’ll give him a nice hand.

Ranny Hernanhorn---Boy, for all the talk about the void at third since Santo retired, who would have thought that we were yet to see the all-time nadir at the position until this year? This makes the Gary Scott Experiment appear like heady times. It’s kind of like the Cubs suffering for 50 years, and THEN topping off their brutal half-century with an 0-14 start in ’97. But this is what the hot corner has come to this year: Four average-to-lousy players, one position. Bellhorn started off, but got off to such a terrible start that Dusty went into convulsive, hallucinatory fits that enabled him to visualize Lenny Harris starting at that position 30% of the time. Bells got dealt for Jose Hernandez, who, once he started to hit, was subsequently benched. Overall, he sucks worse than he ever did before. His penchant for HR’s has been a rumor. Ramon Martinez has been a nice surprise, and it would be preferred to see him play their every day if it meant not having to see Harris there. Ever (Ironically, Lenny’s actually been serviceable over there defensively, bordering on adequate, but when you see him starting at third, you know it’s four easy outs in the lineup that day). The painful part about all this is, if the Cubs had a legit third baseman, they would probably be contending.

Damiam Miller/Paul Bako—as it turns out, only thismuchbetter than Joe Girhundley but just knowing that we’re not going to see A) Hundley still bitching about not starting on Opening Day 2001, while looking lost and confused at the plate, swinging at balls in the dirt and looking at Bob-Scanlan-style straight fastballs down the middle and arguing with umps afterward, and arguing with hecklers and getting drunk and beating up beer vendors, and B) Joe Girardi’s mere presence, I think we can all agree that the two guys we have there now are a refreshing change. Still, Miller has been a flop at the plate, some 25 points below his career BA, and he’s been merely OK behind the plate (Many fans disagree with me, but I think the guy’s a bit overrated defensively). The guy’s already got two strikes on him coming to Chicago. A replacement player in ’95 coming to one of the biggest union cities in the nation, and being a died-in-the-wool Packer fan from Western Wisconsin. Strike three will be his continuing his Steve Lake-like offensive contribution in the second half. Bako’s just not good enough to take the job from Miller full-time, but he’s performed well behind the plate when he does start. Although, the more I see him bat, the more I think, “Lenny Harris”

Goodwin—like Grudz/Karros, we may have gotten lucky with a good year from Goodwin. I know he hasn’t played much and that his .263 BA could easily wind up .211, but after watching him try to bat in last year’s World Series, not to mention the first 5 weeks of this year as a Cub, it’s remarkable that he is where he is. Fingers crossed, unless/until the Cubs upgrade.

O’Leary—This year’s Candy Maldonado Award winner. Granted, Candy stole money to play everyday, O’Leary steals it whenever he goes up to pinch hit. The job he did filling in for Sammy was underwhelming. This is the guy, not Harris, that you cut in order to send a message. O’Leary has performed the furthest below his level.

Kerry—I’m resigned to living with the Nolan Ryan comparisons. We were hoping for Roger Clemens, and may still get it, and, truth be told, Wood is still a better pitcher at his age than Ryan was, but it appears that he has still been unable to leave his wild side behind. At times, he is the most dominant pitcher in baseball. At others, he’s Rick Vaughn from “Major League”. With Mark Prior drawing comparisons to Tom Seaver, then it’s waaay easier to accept Wood as another Nolan Ryan. And who knows? He may still become Roger Clemens.

Okay no more comparisons. I promise

Mark—What can you say about the guy that’s original? I don’t want to incur the wrath of the gods, but he’s so good, he’s boring. He’s already a better pitcher than Wood, but I would still rather pay to watch Wood pitch than Prior. Make sense? No, didn’t think it would.

Carlos—Lurking in the weeds is the guy who the Cubs will hopefully lock up before he escapes and becomes another team’s, ANY team’s, ace. Seriously. In two years, the Cubs could conceivably have three of the best six pitchers in the league. That’s what an emerging 22-year old wild Venezuelan can do for you. I mean, he’s had weeks already—WEEKS, not A week--where he’s been a better pitcher than both Mark and Kerry.

Matt—For a fourth starter, I’ll take the Rick Helling-type, inning-eating lovable lug. Especially since he battled from a poor start to get close to .500.

Shawn—“Because Every Household Needs a Lefty Starter”…or whatever. Because of this dogma, I’d like you to meet our our token. His name is Shawn. He won 19 games in 1997. He sucks. But he’s probably better than YOUR token lefty. I’ll take 10-10 with a 5.50 ERA. And then I want him OUTTA HERE.

Farns—Can’t quite figure out if Farns has been sufficiently HUMBLED by his embarrassing act during the 2002 season. He’s said the right things. He’s been better than last year, but then again—he’d have to be. Otherwise I wouldn’t even be writing about him. He’d be knocking up waitresses and serving up long home runs in OTHER cities. But he’s still here and, at times, we’re pretty grateful. Other times, we think he’s fallen off the wagon. He’s just not quite closer material yet, if ever.

Jobo—Hooray from a real-live real person from Jersey. This is the kind of guy that, if the Cubs were to simply win a postseason series, wouldn’t ever have to work again, so long as he continued to live here. He’d have his own TV show at 50 if he would want. A little shaky as a closer for my blood, but when he shuts it down, it’s a double win, because he’s such an easy guy to root for.

Remlinger— What, are we playing at Shea? What’s with all of these rockets flying overhead everytime Remlinger pitches? This year’s Rodney McCray Award Winner. Proven Veteran Reliever turns into Doug Jones. He just gets hammered, and I don’t mean in the Todd Hundley at the Clubhouse Bar hammered. He’s given up 9 HR’s. If you’re standing at the window where Troy Leary’s refunding the money he’s stolen, you can move over to Remlinger’s and create more space around here.

Guthrie. As a threatening lefty that instills confidence, Guthrie makes a good folk guitarist. Sorry. Didn’t know what to say so I made a cheap joke at the expense of the late, great Woody G. I dunno. What do you want? Replace Remlinger? Can’t do any worse, but he also doesn’t instill the most confidence.

Wellemeyer—Had a really unusually quirky start to his career—not to mention uncannily effective. He rode that magic carpet till he woke up three weeks ago as a right-handed Steve Smythe. He’s got promise but on this team…what? An effective, home-grown long reliever? I’ll take that, I guess.

Cruz—Juan must be at the point where’s he wondering if he’s done something in a past life to justify the hex he’s been under, ever since he went 3-1 for a contending team two long years ago. He’s in purgatory. He’s a long reliever! He’s a Triple-A starter! He’s on the trading block! He saws right through this tin can….and STILL slices right through this tomato! Mama mia, me duele mi cabeza!

Dave Veres—Sucked early, got hurt. Came back. Looks good. Jury’s out.

I won’t even mention the name of the evil presence on the Cubs for fear that I’ll be cursed. We know his name, the multidigited one. If I type anymore, I’ll break the computer. Besides, I’m hoping that by the All-Star break, his dismissal will have become official.

2003-06-16T13:30:00.000-05:00

The following is an entry I wrote back in January. In the spirit of George Lucas, I've made a few slight revisions and re-posted it.

Mike

"Great Frauds of the New Century, or How in The World Is Joe Morgan So Damn Well-Regarded?"

Why does everybody automatically just assume that Joe Morgan rates ahead of Ryne Sandberg? Is this because Bill James rates Morgan #1 at 2B (I'm still trying to understand Win Shares, but I'm already suspicious of any formula that leads to the convoluted conclusion that Craig Biggio is the THIRTY-FIFTH best ballplayer of all time)? I find it troubling that this assertion is never challenged, especially by Cub fans who had the privilege of watching Sandberg play and should know better, because not only is it NOT cut-and-dry, but closer examination points to Sandberg being a better all-around second baseman than Morgan. Sandberg performed at a peak level for a longer period of time than Morgan; he performed better in the postseason (as limited as it was for Sandberg), and he was far and away a more accomplished defensive player than Morgan. While their offensive numbers are similar (Sandberg's are better, across the board, with the exception of On Base Percentage and Stolen Bases), Sandberg's defensive abilties put him in an entirely separate class from Morgan. The more I examined this case, the more convinced I became that Joe Morgan has executed one of the great all-time PR campaigns this century on his own behalf, seeing as how everybody just blindly accepts, unquestionably, that he is such a cinch Hall of Famer, and that Sandberg is a "bubble" case. It's no secret that Morgan has harbored resentment toward Sandberg. After examining their careers, it's obvious as to why--he's afraid that he'll be exposed for the fraud that he is. Morgan may have been the best second baseman of the 1970’s, and he must have hoped that he would go to his grave as the best latter-20th century second baseman. But along came Sandberg to leave Morgan in the dust, and Morgan just couldn't accept that. Poor, insecure, little man.

While I admit to being biased, I am also fair, and I will be as even-handed as possible here.

First, Morgan's career. Morgan's career got off to a very promising start. In his first three seasons, playing for Houston, he batted .271, .285, .275. (Sandberg's first three years: 271, .261, .314--you can reasonably call it a draw). Morgan obviously was injured in his fourth year, as he only played in 10 games. Coming back, his career seemed to fall off the Hall of Fame radar (in '69, '70, and '71 his BA was .236, .268, and .256, respectively). He appeared to be a solid ballplayer, as he was able to get on base over 35% of the time (including a .383 OBP in '70), and his stolen bases were up, but he was clearly not headed for Cooperstown at this point. To his credit, where he had fallen off in hitting, he had attempted to make up for in moving along the basepaths (over 100 Runs Scored in 1970).

Of course, Houston was a mediocre, hovering-around-.500 ballclub back then, and Morgan clearly benefited from a change of scenery when he joined Cincinnati after the '71 season. He went from playing alongside Bob Watson, Jimmy Wynn and Jesus Alou--decent players all--to future Hall of Famers Johnny Bench, Tony Perez, and Pete Rose (please don't get technical with me on this--my focus is not Rose). Within a few years, the Reds would also bring along George Foster and Ken Griffey Sr. The latter two were similar hitters to Morgan's ex-Astro mates Wynn and Watson, who were Houston's top hitters, but in Cincinnati, Foster and Griffey were only the fifth and sixth best offensive players.

Joe Morgan was front and center on the Red Machine pennant winners, and therein lies his career peak. From 1972-1977, Morgan batted .292, .290, .293, .327, .320, and .288 respectively. He averaged 22 HRs, 84 RBI's, 113 Runs Scored, and 60 Stolen Bases. His OBP was above .400 for each of those years (climbing as high as .466 in 1975).

During those years (1972-1977) Cincinnati averaged 98 Wins a year, won four division titles, three pennants, and two World Series Championships. Of course, Morgan was MVP on the '75 and '76 championship teams (I would like to point out that, while it is perfectly legitimate to acknowledge these awards, I do not wish to add, as an argument FOR or AGAINST a certain point, subjective awards that self-important sportswriters hand out. So All-Star appearances, MVP's and Gold Gloves will not serve a purpose here. Believe me, this hurts Sandberg more than Morgan, but I just find the idea of counting awards counterproductive to providing an objective analysis) It is interesting to note that while Morgan did get credit for being the catalyst on the successful Cincy teams, his postseason numbers were downright Bondsian (as in Barry Bonds, as in pre-2002 World Series). The Reds won the NLCS in 1972 with Morgan's modest contribution of a .263 BA (although he did hit 2 home runs). In that year's World Series, however, where Cincinnati lost in seven games to Oakland, Morgan could only muster 3 hits (2 doubles) in 24 at-bats. The next season, Cincinnati got bounced from the NLCS by the Tug McGraw-led, "You Gotta Believe" Mets in the maximum 5 games, and Morgan did even worse than he did in the previous year's World Series, smashing out two hits in twenty at-bats, with one lonely RBI. Morgan followed up his first MVP season in 1975 with a pedestrian .273 BA in that season's NLCS and a subpar .259 in Cincinnati's World Series victory over Boston (zero home runs, and four total RBI in the 10 games combined) In 1976, Cincinnati swept past Philadelphia in the NLCS in spite of Morgan failing to reach base safely on a hit (0 for 7). Finally, Morgan stopped riding in the backseat and lived up to his reputation, somewhat, when it came to the World Series in 1976. As Cincinnati rolled over the Yankees, Morgan actually hit above .300 (.333 BA (5-15), 1 HR 2 RBI, 3 Runs Scored).

Alas, as far as Morgan's postseason career was concerned, this would prove to be his apex, and the ONLY time he would hit above .300 in a postseason series, out of 11 postseason series. This bears repeating: Out of ELEVEN postseaosn series, Joe Morgan batted above .300 ONE TIME. After the '76 Series, Morgan would go on to go 0 for 11 for Cincinnati in their 1979 NLCS loss vs. Pittsburgh, 2 for 13 for Houston in 1980 as they lost to Philadelphia, and 1 for 15 for Philadelphia in 1983 (The Phillies still prevailed against Los Angeles DESPITE Joe's .067 BA). Morgan did go out in style however, hitting two home runs vs. Baltimore in that year's World Series. Although Baltimore handily won the Series, Morgan DID bat .263, tied for his third-best average in a total of 11 postseason series. THIRD-BEST! For his career, Morgan batted .235 in 22 World Series games, with three Home Runs and Eight RBI's, Fourteen Runs Scored and Seven Stolen bases. The Runs and Stolen Bases are about the only impressive contribution here, but then again, we're talking Hall of Famer here, not Herb Washington. Combined, Morgan's postseason numbers were as follows: .182 BA, .324 OBP, 5 HR, 13 RBI, 26 Runs Scored, and 15 Stolen Bases, in 50 games (a little less than 1/3rd of a regular season). It is more than fair to say, in light of the numerous opportunities he had, that rarely did Joe Morgan rise to the occasion during the postseason.

Frankly, I was genuinely surprised to see that Morgan's postseason numbers were so lousy. Here I thought that the one thing he had over Sandberg was his clutch performances. Well, as it turns out, Joe Morgan really wasn't much of a clutch performer after all.

Seeing those numbers only make me more upset about this insidious Morgan bias.

Back to Morgan's regular season career. After his peak years (1972-1977), Morgan basically hung on for seven undistinguished seasons where he was able to pad some of his numbers, except for batting average and on-base percentage, which he managed to drag down. These were his batting averages from 1978-1984, respectively: .236 (!), .250, .243, .240, .289, .230, .244. So he had ONE season, out of SEVEN, with a batting average over .250! And they say Sandberg's depressed numbers after he came out of retirement are what hurt him in the eyes of Hall voters. Granted, Morgan was always able to get on base, and his OBP ranged from .347 to .400 during this twilight of his career. Yet had Morgan retired after 1977, his career OBP likely would have been over .400. As it was, he hung around and finished at .392. Again, this "decreased statistical output" BS was a reason used against Sandberg, but for some mysterious reason, was not applied to Morgan. The rest of Morgan's numbers from 1978-1984, on a per-season average: 11 HR, 50 RBI, 63 Runs Scored, 19 Stolen Bases.

To recap, and to break Morgan's career into 3 stages:

1965-1971 (sans 1968)-- .264 BA, .377 OBP, 10 HR, 46 RBI, 86 R, 32 SB
1972-1977-- .301 BA, .430 OBP, 22 HR, 84 RBI, 113 R, 60 SB
1978-1984-- .248 BA, .369, OBP, 11 HR, 50 RBI, 63 R, 19 SB

Sandberg had a longer peak. After two Morganesque seasons to start his career:

1982-1983: .266 BA, .314 OBP, 8 HR, 51 RBI, 99 R, 35 SB

he broke out in 1984 and posted steadily strong numbers through 1992, nearly a decade:

1984-1992: .295 BA, .357 OBP, 24 HR, 82 RBI, 97 R, 27 SB

He retired early in 1994 and came back in 1996. Here are the numbers post-1992:

1993-1997 (sans 1995)-- .264 BA, .324 OBP, 13 HR, 56 RBI, 61 R, 8 SB.

In terms of peak years, Morgan appears to have Sandberg beat, but of course Morgan's peak was only six seasons, compared to nine for Sandberg. Whatever happened to sustained consistency? Just for the sake of comparisons, I decided to look at this another way. I decided to take a look at how well Morgan did for nine seasons in his prime, compared to Sandberg:

Morgan (1970-1978) .286 BA, .406 OBP, 18 HR, 76 RBI, 81 R, 51 SB.
Sandberg (1984-1992) .295 BA, .357 OBP, 24 HR, 82 RBI, 97 R, 27 SB

Suddenly, Morgan doesn't have the a clear-cut edge. His batting average is nearly 10 points lower and, in spite of being a member of some vast offensive juggernauts, he doesn't score, or drive in as many runs as does Sandberg, who played on some God-awful offensive teams (Anybody want Vance Law to play third? How about Brian Dayett in Left Field? Webster? Mitch Webster in center, anyone?)

As good as Morgan was during his peak, it lasted only six years, barely half a decade. Don Mattingly probably doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, and the #1 argument commonly used against him is because as good as Mattingly was during his peak (from '84-'87 he was arguably the best player in baseball), he didn't sustain it long enough. And Mattingly didn't sputter for the first six, and last six years of his career like Morgan did. So why does Morgan get a free pass?

Incidentally, let's take another look at Sandberg's "inglorious" years, the years where he supposedly hurt himself in the eyes of HOF voters by slipping, retiring, and then coming back, and compare them to the last four years of Morgan's career:

Sandberg 1993-1997 (sans 1995)-- .264 BA, .324 OBP, 13 HR, 56 RBI, 61 R, 8 SB.
Morgan (1981-1984) .251 BA, .374 OBP, 11 HR, 49 RBI, 59 R, 16 SB.

About all you can say for Morgan is that he continued to get on base, and that he ran very well for an old man. After that, his numbers slumped off at a steeper rate than Sandberg's did. Yes, he was 40 years old in 1984. The point remains, however, that he hung around after his skills had eroded, and this decreased production didn't prevent him from sailing into the Hall on the first ballot.

Defense. I mentioned that I wouldn't count Gold Gloves. Frankly, I was surprised to see that Morgan actually had 4 GG's, since he always struck me as a barely adequate patrolling second. Forget Sandberg's errorless streak, too, since debate will ensue on the subjectivity of the official scorer at home ballparks. But try this on for size:

Among all National League Second Basemen, Ryne Sandberg has the most seasons with at least Five Hundred assists (Six). He is tied with Hall of Famer Charlie Gehringer of Detroit for the major-league mark. As late as 1992, at the age of 32, Sandberg collected 539 assists. In 1996, at the age of 36, and a year-and-a-half removed from retirement, he collected 421 Assists. While some players, like former double-play partner Shawon Dunston, complained that Sandberg never dove for a ball, his assist total was proof that he never HAD to. I know this is strictly anecdotal, but the guy was SO good, that he was always in position to make the play. Maybe if he dove more, pinhead writers would think more highly of him, but what should be appreciated is that Sandberg never had to dive, because he was always in position. That's called range. You can't put a price on that. Ask Rick Sutcliffe and Greg Maddux, two guys who pitched in front of Sandberg, how many times Sandberg saved them on a ball that should have gone through the infield. Yeah, he made it look effortless at times. Shouldn't that be admired? Show me an infielder who dives all the time, and I'll show you a hot dog who's out of position.

Joe Morgan, on the other hand, had exactly six seasons with at least FOUR Hundred assists. So, in other words, Sandberg had as many 500 assist seasons as Morgan had 400. The closest Morgan came to sniffing 500 in a season was his rookie year, when he had 492. Incidentally, Sandberg had 10 seasons with at least 400 assists.

Morgan also had the benefit of playing alongside ONE shortstop for his entire time in Cincinnati, Davey Concepcion, and two first baseman, Tony Perez and Dan Driessen. Sandberg had Larry Bowa, Shawon Dunston, Jose Vizcaino, and Rey Sanchez at short, and Bill Buckner, Leon Durham, and Mark Grace at first. It's a no-brainer to point out that Sandberg's Cub teams enjoyed very little stability throughout his career, unless you're talking about the stability that he brought himself.

One more thing: while Joe Morgan joined a Cincinnati team that was two years removed from the World Series in 1970, and was a decade removed from another Series appearance (1961), Sandberg joined a Cubs team that hadn't been to the postseason in 37 years. In his third year, 1984, Sandberg broke tradition and led the Cubs to their first postseason appearance since 1945. Not only that, but once there, he did everything he could to get them to the World Series, batting .368 in the 1984 NLCS, with a .455 OBP and 3 Stolen Bases. When the woebegone Cubs returned to the playoffs in 1989, Sandberg did even BETTER, batting .400 with a .478 OBP, and a home run. As limited as Sandberg's postseason career was, his numbers were:

.385 BA, .467 OBP 1 HR, 6 RBI, 3 SB, 9 Runs scored in 10 games.

He had half as many RBI as Morgan did in 1/5th as many games. Unlike Morgan, who couldn't even play AT his normal level during the postseason, Sandberg played ABOVE his when the money was on the line.

Had he played for Cincinnati in the 1970’s, Sandberg would probably have done a much better job than Morgan did. Who knows? They may have won one of those games they lost to Oakland in the '72 World Series.

So the next time you get into a discussion about ballplayers, and someone casually mentions, without blinking, that Sandberg was almost as good as Morgan, please stop him in his tracks and just ask him,

"How do you figure?"

2003-06-15T21:50:00.000-05:00

I've been trying to come up with something to write here for a while. I taken on the idea of going through the Cubs minor league system and doing a mid-season report, but with the exception of a few pitchers (Bobby Brownlie, Justin Jones, Jak-kuk Ryu, some others), the minors are pretty depressing. The players hitting well are not great prospects and the great prospects aren't hitting well (with the exception of David Kelton, who was sent down because 2-8 with a double and a run is not enough to get playing time away from Troy O'Leary [today's grand slam notwithstanding] and Tom Goodwin).

So, I've been playing GM in my head. This is about as interesting to anyone else as watching paint dry...but it's damn fun for me. So, I'll put some of my trade thoughts on paper.

Trade Antonio Alfonseca to the Red Sox. We wouldn't get much in return, but they do need a 'closer'. The downside is that Theo Epstein is exactly the type of GM who wouldn't take someone like Alfonseca. But who knows. The real coup may be to put this problem on the Yankees. They've had all sorts of issues in the pen, and Alfonseca is exactly the kind of high priced closer they need to set up Mariano Rivera. Maybe, to relieve some of their salary burden, we take Robin Ventura off their hands in exchange. This has many advantages...Ventura makes only 5 mil, and he'll be gone after this year. The 5 mil balances nicely with Alfoinseca's 4. The downside is that the Yanks don't have a replacement for Ventura, unless someone can convince them that Todd Zeile is an everyday 3B. Both of these options are definitely long-shots...but they're worth thinking about. For that matter, any team out there who wants/needs a reliever ought to be on Jim Hendry's speed-dial.

Just a thought...

2003-06-10T14:53:00.000-05:00

"Ain' That Horse Been Beat Dead Long Enough?" or "My $0.02 on Sam-A-Lama-Ding-Dong And His Silly Bat"

Just wanted to get a half-dozen points off my chest regarding all of this craziness with Sam...

1) Sosa swung at BALL FOUR, for crying out loud. On a 3-2 pitch, with runners on second and third and ex-Cub Jeremi Gonzalez looking vulnerable early, Sammy expanded the strike to hit a pitch, that was three feet outside, off of the end of the bat, scoring an already-conceded run and getting JGonz one out from escaping bigger damage in the inning. If Sammy plays within himself, he draws a walk, the bat remains "uncorked", and the Cubs have the potential for a really big inning. Of course, Moises may very well have hit into an inning-ending double play, rendering Sammy's Rey Sanchez-like groundball an optimal outcome, but I prefer to think that the Cubs put up a crooked number on the young D-Rays, Mark Prior cruises for the easy "W", Sammy-gate does not exist, and life is good. Instead, they win an ugly game that they should have lost to a lousy opponent , and Sammy gets exposed as a phony. Remember this Sammy while you're sipping your Captain 'N' Cokes reclined in your Lake Point Towers condo during your suspension: a walk's as good as a hit.

2) If Sammy's using the corked bat for exhibition, is anybody impressed with this ambition of his to please people during batting practice? I'm not. Hey bub--94 years without a championship doesn't exactly leave us yearning for individual excellence. Ernie Banks is already the poster child for great ballplayers who never even sniffed a World Series, and after him we've got Ryno..stop trying to impress Ellie May Atkins from Dubuque, Iowa, and work on being a winning teammate, willyaplease?

3) Also, if one of those exhibitions happens to be, say, oh, I don't know, the Home Run Derby which takes place during All-Star Game festivities, what in the world does THAT say? Hey Sammy--that's still a competition. I believe there's money or, worse--charitable donations, at stake in these little dog-and-pony shows. How would your charity feel about receiving ill-gotten gains, and how would you expect your rival's charity to react at being hosed out of the cash? It's still cheating.

4) Even if it was for exhibition, what about the fact that physicists have been telling us all week that cork does not add any substantial distance? No, the reason that a hitter would swing a corked bat would be for the lightness of the bat, which would be a result of the weight of wood being displaced by the lighter weight of cork. And this makes sense, since the Houston staff seemed to take turns all weekend making Sammy look like Steve Balboni. Is he telling us that he also had difficulty on getting around on 75 MPH Dick Pole-tossed batting practice fastballs?

5) And if Sammy did, in fact, have a hard time hitting his precious jonrons in batting practice, thus necessitating his use of cork, then shouldn't he have been the helpful teammate and taken a four-day vacation in beautiful Jackson, Tennesse to play for the Diamond Jaxx on a rehab assignment? Seems like a more appropriate place to pick up your stroke than against a division rival with whom you're battling for divisional supremacy. Besides, you could reeeaallly impress the locals down there with your moonshots. If you're such a showman, why wouldn't that interest you?

6) But let's cut the crap--does Sammy really expect us to believe that he accidentally brought that bat, the bat with the letter "C" etched into the barrel, to the plate by accident in the first place? A hitter as thorough and superstitious as Sosa can't tell the difference between his real bat and a corked bat? I'll give him a couple points for at least admitting that he corked his bat to begin with, but if he expects us to buy the story that he mistakenly brought the bat, the ONE bat out of 76 that just happened to be corked, up to the plate in a real game, then he must think that we'd pay for a ticket to watch a club with 90 + losses. Oh, wait...

That being said, I find it hard to believe that this had been an ongoing thing with Sammy in the past. I've never been a huge Sammy-backer, but I don't believe for a San Pedro De Macoris Minute that his home runs have been anything other than legit. Even Sammy's too dumb to endanger himself that gravely. No. To me, this is black-and-white. He struggled, he bit the forbidden fruit and cheated, he got caught, he'll get punished, and his team will suffer. End. Of. Story. Of course, if you're the fat, bloated, well-fed, complacent Rick Telander, aka the Bob Greene of the Sports section, this as an apocolyptic event--shaking us from our idyllic, dementia-induced, romanticized, Eisenhower Era environment that never existed in the first place. To that, all I can say is...

Fuck Rick Telander and the sentimental pap he rode in on.

And Go Cubs.

2003-05-12T15:49:00.000-05:00

Is that guy's name "Palermo" or is Harry just slurring his pronounciations again?

Much has been said of late about Rafael Palmeiro acheiving 500 home run status, and what this means to Cub fans, who saw the young Dallas Green-drafted prospect shipped out during the infancy of this impressive journey.

Personally, I find all of this hand-wringing a complete waste of time which many self-absored Cub fans relish in. The two ideas that are buttressed to support this bellyaching are the following:

1) The Cubs trading Palmeiro qualifies as one of their worst moves.
2) The Cubs would have had much more on-field success if only had they held onto Palmeiro.

I feel compelled to contribute on the topic. Having been a die-hard since 1979, I can speak with authority on the entire arc of Palmeiro's career and I can tell you, without hesitation, that all of these clichéd "what if" suppositons is much ado about nothing.

Let's talk about the trade. On December 5th, 1988, Cub General Manager Jim Frey dealt Palmeiro, Jaime Moyer, and Drew Hall to Texas for Mitch Williams, Paul Kilgus, Curtis Wilkerson, Steve Wilson, Luis Benitez and Pablo Delgado. Okay, it won't take long to see that this deal did not help the Cubs in the long run. Palmeiro, the Cubs' first round pick in 1985 and an All-Star in 1988 for the Cubs (as an outfielder), had the hype and was beginning to deliver on his promise. Williams was gone after two years.

Of course, Williams' presence in the bullpen was an improvement over Rich Gossage, who was the Cubs' closer in '88 by virtue of a WORSE trade than Palmeiro-for-Williams when Frey dealt Lee Smith to Boston, and only got Al Nipper and Calvin Schiraldi in return. Not only was Williams able to remedy the closer situation, if for only one year, but his 36 Saves helped the Cubs win the division. Steve Wilson, the left-handed middle reliver also acquired in the trade, also contributed in 1989. Granted, he wasn't spectacular, but his 4.20 ERA in 85 1/3 IP was helpful. Paul Kilgus....sucked. Wilkerson didn't suck, but didn't really stand out, either. And the other two guys never even enjoyed a cup of coffee.

As for the flipside of the trade, well, we know about Palmeiro, but many fans, with the benefit of hindsight, like to scream and howl that MOYER was also dealt, as if anybody could see, in 1988, that Moyer would go on to (possibly) win over 200 games in his career. Look--this guy scuffled his way through the bigs for a good while after the trade. He was an under .500 pitcher each season for four of the next five seasons after the trade. In fact, Texas had thought so highly of him, they released him after only two seasons. St. Louis picked him up the next year, and they released him after the season. At that point, the Cubs actually REACQUIRED Moyer, but he couldn't make their roster coming out of Spring Training in 1992, so they released him. He signed with Detroit in 1992 but never saw any action in the bigs that year. After the season, Detroit granted him his free agency which, granted, sounds better than actually being RELEASED, but is pretty much the same thing. Moyer actually stuck around his next stop, Baltimore, for three seasons, but impressed the Orioles so little that they sprung him loose in 1995. At that point, Boston took a flyer on Moyer, and that was where his perseverance was rewarded, and he began to turn into the pitcher we see today. He went 7-1 for the Bosox and Seattle saw enough in him to actually trade another player, Darren Bragg, for his services during the season. He went 6-2 for Seattle, for a combined total of 13-2. Finally, the vagabond had a place he could call home, right? Wrong. After one more season in Seattle, 1997, the Mariners granted him free agency. Not liking what was out there for him, Moyer re-signed with the Mariners, and has since been one of the finest lefthanders in the American League. But that path of success was hardly a straight line coming out of Chicago. The same fans who hit their forehead in rememebring that Moyer was dealt by the Cubs likely would have been screaming for his release had the Cubs held onto him, and he scuffled along for them like he did for Texas, St. Louis and Detroit.

So let's throw Moyer out of the equation, since his success was due more to his own work ethic and perseverance than the actual talent he possessed in '89, and keep the spotlight on Palmeiro, and how the Cubs "suffered" by having dealt him.

First, I'd like to throw out, for the sake of comparison, what are generally accepted to be the two worst moves by the Cubs in the last 40 years:

1) Letting Greg Maddux go.
2) Trading Lou Brock for Ernie Broglio.

The Maddux deal was FAR worse than the Brock deal, simply by the transaction itself. They actually let Maddux walk, AFTER he had won a Cy Young Award and 20 games for the Cubs, and literally received nothing return. The arrogance of CEO Stanton Cook and GM Larry Himes left the Cubs with NOTHING in exchange for the best pitcher of the 1990's. As for Brock-Broglio (the actual trade was Brock, Jack Spring and Paul Toth to St. Louis Cardinals in exchange for Broglio, Bobby Shantz and Doug Clemens), you had a case of dealing a prospect who you hadn't felt would ever turn out to be the star that he would. Conversely, the main guy the Cubs got, Broglio, was injured. Today, the trade probably would never have been finalized, as Broglio would likely have been considered "damaged goods" upon a most basic physical. Still, the trade was made and, in hindsight, was an awful trade for the Cubs.

Of course, it is in hindsight that these trades are judged. And with Brock, you had the missing element for the '69 Cubs--a center fielder. Had GM John Holland held onto Brock, we may not have heard all of obnoxious snorting from New York in '69, and Ron Santo would probably be in the Hall of Fame.

But did Palmeiro leave a decades-long gap at his position like Brock's absence did in center field? While Mark Grace proved to be a full level below Palmeiro, first base was hardly an area of concern for the Cubs in the 1990's. Sure, it would have been nice to have had Palmeiro's run production, but did NOT having that production mean the difference between being an annual contender and a lousy club? I hardly think so. The drop off was not nearly as steep as, say from Maddux to Mike Morgan, or the difference between Brock and Don Young in '69. Hell, the Cubs employed one of the all-time biggest run producers in the history of the game in Sammy Sosa, and at the same time suffered through four of their five worst seasons in the past twenty-five years (1994, 1997, 1999, and 2000). One player, especially a first baseman, would not have made a difference on some of the God-awful teams that Frey, Himes, and Ed Lynch slapped together. In fact, Plameiro's numbers may have suffered, seeing as how all of the teams he subsequently played for were generally better than the Cubs.

Not only was Palmeiro-for-Williams not worse than Brock-Broglio, but it doesn't even hold up to these deals:

Bill Madlock (with Rob Sperring) to San Francisco in exchange for Bobby Murcer, Steve Ontiveros and Andy Muhlstock (February 11, 1977). Like Maddux, Madlock had also proven himself, by winning two batting crowns for the Cubs. The only category that Murcer would lead the league in while with the Cubs was in Warning Track Flyouts. Ontiveros was gone after a little more than three years, and, 28 years later, the Cubs STILL don't have a third baseman.

Lee Smith to Boston in exchange for Al Nipper and Calvin Schiraldi (December 8, 1987). If not for this Jim Frey gaffe, the Cubs wouldn't have needed to trade for the Wild Thing in the first place. Still, the fact that Smith collected nearly 300 Saves after he left, and that both Schiraldi and Nipper were both busts rendered this trade just awful.

Eric Heinske to Oakland for Miguel Cairo (March 28, 2001). The jury could still be out on the 2002 AL Rookie of the Year, but this much is certain--the Cubs thought so highly of Cairo that they released him in July of 2001, St. Louis signed him, and he won a game for them a week later as the Cubs battled the Cardinals (as well as Houston) for the division crown. Unofficially, this trade also included Scott Chiasson. Chiasson was a Rule V and the Cubs, wanting to keep him but not put him on the 25-man roster, worked out the trade. So it was essentially Cairo and Chiasson for Heinske. Doesn't matter. While Chiasson showed promise in 2001, he blew out his arm the next year and hasn't been heard from since.

I'm not saying that Palmeiro-for-Williams wasn't a BAD trade. It clearly was. However, considering that the Cubs won the division in 1989 in large part due to Williams' effort, and that they had a legitimate first baseman during the 1990's in Grace, that the trade does not qualify as one of the "all-time worst" moves in Cubs history. The Cubs would not have had much more success with Palmeiro had they had him. Seeing how poorly the franchise was run during the 1990's, he very well may have bolted for free agency anyway.

--Mike

2003-05-01T19:25:00.000-05:00

As Mike corrected me, the event I spoke of about the American flag happened at Dodger Stadium...taking away a bit of ammunition from the White Sox fans...

2003-04-16T10:32:00.000-05:00

Hating the White Sox is being made easier and easier everyday. Normally, I wouldn't write negatively about another baseball team, I'd rather spend my time and energy on trying to figure out how exactly I came to the Cubs being are my favorite team. But jeez...

First, the White Sox trade one of the 3 best relievers in baseball for Billy Koch. I think, great! Keith Foulke is easily the better pitcher...look it up. Then, Billy Koch decides to fit into the White Sox clubhouse by ripping on the Twins. The Twins!!! Here's a team with payroll somewhere around what a good dinner on Rush Street costs. Here's a team that was on the contraction chopping block 2 years ago. Stirring the fire with these guys is sort of like making fun of St Mary's School for the Blind after they win the state championship or something. Here's a team full of overachievers and hard-workers who have defied all logic to be one of the best teams in the majors over the past 2 years. Nicely done...

Next comes Spring Training. In the new collective bargaining agreement, there stipulations for drug testing. At first, the testing is done once, and, if 5% of the league tests positive or refuses to take the test, the testing becomes random year-round. So 17 White Sox players decide to boycott the test. A show for the absolute unfairness and paranoia such a test would elicit? A protest against the ownership trying to put a slightly tighter noose on the union and the players? Nope...this group of backwards Neanderthals decides to boycott the testing because they WANT random drug testing in thye league. And, sure, anyone who is on the side of fair play would say, "Testing, good...Steroids, bad...we need to randomly test the players to insure that everyone is on the same playing field." Without getting into reasons why drug testing is a bad thing, I'll focus on another issue.

Here is a CBA that the union has negotiated with the owners. It took the threat of a strike and a unification of the players to come up with a system that may or may not do the trick to stem the tide of steroid use. But the point is that the union, the same union that's ultimately responsible for these players being paid the money they are, put its approval on this CBA. And these primadonna players want to uindermine that negotation? They dare bite the hand that feeds them? Who the hell do these morons think they are? This is at least on par with crossing a picket line (something I used to hold against Rick Reed and Damian Miller and others, but no longer really do). Sure the union has its share of problems, but this is still the only recourse players have against the owners. This si still the only body that can negitiate collectively, for the overall good of the major league players. If it wasn't for the union, players would still be indentured servants to the owners, with no ability to make their grievences heard, and no way to insure fair salaries, punishments, and many other issues. And a group of players dares undermine that? I wish the Players' Association could have told them to go stick it up their collective...never mind. Of course an irony here ius that many of the fans of the White Sox are supposed to be blue-colar workers from the south side. Chicago is a big union town, and many of the fans are undoubtably in unions. I wonder what they think about this...

And then there was 4/15/03. There has been a lot of national attention written and talked and shown about what happened last night at Sox park. Fans running onto the field attacking umpires. Billy Koch giving up runs in bunches in the ninth inning. Things are good down there, huh? In the mean time, Shawn Estes throws 8 innings and the Cubs score 11 runs to win. Karma...

Sox fans will remind me that at Wrigley Field, 2 fans ran onto the field and tried to burn an American flag. At least that was an act of protest that didn't hurt anyone. And a couple of morons decided to steal a hat off a Dodger player. At least they didn't run on the field and bloody up a coach or try to mug an umpire.

Carlos Zambrano goes today for the Cubs. I'll be at the game, maybe I'll report on it afterwards.

2003-03-31T19:10:00.000-06:00

Well, what an Opening Day. Yes, that phrase, when talking about baseball, should be capitalized and considered a proper noun. Today is the first day of a very, very long season. As Mike has heard me say way, way too often, the season is a marathon, not a sprint.

But what a great first quarter of a mile!!! 15-2. I'll assume that if you're reading this, I don't need to go through what happened today.

Today is the reason I read about baseball in January. Today is the reason I wanted to start this blog. Opening Day.

I'm a big fan of players I've never seen play. I get excited about Luke Hagerty and Andy Sisco and Brendan Harris. Whatever. The 25 guys who are on the current active roster are the guys who now count the most Today.

I also love to read about numbers and on-base pecentage and sabermetrics. I like the Oakland A's for the same reasons that Baseball Prospectus likes them. I wish The Cubs had a philosophy more similar to the A's. But what makes baseball so much fun is Today. The reason I like all those numbers is Today.

Today, the Cubs are in first place. The great thing about Today is that the Cubs will also be in first place tomorrow. There is so much to like about Today.

I ducked out for lunch today at noon. I ducked back in at 2, disappointed that I only got to see 4 innings. I heard more on the radio, even more on the net...although I don't have the internet in my office. I missed Corey Patetrson's two home runs. But I saw Wood pitch. And I got to hear Stoney for a few innings. Today was a very good day.

Frankly, today would have been good no matter what, because it's Opening Day. Happy Opening Day to everyone.

2003-03-25T21:00:00.000-06:00

I read today, in Baseball America, that the Detroit Tigers have four Rule V players on their 25-man roster: third baseman Travis Chapman, lefthander Wil Ledezma, righty Matt Roney, and Chris Spurling, for whom they just traded.

I'm not sure exactly how a player becomes Rule V eligible, but the basic thing to know in this case is that a Rule V player cannot be sent to the minors by the club that selected him. He must first be offered back to the original club, and then he must pass through waivers -- or something along those lines. Rule V players are generally players who are not ready to be on major league rosters. Jason Dubois, a decent enough outfielder in teh Cubs system, was selected in this draft by the Blue Jays. He played last year in high-A Daytona. The Cubs recently got him back from the Blue Jays.

Anyway, having 4 Rule V picks on a major league roster is basically fielding a minor league team. These players will have to play at some point, assuming they stay on the Tigers 25-man roster, or are hurt (a team can keep a Rule V pick on the DL, however, the player must still spend a certain number of consecutive days on the active roster, or be offered back to the original club). I'm not sure that has ever happened before in the majors.

The Tigers will also have a starting rotation that will feature 20 year old Jeremy Bonderman, a player they traded Jeff Weaver for last year. Also, it'll have Nate Cornejo, who was considered one of their top prospects.

Of course their manager is Alan Tramell, with both Kirk Gibson and Lance Parrish on the coaching staff. I'm sure Chet Lemon and Wille Hernandez are hanging around somewhere.

I'm not sure if the Tigers will be any good...strike that, I am sure they won't be very good. But they may be fun to watch. It all depends on how you look at it.

I also noticed this story in Baseball America.

It seems that Josh Hamilton, a top draft pick, has left the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. The dude has 26 tatoos!!!

2003-01-21T10:05:00.000-06:00

Oleg's going to wish he hadn't given me access to this site. I call this piece "Great Frauds of the New Century, or How in The World Is Joe Morgan So Damn Well-Regarded?"

Why does everybody automatically just assume that Joe Morgan rates ahead of Ryne Sandberg? Is this because the Great Almighty, Bill James rates Morgan #1 at 2B (I’m still trying to understand Win Shares, but I’m already suspicious of any formula that leads to the convoluted conclusion that Craig Biggio is the THIRTY-FIFTH best ballplayer of all time)? I find it troubling that this assertion is never challenged, especially by Cub fans who had the privilege of watching Sandberg play and should know better, because not only is it NOT cut-and-dry, but closer examination should easily point to Sandberg being a better all-around second baseman than Morgan. Sandberg performed at a peak level for a longer period of time than Morgan; he performed better in the postseason (as limited as it was for Sandberg), and he was far and away a more accomplished defensive player than Morgan. While their offensive numbers are similar (Sandberg’s are better, across the board, with the exception of On Base Percentage and Stolen Bases), Sandberg’s defensive numbers put him in an entirely separate class from Morgan. The more I examined this case, I grew convinced that Joe Morgan has executed one of the great all-time PR campaigns this century on his own behalf, seeing as how everybody just blindly accepts, unquestionably, that he is such a cinch Hall of Famer, and that Sandberg is a “bubble” case. It’s no secret that Morgan has harbored resentment toward Sandberg. After examining their careers, it’s obvious as to why—he’s afraid that he’ll be exposed for the fraud that he is. Morgan may have been the best second baseman of the 1970’s, and he must have hoped that he would go to his grave as the best latter-20th century second baseman. But along came Sandberg to leave Morgan in the dust, and Morgan just couldn’t accept that. Poor, insecure, little man.

While I admit to being biased, I am also fair, and I will be as even-handed as possible here.

First, Morgan’s career. Morgan’s career got off to a very promising start. In his first three seasons, playing for Houston, he batted .271, .285, .275. (Sandberg’s first three years: 271, .261, .314—you can reasonably call it a draw). Morgan obviously was injured in his fourth year, as he only played in 10 games. Coming back, his career seemed to fall off the Hall of Fame radar (in ’69, ’70, and ’71 his BA was .236, .268, and .256, respectively). He appeared to be a solid ballplayer, as he was able to get on base over 35% of the time (including a .383 OBP in ’70), and his stolen bases were up, but he was clearly not headed for Cooperstown at this point. To his credit, where he had fallen off in hitting, he had attempted to make up for in moving along the basepaths (over 100 Runs Scored in 1970).

Of course, Houston was a mediocre, hovering-around-.500 ballclub back then, and Morgan clearly benefited from a change of scenery when he joined Cincinnati after the ’71 season. He went from playing alongside Bob Watson, Jimmy Wynn and Jesus Alou--decent players all—to future Hall of Famers Johnny Bench, Tony Perez, and Pete Rose (please don’t get technical with me on this—my focus is not Rose). Within a few years, the Reds would also bring along George Foster and Ken Griffey Sr. The latter two were similar hitters to Morgan’s ex-Astro mates Wynn and Watson, who were Houston’s top hitters, but in Cincinnati, Foster and Griffey were only the fifth and sixth best offensive players.

Joe Morgan was front and center on the Red Machine pennant winners, and therein lies his career peak. From 1972-1977, Morgan batted .292, .290, .293, .327, .320, and .288 respectively. He averaged 22 HRs, 84 RBI’s, 113 Runs Scored, and 60 Stolen Bases. His OBP was above .400 for each of those years (climbing as high as .466 in 1975).

During those years (1972-1977) Cincinnati averaged 98 Wins a year, won four division titles, three pennants, and two World Series Championships. Of course, Morgan was MVP on the ’75 and ’76 championship teams (I would like to point out that, while it is perfectly legitimate to acknowledge these awards, for the sake of this objective analysis, I do not wish to add, as an argument for or against a certain point, subjective awards that self-important sportswriters hand out. So All-Star appearances, MVP’s and Gold Gloves will not serve a purpose here. Believe me, this hurts Sandberg more than Morgan, but I just find the idea of counting awards counterproductive to providing an objective analysis) It is interesting to note that while Morgan did get credit for being the catalyst on the successful Cincy teams, his postseason numbers were downright Bondsian (as in Barry Bonds, as in pre-2002 World Series). The Reds won the NLCS in 1972 with Morgan’s modest contribution of a .263 BA (although he did hit 2 home runs). In that year’s World Series, however, where Cincinnati lost in seven games to Oakland, Morgan could only muster 3 hits (2 doubles) in 24 at-bats. The next season, Cincinnati got bounced from the NLCS by the Tug McGraw-led, “You Gotta Believe” Mets in the maximum 5 games, and Morgan did even worse than he did in the previous year’s World Series, smashing out two hits in twenty at-bats. Oh—he did knock in a run. Morgan followed up his first MVP season in 1975 with a pedestrian .273 BA in that season’s NLCS and a subpar .259 in Cincinnati’s World Series victory over Boston (zero home runs, and four total RBI in the 10 games combined) In 1976, Cincinnati swept past Philadelphia in the NLCS in spite of Morgan failing to reach base safely on a hit (0 for 7). Finally, Morgan stopped riding in the backseat and lived up to his reputation, somewhat, when it came to the World Series in 1976. As Cincinnati rolled over the Yankees, Morgan actually hit above .300 (.333 BA (5-15), 1 HR 2 RBI, 3 Runs Scored). Alas, as far as Morgan’s postseason career was concerned, this would prove to be his apex, and the only time he would hit above .300 in a postseason series. He went 0 for 11 in Cincinnati’s 1979 NLCS loss vs. Pittsburgh, 2 for 13 for Houston in 1980 as they lost to Philadelphia, and 1 for 15 for Philadelphia in 1983 (The Phillies still prevailed against Los Angeles DESPITE Joe’s .067 BA). Morgan did go out in style however, hitting two home runs vs. Baltimore in that year’s World Series. Although Baltimore handily won the Series, Morgan DID bat .263, tied for his third-best average in a total of 11 postseason series. THIRD-BEST! For his career, Morgan batted .235 in 22 World Series games, with three Home Runs and Eight RBI’s, Fourteen Runs Scored and Seven Stolen bases. The Runs and Stolen Bases are about the only impressive contribution, but then again, we’re talking Hall of Famer here, not Herb Washington. Combined, Morgan’s postseason numbers were: .182 BA, .324 OBP, 5 HR, 13 RBI, 26 Runs Scored, and 15 Stolen Bases, in 50 games (a little less than 1/3rd of a regular season). It is more than fair to say, in light of the numerous opportunities he had, that rarely did Joe Morgan rise to the occasion during the postseason.

Frankly, I was genuinely surprised to see that Morgan’s postseason numbers were so lousy. Here I thought that the one thing he had over Sandberg was his clutch performances. Well, as it turns out, he really wasn’t much of a clutch performer after all

Seeing those numbers only make me more upset about this insidious Morgan bias.

Back to Morgan’s regular season career. After his peak years (1972-1977), Morgan basically hung on for seven undistinguished seasons where he was able to pad some of his numbers, except for batting average, which he managed to drag down. These were his batting averages from 1978-1984, respectively: .236 (!), .250, .243, .240, .289, .230, .244. So he had ONE season, out of SEVEN, with a batting average over .250! And they say Sandberg’s depressed numbers after he came out of retirement are what hurt him in the eyes of Hall voters. Granted, Morgan was always able to get on base, and his OBP ranged from .347 to .400 during this twilight of his career. Yet had Morgan retired after 1977, his career OBP likely would have been over .400. As it was, he hung around and finished at .392. Again, this “decreased statistical output” BS was a reason used against Sandberg, but for some mysterious reason, was not applied to Morgan. The rest of Morgan’s numbers from 1978-1984, on a per-season average: 11 HR, 50 RBI, 63 Runs Scored, 19 Stolen Bases.

To recap, and to break Morgan’s career into 3 stages:

1965-1971 (sans 1968)-- .264 BA, .377 OBP, 10 HR, 46 RBI, 86 R, 32 SB
1972-1977-- .301 BA, .430 OBP, 22 HR, 84 RBI, 113 R, 60 SB
1978-1984-- .248 BA, .369, OBP, 11 HR, 50 RBI, 63 R, 19 SB

Sandberg had a longer peak. After two Morganesque seasons to start his career:

1982 & 1983 .266 BA, .314 OBP, 8 HR, 51 RBI, 99 R, 35 SB

he broke out in 1984 and posted steadily strong numbers through 1992, nearly a decade:

1984-1992: .295 BA, .357 OBP, 24 HR, 82 RBI, 97 R, 27 SB

He retired early in ’94 and came back in 1996. Here are the numbers post-1992:

1993-1997 (sans 1995)-- .264 BA, .324 OBP, 13 HR, 56 RBI, 61 R, 8 SB.

In terms of peak years, Morgan appears to have Sandberg beat, but of course Morgan’s peak was only six seasons, compared to nine for Sandberg. Whatever happened to sustained consistency? Just for the sake of comparisons, I decided to look at this another way. I decided to take a look at how well Morgan did for nine seasons in his prime, compared to Sandberg:

Morgan (1970-1978) .286 BA, .406 OBP, 18 HR, 76 RBI, 81 R, 51 SB.
Sandberg (1984-1992) .295 BA, .357 OBP, 24 HR, 82 RBI, 97 R, 27 SB

Suddenly, Morgan doesn’t have the edge. His batting average is nearly 10 points lower and, in spite of being a member of some vast offensive juggernauts, he doesn’t score, or drive in as many runs as does Sandberg, who played on some God-awful offensive teams (Anybody want Vance Law to play third? How about Brian Dayett in Left Field? Webster? Mitch Webster in center, anyone?)

As good as Morgan was during his peak, it lasted only six years, barely half a decade. Don Mattingly probably doesn’t deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, and the #1 argument commonly used against him is because as good as Mattingly was during his peak (from ’84-’87 he was arguably the best player in baseball), he didn’t sustain it long enough. And Mattingly didn’t sputter for the first six, and last six years of his career like Morgan did. So why does Morgan get a free pass?

Incidentally, let’s take another look at Sandberg’s “inglorious” years, the years where he supposedly hurt himself in the eyes of HOF voters by slipping, retiring, and then coming back, and compare them to the last four years of Morgan’s career:

Sandberg 1993-1997 (sans 1995)-- .264 BA, .324 OBP, 13 HR, 56 RBI, 61 R, 8 SB.
Morgan (1981-1984) .251 BA, .374 OBP, 11 HR, 49 RBI, 59 R, 16 SB.

About all you can say for Morgan is that he continued to get on base, and that he ran very well for an old man. After that, his numbers slumped off at a steeper rate than Sandberg’s did. Yes, he was 40 years old in 1984. The point remains, however, that he hung around after his skills had eroded, and this decreased production didn’t prevent him from sailing into the Hall on the first ballot.

Defense. I mentioned that I wouldn’t count Gold Gloves. Frankly, I was surprised to see that Morgan actually had 4 GG’s, since he always struck me as a pregnant Bump Wills patrolling second. Forget Sandberg’s errorless streak, too, since debate will ensue on the subjectivity of the official scorer at home ballparks. But try this on for size:

Among all National League Second Basemen, Ryne Sandberg has the most seasons with at least Five Hundred assists (Six). He is tied with Hall of Famer Charlie Gehringer of Detroit for the major-league mark. As late as 1992, at the age of 32, Sandberg collected 539 assists. In 1996, at the age of 36, and a year-and-a-half removed from retirement, he collected 421 Assists. While some players, like former double-play partner Shawon Dunston, complained that Sandberg never dove for a ball, his assist total was proof that he never HAD to. I know this is strictly anecdotal, but the guy was SO good, that he was always in position to make the play. Maybe if he dove more, pinhead writers would think more highly of him, but what should be appreciated is that Sandberg never had to dive, because he was always in position. That’s called range. You can’t put a price on that. Ask Rick Sutcliffe and Greg Maddux, two guys who pitched in front of Sandberg, how many times Sandberg saved them on a ball that should have gone through the infield. Yeah, he made it look effortless at times. Shouldn’t that be admired? Show me an infielder who dives all the time, and I’ll show you a hot dog who’s out of position.

Joe Morgan, on the other hand, had exactly six seasons with at least FOUR Hundred assists. So, in other words, Sandberg had as many 500 assist seasons as Morgan had 400. The closest Morgan came to sniffing 500 in a season was his rookie year, when he had 492. Incidentally, Sandberg had 10 seasons with at least 400 assists.

Morgan also had the benefit of playing alongside ONE shortstop for his entire time in Cincinnati, Davey Concepcion, and two first baseman, Tony Perez and Dan Driessen. Sandberg had Larry Bowa, Shawon Dunston, Jose Vizcaino, and Rey Sanchez at short, and Bill Buckner, Leon Durham, and Mark Grace at first. It’s a no-brainer to point out that Sandberg’s Cub teams enjoyed very little stability throughout his career, unless you’re talking about the stability that he brought himself.

One more thing: while Joe Morgan joined a Cincinnati team that was two years removed from the World Series in 1970, and was a decade removed from another Series appearance (1961), Sandberg joined a Cubs team that hadn’t been to the postseason in 37 years. In his third year, 1984, Sandberg broke tradition and led the Cubs to their first postseason appearance since 1945. Not only that, but once there, he did everything he could to get them to the World Series, batting .368 in the 1984 NLCS, with a .455 OBP and 3 Stolen Bases. When the woebegone Cubs returned to the playoffs in 1989, Sandberg did even BETTER, batting .400 with a .478 OBP, and a home run. As limited as Sandberg’s postseason career was, his numbers were:

.385 BA, .467 OBP 1 HR, 6 RBI, 3 SB, 9 Runs scored in 10 games.

He had half as many RBI as Morgan did in 1/5th as many games. Unlike Morgan, who couldn’t even play AT his normal level during the postseason, Sandberg played ABOVE his when the money was on the line.

Had he played for Cincinnati in the 1970’s, Sandberg would probably have done a much better job than Morgan did. Who knows? They may have won one of those games they lost to Oakland in the ’72 World Series.

So the next time you get into a discussion about ballplayers, and someone casually mentions, without blinking, that Sandberg was almost as good as Morgan, please stop him in his tracks and just ask him,

“How do you figure?”

2003-01-17T18:21:00.000-06:00

This is from my friend Mike, who's the biggest Cubs fan I know...and not just in gerth...

Sammy Sosa is expected to report to Spring Training late. If this sounds like a recording, well, that's because Sosa's scheduled tardiness has become as much a part of spring as Duke University's men's basketball team making the NCAA Final Four. Since the time that Sosa has achieved his status of el grande enchilada with the Cubs, circa 1997, he has felt the need to demonstrate his rock-star status by annually arriving several days after the rest of his team, allowing himself a grand entrance, bright lights and all, becoming of an Oscar nominee. No doubt Sammy had witnessed the heights reached by Michael Jordan in Chicago, and he fancies himself as Jordan's heir apparent on the sports scene. One problem with that thinking. Michael Jordan earned his status by leaving his game so all-around complete and dominant, that nobody, not even his harshest critics, could find fault with him as a player. He earned that ticket. Jordan figured out that if you basked in the glory, and were anything less than the best, less than complete, then you were a fraud and your glory was fake. Hence, at Jordan's peak, he was more than just a naturally gifted athlete. He had developed a dangerous jump shot, he played defense better than anybody in the NBA, and he wasn't afraid to get his nose dirty and grab a rebound. Hence, at the end of the day, Jordan knew that he had earned, through his tireless work, the privilege of acting like the superstar that he was. Remember those people (players, writers etc.) who described Bulls practices as being more rigorous than games? That's how MJ wanted it. You didn't see him rolling into the Berto Center a half-hour before practice ended.

This is where Sammy, in his rush to bask in the same type of unadulterated glory, doesn't get it.

True, Sammy Sosa HAS become an all around great hitter. As a hitter, the raw skinny, twenty year old Dominican whose first major league home run came off of Roger Clemens in 1989 is indistinguishable from the beefy, muscular Americanized superstar that we see today. In between those years, Sosa has gone from a swing-from-the heels, pitcher-must-throw-the-ball-into-the-upper-deck-to-walk-him hitter to a more assured, confident, and DANGEROUS hitter. True, Sammy still garners his lion's share of strikeouts but, in one of the most telling examples of his evolution as a hitter, his walk totals, and corresponding On Base Percentage (OBP), have gone skyward through the years. Consider: in his first full major league season, with the crosstown White Sox in 1990, Sosa walked 33 times in 579 Plate Appearances. His meager batting average of .233 was accompanied by an even more unappealing OBP of .282. Eleven years later, in 2001, he walked ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTEEN times, more than three times as often as he did in 1990, and his OBP was an exceptional .437. Sosa slipped in most offensive categories last year, but even his numbers in 2002 are several levels above his output from a decade earlier.

As a hitter, the guy pushed himself. He wasn't satisfied to just hit home runs, but to be feared as an all-around hitter. You could say his improvement in that particular area was Jordanesque. Time was, Sammy would feast on young, scared pitchers who didn't know how to pitch to him. This is basically how he fattened up his power numbers in the early 1990's. In those days, pre-1996, the Madduxes and Schillings and the A-list of NL pitchers had little trouble dispensing with Sosa on an economy of pitches. I saw him homer off of Tom Glavine in a game at Wrigley in 1995 and was convinced Glavine just wasn't concentrating (he was in the ninth inning of a complete game that he was winning handily). In those
days, it was usually a mistake that allowed Sosa to take an All-Star deep, and it NEVER happened with the game on the line. Today, however, ALL pitchers fear him. His sharper eye has made it more difficult to get him out on waste pitches. Try sneaking a fastball by him? Not a chance. They can still strike him out, but now they have to work for it, and not just flick three sliders in the dirt.

And yet, for all the credit that is due Sammy for this remarkable turnaround, he evidently feels that so long as an athlete dominates one aspect of the game, he deserves to be placed on the same pedestal as MJ. So, while Cub fans have delighted in the reliability that Sosa's bat has provided his team, it has come at a cost. As an outfielder, Sosa has declined. Don't get me wrong-he was never THAT good to begin with. His emotion and lack of discipline prevented him from playing the position, even during his peak years, 75% as well as the man he replaced, Andre Dawson. And Dawson was in his mid-thirties with two lousy knees when he played for the Cubs. But Sosa's love of the spotlight has compelled him to conclude, correctly, that offensive pyrotechnics is the fastest route to the kind of celebrity status that Sammy saw MJ bask in, and for which he has thirsted himself. In short, chicks dig the longball or, in the case of Sammy, whose appetites, unlike those of former teammate and supposed clubhouse adversary Mark Grace, aren't women so much as cash, it is dead presidents who love the long ball. And so it has become that, in his pursuit of the twin American gods of fame and fortune, that Sosa has become a completely one-dimensional baseball player.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, on the surface. If you're a lousy fielder, you're a lousy fielder. Cub fans will recall, with great fondness, Keith Moreland. A converted catcher, Moreland ended up patrolling right field from 1983 (when he platooned with Mel Hall), to 1986. Arguably the best clutch hitter of the early Dallas Green-assembled Cubs teams, Moreland was no picnic to watch in the field. Fans forgave him because he tried his best, but just wasn't very good with the glove.

Similarly, if we saw Sosa work hard, bust his butt and shag fly balls in batting practice and, heck, even show up in Arizona when he's supposed to , well then we would be more forgiving. What Cub fans have issue with, and which sets us apart from most Chicago sportswriters as well as the blindly faithful frat house that commonly occupies the right field
bleachers, is that we see in Sosa someone who has come to expect us to turn a blind eye to his Keystone Cops routine in the field and worship him for his prodigious offensive output.

Sorry. We've waited over nine decades for a winner. I, for one, don't feel compelled to donate any energy to the Deification of Sammy Fund, not so long as he considers defense to be but an ancillary part of the game, and not so long as his attitude displays his eagerness to put himself front and center ahead of the team.

In the context of team baseball, offense and defense share the same weight. A player gets three to four at-bats a game and roughly three to four chances in the field. There is no such thing as overcompensating for bad defense. A perfect day on offense is still a 50% perfect day, even if a guy hits four home runs. If he also fails to cut off a ball in the gap with a
runner on first and two out, and misses a cutoff man, and/or throws to the wrong base, allowing runners to move into scoring position, AND YET, on top if it all, wants to receive special treatment in spite of such lopsided performance, then what do you have?

Well, in the Cubs' case, you have a player who cares only about himself, while drawing a paycheck for playing in a team sport.

Hey Sammy-you want to be like Mike? Then how about showing up on time for once?

2003-01-12T11:43:00.000-06:00

Classes at Rutgers University begin January 21. This important for one, and only, one reason: Bobby Brownlie. He was the Cubs first pick in last year's amatuer draft in June, 21st overall. He is still unsigned. If Brownlie attends class on that date, the Cubs would lose his rights, and he would re-enter the draft next June. He was the first of the Cubs 4 first round picks, all college pitchers. The other three are signed, Luke Hagerty picked 32nd, Chadd Blasko taken 36th, Matt Clanton picked at 38. Justin Jones -- another lefty -- had a strong debut at rookie league Arizona, was a 2nd round pick out of a Virginia high school.

Last year at Boise in the short-season, low A league, Luke Hagerty posted a 1.13 ERA in 10 starts. In 48 innings, he had a 50/15 K/BB ratio, giving up 32 hits. He's a lefty who was a teammate of Bryan Bullington, the number 1 pick in the draft, at Ball State. He should get to high A Daytona by the end of the summer, maybe hitting AA, if he keeps pitching that well.

I'm not sure where Chadd Blasko threw last year, probably instructional league. He has been signed, though, and should make his pro debut this spring.

Clanton also made his debut at Boise. Clanton signed late and, therefore, only threw 2 innings. I don't think either Blasko or Clanton were hurt, but they are still very much unknowns.

The three were signed for a total of $3.75 million in bonuses. Last year the Cubs first pick was some guy named Prior. The Cubs gave him a major league contract worth over $10 million, with a $5 million bonus. None of the 4 pitchers picked this year have nearly that kind of upside or talent, obviously.

The Cubs also have several other pitching prospects in their minor league system. Andy Sisco spent the year at Boise last year as well. His numbers were even better than Hagerty’s: 14 starts, 7-2, 77.2 innings, 51 hits, 101/39 K/BB ratio. He’s at least a year younger than Hagerty, drafted out of high school in 2001. No wonder the Boise team went 41-27 and won the league title.

The Cubs also have a plethora of other young pitchers with a lot of upside elsewhere. Jak-keu Ryu was a teenager signed out of high school from Korea. Angel Guzman and Wilton Chavez are products of an increasingly fruitful Latin American program, which has also brought Juan Cruz, Francis Beltran, and Carlos Zambrano to the big league roster.

Kerry Wood, Mark Prior, and Carlos Zambrano are all under 25, with a 23 year old Juan Cruz waiting in the wings to join them.

If Brownlie joins this talented group, the Cubs should be well on their way to a very good major league staff in the years to come.

2003-01-06T22:17:00.000-06:00

The Hall of Fame voting results will be announced soon...I'm sure you'll all know when it happens.

The Cubs are well-represented on the ballot with several interesting candidates. Among them Andre Dawson, Lee Arthur Smith, Bruce Sutter, Rich Gossage (ok, maybe he doesn't really count), and, as much as it pains me to type it, Danny Jackson. The three relievers I'd vote for. Same with Dawson, but that would be purely sentimental, although there are worse enshrinees.

Ron Santo better get in this year. Ironically, he's the best example of just how much the baseball writers don't know about the game.

Here may be the second best example:

How this guy can even type Bill James's name into that column is beyond me.

Statistically speaking, Ryne Sandberg deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. And now.

Bill James, in his Historical Baseball Abstract, rates Sandberg as the 7th best 2B of all time (probably 8th by now thanks to Roberto Alomar). That would rate him ahead of Charlie Gehringer, Rod Carew, Frankie Frisch, Billy Herman, Nellie Fox, Bobby Doerr, and Tony Lazzeri...all Hall of Famers.

According to baseball-reference.com, Ryne Sandberg's most similar batters include Roberto Alomar, Alan Trammell, Craig Biggio, and Barry Larkin...all of whom should be considered for the Hall someday, and, in Trammell's case, now. The most similar players by age include Pie Traynor, Paul Molitor, and Bobby Doerr. The Hall of Fame monitor rates Sandberg as a Hall of Famer.

As a 2B he finished in the top-10 in HRs 5 times. This was in the pre-juiced ball era. Oh yeah, he also finished in the top-10 in triples 4 times. He played fewer than 150 games only once between 1982 and 1993. Maybe I'm reaching. So, here's some: 10 All-Star teams, 9 Gold Gloves.

Compare him to Joe Morgan... Morgan 819 OPS, Ryno 795. Morgan .271-268 HR-1133 RBI-1650 R, Ryno .285-282-1061-1318...in about 500 fewer games.

2003-01-04T17:01:00.000-06:00

Just as a quick aside...

As far as I can tell, the best thing about the Todd Hundley trade (besides getting Hundley 2 time zones away) is that I can finally spell Mark Grudzielanek's name without looking it up...

2003-01-03T19:57:00.000-06:00

Firstly, since it's on my mind...some rumors from this hot stove league.

There is talk that the Cubs can get Jose Vidro and/or Javier Vazquez if they only take on Fernando Tatis's contract and give up some young, cheap talent. Kyle Farnsworth, Juan Cruz, Carlos Zambrano and Bobby Hill have been mentioned.

Tatis (702 slugging percentage + on-base percentage last year, 803 for his career) would be a free agent after this year (he has a team option that would probably not be picked up). If it takes taking on his salary, the Cubs could afford it -- about $6 mil in 2003.

Vidro (868 OPS last year, 833 career) is signed for $5.5 mil for 2003, 2004 at $7 mil. I think he's well worth the money, and then some.

I think that Vazquez (670 innings last 3 years, but ERAs in the 3.80 zone) is eligible for arbitration; espn.com lists his salary for 2002 at 4.75 mil. I think he would be a free agent after the year. His stats according to some of the baseballprospectus.com statistics, which are very statheady, would indicate that Vazquez is a pretty good pitcher. He was 'worth' about 2 wins more than someone a team could pick up off the scrap heap. An All-Star is about 5 wins better. Randy Johnson led the league with 9. Curt Schiling was second with 7.1. If he doesn't improve this year, and he took a step back after a breakout 2001, he could be let go to free agency. Either way, the Cubs could very much afford to take the chance. (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/current/snwlreport02.html).

Trading Hill or Zambrano or Cruz or Farnsworth cuts into the payroll flexibility this team has. However, it's not often you add talent like this, even at that price. It would mean that the Cubs could lose a lead-off hitter, without replacing him, but what the hell (they could bat Prior lead-off when he starts).

Of course it's easy to spend someone else's money. Adding these three players would add 11.5 plus what Vazquez would get in arbitration (maybe $6-6.5 mil). That would put the Cubs payroll at over $80 million dollars...far more than the Tribune would want to spend. They would lose a couple of those players, but they're young and inexpensive, which is precisely what makes them attractive to Montreal. They would most certainbly be forced to try and deal any parts of Eric Karros's or Mark Grudzielanek's salaries, which would be nearly-impossible. Or they could trade Matt Clement, the thinking being that they'd be upgrading with Vazquez anyway.

I would think this would be worth the risk.

I'm salivating at the chance for the Cubs to get Vazquez and/or Vidro.

Just my 2 cents...

(Contarct info came from http://www.bluemanc.demon.co.uk/baseball/mlbcontracts.htm)...

2003-01-03T19:30:00.000-06:00

Hello...and welcome to my musings about the Cubs. Hopefully this can be informative...

To get started...

Outside of Wrigley Field, behind the right field bleachers is a big sign that stand on top of one of the apartment buildings. It says, 'AC945713'. It means After Championship...94 years since the last World Series championship (1908); 57 years since the last National League penant (1945); 13 years since the last division championship (1989). That sums up my frustration.

I read espn.com, baseballprospectus.com, and baseballamerica.com; among others. My statistics will generally come from these sources. All rumors are just that, rumors. I don't KNOW any more than anyone else.