Just a few notes tonight, alas. Feel free to fill in the gaps!
Indians 5, @Twins 0: Derek Lowe‘s improbable season reached an implausible extreme with a 6-hit shutout, his first since 2005 and first CG since ’08. Lowe began the night with 13 walks and 13 Ks in 43.2 IP, then walked 4 without a strikeout. Lowe got 19 groundball outs, 4 of them DPs, and 2 of the hits were infield singles.
- The last MLB shutout with no Ks and 4+ walks was in 1989 by Doyle Alexander, who (like Lowe) was 38 at the time. The odd whitewash left Alexander at 3-0, 2.01 (and 191 career wins), but he went 3-18 the rest of the way and then retired.
- Lowe’s current rate of 2.22 SO/9 would be the lowest by a qualifier since 2003 (and you don’t want to emulate Nate Cornejo). Only two others since 1961 have averaged fewer Ks. The last 4 qualifiers to average less than 3 SO/9 all had ERAs over 4.30 (ERA+ under 93)
- Since Lowe’s debut in 1997, 101 pitchers have had 137 4-GIDP games, but this was Lowe’s first. He hadn’t had 3 in a game since 2009.
- On the surface, Lowe’s season to date looks eerily similar to his start in 2002, his best season (21-8, 2.58). Both years he was 6-1 after 8 starts; his ERA was 2.16 then, 2.05 now. The comparison doesn’t hold survive scrutiny; his 2002 K rate was three times as high, and he didn’t allow a HR in his first 12 starts (84 IP).
@Braves 6, Reds 2: A split of this mini-series put Atlanta back atop the NL East.
- A 4-run 3rd ended Johnny Cueto‘s streak of 5 starts with 6+ IP and 1 ER or less. There have been just 2 longer streaks Reds searchable history — 9 games by Bill Gullickson in 1986, and 6 by Johnny Vander Meer in 1938 (including those games).
- Zach Cozart went 0-4 with a walk, raising the club’s leadoff OBP by a whisper; they began the night at .197.
Tigers 10, @White Sox 8: Jake Peavy had Detroit in a 6-0 hole, but they dug out with an 8-run 6th built on 3-run HRs by Austin Jackson (now sporting the coveted (“3/4/5” slash line) and Ryan Raburn (hitting .149 with no HRs coming in), and a 2-run shot by Miguel Cabrera (ending a 14-game HR drought).
- In 6 games, Miggy has raised his BA from .263 to .308, going 14-28 with 9 RBI.
- Cabrera has averaged 33 HRs in his 8 full seasons, but he’s a hitter, not a slugger. One way to tell is by what he’s done in his longest homerless streaks. This is the 7th time since joining Detroit in 2008 that he’s gone 13+ games without a HR. Those streaks add up to 97 games, with a .308 BA and .414 OBP, more walks than whiffs (62-52), and 30% of his hits going for doubles.
- A.J. Pierzynski is the first catcher since 2010 (Joe Mauer) to have 5+ hits with a hit in every trip. A.J. also did it in 2006.
@Cardinals 7, Cubs 6: Matt Holliday‘s 3rd hit set up Yadier Molina to flip the Cards’ first 4-game losing streak, boosting their record to 21-15.
- St. Louis has a 25-11 Pythagorean record, based on 198 runs scored and 134 runs allowed. They’re 10-3 in blowouts (margin of 5+ runs), but 2-5 in one-run games.
- Molina had the 4th game-ending hit of his career (all singles) and his 1st since 2007. No big deal in those numbers, yet I think he might be that rare bird, the true clutch hitter.
- 18 RBI in 12 games for Allen Craig.
- Here’s something you haven’t seen this year: A home run by Alfonso Soriano leading off the 9th. It tied the game and snapped a 30-game drought, the longest since his rookie year.
Check out these two called strikes on Brett Lawrie.
He is a marked man now in the umpiring fraternity!
He’s also going to be a suspended man, Neil. I’m sure he didn’t intend to hit the ump with his batting helmet but I do believe that’s going to cost Lawrie a few games.
Yeah, no doubt. He shouldn’t have lost his cool. But, bstar, look at that called third strike when seen from the side. Wasn’t it across the middle of his chest? No belt in sight.
Oh, I agree both calls were bad, Neil. But I just saw other angles of Lawrie’s helmet toss on MLBNetwork and I think we can strike “inadvertent” out of the conversation as far as Lawrie’s motives and where the helmet ended up. Viewed from above, it’s pretty clear he threw the helmet right at the ump. I don’t think this will be a light suspension.
I think the ump may have made the last call because Lawrie ran out of the batter’s box so quickly, assuming the call would be a ball (or maybe Brett always does that, I don’t know).
Bstar, you beat me to it, I think I need to work on my english-typing skills 🙂
The Ump is the one who deserves a suspension. The first call was a bad one, the second call, in my opinion, was a response for Lawrie leaving the batter´s box. Really bad umpiring.
Agreed, terrible umpiring! Kid had a legit beef, ump should get suspended as well as the kid. Also I see that Canadians have great aim when tossing a full cup of beer.
Honestly, I thought Davidson was worse -provoking Charlie Manuel and then ejecting him. Bullying abuse of authority there. For a moment I thought he’d take off his mask and it would be Angel Hernandez under there.
Neil — I took the liberty of editing your link to go directly to the intended clip. I’ve found that, for some reason, copying the URL as displayed during a video play on MLB only creates a link to the highlights main page for the game in question. To get a direct link, you have to right-click on the thumbnail in the “Playlist” area and choose “Copy link address” or whatever similar phrase is offered by your browser.
And yes, those were terrible strike calls. But after Lawrie ran so vigorously (and prematurely) up the line on the first of those pitches and showed up the ump in the way he stopped & came back, I would have bet my you-know-what cap that anything in the zip code was going to be called a strike on the next pitch.
I can’t stand that archaic “showing up the ump” thinking; perhaps that’s a common sentiment out here in Brett Lawrie’s neck of the woods. I tell my kids in minor ball that if they think it’s ball 4, show confidence in your own judgment and hustle down to first because the faster you get to first, the more you increase your chances to get faster down to second (and beyond). How can you do that if you stand there and ask for the umpire’s permission? If you misjudged and get call ed back, that’s not shoing up the ump, it’s showing that you yourself misjudged the location. It would only be disrespectful if you started down the line AFTER the call had been clearly made. So, umps, make your calls loud and quickly and you don’t have to worry about such nonsense. Just my 2 cents.
(I would also bench my kids for throwing their helmet even if it was nowhere near anybody. Brett should have learned THAT in little league.)
Yippee, I respectfully disagree. The ump has the responsibility of calling the pitches. Even in a casual setting, it is disrespectful for the batter to put his own judgment ahead of the ump’s. In Lawrie’s case, there certainly was no unreasonable delay in the timing of the ump’s call. Rather, Lawrie broke for first the instant the ball had passed him. By not even waiting for a reasonably paced call, Lawrie conveyed the message, “You couldn’t possibly call that a strike.”
My assessment that Lawrie had shown up the ump was based not just on his running towards first before the call was made, but also on the physical gestures and body language he used when stopping & coming back.
John, I totally agree with you that Brett compounded his problems with his demeanour after the call. I tell the kids that if it’s called a strike it’s head down, jog back to the plate, no comments, don’t look at the ump, just resume the AB and work on the next pitch, at least you (and your teammates) have learned something about the day’s strike zone.
With 3 balls, unless you’ve got the “take” sign, you either swing at the ball or take the walk. Stick around only if you think you were really fooled by the pitch.
Unrepentant as I am, John, I have to say yours are the first columns I look for at HHH; I enjoy your writing and admire a mind that is obviously always asking “how unusual is THAT?”
John – Umps need to be mature enough not to worry about being “showed up”. Period. Their first and only responsibility should be to making the correct call. Umps that aren’t able to do that and care more about their personal appearance should not be in the major leagues.
Ed @34 — I agree with you on that.
Still, you can’t deny that, under the current and longstanding culture of big-league baseball, Lawrie should have expected what he got — because we have the umps that we have, not the ones we wish we had.
Gotcha John! Unfortunately it seems to be an all too common problem in both baseball and basketball that the umps/refs are more concerned with their own image than with the integrity of the game. For some reason, this seems to be less of a problem in football (at least it seems that way to me).
Shame we don’t have an official stat for “Umpire Boners”. Whilst they are meant to be the objective arbiters of the rules, all too often emotion and ego play a role in calls, and hence they have an impact.
Someone recently (on a broadcast?) mentioned that ML Umps have a 95% accuracy rate. Any ideas on how that number might have been derived? And is it one subject to analysis? It would be interesting to know what errors were made and what impact they had on the game.
JA, thanks for cleaning up my link. Much appreciated.
Interesting sidebar to the whole Lawrie-Miller controversy from last night. Guess who is umpiring at 3rd base tonight in the opener of the Yankees series at the Roger’s Center? And guess who is starting at third base for the Blue Jays, pending his appeal of the four game suspension?
Both protagonists are in the ‘hood. 🙂
I wasn’t a fan of the Indian’s acquiring Derek Lowe. Hard to believe he’s turned out to be our best starter. And I don’t want to think about what will happen if he reverts to last year’s form.
Since 1975, there have only been 4 complete game shutouts featuring 0 strikeouts and 10 or more baserunners. Lowe’s game last night, the aforementioned Doyle Alexander game, Brian Holman (also in 1989) and Jerry Reuss (in 1985). Oddly, Jerry Reuss also had one in 1974 and there were no others between his 1974 and his 1985 game. So he had them “back-to-back” but 11 years apart.
BTW, the record for most baserunners in a 9 inning, 0 strikeout, CG shutout goes to Rich Beck of the 1965 Yankees. Beck gave up 14 baserunners on September 19, 1965. Beck had an odd career. In his major league debut on Sept. 14, 1965, he gave up one run in 7 innings, striking out 8 and walking 0. His next game was the Sept. 19th shutout, in which he struck out 0 and walked 5. He started again on Sept. 28th, giving up 5 runs (4 earned) in 5 innings. He was only 25 years old but never pitched again in the majors.
Ah, now I see that Beck was drafted into the Vietnam war after the ’65 season. He attempted a comeback in ’68 but was sent to the minors and pitched poorly for 2 years.
I’ve got his 1966 rookie card. The other Yankee on the card had a slightly better career: Roy White.
Love this little slice of life type information about players
BTW, Beck sounds like a complete class act. Here’s a great quote from his SABR bio:
“When the author spoke to him, in 2010, he was working as a substitute teacher in Spokane, Washington, where he was living. Once, he said, the students in a class he was teaching learned that he had pitched briefly in the major leagues. “One of them asked me, ‘Mr. Beck, weren’t you really upset that you got drafted and lost out on your chance to keep playing ball?’ After we kicked it around the room a while, I told them, ‘I’m sitting here talking to you but I was in the service with a lot of 18-year-old guys who went to Vietnam and never came back and so I consider myself lucky. How many times does a person get to realize their dream? I didn’t get to realize it for very long, but I did get to realize it.””
http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/0cc67c79
Anybody care to comment on the mini-Brew-haha in Flushing? After a Mets pitcher was ejected for an arguably intentional HBP on Braun, Terry Collins removed David Wright for a PH rather than let him risk possible retaliation.
In the moment, Wright was super ticked off about being pulled; he seemed to think his leadership role required him to “take one for the team” if one was coming. Collins was vehement in his postgame remarks that he simply wasn’t going to take any chances with the team’s star, and of course Wright is already playing through a broken finger and had some serious issues after a 2009 beaning.
I’ve heard some other commentary about other players on the team potentially seeing Collins’s action in a negative light, but I think he acted wisely.
Hey John, on the one hand, i thought Collins did a great job of making a wise move in removing Wright, while also (in his postgame comments) avoiding accusing the Brewers of having any such evil intentions. (“Not that they would ever do anything like that, but…”)
On the other hand, one of the boys on MLB network made a decent point: If the Brewers really want to get Wright, they will, eventually. Sure, the heat of the moment may pass, but the players do have long memories.
True enough, Shping … but the teams don’t meet again until September 14, when a potential injury to Wright would be less costly. (Assuming the Mets are not, you know, in contention or anything — which is to say, assuming they don’t acquire 4 good relievers anytime soon.)
13 of the Angels’ 36 games have been shutouts by them (5) or their opponents (8), with both figures at least tied for the MLB lead. They are on pace to toss 22-23 shutouts and to be shut out 36 times.
Since 1918, the most times being shut out in a season is 30, by the 1963 Mets. The AL high is 27 by the ’72 Rangers; in the DH era, it’s 21 by the ’73 Yanks and ’76 ChiSox.
The most shutouts thrown since 1918 is 30 by the ’68 Cards. The AL/DH high is 20, by both the Angels and A’s in 1989.
Those are 1968 numbers if they materialize – over 1/3 of their games a shutout. But, I don’t think it will happen.
Jim Johnson’s 12th save in 12 tries was also his first this year in which the tying run was not on deck (or closer) when he entered. That’s one reason he leads all relievers in Win Probability Added.
Seeing the sponsor’s message on Fernando Rodney’s BR page makes me feel a little less sheepish about having mocked his ascension to TBR closer this year. It reads:
“Fernando, save everyone their time. Next time just walk up and place the ball on a tee.”
For the sake of discussion, let’s assume Rodney goes on and pitches the rest of the season as brilliantly as he has so far. Would that represent the most shocking closer performance ever? Consider some of the contrasts between his career line through 2011 and what he’s doing now:
WHIP — 1.46, 0.85
SO/BB — 1.69, 5.67
BB/9 — 4.9, 1.5
HR/9 — 0.8, 0
Granted, his previous one full season as a closer was “successful” given the job’s definition; he saved 37 of 38 chances. But he had a 4.40 ERA, 1.47 WHIP and 1.0 HR/9. His 1.49 SO/BB ratio was the 4th-worst among the 139 35-save seasons since 2000.
Not as dramatic as Rodney (and also not a reliever), but similar story for Roger Nelson and his 1972 season.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/n/nelsoro02.shtml
That season was one of only a couple of dozen with a WHIP under 0.900. The rest were all HOFers or future HOFers (plus one guy who prospered in the Federal League).
The Reds were so impressed, they parted with Hal McRae and Wayne Simpson to get Nelson, only to see him return to his earlier form. The one-season wonder, indeed. Great trade for the Royals.
One of my favorite quotes of the early season comes from Michael Young, when asked why pitchers are not giving Josh Hamilton more walks:
———-
“If they want to give us free base runners, we’ll take it all day long,” Young said. “That’s a bad strategy. That always works in favor of the offensive team. Always. You look at the Barry Bonds treatment, that always worked in favor of the Giants. And the Giants, when Bonds was there, didn’t have anything close to our offensive depth.”
Michael Young for the Hall of Fame!
No. Wait. What?
But he’s sure right about this however. But I’m guessing that at some point some managers are going to do that anyways and then Beltre and Young and Cruz will just watch their RBI totals go up and up.
Speaking of unmerited HOF candidacies, did anyone else read Tyler Kepner’s recent NYTimes piece featuring Johnny Damon’s extraordinarily selective and non-contextualized argument for his own place in the Hall?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/sports/baseball/statistics-say-cooperstown-and-johnny-damon-agrees.html?ref=johnnydamon
Kepner did not take either side, as far as I can tell, which shows more self-restraint than I would ever be accused of.
One of the failings of Damon’s reasoning is that, on the one hand, he wants extra credit “for being a clean player in our generation”, but on the other hand, he ignores how the high-scoring context inflated his own counting stats — especially Runs, but also Hits — that comprise the main plank in his case.
He also thinks we should “take into account the ballparks that I’ve played in. I’ve played in some pretty tough ones for left-handers.” Without going into the specifics of every park, we can simply note that his home/road splits are slightly better at home.
I think what Damon means in asking for extra credit for being a clean player, is that his stats suffer in comparison to the players of his generation thay were _not_ clean.
OTOH, as you point out, his Career Runs total (probably his one best simple stat argument) benefits from those un-clean players that he is knocking, who knocked him in.
It’s not going to matter if doesn’t turn it around and start hitting soon, because with a line of .149/.200/.213 for the Indians now, he’s not going to get many more PA’s soon, and he’s going to fall waaaay short of 3,000 hits.
Getting to 3,000 hits is his only real chance of being in the HOF discussion. At around 2700 hits, there’s too many non-HOFers too similar to him.
Just for blowing his own horn, Damon should be off the ballot. One of the greatest turnoffs in meeting anyone or getting to know them is listening to them go on…and on…and on about their accomplishments. WGAF!?
Really, John, if you were a Hall of Famer, we would have figured it out by now based on 10,000 plate appearances.
Adam ? put together a HoF index based on peak WAR versus total accumulated WAR. Great idea. In rewtrospect, the most questionable of all Hall of Famers are the accumulators/compilers…and, God knows, there’s enough of them already.
As for being a clean player, congratulations on having normally sized testicles and an acne-free back
“As for being a clean player…”
As far as we know, that is.
Incidentally, any player who blows his own horn now as having been “clean” while many others were “dirty” should immediately be asked in as brusque a tone as possible: Where was your big mouth then, bigmouth?
Paul E – I agree with your comment re: politicking for your own induction. Fortunately, it seems like Damon will fall far short of 3,000 hits. Indians’ fans are already calling for his release. Assuming that happens sometime in the next month or two, who would pick him up given how little interest there was in the off season and how poorly he’s played this year?
You could find him in good company here – basically drove the ball and stole bases while accumulating a 104 OPS+ in 10,000 PA’s:
1,600 Runs scored
400 Stolen Bases
2,700 Hits
850 Extra Base Hits
Cobb, Speaker, Damon, Molitor, Biggio, Henderson , Barry Bonds
You could probably perfrorm this type of exercise for just about anyone with 10,000 PA’s and find them in some sort of good comapny…..still, no Cooperstown
The big difference between Damon and all of the players you just listed, is that all of them _vastly_ exceed Damon in at least one (and usually more) of the categories you list.
Interesting that two of these players are on Damon’s “Similar Batters through 37”:
1.Paul Molitor (852) *
2.Al Oliver (825)
3.Willie Davis (822)
4.Pete Rose (821)
5.Roberto Clemente (819) *
6.Rusty Staub (813)
7.Robin Yount (813) *
8.Rickey Henderson (812) *
9.Lou Brock (811) *
10.Bobby Abreu (808)
Molitor may be the best comp (I’d go with Lou Brock), but Molitor’s clearly better (peak), plus he had another five decent-to-very good full years from age-37 on.
One of the most interesting things about Damon is that he’s never had an OPS+ of better than 118. He’s just never been that exceptional a player. He’s durable, he’s got some speed, some smarts, he’s got a little bit of pop, and he will take a walk. He’s the very definition of useful, but not anywhere near “great”.
A lot of the criticism I read about Damon here seems, in part, to be based on his personality.
Which, if we go there, we could un-enshrine dozens of hall of famers.
I’ve always found Damon to be unusually candid about himself and about how he feels, which may be foolish, but it is at least an honest sort of foolish.
Though, really, none of us is able to accurately judge his character based upon his soundbites. The guy is a mixed-race army brat with a speech impediment who lost his fortune in a ponzi scheme. None of us can put ourselves in his shoes, and if is on his last 38 year old legs trying to squeeze a few more million out of the business for his family, well then good for him.
By the way, when I was 26 and at my most flexible, I was so, so close to being able to blow my own horn.
…And a career Centerfielder / Leadoff man who could hit for power, steal a base, score 100 runs every single year, unite a clubhouse with his personality, and break the freakin’ curse of the Bambino by being an idiot caveman?
Maybe a HOFer.
And yes, the HOF is a place where longevity is worth something. The only guy with more PA than JD not likely to get in is Harold Baines.
(Staub will make it oneday, he will, he will)
Voomo @80 — Just to be clear, my criticism of Damon politicking for the Hall (while still playing) is completely separate from my opinion that he’s well short of being HOF-worthy. I would not support his candidacy even if he were the humblest member of SABR.
Also, I am by no means judging anything about his personality, his ethnicity, or his speech pathology. I criticized the specific comments that were quoted in an article by Tyler Kepner, and I stand by that criticism. I didn’t call him an ass, but I do think it’s very shallow and nervy of him to want credit for being “clean” when he DID AND SAID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the problem while it was happening. Sorry, but no — in my mind, no player from this era gets any such extra credit unless it can be shown that he made some kind of an effort to combat PED use.
Mine was not an ad hominem attack. In general, I like Damon a lot. He’s been a consistently good player for a long time, and I would have been happy to have him spend his career with either of the teams I root for, even though he forgot to bring along his power stroke when he went to Detroit for one year. But when he says dumb stuff publicly, I think it’s fair to point that out.
JA, you jinxed it!
Tuesday, May 15th, 2012, 6:00 pm: “How much will the Giants really miss Brian Wilson? Replacement closer Santiago Casilla has his ERA under 2 for the third straight year and has blown just 1 of 9 save tries…”
Wednesday, May 16th, 2012, ~1:30 am: http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=21475947
You could even say I double-jinxed it, having also noted Scutaro’s meager hitting in my previous notes.
BTW, RJ (and I hope I’m not mixing up your identity), congratulations on Atletico Madrid’s winning the UEFA Cup for the second time in three years! (Did I get all that right?)
Haha, thanks JA. I love that I’ve managed to make Spanish football a topic of discussion on a baseball blog 🙂
Back to the baseball, and your question of how much the Giants will miss Wilson: I think more than anything we’ve lost a solid right arm. You can argue all day long about the relative qualities of a closer versus any other relief pitcher, but a healthy Wilson is a valuable addition to any team. Casilla will do fine as a replacement, and the bullpen is still generally great, but we’re still one short.
I also think we shouldn’t forget his value as a motivating “presence”; lest we forget, team spirit was widely cited as a major contributor to the 2010 Giants success.
P.S. As any of my fantasy-baseball-playing friends will tell you, my commentary is the official Kiss of Death. The Giants are lucky that Casilla merely gave up the go-ahead run, instead of tearing a ligament.
If Jack Lalanne had been eligible and if I drafted him, he would have been out with a hernia within a day…
There’s a terrific article in today’s WSJ about Wrigley (Why Wrigley Field Must Be Destroyed). WSJ.com is subscription only, but here’s the link-some material is not behind the firewall. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304192704577404424241146562.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
Thanks for that amusing piece, Mike.
But if he was serious, his logic is flawed. Consider his comment about what happened after the Bartman play:
———-
The Cubs, up 3-0 and just five outs from their first World Series appearance since 1945, immediately allowed eight runs, lost the game and, a day later, the series.
And whom do Cubs fans blame? The million-dollar players who couldn’t overcome the slightest turbulence? Of course not. They blame the fan. That’s what 100 years of losing does to your psyche.
———-
So, it’s perverse to blame Bartman (agreed) — but blaming Wrigley for a century’s struggle is just fine?
Lost in the mumbo-jumbo about jinxes and curses is the fact that the vast majority of Cubs teams in the last 100 years were obviously not talented enough to win. Their history is not replete with close calls, like the Red Sox were.
I think 94 wins is a fair benchmark for having a team good enough to go all the way. Since WWII, the Cubs have had 94+ wins just twice — 96 in 1984 (though their Pythag was just 91) and 97 in 2008.
The Cubs need to build a better team.
John A, to me, the mystery of the Cubs is that they haven’t been better in the free agent era, where money does help a lot. Before free agency, if your prospects didn’t pan out, if you were foolish or unlucky in trades or in injuries, you could be bad and stay bad. After free agency, you could fill slots by writing checks. The Cubs have never found the right formula. Maybe Theo/Hoyer will improve things.
They made a good start by letting A.Ramirez walk. Giving $36 million guaranteed to a sub-par defensive 3B for his age 34-36 seasons, in a no-DH league, seems like a poor bet.
On that token, I’ve always been astonished that the Cubs never tried to move him to 1B. It seems LaHair is at least a temporary solution but why they didn’t use him there last year instead of wasting $10M on Pena blew my mind. I would think that playing first would mitigate his defensive failings and he can still hit well enough to be at least reasonable.
That being said I was really happy to see him go… until the Brewers signed him. And yes, I’m a Cubs & Brewers fan, it was fine until the Brewers moved into the NL, OK?
Seems like their biggest problem of the past 20 years is the utter failure to produce any good position players.
Here are the 7 Cubs since 1991 who had a season of 2+ WAR within their first 3 years:
– Rick Wilkins, 1993 (3rd year), 6.5 WAR — Never reached 2 WAR again.
– Starlin Castro, 2011 (2nd), 3.2 WAR.
– Mike Fontenot, 2008 (3rd), 3.2 WAR — Orioles product acquired in the Sosa trade, had his good year at 28 and nothing since.
– Kevin Orie, 1997 (1st), 2.2 WAR — Decent rookie year at 24, though his minor-league stats did not suggest stardom. He was gone very quickly.
– Rey Sanchez, 1993 (3rd), 2.2 WAR — Rangers product, never did hit, had a long career but never a full-timer except with crappy Royals teams.
– Hector Villanueva, 1991 (2nd), 2.1 WAR — Subpar defensive catcher who flashed some power in his first 2 years, age 25-26, with 20 HRs in 334 PAs, then never hit again and went back to Mexico.
I’m sure that “first 3 years” is not a perfect way to find good products, but that’s still a shockingly bad list. In the span covered, there were 303 MLB players who had at least one 2-WAR season within their first 3, an average of 10-11 per team. The Cubs’ 7 is not extremely below average, but the players were skewed towards the ’90s and, except for Castro, none of them panned out.
That’s a good point. It’s impossible to simply buy a championship, although less hard to buy a competitive team. But even the heavyweights have developed talent-Red Sox, Phillies, Yankees all used home grown players as part of their core, then built around them and traded off prospects for missing pieces. It’s not just money.
Followup to & agreement with Mike @43 — If the Yankees had produced as little talent as the Cubs in the last 20 years, I doubt they would have won a single championship.
JA, do not awaken a sleeping giant…. Cubs’ fans on the ‘Net. 🙂
On second thought, we welcome their traffic on HHS.
OK, Wrigley faithful, that was a blow below the belt.
But keep in mind, bleacher bums, before you trash me, that my my team is as futile as yours.
New Cubs question. Joe Ricketts (Cub’s owner) is about to fund a very large, personal and edgy anti-Obama ad blitz. It’s his business, he can do what he wants, and I’m not getting into politics. Any opinions on whether this is good for the team?
Mike @61 — Shall we address that question from the standpoint of whether Ricketts otherwise would have spent that money on the Cubs? Or simply from the standpoint of karma?
Of course, President Obama is a Sox fan, so opposition from Ricketts is to be expected.
To Mike L. – I hadn’t heard this but to bash Obama when you are trying to work with his buddy Rahm to get funding for the Wrigley rehab has to be the dumbest thing the Cubs could do. Or at least in the top 10 these are the Cubs.
John A, Ricketts owns the team. He can spend his money on anything he likes, whether it’s the roster, a new mansion, or an anti-Obama ad. There are plenty of billionaire sports owners that don’t spend a lot of their teams. Karma? Don’t know-for a century the karma’s been pretty lousy, so, if this works, it could bring out a whole new chapter in American politics-the attack ad as reverse English on a sports team. And, you are right about the White Sox fan angle-Obama is the Prez, and if you don’t like the White Sox, why not go after their highest ranking fan?
Kirk @65, The future (which is already here) is that the taxpayer will be paying for stadiums, infrastructure, subsidies, etc, because these poor folk who are owners really struggle to make do. It’s not all that surprising that Rickett’s is getting deep into politics-to the winner goes the spoils. It’s a gamble (with Rahm, and perhaps with part of his fan base) but he’s got plenty to gamble with.
I’d say that since the ad involves Pastor Jeremiah Wright- who is also from Chicago- it could very easily blow up into a huge political hot potato and derail any funding for a new ballpark.
The funding for the new Minnesota Vikings stadium in the state that neighbors mine to the east only passed after multiple failures to do so because of an odd political alliance- a Democratic governor and the Republicans in the legislature- who otherwise wouldn’t agree on anything up to and including saying good morning.
We have an update on the Ricketts-Cubs-Anti-Obama ad. They won’t run the Wright ad (they will run others, but presumably not quite so edgy)
JA, I think 94 wins may have been a good benchmark for a team capable of winning it all in the past-but not anymore. Just look at the last two World Series winners: St. Louis at 90 wins and the Giants at 92. With the expanded playoff system we now have, I don’t think you need a 94-95 win ballclub to have a serious shot. In fact, 5 of the last 10 World Series winners had less than 94 wins, including St. Louis again in 2006(83 wins), the Phillies in 2008(92 wins), the Marlins in 2003(91 wins), plus the last two WS champions mentioned above.
I think one way to make it tougher for teams that limp into the playoffs to go all the way is to make the LDS a seven-game series as well, with fewer off days; anymore you can get away with 3 main starting pitchers and maybe only have to pitch your #4 starter twice at most. This is not a great indication of how good a team is from top to bottom.
Good points, b.
Robinson Cano just got his 300th double.
I thought that seemed odd.
He hasn’t been around that long.
A little more than 7 years.
And he is averaging 44 two-baggers per 162 games.
How have the players who’ve gotten to 600 doubles done in their first 7 years?
Per 162:
Bonds
29
Ripken
27
Waner
47 (including 62 in that 7th year)
Molitor
32
Aaron
36
Honus
43
Yaz
40
Nap
53 !!!
Brett
40
Biggio
35
Tyrus
37
Musial
46
Rose
34
The Grey Eagle
38
Only Waner, Lajoie, and Musial are outpacing Cano.
Simply doubling Cano’s PA puts him at 9000.
All of the guys listed above had over 10,000 PA.
Barring injury or apocalips, how high up the list does he go?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/2B_career.shtml
Voomo, I’ve been looking for who the current player is who might challenge Tris Speaker’s all-time record for doubles or at least reach 700, and Cano is certainly a good candidate. But he’s six months older and 50 doubles behind Miguel Cabrera, although Cano hits them at a higher rate and might eventually pass Miggy. Cabrera is about 110 doubles and three years behind Pujols, so those two are on a similar pace career-wise.
I think you have to look at these things as a function mainly of age and rate of doubles second. Only the greatest of the greats are going to play until age 40; it does appear Cabrera and Cano are those type of hitters, though. Pujols is still in the hunt once he rights himself but I think Miggy and Cano are the two best bets right now to get to maybe 700.
Thoughtful reply, bstar.
To hit a lot of doubles late into your career, IMHO, you have to maintain some pop in your bat in order to pull the ball and hit gap shots.
Does 600 2-baggers guarantee a HOF plaque? (Just kidding.)
Thanks, Neil. I don’t know about guaranteeing a plaque but it will be another feather in Todd Helton’s cap. He’s got 561 right now, seems renewed this year, and barring injury should get there sometime next year.
Bstar – In what way is Helton renewed this year? He has an OPS+ of 96. Not really what you want from a 1st baseman. Honestly, I doubt he’d have a regular job in the majors right now if it weren’t for his contract.
You joke – but the answer (so far) is “Yes!.
Every player that has been eligible and has appeared on a HOF ballot, with 600 or more doubles (12 total), has been elected.
Individual cases:
– Pete Rose (746) is not eligible
– Craig Biggio (668) may not be first-ballot in 2013, but he looks like a pretty sure thing to go in (at most) after two/three years
– Barry Bonds (601) not on ballot till 2013, let the fun begin…
close to 600:
-Luis Gonzalez (596) doesn’t seem to have much of a chance in 2014
– Rafeal Palmeiro (585)is currently on the ballot, but not elected bacause of non-baseball performance (PED) reasons
– Ivan Rodriguez (572) looks like a pretty solid lock
The highest rated player on the career doubles list who has been rejected by the BBWAA HOF voters is at 34th, AL OLIVER (529). Then there’s 37th, Dave Parker (526).
So, yes, I’d say that 600 career doubles,or close to it, gives a player excellent odds for the HOF, even if its not automatic.
There have been 28 players with 3000 career hits. Going 28-deep on career doubles, only Luis Gonzalez, Helton,and Abreu don’t look like pretty sure things for the HOF, excluding non-performance cases such as Rose, Bonds, Palmeiro, and Ramirez.
Just for comparison’s sake:
Most doubles from age 30 on:
Pete Rose…..491
T. Speaker….468
C. Biggio…..447
Sam Rice……441
H.Wagner……409
Most doubles from age 33 on:
Pete Rose…..397
T. Speaker….341
Sam Rice……336
C. Biggio…..335
E. Martinez…310
Good topic, Voomo. You looked at it from the perspective of the guys who got to 600 doubles; I’ll take a sort of opposite look.
Here are the 60 guys who had at least 250 doubles in their first 8 seasons:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/share.cgi?id=n6q1F
And what they did from season 9 onward:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/share.cgi?id=R6X3E
Only 9 of the 60 got another 250+ doubles. Joe Medwick, the leader with 353 doubles through 8 seasons, had just 187 more.
I should have filtered out active players, but I think the point still holds: It does get harder to rack up doubles in your 30s.
John:
Do you mind telling me how you generated the second list?
Richard — I saved the first search (from the search results page, click “Share”, then “Link URL” and name it).
Then I did a new search. At the bottom of the search form, next to “Only find players in the saved report”, I chose the search results I had just saved. Then I specified the rest of my critera — from 9th season to end of career, etc.
The ability to do a “filtered” search is one of the more powerful new-ish additions to the Play Index, although it is currently available only for Season Finders. (I.e., you can save any flavor of search, but you can only use the saved report as a filter when doing a Season Finder.)
John: Thanks a lot.
I love these lists and in particular the 2 you generated John.
Who would have thought that Alex Rios would be just a few doubles shy of the likes of Hank Greenberg and Joe DiMaggio.
So many players who’s talent flared out so quickly or who’s careers were derailed by an injury or by war or who walked away from the game while still an above average player,
Great stuff. Thanks for bringing this up Voomo
I am a huge football enthusiast from the UK, big
supporter of Man Utd, enjoy your site and also subscribed in your take care of: -)