Post #25

2023 Franchise Review [Number 1]: Los Angeles Dodgers (2022 Record: 111-51)

January 25, 2023

One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn’t belong – Jay Asher

Part A: The Unique 2022 Los Angeles Dodgers

A common cognitive puzzle is to pick out what makes something in a series different from all the other selections. For example, which of these 4 states does not belong in this list: Alaska, Connecticut, Minnesota, and Ohio? Two obvious answers would be: 1) Alaska because it is not part of the Continental United States or 2) Connecticut because it does not end with a consonant like the other choices. The 2022 Los Angeles Dodgers, who won 111 games and lost only 51, are an example of this type of mental enigma. The 111 victories are tied for 4th on the all-time list with the 1954 Cleveland Indians [111-43]. Since Major League Baseball began in 1871, only 3 teams have ever won more games in a single season: the 1906 Chicago Cubs [116-36]; the 2001 Seattle Mariners [116-46]; and the 1998 New York Yankees [114-48]. Of course, there are quite a few other teams that have come close to 111 victories in a season: the 1909 Pittsburgh Pirates [110-42]; the 1927 New York Yankees [110-44]; the 1961 New York Yankees [109-53]; the 1969 Baltimore Orioles [109-53]; and the 1970 Baltimore Orioles, the 1975 Cincinnati Reds, the 1986 New York Mets, & the 2018 Boston Red Sox [all with a 108-54 record]. Another five teams have won 107 games [including the 2019 Houston Astros & the 2021 San Francisco Giants], seven more won 106 [including the 2019 & 2021 Los Angles Dodgers plus the 2022 Houston Astros], and yet another 5 finished with 105 triumphs. So what makes this 2022 Los Angeles Dodgers team so different from all the other super-teams that won well in excess of 100 games during a season?

The 2019-2022 Los Angeles Dodgers Super-Team Streak

For one thing, the 2021 Los Angeles Dodgers club went 106-56. In the entire history of the Major Leagues, no team has ever won that many games in one season and then improved in the next. But the 2022 Dodgers did, going 111-51, and improving by 5 whole games. More interestingly, it could be argued that these Dodgers were the only 100+ wins super-team that was just having a regular year. The Dodgers won 106 games in 2019 and 2021. In the Co-vid pandemic shortened 2020 season, the Dodgers went 43-17. At that pace, the 2020 Dodgers would have finished with a 116-46 record. In other words, the Dodgers, from 2019 to 2022, could have finished with 106-116-106-111 wins. The Dodger’s great 2022 season of 111 wins may not have been a peak year at all. It could have been just a fluctuation in the team’s normal talent level. The 2022 Los Angles Dodgers, with just a little luck, could have been an even better team than they were. Trevor Bauer, arguably the team’s best pitcher, was suspended for the entire 2022 season after his predilection for beating up women was revealed. Walker Buehler, probably the team’s 2nd best pitcher, did not pitch up to his 2021 standard. His 2022 season ended on June 10th with a sore elbow that resulted in his 2nd Tommy John surgery. Buehler will not return until 2024. Several regulars had off-years. Max Muncy fell from 36-94-.249-.527 (HR-RBI-BA-SA) to 21-69-.196-.384. Chris Taylor went from 20-73-.254-.438 to 10-43-.221-.373. Justin Turner went from 27-87-.278-.471 to 13-81-.278-.431. No player had a career year. The 2022 Dodgers did add the excellent Freddie Freeman and serviceable closer Craig Kimbrel as free agents. But they also lost Corey Seager and even better closer Kenley Jansen to free agency. On the bright side, center fielder Cody Bellinger went from brutally awful with the bat in 2021 to just terrible in 2022; and Mookie Betts was, once again, Mookie Betts. So why were the 2022 Los Angeles Dodgers five games better than their 2021 team?

Probably the best answer to that question is that a bunch of arbitrary pitchers (Tyler Anderson, Tony Gonsolin, and Andrew Heaney) performed much better than expected. But this was just random luck. The 2022 Dodgers, as a whole, were no better than their 2021 squad. Every other 100+ win super-team was surely peaking (possibly excepting the 1969-1970 Baltimore Orioles). Perhaps the best historical comparison for the 2019-2022 Los Angeles Dodgers super-team run is the 1906-1910 Chicago Cubs.* From 1902-1905, the Cubs steadily improved with 68-69, 82-56, 93-60, and 92-61 records [the Dodgers went 92-70 in 2018 but had won 90 or more games every year from 2013-2018 with a peak 104 win year in 2017]. The Cubs improvement could be traced directly to Frank Selee, their manager [elected to the Hall of Fame in 1999]. Hired in 1902, the no-nonsense Selee led the Cubs until stepping down due to illness during the 1905 season [and passed away in 1909]. Frank Chance, the Cubs star first baseman, replaced Selee as the manager. The 1905 Cubs performed better under their new manager, and then exploded on the National League in 1906 with a 116-36 record. The primary factors behind the increase from 92 victories in 1905 to 116 wins in 1906 were: 1) the maturation of Mordecai “Three Finger” Brown into a superstar; 2) a deep pitching staff that got even better; 3) the acquisition of two stars, Harry Steinfeldt and Jimmy Sheckard; 4) career years from Frank Chance and new acquisition Steinfeldt; and 5) great or good years from everyone else. After their 1906 peak, the Cubs remained an excellent team from 1907-1910: finishing 107-45, 99-55, 104-49, and 104-50. Then the Cubs, from 1911 to 1915, began a slow decline towards mediocrity (92-62, 91-59, 88-65, 78-76, and 73-80). Will the 2023 Los Angeles Dodgers team fall off this same precipice, or will they be able to continue to win 100 or more games per season?

*If they had won 116 games in 2020, the LA Dodgers would hold the record for most victories over four seasons with 439. Without really checking, the second best total would almost surely have been the 1906-1909 Cubs with 426 wins.

Rebuilding on the Fly

For the 2023 season, the Los Angeles Dodgers are attempting to rebuild their club on the fly. They released the repellent Trevor Bauer, despite having him under contract for 2023, while still owing him over 22 million dollars. The club replaced star free agent shortstop Trea Turner with the stopgap Miguel Rojas. They let the struggling Cody Bellinger and aging Justin Turner leave; and then signed the aging and struggling J.D. Martinez. The Dodger’s two lottery ticket winner pitchers, Tyler Anderson and Andrew Heaney, cashed in their winnings by signing elsewhere. Craig Kimbrel and Chris Martin were allowed to wander off. The Dodgers practiced addition by subtraction by letting David Price and Joey Gallo go. In the end, nine 2022 Los Angeles Dodger pitchers and players signed contracts worth over 10+ million dollars annually with other teams for the 2023 season. The Dodgers did resign their long-time ace pitcher Clayton Kershaw and purchased two new lottery ticket pitchers, Noah Syndergaard & Shelby Miller. And the club has stated that it wants to let some rookies have an opportunity to shine. Of course, this will help the 2023 Dodgers get under the luxury tax threshold and reset the penalties to a lower level for when they once again violate it (if they ever do). If all goes right and the team peaks, the 2023 Los Angeles Dodgers could win 100 or more games again: Mookie Betts has an MVP season; Gavin Lux becomes a star player; Max Muncy bombs 40 home runs; Freddie Freeman continues to be himself; Will Smith has a career year; Noah Syndergaard and Shelby Miller punch their own lottery tickets, etc. etc. But the much more likely scenario is that some players have good years and other players do not. It looks the Dodger super-team streak will reset.

2023 Los Angeles Dodgers Prediction: 90-95 wins [not bad for a reset].

Part B: Where is the Big Bopper?

The Los Angeles Dodgers’ franchise has never had a player hit 50 (or more) home runs in a season. Of course, many teams can claim this dubious honor. But the Dodgers are the National league equivalent of the New York Yankees and they used to play in a bandbox named Ebbets Field.* The Yankees have, of course, had multiple players whack 50 plus home runs in a single year. The very first Dodger to hit 40 home runs was Gil Hodges in 1951 (with exactly 40, breaking Babe Herman’s 1930 team record of 35). Hodges was one of three Boys of Summer Brooklyn Dodgers to hit more than 40 in a season before the club moved to Los Angeles [Hodges: 40 in 1951 & 42 in 1954; Duke Snider: 42 in 1953, 40 in 1954, 42 in 1955, 43 in 1956, and then 40 more in 1957; and the great catcher Roy Campanella with 41 in 1953]. Snider’s 43 home run in 1956 remained the club record for a very long time. In 1997, Mike Piazza hit exactly 40 bombs to become the first Dodger to reach that threshold since the 1950s. Then, in 2000, the great but peripatetic slugger Gary Sheffield tied the Dodger record with 43 taters of his own. The very next year, 2001 the long & lanky Shawn Green crushed 49 home runs to break the record. Green followed up with 42 more HRs in 2002 before shoulder issues robbed him of his power. In 2004, Adrian Beltre, having an enormous fluke season, bashed 48 home runs, just falling short of tying Green’s record or even becoming the first Dodger to reach 50 homers. It certainly seemed that the Dodgers would finally get their 50 HR hitter when Cody Bellinger arrived. In 2017, he hit 39 HRs as a 21-year-old rookie. In 2018, he slumped to just 25 Homers. Then Bellinger, now 23-years-old, crushed 47 Home runs, the third most ever hit be a Dodger. Cody seemed sure to eventually break the record. Unfortunately, Bellinger’s career was derailed by shoulder issues, just like Shawn Green (oddly, both men were long & lanky as players). From 2020 to 2022, Bellinger could not even crack 20 home runs in any given year. The Dodgers have finally given up on him, let him go as a free agent. A Dodger hitting 50 HRs in a year will have to wait a while longer.

*Fans of the St. Louis Cardinals may claim, with some justification, to be the National League’s version of the New York Yankees (and their seasonal home run record is, of course, held by Mark McGwire with 70.)

Of course, if history had flowed down a different channel, the Dodgers may have already had a slugger who could have hit 50+ homers for them. From 1958 to 1964, Frank Howard played for the Dodgers. Listed at 6 feet 7 inches tall and 255 pounds, Howard was the Aaron Judge of his time. Playing in the pitching dominated and offensively starved 1960s, Howard played his career at an awful time to hit. The Dodgers, showing no faith in Howard, platooned him from 1960-1964 and then simply traded him away. The Dodger parks did Howard no favors either (from 1958-1964, he hit 55 home HRs versus 68 road HRs). With the Washington Senators, Frank Howard came into his own at last from 1968 to 1970 and hit 44, 48 and 44 home runs before age (he turned 32 in August 1968) and injuries washed his career away. If he had played for the Dodgers in the high-octane 1990s (and not been platooned), Howard would have possibly hit at least 50 home runs six times or more. In context, he was probably the most gifted HR hitter that the Dodgers ever had. Unfortunately, the Dodgers recently had a player under contract who could have given big Frank a tussle for that title. In June of 2016, the Dodgers signed a tall skinny, almost 19-years-old, Cuban refugee named Yordan Alvarez for over 2 million dollars. Two weeks after signing Alvarez, the Dodgers traded him away for a middling Major League relief pitcher to the Houston Astros. Why wasn’t the Astros interest in Alvarez not some sort of indication to the Dodgers that they should have looked twice at Alvarez before trading him? It simply seems very odd. If his knees hold up, it is now very likely that the 6 foot 5 inch and 250 pound Yordan Alvarez will hit 50 or more HRs relatively soon. Meanwhile, the Dodgers still wait patiently for their 50 HR man.

Note: This post was the first of 30 individual team post (in order of 2022 winning percentage) to practice writing shorter blog posts. In that sense, it was an abject failure. Hopefully, practice will make perfect eventually.

Post #24

The 2023 BBWAA Baseball Hall of Fame Election: A Bright Clear Line

Knowledge is the process of piling up facts; wisdom lies in their simplification – Martin H. Fischer

January 11, 2023

Introduction

On January 24th, 2023, the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) will announce their selection(s), if any, for induction into the Hall of Fame later in July. The ballot, which was released on November 11th, 2022, [presumably to build up some publicity before the coming announcement] has 28 players on it. Fourteen of these players are holdovers from previous elections and 14 others are new to the ballot [which makes for a nice balanced lineup]. Any of the 28 players getting less than 5% of the vote will be thrown off the BBWAA Hall of Fame bus [metaphorically speaking] and will not be listed on the 2024 ballot. This is all pretty straightforward, but also tediously boring. For several years now, there has been a Baseball Hall of Fame Tracker which analyzes any and all published Hall of Fame ballots before the big day. For all intents and purposes, any mystery of who may join Fred McGriff [already voted in by the Hall of Fame’s Veterans Committee] on the podium in July of 2023 is already over. Scott Rolen is probably the only candidate that has any real chance of being elected by the BBWAA this year. The Hall of Fame Tracker [compiled by Ryan Thibodaux] has reduced the suspense of the 2023 Hall of Fame election to the simple question of: Will Scott Rolen make it?

Who Actually Should be Elected by the BBWAA in 2023?

The Hall of Fame Lowest Common Denominator System (LCDS) holds that any players elected should have accrued more career bWAR (Baseball Reference’s Wins Above Replacement formula) than the 244th best eligible player for the Hall of Fame.* In other words, a Hall of Fame player should have accumulated more than 52.7 bWAR [the total accumulated by Hall of Famer Elmer Flick and non-Hall of Famer Babe Adams, both tied at #243]. Using this bWAR number as the baseline, the LCDS 2023 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot would be: 1) Scott Rolen 70.1 bWAR; 2) Andruw Jones 62.7; 3) Todd Helton 61.8; 4) Gary Sheffield 60.5, 5) Bobby Abreu 60.2, 6) Andy Pettitte 60.2, 7) Mark Buerhle 59.1, and 8) Jeff Kent 55.4. Under the LCDS system, Torii Hunter [50.7] and Jimmy Rollins [47.6] just miss the ballot; but would have been Hall of Fame worthy with one more good year. Alex Rodriguez, who finished his all-time great career with 117.6 bWAR, is not considered eligible despite currently being on the ballot. Along with Manny Ramirez [69.3 BWAR], Rodriguez is ineligible for election to the Baseball Hall of Fame due to his suspension for taking steroids during his career. There is no reason for allowing either man to twist in the wind for ten years as the BBWAA is doing. A-Rod’s eventual banishment into steroid limbo is ensured when he inevitably falls off the ballot in 8 years. Ramirez, the other steroid casualty, has 3 years to go. Any review of the steroid ineligible should start with players who were not suspended for using performance-enhancing drugs during their careers [with Mark McGwire at the front of the line]. There is another player, currently getting strong support for the Hall, who is absent from the above list: superstar reliever Billy Wagner. Unfortunately, bWAR may not be the best tool to measure the contributions of a relief ace like Wagner. He only accumulated 27.7 bWAR in his career. Only by virtually doubling his bWAR total does Wagner qualify under LCDS. The BBWAA will almost surely, absent some horrible intervening scandal, elect him quite soon anyways.

*For a better explanation of the LSDS, please see Post #22. There are currently 241 (non-Negro League) Hall of Fame players elected to the Hall of Fame plus 3 more who were elected as executives but who would have qualified as players.

The Hall of Fame Tracker at this very Moment [1-11-23]

Right now the Hall of Fame tracker has collected 154 ballots [Usually there are just under 400 ballots cast].* With 75% of the total votes needed for election, the current count for the top 10 is: 1) Scott Rolen 81.2% [63.2% last year], 2) Todd Helton 79.9% [52.0%], 3) Billy Wagner 73.2% [51.0%], 4) Andruw Jones 69.8% [41.1%], 5) Gary Sheffield 66.4 [40.6%], 6) Carlos Beltran 57.7% [1st year on the ballot], 7) Jeff Kent 50.3% [32.7%], 8) Alex Rodriguez 43.0% [34.3%] and his running mate 9) Manny Ramirez 40.9% [28.9%], and lastly 10) Bob Abreu 20.1% [8.6%]. Unless history is reversed, these percentages will fade away as the ballots from the more neanderthal BBWAA writers are finally counted (the members who refuse to publish their ballots and are unaccountable for their often strange votes). Rolen may be able to hang on and be elected this year. Todd Helton, the only other player currently above the 75% threshold, does not seem to be high enough to fend off the inevitable ebb. But he certainly seems primed to be elected in 2024. It would help Helton if Rolen goes in this year, clearing the path for him. The probably unavoidable elections of Jones & Wagner seem to be on track too. Sheffield, despite his tangential steroid taint, & Carlos Beltran, despite his involvement in the 2017-18 Houston Astros sign-stealing scandal, also seem to be on track for eventual induction. Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez, the convicted steroid pair, are both treading water and waiting for their eventual dismissal from the ballot. Jeff Kent, in his 10th and final year on the ballot, will be getting his dismissal this year. He will have to wait for the Veterans Committee to eventually honor him. There are 2 other players [in addition to Kent and Abreu] who deserve to be in the Hall of Fame by the LCDS system: Andy Pettite 18.8% [10.7%] & Mark Buerhle 10.1% [5.8%]. Both men will surely live to see another ballot but the prognosis for their eventual election by the BBWAA seems grim.

*Apparently 140 published and attributed to a specific eligible Baseball Hall of Fame voter plus 14 more ballots that are unattributed.

A Question of Discussing Progress

In general, the Baseball Hall of Fame Tracker has changed the discussion from: Who will get elected? to Who is making good progress towards being elected? Usually, players go on the ballot, their candidacy gets considered, and then (if they are worthy) their vote totals rise until they are elected. Scott Rolen, Todd Helton*, Billy Wagner, Andruw Jones, and Gary Sheffield are currently making good progress and will eventually be elected to the Hall of Fame. Also, Carlos Beltran is doing so well in his first year that his election is inevitable. There is one very unusual 2023 candidacy. Omar Vizquel’s Hall of Fame vote totals are regressing, not progressing. In 2020, Vizquel’s election was all but inevitable. He had reached 52.6% in only his third year on the ballot (after starting with 37.0% in his first year), despite an underwhelming career total of 45.6 bWAR. But, as the 2021 ballots rolled in, he got accused of domestic violence against his wife and sexual harassment of an (autistic) bat boy. The double whammy of this bad publicity hurt his 2021 vote total a little [49.1%]. Then completely crashed it in 2022 [23.9%] like a plane hitting a mountainside. This freefall is continuing in 2023. His current vote total is a mere 8.7% (and sliding down). At this rate, he will fall off the BBWAA ballot either this year or in 2024. Three other players (Jeff Kent, Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez) are just treading water until they fall off the Ballot. There are five more players (Bobby Abreu, Andy Pettitte, Jimmy Rollins, Mark Buehrle, and Francisco Rodriguez) who are all waiting around at the bottom of the ballot, hoping their Hall of Fame cases catch fire. Abreu, Pettitte and Buehrle are all qualified under the LCDS to be in the Hall and Rollins is close. Francisco Rodriguez, who like Beltran is in his first year on the ballot, was an ace reliever like Wagner. If his bWAR [24.2] is doubled, Francisco Rodriguez still doesn’t qualify under the LCDS. Despite all this, it is probable that his candidacy will survive to see next year. If it does, there is a good chance that he will begin to make some progress.

*The election of both Rolen and Helton, who would then join McGriff in the 2023 Baseball Hall of Fame class, would obviously be the best outcome for the Hall of Fame itself by giving it three, rather than just two, players to honor on July 23, 2023.

The Other Guys On and Off the Ballot

Other than the 15 players mentioned in the above paragraph, there are 13 other players on the 2023 BBWAA ballot. Twelve of these guys are first-time candidates like Carlos Beltran and Francisco Rodriguez. None of these twelve players are going to survive to see the 2024 Ballot. In fact, none of them has even received a single vote so far (with 140 votes currently counted). This is not surprising considering that pitcher John Lackey has the most career bWAR [37.3] of the 12 players. They will all be one and done on the BBWAA Hall of Fame ballot. Despite this, all 12 guys were fine players: Lackey; Jered Weaver; Jacoby Ellsbury; Jhonny Peralta; Jayson Werth; Matt Cain; J.J. Hardy; the great Mike Napoli; R.A. Dickey; Bronson Arroyo; Andre Ethier; and relief ace Huston Street. A very good team could be made from these players in their primes. Probably the greatest “Could Have Been A Contender” for the Baseball Hall of Fame out of these 12 candidates would be Jacoby Ellsbury. Presently, Ellsbury is mostly remembered as a bitter disappointment by New York Yankee fans. He signed a 7 year/153 million dollar contract in 2013 but never lived up to it. However, his career was derailed and eventually destroyed by near constant injuries. The one year that Ellsbury was totally uninjured and in his prime was stunning. In 2011, he scored 119 times, hit 32 HRs, drove in 105 runs, batted .321, and stole 39 bases (finishing 2nd to Justin Verlander in the MVP race). It was a fantastic season. A few more like it would have given Jacoby Ellsbury a very strong Hall of Fame case.* Of course, this leaves one player on the Ballot undiscussed. That would be outfielder Torii Hunter [career bWAR of 50.7]. In 2021, his first year on the BBWAA ballot, Hunter received 10.5% of the vote. In 2022, he was down to 5.3%. Currently, in 2023, Hunter has only 2.0% of the vote. Evidently, the BBWAA voters have decided that 3 years on the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot, but not one more, is enough to honor Torii Hunter.

*After a great 33 game trial in 2007, Ellsbury started his career with two very promising seasons in 2008 & 2009 [3.0 and then 2.8 bWAR]. He was injured basically all season long in 2010. He had his monster season in 2011 [bWAR of 8.3]. A shoulder injury destroyed his 2012 season. He then returned with no power in 2013 [5.8 bWAR]; but got some back in 2014 [3.6 bWAR with 16 HRs]. After a good start to 2015 (.324 BA in 37 games), injuries called off the rest of his career [2015-2019]. He didn’t even play in 2018 or 2019 as the injuries ate what was left of his talent.

A Bright Clear Line

The Lowest Common Denominator System [LCDS] for deciding if a Baseball player is worthy of the Hall of Fame contains an assumption that the Hall of Fame has already elected and inducted the correct number of players [244 to be exact right now]. The only difference is that the LCDS gives a very different answer to who actually belongs. Most baseball fans would agree that the Hall of Fame has done, at times, a pretty shoddy job of selecting its new members. Many baseball writers like to argue that the Hall has elected too many players. Others argue that the Hall of Fame has elected too few. But maybe we should just throw the baby & the bath water out the window and start over? It seems like a bright clear line [ABCL] for electing a player to the Baseball Hall of Fame could be set at 50.0 or more total bWAR during their career. Since the player must play 10 seasons to even qualify for election, this would mean that the potential Hall of Famer would need to average 5.0 bWAR per year for 10 years to get in (5.0 bWAR basically represents an All-Star-type season). This seems reasonable. Perhaps we could even name these types of seasons. Above 5.0 bWAR would be a “Kong.” Above 7.5 bWAR (a MVP-type season) would be a “King Kong.” In honor of Hideki Matsui & Aaron Judge, a season 10.0 bWAR or above would be a “Godzilla.” There are currently 278 Baseball players who are eligible for the Hall of Fame with 50.0 or more career bWAR. This is only a slight increase from the 244 who are currently enrolled. It has the advantage over the LCDS system of being an immovable and fixed line. It will not shift, like LCDS, after the results of future elections. From this point on, the ABCL will be used as the starting point for any Baseball Hall of Fame discussions in this blog.

The 2023 BBWAA Ballot

Using the ABCL, this blog’s uncounted and disregarded ballot for the BBWAA 2023 Baseball Hall of Fame election goes: 1) Scott Rolen; 2) Andruw Jones; 3) Todd Helton; 4) Gary Sheffield; 5) Bobby Abreu; 6) Andy Pettitte; 7) Mark “The Burley” Buerhle; 8) Jeff Kent; and 9) Torii Hunter. With undeniable proof that a relief ace is actually worth twice as much as other players, Billy Wagner would be tied with Jeff Kent at 8th, pushing Hunter down to 10th. But that proof has not been forthcoming yet.

Coming Later: Addendum #1

Relief Pitchers and the Hall of Fame.

Coming even later: Addendum #2

Kongs, King Kongs & Godzillas

Addendum #3

The 28 Players [listed by bWAR] on the 2023 BBWAA Baseball Hall of Fame ballot [14 players held over from 2022 Ballot and 14 new players, who are marked with a + sign]:

1) Alex Rodriguez the doomed 117.6; 2t) Carlos Beltran 70.1+; 2t) Scott Rolen 70.1; 4) Manny Ramirez 69.3; 5) Andruw Jones 62.7; 6) Todd Helton 61.8; 7) Gary Sheffield 60.5; 8t) Bobby Abreu 60.2; 8t) Andy Pettitte 60.2; 10) Mark Buehrle 59.1; 11) Jeff Kent 55.4; 12) Torii Hunter 50.7; 13) Jimmy Rollins 47.6; 14) Omar Vizquel 45.6; 15) John Lackey 37.3+; 16) Jered Weaver 34.6+; 17) Jacoby Ellsbury 31.2+; 18) Jhonny Peralta 30.4+; 19) Jayson Werth 29.2+; 20) Matt Cain 29.1+; 21) J.J. Hardy 28.1+; 22) Billy Wagner 27.7; 23) Mike Napoli 26.3+; 24) Francisco Rodriguez 24.2+; 25) R.A. Dickey 23.7+; 26) Bronson Arroyo 23.4+; 27) Andre Ethier 21.5+; and 28) Huston Street 14.5+.

The 36 Players [listed by bWAR] who qualified for the 2023 BBWAA Baseball Hall of Fame ballot (10 years of service); but were excluded from the ballot by a secret Hall of Fame Committee:

1) Yunel Escobar 26.8; 2) Aaron Hill 24.4; 3) Erick Aybar 22.8; 4) Carlos Ruiz 22.5; 5) Ubaldo Jiminez 20.4; 6) Jeremy Guthrie 18.4; 7) Franklin Gutierrez 18.2; 8) Joaquin Benoit 17.9; 9) Chris Young 17.5; 10) Stephen Drew 15.9; 11) Ricky Nolasco 13.4; 12) Adam Lind 12.7; 13) Matt Garza 12.5; 14) Geovany Soto 12.0; 15) Joe Blanton 11.8; 16) Seth Smith 11.6; 17) Rickie Weeks 11.5; 18) Ryan Hanigan 9.2; 19) Glen Perkins 8.9; 20) Jonathan Broxton 8.7; 21) Scott Feldman 7.9; 22) J.P. Howell 7.8; 23) Alejandro De Aza 7.2; 24) Craig Breslow 6.2; 25t) Mike Pelfrey 5.8; 25t) Chad Qualls 5.8; 27) Mike Aviles 5.7; 28) Brandon Moss 5.0; 29) Jason Grilli 4.6; 30) Kyle Kendrick 4.6; 31) Michael Morse 4.0; 32) Edward Mujica 3.9; 33) Eric O’Flaherty 3.8; 34) Ryan Raburn 3.3, 35t) Andres Blanco 1.6; and lastly 35t) Dustin McGowan 1.6.

Yunel Escobar and Aaron Hill may have a complaint here. Why R.A. Dickey or Bronson Arroyo or Huston Street on the ballot but not them? One wonders whether pitching in the thin Colorado air ruined the career of Ubaldo Jiminez. How much harder did he have to torque his arm to impart spin there? Rickie Weeks is probably, without really checking, the most disappointing player in this group. The second player taken in the 2003 June amateur draft (after the even more disappointing Delmon Young), Weeks seemed to have the talent to be a much bigger star than he turned out to be.

Interestingly, a total of 50 players who retired in 2017 qualified for the 2023 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot after waiting the required 5 years after the end of their careers. Fourteen were placed on the ballot itself and the other 36 were then excluded by a Hall of Fame Ballot Committee. A question for yet another day would be: What is the normal number of players that qualify to be on the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot each year? Were the 50 qualified players in 2023 an abnormal number of guys to qualify? What would be the normal range? If not normal in 2023, is it more or less?

Post #23

Major League Demographics: 1871

From a small seed, a mighty trunk may grow. Aeschylus

January 1, 2023

Introduction

Anyone who loves Baseball history owes an enormous debt of gratitude to the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR). Founded in 1971,* this group has expanded the available knowledge about Baseball in virtually all directions. In one particular area, SABR continued the work of the late great Lee Allen, historian of the Baseball Hall of Fame from 1959 until he died of a heart attack in 1969. Allen had made it his life’s work to collect biographical information about every Major League player. Without this work, started by Lee Allen and then followed up on by SABR, the detailed demographics of the 115 players who played in the 1871 National Association (NA) would not even be available to analyze. But, thankfully, they are. This post will seek to answer the following questions about those 1871 NA players: 1. how old were they in 1871; 2. how long did they live after their careers ended; 3. how tall and heavy were they in 1871; 4. which was their dominant hand when batting or throwing; and 5. where did these men originally come from? Future posts will answer the exact same questions for other Major League seasons. It will then be possible to compare and contrast this information over the entire timeline of Baseball. Hopefully, something interesting about the always changing demographics of the supposed National Pastime will be uncovered. If not, it will just be good fun for the Baseball obsessed (or perhaps just interested).

*Exactly 100 years after the formation of the first Major League, the National Association. Unless otherwise noted, all basic demographic information comes from the website Baseball Reference.

1. How Old Was the Average NA Player in 1871?

Of the 115 players, 81 men have a full birthdate (day/month/year); 15 have a partial birthdate (month/year); 17 have just a birth year; and only two players (Bill Barrett & Bill Kelly) have no birth information at all. For the purposes of this post, the median will be used to determine any averages. The median is the mid point in any data set (exactly 50% of the data points are greater and 50% of the data points are lesser). Other demographic studies like this use the mean, or the weighted mean, to arrive at their conclusions. The mean, of course, is the average of all data points combined (a weighted mean assigns different values to individual data points such as games played or at bats). In this case, the median seems better suited as the mean can be thrown off by an extreme data point. It is also just less complicated. Of the 81 NA players who have full birthdates, the median would be player #41 (William Johnson), born June 1, 1848. In other words, the median NA player was around 23 years old in 1871 (using 7/1/1871, the season mid-point, to determine player’s age). Of course, the obvious question would be: Does including the data from those players without full birthdates make any difference? There are 32 players with partial data. Using the data from all 113 men with any birth data, the median 1871 age rises to 23 years, 6 months, and 4 days (aka #57, John Sensenderfer, aka “Count” Sensenderfer). Basically, the median age of a 1871 NA player was 23 and a half. This is almost surely the lowest average age of the players for any one season in Major League history [which, considering 1871 was the very first season, makes total sense]. In more recent years, Major League players reportedly averaged around 27 years old in the 1960s and 1970s, which rose to about 29 years old in the 2010s, and has currently fallen back to 28 years old or so in the 2020s.

2. How Long Did the Average 1871 NA Player Live?

Of the 115 NA players, 111 of them have been found dead. Four men (Barrett and Kelly again, plus Edward Beavens and Fred Treacey) have left no trace (so far) of when they shuffled off this mortal coil. But they are definitely dead [or approximately 170 years old]. The first and also youngest of the 1871 players to die was Willard White. He died March 3, 1872, at the very young age of 22 years and 101 days of what was then called the “White Plague” (tuberculosis). Seven players did not see the 1880s. The median age of the 1871 NAL players when they passed on was 61 years and 116 days (#56 out of the 111 players, William Johnson, once again). The median date of death was November 28th, 1908 (a different #56, Thomas Pratt). In an odd twist of fate, the 1871 player who lived the longest was Hall of Famer James “Deacon” White, the cousin of the Willard White who had died first. Jim White lived to the ripe old age of 91 years and 217 days, finally passing away on July 7th of 1939. He was one of 4 players from the 1871 NA who made it to 90 years old. One of them, Al Pratt, died just 2 days after turning 90. Yet another was White’s former teammate & fellow Hall of Famer, George Wright. Wright died in 1937 after living 90 years and 205 days. The only other 1871 player to make 90 was George Bird. Bird was also the last player from the first Major League still living. When he died on November 11th of 1940 at the advanced age of 90 years and 139 days, the last player from the 1871 National Association was laid to rest. Compared to modern times, the players of the 1871 NA lived considerably shorter lives. In the year 2020, the average lifespan of an American male was reportedly 74.5* years, more than 12 years longer than the average 1871 NAL player.

*An average modern American women reportedly lives to be 80.2 years, raising the overall American average to 77.3 years old.

3. How Big Was the Average 1871 NA Player?

Of the 115 NAL players, 13 do not have their height listed. Of the 102 players that do have it listed, the median is 5 feet 8 inches (the average between #51 and #52, though both men are listed as 5-08). Only 13 of the 102 players are listed as being 6 feet or taller (8 men at exactly 6-00, 3 men at 6-01, and just one man, Robert Armstrong, at 6-02). The shortest man listed, at 5 feet and 3 and a half inches, is Dickey Pearce, the long time shortstop. But Pearce is also listed as having weighed a very stout 161 pounds. The next shortest man on the NA list is David Force, also a shortstop, listed as being 5-04 and weighing only 130 pounds. Three other NA players are listed as 5-05 tall. There are 101 players with their weight listed (the 14 missing this info are the 13 without a listed height, plus William Johnson again). The median of these 101 players (#51) weighed 157 pounds (Thomas Foley or Hall of Famer Harry Wright). The heaviest listed player is another Hall of Famer, Adrian (aka “Cap”) Anson. But his listed weight, 227 pounds, is obviously from much later in his career [Cap was the last 1871 NA player active in the Major leagues, retiring in 1897]. The photographic evidence suggests that the 19-year-old Anson weighed about 180 to 190 pounds in 1871. This would still make Anson heavier than Charles Bierman or Gat Stires, next on the list at reportedly 180 pounds.* The lightest listed player was David Birdsall at 126 pounds. However, he was almost surely heavier than that. Birdsall, listed as 5-09 tall, was a thin man. But 126 pounds on a 5-09 frame is emaciated. He was probably, looking at photos, around at least 145-150 pounds. The smallest man on any NA field was probably always the 5-04 short and 130 pounds light Davy Force. Presently, the average Major League player stands 6-01 and weighs around 205 to 210 pounds in 2020. In other words, the average present Major League player would be comfortably the largest man by far on any 1871 National Association team.

*The fascinating Garret “Gat” Stires, listed as 5-08 and a muscular 180 pounds, was probably the strongest man in the NA. An incredibly powerful batter, Stires reportedly swung a 6 pound bat [i.e. 96 ounces, modern bats are 31 to 33.5 oz]. That is basically a log. Unfortunately, 1871 was his only year in the Majors.

One other interesting question related to the height and weight of the 1871 NA players is: Were the pitchers from 1871 bigger, smaller, or the same size as the other 1871 players? For most of baseball history, pitchers have been taller and heavier than other players. Reportedly, in modern baseball, pitchers are 6 feet and 3 inches tall on average and weigh between 210 and 215 pounds. In other words, two inches taller and 5 to 10 pounds heavier than other players. The advantage of a taller pitcher comes from the downward plane which can be attained throwing a ball overhand. But pitchers in 1871 were not allowed to throw overhand. Modern pitching mounds also accentuate the downward plane effect. But pitchers in 1871 did not throw off a mound. The advantage of a heavier pitcher is that he would be able to supposedly throw harder (i.e. by putting his weight behind the pitch). But there has never been a plethora of fat guys with blazing fastballs pitching in the Major Leagues. In any event, 19 men pitched in the 1871 National Association. But 9 of these men were just players who primarily played other positions. One man, William Stearns was primarily a pitcher during his career but only pitched two games in 1871 (during his career, he played 84 Major League games, every one as a pitcher). Stearns threw right-handed but his batting, height and weight are not listed. This leaves just nine other men who really pitched in the 1871 NA. This may seem low, but the 1871 teams ordinarily used just one pitcher. For what its worth, these 9 men were generally bigger than their teammates. The median height and weight of these 9 pitchers was 5-09 and 162 pounds.* Strangely, the only left-handed pitcher was John McMullen (who was also probably the worst pitcher of the nine). Truthfully, there were simply not enough pitchers hurling in 1871 to draw any definite conclusions about their relative size.

*The mean average height of these 9 pitchers was exactly 5 feet and 9 inches [9 men/621 inches] also; but their mean average weight was a slim 155.67 pounds [9 pitchers/1401 pounds]. Basically, the size differential between the 9 pitchers and the batters in 1871 could just be a rounding error.

4. Which Was the Dominant Hand of the 1871 NA Players?

Of the 115 NA players that played in 1871, whether they batted right-handed or left-handed has been recorded for just 48 of them. The breakdown of the batting data shows that 36 of 48 [75.0%] players batted from the right side and 12 of 48 players batted from the left [25.0%]. Whether NA players threw the ball right-handed or left-handed has been recorded for only 60 of them. The breakdown of the throwing data shows that 48 of 60 players threw right-handed [80.0%] and 12 of 60 players threw left-handed [20.0%]. As the right-left percentages of the general population are usually recorded as 90% right and 10% left, the data seems to suggests that the natural advantage of being left-handed in Baseball, especially while batting, was already evident at the beginning. But this data could actually be skewed. As being left-handed is more unusual than being right-handed, whether a player was left-handed is much more likely to have been recorded. The absence of data is too great to definitely claim that baseball’s bias towards the left-handed existed in 1871. Also it is obvious that positional discrimination was not yet set in stone in the beginning [because of the left-handed disadvantages of playing as a C, 2B, SS, or 3B, these positions eventually would be manned only by the right-handed.] It should be noted that one man, the always eclectic Bob Ferguson, has been listed as a switch-hitter in most Baseball databases. However, for this analysis, Ferguson is simply being considered a right-handed hitter. He did not switch sides at the plate to gain a platoon advantage.* Ferguson was basically just a right-handed hitter, but would sometimes switch-hit to gain what he thought was a tactical advantage. In the most widely reported example, Bob Ferguson shifted from right to left in the batter’s box in an attempt not to hit the ball at shortstop George Wright, probably the greatest fielder at that time.

*The platoon advantage occurs because a right-handed pitcher will appear to release the ball at the body of a righty batter and a left-handed pitcher does the same versus a lefty batter. This element of deception (and fear) makes it harder to hit than opposite side confrontations [lefty-righty or righty-lefty].

5. Where Did the 1871 NA Players Come from?

The simple answer to this question is: The players mostly came from New York State or Pennsylvania. As the game of Baseball was invented in New York City; and then spread outwards from there like a fever, this is hardly surprising. All told, the players in the 1871 NA came from only ten states (and the District of Columbia). Of the 115 NA players in 1871, just one player is listed without a birthplace [Pete Donnelly]. Interestingly, thirteen (13) of the players were not born in the United States at all (England 5, Ireland 4, and one each for Canada, Cuba, Germany and the Netherlands). This may be the highest percentage of foreign players in a Major League until over 100 years later (a robust 11.4% of the players). Of the remaining 101 players, 45 of the players were born in NY; 23 in PA, 9 in MD, 8 in NJ, 5 in IL, 4 in OH, 2 in IA and MA, and just one in CT, DC & IN. There were 79 players born in the Northeast [NY-PA-NJ-MA-CT]; 12 players born in the Midwest [IL-OH-IA-IN]; and another 10 players from the southern borders [basically Baltimore MD & Washington DC]. There were no players in the 1871 from the Southern States or the far Western States. There was no one born in either Texas or California [though seven players from the 1871 NA would eventually pass away in CA]. Interestingly, there was only two players from Massachusetts in the 1871 NA. It seems like the Boston area, all by itself, should have contributed many more players than that. However, the game of baseball, as played in Massachusetts, differed from the game played in New York. The “New York” game took quite awhile to catch fire in the New England area (there were no players from Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, or New Hampshire in the 1871 NA either). Essentially, most players in the 1871 NA came from Northeastern urban centers.

The deeper answer to the question of where the players came from is: They were mostly of English descent. Since baseball evolved out the British game of rounders, this is hardly a revelation. Although the specific ethnicity of every player cannot be exactly determined, the nationality of their surnames can be reviewed. But, [for example] if a player had an Italian or Spanish mother, this process would not pick that fact up. Examining the surnames of the 115 men who played in the 1871 NA, there were 68 players with (presumably) English surnames [59.1%]; there were 24 players with likely Irish (or Gaelic) surnames [20.9%]; there were 13 players with probably German surnames [11.3%], and there were 6 players with seemingly Scottish surnames [5.2%]. There were 2 players of Jewish heritage (Lipman Pike was certainly Jewish but Levi Meyerle was only possibly Jewish). Both of these Jewish men had Germanic last names [interestingly, they were both ferocious hitters and poor fielders]. There was also one surname that was of presumably French origin (Henry Berthrong) & one surname that was definitely Spanish [Esteban Bellan]. Esteban Bellan may actually be the most important historical figure in the 1871 NA. The son of a Cuban father and Irish mother who immigrated to Cuba, Bellan attended St. John’s College (now Fordham University) in New York City from 1866 to 1868. After graduating, Bellan played Baseball in the New York City area from 1868 to 1873. Then he returned home and was one of the founders of the Cuban Baseball Leagues. Finally, there is one group of players that is included only by its absence. There were no players of African-American descent in the NA. They had been banned by the National Association before the first game had even been played.

*Surnames were studied mostly through Google queries and the Surname database on FamilySearch.com [the Mormon Genealogical website].

Conclusion: A League of Young Altuves

The average [median] 1871 National Association [Major League*] player was around 23 and a half years old, stood 5 feet 8 inches tall, and weighed about 157 pounds.* He batted and threw right-handed. The player was most likely born in New York State (if not in New York City itself). He was a white male of northern European ancestry. His parents were probably of English stock. He would live to be 61 and a half years old and died in 1908 or so. Every person that he knew has been dead for over a century. In the current Major Leagues, Jose Altuve of the Houston Astros [2011 to present] is celebrated for his small size. Altuve is listed as 5 feet 6 inches tall and weighing around 166 pounds. Although he is older [presently 32 years of age] and also both slightly shorter and a little bit heavier than the average 1871 NA player, Altuve is basically the exact same size. As players usually gain weight as they age, there is actually a good chance that the average weight of those 1871 NA players was around 165 to 170 pounds when they were 32 too. Another thing that Altuve and the 1871 NA players have in common is that they don’t appear to have any fat on them at all. Pictures of the players in 1871 convey that they were either wiry and muscular or stocky and muscular. Very few of the players appear to have been in need of a diet. Perhaps, the best way to think of the 1871 National Association players is a League of young Jose Altuves (minus the tattoos).

**For those who would rather not use the median, the mean average height of an 1871 NA player was: 5 feet 8.52 inches tall [102 players/6989 inches]; and average weight was: 158.53 pounds [101 players/16012 pounds]. Basically the same statistics.

Addendum #1

Some Baseball historians do not consider the old National Association, which operated from 1871 through 1875, to be a Major League. One reason that they believe the Association should not be considered the Majors is that it let any team that could pay the initiation fees join. Another reason that they cite is one of problematic game scheduling. The Association clubs did not play a balanced schedule (an equal number of games against each opponent). But, in the final analysis, the main problem these historians have with the National Association is that they just don’t think that it was of Major League Caliber. It was an inferior League. However, the National League which followed the NA was basically just a continuation of the NA with different organizational rules. The NA was almost certainly as good as the 1876-1880 NL. The other side of this argument is the assumption that the game of Baseball was [and probably still is] evolving so rapidly that the game improves steadily decade by decade. In other words, Baseball in the 2000s was better than in the 1900s was better than the 1880s which was way better than the 1870s. In other words, the NA was simply inferior due to this evolution. Perhaps the game of Baseball does steadily improve. But the slope of that improvement is probably so gradual that it is almost imperceptible. Adrian Anson played in the Majors from 1871 to 1897. His career path is completely normal, as if the quality of the Leagues did not change over the years, even a little bit. The NA was the top League in the United States from 1871 to 1875, ipso facto it was a Major League.

Coming Attractions: Future Posts in [Hopefully] 2023

1. Short post on the upcoming January 2023 BBWAA Hall of Fame Election. Nothing to see here, move along.

2. Thirty different brief team capsules for every Major League club [including one very long one about aging for the San Francisco Giants, now well over a year in production].

3. The Problem with Major League Player’s Height and Weight Information and a solution that will not be adopted.

4. My personal and provisional All-Time Major League Baseball Top 100 List with WAR modifications and Negro League players included.

5. The tentative 100 Greatest Players from the Negro Leagues List.

6. The Major League Demographics of the 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960, 1980, 2000 and 2020 seasons. Not necessarily in that order.

7. The history of the Baseball Hall of Fame and Negro League Players; or how to screw up the process and progress of glory.

8. Where’s Winston: Negro League Demographics, Part 1 to start. Adventures in the last frontier of Major League Demographics

9. The Mysterious Career of Will Jackman [Negro League Legend] Revisited.

10. The Biography of Big Bill Smith [forgotten Negro League Legend].

11. The Legendary 1894 season of Grant (Home Run) Johnson: 60 home runs?

12. Career Paths and Injury Cascades (aka Luck of the Draw), Part 1 to start: Probably Pete Reiser or maybe Bob Feller.

13. Little fast fat men: An examination of the worst player in the Baseball Hall of Fame, Tommy McCarthy, and several of his contemporaries.

14. The True Power stat and 500 at bats: How to waste your time with baseball statistics when wondering how many home runs Ty Cobb would have hit if the Major Leagues were using a lively ball during his career.

15. Baby You’re a Rich Man: Modern players and Generational Wealth [with many thanks to Roger Clemens for saying that phrase out loud].

16. An examination of Barry Bonds career path: What if Barry Bonds hadn’t taken any Steroids?

17. Today’s Pitchers: Modern Medical Marvels [or why exactly are so many guys throwing 100 mph].

18. Any other strange topic of Baseball that may consume my time.

Post #22

The Baseball Hall of Fame Asserts its Authority

December 26, 2022

Politics is the art of controlling your environment. Hunter S. Thompson

Institutional Override

The People that run the Baseball Hall of Fame (basically the Clark Foundation and Major League Baseball) have a difficult problem. The voters primarily in charge of electing former baseball players into their shrine are not under their direct control. Does the Nobel Committee let someone else tell them who to give their prizes and money to? But the Baseball Hall of Fame [BHOF] allows the members of the Baseball Writers Association of America [BBWAA] to have the first crack at electing any player to their shrine. The advantages of doing this are obvious. The BBWAA generates a ton of free publicity for the BHOF as it debates the merits and demerits of potential BHOF inductees. Since the BBWAA is a separate organization, the BHOF also gets the added illusion of impartiality. The modern rule of publicity (all publicity is good publicity, only lack of publicity is bad) reigns. The disadvantage of this arrangement is that the BBWAA has a habit of doing one thing that the BHOF simply cannot allow. The BBWAA occasionally gets on its moral high horse and refuses to elect any player. This has happened 3 times in the last 25 years [1996, 2013, and 2021]. The high point of the BHOF’s year is when the crowds come to celebrate the annual induction ceremony. The Hall literally needs to induct someone each year. Does a hotel owner in Florida or the Caribbean close his establishment when the winter tourists flock to town? The BHOF has a simple and elegant solution to this problem. In addition to the annual elections of the BBWAA, the BHOF itself also annually elects some other players through the BHOF’s Veterans Committee. Like any institution, the BHOF needs to be able to put its fat thumb on the scale.

Settling for Second Best

This dichotomy, that baseball players are being elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame by 1) the BBWAA and 2) the BHOF itself, has existed since the very first election. In that initial 1936 election, the Writers voted to elect players from the 20th Century. The Hall of Fame appointed a Veterans Committee to elect players from the 19th Century. Eventually, the BBWAA elections focused upon the players that became eligible each year. These players were given 15 years at first to be elected by the BBWAA (eventually shortened to 10 years in 2014). There was also a five-year waiting period to make sure they did not unretire. The Veterans Committee also adapted. It was eventually limited to voting on the leftovers from the BBWAA elections. As the years rolled by, this process eventually ensured that the Veterans Committee would always elect the lesser qualified, those players ignored by the BBWAA. As the Veterans Committee evolved, it selections were filled with lowlights (the election of virtually all of the unqualified players in the Baseball Hall of Fame, especially in the 1960s & 1970s) and highlights (the belated elections of the very over-qualified Negro League superstars). Beginning in 2022, the Veterans Committee was tasked with electing three different groups of candidates who have not been elected by the BBWAA. The first is Players active primarily since 1980. The second is non-players (executives, managers. and umpires) active primarily since 1980. The third is players and/or non-players active primarily before 1980. These 3 groups will be considered annually on a rotating basis. In other words, Group One gets considered for induction in 2023, Group Two for 2024, and Group Three for 2025; before this sequence begins all over again.* Which brings us to the recent election of Fred McGriff by the BHOF Veterans Committee.

*Because the Baseball Hall of Fame has once again set an exact year rather than a moving time frame [i.e. exactly 1980 rather than 40 years ago], these 3 groups will inevitably need to be, eventually, changed once again.

The Hall of Fame Elects Fred McGriff

On December 4th, 2022, the BHOF Veterans Committee selected Fred McGriff from the group of players active primarily after 1980 who had been retired for five years and were no longer eligible for BBWAA election He will be inducted on July 23, 2023 into the Baseball Hall of Fame. The procedure used to elect him was straight forward. A BHOF Screening Committee of 10 to 12 members (primarily from the BBWAA) selected 8 players that fit their post-1980 criteria for the ballot. The Veterans Committee [VC], consisting of 16 members also appointed by the BHOF, considered whether any of these eight former players were worthy of induction. Each of these 16 VC members was allowed to vote for 3 candidates. A player receiving 12 votes (75%) was elected to the BHOF. Both Committees reportedly have the Baseball Commissioner and the Head of the Clark Foundation present (though non-voting). Although this procedure is transparent, the process itself is so cloudy that its almost opaque. Who was selecting these Committee members? Why were these 8 players on the ballot selected? It is obvious that the BHOF (i.e. Major League Baseball) was in total control of the process. The only question was: Would they act appropriately? It was quickly apparent that the answer was: Not at all. The 8 players selected by Screening Committee were an odd group, to say the least.* There were 3 players who had already been rejected by the BBWAA because of accusations of steroid use; and yet another player rejected because of the possibility that he would embarrass the Hall of Fame. Three of these 4 players had fallen off the BBWAA ballot just the previous year [2021] when their 10-year eligibility expired. The remaining four players consisted of 2 men whose careers were cut short by injuries [Mattingly & Belle], one man whose career burned out early as he was also injured [Murphy], and one player who had a full career and seemed well qualified: Fred McGriff.

* The 8 players were: Albert Belle, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Don Mattingly, Fred McGriff, Dale Murphy, Rafael Palmeiro and Curt Schilling.

The Fix Was In

The results of the 2023 Baseball Hall of Fame election certainly seemed to be a foregone conclusion. Sportswriters Jay Jaffe and Joe Posnanski both pretty much predicted that McGriff’s election was inevitable before the vote. It was. McGriff received all 16 votes. Every member of the Committee voted for him. If someone was suspicious that the election was rigged, they would not have to do much to construct a plausible conspiracy theory. The reasoning behind McGriff’s election was as old school as possible. If not for the games canceled during the 1994-1995 strike, McGriff would have hit over 500 home runs. For many years, 500 career HRs and 3000 hits had equaled automatic election to the BHOF (pro-rating for those lost games, McGriff would have finished with 510 HRs). This was very similar to the last Veterans Committee election from this group of players in 2019. In that election, the Veterans Committee had elected Harold Baines, using the argument that the strike years of 1981 and 1994-95 had denied Baines the chance to amass 3000 hits and guaranteed his automatic election (however pro-rating Baines for those three years does not get him to 3000 hits, just 2965). So just exactly what did the BHOF Veterans Committee accomplish with their 2022 election for the 2023 inductions? First, they once again got to thumb their nose at modern mathematical analysis by using the traditional measurements of 500 HRs and 3000 hits. Second, they broadcast that, going forward, steroid-tainted players would find no comfort in their selections. Bonds, Clemens, and Palmeiro will almost certainly not be on the next ballot as these three players did not even receive enough votes for their totals to be announced (Albert Belle, who had such breath-taking anger management problems that he might as well have been on steroids, is probably also included in this group). Third, the Committee also got to elect a man that it felt the BBWAA had given short shrift: Fred McGriff.

* Belle’s Anger Management problems have continued since his Baseball career ended. All things considered, his inclusion on the 2022 VC ballot may be even odder than the inclusion of the steroid-tainted players.

The Worthiness of Fred McGriff

In 2025, the BHOF Veterans Committee will once again vote on the pool of post-1980 players. It is very likely that the three other players who had their vote totals announced [Don Mattingly 8, Curt Schilling 7, Dale Murphy 6] will be on that ballot. In fact, the elections of Mattingly and Murphy are probably inevitable now. Schilling, if he can convince the BHOF that he will not cause a controversy with his induction speech, will also possibly be elected. But there is always the possibility that the BHOF will wait for Schilling to shuffle off this mortal coil before posthumously electing him. He may be the one man alive whose Baseball Hall of Fame chances would geometrically increase if he died. However, none of these assumptions answer the interesting questions of: 1) Was Fred McGriff actually worthy of election to the BHOF; and 2) Who should have been on the eight man ballot that resulted in his election? In a previous post, the Lowest Common Denominator system for membership in the BHOF was proposed. This system used the most widely accepted modern statistic for measuring whether a baseball player’s career was BHOF worthy [website Baseball Reference’s Wins Above Replacement formula, aka bWAR]. Currently, with the election of McGriff, there are 341 people in the BHOF [269 as players, 40 as executives or pioneers, 22 as managers, and 10 umpires]. Of these 269 players, 28 played primarily in the Negro Leagues and (unfortunately) cannot be compared directly with the 241 players from the traditional Major Leagues. There are also three players among the top 241 players by bWAR who were not elected as players (Charles Griffith & Al Spaulding as executives/pioneers and Joe Torre as manager). In other words, by this system, the Baseball Hall of Fame should contain the top 244 eligible players by bWAR.* Fred McGriff is the 245th ranked eligible player by Baseball Reference’s WAR calculations. You cannot straddle the line any closer than that.

* In the previous post of this formula, any players still in their 10-year eligibility period for the BBWAA vote for the BHOF were excluded. This choice has been reconsidered. Now, all players are eligible as soon as the 5-year waiting period from the end of their career is over.

Who Should Have Been on the List?

By the bWAR formula, the 2022 Veterans Committee should have probably considered the following 8 post-1980 eligible players: 1. Curt Schilling [59]*, 2. Lou Whitaker [73], 3. Kenny Lofton [103], 4. Graig Nettles [107], 5. Kevin Brown [110], 6. Dwight Evans [112], 7. Willie Randolph [120], and 8. David Cone [145]. By bWAR, all of these 8 players were more highly qualified for the BHOF than Fred McGriff. There are several other players (Rick Reuschel, Bobby Grich and especially Buddy Bell) whose careers could have qualified as either pre-1980 or post-1980 players (depending on the whims of BHOF) who also could have been considered. McGriff, depending upon who is included in the post-1980 bucket, would have been about 20th on the bWAR list of post-1980 eligible players. In fact, Schilling is the highest ranking eligible non-Hall of Famer in the post-1980 period outside of the steroid accursed careers of Barry Bonds (4th) and Roger Clemens (8th). This certainly does not mean that McGriff was not a worthy Hall of Famer. The bWAR formula probably underrates big bats like McGriff in favor of players with golden gloves to sell. It also almost surely underrates relief pitchers, catchers, and those players with short careers but very high peaks. On the other hand, it definitely overrates any 19th Century pitchers primarily active before 1893 and all players with long careers but no high peaks. All that being true, there is still no reasonable explanation for the 8 players selected by the BHOF Screening Committee for the BHOF Veterans Committee to consider for 2023 election other than the scales were tilted. It will be interesting to see which players get picked from the same post-1980 player pool for the next induction from this group in 2026.

* Each player is followed by his number on the bWAR eligibility list.

Addendum #1

One of the very odd things about the post-1980 player Veterans Committee 2022 election was the fact that Alan Trammell was one of the 16 Committee members who voted for Fred McGriff. Trammell, of course, is linked forever in baseball history with his long-time Detroit Tiger teammate Lou Whitaker (in the old days, they would have been called keystone partners). Trammell and Whitaker are reportedly good friends. After Curt Schilling, Lou Whitaker was the highest rated post-1980 eligible player by bWAR who should have been under consideration by this Veterans Committee. Could Trammell not have put in a good word for his supposed dear friend? It’s just odd.

Addendum #2

In 2023, another Veterans Committee will consider post-1980 non-players for 2024 induction into the BHOF. This blog may comment on that election. Or perhaps just ignore it. In 2024, yet another Veterans Committee will consider pre-1980 players and non-players for 2025 induction into the BHOF. Once again, there will be 8 candidates under consideration. In a perfect world, this list of 8 men would probably be all or almost all Negro League players, led by Grant Johnson & Dick Redding. However that is quite unlikely. Hopefully, by that time, this blog will have developed its top 100 list of Negro League stars and be able to populate such a list in a well-thought-out order. But the BHOF will probably once again shift through the bargain box of already discarded candidates. By the bWAR formula, the top 8 would be: 1. James McCormick [68], 2. Bill Dahlen [72], 3. Bobby Grich [84], 4. Tony Mullane [116], 5. Buddy Bell [118], 6. Luis Tiant [119], 7. Reggie Smith [127], and 8. Ken Boyer [141]. Removing the 19th Century guys, you get: 1. Bobby Grich [84], 2. Buddy Bell [118], 3. Luis Tiant [119], 4. Reggie Smith [127], 5. Ken Boyer [141], 6. Tommy John [150], 7. Sal Bando [152], and 8. Willie Davis [157]; Honorable mention: 9. Wes Ferrell [167], 10. Sherry Magee [173].

Post #21

Wrapping up the 2022 Season, Part Two

November 30, 2022

Good things come to people who wait, but better things come to those who go out and get them. Abraham Lincoln

Dusty Baker reaches the Mountaintop

One of the interesting things about being a long time fan of any sport is how you eventually get to know quite a bit about individual players, who you have not and never will actually meet. They become like some distant cousin who you routinely hear snippets of gossip about as you go through life. Of course, the flipside of this is that they do not and never will know you from a pothole in the street. The name ‘Dusty’ Baker immediately brings two things to mind. First, his three-year-old son Darren, serving as a batboy for the San Francisco Giants, was saved by J. T. Snow from possibly getting run over at home plate during game Five of the 2002 World Series.* Secondly, the claim that Glenn Burke, his teammate, supposedly invented the “High Five” by forcing Baker to slap his upraised hand on October 2nd, 1977, to celebrate Baker’s 30th home run of the season. For a lifelong Baseball fan, these might be the highlights of a thousand pieces (or more) of facts in their memory bank about the man. And they would be jumbled in with everything from the fact that Dusty Baker always seems to have a toothpick in his mouth to the fact that Baker has been married twice to the fact that many Chicago Cubs’ fans will always blame him for ruining Kerry Wood and Mark Pryor’s arms. Taking the good with the bad and knowing all that I know about Dusty Baker, I must admit that I am happy that Baker, in his 25th year as a Major League manager, finally led his team to victory in the 2022 World Series.

*Time Flies Department: Darren Baker, the three year old batboy, now plays in the minor Leagues.

The Playing Career of Dusty Baker

Born in 1949, Johnnie “Dusty” Baker’s birthplace was Riverside, California, and he spent his formative years in the Golden State. He has always seemed to be a combination of competitive drive and Californian cool (not exactly a hippie but laidback). He made his 1968 Major League debut with the Atlanta Braves, where his mentor was Henry Aaron. After the 1975 season, the Braves traded him back home to the Los Angeles Dodgers. From 1976 to 1983, he patrolled the outfield for Dodger manager Tommy Lasorda. His career faded out from 1984 to 1986 in upstate California with the San Francisco area teams (Giants and Oakland Athletics). His career path was somewhat odd. Dusty Baker had both an early [1972-73] and late peak [1980-82] but a long slough of lesser seasons from 1974 to 1979 [except perhaps 1977]. If his career had a more normal trajectory, Dusty Baker would have had, just as a player, a border line Hall of Fame career. Using Baseball Reference’s “Wins Above Replacement” [WAR] formula, Baker ended his career with a respectable 37.0 WAR. Usually a career total of 50.0 WAR or so is where any Baseball Hall of Fame discussion really begins in the initial Baseball Writer’s vote (the Veterans Committees, or back door to the Hall, has much looser standards). All in all, Dusty Baker had a very fine career as a player.

*Dusty Baker had 5.1 WAR in 1972 and 4.6 WAR in 1980. If he had averaged just 4.0 WAR from 1973 to 1980, he would have finished with 47.1 WAR, right on the Hall of Fame margins.

The Managerial Career of Dusty Baker

After his playing career ended, Dusty Baker reportedly briefly worked as a stock broker. Having a soul, Baker quickly returned to Baseball, working as the first base and/or hitting coach for the San Francisco Giants from 1988 to 1992. In 1993, Dusty Baker replaced Roger Craig as the Giants’ manager (the same year that Barry Bonds joined the team). In Baseball writer Bill James’ book about Major League managers, James assigned managers to various families. In other words, if you played for John McGraw and later became a Major League manager, you would be in the McGraw family. Of course, this is an over-simplification. James was actually trying to track who influenced who. But, by this logic and in actual reality, Dusty Baker is very much in the Tommy Lasorda managerial family. Lasorda was famous for his: “we are family” style of managing. In other words, Lasorda wanted to bond his teams together as a unit. In many ways, this is now an out-of-style managerial method. Modern managerial strategy is usually all about analytics (calculating what is the best strategy at any time using mathematical formulas). A pure analytical manager will change out players, regardless of their feelings, to gain the slightest edge. A family style manager is more interested in letting his players know that he believes in them and asking his players to rise to the occasion. Dusty Baker, like Tommy Lasorda, has always tried to manage his players as a family unit.

Dusty Baker spent ten seasons (1993-2002) as the San Francisco Giants’ field manager. He was able to manage the prickly Barry Bonds, but was also there when Bonds decided to turn himself into a steroid monster. It does not seem like any bad karma attached to Baker from that fact. In his first season there, Baker led the Giants to a 103-59 record and also won his first ‘Manager of the Year’ award. But the Giants finished second to the 104-58 Atlanta Braves. The Giants had three losing seasons from 1994 to 1996 before being consistently good from 1997 to 2002. Baker won two more ‘Manager of the Year’ awards and, in 2002, led his 95-67 Giants into the World Series against the Anaheim Angels. On the verge of winning the World Series in Game Six, Baker made some questionable pitching moves that may have cost the Giants the World Championship. But that is hindsight. The Angels eventually won the World Series in seven games. Let go by the Giants, Dusty Baker signed to manage the Chicago Cubs. He led the Cubs into the National League Championship Series in 2003. Up three games to two in the best of seven series and with a 3 to 0 lead in the eighth inning of the sixth game,* the Cubs totally unraveled in that fateful eighth inning due to a controversial non-call of fan interference, an unfortunate error, and some poor pitching that resulted in an 8-3 loss for the Cubbies. Their opponents, the eventual 2003 World Champion Florida Marlins, then eliminated the Cubs with a 9-6 victory in game seven.

*The Cubs were just five outs away from advancing to the 2003 World Series, with a 3-0 lead, when it all went to hell.

Losing two consecutive seemingly very winnable series to the eventual World Champion teams in 2002 and 2003 plus the fact that his best team finished second in 1993 despite winning 103 games, the narrative about Dusty Baker as a Manager became one of: “close but no cigar.” Baker managed the Cubs for three more years [2003-2006] but the team regressed after injuries took out the Cubs ace pitchers, Pryor and Wood. He next managed the Cincinnati Reds for six years [2008-2013]. Taking over a team that had finished 72-90 in 2007, the Reds improved under Baker and finished first in 2010 [91-71] and in 2012 [97-65]. The 2010 Reds were simply blown out in three straight games (best of 5) by the Philadelphia Phillies in the Divisional Series. But the 2012 Reds added to the narrative that Baker could not win in the post season. Up by two games in a best of 5 series, the Reds lost game 3 in ten innings by a score of 2-1 and then dropped both the 4th and 5th games to the eventual World Champion San Francisco Giants. Let go by the Reds after a third place 90-72 finish in 2013, it seemed like Baker might be out of chances to manage. But, in 2016 and 2017, Baker managed two more seasons for the Washington Nationals. His teams finished 95-67 and then 97-65 but lost in the Divisional Series to the Dodgers and Cubs respectively. Let go after the 2nd consecutive Divisional Series loss, Baker was seemingly retired in 2019 when the Nationals won the World Series and Baker celebrated his 70th birthday. Once again, his days as a Major League manager seemed to be over.

But fate was not finished with Dusty Baker yet. The Houston Astros franchise had been rocked by a sign-stealing scandal that tarnished their 2017 World Championship. Looking for a well-regarded manager to deflect some of the bad publicity, the Astros settled on Baker. In the 2020 shortened Covid year, the Astros finished 29-31 under Baker, but still got into the expanded play-offs. The Astros got all the way to the American League Championship Series for the right to go to the 2020 World Series before falling to the Tampa Bay Rays. Notably, the Astros went down 3 games to none before winning three straight to force a seventh and final game, which they lost. In 2021, Baker’s Astros finished 95-67 and then fought all the way to the World Series, which they lost in six games without much of a fight. Dusty Baker would graciously accept his defeat by his mentor’s team in the year that Henry Aaron passed away. In 2022, the Astros finished the season with a 106-56 record, the best ever by a Baker led team. They rampaged through the post-season, ending their year by defeating the over-matched Philadelphia Phillies in the World Series. In six sweet games, the Astros ended Baker’s “Always a Groomsman, never a Groom” jinx. Now all that remains is to find out whether the World Champion manager Dusty Baker can pull an Elway.*

* John Elway, the 37-year-old quarterback of the Denver Broncos, won his very first Superbowl in 1997 (after losing his first three). In 1998, he won his second in a row at the age of 38.

Despite the vague feeling that the Houston Astros should have their 2022 World Championship trophy shoved where the sun doesn’t shine because of the 2017 scandal, it is still impossible not to be happy for Dusty Baker. With the 2022 World Championship feather in his cap, the election of Dusty Baker to the Baseball Hall of Fame became unavoidable. Where there was once just possibility, there is now inevitability. Rather than the story revolving around how Baker never won his ring, the narrative can now focus on just how good a manager that he has been. In 25 years as a Baseball Field Manager, Dusty Baker has sixteen seasons of 86 or more wins, twelve of these seasons with more than 90 wins, and two of over 100. It is often said that a good manager simply establishes an atmosphere conducive to winning; and then does not do anything that would knock the team off course. Dusty Baker has proven himself capable of establishing a winning clubhouse with multiple teams. His managerial resume is really quite impressive, even before his team won the 2022 World Series. His eventual election to the Baseball Hall of Fame will be well deserved.

The Historical Context of Dusty Baker

One thing that certainly separates Baseball from the other major sports is the depth of its history. In an earlier post, I speculated that Baseball has entered its Third Age. The First Age was the Age of Segregation (1871 to 1945). The Second Age was the Age of Integration (1946 to 2020). I tentatively named the Third Age (currently just 2021 to 2022): the International Age. But another possible name for the current Age would be: the Age of Analytics. Of course, historical divisions are simply a historian’s concepts. But real life does actually have turning points. Each Age of Baseball originated with a major turning point in the sport. In 1871, the First Age of Baseball commenced with the formation of the first professional League. In 1946, the Second Age began with the signing of African-American player Jackie Robinson to an Organized Baseball contract, beginning the integration of the Black and White Baseball worlds. The dividing lines between the Second and Third Ages are not quite so distinct. But the International CoVid pandemic wiped out the 2020 season. Los Angeles Angels Japanese superstar Shohei Ohtani replaced his teammate Mike Trout as the best player in Baseball in 2021 (and looks to maintain that title for some time). On January 22nd of 2021, Henry Aaron, the last Negro Leaguer to play regularly in the Major Leagues, passed away. Then Aaron’s long time team, the Atlanta Braves won the 2021 World Series playing before suburban fans in a stadium built expressly to escape the multi-cultural urban center of Atlanta. It certainly feels like a dividing line between the Age of Integration and the next Age had been crossed.

The career of Dusty Baker is deeply tied to the Age of Integration. Although it has not been mentioned before now in this post, Baker is an African-American man. He grew up during the Civil Rights struggles of the 1960s. Baker signed with the Atlanta Braves only after Henry Aaron, the best player on the Braves and probably the most respected Black player in the game, promised Baker’s mother that Aaron would look after Dusty like his own son.* Henry Aaron, not Tommy Lasorda, was Dusty Baker’s true mentor. Baker was famously the on-deck hitter when Henry Aaron broke Babe Ruth’s lifetime home run record on April 8th of 1974. Baker saw the extent of the racist abuse that Aaron had to take first hand. Dusty Baker’s career can even be traced back through Henry Aaron to Jackie Robinson’s initial integration of the Major Leagues. In 1987, Al Campanis, Robinson’s former white teammate and an executive of the Los Angeles Dodgers, embarrassed and humiliated himself on live television by asserting that African-Americans did not have the mental capacity to manage a Major League baseball team. The Major Leagues hired an African-American civil rights activist and well-known sociologist, Harry Edwards to devise a plan to promote diversity in their managerial and executive positions. The more cynically inclined would say that they actually hired Edwards for the publicity that the problem was being addressed. One of the first Baseball people to contact Edwards and offer to help was Al Campanis himself. When Edwards asked Campanis who he would recommend as a African-American managerial or executive prospect, Al Campanis reportedly immediately brought up Dusty Baker’s name.

*Henry Aaron’s children, who were a little younger than Dusty Baker, apparently called him: “Uncle Dusty.”

In one of the odd twists of history, the Houston Astros did not have a Black American on their active roster as they captured the 2022 World Series (their one player of African-American heritage, Michael Brantley, spent the World Series on the disabled list). Of course, the Astros did have multiple players on the team with African heritage. But they were all from Latin America. Is there a better coda to the Age of Integration than a Black man managing a team to the title despite having no African-American players on the roster? There is also the fact that, in the Age of Analytics, Dusty Baker was an unabashedly old school manager.* In fact, Baker was more than just an old fashioned manager. Unlike Tommy Lasorda, whose “we are family” philosophy had a good deal of shtick (a comic theme or gimmick) in it, Dusty Baker was far more like mentor Henry Aaron. He took an actual and personal interest in his players, all of his players, whether they were Black, White, Latin, or whatever. What better coda for the Age of Integration than a manager who treated his very diverse roster as a family? In many ways, the 2022 World Series victory of Dusty Banker and his Houston Astros serves as a fitting conclusion to the Age of Integration. All that being said, Willie Mays still lives.

* Dusty Baker reportedly said to his Astro players at one point: “(Expletive) exit velocity? (Double expletive) exit velocity? How about (expletive) hits!

Addendum 1:

One of my favorite Baseball stories has always been: Henry Aaron’s advice to Dusty Baker about batting against Bob Gibson (perhaps the most intimidating pitcher that ever lived). It went something like this: “Don’t look at him, don’t talk to him, don’t dig in at the plate, and don’t react when he throws at you. And, for God’s sake, don’t charge the mound after you get decked. He was a Gold Gloves boxer and he’ll kick your ass.”

Addendum 2:

No one ever seems to talk about how cool Johnnie (Dusty) Baker’s nickname is. It always reminded me of an old nursery rhyme (Butcher, Baker, Candlestick Maker or Tinker, Tailer, Soldier, Sailor, Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggar Man, Thief). Dusty Baker is more subtle than the obvious Dusty Rhodes and better than a made up equivalent (condition & occupation) such as: Batty Carpenter, Tubby Pope, Bloody Farmer, Sunny Painter, Salty Singer, or Dirty Gardener. The story goes that Baker got his ‘Dusty’ nickname from his parents because he always played in only part of their lawn not covered by grass.

Addendum 3:

Johnnie ‘Dusty’ Baker apparently had another Baseball nickname at one time. While playing in the Puerto Rican Winter League in the early 1970s, Baker got drunk one night. Suffering from his booze binge the next day, his teammates gave him some fish soup, a local hangover remedy. Then the team went on a long bus trip to play that day’s away game. Feeling nauseous, Baker wanted the bus to pull over so he could throw up. Apparently on a tight schedule or just lacking in empathy, the bus driver refused and told Baker to stick his head out the window to throw up. Dusty Baker did and vomited all over the side of the bus. From that day on, Baker’s nickname in Puerto Rico was “Mondongo” which was the name of the soup he upchucked.* Hopefully the bus driver had to clean it up himself; but Dusty Baker is still better than Mondongo Baker.

*Mondongo soup is apparently a Puerto Rican dish made from the fish Tripe.

Post #20

Wrapping up the 2022 Season, Part One

November 11, 2022

Cheaters never prosper, unless they get away with it. Daniel Tosh

The 2022 Baseball World Champion Houston Astros?

The 2022 Major League Baseball season is now history. On November 5th, the Houston Astros defeated the Philadelphia Phillies in the sixth game of the 2022 World Series. With this victory, the Astros won the best of seven series, 4 games to 2, to become the 2022 World Champions. There was some talk that the Astro’s 2022 triumph somehow redeemed the club for their tainted 2017 World Championship. Of course, during that 2017 season, the Astros had utilized modern technology to steal their opponent’s pitching signs and gain a completely illegal competitive edge. Ironically, in 2022, the Houston Astros won the sixth and deciding game with some old school style cheating. The leopard evidently couldn’t change its spots. The question is whether the 2022 Houston Astros championship was as ill-deserved as the 2017 title?

The Complaint

In the top of the sixth inning of that deciding sixth game, the Phillies scored their first (and only) run of the game when Kyle Schwarber rocketed a solo home run into the right field bleachers. In the bottom of the sixth inning the Astros answered with four runs of their own. Strangely, every run in the game was scored in this fateful sixth inning. When the game was over, the Astros were 4-1 victors and crowned as the 2022 World Champs. But it is undeniable that the Astro’s sixth inning began with some chicanery from their first hitter, Martin Maldonado. When the game was over, Maldonado did not even have the good sense to dissemble. He confirmed that he went to bat intending to cheat (It must be said that his candor was actually kind of refreshing in this age of hypocrisy). Maldonado went to the plate in the sixth inning absolutely determined to be hit by a pitch so he could be undeservedly be awarded first base. It is against the rules to actually try to be hit by the pitch. In fact, the rules stipulate that the batter has a duty to try to get out of the way. If the batter does not make an effort to dodge, the pitch is simply called a strike or ball. But, like many other things in the game, the decision to not award a hit by pitch [HBP] is completely left to the umpire’s discretion.

The Evidence

As Maldonado stepped into the batter’s box in the decisive sixth inning, Zack Wheeler, the Met’s starting pitcher, was still pitching and throwing well. He had blanked the Astros for the first five innings and his pitch count was low. He was actually slinging pretty filthy stuff. Maldonado, the ninth and final batter in a deep Houston line-up, is one of the worst hitting regulars in the Majors. He probably could have swung the bat with his eyes shut and not appreciably lowered his chances of getting a hit. Knowing his chances were slim, Maldonado got right on top of the plate, crowding it like a starving man at the dinner table. Maldonado was very obviously looking for a pitch to not accidentally hit his body. In one sense, this was admirable (like leaving your body to science after you die). Wheeler threw a pitch inside, possibly trying to move Maldonado off the plate. It plunked Maldonado right on his heavily padded elbow. Maldonado did actually move his elbow into his body. There were two ways to interpret this. One would be that he was trying to move his elbow out of the way. The other would be that he very deliberately shifted his padded elbow right into the path of the ball. For the record, I immediately thought that he had done it on purpose.

The Result

Home plate umpire Lance Barksdale signaled for Maldonado to go down to first base on the fraudulent HBP. The Phillies immediately appealed the HBP. Strangely, the television announcers informed their audience that the Phillies had no right to appeal. The announcers apparently thought that the Phillies were claiming that the pitch hit Maldonado’s bat. But, even by the naked eye, it was obvious that the pitch had hit his elbow. My assumption was that the Phillies had actually appealed whether the pitch was in the strike zone or not. Any HBP in the actual strike zone is simply a strike. The batter is rewarded for trying to cheat with the pain of being hit. In any case, the Phillies’ appeal was denied. The television slow motion replay showed Wheeler’s pitch running in towards Maldonado like it had a personal grudge against him. It also showed Maldonado pulling his elbow in towards his body and right into the path of the pitch. Barksdale, ignoring the fact that Maldonado had obviously come up to the plate intending to be hit, awarded this dishonest but smart strategy. It can certainly be argued that, from that moment on, the Houston Astros no longer deserved to win the game.

The Rebuttal

In Barksdale’s defense, it could also certainly be argued that Maldonado’s attempt to move his elbow into his body was proof that he made an effort not to by plunked by the pitch. But, of course, Maldonado simply admitted after the game that he was trying to get a HBP, by hook or by crook. It can also certainly be argued that the Phillies’ collapse after Maldonado illegally trotted down to first base was hardly the Astros’ fault. The next batter, Jose Altuve, hit into a fielder’s choice, wiping the much slower Maldonado off the bases. Then Jeremy Pena singled, putting Astros at first and third with one out (the slow Maldonado would have never made third on that play). Phillies’ manager Rob Thomson relieved the right-handed Wheeler and brought in his fire-balling lefty reliever Jose Alvarado to face Houston’s best slugger Yordan Alvarez. This was a very interesting move by Thomson. In the fourth game of the Series, with the score 0-0 but the bases loaded, the Phillies’ manager had also brought Alvarado in to face Alvarez. Alvarado then drilled Alvarez in the back with a 99 mph fastball before completely imploding and letting in all five runs in a 5-0 Houston victory. In game six, Alvarado would once again reward his manager’s faith with ashes. Yordan Alvarez hit a monstrous home run this time off Alvarado, 450 feet to dead center field. To blame the Houston Astros for Rob Thomson’s odd choice of reliever hardly seems fair.

In a Parallel Universe

In a perfect world, home plate umpire Lance Barksdale would have voided the HBP, called the pitch a ball or strike, and told Martin Maldonado ‘nice try’ but stop screwing around and get back in the batter’s box. If this had happened, there is no way of knowing how the rest of the game would have played out. Perhaps it would have made no difference. Maybe Pena would have singled with two outs and Alvarez would have homered anyways off of Alvarado. Or Wheeler would have been allowed to stay in with two outs to pitch to Alvarez and struck him out with the Phillies eventually winning 1-0 on the Schwarber sixth-inning blast. In some alternate reality, the Philadelphia Phillies are most surely the 2022 Baseball Champions after pounding the Houston Astros into submission in the seventh game. But, if wishes were kisses, everyone would have chapped lips. In the long run, does it really matter? That argument that the Houston Astros were a superior team to the Philadelphia Phillies is a very easy one to make. If these two teams spent the entire off-season replaying the Series, I have little doubt the Astros would win, legally, six or more times against the usually overmatched Phillies. But, by cheating, the Astros did not allow the Phillies their one slim chance of winning.

The Verdict

In the film Animal House, the University’s Dean announces that, because of the Animal House fraternity’s various gross infractions of school rules, they are to be placed on probation. When he is told that the fraternity is already on probation, he pauses and then announces that they are on “double secret probation.” In the very first game of the 2022 World Series, Aledmys Diaz of the Astros had, just like Maldonado in game six, deliberately let himself be hit by a pitch (Maldonado may have learned something from Aledmys’ HBP as Diaz made his intentions far too obvious). The home plate umpire Jim Hoye immediately voided the Diaz HBP* and correctly called it a strike. In game six, did Lance Barksdale, the home plate umpire remember game one at all? The Astros should have been on “double secret probation” at that point. All the benefit of the doubt should have gone to the Phillies. In a perfect universe, the Houston Astros should have only been given a HBP if their player had completely undressed himself trying to get out of the way. Barksdale should have correctly decided that Maldonado was fishing for the ball with his elbow (If Maldonado had wanted to actually get his elbow out of the way, he could have simply raised it up). But Barksdale did not. For this reason, I will always believe that the Houston Astros do not deserve to be 2022 World Champions, just like they do not deserve to be 2017 World Champions.

*Has there ever been another World Series that was as deeply affected by hit by pitches [HBP] as the 2022 World Series? The HBPs of Diaz in game one, Alvarez in game four, and Maldonado in game six, were all the turning points in each of these games. It could rightfully be called the HBP World Series.

NEXT:

Part two: Time travels a Dusty road.

Post #19

The 2021 [plus most of 1922] Season in Review: The Atlanta Braves

August 22, 2022

Time moves slowly; but passes quickly. Alice Walker

Introduction

On June 25th of 2022, first baseman Freddie Freeman returned to Atlanta Stadium* for the first time since celebrating on that same field as a member of the 2021 World Champion Atlanta Braves. During the off-season, Freeman had signed with the Los Angeles Dodgers. At that time, the story line about Freeman’s departure was that the Braves had been unwilling to pay him what he deserved, forcing his exit. Freeman held a tearful press conference about his time with Atlanta before the game. Remarkably, Freeman’s public display of sorrow soon exploded into a complete rewriting of how he came to leave the Atlanta Braves. The Braves blamed Freeman’s Agents, the Agents blamed the Braves, and Freeman, showing what he believed, fired his Agents. While I watched the press conference, I remembered that I had intended to write two “2021 Season in Review” articles: one for the Atlanta Braves and another for the San Francisco Giants. It can certainly be argued that an article reviewing the 2021 season, now more than halfway through the 2022 season is more than just little overdue. But, fortunately, it’s my blog and there is no actual punishment for my own tardiness here. More importantly, the extra days of reflection have given me more time to contemplate my thoughts about the 2021 Atlanta Braves season. I will try to get the San Francisco Giants article done before the end of the year, only if just to maintain a shred of my own dignity.

* The current Atlanta Stadium opened in 2017. It was originally named, with zero panache, SunTrust Park, for a corporate sponsor. In 2020, SunTrust Banks merged with Truist Financial and it was renamed Truist Park. I refuse to bow down to whichever corporation pays and will simply call it: Atlanta Stadium.

My History as a Superficial Braves Fan

I grew up in the 1960s and 70s rooting for the Boston Red Sox. As a teenager, I would take the T (the Boston trolley and subway system) to Fenway Park and sit in the bleachers (at that time, an exciting place to be as there were no rules against excessively drinking alcohol and/or brawling in place). In 1978, I went to college in New York; and got to make the first of many visits to old Yankee Stadium to soak up some history. The BoSox remained my favorite team, but I started rooting for the Yankees too. If the BoSox could not win, I rooted for the Yanks (making me an atypical Red Sox fan). By the 1980s, I was working for a living and free time was scarce. If the Red Sox or the Yanks were being televised, I would try to set aside time to watch. But, at that time, there was only one team that was on all the time: the Atlanta Braves. The Braves were owned by Ted Turner. He also owned WTBS (Turner Broadcasting System), a cable channel. TBS, like most cable systems then, was desperate for content. In fact, Turner bought the Braves team for the express purpose of giving TBS much needed content.* To say the least, this was a gutsy, you could even say really brave, gamble. Turner filled the airways with every Braves game and nicknamed them: “America’s Team” to boot. If I was unable to watch a Red Sox or Yankee game, TBS and the Braves became my default option. They became my third favorite team after the Red Sox and the Yankees. Since, the Atlanta Braves had been the Boston Braves before I was even born, it seemed somehow right that I should end up rooting for a team originally from my home town.

* Ted Turner actually bought the Atlanta Braves with a bank loan backed by the team’s future earnings. This Wimpy from Popeye strategy [ “I’ll gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today”] is not supposed to work in real life.

The Braves from 1980 to 1990: Turner’s Team

Despite that, I never got attached to any of the Braves players as deeply as I did (and still do) to many members of the Red Sox and Yankees. Perhaps, I just came to Brave fandom too late and it never cut as deep. Also the 1980s Atlanta Braves were often a second-rate sad-sack type of team. In 1982, the Braves finished first with an 89-73 record before losing the National League Championship Series to St. louis. They followed that season up with an 88-74 record good enough for second place in 1983. But then from 1984 to 1990, the team was either mediocre or worse. I admired the Braves best player Dale Murphy and his nice guy image (which, as far as I know, is still untarnished). When the 1988 expansion of the strike zone derailed his career and probable election to the Hall of Fame, I was mystified and saddened. I practiced trying to throw a knuckleball like Phil Niekro. There was something very seductive in the thought that, if you could just master this odd pitch, a major career was just sitting there waiting for you, talent be damned. I was strangely awed by Bob Horner. I admired his short-armed, beautifully smooth but viper quick batting stroke almost as much as I was dismayed by his evident lack of any real interest, other than for the cash, in playing the game or keeping himself in shape. But my favorite Brave might have been Ted Turner himself. Turner was endlessly interesting. He was a hyperactive alpha male, part drunken frat boy and part Snidely Whiplash with touch of George Steinbrenner’s madness to boot. But unlike King George, Turner had a sense of humor. I rooted for these Braves, but unlike the Red Sox and the Yankees, I did not live and die for them.

The Braves from 1991 until 2006: Baseball’s Alydar*

After spending the 1980s as mostly lovable underdogs, the Atlanta Braves turned into Overlords in the 1990s. From 1991 to 2005, the Braves won their division every year, except for the strike year of 1994. Despite their sudden emergence as a dynastic team, the Braves would win only one World Series, in 1995, during their 15 years of dominance. The backbone of these teams was, as even the most superficial baseball fan would remember, its pitching staff. I used to wish that the Red Sox could put together a rotation half as good as Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz. During the 1990s, the Braves had quite a few good position players too. Early on, the best two were Ron Gant and David Justice. Like so many players, they seemed to be on Hall of Fame paths. But Gant badly broke his leg and his chances at immortality (and also his career as a Brave) went up in flames. Justice married the beautiful actress Halle Berry and went off the road too. In the latter part of the Braves dynasty, their best positional players were the unrelated Jones: Andruw and Larry. Both looked headed to the Hall of Fame too, but only Larry “Chipper” Jones would make it (so far). I could never bring myself to really personally root for either Jones. It was apparent from the beginning that Andruw had a little Bob Horner in him. The new face of the franchise, Larry (Chipper) Jones left me cold. He seemed oddly rednecky. After the turn of the century, the Braves slowly faded in my life. I was able to get all the Red Sox and Yankee games I wanted. The Braves were my distant third, rather than usually my only option.

*The thoroughbred Alydar finished second to Affirmed in all three of horse racing’s triple crown matches in 1978.

In hindsight, the Braves fifteen year run as the National League’s perennial powerhouse was fairly disappointing. The Yankees were the true dynasty of that time period, winning four World Series from 1996 to 2000. The Braves seemed to lack a killer instinct that would have put them completely over the top. The players seemed like a laidback bunch, lacking the insane competitive energy of a Pete Rose type individual. The great rotation aged and broke up. In 1996, Ted Turner sold all his cable holdings, including the Braves to Time Warner. Turner, as a large stockholder of Time Warner, was still on the scene, but would slowly fade away (it always seemed appropriate that these Braves won their one World Series in the last year of his ownership). In 1997, Fulton County Stadium, where the Braves had played since they moved to Atlanta in 1966, was knocked down and replaced with Turner Field. Finally, in February 2007, Liberty Media, another large stockholder of Time Warner, bought the Braves for the obviously insider price of $480 million dollars. The chairman of Liberty Media, John Malone, has made a career of peeling valuable assets off of publicly traded corporations for a dime on a dollar.* The sale of the Braves to Liberty Media ended the last vestiges of Ted Turner’s ownership and also, for all intents and purposes, the team’s status as my number three team (the two things were basically unrelated though). By the end of the first decade of the 21st Century, I watched the Braves no more than I did any other team that was not the Boston Red Sox or the New York Yankees.

* In 1991, Liberty Media itself was peeled off of TCI (Tele-Communication Inc.), the giant cable provider. TCI’s chairman was John Malone. As the controlling stockholder of Liberty Media, Malone became a billionaire and the remains of TCI were sold to AT&T IN 1999.

The Braves from 2007 to 2020: Liberty Media Years

In 2006, Time Warner’s last year as owners, the Braves had their first losing season [79-83] since 1990 (in fact, the team never won less than 88 games in a full season from 1991 to 2005).* After Liberty Media took over the Braves, they rebounded and went 84-78 in 2007 before crashing down to earth with a 72-90 record in 2008. However, after briefly touching the bottom, the Braves seemed to gearing up for a new dynasty. From 2009 to 2013, the Braves won 86, 91, 89, 94, and then 96 games. The team finished first in 2010, 2012 and 2013 but lost in the playoffs each year without reaching the World Series. To be honest, I was not really aware then of what appeared to be the team once again starting a dynasty. I was not really following the Braves all that closely. And, of course, the Braves new run of excellence came to a quick and decisive end in 2014. For the first time since the 1980s, the team had a run of losing seasons. From 2014 to 2017, the Braves finished 79-83, 67-95, 68-93, and 72-90. Long time fans must have been in shock. In 2018, the Braves once again rebounded. From 2018 to 2020, the team went 90-72, 97-65, and then 35-25 (a 94 win pace) during the Covid wrecked 2020 season. I didn’t really start to pay attention to the Braves again until 2020. With Covid keeping me home, I actually watched a whole bunch of their games that year. I was surprised at how good and how interesting the team had become. And the ability of the Braves franchise to run off multiple long streaks of 90 or more win seasons is certainly pretty amazing.

* During the strike seasons of 1994-1995, the Braves finished 68-46 and 90-54 which are 95 and 101 win paces over a full season. If you substitute those two full season finishes in, the Braves would have won 94-98-104-95-101-96-101-106-103-95-88-101-101-96-90 games from 1991 to 2005. That’s ridiculous.

But I could never really recapture the rooting interest that I had for the Braves in the 1980s and 1990s. The faces of the Braves’ franchise in the 21st Century were first, Chipper Jones [1993-2012, every year of his career an Atlanta Brave player] and second, Freddie Freeman [2010 until leaving town in 2021]. Jones and Freeman, to me, both seemed to give off a ‘good old boy’ vibe. In other words, my own prejudices against their possible Dukes of Hazzard* mentalities kept me from fully appreciating or rooting for either player. Despite the fact that their careers did not overlap by much, Jones and Freeman were evidently good friends. In the beginning, Freeman seemed to be nowhere near as great as Jones. But he eventually turned out to be basically just as good a hitter as Jones. But more importantly, the Braves franchise itself, under Liberty Media, also began to take on a the character of the Confederacy. In 2017, the Braves moved from Turner Stadium in downtown Atlanta to their new stadium (which will probably eventually be renamed Hobby Lobby Stadium or something else just as embarrassing) in the suburbs. Atlanta is an unusual metropolitan area. The city itself has the highest percentage of African-American residents of any major American city. In fact, Atlanta is sometimes called the “Black Capitol of the United States.” On the other hand, outside of the city proper, the suburbs are basically all white. Liberty Media relocated the Braves from the city to the suburbs. Proving once again that God must have a great sense of humor, the team moved from Fulton County to Cobb County.

*Dukes of Hazzard was a top-rated TV series that ran from 1979 to 1985. The show was about two white cousins bombing around the state of Georgia in an American muscle car with the Confederate Battle Flag painted on it.

The Braves and Henry Aaron

During the whole time that the I followed the Atlanta Braves, Henry Aaron, who broke “Babe” Ruth’s career Home Run record first, was indisputably the overall franchise icon. Aaron had played for the Milwaukee Braves from 1954-1965 and then, after the team moved, in Atlanta from 1966-1974. He ended his playing career with the Milwaukee Brewers in 1975 and 1976. But then he returned to the Atlanta Braves to work in the front office. From 1982 to 1988, Aaron was the Director of Player Development for the Braves. Just how much credit should be given to Aaron for the Braves 15 years of success from 1991 to 2005 is debatable. But it seems quite substantial. Many people from the Braves organization have spoken about how Aaron started and nurtured their careers. I’ve never heard Aaron himself, in his own infrequent appearances, claim any credit for the Braves late 20th century dynasty. He always carried himself with class and dignity and it seems like boasting was not in his nature. More importantly, Henry Aaron, the greatest player to ever put on a Braves uniform, was the last player from the Negro Leagues to suit up and play in the Major Leagues for real.* In many ways, Aaron and the Braves were made for each other. Atlanta, the largest city in the South, had a vibrant Afro-American population. The team, the park, the city, and Aaron himself seemed to all be a fitting finale for the story of Jackie Robinson and the integration of Baseball. But, of course, time eventually sweeps all things aside. To me, the Braves slide from the team of Henry Aaron to one more ode the lost confederacy seemed to be exceptionally sad.

* Minnie Minoso was technically was the last Negro League player to appear in the Major Leagues in 1980. But that was just a two game publicity stunt.

The 2021 World Champion Atlanta Braves

The 2020 Atlanta Braves team lost the National League Championship Series to the eventual World Champion Los Angeles Dodgers. In a cosmic sense, the franchise that had integrated Baseball beat the southern redneck team. Then, on January 22nd of 2021, Henry Aaron passed away. The Braves started the 2021 season sluggishly. They soon lost their best player, Ronald Acuna Jr., for the year to an injury. The Atlanta leftfielder, Marcell Ozuna, was arrested for domestic battery. After their game on Sunday, August 1st, the Braves record stood at a subpar 52-55. It certainly looked like they were going to mark the passing of Henry Aaron with a bad year, not exactly a fitting memorial. But, after August 1st, the Braves got hot, going 36-18 to finish the season 88-73. They were even hotter right at the very end, finishing the year on a 12-2 run. This incredible run carried right on through the playoffs and into the World Series itself. The Atlanta Braves then defeated the Houston Astros in 6 games to become the 2021 World Champions. In each World Series game played in Atlanta, a gigantic “44” was mowed into the outfield grass. This was certainly a much more fitting tribute to Henry Aaron. Of course, Henry Aaron wore the number “44” because black players, even those as awesome as Aaron himself, were not assigned the single digit numbers reserved for white stars. I thought about the fact that Liberty Media, when they moved the Braves out of Atlanta, talked a lot about making it easier for suburban fans to get to the Park. This was code for: “our white fans do not want to travel into the mostly black city.” That the Atlanta Braves became the World Champions in the same year that Henry Aaron passed away was tinged with bittersweet irony.

The Future of the Atlanta Braves

In an earlier post, I postulated that 2021 was the first year of the Third Age of Baseball history. The Second Age, the Age of Integration (1946 to 2020) had ended, and the Third Age, the International Age, was under way. That would make the 2021 Atlanta Braves the first Championship team of the New Age. If that is true, the question lingers whether there is anything different about this team from all the Champions that proceeded it? I believe there is. The Braves seemed poised to be the first regional super-team. Other teams have tried in the past to concentrate on their individual territories. The teams from Canada always try to represent their whole country. The Boston Red Sox work hard at being New England’s team. Some teams use, or have used, the name of their States (California Angels, Florida Marlins, Minnesota Twins). But this current Atlanta Braves organization has taken a regional emphasis even farther. The Braves appear to be actively trying to stock their roster with players from the South. After the World Series victory, the Braves let the current franchise icon, Freddie Freeman* leave by free agency. They replaced Freeman at first base with Matt Olson, who was actually born right in Atlanta. Olson, who obviously very much wanted to play in his home town, immediately signed a long term contract that gave the Braves a considerable discount from his market value. Although the results will not be in for many years, this was a brilliant strategy by the Braves. They replaced a player who was not going to continue to play for them unless he got top dollar with a similar and younger player who was willing to play at a greatly reduced rate. This strategy of locking up players at a reduced rate obviously works best if, like Matt Olson, the players are from the region that the Braves represent [the prototypical “hometown” discount].

* For some reason (probably personal prejudice), I believed, without checking, that Freeman was born in the South. It came as a total surprise to me that he was actually born in California.

I don’t believe that any team has ever concentrated on being a regional team to the same extent as the current Braves. They seem to be drafting, trading, and signing players from their local area (the “South”). Then signing them to early undervalued contracts. Matt Olson is signed through 2030 when he will be 36. Austin Riley, from Tennessee, is signed through 2032 when he will be 36 [with a possibly cheap team option for 2033]. Michael Harris, from DeKalb, Georgia, is signed through 2030 when he will be 29 [with two probably cheap team options for 2031 and 2032]. On top of this, the Braves have also signed both of the team’s best foreign players to long-term undervalued contracts [Ozzie Albies until 2027 when he will be 30 and Ronald Acuna Jr. until 2026 with two team friendly options to bring it out to 2028 when Acuna will also be 30]. The reason Albies and Acuna signed is obvious. By signing early, they guaranteed their family’s futures and made sure that injury or even death would no longer matter.* The Atlanta Braves, in other words, have tied up five of their core players into their 30s or beyond, when baseball players’ skills traditionally decline. It will be fascinating to see how the Braves handle the upcoming 2023 free agency of Dansby Swanson (from Marietta, Georgia). Do they sign him to a market priced contract? Swanson will surely get a much more lucrative contract on the open market than any of the core five players [It doesn’t hurt that he is having a career year at just the right time]. Will the Atlanta Braves upset their salary structure for him? If they do, will this cause team discord?

*It would be interesting to know whether the case of the Miami Marlin’s pitcher Jose Fernandez was brought up in these negotiations. Fernandez, of course, was killed in a speed boat accident right before getting a 200 million dollar or more contract in free agency. His family, including an unborn daughter, was denied the money that would have made them very wealthy.

If the Braves are able to sign Swanson, six of their nine batting order slots will be tied up long term.* This is a very interesting contrast to their 1991 to 2005 dynasty, which was based on a core of pitchers. It actually makes more sense to have a core of everyday players, rather than a core of starting pitchers. The pitchers are much more likely to become ineffective, or even totally shattered, by injuries. The 2022 Braves have a very good and very young rotation led by Max Fried (from California), Kyle Wright (from Alabama), and Spencer Strider, (who was born in Ohio but seems to have grown up in Tennessee). They also have veteran Charlie Morton to add the voice of experience. The Braves seem to be content to wait and see if this rotation can survive until they reach free agency. This is not a bad strategy at all. There is a very good chance that the Braves have set themselves up for another decade of excellence or more. Of course, the Gods of Baseball can be quite cruel. There is always a chance that this new Braves Dynasty will end up being aborted by fate like the 2009 to 2013 run of excellence. But it is very obviously a good time to be a Braves fan. And, much like the NFL, the Braves have positioned themselves to exploit a primarily white fan base which will root for a international and interracial, but primarily local team. It is very doubtful that I will find myself rooting for the Braves again.**

* With Vaughn Grissom, from Florida, perhaps being a potential seventh core player.

** Interestingly, John Malone and Liberty Media recently acquired CNN, which used to be Ted Turner’s main news channel. CNN, which had positioned itself as the defender of Democracy and the anti-Fox News disinformation channel, was quickly changed into a: “just the news with no editorial content station” by Malone.

Post #18

Building on Quicksand: The Veterans Committee of the Baseball Hall of Fame

When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third one. That one burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. Movie Quotation [Monty Python and the Holy Grail].

June 25, 2022

Once again, the Baseball Hall of Fame has changed the gatekeepers who get to elect its members through the back door. This is the 5th time that the Hall of Fame has changed the locks on its rear entrance in the 21st Century. This contrasts quite sharply with the fixed latch on the Hall of Fame’s front portal. Since the Hall’s inception in 1936, the Baseball Writers Association of America [BBWAA] has guarded the front door. Of course, it is not really all that hard to police the the front door. Since they get first crack at electing Hall of Famers, the Writer’s job is easy. It’s not all that hard to decide whether George (Babe) Ruth or Pedro Martinez is a Hall of Famer. On the other hand, the bouncers in the back have to decide if Freddie Lindstrom or Harold Baines should be able to come inside, a much more difficult job. The back door of the Baseball Hall of Fame has been guarded by various Veteran’s Committees [VC] since 1953. Sadly, some of these Committees left the rear entry unlocked. Some left the back door wide open. One particular Committee threw a decade long soiree that resulted in quite a few party crashers coming in through the back door and taking up permanent residence. So the question is: what exactly is the Baseball Hall of Fame trying to remedy by constantly modifying its Veterans Committee(s)?

A Short History of the Veterans Committee

The original Baseball Hall of Fame Veterans Committee was formed in 1953 to replace the Old Timers Committee for 19th Century Players. The goal of this Committee was to elect those worthy of induction whose 1) careers predated the BBWAA elections, or 2) stardom was overlooked by the BBWAA. Basically, the BBWAA would elect the ‘inner circle’ of the Baseball Hall of Fame, and the Veteran’s Committee would capture the ‘outer circle’ of Hall of Famers missed by the BBWAA. Unlike the BBWAA, which had hundreds of members voting in their Hall of Fame elections, the Veterans Committee was designed to simply be a small group of experts. In the beginning, the task of the VC was simple. The herd of worthy overlooked Hall of Famers was huge. Lee Allen, Baseball’s Hall of Fame historian, helped the Committee immensely by supplying them with biographical and statistical information. The herd thinned out and Allen died in 1969. In the 1970s, the Veterans Committee was led by a Hall of Fame player and old sportswriter from St. Louis (Frankie Frisch and J. Roy Stockton) and Hall of Fame player and aged sportswriter from New York (Bill Terry and Fred Lieb). Led by these four men, the VC elected undeserving old members of the St. Louis Cardinals and the New York Giants by the busload. Despite being unworthy, Frisch’s and Terry’s old teammates flooded into the Baseball Hall of Fame, never to leave. In some respects, the Baseball Hall of Fame has never recovered from this fiasco.

The Baseball Hall of Fame Hangover from the 1970s

As time glided by, the 1970s Veterans Committee’s choices came under valid criticism. In 2001, the Baseball Hall of Fame completely revamped its Veterans Committee. Basically, the Hall of Fame just got rid of the Committee structure completely. The Hall restructured the VC to be more like the BBWAA electors. Rather than a small group of voters (11 or 12 in the beginning and then 15 at the end), the Hall decided that all living Hall of Fame inductees and any of the writer or broadcaster winners of the Spink or Frick Awards for Excellence now would comprise the electorate. This was a group of just under 100 members, mostly made up of Players already in the Hall of Fame. A Historical Oversight Committee [HOC] narrowed the lists of players, executives and managers that the new Veterans Committee was able to consider. It didn’t work. This brand new Veterans Committee could not agree to elect anyone, year after year. The already elected Hall of Fame Players were reportedly very resistant to electing any of the new ‘outer circle’ members and diluting the honor that had already been bestowed upon them. In 2007, the Hall of Fame revamped the Veterans Committee once again. The Spink and Frick winners were thrown overboard. Only Baseball Players already elected to the Hall of Fame could vote. The lists compiled by the HOC for consideration were cut down even further. In 2008, this overhauled process finally resulted in a some new elections to the Hall of Fame by the Hall of Fame Baseball Players led Veterans Committee.

Back to the Committee Structure [2011]

But it was too little, too late. The directors of the Hall of Fame decided to take the vote away from the actual Hall of Famers. So, in 2011, the Baseball Hall of Fame went back to the original small committee format by creating three 16-man Committees to elect new members from 3 different time periods: 1) the Pre-integration Era before 1947; 2) the Golden Era from 1947-1972; and 3) the Expansion Era from 1973 on. Starting in 2011, the new Veterans Committees would alternate their elections, beginning with the Expansion Era Committee in 2011, followed by the Golden Era Committee in 2012, and finally the Pre-Integration Committee in 2013. The Hall of Fame tipped their hand with this order. They were far more interested in electing players from the recent past rather than days long past. In 2016, the Baseball Hall of Fame revamped these Committees yet again to make it even harder for players from the very distant past to get elected. There were now four new Committees: 1) Early Baseball for Players from before 1950, voting once every ten years; 2) Golden Days of 1950 to 1969, voting every five years; 3) Modern Baseball from 1970 to 1987, voting twice every five years, and 4) Today’s Game from 1988 on, voting twice every five years also. In other words, Players eligible after 1949 would get five elections for every election for players before 1950.

The latest and greatest Veterans Committee [2022]

Despite these constant changes (2001, 2007, 2011 and 2016), the Baseball Hall of Fame was still not satisfied with the structure of their Veterans Committees. On April 22, 2022, they changed it yet again. The Hall of Fame went back to a three Committee structure. The Classic Baseball Era Committee was given the task of selecting anyone worthy who finished their career before 1980. There would also be two Contemporary Era Committees. One of these Committees was for eligible Players, passed over by the BBWAA, who finished their careers after 1980. The other Contemporary Era Committee was for any non-Players (Executives, Managers, and Umpires) who also finished their Baseball careers after 1980. The three new Committees would rotate their selections annually. The Contemporary Player Committee will vote for the 2023 election, followed by the Contemporary Non-Player Committee in 2024, and the Classic Baseball Committee finishing the first cycle in 2025. Unless the Hall again revamps this structure, the three Committees will start a second selection cycle in 1926. Of course, this outlines the new VC process but it does not answer the question: What exactly is the Baseball Hall of Fame trying to remedy by again modifying its Veterans Committee structure? The obvious answer would be that the Hall of Fame is trying to finally lock, or at least bar, the back door to their shrine.

An Inability to Close the Back Door

This is actually not a bad idea at all. The Baseball Hall of Fame has always had three obvious structural problems. First, there are really no clear guidelines on what makes a member electable. The lack of explicit specifications, combined with the personal bias of some of the electors, has led to some very extremely questionable selections. Secondly, there is no limitation on how many Hall of Fame members may be elected. This could easily be accomplished by simply establishing limits. For example, a rule that mandates that exactly three (or up to three) new members can be elected each year to the Baseball Hall of Fame would automatically limit the membership. Third, there is never an end to any eligible member’s candidacy. Ross Barnes, the fair-foul hitting superstar who played from 1871 to 1881, could possibly still be elected. Barnes has currently been dead for over 107 years. No one now living even knew him, much less saw him play. Since the Hall opened, Barnes has had many opportunities to be elected over the years. It would certainly be no crime to finally close the door on his eligibility. With their new Committee structure, the Hall of Fame is taking a shot at this third problem. Basically, the Hall is trying to close the back door on all candidates whose careers ended before 1980. But, as always, the Hall has left the key under the mat and the door ajar. The Classic Baseball Committee, starting in 2025, will get an unlimited shot at picking new Hall of Fame members from the pre-1980 Baseball population.

The Solutions are Mostly Obvious

As usual, the Baseball Hall of Fame’s 2022 changes to the Veterans Committee structure do not permanently solve any of the problems that keep causing the Hall to continuously reconstruct these Committees. Why can’t the Hall simply totally close its back door? Two simple steps would pretty quickly accomplish this goal. The first step would be a moving time frame for eligibility. In other words, the Hall would not use a specific year like 1980 as a cut-off point. The Hall would establish a variable end point for eligibility. For example, the Hall could rule that: “All Candidates for election to the Baseball Hall of fame shall have been active within the last 40 years from the current election.” In other words, the VC would only be considering in 2023 those candidates who were still active in at least 1983. In 2024, eligibility would be reset to 1984 and so forth. By making the end point for Hall of Fame eligibility movable over time, the Hall would not have to reassemble the Committee every time a strict time limit becomes out of date. By combining an advancing eligibility requirement with a strict limit to the actual number of annual inductees, the Baseball Hall of Fame would solve its most basic problem with their Veterans Committees. But it is unlikely that the Hall of Fame will adopt these changes. Throughout its history, the Baseball Hall of Fame has never totally shut either the front or back doors to the hallowed temple of Baseball. Not even to Baseball’s version of the damned: Pete Rose, Joe Jackson, and the rest of the Black Sox.

A Fly in the Ointment

If the Baseball Hall of Fame did finally exclude Players from beyond some set point in time past living memory (for example, anybody active before 1950), the Players from what was then referred to as “Organized Baseball” (i.e. white Baseball) would have very little to complain about. There is no question that this group has been given every opportunity to be elected. That there have been injustices is inarguable. Why Tommy McCarthy should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame while his contemporaries “Bad” Bill Dahlen and Tony “The Count” Mullane (not to mention Jim McCormick, Harry Stovey, Pete Browning, and on and on) languish in the waiting room is inexplicable. But, like the question of whether the Russian Princess Anastasia survived the 1918 Assassination of her entire family, it is all pretty much moot. However, there is an injustice that is more problematic. It is often argued that the Players from the Negro Leagues may have not been given adequate chances to be elected. Essentially, Negro League Players have been given three chances at entering through the back door of the Baseball Hall of Fame. In the 1970s, the Hall elected a symbolic nine man Negro League team to the Hall. From the 1980s to the early 2000s, yet another group of Negro League Players got in through the usual Veterans Committee odd shenanigans. They were elected by their former teammates. In 2006, the Baseball Hall of Fame decided to finish off Negro League Player elections with one last great mass induction. The Hall formed a Committee to evaluate the Negro League candidates and then threw seventeen more Negro Leaguers into the temple all at once.

To Blackball or not to Blackball

It was apparent that the more conservative members of the Baseball Hall of Fame sincerely hoped that this one last great mass 2006 induction would put the Negro Leaguers in the Hall of Fame question to permanent rest. And, to their probable satisfaction, no more Negro Leaguers were elected from 2007 to 2021. However, it did not stop the background accusations of racism and pandering that inevitably followed the cessation of Negro League inductions. Undeterred, the Hall of Fame kept changing the rules for Veteran Committee inductions to make it nearly impossible for any more Negro League Personnel elections. Basically, the Negro Leaguers would get one chance every 10 years. However, two more men from the world of Blackball were elected to the Hall of Fame in 2022. The fact that the next possible induction for a Negro League Player was now 2032 made some noise in the Press. Right after this election, the Baseball Hall of Fame changed the Veterans Committee rules again. Now the Negro Leaguers would get their chance every three years rather than ten. But they would be selected from a much larger pool of candidates. Whether it was their intent or not, the Hall had made it much harder for players from the Negro Leagues to get elected. Of course, the Hall of Fame would surely claim that this is simply coincidental. But, pre-meditated or not, it does not look like an innocent change.

Of course, none of this addresses the really interesting questions of: 1) Are there too many Negro League Players already inducted? How many Players from the Negro Leagues deserve to be in the Baseball Hall of Fame? Who are the most deserving Negro League Players not inducted yet? If more should be elected, how should it be accomplished? But these are all questions for another day.

Coming soon:

  1. A history of Negro League Players and the Baseball Hall of Fame.
  2. How many Negro League Players should be in the Hall of Fame?

Post #17

Say My Name in Vain

It ain’t what they call you, it’s what you answer to. W.C. Fields

May 30, 2022 [Memorial Day]

Recently, Josh Donaldson, the white third baseman for the New York Yankees, caused a minor ruckus by calling Tim Anderson, the black second baseman of the Chicago White Sox, “Jackie” after getting into a scuffle with him. Jackie, of course, was a reference to Jackie Robinson, who broke the ‘Color Line’ in 1947 and was the first African-American player in the white Major Leagues during the 20th Century. Donaldson tried to play off his ‘nickname’ for Anderson as a simple inside joke between the two men. In a 2019 Sports Illustrated article, Tim Anderson had referred to himself as a modern-day “Jackie Robinson” who was carrying on Jackie’s legacy in the Major Leagues. After that article came out, Donaldson claimed that he had called Anderson “Jackie” several times as a friendly gesture between the two men. Anderson, who was not friends with Donaldson, stated that he considered it a pretty obvious racial insult. Which, of course, it was. Donaldson, forced to choose between being an insensitive ignoramus or a racist, wisely chose to be an imbecile. Major League Baseball, properly embarrassed by the entire incident, suspended Josh Donaldson one entire game for basically being a moron without any knowledge of, or respect for, Baseball’s past.

In the name of Jack Robinson

If Baseball was a religion,* the two greatest Gods in its large Pantheon would be Jackie Robinson and Babe Ruth (not necessarily in that order). These two men represent the ego and the id of Baseball. Josh Donaldson was certainly guilty of racial insensitivity for using Jackie Robinson’s name as a slur. But he was more guilty of the crime of ignorance of the game’s history. For this, he should have been suspended for much longer than one game. The story of Jackie Robinson is almost unquestionably the most important chapter in the book of Baseball. Donaldson, who the game has given much to, should have known better than to take the name of Jackie Robinson in vain. But, even if he had studied Baseball’s past, it is very unlikely that Donaldson would have realized that, if Jackie Robinson played today, everybody would probably be calling him Jack, not Jackie. Jackie Robinson’s widow Rachel Robinson is still alive today (he will have passed away exactly 50 years ago this October 24th of 2022). She has given many interviews (if one wishes to hear her speak, Ken Burn’s “Baseball” documentaries for PBS are a good place to start). If you pay attention, you will notice that Rachel Robinson always calls her late husband Jack, his actual first name, not Jackie [see Note 1].

* If Baseball was a religion, Leo Durocher’s quote: “Baseball is like Church, many attend but few understand” would be scripture.

In 2014, Rachel Robinson also co-wrote a book about her late husband: Jackie Robinson, an Intimate Portrait. In this book, she consistently refers to him as Jack too. So why did he go down in history as Jackie, and not Jack, Robinson? Jack Roosevelt Robinson was born in Cairo, Georgia, on January 31, 1919. He certainly may have been called “Jackie” by his family while he was growing up. Of course, Jackie is a diminutive of the name Jack, and diminutives are usually used for children. John becomes Johnny, Robert becomes Bobby, and so on. But infantilizing names also has serious racial connotations. During the “Jim Crow” era before Civil Rights, African-American men were called “boy” even if they were a grandfather. To refer to an adult as boy is obviously disrespectful. To call any adult by the diminutive of their name without their consent would also be contemptuous. In the 1960s and 1970s, Richard Allen, one of the best African American players in Baseball, was constantly referred as “Richie” Allen by sportswriters despite constantly stating that he wanted to be called “Dick.” For some reason, the sportswriters would not comply with this request. Allen literally spelled out the disrespect by telling the sportswriters that: “Richie is a little boy’s name.” This casual racism did not led to a comfortable relationship between Dick Allen and the press.*

*Dick Allen should have long ago been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame but these same sportswriters seem to have held onto their grudges.

The Origins of Jackie

Of course, there is absolutely no record of Jack Robinson objecting to having his first name turned into its diminutive. There is plenty of evidence that his immediate family all called him Jack as an adult. Robinson was actually pretty famous long before he became legendary as the man who erased the Major League Baseball ban on African American players. In college, Jackie Robinson was an athletic superstar, reportedly the first man to “letter”* in four different sports (baseball, basketball, football and track) at UCLA. Even before he went to UCLA, Robinson’s name had appeared regularly in the press. A young man at this time, he was regularly referred to as “Jackie” Robinson by sportswriters. Did Robinson not object to being nicknamed “Jackie” later in life just because it was the name by which he was best known? Did he even care? He may not have. Considering all the prejudice and discrimination that he faced later on, Robinson may have regarded his name as a minor issue, not worth making a fuss about. Or perhaps Robinson did not mind be called “Jackie” rather than his true name Jack at all. If Jack Robinson never insisted on not being called Jackie, who else would have the right? Of course, the theory that, if he played today, he would be known as Jack Robinson is just conjecture. Nonetheless, there is still a slight aroma of racism to the fact that he went down in history as Jackie Robinson.

* Lettering in a college sport used to mean literally what that says. When an athlete was successful in any college sport, he would wear large letter on his school jacket, like a big “H” for Harvard. There was no standard used by all colleges and universities to decide who got one of these letters.

Modern Baseball Nomenclature

Interestingly, there has been a movement in the last few years to “fix” names that would now be considered disrespectful. Before the December 2021 vote by the Baseball Hall of Fame Committee overseeing eligible players from the 19th Century, articles encouraging the election of Bill Hoy were written. My first response on seeing one of these articles was: “Who the hell is Bill Hoy?” Then I realized that they were advocating for William “Dummy” Hoy, probably the best deaf Baseball player of all-time. The Baseball Reference [BR] website now refers to “Dummy” Hoy as Billy Hoy. The BR website has also changed the commonly used names of various other players. “Chief” Bender is now Charles. “Chief” Meyers has become Jack Meyers. For reasons unknown, Jim Thorpe and Louis Sockalexis, probably the two most famous American Indian players, were not tagged with the nickname “Chief” while they were living. So they did not need to be stripped of it once they were dead (though Sockalexis was evidently nicknamed “Deerfoot”). “Dummy” Taylor has been renamed as Luther Taylor. “Three Finger” Brown has been rechristened Mordecai Brown. “Fatty” (or “Fats”) Fothergill has now been rebranded as Bob Fothergill. All of these men are long dead at the present time. It is unlikely that anyone will be objecting to the changes in how they are listed in Baseball Reference books or on Baseball websites.

Where do modern baseball historians draw the line in making changes to the less sensitive mores of the past? One cannot really disagree with the current expunging of the racial epithet that was formerly listed as the common first name of both George Cuppy and Jay Kirke. Bob Fothergill would also surely not mind his corpulent nicknames being erased from the record books if he was still here. The nicknames Dummy, Chief, and possibly Three Finger were probably not appreciated by their bearers. The late Richie Allen is now pretty much universally referred to by his preferred Dick Allen. What about Chino Smith, the great 1920s African American outfielder? The nickname Chino was often used in Blackball to denote Chinese looking eyes or skin. Should he be rebranded with the much more common and totally boring name of Charlie (or Charley) Smith? Of course, the fact that Smith was almost always called Charlie or Charley rather than Chino during his career doesn’t help with the argument that he should go down in history as Chino Smith. Unfortunately, there is probably no good argument for changing the name of Charley Jones (one of baseball’s first great sluggers) back into his birth name of Benjamin Rippay, other than the fact that Ben Rippay is a fantastic name for a Baseball player.* He was always known as Charlie Jones while he played.

*Roll the headline “Ben Rippay has been ripping the ball” around your tongue.

The Future of Baseball Names?

The light one-game suspension of Josh Donaldson by Major League Baseball for his racial and historical ignorance was clearly meant to put this minor but repugnant incident in the rear view mirror. No one wanted the slight aroma of racism and contempt to linger. Someone even made sure that Donaldson put out a statement that apologized to Rachel Robinson and her family. This should have been the end of it. However, Donaldson, claiming that he meant no harm, improbably appealed this extremely minor punishment. Of course, this is just a sign of the current troubled times. No famous (or public) figure ever accepts responsibility for anything anymore. In the old eye-for-an-eye world, Josh Donaldson would have been ridiculed for this. Perhaps he would have been handed a suitable nickname, such as “Douchie” (or something), to memorialize his contempt and ignorance of Baseball’s history. But, of course, that would be just as infantile as using a child’s name to denigrate any adult. And, it would go against what is sorely needed in these current trying times: Moderation (regardless of that, I will probably call him Douchie Donaldson in my head from now on). However, moderation seems to have gone totally out of style. Perhaps future generations will learn of Jack Robinson and George Ruth rather than Jackie Robinson and Babe Ruth. After all, who wants to be called a nickname that has the slight stench of racism or is based on the fact that someone called you a big baby?

Note #1

One of the most important people involved in Jackie Robinson’s integration of the Major Leagues was Wendell Smith. He was a reporter for the African American newspaper The Pittsburgh Courier. Early in 1945, Smith recruited Robinson and two other Black players for an infamous and ultimately fruitless tryout with the Boston Red Sox. After that failed attempt at breaking down the walls of baseball integration, Smith was sought out by Branch Rickey, who asked him if any of those players were Major League caliber. Smith quickly responded: “Robinson” to Rickey. Of course, Branch Rickey would be the man who eventually hired Jackie Robinson to play for the Brooklyn Dodgers and demolish the ‘Color Line.’ While Robinson integrated Baseball, Rickey hired Wendell Smith to accompany and look out for Robinson off the field. For all this, Robinson agreed to let Wendell Smith write his first biography. In this life story, Smith wrote that Jackie Robinson’s full name was: John Roosevelt Robinson. Evidently, Smith just assumed that Robinson’s first name was John. This was not unreasonable as “Jack” is often a nickname for John. Evidently Jackie Robinson did not, or was never given an opportunity to, proofread his own biography. If he ever even became aware of this mistake is lost in the ebb and flow of history. If he did, I wonder how he reacted.

Post #16

Holier than Thou

There is no revenge so complete as forgiveness. Josh Billings

May 23, 2022

Today, Dodger pitcher Trevor Bauer will begin the appeal of his 324-game (two-year) suspension under the Major League Baseball Domestic Violence Policy.  Of course, this appeal is totally within his rights under the Collective Bargaining Agreement [CBA] between the Players Union and Major League Baseball.  Not since Philadelphia Phillies’ first baseman Eddie Waitkus* had a very unfortunate 1949 encounter with his admirer Ruth Steinhagen has there been quite a baseball player and female fanatic scandal to match this current controversy.  The obvious questions are: 1) Will the long suspension of Trevor Bauer be upheld; 2) Will the entire suspension be enforced if it is upheld, 3) Will Bauer ever pitch in the Major Leagues again; 4) Should Bauer be allowed to pitch in the Majors again; and 5) Is just the suspension itself punishment enough for Bauer’s sins?  To try to answer these questions, first we should outline the case against Mister Bauer.

* Waitkus, who was shot by Ms. Steinhagen when he arrived at her hotel room for their first meeting, later reportedly sardonically commented: “Only one girl ever fell in love with me and she was nuts.”

What reportedly happened

Early in 2021, Trevor Bauer and his female devotee came in contact through social media [Instagram apparently].  They agreed over the internet to meet for the very first time and have ‘consensual rough sex’ that included Bauer slapping and choking the woman.  Apparently a nice first date to simply get to know each was not an option.  On April 21, 2021, the woman drove from her residence in San Diego to Mister Bauer’s home in Pasadena, California.  According to the woman’s account, they had some ‘consensual rough sex’ that escalated until Bauer, without consent, stuck his fingers down her throat, choked her unconscious with her own hair, and then sodomized her while she was unconscious.  The woman then left Bauer’s home the next morning on April 22nd of 2021.  Bauer would later deny that he did anything but have ‘consensual rough sex’ during their April 21/22 meeting.  Despite what can only seem to be described, if the woman’s version is correct, as a pretty lousy first date, they continued their internet flirtation.

Despite the bad first date, the woman drove to Pasadena again for a second meeting and another round of ‘consensual rough sex’ on May 15th of 2021. According to the woman, the two of them had agreed on a ‘safe word’ which would stop Bauer from doing anything without her consent.  But, despite this precaution, the woman claimed that Bauer once again choked or strangled her unconscious.  While she was passed out, Bauer proceeded to scratch or punch her in the head, face, buttocks, and private parts.  She was left with two black eyes, a bloody swollen lip, and bruises all over her buttocks and private parts.  Although her identity has not been revealed by the press, the woman would later release photos of her beaten face, allegedly from the incident.  It is unclear from the reporting of the second incident, but it also appears that she accused Bauer of anally raping her again.  Apparently, it did not occur to her that a ‘safe word’ is useless if you are out cold.

* In a case of poor reporting, the actual ‘safe word’ has never been disclosed.

Once again, Bauer denied that he did anything other than have ‘consensual rough sex’ during their May 15/16 meeting.  After waking up and leaving the house the next morning on May 16, 2022, the woman went to the Pasadena Police and reported that she had been sexually assaulted.  The very least that can be said about this woman would be that she must be incredibly immature and reckless to put herself under the control of basically a complete stranger and then trust that person to treat her with dignity.  Although her age has not been disclosed, the picture apparently shows a very young woman. The very least that can be said about Trevor Bauer would be that he also must be both incredibly immature and reckless.  Considering what he had to lose, you must wonder if Bauer is anywhere near as intelligent as he likes to portray himself.  If not an actual idiot, he certainly acted like a total moron, if not the unhinged sexual deviant that the woman has accused him of being.

The Aftermath

With the reporting of the incident in the press, Major League Baseball began investigating Bauer for a violation of their ‘domestic violence’ policy.  On June 28th of 2021, with the Police investigation still on-going, Bauer was placed on ‘administrative leave’ by Major League Baseball.  He could no longer play, but he was still getting paid.  On the very next day, June 29th of 2021, the alleged victim filed for a restraining order against Bauer.  She filed the complaint ‘ex-parte’ (meaning Bauer was neither informed of or present for the initial Court hearing).  Considering that her residence in San Diego is approximately 130 miles away from Bauer’s home and that she had driven to his house for both encounters, the reason for this requested restraining order was somewhat ambiguous.  You had to assume that Bauer had threatened to hunt her down for a third encounter.  If not, the alleged victim would have been better off not going to court at all.

Apparently, she could not produce any evidence of the necessary threat.  In a second hearing to extend the restraining order, Trevor Bauer and his lawyers were present to contest it.  They were able to point out that she had driven to him, and she lived far far away.  Almost predictably, Bauer accused the woman of attempting to financially extort him. You must wonder exactly what type of legal advice the woman was getting at this point.  The entire attempt to get and then maintain this restraining order seemed more like legal maneuvering to gain leverage over Trevor Bauer than a result of actual fear.  If those were her intentions, it would absolutely be an abuse of the court system.  In a “he said/she said” scenario such as this, any action that calls the credibility of one side into doubt is cause for their entire version of the story to be called into question and discounted.

The Criminal Outcome

On February 8, 2022, the Los Angeles county District Attorney’s Office [DA] announced that it would not be filing criminal charges against Trevor Bauer for the alleged incidents.  The LA DA’s Office said that they did not believe that they could prove the case against him under the: ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard that is used in criminal cases.  In their announcement, the DA’s Office specifically noted problems stemming from the woman’s filing of the restraining order.  With the LA DA’S Office declining to prosecute, Bauer happily skated away from any criminal consequences.  Predictably, Bauer then acted as if he had been proven completely innocent.  But he still had to deal with the consequences from Major League Baseball itself.  And Major League Baseball’s case would be decided under the much looser: ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard used in civil, not criminal, cases.

The Baseball Outcome

On April 28, 2022, even though he had not been criminally charged, Major League Baseball handed Trevor Bauer a unpaid 324-game suspension [exactly two seasons] for his role in the incident.  This was on top of his already served 99 game paid vacation from the game while he was on administrative leave.*  The suspension, if its upheld, will last from the 19th game of the 2022 season until the 18th game of the 2024 season.  If this suspension is not tossed out or reduced, it will wipe out the rest of Bauer’s contract (ending in 2023) with the Los Angeles Dodgers.  And, in 2024, the now completely unemployed Bauer will be eligible to sign a contract only after teams have: 1) signed their players, and 2) set their rosters and payrolls for the 2024 season. Realistically, Bauer would probably not have a chance to sign another free agent contract until 2025 (assuming that he is able to snare a make-good contract in 2024 and he pitches well). Unsurprisingly, the unrepentant Bauer immediately announced that he would appeal the 324-game suspension.

* Oddly, his paid leave lasted 99 games and the 2022 Lockout lasted 99 days.

Under the CBA, Trevor Bauer’s Appeal will be held in front of a three-man Arbitration Panel.  This panel will consist of a representative from the Player’s Union (presumptively on Bauer’s side), a representative from Major League Baseball (surely on the side of Rob Manfred, the Baseball Commissioner who imposed the suspension), and an Independent Arbitrator (who will actually decide the appeal).  Martin Scheinman, the current Independent Arbitrator, is not truly all that Independent. He was appointed by agreement of the Union and the Commissioner’s office and he can be fired by either side if he makes a decision that they do not like. All 3 of the previous Independent Arbitrators were fired by either the Union or MLB because they did not like a ruling.  This makes it much more likely that the supposedly Independent Arbitrator will act more like a Mediator than an Arbitrator.  In other words, he will try to find a middle ground that is acceptable to both sides rather than completely rule for either side. So what will this middle ground be?

Incidental Analysis

1) Will Bauer’s suspension be upheld?  Like most ‘He said/She said’ situations, Trevor Bauer and his accuser have offered pretty much diametrically opposed accounts of what actually happened.  By her account, Mister Bauer has to be a mentally ill sexual deviant who enjoys hitting and mistreating women.  Bauer lured her into his lair where he savagely beat her.  He is basically some type of monster.  By his own account, Bauer never did anything without the women’s consent.  This was all supposed to just be some harmless and innocent role-playing.  But he was naïve and reckless and is now the victim of an extortion attempt gone bad.  Of course, the truth is surely somewhere in the middle of these two accounts.  But this does not mean that the truth is exactly halfway between one version and the other.  So is there any evidence to believe one version is much closer to the truth than the other?  Whose version should be believed?

In the court of Public Opinion, Trevor Bauer’s version is pretty much already a lost cause.  Despite reportedly being bullied when he was young, Bauer has spent his entire adult life acting like a bully.  Self-reflection is apparently not his strong suit.  Two other women have come forward and accused Bauer of treating them in exactly the same way as the alleged victim.  One of them was evidently in a long-term abusive relationship with Bauer.  The other accuser filed or attempted to file a similar restraining order against Bauer in 2020.*  She only withdrew it under the threat from Bauer of expensive litigation.  It has so far been completely uncontradicted that Bauer sent her a message that he did not want to see her again because he would then have to go to jail for killing her and she wasn’t worth it.  Does any of this mean that Bauer actually did what his current accuser claims? No, but usually, where there is a giant cloud of smoke, there is also a raging fire.

* Incredibly, the second accuser was supposedly arrested for underage drinking while reporting the crime. Unless this victim only reported the assault in an odd attempt not to be arrested for underage drinking, it makes you wonder exactly how much empathy the police have for sexual assault victims.

In addition to all this and without any regard for the public relations optics, Trevor Bauer’s response to his accusers, the accusations themselves, and even the reporting of the story, has been to threaten to file or actually file lawsuits against basically everyone and anyone.  Of course, Bauer’s strategy of ‘suing to intimidate’ simply reinforces the narrative that he is a bully.  His use of his superior financial resources to attack everyone and anyone actually makes all the accusations against him much more believable. Of course, this does not actually mean that they are true, just more likely to be true. Combined with the other two woman’s accusations, it is almost a foregone conclusion that the Arbitrator will uphold Major League Baseball’s suspension of Bauer.  The Arbitrator will then have to decide whether to uphold the entire 324-game suspension or only part of it.

2) Will the entire suspension be enforced if it is upheld?  This would be the worst-case scenario for Trevor Bauer.  If the entire suspension is upheld, there is a chance that Bauer’s career may be over.  In 2024, Bauer would come back to Major League Baseball with his hat in his hand, begging for a contract.  It is entirely possible that no team would decide to eat the bad publicity of hiring him.  Like Colin Kaepernick in football, Bauer could become an untouchable or persona non grata (though for ignoble acts rather than noble reasons like Kaepernick). However, this result is very unlikely.  If he upholds the entire 324-game suspension, the Independent Arbitrator will almost surely be promptly fired by the Players Union. The decision will stand but the Arbitrator will be gone. It is much more likely that the Arbitrator will simply reduce the 324-game suspension. What will the Arbitrator consider while he deliberates on reducing the suspension?

Trevor Bauer will surely bring up in the Arbitration hearing that Rob Manfred, the Baseball Commissioner, has a massive conflict of interest in imposing the suspension.  Manfred, of course, represents the Major League Owners (and in particular the Los Angeles Dodgers, Bauer’s current employer).  The Dodgers are paying Bauer a phenomenal amount of money (a total of 102 million from 2021 to 2023 if Bauer was able to collect it all).  By suspending Bauer, Manfred is helping his own employer, the Dodgers, get out from under what has now become a nightmarish contract.  Trevor Bauer will obviously not bring up the fact that his own actions are mainly responsible for his contact becoming an albatross. But, to be fair, all the evidence that Bauer would, at some point in his tenure, completely embarrass the Dodgers was already circulating before they ever signed him. Will the Arbitrator take any of these considerations into making his final judgment?

The Arbitrator will have to weight the evidence that Trevor Bauer is a pretty despicable person against Major League Baseball’s desire to bury his career in an unmarked grave. As Trevor Bauer seems to be almost universally disliked, the most likely result will be a minor reduction of the suspension. Enough so that the Player’s Union can walk away from the entire mess, but not so great a reduction that the Commissioner’s Office looks emasculated. The case of Alex Rodriguez seems on point.  A-Rod was suspended for 211 games for multiple steroid violations.  Like Bauer, A-Rod was, at that point, a generally completely unlikable person.*  On the other hand, Bauer is actually much more unlikeable but the case against him may actually be weaker (A-Rod was unambiguously guilty while Bauer can hide behind the uncertainty of the “he said/she said” conundrum).  With a reduction of the suspension being the likely result, the question becomes how large will the reduction be?

* Strangely enough, A-Rod has rehabilitated his image and is now employed as a broadcaster. Rehabilitation for Bauer seems unlikely.

3) Will Trevor Bauer ever pitch in the Major Leagues again?  In many ways, the likelihood of Bauer pitching in the Majors again probably depends on exactly how much of his suspension is reduced.  If Bauer’s suspension was completely overturned, he would surely pitch in the Major Leagues again.  It is extremely unlikely that the Los Angeles Dodgers would simply bite the bullet and give Bauer the remaining $60 million dollars on his contract to go away.* The very lawsuit-happy Bauer would almost surely sue the Dodgers to let him pitch. In all probability, the Dodgers would let him pitch again, take the publicity hit, and hope that time heals some of Bauer’s self-inflicted wounds.  On the other hand, if the suspension is barely reduced from the 324-games handed down by Rob Manfred, Bauer is in considerable danger of simply being released by the Los Angeles Dodgers.

* Trevor Bauer was paid $4 million of his $32 million due in 2021 before he was suspended without pay.

If the suspension is reduced severely (to say 75 games), the same logic would probably compel the Dodgers to still let Bauer pitch.  However, the closer the reduction comes to the actual 324-game sentence given out by Manfred, the more and more likely it becomes that Bauer would simply be released by the Dodgers.  If the suspension is 200 games or more, Bauer is in serious danger of watching his career die with a whimper. An interesting question would be: How much would the Dodgers will be willing to throw away as a ‘sunk cost’* to simply walk away from Trevor Bauer and all his unattractive baggage.  The amount is probably as soon as the cost gets lower than 8 figures [$10 million dollars].  In other words, if the reduction of Bauer’s suspension is around 50 or 60 games, it is much more likely that the Dodgers will walk away from him. It will be fascinating to see what happens. The question of whether Bauer will ever pitch in the Major Leagues again is an open one.

* Sunk Cost: A cost that has been incurred, cannot be recovered, and will only get larger if one tries to recover it.

4) Should Trevor Bauer be allowed to pitch in the Major Leagues again?  It seems like the answer to this question should be: “Yes, of course, after his suspension is over.” However, as soon as the suspension was announced, multiple media megaphones immediately advocated that Bauer should never be allowed to return to the Major Leagues.  They put forth the proposition that no punishment for Bauer was adequate for what he has done.  The only punishment that would be acceptable was his banishment from polite society and the destruction of his lucrative Baseball career. In a sense, this feeling is understandable. It seems like Bauer escaped the consequences of his actions. If he was not very wealthy, Bauer would probably be in jail for assault. On the other hand, Bauer will spend the rest of his life dealing with public knowledge of his transgressions. Because he is a public figure, Bauer will never be able to truly leave this behind. His obituary will probably begin: “Trevor Bauer, former Major League pitcher, who was accused of beating an unconscious woman, died today.” Because he is famous, Bauer has lost the protection of anonymity.

It is also true that, given Bauer’s personality and past actions, there is little likelihood that: 1) Bauer will ever express remorse for his actions; 2) Bauer will learn a single thing because of what happened, 3) Bauer will change his toxic personality one bit. In all likelihood, Bauer will blame the woman, the courts, the press, and whoever else is available. He will claim that he himself is the victim. Bauer will probably never realize or accept that he is quite lucky to have not faced more serious consequences from his reckless, immature and malignant actions (a description that fits even if you only give credit to his side of the story). But is the fact that Trevor Bauer is unlikely to change or grow as a human being an adequate reason to end his Baseball career? To cast him into the outer darkness forever? The people advocating this type of vengeance should perhaps look at themselves first. Are they perfect? Who wants to be permanently judged by their very worst day? In modern society, when did forgiveness become unacceptable?

This desire to see Bauer’s career as a Major League pitcher end is really based on simple envy.  Why should Bauer get to enjoy the extraordinary fruits of his talent when he is so reprehensible? But does this possible injustice justify that he be denied the right to pursue his chosen vocation?  If, for instance, an auto mechanic commits manslaughter but escapes criminal prosecution, do courts ban him from being an auto mechanic?  Of course not. This type of thinking also assumes that Bauer’s punishment may not come from other avenues.  At the least, it is likely that Trevor Bauer will lose more, possibly much more, than 30 million dollars in salary.  Is that enough punishment?  In the future, many personal and financial opportunities will be denied to him because of these actions and their baggage.  Is that enough punishment?  Even if he never ever accepts any responsibility or modifies his behavior one iota, Bauer will still be punished.  He will have to live with virtually everyone knowing what type of person he is deep inside. Once his suspension is over, Bauer should certainly be allowed to pitch again. Staying famous will be its own punishment.

5) Is just the suspension itself punishment enough for Trevor Bauer’s sins? Who really knows? But the greatest punishment may actually be the total destruction of his baseball legacy itself.  It has been regularly reported that Bauer’s obsession with Baseball started when he was just a child.  Any chance that he ever enters the Baseball Hall of Fame without a ticket has pretty much evaporated.  Although a Hall of Fame honor is never guaranteed, Bauer was actually making good progress towards it.  In 2021, Bauer was the reigning Cy Young Award winner.  He was playing for the Dodgers, a club that is currently, and for the foreseeable future, a super-team. As long as he was with the Los Angeles Dodgers, Bauer would have surely won many games even if he just pitched averagely (not to mention that Dodger Stadium, a renowned pitcher’s park, would have made all his statistics look better than they actually were). If he could have maintained his statistics for the next four or five years, Trevor Bauer probably would have had a very good shot at the Baseball Hall of Fame. Instead, the heart of his career has now been wiped out by this suspension and the tatters of his good name have been buried under the outhouse.

Of course, the counter argument would be that Trevor Bauer’s best couple of years were probably the result of cheating by applying extra adhesive to the ball when he pitched. With the current crackdown on this type of tampering, Bauer was very unlikely to still be quite as good as he was during the 2018, 2020, and 2021 seasons. Could Bauer have maintained his pitching results without spider-tack or some other adhesive? We will probably never know now (unless Bauer eventually comes back and pitches as well as he once did). Interestingly, he played exactly half a season, 81 games, after the crackdown on applying substances to the ball began in 2021; and his doubled statistics are really good [16-10, a 2.57 ERA, with 142 hits allowed, 74 bases on balls, and 274 strikeouts]. If he could have maintained this production in 2022 and 2023, Bauer would have the heart of a Baseball Hall of Fame career. But that is all moot now. Perhaps one day, Trevor Bauer will come to realize what he threw away without a second thought. If he ever really does, I believe that would be punishment enough.

Addendum

Trevor Bauer’s three-year 2021-2023 contract has been reported in the press as $102 million over the three years.  In 2021, Bauer was scheduled to receive $28 million in straight salary with a $10 million dollar signing bonus that was to paid to him in installments over the 2021 season.  He could have opted out of the contract after the 2021 season and received a $2 million dollar buy-out. If he opted out after the season, his 2021 compensation would have been $40 million dollars.  Bauer, who was suspended before the 2021 season finished, wisely did not exercise this opt-out.  In 2022, his actual salary increased from $28 million to $32 million dollars.  He also had yet another buy-out option for $15 million dollars after the 2022 season. Reportedly, this $15 million buyout would have been heavily deferred (paid out over time). So it’s unknown what the actual present day value of this buyout is. But multiple sources have listed his 2022 salary as $47 million dollars anyways. By the contract, if he declined to opt out after the 2022 season, Bauer’s 2023 salary remained at $32 million.

A couple of questions about this salary structure:

1. Could Trevor Bauer have opted out after the 2021 season while he was on paid administrative leave?  Or was Bauer’s option to opt-out blocked by the administrative suspension?  Of course, Bauer wisely did not opt-out for two million dollars and void the potential $64 million dollars left on the contract. So it was a moot point. But whether it was even possible is unknown; and

2. Would his 2021 bonus payments have been affected by the suspension if it was without pay?  Does an unpaid suspension cover just the player’s salary or his entire contract?  Again, as Trevor Bauer was on paid administrative leave during the 2021 season and it would have been stupid as all hell for him to opt-out at that point, this is also a moot point; but

3. Can Trevor Bauer opt out of his contract after the 2022 season?  This would trigger the $15 million dollar buy-out provision in his contract.  Of course, his suspension is unpaid now.  But does this suspension also void Bauer’s ability to collect the $15 million dollar buy-out option? If his 324-game suspension is upheld by the Arbitrator (meaning Trevor Bauer will not return until early in the 2024 season) and the suspension does not void the 2022 buy-out option, Bauer should definitely opt out. Even if the suspension is just reduced but still wipes out most of the 2023 season, it will still be in Trevor Bauer’s interest to opt out and take the 15 million dollar buy-out. Of course, whether Bauer can actually do any of this has never been addressed in the press.