STILL STANDING

Murray Chass wrote about how George Steinbrenner almost bought the Cleveland Indians from the Stouffer family in early 1972, in his Sunday column in the New York Times, "The Best Deal Never Made":

"No one knows what the outcome of a Steinbrenner ownership of the Inidans would have been. What we do know is that a year later Steinbrenner and partners bought the Yankees, and 30 years later, 30 years from last Friday, to be exact [which was also the anniversary of the Yankees signing Babe Ruth in 1920], Steinbrenner holds a unique place in Major League Baseball.

"Respect him of detest him, the 72 year-old Steinbrenner is the only owner from 1973 still on the job. The other teams have had a total of 71 owners or ownership groups, and the Yankees have had none. Put another way, in 30 years the other 29 teams, including six post-1973 expansion teams, have had a combined 94 ownership groups, and the Yankees have had one...

"Steinbrenner has enjoyed...rewards in two different periods of his ownership, when he initially restored the Yankees to championship status in the 70's and in the current period of World Series success, four championships in seven years.

"However smart the decisions and judgements of the owner and his baseball people have been in those periods, they have been fueled by the revenue that was available to the Yankees but would not have been to the Indians. No cable-television outlet in Cleveland has ever given the Indians $493.5 million over 12 years, as the Yankees have earned. That money was especially critical in the 90's."

Gordon Edes wasn't as kind to Boss George, and took Steinbrenner to task in his Sunday column in the Boston Globe, while painting a sympathetic portrait of Larry Lucchino. Will McDonough , in turn, wasn't nearly as generous with the Red Sox president.

Peter Gammons jumped in the mix with a relatively scathing take on the Boss:

"OK. OK. OK. They Yankees have a great team. They are going to win. George has bought the championship and they'd better damn well win. He assumes it, and so does everyone in New York.

"All of which brings it down to this: what happens if their pitchers pitch in October as they did last October, when the Angels hit the New York pitching so brutally that if you took Anaheim's series OPS, it meant that every batter they sent up in that series was turned into the statistical equivalent of Jason Giambi by the Yankees pitchers? Every win is something that will be assumed, expected...

"This Yankee team should be very good, but we don't know how private people like Jeter and Bernie Williams will take to the 50 member media entourage that will be following Hideki Matsui. We don't know that Mariano Rivera, Steve Karsay(coming off back surgery) and Chris Hammond are what Rivera/Mike Stanton/Ramiro Mendoza were two years ago. We don't know what kind of cross-culturalization support Contreras will have in what will be a very difficult lifestyle change.

"As good as they've been, the Yankees could easily have been knocked out in the first round of the postseason three straight years. In fact, in the first round over the last three years the Yanks are 7-7 against the A's (2000 and 2001) and Angels (2002).

"Oakland could win it all this fall with their Big Three, or if Boston ever got in, they could as well if Pedro Martinez and Derek Lowe are at full throttle ... and that's without thinking about Bartolo Colon, whom Expos GM Omar Minaya says "would make the Red Sox better than the Yankees on paper right now" because Boston arguably would have three of the AL East's four best starters, with Toronto's Roy Halladay being the fourth.

"If Torre and Yankees GM Brian Cashman and senior vice president of baseball operations Mark Newman are allowed to do their work, the Yankees will be fine; they won four world championships on talent, character, logic and good management, not a madcap spending pattern that puts them 50 percent above the next highest spender. But now this is the '80s George, sending representatives to Nicaragua and suggesting their jobs were on the line if they didn't bring back Contreras, firing scouts and office staff to save money, cutting back on health benefits ... then throwing around $166 million (they're over $100 million in salary commitments in 2004 and 2005) so someone will write that he's a great man because he wants to win at any cost, in this case for the little people.

"What Steinbrenner has bought is no room for error. If the Yankees win, fine. George Steinbrenner will have bought New York a championship. That was expected and demanded.

"If the Yankees don't win, he will fire a lot more little people and plant stories about Torre and Jeter and Cashman and Mike Mussina. But in the end, if the Yankees don't win, it will be Steinbrenner who will be the laughingstock of the baseball world. What a shame. What a way to live. Or win...

"Few teams ever enjoyed winning more than the 2002 Angels. Even if the Yankees sweep the 2003 World Series in four games, they or their fans will never experience what the Angels experienced."

John Perricone, from Only Baseball Matters, took exception with Gammons' conclusion, though he claimed the article was [fairly] well-written and accurate:

"Let me tell you something. The Yankees went 16 years between championships as I was growing up. Their last title prior to this run was in 1981. Now, I know if you are my dad's age you've seen enough championships to last a lifetime, but I came to baseball late. For the most part, all I knew as a Yankee fan was Don Mattingly watching the playoffs on TV just like me. Then in 1996, Jeter and O'Neill and Williams and Cone and Leyritz and the rest of these guys put together a season of magic, a postseason of miracles, and a World Series for the ages. So don't tell me that Yankee fans can't feel what the Angels just felt. That's horseshit.

Now Steinbrenner is wrong for trying to hang on to it for as long as he can? He knows it won't last forever. Spend now, because when his core of championship players, with drive and character and heart is gone, he'll be starting over just like everyone else, and money can't buy character. You can use it to surround character with talent, and that's what he's doing."

SIMPLY A MATTER OF TIME...

Reports circulated this weekend regarding a possible 3-way deal between the Mets, Red Sox and Expos, that would bring either Bartolo Colon or Javier Vazquez to the Sox and ship third-baseman Shea Hillenbrand to New York. The Times first reported the story on Saturday, but The Boston Herald indicated it still has a way to go.

Regardless, I fully expect Theo Epstein and his bosses to work out a deal for one of Montreal's two stud pitchers some time in the near future. (My guess is that they'll snag the less expensive Vazquez.) There is talk that the White Sox have what it takes to land a Colon---their owner has been known to make big moves in the past, but the Red Sox are clearly a team one a mission. If you pay attention to Larry Lucchino, it is a Holy, Righteous and Just, mission, but a mission all the same.

David Pinto (Baseball Musings) had this to add about the proposed deal:

"Hillenbrand is exactly the kind of player the Mets are looking for at third: he hits right-handed, is only 27 years old, makes less than $500,000 and is coming off an All-Star season. To get him, though, the Mets would have to satisfy Montreal General Manager Omar Minaya's asking price for ColZn or Vazquez.

I think there are a lot of questions as to whether Hillenbrand is really an all-star. He does have some interesting characteristics:

He's a right-handed batter who doesn't hit lefties very well (career OPS: .640 vs. LHP, .775 vs. RHP).

He's a Fenway player who hits better on the road (career OPS .650 home, .838 away).

He's shown very litte selectivity at the plate. Among players with at least 1000 AB over the last two years, Hillenbrand is tied with Christian Guzman for the fewest walks in the majors, 38.

He's an okay third baseman. He ranks tied for 10th in defensive win shares at third base among players with 100 games at the position last year, but more than once I've seen him make poor plays at the position.

So the Mets would get a cheap third baseman who may or may not be very good. If the Red Sox can pull off this trade and get Vazquez, they'll have a 1-2-3 punch in their rotation equal to or better than Oakland. It's not clear what the Expos will get, but it looks to me like a big win for the Red Sox and not such a great deal for the Mets."

MORE HALL OF FAME CHATTER

The latest Hall of Fame profile from Baseball Primer is on the hotly-debated career of Jim Rice.

Bill Madden detailed his Hall of Fame ballot in his Sunday column in the Daily News.

Madden wrote that there are six active players he would vote for induction if their careers ended today: Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Sammy Sosa and Tom Glavine. He added that Mike Piazza, Rafael Palmeiro and Robbie Alomar are not far behind.

I'm not sure if Madden assumes that Rickey Henderson and Tim Raines are practically retired, but it's curious he didn't mention either player. As for Pudge, Junior and the Big Hurt:

"A few weeks ago in this space it was discussed how Ken Griffey Jr. and Frank Thomas have had their routes to Cooperstown detoured by injuries and decline. This is why the Baseball Writers Association and the Hall of Fame have made 10 years the minimum requirement for election consideration. That brings us to Mariano Rivera, who is still nearly three years away from being eligible. Incredibly if something should happen to end his career prematurely, Rivera would not be eligible for the Hall of Fame despite all of his postseason brilliance. By the way, Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez have a few years to go, as well."

Gil Hodges

David Pinto, had an interesting posting regarding local favorite, Gil Hodges:

"Hodges for Hall? Jed Roberts pointed out this article on OpinionJournal.com, touting the late Gil Hodges for the Hall of Fame:

'They're looking at the wrong man.

'The Hall of Fame, that is. While the entire baseball world fixates on the ban on Pete Rose, a true injustice goes almost unheralded: the exclusion of Gil Hodges from baseball's Hall of Fame. The good news is that when members of the newly revamped Veterans Committee cast their ballots this month, they will have the perfect moment to right this wrong.

'Over 18 seasons, the Dodger first baseman hit 370 home runs, had seven straight seasons where he drove in more than 100 RBIs, won the National League's first three Golden Gloves for his position and was an eight-time All-Star. He played in seven World Series, where he twice hit game-winning home runs. As a manager, moreover, Hodges led the 1969 Miracle Mets to their first World Championship.

But the Hall of Fame isn't supposed to be just about numbers. Rule No. 5 states that voting should be based not only on the player's stats but on "integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.'

"Yes, that's what rule 5 says, but I believe it's a moderating condition. So if you have someone on the bubble, maybe his character pushes him over the edge. Of maybe you have someone like Rose, who would otherwise get in, but his poor character keeps him out (as a warning to others).

"So it seems to me, the question should be, 'Is Hodges on the bubble?' Gil was a regular for the Dodgers from 1948 through 1961. Let's look at the most win shares over that time:

1948-1961 Win Shares

Mickey Mantle 401
Stan Musial 398
Yogi Berra 347
Duke Snider 327
Eddie Mathews 319
Warren Spahn 318
Richie Ashburn 317
Ted Williams 312
Willie Mays 309
Minnie Minoso 277
Robin Roberts 277
Larry Doby 268
Nellie Fox 262
Gil Hodges 260
Eddie Yost 256
Hank Aaron 247
Jackie Robinson 236

"Given this list, it's hard to believe that Hodges was on the bubble. Look at Snider. They were teammates all during this time, and Snider put up 60 more win shares. Robinson was out of baseball by 1957, and Hodges barely beats him out. Mantle, Mathews, Mays and Williams beat him handily with fewer seasons played during the time period.

"Gil Hodges was a good ballplayer and a great man. If he had lived and was able to establish a dynasty with the Mets, I think he'd have a better chance of getting in as a manager. But I just don't see him as qualifying as a Hall of Famer based on his playing days. It's a nice sentiment, and it's good that someone remembers him well. The veterans committee has certainly made worse picks. But I just don't think he belongs."

Closers Getting Closer?

Rollie Fingers and Hoyt Wilhelm are the only two relievers currently in the Hall of Fame. I don't know how much better you need to be than Goose Gossage; perhaps things will begin to change next year when Dennis Eckeresly enters the equation. I've always felt that Sutter and the Goose deserve the nod. But it brings up the ambiguity that surrounds evaluating closers.

My cousin Gabe, for one, has always felt that closers are over-rated. Not that they aren't important, but that the notion of a star closer is often hyped way out of proportion. (Look at the bullpen by committee that the Red Sox have assembled this winter: Mendoza, Fox, Timlin, Rupe, Howry, Banks and Embree. When asked this weekend if he was comfortable with the absence of a traditional closer, Larry Lucchino said, "Bill James has been one who has argued there are other ways of using a bullpen, and I'm pleased with the guys we've taken.")

Here is yet another thought-provoking letter from Gabe:
"I wasn't planning on devoting time this morning to
baseball thoughts, but there's an article on espn.com
by Tracy Ringolsby asking why more closers aren't
elected to the Hall of Fame. How can I not respond?

Yet all I really want to say is 'thpptttt'.

The article speculates about the impermanency of the
position, how closers tend to change teams, play long
beyond their prime, and how the role has only really
existed for thirty years. These strike me as minor
factors, ones that might affect a borderline case at
any position but would not keep anyone out who truly
deserved to be in.

Lee Smith, the all-time save leader who is on the
ballot for the first time, is quoted: 'I don't
understand that. In the last 15, 20 years, no team has
won anything without a good closer. If they don't have
one, they don't win.'

I'm not sure what defines a good closer,
statistically, but upon reflection, I'm inclined to
agree with Big Lee on one count: namely, that teams
that have won the Series (with the exception of the
Diamondbacks) have had good closers. It is true that
Troy Percival, Mariano Rivera, Robb Nenn, Duane Ward
(underrated), Rick Aguilera (overrated), Dennis
Eckersley, and Randy Myers--the closers on
championship teams since 1990--were all good (or in
some cases great) relievers. But teams that win the
Series tend to be solid all around. Sure, they have
good closers, but they probably also have good set-up
men, good long relievers, good pinch hitters, good
defensive replacements, and good coaches--or, at
least, are strong in a number of these categories.

As always, to me the question is not why good closers
are not in the Hall of Fame, but how impressive is it
to be a good closer. In the mid-1980s, Davey Johnson
(who, incidentally, used two closers) played Kevin
Mitchell or Howard Johnson at shortstop, routinely
pulling them for Rafael Santana or Kevin Elster once
the Mets had a lead in the late innings.
Santana/Elster rarely, if ever, entered the game when
the Mets were traliing. Their purpose was to help
hold a lead and, as strong defensive players, I can
only assume they did that very well. How many times
they made plays HoJo or Mitchell wouldn't have or
would have flubbed, I don't know, but it could have
been a couple. Or look at Rusty Staub or John
Vanderwal or Lenny Harris, pinch hitters who are
typically saved until late in the game, when they have
a chance to tie a game or give their team a win. It's
more exciting than the defensive replacements, but I
think we generally agree that it's a similar,
complimentary role. What would a pinch hitter have to
do to be considered for all-star consideration, let
alone an mvp, let alone the Hall of Fame? A defensive
sub? Forget it.

Sometimes I wish I were a more mathematical person,
because I am sure that with the right tools I could
show that the position of closer is, for the most
part, closer to these secondary roles than it is to
anything resembling a Hall of Famer.

The smaller your sample, the less impressive it is to
stand out from the reset of the pack. If, as a
reserve player, you go 15 for 60, that's .250; but if
you go 18 for 60, that's .300; and 20 for 60 is
.333--a great batting average, if you translate it
into a full season of at bats. This is simple stuff.
We see it every April, when players start off hot or
cold. But the season doesn't end in April. It goes
five more whole months. We wouldn't let a regular
player go into the Hall of Fame with such a small
sampling, and I don't see why we would let a pitcher
in, either. Sure it's tense to pitch the ninth
inning. But is it tenser than pinch hitting in a key
spot? Is it tenser than pitching seven or eight
innings? Is it tenser than holding a lead in the
eighth, or entering tie game in the sixth with the
bases loaded? Or pitching the top of the ninth of an
important game, down by a run?

How the role of closer has assumed such mythic
proportions, I'm not sure, but I think agents probably
have something to do with it. If I'm Lee Smith, I
might be bummed that I missed huge salaries for
closers by five years. But the Hall of Fame argument,
as always, is a weak one, in my opinion."

Jack O'Connell, contributes to the conversation in his Hall of Fame piece for the Hartford Courant:

"I continue to support Gossage, one of the most intimidating relievers in the game's history, and Sutter, who perfected and popularized the split-finger fastball to the degree that he was the first reliever who shortened the game for opposing managers. One look at Sutter warming up in the bullpen, and the manager in the other dugout felt he was headed for the ninth inning, even though the game might still have been in the sixth.

Smith has the glaring statistic of 478 career saves, most in history, and is the career leader in saves for two franchises, the Cubs and the Cardinals. Just as Gossage, intimidation was part of Smith's game while, again like Gossage, underneath he was a teddy bear. Smith's 71-92 record is a blemish, but he spent many years on mediocre teams. He also holds the bogus record of most consecutive errorless games by a pitcher (546), which is ludicrous because for many of those "games" he was around for only an inning or two.

That alone might be why relievers get short shrift from the writers. There are really no stats that accurately measure a reliever's value. Won-lost record and ERA are unsatisfactory gauges because inherited runners who score are not charged to a reliever's record, and the closer is most often faced with a save-or-lose scenario. While I admit that Smith was exceptional at what he did, I cannot vote for him in front of Gossage or Sutter. If they have to wait, so should he."

Hall of Fame selections will be announed at 2 pm tomorrow.

I hope Kid Carter's wife hasn't planned too big of a "suprise party" for him this year, because it might be too much for him to have to cancel it again. All kidding aside, I think he should finally make it in this time round.