Ken Davidoff's baseball insider

It is amazing how slow this market has developed. We all started to think of the first day of free agency as Christmas morning for teams.

The article says the Angels might throw Johan's contract at C.C. -- so basically six years/138. Everyone assumes the Yankees would then just up their offer, but would they? Where do they go to get that separation -- 150? 160? I personally think that would be insane. How soon before C.C. and A-Rod's annual salaries meet?

Maybe I'm crazy, but I would be happy to see the Angels blow their budget on Sabathia and let Tex slip into the Yankees' hands. I think they would be better off with Tex/Burnett (even at five years) then C.C. alone.

That is some beautiful number crunching Ken.

Just furthers the theory (reality?) that players do not show the ability to hit well or poorly in the "clutch" over the long term. Players hit the same in any situation, in the long term.

Tim N. I'm curious who those players are, but your cut and paste was not all that effective since you were two slots off, at least on my computer. So it made it really hard to read. Was one Jim Rice?

Ken, I know the Mets will score some runs. Talent will do that. But I judge super super super super clutch only on the last week and playoffs. Sorta like A-Rod. And right now, if you said which Met do you want up with the game on the line in that spot, I dont know who my answer would be. Probably Beltran depending on how he was hitting that week.

Now I'm not one of those "haters" you're referring to. I dont want to break up Wright/Beltran/Reyes. I know how valuable they are and I also know you cant trade A-Rod for Brosious. But in a big spot, I'd rather have Brosious than A-Rod. You may think thats crazy, dumb, uninformed, perception based but there's a reason these perceptions exist. And the reason is in extreme clutch situations, the Mets and A-Rod haven't been able to get it done while their opponents have.

If and when the Angels make a offer to Sabathia, I would expect the Yanks would up their offer to Sabathia if they want him that badly. Don't forget if the Angels do sign Sabathia, they also would have to re-sign John Lackey to a new contract. Lackey will make $9 million next year and whatever Sabathia signs whether it is with the Yanks or Angels, Lackey is going to want a lot of money. And if Sabathia does sign with the Angels, then the Yanks with definitely turn their attention to Burnett, Lowe and Teixeria.

The Real Problem w/ Reyes --> It isn't so much his success/failure in clutch spots as it is his attitude and approach in clutch spots. Toward the end of the year with the season on the line, Reyes would often be clowning around before a big at bat, smiling his face off, then going up to the plate and hacking away at pitches out of the strike zone.

Reyes is a tremendous talent, so it's going to be hard to find any glaring statistics that explicitly point out his weaknesses. I think it's a feeling us Mets fans get when he's coming up in a big spot -- a bad approach and a non-serious attitude.

Would it kill Reyes to take a big at bat seriously? You know, go up to the plate with a disciplined approach or with any sort of plan? I'm tired of this "well that's just Reyes being Reyes" nonsense; he's won nothing and he's certainly not Manny Ramirez.

I think HoJo is very much to blame for much of Reyes and Wright's APPARENT struggles in clutch spots. Remember Wright's infamous at bat with Murphy on 3rd with no outs? Wright's approach was terrible--he totally forgot how to go the other way and he looked like he was trying to hit a grand slam with one man on, where all we needed was a fly ball out. Watching Wright try to pull a pitch that was 3 feet outside shows HoJo was hardly doing his job with Wright.

I know it's on the players, not the hitting coach to get the job done, but both Reyes and Wright's approach at the plate was way off at times this season, and I just want to know where the hitting coach was. If that's not a time to hold a hitting coach accountable, then I'm not sure there is ever a time.

RG,

Arod, career w/RISP: .303/.404/.553
Brosius, career w/RISP: .265/.334/.416

Arod, in the playoffs: .279/.361/.483
Brosius, in the playoffs: .245/278/.418

Arod, career in Sept.: .284/.378/.541
Brosius, career in Sept.: .243/.304/.370

You can have Brosius, I'll take A-Rod!!! Perception vs. reality my friend, perception vs. reality.

Kat writes: "With Nick Swisher able to play first base, and with corner outfielders in Johnny Damon and Xavier Nady, the Yankees lack obvious slots for Teixeira and Ramirez. But they could trade one of the trio to make room for Teixeira - Swisher could move into a corner outfield spot - or they could try dealing designated hitter Hideki Matsui to make room for Ramirez, who very likely will cost fewer years and dollars than Teixeira."

Shouldn't they be trying to trade Matsui even if they DON'T go after Tex or Manny? If there's a realistic scenario out there where someone would take Matsui off their hands, they should do it no matter what. Matsui is cooked.

What I don't understand is why there's no mention of trading Damon. Unlike Matsui, Damon has trade value. He hit quite well this year and is still a viable leadoff hitter for some team. His '08 numbers with the Yankees were actually superior to his last year with the Red Sox. And while my memory is definitely fuzzy, I seem to remember his injuries in '08 only coming from crashing into walls.

Damon has one year and 13 mil left on his contract. If the Yankees ate a few million, that makes Damon a one-year, 10-mil investment. That's cheap. The Brewers are paying Mike Cameron that amount. Getting rid of Damon -- or both him and Matsui -- open up incredible flexibility for this team.

Good one, Richie. Yes, Player B was Jim Rice. Player A currently rests in the "I don't know how we got here, but I ain't giving the plaque back" wing of the HOF along with Kirby Puckett, Bill Mazerowski, and Don Sutton. Sorry the alignment was off.

The more baseball I watch (thirtyCOUGH years now) the more I think this "clutch" and "late and close" stuff is just nonsense. And Ken, you know I'm no Reyes fan. But how come no one is looking at Ryan Howard's or Jimmy Rollins's "late and close" numbers for '08? Is it because their team won? No one ever talked about Bernie Williams's or Paul O'Neill's clutch splits, because nine times out of ten someone on that team came up with the big hit in the big spot.

It does seem like an annual rite of winter that we take the biggest stars on the most disappointing teams and bang out some number that says, "he doesn't hit when the game counts." The game counts for nine innings.

James, I've been the biggest A-Rod supporter here. I think he plays the game the right way, gets blamed for way too many things and the Yankees would be in severe trouble if they ever lost him. And I should have written playoff big spot.

But since Game 3 of the 04' ALCS ended, the guy has been nowhere come playoff time. Your including a lot of Seattle #'s there.

Gun to my head, I'd probably choose A-Rod since I do think one of these years he's gonna break out. But he's been anything but clutch in the playoffs. (Though I deem a 3-run first inning home run very clutch). The real player I'd want is Ortiz and then Pappi.

Tim, Rice is not in the HOF solely because he didn't talk to reporters. Solely. His abrupt end to his career is the excuse. I'll take Ken at his word since I know him but I wont take every member.

Jeez Richie, you'd make a good politician (talking around the topic). I didn't meant to praise or condemn A-Rod, just meant to show that it's foolish to say you'd rather have Brosius up over A-Rod in a big (or any) spot.

Although I guess Brosius is a "true Yankee" (along with Luis Sojo, Chad Curtis, Jose Vizcaino) so of course it would be better to have him up as opposed to "non true Yankee" A-Rod.

For the record, I'm in the "let Jose be Jose" camp. But I also wonder if he was stone faced, if there would be the same perception of him.

I honestly can't remember a situation where a mostly productive player had his body language, facial expressions and overall demeanor dissected more.

With Strawberry it was different because he clearly was not living up to his potential and later we learned at least one of the reasons why.

Bottom line, if the Mets bullpen didn't implode and the Mets had a productive postseason, Reyes would have been viewed as one of the, if not the, team MVPs.

To be perfectly honest, I was never totally sold on Rice's HOF credentials, but when you put them up against other who are there, you really need to examine them.

When players like Kirby Puckett are admitted, then that means that you have to take another look at a whole class of players whom you might otherwise dismiss.

Check this out (will try to align better):
Puckett
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB
1783 7244 1071 2304 414 57 207 1085 3453 450
SO OBP SLG AVG
965 .360 .477 .318

Guess who?
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB
1785 7003 1007 2153 442 20 222 1099 3301 588
SO OBP SLG AVG
444 .358 .471 .307

Ken do you really think that Mussina has a WORSE shot at getting into the HOF with the players voting for it instead of writers? I think writers see more, follow the game closer and understand what stats a guy is putting up. A player on the field just knows what he sees when he plays him. I would think a player would think more highly of the Moose than the writers do, because there is a perception without looking at numbers that he was great, not Greg Maddux great, but great nonetheless.
Jim Rice belongs, he hit and he learned to field well. He wasn't liked by the Boston writers because....guess why? And he didn't like them because they treated him unfairly. On the whole, the media does hold grudges. If it comes to the Veteran's Committee to get him in, which i doubt, because he should go in this year, they will put him in without question the first time he is eligible.

Eddie Murray had a grudge with the media for years. But Murray is in the HOF because he has over 500 home runs and over 3,00 hits. Rice should be in the HOF, but I don't know if he will voted in the writers ballot since I believe this is the last year Rice is eligible to be voted into the HOF by the writers.

Food for thought - Jim Rice's home vs. road numbers:

Home: 4507 PA's, .320/.374/.546, 208 HR
Away: 4551 PA's, .277/.330/.459, 174 HR

He's a below average hitter everywhere but Fenway. Note: "PA" = plate appearance

Those away averages aren't below average. They would either be considered average or slightly above, but not below.

At this point in the Sabathia saga, when it appears he really doesn't want to come to NY, I would pull the offer off the table, go hard after Burnett and Lowe and try to sign Teixeira. If they do sign Tex, I would then trade Swisher. I can't see offering the sun, the moon and the stars to someone that really doesn't want to be in NY when there are other players that do want to play here. If the Yankees sign the three players that I listed here, they will be able to field very strong team in 2009. They have the bucks and now have a philosophy that indicates a propensity to spend, so let them go ahead and get these guys.

Rice's away averages are "below average" for a player in the Hall of Fame who fits into his category. Rice was a very good player for a particular stretch in time but he wasn't at that level long enough to merit HOF induction.

OK, catching up...

baileywalk, I wrote that story on the Yankees, not Kat. I think the Yankees would be happy to trade Matsui. It's just a matter of a) who would take him?; b) how much of his $13 million salary would the team pay; and c) Would Matsui waive his no-trade clause to go there. I think the Yankees would give up Damon in the right deal, but he's a pretty good asset to have for themselves, isn't he?

Richie, how can you say that Rice isn't in the Hall of Fame solely because of his approach with the media? I've never met the man. I assure you I won't factor in his attitude when I vote this year. I don't doubt that many voters have a personal dislike for Rice, but I think there is a solid, statistical argument to be made against his induction.

Sandy, I don't understand your question about Mussina and the Hall of Fame.

Sandy,

I should clarify what I meant by "below league average." Here are Rice's road numbers and the overall league average in BA/OBP/SLG in all situations during his career:

Rice, career on the road: .277/.330/.459
League avg, during his career: .271/.337/.407

First off, his OBP is indeed below league average. But I meant league average, factoring in his position. Rice's road numbers are quite poor for a corner OF/DH. Do you disagree?

Ken, didn't you think it was silly for the media to give Harlan Chamberlain so much attention? The fist pumping, interviews, etc? Who is Phil Hughes' mother and father? That's right - no one knows. I laughed when Michael Kay interviewed the Chamberlain family on his TV show. I don't know why I'm thinking about this now, but I hope it doesn't get replayed next year.

What can I tell you, Jack? We're all suckers for personal stories. For Joba to be Native American, raised by his dad who had polio as a child...I understand why it sold. Of course, it then all exploded in his face when he was asked to speak for his son's DUI.

So, then I can put you down as one of those who didn't think it was silly? OK. I guess these differences prevent the world from being boring.

Will Ron Guidry ever work on the big league level again, Ken?

What is happening with I-Rod. Will he sign with anyone or is it over for him?

Will Barry Bonds ever get convicted? Will he even ever go to trial?

"What does this way about Mussina's Hall of Fame candidacy? To me, it just magnifies how very good - and yes, often great - he was for a very long time. But again, I'd say it's a pretty decent chance that, by the time Mussina gets on the ballot in 2014, this won't even be the BBWAA's decision."

Ken I might have read it with the wrong interpretation, but I thought that paragraph says the writers would vote him in but it would be out of there hands in 2014 therefore he might not.

James I wouldn't say those numbers are quite poor for a corner OF/DH--obviously the average and slugging are much better and on-base is slightly lower. I'd have to look closer at the guys in the OFs during his career to see how that stacked up, but to be honest if you are only looking at a very good player, they are quite acceptable. For a HOF'er maybe not, it depends on the rest of the guys he played against. I wonder how they compare to a guy like Paul O'Neill's or even someone like Reggie Smith or Mike Greenwell?

Ken, as I said, I take you at your word that you wont snub Rice based on his media relations. Obviously you never met the man. Though like I said last year, I'm not sure someone of our age should be voting for someone as old as Rice since we cant possibly have the same perspective as teenagers. I mean I was a huge fan of baseball...a much bigger fan than I am now, and I thought Kent Tkulve and Keithe Hernandez were automatic.

Looking back, I do think Rice deserves to be in and I really think there is a media bias against him and Albert Belle. I shouldn't have said the only reason...but I was rushed and annoyed this morning. And I think if they were personable charcters they'd both get a lot more consideration.

As for Reyes, James can attest to this. His VOORP is 50 points higher when he dances. Seriously though, you take away his antics I think you take away his emotion and it turns into a bad thing. As long as the guy plays his butt off, which he normally does I'm ok. I dont like his antics sometimes, but if he's trying to be someone else, he wont be able to perform at his peak.

That was me. Anyway, even though they are in different leagues maybe a comparison between Rice, Greg Luzinski and Dale Murphy would be better. Also remember pitching back then was considerably better and different than now, so the stats from then might have to be adjusted somehow to today's standards.

Sorry for missing the byline, Ken. D'oh! I should have remembered Kat's on vacation anyway.

Damon does have value, but getting rid of him relieves salary slightly and also opens the door for Tex (with Swish moving to left field). I'd rather it be Matsui, but I agree... who would be crazy enough to want him?

But to me stats are all relative anyway. Depending how you want to use them, you can make a good argument for someone and using the same stats someone could make a good argument against someone.
Two more points--People say Bill Mazeroski shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. People look at his stats and say he doesn't belong and got in because of one very famous HR. Not true, he got in because when he played he was considered the greatest fielding 2nd baseman in baseball history, and unless you saw him play you wouldn't know that unless you are extremely well-read and a true (unlike a schmo like Bob Costas) baseball historian.
Also during his time, Ken Boyer was considered the equivalent to Brooks Robinson, and was the best 3rd baseman in the National League. Brooks is in, Boyer is not and will never be yet people say Ron Santo belongs in (and unfortunately he will probably be voted in by the veteran's), but he doesn't belong because he wasn't the best 3rd baseman in his league and that guy isn't in although he has offensive and defensive stats to back him up. Very similar to Santo as well and he won, Santo didn't.

Oyy Sandy - the way you compare a player to others of his era is to look at how he did compared to league averages. This is precisely what I did for Rice.

It cannot be denied that playing in Fenway ridiculously inflated his career stats. Was Rice a good player? Of course. Is he HOF worthy? In my opinion, no. One last time, just for fun:

Rice, career @ Fenway: .320/.374/.546
Rice, career on the road: .277/.330/.459
All Major Leaguers, during Rice's career: .271/.337/.407

I have a problem admitting a player to the HOF who's OBP was below league average on the road. This is a pretty low standard. Sandy, if we don't use stats to evaluate players, what do you propose we use? I have no bias for or against Rice, this is completely objective. If Rice was a SS, C or 2B, his case would be much stronger.

Why not use the candy bar theory for HOF nomination?

Babe Ruth had one named after him (actually not but why spoil it?), Reggie Jackson had one and Albert Belle had one.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/52433

--

Sandy - if Ron Santo is inducted, it will mean that the Cubs had four HOF'ers on their 60's squad - Billy Williams, Ernie Banks, Ferguson Jenkins and Santo. You would think they'd at least win a title in the process!!!

And a positive comment on Mussina's chances. With Randy Johnson's 300 comingin 2009, it may be the last 300 game winner we ever see. In that vein, Mussina's 270 wins becomes more of a positive, as he is not held up and compared against the mythic 300 number.

Also, I don't understand all the outpouring of support for Jim Rice, when, imo, Dwight Evans had just as good a career if not better.

Evans was an above average OF, while Rice was brutal in the field (statistically - I cannot remember seeing either play as I was 1 year old in 1986). Evans fell off the ballot years ago while it seems sportswriters have an aneurysm every year when Rice fails to be inducted.

See James I saw Rice play and I don't need stats to know he was one of the best and most feared players of his era. Just like I said above you can use stats to argue for or against anyone even the same stats. That is why HOF voters have had to cover baseball a certain amount of years to qualify. Yes, stats count a lot, but guys like Ozzie Smith, Cal Ripken (who I always thought was in for what he did not stats) and Mazeroski don't have great HOF stats and if I actually went through most of the guys who have been elected recently, I'd bet more wouldn't than would. I think the voters actually saw these guys play, knew they were great and voted them in partly on stats, partly on what they saw. If we only used stats, Dave Kingman and JoseCanseco would be in, and a whole list of guys from the 60s and 70s who have better stats than guys getting in today like Tony Oliva. But you compare them to players of the same era and see if they rate by what you saw and stats. I mean nobody would say Willie mays isn't one of the greatest players of all-times, but there is some stats guy out there who could make a real good case that he wasn't.
As for Evans, for most of his career he played in the shadows and complemented guys like Rice, Yaz, Fisk, Freddy Lynn, Boggs. He was an ok player but certainly not great.

Bob I think there will always be 300 game winners. Special players do special things. I know with pitch counts and bullpens and smaller parks will make it harder, but I'd bet a lot of money that there will be a 300 game winner out of someone in the league right now (outside of Randy Johnson of course).

Sandy I agree with you completely. I think if you didn't cover the person, you shouldn't be allowed to vote for or against them. Its nothing personal...but a 14-year-old shouldn't be expected to make a decision if a player is HOFer or not.

Sandy,

My goodness you have a poor understanding of stats. Ozzie Smith is perhaps the greatest defensive SS of all time, both in perception and statistically. His WARP and FRAA are incredible. He is a legit HOF'er. Cal Ripken's stats are INCREDIBLE considering he is a SS. We have to take into account a player's position for these determinations - we cannot compare Ripken to Rice because Ripken played the 2nd hardest position while Rice played the easiest, where offense players are at a premium.

And no, Kingman is absolutely NOT a HOF'er, I don't know where you got that from. His career OBP is .302.

I'll have to remind myself not to get into debates like this with you in the future. "I don't need stats to tell me if a player is HOF material - I only need my eyes" - this is a stubborn and misinformed statement. It's like saying "I dont need evidence to tell me if a guy on trial is guilty - I can tell he's guilty just by looking at him!"

Also, please direct me to the "stats guy" who can make a case that Willie Mays isn't great. You clearly just made that up and have not seen something of the sort.

You act like I have some sort of agenda in saying which players I think are Hall worthy or not - I don't. I just believe in using objective measures (i.e. stats) rather than perceptions which vary from person to person (i.e. "he was most dominant i don't care what the cold hard evidence says!")

According to Joel Sherman of the NY Post, the Mets apparently offer Heilman to the Rockies for Huston Street after the Rockies acquired Street in the Matt Holliday deal. The Rockies then ask the Mets to include Pedro Feliciano as part of the deal and the Mets said no. It would have been a 2-for-1 deal in which the Rockies get 2 pitchers while the Mets get 1 pitcher in return.
Albert Belle after the '98 season opted out of his contract with the White Sox and became a free agent. You can say that Belle was actually the 1st player to opted out of his contract because since then A-Rod opted out of his contract last year and got a better contract from the Yanks and Burnett opted out of his contract this year.

James I was just using the Willie Mays thing as an example that some guy out there COULD use the same stats that say he was one of the greatest of all-times and say no he wasn't because....and probably make a really good case for himself. It's extreme I know.
See there was also a time when SS could not be elected to the HOF because of offensive limitations. Ozzie Smith because of his defense changed that, but his offensive stats aren't that good. Like I said Mazeroski made it because he was considered the greatest defensive 2nd baseman ever at the time he played. But defense really didn't cut it for voters back then and kept him out. And totally forget about relief pitchers, they certainly didn't belong they pitch relief because they weren't good enough to start. Things evolve.
Baseball is different now, a lot of stats are inflated due to smaller ballparks and poor pitching, you cant look at someone's stats from the 70s say they are inferior to what you perceive to be great stats for today and say he doesn't belong.
Here's one for you from today--Even though they didn't play the same position, Jeff Kent and Jim Rice are mostly in the same boat, they could be good enough to be in, both weren't very popular with the media and you could say both were dominant players at their positions. Would you put Jeff kent in? I say he goes in eventually maybe like Rice on his last election, but he isn't a slam dunk to get in either. Just like Rice.
There are already people out there who think Jjeter doesn't belong and I'm almost certain he goes in first ballot.
And just to clarify I said I don't need just stats to tell me that rice was one of the most feared players in the game, I know he had plenty of stats, but I saw it too. There were a few years he was hurt that might have cost him automatic induction. I also said writers partly use stats and what they saw. His basic problem in Boston was he replaced Yaz in LF, and the homer Boston writers took an extreme dislike to him while they loved Yaz (not to mention Tony C who was almost like a god up there) so he never got the credit from them that he was due.

Jack, I thought the coverage of Harlan Chamberlain was understandable. It's a pretty unique story.

Ron Guidry won't ever work as a big-league coach again. Pudge will surely get a job somewhere, on a one-year deal. I predicted Florida in my free agent predictions.

I think Bonds will be tried and acquitted.

Sandy, I think James K. is trying to answer your questions. You keep saying there's no way to compare stats across the eras, but there is: OPS+ and ERA+. .

And I don't understand the "You have to see a guy first-hand to know if he's a Hall of Famer" argument. Memories and perception fade and change over time. Stats are permanent. I remember Jim Rice as being dominant when I grew up watching him. But the stats don't back that up.

I disagree that only writers who covered a player should vote on that player for HOF membership. With every game available on TV or the internet and the tremendous volume of stats, any writer has more than enough information to make an informed judgment.

I, too, remember Rice being dominant, but I didn't realize how short a time that was until I studied his stats. His career was a good one, but clearly not a HOF one.

As an aside on the stats/HOF debate - Many of the early ballparks were even smaller bandboxes than the ones in existence now.

I try not to have a completely closed mind on these matters. For example, I was vehemently opposed to Bert Blyleven getting into the HOF. I read what Ken wrote on the subject, studied Blyleven's stats a little bit closer, looked at the teams he played on, read a little more, and concluded I was wrong, that he did merit election.

There's a lot of educated people commenting here, led by Ken. We are wasting these valuable resources if all we do is get defensive and refuse to consider other points of view and facts we might have missed.

I see George Mitchell is praising himself and Bud Selig in a NYT article that will be published tomorrow in the paper. He also gives some credit to the MLBPA. Was the report really worth the $20 million Mitchell's law firm was paid?

Here's the story link for anyone that is interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/sports/baseball/26mitchell.html?ref=sports

Ken and James stats show that Larry Walker and Andres Galarraga were dominant too but we know that was because they played in Colorado. It can't all be stats. Like I said writers must use stats because they count a lot and what they saw.
Ken, God knows I hate math, but wouldn't the OPS+ be lower then because the ballparks were bigger, more guys have higher slugging pcts and more runs are being scored now I would guess also and the parks are more favorable to them and ERA+ be higher than then because parks are smaller now and not favorable to pitchers? Isn't that why they only use 3 year ranges for that stat?

What about next year and 2010?

from the HOF website, here are the top players eligible...

2009: Steve Avery, Jay Bell, Mike Bordick, John Burkett, David Cone, Ron Gant, Mark Grace, Rickey Henderson, Todd Hundley, Orlando Merced, Denny Neagle, Jesse Orosco, Dan Plesac, Rick Reed, Greg Vaughn, Mo Vaughn, Matt Williams

2010: Roberto Alomar, Kevin Appier, Andy Ashby, Ellis Burks, Dave Burba, Andres Galarraga, Pat Hentgen, Mike Jackson, Eric Karros, Ray Lankford, Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Mark McLemore, Shane Reynolds, David Segui, Robin Ventura, Fernando Vina, Todd Zeile

--

Rickey seems to be the only one in 2009. I will be interested to see what happens with Edgar Martinez, the first almost 100% DH
to be on the list and Roberto Alomar.

Sandy, no. The whole point of ERA+ and OPS+ is they reflect each season and only that season. An average hitter in 1998 might have had 15 homers, for argument's sake, and an average hitter in 1908 would've had two homers. And an average hitter has a 100 OPS+. And it all flows from there. And they factor in ballparks, as well.

Sandy, perfect example of what I'm saying: In 1997, Larry Walker won the NL MVP Award with 49 homers and a .452-.720-1.172 line while playing at hitter-friendly Coors. His OPS+ was 178.

Mike Piazza, meanwhile, playing his home games in cavernous Dodger Stadium, hit 40 and OPSed .431.638-1.069. HIs OPS+? 185.

Jack, thanks for the Mitchell link. He really disgusts me.

Ken -

http://www.dlapiper.com/george_mitchell/

During his tenure, Senator Mitchell earned enormous bipartisan respect. It has been said "there is not a man, woman or child in the Capitol who does not trust George Mitchell."

Ken - I dare you to call DLA Piper and ask if this is an actual quote attributed to a real person..

"Sandy, perfect example of what I'm saying: In 1997, Larry Walker won the NL MVP Award with 49 homers and a .452-.720-1.172 line while playing at hitter-friendly Coors. His OPS+ was 178.

Mike Piazza, meanwhile, playing his home games in cavernous Dodger Stadium, hit 40 and OPSed .431.638-1.069. HIs OPS+? 185."

- I'm gonna have to nominate this one for comment of the week. A perfect illustration.

Bob, gigantic LOL on that one. I wonder if Piper has a PR person?

James, thanks, but I am not eligible for the Comment of the Week award. Besides, I think I swiped the general idea for that from "Baseball Between the Numbers."

George Mitchell was despised by Republicans. He was/is an intense left wing partisan. Like so many others in Washington, he has cashed in on his public service. That quote is from the Bipartisan Policy Center and attributed to a bipartisan group of senior congressional aides. Elected Republicans hated the guy.

Ken, I liked your article tonight on CC and I wouldn't care if he went to the Angels or if Andy P signs with LA. I think the CC $$$ are very risky and that Andy P's second half was so bad that it just might be time for him to go. He certainly doesn't deserve $16 million a year.