The Seventies.

Welcome to Part 4 of the Hall of Fame blog. In this section we will be covering a lot of the worst selections ever to the Hall, mostly due to the Veterans committee that was headed by Frankie Frisch and was made up of his old cronies. They were mostly old Cardinals and Giants beat writers who really were only interested in electing a lot of the players they were friends with through the years, which meant a lot of Cardinals and Giants players that were no where near Hall of Fame caliber.

1979- Hack Wilson, Willie Mays

Hack Wilson- No- Hack Wilson only collected 1461 hits in his career. I am not a huge fan of basing things on cumulative stats alone, but that total is just too tiny. He was a quality player, but not that great of one. His .940 OPS is impressive, but when you look at the time period he played its not nearly that impressive. His best years came at a time when nearly every team in baseball batted .300 as a team. A time period that even dwarfed the Nineties and early 2000’s in its offensive ridiculousness. In fact it wasn’t that uncommon for a team to have a couple of players batting in the .380 range. He is a much less quality Hall of Fame pick than guys like Moises Alou and Jim Edmonds, and that’s not even taking into account Edmonds defense, purely based on his offense. His greatest year came in 1930 when he knocked in 191, but this is probably the single greatest offensive year in baseball history. His entire teams batting average was .309 with a .378 OBP and .481 slugging. That’s just silly high for team numbers. He finished tenth in the batting race that year, and he batted .356. All in all, with his numbers actually being inflated in value, and his lack of career totals Hack Wilson only belongs in the Cubs Hall of Fame.

Willie Mays- Yes- Nothing to say here, anybody that questions his being place amongst the greatest of all time knows nothing about the game.

1978-Eddie Matthews, Addie Joss

Eddie Matthews-Yes- Maybe not the greatest defensive third basemen of all time, but he was definitely serviceable, and his offensive value puts him amongst the greatest all time at his position. His .885 OPS might be a tad lower than you would expect, but he played in an offensively repressed time period.

Addie Joss-Yes- His career was short, and tragically cut short by a fatal duel with tuberculosis, but he was brilliantly great in his ten years. A career .623 winning percentage is impressive, and even more so because it was so much greater than his teams won loss percentage. Every years of his career he was one of the two or three best pitchers in baseball and his career 1.89 ERA is phenomenal even by the standards of his time.

1977-Joe Sewell, Amos Rusie, Ernie Banks

Joe Sewell-Yes- This guy could play. Good defensive shortstop with a career .312 average. He threw in a career OBP of .391 and a slugging of .413 just for good measure. The slugging isn’t anything to write home about really, but the .391 OBP is excellent. Sewell of course is a man who was very hard to strike out, so hard that he only struck out 114 in his career. He had a few seasons where he struck out as few as 3 or 4 times with nearly 700 plate appearances. This is ridiculously impressive. 112 times in his career, and by today’s standards that many times in a season wouldn’t be that many.

Amos Rusie- Who knows- Frankly I just don’t know enough about pre-1900’s baseball to decide who should or should not be in from that time period, and I am not really sure anybody does. At first glance his 3.09 ERA seems high, but I just don’t really know. He did pitch over 500 innings in a season twice, which seems ridiculous. He led the league in losses as many times as he did in wins.

Ernie Banks- Yes- Ernie Banks was not a great player and his value as a shortstop is overstated. He actually played more games at first base (1259) than he did at shortstop. (1125) And when he did play short he was average at best. Actually he gets a ton of press as the only member of the 500 club who is a shortstop, when in reality, I don’t even know why he is listed as a shortstop in the Hall of Fame, as generally they go by what position you played the most games at. In actuality he was done as a shortstop before he was even 30. I guess he is listed at that position because he played there when he was a back-to-back MVP. But in actuality he should have never have won either award. In 1958 Willie Mays was clearly the better player and in 1959 Hank Aaron was even more clearly the better player. His career OPS is low at .830. The only reason I am including him is he was a great player for a few years, probably top 5 in the league, and he cranked out a lot of offensive production and homers when that was very difficult to do, and in a park that made it even more difficult. Wrigley played very pitcher friendly until the late sixties.

1976-Robin Roberts, Freddie Lindstrom, Bob Lemon, Roger Connor.

Robin Roberts-No- He wasn’t really that good. He did win 20 games six times, which is actually one of my milestone type numbers. But he was actually really bad in some years, posting ERA’s over 4.00 in years that were actually very weak offensive years. His winning percentage wasn’t that great, and he also missed 3000 k’s so he doesn’t have that milestone going for him. He also missed 300 wins, although not by much, but with as many decisions as he had it’s a mark he should have hit honestly.

Freddie Lindstrom- No- Mister Lindstrom was pretty good, but he only got in because of Frisch. He was reputed as a good defender, but that doesn’t really seem to be the case and he only had 9 years as a regular player, which were played in the high octane twenties and thirties, so his .311 BA is overinflated and his .351 OBP less than impressive. 1747 career hits, 103 career homeruns, no MVP awards, less than 1000 RBI’s and runs. He only finished in the top ten in the MVP voting twice, so all in all it looks like he is a stretch as a Hall of Famer.

Bob Lemon- No - I am frankly amazed that Bob Lemon got into the Hall of Fame via the vote. His career record is 207-128 for a .618 winning percentage. This is deceptively good. He played on a lot of REALLY good Cleveland Indians teams, and if you go year by year his winning percentage was often below that of his team, and when it wasn’t’ it only met the teams, or was marginally better. True its hard to be significantly better than your teams WP when it’s a good team, but you never want to be below it. His career era was 3.23, which is a bit high. He did do very well in the MVP voting, but I think his reputation is greater than the sum of his parts. He was a very good hitter for a pitcher. He gave up a large number of walks and hits, which tells me he was a very hittable pitcher who played for a very good team.

Roger Connor-I guess- Pre 1900 first basemen. His OPS was .883, which seems high, but frankly pre-1900 baseball just isn’t my think. My knowledge starts at 1900.

1975- Ralph Kiner, Billy Herman, Earl Averill

Ralph Kiner- Yes- There is a balance between having a long career and putting up cumulative numbers. I am not a big fan of the average player who played for 18 seasons while never being great and puts up 3001 hits and gets into the Hall of Fame. However, there is a balance, if a player only plays 10-12 years and hasn’t put up anywhere close to any good cumulative totals it makes it equally hard to include him. To get into the Hall of Fame with a short career you have to have exhibited greatness. Ralph Kiner was great, he led the league in homers his first seven year in the league, so that means in his ten year career he was the home run leader 7 times. Nice ratio. He also put up a nice career .946 OPS. His OBP was nearly .400 at .398 and I am a sucker for guys with a .400 career OBP. He definitely displayed greatness in his time in the big leagues.

Billy Herman- Yes- Slow as snot, but a great defender, and without a question the greatest hit and run man of all time. This guy could find a way to hit a pitch 15 feet over his head through the hole. The OPS was a little low at .774, but he hit .304 and he was legitimately a good hitter who is one of better defenders historically at his position. Given his defensive prowess he makes it in, although he is not one of the strongest candidates.

Earl Averill- Yes- Played during a high octane time period, but he was still exceptional even when the offense slowed down. He played with a chip on his shoulder, always feeling like he never got the credit he deserved, and by many accounts he wasn’t that pleasant of a teammate. But he could hit, he could get on base, and he could slug. And he was a great defensive centerfielder, which is what really seals the deal for his inclusion. His career OPS was .928. And although he didn’t reach 3000 hits, he was at least over 2000.

1974- Sam Thompson, Mickey Mantle, Whitey Ford, Jim Bottomley,

Sam Thompson –Meh- I really need to do some research in regards to Pre-1900 players. I need a pre-1900 baseball scholar.

Mickey Mantle- Yes- It’s the Mick; of course he is a Hall of Famer. There is no question that he was one of the elite to play the game, what is just scary is what this guys potential was. His basically played hobbled his entire career, having a serious knee injury his first year. Apparently this robbed him of some speed early on, but he was still blazing fast. What could this guy have done if he was healthy even for half his career? I mean seriously look what he did with two bad legs.

Whitey Ford- Yes- I should leave him out on principle, as he was just as big a cheater as Gaylord Perry. However, unlike Gaylord he has never flaunted the fact he was successful because of doctoring the ball, so I guess I will just do like most of baseball historians do and ignore it. Whitey Ford did the most important thing a pitcher can do, he just won ball games. At an amazing clip, even counting how good his teams were. He posted a 236-106 record for an astounding .690 winning percentage. You could count on him to win ballgames for you. More so than any pitcher of his time.

Jim Bottomley-No – I be over critical of Cardinals players because I don’t want to show a bias, but Sunny Jim was another one of Frisch’s veterans committee picks. He had some really great years with the Cardinals in the first few years of his career, but he shut it down in the second half of his career. The problem was for about 9 years he put up decent looking percentage numbers, but unfortunately it was during the late 20’s through the 30’s. His percentage numbers, although they look impressive, were actually only average for the time, or even a little below average. For example he hit .304, .368, .493 in 1930. This looks like a pretty decent, even good line. However, the team as a whole hit .314, .372, .471. Except for the slugging, he was actually below average for his team on the other two numbers. There are more years like this as well.

1973-Mickey Welch, Warren Spahn, George Kelly, Monte Irvin, Roberto Clemente.

Mickey Welch-Meh- See other pre-1900 entries.

Warren Spahn- Yes- 8 time 20 game winner. 3 time ERA champ, and 4-time strikeout leader. He won 363 games while putting up a .597 winning percentage. There isn’t much to argue with on Spahn’s resume, although I do find those that consider him to be the best lefty of all time to be a bit laughable.

George Kelly-No- Oh look at this, it’s amazing its another marginable Giant picked by the Frankie Frisch and Friends Veterans Committee. Decent OPS but he only played 8 seasons as a regular, and those were most definitely not great seasons. Under 2000 hits for his career, very limited amount of games played, and he failed to display greatness in any single season.

I am skipping Monte Irvin because he got in based at least half on his Negro league career. He was a Giant as well though.

Roberto Clemente-Yes- Remembered in death as a much nicer person than he was in real life by all accounts. A good person yes, but a prickly one all the same. I think I would feel bad if I didn’t take him. He was a great player.

1972- Ross Youngs, Early Wynn, Sandy Koufax, Lefty Gomez, Yogi Berra.

Ross Youngs-No- What do you know, another career Giant voted in by the Frisch Veterans Committee, and another one at that with essentially an 8 year career. This isn’t even funny anymore. He was a much better player than Kelly. I guess, kind of hard to tell with a guy who didn’t even make it to 1500 hits an whose career was over before 30. I am voting no out of principle.

Early Wynn-I don’t know- I don’t really think he is a hall of famer. He had a career 3.54 ERA, which is pretty high. He hit 300 wins, but with 244 losses, and he played for some pretty good teams. If you want to take him just because he got 300 wins then I guess you can, but other than that he was an alright pitcher who was kind of a jerk and was never really great.

Sandy Koufax- Wow- Ok, this one is tough. There comes to a debate. Is a player has five great, truly great, compared to any time of history kind of great years is that worthy of being in the Hall of Fame? What if they were the only five good years the player had period? This is what makes Sandy Koufax so tough to gauge. The last five years of his career were ridiculous. He led the league in ERA all five years, he lead in strikeouts three of those years, and in wins three of those years. He won three Cy Young Awards, an MVP, and three pitching triple crowns. He tossed up some ridiculous won loss records, such as 25-5, 26-8, 27-9. Career he is 165-87, for a very stellar .655. The problem is other than those fives years he was average for one year, and then actually quite poor for five years. ERA’s of 3.91, 4.05, 4.48, 3.88, and 4.91. Nothing to write home about, and actually quite the opposite. So if you answer that yes, five great years makes you a hall of famer, regardless of the quality of the other years then he is a Hall of Famer, if you answer no that a player needs to demonstrate quality in more than just five great years, then Koufax does not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. It an argument that can be made since he essentially balanced five great years with five very poor years.

Yogi Berra –Yes- He screwed Minnie Minoso out of an MVP twice, and Al Kaline out of one once. He only possibly deserved one of the 3 MVP awards he won, with his last being an outright travesty. As it is I have always felt that Yogi was an overrated player who has more mythos around him than fact. People like to put him in the greatest catcher ever debate, and I don’t even think he is the greatest catcher to wear a Yankee uniform. That being said he was still a great player, although his loveable nature is a modern construct, he was actually quite grumpy and contrary as a player. He is a St. Louis boy, and the Cardinals decided to go with Joe Garagiola instead. That worked out great for them. Yogi’s spot as a Hall of Famer is pretty much beyond contestation; only his debate as to where he stands amongst the greats is in debate.

1971-Rube Marquard, Joe Kelley, Harry Hooper, Chick Hafey, Jake Beckley, Dave Bancroft.

Rube Marquard-No- Oh look, something we haven’t seen before, a marginal ex-Giant player elected in via the Frankie Frisch Veterans Committee. Marquard was a career 201-177, with 1593 career K’s. He had a career 3.08 ERA, and he never led the league in ERA. Nothing at all that really hints and a career that would merit being inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Joe Kelley- This guy seemed like he could really hit, but all his good years were pre-1900 so, as with the others I am not really passing judgment.

Harry Hooper- Yes – I have had the luck to have read two books about Hooper, and I have discovered a lot of interesting things about it. However, the most important to the cause here is the fact that year in and year out he was considered one of the best defensive outfielders in the game, one of the smartest players, one of the fastest, and best base runners, and one of the strongest armed as well. He hit .281 for his career with a .368 OBP and he collected 2466 hits. He was an excellent postseason performer with a career .806 OPS in 4 different World Series appearances.

Chick Hafey-No- The Frankie Frisch Veterans Committee strikes again, this time with a Cardinal instead of a Giant. Same principle though. Hafey was a good hitter, although his .898 OPS are greatly inflated by the era. He was a terrible defender though, and I mean Dave Kingman bad. Not only that he really only had two seasons in his career where he played in more than 140 games, and he barely got to that mark. It was due to injuries, but still he was essentially a career part time player. He only gathered 1466 career hits.

Jack Beckley- Bah all of these damn pre-1900 players. Baseball shouldn’t count before 1900.

Dave Bancroft-No – Who is keeping count? Here is another Giant brought in by the Veteran’s committee. Bancroft was a decent but unremarkable player who put up a .714 OPS while suffering from the same problem as Hafey; Most of his career was spent in 100-120 game seasons. An unremarkable player undeserving of the Hall of Fame.

1970-Jesse Haines, Earle Combs, Lou Boudreau

Jesse Haines-No- Once again a Cardinal instead of a Giant brought in by Frisch. There is not one single reason that Haines should have been picked other than he was a friend of Frisch. His career ERA was 3.64. He had 210 wins to 158 losses, which is ok, but not stellar considering the really high ERA. Only had 981 career strike outs, never lead the league in wins, or ERA or anything really. Was completely average except for the fact he pitched 17 seasons with the Cardinals. That I respect, but it is not reason enough to be a Hall of Famer. It should be telling that he was a career Cardinal, and he had a number, yet it is not retired. Ken Boyer’s number is, and he isn’t a Hall of Famer, but Haines isn’t. Why? Because he was that valuable to the Cardinals.

Earle Combs-No- Basically just repeating all the stuff I have said many time in this decade for Veterans Committee picks. Combs could really hit, but his career was really short, just like all the other Vet picks. If he could have sustained it for five more years he would be a Hall of Famer, but unfortunately he got a late start.

Lou Boudreau-Yes- I am making a border line pick based on personal reasons. I had a Lou Boudreau card as a kid and I though he had the coolest name and I wished my name was Lou Boudreau. I thought it would have been cool if my Dad had named me Boudreau after him rather than Ryan after Nolan Ryan. Actually I think Boudreau did a lot more for his teams to help them with than Nolan Ryan did. He was a good shortstop, not great but he could hit. Career percentage numbers of .295, .380, .415.

Draft Pick Salary Demands

I thought about this for a while this morning. Most people are quick to say that baseball draft picks should shut up and take very little, and not demand a lot of money since, unlike the NFL and NBA they will not be contributing on the field for their team for at least a year or two. I decided to think about it by putting myself in their shoes and try to come up with what I would do if faced with the same decisions they were. First of all, I was as big a fan of baseball when I was playing high school ball as I am now, and I am sure some of the players drafted are the same. I was a student of the history of the game, and I had allegiances and ideas about teams. I would find it impossible to just go where I was drafted and not say anything, or not to tell certain teams that frankly I am just not playing for your club. I am honestly amazed there is not more of this. If I were good enough to be drafted in the first round I would have had teams that I would play for, and teams that I would not play for. If I were going to drafted out of high school by say the Cubs, Yankees, Giants, or Braves, then they would have very limited options. They would either have to make me the highest paid draft pick ever, or I would be going to college, or playing in the frontier league for a year. But I would be honest with their scouts before the draft, so as not to surprise them, I would just have to say, I hate your team, I have always hated your team, and I can't really be honest with myself and say I want to take your money. Secondly, I can't fall these guys for trying to get as much as they can in their first contract. Many of them are foregoing college, and this might be the only big contract that get. Its got to last for a while, and give them something to fall back on if say, they have a catastrophic injury, or can't hit a professional slider.

Sammy Sosa and Steroids!!!

BREAKING NEWS: SAMMY SOSA TESTED POSITIVE FOR A PED IN 2003. Ok, so its true that apparently Sosa did test positive for a performance enhancing drug and it made headlines in the sports world yesterday. But lets be honest about this, is anybody actually surprised anymore when a name like Sosa's pops up testing positive? I for one am not shocked by any name that comes up from the late 90's and early 2000's anymore. And frankly did we need confirmation to know that Sosa was on them? Anybody that watched him play had to have him on their top 2 or 3 list of players most likely to be taking a shot in the butt. My top 4 list was Big Mac, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Roger Clemens. I have been screaming for a while now that Roger Clemens was the one pitcher I was certain of to hitting the juice, and truthfully he is the only player other than Bonds that I have felt a certain vindication and satisfaction in seeing the news come out. The question though that I feel needs to be asked is was it worth what Big Mac and Sosa did to themselves and the game? I would have to say yes. Those of you who know me well know that I am a rules nazi. I am fair to the rules to a fault, when I play softball I have actually called myself out when an umpire was umping that didn't know all the rules. I hate it when my team gets the benefit of a bad call and I tell an umpire when I think he missed a call, even if it is one that helped my team. But at the same time, 1998 was a magical season for baseball fans. Outside of hard core baseball fans, baseball was not doing well after the 1994 strike and 1995 lock out ( I do believe the owners were more at fault than the players, and they get a bum rap on this, but thats a blog for another day) and he game was struggling mightily to get butts in the seats. Sosa and McGwire's home run chase changed that. It created interest in the game on a national level that baseball had not enjoyed in a long time. That interest did not go away, it maintained through the 2000's and even though baseball can't compete with football for television ratings (this mostly has to do with the number of games) people were going to game at a great rate in most cities, Florida and Montreal of course were exceptions. Montreal baseball was destroyed by the strike, and never recovered. They had a hell of a team in 1994 and had real chances of going places that year, and their fans got their hearts ripped out. But for most teams 1998 was magical. Not only was it home runs in numbers never seen before, but it was a rivalry between two players in the same division, and each on teams that historically have one of the best rivalries in baseball. Everbody was watching, everybody wanted to know what was going to happen next, and everybody was enchanted by the fact Sosa and McGwire were pushing each other to play better via encouragment rather than animosity. Sure the steriods make the season seem a bit hollow now, but you can't take away what it did for baseball, even now baseball is doing all right and its in part due to that season. And you can take away some of the gloss on what they accomplished on the field with their numbers, but you can't take away the grace they handled themselves with during that chase and embracing what they were to baseball. And lets keep in mind that in 1998 they weren't technically even breaking any baseball rules, which means that perhaps baseball administration is far more on the hook for steroids than the individual players are. Was it worth it, yea, it probably was, without 1998 contraction was a very real and ugly possiblity, and the face of baseball could have been drastically different. Would baseball have been better if the owners and administration had been more responsible in their drug testing? Absolutely, but us and the players have to play with the hand they were dealt, and we still have to look for a silver lining in a cloudy sky.

Batting Average versus OBP.

This is an always interesting debate and one that in the last ten or fifteen years has made a tremendious shift. Of course the discussion goes hand to hand with the one on the value of the RBI and the Run Scores. For years the stats that were most valued by GM's, Managers, and most everybody in baseball were these three categories. Within the last few years however, sabermetricians have been preaching loudly that all three of these catergories were being over valued. Batting average was considered by these people unimportant compared to the more all encompassing On Base Percentage. RBI's and Run scored were considered poor measures of evaluation because they are so contingent on who is in the lineup around the specific player. There are, however, some hangers on to the older ways of thinkg. One of which is Analyst and Hall of Famer Joe Morgan. He complete disregards stats like OBP, and I find it hilarious. He may be the single player in history that has benefited the most from sabermetric stats.

The question in regards to batting average is this. Based on this lines which player is more valuable. Player A who hit (keep in mind I am leaving SLG out, and these stats are real lines, not made up speculative stats) .341 with a .375 OBP. Or Player B who hit .293 with a .411 OBP. Now there is a lot of things that go into the value of this players, such as slugging, speed, and yes, even runs and RBI's. But this isn't in itself comparing two complete players, but rather comparing the value of the the statistical catergories themselves. The problem with analyzing this players value also has to do with the team they are on. Sometimes a team doesn't need another OBP guy and they really do need a guy who can drive in the runs, and sometimes what a team truly needs is players that can get on base. However, its best in the long haul to evaluate a players ability looking purely at the stats as if he was not on a particular team. Teams are fluid they change over the years, so its hard to compare one players career to another based on team needs.

With little exception I fall on the side that says the OBP is possibly the one most valuable stat in determining a players worth. Of course truthfully the holy grail of determination is the OPS. This is as most of you who read this know, a combination of OBP and SLGing. This is without a doubt the most important measure of a players offensive value. Far supassing cumulative number counts. Of course with any statistical measure there are always anomalies (Adam Dunn for one, his OPS is way higher that his actual offensive value in a run producing spot in the order) but this is the best that we have, and is the most efficient way of comparing players quickly and accurately.

Broglio for Brock.

Back in 1964 there was a trade between the Chicago Cubs and the St. Louis Cardinals. Lou Brock was trade for a pitcher named Ernie Broglio. There were some other players in the trade, they were inconsequential, then and inconsequential now. This trade comes up fairly often in blogs, lists, and books listing the worst trades ever. Ernie Broglio was pitcher that injured his arm and never really amounted to much and Lou Brock went on a tear, helped the Cardinals win the pennant (took a collapse by the Phils, but thats a blog for a different day) and helped them beat the Yanks in the World Series. He then went on to set the record for stolen bases (since broken by Rickey Henderson) and to collect 3000 hits. However is it really fair to call this a historically bad trade? The answer is no. When looking at trades to determine if they are really bad you have to look at what the GM was looking at during that season. At the time Broglio was a young pitcher who had already won 20 games. He by all account had good stuff, and looked like he would be a good pitcher. Brock on the other hand had never really been much of a hitter. On top of that he wasn't much of a fielder. Actually he didn't really have a position. At the time, weak slugging speedy guys were expected to play center. He didn't have the arm to play right field, and left field really needed to be reserved for guys that could slug the ball, but were weak defensively. Brock was considered expendible by the Cubs and given the sample so far, although he had hit the ball in the minors, that probably was not a bad call. The Cardinals already had Curt Flood in Center, so they didn't mind playing another speedy guy in Left, and in fact were just looking for someone to steal some bags. At the times in truthfully looked like a win, win situation for both teams with maybe even the Cubs making out better. No one could predict that Broglio would have arm issues and lose his stuff. Its not fair to judge trades with hindsight. Sometimes a deal just doesn't work out, its not the GM's fault and the Cardinals didn't have some magic 8 ball. Sometimes trades are just stupid and people get fleeced, and those deals deserve to be torched. But deals like this, which weren't really bad at all given the scenario do not deserve to be remembered in infamy.

Cubs and Cardinals, Franchise History.

I have been very active in this baseball game called APBA for say 15 years or so. My cousin Joey approached me when I was about 14 with the idea of purchasing this game via mail order. It is an in depth statistical replay game, with different variables and numbers applied to just about every aspect of historical replay. It is VERY accurate in regards to replaying seasons from the past. It is different from video games that are out there, which use stats to form ratings for how that player WILL perform in the next season. Instead it uses its ratings so that players will perform close to the stats that they had in any given season. It works very well, and its very fun to take a team and see if you can improve their records via better bullpen usage, lineups, or by hitting and running more or stealing more bags. My cousin and I have decided to replay 108 seasons so far, with each new season of course added to that with I taking the St. Louis Cardinals and he taking the Chicago Cubs. We are playing the seasons at random, with a number generator, and so far we have completed 1951, 1989, 2003, 1993, 1995 and 2001. Currently we are playing 1907, 2008, and we soon get 1986 underway. So far I have managed to improve on the Cardinals records and won the world series in 1989 when I shouldn't have made the playoffs, made the playoffs in 1993, won the world series in 2001, and made it to the World Series in 2003. I have improved my record in 1995, and so far in 1907 with some really bad teams. In 1951 I managed to improve from third place to second place. Its proved to be very entertaining, but it will likely take us several years to get caught up to where we only have to play the new seasons when they come out.

John Lackey 1, 2, Ejected!!!

When it comes to officiating, the umpires of Major League Baseball are about the best there are. When compared to the officiating of the NBA they are better, and when compared to the pathetic excuse for officiating that operate in the NFL they come out far superior. However, that does not mean they don't have their issues. When it comes to umpires their problems are with their memories, vindictiveness, and their requirement for numerous subjective calls with every outing that they make. Saturday Umpire Bob Davidson made one of these interesting and rarely precedented subjective calls. John Lackey made his season debut last night, fresh off of the disabled list. This was the first time he had pitched in six weeks, the last time being in spring training. His first pitch was over the head of Ian Kinsler, the second one plunked him. Immediately, no warning given, no conversation whatsoever, Mr. Davidson ejected John Lackey after two pitches. Lackey seemed to be shocked by the occurence and had this to say about it:

"I haven't pitched in six weeks, and I was amped up. I was trying to come in on him, but there was no intention at all to hit him or throw behind him."

Now there are a lot of things going on here. The Rangers and Angels have a history, lots of beanings and lots of retaliations. I am sure that Bob Davidson saw that this had the chance to be an escalating situation , and here was his oppurtunity to keep the chaos in check. However, their are some problems with this sort of pre-emptive attack. The warning rule was initiated to try and prevent escalating situations like this. You throw out the warning, and the next time a batter is hit in even remotely questionable circumstances and BAM both the pitcher and the manager are ejected from the game. Its a pretty good deterrent usually. Why then did Davidson decide to eject Lackey after two pitches without a warning? Good question, he must have felt that Lackey unquestionably was throwing with purpose, and he very well could have been. It was wrong though to eject, because there is this thing called reasonable doubht, and there was plenty in this case with him not being on the mound in so long. The warning rule was designed for this very situation, one in which the umpire is pretty sure he did it on purpose, but their are some questions about whether or not he can say that with 100% certainty. In this case Bob Davidson should have shown more restraint. This sort of thing has a lot of ramifications for the Angels. Firstly, Lackey could be suspended for this, which he probably wouldn't have been without the ejection. Secondly, Major League teams are not designed to have their starter knocked out while facing only one batter. This sort of thing exhausts the bullpen and keeps them from being at their best for several games. It was an interesting situation thats for sure.

If you want to check it out for yourself here is the link from the MLB network.

http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=4597465&c_id=ana