Royals Fire Hillman

On Thursday, the Kansas City Royals became the first team to fire its manager this season. Trey Hillman was informed of the decision Thursday morning by General Manager Dayton Moore, who gave Hillman the option of managing one last game. Appropriately, thick with Royals irony, Zack Greinke finally won his first game on Hillman's final day as manager.

The decision to fire Hillman is not surprising, and in fact is probably welcomed by nearly all Royals fans and followers. The impact of the decision will be minimal, as Ned Yost will play out the string in an interim capacity. The significance of the decision, however, is daunting.

Hillman's firing is an admission, tacit or not, that the Royals are no closer to contention now than they were three years ago. The Royals play in a competitive but winnable division, in which even the big-spending Tigers and White Sox are within reach year after year. Yet, even with some fine franchise cornerstones in Zack Greinke and Billy Butler, the Royals seem adrift. To advance the franchise, the Royals need to change the standard operating procedure.

Bullpen stalwart Joakim Soria, or "The Mexicutioner" to Royals fans, can be a dominating presence in the ninth inning. But he's an asset a team like the Royals simply can't afford to hold onto any longer. Before July 31st, the Royals need to trade him to restock what is an unremarkable farm system.

Greinke signed a nice contract last year, and it's not hurting the Royals to pay one of the American League's top 5 pitchers. But without some significant changes to the Royals' philosophy and roster, Greinke may as well start counting the minutes until his contract expires and he can go home to central Florida to play for the Rays.

I hate to do this because I truly feel a kinship with Royals fans, whose plight is oddly similar to that of Phillies fans from the mid-80s through early-90s. But if the Royals are ever going to advance beyond their long-standing position of mediocrity, it's time for some radically different thinking. Hopefully for the sake of all of Jackson County, the early-season firing of Hillman is the falling of small stones that starts an avalanche.

Chase Utley Is The Best Second Baseman On Earth

Congratulations to the 2009 Gold Glove winners, who were announced Tuesday (AL) and Wednesday (NL). The 2009 NL Gold Glove winner at second base, LA's Orlando Hudson, won for the fourth time after winning three straight Gold Gloves from 2005 to 2007.

The Gold Glove, in theory, is the award given to the best defensive player at each position on the field. Each year, managers and coaches select the elite group of nine players from each league.

A message to the NL managers and coaches who voted:

Chase Utley Is The Best Second Baseman On Earth. He's (also) the best defensive second baseman in the National League. For realsies. Sorry, Orlando Hudson.

An award recognizing defensive excellence seems less legitimate when it fails to recognize its most deserving recipient, which this year is Chase Utley. Among second basemen, Utley had the highest UZR in the NL, and was second in MLB only to Detroit's Placido Polanco, whose 2009 UZR of 11.4 is just 5.5% higher than Utley's 10.8. Polanco, of course, won a Gold Glove (his second).

What's UZR?

"UZR (ultimate zone rating): The number of runs above or below average a fielder is in both range runs, outfield arm runs, double play runs and error runs combined."

If Polanco's UZR is higher, then that must mean he is The Best Second Baseman On Earth. Right? Well, while Polanco and Utley each lead their leagues in the fielding department, Polanco doesn't come close to Utley with a bat in his hands. Utley's .905 OPS led NL second basemen, and was second overall in MLB to Tampa Bay's Ben Zobrist (.948). Polanco's 2009 OPS was .727.

Why mention offensive stats in a discussion about a defensive award? Because the Gold Glove is sometimes given to "the best hitter who can probably field pretty OK." The poster boy of this phenomenon is Derek Jeter, who has been winning Gold Gloves for years (this year is his fourth) on reputation and hitting prowess. This year being no exception, check out Jeter, finishing 6th in UZR among AL shortstops, but 2nd in OPS.

Well what do you know, Chase Utley led National League second baseman in UZR and OPS. The AL (and MLB) UZR leader among second baseman, Polanco, was just 18th in OPS among 2Bs. So statistically speaking, Chase Utley is the best second baseman in the National League, both offensively and defensively. The overall MLB leaders at second base in UZR and OPS, Polanco and Zobrist, are each excellent players, but Polanco's offense has clearly declined with age, and Zobrist's defense, while very good in 2009, is difficult to judge in comparison to other second basemen who played the entire season at the position, because Zobrist played every position in 2009 except catcher and pitcher.

Getting back to basics. Hudson had a UZR of -3.3 (the eighth-WORST among all 2B and fifth-worst among all NL 2B). Utley's UZR of 10.8 led all NL second basemen.

Why even give out Gold Gloves if you don't give one to Chase Utley?

MLB Waiver Trade Deadline

The following is a brief explanation of the two trade deadlines in Major League Baseball: the non-waiver trade deadline of July 31st, and the waiver trade deadline of August 31st. What follows is a real conversation – not edited for content, spelling, or grammar – between a friend (SS) and me (AD):

SS: i dont understand something....isn't the trade deadline over? b/c i thought i heard about two guys getting moved this week?
or is it if they are traded after the deadline they can't play in the playoffs?

AD: there are 2 trade deadlines
july 31 is the non-waiver trade deadline, meaning any team can trade any player to any team without restrictions
from august 1 to august 31, players can still be traded, but must pass through waivers first
so, if you wanted to trade brad lidge today, you'd have to put him on waivers
waiver priority is determined by divisional standings....AKA, the nationals would get first crack at him if they claimed him (they would have priority over say, florida, or pittsburgh)

SS: but wait
cant the team not trade to them?
like what if nationals aren't offering what they want?

AD: if washington claims lidge, the phillies have 3 options: release lidge for nothing; trade him to washington and only washington; or, pull lidge off waivers. if lidge is pulled back after washington claims him, then lidge is no longer eligible to be traded at all to anyone for the remainder of the season
if washington gets lidge, they are responsible for the remainder of his contract
so, in 2003 when the red sox put manny ramirez and his $20 million annual salary on waivers, not a single team claimed him
because they didn't want to assume his contract

SS: ok

AD: virtually every major leaguer is placed on waivers in august
and virtually every one is pulled back
for a player to qualify for a playoff roster, he has to be on his new team by August 31
so, august 31 is the last day a player can be traded
waiver trades DO happen EVERY year

SS: ok, i got it...kinda
enough to get by
haha

AD: thats why july 31 is so important

SS: right

AD: if the phillies wanted to trade ryan howard and get maximum value for him, they would want to be able to trade him to the highest bidder
but the waiver process allows teams to "block" other teams
like if lidge got on waivers

SS: so we put lidge on waivers....nats say we want him....we have to either work out a trade or pull him back...making him inelligble for any other trade

AD: its possible washington would ONLY claim him to keep him away from atlanta
we could also simply release lidge to washington without getting anything in return...with the catch being that washington has to pay the remainder of lidge's contract

SS: i dont much see the point in that but i dont really know to much about how their finances work
i get football more

AD: see the point in what? blocking?

SS: putting him on waivers and not trading, just releasing
is it just to see if you can do a trade?

AD: oh....well a recent example of that is alex rios
alex rios was an outfielder for toronto
he had a big year in like 2006 or something and the jays signed him to this INSANE contract that paid him like $15 mill a year
which is close to the top of the sport
rios has NOT performed to the level of his contract, by any stretch of the imagination
the blue jays are losing a SHITLOAD of money this year
so, the jays placed rios on waivers
the white sox claimed him
toronto let him walk for nothing........where nothing is a positive cash flow of the prorated portion of $15 million this year PLUS teh remaining years of the contract
by "releasing" rios to chicago, the blue jays saved themselves about $45 million bucks
so, they're not getting "nothing"
what they are getting is financial flexibility

SS: but what is the difference between just doing that and cutting him
or is that like cutting him

AD: well, here's the thing
its not like rios is terrible...he still has value
if a team wants to "cut" a player, they call it "designated for assignment"
when a player is DFA
the team has 10 days to trade him, send him to the minors (if eligible), or give him his outright release

SS: ok so if no one claims him....he's a free agent?

AD: within those 10 days, its possible that NO team would try to trade for the player, because they know they can simply sign him as a free agent at the end of the 10 day period

SS: ok

AD: so a waiver trade GUARANTEES that you will be able to at least TRY to get something back

SS: so now....chi is stuck with him in that contract though?

AD: yes but they wanted him

SS: right

AD: they need a CF for the next few years and the data indicate that rios is having a "down " year

SS: so their reward is not having to compete for him as a FA

AD: chicago's reward is they got a really good outfielder and they didn't have to give up any assets
chicago is a big market...more money....can afford a bigger salary

SS: just pay him a lot
right

AD: exactly

SS: ok i get it

Half the Battle

By Elizabeth Emmerich

After rising through the ranks of professional baseball as a promising young athlete, Oakland A’s shortstop Bobby Crosby has had a few shortcomings over the last few years. Out for most of the second half of last season with various injuries, Crosby needed much more than recovery to secure his starting position in the 2009 A’s lineup. During the off-season, Crosby has been working with former Athletic Mark McGwire to develop a new look. Crosby’s stance is different, he has a whole new swing, and as current teammate Mark Ellis described, he gained some confidence, which was half the battle.

Is confidence what separates the super-elite athletes from the mainstream elite MLB players? Surely there is a top percentage of incredibly physically talented athletes, but to get to the MLB level you have to be a star. So how does confidence contribute to heightened performance? Is a lack of confidence what puts players in a “slump?”

As a Sport Psychology Consultant, one of the first things to assess with an athlete is their comfort and stability with their role as a player and as a part of the team. Confidence comes with perceptions of ability and overall competency, which can definitely change over a 162-game season. Bobby Crosby is fighting for his position as starting shortstop and to do this, he had to make some serious changes. Physically, he did. Will Crosby remain confident in his ability to perform well mentally? Hopefully he has secured some mental toughness from McGwire along with his beautiful new swing. All eyes are on Crosby during spring training to see if these changes stick.

The concept of confidence and mental toughness is such a strong component of complete athletes but is rarely explored as a piece of peak performance. If you're listening in on the radio or TV, versus personally attending a game, announcers consistently talk about the mental game in passing. As spring training games officially kick off this week and the regular season is just around the corner, it might be of particular interest to pay close attention to the importance of such critical elements of performance.

Bringing It All Back Home

Multiple sources are reporting the Seattle Mariners and free agent outfielder Ken Griffey, Jr. are close to finalizing a one-year contract worth about $5 million. After this week's signings of Adam Dunn with the Nationals (2 years, $20 million) and Bobby Abreu with the Angels (1 year, $5 million plus incentives), the Mariners - who need to sign another outfielder - don't have many options besides Griffey. He'll likely split his time between the outfield and the DH slot, and may even get some reps at first base.


The deal makes sense for both the team and Griffey. The Mariners have little chance to contend for the division title this year and will be able to increase fan interest with one of the franchise's all-time greats. From Junior's perspective, he would like to write the final chapter of his baseball legacy where it all began, as he has previously said, "...this is the place where I grew up and I owe it to the people of Seattle and to myself to retire as a Mariner."

Griffey, who has 611 career home runs and a career OPS of .920, last played in Seattle in 1999. Junior is fifth on baseball's all-time home run list and needs 49 bombs to tie Willie Mays. If he's able to play two more seasons, Griffey may be able to at least tie Mays, or even surpass him. But for now, the player once known as "The Kid" will just be happy to come home.

The Hypocrisy of the BBWAA

Baseball just can't seem to move on from the steroid era. Beginning on Saturday with a Sports Illustrated report that Alex Rodriguez failed a drug test in 2003, and followed by A-Rod's exclusive interview with ESPN's Peter Gammons, the baseball universe has once again been rocked by the revelation that one of the game's brightest stars is a cheater.

A-Rod is hardly the first star to become embroiled in the steroids saga, but he is the first player to really come out and offer a sincere apology and elaborate on his use of performance-enhancing drugs. In spite of some evasive responses to Gammons’ questioning, Rodriguez provided more information than just about any player to date. Given A-Rod's high profile, outstanding career accomplishments, and projected stats, one of the largest issues under debate is his candidacy for the Hall of Fame.

So far, the “Steroid Era” fallout has only affected the Hall of Fame candidacy of Mark McGwire, who never tested positive for anything, and who played during a time in which baseball had no testing program. McGwire seems unlikely to garner the 75% of votes necessary to become elected to the Hall of Fame, at least judging from his 2009 vote total. The members of the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) decide which players are enshrined in Cooperstown. A player is eligible for election after five years of retirement and must receive at least 75% of votes to become a Hall of Famer. Some BBWAA members have indicated that they will never vote for any of the Mitchell Report players, or players who failed drug tests. In their outrage, these writers fail to properly serve the game and their myopia will create an indelible mark on baseball history.

What's troubling about McGwire, Rodriguez, and the other players of the Steroid Era goes beyond the use of performance-enhancing drugs. The members of the BBWAA are overemphasizing the controversy embedded in Steroid Era baseball and are refusing to acknowledge cheating as a reality of baseball and Hall of Fame history.

Is it ethical for baseball players to use performance-enhancing drugs? Is it fair? Probably not. Nor is it ethical or fair to exclude some of the game's greatest players from the Hall of Fame. How would this era of baseball be defined without including legends such as Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, and Alex Rodriguez? There are numerous players in the Hall of Fame who are known cheaters. For example, Gaylord Perry, a notorious cheater who doctored baseballs throughout his career, is in the Hall of Fame. Mike Schmidt, the greatest third baseman of all time and a Hall of Famer, admitted to using amphetamines or "greenies" at some point in his career. If McGwire and Bonds and A-Rod and Clemens are excluded, will the BBWAA decide to revisit the candidacy of Perry and Schmidt? Of course not. Will the BBWAA expel any of the possibly hundreds of players in the Hall who used greenies at times in their careers? No.

Cooperstown is the home of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, the purpose of which is to record and display baseball history. If baseball is going to maintain a museum to celebrate its greatest players, it’s indefensible to exclude Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, or Alex Rodriguez. These four are among the greatest players of their generation. They dominated their leagues for extended periods of time, racked up serious hardware, and boast all the stats they need to back up their Cooperstown credentials. At the core, a Hall of Famer needs to be judged in the context of his era and of his peers. Did he stand out from his peers? More importantly, did he dominate his peers? Did he reach the important statistical milestones? These are the questions the baseball writers are supposed to ask themselves when considering a player for induction into Cooperstown. But instead of focusing on the important player accomplishments, the writers have latched onto a controversy that while worth reporting, is not the only one in baseball history. The BBWAA should chronicle the history of the game, and let the fans make their own judgments.

There's no doubt that a player who uses performance-enhancing drugs has an advantage over a player who does not, as these drugs improve recovery time and help build muscle. However, Barry Bonds was a fantastic hitter and a multiple MVP winner before he started using steroids. Roger Clemens was one of the greatest pitchers of all time before he allegedly used steroids. HGH, androstenedione, and other drugs can't give a man the skill and innate talent he needs to hit a round ball coming at him at 100 miles per hour with an oblong stick as well and as consistently as did Bonds, Rodriguez, and McGwire. Drugs can't enable a man to throw a baseball at a high velocity with pinpoint accuracy like Roger Clemens. After all, this controversy isn't about Ryan Franklin, or JC Romero, or other fringe players who have been caught cheating, as those players themselves are not controversial. This is about some of the greatest players to ever play the game. A-Rod, Bonds, Clemens, McGwire...all Hall of Famers without the drugs. The writers should put these players in the Hall of Fame and record the history of the game, and allow the fans to debate amongst themselves where these players stand in comparison to other all-time greats. Isn't that one of the most fun aspects of being a baseball fan? Will Barry Bonds ever be considered the "real" home run king instead of Henry Aaron? No, but Barry didn't hit 762 home runs just because he took steroids.

The members of the BBWAA who choose to exclude the "Steroid Era" or "Selig Era" players from the Hall of Fame are hypocrites. If players who took amphetamines and cheated in various other ways are already members of the Hall of Fame, then the writers should vote for all players whose accomplishments merit election. This particular sentiment is echoed by one of baseball's greatest ambassadors, Bob Costas, who believes that all players who qualify for the Hall of Fame should be elected, and that Cooperstown and MLB should provide a context for the accomplishments reached in each era. In essence, Costas believes there should be a visible pronouncement, a plaque or display, in the Hall of Fame that more or less says, “This era of baseball, like any other, was shaped by the actions of owners, players, writers, clubhouse attendants, and general managers. Judge these players how you will, and explain this era to your children as you would see fit."

If Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, and Alex Rodriguez aren't elected to the Hall of Fame, then Cooperstown will no longer be recording the history of the game. Put the players in. Be honest about the circumstances of the era. Be honest with the fans. The truth will set you free.

The Neverending Manny Saga

According to several reports, Los Angeles Dodgers General Manager Ned Colletti had a meeting yesterday with agent Scott Boras, who represents enigmatic free agent outfielder Manny Ramirez. Colletti apparently offered Boras a one-year, $25 million contract for Ramirez. Within an hour, Boras informed Colletti the offer was rejected.

About three months ago, Colletti extended a two-year, $45 million offer to Boras for Ramirez, which Boras also rejected. With Ramirez being the only surefire Hall of Famer left in what has become baseball's free agent wasteland, it seems reasonable that the Dodgers would extend a legitimate offer to match Manny's talent. What many people are trying to determine right now is why Boras and Ramirez would reject a $25 million contract for 2009.

Turn the clock back to July 2008. To make a long story short, Ramirez had two option years left on his contract at $20 million each. Ramirez demanded a new contract, and when the Red Sox made it clear they weren't going to oblige, Ramirez demanded to be traded. Manny quit on his teammates and tanked games, even faking a knee injury, until the Red Sox arranged a three-team deal that brought Jason Bay to Fenway Park.

Ramirez then proceeded to torch National League pitching and lead the Dodgers' charge into the playoffs, where Manny again waved his magic wand. Ultimately, the Dodgers fell to the World Series Champion Philadelphia Phillies. Manny's Ruthian accomplishments in the second half of the 2008 season and in the playoffs placed him in the NL MVP discussion, but raised more questions than answers.

This offseason, as Boras sought a multi-year mega-deal for Manny in the range of four or more years for at least $25 million per year, baseball's owners and general managers sent a clear message to not only Ramirez, but the rest of the players: we will not reward the type of behavior Manny displayed on his way out of Boston. Although Manny's statistics and career profile would seem to qualify him for another big free agent contract, Manny's behavior and choices have indicated otherwise.

Which is why this latest development is so startling. Ramirez could have accepted the Dodgers' generous one-year offer and made $25 million for one season of playing baseball. With Spring Training starting in roughly two weeks, Ramirez is running out of time and options. Taking the Dodgers' offer benefits Manny in several ways.

First of all, $25 million is a lot of money. In fact, it's a 25% raise over what Manny was paid last year. The contract would make Ramirez the second-highest paid player in baseball in 2009, after Alex Rodriguez, and would make Manny the highest-paid outfielder in baseball history. Manny could take the deal, put up his usual 30-40 home runs and 100-120 RBI, and attempt to rebuild the credibility he lost with last year's Boston fiasco.

With a 24-hour news cycle, a year can be a very long time. Perhaps in a year, Manny's behavior on his way out of Boston won't be remembered so harshly. More importantly, in a year the economy could be improved to the point where some team will be willing to give Manny one last multi-year contract.

Manny Ramirez is one of the greatest hitters of all time and is often discussed as the greatest right-handed hitter ever. He has a chance to play for a few more seasons and pass Ted Williams, at least statistically, as the greatest "pure" hitter to ever step between the white lines. But Manny won't be furthering his legacy, or hitting any more home runs, by sitting out the season. Baseball doesn't need Manny Ramirez...Manny Ramirez needs baseball.