Tom Verducci, SI.com: Hard truths about hardware

[Carissa]

Hard truths about hardware
Tom Verducci, SI.com
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...der/index.html

Nobody ever sat atop a barstool and argued with a buddy about who should win the Hank Aaron Award. Many people aren't even aware of it, as is evidenced every year when the MVP debate inevitably degenerates into the suggestion that there ought to be an award for the best hitter. (That would be The Hank, est. 1999.) The four major awards, as decided by the Baseball Writers Association of America -- MVP, Cy Young, Manager and Rookie of the Year -- remain the gold standard of postseason prizes for all pro sports. This year, as much as any other in recent times, reminded us that one reason baseball's honors remain so compelling is the room for debate. The awards are as important and controversial as ever.

What helps make the awards so controversial is the easy-to-understand, very public voting system used by the writers. (Ever see Gold Glove voting results? Football Hall of Fame? World Series MVP? Hank Aaron Award? The Grammys? Of course not.) For its postseason awards, baseball uses a system that thrives on accountability, which should be expected from professionals who ask likewise of the people they cover. If you're going to ask a pitcher why he gave up that game-winning homer, you'd better answer for your own ballot selections.

And whoo-boy, did a few writers have some explaining to do this year. Ballots have never been kept secret, but the issue of who voted for whom has loomed much larger since George King (New York chapter) and LaVelle Neal (Minnesota) left Pedro Martinez off their 1999 AL MVP ballot.

The sunshine movement gained more momentum this year when Bill Ballou (Boston) and Jim Souhan (Minnesota) decided they would ignore the very specific eligibility rules for the Rookie of the Year award and make up their own. And so they determined not only that Hideki Matsui of the Yankees was not a rookie, but also what the "spirit" of the award was.

What they should have done as conscientious objectors was to recuse themselves from the balloting. They should have declined the invitation to vote, allowed others who actually would adhere to established rules to fill out the ballot, and then brought up the possibility of changing the rules at the next BBWAA meeting -- and these are moves they should have made in any past season in which they felt so strongly. (The topic of rookie eligibility has never been formally discussed at a writers meeting.) Other scribes have, however, declined the opportunity to vote for various reasons in the past.

Accountability makes the writers look good and bad at the same time. It does reveal the warts, and one of the worst warts is the provincialism that goes on. Each award is voted on by two writers from each city in that particular league. Here are some of the more noteworthy hometown ballots cast:

• Chicago White Sox pitcher Esteban Loaiza received the only two first-place Cy Young votes that did not go to Roy Halladay. And where did both Loaiza votes come from? Chicago.

• Texas infielder Mark Teixeira received one first-place vote in the AL ROY voting. Where did it come from? Dallas.

• Only one writer left Carlos Delgado (RBI champion, second in OBP, slugging, walks and home runs) completely off his AL MVP ballot, which has room for 10 players. That was a writer from Chicago, Joe Cowley, who just happened to put two White Sox players on his ballot, Frank Thomas and Loaiza, who received no other MVP votes.

• David Ortiz of the Red Sox was a part-time player for two months, was worthless against left-handers (.216, four homers), played only 45 games in the field, was awful outside of Fenway Park (.256 with 39 RBIs, three less than Todd Walker) and ranked eighth on his own team in hits, a mere 69 fewer than Nomar Garciaparra. He did, however, receive four first-place MVP votes, including both from the Boston chapter.

• Minnesota outfielder Shannon Stewart had laughable numbers for a serious MVP candidate. He was a leadoff hitter who didn't run (he stole four bases and was thrown out six times) or get on base much (he scored 90 runs, five fewer than Raul Ibanez) or hit for power (13 home runs) or hit especially well down the stretch (.289, zero home runs in September), all while playing a corner position (left field) with one of the worst arms in baseball. He did get three first-place MVP votes, though -- one from (surprise!) Minnesota and two from fellow AL Central chapter Chicago. (Chicago, again?)

In the end, no player or manager was robbed of an award. Even if Cowley had put Delgado first on his ballot, for instance, Alex Rodriguez would have still won the MVP award. You could also argue that ROY winner Angel Berroa had a better season than Matsui.

It's precisely the arguments that make the BBWAA awards so great. In what other system do people care so much about why somebody received a second-place vote (Derek Jeter?!) or demand to know who left a certain player off their ballot?

It's not a perfect system precisely because it is so human. Beat writers see their own team more than any other. They can get caught up in the euphoria of covering a championship club. They will see the same players they voted for (or against) a few months later in spring training, when the world knows how they voted.

So the next time you can't understand why somebody voted for Stewart as MVP or how somebody could think Delgado wasn't among the 10 best MVP candidates or how Matsui could not be considered a rookie despite the fact that prior to this season he'd never played Major League Baseball, remember that you are entitled to answers and that nobody cares this much about any other sports awards. You can thank the baseball writers for that. Their awards remain the best.

Flood watch
Quick, name one significant player who signed a contract extension this season.

Didn't think so. The owners are executing a plan first posed by the eccentric Charlie Finley when free agency was instituted in 1975: flood the market with lots of players. (Finley proposed no service-time limit on free agency. Much to the relief of union director Marvin Miller, the other owners didn't listen to him.)

The days of "buying out" a player's free-agent rights by signing him in his walk year appear to be over. In 2002, for example, Al Leiter, Mark Kotsay, Ryan Klesko and Mike Lieberthal all signed contract extensions during the season in which their clubs bought out at least one year of free agency. Last March, the Diamondbacks signed Randy Johnson to a two-year, $33-million extension and Luis Gonzalez to a three-year, $30-million extension. Since then? Nothing.

If form holds, get ready for another crowded and spectacular free-agent class next year. Players entering their walk seasons include Pedro Martinez, Nomar Garciaparra, Eric Chavez, Mariano Rivera, Garret Anderson, Brad Radke, Carlos Delgado, Troy Glaus, Mike Lowell, Matt Morris, Eric Milton, Magglio Ordonez, Curt Schilling, Jose Vidro, Derek Lowe and Corey Koskie.

For years and years owners were ridiculed for their stupidity in running up salaries, especially for locking up second-tier players. In addition to general economic conditions, they have since forced the so-called market correction with several tools, including:

• letting more players hit the open market

• avoiding arbitration and turning back a player's "salary clock" (money based on service time) by non-tendering them, which further dilutes the market

• establishing a slotting system for draft picks, who are not fortified with union protection

• slowing the offseason shopping period. The Dec. 20 non-tender date has become important because Bud Selig will wait until December to give the Expos a budget, which forestalls trade and signing activity. Get used to more Kenny Loftons -- the outfielder wasn't signed until after spring training camps opened last season.

Some players will still get walk-year offers, but it's no longer automatic that they could do much better if they waited for free agency. Sidney Ponson could be the latest such example.

All of those tactics are, at face value, anyway, perfectly legit. You can bet, however, that the union rightfully is watching closely with a critical and cynical eye.

The power of Prior
Mark Prior received financial security when he signed a five-year, $10.5-million contract with the Cubs after they selected him with the second pick in the 2001 draft. The club typically gains cost certainty with those kinds of big deals for amateur players. The Cubs, however, did not. As it turns out, the right-hander obtained not only security in the deal but also flexibility, which could blow up on Chicago.

Prior's $10.5 million package has already grown to $12.3 million because of bonuses and automatic salary increases triggered by his selection to the All-Star Game and his third-place finish in Cy Young Award voting this year.

Prior's greatest loophole, however, is that he can opt out of his contract after next season and exercise his arbitration rights. That would seem to be a formality, considering that the 23-year-old would stand to earn much more than the $5 million total due him in 2004 and 2005 by means of his original contract. And that will put enormous pressure on the Cubs to get him signed to another long-term deal after next season. Maybe this time they'll actually buy out his arbitration rights.

Extra bases
Brian Goldberg, the agent for Ken Griffey Jr., said he expects the trade market for the center fielder to resume activity in July, assuming Griffey has re-proven his health and value by then. Goldberg said Griffey, who is recovering from shoulder and ankle injuries, has been cleared to begin taking batting practice Jan. 1 . . . How bad were Indians pinch hitters? Manager Eric Wedge used a pinch hitter 102 times and not one produced an extra-base hit. Cleveland's pinch hitters batted .159, producing just 13 singles . . . The Devil Rays expect outfielder Josh Hamilton to be in spring training after writing off last season due to personal and family issues. Hamilton, the first pick of the 1999 draft, turns 24 in June and still has fewer than 300 games of pro experience.


Sports Illustrated senior writer Tom Verducci covers baseball for the magazine and is a regular contributor to SI.com.

[Carissa]

Pep Talk: Redefining an MVP's identity
By Phil Pepe
Special to YES Network Online
November 17, 2003
http://www.yesnetwork.com/announcers...page_type=wide

I'm afraid some of my Baseball Writers Association brethren, well-intentioned as they are, just don't get it. Most Valuable Player means just that, "Most Valuable." It does not mean Player of the Year. It does not mean the best player in the game. It means the player whose value to his team was unmatched.

I was an MVP voter for years and my rule of thumb was to vote for the player without whom a team could not have won, or come close to winning. By that definition, a player on a last place team, no matter how great he is, no matter how sensational a season he has, cannot be "Most Valuable Player."

Many years ago, when he was the premier home run hitter in the National League playing for a terrible Pirates team, Ralph Kiner tried getting a hefty raise from that renowned skinflint, Branch Rickey. Kiner presented a compelling argument to make his case for a wage increase, having led the National League in home runs (he would lead the league in each of his first seven seasons). And, he argued, he was not only the Pirates' best player, he was their only draw. Fans in Pittsburgh would leave Forbes Field after Kiner had batted for the final time in a game.

Rickey had an even more compelling argument for stonewalling Kiner's bid for more money.

"We finished last with you," he said, "we can just as easily finish last without you."

The argument against Alex Rodriguez being named MVP is similar. The Texas Rangers finished last in the AL West with ARod, they could do no worse without him.

The fact that ARod received only six first place votes is evidence that the majority of this year's voters did get it. Twenty-two of them failed to place Rodriguez No. 1 on their ballots, although he was far and away the American League's best player. Five others placed Toronto's Carlos Delgado first on their ballots, although his team also finished up the track.

Unfortunately there was no standout choice among winning teams, revealed in the fact that 10 different players received first place votes. But the Yankees' Jorge Posada, the Twins' Shannon Stewart and the Red Sox' David Ortiz, who finished third, fourth and fifth in the balloting, come closer to what Most Valuable Players should be -- contributors to winning teams -- although none of them came close to matching the numbers of Rodriguez or Delgado.

It's not unprecedented for a player from a last place team to win MVP, but that doesn't make it right. In 1987, Andre Dawson, playing for the last place Cubs, won the award simply because there was no strong candidate on the two division winners. Darryl Strawberry, with 39 homers and 104 RBI for the second-place Mets (three games behind the Cardinals), would have been a deserving winner, and more in line with the spirit of the award.

The Cubs' Ernie Banks won the award in 1958 playing for a team that finished in fifth place, 10 games under .500. The following year, the voters compounded the felony by voting again for Banks despite another fifth place finish for the Cubs, this time six games below .500. The Cubs probably could have finished fifth without Banks, but would the Braves have finished second, two games behind the Dodgers, without Hank Aaron's league-leading .355 average, 39 home runs and 123 RBIs, or Eddie Mathews' 46 homers (one more than Banks) and 114 RBIs?

When he won his three MVPs in 1951, '54 and '55, Yogi Berra did not lead the American League in any of the major offensive categories. But the voters agreed that he was the player most responsible for the Yankees winning pennants in '51 and '55, and finishing second in '54.

That's why it's called the Most "Valuable" Player award, not the Player of the Year. And that's why a player with a last place team cannot, and should not, be named Most Valuable Player, unless they change the name of the award.

Acclaimed author and former Yankees beat writer Phil Pepe is a regular contributor to YES Network Online. His latest work, "The Yankees: An Authorized History of the New York Yankees Centennial Edition," is in bookstores now.

[Carissa]

Bonds on the grill
John Donovan, SI.com
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slu...nnsi&type=lgns

Baseball's postseason awards wrapped up earlier this week with an unprecedented sixth MVP for Barry Bonds.

And, boy, did that hack off a few readers.

There are a lot of people out there, judging by the e-mails I've received this week, that just plain don't like Bonds. They think he's a cheat, mainly. They think he's overrated. They think I'm his PR flak or something.

Well, no. I'm not. Yes, I think he deserved the MVP, largely because I think he can affect the outcome of a game more than any other player in baseball. And, yes, I think he could use a good PR person.

The thing is, I'd rather be a first base bag than do that. I'd get stepped on less.

Anyway, how about a little give and take ...

Bonds as MVP makes five screwups in eight postseason awards. It's like these voters were family relatives of Bud Selig -- they are that messed up! Japanese players shouldn't be eligible for Rookie of the Year, but since they are Matsui was the right choice. And no reasonable person can compare Brandon Webb and Dontrelle Willis and say Willis was better. Loaiza was better than Halladay and Prior was better than Gagne. But the worst mistake was giving it to Bonds. He isn't a god and he needs to stop being treated like one. Once he tests positive for whatever he's been taking that made his upper body double in size the media will turn on him like they do anyone else and you'll all be agreeing with me. But here is the ultimate point -- what wins baseball games? Runs. So to truly be valuable you either need to be scoring them or driving them in. As the premier home run hitter in the game, Bonds should easily be doing both. And even if he gets walked a gazillion times and can't! d! rive them in, he should be scoring boatloads of them. But he doesn't score or drive them in that much. Not only is Pujols more valuable, but so are Sheffield, Thome and Helton. How sad that the basic concepts of what actually makes you a valuable baseball player are so lost on so many writers. -- Matt Hilditch, Kent, Wash.

OK, Matt. Agree on Matsui. And Webb over Willis, too. But Halladay was the right choice for the AL Cy Young. You're dead wrong on that. And I don't like relievers, as a rule, for the Cy, but Gagne's year was so big, I don't mind him getting the NL award. As for Bonds ... agreed, runs are important. But you're obviously just going with the raw numbers. I hate to get all sabermetric on you, but Bill James pioneered a stat that projects how many runs a player creates using a formula I won't get into here (the most basic method of figuring this includes on-base percentage, total bases and plate appearances). No one in baseball history had more runs created, using the sabermetric formula, in 400 or fewer at-bats than Bonds did this season. Bonds does account for runs. It may not show in his RBI totals or runs scored, but he does.

Why does anyone care how much Barry Bonds walks? Is walking 148 times really helping his team considering the hitters who follow him in the lineup have questionable ability to drive in runs? Take a look at one of Barry's early inning at-bats next year, and then compare it to one of the other prominent superstars. Barry definitely gets fewer pitches to hit, but he still gets them, he simply refuses to swing at anything that isn't right in his wheelhouse. In theory that kind of discipline is exemplary, but it's more than possible to argue that Bonds' extreme selectiveness is selfish and actually hurts his team rather than helps it. Swinging at non-ideal pitches would lower his batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage; but it might produce more runs and therefore win his team a few more games. He'd still be one of the best hitters in baseball, his numbers just wouldn't be as absurd as they have been. -- J.D. Bolick, Denver, N.C.

When hitters start trying to hit "non-ideal" pitches, that's when they become hackers. No way Bonds should be ripped because he won't bite on bad pitches. Getting on base by a walk helps his team, too, in a lot of ways.

I am afraid that history will judge these last three awards on the basis of his suspected (?) steroid use more than anything else. When he had the news conference during the season and he was sitting next to Hank Aaron and Willie Mays it was like a cartoon character sitting next to two humans. He was so bulked up that he looked like the Incredible Hulk. He didn't look like that five years ago. I wonder what the difference could be? -- Jim Replogle, Middleville, Mich.

We'll all wonder, Jim. But I can't rip a guy on rumor. It's just not fair.

How many times does Bonds have to kick around a baseball in the outfield before he's able to actually pick it up to make a play? He sucks in the field ... always has. And his weak arm is legend. It cost the Pirates the pennant against the Braves. Bonds is not a player, he's a hitter, and yes, he's a pretty damn good hitter. But take that body armor off him and you give the pitchers the inside of the plate back. Then you'll see his average drop 30 points and home runs drop by 15 ... maybe 20 a season. There are 50 great players in the league right now, players who are rounded players, not just hitters, and have helped their teams more than Bonds. -- Bob Frizzell, Pittsburgh

Nope. Can't agree with the 50. Wouldn't agree with five. I will agree with your basic assessment of Bonds in the field, though. He's not good. But the MVP, remember, is not the most well-rounded player award. It's the most valuable player. Bonds could wear a crab pot out there -- and some say he might as well -- and it still wouldn't matter. His bat makes all the difference.

I'm a Giants season tickets holder. As much as I try, it's hard not to see that Barry is his own worst PR problem. That aside, he is amazing to watch and does indeed warp the game when he is at the plate. I've never seen anything like it in baseball. Thanks again for writing a balanced and fair column about this great player. -- Stephen Brown, Sonoma, Calif.

Please pardon the shameless publication of an e-mail from someone who actually agreed with me. I was lonely.

I thought Pujols deserved the MVP hands down. How could you not vote for a guy who seriously threatened for both .400 and the Triple Crown in the same season? But one thing stands out to me: How could anyone vote for an MVP who did not even have 90 RBIs? That is plain ridiculous. -- Michael Johnson, College Station, Texas

Pujols had a great year. And, yes, Bonds had only 90 RBIs. But he had them in only 390 official at-bats. No one in baseball had that many with that few chances to do it. And you're going to knock him for not playing more than 130 games, even with his injuries and his father's illness? Come on.

There's such a fuss about Barry Bonds bulking up when he was skinny 20 years ago: Must be steroids. I went from 130 pounds to 180 pounds in seven years. I went from benching 300 to benching 510 in about that span. That's from age 38 to age 45. I have never used steroids. I have several chronic diseases, including arthritis and fibromyalgia. I am about as athletic as a pair of crutches. Bonds is healthy. Why don't we knock off the steroid talk until someone proves that Bonds took steroids? Some times physiology just works this way. -- Jonathan C Hunter-Kilmer, Vienna

Thanks, Jonathan. And with that, we'll end the Bonds portion of this mailbag.

Hmmm, a policy of "five strikes and we'll think about doing something?" I thoroughly disagree with baseball's listed penalties. Your thoughts? -- Mark Orlicky, Colorado Springs, Colo.

Ridiculous, huh? If Major League Baseball is serious about cracking down on steroid use, this sure isn't going to help do it.

Has anybody even considered that the reason baseball players only had a 5-7 positive drug test return, is because MOST players have figured out that there isn't a drug out there that's going to make HITTING a major league pitching easy? Being bulked up MIGHT make you run a little faster, throw a little harder. It might even add an extra pop to the bat. BUT YOU GOT TO HIT THE BALL!!! Ain't no 'roid out there that helps players "see" the ball better. -- Leslie Fitzgerald, Waynesville, Mo.

Agreed, Leslie. The thing is, every decent player in the bigs can see the ball and hit the ball. But if a hitter has only warning track power, what do 'roids do for him? If a pitcher can't bring the big heat, or has weak legs, or isn't strong enough to withstand the rigors of a season, what might 'roids do for him? If a weak singles hitter can turn into a gap hitter with a few injections ... I don't think we can underestimate the lure of steroids to an athlete, especially when millions of dollars are involved.

Any player caught using steroids should be banned for life. Period. That will stop it. Remember Steve Howe and that eight strikes and you're out drug policy? This is the same kind of sham that the MLBPA is forcing down the fans' throats. Baseball is a joke. -- Raul Tellez NYC, N.Y.

A little rough, though the passion is well understood. The penalties need to be stronger. A lot stronger.

So, finally, on to some comments about the Hot Stove League and my ... dislike for the whole process.

The HSL is all about hope. And with the new economics and 200-plus choices, every team has a little (except maybe the Brewers -- no one with a choice will go there -- and the Rangers, who more than any team created the new economics). Why is it so bad to indulge when there is no game to watch? -- Joe Clawson, Monroe, La.

The Hot Stove League just gives poor Cubs fans like me hope for the future. -- Ted Dronski, Chicago

I do believe that all the attention given to the winter trading season is due to two things: 1) baseball lovers' need to stay close to the game and 2) the media's need to fill air, cyber and newspaper space with content. Though players need only play six months a year, journalists need to write (and eat) an entire 12. -- Alan Q., Dix Hills, N.Y.

True, Alan, we need to fill some cyberspace. But that's what mailbags are for.

Thanks to all for helping me out.


Updated on Thursday, Nov 20, 2003 12:34 pm EST