Damn Yankees

Well, after a month or so of pouting, I'm ready to poke my head from the emptiness which is the football season back into the emptiness that is the internet. The Beard is still out of the solar system, we may not see him again until pitchers and catchers report, but until then, I'll keep you company.

The team everybody loves to hate won another World Series, beating a Phillies team that gave Pedro Martinez's corpse two starts (0-2, 6.30 in the WS) and couldn't get a big hit when they needed one. The worst thing of all is that Alex Rodriguez, possibly my least favorite pro athlete of all time, now has a championship. Ugh.

Have you ever listened to A-Rod answer a question? One gets the feeling that he's practiced his cliche answers in front of the mirror every night, to make sure he gets them just right for the camera. I bet he even practices his sex faces, too.

This is OK sex, but not great. I think I'm going with good old #3...

Whoa there!!! No, nononono! Where'd that come from?

A-Rod don't do that, honey... I don't want that in the papers.

I'm calling the shots here! I'm A-Rod!

Ok then, #3 was clearly a bit too much A-Rod.

I don't want this chick calling me back or anything, it ain't that great.

I mean, check me out. I can do better than this! I'm A-Rod!!!

Man, I'd totally do me if I got the chance. Ka-Bang.

Maybe #11 would get me out of this mess.

That's my "Not really enjoying it, but it's your fault, not mine" look.

Haven't used that one in a while... see if I can remember how it goes.

Oh, man, that didn't work at all! She just called me 'teddy bear!" I never get #11 just right, now she thinks I was digging it! Gotta break out the big guns... this always sends 'em home lickety-split.

You made A-Rod sad, baby. Now, get out!!!

But back to the Yankees... Yankee haters can take solace in the fact that this is their first World Series in nine years, so it's not like their ridiculous payroll has bought them championship after championship (although they have made the postseason 14 of the past 15 seasons). But that's not to say there isn't a problem with the system... there is.

I have recently found a blog entitled "Bowling in the Dark," an interesting, apparently themeless stream of well-written, often heavily-notated consciousness. In the most recent entry, one of the authors brings up some evidence to argue against the creation of a salary cap in Major League Baseball. Here is my response:


Nicely done. But I feel the focus on the $-to-success ratio allows for a huge factor in the salary cap discussion to be overlooked: the extremely detrimental effect the huge spending has on the mid and lower-market teams. The best argument for a salary cap is not that we must hinder the big-money teams, but that we must allow the small-money teams the opportunity to compete fairly for the players they develop.

Bowling in the Dark correctly demonstrates that spending tons of money doesn't guarantee success. The Yankees spent a billion dollars between World Series titles, so clearly the top-spending team does not necessarily have an inside track to a World Series title. Teams like the Mets and Cubs have spent immense amounts on their rosters, yet have been failures on the field more often than not. However, Bowling fails the logic test when it offers this data to support the notion that a salary cap is unnecessary... all it truly proves is that poorly managed organizations don't win, no matter how much they spend.

Design is the engine of success...

The Yankees, Phillies, and Red Sox have had success, not merely because they have outspent other teams, but because they've invested that money into strong, smart organizations. Organizations with a good framework of scouting, drafting, and player development are those which field winning teams, and such teams should be rewarded, whether they spend a lot or a little. And so, as much as I despise the Yankees and everything they stand for, their most recent Series victory does not particularly stoke the fires of my salary-cap-now! furnace, because this year's Yankees are more than a collection of all-stars... this was a very, very good baseball team.

...but once an engine is built, it must be fueled.

The lack of a salary cap does not guarantee that a high-spending team will win... winning still depends on the organization. With no cap to player salaries, though, it's a virtual guarantee that an organization which does assemble and grow a great young team will be unable to keep them together for any significant amount of time, because the free-spending teams -- wise and dumb alike -- will soon offer star players far more than their original teams can afford to pay.

The current system rewards teams who have both solid organizations and lots of money, but actually punishes solid organizations who lack the big revenue. In fact, it punishes those teams far more severely than it does those teams like the Pirates and Reds, who are both cheap AND bad at developing young players (which might give us a hint into why those teams seem to be OK with long-term failure).

Ask the A's and Twins how far you can get with a fantastic organization, but no money to keep it together. Both have long been model franchises as far as player evaluation and development is concerned, and in recent years both have fielded some very strong teams... and then watched helplessly as those teams quickly dissolved. Two model organizations, yet it's been nearly 20 years since either has made it to the World series. Right there is the perfect example of the problem facing Major League Baseball.

There's The Rub

Now, if certain teams lacked revenue simply because they were poorly run, then we'd be into Business 101 territory: manage your business well, and you succeed; manage it poorly, and you fail. Even in an industry such as pro sports, that should be a reality of any business. But as we've seen, many of the wealthy teams are poorly run, and many of the well-run organizations are far from wealthy. Revenue generated by each team in baseball is NOT tied to how well each team conducts business, and that is precisely why a salary cap (or some other normalizing feature) is necessary.

Baseball from both ends of the food chain.

Colorado has seen both sides of this issue: with their enormous gate receipts in the mid-90s, they were a free-spending yet poorly organized team which, after a brief taste of success, became a decade-long failure on the field. They learned the hard way that they did not have the resources to continually rebuild a team through free agency, retooled in the Oakland/Minnesota mold (a process which took a great deal of time), and are now recognized as one of the best organizations in baseball. As such, the Rockies have had recent success on the field, but they now find themselves staring up the opposite end of the free agency feeding chain, having lost Matt Holliday, one of the best hitters in either league.

One can make the argument that Rockies' management made a good move getting what they did for Holliday, but that's largely beside the point. The problem here is that they were in that position with Holliday in the first place: forced to either trade him or lose him, because they could not possibly sign him. Furthermore, a team that is continually in the position where they must trade proven players for prospects, will eventually find itself taking more steps backwards than forwards. The Athletics are a particularly good example of this right now.

Of course, we've seen the occasional smaller-market team (such as the D-backs and Marlins) that is able to catch lightning in a bottle... combining a few wise free-agent pickups and a solid core of young players, and win in the extremely brief window of opportunity they have with their team before it inevitably crumbles (in both the above examples, leaving a colossal wreck behind). This shows us that any team which makes the playoffs has a chance... but it also demonstrates how watered-down the baseball postseason has become (the two Marlins championship teams finished a total of 19 games back in their division).

Free agency: good to a point, but not past it.

Free agency allows players to decide for whom they want to play; the fact that, for so long in baseball's history, a player was essentially "owned" by a team is shocking from today's perspective. So it's not as if free agency itself is at fault here, but there MUST be a check in that system to account for the vast imbalance from market to market. Matt Holliday may be worth $150 million to the Red Sox, but that doesn't make him a $150 million player in EVERY market. Free agency cannot go so far as to allow the price structure in one or two markets to dictate the pricing structure in all markets. The fact that a two-bedroom condo in Manhattan goes for $1.5 million does not make my home in Fort Collins, Colorado worth the same amount.

Solutions to tough questions.

I see two solutions to this problem. Either true revenue sharing must be put in place, in which all revenues are pooled and then divided equally, so that each team is given the exact same amount to spend on payroll; OR salaries must be capped, in order to prevent a half-dozen teams from artificially inflating the value of players in all markets.

The "luxury tax" fails to address this issue, because all it was really meant to do was specifically to slow down the Yankees' spending. It clearly did not work, but even if it had, it wasn't the correct approach. Limiting the Yankees is not the goal here, normalizing salaries across the board is.

True revenue sharing will never work for a number of reasons, chief among them the fact that baseball does not have a national TV contract like the NFL has. Until that happens (and it is infinitely unlikely it ever will) then a true sharing of revenue among all MLB teams is an impossibility. That leaves a salary cap.

Would a salary cap hurt today's high-spending teams? Perhaps slightly, but teams like the Yankees and Red Sox would still have every opportunity to be successful, because they are strong, high-revenue organizations that can afford to make offers to many high-end players. Wealthy teams like the Mets would still suck, because they just do.

Would a salary cap create good teams in places like Pittsburgh and Kansas City? No... again, the ability to afford better players might make them slightly more competitive, but it would be nothing more than a band-aid. Without solid organizations and increased revenue there first, those teams would still struggle... and there would be nothing to force those teams to spend to the limit of the cap (something that would likely be a necessity, were a true revenue sharing plan ever adopted).

What a salary cap would do -- and what baseball needs -- is to create an atmosphere where well-run, talented teams could hold onto most of the star players they produce, and remain a competitive team for long periods of time. The game's best players would still receive large free-agent offers, and some stars would still change teams. Player salaries would likely slow their exponential growth, but would remain very high. But with a salary cap in place, the original team could still have a reasonable opportunity to match the offers the player would find elsewhere, and hence have the chance to keep their teams together, and reap the rewards for doing things the right way at all levels of their organization. That would be good for the fans, good for the owners, good for the players, and good for the game.

Sigh...

Well, summer's over, Rockies fans. The best season in Rockies' history is in the books, ended by a couple late-inning meltdowns that would seem right in place in most of the team's first 16 years, but was quite jarring in this latest, and greatest one.

Right after last night's game, The Beard sent a quick message before leaving our galaxy to collect his thoughts over the winter:

"Dear Readers and Rockies fans:

Thank you for your support of the Colorado Rockies and their efforts to reach the peak of Beardly greatness. Unfortunately, they could not beat the Phillies in the division series, but this cannot be viewed as a failure! No, it is merely a foundation upon which future successes may be built. Worry not, Rockies faithful! I, The Beard, will be back next season, to continue to guide the Rockies toward their ultimate goal.

Congratulations and good luck to the Phillies, a fine team that plays the game the way it should be played, with the noteable exception of Jayson Werth.

Yours,
The Beard"

I'm not nearly as chipper as The Beard seems to be, but this isn't a disaster or anything. Here are some random thoughts this crappy autumn morning:

Losing to the Philles
This was a good series between two very evenly matched teams, and that fact alone should give Rockies fans some comfort today and through the winter. Things considered weaknesses for both teams didn't really come into play: the Rockies, it was said, couldn't hit lefties, and the Phils' lefty-heavy rotation gave them a clear advantage. Well, Cliff Lee shut them down in game one with a great performance, but the Rockies were successful against Hamels in game 2, knocked Happ out early in game three, and were in line to beat Lee in game 4. The Phillies' bullpen was supposed to be an issue, and while the Rockies did mount late-inning rallys in nearly every game, the Phils closed them out, with Lidge showing no sign of his regular-season hiccups.

In short, we shouldn't feel bad losing to the Phillies, they're the 2008 World Series champs after all, and three of the four games were one-run games. When you have weaknesses and the better team exploits them to beat you, that's one thing. But when you lose because one of your strengths throughout the regular season fails at just the wrong time, that's very tough to take... and that's where Rockies fans are today. But on the other hand, we have to realize that these guys don't need some crazy hot streak or lucky bounces to be one of the best teams in baseball... they are right up there with just about anybody. Rockies fans know this team was special, and could have won this series 3-1 just as easily as they lost it by that tally. But the Phillies owed them one from 2007, so I guess now we're even.

The biggest problem with losing to Philly is that John Kruk will think he was right all along (despite copious evidence to the contrary) about the Rockies, but I think even Philly fans have got to know that Kruk's a doofus of the highest order.

Best-Of-Five Series
I still hate them, and this series (the only DS series that wasn't a sweep) is a good example of why. A game like last night's is exactly what MLB should want their fans to see: a tight, back-and-forth contest not decided until the last out. These teams gave us three of those games, and they should have been allowed to give us more. As it is, the Phils eek out two wins in Colorado, and it's over. It would be great to see how the Rockies respond to a meltdown like they had in the 9th last night, but we won't get the chance.

How is that any different than the deciding game in a 7-game series, you ask? Because in baseball, flukey, weird things happen: things like awful umping (see below) robbing one team of an important baserunner or allowing another team to get one; a two-out flyball getting lost in the lights and hitting a favorite ex-Rockie in the bits, leading to an improbable comeback; or a closer who's been rock-solid all year having an unusually bad inning (Street, Papelbon).

In a seven-game series, those little things can (and often do) decide games, but when a team has to win four games to advance, those things usually even out... in a series this short, they don't often get the chance to. Once a team's down a game at any point in a five-game series, they have to be either nearly perfect or lucky from there on out if they hope to advance. There should be room for a good team -- like the Cardinals, Red Sox, or Rockies -- to be both imperfect and unlucky in a game or two, and still have a shot. And there should be room for an overmatched team such as the Twins to at least win a game against a superior, but beatable team like the Yankees.

Instant Replay
The Rockies had more than their share of bad calls go against them in this series, and it's pretty clear that some of these calls affected the outcome of the games. Can't really whine about it, bad calls have helped the Rockies too... just none in this series, I'm afraid.

Bad umpiring has been prevalent through the entire postseason, and the calls for instant replay seem to be at an all-time high. Balls and strikes are one thing, and people are always going to gripe about them... but bad calls at the bases, along the foul lines, etc., are just happening way too often. It's not as bad as the NBA, but it's getting there.

But I don't ever want to see instant replay in baseball, and I'll tell you why: baseball is a sport that does not depend on technology. In fact, for many fans, at the heart of the sport is the fact that it resists the application of technology... there isn't even a clock. Sure, there's fancy Hi-Def scoreboards and giant banks of lights, but those are parts of the ballpark, not of the game. The game we watch today is pretty much the exact same game that people sat down in the grass to watch 150 years ago, and that's something that we can't even come close to saying about any other major sport. Football has tinkered with its rules and its presentation over the decades, it's a fluid game that changes with the times. Baseball does not, and it should stay that way.

There does need to be a change, though, in the way the umps and the league handles these blown calls. I know there's supposedly some grading system, and the best umps get the playoff games... but if that's the case, how do we explain all these bad playoff calls? These are the best umps they have to offer?!? Yikes.

What needs to happen is that the umps should review their performances after each game, and publish those reviews. If an umpiring crew has to come out and say, "we made the right call here and here, but on this one and this one, we got it wrong," that's accountability we can see, rather than this mysterious, cloak-and-dagger thing they allegedly have behind the scenes. And when an ump really blows a call, there should be a consequence. When a ballplayer makes a bad mistake, he gets benched. When any other sort of employee screws up, he gets a writeup or a suspension. When an ump calls a guy safe when he's out by a step, or calls a ball foul that is fair by two feet, find somebody to replace him in the next game. He will know why, the players will know why, and the fans will know why. Simple as that.

Instant Replay is an attempt to eliminate mistakes, but mistakes will never be eliminated. That does not mean, however, that they should be tolerated.


Next Year's Rockies

Clearly, this is a team on the rise. Some difficult decisions will have to be made for this team next year. Here are my off-the-cuff thoughts on who stays and who goes next year:

GONE: Garrett Atkins, Brad Hawpe, Jason Marquis.

Garrett's contract with the Rockies is up this season. I do not expect the Rockies to sign him for next year. He has been a great Rockie, but his last two seasons have not been up to par. Stewart is the 3B for this team in the future. There is no reason to keep Garrett, but his productivity during his years here should get him plenty of looks from around the majors.

Hawpe has been a favorite of mine for quite a while, but his streakiness cannot be tolerated any longer. He basically slumped for the entire second half of the season. If he can be traded (I'm not sure of his contract status) then they should do so, to make room for Smith and Gonzales as full-time outfielders.

Marquis had a very good year for the Rockies. He will turn that into a decent contract for some other team.

BRING BACK: Torrealba, Betancourt, Spilborghs, Giambi

Yorvit showed that he is both a great backup catcher and a great starting catcher. I expect Iannetta to have a better season at the plate next year and to be the starter once again... if Yorvit will play for the money the Rockies can afford to pay him, I hope he'll come back.

Signing relievers to long-term contracts is always risky, but I thought that Betancourt did an outstanding job since coming from Cleveland, and I hope he's back. Beimel was pretty good too, but I don't know if they'll be able to afford them both.

Ryan Spilborghs is a great guy to have as a 4th outfielder, right-handed bat off the bench, and all-around good team guy by all accounts. I hope he returns.

Jason Giambi really surprised me with both his outstanding attitude and his ability in the last month of the season. I don't know what his plans are and what sort of money he's looking for, but with Helton at 1B, Giambi would be returning to this team to be his backup and to come off the bench. If he's willing to do that, I think the Rockies should make him an offer.

BATTLE: EY Jr vs. Clint Barmes for starting 2B, loser is utility infielder.

Ey Jr needs some playing time, but Barmes' inability to do anything at the plate has finally overwhelmed the fantastic defense he brings. I would like to see Young make the team as the starting 2B, his speed and bat can only help us out... if his defense approaches Clint's, I think they should go with the kid.

Barmes is a good guy to keep as a utility infielder, as he is an excellent defensive player who can play 2B, SS, and 3B. He hits a lot of HRs for a second baseman, but his inconsistency and his high strikeout count are too much to trade for that spotty power.

ROTATION: Ubaldo, Francis, Cook, DLR, Hammels.

Think about that for a second... that's a helluva rotation. I would like to see Morales challenge for that 5th spot, but if not, he was pretty good out of the bullpen. If Francis is healthy and ready to go, I expect the Rockies starting pitching to be even better next year than it was this year, and this was easily the best starting rotation the team has ever had.

GO ROCKIES!!!

NLDS Game 1: Phillies 5 Rockies 1

Cliff Lee was terrific for nine innings today. Ubaldo Jimenez was terrific for four... unfortunately, he pitched six. Lee did exactly what the Phillies got him to do, and the Rockies bats had no answer. Add a bit of wind and some timely hits and agressive base running by the Phils, and you have a pretty easy win for the Phillies.

So, what do we know after game 1? We know that a great pitching performance can make a team look bad. We know that the Rockies are going to have to win one game in Philly in order to win this series. And we now know that that win will not be game one!

Another note: I HATE the five-game series format in the division series. The best-of-five means that the loser of the first game must win three of the next four to advance, and that gives too great an advantage to the winner of game one. There's no need to minimize the division series... they can cut out some of the off days and easily make it a seven-game series just like the league and world series are. So hey, MLB... get with the program! Don't lengthen the season, but make the division series a best of seven like the other playoff series are!

Playoff Time!

Well, the Rockies are in the playoffs as the NL Wild Card. They face the Phillies in a best-of-five series. What are their chances?

The answer to that depends on two things: Phillies pitching and Rockies bats. I am not too worried about Rockies pitching against the Philly offense... even with the loss of De La Rosa, the Rockies staff has shown that they can keep just about any lineup quiet. The Phillies have one of the most potent lineups in the NL, but they are very streaky. If they streak hot, the Rockies will be in trouble no matter how well they pitch. But if they are average or if Colorado lucks out and catches them in a slump (they did not play particularly well down the stretch), the Rockies starters and relievers should be able to keep the scores low. Marquis and Morales are the wild cards here... these two have some people nervous with their performances over the last month or so. Either could make a big difference one way or the other.

The Rockies feast on right-handed pitching, but are .500ish against lefties. The Phillies have a lot of lefties in their rotation. Big advantage Philly. And against those lefties, Stewart is likely to sit in favor of Atkins, and Hawpe sits in favor of Spilborghs. When defense is factored in, Hawpe vs Spilborghs is probably a push, but Atkins for Stewart at the hot corner is a clear step down. Unfortunately, the right-handed bats Tracy will bring in against the Phillies' starters aren't hitting any better than the left-handed bats he'll be benching, but this does give the Rockies bench a ton of left-handed power against a Philly bullpen without a reliable left-hander... which is nice!

But there are questions surrounding those Philly left-handers: Cole Hamels was the World Series MVP in 2008, but hasn't been great in 2009. He could return to form and dominate, or he could be a bump in the road. Cliff Lee came in like gangbusters after being traded to the Phils, allowing three earned runs over his first five starts, all wins... but since then, he has been average at best in Phillies red, going 2-4 with one no decision. Which Hamels and Lee will show up to face the Rockies? And we can't overlook the mess that is the Phillies bullpen... even if their starters shut the Rockies down, with the way the Rockies have shown they can rally in late innings, you've got to believe that just about any lead handed to the Phillies 'pen will have Phillies fans reaching for their favorite stomach acid reducer.

Things working in the Rockies' favor: they are the only one of the four NL playoff teams to have a winning record over the final ten games of the season, and the only one which really had a fight on their hands to make the playoffs. Remember, about a week ago, the Braves were breathing right down their backs for the Wild Card, and the Rockies responded with some pretty good baseball. Teams that go into the playoffs hot usually tend to stay hot. Rockies fans hope that the Rockies September (their 2nd-best month of the season behind their sizzling June) is just them getting warmed back up.

Prediction: I hate predictions. They're as reliable as a weather forecast, but a lot less useful. I will predict one thing: Rockies and Phillies fans will still be happier next week than Tigers fans are today.

Go Rockies!!!

WORSE THAN THE ROCKIES

Hello loyal readers, and welcome to this year's final edition of "Worse Than The Rockies." This is another grab bag, so sit back and enjoy!

Worse Than The Rockies: The Magic Number

Ask just about any sports fan what a Magic Number is, and he or she will know the answer: it's the amount of wins (for the leader) plus losses (by the team chasing them) needed for a team to clinch a postseason playoff berth. As of this morning, the Rockies' Magic Number is 7... so if they win seven games, they're in the playoffs; if the Giants and Braves lose 7 games, the Rockies are in; and any combination of Rockies wins and Giants/Braves losses totaling 7 means the Rockies are in.

So, what's the problem with the Magic Number? Very simply: it's not magic. It's not even complicated. A third grader can figure it out: take the number of games in a season and add one. From that number, subtract the current number of losses for the trailing team and the number of wins for the leading team, and what you end up with is the Magic Number. Balancing your checkbook takes more brainpower... it's subtraction, not magic.

Ancient Egyptians designing the Great Pyramids already knew that the circumference of any circle is its diameter times pi. We figured out a calendar that tells us the exact dates when the days will be longest, shortest, and right in between, like 3500 years ago. We've been using zero as a number - despite the fact that it indicates a lack of things to count - for 2000 years. Those are numbers that might be considered at least somewhat "magical." Perhaps if you were a caveman who'd been frozen in ice, thawed out, and then handed the sports page, you'd think that one number telling us something about two teams at once was pretty special, but my guess is that you'd be far too distracted by airplanes and fingernail polish to be impressed with this concept, to say nothing about calling it "magic."

Magic Number, you're cool and all, but you're a bit too big for your britches. Give us a bit of credit, here... you're just a clinch number, and everybody knows it. Your arrogant, inflated sense of your own worth makes you Worse Than the Rockies. 1.5/4 Dingers.


WORSE THAN THE ROCKIES: The Dyson Vacuum Guy

Listening to this pompous douche talk about his vacuum gets more annoying every time I hear it. The guy acts like he invented the cotton gin and then cured cancer with it. Shut up, dick! It's a vacuum! And frankly, that decrepit old antique you are ragging on in the ad picked up the dog food every bit as well as your stupid-looking spacevac did. Yours doesn't even have a light! I don't care if it benefits from all the scientifically proven advantages of The Ball... it simply can't be cool unless it has a headlight.

You really want to be able to brag about making vacuuming easier? Go invent the floating chair with no legs, so my shitty old Model T vacuum can go right underneath it. Then, I won't be subject to the endless ridicule from loved ones and strangers alike as I am forced to twist my arm that extra five degrees, or -- heaven forbid -- move the chair a few inches, in order to complete my grueling carpet upkeep regimen. So when you've invented the legless floating chair, then your smug ass can come on back to my TV screen and brag about your invention in that snooty Imperial Empire Officer accent of yours, and I promise to consider it on its own merits. Until then, you and your ball are Worse Than the Rockies. 2.5/4 Dingers.


WORSE THAN THE ROCKIES: PETER FORSBERG'S FEET

Ok, again with the comeback try, Forsberg? Give it up, man! No matter how great you are from the knees up, your feet and ankles just can't handle it, and they haven't been able to for some time. I know there are plenty of fans out there who would love to see you back hobbling around the ice for the 30-35 games you might actually be healthy enough to suit up, but I'm not one of them. It's like watching Fred Astaire dance in a wheelchair, except that might actually be inspiring. This is just sad. Please, Peter, just call it a career and be happy! Go sign up for beer league hockey and enjoy nailing every puck bunny you meet for the rest of your life. But don't go down this "one more try in the NHL" road again, because your feet are Worse Than the Rockies. 2/4 Dingers.