Rounding the Bases

Simple. Direct. Perfect.

A few All-Star thoughts from the week:

- I love the "Vote for Manny" idea from Jason. It's hilarious, and it uses a very media-oriented topic to get some attention to a very important issue on how we treat steroids.

- However, I think some (though not Jason; this isn't the point he's trying to make at all) are taking Manny's candidacy a little too legitimately. The voting started before the suspension. Manny was a celebrity in LA, and I imagine he would be leading all vote-getters at this point without the suspension. Before criticizing the fans for poor voting, let's let this play out a little. I doubt he was going to get a lot of votes after his suspension, though the new campaigns and attention might keep him in the picture longer than he should (vote for Justin Upton people!). And if we're really going to go all-out, why is A-Rod third?

- Joey Votto went on the DL. I feel for the guy. He was doing an awesome job and is a young, exciting player. I'd still feel for him if he were the opposite. It has to be really scary for someone with such a problem, and I only hope that by sitting the next few weeks, everything will clear itself up. Vote for Joey anyway.

- The real travesty of the NL outfield voting so far is that Raul Ibañez is just sixth and that Justin Upton and Brad Hawpe don't even appear in the voting. I realize that a lot of voters haven't voted yet (I haven't), but this is just ridiculous. Beltran and Braun are fine choices, but Ibañez is the epitome of All-Star Games (big first half, much bigger than career would indicate), Upton should at least be in the top five, and the same goes for Hawpe. They just happen to play for crappy NL West teams. Look, people, look! Before you vote, you should, you know, actually look at the statistics. Then again, if you fall into the popularity contest portion of it, I respect your decision as long as you vote Griffey into the game as well (he is 4th, and I would be okay with him getting in).

- Brewer fans have shown up in big numbers so far. All Brewers starters are in the running at this point, and we may be seeing another 1957. Someone please explain how Bill Hall is second at third base. Please? JJ Hardy? Jason Kendall? Corey Hart? Mike Cameron? I'll give you Fielder, Weeks, and Braun.

- Where have all the Cubbies gone (8 made it last season -- most of any team)?

- In an odd moment, the AL voting actually looks sane, but I doubt that we've seen the brunt of Yankee-Red Sox forces yet. Is Scott Rolen really ahead of Mike Lowell?

- Scratch that, Rangers fans appear to be the Brewers of the AL.

- Again, it's way too early to make a big deal out of any of this. Most of the voters to use all 25 by this point probably don't pay much attention to who should be at the game. By the end of the month, there should be a lot more appropriate players there.

Sunday Frivolities

Cobb didn't make a lot friends.

A while back when I started this Sunday rotation, I mentioned a bunch of players who only had a "cup of coffee" in the majors. Usually, these guys are players that have spent substantial time in the minors looking for an opportunity. In the comments of that post, Kevin, over at DMB World Series Replay, made the mention that Allan Travers was a future priest who was recruited to play a game in which the Detroit Tigers protested a Ty Cobb suspension. I looked it up and planned to do it last week because the timing (you'll see) was more appropriate, but due to a 21st birthday the night before, watching the Braves game, and getting a call to go watch a Bats game, I had no time to post last Sunday, which I deeply regret because I like Sundays. Anyway, on to Allan Travers' unique story.

On May 15, 1912, the Detroit Tigers visited the New York Yankees, and as Yankee fans are want to do, they heckled the Tigers but took particular pleasure in jabbing Ty Cobb. If you know anything about Cobb, you know he's a man with a short temper. Apparently, Claude Leuker didn't get the message, and he called Cobb a "half n*****". Enraged, Cobb ran into the stands and began wailing on Leuker. Oh, and one more thing about Leuker -- he lost a hand in a factory accident and only had three fingers on the other. Cobb, disregarding other fans' pleas, shouted, "I don't care if he has no feet!"

(What the fans actually did is unclear, but you would think that hundreds could have kept Cobb away from Leuker, or maybe they thought Leuker deserved it. I'm not really sure)

In response to Cobb's outburst, American League President Ban Johnson suspended Cobb indefinitely on May 18th, and the Tiger players (all of them) decided to protest. Remember, fights and the like were common in those days, but I'm still not entirely sure why they objected other than that Cobb was their best player and they just accepted his behavior (maybe even thought it was an appropriate response to Leuker's abuse). Without a team, Johnson told owner Frank Navin that he would be fined $5,000 for every game in which he did not have a team. Navin, then, told manager Hughie Jennings to field a team. Making matters worse, the Tigers were in Philadelphia.

Jennings went around Philadelphia that day, searching for enough players to field a team. On a street corner (reportedly), he found Travers playing a violin. Travers had never played a game of baseball in his life, failed to make the varsity team at St. Joseph's College, and had never pitched. He was just the manager for the baseball team. However, he and Jennings found some other players, and the game went on.

Travers may or may not have wished that it had. Throwing slow curves to try to keep the Philadelphia Athletics off balance, Travers was rocked. Going all nine innings because there were no replacements (I mean, they had an equipment manager pitching, so there was no one else), Travers gave up 26 hits and 24 runs (14 earned). In addition, he walked 7 and struck out 1. The Tigers would go on to lose the game 24-2. Travers' ERA was 15.75 (unjustifiably good for how bad he probably pitched) and his WHIP was 4.125. ERA+? 21.

After what was embarassingly called a game, Johnson met with the striking Tiger players and told them they would be banned from baseball if they continued their strike. Knowing it wasn't worth it, Cobb told them it was okay, and they returned to action. All but one of the replacement players' careers died that night. Billy Maharg would play a game for the 1916 Philadelphia Phillies, but he was most known for his involvement in the Black Sox scandal. In addition to the eight St. Joseph's players, Jennings and two other 40-year olds played in the game, including Deacon McGuire who added to his assist record for catchers.

Travers would leave his baseball career behind to fulfill his vocation of becoming a priest. He entered into the Jesuit order and was ordained a priest in 1926. For many years, he refused to talk about his one day in the majors. I can understand why -- he set the modern major-league record for most runs and hits given up in one game.

This Day in Baseball History: May 31st, 1965

This switch-hitter is just as surprised as I was.

On May 31, 1965:

An all switch-hitting infield starts for the Dodgers.


What an oddity. It's normal to have one switch-hitter. It's advantageous to have two switch-hitters in the lineup. But it's just weird to have four switch-hitters and for all of them to play in the infield. At first base and in his second season, Wes Parker could take a walk but little else offensively while playing Gold Glove-caliber (he won 6 in his career) defense. At second base and in his rookie season, Jim Lefebvre was on his way to a Rookie of the Year Award even though he really wasn't a whole lot better than Parker (he just did it at second). At short and in his seventh season, Maury Wills would steal 94 bases on his way to a third-place showing in the MVP voting. Finally, at third base and in his penultimate season, Jim Gilliam put together one of his finest seasons, but he would only play in 111 games.

Facing the Los Angeles Dodgers all-switch-hitting infield would be the Cincinnati Reds. Even with the supposed added difficulty of having to face such a task, Joey Jay would turn in a sparkling performance. Jay went 9 innings and struck out 8 while giving up 1 run on 3 hits, taming the Dodgers. Wes Parker would drive in the Dodgers' only run with a sacrifice fly in the ninth. Otherwise, it was all Reds in the 6-1 beating. Frank Robinson, Deron Johnson, and Jimmie Coker (born exactly 52 years before me) would be the main contributors offensively.

However, the Dodgers would gain the upper hand for the season. They went on to finish first in the National League and win the World Series 4-3 over the Minnesota Twins. Though Sandy Koufax and Don Drysdale were roughed up the first time around in Games 1 and 2, they rallied, and Koufax threw two complete-game shuouts in four days to take the World Series MVP. He would only give up 7 hits and 11 baserunners total. Parker and Wills had the best series offensively with Jim Lefebvre doing fairly well, too.


Trivia Time
Who had more wins that season, Koufax or Drysdale?

Yesterday's Answer --> Harry Hooper for the Boston Red Sox in 1913. Eighty years later, Ricky Henderson would be the second.

The Pitcher's Mound

Just in case you were curious.

Originally, there wasn't even a mound on a baseball diamond. Pitchers threw underhand (essentially throwing up), and a mound made no sense whatsoever and wasn't even thought of. Instead, there was a box with its front edge located 45 feet away from the front edge of the plate, and the ball had to be released within the box. In 1881, it was moved back to 50 feet to increase offense, which they knew even then increased attendance. Up to that point, pitchers worked quite well throwing underhand with two perfect games already thrown, but when you hear "Hit it back through the box", this is where that phrase comes from as players literally hit it back through the box when hitting it up the middle.

Four years later, pitchers were allowed to throw overhand, tilting the power back in favor of the pitcher. In 1887, the box was standardized to size of 4 feet wide by 5 and half feet long. Why is this important? It increased the total distance of box to plate to 55 feet, 6 inches, and pitchers now had to pitch from the back of the box. Another six years passed, and the box became obsolete, and the rubber was introduced. Offense began reigning supreme again, and pitchers realized that a plate (or rubber as it was later called) increased velocity. Also, 5 more feet were added to the distance to hopefully completely even things out, making the distance 60 feet, 6 inches.

After refining their techniques of throwing overhand, pitchers also realized that a mound could help. At this point, their momentum took the pitch to the upper part of the zone, but a mound could redirect that, lower. Groundscrews began tinkering with the idea, adding an inch here and there, but it was not standardized. John Montgomery Ward took credit for the invention of the mound, but it's not really known who really started it. Shibe Park was rumored to have a 20 inch mound, but most others were around 15 or 16 inches high. In 1903 with the combining of leagues, standardization was desired, and the mound now had to be 15 inches high.

This worked for a number of years, but after 1968 and a thorough domination by pitchers, the MLB pushed back for offense. The mound was lowered to 10 inches to decrease the downward plane given to pitchers. It worked.

Today, the mound is in the center of the diamond (duh), the middle sitting 59 feet from the plate. Exactly 18 inches back from that, the rubber sits at 60 feet, 6 inches. The mound, itself, is 18 feet in diameter. It can only be 10 inches taller, but some pitchers will tell you that visiting bullpen mounds are not to standard heights, making it difficult to adjust. I do not believe that there are rules about bullpen mounds.


While there are no rules regarding the height of bullpen mounds, there are common sense rules that one should follow when betting online. Be smart and know your limits. Responsible
wagering is the key to a positive gaming experience. Remember, your actions directly effect family and friends.

How Historically Bad Is Jeff Francoeur?

At least he has that going for him.

I'm going to do something I won't do very often, I'm going to admit that I was wrong. However, I would like to say I was misled.

At the beginning of Spring Training and this season, much was made of Jeff Francoeur's new stance, and unless you watched, you probably didn't take it very seriously. Well, I watched, and I was actually impressed.

I didn't care too much about the stance. Everyone talks about stances and how much effect they have, but I'll tell you what -- they don't. If you succeeded enough to get to the majors, your stance isn't the problem. What I was more concerned about was the approach. The approach is much more important, and with Frenchy, it's usually his biggest problem.

Last season, his mechanics were, in fact, off. He continually stepped "in the bucket" (down the third base line for righties, first for lefties) and not back towards the pitcher. That causes the shoulders and hips to clear early, leaving zero power and little ability to square up the ball. One reason I despise Terry Pendleton, this should have been an easy fix, but it never was. His approach wasn't any good, but if your mechanics are off, it won't matter.

So when it came to Spring Training, I paid attention to when he was swinging and not how. For the Spring, he was much better than I had seen him in some time. He was patient and letting pitches go that weren't good to swing at. He had 7 BB in 67 AB's (over 600 AB, that would work for a very acceptable 60 BB), and he wasn't pressing. When the season began, he was still patient, but better pitchers were now forcing him to hit. At that point, he was, and he was doing it by going the opposite way. Now? Not so much.

He's gotten completely away from the new approach, even though the stance has not changed. Last night in his one at-bat with a hit, he let the first two pitches go for balls, and on the 2-0 count, he took a high slider and roped it into right. In the other bats? He swung at the first pitch and did little with them. If you want to be aggressive and swing at the first pitch, make it be a good pitch, not the crap Frenchy has swung at.

So what to do? Well, he needs to go away. Partly, he needs to leave because the expectations in Atlanta are too high for him to get back into a groove. Mostly, he needs to work with a hitting coach better than Terry Pendleton, who has continually screwed up. How the Braves accomplish this is up to them.

So how bad has Frenchy been? Looking at last year's .653 OPS and 72 OPS+, I took a look. In terms of his .653 OPS, it was the 236th worst season since 1901 (1901!) for an outfielder that received at least 500 at-bats. One way to make up some value is to steal bases, but Francoeur stole 0 (many of the others on this list stole at least double-digits). Vince Coleman, in 1986, only had a .581 OPS, but he stole 107 bases. The OPS isn't good, but when he got on, at least he did something. Frenchy barely got on and barely moved when he did. For trivia's sake, George Barclay's .495 OPS in 1904 is the worst ever, and Bobby Tolan's .555 in 1973 is the worst in the last 40 years. Brian Hunter's .581 OPS in 1999 is the worst in the past 10 years. In that past decade, Francoeur's .653 is sixth-worst, in Endy Chavez levels.

But because I like advanced statistics, what about OPS+? It, predictably makes him look worse. His 72 is good for 56th worst in major-league history. The worst is Hunter's 1999 season of 48. Willie Taveras and Michael Bourn's 2008 seasons of 56 and 57, respectively, are the third and fourth-worst ever, but again, they stole bases at least (44 for Hunter, 68 for Taveras, and 41 for Bourn). Making all this worse, Francoeur went to the plate 652 times, more than 100 more than any of the other three.

Any worse? Well, those statistics included all outfielders. Right fielders are projected to hit well and for power. Jeff's 2008 is the 61st worst (OPS) and 11th worst (OPS+) in major-league history. In the past decade, it is the 2nd worst in both categories. This season's 63 OPS+ would be the worst for a right fielder who received at least 500 at-bats.

What about this season? He's worse. His average is 12 points higher (.251), but his OPS his fallen 33 points (.620). His OPS+ is a robust 63. A .620 OPS season would make him the 88th worst in major-league history, and his 63 OPS+ also moves him up, this time to 13th all-time. So, the Braves continue to play one of the worst hitting outfielders in major-league history, and they do it every day. Why? Defense, maybe? His defensive worth was negative last year and is again this year. I have come to the dark side (or is it the light?), and as one of Francoeur's most faithful, I no longer consider him good enough. Too bad Cox does.

This Day in Baseball History: May 30th, 1986

{Insert joke here}

On May 30, 1986:

Barry Bonds made his major-league debut.


Scratch that. If you look at most sites and even Baseball-Reference, they put Barry Bonds' major-league debut as May 30th, but actually, it was just his first major-league start. He actually made a pinch-hit appearance on April 20th, rapping an RBI single.

Anyway, at the time of his debut, he was two months away from his 22nd birthday and was a top prospect. Originally drafted in 1982 by the Giants in the second round, Bonds could not work out an acceptable contract with the Giants and went to the University of Southern California. In 1984, he broke a College World Series record by getting a hit in 7 consecutive plate appearances. In 1985, he hit .368 with 23 HR and 68 RBI. Later that year, he was drafted sixth overall by the Pittsburgh Pirates, and after signing quickly, he would be a player of the month in July for a minor-league affiliate. Bonds was promoted to AAA at the beginning of the next season, and with a .311 average and .537 SLG, he was promoted to the big leagues for his first start.

But on May 30th, it was a different Barry Bonds than you might remember. First, he led off, and he would lead off in 461 more games. Second, he played center field, and after playing all 110 games at center in 1986, he would only sparingly play there after. Third, he struck out 3 times, something he only did 34 times in his major-league career. He did, however, have a walk. It wasn't a great debut for Bonds. He was 0-for-5 with 3 K's in the Pirates' 6-4 loss to the Los Angeles Dodgers.

Though he came in 6th in the Rookie of the Year voting, he wasn't too terribly impressive, but one could see the talent. He did have power (16 HR and 26 2B), speed (36 of 43 in steals), and a good eye (65 BB). His .223 average and 102 K's (his only 100+ K season) weren't too good, but his .258 BABIP was a bit low. It would only be a matter of time. It gives me more faith that Jordan Schafer can be good.


Trivia Time
Who became the first player to hit leadoff home runs in both games of a double-header?

Yesterday's Answer --> William O. Douglas went from majority to dissenter between the two cases.

This Day in Baseball History: May 29th, 1922

All the sports have this, don't they?

On May 29, 1922:

The Supreme Court upholds Major League Baseball Anti-Trust Exemption.


At the turn of the 20th century, Progressivism was at its height. A response to the Industrial Revolution and the Robber Barons, politicians such as William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson demanded reforms, especially in the economy, and the monopolies were main targets. Roosevelt would be the most active in his pursuit of trust-busting. But before he could do anything, he had to have a legal basis, and fortunately for him, it came in 1890, about a decade before he entered into office. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was signed into law in 1890 by Benjamin Harrison. Though aimed at monopolies, it had an interesting loophole. Anyone who did whatever they did better than anyone else and thus gained a monopoly was not in violation. The Act was there to avoid artificially raising prices by restricting trade.

As for baseball, it was at a turning point at the turn of the century as well. In 1903, the National League and American League combined the two most competitive professional leagues into one, essentially creating a monopoly. However, the Federal League had other ideas, and by the early part of the next decade, it was a powerhouse as well. In 1915, the Federal League sued Major League Baseball, contending that the leagues conspired to prevent players in between contracts from signing with them. This would break the Sherman Anti-Trust Act as it restricted trade. Kenesaw Landis was the judge overseeing the case, but before the future commissioner and Cubs fan was forced to make a decision (one he didn't want to make because he knew the Federal League had a case), the Federal League was absorbed into the MLB.

Part of the deal was compensation for the Federal League owners, but Baltimore was left out. They weren't very happy. In 1919, the Baltimore owners sued the MLB for conspiring to destroy the Federal League, not a bogus accusation, and the first judge agreed, giving them $240,000 (wow!). Of course, the MLB appealed, and eventually, it made it to the Supreme Court in 1922. In the case of Federal Baseball Club v. National League, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was up for debate. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled that Major League Baseball was simply a "state affair" and did not violate any anti-trust acts. Although teams crossed state lines, money did not (technically), which would have violated the anti-trust acts, and the MLB was not "interstate commerce".

As you might expect, baseball probably got a bit of a break here, but it was the nation's pastime. Thirty years later in 1953, another case came to the Supreme Court. In Toolson v. New York Yankees, George Toolson (a pitcher for the Yankees' AAA team) thought he could pitch in the majors, but because of the reserve clause, he was unfairly bound to the Yankees, challenging the restriction of trade clause of the Sherman Act. The earlier courts followed Federal, but the case appeared in the Supreme Court. Not swayed, the Supreme Court shot it down 5-2. A lawyer for baseball? Future baseball commissioner Bowie Kuhn.

Almost twenty years later, Flood v. Kuhn (sound familiar) challenged it again. The Supreme Court once again ruled in favor of baseball, but it made an interesting statement. The original ruling, in their minds, was tenuous at best, and the MLB did in fact violate the interstate commerce clause. Though it technically didn't do anything, it cracked baseball's armor, and the reserve clause was about to go.


Trivia Time
What justice changed his mind from Toolson to Flood?

Yesterday's Answer --> In order: Nolan Ryan (491 of 497 - 98.8%), George Brett (488 -98.2%), and Robin Yount (385 - 77.5%).

Strikeout Fun

Rough night at the dish.

Chipper Jones struck out 4 times last night. Why does that matter? Well, it was the first time in his major league career that he accomplished such a feat. He had played in 2059 (1992 starts -- Chipper made his debut in 1993, coincidence?) straight games without doing so. Just for fun, I looked up who had the longest streaks without having a four-strikeout game in the last 55 years (courtesy of B-R.com's Play Index, of course).

Starts
*- denotes entire career

Carl Yastremski - 3222 *
Hank Aaron - 3172 *
Robin Yount - 2742
Rafael Palmeiro - 2712 *
George Brett - 2658 *
Al Kaline - 2619 *
Cal Ripken - 2615
Luis Aparicio - 2534 *
Joe Morgan - 2486 *
Ozzie Smith - 2473 *

Chipper Jones - 1992

Chipper is 38th on the all-time list for most consecutive games without striking out 4 times in a game and getting the lovely parting gift of a golden sombrero. In response, Chipper just chalked it up to another 0-for-4 game in his career, and he refused to blame his toe, which he really looked like he re-injured in his second at-bat last night. During his last at-bat, he just waived at the ball, not putting anything behind the swing. Could be because he just wanted to hit the ball, but it could be because his toe wouldn't allow a full swing. You just don't see Chipper give away at-bats like that very often.

Want to know who went the longest without having a three-strikeout performance? Bill Buckner with 2229 games. Ozzie Smith was next with 2129, and Tony Gwynn was next at 1878. It drops off precipitously after that.

Most starts without a strikeout? Nellie Fox at 98 games, and he also had the 4th longest at 47, two streaks of 39, 2 of 37, and one of 34 (all in the top 25 all-time; only Dave Cash and Felix Millan even have two streaks in the top 25). The next is Clint Courtney at 65 and Greg Gross at 64, dropping off after that.

Most consecutive starts with 4 K's? Oddly enough, 2 is the longest streak, and it is shared by only 6 people -- Todd Linden, Jay Buhner, Ken Caminiti, Dave Hostetler, Ruppert Jones, and Gorman Thomas.

This Day in Baseball History: May 28th, 1993

I was going to show these Hall of Fame pictures, but all of them had the mystery man in it. I'm guessing the question isn't terribly difficult, but I'm not just going to give it away.

On May 28, 1993:

Robin Yount and George Brett meet in the first meeting of 3,000 hit players since 1925.


Robin Yount and George Brett would have made a terrific left side of the infield, but unfortunately, they never played on the same team. Incredibly, however, they both played on one team for their entire careers (Yount for the Brewers, Brett for the Royals), and it's pretty hard to find two players like this in any era. Regardless, both were excellent defensive players (Yount at short and, after 1984, center, and Brett at third) who could also hit.

By May 28, 1993, both players had 3,000 hits, and both players were on their last legs. After 1990 (his age 37 season), Brett was an average hitter, and as a full-time DH, he was there for mainly sentimental purposes. In 1992 for his 3,000th hit, he was picked off while trying to enjoy the moment in what was probably one of the biggest dick moves of all-time.

Yount was also an average player by this point and had been since about 1989 (his age 33 and second MVP season), but he was still playing center every day. He, too, had his 3,000th hit in 1992, but he didn't get picked off.

Coming into this game, both players were in their the twilight of their careers, but what careers they were, Hall of Fame in fact. Anyway, the Royals went to visit the Royals on the 28th of May. The Brewers, behind a complete-game gem from Cal Eldred, would beat Kevin Appier and the Royals 5-1. The two Hall of Famers didn't have memorable games. Brett went 0-3 with an RBI on a groundout. Yount went 1-4 with a sharp grounder through the hole between the first and second basemen. Neither would have great last seasons, but appropriately, both were elected to the Hall of Fame in 1999.


Trivia Time
Who had the most votes in that Hall of Fame vote between the two, and who was the other guy elected in that election?

Yesterday's Answer --> Willie Mays, but he actually did it today. Firefox kicked me off after I made the change and did not save it. I'm a failure. Sorry.

Ballantine Beer and Baseball

Right-center.

Peter Ballantine was born in Scotland in 1791, and he moved to the United States in 1820 and began working at a brewery. Thirteen years later, he opened his own brewery. Having some success and wanting a bigger market, he moved his family from Albany to New York City in 1840. By 1877, he was the fourth largest brewery in the country. When Prohibition hit, they changed to making malt syrup and diversified into an insurance and real estate company. After Prohibiton was lifted, the owners didn't want to go back to brewing beer, and they sold that part of the company to Carl Badenhausen. Ballantine Beer was still as popular as ever. By the 1950's, it was so popular that it was the third-largest brewing company in country, but it went into decline in the following decade. Now, it's owned by Pabst Brewing Company, but it's only sold in 40 oz. bottles.

What makes Ballantine Beer so special is its relationship with baseball. Based in New York City, it was a major sponsor of the New York Yankees in the 1950's and 1960's. Mel Allen, a famous Yankee announcer, would call Yankee home runs "Ballantine Blasts", but Ballantine Beer would call for his firing in a cost-cutting move. When Phil Rizzuto retired from playing, Ballantine pushed for him to be hired as an announcer. After the Mets came to town, Ballantine Beer (favored by Yankee fans) and Rheingold (favored by Met fans) had an interesting rivalry.

Ballantine even reached into Philadelphia. Shibe Park's outfield fences were originally low, and fans could watch games from nearby buildings. Connie Mack, not one to ignore finances, created a "spite fence" to block the view from right field. Brought over from Yankee Stadium, the Ballantine Beer Sign occupied the top 15 feet of the 75 foot wall just over the scoreboard. Anything hit over hit was a home run, but it is believed that Dick Allen was the only one to clear it.

After the 1960's, Ballantine lost much of its influence and connection with the game of baseball.

On-Base Streaks and What They Mean ... If Anything

His streak is still more impressive than Cabrera's.

It has often been said that squaring up a round ball with a round bat is the hardest thing to do in sports. Considering that anyone who succeeds 3 out of 10 times is considered quite the accomplishment, I would say it probably is the hardest thing to do in sports. However, it is a bit easier to simply get on base. You can get walked, get hit by a pitch, get on by catcher's interference, and even get on by an error. We all know about Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting in 1941, but Ryan Zimmerman's 43-game on base streak begged the question -- what is the longest streak of simply getting on base? Well, I took a look on Baseball-Reference's Play Index to look up the best streaks in the past 55 years, and here's what I found.

Orlando Cabrera - 63 in 2006 with the Angels
Mark McGwire - 62 in 1995-1996 with Oakland
Jim Thome - 60 in 2002-2003 with Cleveland and Philadelphia
Will Clark - 59 in 1995-1996 with Texas
Barry Bonds - 58 (twice) in 2001-2002 and 2003 with San Francisco
Duke Snider - 58 in 1954 with Brooklyn
Wade Boggs - 57 in 1985 with Boston
Derek Jeter - 57 in 1998-1999 with New York
Frank Thomas - 57 in 1995-1996 with the White Sox
Mike Schmidt - 56 in 1981-1982 with Philadelphia
Ryan Klesko - 56 in 2002 with San Diego

In the past 16 years, Zimmerman's 43-game streak is just the 31st longest. In the past 33? 49th. In the past 55? 57th. I find this interesting. Why, in the past 16 years, are there so many people with 43+-game streaks but not before? If you look at Zimmerman's accomplishment (and it is an accomplishment to get on in that many games straight against major-league pitching) against the past 15 or so years, he is not that impressive (though that statement is pretty relative), and looking at the numbers, you would expect someone later this year to top it. However, plop him down in the 1950's and 60's, and he's in some impressive company.

I guess the easy answer is Moneyball and the "focus" on walks, but the biggest spike in on-base percentage is actually from 1994-2000 in the American League, where it topped .340 every season and .350 in 1996 (but has gone down since). The National League never really saw that spike, and I'm guessing the difference is the growing comfort with DH's (but I won't actually say that for sure). In addition, players don't necessarily walk more. In 1956, there was 4.06 BB/9, and it hasn't topped 3.79 in the AL in the 1990's or 2000's. In the NL, the discrepancy between the eras isn't that great (though there was a significant downturn from 1963-1968, but that was to be expected), either.

Indeed, there isn't even a great difference in batting average. Since 1993, batting averages have sat in the .260s and .270s in the AL, but it was that way in the late 1970's and 1980's as well. The NL has been surprisingly consistent in the last 55 years. So batting average doesn't seem to be the answer.

So why? The one answer I can come up with is a possible change in philosophy where a team refuses to allow one player (the best on the other team) to beat them. It was no surprise to see Barry Bonds' name on the list a couple times. Going on, one sees Jim Thome, Alex Rodriguez, Frank Thomas, Albert Pujols, and Gary Sheffield (among others) as main cogs of the list. Does the fear of power, which has increased (though it was pretty high in the 1980's in the AL and the 1950's in the NL), cause people to selectively walk certain batters? If you focus on not letting Pujols beat you, you'll walk him, which increases his streak of times on base but kills his hit streak.

But I'm not sure about that, either. When I look at intentional walks, they haven't gotten out of hand, and instead, they have actually gone down during the Steroid Era.

Any thoughts?

Streaks from 1954 to 1976, from 1976 to 1993, and from 1993 to the present (you might need a subscription to B-R.com to see these, but I'm not sure).

This Day in Baseball History: May 27th, 1941

FDR was always a friend of baseball.

On May 27, 1941:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt interrupts baseball.


As World War II raged on in Europe and Asia, the United States of America had not yet entered the war. Officially, they were neutral, but in reality, they obviously favored the British. Propoganda-wise, everything negative was directed toward the Nazis and the positives toward the British. A few months earlier, the United States enacted the Lend-Lease Act, which did not technically leave out the Germans, but for all intents and purposes, the British and Soviets, and later the Chinese, were the beneficiaries.

Anyway, on the night of May 27, Franklin Delano Roosevelt made a national public address calling for an "unlimited national emergency". Politically, it didn't really do anything or add any powers, but it's main purpose was to illuminate the growing problems in Europe and Asia. Public opinion was not yet on FDR's side. The public was wary of being involved in a waran ocean away, still reeling from World War I. Six months and a week and a half later, Pearl Harbor changed everything. A month and a half later, FDR issued the Green Light Letter asking baseball to play on despite the war.

But for the moment, the United States rolled along, and that included baseball. However, it did something that I can't see happening today. For 45 minutes, the New York (baseball) Giants and the Boston Braves stopped their game to listen to the public address played over the speakers at the Polo Grounds. The Giants, behind Carl Hubbell, went on to win the game 2-1. I'm not sure that we would stop a game today to listen to a presidential message, even if it did pertain to war.


Trivia Time
Who made his debut exactly 10 years later at the Polo Grounds?

Yesterday's Answer --> As several mentioned, Canseco was the first 40/40 player in baseball history. I would have guessed that Willie Mays did it, but he narrowly missed in 1956 with 36 HR and 40 SB.

10 Commandments of Umpiring

Let's refer to Rule #1, shall we?

Ford Frick was an important man in baseball history. Early in his life, he was the ghostwriter for Babe Ruth. Then, he became President of the National League. While President, he supported and gained substantial support for the National Baseball Hall of Fame Museum. In 1951, he was selected to be the Commissioner of Baseball. As Commissioner, he oversaw substantial expansion (the number of teams growing from 16 to 20), new television contracts, and began the draft. His most famous, or infamous, decision was to place an asterisk next to Roger Maris' 61 homer season, but it was never actually put in the books. However, a less-known contribution is his 10 Commandments of Umpiring, which I hadn't heard of before I ran across it today.

In 1949 (two years before becoming Commissioner), Frick published these rules for umpires:

1) Keep your eye on the ball.
2) Keep all your personalities out of it. Forgive and forget.
3) Avoid sarcasm. Don't insist on having the last word.
4) Never charge a player and, above all, no pointing or yelling.
5) Hear only the things you should hear -- be deaf to others.
6) Keep your temper. A decision made in anger is never sound.
7) Watch your language.
8) Take pride in your work at all times. Remember, respect for an umpire is created off the field as well as on.
9) Review your work. You'll find, if you are honest, that 90% of the trouble is traceable to loafing.
10) No matter what your opinion of another umpire, never make an adverse comment regarding him. To do so is despicable and ungentlemanly.

All of these are sound rules, and I really like that he published these. Umpires are due a significant amount of respect, but they still need to be held accountable. Checks are always good for people in any position of authority lest they grow too powerful. For the most part, umpires act in respectable manner (players and coaches treat them unfairly far, far more often than the other way around), but they sometimes go outside of those bounds. Last Sunday, I went to a Louisville Bats game, and after a strike was called a ball, the pitcher did the typical slinking of the shoulders. The umpire, in retaliation, started yelling at him. His yelling was completely unnecessary as the pitcher really hadn't done that much (I've seen much worse). Yes, the player should keep his actions in check, but the umpire shouldn't retaliate, either.

On another note, we should probably change some of the wording. There are female umpires, too.

1957 Ballot Stuffing

Update: Just to see the look on Bud Selig's face, go Vote for Manny for the All-Star Game.

Or your 26th, which I placed a few weeks ago at Great American Ballpark.

After yesterday's post about George Crowe, I was interested in the ballot stuffing incident in 1957, so like usual, I looked it up and am regurgitating it to you. There will be more stuff on the All-Star Game when the time comes up.

Held first in 1933 as part of Chicago's World's Fair, the All-Star Game was Arch Ward's idea, but it was only supposed to be a one-time event. Its success, however, caused it to become an annual event. Originally, the managers of the teams selected the entire team. Then in 1947, the fans were the ones who elected the players. This worked pretty well until 1957.

In 1957, the Cincinnati Enquirer had a great idea. They liked their team, so they printed already marked All-Star ballots with every Sunday paper. This made it easy for people to vote. They could take it out of the paper, bring it to the stadium, and put it in the box. The problem, or advantage depending on your vantage point, is that the stadium has them as well, and with all the ballots, Reds fans filled the ballot boxes.

They did it to the point that 7 of the 8 Reds starting position players were elected. Well, this was the point, but to most it seemed quite odd and unfair. Ed Bailey (.297/.423/.522 by the Break), Johnny Temple (.292/.416/.364), Roy McMillan (.246/.351/.308), Don Hoak (.292/.379/.518), Frank Robinson (.312/.367/.495), Gus Bell (.291/.330/.411), and Wally Post (.231/.276/.424) all made the team with George Crowe losing out to Stan Musial (only Stan the Man could win such a struggle). While most of them are fine players, all 7 were not All-Star caliber players, and the results necessitated an investigation.

The investigation found out what happened (and even that some bars refused to serve drinks until a customer voted), and Commissioner Ford Frick was ticked. Bell and Post were removed from the starting lineup, and Willie Mays and Hank Aaron were named as replacements. Bell would be put back in the starting lineup, but Frick promised changes. In fact, he took away the vote from the fans, and for the next 13 seasons, the managers, players, and coaches voted.

Today, ballot stuffing is pretty much the norm. Sure, there are some restrictions. The same number of ballots are given to each team to have people vote in the ballparks. People can vote online, but they can only vote 25 times. Nomar Garciaparra received 14,000 votes in 1999 due to an automatic computer program, but steps have been taken to prevent this from happening again. Other than that, ballot stuffing is pretty much common practice and even encouraged. The differences are the slight restrictions and the non "pre-marked" ballots and coercion (okay, that is illegal). Actually having to put in the votes makes it a bit more troublesome and cuts down on the ballot stuffing. But how else do you explain the amount of Yankees, Red Sox, and Cubs in All-Star Games? It's not a coincidence, is it?

Now, all this is not to say that I discourage it. Frankly, I don't care. If the fans of New York, Boston, and Chicago are going to or are going to watch the game and make up most of the fans doing so, then fine. If they put the time in to vote, then it's okay with me.

As for my voting, I usually vote for who deserves it that season. That seems perfectly normal and appropriate, but unlike most, I have no qualms with those who vote for players based on prior performance, within limits. Certain players deserve to be there based on a career's performance (but not a few years, I'm looking at you David Wright) because they are the faces of the game, the faces people know. To me, it's always seemed more appropriate to award a few seasons worth of performance instead of a fluky first half, but if we continue to base it on that, I won't complain (and will continue to vote that way because that seems to be the general feeling). I like watching the game because it's a baseball game with lots of guys I know playing with guys they never play with. Granted, I would prefer it didn't have World Series implications or a player from every team (those arguments are for another time), but I'll never complain about the game itself.

This Day in Baseball History: May 26th, 1993

Second best blooper behind Randy Johnson's bird ball.

On May 26, 1993:

Jose Canseco aids Carlos Martinez's attempt at a home run.


Carlos Martinez was a relatively unsuccessful big league third baseman/first baseman/left fielder who would be out of the game by the end of the 1993 season. Defensively, he seemed to have been a decent first baseman but poor third baseman. Offensively, he didn't hit well enough to play anywhere and much less a corner player. Jose Canseco, on the other hand, hit well enough and often enough to profile just nicely than you very much. And yes, we can argue how he got to that point, but let's just let that go. Defensively, he wasn't really very good. Well, all of this came together on a very special day.

In the bottom of the fourth inning, the Cleveland Indians were trailing 1-3 in a game they would eventually win. Carlos Martinez led off the fourth inning against Kenny Rogers. Ahead in the count 2-1, Martinez took the pitch to right. Canseco ran back to get it, and lo and behold, the ball smacked him in the head. Not only did it do that, but it went over the fence as well. The chances of this happening are, obviously very small. First, it has to hit him in the head, and normal hand-eye coordination usually prevents this. Second, it has to hit him in the head close enough to the fence to go over. Anyway, to make things worse, the Rangers lost by one run, 7-6.

As I said, Martinez never played after the season. Canseco would continue to play for a while, but he was never really healthy enough to be a full-time player. Of course, we now know why that is, but still, he was really productive in the 1998 season that he stayed healthy. Now, about those books ...


Trivia Time
What did Jose Canseco do in 1988 that he was the first to do?

Yesterday's Answer --> Babe Ruth's 714th home run.

This Day in Baseball History: March 25th, 1960

Love the glasses.

On May 25, 1960:

George Crowe hits his 11th pinch-hit home run.


George Daniel Crowe likely won't land on many of your radar screens for baseball history, but today, he did something fairly memorable. As a member of the St. Louis Cardinals at this point, Crowe made an appearance at the end of a tightly contested affair with the Milwaukee Braves. Warren Spahn and Larry Jackson dueled the entire night to a 3-3 tie entering the bottom of the ninth. Jackson had just finished the top of the inning, but when it came to the bottom of the inning, Spahn found himself on the bench in favor of Don McMahon, who was nothing special in 1960. However, he was able to register two outs while giving up a double to bring up Alex Grammas, who was certainly nothing special with the stick. Instead of letting Grammas hit, manager Chuck Dressen brought in pinch-hitter George Crowe. Crowe rewarded the move by promptly belting the ball over the right field fence for the walk-off home run.

What made this home run even more special was that it was George Crowe's 11th pinch-hit home run, passing Smoky Burgess and Gus Zernial for the all-time lead in pinch-hit home runs. He would add three more by the time he was done, bringing his total to 14. Since, Gates Brown hit 16, Jerry Lynch hit 14, and Cliff Johnson is the new clubhouse leader with 20. Dave Hansen and Craig Wilson hold the major-league record for most pinch-hit home runs in a single season with 7, each, in 2000 and 2001, respectively. I can't definitively find who is the active leader, but I'm guessing Matt Stairs is there somewhere as he has 16.

Crowe's career didn't last too much longer after his big home run. He only played 7 games the following season and never made it back to the big leagues. Although not a great career by any means, he had a few nice seasons. At age 32, 1955 was probably his best, but he would make his one All-Star team in 1958. He almost made it in 1957 when Redlegs (that's what the Reds were called) fans tried to stuff the ballot to get all the regulars in. Crowe was narrowly beat-out by Stand Musial.


Trivia Time
What other very famous home run was hit today?

Saturday's Answer --> Ian swooped in with the right answer. It was indeed Ken Boyer.

Continuing the Conversation ...

There's too much math for me to completely understand, but I get the theory.

Apparently, as one gets more readers, one finds that others respond to one's post with their own. Earlier this week, The Common Man did so, and earlier this morning, Bill, over at The Daily Something, did so as well. This is the sort of thing I wanted to be involved with when I started -- a conversation between rational people about a game I love. Bill responded to my post on the battle between sabermetrics and traditionalists. If you haven't checked out his blog, you really should.

Anyway, in his post, he makes his case for "compassionate sabermetricism" (a good way to put it, I think), where one doesn't go about the name-calling and just tries to find the answers. In a lot of ways, I agree with him. I tried to sit the fence a little in my original post. I didn't want people to think I sided with one side or the other to force them to look at the big picture. Simply, I wanted people to realize that there are, in fact, two sides with logical reasons, but the way in which they treated each other was getting in the way. By doing so, I left out where I think the game is headed.

About two years ago, I really, really started paying attention to baseball (as opposed to just really paying attention and knowing who the best players were and followign the Braves), looking at everything from statistics to how to manage a team and its payroll (and etc.). I had never heard of sabermetrics before, and I was a little overwhelmed by the thought of it. How could someone take such a beautiful game and turn it into a pile of numbers? But as I began looking through it (one of the few times I can truly say that I had an open mind about something), I began to see a lot of good things about it. Like Bill said, traditional stats really don't take much into context. They're bare numbers that must be applied somehow, and many of the advanced metrics coming out, do try to put them into context. But here's my question and the crux of my point -- if you make a new metric and it still doesn't take everything into context, is it a better tool?

The answer is yes. It at least gets closer, and theoretically, it will continue to get ever closer to the truth. For the most part, I think sabermetrics has the on-field, bare numbers down. Most of the hitting metrics describe the difference between good and bad hitters fairly well. Same for pitchers. Defense? Well, it's getting there, but that's a hard one. However, if you continue to miss something (like missing a step in a math problem), you will never quite get the right answer. Here's where I think sabermetrics misses, and traditionalists hit (well, sort of but bear with me).

As I said, sabermetrics has all the bare numbers down, and for the most part, they've put those bare numbers into supernumbers that put a player's performance into context and evaluate it. But I think they are still missing something, and that something prompted my first post. Sabermetricians have had to fight for what they've gotten, and in many ways, it was against the traditionalists. My theory is that, in trying to make their argument, they have discarded everything (well not everything, but a lot) to do with traditionalists. Sure, they've kept home runs, RBI's, and runs, but they put those numbers inside OPS and run production, which is fine. All of that, I believe, gets us somewhere. But the point of these new stats is to measure value, the true value of a player, in order to define who the best player is, how much he should be paid, and when it's time to say good-bye. If you continue to leave something out of that measurement (something that traditionalists use and have been discarded by sabermetricians), will you ever get to that all-knowing stat?

That is why I was calling for a compromise. No, I don't think traditionalists have a better argument than sabermetricians. My logical, rational mind won't allow that when given evidence to the contrary. But what if the traditionalists have something right, and in a fit of tearing them down, sabermetricians dismiss it? Eventually, they'd probably figure it out, but why not do it now?

What is this something? I'm not completely sure, but here are a few of my thoughts. There are "mental" or non-physical aspects to this game (I think all of the phycial ones have been questioned, subpoenaed, and cross-examined).

- Stolen bases have been shown to not help as much as previously thought, but what happens to a pitcher when a speedy runner gets on and threatens to steal? Does it affect him? If it does, shouldn't that figure into the player's value?

- If a player helps another with a hitting stance or approach, should that added value (or at least, part of it) be tacked on to the first player's value? For instance, Brian McCann has long extolled Chipper's mentoring. McCann's OPS was .797 in the minors. In the majors? .858. Should Chipper receive some credit for helping McCann improve?

- Is there such a thing as team chemistry? We wonder which came first -- the chicken (team chemistry) or the egg (winning) (or is it the other way around?). But what do we do about it? Mostly, I've seen it dismissed. But can't we get a psychologist or two to follow teams from Spring Training through the end of the season? Then, rinse and repeat a number of times to see if we get an answer?

- Is there such a thing as leadership? If a player can motivate his teammates, shouldn't he get extra points? If he's a distraction, shouldn't he lose points? Are players really emotionless drones that can just put that aside when game time comes?

There are more of these, but I think you get the point. There are things that are hard to quantify. But just because they are hard (maybe even impossible, but if Bill James got onto it, I see great things), it does not mean they should be dismissed.

But are these things negligible? I know you've probably been screaming this for about eight paragraphs. I'm not sure, but I don't think anyone else is, either. Mainly, I think it's just been thrown to the side and assumed dead. But if sabermetricians do that, are they better than the traditionalists, throwing away potentially helpful information? These are hard things to quantify. Maybe they won't lead us anywhere. My argument, though, is that we try.

Bill is right. The answer is more metrics and more research. But if we fail to research everything, are we ever going to be right?

Traditionalists are a dying breed. Newspapers are going under. More readers convert to websites and blogs. More convert to sabermetrics because, let's face it, it is the future. It's progress. But does progress always include the positives the old-timers had?

This Day in Baseball History: May 23rd, 1965

The Catch.

On May 23, 1965:

Ron Swoboda takes the field with a batting helmet ... on his foot.


Born on June 30, 1944, Ronald Alan Swoboda was a young outfielder for the Mets. He made his debut in 1965, but he wasn't particularly good. His .228/.291/.424 line was somehow good enough for a 102 OPS+, and he did hit 19 home runs. But he struck out 102 times and wasn't a good outfielder. In fact, he received the nickname "Rocky" because of his poor fielding. Regardless of the results, manager Casey Stengel still saw something in the young man, and Swoboda was in awe of the manager and tried to learn everything he could. On this particular day, Stengel would give the young man a lesson he wouldn't forget.

Going into the bottom of the ninth, the Cardinals were losing 7-2, but they weren't giving up. After tallying two runs, they were down to their last out with the bases loaded. Dal Maxvill lofted a flyball to right, but Swoboda lost it in the sun. The ball dropped and all three runners scored, tying the game. Batting in the top of the 10th, Swoboda lined out to right field to start the inning, and frustrated as he left the dugout, he stomped on a batting helmet. Unfortunately, instead of crushing it as intended, the helmet stuck in his spikes. While continuing to trot out to right field, he tried to fling the helmet off, but Stengel called for him to come back. Stengel roared, "When you missed that fly ball, I didn't go looking for your watch to break it. So quit busting up the team's equipment. You're done for today." Swoboda, crushed and humiliated, went to the clubhouse and wept.

Swoboda's career never really got off the ground. His 1966 campaign was even worse than his rookie season, but he rebounded with his best season in 1967 when he .281. That would be mainly a mirage (I wonder what his BABIP was ... .332 -- his best but actually not by much) as he never beat .260 again. Swoboda's finest moment was actually, believe it or not, in the field during the 1969 World Series. Brooks Robinson stroked one his way, and he dove to catch it, ending a rally in Game 4. A silhouette in remembrance of this catch is stationed at the right field entrance of Citi Field.


Trivia Time
In a notable 1965 off-season trade involving the Mets and Cardinals, what player took Swoboda's number 14, eventually causing Swoboda to wear number 4?

Yesterday's Answer --> May 1, 2004 against the Florida Marlins. He would do it three other times (April 23, June 12 and September 22), but only one of those (September 22) was a nine-inning game.

The Ever-Changing Strike Zone

"Officially"

The other day, I wrote a post about Terry Larkin that focused on his problems off the field, but in doing so, I made a historical mistake that I shouldn't have. The Common Man pointed this out in his post over his always interesting self-entitled blog. In my post, I made a quick note of Larkin's playing career, but as I made a judgment (always a potentially dangerous thing to do) of his playing career, I took a few things out of context about the stats I used. I am open to criticism (which his post wasn't really), and I'm glad he made a mention of it (I preach about keeping things, especially in today's world, in context and perspective, and I shouldn't screw it up in my own work). It just reminds me of how much I still don't know about the history of the game. In order to correct this and prevent further such mistakes, I'm going to go back and look at how different aspects of the game has evolved. Planning to do this even before TCM's post, it's even more important that I do this now. Today, we'll take a look at how the strike zone has changed over the years, which seems to change even in today's game.

In the original rules, baseball might seem a bit more like softball. The pitcher could not throw over-handed and must keep his arm motion below his waist. In addition, the batter called the pitch. He could ask for a "high", "low", or "fair" pitch. A "high" pitch had to come over the plate and between the batter's shoulders and waist. A "low" pitch had to be below his waist and at least a foot above the ground while still crossing the plate. A "fair" pitch had to come over the plate, below the shoulders, and at least a foot off the ground, essentially a combination of a "high" and "low" pitch. On a third strike, if a batter let it go and it was in the zone, the umpire would warn him, calling it a "good ball", and if he did so again, he would be out. Cool. At this point, the strike zone is from the shoulders to about a foot off the ground, but the speeds of pitches are slow it would seem, evening out the advantages.

In 1884, the National League decided to let pitchers throw from over the waist, and ERA's and batting averages dropped. Even though pitchers had been doing it the other way for all those years, all but a few changed to the new style, as it probably seemed to their advantage to do so. Three years later, they told hitters that they could no longer call pitches, but before it became too one-sided in favor of pitchers, the strike zone was shrunk on the bottom to the knees.

In 1907, the rules were made a little more official to aid in the combination of the American and National Leagues. The rules didn't really change, but the language sure did.

The strike zone would remain largely unchanged over the next 40 years, but in 1950, they limited the strike zone a little bit more. The upper limit of the strike became the armpits instead of the top of the shoulders. This is also the first time that we see "stance" in the definition, and I wonder if this is the first time they took stances into perspective. Hmm.

Regardless, the rules changed again a few years later in 1957, but it didn't have much to do with the changing of the strike. But it did change an important thing about in the strike zone. If a batter was hit in a body part hanging in the strike zone, it is now a strike. No more leaning into it.

By 1963, offense had taken control of the game, and the MLB had seen a rise in run production. In order to curb this, they made changes to the strike zone. Actually, it wasn't so much a change as going back to the old days. They simply expanded the zone back to the top of the shoulders. But as part of a combination of things, pitching dramatically made a comeback and took the game, leading to one of the greatest years ever for pitchers in 1968. Before the next season, the MLB went back to the armpits.

For another 20 years, the MLB liked the rules, but in 1988, they changed the top of the strike zone to the mid-point between the top of the shoulders and the top of the pants. Also, the strike zone at the bottom became specifiically the top of the knees, but it wouldn't stay that way for long. In 1996, the last time we had rule changes, the bottom of the strike zone became the bottom of the knees (or the hollow part below the knee cap).

No wonder umpires can never have a constant strike zone. The MLB keeps changing it on them.

This Day in Baseball History: May 22nd, 1962

Besides that one magical season, he was still a pretty good player.

On May 22, 1962:

Roger Maris sets a major-league record by being intentionally walked 4 times in a game.


1961 was his magical season. It's easy to remember -- he hit 61 HR in 1961. As a result, he was obviously a very feared hitter in 1962. Coming into the game, he was hitting .301/.374/.528 but only had 7 home runs (well, 7 home runs seems like little after hitting 61 the year before). Either way, the Los Angeles Angels came to town, but they wanted none of Maris. Leading off the second, they let him flyout to center. After Joe Pepitone led off the fourth with a double, the Angels walked Maris (not intentionally) and you wonder if they really wanted to throw to him. In the sixth, Tom Tresh walked and Pepitone singled, but both runners were able to move up when Tresh took third anyway. Maris was walked intentionally. During the eighth, Tresh tripled and was knocked in by a Pepitone double, and with first base open, Maris was intentionally walked again. Because of a 1-1 stalemate, extra innings were needed, and in the tenth, Bobby Richardson was on third with 2 outs and Maris took his free pass. Finally, Pepitone tripled in the 12th, and Maris was walked intentionally for the final time. Didn't work this time as Elston Howard drove Pepitone in anyway. Interestingly enough, the Yankees were intentionally walked 7 times in the game.

Over the next month and a half, Maris struggled. He finished May on a 6-for-36 slide, and he only hit .202 in June. Maris, however, did recover his power stroke in the next three months, hitting 7 in June, 9 in July, and 7 in August, but he would only hit 2 in September. Peculiar as it seems, September, even without the power, was Maris' best month average-wise as he hit .289. Being the best in AL, the Yankees went on to the World Series, and as they so often do, they won.

Maris' career took a downturn after that 1962 season. An underappreciated player who could hit and defend, Maris never really made friends with the New York media or fans, and injuries made the situation worse. By 1967, he was no longer welcome in New York, and they traded him to St. Louis. St. Louis could handle an aging player who could no longer play every day, and he helped them win two pennants in his two seasons, including a World Series in 1967. He would retire and take over a beer distributor for Gussie Busch.


Trivia Time
Barry Bonds became the only major-league player to be intentionally walked four times in a nine-inning game. When was that?

Wednesday's Answer --> Ron's right. The home team manager has the right to call a game until he hands over the line-up card to the home plate umpire. Once in the umpire's hand, it is uleft to the Crew Chief's discretion.

This Day in Baseball History: May 20th, 1985

(Insert one of Shyster's rain lyrics here.)

On May 20, 1985:

The game between the Cleveland Indians and Milwaukee Brewers is rained out.


Doesn't really seem newsworthy does it? But I guess you realize by now that I'm hiding something special. This was actually the first rainout of the 1985 season, which is pretty miraculous. It's so miraculous that it set a record. The previous start to a season that did not include a rain-out was in 1960 with 44 games. The 1985 season? 455! That's ten times as many games. That takes quite a bit of luck. First, baseball just doesn't go that long without someone getting rained out. Second, it is the Spring at this point, and you know the "April Showers" stanza by now.

Now, you'll note some differences. Today's MLB has 30 teams, but in 1985, they only had 26. While four isn't a huge number, it is a discrepancy that counts (it does cover 13.333% of the teams). In addition, the Florida Marlins and Colorado Rockies aren't around. It rains a lot in Florida and snows quite a bit in Colorado, both of which lead to postponements. To help things out, Seattle had a dome and so did Houston (it doesn't really rain much in Houston and Safeco has a retractable roof, but stay with me). The Expos weren't in Washington and had a dome. Even then, no other season had nearly as many games without a cancellation, so it doesn't really matter. The point is that it's really freakin' hard to get that many games to start a season without a game getting cancelled due to inclement weather.

What about the past few seasons?
2009 --> 2 games
2008 --> 6 games
2007 --> 24 games
2006 --> 21 games
2005 --> 99 games

MLB.com won't let me go past this point, but you get the picture. 1985 was pretty impressive. I'm still looking for the longest streak between any cancellation, but I haven't found it yet. If anyone knows or knows where to find it, leave a comment.


Trivia Time
Before the game starts, who calls for the delay or postponement of a particular game?

Yesterday's Answer --> Bob Lemon with 37. Warren Spahn, a good guess, is 3rd with 35.


Note: I'm off to Huntington for a 3 Doors Down concert tonight, so there won't be anything more for today. However, there are some new posts from late last night, and things should be back to normal, albeit later, tomorrow.

Nick Esasky

Any more stories like this one? I hope not.

Okay, so today is depressing biographies day. Sorry, but they're interesting. This one stems from the Atlanta-Colorado game tonight. Between the announcers' seemingly inane comments, they made a comment about Joey Votto's spells of dizziness and how it reminds them of Nick Esasky. I had no idea who he was, so here we go.

Born on February 24th, 1960, Nick Esasky was a fairly good baseball player in the mid to late 1980's. As a defender, he wasn't particularly good, but he could hit some. Esasky began his major-league career in 1983 with the Cincinnati Reds as a third baseman, but due to his defensive shortcomings, he was switched to the outfield and first base over the next few seasons. He hit well as a rookie with a .265/.328/.450 line and 112 OPS+, but he really struggled in 1984. Esasky bounced back with a strong 1985 campaign with 21 homers and a 118 OPS+. Over the next three seasons, he continued to be average to just above average, but he would only play in 100-110 games. Consequently, the Reds traded him to the Boston Red Sox in the off-season before the 1989 season. But in 1989 as a 29-year old, he made a big jump. He had a line of .277/.355/.500 with a 133 OPS+ and a career-high 30 home runs and 108 RBI's while finishing 18th in the MVP voting.
Having six years of service, it was free-agency time for Esasky. During the 1989 off-season, teams stood in line to talk to the slugger. The Red Sox declared that they would offer him a very lucrative offer to stay, but Esasky wasn't necessarily excited about staying if another intriguing offer came his way. When Ted Turner and the Atlanta Braves opened their wallets for a 3-year, $5.7 million contract, the Marietta native decided he couldn't pass it up. But the happy reunion was not to be.

Esasky only played 9 games for the Braves and spent a lot of time on the disabled list. Why? Vertigo. By the end of Spring Training, Esasky began to feel weak and tired, but everyone figured it was the flu. After he laced two hits in his debut, it seemed he would be okay. Then, he struck out 14 times in 35 at-bats. Then, he committed 5 errors (a lot for even him). Objects and the world in which they existed began moving and appearing differently. Nine games later, he told Bobby Cox that there was a problem.

Over the next 6 months, he went to over 30 doctors and specialists, but few could offer him any explanations. After a while, he told the doctors to stop looking for the cause and just fix him. In July, a doctor told him he had Lyme Disease, but that didn't make anything better. A month later, the Mayo Clinic tried and failed to find anything wrong. Upset and frustrated, Esasky just tried to deal with it. Fortunately, an answer came in October when Dr. Jeffrey Kramer diagnosed him with vertigo. However, the length of time that he had endured this had caused severe damage to his inner ear, and they had to retrain his body to improve coordination.

At the beginning of the 1991 season, there was optimism surrounding Esasky. He could catch a ball and was feeling better, but as is common with Spring Training stories, this one was still too good to be true. To his credit, Esasky continued to try to get things back together, but after another season and a half, the Braves released him. Oddly, teams seemed to have been interested in signing him even after he was released. Esasky continued to work, but ultimately, he could not make it back to the majors or minors. Here's an interesting article about Esasky's life during and after those years.

I just hope this isn't Votto's problem.