Hall of Fame picks

My Hall of Fame ballot:

Well, sort of. They don’t actually let me vote, even though I’ve made at least a dozen posts on the internet. But this isn’t the time to go into detail about the fascist rules for gaining a Hall of Fame vote. It’s time for the rundown of who I’m pretend voting for.

Cal Ripken – Tough call, huh? The Streak got most of the press during Ripken’s career, which is unfortunate. Ripken was much, much more than that. A 19 time all-star and two-time Most Valuable Player, Ripken redefined the shortstop position, bringing it out of the era of short defensive aces who provided little power. Ripken, at 6’4”, paved the way for the power hitting stars of the late ‘90’s. Ripken’s defense was no slouch either. He was one of the hardest working guys in the league, especially when it came to positioning and knowing hitters tendencies. He wasn’t as flashy as some of his contemporaries, but nobody else had as many balls hit directly at him.

Tony Gwynn – Another slam-dunk. Batting average may be a bit overrated as a statistic, but when someone can hit the ball as frequently and consistently as Gwynn did, that’s something special. In 1982, Gwynn broke in with a .289 average in 190 at-bats. From there on, in 19 seasons, he hit below .317 only twice: .309 in both 1983 and 1990. His career .338 average is second best of anyone who played after World War 2, behind only Ted Williams. His most impressive stretch was from 1994 to 1997, where he hit an astounding .371.

Mark McGwire – The steroids issue is preposterous, and it’s been done to death, and I’m generally just sick of talking about it. I’m going to address the most relevant issue, that McGwire was a “one-dimensional player.” That’s a bit of an exaggeration anyway, but even if it were true, he’s a one-dimensional player in the same way Tony Gwynn is. We’re not talking about Tony Batista or Pedro Feliz here, who have enough power to make managers forget that they offer absolutely nothing else of positive value. Mark McGwire led his league in slugging four times, is 10^th all time in SLG, and for his career, he homered more frequently, per at-bat, than any other player, ever. On top of that, though, he twice led his league in OBP. I’m no doctor, but I’ve never read anything about steroids being able to improve your ability to not swing at bad pitches. McGwire will get into the Hall of Fame someday. It won’t be this year, though.

Goose Gossage – He was a borderline candidate for a number of years, but one that I thought should have made it. With Sutter’s induction, though, Gossage absolutely should be Hall-worthy. Gossage was a better player at his peak, and a guy who was effective for a much, much longer time. Sutter had one season with an ERA under 4.00 season after age 29. Gossage had eight, including six under 3.00. This led to Gossage pitching 800 more innings in his career, and pitch in three more all star games (nine, to Sutter’s six.) My guess is that Gossage will be short this year, but make it in on next years weaker ballot.

Burt Blyleven – The center of the Blyleven argument is the value of a Hall of Famer being very good over a long time, or great over a shorter time. Blyleven was rarely truly great. He never won a Cy Young, only went to two all-star teams, and his career ERA+ is 118. Then you realize that that 118 was accumulated over 4,970 career innings, thirteenth all-time. You realize that in those innings, he had 3,701 strikeouts, fifth all-time (and he was third all-time when he retired), behind only Nolan Ryan, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson and Steve Carlton. Ahead of Tom Seaver, Walter Johnson, and several other greats. Sutton is probably the best comparison for Blyleven. He was another who was rarely the very best in the league, but was very good for a very, very long time. The main difference is that Sutton played on some much better teams, notably the Dodgers of the late 70’s and early 80’s, allowing him to reach 324 wins, while Blyleven usually played for below average teams, and it left him with 289 wins. Blyleven had 10 seasons where he was in the top ten in the league in ERA, and 15 where he finished in the top 10 in strikeouts, but only four times finished in the top-10 in Cy Young voting, a fact that shows the Cy Young voter’s attraction to wins. Now, years later, the same voters who didn’t appreciate him during his playing days are using the lack of awards he won as a major strike against him. Some guys just can’t win.

Jim Rice – I’ve gone back and forth on Rice over the years, but in the past, I don’t think I gave him enough credit for how long he was good. It’s often said his career ended early, which is true—his last effective season was at age 33. He was a bit surly with the media, and was completely worthless on defense. But man, could he hit. His career .502 SLG may not seem so impressive after the past 10 years of that kind of number not getting people into the top 10, but in Rice’s day, that meant something. He led the league in slugging twice, and finished second three more times. A knock against him seems to be his patience. He walked only 670 times in his career, a number Barry Bonds would’ve called “a slow May” at his peak. Barry Bonds isn’t the standard for your regular Hall of Famer, though. Rice finished with a career .298 batting average. One wonders if he’d retired with a .300 career average before 1989, when it was clear his skills had eroded completely, if he’d have gotten more support. Those two points don’t mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, but when some voters see something like “.300 batting average” they think of how nice it would look on someone’s plaque.

Albert Belle – Probably the least popular of anyone I’ll pick amongst the voters, and I can’t say I’ll be shedding a tear for him when he isn’t elected. But, when talking about what he was as a baseball player, he was like Jim Rice on steroids (likely literally). He was meaner than Rice, worse defensively than Rice, worse with the media than Rice, even more feared in the lineup than Rice, and his career ended even more abruptly. His .569 SLG ranks him 19^th all-time, ahead of Stan Musial, Ken Griffey,Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Mickey Mantle. Say what you will about the steroids/small parks era, that’s an impressive group. For what it’s worth, Belle was also becoming a more selective, patient hitter when his hip started to degenerate, walking a career high 101 times in 1999, his last full season.

Anyway, it’d be nice to think people aren’t voting for him because his career lacked longevity, rather than because he wasn’t a very nice guy, but I’m not so naïve. It’s the baseball Hall of Fame, not the nice guy Hall of Fame. If Ty Cobb, a racist who overtly tried to hurt other players was a member of the Hall’s introductory class, then Belle, who was essentially just prone to the occasional roid rage here and there, meets the personality standard.

Dale Murphy – Murphy’s lack of support is more evidnce of players who finish their careers strong after slow starts getting more votes than players who start fast and do not age especially well. In the 1980’s, Murphy was a better player than Rice in the late 70’s and Belle in the mid-90’s. He didn’t hit for the power that Belle and Rice did, or for the average, but he was a much more patient hitter. The big difference, though, is the defense. Rice and Belle are among the two worst defensive players of all-time. Rice was sheltered by the wall in Fenway, but he was a born DH. Belle was even worse, combining a lack of range with a lack of caring. Murphy was a legitimate Gold Glover, winning five awards, and being regarded by many as the best defensive centerfielder of his day. He won two MVP awards, more than Rice and Belle combined. Unfortunately, Murphy really only had one quality season after age 30. Does the fact that he aged so badly make everyone forget that he may have been baseball’s best player from 1980 to 1985? It’s a shame that he couldn’t have held on enough to get two more homers, giving him an even 400 for his career, but looking back, he should feel fortunate he got as many chances at the end of his career as he did. Like Rice and Belle, the issue here is longevity.

Guys who are just missing the cut:

I’ve supported Alan Trammell and Andre Dawson before, but looking back, I think I have to reconsider. Dawson was one of my favorites growing up, a striking personality who played great defense and could hit the ball out of the park at any moment. He was a lot like Vlad Guerrero, in that he had a big, violent looking swing that could produce some ugly swings-and-misses, but when he hit the ball, watch out. Also, like Vlad, he was a brilliant bad-ball hitter. Few hit balls out of the strike zone like those two. And, it seems that knee problems are going to play a huge role in the rest of Vlad’s career, much the way they did for Dawson as he got older. The problem with Dawson is that he just made too many outs. That .323 OBP just doesn’t cut it, even for a guy who played defense as well as Andre.

As far as Trammell goes, I’ve already debated truly great for a short time against being very good for a very long time. Trammell was merely very good for an average amount of time. People remember him playing with the Tigers late into his 30’s, but in reality, he was a part timer for too long, only getting over 400 AB’s once after age 32. That would be fine if someone were a dominant player like Belle or Rice or Murphy, but Trammell never was. He was one of the better shortstops in the league, and a great guy, but not a Hall of Famer. One wonders if some of the sentiment for him comes from the fact that he played his entire career for the Tigers. I have no problem with a voter using loyalty like that as the extra nudge someone gets—we all love a player who is immediately identifiable with his team, the way Trammell, Ripken and Gwynn are. The Trammell/Whitaker double play combo was beloved by anyone who watched baseball in the 1980’s. That doesn’t earn a plaque in Cooperstown, though.

Also, I’d be wrong not to at least mention Eric Davis. He’s not a Hall of Famer, but he was a great example of everything that we love about baseball. Davis came up in the mid-80’s, one of the most talented of a generation that included Darryl Strawberry, Jose Canseco, Dwight Gooden, and other famous flamouts. Eric Davis should never be remembered as a bust. We talk about wanting players to leave everything they have on the field. That’s description fits Davis perfectly. Davis played so hard that he often wouldn’t be healthy enough to make his way onto the field. It seemed he came back from every injury there was, from knee problems, to groin problems, to the time he lacerated his kidney in the 1990 World Series, to his heroic comeback from colon cancer in 1999, Davis was everything that baseball should be about.

Moves you may have missed. Or not cared about.

You folks have probably read all that there is to read on Alfonso Soriano and Daisuke Matsuzaka, so there probably isn’t all that much more I can add to the discussion. There have been some lesser moves that may make a difference in 2007. And moves that may not.

Atlanta acquires reliever Rafael Soriano from Seattle for starter Horacio Ramirez.

Normally, it’s a good idea to pick up a starting pitcher in exchange for a reliever. This is one of those exceptions, and John Schuerholz may have quietly picked up one of the biggest steals of the offseason. Three years removed from arm surgery, Soriano threw 60 innings in relief for Seattle, with a 2.25 ERA, 65 strikeouts, and only 21 walks. Perhaps the Mariners were scared off by the season ending concussion, and feared that they may have a Matt Clement situation. However, all reports are that Soriano is throwing comfortably, and Clements demise seems to be as much about arm trouble as it was the Carl Crawford liner off the side of the head in 2005. Only three years ago, scouts named Soriano the most likely reliever to become the next Johan Santana, making the transfer from little known setup man to stud starter, because of his spectacular stuff. The Braves seem set on having Soriano in the bullpen though, which is fine as well—he’s immediately the most talented reliever they’ve had since John Smoltz. With the problems the Braves have had a closer since Smoltz moved back to the rotation, Soriano is a great bet to assume the 9^th inning role, and score at least 35 saves. Fantasy players take note, this is one of your sleepers for next year.

If the Mariners did feel Soriano was a risk, perhaps it would’ve made sense to try to acquire an innings eater type, who could rack up a solid season in Safeco Field. However, Ramirez is likely a bigger injury risk than Soriano, while not being nearly as good a pitcher. Ramirez has failed to reach 80 innings in two of the last three seasons with a variety of arm troubles. The season he stayed healthy, he had a 4.63 ERA in 202 innings, with only 80 strikeouts, 67 walks, and 31 homers allowed. Safeco will help depress that homer number, but in the more patient American League, teams like the A’s and Rangers who he will see several times will take advantage of his inabilility to put people away. Those poor K/BB numbers in the NL are likely to translate even worse into the AL.

So, while both players may offer the same injury risk, Soriano offers the reward of being an elite closer, while Ramirez, at best, isn’t likely to replace the production of Gil Meche. Another poor move in what has been a pretty awful tenure by Mariners GM Bill Bavasi.

Royals sign pitcher Gil Meche for 5 years, $55M.

Almost every offseason, a really really bad team signs a player who isn’t good to a huge contract, and there is a glut of stories praising them for being willing to show fans they care by being willing to spend money. It’s all a crock. Fans don’t really care, during the season, whether or not their team has spent money. They care whether or not their team is winning.

Signing Gil Meche does not show a commitment to winning. It shows a commitment to spending money. In four years since his return from injury, Meche has not had a park-adjusted ERA above league average even once. On the ERA+ scare, where 100 is average, he’s scored a 97, 86, 85 and 97. Meche turned 28 in September, and pitchers suddenly figuring it out at his age is exceedingly rare, unless they’re put with a Leo Mazzone or Ray Miller level pitching coach. Meche is often compared to Jason Schmidt, who DID figure it out at roughly Meche’s age, so I suppose there is hope, but the comparison with Schmidt againt the comparison with the hundreds of similar pitchers who didn’t figure it out at the same time is a pretty strong weight to the negative. The silver lining is the huge jump in his strikeout rate this year, from 5.2 per 9 IP in 2005 to 7.5 per 9 in 2006. If his ERA can begin to follow that improvement, Meche may make the jump to slightly above average pitcher, but the Royals are betting against huge odds that Meche will make such a significant improvement.

Of course, a slightly below average starter is a HUGE improvement for the Royals, whose rotation last year was somewhere in the neighborhood of abysmal. So, the thinking goes, if they have the money, why not spend it to improve their team? Which may be fine, but why commit to five years? If the Royals had signed Meche for a two-year commitment on the chance he breaks out, it wouldn’t be a big deal, as they wouldn’t be tying up funds for the future. But as it is, if Meche doesn’t make that leap, don’t you think they’d want that money to give an extension to Alex Gordon, baseball’s #1 prospect, if Gordon is anything close to the player he looks like? The problem isn’t the $11M on Meche in 2007, as maybe they don’t have any better use for that money. The problem is that $11M in 2010 and 2011, when they should be hoping to be competitive.

Cubs sign Jason Marquis to a 3 year, $21M deal.

Now, this is a deal that looks more reasonable on the surface, but actually may be just as bad as the Meche deal. According to baseball-reference.com, Meche and Marquis are actually each others most comparable players, and both are the same age (Marquis is actually a month older.) The problem is that Marquis is clearly going in the wrong direction. While there are some signs with Meche to at least consider him worth betting on, In the last three years, Marquis has gone into a tailspin. His ERA has gone 3.71, 4.13, 6.02. His K/9IP has gone down: 6.2, 4.3, 4.4. His K/BB have gone down: 1.97, 1.44, 1.28. And his HR/9IP have gone up: 1.2, 1.3, 1.6.

Marquis is heading backwards in a hurry, and the fact that he’s going to a much worse pitchers park could make things ugly. I’m talking mid 7’s ERA ugly. This is all made worse by the fact that Marquis apparently isn’t all that nice a guy. He badmouthed Mazzone on his way out the door in Atlanta, got progressively worse every season under Duncan, and moaned about not being on the playoff roster for the Cardinals, despite the fact that one of the biggest reasons they won the World Series was the decision not let Jason Marquis pitch in the playoffs. Forget the fact that $7M isn’t all that much money in today’s market. All things considered, I’d take a chance with just about any Triple A journeyman over Marquis. He’s the Cubs headache now.

Offseason begins

This is shaping up to be the most interesting and expensive offseason since 2000-2001. With so many teams being profitable, new revenue sharing money coming in, and so many contracts ending, expect to see some contracts that appear mind boggling. I'll probably go through a list of what teams need sometime next week. Until then, here are some things that have come up.

-Guillermo Mota tested positive for steroids. I've seen a few articles attributing his late season success to performance enhancers, but to my knowledge, it just doesn't work that quickly. Though the argument I've heard that it could've acted as a placebo in the short term, making him feel stronger and alert seems like a valid position. The problem is, we really don't know what kind of effects different performance enhancers really have on baseball players, since there really isn't an ethical experiment that exists where we could measure the effects. We're never going to know everyone or even most of the people who have used in the past, and there's nothing George Bush, George Mitchell or Sherlock Holmes can do about that.

-I'm still of the opinion that 50 games is a bit harsh for a first offense, especially combared to the 10 games one gets for doctoring a baseball, something we DO know the effects of. On the other hand, 100 games for a repeat offender and 150 for a three-timer are too leniant. I'd' probably go with something along the lines of 25 games for the first offense, one season for the second, two seasons for the third, lifetime for the fourth. But that's just me. I'd also be in favor of testing those who do test positive much more frequently. Once someone fails once, they should be subjected to biweekly tests, during the season AND offseason. I'm less inclined to worry about a players privacy rights once they've broken the rules.

It matters little, because the steroid testing is a joke anyway, without blood samples. Heck, from what I've read, hair samples would be more likely to show traces of HGH than urine.

-Every year, the Gold Gloves get more recognition than they should, because the writers just don't take the time to research who the best fielders are at that position. So I suppose I'm exacerbating the problem. Derek Jeter won his third gold glove. A lot of people have taken the time to say that Alex Gonzalez was the player who was actually deserving, and that Jeter won based on name recognition. Neither player was especially close to being the best defensive shortstop in the AL this year. Michael Young had 113 more assists than Jeter (494-381) and 28 more putouts (241-214), despite the fact that Jeter was playing behind baseballs most profound groundball pitcher every fifth day. Assist and putout numbers can be misleading, but rarely when a guy is making 20% more outs in the field than another, from the same position, then it seems likely that he's the better player.

Here's what strikes me. Young makes the play in the hold and has the strong arm, like the other top shortstops in the league. When I watch the Rangers, though, Young has more balls hit directly at him than any shortstop I've seen since Cal Ripken. This isn't luck, not over the course of seasons. Young is just so superior at positioning himself, that he's not making enough spectacular looking plays. It's easier, though, for Gold Glove voters to vote for whoever they did last year.

-Interesting column by Rob Neyer a couple days ago, saying that the Tigers should trade a young arm to get a top bat at first base or DH. It's true that they are going to need to upgrade those positions significantly, playing in the toughest division in baseball. Trading young pitching isn't the way to do it, though. Young, inexpensive, healthy pitching is the most valuable resource in baseball, so unless the Tigers can get a truly elite player in return, it just doesn't seem worth it. First base and DH are the easiest positions to fill with lower-level trades and free agent signings. The Tigers plan is not just to compete in 2007, but also for years beyond. At this point, even if they do regress to 85 wins next year and miss the playoffs, their long-term outlook is among the best of any in baseball.

Much of the Tigers offseason plan likely revolves around Carlos Guillen. If they feel he can be more productive and be in the lineup more often by moving him off of shortstop, then that's an easy choice. He hits like a good corner infielder, so it's not like they'd get the usual hit from a team trying to move a shortstop there. Plus, he'd probably have the range to be a Gold Glove level 1B with some work. All things equal, their lineup is better with him at SS, as they'll be more likely to find an effective 1B than SS on the open market. If he knees won't hold, though, then all things aren't equal.

Post Game 2 World Series Notes

-Was Kenny Rogers cheating? Goodness, it certainly looks that way. I find it hard to believe that he'd have the same clump of dirt on the same place on his hand for two different games. And if it wasn't something illegal, why did he wash it off? It's really a non-issue at this point, though. There's nothing LaRussa can say about it without sounding like sour grapes, and so far he's been smart enough to avoid anything more than intentionally vague comments.

-The Cardinals need to do a better job of getting people on base ahead of Albert Pujols. So far he's been up eight times with a grand total of two people on base. Eckstein has been discussed before, and they're pretty clearly not going to move him, but they've used the likes of Scott Spiezio and Preston Wilson in the #2 spot so far this postseason. To me, Edmonds should be the top candidate. He gets on base, can threaten you with homer and double power, and still has enough speed to score from first on a double. More importantly though, he hits into very few double plays, a very important role for a two-spot, and one that managers don't seem to consider enough.

-Why Doug Jones in the 9th in Game 2? I'm not saying it because of the result, it just seems to me to be another situation of a manager managing to the save statistic, rather than the save statistic being an accurate reflection. Leyland had two better options, in my mind. The first is to go with Rogers, and give the entire bullpen a night off. If he wanted to go to the pen, though, why not Zumaya? He's already been up three times, and he's a guy who needed to work. Surely it would have made sense for the Tigers to see how his wrist would respond in that role, rather than in a higher leverage situation later on in the series. Instead, Jones got the work on consecutive days.

-For anyone asking, yes, it is perfectly acceptable to that when a Yankee fan says they need to trade A-Rod for someone who is "clutch in the playoffs," you suggest trading him for Jeff Weaver or Kenny Rogers.

-Despite the Cardinals problems with lefties, I still don't like the choice for the Tigers to go with Robertson rather than Bonderman in game 3 (and therefore, if necessary, game 7). The Cardinals may have problems with lefties, but Bonderman is the strikeout guy and is the one pitching better so far this postseason. I'm willing to give Leyland the benefit of the doubt on this one, though.

-Talking too much about players being "clutch" based on one or two hits leads to things like Yadier Molina (.216/.264/.329 against RHP this year) being allowed to bat with his team down by two with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth in game two of the World Series, with Chris Duncan (.318/.390/.644 against RHP) sitting on the bench.

-How Taguchi is he?

-I'm worried that I might blow out my shoulder just by watching Fernando Rodney's delivery.

-Carlos Guillen needs to bat higher than 5th. He's the best hitter on the Tigers. By a lot. Talk of him having to move off a SS in the future isn't as big a problem as it may seem, because he hits like a first baseman. If it weren't for durability concerns, I'd probably rate him as the best hitting shortstop in the game. In 90 less PA's than Jeter (who had by far his best year since 1999), he had two more doubles, 2 more triples, 14 more homers, two more walks 15 less strikeouts (a rate of about 1 per 100 less than Jeter). Yet Jeter will probably win the MVP, and Guillen will finish around 8th. Anyway, through two games of the World Series, Guillen is at .714/.750/1.143, and through the playoffs, he's .432/.488/.703. And the Mariners traded him for Ramon Santiago. Ouch.

-I'm higher on Jeff Weaver's chances for next year after his mediocre performance in Game 2 than I was after his good outings in the division series and the NLCS. For a long time, the book on Weaver was that he was fine once he got into a groove, but would blow up as soon as trouble began. On Sunday, when he got in trouble, he wasn't yelling into his glove or any of the stuff we'd come to expect from him over the years. He just worked through and made good pitches. He'd be smart to resign with the Cardinals, as it's becoming pretty clear that Duncan has connected with him.

-The term "must-win" is overused in the playoffs, but a loss in game 3 with Carpenter pitching would hurt the Cardinals much more than the Tigers, who have the significant edge in starting pitchers the following two nights. Even losing home-field advantage, I still favor the Tigers, because their pitching is so strong, and because I don't think the Cardinals will put enough people on base for Pujols to allow him to win the series on his own.

Playoff Predictions

I hate to whine, but do the Yankees really need to be in the prime time slot every single night? World Series ratings this decade have shown pretty conclusively that the Yankees do NOT draw on a national level, as the 2004 and 2002 series have garnered the highest ratings, while the 2000 and 2003 have had the worst. Baseball fans don't want to hear about "Yankee mystique" every night, they want to see the best matchups. Today's best matchup is Santana against Zito, which will be on at 10:00 am for those of you who live in the A's market.

This isn't mindless Yankee bashing. One of the reasons the NFL has surpassed MLB is because of marketing. This is often seen as the marketing of individuals, but the NFL does a superior marketing of all its teams, as well. Flip on Fox's Sunday afternoon game. I would venture to guess, that, over a 16 week season, their 4:00 games will feature between 16 and 24 different teams. Same with Sunday Night Football. Now, go to Fox's Saturday afternoon baseball. It's the Red Sox or Yankees or a Chicago team every single week. 2005 was the worst. Every other weekend, we had the Red Sox against the Yankees both on Fox Saturday, and again on ESPN Sunday Night.

There are marketable personalities and compelling stories outside of these three markets, but MLB and the networks don't seem terribly interested in lining them up.

On to the predictions...


Los Angeles Dodgers vs. New York Mets.

Have you seen the Mets starting rotation for this series? Take out John Maine, and Tom Glavine, Orlando Hernandez and Steve Trachsel still have a combined age of roughly 195. Without Pedro, this is a very unimpressive rotation, but the loss of Pedro would be a bigger deal if Pedro had been a good pitcher this season. From mid-May on, he was alternately injured and ineffective, and the Mets still had the most wins in the National League.

The Dodgers rotation is strong. Lowe and Penny were a good 1-2 combination all season, and Maddux was excellent down the stretch.

On paper, the two teams match up pretty evenly, but my inclination right now is to go with the Mets. Carlos Beltran had one of the best postseasons in recent memory in 2004, nearly single-handedly carrying the Astros all the way to a Game 7 against a much stronger Cardinals team. He's coming off of a huge season, and, when you factor in his strong CF defense, he's arguably the best player in baseball.

Down the lineup, the Mets have the star power in Beltran and Wright, as well as two other very good players in Carlos Delgado and the miscast-but-still-valuable Jose Reyes. Their depth is a concern, but Randolph doesn't use his bench as much as some other NL managers. Meanwhile, with Wagner, Heilman, Feliciano and Bradford, the Mets have a very strong bullpen, with Heilman especially valuable in a postseason series because of his ability to pitch multiple innings.

The Dodgers lineup is balanced, but Nomar Garciaparra and Jeff Kent are no longer stars. Leftfielder Andre Ethier and catcher Russell Martin, two rookies who were so valuable to Los Angeles throughout the summer, seemed to fade in September, particularly Ethier.

Given the Mets stronger bullpen and defense, and the fact that they seem to have players more likely to carry the team, I'm giving them the very narrow edge in the Series.
Mets def. Dodgers, 3-2.

San Diego Padres vs. St. Louis Cardinals

The Cardinals have backed into the playoffs, and they're a great bet to back out pretty quickly, even against the mediocre Padres. The Cards are basically a three man team, and while Pujols is baseballs best hitter, and while Carpenter may be the NL's best starter, that's just not going to be enough. In fact, this is probably the worst team to find its way into the playoffs since the expanded divisions in 1995. (Now that I've said that, considering my other predictions for this year, I'd encourage every single person who's going to read this--yes, both of you--to wager double your net worth on the Cardinals. I've just made them a can't lose).

The Cardinals chances are best summed up in the fact that Jeff Weaver is going to start Game 2 for them. I can think of about 200 pitchers in baseball that I'd prefer to start a playoff game. The combination of Weaver being a mess under pressure, and not all that good in the first place doesn't make for a great combination.

The Padres will get through on strong starting pitching and enough fair hitters to light up the stiffs that St. Louis will throw out there.
Padres def. Cardinals, 3-1.

Minnesota Twins vs. Oakland A's

The Twins are a trendy pick right now, and it's easy to see why. They have likeable, good young players, the best pitcher in baseball, and were on fire in the second half. Consider me on the bandwagon. Joe Mauer is my MVP this year, one of baseballs best hitters playing the hardest defensive position in baseball. And, unlike Victor Martinez, Mauer is a plus at the position--in fact, he's such a plus, he has a good chance to win the Gold Glove. Justin Morneau isn't the league MVP, but he may win because of voters obsession with RBI. He is a devestating young hitter, though, likely one of the top 10 in the American League. Joe Nathan could well be THE player to break out on the national scene, one of the elite closers in baseball. And Johan Santana is baseball's best pitcher by a pretty huge margin.

What does Oakland have? A fairly good team, if not one that looks like a championship contender. Frank Thomas worked himself into the MVP race in the second half with a series of clutch homers, and their pitching staff is a force to be reckoned with, if Rich Harden is healthy. Unfortunately, Rich Harden didn't appear healthy in his last start, Barry Zito didn't have a great second half, and for reasons I can't really comprehend, Esteban Loiaiza is starting game 2, ahead of Danny Haren.

Minnesota has the better lineup, better defense, better bullpen, and, if not better starters, then a more solidified starting rotation heading into this series. It's a best of five, so anything can happen, and the A's are due a bit of luck, but there's no rational reason to pick against the Twins here.
Twins def. A's, 3-0.

New York Yankees vs. Detroit Tigers

After sitting in first place nearly all season long, the Tigers fell out on the very last day of the season, losing in extra innings to the Kansas City Royals, of all teams. The Tigers lineup was in such disarray in the final month that they actually had Neifi Perez, who has a .298 career OBP, leading off.

The Tigers pitching staff is the real deal, though. Verlander, Robertson, Rogers and Bonderman is the best front four in the major leagues. As important as that is made to be, how many World Series did the Braves win during their run? Like those Braves teams, these Tigers have great starting pitching, great defense, an underrated bullpen, but a bit of a mismatched lineup. Only Carlos Guillen had a VORP of over 30--though it was WELL over 30, at 67.0. After that, Magglio Ordonez, Curtis Granderson, Ivan Rodriguez and Marcus Thames were the only players in the 20's. They're not a good team at getting on base, finishing 12th in the AL with a .329 OBP, behind the much-maligned Royal offense.

Meanwhile, the Yankees are sort of the complete opposite--the best team in the AL at getting on base and scoring runs, but not so great at keeping the other guys from scoring. Chien-Ming Wang somehow turned his hard slider, 76 strikeouts and some smoke and mirrors into 19 wins. There was talk about whether the Yankees were putting softer dirt around home plate in his starts to make his grounders slower in getting to the holes. If that is the case, it worked, as he had a 3.03 at home, while putting up only a 4.35 on the road. After Wang, the rotation is shaky. Mussina battled injuries and inconsistency in the second half after an excellent start to the season. Randy Johnson continued his descent from "Hall of Fame stud" to "mediocre innings eater with a temper." He's apparently going to try to pitch through a herniated disc. That doesn't sound like a great idea for either him or the team, but I'm not a doctor.

It seems to me that the Yankees have too much offense, though the Johnson injury has evened the odds quite a bit. I feel like Game 1 is huge in this series, for both teams. Don't like the matchup, though. Wang tends to succeed most against impatient teams that will drill first pitch sliders into the ground. The Tigers fit that profile.
Yankees def. Tigers, 3-2

From there...
Twins def. Yankees, 4-2
Mets def. Padres, 4-2

Twins def. Mets, 4-1.

From a non-rooting standpoint, Twins against Yankees is very compelling. If you had to pick one thing that the Yankees do well, it would be their hitters ability to be patient and get ahead in counts in order to get good pitches to hit. If you had to pick one thing the Twins do well, it would be their pitchers ability to throw strikes early and get hitters into tough counts. Always fun to see two teams that match up like that.

Also, as I said above, Wang was much better in New York than on the road. If the Yankees series with the Tigers goes to five games, Wang will be starting that Game 5. Unless the Yankees get out to a huge early lead, Wang may not be available until Game 3 of the ALCS. Something to watch for.

As far as the national league goes, the Padres are a well-rounded team, but I can't see them getting to World Series with that lineup unless Peavy starts pitching like an ace again. I have to think that whichever team comes out of the Dodgers-Mets series is going to be the heavy favorite to be Quadruple-A champ.