Pedro. Is. God.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/18/2004

I think you're right, David. There are other factors, some of which are and aren't factors exclusive to Bonds, which therefore can't all explain his outstanding performance relative to his contemporaries. He wears body armor. Some others do, bur it's not the norm. But the norm is now one warning for an inside pitch up high, and then the pitcher is yanked. He's certainly not light on his toes in the box.

I remember one anecdote I recently heard concerning Drysdale and Mays. Mays came up to bat, and forgetting that it was Drysdale on the mound, proceeded to dig a trench in the back of the batter's box for his rear foot. Looking up, he realized he was facing Drysdale, so he furiously backfilled the trench -- to no avail. Drysdale decked him anyway.

As for ridiculous calls, I watched for years as Maddux was given the widest plate I've ever seen -- until this year.

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/17/2004

David --
Good points all. I've always thought that the expansion argument was at least a little overblown --the US itself has grown to the point where a doubling from the days of 16 teams seems about right. And then with the Latin infusion, especially from the Dominican, and that from Asia, the talent level in MLB is still pretty incredible.
Bonds is simply an astounding talent. Although I am happy to see that Griffey Jr., who not so long ago was in all of those "best player ever?" arguments, seems to be back.
dc

David Lion Salmanson - 6/17/2004

I think the other thing is, as Bonds has gotten older and shown more restraint with the bat, his personal strike zone has gotten smaller and smaller. Umpires simply are not giving pitchers the calls so Bonds can afford to wait on his pitches. No way to measure that, though. Same thing happens with pitchers too although I can't think of anybody recent who has that rep, (Tom Terrific did though; he used to get ridiculous calls late in his career).

I don't think expansion has diluted talent. MLB draws from a larger population in the US and throughout the world than before. By sheer numbers I figure expansion is not keeping pace with talent.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/12/2004

Been there, done that, didn't get the T-shirt.

Now that I think about it, Belle turned even routine fly balls into epic adventures, while Manny's problems, less deep but more evenly spread, were probably greatest in charging the ball. He has the habit of not looking the ball into the mit, and starting to throw before he has the ball, and ... oops. In fact, now that I think about it, Belle contends favorably with Blefary for the title of stone hands.

Jesse David Lamovsky - 6/12/2004

No, you're right. I had my head up my rear when I stated there were twelve teams in the league- there weren't twelve in either league until the 1969 expansion. They were eighth out of ten in runs scored in '65 and '66.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/11/2004

One quibble. I only count 10 teams in the NL in those years. Am I right, or did I just have another brain fart? If I'm right, that puts the Dodgers dead-ass last in the NL in runs scored in '65 and '66, two years they won the NL pennant. Koufax was 26 and 8 in '65, and 27 and 9 in '66. My guess is that with even a mediocre run-scoring team, he would have had 30 or more wins both years. Of course, that's just a guess ...

Tom Bruscino - 6/11/2004

By what do you mean most successful season? You mean most home runs, right? Bonds has had many successful seasons: 1990 .301 avg, 33 home runs, 114 RBIs, 52 SB; 1993 .336 avg, 46 home runs, 123 rbis, 39 SB. Look at his stats, most of his career he has been in the 35-45 range for home runs. He just got unbelieveably hot in 2001 for home runs. That type of jump is huge, but players do that sometimes, even at advanced ages (Hank Aaron hit 47 when he was 37, his highest yearly total) . The remarkable thing about Bonds when you look at his stats his how consistent he has been. I think one of the things we are learning in the comtemporary era is that baseball doesn't wear a player down as much as other ports, particularly when those players don't chain smoke and/or get drunk every night, like a lot of the old-timers did.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/11/2004

The abilities of the Koufax years Dodgers came up specifically in the context of Koufax's record, and I had thought it was understood to mean that he didn't get much run support. That pitching staff was one hell of a group, though -- as they would have to be, with those other numbers. Now compare that to last year's Bosox, which was one of the best teams with the lumber I can remember ...

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/11/2004

And so, apparently, is the Cleveland outfield.
dc

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/11/2004

I just looked up the '66 Dodgers, who won the NL pennant (and lost to Baltimore 4-0). They had an anaemic .256 team batting average -- they were 5th out of ten teams in the NL (you can't get more mediocre than that). Of course, they did have Koufax (who went 27 and 9), and Drysdale, and Sutton, and Osteen.

Jesse David Lamovsky - 6/11/2004

Mr. Morgan, you're right about the offensive deficiencies of those '60s Dodgers teams. In their three pennant-winning seasons ('63, '65, and '66) they were 8th, 10th, and 10th (out of twelve teams) in runs scored. They were also dead last in home runs in both '63 and '66. In their four-game sweep loss at the hands of the Orioles in the 1966 World Series, they scored a grand total of two runs, and were shut out in the final 33 innings of the Series. They were also by far the best base-stealing team in the NL during that period, so there were things they did well offensively (thanks to my trusty copy of "Total Baseball" for the instant stats).

Again, though, the poor numbers are a reflection of the overall dominance of pitching throughout major league baseball at the time. And although you'd be correct in stating that, talent-wise, the '60s Dodgers aren't exactly up there with the all-time great teams, or even some of the other teams in the NL at the time (the Giants were more talented, and so was St. Louis), the bottom line is those three pennants in four years. As anemic at the plate as they were, the Dodgers also had incomparable starting pitching, a deep bullpen (a relative rarity in those days), and outstanding defense. This was a damn good team, and what's more, they were a team very well-suited to the style of play that prevailed during the '60s.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/11/2004

I'm going to take the bait, and look up the statistics on the Dodgers. I think they were near the bottom of the league in runs scored. Of course they had some pitching, so when I say they were mediocre, I'm talking about the rest of their game.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/11/2004

Come to think of it, Belle was pretty bloody awful too. I wonder if I've transfered some of his awfulness to Manny's ledger? The mind is a tricky place ...

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/11/2004

You know why the shout out? Because the Stadium Mustard kicks ass. No charity here at Rebunk. (Though at least from my quarter a healthy respect or the welfare state).
dc

Jesse David Lamovsky - 6/11/2004

Hell, when Ramirez played for the Indians, he wasn't even the worst outfielder on his own team. That distinction belonged lock, stock, and barrel to Albert Belle, who was fully as indifferent in the field as Ramirez, and didn't have Manny's arm either (his best throws were reserved for nosy photographers and an inebriated fan who kept calling him "Joey"). And Belle has the distinction of being sent down to the minors in the middle of a 28-home run season because of his lack of hustle on the basepaths. That never happened to Manny!

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/11/2004

Jesse --
Thanks for the specifics on the Dodgers. I pointed out as much and was a bit shocked that someone would assert that Koufax played on mediocre teams.
dc

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/11/2004

Jesse --
Carlton was amazing in '72, no doubt. Hius whole career is why I included him in the conversation.
dc

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/11/2004

Richard --
If Manny is one of the worst fielders you have ever seen, you just have not watched much baseball. The numbers don't bear you out. He certainly is doing fine in Fenway's vexing left field.
dc

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/11/2004

Richard --
Oh, the BALCO stuff is unfair. But yes, it is great to hear Giambi and Sheffield get the wrath in the form of the chant. All's fair between the lines!
dc

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/10/2004

I have to take back "stupid" -- that isn't fair. And his arm ain't all that bad either. But he doesn't run out ground balls, and he lopes to balls that go to the fence. He IS a bad fielder. Sorry. One of the worst I have ever seen. He has an uncanny ability to boot soft grounders to the outfield when charging. I loved that surprised expression on his face when he caught that Yankee ball at the wall running -- and the similarly surprised gasp of Red Sox fans. And yes, he is a great hitter.

Jesse David Lamovsky - 6/10/2004

Terry Pluto attributed Vernon Stouffer's selling the Indians to Nick Mileti instead of Steinbrenner to Stouffer's alcoholism. That might not be the best explanation, but we're talking about a man that sold his team to a guy (Mileti) who promised he would have money, instead of to a guy (Steinbrenner) who really did have money, on the barrelhead. That sort of thing defies explanation.

And a nice shout-out to Stadium Mustard as well.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/10/2004

All well thought-out remarks. I picked weightlifting specifically because of the relative lack of complex orchestration of power, reaction, etc -- an attempt to sort out, in an illustrative but not formal sense, the age-dependent physiology of power from other factors -- confounding variables which I grant could well swamp the power effect. There is certainly a learning curve in hitting. One can also learn to better judge the strike zone, better judge the umpire, and more quickly learn the pitcher. If Bonds is clean, then he has succeeded in orchestrating all the positive features of more experience in such a way as to swamp the ravages of time.

Now it doesn't seem to me, Greg, that you can cite Bonds as evidence that his art has improved with age without help, when he is the one to be tested by the hypothesis. Better to cite an increasing MLB-wide age of personal best season totals of homeruns -- if such is the case. That would be an interesting study. Check the ages at which each homerun slugger of repute hit his most homeruns -- or perhaps reached his highest homerun per bat ratio. Then see if it has drifted over time. Also see if Bonds is an outlier in that data set.

True, Carl Lewis did take the long jump at 35 -- he also failed to qualify in the 100m and 200m at that age, where he had been the best at both (perhaps evidence for the paucity of quality competitors, at least compared to sprints, in that event?).

And Tom, if Bonds' power came from his hand speed, it hardly explains his most successful season at age 37, unless you think his hand speed increased unaided until age 37.

I appreciate your guile, Derek. You propose to change the deal to where he has to be proven guilty or not, rather than guilty or innocent as the two choices were (a negative on the sample would have to be taken as innocence). As you have it, I owe you a hat (should I agree) even if his sample is never tested. My mama raised a fool, but he ain't here right now.

And Derek, I thought you would appreciate my BALCO thoughts. Think of them as an application for admission to Red Sox Nation -- you know, the guys who chant "BAL-CO" when Giambi comes to bat.

Jesse David Lamovsky - 6/10/2004

Mr. Robinson, how could you say that Koufax's Dodgers were mediocre? They won three National League pennants in four years during the '60s, and two World Series championships to boot. They couldn't hit, sure, but nobody was hitting in the National League in those days. See my above post on Steve Carlton's '72 season- now, there was a guy pitching splendidly for a truly bad team.

My Top Five Baseball Books, in no particular order:

Ball Four (of course)

The Pitch That Killed (Luke Sowell, I believe- the story of the 1920 season, centering on Carl Mays and Ray Chapman). Luke Sowell in general is outstanding- his book on the '86 playoffs is first-rate.

The Answer is Baseball (Luke Salisbury, another bleeding-heart Red Sox fan, alas)

If I Never Get Back (Darryl Brock) A novel about a semi-alcoholic newspaper writer who gets transported back in time and joins the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings.

The Curse of Rocky Colavito (Terry Pluto)

Jesse David Lamovsky - 6/10/2004

What about Steve Carlton's 1972 season? He was 27-10, with a 1.97 ERA, 310 strikeouts, and 30 complete games. He led the NL in ERA, strikeouts, complete games, and innings pitched. What makes Carlton's season even more amazing is the fact that the Phillies, as a team, were 59-97, good for dead last in the NL East, and hit .236 as a team! "The Jewish kid's" 1966 season, while unbelievable considering the amount of pain Koufax was in, took place for a pennant winner. Carlton pitched for the worst team in the National League.

Jesse David Lamovsky - 6/10/2004

I generally thought that, while he was in Cleveland, Manny's baserunning was more than offset by his run production, but he did get picked off first by Javy Lopez in the seventh inning of Game Two of the '95 World Series, with no outs and Eddie Murray at the plate, and that may very well have costed the Indians the game (they lost 4-3). But Manny's not a bad fielder, and there's nothing wrong with his throwing arm either. He's not lazy, not stupid- just a single-minded guy on the baseball field, an absent-minded hitting genius.

Greg Robinson - 6/10/2004

Couldn't agree with you more, Tom. Steroids would certainly put a taint on everything that Bonds has done, but I don't think it would discredit anything. I do like to hold my heroes to a higher standard (i.e. Barkley was wrong in stating that he was not a role model) and Bonds would quickly fall from grace in my eyes for having resorted to illegal substances and methods. However, it would not detract from the fact that his bat speed, patience, ability to recognize a pitch and then crush it are second to no one.

Comparing players of different eras, especially eras as different as the ones that Bonds and Ruth have played in, is a tricky business. I agree that Bonds' only contemporary is Ruth (and vice versa) but the fact that Ruth still holds pitching records; shattered his own homerun record of 29 by smashing 54 in 1920 and was the biggest name in the game for so many years--so much so that a division of little league has been named for him gives a slight nod, in my book, to Ruth.

Tom Bruscino - 6/10/2004

Let me chime in and say that until the steroids charge is proven, Bonds and Ruth are neck and neck for the greatest ballplayer ever in my book. The only reason Bonds isn't number one for me is because Ruth was also a great pitcher. There's a discussion for you.

Also, factors adding to Bonds hitting home runs is his ability in this era to stand right on top of the plate and pick pitches to hit since very few pitchers will, or be allowed, to drive a batter off the plate (like that overrated character in Boston). But at the end of the day, I'm not sure Bonds' power comes from his bulk. It seems to me that his advantage is his unbelievable hand speed, which muscles often can slow down. I know we love to tear down heroes in this day and age (I will be putting up a post on Peter Gibbon's work soon), but some people really are that remarkable. If you didn't see what they can do, you wouldn't believe it. That is Bonds for me, and I hope steroids weren't a part of it.

Greg Robinson - 6/10/2004

That pitching has gotten worse with expansion is debatable. However, Bonds hits a great number of his HRs at pitcher-friendly Pac Bell Park, so hitter-friendly ball parks do not account for his homeruns. In addition, he hit his 73 homeruns in 2001 in only 476 at-bats, due to his walking so frequently. That's around 75 less at-bats than should be expected in a healthy year. In 2002 he only received 403 official at-bats; 390 last year. Steroids don't improve the art of hitting, although they theoretically could add distance to home runs, but Barry Bonds has never suffered from a lack of power in his swing. Further, having good hand-eye coordination does not mean you will be able to put the bat on the ball . Hitting is an art that can, as evidenced by Bonds, improve with experience and age. Saying that Bonds was only able to achieve what he has (like hitting .370 in 2002) because of steroids (which has not been proven) is a cop-out.

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/10/2004

Richard --
Comparing apples and onions does not make for better apples or onions. And it does not create a magic hybrid of aponionles. And since, as you say, hitting a baseball a long way is about a lot more than pure power, I am not certain what the point is here. What we learn from the average age of olympic champion powerlifters is . . . the average age of Olympic champion powerlifters. Edifying, to be sure. But not especially germane. Especially since world class throwers in the track events skew quite old, particularly in the shot, hammer, and oftentimes discus. And in speed events let's note that Carl Lewis won a gold medal in 1996 in a speed-power event and Mike Powell is going to be competitive for a slot on the 2004 Olympic long jump squad. And other than kickers, which position can compete longest in pro football? If you said "Linemen" you deserve a replica Olympic powerlifting gold medal!
I will, however, take you up on your old school hat offer. Let's set the parameters -- BB has to be proven guilty of what by when? It has to be some sort of drug test, and I'll accept MLB's flawed methodology.
dc

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/10/2004

Of course I went and screwed up the math. Bonds maxed out in 2001, at age 37. That makes for almost 3.5 standard deviations from the norm. Still astonishingly large.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/10/2004

Just to give a rough idea of the relationship between age and physical power (at least for those training to power), I went back to the mens' weightlifting results from the Sydney 2000 Olympics. There were seven weightclasses, and the ages of the winners of each class, from lightest to heaviest were: 27, 30, 26, 26, 29, 31, 22. That's a mean of almost 27.3, which represents a standard deviation of about 2.8 years.

Now Bonds hit his most homeruns in 2003, at the age of 39. That would represent almost 4.2 standard deviations from the norm for Sydney Olympics goldmedalists in weightlifting.

Of course, there are confounding variables. Hitting a baseball far isn't simply a matter of power. Then again, I'm not familiar with any physiological studies showing that reaction time or hand-eye coordination improves with age after, say, the age of 30. And, of course, there has been expansion, with a dilution in pitching quality, perhaps. And the addition of homerun ballparks. Still ...

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/10/2004

What say you to the deal that if the Feds test the samples, and they come back positive you owe me a retro Brooklyn Dodger cap, and if the it comes back negative, I owe you a retro Boston cap? Seems you've got the advantage, since the MLB sampling program wasn't all that rigorous.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/10/2004

You're right, I don't know for certain. Since this isn't a court of law, and his life, liberty and property do not ride on my word, nor is legal due process implicated, I propose we put our judgments to the test. I propose a bet, gladly admitting I may be wrong, and I could end up paying out. What do you suggest as a bet? Remember now, his samples from last year sit in federal lockup as possible evidence in the BALCO investigation. Just how confident are you?

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/10/2004

You're right, I don't know for certain. Since this isn't a court of law, and his life, liberty and property do not ride on my word, nor is legal due process implicated, I propose we put our judgments to the test. I propose a bet, gladly admitting I may be wrong, and I could end up paying out. What do you suggest as a bet? Remember now, his samples from last year sit in federal lockup as possible evidence in the BALCO investigation. Just how confident are you?

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/10/2004

Richard --
Ahhh, yes, in the absence of actual evidence we use irrelevent anecdote. What, precisely, does your little tale of your competitive swimming career and the hackneyed (yes, still true) tales of the East german swim team have to do with the issue at hand?
I too have a pretty solid athletic background. I also have a weight training background. People who claim that guys cannot get big over time do not know what they are talking about. Over the course of ten years or so, Bonds gained 35 pounds, maybe a bit more. Given how men's bodies change as they get older, and changes in weight training and exercise, and the introduction of a whole range of legal supplements (cratine, proteins, glutamine, etc.) and the need for athletes making this much money to maintain a competitive edge, it is not surprising that most all athletes are a lot bigger.
I do not know what Barry Bonds did. But you do not either. And ephemeral stories about East German swimmers on the juice does not change that. We can swap our "when we were jocks" stories all we want. We can make bad arguments by analogy all we want. But in the absence of, you know. evidence, it all comes across as an old guy whining about today's athletes.
dc

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/10/2004

I used to be a competitive swimmer, and there is very little about the art of doping that can escape the attention of those, like swimmers, that know the basics of physiology and the tricks and the signs, simply by having to compete against those who indulge.

Swimmers knew the East Germans were cheating, and were told to put up or shut up, and we didn't have "evidence". Turns out we were right. We knew the Chinese were cheating, with similar results. We knew Michelle Smith was cheating, as she went from 36th to 1st in the world, and packed on the pounds doing it (sound familiar?). The Irish Ambassador screamed bloody murder, and the entire nation of Ireland came out to celebrate her victories.

There is almost always a connection (sound familiar?) -- in her case, her husband, a former discuss thrower who had been caught with three different substances in his blood, and banned. Well, guess what? She didn't inform FINA where she was. She skipped tests. And when they finally caught up with her, she doped her test -- and it still had the stuff in it.

Some actually beat the system. The Dutch swimmer DeBruyn suddenly leaped ahead, and showed up with a jaw looking like she borrowed it from a Neanderthal type specimen -- a sign of massive HGH use, which leads to jaw deformities. Of course, one can legally dope oneself with HGH simply by taking 2 grams of L-glutamine before you go to bed -- it induces a release of HGH to the tune of 400% of normal levels (Misty Hymen dropped her 200 meter butterfly time at the Sydney Olympics by over 3 seconds, by chewing on the stuff like gum drops). BTW, one of the signs of anabolic steroid use is water retention in the skin -- your face swells up. Shall we talk about which baseball player's face now looks like he's trying to do an imitation of Dizzy Gillespie?

In other words, the best best dope detector in the world is still the informed eye. When a guy, asked about the subject, drags in his kid to hide behind, and trashes his Dad and uncle in the process, I see the signs of desperation that go with the act. I may one day owe Barry an apology -- but I don't think so.

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/10/2004

I dunno. But unless you have evidence we all do not have on Bonds' guilt, and unless you can explain the effects of "BALCO" on hand-eye coordination, and unless you can explain Bonds' consistent but steady physical growth over the last decade-plus, and unless you discount the time when Bonds was the best power hitting-base running player of all time, then what Mays would have done with BALCO seems a pretty half-assed way to make an argument.
dc

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/10/2004

Morgan --
Simply put, no you would not. Period. And there are pretty easy statistical assessments to show that -- they are not perfect, but they would reveal this to be nonsense. See Win Shares, for example.
Manny has improved in the field. He makes several baserunning gaffes a year, but most along the lines of not running out ground balls where he would have been out anyway. It pisses fans and teammates and managers off. It almost never costs games.
dc

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/10/2004

I wonder what Mays would have done with a little help from BALCO.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/10/2004

Quit while you're ahead, Derek. Martinez has better overall numbers, but by the end of the season his chances of going beyond seven innings is about the same as a fart in a hurricane. His big game numbers can't match the little Nathan hot-dogger. I'd bet the mortgage on Koufax in a Game 7 World Series matchup with Pedro (are we getting familiar, now?), especially if both had to go the distance.

As for the quality of his teams at his prime, I saw an interview just a few months back with one of his teammates (sorry, I can't remember which one -- somebody out there saw the same one) who admitted the team just wasn't much good, and Koufax was always pitching from behind or with a one-run lead. Hell, in a Game 7 I'd even take Lolich over Pedro.

PS Is it fair to compare numbers from an era when pitchers aren't expected to go nine? Seems as outre as bringing in Mathewson.

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/10/2004

So we should be selective about a guy's greatness so as not to shatter our conceptions? A guy's bad years are just as important in our assessments as his worst. As for "pretty bad Dodgers teams" -- in the 1960s? Which ones? I'd be curious to see a side by side cmparison of the teams Koufax played on and thos Pedro played on -- you've heard of Montral, right?
dc

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/9/2004

Well, I guess I'm reduced then to calling Mays a transfinitely dimensional player. If I had a dollar for every game Manny cost Cleveland with his inability to run the bases intelligently, unwillingness to run out grounders, piss-poor glove, lack of hustle to the ball, and his minor league arm, and I gave a dollar to you for every game he won for Cleveland with his bat, I'd be out the cost of a half-dozen baseballs.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/9/2004

You're making me hungry, Tom, even if I had (and I did have to, believe me) to eat it in a ballpark with crappy johns, obstructed views, and only 3,200 other patrons. I paid my Indians dues, but everyone from the groundskeeper on down knew they twice had a chance to take it all, if only management would plunk for another primo starter -- but it never did. Saw the '65(?) All-Star game there, and saw Musial (who retired that year) knock a frozen-rope line drive off the centerfield fence -- the hardest hit ball all day.

Have you heard this story? Originally, Steinbrenner, from American Shipbuilding in Lorain (he lived not too far from me, over in Bay Village), had wanted to buy the Indians, but the Stouffer family refused -- said they couldn't do that to Cleveland. BTW, his idiot son was graduated from Culver, despite a lack of credits, when Daddy flew in and built them the Steinbrenner building. Plus ca change ...

Greg Robinson - 6/9/2004

Sons of Sam Horn is one of the greatest names I've ever heard for a group of dedicated fans. Even though I hated Sam Horn because a childhood friend, a Boston fan on the West (Best) Coast, convinced me that he was going to be great and that I should trade him a bunch of really good baseball cards for some Horn rookies.

Barry Bonds is the greatest hitter ever. There, any takers?

Greg Robinson - 6/9/2004

Great point, Richard. Koufax pitched for a team that was often mediocre. And certainly his regular season does compete with the all-time greats irregardless of his post-season dominance. 2.76 era, 2396 KOs vs. 817 BBs, 40 shutouts (that is freakin' amazing!) 137 complete games, 165-87 overall record. And keeping in mind that through the first 6 seasons of his career he had 1 winning sesason: 5-4 in 1957. He came from an era when pitchers were expected to throw 9 innings and he won more than 20 games 3 times (25-5 in 1963, 26-8 in 1965 and 27-9 in 1966). If I had to win a game, Koufax, hands down.

As for Pedro's charisma, I think he is being used by MLB (keep in mind this is an organization run by Bud Selig) because he's controversial more than charismatic. He certainly sells tickets, though.

As for Zimmer, you are absolutely right, Derek. Age is no justification for charging an active player. Zimmer was way out of line and then looked like a big, blubbering baby on national TV, groveling for his job and a reduced fine (which, by the way is a joke, too. Pedro was fined 50 grand to Zimmer's 5, I think). However, Pedro could have very easily avoided any confrontation had he just sidestepped Zimmer; wrapped him up in a bear hug; caught his arm and stopped him. He's 100 years old for crying out loud, he's not going to hurt you! And being a headhunter is one thing; it's part of the game and can be used effectively by good pitchers. But talking trash about it is not part of the game and neither is watching your homerun shot.

Best baseball books: 1) The Celebrant by Eric Greenberg. Takes place in the Cristy Mathewson era.
2) The Universal Baseball Association, Incorporated by Robert Coover. Sort of like a fantasy league gone awry. 3) You Know Me Al by one of the all-time great baseball journalists, Ring Lardner. 4) Baseball's Great Experiment and Past Time: Baseball as History both by Jules Tygiel a professor of history at SFSU. 5) Sandy Koufax by Jane Leavy. There's many more but those are my favorites right now.

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/9/2004

Yes, Bertman's was what I meant, but the knock off is still better than anything else out there too. Mmmmmm, mustard.
dc

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/9/2004

david --
good question. But let me address this issue of specialization first. There is this mythology about the five tool player that indicates that all of those tools are equal. Sorry. No. If you are a position player, especially an outfielder or first baseman, your bat is much more important. saying that Manny is one dimensional because he only hits (by which one means he only hits for average and power, he only drives in immense amounts of runs, he only combines slugging and on base percentage in a moneyball wet dream) is a bit like saying Carl Lewis could only run and jump, or that Fitzgerald could only write in prose. Not much of a damnation.
Baseball books. Great question. I still love Bouton's Ball Four. I am a big fan of Charles Alexander, but as I indicated earlier, he was one of my professors (and i was a TA in his baseball history class). Helberstam has done some good stuff. Obviously I am a huge fan of the fact that the Red Sox have probably been the team that has drawn more writers than any, and Updike's "Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu" is classic. A guy named Dan Riley put together a series of "Readers" (Red Sox Reader, Yankees Reader, Dodgers Reader, and Cubs Reader are the four, I think) that pull together some great baseball writing. hopefully others will have their own answers and suggestions.
dc

Tom Bruscino - 6/9/2004

Mmmmmmm...Stadium Mustard. For those of you who do not know, the mustard they served at the old Cleveland Stadium is out of this world. There is a knock-off called Stadium Mustard, but the real stuff is called Bertman's Ballpark Mustard and it has actually won awards. So we got that going for us, which is nice.

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/9/2004

Heh heh heh --
It's because New England, the east coast, is simply better. Don't be sad. Ohio aqnd especially Cleveland gave us Stadium Mustard, the best foodstuff ever.
dc

Tom Bruscino - 6/9/2004

Randy Johnson has the same career era+ (143) as Greg Maddox and higher than Clemens (140). He has a career ERA of 3.10, 238 wins, is about to pass 4,000 strikeouts, and won three games in the 2001 World Series with a 1.04 ERA. And now he has a perfect game. That is a pretty impressive resume.

It's not that you shouldn't post about things you care about--it's that us poor downtrodden Midwesterners grow tired of discussions of greatest players so often focus on just a few major cities. Obviously, it's not your fault that Pedro in his prime was one of the best pitchers ever, that he plays for Boston, that you are a Boston fan, and that we get inundated with Boston/New York/LA/Chicago sports no matter where we live. But I think it makes many of us have a knee-jerk reaction to whatever the latest Boston crusade is. My point? I don't know. Boston sucks.

David Lion Salmanson - 6/9/2004

There is a great paragraph in a baseball book, I believe it is Brothers K, about Roger Maris and specialization. It's about how Maris was once a great all around hitter but in his quest to perfect his home run stroke destroyed his game. It was a metaphor for the Vietnam War or something.

So what is the best baseball book?

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/9/2004

How old was Johnson when he won a World Series? (If you'd even consider Johnson in the same breath as Pedro, this conversation is clearly going nowhere). How many did Maddux appear in in the last decade? How many did he win? (Extra points: what team did he beat?) baseball more than any other sport rejects the diea that one person can win you a championship, especially a pitcher who goes at most three times in a series. Pedro's title will be the coup de grace, to be sure. Especially if he dominates. But until someone can counter the actual evidence -- Pedro's numbers versus Maddux and Johnson, say -- the rest is window dressing. Hell, I've played on exactly one fewer World series winner than both Maddux and Johnson.
Presumably we all make arguments based on our interests. Are we going to point that out in every post on rebunk? Why, you only wrote about Joseph Alsop because you're interested in Joseph Alsop. You only wrote about Stephen Ambrose because you're interested in Stephen Ambrose. Well, duh. Didn't realize I'd be singled out for arguing ardently about things I, you know, believe in. I await your next post about something you do not care much about. Then I can say "your argument was tempered by the fact that you did not care about your topic." Egads. Who let the Yankee fan in the room?
dc

Tom Bruscino - 6/9/2004

I never said nor averred that your argument was not legit because you are a Red Sox fan. In fact, I said repeatedly that you might be right. My point is that you would not be arguing for Pedro as the greatest right now or as aggressively if he were not on the Red Sox. The argument did come from your fan diary of the Red Sox. If Pedro were on the Expos, Indians, or godforbid the Yankees, and pitched the game you talked about the other night, would we be talking about him right now on Rebunk? Any fans of the hometeam tend to get real excited about their guys--I'd take Kosar at his best over a stupid amount of quarterbacks out there.

Which of course can somewhat cloud our judgment when it comes to things like clubhouse presense and winning World Series. I agree, the Jeter thing is nauseating, but Pedro has been on some damn good teams in Boston and not won a World Series. We're not comparing Bucky Dent to Ernie Banks, we're parsing out the qualities of the very best pitchers in baseball history. In the recent past, Maddox, Johnson, Clemens, and Pedro are all remarkable pitchers. With some of the stats going Pedro's way, we should bring up the fact that the first three have won the World Series. Even if Clemens was a mercenary to do it. Even if Maddox threw to first in the 1995 World Series and the ump called it a strike. Even if Randy Johnson had Curt Shilling pitching alongside him. If Pedro wins one--dear God, I think you Boston fans would burn your city to the ground in joy--then we'll be able to say he had something working in his favor (like Shilling pitching with him, Manny and Nomar crushing the ball, etc.) but at the end of the day that factor counting against him will be gone. Until then, we have to wonder why his teams could never pull it out when so many great pitchers did take their teams all the way.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/9/2004

That was well put -- an idiot savant hitter. The most one-dimensional player I have ever seen. He is not only unfamiliar with the concept of hustle, he couldn't find it in the dictionary if you spotted him h-u-s-t-l.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/9/2004

My only quibble on the Koufax issue is that his overall numbers include his years in the wilderness, when he wasn't very good at all. His Dodger team, even at his peak, wasn't all that good -- he must have some kind of record for one-run wins. Pedro has better overall numbers, but taking both at their peak, if I had to choose one to start Game 7 for me. it would still be Koufax.

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/9/2004

First, I loved Pedro in Montreal, but he achieved historical greatness for the Sox. It is utter nonsense that I would not be arguing for him were he not a Red Sox player. Those numbers are unimpeachable, and I'm a sports fan. I can make huge lists of athletes I think may rank as the best ever who are not Boston athletes. Just a dumb argument. I also pimp for Barry Bonds, Ken Griffey, and loads of others in modern sports. That Pedro is a Red Sox has enhanced the experience for me, largely because I've gotten to see him a lot more. It does not change the facts. Come up with something to counter the ERA+ argument, his numbers versus the all time greats while he has played in a hitters era, the pitching triple crowns, and then we might have an argument. Averring that my argument is less legit because I am a Sox fan is the precise sort of nonsense that you would not accept were this not about sports. "Oh, Tom's views on Ambrose are colored because he is a fan of Ambrose." Well, sure, but so what? I'm a fan of Pedro because he is great. I'm not making arguments about David McCarty, who is also a Red Sox player. Let's let the Yankees fans come in on the short bus and make the retarded arguments.
"Get along in the clubhouse better than Pedro?" Listen to teammates. The Pedro in the clubhouse motif is the concern of the Dan Shaughnessys of this world. pedro has plenty of time to win a World series. This is one of those intangibles arguments that I do not much care for, and are the precise sorts of arguments that Yankees fans have been making about Jeter as he has slid into mediocrity. On Sons of Sam Horn, one of his nicknames is "Cap'n Intangibles" to mock both jeter and yanks fans but also Peter gammons. My personal favorite nickname for Jeter might be Peanuthead. Look at him sometime. (I also like "Fruitbat" for Mariano Rivera, especially if you've ever seena picture of a fruitbat.)
As for the World series argument: Bucky Dent was not a better shortstop that Ernie Banks just because he played on better teams. In the next decade Pedro will get his. Johnson is not in the same breath as Pedro historically. Maddux, yes. I'd say Pedro-Clemens-Maddux are the three bext of this era. Johnson may be fourth.
Pedro. Is. God.
dc

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/9/2004

Manny is agreat hitter. the saying around Boston when he does something boneheaded is "It's just Manny being Manny." I do think that the waivers deal last year has been overstated -- for one thing, you'd be shocked how many guys are put on waivers in a season. It happens all the time, not only to stars -- especiually to stars, and especially after the trade deadline. but Manny is an anchor, and he is an idiot savant hitter. there are few better, certainly from the right side of the plate. And soon he'll have Nomar hitting next to him in the lineup. Giddyup.
dc

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/9/2004

Greg --
Koufax was undoubtedly great, and those postseason numbers, like Gibsons, are really all that keep them in the conversation.
however, i do think Pedro is incredibly charismatic -- MLB would not be using him for commercials were he not -- And certainly the media loves him. I do not see what his willingness to talk trash and back it up has to do with charisma. Gibson, Clemens, they too were seen as headhunters. As for throwing an old man to the ground, please. Zimmer came after pedro and was throwing a punch and/or going after his right shoulder. Pedro sidestepped him and tossed him aside. just because you are old does not give you the right to instigate assault and it does not prevent you from an asskicking if you do so.
No, we dream of glorious Game Sevens to come, not of game sevens past.
dc

Greg Robinson - 6/9/2004

I do look forward to another Yankees--Red Sox playoff series. And to clarify, do Red Sox fans dream of Game Sevens to come like a child who never gets that new bike on Christmas morning but still keeps hoping Santa will come through, or is it because you guys are gluttons for humiliation?

Buckner

Greg Robinson - 6/9/2004

Pedro is very, very good. And in his prime, as you say Derek, he was great and probably the best of our generation. But I don't like the comparisons to Koufax. Yes, the statistical analysis is relevant and gives a slight nod to Pedro, however taking into consideration post-season you have to give a big nod to Koufax. Playing through adversity and injury, Koufax pitched arguably his greatest season in his final year, when he had nothing but an absolutely overpowering fastball. He threw no-hitters in 4 consecutive seasons. He threw a perfect game. He won World Series games with a ERA of .95. He threw 2 shutouts in the World Series. He threw 4 complete games. He won World Series'. And he never threw a senior citizen to the ground on national TV. I don't think Pedro is charismatic except to Boston fans. Anyone who looks into the opposing team's dugout, points at his head and mouths the words, "I'll hit you in the F'n head" is not charismatic. He is a great pitcher nonetheless but, in my opinion, not on the same level as Koufax, for many reasons.

Excellent post though. Please keep the baseball discussions coming.

Tom Bruscino - 6/9/2004

Derek, I think your introduction to the post was better than the diary entry. If you do publish this diary--like we need to hear more from you Red Sox fans--you absolutely have to use that Foghorn Leghorn line in the introduction, Alexander and all. It is spot on.

Obviously Pedro is a remarkable pitcher, but let's be honest, if he didn't wear the red panty hose, there is no way you would be pimping him as the greatest ever. You might have been wrong not to make the argument, but you would not have picked out a pitcher for the Expos (or Indians, if they had just traded Jaret White for him, dammit), and called him the greatest. Again, I'm not saying you are wrong, but you Red Sox fans go a little overboard with Pedro worship. I'm not biased at all, but take the 1999 playoff series, during which you Red Sox somehow think Pedro drove a stake through all of Clevelandom's hearts when he came in to game five and shut the Indians down. Sure it was a great pitching performance, but let me speak for all Indians fans when I say that we wrote off that series after games three and four when Mike Hargrove imploded in handling the pitching staff and the Indians lost by a total of 107-8. (The combined ERA for the Red Sox pitching staff in that series was a healthy 6.65. For the Indians it was 9.63. Disgusting. I don't even know how it went to five.)

In any case, I think we do have to take into consideration that Pedro has never won a World Series, and that even in this era Randy Johnson and Greg Maddox have had pretty incredible runs, and seem to get along in the clubhouse better than Pedro.

And we haven't even talked about Bob Feller--266 wins, 2,581 strikeouts, career 3.25 ERA, career 122 ERA+ (best in 1940 with 161)--who went to war in the prime years of his career, and is talked about by all the legends of that era as the best they ever faced.

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/9/2004

"until the Sox signed Manny."

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/9/2004

I think you have a good argument. I just love tweaking the nose of the Red Sox Nation. I particularly love Bucky F. Dent, and Aaron F. Boone. And I particularly hate Manny Ramirez, and any team that would have him as a member. The Red Sox tried to give him away and nobody would take him. A lazier MF one would be hard-pressed to find. A bigger hot dog it would be harder to find. Manny wanted no part of Clemens, but he had to put on a show anyway. The guy doesn't run out ground balls, and he is the worst fielder I have ever seen in the major leagues -- worse than Curt "Clank the Robot" Blefary. I actually rooted for the Sox against the Yankees -- against the Sox signed Manny.

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/9/2004

Richard --
However, in a hitter's era Pedro's numbers are certainly historic -- look, for example, at his ERA+, which measures era above the league average. He is so dominant historically that it really is not close -- his is 174+ where Lefty Grove's is a "paltry" 148+. In many ways this sort of stat is a true measure of a pitcher's greatness because it gives a gauge not only of relative dominance, but of absolute dominance. he has wone the pitcher's triple crown (ERA, wins, strikeouts) which only Clemens had done for decades. Since Pedro and Koufax are the most lgical point of comparison, let's do some investigation: Pedro wins in every important statistical measure except for complete games: Again, in a hitter's era, here are some numbers: Koufax ERA -- 2.76. Pedro? 2.58. Koufax ERA+: 131 Pedro: 174. Koufax best season ERA -- 1.73 (with a league average that year of 3.61. Pedro's? 1.74 BUT the league ERA was almost 5 (4.91). Koufaz WHIP? 1.11. Pedro? 1.01 (Koufax's best WHIP? 0.85, Pedro's 0.74. It goes on and on and on. No, it is not simply provincialism. In a hitters epoch, Pedro's numbers are better -- not relatively, but absolutely. (Numbers and argumenty tip of the hat to Fire Brand - though I had not seen this (www.http://firebrand.mostvaluablenetwork.com/index.php?p=39) when I wrote my piece today.
dc

Richard Henry Morgan - 6/9/2004

Pedro is the second best junkball pitcher I've ever seen. I once watched Cuellar pitch a full nine where he didn't throw any two pitches the same the entire day. Power pitcher? Please. He can't even match Sam McDowell on that score (hell, he can't even match Chuck Seelbach on that score). Pedro is very good, but as you say, you never saw Gibson or Koufax in their prime. And obviously, Vida Blue in his prime was before your time also. He was a Cy Young Award winner at 21, with an ERA of 1.82. Blew his arm out, and had terrible playoff records, though. Your New England roots are showing -- the sun does not rise and set on the Sox.