Grady Represents in HR Derby (plus some guy named Hamilton)

I’ve never been a fan of the All Star Game, it just seemed so artificial in recent years. The players rarely seem that into it, the voting process and subsequent starting lineups are usually a joke, and it just isn’t that fun to watch. I’ve always enjoyed the Homerun Derby though, even after the whole steroid mess. While past contests lost much of their charm after the steroid bubble burst (McGuire vs. Sosa anyone?), watching such an awesome exhibition of raw power by some of the best sluggers in the league hasn’t lost its appeal, at least for me. Even the players get excited about the Derby, the awed faces and practical jokes between teammates are proof of that. If you can get David Ortiz to just stare and mouth “wow” to your handiwork, then that’s quite an accomplishment with the bat.

I’m familiar with how recent contestants suffered from a power outage after the break and that certain players are wary of participating now. I was still stoked when I heard Cleveland’s own Grady Sizemore would be on the marquee for this year’s event. Sure, there’s the possibility that he’ll wear himself out a little, but at least it gives Cleveland fans something to cheer about during the break. Besides, if contenders like Utley and Braun are willing to put forth the effort, it’d be disappointing to not see the A.L. homerun leader step into the batter’s box. Despite sending a small army’s worth of All Stars to the game in past years, Cleveland hasn’t had a Derby participant since Jim Thome was runner-up in 1998 (Ken Griffey won with 19 total).

Sizemore got off to a solid start in his first Derby appearance. An endorsement from Peter Gammons on ESPN and a short right field porch suited to Grady’s swing seemed to hold some promise. Anyone who’s seen Grady turn on a pitch inside and send it to the upper deck at the Jake knows he would fit right in at this year’s Derby venue. Actually, five of the eight participants were left-handers hoping to bank on Yankee Stadium’s friendly dimensions of 318’ (LF), 399’, 408’, 385’, and 314’ (RF).

Sizemore batted second behind Florida’s Dan Uggla in the first round. Sizemore matched Uggla in total homers with six, but Grady racked up a greater distance, as in Pronk moon shots to right field. I figured Grady would show some pop, maybe hit a couple into the upper deck, but he certainly didn’t embarrass himself tonight. Five of his taters landed deep into the upper deck, with the longest landing 459 feet away.

Sizemore seemed more relaxed than Uggla, Utley, and Braun and showed a more fluid, natural swing. It’s too bad Grady got eliminated so early because he didn’t appear to be straining himself considering how far he hit the ball and probably had a lot more fuel in the tank for the second round. On the other hand, it’s better that he not wear himself out in an exhibition that ended up being a blow out.

Watching Josh Hamilton tear apart the field this year was like watching Tiger Woods play in an amateur tournament at Firestone. The other players were too busy watching Hamilton launch insane shots off the center field advertisements to care about winning some silly contest.

Hamilton went last (probably some strategic planning by ESPN programmers), but ended up eliminating Uggla and Sizemore by the time he was done. There’s really no way to describe the onslaught that the 6’4”, 205 lb. Hamilton unleashed on the fans in Yankee Stadium, so I’d suggest catching the replay on ESPN later this week. It was epic.

The longest shot was 518’ feet and just failed to clear the white picket fence atop the center field wall, one of three 500’ blasts from Hamilton. It was interesting how the announcers were discussing Josh Gibson and his legendary homer out of Yankee Stadium. While it hasn’t been proven, it wouldn’t surprise me if a hitter as prolific as Gibson were to actually clear an unmodified Yankee Stadium in 1934 (the outfield wall had a much lower profile back then).

Hamilton easily surpassed Bobby Abreu’s record of 24 taters in a round with 28. Hamilton’s 35 total homers are also the second most in a Derby, falling short of the 41 mark set by Abreu in 2005. Hamilton ignored the fact that he could have quit well before he reached 28 homers, but chose to put on a memorable show for the fans in attendance. The fans returned the favor by chanting “HAM-IL-TON” on several occasions, willing the slugger on. Every player sitting on the sidelines circled around Hamilton after his turn was over, congratulating him on the ridiculous feat of strength he had just put on.

In a rather anti-climatic ending, Hamilton fell just short in the closing round when the homerun totals were reset for each finalist. Justin Morneau took home the trophy by hitting five homeruns to just three by an exhausted Hamilton. Morneau seemed almost guilty in accepting the trophy, as Hamilton had really provided the spark for this year’s event.

Granted, the Homerun Derby has its flaws, but I find it hard to believe that any fan would fail to be impressed or at least entertained by this year’s contest. Oh, and good try Grady, better luck next year.

This One's For the Pessimists

I'm back from my trip to the Motherland, aka Lyndhurst, Ohio. I was fortunate enough to go to the Cleveland-Chicago game on July 17 and see Garko slay the Sox in extra innings. Two of the three games I've been to this year (D.C., Texas @ Cle.) have ended in walk off wins; kind of a strange stroke of luck (although we lost each series in the end, hmmm). A lot's gone down while I've been away, so on to the latest from the Tribe....

Cleveland has played 97 games in the 2007 season with 65 remaining. The second half of the season is where things tend to get interesting, as the true fight for a playoff berth really takes off. Under manager Eric Wedge, Cleveland has arguably played their best baseball in the second half. Going into the All Star break with 52 wins (just a game behind Detroit) is unprecedented for a Wedgie team. Below is a breakdown of the team under Wedge’s tenure, from 2004 to 2006:

Year	Split		W	L	RS	RA	PCT
2004	1st Half		42	45	474	482	.483
	2nd Half		38	37	384	375	.507
2005	1st Half		47	41	406	364	.534
	2nd Half		46	28	384	278	.622
2006	1st Half		40	47	488	443	.460
	2nd Half		38	37	382	339	.507
2007	1st Half		52	36	471	414	.591

I excluded the 2003 season under Wedge because the team was still in full rebuilding mode and would only skew the data for the teams who had a realistic chance of contending, playoffs or otherwise.

It may be a stretch to compare these teams directly, but the basic structure and core players have been very similar from 2004 to 2007, so I think it’s fair for just a rough comparison. Despite changes around the core, this particular team of players under Wedge has a distinct pattern of performing better in the second half of the season.

Every Wedgie team has finished with a better win percentage in the second half than in the first half. A rough calculation has Cleveland finishing around 95 wins if they continue to win games at their current pace. They are already playing 3 games above their projected record, according to THT, and are only 1.5 games behind Detroit as I write this. Combine that with the 3^rd best record in the majors and Tribe fans have reason to be optimistic. Here are the AL Central standings as of July 22:

Team	W	L	PCT	GB	vs Cent.
Detroit	58	38	.604		21-17
Cleveland	57	40	.588	1.5	21-12
Minnesota	51	47	.520	8	14-20
Chicago	43	54	.443	15.5	17-16
Kansas City	43	54	.443	15.5	13-21

Cleveland also boasts one of the best intra-division records in the AL at 21-12. I posted a theory earlier in the season that the rest of the Central would beat up on each other, allowing the Tribe to move ahead of the pack. Looking at the standings, the theory seems to be holding up, although Detroit has recently closed the gap due to the Tribe’s poor play in the last Detroit and Chicago series’. A key difference so far has been how Cleveland (9-9) and Detroit (14-4) performed in interleague games this year.

Some fans may point out Detroit is only positioned to become stronger in the second half and Cleveland has yet to distance themselves from their division rival. This is true; Detroit has already gotten Kenny Rogers back and Zumaya and Rodney should be back later in the season to bolster their bullpen.

Cleveland has gotten some extra pitching help since the All Star break, though.

Westbrook is healthy again and while he hasn’t been particularly dominant, he has performed close to his career numbers. Jake has gone at least 6 innings in his five post DL starts, with an era of 4.50 and no wins. Remove his start against Detroit (career 6.59 era in 15 starts) where he gave up 5 runs over 7 IP and Jake’s era drops to 3.81 in his last five games. He’s really been a victim of poor run support in some of his better starts, but should start collecting wins as the law of averages takes over (the offense can’t go cold for every start).

Perez has pitched 29 innings this season and posted a 1.86 era, 34 Ks, and a .86 whip. The front office is currently pursuing another reliever to share the load with bullpen ace Betancourt, but Perez may be the answer they were looking for (he started the season in AAA). Perez was used primarily as a long reliever until he became a late inning regular in late June. He is currently the Tribe’s go-to pitcher for close games and is arguably the best pitcher in the bullpen right now.

Factor in a rebounding Hafner and the possible production from Gutierrez and Francisco in the outfield and the offense should be even better in the second half.

This is obviously a very simplistic evaluation of the team's performance, but it's encouraging nontheless.

In Other News

I'll be the first to admit that I've been drinking the Kansas City Kool Aid this year, proclaiming them contenders in 2 years, but they have been a team to be recokoned with lately. After taking two of three from Boston, K.C. has moved into a 3rd place tie with Chicago in the AL Central with a 43-54 record. While I hadn't printed it on this site, I had a strong feeling that the Royals would challenge Chicago for 3rd place this year. Given how much I despise Chicago, it would be great to see Buddy Bell and the Royals shove them into the basement.

Grit Fest 2007

Well, it looks like every sports writer on the planet beat me to the annual All-Star Game snub list. I normally cringe at the All-Star selections, but I really can't find much fault with the selections this year. Hanley Ramirez should have at least been picked as a reserve and Kevin Youkilis is an arguable snub. Carlos Beltran in the starting outfield ahead of Matt Holliday is an obvious case of ballot stuffing. My biggest issue is Ivan Rodriguez (his defense doesn't even save him this year; worst in 4 seasons) starting ahead of Victor Martinez.

With the exception of Beltran, the NL starters look solid, especially Prince Fielder and Russell Martin; great first-time selections there. Vlad and Ichiro were the only non-Yankee/Sox/Tiger players who cracked the AL starting roster, but it's hard to argue against the players selected (except Pudge, of course). Overall, the fans didn't embarass themselves this year, which is nice.

Like most baseball fans, I enjoy the All-Star Game quite a bit, despite my frequent criticism. There are few times so many great players are assembled on the same field and it's always fun to see the Cleveland representative in action (three this year, woo-hoo!). You can tell the players and their families get a kick out of attending the game too. The baselines during the Homerun Derby often look like a family reunion amongst the players; many are close friends, but have little off-time during the busy season. Not to mention the amount of publicity and revenue MLB and the host city rake in from the festivities.

So if the industry, fans, and players all love the All-Star Game, what's there to complain about? Nothing, actually. I have no problem with the game itself, it's the outdated connotations associated with an All-Star selection that I disagree with.

The All-Star Game is voted on by the fans, for the fans. A large majority of fans who vote for the starting rosters do so with their favorite players in mind, not who has the best OPS or strikeout to walk ratio. Given the recent trends in the voting, stats and pure performance play a complementary role, at best. If sportswriters, historians, and Hall of Fame voters insist on using a popularity contest as a measure of a players legacy or skill, they are kidding themselves. It's obvious being voted in as an All-Star has lost much of its significance at this point and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Obviously, the most popular players tend to be some of the best, but they are not always deserving. The fans often ignore outstanding and deserving players, sending players who are not the best at their position that season to the exhibition. Isn't the point of selecting All-Stars to honor the players who are playing the best baseball at that point? There are far too many questionable or flat out bad selections each year to continue to justify the significance currently associated with a selection.

Now, the core of my argument is only applicable to the starting fielders, as the pitchers and reserves are selected by a combination of major league players, managers, and the Commissioner's Office. There is certainly something to be said for being recognized by one's peers as a premier player and these selections tend to carry more clout than the fans' selections.

According to Baseball Almanac, "All-Star teams were originally selected by the managers and the fans for the 1933 and 1934 games. From 1935 through 1946, managers selected the entire team for each league. From 1947 to 1957, fans chose the team's starters and the manager chose the pitchers and the remaining players. From 1958 through 1969, managers, players, and coaches made the All-Star Team selections. In 1970, the vote again returned to the fans for the selection of the starters for each team and remains there today."

Out of all the combinations stated above, having the managers, players, and coaches select the team is the one with the least potential for bias. The more diverse and knowledgeable the selection committee, the better the final representation. While a single manager will certainly be looking for the best roster possible, it's not a stretch to say selections are still made partly on reputation and familiarity (i.e. their own players).

A strong bias has existed in All-Star Game selections since the exhibition's inception 74 years ago. Yet, sportswriters have been using the selections as a measure of a players worth for just as long. All-Star selections are even written on a player's Hall of Fame plaque. What is it that causes supposed experts on the sport to ignore the inherent flaws in being chosen as an All-Star?

Well, my theory is that it provides a definitive link between a player's career and the fans. The fans' interest is stirred when they know they have a say in how a player's career may play out; seeing recognition of their vote on a Hall of Fame plaque is just an added thrill. This link is used in recounting a players performance in sports articles because it is an easy point of reference for the casual fan. The fact that a selection is often a misleading way to compare players' careers is poor journalism. I could cite many examples, but to start:

Dmitri Young - 2 time All-Star
Omar Vizquel - 3 time All-Star

Shown a difference of one selection, which player do you think has had a better career?

One area where All-Star selections may be viewed as a measure of a player's career can be derived from the Hall of Fame's voting criteria: "voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." As much as I hate citing intangibles as a measure of a player's career, they are stated right there in the selection requirements. A player's character could certainly be reflected in the number of All-Star appearances, since it shows good standing with his fans and peers. However, this does not excuse the lack of All-Star selections for overlooked and deserving players. Just how many genuinely bad guys are there in the sport anyway? I can see (hypothetically) choosing Fred McGriff over Albert Belle because one is an upstanding guy and the other is uh, rude, but how often does a scenario like that come up?

The Mid-Summer Classic exists for the fans, but would you let the fans vote on who gets into the Hall of Fame, too? Of course not. So let the fans have their fun with the exhibition games and leave the true measure of a players career to the players pure performance. The great thing about baseball is that every major award except a series title can be measured by statistics. The All-Star Game isn't based on statistics and that's fine; just don't act like it is.