Bruce Sutter

Bruce Sutter made it to the Hall of Fame. While I can say his election won't deteriorate the "greatness" of the Hall of Fame (the election of the Rube Marquards and Ray Schalks did that years ago) he definitely isn't even close to what I would call great, nor is he any better then many of his contemporaries that haven't been elected yet to the Hall of Fame... such as Goose Gossage. The only merit that sets him a part from your standard good closer is the fact he popularized the splitter, but there is no indication that he was even the first person that used it.

Look at these statistics...

Player A: IP: 1809 1/3 Saves: 310 ERA: 3.01 WHIP: 1.23 (1972-1994)

Player B: IP: 1041 Saves: 300 ERA: 2.84 WHIP: 1.14 (1976-1988)

Player C: IP: 764 Saves: 330 ERA: 2.93 WHIP: 1.14 (1989-2000)

Player D: IP: 1128 1/3 Saves: 303 ERA: 3.30 WHIP: 1.24 (1982, 1986-2000)

Player E: IP: 1289 1/3 Saves: 478 ERA: 3.03 WHIP: 1.26 (1980-1997)

Which one of these pitchers deserve the Hall of Fame? To me they are all pretty much on the same level... Player A pitched for an extremely long period of time and pitched tons of innings, unfortunately this resulted in his rate stats being hurt because of his long decline phase. Player B and C did very good but for only a short amount of time before they retired... hence their rate stats aren't hurt by a long decline phase. Knowing player C played in a much tougher hitting era I'd say he was slightly better then Player B, (and possibly is the best of them all) but again not by much. Only one of these players is definitely worse then the others and that is player D, but he's certainly comparable to the others. Player E despite having tons of saves had his WHIP and ERA hurt by the decline phase...

Is it fair that only one of these players are in the HoF and two of the players fell off of the ballot with only a couple of votes?

Player A = Goose Gossage - got 64.6% of the votes
Player B = Bruce Sutter - 76.9% of the votes - new Hall of Famer
Player C = John Wetteland - only received 4 votes (tossed off ballot)
Player D = Doug Jones - only recieved 2 votes (tossed off ballot)
Player E = Lee Smith - 45% of votes

How can it be fair that a player who was just as good as the player elected to the HoF get such a small amount of support that they fall of the ballot? This just doesn't seem right.

Of course, I would have just made it fair by not electing any of them.

This year the nominations for the Hall of Fame were substandard. Jim Rice, and Bert Blyleven are the only two I could ever see as being at least borderline for the Hall of Fame. Out of Rice and Blyleven the only one I would think of voting for would be Blyleven, but even then there would have been only a 50/50 chance I would have voted for him.

The Bruce Sutter vote just proves there needs to be a baseball IQ test before handing out the Hall of Fame ballots.

Rock, Paper, Scissors

Want to play the classic game Rock, Paper, Scissors? Ok but we'll play under my rules...

Nats Beat Padres

Rangers Beat Nats

Padres Beat Rangers

How did I come up with this? Well simple, because that's the way the trades between these three teams have went this offseason. Suprisingly though on name recognition the opposite team won every deal, which is quite unusual and is why I got interested in this phenomenon

The first trade between these three teams this offseason was the deal involving the Nationals and Padres.

Nats Beat Padres

Nationals trade: Vinny Castilla
Padres trade: Brian Lawrence

Vinny Castilla definitely has a name, but once you get past that he simply doesn't look that great. Outside of the hitter's paradises in Colorado and Houston his highest OPS since 2000 is .771. Using those same restrictions his average yearly OPS since 2000 is .697. To put this is perspective, Sean Burroughs, the player he is set to replace from the Padres, has put up an OPS of .700 since taking over the job in 2002. Since Petco Park in San Diego is considered just as much as a pitcher's park as Washington I don't see how Vinny can be considered any better than his predecessor.

Besides the guy is going to be 38 years old in July...

Brian Lawrance had a bad year last year. In a pitcher's park with a 4.83 ERA and a 1.37 WHIP it wasn't awful but it was definitely below average. However, throughout his career he has been an average to above average pitcher. His career numbers of a 4.11 ERA and a 1.32 WHIP are not ace numbers by any means, but they would look decent at the back of any major league rotation. Plus he's still in his prime at 30 so he should be effective for a few more years... unlike Castilla.

Rangers Beat Nats

Rangers Trade: Alfonso Soriano
Nats Trade: Brad Wilkerson, Terrmel Sledge, and Armando Galaragga

Soriano is a part of the 30-30 club and is a former Yankee and hence has been overrated to great extremes by the media. Alfonso Soriano has lots of flaws: he can't take a base on ball (career .320 OBP), his defense is noted as being inconsistent not only by stats but by people watching the game, and he goes through many lapses where he refuses to hustle. Sure he has tons of power but look at the OPS comparisions between Soriano and Wilkerson...

Soriano career OPS - .820
Wilkerson career OPS - .817

Hmm... they look pretty similar. When you consider that Wilkerson has played in huge pitcher's parks his whole career and Soriano at least the past two years has played at Arlington it would not entirely be crazy to say that Wilkerson is the better player basing it on OPS.

When you include the defensive values of the two players and salaries, to me the deal would be in Texas's favor just if it was Soriano for Wilkerson. However not only did Texas get Wilkerson but they also received Sledge and a pitching prosect, Galaragga.

While Galaragga has quite a bit of potential he is pretty much a wildcard that can't be guaranteed to be anything quite yet. Sledge at worst is a good 4th OF and at best could be a Wilkerson clone himself. Yes he has the same characteristics as Wilkerson in that he walks a decent amount (not as much as Wilkerson but still a respectable amount) has some power and some speed. Now do I really think at 29 years old he is going to make the jump to be as good as Wilkerson? No, but I do think he could be a decent 3rd OF on any team.

Padres Beat Rangers

Padres Trade: Adam Eaton, Akinori Otsuka, Billy Killian
Rangers Trade: Chris Young, Adrian Gonzalez, Terrmel Sledge

This time the big name in the trade is Eaton, and this time he again goes to the loser. Eaton has been touted as a possible ace from the moment he was drafted, but aside from a stint before a finger injury last year he has consistently disappointed. Maybe he'll put it all together this season, but regardless he will be a FA next year and will be wanting around 10 million a year.

Also coming to the Rangers is a pretty good relief pitcher, Otsuka. Otsuka is actually the big prize for the Rangers as in his rookie year he was absolutely fantastic. Last year discounting a couple of appearances with the Diamondbacks he again had a great year, but counting those appearances he had a slightly above average year. Unfortunately like all the other Japanese pitchers before him it may be just a matter of time before major league hitters figure his style out and hit him as well, but more then likely he'll play somewhere between his 2004 and 2005 season for quite a few years, and he is going to be under contract for 4 more years.

Billy Killian is useless to the Rangers. He is a below average catching prospect going to a team who already has Teagarden, Laird, and Nikeas... ie he's useless.

To the Padres you have Chris Young. Chris Young was not a very heralded prospect, but last year in his rookie year he performed well. (4.26 ERA, 1.26 WHIP) In fact considering the ballparks it was as good as any season in Eaton's career especially when comparing their respective WHIPs. To make Young look like an even better deal, whoever controls Young will have him for the next 5 years!

Adrian Gonzalez was selected 1st in the 2000 draft and a couple of years ago was good enough to acquire a closer, Ugueth Urbina. He has done nothing to tarnish his reputation over the past few two years and has been constantly compared to Mark Grace as the worst he could be... his most optimistic comparision is with Rafael Palmeiro. (although if history is any indication he might need some "help" to be that good) Either way unless any unforseen injury hits he should be a good 1st basemen for a long time.

Sledge evidently was acquired to be traded... (see above trade)

In the short term, Texas may win this trade. If Eaton breaks out and performs well at Arlington and Otsuka continues to baffle hitters in 2006 it possibly may even lead to the first playoff appearance since the A-Rod era started. Nevertheless, Young is signed for 5 more years and has already shown to be as good as Eaton is now, Adrian Gonzalez is a top flight prospect that is under contract for another 6 years and should be a good 1st basemen much longer then that, and Sledge very well could be a dependable OF on a major league team. The only way this deal will even look halfway decent for Texas in the next few years is if Texas can sign Eaton long term.

Nats, Padres, Rangers, shoot...

Whatever Happened to... Matt Anderson

What I'm going to do in this segment is talk about players who for various reasons never lived up to their potential. I'll be focusing on players from the early 90's to present day, some who still have some chance to rebound and some who have been out of baseball for awhile. If you have any requests for a particular player then please tell me.

Before the 1998 season the Detroit Tigers had two promising young relief pitchers who practically every pundit and expert agreed would become successful closers... Francisco Cordero and Matt Anderson.

Cordero in 1999 posted a breakout year in AA, striking out 58 batters in 52 1/3 innings pitched with a 1.38 ERA in the process. He then proceeded to pitch respectably in a middle relief role at the end of 1999 for Detroit still striking out a batter an inning and keeping his ERA in the lower half of the 3's. His only sign of weakness was he was walking almost as many as he struck out while in the majors, but in the minors his WHIP was 1.09 showing that he had some potential to conquer his walk problems in the future.

Matt Anderson had a breath-taking 1st pro season in 1998 zooming up through high A to the majors in one season. In the minors he posted ERA's of 0.69 in the Florida State League and 0.60 in AA. He combined for 45 strikeouts in 41 innings in the two minor league levels he played at, and posted WHIPs equal to or less then 1.00 in both of his stops. In the majors he showed everybody what his potential was by striking out a batter an inning in his 44 IP and keeping his ERA down at 3.27. His only sign of problems was his walk totals as he did walk 31 batters in the process. Regardless though Anderson looked like the real deal coming off of 1998.

Anderson's 1999 wasn't so encouraging. Like Cordero he split his time between the majors in the minors, in his case AAA in the minors. Also like Anderson he posted quality strike out numbers 35 strike outs in 38 innings in AAA and 32 strikeouts in 38 innings in the majors. Just like Francisco Cordero, Anderson had trouble with his walks in the majors walking 35 batters, 3 walks more then his strikeout totals. Unlike Cordero, Anderson had problems walking batters in the minors also, walking 31 batters and ruining his WHIP (1.66 in minors, 1.79 in majors) in the process.

Before 2000 started the Tigers decided to improve their offense by acquiring slugger Juan Gonzalez. However to do this Texas demanded one of their closing prospects. Eventually they hammered out a deal sending Francisco Cordero to the Rangers. After two learning years Cordero lived up to his expectations by becoming a very important part of the Rangers bullpen in 2002 and becoming the full time Ranger closer in 2003 after the trade of Ugueth Urbina.

Unfortunately for Detroit Matt Anderson did not live up to his expectations. Despite having the more dominant "stuff" of the two closers and being the first overall pick of the 1997 draft, Anderson never really learned to put movement behind his 101 mph fastball and his numbers would never show the promise of his extraordinary pro rookie season.

In 2000, Anderson stayed in the majors from start to finish as a middle reliever. He posted adequate numbers all around (4.72 ERA, 8.60 K/9, 1.43 WHIP) which was definitely an improvement from the 1999 season. He still walked too much as 45 walks in 74 1/3 innings pitched is not that great, but still it was very encouraging for the Tigers. It was so encouraging that they decided to take a chance on him in 2001 to be their closer.

2001 came around and looking on the outside it looked like Matt Anderson had successful tore off his closer of the future label and became a full fledged closer. Sure his 22 saves look good on the outside... sure he finally lowered his walk rate to an acceptable total (2.89/9 innings)... and sure he kept his strikeout rate high (8.36/9 innings). Pretty much Anderson looked like he was well on his way of being the next Billy Wagner. Unfortunately a new problem had come on the scene. A new problem that kept his ERA up at 4.82 and would gradually get worse in worse. The new problem was that Anderson had begun to get hittable to the rate of a hit per inning. Yes he still had his 101 mph fastball, but it still had no movement. When he came up hitters just couldn't catch up with it that often, but now that he had been up for four years that fastball just wasn't that surprising to the hitters. Even worse his hard breaking ball that he always had still wasn't staying in the strikezone enough so he had to rely on his heater. Nevertheless everyone assumed Anderson was on the right track and would become a dominant closer.

Then came the year it all broke down, 2002. Anderson suffered a shoulder injury early in the year that limited him to 12 miserable innings. By 2003 he was still expected to be Detroit's closer but a number of changes had happened all because of a new arm angle he took up to reduce stress in his throwing shoulder. First of all his 101 mph heater was gone, and in its place was a much more pedestrian mid-90's version. Second of all his new arm angle made it even tougher for him to put movement behind his fastball, so all he had was a straight 94 mph fastball which is very hittable in the major leagues. His stats show this as out as his hits per 9 innings soared to 9.64/9 innings in the majors and 11.84/9 innings in AA. In the major leagues he just couldn't strike out players the way he used to as his rate plunged to 5.01/9 innings.

By 2004, at 27 years old when most players are just reaching their primes, Matt Anderson looked like he was all washed up. He suffered more injuries and stayed in the minors all year and unfortunately for him was just as hittable as he was in 2003. After 2004 he became a FA and signed with the Colorado Rockies.

Amazingly last year Anderson began pitching decent in the minors. His strikeout totals climbed back to 8.81/9 innings and he kept batters to less then 7 hits/9 innings, even his walks weren't that bad at 4.02/9 innings. All of those were very encouraging signs. His ERA was alright at 4.21 and his WHIP was great for him at 1.21. Even more encouraging is that he did all of this in Colorado Springs one of the best hitting ballparks in minor league baseball. In midseason he began to get some press as a possible closing candidate for Colorado and the Rockies subsequently brought him up. Unfortunately he failed miserably in the ten innings he pitched at Colorado giving up 17 earned runs off of 19 hits and 11 walks which gave him a horrendous 3.00 WHIP.

What does the future hold for Matt Anderson. Well if 2005 was any indication he has begun to harness his new arm angle. Evidently his breaking ball has improved and he has developed some movement on his fastball which may allow him to become a decent relief pitcher. Sure he will probably never become a dominant closer nor will he ever live up to his draft status, but he can still have a respectable career in the major leagues.

Welcome to my first blog

For many years now I have shoved my opinions about baseball on any willing ear, but I never thought I would start a blog about it. However I've finally decided I'll never get my dream job as an ESPN analyst or become the Texas Ranger's GM so I've decided to create this blog instead.

First things first though. You are probably wondering what my credentials are. Why should anybody in their right mind listen to me?

I have to admit I'm not an expert nor do I have any insider information. All I can do is comment on what I see or hear about. So if you're expecting Baseball America from me you've come to the wrong place.

However what I can give you is an honest fan's opinion. I have been a baseball fanatic ever since I can remember. While I am a Texas Rangers fan, first and foremost I'm a baseball fan. Unlike many blogs around the internet that's sole use is to praise or condemn the hometeam's every move, that is not my intention here. First of all I think it is crazy to praise ever move a team makes as even the best GM makes mistakes. (Beane is really going to regret the Loiaza signing) Plus, it is equally stupid to act like a team is so inept they never make any decent transaction... even the Devil Rays make good moves sometimes. (Kazmir anyone?) Secondly I follow baseball everywhere, not just the Rangers, so expect everything from top prospect lists, (with my analysis, no copy and pasting of somebody else's opinion) trade analysis, FA pickups, fantasy baseball advice, and any other random information that I think is interesting.

Am I a stathead or a traditional scouting guy? Way back in high school I was pretty much a walking encyclopedia of baseball statistics. Nowadays I still admit to swing to the stat side. I'm a big believer in on-base percentage, slugging percentage, WHIP, and K/9 and a cynic in regards to batting average, runs, RBI's, and wins (for a pitcher). Amazingly these theories were ingrained in my skull even before the world had heard about Moneyball. (Although since I did not have a blog then you will just have to believe me) Statistics though can't show everything. Scouting is still integral for baseball and although I can't go and see every player in the major and minor leagues I will incorporate whatever I do see into all of my analysis I give out.

Hopefully I haven't bored you to tears by now with this introduction. Anyway, thank you very much for coming to this site. Hopefully I've gotten you at least a little bit interested. If you have any suggestions please email me at tranger85@yahoo.com