The Amazing Rays

You might not know it, but the Rays and Rangers are making history with their first-round series, one which hopefully leaves the winner with Yankee-killing momentum. How so, you ask?

There have been 96 best-of-five series in baseball history prior to this year, between the League Championship Series from 1969 to 1984, the 1981 Division Series, and the modern Division Series from 1995 until 2009. Of those 96, only 26 - 27% - went the full five games. And of those 26, ten - 38% - saw one team go down 2-0, then rally back to force a fifth game. They were:

1972 ALCS: Oakland 3, Detroit 2
1981 NLDS: LA Dodgers 3, Houston 2
1981 NLDS: Montreal 3, Philadelphia 2
1981 ALDS: NY Yankees 3, Milwaukee 2
1982 ALCS: Milwaukee 3, California 2
1984 NLCS: San Diego 3, Chicago Cubs 2
1995 ALDS: Seattle 3, NY Yankees 2
1999 ALDS: Boston 3, Cleveland 2
2001 ALDS: NY Yankees 3, Oakland 2
2003 ALDS: Boston 3, Oakland 2

A couple of interesting things here. First, in not all of these cases did the team rallying to force a fifth game win the series. The '81 Brewers and Phillies, along with the '72 Tigers, were able to force a fifth game but still lost the series. The other seven, however, all won three straight. That bodes well for the Rays, who evened up their series 2-2 with their second win in Texas today. History gives them a 70% chance of winning on that alone.

Consider this, though: prior to 1998, best-of-five series formats went 2-3, with the team having home field getting the last three games. So seven of the ten series above were played like that, and of those seven, four involved the home team winning all five games - i.e. the winning team going down 2-0 but then winning three straight at home (the '81 Dodgers, '82 Brewers, '84 Padres and '95 Mariners). So in some respects we can't really judge based on these, because series are now played 2-2-1.

And that is really where we get into history. Prior to now, only two teams ever opened a five-game series with two road wins, then lost the next two games at home. They were the '01 A's and the '81 Yankees.

The '81 Yankees won the first two games of their series in Milwaukee, then had three straight at home in which to clinch it - they dropped the first two, but won Game Five.

The '01 A's won the first two games of their series in New York, but after dropping Games Three and Four in Oakland, they had to go back to New York for Game Five... which they lost.

In other words, there has never been a five-game series in which the road team won all five games. The only analogous series to what the Rays/Rangers have done is the '01 ALDS, and if that "pattern" holds, the Rays will win Game Five. If the Rangers win, not only will they be the first team to win a five-game series in which the road team won every game, but they will be just the third team (after the '72 A's and '81 Expos) to take a 2-0 lead in a five-game series, blow the lead, but then win the fifth game on the road to take the series anyway (and just the fourth team to come back to win after letting the series go from 2-0 to 2-2).

So things would seem to look pretty good for the Rays (except for the part where they have to face Cliff Lee in Game Five). One other thing to consider, though. Out of the 26 series that went to five games, however they got there, the deciding Game Five has been won by the home team 14 times and the road team 12 times (including five of the last six). So overall, the chances of the home team winning Game Five are 54% - not much better than even.

Joshymandias, king of kings

You all remember Josh Hamilton. Inspiring comeback story, baseball talent, winner of the 2008 Home Run Derby (no?). Well, here's something you may not know: he's now the best player in baseball. I know, I know - usually it takes more than 1.5 good seasons to get you this title. Don't tell that to Tom Verducci.

Just another night in the life of the best player in baseball went something like this, at least as far as last Friday the 13th:

• Smash four hits all over the park: a single to left, a 440-foot bomb to center, a single and double to right.

• Score from third base on a pop fly to deep shortstop/short left.

• Score from second base on a ground ball to second.

• Make a diving catch on the warning track and a leaping catch against the centerfield wall.

• Cause the third-base coach to halt a runner from scoring from second on an otherwise routine run-scoring single to centerfield.

Verducci's breathless bullet points, not to mention the use of "just another night," suggest that Hamilton does this literally every day. Is Hamilton having a great season? Yes. Is this ridiculous cherry-picking? Also yes. Why, just six days earlier, he went 0-for-4 with a strikeout!

The "score from second base on a ground ball to second" piece is a tad disingenuous; while it was heads-up baserunning on Hamilton's part, it's not like he turned into the Flash - there were two outs, he was moving with the pitch, the ball was a fairly slow roller up the middle which the second baseman tried to throw to first off-balance. Hamilton is hardly the only guy in baseball who could have scored there. His "diving catch on the warning track" also wasn't; Hamilton caught the ball on the run (a good but not insane play) and then fell forward and slid onto the warning track. If you have to embellish what he's doing, was it as great as you want to claim?

• Crush the postgame spread.

Fortunately we determine the best player in baseball by how many cold cuts they can consume in one sitting.

• Throw around hundreds of pounds of iron in a postgame weightlifting session.

• Gulp down a 2,000-plus-calorie protein shake, made with real cream, on the car ride home.

Oh my God... REAL CREAM??? Move over, Albert Pujols! (For the record, this was the point at which Verducci completely lost me. Real cream? Who the fuck cares?)

• Sit down for a full home-cooked meal by his wife. (Yes, for those of you scoring at home, that's the equivalent of three full meals just between the last out and bedtime.)

And for those of you who don't care - i.e. everyone - you might realize how irrelevant this is to the story. I guess maybe it's an attempt to add "color," but Josh Hamilton's eating habits are really just wholly immaterial to the case for why he might or might not be the best player in baseball.

The legend of Josh Hamilton, Texas Ranger, is growing on a nightly basis. There is nobody like him in baseball, and possibly nobody this good, this big, this fast and this unique -- a 6'4", 235-pound sledgehammer of a hitter who can run balls down in center field and fly around the bases and hit for such a high average -- since Mickey Mantle in his prime.

He's really good. He's also 29, injury-prone, and in the middle of only his second good season. Last year his OBP was .315. And if he can fly around the bases, why does he only have eight steals?

Hamilton leads the league in batting (.362), slugging (.634), hits (161) and total bases (282). The rest of the league is playing for second place in the MVP race. He has no contemporaries, especially when you consider that the Rangers, somewhat against their better judgment, have started him 26 times in center field.

Miguel Cabrera is 19 points ahead of Hamilton in OBP and dead-even in slugging. Hamilton leads in VORP because he plays in the outfield and he does play for a better team, which means he probably has an edge in the MVP race. But this isn't that open and shut, Jizzy McFawnalot. His UZR - and just because he has played in center doesn't change the fact that he mostly plays in left, typically viewed as the easiest OF defensive spot - is 5.8, which is positive but hardly superlative. Also, UZR is typically considered to be a stat where you have to look at a three-year span to get anything of value out of it, and in 2008 - when he played mostly in center - Hamilton was a total butcher.

So, he's good, okay? And this year he's having a pretty awesome season. But I think maybe he needs to show he can produce consistently before we anoint him the best player in baseball.

How rare is that kind of skill set? The last three players to have batted .360 and slugged .600 while playing that much center field are none other than Mantle in 1957, Stan Musial in 1948 and Joe DiMaggio in 1939.

Now, are there any more questions about who is the best player in baseball this year?

Sigh. To be fair, Verducci does qualify it with "this year," although his glistening prose throughout the rest of the article doesn't really suggest that he's limiting the title to nothing but the here and now. You can't just hand out a title like "best player in baseball." The yearly title is the MVP; the other is a more honorary title which, right now, clearly belongs to Albert Pujols. (Who, by the way, just hit 30 home runs for the tenth straight season, aka every single one of his career.)

"He's certainly in the discussion," Texas GM John Daniels said. "You rarely see a guy perform at this level for this length of time."

Uh, what length of time? Okay, yes, since June 1 he's been thoroughly ridiculous: .454/.482/.815 in June, .418/.468/.704 in July, .362/.455/.617 in August so far. I don't know that we've seen months like that since Barry Bonds' heyday in the first half of the 2000s (lest we forget, Bonds' line in 2004 was .362/.609/.812 - and that's for the whole season, not two months). With numbers like that, this probably isn't your run of the mill hot streak. But it's still just two-plus months.

In 65 games since June 1, just when the Texas heat is supposed to wilt players, Hamilton has hit .423. He also sets himself apart from other great sluggers because he is one of the game's best base runners and can play Gold Glove-caliber defense in the middle of the field. He has made 14 of his past 24 starts in center field.

Hamilton is listed by Baseball Reference as being one run above average as a baserunner. Baseball Prospectus lists his EqBRR as 2.1, 48th in the majors. He has 8 steals, as mentioned. He's fine. I think "one of the game's best base runners" may be pushing it. And if he were really a Gold Glover in center, why does he not start there every night? If it's because he would get hurt... well, I'm sorry, but you can't tell me a guy is the best at a position he typically can't play because of injury concerns.

Baseball doesn't have official player rankings as does golf and tennis, though its No. 1 player typically has caused little debate -- from Ken Griffey Jr. to Barry Bonds to Alex Rodriguez to Albert Pujols. Pujols' consistency is remarkable, especially measured against Hamilton's career. Hamilton is 29 and only 16 months older than Pujols, but has yet to play 100 games in back-to-back seasons -- minors or majors. But in the snapshot of today's game, based on skill set and production right now, Hamilton is the new BPB -- Best Player in Baseball. At the end of the year he could wind up with the batting title, MVP, Silver Slugger, Gold Glove and All-Star Game election, all for a first-place team.

He means 16 months younger than Pujols. At any rate, this is what I'm getting at - the "snapshot" issue. You can't award the best player in baseball "title" based on a snapshot of 2/3 of a season! (Pujols, by the way, is having his typically ridiculous year, in a manner so consistent that we don't even seem to give him credit anymore. Oh, .315/.409/.586 with 30 homers by mid-August? Yawn.)

As for the rest of it, Hamilton will probably win the batting title barring a total collapse, but so what? It will take some doing for him to finish first in OBP, a more meaningful stat. I doubt he will win a Gold Glove since he mostly plays left; All-Star Game election and Silver Slugger are meaningless. MVP would be nice for him, but it's also pretty meaningless.

Ironically, I suspect that the very reason why Hamilton gets slobbered over so heavily by guys like Verducci is precisely because he hasn't really done it before. The guy is 29 and is playing just his second full season, and putting up great stats. But rather than assume this could be some sort of fluke season, Verducci falls all over himself to talk about how the guy has just become the best player in baseball. Let me throw another age 29 season at you:

Player X, 2005: .335/.418/.662, 46 HR, led league in hits, 2B, BA, SLG, OPS/OPS+ and TB

As you can probably guess if you're a Cubs fan, those numbers belong to Derrek Lee. Yes, Lee is a first baseman, but he's an excellent defender there and he was only a couple runs worse on the basepaths than Hamilton has been this year. Now, while people certainly talked about how good the season was, you didn't see anyone suggesting that Lee was turning into the best player in baseball. In part this was because of Albert Pujols (whose season was about as good overall) and in part it was because this was Lee's seventh full season in the bigs. Anyone who'd been paying attention knew that it was unlikely that he was quite this good. (And, as it turned out, he wasn't, though injuries did him no favors.) But with Hamilton, he's a relative blank slate. When he tears it up for two months, that becomes the story of the man. We don't have five or six years of data we can throw out to show that he's clearly playing well above his typical level. He has no "typical level" yet. So hey, for all we know, this is his typical level! Next year he'll hit 75 home runs and reach base seven times out of ten!

The game last Friday against Boston belongs in a time capsule, so that when somebody who never saw him play wonders what Hamilton could do on a baseball field, just that one game will suffice.

Oh, Jesus Christ. He's not Willie Mays, Tom. Josh Hamilton is going to need to have a lot more games just like that one before it will even occur to historians to wonder what he could do on a baseball field.

"There aren't many days when Josh goes 0-for-4," Daniels said, "but if it does happen there are so many other ways he can help us win a game. Josh can influence the outcome of a game with his bat and glove.

In fact, there have been fifteen such days this year. Sure, that's not many, I guess. It's five fewer than Pujols has. It's also five more than Cabrera has. Whatever. Also, if you go 0-for-4 and don't reach base, I don't know if there are "so many other ways" you can help your team win a game, particularly if you are the everyday left fielder.

"And when he goes from first to third, he's able to turn it on with his head up and without breaking stride and can see the ball or the coach. I was fortunate to see Larry Walker one year in Colorado. He runs the bases like that. He runs with his head up at full speed. He accelerates to full speed quickly, cuts the bases perfectly, and all the while his eyes are where they're supposed to be."

To the tune of one or two runs above an average player whose eyes are flying all over the place.

Walker and Bonds are the only outfielders in the past 50 years to hit .360 with 30 homers -- measurements within Hamilton's grasp. The men to do it before them were Mantle, Musial, DiMaggio and Ted Williams.

Walker played at Coors Field. Bonds was on the juice. So really, Josh Hamilton is the greatest player of this generation! Let's just come out and say it.

Also, Bonds and Walker did it twice each. So did Williams. Mantle, DiMaggio and Musial all had at least one other .350/30 season. Can we stop pretending that Hamilton is in the same class as those guys because he's having a big year?

Hamilton is nothing more than a breathtaking comet for the moment. He has no real career to speak of and no certainty to his future. He threw away his early years in baseball because of drug addiction, endured an alcohol-related relapse last year, and his years trying to remain clean have been marred by injuries. He has played fewer major league games than Billy Butler, the 24-year-old Kansas City first baseman.

And yet... he is the best player in baseball, a title he took over from Kevin Maas.

New Rangers owner Chuck Greenberg would love to lock up Hamilton this winter to a contract extension that buys out at least one year of free agency. (Hamilton is under Texas' control for two more arbitration-eligible seasons.) But what kind of length could be guaranteed when his body of work, however great, is so checkered? His value is complicated, too, by the oddity of not earning free agent rights until he is 31 years old. Remember, age matters in baseball now. There is not one player today in his age 36 season or older who is healthy and has an OPS better than .800.

Ladies and gentlemen, the BEST PLAYER IN BASEBALL! He has a "checkered body of work" and it's doubtful he can sustain his production for five more years! Would you ever see a paragraph like this written about Albert Pujols? No, you would not.

Just for argument's sake, you could draw a faint comparison to Kevin Youkilis, another rare late bloomer, who signed his extension with the Red Sox in 2009 at age 29 -- Hamilton's age now -- and with two arbitration years remaining and coming off a year in which he finished third in MVP voting. He signed for $41.125 million over four years. Here's how Youkilis' numbers then match up with those of Hamilton now:

Kevin Youkilis vs. Josh Hamilton
Player Age G HR RBI AVG/OBP/SLG OPS
Youkilis 29 553 66 314 .289/.385/.472 .857
Hamilton 29 447 87 311 .310/.370/.541 .911

Hamilton will have bigger numbers and more awards on which to bargain. He will lack the bigger body of work. The Rangers briefly discussed a contract extension with Hamilton in spring training of 2009, shortly after Youkilis signed, but the club hit a financial downward spiral that eventually led to bankruptcy and Hamilton played only 89 games while spending two stints on the disabled list. Both developments put extension talks off to the side.

Those numbers aren't that different, by the way. They also mask the fact that while Hamilton had more eye-popping stats, Youkilis was far more consistent.

In the meantime, the Rangers will do the best they can to keep Hamilton healthy, which is why they need center fielder Julio Borbon to hit. If Borbon doesn't hit, the Rangers have to play Hamilton more in center field than they would like, with David Murphy in left field and Nelson Cruz, when he recovers from a hamstring strain, in right field. They also need to give Hamilton a few more days at DH while resting Guerrero.

Am I the only one confused by the seeming idea that the Rangers aren't sure how to handle the playing time of the best player in baseball? Shouldn't "not being made of porcelain" be a valuable quality for such a player as well?

"It's hard to take Josh out of the lineup," Daniels said.

Yes, I imagine that would be true if he were the best player in baseball. Or even if he were pretty good.

Who knows how long Hamilton can keep up this pace? He already has dealt with tendinitis in his right knee this month. But for now, the sight of a guy built like an NFL strong safety crashing into walls, blasting long home runs, flying around the bases, and chasing a batting title with a 22-point lead on Miguel Cabrera is something to behold. There is nothing like it in baseball.

As Winston Wolf would say, let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet. Hamilton is having a great season. But is there really nothing like it in baseball? He's a good outfielder (this year) and a good baserunner but he isn't the second coming of Willie Mays and Rickey Henderson rolled into one. The fact that he's "built like an NFL strong safety" is irrelevant. Joe Mauer had an offensive season not unlike Hamilton's last year, from the more valuable catching position. Joey Votto is tearing it up this year (albeit from first base). Both of those guys are multiple years younger than Hamilton. Hanley Ramirez has 30-homer power, 50-steal speed, and has won a batting title by hitting over .340, plus he's three years younger than Hamilton and plays shortstop (albeit not well). Carlos Gonzalez is 24 years old, has played the outfield better than Hamilton over the past three years, has a better EqBRR, and is hitting .321 with 25 homers this season. But I guess he doesn't look like Troy Polamalu, so therefore he sucks.

Josh Hamilton is having a great year. But can we please rein it in? Let's at least see him stay healthy enough to do it a second time before we anoint him the greatest talent in a sport that's clearly full of equally good players right now.

(One other thing I should probably mention: Hamilton plays in Texas, where the ball flies out of the yard, especially during the hot summers. Of his 26 homers, 18 have come at home. His road OPS is a pedestrian .887; at home, it's 1.196. His home BABIP is .424, for crying out loud. For that matter, his overall BABIP is .398, aka exceptionally lucky. Pujols', by comparison, is .301 or almost exactly league average. Ted Williams' career BABIP was .328, so you can't possibly claim that Hamilton is just that good. It's a FLUKE, people.)

Capital ideas

I don't know if you've been keeping up with The Capitol Dome Project - I'd be kind of shocked if you were, especially since the three people who would read this and might care have probably already seen most of the pictures on Facebook - but we're up to six and we're still a month shy of one year, with a number of additional capitals looming on the horizon (as I'm looking to hit at least eight and possibly as many as ten during a two and a half week visit to the Northeast at the end of August). Being a massive dork, I'm of course already quite excited about getting nearly a third of the way through the list, and it's gotten me thinking seriously about the best way to get to each capital. It's listmaking time!

Alabama
Southwest, my airline of choice these days (in spite of their relatively insufferable open seating policy), has nonstop flights from Chicago to Birmingham. From there it's about 90 miles south on I-65 to Montgomery.

Alaska
This will be one of the toughest ones, as I'm sure you could guess. There's really only one way to get into Juneau, and that's by air - and there aren't exactly direct flights from Chicago. Orbitz says that Alaska Airlines will fly you there with just a single stop in Anchorage, which isn't bad (and all on Boeing 737s, assuaging my fear of having to take a prop plane into Juneau itself). Of course, that'll run you like 800 bucks.

Arizona
Done. (Southwest flies directly into Phoenix.)

Arkansas
Southwest has nonstop flights from Chicago to Little Rock.

California
Most Southwest flights to Sacramento seem to require a stopover, but they still get you there quickly enough.

Colorado
Southwest has a lot of nonstop flights from Chicago to Denver.

Connecticut
Finally we get to one that isn't just planes. Flying to Hartford is an option - Southwest has nonstops - but this one is likely to be visited on my trip east. The only real question is whether it's going to be feasible to visit it on the way from DC to Boston - something like a seven-hour drive in the best-case scenario. Hartford is in the latter half of the drive, meaning we'd have to leave DC pretty early in the morning, perhaps 8 am, to get there at a reasonable time to tour the capitol (and even then, that leaves very little time to see/do anything else; I don't know about most people who do this sort of thing but I find it a little lame to just be in and out, although that is what happened with Trenton for the most part). The other option is to get to Boston first and then go back to Hartford (an 80-mile drive or so) on one of the days up there. This seems sort of ridiculous since we have to drive through Hartford to get to Boston... but I don't know what to tell you.

Delaware
Not only can you really not fly to Dover, it's not even that easy to drive there - the capital is located in the middle of a state that only has interstate highways in its northernmost piece. Fortunately, Dover is a quick 100-mile drive from DC (mostly on US 301). I expect this will get a visit in August.

Florida
Tallahassee is surprisingly hard to get to, but you do have to consider its driving distance from Florida's four main cities - 164 miles from Jacksonville, 243 miles from Tampa, 260 miles from Orlando, and 480 miles from Miami. Southwest does fly to Jacksonville, but 164 miles is a lot when you've already had to fly in somewhere (though not a deal-breaker), and they just added service to Panama City. Google Maps lists the drive from ECP to Tallahassee as a "mere" 128 miles.

Georgia
Flying right into Atlanta is the obvious way to go given the size of Atlanta's airport, though unfortunately Southwest does not fly there. Pretty much everyone else does, of course.

Hawaii
Obviously flying into Honolulu is the only choice. It's cheaper than flying to Juneau, at least. This will likely be one of the last ones I reach unless we decide to go to Hawaii on our honeymoon.

Idaho
Southwest flies into Boise, though not nonstop from Chicago.

Illinois
Done. (I-55 south is the only reasonable course of action from Chicago.)

Indiana
While Southwest does fly to Indianapolis - and for just 59 bucks one way! - it's ridiculous for me to fly into a city that I can drive to in under four hours, especially given the additional cost of either car rental or cabs. Most of the drive is a straight shot down I-65, which is pretty simple.

Iowa
A bit of a challenge. Driving seems obvious, but Des Moines is somewhere between five and six hours away by car, right on the edge of what I would consider acceptable for a single road trip. You can fly there... on a commuter jet... for 300 bucks. I think I'll drive, thanks, but ironically, given the length of the trip and the general lack of other things to do there (no offense, Des Moines), this will probably not get checked off the list anytime soon even though it's just one state over.

Kansas
Topeka is a little more than an hour west of Kansas City on I-70, and Southwest flies nonstop to Kansas City for dirt cheap.

Kentucky
According to Google Maps, it's actually only 8 miles further from Chicago to Frankfort than from Chicago to Des Moines. However, it's extremely easy and inexpensive to fly into Louisville, and a quick hour-long drive east on (mostly) I-64 from Louisville to Frankfort.

Louisiana
Southwest flies nonstop to New Orleans, and it's about 90 minutes west on I-10 from there to Baton Rouge.

Maine
Another one that is a little trickier than it might sound. I'm hoping to make the drive up while based in the Boston area during my August trip, but at more than three hours each way, we'll have to see if it can be squeezed in. Should I need to do it later, Southwest does fly nonstop to Manchester, NH, but it's still more than two and a half hours from there.

Maryland
The easiest one left and my vote for "capital I'm most likely to visit next." It's less than an hour from my parents' house in the DC suburbs to Annapolis, and I'm sure I'll make the trip while I'm out there in August.

Massachusetts
The second easiest one left as I'm all but certain to be in the Boston area on the same trip. Southwest also now flies into Logan should I somehow miss it.

Michigan
Lansing is about four hours from Chicago east on I-94 and then north on I-69. That's probably over the limit of what could reasonably be done in one day. (My mom and I made it to Springfield - almost 3.5 hours away - and back in one day, but it was a long day.) Which isn't to say that's a real problem - anything drivable that can be done in two days should really be fine.

Minnesota
While a fairly straight shot on I-90 and I-94, St. Paul is just too far at 7.5 hours for me to consider driving it these days. Fortunately, Southwest flies there cheaply and often.

Mississippi
Surprisingly, or not, Southwest flies nonstop to Jackson.

Missouri
Another one that's a little harder than you might think. Southwest flies into both Kansas City and St. Louis, but Jefferson City is in the middle of the state, nearly equidistant from the two. St. Louis is about 30 miles closer, leaving a drive of about 2.5 hours, mostly on I-70. It's a little silly because were I going to St. Louis itself I would drive 99 times out of 100, but the extra 2.5 hours makes it too much for a single road trip.

Montana
When I was drawing up the preliminary version of this list, this was the first one that stopped me cold. Hard as Alaska is, at least you can fly right into Juneau on a Boeing 737. But Helena? Well, you can fly in directly (from Denver) on a Canadair jet (for 500+ bucks). The flight plan is a bit less complicated (though no less expensive) if you fly into Missoula, but that leaves a two-hour drive to Helena. The closest other "major" Montana city to Helena is Butte, a mere 75 minutes down I-15, but you're still flying a regional jet in there and it's still nearly 400 bucks. Best bet is probably going to be (eventually) to bite the bullet and just fly in directly. This will almost assuredly be one of the last five.

Nebraska
Much easier. Southwest nonstop to Omaha, then about an hour west on I-80 to Lincoln.

Nevada
Done. (Southwest into Reno, then south to Carson City on US 395. Just make sure it's not icy.)

New Hampshire
I'll probably make it up to Concord from the Boston area in August (about 90 minutes, mostly on I-93), but should I somehow not, it's Southwest to Manchester and then about a 30-minute drive up I-93 to Concord.

New Jersey
Done. (I drove down from near NYC on I-287 and US 206, but Southwest flies into Philly and it's less than an hour from there to Trenton on I-95.)

New Mexico
Surprisingly simple. Southwest flies into Albuquerque (even a couple of nonstops), and from there it's a little over an hour north on I-25 to Santa Fe.

New York
Southwest does fly direct to Albany, but I'm anticipating fitting this in on the trip east in August. On I-90 it should be three hours or less from the Boston area.

North Carolina
Done. (Southwest flies nonstop to Raleigh-Durham.)

North Dakota
Along with its southern cousin, easily one of the hardest. Bismarck is a tiny capital in the middle of a wide state with the only "major" cities on the edges. Say you take a regional jet to Fargo - even with a straight shot down I-94 ahead of you, it's still three and a half hours to Bismarck. Amazingly, United Express actually offers nonstop regional jet service from O'Hare to Bismarck, though like most flights of that nature it'll cost you an arm and a leg. The other option, of course, is a serious road trip, but I do mean serious - Bismarck is 835 miles from Chicago, twice as far as St. Paul, meaning you're looking at well over a day of solid driving (nearly all of it on I-94) just to get there. If I somehow had some time off - maybe a free summer month during grad school? - a long road trip would be an option, but for the most part it's just not happening. Along with South Dakota, Montana, Alaska and Hawaii, I'm guessing you're looking at the last five (barring some serendipitous reason for me to be in any of them).

Ohio
Southwest flies nonstop to Columbus cheaply and often.

Oklahoma
Southwest flies to Oklahoma City, although not nonstop from Chicago.

Oregon
Southwest has few nonstops to Portland, and by their standards, getting there from Chicago ain't cheap. But they do go there. Once in Portland, it's a quick jaunt south on I-5 to Salem, less than 50 miles away.

Pennsylvania
One option is to fly into Philadelphia and head about two hours west on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. However, I'm hoping this will be one of the capitals I visit in August. It's only about two and a quarter hours from DC heading north (mostly on I-83, once you pick it up north of Baltimore). The other option would be hitting it on the way down from upstate New York, via I-81.

Rhode Island
Southwest flies directly into Providence, but I'm anticipating this will be an easy one to hit while I'm in the Boston area; it's only about an hour south on I-95.

South Carolina
Another one that's a little harder than it seems, mostly due to its general lack of major cities. Columbia has its own airport, but as with other smaller cities, it's regional jet service and you're going to pay out the nose. The cheaper option (at least from a flight standpoint) is to fly into Charlotte - Southwest doesn't go there, but most airlines do. From there it's about two hours south on I-77 to Columbia.

South Dakota
Pretty much the same deal as North Dakota, and possibly worse. You want to try and road-trip it to Pierre? 13.5 hours, nearly all of it on I-90 west from Chicago. You want to fly? Enjoy flying in from Minneapolis on a prop plane. Alternately, you can fly into Rapid City or Sioux Falls, but it's still a three-hour drive from the former and four hours from the latter. The good news, since there has to be some, is that by regional jet standards it's both fairly easy and comparatively inexpensive to get from Chicago to Rapid City (nonstop and for under 300 bucks). Still, this is sure to be one of the last few.

Tennessee
Southwest flies nonstop to Nashville from Chicago.

Texas
Southwest has nonstop flights to Austin from Chicago.

Utah
Southwest has nonstop flights to Salt Lake City from Chicago.

Vermont
Another one that's a little harder than it might seem. There's really only one good way into Montpelier from the Boston area - I-89 (mostly), and that still takes almost 3.5 hours. I-89 is also pretty much the only good way out, meaning it's nearly impossible to hit Montpelier on the way to somewhere else. Should I miss it on my August trip due to that, there is regional jet service into Burlington, 45 minutes northwest of Montpelier on I-89, but if it comes to that you're likely looking at one of the last dozen or so.

Virginia
Done. (We flew into Richmond on US Air, because we had to. You can also do what my mom did and drive two hours and change from DC on I-95 south. If you're looking to do this yourself, Southwest flies into DC and Norfolk, both around a two-hour drive from Richmond.)

Washington
Southwest flies into SeaTac, although from Chicago it's one of their most expensive flights. From there it's an hour and change south on I-5 to Olympia.

West Virginia
Also one of the most difficult states east of the Mississippi. As with Maine and South Carolina, matters are complicated by the lack of any big city. There's regional jet service to Charleston, but the usual caveats apply. Driving from another large city is no easier, however. From DC it's six hours or so due to the Appalachians necessitating a wide route on either the north or south if you hope to stick to the interstates. (270 N, 70 W, 68 W and 79 S on the northern route, or 66 W, 81 S, and 64 W on the southern route.) Other major cities are slight improvements but hardly ideal - it's four hours from Pittsburgh or three hours or so from Columbus. Both of them are easily and cheaply reachable via Southwest, but even three hours is pushing it for me when it comes after a flight. Nevertheless, the Columbus idea sounds like the safest bet. It's also a safe bet that this is one of the last ten or so.

Wisconsin
After the various northeastern states, this is the most likely next one unless school-related travels take me to another. It's a simple three-hour drive to Madison up I-90, closer to Chicago than Springfield even is.

Wyoming
Actually easier than you'd think, owing to Cheyenne's location in the far southeastern corner of its state. It's less than a two-hour drive from Denver, itself (as noted earlier) easily reachable via Southwest. Regional jet service to Cheyenne exists, but at less than two hours from Denver, why bother?

Six down, 44 to go. Ten more puts me at about a third; 19 more is halfway. Here's my guess (not in chronological order) at the likeliest next nineteen:

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Indiana
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
New Hampshire
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Wisconsin

Some of these are slam dunks. Some are just total guesses. Whatever.

The worst rhymes in music

For some reason, I found myself singing the chorus of Train's "Hey, Soul Sister" today - I think the elevator was showing the top songs in adult contemporary. Anyway, it made me think of just how rancid a rhyme that song's chorus turns on. "Hey, soul sister / Ain't that Mr. Mister on the radio, stereo / The way you move ain't fair, you know." Mr. Mister? Really? Tell you what - if that's the best you can do for rhyming "sister," maybe don't call your song "Hey, Soul Sister."

But is that the worst rhyme ever? Probably not. Below, some others that came right to mind:

The Beatles, "Rocky Raccoon"

As you know, I love the Beatles more than I have or will love the music of any other band. And Paul is almost certainly my favorite Beatle. But what was he thinking with this one?

"His rival, it seems / Had broken his dreams / By stealing the girl of his fancy / Her name was McGill / And she called herself Lil / But everyone knew her as Nancy"

Drives me up the fucking wall. Come on. How far can you possibly go for a rhyme? Weren't there like 85 other ways to describe that the girl was the object of Rocky's affection? You had to go with the one that was nearly impossible to rhyme?

Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, "Into the Great Wide Open"

"The paper said Ed always played from the heart / He got an agent and a roadie named Bart"

*facepalm*

LFO, "Summer Girls"

I'm almost not sure whether to count this one because I'm not convinced that a lot of these rhymes were supposed to be good. Also, many of them are not even actual rhymes.

"New Kids on the Block had a bunch of hits / Chinese food makes me sick"

"Fell deep in love but now we ain't speakin' / Michael J. Fox was Alex P. Keaton"

What? Also, not actual rhymes, aside from the vowels, which is lazy as all hell.

I'm sure, however, that there are many other examples of awful rhymes. What's your pick for the worst rhyme you've heard in a song?

Let's give 'em nothing to talk about

I'm starting to wonder about ESPN. I mean, when you're the sports leader, you find yourself breaking most of the news there is to break. But what if there isn't much news to break? You wouldn't... make something up, would you?

Oh. You might.

I'm not necessarily saying ESPN fabricated this story out of whole cloth. But it's attributed only to anonymous sources and everyone even tangentially involved has denied it to the hilt. Regardless, I think there's one major thing we need to get clear here.

If the discussions only took place within the Phillies organization, this is not news.

Let's think about this for a second.

1. If the Phillies didn't propose the trade to the Cardinals, who fucking cares? The idea that one team might have said "Hey, do you think we could trade for player X?" is not news at all. This probably happens every day in every organization.

2. Presumably this is supposed to be news because Ryan Howard is also a star player. But the very fact that the Phillies were supposedly proposing to trade him for Pujols should tip you off to something. And that is... of COURSE the Phillies would trade Ryan Howard for Albert Pujols. They'd be crazy not to.

I mean, no offense to Ryan Howard, but he's not Albert Pujols. Here are Ryan Howard's 162-game averages for his career:

.279/.376/.586, 142 OPS+, 49 HR, 142 RBI, 348 TB, 90 BB, 194 K

Very good player. Sure, he's worse than useless against left-handed pitching (.226/.310/.444), but he sure creams everyone else. He can play on my team any day.*

*Except days when the opposing pitcher is left-handed.

Then, of course, there's Albert Pujols' 162-game averages:

.334/.427/.628, 172 OPS+, 42 HR, 129 RBI, 374 TB, 94 BB, 66 K

Um. Do you see what I'm talking about here? Howard gives up 55 points of BA to Pujols, 51 points of OBP, and even 42 points of slugging in spite of the fact that he is basically only known for being a monster slugger. He does have an edge in homers, yet Pujols still easily outdistances him in total bases, and Pujols walks more while also striking out one-third as much. And of course, Pujols' OPS+ is 30 points higher, meaning he's 30% better than Howard by that measure.

More advanced statistics just make this more of a blowout. Pujols' career EqA is .347; Howard's is .313. Howard has just one season over 5 wins above replacement (6.7 in his MVP year of 2006); Pujols has two above ten and only one under 8 in nine seasons (6.1 in 2002). Sure, Howard's only played four full seasons... but he's also two months older than Pujols. Pujols is 20-30 runs better than Howard in the field. Et cetera.

I say all this not to denigrate Howard, but rather to point out how good Pujols is. If you just take his stats against right-handed pitching - which, to be fair, still is most of the league - Howard is a beast. And yet Pujols' numbers against everyone are still much better. He's the best player in baseball virtually beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So the real question is... why wouldn't the Phillies want to trade for him? OF COURSE THEY WOULD! Anyone would. There are maybe 2-3 position players in the entire game I can imagine not being traded for Albert Pujols if the Cardinals called and said, "Hey, we're trading Pujols, can we have so-and-so in exchange?" One is Joe Mauer. Another is Derek Jeter, although given his age I think the Yankees would think long and hard about this one. (And frankly I think most Yankees fans would bite the bullet and do it, in spite of the fact that they worship the ground on which Jeter walks.) Anyone else? The only reason you wouldn't do that trade is if you couldn't afford Pujols. Take money out of the equation and basically everyone would do it. And they should. Pujols is the best player in the game and a first-ballot Hall of Famer unless he gets hit by a bus tomorrow. The only thing that's even a possible negative is if somehow he's a couple years older than he says he is - but even then you're still getting at least four or five more really good years out of him if you get him right now.

In other words, you do the Howard-Pujols deal 100 times out of 100. And that's why this isn't news. Because the deal is such an obvious slam dunk for the Phillies that there is no way the Cardinals would ever do it. And unless there's some chance of that, there's no reason to report what otherwise amounts to idle chatter.

Explain to me what the Cardinals would gain from this trade. So, they're going to trade one of the best players in history, and the face of their franchise, for one other guy, who:

(a) plays the same position, but less well;
(b) is older;
(c) makes seven million dollars more the next two seasons;
(d) is 30% less offensively valuable;
(e) is FROM ST. LOUIS OMG OMG OMG

I mean, that's the only reason this fake, non-news story has even the slightest bit of traction, right? Because Howard is from St. Louis and therefore if the Cardinals somehow felt obliged to trade Pujols (God only knows why they would, but sure), they could still sell tickets with a local superstar.

Read part (c) again, though. Howard makes $19 million this year and $20 million the next. Pujols makes $16m this year and has a club option for $16m in 2011. Howard, who we've is established is much less good than Pujols, is also MORE EXPENSIVE. I mean, my God. In what universe does this trade make sense for the Cardinals? This is like hearing that the Cubs were talking about trading Alfonso Soriano for Joe Mauer.

There's certainly been speculation that the Cardinals won't be able to afford Pujols' contract demands come 2012. But that's 2012. If you're the Cardinals, and you're the best team in your division and one of the best in your league, you're not looking for ways to dump your best player before you have to. There's really no point in trying to trade Pujols, in my opinion. Sure, if you can't afford him after 2011 and he walks you get nothing... but without him you are not as good. You aren't getting equivalent value for him; it's impossible. You might as well take two shots at the World Series, make your best offer, and wish him well if he leaves. And more to the point, if the reason you're trading him is money, trading him for a guy who makes more than he does is FUCKING INSANE.

Yet here's ESPN, milking this story, even though at this point the only thing in the story is everyone on the Cardinals and Phillies telling any reporter who asks that they're completely deranged for asking. Honestly, ESPN, aren't there any real stories you have to talk about? I'd prefer a fantasy preview to this nonsensical garbage.

Diplomatic immunity

I often start posts of this variety by saying something like, "One thing I've been doing a lot recently..." And in fact I was about to do just that until I thought about it and realized how completely inaccurate that would be in the case of Diplomacy. I mean, relative to the rest of my life? Sure, I've been playing Diplomacy a lot recently. But I played it for the first time last April and for, I believe, just the fourth time last night. So, does once every three months count as "a lot"? Probably not.

However, this is more due to the difficulty in rounding up at least five people for a game on anything approaching a regular basis than due to a lack of desire in playing more regularly on the part of some of the principals, myself included. I would very easily play at least once a month - while Diplomacy, like other games of its general ilk, can suck away an entire day quite speedily (Wikipedia lists its playing time as "4-12 hours"), I really find myself enjoying it, and I really have no other social outlet that involves an actual group of people.

The basic principle behind Diplomacy, for those of you who might be unfamiliar, is that you are tasked with playing as one of seven primary powers in 1901 Europe - England, France, Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Turkey. The aim of the game is to control supply centers - each nation starts with three (except Russia, which due to its size starts with four), and there are various unaffiliated areas on the board which can be controlled (Iberia, Scandinavia and the Balkans in particular) to add supply centers and therefore be able to build more armies. The ultimate aim of the game is to control 18 supply centers (half of the 34 total, plus one).

The reason the game is called Diplomacy is that between each round, you have to negotiate with the other players in (usually) private, one-on-one meetings. If you're England, for example, and you need to commit the majority of your resources to invading Scandinavia, you're probably going to have to negotiate with France not to invade your territory while you're busy moving most of your pieces out of it. You can use these meetings to divvy up neutral territory and thus avoid (for a time) conflict, you can partner with another nation against a common enemy, etc. The trick, of course, is that all of these negotiations are made with the tacit understanding that alliances can be and are broken at any time, sometimes with no warning. Really, the trick of the game is doing the best balancing act between getting people to think you're cooperating while actually not cooperating that much.

It's not everyone's cup of tea, I suppose. But for those who it is, I did look online today and there are quite a few sites that feature online versions of the game, which sounds great - a single game could be sustained until an actual end this way (as it stands we've never played in person to an actual 18-depot winner). I guess I'd put the pros and cons pretty much thusly:

PROS: Should be fairly easy to get a full seven-player game together; no need to spend an entire day playing when you can just do the kind of e-mail/Facebook checking you'd already be doing and only occasionally have to log onto the site to submit orders; the style of the game means that general gameplay would change very little in online form.

CONS: Possibly the most fun point of any game is during the period where everyone reads out their orders for that turn, and this is also the part that would be pretty much entirely lost in online form.

The point is, I'm up for some online Diplomacy. Anyone else?

Commented out

Haloscan - the service I had used for the comments since the blog's inception in 2005 - is apparently about to be no more. Therefore, I edited the template so that it's now using Blogger's comment form. Unfortunately, this means that every comment in the history of the blog just went down the hatch. This probably isn't that big of a deal - it had already happened at least once, a few years ago - but just FYI.

Capitol steps

First of all, happy birthday to my dad.

The Capitol Dome Project is still in its infancy, but with three capitols down, I think we're seriously on the road to doing this, however long it might take. Nevertheless, I've added a link to the top right of the blog, just below another project that will eventually get done, My Year of Bonds, which is pretty much named ironically at this point.

For no real reason, here's a compilation of my relationship to the 50 capitals: those visited for the project, those I've been to (including drive-throughs or very minimal stays), those I haven't been to but whose states I've visited, and those whose states have eluded me thus far. To some respect this might give you a slight idea of how long it might take me to get to some of these capitals barring an extremely concerted effort (it'll probably take that for a few of them anyway, of course).

FINISHED FOR PROJECT
Carson City, NV
Raleigh, NC
Richmond, VA

BEEN TO/THROUGH CITY
Phoenix, AZ
Denver, CO (brief overnight stay related to air travel)
Hartford, CT (drive-through only)
Atlanta, GA
Springfield, IL (drive-through only)
Indianapolis, IN (drive-through only)
Des Moines, IA (drive-through only)
Boston, MA
Lansing, MI
Saint Paul, MN (drive-through only)
Trenton, NJ
Albany, NY (use of airport, only as young child)
Columbus, OH (drive-through only)
Providence, RI (possibly drive-through only, only as young child)
Nashville, TN (drive-through only)
Austin, TX
Salt Lake City, UT (use of airport only)
Madison, WI

BEEN TO STATE, BUT NOT CITY
Montgomery, AL
Sacramento, CA
Dover, DE
Frankfort, KY
Baton Rouge, LA
Annapolis, MD
Jackson, MS
Jefferson City, MO
Concord, NH
Harrisburg, PA
Montpelier, VT
Olympia, WA
Charleston, WV

NEVER BEEN TO STATE
Juneau, AK
Little Rock, AR
Tallahassee, FL
Honolulu, HI
Boise, ID
Topeka, KS
Augusta, ME
Helena, MT
Lincoln, NE
Santa Fe, NM
Bismarck, ND
Oklahoma City, OK
Salem, OR
Columbia, SC
Pierre, SD
Cheyenne, WY

Airport update

Because I feel like keeping track somewhere, here's the updated list of airports I've been to, which expanded by a few in the past year, as I last updated this on 1/9/09. As before, comments only on the additions. We go from 40 - 28 domestic, 12 international - to 45, 33 domestic and 12 international.

Domestic
ALB - Albany, NY
ATL - Atlanta, GA
AUS - Austin, TX
BOS - Boston, MA
CLE - Cleveland, OH
CLT - Charlotte, NC
CMH - Columbus, OH

CVG - Cincinnati, OH. Technically this is "Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky," and I think the CVG refers to Covington, KY - but the metro area served is that of Cincinnati, and it's the only major airport there, so that's how I'll refer to it. We flew in here for one of Alma's interviews.
DCA - Washington National, DC
DEN - Denver, CO
DFW - Dallas/Fort Worth, TX
EWR - Newark, NJ
IAD - Washington Dulles, DC
IAH - Houston, TX
JFK - New York JFK, NY
LAX - Los Angeles, CA
MDW - Chicago Midway, IL
MOB - Mobile, AL
MSP - Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN
MSY - New Orleans, LA
OAK - Oakland, CA
ORD - Chicago O'Hare, IL
PHL - Philadelphia, PA
PHX - Phoenix, AZ

RDU - Raleigh/Durham, NC. We actually first went here last summer to visit Alma's sister, and did so again this month.

RIC - Richmond, VA. Alma's final interview was in Richmond.

RNO - Reno, NV. Alma's fourth interview was in Reno.
SAN - San Diego, CA
SAT - San Antonio, TX

SEA - Seattle/Tacoma, WA. Flew in here for my Seattle business trip last August.
SFO - San Francisco, CA
SJC - San Jose, CA
SLC - Salt Lake City, UT

International
AKL - Auckland, New Zealand
BNE - Brisbane, Australia
CCS - Caracas, Venezuela
CPT - Cape Town, South Africa
JNB - Johannesburg, South Africa
LGW - London Gatwick, UK
LHR - London Heathrow, UK
MNL - Manila, Philippines
NRT - Tokyo Narita, Japan
SID - Sal Island, Cape Verde
SYD - Sydney, Australia
TBH - Tablas, Romblon, Philippines

We were actually in seven different airports (and all four time zones) in a five-day span at one point in January - between the 19th and the 23rd, we were in Midway, Phoenix (twice), Reno, Charlotte, Richmond, JFK and O'Hare. But of course only two of those were new.

A note about home runs allowed

Since Jon Heyman loves to talk about them as regards Bert Blyleven. Blyleven does have two of the three biggest HR allowed seasons in history:

1. Bert Blyleven, 1986 - 50
2. Jose Lima, 2000 - 48
3t. Bert Blyleven, 1987 - 46
3t. Robin Roberts, 1956 - 46

But:

Blyleven, 1986: 17-14, 4.01 ERA (107 ERA+)
Blyleven, 1987: 15-12, 4.01 ERA (115 ERA+)
Roberts, 1956: 19-18, 4.45 ERA (84 ERA+)
Lima, 2000: 7-16, 6.65 ERA (75 ERA+)

Lima and Roberts both led the league in ER allowed. Blyleven did not, either year.

So what do home runs allowed really mean? I'll tell you: longevity. Here's the top 21 (there was a tie for 20th) in baseball history:

1. Robin Roberts, 505
2. Jamie Moyer, 491
3. Fergie Jenkins, 484
4. Phil Niekro, 482
5. Don Sutton, 472
6. Frank Tanana, 448
7. Warren Spahn, 434
8. Bert Blyleven, 430
9. Steve Carlton, 414
10. Randy Johnson, 411
11. David Wells, 407
12. Gaylord Perry, 399
13. Jim Kaat, 395
14. Jack Morris, 389
15. Charlie Hough, 383
16. Tom Seaver, 380
17. Mike Mussina, 376
18. Catfish Hunter, 374
18. Tim Wakefield, 374
20. Jim Bunning, 372
20. Dennis Martinez, 372

So, of those 21, ten are in the Hall of Fame. Johnson is a slam-dunk first-ballot. Mussina could very well make it.

Not in the Hall: Moyer, Tanana, Blyleven, Wells, Kaat, Morris, Hough, Wakefield, Martinez. Of those guys, only Morris and Wakefield did not pitch in more than 20 big league seasons (Wakefield might yet).

And then there's this: how do they rank in terms of HR/9? Baseball-reference only does it to one decimal place, but:

1t. Moyer, Wakefield, Wells - 1.1
4t. Hunter, Jenkins, Roberts, Tanana - 1.0
8t. Bunning, Hough, Johnson, Morris, Mussina - 0.9
13t. Blyleven, Kaat, Martinez, Niekro, Sutton - 0.8
18t. Carlton, Perry, Seaver, Spahn - 0.7

So while he ranks eighth in total home runs allowed, Blyleven only gave up 0.8 per 9, which compares favorably with Hall of Famer, and total home runs allowed career leader, Robin Roberts.

For that matter, Roberts never led the league in ERA, and he twice led in losses, and three times in earned runs and homers allowed. He doesn't have 300 wins. His winning percentage and ERA+ are comparable to Blyleven's (slightly higher WP, few points lower in ERA+). I'm not saying we should set the Hall's standards by its weakest member, but...

The point is, Jon Heyman needs to find a new stat. This one is clearly worthless. But then, he'd know that, if he knew anything.

Maybe you should just stop talking

Did Jon Heyman stop with what he put on Twitter? Of course not!

"I consider impact more than stats. I like dominance over durability. I prefer players who were great at some point to the ones who were merely very good for a very long time. And I do recall it's called the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Numbers."

Oh, God. This old chestnut. So are you going to vote for Jose Canseco? Did you vote for Darryl Strawberry and Doc Gooden? Both had short bursts of excellence and certainly were very famous.

"The reason I haven't yet voted for Raines is that while he was a star in Montreal, he was merely a good player for the bulk of the rest his career, spent mainly with the White Sox and Yankees. Raines' offensive career is a little like Mattingly's in that he was exceptional for about a half-dozen years but far less than that for several more. But while Mattingly (who I didn't vote for the first seven years he was on the ballot) was greater in his great years, Raines did have many more seasons of solid performance, and I'm starting to lean in his direction."

Remember, again, that this is the same Jon Heyman who bragged about how consistent he was for continuing not to vote for Bert Blyleven. Raines' career OBP was .385 - only three points behind Tony Gwynn, who was a shoo-in because he had 3,000 hits. Also, don't compare latter-day Raines to latter-day Mattingly. After 1989 - a season in which he turned just 28 years old - Mattingly was basically league-average, aside from an Indian summer in 1993 and 1994. But he was retired by age 35. Raines put up a .306/.401/.480 line at age 33 for the '93 White Sox - a better line than anything Mattingly put up after 1987. In other words, 33-year-old Tim Raines (and, for that matter, 35-, 36-, and 37-year-old Tim Raines) was better than Don Mattingly at any age after 26. I know you just said you prefer dominance over durability... but how dominant was Mattingly, even? In 1985, when he won the MVP, he wasn't even the best player on his own team (Rickey Henderson). He had three great years, was very good for three more, and then was pretty much average until an early retirement. Fine, he had injuries. But let's not pretend he's Hall-worthy. And why did it take you seven years to vote for him anyway?

"My contention regarding Blyleven is that almost no one viewed him as a Hall of Famer during his playing career, and that is borne out by the 17 percent of the vote he received in his first year of eligibility in 1998, followed by 14 percent the next year."

Um...

Uh...

Why the FUCK does that matter? Who cares how people viewed Blyleven during his playing career? Until he clawed his way to 300 games, were people constantly talking about how Don Sutton was a Hall of Fame shoo-in? How about Goose Gossage and Bruce Sutter? People assumed Mark McGwire was a slam-dunk first-ballot guy in 1999... granted, there are some extenuating circumstances there. But still, who CARES? The whole argument for Blyleven is that he was undervalued while he was playing. Our minds are made up now because people 20 years ago might have been looking at the wrong things?

(Also, was Jack Morris looked at as a Hall of Famer during his playing career? I have my doubts about this.)

Jack Morris' first two years of eligibility: 22.2%, 19.6%. Sure, they're better than Blyleven's numbers, but they're still nowhere near Hall of Fame numbers. Clearly people did not think Jack Morris was a Hall of Famer while he was playing, by Jon Heyman's logic.

Oh, I forgot. When a stat shames Blyleven, he mentions it. And when a stat pumps up Morris, he mentions it. But aside from that, he "doesn't look only at stats."

FUCK YOU.

"I look at numbers, too, and while my numbers may be slightly more simplistic than WHIP, WAR or VORP, I think they tell a story of a pitcher who was extremely good, consistent and durable but not quite Cooperstown-worthy. Blyleven was dominant in a lot of at-bats (thus, the 3,701 strikeouts) and even a lot of games (60 shutouts). But he was never dominant for a decade, a half decade or even a full season."

I look at numbers too! By the way, you know Jon Heyman's dumb when he cites WHIP as a complex stat. WHIP = walks + hits per inning pitched. Oh no! For fuck's sake, Heyman, that's not even as complicated as ERA.

So Heyman's argument is that Blyleven was "never dominant for a decade, a half-decade or even a full season." Well, I can cite some pretty dominant full seasons, I think:

1973: 20-17, 2.52, 25 CG, 9 SHO, 158 ERA+ (led league), at age 22
1984: 19-7, 2.87, 12 CG, 4 SHO, 144 ERA+
1989: 17-5, 2.73, 8 CG, 5 SHO (led league), 140 ERA+, at age 38

Or how about this? Between 1971 and 1978 - more than a half-decade - Blyleven's ERA was above 3.00 just once (and that was 3.03). He had 38 shutouts (ten more than Morris' entire career) and led the league in K/BB twice (another extremely complicated stat).

On the other hand there's Jack Morris. He never had an ERA under 3.00. Not ONCE. This great pitcher, who Jon Heyman is implicitly defining as dominant, not once had an entire season where he shut opponents down to the tune of under three earned runs per nine. His best ERA+, to take yearly context out of it, was 133. Blyleven had nine sub-3.00 ERA years and six years better than 133 ERA+.

So WHAT MAKES MORRIS DOMINANT? Because you SAY he was? That's not good enough, Jon. You can talk all you want about people trying to reconstruct Blyleven's career from a stat sheet... but I trust that stat sheet more than I trust your memory.

Look at Blyleven's 1973 season. The guy is 22 years old. His ERA is 2.52, second to Cy Young winner Jim Palmer's 2.40 but ahead of Palmer by two points in ERA+, 158 to 156. (Also, Palmer's team won 97 games; Blyleven's 81.) Blyleven finishes first in shutouts, second in WHIP, first in K/BB, second in BB/9, third in K/9, second in total Ks, fourth in innings, third in complete games, and - hilariously given what Heyman tried to hang him with last time - fourth in fewest HR/9. He also finishes top ten in starts, H/9, and wins, with 20. Oh, and losses, with 17. Because the 1973 Minnesota Twins did not score for him. He got 4.18 runs of support. Jim Palmer got half a run more per game.

I mean... that's a pretty dominant season. Sure, 20-17 doesn't jump out at you, but Nolan Ryan went 21-16 that year. Does Jack Morris have even one season that compares to just that one year of Blyleven's?

Answer: no, he doesn't. For starters, Morris never finished in the top four in ERA, let alone second. He certainly never led the league in ERA+; only four times was he even top ten and only once top five. (Blyleven: 12 top tens, 7 top fives.) He had two top fives in WHIP; never finished above fourth. He did lead the league in shutouts once, in 1986. So let's compare Blyleven's 1973 to Morris' 1986:

Blyleven 1973: 20-17 (4.18 RS), 2.52, 158 ERA+, 1.117 WHIP, 258 K, 25 CG, 9 SHO, 325 IP
Morris 1986: 21-8 (5.46 RS), 3.27, 127 ERA+, 1.165 WHIP, 223 K, 15 CG, 6 SHO, 267 IP

So, aside from the losses... where is Morris winning here? (Note: he started five fewer games and had twice as many no-decision starts as '73 Bert.) He has a slight edge in K/9, I guess. Blyleven trashes him in ERA/ERA+ despite throwing 58 additional innings, and Morris only won one more game in spite of his sizable edge in run support.

I mean, here's how snakebit Blyleven was when it came to that. In 1976 his ERA was 2.87; ERA+ of 125, not among his very best years but better than all but three of Morris'. And what was his record? 13-16! Because his shitty teams - he was traded midseason - averaged, get this, 2.66 runs of support for him. 2.66! Morris' lowest full season RS number was 3.54, close to a full run higher, and that was only once, for the 103-loss '89 Tigers, the only bad team he really played on. And he went 6-14. Aside from that year, his lowest full season RS was 4.17, more than 1.5 runs above what Blyleven got in 1976.

In other words... WINS ARE SITUATIONAL. And if you throw out wins... Blyleven looks pretty dominant for a while there! Whereas Morris never does.

"Only four times in 22 seasons did he receive Cy Young votes (he was third twice, fourth and seventh once), only twice did he make the All-Star team and only twice did he win more than 17 games. I tend not to vote for players who I see as great compilers rather than great players, which is why I don't see Lee Smith or Baines as Hall of Famers, either. Baines and Blyleven compiled similarly in some key areas, with Blyleven finishing with four percent short of 300 victories at 287, and Baines four percent short of 3,000 hits with 2,866. And actually, a case could be made that Baines had more greatness, as he made six All-Star teams, three times the number of Blyleven."

Ugh. Who cares about this shit? Number of All-Star teams made does not equal greatness. Blyleven didn't make a lot of All-Star teams because he was toiling away on lousy teams and didn't have the star power of someone like a Nolan Ryan, even though aside from a ding on the strikeouts there's a large chunk of their careers that compares pretty favorably. And Baines is a bad comparison if you look at more than one stat. Only once was he even top ten in OBP; he was only top ten in batting average three times and never top five; he led in slugging one year but never again was even top ten. Blyleven's three league-leading shutout years and his one ERA+ year alone are more impressive than that.

Also, way to imply that you still believe that 300 wins and 3,000 hits are absolute sacrosanct numbers - make it and you're in, fall slightly short and fuck you. Because that's how we judge greatness: arbitrary round cutoffs.

"Some will say that Blyleven's career was equal to Hall of Famer Don Sutton's but I say it is just short of Sutton's. They both had big totals in other categories but Sutton wound up with 37 more victories, going over the magic 300 mark by 24."

"I say it is just short of Sutton's! Because of one number."

Blyleven career ERA+: 118
Sutton career ERA+: 108

Blyleven 162-game average record: 14-12
Sutton 162-game average record: 14-11

To be fair, Sutton's two or three best years top any of Blyleven's. But he was a real feast or famine guy. He had below-average ERA+ in 1978 and 1979, then suddenly ripped off a 160 in 1980, with a sub-1.00 WHIP. In 1970 he was pretty awful but managed to win 15 games for a second-place Dodger team; two years later his ERA was two full runs lower. I mean, what the fuck? Blyleven had longer strings of very good years than Sutton, who could never seem to put together more than three. There's also this, since Heyman talks about Blyleven being a compiler and implies that Sutton's 324 wins made him a better pitcher:

Wins after age 40
Blyleven: 8
Sutton: 44

So in other words, if Bert Blyleven and Don Sutton both drop dead on their 40th birthdays, Blyleven has 279 wins and Sutton has 280. The ERA+ difference would still be around what it is now. Does this change your answer? They're nearly the same pitcher at this point, except that most of Blyleven's non-win-total numbers are better. I mean, good for Sutton that he managed to be above-average in ERA+ as a 41-year-old, the year he got his 300th win. But let's not pretend he wasn't a compiler. And in 71 more starts, he still had two fewer shutouts for his career than Blyleven.

"Many stat people suggest wins are not important in evaluating careers. But until wins don't decide who's in the playoffs and who's out, who makes the World Series and who doesn't, I will continue to view them as important. A pitcher's goal for each game is to win the game, not to strikeout the most batters. And until that changes, I will count wins and losses. I also believe the truly great pitchers pitched to the scoreboard with the real goal in mind."

Oh, no.

Wins are a TEAM accomplishment, Jon! If a pitcher throws a one-hitter, but that one hit is a solo home run and his team gets shut out, is he a piece of shit because he didn't win the game? No! He's probably a great pitcher on a terrible team! And who was even talking about strikeouts? If you want to throw those out, can we drag Nolan Ryan into this? His winning percentage was even lower than Blyleven's (and so was his ERA+). And talk about compiling... dude won his 300th game at age 43! Throw that asshole out of the Hall of Fame!

Oh, wait. You'd never advocate for that, because Nolan Ryan won 300 games. Even though his 162-game average was a 14-13 record (Blyleven: 14-12).

Also, as I already said, Joe Sheehan disproved the pitching to the score bullshit. Just because you believe it doesn't make it true, you idiot. And really, let's say it is true - it still just verifies the idea that Jack Morris' teams scored a lot more runs than Bert Blyleven's teams. And the one year that Jack Morris was on a really shitty team that never scored runs for him, he went 6-14. Because he couldn't "pitch to the score," because that's a fucking myth. If it was true, surely 34-year-old Tigers ace Jack Morris could have pitched to the score by becoming dominant like 1972 Steve Carlton. Oh wait! He didn't! His ERA was 4.86 and he only won six games! Because pitching to the score is a fucking MYTH.

"Some will say Blyleven was handicapped by playing for a string of horrific teams. But his many teams combined for a record of slightly over .500. For the most part, they were mediocre. While his career mark of 287-250 is clearly better than his teams' overall record, it isn't that much better."

Covered this last time. It was about as much better as Morris' was over his teams' win percentage. Seriously, do you even look at this shit?

Again, I know it seems like I'm picking on Morris. But the whole point is that Heyman is sure Morris belongs in, and equally sure that Blyleven belongs out. And yet his reasons are AWFUL.

"Clearly, I don't grade on stats alone, but it is interesting to note that while Blyleven never led the league in wins or ERA he did lead the league in losses, earned runs allowed and home runs allowed. (He did lead once in strikeouts.)"

And this again. Jack Morris: never led the league in ERA. Also led in losses and ER allowed. Gave up more homers per 162 games than Blyleven over their careers. You are a fucking moron who knows nothing about anything.

Why is Jon Heyman allowed to write about baseball when he is willfully ignorant?

I can't believe we have to keep doing this

Jon Heyman is apparently quite good at getting news just before it breaks in the world of baseball. This is impressive since he clearly knows nothing whatsoever about baseball.

Heyman tweeted his Hall of Fame ballot. Here it is:

Roberto Alomar
Andre Dawson
Barry Larkin
Dave Parker
Jack Morris
Don Mattingly

Let's start with the picks that are fine. Alomar is a worthy Hall choice. Larkin strikes me as a little more borderline, but I think you can make a pretty strong case for him.

Then there are the more borderline picks: Dawson, Parker and Mattingly. Dawson probably has the strongest case of the three - he hit more than 400 home runs and was a good outfielder when healthy. His OBP stinks (.323 career, which is outside the top one thousand in baseball history), but his OPS+ was still 119, which isn't terrible. Joe Cronin's in the Hall with a 119 OPS+. Whatever.

Parker has always struck me as a weird case. From 1975-1979 he was one of the best hitters in the game, and won the MVP in 1978. He also helped lead the "We are Family" Pirates to the World Series the next year. Then he had a few lost years thanks to injuries and drugs. Then he had one more great season at age 34 in 1985... and then kind of hung around until 1991. Basically, he had six great years and 13 years in which he was, at best, good. In some of them he was basically league-average. But his career OBP was .339 and OPS+ 121, both better than Dawson, and he's maybe even more of a "what could have been" guy than Dawson. His 1978 MVP was better than any of Dawson's seasons, including 1987. I think it's weird to induct a guy based on missed potential - why not Darryl Strawberry, then? - but if Dawson is a borderline candidate, Parker has to be considered just as highly. (Of course, I wouldn't put either of them in. But I'm trying to give Heyman the benefit of the doubt here.)

Don Mattingly is a classic example of just looking at peak value (and also being swayed by hype). Mattingly's first six full seasons are, indeed, great. But he pretty much falls off a cliff at age 29 and was done at 34. The key argument for someone like Mattingly is the fact that Ralph Kiner is in the Hall, but Kiner at least was punching up multiple 1.000-OPS seasons at his peak. Mattingly didn't do that, and he played a power position. I also think his election would be a triumph of New York hype. If you had a pretty good fielding first baseman with only decent power (20 HR/162 g) and only six really good years under his belt, and he played in Kansas City or something, would he have lasted more than a year on the ballot? Yankees fans love Mattingly - no Yankee who didn't win a World Series has ever been loved more by them - and the corresponding exposure has led to the memory of Mattingly as being better for longer than he was. The guy was basically washed up by 1990. Heyman should know this, given that he was a beat writer in New York for most of Mattingly's career... but then that pretty much explains his inclusion, doesn't it?

Whatever. Mattingly's not a HOFer and fortunately he still has pretty low vote totals. I can at least understand voting for a guy based on a pretty strong peak.

Then, of course, there's Jack Morris.

So, right after posting his ballot, Heyman adds this (possibly in response to other Twitter posts wondering where Bert Blyleven is):

"regarding bert, 86% voted "no'' his 2nd yr. unlike others, i'm consistent. he never led league in wins, ERA but led in HRs, earned runs, Ls"

Do we really have to keep doing this?

Let's take these down one at a time.

1. So 86% of the BBWAA voted no on Blyleven in his second year - of course it's really more accurate to say that only 14% did vote for him. Why does that matter? Heyman voted for Mattingly, and 80% of the BBWAA voted no on Mattingly in his second year. Also, a few tweets after bragging about how consistent he is for refusing to vote for Blyleven, he states that he isn't voting for Tim Raines right now, but might in the future after reevaluating his career. Jon Heyman: consistently inconsistent.

2. Okay, Blyleven never led the league in wins or ERA. He was, however, top five in ERA seven times. And look at something like 1979 - that was one of the better teams that Blyleven pitched for (the Pirates won 98 games) - and yet even though he started 37 games, Blyleven was just 12-5. Why? Well, it helps when you have ten no-decisions in games where you gave up two earned runs or fewer. I don't know, is that Blyleven's fault?

3. Heyman brings up that Blyleven had years in which he led the league in homers allowed, earned runs allowed, and losses. These are all true statements - in 1986 and 1987 Blyleven gave up a combined 96 home runs for the Twins, then in 1988 cut back to 21 homers but gave up 125 earned runs and lost 17 games. That 1988 season was pretty bad, but when you look at '86 and '87 you have to consider that Blyleven was better than league average in ERA both years. He had a 4.01 ERA both times, not great but good enough for ERA+ of 107 and 115. (Both, amusingly, are better than Morris' career ERA+ of 105.)

While we're on the subject, Morris also once led the league in earned runs - in fact, with the exact same number, 125, two years after Blyleven did it. He also lost 18 games that year, more than Blyleven lost in his league-leading '88 season. Also, in 1986, Morris allowed 40 home runs - not as many as Blyleven's 50, but good enough for second-most in the AL! That was one of Morris' best years (21-8, 3.27), which just proves that HR allowed really isn't a meaningful number when stripped of all context.

Oh, and Heyman's big thing that he holds over Blyleven - never leading the league in wins or ERA? Well, Morris never led in ERA either. And only twice was he top five, next to Blyleven's seven. And I don't want to hear that bullshit about Morris pitching to the score, since it was disproven by Joe Sheehan years ago. Morris did lead the league in wins twice. Once was in 1981 - a strike year, when he led with 14 - and the other was in 1992, when he went 21-6 with a 4.04 ERA. His run support that year? 5.56. He won four games in which he gave up 5 runs or more; if the team doesn't score for him in two of those and he doesn't win 20 games, are we even having this conversation? Jimmy Key had a better ERA for the Blue Jays but somehow went 13-13, while Juan Guzman was probably their best pitcher, going 16-5, 2.64. Though I will grant that Morris's 60 additional innings made him a pretty good guy to have.

So far it's pretty clear that much of what Heyman holds over Blyleven can be held almost equally well over Morris. Let's see what else he's got.

"i dont mean to pick on blyleven, but his teams werent as bad as folks claim. they were a bit over .500 (& only a touch worse than him by %)."

Heyman might be right that Blyleven's teams weren't as bad as often cited. He did pitch for two WS winners. Blyleven's teams won 90 games five times; Morris' six. But Morris also pitched for below-.500 teams far less often - Blyleven did it ten times, Morris just three. And between 1978 and 1988 - an eleven-year stretch that encompasses the majority of Morris' career and pretty much his entire peak - Morris didn't pitch for a sub-.500 team even once. Between 1974 and 1984, the years in which Blyleven was the same ages as Morris during his stretch, Blyleven pitched for five winning teams and five losing teams. Also:

Blyleven's teams: .502
Blyleven: .534

Morris' teams: .539
Morris: .577

Difference between Blyleven and his teams: .032
Difference between Morris and his teams: .038

Pretty negligible. Over a 162-game season, Blyleven's teams go from 81-game winners - .500 - to 86 or 87 game winners if he pitches every game (if we buy into the idea that these percentages are meaningful). Morris' teams start at 87 and go to 93. Basically both guys add between five and six wins. The only real difference is the baseline. Next!

"i guess im going on more than stats since i saw both guys' entire careers. morris was ace of 3 WS winners"

It kills me that this canard comes up every single time Morris' candidacy is discussed. "He was the ace of three World Series winners!" Never mind that this is demonstrably untrue, unless you're using "ace" as a completely subjective, nebulous term that really doesn't mean anything.

Let me just talk about the "I'm going on more than stats since I saw both guys' entire careers" thing for a minute. According to Wikipedia, Jon Heyman grew up in New York. He graduated college in 1983. This put him in prime position to witness, as a professional journalist, the majority of Morris' career - but he'd already missed more than half of Blyleven's, and since Blyleven was pitching in Minnesota, Texas and Pittsburgh in the 70s, I really doubt Heyman saw him pitch very often... which means that the only thing he's probably really going by is stories he heard from guys who did see Blyleven and/or box scores, or as they might be called, "stats." For that matter, Heyman spent the entire period between 1983 and 1999 writing for Newsday. How often was he ever seeing Blyleven or Morris pitch live? The four times a year they started against the Yankees? What a load of crap.

Back to the "ace of three World Series winners" bullshit. So, Morris pitched for three teams that won a title: the 1984 Tigers, 1991 Twins and 1992 Blue Jays. But let me ask you a question: how does one define "ace"? Is it "best pitcher during the regular season?" "Best pitcher during the postseason?" "Guy who everyone believes to be an ace even if his stats don't bear it out so much?" If it's the latter, that's such a ridiculous dodge that I don't even want to address it. So, is it the former? If so, I will go on record as saying that it's very easy to argue whether Morris was the best pitcher on any of those three teams. But let's say - since Morris backers love to talk about the postseason - that it's his postseason performances that really made him the ace.

1984 World Series: 2-0, 2 CG, 2.00 ERA
1991 World Series: 2-0, 1 CG, 1.17 ERA
1992 World Series: 0-2, 8.44 ERA

*record scratch sound effect*

Whaaaa?

Let's get this straight once and for all. Jack Morris was, by no objective measure, the ace of three WS teams. If you want to say his regular seasons made him the ace, I would argue he was not the ace of any of those teams - Dan Petry was better in 1984, Kevin Tapani and Scott Erickson were better in 1991, and I could easily argue that Key and Guzman were both better in 1992 although Morris' innings make more of a difference that year. If you want to say his postseasons made him the ace, that's fine and I would agree he was the ace of two teams, but the 1992 Blue Jays lost two games in the World Series and Jack Morris was the losing pitcher in both of them. Also, his ERA was fucking 8.44.

And if Morris was so acey and it was so obvious to people who watched him play during his career like Jon Heyman... why did Morris never win a Cy Young? Why did he never come particularly close? If you want to hammer on Blyleven for things he didn't do, this seems like a pretty glaring omission from Morris' CV. He was the ace on three World Series teams and yet never cracked the top two in the Cy voting? In 1984 he was seventh, behind two of his own teammates (Petry and winner Willie Hernandez). In 1991 he was fourth, two spots behind Erickson. He was the only Jay getting votes in 1992, but he was fifth, not close to winning. So I repeat: the ace of three World Series teams was not considered the best pitcher on two of those teams by Cy Young voters.

Lest you think I'm ignoring Blyleven's similar lack of Cy credentials, he also had just two top-three Cy finishes, Morris had one more top-five finish and three more overall appearances on the ballot. On the other hand, at least Blyleven was always the top vote-getter on his own team. I also think it says something that three of Blyleven's four appearances on the ballot came when he was playing for teams that were .500 or worse. None of Morris' seven appearances were for sub-.500 teams and four were for playoff teams. What does this mean? Well, this is just an opinion, but I think it's a lot easier to get on a Cy Young ballot when you have a good season for a playoff team than when you have a very good season for a non-playoff team, and particularly one that isn't even very good. In 1984, Blyleven went 19-7, 2.87 for an Indians team that was 75-87 and finished sixth in the AL East. Morris went 19-11, 3.60 for a Tigers team that won 104 games. Blyleven was third in the voting, Morris seventh. Frankly, considering it was 1984 I'm a little amazed the voters got that one right.

"@petzrawr its not just that i saw them. i covered them. i saw morris be the ace of great teams. he made major impact. bert is very close tho"

This is a delightful pander since I think it's pretty clear he doesn't think Blyleven is really that close. We've already discussed how Morris was not "the ace of great teams" by objective measurement, but again with "I covered them." Hey, great. You missed half of Blyleven's career. Does that seem fair? This is like if you became a reporter in 2000, and then refused to vote for Ken Griffey Jr. because "I covered him - he wasn't a bad hitter but he was always injured and wasn't great in the field." I'm not saying that Blyleven gets a pass on the part of his career that Heyman did see, but he's ignoring an awful lot.

And again, what impact did Morris make that Blyleven didn't, or couldn't have if placed on the same great teams? The '84 Tigers didn't win 104 games because of Morris. And when it comes to being an "ace" and having a "major impact" on your teams, is there a better measurement than (1) ERA - if you're not giving up runs, you're helping your team win; (2) complete games, and (3) shutouts? Forget wins; they're situational. You can get a win if you pitch five innings and give up 10 runs so long as your team scored 11 while you were out there. The lower your ERA, the more likely that your team will win every time you go out there.

Blyleven ERA: 3.31
Morris ERA: 3.90

So on average, every time Jack Morris took the hill, his team would have to score 0.6 more runs to win the game than if they had started Blyleven. Jake Westbrook's career ERA is closer to Morris' than Morris' is to Blyleven's.

How about this: the complete-game shutout is the only way that you, as a pitcher, have almost total control over whether or not your team wins a game. Forget ERA, right? Runs allowed, who cares. You could have a few bad games and that sucker shoots right up. Morris was dominant because he could shut you down.

Blyleven complete games: 242
Morris complete games: 175

Blyleven shutouts: 60
Morris shutouts: 28

Oops. But Morris once led the league in shutouts! I'm sure Blyleven just compiled... oh, no, he did that three times.

"@DashTreyhorn i believe he was chosen to start game 1. his stats may not hold up as "best.'' but managwes consistently gave him ball game 1"

[Sic] there. So, in fact, Heyman's entire rationale for Morris being the "ace" is that he started game one in the playoffs. Not that he was the best starter... just that, for whatever reason, he always started game one. I guess that's nice, but what does it prove? Heyman's clearly an old-school guy who likes to believe that what's truly noteworthy about a pitcher is what his manager thought of him. Sure, Morris was clearly the third-best starter on the '91 Twins, but hey - Tom Kelly thought he should start Game One of the playoffs! It could be because he thought of Morris as his ace. It could also be because Morris started game 158, Tapani started game 159 and Erickson started game 161 - in other words, it was Morris' turn in the rotation. The same could be said in 1992, when Juan Guzman pitched closer to the end of the season than Morris. (Key was even fresher but he barely pitched in the ALCS - then he went 2-0 in the World Series while Morris went 0-2.) I'm not surprised Morris was picked in '84 because Dan Petry was only 25 and didn't quite have Morris' track record... but again, Petry pitched closer to the end of the season than did Morris! Heyman's argument rests on nothing more than how the rotation happened to line up? Good God. (I guess it was late in the year and you could argue that the rotation was being purposefully lined up to get Morris a Game One start; I'd have to do a lot more research to try and see which it was. Still, Morris was the most veteran of the good pitchers on his teams. It doesn't surprise me that a manager would want the most senior good guy to lead off a series. It doesn't mean that Morris himself was possessed of endemic pitching qualities that made managers choose him. It means he was in situations where he was a senior guy and baseball men like veterans. These are not HOF credentials.)

"@andytworischuk i dont believe i said "stats shouldn't be used.'' ive said i dont go by stats alone."

Come on, Jon. You don't go by stats at all! What does Morris have over Blyleven aside from winning percentage, which I've already pretty much disproved? Even the stats that you used to try to bury Blyleven simply don't hold up. Earned runs? Sure, he had one really bad year where he led the league - but so did Morris, and Blyleven's career ERA is markedly lower. Home runs? Again, a couple bad years there - but here's a fun fact for you:

Home runs allowed, 162-game average
Morris: 25
Blyleven: 21

Losses? Both averaged 12 per 162 games. What does Morris have that Blyleven doesn't? Postseason performance? Because that's an old canard too:

Blyleven postseason: 5-1, 2.47 in five series
Morris postseason: 7-4, 3.80 in seven series

I'm really supposed to believe that even though every available statistic says that Blyleven was not just better than Morris but often significantly better, I should just think that Morris was better because he was in the right place at the right time to start a few Game Ones? Who CARES?????

Last point, because this is rapidly turning into a dissertation: Heyman's entire argument seems to boil down to this: "Yes, the stats say Blyleven was better, but that's not what I remember." Here's the problem, Jon: human memory is notoriously fallible. They've done whole studies about this. There's something called "flashbulb memory," which refers to memories that stick in the mind very clearly because of their connection to traumatic events, like a car accident or something more global like the Challenger disaster or 9/11. But here's the thing: it turns out that flashbulb memories, while they are more vivid than regular memories, aren't necessarily more reliable. People interviewed within 24 or 48 hours of the Challenger explosion gave one account of what happened that day, and then a completely different one when asked again five years later - except that they still thought the memory was vivid and accurate, even though it wasn't. It was also discovered that things like television coverage often caused other information that they didn't originally have to bleed over into the memory, making them think they'd experienced these other things at the time, even though they hadn't.

What does this have to do with Jon Heyman? Well, what he's basically saying is, "I was there and I saw Morris be dominant." But did he? The stats - an objective record of the games played - certainly don't suggest dominance on Morris' part. They suggest a very good pitcher with a handful of great seasons and a few big playoff moments. Of course, Blyleven's stats suggest the exact same thing and they're better across the board, so you can't very well point to that and use it to say why Morris should be in and Blyleven shouldn't. So that leaves "personal experience." You can't just go by the stats! I was there and my memory tells me Morris was dominant!

Except that Jon Heyman's memory is almost certainly not more reliable, or less prone to alteration, than the average person's. What is the one thing that everyone knows about Jack Morris? He had clutch postseason performances. He was a big-game pitcher. Like Game 5 of the 1992 World Series, when Morris took the mound and clinched the title for the Blue Jays... oh, no. What actually happened was he gave up five runs in the top of the fifth with the game tied at two, including a two-out grand slam to Lonnie Smith of all people, and the Blue Jays had to go back to Atlanta, where they won Game 6.

That's not entirely fair, of course, but it proves my point. Jon Heyman remembers Jack Morris as a big-game pitcher for the same reason most people do: Game 7, 1991 World Series. And sure, that was a really great game. But it was one game. That's not enough, yet it's clearly coloring memories because it's not like Morris did that every time out. In the 1991 ALCS, Morris was pulled in the sixth inning of Game One because he had just let the Blue Jays close the gap from 5-1 to 5-4. (He was just pitching to the score, right?) The bullpen shut the Jays down and Morris got the win (yet another reason why wins are kinda bullshit). He's allowed bad games, but let's not pretend he was never anything but lights-out in the postseason. Heyman's memory is being affected by all the coverage that game continues to get to this day. But because people really can't be aware that their memory is altered like that, he continues to insist that he was there and he saw it happen. Even though, apart from a relatively small number of games, he probably didn't. (And of course Heyman is unlikely to remember games he saw in which Morris pitched poorly, so that just leaves memory of the "dominant pitcher" that Morris certainly could be at his very best. But so could Blyleven. Just because Heyman doesn't remember seeing it does not mean it didn't happen. That's why we have statistics, because it's impossible for one dude to remember everything that happened in one game, let alone hundreds of them.)

Really, if Jack Morris ever does get elected, he owes it all to Kirby Puckett. Why? Because without Puckett's home run to win Game Six, Morris doesn't get that chance at Game 7. And then his postseason resume goes from 7-4, 3.80 to 6-4, 4.26, and no one remembers that indelible moment which subsequently affects all their memories of Morris' talent, and we're not even having this conversation.

I don't mean to kill Morris here. It's not like he was a bad pitcher. But his ERA+ was 105. He was not a dominant starter any more than Blyleven just because he did it for a few more winning teams. Maybe you still want to argue that he's a Hall of Famer, and that's fine. But if you're going to put him in, how you can suggest that Blyleven belongs out when you have four more spots on your ballot into which you could put him... I just can't understand that.