As you all know (because you're all still drunk, ye bastards), yesterday was St. Patrick's Day, the day celebrated around the world as the day of St. Patrick's death, the day he drove the snakes out of Ireland, and/or the day he figured out how to turn beer green.  I, unfortunately, was swamped by work yesterday, so I didn't get the chance to finish penning this essay for The Daily Something (let alone drink goblets of green beer and shots of Jameson), but Bill has kindly allowed me to run it a day late, since I already had it two-thirds of the way finished and I threatened him with a shillelagh. 

Baseball's early history is inescapably entangled with that of Irish-Americans.  For as much as baseball seems to be a pastoral game, the sport essentially grew up in the urban centers of the American Northeast in the last three decades of the 19th century, eventually becoming the sport we know and love today.  As the largest demographic in the first great wave of immigration to the United States, Irishmen and women faced prejudice and injustice, and were largely relegated to either the rapidly closing frontiers or the urban jungles, where they provided the initial labor force for America's young industries.  To lift themselves out of poverty, as baseball salaries were generally higher than a day's pay elsewhere, Irishmen with talent flocked to the game in droves.  As Bill James wrote in his New Historical Baseball Abstract, "Baseball in the 1890s was dominated by Irish players to such an extent that many people, in the same way that people today believe that blacks are born athletes, thought that the Irish were born baseball players."  And as Irishmen rose to prominence in the early game, they lured their countrymen to the ballpark to cheer for them, such that it's not inaccurate to assert that professional baseball couldn't have caught on and survived these early years without the support of the Irish.

So in honor of these first baseball heroes and the day they would have to miss morning infield drills because they had gotten absolutely plastered the night before, I present the All-Irish All Stars, 1880-1910:

Serious question. At least, sort of.

I mean, there are a lot of full-time baseball writers out there, even your real hard-core old-school journalist types, who I admire and think do really excellent work. But then we get into the winter and early-spring months, and there's not always all that much to report on, and one of those writers I admire, like, oh, say, Buster Olney, comes out and says something so completely devoid of thought, reason and any connection to reality at all that I get to wondering...

It's the sort of thing that is much more likely to happen in fantasy baseball than in real life, but according to sources, an idea has been kicked around the Phillies' organization internally, with discussions about proposing a swap of slugger Ryan Howard for St. Louis superstar Albert Pujols.

Well, of course that's been kicked around the Phillies organization. I'm sure that the Twins organization is all aflutter with talk of trading Nick Punto for Evan Longoria or Ryan Zimmerman. But the question is, why are we reporting on the Phillies staff's wildest and most impossible dreams?

I mean, let's understand how wildly, hilariously crazy this really is.We're talking about trading Ryan Howard, a very good (but highly overrated) hitter who is probably one of the 25 or so best position players in the big leagues right now, and getting back Albert Pujols, who appears solidly on track to become one of the 25 or so best ballplayers of all time (or better). Not only that, but Pujols is actually a couple months younger than Howard. Not only that, but both players can become free agents after the 2011 season, and Howard is actually owed more money over these final two years of their respective contracts (Pujols will get $32 million for '10 and '11, Howard $39 million).

So Buster's (and, if Buster is to be believed, the Phillies') grand scheme is to get the Cardinals to agree to swap thirty year old first basemen, both signed for the next two seasons, with the Phillies getting the much, much, much better player out of the deal, and the Cardinals getting the privilege of paying their inferior player significantly more money. You're the Cardinals: sound good to you?

In Buster's own words: "It's the sort of thing that is much more likely to happen in fantasy baseball than in real life." In fantasy baseball, if you had Pujols and traded him straight up for Howard, the other owners would hate you for giving the other guy a gift and/or not taking the league seriously.

He later compares it to the time when "[e]xecutives of the Red Sox and Yankees once famously discussed a trade of Ted Williams for Joe DiMaggio." But of course, aside from the fact that that deal didn't actually happen (and, from reports, doesn't seem to ever have been all that seriously close to happening), this is nothing like swapping Williams and DiMaggio, two elite, legendary players; there's only one of those types in this deal. This would be much more like trading DiMaggio for Johnny Pesky, or Williams for Tommy Henrich.

The other comparison: "Pat Gillick, who preceded Amaro as general manager and is currently serving as an adviser, knows something about making out-of-the-box blockbusters. Twenty years ago, as general manager of the Blue Jays, he stunned the baseball world by trading stars Tony Fernandez and Fred McGriff to the San Diego Padres for Joe Carter and Roberto Alomar." Well, okay. But I don't think it's the Phillies' willingness to accept "out-of-the-box blockbusters" (or anything at all having to do with the Phillies) that's going to be the sticking point in this deal. And it's hard to say this about a deal where you get a 23 year old future Hall of Famer coming back, but I'm not entirely convinced Gillick got the better of that deal; Alomar and McGriff were both superstar-quality players in their primes (you certainly understand why Gillick did that, with John Olerud waiting to take over at first), but Tony Fernandez was a better player than Carter. In any case, Gillick's presence on the deal really doesn't help unless Gillick starts working for the Cardinals.

Anyway, no matter how you look at it, this is just an obvious non-starter. It fails the straight-face test. There is absolutely no reason for the Cardinals to be remotely enticed by a "trade" like this (Olney's one half-assed reason, that Howard "is regarded as a hometown kid" in St. Louis, falls flat when the guy he'd be replacing is regarded as a demigod in St. Louis, and everywhere else). It's ridiculous, and as Tony LaRussa said (before realizing it was Olney who started it, probably figuring it was one of those consarned bloggers in their moms' basements), Olney has to have lost at least a little credibility just for suggesting that those kinds of discussions are seriously going on.

So, back to my question. Do we really need writers like Olney to write about baseball full time?

Understand what I'm saying. I think Olney is an excellent writer and generally does a good job, and I'm not saying he (or anyone like him) should be out of work. Nor am I slighting folks like those over at Baseball Prospectus, Hardball Talk, and so forth, who may have full-time jobs as baseball writers of a sort, but who have the creative license and research chops to come up with something new and thoughtful every time they put a piece up (more or less). I'm talking about beat writers, baseball-only columnists, and anyone else who considers him- or herself a baseball "journalist" in a quasi-traditional sense. People who have hard-and-fast (and regular and frequent) deadlines, whose jobs are more about relationships and language than history or analysis, whose jobs are essentially to report on everything about the game that they see, hear, think they hear, or kind of suspect, and report it before anybody else beats them to it. The thing is, I'm just not sure there's actually enough news in baseball for all these people. And if nothing's going on and you're not one to take the time to (or whose audience would not allow you to) research and write up some great bit of historical perspective or statistical research or something when things are slow, well, then sooner or later you're going to come up with an absolute clunker, like Olney did yesterday.

So consider: especially in this age of dying cash-strapped news organizations, are journalists too specialized? Wouldn't we all benefit a bit if, rather than floating up a bit of refuse like this when he's run out of things to say, Olney were able to write about tennis, or UFC, or the stock markets?

Just a thought.

Kirby Puckett!

Okay, his birthday was actually yesterday, but I couldn't just let my all-time favorite player's 50th birthday pass by without comment.

From 1965 until 1986, Major League baseball held, in addition to the regular June draft, a smaller amateur draft in January for players graduating from high school or college in the winter. I haven't looked beyond the first round of most of those drafts (I did check each year's first round class), but it seems very likely that Kirby Puckett is the second-greatest player ever taken in any January draft. Carlton Fisk went 4th overall in 1967, and the drafts had a handful of other stars (Al Hrabosky, Ken Singleton, Ellis Burks, Moises Alou), but the overwhelming majority of January draftees either failed to make the majors or, if they were among the extremely lucky few, popped up for a cup of coffee. When Puckett was drafted third overall in 1982, only two of the other twenty-four players drafted in that round made the majors -- one for 8 games (and a 9.58 ERA) and one for 67 at-bats.

The point (aside from the fact that there was this whole thing called the January Draft that I knew almost nothing about before today) is that the Twins could not have expected a whole lot when they used their third overall pick in that draft to select a short, (then) skinny outfielder from an Illinois community college.

But they quickly discovered that they did, in fact, have something. Puckett hit .382 in 65 rookie league games in 1982, then hit .314 in a full season at single-A in 1983, sprinkling in a tiny bit of power (29 doubles, nine homers). He made the jump to triple-A in 1984 and was actually hitting just .263 and slugging just .325 through 80 at-bats, but the Twins called him up anyway. Puckett was the Twins' leadoff hitter in his first game, on May 8, 1984 (this was a young team whose only hitter with better than a .349 OBP, Kent Hrbek, was also one of only two hitters on the team with any power). Puckett grounded out to lead off the game, but then hit singles in four straight at-bats, just the fifth player to get four hits in his debut (still just one of eight, among whom only he and Willie McCovey really went on to have any success).  (click here to continue reading)

This isn't quite as identical as their ISO's, but Ishiwaka's career wOBA is .320, with Kotchman checking in at .324. If you want to take an even simpler approach, Kotchman's career slash line is .269/.337/.406. Ishikawa's? .265/.330/.406. 

It is always interesting to compare players, in general. But, it is always a little more interesting to compare players who already have one aspect of their game in common. Ishikawa and Kotchman are very similar players on both sides of the ball, and one is going to be a MLB starter while the other is stuck behind Aubrey Huff.

On Tuesday, when the bad (but not catastrophic) news broke about Joe Nathan, I got into an interesting Twitter discussion (if you can call exchanges of 140 characters of English-esque gibberish a "discussion") about closers with the excellent Paul Bourdett. I had been saying that I generally think that finding a closer is a lot simpler than most people -- stat geeks and traditionalists alike -- make it out to be, and that really, the best pitcher makes the best closer, regardless of how that guy goes about getting outs.  Paul responded, to paraphrase, that intangibles play a part, too, which is why lots of guys with outstanding (stuff, numbers, etc.) have failed in the closer role.

My response: have lots of those guys failed? The assumption Paul is making (and the assumption just about everybody makes) is that there are good pitchers out there who are not good closers, because they can't handle the pressure, don't have the right personality, etc. But I couldn't think of anybody who that's actually happened to. So I asked Paul, and he came up with a list: Ryan Dempster, Ryan Madson, C.J. Wilson, Aaron Heilman, Grant Balfour, Brandon Lyon, Manny Corpas, and Jim Johnson.

I was impressed that he came up with some names (nobody'd been able to answer that question before). And he might be on to something with C.J. Wilson, who has been legitimately good in a setup role and something between mediocre and horrible as a closer; but Wilson hasn't had all that much of a chance in either role, and in 2009 was shipped back and forth ceaselessly among both, so it's way too early to tell whether he can't handle it or has just been unlucky.

Unfortunately, I don't think any of his other examples fit the bill at all (click "read more" below to continue):

In case you missed it in the USA Today and on HardballTalk this morning, Torii Hunter said something monumentally stupid yesterday.  Quoth Torii:

"As African-American players, we have a theory that baseball can go get an imitator and pass them off as us," Hunter says. "It's like they had to get some kind of dark faces, so they go to the Dominican or Venezuela because you can get them cheaper. It's like, 'Why should I get this kid from the South Side of Chicago and have Scott Boras represent him and pay him $5 million when you can get a Dominican guy for a bag of chips?'

"I'm telling you, it's sad."

Yuck. 

As I mentioned the other day, I partook in another fun Great Baseball Debate that went up this morning over at Around the Horn Baseball, this one on a subject near and dear to my heart:

Should Joe Mauer Be Moved From Behind Home Plate?

I argued no, of course. The early commenters are almost uniformly missing the point, but I had a lot of fun.

My opponent, Slanch, from yet another Bloguin Site, The Slanch Report, did an admirable job arguing the other side (but, of course, is wrong). I hope you head over there and enjoy, and leave a comment.

Earlier this week, reader and frequent commenter Barry Gillis sent me the following article. I think it's great, and I'm working on another debate for Around the Horn Baseball at the moment, so I'm very pleased to be able to bring it to you today. Please to enjoy!

When looking at the 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame voting, one thing stands out for me.

In 2010, Tim Raines received 164 votes for the Hall of Fame.
In 2010, Lee Smith received 255 votes for the Hall of Fame.

Within all the other discussions about voting in the 2010 election, the fact that at least 91 voters, but likely in the range of 100 or so, felt Lee Smith was more deserving of the HOF than Tim Raines was somewhat ignored.

In 1981 Tim Raines was a 21 year old outfielder.

In 1981, Lee Smith was a 23 year old middle reliever.

Coincidentally, they were each entering the full-time employment phase of their respective major league baseball careers.

I thought I’d look at whether, at each season of their career, anyone would likely have traded Tim Raines for Lee Smith even up. In other words, what would their perceived relative values with respect to each other have been after each season of their career.

1981
Raines finished second in the rookie of the year voting (behind the high profile Fernando Valenzuela ), led the league in stole bases (71 while getting caught only 11 times),played in the all-star game, batted .304/.391/.438, and finished 19th in the MVP voting.

Smith was an average middle reliever.

There is not a chance in Hell that anyone would have traded Tim Raines to pick up Lee Smith.

1982
Raines battled cocaine, but still led the league in stolen bases (78-16), batted .277/.353/.369, and was an all-star.

Smith was a reliever who delivered 17 saves with an ERA of 2.69 in 117 innings.

There was still not a chance that anyone would have traded Tim Raines to pick up Lee Smith.

1983
Raines was an all-star who finished 5th in the MVP voting. He led the leagues in stolen bases (90-14)  for the 3rd year running, batted .298/.393/.429, and led the league in runs scored with 133

Smith had perhaps his best season. He had an ERA of 1.65, led the league in saves with 29, and was an all-star. He finished 9th in the CY voting, and 18th in the MVP voting (13 spots behind Raines. Even though this was Smith’s best season...

There is not a chance in hell anyone would have traded Tim Raines to get Lee Smith.

1984

Raines was an all-star, finished 11th in the MVP voting, batted .309/.393/.437, led the league in stolen bases (75-10) for the 4th straight season, was 8th in batting, 2nd in runs (106), and led the league in doubles.

Smith went 9-7, with 33 saves (2nd), and an ERA of 3.65.

There is not a chance in hell anyone would have traded Tim Raines to get Lee Smith.

1985
Raines was an all-star, finished 12th in the MVP voting, was second in stolen bases (70-9, which was the first time a player stole as many as 70 bases while getting caught less than 10 times), batted .320/.405/.475, was second in runs scored (115), and was walked intentionally 13 times (10th) from the leadoff position.

Smith went 7-4 with 33 saves (2nd), and a 3.04 ERA.

There is not a chance in hell anyone would have traded Tim Raines to get Lee Smith.

1986
Raines was an all-star, finished 6th in the MVP voting, led the league in batting average and OB%, going .334/.413/.476, finished 3rd in stolen bases (70-9, which was the second, and last, time that a player stole as many as 70 bases while getting caught less than 10 times)

Smith went 9-9 with 31 saves (4th), and a 3.09 ERA.

There is not a chance in hell anyone would have traded Tim Raines to get Lee Smith.

1987
Raines had what may have been his finest season. He batted .330(3rd)/.429(3rd)/.526(9th), finished 7th in the MVP voting, went 50-5 in stolen bases, and led the league in runs with 123. He was second in the league in intentional walks.

Smith was an all-star for the second time, went 4-10 with 36 saves (2nd) and a 3.12 ERA (his fourth straight 3.00+ ERA season as a reliever).

There is not a chance in hell anyone would have traded Tim Raines to get Lee Smith.

1988
Raines played only 108 games; he batted .270/.350/.441

Smith went 4-5 with 28 saves (5th), and an ERA of 2.80. He finished 21st in the MVP voting (everyone with at least 29 saves got an MVP vote).

There is the slightest of chances anyone would have traded Tim Raines to get Lee Smith, but only because Raines’ 2/3 of a season reduce his perceived value.

1989
Raines batted .286/.395(5th)/.418, went 41-9(4th) in stolen bases, and finished 17th in the MVP voting.

Smith went 6-1 with 25 saves (9th) and a 3.57 ERA.

There is not a chance in hell anyone would have traded Tim Raines to get Lee Smith.

1990
Raines played in only 130 games. He batted .287/.379/.392, and stole 49 bases (caught 16 times).

Smith had one of his best seasons. He went 5-5 with 31 saves and an ERA of 2.06 split between Boston and St Louis. His 27 saves with St Louis were good enough for 3rd in the league.

So maybe, at first glance, you could say that someone would trade Raines for Lee Smith even up.

Except, they were each traded in 1990 and we may be able to learn about their respective values through these trades.

Smith was traded in-season in 1990, even up, for Tom Brunansky.  Brunansky had finished 1989 with an OPS+ of 103, batting .239/.312/.410. He started the first 19 games of 1990 batting .158/.310/.253.

Raines was traded after the 1990 season, along with two minor leaguers. In return, the Expos got Ivan Calderon and Barry Jones.

Calderon, a year younger than Brunansky, had finished 1989 with an OPS+ of 119, batting .286/.332/.437. In 1990, he had an OPS+ of 110, batting .273/.322/.427. He stole 32 bases. He was looked upon as the White Sox’ best player.

Barry Jones had just gone 11-4 with an ERA of 2.31, and was the Sox’ second best reliever (after Bobby Thigpen). He had just finished his third consecutive solid season.

Calderon, on his own, had more perceived value than Brunansky. Throw in Barry Jones and it’s obvious that Raines was looked upon as the more valuable player when compared to Lee Smith.

1991
Raines had perhaps his worst season, batting .268/.359/.345. He did, however, steal 51 bases (3rd) and score 102 runs (9th).

Lee Smith had one of his best seasons. He went 6-3 and led the league with 47 saves. His ERA was 2.34. He had a BB/K ratio of 5.15, the best ratio of his career by a good margin.

He was an all-star, finished a distant 2nd in the Cy Young voting, and was 8th in the MVP voting.

A trade of Raines for Lee Smith after this season could be a distinct possibility.

1992
Raines returned to form, batting .294/.380/.405 with 102 runs scored (7th) and 45 stolen bases (7th) while getting caught only 6 times.

Smith led the league in saves again with his second straight season of over 40 saves (43). He had a 4-9 record with a 3.12 ERA. He was an all-star, and finished 4th in the Cy Young award vote with 3 points (only 5 people received votes).

It was unlikely Raines would be traded for Lee Smith even up.

1993
Raines had a spectacular season, hidden somewhat by the fact he only played 115 games. He batted .306/.401/.480. He stole only 21 bases, but added power and hit 16 home runs.

Smith had a typical season for this stretch of his career. He went 2-4 with 46 saves and a 3.88 ERA. He was traded on August 31 from the Cards to the Yankees for 26 year old minor league pitcher Rich Batchelor. He was an all-star.

There is very little chance anyone would have traded Tim Raines for Lee Smith. Well.. About the same chance that they would have traded Tim Raines for Rich Batchelor.

1994
Raines batted .266/.365/.409 and stole 13 bases in as many attempts. He scored 80 runs in 101 games, which was good for 11th in the strike season.

Smith again had a typical late career season. He went 1-4 with 33 saves to lead the league. His ERA was 3.29. He was an all-star and received votes for both the Cy Young (5th with 1 point) and the MVP.

A trade of Raines for Lee Smith after this season could be a distinct possibility.

1995
Raines batted .285/.374/.422 with 82 runs scored, 12 home runs, and 67 RBIs in 133 games. He stole 13 bases and got caught twice.

Smith went 0-5 with 37 saves (2nd) and a 3.47 ERA in only 49.1 innings. He was an all-star even though he wasn’t even the Angels best reliever. Troy Percival was 3-2 with 3 saves, an ERA of 1.95, and 94 K’s in 74 innings. He lost his job as closer prior to the next season.

Depending on needs, it is conceivable Smith and Raines would be traded for each other.

1996-97
Each was a spare part, although Raines was, by a large margin, the better spare part, putting up .321/.403/.454 in 318 plate appearances in 1997. At this stage in their careers, any type of trade was possible, although Raines was obviously the better player.

1998
Raines had another strong spare part season with .290/.395/.383 in 382 plate appearances.

Smith was out of baseball.

For those scoring at home, here is the tally of whether anyone would have traded, even up, Tim Raines to pick up Lee Smith.

No chance in hell: 8
Unlikely, but slight chance: 4
Distinct possibility: 3

Then there were 2 more Smith seasons and 4 more Raines seasons where Raines was by far the better value.

So... why would anyone vote for Lee Smith ahead of Tim Raines for the Hall Of Fame ?

It comes down to one person, really: Jerome Holtzman.

And it comes down to these statistics:

Smith led the league in saves 4 times, and is 3rd in career saves.

Here’s the reality. It is a heck of a lot easier to lead the league in saves than any other commonly referenced statistic. Most teams have only one person who is capable of getting a save, but there are teams who never settle on one guy and this further reduces the guys you have to be better than.

Raines led the league in stolen bases 4 times, runs twice, doubles once, batting average once, and OB% once. He’s fifth all time in stolen bases.

They each played in 7 all-star games.

Raines received MVP votes 7 times, while Smith received MVP votes 4 times. Raines’ average position in the voting was higher than Smith’s.

Raines career was longer and  his peak much stronger.

There are about 100 voters who have some splainin' to do...

This is a first for this blog. I'm running a links post, not because I'm short on time, but because there's cool stuff out there that you just need to see today. Without further ado:

• I love just about everything there is about ESPN's new baseball blog, TMI. I love the name, which stands kind of hilariously for "The Max Info," and the acronym is particularly apt in this age of sudden sabermetric burnout (one example of what I mean, by the [otherwise?] excellent John Sickels, here). I love the writers they've been getting to staff the thing so far, headlined by the brilliant Tom Tango (I think every time I've mentioned Tango on this blog, the initial mention has been preceded by "the brilliant"), and Dave Cameron and Matt Carruth of FanGraphs. I love the topics they've chosen and what they've written so far. I did love that, even though it's Insider-only, they were putting full posts up via Google Reader...but apparently that's a loophole that has now been closed. Gotta say, though, this might actually convince me to give in and join Insider again. Well played, espin.
  
  
• This might be the coolest thing the Internet has ever spit out (especially apropos for fans of my The Metrics System series): Baseball Analysis 101. It's not a "primer" blog post or any kind of blog post at all--it's an actual on-line course, with seven discrete 10-25 minute "lessons" on the basics of sabermetrics. The course consists mostly (maybe entirely) of articles from Baseball Prospectus, FanGraphs, Joe Posnanski and elsewhere, but they're great articles, and they're arranged in such a way as to really give you a good grounding in what it's all about, and with good transitions. I like it, and plan to read through the whole thing myself sometime soon. (h/t @akneeland and Pinto.)
  
  
• Kevin Goldstein has released his Top 101 Prospects list (also subscriber-only, but you can see the Top 20 here). I like Goldstein a lot -- not just as a writer, but he does the BP book talk in Chicago every year and is hilarious in person -- and his list is intriguing. Most of the names at the top are the same ones you'll see everywhere else, but he's relatively very low on Orioles pitcher Brian Matusz (who is comfortably in the top 10 on Keith Law's and Baseball America's lists, but KG puts him at #16) and relatively high on several others. Five of my Twins' farmhands make the list, including Ben Revere at 46, which makes me happy (people were very quick to give up on him). The Rays have seven of the top 101 and are going to be good for a very long time. The Yankees have just one, but he's a damn good one (if he can stay at catcher). The Astros have just two -- #s 97 and 100 -- and are going to be bad for a very long time.
  
  
• Sometime, be sure to take a good stroll around Google "News" searching for your favorite team. It's kind of amazing how much misinformation and mischaracterization you can find just by, say, obsessively checking for an update on Joe Mauer contract talks (sign that thing already!). Take, for instance, this piece by Brad Pinkerton on the Sporting News website (actually just a stub; you have to pay them money to read the whole thing). Quoth Pinkerton, in the first sentence:
  

  For the most part, the Twins laid low this offseason, making only a few subtle moves to replace small holes around their core players.
  

  Come on, man. I'm sure you've got a deadline and a hundred other things to do and everything, but this is the first sentence of your piece. One which the Sporting News is trying to use to make people spend their own money. You can't come out with stuff like that. The Twins' payroll has increased by about $30 million. They've acquired an All-Star shortstop and an All-Star second baseman and spent real money on a starting pitcher. A very quick internet search shows tons of articles like this one -- even some from something called The Sporting News -- about how active and successful the Twins' offseason has been. "Lay low" is one thing I know they didn't do.