One way to list the 30 MLB teams from best to worst is by using run differential, that is, the difference between how many runs a team has scored minus the number of runs they’ve surrendered. Although it’s still very early in the year, you will notice some real surprises on this list.
1) Boston Red Sox +34
2) Atlanta Braves +33
2) Cincinnati Reds +33
4) Texas Rangers +29
5) Colorado Rockies +28
6) St. Louis Cardinals +23
7) New York Mets +18
8) Oakland A’s +17
9) Arizona Diamondbacks +15
10) Baltimore Orioles +11
10) Kansas City Royals +11
10) New York Yankees +11
13) San Francisco Giants +8
14) Detroit Tigers +6
15) Pittsburgh Pirates +1
16) Tampa Bay Rays -3
17) Milwaukee Brewers -5
18) Cleveland Indians -6
19) Chicago White Sox -7
20) Minnesota Twins -7
21) L. A. Angels -10
22) Washington Nationals -15
23) Philadelphia Phillies -17
24) Chicago Cubs -18
24) L. A. Dodgers -18
26) San Diego Padres -28
27) Seattle Mariners -29
28) Toronto Blue Jays -29
29) Houston Astros -40
30) Miami Marlins -46
Starting at the top, certainly the Red Sox, Rockies, Mets and, to a certain extent, the Diamondbacks have to be counted as pleasant surprises. Though many people had the Braves picked to at least win the Wild Card in their division, they have been playing perhaps even better than expected. The A’s are the little engine that can, and does, always find a way to win. Notice, too, that the expected collapse of either the Yankees and / or the Orioles hasn’t occurred to this point. And the Rangers don’t appear to miss Josh Hamilton very much yet, either.
On the negative side of the ledger, Don Mattingly’s days as Dodgers’ manager may be short-lived if he can’t turn his team around before the All-Star break. Like the Dodgers, the Blue Jays have gone all in this year, but have realized the same lack of success. The Astros and the Marlins were both expected to be terrible, and they are working hard to deliver on that promise.
What’s with the Angels? Although Pujols is playing well, they are seriously under-performing to date.
The Washington Nationals slow start, however, must rate as the most stunning in all of baseball to this point. Many people picked them to win the N.L. pennant this year, but (with the exception of Bryce Harper) they are playing like a team that is trying not to lose, rather than as a confident team playing good baseball. I think they will turn it around.
Another team that I think will play much better as the season progresses is the Tampa Bay Rays. Currently, they are a mediocre 16th overall, but I have little doubt they will finish the season among the top half-dozen teams in baseball.
As a Mets fan, I would like the see the Mets finish among the top seven teams at the end of the season, but, barring some peculiarly astute, timely trade, I see little chance of that happening.
Wouldn’t it be nice to see the Pirates finish at or above .500 this year? I think they are capable of doing so.
Which teams do you think will improve, or implode, over the course of the rest of the season?
In baseball, as in life, it’s important to get off to a good start. If I begin my day, for example, by mistakenly squeezing my wife’s hair gel on to my toothbrush, I know I’m in for a rough day. And my first morning cup of coffee better have the right balance of sugar and cream, or the joy of the day will seep slowly away.
Championship baseball teams do not always get off to fast starts. The 1914 “Miracle” Braves began the season with a 4-18 record before going on to win the World Series. Other teams stay close to the top before catching fire during the final four to six weeks, stealing victory from the proverbial jaws of defeat.
Often, however, a championship team (or at least a playoff-bound team) will send a message to the rest of the league early, making it clear that they’re out for blood. The obvious advantage of getting off to a quick start is, of course, that it leaves said team with a certain margin for error as the season plays out. Also, it puts early pressure on their divisional opponents to not fall too far behind too quickly.
While this is not a scientific, comprehensive study of this topic, the following ten teams are examples of how and why a fast start can make it virtually inevitable that the team that sprints out of the gate most successfully will often be the team celebrating (at least) a division title come October.
1) 2001 Seattle Mariners – Finished the season with a Major League record 116 wins against just 42 losses. The Mariners began the season with a 20-5 record in April, and were 40-12 at the end of May. They won their division, and advanced all the way to the A.L. Championship series vs. the Yankees, where the lost in five exciting games.
2) 1986 New York Mets – Posted a record of 108-54, winning their division by 21.5 games over the second place Phillies. The Mets enjoyed a 13-3 April, including an 11-game winning streak, and were 31-12 by Memorial Day. They would, of course, go on to defeat the Red Sox in a seven-game World Series thriller.
3) 1998 New York Yankees – Before the Mariners won a record 116 games in ’01, the Yanks had set the record themselves with 114 wins in ’98. The Yanks finished 22 games ahead of the second-place Red Sox in the A.L. East. After dropping four of their first five, the Yankees quickly righted the ship and won 16 of their next 18 games, finishing April with a 17-6 record, which further improved to 37-13 after two months. The Yanks would go on to sweep the Padres in four World Series games.
4) 1984 Detroit Tigers – The Tigers began the season 35-5, and never looked back. They led their division from wire-to-wire, eventually winning a total of 104 games. Starting pitcher Jack Morris, who tossed a no-hitter in April, was already 10-1 before the end of May (though he was just 9-10 after that point.) Morris also won three playoff games that season, posting a 1.80 ERA in those three starts. The Tigers defeated the Padres in a five-game World Series.
5) 1969 Baltimore Orioles - Blew away the rest of the A.L., winning 109 games. The Orioles finished 19 games ahead of the second-place Tigers in the A.L. East in the inaugural year of divisional play. After sweeping a double-header by the combined score of 19-5 on May 4th against the Yankees at Yankee Stadium, the Orioles were already 20-8 on the young season. Through May 30th, they were 34-14. The Orioles would defeat the Twins in the first ever A.L. Championship series, then would shockingly win just one game in the ’69 Series vs. the Mets.
6) 1956 New York Yankees – Another in a long line of Yankee championship teams, the ’56 Yanks won seven of their first eight ball games, and were cruising with a 29-13 record by May 31st. They finished the year with 97 wins, dropping their final two decisions at Fenway Park. They went on to defeat the Brooklyn Dodgers in a seven-game World Series. Don Larsen pitched a perfect game against the Dodgers in Game 5.
7) 1955 Brooklyn Dodgers – The only 20th-century Brooklyn team to win a World Championship, Dem Bums ran off ten straight victories to start the season, and were an unbelievable 22-2 by May 10th. By the end of May, they were 32-11. Ultimately, the Dodgers won 98 games, then defeated the Yankees in a seven-game World Series.
8) 1931 Philadelphia Athletics – This highly talented group finished the season with 107 wins, 13 more than the mighty Yankees of Ruth and Gehrig. Admittedly, the A’s were just 7-7 at one point, but then won 17 consecutive games and went into June with a record of 30-10. Nevertheless, this particular Athletics team lost the ’31 World Series to the Cardinals in seven games.
9) 1927 New York Yankees – Murderer’s Row opened the first week of their historic season by going 6-0-1 in the first week of the season. By May 19th, they were 21-8-1 en route to a 110-44-1 season. They finished 19 games ahead of the second-place Athletics. In the World Series, they systematically dismantled the Pirates in just four games.
10) 1905 New York Giants – This team featured Christy Mathewson, “Iron Joe” McGinnity, Roger Bresnahan and, for one game, the mysterious “Moonlight” Graham. The Giants began the season by winning six of their first seven games, and were 25-6 by May 23rd. Ultimately, they would win 105 games on the season. In just the second World Series ever played, John McGraw’s Giants would defeat Connie Mack’s Athletics in five games, a Series in which Christy Mathewson would toss three shutouts in six days.
As you can see, there are several examples in baseball history of the importance of getting off to a fast start. While this has not been the path followed by each and every championship squad, a good start often does bode well for a team’s chances of making the playoffs.
As you can clearly see from this graph, the middle class has been trending in the wrong direction, regarding its share of national income, for over 40 years now. If you are at least over 45 or 50 years old, you may recall a time when a one income household (usually headed by a male breadwinner) could adequately, even comfortably, provide for itself. My father, for example, was a factory worker his entire life in Bridgeport, CT. With a sixth-grade education, and a lot of hard work, he was able to support my mom, my younger brother and I until I moved out of the house in the 1980′s and began to support myself. By that time, (a bit earlier, actually) my mom had gone back to work as well.
My dad worked in a union shop and received a fair wage for hard work, as had his parents’ generation before him. I, too, worked for a couple of years in a union shop. The Teamster’s Union negotiated wages and contracts for us at UPS in Stratford, CT in the early 1980′s. When I started working there (loading and unloading trucks) I was earning about $10.00 per hour. Even in Connecticut, that was a pretty nice wage for a kid just out of high school. Within about a year, I was earning around $12.00 per hour, shared an apartment with a friend of mine, bought a car, and was able to save a little money.
It should be noted that UPS was enjoying prosperity in those days as well, despite the presence of labor unions in its midst.
In the late fall of 2011, a month or so before Christmas, I thought about making a little extra money down here in Greenville, S.C. where I now live. My wife is the primary breadwinner in our family, but I like to work, so I thought, just for the hell of it, I would check out what UPS here in the greater Greenville area was paying its employees for the same job I used to do around thirty years ago. It turned out their starting wage, in a non-union facility, was around $8.00 per hour. Now, adjusting for thirty years of inflation, I can’t even imagine what this “modern” wage would have equated to thirty years ago.
Now let’s turn to Major League baseball for a few minutes to see how the ball players, represented by the Major League Baseball Player’s Association, have fared over approximately that same time period.
As you can see, the players, represented by a very strong union, have become wealthier than they probably ever could have dreamed of just forty years ago. Alex Rodriguez of the New York Yankees will earn $28 million dollars this season. Derek Jeter’s net worth is around 125 million dollars. Now, obviously supply and demand is an important factor here. As long as baseball remains popular, the money will be there to pay this select group of highly talented athletes.
But it’s equally important to remember that baseball has been a capitalist enterprise for well over a century now, yet ball players have not always grown rich, and least not this rich. The minimum salary for a player (his contract negotiated by his union) is now over $400,000 dollars, around ten times the average salary of a non-union teacher here in South Carolina. I am not making an argument over the relative fairness of what a teacher makes vs. what an athlete makes. Great teachers are rare, but so are great athletes. Still, children understand and respond to incentives just like the rest of us. What choices are we encouraging our children to make based on the incentives available to them now and in the future?
The primary arguments I’ve heard from people (some of whom haven’t earned a middle class wage for years) against unions is that either A) Unions are corrupt, B) Union workers are greedy, or C) We can’t afford them.
Let’s take each of these three arguments as they relate to baseball.
A) Unions are Corrupt: There’s no question that the Player’s Union hindered the development and implementation of any rules regarding testing for steroids. One reason for this was that they believed protecting a player’s privacy was an important consideration. How could they be sure this wouldn’t turn out to be a witch-hunt? In that regard, they turned out to be right. The so-called confidential list of players who tested positive was partially leaked to the press, then on to the public. From that point on, all players have been branded guilty until “proven” innocent. Many of the Hall of Fame voters themselves seem to be waiting for “more information” regarding players they suspect might have used PED’s. Perhaps more names from another “confidential” list will someday illegally be made public. Then, with illegally obtained information at hand, they can penalize still more “dirty” players.
Sure, there are other kinds of corruption. These kinds also exist in non-union corporations, and among many of the Congressmen on Capital Hill, some of whom feel the need to remind us of the corruption of unions for political purposes while finding loopholes around and through the rules in an effort to enrich themselves at public expense.
B) Union Workers Are Greedy: Like us, baseball players seek to maximize economic gain within the realm of their chosen occupation, appropriate to their level of talent and experience. My friends in the private sector routinely do this as well. This is called (for better or worse) pursuing the American Dream. A couple of my friends are now quite wealthy. More power to them. This is not a zero-sum game where their prosperity comes at the price of someone else’s poverty (well, not directly, anyway.)
Public sector employees are also often accused of being greedy, despite the fact that they often earn less money than their private sector counterparts who have similar levels of education and job experience. My first year as a teacher, in a small town in rural Maine, I earned $20,900. That was in the mid-1990′s, not all that long ago. In my final year as a teacher, after a dozen years of experience and 36 Master’s Level college credits, I was earning $49,000. A friend of mine who graduated college the same year I did, who now works in the private sector, earns about twice as much as I did then.
We are all greedy. But for public sector unionized employees, as for MLB players, this is not a zero-sum game. The money a teacher, fireman or policeman makes is part of the tax base that pays for their own salaries, as well as the benefits received by others. Moreover, their disposable income is just as vitally a part of the consumer spending that promotes and supports local business as the dollars spent by private sector employees. Therefore, any attempt to “control” the costs of public employees by destroying their unions may have, at the local level, the unintended side effect of hurting overall consumer spending, which benefits no one.
C) We can’t afford them. This argument, that unions will destroy the economy, was an argument that MLB franchise owners made over and over again in the years leading up to the creation of the Baseball Player’s Association, and especially during the dawn of free agency. Exploding baseball player salaries will kill the game. Tickets will no longer be affordable, and player greed will kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Also, team owners will be put out of business because they won’t be able to afford these new, extravagant salaries.
None of these things came to pass. When George Steinbrenner purchased the Yankees in 1973, he paid just under ten million dollars for the franchise. Estimates are that the Yankees franchise is now worth around three billion dollars. Certainly, not every franchise can boast that same level of economic success, but in the rare occasion when an MLB franchise does go on the market, it rarely lacks a plethora of interested millionaires seeking to purchase it. Moreover, the eight best years of attendance in baseball history have each occurred in the past eight years. Clearly, if you build it, they will come, no matter how much the employees are getting paid.
Map usa unions (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Similarly, beyond the world of baseball, the argument has been made that we can no longer afford unions. Yet many corporations that argue against unionized employees are among the richest companies on earth. Keeping their employees unnecessarily poor may allow them to please their shareholders, but the end result is a two-tiered economy that undermines real economic opportunity, upward mobility, and democracy itself. Even Henry Ford, who was anti-semitic and an early admirer of European fascism, declared that it was right to pay his assembly line workers a fair, living wage if for no other reason than that they should afford to buy the cars they were manufacturing.
It should also be noted that in the richest states like Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York, public-sector employee unions have been strong for decades. The strength of those unions did not prevent those states from becoming and remaining wealthy. Conversely, many so-called “right to work” anti-union states, especially in the south, have long been among the poorest in the nation. The lack of unions has not, nor will it ever, lift these states out of their second or third-rate economic performances. Yet, counter-intuitively, most of the residents in these same, relatively poor states, harbor negative opinions of unions.
The anti-union propaganda machine has long been effective in keeping people poor and ignorant. Thirty or forty years of union decline in this country has not made the nation richer, it has made the middle class poorer. One only has to look at the recent history of Major League baseball to see the obvious solution to this state of affairs isn’t to continue to undermine, even outlaw, the few remaining unions we have left. True, fortunes can be made in the private sector outside of unions. But trends are trends, and in the long run, if current trends continue, there may not be a middle class in the future to enjoy Major League baseball. It will be a game of the few, by the few, for the few.
If that day comes, baseball and America will both be greatly diminished.
There were lots of great stories this year. The unexpectedly strong showings of the Orioles and the A’s, as well as the Nats, probably top the list. Also, many people thought that no one would ever win another Triple Crown. In past years, I’ve read articles that sought to “prove” that it could never happen again. Miguel Cabrera’s remarkable achievement may be the last time many of us ever witness this event in our lifetimes.
Mike Trout’s historic rookie season was one for the ages. No other rookie in history ever produced a 30 homer, 40 steal season, leading the league with 49 steals. He also led the A.L. in runs scored (129) and in OPS+ (171). It’ll be interesting to see how the vote for the A.L. MVP award turns out.
But there were several other “smaller” stories, if you will, that were no less worthy of notice. Some of you will already be aware of some of these facts, stories, and other tidbits of information. But, in general, the items that follow were each, in my estimation, a bit under-reported. Then again, I’m attracted to relatively useless trivia, so please bear with me.
craig kimbrel (Photo credit: taylor magnone)
1) Craig Kimbrel: Kimbrel accomplished something this season that no pitcher, not Nolan Ryan, Sandy Koufax, Mariano Rivera, Rob Dibble, Dick Radatz, or any other flamethrower, ever did before. Kimbrel struck out half the batters he faced (116 out of 231.) How crazy is that? He also struck out about four batters for every hit (27) he surrendered in his 62.2 innings pitched. His ERA of 1.01 and ERA+ of 399 are just cartoonish. Oh, and did I mention he led the league in saves with 42? Displaying impeccable control, he walked just 14 batters, and hit just two. So yes, he’s a pretty good pitcher.
2) Carlos Beltran: Beltran became the eighth player in baseball history to join the 300 homer, 300 stolen base club. He is the only switch-hitter in history to have both 300 homer and steals. Currently, he has 334 homers (which puts him in the top 100 all time), and 306 stolen bases. His outstanding 86.7 career stolen base percentage ranks 3rd best of all time. Finally, Beltran’s career WAR of 62.3 — about the same as Ernie Banks — certainly places Beltran in the conversation about future Hall of Famers.
Joe Blanton (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
3) Joe Blanton: I love Joe Blanton. I have a separate post in mind devoted entirely to Joe Blanton. I might even get around to writing it. In the meantime, you might not find Blanton’s 10-13 record, 4.71 ERA or ERA+ of 84 to be awe-inspiring. But did you know his strikeout-to-walk ratio (4.88), ranked 2nd in the entire National League? Did you know that his 1.6 walks / 9 innings was third best in the league? How about that he had more shutouts (1) than Cy Young candidate Johnny Cueto? In fact, Cueto had only four more strikeouts than Blanton (170 to 166) in 2012, and it took Cueto 26 more innings to top Blanton. Did you know these little bits of trivia? Well, know you do. And don’t you feel better knowing them?
4) New York Yankees: So the Yankees made the playoffs again. Did you know the Yankees have now made the playoffs fifty-one times in their history? All fifty-one times have occurred since 1921. That means that over the past 92 seasons, the Yankees have made the playoffs 55% of the time. No other team is particularly close.
Hilltop Park, home of the Highlanders (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The Dodgers, for example, have made the playoffs 26 times since 1916. That’s about 27% of the last 97 seasons. The Cardinals have made the playoffs 25 times since 1926. That’s about 29% of the best 87 seasons. Not a bad showing. The Giants and the A’s have each made the playoffs 24 times since 1905. The Braves have been there now 22 of the past 99 seasons. The Red Sox, 20 times since 1903. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, no other team has ever made the playoffs as many as 20 times.
So the Yankees have made the playoffs about twice as often as the next best set of teams. Even to someone like me who is not a Yankees fan, that’s an impressive run of success.
5) Colorado Rockies: On the other end of the spectrum, the Rockies have now existed for twenty seasons, and 2012 was their worst one yet. Their .395 win-loss percentage was the lowest in team history. You know you’ve had a bad year when the highest WAR recorded on the team was accumulated by a relief pitcher (Rafael Betancourt: 2.6.) Their attendance this year was down to 2.6 million, not a bad total, but this once proud franchise topped well over three million spectators per year every season from their debut in 1993 through 2001. In fact, in ’93, they drew about 4.5 million fans.
The Rockies are long past the point where it can be said that they’re a young franchise going through growing pains. Now they are simply painful to watch.
6) Alex Rios: A fair amount has been written about the comeback season enjoyed by White Sox D.H., Adam Dunn, and rightly so. Yet his teammate, outfielder Alex Rios, also managed a remarkable turnaround in 2012. In 2011, Rios batted just .227, slugged .348, and posted an OPS+ of 63. He hit 13 homers, stole eleven bases, and drove in 44 runs. In 2012, he bounced back in a big way, batting .304, slugging .516, and posted an OPS+ of 124. He also slugged 25 homers, stole 23 bases, and drove in 91 runs.
In other words, Rios was essentially twice the player in 2012 as he was in 2011. Considering he was playing his age 31 season, that has to rate as one of the more unlikely comeback seasons in baseball history. Considering the ChiSox are on the hook with Alex Rios for the next three years, they’ll have ample opportunity to find out which one is the “real” Alex Rios.
Omar Vizquel, with the Cleveland Indians (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
7) Omar Vizquel: At age 45, Omar Vizquel is finally calling it quits. He has certainly compiled some impressive stats over the course of his career, especially with his glove. The three-time All Star won eleven Gold Gloves in his career, and his .985 career fielding percentage as a shortstop is the best in baseball history (minimum, 4,000 chances.)
Vizquel’s 28.4 dWAR is also among the top ten players in baseball history whose primary position was shortstop. He ranks third all-time in assists, with 7,676, and 11th in putouts with 4,102.
As an offensive player, Vizquel accumulated 2,877 hits, good for 40th place in baseball history. His 2,264 singles are 16th best. His 456 doubles are more than HOF’ers Joe Morgan, Rod Carew, Barry Larkin and Luke Appling. He also stole 404 bases, and scored 1,445 runs.
Does Vizquel belong in the Hall of Fame? On that issue, I abstain. I’ll leave that decision up to the BBWAA to decide five years from now.
So there you have it, seven items you may not have known about. I hope you feel much more enlightened by this trivia I have shared with you.
Personally, I have nothing against the Red Sox. It is true that, as a Mets fan, I did get my biggest baseball thrill from watching the Mets beat the Red Sox in the 1986 World Series. Yet I’ve never felt any animosity towards the proud Red Sox franchise. In fact, I always root for the Red Sox to defeat the Yankees.
Still, a fact is a fact, and there is no denying that the 2012 version of the Red Sox are the least enjoyable, not to mention the least successful, Red Sox team I have witnessed in many years.
Not being a regular viewer of Red Sox games (though when I lived up in Maine for 20+ years, I often listened to WEEI, Red Sox radio), I haven’t paid close attention to the BoSox relative failure this year, aside from occasionally looking at the A.L. standings.
So I decided to examine a bit more closely why the Red Sox, despite their prodigious payroll, fanatical fan-base, and the bewildering wizardry of stat guru, Bill James, this team stinks.
Here are eight items I came up with:
1) Red Sox pitchers are giving up too many bases on balls. As of this writing, Red Sox pitchers have surrendered 370 walks this year. Only four A.L. pitching staffs have walked more batters. The Yankees pitching staff, by way of contrast, have walked the fewest. They can’t score if you don’t put them on.
2) The Red Sox pitching staff is starting to show its age. They are now the third oldest group of pitchers in the A.L. Obviously, some pitchers age faster than others. The Yankees staff is actually a bit older. But Red Sox pitchers appear to be exhibiting a bit more wear and tear thus far than their New York counterparts.
Josh Beckett, for example, is 32 going on 36. And Clay Buccholz, whom some Red Sox fans still maintain is a rising star, recently turned 28-years old.
In fact, the Red Sox currently have just one pitcher on their staff, the combustible Felix Doubront (4.70 ERA) under the age of 25.
3) The Curse of the Piano. What, you thought that just because the Red Sox won two World Series in the past eight years, that they’d no longer be cursed? Well, no one told the Babe, a moulderin’ in his grave. Perhaps you’ve never hear of the curse of the piano? Well, unless someone drags the Babe’s old piano out of the pond up in Sudbury, this “other” curse might just linger for another century.
4) Bobby Valentine is entirely miscast as a Major League manager. In fact, he would be miscast as a manager at any level. A manager, like a teacher, is a father figure (assuming the male gender, of course.) Bobby V. is not a father figure. He is the odd uncle who comes over on Christmas afternoon with his latest exotic girlfriend, this one from Saigon, the last one from the Philippines.
Always too quick to put little brother up on his shoulders (narrowly missing the overhead fan by mere inches), he always has an odd anecdote to tell about a business deal that narrowly went sour. When he finally leaves around 7:45 p.m., he’s had one too many, and his hugs are awkward, and strangely tearful. His girlfriend will do the driving, and you know as you wave to them as they back out of your dad’s icy driveway, you won’t see or hear from him again until next Christmas.
Wally the Green Monster (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
5) Wally the Green Monster, the Red Sox’ mascot, has been having some problems of his own. After a torrid, three-year affair with Bernie Brewer, followed by a brief, drunken fling with the Milwaukee Sausages, Wally the Green Monster had just about settled down with the Swinging Friar (San Diego.)
But it turns out that the Swinging Friar had a few secrets of his own. Apparently, he’s been seen leaving some local San Diego hot spots with the always unpredictable Stomper (Oakland), himself recently recovering from an addiction to powdered, fried dough.
Word is that Wally has been so depressed lately that he’s usually hung over and asleep inside the Green Monster until the 8th inning, when misty-eyed and reckless, he starts to undress for the fans in the center field bleachers during the bizarre routine of the disembodied voice of Neil Diamond singing “Sweet Caroline.”
Socks (Photo credit: scalkins)
6) Their socks. They’ve been the Red Sox now for over a hundred years. Perhaps it’s time to change those socks?
When either of my sons goes a couple of days without changing theirs, the stench is unbearable. Why should it be any different for Major League baseball players who sweat in theirs all day long?
So, in keeping with the Sox recent advances into the 21st century (a Facebook page!), here’s a look (see pic) at what the BoSox are considering for their players next season. David Ortiz is already on record endorsing the new look saying, “My toes get cold in April and in October. Those little toes on the socks look toasty and warm. I hate New England weather.”
7) Their Offense: Despite the fact that the Red Sox are among the league-leaders in runs scored, there are some problems here as well. For starters, Carl Crawford, a huge disappointment since he joined the Sox (his on-base percentage in his last 160 games played is .293), is about to undergo Tommy John surgery Tuesday. Meanwhile, Jacoby Ellsbury, who enjoyed an MVP-caliber season last year, currently sports a .309 on-base percentage to go along with his one home run and six stolen bases. Last year, he had over 30 steals and 30 homers.
The injury bug, then, has seriously affected the Red Sox ability to add to their already very respectable run totals.
Dustin Pedroia of the Boston Red Sox on deck in Fenway Park in 2008 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
8) Their Enthusiasm: It hasn’t been this boring to watch the Red Sox play (and I don’t very often) since the heady days of Phil Plantier, Bob Zupcic, Jody Reed, and Luis Rivera. The Red Sox have finished below .500 just three times since 1992. This year could be their fourth finish below .500 in 20 years.
Worse, it is hard to say that any of the players on the field look like they’re enjoying themselves. Sure, losing sucks, but you’re not likely to play any better if your approach is the same as the man who gets to go to work in the West Virginia coal mines, earning a tiny fraction of what the players make. Gone are team leaders like Varitek, Wakefield, Millar and Damon, guys that could both lighten up the clubhouse and/or lead by example.
For the sake of the Red Sox and their fans, some of the veterans on this team (and it can’t be just Dustin Pedroia) have to step up and lead by example, while demonstrating to the kids that playing baseball can still be fun, even if you are expected to take home obscene amounts of cash.
This is my third offering in a sporadic series in which I mix baseball analysis with some of my favorite music artists. Let’s call this one “The Blues Edition.” (Please ignore any commercials that may appear. For “Full Screen,” click the icon on the lower, right-hand corner of each video.)
The relationship between the analysis and the songs is tenuous at best, but it amuses me nevertheless (as do bright, shiny objects and fire trucks.)
Here were my offerings for April and May (June somehow slipped by me unnoticed.)
The point of these posts is to create a video-blog of the highlights (and low lights) of the baseball season. I’ll leave it to other bloggers to address this season’s stats and stories in a more traditional fashion.
So let’s begin.
Has any PHEENOM ever made such a huge impact in his first full season as Mike Trout has done this season? The list of players who were great right out of the gate, and who went on to have fantastic careers, is not a very long one. That list would include, for example, Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, Frank Robinson, Alex Rodriguez and a handful of others.
Add Mike Trout to that list. Sure, it’s true that Trout’s future is yet to be written, but other than the possibility of injury, there is no reason to think that we’re not looking at the next Stan Musial or Mickey Mantle.
All Trout has done so far is hit a league-leading .351 to go along with a circuit-pacing 78 runs scored in just 80 games. Oh, and did I mention he’s also stolen the most bases in the A.L. (35) while being caught an absurdly low 3 times? How about that 180 OPS+, also the best in the junior league.
The fact is, pitchers have to learn to stop “Messin’ with the Kid. Here’s a direct appeal to MLB pitchers from Junior Wells and Buddy Guy, so listen up.
Meanwhile, up in New York, the Yankees have added both age and depth to their first-place team by trading for Seattle’s most famous icon (and, no, I don’t mean Starbucks.)
Ichiro Suzuki has been a fixture in the Mariners outfield since he burst on the Major League scene in 2001.
But after 11 1/2 years in Seattle the former MVP has finally been granted his wish to play for a team that could well find itself in the World Series this year.
Ichiro has accumulated over 2,500 hits in his MLB career along with a career batting average of .322. The ten time All-Star and future Hall of Famer has won 10 Gold Gloves, three Silver Sluggers, and has led the A.L. in hits seven times. He has been a one-of-a-kind player in his generation.
Yet Ichiro is also 38-years old, and clearly isn’t the player he once was. His OPS+ of 82 this season is unimpressive, while his batting average is just .261. Though it’s true he still has some value, it is clear he is no longer able to do “The Things That {he} Used To Do.”
I’ll let the immortal Stevie Ray Vaughan spell it out for you.
I wasn’t sure he could do it again.
I’m talking about the Tigers Uber-Ace, 29-year old Justin Verlander. Last year, he won both the Cy Young award and the MVP award. It was perhaps asking too much for a repeat performance, yet Verlander is not far off last year’s pace.
Granted, Verlander won’t finish this season with a 24-5 record, as he did in 2011. His record currently stands at 11-7, but he has pitched better than that. Verlander leads the A.L. in innings pitched, complete games, and fewest hits surrendered per nine innings. His ERA is just .23 higher than last year. He is second in his league in strikeouts, starts and WHIP, while also leading the league in WAR for pitchers.
Verlander is a polished pitcher with a solid arsenal, but his bread and butter pitch is an old-fashioned 100 mile per hour fastball. His is the ultimate power arm. His nickname should be the “Smoking Gun,” ’cause that’s what he brings to the table.
So let’s dedicate this next song, “Smoking Gun,” performed by the smooth as silk Robert Cray, in honor of Verlander’s awesome right arm.
When we were kids, our best pitcher would always pitch the most games. Sounds logical, right? In the Majors, of course, things are much different. Sure, it’s true that a relief pitcher will probably appear in more games than a typical starting pitcher. That’s the nature of the job. But, apparently, it doesn’t necessarily follow that even your best relief pitcher will lead the staff in appearances.
That honor is often enjoyed by the specialist of all specialists, the situational lefty.
He doesn’t have to be particularly good, mind you, just left-handed.
Situational lefties are the summer school teachers of the bullpen. They’re willing to do the job, and there just ain’t that many others to choose from with their particular mix of modest self-esteem and masochism.
Which explains (though it doesn’t excuse) why lefty Tim Byrdak of the Mets leads the entire Major Leagues in appearances (as of August 1st.)
In 55 appearances, Byrdak has managed to accumulate a paltry 30.1 (not entirely effective) innings pitched. His ERA on the season is 4.45. Apparently, his “situations” have been a bit more challenging for Byrdak than he would like.
But once a Major League manager gets an idea in his head, or develops an irrational affinity for a particular player, there’s just no turning back. So manager Terry Collins runs the 38-year old Byrdak out there about two out of every three games (actually, Byrdak has recently missed a couple of games with a sore knee) and hopes for the best.
Good baseball strategy? Who cares. It’s what’s de rigueur these days in Baseball Land. Obviously, it’s simply impossible to love mediocrity too much. Does it backfire sometimes? Sure, love is like that.
So here’s an ode to loving someone or something too much by the late, great, blind Canadian blues artist, Jeff Healey.
Someday, I’d like to meet an actual Padres fan.
The San Diego Padres were one of baseball’s expansion teams in 1969. Forty-three years after their founding, not only have they not won a World Championship, but they’ve won only one World Series game. (Andy Hawkins beat the Tigers’ Dan Petry, October 10, 1984, 5-3.)
They’ve also never reached the 100-win plateau in any season, topping out at 98 wins in 1998. In fact, they’ve topped 90 wins in a season just four times since the first man walked on the moon.
During their existence, they have lost 520 more games than they’ve won.
Their only league MVP winner, Ken Caminiti in 1996, turned out to be a steroids user, was arrested in a Houston hotel room for possession of crack cocaine, and died prematurely at age 41.
If that’s not enough to give a baseball fan the blues, I don’t know what is.
Sure, other MLB teams have suffered long droughts of futility, but, other than Tony Gwynn, can you give me one reason the Padres haven’t been baseball’s most superfluous team?
The question is, “How Many More Years” will the Padres offer so little in the way of hope and success to their (presumably loyal) fans?
Perhaps it’s time for a little Howlin’ Wolf as an antidote to this historically uncompelling franchise.
With that, my friends, we come to the end of this edition of a “Soundtrack for Baseball.” I hope you enjoyed it. We may do it again in another month.
What is the most exciting play in baseball? Is it the walk-off home run in the bottom of the ninth? How about a bases-loaded triple? For that matter, how about a triple play?
Certainly, one of baseball’s most exciting plays is stealing home plate.
Now, although there are different “kinds” of steals — straight steals, double steals, busted suicide squeeze plays — for the sake of brevity, this article will not differentiate between the various types.
When Washington outfielder Bryce Harper stole home off of Philadelphia lefty Cole Hamels a couple of months ago, it was noteworthy not only because Hamels had plunked Harper in the back to apparently send him some sort of message (guess THAT didn’t work), but also because the straight-steal of home (as opposed to being on the front end of a double-steal), is such a rarity these days, (notwithstanding the fact that the Padres Everth Cabrera stole home just two days ago against the Dodgers.)
There was a time, however, when stealing home was an important tactical weapon in the arsenal of most baseball teams. Certainly, it requires the guts of a cat burglar and the stealth of a ninja. Or, at the very least, a pitcher half-asleep on the mound.
Jackie Robinson often comes to mind when I think of a player stealing home. Perhaps his most famous steal of home occurred in the 1955 World Series against the Yankees in Game One. Yankee catcher Yogi Berra went ballistic when Robinson was ruled safe at home by the home plate umpire. Berra maintains to this day that Robinson really was out.
This was also the only World Series the Dodgers ever won in Brooklyn, and it was Robinson’s only steal of home in a World Series.
Recalling this exciting event led me to ask an obvious question, “How many times did Jackie Robinson steal home in his career?
Of course, stealing home was going on in baseball long before Jackie Robinson came along. The first unrecorded steal of home must have taken place in the 19th century. We do know that Honus Wagner stole home twice on June 20, 1901.
Interestingly, the Dodgers own Pete Reiser set the modern N.L. single-season record for steals of home plate with an amazing seven in 1946, the year before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier. (Ty Cobb holds the single-season record with eight steals of home in 1912.)
Jackie Robinson, it turns out, stole home a whopping 19 times in his career, against approximately 12 times caught stealing. Before 1950, “caught stealing” as a statistical category was not consistently recorded, so we can’t be sure exactly how many times Robinson was caught stealing home. For four of Robinson’s ten seasons, therefore, we have incomplete data from which to draw accurate conclusions regarding his overall success rate.
Shane Tourtellotte of the Hardball Times, in an interesting and provocative article published on March 2nd of this year, posits the interesting hypotheses that Robinson’s 19 successful steals of home (20, if you count the one in the ’55 Series), were worth more in run-producing, game-winning value than all of his other steals combined.
So, did Jackie Robinson steal home more than any other player in history over the course of his career? Not by a long shot. As far as we know, 38 players have stolen home base at least ten times in their careers. Here’s a list of the top 20: (Statistics courtesy of Baseball-Almanace.com)
1) Ty Cobb – 54
2) Max Carey – 33
3) George Burns – 28
4) Honus Wagner – 27
5) Sherry Magee – 23
5) Frank Schulte – 23
7) Johnny Evers – 21
8) George Sisler – 20
9) Frankie Frisch – 19
9) Jackie Robinson – 19
11) Jim Shekard – 18
11) Tris Speaker – 18
11) Joe Tinker – 18
14) Rod Carew – 17
14) Eddie Collins – 17
14) Larry Doyle – 17
17) Tommy Leach – 16
18) Ben Chapman – 15
18) Fred Clarke – 15
18) Lou Gehrig – 15
I was surprised that, although Robinson’s 19 steals of home are impressive, they are not nearly the greatest total of all time. Ty Cobb’s record of 54 career steals of home is a record that I can’t imagine ever being broken. The most recently active player with at least ten career steals of home plate is Paul Molitor, who retired 14-years ago at age 41.
The biggest surprise to me on the list I posted above is Lou Gehrig. Who knew Gehrig stole home just four fewer times in his career than Jackie Robinson? In truth, if Gehrig had one flaw as a baseball player, it was as a base stealer. In his career, Gehrig stole 102 bases, but was also thrown out 100 times.
Among baseball statisticians, anything less than a 70% success rate means you should have stayed put. A 50% success rate indicates an actual loss of overall run production, due to the opportunities squandered where a base runner who had stayed put might have been driven home by his teammates. (See Tourtellotte’s article for more on this as well.)
Anyway, if you have Babe Ruth and Tony Lazzeri around you in the lineup, is there really any reason to try to steal home?
Speaking of Babe Ruth, it may also come as a surprise to you that The Bambino actually stole home ten times in his career, most, presumably, on the front end of double-steals.
Strategies and game conditions have, of course, changed a great deal over the past hundred years. For many reasons too numerous to discuss in this post, the steal of home hasn’t been a significant part of the National Pastime for decades.
Nevertheless, when it does occur, it brings us back to a time when daring base runners challenged pitchers to a duel unlike any other in sports: I can run faster than you can throw. It is a challenge that links us to baseball’s historic past, even as the game continues to evolve on into the future.
Although Joe DiMaggio would still have been a Hall of Fame caliber player without the legendary 56-game hitting streak he enjoyed in the summer of 1941, in the few short months before the U.S. was drawn into the Second World War, much of the myth and romance that surrounds his illustrious career would have vanished.
Joe DiMaggio of the New York Yankees, cropped from a posed picture of 1937 Major League Baseball All-Stars in Washington, DC. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Statisticians, mathematicians and computer programmers have concluded that the odds of a player of DiMaggio’s capabilities actually producing a 56-game hit streak are something in the order of 1 in 10,000 seasons. It is baseball’s equivalent of witnessing someone coming up with heads in coin toss a hundred consecutive times.
Therefore, we shouldn’t be surprised, of course, that no one since Pete Rose in 1978 (34-years ago now), has come within a dozen games of matching DiMaggio’s record. And Rose was the first player in 37 years to come that close.
During those 56 games, DiMaggio had 91 hits in 223 at bats, a .408 batting average. He had four 4 hit games. Fifteen of his hits during The Streak were home runs. He slugged .717, considerably higher than his (still impressive) .579 career slugging percentage.
Interestingly, The Streak might have ended in game 30, when a bad hop grounder off DiMaggio’s bat hit White Sox shortstop Luke Appling in the shoulder, but the official scorer ruled it a hit instead of an error.
Also, in the fifth inning of game 16 of The Streak, Boston outfielder Pete Fox lost a DiMaggio fly ball in the sun. Joe D. was credited with a hit.
As you can see, even during a hot streak, it certainly helps to be a little bit lucky.
English: New York Yankees slugger during the at . * Screen capture from the film located at: http://www.archive.org/details/NewsMaga1950 This movie is part of the collection: Prelinger Archives (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Impressively, in the next game after his hit streak ended, DiMaggio then began a 16-game hitting streak, meaning he had at least one hit in 72 0f 73 games played beginning on May 15th of that year.
That led me to ask the following question, “What was the length of Joe DiMaggio’s second-longest hitting streak in his career?”
It turns out that although he did surpass the relatively small 16 game hit streak in ’41, Joe DiMaggio never again managed to hit safely in even 30 consecutive games in his career.
DiMaggio’s next best hit streaks were each relatively modest. He hit in 23 games in 1940, and 22 in 1937.
Sources seem to disagree whether or not the notorious Yankee first baseman, Hal Chase, reached a high of 27 games or 33 games, (or was it 22 games?) in 1907 when the Yankees were called the Highlanders. If he did in fact reach 33 games, he is the only other New York A.L. player to top 30 consecutive games.
Otherwise, Roger Peckinpaugh (1919), Earle Combs (1931) and Joe Gordon (1942) came the closest, each Yankee cresting at 29 games. Babe Ruth’s longest hitting streak, by the way, was 26 games in 1921.
Interestingly, Joe’s brother Dom DiMaggio of the Red Sox twice led the A.L. with the longest hitting streak, 34 games in 1949 and 27 games in 1951.
By my count, there are still ten Major League teams that have never had a player produce a 30-game hitting streak.
It is nearly impossible to imagine anyone breaking Joe DiMaggio’s record. For example, relief pitching specialists, a role that did not exist in DiMaggio’s day, add an extra layer of difficulty for the modern hitter.
Also, teams use video and modern hit charts to track every batter’s “hot” and “cold” zones around the plate. Then there is also the likelihood that no pitcher would throw any pitch remotely close to the strike zone if a hitter came within a game or two of Joe D.’s record.
Finally, there is the sheer mental exhaustion that would probably overwhelm a hitter today who made a serious run at this record. He would be subjected to constant media scrutiny, the distraction of frenzied fans and, of course, the pressure he would put on himself.
Certainly, Joe DiMaggio faced a lot of pressure back in 1941 during his hit streak, but media attention has increased exponentially in the years since, as have advances in defensive strategies and available technologies.
Therefore, Joe DiMaggio’s 56-game hitting streak is certainly one of the safest records in all of sports. Yet there is no doubt that, statistically speaking, someone will once again come along, as Pete Rose did in ’78, and make a valiant attempt to come as close as possible to matching the glory that Joe D. enjoyed in that last great summer before the war.
Which of the three Triple-Crown categories is least impressive?
Home Runs will always be impressive, both for sheer crowd-pleasing spectacle and as an always relevant and useful statistic. The Dead Ball era has been dead for nearly a hundred years now, and it ain’t coming back.
Batting Average has lost some of its luster over the years as on-base percentage has increasingly gained traction as a measure of a hitter’s ability to avoid outs. But when a player like Tony Gwynn or Wade Boggs wins numerous batting titles, we understand that we are watching special players.
I submit, therefore, that Runs Batted In is the least impressive of the three Triple-Crown categories. I’m certainly not the first person to make this statement, and I’m sure I won’t be the last. But I would like to use the career of a specific Hall of Fame player to illustrate my point. That player, of course, as you can see from the title of this post, is Mickey Mantle.
English: New York Yankees centerfielder and Hall of Famer . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Now, as you very likely already know, Mickey Mantle was a fabulous run producer. Among the statistics in which he led the A.L. during his 18-year career are the following: Offensive WAR: 10 times; Home Runs: 4 times; Runs Scored: 5 times; Runs Created: 7 times; Walks: 5 times; Adjusted OPS+: 8 times; and Total Bases: 3 times.
The Mick also drove in 1,509 runs in his career, good for 51st place all-time as of this writing, but he ranked a more impressive 20th all-time upon his retirement.
We should be able to expect, then, that he drove in over a hundred runs several times over the course of his career. After all, he hit in the middle of Yankee lineups thick with offensive punch, teams that were wildly successful primarily due to their ability to generate more runs than most other teams in their league.
Yet a check of Mantle’s career stats reveals that, surprisingly, he topped 100 RBI in a season just four times in his career. By way of contrast, his center field rivals in New York City at the time, Willie Mays and Duke Snider, enjoyed ten and six 100 RBI seasons, respectively.
This raises the following question: How many times did Mickey Mantle lead his league in Runs Batted In?
If you are aware that Mantle won the 1956 Triple Crown, then you are by definition aware that he led the league in RBI at least once. Well, you may be surprised to learn that 1956 was the only year in his career that he actually did lead the A.L. in RBI.
Español: foto de Mantle NY Yankees (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
There is a very logical reason why Mantle enjoyed so few 100 RBI seasons.
To drive in lots of runs, one needs, of course, lots of runners on base to drive in. As it turns out, the Yankees from around 1957 through at least 1964, had a series of low to mediocre on-base percentage players hitting ahead of Mantle in the lead-off and #2 slots in their lineups.
Here are the primary culprits:
1) Bobby Richardson, career on-base percentage: .299. (played steadily from ’57-’66)
2) Tony Kubek, career on-base percentage: .303 (played from ’57-’65.)
3) Gil McDougald, career on-base percentage: .356 (played from ’51-’60.)
4) Hector Lopez, career on-base percentage: .330 (played w/ Yanks from ’59-’66.)
5) Clete Boyer, career on-base percentage: .299 (played w / Yanks from ’59-’66.)
6) Phil Linz, career on-base percentage: .295 (played w / Yanks from ’62-’65.)
Folks, as you can see, with the exception of Gil McDougald, that’s one lowly bunch of on-base percentages. But taking a closer look at Gil McDougald, after 1957 his on-base percentages during his final three seasons were .329 / .309 / .337. Those numbers mesh well with the rest of his teammates listed above.
This serves to illustrate my original point that RBI totals are often misleading because a player can’t drive in teammates who are unable to consistently get on base.
The RBI stat survives today, however, as one of baseball’s “masculine” stats. The so-called run producers are, by definition, supposed to have gaudy RBI totals by season’s end to justify their enormous paychecks. Runs Batted In will probably remain popular as stats go, but it should be kept in proper perspective.
After all, if Mickey Mantle couldn’t find a way to annually lead the league in this stat, how much credence should we put into it in the first place?
Now here’s a final aside that might really surprise you.
Although Mays, Mantle and Snider combined for twenty, 100+ RBI seasons in their careers, these three Hall of Famers produced JUST TWO RBI titles between them, Snider in ’55 and Mantle in ’56. Willie Mays never led the league in RBI.
This is the fourth installment of my series, “Baseball’s Surprising Stats.”
What is the most famous number in baseball, if not all of sports?
The “M&M Boys,” Mickey Mantle (right) and Roger Maris in the historic 1961 season. Photo from a 1961 issue of Baseball Digest. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
A strong case can be made that 61, the number of home runs Roger Maris hit during the 1961 season when he broke Babe Ruth’s record of 60 set in 1927, would be chosen by many.
It is doubtful that there are many baseball fans who aren’t aware of Roger Maris’ pre-McGwire / Sosa / Bonds record. (Incidentally, it is often overlooked that Maris’ 61 home runs remains the record for A.L. hitters.)
I have my doubts, though, that very many fans, except Maris’ most adamant Hall of Fame supporters, know exactly how many home runs Maris hit during the totality of his 12-year Major League career, not to mention how many home runs he hit over his seven-year tenure in Yankee pinstripes.
This led me to the primary question I chose to research for this post, “How many home runs did Roger Maris hit during his career?” I also decided to add an obvious follow-up, “How many home runs did Maris hit as a member of the New York Yankees?”
To begin with, Maris was just 26-years old when he hit his legendary 61 home runs. Though mentally and physically drained by the ordeal, it wouldn’t have been out of the question that going into his age 27-season, if reasonably healthy, he could have expected to have approached perhaps 50 home runs, (at the very least, 40 home runs), in his follow-up season.
Outfielder Roger Maris during his time with the Cleveland Indians in a 1957 issue of Baseball Digest. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
After all, Ruth was already 32-years old when he slugged 60 homers in ’27, and he followed up that performance by swatting another 54 in 1928.
Maris, however, never reached as many as 40 homers either before or after the ’61 season. In fact, the 39 home runs that Maris hit in 1960, his first of two consecutive MVP seasons, was the second most home runs he ever hit in one year.
Therefore, his 1962 season, during which he hit 33 home runs, must assuredly have been viewed as a major disappointment by Yankee fans, as well as by Maris himself.
Still, during the three-year period from 1960-62, Maris slugged an impressive 133 home runs. By contrast, his teammate Mickey Mantle never hit more than 128 over a three-year period, (1956-58.)
But those 133 home runs represent fully 48% of all the homers Maris hit in his career. Thus, nearly half of his total career value was compiled during just about one-quarter of his actual career. In fact, as measured by WAR as well, Maris accumulated 17.4 WAR over that three-year stretch, exactly 48% of his 36.2 career WAR.
The answer, then, to my original question, “How many home runs did Roger Maris hit during his career?” is that Maris hit 275 career home runs, good for 165th all-time, tied with Dean Palmer, Brian Downing, and a recently retired Yankee, Jorge Posada.
As for Maris’ tenure with the Yankees, he hit 203 of his career home runs as a member of the Bronx Bombers. That total currently ranks 14th on the all-time Yankees home run list, two behind Dave Winfield, and one ahead of Bill Dickey.
Maris’ relatively brief 12-year career was largely defined by one memorable season. But, Hall of Fame discussions aside, Maris’ legacy will probably outlast those of the vast majority of players in the Hall of Fame, regardless of where he ranks on any particular list of statistics.
Baseball, Wages, and the American Middle Class
As you can clearly see from this graph, the middle class has been trending in the wrong direction, regarding its share of national income, for over 40 years now. If you are at least over 45 or 50 years old, you may recall a time when a one income household (usually headed by a male breadwinner) could adequately, even comfortably, provide for itself. My father, for example, was a factory worker his entire life in Bridgeport, CT. With a sixth-grade education, and a lot of hard work, he was able to support my mom, my younger brother and I until I moved out of the house in the 1980′s and began to support myself. By that time, (a bit earlier, actually) my mom had gone back to work as well.
My dad worked in a union shop and received a fair wage for hard work, as had his parents’ generation before him. I, too, worked for a couple of years in a union shop. The Teamster’s Union negotiated wages and contracts for us at UPS in Stratford, CT in the early 1980′s. When I started working there (loading and unloading trucks) I was earning about $10.00 per hour. Even in Connecticut, that was a pretty nice wage for a kid just out of high school. Within about a year, I was earning around $12.00 per hour, shared an apartment with a friend of mine, bought a car, and was able to save a little money.
It should be noted that UPS was enjoying prosperity in those days as well, despite the presence of labor unions in its midst.
In the late fall of 2011, a month or so before Christmas, I thought about making a little extra money down here in Greenville, S.C. where I now live. My wife is the primary breadwinner in our family, but I like to work, so I thought, just for the hell of it, I would check out what UPS here in the greater Greenville area was paying its employees for the same job I used to do around thirty years ago. It turned out their starting wage, in a non-union facility, was around $8.00 per hour. Now, adjusting for thirty years of inflation, I can’t even imagine what this “modern” wage would have equated to thirty years ago.
Now let’s turn to Major League baseball for a few minutes to see how the ball players, represented by the Major League Baseball Player’s Association, have fared over approximately that same time period.
As you can see, the players, represented by a very strong union, have become wealthier than they probably ever could have dreamed of just forty years ago. Alex Rodriguez of the New York Yankees will earn $28 million dollars this season. Derek Jeter’s net worth is around 125 million dollars. Now, obviously supply and demand is an important factor here. As long as baseball remains popular, the money will be there to pay this select group of highly talented athletes.
But it’s equally important to remember that baseball has been a capitalist enterprise for well over a century now, yet ball players have not always grown rich, and least not this rich. The minimum salary for a player (his contract negotiated by his union) is now over $400,000 dollars, around ten times the average salary of a non-union teacher here in South Carolina. I am not making an argument over the relative fairness of what a teacher makes vs. what an athlete makes. Great teachers are rare, but so are great athletes. Still, children understand and respond to incentives just like the rest of us. What choices are we encouraging our children to make based on the incentives available to them now and in the future?
The primary arguments I’ve heard from people (some of whom haven’t earned a middle class wage for years) against unions is that either A) Unions are corrupt, B) Union workers are greedy, or C) We can’t afford them.
Let’s take each of these three arguments as they relate to baseball.
A) Unions are Corrupt: There’s no question that the Player’s Union hindered the development and implementation of any rules regarding testing for steroids. One reason for this was that they believed protecting a player’s privacy was an important consideration. How could they be sure this wouldn’t turn out to be a witch-hunt? In that regard, they turned out to be right. The so-called confidential list of players who tested positive was partially leaked to the press, then on to the public. From that point on, all players have been branded guilty until “proven” innocent. Many of the Hall of Fame voters themselves seem to be waiting for “more information” regarding players they suspect might have used PED’s. Perhaps more names from another “confidential” list will someday illegally be made public. Then, with illegally obtained information at hand, they can penalize still more “dirty” players.
Sure, there are other kinds of corruption. These kinds also exist in non-union corporations, and among many of the Congressmen on Capital Hill, some of whom feel the need to remind us of the corruption of unions for political purposes while finding loopholes around and through the rules in an effort to enrich themselves at public expense.
B) Union Workers Are Greedy: Like us, baseball players seek to maximize economic gain within the realm of their chosen occupation, appropriate to their level of talent and experience. My friends in the private sector routinely do this as well. This is called (for better or worse) pursuing the American Dream. A couple of my friends are now quite wealthy. More power to them. This is not a zero-sum game where their prosperity comes at the price of someone else’s poverty (well, not directly, anyway.)
Public sector employees are also often accused of being greedy, despite the fact that they often earn less money than their private sector counterparts who have similar levels of education and job experience. My first year as a teacher, in a small town in rural Maine, I earned $20,900. That was in the mid-1990′s, not all that long ago. In my final year as a teacher, after a dozen years of experience and 36 Master’s Level college credits, I was earning $49,000. A friend of mine who graduated college the same year I did, who now works in the private sector, earns about twice as much as I did then.
We are all greedy. But for public sector unionized employees, as for MLB players, this is not a zero-sum game. The money a teacher, fireman or policeman makes is part of the tax base that pays for their own salaries, as well as the benefits received by others. Moreover, their disposable income is just as vitally a part of the consumer spending that promotes and supports local business as the dollars spent by private sector employees. Therefore, any attempt to “control” the costs of public employees by destroying their unions may have, at the local level, the unintended side effect of hurting overall consumer spending, which benefits no one.
C) We can’t afford them. This argument, that unions will destroy the economy, was an argument that MLB franchise owners made over and over again in the years leading up to the creation of the Baseball Player’s Association, and especially during the dawn of free agency. Exploding baseball player salaries will kill the game. Tickets will no longer be affordable, and player greed will kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Also, team owners will be put out of business because they won’t be able to afford these new, extravagant salaries.
None of these things came to pass. When George Steinbrenner purchased the Yankees in 1973, he paid just under ten million dollars for the franchise. Estimates are that the Yankees franchise is now worth around three billion dollars. Certainly, not every franchise can boast that same level of economic success, but in the rare occasion when an MLB franchise does go on the market, it rarely lacks a plethora of interested millionaires seeking to purchase it. Moreover, the eight best years of attendance in baseball history have each occurred in the past eight years. Clearly, if you build it, they will come, no matter how much the employees are getting paid.
Map usa unions (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Similarly, beyond the world of baseball, the argument has been made that we can no longer afford unions. Yet many corporations that argue against unionized employees are among the richest companies on earth. Keeping their employees unnecessarily poor may allow them to please their shareholders, but the end result is a two-tiered economy that undermines real economic opportunity, upward mobility, and democracy itself. Even Henry Ford, who was anti-semitic and an early admirer of European fascism, declared that it was right to pay his assembly line workers a fair, living wage if for no other reason than that they should afford to buy the cars they were manufacturing.
It should also be noted that in the richest states like Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York, public-sector employee unions have been strong for decades. The strength of those unions did not prevent those states from becoming and remaining wealthy. Conversely, many so-called “right to work” anti-union states, especially in the south, have long been among the poorest in the nation. The lack of unions has not, nor will it ever, lift these states out of their second or third-rate economic performances. Yet, counter-intuitively, most of the residents in these same, relatively poor states, harbor negative opinions of unions.
The anti-union propaganda machine has long been effective in keeping people poor and ignorant. Thirty or forty years of union decline in this country has not made the nation richer, it has made the middle class poorer. One only has to look at the recent history of Major League baseball to see the obvious solution to this state of affairs isn’t to continue to undermine, even outlaw, the few remaining unions we have left. True, fortunes can be made in the private sector outside of unions. But trends are trends, and in the long run, if current trends continue, there may not be a middle class in the future to enjoy Major League baseball. It will be a game of the few, by the few, for the few.
If that day comes, baseball and America will both be greatly diminished.
Related articles