What You Didn't Know

....about performance enhancing drugs in baseball. 

Be warned.  This is long and all over the place.......

Now, I don't "know stuff" (if you can call it that) because I know people....I know stuff because I read until my eyes bleed.  And, it  amazes me how naive we can be.  Actually, how naive I have been!

For years there was complete denial by the average fan that there were steroids in baseball.  Steroids don't help you hit a baseball, they help you run fast and lift weights.  They are useless in baseball.  We talked about watered down pitching, a juiced ball, different bat manufactures, temperature changes and altitude to justify escalating home run totals. 

The increase in home runs was dramatic.  The average team hit 119.88 home runs per season during the 1970's.  In the 80's it went to 126.7 per season.  The 90's saw an increase to 147.83 per year.  Finally in the 00's each team average 173.83 home runs per year.  A whopping 47 home runs a season better than the 1970's.  Let's talk about what that really looks like.  George Bell won the MVP in 1987 with 47 home runs.  That's like adding George Bell's bat to your roster every year for 10 years.  That is nuts!

How naive we were and continued to be.  The backlash against the reporter for 'detecting' the Androstenedione in Mark McGwire's locker was ridiculous.  First the was the word what it wasn't a steroid, it was merely a "pre-cursor".  The writer, Steve Wilstein was ridiculed for snooping and prying.  Forgotten in the melee was McGwire saying that a) he had used it for more than a year and b) that everyone he knew in baseball used it.  I'd encourage reading Wilsteins' article. 

We believed what we wanted to believe.  We were helped along in those beliefs by the people who SHOULD have known.  By people that we mistakenly trusted.  Jason Giambi, "Steroids don't help you hit a baseball".  Mark McGwire, "Everybody I know in the game of baseball uses the same stuff I use." Dusty Baker, "It's like McCarthyism or something." Tony LaRussa, "We detailed Mark's workout routine -- six days a week, 12 months a year -- and you could see his size and weight gain come through really hard work, a disciplined regimen". 

The naivety continued.  The world of baseball hitters began to unravel, and people, who a week before didn't believe steroids were a problem; became experts on what to look for and how to tell if someone way using simply by looking at them.  Yes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing as people pontificated about how 'roids can "obviously" make a hitter better, but did nothing for pitchers.  CLEARLY!

Then the pitchers began to fall.  Montero, Rincon, Betancourt, Franklin, Almanzar, Heredia, Grimsley, Mota, Salas, J.C. Romero, Volquez....then it stopped being mostly Latin pitchers "looking for an edge" and the big ones came out;  Ankiel, Pettitte and then Clemens.  So then the experts that dismissed the benefits for pitchers became experts there too.  Obviously pitchers use!

The problems of steroids had been known in football for years and has been addressed to at least some level of satisfaction.  Baseball chose not to for a long time.  This isn't unusal for baseball.  "Slow to change" is an understatement.  Its well documented that Jackie Robinson 'broke the colour barrier' in 1947.  A task that had been acheived in the NFL in 1920.  Blacks had been playing professional basketball since 1903 in leagues that predated the formation of the NBA.  Don't be lulled into the thinking that Jackie Robinson suddenly changed the world.  He changed the world (of baseball) alright, but not suddenly.  The Boston Red Sox were the last team to allow a black man on the field and that took another 12 years unitl 1959.  FOOTNOTE:  The Red Sox worked out Robinson in Fenway Park in 1945 but opted not to offer a contract.  This was primarily due to threats from a city councilor who promised to reinstate a Sunday alochol ban at Fenway if they picked him up.     

Steroids and HGH may be a bigger problem in basketball and hockey than in either football or baseball; but you will never find out.  A lack of evidence is not to be confused with a non-guilty verdict.  The naivety is here too.  Now that it's history and accepted people can point to bats being snapped like tooth pics over peoples knees and balls being thrown at fans as obvious indicators of steroids. 

But attacking someone from behind and mashing their head into the ice, or going into the stands from the penalty box or screaming at the official with every infraction isn't even more obvious?  Of course it isn't.  The lemmings aren't on that bus yet.  People WANT to believe the 'kid from the hood' story or the 'good old Kingston boy' story.  And can't see what is so obviously sitting in front of them.  I look at this a lot like the  argument about security on a MAC.  People will go on forever about how the MAC is virus proof and that all the problems with viruses are on PCs.  That is partially true.  However, less that 5% of population have MACs.  Hackers / virus creators aren't intimidated by MACs, they just don't care.  Its the same with Hockey and basketball.  Both sorta register to the north American market, but compared to Football and Baseball, they're barely a blip.  There will be meaningful steroid and HGH testing in Mixed Beach Volleyball before there is in hockey or basketball. No one cares enough. 

So while we fool ourselves about our various sports, what is over looked is that this isn't the first dramatic rise in home runs and performance in baseball.  The increase in home runs from the 70's to the 00's was 46%.  From the 1940's to the 1960's the increase was 63%.

Every sport has their player that changes everything.  Baseball had Ruth.  Hockey Gretzky.  Basketball Chamberlain.  Football Jim Brown.  But this home run increase didn't involve Ruth.  During Ruth's heyday, the 1920's, the average team hit 61 home runs a season.  During that same 10 year period Ruth hit 60 once, 50+ three times and 40+ another four times.  Anyway, why such a dramatic increase in home runs after Ruth was out of the game?

We can't discount the Ruth affect.  It did change the game.  The home run did become a much bigger part of the game plan and players actually tried for them more in the past.  That's fair.  But I think people have tried for 200 point seasons since Gretzky, yet I havent' seen any for a while.

Let's look at what Bud Selig says.  If you're at all interested in what follows, I strongly recommend reading the following article by Jake Emen.  According to Selig, who IS THE COMMISSIONER, "We have the toughest testing program in American sports. We banned amphetamines, which were a problem in our sport for seven or eight decades."  Everybody get that?

So....I get out my trusty calendar.  Selig made this statement in 2007....1997(1), 1987(2), 1977(3), 1967(4), 1957(5), 1947(6), 1937(7).  Lets give Bud the benefit of the doubt and take the short end of his prediction.  This poses a couple of interesting questions; namely: 

1)   Are amphetamines REALLY a performance enhancer?
2)   Is he right?  Can it be proven?

The first one has a lot of contradictory information contained within it.  Amphetamines, for starters, are speed.  They are an upper that immediately impact the central nervous system.  To make this short and remove a lot of the medical jargon, they have a similar effect to both cocaine and adrenaline, but last significantly longer.  Current research has shown that 10-30 mg dosages of methamphetamine can increase reaction times and cognitive function.

To me it sounds like a performance enhancer.

But that's me. 

There is a contingent, a non-medical contingent I should say, that feel that amphetamines are NOT performance enhancers at all.  That they merely allow an athlete to play up to their potential consistently and not necessarily to exceed it.  I think its a fair discussion, however I do come down clearly on the other side of this.  And considering that there are medical studies proving increased performance, its tough to argue anything else. 

The second part:  is Selig right in that there is / was a multi-decade problem and secondly, can that be proven?

To answer that, let me take you back to 2003.  Actually 2002.  The Players association and MLB agreed to initiate steroid testing for the 2003 season in August of 2002.  There were rules around this.  a) all tests were to remain anonymous.  b)  no player would be punished for positive results.  c)  if more than 5% were found to test positive, then testing with punishments would start the following year.

14.4% of players in major league baseball tested positive.  Now, lets start with the premise that you'd have to be an idiot to be caught.  Maybe I'm being naive again, but I would think that if you told 720 kids that you were going to do a blood test to see if they had cookies in their blood stream and that you'd continue to test them and spank them if more than 36 of them were caught; you'd end up with few if any being caught.  And the ones that you did catch would be arrogant or stupid.

Is it possible that a disproportionate number of ball players are arrogant or stupid?  Yep.  But I also think that the overwhelming majority are afraid of public opinion and are reasonably intelligent.  In other words, I believe that the overwhelming majority of users did not get caught.

Instead of making assumptions of how many users of steroids that I think there have been, I think that we can be reasonably safe in using the numbers floated by a couple of steroid experts. 

Ken Caminiti:  "50% of players are using steroids"
Jose Canseco:  "80% of players have used steroids"

There were 720 players in major league baseball in 2004.  104 were caught red handed with steroids.  Not pre-cursors, not HGH, not stimulants.  Steroids.  Caminiti thinks they caught just 104 of approximately 360 users and Canseco puts it at 104 of 576.  Personally, I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.  So for argument sake, lets put it more than half. 

What is the likelihood that any of the people tested in 2004 had used it for the first time on the day before they were tested?  We know that lots of people were using in the 90's and 80's.  We KNOW for a fact, because he's admitted it, that Canseco was using in his MVP year in 1986.  Does anyone believe he was the first?  Jose seems like a fairly charming guy, buy not terribly shrewd.  He had to learn from someone.  He was drafted as and 18 years old, didn't go to college and was in the majors at 21.  I don't think he had a lot of "doctor" friends. 

My point is, there weren't SUDDENLY 360+ steroid users in baseball.  It had to escalate.  Ground zero is near impossible to determine, although I have my own idea on that toward the end of this if you're still awake.  So, lets say, early to mid eighties through to mid 2000's as the ramp up for steroids...20 years.  20ish. 

Now back to Amphetamines.  Most people are aware of Jim Bouton's book "Ball Four" published in 1970 and recounted his days with the Yankees, Astros and Pilots.  Bouton gives detailed accounts of "greenies" (amphetamines) that are handed out from player to player on the team.  That was the 60's.  That was the New York Yankees.  "We’ve been running short of greenies.  We don’t get them from the trainer, because greenies are against club policy.  So we get them from players on other teams who have friends who are doctors, or friends who know where to get greenies.  One of our lads is going to have a bunch of greenies mailed to him by some of the guys on the Red Sox.  And to think you can spend five years in jail for giving your friend a marijuana cigarette."

I think its fair to assume that the mid sixties with amphetamines looked a lot like the mid 2000's with steroids.  The only people who weren't using them were the ones who made the personal decision not to.  It had nothing to do with availability or cost or even risk.  It was just personal.

So now, how long did it take amphetamines to ramp up like it took steroids to?  If you use the same (slightly fabricated) timeline of 20 years(ish), you'd be back at the mid 40's.  Which kind of make sense for a couple of reasons.  One reason is that it coinsides nicely with Bud's timeline and the second is that there amphetimines had an entry route into baseball at this time. 

Finding evidence and a timeline is really tough on this one.  The media hid a lot.  Sorry, but its true.  They were in the business of building heroes to sell newspapers; long before they realized that breaking down those same heroes sold even more fish wrap.  Remember, the national media didn't even let the public know that their president was an invalid in a wheel chair.  Times were different.  But....there is some purely circumstantial evidence that you can interpret how you like.

For the current affair, lets go back to another Caminiti claim that 90% of the league was using some form of stimulant.  He said, "You hear it all the time from teammates, 'You're not going to play naked, are you?' Even the guys who are against greenies may be popping 25 caffeine pills, and they're up there [at bat] with their hands shaking. This game is so whacked out that guys will take anything to get an edge. You got a pill that will make me feel better? Let me have it"

And that's backed up by Chad Curtis.  Does anyone remember Chad Curtis?  He played from '92 - '01 with the Angels, Tigers, Dodgers, Indians and Rangers.  But he's best remembered for a 3 year stint with the Yankees which saw 2 World Series wins.  I liked him a lot.  An above average outfielder with near blinding speed and was one of those guys who seemed to do more at the plate that others who were obviously more skilled.  He was kind of like John MacDonald, with more talent.  "You might have one team where eight guys play naked and another team where nobody does, but that sounds about right," (substantiating the 90% claim) "Sometimes guys don't even know what they're taking. One guy will take some pills out of his locker and tell somebody else, 'Here, take one of these. You'll feel better.' The other guy will take it and not even know what it is."

Yeah, there are issues.  But we know we have that today.  What about the 'ago'?

Again.  This stuff is tough to trace, but here's what we know.

1986 -  The Pittsburgh cocaine trials.  A number of Pirates players were arrested with cocaine.  Two players, Dave Parker and Dale Berra, testify under oath that Bill Matlock and Willie Stargell often gave out greenies in the clubhouse.

1979  -  Pete Rose admits to Playboy magazine that he's used greenies.

1972  -  OF/1B John Milner testifies in 1986 that Willie Mays kept "red juice" in his locker which was "real potent speed".

1970  -  Jim Bouton's (pitcher) book ball four is published.  Its speaks of rampant amphetamine use, particularly in the early 60's when he won 21 and 18 games for the Yankees.

1961  -  Mickey Mantle is felled by an injury at the end of the 1961, preventing him from finishing the chase to Ruth's record of 60 home runs.  It is widely rumoured that he developed an infection from an injection from a "quack doctor".  More on the quack doctor later.

1942 - Major League Baseball players return from World War II and bring with them amphetamines.  Both sides of the war issued amphetamines regularly to its soldiers.  The British documented issuing 72 million tablets for example.

++++

Amphetamines were first synthesized in 1887, but not marketed until 1932.  Here are a couple of pre-amphetamine examples.
++++
1926(?) - Babe Ruth falls "incredibly ill" after taking an injection of sheep testosterone as part of a "magic elixir" in an effort to increase performance.  This was supposedly provided via the research of scientist Charles Edouard Brown-Sequard.  If he tried sheep testosterone is it reasonable to think that he tried other things OR that other players did?

1889  -  Dr. Brown-Sequard mentioned above demonstrates the results of his elixir at a convention.  Within weeks the New Haven Register wrote, "The discovery of a true elixir of youth by which the aged can renew their bodily vigor would be a great thing for baseball nines."

Now, lets follow two of these threads.  First the magic elixir.

The industrial makers of the concoction tried to get John L. Sullivan, the heavy weight boxing champ of the day to be their spokesperson.  He respectfully declined.  So they turned to baseball, and specifically, Pud Galvin.  Galvin was coming to the end of what would be a hall of fame career, posting a record of 365-310 and 2.85 career ERA.  He's 5th all time in wins, 5th all time in walks per 9 innings, 2nd in innings pitched and 2nd in complete games.  Yes, the game was different, but he was the best of his day.

Pud was definitely on the down side of his career when he agreed to endorse the "magic elixir".  Galvin was injected at the Pittsburgh medical college.  Shortly thereafter his home town Pittsburgh Burghers beat the cross town rival Pittsburgh Allegheny's 9-0.  Galvin pitched a complete game shut out and collected two hits in the win.  The legend of doping to win was born on this day.

The second piece that merits follow up is Mickey Mantle's infection from an injection from a "quack doctor".

About that "quack".

Max Jacobson was a German born, Manhattan Doctor.  He was dubbed "Dr. Feelgood" by many.  Jacobson had many famous patients.  He was the doctor to the stars.  Included in his stable were Nelson Rockefeller, Cecil B. Demille, Tennessee Williams, Anthony Quinn, Truman Capote, Marlene Dietrich, Eddie Fisher...the list goes on.

But Jacobson's REAL treasure of a patient was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.  Yes, JFK and also Jackie.  Jacobson may have been a 'quack', but he was a 'quack' with a potent remedy for those that could pay.  Jacobson made more than 30 visits to the White House and travelled with Kennedy to Vienna for peace talks with Krushev AND injected Kennedy just prior to the famous debate with Nixon in 1960.  There are many references to this relationship and very real quotes with name, just use google.

JFK had long suffered sever back pain and had a staff of White House doctors with varied solutions.  These doctors agreed on very little with the exception of their uniform dismissal of Max Jacobson.  He was viewed somewhat has a charlatan.  Yes, his remedy worked, but there were significant side effects and those would show up soon enough.  As far as Kennedy was concerned,  he was otherwise untroubled by FDA reports on the contents of Jacobson’s injections, proclaiming "I don’t care if it’s horse piss. It works."

So what was this magical injection that Kennedy and others received regularly?  What he referred to as vitamin shots actually contained, vitamins, amphetamines and hormones. Oh, there's no doubt it works.  And you needed to keep going back for more. 

Now why is all this so important?  Does it matter that a world leader, singers and a bunch of actors were using amphetamines and hormones?  No, I don't care.  I do care that a ball player was though.  In case you hadn't figured it out yet, Mickey Mantle was also a patient. 

Say it ain't so. 

I'm rethinking Barry Bonds.  Rethinking McGwire.  Rethinking Canseco.  Clemens is still a jerk, but I'm rethinking that too. 
 

A.J. Morrow, Don't Believe the Hype

When you talk to people about the Blue Jays rotation, you hear things like:  Romero is a #1 starter, Morrow’s a top end guy, Drabek projects to be...blah, blah, blah...I tune out.

The Jays have had more than their fair share of 1 & 2 pitchers over the years.  Stieb, Hentgen, Clemens, Key, Morris, and Halladay are all unargueable sure front enders.  I’m prepared to entertain discussions about Rickey Romero eventually being on that list, but he’s not there now.  Its not just the wins and ERA, its the ‘battle’ in the guy.   Right now Rickey is in that next teir with guys like Wells, Clancy, Stewart, Marcum and Loaiza.  Good.  Sometimes real good.  But not a #1. 

So what is a #1 starter?  The wins are important.  The ERA matters somewhat.  The battle factor is key.  But there is a difference between a bona fide #1 starter and everyone else on the team.  The difference is this:  “Are you going to the Yankees game?”  OR  “Are you going to the Sabathia start?”.  They own the game.  There is something special about a Halladay start.  A Hershiser start.  A Gibson start.  A Maddux start.  It might not be fully tangible, but there is an aura to the game.     

Number 1’s at their worst are good.  At the best their dominant.  Yes, they can get blown out once or twice a year...but even in those games, they rarely leave with their tails between their legs.  Lets take Cy Young Award winner and MVP Justin Verlander for example.  On July 15^th against the White Sox he gave up four runs in the 3^rd inning.  If that was (for example), Jesse Litsch, you’d be thinking – “here we go....get him out before it gets any worse.”  Verlander threw 60+ pitches through 3 innings and trailed 4-0.  You wouldn’t be wrong to think that he wasn’t long for the game. 

But; he’s a legitimate #1.  In the 4^th inning the Sox go three up and three down.  In the 5^th, the Sox get an unearned run on a Richie Raburn error.  In the 6^th inning they get a single and nothing more.  Verlander leaves gracefully after 6.  He kept his team in it when he didn't have his 'good' stuff.  He went six innings, threw 110 pitches, struck out six.  He threw first pitch strikes to 21 out 28 batters faced. 

That was Verlander’s WORST start of the year.  That is a #1 

Now.  Brandon Morrow.  He is not a top end of the rotation guy unless your sights are set extremely low.  Like Maple Leaves goaltending low.  Morrow is the classic example of a guy who will end up overpaid for his contribution.  Think A.J. Burnett.  Great start, okay start, tragic start.  Repeat. 

They Yankees (thankfully) overpaid for him so the Jays former regime couldn’t keep him even though they really, really, really, really, really wanted to.  What the pinstrippers ALSO did was raise the average salary for mediocre pitchers.  The Yankees got what they paid for (in that it was a known quantity) and now they can’t unload him because no one would touch that contract.  Why?  a) You can’t trust him and b) you can get a guy to produce those results at 10% of the price. He could throw a no hitter or give up seven runs in the first inning in every single start.  There are no grooves, trends, or tendencies; with the exception of mastering unpredictability. 

I’ve used the Burnett example for 2 years to anyone who would listen and decided that I should finally do a little research to see if I was in the ball park.  Now bear in mind that A.J. is a 13 year vet with a 121-111 career record.  With the Yankees (3yrs) he’s a game over .500; that don’t fly in the Bronx.  Burnett’s best season ever was his last with Jays when he went 18-10.  Wow!  What are the odds of doing that in a contract year???.  Other than that one flash, he’s never been more than 4 games over .500 and never more than 5 games under .500. 

So a little perspective.  I don’t hate Burnett.  He is what he is.  Todd Stottlemyre (138-121), Kevin Tapani (143-125), Estoban Loaiza (126-114), Jamie Navarro (116-126), Pedro Astacio (129-124) and Scott Erikson (142-136) are his contemporaries.  All of those guys had a (singular) lights out season.  But when you look at their career as a whole, would you pay them to be a #1?  A #2?  A #3? 

Would you pay them 16.5 million in each of the next two years?  OUCH!

If you love A.J. Burnett this will be lost on you.  Mind you, if you love A.J. Burnett, you’re already lost.  The truth is that the Jays had to pay 2.3 million for Morrow’s 11-11 season last year.  That isn’t bad value.  Actually, its pretty good.  Its really good when you consider that its 14.2 million less than the Yanks paid Burnett to produce the identical record.  But at some point the Jays are going to have to make a financial decision or commitment to him.  He is arbitration eligible for the coming year and the year after.  If the Jays don’t sign him long term, he’ll be a free agent for the 2014 season.  If things continue to progress for the team as AA is projecting they will, 2014 will be the second year of the Jays playing meaningful baseball in September.  Do you want him for that?  If you do, at what price?

If salaries continue to escalate in baseball at the same rate (roughly 9%) then the 16.5 million that A.J. makes would look more like 20+ million in 2014.  So.  Do you still want AA’s job?

Now you know the decision that needs to be forth coming.  You know who A.J. Burnett is and who he legitimately compares to.  Now, why do I think that Morrow is nothing more than a mirror image of that overpaid and underperforming player?

Lets look at their first 5 major league season. 

Burnett      30 wins    32 losses  (.483 winning percentage)

Morrow     29 wins    30 losses  (.491 winning percentage)

Burnett      4.06 ERA

Morrow     4.37 ERA

Burnett      9 Complete Games

Morrow     1 Complete games

Burnett      6 Shut Outs

Morrow     1 Shut Out

Burnett      524.2 Innings Pitched

Morrow     523.1 Innings Pitched

Burnett      45 Home Runs Allowed

Morrow     55 Home Runs Allowed

Burnett      260 Walks

Morrow     263 Walks

Burnett      442 Strike Outs

Morrow     585 Strike Outs

Burnett      1.413 Walks + Hits per inning pitched.

Morrow     1.382 Walks + Hits per inning pitched.

Burnett      7.42 Strike Outs per 9 innings

Morrow     10.1 Strike Outs per 9 innings

Morrow strikes out more batters, but has a worse ERA.  Strike outs are great, but we all know that they aren’t very democratic.  They don’t involve the whole team!  I’m only partially kidding here.  Unless you’re Nolan Ryan, Dwight Gooden or Roger Clemens, (and a hand full of others) the strike out doesn’t help a whole hell of a lot.  It eats up pitches for one thing.  Makes it tough to work deep into games.  To do so you have to be damn near perfect.  Here is the statistically boring part that I find facinating.  Consider that the average at bat when the ball is put in play is 3.38.  Consider too, that the average number of pitches per strikeout is 4.82.  It doesn't take long to deduce that you would need to throw 91 pitches to get 27 outs with hit balls; versus 130 pitches to get 27 outs by strikeout. 

So we know that neither of the above is going to happen, but it speaks to very real stats of Brandon Morrow that should be extremely concerning to both Jays fans and AA. 

AJ Burnett gave up 101 RBIs this past year, the 6th highest total in the league.  Morrow allowed 92.  Burnett had 24 stolen bases allowed (6th worst); Morrow 17.  At .296, Morrow was 8th worst in the league on batting average of balls put in play (takes away errors, strikeouts and walks);   Burnett was .285.  AJ was 3rd worst in the league with a WHIP of 1.43; Morrow clocked in at 1.29, good for 18th worst.  Morrow was dead last in the league taking an average of 17.1 pitches to complete an inning.  Burnett was 3rd at 16.9.  Morrow was 5th worst in pitches per plate appearance at 4.01; Burnett was at 3.85.  Finally, there were no less than 35 pitchers in the American league who averaged at least 100 pitches per start in 2011.  Out of those 35 pitchers, only A.J. Burnett worked fewer (5.9) innings pers start than did Brandon Morrow (6.0).  

Maddux, Possibly the Best EVER

The future doesn't look really bright.  There is no doubt that Morrow has a million dollar arm, but he's a one trick pony.  He lives and dies with the strikeout which makes him detrimental to the bull pen.  It also give him no recourse to get out of trouble.  Last year he had preciesly 1 double play turned behind him because virtually everything that does get hit; gets hit in the air.  As a reference point, Romero had 28 double plays behind him. 

On the topic of efficeny; although I love Halladay, Greg Maddux is the poster child for doing more with less.  Honestly, he makes Halladay look kind of Ho-hum.  In 1995, Maddux had 5 complete game victories where he threw less than 100 pitches.  That is amazing.  In those 5 games (45 innings) he walked 2 batters, gave up 5 runs and struck out 28 batters. 

Think about this....in 4 of those 5 games, he threw under 90 pitches.  Frig.

Morrow, Shockingly in Trouble

Back to Morrow. 

If you want to keep him at 16 – 20 million, you can only really do so if you believe that he is either going to be the dominant strikeout pitcher that will completely own games consistently, al a Ryan, Gooden or Clemens.  Or you have to believe that he’ll be able to cut down his pitches, allow the ball to put in play and work deep into games in the same manner as Halladay and Maddux.  The danger though is that he gets lit up when the ball is put is play.    

If you don’t believe that either will happen, in which case, he is A.J. Burnett.  Dominant, Mediocre, Bad, Repeat.  Sometimes those mediocre games are wins and sometimes they aren’t.  Sometimes you get lightening in a bottle and a lot of the mediocre starts are wins.  Then they go 18 – 10 and have people using phrases like “turned the corner” when it really isn’t true.  This is the track record for both these guys.  When you consider that .500 pitchers can generally be had for 2 – 5 million, why would you handcuff your team by committing long term at a big price for this guy. 

We lament a lot about the guys that got away.  Carpenter and Halladay are recent examples.  There are some people who complain about Shaun Marcum leaving (me among them).  Its a matter of your taste I guess.  But have you ever heard anyone complaining about Burnett leaving?  Me neither.  But people love his clone, Morrow. 

AJ Burnett

Maybe its a hockey thing, people seem to fall in love with the ‘potential’ not the reality.  See Sil Campusano and Eddie Zosky if you need a refresher.  Or of course, Nazem Kadri should explain the position.    

Chuck D from Public Enemy said it best:  Don’t believe the hype, its a sequel.

Public Enemy #1

(Next week, a history of performance enhancing drugs in baseball ... this is not a 20 year old problem)

Albert, Albert, Albert

Albert Pujols is coming off the worst season of his 11 year professional career. 

• He led the league grounding into 29 double plays.
• He had a career low in total bases (313), his career average is 370.
• He had a career low in On Base Plus Slugging (.906), his career average is 1.037
• He had a career low in On Base Percentage (.366), career average .420
• He had a career low in Slugging Percentage (.541), career average .617
• He had a career low in Batting Average (.299), career average .328
• He had a career low in Walks (61), career average 93
• He had a career low in RBI (99), career average 126
• He had a career low in Doubles (29), career average 43
• He had a career low in Hits (173), career average 197

He finished 5th in MVP voting.  Okay, start over.  His worst season EVER in ten pretty significant categories.  5th in MVP voting.  5th! Is there any doubt that he's the best player (hitter) in the game?

Albert Pujols is poised to become the richest man in baseball.  Should he be?

Lets look at those lows and some other numbers and how he ranked in the National League.  Remember these are taking the categories that he did the worst in and looking at his competition. 

Career Lows:

• Total bases, ranked 5th in the league
• On Base Plus Slugging, ranked 10th in the league
• On Base Percentage, ranked 13th in the league
• Slugging Percentage, ranked 7th in the league
• Batting Average, ranked 14th in the league
• Walks, ranked 19th in the league
• RBIs, ranked 7th in the league
• Doubles, ranked 34th in the league
• Hits, ranked 9th in the league

Other Stats

These are categories in which Pujols did not have career lows, although most are 2nd worst and ALL are significantly down.

• Runs (105), ranked 3rd.
• Home Runs (34), ranked 1st
• Extra Base Hits (66), ranked 10th

You need to ask yourself if this is the first sign of decline from Albert or just a blip.  It should be noted that if it is a "blip"; then the blip currently has him as one of the top 10 player in the NL.  If we look at the same stats from the all-star break forward you will see the numbers a little differently.

• Total bases, ranked 2nd (up from 5th)
• On Base Plus Slugging, 8th (up from 10th)
• On Base Percentage, 13th (unchanged)
• Slugging Percentage, 4th, (up from 7th)
• Batting Average, ranked 7th (up from 14th)
• Walks, ranked 26th (down from 19th)
• RBIs, ranked 2nd (up from 7th)
• Doubles, ranked 10th (up from 34th)
• Hits, ranked 4th (up from 9th)
• Runs, ranked 3rd (unchanged)
• Home Runs, ranked 2nd (down from 1st)
• Extra Base Hits, ranked 4th (up from 10th)

My money is on "blip".  Regardless, that was one hell of a down year!

There are a few different ways to measure the "greatness" of a ball player.  If its the greatest single season, then you need to simply match up numbers, but if its greatest of all-time, it gets a little dicey.  I think that to even start the discussion, you have to look at a really grand scale to see if there is even a conversation to be had.  Where I chose to start is MVP voting. 

Looking at every single MVP vote that has ever been cast and seeing who has the largest percentage of the total votes would seem to be good baseline indicator.  It awards long term consistency and eliminates one or two incredible years distorting things.  Looking at the top 10:

1.  Barry Bonds (9.3% of MVP votes ever cast)
2.  Stan Musial (6.96%)
3.  Albert Pujols (6.51%)
4.  Ted Williams (6.43%)
5.  Willie Mays (6.06%)
6.  Mickey Mantle (5.79%)
7.  Hank Aaron (5.45%)
8.  Lou Gehrig (5.44%)
9.  Joe DiMaggio (5.43%)
10.  Alex Rodriquez (5.23%)

Seven hall of famers, 2 admited steroid users (although Bonds maintains he didn't know what it was (and Clinton didn't inhale)) and Albert Pujols.  Lets leave the cheaters out of it for a minute because it upsets me.  The other seven are aren't JUST ball players.  And they aren't just hall of famers - they ARE baseball!  They are the benchmark by which all others are measured.  Stan the Man, the last man with a 5 home run game; The Splendid Splinter the last man to hit .400; The Say Hey Kid second all time to Ruth in legitimate home runs; The Mick the first man to have 250 home runs from both sides of the plate; Hammerin' Hank who set the mark for career home runs; The Iron Horse who's consecutive game streak stood for 56 years and Joltin' Joe who's 56 game hitting streak still stands today.  Is Pujols worthy of being in that conversation?  I submit the only category that fails in against these guys is having a legendary nickname.

At least one of these men was playing ball in the majors from 1923 through to 1976 when Aaron hung them up; then there a nine year break before a string bean of a young man named Barry Bonds showed up.  So their careers span 79 of the last 88 years of baseball.  Comparisons are flawed for a lot of reasons so lets look at a couple of major ones.  The pre 1947 players obviously had the advantage of playing in a non-integrated era of baseball.  Some of the best competition available wasn't, "available".  Players post-1967 had the advantage of playing in an era where the mound was lowered and the DH added to the American League.  Both are tangible hitter advantages not afforded earlier players.  Expansions in the 60's, 70's and 90's probably watered down the baseball pool at least somewhat giving another advantage to the above average hitter. 

That being said, lets trudge forward with a comparission knowing that its not 100% accurate. 

I've taken the 10 players and boiled down their career stats into a single 162 game season.  Its not a complicated formula, and it puts all of the players on the same playing field, so to speak.  When taking the ten players above and breaking their stats into the 16 most commonly rated offensive categories; I've shown the leader of the stat and where Pujols ranks among them:

Plate Appearances (all are per season)
     Lou Gehrig          723
     Albert Pujols       706 (4th)
At Bats
     Joe DiMaggio     637
     Albert Pujols       600 (4th)
Runs  
     Lou Gehrig         141
     Albert Pujols      123 (4th)
Hits
     Joe DiMaggio      204
     Albert Pujols       197 (3rd)
Doubles
     Albert Pujols        43
     Lou Gehrig           40 (2nd)
Triples
     Lou Gehrig           12
     Albert Pujols          1 (10th)
Home Runs   
     Albert Pujols        42
     Alex Rodriquez    42
     Barry Bonds         41 (2nd)
Runs Batted In
     Lou Gehrig           149
     Albert Pujols        128 (4th)
Stolen Bases
     Barry Bonds         28
     Albert Pujols          8 (6th)
Walks
     Ted Williams        123
     Albert Pujols          93 (5th)
Strike Outs
     Joe DiMaggio        34
     Albert Pujols          67 (5th)
Batting Average
     Ted Williams          .344
     Albert Pujols          .328 (4th)
On Base Percentage
     Ted Williams          .482
     Albert Pujols          .420 (5th)
Slugging Percentage
     Ted Williams          .634
     Albert Pujols          .617 (3rd)
On Base Plus Slugging
     Ted Williams          1.116
     Albert Pujols          1.037 (4th)
Total Bases
     Lou Gehrig             379
     Albert Pujols          370 (2nd). 

When you talk all their rankings against their peers and average them out, the order of finish is 1. Gehrig, 2. Williams, 3. Pujols, 4. DiMaggio, 5. Rodriquez, 6. Bonds, 7. Musial, 8. Aaron, 9. Mays, and 10. Mantle.  Remember, these are their career numbers averaged out; NOT their best individual seasons.   

If I were AA and could have Kemp, Bautista, Braun or Fielder I'd look at it.  They are fairly comparable players with pluses and minuses and there is a market price that's appropriate for all of them.  They could be the best hitter in the league any given year.  Or; in an off year, they could just be 'a guy'.  An off year for Pujols is top 5 in MVP voting. 

If you were told that Pujols were a free agent and all it took to get him was money, wouldn't you open the vault?  Would there have been a dollar figure that was too high to pay Ted Williams?  Was there a dollar figure that was too high to pay Joe DiMaggio?  Albert Pujols, in my rankings anyway, if between the two of them.  Ahead of Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Musial and the cheaters. 

Granted, it ain't my money; but I'd like to know that my obscene cable bill is being used for something!

Albert, Albert, Albert.

(next week, Brandon Morrow indepth.  Be afraid.  Be VERY afraid)