Book Review: "The Curse of Rocky Colavito"

 

I just finished reading this book by Terry Pluto.  Previously, I had never heard of the author, but he caught me with his subject. The subject at hand?  My beloved Cleveland Indians.  

The story isn't merely about the Cleveland Indians, though.  It is of their historic defeat.  As you can tell by the subtitle, it all begins back in 1960 when an idiot (and Pluto may have actually referred to him as such) named Lane traded Rocky Colavito away for players who are now forgotten.  Colavito was the pride and star of the Indians in 1960, but Lane was a man who was part traitor and part trader.  Some of his bragging listed in the book has to do with how many trades he made.  As if trading was a good thing in and of itself.

Pluto tells quite a few stories beginning in 1960, and going all the way to the early seasons of the 90's--right before the Indians became successful (for too short a time) again.  Some of my favorite chapters are of the heroes I had in the 1970s--Duane Kuiper, Rick Manning, Dennis Eckersley, and, the most beloved of all, Andre Thornton.  If I were to pick one chapter to re-read, and I have, it would be the chapter called "The Conscience of the Indians."  That chapter is all about Andre, the greatest man to be on the Indians team in the last forty years.  And by "Greatest", I mean character, not simply as a ball player (though he was a great one).  

In fact, after I re-read that chapter later this evening, I'll probably have something to think about in terms of my own feelings of Loser (which I spoke of here a few years ago).  I've needed to really learn something from my Cleveland fandom for many years.  Just last night I apologized to Bronco's fans online, because I, a Cleveland fan, was cheering for Peyton Manning.  Peyton and the Broncos were absolutely slaughtered on the Super Bowl last night.  

And, like so many devastating Cleveland losses ("The Drive", for example, though I don't think I ever cried at a loss like I did the Jose Mesa blunder in '97), I felt this one too deep for a grown man to feel.  It wasn't even my team, but I felt like my personal "L" was stamped on a man for whom I cheered.  

This book gave me the courtesy of knowing that there are others out there who feel some of that angst.  I appreciate that.  And, after I re-read that chapter about Andre, I hope I can grasp a bit more of his perspective on life, and roll on past this giant L which haunts me.  I hope I can see past the L that tracks me in all my sports fandom, the L that keeps people interrupting me in conversation, the L that lingers as I painfully attempt to re-establish tools I've provided for hundreds, the L that keeps me under the 'leadership' of a control freak, the L makes me doubt something I've always said ("Luck is pagan"), the L that keeps me in the pile of disrespected former leaders... The L that tracks me down and gives me a beating in spirit over and over and over and over again.  I'm tired of being a giant L.

My L needs to die.  

I hope it will. 

L, L, L, L, L, W, L, ...

Come heck or high water, I am a Cleveland Indian fan.  

Many days ago, as the Indians were sitting on a record of 71 wins, 59 losses, I wrote the following on one brother's FB wall, tagging my other online brother in the note:

"The Indians would have to go 9 and 23 in the remaining 32 games in order to not get to .500 for the year. Get your bets in."

Immediately after that posting they won 1 and lost 6.  

We are Indians fans.  Losing has become expected, though still a disappointment.  Like the Cleveland Browns fan (of which we are also) who died a few months back and requested that six Browns lower him into his grave, so that they could let him down one more time, .... we have expectations of L.

Honestly, we need help.  Maybe psychological help.  That L stamped on our foreheads isn't healthy.  

~ ~ ~

If you follow baseball, though, you know that the season ended much better than I ever would have anticipated.  In the end, the Indians ended the season as the hottest team in baseball, reeling off ten straight wins.  In the end they were 92-70, beat out both Texas and Tampa for the top wildcard spot, but ended up losing that single game to the Tampa Bay Rays.  

Still, a satisfying season for this veteran Indians fan.

"Triple Crown" and historic seasons

I'm not a Miggy fan.  Haven't been since, I think, the drunk driving incident.  I have never lost someone to a drunk driver's irresponsible and reprehensible actions, but the whole incident was ... simply reprehensible.  The whole, "Don't you know who I am?!" thing... nah.  I like my heroes to have a bit of humility, as well as contrition for their massive mistakes.  Being drunk is one thing, but driving around as such?  No.  And the nonsense he pulled with the police... certainly not.  Not a hero.  And, being the 'old school' baseball fan that I am, character means something to me.  

Hence, I am totally not a Barry Bonds fan, but think very highly of Hank "The Hammer" Aaron.

Other than that, Miggy's a good hitter.  Okay, a great hitter.  But I've been wanting to check out where his season stands historically in comparison to other great seasons since the last time someone won a Triple Crown.  So, this is part of that research.  I had originally thought that Don Mattingly had a better season in the mid 80's, but... when one uses the word 'better', one must have some sort of standard.  Does one simply use the Triple Crown standards?  HRs, RBIs, and batting average are nice things, but... even for an old baseball fan like me, they don't say enough.

In 1967, Carl Yastrzemski won the Triple Crown and the American League MVP award.  He deserved the MVP indisputably, unlike Miguel Cabrera last year.  His numbers were so far superior to everyone around him that it would have been an absurdity for anyone to vote for anyone else.  Interestingly, though, somebody voted for Cesar Tovar of the Minnesota Twins.  I remember Tovar.  He wasn't an MVP.  How he got a #1 vote that year is inexplicable.  His big numbers included leading the league in games played (164), plate appearances (726), and at bats (649).  And if those numbers aren't compelling enough, how about these biggies?

Hits - 173
Runs - 98 (almost 100)
HRs - 6
Triples - 7
Doubles - 32
RBI's - 47
SB - 19
CS - 11
BB's - 46
SO - 51
Batting Average - .267
On Base % - .325

Pardon me, but this guy could be batting first or second on a team managed by Dusty Baker, eh?

Oh, for the record, the intentional walks that he received that year, the year in which he received one vote for 1st place on somebody's MVP ballot, was ZERO.  Apparently he was not a feared hitter.  

Go figure.

Yaz, though, received the other 19 first place votes.  He led the league in all kinds of categories.  Here's a brief list, including some of the sabermetric categories which compelled many to think that Mike Trout was the real MVP of last year's AL season.

• WAR - Yaz had 12.4, which made it an historic season.  Second place?  Brooks Robinson at 7.7.   
• Offensive WAR - Yaz, 9.9; 2nd place Killibrew, 7.3. 
• Batting Average - Yaz, .326.  2nd place was Frank Robinson at .311.  There were only two other players in the American League that year who bat .300 or better.
•  OBP - Yaz .418, 2nd place Al Kaline .411, and only Killibrew and Frank Robinson were also above .400.
• Slugging Pct.  Get this--Yaz .622, 2nd place Robinson at .576.
• That means he buried the field in OPS when he had 1.040 (in comparison, Miggy had 0.999 last year, which was lower than his previous two season!)
• Runs - Yaz 112, 2nd place Killibrew was the only other at or above 100, with 105.
• Hits - Yaz had 189, which was 16 more than 2nd place Tovar (maybe that's why?)
• Total Bases - here's separation.  Yaz had 360, 2nd place Killibrew had 305. Third place dropped off to Robinson's 276.
• Tony Oliva had first place in doubles at 34, with Yaz in third at 31.  Very low counts on doubles that year.
• Yaz and Killibrew tied at 44 HRs, nobody else hit 40 or more, and only two others hit 30 or more.
• Yaz was one of only 2 people with 100+ RBI's.  
• He was not in the top ten of people in the AL in striking out.  He struck out only 69 times.

Clearly, Yaz was the choice in 1967.  His season was historic not only because he won the Triple Crown, but because he led in so many other categories.  Harmon Killibrew had a very good year, but most would consider his to be a distant second best to the year that Yaz had.

One does not see a similar picture when it comes to 2012, and the argument between Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout.  In fact, if one compares the two in a broad range of categories, one is left wondering how the heck this happened.  The following comparisons are amongst all of MLB, not just the American League.

• WAR - Trout 10.9, Miggy 7.3 (fifth place)
• WAR amongst only position players?  Miggy got 4th
• Offensive WAR - Trout 8.8, Miggy in 2nd with 7.8
• Batting Average - Miggy in 2nd at .330, Trout in 4th at .326
• OBP - Trout's .399 was 6th, Miggy's .393 was 7th
• Slugging Pct - Miggy's .606 was 2nd, Trout's .564 5th
• Runs scored - Trout was 20 runs ahead of everyone at 129, Miggy in 2nd at 109
• Total Bases - Miggy led everyone with 377, whereas Trout, who began playing a month into the season, came in 9th at 315
• Trout led the majors in SBs with 49
• Miggy led both leagues in extra base hits with 84
• Miggy led both leagues in double plays grounded into at 28

Plenty of intriguing numbers involved.  Any accumulation stats, though, must also be passed through the simple fact that Trout did not get brought up to the big leagues until April 28th--a month into the season.  How he even got onto any accumulative top tens is unimaginable.

But, enough of about the present, I dug around a bit and found three seasons that were better in terms of the Triple Crown numbers alone.  These three seasons each have their tainted points.  Two were in the pre-humidor Colorado days, and one was from a known druggie.  All three seasons, though, were a good bit better than the season that Miggy had last year, and all three came since the last time a true Triple Crown winner occurred.  Here they are:

1. Todd Helton, 2001. 49 HRs, 146 RBIs, .336 BA.  He also scored 132 runs that year, had 54 doubles, OBP of .432, slugging percentage of .685, OPS 1.116, 402 total bases, and was ninth in MVP voting.  Did you hear me?  Ninth.  
2. Larry Walker, 1997.  49 HRs, 130 RBIs, .366 BA.  Larry also scored 143 runs, had 208 hits, 46 doubles, 33 SBs(!?), .452 OBP, OPS at an astounding 1.172, slugging percentage of .720, 409 total bases, and was the national league MVP.
3. Manny Ramirez, 1999.  44 HRs, 165 RBIs, .333 BA.  Manny was definitely Manny that year.  Always a big RBI guy, that was his finest season.  Also, 131 R's, 34 2B's, OBP .442, slugging percentage .663, OPS 1.105, and came in 3rd in the AL MVP race.

Frankly, Miggy's season isn't one of the top three seasons of the last forty years.  Not by Triple Crown standards.  Maybe not by larger standards.  As I was digging around trying to find the historic seasons that have happened since 1967, I found some lovely things.  

M

June 25, 2013

Well, honestly, I haven't been following baseball as tightly as I have for several years.  I got a new blackberry at work and ESPN's mobile site isn't nearly as useful and quick as it was prior to this blackberry.  I suppose that means this one is technically 'better', but I really preferred the old site.  I could read up on every game before and/or after, and never get thrown to one of those 'live' sites that keeps you updated on a game.  I could follow the game and simply hit 'refresh'.  

I can't figure out how to get BACK to that type of page, so ... haven't read as much on baseball this year.  Which is really too bad, because a couple folks are having a tremendous season, my Indians aren't horrible (again... like last year when they were 30-15 after 45 games, but sucked to the end), and the playoffs appear to be heading for new faces.

Chris Davis?  Whut.  His numbers right now, on June 25th, look good enough for a best season by most current major leaguers. 

Josh Hamilton?!  Albert?  Well...I guess I did sort of see the whole Albert thing coming, darn it.  I want them both to play up to their historic greatness, but that isn't working out thus far in 2013.

Will Adam Dunn be the first man ever to bat less than .200 but hit 40 HRs and get 100 RBIs?  That'd be wacky.  I may have to look to see whether anyone else has done that.

Hey, Yadier, keep improving with age, alright?

What's with Votto's slump?  I mean, really?  His OBP is down to .440!

Alright, enough for now.  I need to come up with a way to keep up on a more daily basis, since ESPN (which sometimes appears to stand for Egalitarian Sexual Preference Network) has muffed it for me.

Later.

Baseball's Top 100???

First of all, I looked through this whole list on ESPN.

As I did so, I found myself disagreeing with several positions.  Derek Jeter was way too high.  Why was Cy Young placed below so many pitchers?  Why did they neglect to make adjustments for the Drug Lords?  Why was Pete Rose, all time hits leader, but far over-rated, so high on the list? 

Clearly, any thinking baseball fan will have some issues with any such list.  But, most baseball fans also love the idea of someone putting together such a list. 

I love reading about the history of baseball.  I love reading about one man's opinion (or a group of men) on who the best players in history were.  There's something about the nostalgia of baseball that is like eating a good chocolate--do it slowly, enjoy every bite, savor every moment.  

Recently I read Larry Dierker's "My Team: Choosing My Dream Team From My Forty Years in Baseball".  The idea was similar to this Top 100 list.  The twist was that he chose two players from each field position, then a group of starting pitchers, and a group of relievers--for his team, then for a second team.  His list didn't include the Babe Ruths and Ty Cobbs of baseball, but men who played during his forty years (as indicated in the title).   He chose with things like "club house guy" in mind, made note of folks who had been sort of evicted from various teams, put together some folks based upon which would do better against right or left-handed pitching, etc.  He included numbers on folks, too, but those were not his only criteria.  He was able to go a bit deeper on some things, because he had a more intimate knowledge of the players of whom he spoke.

I would love to find more books like this.  Recently I was remembering that early in my life it was baseball that drove me to read.  I recalled getting a book about Hank Aaron when I was in third or fourth grade, reading it more than once, and going back to the library for more.  Aaron quickly became one of my biggest baseball heroes, though I learned of him at the end of his brilliant career.  But I read of other historic greats--Mantle, Mays, Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, .....

What fun!

Speaking of fun, I've been contemplating the possibility of writing my own "best of" list.  I've often thought that we needed a new metric to capture the best-of-the-best.  WAR seems like a pile of I-can't-touch-this data.  It doesn't seem like something the casual fan can grasp.  The defensive metrics alone are well beyond the capability of a casual fan to capture.  I once tinkered with some ideas on Runs.  Maybe I will dig into some of those new-fangled numbers in Baseball Reference or something.

But, one thing keeps coming back to me--I want any list that I create to be casual fan-friendly.  There are metrics that the casual fan has used for ages that the sabermetric folks mock.  I listen to ESPN's Baseball Today podcast, so I've heard how nasty those mockers can be.  Their character is suspect. 
Are they right?  Well, they are probably right on the numbers.  But their nastiness really taints their message.  Plus, they love saying things like "Wins don't matter" for pitchers.  I understand their point, but that doesn't make me think they are intelligent.  Nobody can convince me that King Felix deserved the Cy Young award when he won 13 games.  Don't tell me a great pitcher cannot win for a bad team.  The 2010 Seattle Mariners were better than the 1972 Phillies.  Go tell Steve Carlton you can't win for a losing team.  Given a voice, I would have voted for someone like Price or CC.  Even Buckholz.  The mockers would mock me and audibly speak of my stupidity.  That's okay.  I have little respect for their hatred.  I just can't vote for someone who has a mere 13 wins.  What good did they do their team? 

But... dangit.  When it comes to the sabermetric numbers like WAR, King Felix was the best pitcher.  That's just another reason I can't quite trust that number.  It doesn't think the way Dierker could by his knowledge of individual players.  Who really wants a Barry Bonds in the clubhouse?  Nobody.  Who wants him in their lineup?  Everybody.  He is a cancer, like TO in football.  A team probably performs at a lower level with such horrific characters in their clubhouse--in spite of what he brings to the table in personal performance. 

The King Felix thing reminds me of having Miguel win the Triple Crown.  His season was far less impressive than many individual seasons that have happened since 1967, but nobody else stepped up this year.  Heck, even Mike Trout's year was more impressive.  He missed a month of the season, but set all kinds of rookie records.  He had a fabulous season for a veteran.  On that point, I stand with the WAR folks.  In fact, a quick browse of Baseball Reference shows no less than 38 seasons since 1967 that were superior to Cabrerra's this year.  Including, of course, Trout's season--which was shorted by one month. 

I'm going to think a bit about this Top 100 idea.  I suspect I will create something.  Eventually.  I will just need to think through what criteria I would use, what the point of my list will be (single team?  best of all time?  what what?), etc. 

Fun to come.

The 2012 World Series

When this year's playoffs got past the one game playoff "series", there were five teams left for whom I could cheer.  Yes, I know, I'm an Indians fan.  Well, when one is an Indians fan, but also a big baseball fan, it is nice to have someone to cheer for when the annual Indians Out Of The Playoffs Magic Number comes around in mid-August (or something). 

So, I would have been happy to see the Reds in it until the end.  The Big Red Machine (about whom I read recently in a fun-read, "The Machine", by Joe Posnanski) was there when I was getting originally immersed in the world of baseball.  I was living on the outskirts of Cleveland (Bedford, Ohio, to be exact), but my grandparents in Columbus were big Reds fans.  So, when we visit them during the World Series of 1975, my fandom got a tremendous start by watching the Reds win the big one against the Red Sox.  What an awesome year. 

Anyway, I would have loved to see the Reds make it all the way.  [Sigh]

Here were my five-out-of-eight:

Reds
Rangers (I'm a big Nolan Ryan fan, as well as a Josh Hamilton fan... little did I know NR would say some hard things about JH at the end, but I don't blame him)
Cardinals
A's
Nationals

Ideally, the World Series would have been the Reds against the A's--and the Reds would have won vengeance for the 1972 World Series.  Yes!  If anyone out there knows of a good video story of that World Series, I'd love to hear about it.  Having 7 games in a World Series is ideal, but having 6 of them decided by one run?  Holy cow.  That's awesome.

A little factoid here--the Reds outscored the A's in that World Series, 22 to 15.  Too bad that doesn't offer any real salve to the overall loss.

I would have been cheering for the Rangers, for sure.  Watching their sudden and unbelievable demise was painful.  Lose the division on the last day?  Wow.  Nolan, I sure hope you and yours come back to the Big Dance next year (unless the Indians do the never-expected).

I would have cheered for the Cardinals, even though they just won it last year.  I love the fact that they made it as far as they did even though they lost a formerly top-notch player to bigger money, lost a HOF manager, and worked with a rookie big league manager.  They had a great year, and, in my opinion, were by far the better team than the team that removed them from the World Series.  Definitely had a better line-up.

Ah, well.

The A's?  Well, though I've never been a fan, Billy Beane has me intrigued.  I'd love to see him working his magic for the Indians, but... still, his incredible GMing with the A's brings hope to this small market fan.  Keep at it!

Then there's the Nat's.  What a story.  They stunk so bad that they got the top pick two years in a row--and both have come around to play in the bigs in a good way.  I'm looking forward to many years of Strasburg and Bryce.  Rise to stardom, guys!


So, clearly, four of my five hopefuls were eliminated in that round.  That sucked. 


Here we are--a World Series with the Central Division foe Tigers and the Left Coast Giants.  Gah.  I'll watch, but only because I love baseball.  Not even sure who I will cheer for yet.  I really didn't want Cabrera to be the first Triple Crown winner in 45 years--I'd far rather that had gone to Josh Hamilton, Albert Pujols, or our guy Votto.  Alas, it was not to be.

Now to get some snacks for the boys tonight.

MVP

Alright, I'll just come out and say that I think Mike Trout is the MVP of the AL this year. 

No, I'm not that big on all the latest metrics.  WAR is a nice number, but there are two different versions.  There is only one RBI number--and everybody knows how it works.  There is a "historic" WAR number in the possession of Mike Trout--which is pretty cool, considering the fact that he wasn't an Angel until a month into the season.  But that can also be said of all his other numbers.  For example, he is the only player to ever have 30 HRs, 40+ SBs, and 125+ runs.  He came very close to getting into an exclusive 30 HR / 50 SB club, but everybody in the stadium on the last night knew he was going for it, so an average catcher caught him doing so.  Which, by the way, was only the fifth time this year that he was caught stealing.

Who would have thought that Mike Trout would tie Albert Pujols in HRs for the year? 

Nobody.  Not even I, who believed Pujols was already on the decline. 

But Mike Trout hit a HR in the major leagues before Pujols did this year.  Yup, beat him by one day, though Pujols had played 27 games by the time he hit his first, while Trout had played in six.  In the end, they tied at 30. 

Thirty?!  Ten years and 240 million dollars for a man who hasn't hit .300 in two years, hit only 30 HRs, had 105 RBIs, OBP of only .343, and a WAR of merely 4.6.  He was in 8th for RBI's (a stat that many of the new folks think is meaningless... which I still don't get, because runs are kind of important), 10th in HRs (tied with his rookie teammate who didn't play a whole season), and nowhere near the top ten in WAR. 

I'm sorry, I really like Pujols, but his year totally indicates the Angels made a huge mistake.  I can (and do) hope that he comes back and wins the Triple Crown next year. 

And, speaking of the Triple Crown, ... really?  How did Cabrera end up being the one to get this unusual award?  Well, for one, by the sad demise of Pujols, who should have earned at least one of those leading categories.  Also, by the Yankee skipper removing Granderson from the last game when he was hot on the trail of the HR lead.  Also, by the caffeine-free Hamilton bailing out during the last two weeks of the season. 

Cabrera had a tremendous year, yes.  It is arguable that this isn't his "career year".  I congratulate him on winning the Triple Crown, but I wish he hadn't.  First, because he plays for Detroit (remember--I'm an Indians fan).  Second, because I would prefer having Hamilton or Pujols or Votto pull it off (there are no Indians who would be even remote possibilities--at least not since Manny).  Third, because it will probably mean all the stodgy old reporters will vote for him rather than Trout, who clearly deserves the award. 

[Sigh].  Whatever.