I needed something to do before the USA-Canada hockey game today. Here is a little comparison between a couple relievers. Who would you rather have?
2008-2009 totals
Reliever A: 75 relief appearances, 77.1 IP, 69 hits, 13 HR, 42 BB, 85 K, 4.42 ERA
Reliever B: 87 relief appearances, 120.1 IP, 118 hits, 10 HR, 44 BB, 101 K, 3.29 ERA
2010 CHONE projection
Reliever A: 51 relief appearances, 62 IP, 56 hits, 9 HR, 28 BB, 64 K, 4.21 ERA
Reliever B: 53 relief appearances, 58 IP, 59 hits, 7 HR, 23 BB, 47 K, 4.50 ERA
Both relievers are right-handers. Reliever A is listed at 6'3", 165 pounds, and 28 years old. Reliever B is listed at 6'2", 206 pounds, and 36 years old. Also, since league differences matter, it's worth noting that Reliever A has spent the past two seasons in the AL, while Reliever B has been in the NL.
Even with the limited numbers I've presented here, it is pretty clear that Reliever A is younger, and has the better arm. However, he doesn't have great control, and that likely is part of the reason he has given up more then his fair share of long balls.
Reliever A is Edwar Ramirez, who got designated for assignment today to make room on the Yankees roster for Reliever B, Chan Ho Park. We last saw Park in the back end of the Phillies bullpen, pitching against the Yankees in the World Series. He was a contributing piece to a very good ballclub, so some were surprised there was minimal interest in his services.
I think this comparison shows why. Park has been significantly more effective than Ramirez the past couple years, but it is likely that a good deal of the difference is luck. At least the CHONE projection thinks so, since it regressed both pitchers' home run rates (Ramirez's down and Park's up) and all of a sudden they didn't look so different. Throw in the limited innings that relievers work, and it's even more debatable who will perform better this year. That's somewhere between interesting and remarkable, considering one of these guys has bounced between AAA and the majors and is yet to establish himself, while the other is a grizzled veteran that has morphed into a setup guy on winning ballclubs.
None of this is meant to criticize the move made by the Yankees (though of course I hope it fails spectacularly, as a life-long Yankee hater). It is simply meant to point out why bullpens can, and always should, be built cheaply.
HGH Testing No Closer
While most of the sports world has been gazing at Vancouver, a piece of news has travelled across the Atlantic. The first athlete ever tested positive for HGH. You can read a few more details here (along with a pretty slanted view that it puts pressure on baseball). Notably, the player was caught through a blood test.
News of the test has put pressure on pro sports leagues, particularly the NFL and MLB, to respond. However, drug testing is complicated stuff. It must be collectively bargained, meaning the owners and players must agree on how it will be done. Since the owners aren't the ones being tested, and their reputations aren't on the line, it's never them who will stand in the way of agreements. So, it is particularly important to pay attention to how player unions respond.
Wednesday night, the MLBPA released this statement regarding the positive HGH test. This transcript is directly from a post by Maury Brown at The Biz of Baseball:
I don't know enough about players in other sports, but at least in baseball they are not going to hold back proper HGH testing. The reason I pasted the entire MLBPA statement into this post, instead of just linking to it, is because of how important the reaction is. The union brings up some highly valid points about blood testing.
I'll admit, I'm a wuss, and I've never had my blood drawn. However, I've seen plenty of blood drives, and I know plenty of friends who have participated. Drawing blood is a draining process (literally). Some people faint, others get a little sick, and most everyone at least gets a little drowsy. Granted, donating blood and getting a little drawn are different, but the concerns raised by the MLBPA in this statement are similar. Blood testing would leave some players weak in the knees, which isn't great for them, or their team, as they try to stand up to a 95-mph fastball. There are legitimate safety concerns and competitive issues inherent to blood testing that are not problems with urine testing.
Furthermore, consider what baseball players have already agreed to. As the statement points out, a scientifically-approved urine test will be implemented immediately. They didn't even mention that all that was agreed to outside of normal negotiations. In other words, both sides came to the bargaining table and actually amended the CBA, which just doesn't happen in American pro sports (especially baseball, where negotiations have historically been awful).
I don't mean to make baseball players out to be patron saints here. Their probable widespread use of HGH is the only reason that testing is an issue in the first place. However, if/when the union resists and rejects blood testing, I hope their side of the story is told. They have taken unprecedented steps (along with the owners) to implement an HGH policy, and the concerns they have raised are valid as well.
The issue here is blood testing, not HGH testing, but it's way too easy to perceive the situation the other way around. In fact, it likely will be perceived the other way around in the mainstream media, because the only reason it is a story is thanks to HGH.
The MLBPA did an excellent job explaining their position with the statement they released. If it's any indication of how Michael Weiner will approach CBA negotiations, I'm optimistic on a good deal being reached. At the very least, he and his union have the right things in mind when it comes to HGH testing.
News of the test has put pressure on pro sports leagues, particularly the NFL and MLB, to respond. However, drug testing is complicated stuff. It must be collectively bargained, meaning the owners and players must agree on how it will be done. Since the owners aren't the ones being tested, and their reputations aren't on the line, it's never them who will stand in the way of agreements. So, it is particularly important to pay attention to how player unions respond.
Wednesday night, the MLBPA released this statement regarding the positive HGH test. This transcript is directly from a post by Maury Brown at The Biz of Baseball:
Human growth hormone is banned under our Joint Drug Program. Discipline has been imposed against players who have been found to have used HGH. We do not test currently for HGH, because no scientifically validated urine test exists. Our program calls for immediate and automatic implementation of urine testing for HGH once a scientifically validated test is available.
The Joint Program, negotiated several times with the Commissioner's Office, does not call for blood testing of players. Blood testing raises serious issues not associated with urine testing. Nonetheless, the Association has previously said that if a scientifically validated blood test for HGH was available, we would consider it.
This week, a British rugby player was suspended as a result of a reported positive blood test for HGH. This development warrants investigation and scrutiny; we already haveconferred with our experts on this matter, and with the Commissioner's Office, and we immediately began gathering additional information. However, a report of a single uncontested positive does not scientifically validate a drug test. As press reports have suggested, there remains substantial debate in the testing community about the scientific validity of blood testing for HGH. And, as we understand it, even those who vouch for the scientific validity of this test acknowledge that it can detect use only 18-36 hours prior to collection.
Putting these important issues aside, inherent in blood testing of athletes are concerns of health, safety, fairness and competition not associated with urine testing. We have conferred initially with the Commissioner's Office about this reported positive test, as we do regarding any development in this area. We look forward to continuing to jointly explore all questions associated with this testing -- its scientific validity, its effectiveness in deterring use, its availability and the significant complications associated with blood testing, among others.
The Association agrees with the Commissioner's Office that HGH use in baseball is not to be tolerated. We intend to act without delay to ascertain whether our Program can be improved as it relates to HGH. In so doing, however, we will not compromise the commitment to fairness on which our Program always has been premised.It is easy to make out players to be villains when it comes to drug testing, especially when they resist it. The first conclusion anyone jumps to is that they are hiding something. The reality is that many players probably do have something to hide. It would be naive, and flat-out stupid, to think nobody uses HGH, especially in the wake of the steroids scandal.
I don't know enough about players in other sports, but at least in baseball they are not going to hold back proper HGH testing. The reason I pasted the entire MLBPA statement into this post, instead of just linking to it, is because of how important the reaction is. The union brings up some highly valid points about blood testing.
I'll admit, I'm a wuss, and I've never had my blood drawn. However, I've seen plenty of blood drives, and I know plenty of friends who have participated. Drawing blood is a draining process (literally). Some people faint, others get a little sick, and most everyone at least gets a little drowsy. Granted, donating blood and getting a little drawn are different, but the concerns raised by the MLBPA in this statement are similar. Blood testing would leave some players weak in the knees, which isn't great for them, or their team, as they try to stand up to a 95-mph fastball. There are legitimate safety concerns and competitive issues inherent to blood testing that are not problems with urine testing.
Furthermore, consider what baseball players have already agreed to. As the statement points out, a scientifically-approved urine test will be implemented immediately. They didn't even mention that all that was agreed to outside of normal negotiations. In other words, both sides came to the bargaining table and actually amended the CBA, which just doesn't happen in American pro sports (especially baseball, where negotiations have historically been awful).
I don't mean to make baseball players out to be patron saints here. Their probable widespread use of HGH is the only reason that testing is an issue in the first place. However, if/when the union resists and rejects blood testing, I hope their side of the story is told. They have taken unprecedented steps (along with the owners) to implement an HGH policy, and the concerns they have raised are valid as well.
The issue here is blood testing, not HGH testing, but it's way too easy to perceive the situation the other way around. In fact, it likely will be perceived the other way around in the mainstream media, because the only reason it is a story is thanks to HGH.
The MLBPA did an excellent job explaining their position with the statement they released. If it's any indication of how Michael Weiner will approach CBA negotiations, I'm optimistic on a good deal being reached. At the very least, he and his union have the right things in mind when it comes to HGH testing.
Spring Training Is Awesome
Plus, spring training by itself is really fun, especially with this new Mariners regime. Jack Hannahan and Ryan Garko both reported with the catchers. They've been catching bullpen sessions, meaning the M's will probably break camp with four players capable of going behind the plate and not making a fool of themselves. I especially love that Hannahan is doing bullpen sessions while there is still a plan to work him in at shortstop a bunch more.
There are the random moments that only happen in the spring too, like when 19-year-old first-rounder Steven Baron caught Felix Hernandez's bullpen session last week. He went from high school to King Felix. That wouldn't quite make my career, but those ten minutes would have made the whole trip to Peoria worth it for me.
On the first full day of workouts, the M's took the field with Jose Lopez at third base, and Chone Figgins at second. It caused a bit of a stir, considering all conventional logic would put Lopez at second and Figgins at third. There has been so much written already analyzing the switch (the post linked to has more links too), so I won't go over it at all, other than to say it makes spring training even more awesome.
If you are keeping track at home, that's a starting second baseman practicing at third, a starting third baseman practicing at second, the backup third baseman catching bullpen sessions with plans to practice at shortstop, a regular first baseman getting back behind the plate for the first time since the minors, and a guy who just graduated from high school catching the Cy Young runner-up.
This is why I love spring training. You'll see things you won't see during the season. Usually that means different prospects taking the field for a few innings, and one of them doing something that speaks to their potential. I still remember a few years back, when I went down to San Francisco to watch a Mariners-Giants exhibition game. A 20-year-old Michael Saunders got an at-bat, and roped a pitch just foul down the right field line, that, after a bounce, splashed down in McCovey Cove. I'm still looking for another foul ball that makes me drool quite like that one.
There is also room to experiment in spring training with more established players though, and I wish more teams did it. This is the only time players will get to play in real, live games that don't matter. There is ample room for things to fail spectacularly without repercussions. Pitchers should try new pitches, hitters new stances, fielders new positions. Statistically speaking, the sample sizes are too small to get any meaningful data anyway. It's practice and experience with no real pressure to perform, and the naked eye is the only way to possibly glean meaningful insights.
I remember when Randy Johnson worked on a different fastball in spring training during his time with the Diamondbacks. His spring numbers were horrific, and some people wondered if it would carry into the season. It did, but not in the way people implied. Johnson took a beating in the spring, but in the process learned a new pitch. He went out and got a Cy Young with his new weapon.
Most players (and teams) don't take a very experimental approach in spring training. Mixing up the batting order is about as far as many go. Not the Mariners though, and it's not surprising coming from this organization. What other team would take their top prospect and move him from center field to second base just to do it?
Spring training's meaningless games will eventually get to me, and I'll want the regular season to get here. I'm not even close to that point yet though. Spring training has a charm special to itself, and following the Mariners, it's going to be even more charming. They are treating it almost like little league, and I love it.
You know, while the M's are at it, they should let Ichiro pitch! They should take that old-school Griffey cloning ad and make it more of a reality too! Why not let King Felix work on his stroke a little more as well? We know he has some pop. For all we know, he could provide some right-handed thunder off the bench!
Okay, if there was any doubt that Don Wakamatsu runs a better spring training than I would, it should be gone now. There are experiments more likely to yield results than others, and thankfully he has an eye for those. I love the approach though. What's the harm in trying something different? It can only help the team, and it definitely makes spring training that much more lovable.