Baseball Articles

Any time Bud Selig has something to do with anything it is bound to be stupid. He is going to be gone pretty soon, and it seems like he wants to leave us with one last bad thing before his reign of stupid is over. Selig and his "special committee for on-field matters" have begun investigating a MLB realignment strategy that you have to see to believe. [talkingchicagobaseball]

The proposal involves teams no longer being tied down to divisions, meaning they can change each season based on a number of factors. Those factors include geography, payroll, and interest in competing. That's right interest in competing. Basically if a team like the Royals has no interest in actually winning games in a given season they can elect to move to the AL East where extra games against the Red Sox and Yankees would boost income while losing just as many games.

The article I linked to there uses the Indians as the example of doing the same thing. They know they aren't winning anything this season, why not go to a division with more profitable and popular opponents. On the other side (again this example comes from the article) a team like the Rays can leave the AL East and dominate the AL Central.

click read more to continue reading Do I really need to explain how stupid this idea is? While I don't find myself particularly attached to the way the divisions are currently aligned, I really don't think we need to change them each season based on who cares to win or not. Not to mention I'm not sold on the idea working at all in the National League.

The main draw of the NL Central (excuse me for the Cubs-centric world I live in) is the Cubs and to a lesser extent the Cardinals. Just like the Red Sox and Yankees fans fill up opposing stadiums, the Cubs do the same. Would any Central team want to give that up? Without a Central team wanting to move the NL could never change, since a move of more than 2 time zones wouldn't be allowed (this whole thing just sounds dumb when I type it).

So basically the NL would never change, unless I'm missing something. Meanwhile the AL would become a 5 or 6 team league that is constantly breaking the wins record. The Red Sox and Yankees would get to face a division of really bad teams each season, meaning their win totals would be well north of 100. Meanwhile the West and Central would become a cluster of mediocrity.

How about this Bud- if realignment is really that imporant to you then find a better way of doing it. Don't let teams decide if they plan on tanking a season, its basically allowing them to spit in the faces of their fans. Nothing like dropping $5000 on season tickets to watch the Royals or Indians lost 115 games on purpose. [talkingchicagobaseball2]

Stephen Strasburg made his long awaited debut for the Washington Nationals this afternoon in Viera. The young right-handed starter hurled two innings, allowed two softly-hit singles, and struck out two batters with a total of 27 pitches on the day. He flashed a high 90's fastball and a devastating curve, and a lot of other things happened which you can read about in many other blogs and reports. So instead of writing your typical 'Stephen Strasburg Debut' post, I'm going to break down what today meant for me, a Nats fan. [thenatsblog]

Being a Nationals fan has always been about believing despite your own reasonible sensabilities. D.C. is a city deeply intrenched in logic, realism, and yes, synicism, and being a Natinoals fan means that you are going to sniff out the crap that a certain former GM fed you, and that you're going to have to try and be ok with it. Because despite our minds telling us that we should not put up with the garbage that has been put on the field in front of us, our hearts know all too well what it is like to have no baseball at all. Therefor, our choice is simple, bad baseball over no baseball.

Through the years a team has been patched together out of bad situations. The Montreal Expos were in a bad situation when Major League Baseball took them over, and Major League Baseball was in a jam when they awarded the Expos to the D.C. Area. Since 2005 Nationals teams have been built upon with a foundation of players that either never had done what they were supposed to, or once did but no longer could. Being a Nationals fan was about trying to find the optimism when Pedro Astacio threw a compelte game in under 100 pitches, or trying to figure out how Chad Cordero ever got anybody out.

Sure, there were exciting times. Alfonso Soriano went 40-40 in front of a homely RFK crowd in 2006. Ryan Zimmerman hit a walk-off home run in the first-ever game at Nationals Park, and of course he had that 30-game hit streak last season. But through the exciting deversions there were few events as anticipated and as promising as todays debut for Strasburg.

You see, Strasburg represents a new horizon that for once may not be spurred from our own delusions. Strasburg's fastball is tangible, his speed is something that few have ever possessed and for once that raw talent, that physical superiority is in a Nationals uniform. That curveball we saw today, which left Tigers batters in the dust, is something you simply can't learn. It comes form a god-given talent to have master control and spin on the ball like number 37 displayed today.

Strasburg's start today meant that for the first time, arguably ever, the Nationals have something in their franchise that other teams covet. It means that we have someone who is a game changer, and hopefully a franchise changer. Certainly it's a long way between where Strasburg is now, and where he would have to go for that to be true. But for once, I feel like my hopes may finally be based in truth. [thenatsblog2]

So the doctors have taken a look and Joe Nathan has a torn UCL (ulnar collateral ligament). [athbaseball]

They are going to wait two or three weeks and see if he can pitch through it, but this one has "Tommy John" surgery written all over it. Even if he can pitch he couldn't possibly be as effective or as durable.

When we last looked at this situation we said that in the end, the success or failure of the 2010 Twins would come down to Joe Nathan.  As you recall, Nathan has been every bit the equal of Mariano Rivera the past few years in the regular season while proving to be the ultimate choke artist in the post season "making Armando Benitez look clutch."

The Twins have a fantastic front office, one that is the envy of the league. If there is a trade to be made or a player on their roster to take the role, you can be sure they will make the right move.

When asked who will take over, manager Ron Gardenhire was quoted as saying the following.

"We got all kinds of arms out there. What, we got 27, 28 guys with arms, so we'll find someone."

My guess is that of no moves are made before opening day that Jon Rauch will grab the spot. The Twins are built to play close games so whoever it is, one guy or a by committee approach, there will be plenty of chances.

If they do make the playoffs almost anything they get from that position will be better than what Nathan has given them though.

Nathan has pitched in 7 post season games. In those 7 post season games he's pitched 7.1 innings, given up 10 Hits, 7 walks and 7 runs. He only gave up 16 runs all of last regular season and that was over 70 games!

As the saying goes though, "one thing at a time", and they can worry about playoff performance if they get into the playoffs. This will certainly throw a kink into their regular season plans.

I had previously picked the Twins to win the division, now I'm not so sure. What a shame, a new stadium, prospects of locking Joe Mauer up for the ages.... And now this. - Brian James

Brian is an independent sports journalist. Brian has been covering major professional sports for over 25 years. [athbaseball2]

From left: Jackie Hayes dons Ford Frick's batting helmet (August 1940); David Wright wears the new Rawlings S100 (September 2009); Newark's Buster Mills models the "Safety Cap or helmet" adopted as official equipment by the International League (circa 1939). [wezenball]

When David Wright donned the "new batting helmet" late last season - and was mocked mercilessly by just about everyone - I thought it would be a good idea to go back through some old magazines and newspapers and find how people reacted to the introduction to the original helmet. I was certain that I could find ballplayers and writers saying the same thing then that ballplayers were saying now about the Wright helmet. I never wrote that piece, though, because I ran into a problem: there was never really a big, league-wide rollout of batting helmets to mark the new era. In fact, the answer to the question "who was the first baseball player to wear a batting helmet?" is pretty nebulous.

I put the notes to the side and told myself that I would come back to it, but I never did. But then I found myself drawn back to Paul Lukas' wonderful blog, Uniwatch, which I, for some reason, had strayed away from recently. Well, for those who don't know, Paul has had a keen interest in the development of the batting helmet (and the batting helmet w/earflaps) for a while. Every now and then he posts an interesting photo or whatnot that he or a reader has stumbled across, and it gets us all just a tad bit closer to solving the whole puzzle. Last week, he unveiled another piece to the puzzle: a reader had recently stumbled across the Popular Science archives and found this image from the November 1940 issue. Paul loved it, and was able to determine that the helmet shown there was probably the same one that Jackie Hayes had worn in the summer of 1940.

Well, the image looked incredibly familiar to me, so I pulled up my notes from last fall. I had found the same image in Popular Science too, but in the October 1940 issue. I emailed that photo, and many more that I found in that initial research phase to Paul, and, with his encouragement, I decided to investigate the issue some more. I spent some more time in the Google News and Proquest archives this weekend, and I even went to the library to pull up some books. I can't say that I've solved the puzzle, but I do feel like I connected and filled in a lot of areas that were incomplete or hanging loose. Keep reading for a timeline on the invention and evolution of the batting helmet in baseball.

(Click "Read More" to continue reading. Be warned, it's quite long.)

1905
Frank P. Mogridge, of Pennsylvania, is granted Patent No. 780,899 for a "Head Protector". It is a "goofy-looking device that resembled a boxing glove wrapped around the batter's head" (Dan Gutman, Banana Bats and Ding-Dong Balls). It was marketed by the A.J. Reach Company as the "Reach Pneumatic Head Protector for Batters." It was "pneumatic" in that the player had to blow it up like a floatie for it to work.

1907
Future Hall of Famer Roger Bresnahan, inventor of the catcher's shin guards and other devices, is beaned in the head mid-summer. In the July 11, 1907, edition of the Washington Post, it is announced that he will wear the Mogridge device when he returns to play. Here's how the Post describes it:

"It is a rubber affair which completely protects his head and will save him in the future from such blows as put him to sleep in Cincinnati recently when he stopped one of Andy Coakley's fast inshoots with his left temple and was unconscious for hours.

If Bresnahan continues his policy of protecting himself against injury with all sort of devices it will require a small express wagon to drag his paraphanelia to and from the grounds before and after each game. Incidentally a head gear will make it possible for him to stand up against any kind of pitching and no doubt there will be more kicks from the opposing teams but there is no rule preventing Bresnahan or any one else from using these things."

The July 30, 1907, Atlanta Constitution edition mentions that Bresnahan "has adopted the use of an ear muff to protect the side of his head turned to the pitcher when batting." I could not find any photos of Bresnahan wearing the device. He did not seem to wear it for long, though.

1920
Ray Chapman is hit in the head and killed by a ball pitched by Yankees pitcher Carl Mays. This shocks the baseball world but, though there are some calls to fix the problem somehow (H.C. Hamilton, in the August 25, 1920, edition of the San Antonio Evening News, calls for "experts to get busy on a new protector"), it doesn't change anything.

In the intervening years between Bresnahan and Chapman, there were some attempts at head protection. In Peter Morris' incredibly thorough, well-written, and insightfully sourced A Game of Inches, he mentions a few of them: Freddie Parent had some sort of head protector in 1908; Frank Chance wore some headgear in 1913, "though it was little more than a sponge wrapped in a bandage"; Utica pitcher Joe Bosk wore headgear with a pad on one side in 1913 after getting beaned in the head in 1911; Phillies manager Pat Moran introduced cork-cushioned caps to his players in early 1917, but it's unclear if they were worn in games. Morris' book also mentions that the Indians experimented with leather helmets in the spring of 1921 as a result of Chapman's death, though I couldn't find anything regarding that.

1937
On May 25, 1937, Hall of Fame catcher Mickey Cochrane, then the player-manager of the Detroit Tigers, is hit in the head by a pitch from the Yankees' Bump Hadley. The pitch fractures his skull in three parts, ending his career. Though he is not killed, this acts as another wake-up call to baseball, and some action is actually taken this time. Cochrane is asked a month later if he thinks batters should be forced to wear helmets. "Absolutely," he says. "A thrown ball even in the hands of a careful, sporting pitcher can perform weird trips...and a hitter is liable to be struck at any time."

Within the week, Connie Mack, manager of the Philadelphia Athletics, experiments with polo helmets (see article). On June 1, 1937, Athletics and Indians players test the helmets in batting practice. There is no evidence that they actually wore the helmets in the game, though. (photo shown taken from Popular Science; also, see article)

That same week, the Des Moines Demons of the Western League experiment with polo helmets in a game. They don't seem to take.

Negro Leaguer Willie Wells is often cited as the first player to wear a modern helmet in a game. The date is usually given as sometime in 1942 (I saw it listed as that in a few places). According to Morris' book, though, researcher Larry Lester was able to find an account of the event in the August 26, 1937, edition of the New York Age. I couldn't get access to those archives, so I can't say for sure, but the rest of the research in Morris' book checks out, so I'm inclined to believe it. The helmet that he wore that day was a modified construction worker's hard hat. (I suspect a photo of this hat will be Uniwatch's next holy grail).

1939
The August and September issues of Popular Science feature photos of Lamar Newsome wearing a head protector that is placed under the cap.

The International League adopts the "Safety Cap or helmet" as official equipment. Outfielder Buster Mills of Newark became the first player in the league to use the light, practical helmet.

1940
This is where the timeline gets a little cluttered and tough to decipher. I'll do my best...

Brooklyn's Pee Wee Reese and Joe Medwick are both victims of dangerous beanings, as is the Giants' Billy Jurges. In response to this, the National League meets at the all-star break to discuss helmets. In this June 30, 1940, article of the Pittsburgh Press, president Ford Frick is shown holding a new helmet that he had designed and that he hoped to have the league mandate (other photos available in the article):

"I've been doping out ways to prevent this, rectify that. But the best solution by far to the problem I think, lies with the helmet.

If we could call a league meeting and unanimously pass a measure requiring every batter to wear protection at the plate we would wipe out hospital cases and head injuries in short order."

The Frick helmet starts showing up elsewhere. This is the helmet that Uniwatch linked to last week from Popular Science, and that I found in a different issue of the same magazine. It's also the helmet that Jackie Hayes is wearing in this image dated 8/23/40 that Uniwatch found last month. You can see Hayes and the helmet in action in this photo from the August 23, 1940, edition of the New York Times (I apologize for the graininess, but there's not much you can do with newspaper archives). Cardinal Terry Moore models it in this photo from the July 15, 1940, edition of the Kingsport Times.

In a 1955 article in Baseball Digest, Pee Wee Reese claims that he was the first player to wear a batting helmet, and that he did so in 1940 after getting beaned by Jake Mooty. I didn't see any evidence of this happening in 1940 (though I admit that I didn't exactly research this thread as much as others), though 1941 is a different story.

1941
This a busy year for the helmet. On February 5, 1941, the Ottawa Citizen reported that the National League had adopted a helmet for all clubs to try out in spring training. The helmet was designed by Dr. George Bennett of Johns Hopkins Hospital. The Ottawa Citizen claims that Ford Frick had a hand in the design as well. It's my assumption that this is the same helmet Frick introduced the year before. Dodgers' president Larry MacPhail is the only one to say that he would make his players use it.

MacPhail keeps his promise - sort of. On March 8, 1941, the Dodgers announced that their players would be wearing a new helmet designed by Dr. Bennett and one Dr. Walter Dandy. The Frick helmets would stay in camp, but the players would use a more lightweight helmet. It wasn't exactly the modern day helmet, though:

"Zippered pockets are cut in each side of a regulation baseball cap. Into one of these pockets, on the side he faces the pitcher, the batter will slip a plastic plate which is about a quarter inch thick and little more than an ounce in weight. The plate, about the width and length of a man's hand, covers the vulnerable area from the temple to about an inch behind the ear."

A good picture of the device can be found in the June 1941 issue of Popular Science

The Dodgers weren't the only team wearing these new helmets this year. On April 26, 1941, the Washington Senators joined the Dodgers as teams with protective helmets. The Senators' helmets were sewn shut, though, unlike the Dodgers. On June 6, the Giants also began wearing protective caps. Their protective liners were made of plastic and sewn shut. By June 24, the Cubs were also among the helmeted, which may have proven beneficial. That day, Chicago outfielder Hank Leiber was struck in the head. The New York Times story from the day claims that the helmet saved him from serious injury; the Chicago Tribune, however, claimed that it hit him in a spot "not protected by the new armored cap." On August 20, 1941, St. Louis' Terry Moore (the same one pictured above) is hit in the head, behind the left ear. The New York Times says that "Moore was not wearing the protective helmet with which the Cardinals are equipped. Fellow-players said that Terry did not wear the helmet except in exhibition games." The helmets were obviously making their way around the league by that time.

The May 20, 1941, edition of the St. Petersburg Times claims that the "'41 baseball season marked by war, introduction of helmet". When asked about "modern day" baseball on March 26, 1941, Connie Mack proves again to be a fan of the helmet: "The man who invents a helmet that insures absolute protection will make a fortune... Some players may feel now it would reflect on their gameness to wear one but the time is coming when they will be standard equipment."

1953
In 1950, Branch Rickey left the Dodgers and became general manager of the Pirates. While GM there, he became involved with the American Baseball Cap, Inc. The company, under direction of Charlie Muse, worked with Cleveland engineers Ed Crick and Ralph Davia to design a useful, light-weight batting helmet. Some reports say that, in 1952, Rickey introduced this cap to baseball, citing names like Ralph Kiner and Phil Rizzuto as early adopters. The earliest evidence I can find of the Pirates wearing, however, is from the May 16, 1953, edition of the Times-News of Hendersonville, NC.

(Interestingly enough, a December 6, 1955, article in the Pittsburgh Press, mentions that though "Kiner owns stock in the plastic helmet factory that services the Pirates ... he never wore one in a game.")

On May 5, 1953, the Ottawa Citizen mentions that "major league clubs are becoming quite interested in a new type of plastic protective cap which has been put on the market recently." On July 20, 1953, Brooklyn outfielder Carl Furillo is hit in the head by a pitched ball. The Times-News says that it "struck the top of his protective helmet."

1954
On August 1, 1954, Milwaukee Braves first-baseman Joe Adcock was beaned in the head by Clem Labine in the fourth inning of a game at Ebbets Field. Adcock had hit four home runs the day before, and was brushed back in the third inning. He was carried off the field on a stretcher, but was not seriously injured. The Chicago Tribune reports that his "metal head protector" that "he wore under his cap" took all the damage; the dent in it was visible. The New York Times, however, describes it as a "plastic helmet".

In the wake of the beaning, the Associated Press ran a story detailing the use of "plastic protective helmets" around the league which proved to be a wealth of information. The Milwaukee Journal carried the story on August 3, 1954:

"Plastic protective helmets, such as that which saved Milwaukee Joe Adcock from serious injury Sunday, are worn by a large majority of major league batters.
...
The protective helmet was the personal brainchild of Branch Rickey, now general manager of the Pittsburgh Pirates, who ordered them as standard equipment for his team at spring training in Havana in 1952.

The St. Louis Cardinals followed suit. The rule is so strictly enforced with the Cards that Sal Yvars was fined $25 by the club for failure to wear a helmet in an exhibition game this spring.

Other clubs which make the headgear more or less mandatory are the Cincinnati Reds, Philadelphia Phillies, New York Giants and Chicago Cubs in the National League and the Cleveland Indians and Chicago White Sox in the American League.

There are two types of protective gear. One is the plastic skull cap, such as worn by Adcock and popularized by Rickey. The other is the plastic band. This is the type used by the Giants and Indians. The band offers protection against a ball landing around the temples and other vital spots, but doesn't ward off a shot at the top of the head.

Shortstop Phil Rizzuto is the only member of the New York Yankees who wears a helmet. Three members of the Washington Senators use different kind of headgear. Eddie Yost wears temple protectors, Mickey Vernon has a band which goes all around his head, and Joe Tipton uses the full helmet.

A half dozen or so members of the Baltimore Orioles wear the helmets, as do about the same number of the Boston Red Sox."

The version of the article appearing in the New York Times that day is edited slightly different, and mentions Enos Slaughter as joining Rizzuto as helmet-wearing members of the Yankees.

1956
On December 5, 1955, the National League passed a rule requiring all players to wear protective headgear. The rule went into effect for the 1956 season.

In the early-1950s, the Little League governing board made it mandatory for all children to wear helmets during Little League games. The helmet they used protected both ears, but was not the traditional helmet that we're used to today. In May 1956, shortly after being traded from Cleveland to Chicago, Larry Doby wore a Little League-style helmet in a game at Detroit. Uniwatch has a fantastic photo of it here, and Baseball Digest talks about it briefly here. He was still wearing it in late-May and early-June (includes another photo).

1958
On March 26, 1958, the Little League governing board announced a "new and more comprehensive helmet for Little League batters and base runners" to be used around the country. The new helmet was double-earflapped and looked very much like what we're used to seeing today. The new helmets were rated to withstand balls travelling upwards of 120 mph. At the unveiling, a demonstration was performed, showing that "a modern major league captype helmet, made of a different type of plastic" would crack on a 95 mph pitch. In the picture to the right, note the similarities to the cap in his hand and the cap Doby was wearing in 1956.

Some other facts found in the March 27, 1958, article in the Chicago Tribune:

"Present Little League helmets, which still will be permitted but which - it is hoped - will be supplanted by the new and safer one, are of two types: The cap-helmet used in the big leagues and a wrap-around leather helmet which protects the temples and back of the head but not the top.

The Little League, according to Mickey McConnell, director of training, pioneered the use of helmets in 1949 and since that time has had only about 100 concussions yearly even tho some half-million youngsters play each season."

On March 11, 1958, the American League passed a rule requiring protective headgear for all players. This created a bit of a controversy, when it looked like Ted Williams might challenge the rule on the field of play. He obeyed the rule, however.

1960
On May 2, 1960, Jim Lemon of the Washington Senators wore the new Little League helmet in a major league baseball game. He was the first player to try these new helmets in the big leagues. As the Milwaukee Journal described it, "The helmet has flaps that cover the ears and protect a larger area of the head than the standard plastic helmets. Other players tried out the helmet in batting practice but said it obscured their vision slightly."

Cleveland outfielder Jim Piersall wore the Little League helmet in a game a month later. On June 5, 1960, Piersall hit a home run off Detroit pitcher Pete Burnside. Tigers players felt that he showboated after the dinger (he stopped at third, "doffed his cap and shouted at the Detroit dugout"). When he stepped up to bat two innings later, he was wearing the Little League helmet. Burnside threw three pitches up and in before finally being warned by the umpire. (Another photo can be seen here)

1961
On July 23, 1961, Minnesota catcher Earl Battey is beaned in the face, fracturing his cheek. He would return to the lineup about 10 days later wearing a makeshift ear-flap. He was wearing the earflap on August 11, when he hits two home runs in the game. He says that, despite hitting the two homers, the flap makes it hard for him to see. On September 5, this photo of his earflap (from Uniwatch) is run in various newspapers. One has to wonder why he chose the makeshift route over the Little League helmet already available.

That's about all I can give you right now. The earflapped helmet gradually came into use in the 1960s. In 1971, helmets became mandatory in baseball (I guess as opposed to just "protective headgear") and, in 1974, flapped helmets became mandatory. Reading through all of these newspaper articles and magazine retrospectives this weekend, I was struck by two things: first, how frequent and dangerous these beanballs to the head were in the '30s and '40s; second, how many players are either credited with, or credit themselves with, being the first person to wear a helmet in a game. Pee Wee Reese, Jackie Hayes and Jim Piersall are just a few of players who clearly were not the first to wear helmets in a game, but who seem to remember differently.

One question that goes through your head when you read all of this is "why were players so opposed to helmets when they were first introduced?" Sure, there was the whole 'he looks like a pansy and/or an idiot'-mentality among the players, but I think that would have disappeared quickly. The real reason helmets took so long to catch on is best described by Dan Gutman in his wonderful book, Banana Bats and Ding-Dong Balls:

"Baseball didn't exactly rush to introduce head protection, but part of the problem was that a successful batting helmet required a material that was very strong but also very light. The first helmets made specifically for baseball were made from plaster poured over cloth baseball caps.

Just before World War II, synthetic plastics such as polystyrene and polyethylene were developed. They could be molded into any shape, and they were light, rigid, and tough."

I know there are still gaping holes in this timeline and I don't doubt that I may have left a mistake or two in here. If you see anything like that, let me know. In the meantime, though, I hope you find this history of the batting helmet - and it's less-than-specific answer to the question "who was the first baseball player to wear a batting helmet in a game?" - interesting and informative. Who knew it could be so thick and convoluted? [wezenball2]

Follow us as each week as our best writers from around the Bloguin Network take aim at each other and square off on anything and everything baseball from "who was better, Mays or Mantle" to "Should MLB have a salary cap?" [athbaseball]

Pick a side and agree or disagree. Take part in the debate by posting a comment giving your own opinion. There are no holds barred and nothing is held back in the "The Great Bloguin Baseball Debate."

Today's Debaters are:

Slanch, The Slanch Report

Bill Parker, The Daily Something

Today's Topic is: Should Joe Mauer be moved from behind home plate?

Joe Mauer SHOULD be moved from behind home plate

By Slanch, The Slanch Report - Presenting the best in off-beat sports news, mainstream sports idiocy, the choicest Doppelgangers and always plenty of baseball. Oh and hot chicks, lots of hot chicks.

There is no doubt that Joe Mauer is the best catcher in the American League, but his highest value, the reason the Minnesota Twins want to make a long-term commitment to him, is for his ability at the plate, not behind it.

In the five full years he's spent in the majors, Mauer has missed a total of 146 games. As the team looks to invest in Mauer for the next decade they want to ensure they get the most out of him. At his current pace, missing one out of every 5 seasons is not a great start. Looking forward, as Mauer gets older he isn't likely to become MORE durable, particularly in such a taxing position like catcher. That's not to suggest that Mauer is a bad catcher, he is in fact a better than average catcher. The two Gold Gloves he's won in successive years are a bit deceiving though, they've been gained more thanks to his bat than his glove-work.

Last season Mauer experienced his long-awaited power breakout, he also missed the first month of the season and only tallied 109 games behind the plate, DHing another 28 games -- a career high. How are the Twins best served by having their best player missing an AVERAGE of 30 games a season? That's nearly 120 potential ABs that they are needlessly losing out on.

Having an excellent hitting catcher is an awesome luxury, having a young hitting machine is an even greater one.

In 1992, after 3 years of 100+ games played at catcher in the majors, Craig Biggio switched full-time to playing second base. Already having won a Silver Slugger and been an All Star as a catcher, Biggio made the switch. Over the next 8 seasons he averaged 152 games a season (8 games more) and an OPS+ of 130; that's really really good. Craig Biggio was one of the very good players in the league during his day. Mauer is one of the very best, certainly markedly better than Biggio, one whose talent and ability puts him in the rare stratosphere of one-name superstars, along with the likes of Albert, Hanley and Endy.

Just kidding -- making sure you're paying attention.

Not about Mauer's skills though, he has the chance to produce Ichiro-like numbers with legit power too. That kind of potential can't be lost because he was hurt playing in the field. Switching Mauer to a less physically taxing position will allow him a minimum of 10 more games per season but even more importantly, less strenuous games. Instead of coming to the plate with his legs throbbing from thousands of squats and his hands stinging from a foul tip in the last frame, Mauer will be able to concentrate just on his at-bat and that can only help him concentrate more and hit better.

Then where does he move? First base is occupied through 2013 by Justin Morneau, and he's not about to move anywhere, so that's out. However, currently, the Twins are entering the season with Brendan Harris as their third baseman. Over the last three seasons Harris has played about 130 games, and put up OPS+ of 106, 94 and last year, 77. Essentially, his numbers equate to the average catcher in the AL.

With the way the Twins are set up now, Mauer replaces a normal productive third baseman's numbers and Harris plays the role of a "catcher" while manning third. If you're willing to make that concession already, as an organization, why not take the next step, let Mauer play third and reap the side benefits from him not having to get beat up day in and day out by such a brutal position. With less wear and tear on the body, it only stands to reason that Mauer will see an increase in his numbers at the plate.

A legit quarterback prospect -- he turned down Florida State for baseball -- Mauer is considered such a freak of athletic ability according to his teammates that he's become a verb. When told about how Mauer had recently bowled an effortless 265, Nick Punto told reporters, "That's so Mauer of him to do something like that." Presumably, after catching, the hot corner won't bother Mauer too much.

Of course, that's just assuming Mauer takes to the position, which even for a top athlete is difficult on the fly. Say he doesn't, that's fine, there's always left field, an even less taxing position that any reasonable athlete can manage. Mauer's bat is so good that so long as he isn't Ryan Braun-bad at third, his offensive numbers should outweigh any defensive inadequacies.

The smartest solution for the Twins is to have the MVP make the position switch official next season, allowing him an off season to start working on and preparing for a position change. Freed up from the pressures of catching, physically and mentally, Mauer should build on his already impressive numbers.

Staying at catcher will only lead to more injuries and longer stints on the disabled list as he ages. Catchers are like running backs, their peak shelf life isn't very long. For the Twins to make a gigantic investment in their star, they need to make sure that he is able to actually be on the field. The knee issues he's had don't just clear up and go away, they linger, they develop, they continue to cause havok; 6' 5" men aren't intended to play catcher. All that bending and crouching adds up and will directly lead to missed games and games where Mauer isn't close to his best shape. That's the toll of playing catcher.

Entering his age 27 season, where most hitters see their peak, the Twins want to have Joe on the field and in the batter's box as much as possible. Mauer's talent isn't just good, he's one of the top 3 position players in the game. No matter where he plays he's going to be far above average. Having a stud catcher is more than nice but keeping him on the field is far more valuable. With a position change, Mauer can prolong his career by a number of years and the team can see more games played per season -- everyone wins in that scenario.

Another factor to consider is that the Twins are moving to an out-door stadium this season, 81 games in beautiful downtown Minneapolis. April, May, September, October, those months are going to be absolutely brutal to the players on the field. Exposing Mauer to those kinds of elements, and asking him to play the most physical position on the field is just foolish. Let him play in the field as the pitcher's assistant or the short center fielder if need be, so long as he gets to hit.

There's a reason there hasn't been a catcher like Mauer before, players like him, with a precocious hitting ability like his, get taken off catcher long ago in the minors. Their bats are their tickets to the majors and franchises recognize that is much more valuable and durable not playing catcher.

After he switched positions, Biggio logged 2606 hits in 16 seasons, wouldn't you like to see Mauer do better than that. If he continues as a catcher, Mauer will finish his career with great numbers for a catcher, but there will always be that caveat. His numbers won't compare with other hitters because his career will be marred with time lost from injury, it's just a fact of playing catcher, your body breaks down. Too many foul balls off the mask, stumbles into dugouts chasing a pop out, collisions at home and of course, the catching a big league staffs worth of fastballs lead to the DL, it's unavoidable no matter how finely conditioned the athlete. For one who has already had injuries in the most vulnerable place for a catcher, it just gets worse.

Moving Mauer means many more Minnesota summers where he can lead the league in hitting and add to his Hall of Fame resume. Leaving him at catcher means his potential will never truly be reached, too many games will be lost to the position. Right now the Twins have a Ferrari throttling out of control in a pickup truck's position, let the performance car out in the open and let loose the beast.

Free Joe. Let him fly free. - Slanch, The Slanch Report

Joe Mauer SHOULD NOT be moved from behind Home plate

By Bill Parker, The Daily Something: The Daily Something is a general baseball blog (with a strong pro-Twins slant) that provides just that: something about baseball every day, or at least every weekday. It gets pretty heavily into the analytical and statistical side of the game, but the site also features plenty of commentary and analysis on the current season (or offseason), glimpses into baseball history, and miscellaneous nonsense.

You hear it a lot: Joe Mauer is too valuable to be kept behind the plate. His bat is just too good. You need him in the lineup every day.

Bad idea. Some day, maybe. Just not now, and very likely not anytime soon.

The reason that would be such a phenomenally terrible idea, or the biggest reason, is that Joe Mauer is so valuable in large part because he plays behind the plate. Moving him now might preserve his value in some sense, but there's no question that it would also destroy a big chunk of that value.

Let us count the ways...

A Good Catcher Is Hard to Find

One of the least understood aspects of baseball among most fans today, I think, is positional value. People generally acknowledge that a catcher or shortstop who can hit is more impressive than a first baseman who can hit; they just don't seem to understand how much of a difference the player's position makes (see, e.g., the 2006 AL MVP award).

Well, it's huge. In 2009, the average American League catcher hit .254/.316/.408. That's the worst OPS of any position except shortstop (it's five points ahead of SS); the batting average is 11 points lower and the OBP is 13 lower than any other position. NL catchers didn't have the benefit of Mauer himself, so they hit .255/.325/.385, the worst position in the league in all three categories.

A great hitter who can catch is a very, very valuable thing. Much more valuable than, say, a first baseman, where the average hitter in the 2009 AL hit .271/.351/.481. If you've got a great hitter who can play catcher, it's pretty easy to find a first baseman who can hit. If you put that great hitter at first base, it's a lot harder to then go out and find a catcher who can hit.

One way to understand this is through Tom Tango's position adjustments, one component of Wins Above Replacement. Under that system, each position is worth a certain number of runs per season, to reflect the difficulty of playing that position (as it relates to the difficulty of finding an adequate replacement at that position compared to others).

A player who catches for an entire season gets +12.5 runs under that system; a first baseman loses 12.5. Just by moving a guy from catcher to first base, without regard to how he fields or anything else, you've lost 25 runs right off the bat. Of course, if he's a butcher at C and/or a gold glover at 1B, that'll swing the pendulum back, but you're starting out down two and a half wins by playing him at first. He'd better be Keith Hernandez out there if that's going to make any sense for you.

And speaking of that...

Defense Is Important

Mauer, as everybody seems to recognize, is a good catcher. He might not be great, and might not deserve those Gold Gloves he's been winning, but he's more than competent back there.

So that's one thing you're losing by moving him, but more importantly, where are you going to move him to? First base? Third? Left Field? How do you know he can handle those positions, or how well? Quality of defense, at any position, is worth runs, and thus wins. It's not as simple as deciding you're going to move him and then moving him. Most catchers, even great ones and great athletes, are disasters at other positions. There are phenomenal athletes who are terrible defenders. There's just no reason to believe that Mauer could move to even first base and suddenly be an asset out there. (I'm going to assume for the rest of this post that the position is first base, since that's the easiest one to learn, but certainly don't take that to mean I think moving him to 3B or LF makes any more sense.)

So, not only are you sapping up to 25 runs from his value at point zero just by making the move away from catcher, but you're very likely taking him from a position he plays well to a position he will play poorly, or at least considerably less well. And that's bad.

His Bat Is Already In the Lineup Every Day!

One justification for moving Mauer (one used on this very site) is that catchers get fatigued and need to rest, and you need Mauer's bat in the lineup every day.

Well, let's not forget that the Twins can use the DH, okay? Mauer's injury caused him to miss the first 22 games of 2009. From there on out, for the team's final 140 games, Mauer played in 138 of them; 109 as a catcher, 28 as DH, one as a pinch hitter. It hurt his Wins Above Replacement total (DHes get dinged under that system even more than 1Bs do), but it was the perfect way to use him. And there's no reason he can't keep getting used that way.

It Will Never Be 2009 Again

Silly statement, but it's important to put Mauer's 2009 to one side for a bit. Mauer's 2009, of course, would be impeccable at any position - he'd be less valuable if he hadn't been a catcher, but he'd still have been awfully valuable.

As amazing as he is, though, it's highly unlikely that Mauer will ever hit .365, lead the league in all three slash categories, or hit 28 home runs again.

What if, for the next five (or ten) years, Mauer settles in to an average of the great work he's done over the last five? Per full season (660 plate appearances), that looks like this:

328/.410/.480, 34 2B, 3 3B, 15 HR, 92 R, 87 RBI, 136 OPS+.

Those are pretty numbers for anybody. Very, very good. But for a catcher, they're out of this world.

I personally believe that Mauer was the AL's true MVP not just last year, but in 2006 and 2008 as well. Catchers just don't hit like that (especially not good catchers). Only one catcher ever, Mike Piazza, has topped a 136 OPS+ for his career. Hall of Fame catcher Mickey Cochrane's best five year stretch was a 138 OPS+, as was Bill Dickey's. Yogi Berra's and Johnny Bench topped out at 136 for a five-year stretch, Gabby Hartnett 135, Carlton Fisk 131. If you're a catcher and can do for ten years what Joe Mauer has done for five, you're a Hall of Famer and one of the four or five best ever to play the position. That's all it takes.

As a first baseman, though? First basemen that have had approximately a 135 career OPS+ include Carlos Delgado (138), Dolph Camilli (136), Boog Powell (134), John Kruk (133), and Mo Vaughn (132). Good players all, but none of them was ever (for more than an isolated year or two) the kind of special superstar that Mauer is right now.

So if you think Mauer is going to hit just as he did in 2009 for the next several years, then Mauer the first baseman is going to be a special, special player (again, not as special as Mauer the catcher, but special). If you recognize that he might come back to earth a bit, then you need to acknowledge that you're taking an inner-circle-Hall-of-Fame talent and turning him into just a really good player.

But What About the Injury/Burnout Risk?

That's the big deal, of course. Catchers get hurt more than most. Catchers wear down over time and retire earlier than most (unless their nickname is "Pudge," apparently).

But with Mauer specifically, we have no idea when (or if) he'll break down or what his particular risk is of a truly damaging injury. If, as time goes by, it becomes clear that catching is taking its toll, or he suffers an injury that puts him at risk if he continues to catch, then by all means, start taking a look at a move.

Failing that, though, I'm willing to take the risk. Aside from all that stuff above, note that for right now, at least, he's not under contract. It's cold, I know, but what do the Twins care if Mauer's knees fail him five or six years down the line, if that's going to be the problem of the Yanks or Red Sox?

So that's what it comes down to. You've got a truly great player, one of the four or five best players in baseball, with some reasonable chance of either devastating injury or sudden decline (which might not even end up being your problem).

If you move him, you lose that elite, potentially legendary player and gain a very good one (assuming, again, that he can even handle the position). I just think that you'd better have a really solid reason to do something like that. He might give them that reason someday, but it hasn't happened yet. - By Bill Parker, The Daily Something

For a complete archived list of all our debates please visit THE GREAT BLOGUIN DEBATE HOME PAGE

[athbaseball2]

I am by no means an expert in this topic, but from some things I've been reading around the internet it seems that Nationals prospect Stephen Strasburg may be headed for serious arm trouble. As far as the analysis of mechanics go, I will leave that to ChrisOLeary.com.

"Arm Action: I don't like it. He starts his arm action with a pendulum swing, but has a bad "grab" as he tenses up his wrist and takes his elbow well beyond his acromial line in an attempt to "load" his scapula in a forced manner. He actually reminds me a lot of Mark Prior (gasp!)."[thenatsblog]

If you don't believe in mechanical analysis, we can also go to the statistics. I wont go into a scientific study of the following claims, but I will do a couple of quick cases.

First, some claim that pitchers who share the mechanics of Strasburg, such as Mark Prior, really get injured because they are frail. The second claim is that pitchers such as Prior don't get injured because they have bad mechanics, or because they are frail, but because they were overworked early in their careers. Let's see how these claims hold up.

With the first claim we face the difficulty of defining what frail means. Here frail certainly cannot mean its dictionary definition because I do not think at 6'5, 225 anybody would consider Mark Prior frail--I doubt any Major League pitcher in his mid-20s would fit anyone's definition of frail. So perhaps it has something to do with the pitcher's bone structure, his make-up, or something intangible. At the very least it is not something easily defined, and thus has weak predictive ability.

That said, for the sake of argument, let's assume Mark Prior is frail and that frail means someone of a body type similar to Mark Prior. Mark Prior's long string of injuries first began after throwing 5,426 pitches in the Major Leagues. Dan Haren has never spent an extended stint on the DL despite throwing over 19,000 pithces in his career. Dan Haren, at 6'5, 215, is perhaps more frail than Mark Prior. So what can explain the difference between the two? Perhaps we have picked the wrong measurement of frailty or perhaps it is because Mark Prior faced a heavy workload in the beginning of his career while Haren did not. We now investigate the second claim.

Mark Prior's Major League career began when he was 21. By the time he was 23 he had thrown 5,426 pitches. Mark Buehrle's career began when he was 21. After being 23 for several months, Mark Buehrle had thrown over 6,000 pitches. Mark Prior career has been riddled with injuries. Buehrle has never been on the DL for an extended period of time. It seems that Prior's injuries cannot simply be explained by the fact that he was overworked when he was young. We have eliminated frailty as well. Could the answer possibly lie in Prior's mechanics?

As I have said, the above does not constitute a scientific study. You could argue I cherry-picked Haren and Buerhle since they are two especially durable pitchers. But even then, the explanations of frailty and being overworked do not explain these cases while the mechanical analysis does. (You could argue I cherry-picked Prior too. Again, though, the explanations fail.) All of this is not to say that some pitchers are not too frail to play in the Majors or that overworking young players is detrimental to their health. I am arguing, however, that mechanics can provide far better explanations for the injuries pitchers face.

So keep this in mind, Nats fans, when partaking in Strasburg-mania. Whether we rush him or not, Strasburg's mechanics point to an injury-riddled career. Let's hope he's not frail to boot. [thenatsblog2]

As the most competitive division in baseball, you can't help but feel for the Baltimore Orioles, Tampa Bay Rays, and Toronto Blue Jays. Anywhere else, they would have enjoyed their fair share of success. Stuck behind the deep pockets of the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox, though, they have mostly failed to see anything but the basement of the division. [twinstarget]

For eight of the past ten years, the Yankees and Red Sox have finished 1st and 2nd in the AL East. The Rays shocked the baseball world in 2008 when they won the division, while the Blue Jays managed a 2nd-place finish in 2006.

This division is extremely competitive. As an outsider, watching the two powerhouses of baseball fight for the top position in the AL East is sometimes humorous. When one of the teams makes a major acquisition, the other feels compelled to do the same. The Yankees brought on CC Sabathia, so the Red Sox added John Lackey. New York added Curtis Granderson, so Boston signs Mike Cameron a few days later.

While the top two teams battle for the division crown, with the losing team likely getting the Wild Card berth, the three other teams silently dream of greener pastures while plotting their two- or three-year runs during which they can take down the dreaded top-dogs of the AL East.

The AL East will bring more of the same in 2010: Two teams on top, while the three others battle for scraps and future positioning. Here is how I think the AL East will play out in 2010:

Although the Yankees owe at least a small portion of the credit for their 27th World Championship to luck, pure talent is oozing out of the entire lineup and starting rotation.

After bringing in free agents Mark Teixeira, CC Sabathia, and Alex Burnett last offseason, the Yankees have added Javier Jasquez, Nick Johnson, and Curtis Granderson for this year's campaign. Say what you will about MLB's supposed need of a salary cap and the “lack of parity” in the sport, but thanks to smart management the Yankees have a surplus of young talent and appear ready for a smooth transition once the Fab Four end their illustrious careers.

Currently, the entire team is slowly aging, but New York looks primed for yet another World Series run in 2010. If one of Joba Chamberlain or Philip Hughes can prove effective in the rotation, the Yankees could boast the strongest starting five in baseball: Sabathia, Burnett, Vasquez, Pettitte, and Chamberlain/Hughes. Even with the fly-ball tendencies of Yankee Stadium, New York should once again be one of the best at holding opponents to low scores.

Because of a very strong staff of hurlers, the Yankees' offense need only be average. With the likes of Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez, Mark Teixeira, Nick Johnson, Jorge Posada, and Curtis Granderson gracing the batting order, though, New York should have no problem surpassing the century mark in wins for the 2nd consecutive year. They are the clear favorites at the 2010 World Series title.

 

2. Boston Red Sox – (96-66)

Theo Epstein is one of the brightest, youngest general managers in the league. His general “savvy-ness” (and access to Jim Hendry's deep wallets) have helped make the Boston Red Sox a very powerful force this past decade.

With an aging core of veterans in 2010, though, Boston is opening the checkbook in an attempt to build a stop-gap team that will challenge the Yankees. The Red Sox acquired John Lackey as their contribution to the AL East arms race, which gives them an excellent 1-2-3 punch in Lackey/Beckett/Lester. Boston also solidified the defense by bringing in center fielder Mike Cameron and third baseman Adrian Beltre. None of these players should be considered “young,” but the last thing the Red Sox want is to let the Yankees win the AL East without a fight.

Relative to the rest of the league, Boston's offense is top-notch. With the bats of David Ortiz, Victor Martinez, and Dustin Pedroia leading the offensive charge, the Red Sox should be able to score plenty of runs. Compared to the mighty lineup in the Bronx, however, Boston will most probably come up short.

Boston will once again be competing with the Yankees for the AL East crown in 2010. As the only division in baseball where 90+ wins will buy you nothing more than a Wild Card berth, though, the Red Sox will have to settle for second-best in the AL East. That being said, their outstanding pitching and improved defense give them a very strong chance to advance deep into the 2010 postseason.

 

3. Tampa Bay Rays – (90-72)

The Rays are stuck in perhaps the worst circumstances in baseball: a less-than-desirable stadium, a virtually non-existent market, and being forced to compete in the toughest, most expensive division in the league. Although Tampa Bay captured the countries' imagination in 2008, they have their work cut out for them in 2010.

A very strong, mostly-homegrown core of hitters will certainly help the Rays compete this season. Carlos Pena, Ben Zobrist, Carl Crawford, BJ Upton, and Jason Bartlett will all be mainstays in the lineup, while the talented Desmond Jennings and Gabe Kaplar could both contribute in smaller roles.

The season will hinge on whether or not the bullpen and rotation are able to perform at adequate levels. Matt Garza, James Shields, David Price, Jeff Niemann, and one of Jeremy Hellickson/Wade Davis/Matt Moore form a deep, albeit very average, starting staff.

Manager Joe Maddon hopes the erratic bullpen of last year will be stabilized by Rafael Soriano and improvements from Dan Wheeler, JP Howell, and Grant Balfour.

Situated in the most competitive division in baseball, the Rays will need more than a few things to fall in their favor in order for them to compete for the division title in 2010. With the right combination of consistent pitching and good luck, though, a Wild Card berth could certainly be a possibility.

 

4. Baltimore Orioles - (74-92)

For the first time in years, there is hope on the horizon for the Baltimore Orioles. While past seasons and drafts have been plagued with incompetence, the Orioles of late have built a young team and assembled a core that is the envy of baseball.

Adam Jones, Nick Markakis, Matt Wieters, and pitchers Brian Matusz, Zach Britton, Chris Tillman, and Jake Arrieta all show outstanding promise and should pave the way for competitive Orioles teams in the not-too-distant future. Josh Bell and Brandon Snyder are on their way, as well, and will both make a significant impact on the offensive side of the ball.

The offense in Camden Yards has has been groomed and appears relatively mature. Markakis is a doubles-hitting machine and will be a hot fantasy commodity in 2010. Adam Jones and Nolan Reimold are coming into the primes of their careers, as well, and will contribute no small amount of offense to the Oriole's cause.

Baltimore has been quite stingy with their free agent signings these past few years, but shows a willingness to become aggressive once again. With another year or two of experience for this young core of talent, the time may be right for Baltimore to mount a serious challenge to the Yankees and Red Sox. By bringing on several top free agents to augment an already-solid team, the Orioles could pose legitimate threats to reach the postseason.

This year, though, the rotation is comprised of average-at-best starters in Kevin Millwood, Jeremy Guthrie, and Brad Bergesen with two rookies filling out the No.4 and No. 5 positions. The 2010 Orioles will struggle to limit the number of runs their opponents score, and as a result will lose more games than they win.

Though the win/loss barometer may not indicate much improvement in the Orioles in 2010, rest assured that they are on their way down the path to contention.

 

5. Toronto Blue Jays - (67-95)

After trading away face of the franchise Roy Halladay, new Toronto general manager Alex Anthropoulos has clearly punted on any hope of contention in 2010. Though the haul of young talent they received as compensation for their ace is very deep, the earliest the Blue Jays can expect a winning record would be 2012.

There are several young pieces already (or nearly) in place for Toronto, however. Adam Lind, Brett Wallace, Travis Snider, and pitchers Kyle Drabek and Zach Stewart should all figure to be in the mix in 2012. So should one of catchers Travis d'Arnaud and JP Arencibia, as well as pitcher Tim Collins.

There is certainly talent in Toronto's system, but the current major-league roster looks painfully thin. The first two-thirds of the Blue Jay's batting order of Jose Bautista/Vernon Wells/Aaron Hill/Adam Lind/Edwin Encarnacion/Lyle Overbay certainly aren't scrubs, but thinking of riding their offensive production into the postseason in the AL East would be ridiculous.

Having an ERA that will hover around 5.00, the starting rotation that will be horrid at best. This current Toronto roster will be tough to watch at times. With a fresh crop of promising talent waiting in the wings, though, hope abounds for the Blue Jays. They will have their shot at the Yankees and Red Sox. Just not any time soon.

[twinstarget2]

Follow us as each week as our best writers from around the Bloguin Network take aim at each other and square off on anything and everything baseball from "who was better, Mays or Mantle" to "Should MLB have a salary cap?"

Pick a side and agree or disagree. Take part in the debate by posting a comment giving your own opinion. There are no holds barred and nothing is held back in the "The Great Bloguin Baseball Debate."

Today's Debaters are:

Danny Hobrock, Around the Horn Baseball

Larry Granillo, Wezen-ball.com

Today's Topic is: Should MLB have a Salary Cap? [athbaseball]

Editors Note: Even with steroids at the forefront, there has been perhaps no bigger topic debated by baseball fans across the country these past few years than that of the prospects for a MLB Salary Cap.

While it's virtually universally agreed upon that a Salary Cap will never be put in place because the MLBPA will never allow it as part of its CBA, that doesn't stop supporters of a cap (especially those from small market teams) from lobbying for it.

There are legitimate arguments for both sides and more than anything, that's what fuels the debate. We've taken our own poll here at Around the Horn Baseball, and as of the posting of this article, almost 1,300 votes have been cast with about 79% of the voters in favor of a Salary Cap or something similar. (You can vote yourself in the right sidebar).

With those thoughts as the backdrop, let's get on with it as Larry Granillo and Danny Hobrock roll up their sleeves and delve into the Salary Cap issue in this edition of The Great Bloguin Baseball Debate.

MLB SHOULD have a Salary Cap

By Danny Hobrock, Around the Horn Baseball: Danny is a sports journalist primarily covering college football and professional baseball. His work for Around the Horn Baseball and Xtra Point Football has garnered national attention and is critically acclaimed. Danny is the former editor of a political and current events website and the current editor of college football content for Xtra Point Football.

Arguing in favor of a salary cap is an almost unwinnable position. Not because baseball doesn't need one, but because it's unlikely that it'll ever come to fruition in the near or distant future. Still, that doesn't change the fact that baseball should implement a salary cap to create parity, improve the fairness of the game and draw in smaller market fans.

A salary cap would not be the end to the free market as we know it

I can already hear the screaming: "This is America!!!" "Commie!!!" "Free market!!" "Random anti-socialism remark!!!"

Proponents of the free market argument point out that an owner who wants to pay Barry Zito $126 million over 7 years should damn well be allowed to do so. It's their right as an American citizen. They argue that there should be no limit to the amount of money a team can spend on a player's salary in our free market society.

But competition laws have been in existence since Roman times. In the United States, anti-trust laws work to preserve marketplace competition. Baseball, of course, is for some reason exempt from antitrust laws because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1922 that baseball was not an interstate affair and that traveling from one state to another was "a mere incidence, and not the essential thing," according to Justice Oliver Holmes, Jr. Therefore, it was ruled that baseball is exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1914. Courts have upheld the decision since the ruling.

The basic idea behind the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1914 was to prevent unfair business acts that create an unfair marketplace such as monopolizing. Not that any team has created a monopoly in MLB, not even the Yankees. There is a clear disparity between the 30 teams.

And with such a large disparity comes unfair advantages for big spenders.

Forbes' review of Major League Baseball in April of 2009 found that team values increased overall by an average of 1%, overall league revenue increased 5.5% and operating income rose by 1.8% the previous year. It also found that "overall results are skewed by a handful of teams with great stadiums and cable television deals. Business is tough: Ten franchises saw their values decline during the past year, the most since 2004, and many teams are having a more difficult time selling premium seating, sponsorships and meeting debt obligations because of the bad economy. The net result is a widening gap between the teams at the top and the ones at the bottom."

With smaller value, less ticket sales, smaller television audiences and, therefore, less sponsorship and advertising revenue, "teams at the bottom" cannot afford to pay a player like the Yankees or Red Sox.

Neil deMause, in Baseball Between the Numbers: Why Everything You Know About the Game is Wrong, brings up an interesting point. From a business standpoint, a team will not pay a player more money than they think he will bring in terms of ticket sales, concessions, souvenirs, etc. In a small market like Kansas City or Milwaukee, an Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, C.C. Sabathia, etc. will not be able to bring in as much money as they would in New York, Boston, Los Angeles and other large markets simply because of the size of the market. For smaller market teams, it just doesn't make much sense to buy players the way large market teams do.

MLB lacks parity

In 2009 the Yankees had an opening day payroll $201,449,189 according to a list created by USAToday.com. They won the World Series.

Of course, as we all know, big spending does not necessarily translate into championships.

The next biggest spender, according to the list, was their New York counterpart over in Queens. The Mets opened their 2009 season with a payroll of $149,373,987. The Mets finished 2009 in 4th place in the NL East with a 70-92 record. But just because the Mets cannot effectively spend their money doesn't mean that there isn't a trend between spending big and making the postseason.

Of the teams with the 10 highest payrolls, half made the postseason. (Detroit, 5th highest payroll, finished 1 game behind Minnesota, 24th highest payroll, in the AL Central and missed the playoffs.)

Only one team among the 10 lowest payrolls made the postseason in 2009 (Minnesota).

Consider there's eight playoff teams and only two came from the bottom half of the salary list (25%) and six came from the top half (75%) and there's a clear trend here. But it's hard to come to a conclusion by examining just one season.

So let's go back to 1995 before team payrolls reached even $50 million. This was the year the DVD was first announced and when eBay first hit the Internet. MLB teams played 144 games in 1995 instead of 162 because of the carryover from 1994's strike, but it's enough to work with. It was also the first year of the extended 8 team playoff, not counting 1981's strike shortened season, which gives us stability in our sample size.

That gives us a nice round 15 seasons to work with and 120 playoff teams overall. 73 of the 120 playoff teams had team payrolls at the beginning of the season in the top 10 of the league. That's roughly 61% of all playoff teams. 93 of the 120 had team payrolls at the beginning of the season in the top half of the league. That's 77.5% of all playoff teams.

Of our 15 year sample size, 14 out of the 15 World Series Champions had a team salary at the beginning of the season that ranked in the top half of all teams. The lone exception was the 2003 Florida Marlins who, with a team salary of $48,750,000, ranked 25th on the list. 10 of the 15 WS Champs ranked in the top 10 in team salary, while 8 of the 15 WS Champs ranked in the top 5.

You call that parity?

Can teams buy championships?

The success of smaller market teams in recent years has added fuel to the anti-salary cap side. The Devil Rays, Rockies and Marlins have all made World Series appearances (Florida won) last decade despite team payrolls in the bottom half of the league.

Similarly, the lack of success by big spenders like the Mets and inconsistent success of teams like the Cubs and Mariners has also lent support to the anti-salary cap side.

If you don't count the Yankees, teams who won the World Series increased their payroll by an average of +16.28% from the previous year. The Marlins increased their payroll by 58.76% between 1996 and their world championship year of 1997, while the then-Anaheim Angels increased payroll by 29.30% from 2001 to their world championship year of 2002.

Upon entering the league in 1998, the Arizona Diamondbacks quickly catapulted into the ranks of top ten team payrolls from 1999 to 2003, finishing with a winning record each season, making the playoffs in three of the five seasons and winning the 2001 World Series. Since falling out of the top ten team payrolls they've finished with a losing record in four of six seasons and made the playoffs just once.

Changing Winds?

The Pittsburgh Pirates and the Kansas City Royals have finished in the bottom ten of team payrolls in all but two years of our 15 season sample (Pittsburgh had the 19th highest team payroll in 2003 and the 18th highest in 2001). They have not made the playoffs since the postseason was extended to eight teams.

The Tampa Bay Devil Rays (now just the Rays) entered the league the same year as the Diamondbacks and have found themselves in the bottom ten of team payrolls in every year but two. Their brief money spending efforts did them little good in 2000 (10th highest payroll) and 2001 (19th highest payroll) and they did not post a winning record until 2008 when they went to the World Series with the second lowest payroll in the MLB.

The Florida Marlins are constantly looked at as a low payroll team who has translated thriftiness into success, or at least winning records. The Marlins have had the lowest team payroll for the last two seasons, but have managed a winning record in both years and even competed for the postseason.

With a salary cap in place, teams would take the approach of the Marlins and Rays more often in developing players in their farm systems instead of relying on free agency and trades.

Take the NFL. Free agency and trading is not dead, but teams rely more on building through the draft than in the MLB and there is much greater parity in the league. It would be interesting to see how some teams fare without the option to simply outbid their competition for top tier talent.

Small Market Crowds

One of the obvious benefits and most argued points among salary cap supporters is the impact it would likely have on small market teams. With greater parity, clubs like the Marlins, Royals, A's, Rays, etc. would theoretically win more games and have a greater chance of making the postseason. Of course, factors such as scouting, development, coaching and management would also play a role.

More wins and postseason appearances would then theoretically bring more fans to the ballpark, increasing revenues for small market clubs. That's not even mentioning the added revenue that a postseason appearance would bring.

One example of the correlation between postseason appearances and attendance comes from the New York Yankees. The capacity of old Yankee Stadium was 57,545 in 1980 and stayed that way through 2007. During the Yankees' 13 year playoff drought from 1982 to 1994, average attendance was 26,892 per game. (1994 was the strike-shortened season and the Yankees were on their way to making the postseason before the strike.) During their 13 year playoff streak from 1995 to 2007, average attendance was 40,572.

Teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Phillies, Dodgers and other large market teams have a geographic advantage over small market clubs in terms of fan base. A strong fan base and park attendance brings in revenue from ticket sales, concessions, souvenirs, etc.

Last year, not one of the teams that ranked in the bottom half of the attendance report made the playoffs. All eight teams came from the top half of the report. A salary cap would lessen the gap between teams in terms of on-the-field talent and overall team value, which would theoretically further reduce the disparity in talent.

Closing Statement

As we sit now, some teams just cannot compete with the Yankees and Red Sox of the league. When small market teams draft well and develop players into league leaders and perennial all-stars, they are swept away by big market teams.

Back to the Marlins. In 2008, the Marlins signed superstar Hanley Ramirez to a 6 year $70 million contract extension through 2014. But consider how much of a rarity that is for a team who has seen so many players they drafted, brought up and/or developed early in their career fall to free agency or traded away. In no particular order: Trevor Hoffman, Rob Nenn, Livan Hernandez, Edgar Renteria, Charles Johnson, Brad Penny, Derrek Lee, A.J. Burnett, Josh Beckett, Miguel Cabrera, Dontrelle Willis, etc.

Other teams have lost as many players, but most big market teams don't have to jettison their best players for "business reasons".

Some teams would choose not to take advantage of the cap and would open the season with a team payroll of far less than what they are allowed. But a salary cap would create the opportunity for teams to compete and would be a huge first step in preventing big market teams from creating an unfair marketplace. - Danny Hobrock, Around the Horn Baseball

MLB SHOULD NOT have a Salary Cap

By Larry Granillo, Wezen-ball.com: "Written by a devoted fan of the game, Wezen-Ball.com uses some do-it-yourself statistical analysis and various contemporary accounts (including newspapers and magazines) to look at the game of baseball, both past and present - and, whenever possible, at where the two meet. The occasional off-the-wall post is not unheard of."

In July 2008, Brewers GM Doug Melvin rolled the dice and traded the club's top prospect, Matt LaPorta, to the Indians for ace and impending-free agent CC Sabathia. The gamble paid off, and the Brewers were able to ride CC to the Wild Card berth and their first trip to the playoffs in over 25 years. The Brewers lost in the first round to the eventual-World Champions, but their goal of making the playoffs had been met. It was an exciting summer to be a Brewers fan.

But we knew it couldn't last. With CC's impending free agency, there was very little hope that the Brewers would be able to lock him up. Sure, there were the wide-eyed optimists who tried to convince themselves that the playoff run, the fun-loving group of guys, and CC's natural affinity for a smaller market would push him to stay in Milwaukee, but they were certainly the exception. It was pretty widely accepted, in Milwaukee and around the country, that the Bewers would have no chance at signing the ace. When he finally did file for free agency, the Brewers offered the young stud a five-year, $100 million contract. He would eventually accept a seven year, $160 million contract, with a very favorable opt-out clause, from the Yankees. As many said, the Brewers never had a chance. Their $100 million offer was so large for them - and so small compared to the Yanks' offer - that consensus seems to be that it was merely a token offer from the Brewers. (In fact, owner Mark Attanasio is still having to defend himself against such claims today.)

The Brewers face a similar situation next year, when Prince Fielder becomes eligible for free agency. In the 2008 off-season, he and the club reached an $18 million agreement that would keep him out of arbitration for two years. That contract runs out this year, and he will face arbitration for the first and only time this winter - unless a deal can be reached. Seeing as how Prince is a Scott Boras client, and considering the big dollars that he is likely to receive (think Mark Teixeira or Matt Holliday money), it seems all but certain that he will be wearing a different uniform in 2012. The Brewers, then, will have to make a decision on what to do with Prince in the next two years: ride him and his MVP-caliber bat all the way to free agency and hope for the playoffs; trade him sometime in 2011, before he reaches free agency; or trade him even sooner, in 2010, when his contract situation might garner the club more value. I'm already on record about how I would treat this situation.

There are many, though, especially in a "small market" like Milwaukee, who seem to think that a salary cap would solve this problem. When everyone is on a level-playing field with what they can offer a player, then the huge advantages enjoyed by a team like the Yankees will disappear and players like Prince will be more inclined to stay with the "small market" club he grew up in.That, however, is just not so. A salary cap would not fix this, or similar situations, and would not be baseball's magic potion of parity.

Where do you set the cap?

In 2009, the median salary level among the 30 MLB teams was $81 million. The Brewers payroll for the year topped out at $80.2 million. And that was a tight $80.2 million, even after back-to-back years of 3-million-plus attendance. The Brewers owner, Mark Attanassio, is already fretting about a possible $85 or $90 million payroll this year. How low, then, would the salary cap have to be set in order for the Brewers to have room for Prince in their budget?

A sensible proposal might be to use the current median salary as the cap limit. If that were the case, the Brewers would already be at their cap, even before giving Prince a shiny, new contract. A higher cap would do nothing for a team like the Brewers since they have no extra money to spend, and a lower cap seems extremely unlikely since it would so unevenly hinder the larger market teams. It would take some sort of concession to the big city clubs, like the ability to go beyond the cap through penalty of luxury tax or something, for that to happen. If that's instituted, then the salary cap will mean very little for the "small market" teams.

Say, for example, that the cap was set at $90 million - high enough that it allows the Brewers to offer Prince a respectable contract while not increasing their payroll a large amount. If that $90 million figure is coupled with a luxury tax, then how would a team like the Brewers be able to compete with the Yankees? A dollar-for-dollar luxury tax (like the NBA's) would effectively wipe out the advantages "small market" clubs gain. In the $90 million proposal above, it would only take the Yankees an additional $55 million in above-cap contracts to get them to their current level. That additional $55 million - two-thirds more than the initial cap - would make a huge difference in this hypothetical world. Teams without those kind of advantages would be back to where they are today, competing on an "unfair ground" with the big market clubs.

But it's not like a salary cap would ever put them on completely fair ground to begin with...

Higher salaries are not the only advantage "large market" teams enjoy

Let's pretend for a moment that the league can come up with some cap level that is reachable by all teams, and that all thirty owners actually start spending the money to reach it. Will the league somehow become competitively balanced overnight? Will the Kansas City's and Milwaukee's and San Diego's of the league all of a sudden gain the power to lure top-level free agents away from the big cities? Of course not. These "small market" clubs, in this hypothetical world, may have as much money to offer as their "large market" counterparts, but that doesn't mean that free agents will see the cities as equal.

Take Johnny Damon, for example. If that $7 million offer that he signed with the Tigers last month had been matched by the Mets or Yankees or Dodgers or Cubs - at the time he agreed to it, of course (we all know how badly he screwed up his initial negotiations) - there is no chance that he would have accepted Detroit's offer. It was even reported as such in the week or so leading to the announcement, with reports saying that Damon's wife "would prefer him to play in a more cosmopolitan city than Detroit".

The fact of the matter is, the "large market" teams have inherent advantages over "small market" teams that go beyond their payroll abilities. Being able to associate yourself with the Yankees or Cubs is much more valuable, in terms of image, appearance fees, endorsements, etc, than being able to associate yourself with, say, the Royals or Expos (just ask Andre Dawson). There's also the confidence that the player might feel in the owner's willingness to keep the payroll up and in the fans' willingness to come to games and buy stuff. Plus, players just might prefer to live in a bustling city like New York instead of Minneapolis.

These are real concerns that free agents will always have, and there is very little that smaller market teams can do about them. Even worse, in a world where the Royals and Yankees can offer identical contracts to top-notch free agents, these lesser details might grow more important. Why would anyone choose Kansas City over New York, all else being equal?

But, you say, at least it'll keep the ticket prices down. Not so fast...

There is no guarantee that ticket/concession/merchandise prices will go down

The hope is that, with a salary cap in place, teams will no longer be able to raise their payroll to exorbitant heights and that, in turn, this will keep ticket prices down. After all, if salaries are controlled from year to year, then teams will no longer be able to claim a sudden increase in payroll as a justification for a price hike. In this ideal world, all price increases will be small and predictable.

But that's just silly. First of all, payroll is only one part of the team's expenses that it hopes to offset by ticket prices. If any of the other costs of the ballclub go up - paying off debt, stadium renovation, travel costs, etc - then ticket prices would also need to be raised. But even if those could be held steady, ticket prices never will.

If a salary cap was passed this year, and the Yankees were forced to lower their payroll to $100 million immediately, would they also slash their seat prices in half? Of course not. Not only would that lower the value and prestige of seats in the New Yankee Stadium in the public's eyes - and yes, any time somethings price is halved, that's the impression it gives the public - but it would also go counter to the laws of supply and demand. If fans are willing to pay the current prices for tickets, why in the world would the team suddenly lower their prices? What incentive would they have? Also, smaller market clubs like the Brewers, who are already pushing the boundaries of their payroll, wouldn't even be able to lower prices without compromising their ability to pay those salaries.

Ticket prices are bound to go up, and even a salary cap won't prevent that.

A salary cap is no panacea

The Brewers were a bad team for a long time. Before their 83-79 record in 2007, they hadn't had a winning season since 1992. In 2002, when they finished the season 56-106, the contraction talk that was bandied about that year almost certainly would have fallen on them if not for their close ties to Bud Selig. This was a franchise that was not in good shape. But their fortunes changed, and it wasn't because they suddenly found Scrooge McDuck's money pit. Instead, they became a competitive franchise through good scouting (thanks to Jack Zdureinek), good drafting (also thanks to Daddy Warbucks), good trading and good signings (thanks to the Mustache, Doug Melvin). They drafted Prince Fielder and Ryan Braun in the first round; they traded Scott Podsednik, Carlos Lee, and Francisco Cordero at their peaks; and they signed the likes of Mike Cameron to respectable contracts. Nothing about these moves scream "sexy", but they were all valuable and they were all wise. And moves like these are why the people of Milwaukee have reason to hope for October baseball again.

The Brewers aren't even the best example of this. The Rays made it to the World Series only two years ago after toiling at the bottom of the league, in both wins and salary, for its entire existence. In both 2005 and 2006, the two World Series participants were both middle-of-the-road payroll teams. The Marlins won the World Series in 2003 with one of the lowest payrolls in the league. Anyone saying that it takes big money to win in today's game is just wrong.

It is true that maintaining a winning team is still hard for the smaller market, smaller payroll teams, but that doesn't mean a salary cap is in order. For the reasons listed above - inherent, non-payroll advantages for big city teams and limited payrolls that would keep teams from even reaching the cap figure to begin with - there's no legitimate reason to believe that a salary cap would make a difference. And besides, who ever said that winning should be easy?

There are many other reasons to be wary of implementing a salary cap. I don't think I have to re-hash the arguments that it's unfair to keep players from earning their full, open-market worth, particularly when the difference is pocketed by the owners. And I don't think anyone needs reminding that a large payroll does not necessarily buy in-season success or that everyday occurrences, like injuries, can lead even the best-laid plans astray. These are the typical arguments given in opposition to a proposed salary cap. While I do agree with them, I think the reasons above are even more important.

There is nothing inherent about a salary cap that will guarantee parity or a level-playing field. Exploits will be found and used. When millions upon millions of dollars are at stake, you can pretty much guarantee that. Major League Baseball would be wise not to adopt this idea, and fans of "small market" teams would be wise to encourage their teams to invest in that which does win ballgames: a smart front-office that knows how to get the right players. Until we try that experiment for a few years with all 30 teams, ideas like "salary caps" need to be ignored. - Larry Granillo, Wezen-ball.com

For more in depth Salary Cap coverage, please see the following:

- MLB Salary Cap & Salary Floor; Would They Really Help?

- There has to be a better way to do this....

- MLB franchise owners are rooting for the Yankees to buy a 27th Championship

For a complete archived list of all our debates please visit "The Great Bloguin Baseball Debate" HOME PAGE.

[athbaseball2]

This list is a testament to the depth of first base this season.  There aren't many sleepers, but there are a few possible busts.  Who will surprise?  Who will disappoint?  Let's take a look... [fantasybaseball365]

Adam LaRoche - It is well documented that LaRoche is a slow starter.  From 2007-2009 his pre-all-star AVG is .246 and .309 post-all-star.  However, over that time he has hit about the same amount of home runs pre and post all-star break.  Now, LaRoche takes his left handed stroke to Chase Field, which has always been a great hitter's park.  While he'll never be a star, LaRoche has a very good chance of hitting a few more home runs and settng a career high in RBI hitting in the middle of an up-and-coming lineup.

Nick Johnson - There will always be an injury risk when it comes to N.J., but becoming the Yankees full time DH may help that issue a bit.  If he ends up hitting second in that lineup, as he should, he could easily score 90-plus runs as well as benefit from the protection of Teixeira and A-Rod.  Given a low-low draft position, Johnson could provide some descent value as a corner in mixed leagues and be extremely valuable in AL-only and OBP leagues.

Chris Davis - Everyone’s favorite breakout of 2009 (guilty) turned out to be a major bust.  Davis was on pace to strike out more often that Mark Reynolds before a trip to the minors kept him out of the record books.  In danger of being lapped by top prospect Justin Smoak, Davis showed improvement in his strikeout rate and returned to the majors with a better plate approach.  Davis's power potential remains immense and his draft stock has been lowered significantly.  That could make him a big value on draft day and a great sell high candidate should he start the season blasting home runs like he can.

Derrek Lee - Given his top ten round draft status, Lee could very well end up a bust in 2010.  It's hard to imagine that Lee's 2009 home run total was the second highest of his career.  He also hit fly balls at the highest rate of his career.  The odds say he won't repeat his power numbers and his AVG should regress closer to his career average of .284.  Lee could still provide value, but not as a top ten round pick.

As stated above, first base is deep and there are not a lot of surprises.  This only means that you don't have to reach on one early if you'd rather grab a top-flight third baseman like Evan Longoria or David Wright. [fantasybaseball3652]