YES Network.com

When I was young, the Yankees couldn't beat the Mariners in Seattle. The Mariners were new, barely a team, and they existed only because Baseball settled a lawsuit with the city after letting Bud Selig kidnap the Pilots to Milwaukee. They didn't have a winning season from 1977 through 1990. In those first years their best player was Ruppert Jones and their best pitcher was a shaky closer named Enrique Romo. The Yankees couldn't beat them.

In their first season, the Mariners played the Yankees 10 times. Overall they went 4-6. That breaks down to 0-5 on the road, 4-1 at home. We're talking about a team that lost 98 games versus the defending American League pennant winners and the eventual world champions. The next year the M's lost 104 games but went 4-2 against the Yankees at home. In 1979 they lost 95 games but went 5-1 against the Yankees in the Kingdome. It took until 1980, when the Mariners lost 103 games, for the Yankees to post a winning record in the City of Watery Goo.

Nothing ever changes.

It rains a lot in Seattle. As the chorus sings in "Bambi," I'm getting wet and I don't care at all. It's a good night for nihilism.

CLUELESS
Someone should swap Dusty Baker to the Department of Defense. He'd fit right in. Yesterday he addressed the Cubs' offensive problems. The Cubs are last in the National League in runs scored. They're last in the majors in runs scored. They score less than I did when I was in Seattle. The key problem is that the Cubs are last in the NL in on-base percentage, second to last in the majors (behind the Damon Hollins Devil Rays). They trail the universe in walks. With just 308 walks so far, the Cubs are on pace to finish with less than 400 walks, something rarely done in a complete (that is, non-strike) season; from 1975 through 2005, just eight teams drew less than 400 walks.

Yet, Baker doesn't think this is the problem. He's more worried about home runs. "On-base percentage is great if you can score runs and do something with that on-base percentage," Baker said. "On-base percentage just to clog up the bases isn't that great to me." (as per Chicago's Daily Herald)

I'm going to do a little song and dance now about how you can't score runs without getting on base. It's a lot of work to prove the most obvious fact about baseball since they figured out that the game was a lot more interesting if you used the bat to strike the ball, rather than running into the ball with your face and then clubbing the pitcher to death in a fit of rage and humiliation, but bear with me.

The Cubs have 128 home runs, ranking them 10th in the NL. They've homered at the same rate both at home and on the road, so their power, such as it is, isn't a Wrigley Field illusion. Clearly they could stand to hit a few more round-trippers — they've given up 40 more home runs than they've hit — but if they come without anyone on base the results aren't going to change much.

Looking back at the eight teams that have finished with under 400 walks, we find that none of them were even average in runs scored. A couple of them, though, were a tick above average in hitting home runs. The 1975 Tigers walked just 383 times, leading to a truly impressive .301 team OBP in a league that reached base a third of the time. The Tigers did have a little pop, stroking 125 home runs, an unimpressive total now but just above average that season. Despite this, the Tigers finished dead last in runs scored. They lost 102 games that year.

Three years later, the 1978 Montreal Expos drew 396 walks. With a young Andre Dawson leading the way, the Expos clubbed 121 home runs, an above-average figure. They were also second in the league in doubles, third in total extra-base hits. The average team scored 645 runs that year. The Expos scored 633. With good pitching they finished 76-86.

Last season the Tigers drew 384 walks. They hit 168 home runs, which was a little off the league pace; the Tigers hit a home run every 33.3 at-bats, while the league as a hole hit one every 32 at-bats. The Tigers were also above-average in batting average, hitting .272 against .268 for the American League. The average team scored 771 runs. The Tigers scored 723. They lost 91 games.

Let's come at this from another direction now. In 1988, The Red Sox hit just 124 home runs. The average team hit a dozen more, and they finished tied for 10th place in team homers. The Sox, though, were extremely patient. Wade Boggs drew 125 walks; Mike Greenwell took 87; Dwight Evans took 76. They also led the league in batting average and doubles. They didn't have a team of good power hitters, they just had hitters. They led the league with 813 runs scored.

Maybe we should pick a team without Boston's obvious advantages. The 1992 Oakland A's had some great players, but with the exception of Mark McGwire, who hit 42 home runs, none of them had big years. The top three batting averages belonged to Mike Bordick (.300), Jerry Browne, who batted .287 in 111 games, and Rickey Henderson, who batted .283 in 117 games. The team as a whole hit .258. The league batted .259, so the A's were just about average. Despite McGwire's home runs, the A's hit only 142 as a team, about 15 more than the average club.

The one thing the A's did do well was take walks. They drew 707 and led the league by a wide margin. They scored 744 runs, finishing fourth in the league. That and Dennis Eckersley got them to the AL West title.

The fact is, if you look at every team that has been above-average in OBP by even a small amount — and I looked back over half a century — only a handful weren't above-average in runs scored regardless of their ability to hit home runs, or even their ability to hit for average.

Here's a Chicago example: the 1957 White Sox. The White Sox batted .260 in a .255 league. They hit just 106 home runs; they were more than 20 below average. They led the league in walks and consequently reached base 34 percent of the time, leading the league. They were third in runs scored, just 16 behind the league-leading Yankees.

Here's another good one: the 1979 Indians. The Indians hit .258 that year. The league average was .270. They hit 138 home runs. The average team hit 143. They walked 657 times. The average team walked 530 times. The Tribe scored 760 runs. The average team scored 752. Despite every disadvantage, the Indians still had a competitive offense. Cleveland's pitching was miserable that year (as it often was back then… and is now) but the team still posted a winning record that year, one of two winning seasons the Indians had in the 1970s.

Like I said, this is obvious stuff. Chuck Knoblauch obvious. If a team gets on base at an above-average rate it will score an above-average number of runs. Period. If Baker doesn't understand that, he shouldn't be managing. He should be in the stands with the other experts booing A-Rod.

CLICK HERE TO COMMENT

THURSDAY, August 24, 2006: Posted at 9:50 a.m.
Also known was the Pre-Playoff Pause. "We probably won't need you to wrap this thing up, Moosie, so go sit out by the pool and get your nether parts healed up. We'll see you in September." Jeff "Scary Fly Ball Guy" Karstens gets another start, this time against the Angels. Fortunately, they hit even fewer scary fly balls than the Mariners.

If Karstens sticks for another turn through the rotation, his next turn would fall on Friday, Sept. 1 against the Twins, who have hit fewer scary fly balls than the Angels have (that assumes Admiral Torre does not use the off day on Aug. 28 to change his rotation). If Karstens gets yet one more turn through the rotation, it would come on Wednesday, Sept. 6 against the Royals. The Royals have hit fewer scary fly balls than the Twins.

This has to be part of Brian Cashman's grand plan. He takes Karstens, a middling prospect, starts him against, in declining order, the four teams with the least home run power in the league. Karstens finishes the season with an ERA of 1.21 in four starts and looks like the next dominant pitcher to emerge from the Yankees farm system joining... joining... um, that guy, and that other guy, you remember. All of baseball then lines up to bid for the young ace's services, and on Thanksgiving Day, Cashman swaps him for Johan Santana.

Hey, it could happen.

WE WANTED MORE FROSTING ON THE CAKE
Whenever I write about A-Rod, Wednesday night's viral casualty, I get a couple of notes explaining that fan hostility is quite rational because of disappointment that he's not the same player he was in Texas. I have to understand, I am told, that they expected something bigger.

There are a couple of problems with this. First, there's nothing wrong with thinking that aspects of A-Rod's game have fallen down this year. His defense has been disastrous and though his numbers with runners on base are quite good, in "close and late situations," he's struggled. That's different, though, from outright hostility, from jeers and boos and rooting for this guy to fail. Any rationale for that doesn't wash in these pages. Second, as a factual assertion it's just wrong. Rodriguez is exactly the same player he was when he was in Texas. Here are Rodriguez's road numbers from 2001-2003, followed by his total Yankees numbers from 2004 to present.

You could make a reasonable argument that what I said above is wrong. He's not the same player he was in Texas. He's actually been a little better. The Rangers' ballpark helped A-Rod a great deal. Yankee Stadium doesn't have the same effect. That hasn't stopped Rodriguez from being the most productive third baseman in Yankees history.

STRAIGHT OUT OF MEXICO
When I'm under the spell of Artie Shaw's "Frenesi" I would be completely willing to say that it's the greatest performance of any band ever. It was the best-selling record in the country from the week of Dec. 21, 1940 through the week of March 8, 1941, skipped a week, and took over the number one spot one more time on March 22... Strings in a jazz band! What a novel idea! It's still Shaw's clarinet that carries the piece, though...

NOTHING TO DO WITH BASEBALL: BOOKCHAT OF THE PINSTRIPED BIBLE
I had intended to make the Bookchat segment a regular thing rather than have it come and go like the Flying Dutchman, but the baseball season has once again outstripped my ability to keep up with my reading. My bedside stacks now number a half-dozen and routinely fall, tumbling over each other and exchanging pages so that when you check back later you find Richard Nixon invading Poictesme with Leo Durocher. That one is not to be missed. Someone hurry up and write it.

Despite my permanent state of distraction, I was compelled to race through Gordon S. Wood's Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different, a collection of previously published essays (some in some fairly obscure places). Wood, who wrote the excellent "The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin," one of the more perceptive entries in the recent rush of Franklin bios, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Radicalism of the American Republic" here gets to vamp on in 10 essays, each taking on one of the more famous ghosts in the attic, including Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and even Aaron Burr. These are not full biographical sketches but, in keeping with Woods' interest in the postwar Confederation and the growth of Federalism, investigations into how their conception of the meaning of the revolution and the kind of government that should be derived from it evolved over time.

There are always a slew of books around asking, "What would the founders thought?" One of the subtexts of this volume is that it's not an easily answered question regardless of what the subject is. First, their concerns, their very vocabulary, was different from ours. They were motivated by a concept of service and noblesse oblige that seems alien to us now. Second, as the experiment with self-government got underway, they lost a lot of their illusions about the kind of enlightened, virtuous leadership Americans were capable of. Instead, liberated from British rule, America rapidly produced its first generation of demagogues. Americans, Adams rapidly concluded, had "never merited the Character of very exalted Virtue." There was, "no special providence for Americans, and their nature is the same with that of others." As George Washington wrote at the time, "We have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederacy." Virtue, he said, had, "in great degree taken its departure from our land."

As such, the answer to "What would the founders have thought?" depends on which founder you ask and from where in his life you take the answer. Woods makes clear that for many of these men, as enlightened as they were in many cases they died embittered with the direction the country had taken and isolated from the political mainstream, which now admitted far more democracy than they had ever intended. Ironically, they facilitated that change, with the result, Woods writes, "that they succeeded in preventing any duplication of themselves."

The heart of the book is four interconnected essays on Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and Adams that demystify some of the controversies in the years after 1787. When talking about the early republic, particularly the first three presidential administrations (Washington, Adams, Jefferson), many historians do a poor job of explaining the political bifurcation of society. Compared to the Federalists, who (as described) only wanted to have a functional, modern state, the Republicans (for those who came in late, these are not the same Republicans as today. That's the party of Lincoln. These fellows are on the left wing of the early republic) always seemed shrill, paranoid dreamers. The reaction to Alexander Hamilton's debt assumption plan and his other economic policies always seem hysterical. There were constant references to Hamilton being a secret monarchist and of wanting to make a king out of George Washington. There were several problems with that formulation that must have been clear even at the time. Washington was too concerned with his legacy as a statesman to undo the revolution; had he desired to, the time to do so would have been before his army disbanded, not after; and as Washington put it in one draft of his first inaugural address, "the Divine Providence hath not seen fit, that my blood should be transmitted or my name perpetuated by the endearing though sometimes seducing channel of immediate offspring." In other words, he had, "no child for whom I could wish to make a provision — no family to build in greatness upon my country's ruins." There would no Washingtonian dynasty because the great military hero had spent his life shooting blanks.

Wood makes it clear that men like Jefferson didn't understand a great deal about banking, credit, and currency. "Nothing can produce nothing," Jefferson said of paper money. But The newness of capitalism was only a minor cause of the extreme revulsion created by Hamilton. When the Republicans spoke of Hamilton creating a monarchy, they didn't necessarily mean that the president would become a king in the literal sense of the term. What they meant was that by acquiring certain powers, the executive would accrue the tools and trappings of dictatorship.

Beginning in the 1500s, the states of Europe began taking on their modern shape. Previously fluctuating borders were solidified. In order to defend them, "they erected ever-larger bureaucracies and military forces in order to wage war... This meant the building of ever more centralized governments and the creation of ever more elaborate means for extracting money and men from their subjects. These efforts in turn led to the growth of armies, the increase in public debts, the raising of taxes, and the strengthening of executive power."

It was the extension of these innovations from Britain to the American colonies that provoked the revolution. Yet, there was Hamilton trying to set up systems of tariffs and taxation, banks and bureaucracies, that would put the United States in the position to compete with the Europeans. To the Republicans this was a dangerous step backwards. "Of all the enemies to public liberty," Madison wrote, "war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other [enemy]."

As "the parent of armies," war, he said, not only promoted "debts and taxes" but also meant that "the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people."

The problem was that Republicans like Madison and Jefferson could never come up with a practical alternative to modern statecraft, including war. Their hope was that as more nations adopted the American model, the need for war would be obviated. We never have lost this aspect of Madisonian thought, with the ironic result that we are currently trying to achieve the goals he desired by means he abhorred.

Knowing this, the motivation behind one of the most seemingly inexplicable policies of American history, the embargo of 1807-1809, becomes clear. Britain and France were attacking our ships and impressing our sailors as well as pursuing trade policies harmful to America. This was a problem because the whole economy was based on shipping. Diplomacy hadn't resolved anything. At that point, it would have seemed logical to go and shoot somebody (war, as Clausewitz said, being the continuation of policy by other means). Instead, President Jefferson decided to take our ball and go home, endorsing a law which prohibited all exports from American ports, period. It had no chance of working, but Jefferson was a president unwilling to undertake an act which would increase his own power. Ironically, it would be Madison who would take us to war in 1812. Unsurprisingly, we weren't prepared.

"What made the founders different" was their times, their conception of virtue as the defining characteristic of leadership, and their willingness to engage in a debate on the role of government, one very different from our more/less government argument, as our left-right divide is traditionally oversimplified. Time has resolved or rendered moot many of their disputes, but we keep asking after them anyway because of the elevated way they seemed to argue them.

CLICK HERE TO COMMENT

WEDNESDAY, August 24, 2006: Posted at 10:31 a.m.
WHAT WE LEARNED LAST NIGHT
Jeff Karstens = Scary fly ball pitcher. Do not pitch in small ballparks. Pitch only in large, forgiving environments, like outer space.

IT'S NOT ME, IT'S YOU
The Orioles' Adam Loewen held the Twins to four hits and one run on Tuesday, so it's not just the Yankees whose knees buckle for the 22-year-old lefty. The O's have a 4.36 team ERA in August. They're still just 8-10 during the month because they've averaged five runs a game. When you started the season with Jeff Conine and Kevin Millar, and it's late August, you have a losing record, and you're still playing Jeff Conine and Kevin Millar, something is very, very wrong with your organization. You erred in thinking they could contribute. You erred in thinking they would be attractive to contenders at the deadline. You erred in not producing even moderately interesting corner pieces through your farm system to take their places, and you probably shouldn't have bothered to get out of bed this morning.

YOU CAN COUNT ON HIM
Neifi Pérez, he of the .299 career on-base percentage, led off for the Tigers on Tuesday. Lefty Mark Buehrle was pitching for the White Sox and Placido Polanco has a problem — his body is in Detroit but his shoulder is in Grand Rapids. These two factors provided the rationale for having Pérez in the lineup and leading off. Jim Leyland may be managing the best team in baseball this year, but in some ways he's still the same old chowderhead he was back with the Pirates. The Tigers won the game on good pitching by Kenny Rogers.

One aspect of Leyland's lineup construction that has been admirable has been his decision to keep Brandon Inge buried in the ninth spot in the lineup. His 21 home runs are useful, but his .302 on-base percentage mutes his productivity. It's better to minimize his chances and Leyland has.

REGRETS, I'VE HAD A FEW
Do you ever wonder if Roger Clemens regrets coming back with the Astros instead of the Red Sox or Yankees? His ERA might be a little higher if he were pitching out of the Lite Baseball League, but he'd have a few more wins for certain. The Embarrassing Astros were held to four hits over eight innings by the execrable Kyle Lohse on Tuesday night... Brandon Phillips of the Reds hit his 13th home run in that game. He's batting .297/.344/.452 and remains one of the stories of the year, an ex-prospect who was given a last chance and grabbed it.

RAYS/PHILLIES
It says something about the Devil Rays that their best hitter after Carl Crawford has been Greg Norton. Norton is an extremely poor defensive third baseman, but a team like the Phillies, whose shot at the wild card would be greatly enhanced by the presence of an actual professional-type third baseman on the team should try to pick him up for loose change. Abe Nuñez and Jose Hernández (the latter acquired yesterday) aren't going to do the trick. Since the All-Star break the Phillies have been scoring nearly seven runs a game, so they've done well without a bat at the hot corner to his point, but there will be some cooling ahead. The loss of Aaron Rowand won't hurt too badly as Shane Victorino will step in and be as productive.

CLASS, MEET THE BOTTOM OF THE BARREL
Manny Alexander started at shortstop for the Padres last night. Just wanted to point that out. The Padres lead the NL in defensive efficiency (turning balls in play into outs) something I never would have guessed given that they play Mike Piazza, Todd Walker, and Brian Giles. It turns out that everyone else has been strong. Losing Ryan Klesko to a season-long injury helps.

NOT HAVING LEARNED MY LESSON...
Because I live in suburbia, quality restaurant choices are limited. Despite last week's grungy chicken episode, I once again ventured out to a "Fun, fun, fun, and bad food chain" for dinner on Monday. This time, I picked one with less of an emphasis on fun and more of an emphasis on seafood. Fun seafood. Play with the dead lobster. Make him clap his claws. He's gone to a better place and you're having a party.

My dinner companion and I waited 10 minutes for a seat. As we perused the menus, a waitress appeared to take our drinks order. "By the way," she said, "I just want to let you know that the only item available tonight is fried shrimp."

We then proceeded to live through an abbreviated version of Monty Python's "cheese shop" sketch. "Nothing else?"

"No, sorry."

"It said tuna in the lobby. 'Fresh catch.'"

"Typo."

"Swordfish?"

"That elderly couple over there just ordered the last one. Sorry."

We asked why they had allowed us to wait for a table when they had an empty larder. That gained us merely another half-hearted apology. We left. A smart chain would have tried to give us some coupons or some other incentive to encourage a visit, because as it stands now there's almost zero chance of my going back. I hadn't been there in years, being skeptical of fun seafood as a concept.

There are fun, fun, fun and bad food chains scattered throughout midtown Manhattan. I always wonder why anyone aside from tourists would visit them. You have so many options in the city, almost all of them better than bland, corporate product surrounded by an entirely inauthentic atmosphere of excitement. Out here we have no choice but to be suckers occasionally. New Yorkers have options.

As a post-script, let me just say that whoever first invented the idea that in fun, fun, fun, and bad food chains it is mandatory to maintain a birthday ritual in which the entire wait-staff chants happy birthday while clapping and stomping and making life unpleasant should be hunted down and exiled to some, dark, quiet cave. I understand that the next innovation is that right after you're served your food, your waiter sneaks up behind you and zaps you with a cattle prod. Wheee! Fun! Can I get that to go?

BACK WITH MORE...
...Later today, including reader mail and the long-promised return of the Bookchat of the Pinstriped Bible section, featuring the founding fathers. Regrettably, they won't be singing any tunes from "1776."

CLICK HERE TO COMMENT

MONDAY, August 21, 2006: Posted at 10:25 a.m.

PUT IT THERE
A brief entry before the day game outdates us. I'll be back with more after. The delay is just as well because after the last four battles of attrition I'm nigh speechless. Even if the Yankees lose today (and think of the pressure on Cory Lidle not to let this end), this is a series that's going to be remembered for a while. Jason Giambi's two big home runs are going to be recalled as the big blasts, but there were two other moments to take away. First, there's Derek Jeter's two out, game-tying hit in the ninth, as clutch as anything David Ortiz has ever done and another memorable moment for the future Hall of Famer's collection. Second, in another Hall of Fame performance by another Hall of Famer, Mariano Rivera's Indiana Jones escape from every conceivable disaster in the bottom of the ninth. His dissection of Eric Hinske was one of the efficient bits of surgery ever performed by someone without a license to practice medicine.

Joe Torre had an impressive game. He knew he couldn't pull Jason Giambi for defense in the bottom of the ninth with the score still tied and nearly paid the price for it on David Ortiz's bad-hop grounder. Thanks to Rivera the Yankees survived, and Giambi sustained Torre's decision with what proved to be the game-winning hit. He made a gutsy move in the top of the ninth. After Melky Cabrera led off the inning with a double, Torre had the option of bunting with the punchless Nick Green or pinch-hitting for him. The by-the-book call would have been to bunt Green, not only because it would have moved the tying run to third with one out, but because Green was his only utility infielder. With Green out of the game, Alex Rodríguez, getting a breather at DH, would have to play defense. That would put the pitcher in the game as a hitter and had the game stayed tied for a number of innings, Torre would have had to pinch-hit. Torre went for the big inning, pinch-hitting Bernie Williams for Green.

Williams; is now 1-for-13 as a pinch-hitter this year (he's also reached base twice via one walk and one hit by pitch) and though the sample is so small as to be meaningless, his five strikeouts in those 13 at-bats don't inspire confidence. Torre's other possible choices were also problematic. Aaron Guiel (welcome back) is 4-for-21 as a pinch-hitter over the last few years in another small sample with just a few at-bats per year, meaning he's essentially untried. Craig Wilson is 3-for-18 this year. Though he's had some success in the past, this probably wasn't the right matchup for him, plus Torre would have burned his defensive replacement. We probably shouldn't talk about Sal Fasano.

When the Yankees leave Boston, they won't have ended the American League East race — there are three more games against Boston — but they'll have gone a long way towards making September a less stressful month than it was shaping up to be. Perhaps the most intimidating thing about the schedule is their next stop. After this exhausting series, the Yankees will fly cross-country and immediately commence a three-game series with the Seattle Mariners. The Mariners just completed an 11-game road trip. They lost all 11 games. The M's are a better club at home and they're due, while the Yankees are overdue to exhale. It will be tough for them to avoid a letdown in Seattle after the extraordinary effort in Boston.

CLICK HERE TO COMMENT