 |
| |
|
 |
 |
The toughest out Patience makes Bonds more dangerous than SosaPosted: Wednesday May 08, 2002 5:20 PM
Click here to send a question to Tom Verducci's Baseball Mailbag. The premier home run hitters in the NL are Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds. There
seems to be a concerted effort not to pitch to Bonds in many
circumstances -- as witnessed by his number of walks. Why isn't it the same with
Sosa? Evidently, he gets a lot more pitches to hit. Certainly, he is more of a
free-swinger than Bonds, and strikes out more often. Are pitchers approaching
these players with different mindsets? Why is Sosa given the opportunity to hit,
while Bonds, at times, is almost not allowed to do
so?
Sounds as if you've figured it out. Pitchers feel Sosa has holes they can exploit, sort of like what happened with Mark McGwire. Also, Sosa's plate discipline is much, much better than it was when he was younger, but he still has a tendency to chase. So a pitcher is apt to "work around'' Sosa with a base open, meaning he'll work just outside the strike zone and let Sosa nibble. Sometimes Sosa gets himself out and sometimes pitchers make a mistake and he crushes it. There is no such temptation with Bonds because he lays off everything out of the strike zone. Therefore, managers figure it's best to just go ahead and put him on. Remember, Bonds is hitting about 60 points higher than Sosa. Barry is the toughest out in baseball, and it's not just because he has tremendous power. It's amazing how many pitches Sosa hits out of the park that are not strikes. That doesn't happen nearly as often with Bonds. I just read your column on
the solid pitching in the NL. It was interesting, but why didn't you mention the
DH as a reason for more runs being scored in the AL? Perhaps the NL is finally
re-asserting itself as "classic" or "real" baseball. I've
noticed a real dropoff in my ability to watch AL games. I'd rather watch paint
dry or leaves fall.
I agree that baseball without the DH is much better. But the NL is still is scoring runs at a higher rate than the AL did in the 1980s. Virtually everyone I talk with who has played in both leagues (with the exception of broken-down guys who can't field a position) says the NL is a better brand of baseball. Forget the decline in home runs, it seems as if saves have gone through the
roof this year. Any reason for this, besides the decline in run scoring so
far?
The save rule is the only statistic that dictates a manager's strategy. Managers feel they must put in their closer if a save situation presents itself. I think you see fewer skippers letting their starter finish a game (even with a low pitch count) if the lead is three runs or less heading into the ninth. Interestingly, despite all the fascination with saving games, leads are protected in the ninth inning at the same rate -- and even slightly lower -- than they were before the save rule was invented in 1969. Most of my Red Sox buddies are a little peeved at the lack of love from the
media for a BoSox crew that has the best record in baseball and leads the majors
in batting. But I'm still waiting for the traditional post-All Star break
meltdown. I think Boston is one starting pitcher and one short reliever away
from being scary. Do you think they need anything
else?
It's hard to say Boston has an absolute need right now because of the way the team has been playing. I would agree that another reliever could help their mix, but outside of that, no. The Red Sox are for real. Trevor Hoffman recently broke the record for most saves with one team. Since
my name is Trevor and I live in San Diego, I feel a strong connection with
Hoffman, and also have a great deal of respect for him. Is he one of the
greatest, if not the greatest, closer of all
time?
I'm sure you've seen the cover story in this week's Sports Illustrated, which details why Hoffman is the most reliable closer in history. It's hard to compare eras because the closer's job is more specialized now, but Hoffman has been better than anybody else at consistently doing what he's been asked to do. That puts him on a Hall of Fame track. What is wrong with the Cardinals' pitching? Are all their injuries just a run
of bad luck, or do we need to look at their spring training conditioning
program?
Nobody is smart enough to figure out the cause-and-effect of pitching injuries. I wouldn't blame it on conditioning or age or pitch counts because there is no common denominator. It's simply a run of bad luck for St. Louis. Who is the next Triple Crown winner? To me that is the holy grail of
baseball. My pick, and you can correct me if I am wrong, is Vladimir Guerrero of
the surprise Expos. If he was playing anywhere else he would be all the talk,
but because he is stuck up in Montreal no one talks about him
much.
The Triple Crown is so hard to achieve these days because there are more great hitters than ever (more teams, too, so that would make sense). So players are competing against a deeper field of elite hitters. But if you asked me to pick hitters who could possibly do it, Guerrero, Manny Ramirez and Todd Helton come to mind. Due to the abysmal stewardship of owner Larry Dolan, the Indians have once
again slipped into the morass of the bargain-basement Tribe of the 1970's. As it
happens, all of Cleveland can't help but wonder: Whatever happened to Jaret
Wright?
Great question. Cleveland made a bad call on this guy; he just can't stay healthy. The Indians turned down a trade for Pedro Martinez after the 1997 season because they thought Wright -- who started Game 7 of the World Series that year at just 21 years old -- would be a stud. They knew the hard-throwing right-hander was immature and had some work-ethic issues, but they figured he'd grow out of them. To me, those are red flags, no matter what age you're talking about. It makes you think what might have been for the Indians if they had made that trade for Pedro. One World Championship seems conservative. There has been an unusual number of long winning and losing streaks in the AL
this season. (Going into Wednesday, Tampa Bay had lost 12 in a row, while Boston
had won seven straight. Toronto recently dropped nine in a row and the Angels
just won eight straight.) However, over in the National League, there haven't
been many long streaks at all. Does this say anything about the NL being more
competitive, top to bottom, or is this just some kind of aberration that could
easily swing the other
way?
Both. But your initial premise is right: The NL is a much more balanced league than the AL. The Yankees and Red Sox, for instance, might each win 100 games by whacking Tampa Bay, Toronto and Baltimore. I hate to dwell on contraction, but
your whole premise that
Minnesota can't support a team ignores the fact that between 1987 and 1994 the
Twins outdrew the mighty Yankees! The fact that attendance had slipped
alarmingly by 2000 can be attributed to Minnesota management's decision not to
field a competitive team for seven years. The Twins may need a new stadium, but
fans will turn out to support a decent product
regardless.
"The Twins may need a new stadium . . ." You just kind of slipped that in there. That is the issue here. Camden Yards changed the baseball world. What happened from 1987-94 is ancient history. If the taxpayers want to build a new park, great. Then Minnesota is off death row, as Pittsburgh and Milwaukee found out. If they don't, that's fine, too. I understand the problem with footing construction bills for a billionaire owner. But if you don't want to build the stadium and nobody wants to buy the team and keep it where it is, be prepared for one of the following consequences: a) your team is likely to be pretty lousy most of the time, or b) your team will be eliminated. Sports Illustrated senior writer Tom Verducci covers the baseball beat for the magazine and is a regular contributor to CNNSI.com. Click here to send a question to his mailbag |
