 |
| |
|
 |
 |
|||||||||||
|
Reliever's reality A closer can win the Cy, but middle men have no shotPosted: Wednesday May 21, 2003 3:42 PM
Click here to send a question to Tom Verducci's Mailbag. No one's ready to hand out any hardware through one-quarter of the season, but the questions about the Cy Young Award are coming already. Should a reliever get the nod over a starter? How about a set-up man? OK, everybody calm down, make yourself a nice cup of herbal tea, and read on. I am a big fan of John Smoltz. If he can break the single-season save record (57) this year and keep his ERA around 1.50, do you think he can win the Cy Young award?
Let's face it, the struggles of Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling have opened the door for anybody to win the NL Cy this year, and Smoltz is, and will be, a true contender. I do think starting pitchers have an edge over closers because of the huge difference in innings pitched, so look out for Kevin Millwood, Matt Morris, Mark Prior and all the other starters who might wind up with the traditional high-innings, high-wins Cy credentials. As far as closers are concerned, don't forget Eric Gagne, who has been just as effective as Smoltz the past two seasons. One more note: don't be fooled by the save total in and of itself. It's a very overrated statistic. Shigetoshi Hasegawa is having a great year and making a significant contribution to the Mariners. What are the odds that he could get enough credit to win the Cy Young award, assuming his current success continues? After all, closers have won the award -- so why not a middle reliever/utility pitcher like Hasegawa, who seems to be able to come in and do the job under any circumstances?
Won't happen. Ever. Hasegawa is very valuable, but I can't say he's more valuable than a guy you trust with ninth-inning leads or who gives you 200 innings. I know the Cy is not a value-oriented award -- it should go to the best pitcher, period -- but I'd think you could find solid candidates among starters and closers before you reward a set-up guy. Regarding your recent column comparing David Wells to Mike Mussina, David Cone, and Kevin Brown: I disagree with your assessment that Wells could have a better career than Cone, unless by better you mean simply winning more games. Cone was a dominant pitcher in his time, a Cy Young award winner and he won multiple World Series. He also has more strikeouts than Wells, and a much lower ERA. Yes, Cone is ending his career on a much weaker note than Wells, but when both of their careers are taken as a whole, Cone is the far better pitcher. I think Mussina has a good chance at 300 wins when all is said and done, and Brown, when he's injury-free, is a dominant pitcher -- something Wells can never claim to be. Wells is very good, but I don't believe he can be categorized as having been great at any point.
Certainly Cone was more dominating, especially being a strikeout pitcher, but I would not call him far better. (Wells is the better control pitcher.) What I meant is that Wells is likely to wind up ahead of Cone on the career wins chart. There's no question Mussina should blow by Wells there, as Wells himself said, because of their age difference. But regarding Brown, to just slip in "when he is injury free" is slighting a very significant factor in his career. And yes, I do think there have been times when Wells has been great: he was great in 1998, the staff leader for one of the greatest teams in history (18-4, 3.49 ERA, third in Cy voting, 4-0 in the postseason), and great in 2000 (20-game winner, third in Cy voting) and yes, he's been great so far this year. I don't think you can blame the Toronto Blue Jays for David Wells' shortcomings. The bottom line was that Wells didn't perform well at the beginning of his career and thus didn't start as often as he does now. How can you blame a very talented, deep team for not starting an unpredictable, immature player who just wasn't ready for the rotation? Should teams start players just because they think they are good enough?
I do blame Toronto for overusing Wells as a teenager/20-year-old. I do not hold the Jays accountable for Wells' immaturity as a big leaguer. And, showing his continued lack of progress in that area, Wells, not I, blamed the Blue Jays for not starting him enough in those years. Toronto was the best organization in those days. I think the Jays knew what they were doing.
What do you think the chances are of Byung-Hyun Kim continuing as a starter once he comes off the DL? While he did struggle a bit as a starter, he should be much better than 1-5. Still, with the emergence of Brandon Webb, and with Miguel Batista starting to make a statement, it seems that Kim might have trouble cementing his place in the rotation. If he doesn't make it back, what do you think his role will be? With Matt Mantei back from injury, it's unlikely Kim will have any chance at being a closer again. Do you think he might be relegated to middle relief? I'd still put Kim back in the rotation, because I'd prefer to have Batista pitching three or four times a week out of the 'pen. I think Kim deserves more of a run as a starter before I give up on him in that role. I disagree with you about Rafael Palmeiro being a Hall of Famer. I'd much rather have Eddie Murray than Palmeiro on my team. Murray was a superlative fielder and that gets no play in your column. Don't finesse the issue of fielding, or that Palmeiro has been a DH for years.
Palmeiro spent the majority of his career at first base, and played the position as well or better than Murray. And I'll say it again: Palmeiro isn't done. You're comparing a player whose career is finished with somebody who is still playing at a high level. Tom, I find it amazing that you made a case for both Fred McGriff and Rafael Palmeiro to be in the Hall of Fame, but you have refused to vote for Ryne Sandberg. Having played a position that is underrepresented in the Hall, Sandberg's career unquestionably ranks very favorably in comparison to any second baseman already inducted, except Rogers Hornsby. Nonetheless, you are trying to advocate two players who pale in comparison to other first basemen, such as Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx or Hank Greenberg. I'm not saying that Palmeiro and McGriff are unworthy of Cooperstown, but can you explain how they deserve enshrinement before Sandberg?
First of all, we're not fielding a team in Cooperstown, so I don't care if there are more players enshrined at one position than another. That has nothing to do with how I weigh a candidacy. Should we keep Jeff Bagwell out the Hall and put Chico Lind in? And at the risk of distilling a ton of points I've made on Sandberg over the last year -- and I'll consider him heavily again this year -- I think every second baseman elected into the Hall was better than Sandberg. Palmeiro and McGriff have been better than the recently elected Tony Perez and have had more premium seasons than did Sandberg. And if you're going to use Gehrig as your yardstick, go ahead and lock the door to Cooperstown and throw away the key. Why are the White Sox wasting everyone's time by firing hitting coach Gary Ward? Why does Kenny Williams refuse to pull the plug on Jerry Manuel? How much longer will Manuel last? Who do you think would be a good fit to replace him as manager?
The pro forma method of putting a manager on notice: fire one of his coaches. I don't think owner Jerry Reinsdorf is itching to pay Manuel not to manage. And if Reinsdorf does come around on that thinking, which I believe is inevitable this year, Manuel's replacement is likely to be an inexpensive guy who is as emotional and demonstrative as the current skipper is not. Teams almost always go in the opposite direction in terms of style when they make a managerial change.
How about those Blue Jays? They have been real hot recently, feature the best offense in baseball, and are in the thick of the wild-card race. I know everyone is talking about GM J.P. Ricciardi trading away Kelvim Escobar and Shannon Stewart, but what are the chances that Ricciardi keeps the team together for a run at the playoffs? Hey, the Jays were my preseason pick for AL surprise team. I don't think they're ready for a postseason run just yet (isn't everybody this side of Detroit in the wild-card race before Memorial Day?), and Ricciardi isn't going to fool himself and dream big. However, the GM is definitely a player on the trade market. I think Escobar will be dealt, but Stewart will go only if the price is a high one. Do you think the A's need to add another bat? Obviously, their pitching is fine, but they are struggling to score runs. Who can you see coming over in a deal?
It's a tough call, because the guy the A's really need back is Jermaine Dye. Oakland is intrigued with Roberto Alomar, but the Mets would have to pick up a ton of cash for that to happen. If you were the Reds, would you trade one of the young studs (either Austin Kearns or Adam Dunn) for a bona fide starting pitcher? How is Cincinnati ever going to compete with such a dismal staff?
Let me say this: I would certainly consider such a trade if I were completely sold on a young guy who had already showed he could pitch well in the big leagues. That said, I would still be very, very careful. Now, maybe A's pitching prospect Rich Harden is that kind of guy. I don't know. But your talent evaluators better be darn good at what they're doing. Sports Illustrated senior writer Tom Verducci covers baseball for the magazine and is a regular contributor to SI.com. Click here to send a question to his Mailbag.
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
