Friday, November 10, 2017

Why Otani should play for Milwaukee

Related image
With the news coming out that two-way Japanese star Shohei Otani's team intends to post him so that he may pursue a career in the MLB, it's time for fans to start dreaming big. Because Otani desires to come and play at a time when his earning power is so limited, it means every team really has a chance at face value. Otani is not coming simply for the money, and the difference in what teams can pay under the current international signing restrictions is so small that signing bonus will likely not be a factor. Which means small market teams have an equal chance at signing him.

The bigger question, of course, then is what does Otani care about when picking a team? Some things are out of a team's control such as if he wants to go to teams that have repeatedly added and integrated Japanese talent - New York, Seattle, and Los Angeles all come to mind as examples. If Otani is very metropolitan and wants to be in a city like New York or Chicago there is little other teams can do. He might care about conditioning training, use of analytics, or pitching coaches - the kind of thing that teams can control and may be using as they pitch their team to him but as fans we typically know less about.

The main topic of discussion then are usually two-fold: will teams let him be a two-way player and will they work out an unofficial, good-faith extension agreement that Otani could potentially sign within a year of joining the team?

It is for these reasons that Milwaukee could be a good destination for him.

Before going forward, it is worth linking for you if you have not read it Chuck Wasserstrom's assembled scouting report of Otani in which he sums up his conversations with scouts in this way:

And the overall consensus: They haven’t seen a guy like Otani in all of their combined years of scouting.

This is why his potential availability to a team like the Brewers is so monumental. He could be a franchise icon when it is all said and done.

The Brewers have an enormous amount of financial flexability, with their only commitments beyond 2018 being to Braun, Anderson, and Thames - the latter two being at very affordable rates. This is why MLBtraderumors keeps tossing around the idea that Milwaukee should make a big free agent splash when some big market teams are taking a back seat in free agency this year. But why give 25mm a year to an over 30 pitcher with some red flags like Jake Arrieta instead of giving it to a still entering his prime - two way player Otani? An ace quality starter could put the Brewers in a good place to contend. And while I've already posited that they may already have that in Josh Hader and might be better served focusing on replacing him in the bullpen at a more affordable price in my offseason plan for the Brew Crew, Otani is of the pedigree that even if you do something like move Hader to the rotation, you want to add him nonetheless.

So how does Milwaukee use its financial flexability? By promising one of two contracts. See, Otani will obviously be gambling on himself if he takes a gentlemen's agreement for a future extension. And since he technically has not competed yet, there is always the possibility of a flop (in which case the team might thank the stars they dodged a bullet and not extend him to the big contract he would get if he were an unrestricted free agent). Milwaukee should say that 'no matter what we will pay you'. Offer the financial security. Just say there will be two tiers based on that first year: tier one is a "late signing bonus" if you will. Say 40-60mm, even if he stinks or gets injured, they promise to pay him that much. The second is then the "merit pay", so if he performs anywhere near expectation you give him 20-30mm AAV over 8 years. This promise assures Otani that he will become a rich man no matter what. Other options include contracts of low base but tons of incentives (like Meada signed with LA), or contracts with opt-outs either into free agency or arbitration (since a good two-way player could shatter arbitration records), no-trade clauses, etc. The bottom line is this team has the room to make some more financial promises than a lot of small market clubs and they should take the risk with them and get creative with contract offers.

But the big reason I think Milwaukee is a good fit is in Ryan Braun, they are in a good spot to offer Otani several starts a week in LF. I often have read the speculation that AL teams may have an advantage with the DH for Otani, to protect his health as a hitter-pitcher. But if he really wants to field, Milwaukee is the place to do it. Braun needs regularly scheduled rest, therefore giving Otani several starts in the OF a week is totally doable, and in fact good for Braun. But the team has a good player for the days Otani needs to rest/pitch, which would be the challenge for other teams in attracting/spending on such a high-quality player. But the Brewers already have that high quality player on contract and virtually untradeable. In a five day rotation Braun would start three days and Otani two. He would also get to hit in games he pitches being an NL team. This allows him to rest the day prior and after a start, which to me would seem the most logical/important times to rest him. He and Braun would each get to play/hit in 3 out of every 5 games. It keeps them both rested and hopefully performing. And since Otani appears to want to prove himself in the majors, I think he wants to be a two-way player and actually field as well as hit and pitch. This allows that, solves a team need of giving Braun rest, and yet the team hardly suffers for days when Braun or Otani are not in the line-up by having two high quality hitters. On games Otani pitches, it will give an NL team an AL line-up advantage.

With Milwaukee's success last year and strong minor league system, they can also convince Otani that this team will be ready to compete both immediately and in the near future. Additionally, since they missed the playoffs narrowly, Otani gets the opportunity to be the hero. Players who become the essential piece for a franchise's success become icons. There is a pride and image element here he can claim by joining this team. If he wants to prove himself, what better way than by being the missing piece to their success?

To be clear, this entire post is kind of a dream post. I realize it is a long shot since the Brewers will literally be competing with every MLB team and every team will be spinning why they are a good fit. All I'm saying is the Brewers should not be counted out because they are small market or National League. They should instead be taken seriously as a real contender to add this guy to the ranks of Brewer greats.


My Brewer's offseason plan

So the Brew Crew came within 1 win of forcing a one game playoff for the second wild card, a win they should've had in game 161 when they blew a 6 run lead against the Cardinals. That means this team is well placed for a run at contention in 2018. That said, it is important for the Brewers to not over-invest in next year's roster at such an expense to their long term viability, especially since their playoff chances in part hinged on the Cubs' first half struggles - something they shook off in the second half and ran away with the division in the last two weeks of baseball and brought them on the cusp of a second straight World Series appearance. Additionally the Cardinals were in it for most of the second half and with a good offseason should certainly be competitive as well. Even the Pirates 2017 woes should not be counted on for 2018 as this is still very much the talented team that was in the top part of the division the last couple years. Therefore, I think the team - while it has financial flexability needs to be cautious in how much it flexes it. This means I don't think the team should make a big splash for a top free agent starting pitcher like mlbtraderumors has argued and predicted.

Let's begin by taking a look at who on the current roster will likely be back for 2018:

SP Chase Anderson
SP Jimmy Nelson (to begin season on DL)
SP Zach Davies
SP Brandon Woodruff
SP/RP Junior Guerra
SP/RP Josh Hader
SP/RP Brent Suter
RP Jacob Barnes
RP Jeremy Jeffress
RP Cory Knebel
RP Jered Hughs

C Manny Pina
1B Jesus Aguilar
1B Eric Thames
IF Jonathan Villar
UT Hernan Perez
2B/IF Eric Sogard
3B Travis Shaw
SS Orlando Arcia
LF Ryan Braun
CF/OF Brett Philips
CF/OF Lewis Brinson
RF Domingo Santana

Noticeably absent are Oliver Drake, Carlos Torres, Keon Broxton, Jett Bandy, Taylor Jungmann, Aaron Wilkerson, Jorge Lopez, Wei-Chung Wang, Andrew Susac, and Stephen Vogt. Of those I expect Jungmann, Wilkerson, Lopez, Wang, Susac, Drake, and Bandy to remain in the franchise as depth. Although I will note that I am unsure if they all have options remaining, and am particularly concerned about Susac, Wang, and Jungmann in that regard. If not, they may essentially have to make the team out of spring training. Torres has already been outrighted and I expect him to become a free agent any day. I also think Vogt should be traded or non-tendered. As good as his bat was, his dismal defense, particularly in throwing out base-stealers was just unacceptable for going forward.

Then we get to Keon, and this brings us to our first major move of my offseason plan. I think this team should trade Keon Broxton. The main reason is that Brinson has done all there is to prove in AAA and warrants a position on the team. Philips also proved he could be a solid CFer for this team. Because Braun is near untradeable and Santana was one of the best players on the team last year, CF needs to be opened up for these guys. I think you let whoever performs better between Brinson/Philips get the bulk of CF duty while the other one spells all three OF players (especially Braun who should not be counted on for more than 120 games). Add in that Perez will likely get ABs also in the OF and there likely is not space for Broxton. If he has any options left it is probably just one, and while his strikeout rate was beyond alarming, his ability to play CF with a solid defensive reputation (some advanced statistics aside) and 20/20 season should make him an appealing alternative to more expensive free agents. Whether Stearns trades him for a different MLB piece (like a catcher or reliever) or for some young low level risky minor leaguers (think Adam Lind trade) would be his prerogative. Nevertheless, I think ultimately now is the time to deal him while he is cheap and coming off of a 20/20 season. Teams that need affordable OFers (especially CFs) and who might not have deep talent pools to trade from will probably be the best matches. To name a few, SF, MIA, SEA, and BAL all strike me as realistic trade partners.

I should note that another option would be to use one of Brinson/Philips in a bigger deal. For me, I think if that happens it needs to be for a top notch, controllable starting pitcher. The thing is, I don't see anyone likely available. Maybe Chris Archer from TB, but he will likely cost a lot from our system that I don't think the team should pay it. But if the right deal comes along and one of those two were moved, then you keep Keon as your 4th OF.

As the roster stands then, this team would need a catcher to pair with Pina, and 2 pitchers. Assuming nothing is addressed by trade here are the free agents I would target:

RHP Anthony Swarzak. Swarzak was a brilliant addition for this bullpen in the second half, striking out 39 in 29 IP while working a 2.48 ERA (and a 2.33 ERA overall for the season). As a reliever he was still worth 2.7 WAR. Additionally, Swarzak had a positive experience in Milwaukee and wants to come back, he just needs to also get his payday. MLBtraderumors is predicting a 2 year $14mm payday, and that seems fair.

LHP Mike Minor. Like Swarzak, who kinda came out of nowhere with his season, Minor was converted to a reliever and became a dominant force out of the pen as well for KC. He had a 2.55 ERA in 77 IP with 88 Ks (good for 2.8 WAR). MLBtraderumors are predicting a 4 year deal in the 28mm range for Minor. I imagine to bring him to Milwaukee may have to make it 30mm as he - being a lefty - is likely to force a bidding war and they do not have the history with him that they have with Swarzak. That said, he is still far cheaper than Jake Arrieta (MLBtrade's SP prediction for MIL at a cost of 4yrs/100mm), and by signing him they can move Hader to the rotation.

C Nick Hundley. Not as flashy as say Alex Avila, but Hundley will be much more affordable and in a back-up role in SF was worth 0.5 WAR with 32 extra-base hits. More importantly, he threw out 29% base stealers last year (as opposed to Vogt's dismal 13%). If I remember correctly he is not a particularly good pitch framer, however. All told, I expect a 1 year deal at less than 5mm to bring him on board.


Some minor league deal kind of targets would include (if they would take them): 2B/SS Danny Espinosa, IF Darwin Barney, OF Hyun Soo Kim, SP Ubaldo Jimenez, SP Jacob Turner, RHP Huston Street,
With these moves this would be the team for 2018:

SP Chase Anderson
SP Zach Davies
SP Josh Hader**
SP Brandon Woodruff
SP Guerra/Suter*

LR Guerra/Suter*
RP Jered Hughs
RP Jeremy Jeffress
RP Jacob Barnes
SU Mike Minor
SU Anthony Swarzak
CP Cory Knebel

C Manny Pina
1B Eric Thames
2B Jonathan Villar/Eric Sogard***
3B Travis Shaw
SS Orlando Arcia
LF Ryan Braun
CF Brett Philips/Lewis Brinson
RF Domingo Santana

BC Nick Hundley
1B Jesus Aguilar
IF Jonathan Villar/Eric Sogard***
OF Brett Philips/Lewis Brinson
UT Hernan Perez

notes:
*While a case could be made to bring in a better arm to round out the rotation, and I wouldn't fight you on at least bringing in more competition, I think the team has several solid options of (Jungmann, Wilkerson, Lopez) in house in addition to these two. I think Guerra really deserves one more chance to show which guy he was. He was really good last spring until the end of spring, then he got injured and never really rebounded. But this guy was our opening day starter last year. I think he gets a chance to prove he can pitch once more this spring. Suter was such a good swing man for this team I think he becomes that for a full year. If Suter beats out Guerra, Guerra might still make the team out of the pen, because a good fastall/splitter combo should be enough to be an effective reliever.
**I envision Hader as the guy to transition from rotation to pen upon Nelson's return, mainly to limit his innings since he spent most of '17 as a reliever. That said, if he is pitching like a #1-2 starter, they aren't going to remove him from that and instead the lowest guy on the totem poll will get bumped.
***MLBtrade expects Milwaukee to bring back Neil Walker. I don't like the move. Not because Walker was a bad player for this team, he was an upgrade at 2B. But Walker is clear he wants to get paid and I don't think Milwaukee should be the one to pay him. For one, they already brought back Sogard which means adding Walker means likely one of Sogard/Villar is the odd man out (and I'm not sure if Villar has any options remaining). To trade away Villar now would be to sell low on him. I think he would be better served also given another chance. His speed and versatility (even if his defense doesn't play well anywhere) alone make him a good bench piece. And if he could just improve his walk rate to his 2016 levels he'd be a quality player. Additionally, you have Hernan Perez who should get plenty of reps at 2B, and top 10 prospect Mauricio Dubon already made it to AAA last year and may be ready by mid 2018 (and 2017 1st round pick Keston Hiura is a very advanced bat and could potentially be fast tracked to the majors this year as well). Therefore, it seems unwise to lock up anyone for 2B beyond 2019.


Friday, October 6, 2017

God in the Vineyard: Vocation and Theology of the Cross

Image result for vineyard crossIn the last week two things happened:
-50 people were killed and hundreds more wounded in a mind boggling, heart breaking act of wanton violence that once again reminds us that evil is real and most clearly felt between the offenses we perpetuate upon one another.
-I heard a sermon that grappled with the absence of God in this Sunday's upcoming parable, the parable of the wicked tenants from Matthew 21:33-46.

These seemingly separate threads of events have been interweaving in my brain. Precisely because the sermon wrestles with something people wrestle with in the face of total catastrophe and especially catastrophe at the hands of another. Inevitably the question of where was God, what good is God, etc. comes into play. Shortly after people religious and non alike bash the phrase "thoughts and prayers". An act, which while I understand why they lament it (namely, they want political action and see the phrase as a means to do nothing more) I fear the critique adds another layer whether intentional on the part of those who chastise it or not, namely, that prayer is inaction. Prayer does nothing.

Prayer only does nothing, of course, if God does nothing. And the critique intimates that God, if God is real, is absent and helpless in the face of turmoil. I despise the critique. To be clear, while I am not knowledgeable enough in the field of sociology and gun violence or the current laws and facts about guns and gun control to have a solution I too want something to be done, but I don't think to do so means we should equate prayer in general - or even the prayer of a politician - as ineffectual, inactive, or insincere. I think we should instead tell them to offer something with their thoughts and prayers. Maybe include in those prayers discernment in how to best respond.

All that is a round about way to say, like the preacher who wondered, "If God is the land-owner, then God is absent" our world looks at tragedy and comes to the same conclusion: God is absent.

Now in the sermon by my esteemed colleague, she concludes that perhaps the best way to grasp contemporary promise is not to allegorize this parable and make God the land-owner. She may be right in that there were other good promises, maybe more concrete outside the parable. And Luther himself of course was rather critical of allegory in biblical interpretation mainly as a response to the over-allegorization of scriptures in his day, in part a consequence of Origen's idea that every passage had a higher spiritual meaning. And modern scholars often point to how parables as a genre were typically not meant to be over-allegorized but to illustrate a single point. This parable, however, more than most lends occasion to allegory. As William Barclay puts it:
In interpreting a parable it is normally a first principle that every parable has only one point and that the details are not to be stressed. Normally to try to find a meaning for every detail is to make the mistake of treating the parable as an allegory. But in this case it is different. In this parable the details do have a meaning and the chief priests and the Pharisees well know what Jesus was meaning this parable to say to them.
In this case the tenants do stand for somebody (Jewish religious leaders). Likewise, the land-owner's son is a clear reference to Jesus himself. It therefore makes it easy (and I think fair) to make God out to be the landowner.

But if that is the case, then God is absent in the story. Now, I think the caution and task of my colleague is important (even if I disagree that we should not take the land-owner to be God) in that beyond the parable there is a clear witness to God's presence. But let's focus on the parable and stay with it and the problem of God's presence within it, because even if we can conclude from the wider voice of scripture in God's presence, sometimes - like this last week - our world gets stuck in a moment as easily as in a parable. And in that moment, God is like the land-owner: far off.

It is worth asking how can people experience God in times he is far off? And to that the parable does offer an answer - in his servants and most especially in his Son! While in the parable the servants most likely is a reference to the prophets (perhaps especially John the Baptist considering the previous conversation preceding the text includes John's ministry) it is wider also in our day today. God sends ambassadors, people who act as his will and presence.

When people in tragedy and turmoil look for God's presence, they usually first start to find it by pointing to the aid and love of fellow citizens of humanity. It is in God's envoys. In our world, our daily life, our vocations (or callings into life) are the ways people experience God's bestowal of daily bread.

And What is meant by daily bread? as our catechism asks: "everything that has to do with the support and needs of the body." In various ways and places, God has prepared places for us to go, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:10). This is actually why people have a right to be angry at their politicians: not for offering prayer but because they can do works of God that are outside the capacity of those not in office. Vocation is not just a title/job, it is an activity. It is a response to a calling. It is a way of understanding how each day we live out our Christian faith in the world.

Just as a prophet is sent by God to bear God's presence through a word to the people, just like a servant goes to the vineyard when sent by the landowner to be that landowner's presence (in the ancient world how you treated the messenger was to reflect the person whose message they bore), so also spouses are sent to one another, teachers to students, EMT's to those who are hurt, etc. all as means in which people can believe in good and by extension the ultimate Good - God. The parable reminds us of two distinct facts: we are sometimes the means by which people come into contact with God, and murder really does make God then feel absent. For when the good is trampled by death, when people are pulled from their vocations by violence and murder, the people around them experience an absence in what God has placed before them. When the sacred command to preserve life is violated, so is the experience of God. Is it any wonder that the Psalms often praised God's activity when they were rescued from death and when they feared danger and death they questioned if God had turned away from them forever? That is how we still experience God!

In short, if faithful living towards our various vocations can cause people to "see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:16), then violating God's laws breaks down vocation and makes people wonder "How long, O LORD? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me?" (Psalm 13:1).

The second thing this has me go to is theology of the cross, namely, that ultimately all theology must be on or shaped by the cross of Christ. As a Lutheran, I find this particularly important. As Regin Prenter puts it, "Luther's God is the God who reveals himself in the cross of Christ, God hidden in suffering." In here, we find the one mode of God's presence when it is otherwise driven from the story: in the Son. When the landowner sends his Son, which pretty much all commentators note is foolishness by this point, he is determining to send his benevolent will to the wicked tenants (he could have, and by our standards as well as the standards of Jesus' contemporaries should have arrested them already). What is more though, is when we leave the parable, Jesus makes abundantly clear that the murder of the son does not banish the landowner's presence. Instead, when it comes to Jesus himself, the stone that the builders rejected becomes the corner stone! The final act to drive out the landowner's hand from under them becomes the greatest means in which he executes his will on this wicked humanity. Capon puts it this way:
Jesus is saying quite clearly, in other words, that not only is his own mild exousia unacceptable to their unfaith; it is also and nevertheless - in its very unacceptability - the cornerstone of their salvation, even though they will not trust it. The world is saved only by his passion, death, and resurrection, not by any of the devices that, in its unbelief, it thinks it can take refuge in. Furthermore, that same unacceptability will be the cornerstone of their judgement and of the world's...
The theology of the cross is unsettling because it is so unacceptable as Capon puts it. Precisely because the Almighty is veiled in the suffering humanity of Jesus, it becomes a paradox too great for us to naturally accept. In this way, however, the message of the Gospel can proclaim both salvation and the present action of God in the one place God seems driven away. Just when God is lost by the removal of our standard mode of knowing and experiencing God's goodness in each other, God's greatest act of compassion strikes us in the death of his Son. Just when murderous acts drive God from our world, the cross places him firmly at ground zero. As Gerhard Forde puts it: "The cross makes us part of its story. The cross becomes our story. That is what it means to say, as Luther did, 'The cross alone is our theology.'"

Now precisely because the cross is God hidden in suffering, revealed in the cross of Jesus in a way that unlocks the story of God's working among us, the cross also rarely looks desirable or good especially prior to the announcement of the Gospel. Even to the disciples, prior to Easter, Good Fridays looked anything but good. But the good news is God has not been lost or inactive. And in death, God opens the way of life. None of that is to glorify the violence of Jesus' persecutors or a gunman in Las Vegas, but to draw the person in the suffering violence brings to the one place where suffering has meaning: the cross. Paul regularly speaks of sufferings as sharing in the suffering of Christ. In your suffering then you are not alone. In fact, you are being driven to the fountain of life through faith in Christ.

Some will scoff at any notion of any kind of good news in suffering, especially since we have glorified the avoidance of suffering to the point that suffering often produces in people their greatest spiritual crisis. In the face of horror it will feel powerless, and yet the Gospel testifies to how it isn't powerless. Thus there is a word to believe here, and a word to share. This word is the word of Christ and the story of his reign. The parable reminds us to produce fruit: fruits of our vocations. And one of those vocations is to speak the peace of the cross in crisis. The peace of God that surpasses understanding. One of those vocations is to send aid to those in need. One of those vocations is to each day promote the life God gives, but also to remember that in the face of human sin, there are times the presence of God is all but lost, except for one light in the darkness, veiled in the same shroud that often casts God hidden before our eyes (violence), and yet still shining. Sometimes when all human efforts to bear the presence of God is not enough, we will find that all we have, is a rock. The type of rock builders reject when making the good things of this world, and yet by this rock we can build our entire faith.

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

2017 MLB PREDICTIONS

Image result for 2017 mlb predictions


Not much needs to be said by way of introduction, and much does by way of prediction so let me jump right on in. Maybe the only thing worth noting was that the hardest thing for working in this season's predictions are determining if hitters who took a step forward or pitchers who took a step back are legit trends since last season saw a league wide power surge, the likes of which was so great only one season in MLB history saw more home runs. Was that an aberration or a sign of things to come?

NL EAST
1. Nationals. It seems every year they are the best team on paper in the division and sometimes in the league. I expect the same again. I like the recent Wieters signing, because even if he isn't the player he used to be he's still better than what they had. Eaton really isn't a 6 WAR guy (and moving back to CF he likely won't rank as one this year), but he's such a solid player who does everything right that he quietly helps out. That bullpen is also better than it's given credit for. And if Harper rebounds (last season was a down year!) and Turner builds off his rookie platform watch out. They also have a legit playoff rotation (assuming they stay healthy).
2. Mets. So much rides on the health of the rotation. I think they are gonna really miss Colon's steady IP, but last year they were tough even with guys like Harvey having a horrible start. I think they are really counting on a lot from guys like Granderson, Bruce, Duda, and Walker to support Cespedes on offense. But really it comes to that rotation. Healthy they are better than any in baseball, even the likes of the Cubs and Red Sox. But that's a big if. A lot may be asked this year of prospects like Rosario, Gsellman, and Smith.
3. Marlins. It starts getting trickier here. I originally had ATL in this spot, because while I like the approach the Marlins took to their offseason - adding some quality even if unspectacular rotation arms and deepening the pen big time to shorten their game - there is still such a hole without Fernandez. That said, in many ways this team is quite similar to the Orioles who have managed to compete with a middling rotation, deep bullpen, and strong offense. This offense is not as strong and particularly struggled last season in the most important category (scoring runs, 3rd worst in the NL, good news is the guys worse than them are the two teams listed lower than them in the division), but especially with Dee Gordon back all season and if Stanton could ever have a full season this team would still be potent enough. They also don't seem as quick to sell key contributors if they are lagging at the deadline, which is ultimately why I chose to favor them over ATL.
4. Braves. Speaking of offseason plans I liked, the Braves added a great arm to the system in Gohara, and I loved the short-term solid veteran additions to the rotation. Not only does this team, which had a really strong finish in 2016 (20-10 over last 30 games) come back with the stronger roster they ended the year with, but also now with one of their biggest weaknesses plugged (rotation, which outside of Julio Teheran combined for a 5.32 ERA last year). They aren't elite enough to probably contend, but they may be closer than people think, especially since aside from maybe Matt Kemp I don't see a lot of regression in line. Dickey will I think improve moving out of the AL East, and Colon will be great until his arm falls off. I mean...the guy literally outlasted Atlanta's previous ballpark (as the two debuted in MLB on the same date). Philips could regress too, but if he does he is easily replaceable midseason by Pederson or eventually Albies. And any number of their many pitching prospects might take a major step forward. A full season of Encarte and Swanson will help too. Like I said, this team is closer than we think. The only reason I put them 4th is I think barring a really strong 1st half 1-3 of Garcia, Dickey, and Colon could be traded.
5. Phillies. Another team that is getting better. They have a rotation that has a high ceiling, but both health and consistency concerns. The back end of the bullpen is not as certain as I would expect it to be too. I really did not like the Saunders signing. He could be great, but both his second half crash and his health history suggest to me more likely than not he's going to be ordinary to subpar. Mikael Franco is a name people might be learning quick though, and a potential break-out candidate (if you don't think he has actually broken out already). They had the worst run differential in the majors last year, Tommy Joseph can't possibly be as good as he was last year (21 HR in 315 AB), right?
NL CENTRAL
1. Cubs. They are the best in baseball. It was one of those rare moments where probably the consensus best team in season play was also the best team in postseason when the dust settled. And while my first ever blog post is about how I deeply hoped this day would not come, the curse is over. Well, curses may last a lifetime in baseball lore, but magic has a shelf life. Now they gotta stay at the top of their game. Which they can. Their .343 team OBP blew away the rest of the NL, as did their team ERA of 3.15. Really health is the only thing I see as coming in the way of another division crown and deep playoff run. Last season their rotation was crazy durable. That is not something to count on. But their offense is strong enough (and should be stronger with Schwarber all year) to carry them even if someone goes down. Not to mention Jason Heyward is probably a lot better than what we saw last year. Watch out.
2. Pirates.  I go back and forth on the next two. But the Pirates are way better than they were last year and the Reyes injury really hurt STL. I really thought these guys shoulda gotten Quintana this offseason though. The only guy I would have considered off limits would be Meadows, since he is the heir apparent to the inevitable exit of McCutchen. Quintana would have given them an elite rotation, and he was locked in at a price they could afford. That said, I don't blame them for opting instead to see what they can do with what they got. I mean, Glasnow may be ready by midseason to be a legit upper rotation arm anyways. My biggest concern is Taillon and Cole staying healthy. So long as they are, they are studs. I also think McCutchen is gonna come rearing back this year big time. He isn't finished, and he has a chip on his shoulder. Josh Bell is a ROY candidate if he comes back from injury ok, and they have some strong back-ups in the likes of Jaso, Freese, and sup-sub Harrison.
3. Cardinals. The Pirates are probably a better team, but the Cards are the best run organization in baseball and somehow always manage to be tougher than they should be. It is just so hard to count them out. Another key injury though and that may change. They also lost a lot of power in players leaving via free agency. Still, they did add Fowler, which makes the top of their lineup that much tougher in OBP. And this team is the epitome of the concept that the sum is greater than the individual parts. No franchise is better at making the pieces fit together right. SF is close, but if I were a GM, this is the team I'd want to emulate.
4. Reds. They are a really weird team to assess. They have some really talented players that makes them better than you'd think, or at least they should be better than they are. Home runs killed this pitching staff last year, and in that ballpark it is hard to imagine it will totally go the other way for them. That said, I do think some level of league wide regression is coming which should bode well for this team. Now that Philips is gone though, and Votto doesn't seem to want to be dealt, I don't see any major selling at the deadline, maybe Drew Storen or some other arms. Cozart, if they can find a taker this year. That's why they are ahead of MIL.
5. Brewers. It is hard to put them here because for a rebuilding team there is a lot to like in Milwaukee this season. That said, they are in the toughest division in the National League, which means lots of games against tough teams. Additionally, they could easily swing a midseason trade of more bullpen arms and if any of Garza, Peralta, or Guerra perform well out of the rotation I envision them being dealt. Braun also may be dealt if he performs well again, although I'm starting to think he will be with the team until next offseason now. It begs the question of what are they going to do if guys like Brinson are knocking at the door early, because if this spring and last year's finishes are any indication, Broxton and Santana are both legit candidates for a big season. This year will also probably determine if Jimmy Nelson is a starter or reliever going forward. That will largely depend on which half of the season he pitches like. Through his first 11 starts he had a 2.88 ERA, and by July 31 it was still a solid 3.42, but his Aug and Sep ERAs were 9.00 and 5.53 to balloon his overall numbers to 4.62. Villar will probably regress quite a bit but still is a threat for 15 HR and 35+SB. Hernan Perez showed himself to probably be the best utility guy in baseball after Baez in Chicago and Rodriguez (last year with PIT). And if the projection systems are right, Thames is gonna be a steal. The real question is if he's learned to lay off the breaking ball. And his back-up/platoon mate Aguilar (who led the minors in homers last year) has led all baseball in OPS this spring. Basically, this team is actually got some talent, but some of it is likely to be dealt at the deadline.
NL WEST
1. Dodgers. This division I think is gonna be tough this year, but LA should prevail. They have the best pitcher of our generation in Kershaw, and have taken a very interesting path of signing tons of injury risk, high reward pitchers. You have to think that Hill, Kazmir, and Ryu could combine for a season's worth of solid to great pitching. Add in Maeda who really surprised me last year in how good he was (now he just needs to go deeper into games) and Urias who looked strong in his debut and this rotation makes them the team to beat. Add in their solid line-up, strong defense, and great MiLB depth and they are a complete team and the ones I think are ready to go real deep again in the postseason. The biggest flaw they had last year was hitting against LHP, which they at least improved upon by adding Forsythe, although in the end I think they will regret they didn't pony up for Dozier. They need Kershaw healthy though. Ryu is looking like an early favorite for comeback players of the year.
2. Diamondbacks. Here's where I'm getting bold. But I think we are gonna see some real turnaround in the NL West. A year ago the Diamondbacks were being picked by tons to contend after their offseason. A bit of a disaster year on the pitching front and that changed. But here's the thing, even if Miller and Greinke are not as good as they were in 2015, they are way better pitchers than we saw in 2016 (although Greinke's spring has been concerning). Throw in Taijuan Walker and this rotation could be a sleeping giant, which is what I'm predicting. Paul Goldschmidt is I think the most complete 1B in the game today and even if Jake Lamb is due for some regression, they went most of the year without AJ Pollock and David Peralta. This team was the toughest in MLB on lefties (.820 OPS in 2016) which is good considering some of the toughest pitchers in the division are southpaws. My biggest concern is the bullpen, starting with Fernando Rodney who rotates between being the most unhittable closer in baseball and a home-run derby pitcher. That said, the pen is the easiest thing to fix. The most important thing for them will be health, because their thin system won't offer much by way of reinforcements.
3. Rockies. I went back and forth on COL and ARZ but I think the early injuries hurt the Rockies. I also think it more likely Arizona's rotation takes a step forward than Colorado's. But this team is very complete and ready to compete. While I was not a fan of the Ian Desmond to 1B plan, it has grown on me some. Mainly the idea that adding Desmond there makes it easy to move him if an injury occurs elsewhere (of course he's the one injured right now). I think he was signed for versatility, and the roster will sort out where he ends up playing and that was why they did not just work to clear an OF spot for him. And while the sample size is limited, he's been a beast at Coors in his career (1.016 OPS in 95AB). Story will likely regress, but even if he does, a full season of him would probably be pretty close to what he did in 97 games last year (27 HR, 72RBI). Their OF is tough, and while last year was a disappointment, Gerardo Parra is better than he was and is a great 4th OF because he's a fringe-solid starter should someone go down. They have some interesting rotation options, Gray may finally be the ace they were looking for, and I am predicting another step forward for him this year, something to the tune of 175IP, 200k, 3.85 ERA. There are some other interesting arms in that rotation and system, the next most intriguing being Hoffman. Their biggest flaw last year was bullpen which had an ERA of 5.13. But they worked hard to improve it with the additions of Dunn and Holland, and someone in the Ottavino, Motte, McGee tangent should improve.
4. Giants. I'm predicting a bit of a fall from grace for SF, which may be stupid because like St. Louis they know how to make the parts they have work. They have the pieces in guys like Bumgardner, Cueto, Posey, and Melancon. But overall I am just not impressed. Additionally, like Chris Sale, I'm very concerned that we are going to see the very durable Bumgarder suffer an injury. It seems inevitable that pitchers get injured, and that likelihood increases when you pitch a lot of innings and no manager in baseball asks more of their starting pitchers than Bruce Bochy (3 of the top 5 starters in the NL in IP were Cueto, Bumgardner, and Shark). They have other guys like Samardzia and Pence who both have high ceilings performance-wise, but one is inconsistent and they other hurt too much to count on. I did like the addition of Korean 3B Hwang, who is a sleeper ROY candidate. I wouldn't be surprised if they are higher and contend (every pre-season prediction I've read has guessed that), but I'm saying I won't be surprised if the opposite happens and they are down in the division, though that is not to say they won't be competitive.
5. Padres. Simply put: they stink. They are in a crazier spot pitching wise than even Colorado, the place where pitchers go and die. Jered Weaver is likely to be their opening day starter with his blistering 83mph fastball. They do have Clemens pitching for them...too bad it's young Paul and not daddy Roger who if he came back at 50 (or whatever age he is now) would still probably be their ace. What is more is this team added 3 rule 5 draft picks this year, and I think Preller's plan is to keep them just about no matter what in order to stock the system. I mean, they took Diaz from Milwaukee who never pitched above A ball. Just ask fans from Milwaukee who watched the Brewers do that with Wang a few years back how well that works at the MLB level. But it stocks the system. It also sounds like the team is going to possibly try some outside the box rotation system that may only ask for 3-5 IP from starters and use essentially two pitchers to cover innings 1-7, which makes sense since statistically it is the 3rd time through a line-up that will sink most pitcher's ERA. Offensively they have some ROY candidates in Hedges, Renfroe, and Margot. Wil Myers is paying dividends (which is good since they traded Trea Turner to get him!). They do have a lot of depth at 2B at least. Expect some more trades of the quality, non-rookie, non-Myers pieces, especially from the pen/rotation.
NL WILDCARD
1. Pirates. There are a lot of wild-card worthy teams, and I'm predicting it to be a tight race this year, but at its top I'll go with Pittsburgh, because they have depth and trade chips on their side.
2. Diamondbacks. The opposite is true here. They lack depth, and that is largely because management for so long seemed to lack wisdom (although I actually appreciated their efforts to think outside the box of convention). That said, I think the rotation and line-up if healthy and performing at level can outperform the competition. They kinda remind me of the White Sox the last couple years: they got the core, can the parts that surround them contribute enough (and in this case can the core stay healthy)? Lots of other teams in consideration though like STL, NY, SF, and COL.
NLDS
1. Pirates v Cubs. I think the Pirates are the better equipped team to win the Wild Card play-in game. But unfortunately it will pit them against the juggernauts of baseball, who can hit, pitch, club homers, and draw a following wherever they play. In the end I think Chicago takes this 3-1
2. Nationals v Dodgers. Two really tough teams, and how this goes would be a coin flip and a question of who is healthy. That said, this is the year I think for LA, and I think they will want it more than Washington. But it would be close. LA in 5, 3-2.
NLCS
Dodgers v Cubs. A rematch is in store from last year's Championship Series, and this time I think the scale tips the other way. These teams are so closely matched, but I could see a late big impact trade/prospect/player from injury more likely from LA and giving them the edge in the series. Still figure it would go all the way though before LA takes the series 4-3.
NL MVP
Paul Goldschmidt. He's always worthy, and if his team is a playoff contender he'll be recognized for it. He's likely to get more RBIs with Pollock hitting ahead of him all year. Taking the next step and becoming a 30-30 player (he as 24/32 last year) would also be a good platform to build his candidacy. Two other candidates would be Freddy Freeman (ATL) and Kris Bryant (CHI). My sleeper is Trea Turner (WAS)
NL CY YOUNG
Clayton Kershaw. I think there is a greater gap between Kershaw and his Cy Young competition than there is between Trout and MVP competition in the American League. He's that good. Like last year showed, health is the only thing that can stop him. And the loss of Fernandez removed one of the only pitchers remotely near his level of performance. My two alternatives should he be injured would be John Lester (CHI) and Madison Bumgardner (SF). My sleeper pick here is Rich Hill (LA).
NL MANAGER OF THE YEAR
Bud Black. If Colorado can compete, and especially if the pitching looks respectable, how do you not give it to him? Black was a very popular manager in the eyes of the baseball world and well respected. And being new makes it easier to attribute his team's success to him. Torey Lovullo would likely provide steep competition if ARZ contends for similar reasons. Then of course there is Maddon, who is helped not only by his reputation, but by having the best on-field product to work with. As a sleeper, Clint Hurdle (PIT) is another one who could get his team to perform beyond expectations and win it.
NL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR
Dansby Swanson. This is an extremely deep class this year, and that's before we even get into the guys no one expects to compete for ROY. Swanson however had a huge showing in 129 ABs last season. Had he gotten one more AB he would not qualify, instead he enters as the favorite because he brings not only great offensive upside, but also great defense from a key defensive position. Which is why I ultimately chose him over Bell (PIT) who came 2 ABs under the cut-off for ROY candidates and displayed his great on-base ability. It is a super-deep group this year of players who are both talented enough to win it, and likely to get enough AB's. Among pitchers Jeff Hoffman might have the inside track. Hwang (SF) is my sleeper.
NL COMEBACK PLAYER OF THE YEAR
A Diamondback. Between pitchers Miller and Greinke and hitters Pollock and Peralta this team has lots of legit candidates. I think Miller will have the easiest time putting up a season that contrasts dramatically with last season's since everything that could go wrong for him did, so from that group he's my favorite. Other players to consider would be McCutchen (PIT) and Ryu (LA). My outside the box pick is Thames (MIL) who may not get recognized because he never had a strong season, so it's more breakout than comeback, but to go from being out of the majors to a huge contributor might do the trick (a la Casey McGehee).
AL EAST
1. Red Sox. All the buzz is centered on them for good reason. They are a tough team, and they added Chris Sale to their rotation. I mean, Drew Pomeranz who pitched like an ace for a good portion of last year might not make the rotation! Porcello, the 2016 Cy Young winner (even if he probably shouldn't have been) is the #3 starter on this team! Add in Betts who was a monster last year, or the fact that as a team they had a .348 OBP and .810 OPS, both good for best in baseball. This team is tough from top to bottom. But they are gonna miss Big Papi more than they realize, even with their big acquisitions. The big question will be Panda man Pablo Sandoval, who may be too soon to write off, but is on track to being one of the worst free-agent signings in baseball history in relationship to contract and performance. They need Price and Thornburg to shake the injury bug quick. Still, no one in this division is likely able to catch up.
2. Blue Jays. How did this team lead the American League in ERA? They just don't seem that good. I mean, some guys like Sanchez and Osuna are, but as a team? Expect some regression there. They also lost out on Encarnacion. That said, bringing back Bautista was huge. In what was his worst year since breaking out he still had solid power and OBP. Morales is probably gonna really swing it there (at least for his first year), and Pearce is versitile and powerful enough to be a strong 10th man to find AB's for. He probably is still a couple years away, but Vladimir Guerrero Jr. may be the best prospect in terms of ceiling in all of baseball. He only played rookie ball and is only 18, so I doubt he would move quick enough to make the team in Sept, but if he does watch out. If Melvin Upton can hit like he did for SD and if Tulowitzki could look a little more like he did in COL they would be much better off.
3. Yankees. They surprised everyone with their playoff push late. But part of that was due to an unsustainable performance by Gary Sanchez, who has everyone excited. Additionally, Bird comes back from injury to claim first which he was expected to do before the injury after a huge debut in 2015, and if his spring is any indication, that is exactly what he's going to do. I really liked the additions of Holliday and Carter, who can DH (where they both would best be served) but each provide depth where this team needs it most: OF (where Judge may need more seasoning in the minors) and 1B (where Bird might not come back strong). The rotation is full of both potential and question marks. Is Luis Severino the budding ace everyone hailed in 2015 or the disaster of 2016 or something in the middle that makes you think he'd better be turned into Dellin Betances 2.0? Sabathia came back big time for this team last year when he seemed all but done. Good for him, and this team is looking for one more good year from him. Tanaka is a true ace if he can stay healthy. Pineda is the most confusing pitcher in baseball. He has top rotation stuff, as evidenced by his 207k in 175.2 IP and his AL-best 70.9 contact rate. But he gave up too many homers en route to his 4.82 ERA. Other guys like Mitchell, Green, and Cessa have some solid upside to them but are unproven. I was surprised they did not try to bring in any veterans with upside or inning eating potential. As such, there just is not enough proven talent to bet on them. But watch out, because this team already is looking good.
4. Orioles. Every year they defy the odds, but I'm betting against this year. I thought about putting them 3rd, but the thing is this year is probably among their last windows for contention. As such, they may be motivated to sell if they are not firmly planted in the playoff race, because as their window closes, their minor league system is sadly shallow and depleted. They will be an interesting team overall. While I think Trumbo will regress I think Davis will have a better year and together they will combine for something pretty close to what the two collectively produced last year. Manny Machado is super-good. I'd take him over just about anybody not named Trout. I'm interested to see how Kim does in his sophmore year. I love how he defied all his detractors last year. This may finally be the year to see a full season of Gausman and Bundy starting. I suspect at least one will step forward in 2017. Which is good since guys like Ubaldo, Miley and Tillman are hard to predict. Ubaldo is in line for one last good year I think. Tillman already is showing health concerns and will likely be a little worse than he was last year. I was real disappointed that Trey Mancini will likely not get a shot now with this team. He clubbed 23 HR across AA, AAA, and MLB play last season. Britton will regress, but he uses that sinker about as good as Mariano Rivera used to use his cutter. Bullpen is still a strength overall, which is good, since Wild-Card game aside Buck Showalter is a master of bullpen management.
5. Rays. They just cannot compete with this division. Their strength was their rotation, and they dealt Smyly out of it, effectively selling low for a guy who does not fit well on this roster considering they already have Kevin Kiermaier. Although getting De Leon helps soften that blow since I think they are very similar pitchers: injury prone with high upside, perhaps as good as a number 2. They were smart to hold onto Archer though. They could probably keep him for two more seasons and get a package similar to what they were likely being offered now. I loved the Ramos deal though. Even though he'll be gone half this year, they got him at a steal of a deal. Andrew Friedman and Joe Maddon got out just in time. The system is thin, the payroll and attendance is still aweful, and the on-field product is just ordinary. I'm super disappointed Souza has not panned out, he was one of those guys I just rooted for from the start. They will hit some homers, but I just don't see enough upside to hope for contention.
AL CENTRAL
1. Indians. They are getting good at just the right time: when the rest of the contenders from the central is moving in the other direction. At least in regards to on-field performance, EE is a huge upgrade over Napoli and they got him at about half what some were predicting he'd get. And to think they went to extra innings of game 7 of the World Series without their best hitter (Brantley) and without two of their best pitchers (Carrasco and Salazar). And now they got Andrew Miller for an entire year. That is one tough team. They still have some strong prospects like Zimmer and Mejia too as reinforcements should they be needed. Lindor strikes me as underappreciated across the league for how valuable he is for this team. Last year's World Series may very well have featured the two best managers in baseball, because Francona is definitely in the same sphere as Maddon. He knows how to make his team better.
2. Tigers. One more year. They will be getting bad and old quick, and before we know it there will be a lot of comparisons to the Phillies who 3 years ago were old, expensive, and mostly untradeable. That said, I think the weakness in the division along with the greater difficulty they will have in trading anyone not named Martinez (assuming now he's healthy at the deadline) will likely make them go for it this one year. They still have two of the best in Verlander (who should have won the Cy Young) and Cabrera (who is the best hitter in baseball), and enough other pieces around them to make some noise. Also, consider this: they were 4-14 against CLE last year, which means against the rest of baseball they were 82-61. That suggests this team still has something left in the tank. A bounce-back from Jordan Zimmerman would be huge. Upton's season was not as bad as it seems like it was, but it's hard to imagine him playing well enough this year to opt-out at season's end. But for a team that wants to get cheaper and wants to compete this year, nothing would be better than for him to play that well this year.
3. Royals. This is their last chance before the core group that took them to back-to-back World Series in '14 and '15 starts really getting broken up. I like their rotation additions of Hammel and Karns and Wood. It offers both depth and quality there. Soler also gives them a controllable guy with real upside. And Moss was a strong late addition too. As I write all this I talked myself into moving them up a spot from fourth to third. But I think they have real potential to firesale guys like Hosmer, Mustakas, and Cain if they are not close to contention. Yet all the same they would not surprise me if they were much improved from last year, especially since they had a 14 win decline from 2015-16, which seems somewhat abberational and can be made up nicely if guys like Escobar and Gordon rebound some offensively. They are gonna miss Morales though, who quietly was a great DH for them.
4. Twins. I started out bold and put this team third, because it's easy to forget that this team was a year removed from an 83-win season, and considering pitching has been the bane of this franchise for some time adding pitch framer extraordinaire Jason Castro should help in that department. I'm also agreeing with those who think Buxton's September performance where over his final 29 games he had an OPS of 1.011 is a sign of things to come. That seems legit considering his top prospect in baseball pedegree and the fact he hit .295 and .305 in two minor league levels last year and including his MLB performance socked 25 dingers. This guy is the breakout candidate in baseball this year. I'm also a huge Robbie Grossman fan. Mauer can't do much but get on base these days, but hopefully that'll do. Dozier is probably a 30 homer guy not a 40 homer guy going forward. His power surge late last year was as insane as Gary Sanchez's. Ervin Santana quietly had another great year last season too. Additionally veteran Phil Hughs and young righty Jose Berrios are way better pitchers than they showed. And call me biased, since I'm acquainted with the guy, but I got confidence Paul Molitor can get this team back on the upward track he set it on when he took over as manager. They really need one of Park and Vargas to step up and seize 1B/DH though.
5. White Sox. They lost two major components of their core team in Eaton and Sale. It is sad, because this team was so super frustrating. They had such a strong core they should have had no problem contending. I think I even pegged them for the World Series a couple years back! Instead, the surrounding group was so bad it made the likes of Sale, Quintana, Eaton, Abreu, and Cabrera moot. I do like the packages they got for Sale and Eaton and if they can get one more like that this team will likely be good again soon. I mean, they got so many great pitching prospects at least one is likely to be high quality, and if they strike gold on more than one...goodness! Not to mention they added one of the best prospects in baseball in Yoan Moncada. Their system got deep quick, and some could compete for ROY in 2017. Overall though, this year will probably be painful. But they may be trending in the right direction as early as mid-2018.
AL WEST
1. Astros. I'm going to Houston to see them first hand this year. They are young and they have a deep system from which they can call up or trade guys to make this a competitive year. Bregmann and Correa is about as good a left side of the IF as any in baseball. My biggest concerns are Gurriel and Keuchel, one being unproven and one having seriously disappointed last season. But when you consider that they also have McCullers and McHugh they have a solid top of the rotation that has real potential to be excellent. And they got some big pitching prospects in Martes and Paulino, solid back end guys like Morton, Musgrove, and Fiers. There is talent in this rotation even if it does not add a Jose Quintana (like many want them to).
2. Rangers. They have the talent, but not the depth - which is something we've already seen this spring when Cashner was sidelined with injury. They could really benefit from adding a late spring starter. That said, they have one tough tandem in Darvish and Hamels at the top of the rotation and will look even stronger when they get Tyson Ross into that rotation. Offensively they got some real talent in Beltre, Lucroy (who is looking like he might have a monster platform year), Odor, and Mazara. Add in bounce back candidates Choo and Gomez (who rebounded strong after coming to the Rangers late in the season) and they have a good team, but between injury concerns and the fact that this team went 36-11 in 1-run games last year (for an MLB record .766 winning percentage in such contests) which is horribly unsustainable as one-run games can so easily sway the other way, this teams seems due to regression from their 95-67 record last year.
3. Mariners. At various points I have put each of these three teams in first. I really am predicting a close contest in the AL West this year. I also really hope this is the year Seattle gets back to the playoffs, they have gone 15 seasons without a playoff appearance, longest current streak in baseball. But they looked close last year. I think the Walker deal wasn't that great, because I think Segura was due to regress offensively anyways, but especially in that ballpark. That said, he is a better SS than defensive metrics give him credit for, so I wouldn't put as much stock in the way the position swich will impact his WAR. I like what they have done with their outfield, making the team versitile, and defensive. Years ago I (and many Brewers fans) adored Mitch Hanniger when no one was talking about him. I remember how he would rake in spring training for the team and I'm glad to see him finally get his shot. It's hard to imagine Cano and Cruz hitting again as good as they did last year, but they (and Seager) still form star offensive power. Though I am concerned about Valencia having 1st to himself now that they sent down Vogelbach, a move which really surprised me. I loved the Smyly trade though, almost enough to place them higher up on the division. He has health concerns, but he was a great buy-low candidate and I think he is gonna do great for them and will make up for some of Iwakuma's decline. With Walker gone, Paxton will really have to deliver.
4. Angels. I mean, they have Trout, but not much else. Especially if I remember right that Kalhoun is injured. Their rotation, which was not looking that good anyways, also looks like a massive injury risk in Bailey, Heaney, Skaggs, and Street. Hard to imagine real turn-around. Pujols is still dangerous, but nothing like he used to be. I like their infield defense, but there just aren't enough impact players here. Real breakouts are needed to move this team further, and I am in the camp that thinks they should pursue a trade of Mike Trout. The return would probably be unprecedented, but they need it. They are too financially strapped it seems to add talent via free agency to help and too thin in their system to add it via trades/call ups. Even if you make the case that they can not get fair trade return, they also cannot compete with Trout, and therefore should consider exploring a trade that would use him to vault their system forward. All that is to say in regards to the team in the standings: not this year.
5. Atheletics. Kris Davis 40 homer season did not surprise me, except that he did it playing half his games at the Oakland Colliseum. The guy has a long, powerful swing. But overall this team looks like a lot of random pieces put together to see what sticks or can be traded. I will say this, it will be interesting to see if Matt Joyce can build off of such a strong year as a part time player in PIT. If so he could be a bargain. Best thing for them would be for Sonny Gray to return to form. Jharel Cotton is a legit rookie of the year candidate after he came over in the Rich Hill deal to deliver 29 innings of 2.15 ball.
AL WILD CARD
1. Rangers. There is just so much star power on this team it is hard to see them not in the playoff picture, even if they are a bit thin beyond the projected 25-man. And if they can get past the play-in game, they could have a real strong 3-man rotation for the playoffs. Unfortunately, I don't think they get past the play-in.
2. Mariners. I predicted a tight AL West, and with that I think it will pour into the playoffs. This team would bring a great under-dog feel to it that can be a real momentum maker in October.
ALDS
1. Red Sox v Mariners. The Mariners bring momentum and excitement, the Red Sox bring talent top to bottom. Hard not to pick them. I particularly think their rotation is so deep even with injuries they could have a great playoff rotation. Chris Sale also strikes me as a guy who is gonna go all Madison Bumgardner on the league when he finally gets a chance to pitch in the playoffs. He is an intense gamer. Red Sox win the series 3-0.
2. Astros v Indians. The Indians are such a well built team, and while Houston's rotation is better than I think it is given credit for, Cleveland has the better rotation and bullpen for the playoffs. In the end I think it's Indians take the series in four, 3-1.
ALCS
Indians v Red Sox. Hard not to envision this match-up (although really anything can happen in the playoffs, you just gotta get there). That said, the Indians are hungry for round 2 in the World Series, and I just love that team. They were so close to winning it all and they are restocked and ready for more. I think it'll be a series, but Indians in 7, 4-3.
AL MVP
Mike Trout. At this point, who else would you bet on? Betts (BOS) gave him a run for his money last year and Cano (SEA) could take it if he repeats his success last year and Seattle takes the division. Gary Sanchez (NYY) is my sleeper, if he somehow sustains anything close to his production last year over a whole season.
AL CY YOUNG
Chris Sale. The guy will have run support, more media exposure, and all the attention on him in his first year in Boston. If he pitches like he has the last five years, hard to imagine he won't win. I mean, if Boston helped Porcello win it last year, think how they'll help Sale. Verlander (DET) and Darvish (TEX) are quite capable of taking it, among several Cleveland or Seattle pitchers. Call it a sleeper I guess, but Aaron Sanchez (TOR) has the skill, just needs to deliver more innings.
AL MANAGER OF THE YEAR
John Gibbons. Among teams that are current favorites for contention, Toronto strikes me as the one that will have the most critical managerial decisions such as the leash he gives his pitchers like Sanchez, and how he works guys like Pearce and Upton into the line-ups/off the bench. If the team succeeds, it feels like he'd get a lot of the credit in how he manages it. Showalter (BAL) and Francona (CLE) also seem like they have enough repute already to earn the necessary amount to win this if their teams succeed. Local boy Servais (SEA) is my sleeper.
AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR
Jherel Cotton. He showed good last year, and he has every opportunity to get the IP he'd need to win it in Oakland. And there is not a lot of star power on that team to over-shadow his contributions. Andrew Benintendi (BOS) is a favorite among many and looked the part last year, but if he struggles early he may lose playing time as they try to contend. I'm a Mitch Hanniger believer, and he likely will get every opportunity to contribute, and he had a huge year in AAA last season. My sleeper is Dylan Covey (CHW), for all the White Sox prospects people talk about he is a rule 5 pick and therefore will be with the team all year while guys like Giolito and Moncada will probably spend time in the minors to continue to develop and delay service time.
AL COMEBACK PLAYER OF THE YEAR
Pablo Sandoval. He is supposedly in good shape, and he just doesn't even have to do all that much to be leagues better than he's been. It helps that Boston traded away Shaw, essentially committing to giving him a real shot at rebuilding his value. Smyly (SEA) and Brantley (CLE) also strike me as guys with a real shot. My sleeper is a tie between Chris Archer (TB) and Jose Bautista (TOR).
WORLD SERIES WINNER:
Dodgers! They are deep, well run, well managed, and now quite play off tested. They came close to the Series last year, and therefore this could be the year. Cleveland will be tough again though, but I'm going to guess 6 games, LA wins 4-2.

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

My Confirmation Faith Statement Explored



Today I was digging through a file looking for something else when I stumbled upon my Confirmation Faith Statement. Maybe I'm the only one interested in what young me was thinking and believing then, but I found it a fascinating combination of agonizing over-church talk, proof-texting, and yet somehow having a meaningful message and belief tied up in there. Fun. So I thought I would post the statement for all to scrutinize. But to take it a step further, I will offer my own running commentary on my own faith statement. Because if we gonna judge anybody, let it be ourselves.

First, here is the statement in its entirety:

Believing in Jesus and his glory seems like a hard thing to do. But as I learned through the years of praising and studying the Lord, I learned what faith can do for me. In John 20:29 Jesus appeared before his disciples for the second time after he rose from the grave in which he said to Thomas and the others, "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe."

We all know that by keeping faith in the Lord, Daniel survived the pit of hungry lions in Daniel 6. The Lord will even show us the way to redemption as I learned from Acts 26 where Paul speaks of how Jesus bought him from sin.


So what do I believe? I believe that in my baptism I was born before the Lord and for years since I have had beliefs and doubts. Until I had witnessed his glory, I could never explain this witness except by saying that my belief and prayer has delivered me from things maybe not as big as a den of lions, but the fact that Jesus did it for me anyways, that is why it's special. So as a follower of Jesus I believe that faith in the Lord God will save you.


Okay, now lets break this down a bit. Before I go further I should say I actually really like my faith statement, and there is a theme in here that has really stuck with me, and it surprises me it was there so early. It is mixed however with a language and line of thinking that runs somewhere between naive and untrue, with a hint of boastfulness. Let's take a look:

Believing in Jesus and his glory seems like a hard thing to do. But

Stop right there. The first line is an interesting one to start a faith statement with. I wish the "But" was not there. It simply is true, it is a hard thing to do. The "but" part sounds a bit like "but I did it, so there, tehehe." There is a bit of history that lies behind these words too though. The history was that about two years before this, I walked away from God and wanted nothing to do with the church. As a blanket statement it wreaks of boastfulness, the history behind it is actually about (and I just wish I expressed it better) the fact that believing was hard for me, and the but is not about my triumph where others fail, but about my gratitude that I was back in church. That's why it turns to this "But I learned...what faith can do for me."

But as I learned through the years of praising and studying the Lord, I learned what faith can do for me.

So I just expressed the good and personal element of what it was for me to feel that challenge of believing in an unseen God as behind me, but let me now call a bit of BS on myself. What was I talking about when I said I learned through years of praising AND STUDYING the Lord? What studying am I talking about? At that point I had never really read through the Bible, or done serious study of it or the God we meet in it. I'd read parts, true. I knew some stories (as we will see), but I hardly spent time studying. Those are misleading words. Maybe I am referring to my three years of confirmation, or the little research I did to write that faith statement, but I'm basically exaggerating at best, lying at worst to sound more "ready". Perhaps I meant that I understood things differently then, I could see that. But it was not from studying. Fail!

In John 20:29 Jesus appeared before his disciples for the second time after he rose from the grave in which he said to Thomas and the others, "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe."

Now this is a really awesome insight for me to look back on. If you are having trouble connecting the dots (since there is a dot left unspoken here) this is what I was getting at: I found blessing in belief. For how difficult it is to believe, and the tumult I identified in my own relatively recent faith journey at that time, it was worth it. But what is so cool about this for me was that I was actually applying a text to myself. As a pastor now, I like what I see here, because what I want for everyone who reads the bible is to hear the message as speaking to them. This story somehow was doing that for me. It is interesting because I have no real memory of this verse being so meaningful, but it must have been. That's what I like about looking back at this, it gives insight into a part of the bible that made sense to me. That Jesus really meant for disciples after him to share in the blessings he offers and I was confessing myself as part of that great inheritance.Considering how little I really knew the bible at that point, to think that something of it made a cognitive impact on my teenage faith and understanding is special.


We all know that by keeping faith in the Lord, Daniel survived the pit of hungry lions in Daniel 6. The Lord will even show us the way to redemption as I learned from Acts 26 where Paul speaks of how Jesus bought him from sin.

Now before you go, "wow he really knew his Bible", realize that's how I wanted it to sound. Again, it comes off a bit more posturing. That is, I did not simply know where these stories were, I just knew about the stories and I spent time (and probably the internet) trying to find them. The proof is in the pudd'n when I reference Acts 26. You see, I was referring to Paul's conversion. But if you know your Bible you will know that Paul's conversion does not actually take place in Acts 26 but in Acts 9. What you find in Acts 26 is Paul telling King Agrippa about his conversion. But I didn't know the difference. I was looking for the story of his conversion, came across him retelling it, and thought that was where it was in the Bible. Silly rabbit.

That said, I'm also setting up the faith statement with a really interesting dot between paragraph 1 and paragraph 3. If paragraph 1 is, I overcame the hurdle of faith and found blessing. Paragraph 2 gives examples of some of the great blessings people found in scripture. The Paul one I know was very meaningful to me when I was at that point since like I said, I understood to some degree the idea of feeling like an enemy to God only to be rescued on the way and drawn into this Christian faith. The Daniel one, it was one of those Sunday school stories I don't remember from Sunday school as well but I think I came upon later in my confirmation days and apparently liked or thought enough of to mention. Probably because it expressed the blessing of holding to the faith. If I connected with Paul's story through feeling like my faith had a radical redirecting (although that concept was probably a bit more sensational than actual in some ways), I connected with Daniel in that I felt there was genuine rescue to be found in this faith and I felt like I would hold it forever (or at the very least desired to hold it forever). This connection sets us up for paragraph 3 because I'm bout to express how I felt rescued and blessed. Think of the flow of my faith statement almost as a formula or argument:

1. Faith is difficult but a blessed thing to find.
2. Just look at Paul who found it and Daniel who was spared by it.
3. I have found it and been spared by it, thus my faith is a a blessing worth its difficulty.

Let's go on

So what do I believe?

What a cunning little critter I was. I've set up my argument, even if I would still struggle to make it. After all, what do you believe is a tough question to sometimes articulate. It's a lot to ask of a teenager. And I'm surprised that I had such a train of thought, even if it had gaps in its presentation. The difficulty here, and the vagueness however also gets at something about me, I'm not always a very personal person. I'm actually often more emotionally detached, and I tend to only want to grant vulnerability to a certain extent. It is hard for me to do. That is probably why this is laid out in an argument/formula form. It allowed me to focus more on the point than the story. I'm just not as much of a story person, I'm an argument style person. And to those who hear me preach this will likely be of little surprise. I do try to be honest and vulnerable at times, I do try to change my preaching style to not always be so married to that way of thinking, but it is no doubt a default that can be seen going all the way back to my confirmation (which I made in 9th grade for those wondering).

 I believe that in my baptism I was born before the Lord and for years since I have had beliefs and doubts. 

Wow. Where did I pick this up? I don't remember baptism being a big emphasis of my confirmation or anything, but Pastor Ron or someone must have impressed it upon me. We come here to as honest and open as I get in this faith statement, which is I admit that for all my beliefs, I've carried doubts. Again, I have to impress how big a thing it was for me to have spent a period having not wanted to worship or follow God not out of boredom but anger. It was a guilt I carried for years, and part of the language and over-exaggeration is I think now, looking back, an attempt at self-redemption and seeking to assure myself that I would not make such a mistake again. It is in part why the abandonment of so many of my generation of the church is so painful. I see both a bit of myself, and a bit of what I could have been within it. And I know for every ounce of breath I have that it was for the better for me that God like the woman of the parable found her lost coin. In these words I'm saying how I don't feel like I belong, because that juxtaposition of internal guilt and yet externally finding myself belonging among people I did not feel worthy of being counted among was what grace was to me.

Until I had witnessed his glory,

Let me just say I wish I could strike this line from the statement. Along with the phrasing which just doesn't sound like me, I also think again we get to that self-posturing. I had beliefs and doubts UNTIL...like saying now no doubts. Nice try mini me. Here is that naive boasting that just makes me cringe now. I have had plenty of doubts along the way. What I have experienced does not change that, and it takes away from some of the profound honesty that precedes it. But who on their confirmation wants to sound like a still searching, unsure person? And truth be told, I don't think I felt like one. I felt very firmly rooted at that point. But more reflection, more years, more turmoil all show that it is quite sensational talk, and is tied to this self-redemption quest I carry.

I could never explain this witness 

So don't ask me to! Ha! Spoken like a true Lutheran. This was probably the phrase that guaranteed my confirmation, lol. Maybe it's because it is this coming Sunday, but the whole inexplicable, witnessing of glory kinda reminds me of the disciples witnessing Jesus' transfiguration.

except by saying that my belief and prayer has delivered me from things maybe not as big as a den of lions, but the fact that Jesus did it for me anyways, that is why it's special. 

Okay, so maybe I could explain it. Well, sort of. It's especially hard when you're trying not to go into details. But let me say, for how much I jest, even now I'm a little impressed by this statement. It is easy to be proud of oneself I suppose, but this here is what we in the business call "preachable". That is, the idea that God being with us even if our problems don't seem as big as the ones in the bible and even if our story of rescue lacks that dramatic flare, that's true to the experience of so many. It's my proudest moment of the faith statement, if I may gloat a little.

So as a follower of Jesus I believe that faith in the Lord God will save you.

Here's the funny part, this very Lutheran phrase was something I penned long before I ever intellectually came across its theology. I mean, I was in a Missouri Synod Church, I'm sure it was taught, but I don't remember it that way. No, the article of justification by faith was not something I really learned about until college, when I started reading Luther. Yet somehow, it already was a part of me in some way, thanks to the work of others. Take that lesson for when a person does not seem to be "taking in" what you are saying about grace, because more may be seeping in than we realize.

Another really great thing, was that my pastor chose my confirmation verse, not me. It's something I am very thankful for now. I don't know if it was because of this line, but the verse Pastor Ron chose for me was this:

Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household. -Acts 16:31

I couldn't have said it better myself. I still can't.

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Annual HoF Rant: Why John McGrath is Wrong

Image result for bonds clemens


BWAA voters for Major League Baseball's Hall of Fame are now subject to the scrutiny of having to defend their ballots. Beginning this year, ballots are being released by the Hall of Fame to show just who voted for who. No more of this anonymous sanctimonious voting without being subject to defend or explain your reasoning. It probably had something to do with guys like Maddox and Griffey not getting unanimous selections. It is indefensible beyond some unspoken, unjustifiable claim that consensus players still should not get unanimous elections (or dumber yet, the notion that you should always have to wait at least one year before getting inducted).

My hate of the Hall of Fame voting process has been well documented on this blog for years. Little on that needs to be said. Today, let me focus my rant with one particular writer: John McGrath. McGrath at least filled out a full ballot (how some only thought there were 5 or so hall worthy players in ridiculous), but he was among those who for another year denied Bonds and Clemens, clearly the two best players on the ballot, and players so good they are in the conversations for best in the history of the game.

McGrath's reasoning is laid out here. To sum it up: some players never cheated to extend their careers while these guys did and that is a clear violation of the "character clause" of the ballot.

The clause he's referring to is the language of the ballot that reads "Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and the contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

Integrity, sportsmanship, character. These are the words upon which McGrath, and enough other BWAA voters hang their hat in order to deny Bonds, Clemens, and other players of a similar painting (such as Sosa). Now let me say why he's wrong.

There really is no historical proof that the clause has ever been used to not vote for a player. Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe can't count because they were never even included on a ballot for someone to use the clause to not vote for them. I mean, we have players who doctored the ball, mound chargers, racists, adulterers, etc. We have players who did things during careers, after careers, directly related to the game or not and yet never once did that clause stop any of them from being inducted but now it is going to be used against two players who literally have a better case career-wise in being in the hall?

Really I think history has shown us the opposite. Not only has history shown us that players were not excluded from the hall on the grounds of character flaws whether they affected the game or not, but I think it shows us that the clause is more there for the opposite reason: namely, to give reason to vote for a player who might otherwise not have a career case but belongs in the hall because of other impacts on the game. That is, it gave the voters grounds to vote for players who would be excluded otherwise. Instead of trying to make it some great list of objectives to be checked off (when ever has anyone shown any effort to only vote for players that were elite on every category, meeting some great formulaic bar by averaging their character with their career?), it was to give another medium by which to declare a player a hall of famer. This clause you might say nullifies the argument that say Jackie Robinson did not have a hall of fame career, which if he were judged only on numbers, in a vacuum, like if you had not his name but only awards and counting stats in front of you a person could reasonably say "great career, but not long enough" (Robinson only played 10 MLB seasons). In fact, McGrath's whole argument is accompanied by the narrative of Dale Murphy who had great numbers, but a steep falloff. He had, too short a career of success. I think there is a fair case to be made then that Robinson is proof this clause is intended for positive use. There was a reason beyond even his numbers that he is essential to the game. Although, as Buster Olney pointed out, voters have even been historically bad at using it to vote players in noting that Robinson barely got the votes needed and Larry Dobby, first black AL player never even got 4% of the BWAA votes. That is, the clause probably helped get Robinson over the threshold, and yet still many writers didn't seem to care enough about it then to use it the way it should be used. To quote Olney, "Somewhere along the way, long after Robinson's induction and death, some writers [in our time today] determined that the scant phrasing in the character clause could be used to eliminate candidates, but apparently not used to elevate them - practice which seems to violate the wording and to underscore its absurdly subjective nature."
Image result for bonds clemens

And he's right. While all votes are to a degree subjective, this opens up subjectivity to a whole new level. While I think Schilling should be in the hall of fame, I think he is an idiot for assuming that democrats get elected in right away but he didn't because he was a Trump-supporting republican. However, the more the BWAA uses the character clause to decide who gets in the more they are fueling his argument. After all, if you don't vote for players because they did/said something you did not like rather than because you did not think they were hall of fame caliber players, then what is to stop someone who thinks Trump is so terrible and those who voted for him must be racist too (I've seen the argument out there) from deciding that is a deal-breaking character flaw? Once you open the door to character subjectivity, it is easy to see it abused and you give reason for people to start suspecting abuse. The subjective use of the character clause invites then subject judgment of the voters' character, and by extension the hall itself. This is why it has been so scantally used even to include players. There is a reason there used to be the baseline stats that guaranteed election such as 300 wins or 500 home runs or 3000 hits. It was not simply because they over-valued those stats (funny enough those are probably the most devalued stats in the modern advanced statistic era), it was because they needed some point of objectivity. Some way of saying "beyond a shadow of a doubt these guys are hall of famers". They understood that even judging statistics was a subjective art that could be a slippery slope, so there were feats considered good enough to immortalize a player because that level of career production was considered elite. Well then you had Rafael Palmeiro who crossed both the 3000 hit and 500 home run threshold and somehow was not even good enough to stay on the ballot a few years. Bonds not only crossed the threshold, he is the all-time leader in home runs!

The point is that using the clause to hold someone back is a slippery slope of subjectivity that for years the BWAA literally took steps to avoid in even the most objective part of the game: a player's actual counting stats. 

But subjectivity and the purpose of the clause aside. Let's examine the case that steroid use is good enough grounds to not vote for Bonds and Clemens. Let's ask if that was a legit case for using the clause. After all, that's what his whole case is based on. Guys like Dale Murphy faded fast and will miss the hall for (presumably) never shooting up while guys like Clemens and Bonds had amazing careers that were outlandishly lasting.

Let me provide a counter-argument.

1) Correlation does not equal causation. This classic reminder in science should be heeded here as well. The argument is, they had a longer and better career than Murphy because of steroids. How on earth can you prove that, especially if you cannot even establish when exactly or how long or how much someone was using or would have been in decline? At best, you can make the assertion that MAYBE their career would have gone the way of Dale Murphy. In fact, before the allegations came out about Clemens, it was his work ethic and workout routine, it was his addition and mastery of the splitter that was said to prolong his career. And long before there was any speculation or worry of steroids tainting the game, there were players who had great careers and hit a wall/fell off early and there were players who were able to maintain their careers into their old age. Some players get hurt more, some recover faster and it's not always PEDs. Look at one of my favorite players in history: Satchel Paige. The guy debuted in MLB at age 42! He was 59 when he made his last MLB appearance! Are we suggesting he must have been a user to have such a long Negro Leagues career and then be able to play so late in MLB. He probably put more pitches on his arm than any player in the last 75 years.

2) But let's say you don't care, this is a grievous violation. Well, the problem is of course the clause is still being used for someone who was never empirically found guilty of PED use. Yes we have the BALCO trials (and subsequent perjury conviction, although much of those records have never been available to the public to make an informed decision on its details) and the trainer who claimed Clemens used (who Clemens pursued legal action against, although that was dismissed if memory serves), I'm not saying they were never seriously implicated. But we have no failed drug tests. So to follow the line of thought, the character clause is being used for things these players have been accused of doing, what they might have done (probably). I'm sorry, but how does that argument in any way compare to what they actually have done in their careers? Whatever doubt those allegations may have cast for someone regarding the nature of those stats, the stats are still there, and far more concrete than the case that steroids tainted them when it isn't even an open and shut case that they took steroids, public opinion of the matter aside.

3) But even if you still want to say the evidence was good and damning enough, it still comes to the fact that these were not isolated incidences to these two players. Even if Bonds and Clemens did use, which certainly seems likely, it was not like they stood out as some kind of unique case of cheaters. They only stand out because they were the best of everybody, not because of the steroids. I mean, drug testing was implemented precisely because they found there was a wide-spread problem of use across baseball. The point being that steroid use was not a problem tied simply to their character alone, it was tied to a bigger issue in the character of the game. It seems hard to use something so prevalent as a case to dismiss a few, especially those who were irregardless always counted among the elite. Even if we concede the high probability of guilt, it seems hard then to isolate the guilt to their own records alone. When we have a period now being dubbed "the steroid era" it seems hard to argue that the guilt or at least character shortage rests only on a few of the elite. Even if some benefited by favoring that corruption in the game while others did not desire its place in the game or seek to benefit from it, Although, in a game where so many stats are also a team effort, how many RBIs and runs did the Dale Murphys get because of perhaps others on their team using steroids even if they stayed clean? How many homers did Clemens still surrender to the Bonds, Sosas, and McGwires then? How many roided pitchers struck out Bonds? How many of those BWAA writers wrote about their greatness and sold them to the fans? How can the effects, benefits, and question of integrity only be put upon them then?

4) As such, how do you separate the pure from impure? I've reiterated this argument before in previous years, but if this is an era defined by steroid use, and we year in year out find new people were using, then what seems more likely is we are either penalizing people who likely never used (something people argued had been happening unfairly to Jeff Bagwell prior to this year) or we are rewarding players who were better at getting away with it. Mike Piazza is a Hall of Famer (and rightly so), yet his name certainly was under suspicion and scrutiny. Let's suppose for a minute that the suspicion about him or Bagwell was correct, yet because no one ever waved a finger or their name was never leaked they are ok? I mentioned how Clemens was never suspected until his name came up from the Mitchell report. Or take Ryan Braun, whose physique in no way suggests steroid use (in fact before his scandal Bud Selig named him as an example of the cleaned up game that has purer hitters). Maybe my argument here suffers a bit of a logical fallacy, that is it may be unfair to suggest that what we don't know about some players makes it wrong to judge on what we do know about others, since that argument could technically be applied to any player on any crime always and ever. But the specifics of this argument is still quite valid, since it is particularly in reference to steroid use in the steroid era and the difficulty in really identifying how far it went and who benefited most from it. If we have already admitted now into the hall several players from the steroid era, we have by and large removed that asterisk already and moved past the case that the integrity of the hall of fame will be brought down by the admission of players on the basis of stats from that era.

5) But let's say you could separate them. Let's assume for a minute that no one inducted from that era ever used. Let's say Bonds and Clemens benefited from steroids more than any other player who suited up for a major league team. Let's decide that ultimately they are responsible for what they did, not the wider game culture. It's on them and them alone and they need to answer for these crimes. Let's make all those assertions absent any thought of the counter arguments above. Even then, does that outweigh the numbers that say they were the best in the game? Or is that they only consideration in regards to their sportsmanship and integrity? How about Curt Schilling, another hall-worthy pitcher crediting Clemens with getting his career on track after Clemens sought him out and talked to him on how he needed to change his approach to the game? Isn't that very sportsman conduct that had a huge impact on the game? How about how Bonds has a street named after him in Harvey, IL because of his work there for underprivileged children or the Giants' fan who was brutally attacked by Dodgers fans and Bonds offered to pay for his children's college tuition? I'm sure you could find a lot of good from just about any athlete. That's not the point, but rather the point is for these athletes the good elements of their character are not even put into consideration. Seems to me, if you are ultimately going to stake your argument on the character clause, more scrutinous efforts should be put into examining these players' character.

The truth is of course, it's not their character, sportsmanship, or integrity that gets them into the hall of fame. Bonds was one of my least favorite players (a view in part because I experienced him through the tenuous relationship he and the media had), and Clemens was an intense player (though one of my favorites). I'll always remember the infamous bat throwing incident between him and Piazza (although he swore he did not mean to throw it at him). But they should be in because they were never meant to make their case on character, sportsmanship, and integrity. And as fans we never really asked them to during their hall of fame careers. Sure we like to have likeable players of good integrity to look up to, but really that wasn't the contributions that made them essential to the game and in my view essential to the hall of fame. And it seems to me more diminishing to the hall's integrity that two of its most obvious entrants are not in there.

And that, John McGrath, is why you are wrong in using integrity as a reason to keep them out.