Fantasy Journal: Closer I Am to Fine*, by J-Christmas

“It went okay, but I had closer problems all year.”

This was a wise friend of mine’s assessment of his lone fantasy baseball season. I, a virgin fantasy player, had gone to him earlier this year seeking advice before the draft.

Instead of really taking his words to heart, though, I recklessly followed my own path. Now those words have come back to haunt me.

I’m having closer problems.

To my credit, I kind of tried to stack my bullpen during the draft. I did take a closer – albeit a 39-year-old with a bad right shoulder, Philadelphia’s Tom “Flash” Gordon. Then I drafted 2 stud middle relievers, Joel Zumaya (Tigers) and Cla Meredith (Padres). The only problem: those guys don’t get saves. The rest of my pitchers were starters.

Once I realized my mistake, I started scrambling through the free agent scrap heap looking for potential closers. I scoured the fantasy advice columns for the buzz on who might lose his job, and who might take it. I even asked my sportswriter roommate, Mark “Bronson Arroyo” Goodman, to send me text messages whenever he saw a potential closer hit the market.

That’s how I ended up with a ragtag group of sometimes-maybe-closers like Derrick Turnbow, Henry Owens, Ryan Franklin, Joakim Soria, and Mike Gonzalez. Guys who throw heat inconsistently and live on the edge. Guys I would probably never have heard of if not for this weird game called fantasy baseball.

Despite another piece of advice, though, I refused to trade for a closer. I guess I’m a conservative manager in that sense. I’ll dig through the trash, but I don’t make trades.

So despite my cheap-ass efforts, my team languished in last place in the saves category for all of April, and close to last place overall. I couldn’t stop thinking that saves were holding me back.

But little by little, as I accumulated temporary closers and Flash Gordon unsteadily accumulated 5 saves, I started to claw my way out of the save cellar. Today it finally happened: I took over 11th place in saves!

The euphoria didn’t last long. This morning I also noticed a little sticky note with a fiery burst next to Flash’s name on my roster. In Yahoo land, this means breaking news (no pun intended). The note read: “Gordon is returning to Philadelphia to get checked out after feeling pain in his right shoulder.”

Goddamnit! Unsteady as he is, Flash owns 50% of my team’s 10 saves. I can already feel my #11 ranking in saves slipping away like a greased-up Easter egg.
I shouldn’t feel too sorry for myself, though. It’s been a rough start to the season for closers. Brad Lidge had another meltdown (the “sign Dan Wheeler!!!” text got to me too late). Eric Gagne had another physical breakdown. Bob Wickman soon joined Gagne, B.J. Ryan, Octavio Dotel and Jorge Julio on the disabled list. Even Mariano Rivera is suddenly throwing like a large steaming piece of dog poop.

Basically, the closer situation is a crapshoot. (Pardon all the fecal terms.) I’m tempted to just give up on it, accept that I’ll be last in saves, and focus on the other stats. After all, I’m now in 8th place overall, ahead of my mortal enemy Team Zambia, which is all I really care about.

But I’m obviously fated to obsess over closers all year. So I’ll keep tossing and turning at night, checking the waiver wire in the morning, and throwing shit at the bullpen to see what sticks.

*The title for this piece was going to be “Closer I Am to Find,” which I thought was a witty pun referencing both the Indigo Girls song from middle school and that nonexistent superstar closer I’m searching for. But halfway through this thing, I realized the words to the song are actually “Closer I am to Fine,” which makes a lot less sense, unless I’m going to fine Tom Gordon for having a mashed potato shoulder. Whatever.

-That explanation made no sense to me either. – Ed.

Click here for entire post.

Explaining Mark Prior

A great photo essay breaking down Mark Prior's delivery.

Click here for entire post.

The Wax and Wane of Red Sox Pitching, by Sara Hatch

It’s an interesting time for the Red Sox rotation. There is a newness and an oldness to it, exemplified in forms by Daisuke Matsuzaka and Curt Schilling.

Matsuzaka is the hope for the Red Sox. Japanese players are becoming a more common feature in American baseball, akin almost to the American presence in European football. Matsuzaka and his improbable salary had a rough night in his first home game this past week but he’s got a bright future ahead of him. His command of pitches is good and he’s got a range of them. Also, he is used to pitching far longer games in Japan which will mean he’ll be much more durable than many of the other pitchers on the team.

Pitchers are treated with such a revered sense of coddling these days. They can’t have over 100 pitch counts; they can only pitch every five games. But Matsuzaka will be good for the franchise and his newness will have an effect for at least the first half of the season. His loss at home this week wasn’t even all that bad of a game. Sometimes you pitch a good game and the other pitcher is just better. I see good things in his future, especially as he adjusts to the Majors and becomes more comfortable with his surroundings.

On the other end of the spectrum is Curt Schilling who is facing the pull of age. Schilling was such a good pitcher in his time that even now at 40 he can pitch his way out of almost any situation. His fastball has lost its bite but he hasn’t lost his pitcher’s brain. But this year may be his last and it will be a sad thing to see him go. The past few years have been years of brilliance and excess for the Red Sox and Schilling will forever go down in Red Sox history for his World Series performance.

But with time comes change and the masterful command Schilling has on his pitches will become harder to maintain. Going six innings will be a blessing and the great games will come farther and fewer between. Even with all that though, he’s still one of the keys to this year’s rotation.

This year, more than anything, this team will live and die by the strength of its pitchers. When will Matsuzaka settle and when will Schilling break?

Click here for entire post.

Baseball Blogosphere Highlights

Is K-Rod doctoring the ball? Have a look for yourself.

Following this week's Marlins-Nationals series made me wonder: who are these no-name Nats pitchers anyway? Well, today's my lucky day.

Click here for entire post.

Now Taking the Field, Your Local College 9!, by DaSkeeza

I can’t believe it. Baseball season is just around the corner.

No, not major league baseball, college baseball!

Somehow I don’t think you’re real excited at that statement.

Maybe I can convince you otherwise.

With the college football and pro football seasons wrapping up and basketball season reaching mid-season form, a lot is going on in the sports fan’s head. Surely, with the explosion of punditry over the past five or so years, there is no shortage of opinion as to who is number one, who belongs, and who doesn’t belong.

Which is why college baseball may be an interesting way to clear a fan’s mind.

For one more year, the college baseball season will begin in late January. Since only western and southern schools can host games this yearly, the NCAA will move to a universal start date in the middle of February next season. Even then so, the early part of the college baseball season offers intriguing match-ups for fans.

Last season, the defending national champions Texas Longhorns opened their season with a three-game tilt against the University of San Diego . On paper, it seemed like a giant mismatch. The defending national champion up against a team from the dinky West Coast Conference that didn’t make it into the previous year’s tournament, why even bother? After USD swept the series, it was no joke.

Texas has its chance for redemption when the Toreros come to town to open the 2007 campaign. A couple of weeks later, they have a series with perennial power Long Beach State, who proudly boasts MVP 07 NCAA Baseball coverboy Jered Weaver as on of its alums (among others, like Jason Giambi).

College world series contender the pre-season #8 Vanderbilt also receives an early test, when they face both Rice and Arizona State in its opening weekend of play. And what of the defending national champions Oregon State ? A three-game series with Georgia in Athens in the second week of the season should have the Diamond Dogs out in full force.

But enough about the high-profile match-ups. Why college baseball, of all things?

With skyrocketing ticket prices, drug scandals, and greater distance from the fans, some baseball fans may feel a little alienated by the whole major league experience. Taking the family to a ballgame these days costs a lot of money. And once you’re in the ballpark, access to special areas is usually limited. That’s a tough reality especially if you have kids, who, as you probably know, can’t sit still for a nine inning game.

In college parks, however, the prices are a lot cheaper. Most tickets don’t exceed $15. Some parks have lawn seating on the baselines or in the outfield, perfect for picnics and children who want to run around the park. The stadiums are small and cozy, and the seats are close to the action (better chance for catching foul balls). With many schools opening brand new parks in recent years, seats that go for top dollar in major league yards are easily obtained in college stadiums.

And the players? The experience varies, but I find that most of them are willing to sign autographs and mingle with fans. After all, with their parents at just about every game, the players would be wise to.

So what about the aluminum bats? They’re not really such a bad thing, as most people who have played baseball (or softball) use aluminum for much of their careers. Only the small, elite group that makes it to college semi-pro leagues on up use wood. Furthermore, it makes offense livelier and solid pitching that much more difficult to accomplish.

I’ve come to find that no matter where you watch baseball, each ballpark has its own personality. The fans behave a certain way. The outfields have varying dimensions and different skylines in the background. The regulars cover the entire spectrum of personalities. But when you look into college baseball, you find that there are hundreds of places you can experience the game. And with the cozy and collegial atmosphere, the experiences of baseball as an institution are felt more in a college ballpark than in a major league ballpark.

While these early season match-ups are great, the postseason is a completely different beast worthy of its own, exclusive description. Where tickets to the NCAA’s basketball tournament and college bowl games are hard to come by, tickets to the NCAA baseball regionals and super regionals are usually easily obtained. This is when you see the college baseball experience at its best. You see the same passion and energy in the fans as you do in the MLB playoffs, but here you get to see it at point-blank range.

It all ends in Omaha in June, at Johnny Rosenblatt Stadium, where the eight super regional winners battle it out in the Men’s College World Series. This site is so ideal that for over 50 years, the NCAA has never moved the series. What better place to contest college baseball’s championship than a minor league ballpark in America ’s Breadbasket? (Granted, the minor league team that plays there takes a road warrior trip for the three or four weeks the NCAA needs the stadium. Since no major league team would consider doing that, the CWS probably can’t be held in a major league park). Home runs have always been plentiful at the series, and they have been a proving ground for several players that have on gone on to major league success. Of recent note, Oakland closer Huston Street , who, in his time at Texas , was the Mariano Rivera of college baseball, and had the stamina to even come in at the tail end of the seventh or beginning of the eighth to slam the door on Longhorn opponents. Those familiar with his exploits do not find it surprising that he claimed AL Rookie of the Year honors two years ago.

So if you love baseball as an institution and want to experience it in a significant yet inexpensive form, visit your local college ballpark this year. It’s cheap, fun, and perhaps a solid reminder of the real reasons behind America ’s fascination with its national pastime.

Click here for entire post.

Rumor has it some law students frequent this blog

An interesting angle on the Daisuke Matsuzaka saga.

Anyone who's been following this story closely is probably already familiar with Matsuzaka's alleged "gyroball," but if not, have a look at this.

Click here for entire post.

Off to the Races, by Mike Klein

The baseball season may be long over for the players, but as far as the GMs are concerned, this month (and the upcoming week in particular) are the playoffs. I'm talking about free agency, the MBLPA's knight in shining armor that burst from its mother's womb 30 years ago with such calm, shining eyes, announcing to the world that, "you can't push John Q. Shortstop around any more!" Anyone who has read Ball Four, Jim Bouton's seminal 1969 book about the real life of baseball players, knows that, prior to free agency, the players got the very short end of a very long stick. In 1969, the minimum major league salary for a ballplayer was $10,000 (about $56,000 in 2006 dollars), not terrible, but bad considering that before reaching the majors, players often toiled for many years in the minor leagues for much less pay. Bouton related tales of bully tactics the team owners would use to keep salaries down and felt (correctly) that the owners were getting rich at the players' expense.

Fast forward to the winter of 2000-2001: Manny Ramirez gets a $160 million deal from the Red Sox, and Alex Rodriguez gets a (now infamous) $252 million dollar deal from the Texas Rangers. The deals are so big that, suddenly, and largely for the first time, the common fan thinks that free agency might be going to far. Then the Yankees (and later the Red Sox, Mets and others) started raising their payrolls to new heights (the Yankees reached the $200 million plateau in 2005, whereas a few years prior no team had ever hit the $100 million mark) and suddenly the idea of a "salary cap" is being thrown around both within and without the sport. A salary cap, of course would limit how much money the players can make, so it was almost a 100% certainly that a cap = players strike. In the end, none of this became a real problem because between 2001 and the current offseason (a) free agency cooled off and it looked like giant nine-figure contracts were a thing of the past and (b) the sport was making so much money that the owners were getting rich, even with the high salaries paid to players.

I should stop there for a minute though: "the owners were getting rich." Not all owners have been getting rich. Mid-sized market teams (Seattle, Cleveland, St. Louis) and big-market teams (Yankees, Mets, Giants, Dodgers, etc.) have been getting rich and, in particular, teams with their own TV networks have been getting rich (due to a loophole which allows TV revenues to go un-taxed by MLB). The small market teams have either been "sly, and gettin' by" (A's, Twins, Marlins) or "pretty much dead, ‘cause they couldn't stay ahead" (Devil Rays, Royals, Pirates, Nationals). Beside the residents of those latter teams’ cities, no one has seemed to mind much the inequality of the teams, using the crutch "if the A's can do it with a low payroll and smart trades/ player development, then it's the Devil Rays’ own fault they aren't competitive." This is partially true, the Rays and Nats in particular have been self-skunked by constantly asking for too much in trades and ending up with nothing (the non-trade of Alfonso Soriano this year was a case-in-point). These low-revenue teams have been helped by revenue sharing from the high-revenue clubs, but they've all been essentially lost causes without good, young, and inexpensive talent (something the more successful small-market teams have been awash with).

So why write about this now? Well, it's almost as if the 2000-2001 offseason was free agency's first nip of classy booze and this month is its 21st birthday. Alfonso Soriano, a soon-to-be 31-year-old with two good seasons on his resume, gets an 8-year deal worth $17 million per. Fat and ill-fielding slugger Carlos Lee gets a $100 million deal over six years. Gary Matthews Jr., he of the great glove and one offensive season that was better than below-average, gets $55 million over five years. Juan Pierre, who is getting older and increasingly less useful, gets $45 million over five. I won't even get into the $51.1 million posting bid the Red Sox made for Japanese ace Daisuke Matzuzaka, and the majority of big-name pitchers have yet to sign.

So the Devils Rays, Royals, Pirates etc. just went from 6-feet-under to 7. Big deal. I believe that the teams that will really be affected by this spending upturn will be the "clever"/lucky small market teams, and some of the mid-market teams that have been making a lot of money, but not nearly as much as the big boys. All these small, smart teams seem to get by with a mix of young players and moderately priced free agents (the Marlins seem to be the exception, fielding essentially an entire roster of pre-free agent players). Let's focus on the Twins: two cornerstones of their team the past few seasons were Johan Santana (a.k.a. the best pitcher in baseball – by far) and Brad Radke (whose body and right arm are now living in separate, but adjacent, cities). After the 2004 season, Santana signed a four-year, $40 million dollar deal. This deal bought out his last two arbitration years and his first two free agent years (he would have been a free agent this current offseason).

Santana is young (27) and won the American League Cy Young award unanimously this past month (he also won the award in 2004 and got robbed in 2005). Any guesses to how much this guy commands on the open market? Try $160 million over eight years, minimum. That same offseason, Radke signed a 2-year $18 million deal to stay with the only team he's ever played for. Now, I believe that Santana is a loyal player with good values blah blah blah, but I don't think for a second that he would have signed this extension if he knew what kind of money would have been on the table just two short years later. Likewise, if 2004 were 2006, Radke would have been in line for a much larger contract. I don't believe that the Twins can afford much more than they paid these two guys, and, while I believe that Santana and Radke would still have taken a pay cut to stay in Minnesota, I don't think they would have gone as low as Minnesota needed them to. Translation: Santana and Radke walk and the Twins are no longer a competitive team.

Many people like to blame the Yankees and their insane payroll for "ruining" baseball's competitiveness. While I hate the Yankees, I don't believe any one team has the power to do such damage (the Yanks are 0 for 6 for world championships during their post-2000 spending deluge). The Yankees’ 2006 payroll was $199 million (actually a bit above $200 million if you use average annual values of contracts, which what baseball bases revenue sharing numbers upon). The Red Sox come in next at $120 million. After the Sox, about a third of baseball (11 teams) is clumped between $88 and $104 million. Put another way, the big-market teams spent an average of about $105 million on payroll in 2006. The current free agency market looks to have at least a 20% inflation rate over past markets (and this number may be a low estimate). The end result is that these big-market teams seem to be willing to spend an additional $250+ million on their payrolls, money that will be used on premium players, as well as to keep average-to-above-average talent away from competitors (and small market teams). A single Yankees team can only do so much damage, but if a third of baseball starts spending like they're from the Bronx, many teams simply will not be able to keep up.

So what to do about this? A salary cap doesn't seem to be the solution: (a) it would cause a players’ strike and (b) the money is obviously out there, so if it doesn't go to the players than it would go to the owners. Revenue sharing is a good thing, and I think there needs to be more of it. Additionally, as much of the big clubs' muscle comes from their TV networks (think YES, NESN), I think this revenue stream should also be taxed by MLB. Finally: more money from baseball should be earmarked for charity. If a certain portion of profits is going to charity, the money simply won't be available for the players to vie for. Sounds simple and stupid, but the owners are only spending all this money because they have it.

Click here for entire post.