Wrapping Up the Rest

I'm going to cover the next few ESPN HoF "debates" in one post, since I have less to say about each of them. Michael Knisley and John Shea tackled Andrew Dawson's candidacy; here's how Shea justified his decision to vote for "The Hawk":

For me, the most important ingredient when voting is this: When you saw him play, did you think he was a Hall of Famer or not? Cooperstown has the best Hall of Fame in sports because it's the toughest to get into, because not every borderline candidate is inducted. It could be argued that it's great not for who is in, but for who is not in.

In the case of Dawson, I always thought he was usually better than everyone else on the field, a guy who could take over a game, and dominate an era. Plus, what an intimidating fellow. I covered the Padres in '87, Dawson's MVP year with the Cubs. There was a game in July in which Dawson took an Eric Show fastball on the cheek that required 24 stitches. At first, he was motionless and couldn't charge the mound. So his teammates did for him. That's the ultimate respect.

Shea actually uses the "borderline candidates dilute the Hall's talent level" argument in favor of Dawson here, something I've never seen before. This is precisely why "what you thought when you saw him play" should not be the most important ingredient when voting. First of all, how much did you see him play? Did you watch every game he played at the Major League level, or did you merely cover one MVP season and see him intermittently throughout the rest of his career? Even if you did see every AB Dawson had, and every putout he made, in a big league uniform, I guarantee that you missed or forgot something important which could be revealed by a little statistical analysis. Human memory and perception are fallible. That's why we keep statistics.

In contrast, here's what Jay Jaffe has to say about Dawson's candidacy:

In his heyday, Dawson brought to the table an exceptional combination of power and speed. As an Expo, he was a Gold Glove center fielder who shifted to right after the Olympic Stadium turf took its toll on his knees. He left as a free agent following the 1986 season, and made a huge splash in his first year with the Cubs, hitting 49 homers, driving in 137 runs, and winning dubious MVP honors--he had just 7.3 WARP, which ranked 24^th in the league and was only his sixth-best season--while playing for a last-place club, the first player to win the MVP from the basement. His stats that year were grossly inflated by Wrigley Field (.332/.373/.668 at home vs. .246/.288/.480 away), but for his career, the park effects were more even: .281/.330/.481 with 207 HR at home, .278/.316/.483 with 231 HR on the road. His Gold Gloves are somewhat overstated; the FRAA numbers show him a combined 15 runs below average in two of those seasons, but that's about par for the course. The biggest problem with Dawson's case is his lifetime .323 OBP, nine points below the park-adjusted league average for his career; he topped .350 just three times, while scraping the .300 range for too many years. That particularly depresses the value of his peak, which is tied for a rather unimpressive 250^th all-time, though seven Hall of Famers--Dave Bancroft, Willie Stargell, Earl Averill, Hugh Duffy, Pie Traynor, Orlando Cepeda, and Luis Aparacio--are within half a win of his total. He's a better choice than Rice, but he still comes up short.

So, yeah. Something like that, maybe. I'm sure Jaffe watched Dawson play, too, you know.

The Raines debate was actually somewhat heartening; Jayson Stark converted Peter Gammons to the pro-Raines camp. Gammons didn't put up much of a fight, and considering that the agent of change was Jayson Stark, I'd wager to say that he was leaning towards voting for Raines anyway, but hey, it's still nice to see. That said, Gammons did offer one line to which I took exception:

Raines, Rickey Henderson and Wade Boggs were the best of the '80s and early '90s, and while some of our sabermetric fellows do not believe players are humans, Raines made every team he was on better, not just because he was such a good player, but because his effervescent personality made teammates relax and play better; you'd go out to the cage and players would all be following him around.

Low blow, Pete. Moreover, I don't know exactly what provoked it. Sabermetricians don't believe that players are robots; they believe in examining performance which can actually be quantified. Most sabermetricians probably wouldn't rule out the possibility that Raines' personality might have helped his teams, since it's impossible to prove that it didn't; however, it's also impossible to prove that it did, and since its hypothetical impact pales in comparison to other factors which actually can be observed, devoting an inordinate amount of attention to it would be ill-advised.

And finally, we come to Jim Rice. I don't believe that Rice is a Hall-of-Fame; one of the arguments most frequently employed to support his candidacy reveals the dearth of his other HoF qualifications. Larry Stone echoes that familiar refrain:

As our pal Jayson Stark said a few years ago, when he finally saw the light and began to vote for Rice, he met one essential Cooperstown criterion: the fear factor. Pitchers absolutely hated to face him, and for good reason.

Rob Neyer addressed this line of reasoning recently; I'll let him answer Stone:

Turns out Rice has one credential: As Shaughnessy and so many others have said over the years, he was "the most feared hitter of his day" ... but was he, really? I'm still waiting for someone, anybody.

Shaughnessy cites intentional walks: "Managers thought about intentionally walking him when he came to the plate with the bases loaded." Well, that's an interesting bit of untestable trivia, but for the moment let's ignore all those imaginary intentional walks and talk about the real ones. Because yes, a great number of intentional walks would suggest that a player really was feared.

Rice's 12 best seasons -- 1975-1986 -- are usually mentioned because the rest of his career was not good. Did Rice draw more intentional walks than anyone else over those 12 seasons? From 1975 through 1986 -- remember, that range of seasons has been chosen specifically to make Rice look his best -- 32 major leaguers drew more intentional walks than Jim Rice.
Stoney, in regard to the '86 World Series, I will quote a great American, Hawk Harrelson -- "Don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit.''

By the way, check out this article, which was linked to by an ESPN user in the discussion section of that Neyer blog entry; it perfectly illustrates the futility of the "fear factor" argument.

Now, Phil Rogers, Stone's opponent in the debate, isn't blameless--he quotes Hawk Harrelson in a favorable light, even going so far as to call him a "great American--but at least he's on the right side (or was, at the beginning of the debate--sadly, another one bites the dust). Joe Sheehan and Jay Jaffe have quite a bit more to say about the issue, as usual. These ESPN voters weren't necessarily the worst of all, but they certainly didn't improve my opinion of the average BBWAA HoF voter's knowledge and analytical skills.

Aaaaand We're Back

I've been remiss in my blogging duties, to say the least. Hope I didn't ruin your holidays. Fortunately, I picked a good time to get lazy; these last couple weeks have been about as devoid of news as any during the year. So, what have I missed?

I won't go back too far, but recently, ESPN's series of Hall of Fame debates has provided more evidence for what we already knew: some Hall of Fame voters really shouldn't have votes. The series included discussions of Bert Blyleven, Andrew Dawson, Tim Raines, Jim Rice, Goose Gossage, and Mark McGwire, and I want to post some especially egregious excerpts from a few of these.

First up: the Blyleven debate, wherein Sean McAdam has wins on the brain. Bob Klapisch does his best, (which can't quite equal the respective bests of Rich Lederer and Jay Jaffe) but McAdam simply cannot get over the absence of a few wins scattered over the course of Blyleven's career, which would have given him some a few more "magic numbers":

Let's start with the number of 20-win seasons, or more accurately, lack of 20-win seasons. In 22 seasons, Blyleven had exactly one 20-win season. And remember, he pitched mostly in the era of four-man rotations. I could give you a list of many, many players who had a 20-win season and I assure you, you wouldn't be campaigning for any of them.

And not only did he win 20 only once, but he didn't come real close in other years. He had one 19-win season ('84, with the Indians) and then a whole bunch of 17-win seasons (five). Does that sound like an ace's resume?

It sounds like an extremely incomplete excerpt from what could be an ace's resume. It certainly doesn't tell the whole story, or even close to it.

What? All of a sudden, won-loss record isn't a fair measuring stick for pitchers? If we're not going to take records into account, what's the new standard? I'm not expecting six or seven seasons -- though that's been accomplished. But more than one isn't too much to ask, either.

"All of a sudden?" Come on, Sean. I'll let Rich Lederer's address to the BBWAA on behalf of Blyleven offer some better alternatives:

1. Mr. Blyleven ranks fifth all time in career strikeouts. You have seen the virtues of electing the top dozen other than the man known as Only The Lonely.

2. Mr. Blyleven ranks ninth in shutouts. You have seen the virtues of inducting the top 20 other than our subject.

3. Mr. Blyleven ranks 24th in wins. You have seen the virtues of honoring every eligible pitcher ahead of him save one.

4. Looking at more advanced metrics, Bert Blyleven ranks 14th in Neutral Wins. You have voted in every pitcher in the top 20 other than Mr. Blyleven.

5. Mr. Blyleven also ranks 17th in Runs Saved Above Average. You have enshrined every pitcher in the top 20 other than him.

6. Among pitchers with 4,000 or more innings, Bert Blyleven ranks 19th in ERA vs. the league average. Once again, you have found a spot in Cooperstown for every pitcher in the top 20 other than Mr. Blyleven.

For some icing on the cake, may I point out that Bert Blyleven was named American League Rookie Pitcher of the Year in 1970 at the age of 19, threw a no-hitter in 1977, and was voted Comeback Player of the Year in 1989? I might also add that Mr. Blyleven pitched on two World Series Championship teams, compiling a 5-1 won-loss record and a 2.47 ERA in the postseason.

By the way, I would like to bring to your attention, ladies and gentlemen, the little-known fact that you haven't honored any pitchers born since 1947 (Nolan Ryan), yet you have felt compelled to induct eight hitters (George Brett, Gary Carter, Eddie Murray, Kirby Puckett, Mike Schmidt, Ozzie Smith, Dave Winfield, and Robin Yount) born since then. Furthermore, every pitcher that has been elected since Mr. Blyleven became eligible six years ago, as well as the two immediately preceding his candidacy, has won 300 or more games. In fact, Rollie Fingers in 1992 was the last pitcher that was voted into the Hall of Fame without 300 wins and he, of course, was a reliever.

Based on the above, one can't help but think that winning 300 games has become the de facto standard for pitchers. As a point of clarification, had you held to that magical mark all along, there would only be 20 pitchers currently in the Hall of Fame with another one on his way (Clemens) and perhaps a second one on the horizon (Greg Maddux). A total of 22 starting pitchers would be comparable to only four or five position players. The fewest number of HOFers at any one position is 11 (3B). As such, holding starting pitchers to a minimum of 300 victories is overly strict and unfair. Focusing exclusively on wins is also a mistake as this stat is as much dependent on the pitcher's team as it is on the pitcher himself.

Exactly. Give that man a Hall of Fame vote. Please.

Sometimes, Honesty Isn't the Best Policy

Woody Paige has solicited the aid of his readers as he fills out his Hall-of-Fame ballot--and not a moment too soon:

I need your help.

Do I vote for suspected steroid users, particularly a couple included in the Mitchell report on Thursday, or do I automatically dismiss their candidacy? Do I vote for guys I personally like, or is that not being objective? Do I vote for a creep or a man who committed suicide? Do I check 10 players, the maximum allowed, or keep it to one or two? Do I go with pitcher Tommy John because they named a surgical procedure after him?

A couple of those questions are legitimate, but you really shouldn't need assistance with the others. You shouldn't resolve to check either 1 or 2 players, or 10; you should vote for as many players as you think are deserving of enshrinement. You shouldn't vote for someone because they named a surgical procedure after him. And most importantly, does voting for guys you personally like sound objective to you?

Gossage — During a visit to Yankee Stadium in the late 1970s, I wanted to talk to Goose but was told he was cruel and gruff to reporters. I sheepishly introduced myself and said I was from Colorado, his home state, and he talked pleasantly for 30 minutes. We've been good friends since. I would vote for him even if he wasn't deserving. But Goose was one of the most dominant, and frightening, closers in baseball for two decades. One major difference between when he pitched and now: Gossage most times worked two or three innings, not three outs. He needs 75 percent of the vote. Goose climbed to 71.2 percent last year, his ninth time (15 max) on the ballot.

I appreciate the attempt at a justification, but that "I would vote for him even if he wasn't deserving" is all we really need to know.

Knoblauch, McGwire and Justice — I won't vote for them because of the swirl of steroid and human growth hormone accusations, and I also won't vote for them because I don't think they're worthy. Justice had a career batting average of .279 (with 305 home runs and 1,017 RBIs). His teams did win two World Series, but I don't feel it. Knoblauch was a very good second baseman, but this is not the Hall of Very Good. McGwire had 583 homers but a career .263 average. The drug suspicions, and his appearance at a Washington hearing examining drug use, haunt him.

Nothing terrible here. "Not feeling it" isn't a great substitute for detailed analysis, but either way, Justice doesn't deserve to be in, so I'll let it slide. Not thrilled with the "but this is not the Hall of Very Good" line, either; seems like I may have heard that one before. Make note of the .263 career average behind held against Big Mac here; that will be relevant in the next paragraph.

Murphy — Got my vote, but he won't get in. He was two short of 400 home runs and hit only .265, but he won back-to-back MVP awards, made seven all-star teams and earned five Gold Gloves. He played 26 games for the Rockies in their first season, 1993, before retiring. I vote for Rockies. He was who a ballplayer should be. And he always remembers my name. I'm a sap.

So Dale Murphy gets a vote with a career average 2 points higher than McGwire's, despite having hit 185 fewer homers. OK, so Murphy wasn't juicing, but does anyone really think that was what made the difference here? He remembers Woody's name, for goodness sake.

Andre Dawson and Tim Raines — I'm voting for them. Both are borderline. But I was amazed by, and wrote columns about, Dawson and Raines when they played for the Denver Bears. Dawson passed through in 1976 on his way to the Montreal Expos, and Raines was the 1980 minor-league player of the year as the Bears' second baseman. (Raines did have a cocaine addiction problem but overcame it.)

Just for the record, I think that Raines should be in, and Dawson shouldn't. Paige, of course, thinks they should both be in, not because of anything they did in the Major Leagues, (which, of course, is all that matters when considering their candidacies) but because of a single season he saw each of them have in AAA. Not sure whether this is worse than voting for someone because of a personal friendship, but it's close.

Jim Rice — He has been shut out for 13 years, mainly because he primarily was a DH. That doesn't bother me, but his overall numbers are just shy. Yet, he was an MVP, in the top five in the MVP five other times and made eight all-star teams in 16 seasons. Why not? I'll check his name.

He was primarily a DH, and you don't even think that his offensive numbers are Hall-worthy--yet you checked his name. "Why not," indeed.

Don Mattingly — Another former player, now a coach, who I became friends with, so I'm prejudiced. I like voting for friends, especially when they hit .307 lifetime, won an MVP, made six consecutive all-star teams and won a Gold Glove nine times in 14 seasons. Class act.

I know from personal experience that class acts don't get Hall-of-Fame votes just for being class acts. At least, they shouldn't. Chalk another Paige vote up to openly-admitted bias.

Bert Blyleven (287-250) and Tommy John (288-231) — Also on my list. I will give a vote as a salute to Dave Concepcion, in his final year on the ballot.

In conclusion, we have 3 votes attributable to personal friendships, 2 attributable to AAA performance, 1 attributable to "why not," 1 attributable to a surgical procedure, and 1 attributable to a symbolic "salute." Only the Blyleven selection passes the smell test here, and for all I know, he and Woody may be best buds. This is a travesty, and the man isn't even ashamed to admit it.

The Eckstein Report

David Eckstein has signed a contract. Go tell it on the mountain--twice. Even if you have to make up erroneous information about a 2nd year in order to make it sound like an original headline.

Around and Around We Go

The "Around the Majors" section of Jon Heyman's CNNSI columns often operates as a haven for misinformation. Fully 1/3 of his latest bullet-pointed entries struck me as misleading and ill-informed, if not flat-out wrong:

*The Yankees and Giants could possibly make a deal involving Hideki Matsui, one that involves either pitchers Noah Lowry or Jonathan Sanchez. But would anyone really expect Matsui to waive his no-trade clause to leave the team of his dreams?

Yes. Absolutely. Matsui may like being a Yankee, but he also doesn't strike me as the type to stand in the way of a trade which both parties are eager to complete. It's also worth mentioning that many Japanese players have expressed a preference to play on the West Coast, which cuts almost half a day of off the round-trip flight to Japan. Matsui's approval isn't a sure thing, but it's certainly not ridiculous to expect him ultimately to accede to the wishes of the two teams involved.

*Upon hearing that Eric Gagne got a guaranteed $10 million (plus incentives), my reaction was: I wonder how much he could have gotten if he wasn't the worst pitcher in the majors over the last three months of the 2007 season.

Upon reading this, my reaction was: there is no way that Eric Gagne was the worst pitcher in the majors over the last three months of the 2007 season. Maybe it seemed like it, because of the fanfare surrounding his acquisition by the eventual World Series Champions, followed by his woeful under-performance, but good baseball writers generally delve a little deeper than the "superficial perception" level of analysis. And in fact, 30 Major League pitchers equaled or surpassed Gagne's 24 2/3 Post-All-Star-Break IP, and finished with worse ERA's than the 6.57 mark which he posted during that span. 11 of them were starters who made at least 10 starts; all of those guys did considerably more damage to their teams than Gagne could inflict in relief.

*Let me get this straight: Texas and San Diego (and probably others) would both take Milton Bradley (Bradley eventually agreed to a $5 million contract with the Rangers) but not Barry Bonds?

Barry Bonds is a 43-year-old public relations nightmare, who was recently indicted for lying under oath about taking steroids. He's also too brittle to play a defensive position at this stage of his career, which, at least for San Diego, represents a significant problem. He's still an enormously productive hitter, of course, (most likely because he's still juicing) so someone will probably sign him, assuming, of course, that he doesn't spend Spring Training in a jail cell.

Milton Bradley has an anger problem, but he's only 29. He's injury-prone, too, but at his age, there's considerably more reason to expect a relatively healthy season than there is for Bonds. He can play center field, and he's also productive at the plate. I wouldn't call him popular, but he's not one of the most reviled players in the game's history, either; signing him would cause only a fraction of the backlash and negative press which a Bonds signing would entail. Is it really so hard to understand why someone would take a chance on Bradley over Bonds? I don't think so.

Not So Fast

According to Mike Lupica of The Daily News, Jay Gibbons should be lauded for his recent admission of HGH use:

In the same week that Barry Bonds stood in a courtroom and issued not-guilty pleas to felony charges that are primarily about him being a stone liar on the subject of steroids and performance-enhancing drugs, Jay Gibbons of the Orioles did something rather amazing in baseball:

He told the truth.

"I am deeply sorry for the mistakes I have made," Gibbons said. "I have no excuses and bare sole responsibility for my decisions."

Gibbons didn't come up with some phantom illness, offer some jived-up explanation of why he had to get the drugs from a dentist operating out of the trunk of his car. He didn't blame a teammate, didn't say he was unaware of what he was taking, didn't say he'd been tripped up by a tainted "diet supplement," always my personal favorite.

Lupica couldn't be more wrong. For a long list of Gibbons' denials, equivocations, and disingenous statements, check out this article by The Baltimore Sun's Rick Maese. Here's what Maese had to say about Gibbons' confession:

What's most bothersome now has less to do with cheating the game and so much more with cheating our collective sensibilities. Yesterday's news that Orioles outfielder Jay Gibbons faces a 15-day suspension for violating Major League Baseball's substance-abuse policy was hardly a surprise. But Gibbons' admission that he purchased and used hGH should have stirred deeper feelings for fans.

He's an excellent example of why fans have built up so much distrust, why it's so difficult to look at a man or woman capable of superhuman athleticism and feel that innocent sense of awe bubble inside. Gibbons' actions are disappointing, but his words are much more damaging.

Perhaps the reaction would have been different if he were among the first busted offenders, but as it is - Gibbons is one of eight players connected to the Orioles to be tied to performance-enhancing drugs - what feels especially repulsive today is his parallel career of lying.

Buster Olney also weighed in:

I would respectively disagree with Mike in this case: For years, Gibbons flatly and angrily denied any suggestion that he used performance-enhancing drugs, and from what I've heard, he was completely cornered by the evidence -- and only now offers a mea culpa after his penalty was negotiated, a la Marion Jones.

Lupica's Gibbons encomium is inexcusable, and betrays an almost total unfamiliarity with the subject at hand. Might want to do just a tiny bit of research next time, Mike.

Unfair Expectations

Detroit News columnist Jerry Green (who's old enough to use the word "balderdash" without blushing) felt he had to let us know that "perfection [is] now demanded of new-look Tigers." It's unclear who, exactly, is demanding this flawless performance, other than Green himself.

The Tigers must win the World Series next October -- or bust.

A division title would not be satisfactory. Not any more.

Another American League pennant, the same as the Tigers unexpectedly won in 2006, would be insufficient.

The Tigers have to win the pennant plus the World Series next season or the monster trade of the other day becomes a flop.

The Tigers didn't make the playoffs last year. One trade later, they have to win the World Series or be considered a disgrace? I mean sure, they picked up a great player, but they also finished 8 games behind the Indians last year, and 6 games behind the Yankees in the Wild Card. This trade certainly improves them in the short term (as does the acquisition of Edgar Renteria), but if Cabrera plays as expected, and Willis rebounds somewhat from a terrible 2007, but the Tigers still fail to go all the way, would anyone really call the trade a "flop?"

Articles like this are why General Managers retire early.

He Said, He Said

I'm not here to criticize the Andruw Jones signing. $18.1 per may be a little pricey, but that seems to be what decent center fielders are going for these days, and it's only for two years. I do agree with Keith Law when he says that it could end up being a mistake if it's a prelude to a Kemp trade and a starting role for Juan Pierre. But I digress; what I'd really like to talk to you about today is the continuing presence of Bill Plaschke at the Los Angeles Times. What's up with that?

Folks will complain because Jones, 30, is coming off the worst full season of his career, but every question has an answer.

You say he had a bad summer? I say he still would have led the Dodgers in home runs (26) and runs batted in (94).

I say RBI are lineup-dependent and tell us very little about Jones' performance. I also say that he hit .222/.311/.413. He may have hit more homers than anyone on the Dodgers, but if we're only considering offense, would you really have taken him over Russ Martin, (.293/.374/.469) James Loney, (.331/.381/.538) Jeff Kent, (.302/.375/.500) Luis Gonzalez, (.278/.359/.433) Andre Ethier, (.284/350/.452) or even half a season of .342/.373/.521 production from Matt Kemp?

You say he's overpaid? I say that by giving him only a two-year deal, he's going to feel underpaid, and you know how hungry those guys get.

If he feels underpaid making $18.1 million after a .222/.311/.413 year, I won't have too much sympathy. Last year was the time to expect a big season from Jones; BP's Dayn Perry has shown that players exhibit a WARP increase of approximately 10% in their walk years, due to both improved production and increased playing time. Of course, we know how that turned out.

You say he won't be any better than the combination of Kemp and Andre Ethier? I say, in a post-steroid-era season in 2006, he hit 41 homers with 129 RBIs, so get real.

I say it's naive to call 2006 the "post-steroid-era."

You say it's silly to bring a power hitter to Dodger Stadium? OK, well, how about bringing a perennial Gold Glove winner to Dodger Stadium?

Stop putting words in my mouth; I wouldn't say it's silly to bring a power hitter to Dodger Stadium. According to ESPN's Park Factor stats, Dodger Stadium has favored home-run hitting in every season since 2002.

In acquiring Jones, the Dodgers are actually acquiring four players.

I highly doubt that.

His power allows them to give Andy LaRoche a long-awaited chance to win the job at third base.

Actually, Nomar Garciaparra's lack of power (.371 SLG) allows (actually, encourages) them to do that.

His pedigree probably convinces Jeff Kent to return for one more run at a championship.

As far as I can tell, the Dodgers hold a club option on Jeff Kent. He doesn't need to be convinced.

His position lets Juan Pierre become Juan Pierre.

You mean it lets Juan Pierre move to left and take at-bats from Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier? Fantastic.

No, no, the Dodgers will not and should not trade the short-armed center fielder. Just because he was overpaid doesn't mean he lacked value. Did everybody somehow miss that he was second in the league in stolen bases and led the league in sacrifice bunts?

Although I consider myself fairly well-informed about most baseball goings-on, I must admit that I did miss Pierre's stellar sacrifice bunting performance; Pierre managed to beat out fellow slugger Omar Vizquel by a mere four bunts. Rounding out the top 25 NL sacrifice bunters were 23 starting pitchers. And Plaschke wonders why this didn't get more attention.

The 64 SB (and even more importantly, the 81% success rate) were nice, but they don't make up for the .331 OBP and the abysmal .353 SLG. So, unsurprisingly, it turns out that in acquiring Jones, the Dodgers actually only acquired Jones.

The Dodgers need to keep Pierre's speed and bunting ability at the top of the order. Goodness, it's one of the reasons Jones agreed to play here. But at least now, Pierre can move to a safer left field and be viewed for what he is -- a complementary player.

"I never said Juan Pierre is a franchise player," Colletti said. "He's a very good player on a winning team."

Ah, Ned Colletti. I appreciate the plucky attempt at a defense of an indefensible signing, but Juan Pierre is not a very good player, regardless of the team he plays for.

Kenny Enters the Spin Room

Why did the Tigers trade their two best prospects for an established star and an established ex-star? To compete with those 72-90 Chicago White Sox, of course!

Reacting Wednesday to the blockbuster deal that sent power-hitting third baseman Miguel Cabrera and former All-Star left-hander Dontrelle Willis from the Florida Marlins to the Detroit Tigers — wrecking the Sox’ latest offseason plans — Williams said: ‘‘All this has done is put the Tigers in a better position to contend with us.''

I suppose that's not exactly a lie, but it certainly is a very strange way of telling the truth.

Not Sure What to Think? Refer to a Senseless Axiom

The Detroit News' Rob Parker on the Cabrera-Willis trade:

It was a no-brainer.

Whenever you have a chance to trade potential for production, you do it.

Really? Even if it means trading a top prospect who's a year away from reaching the Majors for a mediocre veteran who would probably provide only a marginal short-term benefit? Obviously, that's not what happened in this case, as Cabrera, at least, is a star, but that sort of deal does happen way more often than it should. Judging this deal on its own merits is far more helpful than resorting to an unsubstantiated generalization. Don't believe me? Check out this or this.

Does anyone draw conclusions from Rob Parker columns when there are so many better sources of information available?