Masahiro Tanaka and Fantasy Baseball 2014 - part two

Masahiro Tanaka and Fantasy Baseball 2014 - part two

by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (2-7-14)

[Part one - Mike freaking Trout]

[Starting next week Seesaw Sports will be moving to Buzzchomp - You'll find posts both here and there for a week or two as we transition our readers. Thanks!]



TODD:
There is certainly no arguing that Andrew McCutchen or Freddie Freeman feel like safer picks than elite starters from last year like Scherzer and Sanchez. That is always a given; batters are safer. However, the point of the theory was that if you were able to grab the top starting pitchers, you'd be okay if one or two missed because your lineup would still be in fine shape. The overall dominance of Mike Trout across all scoring categories would allow for "fill-in" batters later on.

It would be a less comfortable way of drafting. There is no doubt about that. I guess it would be hard to pull the trigger on the likes of Felix Hernandez and Cliff Lee and Stephen Strasburg when so many other players seem much safer and reliable in those early rounds.

Speaking of questionable pitchers, where are you taking Masahiro Tanaka this season in fantasy? He will not technically be the New York Yankees' ace, but he will be in spirit. Or they at least need him to be. So is he an ace fantasy pitcher? He doesn't appear to be the strikeout maven that Yu Darvish is. And the possibility exists that he will bomb completely in the major leagues. So where would you take him and at what point is he too rich for your blood and you know he won't be appearing on any of your fantasy teams?


DAN:
I'm all for drafting uncomfortably, but pinning down a draft strategy that requires you to practically dislike your first four or five picks because of uncertainty alone feels wrong. I forced myself last season to not draft any pitching early. The jury is out on whether it was a successful strategy or not, but it was really hard. Doing the opposite feels nearly impossible, but with a player like Mike freaking Trout, its not completely in left field. (Did you enjoy my corny baseball pun? Did asking you about it and pointing it out completely ruin the joke? Was it already ruined from the start?)

I love that you brought up Mr. Tanaka. The newest addition to the Yankees' starting rotation is a much safer pick in my opinion than Yu Darvish was. The main reason here, when Darvish came up the Rangers were good, but not a team that won in spite of its pitching. The Yankees have been a team, for the last few seasons, that wins games in spite of its pitching. Last year was a bit more balanced, but overall their lineup has compensated for off nights by the pitching staff. Hence the consistent high win totals. So even if he is an average pitcher, a la Ivan Nova, he will get victories and do well in several statistical categories.

For some perspective, in an auction league I paid $17 for Yu Darvish in his rookie season. I thought he would be damn good and was right on the money. I wasn't going to pay higher than $22 for him, he was unproven, but he definitely warranted a solid bid with all his upside. So where does that leave Masahiro Tanaka? He has the potential to be a great number two for the Yankees and an ace on many other teams. I don't see him surpassing CC Sabathia or even Pineda's ceiling with New York, but that only improves his fantasy value. If he's the number two or three pitcher, he'll be facing other team's two and three guys. That's great news for your fantasy wins total. I think I've finally gotten around to a real answer for your question.

In a snake draft (obligatory Booo from a big fan of auctions) I would take Tanaka anywhere in round seven and below. He is not a top five pick, but snatching him in the seventh round before anyone else does seems warranted. I love the consistency and upside of Japanese pitchers and its a risk well worth taking. In an auction draft (obligatory cheers) I'd pay up to $15 bucks for him, maybe a little higher. I don't love him like I did Yu Darvish, but he is a Yankee. The mid level pitchers go in the twenty dollar range, so reaching for a rookie at fifteen bucks seems solid to me. I'd be shocked if I had to pay that much, but he's a big name and they come at a price.


TODD:
Chasing wins in fantasy baseball is a flawed and dangerous tactic. There is little correlation between a team a pitcher plays for and his ability to grab a win. There is also an even lower connection between a pitcher being great and his ability to be elite in the wins category. There is just too much out of his control.

The stat that is easily predictable is strikeouts. And with Tanaka, his strikeout potential seems to be considerably lower than Darvish. With that said, I believe your estimate is still low!

Being a big-time news story, playing for the Yankees and all the rest, Tanaka is incredibly hyped up. Although he is coming over as a worse prospect than Darvish was according to scouts, he may be a bigger deal. I can see him going earlier in snake drafts than you mentioned and for more dough in auctions. Of course, I'm with you. I'll stay away from Tanaka in all leagues unless he becomes a bargain...which won't happen. I would much rather get my hands on a known commodity at that price and take a chance on someone cheaper later in the draft.

[If you missed Part one - Mike freaking Trout]

Mike freaking Trout and Fantasy Baseball 2014 - part one

Mike Freaking Trout and Fantasy Baseball 2014 - part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (2-3-14)


[Seesaw Sports will soon be moving to Buzzchomp - stay tuned - you won't miss a beat]



TODD:
Some reputable sites around the web have begun to open up their fantasy baseball leagues for the 2014 season this week.

First of all... Yeah!!!!!!!!!!

Secondly, a small piece of information has come to my attention in regards to this news. The information is specifically the projections for Angels outfielder Mike Trout during the 2014 season.

In normal fantasy baseball leagues, there are five scoring categories: runs, home runs, RBI, steals and batting average. More advanced leagues often include on-base percentage as well. In reference to those six categories, an elite hitter usually excels in three or four.

A player like Miguel Cabrera (the nearly unanimous number two player in fantasy this season) is a great performer in five of the six. He will put up elite numbers in runs, HRs, RBI, BA and OBP. The only category in which he offers little to no production is steals. This is fine considering his other skills.

However, in terms of six-category production, there are very few men who reach that point. Some guys will give a little production in all six. Others will be serviceable in four and average in two, or some combination therein. Only one man though is a legit threat to lead the league in any or all six of those categories: Mike Trout, the clear number one player in fantasy baseball.

Forgetting even 2014 projections, Trout's career numbers in each category look something like this rounded for one season: 115 runs, 28 HRs, 90 RBI, 40 steals, .325 BA and .410 OBP. In other words, Trout is amazing in EVERYTHING. And those figures are just a rough estimate based off his two full seasons in the majors. Imagine if he continues to get better...

This is, eventually, bringing me to my point. Most fantasy baseball owners draft hitters early and often. Pitching is less predictable and vacillates more. Thus, it makes logical sense to grab the sure things at the plate in the early rounds and load up on pitchers later on, hoping that a few have good seasons.

If, however, you have the first pick and draft Mike Trout, should this theory change?

Rather than load up on hitters early, if you are able to take Trout first and then grab four or five of the top dozen starting pitchers in baseball, can't you fill out a lineup of hitters afterwards? There won't be many multi-category performers left in the middle rounds, but there will be one and two-skill guys available. Guys like Everth Cabrera (runs and steals) or Mark Trumbo (HRs and RBI) don't produce across the board, but they excel in certain aspects of the game.

Is Trout enough to swing an entire draft process? If I get the first pick, I may be enticed enough to find out.


DAN:
I have to first mention that it's wonderful to immediately look towards the baseball season the second after the NFL season so abruptly ends. Bring on baseball!

Please oh please waffle over this decision just a bit longer. It will only put me in a better position to finally defeat you and your fantasy baseball genius brain, or Geno as like to call it. If you are lucky enough to get the first pick in the fantasy baseball draft then you better select Mike freaking Trout. On a side note, its kind of disrespectful of you to not use his full name. Its Mike freaking Trout, who you better pick first or be doomed to lose.

Any who, I'm in the camp of people who have learned the hard way, through experience, that no matter how great you think you've done at drafting pitching, you didn't do a good job. Go right ahead, draft Mike freaking Trout and then load up on four or five of the top dozen pitchers with your next five picks. You know what will inevitably happen? Two or three of those five "top" pitchers will be completely mediocre. Sure, you'll get two who are very strong, maybe even dominant. And if you're very lucky, one will even be a top three pitcher. But most likely those "top" five pitchers will be slightly above average. Is that how we win in fantasy baseball? By drafting a team of slightly above average players to accompany the best player in the league?

Well we both know that the answer there is NO. You're playing mind games aren't you? Trying to warp my thinking, make me go against the cardinal knowledge of the game and rely on last season's pitching statistics to skew my hardened draft knowledge. Well sir, I'm calling you out. For shame.

I'd honestly like to believe that last season's top pitchers will once again perform at a high level. But there is too much history over the last five MLB seasons to ignore; it's simply not the truth. Pitchers rarely dominate year to year. They can still win games, but they don't dominate fantasy statistical categories. There are a few exceptions, a la Clayton Kershaw, but sit there and tell me with a straight face that you know Max Scherzer or Anibal Sanchez are going to have great seasons once again. I'm putting my money on Andrew McCutchen and Freddie Freeman thank you very much.

[Part two - Masahiro Tanaka]

Its not all good with the New York Yankees - money tree Part three

Its not all good with the New York Yankees - money tree Part three
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (12-16-13)

[Part one - Arrivals and Departures]
[Part two - Numbers to the Moves]



TODD:
Its time to tackle the Brian McCann and Jacoby Ellsbury moves. Like I said on Friday, I like both players in a vacuum for sure. But does it make the most sense to draft/sign players for need or to always take the best player available?


DAN:
I'd say in general its better in the long run to draft the best player and build around him or her. Talent breeds more talent, attracts more talent and elevates others' abilities. That being said, the Yankees are already a fairly talented team. I know, they are getting old fast. But since we are talking free agency, this is the ONLY good time to fill a need over taking talent. Pay more to fill a hole in the lineup rather than crowd an already potent position with one more guy. Catcher might be the most valuable position, taking into account the need to develop a repertoir with the pitchers. Huge move for the Yankees filling that hole.


TODD:
Fine, a hole has been filled, but are we sure Brian McCann is the same hitter he used to be? He will turn thirty years old before next season begins. Last year saw him miss a number of games because of injury, but the season before was the beginning of the downturn. It seems likely that McCann's career crested in 2011. Hopefully these past two years of disappointment were just a case of the injury bug and the Yankees are receiving 2006-2011 McCann. Otherwise, this is not a very good signing. And even if he comes back a bit to his career norms, how much longer can this guy catch? People are already talking about transitioning him to first base and he hasn't even played a game on his new five year, $85 million contract.

If McCann plays everyday catcher for four of those five years, and bats anywhere near what he did for his peak years, this is a good signing. I don't believe both of those things will be true though. Even assuming the bat returns, if he plays first base, his normal production is not good enough. His great value at the plate stems from the fact that be plays the catcher position. His overall numbers aren't good enough to make up the difference in position. He's a 20 home run guy who rarely slugs .500 and has never walked more than 74 times in a season. That is an average to below average bat at first base.


DAN:
You got me, I love the McCann signing of him as a catcher. I do NOT want to see him at first base. Mark Teixeira is at first base, assuming he returns from injury. Moving McCann to first only re-opens the hole at catcher I was excited to see filled.


TODD:
Moving on. As for Jacoby Ellsbury, you mentioned one of the obvious positives in signing him: he's a better version of Brett Gardner who also makes Gardner expendable as a trade chip. This is important because Gardner may be the only trade chip on the Yankees roster right now!

The thing many people do not realize is that Ellsbury is also younger than Gardner (albeit very slightly). And he has amazing upside. Although he will probably never approach his 2011 season numbers again, Brett Gardner can never sniff that type of production. But even with another elite power season being unlikely, Ellsbury brings a ton of skills to the table. The stolen bases and runs scored are a given. He has always hovered in the high .270s to .290s in batting average as well, even if he falls short of .300.

What everyone got on the Ellsbury signing for was the size of the contract. Not only did it possibly increase the asking price for Cano, but it begged the question of whether an injury-plagued player like Jacoby Ellsbury be worth seven years, $153 million? The numbers say yes.


DAN:
Numbers please.


TODD:
Last year Ellsbury played in 134 games. He bats lead-off, so missing 28 games, he still managed to collect 577 at-bats. For some comparison, Robinson Cano played in 160 games last year and had 605 at-bats. It's not as much of a difference as people seem to believe. But playing in 134 games, Ellsbury was 5.8 wins above replacement (WAR) according to Baseball-Reference. This figure is not perfect, but it takes into account a player's hitting, as well as his base-running and fielding abilities. Missing roughly thirty games, Ellsbury was just about a six win player.

Not to get too number-crazy here but, according to FanGraphs data, with the way the market is moving and how much money teams are spending, the cost of one win above replacement is around $6 million for free-agency-eligible players. That means, on the open market, a two win player could fetch $12 million, and a six win player like Ellsbury should cost around $36 million per year. This is just speaking of players added on the market, not in regards to rookies or players not eligible for arbitration. So, obviously these figures are not a perfect translation of the league. Mike Trout is the best player in the world and still makes under a million dollars because he hasn't hit free agency yet. However, open market wins cost what they cost. It is not an opinion on the value of said player. It is strictly the math of what wins cost to purchase.


DAN:
So you're saying the Yankees got themselves a deal? That also means Mike Trout should fetch $30 million a year easily when he does hit free agency. No wonder Cano pushed for the big bucks.


TODD:
Exactly. With the increased television revenue being delivered to each franchise in the coming years, that figure will probably increase. A large part of the defense of Robinson Cano's contract was that Seattle essentially bought him with the National TV deal money they will get, which is $25 million per season. So heading back to the Yankees, even if Ellsbury declines as a player in the coming seasons, which he is sure to do, his contract will not be unbearably high. In fact, if he continues with seasons like last year, he will be a bargain while still just hitting nine home runs. Ellsbury "only" needs to settle in as a 3.5 win player to legitimize the contract, a figure he has dwarfed two of the past three seasons.


[Part one - Arrivals and Departures]
[Part two - Numbers to the Moves]

New York Yankees off-season Money tree - Part two

New York Yankees off-season Money tree - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (12-13-13)

[Part one - Arrivals and Departures]



TODD:

I disagree that the spending cap is irrelevant. I think it still means something and the men in charge are trying their best to stay underneath it. The delay on the Alex Rodriguez verdict puts a damper on things since they have no knowledge of what will become of his $30 million per year. But the big moves thus far have kept them under $189 million with or with A-Rod in tow. Likewise, I would be very surprised if the Yankees moved in on one of these "ace" free agent pitchers for a big contract. While they certainly need another starter, Matt Garza or Ubaldo Jimenez for $18-$22 million per seems outlandish. The old Yankees wouldn't have cared because, as I said, they need another starter. But I think these Steinbrenners this year will try to stay under the luxury tax threshold.

That being said, there was a lot of money going around anyways. With many contracts off the books, there was green to disperse. I'll attack these moves one at a time, before getting to the McCann - Ellsbury debate.


DAN:

Hold on. There is a TON of money going around. They may avoid the luxury tax, but that by no means makes them frugal. If we assume Alex is suspended and his salary wiped away, there is nothing holding our Yankees back from swinging from the fences financially.


TODD:

We shall see, but as for the deals that went down.

Robinson Cano signs with Seattle. I'm fine with how things played out. He was a great player who wanted way too many years on his next contract. The Yankees will surely miss his bat and glove at second base but he is not irreplaceable. The key to this situation was obviously the timing of the Ellsbury signing. Once he signed for $153 million, there was no way Cano was going to come back for less than $200 million. Old baseball fans always harp on the exorbitant sums of money and how one mistake made by one franchise shouldn't effect the price another player gets. But it always does and it always will. Everyone agrees Cano is a better player than Jacoby Ellsbury. Even if Cano and his agents come to a realization that New York gave Ellsbury more than he was worth, are they really going to accept less? Get real.

Yankees sign Kelly Johnson. This actually happened before Cano signed with the Mariners, but I like the move either way. Johnson is a serviceable second baseman, with good speed and some power in his bat. He is not an everyday player, nor does he hit for much average, but a 15/10 season (home runes/steals) seems likely from him. He was also signed for $237 million less than Cano...if that matters.

The real kicker here at 2B will be if the Yanks manage to sign Omar Infante. Infante is a super utility guy who can play second most of the time but also rotate to third and short to spell guys. He would be perfect, as would his .318 average from last year. Apparently he and New York are far apart on a contract at the moment though.

Curtis Granderson signs with Mets. Combined with the fact that the Yankees signed Carlos Beltran, the departure of Granderson means almost nothing. He is a good power source from the outfield but not as good of an all-around hitter as Beltran. These moves offset each other and the upgrade from Grandy to Beltran helps cover a little of the departed bat at second base as well.


DAN:

Side note. I love how Curtis tried to suck up to the Mets fans by jumping on the "true New Yorker" bandwagon. Its probably the biggest headline he'll get as a Met, assuming he stays healthy and the Mets continue to be the poor baseball product we know and love.


TODD:

Yankees re-sign Hiroki Kuroda. It was for just one more year, which seems right for a pitcher of his age. While Kuroda was superb the first half of last season, by far the team's best pitcher, he tailed off so dramatically at the end of the season, I would have been fine with the Yanks not bringing him back. As it stands, we need him in the rotation, hopefully as not much more than a third or fourth starter though. A lot depends on the usefulness of Michael Pineda. Remember him? Hopefully the 6'7" youngster is finally ready to contribute in 2014 because we need him to be a middle-of-the-rotation pitcher for six months.

With Pineda, Kuroda, Nova and Sabathia set, we have four fifths of a good starting five. There are also a number of options already in the organization for that fifth spot. The problem is, no one on this list is really an ace or even a dominant number two. Sabathia is not that anymore if last year was any indication. The signing of a Matt Garza or Ubaldo Jimenez would solve this problem but, as I mentioned, I doubt the Yankees would spend the money on that spot, nor should they necessarily. At it stands, the Yankees rotation is fine but very mid-heavy without a top flight ace. Only Pineda has that upside of anyone on the major league roster right now.

As for Ellsbury and McCann...where should I begin?

I guess I'll start by saying I like both players in a vacuum for sure. Brian McCann was lauded as a perfect signing for New York because, as you touched on, the catcher position last season was a black hole of incompetence. This is true, and McCann is clearly a huge upgrade in this slot, but is the weakness of a spot reason enough to sign McCann when there were better hitters available at other positions? I guess this goes to NBA or NFL draft technique a little bit in regards to whether it makes the most sense to draft for need or to just take the best player.

[Part three - Point and Counterpoint]

[ If you missed Part one - Arrivals and Departures]

New York Yankees off-season Money tree - Part one

New York Yankees off-season Money tree - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (12-9-13)



TODD:

F that $189 million!

It seems as though, pending the results of the Alex Rodriguez arbitration hearing of course, the Yankees are eschewing their original off-season plan of sticking below a $189 million payroll for the 2014 season. Rather than making a bunch of small moves, they already plunged into two new, huge contracts before the winter meetings even kicked off.

There seem to be two distinct trains of thought in regards to the new hires. Everyone loves the Brian McCann signing and everyone hates the Jacoby Ellsbury contract. And let's not forget the departure of the one and only Robinson Cano.

I'm interested in hearing your perspective on these moves and lack there of, but just as a taste, I'll say that I kind of feel the exact opposite.


DAN:

That whole payroll limitation was just a fun way of curbing spending. You make a statement and stick to it, unless opportunities arise in which you just throw your prior limitation into the wind. The New York Yankees have no cap. I repeat, they do NOT have a spending limit and damn is it good to be a fan. They missed the playoffs in 2008, spent nearly a half a billion dollars in salary in the off-season and won the World Series in 2009. Now the team missed the playoffs again in 2013 and is well on their way to spending up a storm. As long as the team can afford it, I'll be marking my calendar for a ticker tape parade in November of 2014. Woo!

As for the moves and non moves so far, very very happy as a Yankees fan. Let me just lay them out for you and then I'll touch on the two men you mentioned and the big one that got away.

Non Moves:
Robinson Cano signs with Seattle (2B)
Curtis Granderson signs with Mets (OF)

Moves:
Yankees sign Brian McCann (C)
Yankees sign Jacoby Ellsbury (OF)
Yankees sign Carlos Beltran (OF)
Yankees sign Kelly Johnson (2B/INF)
Yankees re-sign Hiroki Kuroda (RHP)

People do in fact seem to love the McCann signing and hate the Ellsbury signing. I LOVE them both. I realize McCann is no Buster Posey, but the biggest Brian McCann stat that jumps out to me is his career .350 On Base Percentage. Sure, he's "only" a career .277 hitter, but the catcher he is replacing, Chris Stewart, is a mere.214 hitter with a .287 OBP for his career. The Yankees have lacked anyone at catcher who can consistently get on base for years. He fills a hole big time.

I also love the Ellsbury signing. He is a better version of Brett Gardner. Lots of speed and athleticism with better stats all around. But more importantly, he is a huge upgrade over the departed Granderson and makes Gardner a viable trading chip, something the Yankees have also been without for quite some time.

The move I was most happy about though, the re-signing of Kuroda for one year. That man can pitch. He isn't flashy, is getting old, but he definitely has one more year in the tank. He is a huge addition for the number two or three spot in the Yankees' rotation. With CC Sabathia as the number one, Kuroda takes pressure off of Pineda to perform as a number two starter. Big win here.

As for Mr. Cano, I tip my cap to the years we had together. I also tip my cap to the amount of money he got Seattle to pay him. I just hope he enjoys losing. Losing like a lot. If there is one thing that Seattle's baseball team is not known for, its playing in October. Cano's departure opens the door for some further additions to the Yankees roster in the pitching department. This has been an issue for the team for the last several years, and since Andy Pettitte can't be counted on to come out of retirement, we need someone who will rack up wins for the team.

So, you're anti McCann and pro Ellsbury? How do you feel about the loss of Cano and additions of Johnson, Beltran and Kuroda? Has some optimism crept into your otherwise cloudy disposition?

[Part two - Numbers to the Moves]

[Part three - Point and Counterpoint]

"Daddy's Little Girl" - What ha... happened (November Part one)

"Daddy's Little Girl" - What ha... happened (November Part one)

by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (11-18-13)

"What ha... happened," where we scour the internet for a crazy sports photo or GIF and someone must try to explain it. Seesaw Sports asks what ha... happened? Monday: Opening statement. Friday: Rebuttal.

Real photos. Real results. But what in the heck happened?

DAN:

Aww, how cute.

I present to you the following:

Photo: If that isn't hazing, I don't know what is.

Title: "Daddy's Little Girl"

Description: My mind is running wild with possibility. Is this how they haze the rookies up in Seattle? It is progressive up there after all, where cruel and unusual punishment is not unheard of.

Did his daughter need a bigger bag and he took one for the team? That seems unlikely, but something went down. How did THAT bag end up on this man?

What ha.... happened?


TODD:
It's funny you should target this photo in the wake of all the Miami Dolphins controversy in the NFL.

Yes, as silly as it sounds, this backpack is DEFINITELY hazing. And it may be banned in the future, at least in the NFL.

The Richie Incognito - Jonathan Martin scandal took so many unexpected twists and turns. One unlikely consequence is probably going to be some sort of crackdown on hazing, no matter how silly the original hazing actually was. Even if wearing a girly backpack or forcing the rookies to carry bat bags and ball buckets seems harmless, it could be a slippery slope. What happened in the Dolphins' locker room may not have even been hazing-related, but some reactive outcome has to come from that. There was too much coverage for nothing to result. So cherish photos like this one, because they may never be allowed to happened again if the professional sports start cracking down.

[Part two - Hair one day, Gone tomorrow]

Sports Injuries: When stars fall - Part one

Sports Injuries: When stars fall - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (11-4-13)



TODD:
The Red Sox made an interesting improvement this season, going from last in their division to first and a World Series title. Remarkable? Not really. Last year's team shouldn't have been that bad; it really just came down to injuries. Injuries!

Jonah Keri did a great job of detailing this recently in a piece for Grantland. Here is his table that pushed the point home:

Player:                                                                             Games Played        WAR

Jacoby Ellsbury (2012)	74	1.4
Jacoby Ellsbury (2013)	134	5.8
David Ortiz (2012)	90	2.9
David Ortiz (2013)	137	3.8
Dustin Pedroia (2012)	141	4.4
Dustin Pedroia (2013)	160	5.4
John Lackey (2012)	0	0.0
John Lackey (2013)	29	3.2

The column on the left is Games Played and the column on the right is Wins Above Replacement (WAR). As you can see, from just four players, the Sox gained roughly 10 wins from one season to the next. This factors in none of the moves they made or improvements in other players, call-ups, whatever. A full 10 wins came from just these four guys staying healthy.

It is a rather remarkable discovery in my opinion. But what it really does is make the Red Sox story even less interesting. They were bad in 2012 because their best guys all got hurt. They were great in 2013 because their best guys all stayed healthy. As Yankee fans, we can relate.

This question goes way beyond baseball or the Red Sox. Are injuries ruining the fun of professional sports? It does not seem that concussions are lessening in the NFL; just last year, the NBA was demolished by major injuries to major stars. And we can see here what a small number of injuries in baseball can do to a contender. This has probably always been the case, but it seems much more stark these days.


DAN:
I'm deeply fascinated by the idea that a team could turn itself around so dramatically from one season to the next, simply by staying healthy. But in the grand fasion of debate, I disagree with your argument. The Red Sox may have gained ten wins this season, but they had a new manager, a new bullpen and most importantly, a killer new closer. It wasn't just the injuries. But ten wins is ten wins and as more QBs drop like flies each week in the NFL, this is a great topic to rip to shreds.

I'd be nice if life was as simple as you paint it. But I actually think there are far fewer sports injuries now than in the past. Medicine is better, training is better and players know how to care for themselves a lot better. What's caused us to be so damn aware of every little thing is three fold. First, if there are less injuries then we will know a lot more about the ones that do exist. Second, every little bump and bruise is taken way more seriously with the million dollar contracts these men hold. And third, fantasy sports makes us care a heck of a lot about the health of our star players. Now that I laid that out there, the real issue is how a single injury to your team's star can actually ruin a season.

No one really notices if your team's star stays healthy. Tom Brady is playing, dominating, and all is well in the world. But the one year he got knocked out, well damn did we take notice. The team still did well, but all the what ifs start creeping into play. This year in the NFL I can rattle off at least four or five teams that lost their QB and are worse for it. I can also name at least one, my beloved NY Jets, who are better off in the long run because they lost a QB. Sorry Mark, but better to move on now with a season of hope, then later with a season like Jacksonville is having. How are they actually that bad? I don't get it. Its like the players are afraid of crossing the end zone, much like a child who doesn't want to step on the cracks in the sidewalk.

So what are we really talking about here? Its not just injuries, but its knee and shoulder injuries. Nothing else seems to matter much. The NFL is so worried about protecting the head. Its definitely important, don't get me wrong. But this has to be evidence towards them actually caring about player safety, right? Because protecting the knees and shoulders goes much farther towards not having a star out for the season. In Sam Bradford's case, he just shouldn't have skipped out of bounds.... too soon?


TODD:
I agree with your three basic premises. We do know more about every injury because of coverage and the fantasy sports element for sure. And I think your second point was the most important. We hear about EVERYTHING; perhaps 60% of these same level injuries did not even make news 15 years ago. That is absolutely plausible and may even be a higher percentage.

The star injuries is what seems most alarming though. The 2012-2013 NBA season was a whirlwind of All-Stars going down for long stretches; Russell Westbrook, Derrick Rose, Kevin Love, Rajon Rondo, etc. And already in the NFL season, just halfway through mind you, here is an incomplete list of impactful guys out:

Julio Jones, Dennis Pitta, EJ Manuel, Jay Cutler, Lance Briggs, Leon Hall, Geno Atkins, Brian Hoyer, Champ Bailey, Randall Cobb, Clay Matthews, Brian Cushing, Reggie Wayne, Ahmad Bradshaw, Jerod Mayo, Vince Wilfork, Malcom Floyd, Sidney Rice, Percy Harvin, Michael Crabtree, Sam Bradford, Carl Nicks.

Not only is that list just the most famous names, it doesn't even include guys who've missed over a month and are now back, like Jake Locker, or played some and have been periodically out, like Roddy White or Mike Vick. All those guys are already out or on IR officially. And this is week 9.

It can't just be a coincidence, can it? Or just simple mathematics of playing time? I realize the better players will usually play more minutes and thus have a higher likelihood of getting hurt, but to have such a rash of severe injuries to important players seems so fluky it must mean something. I just don't know what that 'something' is.

What is definitely not a coincidence is certain teams, like the Kansas City Chiefs, have remained rather healthy thus far, leading to their unexpected success. I believe if the numbers were plotted, the amount of surprise teams has more to do with injuries, or lack thereof, than people realize. If you want to have a jump on a surprise playoff pick for next baseball season, just scour through the data and see which team lost the most games from their top level talent. That would have pointed us towards a Boston comeback this season for sure.

[Part two - NFL Upside down & Changing Expectations]

MLB Fall Classic: Dang those Old folks & Ad Men - Part two

MLB Fall Classic: Dang those Old folks & Ad Men - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (10-25-13)

[Part one - Average event in a Golden package]



TODD:
I think the problem is deeper for baseball. This league has stars, lots of them, perhaps more than at any point in our lifetimes. Miguel Cabrera (albeit injured during the ALCS), is the best hitter in the world. That type of player would draw a viewing audience in other sports. And what about Yasiel Puig and Clayton Kershaw in LA? The most exciting young player in the NL and the best pitcher in the world are both on the same team, yet this doesn't tip the needle. I think the problem has more to do with baseball not being a great sport to watch on television. It is slow and deliberate and that cannot change unless you overhaul the fundamental aspects of the game. A team can score waves of runs at any time, but tuning in for action sequences is random and unpredictable. The game was meant for the radio or in-person, where it thrives. But in an increasingly digital and fast-paced society, there may be no room for it. This leads to exactly what you said; people only care about their own team. I believe that sentiment will grow as the years go on.

The juxtaposition is that baseball is actually easier to follow nowadays. While the culture may be moving past the sport in real-time, box scores and stats can be checked immediately after every game has concluded to see how the league is doing. It is much easier to keep up on the sport as a whole without actually tuning into any game play. I...don't know what this means for the future of the sport. Maybe you have some idea.

As for the '13 World Series itself, the Red Sox made an interesting improvement, going from last in their division to first and making the World Series. But last year's team shouldn't have been that bad; it really just came down to injuries. Jonah Keri did a great job of detailing this recently in a piece for Grantland, with stats that --


DAN:
Let me interrupt you right there, because the stats you were about to lay down are mind blowing. Thanks in advance Jonah for making everything about the Red Sox quite clear. We'll talk injuries in early November. Its a big can of worms and I want to do it justice.

So we have baseball as both an inferior TV product and baseball as an incredible real time app update (iPhone, Android etc). Both are true, but I disagree about this being a problem. Baseball has always been an inferior TV product. The games are long and its completely unpredictable. Hence everyone only wanting to watch their home team. However, this technology boom that we are right in the middle of is huge for baseball and MLB. You are spot on, its so damn easy to check the score inning to inning, or go watch the thirty second recap of the entire game within five minutes of it ending. If videos aren't your thing, then you can read the game summary complete with inning by inning scoring plays and statistics. It goes one step further even. Go read the in game Twitter feed that ESPN posts on its Gamecast. Only one word comes to mind. Brilliant! Its so damn entertaining to read the feed from analysts, fans, etc. And I'm not sure if this is universal, but the Yankees' Twitter feed posts photos of the big plays and video of every run scoring play. So awesome. How is this bad for baseball?

The obvious answer is that its not bad at all. Its actually saving the game. I've never been more into regular season baseball for this reason alone. I just go click, click on my phone for thirty seconds and get all the juicy game details. Or I can read how the new young star you mentioned, Yasiel Puig, had yet another monster afternoon and is now batting over .400 in the postseason. Yes, he did that. This is beyond great for baseball. You get this with football as well, but not nearly as much with the NBA. It translates, just not to this level.

So what's baseball's problem, what is holding back MLB from bridging the generation gap and getting fans excited? Its the old folks I tell you. They are holding back the sport with their memories. They are constantly trying to recreate the "good old days" of when baseball was pure (Note to everybody: It never was). And when I say "they" I'm referring to the folks in charge of the league. I think the MLB Network is great and I love the show where it bounces around the entire league and shows you the big moments of all the games taking place. Brilliant! But does anyone actually know about this? Have you seen a single commercial on ESPN advertising this amazing new way to watch baseball? The answer is a resounding No. Its not that they lack good ideas, they lack the ability to tell anyone about them. Its ridiculous. I think this same idea can be applied to the postseason. Put a show together that combines the weirdness of live Twitter and in game analysis, with only the best parts of the actual game. Maybe you have to air this starting in the fifth inning, so that it will catch up with real time by the end of the game. But then you cut out all the boring filler that turns fans off.

Advertise your stars damn it! And embrace the new wave of technology that is making baseball fun to follow. I'm psyched for this World Series matchup, but I don't care to actually watch it. That's a very fixable problem. Better than with the NHL where I don't even care to begin with. Sorry hockey.


TODD:
Your delayed telecast idea is rather brilliant. It will never happen because it would mean television networks lose five innings of advertising, but picking up the game late and having it pick and choose the important parts from the first two thirds of the game to show is perfect for baseball. It is an MLB DVR with a brain.

Oh, someone strikes out the side on only 12 pitches in the third? Okay, we'll show you that whole half inning. But there's one long double and nothing else happens in the fourth? We'll just show you the hit and a good defensive play if it occurs. This is so awesome it actually is upsetting me that I can't watch the World Series games like this.

Again, I know this is a TV rights issue and all that business bullshit, but MLB Network would be perfect for this. Let FOX run the whole World Series, all the innings of all the games. I'd rather tune in to the 'Series Shortener' on the other channel. While the live telecasts start at 8 pm EST, this one could chill out and wait until 930 or 10 and catch us all up before reacclimating with the live feed by the later innings. Alas, our brilliance goes to waste in the current world of advertising and network broadcast rights.

[If you missed Part one - Average event in a Golden package]

MLB Fall Classic: Average event in a Golden package - Part one

MLB Fall Classic: Average event in a Golden package - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (10-21-13)



TODD:
Game One of the 2013 MLB World Series is Wednesday night. The Boston Red Sox will be facing the St. Louis Cardinals. Woo? Not quite a surprise match-up this season; no one really came out of nowhere. Even both LCS match-ups were between powerful franchises. Unless you count the Red Sox going from worst to first as surprising, this year's playoffs was pretty bland. And even Boston's uprising was semi-faulty. They shouldn't have been that bad last year. They had the same roster but with some of the Dodgers' players. And look how far LA got with Adrian Gonzalez being arguably their best hitter all year.

We all know MLB struggles for TV ratings. Is it better that they've gotten a World Series between two country-wide teams? Everyone says they love the underdog stories of the Rays and Athletics and Pirates but then the public doesn't show up to watch these teams when it counts. Baseball has, even without a salary cap, one of the most parity-filled sports in this country. The Red Sox going from worst to first in the regular season isn't even a story because it has happened multiple times before. Parity is not an issue here as far as fair and balanced play. But is parity an issue for league popularity?

The NBA gets ratings when the Lakers, Celtics, Heat, etc. are playing for a title. Luckily for them, this happens nearly every season. You know when the last time neither the Lakers, Celtics or LeBron were in the NBA Finals? It hasn't happened since 2006. And if you throw the Spurs in this group, 2006 doubles as the only NBA Finals since Jordan's Bulls that didn't have one of those teams.

Where are these teams for MLB? Instead of "boring" match-ups between the same teams every year, baseball gets new blood in the World Series nearly every season. And yet this ends up badly for their viewership.

What can be done to save the Fall Classic?


DAN:
I'm not quite sure how it happened, but baseball became a sport where it is harder and harder to watch any old team compete for a championship. The NFL has parity, loves parity, and as a fan I'll watch most of the playoff games and certainly the Super Bowl, no matter who is playing. The NBA needs its powerhouses, has them, and I'll watch the finals when the powerhouses are in it. They usually are. MLB is different. It has parity, a lot of it, but I do NOT enjoy watching random teams play for a title. It was not fun for anyone outside of San Francisco to see the Giants win it all last season. MLB also has powerhouses, teams that are good year after year. But I did NOT enjoy watching them compete in the League Championship Series' this season. Its hard to watch and enjoy the Red Sox, as a Yankee fan, but the NLCS between the Dodgers and Cardinals should have been awesome. On paper it reads like two great franchises battling for a shot at the World Series, but you're spot on with your MLB analysis. The Fall Classic is broken and the Red Sox vs. Cardinals is lacking cache that would surely be there in both the NFL and NBA.

I actually think parity has hurt the popularity of MLB. I love watching my Yankees and will watch them in every playoff game if possible. But outside of my home team, I don't need to watch the games. Checking the scores is just as much fun. The games are long, so why not tune in for an hour? Well there's no guarantee anything at all will happen during those three innings. Watch one quarter of an NFL game or an NBA game and you're practically guaranteed scoring. Baseball doesn't work that way, so its needs matchups to make it exciting. A great hitter vs. a great pitcher. But outside of the Dodgers lineup, there's only a few hitters that make me take notice. The Red Sox have one in David Ortiz. The Tigers have one in Miguel Cabrera, but they're now out. The Cardinals don't have anyone who quite reaches this level. Where does this leave us? With a Fall Classic that's sorely lacking.

I like the NBA Finals because one of the teams you mentioned, or more importantly one of the Super Stars of the league, has been playing for the title nearly every season in the last decade. I love the Super Bowl because its always exciting and football never lacks for story lines. But I'm at a loss for the World Series. They usually get fresh blood in the Fall Classic, which is ultimately great for regular season baseball but kills October excitement once your team is out of the running. This year is different, or at least it should be with two classic franchises holding strong in October.

The Red Sox move from worst to first should be a huge story. I actually think its pretty amazing. They stunk last season, basically ran out the same roster with a new manager this year and are now the best of the American League. Sure, sure, they weren't bad in 2011. But they STUNK last year in 2012. I actually picked them to follow things up with a bleak 2013, barely squeaking into the playoffs. So I don't get why this isn't a bigger story. Probably because its the Red Sox, they've been great for a decade more or less and ho hum.

Ultimately it comes down to Star Power. Baseball doesn't have enough. Its lacking, missing, non existent for me outside of David Ortiz who doesn't even play in the field. Teams need stars to draw fans outside their home market. MLB has a marketing problem. We need more KIA car commercials with baseball players. Come on!

[Part two - Damn those Old folks & Ad men]

MLB season recap: Playoff prognostication & the Off season - Part two

MLB season recap: Playoff prognostication & the Off season - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (10-4-13)

[Part one - Gloating and Awards]



DAN:
Let me get this out of the way up front. I'm pulling for the Dodgers this postseason, partially because I call LA home, but mainly because I want to be excited to watch some games throughout the month of October. The 2013 MLB playoffs is lining up to completely shoot its load early. Two of the most exciting match ups were the Wild Card single elimination games. I love the Reds vs. the Pirates. Two franchises struggling to find real success. And the Rays vs. the Indians is just fun. We got each for one game, with the Pirates and Rays prevailing. So we move on.

The true first round, the divisional round, is kind of amazing. The Red Sox vs. the Rays is awesome and the Dodgers vs. the Braves is just as awesome! But in the divisional round? Damn it. Those are my ideal Championship round match ups that we won't see. Detroit vs. Oakland and the Pirates vs. St. Louis are decent, but nothing to write home about. After this round, its not looking pretty.

As a fan I want the Red Sox and Dodgers to advance, but I'm sticking by my January 1st predictions. The Rays are hot and will take down the Red Sox. Same goes for the Braves, who will out hustle the Dodgers for the series win. I'm taking Detroit over an over matched Oakland squad and the Pirates to continue the magic just a little longer against an older St. Louis roster.

This pits the Rays vs. the Tigers in the AL Championship and the Braves vs. the Pirates for the NL crown. Ho hum. The Rays win a tough series while the Braves continue to make the opposition look silly, on their way to the World Series. With the Braves vs. the Rays for the championship of Major League Baseball, the Braves come out on top proving that by late October most of the country has already forgotten about baseball.


TODD:
Your American League rationalization sounds accurate. The Rays and Red Sox seem like the two best teams and two most fun teams to see play for the pennant. Unfortunately, with them facing each other in the divisional round instead, things are not ideal. However, Oakland and Detroit are probably more talented overall than Tampa. I mean Detroit especially is loaded on all fronts when they're on. Really it's amazing how good all four of these teams' pitching staffs are. I know it sounds like I'm talking everyone up to make it harder for me to get a pick wrong, and I am, but I could easily see any of the four make the World Series.

The match ups though, favor two. I think Boston desperately wanted to face either Texas or Cleveland. Tampa was their worst case scenario and they got it. With that pitching and wily, gutty roster, Tampa takes down Boston as you noted. I think Oakland also advances as a semi-upset. This has more to do with Detroit not having all their pieces in order really. Miguel Cabrera has been banged up for a month now; Justin Verlander hasn't been the same pitcher this season. In a five game series, Oakland hits their way to three wins.

It's anyone's guess who wins when Oakland faces Tampa. The pitching staff of each team is super deep, with the edge maybe to the Rays. I like the Athletics' lineup a bit more but only if Yoenis Cespedes gets over his lingering issues from the end of the regular season. Because of experience, I have to go with Tampa as well to make the World Series. After all, while you picked this team from the start of the year, I picked them to at least win the AL East. We both thought they'd be formidable.

As for the NL, you have your opinions backwards. The exciting series is the NL Central tilt between the Cards and Buccos. The Pirates are the best story in baseball and the Cardinals are the best team in baseball. This series should be a lot of fun, especially if that Pirates crowd is as rowdy as they were during the wild card match. Hearing them taunt poor Johnny Cueto so mercilessly was kind of refreshing to hear from a baseball crowd. St. Louis advances but not for lack of effort and pep by Pittsburgh.

The other match up upsets me. I understand you rooting for the Dodgers. It makes sense. But this team is not that good. They have three legitimate starting pitchers for sure but that's as far as their strengths go. Unless these hitters, who've been hitting way over their head all year long, keep it going, this might be a short series. And that's not because I am really high on Atlanta. Because I'm not.

Atlanta's offense is suspect and their pitching is not nearly as strong as it was earlier in the season. I like them to advance past the divisional round but fall to the superior Cardinals in the championship series.

In the World Series, we see two very familiar teams. St. Louis and Tampa Bay have both had tons of playoff experience in recent years. The Rays have David Price and Joe Maddon and Evan Longoria and Wil Myers and lots of good stuff all around, but this St. Louis team just seems better. They had the second best run differential in the majors during the regular season. Assuming Allen Craig makes it back from injury at some point during the playoffs, their lineup is really deep and really underrated. And that pitching staff is killer, both good and so young.

If the Cardinals do win another World Series this season, the National League better watch out because this team is not getting worse anytime soon. Between Shelby Miller, Trevor Rosenthal, and Michael Wacha, they may have the best young pitchers in the majors, and that's not even counting what they have at the minor league level (scary good) and their veterans (Adam Wainwright, anyone?).

Thinking of the Cardinals' bright future makes me sad and somber thinking of the Yankees dark and dreary midnight romp into the off season. Robinson Cano is asking for $305 million; the pitching staff is going to be decimated with hopes resting on Michael Pineda; and the lineup is older than George Burns and George Burns died like 18 years ago.

At least this Alex Rodriguez appeal hearing gives us something to follow...in the hopes that he is indeed suspended and it frees up $30 million for the Yankees to spend elsewhere in 2014.


DAN:
I'm bored thinking of the Cardinals winning another World Series. I know they are a classic MLB franchise who let their best player walk in Albert Pujols only to become a better team, but they have no cache. And our off season prospects aren't much more fun.

Robinson Cano will most likely end up wearing a different uniform next season. He wants too much money and someone will pay it to him. More importantly, he wants a ten year deal which I HOPE the Yankees do not agree to. He is not young enough to warrant anything close to that long of a contract.

As for A-rod, sure freeing up his money is great and all, but I'm hoping he isn't suspended for very long. The Yankees desperately need some fire power in their ever aging lineup. He is an excellent DH still, not amazing, but very good. Any other big names you see moving, or trades going down, before we settle in for the post season action?



TODD:
Of course Rodriguez would be a viable bat in our lineup. He was superior to any and all third base options we had this past season. But can't the Yankees rebuild for one year (since that is what is looking like will happen voluntarily or not)? So why not bottom out and use the A-Rod money on some young guys? I know this isn't basketball or even football. Teams don't bottom out for draft picks in baseball unless that is what Houston has been doing for four years now. But the Yankees are allowed to be bad for one year if it means a nice rebound the following season with a roster we like. 2014 seems like the perfect storm of roster crumbling, money drying up (by choice) and the like to put this in motion anyways.

I know it's New York and that probably won't happen but, on some level, I would rather a last place finish and a retooled roster of younger guys to another season like this where the playoffs is plausible but not likely.

As for other moves, the only thing that people are chatting about is David Price getting moved. Tampa won't be able to afford him after next season and they usually deal guys for something valuable before they hit free agency. Although a World Series title here might make it difficult to part with their ace pitcher. It will be interesting to follow what Price and Tampa do this off season.

[If you missed Part one - Gloating and Awards]

MLB season recap: Gloating & Awards - Part one

MLB season recap: Gloating & Awards - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (9-30-13)



DAN:
So the MLB season is in the books and its been a fun and wild ride. I feel its appropriate to dredge up the past a bit and remind you of our World Series predictions we made way back during the first week of January. This will be fun, mostly for me!

You predicted, and I quote: "The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim will be back in the series on the backs of their loaded lineup and sterling pitching to face the Cincinnati Reds."

The Reds are in the playoffs, but how do you feel about your picks? You had the Angels winning in six games. I'm sorry, well no I'm not, but that pick looks really really bad in hindsight. You also stuck by the Angles in May and picked them to make the playoffs instead of the Dodgers, when both teams were stinking it up.

Now for my own prediction. "I'd say the Braves face the Rays in the World Series. The team with the healthiest pitching wins... Atlanta."

Well, well, both teams are in the playoffs (as of today the Rays are in the playoff play-in game so close enough for now). Win for me! I also nailed the Dodgers bouncing back and the Indians being this season's Pirates. We were both way off on the Red Sox, but who cares. Enough of my gloating, let's lay down some season awards.

If I could take a team's record out of the equation, then I would give the AL MVP to Mike Trout, but I can't. Miguel Cabrera wins it, with Detroit winning their division yet again. As for the AL Cy Young award... its goes to Max Scherzer because someone has to win it.

The National League weaves a very different web. The NL MVP has no clear cut winner in my book, so I'm leaning towards Jay Bruce with the Reds in the playoffs. I'm also going Kershaw for Cy Young winner. That one's a pretty easy pick.

What do you got?


TODD:
Hmmm.

Well, I do still like the Reds. They have one of the strongest teams, top to bottom, in the league. As for the Angels selection, I can only assume that I was aiming for some sort of reverse jinx to remove one of the Yankees' top competitors...and it worked like a charm! You're welcome. The Angels pitching was horrid all year and their big bats flamed out masterfully, with the exception of your boy Mike Trout.

As for the Dodgers, I'm still not sure how they finished the year so well. I guess their two-man rotation got a huge lift from Hyun-Jin Ryu, who was amazing all year. Forget Yasiel Puig; Ryu was probably the Dodgers best rookie this season. And the bullpen was good even though Brandon League threw over 50 innings while sporting a 5.40 ERA and 1.56 WHIP. The lineup, on the other hand, is pretty inexplicable. Three, count em, three of the Dodgers four best hitters (according to offensive WAR) had comeback seasons for the ages. Hanley Ramirez was their best batter, by a lot, and the majority of fans thought his career was over. The same goes for Adrian Gonzalez. And Andre Either somehow brought himself from a future fourth or fifth outfielder to a three-win player who hit 30 doubles and was serviceable everyday.

Overall, this team's success still doesn't make sense. Matt Kemp had fewer than 300 at-bats; Hanley had barely over 300 ABs and still accumulated more than 5 wins above replacement. Hell, Zack Greinke was ninth on the team in offensive WAR. Yes, OFFENSIVE WAR, starting pitcher Zack Greinke, who had all of 56 at-bats this season. It's astonishing.

All that being said, I see the Dodgers as the most likely team to lose their first round series but we'll get to playoff predictions later in the week. As for regular season awards:

I think you have it backwards in the AL. I think Mike Trout should, and does, take home the MVP this season. He could have gotten it last year, and would have if Cabrera fell short in one of the triple crown categories. Well, this year Cabrera has been outstanding but he's been banged up much of the month of September. And really, the way these things work, how can the voters disregard Trout two years in a row with the seasons he's had? He is just as good of a hitter as Cabrera in nearly ever category, with the exception of the home run power, but blows Miggy away on the base paths and on defense. Everyone knows team success should not factor into MVP voting. I love Cabrera. Actually, this is funny how this worked out since Trout is your guy and Miggy is mine but I think Trout gets the award.

I actually agree with you on AL Cy Young; it's going to be Max Scherzer. Chris Sale had been the best pitcher in the American League all year, and he still does lead the league in WAR. But his peripheral stats are not that much better than Scherzer's. And Max hits all the number thresholds: 20+ wins, ERA under 3, WHIP under 1, well over 200 strikeouts. He gets it.

In the NL, you are right again with the Cy Young; it is Clayton Kershaw and it's not even close.

As for MVP, way to be wrong on both accounts. First, Jay Bruce is a ludicrous pick. He's not even the best hitter on his own team. That would be Joey Votto. But you are also wrong with there being no clear-cut winner because that man is Andrew McCutchen. He is near the top five of pretty much every offensive category in existence. His team had its best season in decades. He runs. He plays defense. He does it all. McCutchen may not be a brand name yet but that doesn't mean he's not the easy MVP pick.


DAN:
Playoff predictions.... playoff predictions. Do I stick with my New Years' picks or clean slate and re-evaluate after a full season of games? Once the play-in game for the final American League wild card spot, along with the two single elimination wild card games are in the books, we can make some real playoff predictions. I still like my Braves.

[Part two - Playoff Prognostication & the Off season]