MLB 12: The Show vs. MLB 2K12

For those looking for an MLB baseball video game to play this season, you have two choices: MLB 12: The Show and MLB 2K12. This review is written mainly for those people who are trying to decide between the two games. And being that I am not a professional reviewer, but rather an average dude like you, you may get some value from this. I will divide this comparison review into 6 elements: Gameplay, Graphics, Animation, Presentation, Sound, and Fun Factor.

Gameplay: As gameplay is such a broad topic for any video game, I'm going to sub-divide it into the four main categories most relevant to baseball: Batting, Pitching, Fielding, and Baserunning.

Batting: You may have heard that batting in The Show is more difficult than in 2K. That is an accurate statement. However, with time and practice, batting slowly becomes easier in The Show. I can't really say the same for 2K-- it's just fairly easy and never really changes from that. Of course, in either game you can adjust sliders and difficulty to make it easier. I think the sense of reward in hitting is better in the Show because you really have to exercise patience and wait for your pitch. However, in this way, The Show is not as much a "pick up and play" game as 2K, which is something important to note if that's what you're looking for. In 2K, where and how well a ball is hit seems less connected to where a ball was actually pitched and hit than in the Show. For example, I can constantly hit pitches that are low or outside (or both) 400 feet. It doesn't even seem to matter which hitter I have. That seems a bit unrealistic. In The Show, it seems more like good pitches (and even some bad pitches) can't be hit well regardless, or it's at least rare. What I see in batting overall in both games is that players can be streaky, but in 2K it seems like you can overcome that streakiness to a degree if your timing or guesswork is good.

Pitching: There isn't really any other way to say it: Pitching is better and more fun in 2K. Even the most ardent Show supporters will generally agree with this statement. With either analog or classic pitching, 2K's version is easier and more rewarding. You can hit your spots much more consistently. I wish the same could be said for The Show, where pitching can be engaging and rewarding, tends to be merely functional, but at times can be hair-pulling frustration. Perhaps I played too much MVP 2005, but to me, if you hit the meter perfectly, you should hit your spot, or dang close to it. 2K does this. The Show does not. I can't even tell you how many times I've missed my spot by a fairly large margin even though I hit the meter what I felt to be close enough to perfectly. And that is even with the sliders (pitch control and pitch consistency) fully turned up to my advantage. So, it can be maddening, so much so that I make occasional use of the option to fast forward to the next half-inning. And so it's worth pointing out here that, oddly, this is where The Show still can manage some advantage. Because I would guess that most gamers prefer hitting to pitching, and 2K doesn't offer a fast forward option.

Fielding: The two games are largely the same in this regard. They both have a tendency to feel a little floaty at times. They both can make it unrealistically difficult to throw unless you adjust the default sliders. It's odd that they are so similar in this regard, but perhaps it's because this is (I'm guessing) the most overlooked portion of a baseball video game.

Baserunning: Again, here the games are not very different, except in terms of how baserunners are controlled. The Show uses a button plus icon system, while 2K uses a select runner and press trigger system. Both work fine. In some cases you might prefer one way, then the next day prefer the other way. I don't really think one is better than the other, just different. I will note, however, that default running in 2K seems a tad too slow, so you will want to adjust the slider.

Graphics: There isn't much in the way of comparison between the games. This is one of two areas where The Show is leaps and bounds better than 2K. If you'd never played either, you would play 2K and say, wow, those are pretty good graphics. And then you would play The Show and say, wow, those are phenomenal graphics. They are that much better, but I want to also emphasize that 2K's graphics are not garbage. And in terms of simply playing a game of baseball, either will serve. Each game realistically represents the stadiums, day and night game lighting, and the fans. In all of these cases, the Show is better. Where 2K is by far the furthest behind, however, is in the player models themselves. More specifically, some (but not many) of the player's faces in 2K are anywhere from not very recognizable to downright inaccurate. I have yet to see this be the case for the Show. If this isn't a big deal for you, then I think the graphics element are neither a deal breaker for 2K nor a deal maker for The Show.

Animation: I know not everyone will feel this way, but for me, this is very nearly a deal breaker for 2K. The animations are that bad. They can be clunky and awkward as to be nigh unto unwatchable. It is the one and only way in which this game is truly ugly, and I don't use that word lightly. And, unfortunately, animations are part of nearly every play (other than a strikeout, walk, or homerun). The animations are virtually never an issue in The Show. Everything looks so much more fluid and natural. Sure there is the occasional throwing off the wrong foot by an infielder, but that is really about it.

Presentation: People tend to say 2K presentation is better, and while I would agree with that, The Show is really not too far behind. For me, presentation is a lot more than commentating. It's having relevant statistical data on screens at batter walk-ups. It's accessibility to around-the-league data in game. It's also commentators talking about these things. In this regard, both games do it well, 2K just does it better. I will note, however, that in the Show you can mute any (or all) of the 3 broadcasters individually. You can only mute all or none of the broadcasters in 2K. And I can't stand listening to Steve Phillips and John Kruk. Thus, when I play the game, I set the game audio to "In the Stands." It's a little more immersive anyway and some people in the crowd say funny things sometimes. In the Show, I only mute Eric Karros.

Sound: See also what I wrote about Presentation. I don't really understand assigning a really significant grade to sound in a non-guitar-hero-type video game, but I understand many people do it, so here goes. As far as realistic sounds of the game, both do it well, but a little differently. I would say the advantage goes to the Show but only slightly. The main beef I have with the Show is sometimes special moments don't feel as special as they could based on crowd reaction. You may read that and say "hey, that's a big deal." But then consider that the majority of the crack of the bat sounds in 2K sound like the bat broke, even when it didn't. This seems worse than a sometimes lacking crowd. (Of note, every crack of the bat sounds good and authentic in The Show.)

Fun Factor: In the end, this is why we play video games, right? This is all people really want to know. 2K is a fun game. The Show is a fun game too. They just both get there in different ways. If I could only pick one game to play, I would pick The Show. But if someone picked the game for me and picked 2K, I wouldn't be sad.

These are many words for just two games. In the end, I say you will have fun with either game. I think the Show is better, but not by miles and miles like many (most?) on the Internet would have you believe. If I could change only one thing about 2K, it would be the animations, and if I could change another, it would be the player models. If I could change only one thing about The Show, it would be pitching consistency, and if I could change another, I wouldn't change anything else. So, take that for what it's worth.

the last time the N.L. won the All-Star game, this look was still considered fashionable

Let's get this done, National League. Tonight. The last time we won was 1996. Think about this for a second. The starting lineup included Matt Williams, Barry Larkin, and Dante Bichette. Ozzie Smith was also on the team. OZZIE SMITH!!! The Prodigy were still a popular band. THE PRODIGY!!!!!!! This is just ridiculous. This was like two lifetimes ago. WE MUST WIN!!!!! HAHM-DI-NAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

The All-Laboring Runners Team

This is a tribute to those baseball players whose lumbering (though not necessarily slow) efforts on the basepaths make childbirth look graceful by comparison. Remember to breathe, fellas.

Current team:

C Bengie Molina
1B Mark Teixeira
2B Jeff Kent
3B Ty Wigginton
SS J.J. Hardy
LF Jack Cust
CF Hunter Pence
RF Jeff Francoeur
P C.C. Sabathia
DH Frank Thomas

All-time team:

C Mike LaValliere
1B Sid Bream
2B Jeff Kent
3B Bob Horner
SS Cal Ripken, Jr.
LF Kirk Gibson
CF Kirby Puckett
RF Babe Ruth
P David Wells
DH Frank Thomas

What the Giants could do

San Francisco Giants' pitcher Barry Zito currently boasts an 0-8 record, with a 6.25 ERA, 1.90 WHIP, and .337 BAA (batting average against). His fastball is currently in the mid-80's. He was demoted to the bullpen a few weeks ago, though recently reinstated to the rotation. To put it nicely, the Giants are not getting their money's worth on his 7-year $126M contract.

But have the Giants considered trying to truly get all they can out of Zito? They're paying this guy so much money, why don't they just make him throw a complete game every start? People may say that this increases his risk of injury, but in fact, Zito has been one of the most durable pitchers in recent history. He has started at least 33 games and pitched at least 196 innings in every year since 2001, the year after his rookie season. He has never spent a day on the disabled list.

People may also say "well, he isn't very good, don't overuse him and that will give the Giants have a better chance at winning." But let's not kid ourselves, the Giants are simply not a good team. I mean, look at them. If they lose every 5th game by a score of 14-2 instead of 7-2, honestly, what's the difference? Despite Brian Sabean's wild delusions, they're not competing in 2008. Therefore, get your money's worth, Sabean. Unless you can somehow get Hank Steinbrenner to eat his contract, in which case, I suggest that.

john lackey, rogue league return tonight

As a John Lackey owner in my fantasy baseball league, I have some nervous excitement about his return for the Angels tonight. He has had four minor league/extended spring training starts to rehab a strained tricep in his pitching arm. There are a lot of unknowns when a pitcher returns from injury. Here are the possible scenarios for John Lackey as I see them, in order from most to least likely:

Scenario A - Lackey is Chris Carpenter. They've been rehabbing him in single A ball to hide the fact that he's still got an injury and now sucks. Whatever he does tonight, he'll need Tommy John surgery very soon. His career is basically over in everyone's mind except Tony LaRussa's.

Scenario B - Lackey is Jeremy Bonderman. He's not hurt anymore, but his velocity is diminished, and since he's a power pitcher, he's basically now a shell of his former self. Effectiveness will be sporatic. Surgery is possible down the road.

Scenario C - Lackey is Jason Schmidt. His velocity is diminshed and he's still hurt. He'll spend a lot of time on the DL, will never have a major surgery, and when he does pitch, he'll be mostly ineffective.

Scenario D - Lackey is Deion Sanders. Diminished ability in baseball leads him to turn to football, where he excels and helps a Mormon QB win a Super Bowl. He begins to wear hammer pants for no apparent reason.

Scenario E - Lackey is an alien from another planet. He assumes the form of a furry, snouted creature, and lives with a suburban middle-class family. He survives by feeding off humanoid food and, occasionally, cats.

Scenario F - Lackey returns to his 2007 form.

Lackey trains for new career as Foot Locker employee

2008 mlb season preview: a.l. east

predicted order of finish:

boston red sox 100-62
tampa bay rays 82-80
new york yankees 81-81
toronto blue jays 80-82
baltimore orioles 61-101

it's kind of weird how the red sox went from the beloved "idiots" everyone in america was rooting for in 2004 to a team that's now mostly loathed by anyone outside of their "nation." i think their hitting and pitching will be far superior to anyone else in this division and they'll win it again for the second year in a row. hopefully some other team will beat them in the playoffs or else we'll have to deal with even more insufferable red sox fans. the tampa bay rays have been predicted by baseball prospectus to win 88 games this year, an improvement of 22 wins over last season. to put this in some perspective, the rays have not won more than 70 games in any year of their existence. i'll be honest here: i'd really like to see this. i want to see the rays succeed. but i do have a hard time believing this. their hitting will be really good, but what about their pitching (especially their bullpen)? however, i do think they're better than both the yankees and blue jays, and i do think joe maddon is a good manager. hopefully my prediction doesn't look ridiculous in september. the yankees have too much talent to not win at least 80 games, and new manager joe girardi doesn't seem like a guy that's going to get in the way of things. it will be the same formula as the past six years, good hitting, average pitching, mariano rivera at the end of games. however, i have them missing the playoffs for the first time since 1993. the blue jays have enough pitching and hitting talent, but manager john gibbons seems to rub some of his guys the wrong way. i could see him being anything from manager of the year to fired by july 1st. my money is on the latter. what can i say about the baltimore orioles? this is a really young team, which is usually viewed as a good thing, but they're going to struggle a lot this year. they don't have much in the way of hitting, and their starting pitching will be pretty lousy, too. i'll give new GM andy macphail some credit-- he's trying to rebuild the farm system, depleted after years of ill-advised moves under the peter angelos regime. but this team is at least two years away from even being respectable again, let alone competitive.

2008 mlb season preview: n.l. east

coach is running out of steam here... five straight days with a post = brutal. i do not have the stamina of fiscal musings.

predicted order of finish:

new york mets 95-67
atlanta braves 92-70
philadelphia phillies 85-77
florida marlins 74-88
washington nationals 71-91

the mets should've won this division last year but picked the exact wrong time to go super cold. now with the addition of johan santana, they will rectify the situation this year (although i'm of the opinion that his most dominant days are behind him). i think the braves are going to be good this year but it kind of worries me that they're becoming a trendy pick to contend in the media. i'd almost rather nobody pay attention to them, but i suppose that's hard to do. their pitching will be improved and their hitting will be slightly worse (read: mark kotsay is the CF. not good.) the phillies got lucky at the right time last year, won the division, then ran into a buzzsaw in the rockies. i predict they'll regress a little-- that is to say, they'll be the phillies. the marlins and nationals will both struggle, but at least the nats will have a nice new park, which i will be fortunate enough to visit over memorial day weekend.

2008 mlb season preview: a.l. west

predicted order of finish:

angels 91-71
mariners 88-74
athletics 74-88
rangers 72-90

while i'm not really high on any team in this division, i think the angels have the best chance. despite the early season injuries to lackey and escobar, they still have good pitching depth, both in the rotation and bullpen, and their hitting is adequate. they've also got a good manager in mike scioscia. the mariners have improved their pitching (sort of) with bedard, and their hitting will be decent, better than the a's at least. this is a team that won 88 games last year, yet, somehow, still doesn't seem like a contender. the athletics will have a lot of new players, most of them very young. their pitching will be good but their hitting will be fairly weak. they'll take their lumps this year but should be contending again within a year or two. in the offseason, the rangers once again traded away pitching to get hitting. i'm not really sure when the rangers will figure out that they need to stop relying on kevin millwood and actually start developing (and keeping) young arms. until they do this, they will continue to bring up the rear in the west.

2008 mlb season preview: n.l. west

predicted order of finish:

arizona diamondbacks 92-70
los angeles dodgers 89-73
colorado rockies 84-78
san diego padres 81-81
san francisco giants 65-97

the diamondbacks are the defending division champs. they got outscored last year but still somehow went 90-72. while i think some of that good luck will start to even out this year, the d-backs also acquired dan haren, who, with brandon webb, forms probably the best 1-2 starting pitching combo in the national league. their offense will be largely the same, so i'll predict 92 wins, which given the depth of this division, should be good enough to win it. the dodgers biggest offseason acquisition was not andruw jones but rather new manager joe torre. granted, this team will not be as talented as his late 90's/early 00's yankee squads, but torre is an intelligent, well-respected manager who occasionally falls asleep in the dugout and will get the best out of these players. the dodgers pitching remains strong while their offense remains fairly weak, but it will be good enough to compete. the rockies made the playoffs last year through an incredible hot streak at the right time and rode that streak all the way to the world series. maybe i'm just biased because of the rockies history of non-success, but i don't see this happening again this year. i think the rockies are a good enough team, and will stay close into september. but their pitching is mostly inexperienced or mediocre, and that won't be good enough in this division. the padres once again will have exceptional pitching and break their own record for 1-0 games. they'll be close in september but find a way to come up short, mostly due to their bad hitting. (note: if they make a trade deadline deal for a big hitter, i think they would both win this division and probably the world series. but i don't expect this to happen.) the depths of futility in which the giants will languish this season can be best illustrated by examining the probable middle of their batting order: rich aurilia, aaron rowand, bengie molina. that's quite possibly the saddest 3-4-5 in the history of baseball, and that includes any 3-4-5 that had the misfortune of having willie mays hayes in it. on a positive note, they have some pretty good starting pitchers.

2008 mlb season preview: a.l. central

continuing on with our baseball season previews in no particular order, today we preview the american league's central division. click the "mlb season previews" label on the left menu to see other exciting previews.

predicted order of finish:

detroit tigers 95-67
cleveland indians 94-68
chicago white sox 79-83
minnesota twins 75-87
kansas city royals 73-89

the tigers are loaded on offense with new additions miguel cabrera and edgar renteria. i'll be surprised if they don't score over 900 runs this season. their pitching, especially their starters, will struggle somewhat. ordinarily this would cause me to pick against a team but i'll go with my guts here and predict the tigers to barely hold off cleveland to win the division. the indians return basically all of their key players from their 96-win division-winning team last season. if travis hafner returns to his previous form, cleveland's offense will be even stronger. their bullpen is always a slight concern when joe borowski is the closer, and sabathia logged a ton of innings last year and thus may not be as effective this year. i don't have them winning this division but i think the indians will win the wildcard. the twins pitching will struggle this year with the departure of johan santana and because their management is treating francisco liriano's left arm like it's a paper napkin. the twins hitting will struggle because they are forced to rely on guys like lew ford and mike lamb. white sox manager ozzie guillen said he's going to go back to being himself this year and that this will cause the white sox to win a lot, or something like that. while i'm not sure exactly what that statement means, i'm also not sure how they didn't win more last year, as they seem to have adequate pitching and hitting both. however, i think they'll still have the same level of quit in them as last year, leading to a similarly mediocre performance. the royals are still hapless, but GM dayton moore is slowly getting this franchise moving in the right direction. most importantly they have some decent young arms, and with the jose guillen signing in the offseason they're at least trying to attract people to kansas city, as difficult as that no doubt is.

2008 mlb season preview: n.l. central

predicted order of finish:

chicago cubs 90-72
milwaukee brewers 84-78
houston astros 80-82
st. louis cardinals 77-85
cincinnati reds 74-88
pittsburgh pirates 68-94

like most people, i'm picking the cubs. this is partly due to their strength, but mostly due to the weakness of this division. though fukudome won't be as big a pickup as people think, their offense will be good, and their pitching will be good enough. i think the brewers' pitching is still not strong enough, and their defense is below average. at the plate, however, they have one of the deepest lineups in baseball. the astros have made lots of moves this offseason in an effort to win now. miguel tejada improves the offense and jose valverde strengthens the bullpen. but their starting pitching is too patchwork after roy oswalt. much to limeade's chagrin, the cardinals will have problems on offense this year. albert pujols is wandering into vlad guerrero territory in terms of limited lineup protection. but fortunately their new GM believes in trading away dinosaurs for younger players, so it won't be long before they're competitive again. the reds are a trendy sleeper pick to make the playoffs. one announcer on espn went so far as to say that, because the reds now have an elite closer, they're now contenders. to demonstrate how ridiculous a position that is, simply ask yourself if francisco cordero has ever turned a team into a contender. the pirates will continue to be the pirates. they'll match the 1933-48 phillies record of 16 consecutive losing seasons. at least they have one of the nicest stadiums in baseball which offers a great view of both baseball and ducks.

when visiting PNC park, be sure to look for the ducks, else some random dude
talk your ear off for 20 minutes. but don't eat the pierogies. they are garbage.

hot stove part deux

with spring training now officially underway, the rogue league examines a few more notable transactions from this offseason.

mets acquire johan santana from twins for carlos gomez and 3 prospects, then sign him to an enormous extension

the twins tried to get both the red sox and yankees to offer more for santana, and after they didn't bite, the mets reaped the benefits. this is obviously a good deal for the mets, and i'm o.k. with it from the twins side too. they couldn't afford to keep santana but at least now they get some good young arms which will hopefully pan out. santana's subsequent contract extension for 7 years $151M makes him the highest paid pitcher in history, and the fourth ever to get a $100M contract. the other three were mike hampton, kevin brown, and barry zito... not exactly in the same class, as santana is clearly better than any of those guys ever were or will be. however, he is still human, and i believe that at some point his newfound wealth will affect him to some degree. not that he's going to become awful or anything, but i could see santana getting a little lazier, maybe partying too much in new york with jose reyes, and then not being quite as good. fortunately for mets fans, though, he'll still be an ace, and i don't think this contract will reach albatrossian status for 5 years.

astros get miguel tejada from orioles for luke scott and four prospects; sign kaz matsui to 3-year $16.5M contract; acquire jose valverde from diamondbacks for chris burke, chad qualls, and juan gutierrez

those are a lot of players the astros have dealt this winter. i don't know how deep their farm system is, but i'll give them credit-- they're clearly trying to win now. it does seem a little strange to commit 3 years to matsui given that he's shown no ability to stay healthy, and who will likely put up numbers similar to chris burke anyway. the tejada deal i really like for their offense. their 2-3-4-5 could be something like pence, tejada, berkman, lee. that's very formidable. tejada can actually opt out after 2008, though, so if houston doesn't resign him, that was a steep price for one year (unless they win the world series, of course). valverde should help bolster the bullpen, meaning fans will no longer have to see roy oswalt silently weeping in the dugout after yet another blown save.

mariners get erik bedard for adam jones, george sherrill, and three prospects

once the mariners didn't get johan they had to look for the next best thing. they feel they have a chance to win now, and they also apparently don't have room for adam jones in their outfield. i like bedard but i would've like to have seen a deal like this for someone slightly more proven. i also wonder how bedard will fare now that leo mazzone will not be his pitching coach. overall this is a deal the mariners probably felt they had to make, but that's a lot of players to give up. for the orioles, between this and the tejada deal, they've acquired seven prospects, and they and cal-state fullerton have to be considered the favorites in omaha this june.

giants sign aaron rowand to 5 year $60M contract

i'll start with the positive: i like aaron rowand as a player. i think he hussles a lot, his defense is pretty good, his offense will be slightly above average, and i've heard he's a really good clubhouse presence. however, this is too many years for him. he's coming off career-high offensive numbers that, probably if you ask anyone in the world they'll agree with this, he will never again match. his at-times reckless play makes him an injury concern as well. i know the giants had to sign someone, and they certainly had some extra cash with barroid now off the payroll. i'm just not sure rowand is that marquee name that will resonate with fans.

blue jays acquire scott rolen from cardinals for troy glaus

this is your proverbial one man's trash is another man's treasure deal. except they're both trash. i like glaus' numbers for the last 3 seasons over rolen's, so i think st. louis got the better end of this deal. actually, i'm not really sure what would prompt the blue jays to take this deal. i think scott rolen has pictures of toronto general manager j.p. riccardi wearing women's underwear.

padres get jim edmonds from cardinals for prospect david freese

i can understand san diego trading away a third-base prospect when they already have an everyday third-baseman and another prospect in waiting. what i cannot understand is trading for edmonds. what's his batting line at petco going to be? .265 avg 8 hr 50 rbi? that's gross, and that's probably being generous. why wouldn't you just take another year or two of mike cameron (for about the same price, too)? it just seems weird. from the cardinals perspective though, i like this. new general manager john mozeliak sweeps away another overpaid under-performing has-been to open up room for younger talent.

a pitcher worth 18,000 words

has there ever been a time in your life when you thought someone did something, but you weren't sure? but then, there was an alleged eye-witness, who gave sworn testimony to confirm your suspicion? when the person accused came up with more and more stories and facts to explain himself, did you find yourself believing him more, or less?

the more roger clemens tries to convince me and all of us that he never used steroids, the more i find myself not believing him. in clemens' agent's recent 18,000-word statistical report published monday, many facts are presented, with the supposed intention being to "prove" roger never used steroids. but it's flawed logic to believe this based solely on this report. consider first the claim that clemens' peak performance was from near the end of the 1996 season to the beginning of the 1999 season. if this is true, doesn't that actually support brian mcnamee's assertions more, considering that he said he began injecting roger in the butt back in 1998? it's also said within the report that clemens' career was extended due to a change in pitching styles and (later) through contractually-shorter seasons with limited travel. of course, this is all true, but the fact that it's true still does not mean anything in relation to whether or not he used steroids. he still could have juiced in conjunction with doing these other actions. then the report has a bunch of charts and numbers that compare clemens to other hall-of-fame caliber pitchers who pitched into their 40's who haven't been accused of cheating. the leap of logic here is "these guys were great without steroids, so roger was too." obviously, this is ludicrous to assume that because others have pitched into their 40's without steroids, therefore clemens must also have pitched into his 40's without steroids. and besides, given that roger was actually much more effective in his 40's than most of those other guys, isn't that just one more piece of damning, not exonorating, evidence?

clemens' crusade of innocence now intrigues me far more than whether or not he even used steroids. he keeps drawing me back in with his repeated denials, each with a few more bits of inconsistency and confusion. to me, the 18,000-word report seems nothing more than argumentum verbosium. while i certainly can't blame clemens for trying to defend himself against what he believes to be false accusations, i think there are better and more convincing ways to go about it. roger, come up with one story and stick with it. like your accuser did.

coach weighs in on the mitchell report

what can i say about the mitchell report that hasn't already been said? my guess is probably nothing. so i'll just give my reactions.

1) none of these names surprise me. none. not barry bonds. not brian roberts, despite peter gammons going bananas over that. i'm certainly not surprised by roger clemens. i mean honestly, how do you explain a pitcher with a sub-2.00 era despite being over 40. dis is not right.

2) george mitchell is pretty much 100% right about everything. that's perhaps an over-statement but my point here is that his recommendations are proper, and everyone in baseball who's responsible for the proliferation of the steroids era, which is pretty near everyone, needs to work together to rid the game of PEDs. will they do this?

3) i think bud selig will finally get serious about this. he's likely retiring within the next three or four years. he's already going to remembered for certain things like expanded playoffs and interleague play. he's also going to be remembered, obviously, for the steroids era. he can't really do anything about that, but he can now work to help clean up the game, and be remembered for helping to solve a problem (even though he, through his negligence, helped to create it). however, this also leads me to ask another question.

4) how much does the average fan honestly care about this? i don't mean to diminish things, because i know there are some parents that care, because they see their children in high school using PEDs after seeing the professionals doing it. but MLB did just set attendance and revenue records last year. the NFL is also enjoying an era of unprecented popularity, and despite their relative clean skate through the media, they also aren't free of PED use. i really think the average fan knows that a lot of players do a lot of various things to enhance performance. at some level, we demand bigger, better, faster, more of the athletes in the leagues we actively follow. how much do we all, to one degree or another, turn our collective heads, or just accept certain things as coming with the territory? how much do we even think about it at all?

5) i think the media cares about this stuff a lot more than the average fan. it's fodder for their trade. it helps to sell papers and get website clicks. but if barry bonds wasn't such an enormous jerk, and if he hadn't been chasing the most hallowed record in sports, most americans probably wouldn't have cared nearly as much that he used steroids. in my opinion, this helped further media attention on baseball as a "dirty sport." but as i alluded to in my previous point, i wonder how much the average fan truly worries about this.

hot stove part 1

i have returned from my mini-sabbatical to talk about some of the recent trades and free agent signings in baseball. there have been many so i'll only talk about a few of them, (though i think some of the more under the radar ones will pay big dividends).

tigers get: 3B miguel cabrera and SP dontrelle willis
marlins get: SP andrew miller, OF cameron maybin, and 4 prospects

i like this deal for both clubs, but a little more for the tigers. after having perused the marlins most recent firesale-equse trades, i'm not convinced they always know what prospects to target. for every hanley ramirez there seemed to be more than one grant psomas. meanwhile, the tigers have basically established a modern-day murderer's row with cabrera, sheffield, and ordonez. i view willis for miller at best a tie for the tigers, but dontrelle won't be asked much in the 4th or 5th starter role, and who knows, he actually might improve because most a.l. teams have seen him little, if at all. the tigers go from on the verge to definite contenders. the marlins once again are building for the future. maybin will be a star, miller will probably round out into a good #3. the 4 other guys, it's anyone's guess.

OF andruw jones to dodgers for 2 years $36.2M

it's probably slightly disheartening to dodgers fans that apparently the royals were the only other team after him, for 2 years and $22M (thanks to mlbtraderumors.com for the tip). having watched andruw for a lot of years as a braves fan, it's a little tough to see him go. were these still the days of ted turner and big budgets, andruw would still be in a braves uniform. he's still definitely got the talent and physical ability, he just developed far too many bad habits at the plate. these can be fixed, and don mattingly is a good hitting coach. so i can see andruw improving at the plate, that is to say, to a level in the .260 avg 32 hr 105 rbi range. is that worth $18.1M a year? no, but it's better than anyone on the current dodger roster, so in that way it's not a horrible move. plus it is only 2 years, so no huge committment.

OF torii hunter to angels for 5 years $90M

i remember thinking last year that the angels had over-spent by giving $50M over 5 years to gary matthews jr., a guy who has a connection to h.g.h. and still can't hit 20 hr. now they've spent nearly twice that this year. i realize the angels needed a bat, and that there were multiple bidders for torii's services, so they had to spend a lot. but i just think they could've spent more wisely, as in, on another player, even at another position. in my opinion, torii hunter is one of the more consistently overrated players in the game. yes, his defense is really good. but he's also a .270 hitter that doesn't take walks. 5 years $90 million just seems way too high.

OF jose guillen to royals for 3 years $36M

if i were a royals fan, i'd have wanted my team to: a) not be so public about their desires to get guillen, and b) not have given him 3 years guaranteed. the royals had to give guillen more money to get him since they were so obviously going hard after him. anyway, how good this contract will ultimately look hinges on the if's: if guillen can stay healthy, and if guillen can shut his mouth. so far in his career, he's not consistently been able to do either. but if he can in kansas city, this deal will be a super-bargain. the royals could've spent their money in much worse ways.

tigers get: SS edgar renteria
braves get: RHP jair jurrjens and OF gorkys hernandez

another deal i like for both teams. the tigers lineup is simply loaded. as a braves fan, i'll speak more on what this deal means for them. jair jurrjens, i don't know a whole lot about him except that he neither walks nor strikes out many guys. i'd suspect the braves would like for him to make the team out of spring training and be their 5th starter. they will give him every opportunity to do this at least. gorkys hernandez is a great prospect with speed and power, but hasn't played above high A-ball, so it's likely at least mid-2009 before he's up with the big club. this deal also shows the braves are very confident in yunel escobar. escobar's career path projects very much like renteria, but $8M cheaper. so, given that, i can understand this move. i just hope escobar develops more quickly.

francisco cordero to reds for 4 years $44M

i don't even know where to begin. why did they sign this guy? the reds starters' ERA is the worst in the national league. how are they even going to get leads for this guy to save? why didn't they go after a starter? plus, wasn't cordero like on the rangers garbage pile just a year and a half ago? suddenly one good season for milwaukee = $11M a year for 4 years. no, no, no, this doesn't make any sense at all. this is the dumbest move of the offseason by far. it will only be surpassed if someone is actually foolish enough to give aaron rowand 6 years and $100M.

if i had a vote, part 2

for part 1, click this

AL Rookie of the Year:

1. Dustin Pedroia, .317 avg .380 obp .442 slg 8 hr 50 rbi 86 r 7 sb
2. Delmon Young, .288 avg .316 obp .408 slg 13 hr 93 rbi 65 r 10 sb
3. Jeremy Guthrie 7-5 175.1 ip 123 k 3.70 era 1.21 whip .249 baa

i won't make any predictions as the award was actually already given today. these were the top 2 and brian bannister was #3. pedroia was a pretty obvious choice. this award was his to lose starting in about early september. i think delmon young was hurt to an extent by his own hype. and probably by this too. i think guthrie has a decent career ahead of him.

AL Cy Young:

1. C.C. Sabathia 19-7 241.0 ip 209 k 3.21 era 1.14 whip .259 baa
2. Erik Bedard 13-5 182.0 ip 221 k 3.16 era 1.09 whip .212 baa
3. John Lackey 19-9 224.0 ip 179 k 3.01 era 1.21 whip .254 baa

sabathia is a horse, doesn't walk guys, and pitched great all year, leading his team into the playoffs. this award should be his, HOWEVA, i won't be shocked if beckett wins it. that's what i'm predicting will happen, because of the undying media love for boston, but hopefully i'll be wrong. bedard would've gotten my #1 vote if he had had more innings. lackey is a solid #3. you could make a case for beckett there as well, it's really close.

AL Most Valuable Player

1. Alex Rodriguez, .314 avg .422 obp .645 slg 54 hr 156 rbi 143 r 24 sb
2. Magglio Ordonez, .363 avg .434 obp .595 slg 28 hr 139 rbi 117 r 4 sb
3. David Ortiz, .332 avg .445 obp .621 slg 35 hr 117 rbi 116 r 3 sb

uh, this one is pretty obvious. if any writer doesn't vote a-rod #1, he should suffer the fate of norv turner. magglio won the batting title by a mile and had a great year for the tigers. ortiz once again is a bridesmaid...er, doesn't finish 1st. my prediction is a-rod 1, ortiz 2, ordonez 3.

Comeback Players of the Year

I forgot to do this for the NL in my first post so I'll vote both here:

NL - Josh Hamilton, .292 avg .368 obp .554 slg 19 hr 47 rbi 52 r 3 sb
AL - Carlos Pena, .282 avg .411 obp .627 slg 46 hr 121 rbi 99 r 1 sb

if I had a vote, part 1

now that it's almost time for the 2007 baseball season individual awards to be handed out, i will make my selections as if i have a vote. obviously i don't have one, but if i did, here's how it would go for each of these awards, along with my predictions for what will actually happen.

NL Cy Young

1. Jake Peavy, 19-6, 2.54 ERA, 1.o6 WHIP, 223.1 IP, 240 K
2. Brandon Webb, 18-10, 3.01 ERA, 1.19 WHIP, 236.1 IP, 194 K
3. John Smoltz, 14-8, 3.11 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, 205.2 IP, 197 K

it's pretty hard to not give this to Peavy. i tried and everything, but his numbers are just too much better than anyone else. i don't have much more to say about this race. my prediction for what will actually happen is the same, except that i predict cole hamels will be #3.

NL Most Valuable Player

1. Matt Holliday, .340 avg, .405 obp, .607 slg, 36 hr, 137 rbi, 120 r, 11 sb
2. Chase Utley, .332 avg, .410 obp, .566 slg, 22 hr, 103 rbi, 104 r, 9 sb
3. Albert Pujols, .327 avg, .429 obp, .568 slg, 32 hr, 103 rbi, 99 r, 2 sb

the race is not between holliday and rollins. jimmy rollins is not even the mvp of his own team, let alone the entire national league. anyone that watches baseball knows that chase utley is the better pure hitter, and had he not been out for a month, his numbers would've been much better. look no further than the phillies record when utley was out (15-13), and then how they quickly got better (22-11) when he came back. he's that influential; rollins isn't. pujols is just sort of a bail out pick. he's got good numbers, but i could've probably just as easily picked russell martin or prince fielder. my prediction is holliday #1, fielder #2, rollins #3.

NL Rookie of the Year

1. Ryan Braun, .324 avg, .370 obp, .634 slg, 34 hr, 97 rbi, 91 r, 15 sb
2. Troy Tulowitzki, .291 avg, .359 obp, .479 slg, 24 hr, 99 rbi, 104 r, 7 sb
3. Hunter Pence, .322 avg, .360 obp, .539 slg, 17 hr, 69 rbi, 57 r, 11 sb

i don't think the race between braun and tulowitzki should be as close as it will probably end up being. Braun's rookie numbers, in terms of OPS and HR/AB ratio, are up in the Mantle/Pujols territory. really, that alone should win it for him. though that's not to say that tulo isn't a good player, because he is, and his defense is certainly far better than braun's. but i think braun more than made up for it with his offensive prowess, while tulowitzki's .479 slugging percentage is fairly pedestrian. my prediction is this same top 3.

tomorrow: part 2, american league

Flawless...Victory...

in my opinion, and it's probably an opinion shared by many, the rockies just looked sluggish the whole series. the bats just never woke up. many will blame the huge 9-day layoff, and that probably was a major contributing factor. then again, their incredible run had to come to an end some time. it's just too difficult to keep playing at that high a level for so long.

congratulations to both teams for making it this far, and to the red sox for actually winning. good luck to the braves in 2008.

Self Respect > $5 Million

To add my two cents to this Joe Torre saga, I'm pretty sure this is all about him keeping some shred of dignity. Undoubtedly he had grown very weary of "The Boss" and his antics. I mean, who wouldn't after a dozen seasons? Ted Turner now probably looks like a Care Bear to him by comparison.

Five million dollars is a lot to give up. You have to figure it was actually probably at least $6M since that's what he would've gotten for just making the playoffs. Here are the next 3 closest managers in terms of salary (HT: mlbcontracts.blogspot.com):

Lou Piniella (CHC) - $3.5M
Bobby Cox (ATL) - $3.0M
Tony LaRussa (STL) - $2.8M

After the next few, the dropoff gets fairly considerable, with Manny Acta of the Nationals actually being paid in Spaghettios. So clearly, Torre was earning well above his peers, pay cut or not. Some argue, of course, that working under the pressure of the New York Yankees spotlight makes one more than earn their pay.

(Note: I do think it's kind of lame that, after winning the 4 World Series, he renegotiated a super-great deal, and that now that after he's gone a long time (relatively speaking, Cubs fans) without winning one, he won't allow the pendulum to swing the other way. I suppose this is, to some extent, human nature.)

Anyway, I feel that's where we can really see his true reasoning. He cannot reasonably expect that he'll get $5-6 million out on the open market, despite some teams' desire to spend money on unnecessary things. Even if a bidding war emerges, I think the most he can get is around 4, maybe 4.5 million per year. He's giving up around $1 million just to not have to work for this man anymore. Quite frankly, that says a lot.

I understand the world a little less now

your national league champions: