Rick Down, who was let go as the Yankees hitting coach at the end of the 2003 season (and subsequently replaced by Don Mattingly), was hired as the Bombers’ coordinator of minor league instruction yesterday. This continues a time-honored tradition under George Stienbrenner’s watch of placating fired employees by re-hiring them (or merely throwing money in their bank accounts). That’s Yankee loyalty, Yankee pride at work for you.

Life with George often feels like Stienbrenner’s version of Crime and Punishment. For instance, David Cone is in Yankee-limbo after walking away from a TV deal with the YES Network last season to attempt a comeback with the Mets. The Boss isn’t ready to invite him back yet. Roger Clemens will certainly join Cone in Siberia should he choose to pitch for the Houston Astros in 2004. Nobody will be terribly surprised if the Rocket pitches again, right? If he does, he can count on waltzing into the Hall of Fame in a Red Sox cap. While that would be fitting, Clemens might be having drinks with friends and family elsewhere during his induction ceremony.

Finally, while Erick Almonte cleared waivers, third-string catcher Michel Hernandez (who defected from Cuba in 1996 and signed with the Yankees in 1998), was claimed by the Red Sox. As Bob Hohler notes in The Globe today, it is “the first major league movement between the archrivals since 1997.”

My good pal, and travelling companion, Jay Jaffe has a contributed a terrific piece to Baseball Prospectus, which analyzes the hitters who were recently up for election to the Hall of Fame. Using a series of advanced metrics, Jay’s piece is in-depth, thorough, and exceedingly well done. Not only that, but it’s available to everyone. (One conclusion that may be of interest to New York fans is that Keith Hernandez rates slightly ahead of Don Mattingly.) When you have some time, do yourself a solid, and do what Wacko Jacko implored Shelly Duvall to do: Go check it out.

Paul Molitor and Dennis Eckersley were introduced as the newest members of The Hall of Fame in New York yesterday. Stories in The Boston Globe, New York Times and Daily News focus on Molitor and Eckersley’s recovery from drug and alcohol addiction. Last night, I perused my library in search for something good on Molitor. The first (and last as it turns out) place I looked to was Dan Okrent’s book about the 1982 Brewers, “Nine Innings.” Okrent, famous for “discovering” Bill James, was a featured participant in Ken Burns’ “Baseball” documentary. (Emily and I have been watching some of the episodes lately, and she keeps goofing Okrent’s red-rimmed glasses.) I’ve never been able to get through the entire book, which is a shame because the Brewers teams of the early eighties were an extremely appealing bunch. I pick it up in fits and starts, but it never holds my attention for long.

Anyhow, I looked through the portions dealing with Molitor’s story and couldn’t come up with an excerpt that was particularly revealing, although his early career was far from dull. Molitor, a golden boy, was moved around often, first playing short, then second, then center field, right field and finally third base (and all of this in the first five years of his career). He was as aimable as you would ever expect anyone that talented to be. But when he was benched one day in place of Don Money at third, he finally became testy:

“I don’t like it one bit. Let someone else sit if they want Money to get his at-bats.”

Okrent added:

His anger was uncharacteristically splenetic.

I didn’t know what splenetic meant, so I looked it up. Turns out it means spiteful, irritable, ill-humored. Now, I love words; I especially enjoy looking up words that I don’t know (of which there are many). But after I discovered the meaning of the word splenetic, I couldn’t stop thinking about Okrent’s red-rimmed glasses. (It’s a good word, but one that struck me as pretentious in this instance.) I stopped thinking about Molitor and I mumbled and cursed about the word splenetic for the duration of the evening.

It reminded me of when I was a freshman at Hunter college and was taking a 400 level class on Samuel Beckett. I was living with my father in my grandparent’s spacious apartment across the street from the Museum of Natural History. They had both recently passed away and the place was in the process of being sold, but for a few months it was home. I remember studying for a mid-term in the dining room. Papers covered most of the table and I was knee-deep in high-falutin philosophies, when a friend of my father’s stopped by for a visit.

Jim was what you’d call a man’s man. He was from the James Caan, Gene Hackman school of masculinity. He was funny and wry, and looked great in a leather jacket. He was one of those guys who looked as if he could live off cigarettes and coffee for the rest of his life. He sat down with me and asked what I was studying. I pulled one of the essay questions out which concerned a concept put forth by Descartes which said, “Nothing is more real than nothing.” I was consumed with how the total heaviosity of the statement and how it related to Beckett’s work.

Jim said, “Nothing’s more real than nothing…” He mulled it over in his head for a minute. I was expecting him to share some deep life experience with me. He continued to repeat the statement to himself. He then snapped out of his train of thought and looked at me. “Nothing is more real than nothing? You know what? I’d like to talk to that guy. I really would. I’d like to have him sit right here, across this table and ask him exactly what he means by that. Nothing is more real than nothing? You know what? I’d like to punch him in right in his face. Punch him square in the jaw for asking that kind of question.”

I wonder what Jim would have made of a word like splenetic in describing a ball player.

I moved along and broke out “Cracking The Show,” Tom Boswell’s fourth collection of baseball writing, and found an article written in early 1989 about Eckersley. It makes for a nice compliment to the articles in today’s papers about Eckersley’s recovery from addiction:

This is a second chance for me. Not too many people get a second chance. I am just so happy about what has happened to me that I don’t want to stop…I’ve been so lucky, how could I be [upset about Gibson’s homer]? You wouldn’t be very appreciative if you acted that way, would you?

…I shouldn’t have thrown him a strike…But think about how hard it would have been to take if it had happened to me ten years ago.

Boswell went on to write about Eckersley’s good fortune, falling into the closer’s job on the powerful A’s team:

Eckersley is the first to point out that the A’s are a closer’s dream. No other team has four quality setup men in the bullpen. “Goose Gossage had to pitch two innings, somethings [Bruce] Sutter had to go three,” he says. “I go one. Don’t want to say my job is easy. But it can’t get much better than this.

The Athletics’ great talent helps. “I can only stay sharp if I pitch a lot,” he says. “I only pitch when we win. And we win a lot. So I stay sharp.”

Yesterday, Boswell wrote an insightful piece about how closers have been neglected by the baseball writers of America:

When will the sport, and specifically my peers among the baseball writers, figure out that no player in the sport is more central to success than a great closer? At any one time, almost every team in baseball has a legitimate slugger and at least one fine starting pitcher. Some teams have several of each. But perhaps half the clubs in the game can claim to possess even one superior ninth-inning door-slammer.

…When are we finally going to see some basic decency toward the great relief pitchers of the last 50 years? The bullpen got torched again yesterday by a bunch of ink-strained wretches who couldn’t hit a Dan Quisenberry sinker or an Elroy Face forkball if you gave each of them two tennis rackets. If relievers such as Mike Marshall, Sparky Lyle, Sutter, Fingers, Willie Hernandez, Steve Bedrosian, Mark Davis, Eckersley and Eric Gagne are so good within a one-year span that they are chosen over all pitchers for the Cy Young, then how can the entirety of their careers be judged as so inconsequential?

Heck, if I were Sutter or Gossage, I’d be feeling positively splenetic, no?

Peter Gammons is not known for trashing ball players. You can call him a yenta all you want, but he’s no vicious gossip. (If anything, he champions all kinds of players–from the greats to the lesser known talents.) So Gammons’ latest column on Pete Rose came as a bit of a surprise:

The fact that [Rose] has orchestrated the release of his book and his admission of guilt at a time when Dennis Eckersley and Paul Molitor — two great people who overcame a lot, which Rose hasn’t yet — are being elected is a bold statement that he has no respect for Cooperstown, and that he wants to be in the Hall for one reason — to make money to feed his addictions.

This is a man who admitted something in a forum in which he can make money. He has no remorse, no respect for anything but his next bet. Rose is perhaps the lowest figure in baseball in my 32 years of covering the sport.

Right on.

Edward Cossette has been writing about the Internet media vs. the Traditional media over at Bambino’s Curse for some time now. Considering that both Curt Schilling and John Henry visit and make comments on Red Sox websites (like Sons of Sam Horn), this is a story that will continue to unfold during the 2004 season. Apparently, Schilling was on SoSH recently and teed off on the Questec system. Although Cossette is partially thrilled with the intimacy that is created when players connect directly with the fans via a website posting, he raises some pertinent questions about ethics, and journalistic responsibiltiy. Essentially, he makes like Fiorello LaGuardia and asks: Say children, what does it all mean? David Pinto picks up the thread over at Baseball Musings. In all, this is a fascinating subject, and Cossette did a tremendous job of covering it today.

Paul Molitor and Dennis Eckersley were elected to the Hall of Fame this afternoon. Now that Eckersley–most famous as world-class closer for the Oakland A’s–has reached Cooperstown, perhaps the voters will begin to look more kindly on relief pitchers. Still, Bruce Sutter and Goose Gossage, arguably the two most significant relievers of the free agency era, did not make the cut once again.

Eckersley, a demonstrative and volatile performer, has been a nervous wreck of late as he waited to hear if he made it into the Hall. In a report that was published yesterday, he said:

“It’s killing me is what it’s doing…It’s murdering me. Tell me already, so I can deal with it if I don’t. I feel like a little kid, where you’re dangling something in front of me. I can’t even sleep. I’m like a yo-yo.”

Eckersley is as entertaining off the field as he was on it. Terry Pluto covered the swinging salad days of Eck’s career in “The Curse of Rocky Colavito,” while Mike Bryan had an excellent chapter on Eckersley in his book, “Baseball Lives.” Here is an excerpt from Bryan’s book:

People say baseball players should go out and have fun. No way. To me, baseball is pressure. I always feel it. This is work. The fun is afterwards, when you shake hands.

When I was a rookie I’d tear stuff up. Now I keep it in. What good is smashing a light on the way up the tunnel? But I still can’t sleep at night if I stink. I’ve always tried to change that and act like a normal guy when I got home. “Hi, honey, what’s happening?” I can’t. It’s there. It doesn’t go away. But maybe that’s why I’ve been successful in my career, because I care. I don’t have fun. I pitch scared. That’s what makes me go. Nothing wrong with being scared if you can channel it.

I used to hide behind my cockiness. Don’t let the other team know you’re scared. I got crazy on the mound. Strike a guy out, throw my fist around—“Yeah!” Not real classy, but I was a raw kid. I didn’t care. It wasn’t fake. It was me. This wasn’t taken very kindly by a lot of people. They couldn’t wait to light me up. That’s the price you pay.

I wish I was a little happier in this game. What is so great about this shit? You get the money, and then you’re used to the money. You start making half a million a year, next thing you know you need half a million a year. And the heat is on!

Used to be neat to just be a big-league ballplayer, but that wore off. I’m still proud, but I don’t want people to bother me about it. I wish my personality with people was better. I find myself becoming short with people. Going to the store. Getting gas.

If you’re not happy with when you’re doing lousy, then not happy when you’re doing well, when the hell are you going to be happy? This game will humble you in a heartbeat. Soon as you starting getting happy, “Boom.” For the fans—and this is just a guess—they think the money takes out the feeling. I may be wrong but I think they think, “What the hell is he worrying about? He’s still getting’ paid.” There may be a few players who don’t give 100 percent, but I always thought if you were good enough to make that kind of money, you’d have enough pride to play like that, wouldn’t you think? You don’t just turn it on or off.

Eckersley is a good talker. But he’s not as slick as the media-friendly David Cone; he is much closer to Pat Jordan: a straight-shootin’ sombitch. I admire him for his vulnerability and honesty. Bryan’s interview with Eck was conducted during spring training in 1988, with his his greatest years as a relief pitcher ahead of him. But Eckersley was candid about how he felt about life after baseball:

I’ve been very fortunate to pitch for fourteen years in the big leagues. That’s a long time for a pitcher. I’m afraid of life after baseball. Petrified. I’m not ashamed of saying it. I’ll be all right, but nothing will ever compare with this. I will not stay in baseball. I think about commercial real estate and money, big money!

Or maybe I’ll grow up after I get ouf of this fuckin’ game.

Funny that we should be talking about grown-ups with Pete Rose clouding the baseball landscape, but both Mr. Molitor and Mr. Eck are all grown up now, and where they belong: in Cooperstown. Here’s hoping that Blyelven, Ryno, Sutter and the Goose join them soon.

I’M NOT OLD SCHOOL OR NEW SCHOOL, I’M OUTTA SCHOOL, I’M DITCHIN’

As the Pete Rose story (a.ka. “The Hustler’s Convention”)hits the streets via the nation’s newspapers this morning, I just wanted to do a quick follow-up on the piece I wrote yesterday. After I posted the article, I had the opportunity to ask a couple of questions to Tim Machman of The New York Sun, who is one of the brightest young baseball writers in the country.

Bronx Banter: Now that the Pete Rose affair has finally come out in the mainstream how will this effect Basball Prospectus’ standing?

Tim Marchman: Honestly, I don’t think it will one way or the other. The most you’re going to see in the mainstream press is that “a website” broke this story a while ago.

BB: Will they be absolved by the mainstream media? Should they be?

TM: I think the mainstream baseball press, insofar as this is an issue to them, will judge this by results and not process. As I understand it, what Will Carroll and Derek Zumsteg reported was to the best of their knowledge true, and met a level of sourcing that would hold up at a newspaper. That doesn’t mean that what their sources told them was accurate, although it seems probable to me that it was. From my angle, they met their obligations as journalists whether or not- and these are two distinct things- a)their sources were accurate and b)what they reported actually occurs the way their sources told them it would. Either, both or neither of this could be true. In regards to a), they had a responsibility to make sure the information met a certain threshold of credibility; I’m quite certain they met it. In regards to b), whether or not events unfold the way they predicted is irrelevant as long as they met their ethical obligations to ensure the information was credible. The world is dynamic. Unfortunately, I think they will be judged by whether or not events unfold in the way they had reason to predict they would, which is of course out of their control.

BB: Do you think BP wants to remain known as “outsiders” or are they trying to get on the inside and are merely running into static trying to do so?

TM: It’s not my place to say how they want to position themselves, but I think a few points hold. First, they’re not a monolithic entity. Joe Sheehan might call up Brian Cashman and get his call returned in five minutes; Will Carroll might call up Brian Cashman later that afternoon and find that he’s out having a root canal. Forever. Second, I think Baseball Prospectus writers occupy a unique niche in that they have a great deal of access, but it’s not neccessarily always on their terms, and I think at least some of that access has been thrust upon them more than they’ve sought it. (The Pete Rose story, if I understand correctly, is a perfect example of this). Anyway, for my money too big a distinction is made between insiders and outsiders. Plenty of good writers on big papers with tremendous access to front offices remain neutral and objective; plenty of self-styled objective analysts rely on conjecture and innuendo. What matters is sound thought.

BB: Was BP in over their heads breaking the story in the first place?

TM: Absolutely not. I think there are certain things they wish they’d known to do, but they did a solid and professional job of breaking an important story.

BB: Was it simply a matter that MLB and the mainstream press were in cahoots, and the story was only going to break when MLB was good and ready
to have it out there?

TM: Yes. Writers with the access that Peter Gammons and Jayson Stark have break stories of this scale on their source’s terms; it’s just how things are done. This is a real problem in sportswriting: is it journalism or is it boosterism? What does it mean when the two best-connected and most influential baseball writers work for an MLB broadcast partner? I don’t mean to impugn Gammons’ or Stark’s integrity, but the appearance of a conflict of interest, in addition to the normal reporter/source dynamic, is troubling. They clearly knew about the story before Will Carroll and Derek Zumsteg; why didn’t they break it? The only reason I can think of is that they were serving the interests of their sources before that of their public. One of the advantages of not relying so heavily on sources is that if a story like this does come your way you can break it without worrying about consequences.

I think Marchman hits the nail on head in saying that too much of a distinction is being made between the outsiders and insiders. Broad labels like this make me inherently uneasy, and yet I’ve used them as a way to start examining the contemporary culture of baseball writing. But Tim is right: What matters is sound thought. And the Internet-based writers don’t hold a monopoly on it, that’s for sure. Gordon Edes, the head baseball writer at The Boston Globe, wrote a wonderfully definitive and thorough piece on the Alex Rodriguez negotiations late last week, which proves that some of the most sound, and responsible work is coming out of a mainstream outlet. If you didn’t catch it, I suggest you go back and take a peak.

What can we make of the lack of left-handed starters on the Yankees’ 2004 roster? While our impulse may be to yell like Chicken Little, the reality may not be as harsh as we fear. Shawn Bernard, who recently launched a Yankee-based blog called The Greatest Game, ran a simple but informative study the other day which noted that neither Andy Pettitte nor David Wells were particularly effective vs. right-handed hitting in 2003. At the same time Javier Vazquez (who agreed to a four-year, $45 million contract with New York this afternoon) and Kevin Brown were not killed by lefties either.

Jim Gerard, a reader of Bronx Banter, sent me an e-mail responding to quotes made by unnamed sources in Tyler Kepner’s story in yesterday’s Times:

One source claims Vasquez is going to have to adjust his style and will be sorely taxed by lineups “stacked with lefties.” Just who is he referring to? The Red Sox have four good lefthanded hitters (Varitek, Ortiz, Nixon, Mueller when he hits that way), the Blue Jays about the same. Vasquez hasn’t faced lineups of this stature in the National League? Silly. As is the comment that “teams are going to stack their lineups with lefties against the Yanks.” What are they going to do — import players for the series? The truth is there isn’t a team in the AL that has more than four good left handed hitters, and some teams don’t even have that many good hitters in total. Vasquez has a good BAA lefthanders; if he faces some tough lefties once in a while, well, isn’t that what he’s getting paid for?
And while Vasquez will have to work harder in a league with a DH instead of the pitcher, the Yanks’ newly fortified pen will enable their starters to go a hard six or seven and not worry about getting the ball to Mo.

As Mike Carminati correctly points out:

Yankee lefties have fared better than righties in the Yankee Stadium era (3% better ERA). However, the latest Yankee dynasty didn’t seem to benefit much from southpaws (5.23 ERA in 2000?).

Given the turnover in the Yankee rotation

The last night I was in New Orleans at the winter meetings, Jay Jaffe and I were huddled around some of the guys from Baseball Prospectus when Jack Curry from the Times rolled around. I had introduced myself to Curry the day before and had wanted to introduce Jay to him as well. Curry smiled as he approached and said, “What are you guys doing anyway? Stalking us?” He was busting chops, but it wasn’t until that point that I asked myself: I wonder what the mainstream press makes of guys like Jay and me being here?
Curry chatted with us for a good while. He was friendly and generous with his time, which both Jay and I appreciated. I think he was more curious than bemused. I can’t say for sure, but my assumption is that Jay and I would be associated with Prospectus simply because that’s who we were hanging around. And since it’s Jack Curry’s job to know who is who at these kind of things, I’m sure we stuck out. Of course Prospectus isn’t on the same level as us bloggers—although several of their writers initially had blogs of their own, and some still maintain blogs too—but I don’t know that it would matter to a member of the mainstream media. We would all be lumped together as the Internet Nerds, or The Stat Geeks, or The Sons of Moneyball.

Either way, we were the outsiders. Now, whether or not a blogger cherishes and promotes their status as an outsider, or is merely using their blog as a vehicle to become an insider is a different story. I’m sure there people on both sides of the fence. (After all, one of the Gods of baseball bloggers is Roger Angell, the ultimate outsider on the inside.) But to the mainstream press, we are outsiders.

A few weeks ago I had a conversation with a fellow blogger about the impact of blogs and the Internet on baseball writing. I think it has already had an impact, which is sure to gain momentum over the next couple of years. My friend asked, “What do you think the mainstream writers make of us?” “Not much,” was my answer. I said that some of them clearly read and enjoy our stuff, while others can’t be bothered. But most importantly, until a blogger threatens their paycheck, they won’t be overly concerned.

I don’t know the future for baseball blogs, certainly as a way to make a living. But ever so slowly, Internet baseball writing is making some waves. The most famous example came late last summer when Will Carroll and Derek Zumsteg of Baseball Prospectus wrote that MLB planned to reinstate Pete Rose. MLB denied the story and Carroll and Zumsteg were essentially left hung out to dry. Prospectus had not been in the business of scooping major stories, and suddenly they appeared to be in over their heads.

But as Will Carroll explained to me, he didn’t set out to break the Pete Rose story. “We literally fell into it – it wasn’t something we sought out or something we normally do (how many stories have we broken since?) so there was no gain to just blue-skying it.”

As David Pinto pointed out today, the BP story stated that Rose would not have to admit to betting on baseball in order to be reinstated. That hasn’t turned out to be the case. Playing Devil’s Advocate, I asked Carroll, “If and when Rose does get reinstated by MLB, do you feel you’ll be vindicated? Isn’t it like saying it’s going to rain? Eventually, you’ll be right.”

Carroll answered, “Then why didn’t someone else do it?” That’s a good question. I don’t know the behind-the-scenes relationships between MLB and the mainstream media. But judging by their reaction to the BP story, MLB was furious that the story was leaked so early.

“It’s speculation,” Carroll continued, “but I think they wanted to handle this in their own way on their own time – which is their right – but our publication caused them to go early and because they had no other way to go, they went negative. It’s a symbiotic relationship that MLB has with the media and it’s clear that some have a relationship that allows them more access than others.”

(For an all access take on the Rose story, look no further than Tom Verducci’s latest column.)

I asked Carroll, that for all the trouble it’s caused him, would he break the story again? “Without a doubt. I’d change small things – I’d know to ask for a copy of the memo rather than being shocked into stupidity. I’d know better how to conduct the investigation and confirm sources. Really, I wouldn’t so much change anything as hope to be a better journalist.”

Carroll believes the criticism he’s faced will slow once Rose is resinstated, but he’s not looking for credit or apologies. “I’d like for BP to be taken seriously as a media outlet with the respect due that type of credible, productive enterprise.”

Jon Weisman wrote a compelling article about the BP story when it first broke. When I asked him how he felt about the story now that Pete Rose is on ABC, Weisman replied, “The issue of whether Pete admits guilt is relevant, at least to the widespread discussion if not whether he should be excused. On the other hand, I don’t think this should prevent BP for being credited for being ahead of the pack on the story, however relevant one deems that to be.

“Alex, I don’t want BP and bloggers like us to be dependent on scoops to gain respect. I want us to gain respect because our analysis deserves it and our writing deserves it – before, during or after the fact.”

With that in mind, please head over to Rich’s Weekend Baseball BEAT, and take in Rich Lederer’s latest article, “One Small Step for Blyleven,” which suggests that the influence of Internet-based writers is here to stay. Just as Michael Lewis wrote about the hostilities of baseball’s old gaurd in “Moneyball,” Lederer encounters similar resistance from an old newspaper lion like Bill Conlin. Remember what Satchel said about looking back.

Gordon Edes has a wonderful piece on Red Sox pitcher Tim Wakefield in The Globe this morning. Edes catches up with Wakefield in Florida a few months after the knuckleballer gave up the pennant-clinching home run to Aaron Boone. Fortunately, Wakefield, who pitched brilliantly during the 2003 off-season, has not become the new Bill Buckner in Boston. Wakefield talks about how he’s dealt with the Game 7 loss to New York, and how the 2003 season was the happiest he’s had in Boston since he joined the club in 1995:

“That was the biggest thing for me, sharing it with our fans,” Wakefield said, “and with the guys on our team who had never been in that position before, like Todd Jones. You could see a look on his face like a little child.

“Mike Timlin, myself and Todd Jones, it was weird, but the three of us ended up in the middle of the field, sitting on the mound. We were just so blessed. I think we all felt the same way. I feel so fortunate putting that uniform on every day. I work, or play a child’s game, for a living. Yes, it’s work, but it’s still a game, something I started playing when I was 5 years old.”

Wakefield has been my favorite Red Sox for years; call it a soft spot for knucklers. This article proves that he’s a real mensch too. Check it out.

The Yankees received some unexpected news as 2003 rolled over into 2004: David Wells, the sole southpaw on their starting staff, is not going to pitch for them at all this coming year; instead, he is returning to his home town to pitch for the Padres. Wells and his agent had a handshake deal with the Yankees, but just as Wells snaked his way out of a similar arrangement in Arizona several years ago, he is now spurning the Yankees.

What goes around comes around, am I right? Wells understands that he’s probably burned his last bridge in the BX. Speaking about his old pal George Steinbrenner the other day, Wells said:

“I’m sure now I won’t hear from him ever again,” Wells told reporters during a conference call reported by The Associated Press. “He’s been good to me in a lot of ways. And in other ways, he’s been very stubborn. That’s George Steinbrenner.”

Along with Wells, Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens are gone too:

“They lost a lot of guys at once, and I think they’re in shock,” [Wells] said.

It’s true that Cashman must be burning over this one, but shocked? That’s a reach because nothing’s shocking when it comes to Wells. The question is why would Wells leave a playoff team

With just one day left in the calendar year of 2003, I’ve been spending some time thinking about how rewarding my first full year of writing Bronx Banter has been. It has become an unbridled passion, and yet for all the work I’ve put in to it, I’ve feel as if I’ve received just as much, if not more, in return. So bear with me as I acknowledge some of the people who have informed, entertained and shared their love of baseball with me in 2003.

First of course, are my contemporaries in the blogging universe. Every page that is linked to the right has been meaningful to me, but I am especially thankful for the relationships I have developed with Edward Cossette, Christian Ruzich, Jay Jaffe, Rich Lederer, Peter Schilling Jr, Tim Marchman, Jon Weisman, and Will Carroll. I also want to shout out some of the writers who have inspired me. They include: David Pinto, Lee Sinins, John Perricone, the Mighty Mike C, Aaron Gleeman, Steve Keane, Cliff Corcoran, Christopher DeRosa, John Bonnes, Travis Nelson, Repoz, Bryan Smith, Avkash Patel, Ben Jacobs, Peter White, Brian Gunn, Derek Zumsteg, Larry Manhken, “Twin Fan Dan,” Seth Stohs and the fellas over at Elephants in Oakland. I’m sure I’m forgetting some names; if I am, please forgive me.

Naturally, there are some fantastic professional writers out there too. Guys like Gordon Edes, Steve Goldman, Rob Neyer, Joe Sheehan, Alan Schwarz, Tom Boswell, Pat Jordan, Roger Angell, Tom Verducci, Peter Gammons, Bruce Markusen, Bill Madden, Doug Pappas, Bob Hohler, Ken Rosenthal, John Harper, Howard Bryant, King Kaufman, Nate Silver, Buster Olney, Joel Sherman, Allen Barra, Jack Curry, Ryan Wilkens, Anthony McCarron, Jim Caple, and Tyler Kepner, just to name some of my favorites.

I don’t know if the level of discourse in the other major sports can compare with what we have in baseball. Baseball Prospectus has certainly raised the level, that’s for sure. And as far as resources go, Retrosheet, Baseball-Reference.com, and Baseball Primer’s “Clutch Hits” have been essential, daily parts of my life.

Naturally, I can’t forget the readers who keep coming back to check out Bronx Banter. Guys like Murray, Harley, Cliff, Rich, Steve, e Double, and my favorite Yankee couple in Boston (who shall remain nameless for their own protection). And they are just the tip of the iceberg.

Not only that, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t take a moment to show my appreciation to the New York Yankees. To George, Joe Torre, Bernie Williams, Mariano Rivera, Mike Mussina, ‘lil Sori, Jeter, Giambi and the boys. They gave us Yankee fans another wild, and rewarding season. Another trip to the Serious, after the thrilling, knock-down battle with the Red Sox in the ALCS, was almmost too good to be true. Sure, many Yankee fans expect to reach the Serious each year, and that’s OK. We’ve been properly spoiled rotten. But I appreciate every time they make the playoffs. Everyone keeps waiting for them to fall off. Hell, I’ve been expecting it since the middle of the 1998 season, and yet, here they are, still winning and giving us plenty to cheer about.

They are a great team to follow as a fan, and an even better team to follow as a writer. And that’s a comforting thought, because no matter what happens in 2004, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Bronx Bombers won’t be dull.

For all of this, I am thankful. I’ve learned more about baseball in the past year than almost any year of my life. The beauty part is that I’ve been saying the same thing for the past seven or eight years. Here is looking forward to another great year in 2004.

I hope everyone has a safe and happy New Year’s Eve.

THE DIRTY DOZEN

I was able to conduct twelve lenghty interviews this past year, and I can only hope to be able to do more of the same in 2004. In case anyone wants to go back and revisit some of them, here is a full list of the Bronx Banter Interviews:

Ken Burns Part One

Ken Burns Part Two
Buck O’Neil

Marvin Miller

Buster Olney

Rob Neyer Part One

Rob Neyer Part Two
Ethan Coen
Allen Barra

Michael Lewis

Jim Bouton

Jane Leavy

Pat Jordan

Tom Verducci

Rich Lederer makes a strong case for why Bert Blyleven should be elected to the Hall of Fame. As is his custom, Lederer examines statistical evidence. But he also adds:

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

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

It’ll be interesting to see whether the baseball writers agree or not.

Here is a passage from Roger Angell that I quoted last winter. It’s worth putting up once a year, as they are words to live by:

There is a game of baseball that is not to be found in the schedules or the record books. It has no season, but it is best played in the winter, without the distraction of box scores and standings. This is the inner game, baseball in the mind, and there is no real fan who does not know it. It is a game of recollections, recapturings, and visions: Yet this is only the beginning, for baseball in the mind in not a mere yearning and returning. In time, this easy envisioning of restored players, winning hits, and famous rallies gives way to reconsiderations and reflections about the sport itself. By thinking about baseball like this, by playing it over and yet keeping it to ourselves, keeping it warm in a cold season, we begin to make discoveries. With luck, we may even penetrate some of its mysteries and learn once again how richly and variously the game can reward us.

Roger Angell, from “Baseball in the Mind”

As you all must know by now, Yankee owner George Steinbrenner fainted and collapsed at a memorial service for the football legend Otto Graham this past Saturday. It was a scary moment, but Steinbrenner was OK. Actually, he was more embarassed than anything. After a night of observation, Steinbrenner was released from a hospital in Sarasota Florida on Sunday. The news made the front page of both the Daily News and The Post on Sunday and served as a reminder of not only how fragile life is, but how big an impact Steinbrenner’s eventual passing will have on the baseball world. Granted, this is all over a fainting spell; imagine the reaction if it was something grave. But let’s face it, Steinbrenner is 73 years old, so questions about his physical health are going to hover over him for the rest of his days.

I don’t mean to be morbid, but the biggest question the Yankees will face in the near future isn’t how will they deal with life after Joe Torre but how they will deal with life after George. Because love him or hate him, as Selena Roberts opines today in The Times, The Boss is the straw that stirs the drink in the baseball world.

I’ve been wondering about Life After George for a good part of the 2003 season. I’m surprised that I haven’t read more about it in the mainstream media. But if Steinbrenner’s health starts to decline, I’m sure we won’t hear the end of it. Meanwhile, George will likely be his old blustery self before long. With legal troubles at hand, he’ll need all the energy he can muster.

Kenny Lofton and Tom “Flash” Gordon were introduced as the newest members of the Yankees yesterday. In a conference call with reporters, Lofton, who will compete with Bernie Williams for the centerfield job, started his career in New York off on the good foot:

“I’ll play center…I’ll DH, if that’s what will help. I’ll park cars if they ask me to.”

…”At this point I don’t know what’s going to happen and what Bernie’s going to say and what I’m going to say,” Lofton said. “I think we have to hit that road when it comes.”

Lofton has a reputation as a malcontent, but Yankee owner George Steinbrenner has reportedly adored his game for years. Bernie Williams is a soft-spoken star, a great Yankee, and has been a fixture in center for a decade. Joe Torre has a history of being loyal to the players who have helped him win championships. It should be interesting to see how the potentially volatile Williams-Lofton relationship pans out.

The 5:00 deadline came and went yesterday and Alex Rodriguez was still a Texas Ranger. Both teams released statements indicating that the proposed A Rod-for-Ramirez deal is indeed dead…for now. There is speculation that both teams could revisit the trade later this winter, or during spring training. According to Gordon Edes in The Boston Globe:

Even after the deadline had passed, a high-level executive in Major League Baseball had held out the possibility an agreement could be reached. “I think there’s some hope,” he said. “I don’t know how much. Is it over for sure? I would not say that. Is there going to be a deal? I wouldn’t say that, either. I honestly can’t tell you what will happen, but there were a lot of things talked about between the teams [yesterday], and they need to sort those things out.

“Which way is it going to go? I don’t know.”

But a baseball lawyer with direct knowledge of the proceedings was more pessimistic, saying that whatever hope of getting a deal done was damaged perhaps beyond repair when Orza rejected a restructuring of Rodriguez’s contract.

“I don’t think this is going to happen,” the lawyer said. “If I had to write why in one sentence, I’d say, `Everybody thought the other guy should have done more.’ My sense of Tom Hicks right now is he can’t be leaving his best player hanging out there. The only thing worse than everybody going back to their teams is having your best player out there.”

Bob Ryan has a thoughtful piece today and suggests that the Red Sox will somehow survive without Rodriguez:

The simple truth is that the Red Sox already have had a fabulous offseason. Getting Curt Schilling, a veteran pitcher who knows what it’s like to have scaled baseball’s mountaintop, would have been a great enough move. Signing Keith Foulke, the best closer on the market, made it a spectacular winter. Signing Pokey Reese makes the team much better on defense. With Todd Walker, they would haved scored more runs. With Reese, they won’t need as many runs. Nothing in the Great Book of Baseball says a team must score 950-1,000 runs in order to win a pennant or World Series. Preventing runs is still the preferred way to go, and the Red Sox have taken steps to prevent runs — lots and lots of runs.

So Red Sox Nation doesn’t get the Christmas present it was wishing for, and yet their team has improved since they fell to the Yankees in the ALCS–they even added defensive help in signing Pokey Reese yesterday. I know I’m repeating myself here, but I won’t be completely convinced that Rodriguez is staying with the Rangers until, oh, the July 31rst trading deadline passes and he’s still in Arlington. Call me superstitious (I am), but that’s just my feeling.

There are several articles I’ve been meaning to link, so while I have a few moments during my lunch hour, I thought I’d share them with you:

1. Rich Lederer has two excellent pieces (one and two) evaluating Mickey Mantle’s place in history. Top-notch stuff as usual from Mr. Lederer.

2. My label-mate Christain Ruzich conducted an informative interview with Dave Kavel, founder of the Golden Baseball League, an independent minor league that will bring A-level ball to California.

3. A former Yankee clubhouse attendant who sued the Bronx Bombers in 1998, accusing specific members of the team (Mariano Rivera, Bob Wickman and Jeff Nelson) of participating in anti-gay discrimination, saw his case dismissed by the New York State Court of Appeals. In even more bizarre Yankee-related news, Darryl Strawberry is lending emotional support to the King of Pop, Michael Jackson. Who else will Michael turn to? I hear Rick James is available.

4. Finally, from the heavy-hitters: Rob Neyer evaluates how the A’s pitching staff will be effected by the signing of Mark Redman; Tom Boswell writes about why this Holiday season has been for the Birds in Baltimore; Jerome Holtzman considers the past and present of the “saves” statistic he created; Andrew Zimbalist weighs in on the mess in Milwaukee; and Tom Verducci offers up his Hall of Fame ballot. (Thanks to Baseball Primer’s “Clutch Hits” for help with the links.)

Will Alex Rodriguez be a member of the Boston Red Sox by 5:00 this afternoon? Too, will the latest deadline in fact be the final cut-off for this trade? These are the $64,000 questions. According to reports in The Times, Globe, The Dallas Morning News, The Boston Herald, The Daily News, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and ESPN the deal is dead. Then again, it’s also likely to happen. Sources are divided. So, what do you think? Personally, I think it will happen. Even if it doesn’t happen by 5:00 today. But I’m curious to know what you all think. Let me know, and I’ll be back later in the afternoon with an update should anything occur.

Boston Globe veteran Bud Collins contributed an article on Saturday featuring Marvin Miller’s take on the A Rod ordeal:

“This should never have gotten started the way it did because the commissioner broke one of the oldest rules by permitting the Red Sox to talk to Rodriguez. That’s tampering. That was a baseball rule installed by the owners long before the union existed. Selig had no authority to allow that exception. On the other side, the union was slow to pick up on it. That surprised me. There should have been no talks between the Red Sox and a player under contract. Period.

…”The pity is that the union didn’t step up immediately and object to Selig’s approval of what amounted to tampering by the Red Sox with Rodriguez. Rodriguez had no idea, but his quotes I’ve seen [yesterday] tell me he’s honorable and thoughtful. He said he does `understand the principle,’ and respects `the need to protect the rights of his fellow players.’ “

Thanks to loyal Banterite Murray for the link.