Recently a Nationals fan wrote to Bill Ladson, the team’s beat writer at mlb.com, complaining that a banner headline on the team web site featured former Expo Andre Dawson. The history-challenged fan noted that “like most Washington fans, I never followed the Expos and thought at first that he was some new acquisition for the Nats. How long will we be burdened with Expos history, which is irrelevant to today's Nats and their fans?”

When Ladson ran the e-mail in his weekly “Mailbag” column, it set off a rash of responses covering both sides of the issue. Some writers couldn’t understand abandoning a tradition that included Dawson, Rusty Staub, Pedro Martinez and Vladimir Guerrero. Others saw no relevance in what happened before the move to Washington. One fan wasn’t interested in the Montreal years, but didn’t entirely turn his back on history. “I really do cringe every time a former Expo is featured on the site or mentioned by the broadcasters,” he wrote, “because I know there are plenty of Senators records and tales of old that are being ignored.”

That fan of the old Senators should understand the notion of recognizing the history of an abandoned city. There are a number of baseball franchises with a history shared by two cities. Washington figured on the front end of two of those relocations. The original Senators moved to Minnesota and became the Twins. The Washington franchise that was established to replace the old one in 1961 picked up and moved to Texas after 11 seasons.

A number of franchise-loyal Canadians wrote to Ladson and said they embraced the franchise history of both cities and still root for the Nationals. A writer from Virginia, however, may have said it best:

“Please ask the fans who are whining about the Expos to give it a rest. Washington fans, of all people, should be sensitive to what it means to have all evidence of your team's former existence washed away.”

Posted by Thom Henninger at 3:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)

Sports Illustrated’s Tom Verducci states in a recent column that a lingering institutional bias in baseball limits the opportunities of former pitchers who want to manage in the majors. He notes that there have been 50 managerial hires since the end of the 2001 season, a year when pitchers-turned-managers Joe Kerrigan, Marcel Lachemann, Phil Regan and Larry Rothschild all lost dugout jobs. The only former pitcher among those 50 hires is Bud Black, who was chosen to manage the San Diego Padres over the winter.

According to Verducci:

* No former big league pitcher has won a playoff series as manager since Roger Craig piloted the San Francisco Giants over the Chicago Cubs in the 1989 NLCS. Former pitchers are 0-7 in playoff series since then.

* Among the top 100 managers in wins and winning percentage, only four were major league pitchers: Tommy Lasorda, Clark Griffith, Fred Hutchinson and Craig. (minimum: 1,000 games)

* Of the 102 teams to win a World Series, only five were managed by pitchers. Those were the 1946 Cardinals (Eddie Dyer), the 1978 Yankees (Bob Lemon), the 1980 Phllies (Dallas Green) and the 1981 and ’88 Dodgers (Lasorda).

These facts reinforce the bias, though Verducci is quick to suggest that “former pitchers crash and burn at the same rate as former positional players; it’s just that they get far fewer opportunities.” And ex-pitchers rarely get a chance to manage again. Larry Dierker is a case in point. He posted a respectable .556 winning percentage as manager of the Astros, skippering them to the postseason four times in five years, but his name never surfaces when managerial slots open.

San Diego general manager Kevin Towers, who hired Black over the winter, agrees with Verducci’s contention that former pitchers fail to get opportunities they deserve. Towers believes Black was the right guy for the Padres' job.

“Playing in Petco Park, we play at least 81 games where runs are hard to come by and about one-third of our games overall are decided by one or two runs,” Towers told Verducci. “So the manager has to be very good about knowing when to leave a starter in and when to go to the bullpen. Buddy gives us that.”

That's an important skill for any manager in this age of extreme specialization within pitching staffs. One could argue that a former pitcher is better equipped to handle a staff effectively in terms of knowing what his hurlers are prepared to do physically and mentally in a particular role.

Assuming this institutional bias is real -- and Verducci makes a strong case that it is -- it seems very strange. After all, every manager has a hitting and pitching coach to handle the instruction of those crafts. Plus, a manager always has a bench coach, who can be of any positional persuasion to help cover for the weaknesses of the guy in charge.

Black has given the bench coach assignment to Craig Colbert, a former catcher and utility infielder. Maybe Black’s covering both aspects of the game with that appointment. In what may be another institutional bias of the game, catchers are widely considered to be potentially successful candidates to manage or coach pitchers because of their knowledge of both hitting and pitching. Joe Torre, Mike Scioscia and Dave Duncan come to mind, and regardless of the sample size of ex-catchers who have succeeded in the dugout, they may have helped pave the way for Tony Pena, Ned Yost and Joe Girardi in recent years.

The litmus test for Black and other former pitchers looking to manage begins this spring. A successful tenure by Black could go a long way for ex-pitchers now managing in the minor leagues.

Posted by Thom Henninger at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Over the weekend, Hall of Fame pitcher Juan Marichal said slugger Mark McGwire deserves a plaque in Cooperstown based on his home run prowess. The former Giants' star, the only Dominican in the Hall, implied the Veterans Committee will take care of business. "Big Mac will be chosen for the Hall of Fame," Marichal told a crowd at a celebrity golf tournament.

But does McGwire deserve the honor based on his numbers? A case can be made that McGwire was a one-dimensional player who made his name hitting home runs and did little else. To his credit, McGwire drew 1,317 walks over his 16 seasons in the majors, but his 1,626 career hits and 252 doubles aren't inspiring totals. Among all the major league players who are in the Hall of Fame and began their careers after the dead ball era, only five members have posted fewer hits and doubles than McGwire:

Roy Campanella
Larry Doby
Monte Irvin
Ralph Kiner
Phil Rizzuto

Doby, Campanella and Irvin all starred in the Negro Leagues before getting a chance to play in the majors. Doby was just 23 when he became a regular for Cleveland, but he already had established himself as a Negro Leagues star in four seasons with the Newark Eagles. Despite less than a dozen full seasons in the majors, Doby would have passed McGwire in both categories with one more year in the big leagues. Campanella spent seven years with the Baltimore Elite Giants before surfacing with the Dodgers at age 26. His career was shortened by a tragic auto accident that left him paralyzed. Irvin was 30 when he joined the Giants after an impressive career with the Newark club. He spent seven-and-a-half years with the Giants and Cubs. Rizutto is one of a number of weaker-hitting Hall members who made their name as middle infielders, but he is the only one with fewer hits and doubles than Big Mac.

Two more Hall of Famers, Chick Hafey and Jackie Robinson, had fewer hits than McGwire, but more doubles. Robinson, of course, also starred in the Negro Leagues before playing 10 seasons with the Dodgers.

Although McGwire averages more homers and RBIs per game over his career than the Hall of Famers who also hit roughly 550-600 home runs, such as Mike Schmidt, Harmon Killebrew, Frank Robinson and Reggie Jackson, he also played in a far more hitter-friendly era, known for smaller ballparks and watered-down pitching after two rounds of expansion that pushed the number of teams to 30. Robinson and Killebrew played most of their careers in one of the more pitcher-friendly eras of the game.

McGwire's numbers alone should be the source of heated debate concerning his Hall of Fame credentials. The truth is, though, whether writers believe he used steroids will be at the core of discussions of his Hall worthiness. It's an issue that McGwire must come out on top with the baseball writers who vote for induction. If Marichal believes the Veterans Committee -- made up of all living Hall of Famers -- will usher McGwire into the Hall, that seems delusional. . . at least while Marichal and his generation are still around to vote.

The Veterans Committee hasn't elected anyone to the Hall in two rounds of balloting since the committee makeup was changed to include all Hall members a few years ago. Solid candidates such as Ron Santo, Tony Oliva, Gil Hodges and Jim Kaat haven't been able to garner enough votes, and it seems unlikely a Veterans Committee made up almost exclusively of players who played prior to 1990 will elect anyone it believes used steroids.

Posted by Thom Henninger at 12:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Dallas Mavericks currently have the best record in the NBA. However, their points haven't come easy as they also lead in the NBA in fewest points scored in the paint per game.

Fewest Points in the Paint PG - 2006-07

Mavericks 34.6
Rockets 35.2
Pistons 35.7
Bobcats 36.0
Timberwolves 36.4

Posted by Walter Lis at 5:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The baseball writers have spoken on Mark McGwire, but what about the other candidates for Hall of Fame induction? Jim Rice was as dominant as any power hitter in the game between 1975 and 1986, putting up numbers to match Hall of Famers Mike Schmidt, Dave Winfield and Eddie Murray, but he's still on the outside looking in. There are numerous precedents for getting in based on a shorter stretch of superior play -- Bob Lemon and Richie Ashburn come to mind -- and Rice fits the bill. Bert Blyleven ranks fifth all-time in strikeouts, and he is the only retired player among the top 16 all-time in strikeouts who is not in the Hall. He often excelled while pitching for lackluster teams. What about Goose Gossage and Lee Smith, who were every bit as effective as the best closers of today in their prime, and often worked more than a single inning to pick up a save? Comparing these four to others in the Hall suggests all of them would be legitimate additions to Cooperstown.

Posted by Thom Henninger at 4:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

After Chuck Liddell's victory over Tito Ortiz this past weekend in Las Vegas, all MMA fans must be saying the same thing, "thank goodness for the return of Rampage Jackson to the UFC." The Iceman has virtually cleaned out Dana White's 205 division and is left to wait until Jackson finishes his warmup bouts. The big question now is - who's next for Chuck in the meantime?

Posted by Walter Lis at 3:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

The free-agent bonanza is mostly over. The big names are off the board and only a few marginal players with a chance to contribute in 2007 are still available. Which team did the most to help itself in 2007?

1) The Cubs, who signed the big prize of the winter, Alfonso Soriano, added Mark DeRosa, Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis, as well as re-upped with third baseman Aramis Ramirez. Soriano may play in center, where he won't be an asset defensively, and DeRosa becomes an Opening Day regular for the first time -- at second base -- after a big season at age 31 in 2006. At the very least, the Cubs will get innings from Lilly and Marquis, after depending on rookie hurlers last summer when Kerry Wood and Mark Prior combined for just 62.1 innings because of injuries.

2) The Dodgers lost Greg Maddux to free agency, but replaced him with an ace, Jason Schmidt. They also added Juan Pierre to play center and Luis Gonzalez to start in left. Los Angeles has two leadoff hitters -- Rafael Furcal and Pierre -- giving the club an abundance of speed at the top of the lineup. There may not be much payoff in Gonzalez, who is clearly in decline and moving from a homer-friendly park in Arizona to pitcher-friendly Dodger Stadium. The Dodgers may have landed an offseason bargain, signing left-hander Randy Wolf to a one-year, $8 million deal with an option after returning from Tommy John surgery in late July.

3) The Red Sox added Julio Lugo to take over at short and J.D. Drew to man right field. Drew's history of poor health is a concern, typified by the delay in the veteran passing a physical, but Boston also signed arguably the best pitcher on the free-agent market -- Japanese right-hander Daisuke Matsuzaka. He may generate more of a payoff than Schmidt, Barry Zito or anyone else. The Red Sox also strengthened their bullpen by adding Brendan Donnelly from the Angels, but they haven't signed a closer despite moving Jon Papelbon into their rotation.

4) The Brewers expected more in 2006 after finishing at .500 a year earlier, marking Milwaukee's first non-losing season since 1992. The pitching had overachieved under the guidance of pitching coach Mike Maddux, and the Brewers made it an offseason priority to sign a big-name pitcher. They added Jeff Suppan, who has averaged 203 IP and 12 wins a year over the last eight seasons. Milwaukee also acquired a good-hitting catcher in Johnny Estrada, who was picked up in a trade with Arizona. The Brewers weren't all that busy, but they added key pieces to a young and up-and-coming club.

5) The Indians picked up second baseman Josh Barfield in a trade with San Diego and signed Dave Dellucci to a free-agent deal to play left field. Cleveland also countered a key weakness from 2006 -- its bullpen -- by adding Roberto Hernandez, Joe Borowski and Aaron Fultz. Those relievers may not inspire, but Hernandez and Borowski were solid contributors last season. There's enough young talent on the club that the new additions could make the Indians another force in the tough American League Central.

6) The Tigers, who didn't do all that much this winter. That's a credit to GM Dave Dombrowski, who didn't overreact to Detroit's poor performance in the World Series. The one key move by the Tigers was acquiring slugger Gary Sheffield from the Yankees. The 38-year-old veteran is likely to get most of his at-bats as the team's DH, a good move in light of his recent injury history. Sheffield played for manager Jim Leyland during Florida's championship run in 1997, so he may prove to be a good fit in Detroit. He provides a potent bat to a team already established as a 2007 contender with its terrific young pitching.

Which team did the most to improve its chances of playing October baseball? Something to ponder with spring training less than six weeks away.

Posted by Thom Henninger at 4:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)