Kuzul

Let’s start with the obvious:

Whether or not the Angels end up making the playoffs—and chances are likely they won’t—Mike Scioscia does not deserve to be fired.  He built this franchise into the perennial contender it is today and is the only thing standing between keeping them that way and them possibly turning into the Yankees of the 1980s.  (For those of you too young to remember, that is not a compliment.)

But as Snoop Pearson from the HBO series The Wire once famously said, “Deserve got nuthin’ to do with it!”

The 2012 Angels were expected to contend for a world championship, and they are going to fall well short of that goal, not even making the postseason in a year in which the league added an extra wild card. 

Their high-priced roster is going to end up finishing behind the likes of Oakland and Baltimore.  That’s right, Oakland, whose entire 2012 team payroll is less than what the Angels are paying two players, one of whom doesn’t even start every day.  Baltimore, a city that hasn’t even had a winning season in 15 years.

The result of that underachievement is that heads are going to roll, and if they do, they’ll belong to Scioscia and his coaches.  I don’t agree with it.  In fact, I think it’s an incredibly foolish, short-sighted and counterproductive “panic move” but that hasn’t stopped this team before from making this kind of move, particularly under owner Arte Moreno’s direction.

So as the saying goes, “When life gives you lemons, you make lemonade.”  If the Angels do indeed fire Scioscia at the end of the season, here is my list of the top five candidates to replace him:

5.  Harold Baines

Consummate professional as a player, he has the near Hall-of-Fame resume that current players respect, and he would bring a quiet strength to the job that just might be what this team needs to perform better.

4.  Terry Francona

Knows how to manage in a big market, has shown he can handle the high expectations that would come with this job and was generally well-liked by his players.  He’s a good in-game strategist who knows how to handle a pitching staff. 

3.  Tony La Russa

C’mon, do you really think he’s going to stay retired?  The man lives and breathes baseball. 

And he loves Albert Pujols.  He commands the utmost respect in the clubhouse and Moreno will gladly open up the checkbook to bring him to Orange County.  He’s definitely worth a conversation. 

2.  Sandy Alomar Jr.

Hey, former catchers make good managers and it’s not like we haven’t had success before going this route so why not try it again? 

Alomar is a baseball lifer from a family of baseball lifers and has been preparing for a job as a manager ever since he retired as a player in 2007.  He’s more than ready and the team that hires him is going to get a good 10-year run out of him so it might as well be the Angels. 

1. Darin Erstad

Hands down the no-brainer choice here for best candidate to replace Mike Scioscia, should the Angels let Scioscia go.

He was the heart and soul of the team as a player and the unquestioned leader in the clubhouse.  He set the right example for how the game was to be played and never let his teammates believe, even for a minute, that they were out of any ballgame, even if they were down 5-0 in the seventh  inning of a World Series elimination game. 

Even if he wasn’t coaching baseball presently (he’s the head coach at his alma mater, University of Nebraska), I’d still pluck him out of whatever cornfield he was tending to and hand him the keys to the franchise.  

Like I said, I don’t want it to happen, I don’t think it should happen, but that doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen.  And if it does, I want the Angels to be in the best position to succeed afterwards.  They would be fortunate to land any of these five men, with Erstad being the best of the bunch.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

I’m not real big on statistics.

Sure, they have their place in the game, but when it comes to evaluating a player’s career, I’m one of those people that feel certain statistics can be bent, massaged and manipulated to say whatever the person using them wants them to say, thus at times creating unnecessary debate.

You know what I’m talking about. Instead of just accepting what the stats say about a player, some folks with an agenda in tow will trot out variance explanations to make their case, such as, “I know so-and-so only hit .281, but his OPS on the road in night games was such and such and he shouldn’t be penalized for playing in so many day games.”

To me this is evident at times during Hall of Fame voting.

Every now and then, largely fueled by the statistical manipulating I referenced earlier, some guy gets in that makes me say “huh?” and every now and then the same type of manipulation keeps some guy out that makes me say “what?”

Look, I understand the Baseball Writers Association of America has a tough job to do evaluating candidates, and I respect the fact that each voting member gets to use his or her own individual, completely subjective, criteria, even if I don’t agree with it. But I’ve always been partial to those voters who eschew statistics in favor of a less refined, yet amazingly effective method for determining a candidate’s Hall-of-Fame worthiness.

Some call it “The Eye Test” and make reference to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s legendary claim about pornography, where he said he probably could never define it but “I know it when I see it.” In any case, that’s exactly how I feel about the way to go about determining what a Hall of Famer is. I may not be able to define it but, statistics be damned, I know it when I see it.

And I’m telling you right now, without even the slightest bit of hesitation, Jack Morris is a Hall of Famer.

When the ’80s began, I was just starting to come into my own as a baseball fan. I was eight when the decade began and 17 when it ended. Now I admit, my memory may not be the greatest, but I’m struggling to recall a more dominant pitcher during that time, at least not in the American League. Others may have had had better individual seasons, but when the decade was over Morris clearly stood above everyone as the best. I honestly don’t even remember this being a debate. Here’s what I do remember:

I remember Morris putting the Tigers on his back during the ’80s and pitching them back into relevancy, culminating in a World Championship in 1984.

I remember after finishing the decade as the American League’s best pitcher for that 10-year period, he moved on to Minnesota and was the ace of the staff that won the World Series in 1991.

I remember Morris following up THAT performance by moving on to Toronto the next season and anchoring THAT team to its first World Series title in franchise history.

See, that’s the thing: I can bust out all these statistics that make my case for Morris’ enshrinement, but the guy choosing not to vote for Morris can break out his own statistics to support his argument. But you see, all of that is irrelevant because if you were around during that time and saw Morris pitch, you can’t deny what you saw, nor what commentators, sportswriters or fans had to say about it. Any attempt to do so is engaging in revisionist history, which sadly wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened during election season. That’s my biggest problem with statistics. They don’t speak to you the way your eyes do.

I also don’t like it when voters compare players from different eras, either. There are so many differences between the way the game was played in the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s, ’80s, etc. that showing how Morris stacks up statistically against current Hall-of-Famers who pitched in different eras tells me nothing of consequence. So what if Morris’ ERA was higher than Bob Gibson’s? It was a different game then. And on the flip side, what does it really say that he has more wins than Don Drysdale?

How you did against your peers at the time you were playing is the only true test of a player’s greatness. Take the steroid era, for example. Should someone who, during his entire career, was never even in the top five at his position be given entry into the Hall of Fame simply because his numbers stack up favorably to other Hall of Famers from different eras? I don’t think so. That’s like rewarding the sixth-place finisher in the 2012 Olympics with entry into the Track and Field Hall of Fame simply because he ran faster than sprinters from the ’30s, ’40s, etc. 

It makes no sense, yet voters engage in these types of debates all the time, particularly when it comes to those players who have gotten some support but not enough for election.

I don’t get into the debates about these “borderline candidates” on the ballot each year. I’ll leave that for the stat-heads to argue about. I understand the need to debate about someone like Bert Blyleven or Jim Rice. But that’s what is so frustrating about Morris’ candidacy. To me he’s not borderline anything!

Am I crazy? Did I miss something? Am I “misremembering” the ’80s?

I believe anyone who relies more on statistics than empirical evidence to make their decision on Morris is doing the Hall a disservice. Jack Morris was the best pitcher in the American League during the ’80s, and not just because he led the decade in wins. He was fearless on the mound, a great leader off of it, and led not one, not two, but THREE completely different franchises to World Series titles.

He didn’t piggy-back on any of those teams, either. He led them. He anchored them. And when it was time to answer the call, he carried them.

He was the guy who got the ball in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, and not because it was his turn in the rotation, either. And while one game alone doesn’t define a player, that game does serve as the perfect example for the kind of pitcher Jack Morris was. Because in that game, and for most of the 13 years that surrounded it, Jack Morris was the best and anyone who was the best at what they did for that length of time deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

I see your Albert Pujols and I raise you…

Prince Fielder?

In what is quickly turning into a Boston-New York AL West, the Angels and Rangers are in the process of engaging in a high-stakes arms race in an effort to establish themselves as the top dog in the AL West.

Various reports list the Rangers as one of the potential suitors for free-agent slugger Prince Fielder.  This on top of the fact that they were recently awarded exclusive negotiating rights with Japanese pitching phenom Yu Darvish.  If they do manage to sign both players (which will probably cost them upwards of $300 million, including the $51 million posting fee for Darvish), then they will have essentially wiped out the gains the Angels made when they signed Albert Pujols and C.J. Wilson.

And that would be disastrous for Los Angeles.

The Angels, flush with cash after reportedly inking a 20-year, $3 billion cable deal with Fox Sports and looking to get back to the playoffs after missing out the past two seasons, took what they believed was a major step in that direction by signing Pujols and Wilson.  And a major step it was, adding arguably the most dynamic offensive player in baseball in Pujols and pulling off the doubly-sweet move of adding a front line starter in Wilson while subtracting him from the Rangers’ rotation at the same time.

The problem is, they left themselves wide open for a counterattack, and like any aspiring superpower would, the Rangers appear to be doing everything possible to take advantage.  It’s no coincidence that their interest in Fielder appears to have grown after Pujols signed with Los Angeles.  Same for Darvish.  These are textbook responses to the Angels’ moves and if they pull them both off, then the $331 million the Angels spent will have not gained them the massive competitive advantage they were hoping it would. 

Now, I’m not going to sit here and criticize the Angels and owner Arte Moreno for making those deals.  The team’s stated goal is to win a World Series, and there’s no doubt the additions of Pujols and Wilson make them a much better team.   There were also likely more factors involved in those signings (Pujols in particular) than simply gaining a competitive advantage on the field.  (Lobbying for a new ballpark, the aforementioned cable deal, Pujols’ march towards the HR record, etc.)

Strictly from a strategic standpoint, however, I believe the Angels could’ve played their hand much better than they did.

For example, they could’ve quietly indicated their interest in Wilson but waited the six days until after the Darvish posting deadline to sign him.  Maybe the Rangers, thinking Wilson was still in play, might not have gone after Darvish so aggressively.  In that scenario, Darvish’s rights would’ve likely gone to the Blue Jays, who reportedly also made a strong bid.  The end result would’ve been the Rangers lose Wilson to their arch rival and would’ve had no one of that caliber to replace him via free agency.  Advantage: Angels.

And even if the Rangers decided to pursue an ace via trade, say Gio Gonzalez for example, it would’ve cost them multiple top prospects (see what Washington gave up), which also would’ve weakened them long term. 

Second, and this is the big one here, if the Angels truly wanted to put some distance between themselves and the Rangers, they would’ve signed Fielder instead of Pujols.

Why? 

Because there’s no way Texas, after finally recovering from the unmitigated disaster that was Alex Rodriguez and his record-setting $252 million contract, was going to go down that road again.  NO WAY. 

They’ll still pay big money for free agents, but they don’t have the stomach to bring in the highest-paid player in baseball—and the massive expectations that come with it—after seeing what happened the last time they tried that. 

That’s why the Angels should’ve signed Fielder.  Because the Rangers couldn’t possibly have matched that move.  They wouldn’t have signed Pujols and there’s no one else out there who’s remotely comparable.  They would’ve had to have gone with Mitch Moreland (.259/16 HRs/61 RBI and recovering from wrist surgery) or another less than inspiring choice (Michael Young?), and that would’ve given the Angels precisely the kind of competitive advantage they were looking for.   Of course, the Rangers could’ve always traded for someone like Joey Votto but again, it would’ve cost them premium prospects and made them weaker in the process.

Look, we can debate all day about who will have the better career over the next 10 years (for the record, I’ll take Fielder’s numbers from age 27-36 over Pujols’ from age 32-41).  But in the big picture sense, the difference in production is going to be marginal and not all that noticeable.  What would be noticeable, and anything but marginal, is the advantage the Angels would’ve gotten had they ended up with one of those two and Texas did not.  That almost certainly would’ve been the case had they signed Fielder.  It still might be.  But the Angels’ inability to see the big picture could end up putting a big crimp in it.

As Denzel Washington might say, “This is chess, it ain’t checkers!” 

Hopefully the Angels will start seeing it that way.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com