0 comments Advanced Statistics Loses Again to Team Chemistry

I am always amused at articles that say, "There is no way Sabermetrics can say whether a team will have chemistry or not," as if there is a way to measure chemistry and it's only Sabermetrics or advanced statistics that come up short in an attempt to quantify team chemistry. Chemistry can't be measured all, so there is no telling if a team will have it or not until that team plays together. Bob Nightengale writes an article about how chemistry in baseball still matters. It's still real to him, dammit!

As always, there are the "numbers can't measure chemistry!" quotes from players, as if it's news that something which can't be measured can't actually be measured. Chemistry matters, sure, but anyone claiming they know how to create chemistry between players on a team is lying. But yeah, it's only advanced metrics that fall short in measuring how much chemistry a team has. Teams never know if they will have chemistry until practice or games actually start.

In a sport where the desire to quantify every movement only grows with each season, it is a sabermetric aficionado’s worst nightmare.

Sunlight and not being able to use a computer. The worst of all worlds.

You can’t measure it. You can’t define it. You can’t put a number on it.

So it's the worst nightmare of pretty much any coach, GM, or owner because there is no way to know what the result will be. 

We’re talking about clubhouse chemistry, and the culture that can raise a major league team to extraordinary heights without having the biggest payroll or most talent.

How to get it? Nobody fucking knows. What is known is that Sabermetricians can't measure it and that means Sabermetrics are useless. Sure, traditional statistical metrics can't measure it either, but who cares and let's all move on now. 

“It’s really undervalued,’’ St. Louis Cardinals veteran starter John Lackey told USA TODAY Sports, “especially in today’s world with all of the numbers guys.”

It's undervalued because there is no way to tangibly get chemistry and it can't be measured by any metric. So there is no way to value chemistry, hence it is undervalued. It's like anyone who enjoys working with the people they work with. It's not undervalued to enjoy the people you work with, but it's something that either happens or doesn't when working with a group of people. You can hire individuals who you think will fit in, but you never know for sure if a new hire will like his/her co-workers. This is as opposed to knowing when you hire someone who has a Masters Degree in Accounting, it's a safe assumption that he/she does actually know something tangible about Accounting that could help the organization. 

We can put all kinds of numbers on players’ talent, from RBI to WAR, to ERA to FIP, but when it comes to the heart and soul of a clubhouse, there remains no measuring stick.

Because there can't be. Chemistry is intangible. Assigning specific importance to chemistry is fine, but emphasizing how statistics can't measure it is shockingly obvious. Hustle and grit can't be measured either, which pleases many old-school sportswriters and professional athletes when they prepare to write a column about a gritty, white player whose heart is bigger than his talent level.

“The numbers guys can’t quantify that one,’’ Lackey said, “so they don’t want to believe in it.’’

Okay Piggy, nobody said those who used advanced statistics don't want to believe in chemistry. In fact, Alex Anthopoulos is a noted user of advanced statistics and he is quoted in this article many times about the importance of chemistry. So you know, John Lackey should probably focus a little bit more on pitching and a little bit less on trying to believe he understands the position of Sabermetricians regarding team chemistry. 

You want to know what chemistry and culture is about, peek inside the San Francisco Giants’ clubhouse. They’ve won three of the last five World Series. Maybe they’ve had the best manager in Bruce Bochy, and GM too in Brian Sabean, but never have they had the best talent.

The team with the most talent doesn't always win the World Series, but attributing the difference in the team with the most perceived talent and teams with lesser perceived talent simply to chemistry is probably an oversimplification.  

“Come on, how to do you put a number on a guy like (Chicago Cubs backup catcher David Ross) and what he brings to the clubhouse? This guy hit (.184) last year, and he got multiple two-years deals on the table. Why is that?’’

Because he's a veteran clubhouse presence who has experience working with pitching staffs and he isn't going to be expensive. 

Indeed, you step into the Cubs’ clubhouse these days, and no one is talking about Ross’ .186 batting average and seven RBI. They’re too busy raving about his powerful influence on a club featuring four rookies in the everyday lineup.

David Ross does more for team chemistry than the Cubs starting catcher, yet David Ross isn't the starting catcher. Why is that? Oh wait, that's right. This discussion of chemistry is supposed to entirely ignore talent. Ross had less than 400 at-bats over the last three years (as of the time this column was written), since he's so valuable in the clubhouse, then why do you suppose he's not in the starting lineup everyday? Probably because catchers with greater talent are getting the majority of the at-bats.

Chemistry is important. Absolutely. John Lackey should also realize that David Ross doesn't need to be on the field to help his team, while those players who do have skills that can be quantified are the ones getting the majority of the at-bats. So the whole "they can't quantify chemistry" argument has merit as long as those players whose contribution can be quantified aren't having their substantial impact on the team's success ignored.

“He means so much to every single person in here,’’ Cubs first baseman Anthony Rizzo said.

Go ahead, try to put a number on that.

$2.5 million this year. That's his salary. That's the number on how much his contribution means to the Cubs. 

If you go by the numbers, the Royals were supposed to win just 72 games this year, according to Baseball Prospectus’ projection system, PECOTA. 

PECOTA is wrong again this year. They had the Royals at 80-82. Though it's important to know the Royals play in the only division in the majors where only one team has a positive run differential (the Royals), so there is a case to be made that the Royals are going to beat the PECOTA projections handily, but they are also in a weak division. It doesn't take anything away from them, but these are "projections" not "certainties based on data and information that is never wrong."

The Cardinals, who have had more injuries to key players than any team, shouldn’t be leading their division, let alone be on pace to eclipse 100 victories, if you go strictly by sheer talent.

I would completely and utterly disagree. The Cardinals, even prior to the season had one of the strongest and deepest pitching staffs in the majors. It is discussed at length how the Cardinals have great minor league depth (THE CARDINALS WAY!) and when injuries occur they can survive them easier than most MLB teams. If a person is going to be so ridiculous as to look to individual talent on a baseball team rather than the depth of talent on a team's roster, then obviously a team with few players who have a high level of individual talent would be misjudged. Teams should not be judged by sheer talent on the roster though. Teams should be judged by talent at each spot on the roster and the depth of that talent on the roster. The Cardinals have talent at each spot on the roster and they have depth. Going by sheer talent is a dumb way to evaluate a team in the first place. 

“People that don’t understand what team chemistry means don’t work in baseball,’’ Toronto Blue Jays ace David Price said.

Right, everyone knows a team needs good chemistry to help them be successful. A team also needs talent. Teams that win titles have both. To indicate advanced statistics are useless because it can't measure a team's chemistry is to make it an "either/or" argument and entirely miss the point. I don't expect much else from baseball players though. They are traditionally stuck in the past and not open to new ideas. 

“You look at the Giants, and they’re not more talented than everyone else every year, but they’re so close, and together. The Cardinals are the same way. They definitely have talent, but they’re no more talented than a lot of the teams they’re beating every day.

I would absolutely disagree with this. How come the Giants' team chemistry doesn't allow them to win the World Series during odd-numbered years? Does the team just forget about their chemistry in those years or something?

And as I stated before, it has been discussed at-length in multiple publications how the Cardinals have great organizational depth, so I would argue they are more talented than the teams they are beating every day.

“The Cardinals are unbelievable. They lose their ace (Adam Wainwright). They lose their No. 3 and No. 4 hitters in (Matt) Adams and (Matt Holliday). And they’re still winning. They’re just unreal.

Again, the Cardinals were very deep in the starting rotation prior to the start of the season. There is a reason they could afford to trade Shelby Miller. The media always wants it both ways. They want to talk about how great the Cardinals are at producing players through their minor league system, while also claiming the team has lesser talent than other teams. 

The Blue Jays placed more emphasis on a player’s character than any time in GM Alex Anthopoulos’ tenure. He shipped out the guy who didn’t fit in. He chose character over talent. There’s a reason why 42-year-old LaTroy Hawkins is now in the Blue Jays’ bullpen instead of Jonathan Papelbon.

Well yeah, nobody likes Jonathan Papelbon. I do like how Nightengale is using Anthopoulos as the example of a GM who loves chemistry, since he is a GM who has in the past emphasized Sabermetrics. It's almost like a team has to have talent AND chemistry. That couldn't be true though. 

“We really, really, emphasized that,’’ Anthopoulos said, “more than we ever have.

Yes, they went against having talent for chemistry by trading for Josh Donaldson, Troy Tulowitzki and David Price. What rebels they are to favor chemistry over talent in these cases. They traded for one of the best players at shortstop, third base and pitcher for the chemistry it gave the team, while blatantly ignoring whether these guys are talented or not.

“Every team goes through ups and downs, and I think with a better clubhouse and with better character, that allows you to handle the downs a lot. That’s the separator. So rather than the floor caving in on you, you stay afloat.

“We’ll find out if it works.’’

Obviously you can't throw a team together that hates each other or won't complement each other. That much is obvious. Winning creates chemistry and so figuring out how a team can win (find some talented players is always a good start) is important too. 

Certainly, adding a guy like Price at the trade deadline, and having MVP favorite Josh Donaldson the entire season, may have something to do with the Blue Jays’ success, too.

Nah, I'm sure the fact they are two of the best at their position in terms of skill level has nothing to do with the Blue Jays' success. 

Yet, manager John Gibbons can’t stop raving about Donaldson’s leadership skills, and Price is revered throughout the game.

What helps Donaldson be a leader? The fact he's also a really good baseball player. Players who are good at baseball can naturally set a good example for the rest of the team to follow. 

“We were looking for a special type of player, even if it meant passing on some talent,’’ Anthopoulos said, “making sure every player we acquired fit.

“I think it’s important David Price fit into in the clubhouse, but let’s don’t forget he’s got a (2.40) ERA, too.’’

Irrelevant. Don't try to measure David Price's chemistry by putting it in terms of his ERA. 

Sure, you’ve got to have talent to win, but talent alone doesn’t guarantee a thing. If the standings were based strictly on talent, you think the Washington Nationals would be trailing the New York Mets by five games?

If the Nationals had the hitting that the Blue Jays have, do you think they would be trailing the Mets by five games? The Blue Jays have scored more than 150 more runs than the Nationals. But I'm sure that's all chemistry-based run scoring. 

“If you have good clubhouse chemistry, you going to win,’’ New York Yankees veteran starter CC Sabathia said. “It’s not something you can fake. It’s real.

“You look at the Giants. Those guys love each other, and they win. They get a guy like Peavy. You see what (Tim) Hudson has meant for them. It’s the real thing.’’

I would have to again ask why the Giants can't seem to win the World Series during odd numbered years with a roster that doesn't change dramatically. Is their chemistry just forgotten during certain years? 

Sure, numbers are fine for fantasy leagues, but if you want to truly define a player’s value, or recognize the importance significance of clubhouse culture, it’s time to wake up and embrace character, too.

I think most people recognize the value of character and embrace this value. The fact statistics are used to evaluate players doesn't mean clubhouse culture is ignored.

“I think we’re losing part of our game because so many of these people in charge don’t have the scouting background or playing background,’’ Peavy said.

One minute David Price says people who don't understand how chemistry works don't work in baseball and the next minute Jake Peavy says there are some who work in baseball who don't understand chemistry. By the way, the Giants use analytics. I wouldn't be surprised if Jake Peavy didn't know this and just thought the Giants had hired nerds so there would be someone around to give a swirlie to, because giving swirlies to nerds is a well-known way to help a team's chemistry.

“You can have all of the education you want, and break down every number you want, but unless you get to know what’s inside a player, you really don’t know the player.’’

Yes, probably. But when scouting high school or college baseball players it is nearly impossible to know how their personality will fit into that MLB team's personality and clubhouse culture 2-6 years from now. What is possible to project is that player's talent. It doesn't mean talent is the end-all, but it does explain why players aren't drafted based on chemistry instead of perceived talent. 

The Royals certainly noticed the tepid external expectations. Public relations director Mike Swanson, in his recent pre-game notes, reminded everyone of Baseball Prospectus’ projected 72-90 record.

“Fortunately, games are won on a field and not on paper,’’ Swanson wrote in the Royals’ notes distributed to the media, “thus a computer ‘time out’ might be appropriate for some.”

Hilarious. Swanson may be forgetting the Royals were one failed rally away from being knocked out of the idiotic Wild Card game. Yep, talent had something to do with the Royals going to the World Series.

“We had our Moneyball movie, and they didn’t even win,’’ Peavy said of the Oakland Athletics. “How about let’s make a movie about the good ol’ fashioned baseball people, and how they judge team chemistry, and put together guys that fit in.

Great idea. I get the feeling Jake Peavy isn't a threat to appear on "Jeopardy" any time soon. Unless the topic is "Good ol' fashioned baseball people" I'm thinking he's probably better at throwing a ball than he is a-thinkin' with his head. 

“How about a movie about a team that actually wins in the end?’’

I believe that movie was made 25 years ago and it is called "Major League." Or maybe it is called "The Natural," "Bad News Bears," "Angels in the Outfield," "Little Big League," "Rookie of the Year," or one of the dozens of baseball movies made about a team that actually wins in the end. Great point, Jake Peavy.

There should be a movie called "Chemistry" where a team of baseball players who don't have the talent to play in the majors are all traded to the same team, then win the World Series because they all get along so well. Jake Peavy would love this.

You can't measure team chemistry, so maybe someone should create a dating website for baseball players so GM's can know which players will have the most in common and therefore enjoy spending time with each other. It can be like Match.com for athletes. Or is that too much like trying to measure chemistry? Maybe other MLB teams should try to create the chemistry the Blue Jays have by trading for three great players and seeing if that helps them win more games. I don't know, getting really talented players could work to help a team win more games.

4 comments Bill Plaschke Asks Fair Questions That I Find to Be Ethically Questionable

Bill Plaschke is a non-sensical ESPN talking head. He does "Around the Horn" and writes occasional scathing, idiotic columns as any columnist even tangentially related to ESPN is want to do. Plaschke writes mostly drivel that is reactionary and follows whatever tangent he feels like following on that day. Every once in a while he goes off the rails and does something like accuse an MLB player of using steroids or freaks out when a Dodgers player gets traded. Now Plaschke has taken it to a whole new level (if you ask me). He thinks because individuals in the Cardinals' front office were accused of hacking the Astros computer system then this must mean the Cardinals players are cheaters and this is the only way to explain how they beat the Dodgers in the postseason in each of the last two years. This is an unfair accusation and a column that lacks integrity. The Cardinals players are not the same thing as the Cardinals front office. They are two separate entities and to accuse the Cardinals of cheating on the field (even though Clayton Kershaw rightly points out some of what the Cardinals are being accused of doing by Plaschke isn't cheating) crosses some journalism ethical line. There is no evidence that the Cardinals cheated on the field or did anything improper. Yet, because the front office of the Cardinals is accused of hacking the Astros, that's where Bill Plaschke chooses to take the discussion. I'm embarrassed for him that he isn't more embarrassed for himself.

And yes, I do enjoy the jokes about "The Cardinal Way" in regard to how members of the organization are accused of spying on the Astros. It's all fun because it serves as a dichotomy from how the Cardinals are portrayed in October of every year as "playing the game the right way." They are jokes and they are fun. I don't believe any reasonable person could decide that because members of the Cardinals organization hacked a computer this means cheating is prevalent throughout the organization. Well, except for Bill Plaschke. This is the conclusion he reaches.

After watching the planet's best pitcher endure two unimaginable meltdowns in the same situation to the same team in consecutive Octobers, some Dodgers fans began to wonder.

Will we ever beat the Cardinals in the postseason? Why can't Clayton Kershaw pitch better in big games? What does Bill Plaschke have derogatory to say about Yasiel Puig when blaming the loss on him? 

Were the St. Louis Cardinals cheating?

At the time, I really, really doubt the Dodgers players were wondering if the Cardinals players were cheating. Even now, I don't think they are asking that. I think the Dodgers players are mostly asking, "Why does Bill Plaschke still write about us? Isn't there somewhere else he can go or another team he can cover?" 

Maybe not, but now federal authorities think they may be cheaters.

Nope. They don't think the Cardinals players are cheaters, they think people in the Cardinals organization are cheaters. There is a crucial difference in the Cardinals organization and the Cardinals players cheating, mainly that there is no evidence of cheating on the field as Bill Plaschke will now accuse the Cardinals of doing.

Just call them the New England Cardinals … or maybe the St. Louis Patriots …

I can't figure out why ESPN chooses to bring certain talking heads on to shows like "Around the Horn." They aren't funny, they aren't creative. It's like many of the writers the network chooses to embrace are just the loudest and say the dumbest shit (hey, I've figured them out!). This joke from Plaschke isn't funny. It's lazy. It's especially lazy in a column where Bill Plaschke unethically accuses the Cardinals players of cheating when there is zero evidence this is true. 

or maybe just call them phonies in the wake of a New York Times report that they are being investigated by the FBI for hacking computer networks and stealing information about the Houston Astros.

Why would the Cardinals players be phonies? In everything that the FBI discovered, where is the mention of any Cardinals player as being a part of the hack or part of stealing the information? I'm sure Bill Plaschke would take offense to someone suggesting that because one "LA Times" writer was caught plagiarizing articles then that means Plaschke and others were plagiarizing as well. Of course, Plaschke isn't paid to be self-aware. He's paid to write stupid shit. So...job well done. He's managed to accuse the Cardinals players of cheating when there is zero evidence this is true. 

The Cardinals have long promoted themselves as keepers of baseball's old-fashioned flame, the curators of smart and selfless play, the architects of what they proudly call, "The Cardinal Way."

Which, by the way, is mostly bullshit. I think most non-sportswriters understand "The Cardinal Way" isn't quite the biblical text that baseball writers like to present it as every October. 

Yet the FBI believes that "way" detoured into a dark place in which employees gained access to the Astros' database with passwords Astros General Manager Jeff Luhnow used when he worked for the Cardinals.

There is no evidence the Cardinals' alleged spying involved any team other than the Astros. 

But, there is evidence that Bill Plaschke wants there to be evidence the Cardinals were cheating in the playoffs against the Dodgers. The evidence that Plaschke wants to exist is irrefutable. It is mostly irrefutable because it doesn't exist and it's very hard to disprove a negative. 

When asked Tuesday, the Dodgers publicly dismissed speculation their postseason losses involved any sort of digital espionage.

The Dodgers organization says Plaschke is barking up the wrong tree by suggesting the Cardinals are cheating and Clayton Kershaw will say Plaschke isn't correct in wondering if the Cardinals cheated. Obviously, this means Plaschke needs to just accuse the Cardinals of cheating a little bit more to better get his point across. 

If the Cardinals would sneak into an opponent's computer, which is a federal crime and far worse than deflating a few footballs, what else would they do to gain an edge?

I don't know. You would have to ask the people who hacked the Astros computer, which was not the Cardinals players, to see what else they would do to gain an edge. Though Plaschke may be on to something...

Did the Cardinals organization, led by Yadier Molina, murder Oscar Tavares because he knew too much and was going to speak publicly? If the Cardinals committed murder like this, what else would they do to protect their secrets? Darryl Kile died of a "heart attack" but how can this be trusted without an independent investigator, chosen by Bill Plaschke of course, confirming this as true? Josh Hancock died in a "car accident," but is that what it was? Was Hancock just another innocent person looking to blow the whistle on the Cardinals organization's decades of cheating? If the Cardinals would become an organization of serial killers, what else would they do to protect their secrets? Simply cheating to beat the Dodgers would be no big deal.

If they would cheat against a long-struggling team such as the Astros, why wouldn't they cheat to beat the richest team in baseball and their Cy Young Award winner Clayton Kershaw?

Because they were able to beat him without cheating. Because the Cardinals had access to hack a division rival's computer and didn't have access to the Dodgers' computer systems. Because it wasn't the players who cheated, it was members of the Cardinals organization that don't play professional baseball who cheated. 

But so much of the Cardinals success was so eerie, Dodgers fans wondered whether this so-called model franchise was actually a model of deceit.

I don't remember reading a single article after the Dodgers' last two postseason losses to the Cardinals where a member of the Dodgers team, organization or even a Dodgers beat writer suggested the Cardinals were cheating. This is all written by Plaschke in hindsight with no regard for the accuracy of his statements. Shameful. 

Start with the fourth pitch to the third batter of their first game in the 2013 NLCS. Joe Kelly sent a fastball into Hanley Ramirez's side, fracturing one of his ribs and dramatically changing the series almost before it started.

Did Joe Kelly have a bug in the Dodgers' locker room to learn that Hanley Ramirez's ribs could be broken by a baseball hitting them at speeds of 90 mph? Where else could Kelly have gotten this information from? How else would Kelly have known Ramirez's ribs could break if struck with a baseball at a high speed? Is it a coincidence the Red Sox traded for Joe Kelly and then signed Hanley Ramirez? Was this a move just to keep Ramirez quiet by placating him with a big, new contract or was something else afoot? Were the Red Sox in on the Cardinals' string of serial murders and cheating to beat the Dodgers? After all, the Red Sox do play in the same area as known cheaters like the New England Patriots.

At the time, Ramirez was the Dodgers' hottest playoff hitter, batting .500 in the first round of the division series against the Atlanta Braves with four doubles, a triple, a homer and six RBIs in just four games. After the plunking, Ramirez could never fully swing again, batting .133 in the series with one RBI and no extra-base hits.

And there is NO WAY Kelly would have known about Ramirez's ribs being susceptible to being broken by a baseball unless there was a listening device in the Dodgers' locker room where Ramirez detailed how his bones are all unbreakable, except for his ribs, which unlike most other human beings, will shatter when impacted by a ball thrown at a high speed.

That benefit is now gone. Does anybody not believe that hit was intentional? Because it occurred in the first half inning of the series, would it be so surprising if it was organizationally planned and ordered?

JUST LIKE the Cardinals organization ordered the deaths of Tavares, Kile, and Hancock. I thought the mafia was located in Kansas City, not St. Louis? It sounds like the Cardinals are from St. Louis but are no saints. In fact, the Cardinals have "St." in front of their city name and the New Orleans Saints put a bounty on opposing players a few years ago. So if the Cardinals are saints like the New Orleans Saints were, what would stop them from intentionally injuring a player like Hanley Ramirez? HOW MUCH WAS THE BOUNTY ON RAMIREZ'S HEAD? WHERE IS MIKE MATHENY TO REFUTE THESE FACTS?

Then there was the curious case of Kershaw, who was mostly untouchable during Cy Young Award-winning seasons in 2013 and 2014, but completely fell apart when facing the Cardinals under pressure each of those years. Same hitters, same situations, same results, consecutive postseason collapses by baseball's best pitcher under very unusual circumstances with absolutely no warning signs.

So the same hitters hit the same pitcher well in two different series, and Bill's takeaway is that the Cardinals were cheating, not that the Cardinals just hit Kershaw well?

In Game 2 of the NLCS against the Cardinals he was just as powerful, allowing no earned runs and two hits in six innings. Nothing indicated what would happen next, when, in Game 6, he allowed seven runs in four innings in a 9-0, series-ending loss. He was so bad, throwing a career-high 48 pitches in the third inning, that it looked as if the Cardinals hitters knew exactly what was coming.

Or it could just be the Cardinals are good hitters who happened to get a lot of hits off Kershaw when he was struggling to get outs. 

Turns out, maybe they did. Three of the Cardinals' four run-scoring hits occurred with a Cardinal standing on second base peering into catcher A.J. Ellis' glove.

Stealing signs is not really cheating. It's part of the game. Clayton Kershaw will say this exact thing in a second. So the type of cheating Bill Plaschke is choosing to accuse the Cardinals of isn't even really cheating. 

Stealing signs by simply looking at the catcher is part of the game — if you don't like it, change your signs — but who knows if that's all the Cardinals were doing?

Well apparently you know because you are writing an entire column around the premise that because the Cardinals cheated by hacking into the Astros' computer then the Cardinals players were obviously cheating on the field as well. The entire basis of this column is that Plaschke knows the Cardinals were cheating against the Dodgers. He's accusing them of this in this column. 

Kershaw was asked Tuesday whether he thought the Cardinals could have used anything against him.

"No," he said,

Then, mostly assuming Kershaw is a part of the conspiracy as well, Plaschke furthers on completely ignoring Kershaw's answer. After all, Kershaw grew up in Texas with Matthew Stafford who plays for the Detroit Lions, which means maybe by saying "no" Kershaw was trying to give the hint to Plaschke that he knew more and was "lyin'" when he claimed the Cardinals weren't cheating? Was this answer of "No" a crime for help from Kershaw? Is Clayton Kershaw next on the hit list for the Cardinals organization? When will his eventual murder take place?

Plus, Kershaw is from Dallas, Texas and the Astros are located in Texas as well. It's entirely possible that Kershaw is a mole for the Cardinals organization.

"I don't know anything but if the FBI's involved, it's a criminal act," he said of the Cardinals. "Stealing pitches isn't a criminal act, it's part of the game."

Of course Clayton Kershaw poo-pooing the idea the Cardinals were cheating won't stop Plaschke from continuing down this road. He already had 250 words written. There's no time to change column topics now. 

Then there was Game 4, a 3-2 loss in which Kershaw allowed all three runs in the seventh inning on arguably the most unusual home run of the season. Matt Adams went deep on a Kershaw curveball for the first homer by a left-handed hitter against the pitcher all season.

Didn't Ozzie Smith one time hit a rare home run (rare for him, that is) in the playoffs in a key situation? What are the odds a light-hitting shortstop hits a home run in the playoffs in a key situation without cheating being involved? This brings David Eckstein into question as well. What information did Eckstein have which helped him hit the cover off the ball in the 2006 World Series? Was Eckstein blackballed from MLB by the Cardinals because he knew too much and they didn't have the heart to kill such a scrappy little overachiever?

It was also the first home run by a left-handed hitter on a curveball in Kershaw's seven-year career. And, what a surprise, there was a Cardinal on second base.

I'm pretty sure Clayton Kershawk just clarified that stealing pitches is part of the game, if this even happened. Plaschke is not only making up shit the Cardinals have done in an effort to call them cheaters, but he's also managing to accuse the Cardinals of cheating in situations where some MLB players don't even consider it cheating.

Ellis said Tuesday the team's pitching plan was not kept digitally and would be impossible to steal. He said there was nothing that would make him worry about the Cardinals in the future.

Is this the same A.J. Ellis that is from Missouri? St. Louis is in Missouri! My God, where does this conspiracy end? Kershaw AND Ellis were in on the conspiracy to be moles within the Dodgers organization for the Cardinals? The question has to remain: How many people has A.J. Ellis killed in order to protect his secrets?

But still … were the Dodgers beaten by the Cardinal Way, or the Cardinal Con?

Go away. Please. Do it for the kids. 

It might be unfair to reach that conclusion, but it is now fair to ask that question.

No, it is not fair to ask this question now. Members of the Cardinals organization are accused of hacking the Astros' computer system. This doesn't mean the Cardinals players were involved with any type of cheating. As I said earlier, this is like saying because one "LA Times" writer was accused of plagiarism, that every writer at the newspaper was also plagiarizing articles when there is no evidence to support this.

Bill Plaschke has crossed the line from a dopey useless sportswriter who yells things in order to gain attention into a dopey useless sportswriter who unethically accuses a professional organization of cheating when there is no proof this is true.  

2 comments The Mayor of St. Louis Needs to Hire a Better Intern to Write Columns for Him

I tried to ignore this response from the St. Louis mayor to the idea the Cardinals are the most hateable team in the 2014 MLB playoffs. I tried. The response from the St. Louis mayor just sat there in my Bookmarks staring at me everyday, wondering why I can't muster up a response to that response. I have a hard time not responding when I disagree with someone. It's a flaw of mine. On Twitter if someone Tweets something stupid at me I usually make a joke back or ignore it completely. It's a lot harder for me to ignore it completely, because as I'm told on a weekly basis, "You don't have to respond, just let it go." I can not. So I sit and stew over a Tweet sent my direction that is an obvious troll attempt and I know if I respond then I am just buying into the troll game. It's not that I am argumentative, it is more like I can't let someone who has stated something factually incorrectly stand uncorrected.

I had a sportswriter email me one time about something I had written here about something he had written (you know, like I do all the time) and we went back and forth over email for an entire Saturday. I had to make him see my point, which wasn't going to happen. He didn't want to see my point, he wanted to point out what he really meant to write even though he didn't write what he meant to write. I kept pointing out he didn't write what he claims he meant to write, so my criticism was fair. He kept pointing out what he MEANT to write, so my criticism was unfair. But that's not what he wrote...and so it went on and on. I had a hard time pulling myself from that conversation.

So anyway, this response from the St. Louis mayor has been sitting there, just begging me to post something about it. I have given in. I can't ignore this troll attempt by the St. Louis mayor (or by whoever really wrote this response). It's impossible for me to do.

The Wall Street Journal recently released its second-annual Major League Baseball Hateability Index in which it ranked the 10 playoff teams for 2014 “in order of general loathsomeness.” The rankings were based on 10 essential categories to haters including drug suspensions, “ridiculous beards” and, of course, the time-honored crime of winning too much.

Unfortunately what comes with "winning too much" is the fan base believing their team is more special and unique than any other team simply because their team wins a lot of games. Winning breeds cockiness and cockiness breeds loathsomeness.

On the strength of its pennant collection and rabid fan base, which both travels to opposing stadiums and refers to itself as a “nation,” my hometown St. Louis Cardinals came in first.

As I have said before regarding other situations like this one, it's not that the Cardinals necessarily travel to opposing stadiums, it's that there are fans of the Cardinals who live in the same city or area where the opposing stadium is located. Thousands of Red Sox fans don't travel to Atlanta to come to a Red Sox-Braves game, these people often live in the city of Atlanta and want to cheer for the Red Sox team they don't get to see play very often.

You see, while you might think of St. Louis as flyover country and not pay us much due, we’re kind of a big deal come October on Major League Baseball diamonds.

See, this is overly-douchey and is a great example of why some people find the Cardinals loathsome. It's cockiness dressed up as false modesty. Because St. Louis is known as flyover country and that's why it's not a tourist attraction at all. No one comes to see the Gateway Arch or anything. You see, the Cardinals get their due. They get a lot of due. The public is aware the Cardinals get their due because douchey Cardinals fans like the mayor of St. Louis are constantly reminding everyone just how great the Cardinals and their fan base are.

In fact, we’re kind of a big deal for a number of reasons.

This sentence is a great example of why the Cardinals came in first in the hateability index. Nobody said the Cardinals weren't a good team, but in response to a hateability index that partly factors in how many pennants that team has won over the past 10 years, the mayor of St. Louis refutes this index by reminding readers how many pennants the Cardinals have won. His response to "we shouldn't be hated" is reminding readers of exactly why the Cardinals tend to be hated. It seems like the mayor of St. Louis doesn't have a firm grasp on exactly why the Cardinals are hated. This. This writing is why the Cardinals are seen as hated. Nobody likes false modesty and refuting the Cardinals' fans think too much of themselves by saying "scoreboard" only serves to prove the point of the hateability index results.

Thus, I feel compelled to deliver a simple message to America: We’re sorry.

Sure, we’re sorry the Cardinals have won 11 World Series championships, two since 2006.

No, we are sorry you are coming off like a smarmy braggart. You know, essentially what you are writing this column to prove you as a Cardinals fan are not.

Indeed, we’re sorry that New York and San Francisco are 2.3 times and 1.7 times respectively more expensive to live in than the St. Louis metro area.

Just don't be black and live in the St. Louis metro area or else one of two things will happen. You will get shot by a police officer or you will be quarantined in East St. Louis where the city prefers to keep their unwanted citizens. Also, how expensive it is to live in St. Louis has nothing to do with sports or why the the Cardinals are at the top of the hateability index. Whichever department in the city of St. Louis gave you this information for the purposes of this column probably didn't know you were going to use it to make a strawman argument like this.

We’re sorry for producing one of the world’s best-selling batteries (Energizer)

Oh, I didn't know St. Louis produced one of the world's best-selling batteries. How can anyone hate a city that produces so many batteries which take up landfill space and don't decompose? Not to mention, Town and Country, Missouri is actually where the Energizer headquarters are. It is a suburb of St. Louis, so I guess if I can make a reference to Ferguson, Missouri then I can let this one go.

and two of the 10 best-selling beers in the world—Budweiser and Bud Light.

Which is the beer that should only be used to put in the cups during beer pong to punish your opponent when you land a ping-pong ball in one of their cups. But no, congratulations on producing one of the 10 best-selling beers that is losing market share to craft beers and other beers that don't taste like watered down Sprite with a slight twist of cat urine.

We’re sorry that the four largest metro areas in the nation lost nearly 25,000 financial-service jobs between January 2007 and September 2012, while St. Louis added more than 5,500 in the sector.

(Mayor of St. Louis calls his Economic Development Director) "Find me some jobs that we have gained and other cities have lost."

(Economic Development Director) "We have a lot more police now and military supply sales have gone up in the past month due to Fer---"

(Mayor of St. Louis) "No, I want gains in jobs that people like."

(Economic Development Director) "We have gained jobs in the financial services sector over the past five years."

(Mayor of St. Louis) "Shoot that information to my intern so he can include it in this letter I am writing that he is actually writing for me. Everyone loves people who work in the financial services sector of the economy. America doesn't feel at all like these people make huge income and profits on the back of working class Americans through shady deals and investments."

That guy Jon Hamm? Yeah, we’re sorry for raising him here and sending him out into the world for your entertainment delight.

That's weak. Where does Jon Hamm live now, at least when he isn't being trotted out like a mascot to some St. Louis sporting event? Oh yeah, he has moved the hell out of St. Louis and lives in California now. A lot of cities can take credit for celebrities who were born there, but don't live there anymore. The key to proving your city isn't shitty is if the celebrity still lives there. The Charlotte area can take credit for K-Ci and JoJo, but I'm not sure anyone wants to do that.

We’re sorry for our diverse community in that more Bosnians—over 60,000—call St. Louis home than anywhere outside of Bosnia.

Whoops, that's 59,999 Bosnians. Someone just got shot for carrying a pack of gum that a St. Louis police officer thought was a pipe bomb.

But seriously, who the hell writes, "You can't hate our baseball team because we have a lot of Bosnians who live here"? What is that? So far, the mayor of St. Louis has said, "Scoreboard" and "Look at all our Bosnians" as to why St. Louis shouldn't be hated. I would venture the mayor can count the number of these Bosnians he really knows on one hand.

We’re sorry for Forest Park, our beautiful 1,300-acre urban park comprises an award-winning zoo, science center, art and history museums, golf courses, ice rink and green space.

This has nothing to do with sports. Clearly the mayor was too busy doing other shit and didn't understand the hateability index had to do with sports. Bringing up points that have nothing to do with sports is stupid and proves the mayor of St. Louis doesn't really understand what's supposed to be refuted.

We’re sorry for not only being home to 18 Fortune 1000 companies, but for developing one of the most promising and fastest-growing ecosystems for startups and entrepreneurs, delivering innovations that are being used by businesses and consumers world-wide. You know, like that pesky social-media platform Twitter (St. Louisan Jack Dorsey )

Lives in San Francisco and graduated college in New York.

or credit-card processing device Square (St. Louisan Jim McKelvey).

Which is a company based on St. Louis. McKelvey does have several businesses in St. Louis though, so in terms of proving the Cardinals shouldn't be hated because a rich dude owns businesses in the city of St. Louis, this is a big win for the mayor.

We’re sorry that at the 1904 World’s Fair in St. Louis, Richard Blechynden served tea with ice, thus inventing iced tea (although not the rapper/actor Ice-T).

Well, the intern who did the research on this one probably should be reprimanded. Blechynden probably didn't invent iced tea.

The point is that we here in the Midwest are not a boastful people. 

Except you just spent the entirety of this response to the hateability index bragging about how great St. Louis is and randomly bringing up famous people who hail from the city even though that has nothing to do with sports. Other than all your bragging, you are not a boastful people. 60,000 Bosnians would agree.

We’re humble

Nope, a listing of the team's and city's achievements is not being humble. Might want to call the intern to get you a dictionary to look up the word "humble."

and quietly go about our business, inventing the things you use every day, entertaining you, finding employment for your citizens and handing you losses on the baseball field regularly.

Yep, this sentence isn't "quietly going about our business." It's an example of bragging and then desperately trying to bring the discussion back around to sports when that's not at all what this entire response was about. The hateability index was not about not hating St. Louis for non-sports related reasons, which seems to be the point the mayor of St. Louis has missed entirely.

(We’re especially sorry to Chicago.)

This is why you are #1. Exactly why.

Don’t hate us because we’re beautiful here in St. Louis. But if you do, just know that we’re sorry. Go Cards!

The intern who did all the research, wrote and proofread this response, and then emailed it to the mayor certainly needs to step it up a notch and work on his/her reading comprehension skills. Either that or this is a huge troll job by the intern who wanted to prove exactly why the Cardinals ended up #1 on the hateability index by bringing up the points that were made in this insufferable, strawman introducing, "best fans in baseball so who can hate us?" response. 

Very poor showing here by the intern.

6 comments Matt Adams Lightly Shoved a Fan; The Media Shrugs Their Shoulders and Carries On

Despite the fact I'm about to write something brief about Matt Adams lightly shoving a fan, I really don't think it is a very big deal that deserves a lot of attention. I feel like I need to comment though, because I can think of another situation recently where an athlete shoved a fan and it became a very big deal and received a lot of attention. The media essentially ignored that Adams shoved a Reds fan, while Marcus Smart shoving a fan was an important part of the 24 hour news cycle in early February. There are differences in two situations and let me point them out:

1. Smart is an "amateur" athlete who is 19 years old. Matt Adams is a professional athlete who is 25 years old.

2. Smart shoved the fan more violently than Adams shoved the Reds fan.

3. Smart seemed to have been provoked, while the Reds fan seems to have made the mistake of trying to catch a foul ball and this angered Adams. Smart's shove was harder, but unprovoked, while Adams shove was lighter but unprovoked.

4. The media had bunches of hot sports takes on Smart shoving a fan, while it was essentially just noted that Adams pushed a Reds fan without any real outrage on the level of Smart shoving the Texas Tech fan. Maybe Smart should have just shoved the fan more lightly and no one would have cared?

5. Smart apologized, while Adams stated he didn't know he shoved the fan. More on that in a minute. 

6. Smart was suspended 3 games and Adams has not been suspended. These were some of the reactions to Smart shoving the Texas Tech fan.

These are the reactions from Twitter. 

This is Pat Forde discussing Marcus Smart's "downward spiral." Forde compared it to the Malice at the Palace and said something "swift and significant" needed to be done. Forde also said "the most vile of language would not have justified Smart's actions." Smart was supposed to swallow the language and move on like any profes---amateur college athlete is supposed to do.

The was a discussion on how his shove affected Smart's draft stock. Pat Forde also discussed Smart's draft stock in his column about Marcus Smart. Because the most important thing to come out of that incident is Smart's current value as a commodity.

Again, I really don't think the shove by Adams is a huge deal and the media seemed to agree, but I also wasn't up in arms about Smart shoving a Texas Tech fan and every sportswriter had a hot sports take on what they thought should be Smart's punishment. It's interesting to me how essentially Adams shove of a fan is glossed over, seeing as he is a professional athlete, while Smart's shove of a fan was well-covered and reported and he's a 19 year old kid. I hate to say this because it is a strawman argument, but what if Yasiel Puig shoved a fan? Bill Plaschke would jump out of his pants writing a column about how Puig should be immediately deported.

In case someone hasn't seen it, here is Adams shoving the fan. The fan is standing in the stands and it is Adams leaning over into the crowd to catch the ball. He gives him a small shove with his glove and then the fan flips off Adams later. It's really a non-incident, yet I can't help but wonder why this isn't being covered breathlessly by the same sports media that insists college athletes should not be treated as professionals, yet expects a college athlete to act like a professional, but doesn't seem to hold the professionals to that same standard.

Here is the fan's story about the incident. 

Three weeks removed from surgery on his right knee, Chris Smith still had a knee brace and crutches in his seat in section 134 when Chris Heisey's pop-up down first-base line came right toward him.

Armed with his glove, Smith was able to pop up and reach up -- not out over the field, but still within his seating area -- when he felt two pops, first the ball in his glove, and the second the glove of Cardinals first baseman Matt Adams, shoving the Colerain resident. Because he caught the ball without pressure on his right leg, Smith was off-balance and fell backwards into his seat.

The fact Smith was off-balance made the push look a lot worse than it actually was. I don't doubt that. Either way, Adams laid a hand on a fan, even if that hand was covered with a glove.

Leaning over the tarp, Adams was in position to catch the ball, but Smith had his glove above Adams' glove and made the catch. A fan has the right to catch a ball if he doesn't go into the field of play, and replays showed Smith didn't.

Both Smart and Adams went into the fan's domain and neither fan was interfering with what is considered the player's domain.

"He didn't say anything," Smith said. "He just looked at me right in the face and walked away."

Adams was then told he did make contact with Smith.

"I'm not that type of guy to go after anybody," Adams said. "I was just trying to stop from going into the stands and stop from falling in there."

And this is the part where Matt Adams starts telling tiny stories. He didn't know he made contact with the fan? He clearly pushed him with his glove. The fact Adams says he was trying to stop from going into the stands is bullshit if you watch the replay. Adams is lying prone on the field cover and very easily could have backed off the cover without any difficulty, but he chose to push the fan, THEN back off the field cover. I find it incredibly tough to believe he pushed the fan to prevent himself from falling in the stands. In fact, I would consider to be a lie. Not to mention he could have pushed himself back on the field using a much more stable item than a human being, like say the railing that lines the entire field separating the field from the fans in the stands.

Matheny looked puzzled when asked about the incident, but then backed his player, saying he assumed it was Adams trying not to go "tail-over-tea kettle" into the stands.

Which by seeing the video of the incident doesn't sound plausible.

Adams said he thought he'd make the catch if Smith didn't first.

Which would explain his frustration and why he shoved Smith out of frustration.

"I heard the whole section was flipping me off," Adams said, "but I can't let that bother me."

How professional of you. Maybe Marcus Smart should have said he didn't remember shoving the fan and he knew fans were cursing at him as he left the court, but he can't let that bother him. How quickly would he have been painted as a non-caring, out of touch athlete?

Smith said he noticed Adams and the umpire talk, but nobody else -- the umpire or an usher -- had anything to say to him.

Of course not, it was a light shove. Who cares? Well, if Yasiel Puig shoved a fan I imagine the media would care and if Adams shoved the fan harder it would become a bigger deal. Apparently intent doesn't count when it comes to the reaction by the sports media. Shove a fan, just do it lightly. Right?

From what I saw, this was the sum total of the "St. Louis Post-Dispatch" coverage of the incident, other than mentioning MLB was looking into it. It's an article that says, "Adams says he didn't know he shoved Reds fan." It's interesting to me how this shove isn't being covered much on a local or national level. Very interesting.

To say that Cardinals first baseman Matt Adams was in the midst of the action both on and off the field here these last few days would be a conservative assessment. But when you’re 260 or so pounds, everywhere you are is in the middle of something.

He just hustles too hard, that's the problem. And oh yeah, Matt Adams shoved a guy who he probably outweighed by 60 pounds or so. Nothing to see here. Adams is fortunate he wasn't a college student or else he would have been suspended. Intent doesn't matter apparently, it's all about how hard the fan gets shoved.

Adams had five hits in 12 at-bats in the three-game series with Cincinnati, including three doubles, with four of the hits going the opposite way, in his case, to left field.

He made a nifty pickup on a short hop from shortstop Jhonny Peralta after whiffing on a one-hopper Peralta had thrown earlier in the inning. He dropped a routine throw on a double-play ball.

And yes, this entire story about how Adams lightly shoved a fan is framed in the context of his current performance on the field. The only article I could find written by the "Post-Dispatch" mentioning Adams' shove in the title wasn't entirely about the shove. Nothing to see here, move on, unless it's a college athlete in which case he should be suspended! Intent doesn't matter at all.

And, in the third inning Thursday, Adams lunged into the stands to try to catch a pop foul off Chris Heisey’s bat. A fan with a glove made a nifty reception and Adams, off balance in the stands, gave the fan a shove with his gloved hand, according to television replays, although Adams said there was no malice aforethought.

All Marcus Smart had to say was that he didn't have any malice. If only he had known that at the time.

“I was trying to stop,” said Adams. “I hit the tarp and I tried from going into the stands. People came up to me and said I shoved him. I didn’t know I had.

“I’m not that type of guy to go after anybody. I was just trying to keep from going into the stands.”

That makes sense. Adams didn't know he shoved the fan, but he shoved the fan because he was trying not to go into the stands. Unfortunately the video tells a different story. Marcus Smart should have just said he was trying to use the Texas Tech fan to prevent himself from going further into the stands. He just needed some backwards momentum to get off the court, that's all.

Adams, however, did commend the fan for his play.

What a nice guy. Maybe Marcus Smart should have commended the Texas Tech fan for being able to cheer so loudly and everyone would have gotten off his case.

“I was in line for it,” he said. “Then I hit the tarp and I heard it hit his glove. I figured he had caught it because I didn’t feel it coming into mine.”

So Adams knew the fan was there, didn't know he shoved him, but knew he was using the fan's body to repel himself back on the field. It sounds completely believable.

After Adams had made contact with the fan, the fan flipped him off. “I heard the whole section was flipping me off,” said Adams, laughing. “But I can’t let that bother me.”

And of course Adams had no idea why the fans in that section were flipping him off, right? So he must have been confused. After all, he didn't know he shoved the fan, so he wouldn't have had an idea why that section was flipping him off as a result. Right, that's his story?

Like a defensive shift, for instance.

And back to baseball.

So what happened here is a professional baseball player lightly shoved a fan who did not provoke this baseball player, the baseball player is lying about not knowing he shoved the fan, and it's all used as an anecdote to discuss this baseball player's recent play. An amateur basketball player shoved a fan who provoked this athlete, the athlete apologized, and what resulted was criticism the suspension wasn't enough and was used as an anecdote to predict this amateur basketball player would fall in the NBA Draft. Hmm...there is a difference in these two situations, but the media's reaction (or non-reaction) still surprises me. Seems an amateur athlete is being held to a higher standard than a professional athlete.

0 comments Bob Nightengale Discusses Jhonny Peralta, Seems to Be Just an Excuse for More Teeth Gnashing Over PED Use; Goose Gossage Still a Hypocrite

We currently have 9 teams in our BotB Fantasy Baseball League and I'd like to have one more. If anyone wants to join then the ID is 69631 and the password is "eckstein." I'm holding off finalizing the league (the draft is tomorrow) for a few more hours until I see if we can get one more team.

When we last left the "Jhonny Peralta is a cheater" teeth gnashing, Mitch Albom was giving everyone a lecture about caring. Now Peralta has signed as a free agent with the St. Louis Cardinals, the modern day standard for "playing baseball the right way," and Bob Nightengale wants to talk about Peralta and the evolving relationship baseball has with PED users. In reality, it seems he wants to give retired players a chance to talk about what terrible cheating PED use is. What's interesting is Nightengale starts off the column showing Nelson Cruz as an example of a player hurt in free agency by PED use, but then goes on to talk about Jhonny Peralta is now making more money after his PED use in free agency. Bob tries to have it both ways and show how Cruz was hurt in free agency by PED use while showing how Peralta has benefited from his PED use. I'm not sure there is a right answer, but a good teeth gnashing session requires Nightengale only focus on the player (Peralta) helped by his PED use rather than focusing on Cruz, who seems to have been hurt slightly by his connection to PED's.

St. Louis Cardinals shortstop Jhonny Peralta, his eyes dancing, broke into an expansive grin hearing the news that his buddy finally got a job.

Tim Keown is frustrated upon hearing another foreigner has taken an American baseball job. 

Finally, free-agent slugger Nelson Cruz found a team, signing with the Baltimore Orioles on Monday and set to join his new team Tuesday, a week after their camp opened.

So here is an example of a PED user having difficulty finding a job (for a variety of reasons that may or may not have anything to do with PED's...which is an important point). Jhonny Peralta did not have trouble finding a job after getting caught having used PED's. It's so hard to write a narrative when there isn't a clear narrative to write.

I informed him Cruz received a one-year deal for $8 million.

Peralta slammed his eyes shut.

"Oh, no.''

Yes, that sounds hideous. Only $8 million on a one year deal. I wish I lived in a world where this was bad news. I get upset when a local restaurant raises prices by a dollar all across their menu or there aren't any beers on special.

Yep, only $8 million for the finest right-handed power-hitter on the free-agent market, just three months after turning turning down the Texas Rangers' $14.1 million qualifying offer.

It turned out to be a $6 million blunder.

What's weird is that the rest of this column is talking about how it's unfair for PED users to benefit from PED use, yet it's clear that Nelson Cruz was hurt by his link to PED's. So what gives? I know the focus is on Peralta, but when hearing ex-/current players complain about PED use benefiting players why is the fact Nelson Cruz didn't come close to getting the money he wanted on the free agent market and Rafael Palmeiro was essentially black-balled not mentioned? These are two players who clearly did not benefit fully from their PED use and suffered some sort of harm as a result. No team wanted to sign an old and cheating Palmeiro.

The first-round draft pick compensation proved to be a deterrent. So was his age, 33. There were those hamstring issues. His outfield defensive deficiencies.

It's almost like players shown to have used PED's are going to be judged like every other baseball player when it comes time for free agency.

And, of course, that cloud that hovered over him all winter: the 50-game suspension for the use of performance-enhancing drugs during his involvement with the infamous Biogenesis clinic in South Florida.

The bottom line is PED use will be factored in, but MLB teams are going to consider a player who has used PED's the same way they consider any other player...can that player provide a benefit to the team at a price that team finds acceptable? Players who are on a team with a PED user will support him, while players not on that player's team will be critical of him. It's just how it goes.

Cruz suddenly symbolizes baseball's drug policy at its finest. His involvement in the Biogenesis scandal and the resulting 50-game suspension likely cost him tens of millions of dollars in future earnings.

And Peralta has discovered that in some quarters, he symbolizes everything wrong with the system.

Again, maybe this is the result of MLB teams treating these PED users like they treat every other free agent. Cruz had injury concerns and first round compensation tied to him at a position where power can be found, while Peralta hits well for his position and didn't have injury concerns. Plus, the Cardinals play the game the right way, so that's the perfect spot for a cheater like Peralta.

If anything, this mix perhaps best captures the current state of baseball's ever-evolving relationship with the players it believes cheats the game.

Peralta, 31, returned from his suspension to help the Detroit Tigers in the playoffs. And then he received a four-year, $53 million contract.

The truth is that teams don't care about PED use and players only care about PED use when it's not one of their teammates who got caught using PED's. Otherwise, these players support their teammate.

That still eats at some veteran players.

Yea, teeth gnashing!

I completely get why players would be angry at other players for using PED's and then being rewarded. I do, but I also love some good teeth gnashing over PED use by ex-players like there wasn't a large amount of players using "greenies" and other amphetamines back in the 1970's.

"I'm a big believer that players are worth every dollar they get,'' Boston Red Sox outfielder Jonny Gomes told USA TODAY Sports. "You can't say that anybody is overpaid. But this is different.

"This is like if somebody was to rob a bank, eventually got caught, served five years in jail, got out, but still got to keep all the money.

Jonny Gomes is a member of the player's union. Get this changed. If enough players feel this way then the player's union should do something and say that if a player is found to have used PED's then he is prohibited from earning future money. Of course this opens up a number of issues, namely why wouldn't a player be allowed to continue playing baseball and getting paid for doing so if he has paid his penalty? Using Gomes' example, that's like saying because a person robbed a bank he/she can't ever have a job once the jail sentence has been served.

"That's how I compare it. And I like Peralta. I'm not mad at that guy. It's just that when a guy like (free agent shortstop) Stephen Drew is still at home, and this guy has that contract, it's a little tough.''

This is a good example of a non-PED player being treated like a player who has been proven to use PED's. Drew has injury issues, first round compensation and wants more money than some teams are willing to pay...just like Nelson Cruz. So I would submit that Cruz and Drew are being treated in similar fashion and isn't that what players like Jonny Gomes wants? He wants there to be an even playing field where a guy serves his penalty and then doesn't get a benefit from using PED's? Cruz took $6 million less after declining the same $14.1 qualifying offer that Stephen Drew declined. So perhaps Drew could find a job if he took $6 million less than the qualifying offer he declined.

So it's interesting to me that Gomes brings up Stephen Drew, because I find him to be comparable to Nelson Cruz (in terms of situation as a free agent) and as proof that players who have used PED's are treated like every other MLB player after their sentence is served. Maybe that's not right, but why should Jhonny Peralta suffer a larger penalty of losing his chance at earning a contract after his penalty has been served? After all, these are the punishments the player's union and the owners agreed upon.

New York Yankees Hall of Fame pitcher Goose Gossage told USA TODAY Sports: "It's a shame you get rewarded for cheating. There is no punishment. You get slapped on your wrist, you get suspended, and then you're wealthy beyond your wildest dreams.''

"Nothing pisses me off more than guys that cheat,'' Cleveland Indians pitcher David Aardsma tweeted, "and get raises for doing so."

Arizona Diamondbacks player-representative Brad Ziegler actually mockingly thanked the owners for "encouraging PED use,'' in his tweet, saying it's time to severely increase the penalties to eliminate the temptation of cheating.

I get it. I get the teeth gnashing. Unfortunately there is a lot of bitching going on and very little actual effort to provide a solution other than, "Take their money and don't let them make money ever again." It would be easier to take Gossage, Aardsma and Ziegler seriously if they had a real solution to this issue rather than complaints that someone else needs to think of a solution. Simply stating these players can't ever make money again essentially means these PED users are banned for life from baseball and that's not at all the penalty agreed upon in the CBA. Also, I don't recall David Aardsma telling Barry Bonds he is pissed off that he was cheating back when he played with Bonds in 2004. I'm sure Aardsma had NO CLUE Bonds was using PED's.

He lost $1.85 million during his suspension, and most important, he says, the game of baseball was taken from him.

Still, after earning $6 million in the final year of his three-year, $16.75 million deal with the Detroit Tigers, Peralta more than tripled his contract with the Cardinals.

What's wrong with Peralta accepting a contract he's offered? Blame the system and the teams. The same system that the current players agreed to, of course.

Peralta has always been well-liked by his teammates. New York Yankees ace CC Sabathia, who played with him in Cleveland, calls him one of his favorites. Detroit Tigers outfielder Torii Hunter and first baseman Miguel Cabrera consider him one of the game's gentlemen.

As always, it's easier to point a finger and get angry at a player who isn't on your team.

Peralta said he was actually thinking of appealing his suspension. He knew that if he lost the appeal, he would be facing a 100-game suspension, but he didn't want to let down his teammates.

The decision became easy July 30. It was the day the Tigers acquired shortstop Jose Iglesias, preparing for Peralta's suspension.

And we know if Peralta had appealed the suspension then he would have been treated as a pariah just like A-Rod, right?

Peralta returned from his suspension in time for the final series of the season, playing left field. He hit .417 in the Tigers' Division Series victory over the Oakland A's, and found himself coveted during the winter as if Biogenesis was nothing more than a herbal store. He was negotiating with the New York Yankees and Mets, he said, before the Cardinals lured him with their $53 million deal.

It's the Cardinals money. If they want to spend it on Jhonny Peralta, let them. What I also find interesting is these ex-/current players talk about Peralta benefiting from his PED use, but they are assuming his statistics with the Tigers were a result of using PED's and not Peralta's natural talent. I have a few thoughts on this issue that I think guys like Zeigler, Aardsma, and Gossage are neglecting to consider:

1. If Peralta's performance was based solely on his use of PED's then Peralta may benefit from his free agent deal, but the Cardinals are not going to benefit. So the Cardinals may be taking on a lot of risk by paying a player who used PED's to enhance his performance to such a lucrative deal. Again, it's their money and their risk.

2. If Peralta's performance wasn't solely based on his use of PED's then $53 million may be the fair market value for his services and he hasn't benefited from using PED's.

3. These positions aren't totally mutually exclusive, but these ex-/current players can't complain that Peralta is benefiting from his PED use while also complaining the Cardinals will benefit from signing a player who has used PED's. Either the PED's helped Peralta play better or they didn't. If Peralta is a fraud and won't be at the talent level from when he used PED's then the Cardinals are going to be stuck with an underperforming shortstop who is expensive. If Peralta isn't a fraud and he still is at his form when he used PED's then $53 million could be his fair market value and he hasn't robbed a bank or gotten a raise for using PED's.

So the position that Peralta is stealing money also assumes the Cardinals will pay negatively for signing Peralta. So why be angry with the Cardinals if they just took on an expensive, underachieving player? They got played for fools in that situation. Just like the position that Peralta is stealing money isn't an accurate point of view if Peralta continues to play at a high level.

"It's B.S. I don't understand why teams even sign these guys,'' Gossage says. "These GMs get so desperate, they don't care. They wish everybody was on them (PEDs) so they can perform better.

You mean these GM's want to re-visit the 1970's? Again, if the assumption is that Peralta was on PED's and got a big contract because of this, then there also should be an assumption of a decline in performance. So the Cardinals won't benefit from Peralta's great performance and Gossage shouldn't be angry with them.

"I know you can't come out and publicly say you can't sign these guys, but I wouldn't want them on my team. Back in the day, if you did something like that, nobody would sign you. You'd go back home and dig a ditch.''

Funny, I don't remember Mike Schmidt, Willie Mays, Dale Berra, Hank Aaron, or (WAIT, WHAT IS THIS?) Goose Gossage digging ditches after quitting baseball.

Read those comments by Tom House...but I'm sure he's lying, right?

But no, the better part is Goose Gossage says taking "greenies" isn't cheating. Oh okay, I guess if you claim it isn't cheating then that means it's true. I remember that time I got caught with beer in my car in high school and I insisted that Coors Light isn't beer. The principal just laughed, opened up a cold one with me and then we began to search the school for kids smoking in the bathroom.

Said Cardinals GM John Mozeliak: "Uh, that would be collusion. You can't set legislation. You can only follow it.

"There is a penalty. He paid for it. Can you imagine if he was still unsigned? The players association would go nuts.''

But no, but no, the players want stiffer penalties for PED users and collusion against PED users. They just forgot to mention in the CBA and haven't thought to seriously propose this. It's not like the players want it both ways or anything. They don't want stiffer penalties and PED users to be blackballed on the free agent market, while criticizing owners for colluding against certain players.

"I'm surprised there were players that didn't want him signed,'' DeWitt said. "I don't think you want to exclude yourself from a category of players who have ever done anything wrong. It wasn't like there weren't a lot of bidders out there. He fit a need that we had.

Yeah, but collusion is okay in certain circumstances. And also, Peralta should have been prevented from earning a free agent contract, but this is totally different from a lifetime ban for the first PED offense of course. Peralta can still play in the majors, he just can't make money and benefit from his PED use. So Peralta doesn't benefit, he'll just play for free over the rest of his career and have the earnings he made while on PED's taken away. So while the player's union would freak out over a lifetime ban on the first positive test for PED's, this is essentially what these ex-/current players are suggesting.

"I think he's going to fit in real well here,'' says Cardinals veteran outfielder Matt Holliday, a vocal critic of players suspended for performance-enhancing drugs. "There is a penalty for it. And he paid his penalty. He took it like a man. That's the rule.

Everyone is a critic until they have to be in a locker room with a player who has used PED's. At that point, the player has done his time already and we should all move on.

Miami Marlins infielder Rafael Furcal, who spent the past two years with the Cardinals, actually helped persuade Peralta to sign with the Cardinals. He told them he'd not only be accepted by the fans, but may not hear a negative response all season.

"It's St. Louis, man,'' Furcal said. "They have the best fans in the world. They never boo people.

I like how one team's fans being "the best fans in the world" can be seen as another team's fans cheering for a group of players who are cheaters. I guess it all depends on the perspective.

"A-Rod and Braun were more involved,'' Peralta said. "There's more attention on them. They tried to fight. They tried to be tough. But people didn't like what they say.

"We'll see how people react once they see me. They'll see what kind of person I am.

"Hopefully, they will forgive me.''

I think there is a better chance of the fans forgiving Peralta than there is of ex-/current players who live in a world of their own hypocrisy of forgiving players who have used PED's. Ex-players like Goose Gossage live in a world where they think "greenies" aren't PED's and aren't cheating, while current players want stricter penalties and the owners to collude with each other to prevent PED users from earning money playing baseball again...except that's not what these players want at all. They support a lifetime ban on the first positive test for PED's, they just don't want that player to earn money in the past or future from having used PED's too. Because that's so different from a lifetime ban.

6 comments Bernie Miklasz Thinks Yadier Molina Got Overlooked in the MVP Voting Because He Played for a Successful Team

It's pretty well known that many MVP voters factor in how well a player's team performed during the season when deciding which NL/AL player to vote for MVP. This has been done for a long while now. Last year in the American League the fact Miguel Cabrera's team made the playoffs and Mike Trout's team did not, despite Trout's team having won one more game than Cabrera's team, was used as a reason that Cabrera deserved the AL MVP. Bernie Miklasz introduces an interesting idea today that Yadier Molina was overlooked in the NL voting because he plays for a successful team, which is an idea I absolutely can not believe can be true. If anything, the fact Molina played for the NL World Series representative had to help his cause for NL MVP. Not so, says Bernie. While he makes a few valid points in this column, his efforts fall short because Bernie also lauds the two Cardinals beat writers for voting for Molina as MVP because they know of his daily contributions to the Cardinals team. Isn't this true of any beat writer though? They follow a team all year long and so they naturally will think certain players on a team are more valuable than a player on another team and could have a bias towards that player at times.

During the season the Cardinals seemingly had three MVP candidates: catcher Yadier Molina, second baseman Matt Carpenter and first baseman Allen Craig.

Allen Craig is a really spiffy player, but you've lost me off the bat by calling him an MVP candidate. Unless this is Bernie's way of showing that nearly EVERY player is an MVP candidate because any active player could be named MVP, in which case he is mocking the way the MVP is discussed and I send him congratulations.

With three contenders in play for the award, it would make it difficult — if not impossible — for a Cardinal to win it.

The 2012 Detroit Tigers had three MVP candidates: Justin Verlander, Miguel Cabrera and Prince Fielder. They all were in the Top 10 of the MVP voting. Against all odds, Miguel Cabrera won the 2012 MVP. Justin Verlander won MVP in 2011 when there were four Tigers in the Top 16 of the voting. So no, it is not impossible at all for three contenders that play on the same team to win the award. It is impossible for three candidates, none of which have an extremely strong case for the MVP, to win the award when they split the vote. That much may be true.

The field was winnowed to two when Craig suffered a serious foot injury on Sept. 4, missing the remainder of the regular season. That unfortunate, fluke mishap essentially eliminated Craig from receiving upper-ballot votes.

This must be as opposed to the non-fluky injuries that athletes suffer during a baseball game. 

With the Cardinals' prime MVP contenders reduced to Molina and Carpenter, it led to an obvious question: would the teammates siphon votes from each other? Or more specifically: would support for Carpenter penalize Molina's MVP case?

In other words, can two players from one team, neither of which have the strongest case to be the MVP, win the National League MVP award? The answer is "no." I would submit Carpenter and Molina's MVP candidacy was hurt by their statistics relative to the other MVP candidates more than the idea they split the Cardinals vote. Bernie disagrees.

We know the answer. 

Absolutely, yes. 

Molina finished third in the voting.

Carpenter was fourth.

Thanks for writing.

Just like Bill Plaschke.

It's appreciated.

And not at all annoying.

Now that we've seen the voting results, Molina had no chance to win the award. He should have finished second. And Molina would have been second without Carpenter making a strong showing.

So basically Bernie admits that Molina would not have won the MVP even if Carpenter didn't receive any votes, yet he will continue down this road of saying the split votes between Cardinals teammates could be what prevented Molina from being MVP.

Not to mention, the idea of a split vote seems silly to me. I don't see how a person would vote for Molina if Carpenter wasn't on the ballot. Wouldn't that person conceivably not for Molina and vote for Andrew McCutchen or any of the other candidates on the ballot? I shudder to ask this, but are there really that many voters who say, "The Cardinals made the World Series, so I need to vote for one of their players as MVP." You know what, don't answer that. I just think a vote for Carpenter isn't necessarily a vote taken away from Molina, but could be a vote given to Andrew McCutchen or Paul Goldschmidt.

And 12 of the 30 MVP voters put Carpenter ahead of Molina on their ballots. Carpenter had a terrific and important season for the Cardinals, and it's nice to see him get this kind of recognition. 

Good for you, Matt Carpenter! Now burn in Hell because you took votes away from Yadier Molina, the preferred St. Louis Cardinals MVP candidate.

But if you take a vote of Cardinals players, I'm certain that Molina would win the in-house MVP, and it would probably be unanimous.

Well, Cardinals player don't get to vote. If you took a vote of Matt Carpenter's family, I am sure he would be their choice for MVP and it would be unanimous. If you took a poll of the clubhouse of every team on who the MVP would be, it may not be Yadier Molina. It may be. It doesn't matter, Cardinals player don't vote.

That isn't a slap at Carpenter.

End of paragraph, on to the next paragraph!

It's more of a reflection on how much teammates revere Molina.

Great, his teammates like him. That doesn't make him the MVP.

It really didn't matter what any other NL player did in 2013; this MVP was going to be handed to McCutchen, and voters had their minds made up as soon as the "Cinderella" Pirates clinched a winning season, then a playoff spot. The landslide was underway.

The Pirates had not had a winning season in 20 years. The "Cinderella" can be taken out of quotes. But yes, everyone is biased against the Cardinals and the fix was in. Clearly the Cardinals were undermined by the fact everyone is jealous of what a great baseball town St. Louis is and didn't even consider how the Cardinals play the game the right way.

McCutchen was a worthy winner. I criticize no one who voted him first. But I just hope they voted for him for the right reason — a reason that would show McCutchen the respect he deserves.

This is as opposed to voting for Yadier Molina because, you know, his teammates really like him. Voting for Molina because he's well-liked it what is known as voting for him for "the right reasons."

McCutchen was worthy of the MVP because of how he played... there was no need to vote for him in order to validate the Pirates' surprising year and put a happy ending on a so-called storybook season.

You are just speculating this is why some voters voted for McCutchen. Voters should have voted for Molina because of how well he played and not because his team was the National League representative in the World Series. I hope no voter did that.

If Molina can't win it in a 2013 season in which he (A) won the Gold glove for defense; (B) won the Silver Slugger for offense; and (C) was the best player on the team with the NL's best record ... well, I ask you: when exactly will he win it?

When he has the best individual season among National League players and is considered by voters to be the most valuable player in the National League. That's when Yadier Molina will win the NL MVP. Paul Goldschmidt won the Gold Glove for defense and the Silver Slugger for offense but for some reason Bernie doesn't think he even deserves second place in the NL MVP voting. Why could that be? Oh yeah, Goldschmidt's team wasn't good enough for him to be the best player on the best team. If only Goldschmidt had found a way to have better teammates around him then he could have the same case to be made that Bernie just made for Molina.

Of course, there are some who believe voting for a player simply because he was the "best player" (who decided Molina was the best player on the Cardinals team?) on the best team is a stupid way to decide an MVP vote. So if a person thinks voting for the best player on the best team is a dumb way to decide an individual award, it seems Goldschmidt and Molina have the same case for NL MVP.

The obvious issue: So much of Molina's value is derived from areas that can't be quantified and ranked.

If you can't quantify and rank Molina's value, then how do you know he has value in those areas?

I get to watch Molina play on a daily basis, so I have a full understanding of just how essential Yadi is to every aspect of Cardinals' baseball. I really believe you have to see it every day to fully appreciate Molina's all-around brilliance, which transcends baseball-card stats and grade-school level baseball analysis.

That's great, but nearly every team has a player like this. Nearly very MLB team has a player you must watch everyday to appreciate his greatness and only by watching him everyday do you realize how valuable he is to a team. This doesn't make this player the MVP. I'm not discounting Molina as a serious MVP candidate, just elaborating on the truth that certain writers who see the same players on a daily basis learn to appreciate and think highly of these players. This is where biases are created.

This explains why Post-Dispatch baseball writers Derrick Goold and Rick Hummel cast the only two first-place votes for Molina: Because they see him far more often than the other 28 voters. This gives them a unique and comprehensive perspective of what Molina means to the team, and they recognize Molina's crucial role in elevating the performance of a very young pitching staff in 2013.

Right, but the fact they see him everyday and have a unique perspective doesn't mean the Diamondbacks beat writers don't see Goldschmidt everyday and sees what he means to the Diamondbacks team. A Braves beat writer sees how many runs for the Braves Andrelton Simmons saves with his defense and a Giants beat writer knows how well Buster Posey manages the Giants pitching staff. See, that's the problem. While Molina does have a case for MVP, this unique perspective doesn't mean Goold and Hummel know something the rest of the voters don't that elevates Molina above other candidates. It simply means they see Molina everyday and it creates this own bias of perceived importance to the Cardinals relative to the other MVP candidates and their importance to their team.

I commend my Post-Dispatch teammates for voting their conscience instead of showing anxiety over being called a "homer" by simple minds out there. Molina's problem is that there are no sabermetric valuations or basic baseball-card orthodoxy that accounts for his massive contributions in scouting opponents, running meetings, setting strategy, the calling of pitches, making adjustments, calming pitchers, motivating pitchers, and running the game.  There's no way to put a stat on those things. It's something to be savored, not calculated.

Again, that's great. This is a bias of perceived importance relative to the other MVP candidates though. So it is being a bit of a "homer," because it assumes Paul Goldschmidt and Andrew McCutchen don't make the same massive contributions to making adjustments, positioning their fellow fielders or having a positive impact on their teammates.

Early in the postseason an MVP voter asked me to elaborate on Molina's value as a leader of the pitching staff. 

"He's more than just a leader," I explained. "He's a de facto pitching coach." 

The voter seemed confused by my assertion; I assume he thought I'd lost my mind. 

But then during World Series the same voter approached me and said: "I get it now."

Just like if Bernie was around Andrew McCutchen he could see the way he motivates his teammates and helps them play better. I get Molina is a catcher and handles the Cardinals pitching staff, but screaming for voters to take into account intangible evaluations of a player that involves watching that player for more than a few games a year isn't possible. It's a flaw in the MVP voting system, but many times these beat writers who vote don't see all of the candidates as much as they should.

"Exactly," I said. "The pitching coach or manager doesn't have to go to the mound and use one of their visits in an inning. They don't have to, because Molina does it for them. They view him as an equal.

Apparently Dave Duncan had to do zero in-game management of his pitchers when he was with the Cardinals. That's good to know.

Just think about all of the pitching changes that Molina has prevented during a long season by making that trip to the mound instead of the pitching coach or the manager. That way, Mike Matheny can afford to stay with a pitcher a while longer, because the Cardinals aren't using their mound visits."

First off, Molina isn't the only catcher that does this. Second, this doesn't mean Matheny can stay with a pitcher long, it just means he or the pitching coach won't have to use up one of his mound visits to talk to a pitcher. The pitcher won't necessarily stay in the game longer because Molina visits the mound in place of Matheny or the pitching coach.

The people who see it on a daily basis get it. The people who don't have the opportunity to witness Molina daily have no way of really knowing, and I don't rip them for that.

This is just like Bernie doesn't have an appreciation for players on other MLB teams because he doesn't seem them play everyday. There seems to be an overwhelming feeling over the past few months from Cardinals beat writers and fans that the team has this innate specialness that no other MLB teams have.

If I wrote sports in another market, I wouldn't fully appreciate Molina, either.

Just like you don't fully appreciate Andrew McCutchen because you don't write in the Pittsburgh market. Just like you don't appreciate the energy Yasiel Puig brought to the Dodgers team because you don't write in the Dodgers market.

Let's take a look at a few of the interesting ballots in the NL MVP vote:

Bill Brink of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette had Carpenter eighth and Molina ninth on his ballot. Brink put the two Cardinals behind two Reds, placing Joey Votto 4th and Shin-Soo Choo 7th. And Brink put the two Cardinals behind Milwaukee's Carlos Gomez. The Cardinals won the NL Central, but Brink had four other NL Central players ahead of Carpenter and Molina on his ballot. That'll teach those damned Cardinals to win the division.

So while I may argue with Brink's ballot, my bigger issue would be that Bernie believes because the Cardinals won their division this means individual players on that team should be more seriously considered for an individual award. That makes not of sense. The MVP is an individual award, so the reasoning that Carpenter and Molina should be above Votto and Choo solely because the Cardinals won the division isn't very persuasive to me.

Also, Carlos Gomez had a very good year if you want to consider defense. And clearly Bernie is considering defense when it comes to evaluating Yadier Molina's MVP candidacy, so I don't know why he wouldn't do the same for Carlos Gomez. If Gomez's defense is factored in, minus points for not playing the game the right way (the Brian McCann rule), then he is a pretty good NL MVP candidate.

Clark Spencer of the Miami Herald voted Molina 10th. If that wasn't odd enough, consider that Spencer had Votto 3rd, Dodgers shortstop Hanley Ramirez 6th, Dodgers outfielder Yasiel Puig 7th, and Braves shortstop Andrelton Simmons 9th. Simmons is an exceptional fielder, the best shortstop (defensively) in the majors. I respect Spencer for putting Simmons on there. Too many voters fail to acknowledge defense. But if a voter puts a premium on defense, then why wouldn't he have Molina ranked better than 10th?

This is a good point by Bernie. Simmons isn't a great hitter so the 9th place spot on the ballot is for his defense, but then wouldn't a good hitting catcher who plays excellent defense be rated higher on the ballot? I don't see how Hanley Ramirez can be 6th on anyone's ballot. Don't get me wrong, he would have had an outstanding year if he had played 162 games. But he didn't play 162 games. He played 86 games. I just don't see how a player how a position player who has played less than 100 games in a season could be the MVP. Maybe that's just me.

Molina was on the DL, but he still caught more innings (1,115) than any NL catcher. And Puig was terrific, but he played in only 104 games. He was in the minors for the first two months. Sorry, but a player that wasn't in the majors for two months this season wasn't more valuable than Molina.

Of course after saying a player needs to play at least 100 games I will point that even though Puig didn't play in the majors for two months of the season, his presence in the Dodgers lineup had a positive effect on the team. Maybe it was a coincidence, but since Puig was called up on June 3 the Dodgers were 69-38. That's winning at a 64.5% clip. Of course this can't be attributed solely to Puig, but there does seem to be some evidence of how valuable he was to the Dodgers.

Juan Rodriguez of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel put Molina 9th ... behind Votto, Choo and Hanley Ramirez. Goodness, imagine if Ramirez had actually suited up for, say, 100 games.

Ramirez did hit .345/.402/.638 with 20 home runs and 190 OPS+ in the games he did play in, so it's fair to wonder if Ramirez had played the entire season what kind of numbers he could have put up. I don't know if it makes him a serious MVP candidate, but if he played a full season I think he would have been the MVP if he kept those numbers up.

I'm not going to go off on guys that put Carpenter ahead of Molina on their ballots. And most voters had Carpenter and Molina listed close together on their ballots. But it was a little strange to see Bill Center (San Diego Union Tribune) have such a wide gap, putting Carpenter 2nd and Molina the 7th.

This guy clearly should have asked the Cardinals players who the MVP was and then he could have switched Carpenter and Molina's spots. I still think it is interesting that Bernie wondered if Yadier Molina didn't win the MVP this past year when he would win it, but then admits Andrew McCutchen deserves the award. So Molina deserved it this year, but he didn't deserve it too.

Oh, well. I've also made some peculiar ballot choices through the years, so I guess I should hush up.

If Bernie has ever based an MVP vote entirely on whether that player was on a winning team or not, which I feel like he has done, then "peculiar" is a nice word for this kind of ballot.