Sympathy for the Wild Card

It's been said that people in the Midwest are football fans, no matter what sport they follow. An excellent example of this principle can be seen in the wailing and gnashing of teeth that followed the Twins losing the first two of a three-game series in Seattle and thus falling two full games behind the division-leading White Sox.

As Howard Sinker noted in his own post linked above, the Twins trailed by two with 30 to play. In baseball terms, this is basically nothing -- leads of two games are lost in a week during the season, and there's no particular reason that late-season leads should be any safer than mid-season leads.

Of course, if you're talking football, then everything changes. In the NFL, a difference of two games can mean the difference between a division title and sitting home watching the playoffs on TV. In baseball, the majority of division titles are won by more than two games, and often by far more than two games. Of the 39 divisional races in the American League since 1995, only 7 have been decided by two games or less (though oddly enough, four of those have occurred in the past four seasons, once per season). Of those 7 teams that lost their division by 2 or fewer games, 5 went to the post-season anyway for winning the wild-card.

Which is another way you can tell that midwestern fans are football fans -- football fans don't seem to respect the wild card, because it doesn't seem as though many wild card teams do well. (Or more accurately, your team didn't do well when it last won the wild card.) Nevertheless, in the NFL since 1995 (the year MLB instituted the wild card), wild card teams have made it to the Super Bowl four times and won it three times (the 1997 Denver Broncos, the 2000 Baltimore Ravens, and the 2007 New York Giants). Granted, this is in an environment where each league has had two or three wild card teams to pick from (the NFL lost a wild card slot when re-aligning from three to four divisions per conference in 2002); certainly with just one wild-card team per league, MLB's wild-card teams don't do as well, right?

Well, no -- actually they've done better. Since 1995, wild card teams have made it to the World Series nine times and won it four times (1997 Florida Marlins, 2002 Anaheim Angels*, 2003 Florida Marlins, 2004 Boston Red Sox). The last time a World Series didn't include at least one wild-card team was in 2001.

* - In 2002, both the Angels and Giants were wild-card teams.

All of this 'history of the wild card' is relevant because, as the Twins try to regain some momentum in the divisional race in Oakland, the White Sox begin a three game series later tonight against Boston, and the current standings look like this:

AL EAST
Tampa   81-51
Boston  77-56 (4.5 back)

AL CENTRAL
Chicago   76-57
Minnesota 75-58 (1 back)

The Twins are one game behind the White Sox for the division lead, but they're also two games behind the Red Sox for the wild card. If the season ended today, the Twins would be sitting at home watching.

Most Twins fans who have weighed in, Midwesterners to a fault, say that they're rooting for Boston to beat the White Sox in their upcoming series, all the better to give the Twins the best chance to win the divisional race. But consider two things:

1. The Twins have already completed their season series with the Red Sox, and have no further influence on how well or how poorly they play down the stretch. The Twins do have games remaining against the White Sox, at home, so any deficit smaller than three games can conceivably be made up in that series.

2. If the goal is simply to win the division title, then by all means go for it. After all, the Twins did win the title on the last day of the season in 2006, then bowed meekly out of the playoffs against the Oakland A's. If, however, the goal is to get as far into the playoffs as possible, and possibly even win a World Series, then what you really want is to clinch a playoff berth as soon as possible so that you can adjust your pitching rotation, give mildly injured regulars some time to mend, etc.

Barring utter collapse by the Rays, the Twins' best shot for post-season success is to clinch some kind of playoff berth during that three-game series with the White Sox. The easiest way to do that is for the Twins to not only win those games, but be ahead of the Red Sox as they do so, and the best way to begin that process (IMO, anyway) is for the Red Sox to start losing early and often, beginning with Chicago. The Twins can make up those games -- Boston, which has the toughest schedule of the playoff contenders, can't.

Follow-up:
Another Twins fan on the blogosphere rants as if he's watching the NFL; dude, before you go off on that kind of tirade, it might help to check out the many examples of divisional and even World Series champions who lost close games in the late season because of bullpen or fielding failures. (And that's just in the last three seasons - 2004 through 2007.)

As for his argument that 'playoff teams do not blow four games in a week', I'll point out that the 2007 Cubs lost four games in a week in September and not only still won the NL Central but lost no ground doing it. The 2007 Diamondbacks lost four in a week in September (and 5 of their last 7) and still won the NL West despite a Colorado team that won 14 of their last 15. The 2007 Phillies lost five in a week in September while allowing the Mets to move from up 3 to up 6 and still caught them to win the NL East. The 2007 Red Sox lost four in a row in September and still held off the Yankees to win the AL East.

So this thing he says that playoff teams don't do? Every team that won their division by two games or less last year did it, and did it later in the season than the Twins did.

There's a word for this kind of thing: baseball.

The Myth of the 'Elite 8th Inning Guy'

Since Ron Gardenhire took over as manager of the Twins, the club has been fairly blessed not just with good closers, but with good bullpen depth in general, and particularly good eighth-inning setup guys. Let's lead off by quickly recapping the closer and setup guys for the Twins since 2002:

2002: closer - Eddie Guardado (45 sv, 2.93 ERA)
      setup - LaTroy Hawkins (6-0, 2.13 ERA)*
2003: closer - Eddie Guardado (41 sv, 2.89 ERA)
      setup - LaTroy Hawkins (9-3, 1.86 ERA)
2004: closer - Joe Nathan (44 sv, 1.62 ERA)
      setup - Juan Rincon (11-6, 2.63 ERA)
2005: closer - Joe Nathan (43 sv, 2.70 ERA)
      setup - Juan Rincon (6-6, 2.45 ERA)**
2006: closer - Joe Nathan (36 sv, 1.58 ERA)
      setup - Jesse Crain (4-5, 3.52 ERA)***
2007: closer - Joe Nathan (37 sv, 1.88 ERA)
      setup - Pat Neshek (7-2, 2.94 ERA)****

* - J.C. Romero was 9-2 with 1 save and a 1.89 ERA
** - Jesse Crain was 12-5 with 1 save and a 2.71 ERA
*** - Juan Rincon was 3-1 with 1 save and a 2.91 ERA
**** - Matt Guerrier was 2-4 with 1 save and a 2.35 ERA

Because of this level of bullpen performance, and because the Twins in this era have won their division title more often than not, an idea has taken hold in the minds of many Twins fans (and a number of Twins bloggers) that a good team needs an elite (or to reluctantly use their term, 'dominant') 8th-inning setup guy.

The idea is odd to me, though -- looking at the data above, you'd be hard-pressed to draw any solid conclusion. After all, the Twins won the division in Nathan's best save season and in his worst; they won in their best setup guy season by ERA (2003) and in their worst (2006); they won when Nathan had his best ERA and when he had his worst ERA. They even lost the division as often as they won it when they had a third reliever who was 'elite'.

Ultimately, though, it shouldn't surprise anybody that this kind of limited cut at the numbers doesn't lead to a definite conclusion -- only in cases where the correlation is patently obvious would such a quick-and-dirty analysis demonstrate anything real.

So let's look a bit deeper.

The gist of the 'elite 8th-inning guy' argument is that the Twins wouldn't be able to continue to compete in the AL Central race without an elite set-up guy to turn to in order to get through the 8th innings of close games (or, conversely, use Joe Nathan in that role). But there are a number of unspoken premises behind that argument:

- The Twins need an 8th-inning guy to be good.

Hard to argue this one, since they haven't had a 'bad' 8th inning guy since this run of division titles, and their 'worst' 8th inning guy, Jesse Crain in 2006, still helped them win a title. Still, that doesn't make the claim true, simply untested, in that the Twins haven't had to try to win a title without at least a solid setup guy.

- The Twins don't have that guy in 2008.

Even the most ardent 'Twins need an elite 8th-inning guy' blogger would accept that the Twins had such a guy at the start of the season in Pat Neshek. Oddly, Neshek's raw numbers don't really place him among the top 8th-inning guys in recent Twins history -- both Rincon's 2004 season and Crain's 2005 would come out as better in my own analysis -- and Neshek's own 2008 numbers were surprisingly poor (0-1, 4.73 ERA in 13.1 innings) before being lost for the season with arm troubles.

Since then, the Twins have tried a number of guys in the role, and none of them seem to have met the standards of the blogosphere: Matt Guerrier (6-6, 4.78 ERA), Juan Rincon before his release (2-2, 6.11 ERA), and Brian Bass before his demotion back to AAA (3-4, 4.87 ERA). Certainly none of these guys' numbers compares to the historical norm.

But then there's Jesse Crain. Crain's 2008 numbers may not scream 'elite' (5-3, 3.74), but they're not far off his 2006 numbers above. In addition, Crain has held the role before. It's hard to argue that Crain isn't capable of filling the role, unless you focus far too much on individual failures rather than the big picture.

Which brings us to last night's game in Seattle. The Twins, finally bowing to pressure both internal and external, acquired former closer Eddie Guardado from the Rangers and had him flown to the game in time to enter in the 8th inning to protect a 2-1 lead. Guardado set down the Mariners in order, and Nathan entered in the ninth to ice the game.

Unfortunately, nobody told Adrian Beltre, whose leadoff double in the 9th led to Nathan's fourth blown save of the year, and who then cranked a two-run homer off of Crain in the 11th to win the game for the Mariners.

Ultimately, though, the largest unspoken presumption of the 'Twins need an elite 8th-inning guy' argument is this one:

- Good teams don't lose games in the 8th inning.

Looking at overall scoring by inning in the AL, I'd at first glance tend to agree: the lowest-scoring inning in the AL is the 9th, which is actually a bit misleading, since the fact that the home team doesn't bat in the ninth with a lead means that thus far in 2008 there have been nearly 2000 fewer plate appearances by teams in the 9th than any other regularly scheduled inning. Still, the 8th inning is the third-lowest scoring inning (at 919 runs in 7797 PAs), just behind the 2nd (887 runs in 7724 PAs) and far ahead of the 9th (563 runs in 5791 PAs). If teams aren't scoring as much in the 8th, that means they're not winning as many games in the 8th (and conversely, not losing as many), right?

Well, scoring by itself doesn't really suggest where games are being won and lost -- for that, we should look at individual teams. Since we're interested in good teams, we'll look at the top four teams in the AL other than the Twins:

Tampa Bay - the Rays are tied for the best record in the AL right now and have lost only 50 games all season. Their bullpen is 26-16, and none of the losses have been charged to closer Troy Percival. Five losses, though, have been charged to setup man Dan Wheeler, who also has 8 saves and a 2.57 ERA. Also, oddly enough, the 8th inning is one of the easiest in which to score against the Rays -- they've allowed 69 runs in the 8th this season, only two behind their most prolific runs-allowed inning, the 3rd. The real mystery here is that the Rays' best runs-allowed inning is actually the 7th, where they've allowed just 33 runs. (They've allowed 39 in the 9th, by comparison.) So while the Rays haven't lost a lot of games in the 8th inning, it's hard to claim that it's a good inning for them. Yet they're on top of the AL East and close to being on top of the league. It's hard to argue, though, that the Rays have an 'elite' 8th-inning guy.

Anaheim - if there's a team in the AL who can be said to have had a better bullpen than the Twins over the past six seasons, it'd have to be the Angels. This year, the Angel bullpen is solid; their record is just 20-16, but closer Francisco Rodriguez has 50 saves and only one regular reliever (Justin Speier) has an ERA over 3.00. In terms of runs allowed, Anaheim's worst inning is the 5th -- they've allowed 82 runs in that frame -- but their second-worst is the 7th with 70 runs allowed. Their 8th and 9th innings are excellent, though, with 53 and 46 runs allowed respectively. The bullpen has long been a part of the Angels' success, and that doesn't seem to be any different in 2008. The Angels probably make the best case for having an 'elite' 8th-inning guy, though exactly which pitcher that guy is might be a question for debate.

Boston - the Red Sox have had some notorious bullpen troubles, including their famous attempt at a 'bullpen by committee' back in the early part of this decade. The Red Sox, of course, won the World Series back in 2004 well before making Jonathan Papelbon their closer, and their 2008 bullpen looks decent if unspectacular once you get past the closer -- lefthanders Javier Lopez and Hideki Okajima have had impressive looking seasons with ERAs below 3.00, while righthanders Manny Delcarmen and David Aardsma have poorer-looking ERAs, but not a great difference in actual won-lost record. (The lefties are 5-2 with 1 save, while the righthanders are 3-4 with 1 save.) Their runs allowed splits also look solid in the late innings -- just 30 runs allowed in the 9th and 59 in the 8th, which is right along the pace of the AL as a whole. Boston's strength in pitching is more in their starting rotation than their middle relief, but they don't seem unduly disadvantaged in the late innings. They clearly don't have an 'elite' 8th-inning guy, though.

Chicago - over the years, the White Sox have had legitimate reason to be concerned with the state of their middle relief. In 2008, though, it appears to be at least decent if not solid. Closer Bobby Jenks has been extremely solid even if he doesn't have the save count of more well-known relievers, and lefty Matt Thornton and righty Scott Linebrink both hold ERAs below 3.00. Former closer Octavio Dotel has been serving as the main setup guy, and his numbers aren't that much worse than Jesse Crain's (4-4, 3.81 ERA). Chicago's runs-against by inning have been amazingly balanced -- they've allowed 81 runs in the 6th, but all their other innings fall in a scoring range from 50 (9th) to 68 (3rd) runs; they've allowed 61 in the 8th and 55 (their second-best total) in the 7th. Dotel clearly isn't an 'elite' 8th-inning guy, but the White Sox are still doing reasonably well in the late innings.

So there you have it; the other top four teams in the AL have decent-to-good bullpens without having anybody having the kind of 'elite' season that Baltimore's Jim Johnson (2-4, 2.26 ERA) or Toronto's Scott Downs (0-2, 1.34 ERA) is having. To be a good team, you don't need an 'elite' 8th-inning guy, just a bullpen good enough to get the game to your closer in the 9th.

And then, of course, the closer needs to do his job...

The Makin's

"This one's got the makin's!"
-Natalie, "Sports Night"

Apologies if the quote isn't precise -- many people have noted the final-episode quote 'if you can't make money off of Sports Night, you should get out of the money-making business', but nobody seems to have the quote from a far earlier episode when assistant director Natalie notes that things are about to go haywire on the set of the nightly fictional sports show.

In this case, though, I'm not talking about something going haywire, but rather something going well -- in this case, a pennant race.

Let me lead off by saying that, when we talk about a 'pennant race' today, we're simply not talking about the same thing that baseball fans prior to 1969 were talking about. In pre-divisional days, you won the pennant when you won the regular season race to finish at the top of your league, and from that won the right to participate in the World Series.

Starting in 1969, baseball broke into divisions, and the winners of each division met in a Championship Series to determine which team would represent the league in the World Series. Though winning a 6- or 7-team division is easier than winning an 8- or 10-team league, it's not so much easier that using the word 'pennant' to describe a divisional championship was really degrading the value of the term.

Since baseball broke into three divisions per league, however, it's become increasingly difficult to really identify what a 'pennant' refers to. Do you win a pennant if you win your division? Do you win a pennant only if you win your League Championship Series and go to the World Series? The real bubble in the definitional pie-crust is the introduction of the Wild Card -- because of it, if you go by the first definition of 'pennant' in this paragraph, you have teams that have now won World Series without winning pennants in the same season, which seems silly. If you only go by the latter definition, though, then there's really no such thing as a 'pennant race' anymore, since you don't decide the pennant until after two series of baseball following the 'championship season', with a caveat made for runs like that of the Colorado Rockies last year that forced an additional game to the season just to determine who got into the playoffs.

The Wild Card also adds another wrinkle into modern 'pennant races', in that you can have two teams battling for a divisional title who aren't really battling for playoff spots, because they know very well that whomever doesn't win the division will get the Wild Card. While each team will dutifully say that the title is important and that they're doing their best to win, historically those teams have still set up their pitching rotations and starting lineups in the final week of the season with more of an eye toward the start of playoff baseball than any result in the final days of the now-irrelevant regular season.

Nevertheless, let's not be too picky about this -- modern baseball has many other ways of taking the fun out of the game for its fans as it is, so let's continue to use 'pennant race' to talk about the marathon 162-game chase for playoff spots.

When most folks talk about 'great pennant races', in this sense, they're talking about races in which one team overcame a tremendous deficit to catch (and usually pass) another team -- the Rockies' 2007 season certainly qualifies, as does the Phillies' 2007 season. There are plenty of other examples that could be used, such as the 1969 Miracle Mets in the first ever 'divisional pennant race'. Yet something about this definition of 'great' pennant races leaves me cold -- for each team that made up a tremendous deficit, there's a team that lost a seemingly commanding lead, and it could be argued that the result was as significant or more significant for the teams that lost the chase (or 'choked', in the preferred parlance). Very few Met fans will agree that the 2007 race was as exciting at the 1969 race, even if most baseball fans do think so.

My own feeling is that a 'great' pennant race should feature two (or if possible, more) teams, each of whom has a legitimate shot of winning the race, running neck-and-neck for as far as the season will allow. Winning such a race is still tremendously satisfying, and losing such a race feels much less like EPIC FAIL.

One good example of such a race happened in the Central in 2003 - the Twins, White Sox, and Royals were engaged in an exciting three-way race that, while it could be argued that it started as early as mid-June, really heated up in August as the Twins forged their way up from .500 to insert themselves into what looked like a two-team race, then beat both the Royals and the Sox in different series to pull away in the final two weeks of the season.

You may not have heard about it on SportsCenter, or on your nationally-syndicated sports talk-show, but the 2008 Central race has all the makin's of a classic and then some.

In early 2008, the division didn't have that 'classic' air about it; no team broke more than 4 games above .500 for the entire first month-and-a-half of the season, and four of the five teams in the division held first place for at least three days during that span (yes, the Royals were actually in first by a full two games on April 9, and held onto the lead through the start of play on the 12th, and the Indians took over first on May 14 and held a game-and-a-half lead by the end of play the next day -- only the Tigers have never been in first place in the Central in 2008).

On May 18, however, the White Sox took over the division lead. It probably didn't seem like such a big deal at the time, given that they were only two games above .500, but with the benefit of hindsight we can see that the Sox would put together enough stretches of good play that they managed to hold the lead for much of the summer.

I say 'much', because no matter how well the Sox have played in an attempt to put the division away (much like the Angels have put away the AL West), they simply haven't been able to shake the Twins.

The Sox first took the division lead on May 18, grabbing a half-game lead over the Indians, a one-game edge over the Twins, and a two-game advantage on the Royals. Both the Indians and the Royals folded pretty much at that point -- the Indians, who were three games over .500 when they held their biggest lead (the high-water mark of 2008), quickly lost games afterward to fall to five games below .500 in about a week-and-a-half. The Royals, meanwhile, who looked to be forging their way back up to .500 immediately went on a 12-game losing streak that all but ended their relevance to the 2008 divisional race.

The Twins, at first, seemed to be following the general trend, falling back below .500 after briefly holding their own share of the lead, and dropping six-and-a-half games off the pace by June 9. (It certainly didn't help that the Sox swept them in a brutal four-game series in which they were outscored 40-14.) Then, they rallied, and closed the margin to just a half-game on June 27. By this time, the Twins were eight games over .500.

Again the Sox tried to gain some separation, pushing up their level of play and increasing their lead to three-and-a-half games by July 9. The Twins again rallied, pushing the margin back to a half-game by July 21. At this time, the Twins were eleven games over .500.

The Sox, by this time probably feeling like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid in the classic William Goldman screenplay, pushed forward again, regaining their three-and-a-half game lead by July 26. Then the Sox went to Minnesota for a four-game series and were themselves outscored 26-19 while losing three of four games, allowing the Twins to climb back to a half-game deficit by the end of July.

The Twins took their first divisional lead since April on August 3, promptly fell back into a tie with the Sox the next day with an 11-6 loss in Seattle while the Sox had an off-day, then fell back a game in losing again in Seattle while the Sox defeated the Tigers.

The Twins rebounded and recaptured the lead on August 9, then immediately lost it the next day, then recaptured it again the day after that, then lost it again the day after that, in each case by only a half-game. A Twins' off-day on August 14 paired with a Sox win over Kansas City put the Minnesotans down a game, which they immediately made up the next day as the Sox lost to Oakland and the Twins beat Seattle, forcing a tie.

At this point, the Twins and the Sox were both 15 games over .500.

The tie lasted until August 18 as both teams nursed winning streaks until the Twins were beaten in a close game at home against Oakland. The Sox kept their own win streak going for two more days until an off-day, but the Twins went on a streak of their own, and their fourth-straight win coincided with a Sox loss at home to Tampa Bay, giving the Twins yet another half-game lead.

At this point, the Twins were 20 games over .500. I remind the reader that the Twins were below .500 in early June, which means that both teams have played tremendous baseball since then.

The Twins held the lead for just two days, losing two to the Angels to split that series while the Sox split the final two of their series with the Rays. The Sox again hold a half-game advantage.

Let's recap this chase:

The Sox took over the division lead on May 18. However...

- Since June 20, the Sox have not led the division by even as many as four games -- the Twins moved 3.5 games back on that day and have not trailed by more than that since.
- Since July 31, a span of over three weeks, neither team has had more than a single-game lead in the division.

If you're not enjoying this chase, being played out at a very high level of baseball, I'd argue that you're not really a baseball fan.

The great question now is, how long can this chase last, and how long will it stay this close?

At first I'd have expected the Twins to fall a bit off the pace given their 2008 road record thus far and that they've got another ten games to go before they get home. Then I checked the Sox's schedule and noted that they, too, have a long road trip ahead, sandwiching seemingly easy series against the Orioles and Indians around a three-game set with the Boston Red Sox, who may be fighting for their playoff lives despite having the second-highest payroll in the AL. The Twins, meanwhile, have already played their toughest opponent of the trip on paper, and now face the Mariners, A's, and Blue Jays before returning home on September 5.

If the Twins are still only a game or less off the pace by September 5, then this race really does have the makin's, and the three-game set between the Sox and the Twins at the Metrodome starting September 23 may end up being the most important series either team plays all season.

The Final Hurdle?

The Minnesota Twins have had a simply incredible season. After losing Torii Hunter and Carlos Silva as free agents, and trading Johan Santana so they wouldn't lose him similarly at the end of this season, Twins fans seemed justified in having low expectations for the ballclub. The compensating additions -- Livan Hernandez, Adam Everett, and Mike Lamb -- just didn't seem adequate to the task to take a team that had barely finished above .500 and elevate them back into post-season contention. (We'll ignore Delmon Young for the moment, though many were excited about his arrival, some were dismayed that the Twins had given up as good a pitching prospect as Matt Garza to get him.)

Yet here we are, about six weeks until the end of the regular season, and the Twins trail the division-leading Chicago White Sox by just one game. The Twins have overcome injuries (Michael Cuddyer, Alexi Casilla, Everett) and sudden releases (not just Hernandez but also former setup man Juan Rincon), and now perhaps they face their greatest challenge yet:

The Republican Party.

OK, I kid, but only a little. The Twins begin a 14-game road trip tonight thanks to the upcoming presence of the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota -- a situation that seems odd to those who realize that the Twins play in Minneapolis, not St. Paul, but is due to the reservation of the 'Dome for events associated with the convention.

That the Twins are on a long road trip to accommodate a political party is not new -- the 1992 Astros played a 26-game road trip to accommodate the Republican Convention in that election year, and though you might note that the Astros didn't make the playoffs that year, it should also be noted that they were ten games below .500 at the start of the trip and finished the season at .500. No, the real problem for the Twins in making way for John McCain and his entourage is that, in 2008, the Twins have been an entirely different team on the road than they have been at home.

Start with knowing that the Twins overall record is 18 games above .500 thus far in 2008 (72-54), then note that the Twins on the road this season are five games below .500 (26-31). And oddly enough for a team that's been known for its lack of sparkle on offense, it isn't really the offense's fault -- the Twins are actually hitting better at home (.289/777) than on the road (.270/725). No, the real culprit has been the pitching staff. Check out these splits:

       Home     Road
IP      634      496
H       625      602
HR       69       64
BB      153      152
SO      433      319
ERA    3.28     5.46
WHIP   1.227   1.520

And it's not just a couple of bad apples spoiling the bunch -- check out these home/road ERA splits:

Blackburn - 2.95/4.48
Slowey - 3.23/4.40
Baker - 3.23/4.46
Perkins - 3.91/4.60
Bonser - 5.53/8.01
Crain - 2.60/4.63
Liriano - 1.17/10.64

Most Twins pitchers have an ERA that's a full run higher on the road, and only one man on the staff actually has a lower ERA on the road -- and it's not Joe Nathan (0.78/1.40). It's Bobby Korecky (6.00 ERA in 3 home innings versus 2.45 ERA in 7.1 road innings).

The Twins have been relying so heavily on their young pitching staff, particularly after the release of Hernandez, that a stumble on the road comparable to these numbers would effectively knock the Twins out of post-season contention and all but ice the AL post-season picture by the 2nd of September.

The Twins and Angels are currently tied at 1 in the 5th inning, so a collapse clearly wasn't fated from the start of the road trip. Still, if the Twins can clear this final hurdle in their amazing 2008 season, I'll lose my last reason to bet against them under any circumstance come the post-season.

Crashing the Roundtable

Over at The Rake, Britt Robson, who normally covers the Timberwolves and the NBA with incredible acumen, has assembled what used to be a regular feature in his column/blog career, the Twins Roundtable. In it, Robson, fellow Raker and former City Pages writer Brad Zellar, and freelance writer and MinnPost contributor David Brauer discuss how the Twins season has gone so far and how it's likely to go the rest of the year. For the record, I'll note that both Zellar and Brauer predict the Twins to win the Central, though neither really comes up with a solid reason other than 'I want them to'.

I'm a firm believer in the idea that, when you're steeped in a culture, even one as esoteric as Twins baseball fan, you tend to pick up unconscious blind spots that need to be probed every so often, so despite not being anywhere near any of these guys in experience or talent, I'll appoint myself as critic of their criticism and point out the things in their joint essays that I either agree with or disagree with:

Livan Hernandez was a good acquisition for the ballclub.

Only Brad Zellar makes the statement in so many words, though neither Robson nor Brauer make any real comment for or against*, so it's likely that they either agree or don't disagree as much as they do about the other points they made.

* - Brauer comes closest, simply saying that Hernandez ate his innings in the first half and that it was time for him to go when he did, as well as referencing an earlier Robson piece saying just about the same thing.

It's become popular among Twins bloggers, especially since the decision to release Hernandez, to lump him in with other recent 'poor' veteran pitcher signings like Sidney Ponson and Ramon Ortiz. I disagree, and side with Zellar on the point -- he notes that none of the Twins young starters is on pace to break 200 innings now (which despite what you may remember about young kids throwing 300+ innings in the 70s is a good thing**), which minimizes both the odds that many of the Twins starters will break down during the stretch as well as the odds that overwork will show up in reduced performance next season. That's a win-win for Twins fans and the team itself, especially as it seems that the staff, while not brilliant, has proven solid -- Blackburn, Baker, and Slowey are all below the league-average ERA of 4 this season, and all are 27 or younger in real age as well as 'baseball age'.

** - it should be noted for fairness' sake that Nick Blackburn in the closest to being on a 200 inning pace, and in effect is pitching at the same 'innings eating' pace that Hernandez himself was pitching at prior to his release -- in 23 starts for the Twins, Hernandez threw 139.2 innings, while in his first 23 starts, Blackburn threw 140 innings. Blackburn starts tonight against Oakland, and if the Twins keep throwing him out there every five days, skipping someone in the rotation to do so, he'll get nine more starts, which might well have him break 200. On the other hand, he'd also be scheduled to start the final game of the season at home against the Royals, which I'd expect he'd do only if the Twins absolutely needed to win that game to make the post-season, which means it's more likely Blackburn will make eight starts, average 6 innings per start, and finish less than 10 innings shy of that dangerous number. We'll see.

The thing that most folks seem to forget is that it was Hernandez that helped the team assemble a buzz in the earlygoing -- Hernandez came out of the blocks with six wins in seven decisions, with the Twins winning all but one of those first nine starts, and the only loss being a resounding 10-0 pounding at the hands of the Rangers. The Twins as a team were just slighly over .500 through Hernandez's first nine starts and actually slipped below .500 later in May, so it's legitimate to suggest that, had Hernandez not started so well (let's not forget he had a 3.90 ERA in those first nine starts, which is better than every current Twins starter save Blackburn), the Twins would not have been in a position to consider themselves in the race, and it's possible that the prophecies of the club staggering to a 90+ loss finish might well have come true.

The Twins have been lucky with runners in scoring position, and a loss of luck in that field might portent a collapse.

Nobody says that the Twins will collapse at hitting with runners in scoring position (I think Robson was specifically thinking of the RISP thing when he asked about 'surprising trends likely to reverse in the last 50 games'), and there's a good reason for that -- they still haven't collapsed yet. Back at the end of May, the Twins were hitting .311/845 with RISP and I noted back then that the trend wasn't likely to continue; heading into play today (August 18), the Twins as a team were hitting .317/858 with RISP, which means that their hitting with RISP has actually improved since June 1.

It's not as though the Twins are a team that 'knows how to hit' with RISP -- as you'd expect, the Twins under Ron Gardenhire have only one other season in which they hit significantly above league-average in RISP situations, and that was in 2006 -- but at this point, with over two-thirds of the season already in the books, I think the question shifts from 'when will the Twins' hitting with RISP come back down to earth' to 'why shouldn't they keep this up for the rest of the year?' After all, players can have good years -- Nick Punto is hitting over .270 for only the second time in his career, for example -- so why can't teams have 'good years' for things that seem to be largely driven by chance?

The bullpen looks bad, and either needs some more warm bodies or is likely to collapse. Meanwhile, give Nathan more shots in the 8th in close games.

Let's take this one in reverse order. Last night was Nathan's second 'eighth inning outing'; an outing where he was inserted in the eighth inning of a close game to ice the save rather than hoping that one of the other relievers can finish the inning to let Nathan start the ninth in a save situation. This outing went better than the last one -- Nathan entered with two out and the bases loaded in the 8th and struck out Adrian Beltre to end the inning. He then loaded the bases with two out in the 9th as well, against the bottom of Seattle's order no less, before retiring Ichiro Suzuki to ice the save and give the Twins the series sweep. Nathan's other such outing this season, ironically also against the Mariners, resulted in Nathan allowing two inherited runners to score and the Twins losing the ballgame.

Does this mean that Nathan can't do the job outside of the ninth inning? No. What it means is that Nathan probably isn't any better than a 'typical' major league pitcher, or at least closer. Let me back this one up with some numbers, since it's likely a fairly controversial claim:

In 2006, Nathan entered 37 games in a 'save situation'; his team ahead by one, two, or three heading into the final inning. The games break down like this:

home games, 1-run lead: 5
away games, 1-run lead: 8
home games, 2-run lead: 6
away games, 2-run lead: 5
home games, 3-run lead: 6
away games, 3-run lead: 7

All told, Nathan entered 37 games with a chance to earn a 'classical' save. Something's a bit screwy in the numbers, since Nathan earned 36 saves in 2006 and blew two, which doesn't match up with the 37 save opportunities, but the discrepancy won't materially affect the analysis. The key is that Nathan blew two saves in 2006 in either 37 or 38 chances.

Here are the expected win probabilities, based on actual game data from 1996-2006 (taken from this online Win Expectancy Finder):

visiting team leading by 1 with 0 out in bottom of ninth: 81.9%
home team leading by 1 with 0 out in top of ninth: 86.2%
visiting team leading by 2 with 0 out in bottom of ninth: 91.8%
home team leading by 2 with 0 out in top of ninth: 94.6%
visiting team leading by 3 with 0 out in bottom of ninth: 96.3%
home team leading by 3 with 0 out in top of ninth: 98.3%

Based on a weighted average of these percentages, a 'typical' pitcher throwing in those situations would likely have blown one of the one-run home leads (5*.819= about 4.1), would probably have blown one of the away one-run leads but would not likely have blown two (8*.862= over 6.5), and would likely have been perfect the rest of the way (the product of the number of appearances and the winning percentage is within a half-point of the number of appearances in each case).

In 2006, Nathan went 7-0 with 36 saves and blew just two save opportunities, and the Twins didn't lose either of those blown saves (each game was won in extra innings, with Nathan actually getting one of the wins). Nevertheless, mathematically, his performance is right at the expected average for all pitchers throwing in those situations from 1996-2006.

Now you could argue that, of course, from '96-'06 the only guys pitching in those situations are closers themselves, which is true. Yet there are two other things to consider:

1. Those performances over that eleven year period also include the performances of all those closers that their fans and teams decided were crap closers -- LaTroy Hawkins in 2000-2001, Mike Trombley in 1999, etc. -- as well as the great performances. Nathan's 2006 fits right in with the mathematical expectation for all such closers, which suggests that it was not among the greatest of such performances.

2. This study by Dave Smith of Retrosheet (and pointed out by Jim Caple of ESPN) suggests that closers haven't actually had an impact on their teams' overall rate of success in the 9th innings, as the winning percentage of teams entering the 9th with a lead is about the same now as it was in the 1900s, when the 'closer' was unheard of. (Of course, this doesn't mean that the best pitcher wasn't necessarily on the mound, either.)

The combination of these two factors suggests that you could, in fact, take just about any pitcher, put him into the 'closer' role, and expect him to achieve similar success to what Joe Nathan has done for the Twins since arriving in 2004. (In fact, the Oakland A's did exactly that for some years, as noted by Michael Lewis in 'Moneyball' -- a process known in the A's front office as 'selling the closer'.)

This, of course, leads to the ludicrous suggestion among the blogosphere and the sports pages that what the Twins need to find is a 'dominant eighth-inning guy', or to use Nathan in that role. More on this myth later.

Delmon Young has been a disappointment defensively in left field.

This one's easy -- this is Young's first season playing home games in the Metrodome, which is a notoriously hard place for visiting outfielders to play, given that the Teflon roof is nearly the same tone as a baseball in flight. What appears to the roundtable as a lack of range is likely just Young still adjusting to his new home park's roof. (Sadly, I've not found defensive statistics broken out by home and road games to test this theory, but I'd expect Young's range to be higher on the road than at home, and not because the Metrodome's left field is a 'much bigger expanse' as Brauer notes. Here's the distances down the left field line and to left-center for each of the five parks in the AL Central:

          LFLine     LeftCtr
Metrodome   343        385
US Cell     330        377
Comerica    345        370 (395 in 2000-2003)
Jacobs      325        370
Kaufmann    330        375

The Dome has a bit more area, though not as much as Comerica before their 2003 adjustment to the outfield fences. Since all the extra area exists beyond the warning tracks of the other ballparks in the Central***, it's hard to say exactly how that extra area affects Young's range, but it certainly doesn't explain Robson's critique of Young's 'slow jumps...on the ball off the bat'. That seems pretty clearly a roof issue.)

*** - It should also be noted that the Dome has very little playable foul territory in left (and in right as well), which might make up for some of the extra depth in the outfield.

Why are people so hard on Young while giving Gomez so much slack for his own poor performance?

This is Zellar's comment, and it comes at the end of the essay so neither Robson nor Brauer comment on it (though Zellar's comment also applies to what Brauer and Robson have said earlier about Young and Gomez as well).

I have to agree with Zellar. Gomez is 22 in baseball years, but Young is just 23, not at all significantly older. In addition, Young is performing better than Gomez now, and has performed better and at a younger age at each previous level of pro ball where both have played significantly. So why do people seem to gush about Gomez's potential but complain about Young's performance? I see three reasons:

1. Gomez started the season hot, showing spectacular numbers early, and quickly became a fan favorite, and he still gets talked up in the media, both TV and print. Young started slowly and just as slowly improved, to the point where his numbers now look good, but not spectacular. A simple confusion of what baseball statistics mean is part of the problem here.

2. Cognitive dissonance, specifically related to post-purchase rationalization: Gomez is the only player received in the Johan Santana trade who is currently playing in the major leagues, while Young is one of two players received for Matt Garza and Jason Bartlett playing for the Twins (the other is Brendan Harris). Most fans, looking at the two trades, will assume Gomez is more valuable, since the Twins seemed to give up more to get him. (If this is true, I'd expect gushing over Gomez to drop significantly if Phillip Humber or Deolis Guerra become major-league stars.)

3. Relationship with the media. This maps back to point one in a way, but not completely. Gomez is ebullient, quotable, and seems to be available for quotes after games in which he does well as well as games in which he does badly. Young is not always ebullient, and seemed to be protected by the club from the media early in the season when he was struggling. Now that he's doing better, the local sports guys have simply learned not to bother him, which leads to Young not getting the press (and corresponding press-love) that Gomez gets.

Robson predicts that the White Sox will triumph in the divisional race, while the Twins are the pick of Brauer and Zellar. I have no real prediction, though I'll be rooting for the Twins to win, of course. Zellar suggests that even if the Twins win the division, they shouldn't be expected to go far in the playoffs, which I agree with.

Then of course, I also predicted the Twins would lose 100 games this year, which looks absolutely idiotic looking at the standings today.

Indians Remain Hot in 7-5 Win Over Baltimore

It seems like forever a go that the Indians had won five straight games. The locker room at the time was full of players that were ready to make a run at a title, like C.C. Sabathia, Paul Byrd, Casey Blake, and players like Victor Martinez and Travis Hafner were healthy. In other words - it was a time when the Indians felt they had a shot in the AL Central. Fast forward to August 12th. The team has moved the first three players on the list, while the other two are on the DL. Nevertheless, this Indians squad now simply playing out the season is at least showing some signs of life.

Tuesday night against the equally as bad Baltimore Orioles, and just about three hours after moving Byrd to the Red Sox, the Indians built an early 4-2 lead and led at one point 5-2, but like Monday night saw the game slip away only to then regain the lead late for a 7-5 win. The team gave up the 5-2 lead by allowing the O's a single run in the 5th and two more in the 7th to tie the game at 4. The Tribe offense continued to stay hot, as they scored twice in the bottom of the 8th to seal the deal.

Shin-Soo Choo was hit by a pitch, then Andy Marte bunted Choo to second. Asdrubal Cabrera stayed hot, hitting a single to center that scored Choo with the winning run to make it 6-5. Two batters later the team added an extra run when Ben Francisco singled to left that scored Cabrera to make it 7-5. Jensen Lewis pitched a 1-2-3 ninth to earn the save and send the Indians to their second straight over the birds.

Jeremy Sowers went for the Indians to start the game, and was good after a shakey first that saw him allow two runs. He lasted 6.1, allowing four runs on six hits. His fastball seemed to have pretty good movement, and he continues to make progress in his development in trying to make sure he'll be a part of the starting rotation in 2009. The bullpen of dispair saw Masa Kobayashi not retire a batter and allow a run on two hits.

Rafael Perez, who is the best of the pen's bunch right now, went 1.2 scoreless innings, and picked up the win to improve to 2-2. Lewis' 9th inning gave him his second save of the season. It's the second night in a row the team threw him out in the 9th, and the second time he was able to come through with a good outing. The Indians will continue their series with the Orioles tonight. Anthony Reyes, who's 3-and-1 with a 3.86 ERA, will start for the Indians. The Orioles will send out Jeremy Guthrie, who's 9-and-8 with a 3.26 ERA. First pitch at Progressive Field is set for 7:05 p.m.

Offense Paces Indians to Fourth Straight Win 13-8

It's been over 400 days that the Indians had tangled with the Baltimore Orioles, but for the Tribe, the hot streak continues no matter who they play. Monday night on a beautiful night for baseball at Progressive Field, the Indians offense jumped on O's starter Dennis Sarfate for four runs in the first, and in the end held on for an 11-8 win to push their winning streak to four straight.

The game was not as easy as it looked, as the team went up 5-0 after two, but then had to rally after they found themselves down 8-7 heading into the bottom of the 7th. From there, the offense that had so many issues in the beginning of the year, rallied for one of the few times this season. They put up a three-spot in the bottom of the 7th with some heads up baserunning, then added another three runs in the 8th on a pair of homers, one from Ben Francisco and another from Andy Gonzalez to secure the win.

Fausto Carmona did his best to try and hold the lead, but just couldn't do it. He lasted 6.1 innings, allowing 7 runs on six hits. He walked four, struck out four, and gave up a homer. Edward Mujica, who I wish they would finally give up on, pitched 0.2, and allowed the run that put the O's up for a bit to make it 8-7. Brendan Donnelly did a nice job in the 8th not allowing a run while walking one and K'ing one. In the 9th it was Jensen Lewis closing the door.

Four players in the lineup had two hits, Francisco, Johnny Peralta, Asdrubal Cabrera and Ryan Garko paced the offense that pounded out 13 hits and 13 runs. Four Orioles pitchers were no match for a hot Indians offense that has scored 33 runs in their last five games. Cabrera also added a homer for the Indians. The Indians improve to 53-64 on the season, dropping the O's to 56-61.

The two teams will play game two of the four game set on Tuesday night at Progressive Field. Jeremy Sowers (1-6, 5.70) will go for the Indians vs Garrett Olson (8-6, 6.06) at 7:05 p.m.

Delicious, Delicious Irony

The Twins are currently on a West Coast road trip in Seattle, playing against a team described by one Twins blogger as "the walking dead".

Be careful how you describe your opposition, because the walking dead can be very difficult to stop.

On Monday night, the Twins took a 6-0 lead into the sixth inning, and it looked for all the world as though the Minnesotans were on their way to a cakewalk victory. A single Mariner run in the bottom of the sixth didn't upset many; instead, the real problem was the 10 runs given up by the bullpen in the bottom of the 7th, as the Twins went through three different bullpen pitchers in search of someone who could stanch the bleeding. Some, of course, blamed Gardenhire for both leaving in Perkins, the starter, to give up the avalanche-starting grand slam, and then not finding the right reliever to prevent the M's from scoring six more runs after the bases-clearing, one-out slam. Had the collapse come in the 8th rather than in the 7th inning, I'd have expected the usual suspects in the Twins blogosphere to come out swinging, blaming Gardy for again not turning to his priciest and best bullpen pitcher with the game on the line.

Well, on Tuesday, those bloggers got their wish -- the Twins, trailing heading into the top of the 8th, notched four runs to forge a one-run lead in what looked like a stirring comeback with the team's back up against the wall. Matt Guerrier, the guy who'd given up three hits and two walks before retiring the final batter of the 7th the night before, came in to pitch the 8th tonight as being the closest thing the Twins seem to have to a setup guy right now. However, when Guerrier again found himself struggling, sandwiching a pair of singles to Suzuki and Ibanez around a pop-foul by Reed, Gardenhire did what Twins bloggers have been begging him to do all year -- he turned to Joe Nathan.

Nathan's first batter, Adrian Beltre, lined out to short, which perhaps should have been a sign. The next hitter, second-baseman Jose Lopez, doubled to the gap in left-center, scoring both Suzuki and Ibanez and giving Seattle the lead. Nathan collected his third blown save of the season, but escaped statistical catastrophe by pitching in a situation where both runs -- and the loss -- were charged to Guerrier. (In fact, Nathan's ERA went down to 1.17 after striking out Clement to end the inning.)

It's delicious, delicious irony that, the very first time Gardy turned to Nathan to hold down a save that members of the blogosphere believe should be pat for a reliever of Nathan's caliber, Nathan blows it. I don't claim to have predicted that Nathan would blow a save in this situation, and certainly not his first try at one, but it's a nice 'in your face' to those bloggers who thought Nathan would be so perfect in those situations that it was tantamount to baseball idiocy not to use him.

With a Nick Swisher walk-off homer, the White Sox now find themselves back in first in the Central by an entire game, and Twins Nation finds themselves flailing in despair hoping someone can pitch through the 7th and 8th innings without hacking up a lung.

Baseball really is a funny game.

For the Homies Who Ain't Here

A lot has happened to the Twins since I last sat at this keyboard. We could discuss the club taking three of four from the White Sox to pull within a half-game of the division lead; we could discuss the end of the 'why isn't Francisco Liriano in the major leagues' argument; we could even discuss the distinction between the Twins moves at the non-waiver trade deadline versus those of the other clubs in the division.

Today, though, I'm in the mood to discuss departures.

While every team plays the same game on the field, some teams embrace the idea that there's more than one way to win, or at least be successful, at that game. As such, some teams seem to embody particular philosophies: the Oakland A's, for instance, look for undervalued talent, both in individual players and in larger scale concepts (on-base percentage, defense, etc.) and thus field competitive teams for far below the market price. The San Diego Padres embody the philosophy that you don't need any actual baseball knowledge to own or run a major-league ballclub.

The Twins have, at least since the Tom Kelly era, done their best to embody a philosophy that could be summed up as 'success through superior scouting'; the Twins find players who are able to contribute to a big-league ballclub, stars or otherwise. The Twins have also presented themselves as an organization that values loyalty and rewards it. The Twins lock up their own free agents pretty frequently; over the past few years, the Twins have extended more players (Nathan, Cuddyer, Mauer, Morneau, Redmond, Punto, Crain) than they've allowed to leave as free agents (Silva, Hunter, Eyre, Rodriguez) or traded (Santana, Castillo), and this doesn't include any of the players the Twins signed to single-year deals to avoid arbitration, such as Jason Kubel and Matt Guerrier.

The Twins are also a club that seems to frustrate its more passionate fans by showing patience with players, particularly veteran players, who don't seem to 'have it' anymore. The Twins signing and play of starting pitchers Sidney Ponson and Ramon Ortiz at the start of the 2006 season is just the most obvious of these examples, and one that Twins bloggers can't seem to let go of even over two years later.

It's this last point that I want to focus on today.

Running a big-league ballclub is hard; really it is. For starters, you've got hundreds of people who think they could run the club better than you can, and many of those have their own soapboxes these days, be they electronic or made of newsprint. Analyzing whether a move succeeded or failed seems easy -- all you do is look at the numbers at the end of the year -- but that isn't necessarily the best way to go. Keep in mind that some moves don't pay dividends right away, but do down the road; case in point, the Twins traded Matt Lawton to the Mets for Rick Reed in 2001 and the deal seemed to cost them a shot at the 2001 AL Central title, yet Reed was arguably the team's best starter in 2002 when the team won the Central title for the first time.

Even within the context of overly-simplistic analysis, there's often no single right answer, and any move can be both praised and criticized. Let's use the recent promotion of Francisco Liriano and release of Livan Hernandez as an example. When the Twins signed Hernandez, many thought it was just a reprise of the Ponson/Ortiz debacle in 2006, yet Hernandez did what he was asked to do and more; pitch a lot of innings and give the Twins a chance to win (Hernandez himself was 10-8, while the Twins were 14-9 overall in Livan's starts). His recent performance didn't seem as impressive as his early performance, though, and with Liriano sitting unhappy at AAA with the Twins in a pennant chase, the front office decided to make a move. On the one hand, the move could improve the rotation enough to allow the Twins to either pass Boston for the wild card, or Chicago for the AL Central title. On the other, the move gives the Twins a five-man rotation with a total of zero career big-league post-season starts; the only pitcher on the Twins staff who has started a major-league post-season game is Boof Bonser, who started Game 2 of the 2006 Division Series with Oakland and pitched to a no-decision. So is the move a good one for improving the Twins chances of making the post-season, or a bad one for hurting the Twins chances of advancing in the post-season assuming they make it? Both arguments, though simplistic, seem reasonable.

But if the dumping of Hernandez might eventually be seen as a half-full, half-empty maneuver, the release of Craig Monroe should be seen as at best ironic and at worst insane. Heading down the stretch toward the trading deadline, the only offensive asset the Twins were said to be interested in was a right-handed hitter with some power who could face lefties and help break up the string of Twins lefty hitters (Mauer, Morneau, Kubel). Monroe is a right-handed hitter with 8 homers in less than 200 plate appearances in 2008 (projecting to over 20 in a 'full season'), so at first glance you might expect that the Twins already had at least one example of what they were looking for. A superficial glance at Monroe's 2008 splits, however, would suggest otherwise:

vs LHP - .138/449 in 96 PA
vs RHP - .276/943 in 83 PA

Monroe has been hitting like a power lefty, which the Twins already have in spades! The problem with this superficial glance is that it ignores two other, significant factors:

1. Monroe's career splits aren't that steep and do favor him batting against lefties: in his career, Monroe is .250/730 against right-handers in 1929 PAs, and .259/776 against lefties in 908 PAs (these numbers include the 2008 numbers above).

2. Monroe's batting average on balls in play (BABIP) against righties in 2008 is a healthy .349, significantly above average, while the same stat against lefties is an astonishing .156. This kind of split is not sustainable, and is almost certainly due to chance; given more opportunities against lefties, Monroe's BABIP and overall hitting numbers against them are likely to improve and possibly improve dramatically. Of course, assuming Monroe gets any more chances against lefties in 2008, it won't be with the Twins.

I suppose every team makes decisions like this; decisions that they say aren't about the numbers but really are only about the numbers and a superficial understanding of the numbers at that. It's just frustrating to see it from my own ballclub, especially when it's not the first time in recent memory they've done it; since being traded by the Twins to the Reds in 2006, Kyle Lohse has been in more pennant chases than the Twins have. He helped keep the Reds close in 2006, then went from the Reds to the Phillies in 2007 and went 3-0 as he helped the Phillies make the playoffs. He's currently 13-3 for a Cardinals team that nobody seems to recognize is just as much in the NL Central race as the Cubs or Brewers. Yet we dumped him because...well, his numbers looked bad, plus he didn't make himself many friends by letting his frustration with the manager get the better of him in 2006.

So I'm tipping a beer back today and letting it drench the ground in honor of Doug Mientkiewicz, Luis Rivas, Kyle Lohse, Ramon Ortiz, Livan Hernandez, and especially Craig Monroe -- the homies who ain't here.