Scooter and the Babe

Reds utility man Scooter Gennett has had himself quite the season.

In this, his fifth year in the Bigs, Gennett has already set career bests in home runs and RBIs and will likely reach new heights for a full season in batting average, OBP, SLG, OPS, etc.

He also did some record-breaking with a four-home run, 10-RBI day in June.

But nothing will compare with earlier this week, when he hit his 20th home run and came in for mop-up pitching duty in a 15-5 loss to the Cubs. 

In doing so, Gennett became only the second player in MLB history to hit his 20th home run in a game in which he pitched.

The other player to do so also had a nickname.

Babe.

Put that on your resume.

The Unicorn of Baseball Facts

You're reading today that Alex Rodriguez has become the second player in baseball history to 2,000 RBIs, after Hank Aaron.

Yay him.

Except, this is abject nonsense and everyone disseminating this "fact" knows it.

The lords of baseball established the RBI as an official stat in 1920. Prior to that, it was not tracked. But it's not like it didn't exist. Uranus existed before 1781 even though humans didn't know it.

From 1920 onward, Babe Ruth drove 1,993 runners home, including himself nearly 700 times. But he began driving in runs before that.

In 1919, his first as an everyday player, he smashed a record 29 home runs. So without any calculating, we know that Ruth passed the 2,000 RBI mark (1,993 + 29). He also popped 11 out the year before as a pitcher/outfielder.

It strains credulity to think that Ruth didn't knock in many more than 29 runs that year. He batted .322 with 34 doubles, 12 triples, 64 singles and 101 walks for the BoSox.

Reviewing the boxscores of every game in which the Sultan swatted prior to 1920, Baseball Reference estimates he drove home another 221 beyond those officially tallied, for 2,214 in total.

Now maybe the intern at Baseball Reference was smoking dope the week he did the calculations. Let's say he was seeing double and vastly over-estimated the Bambino's RBI total. What's the difference? He's well over 2,000 by any standard.

We can say there is uncertainty about Ruth's lifetime RBI count. He's around 2,214, give or take a handful. But he unquestionably accounted for 2,000+ runs. We know that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Then why does the world of baseball journalism assert and repeat a piece of information that it knows, not withstanding any other uncertainty, is wrong. False. A lie. Mis-information. Stupidity.

You know my theory: because baseball "journalism" and stupidity go together like peanut butter and jelly. Or really like unicorns and horns. Because like baseball journalism, a unicorn is a figment of our imagination.

The Best Player in Baseball? He's Not in Your Top Ten

Who has been the best player in baseball over the last six years? 

Go ahead, ponder that for a minute. Make your list of five guys. No, make that 10. 

I'll bet this Gold Glove shortstop never entered your mind:

He's hit .309/.385/.553, 37% above average from that key defensive position.

Per 162 games played, he's slammed 35 home runs and 40 doubles and triples. Per 162 games, he's accounted for 7.5 WAR. And his name is a three-pack of alliteration.

If only Troy Trevor Tulowitzki could remain upright, we'd recognize his greatness, and maybe the Rockies would avoid the cellar. In the last three seasons, he's hit 44% above average, but missed 222 games due to, among other things, a labrum tear, a fractured rib and groin surgery. He's Nomar for Millenials.

It's a fool's errand to count on Tulo for more than 100 games this season, but it's a dreamer's responsibility to consider the possibilities. A healthy Tulo could win an MVP. But then, so could a healthy Babe Ruth.

Will Mike Trout Be the Best Ever?

You can't write about Major League Baseball these days without writing repeatedly about Mike Trout. It would be like leaving out Mozart from a history of classical music. Trout, after all, has already in his young career reached heights no one else has seen in the game's 130-year history.

Mike Trout authored the greatest age-20 season of all time, batting .326 with 30 homers, scoring 129 runs, swiping 49 of 55 bases and intercepting everything in center field. He followed that with the greatest age-21 season of all time, somehow increasing his OPS 25 points. He was the world's most spectacular player (and the AL's most valuable, though not the Most Valuable) each of his first two seasons. He is the greatest player through age-21 ever to play the game.

Consider this: Before he's even celebrated his 22nd birthday, Mike Trout has produced 21 wins against replacement at the highest level of baseball on the planet. That's more than Carl Everett, a two-time All-Star who hit a commendable .271/.341/.462 with 202 homers and 107 stolen bases, produced in his entire career. Mike Trout has had Carl Everett's entire career before most great players even get a Major League call-up.

In fact, Dave Cameron of Fangraphs has determined that Mike Trout has had the greatest  career of all time through age-22 -- even though he hasn't played his age-22 season yet. He could literally play at replacement level for the Angels in 2014 -- we're talking something like .240/.300/.380 with average defense and 12 steals --  and still be considered the greatest 22-year-old ballplayer of all time. (We would re-assess him if he were that bad, but you get the point.)

Fortunately for us, nothing short of a season-ending injury in Spring Training will prevent Mike Trout from producing value in 2014. Fangraphs' Steamer projections system, which tends to be conservative with superstars, projects for Trout .306/.401/.522, 26 homers, a very pessimistic 31 of 43 steals, and about eight more wins above replacement. 

So Mike Trout is a certain Hall of Famer and is knocking on Babe Ruth's mansion to claim the Best of All Time trophy, right? In the words of the sage philosopher Quick Draw McGraw, "now just a doggone minute there, Babalooie."

Consider the plight of Cesar Cedeno, the Mike Trout of the '70s. Cedeno burst onto the scene from the Dominican at age 19 in 1970 flashing speed, power and potential. In 90 games in that rarely-mourned cavern called the Astrodome, Cedeno laid down a .310/.340/.451 with 17 steals in half a season for Houston. He regressed a bit at age-20, but then broke out the following two years, hitting .320, averaging 37 doubles, 23 homers, 55 steals and 7.7 wins against replacement. Entering the 1974 season, 23-year-old Cedeno was at the top of everyone's "next superstar" list, the top power/speed merchant since Mantle and Mays.

It's not as if Cedeno disappointed. Over the next four years he averaged .352 OBP, 35 doubles/triples, 18 homers, 56 steals and 5.2 wins against replacement. Through his age-26 season, he had collected four All-Star berths, five Gold Gloves, and 40 WAR. He was a star, just not quite a superstar.

And then the wheels came off -- or at least one wheel. Surgery following a bad knee injury cost him most of 1978 and limited his effectiveness thereafter. Cedeno never again stole 50 bases, never again hit even 11 homers, and missed at least a third of games in five of his remaining eight seasons. It's a cautionary tale for Trout and his fans.

Cedeno's tale of the tape is a study in excellence. He smacked 199 home runs, nearly 500 doubles/triples, added 550 steals and hit 23% above average while patrolling the vast center pasture. His 53 lifetime WAR ties him with Fred McGriff and places him a few spots above Lance Berkman, Mickey Cochran and Luis Gonzalez. 

Almost anyone would envy Cedeno's career, but not Mike Trout. Trout is aiming well-above 259th on the WAR list and so are his fans, which should include every baseball in North America. Now in year three, we'll be watching to see if he transitions from phenom to marvel and avoids the plight of players like Cesar Cedeno.

Most Valuable Parttimer

I posted this blog...to the wrong site...the day after the World Series. Probably not worth resurrecting, but, well, you're getting your money's worth regardless.

Ultimately, the vote for MVP of the World Series has all the clout of an Afghan election. Seven games -- or two pitching starts -- is not exactly a barometer of anything.

Bestowing the honor on a player who batted in three games and fielded in none takes us from the ridiculous to the...um...really ridiculous. Hideki Matsui basically earned the trophy for getting three hits in the culminating event. Woo!

More to the point, it adds another data point against the wisdom that there are "big game" players, or that one guy is great in the post-season and another guy is not. It's just absurd to assume that a player's batting average or ERA in two playoff series is indicative of anything beyond those games themselves.

Which is why great players sometimes fare poorly in the playoffs and vice versa. It's not a character flaw; it's a small sample. Or maybe it's pitching match-ups, which is what put Ryan Howard on ice this World Series. The Yankees threw four lefties at him, and while Howard is Samson against righties, he swings a stickball bat against southpaws.

I'm sure there is a three game stretch in Horace Clarke's career when he went eight-for-13. And I'd be shocked if Babe Ruth never went one for 22 with nine strikeouts at various junctions in his career. Nonetheless, in case you hadn't heard, Ruth finished several spots ahead of Clarke in Hall of Fame voting.

This case was long ago made and proven, but you'd never know it from baseball writers and sportscasters, who continue to congratulate Alex Rodriguez for "stepping up," loosening up" or "coming up big." It's another example of ignorance being the dominant force in the profession.