I'm relieved he's starting...

Before I get on to this week's discussion let's recap the post from two weeks ago...I recommended we go fishing on Medlen. If you picked him up and started him you were rewarded with 8+ innings of crap over two starts and then he showed up this afternoon. Medlen managed to go 6 innings, allowing one run and 9 Ks against 1 walk and 4 hits in his first career victory. Apparently Chipper Jones gave him some advice after watching him walk the first batter of the game: "Throw strikes." Now, if you are crazy like me, today's game is enough to keep hoping Chipper's advice sinks in and Medlen becomes the pitcher we want him to be. So, he will remain stashed on my bench to see if he is real or Memorex.

Oh and for a footnote, apparently my bias for former and current Royals may not be a good strategy. After one very promising 10 strikeout performance, De La Rosa has returned to the state of most Rockies pitchers. Oh well can't win 'em all.

Now, on to this week's person of interest...on again, off again starter/reliever, Randy Wells. After 5 great starts in Iowa, the 27 year old rookie has continued to put up some impressive numbers in his 4 big league starts posting a 1.80 ERA and 23 Ks in 25 innings. Trouble is he is still seeking his first victory.

Unlike Medlen, I am less convinced of Wells. Not that he hasn't been fantastic. It's just that his minor league career shows a great strikeout ability consistent with all the relieving he has done and I suspect the league will begin to figure him out once they have seen him once or twice. It is possible at his age he has "learned to pitch" but I'm not so sure. Either way, if you believe the Cubs will begin to turn things around he's worth the risk. He's also a two start pitcher this week and I'm going to put my money where my mouth is and start him. Do the same at your own risk.

The Price may be right, but he's not Medlen

I know. In my previous post I said perhaps I'd review David Cone. Well, Mr. Cone is going to have to wait because I want to talk Fantasy for a moment...

If you remember my 3 tenets for winning fantasy, I am going to focus on 2 of them right now: #2. Good in season management, and #3. Luck.

This is about the time where you should be looking at the free agents out there and searching for a player or two that no one else realizes just how good they may be. I know what you are thinking. You are thinking, everyone knows who all the good players are. Everyone can see who is putting up big numbers. Everyone even knows the best prospects. But that is not the case. There are plenty of diamonds in the rough sitting there waiting to be picked up. Take a chance. You may strike gold. Now, this is not to say you should simply go with trial and error. You have to look closely at the numbers to find what you need. Let's focus on one prospect most of your fellow fantasy owners aren't paying attention to...

The Atlanta Braves are calling up Kris Medlen to replace an ineffective Reyes in the rotation this week. He will be a two start pitcher. If he is available in your league, I recommend you pick him up and start him. Sometimes there are prospects that are "hot" like David Price. Price has been historically phenomenal and has rightfully been sitting on the bench for most teams in CBS leagues all season. (He is owned in 82% of all leagues. Over at ESPN he is owned in 80% of the leagues. Like I said, "hot" and well-known.) Meanwhile, though Medlen may not be as highly touted as Price, he does possess one advantage...he is in the Major Leagues. Also, Price has been rather ordinary this season: 1-4 with a 4.66 ERA. His K/BB ratio is 26/16 and averaging just over 4 innings per start. Medlen on the other hand? 5-0 at AAA Gwinnett with a Greinke-like 0.97 ERA and a 44K/10BB ratio. If your thinking that this may be a fluke, I don't think so. His career minor league numbers are: 15-9 with 263 Ks in 226.1 IP against just 51 BBs. His career ERA is 2.39. Granted, this is his first season in AAA and he has never even sniffed the Majors. But those numbers look promising. When taking a chance on a player like this I look for 3 things: 1. Good career record (check), 2. Good recent numbers (double-check), and 3. Good team (check).

My point here is, taking a chance on a player like this is the #2 tenet: good in season management. Even if you just stash him on your bench, it is a good move because it LOOKS like a good move. If he gets bombed, drop him; no harm, no foul. But if he pitches well, then he was easily worth the risk. And like I said, luck has to enter into it also. Create your own luck by making smart decisions. Create your own luck by making intelligent pick ups.

Now, I am not saying Medlen is the next Greg Maddux. Nor am I saying that he is a "can't miss" prospect. What I am saying is, if you are looking for that next stud pitcher, he could be it. If you are looking for an unexpected jolt to your team, he could be it. If you are looking for a good keeper next season, he could be it. More importantly, the chances of him being successful are greater than 50/50. And right now he is sitting there for the picking: He is currently owned in just 11% of the leagues at CBS Sportsline. He is certainly worth the gamble. Putting my money where my mouth is, I am now a proud member of that 11%. In fact, he is starting for me next week. Here's hoping that number goes up rapidly.

On another note, I also recommend taking a look at Jorge De La Rosa. I know he is a Rockie, but he looks like the real deal. He's 28 this year, so perhaps he is ready to live up to his Minor League potential. He is the first Rockie pitcher I have ever picked up. I don't plan starting him at home, but there is something there. He really only had one bad start (the first one of the year) which would make his numbers otherworldly rather than just incredible. (One caveat, as he is a former Royal, I may be biased.)

Schilling...Hall of Famer?

Since Curt Schilling retired I have seen numerous debates on his Hall of Fame worthiness. Before I begin this debate I must establish the fact that over the years I have changed my perspective on the Hall of Fame. Now that we have inducted the Rizzutos and Mazeroskis of the world, I believe if someone is even borderline we might as well let them in. And why not? Who does it hurt? If someone is close, why not make a bunch of fans happy that "their guy" got in? Was I a fan of Jim Rice? No. Did I think I was watching a Hall of Famer at the time? Not really. But should he be in the Hall of Fame? Sure, why not? Heck there is a list of players not in that I would be fine with. I may not advocate on their behalf, but I certainly have no problem if they go in.

Back to Schilling. Simply based on the above, I am inclined to agree that Schilling can go in to the Hall of Fame. But let's look at the evidence and see how he compares:

1. Bloody sock
2. Dominant postseason record
3. The Curse of Babe Ruth
4. near-.600 Winning Percentage
5. Three 20-win Seasons
6. 3,000 Strikeouts including three 300-plus seasons
7. Four seasons of sub-3.00 ERA seasons
8. Six time All-Star
9. Three times runner up Cy Young
10. Number one all-time strikeout to walk ratio (yeah, I had no idea either)
11. Black Ink-42, Gray ink - 205, Hall of Fame Monitor - 171, Hall of Fame Standards - 46
12. Uniqueness
13. Career ERA of 3.87
14. 216 Wins

1. Bloody sock. This is one of those "moments" many Hall of Famers have simply because the hall is filled with great players and great players almost always have extraordinary moments. In and of itself it certainly does not make one a hall of famer, but could come in handy if it's close. This is the kind of thing that will stick in the voters minds and if they are going back and forth will make them check the box. Though, it hasn't exactly helped Jack Morris (1991 World Series) or Roger Maris (1961 61 Homers) or Tuffy Rhodes (1994 3 Homers on opening day).

2. Dominant postseason record. 11-2 over all with a 2.23 ERA. 4-1 in the World Series with a 2.06 ERA. One of only 2 pitchers to start 3 games in one world series in the last 20 years (Jack Morris being the other in that aforementioned 1991 series).

3. The Curse of Babe Ruth. While Curt didn't singlehandedly break the curse, he certainly played a pivotal role with his 21-6 record and 6 shutout innings in the World Series.

4. near-.600 Winning Percentage. On the one hand, his .597 Career Winning percentage is essentially in the neighborhood of Hall of Famers Warren Spahn, Herb Pennock and Walter Johnson. On the other hand Teddy Higuera, John Candelaria and Wes Ferrell also live in that neighborhood. All in all winning percentage in and of itself does not constitute a Hall of Famer, but his is better than 30 current Hall of Famers, so this certainly helps his argument.

5. Three 20-win Seasons. Like many "strikeout" pitchers Curt had seasons where he couldn't seem to put it all together. Seasons where he'd win 16 games but post a 4.00+ ERA or strikeout 300+ batters, but win just 15 or so games. Of course other than '93 Phillies, he pitched for some pretty ordinary teams. Then in Arizona it all clicked. He was with a good team and won 22 games, a World Series, posted a sub-3.00 ERA and was still strikingout at a health clip while continuing to improve his walk totals. However, as a Hall of Famer, Curt's three 20-win seasons aren't going help other than to be able to say he won 20 games at least once. It may even hurt.

6. 3,000 Strikeouts including three 300-plus seasons. Schilling sits at #15 on the All-Time Strikeout list. Of the eligible pitchers on the list, every single one above him is in the Hall of Fame except for Blyleven. If we extend to the top 30, Mickey Lolich, Frank Tanana, David Cone, Chuck Finley, and Jerry Koosman join Blyleven. Of the pitchers ineligible, two are "no-brainer Hall of Famers": Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux. One "should be but now may not because of steroids Hall of Famer": Roger Clemens. And three "may/should make it with a decent argument but each has question marks": Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, and Mike Mussina. So, all in all top 30 in strikeouts looks pretty solid. This helps Schilling.

7. Four seasons of sub-3.00 ERA seasons. Many Hall of Famers have more. This isn't really going to help him though, like the 20-win argument, he will at least get credit for it. Something that really hurts Jack Morris.

8. Six time All-Star. A great total. For a pitcher impressive since it speaks to coaches picking him rather than fans. Without the All-Star selections his case would have a big hole.

9. Three times runner up Cy Young. Not winning the Cy Young will undoubtedly hurt him. However, for the voters considering the Schilling case I will point out that he has the highest "Award Share" total in history to have not won the award. (16th all-time). By the way, for those that decided to put Goose and Sutter in, I will take a moment to remind you that you forgot our beloved Quisenberry. (#2 on the list) Oh, and for the Ryan fans out there who know he was robbed in 1981 and 1987, he's #3.

10. Number one all-time strikeout to walk ratio (yeah, I had no idea either). Ok, technically he is listed at #2 behind Tommy Bond from the 1870s. But with all due respect to Mr. Bond, I am going to set him aside and consider Schilling #1 in the "modern" era. I'll be honest, when I found this out it pretty much convinced me that Schilling belongs in the Hall. In the Sabermetric era, I expect on base percentage has and will continue to grow in the minds of voters. I also expect strikeout-walk ratio could enter the debate. So, why not? If Schilling is the best ever, that's a pretty salient point.

11. Black Ink-42, Gray ink - 205, Hall of Fame Monitor - 171, Hall of Fame Standards - 46. 3 of these put him on par with average and likely hall of famers. Even the one where he misses, Hall of Fame Standards, he just misses the average of 50. This all probably doesn't help his argument, but indicates he's likely to garner support just based on what we know about hall of famers and the voters' tendencies.

12. Uniqueness. On the one hand only 3 of Schillings 10 most similar pitchers are in the Hall of Fame. And they aren't the hall's most rock-solid members: Drysdale, Vance and Catfish. On the other hand, only 2 pitchers scored a similarity score of 900+ with the most similar being Kevin Brown at 920. All this tells me is that Schilling was relatively unique. Certainly not so unique as to say there has never been anyone like him, (see Nolan Ryan where Carlton at 755 was the most similar), but unique in the Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton way that there weren't a lot of pitchers like him.

13. Career ERA of 3.87. This is probably going to hurt his argument. At a quick glance, there are only 7 Hall of Fame Pitchers worse.

14. 216 Wins. Not going to help his argument. Any pitcher in the Hall with around 200 wins is not in the Hall because of their win total. I always look at there being 3 types of typical Hall of Famers that are voted in by the writers: 1. Those in because of overall career value. Longevity driven. Players like Don Sutton. Stick around long enough, hit a big number we can't ignore and you are in the club. Jamie Moyer may be next. 2. Those in because of peak value. Someone who was so dominant over a short period of time that voters felt they could not ignore their greatness. Sandy Koufax is the best example. Kirby Puckett is another example and I suspect Pedro Martinez will be next. This category is "perceived" and the most subjective of the groups. Sometimes it works in a players favor: Hack Wilson. Sometimes it does not: Roger Maris. And finally #3. Those in because of the dominance in all areas of the game for a long period of time. The hit you over the head, "duh" Hall of Famers...Ruth, Aaron, Mays, Brett, etc. Schilling, if he gets in, will have to be based on #2. Perhaps it is the bloody sock. Maybe it will be the strikeout-walk ratio. Maybe it will be the overall postseason. One thing is certain...it will not be the 200 wins. The ONLY thing the wins will do for him is prevent a "he didn't even get to 200 wins" argument against him.

Overall the argument looks pretty good for Schilling. From a gut perspective, I certainly thought I was watching one of the greats when he was at his peak. Then again, I thought the same thing when Dale Murphy won his back to back MVPs. If it were my ballot, I'd vote for both of them.

Of course, if he goes in, I am compelled to ask what about David Cone? He only got 21 votes and won't be on the ballot ever again. He has a very Schilling-esque resume. Maybe I'll look at him next time.

Geovany or Giovanni?

He started as an "ok" hitting catcher in the minors when in 2007 it all came together. During his third season in Iowa he suddenly went from a .270 hitter with a good eye and not much power into a .350 stud with 26 Homers. In fact, he had more extra base hits in 2007 (60) than he did in 2005 and 2006 COMBINED (45).

Next season he made the logical step to the Majors and the torching of pitchers continued: 23 bombs, .285/.364/.504, an All-Star and a lock for the Rookie of the Year. Geovany Soto was on top of the world. He was being touted as the next great hitting catcher. And why not? He was a rookie with patience and power who gets to play half of his games at Wrigley Field. He helped vault the Cubs into contention. He finished #13 in the MVP voting. Then suddenly in 2008 he is looking more like Mario Soto at the plate.

I realize it is only a couple of weeks into the season, but Soto looks overmatched. 3 singles in 26 ABs. That's it. Now, I am not suggesting Soto is done. I am not recommending you rush out and trade him away. He is certainly not going to end the season with a sub-.200 batting average and no home runs. But he may not be the next great hitting catcher. In fact if we look a little closer at the facts we see 4 potential signs why he may not be who we thought he was:

1. He's 26. Now, I know what you're thinking. 26? He's entering his prime. He should be ready to put up some career numbers. Normally I would agree. And he still may. But 26 means he was 25 last year. He was an old rookie. Most great players (not all, just most) make it to the big leagues as a regular a lot sooner than 25. I haven't checked but I would expect the average age of Hall of Famers becoming Major League regulars is closer to 22. (excluding the obvious - Umpires, Negro Leaguers, Peter Gammons, etc)

2. Bob Hamelin. Ok, this one is similar to the one above, but "the hammer" stormed the scene in a very similar fashion in 1994 as a 26 year old rookie and smashed 24 homers in 300+ ABs. Then the league got to see him again...and again..and it just got worse and worse. Until Bob, as so many pretenders before him, finally returned the hammer moniker to it's rightful owner.

3. He's a catcher. Last season he wore down. He injured his hands in August or early September (twice if memory serves) and he never quite recovered. As a matter of fact, in his final month he hit an ordinary .241 with just 7 extra base hits in 58 at bats. Looking at his monthly stats, after a smokin' April .341/.424/.635, he seemed to get worse and worse each month until an August bounce .355/.444/.566 followed by the aforementioned lackluster Sept/Oct.

4. It is possible the league is starting to figure him out the more they see him. There are tons of examples of alleged "sophomore slumps". (See Bob Hamelin above). Fellow KC fans probably associate Kevin Seitzer with this group, but Kevin was almost as great in his 2nd season. He just lost his perceived homerun power (from 15 as a rookie to 5 as a sophomore).

In the end it wouldn't be that surprising to think Soto essentially had 8 or 9 months of amazing baseball in him (2007 and 2008) and his numbers last season were more a function of timing than a representation of actual sustainable ability. Then again, in 20 years I may be at Cooperstown witness to his induction.

And maybe its still April and I'm just making a molehill out of a mountain. But the more I think about it, I wouldn't want Geovany on my team this year any more than I'd want Mr. Ribisi. Wait until he gets hot, displays some more respectable numbers and trade him. Or see if you can convince someone to swap you Brian McCann for him right now in a change of scenery trade.

First One To Leave The Yard

Welcome to the first ever post for "Last Ones To Leave The Yard." If you are looking to talk about fantasy baseball, (or fantasy football when that rolls around), you've come to the right place. A little about me...I am just some guy who does very well in Fantasy Baseball and Fantasy Football leagues. I try to limit my participation to no more than 2 leagues per season. It takes a lot of work to play to win.

This is probably not new for anyone bothering to read this, but to set the tone for what you can expect from me...Philosophically I believe there are 3 major components to winning a league (Or at least finishing in the money):

1. A good draft (including good planning)
2. Good in-season management
3. Luck

I have definitely had my share of #3.

At any rate, thank you in advance for checking out this blog. I'll try to post regularly depending on interest. Feel free to ask any questions. I only have 2 requests: 1. Please refrain from advertising and 2. Please refrain from being mean-spirited. This is a family show, let's keep it clean.

So, that's it; I promise the next post will be more baseball oriented.