'New' Mets unis

I saw the story -- and got the e-mail -- yesterday of the Mets' announcement that they will wear new pinstriped uniforms in 2010. The only real difference is that they're off-white instead of pure white, a slight shift and minor nod to the original uniforms the team wore in the 1960s.

But they still have the black dropshadow -- and the black alternates -- so what's the point? Black isn't a Mets color. Kill it.

Awards put a bow on 2009

MLB's awards season wrapped up today in fitting fashion with Albert Pujols' unanimous selection as NL MVP, making him just the 10th player in history to win the award three times. As if he needed this to make his case, it essentially secures his place in Cooperstown since every three-time winner who is eligible has been enshrined.

But now that the awards are out, the 2009 season is complete. Yankee fans can continue shopping for Christmas, but the rest of us can put a bow on '09 and stash it on the shelf -- or bury it in the backyard for us Mets fans. Before we turn our focus completely to 2010 with free agency fully open and the Winter Meetings in a couple of weeks, I want to touch on some issues I have with the awards process or certain votes this year, in no particular order.

How, with a unanimous winner, does anyone give votes to another player on the same team? I can see how you're putting Pujols first, saying you believe he was the most valuable player in the league to his team. But how do you say Chris Carpenter, Adam Wainwright, Matt Holliday (a midseason acquisition at that) and Yadier Molina also had some level of "most" valuable impact to the Cardinals? All of those players received votes. In the American League, after most valuable Joe Mauer, several other Twins and even more Yankees were more-valuable-than-most-but-not-as-valuable-as-Joe.

As for that Jeremy Affeldt vote in the NL? One the one hand, I like it as a throwaway vote, a statement that 10 deep is a bit much when determining the most valuable player in the league. However, the guy is nuts, no matter how he tries to defend it.

The Gold Glove Awards are MLB's equivalent of the college football coaches poll. If you weren't aware, the Gold Glove Awards are voted on by the league's managers and coaches, who aren't allowed to vote for players on their own teams. But just as their counterparts in the NCAA do, MLB's field staff members tend to base their votes more on reputation than actual on-field performance. You also have to think that how good a player is offensively, relative to his positional peers, plays a small part, too, even if only subconsciously. The process should've been revamped in 1999 when Rafael Palmeiro won in the American League despite only playing 28 games at first base that year. The rest of his appearances came at designated hitter -- for which he won the Silver Slugger Award. That's right: he won two position-specific awards at different positions in the same season.

And while Ryan Zimmerman is a deserving winner and a fine fielder, did he win on his own, or did David Wright's down season offensively play a part? Maybe it's just the opposite of last year's situation. Has Jimmy Rollins won each of the last three years for his fielding alone, or has his leadoff ability and his mouth boosted his profile, the way it did with the 2007 MVP? While 2009 was in fact Rollins' best of the three with the glove, I'm not sure it was as good as Troy Tulowitzki's season, nor was it in 2007. Tulo's injury in 2008 make it tougher to make a case for him over Rollins, but it may be there.

My other issue with the Gold Glove Awards is that they are supposed to be position-specific, yet they do not differentiate the outfield positions. Not every outfielder can play all three positions. Guys who play right field don't have the speed for center, and guys who play left don't have the arm for right or the speed for either other slot. Five of the six outfield winners in the two leagues this year are center fielders, as they were in 2008 -- and even then, Ichiro played 69 games in center. Divide up the outfield into left fielders, center fielders and right fielders. Let's talk about who the best left fielder is in the National League, rather than who are the three best outfielders out of them all.

Assuming he started from the top and worked down in order, a reporter in Seattle actually managed to write in Miguel Cabrera's name before Joe Mauer's. Regardless of the statistical breakdowns, how did he miss the final two weeks of the season, when Mauer -- without the help of his biggest sidekick in the lineup, Justin Morneau -- led the Twins past Cabrera's Tigers to win the AL Central? And even when Mauer was taking his 0-fers, he was catching the pitching staff and had as much of an impact -- if not more -- on the Twins' 17-4 run to end the season as any player and manager Ron Gardenhire.

I have no arguments with either Cy Young winner -- Kansas City's Zack Greinke and San Francisco's Tim Lincecum -- but I see Keith Olbermann's point about how it's a bit moronic that Lincecum won despite not getting the most first-place votes.

The Rookie of the Year races in both leagues were wide open and a suspensful kickoff to the Baseball Writers Association of America awards, but I'm surprised Atlanta's Tommy Hanson didn't have more support. I wonder what kind of numbers Andrew McCutchen would've put up with a full season in Pittsburgh. Or Garrett Jones for that matter.

And finally, when you leave it to the fans to vote, is there any doubt Derek Jeter is going to win the Hank Aaron Award as the American League's best offensive player over Mauer? When it comes to voting and online presence, both in the U.S. and around the world, you're going to find exponentially more Yankees fans than Twins fans.

But statistically, Mauer was simply a better hitter in 2009. Even with 15 fewer games, Mauer surpassed Jeter in doubles, homers, RBIs, total bases and walks. The RBIs are in part because Mauer hits in the heart of the Twins' order while Jeter is the Yanks' leadoff hitter (that also explains the difference in runs scored), but the bottom of New York's lineup -- which would be the runners on base for Jeter -- is better than most teams' bottom of the order.

Jeter's only significant wins over Mauer were in runs and hits, yet Mauer trounced him in batting average, OBP and slugging percentage. And to compare those two categories, runs and hits, Jeter scored .699 runs per game (107 runs in his 153 games) but Mauer was right behind him with .681 RPG. Jeter had 1.385 hits per game (212 hits in 153 games), Mauer 1.384 (191 in 138 games). Had Mauer kept those paces in 15 more games to match Jeter at 153, he'd have 211.7 hits and 104.2 runs.

Perhaps they would've been the Manhattan Maulers

So this just occurred to me. Have you seen the opening montage of Woody Allen's Manhattan? It's a slideshow of scenes from around New York -- pretty much all of them in Manhattan -- with Woody's voiceover and Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue." And yet, there at the 2:51 mark is Yankee Stadium ... in the Bronx. Heck, it's even the still frame of the embedded video!

Most valuable losers

When Chase Utley hit his second home run in Game 5 of the World Series, giving him five against the Yankees, the discussion began about who had been named Series MVP from the losing team. Since the award was first given (in 1955 to Johnny Podres), only one player had ever earned the honor but not a championship ring: the Yankees' Bobby Richardson in the 1960 Fall Classic.

Of course, that's the year that Bill Mazeroski ended the Series at Forbes Field with the only Game 7 walk-off homer in history. Mazeroski's numbers in the seven games were decent: .320 batting average, two homers, five RBIs, two doubles, four runs. But Richardson's topped that: .367, one homer, 12 RBIs, two doubles, two triples, eight runs. In fact, Maz's somewhat pedestrian numbers were the best across the board on a Pittsburgh team that lost the Series in pretty much every category other than games won.

The Bombers outhit the Bucs, .338 to .256; outscored them 55-27; outhomered them 10-4; outslugged them 27 extra-base hits to 15; outpitched them 3.54-7.11 in ERA; and outWHIPped them 1.18 to 1.76. The Pirates won their four games by scores of 6-4 (Game 1), 3-2 (Game 4), 5-2 (Game 5), and 10-9 (Game 7). The Yankees' winning scores were 16-3 (Game 2), 10-0 (Game 3) and 12-0 (Game 6).

Mazeroski's five RBIs led the Pirates alongside Bill Virdon, but his five came with just a .241 average on seven hits. For New York, Richardson wasn't a one-man show, and if anyone in the press box kept track of the voting that year, I'd have to think that Mickey Mantle lost by one vote. Mantle hit .400 with three homers, 11 RBIs, a double, eight runs and eight walks. One way or another, the MVP of the 1960 World Series was going to a Yankee.

The Pirates' best candidate for MVP would have to be right-hander Vern Law, who started and won Games 1 and 4 and allowed one run in five innings after starting Game 7. In 18 1/3 innings, he allowed seven earned runs for a 3.44 ERA. The only other mark below 4.00 for Pittsburgh was Harvey Haddix's 2.45 (two earned runs in 7 1/3) that he accumulated by starting and winning Game 5 (6 1/3 innings, both runs) and pitching the ninth to win Game 7. (He came in with runners on first and second and no outs, gave up a single to Mantle that allowed Richardson to score and move Dale Long to third, then blew the save and allowed Long to score the tying run on a groundout to first by Yogi Berra.)

The most dominant pitcher in the Series was Whitey Ford, who won Games 3 and 6 by pitching 18 scoreless innings, allowing just 11 hits and two walks and striking out eight -- certainly MVP-worthy numbers. It makes you wonder why Casey Stengel, whose Yankees won the AL by eight games over the Orioles, pitched Ford for two innings in relief in the season finale on Oct. 2 and didn't use Ford until Game 3 on Oct. 8. Ford's last start had been on Sept. 28, five days before Game 1 of the Series on Oct. 3. For the season, Ford was 12-9 with a 3.08 ERA and an 85-65 K:BB ratio in 192 2/3 innings. Stengel's Game 1 and 2 starters were Art Ditmar (15-9, 3.06, 65-56 in 200 IP) and Bob Turley (9-3, 3.27, 87-87 in 173 1/3 IP). Had Ford started Games 1 and 4 and been available had it gone to seven, it may have been a different story.

In this year's Series, I think any chance Utley had of winning the award hinged on the Phillies forcing Game 7 -- especially if Utley played into a Game 6 victory in even the smallest sense. I think even to consider a player from the losing team, the Series has to go seven games. The most common simple way to evaluate whether a player is the valuable to his team may be to consider the team's fortunes were that player removed from the lineup. Take away Utley's solo homers in the third and sixth innings of Game 1, and it's scoreless into the eighth -- maybe Cliff Lee changes his approach in some situations in a scoreless game as opposed to having a 1-0 and 2-0 lead. And in Game 5, Utley's three-run shot in the first inning kept the crowd at its fever pitch from the start and pretty much gave Lee the freedom to pitch his game. (And, of course, Lee's performance in the Series would've earned him consideration for MVP as well, especially since he almost certainly would've had some role in a Game 7.)

So Utley fits the definition of a player most valuable to his team, but with just a six-game Series, it's hard to seriously consider someone from the losing side. For one thing, the Phillies never found themselves one win away from the title. And though they won Game 1 on the road, once the Yankees took Game 2, it was clear the momentum had shifted and remained on the Yankees' side through Game 4 and their 3-1 Series lead. The Phillies got it back to an extent in Game 5, but only for the first seven innings. After Utley's second home run of the game to lead off that inning and Raul Ibanez's shot three batters later, the Yankees fought back with three runs in the eighth and another in the ninth and had the tying run at the plate in the form of Mark Teixeira before falling, 8-6. In my mind, any shot the Phillies had of forcing Game 7 hinged on their jumping out to a moderately comfortable lead (in Yankee Stadium against these Bombers, that would have to be at least three runs) with Pedro Martinez starting Game 6 for them. It didn't happen -- Hideki Matsui's two-run homer in the second put the Yankees ahead for good, and though the Phillies got one back in the third, Matsui essentially put the game away (and earned his MVP) in the bottom of the third with a two-run single.

Since the MVP was introduced in 1955, a total of 59 players have won the award in the 55 Series that have been played. Those numbers account for three Dodgers -- Ron Cey, Pedro Guerrero and Steve Yeager -- and two Diamondbacks -- Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson -- sharing the award in 1981 and 2001, respectively; they also account for the absence of a Fall Classic in 1994. Out of those 59 players, 23 have been starting pitchers, or 40 percent. Of those 55 Series, 23 have gone seven games, and in seven-game Series, the MVP has been a starting pitcher 14 times, or 58 percent. (Three relief pitchers have won -- Rollie Fingers in 1974, John Wetteland in 1996 and Mariano Rivera in 1999 -- but none of those Series went seven games.) So when the Series goes the distance, giving starting pitchers a chance to have an effect on three games instead of just two, they seem to have a greater chance of winning the MVP award.

Here's the list MVPs from World Series that went seven games:

Year	Player	Pos	Team
1955	Johnny Podres	SP	BRK
1956	Don Larsen	SP	NYY
1957	Lew Burdette	SP	MIL
1958	Bob Turley	SP	NYY
1960	Richardson	2B	NYY
1962	Ralph Terry	SP	NYY
1964	Bob Gibson	SP	STL
1965	Sandy Koufax	SP	LAD
1967	Bob Gibson	SP	STL
1968	Mickey Lolich	SP	DET
1971	Roberto Clemente	OF	PIT
1972	Gene Tenace	C	OAK
1973	Reggie Jackson	OF	OAK
1975	Pete Rose	3B	CIN
1979	Willie Stargell	1B	PIT
1982	Darrell Porter	C	STL
1985	Bret Saberhagen	SP	KC
1986	Ray Knight	3B	NYM
1987	Frank Viola	SP	MIN
1991	Jack Morris	SP	MIN
1997	Livan Hernandez	SP	FLA
2001	Randy Johnson & Curt Schilling	SP	ARI
2002	Troy Glaus	3B	ANA

But I think the other obvious choice for an MVP on a losing team was another slugger, and one who played in the last seven-game Series, in 2002. Glaus won the award for hitting .385 (I'm using batting average because it's likely that most -- if not all -- of the voters in the press looked at that instead of OPS) with three home runs, eight RBIs, three doubles and six runs scored. He doubled in the tying and go-ahead runs in the bottom of the eighth of Game 6, when the Angels were down to their final six outs of the season. He then went 0-for-2 with two walks and two strikeouts in Game 7.

Yet the most valuable player of that Series had to have been Barry Bonds. He hit .471 with four homers, six RBIs, eight runs and two doubles. Six of his eight hits were for extra bases (1.294 slugging percentage) and he was walked 13 times (vs. three strikeouts) for a .700 on-base percentage and a 1.994 OPS. He reached base via hit or walk in every game, and Game 4 was the only one in which he did not get a base hit. He went 0-for-1 with three walks, all intentional, and did not score in the game. The first two free passes worked; the Giants were held scoreless in those innings. But in the fifth, with the Angels leading 3-2 after two runs had scored in the frame, Mike Scioscia ordered John Lackey to walk Bonds with one out and Rich Aurilia on second. Benito Santiago then singled in Aurilia to tie the game. Anaheim got out of the inning, but San Francisco won, 4-3, with an unearned run in the eighth, an inning in which Bonds did not come to bat. (Bonds had batted in the seventh against Francisco Rodriguez and grounded out to first on a 2-2 count.)

That Series was at the height of Bonds' influence on how the game was played, evidenced by all of those walks -- he had an impact simply by forcing the opposing manager to take the bat out of his hands. Clearly, no one was more valuable. Had the Series ended in six games, he would've won the MVP (he went 1-for-3 with a walk, no runs or RBIs, in Game 7), and he probably should have anyway. No pitcher on either team was worthy.

We're overdue for a seven-game Series. There have been seven played since the last one went the distance, easily the longest drought in history. Compare that to 1955-1965, when eight of 11 Fall Classics went the distance. And maybe our next seven-game season finale will come with another MVP debate. Imagine the postgame trophy presentation on Fox if the winner played for the losing side.