More cover history: The 2012 SI baseball preview

I was caught off-guard this year. The Opening Series in Japan next week has thrown off my internal Opening Day clock. And so, when my Sports Illustrated was late to my mailbox this week, all I thought I was missing was an NCAA Sweet 16 cover.

But no! When I reached in on Friday, half a face of Albert Pujols was glaring back at me.

As with last year's cover, it's not much of a surprise. The biggest move of the offseason gets the featured spot on the annual baseball preview. This year, there's no inset photo, so it's only the Angels that get the tally in my running review of SI baseball preview covers.

Pujols' appearance -- his second, the other was in 2006 -- represents only the second Angels cover in the history of the SI baseball preview. The other was Joe Rudi in 1977, which does not bode well. Rudi had signed with the Angels that offseason, and the cover bore the headline: "Joe Rudi: The Angels' $2-million man." He went on to hit .264 with 13 home runs and 53 RBIs for a fifth-place club. Somehow, I think things will turn out a little bit better for Pujols and the Angels.

Pujols does make history with this appearance, though. He appeared solo in 2006 and now again this year. Steve Garvey (1975 and '82) is the only other player to have two covers to himself.

For the FULL breakdown of the SI baseball preview cover (and it is comprehensive), look here. Both there and below, you'll find the updated stats.

Team appearances:
Red Sox, 7
Yankees, 6
Phillies, 5
Cardinals, 5
Dodgers, 5
Orioles, 3
Giants, 3
Reds, 3
Angels, 2
Mariners, 2
Indians, 2
Royals, 2
Twins, 2
Mets, 2
Pirates, 2
Tigers, 2
Brewers, 1
D-backs, 1
Rockies, 1
Cubs, 1
Rangers, 1
Padres, 1
A's, 1
Expos, 1
Nationals, 1

That's a total of 62 teams now on the covers (accounting for two or more players sharing the spotlight in some years). Through the 2011 season, 23 of those 61 teams (not including this year's Angels, of course) made the playoffs, with the results as follows:

Won World Series, 6
Lost World Series, 5
Lost ALCS, 2
Lost NLCS, 1
Lost ALDS, 6
Lost NLDS, 3

The Phillies were the featured team on the cover the last two seasons, falling in the NLCS in 2010 and the NLDS in '11. But when it comes to regular-season standings, the editors have hit on top-two teams more than the other positions combined:

1st, 21
2nd, 13
3rd, 15
4th, 6
5th, 2
6th, 2
7th, 2

Here are a few more team-related numbers, all updated to include the 2011 Phillies and 2012 Angels and Pujols, where possible:

Won 100, 7
Lost 100, 2
Player with a new team, 13
Defending champs, 13

As for individual accolades, Roy Halladay's 2010 cover appearance made him the third player whose cover appearance foretold a Cy Young season, but that didn't carry over into 2011. But the Phillies rotation last year did add three All-Star nods to the annals.

Hall of Famers, 16
Retired, 2
MVP, 2
Cy Young, 3
All-Star, 39
Broke record, 2
20-game winner, 3
Led league (wins, strikeouts or ERA), 10

First base remains a strong third in most frequent apperances on the preview cover, with Pujols inching the position closer to outfield's strong hold on second place. (Each player counts once, not as a group, meaning last year's Phillies rotation counted for five starting pitchers):

C, 4
1B, 11
2B, 1
3B, 6
SS, 5
OF, 19
SP, 25
Manager, 2
Owner, 1

The 1894 piecemeal pay scale

There has been a lot of talk lately about the highest-paid players in the game, from the Albert Pujols talks to the history of the game's most-compensated stars through the years. And then Devon Young over at Seamheads compared those milestone contracts to what players make today, an illuminating look at player compensation vs. inflation.

A couple of weeks ago, I came across a unique proposal for paying players -- in 1894. It's another gem from Low and Inside, the book of baseball anecdotes published in 1949 that described a plan to build a ballfield atop Grand Central Terminal in 1912.

Here's the proposed new salary structure:

A friend of the workingman (baseball-playing division) made a profound proposal back in 1894 in an essay written for the Detroit Journal, under which ballplayers would no longer have to suffer under an economic system by which they got regular pay. The Detroit thinker recommended that they be paid on a piecework basis.

He was inspired by the fact that in a single day of that 1894 season three Western League teams produced an over-all total of one hundred and nine runs.

"It is not fair," said the essayist, "to work men as hard as the players did that day. It would be more desirable all around if the men were paid by what they do rather than so much a week or a month."

He then proposed the following piecework scale:

Runs ..................... 50 cents each
Put-outs ............... 40 cents each
Assists ................. 30 cents each
Singles ................. 10 cents each
Two-base hits ...... 20 cents each
Triples ................. 30 cents each
Home runs ........... 40 cents each
Sacrifice hits ........ 05 cents each
Stolen bases ........ 05 cents each

He did not make it quite clear just how much a home-run hitter would get -- presumably forty cents for the homer and another fifty cents for scoring. Errors, he suggested, would be charged against the player on a sliding scale, and there would be a special scale for pitchers.

I was curious as to how this pay scale would work with today's players, in today's dollars. Of course, there are a few gaping holes: no RBIs, no indication of what the sliding scale for errors might be, and no idea what the pitchers' scale might be. So for the sake of argument, let's assign an 1894 value of 25 cents to runs batted in. I'm going to ignore the penalty for errors, because that's a lot more work than I'm willing to do at the moment. If anyone has a suggestion, feel free to comment. And we'll leave pitchers out of it for now, too.

First, we need to convert 1894 dollars into 2010 dollars (because I'm going to be using 2010 stats), so I found a calculator online. The results:

Runs .................. $14.92 each
Put-outs ............. $11.94 each
Assists ................. $8.95 each
Singles ................. $2.98 each
Two-base hits ...... $5.97 each
Triples ................. $8.95 each
Home runs ........... $11.94 each
Sacrifice hits ........ $1.49 each
Stolen bases ........ $1.49 each
RBIs ................... $7.46 each

You might be able to see where there's going to be a problem already -- putouts are going to skew the results toward certain positions. After plugging last year's stats into a spreadsheet with formulas converting the stats into these dollar amounts, the game's best player earned the most money, but not nearly as much as his 2010 contract paid him. Pujols, who made nearly $14.6 million last year, would have been the highest-paid player under this system -- with a salary of $22,474.85. Second on the list is Adrian Gonzalez ($19,900.60) and third is Oakland first baseman Daric Barton ($19,765.15). First basemen held the first 19 spots and 22 of the top 23 as catchers (who get putout credit on strikeouts) start creeping onto the list.

It's not really worth exploring the numbers any further. Clearly that 1894 model wouldn't work today, and not just because of how the game's pay structure has left inflation in the dust. For one thing, I can't imagine there's anyone who values putouts by a fielder as much as home runs by a hitter (outs recorded by a pitcher, however, may be the starting point for developing a pitchers' pay scale).

And of course, ballplayers in 1894 weren't seen as the superstar celebrities they are today. They were certainly held in high esteem, but more as active, sporting men than athletic royalty. It was a nice try, Detroit Journal essayist, but it just won't work.

Quick thoughts: 2010 MVP Awards

I didn't post any quick thoughts on the NL MVP vote yesterday because the only thought I had was: Perfect. Nothing jumped out at me at the way it turned out. To me, Joey Votto should have won, and he should have won easily. He did both.

If pressed to find something, I suppose I would question putting Albert Pujols second over Carlos Gonzalez. It's the most valuable player award, not the most prolific player award or the most outstanding player award or the best hitter award. Pujols would be hard to beat in any of those. But the way I would look at an MVP vote if I had one would be which player's absence from his team would have had the biggest effect on that club's season. Clearly, without the season Votto had, the Reds are not NL Central champs.

Of course, without Pujols, the Cardinals do not sniff a pennant race, either. But Pujols had a very similar season to the one he had in his 2009 MVP campaign, yet the Cardinals missed the playoffs in 2010. In other words, I guess I look at it as whether or not they had Pujols, the Cards weren't winning the division this year. (Also, I find it interesting how Pujols has had three seasons -- including the last two -- of exactly 700 plate appearances but has never had any more than that.)

Rk	Player	OPS	G	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	GDP	SB	BA	OBP	SLG
1	Joey Votto	1.024	150	648	547	106	177	36	2	37	113	91	125	11	16	.324	.424	.600
2	Albert Pujols	1.011	159	700	587	115	183	39	1	42	118	103	76	23	14	.312	.414	.596
3	Carlos Gonzalez	.974	145	636	587	111	197	34	9	34	117	40	135	9	26	.336	.376	.598

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 11/23/2010.

As for the American League, again I have trouble coming up with an argument in support of anyone else. Had Josh Hamilton played more than 89 games in 2009, the Rangers might have overcome the Angels, or pushed them deeper into September instead of finishing 10 games back (in second place). This wasn't a full season for Hamilton, either, but in 133 games and 571 plate appearances, he had better numbers (except for 30 fewer RBIs) or negligible deficits in many key categories compared to his 2008 breakout All-Star season. The true difference in the Rangers winning the division and previous years may be their pitching, or simply just their pitching philosophy, but for a single most valuable piece of Texas' AL West title, you have to look at Hamilton.

Miguel Cabrera probably deserved more second-place support for another spectacular season. If he hasn't already, he's close to taking the torch from Alex Rodriguez as the American League's best and most reliable player, the guy you can pencil in for 150 games, a .300 average, 30 homers and 100 RBIs at the start of the season and then wait to see when he reaches those numbers and how far past them he goes.

As for Robinson Cano, kudos on a breakout year for the Trenton Thunder alum. If there's anyone on the Yankees who should be getting a six-year, $100 million contract this winter, it's him, and not Derek Jeter (same goes for three years, $45 million). But absent a 50-homer, 140-RBI season or a Triple Crown-contending campaign, it remains hard for a Yankee to garner enough support for the MVP award because the team is loaded, year in and year out. I have no problem with that, because on a team full of All-Stars, how do you determine which one is the most valuable? Take any one of them away for a significant portion of the season, and the Yankees will hardly miss a beat.

I'm trying to say that the MVP Award has to go to a player on a playoff team or contending club every year, but so long as there are singular performers on such teams, it's going to take video-game like numbers from anyone else to garner support. In a year without Hamilton, Cabrera or Cano, Jose Bautista might've been the favorite, or a top-two contender. Maybe a few more than 109 runs or 124 RBIs would've lent more weight to his 54 home runs. Or maybe his .260 batting average pulled him down in voters' eyes (indicating that BA still has more influence than wins do for pitchers in the eyes of those who judge these performances). Or perhaps the cloud of doubt in this post-BALCO age eliminated Bautista in June.

Rk	Player	BA	G	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	SB	CS	OBP	SLG	OPS
1	Josh Hamilton	.359	133	571	518	95	186	40	3	32	100	43	95	8	1	.411	.633	1.044
2	Miguel Cabrera	.328	150	648	548	111	180	45	1	38	126	89	95	3	3	.420	.622	1.042
5	Robinson Cano	.319	160	696	626	103	200	41	3	29	109	57	77	3	2	.381	.534	.914
42	Jose Bautista	.260	161	683	569	109	148	35	3	54	124	100	116	9	2	.378	.617	.995

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 11/23/2010.

With the announcement of the final major award for the season, I like to consider this day the final one of the 2010 campaign. We also saw the last managerial opening officially filled today with the Mets' introduction of Terry Collins. (I may get into my thoughts on that later.) Today is the arbitration deadline, which will put a final stamp on the makeup of this winter's free-agent crop, and Thanksgiving is upon us. On the other side of the holiday is December and the Winter Meetings, so soon we'll be looking forward to 2011 in earnest.

Time to turn that Hot Stove up to 11.

And we're back

After a thoroughly enjoyable, active and at the same time relaxing vacation, I'm back at it. It will take me a bit to catch up on some of the stuff I missed, but I did ignore several developments, too. There's no point in rehashing what's a week or several days old.

But let's start off with the Ryan Howard-for-Albert Pujols rumor. I don't deny that there may have been some "internal discussions" by the Phillies. It is, after all, Buster Olney reporting, and his sources are as good as anybody's. Though, because it's the Phillies, it's surprising that writer-in-residence Jayson Stark didn't have this first.

As for the internal talks, someone could've said, "Hey! Let's trade Howard for Pujols!" in a drunken stupor at the team holiday party and it could be considered, technically, "internal discussions." (Incidentally, the well-known near-swap of Ted Williams for Joe DiMaggio that was referenced in that story allegedly was agreed upon after a night of drinking, tabled until the morning for further consideration in the sober light of day, and withdrawn after more clear-headed evaluation.)

Even if the Phillies may have thrown out those two names in the same sentence, and though the Howard-in-St. Louis angle has some merit, not only do I not see the Cardinals dealing Pujols, I don't see him getting away. For various reasons, the Cardinals might not have the revenue of the Yankees or Red Sox or the ability to stretch their payroll as far as the top-paying teams in each league, but I have to believe that none of that applies to the contract discussions with Pujols. Of course, they won't let Pujols and his agent know that, but -- ahem -- internally, they'd better be saying if there's one player for whom they can be creative to sign on his terms, it has to be King Albert.

The Cardinals draw well. They probably sell a lot of merchandise in the Midwest. They contend every year -- especially with Pujols. On the surface, the chances of them hamstringing themselves because of what they pay Pujols are minimal; obviously, we don't know what their financial ledgers look like. But you have to believe that they wouldn't have signed Matt Holliday to $120 million over the next seven years if they felt that would prevent them from signing Pujols.

The last paragraph of that story mentions the blockbuster deal in December 1990 when Blue Jays GM Pat Gillick (now an adviser in the Phillies front office) traded Tony Fernandez and Fred McGriff to the Padres for Roberto Alomar and Joe Carter. It's amazing that that was nearly 20 years ago, and I was curious to see which players were active during the 1990 season and in 2009.

It's a short list:

Ken Griffey Jr.

Tom Gordon

Randy Johnson

Jamie Moyer

Gary Sheffield

John Smoltz

Omar Vizquel

That kind of puts into perspective how often these kinds of deals happen, and the Phillies just made a pair involving Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay, so should this one have any legs, it would be two once-in-a-generation deals going off within about a year.