First I found out it’s Mickey Owen and not Owens, then I sponsored Owen’s baseball-reference page.

Mickey Owen was the Brooklyn Dodgers’ catcher for a few years in the 1940s.  He wasn’t a particularly good hitter, but he was regarded as a good catcher, setting a record for most errorless fielding chances by a catcher with 508 perfect attempts in 1941.

So you can almost taste the irony that he’s remembered for a passed ball.

Game 4 of the 1941 World Series, Dodgers are down in the series 2-1 to the Yankees, who are in the midst of the Joe McCarthy era.  It looks like the Dodgers are gonna take game 4, up 4-3 in the ninth, to tie the series. Hugh Casey is in to close it out for Brooklyn.  He gets Johnny Sturm to ground out to second and Red Rolfe to ground out to the pitcher.  Tommy Henrich comes up for the Yankees and strikes out, which would have ended the game, but the ball gets past Owen and Henrich is safe at first. Joe Dimaggio singles. Charlie Kelley doubles.  Bill Dickey walks.  Joe Gordon doubles. Phil Rizzuto walks.  The inning finally ends when Hugh Casey gets the pitcher Johnny Murphy to ground out.  Yankees score four.  Murphy pitches the bottom of the ninth and shuts down Pee Wee Reese, Dixie Walker and Pete Reiser.

Yankees took game 5 with ease.  It was their ninth World Series in 12 appearances up to that point; their sixth under McCarthy, who would win eight total as a manager.

Just to add to the patheticness of it all, it was the Dodgers’ first World Series appearance since 1920 (those bums), while their main rivals, the New York Giants, had been to it seven times and won  three just in that same span.

Owen had a great sense of humor about it, even signing the ball that he dropped in his later years.  He played for the Dodgers for a few years after that until 1944, when he served his country in World War II.  After returning home, he found some work

I sponsored his B-R page for two reasons.  One, it was the beginning of the golden age of the Bums.  The Bum identity was created long before that, but 1941 was the first year of a string of World Series appearances featuring a core of players built by Branch Rickey, all losses until the magical 1955 World Series title. The Mickey Owen play was also so Bum-ish.  Imagine your team doesn’t make the World Series for 20 years (in an eight-team division) only to finally get to it and lose a deciding game because the catcher couldn’t snag strike 3.  Only the Dodgers could have lost a World Series on a passed ball–and only the Dodgers could have completely melted down the way they did.

Second, my grandfather Cy, who was working in construction in New York at the time, was listening to the game on the radio and heard it live.  After the game was over, he thought, “Well there’s somebody out there stupider than me” and became a Dodger fan for life.

Hank Aaron.  Photo c/o maxwellmusze

It’s tough to be sandwiched between Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds in the all-time career home run records, but that’s where Hank Aaron is now.  For some reason, 714 still resonated well after Aaron broke the record and while 755 was recognized by casual fans, it’s not quite such an honored record since Bonds hit 756.  (Guess people just wanted to forget it happened).

Aaron’s career wasn’t so amazing for one particular year, but rather a long, steady peak of domination, like a lower altitude Himalayas.  For 15 years, between 1955 and 1970 (ages 21-36), he played at least 147 games and had elite production every year–a 160 OPS+ in that time.  Willie Mays is pretty much the only player to play with such a sustained peak in that era; he had a 163 OPS+ between 1954 and 1969, but Mays’ production was not quite as good after that 15th year.  So that’s pretty amazing.

But where Mays falls off after that, Hank kept going: between 1971 and 1974, ages 37-40, Hank had a OPS+ of 164.

Now this is where Hammerin’ Hank gets really interesting: his age 37 year, in 1971, was maybe his finest year.  He hit 47 home runs with 22 doubles and three triples (how’d he do that?).  He hit .327, had a .410 OBP and slugged–get this–.669, a 1.079 OPS.  Only Bonds and Ruth had better age 37 seasons.

Not only that, but he pretty much repeated the feat in 1973 at age 39: .301 BA/.402 OBP/.643 SLG.

Hank is also one of three players ever to have an OPS over 1.000 at 39 or older in a minimum of 400 plate appearances:

Barry Bonds, 2004 (39), 1.422
Barry Bonds, 2007 (42), 1.045
Hank Aaron, 1973 (39), 1.045
Ted Williams, 1958 (39), 1.042

Not bad company right there.

You’ll notice that IsoD (obp – ba) in his age 37 and 39 years is pretty sweet; .100 for an IsoD indicates elite patience and usually great pitch selection.  That’s a quality that’s seen in basically all hall of famers, but the reason I point this out is Hank didn’t have this as a skill earlier in his career.  Ages 21-27 (‘55-’61), his IsoD was .052, about average, maybe a little below. Ages 28-32, it rose to .069, above average.  Ages 33-38, .085.  Almost none of that is because of intentional walks–Hank had almost as many in his 21-27 seasons as he did 33-38. He learned how to become a better hitter.  That almost never happens.

Let’s look at some other things that make Aaron truly amazing. Hank had five years in which he OPS’d more than 1.000: 1959, 1962, 1969, 1971 and 1973.  The two things that immediately pop out to me is none between 1962-69, which was a heavy pitcher’s era, but also Hank’s prime.  Barry Bonds was fortunate to have maybe the greatest hitter’s era of all time right smack dab in the middle of his prime and post-prime, so I wonder what happens if Bonds puts up 200 home runs between 1995 and 2000 and not 235.

Hank’s age 40 season wasn’t bad, but as soon as he turned 41, the carriage turned back into a pumpkin.  The slugging dropped off and so did the batting average, but what a career.  Pretty much nobody before Aaron had the same length of peak and nobody after until Barry Bonds. (Note! Some might point out Ted Williams, but Williams didn’t often play more than 500 PAs in the second half of his career due to varying reasons.)

Among his hall of fame peers, Hank’s career isn’t as flashy as, say, Babe Ruth’s or Barry Bonds’ or Willie Mays’ or Ted Williams’.  No seasons with more than 45 home runs; no seasons with a slugging percentage over .669; no seasons with a WARP3 over 10.2; no seasons with a wOBA over .466. The latest stat on fangraphs is a pretty good indicator of this too–weighted Runs Created+, which measures how many runs a player added for his team as based on weighted On Base Average ((OBP*2 + SLG)/3).  At the top of wRC+ is Babe Ruth (204), followed by Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig, Barry Bonds, Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle, and so on.  In the middle of page one is Aaron, between Mark McGwire and Dan Brouthers.  But Aaron did that in almost 4,000 more at bats than Ruth and almost 5,000 more than Williams.

Obviously it’s hard to compare players across eras, but Aaron played in perhaps the hardest one.  The playing field was completely integrated and he played during the toughest pitching era in the post-dead-ball era.

I think we can all agree on one thing, though: there’s more than one way to have an amazing career than a great peak at 27 and a graceful decline after 32.  Aaron was maybe the first great example of this.

My thoughts are with those who are in need this Christmas.  I ended up donating a lot to charities this year, contact your local police or sheriff’s station if you’d like to make a donation to a local charity.

In the meantime, here’s a sweet-ass baseball card of the Mick and Hank Aaron.

This comes courtesy of Cardboard Icons.

Here’s Mick’s and Aaron’s B-R and fangraphs pages: Here, here, here and here.

Baseball America’s John Manuel posted on Sports Illustrated his top 20 prospects for 2010, with Strasburg at the top.  Here’s the top 20 in short-list form:

1. Strasburg
2. Heyward
3. Stanton
4. Jennings
5. Montero
6. Matusz
7. Alvarez
8. Feliz
9. Posey
10. Bumgarner
11. Santana
12. Smoak
13. D. Brown
14. Kelly
15. Hellickson
16. Drabek
17. Escobar
18. Hicks
19. Ackley
20. Perez

I was surprised at Alcides Escobar at 17–he’s basically a high batting average guy with mild power–but someone told me his defense is supposed to be that good.  Here’s hoping we get to see Ozzie Smith redux.

Obviously the biggest trade of the off-season was Roy Halladay shipping off to Philadelphia (and Cliff Lee moving to Seattle in conjunction).  No argument there.

Bob Elliott with the Toronto Sun has an interesting piece about how it went down, from the 2008 off-season all the way to the actual trade. (You can read the full article here.)

JULY 5, 2009: Yankee Stadium

Then-GM J.P. Ricciardi asks Halladay if he intends to sign another contract with the Jays or does he want to leave?

Halladay told Ricciardi he’d wait and see “where the Jays were after 2010.” If they had a strong finish, he would re-sign with Toronto. If not? Adios.

…

July 16

The Jays want infielder Gordon Beckham from the White Sox for Halladay.

July 17

The Cards say they will not include outfielder Colby Rasmus in a Halladay package.

…

July 30

The Dodgers say the Jays are asking for five or six of their best prospects.

July 31

The Jays ask for starter Derek Holland and first base prospect Justin Smoak from the Rangers.

AUG. 1

The non-waiver trade deadline has passed and Halladay is still a Blue Jay.

…

Oct. 11

Having replaced the fired Ricciardi as Jays GM eight days earlier, Anthopoulos summons Halladay as part of his one-on-ones with each player.

Halladay tells him: “I’ve always tried to do the right thing for this organization.

The new GM remembers Halladay as being “very apologetic,” but tells the pitcher he didn’t need to “apologize for anything.”

“Whether it was jumping on a plane in the winter to help us recruit a free agent, structure his contract (his salary went from $12.8 million in 2007 to $10 million in ‘08) or anything else Halladay always did what was best for the club,” he said.

Kinda tragic.  Anthopoulos seems like a cool guy.

There’s a ton more behind the scenes stuff, and it gets even more interesting when Elliott gets into the winter meetings, but you’ll have to go read it.  Very good reporting and note keeping by Elliott.

Keeping the current format and everything, but I think it’s time for a new focus: we’re talking about baseball around the league.  Obviously, it’ll be a little more West-focused, since I live in Los Angeles, but that shouldn’t stop me from talking about the Pirates or AL Central as equally.

Welcome back to Dinger’s.

Slow news day as New York gets prepped for the All-Star game tonight at 5 p.m. PST.

Martin has been given some lofty comparisons by this guy (Lyle Spencer) over at Dodgers.com:

Since Roy Campanella, coming right behind Jackie Robinson in Brooklyn, integrated his position in 1948, the Dodgers have had a succession of brilliant receivers: John Roseboro, Steve Yeager, Mike Scioscia, Mike Piazza and now Martin, the pride of East York, Ontario, and Montreal.

A little unfair to a) leave Paul Lo Duca off that list, considering he put Scioscia on it and b) to already be comparing Martin to the great Dodger catchers.  Yeah, I think we all feel that way, but Martin’s been in the majors for almost two years.  Can’t we have this discussion when his career is over?  Maybe after he’s put up 10 or so years of these kinds of numbers?  Can’t we be a little patient before bestowing the catching crown upon his head?

Martin, being the wonderful man he is, said this:

There are some names there that have done a lot, had great careers.  I feel like I have a long way to go before I can be compared to all those names. Maybe, when it’s all said and done. … [About being compared to Roy Campanella] You can’t put my name and his name in the same sentence.  What he did was unbelievable. It’s something I can look up to. It’s a good objective, to try to follow someone like that. But as far as achieving what he achieved, that’s tough.

Martin’s always had a great respect for history.  This is probably why we all love him so much (plus, he’s a great player) and some day, a young catcher may see Martin as his objective; to follow someone like that.

Spencer then wrote this sentence:

Martin said his focus is on helping the Dodgers make a second-half charge and claim a postseason assignment in the Mild, Mild West.

Uuuuuggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Kershaw is pitching against the Indians tonight.

It’s early, but 21 pitches, six outs.

Base hit by Casey Blake.
Home run by Shoppach.

Hmm. Perhaps I jinxed it.

More thoughts on this game after the game.

I gave my father a signed Russell Martin ball and he seemed to like it.  Turkey beat Czech Republic, Dodgers lost, Lakers won and Tiger was awesome in the US Open today.  Looking forward to the 18-hole playoff tomorrow.

Guess I should comment on this.

I’m gonna FJM this piece, all bold parts are Ken Rosenthal’s original.

To win now, Dodgers could deal Kemp

No, that’s not the point. If the idea was to win now, the Dodgers would have traded Kemp and Kershaw and Laroche for Miguel Cabrera in the off-season. At this point, anyone they trade would probably be a trade down (except for Rosenthal’s delirious belief that the Dodgers could get Holliday).

Make outfielder Matt Kemp available, and the Dodgers’ trade options quickly would multiply. Make Kemp available, and the team could put together a package for virtually any hitter on the trade market — the Pirates’ Jason Bay, maybe the Tigers’ Magglio Ordonez, maybe even the Rockies’ Matt Holliday.

First, let’s look at how stupid this is. Bay is a good option, with an EQA of .330 and 14 homers. Good stuff, but he’s a bad outfielder and that leaves a hole in CF for Juan Pierre to fill. Magglio is 34. Let’s assume that the Rockies are dumb enough to trade Holliday to within the division and let’s assume that the Dodgers resign him to a beaucoup bucks deal that makes him 20 mil a year for the next 7 years, that’s still another LF with no defensive value. Currently, there are no OFs within the organization that would make up for Kemp’s defensive value. On top of that, Kemp is 23 this year, is still four years short of his prime. He’s not performing at his peak so far this year, has only 5 home runs, but even in a bad year, he’s STILL CONTRIBUTING POSITIVELY (103 OPS+). Holliday just turned 28 and Bay will be 30 by the end of the year.

And to suggest that they’d trade him now, after turning down offers for Miguel Cabrera, who’s CAREER OPS+ is 141 … is stupid.

To this point, the Dodgers have resisted moving Kemp or any of their other top young players, but their stance might be changing. “If we get to the point where we can definitively improve ourselves, we’ll do it,” general manager Ned Colletti told the Los Angeles Times.

This is the best. Colletti provides the most innocuous, agreeable comment (alternative Colletti quote: “If I could eat a hamburger without all the calories, I’d eat it”) and Rosenthal looks at it and says “THE SKY IS FALLING. DO YOU SEE DODGER FANS???” Granted, Holliday has averaged a 130 OPS+ in his career, but he’s not strong away from home. And if you’re going to take a risk on a player, why not take a risk on your homegrown talent.

Rival executives are skeptical,

As they should be. Kemp is talented and would probably cost a lot just by himself.

considering that the Dodgers frequently have backed out of trades involving their youngsters. Dodgers officials, however, say privately that they are indeed more willing to break up their young core. If that is true, Kemp would bring the greatest return.

OK, that’s unfair. Teams asked way too much of the Dodgers for good players and the Dodgers turned down those offers. They didn’t back out of any trades, at least they haven’t since Depodesta.  Rosenthal’s sources sound like they’re full of shit, or maybe he just extrapolated something from a quote from his sources that they didn’t say like he did to Colletti.

A trade of Kemp is not the Dodgers’ only alternative — the team also could pursue a less dramatic possibility, trading either first baseman James Loney or right fielder Andre Ethier to add more of a veteran presence to a lineup that ranks 11th in the National League in runs per game.

Veteran presence is what’s needed? Juan Pierre, Andruw Jones, Jeff Kent, Brad Penny and Derek Lowe aren’t sucking enough, we need more veterans who will underperform their juggernaut contracts?

If the Dodgers are patient, Kemp might prove more productive than Bay, Ordonez or even Holliday. But this is a team that has won only one postseason game in the past 20 years. Colletti needs to win. Manager Joe Torre wants to win. And Matt Kemp is one powerful chip.

No, Torre and Colletti don’t need to win. The Dodgers don’t fire GMs and managers after two years as if that’s enough time to establish a winning team. I, as well as many other Dodger fans, would much rather see players cultivated and a potential dynasty built than one goddamn playoff series win. As Jim Murray said (or something like it), “I understand Branch Rickey’s concept of trading a player a year early rather than a year late, but [in the case of Mike Piazza] 10 years early?” In this case, 15 years.

Baseball has become a much more sophisticated science in the last 20 years and to continue the idea that “veteran presence” has ANY effect on a baseball team’s performance is completely outdated. Assemble the talent and victories come and trading young talent for old talent is something the Dodgers are well-versed in.

That’s the other thing. The Dodgers haven’t made any terrible trades in the last 10 years because they’ve had nobody worth trading. So now they have a player, the MO of the FO is to trade the player immediately so they can regret it?

I don’t know what Matt Kemp did to Ken Rosenthal, but he should apologize.