Don't You Make This Difficult For Me, Jon Huntsman

It's early, and my feelings are confused right now, but I think I'm starting to really like Jon Huntsman.  I mean, I liked him a lot when he was governor because we just never had governors like him in Utah.  He supported cap-and-trade legislation, he moved us forward on civil rights by supporting gay rights and civil unions, he supported immigrant rights, he called out those ridiculous congressional Republicans for being useless (his word was "inconsequential"), and he generally talked and acted like a moderate in a state where Republican politicians are almost universally crazies.  I even started to like that weird thing he does with his eyebrows.  He wasn't perfect, but he was pretty good.

Then he praised Obama and Clinton and went to work as the ambassador to China in the Obama administration, even when everyone knew he had national aspirations.

Now it is clear that he's running for president and he continues to talk like a moderate, reasonable conservative and, frankly, it's jarring.  Take a look at this article by the Deseret News and in particular the transcript of the interview he did with CNN's John King.

 When asked about the praise he has given Pres. Obama and Sec. Clinton he said:

"Well, occasionally you write thank you notes, which I think is, for a lot of people, an important tradition. I also believe in civility. I believe that we ought to have a civil discourse in this country. You're -- and you're not going to agree with people 100 percent of the time, but when they succeed and do things that are good, you can compliment them on it. I think we need to come together more on the issues that really do matter. I believe in civility and I believe in complimenting people when they do a good job."

When asked about his support for gay rights he said:

"Well, I'm for civil unions. I believe in traditional marriage. But I think subordinate to that, we don't do an adequate job when it comes to equality and fairness. And I'm going to say take a look at my total record. And like every person who's been elected to office and tried to do things, some things you'll like, some things you won't.  On balance, we hope you like us. But if you don't, there are always other alternatives."

When asked about his support for cap-and-trade and whether climate change is human-caused he said:

"Well, I think the science of the community would -- would suggest that to be the case. And I think in a world like we have, we should be deferring to the scientific community and not the political community to make decisions that are best left in the hands of scientists. . . . So by the time that, you know, in the years to come, people want to have this conversation in a serious way, because people care about their environment, they care about air quality, I think we're going to face a whole lot more in the way of options other than just a tax on carbon and a cap and trade proposal."

He also opposed sending our military to Libya.  He likes the idea of privatizing Medicare, which I think is a disastrous idea, but that's not ever going to happen anyway (knock on wood) so I'll overlook it.

These are not the types of things Republican nominees for POTUS say, though.  They typically stick with catchy soundbites and heated rhetoric (also, some Democrats, but we're talking about the current Republican field here).  They don't praise Pres. Obama for his successes, they call him a communist, anti-American, Muslim outsider who is hell-bent on destroying our nation (note: not exaggerations at all . . . for real).  They don't support civil unions and say we aren't doing a good job with equity and fairness (socialist buzzwords, people!), they say that gays are destroying traditional marriage and the very moral fiber of America and will bring our downfall as a Christian nation.  They don't admit that climate change is human caused and leave the door open to cap-and-trade and talk about love for our environment, they apologize profusely for ever admitting something so awful and talk about how scientists are just in a power grab to drag us down in a socialist plot.

But here is Huntsman being a mature, thoughtful adult addressing issues seriously and acknowledging that the other side has good ideas.  Which raises some conflicting feelings within me.

First, I don't consider myself particularly moderate in a lot of areas.  I'm pretty well fully liberal.  So your average moderate conservative isn't all that appealing to me in normal circumstances.

But second, I'm not particularly enamored with Pres. Obama, as I have written a few times before, for the reason that I'm fully liberal and the president doesn't seem interested in sticking his neck out for liberal positions.  I like that he plays the adult and compromises and gets things done, but I also want him to make strong cases for liberal causes along the way, which he doesn't seem to want to do.  If you're a Democratic president, you have to do both to impress me.

So, third, if you are going to have a president that is moderate and practical that isn't really interested in being a strong voice for liberal issues, what does it matter if she or he is a Democrat or Republican?  And who knows, Huntsman may well be even better than Pres. Obama on some key issues, in particular civil rights.  Maybe he'll support repealing the Patriot Act, ending indefinite imprisonment of detainees without a civil trial, and getting us out of wars we have no business fighting.

Finally, Jon Huntsman is Mormon.  I know he's been a little evasive about his Mormonism, but he is Mormon, saying "I believe in God. I'm a good Christian. I'm very proud of my Mormon heritage. I am Mormon."  I like how he describes the religion as "a very diverse and heterogeneous cross-section of people," which I believe is absolutely true.

Now, I'm on record as saying that I would never vote for a person just because of religion.  That is a very, very poor way to choose political leaders.  But at a time when the Democratic president isn't scratching my liberal itch, and when there is a very good Republican candidate who is somewhat iconoclastic and says some things I agree with on issues I think are important, I find that Huntsman being a Mormon I can be proud of adds a little extra luster.  It's a point, a single point, in his favor.  Tipping the scales, if I may mix my metaphors, in his direction just a bit.

But my potential enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that there used to be this other Mormon Republican ex-governor who took decidedly moderate or liberal stands on issues like gay rights and health care who all of the sudden when he wanted to become president started changing his positions and pandering to the please-don't-compare-yourselves-to-the-real-Tea-Party and became as unlikeable as possible.  His name, of course, is Mitt Romney.

So, if you want me to love you, Jon Huntsman, and I'm vulnerable right now and just might be able to, don't become another Mitt Romney.

Liberal States' Rights

My visceral opposition to strong states' rights comes from a variety of sources.  First, I don't like the way my state generally does things.  Utah is a drag.  This is an intellectually shallow argument against states' rights, but its real for many people.

Second, I think the constitutional arguments behind it are pretty weak, or have become weaker in a changing world that the Founding Fathers could not possibly have foreseen.  I went into detail about this here.

Third, I think there are certain basic privileges and protections that the federal government should ensure that many states are hostile to, such as health care, which we'll discuss more below.  I support the federal government setting minimum standards for health care, the financial sector, etc. that are binding on states and put all Americans on a more equal footing.  As long as we are the United States of America, what's bad for one of us is bad for all of us.

Fourth, I distrust corporations more than government and think corporations have too much power, and decentralizing their main counterweight, the federal government, strikes me as a way to strengthen corporations and allow them to run amok (think Gilded Age abuses and oppression, and go read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair).

Fifth, and related to the previous two points, is the threat of a race to the bottom.  This occurs where, in economic competition, competing political entities will race to deregulate and dismantle consumer protections in an effort to attract businesses.  Wal-mart, for instance, is not going to be relocating its headquarters to a state with strong union laws on the books.

Sixth, the history of states' rights isn't exactly inspiring.  States' rights has been synonymous with slavery, Jim Crow, anti-segregation, and a whole slew of civil rights atrocities.  The latest incarnation is for certain states to take an incredibly hostile view towards immigrants, which I find despicable and not very Christian.  Certain states don't seem to be able to mind themselves when it comes to civil rights and it just won't due for them to drag us all down to their level.

Finally, conservatives have ruined the issue for me by attaching it to their social agenda and supporting states' rights when it suits them (abortion, immigration) and opposing it when it doesn't (drug control, gay marriage).  There are actually hardly any people anywhere on the political spectrum with a consistent stance on states' rights and I therefore find it hard to get on board.
 
Despite all of this, I can't help but agree with the famous line from Justice Brandeis that, "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."  The individual states as laboratories of democracy is an appealing metaphor that works on many levels.  I like the idea of states being courageous and searching for new, progressive solutions to our problems.  But it only works if states find themselves out ahead of nation as a whole as opposed to falling behind, and if the state doesn't have an elevated stature above the others in a certain area.

For example, New York and Delaware hold the keys to the corporate and financial engine of the nation.  If they aren't out ahead of rest of us in governing corporations and banks and protecting consumers, then the whole nation suffers.  So when they dropped the ball and the nation slunk into the Great Recession, the federal government had to step in and try to fix things.  It would have been better if those states had taken the lead and reformed the financial system before disaster struck, but they didn't and that's why we have the feds to step in and clean up their mess.

It became clear many years ago that there was a serious problem with the health care industry.  Tens of millions of Americans couldn't get coverage, coverage wasn't portable which tied people to their crappy jobs, and those with coverage were facing rising premiums greatly outpacing inflation with benefits falling by the wayside.  If various states had taken this seriously and fired up their bunsen burners and tried to find real solutions perhaps the federal government would not have had to play such a heavy hand.  The one state that did, Massachusetts, became the basis for the federal reform.  But otherwise they didn't.  But now they are.

Vermont is about to create a single-payer system.  California and Oregon have progressive systems aimed and covering all residents.  This is good, and could be the beginning of real health reform in the country.  The states should be out in front, and when they are the whole federalism system works better.  Unfortunately, that race to the bottom almost always means that they are not, and that is why it is too risky to put too much faith in states' rights, for now anyway.

Second Greatest Mormon Baseball Player (Pitcher Division)

Our quest to identify the second greatest Mormon baseball player brings us to the pitchers.  I'm proud to say that this is a pretty good crop.  There seem to be more very good Mormon pitchers than Mormon position players, and if anyone has a theory as to why I'd like to hear it.  But this analysis comes down to five pitchers: Roy Halladay, Jack Morris, Dennis Eckersley, Bruce Hurst, and Vernon Law.

I'll just note here that my search for the second greatest Mormon baseball players is not contingent on church activity or faithfulness.  First, I have no way of knowing and second it's not my place to make those judgment calls anyway.  Eckersley, for instance, is only known to have been active for a few years as a youth and has had some well publicized trials and struggles and as far as I can tell does not identify as a Mormon, but he was baptized and so we consider him.  I'm not sure if this is the best way to do it or not, but I'm a big-tent Mormon kind of guy and so we push on.

This is going to get a little long so let me just dispense with the suspense right now for those that don't want to read the whole thing: Roy Halladay, with even a partially completed career, is the greatest Mormon pitcher of all time and by the time it's all said and done it won't even be close.  There, you know how it ends, now lets enjoy the journey, in alphabetical order.

Dennis Eckersley

Eck is a first ballot Hall of Famer, elected in 2004.  We noted last time that Dale Murphy had two careers, one as perhaps the best player in baseball and one where he fell off a cliff was barely average.  Eck has three careers, one at the very beginning of his career as an excellent starter, one in the middle as a merely average starter, and one at the end as one of the best relievers of all time.  I think his HoF credentials are built mostly for being the most dominant reliever this side of Mariano Rivera.

In 1992 Eckersley won both the Cy Young and MVP.  This is the year he saved 51 games with a 1.91 ERA and 10.5 strikeouts per nine innings against only 1.2 walks per nine innings and a 197 ERA+.  His A's finished first in the AL West at 96-66 and lost in the ALCS to the eventual World Series Champion Blue Jays.  That ALCS featured another pitcher on this list at the end of his career, Jack Morris, who had a forgettable ALCS and World Series despite his team winning both.  Eck didn't fare so hot himself in that ALCS with a 6.00 ERA.  He finished in the top ten Cy Young balloting five other times, three top six MVP votes, and was a six time all-star.

Over his entire career, Eckersley was awesome.  He finished with 197 wins (I will quote pitcher wins and saves in this piece for posterity's sake even though I disdain both), .535 winning percentage, and 390 saves.  He has a 3.50 career ERA and 116 ERA+.  He has 2401 strikeouts which puts him at 36th all time.  His advanced stats are awesome, as well, with 67.1 WAR and 30.97 WPA.

Since he had a run as both a starter and reliever he has two distinct peaks.  His first five years in the league, 1975-1979, he went 77-50 with a 3.12 ERA, 128 ERA+, and averaged 171 strikeouts per year.  He muddled around for a while and then was then made a closer and he had an epic six year peak from 1987-1992 where he had a 2.18 ERA, 178 ERA+, 9.3 K/9, and 8.93 K/BB.  This is as good as it gets if your name is not Mariano Rivera.  It is only marred by giving up one of the most famous home runs in baseball history.

Eckersley is one of two players to have both a 20-win season and a 50-save season (the other being John Smoltz), and he threw a no-hitter on May 30, 1977 against the Cleveland Indians.  He had exactly 100 complete games and 20 shutouts, numbers which most pitchers just don't achieve anymore.  Eck lived a party lifestyle and was brash and cocky, but he managed to harness it all and become an all-time great.

Roy Halladay

Essentially, Halladay's entire career has been a peak so far.  For the past 11 seasons he has been a force of nature, and most of that was spent in the difficult conditions of the AL East.  He seemingly mowed through the high-priced Red Sox and Yankee lineups with ease.  Now that he is in the weaker hitting National League his numbers are starting to look silly.  All this after an ignominious start where he struggled as a young pitcher and was demoted back down to the minors to work things out.  In 2000 his ERA was over 10 in 67.2 innings, which is about the worst season in baseball history.  Really.  But work things out, he did, and came back at age 24 with a vengeance and new mechanics and began his reign as the best pitcher in baseball.  There's a lesson, there, kids: don't let disappointments get you down, work through your problems, make lemonade out of lemons, etc.

Doc has won two Cy Youngs (2003 in the AL and 2010 in the NL), with five other top five finishes, and is a seven time all-star.  So far.  Remember, this is going to look like a complete career run down but he is still at the top of his game, so everything is "so far."  In fact, this season is starting out as his best yet with a 2.21 ERA, 171 ERA+, 9.3 K/9, and he is the odds-on favorite to win another Cy Young award.  So far, then, in his career, he is 175-89 (his .663 winning percentage puts him top 20 all time with at least 1000 innings pitched) with a 3.29 ERA, 137 ERA+, 2.85 FIP with 1787 Ks, 6.8 K/9, and a ridiculous 3.6 K/BB.  He strikes people out and he doesn't hand out walks.  He already has 64.6 WAR and 36.36 WPA.

On May 29, 2010, Halladay threw only the 20th perfect game in baseball history, and then followed it up later that year by throwing only the 2nd no-hitter in postseason history in his first career playoff start.  Election to the hall of fame takes two parts raw, objective stats and one part legend, and Halladay already has both of those locked up.  If his career ended today he would be a hall of famer, no doubt in my mind.

Bruce Hurst

Bruce Hurst is a step down from Eckersley and Halladay, but was a very good pitcher and, like Wally Joyner in the non-pitcher post, should be recognized.  He is originally from St. George, UT, making us beehive-staters proud.  Over his career he was 145-113 with a 3.92 ERA and 104 ERA+.  He finished with 1689 Ks and 41.2 WAR.  He had one top five Cy Young Award vote and one all-star appearance.

He had a very good six year peak from 1986-1991 where he had a 3.38 ERA, 119 ERA+, went 87-55 and averaged 168 K per year.  He best season was probably 1989 when he went 15-11 with a 2.69 ERA, 132 ERA+, and 179 K.  He was a very good pitcher.

I guess I should mention, against my better judgment, the 1986 World Series one more time.  Hurst was awesome.  He won game one by pitching eight scoreless innings with eight Ks.  He won game five by pitching a complete game (two runs and six Ks).  Right before the tragic (in every sense of the word) collapse in game six, the Shea Stadium scoreboard congratulated the Sox on winning their first WS since 1918 and named Hurst the series MVP.  But you know what?  The Red Sox won two world series in the past few years and so you can all stuff it.  Anyway, this is still about Hurst still, I believe.

I shouldn't do this because again I have no personal knowledge and I have no right to judge, but Hurst was known for being devout and clean throughout his career.  They even had Mormon Night at Fenway Park in 2005 when he threw out the first pitch after being elected to the Red Sox Hall of Fame.  Another great lesson for the kids.

Vernon Law

Vernon Law, like Hurst, is a step down from the others but had a very solid career.  He won the Cy Young award and was an all-star in 1960, but his 1959 year was probably better having gone 18-9 with a 2.89 ERA, 130 ERA+, and 110K.  That was in the midst of a six year peak from 1955 to 1960 where he went 80-60 with a 3.47 ERA, 111 ERA+, and averaged 80 K per year.  Law was not a big strikeout guy, but he got the job done.  Over his career he went 162-147 with a 3.77 ERA and 102 ERA+.

You can't talk about Vern Law without talking about the 1960 World Series.  This is where the mighty New York Yankees outplayed the Pittsburgh Pirates, outscoring them 55-27 in the series, and lost in seven games.  This is where Bill Mazeroski hit one of the top five most famous home runs in world series history, becoming the first player ever to hit a walk-off home run to win the world series (Joe Carter would become the second in 1993).  Law, though, was sensational.  He won game one by pitching seven innings and giving up only two runs.  He won game four by giving up only two runs over six and a third.  He then went out on short rest and pitched five innings of three-run ball in game 7 to keep his team in the game before Maz's famous home run.  Law was as responsible for the Pirates winning one of the most remarkable world series in history as anyone else.

Law was known as Deacon (also, Preacher) for living a devout and religious life as a Mormon during his career.  He as been living in Provo since he retired (due in part to ankle problems), and helps coach the Provo High baseball team.

Jack Morris

Jack Morris is the very personification of the tension between advanced stats vs. traditional stats.  He has been inching closer and closer to the Hall of Fame and as he has the arguments for and against his election have gotten heated (as far as sports arguments go).  On the one hand Jack Morris won 254 games and pitched 10 shutout innings in game seven of the 1991 World Series to propel the Twins to victory over the Braves.  He has 2478 Ks which puts him 31st all time.  He won 20 or more games three times and was remembered as a winner, pure and simple.

On the other hand he only has a career 3.90 ERA and 105 ERA+, compiled a lot of Ks over many years but only had 5.8 K/9 and pedestrian 1.78 K/BB.  He benefited greatly from pitching for some high-scoring teams that helped him win a lot of games despite a mediocre (by all-time great standards) ERA.  His seven year peak from 1981-1987 featured only a 117 ERA+ and 3.34 ERA, with 176 K/yr, yet he won 125 games.

I guess I'll take a moment to explain the stat wars going on in baseball.  For many decades the most important stat for a pitcher was wins.  Pitcher wins told you just about everything you needed to know, and for many years 300 career wins was an automatic ticket to the Hall of Fame (that number is dropping for a number of reasons).  Only, now that people are giving it some hard thought it is clear that pitcher wins is absurdly overrated.  It depends too much on things like your offense, your defense, your relief pitching, and other factors to give you an accurate idea of how well the pitcher actually pitched.  A pitcher could have a day where they pitched nine innings with two hits and 10 Ks and lost 1-0.  The next start they could pitch five innings, give up 10 runs, and still win the game 15-10.  Which day did he pitcher better?  The first, obviously, but wins don't reflect that.

The same goes for other traditional stats which are flawed like RBI (function of how many people get on base in front of you) and batting average (doesn't take into account walks or power numbers).  These are okay as far as they go, but don't give you as much information as other newer stats.  That is why there are things like WAR, WPA, OPS, OPS+, ERA+, and the like.  And this is the reason why Jack Morris is such a controversial case for the Hall of Fame.  His traditional stats are great, but looking deeper shows some major flaws.  No one would argue that he is not a great, great pitcher, but lots of people are arguing that he is not a Hall of Famer.  So Morris is the flashpoint.  You can read about it here, here, here, and here.

Morris never won a Cy Young, but he was in the top five in voting five times, and two other times in the top ten.  He was a five-time all-star.  He was 56.9 WAR and 14.8 WPA.  His best year was probably 1986 when he went 21-8 with a 3.27 ERA, 223 K, and a 127 ERA+.

---

So I think the rankings go like this:  Halladay, Eckersley, Morris, Hurst, Law.  The last two are close to a toss-up, but Hurst had a better peak so he gets the nod.  That is a pretty fantastic list, fellow Mormons, and we can be proud of it.

In the end, I'm not going to try to choose between Halladay and Murphy as the second greatest Mormon baseball player behind Harmon Killebrew (Okay, gun to my head I take Halladay).  The point is there have been some really, really great Mormon baseball players over the years who did memorable things over their careers and in big moments.  It's inspiring in a way that sports can be inspiring.

We talk almost exclusively politics on this blog, which can be heavy-handed and depressing.  Those are real issues that effect real people in intimate ways that our elected officials tend to screw up pretty badly.  Sports gives us a chance to see people screw up pretty badly and have it not effect our lives (lastingly, anyways) and then perhaps turn around the next day and do something great and memorable and still have it not effect our lives (lastingly, anyways).  That gives us hope that the really important people can redeem themselves from time to time as well.  Maybe some of those really important people will be Mormons, too.

Second Greatest Mormon Baseball Player (Non-Pitcher Division)

If Harmon Killebrew is the obvious greatest Mormon baseball player of all time, and I think he is, then it behooves us to identify the second greatest Mormon baseball player of all time.  This is a bit of a closer call, so we'll break it down into two posts with this first one focusing on everyday players and the next one on pitchers.

This really comes down to Dale Murphy and Jeff Kent, though we'll throw Wally Joyner in there because he was pretty good, as well.  We'll start with a couple WAR chart comparisons from Fangraphs and then break 'em down individually.

So from the charts you'll see that Kent's and Murphy's two best seasons were about the same and pretty spectacular.  Murphy's next three best seasons were significantly better than Kent's, but Kent had the more sustained career.  Joyner didn't really have that eye-popping peak but he did have a long, consistent career.

Dale Murphy

Murphy's is a tale of two careers.  From 1982 to 1987, as Rob Neyer points out, Murphy was absolutely dominant and in the discussion as the best player in baseball.  During those years he either led the league or was in the top three in home runs, games played, runs, RBI, and runs created.  He won back-to-back MVPs in 1982 and 1983 (with two more top ten finishes), earned five gold gloves, and was a six-time all-star (with a seventh in 1980).  His OPS was .913, good for an OPS+ 145, with an average of 36 home runs and 28 doubles a year.  He was awesome and might very well have been the all around best player in the game.

It was clear that he was on his way to the Hall of Fame fairly easily, he just needed to age gracefully.  He did not age gracefully.  As Joe Posnanski puts it, "And then ... he fell off a cliff. He didn't just fall a cliff, he did a Wile E. Coyote fall off a cliff and then had a big chunk of rock fall on top of him. After his decent 1988, he hit .236/.304/.388 the rest of his career was was just barely above replacement level."

His overall career numbers are pretty great, even adding in six or seven pretty bad years:  .265/.346/.469, 121 OPS+, 398 home runs, 29.37 WPA, 47.3 WAR.  Don't forget that he played his peak at CF, one of the most important and demanding defensive positions on the field and so a position that does not usually lend itself to offensive greatness.  Centerfield is also, in my humble opinion, the awesomest position, like being lead singer in a band.

If you value peak performance, watching somebody do something about as good as it could possibly done, even if only fleeting, then Murphy is your guy.  He was on top of the baseball world for six years, breathing that rarefied air of greatness that few achieve. 

Murphy also gets some bonus points on this blog for his life off the field, as well.  He is considered one of the all time good guys to play the game.  He spent hours signing autographs and interacting with the fans.  He was the face of baseball generally and in the South specifically, especially because he played for those Braves teams that were nationally televised on the Turner network in the fledgling days of cable TV.

He has also been an active and devout member his whole life.  I imagine living a professional athlete life makes being a Mormon extra difficult, but all indications are that the Murph was not fazed.  After his baseball career he served in a stake presidency and then as a mission president.  Here is the epitome of a role model.

Jeff Kent

On the other hand you have Jeff Kent.  Digging into this has been fun because of the beautiful contrast between these two players.  Where Dale Murphy was kind and universally lauded as a great ambassador to the game, Jeff Kent is well known for being surly, egotistical, and complicated.  Though the reputation is not fully deserved, he certainly was no Murphy when it came to personality.  Which fine, because it takes all sorts and all that, but more importantly because he was apparently the one person who could put Barry Bonds in his place.

Jeff Kent was your classic late bloomer.  He was more or less an average player through his 20s, but at age 30 started an eight to ten year run as the best second baseman in the game.  His best season was undoubtedly 2000 when he hit an incredible .334/.424/.596 with 33 home runs, 41 doubles, 162 OPS+ and won the MVP.  He finished in the top ten in MVP voting three other times and was a five-time all-star.  In his eight-year prime from 1998 to 2005 his OPS was .908, he averaged 28 home runs a year and 40 doubles.

He is the all-time leading home run hitter for second baseman with 377 and finished his career batting .276/.340/.500 with a 123 OPS+, 24.34 WPA, 61.9 WAR.  Defense is likely Kent's biggest weakness.  The numbers say he was well below average, while others maintain he was merely pedestrian.  Either way, playing an important defensive position poorly can be a problem, but he more than made up for it with his bat.  He had a very good year at age 39 and a mediocre one at 40 in 2008 and then retired.  He'll be eligible for the Hall of Fame in 2014 and has a pretty decent case, in fact I'd be surprised if he didn't get elected eventually.

If you value consistency and longevity then Kent is you guy.

Wally Joyner

Wally Joyner is known for breaking into the big leagues in a big way and then having a solid career that never lived up to that initial hype.  He hit 20 home runs in that first half season and was named an all-star as a write-in.  He subsequently slowed way down in the second half of his rookie season, with only seven home runs.  He came in second in the Rookie of the Year voting, losing to Miss Congeniality, Jose Canseco.  Joyner was having a fantastic series against Boston in the ALCS before being forced to leave because of an infection in his injured shin.  Boston won that ALCS dramatically and lost the World Series dramatically and we're not going to discuss it further.

Anyway, his second season was even better, .285/.366/.528 with 34 home runs.  The problem, as implied above, was that he was never a power hitter in the minors and insisted he was a gap hitter, not a power hitter, and eventually that came true.  He only hit more than 20 or more home runs once (21) in a season after that.  But Joyner had a very good, long career.  His career line was .289/.362/.440, 204 home runs and 409 doubles, 34.2 bWAR, 40.4 fWAR, 23.36 WPA, and 117 OPS+.  He never made another all-star game or top ten in MVP voting, but he was a good player and known as an excellent fielding 1B.

He's no Dale Murphy or Jeff Kent, but few are and he was good and should be recognized as such.

---

So who is the second greatest Mormon baseball player of all time?  That is a tough call.  You should probably go with Kent for having a better overall career, but I guess I'm more the type that likes high peaks, even if they are short.  I would take Pedro at his shorter, spectacular peak over Pettitte and his longevity.  I would take three seasons of "Arrested Development" over however many of "Two and a Half Men" (disclosure: I've never seen a single minute of "Two and a Half Men", but you get the point).

So, I'm going to officially make Dale Murphy the second greatest Mormon baseball player of all time (non-pitcher division) and not look back.  Kent you could consider a 2b.  Congrats, Murph, you'll get your plaque in the mail.

Harmon Killebrew, Greatest Mormon Baseball Player, Dies

Harmon Killebrew died of esophageal cancer yesterday.  He is the greatest Mormon baseball player to ever live.  Let's explore.

They called him Killer because his name was Killebrew but his personality was the exact opposite.  There are hundreds of stories out there about how kind and gentle and approachable Killer was.  But at the plate the man lived up to the name.  As the incomparable Joe Posnanski points out, he was inhumanly strong and hit home runs at a pace greater than Mickey Mantle, Ted Williams, and Sammy Sosa.  He was born to rake.

In his career he hit 573 home runs, including eight 40 homer seasons (and one 39 homer season), which is good for 11th all time.  Though the list is now polluted with steroid users, at the time he retired he was in the top five or six fifth all time.  His career slash stats are .256/.376/.509, which means that while he wasn't a high average guy, he did the things which are actually important really well, i.e. get on base and hit with power.  In his MVP year of 1969 he had a 1.011 OPS, led the league in on-base percentage, hit 49 home runs, and led the league in intentional walks.  He was voted to the Hall of Fame in 1984 (it inexplicably took four tries to get voted into the Hall, which is more evidence that the BBWAA should not be solely in charge of that process).  He did all this in an era of depressed offense, which is reflected in his career OPS+ of 143, which is about the same as A-Rod, Vlad Guerrero, Willy McCovey, and Mike Schmidt.

There has always been a rumor that Killer was the model for the MLB logo, though it is not entirely clear.  You can read up about it here.  Killebrew always maintained that it was him, and the man that supposedly designed it maintained that was just a composite of a lot of different batters.  In any case, he is an iconic figure in baseball, the face of Minnesota Twins, and, in my opinion, one of the mythical "inner circle" Hall of Famers.

Dale Murphy was a pretty great centerfielder and has a good case for the Hall of Fame, Jacoby Ellsbury is a Red Sox which automatically makes him capital-G Great, Jeff Kent is one of the great offensive second basemen of all time, Bryce Harper is quickly gaining legend as perhaps the greatest prospect ever, and when all is said and done, Roy Halladay may end up taking the title of greatest Mormon baseball player of all time from Killebrew and leave Killer just as the greatest Mormon hitter of all time, but for now Harmon Killebrew stands alone, and baseball and Mormons have lost a great one.

He's Dead

This is a follow up to Andrew's great picture earlier.  I laugh every time.

Also, if you that initial thrill has worn off the bin Laden situation and you want to think a little more about it, here are a couple good things to read.

 First, Greenwald is asking some important and difficult questions that I think need to be answered:

But what has surprised me somewhat is how little interest there seems to be in finding out what actually happened here. We know very little about the circumstances of bin Laden's killing, because the U.S. government has issued so many contradictory claims, which in turn contradict the reported claims of those at the scene.

...

Beyond the apparent indifference to how this killing took place, what has also surprised me somewhat is the lack of interest in trying to figure out how the bin Laden killing fits into broader principles and viewpoints about state power and the War on Terror. I've seen people who have spent the last decade insisting that the U.S. must accord due process to accused Terrorists before punishing them suddenly mock the notion that bin Laden should have been arrested and tried.

...

Then there's the strange indifference to finding out whether bin Laden was actually captured before executed. . . .  How can that not matter? Hasn't the entire debate about torture centered on the proposition that states have a moral and legal obligation not to abuse helpless detainees, given that their captivity means they have been rendered harmless? Shouldn't we want to know if bin Laden was captured before being killed, and wouldn't that make some difference in assessing one's views of his killing?

In response, Balloon Juice agrees but still refuses to get too nuanced about it all (Warning, offensive language, i.e. swears):

I’m the hypocrite here. I’m stridently against extrajudicial killings, the death penalty, targeted assassination, etc. I’d wager most of you are, too.  But when I heard that Osama had been killed, I’ll be damned if I didn’t think “Thank God that monster is gone.” Sure, in my ideal world he’d be brought back to the US, tried, and then imprisoned for the rest of his life. But you know what? I can not honestly say I give a damned that he took a double tap to the skull. Sorry. And I’d be also willing to bet that is where most of you all are- this may or may not have been legal, but you don’t give a shit, because that scumbag is at the bottom of an ocean somewhere and got what he deserved. I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that a primitive part of me was sort of sad he didn’t experience any pain.

I am still trying to sort out how much I care about how this was carried out, which is really a question about justice.  On the one hand, one exception to the rules (the bin Laden exception, we'll call it) might open the door to increasingly lawless government acting outside of what we consider open and moral bounds for what could at best be considered a ephemeral notion of justice, on the other it was Osama bin Laden, and he got what he deserved and we all know it.  Not easy . . .

Osama Bin Laden is dead

I think this image sums up the last couple of years quite nicely:

http://i.imgur.com/KDssc.jpg

OBL's death may be largely symbolic, but the symbolism is powerful. The thugs that are Al-Qaeda have stolen the focus for too many years from the billions of peaceful Muslims in the world. If nothing else, I'm hoping his death will undo that supreme injustice.