The TBL Baseball Annual A publication of the Transcontinental Baseball League The TBL Hall of Fame 2010 Edition Walter H. Hunt All 24 Teams Analyzed Robert Jordan Using the T.Q. System Paul Harrington The TBL Baseball Annual A publication of the Transcontinental Baseball League 2010 Edition by Walter H. Hunt Robert Jordan Paul Harrington with contributions from all of TBL’s managers and extra help from: Mark Bloom Ray Murphy Darrell Skogen Clay Beard Copyright © 2010 Walter H. Hunt. This book was produced using a Macintosh with Adobe InDesign CS2 and Adobe Photoshop 7.0. I can be reached by mail at 3306 Maplebrook Road, Bellingham, MA 02019 or by e-mail at [email protected]. The 2010 TBL Annual the TBL baseball annual Welcome to the 2010 TBL Baseball Annual. This is the fiftteenth year of the Annual in the book format. This year we return to print with our newly-inaugurated TBL Hall of Fame as the unifying theme. We also have many of our regular features, and a fine article from Mark Bloom on the “Art of the Trade.” Last year’s pause for breath has given us strong motivation to bring you back the prod- uct you’ve become accustomed to reading. Team articles have been pared down in size, with one page reviewing the previous season – most written by you, the team managers – and three pages of our usual incisive analysis. Some of the content we have included before is now available on the TBL stats site; no need to reproduce it here. Mr. Jordan has said, more than once, that your humble editor is the only one who can get him to write for free. That may be so, but his continued contribution to this work is of a high enough caliber that I would be willing to pay for it . if I couldn’t get it for free myself. And the continued assistance by Mr. Harrington makes this effort even better. As always, it’s probably as much fun to write as it is to read. Have a great season. Walter, Editor Robert Paul May, 2010 The T.Q. System Shamelessly stolen from the Mazeroski annual, the T.Q. System assigns points to each area of the team’s expected performance and totals the result. The maximum score under the T.Q. System is 50, divided as follows: Pitching: 20 points Offense: 15 points Defense: 10 points Bench: 5 points The T.Q. System does not take age or prospect value into account, only present capability. It does, however, consider usage (available games, at bats and innings). 4 The 2010 TBL Annual table of contents FRONT MATTER Future Drafts 6 TQ Summary 7 Features: The Rebuilding Clock, SNTs, The Vegas Line, Numbers 8 The TBL Hall of Fame 10 Editorial 14 2010 Computer Pre-Play Clay Beard 15 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE International Conference Hall of Fame Eligibles 16 Clemente Division Another Curtain Call 18 Whitman 20 Columbus 24 Greater Ohio 28 Blue Hill 32 Mays Division Everything and the Kitchen Sink 36 Rye 38 Gotham City 42 Grand Cayman 46 Las Vegas 50 Ruth Division Jockey For Second Place 54 Dallas 56 New Westminster 60 Houston 64 Brobdingnag 68 INTERMISSION Road to the World Series 72 2007 World Series Report 74 NATIONAL CONFERENCE National Conference Hall of Fame Eligibles 76 Aaron Division Falling Into Place 78 Portland 80 Northboro 84 Kansas 88 Maracaibo 92 Mantle Division Now, About Face 96 Hudson 98 Zion 102 Melrose 106 Munich 110 Williams Division Some Things Change 114 Knoxville 116 Wakefield 120 Richmond 124 Midwest 128 FINAL WORDS Breakthrough 132 Future 133 The Art of the Trade 134 Commissioner’s Report Darrell Skogen 136 In Memoriam 137 The 2010 TBL Annual future drafts In many cases, what’s on the field isn’t the whole story. Some of our teams have quite a bit to say in future drafts, and any evaluation should properly take that into account. The graphical displays below show how much each team has in the tank. The middle mark on the thermometer represents a full draft (picks #1-#3) in 2011; above the middle base line is excess, while below means something’s missing. haves balanced MUNICH. It takes a lot of effort to take a team COLUMBUS, DALLAS, apart from tapped-out contender to punchless ZION, GOTHAM CITY. rebuilder, but it’s impressive to see all you can Their own drafts. get for your trouble. A top #1 and two others. BROBDINGNAG. The #1 will be good, but LAS VEGAS. not as good as this year’s; still, there are three Back in a rebuild cycle. No #2, but two #3s, #2s and two #3s. and likely a high position in the 2011 draft. have nots GRAND CAYMAN. Their own draft and two HOUSTON. No third rounder (or even a fourth extra #3s. rounder) in 2010. But it’s a better team on the field, at least. BLUE HILL. Their own draft, along with an WHITMAN, HUDSON, KNOXVILLE. No extra #2 from Knoxville. They may be choosing second rounder in 2011 for these three serious first overall. contenders. WAKEFIELD. Their own draft, along with an PORTLAND, NEW WESTMINSTER. extra #2 from Rye. Their own picks will be Portland has no #1; the Canadian boys have much higher. only a #1. MARACAIBO, MIDWEST, MELROSE. Three NORTHBORO. Just a #2 for the Phoenix; the former contenders. Midwest has an extra #1 and rest of the draft has been turned into stuff to no #3; Maracaibo and Melrose have extra picks. help them win games in 2010. KANSAS, GREATER OHIO, RICHMOND. RYE. Mr. Musselman doesn’t need no stinking Their own drafts for the first two, with higher draft. They might be right. But there’s no room #1s in 2009; for Richmond, an extra #3. for error, and no draft before the fourth round. These indicators also appear at the bottom of each team article, for your convenience. The 2010 TBL Annual t.q. summary TEAM (DIVISION) OFFENSE DEFENSE PITCHING BENCH TOTAL The Cream of the Crop Rye (Mays) 11.0 9.0 16.0 3.0 39.0 Portland (Aaron) 10.0 7.5 14.5 3.5 35.5 Dallas (Ruth) 12.0 7.5 13.5 2.5 35.5 Northboro (Aaron) 9.0 8.5 13.0 3.0 33.5 Whitman (Clemente) 10.0 7.0 12.0 2.5 31.5 The Solid Performers Hudson (Mantle) 11.0 7.0 9.5 2.5 30.0 Zion (Mantle) 8.5 8.5 8.5 3.0 28.5 New Westminster (Ruth) 10.5 4.0 11.0 2.5 28.0 Knoxville (Williams) 8.0 5.0 11.0 2.5 26.5 The Transitional Teams Gotham City (Mays) 7.0 4.5 11.5 2.5 25.5 Houston (Ruth) 6.0 5.0 12.0 2.0 25.0 Wakefield (Williams) 7.0 8.0 7.5 2.5 25.0 Melrose (Mantle) 7.5 4.5 11.0 2.0 25.0 Columbus (Clemente) 8.5 4.5 9.5 2.0 24.5 Kansas (Aaron) 8.5 4.0 9.5 2.0 24.0 Richmond (Williams) 8.5 8.0 5.0 2.0 23.5 Greater Ohio (Clemente) 8.5 5.5 7.5 2.0 23.5 The Rebuilders Maracaibo (Aaron) 6.5 7.0 6.5 2.5 22.5 Brobdingnag (Ruth) 10.5 4.0 5.5 2.5 22.5 Grand Cayman (Mays) 6.5 4.5 8.0 3.0 22.0 Las Vegas (Mays) 5.5 5.5 8.5 2.0 22.0 Midwest (Williams) 6.5 4.5 4.0 2.5 17.5 Munich (Mantle) 5.0 3.0 4.5 2.0 14.5 Blue Hill (Clemente) 5.0 5.0 3.0 1.5 14.5 Conference Totals Division Totals International 313.0 (26.1 average) Aaron (NC) 115.5 Mantle (NC) 98.0 National 306.0 (25.5 average) Ruth (IC) 111.0 Clemente (IC) 94.0 Mays (IC) 108.0 Williams (NC) 92.5 The 2010 TBL Annual features We have several team evaluation metrics that Teams Turning The Corner go beyond what we see in the team envelopes. On a previous page we showed the contents of 04:00 These teams have either each team’s 2011 draft; on the next two pages, unbuilt only modestly, or are on the we show other ways in which we can measure road to recovery. There are usually how our teams are doing. flaws keeping them from contention. This Year: Columbus, Grand Cayman, Greater Ohio, Richmond, Wakefield. The Rebuilding Clock 05:00 A contender in a weak divi- We again present the rebuilding clock for sion, a .500 club in a strong one. your edification. As previously noted, there This team will often be coming off a are fewer teams willing to hit the wall at high strong draft and may make the mis- speed – we have learned from Joe and others take of trying to contend too soon. to hedge our bets; so there isn’t anyone at the This Year: Whitman, Brobdingnag, New Westminster. bottom of the clock cycle. Still, we have a wide range of clock settings this year. 06:00 An above .500 club, likely one that has just made a trade to Teams In Serious Rebuild Mode strengthen its hand but not spent in a major way to get to the playoffs. This Year: NONE. 12:00 The team has hit the wall and is a hideous train wreck.