3.01.2007
People Play Baseball. Numbers Don't.
Since people are finally playing baseball today, the first day of spring-training games, I thought I'd start off by quoting the New York Times resident curmudgeon Murray Chass, who railed two days ago against "new-age" things such as certain baseball statistics with funny names. He really doesn't like VORP.
I admit, VORP does sound funny. VORP VORP VORP! Snicker-snack, it's so Jabberwockian! But "ERA" sounds funny, too, especially when you think about baseball pitchers who chew tabacky and rub liniment on their arms getting confused with pissed-off women burning their bras on the streets of Washington.
I caricature because I love. As do the fellows at Fire Joe Morgan, who eviscerate Murray Chass here. I'll let them carry most of the water in making the argument, but dammit, why do people like Chass bury their head in the sand when it comes to new statistics? Batting average is a statistic, ERA is a statistic, saves is a statistic. Chass (and others like him, some who read this site) feel quite comfortable quoting those stats.
And they're not even good stats. Certainly batting average: it's a terrible way to make a strong, precise evaluation of a player's worth. Why the resistance to newer, perhaps better stats? When you were eight, you spent a few minutes learning how to calculate batting average. Why not take a few minutes now, in the adult phase of your development cycle, to understand VORP? It's a pretty handy concept.
I end with a full quote from Chass's column: "I suppose that if stats mongers want to sit at their computers and play with these things all day long, that’s their prerogative. But their attempt to introduce these new-age statistics into the game threatens to undermine most fans’ enjoyment of baseball and the human factor therein. People play baseball. Numbers don’t."
Threat? Undermine? Substitute "Communism" for "new-age statistics" and you have a McCarthyite rant. Swap in "atheism" for "new-age statistics" and you have paranoid Bible-thumping. And if you think I'm trying to knock down a strawman, consider that beyond whoever writes about baseball for USA Today, Chass may be the most widely-read baseball scribe in the land.
|
I admit, VORP does sound funny. VORP VORP VORP! Snicker-snack, it's so Jabberwockian! But "ERA" sounds funny, too, especially when you think about baseball pitchers who chew tabacky and rub liniment on their arms getting confused with pissed-off women burning their bras on the streets of Washington.
I caricature because I love. As do the fellows at Fire Joe Morgan, who eviscerate Murray Chass here. I'll let them carry most of the water in making the argument, but dammit, why do people like Chass bury their head in the sand when it comes to new statistics? Batting average is a statistic, ERA is a statistic, saves is a statistic. Chass (and others like him, some who read this site) feel quite comfortable quoting those stats.
And they're not even good stats. Certainly batting average: it's a terrible way to make a strong, precise evaluation of a player's worth. Why the resistance to newer, perhaps better stats? When you were eight, you spent a few minutes learning how to calculate batting average. Why not take a few minutes now, in the adult phase of your development cycle, to understand VORP? It's a pretty handy concept.
I end with a full quote from Chass's column: "I suppose that if stats mongers want to sit at their computers and play with these things all day long, that’s their prerogative. But their attempt to introduce these new-age statistics into the game threatens to undermine most fans’ enjoyment of baseball and the human factor therein. People play baseball. Numbers don’t."
Threat? Undermine? Substitute "Communism" for "new-age statistics" and you have a McCarthyite rant. Swap in "atheism" for "new-age statistics" and you have paranoid Bible-thumping. And if you think I'm trying to knock down a strawman, consider that beyond whoever writes about baseball for USA Today, Chass may be the most widely-read baseball scribe in the land.
|
3.23.2007
The Prodigal Fopp
After a year and a half wandering through the sodden woods of the Pacific Northwest, straining to hear the call of the marbeled murrelet, his once-powerful right arm slowly regaining strength after.....the accident....the prodigal son has returned.
An insignificant contract, a minor-league assignment, a few kind words, o! such little fanfare for the once-golden boy, Jesse Foppert. Released by the Mariners after a dismal spring showing, Bay Area native Foppert will report to Fresno to see if he can regain the mojo that brought him to the majors as a 23-year-old.
He was part of the law firm of Foppert, Williams and Ainsworth LLC that rose quickly through the minors and was expected to form the core of the Giant starting rotation through most of this decade. Instead, the trio, like another famous pitching trio -- the Mets' phenoms Wilson, Isringhausen and Pulsipher -- succumbed early on to injury, ineffectiveness, and overblown expectations.
Of those Mets, you should recognize at least one name. Jason Isringhausen retooled his career as a premium closer. Paul Wilson has bounced around as a mediocre starter for years, with a run of six straight years in the bigs with Tampa Bay and Cincinnati. Bill Pulsipher has pitched in a total of 106 major league games over a 14-year career. He was most recently spotted in the uniform of the Long Island Ducks.
The former Giants' prospects will be lucky if, in ten years, they can look back on the same amount of "success" as the Mets ex-wunderkinds. Cruel, this game.
Let's wish the best for Foppert, who joins another ex-Giant and Bay Area native, Tyler Walker, trying to return from Tommy John surgery with his hometown team. The best not just for him; if he can work his way back into shape, the Giants could certainly use his arm in the bullpen. (Same goes for Walker, who won't be ready until mid-season at the earliest.)
A side note: Say what you want about Randy Winn, but that trade was one of the few check-marks on Sabean's side of the ledger in recent years. The Giants got Winn and gave up Foppert and Torrealba, who despite many observers' beliefs (including mine), has never proven adequate as a starting catcher.
Speaking of trades, you know which team matches up the best with the Giants as potential trade partners? It ain't the Dodgers. More on this over the weekend, or next week.
***
P.M. UPDATE: SI.com has an interview with Curt Schilling, who recently launched his own blog, 38 Pitches. It's a fascinating discussion with a player who's hyperaware of his relationship with the rest of the world. Here's a gem of an exchange:
SI.com: Do you think that Internet-based baseball analysts and writers should be available for BBWAA awards and Hall of Fame voting?
Schilling: Oh, it'll come full-circle at some point. Why wouldn't it? They already have a much larger impact than the Murray Chass' of the world would like to believe. I mean, you've got guys who are putting out what I know to be legitimately valuable statistical information and its relevance to a game in a win or a loss at Baseball Prospectus. Then you have guys that I'm not too fond of, like Murray Chass, who says, "What is VORP and who cares?" It was a stupid article. The only thing it did was show his ignorance to me in modern day baseball. Because those numbers do matter, those numbers do have value. Do they have value to me in getting a player out? No. But I would tell you that there are a lot of front offices that use those numbers for a lot of important decision making.
|
An insignificant contract, a minor-league assignment, a few kind words, o! such little fanfare for the once-golden boy, Jesse Foppert. Released by the Mariners after a dismal spring showing, Bay Area native Foppert will report to Fresno to see if he can regain the mojo that brought him to the majors as a 23-year-old.
He was part of the law firm of Foppert, Williams and Ainsworth LLC that rose quickly through the minors and was expected to form the core of the Giant starting rotation through most of this decade. Instead, the trio, like another famous pitching trio -- the Mets' phenoms Wilson, Isringhausen and Pulsipher -- succumbed early on to injury, ineffectiveness, and overblown expectations.
Of those Mets, you should recognize at least one name. Jason Isringhausen retooled his career as a premium closer. Paul Wilson has bounced around as a mediocre starter for years, with a run of six straight years in the bigs with Tampa Bay and Cincinnati. Bill Pulsipher has pitched in a total of 106 major league games over a 14-year career. He was most recently spotted in the uniform of the Long Island Ducks.
The former Giants' prospects will be lucky if, in ten years, they can look back on the same amount of "success" as the Mets ex-wunderkinds. Cruel, this game.
Let's wish the best for Foppert, who joins another ex-Giant and Bay Area native, Tyler Walker, trying to return from Tommy John surgery with his hometown team. The best not just for him; if he can work his way back into shape, the Giants could certainly use his arm in the bullpen. (Same goes for Walker, who won't be ready until mid-season at the earliest.)
A side note: Say what you want about Randy Winn, but that trade was one of the few check-marks on Sabean's side of the ledger in recent years. The Giants got Winn and gave up Foppert and Torrealba, who despite many observers' beliefs (including mine), has never proven adequate as a starting catcher.
Speaking of trades, you know which team matches up the best with the Giants as potential trade partners? It ain't the Dodgers. More on this over the weekend, or next week.
***
P.M. UPDATE: SI.com has an interview with Curt Schilling, who recently launched his own blog, 38 Pitches. It's a fascinating discussion with a player who's hyperaware of his relationship with the rest of the world. Here's a gem of an exchange:
SI.com: Do you think that Internet-based baseball analysts and writers should be available for BBWAA awards and Hall of Fame voting?
Schilling: Oh, it'll come full-circle at some point. Why wouldn't it? They already have a much larger impact than the Murray Chass' of the world would like to believe. I mean, you've got guys who are putting out what I know to be legitimately valuable statistical information and its relevance to a game in a win or a loss at Baseball Prospectus. Then you have guys that I'm not too fond of, like Murray Chass, who says, "What is VORP and who cares?" It was a stupid article. The only thing it did was show his ignorance to me in modern day baseball. Because those numbers do matter, those numbers do have value. Do they have value to me in getting a player out? No. But I would tell you that there are a lot of front offices that use those numbers for a lot of important decision making.
|
2.19.2007
Barry Zito, My Libido (A Denial, A Denial)
After last week's brush fire, Barry Zito said over the weekend he's not really overhauling his pitching motion. It was all overblown. It was all taken out of context. He blames the media.
"It's all a work in progress," Zito said. "The plan is to do things a certain way and reincorporate them into the original look and feel. What happened was, a cross-section of that got blown out of proportion without (everyone) seeing the entire project."
Welcome to $126 Millionville, Barry. You are the highest-paid pitcher in baseball history. Like it or not, that changes the focus. There was apparently a "negative ESPN report," which I didn't see because I don't have ESPN, but it points out another thing to which Zito must acclimate: Being a Giant. The national media now looks askance at everything that emanates from Our Fair Ballclub, thanks to years of BALCOmania chipping away at the organization's credibility.
Add that to the nation's perception that if it's weird, it happens in San Francisco. Gay-marriage mayor boozes and bangs best friend's wife? That would be us. It's not necessarily a fair perception, sock-puppet campaign ads notwithstanding, because...um...because...hell, what's the use? Whatever I say will be overwhelmed by the evidence, and next week's papers will bring news of Gavin and Barry Z. double-dating with Brittanie Mountz and Hilary Duff at the International Bear Rendezvous.
Any hope for an adult discussion about the finer points of pitching mechanics are right out the window, folks, when you have Zany Left-Handed Pitcher + Biggest Contract Ever + America's Shadiest Team in America's Weirdest City. God save Zito if he tries to demonstate Virabhadrasana II to Murray Chass. (Although the New York Times and its cadre of Jurassic sports scribes surprised me last week with a mostly snark-free piece about pitchers doing yoga.)
To lend an air of suspect sophistication to this otherwise potty-minded blog, El Kinesthesiologist Malo will be following the Zito Project as it unfolds. I'll post some commentary later this week from a minor-league pitcher about some of the changes Zito seems to be incorporating into his delivery. All you pitching geeks be sure to tune in, as we'll get fairly technical.
Meanwhile, here's the antidote to all the swirling gusts of blather (including mine) that overwhelm us when games aren't being played: Spring training photos! Like the pink blossoms on the ornamental fruit trees up and down my block this week, Giants Jottings has returned to warm the heart and soothe the pineal gland with photos from Arizona. "Giantfan9" publishes new stuff nearly every day, so visit him regularly between now and April 3.
|
"It's all a work in progress," Zito said. "The plan is to do things a certain way and reincorporate them into the original look and feel. What happened was, a cross-section of that got blown out of proportion without (everyone) seeing the entire project."
Welcome to $126 Millionville, Barry. You are the highest-paid pitcher in baseball history. Like it or not, that changes the focus. There was apparently a "negative ESPN report," which I didn't see because I don't have ESPN, but it points out another thing to which Zito must acclimate: Being a Giant. The national media now looks askance at everything that emanates from Our Fair Ballclub, thanks to years of BALCOmania chipping away at the organization's credibility.
Add that to the nation's perception that if it's weird, it happens in San Francisco. Gay-marriage mayor boozes and bangs best friend's wife? That would be us. It's not necessarily a fair perception, sock-puppet campaign ads notwithstanding, because...um...because...hell, what's the use? Whatever I say will be overwhelmed by the evidence, and next week's papers will bring news of Gavin and Barry Z. double-dating with Brittanie Mountz and Hilary Duff at the International Bear Rendezvous.
Any hope for an adult discussion about the finer points of pitching mechanics are right out the window, folks, when you have Zany Left-Handed Pitcher + Biggest Contract Ever + America's Shadiest Team in America's Weirdest City. God save Zito if he tries to demonstate Virabhadrasana II to Murray Chass. (Although the New York Times and its cadre of Jurassic sports scribes surprised me last week with a mostly snark-free piece about pitchers doing yoga.)
To lend an air of suspect sophistication to this otherwise potty-minded blog, El Kinesthesiologist Malo will be following the Zito Project as it unfolds. I'll post some commentary later this week from a minor-league pitcher about some of the changes Zito seems to be incorporating into his delivery. All you pitching geeks be sure to tune in, as we'll get fairly technical.
Meanwhile, here's the antidote to all the swirling gusts of blather (including mine) that overwhelm us when games aren't being played: Spring training photos! Like the pink blossoms on the ornamental fruit trees up and down my block this week, Giants Jottings has returned to warm the heart and soothe the pineal gland with photos from Arizona. "Giantfan9" publishes new stuff nearly every day, so visit him regularly between now and April 3.
|
1.25.2007
What's The Plan
With one major off-season question left to answer -- Will He or Won't He? -- the '07 Giants are close to set. Once the Bonds contract is signed and sealed (and, according to the press coverage that follows, notarized by one of Satan's many functionaries), the final opening day roster spots will boil down to 5th starter, 5th outfielder, a few bullpen shenanigans, and whether Ryan Klesko and Mark Sweeney can co-exist in one universe.
Or Bonds and Sweeney, for that matter. Oh, I forgot. There are no hard feelings, it was all a misunderstanding. Mm-kay.
Please note: I'm still skeptical the Bonds contract impasse is but a formality, and I didn't need Murray Chass of the New York Times to convince me.
But today I speak of longer horizons, amigos mios. Today I ask: Do the Giants have a plan, is it good, and are they sticking to it? This is not an uncommon topic round these parts, and as you glimpse the headline that trumpets the return of Russ Ortiz, it's easy to throw back your head and Charlie Brown-like let fly a big "AAAUUUGGGGHH!" (Was Peanuts not simply a kid's version of Munch's Scream and other existential nightmares? Examine navel and discuss.)
Before we stumble away into an eternal gulag of despair, we need a sober assessment of longer-term goals. A quick rewind:
As the 2006 season ground to an unseemly halt, all the big brass buttons told us, OK, no more, the Bondscentric universe with its orbiting satellites of veteran mediocrity has failed. It was a big slobbery confessional. Younger, faster, healthier was the new mantra. The word "Rebuild" was conspicuously absent.
Among positional players, the mantra has proven hollow, though, wait...technically swapping Dave Roberts for Steve Finley is getting younger, right?
Sorry. Signing Roberts, Aurilia, Klesko and Molina and resigning Feliz and Durham is no youth movement. Some of us would have liked to see Todd Linden and Kevin Frandsen plugged in as starters this year. With Bonds missing games due to knee pain, back pain, day-after-night pain, and perhaps the pain of squeezing his neck into a dress shirt for his court appearances -- not to mention Roberts (hopefully) chained to the bench against left-handed pitchers -- Linden should get at least 300 at bats. Four hunded is not a stretch. As for Frandsen, well, we'd all like to see what he can do, but like Linden he's not exactly going to rot on the bench.
So youth movement in '07? Not so much on the offensive side, and let's be honest -- for a few more years this team is beholden to the free agent and trade markets to bring in big bats. There's an outside chance a couple current farmhands will soon swing solid major-league lumber, but one of them, Eddie Martinez-Esteve, seems destined to DH in the American League.
The mantra makes sense on the pitching side, and here I think the Giants not only have a plan but have done quite well to stick to it. But, you say, so upset your voice trembles and your fists shake, R-r-r-r-uss Ort-t-t-tiz! $126 million for a Zito in d-d-d-d-decline!
I'll address those moves in a moment, but here's why at heart the plan is operational: Not one young pitcher was traded away this winter. (Knock on wood.) Matt Cain, Jonathan Sanchez, Noah Lowry, and Tim Lincecum all remain. (Lincecum can't technically be traded for one year after the draft, but teams can skirt that rule with the "player to be named later.")
Even lesser lights such as Brian Wilson and Kevin Correia, both expected to be key bullpenners this year, have stayed put. Note that Tim Worrell retired and the Giants did not leap to replace him with a proven veteran. Armando Benitez could be gone as soon as he shows he's healthy.
As for Ortiz, yes, his inclusion on the roster could block the progress of Sanchez, who seems to be the other candidate for 5th starter. If Ortiz surprises, then another year in the bullpen won't hurt Sanchez and might even help him refine his secondary pitches, which could use a lot of refinement. If Ortiz blows, then Sanchez becomes 5th starter -- expect a steep learning curve.
The Zito contract was an overspend. Perhaps even the sign of a desperate general manager, as Keith Law argues. But for at least the first few years it gives the Giants a good (if not great) starter and, with Matt Morris on board for only two more years, it won't block the arrival of Tim Lincecum. In fact a healthy Morris will be a valuable trade chip, seeing how he's "only" making $9 million in each of the next two years. Think the Mets wouldn't be tempted to trade Lastings Milledge for him if he's pitching well and, say, Pedro Martinez doesn't return from shoulder surgery on time this summer?
Despite the handwringing viz-a-viz Zito, there are enough countervailing views out there to make the contract seem like a necessary luxury. It's also possible that by the time his $18 million annual payments kick in ('07:$10M, '08:$14.5M, '09:$18.5M, '10:$18.5M, '11:$18.5M, '12:$19M, '13:$20M), the team's stadium debt service will be low enough and revenues high enough that the contract won't be a budget constraint at all.
On the pitching mound, the Giants have a plan and seem to be executing it well. In the batter's box, they're hamstrung by their own incompetence at raising homegrown hitters, but smart, creative moves could help fill the gap quickly.
This year will be crucial in holding them to their promise. If the team sinks out of contention, trading useful but replaceable veterans (Winn, Feliz, Durham, Vizquel, Morris) for good prospects should be a no-brainer. Drafting the best available hitter or two this summer, players who project to be in the majors by 2009 or 2010, should be a priority.
Finally, the Bonds situation is a mess of the Giants' own making. To some extent it couldn't be helped. The Giants whiffed on other big names and, to avoid an offense that would have advance scouts standing next to one another at the urinals and cackling, "Beware the Connecticut Defenders!", they went crawling back to His Barriness. It's all rather sordid, and whatever your opinion of Bonds and his treatment in the public sphere, it's hard to deny the Giants could have handled it a lot better.
It's possible that information from the ongoing exploration of l'affaire BALCO and baseball's drug habit will circle the heads of Magowan & Co. for a while, perhaps settling to rest there like flies in a stockyard. Perhaps Barry himself, backed finally against the wall, will be the source of that information, which means the Giants' biggest short-term question could become a long-term worry: Will He or Won't He?
|
Or Bonds and Sweeney, for that matter. Oh, I forgot. There are no hard feelings, it was all a misunderstanding. Mm-kay.
Please note: I'm still skeptical the Bonds contract impasse is but a formality, and I didn't need Murray Chass of the New York Times to convince me.
But today I speak of longer horizons, amigos mios. Today I ask: Do the Giants have a plan, is it good, and are they sticking to it? This is not an uncommon topic round these parts, and as you glimpse the headline that trumpets the return of Russ Ortiz, it's easy to throw back your head and Charlie Brown-like let fly a big "AAAUUUGGGGHH!" (Was Peanuts not simply a kid's version of Munch's Scream and other existential nightmares? Examine navel and discuss.)
Before we stumble away into an eternal gulag of despair, we need a sober assessment of longer-term goals. A quick rewind:
As the 2006 season ground to an unseemly halt, all the big brass buttons told us, OK, no more, the Bondscentric universe with its orbiting satellites of veteran mediocrity has failed. It was a big slobbery confessional. Younger, faster, healthier was the new mantra. The word "Rebuild" was conspicuously absent.
Among positional players, the mantra has proven hollow, though, wait...technically swapping Dave Roberts for Steve Finley is getting younger, right?
Sorry. Signing Roberts, Aurilia, Klesko and Molina and resigning Feliz and Durham is no youth movement. Some of us would have liked to see Todd Linden and Kevin Frandsen plugged in as starters this year. With Bonds missing games due to knee pain, back pain, day-after-night pain, and perhaps the pain of squeezing his neck into a dress shirt for his court appearances -- not to mention Roberts (hopefully) chained to the bench against left-handed pitchers -- Linden should get at least 300 at bats. Four hunded is not a stretch. As for Frandsen, well, we'd all like to see what he can do, but like Linden he's not exactly going to rot on the bench.
So youth movement in '07? Not so much on the offensive side, and let's be honest -- for a few more years this team is beholden to the free agent and trade markets to bring in big bats. There's an outside chance a couple current farmhands will soon swing solid major-league lumber, but one of them, Eddie Martinez-Esteve, seems destined to DH in the American League.
The mantra makes sense on the pitching side, and here I think the Giants not only have a plan but have done quite well to stick to it. But, you say, so upset your voice trembles and your fists shake, R-r-r-r-uss Ort-t-t-tiz! $126 million for a Zito in d-d-d-d-decline!
I'll address those moves in a moment, but here's why at heart the plan is operational: Not one young pitcher was traded away this winter. (Knock on wood.) Matt Cain, Jonathan Sanchez, Noah Lowry, and Tim Lincecum all remain. (Lincecum can't technically be traded for one year after the draft, but teams can skirt that rule with the "player to be named later.")
Even lesser lights such as Brian Wilson and Kevin Correia, both expected to be key bullpenners this year, have stayed put. Note that Tim Worrell retired and the Giants did not leap to replace him with a proven veteran. Armando Benitez could be gone as soon as he shows he's healthy.
As for Ortiz, yes, his inclusion on the roster could block the progress of Sanchez, who seems to be the other candidate for 5th starter. If Ortiz surprises, then another year in the bullpen won't hurt Sanchez and might even help him refine his secondary pitches, which could use a lot of refinement. If Ortiz blows, then Sanchez becomes 5th starter -- expect a steep learning curve.
The Zito contract was an overspend. Perhaps even the sign of a desperate general manager, as Keith Law argues. But for at least the first few years it gives the Giants a good (if not great) starter and, with Matt Morris on board for only two more years, it won't block the arrival of Tim Lincecum. In fact a healthy Morris will be a valuable trade chip, seeing how he's "only" making $9 million in each of the next two years. Think the Mets wouldn't be tempted to trade Lastings Milledge for him if he's pitching well and, say, Pedro Martinez doesn't return from shoulder surgery on time this summer?
Despite the handwringing viz-a-viz Zito, there are enough countervailing views out there to make the contract seem like a necessary luxury. It's also possible that by the time his $18 million annual payments kick in ('07:$10M, '08:$14.5M, '09:$18.5M, '10:$18.5M, '11:$18.5M, '12:$19M, '13:$20M), the team's stadium debt service will be low enough and revenues high enough that the contract won't be a budget constraint at all.
On the pitching mound, the Giants have a plan and seem to be executing it well. In the batter's box, they're hamstrung by their own incompetence at raising homegrown hitters, but smart, creative moves could help fill the gap quickly.
This year will be crucial in holding them to their promise. If the team sinks out of contention, trading useful but replaceable veterans (Winn, Feliz, Durham, Vizquel, Morris) for good prospects should be a no-brainer. Drafting the best available hitter or two this summer, players who project to be in the majors by 2009 or 2010, should be a priority.
Finally, the Bonds situation is a mess of the Giants' own making. To some extent it couldn't be helped. The Giants whiffed on other big names and, to avoid an offense that would have advance scouts standing next to one another at the urinals and cackling, "Beware the Connecticut Defenders!", they went crawling back to His Barriness. It's all rather sordid, and whatever your opinion of Bonds and his treatment in the public sphere, it's hard to deny the Giants could have handled it a lot better.
It's possible that information from the ongoing exploration of l'affaire BALCO and baseball's drug habit will circle the heads of Magowan & Co. for a while, perhaps settling to rest there like flies in a stockyard. Perhaps Barry himself, backed finally against the wall, will be the source of that information, which means the Giants' biggest short-term question could become a long-term worry: Will He or Won't He?
|
3.17.2006
USA-WOL
Pundits will no doubt try to wring cosmic significance from Team USA's elimination yesterday at the hands of Equipo Mexico in the World Baseball Classic. For those suffering pundit's block, here are some handy knee-jerk column templates, provided free of charge to all you desperate opiners scouring the blogs for ideas:
The Left-Wing Scold: Oh, I told you so. We fat Americans are so smug, so self-absorbed, but lo, the imperialists were taken down a notch in their own national pastime by our long-oppressed North American neighbors!
The Right-Wing Lament: This never would have happened under Ronald Reagan's watch. Such an embarrassment is obviously due to a loss of traditional values and not enough emphasis on sacrifice (bunts or otherwise). Pat Buchanan, this one's for you.
The Thomas Friedman 21st-Century Flat-World Citizen: While our kids are zoned out on PlayStations and drinking 128-ounce Big Gulps, globalization is happening in front of our noses, folks. It's time to wake up and smell the chapatis. Fund education, yes, but embrace competition, and let Indian and Pakistani cricketers have their fair crack at throwing the horsehide.
The New York/Boston Media Angle: A-Rod: Punk'd!
The Bloodless, Boring Baseball Prospectus Rejoinder: What part of "sample size" do you not understand? Gosh, you're so retarded!
It's All His Fault: Barry Bonds is the emblem of everything that's wrong with American baseball. And America. And the solar system. And the Milky Way. I don't need to ask Steven Hawking, I can just look at the guy's hat size then go ask Turk Wendell what he thinks. (This one is reserved for Murray Chass, Frank DeFord, or some other old white guy from the Northeast.)
Speaking of pundits, here's Team USA member Todd Jones's assessment of his squad, published in his Detroit Free Press column before last night's USA-Mexico game:
"So how about the United States? We've had a little bit of a problem getting going, as you might have seen. We have two complete teams of great players, and it has been tough to get playing time for all the guys. So the guys who sit can't get their rhythm, and the guys who play haven't played together.
The U.S. lineup is full of middle-of-the-order hitters. So when we've had guys on base and needed someone to shoot the ball through the hole, that's not something any of these guys are usually asked to do.
The U.S. guys also have a tendency to sit back and wait for a three-run homer. It's fine if you get that three-run homer, but it's not too good if you don't. So we've been in a wait-and-see mode."
He fails to mention that most WBC action to date has been extremely low-scoring, making me think the pitchers are way ahead of the hitters right now. (Exception: Dontrelle Willis.) No matter how many flags are waved and horns blared and salsas danced in the stands, it's still spring training.
Have you found a good knee-jerk reaction to the USA loss? Do you have your own? Comments, please.
|
The Left-Wing Scold: Oh, I told you so. We fat Americans are so smug, so self-absorbed, but lo, the imperialists were taken down a notch in their own national pastime by our long-oppressed North American neighbors!
The Right-Wing Lament: This never would have happened under Ronald Reagan's watch. Such an embarrassment is obviously due to a loss of traditional values and not enough emphasis on sacrifice (bunts or otherwise). Pat Buchanan, this one's for you.
The Thomas Friedman 21st-Century Flat-World Citizen: While our kids are zoned out on PlayStations and drinking 128-ounce Big Gulps, globalization is happening in front of our noses, folks. It's time to wake up and smell the chapatis. Fund education, yes, but embrace competition, and let Indian and Pakistani cricketers have their fair crack at throwing the horsehide.
The New York/Boston Media Angle: A-Rod: Punk'd!
The Bloodless, Boring Baseball Prospectus Rejoinder: What part of "sample size" do you not understand? Gosh, you're so retarded!
It's All His Fault: Barry Bonds is the emblem of everything that's wrong with American baseball. And America. And the solar system. And the Milky Way. I don't need to ask Steven Hawking, I can just look at the guy's hat size then go ask Turk Wendell what he thinks. (This one is reserved for Murray Chass, Frank DeFord, or some other old white guy from the Northeast.)
Speaking of pundits, here's Team USA member Todd Jones's assessment of his squad, published in his Detroit Free Press column before last night's USA-Mexico game:
"So how about the United States? We've had a little bit of a problem getting going, as you might have seen. We have two complete teams of great players, and it has been tough to get playing time for all the guys. So the guys who sit can't get their rhythm, and the guys who play haven't played together.
The U.S. lineup is full of middle-of-the-order hitters. So when we've had guys on base and needed someone to shoot the ball through the hole, that's not something any of these guys are usually asked to do.
The U.S. guys also have a tendency to sit back and wait for a three-run homer. It's fine if you get that three-run homer, but it's not too good if you don't. So we've been in a wait-and-see mode."
He fails to mention that most WBC action to date has been extremely low-scoring, making me think the pitchers are way ahead of the hitters right now. (Exception: Dontrelle Willis.) No matter how many flags are waved and horns blared and salsas danced in the stands, it's still spring training.
Have you found a good knee-jerk reaction to the USA loss? Do you have your own? Comments, please.
|
10.06.2004
Stumpy Joe
That's my new nickname for Joe Morgan. Not because he's short, which he is, but because half the things he writes for ESPN are complete stumpers. He makes me feel like the AFLAC duck after it's spent five minutes with Yogi Berra in a barbershop.
To add to my Stumpy collection:
"Pedro (16-9, 3.90 ERA) usually pitches better in warm weather. If it's cool, I think Colon has a big edge. Wednesday night's weather forecast in Anaheim is for temperatures of about 60 degrees, so that bodes well for Pedro."
In Alaska, Joe, 60 degrees in early October is warm weather. In Anaheim and many other places, 60 degrees would qualify as "cool," even at night. Last night in the Bronx, it was 52 degrees, only eight degrees lower, and the pitchers were allowed to blow on their hands.
"If Game 2 becomes a pitcher's duel, the offenses will need to step up, and the Red Sox have the advantage in that department."
The corollary to this would be, "If it becomes a slugfest, the team with the better pitching should come out on top."
Speaking of bad ESPN columnists, Idiots Who Write About Sports has tallied Jim Caple's comedic tropes, and it ain't pretty.
At various times, I've complained in this space about Ray Ratto (smug, too-clever-by-half, unreadable), John Donovan (world-class doof), Murray Chass (crotchety dinosaur), Eric Neel (unbearable fake hip-hop verbiage), Jayson Stark (mind-achingly boring--at least the Useless Info stuff), Peter Gammons (really needs a copyeditor; ridiculous musical shout-outs)...at which point someone needs to ask, "OK, Lefty Malo, are there any baseball columnists you actually like?"
You mean other than Rob Neyer, who's now $5-a-month beyond my means?
Um...
Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated. Steven Goldman of The Pinstriped Bible and Baseball Prospectus. Most writers at Baseball Prospectus, for that matter. Brian Hoffman of the Chronicle's Fishing Report. OK, that's not baseball. Waiting for Boof.
I've enjoyed pieces by Dan LeBatard of the Miami Herald and the late Ralph Wiley.
Any other suggestions? (And explain yourself, please.)
|
To add to my Stumpy collection:
"Pedro (16-9, 3.90 ERA) usually pitches better in warm weather. If it's cool, I think Colon has a big edge. Wednesday night's weather forecast in Anaheim is for temperatures of about 60 degrees, so that bodes well for Pedro."
In Alaska, Joe, 60 degrees in early October is warm weather. In Anaheim and many other places, 60 degrees would qualify as "cool," even at night. Last night in the Bronx, it was 52 degrees, only eight degrees lower, and the pitchers were allowed to blow on their hands.
"If Game 2 becomes a pitcher's duel, the offenses will need to step up, and the Red Sox have the advantage in that department."
The corollary to this would be, "If it becomes a slugfest, the team with the better pitching should come out on top."
Speaking of bad ESPN columnists, Idiots Who Write About Sports has tallied Jim Caple's comedic tropes, and it ain't pretty.
At various times, I've complained in this space about Ray Ratto (smug, too-clever-by-half, unreadable), John Donovan (world-class doof), Murray Chass (crotchety dinosaur), Eric Neel (unbearable fake hip-hop verbiage), Jayson Stark (mind-achingly boring--at least the Useless Info stuff), Peter Gammons (really needs a copyeditor; ridiculous musical shout-outs)...at which point someone needs to ask, "OK, Lefty Malo, are there any baseball columnists you actually like?"
You mean other than Rob Neyer, who's now $5-a-month beyond my means?
Um...
Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated. Steven Goldman of The Pinstriped Bible and Baseball Prospectus. Most writers at Baseball Prospectus, for that matter. Brian Hoffman of the Chronicle's Fishing Report. OK, that's not baseball. Waiting for Boof.
I've enjoyed pieces by Dan LeBatard of the Miami Herald and the late Ralph Wiley.
Any other suggestions? (And explain yourself, please.)
|
9.13.2004
Bridge of Cy's
Jason Schmidt made us all a bit less nervous by doing what he's supposed to do: dominate a crappy Arizona ballclub in yesterday's 5-2 win.
With the complete game, his ERA stands at 3.14, which ranks behind Randy Johnson, Carlos Zambrano, Ben Sheets, Carl Pavano and Oliver Perez among starters with comparable innings pitched. (Jake Peavy and Brad Penny also have lower ERAs but have missed too much time to qualify for the Cy. Too bad for Peavy -- his 2.26 ERA, high K rate and work for a contending team would make him the favorite.)
As a Giants' fan, I'd love to see Schmidt win the Cy Young. As a sympathizer to all pitchers whose teammates let them down, I'd like to see Randy Johnson get recognition despite his 13-13 record. Joe Morgan likes to say that wins are a good measure of a pitcher's skill -- if he loses 2-1, it must mean that he doesn't know how to pitch well enough for a win. Conversely, a pitcher who gives up 6 runs in 5 innings but wins 7-6 deserves credit for pitching well enough to win. Morgan contends that a real winner finds ways to win no matter how many runs his teammates score for him.
I'd like to be there when Joe Morgan tells Randy Johnson that he needs to learn how to win. Even better, I'd like to see Joe tell that to Randy then step into the batter's box against him.
257 Ks and 41 BBs in 241 IP? That would be a pretty good season if the Big Unit wasn't such a loser, right, Joe?
Quick tangent: Morgan's analytical brother-in-arms, the Chron's Bruce Jenkins, regaled us with this gem over the weekend:
We're getting very tired of this inside-baseball nonsense claiming that batting averages are overrated. There's no mystery to .231, .283, .328 or .370. Except for the speed burners with their bunt singles and infield choppers, it tells you exactly what you need to know in terms of pure contact...
Nothing like a little outside-baseball myopia to counteract inside-baseball nonsense. Jenkins, like Morgan, probably thinks Moneyball was written by Billy Beane. Say what you want about Peter Gammons's hastily written columns with their bad punctuation, typos, and wet-kiss references to Letters to Cleo and Susan Tedeschi, but the guy understands and explains the latest baseball thinking. His most recent column was the first in the mainstream press that I've seen to show how Beane and his ilk have moved on to defense as the next statistical frontier. Jenkins et al prefer to spend their time grumbling about hitters who get on base too much and the disappearance of stirrup socks.
Unfortunately, people like Joe Morgan, Jenkins and the NY Times's senior baseball writer Murray Chass still have a lot of influence over awards such as the Cy Young, which means Randy Johnson has little chance to win the hardware with his .500 winning percentage.
So if I don't value wins very highly, what would be my criteria if I were a Cy Young voter? In no particular order: OPS against, especially with an eye on a low walk rate and few home runs against. (Singles against, and to a lesser extent, doubles against are not the best indication of a pitcher's skill: how many singles per game are hard-hit balls? Just as a guess: 50%. It would interesting to track this over a season. I'm sure Beane, Theo Epstein, et al are doing so.)
Other criteria for Cy consideration: Park factor: does a pitcher dominate even in a hitter's park? A 3.00 ERA at Dodger Stadium isn't the same as a 3.00 ERA in Coors Field. Strikeouts. And performance in big games. Yes, how one performs in a pennant race should be a factor. If, say, Johnson and Schmidt end the year with similar numbers, but Schmidt dominates down the stretch with a playoff berth at stake, my nod would go to Schmidt. Performance under pressure is extremely difficult and should be amply rewarded.
Despite his stumbles of late Schmidt is still in the running, but he'll need clutch performances in the next few weeks. Same can be said of Carlos Zambrano, Roger Clemens and Carl Pavano, three wild-card hopefuls whose numbers qualify for consideration. In the minds of the real voters, if all four finish with similar numbers, the advantage would go to the pitcher with the most wins. (Indeed, if all "peripherals" stayed the same but Houston's Roy Oswalt were the only NL pitcher to reach 20 wins, he'd undoubtedly get some first-place votes despite an ERA in the mid-3's and giving up nearly a hit per inning.)
If the season ended right now, this is how I would vote:
1) Johnson
2) Clemens (for pitching in a hitter's park)
3) Schmidt
4) Ben Sheets (stupendous numbers but no meaningful games in the second half)
5) Pavano
6) Armando Benitez
7) Zambrano (ridiculous antics are a turn-off)
Just like my distaste for Zambrano's posturing knocks him down a notch or two, I have old-school feelings about relievers. But Armando Benitez is having a hell of a year. 1.03 ERA, 28 hits and 20 walks in 61 innings, 8.5 Ks per 9 innings, .428 OPS against, which is 70 points below Gagne. If the Marlins make the playoffs and Benitez is lights-out down the stretch, he would merit some consideration. But if a starter does the same and is an obvious catalyst for his team's playoff drive, the advantage goes to the starter.
|
With the complete game, his ERA stands at 3.14, which ranks behind Randy Johnson, Carlos Zambrano, Ben Sheets, Carl Pavano and Oliver Perez among starters with comparable innings pitched. (Jake Peavy and Brad Penny also have lower ERAs but have missed too much time to qualify for the Cy. Too bad for Peavy -- his 2.26 ERA, high K rate and work for a contending team would make him the favorite.)
As a Giants' fan, I'd love to see Schmidt win the Cy Young. As a sympathizer to all pitchers whose teammates let them down, I'd like to see Randy Johnson get recognition despite his 13-13 record. Joe Morgan likes to say that wins are a good measure of a pitcher's skill -- if he loses 2-1, it must mean that he doesn't know how to pitch well enough for a win. Conversely, a pitcher who gives up 6 runs in 5 innings but wins 7-6 deserves credit for pitching well enough to win. Morgan contends that a real winner finds ways to win no matter how many runs his teammates score for him.
I'd like to be there when Joe Morgan tells Randy Johnson that he needs to learn how to win. Even better, I'd like to see Joe tell that to Randy then step into the batter's box against him.
257 Ks and 41 BBs in 241 IP? That would be a pretty good season if the Big Unit wasn't such a loser, right, Joe?
Quick tangent: Morgan's analytical brother-in-arms, the Chron's Bruce Jenkins, regaled us with this gem over the weekend:
We're getting very tired of this inside-baseball nonsense claiming that batting averages are overrated. There's no mystery to .231, .283, .328 or .370. Except for the speed burners with their bunt singles and infield choppers, it tells you exactly what you need to know in terms of pure contact...
Nothing like a little outside-baseball myopia to counteract inside-baseball nonsense. Jenkins, like Morgan, probably thinks Moneyball was written by Billy Beane. Say what you want about Peter Gammons's hastily written columns with their bad punctuation, typos, and wet-kiss references to Letters to Cleo and Susan Tedeschi, but the guy understands and explains the latest baseball thinking. His most recent column was the first in the mainstream press that I've seen to show how Beane and his ilk have moved on to defense as the next statistical frontier. Jenkins et al prefer to spend their time grumbling about hitters who get on base too much and the disappearance of stirrup socks.
Unfortunately, people like Joe Morgan, Jenkins and the NY Times's senior baseball writer Murray Chass still have a lot of influence over awards such as the Cy Young, which means Randy Johnson has little chance to win the hardware with his .500 winning percentage.
So if I don't value wins very highly, what would be my criteria if I were a Cy Young voter? In no particular order: OPS against, especially with an eye on a low walk rate and few home runs against. (Singles against, and to a lesser extent, doubles against are not the best indication of a pitcher's skill: how many singles per game are hard-hit balls? Just as a guess: 50%. It would interesting to track this over a season. I'm sure Beane, Theo Epstein, et al are doing so.)
Other criteria for Cy consideration: Park factor: does a pitcher dominate even in a hitter's park? A 3.00 ERA at Dodger Stadium isn't the same as a 3.00 ERA in Coors Field. Strikeouts. And performance in big games. Yes, how one performs in a pennant race should be a factor. If, say, Johnson and Schmidt end the year with similar numbers, but Schmidt dominates down the stretch with a playoff berth at stake, my nod would go to Schmidt. Performance under pressure is extremely difficult and should be amply rewarded.
Despite his stumbles of late Schmidt is still in the running, but he'll need clutch performances in the next few weeks. Same can be said of Carlos Zambrano, Roger Clemens and Carl Pavano, three wild-card hopefuls whose numbers qualify for consideration. In the minds of the real voters, if all four finish with similar numbers, the advantage would go to the pitcher with the most wins. (Indeed, if all "peripherals" stayed the same but Houston's Roy Oswalt were the only NL pitcher to reach 20 wins, he'd undoubtedly get some first-place votes despite an ERA in the mid-3's and giving up nearly a hit per inning.)
If the season ended right now, this is how I would vote:
1) Johnson
2) Clemens (for pitching in a hitter's park)
3) Schmidt
4) Ben Sheets (stupendous numbers but no meaningful games in the second half)
5) Pavano
6) Armando Benitez
7) Zambrano (ridiculous antics are a turn-off)
Just like my distaste for Zambrano's posturing knocks him down a notch or two, I have old-school feelings about relievers. But Armando Benitez is having a hell of a year. 1.03 ERA, 28 hits and 20 walks in 61 innings, 8.5 Ks per 9 innings, .428 OPS against, which is 70 points below Gagne. If the Marlins make the playoffs and Benitez is lights-out down the stretch, he would merit some consideration. But if a starter does the same and is an obvious catalyst for his team's playoff drive, the advantage goes to the starter.
|
