It's a new year, time to reconsider the old and start afresh. In that vein, today begins a wintertime series of discourses on common baseball misconceptions currently in the possession of most baseball fans and media.
You can probably guess some of the subject matter. RBIs are not king. Speed is not the top quality for a leadoff hitter. Most of what you think is "clutch" is just luck or timing. Analyzing playoff series game-by-game is a fool's errand. Players don't win championships; teams do. Managers hardly matter. Pitching wins are such a weak barometer of pitching quality that we should cease tracking them. Et cetera, et cetera (which is not pronounced eck-setera.)
Today, maybe the single most important concept: the ascendancy of luck.
Luck is ubiquitous, significant and often determinative. This is true not just in sports. Luck is the reason both George W. Bush and Barak Obama attained the presidency. Imagine how their scenarios might have changed had the weather in Florida or the overall economy been different on election day. Luck gave a marginal talent like Tom Brokaw the opportunity to reach the top of TV news while far better journalists and broadcasters toiled elsewhere for far less money. Fitness guru Jim Fixx lost his life to bad luck. Good luck has kept the rest of us alive.
Luck is a factor on every play of every baseball game. A gust of wind, a bad hop, a fortuitous carom, a close call, an aggressive fan, a freak injury, a quarter-of-an-inch when bat meets ball: any one of these can affect the outcome. If you want to find an over-performing team, find one that wins a pile of one-run games. The pundits will say they're "clutch," but they're generally lucky. The proof is, those teams have lesser records the following year. Conversely, teams that lose close contests in bunches over a season tend to improve their performance the next season.
That's not to say that skill, hard work, practice and dedication are irrelevant; they are so important that no matter how many times I bat against Johan Santana, I will never homer off him. (However, I'm quite likely to run home.) In the Major Leagues, where every player and every team is magnificently skilled and focused, the five percent of the game that luck inhabits can make all the difference in the world.
Branch Rickey said luck is the residue of design. This is nonsense perpetrated by lucky people. Rickey himself had the massive good fortune to be born white and rich in America. Certainly people who work hard and smart exploit the good breaks and overcome the bad ones better than those who don't. But no measure of ability or commitment could have catapulted Jackie Robinson's father to Branch Rickey's career.
In the course of a baseball season, serendipity visits every player in one form or another. One hitter's bloops drop in, while another's line drives get caught. These natural vicissitudes add up to what the seamheads call BABIP -- batting average on balls in play. (In other words, not counting strikeouts, walks, HBP and home runs.) Some of BABIP is skill -- how hard you hit the ball and how fast you run can affect it -- but BABIP fluctuates as much as 100 points after accounting for those things.
That 100 points is primarily luck. The same is true for pitchers. In 1999, after his amazing seven-year run, Greg Maddux surrendered 39 more hits than innings and his ERA spiked 50%. Asked what happened, Maddux shrugged that the balls being hit off him were just falling in and that it would even out. Sure enough, in 2000 Maddux threw 30 more innings and relinquished 33 fewer hits as his ERA dropped 57 points. One reason Maddux was so transcendent is that he intuitively understood the hidden skills of pitching.
On average, luck evens out. On average, the wind blows 10 mph. But sometimes it's a hurricane and sometimes the air is still. Most players live in the fat part of the bell curve, but a handful spend a whole season shacking up with Lady Luck while another handful endure her year-long enmity. Total it up and you can see how a player who bats .280 with 20 home runs one year is the same one who bats .250 with 14 or .310 with 26 the next, or a pitcher with a 4.00 ERA one year is the same as one with a 3.40 or 4.60 the next. In fact, these are rather conservative examples.
Now multiply that by team. Whole clubs have enjoyed a heaping teaspoon of nature's smiles that lead to victories in the close games and hot runs through the gauntlet to the World Series. The players, coaches, media and fans can be forgiven for seeking ex post facto reasons for their success -- "chemistry," commitment, team effort -- when a simpler but less morally uplifting explanation is obvious. As King Charlemagne is given to say in Pippin, "It's smarter to be lucky than it's lucky to be smart."
31 December 2008
30 December 2008
The Persistence of Memory
Last week I examined how Tim Raines' generalist abilities and shadow skills have doomed him -- perhaps unfairly -- in our esteem and in Hall of Fame voting.
Today the flip side: Jim Rice.
As with Raines, I make no claim as to whether Rice should be a HOFer. We certainly remember him as a fearsome slugger who dominated baseball offensively for the better part of 12 years. Four times in his career he batted over .300, slugged 39 or more home runs and drove in at least 114. He finished in the top five in MVP voting six times. At the time, we thought that was the definition of a great player.
Today, our lens is more finely focused. We realize the value of walks, of OBP over batting average, of defense, of context and of double plays (in the negative.) And all of those elements line up against Jim Rice.
Let's take them in order. Rice didn't walk. He earned 60 free passes just once in his career, so despite his .298 BA he had a non-HOF .352 OBP. He was never much of a fielder, despite the long-standing New England rationalization that he had a special knack for predicting Green Monster caroms. Myriad retrospective defensive statistics, about which I am admitedly dubious, all agree that Rice was a liability in left field.
Left field, of course, is where many of history's best hitters roamed, and against whom Rice must be measured. It is also the least important defensive position on the field (as opposed to the DH, who is not on the field defensively) because neither range nor an arm are particularly relevant. Rice's competition for the Hall, besides Raines, includes Musial, Bonds, Ted and Billy Williams, Simmons, Henderson, Shoeless Joe, Yaz, Stargell and Kiner.
Jim Rice also played in a hitter's park his whole career. Fenway increases offense by 8% versus today's MLB stadiums, and it was likely higher in Rice's day. Then, when you factor in the 315 twin killings he grounded into, it effectively drops his OBP to .339 and his slugging percentage below .500.
What you have, after all that, is a mighty hitter for sure, but one who doesn't avoid outs, has no speed (58 steals and 34 CS is a net negative) and hurts you defensively. Moreover, his talent ebbed quickly, with his last good year at age 33. Suddenly he's much less Hall-worthy.
For fun, I compared Rice to Raines. Note that Raines played most of his career in Montreal's concrete cavern.
OPS+ is on-base plus slugging relative to the rest of the league. A 100 OPS+ is exactly average. At 128, Rice was 28% better than the average hitter.
You can decide for yourself whether Jim Rice deserves a bust in Cooperstown. It appears, given his near-miss last year, that he's headed in. It also appears that regardless, he is diminished by perspective, in much the way Tim Raines' stature is enhanced.
Today the flip side: Jim Rice.
As with Raines, I make no claim as to whether Rice should be a HOFer. We certainly remember him as a fearsome slugger who dominated baseball offensively for the better part of 12 years. Four times in his career he batted over .300, slugged 39 or more home runs and drove in at least 114. He finished in the top five in MVP voting six times. At the time, we thought that was the definition of a great player.
Today, our lens is more finely focused. We realize the value of walks, of OBP over batting average, of defense, of context and of double plays (in the negative.) And all of those elements line up against Jim Rice.
Let's take them in order. Rice didn't walk. He earned 60 free passes just once in his career, so despite his .298 BA he had a non-HOF .352 OBP. He was never much of a fielder, despite the long-standing New England rationalization that he had a special knack for predicting Green Monster caroms. Myriad retrospective defensive statistics, about which I am admitedly dubious, all agree that Rice was a liability in left field.
Left field, of course, is where many of history's best hitters roamed, and against whom Rice must be measured. It is also the least important defensive position on the field (as opposed to the DH, who is not on the field defensively) because neither range nor an arm are particularly relevant. Rice's competition for the Hall, besides Raines, includes Musial, Bonds, Ted and Billy Williams, Simmons, Henderson, Shoeless Joe, Yaz, Stargell and Kiner.
Jim Rice also played in a hitter's park his whole career. Fenway increases offense by 8% versus today's MLB stadiums, and it was likely higher in Rice's day. Then, when you factor in the 315 twin killings he grounded into, it effectively drops his OBP to .339 and his slugging percentage below .500.
What you have, after all that, is a mighty hitter for sure, but one who doesn't avoid outs, has no speed (58 steals and 34 CS is a net negative) and hurts you defensively. Moreover, his talent ebbed quickly, with his last good year at age 33. Suddenly he's much less Hall-worthy.
For fun, I compared Rice to Raines. Note that Raines played most of his career in Montreal's concrete cavern.
| Player | BA | OBP | SLG | OPS+ | H | HR | RS | RBI | SB |
| Tim Raines | .294 | .385 | .425 | 123 | 2605 | 170 | 1571 | 980 | 808 |
| Jim Rice | .298 | .352 | .502 | 128 | 2452 | 382 | 1249 | 1451 | 58 |
OPS+ is on-base plus slugging relative to the rest of the league. A 100 OPS+ is exactly average. At 128, Rice was 28% better than the average hitter.
You can decide for yourself whether Jim Rice deserves a bust in Cooperstown. It appears, given his near-miss last year, that he's headed in. It also appears that regardless, he is diminished by perspective, in much the way Tim Raines' stature is enhanced.
28 December 2008
A Big Unit in The Emerald City
Randy Johnson signed yesterday with the last-place San Francisco Giants saying he thinks the team can win the NLWest. You think he's crazy? You're only half right.
The team may be munchkins at the plate, but they are Goliaths on the mound. Teaming with Cy Young incumbent Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain and good-looking youngster Jonathan Sanchez, the Big Unit rounds out an impressive starting staff. With the bullpen upgrade Brian Sabean made by acquiring lefty Jeremy Affeldt and venerable righty Bob Howry to team with closer Brian Wilson, this team could have fun, fun, fun.
'Til daddy takes their t-ball away. The Giants' outfield of Randy Winn, Aaron Rowand and Fred Lewis blasted a combined total of 32 home runs, and they are the team's strength. The signing of 33-year-old Edgar Renteria at short to team with 37-year-old Ray Durham at second smacks of a win now strategy without a whole lot of now. This is a team whose HR leader last year was its catcher, Benjie Molina, with 16. There's more pop in a bowl of Rice Krispies.
The window of opportunity has been left open in San Francisco's division, especially without a Manny sighting in LA. If Sabean can ink a bopper or two -- especially to staff an infield corner -- fans could again be dialing up Telephone Company Field in October. Hey, maybe Barry Bonds is available...
The team may be munchkins at the plate, but they are Goliaths on the mound. Teaming with Cy Young incumbent Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain and good-looking youngster Jonathan Sanchez, the Big Unit rounds out an impressive starting staff. With the bullpen upgrade Brian Sabean made by acquiring lefty Jeremy Affeldt and venerable righty Bob Howry to team with closer Brian Wilson, this team could have fun, fun, fun.
'Til daddy takes their t-ball away. The Giants' outfield of Randy Winn, Aaron Rowand and Fred Lewis blasted a combined total of 32 home runs, and they are the team's strength. The signing of 33-year-old Edgar Renteria at short to team with 37-year-old Ray Durham at second smacks of a win now strategy without a whole lot of now. This is a team whose HR leader last year was its catcher, Benjie Molina, with 16. There's more pop in a bowl of Rice Krispies.
The window of opportunity has been left open in San Francisco's division, especially without a Manny sighting in LA. If Sabean can ink a bopper or two -- especially to staff an infield corner -- fans could again be dialing up Telephone Company Field in October. Hey, maybe Barry Bonds is available...
24 December 2008
Stirrings in the Cellar
The Pittsburgh Pirates failed to sign any significant free agents this off-season, nearly guaranteeing themselves yet a record 17th consecutive losing season.
Good for them. They're finally on the right track towards success. If anyone doubts this, may I present the Tampa Bay Rays.
Remember 2000, when the Devil Rays cashed in their draft chips for sluggers Jose Canseco, Fred McGriff and Vinny Castillo three years beyond their expiration dates? Calling that the "Hit Show" was a typo: they left out an "S." Remember 2003, when the same desperate outfit relinquished a useful cog in their youth movement -- Randy Winn -- for a manager? A manager! Billy Beane must have peed his pants over that one.
The erstwhile Devil, now Rays, learned their lessons the hard way and turned a six-pack of first picks into the talented core that skipped to the World Series last season. And that is what you call a blueprint.
It's a blueprint that president Frank Coonelly and GM Neil Huntington have demonstrated they will follow carefully in the Steel City. The trades during the 2008 campaign of Xavier Nady's career year, Damaso Marte and Jason Bay for a boatload of youngsters is the right idea not withstanding questions about the quality of the haul. During the offseason they dangled aging shortstop Jack Wilson to the rest of MLB, recognizing that his halcyon days, such as they were, will not coincide with the franchise's. When no one appeared desperate enough to offer attractive prospects for him, the Pirates put him back in their pocket for in-season discussions with a contender that loses its shortstop and is willing to pony up what Pittsburgh needs.
The team now has an intriguing roster of young (and inexpensive) pitchers -- Snell, Duke, Gorzellany, Maholm -- and players -- Ryan Doumit, the LaRoches, Freddy Sanchez and Jose Tabata that is at least two years and two sluggers away from contention, a country mile closer than they've been all century.
Peter Angelos, of all people, is learning this lesson as well. After dabbling in the decrepit sluggers market (Miguel Tejada, Javy Lopez, Rafael Palmeiro and Sammy Sosa) with disastrous results three years ago, the Orioles reversed field last year and dropped the Human Insurance Premium Inflator, Erik Bedard, on Seattle for mega-prospect Adam (not Pac Man) Jones and a package of minor league hurlers.
The Orioles' pitch for Mark Teixeira last week was based on the presumption that he'll be productive long after Jones, Ryan Freel and some minor league call-ups ripen. Baltimore is at once farther along and farther from contention than Pittsburgh because they play in the AL Beast. They will need to cultivate the farm and enter the Big Boy auction each year, making sure to get the right parts -- as Teixeira would have been -- in tandem with the development of their prospects. More than anything, the O's need pitching, pitching and more pitching.
Why are teams suddenly figuring it out? One part of the answer is obvious: there are no longer any Major League franchises operating on the outmoded principles of the 1970s. Every club has a stable of analysts crunching the numbers like Bill James in Boston, Keith Woolner in Cleveland and Oakland's Billy Beane. While baseball reporters still hang their hats on misleading stats like RBIs and pitching wins, every team in baseball understands the superiority of VORP (value over replacement player) EQA (a hitter's value expressed in a single number that looks like a batting average, but taking into account his on-base ability, base runing and power) and other more subtle and revealing measurements. The inefficiencies in the baseball marketplace that Oakland cherry-picked for a decade are now smaller and more difficult to exploit, because everyone is doing the same thing, at least to some degree.
GMs don't have the luxury that columnists and broadcasters have to be 30 years behind the state of the art, because the results of their stupidity are published in the sports section daily. The columnist versions of Dave Littlefield -- he of no clue -- are voting members of the BBWAA enjoying job security and devoted followings.
Good for them. They're finally on the right track towards success. If anyone doubts this, may I present the Tampa Bay Rays.
Remember 2000, when the Devil Rays cashed in their draft chips for sluggers Jose Canseco, Fred McGriff and Vinny Castillo three years beyond their expiration dates? Calling that the "Hit Show" was a typo: they left out an "S." Remember 2003, when the same desperate outfit relinquished a useful cog in their youth movement -- Randy Winn -- for a manager? A manager! Billy Beane must have peed his pants over that one.
The erstwhile Devil, now Rays, learned their lessons the hard way and turned a six-pack of first picks into the talented core that skipped to the World Series last season. And that is what you call a blueprint.
It's a blueprint that president Frank Coonelly and GM Neil Huntington have demonstrated they will follow carefully in the Steel City. The trades during the 2008 campaign of Xavier Nady's career year, Damaso Marte and Jason Bay for a boatload of youngsters is the right idea not withstanding questions about the quality of the haul. During the offseason they dangled aging shortstop Jack Wilson to the rest of MLB, recognizing that his halcyon days, such as they were, will not coincide with the franchise's. When no one appeared desperate enough to offer attractive prospects for him, the Pirates put him back in their pocket for in-season discussions with a contender that loses its shortstop and is willing to pony up what Pittsburgh needs.
The team now has an intriguing roster of young (and inexpensive) pitchers -- Snell, Duke, Gorzellany, Maholm -- and players -- Ryan Doumit, the LaRoches, Freddy Sanchez and Jose Tabata that is at least two years and two sluggers away from contention, a country mile closer than they've been all century.
Peter Angelos, of all people, is learning this lesson as well. After dabbling in the decrepit sluggers market (Miguel Tejada, Javy Lopez, Rafael Palmeiro and Sammy Sosa) with disastrous results three years ago, the Orioles reversed field last year and dropped the Human Insurance Premium Inflator, Erik Bedard, on Seattle for mega-prospect Adam (not Pac Man) Jones and a package of minor league hurlers.
The Orioles' pitch for Mark Teixeira last week was based on the presumption that he'll be productive long after Jones, Ryan Freel and some minor league call-ups ripen. Baltimore is at once farther along and farther from contention than Pittsburgh because they play in the AL Beast. They will need to cultivate the farm and enter the Big Boy auction each year, making sure to get the right parts -- as Teixeira would have been -- in tandem with the development of their prospects. More than anything, the O's need pitching, pitching and more pitching.
Why are teams suddenly figuring it out? One part of the answer is obvious: there are no longer any Major League franchises operating on the outmoded principles of the 1970s. Every club has a stable of analysts crunching the numbers like Bill James in Boston, Keith Woolner in Cleveland and Oakland's Billy Beane. While baseball reporters still hang their hats on misleading stats like RBIs and pitching wins, every team in baseball understands the superiority of VORP (value over replacement player) EQA (a hitter's value expressed in a single number that looks like a batting average, but taking into account his on-base ability, base runing and power) and other more subtle and revealing measurements. The inefficiencies in the baseball marketplace that Oakland cherry-picked for a decade are now smaller and more difficult to exploit, because everyone is doing the same thing, at least to some degree.
GMs don't have the luxury that columnists and broadcasters have to be 30 years behind the state of the art, because the results of their stupidity are published in the sports section daily. The columnist versions of Dave Littlefield -- he of no clue -- are voting members of the BBWAA enjoying job security and devoted followings.
23 December 2008
Time To Be A Left Inside Grouch
Let's do a little thought experiment, you and I.
Let's suppose we decide to create a sports league, say the N43MSA -- the National 43-Man Squamish Association. We're going to place franchises in all the major US markets plus a few stragglers like Charleston SC, Bridgeport CT and Niskayuna NY. Hey, it's our league.
Now let's suppose that we determine that the franchises will draft high school and college Frullipers, but that all post-graduate players will be free agents, on sale to the highest bidders. Some teams will draft and develop talent well and consequently win more matches than those that don't.
Let's further suppose that the franchise representing the largest city buys up the top player at each position. It can do this because of its market size, media attention, vast financial resources, the glamour of the city, plethora of Fortune 500 companies that will pay the highest amount for the most luxury boxes, and its tradition dating back to the greats like Draja Druvnik and Snookums Schnitzer Johansen.
This team has, in effect, the first pick among left inside grouches, right inside grouches, shallow brooders, wicket men, offensive niblings, quarter-frummerts, full-frummerts, overblats, underblats, back-up finks, and dummies. If the team happens to be a little soft at the deep brooder position, or the All-Star half-frummert is coming off a serious sternocleidamastoid injury, well, the team can always go out and buy another one.
Now, I'd like you to purchase a competing franchise in Baltimore or Toronto or Tampa. Or maybe you'd like one in Minneapolis or Kansas City, whattaya say, huh? Well then, how about just being a fan of one of those sides, attending the Flutney a couple of times a year for seven Ogres of exciting action -- or eight if it rains? If you can't commit to that, wouldn't you like to catch a few snivels on the tube and keep tabs on the N43MSA standings?
Don't tell me you're one of those sore losers, sniveling that the Mudville 43 haven't had to so much as utter a dirty limerick this season. Have you got your lily liver all knotted up because the underblat they wrested away from Charleston with cash broke the single-season Woomik record? Don't cry to me about competitive imbalance; they didn't even make the playoffs last year, or in '93 either.
Would you root for this team or would you wonder what the point is? Would their march into the playoffs and through to the championship strike you as drama or a virtual fait accompli? Wouldn't being a fan of this team be like pulling for North Carolina against Prarie View in the first round of the NCAA basketball tournament?
That's the end of our little thought experiment. Fortunately, this would never happen in the real world of professional sports.
20 December 2008
Didn't You Used To Be Roger Clemens?
If you want to know what scandal has cost Roger Clemens, all you have to do is look at Greg Maddux’s retirement.
Maddux hung it up at exactly the right time last month, before a run of mediocrity started tarnishing his spectacular resume.
It would belabor the point to recap Maddux’s career here beyond marveling at the run of seasons from 1992-98 when he surrendered just slightly more than half as many runs as the average NL hurler. Seventeen straight seasons of 15 or more wins and 18 Gold Gloves may or may not be what they’re cracked up to be, but they’re the most ever.
More to the point, Maddux is being lionized as the greatest and winningest pitcher of his generation. Before we discovered that Roger Clemens was dabbling in Mindy McCready, that was supposed to be his career epitaph. Batters were frustrated by Maddux, but intimidated and awed by Clemens, who retained the heat into his 40s. With more career traction and better stuff, it looked as if Clemens had pulled away from Maddux for good.
What’s the conventional narrative now? It’s the morality play of the tortoise and the hare, with Clemens in the role of rabbit. Suddenly not possessing raw power is a virtue for Maddux. Winning with without high heat makes Maddux more commendable. It’s as if chicks now dig the changeup.
Of course, that narrative was always hooey. Maddux may weigh 175 pounds and wear glasses, but he threw plenty hard and notched nearly 3400 strikeouts. Moreover, he was a great natural athlete who demonstrated his raw ability at the plate and with the glove.
It’s not as if Clemens just rolled God’s gifts out onto the field and chalked up the victories. His heat was the by-product of an intense physical fitness regimen and equally intense mental preparation and focus. He was the greatest pitcher of his generation…until his derriere became back page fodder and the rest of him became MLB’s persona non grata.
I guess that’s comeuppance for the personal and professional skullduggery that Clemens seemed to have engaged in. We’re chalking one up for the good guy. So let that be a lesson to us all. Roger Clemens will still be remembered as a great pitcher, but he gave away a significant mantle to Greg Maddux – best of his era.
Maddux hung it up at exactly the right time last month, before a run of mediocrity started tarnishing his spectacular resume.
It would belabor the point to recap Maddux’s career here beyond marveling at the run of seasons from 1992-98 when he surrendered just slightly more than half as many runs as the average NL hurler. Seventeen straight seasons of 15 or more wins and 18 Gold Gloves may or may not be what they’re cracked up to be, but they’re the most ever.
More to the point, Maddux is being lionized as the greatest and winningest pitcher of his generation. Before we discovered that Roger Clemens was dabbling in Mindy McCready, that was supposed to be his career epitaph. Batters were frustrated by Maddux, but intimidated and awed by Clemens, who retained the heat into his 40s. With more career traction and better stuff, it looked as if Clemens had pulled away from Maddux for good.
What’s the conventional narrative now? It’s the morality play of the tortoise and the hare, with Clemens in the role of rabbit. Suddenly not possessing raw power is a virtue for Maddux. Winning with without high heat makes Maddux more commendable. It’s as if chicks now dig the changeup.
Of course, that narrative was always hooey. Maddux may weigh 175 pounds and wear glasses, but he threw plenty hard and notched nearly 3400 strikeouts. Moreover, he was a great natural athlete who demonstrated his raw ability at the plate and with the glove.
It’s not as if Clemens just rolled God’s gifts out onto the field and chalked up the victories. His heat was the by-product of an intense physical fitness regimen and equally intense mental preparation and focus. He was the greatest pitcher of his generation…until his derriere became back page fodder and the rest of him became MLB’s persona non grata.
I guess that’s comeuppance for the personal and professional skullduggery that Clemens seemed to have engaged in. We’re chalking one up for the good guy. So let that be a lesson to us all. Roger Clemens will still be remembered as a great pitcher, but he gave away a significant mantle to Greg Maddux – best of his era.
17 December 2008
Between "Rock" and a Hard Place
The new Hall of Fame ballot includes the greatest leadoff hitter of all time -- Rickey Henderson -- who is already being fitted for a bust in Cooperstown.
It also includes arguably the second-greatest leadoff hitter of all time -- Tim Raines -- who has a Palin 2012's chance of being elected. (That is, less than none.)
I don't know if Raines is a HOFer, in part because no one knows what the criteria are, and in greater part because back in the days when we were valuing the wrong things, Raines never cracked our fame consciousness. When we look back on his career, we don't remember a guy who was dominant.
The numbers, however, beg to differ. They tell a now-familiar tale of a player whose performance was exactly matched to our blind spots.
Consider: Tim Raines never hit 20 home runs or knocked in even 80. He won one Gold Glove and never finished higher than fifth in the MVP voting. During the period of his career when he played fulltime, 1982-1995, his teams made two playoff appearances and won no pennants. He stole a lot of bases, but rarely as many as Henderson at the same time. Despite leading off for two decades, he's nowhere near 3,000 hits. That's not the stuff of HOFers.
Raines suffers because the HOF wants specialists at the top of their craft, not brilliant generalists. It wants 500-HR sluggers who took smaller leads than Norm Coleman. It wants leather-flashers who charmed the Gold Glove voters. It wants boppers lucky enough to come to the plate regularly with runners on base to drive in. Or at least that's what BBWAA voters want.
Consider the rest of Raines' CV: He hit double-digit homers seven times, mostly before the offensive era began. He posted 12 seasons of on-base prowess over .380. He racked up 400 more walks than strikeouts. The most efficient base stealer of all time, he swiped an amazing 85% of the 954 bags he chased. Despite playing in a lousy hitters' park, he finished in the top 10 in on-base percentage seven times, runs scored nine times and overall offensive performance six times. He was an excellent left fielder and a passable center fielder, right fielder and second baseman. Baseball Prospectus rates him the sixth best right fielder of all time, but even if he's the ninth or 10th or 11th best, that's still a jaunty stroll into the Hall.
My point is not that Tim Raines is a HOFer, but that failing the smell test is a poor barometer because our sense of smell is so much better -- and different -- now. Let's educate ourselves that HRs, RBIs and BA are only part of the equation when OBP, SLG, and advanced stats like EQA and VORP tell us so much more.
It also includes arguably the second-greatest leadoff hitter of all time -- Tim Raines -- who has a Palin 2012's chance of being elected. (That is, less than none.)
I don't know if Raines is a HOFer, in part because no one knows what the criteria are, and in greater part because back in the days when we were valuing the wrong things, Raines never cracked our fame consciousness. When we look back on his career, we don't remember a guy who was dominant.
The numbers, however, beg to differ. They tell a now-familiar tale of a player whose performance was exactly matched to our blind spots.
Consider: Tim Raines never hit 20 home runs or knocked in even 80. He won one Gold Glove and never finished higher than fifth in the MVP voting. During the period of his career when he played fulltime, 1982-1995, his teams made two playoff appearances and won no pennants. He stole a lot of bases, but rarely as many as Henderson at the same time. Despite leading off for two decades, he's nowhere near 3,000 hits. That's not the stuff of HOFers.
Raines suffers because the HOF wants specialists at the top of their craft, not brilliant generalists. It wants 500-HR sluggers who took smaller leads than Norm Coleman. It wants leather-flashers who charmed the Gold Glove voters. It wants boppers lucky enough to come to the plate regularly with runners on base to drive in. Or at least that's what BBWAA voters want.
Consider the rest of Raines' CV: He hit double-digit homers seven times, mostly before the offensive era began. He posted 12 seasons of on-base prowess over .380. He racked up 400 more walks than strikeouts. The most efficient base stealer of all time, he swiped an amazing 85% of the 954 bags he chased. Despite playing in a lousy hitters' park, he finished in the top 10 in on-base percentage seven times, runs scored nine times and overall offensive performance six times. He was an excellent left fielder and a passable center fielder, right fielder and second baseman. Baseball Prospectus rates him the sixth best right fielder of all time, but even if he's the ninth or 10th or 11th best, that's still a jaunty stroll into the Hall.
My point is not that Tim Raines is a HOFer, but that failing the smell test is a poor barometer because our sense of smell is so much better -- and different -- now. Let's educate ourselves that HRs, RBIs and BA are only part of the equation when OBP, SLG, and advanced stats like EQA and VORP tell us so much more.
14 December 2008
The Bad Old Days
I have opined in the past that the so-called Golden Era of baseball, the 1950s, was actually the worst period in baseball history. One city monopolized the AL pennant and dominated the NL pennant and the World Series. If you were a fan of any AL squad other than the Yankees, who appeared in 14 of the 16 World Series in that period, you spent a decade and a half banging your head against the wall. Ditto for the NL, at half that rate.
Some of the advantages the Yankees had then, persist -- money, market size, glamour of NYC, tradition. It's natural that they exploit them in order to collect the best players and win championships. Good for them.
Bad for baseball.
Sports is a zero sum proposition. As long as one franchise uses its edge at every level to win all the time, other franchises must, by definition, stumble. Some of them will act on the premise that they can't compete and wallow in futility. That is bad for them, their fans and the league.
Two quick case studies: After 35 years as a fan of the Kansas City Royals, I switched allegiances a few years ago. It became obvious to me that the Royals' ownership had chosen profit over occasional competitiveness, and that there was no hope of my team succeeding on the field. I'm not a fair weather fan, but neither am I an idiot.
Last year, while the Tampa Bay Rays won 100 games, their attendance lagged. That's standard procedure after years of futility. In 2009, fans will flock to the Trop. That binge and purge mentality, and the attendance fluctuations that accompany it, can be avoided, as long as the team is generally competitive. That's not possible if one franchise, endowed beyond all others, attracts an All-Star squad roster and dashes everyone else's hopes.
All of which brings us to the current state of affairs. Let's face it: the Yankees have not dominated baseball the last four years; they didn't even make the playoffs in '08. The signings of CC Sabathia and AJ Burnett (can't they find anyone with a first name?) are not going to change that without other conditions also changing, like the emergence of Hughes, Kennedy or some other prospect, rebound seasons from Cabrera or Cano, or the signing of even more big impact free agents like Mark Teixeira.
What's troubling is that when other teams are facing recessionary restrictions, layoffs and renewed budget consciousness, the Yankees are accepting public money, raising ticket prices and pursuing almost all of the high-priced free agents simultaneously. If this means a new era of Yankee domination, Kansas City Royals fans are not going to meander to other teams (the Nationals in my case; maybe I am an idiot) but to other activities.
The effect on a team like Toronto is even worse. The Blue Jays could have fancied themselves a player in '09, given their strong performance in '08. But with three powerful in-division competitors, a weak Canadian dollar and the resources of the Yankees, it's understandable why they have become passive. It's now dubious whether a large monetary investment in players could yield much return. How can they compete with a rival that outbid the field by $40 million for Sabathia's services?
So you'll understand why I hope Sabathia's weight and workload start wearing him down and Burnett's inconsistency remains his one constant. You'll understand why I'm rooting for Teixeira to sign with one of his non-contending pursuers and why I want the jettisoned Bobby Abreu to have another season like his 1999-2002 stretch where he hit for power and average, walked like a mall rat, stole bases and excelled in the field, all for someone else.
It's why I hope the Yankees overpaid for so little that they're hamstrung financially in their efforts to offset their mistakes. The problem is, they never are. It's baseball fans who are hamstrung, and that's the shame of it.
Some of the advantages the Yankees had then, persist -- money, market size, glamour of NYC, tradition. It's natural that they exploit them in order to collect the best players and win championships. Good for them.
Bad for baseball.
Sports is a zero sum proposition. As long as one franchise uses its edge at every level to win all the time, other franchises must, by definition, stumble. Some of them will act on the premise that they can't compete and wallow in futility. That is bad for them, their fans and the league.
Two quick case studies: After 35 years as a fan of the Kansas City Royals, I switched allegiances a few years ago. It became obvious to me that the Royals' ownership had chosen profit over occasional competitiveness, and that there was no hope of my team succeeding on the field. I'm not a fair weather fan, but neither am I an idiot.
Last year, while the Tampa Bay Rays won 100 games, their attendance lagged. That's standard procedure after years of futility. In 2009, fans will flock to the Trop. That binge and purge mentality, and the attendance fluctuations that accompany it, can be avoided, as long as the team is generally competitive. That's not possible if one franchise, endowed beyond all others, attracts an All-Star squad roster and dashes everyone else's hopes.
All of which brings us to the current state of affairs. Let's face it: the Yankees have not dominated baseball the last four years; they didn't even make the playoffs in '08. The signings of CC Sabathia and AJ Burnett (can't they find anyone with a first name?) are not going to change that without other conditions also changing, like the emergence of Hughes, Kennedy or some other prospect, rebound seasons from Cabrera or Cano, or the signing of even more big impact free agents like Mark Teixeira.
What's troubling is that when other teams are facing recessionary restrictions, layoffs and renewed budget consciousness, the Yankees are accepting public money, raising ticket prices and pursuing almost all of the high-priced free agents simultaneously. If this means a new era of Yankee domination, Kansas City Royals fans are not going to meander to other teams (the Nationals in my case; maybe I am an idiot) but to other activities.
The effect on a team like Toronto is even worse. The Blue Jays could have fancied themselves a player in '09, given their strong performance in '08. But with three powerful in-division competitors, a weak Canadian dollar and the resources of the Yankees, it's understandable why they have become passive. It's now dubious whether a large monetary investment in players could yield much return. How can they compete with a rival that outbid the field by $40 million for Sabathia's services?
So you'll understand why I hope Sabathia's weight and workload start wearing him down and Burnett's inconsistency remains his one constant. You'll understand why I'm rooting for Teixeira to sign with one of his non-contending pursuers and why I want the jettisoned Bobby Abreu to have another season like his 1999-2002 stretch where he hit for power and average, walked like a mall rat, stole bases and excelled in the field, all for someone else.
It's why I hope the Yankees overpaid for so little that they're hamstrung financially in their efforts to offset their mistakes. The problem is, they never are. It's baseball fans who are hamstrung, and that's the shame of it.
26 November 2008
The Blind Squirrel Theory
Several readers have asked why no diatribe about the award choices. The answer: I'm still recovering from shock. Writers managed to get all six major awards right. What's to say?
It doesn't hurt that the choices for all but AL MVP were Yale locks. Would anyone really argue that Geovanny Soto wasn't the NL Rookie of the Year? (Well, yes. Three so-called expert baseball writers cast ballots for Edinson Volquez, who didn't qualify for rookie status. Good thing we limit the voting to the people who follow the game daily.) Or that Tim Lincecum was the best pitcher in the Senior Circuit?
In the AL MVP race, there were two best choices and the BBWAA chose one of them. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then.
I could quibble over the large minority of voters who think Ryan Howard, he of the .339 OBP and miserable fielding, is his league's most valuable. I still shake my head over writers' mancrush on Justin Morneau, whose major accomplishment seems to be hitting behind Joe Mauer. But really, down-ballot debates are for geeks, obssessives and childless...um, uh, well I just don't want to engage in them.
Notice that I haven't mentioned the Manager of the Year Award. The truth is, there is no such award. There is simply an award for the manager whose team most out-performed expectations. I don't believe that anyone knows who is having a "good year" or "bad year" managing, short of an outright mutiny by the players. And the proof is that managers never repeat, even though it's fair to assume that whoever is the best manager in baseball is probably the best several years running. The reason is that once a team achieves success, they can't be a surprise the next year.
So bravo for a year in which the deserving were acknowledged. Don't count on it happening again. Blind squirrels don't generally regain their sight.
It doesn't hurt that the choices for all but AL MVP were Yale locks. Would anyone really argue that Geovanny Soto wasn't the NL Rookie of the Year? (Well, yes. Three so-called expert baseball writers cast ballots for Edinson Volquez, who didn't qualify for rookie status. Good thing we limit the voting to the people who follow the game daily.) Or that Tim Lincecum was the best pitcher in the Senior Circuit?
In the AL MVP race, there were two best choices and the BBWAA chose one of them. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then.
I could quibble over the large minority of voters who think Ryan Howard, he of the .339 OBP and miserable fielding, is his league's most valuable. I still shake my head over writers' mancrush on Justin Morneau, whose major accomplishment seems to be hitting behind Joe Mauer. But really, down-ballot debates are for geeks, obssessives and childless...um, uh, well I just don't want to engage in them.
Notice that I haven't mentioned the Manager of the Year Award. The truth is, there is no such award. There is simply an award for the manager whose team most out-performed expectations. I don't believe that anyone knows who is having a "good year" or "bad year" managing, short of an outright mutiny by the players. And the proof is that managers never repeat, even though it's fair to assume that whoever is the best manager in baseball is probably the best several years running. The reason is that once a team achieves success, they can't be a surprise the next year.
So bravo for a year in which the deserving were acknowledged. Don't count on it happening again. Blind squirrels don't generally regain their sight.
Wither the Bombers?
It's going to be a very interesting off-season for the New York Yankees. Not since the early 90s has the team been in such flux.
At 89-73 in '08, the Yankees could be said to be at the precipice of playoff contention, except they're not. They are old, slow, defensively creaky and getting more of each. Their best pitcher from last year retired and another veteran hurler is either joining him or poised to continue his career downslide. They have four DHs, no first basemen and an outfield of noodle arms and rubber legs.
That's the bad news for pinstripe partisans. The good news is that they still have some great assets, including the best hitting shortstop-thirdbaseman combination in the league -- maybe even in history. They have $75 million in bad contracts coming off the books and some delicious free agent possibilities. Dismissing Jason Giambi was the right move because his defensive liabilities limit him to a DH role that render him redundant on this team. He'll find employment on a younger, weaker-hitting lineup.
The obvious apple of the Big Apple's eye is Mark Teixeira. Tex is two players in one -- a peak-of-career banger who draws walks and a Gold Glove-caliber first baseman. He fills an open spot on the diamond and his presence would mitigate some of the infield's defensive deficiencies while his bat delivers RBIs in clumps. With a reasonable expectation of some resurgence from Robby Cano at second base, the Yankees would sport a spiffy infield. Of course, the Teixeira option will come at a nine-figure cost, with warm regards from Scott Boras.
Jorge Posada returns, but at 37 and coming off shoulder surgery he'll need an apprentice. Similarly age-enhanced Ivan Rodriguez and talent-challenged Jose Molina don't qualify. Adios amigos! Ring in the new!
The Yankees should re-sign Bobby Abreu despite his age. Both his patience at the plate and his speed are valuable assets to the Bombers and he'll be needed to fill that decrepit patchwork outfield. Among the now-brittle Matsui, Damon and Abreu there'll never be more than two healthy players, and one of these lefties will be needed to platoon with Xavier Nady against righties. Nick Swisher is an adequate stopgap centerfield option, allowing the Yankees the luxury of not relying on Melky Cabrera's unlikely bounceback. One of Damon, Matsui and Posada can DH while Brett Gardner serves as an everyday defensive replacement.
This arrangement allows for the foreseeable breakdown in bodies over 162 games and will give the front office another year to fertilize the farm system or fish for a unheralded studs.
In the rotation, NY would be well-served by signing an average or better lefty starter. Wang and Joba are locks, and the Potential Twins -- Hughes and Kennedy -- will get their chance. Figuring one of them succeeds sufficiently to be a #3 starter, that leaves the rotation one good pitcher short. (Every team needs a better fifth starter; if the fifth starter was a star he wouldn't be a fifth starter.) Banking on Andy Pettitte's return is a fool's errand, but so is banking on a CC signing. He's going to cost an arm and a stomach; the latter is frighteningly prodigious and the former has thrown 700 innings in three years. This will be the most important move the Yankees make.
Bullpens are always fluid entities and this one is no exception. The 39-year-old Panamanian could lose 10% of his effectiveness and still anchor the pen. Beyond him, a couple of lefty-righty options ought to be available from the scrap heap if Brian Cashman is vigilant.
If Cahsman turn the dial a little towards younger, faster and better defense, the Yankees will be able to reload as they compete with the Red Sox and talent-stuffed Rays. If not, the pinstriped machine will lose worn-out parts as the season progresses and grind to a halt in the dust of Boston, Tampa and even Toronto.
At 89-73 in '08, the Yankees could be said to be at the precipice of playoff contention, except they're not. They are old, slow, defensively creaky and getting more of each. Their best pitcher from last year retired and another veteran hurler is either joining him or poised to continue his career downslide. They have four DHs, no first basemen and an outfield of noodle arms and rubber legs.
That's the bad news for pinstripe partisans. The good news is that they still have some great assets, including the best hitting shortstop-thirdbaseman combination in the league -- maybe even in history. They have $75 million in bad contracts coming off the books and some delicious free agent possibilities. Dismissing Jason Giambi was the right move because his defensive liabilities limit him to a DH role that render him redundant on this team. He'll find employment on a younger, weaker-hitting lineup.
The obvious apple of the Big Apple's eye is Mark Teixeira. Tex is two players in one -- a peak-of-career banger who draws walks and a Gold Glove-caliber first baseman. He fills an open spot on the diamond and his presence would mitigate some of the infield's defensive deficiencies while his bat delivers RBIs in clumps. With a reasonable expectation of some resurgence from Robby Cano at second base, the Yankees would sport a spiffy infield. Of course, the Teixeira option will come at a nine-figure cost, with warm regards from Scott Boras.
Jorge Posada returns, but at 37 and coming off shoulder surgery he'll need an apprentice. Similarly age-enhanced Ivan Rodriguez and talent-challenged Jose Molina don't qualify. Adios amigos! Ring in the new!
The Yankees should re-sign Bobby Abreu despite his age. Both his patience at the plate and his speed are valuable assets to the Bombers and he'll be needed to fill that decrepit patchwork outfield. Among the now-brittle Matsui, Damon and Abreu there'll never be more than two healthy players, and one of these lefties will be needed to platoon with Xavier Nady against righties. Nick Swisher is an adequate stopgap centerfield option, allowing the Yankees the luxury of not relying on Melky Cabrera's unlikely bounceback. One of Damon, Matsui and Posada can DH while Brett Gardner serves as an everyday defensive replacement.
This arrangement allows for the foreseeable breakdown in bodies over 162 games and will give the front office another year to fertilize the farm system or fish for a unheralded studs.
In the rotation, NY would be well-served by signing an average or better lefty starter. Wang and Joba are locks, and the Potential Twins -- Hughes and Kennedy -- will get their chance. Figuring one of them succeeds sufficiently to be a #3 starter, that leaves the rotation one good pitcher short. (Every team needs a better fifth starter; if the fifth starter was a star he wouldn't be a fifth starter.) Banking on Andy Pettitte's return is a fool's errand, but so is banking on a CC signing. He's going to cost an arm and a stomach; the latter is frighteningly prodigious and the former has thrown 700 innings in three years. This will be the most important move the Yankees make.
Bullpens are always fluid entities and this one is no exception. The 39-year-old Panamanian could lose 10% of his effectiveness and still anchor the pen. Beyond him, a couple of lefty-righty options ought to be available from the scrap heap if Brian Cashman is vigilant.
If Cahsman turn the dial a little towards younger, faster and better defense, the Yankees will be able to reload as they compete with the Red Sox and talent-stuffed Rays. If not, the pinstriped machine will lose worn-out parts as the season progresses and grind to a halt in the dust of Boston, Tampa and even Toronto.
15 November 2008
Worse Prospects Than Chief Seattle
Pity poor Jack Zduriencik. It's bad enough no one outside Wroclaw (pronounced: Vrots-waff) can identify him correctly within three consonants. The Seattle Mariners GM now has the unenviable task of trying to build a contender against an improving division without the minor benefit of cash or talent.
Last year when the M's picked up Eric Bedard and his medical chart, I questioned whether they had enough lumber to contend even with him. Ha! This team hasn't even a sapling.
The peak of Marinerdom is an aging Ichiro, who, without the support of power or walks, is fast approaching offensive irrelevance. Other than his base stealing proficiency, he's an empty .310 hitter.
Oh, but wait, Raul Ibanez is a nice player. Yup, and for someone else in 2009. He's a free agent, and unless he loves coffee, rain and the Space Needle, he'll skedaddle to a team that has a snowball's chance in hell to contend, like anyone else in the Majors.
After that, there's Adrian Beltre, a free agent after '09, Jose Lopez, a second-baseman with one good year tucked in his belt, and a sucking black hole on offense. Besides these four, the entire rest of the team was 30 runs worse than a team of Triple-A players. Put another way, Mets back-up outfielder Angel Pagan, who batted .275 with no homers and 12 RBI in 105 plate appearances, was alone worth three more wins to his team, than the entire Mariners roster combined outside the aforementioned quartet.
Seattle might have a reasonable rotation next year. And it might not. Felix Hernandez should continue to excel. Jarrod Washburn may or may not defy predictions that he's over like Hootie and the Blowfish. Bedard might make more than 15 starts. And Carlos Silva might suddenly learn how to miss bats, but that would be counting on a guy with a 6.46 ERA and four strikeouts a game in '08.
The Mariners could decide to convert effective relievers like Ryan Rowland-Smith and Brandon Morrow into starters, but that would deplete the only asset the team has. Still, given the team's utter hopelessness, it's probably worth the risk.
Here's the real problem: former GM Bill Bavasi sunk $80 million into this pile of flotsam and jetsam, leaving Zduriencik with little room to maneuver. He could swap out Beltre and Washburn for some young players and hope the largely barren farm sprouts some tasty treats real fast. But it's looking as if the long, dreary winter in Seattle will last all the way through next Fall.
28 October 2008
A Shamvesty
Been really busy with non-baseball activities, but...
Game 5 of the World Series was a travesty.
I understand why MLB attempted to start the game, but why did it take six innings to determine that a monsoon is inappropriate weather for baseball? Or baseball fans? Much less the World Series? Much less a potential deciding game?
It's also unfair. The Phils have now had to play defense in a deluge. When the game resumes, the Rays will play defense in the bottom of the inning under ordinary conditions.
So it's a sham.
And a travesty.
It's a shamvesty.
Game 5 of the World Series was a travesty.
I understand why MLB attempted to start the game, but why did it take six innings to determine that a monsoon is inappropriate weather for baseball? Or baseball fans? Much less the World Series? Much less a potential deciding game?
It's also unfair. The Phils have now had to play defense in a deluge. When the game resumes, the Rays will play defense in the bottom of the inning under ordinary conditions.
So it's a sham.
And a travesty.
It's a shamvesty.
18 October 2008
Rays of Sunshine
If a manager, particularly a DH-league manager, has significant influence on his team, it's in the tone he sets for the players. That's good news for the Rays following their Game 5 meltdown against the Red Sox.
Joe Maddon has said all the right things to put his young team in the right frame of mind for Game 6 and a potential Game 7. Most notably, he's demonstrated that he recognizes the whole notion of "momentum" in sports is vastly overblown if not completely fraudulent. He has said that teams sometimes blow big leads and his team would just have to shake it off and win a game at home.
The great benefit of going up three games to one in a seven game series is that you can lose a couple of games and still win the series. That's why Maddon is telling his guys to keep their heads up. They only need to win a game at home to make Game 5 disappear like a Mets' ninth-inning lead.
If you're dubious, ask Carlton Fisk about his dramatic 1975 World Series home run. The flag still flies in Cincinnati.
Joe Maddon has said all the right things to put his young team in the right frame of mind for Game 6 and a potential Game 7. Most notably, he's demonstrated that he recognizes the whole notion of "momentum" in sports is vastly overblown if not completely fraudulent. He has said that teams sometimes blow big leads and his team would just have to shake it off and win a game at home.
The great benefit of going up three games to one in a seven game series is that you can lose a couple of games and still win the series. That's why Maddon is telling his guys to keep their heads up. They only need to win a game at home to make Game 5 disappear like a Mets' ninth-inning lead.
If you're dubious, ask Carlton Fisk about his dramatic 1975 World Series home run. The flag still flies in Cincinnati.
06 October 2008
The Sucking Vortex of Misconception
Broadcasting sports is hard work that can be done well by about one one-thousandth of one percent of those who think they can do it. Broadcasters have to talk for three hours, often extemporaneously about nothing. So it's not surprising or all that noteworthy when they say silly things.
That's the preface to the deconstruction of an incredibly silly comment on tonight's TBS broadcast of the Rays and White Sox. It's hysterical that people actually believe blatant fallacies like this one.
Harold Reynolds, whose analysis of the tactics and mechanics of the game I find insightful, mentioned that Jason Bartlett was like a second lead-off hitter in the nine hole. Since he bats before the #1 spot after the first inning, Reynolds noted, he can give you that leadoff quality in a 9-1-2 hitting arrangement.
Putting aside that Jason Bartlett made an out more than 67% of the time this year, which is detrimental to a team from a "leadoff" position, Reynolds' assertion is nonetheless patently absurd. If you need a "leadoff" hitter to bat before the #1 spot, why don't you need a leadoff hitter to bat before the #9 spot for those 8-9-1 hitting arrangements? And the same for the #7 spot and so on down the line?
The simple truth is that your best hitters bat early in the lineup because they get more at-bats that way. And since you want guys on base when your power hitters are at the plate, you put a couple of high on-base guys up before them. No matter how a lineup is constructed, a bad hitter must precede a good hitter in the lineup at some point, unless your team is the Lake Wobegone Ice Fishermen, where every player is above average.
Aside: many teams have fallen into the sucking vortex of misconception that the leadoff hitter should burn up the basepaths, so they bat a low-OBP speedster in the top spot. Those teams are giving away games. Jason Giambi and his 120 walks would be a better leadoff choice than Juan Pierre or even Alfonso Soriano. When ARod goes deep, who cares how many green lights it takes Giambi to cross the street?
Jason Bartlett bats ninth because Jason Bartlett hits like a girl, and Joe Maddon would like him to bat as rarely as possible while still staffing the important shortstop position.
That's the preface to the deconstruction of an incredibly silly comment on tonight's TBS broadcast of the Rays and White Sox. It's hysterical that people actually believe blatant fallacies like this one.
Harold Reynolds, whose analysis of the tactics and mechanics of the game I find insightful, mentioned that Jason Bartlett was like a second lead-off hitter in the nine hole. Since he bats before the #1 spot after the first inning, Reynolds noted, he can give you that leadoff quality in a 9-1-2 hitting arrangement.
Putting aside that Jason Bartlett made an out more than 67% of the time this year, which is detrimental to a team from a "leadoff" position, Reynolds' assertion is nonetheless patently absurd. If you need a "leadoff" hitter to bat before the #1 spot, why don't you need a leadoff hitter to bat before the #9 spot for those 8-9-1 hitting arrangements? And the same for the #7 spot and so on down the line?
The simple truth is that your best hitters bat early in the lineup because they get more at-bats that way. And since you want guys on base when your power hitters are at the plate, you put a couple of high on-base guys up before them. No matter how a lineup is constructed, a bad hitter must precede a good hitter in the lineup at some point, unless your team is the Lake Wobegone Ice Fishermen, where every player is above average.
Aside: many teams have fallen into the sucking vortex of misconception that the leadoff hitter should burn up the basepaths, so they bat a low-OBP speedster in the top spot. Those teams are giving away games. Jason Giambi and his 120 walks would be a better leadoff choice than Juan Pierre or even Alfonso Soriano. When ARod goes deep, who cares how many green lights it takes Giambi to cross the street?
Jason Bartlett bats ninth because Jason Bartlett hits like a girl, and Joe Maddon would like him to bat as rarely as possible while still staffing the important shortstop position.
05 October 2008
No Bush Leaguer, Y'all
South Carolina doesn't have much to brag about besides coming in second in the Civil War. So when one of ours shines in the pros, it's worth mentioning.
Like a lot of people whose tooth count approaches double-digits, Mike Cisco matriculated at the University of South Carolina. Drafted this Spring by Philadelphia, the 5'11" right-hander was not highly touted beginning his first summer of professional ball, despite his pedigree. Pitching coach Galen Cisco is his grandfather.
That might change now (his prospect status, not his pedigree). In 35 innings with the Lakewood Blue Claws of the Atlantic League, Cisco posted a .51 ERA with 30 strikeouts.
And no walks. None as in zero.
That's a strikeout-to-walk ratio of infinity, which is more than two. So that's considered good. See you in Wilkes-Barre, Mike!
Like a lot of people whose tooth count approaches double-digits, Mike Cisco matriculated at the University of South Carolina. Drafted this Spring by Philadelphia, the 5'11" right-hander was not highly touted beginning his first summer of professional ball, despite his pedigree. Pitching coach Galen Cisco is his grandfather.
That might change now (his prospect status, not his pedigree). In 35 innings with the Lakewood Blue Claws of the Atlantic League, Cisco posted a .51 ERA with 30 strikeouts.
And no walks. None as in zero.
That's a strikeout-to-walk ratio of infinity, which is more than two. So that's considered good. See you in Wilkes-Barre, Mike!
Sometimes the Bear Eats You
Just a quick note about the Cubs-Dodgers fiasco (for Chicagoans, anyway). The playoffs marked the fifth time this season that the Cubs lost three games in a row. It happens.
Also, a note about the Manny Ramirez pickup. According to Baseball Prospectus, Manny's performance post-trade deadline was among the best all time and added five wins to L.A.'s win total compared to a replacement-level outfielder. Of course, Manny was traded for Jason Bay, who is significantly better than a replacement-level outfielder, but even then, Manny added about three wins over only two months of the season.
Throw in, unscientifically, another half-win for the ancillary effect his acquisition had on the rest of the lineup and Ramirez was the difference for the Dodgers between facing the Phillies for the pennant and watching Arizona take on Chicago from their couches.
It's also worth noting, if it's any consolation to Cubs fans, that the best team in the NL did not lose to the playoffs' worst. With Manny, the Dodgers won 33 of 56 games, a 95-win clip. Add to that the returns of Nomar Garciaparra and team MVP Rafael Furcal, and this is no patsy. It's anybody's NLCS.
Also, a note about the Manny Ramirez pickup. According to Baseball Prospectus, Manny's performance post-trade deadline was among the best all time and added five wins to L.A.'s win total compared to a replacement-level outfielder. Of course, Manny was traded for Jason Bay, who is significantly better than a replacement-level outfielder, but even then, Manny added about three wins over only two months of the season.
Throw in, unscientifically, another half-win for the ancillary effect his acquisition had on the rest of the lineup and Ramirez was the difference for the Dodgers between facing the Phillies for the pennant and watching Arizona take on Chicago from their couches.
It's also worth noting, if it's any consolation to Cubs fans, that the best team in the NL did not lose to the playoffs' worst. With Manny, the Dodgers won 33 of 56 games, a 95-win clip. Add to that the returns of Nomar Garciaparra and team MVP Rafael Furcal, and this is no patsy. It's anybody's NLCS.
01 October 2008
Narrative Favors Griffey; Facts, Pierzynski
"Thome, Griffey Carry White Sox to AL Central Crown"
That was the headline yesterday after the White Sox defeated the Twins on Jim Thome's blast and a play at the plate. It's a compelling narrative, and, as usual, it's utter rubbish.
The video has disappeared from the Web, but here's what it showed: Ken Griffey caught Brendan Harris's pop fly 20 feet from second base and noodle-armed a two hopper up the line as Michael Cuddyer tagged. Catcher A.J. Pierzynski snagged the ball just as Cuddyer crashed through his outstretched arm and into his body. Pierzynski made the tag, bounced off the ground and held onto the ball, preserving the 1-0 win. Nifty play by the catcher, not the center fielder.
The better headline, in my hometown paper -- Sock It Thome!
I don't mean to spoil the party, because crediting Griffey makes baseball fans forget that the world outside the stadium's going to hell in a handbasket. But the facts are persistant little buggers that can't be thrown out at the plate.
That was the headline yesterday after the White Sox defeated the Twins on Jim Thome's blast and a play at the plate. It's a compelling narrative, and, as usual, it's utter rubbish.
The video has disappeared from the Web, but here's what it showed: Ken Griffey caught Brendan Harris's pop fly 20 feet from second base and noodle-armed a two hopper up the line as Michael Cuddyer tagged. Catcher A.J. Pierzynski snagged the ball just as Cuddyer crashed through his outstretched arm and into his body. Pierzynski made the tag, bounced off the ground and held onto the ball, preserving the 1-0 win. Nifty play by the catcher, not the center fielder.
The better headline, in my hometown paper -- Sock It Thome!
I don't mean to spoil the party, because crediting Griffey makes baseball fans forget that the world outside the stadium's going to hell in a handbasket. But the facts are persistant little buggers that can't be thrown out at the plate.
Predict-O-King's Idiot Baseball Ga-RUN-Tees
The Mighty and Marvelous Predict-O-King knows all and sees all. His predictions never fail. That's because the sports media always does.
Without further ado, his Idiot Baseball Ga-RUN-Tees:
1. Baseball "analysts" will predict series outcomes based on which team was hotter in September. Research by Baseball Analysts found that there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between a team's September record and its playoff performance. Hey, who needs facts when you have opinions to publish!
2. A team that loses game 1 of a five-game series with its ace on the mound will be written off by the baseball media. It helps increase the excitement when they come back to win.
3. A team down 1-0 and facing the other team's ace will be written off, as if the ace is a guaranteed win, even though he went 17-11 on the year.
4. The underdog in a series will take game 1 on the road and the baseball media will pronounce that it has the "momentum." When it loses game 2, the baseball media will announce that the momentum has "shifted," as if it were a paradigm, or a continental shelf.
6. One team's ace will get lit up. Another team's slugger will take the collar twice. The baseball media, now practicing psychiatry, will determine that they "choked" or "felt the pressure" or weren't "clutch."The media will be unable to process the notion that even great players have bad days.
7. Baseball "analysts" will "analyze" an upcoming series by assigning wins and losses according to pitcher and home field, because as we all know, the team at home with the better starting pitcher wins in the playoffs 85% or 90% of the time. Or maybe its 52%, I forget.
8. Once again, some knucklehead will run out the statistic that the winner of game 1 in a five-game series wins the series 75% of the time. Of course, since the average series goes four games, the winner of any game you choose wins the series 75%.
The Mighty and Marvelous Predict-O-King has spoken!
Without further ado, his Idiot Baseball Ga-RUN-Tees:
1. Baseball "analysts" will predict series outcomes based on which team was hotter in September. Research by Baseball Analysts found that there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between a team's September record and its playoff performance. Hey, who needs facts when you have opinions to publish!
2. A team that loses game 1 of a five-game series with its ace on the mound will be written off by the baseball media. It helps increase the excitement when they come back to win.
3. A team down 1-0 and facing the other team's ace will be written off, as if the ace is a guaranteed win, even though he went 17-11 on the year.
4. The underdog in a series will take game 1 on the road and the baseball media will pronounce that it has the "momentum." When it loses game 2, the baseball media will announce that the momentum has "shifted," as if it were a paradigm, or a continental shelf.
6. One team's ace will get lit up. Another team's slugger will take the collar twice. The baseball media, now practicing psychiatry, will determine that they "choked" or "felt the pressure" or weren't "clutch."The media will be unable to process the notion that even great players have bad days.
7. Baseball "analysts" will "analyze" an upcoming series by assigning wins and losses according to pitcher and home field, because as we all know, the team at home with the better starting pitcher wins in the playoffs 85% or 90% of the time. Or maybe its 52%, I forget.
8. Once again, some knucklehead will run out the statistic that the winner of game 1 in a five-game series wins the series 75% of the time. Of course, since the average series goes four games, the winner of any game you choose wins the series 75%.
The Mighty and Marvelous Predict-O-King has spoken!
28 September 2008
And Grady and Josh Too...
In my AL MVP critique, I left off two players who belong in the discussion, one on purpose and one accidentally. I've already mentioned in a previous post that while Josh Hamilton's story is remarkable, the MVP should go to the player who's created the most value, not the most good PR, for his team.
Hamilton's .910 OPS is spectacular for a center fielder, but he's really a miscast right fielder pressed into service up the middle. His 32 homers and .307 average are less impressive when you consider the launching pad in which he plays.
Many BBWAA will be bamboozled by Hamilton's nifty RBI collection, but RBIs require RBI opportunities, something Hamilton has in spades hitting in that lineup and in that ballpark.
Grady Sizemore actually has hit one more dinger than Hamilton in a tougher home field and he's a legitimate center fielder. He has added value as a leadoff hitter; unfortunately for the Indians, he was their only hitter for much of the year. His OPS of .882 is three percent lower than Hamilton's, but he's a force on the basebpaths -- 38 steals in 43 attempts.
The verdict on Sizemore, and particularly Hamilton is that they're reasonable Top Ten MVP selections, but the hardware's still saved for Mauer or Pedroia.
Hamilton's .910 OPS is spectacular for a center fielder, but he's really a miscast right fielder pressed into service up the middle. His 32 homers and .307 average are less impressive when you consider the launching pad in which he plays.
Many BBWAA will be bamboozled by Hamilton's nifty RBI collection, but RBIs require RBI opportunities, something Hamilton has in spades hitting in that lineup and in that ballpark.
Grady Sizemore actually has hit one more dinger than Hamilton in a tougher home field and he's a legitimate center fielder. He has added value as a leadoff hitter; unfortunately for the Indians, he was their only hitter for much of the year. His OPS of .882 is three percent lower than Hamilton's, but he's a force on the basebpaths -- 38 steals in 43 attempts.
The verdict on Sizemore, and particularly Hamilton is that they're reasonable Top Ten MVP selections, but the hardware's still saved for Mauer or Pedroia.
27 September 2008
Up for Grabs
What do Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, Dustin Pedroia, Kevin Youklis, Milton Bradley, Ian Kinsler, Carlos Quentin, Alex Rodriguez and Cliff Lee have in common? Each of them can make a case to be the AL MVP. At the same time, none of them can make a strong case.
Cliff Lee, of course, has been spectacular for the Indians. While his team's offense has sputtered, he's posted a 22-3, 2.54 record and a 5-1 strikeout-to-walk ratio in 223 innings. He's been not just an innings eater; he's been an innings killer. His value, relative to the value of a AAA-level replacement at his position, has been the highest in the American League.
But pitchers have their own award, which Lee will win over Roy Halladay in Johnson-Goldwater style. Besides, no one really has confidence that there's any way to compare pitchers to everyday players.
Milton Bradley has been the best hitter in the AL when he's been healthy. He's gotten on base safely 44% of the time and pounded 22 homers and 32 doubles in just 500 plate appearances, and played a creditable outfield on those 37 occasions when he's been asked to. The problem with Bradley's candidacy is that during the nearly 40 games he's missed this season, his value to his team has been zero. That and the park effects of whatever they're calling The Ballpark at Arlington these days really hamper his claim.
As is his wont, Alex Rodriguez has been the best player in the AL this year. His .963 OPS, his 11th straight season with 35 homers, his 18 steals in 21 attempts and his good defense at an important position are straight out of MVP Central Casting. But there is no doubt that ARod has peed his pants everytime the Bombers have needed him to come up big.
Dustin Pedroia seems to have a lot of support for AL MVP. He's been the Red Sox sparkplug, hitting safely 38% of the time with surprising power -- 54 doubles and 17 jacks -- while swiping 20 of 21 bags. On top of that, he's an excellent middle infielder. He may not have the numbers of competitiors at DH and first base, but he'd be significantly more difficult to replace.
Paired with Pedroia is Ian Kinsler, whose resume is eerily similar. His on-base percentage matches Pedroia's and he's hit for even more power and succeeded in 26 of 28 steal attempts. He's also a very good second-sacker. But Pedroia gets the edge because he's played nearly 40 more games and batted in a tougher home park for offense.
Carolos Quentin's problem is not just that he's missed 32 games, but the 32 most critical of the year. As the White Sox struggle to hold off the Twins, Quentin can't contribute a thing to his team because of his broken wrist. It's not his fault that he got hit by a pitch, but it's the fact nonetheless. Lo siento, Carlos.
Kevin Youklis is a fine first-bagger with a .965 OPS who has been a steady force on the Red Sox all season, but an MVP? His credentials are more like "she has a nice personality" than "man, she's hot!" Much the same can be said for Justin Morneau, whose .883 OPS as a first baseman is just not MVP material.
I don't know how many baseball writers have slept with Morneau's wife, but something about him engenders love from the baseball media far beyond his baseball accomplishments. We already know he wasn't Deep Throat, right? With the prospect of another Morneau MVP unforeclosed, Bud Selig should agree immediately to apply the video replay rule to the BBWAA vote. That call would get overturned by a knowledgable umpire so fast it would leave Usain Bolt in the dust.
As a matter of fact, Justin Morneau is the second best player on the Twins. Imagine if you could find a guy who hits just as well, but plays a position where hitters are scarcer than truths in a presidential election. Batting champion Joe Mauer's .867 OPS comes out of a squat. The OPS of the next best fulltime AL catcher? Dioner Navarro's .756. That gives Minnesota a giant advantage over other teams.
To beat a dead horse, notice that none of the candidates has been examined in the context of his team's place in the standings. All they can do is contribute wins to their teams by swinging the ash and pumping the leather. Whether those are wins 90-99 or 70-79 is a matter for their teammates to answer for.
One more thing from the equine mortuary: there is little place in this discussion for late season heroics. Why give extra credit to a player who saddles his team with a weak first-half performance and then turns it on in August? How is that better than carrying your team to a big lead and tailing off as the summer turns to Fall? Or just playing consistantly well all 162 games?
Dustin Pedroia and Joe Mauer are my MVP guys and frankly I'm not sure how to distinguish them. Baseball writers who mark their ballots for ARod or Quentin or Lee will be excused for their mental absence. But if Francisco Rodriguez gets even a third place vote, the perpetrator(s) should be hunted down and forced to watch Pirate games for the next decade.
Cliff Lee, of course, has been spectacular for the Indians. While his team's offense has sputtered, he's posted a 22-3, 2.54 record and a 5-1 strikeout-to-walk ratio in 223 innings. He's been not just an innings eater; he's been an innings killer. His value, relative to the value of a AAA-level replacement at his position, has been the highest in the American League.
But pitchers have their own award, which Lee will win over Roy Halladay in Johnson-Goldwater style. Besides, no one really has confidence that there's any way to compare pitchers to everyday players.
Milton Bradley has been the best hitter in the AL when he's been healthy. He's gotten on base safely 44% of the time and pounded 22 homers and 32 doubles in just 500 plate appearances, and played a creditable outfield on those 37 occasions when he's been asked to. The problem with Bradley's candidacy is that during the nearly 40 games he's missed this season, his value to his team has been zero. That and the park effects of whatever they're calling The Ballpark at Arlington these days really hamper his claim.
As is his wont, Alex Rodriguez has been the best player in the AL this year. His .963 OPS, his 11th straight season with 35 homers, his 18 steals in 21 attempts and his good defense at an important position are straight out of MVP Central Casting. But there is no doubt that ARod has peed his pants everytime the Bombers have needed him to come up big.
Dustin Pedroia seems to have a lot of support for AL MVP. He's been the Red Sox sparkplug, hitting safely 38% of the time with surprising power -- 54 doubles and 17 jacks -- while swiping 20 of 21 bags. On top of that, he's an excellent middle infielder. He may not have the numbers of competitiors at DH and first base, but he'd be significantly more difficult to replace.
Paired with Pedroia is Ian Kinsler, whose resume is eerily similar. His on-base percentage matches Pedroia's and he's hit for even more power and succeeded in 26 of 28 steal attempts. He's also a very good second-sacker. But Pedroia gets the edge because he's played nearly 40 more games and batted in a tougher home park for offense.
Carolos Quentin's problem is not just that he's missed 32 games, but the 32 most critical of the year. As the White Sox struggle to hold off the Twins, Quentin can't contribute a thing to his team because of his broken wrist. It's not his fault that he got hit by a pitch, but it's the fact nonetheless. Lo siento, Carlos.
Kevin Youklis is a fine first-bagger with a .965 OPS who has been a steady force on the Red Sox all season, but an MVP? His credentials are more like "she has a nice personality" than "man, she's hot!" Much the same can be said for Justin Morneau, whose .883 OPS as a first baseman is just not MVP material.
I don't know how many baseball writers have slept with Morneau's wife, but something about him engenders love from the baseball media far beyond his baseball accomplishments. We already know he wasn't Deep Throat, right? With the prospect of another Morneau MVP unforeclosed, Bud Selig should agree immediately to apply the video replay rule to the BBWAA vote. That call would get overturned by a knowledgable umpire so fast it would leave Usain Bolt in the dust.
As a matter of fact, Justin Morneau is the second best player on the Twins. Imagine if you could find a guy who hits just as well, but plays a position where hitters are scarcer than truths in a presidential election. Batting champion Joe Mauer's .867 OPS comes out of a squat. The OPS of the next best fulltime AL catcher? Dioner Navarro's .756. That gives Minnesota a giant advantage over other teams.
To beat a dead horse, notice that none of the candidates has been examined in the context of his team's place in the standings. All they can do is contribute wins to their teams by swinging the ash and pumping the leather. Whether those are wins 90-99 or 70-79 is a matter for their teammates to answer for.
One more thing from the equine mortuary: there is little place in this discussion for late season heroics. Why give extra credit to a player who saddles his team with a weak first-half performance and then turns it on in August? How is that better than carrying your team to a big lead and tailing off as the summer turns to Fall? Or just playing consistantly well all 162 games?
Dustin Pedroia and Joe Mauer are my MVP guys and frankly I'm not sure how to distinguish them. Baseball writers who mark their ballots for ARod or Quentin or Lee will be excused for their mental absence. But if Francisco Rodriguez gets even a third place vote, the perpetrator(s) should be hunted down and forced to watch Pirate games for the next decade.
24 September 2008
French Fried
If you want to know what happened to Braves outfielder Jeff Francoeur this year, all your answers are contained in one game against the Phillies.
Francoeur is a strong-armed Gold Glove candidate who flashed ample talent his first year-and-a-half in the Bigs. Because of his power without patience approach, it seemed he could go either way heading into 2007. When his walk rate doubled, his batting average jumped to .293 and he poked 40 doubles and 19 home runs, it seemed that his prospects were bright.
Then he hit the wall. His .238/.295/.358 results this year are pretty much the resume of a AAA lifer. What happened?
Yesterday happened, that's what. Frenchy made four outs on eight pitches. He struck out on three pitches twice, popped out on the first pitch once and grounded out on the first pitch once. He didn't take a single pitch.
Those aren't just bad results; it's a counter-productive approach. Francoeur never saw what Phils pitchers were throwing. He didn't make the pitchers work. He didn't wait for his pitch. He just hacked. That's why he has fanned 105 times and earned just 39 free passes.
It's very hard to hit your way out of those kinds of results. Francoeur needs to learn his way out, but taking a whole new mindset to the plate. Because if he goes up swatting at flies next year, he'll be doing it in Richmond.
Francoeur is a strong-armed Gold Glove candidate who flashed ample talent his first year-and-a-half in the Bigs. Because of his power without patience approach, it seemed he could go either way heading into 2007. When his walk rate doubled, his batting average jumped to .293 and he poked 40 doubles and 19 home runs, it seemed that his prospects were bright.
Then he hit the wall. His .238/.295/.358 results this year are pretty much the resume of a AAA lifer. What happened?
Yesterday happened, that's what. Frenchy made four outs on eight pitches. He struck out on three pitches twice, popped out on the first pitch once and grounded out on the first pitch once. He didn't take a single pitch.
Those aren't just bad results; it's a counter-productive approach. Francoeur never saw what Phils pitchers were throwing. He didn't make the pitchers work. He didn't wait for his pitch. He just hacked. That's why he has fanned 105 times and earned just 39 free passes.
It's very hard to hit your way out of those kinds of results. Francoeur needs to learn his way out, but taking a whole new mindset to the plate. Because if he goes up swatting at flies next year, he'll be doing it in Richmond.
21 September 2008
An Autumn To Remember
With two weeks left in the season and plenty of drama yet unspooled, October is shaping up rather deliciously, particularly for those of us whose hearts bleed for the fanatics of baseball's damned.
Imagine for a second that the White Sox win the AL Central and the Brewers catch the Mets for the Wild Card. We'd have a playoff agenda without a Big Apple representative, but with both denizens of the Second City and the City of Angels. World Series showdowns between the Chicagos, or the L.A.s, would be historic and exciting.
So would any Series with the Rays, Phillies or Brewers. This Milwaukee contingent has never won a baseball championship. The Phils are the worst team in baseball history, with one World Series triumph on its century-old resume, and that was 28 years ago. Tampa Bay is the worst team in recent history, having never previously threatened even mediocrity.
A Cubs-Red Sox tilt would be a kvetchfest for the ages, particularly if it concluded with celebrations on the North Side.
As of this writing, the Mets' pen has been denied the opportunity to squander the Wild Card lead, and if they ultimately fail to do so, that could still make for a compelling finale were they to play Boston. Anything that reminds us of Mookie is something to behold.
The guard may be changing with this year's leaves. It could be resplendant. It could be historic. It could be magical.
I hear they've begun playing that game with the spheroid. (Go Prarie View!) I haven't noticed, what with visions of the Fall Classic dancing in my head.
Imagine for a second that the White Sox win the AL Central and the Brewers catch the Mets for the Wild Card. We'd have a playoff agenda without a Big Apple representative, but with both denizens of the Second City and the City of Angels. World Series showdowns between the Chicagos, or the L.A.s, would be historic and exciting.
So would any Series with the Rays, Phillies or Brewers. This Milwaukee contingent has never won a baseball championship. The Phils are the worst team in baseball history, with one World Series triumph on its century-old resume, and that was 28 years ago. Tampa Bay is the worst team in recent history, having never previously threatened even mediocrity.
A Cubs-Red Sox tilt would be a kvetchfest for the ages, particularly if it concluded with celebrations on the North Side.
As of this writing, the Mets' pen has been denied the opportunity to squander the Wild Card lead, and if they ultimately fail to do so, that could still make for a compelling finale were they to play Boston. Anything that reminds us of Mookie is something to behold.
The guard may be changing with this year's leaves. It could be resplendant. It could be historic. It could be magical.
I hear they've begun playing that game with the spheroid. (Go Prarie View!) I haven't noticed, what with visions of the Fall Classic dancing in my head.
So Easy A Sportswriter Could Do It
Ryan Howard hits a lot of home runs. His 46 leads the Major Leagues. Home runs are good, as even a sportswriter can tell you.
But that's all Ryan Howard does. He's not hitting for average. He strikes out more often than Carrot Top. He doesn't run well and he's a lousy fielder at the least important position. While he walks a fair amount, Howard has been on base less than 34% of the time this year. That's not even average, much less among the league's elite.
Consequently, I'm pretty sure that no jury in the country would convict Albert Pujols for taking his Louisville Slugger to the head of anyone who proposes that Ryan Howard should be the NL MVP. This is foolhardiness on par with lending money to oodles of people who can't repay their loans.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Albert is second in the Majors in hitting, has been on base nearly 46% of the time, has a slugging average more than 100 points higher than Howard's, steals an occasional base and is a Gold Glove-caliber fielder. That he's hit 12 fewer home runs and doesn't have the good fortune to play alongside Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins and Brad Lidge don't begin to offset the chasmic difference between his value to the Cardinals and Howard's value to the Phillies.
(Baseball Prospectus estimates that Pujols has been worth about nine wins to the Cards; Howard about three wins to the Phils, and that's even before evaluating defense. In fact, according to BP, Ryan Howard is not even in the top five in value relative to his position on his own team.)
You have some irrational need to bestow the MVP on Lance Berkman, or David Wright or Hanley Ramirez or Chipper Jones? Knock yourself out. It would be the wrong choice, but you could probably concoct some justification. Ryan Howard? That would just be another strikeout.
But that's all Ryan Howard does. He's not hitting for average. He strikes out more often than Carrot Top. He doesn't run well and he's a lousy fielder at the least important position. While he walks a fair amount, Howard has been on base less than 34% of the time this year. That's not even average, much less among the league's elite.
Consequently, I'm pretty sure that no jury in the country would convict Albert Pujols for taking his Louisville Slugger to the head of anyone who proposes that Ryan Howard should be the NL MVP. This is foolhardiness on par with lending money to oodles of people who can't repay their loans.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Albert is second in the Majors in hitting, has been on base nearly 46% of the time, has a slugging average more than 100 points higher than Howard's, steals an occasional base and is a Gold Glove-caliber fielder. That he's hit 12 fewer home runs and doesn't have the good fortune to play alongside Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins and Brad Lidge don't begin to offset the chasmic difference between his value to the Cardinals and Howard's value to the Phillies.
(Baseball Prospectus estimates that Pujols has been worth about nine wins to the Cards; Howard about three wins to the Phils, and that's even before evaluating defense. In fact, according to BP, Ryan Howard is not even in the top five in value relative to his position on his own team.)
You have some irrational need to bestow the MVP on Lance Berkman, or David Wright or Hanley Ramirez or Chipper Jones? Knock yourself out. It would be the wrong choice, but you could probably concoct some justification. Ryan Howard? That would just be another strikeout.
07 September 2008
Let Manny Be....Someone Else's Headache
The Dodgers are reportedly sufficiently giddy over their acquisition of Manny Ramirez that they are talking about attempting to sign him after the season ends. In his first 119 at-bats, during which time LA has reoccupied the top of the NL West standings, Manny has clubbed 11 home runs and sports a nifty .403/.500/.748 line. He has patroled left field with gusto and verve. He has also behaved in the clubhouse in a manner approximating adulthood.
The Dodgers would be playing the role of fly in Manny's spider web. Ramirez is playing for that next contract, which will probably require something in the vicinity of four years and $80 million. That next contract is what seems to motivate him to light it up on the field and exercise self-control off it.
Once the season is complete and the t's are crossed on an agreement for 2009-2012, he will find it difficult not to revert to "being Manny." (It worked a lot better for John Malkovch.) Perhaps for a year he will slug like the Hall of Fame talent he is. Perhaps while torturing opposing pitchers he will limit his outfield antics to a tolerable level of complacency and maintain a confounding but ultimately benign air of irresponsibility. But then a couple of things are going to happen that will make Ned Colleti rue the contract offer.
First, Manny will age. He plays next year at age 37. He will slowly fade from all-time great to merely very good with the stick. His full effort will be required just to retain his general level of fielding ineptitude. His joie de vivre on the basepaths will lead to outs rather than joie.
Manny's greatness gone, management will find its patience for his off-field antics suddenly diminished. But with success on the field more elusive, Manny will struggle to continue acting unnaturally normal. Friends, it will get ugly. Imagine the pouting when Joe Torre pinch hits for him or inserts a rookie in the lineup in his sport. A $20 or $40 or $60 million albatross will hover over Chavez Ravine.
If a pennant-ready team can withstand his act and sign him for a year or two without breaking the bank, he might be a worthwhile investment. But for what it will probably take to secure his services, not signing Manny will turn out to be the best off-season move they make. You heard it here first.
The Dodgers would be playing the role of fly in Manny's spider web. Ramirez is playing for that next contract, which will probably require something in the vicinity of four years and $80 million. That next contract is what seems to motivate him to light it up on the field and exercise self-control off it.
Once the season is complete and the t's are crossed on an agreement for 2009-2012, he will find it difficult not to revert to "being Manny." (It worked a lot better for John Malkovch.) Perhaps for a year he will slug like the Hall of Fame talent he is. Perhaps while torturing opposing pitchers he will limit his outfield antics to a tolerable level of complacency and maintain a confounding but ultimately benign air of irresponsibility. But then a couple of things are going to happen that will make Ned Colleti rue the contract offer.
First, Manny will age. He plays next year at age 37. He will slowly fade from all-time great to merely very good with the stick. His full effort will be required just to retain his general level of fielding ineptitude. His joie de vivre on the basepaths will lead to outs rather than joie.
Manny's greatness gone, management will find its patience for his off-field antics suddenly diminished. But with success on the field more elusive, Manny will struggle to continue acting unnaturally normal. Friends, it will get ugly. Imagine the pouting when Joe Torre pinch hits for him or inserts a rookie in the lineup in his sport. A $20 or $40 or $60 million albatross will hover over Chavez Ravine.
If a pennant-ready team can withstand his act and sign him for a year or two without breaking the bank, he might be a worthwhile investment. But for what it will probably take to secure his services, not signing Manny will turn out to be the best off-season move they make. You heard it here first.
01 September 2008
Soldiers of Serendipity
What do CC Sabathia's one-hitter and instant replay have in common? They're both controversial because people don't understand how incredibly important luck is in sports.
Sabathia's mates are miffed that the official scorer in last night's Brewers' game credited Andy Laroche with a hit when the pitcher muffed his swinging bunt. It turned out to be the Pirates' only hit of the game, denying the big righthander a no-hitter. Milwaukee management actually appealed the hit call to the MLB front office.
At the same time, MLB has instituted instant replay to help umpires determine whether balls hit out actually leave the ballpark in fair territory. Newfangled stadiums, with their outfield nooks and crannies, apparently hamper umpire calls.
It's hard to argue that umpires and official scorers shouldn't get calls right as often as possible. But am I the only one who notices that we agonize over calls in sports that are determined by the most granular margins when twists of fate affect every play.
There's the gust of wind that catches a long fly ball and drops it into an outfielder mitt. There's the double-play grounder that hits the rubber, bounces into right field and scores two runs. There's the 0-2 slider that fools the batter into flailing desperately -- and blooping a two-out, two-run double into right field. There's the bad-hop grounder, the swinging bunt, the Texas Leaguer, the broken bat, the rain, the slick field, the shadows, the gnats and a hundred other soldiers of serendipity that turn a 2-1 win into a 9-4 loss. That doesn't even account for the freak injuries and other cosmic anomalies that transform whole seasons.
It's easy to parse one play out of a game and blame it for ruining a no-hitter, but every no-hitter is a lucky five-hitter. Unless they strike out 27 batters, pitchers don't pitch no-hitters so much as put themselves in position to do so and reap the rewards when luck shines on them. Likewise, every game is a stew of skill, execution and chance, and if an ump happens to call a home run foul when it was actually two feet inside the fair pole, well, it's not like the hitter planned to hit it that way. He was just two feet lucky in the first place.
Sabathia's mates are miffed that the official scorer in last night's Brewers' game credited Andy Laroche with a hit when the pitcher muffed his swinging bunt. It turned out to be the Pirates' only hit of the game, denying the big righthander a no-hitter. Milwaukee management actually appealed the hit call to the MLB front office.
At the same time, MLB has instituted instant replay to help umpires determine whether balls hit out actually leave the ballpark in fair territory. Newfangled stadiums, with their outfield nooks and crannies, apparently hamper umpire calls.
It's hard to argue that umpires and official scorers shouldn't get calls right as often as possible. But am I the only one who notices that we agonize over calls in sports that are determined by the most granular margins when twists of fate affect every play.
There's the gust of wind that catches a long fly ball and drops it into an outfielder mitt. There's the double-play grounder that hits the rubber, bounces into right field and scores two runs. There's the 0-2 slider that fools the batter into flailing desperately -- and blooping a two-out, two-run double into right field. There's the bad-hop grounder, the swinging bunt, the Texas Leaguer, the broken bat, the rain, the slick field, the shadows, the gnats and a hundred other soldiers of serendipity that turn a 2-1 win into a 9-4 loss. That doesn't even account for the freak injuries and other cosmic anomalies that transform whole seasons.
It's easy to parse one play out of a game and blame it for ruining a no-hitter, but every no-hitter is a lucky five-hitter. Unless they strike out 27 batters, pitchers don't pitch no-hitters so much as put themselves in position to do so and reap the rewards when luck shines on them. Likewise, every game is a stew of skill, execution and chance, and if an ump happens to call a home run foul when it was actually two feet inside the fair pole, well, it's not like the hitter planned to hit it that way. He was just two feet lucky in the first place.
31 August 2008
Not As Close As You Think
The standings say the Rays have a 5.5 game lead in the AL East. Likewise the Cubs, a 4.5 game lead in the NL Central. With regard to their playoff chances though, the Rays actually have an 8.5 game head start over Minnesota and the Cubs are 10 clear of the Phils.
With 26 games left to play, it sure sounds a lot more like a sure thing now, doesn't it?
There is no discernible difference between making the playoffs with the best record in baseball or the Wild Card. The Marlins won two titles without winning their division. The Red Sox, Tigers and Rockies won berths in the last three World Series as Wild Cards.
So it's really not germane, from a post-season standpoint, whether the Cubs or Rays cede their division leads as long as they maintain their playoff positions. In that regard, the Rays aren't fending off the Red Sox, but the Twins. And the Cubs have little to worry about from the Brewers; it's the Phils they need keep at bay.
(Of course, the White Sox in the AL and the Mets in the NL might turn out to be the teams to beat for the Wild Card. Those teams would have to lose ground to be in that position. The Cards might also push their way into Wild Card contention, but they're even further back than Philly.)
With those kinds of leads, neither the Rays nor Cubs is going to lose its playoff spot unless the other teams take it from them. Even if the Cubs go 10-16 in their last 26 games, they still cruise into the post-season unless Philadelphia wins 20 of 26 games. It could happen, but it's only slightly more likely than a Nader presidency.
And for you Yankee haters out there -- (I'm talking to me) -- the news is equally good. The Yanks have to overtake Boston and Minnesota, which means they can't count on a Red Sox collapse to win the Wild Card. Down seven games with 26 left, they'd need a Rockiesque streak even to have a chance. Were they the Yankees who entered the season, that would be plausible, but there is little about the remaining collection that suggests they're capable.
Now Yankees, don't make me regret my words...
With 26 games left to play, it sure sounds a lot more like a sure thing now, doesn't it?
There is no discernible difference between making the playoffs with the best record in baseball or the Wild Card. The Marlins won two titles without winning their division. The Red Sox, Tigers and Rockies won berths in the last three World Series as Wild Cards.
So it's really not germane, from a post-season standpoint, whether the Cubs or Rays cede their division leads as long as they maintain their playoff positions. In that regard, the Rays aren't fending off the Red Sox, but the Twins. And the Cubs have little to worry about from the Brewers; it's the Phils they need keep at bay.
(Of course, the White Sox in the AL and the Mets in the NL might turn out to be the teams to beat for the Wild Card. Those teams would have to lose ground to be in that position. The Cards might also push their way into Wild Card contention, but they're even further back than Philly.)
With those kinds of leads, neither the Rays nor Cubs is going to lose its playoff spot unless the other teams take it from them. Even if the Cubs go 10-16 in their last 26 games, they still cruise into the post-season unless Philadelphia wins 20 of 26 games. It could happen, but it's only slightly more likely than a Nader presidency.
And for you Yankee haters out there -- (I'm talking to me) -- the news is equally good. The Yanks have to overtake Boston and Minnesota, which means they can't count on a Red Sox collapse to win the Wild Card. Down seven games with 26 left, they'd need a Rockiesque streak even to have a chance. Were they the Yankees who entered the season, that would be plausible, but there is little about the remaining collection that suggests they're capable.
Now Yankees, don't make me regret my words...
Sports Media: Wake Up!
"Alas, alack!" say the experts. With the young Rays poised for a 100-win season, why are so many Tampa Bay diehards dressing up as empty seats for games in St. Petersburg? The Rays will likely wear the AL East crown this year before fewer than 1.7 million fans? Why oh why?! Disaster! Catastrophe! Why isn't the government doing something?
Silly wabbits. Had any of those experts actually been paying attention anytime during the past 100 years, they might have noticed something: it's always like this.
Teams don't draw well the year they suddenly burst into contention. That bump comes the following year, regardless of their performance then. Apparently people make attendance decisions before the season begins. They buy their tickets in advance...or they don't.
Don't believe it? I looked up four teams roughly at random that came out of nowhere to contend or actually win the World Series recently. Here's what happened:
The 1985 Royals drew 2.1 million fans in 1985 when they won their only World Series. The following year they went 76-86...and drew 200,000 more fans.
The Oakland A's entered the 2000 season with a recent history of incompetence. That they earned a playoff spot is mostly a rumor in the East Bay: only 1.4 million fans saw it in person. But 3.3 million of them witnessed a reprise in 2001.
The Anaheim Angels, coming off a 75-87 year attracted 2.3 million customers while winning the World Series in 2002. Three million paid to see them lose 82 games the following year.
Roughly 2.3 million Chicagolanders saw the White Sox play their way to World Series supremecy in 2005. It was worth 700,000 rotations of the turnstiles the following year.
There may be some inherent barriers to ever attracting fans in large numbers to the Trop. There's lots to do in Tampa Bay; the stadium has the look, and charm, of a tissue box; and the population is on the other side of the bay. (Beyond that, Scott Kazmir, the people of Tampa Bay don't owe you a thing. If they're not buying your product, make it better; don't cry about their loyalty.) But the sky is not falling just because no one's coming out this year. And the baseball media would know that...if they knew anything about baseball.
Silly wabbits. Had any of those experts actually been paying attention anytime during the past 100 years, they might have noticed something: it's always like this.
Teams don't draw well the year they suddenly burst into contention. That bump comes the following year, regardless of their performance then. Apparently people make attendance decisions before the season begins. They buy their tickets in advance...or they don't.
Don't believe it? I looked up four teams roughly at random that came out of nowhere to contend or actually win the World Series recently. Here's what happened:
The 1985 Royals drew 2.1 million fans in 1985 when they won their only World Series. The following year they went 76-86...and drew 200,000 more fans.
The Oakland A's entered the 2000 season with a recent history of incompetence. That they earned a playoff spot is mostly a rumor in the East Bay: only 1.4 million fans saw it in person. But 3.3 million of them witnessed a reprise in 2001.
The Anaheim Angels, coming off a 75-87 year attracted 2.3 million customers while winning the World Series in 2002. Three million paid to see them lose 82 games the following year.
Roughly 2.3 million Chicagolanders saw the White Sox play their way to World Series supremecy in 2005. It was worth 700,000 rotations of the turnstiles the following year.
There may be some inherent barriers to ever attracting fans in large numbers to the Trop. There's lots to do in Tampa Bay; the stadium has the look, and charm, of a tissue box; and the population is on the other side of the bay. (Beyond that, Scott Kazmir, the people of Tampa Bay don't owe you a thing. If they're not buying your product, make it better; don't cry about their loyalty.) But the sky is not falling just because no one's coming out this year. And the baseball media would know that...if they knew anything about baseball.
30 August 2008
Scratch That About ARod
A couple of posts ago, I posited that Alex Rodriguez was so far the AL MVP, based on his ability to get on base, hit for power, run the bases and play an important defensive position. A fellow blogger, Dickie from Clifton Park, a particular form of partisan known as Soxus Rouges Fanaticus, scoffed at the ARod candidacy, pointing out that the Yankee cornerman has come up empty in key situations.
Over the last few days, ARod has done his best to support Dickie's conclusion. He struck out and hit into double plays in a host of key situations during two critical games against Boston and Toronto.
There are sabermetrician types who claim there is no such thing as clutch hitting. They point out that very few "clutch" hitters repeat their situational prowess from one year to the next. I believe that they are right up to a point. Most of what we perceive as "clutch" is merely getting hot at the right time, and the converse for "choking." But certainly there are a few players who are psychologically pre-disposed to bear down when playing for all the marbles, or become unglued when games are on the line.
Can there be much doubt that the greatest player of this generation is affected by the spotlight? Is anyone more eager to please everyone than ARod? Has anyone failed to answer the bell at more critical moments than he?
So for now, I'm withholding my MVP support for ARod. He has accumulated great numbers -- the best in the league. But he's come up short when he needed to stand tall, and that does matter.
Over the last few days, ARod has done his best to support Dickie's conclusion. He struck out and hit into double plays in a host of key situations during two critical games against Boston and Toronto.
There are sabermetrician types who claim there is no such thing as clutch hitting. They point out that very few "clutch" hitters repeat their situational prowess from one year to the next. I believe that they are right up to a point. Most of what we perceive as "clutch" is merely getting hot at the right time, and the converse for "choking." But certainly there are a few players who are psychologically pre-disposed to bear down when playing for all the marbles, or become unglued when games are on the line.
Can there be much doubt that the greatest player of this generation is affected by the spotlight? Is anyone more eager to please everyone than ARod? Has anyone failed to answer the bell at more critical moments than he?
So for now, I'm withholding my MVP support for ARod. He has accumulated great numbers -- the best in the league. But he's come up short when he needed to stand tall, and that does matter.
28 August 2008
Capricious Moe
So your friend, Moe, is sitting in your team's dugout, quietly minding his own business. You know he's there, because he's always there when your team races out to a 7-0 lead over its archrival in a late August contest.
But suddenly, Moe bolts across the field to the first base dugout and the seemingly-vanquished foe piles up seven unanswered runs in the last five innings. Then, with Moe clearly on their side, they subdue your team in several key situations and scratch across the winning tally in the 13th inning.
"Woe is you!" everyone cries, because Moe has clearly switched allegiances and will accompany the Philistines the rest of the way, as he did the previous year. This becomes readily apparent when your homies fall behind the next evening by a run as your ace heads for the showers.
But wait, wasn't that Moe sprinting back to the northpaw side of the field? By golly, it was, sparking a comeback that leads to victory. Thank goodness we had Moe on our side!
Wait a second, says the annoying contrarian blogger type. What good is Moe if he's going to be so fickle and unpredictable? You'd be just as well off with a friend like Constance. Why are you so excited to see Moe when he's almost certain not to stick around. He's your friend until...he's not.
Come to think of it, it's not like you're even ever aware of his presence except in retrospect, based on the shadow he seems to cast. Could it be that Moe isn't even there? Could these advantage swings simply be the natural ebb and flow of athletic competition?
This notion is painful, I understand. All these years, everyone who loves baseball (and other sports too) had waxed poetic about Moe's myriad accomplishments, hale-fellow personality and abundant charisma. Now some second-rate flak comes along and takes a club to your Moe pinata. You're suffering from some serious cognitive dissonance.
But here's the thing about the facts: they don't give a flying patootski about your feelings. And the fact is, Moe is a figment of everyone's imagination, as David Murphy made evident last night.
But suddenly, Moe bolts across the field to the first base dugout and the seemingly-vanquished foe piles up seven unanswered runs in the last five innings. Then, with Moe clearly on their side, they subdue your team in several key situations and scratch across the winning tally in the 13th inning.
"Woe is you!" everyone cries, because Moe has clearly switched allegiances and will accompany the Philistines the rest of the way, as he did the previous year. This becomes readily apparent when your homies fall behind the next evening by a run as your ace heads for the showers.
But wait, wasn't that Moe sprinting back to the northpaw side of the field? By golly, it was, sparking a comeback that leads to victory. Thank goodness we had Moe on our side!
Wait a second, says the annoying contrarian blogger type. What good is Moe if he's going to be so fickle and unpredictable? You'd be just as well off with a friend like Constance. Why are you so excited to see Moe when he's almost certain not to stick around. He's your friend until...he's not.
Come to think of it, it's not like you're even ever aware of his presence except in retrospect, based on the shadow he seems to cast. Could it be that Moe isn't even there? Could these advantage swings simply be the natural ebb and flow of athletic competition?
This notion is painful, I understand. All these years, everyone who loves baseball (and other sports too) had waxed poetic about Moe's myriad accomplishments, hale-fellow personality and abundant charisma. Now some second-rate flak comes along and takes a club to your Moe pinata. You're suffering from some serious cognitive dissonance.
But here's the thing about the facts: they don't give a flying patootski about your feelings. And the fact is, Moe is a figment of everyone's imagination, as David Murphy made evident last night.
24 August 2008
Let Einstein Be Einstein
Albert Einstein said that not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be counted counts. Albert was a genius.
Baseball "analysts" are not geniuses. Most of them aren't even Bill James, Rob Neyer, Joe Sheehan or Keith Law. They (the "analysts") have taken Einstein's tenet and distorted it into nonsense. Like this: The Twins have an advantage over the White Sox because there's no pressure on them.
I actually heard this morsel of twaddle from a supposed baseball expert on the radio. He was postulating that Minnesota could "play loose" because there were no expectations of a division title. I will leave to your imagination the many ways in which this twist of logic fails to dignify a response. But what particularly intrigues me is the way baseball people throw around these kinds of theories precisely because they're unknowable, unprovable and unreliable.
If I told you that the Twins had the edge over the Sox because they have a weaker schedule from here on in, you could check my information. But no one knows what makes teams feel pressure or how teams react to pressure. In fact, just yesterday Leo Mazzone asserted the very opposite theory. He noted that Chipper Jones would have trouble focusing on the batting title because his team is out of it, whereas Albert Pujols has the pressure of a Wild Card race to focus him on every at bat.
Who's wrong? No one can know; isn't that great! Because if no one can know, we can continue to make these irrefutable comments without fear of contradiction.
Consequently, you regularly hear and read accepted wisdom about the quality of some player's leadership, or of the need to have veterans who know how to win in the lineup, or of the importance of chemistry in the clubhouse or of doing the little things that don't show up in the box score. (Or this one I heard on the same radio show -- the importance of playing well heading into the playoffs, which is provably stupid. Did these guys not watch the World Series two years ago, which pitted the two teams playing the worst heading into the post-season?)
And because these things don't show up in the box score, and can't be measured or counted, the theorists feel free to assign value to them. That's why a weak-hitting, shortstop with average defensive skills gets MVP votes on the premise that he knows how to win and is great in the clubhouse and really shows the young guys how the game should be played. It's surprising that sportscasters and sportswriters have so far failed to credit players for liking dogs and children, long walks on the beach and peace on earth.
Certainly, leadership has value. So does team camaraderie. Being able to get down a bunt, or hit to the right side with a runner on first, or hit the cutoff man are important. I can't prove it, but I think you'll agree, that none of these things as is valuable as a three-run homer.
Baseball "analysts" are not geniuses. Most of them aren't even Bill James, Rob Neyer, Joe Sheehan or Keith Law. They (the "analysts") have taken Einstein's tenet and distorted it into nonsense. Like this: The Twins have an advantage over the White Sox because there's no pressure on them.
I actually heard this morsel of twaddle from a supposed baseball expert on the radio. He was postulating that Minnesota could "play loose" because there were no expectations of a division title. I will leave to your imagination the many ways in which this twist of logic fails to dignify a response. But what particularly intrigues me is the way baseball people throw around these kinds of theories precisely because they're unknowable, unprovable and unreliable.
If I told you that the Twins had the edge over the Sox because they have a weaker schedule from here on in, you could check my information. But no one knows what makes teams feel pressure or how teams react to pressure. In fact, just yesterday Leo Mazzone asserted the very opposite theory. He noted that Chipper Jones would have trouble focusing on the batting title because his team is out of it, whereas Albert Pujols has the pressure of a Wild Card race to focus him on every at bat.
Who's wrong? No one can know; isn't that great! Because if no one can know, we can continue to make these irrefutable comments without fear of contradiction.
Consequently, you regularly hear and read accepted wisdom about the quality of some player's leadership, or of the need to have veterans who know how to win in the lineup, or of the importance of chemistry in the clubhouse or of doing the little things that don't show up in the box score. (Or this one I heard on the same radio show -- the importance of playing well heading into the playoffs, which is provably stupid. Did these guys not watch the World Series two years ago, which pitted the two teams playing the worst heading into the post-season?)
And because these things don't show up in the box score, and can't be measured or counted, the theorists feel free to assign value to them. That's why a weak-hitting, shortstop with average defensive skills gets MVP votes on the premise that he knows how to win and is great in the clubhouse and really shows the young guys how the game should be played. It's surprising that sportscasters and sportswriters have so far failed to credit players for liking dogs and children, long walks on the beach and peace on earth.
Certainly, leadership has value. So does team camaraderie. Being able to get down a bunt, or hit to the right side with a runner on first, or hit the cutoff man are important. I can't prove it, but I think you'll agree, that none of these things as is valuable as a three-run homer.
17 August 2008
Beating the Odds
If, at the beginning of the season, someone had given you 1,000-1 odds to place $20 on Carlos Quentin as AL MVP, would you have taken the plunge? How about on Ryan Ludwick as NL MVP? Unless you're a diehard baseball fan, you would have been less likely to say "yes" than to say "who?"
With six weeks left in the season, Quentin and Ludwick are, if not favorites for hardware, certainly contenders. In his first two partial seasons with the White Sox, Carlos Quentin had struck out about as often as he had reached safely. In 455 plate appearances, Quentin had shown some pop -- 14 homers -- but little ability to get on base. His .230/.315/.431 "slash stats" -- batting average/on base percentage/slugging average -- in the hitter-friendly BOB, are minor league material for a corner outfielder.
Ludwick's resume was even less impressive. After six years bopping between the majors and minors of three different organizations, Ludwick had established himself as a first-rate bench warmer who could provide an occasional long ball. By age 28, Ludwick had managed just 600 at-bats, half of them last year. In that time, he posted a .258/.329/.466 line. That's a good fourth outfielder, but at age 29 entering 2008, Ludwick had to figure there wasn't much time for improvement.
Fast forward to today: Carlos Quentin and Ryan Ludwick are major reasons their teams are out-performing expectations. Quentin has banged out 33 homers and 91 RBI and improved to .289/.391/.574, while Ludwick had pounded 31 homers and 92 RBI while batting .304/.379/.611. That kind of play is worth 6-8 wins over a replacement level player, which both were, and can catapult a .500 team into contention in a weak division.
Because neither the White Sox nor Cardinals appeared to reach the level even of adequacy entering the season, neither Quention nor Ludwick is singularly responsible for their teams' success. But it takes these kinds of breakout seasons to help clubs pegged for 70 wins take 92 and a post-season berth.
Neither of these players is really a legitimate choice for MVP right now, particularly if you understand that a player's value is not dependent on his teammates. Ludwick isn't even the MVP of his team; that honor goes, as usual, to Prince Albert. Besides Pujols, Lance Berkman, Hanley Ramirez and Jose Reyes are all clearly better choices. Just by way of comparison, Pujols sports a superior .349/.459/.621 line, and plays a stellar first base. Ramirez and Reyes have their own unique virtues as middle infielders: Reyes's 14 triples and 40 steals compare favorably with the 12 triples and 32 steals of the base ball club in Pittsburgh. The whole thing. I'm not kidding.
In the Junior Circuit, Josh Hamilton is the sentimental choice, but the best candidate is (sorry) ARod. If voters are able to overcome their bias towards a) a compelling narrative, b) a gaggle of RBIs, and c) the irrational need to ascribe team success to a single player, they would see that ARod plays an important defensive position, steals 16 of 18 bases, and hits .308/.396/.587.
There's plenty of time in this race, and plenty of potential nominees, so let's wait six weeks before pronouncing anyone most valuable. Still, it's nice to see Carlos Quentin and Ryan Ludwick among the finalists this late in the season.
With six weeks left in the season, Quentin and Ludwick are, if not favorites for hardware, certainly contenders. In his first two partial seasons with the White Sox, Carlos Quentin had struck out about as often as he had reached safely. In 455 plate appearances, Quentin had shown some pop -- 14 homers -- but little ability to get on base. His .230/.315/.431 "slash stats" -- batting average/on base percentage/slugging average -- in the hitter-friendly BOB, are minor league material for a corner outfielder.
Ludwick's resume was even less impressive. After six years bopping between the majors and minors of three different organizations, Ludwick had established himself as a first-rate bench warmer who could provide an occasional long ball. By age 28, Ludwick had managed just 600 at-bats, half of them last year. In that time, he posted a .258/.329/.466 line. That's a good fourth outfielder, but at age 29 entering 2008, Ludwick had to figure there wasn't much time for improvement.
Fast forward to today: Carlos Quentin and Ryan Ludwick are major reasons their teams are out-performing expectations. Quentin has banged out 33 homers and 91 RBI and improved to .289/.391/.574, while Ludwick had pounded 31 homers and 92 RBI while batting .304/.379/.611. That kind of play is worth 6-8 wins over a replacement level player, which both were, and can catapult a .500 team into contention in a weak division.
Because neither the White Sox nor Cardinals appeared to reach the level even of adequacy entering the season, neither Quention nor Ludwick is singularly responsible for their teams' success. But it takes these kinds of breakout seasons to help clubs pegged for 70 wins take 92 and a post-season berth.
Neither of these players is really a legitimate choice for MVP right now, particularly if you understand that a player's value is not dependent on his teammates. Ludwick isn't even the MVP of his team; that honor goes, as usual, to Prince Albert. Besides Pujols, Lance Berkman, Hanley Ramirez and Jose Reyes are all clearly better choices. Just by way of comparison, Pujols sports a superior .349/.459/.621 line, and plays a stellar first base. Ramirez and Reyes have their own unique virtues as middle infielders: Reyes's 14 triples and 40 steals compare favorably with the 12 triples and 32 steals of the base ball club in Pittsburgh. The whole thing. I'm not kidding.
In the Junior Circuit, Josh Hamilton is the sentimental choice, but the best candidate is (sorry) ARod. If voters are able to overcome their bias towards a) a compelling narrative, b) a gaggle of RBIs, and c) the irrational need to ascribe team success to a single player, they would see that ARod plays an important defensive position, steals 16 of 18 bases, and hits .308/.396/.587.
There's plenty of time in this race, and plenty of potential nominees, so let's wait six weeks before pronouncing anyone most valuable. Still, it's nice to see Carlos Quentin and Ryan Ludwick among the finalists this late in the season.
16 August 2008
Spitting the Bit
I've avoided any critique of the Olympic coverage because it's the same every year: America American Americans America's America. It's such a hallmark of Olympic coverage in this country that I won't belabor the point, except to say it'd be interesting to compile a list of greatest Olympic moments that Americans have never heard of. I'd vote for the 1984 bicycle race in which the East German slowed at the finish so he could grasp the hand of the West German chasing him and cross the line together. Or perhaps Nigeria upsetting the whole world to win the '96 soccer gold.
I've never understood the notion that athletes are putting shots or slalom skiing for anyone's glory but their own. Or the notion that Olympic victories somehow reflect national superiority. The execrable Soviet Union won bushels of medals while many perfectly pleasant industrialized democracies focus their attention on liberty, justice and prosperity rather than on sporting domination. Victories by Chinese athletes do nothing to mitigate the abysmal human rights record of the despicable Chinese government.
In the 2008 Olympics, the most compelling narrative has been Michael Phelps' assault on eight gold medals. With seven in the bank as of this writing, the story is about to reach its zenith and fulfill NBC's wildest dreams. As is often the case, the narrative is obscuring some of the facts.
On the surface, the genial and talented Phelps has accomplished an amazing feat and deserves all the accolades. It takes nothing away from him to note that he's been extraordinarily lucky in two of his races. But since that muddies the narrative, you've probably joined NBC's conspiracy to ignore some inconvenient facts.
First, Phelps owes one of his medals to Jason Lezak. Phelps did very little to earn the 4x100 freestyle relay gold. He wasn't noticeably faster than his French competitor. France was stronger in the two other legs. Lezak, however, swam a 46-second anchor leg, a full second faster than Alain Bernard's 100m world record time the next day. That's Lezak's gold and no one else's.
More significantly, Phelps gets credit for touching out Milorad Cavic by .01 seconds at the wall in the 100 butterfly. But Phelps didn't win anything: Cavic spit the bit. As any third-rate swimmer in a summer league (my pedigree at age 14) could tell you, when you don't have any room to stroke at the wall, kick like hell. Had Cavic simply complied with that Competitive Swimming 101 rule, he would have won by a visible margin. But if NBC acknowledges that Cavic choked, they let air out of the Michael Phelps float.
Reality is merely an illusion, said Einstein, albeit, a very persistent one. NBC has proven more persistent.
I've never understood the notion that athletes are putting shots or slalom skiing for anyone's glory but their own. Or the notion that Olympic victories somehow reflect national superiority. The execrable Soviet Union won bushels of medals while many perfectly pleasant industrialized democracies focus their attention on liberty, justice and prosperity rather than on sporting domination. Victories by Chinese athletes do nothing to mitigate the abysmal human rights record of the despicable Chinese government.
In the 2008 Olympics, the most compelling narrative has been Michael Phelps' assault on eight gold medals. With seven in the bank as of this writing, the story is about to reach its zenith and fulfill NBC's wildest dreams. As is often the case, the narrative is obscuring some of the facts.
On the surface, the genial and talented Phelps has accomplished an amazing feat and deserves all the accolades. It takes nothing away from him to note that he's been extraordinarily lucky in two of his races. But since that muddies the narrative, you've probably joined NBC's conspiracy to ignore some inconvenient facts.
First, Phelps owes one of his medals to Jason Lezak. Phelps did very little to earn the 4x100 freestyle relay gold. He wasn't noticeably faster than his French competitor. France was stronger in the two other legs. Lezak, however, swam a 46-second anchor leg, a full second faster than Alain Bernard's 100m world record time the next day. That's Lezak's gold and no one else's.
More significantly, Phelps gets credit for touching out Milorad Cavic by .01 seconds at the wall in the 100 butterfly. But Phelps didn't win anything: Cavic spit the bit. As any third-rate swimmer in a summer league (my pedigree at age 14) could tell you, when you don't have any room to stroke at the wall, kick like hell. Had Cavic simply complied with that Competitive Swimming 101 rule, he would have won by a visible margin. But if NBC acknowledges that Cavic choked, they let air out of the Michael Phelps float.
Reality is merely an illusion, said Einstein, albeit, a very persistent one. NBC has proven more persistent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)