Between the Lines
- Last build:
- Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:32:57 +0000
- Language:
- Feed URL:
- http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/TWCp
RSS FEED IDEMS: Between the Lines
- Presenting the New "Pitcher of the Year" Awards
These are the awards that Philadelphia Daily News columnist Bill Conlin would like to see. Bill has appeared here multiple times, usually for cockamamie ideas just like this one. I know what you're all thinking: we already have the Cy Young award for pitchers. Well, Bill wants an award that includes relievers too! Wait, what are you thinking now? You say we already have the Rolaids Relief Man award? Bill scoffs at that award, so much so that he wants to make an entirely new category just because the one we have isn't good enough.
When I'm King of the World...
A Pitcher of the Year Award will be added to the Cy Young Award in each league. The Cy has long been the property of starting pitchers. When a relief pitcher is honored by the BBWAA, it is usually with MVP - Jim Konstanty in 1950 and Willie Hernandez in 1984 were two. But as starters play an increasingly diminished role, the closers and setup men need something a little more substantial than an award backed by an antacid. Maybe one of the athletic-supporter outfitters could sponsor "Hold Pitcher of the Year" awards . . .
Let me address the claim that "when a relief pitcher is honored by the BBWAA, it is usually with MVP." Jim Konstanty did win the MVP as a reliever in 1950, but at the time, there was no Cy Young award. Willie Hernandez did win MVP as a reliever in '84, but he also won the Cy. In fact, since the conception of the Cy Young award in 1956, every reliever who has won MVP has also won the Cy Young. If the "Pitcher of the Year" award were to go to either starters or relievers, how would it be any different than today's Cy Young?
Conlin's other contention is that relievers play such a key role in baseball today that the Rolaids Relief Man award is not enough. What Conlin hasn't taken into account is that relievers are demonstrably less valuable than starters because they pitch so few innings. That's why starters have a more important and more valued award.
P.S. I said that relievers are "demonstrably" less valuable, and I do intend to demonstrate it. Hopefully in the near future I will be contributing a post on whether relievers truly belong in the Hall of Fame, a topic that has been on my mind lately. Stay tuned.
Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:44:00 +0000 - Please, Please, Don't Give This Man a Vote
Bernie Lincicome has penned/typed an extraordinarily bad defense of Troy Tulowitzki's candidacy for the NL Rookie of the Year Award. In addition to being a truly disastrous piece of prose, it's also completely illogical, not to mention mildly offensive. The best way I can illustrate this is simply to allow you to read it, so, without further ado...
Oh, come on. Who's having a better rookie year than Troy Tulowitzki?
Ryan Braun.
The name that keeps coming up is Ryan Braun of Milwaukee, but anything baseball that happens in Milwaukee must be taken with the same faith as anything baseball that happens in Denver, so who knows?
Congratulations are in order for anticipating my response. It's almost like you know that Braun is better, but you're just going to forge ahead anyway. You're a Denver columnist, after all! It's not your job to promote people from Milwaukee! Also, I have no idea what the latter part of that sentence means.
It is not that Braun is necessarily better than Tulowitzki, though he may be, it is true that he does have a better back story.
Again, absolutely terrible writing, there, Bernie. And I don't agree with the sentiment, either. If Braun wins the ROY award, it won't be because of his "back story." It'll be because of his 156 OPS+. Well, knowing the BBWAA, it'll really be because of his HR, Runs, and RBI, and maybe because his team made the playoffs, but, you know.
That may be where the Brewers third baseman has it over the Rockies shortstop, and that just might make the difference on which one is the National League Rookie of the Year.To be the Hammerin' Hebrew or the Hebrew Hammer, one of those, as Braun is, and to have the same original surname as Sandy Koufax, to have the same nickname as a Hollywood movie, to be hitting home runs at a rookie ratio unseen since Mark McGwire, to be considered the new Albert Pujols, well to overcome that Tulowitzki would have to be the best all-around, full-tooled shortstop to come to the big leagues since Cal Ripken Jr., which he could very well be.
So now you're saying that if Braun wins, it'll be because he's Jewish? That's just offensive, really. He hasn't yet qualified for the batting title, but he has been the best offensive player in the NL since his call-up, which is pretty extraordinary. What does his religion or surname have to do with it? I didn't even know he was Jewish.To be any kind of Hammer in Milwaukee, the beginning and ending place for Henry Aaron, is a hook to hang a vote or two on.
Tulowitzki might lose out because his name is not unusual enough.
Braun, Tulowitzki; Tulowitzki, Braun. Nope, Tulowitzki is definitely more unusual. Also, maybe he'll lose out not because of his religion or his surname, but because of his performance on the field? Just throwing that possibility out there.It will most certainly come down to one of these two, a nice little prize if not one of any lasting significance.
Anyone who can name last year's rookies of the year knows his Justin Verlander from his Hanley Ramirez.
What? Anyone who can name Justin Verlander and Hanley Ramirez...knows Justin Verlander and Hanley Ramirez? Some of these sentences are eluding me entirely, and I don't think the blame lies with me.
And, come to think of it, whatever happened to Jason Jennings, the only Rockies rookie of the year?
He had a few more mediocre (or worse) years with Colorado, before being traded to Houston for Willy Taveras, Jason Hirsh, and Taylor Buchholz. His lack of success wasn't exactly shocking, since his ROY award probably had more to do with his 16 wins than anything else; his other statistics weren't particularly impressive. He underwent surgery to repair a torn right flexor tendon in his right elbow on August 31st. I looked all that up in a matter of seconds. So, now you know.
Still, and maybe because something tangible should come to out of this surprising season for the Rockies, not that it is over after a tidy dismissal of San Diego on Sunday, giving the Rockies the vital series, a little notice does seem deserved.
Another expertly-crafted sentence.
To anyone who has followed the dogged season of the Rockies and seen Tulowitzki field flawlessly and hit timely, only an unnatural and unsupportable bias could be the reason to consider any other rookie.
Uh, no. Tulowitzki has posted an .829 OPS; Braun is sitting pretty at 1.010. Tulowitzki has contributed far more on defense, but not enough to overcome that offensive disparity. Plus, Coors Field is the best offensive park in the majors, and Miller park is 19th; it actually depresses run scoring. This makes Braun's performance at the plate even more impressive.
So, when the issue seems settled in many other places in favor of Braun, well, a little research is obligatory. Who is Braun and what has he done that makes him a better choice than Tulowitzki?
Oh, dear; Big bad Bernie Lincicome is about to dip his feet into the pool of baseball statistics. Be afraid.
Let's start with the numbers. Impressive power. Good average. Poor fielder. If Braun's numbers are prorated over a season (since he did not come up to the Brewers until late May), he could be considered the most productive first year slugger ever, could beat McGwire's rookie homer record of 49.
Sounds like a ROY to me. Maybe even an MVP, if he had played a full season.
But on actual comparison with Tulo-witzki, going into Sunday's games, judging the whole season and not some fanciful projection of it, Tulowitzki has more RBI, more runs scored, more hits, a respectable total of home runs and a range and arm at shortstop that anchors the best fielding team in the league.
Wow. I knew this attempt at statistical analysis wouldn't be pretty, but I didn't expect butchery of this magnitude. First of all, Lincicome starts off with RBI, runs, and hits, which really tell us almost nothing about Tulowitzki's actual production. But not only does he fail utterly in selecting meaningful statistics, he also meets with no success in applying the ones he chose. Lincicome chooses to equate Tulowitzki's "whole season" with Braun's fraction of a season, despite the fact that he's comparing cumulative statistics! I mean, I understand that projections aren't the same as actual production, but comparing counting stat totals over vastly disparate sample sizes is ridiculous. FYI, Tulowitzki has only 2 more RBI, 9 more runs, and 29 more hits than Braun--in 143 fewer at-bats. Braun would have to hit .203 over his next 143 AB (which he won't get, this year) to equal Tulowitzki's hit total. It's not exactly a stretch to suggest that he could manage to surpass it, considering that he has managed to hit .325 thus far. I'm really still incredulous about the existence of this entire paragraph.
Oh, and one more thing; that fielding team that Tulowitzki is "anchoring" is not the best in the league. Not even close, in fact. The Rockies are indeed 1st in the NL in fielding percentage, but they're only 7th in Defensive Efficiency, a stat developed by Bill James, which measures the percentage of balls in play which a defense converts into outs. This is a much more accurate way to evaluate a team's defensive performance. The education of Bernie Lincicome continues.
Not to mention, and this seems never to be mentioned, an unassisted triple play.
You're right, this should count so much more than it does. One fluke of a fielding play, which results primarily from luck, the behavior of base runners, and infield positioning, should weigh heavily in Tulowitzki's favor for the ROY award. It should trump almost 200 points of OPS, including 3/2 the number of HR in about 5/7 the time (sorry for the fractions). Bernie, you are seriously insane.
No, in real time, over a whole season, there is very little to choose with what each has done, but the edge must go to Tulowitzki, who is also a year younger than Braun.
Even assuming that there is "very little to choose with what each has done," (Is that English? Barely, I suppose) why "must" the edge go to Tulowitzki? Because you like him better? And what does the fact that he's a year younger have to do with anything? It's a good omen for his career, but they're both rookies. If Braun were pushing 40 right now, you'd still have to give it to him.
But if the judgment comes just because there was a movie - mostly unseen, but still . . . - actually called The Hebrew Hammer, let us offer one called Troy, not to recommend either.
Dude. Bernie. The award is not decided based on religion, surname, or similarity of names/nicknames to various films. No one is supporting Braun because of any of those factors. He's just a better player.
The movies, not the ballplayers. Tulo-witzki is the clear choice there.
No, he is not.
Wed, 12 Sep 2007 04:38:00 +0000 - How Not to Handle a Steroid Press Conference, Part Two
A while ago we documented the exploits of San Diego Chargers linebacker Shawne Merriman as he addressed the media regarding his steroid suspension. There was a lot of double talk, wherein Merriman tried to earn credibility by admitting his guilt before turning around and decrying the drug manufacturer, telling us all that he was not a cheater, and-most hilariously-repeating the line, "It could happen to anyone."
Now we have Rick Ankiel, a week ago the most inspirational story in baseball this year, today a prime suspect in the ongoing steroid investigation. Ankiel allegedly received HGH from a Florida-based pharmacy under the scope of a steroid investigation. You would think that being named in such a report would be bad enough for a player's PR. But if we've learned anything from this whole steroid mess, it's that the players don't sully their reputations by doing steroids nearly as much as they do while addressing the media after they get caught. Below are some of Ankiel's and Cardinals GM Walt Jocketty's statements.
Ankiel: All and any medication that I've received in my career has always been under a doctor's care, a licensed physician.
This of course reveals absolutely nothing. Former WWE wrestler Chris Benoit received steroids from Atlanta-based physician Dr. Phil Astin. It's incredible that Ankiel would say something so subversive, as his intention seemed to be to exonerate himself by that statement alone, as if to say, "I only deal with licensed physicians, and you can't get steroids from them." Stop insulting our intelligence, Rick.
Ankiel, asked whether HGH was one of the prescribed drugs: Well, I'm not going to go into the list of what the doctors have prescribed for me, and you know I've been through a lot emotionally and physically, and it's doctor and patient privileges, and I hope you guys can respect those privileges.
According to this report from ESPN.com, "Initially in a brief session with reporters Friday before the Cardinals' game in Phoenix, Ankiel acknowledged HGH was among the medications he was prescribed following elbow surgery in 2004." So he admitted it to get points for honesty, then denied it to save his reputation. Somewhere, Shawne Merriman is smiling.
The kicker, if you've been following the story, is that baseball did not ban HGH until 2005. So all this double talk is over something that was at the time, in baseball, legal.
Ankiel again, asked if he knew anything about this pharmacy: As far as the pharmacy goes, I don't know anything about the pharmacy, I don't know anyone there, I've never purchased or ordered anything from that pharmacy, and, you know, I don't know anybody at that pharmacy.
Fair enough, but then how did they get your name and date of birth on their list of clients?
I'm not sure. I don't know anything of that pharmacy.
Of course. It was magic. It was a gremlin, creating mischief. Maybe it was just a guy who hates feel-good stories.
Ankiel on why he would pick up his drugs directly from his doctor rather than from a drug store like everyone else: Uh, well, that's just the way that it happened, and um, I really don't have any further statements about this...
People who are telling the truth do not finish sentences with "I really don't have any further statements about this." Jeez, doesn't anybody coach these guys?
Jocketty, after a reporter surmised that HGH would be legal if prescribed to treat an injury: It's patient-doctor privileged information that we don't necessarily get...We're not necessarily privy to that.
This reeks of the company line. I find it very odd that a team would not know what sort of drugs a player was taking. I guess if it's not a team doctor then it's believable, however. But then Jocketty says something even weirder.
Reporter: So it wasn't prescribed by team physicians?
Jocketty: I don't know that.
Swilly: You could just ask Rick. He's standing right next to you.
Reporter: The team physicians don't tell you [what they have prescribed]?
Jocketty: They don't tell us.
It's obviously pure speculation on my part, but I can't believe for a second that the front office doesn't find out what team doctors are giving their players. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me at all.
Ankiel, asked what his injury was: Tommy John, had elbow surgery.
A notable comment because it is the one and only time in this press conference in which Ankiel makes direct eye contact with the reporter over the duration of his response.
Ankiel, one last time: No, I told you before, I'm not going to go into any medication prescribed by my doctors, and you know, that's client and patient privilege.
Even though he already admitted he took HGH. He's a tough nut to crack. You can't get a word out of him.
It's easy to excoriate Ankiel the same way we've strung up every other athlete implicated in a steroid scandal. Watching the video of this press conference, however, it's abundantly clear that the media's relationship with the players is hindering it from shepherding us through these troubled times. What if one of the the reporters had asked, "You already admitted you took HGH, how is it that you are now denying it? Did you misspeak?" Two things would likely happen: a) Ankiel would stammer for a bit before eventually breaking down, and b) no Cardinal would ever say a word to that reporter again. It's a phenomenon that affects all aspects of our news media, from athletics to politics, and it's tough to blame one person or even the institution itself. What is apparent from watching this debacle, at least, is that any athlete at the center of a steroid scandal can simultaneously admit to and deny the allegations, while the media keeps its collective head down, just happy to be hearing any comment at all.
Wed, 12 Sep 2007 01:31:00 +0000 - A Questionable Statement, Indeed
Tigers manager Jim Leyland might think his opinions are above reproach, but BTL begs to differ:
The Mariners showcased a lot of offense Sunday, but what left the biggest impression on both teams was the defense of shortstop Yuniesky Betancourt, who had as impressive a day as you're ever likely to see.Betancourt made three highlight-reel plays, saving runs and earning high praise from teammates and Detroit manager Jim Leyland.
"He's unbelievable," Leyland said. "He's the best defensive shortstop in the league, without question. He's tremendous."
"Without question?" Not exactly. OK, so Leyland is probably just trying to be a good sport by demonstrating his appreciation for an opposing player who helped defeat his team, but making a definitive statement like this indirectly slights other shortstops around the league--at least a few of whom are clearly superior to Betancourt in the field. Let's check the stats.
Betancourt comes in tied for 3rd (with Jason Bartlett) among AL qualifiers at SS in Range Factor, behind Juan Uribe and Jhonny Peralta. He places 8/11 in Zone Rating against the same competition, behind Miguel Tejada, (maybe all that talk about his having lost "a step" was premature?) Bartlett, Orlando Cabrera, Uribe, Tony Pena Jr., Julio Lugo, and Carlos Guillen, who plays short for Leyland (I thought his knees had made him into a "statue?"). The Hardball Times also places him 8th in Zone Rating (theirs is calculated differently). For some reason, BP's FRAA and FRAR aren't available at the moment, so I can't gauge his performance by that metric.
Even if we look at the rudimentary fielding stats Jim Leyland is likely to trust, namely, Errors and Fielding Percentage, Betancourt doesn't come out on top. In fact, he has committed the 2nd-most errors of any AL shortstop, and he ranks 7th in fielding percentage (.964). These stats are a lot less important than the ones I gave you earlier, but again, I doubt Leyland's looking at Zone Rating on THT (although clearly he should be).
Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:56:00 +0000 - Randy Moss Wants to Be a Millionaire
When asked if he thought he made a statement in Sunday's shellacking of the J-E-T-S, Randy Moss said:
"I'll leave that up to you guys. That's what the talk shows and the game shows are for, to tell the people the nonsense you all believe in."
The game shows, Randy? Boy, I can't wait to see Meredith Viera breakdown your performance on today's Who Wants to Be a Millionaire...
Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:30:00 +0000 - Who is the "Truest" Yankee of Them All?Mike Lupica of the NY Daily News feels that Joba Chamberlain's career path should mimic that of the greatest Yankee of the last decade. But Chamberlain's future isn't the only thing he's wrong about. In addition, the man doesn't even realize who the best Yankee of the last decade is:
Joba Chamberlain is going to be a big Yankee starter, I get that.
Going to be such a tremendous Yankee starter that they can't pitch him two days in a row while he's a reliever. I get that.
And good for Brian Cashman to take the long view on a guy pitching short relief.
What I don't get:
Why can't Joba Chamberlain be groomed to be the Mo Rivera of the future?
He could be. And from the looks of it, he'd have considerable success in the closer role. But great closers aren't as valuable as great, or even very good, starters. The most innings Mariano Rivera has ever thrown in a year is 107 2/3, as a setup man in 1996. Since becoming a closer, his highest IP total is 80 2/3, in 2001. Since successful, durable starters routinely throw close to 3 times that number of innings, Rivera's innings would have to be a whole lot better than the successful starter's to signify a more valuable contribution. And they just aren't better enough. Obviously, Chamberlain wouldn't flirt with a 0 ERA in a starting role, (or in a bigger relief sample size, for that matter) but if he could stay healthy and pitch well, he'd probably help the Yankees more in that capacity than he would in the pen.Who has been the single most valuable Yankee over the past decade?
Mo Rivera has.
He has, over those years, been more of a difference maker than Jeter or anybody else.
I hear this pronouncement all the time, (or the alternate assertion that the recent Yankees title-contenders wouldn't have won a single championship without Rivera--also highly suspect) and I never cease to take issue with it. Rivera has certainly been important, but he hasn't been essential, and he hasn't even been the most valuable player on his own teams.
Now that Bernie Williams has become a full-time father/guitarist, there are only 2 players, besides Rivera, who have played for the Yankees throughout the entirety of the last decade: Jeter, and Jorge Posada. Unfortunately, I can't find Win Shares for the '97-'01 seasons, and I just plain can't find WARP-3 for any year of Rivera's career (if any of you has those missing stats, please send them along). But I filled in as many blanks as I could, and here's what I came up with:Win Shares
Mariano Rivera ('02-'07) 9, 18, 16 , 17, 14, 8 ---TOTAL: 82
Derek Jeter ('02-'07) 24, 18, 26, 26, 33, 21---TOTAL: 148
Jorge Posada ('02-'07) 22, 28, 21, 19, 24, 22---TOTAL: 136
Bernie Williams ('02-'06) 30, 13, 16, 11, 8---TOTAL: 78WARP-3
M. Rivera ('01, '04-'06) (WARP-1) 9.0 , 8.0, 8.0, 7.1
D. Jeter ('97-'07) 6.8, 9.4, 11.1, 7.4, 7.2, 6.5, 4.7, 8.2, 11.8, 12.0, 8.9
J. Posada ('97-'07) 1.7, 6.3, 3.7, 10.5, 7.0, 8.4, 10.1, 8.1, 6.3, 8.9, 9.6
B. Williams ('97-'06) 8.2, 9.8, 11.2, 8.6, 8.5, 8.2, 4.1, 4.5, 3.2, 2.9
These numbers aren't really conclusive, since they're so incomplete, (I didn't even bother putting the WARP totals in) but the Win Shares that I did find, at least, strongly suggest that both Jeter and Posada have been more valuable to the Yankees than has Rivera. Granted, Rivera is slightly older than Posada, and significantly older than Jeter, but he didn't really experience significant decline in the years spanned by this sample set. Plus, the totals aren't even close. Even Bernie Williams, who was a shadow of his former self throughout most of that period, and hasn't played in 2007, nearly equals Rivera's '02-'07 production. It's safe to say that the best decade of Bernie's career would easily best that of Rivera's.
A relief pitcher simply cannot be the most valuable player on a team, since he can never rival the impact of a productive everyday position player. And unless he played on a team with a very weak starting rotation, he'd be hard-pressed to finish the season as the most indispensable member of his pitching staff (because starters throw so many more innings). Just look at Johan Santana's Win Shares for '02-'07: 10, 16, 27, 23, 25, 17. That's a total of 118, compared to Rivera's 82. And Santana didn't even become a full-time starter until 2004. Obviously, he has been the best starting pitcher in recent years, so it's not like every starter has cleaned Rivera's clock, Win Shares-wise, but the disparity does give you some idea of how much more valuable a great starter is than a great reliever.
Maybe it seems like Rivera has been the most valuable Yankee because he has been on the mound at the end of so many memorable victories (although the same can be said for quite a few memorable losses which spring to mind). But to call Rivera the MVY of the last decade is to slight his battery mate, as well as the shortstop who gloved so few grounders up the middle during the same period.
Mon, 10 Sep 2007 04:28:00 +0000 - The Context of Clutch-ness
Buster Olney left out some critical information when he wrote about how valuable Alex Rodriguez has been for the Yankees in 2007:
Incidentally, it would be interesting to know the average percentage of game-tying or lead-changing homers in MLB. If you, dear reader, know, or care to find out, please pass that information along. It could be that A-Rod’s accumulated “important” homers do little to gild his MVP credentials; after all, if you hit that many, you’re bound to actually influence the outcome of games now and then (despite the claims of ignorant A-Rod detractors of yore). Of course, he almost certainly deserves to be named MVP just for accumulating 48 homers, OPS-ing 1.069, and playing above-average defense (and might I add, it’s only September 7th).
Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:58:00 +0000 - When Winning When it Counts, Doesn't Count
BTL veteran Murray Chass has a baffling opinion on which New York team deserves to make the playoffs:
This team, Team A, deserves to make the playoffs. It loses all four games of a four-game series to the team closest to it in its division, then when it could be on the brink of collapse, improbably sweeps three games in its next series, playing its thorniest rival in that team’s home park, where only bad things seem to happen.
This team, Team B, doesn’t deserve to make the playoffs. It sweeps three games from its fiercest rival, the team it needs to catch to win the division title, then loses two of three to the team with the worst record in the major leagues, scoring only three runs in the two losses against the worst pitching staff in the majors.
This makes very little sense. Why does the team that displays an inability to defeat the team it needs to defeat in order to advance, deserve to advance? OK, so they managed to win the next series, but still, they were swept in a 4-game series against the 2nd-place Phillies (Let's dispense with the mystery, shall we? Spoilers: Team A is the Mets, Team B is the Yankees). Then we have the "un-deserving" team, which swept the only team it trails in its division, but happened to lose 2 out of the next 3 games to a bad team. If I were forced to decide which of these teams deserved to make the playoffs, based only on their performance in these two consecutive series, I'd have to pick the one that managed to actually win at least one of the more important games: the Yankees (Team B, for those who are still playing along).
Of course, I wouldn't normally decide which teams "deserve" to make the playoffs based on a 6- or 7-game sample size, because that's not something anyone in his right mind would do. Whichever team finishes with a good enough win-loss record to qualify for postseason play deserves to make it. That's really the only essential criterion.
As if that were not weak enough, Team B then loses meekly to the team closest to it in the race for the wild card, a team that had lost its previous nine games, and gives up half of its wild-card lead.
No way! They lost another game? And they expect to make the playoffs with a 4-3 record in 7 isolated, chosen-more-or-less-at-random, games? Think again, Team B!
With the benefit of posting this two days after Chass wrote the article, I can confidently report that the Yankees won the final 2 games of the series against the Mariners. However, I'm really not qualified to judge how this affects their Chass-ian playoff merit. Is winning games good or bad? I don't even know anymore. I do know that their wild card lead is up to three games, but who pays attention to little things like that?
The Mets continued yesterday to show the character the Yankees only wish they had. While the Mets were winning their fourth straight game after their stunning sweep by the Phillies and rebuilding their National League East lead to five games in Pedro Martinez's triumphant return, the Yankees were scoring a measly run in support of a shaky Roger Clemens and losing to Seattle, 7-1, at Yankee Stadium. Even though they still lead the Mariners by a game for the wild card, the Yankees are doing a poor imitation of an October contender.
I could very easily re-write this paragraph, changing the meaning entirely, only to have it make at least as much sense at the end. Here goes:
"The Mets continued yesterday to demonstrate an appalling dearth of the championship pedigree possessed by their crosstown rivals. The Mets, winners of their last four, have amply demonstrated their ability to win-- as long as they don't have to do it against their closest rivals. While the Yankees were taking care of business in the Bronx against their arch-rivals from Boston, the Mets, playing with an utter absence of fire and a conspicuous lack of fundamentals, dropped all four they played against the hard-charging Phillies. That they've managed to win a few games since is some consolation to Mets fans, but an overall 6-9 record against the Phils, coupled with a 7-8 mark against the 3rd-place Braves, (even factoring in their recent victories) doesn't inspire confidence. Could it be that this Mets team simply lacks the killer instinct displayed by their New York counterparts in the Junior Circuit, who hold a winning record against their nemeses? In my professional opinion as a bad sportswriter, based on a tiny sample size, probably."
See, that doesn't make any sense, either. But it doesn't make any less sense than the nonsense which will be occupying a portion of the world's collective bandwidth, indefinitely, in the Chass online archives. I mean, really. The Yankees don't look like an October contender because they lose 2 out of 3 games after sweeping the Red Sox, but the Mets do, solely because they managed to win some games after losing 4 in a row to their closest 2007 rivals? I'm not following, at all.
Wed, 05 Sep 2007 16:51:00 +0000 - Joe Maddon: Tactical Genius
I'm well aware, dear readers, that some of you may be quick to belittle the impact a manager has on his team's performance. I've been guilty of harboring these doubts myself. But my crisis of faith came to an end once I read about Devil Rays manager Joe Maddon's brilliant strategic maneuvering during Saturday's Yanks-Rays game:
Rays manager Joe Maddon made it clear that he didn't believe there was anything illegal about Alex Rodriguez's bat, but he still requested it be confiscated Saturday afternoon an inning after Yankees manager Joe Torre did the same to Rays 3B Akinori Iwamura.
Confiscation without suspicion? A highly unorthodox move. Only a true master of the "game within the game" could attain such heights of...gamesmanship.Rodriguez's bat didn't have a flat barrel end like Iwamura's (Torre reasoned he had never seen that before), but the majors' home run leader had just hit his 45th of the season in the first.
"It was just retaliation," Maddon said after the Rays' 9-6 loss. "There's nothing wrong with Alex Rodriguez. He's a great player. It was tit-for-tat entirely."
...Oh. You asked the umpires to confiscate the bat for absolutely no reason. Maybe I initially overrated your managerial brilliance. Torre had a legitimate reason for questioning Iwamura's choice of lumber; it had an unusual shape. Your reason for demanding that A-Rod's be checked, on the other hand, was simple retaliation, born of some primitive desire to "have your player's back." How your team failed to garner victory after such a stirring, old-school display of loyalty is beyond me.Umpire crew chief Dana DeMuth said Maddon argued there was "something inside the bat altering the distance of the ball."
"I said it's an illegal bat," Maddon said. "I said I can't see inside it but there might be something inside that bat. I don't have X-Ray vision. He had 45 home runs and it's Sept. 1. That was my argument."
Alex Rodriguez homered? OK, that is pretty suspicious. Not like he does that all the time or anything. And he has only surpassed 45 homers in four previous seasons, so there's almost certainly something fishy going on here. Just imagine: if general managers called all the shots from their boxes, opportunities like this would fall by the wayside. Where would we be without managers?
I'm starting to think that the next major innovation in baseball might be doing away with them entirely. Bring on the robo-managers, I say. Of course, such Progress would claim one other innocent victim: the Gatorade bath. Sad, but entirely worth it.
Mon, 03 Sep 2007 06:42:00 +0000 - Sticking Up for the Little Guy
Jimmy Rollins won't be eligible for the Hall of Fame for many years, but Philadelphia Daily News columnist Bill Conlin is already clumsily making the case for his induction:Jimmy's already a lot bigger than Pee Wee
Not so fast there, Bill. First of all, "Pee Wee" was actually taller than Jimmy. Reese was 5'9", and Rollins is listed at 5'8". Reese even had 15 pounds on Rollins. And if you're referring to their production, well, just wait and see.They used to be baseball's welterweight division. Legs and leather were their skill set. Lumber was a plus.
I assume you're referring to shortstops. Well, lumber was a plus, but some exceptions to the norm still, you know, swung a good deal of it.
With extremely rare exceptions, they could bat only leadoff, No. 2 or No. 8. The 2-hole guy usually lacked the foot speed to lead off and often was a second baseman. But he was an expert at taking pitches so the leadoff man could steal second. He also could hit behind a runner or bunt him over. The 8-hole guy was generally the worst hitter in the starting lineup. Good teams liked to put a bad-ball, contact hitter there who could reach base with two outs and turn the lineup over.
Well, technically, they could bat anywhere in the lineup. They tended to hit in particular spots because of certain preconceived notions of what each occupant of a lineup position "should be," which weren't (and aren't) always based on any meaningful analysis. Also, as I mentioned before, there were exceptions to the good field/no hit formula. Exceptions such as Pee Wee Reese.
Evolution, steroids and nine-digit payrolls have changed that, of course. When Jimmy Rollins hit his 23rd homer Tuesday night to start the Phillies eight-count, climb-off-the-deck in the second game of the big Mets series, I thought about Pee Wee Reese.
Evolution probably hasn't had time to transform the average shortstop from an out machine to an offensive asset in the past several decades. I don't think escalating salaries caused players to perform better, either. The change has more to do with improved nutrition and living conditions in this country. But I digress. Please recount your thoughts.
Reese was considered a fine offensive shortstop. He was the Brooklyn Dodgers' leadoff hitter from before I could remember baseball until I was in high school and shaving.I wondered whether, during his Hall of Fame career, Pee Wee had anything close to the season Rollins is unfurling.
Retrosheet directed me to a mismatch.
In fact, to be fair to Reese, not one single season of his 16-year career comes close to Rollins' in overall numbers. And if Jimmy doesn't have another 2007 at-bat, he will have already surpassed Pee Wee's best offensive years, leaving only a random number in a scattered category for Reese to claim.
That's simply not true. In fact, not only did Reese have seasons which "came close" to some of Rollins', he also had at least one that surpassed any of J-Roll's. Maybe not in terms of certain counting stats, like home runs, but in terms of rate stats and overall offensive production, Reese certainly compares favorably.
Rollins is in the midst of what has easily been his best offensive season to date (and he's almost 29, so his best seasons may not be ahead of him). Yet Reese had a better season. All we really have to look at is OPS+. OPS+ is a stat which compares a given player's OPS in any single year to the league average OPS for the same year. It accounts for park, and we don't have to worry about position, since Reese and Rollins both played shortstop.
Rollins' OPS+ this year is 121, meaning that he's 21% better (offensively) than the average NL player. Reese posted a 122 OPS+ in 1954. He also posted an OPS+ of 120 in 1947. Obviously, he had a 16-year career, while Rollins has played only half that long, but Reese also had 3 other seasons ('46, '49, '53) which were as good or better than Rollins' 2nd-best offensive season to date (2004). So there's my evidence, Bill Conlin. Top that.
I'll take Jimmy's current totals and measure each current number against Pee Wee's career best.
Not necessary, not particularly enlightening, but be my guest.
Batting Average: J-Roll .290. Reese .309 best in 1954 (career .269)
OK. Not very important; the difference between those two marks is pretty much a few bloops over the course of a season. Next?
Runs: J-Roll 114. Reese 132 in '49.
It would be nice if you'd only utilize stats that the player himself had direct control over, but I understand that that's expecting a lot.
Doubles: J-Roll 32. Reese 35 in '54.
I thought you said Reese only won "a random number in a scattered category." He has already won the first three categories you came up with. Not that weighing each player's career bests in each category against each other is very instructive.
Triples: J-Roll 15. Reese 10 in '46.
Yawn.
HR: J-Roll 24. Reese 16 in '49.
Reese can't compete in home runs. Barring serious injury, Rollins will surpass Reese's career home run total next year, after playing seven fewer seasons. However, while home runs are important, they don't always tell the whole story.
Walks: J-Roll 40. Reese 116 in '49 . . . I'll concede that category.
Oh, you'll concede that one, huh? Very generous of you, seeing as how it's not even close.
RBI: J-Roll 74. Reese 84 in '51 (with Robinson, Snider, Campanella, Hodges and Furillo behind him).
Well, since you're talking about RBI, and not runs, it matters more who was hitting in front of him (and he was hitting leadoff, so 84 RBI is a fairly high total) than who was hitting directly behind him. But again, concentrating on numbers that are entirely a product of the hitter, and not largely a product of his lineup, would be just great.
Stolen Bases: J-Roll 27. Reese 30 in '52.
Reese was also caught stealing only five times that year, while Rollins has already been caught 6 times this year. I can't accurately compare their career SB/CS, because CS wasn't recorded during the first half of Reese's career.
On Base Percentage: Oh, never mind . . . Pee Wee's career average was .366. Walking isn't J-Roll's thing.
Never mind OBP, folks. It only measures the most important facet of a hitter's performance. So it's hardly worth mentioning that Reese has a 35-point advantage in career OBP. Let's spend time talking about batting average, runs, and RBI, instead, especially if they happen to support the position of the misguided columnist.
Errors: J-Roll has nine. Reese had 18 as a rookie in '40 and again in '49. (He led the league with 47 in '41 when the Dodgers won their first modern era pennant.)
Yes, Reese made more errors. But maybe, just maybe, he made more errors because he got to more balls, and consequently, had more opportunities to make errors. Indeed, Reese had a career 4.93 Range Factor at SS, compared to Rollins' 4.19. Rollins' 4.19 is .20 above league average for the duration of his career, and Reese's 4.93 is .26 above league average for the duration of his career. And since you insist on the ridiculous practice of comparing each player's best against the other's, we might as well do the same thing for FRAA (adjusted for all-time). Rollins has recorded FRAAs of 13 in 2006 and 2007 (although 2007 isn't over). Reese posted FRAAs of 22, 17, 16, and 16 fairly early in his career, although he worsened significantly later on.
Rollins still has 31 games to add to his totals. Some extrapolations: Runs, 139. Hits, 216. Doubles, 39. Triples, 18. Homers, 28. RBI, 90. Steals, 33. Errors, 11.
Here's another extrapolation for you: OPS+, 121. Pee Wee wins. He's far from the best player in the Hall, but he's no slouch. And while Rollins' career might end up rivaling Reese's, it doesn't yet.
Of course, not content with declaring Rollins the champion over Reese, Conlin goes on to pit 2007 Rollins against 2007 Jose Reyes. Rollins again comes out on top, and this time, deservedly so, but Conlin concludes his argument with an incredibly wrong-headed summation:
Bottom line: Rollins has outscored Reyes by 114-99 in the stat that has defined leadoff men since the time they were nicknamed Pee Wee, Scooter and Rabbit.
Runs shouldn't define any individual player; they should only define the collective offensive output of an entire lineup. You should know that. It's obviously unfair to compare Reyes, who plays for the 6th-best offensive team in the NL, (652 runs scored) with Rollins, who plays for the very best offensive team in the NL (742 runs scored). But at this point, the fault is probably mine, for continuing to expect quality analysis from this article.
Sun, 02 Sep 2007 07:11:00 +0000 - He is the Very Model of a Modern Major Leaguer
Indians manager Eric Wedge, and Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Bill Livingston, have gone to tremendous lengths to notify us of Asdrubal Cabrera's chosen profession:
Eric Wedge doesn't have the crow's-feet eyes a man gets from seasons of squinting into the sun, looking at prospects.
He is not going to fracture the language, the way Sparky Anderson would. Still, the Indians' manager is part of the fraternity of baseball men.
Since when has being a major league manager, without possessing crow's feet and spouting malapropisms, been grounds for entry into the "baseball men" fraternity? The game is changing too fast.
Wedge has never forgotten how hard the game is. Maybe that's why he doesn't criticize players publicly, no matter how egregious the mistake. He has a deep sense of the integrity of the game. It is why his team plays hard almost every game.
Maybe. Maybe they play hard because they want to make more money, or because they enjoy success. Who knows.
So when Wedge says of someone, "He's a baseball player," it is not a compliment he passes around like the sunflower seeds.
Technically, it's not even a compliment.
He called 21-year-old Asdrubal Cabrera a baseball player Wednesday night.
OMG. No way. Being called a "baseball player" ranks right up there with "Being Called Up" and "Getting First Major League Hit" in the highlight reel of any rookie. Asdrubal's phone must have been ringing off the hook until Thursday morning. I hope he saved a recording of the moment for playback in his trophy room.
It means a player with good instincts, a player who can help his team win in a lot of ways. It's probably as big a compliment as the manager has in his vocabulary.
Bigger than "good baseball player?" Or "great baseball player?" I won't suggest any more, since "baseball men" don't typically have extensive vocabularies.
The dominant 1990s Indians had a great athlete (Kenny Lofton), professional hitters (Manny Ramirez and Eddie Murray), and a sullen guy with a major-league anger-management problem (Albert Belle). Baseball players who made the right play routinely were in somewhat shorter supply.
One of those guys is in the Hall of Fame, another one is on his way there, and the other two will get some votes, at the very least. I'm sure at least one of them must have made the right play most of the time. And would it even matter if none of them made the right play routinely, if those teams managed to dominate (if you can "dominate" without winning even one title) despite their failings?
Oh, and "professional hitter" resembles an actual compliment only slightly more than does "baseball player." I have to say that I'm impressed with the sheer number of cliches Livingston has included in this article already.
Wedge said: "I like having Cabrera up in key situations."
Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is a compliment. However, since most of those key situations probably arise with runners in scoring position, and considering that Cabrera has OPS-ed .707 in that situation this year, it may not exactly be deserved.
Cabrera, a Venezuelan like Vizquel, wears Omar's number, 13. No one will replace Omar's magic. But a baseball player might someday replace him in the lineup.
Many baseball players already have. And Cabrera, though certainly a promising young member of the fraternity himself, hasn't quite reached the upper echelons of player-hood (although he has, in a small sample size of 18 games, surpassed Vizquel's offensive output in all but 2 of his 19 seasons). So far, Cabrera has contributed exactly 1 FRAA in his 17 games at 2B, and he has also posted a .286/.313/.444 line, which is good for a 100 OPS+. In other words, at this point in time, he's an average baseball player. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sun, 02 Sep 2007 06:20:00 +0000 - There's Something Happenin' Here, What it is Ain't Exactly Clear
Buffalo Springfield might as well have written those words about the 2007 Minnesota Twins, at least if you ask their starting center fielder, or Phil Miller of the St. Paul Pioneer Press:
Torii Hunter looked around the Twins' cemetery-quiet clubhouse after Wednesday's 4-3 loss to the Indians and shook his head. "It's different. It's different than in the past, I think," the Twins' most senior player concluded. "We've got more talent, but there's something different."
Gee, I don't know, Torii...if you asked me why I thought a team that finished 96-66 (93-69 Expected) last year was only 69-67 on September 2nd of the following year, I'd probably agree that there was "something different," but I'd conclude that the difference was almost certainly the presence of less talented players (or less production from the same players). The team is clearly much worse than it has been in previous seasons, and the obvious culprit is a relative lack of talent. Yet instead of reaching this logical conclusion, you insist that there's actually more talent, and lament your inability to put your finger on the problem.
Here's one thing: Those previous Twins teams, four of the past five anyway, were playoff-bound. This one stubbornly clings to its erratic, win-three-lose-three identity as though there are degree-of-difficulty bonuses at stake. And that's why the playoffs are disappearing over the distant horizon of the American League Central standings.
Phil Miller, you're as bad as Torii. The fact that this team isn't playoff-bound is certainly a difference between this team and its prior incarnations, but it doesn't tell us anything about why it isn't playoff bound. And the reason is not because the 2007 Twins stubbornly refuse to be good; it's because they aren't capable of performing at the level at which they've performed in the past.
Sun, 02 Sep 2007 05:34:00 +0000 - A Very Broad "Category"
Cardinals manager Tony La Russa wouldn't exhibit nearly the same aptitude for triage as he does for unorthodox lineup formation, excessive bullpen usage, and awe-inspiring ego:
St. Louis Cardinals outfielder Juan Encarnacion will miss the remainder of the season and his career is in jeopardy after sustaining multiple fractures of his left eye socket when struck by a foul ball Friday night.
"This is a serious hit, career-threatening," manager Tony La Russa said Saturday. "The other ones are not to be diminished, like Carpenter's arm, but they're not in the same category. It's like Josh."
So a run-off-the mill season-ending arm injury isn't so bad, but sustaining an eye socket fracture is like...dying in a car crash. Right. Because those two incidents threaten one's career to approximately the same degree.
Sun, 02 Sep 2007 05:04:00 +0000 - Expletives Removed
White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen has apparently decided to turn over an old leaf:
Gather the children, tell them to press their hands to the sides of their heads and ''make earmuffs,'' because Ozzie ''Bleeping'' Guillen is back, and he doesn't care whom he offends.That was the emphatic message from the White Sox manager on Friday, when he even apologized for his attempt at playing the nice guy the last three months.
''I really regret the way I was for three months,'' Guillen said, hours before the latest meltdown by the Sox bullpen in an 8-5 loss to the Cleveland Indians. ''Spring training, I said, 'Ah, let me change a little bit.' Spring training I tell my family, 'I'm going to be nice.'
''[Expletive] it, I'm the crazy [expletive], but I have to win.''
All those who were aware that Ozzie wasn't acting like a "crazy [expletive]" for the past three months, raise your hands. Anyone? Anyone at all?
Sun, 02 Sep 2007 04:56:00 +0000 - Our Bad
It has just come to light that we, and others like us, deserve the blame for Juan Pierre's dismal performance this season. It's not yet clear whether or not we're responsible for his woeful 2005 and 2006 campaigns, but it's a distinct possibility. And all this time you probably thought that Juan himself had something to do with it! We would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for Tony Jackson of the LA Daily News, who deserves major kudos for bringing the real culprits to justice.
He has hit .300 or better over a full season three times, and he has an outside shot at making it four. He has finished either first or second in the National League in stolen bases in each of the past six seasons and is a lock to make it seven.
Pierre also stole 18 in a row at one point and has been caught just 11 times. He also has 17 doubles and seven triples, and he still doesn't strike out much, just 33 times in 596 plate appearances for an average of once every 18.1 times he steps into the batter's box.
He hasn't hit .300 since 2004, which, not-so-coincidentally, happens to have been his last year as a good player. Since then, he has failed to crack that .300 plateau each year, but far, far more importantly, he also hasn't come within 67 points of posting a league-average OPS. This year, he's sputtering along at .665, way below the average offensive output of an NL batter (.779). I'm arbitrarily designating .650 as the "Mendoza Line" of OPS, and Pierre is hovering only slightly above it. The man really does not deserve a roster spot, let alone a lavish salary, and no amount of stolen bases will change that. His aversion to the strikeout also doesn't count for a whole lot, since he exhibits such a striking fondness for every other manner of out. And since when has having hit 17 doubles as September begins been something to brag about? No, wait, let me answer that myself: since Juan Pierre had 0 homers as September begins.And yet, all anyone (but especially talk radio callers, blog posters and sabermetricians) seems to want to talk about is the pop gun he has for a throwing arm and the on-base percentage that is well below what is generally considered acceptable for a top-of-the-lineup hitter. Oh, and the other thing they all want to point to is his contract, a five-year, $44-million deal with an average annual value that far exceeds anything Pierre has received over the entire life of any of his previous professional contracts.
And, to hear those on the blogosphere tell it, the $44 million far exceeds what he is worth.
How dare we point out his glaringly obvious weaknesses! If the man is making $44 million, he obviously should be making $44 million!
Oh, and I resent being lumped together with "talk radio callers." Of course, I can't honestly say that I haven't been one myself in the past, but come on. Some of those guys would gladly give Pierre a raise.
While Pierre has been able to tune out most of that and focus on playing the game, those around him are sure it was a major reason why he got off to such a slow start in his first season with the Dodgers.
I accept full responsibility for Pierre's struggles in the first half. Fortunately, ever since he learned to tune out my baseless, malicious, criticism sometime around the All-Star Break, he and his blistering .700 2nd-half OPS have been doing everything in their power to prove me wrong.
"I think when a guy like Juan comes in here under the situation he came in here under, he has a good chance for a lot of love-hate relationships throughout the season, and it can have an effect," said Dodgers manager Grady Little, who himself cited Pierre's lackluster OBP in temporarily dropping him to seventh in the order on Aug. 9. "But all we expected all along was for this guy to be himself, and he has certainly shown us himself a lot of the time.
Has he ever.
"Still, he is (human), and he isn't going to be good every single day."
True...but if Juan were just a little bit better at baseball, he could have a few more good days, even if he insisted on clinging to his pesky little core of humanity. Other players have managed, and continue to manage, to accomplish that feat.Pierre adamantly denies that the pressure of his contract weighed on him early in the season, when he got off to a horrid start and was hitting below .200 as late as April 15. He also denies that he made any changes or adjustments to get out of the slump.
"I just stayed with my work and never wavered off of what I was trying to do," Pierre said. "I never lost confidence, and that was the biggest thing. I always thought I was going to get better. I stuck with my program."
We appreciate the gesture, Juan, but there's really no need to be a hero. We know what we did wrong, and we won't do it again. An innocent man like you taking the rap for something he didn't do is the last thing we want to see happen. Go ahead and snitch.A lot of Pierre's contributions can't be quantified through statistics - another reason why the sabermetric crowd will never fully accept him. Case in point was a game against Colorado on Aug. 19. With Brad Penny nursing a 2-0 lead in the fourth inning and struggling - the Rockies had loaded the bases with nobody out on two walks sandwiched around a double by Todd Helton - Brad Hawpe hit a looping liner into the gap in right-center field.
Pierre turned on the burners and did the best he could to get to the ball, then went airborne at the last moment and gloved it just inches above the grass. The result was that a three-run double was transformed into a simple sacrifice fly, and Penny rebounded to get out of the inning with no further damage.
If only the "sabermetric crowd" would glance at the "Putouts" column from time to time! Then Juan Pierre would get his due! Or maybe it's the "Range Factor" column that the SC is supposed to be studying? If they'd only take a gander at good ol' RF, they'd find that Pierre's 2.30 is well below the league average of 2.73. And maybe in the course of their rigorous research they'd discover that Pierre ranks only 10th out of 17 CF qualifiers in Zone Rating. You know what? I'm selling Tony Jackson short. What he's really lamenting here is the fact that the "Sabermetric Crowd" doesn't take the time to find out that Pierre has posted a decidedly below-average -14 Fielding Runs Above Average this year.
What I'm trying to say here, folks, is that Juan Pierre doesn't field a lot whole better than he hits. And you can quantify that through statistics.
That same day, Pierre beat out a perfectly placed bunt single to extend his hitting streak to seven games, a streak that eventually reached 15.
You'll find this miraculous, not-showing-up-in-the-boxscore occurrence in the "Hits" column. It also makes an appearance in "Singles." You'll even find it in "Infield Hits," if you squint really hard. Not to mention the myriad rate (as opposed to counting) stats it influences.
"I'm still not where I want to be right now," he said. "It's still a process. It's always a work in progress. As soon as you relax and think that things are going good, that's when things will go bad. I'm always learning and trying to get that much better, because if you're not batting 1.000, you can always get better."
And if you're not OPS-ing .700, you have even more room for improvement. An improvement that you'd better make soon, if you hope to remain employed.
Sat, 01 Sep 2007 04:34:00 +0000
