FJM is a closed forum, but we welcome reader feedback. We're especially interested in corrections of our work, and research (usually number-crunching) that we may not be able to do ourselves. Please check the comments section as well, where we often post readers' opinions, and, less frequently, announce that we were wrong about something.
You can e-mail dak,Ken Tremendous,Junior,Matthew Murbles, or Coach individually.
John Kruk, who is a MENSA-level genius, has this to say about Manny Ramirez:
When is this guy going to be held responsible for his actions? I understand that sometimes a star player gets special treatment, but this is supposed to be a team game in which every player is responsible for his team and he doesn't seem to understand or care. He just goes about his business without any fear of reprisal from management or his teammates and that's not right. When I played, there was no way I could have gotten away with this type of behavior, and neither could anyone else on the team.
John Kruk has mounted his horse, and he is going to ride it all the way to Indignationville! Because Manny Ramirez is not being a professional, and John Kruk has some words for him, by gum! This would have never stood in John Kruk's day. For example, John Kruk played on the 1993 Phillies. If Manny Ramirez tried any of this nonsense on the 1993 Phillies, someone would have held his feet to the fire. If Manny tried this B.S. on the 1993 Phillies, Lenny Dykstra would have taken the hypodermic needle out of his ass and marched right over to Manny and said, "Hey! Be a professional!" Dykstra's words might have carried some respect, since -- totally coincidentally -- he was in the midst of a year where he set statistically improbable personal highs in every major offensive category. (He was working really hard in the weight room, I guess.) Also, Dykstra's words may have carried respect because his sheer physical size had exploded so much in so short a time that one of the Phillies announcers took to calling him "Lenny Kruk" when he came to the plate.
But if Dykstra had approached Manny, things might have gotten heated. So heated, that maybe Jeff Scott, the convicted felon who, in a sworn affidavit, said that he "hug out with about half" of the 1993 Phillies, providing them with drugs, would have had to come over and break things up. Maybe Kruk could have pulled Dykstra aside and given him a cigarette, since the two of them used to smoke cigarettes on the bench -- in full view of the fans -- during games. Or maybe they could have just done a line of coke, as dozens of whispered reports suggested they did all the time.
Or maybe Pete Incaviglia, who hit 11 HR in 1991 and 1992, but who hit a mysterious 24 in 1993, would have stepped in and restored some professionalism to the clubhouse. Or Danny Jackson, the pitcher (pitcher!) who was nicknamed "The Incredible Hulk" because of how muscular he was, could have knocked some professionalism into Manny. If not, surely Dutch Daulton, who had 105 RBI in 1993 but never played in more than 98 games in any subsequent season due to a series of injuries (he was only 31 in 1993; maybe the injuries were the result of eating too many Froot Loops?), and who was beloved for what amounted to erratic and bizarre behavior, would have gone up to Manny and said, "Settle down. Act properly."
Or, wait -- I know what would have happened if Manny had acted unprofessionally in John Kruk's era. Lenny Dykstra's best friend, who allegedly helped him bet on baseball games, including those of the self-same 1993 Phillies, could have talked some sense into Manny over the phone, after taking Dykstra's wager on that afternoon's Twins-Brewers game. That would have worked. Maybe Dykstra, the notorious high-stakes gambler, who was linked to a gambling probe in Mississippi in 1991, could have helped matters by telling Manny that he, Dykstra, would bet heavily on Ramirez for the rest of the year in order to give Manny an incentive to play. And Kruk could have backed him up. After all, Kruk probably felt like he owed Dykstra some support, since a few months after Dykstra was linked to gambling on baseball, Dykstra broke his collarbone in a car wreck after John Kruk's bachelor party and missed several months of the season.
So, go get 'em, Krukie! Don't let these modern-day weirdos sully the reputation of your straight-arrow, play-the-right-way 1993 Phillies. You guys were the model for baseball player behavior. Is it possible that all of this is simply conjecture? That everyone on your team, more or less, had statistically improbably great years? That no one on the Phillies was using steroids or gambling on baseball or doing drugs or anything? Absolutely. And I will bet everything I own in the world that some of you were doing some combination of using steroids and drugs and gambling on baseball.
Think I'm being unfair? Think it's wrong to bring all this stuff up when you are accusing Manny of a different crime? Well, you did say, and I quote, "this is supposed to be a team game in which every player is responsible for his team. He just goes about his business without any fear of reprisal from management or his teammates and that's not right." So, way to call out your guys for everything they did back in the day. Let's see how you did that: (from cantstopthebleeding.com)
“Let me tell you, we partied hard on that team."
But what about Jeff Scott?
“I never heard of the guy, never saw anybody like that,” Kruk said.
Does Habeeb’s claim [that Scott "hug out with half the team"] bother Kruk?
“Not at all,” the former first baseman said. “If you listened to everything people said about us, you’d think we were all alcoholics, drug addicts and steroid users. I wish we had that much fun.”
Didn't you just talk about how hard you partied?
“One year [Dykstra] weighed next to nothing and the next he was all bulked up,” Kruk said. “I heard reporters wondering what he was on, so I asked him. I said, ‘What did you do?’ He said, ‘I just worked hard.’ I believed him. I had no reason not to believe him. He’d never lied to me before, and I knew he was big into weight lifting.
“You know, so many guys were getting big at that time from weights. When I first came in the league, I thought Jack Clark and Steve Garvey were big. Then all of sudden it seemed like everyone was that big. To me, Lenny was no different.”
Good work, Krukie. You're a goddamn hero. And for the record, you dunderhead, several of Manny's teammates, including Curt Schilling, David Wells, and Tim Wakefield, publicly or privately called Manny on his behavior. And as for management, well, they tried to get rid of him. So really, when you think about it, what the fuck are you complaining about?
After Randy Johnson struck out Macier Izturis in the second:
Randy gets his first strike out of the game, as he continues to chase the great Nolan Ryan for strikeouts.
Coming into today: Nolan Ryan: 5714 K's. Randy Johnson: 4303 K's. Nolan Ryan has roughly a third again as many K's. And Randy Johnson is almost 42. To say Randy Johnson is "chasing" Nolan Ryan is like saying that I, Ken Tremendous, with zero lifetime no-hitters, am chasing Nolan Ryan's career record of seven no-hitters.
Tim McCarver Uses Small, Wrong Words II; Has Temporal Breakdown I
As Torre comes to get Gordon out of the game:
"You look at that tacky seventh inning, and that kind of opened the gates for the Angels here in the eighth."
To be fair, the Angels were being incredibly tacky in the seventh, flaunting their new jewelry and donning various garishly-colored hats. And to be fair again, the seventh and eighth innings of today's game, somewhat untraditionally, were played concurrently.
After an inning in which the Angels scored four runs thanks to an error, a balk, and some hits.
"For a team to have exhibited the proficiency that the Yankees have over the last ten years, this is one of those collapsable innings that is indicative of the team this year."
If I were checking this sentence for grammar and syntax, it would read thus:
"For a team to have exhibited the proficiency that the Yankees have over the last ten years (sic), this (sic) is one of those collapsable (sic) innings that is indicative of the team (sic) this year (sic)."
Bill (Memphis): Now I know why the A's fans don't like you...thanks! (just having fun with ya, Joe)
Joe Morgan: (5:07 PM ET ) But I agree! I think a lot of people have a problem with me having an opionion but I"m entitled to that! Just because I don't agree with it, don't be mad at me! I'm not mad at them! But I still have this problem in saying that the A's don't have money .. the Angels and Twins had a low payroll when they have been successful .. it's not just about the money. Just the way the A's are set up, they will be successful in the regular season and not as successful in the postseason. The Braves won 13 division titles and one championship .. something is wrong with that. But would you rather be the Marlins (not consistent with a ring), A's (no ring) or Braves (one ring)?
>> Remember that John Schuerholz quote I told you to remember from last post? Here it is again, just to remind you:
I think it would be more interesting to read a book from John Scheurholz because of how much they have won.
>> And here is a sentence from this Joe Morgan answer:
The Braves won 13 division titles and one championship .. something is wrong with that.
>> But you'll still read Schuerholz' book, right?
Joe Morgan: (5:07 PM ET ) If the A's win a championship using the Moneyball philosphy, I'll agree with them. But over the test of time, that philosophy has not won a championship.
>> Go A's.
Joe Morgan: (5:10 PM ET ) Thank you for understanding that! It's not personal. I was brought up a certain way in this game and that philosophy has always worked. Until I see a philosphy that works better, I'll stick to mine!
>> You don't have a coherent philosophy.
To all those Moneyball people out there, when I retire from broadcasting, I promise I will read a page or two. Not sure I will get much farther than that! ; )
>> I think you have a brain disorder. Please see a doctor.
Bryan (MD): Hey Joe..just wanted to let you know, I did a survey among baseball front offices to talk to GM's and asked a simple question. So far I've gotten 12 responses, and I did not even ask the A's, Red Sox, Blue Jays, and Dodgers. The question was if they had read Moneyball, by Michael Lewis, and they all had. Don't you want to read this book, even if you disagree with some of it, to see how the A's have been so successful?
Joe Morgan: (5:00 PM ET ) Well, first of all, I don't read a lot of baseball books. I have no desire to read it. I guess to be blunt, I don't really care how teams build their teams. I broadcast games. I think it would be more interesting to read a book from John Scheurholz because of how much they have won. Moneyball is trying to reinvent the wheel. Make no mistake, Billy Beane has done a great job in Oakland, and I've said that, but I disagree when they say stolen bases, defense, manufacturing runs, is not important. I broadcast some of their playoff games and they always waited for the home run that never came. You can get away with that during the season, but when you get to the playoffs you are playing teams as good as you with good pitching. If Moneyball can cure that, then it works. But it hasn't been able to cure that. I'll try to make sure you understand .. during the regular season, you play mediocre teams so you can build up your stats. But you aren't given anything in the playoffs. You won't get 3 walks and then a base hit to drive in runs. You have to manufacture runs.
Joe Morgan: (5:01 PM ET ) I just don't understand why everyone wants me to read it! I think he has sold enough books already! So, what was the result of the survey? They all read it but what did they think? How many championships have those 12 GMs won?
>> Oh. My. God.
Let's take this one sentence at a time.
I guess to be blunt, I don't really care how teams build their teams.
>> You don't??? That's what 99% of the questions in this chat are about! You. Don't. Care. How. Baseball. Teams. Are. Built. Think about that, Joe Leonard Morgan. Think about what you just wrote.
Do you really mean that?
I think it would be more interesting to read a book from John Scheurholz because of how much they have won.
>> Please keep this sentence in mind. I'll get to it later.
Moneyball is trying to reinvent the wheel.
>> No. GM's who try to use their money as efficiently as possible are not reinventing anything. They are doing what they can to make their teams better. That's it. They're trying to allocate resources in such a way that the team on the field has the best chance of winning the most games. They're trying to avoid paying Derek Jeter $19 million a year. They're trying to avoid paying Cristian Guzman $4.2 million a year. Contracts like these hurt your team's chances of winning because every team -- every team -- has a limited amount of money.
Make no mistake, Billy Beane has done a great job in Oakland, and I've said that, but I disagree when they say stolen bases, defense, manufacturing runs, is not important.
>> I love that Joe thinks Billy Beane has done a great job. What philosophy do you think he's using to do that great job?
No one's saying that steals, defense, and manufacturing runs are not important. What people are trying to do is assess their relative importance. In fact, there's a lot of speculation that post-Moneyball, Beane has shifted his focus to defense -- hence the signing of Mark Kotsay, a dude who can barely hit.
I'll try to make sure you understand .. during the regular season, you play mediocre teams so you can build up your stats.
>> What? All teams perform better against mediocre teams. All hitters perform better against mediocre pitchers. What's your point?
But you aren't given anything in the playoffs. You won't get 3 walks and then a base hit to drive in runs. You have to manufacture runs.
>> Why not? Why won't you get three walks? Matt Clement will probably pitch in the playoffs this year. He walks a ton of guys.
And this will kill you, Joe. It'll really kill you. What's your favorite play from last year's ALCS? Oh, right, the Dave Roberts steal from Game 4. Of course. Well, how did little Davey Roberts get on base? Hint: he didn't. He was pinch-running for Kevin Millar. And how did Millar reach? On a walk. Issued by Mariano Rivera.
I just don't understand why everyone wants me to read it!
>> Because you go out of your way to criticize it and you pretend to be conversant with its ideas when you clearly are not. People listen to you whether I want them to or not. You are a baseball icon. This book is perhaps the most signifcant piece of baseball writing of the past decade. You should read it.
How many championships have those 12 GMs won?
>> The Red Sox adhere to many Moneyball principles and they won their first World Series in 86 years last year.
Jim (Tampa): Hey Joe, I'm a big D-Rays fan (one of the few) and I need to know what the Rays can do this trading deadline and in the offseason to give themselves a chance within the next 10 years.
Joe Morgan: (4:54 PM ET ) First of all, congrats on being a Devil Rays fan. It's easy to be a fan of a winning team, but a true baseball fan picks a team and sticks with them. So congratulations. A lot of the problems stem from the ballpark. It's hard to get good pitching in that park. It's hard to build a team there. I guess the easiest thing would be to blow up the park and start over. But they have to be committed to going about things one way. Remember, they went out before and got Canseco and all those other HR hitters and it didn't work.
>> The ballpark? Seriously? The ballpark?! What the hell are you talking about?
Here is ESPN's Park Factor chart. I copied and pasted the whole thing just to emphasize how crazy it is to say the problem with the Devil Rays is their ballpark. Noitce anything? (Hint: Tropicana Field is actually a pitcher's park this year.)
Matthew (Los Angeles): Assuming a team (such as the Angels) was willing to take on ALL of Manny Ramirez's contract, what do you think it would take in terms of players to get him?
Joe Morgan: (4:48 PM ET ) I don't think anybody can make a one-on-one trade. Only Vlad but the Angels wouldn't do that. You would have to give up pitching because that is what Boston needs. It would take probably a starter, reliever and an everyday player. Whether you like Manny or not, just look at his production. That's why I'm saying even with the problems he has now, there are probably 25 teams who would gladly take him. Anybody who wants to win.
Joe Morgan: (4:48 PM ET ) In Manny's defense, last year they tried to trade him. They did a lot of things to him last year. They tried to trade him for ARod, they put him on waivers, etc. But he still played hard at all times. I'm not sure what caused the latest problem or why he was upset, but it hasn't been an easy relationship for him either.
>> Okay. Jesus. I mean, really. Jesus.
First of all, Joe Morgan clearly knows the Sox put Manny on waivers last year. How can he keep claiming that "there are probably 25 teams who would gladly take him" without mentioning that probably 24 of those teams would need drastic, drastic salary help from the Red Sox in order to even consider a trade for Manny?
To me, that's the number one issue when the words "trade" and "Manny Ramirez" appear in the same sentence. How much of his salary are the Red Sox willing to kick in? Because clearly no one else in baseball is willing to pay Manny's salary even when they don't have to give anything up in return.
As if that weren't enough proof, Larry Lucchino said just yesterday that trading Manny was well-nigh impossible because of the money owed him.
The one thing we can draw from Joe's answers on this topic is that he hasn't the faintest idea of how a major league baseball team is run. None. No idea. He thinks the issue is that Manny has personality problems -- hence the qualifier "even with the problems he has now," 25 teams would take him. That is absolutely not the issue.
It's $.
Manny makes as much money as the entire Devil Rays' lineup! Probably more! I don't know! I refuse to do the math right now! How could any small-market team afford him? 25 teams are not in the hunt for Manny Ramirez! Should I be more emphatic about this?!
Paul (Newark, OH): Why are the Reds considering trading Adam Dunn, isn't that ballpark perfect for him?
Joe Morgan: (4:45 PM ET ) Yeah, but if you are not winning with him, you have to make the move. They need pitching.
>> Hey, if you're not going to win the World Series, you better trade your best young hitter and one of the best players in the game. You're not winning with him! You have to make the move!
As a much better baseball-educated friend of mine suggested last night, it's obvious that the guy the Reds should trade is Sean Casey.
Ed (JoeMorgantown, WV): Joe, Ever think of putting together your all "Morgan Team" like John Madden used to do in football? Where you list players based on talent + intangibles.
Joe Morgan: (4:38 PM ET ) Actually, I did that in my Baseball for Dummies books. Baseball for Dummies 1 and 2 is out and 3 is coming out soon.
VICTOR alexandria,la: if manny does not stay in boston where will he end up?
Joe Morgan: (4:33 PM ET ) I think there are a lot of teams interested in Manny. Offensive production has gone down all around baseball. Guys who are proven off. powers are even more valuable than before.
>> Manny is a great hitter, one of the best in the game. But his contract is awful. Very, very few teams could afford to take him on.
The proof? He was put on waivers and no one claimed him. Does that sound like a guy "a lot of teams" are interested in? I guess if you're crazy Joe Morgan who takes drugs all the time and eats pure mercury for breakfast, lunch and dinner because he thinks it makes his skin shiny, it does.
Ed (NY): Hi Joe, I remember watching you on the game of the week in the mid 70s and hearing an announcer saying: "inch by inch and pound by pound" Joe Morgan is the strongest baseball player". Hopefully someone brought that comment to your attention. Today, who would you give that title to?
Joe Morgan: (4:29 PM ET ) I never heard it stated that way. There was a great writer in L.A. who said pound for pound I was the best player. I did see that story. The players today are all stronger and bigger than when I played! I guess off the top of my head Rafael Furcal or Ichiro comes to mind.
>> Rafael Furcal OBP this year: .329
And just for the hell of it, Ichiro's OBP: .355
Not so hot. Jhonny Peralta's OBP this year is .353. And he's slugging a hell of a lot better than Furcal or Ichiro.
Here we go. Dave (Chicago): Joe, why can't the Cubs manufacture runs without the homerun? If they continue to play home run derby I can't invision them making the playoffs. Do you have any comments?
Joe Morgan: (4:26 PM ET ) I don't know anyone who has played HR Derby and won a championship. The way the team is built is the way it's built. When I did the game last week, over 46 percent of runs were scored by HR. They just didn't manufacture runs. If that continues, they will continue to struggle.
>> Okay, Joe and Dave (Chicago), I don't know how you're defining "home run derby" because that's not a thing. There's no criteria. But last year, the Boston Red Sox won the World Series and they were fifth in all of baseball in number of home runs hit. Does that count? Because it was last year. Maybe you remember that? It was a big baseball story.
Joe Morgan: (4:27 PM ET ) The Oakland A's lost all those Game 5's because they couldn't manufacture runs. Any team that can't create runs can only go so far. That said, last year the Red Sox were the closest in terms of a team that doesn't really manufacture runs, winning a championship. But that stolen base in Game 4 was the biggest play for them.
>> Okay, so you do remember an event that took place nine months ago. Good.
But what proof do you have that the A's lost "all those Game 5's" because of bad run manufacturing? By the way, the A's have lost four Game 5's. If you consider all of those games a virtual toss-up, which I do, the chance of that happening by pure luck is 1/16. It's like flipping a coin four times and getting four heads. That happens a lot. In fact, it's more than twice as likely as rolling a pair of dice and getting snake eyes. Have you ever gotten snake eyes, Joe?
Believe it or not, people have.
But I'm rambling. Back to the point: in two of those Game 5's, the A's faced Roger Clemens and Pedro Martinez. Who, if you've been paying attention, are the two greatest pitchers of our time. Sorry, A's! Learn to manufacture some goddamn runs and maybe you'll beat those bums pitching against you. Let's see you lay down some bunts against Clemens' 97 mph heat or Pedro's ridiculous changeup. (By the way, the other two winning pitchers against the A's were Andy Pettitte and Brad Radke, both fine starters.)
And enough with the Roberts steal! I refer you to the following post by Ken Tremendous. It's fantastic:
"This may not sound like much now, but it's little moves you make like Theo Epstein did last year that can win you a championship. No one knows that better then the Yankees. It was the Dave Roberts stolen base in Game 4 of The ALCS that broke the Yanks' back last year."
>No it wasn't. That was the first of like four thousand subsequent events that broke the Yanks' back. How can the very first thing that went right for the Red Sox that entire series be the thing that "broke the Yanks' back?" Bill Mueller's single, Leskanic's four big outs, Ortiz's home run, Ortiz's single, ARod striking out with a runner on third and one out in a close game, Rivera's two blown saves, Gordon imploding, Schilling's 7 innings of one-run ball, Bellhorn's home run, ARod's swiping of Arroyo's arm, Foulke striking out Tony Clark with the tying runs on base in the ninth of Game Six, Derek Lowe's six innings in Game 7, Ortiz's home run after Damon was thrown out at the plate, Damon's Grand Slam, Damon's 2-run shot, and Bellhorn's solo job after Pedro had given up two runs, are all better examples of things that "broke the Yanks' back."
Yesterday, he left Pedro Martinez off his list of the 20 current players he thinks are most likely to get into the Hall of Fame. I'll be honest. Today, I really, genuinely expected some sort of retraction. An embarrassed apology. A heartfelt mea culpa.
I got something better. Today, he went through Hall candidates #21-40 -- players he decided were all less deserving than the top 20. Before you read the first sentence of this next entry, keep in mind he included Miguel Cabrera on the first list at number 12.
21. Pedro Martinez Only five starting pitchers in the Hall have fewer wins than Pedro's 194: Dizzy Dean (150), Addie Joss (160), Sandy Koufax (165), Lefty Gomez (189) and Rube Waddell (193).
>> He's 33 years old! He's 33 years old. How can I make this more clear? He's not dead. He's 33 years old. His career is not over. He's not stuck on 194 wins.
How about this? Only zero left fielders in the Hall have fewer RsBI than Miguel Cabrera's 249. Only zero left fielders in the Hall have fewer runs scored than Cabrera's 212. Only zero left fielders in the Hall have fewer steals than Cabrera's 6.
Every starting pitcher in the Hall has at least 100 complete games. Pedro has 44.
>> Every left fielder in the Hall is over 50 years old. In fact, Hall of Famer Jesse Burkett has been dead for over 50 years! Miguel Cabrera is 22 years old.
This is a ridiculous charge. It's a different era. Starting pitchers are used differently. John Smoltz, who Schoenfield inexplicably selected as his #5 choice, has 50 complete games, and he's 38. Tom Glavine, Schoenfield's lock at #4, has 53 at age 39.
Pedro should have been the third highest pitcher on the list, behind only Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux.
The crazy thing is, Schoenfield's presumably seen this chart. It's a list of the Career Leaders in Adjusted ERA+. Take a look at it. The reason I think he's at least glanced at it is because he cuts and pastes from the chart of Career Leaders in Adjusted OPS+ to make a case for Gary Sheffield. Plus, he writes himself that "[Pedro] has three of the top 15 seasons ever for adjusted ERA (ERA compared to the league average)".
Now look at the Career ERA+ chart again. Notice whose name is at the top? Did you notice that Pedro's lead over Walter Johnson is as large as the lead Tom Glavine has over the average starting pitcher?
It's mind-boggling.
Also, players sharing the borderline 21-40 list with Pedro include Omar Vizquel, Joe Mauer, and Hank Blalock. Yet he makes sure to say that the following players are, as he puts it, OUT: Rich Harden, Mark Teixeira, and Scott Rolen.
And why was this irrelevant F-U inserted as a swipe at Red Sox fans:
OUT: David Ortiz, Jason Varitek, Trot Nixon, Bill Mueller, Mark Bellhorn
That's it. No commentary or explanation.
If you are already projecting Joe Mauer (who, as far as I can tell, has underwhelmed in his ever-so-brief, injury-plagued tenure in the big leagues) as a Hall-of-Famer, you have to at least consider Varitek as a legitimate candidate. Instead, he believes it would be humorous to include him in a group including three decent but average fan favorites as a snide attack at overzealous Red Sox fanboys. As for Ortiz, he's good, but I would never presume to do something as foolish as predict a Hall of Fame career from someone who is only 29.
Have you seen the catchers in the Hall of Fame? Their numbers are, to be kind, solid.
Jason (NY): I thought the Bellhorn joke was VERY funny. And Ortiz didn't need explaining (even though as a Yankee fan he's the one Red Sox player I can't dislike but do definitely fear)
SportsNation David Schoenfield: Thanks, Jason. At least I have one smart reader out there. :-)
DAVID SCHOENFIELD PLEASE READ THIS SITE THAT IS ALL THANK YOU
I want to qualify my last comment by saying that, of that group, Varitek should be considered a candidate ONLY IF you are projecting Joe Mauer as one. As it stands right now, Varitek would have to have the longevity of a Greg Myers (possible for a switch-hitting catcher) with only a tapered dropoff in offensive production. As it stands today, Varitek is nowhere near the Hall.
"Gary Sheffield ranks 7th in OPS+ among HOF outfielders elected since 1970"
Could you possibly include a few more qualifiers in that statistic?
The fact is, Gary Sheffield has had a pretty decent career, and there will be a debate about his inclusion into the hall. But instead of looking at his OPS+ Versus Righthanded Virgos In Night Games In Which Kelly LeBrock Is In Attendance (OPS+VRHVINGIWKLBIIA), let's look at the bigger picture, say, all-time career OPS+.
He's tied for 43rd. Pretty good, but tied with Edgar Martinez (not on this list), Lance Berkman (not on this list), Jim Thome (OUT according to Schoenfield), Jason Giambi, and a bunch of old timey dudes I've never heard of.
The fact is, unless he snaps, murders an umpire and throws a grenade into the stands, Sheffield will probably finish his career with 500+ HR, 2600 hits, and a career OPS of around .900. Which means he's probably going to the Hall.
But let's take it easy with the "He's one of the best 30 hitters who has ever lived."
Let's face it. Your Yankee pinstripes are showing, Schoenfield, and even you know that if the Boss hadn't fucked up and signed this guy, you'd be calling him another Albert Belle (4 career OPS+ points behind Sheffield).
When I look at the A's offense, I don't understand how it's generating all those numbers with the personnel available. The only proven RBI guy is Eric Chavez (17 HRs, 60 RBI), but the A's are scoring runs. It's a perfect example of the whole being better than the parts.
>> Come on. It's almost like he reads the site every day and wants to provide us with more content.
Let's take the second sentence. RBI are a miserable stat when it comes to reliably predicting a hitter's actual production. Joe Morgan doesn't understand that, of course. We've gone over this. The thing is, Joe reaches the right conclusion (sort of) with the wrong info. Chavez is actually the only Athletic to have proven himself to be a great hitter before this season (please spare me any Erubiel Durazo mail). And it actually is surprising that this Oakland offense, which looks terrible on paper, is generating a decent amount of runs.
Which brings us to the third sentence:
It's a perfect example of the whole being better than the parts.
NO, IT IS NOT. The "whole" of a baseball offense is essentially the number of runs it scores. The parts are the hitters who produce the runs. The whole cannot in any way be better than the parts. Ever. There aren't any additional runs added in for hustle or teamwork or spirit. It's just hitting, hitting and more hitting.
There are so many interesting ways to think about and analyze what the A's hitters are actually doing without blithely waving them off as "gelling" or whatever that nonsense sentence even implies. Why are they scoring runs with only one great hitter in the lineup? Are they getting on base more? Is it baserunning? Is it bunting or not bunting, sacrificing or not sacrificing? Is there something interesting going on in the batting order? Are guys just on hot streaks in the last month? Is the predominantly young lineup adjusting to major league pitching and coming into its own?
One thing's for certain: Joe Morgan will never, ever help us answer questions like these. In a column presumably intended to inform and educate his audience he outright says, "I don't understand how [the A's offense] is generating all those numbers."
Kevin (Waltham, MA): What are the chances of Manny being moved? What about the Dodgers, will Perez or Lowe have a new home come Monday?
Steve Phillips: I think the Dodgers, Mets, Orioles and ... yes ... maybe even the Yankees would be a fit for Manny Ramirez. The trade would be a complex one and is more likely to happen in the offseason than at the tradedeadline. On Cold Pizza yesterday morning, I made three trade proposals for Manny. 1) Manny to the Yankees for Sheffield and Tom Gordon. Sox replace the bat and get a potential closer to ride out the end of the season with.
The idea that the Sox would deal Manny Ramirez to the Yankees is so insane I can barely breathe. Ditto the idea that the Yankees would trade Sheffield and one of their only two reliable bullpen guys to the Red Sox. Ditto the idea that the Sox would trade for Gary Sheffield, who has publicly stated his plan to have a complete 3rd-grade shitfit if he is traded anywhere. When did Steve Phillips become a "Mike and the Mad Dog" caller?
2) Manny and Mark Bellhorn to the Dodgers for Jeff Kent, Jason Worth (sic) and Odalis Perez. This gives the Red Sox a RHbat to replace Manny, a young OFer who pulls the ball and can take advantage of the green monster, and pitching depth which would still allow them to make an Arroyo or Burnett deal or possibly allow them to acquire Edgardo Alfonzo to play third base. Then they could trade Bill Mueller to the Twins for Romero.
A 36 year-old (albeit good) second baseman, a not good outfielder (.397 SLG this year) , and an injured pitcher for a guy with a 1.000 lifetime OPS, so that the Sox can then trade Bronson Arroyo for AJ Burnett and pick up Edgardo Alfonzo to play third so they can trade Bill Mueller to the Twins for JC Romero. I know the Sox have problems, but you want to replace your left fielder, second baseman, two starters, third baseman, and lefty set-up guy? That seems...I'll say "risky" to do mid-season. How about something simpler, Steve?
3) The last trade proposal I have is for the Mets. ... AS Mets fans choke on their coffee and say, ''Oh no! Not Phillips making Mets trades again! No!'' ... Bear with me, try to follow ....
At least he's self-aware. What's the proposal?
Victor Zambrano to the Giants for Alphonzo. Cliff Floyd to the Cubs for Corey Patterson and Glendon Rush. Then, the Mets spin Patterson to the Devil Rays for Danys Baez. The Mets THEN take Mike Cameron, Edgardo Alfonzo, Danys Baez and Glendon Rush and trade them to the Red Sox for Manny Ramirez.
Why don't the Cubs, Giants, Mets, DRays, and Sox just all switch uniforms? It'll be easier.
Also, I guarantee the Red Sox would never trade the 2004 World Series MVP for Mike Cameron, Edgardo Alfonzo, Danys Baez and Glendon Rusch. That's trading one great player with a huge salary for four average players with medium salaries. What good does that do? Hey, I've got an idea. The Yankees should do a nine-way trade where they get rid of ARod and get Pat Borders, Geoff Jenkins, Ray Durham, Matt Stairs, Frank Menechino, Jose Cruz, Jr., David Weathers, Lou Pinella, and a dozen sweatshirts with Pete LaForest's face on them.
Envelopes full of royalty checks flying into Bryan Adams' face wherever he goes. The air around him is so thick with checks he can't even see, let alone play an awesome rock show.
I have taken some shit, from both home and abroad, about the Elliot Kalb post below, in which I compare Japan to Chicago rec softball leagues. Perhaps that was a bit strident. But this is a blog, and where can one be strident if not in a blog?
The fact is, if one puts together one's list of the fifteen greatest first basemen, and one obnoxiously and purposefully does not include Rafael Palmeiro, but obnoxiously and purposefully does include a guy who played in another country, I am going to take issue with one.
I think it is fair to say that putting up Raffy's numbers against the hands-down best league in the world, featuring all the best international talent, is far more impresive (like, by a factor of five) than putting up silly numbers in Japan against only Japanese talent in a league where Bob Horner was revered as a megastar. Agreed?
Saying that Oh is the ninth best first baseman of all-time is insane. He hit 55 HR in 1964, which is the single-season record in Japan. Or, it was, until Tuffy Rhodes, who had a career OPS+ of 79 in MLB, tied it a few years ago.
"Baseball For Dummies," Indeed (Part IV): The Sweet Lowdown
From page 289 of "Baseball for Dummies", by Joe Morgan (with Richard Lally):
"The Lowdown on Statistics" -- Everyone believes that a .300 hitter is a good player and that a pitcher with a low ERA is a good pitcher. That belief is not necessarily the case. . . A .300 hitter makes seven outs for every ten at-bats, and if his seven outs come with men on base and his three hits come with no one on base, these hits are not very productive. . . Likewise, many pitchers pitch just good enough to lose. . .Run production is how you measure hitters. Wins and losses are how you measure pitchers. Batting averages and ERAs are personal stats."
>>Again, where to begin?
Let's take the case of the .300 hitter who makes all his outs with runners on base, and all his hits with men on. Either he's talking about (a) just ten at-bats or (b) a guy who does this sort of thing over the long haul.
If we're talking about 10 at-bats...who cares? Remember, the law of small numbers is: there is no law of small numbers. If we're talking about a guy who does this over the course of the season, well, I'd like to see that guy. I'd like Joe Morgan to show me anybody who -- over the course of his career -- had a markedly different average with runners on base as opposed to with the bases empty. Maybe they exist. But let's be reasonable: over the course of time, most players are about the same with bases empty or with dudes on base. On top of all this, of course, Morgan's chosen a terrible metric to measure players (batting average).
Now for the really crazy stuff. "Run production is how you measure hitters." He's talking about runs and runs batted in (or so he says in another part of this little sidebar). Two of the most team-dependent stats you could pick. Wins and losses, even more so. It's the year 2005, and we're still measuring how good a pitcher is by his won-loss record? Tell that to Roger Clemens. Tell that to Ken Tremendous, and he'll go to your house and murder your dog.
The best line, of course: "Batting averages and ERAs are personal stats." I'm sorry. What? You mean personal, like, they're just for that hitter or pitcher -- like a sentimental photo? Or you mean personal, as in, they are the opposite of team-dependent, and therefore much better at measuring players' abilities than fucking wins and losses and run production (again, ignoring that batting average is a terrible hitters' metric)?
Imagine using this standard for any other line of work. Let's say I'm the manager of the factory where they manufacture and ship Joe Morgan Punching Bags (they come with a picture of Joe Morgan on them). I want to know how good John Kruk is at packaging up these bad Larries. Kruk works down on assembly line C. If I want to know how good he is at packaging up JMPBs, should I count how many boxes he "personally" packages, or how many everybody on assembly line C puts together?
Joe Morgan says: the bottom line is, if you want to know how good a player is, forget any information about the player alone. Ignore all data that tell you what the guy does, holding the team he plays for as a variable. Look at the team-related numbers. See how many wins a pitcher has, without even looking at his run support. See how many runs a guy scores, without looking at the guys hitting below him, or the player's on base percentage.
I'm just saying, if Joe Morgan's dog is dead tomorrow, you know who did it. Sorry, Ken.
Hey Joe Morgan, Only in the case of Shea Hillenbrand does a .300 hitter make 7 outs per 10 at-bats. The stat with which you begin your argument is called On-Base Percentage (OBP), which was either invented by a baseball-hating coterie including Billy Beane, a computer and SF Weekly columnist Tommy Cragg.
Aside from that minor point, what the Hell are you talking about??? Are you saying that Mike Maroth is without question or debate the worst pitcher of the last 30 years? Yes. You are.
Someone needs to create a toy stat called something like RsBI/PA with men on base. We'll call it the "Hitter's metric" and allow Joe Morgan to quietly ignore it because it's too hard for him to tabulate in his tiny brain.
For my money, the best line here is: "Likewise, many pitchers pitch just good enough to lose..." followed immediately by the line "Wins and losses are how you measure pitchers." How in the name of Roger Clemens can you still believe that W/L are how you measure pitchers, especially right after you note that sometimes a pitcher pitches good (sic) enough to lose?
Fine. Argue that a .300 hitter is not necessarily a good player, but not at all for the reason you give. A .300 singles hitter who never walks is statistically a below-average major leager. How are you going to convince me that a pitcher with a low ERA is not necessarily a good pitcher? Give me one example! Ok, Armando Benitez. I stand down. Just so we're clear, pitchers with a relatively low ERA over a significant amount of innings have pitched well.
Coach -- I don't think he's talking about OBP, since he's using ABs and not PAs. Of course, if you're counting "outs," that could include sacrifices and other complications that aren't strictly "batting average" (errors, etc). Amazing how confusing Joe Morgan can make things by trying to be simple.
Really amazing. It's his list of the 10 players he respects the most. It's an amazing combination of the most obvious statements, coupled with some really bizarre choices with virtually no back-up. I guess it's the guys he respects the most, and I don't really know how to disprove him. Still though, just try to read through without shaking your head.
Let's start with the first sentence: "I can't believe the Hall of Fame inductions are less than a week away."
>>Huh. I can. I know that it's a popular phrase of exaggeration to use, but it's still funny to me that he'd choose to write that. I like to picture him waking up, checking his calendar, seeing a big ol' red circle around Sunday (when he's being inducted into the HOF) and thinking to himself: "Wha? That can't be right..." Then shouting: "Honey?! Did you mess with my calendar? I'm getting Punk'd, aren't I."
Okay, onto the list. It's mostly contemporaries of his, but then he goes back for some oldies:
Willie Mays – He probably was the best defensive outfielder ever. I loved how he combined speed with power.
Joe DiMaggio – Obviously I never saw him play, but I always have respected the way he was a true professional. He was a great player and an American idol.
>>He never saw Dimaggio play. But he respected how he was a true professional. Why? He doesn't say. It seems to me that this happens quite often: players put up huge numbers, get elected into the Hall, and the best thing someone can say about them is how professional they were. Stand-up guy. Always gave his all. Put his pants on one leg at a time. Great teammate. And on and on.
In reality, their professionalism is probably the thing they shared in common with their peers the most. They all showed up to play the game. They all had the same job. Very few players are "bad seeds," or total dickheads, or show up late for games or lack "professionalism" in some serious way. Even if Ryno had reasons for why Joltin' Joe was a true professional, I'd probably respond by saying: "aren't most players like that?" Fortunately for us, Ryno doesn't even try to support his claim.
Now, he never saw Willie Mays play neither, but that doesn't stop him from proclaiming him the best defensive outfielder ever. Probably.
Back to the list: Andre Dawson – Another teammate of mine who was a great professional. He hit 49 home runs in 1987, and it seemed like he was going deep ever
