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.
So, some of our loyal readers have mentioned that we should spend at least a little time discussing writers who are good at what they do. So, here's the FJM Check-Plus of the Week, from FoxSports.com's (!) Dayn Perry:
The following is an exercise in craven subjectivity.
We're talking overrated and underrated. Any time these two words are introduced into the discussion, you're taking into account individual perceptions, however skewed and adulterated those might be...
If they were a band, they'd be Coldplay. Yep, it's the top 10 most overrated players for 2005...
All right. I am ready. Tell me how Adam Dunn is overrated, so I can kill myself.
1. Scott Podsednik, LF, White Sox
Oh my God, I am so excited. My heart is beating at like 4x normal rate right now.
To hear many in the media tell it, Podsednik is the catalyst for the best team in the American League. To hear the numbers tell it, Podsednik is a below-average performer by left-fielder standards. He has his merits — good defense, solid on-base skills, speed on the bases — but his failings are more critical. To wit, he can't hit for power. At all. Podsednik's .337 slugging percentage is appalling for a corner outfielder playing half his games in one of the best power parks around. A left fielder with no home runs this late in the season isn't doing his job, no matter how many bases he steals.
It's just...music to my ears. Someone is actually saying it. I might start crying.
3. Hank Blalock, 3B, Rangers
Blalock has loads of ability, but his levels of offensive production are illusory. That's because Ameriquest Field is drastically inflating his numbers.
Consider his career batting line on the road: .241 AVG/.300 OBP/.401 SLG. Now contrast that with his work at home: .316 AVG/.386 OBP/.566 SLG. Until he learns to hit away from Arlington, Blalock won't be the All-Star he's passed off as.
Okay...not the best grammar there at the end, but you convinced me. I didn't think of Blalock as overrated. Now I kind of do.
4. Kevin Millar, 1B, Red Sox
Folksy and likeable? Sure. Idiot, Cowboy Up and all that stuff? Sure. Productive? Nope. This season, Millar is putting up a batting line of .270 AVG/.357 OBP/.367 SLG, which isn't adequate for a defensively challenged first baseman. He's had a couple of very good seasons in his career (both as a Marlin), but he's been unable to produce at all on the road in recent seasons (Fenway is a haven for right-handed batters). Regardless of clubhouse chops, he needs to be benched for road games and cut loose altogether after this season.
Fish in a barrel, but he's right. Although, I don't think there is really anyone who overrates Millar these days. Ditto his #5, Victor Zambrano.
6. C.C. Sabathia, SP, Indians
In some circles, Sabathia is regarded as an ace. He's not. In only one season has Sabathia worked at least 200 innings while maintaining an ERA better than the league average. This season, his ERA has risen to a career-worst 4.75. Sabathia's still only 25, but the time has come to realize his promise.
Fair enough.
7. Zack Greinke, SP, Royals
Fits and starts for a pitcher this young are to be expected, but a 6.28 ERA? Greinke was once hailed as the best pitching prospect in baseball, but it's not likely he'll ever live up to those expectations. Why?
Greinke posts low strikeout rates in tandem with fly-ball tendencies. That's a dangerous mix. No matter how good a pitcher's command might be, if he's allowing a lot of balls in play and a lot of those balls are in the air ... well, that's bad. Press clippings aside, don't expect future greatness from Greinke.
Ignoring the nebulous "command." Talking about K-rates and GB/FB ratio. I might have a crush on Dayn Perry.
8. Ichiro Suzuki, RF, Mariners
Ichiro is a cultural luminary, an important figure in baseball history and a thoroughly likeable and engaging athlete. He also hits for average, runs the bases well and plays an exceptional right field.
However, Ichiro lacks secondary hitting skills. That means he doesn't draw walks and doesn't hit for power.
Because of these deficiencies, he's a player who needs to hit .330 or higher to be effective. Some seasons, he does that, and some seasons he doesn't. When you consider all Ichiro signifies and his global popularity, he's worth the attention he gets. However, through the prism of on-field performance, he's not.
Ichiro is overrated! Ichiro is overrated! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee!
The last two are Sean Casey and Klesko. Whatever. The point is, Dayn Perry, we salute you.
I hear you, dak. This was just a little palatte cleanser. Overall, I'd like to go 99% bad, 1% good -- so look for the next FJM Check-Plus, a review of a Peter Gammons chat, coming to the site in March 2008.
Sure, Neyer, fine. I picked Gammons because his chats are the exact opposite of Joe's -- succinct, fact-based, and directly in response to the posed question.
In his latest ESPN.com article, Joe Morgan writes: "When I was in college, I wrote my thesis on the Negro leagues." He also says he got an A.
Now. I'm not saying Joe Morgan never went to college. Even I, a guy who writes for a website called "FIRE JOE MORGAN," could not possibly believe that Joe Morgan would fabricate some sort of collegiate experience if he never enrolled in any sort of post-high school academic institution.
That said, here are some facts: 1.) Baseball Almanac plainly states that Joe Morgan did not attend any college. I don't put too much stock in this, as they don't list any nicknames for Joe Morgan neither. ("Little Joe" might be terrible, but it's still a nickname. Ditto "The Little General.")
2.) I've been searching online for about an hour now, and I can't find any evidence that Joe Morgan went to college. I could be missing something, or it just might not be out there. I'm this close to signing up for a trial membership to Encyclopedia Brittanica online, which seems to have a more complete Joe Morgan bio than any other site.
3.) Joe morgan was all of 20 years old (and like 2 days) when he played his first major league game, in September of 1963.
So, did 19-year-old Joe Morgan write and complete a thesis -- not just a paper, but a thesis -- just before playing in the big leagues, at some college that can't be found in any internet search? Please help me solve this mystery.
Thanks to everyone who wrote in. Turns out Joe attended about a year of JuCo before his playing days. Could've written something there.
BUT, here's the real answer, as quoted from several of our readers: "He promised his mother when he left college to sign with the Colt 45s that he would earn his degree. Taking classes in the off-season and into his retirement, he graduated from Cal State-Hayward in 1990 at the age of 47."
CS-H is apparently now called "Cal State East Bay." So, there you go...I guess.
I don't know why it didn't occur to me that the dude could've gone back to college after he played. Kind of embarrassing.
What's more, I know now that JM has two children, which for some reason makes me feel kind of bad about the name of the site.
Scott Podsednik has had 383 at-bats this season and he has a grand total of zero home runs. Zero.
He is the only non-catcher with more than 325 at-bats who has failed to homer. (Jason Kendall being the only other player in baseball with >325 AB and zero homers.)
Steve Phillips, I can't believe someone put you in charge of a major league baseball team. Bryan (Fayetteville): Among all the teams in the chase for the AL Wild Card, pick one player who could impact their team the most by stepping up the batting?
Steve Phillips: The key guy for the Angels is Rodriguez. He has to stabilize the end of their games for the Angels to have a chance. The Yanks need Musinna and Johnson to pitch like the aces they are. The Indians need Kevin Millwood to pitch well enough to win, not well enough to lose. Pitchers can't complain about run support this late in the season. If your team scores 2, then hold your opponent to 1. Millwood has pitched well but not well enough to win.
>> Kevin Millwood has the fifth-best ERA in the AL. He has a better WHIP than Roy Oswalt, A.J. Burnett, and Randy Johnson.
But he can't score runs for his team. Pitchers aren't allowed to do that in the AL.
If your team scores 2, then hold your opponent to 1.
>> Kevin Millwood has, in fact, allowed 1 ER four times this season. His record in this four outings? One win, two losses, and one no-decision. Guess he should have thrown a lot more complete game shutouts.
Actually, in four of his losses, his team scored zero runs, so maybe that wouldn't have helped that much. In Millwood's 11 losses, his team has scored an aggregate of 13 runs.
But sure, he's pitched well enough to lose.
Consider that phrase: "well enough to lose." If you think it makes sense, please consult a doctor. You may have been the victim of a Phineas Gage-style mishap in which a pole is lodged inside your skull and certain parts of your brain.
EDIT: I can't believe I missed this, but Bryan from Fayetteville's question specifically ends with "pick one player who could impact their team the most by stepping up the batting?" (emphasis mine)
Phillips names four players, all of them pitchers.
Junior -- I think you failed to point out the most obvious insanity here. The question is: which player can help his team the most by stepping up the batting. And then Stevie P. comes back hard with a list of pitchers. It's a rare FJM double-bonus when a guy answers the entire question wrong, and within that wrong-answer he has a new, and even worse, wrong answer.
Excellent. My nominee for the answer to Bryan's question is Steve Finley. All he has to do is start hitting like a decent major league shortstop and he'll be a huge upgrade over Steve-Finley-thus-far.
Hmm. As far as thinking the statement "well enough to lose" makes any sense, I think it depends just how Phineas Gage-like the hypothetical mishap is. Because in Gage's case, the dude didn't really lose any reasoning skills. He became, well, pissy. Irritable, moody. But aside from his personality, most of his brain function remained intact.
Which is to say, even post-accident Phineas Gage could have told you that "well enough to lose" is a phrase that should never be used when discussing anything.
I know that Phineas Gage did not lose the capacity to reason; in fact, there is almost no doubt he would have run the Mets better than Steve Phillips.
However, one could imagine, perhaps, a man who suffers a Phineas-Gage-style accident who is not so fortunate. One who, due to massive brain trauma, decides to give Roger Cedeno a four-year, $18 million deal.
Thanks to reader Bryan for this nice little nugget:
On Saturday's FOX broadcast of Mets vs. Giants:
"Offerman is a guy who can clearly still hit. His numbers don't indicate that this year."
This is really the essence of the problem, isn't it? Pundits making statements about the game which are in direct contradiction to actual fact. Of course, it is very rare, and exciting, for one of them to immediately acknowledge how wrong he is -- in essence, to do FJM's work for us.
(FTR: Offerman has had an OPS above .716 once since 2000, and that was in 172 AB with the Twinkies last year.)
Buzzmaster: We'll get started in just a minute, so keep the questions coming!
Ken Tremendous: No! I'm going to hang back and point out how stupid the answers are instead!
Joe Morgan: Good morning, let's get going!
KT: Awesome!
Rochester: The Mets seem to be surging at the right time. Do you think they can overcome the rest of the Wild Card teams with their veteran pitching?
Joe Morgan: I don't think the Mets have any edge in any capacity. All the teams are pretty equal, and they will have to score runs and continue to play good defense. But sure, they can win it if that keeps up.
KT: Strong start here, Joe. If the Mets score runs and play good defense, they should have a shot. I like the seemingly sarcastic: "But sure, they can win if that keeps up," as if he's not the idiot who just suggested it.
John (Waterbury, CT): Hi Joe...in your opinion, who has the better rotation at this point in the season, the Red Sox or the Yanks? And Bullpen?
Joe Morgan: That's like flipping a coin. The Yankees have the most potential if Johnson and Mussina are up to par. But it's not about potential. With the Sox you don't know what you're going to get out of Schilling and how long it will take him to find his rhythm. If it takes a while that will have an effect on the race.
KT: You think? The guy who went 21-6 last year and beat the Yankees (in the Stadium) on one leg -- you think missing that guy will affect the race? Are you sure? Think about this. Also, "if it takes a while?" It's August 26, and he just started for the first time in months. It has taken a while.
3FF (Arlington, VA): Hey Joe, the Reds looked pretty good. We all know they won't do anything this year, my question: Is it a mistake by the organization to not trade Griffey this season? What could/should they have done?
Joe Morgan: No, I don't think so. I hear this all the time: trade him and get something that will help them. What are they going to get that will help more than Griffey. When he's himself the pressure is off the young kids and that's why they're playing well. He still has some years left in him so they should keep him on.
KT: Junior is having a good year. But with the money they would save, and the prospects they might get in return, trading him is a no-brainer, in the right deal. The ChiSox are desperate for a bat -- they might give up a ton for the chance to win their first Series in 88 years. The Reds are not going to win anything while Junior is playing. A deal makes a lot of sense. (These are all examples of sentences a normal human might have written.)
John (Charleston): how come the Tigers have gotten no love this season? they have really turned it around over the last two seasons
Joe Morgan: Every team in baseball would be a contender with more pitching and another bat, which is what the Tigers need, but they have gotten much better in the last couple of years and if there is something available in the offseason they should go after it and try to improve even more.
KT: This one is hard to parse, perhaps because it is three run-on-sentences strung together. Play along at home:
1. Every team in baseball would be a contender with more pitching and another bat. (True, I guess, if meaningless. "Every building would be taller if you added more stories and a tower at the top.")
2. "...which is what the Tigers need..." (Again, I guess true, but the question was about why they haven't gotten any "love," since they have improved so much over last year. It's like, whatever anyone asks, Joe answers as if the question were: "What do you think about [TEAM X]?")
3. "...but they have gotten much better in the last couple of years and if there is something available in the offseason they should go after it and try to improve even more." (Again, not the question, in any way. Also, I think it goes without saying that TEAM X should try to improve in the off-season by acquiring players who are better than the players they have now. This is reaching new heights of stupidity.)
Chadwick (Philly): How about Vicente Padilla. He is looking like the all star from a couple years ago. With him pitching well along with Lieber and Myers as well as our stud 3 in the bullpen. Do you think the phils can do some damage in the playoffs if they make it?
Joe Morgan: The reason I like the Phils is because they are capable of scoring in bunches. They're not consistent, but they can do it. Everyone is overrating what pitchers do this time of year. It's great to have that, but you have to score to back it up. Look at the Astros. If they were scoring they'd be way out in front in the Wild Cars. So pay more attention to the teams that score runs consistently.
KT: I like the way Joe constantly chides teams for not being able both to score tons of runs AND pitch brilliantly. It's like he doesn't understand that often, with a salary cap and a limited roster and free agency, that it is hard to do either one without sacrificing the other. Also, "Wild Cars" is a good name for a band.
Ryan (Pittsburgh, PA): I know the Yankees have the experience, but I think the combination of great pitching and solid, timely hitting will get the Indians into the postseason. I don't think the experience matters when a team is young and confident like the Tribe is. What do you think?
Joe Morgan: Again, they have as good a chance as anyone, but remember the late-season swoon from last season when they fell apart. Experience does matter, but in this case they have been through it once and learned from it. But like I said a minute ago, they can score and they have some good pitching, so that gives them a good chance. But remember, the teams that streak to get into contention are the first ones to fall out because the percentages eventually catch up to them.
KT: The use of the word "percentages" seems dangerously close to actual statistical analysis here...fortunately for all involved, Joe has no idea what he is talking about. The Marlins streaked into the 2003 playoffs and won it all easily. The Red Sox streaked into the playoffs last year and won it all. (It's not even worth continuing.) Also, lets look at some of the details here:
1. The Indians have as good a chance as anyone. 2. But remember the late-season swoon of last year. (Read: they might flop in September again.) 3. Experience does matter... (So, theoretically, they will not swoon in September again.) 4. ...but in this case, they have been through it once and learned from it. (Why does he start this part with "but?" He is saying, "Experience does matter, but in this case, experience matters.") 5. Any time you start back-to-back sentences with "But," and no one else is writing or talking, you have written poorly.
Brandon (Boston): Do you think that the Red Sox offense can lead them to a repeat? Is Schilling going to be back to his normal self?
Joe Morgan: Boston has an edge not just in terms of hitting, but there's also an energy around that team that is evident in New York. The Sox play much more on emotion than the Yanks and that can carry them for stretches last season and could help them win it again this season.
KT: Why is the Red Sox' "energy" evident in New York?
John (Providence): Joe, how do you like the A's chances of making the playoffs after everyone wrote them off in May? Do you like what Beane has done?
KT: Uh oh.
Joe Morgan: It's inevitable that after the long winning stretch they had that things would fall off because you can't continue to play .800 ball all season. The fact that they bounced back the last two days against Detroit shows they are still in it and the offense is what's going to win games for them. They win games 7-6 or 9-7 and lose when they don't score, so that will be the biggest factor for them, just like every other team in the races.
KT: Phew. I was afraid Joe was going to blow his lid at the very mention of award-winning author and inventor of the computer Billy Beane. Thankfully, all he did was spout nonsense. "The offense is what is going to win games for them." okay...well, the A's as a staff are 5th in all of MLB in ERA, 4th in WHIP, 1st in BAA, and 1st in OPS against. Their offense has been okay -- 8th in MLB in runs, but only 19th in team OPS. So, I'd say, actually, their pitching is winning games for them, so I don't know what evidence Joe is using for the claim that they win a lot of 7-6 or 9-7 games. Seems more like the Red Sox and Yankees, to me. Then comes the brilliant statement that the A's "lose when they don't score," which is not only true of the A's, but also true of every team and individual competing in every sport ever invented. And finally we get, "...so that will be the biggest factor for them, just like every other team in the races." Which weirdly, is Joe's unwitting admission that he in fact understands that all teams need to score points/runs in order to win. It's like he's arguing with himself.
EDIT: A few hours after I wrote this, the A's won 4-1, and the Red Sox won 9-8. Minimum-possible sample size of one game a piece, but still.
Chris D. (Madison, Wis.): It looks like the White Sox have righted the ship. How important is a solid rotation with the depth they have, Joe?
Joe Morgan: One of the reasons I keep saying that pitching is not the whole issue is because most pitchers have a lot of innings on their arms and will not shut teams down the way they did earlier. Therefore teams have to score to win...
KT: Wow. Again.
Joe Morgan: ...and the Sox were having troubles at the plate recently. I still believe in them, though, because they have more ways to win than most teams and will be even better once Podsednik comes back from injury.
KT: Do you know what Scott Podsednik's IsoP is? .055. That's pathetic. His WARP2 is 3.8. He is incredibly average, if not worse.
Mike G, NYC: David Wright - What's the cieling on this kid? It looks like he still keeps improving
Joe Morgan: I think he's going to be an excellent player because of his attitude and drive to improve. I've talked to him and am impressed with the way he goes about his business. Randolph did a great job of moving him along slowly and not putting him into the RBI slots in the lineup before he was ready.
KT: So, Willie Randolph did a great job by keeping their second best offensive player mired in the 6- or 7-hole while far lesser players were trying to give Cliff Floyd protection? How is that? Seriously, it's like if the White Sox batted Paul Konerko sixth behind Joe Crede and AJ Pierzynski.
Chris, Chicago: Do you believe the Cubs are pretty much finished this season, now with Nomar and Ramirez hurt? Should they just call up Felix Pie, Matt Murton, Ronny Cedeno and Rich Hill now?
Joe Morgan: It's hard in this day and age to throw in the towel and start working toward next season. I don't know if they should do that and I don't think they can.
KT: This is what just went through Joe Morgan's head: "Felix Who? Matt Huh? Ronny Which? Rich Whatnow? Uh oh. Better fire off some crazytalk."
NJ (Miami): Hey Joe, don't you agree that even though the Nats are slipping away this season, the success they are having during their first year only proved that they are going to be contenders in years to come? They are so young and unexperienced, that after one or two years behind their belts, they could be a serious threat to the Braves, Marlins, and Cardinals. I don't see this year being a disappointment, do you?
Joe Morgan: I don't see it as a disappointment. Things are on the right track to be a force in that division, but there's a thin line between being a championship team and being on the periphery. As I said before, they're falling out of the race because they can't score consistently, and they have to address that first and foremost.
KT: The main point to take away from Hall of Fame commentator Joe Morgan here today, kids, is: "You have to score runs to win athletic contests."
Julie (At Work in Bayonne, NJ): Hey Joe - what do you think of Roger Clemens chances at the Cy Young this year? His last 2 starts have been bad, but if he keeps that ERA, I think that he should get it over Carpenter... what do you think?
Joe Morgan: First of all, his last outing wasn't shaky since he lost 2-0. I look at wins first in the Cy Young and then ERA to break a tie...
KT: Oh my God oh my God oh my God oh my God.
Joe Morgan: ...At this point I think Carpenter and Dontrelle Willis have a leg up in that category...
KT: You think? "Wins" is a measurable stat. It's also one of the least important stats for a starting ptcher.
Joe Morgan: ...I don't think you can win the Cy Young with 15 or fewer wins and the Astros have to score to get him some wins. They've been shut out seven times in Clemens starts. But as I've said, NO ONE has pitched better than Roger Clemens this season.
KT: Then give him the goddamn Cy Young Award, Joe. Why in the name of fuck should you penalize a guy who, you believe, has pitched better than anyone else, simply because his teammates, with their bats, haven't performed well? I do not understand this. You are so unbelievably stupid when you talk about this issue.
Joe Morgan: I have to get going, but thanks for all the questions. It looks like we might be in for the greatest Wild Card races ever and things in both leagues could turn on one or two players getting hot and carrying a team. I'm looking forward to watching and to talking about it again next week!
The first pitch is seven hours away, but Mike Scioscia's mind is already at the ballpark, churning, plotting, fantasizing.
That's his job. He's the manager of a major league baseball team. Let's say the game starts at 7:05. That means that at noon, Mike Scioscia is thinking about baseball! A true inspiration to our children.
There's grind-it-out baseball, Moneyball baseball and three-run homer baseball.
I would love to hear Hal Bodley's definitions of these three kinds of baseball.
Scioscia says there's merit to whatever philosophy works for a certain team, but his approach that's kept the Los Angeles Angels in first place in the American League West virtually the entire season is even simpler: Get in scoring position, create havoc on the base paths - and win.
That approach has made the Angels the eighth-highest scoring team in the American League. Just ahead of the Tigers. Right behind the Devil Rays. But the D-Rays probably create way more havoc on the base paths.
The Angels are, however, a very good pitching team (third in the AL, behind the White Sox and the Twins). We should really be praising Scioscia for magically turning John Lackey from a guy with a 6.5 K/9 rate to a guy with a 9.1 K/9 rate.
In a restaurant high above Baltimore's Inner Harbor, million-dollar yachts look like toys in a wading pool. They move slowly, methodically across the water, much like a baserunner going from first to third.
Jesus. Jesus.
You just said the yachts were moving slowly and methodically! Wouldn't a baserunner going from first to third moving in the exact opposite way -- I don't know, fast?
Much, much later the Angels, behind Bartolo Colon, are in a tense scoreless tie with the Orioles in the fifth inning.
Isn't this second-guess time? Why would Scioscia order Erstad to bunt, thus leaving first base open and an almost-certain intentional pass for Guerrero, 2004's AL MVP? Take the bat out of his hands?
Yes, those are all good questions. I don't know why he would have Erstad bunt.
That's exactly what happens. Guerrero gets the pass and up comes Garret Anderson, who's been hurt and struggling.
Anderson drops a single to center, and the Angels are up 1-0. Before the inning ends, they score twice more, giving Colon all the support he needs for a league-leading 17th victory.
Okay, but that doesn't prove anything. Garret Anderson is a guy who this year makes an out 68.5% of the time. That's terrible. If Mike Scioscia had put in a midget batting with a piano leg as a pinch hitter for Vlad, and that midget raked a double, it would still be a questionable decision.
When you think of the current managerial elites, La Russa, Bobby Cox, Joe Torre, Lou Piniella and Jack McKeon are often mentioned.
Put Scioscia on the list. He just might be the most underrated skipper in the majors.
Who's underrating him? How much press coverage of Mike Scioscia do you want?
"When we get into our game," Scioscia says, "we can play with any team in our league."
And that's called Sciosciaball.
What's called Sciosciaball? "Getting into our game"? "Playing with any team in our league"? That's quite possibly the most generic, boilerplate quote ever given by any manager, ever. Why would you close your article with that?
Well, at least you compared yachts moving in a harbor to guys moving from first to third.
This is Scoop Jackson, writing an open letter to Jeff Kent on ESPN.com:
The first thing you gotta understand is that sometimes we be trippin'. Now I'm not saying that Milt was wrong, I'm just telling you that we black people tend to "bug out" or "snap" at times. No reason, no excuses. Our women do it more than the men. But somehow we give them reason, they say. But that's a whole 'nother story. Anyway, get used to the "snappin'" -- that's just us.
Look, cousin (not that we're related, that's just the way black folks talk to one another sometimes), I know you saw "White Men Can't Jump." Remember the scene where Woody was telling Wesley that "black people would rather look good" than get dirty on the court. Well, that's true. That's how we are.
>> He then qualifies this by saying that black ballplayers do hustle, but also, "we try to look smoove at all times."
Am I wrong, or is this like an Asian person writing, "Look, you gotta understand: we're inscrutable, crafty, and good at math. Also, we're fucking terrible drivers. Why can't you understand us?"
How many people want Scoop Jackson making these generalizations about an entire race of people?
He is the only one who knows the strength of his body right now and if his ankle will allow him to throw 100-plus pitches in a game. But I think the Red Sox have a better chance of winning with Schilling as their closer.
He has broken down as a starter this year and the Red Sox bullpen has faltered on many occasions. Going into the playoffs, I would give Schilling the closer role. It would turn every playoff game into an eight-inning affair.
>> Really. Every playoff game. Eight-inning affair. Please consider what you're saying, Mr. Sandberg.
Schilling's pitched 24.1 innings since coming off the DL. In those 24.1 innings, he's allowed 14 earned runs for a tidy ERA of 5.18. That's not good by any standard. Danys Baez would kill himself if he woke up tomorrow with a 5.18 ERA. Schilling has allowed earned runs in five of his last eight appearances, including two 3-run disasters.
Here are some closers who have a better ERA than Curt Schilling has as a reliever this year:
Bob Wickman Jose Mesa Braden Looper Ryan Dempster Mike MacDougal David Weathers
Former Braves closer and human disgrace Danny Kolb has a better ERA, and he has a WHIP of 1.69.
Now, I don't even totally disagree with Ryno's overall point, which is that it's pretty unlikely that Schilling will be an effective starter given his physical condition. And it's not out of the question that Schilling, with his past record of success, would be a better bet in the playoffs than David Weathers.
But he hasn't proven that he's even remotely close to being a lights-out closer, so let's not anoint him as the next Mariano Rivera just yet.
...which team this article is written about. I'll give you 3 hints:
1) The author acknowledges that the team in question scores fewer runs per game than last year, but still thinks that the offseason moves relating to hitting were genius.
2) The author insists that the manager is not only a shoo-in for MOY honors, but insists on completing the written handjob to climax: "his vision [for the team] retains its brilliance."
3) It contains this worldview-altering quote from the manager: "This is what any winning team has to do -- put players on the field who will catch the ball."
At a time when baseball pundits seem to have lost their zeal for publishing wrongheaded baseball opinion pieces, Mike Celizic thankfully summoned all the power of his jaunty fedora to make one of the most idiotic arguments about this year's playoff races. The article's title?
"Baseball's stretch run is going to be boring"
You are truly a poet for the ages, Mike Celizic.
He begins:
"If it weren’t for those damn Yankees, this would be a pretty good stretch run for Major League Baseball. A neck-and-neck battle in the AL West, a jam-packed NL East, scads of teams fighting for the wild cards, with no real favorite.
Instead, I find myself looking at the standings and the teams at the top of the eight playoff races and thinking that there isn’t a great team among them and hoping that no one asks me for a World Series pick, because there just isn’t a clear-cut favorite."
Umm, what? Let me see if I have this right. The playoffs are going to be boring for these three reasons.
1) There are too many teams with a shot at the playoffs (currently about 16). 2) The winner of the World Series is not a foregone conclusion. 3) The Yankees, a team that has made the playoffs for the last 10 seasons, might not make it, even though they are in a three way tie for the AL wild card.
Isn't this the opposite of a boring stretch run? Or does boring mean that over half the teams in the major leagues are going to be busting their asses for the next 50 games to make it to the playoffs, where literally any of them can win?
"I could say the Cardinals [are the favorite], but they have some serious injury issues, and the memory of their collapse in last year’s World Series is too fresh to think of them as prohibitive favorites."
As opposed to the Yankees? Didn't they have something of a collapse last year? It was so long ago I can barely remember!
"There are the White Sox, but this is a team that just showed it can go a week without winning...Besides, they’re the White Sox, who haven’t won a World Series since 1917, and when you’ve gone that long without a title, you can’t be a favorite to win any tournament."
First of all, the length of time since a team's last championship has no bearing on their chances this year. Secondly, isn't this article about why the stretch run is going to be boring? Wouldn't a team with a chance of winning their first title in 88 years make their run less boring? Have I forgotten what boring means?
"Even the wild-card race is tainted by the Yankees. They’re not supposed to be fighting to just slip into the playoffs. And they’re definitely not supposed to be worried about being passed by Oakland and Cleveland.
It’s guilt by association. If the Yankees aren’t great, then nobody else can be, either."
I think I just swallowed my tongue. I am deadly serious when I ask: how can a journalist seriously make this claim and not immediately be fired?
"Baseball is moving in the same direction [as the NFL], the dampers on team payrolls and the additional two playoff spots slowly leveling the playing field and bringing more teams into contention."
The New York Yankees set a record this year with a payroll in excess of 200 million dollars. Only two other teams have payrolls over 100 million dollars. More than half of all baseball teams have payrolls less than 70 million dollars.
"We’ve become so used to having the Yankees as baseball’s all-powerful monster that it’s hard to think of the regular season as a fair fight. Instead of appreciating what we have, we’re consumed by what we don’t have. And we keep imagining that the real Yankees — like the real Mike Tyson — will suddenly emerge and give us the thrill of the massacre again."
Wouldn't most people (and I include many Yankee fans I know in this group) argue that when one team is allowed to spend three times more than most of the other teams in the league, it makes the game less interesting? Yes, it is fun when David beats Goliath, but only because Goliath has spent the better part of a decade kicking David's ass and signing every awesome free agent. And that is not fun to watch.
"Would the Red Sox’s victory last year have been as sweet and memorable if they had not had to go through the Yanks? Would the Angels’ first world title? Would Arizona and Florida have celebrated with the same gusto if they had beaten Cleveland instead of New York."
1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) Yes (even though there was no question mark at the end of that question).
You could make a case that the Sox title would have been less awesome if they hadn't beat the Yankees, but I think that's only because of the circumstances of their historic comeback in that series. If they had swept the Yanks or beat the Twins in 5, I'm still pretty sure Boston fans would have lost their shit just as hard when they won it all.
"It’s possible that my view of things is warped by being too close to the gravitational field of Yankee Stadium."
It's either that or the fedora. Your guess is as good as mine.
"Elsewhere in America, baseball fans may well be consumed by what their teams might accomplish rather than by what the Yankees might not."
I don't know. I know a lot of Phillies fans who have barely noticed that they're currently in the middle of a dogfight for the NL Wild Card because they just can't take their eyes off this past Yanks-Jays series.
"They’re not a good team anymore, and still they dominate the way we view 30 teams and six months of competition. These are good races we’re watching. But without the damn Yankees leading the way, it’s hard to see them that way. If the Yankees aren’t great, nobody’s great."
I'm going to dispense with the sarcasm and vitriol here for a second, if I may, and make this heartfelt and sincere entreaty to Mike Celizic:
"Would Arizona and Florida have celebrated with the same gusto if they had beaten Cleveland instead of New York?"
It's too bad that there's no empirical way to know the answer to this question. Like, say, a world series where Florida played Cleveland instead of New York, and won that world series, and thus generated a celebration whose "gusto" could be measured.
Jesus, it's like he's so intent on using "Cleveland" as the archetypal boring city that he doesn't even bother to remember that they WERE IN THE WORLD SERIES AGAINST FLORIDA IN 1997. Or to recall that the series went seven games, the last of which went thirteen incredibly exciting innings. Or to mention the fact that people came down on the Marlins so hard for the '98 fire sale precisely because the '97 team was so good, and played so well together, and made a notoriously fickle South Florida audience fill an 80,000-seat football stadium for the duration of the playoffs. Or to express any knowledge that the Marlins' nemesis at that time was not the Yankees (huh?), but the Braves, whom they defeated in an electric six-game NLCS that included Livan Hernandez striking out 15 batters during a game that still makes me sort of misty when I think about it.
Then there's the ensuing celebration, which in 1997 included a mere three parades, Bobby Bonilla starting a car dealership, and my mother very nearly leaving my family for Craig Counsell. Of course, I only had season tickets and attended every home playoff game, so it's possible that I couldn't actually see how boring it all was without Mike Celizic's magic lens of watertight objective sports journalism."
I know this isn't misguided sports commentary, but how about newly-annointed genius manager Ozzie Guillen's comments after last night's loss to the Yankees (the ChiSox' 7th in a row)?
From the Sun Times:
"I'm sick and tired about all nine guys,'' Guillen said after a question about third baseman Joe Crede's 0-for-14 slump. "I don't like to criticize my players, but you get sick to your stomach. We're having terrible at-bats, and when you do that, you lose. It's not always easy to get a base hit, but good at-bats, I expect that from everyone.
"It's a shame because the way they [players] shake their heads, it's like they feel sorry for themselves. People should stop feeling sorry for themselves. If you're a baseball player and feel sorry for yourself, you're in the wrong business.''
Guillen feels more sorry for fans.
"Sometimes you get sick of watching the same thing the last two weeks. You're putting my hitting coach and [general manager] Kenny Williams and me at fault. When you struggle, it should be us to blame. But I don't want Greg Walker [hitting coach] and Kenny and my staff to be blamed.''
That's the way to lead, Ozzie! You were the catalyst when they were winning, but in no way are you to blame now, right? Great job. Nicely done.
Joe Morgan: I'm looking forward to today's chat! I'm in San Antonio for a friend's wedding!
KT: Irrelevant!
David: (Lincoln, RI): Hey Joe, I am one of Barry Bond's biggest fans and i constantly get in arguements with my friends that if he played in Yankee stadium as the DH over a full season he could hit 100 hrs. With that short right field porch and say having sheff and arod batting behind him don't you have to pitch to him? Whats your opinion on this? Thanks Joe
Joe Morgan: Three years ago he would have hit 60 or 70 home runs. At this point in his career, he would probably hit around 40 in that scenario.
KT: Brilliant analysis. Four years ago he hit 73, and for the last three years he's averaged about 44. So, you are saying...nothing. A better answer might have been: hitting 100 home runs in a season is insane and impossible, in any stadium. Or that, yes, he might be better off as a DH in an American league home park, though he has repeatedly said he does not want to be. Or anything that is not just...the thing that is.
Kerry Wood (Wrigley Field): How did I look live out of the pen on Sunday night versus the Cardinals? I was throwing some nasty stuff, huh?
Joe Morgan: Coming in for one inning, Wood can look good as long as he throws a few strikes. When I watched him Sunday night, he looked great. But we'll just have to see how he handles it on a more daily basis.
KT: Classic no-answer. Also, anyone can look good as long as he throws a few strikes, if those strikes are not hit by the batter. That's meaningless.
Cubs Fan: Joe, Are you surprised at how well Nomar has hit since his return? Is he now past the adrenaline phase and can he keep up the pace for the rest of the year?
KT: Pay close attention to Joe's answer here.
Joe Morgan: I am surprised. But I said he would swing well the first week because of all the adrenaline of coming back. But it looks like he's getting his timing down pretty well, so I am surprised. But he's a special player so it's not too surprising.
KT: That is gosh darn poetry. Are you surprised at how well Nomar has hit since his return? I am surprised. Is he now past the adrenaline phase? I said he would swing well because of all the adrenaline (i.e., I am not surprised). Can he keep up the pace for the rest of the year? It looks like he's getting his timing down pretty well, so I am surprised. He's a special player, so I am not surprised. Joe Morgan contradicted himself three times in one answer.
anthony,Kansas City, MO: Will the royals ever win again?
Joe Morgan: When things start going downhill, it's hard to stop that momentum. You go to the park expecting to lose unlike the better teams who expect to win. I don't think they are nearly as bad a team as they look right now.
KT: So...yes, they will win? When? How? Where? Why? Which? Who?
Mike (Hope, Arkansas): Are catchers just better at throwing out runners in today's game or have the base stealers really become worse?
Joe Morgan: Catchers haven't gotten better. The real thing is nobody works at it anymore. It's just not part of their game. They don't work at reading pitchers. They just take off when they want to take off.
KT: "They just take off when they want to take off?" Is that the problem? I don't think that's the problem. I think the correct answer is: many teams have wised up and realized that stolen bases aren't really worth the risk, so they have deemphasized that skill in their systems in favor of plate discipline, and as such have been able to score more runs. Thanks for playing.
Scott: Is Felix Hernandez the best pitching prospect you've seen in his teenage years?
Joe Morgan: You can't help but be impressed by him. You want guys to have success right away so his attitude will stay positive. I'm just impressed with how he has handled himself. He will be a very good pitcher.
KT: So...he is?
Patrick O'Brien--NJ: Mr. Morgan, In your book Long Balls, No Strikes you open up describing the Summer of 1998 as the year baseball came out of its coma. This was the year Sosa and McGwire chased Maris' 61 homers. You describe Sosa and McGwire as heroes and even stated.."They gave us a chance to celebrate genuine accomplishment." (Pg3) Have your opinions since then changed amid steroid allegations and the use of a corked bat? Wouldn't it be safe to say that summer was the start of a dark period for baseball, a period where alot of players stats will now be questioned?
Joe Morgan: When I wrote the book, everyone thought it was a great year. To be blunt, I still think it's great. Baseball needed a year like that. Now, I guess to be honest the past is the past. I've put it behind me. The think that bothers me is the present, knowing guys are still being caught using steroids. But even knowing what I know now, it was still a great year in baseball.
KT: I, for one, am glad Joe has put it behind him. By that, I guess, he means that he is choosing to ignore it, since he has never publicly (that I am aware of) chastized the players involved for their steroid use. But at least he can sleep at night knowing that as a prominent baseball analyst and commentator, he has done everything he can (nothing) to deal with the past.
Ian (MacLean, GA): What is the hardest pitch to hit in baseball? Also, is Clemens on steroids?
KT: Hilarious sneak-attack question. Love it.
Joe Morgan: I haven't heard any rumors about Clemens. [...]
KT: Really? Because everyone else in the universe has. I mean, everyone. Do you still cover baseball? It's on the ESPN homepage right now. It's in every chatroom and website about baseball. Why don't you just turn on your computer and...oh. Right. Sorry. Continue.
d (st. louis): Can you give Peter Angelos a few recommendations before he hires his next manager?
Joe Morgan: I think he needs someone who is more respected in the game. Nothing was wrong with hiring Mazzilli at the time but moving forward, I think they need someone who is just more respected around baseball.
KT: Respect is the issue? Maybe it is. I don't know how much Lee Mazzilli was respected. But maybe, how about getting somebody good?
Travis (Indy) : What about a good change-up?
Joe Morgan: A lot of pitches are tough to hit .. a change-up is only difficult in the proper location. When you are pitching to your kid, you pitch underhand so he has time to hit. You don't throw straight and hard. A change up in the middle of the plate will get hit.
KT: So will a fastball in the middle of the plate, a slider in the middle of the plate, a curve in the middle of the plate, a knuckleball in the middle of the plate, and a foshball in the middle of the plate. Remember Mike Boddiker's "Vulcan" pitch? If it were thrown in the middle of the plate, it would be hit.
Mark (Rutherford, NJ): What are your thoughts on how managers deal with their pitchers these days? Isn't it frustrating to see starters get pulled from a game that where they are pitching well just based on the fact they have thrown 100 pitches? Every playoff team right now has to question if their bullpens are overworked, wouldnt it make sense to get more out of starters and avoid this situation? It is killing me watching the yankees right now, Torre pulls his starters only to watch the bullpen collapse night after night!
Joe Morgan: Very good question. I agree 100 percent. Managers protect themselves. If they take somebody out in the seventh and the reliever doesnt' do his job, it's not his fault. He can say he's doing what everyone else is doing. The bullpen is a security blanket for the manager and they're using it.
KT: That's insane, Joe. Managers are killed routinely for not yanking guys at the right time. They are also killed for yanking them too early. Come on. You're not even trying anymore.
Peter (Albany NY): Joe, what's the most important function of a manager? Managing egos or handling a pitching staff?
Joe Morgan: Another great question. People assume the manager's job is to take pitchers in and out. But the most important is getting every player pointed in the same direction. Making sure every player puts the first. That's easier said than done. It's' about preparation and dealing with these issues over a long season.
KT: [sic] [sic] [sic] [sic]
Hogcard (St. Louis, Mo.): Joe: As of right now, who's your choice for the N.L. Cy Young award, Carpenter or Clemens?
Joe Morgan: Well, it's difficult. Nobody has pitched better than Clemens.
KT: Then give it to Clemens. No need to continue. What? You want to continue?
Joe Morgan: Carpenter has had better support from his team.
KT: Irrelevant. So, Clemens, then? What? You want to keep talking?
Joe Morgan: But don't forget Dontrelle has more shutouts and is only one win behind Carpenter.
KT: So...Dontrelle? Or...oh, sorry. You weren't finished.
Joe Morgan: No one has pitched better than Clemens though.
KT: So, I was right the first time. Great work.
TJ (Los Angeles, CA): Do you think that anybody was doing steroids during your era Joe?
Joe Morgan: No. The reason is they just weren't aware those things could help you. Same reason players didn't really lift weights before my era. They just didn't think it would help them.
KT: I will give anybody who reads this five hundred dollars for proof that somebody on the 1975 Reds did steroids, or anything of the kind. Go.
Peter (Sudbury, MA): Joe, what's behind the A's surge in the second half?
Joe Morgan: I think it's been the offense. Everyone talks about the pitchers, but they were next to last in runs scored when they started the streak and they have moved up in that category.
KT: Fine analysis. They scored more runs. My finacee could have told you that. (Hi, honey!)
Phil(grand rapids, MI): Joe, do you think the BoSox have what it takes to win it all again
Joe Morgan: I think they can win it all again. Every team that was in the playoffs last year is not as good this year, with the exception of St. Louis. Boston lost Pedro and don't have Schilling in the rotation. Every team except St. Louis is consideraby weaker this year. So Boston could still win but it all depends who gets hot on Oct. 1. Any team in the playoffs can win it all. Any team. Don't forget that.
KT: I won't, because, um, it's always true.
Joe Morgan: Sorry to have to cut it short but my friend Jack Carroll is getting married tomorrow and we're having a bachelor party here at LaCantera in San Antonio. 16 guys playing golf! I enjoyed all the great questions again this week. I'll be back next Friday (on schedule) for more! Take care!
KT: I will give anyone who reads this five hundred dollars if (s)he crashes Jack Carroll's bachelor party and pantses Joe Morgan. Go.
Francoeur is one of those rare hitters who's a free swinger yet not considered a complete hacker. He simply doesn't stick around at the plate long enough to strike out. Francoeur has whiffed only 19 times so far. That doesn't put him anywhere near someone like the Reds' Adam Dunn, a July call-up in 2001 who hit 19 homers and drove in 38 runs while striking out 74 times in 244 at-bats. Dunn set a major league record last season, whiffing 195 times.
Jeff Francoeur is awesome. I love him. The story of the 2005 Atlanta Braves is my favorite in baseball this year. But come on. How many times have we seen this? Jeff Francoeur has 105 ML at-bats, and he hasn't walked once. Eventually, the league will learn how to pitch to him, and if he doesn't adjust and start walking and being more selective, his numbers will drop precipitously. I promise. If not this year, then next. And to take this swipe at Adam Dunn...well, who would you rather have on your team? A 25 year-old guy with several years' experience and a .909 lifetime OPS, or a 21 year-old rookie with 105 great at-bats?
For the overwhelming majority of situations in baseball, strike-outs are the same as fly-outs, are the same as ground-outs, are the same as pop-outs, are the same as foul-outs. They are outs. They are bad. What are not outs are walks, which are good. Adam Dunn walks 100 times a year. Adam Dunn's OBP is .394. Jeff Francoeur's is .389, because he is hitting .373 and has been hit by three pitches. Check back in a month or two, Mr. Donovan, and let's compare these stats again.
One of my favorite myths, promulgated by the likes of our own Joe Morgan, is that of "Postseason Pressure." The conventional wisdom is, a team comprised of "untested-in-the-postseason" players is more likely to fall apart in October, because, as we all know, professional athletes are nervous wrecks who flail around like newborn gerbils under the glare of a spotlight. Check out excerpts from Joe's recent column on how the '05 Playoff Field is weaker than in years past:
With the exception of the St. Louis Cardinals, none of the teams that made the playoffs last year is as strong this year. The defending champion Boston Red Sox miss Pedro Martinez and a healthy Curt Schilling anchoring the top of the rotation. The New York Yankees don't even know who their top starters are; offseason pickup Randy Johnson (11-7, 4.22 ERA) hasn't been the Cy Young-caliber pitcher we're accustomed to seeing. The A's have a good rotation, but some of their young starters haven't experienced postseason pressure (Rich Harden is as good as any starter in the league, though).
Now, I agree with the first two points. The Red Sox badly lack a stopper, and if the Yankees make the playoffs, it's anybody's guess how their pitchers hold up. But do we really think the A's pitching staff is going to fall to pieces? Barry Zito studies meditation and seems impervious to pressure. Also, if Joe searched his memory banks for just one second, or perhaps deigned to do some actual research, he might remember/learn that Zito in the postseason is 3-2, 2.76, giving up just 23 hits in 32.2 IP. So, he has experienced postseason pressure, and has flourished. Rich Harden is an absolute bulldog, who might be considered the best #1 postseason starter in the league outside of Buerhle or Garland. Danny Haren pitched in all three levels of the playoffs last year, giving up just 2 ER in 8.1 IP with 7K's. He was the only Cardinal pitcher to shut down the Sox' lineup. So, overall, Joe, two of the A's three best starters have stellar postseason records, and the third, Harden, is so awesome it probably couldn't matter less. (And he does have a little postseason experience, throwing a couple innings in the 2003 ALDS against the Red Sox as a rook. Neither here nor there.) Blanton and Saarloos are "untested," but every staff has a few guys who are "untested," and I'd take the A's pitching staff over just about anybody's right now in a five-game series.
By the way, the White Sox starters have just as little experience. Buerhle threw 1/3 of an inning in the 2000 ALDS. Garland has never been. Jose Contreras has been awful in 8 games: 0-2, 11 H in 11 IP, 7 ER and 7 BB with a 5.73 ERA. El Duque, of course, has been otherworldly, with a 9-3 record in 17 games, but this October 11 he will turn 140 years old. Freddy Garcia has some experience, and has been decent -- 3-2, 3.71 in six starts, 36 H and 14 BB in 34 IP, but it's been five years since the 2000 ALCS when he beat the Yanks twice, and he wasn't nearly as good in 2001.
The point of all of this is, there is scant evdence that postseason experience is a huge plus for a pitching staff. If it were that important, the Braves would have won more than one WS in the last 13 years. And furthermore, to suggest that this mythological advantage will affect the A's more than any other team is simply not supported by something we call "facts."
I didn't anticipate the Yankees' pitching woes this season. Johnson has been so dominant, and I expected him to continue to dominate, even at age 41. I also expected more from Mike Mussina. I though Carl Pavano would pitch well. And to be honest, I didn't even factor Jaret Wright in because of his injury problems in recent years. The Yankees made two offseason mistakes: They should have kept Jon Lieber and Orlando Hernandez.
Well, okay. Johnson has been a bit of a surprise with his mediocre (by his standards) pitching. Mussina, we have seen in the last two years, is on the decline. Why you thought Carl Pavano would pitch well is anybody's guess -- he was a career .500 (roughly) pitcher who'd had one good year in an extreme pitcher's park in the NL, and he strikes out less than 6/9 IP, and the Yankees have a terrible defense. Also, was keeping Lieber really a good idea? He has given up 173 H in 156 IP this year with only 102 K's. His WHIP is an average 1.30 (I know you think that is "outstanding," Joe, but it's not) and he has a 4.85 ERA. Some of that can certainly be attributed to playing in a ballpark the size of a Denny's, but not all of it. The guy has amazing control, and he's fairly durable, but he doesn't fool anybody. The Yanks had an $8 million option on him, I think, which is a lot to pay for a 35 year-old guy who had a three-year ERA+ of 108. Keeping El Duque might have pleased the fans in New York, but, again, he is a thousand years old. The Yankees have made a lot of front-office mistakes recently, but I think Lieber/Duque or Pavano/Wright is a wash. Until you factor in the money they spent on those guys, which, admittedly, is crazy, so okay, fine, it was a mistake. I just don't think you think it's a mistake for the same reasons I think it's a mistake, because you refuse to do research.
Meanwhile, any contender can win the AL pennant. If you make the playoffs, you have as good a chance at getting to the World Series as anyone else. The Chicago White Sox, with the best record in baseball, will be the statistical favorite in the AL, but they haven't been to the playoffs in a while so they're untested in the postseason.
The 2003 Marlins. The 2002 Angels. The 2001 Diamondbacks. The 1997 Marlins. There are 4 teams in the last 9 years who had never been to the postseason (with their core line-ups), yet still managed to win the World Series.
The way I see it now, the Angels will win the AL West and the A's will win the wild card. As things stand, I don't think the Yankees will make the playoffs. They have a better chance of catching Boston than winning the wild card, although I don't think that's likely (I believe Boston will win the AL East). Of course, it depends not only on who gets hot but also on who stays healthy down the stretch.
The Sporting News' cover story this week is a piece called "Playing the numbers game." And not unexpectedly, it's far from perfect.
There is, for instance, a sidebar led prominently by the words "This cheat sheet will tell you which numbers are worth crunching." Really, sidebar?
Then explain this horribly misleading "number worth crunching" inside of you:
FOR CATCHERS Catchers' earned-run average, CERA (earned runs x 9 / innings caught). This takes into account a catcher's talent for handling a pitching staff and his ability to call a good game, plus more standard defensive skills such as preventing wild pitches and passed balls and throwing out runners attempting to steal. The Astros' Brad Ausmus (3.01) has the best CERA.
Ugh. Can anyone guess where the Astros rank in terms of regular ol' ERA? If you guessed first, you're awfully close. They're second. (To the Cardinals, by the way. Hmm, I wonder if Yadier Molina also has an amazing CERA?) This version of CERA is incredibly uninformative: it doesn't even attempt to control for the pitchers who are throwing! Ausmus has had the pleasure of catching Roy Oswalt, Andy Pettitte, and the absolutely inhuman Roger Clemens this year.
But of course, it must be his handling of the staff, his ability to call a good game, his prevention of wild pitches and passed balls and his skill at throwing out runners attempting to steal that account for his CERA. You know who probably sucks at all of those things? Jason Varitek. I bet his CERA is through the roof. Or how about noted defensive laggard Ivan Rodriguez? Since the Tigers' ERA is 4.24, I bet his CERA is atrocious.
And remember, this is from an article trying to convince people how statistics can be useful -- and furthermore, from a sidebar inside said article giving you the only statistics you should pay attention to.
