FIRE JOE MORGAN

Little tip: if you're driving from the gym to Trader Joe's, do not accidentally listen to even more sports talk radio that you disparagingly blogged about earlier.

You might overhear official Mensa President and High Priest Erik Kuselias say something like the following:

The Phillies went out and got Tadahito Iguchi and Kyle Lohse. If you're a Mets fan, you've got to be wondering, where's our Kyle Lohse? You have to at least get someone so your fans can call up their friends and be like, we got this guy.

Look, I didn't discover fourteen new elements like Mensa founder Erik Kuselias did, but I'm pretty sure that making a trade so your fans have a reason to call their friends is a lousy move for a GM.

Kyle Lohse has been a serviceable, slightly below average starter (career ERA+ 95, 2007 ERA+ 101) with 80 K's in 131.2 IP this year. Hard to be that upset about Kyle Lohse doing anything. Sure, he might be a slight improvement over a Jorge Sosa or a Mike Pelfrey, but really: he's Kyle Lohse.

Labels: erik kuselias, kyle lohse, mensa international the society for people with high IQs, mets

Of course, no one should listen to sports talk radio. Clinical studies have definitively shown that even brief exposure to ESPN Radio causes memory loss and reduction of cognitive function in lab mice.

So I was just in my car listening to a man whose name I believe is Erik Kuselias (Wikipedia helpfully notes that this man "is a member of Mensa International, the society for people with high IQs"). I have very little to say about Erik, except to plaintively ask him, Why would you ask Stephen A. Smith questions about baseball?

I didn't transcribe any of this, but I believe in about a (loud) five-minute span, Mr. Smith said approximations of the following things:

I'm not really a baseball guy

I'm a big Yankees fan

I'd like to see the Yankees get Gagne, or the Mets

(on whether the Red Sox need Jermaine Dye) David Ortiz gave me a hug

The Boston Red Sox KNOW HOW TO WIN

The Red Sox play WillieBall

The Yankees rely on home runs

The Red Sox steal bases, hit and run, and again, KNOW HOW TO WIN

He also once (loudly, confidently) referred to the Boston Red Sox as the Boston Celtics.

Just for the record:

Yankees SB: 80
Red Sox SB: 56

Yankees WillieBall Quotient: 9.36
Red Sox WillieBall Quotient: -3.42

Erik Kuselias, you are a member of Mensa International, the society for people with high IQs. Please, do not ask this man about baseball again.

Labels: erik kuselias, mensa international the society for people with high IQs, red sox, sports talk radio, stephen a. smith, willieball, yankees

Listen, Michael Ventre, perennial all-NBA-er and surefire Hall of Famer Kevin Garnett just got traded. What do you think his impact will be?

Arrogance is not an admirable trait, but there are certain circumstances in which it is not only acceptable but welcome.

Correct! Exactly. The correct answer is: KG will make Brian Scalabrine more arrogant, and with an arrogant Scalabrine on the squad, other teams will cower and forfeit in terror.

If you’ve watched the Boston Celtics for the past 20 years, you know what I mean. Once they were the most arrogant of sports franchises — more than any of their counterparts in other leagues, including the New York Yankees — simply because Red Auerbach was the face of their organization. And there is nothing more arrogant than having Red puff a cloud of smoke in your face after he’s handed you a whipping.

What if Mark Cuban vomited in a Broadcast.com promotional frisbee, drove over to your house, and dumped the vomit into your mail slot? Would that be more arrogant? How about if Paul Allen financed a private spacecraft, piloted it to the nearest planet with sentient life, collected the waste material of said life, drove back to Earth, and poured the waste onto your plate of fries? Is that more arrogant? I'm sorry, what were we talking about? Oh, right. Aliens. I'm for them.

Alas, Red is gone. And his Celtics’ swagger had disappeared well before that.

Back to the matter at hand. The thing they always said about Kevin Garnett: he was born swaggering. He swaggered out of his mother's birth canal. He swaggers when he sleeps. His favorite preacher is Jimmy Swaggart. Sometimes, instead of going for a rebound, he'll wink at the crowd and swagger into the locker room and put on a cowboy hat and cowboy pants. Sometimes he plays basketball, but not often.

The Celtics were only obnoxious if you liked to bathe in nostalgia.

Metaphor not working for me. Anyone else?

But in one offseason, all that has changed. The Celtics have their cherished arrogance back. They’re hateable again.

Also, they're better. At sports. Better players, you know? Not that important, but still.

Ah, forget it. We know the truth: when the Celtics come visit your home team, Ray Allen is going to strut out onto the court in a leather unitard, stride into the crowd, and insult your wife's personal appearance. Because Ray Allen is an arrogant shithead and that's what makes the Celtics good.

And the Celtics basically got Garnett for a bag of peanuts and a can of cling peaches. The T-Wolves are taking Al Jefferson, Gerald Green, Telfair and Theo Ratliff’s expiring contract. Jefferson and Green are nice players. Telfair is a waste of a good uniform.

This is wrong. Al Jefferson is neither peanut nor peach. Al Jefferson is a valuable commodity who averaged 19.8 PPG (on 55% shooting), 11.5 RPG, 1.7 BPG, and 1.1 SPG after the All-Star break. He was born the year Back to the Future came out.

In Ventre's defense, Jefferson could improve defensively and he's nowhere near the human mountain of arrogance Tim Duncan is.

Although Boston will still have the little matter of surrounding those three with enough talent and depth to keep the stars from wearing themselves out, the extended forecast in New England is sunny for the first time in years.

More than their actual win-loss record, however, is the attitude. Arrogance is back. If Red were alive, he’d be so happy he could smoke.

More what than their actual win-loss record, Michael? More what?

Here I will offer some suggestions:

more important
more consequential
more significant
more material
more meaningful
more influential

Or wait. I'll just rewrite the paragraph entirely.

More arrogant than their actual win-loss record, however, is their arrogance. Arrogance is king. If I had a racehorse or a fragrance, I would name it Arrogance.

And then, if I were you, Michael Ventre, I would conclude this article without mentioning basketball. Thank you for your time.

Labels: basketball, celtics, food metaphors, kevin garnett, michael ventre

A gem from reader Devon:

During the Mets-Nats today, Gotay singles in Reyes. LoDuca was wearing a towel on his head on the bench to keep cool.

Gary Cohen: "From now on, in RBI spots, the Mets are going to be putting towels on their heads. It'll be like the new rally cap...the towel head."

Can't wait for the Braves-Mets game where the Tomahawk Chop faces off against the Towel Head. Good luck racists!

UPDATE:
Reader Cary writes in, claiming that Cohen in fact said: "towel cap." Disappointing, if it's true.

Labels: gary cohen, mets

Only MSNBC's Michael Ventre -- rapidly becoming my favorite sportswriter in America -- dares to ask the question that is on everyone's mind: are apples like oranges?

Red Sox on Verge of Mickelson-like Collapse?

For the record, Phil Mickelson has won three majors. This year alone he has won at TPC at Sawgrass and the Pebble Beach Pro-Am. He's #2 in the world, and #2 on the money list.

He is also a professional golfer, which means he has nothing to do with baseball.

The Boston Red Sox have been doing business a lot longer than Phil Mickelson has been alive.

Yet I can’t help but think of the Red Sox as the Phil Mickelson of baseball.

Excellent thesis statement. You're the Stephen Jay Gould of MSNBC free-lancers.

Lefty had once held the title of Best Golfer Never to Have Won a Major. Then in 2004, he won a major, the Masters. He added to his credentials by winning the PGA Championship in 2005, and another Masters in 2006. Life was good.

But it appears Mickelson had intended only to visit his sport’s peak, not set up camp there. Since then, he collapsed in the 2006 U.S. Open at Winged Foot. This year, he faltered badly in the Scottish Open, a warm-up tournament for the British Open, then missed the cut at Carnoustie.

Just so I am clear. He won the Masters for the second time last year. He lost in the final round of the Open, missed the cut at the British, and now he is terrible?

If you stare at Mickelson long enough, you can see Mike Torrez. If you look even harder, you can see Bill Buckner.

Oooh -- I love those things. Here's a neat one -- if you stare hard enough you see a toucan!

This bizarre metonymic Mickelson-as-All-Chokers trope is flimsy, man. The guy's won three majors in three years. Also, he is a golfer, and the Red Sox are a baseball team. That should be the most obvious reason why the comparison doesn't work, given the -- shall we say -- significant differences in the two sports. But hell, I admire your can-do attitude. Let's keep rolling.

And if you study the Red Sox these days, the phenomenon is mutual. Stare intently at the wobbly American League East leaders and you’ll see Mickelson, smacking errant tee shots and bogeying three of the final five holes at Loch Lomond.

I'm going to make a good-faith effort to back you on this journalistic suicide mission.

The Red Sox have tripped a bit recently, yes. They are basically .500 since June 1. But they just took 3 of 4 from the best home team in the AL and have a 7.5 game lead in the AL East. BP puts their odds of winning the AL East at 95.9%, and 98.67% to make the playoffs.

Phil Mickelson...is a golfer...who...forget it. I give up. This is insane.

It may not be completely fair to compare the two, since

One is a baseball team and one is a golfer?

Boston’s bustling infirmary has had something to do with its recent vulnerability.

Oh.

David Ortiz is just recently back from resting a strained shoulder. Curt Schilling is rehabbing in the minors because of right shoulder tendinitis. Jon Lester recently returned to the team after battling a form of lymphoma. J.D. Drew has constant hamstring issues. Matt Clement is still working his way back from offseason shoulder surgery. Brendan Donnelly is recovering from a strained forearm.

Clement was never in the 2007 gameplan. Donnelly was pitching pretty well when he went down, but in his absence the bullpen hasn't missed a beat. Lester returned from his cancer scare, and ahead of schedule, so that weakens your argument. Drew's problems have not seemingly been injury-related. Ortiz missed like four games and has a .991 OPS this year.

Mickelson had a wrist thing a little while back. I think with a little tinkering, this "injury" run could be rejiggered to support your claim. Think about it.

But the Red Sox have shown disturbing signs — for their anguished fans, at least — that they might not feel comfortable at the top. Despite their World Series breakthrough in 2004, their natural tendency to collapse appears to be surfacing.

Their "natural tendency to collapse." Because a team's inherent nature transcends ownership and personnel changes from generation to generation. Because baseball franchises are like the four Hogwarts Houses in Harry Potter books. (You're a Slytherin, Michael Ventre. A Slytherin.)

Before Thursday’s games, they held a 6.5 game lead over the second-place New York Yankees, who had been stuck in as large a mental quagmire as they have ever had to try and overcome. It marked the first time since May 11 that Boston had held a lead of fewer than seven games. The Red Sox held a 12-game lead in early July, but the Yankees have somehow asserted themselves.

Excellent analysis. They didn't "somehow assert themselves." They began performing exactly the way their ExWL numbers predicted they would. In fact, they are still underperforming by about 5-6 games, so we can expect that their good play will continue. The Red Sox, meanwhile, had been very slightly overperforming, but in general just hit a slump. Kind of like Luis Delís between the '87 World Championships and the '93 Central American and Caribbean Games.

And despite the fact that the Red Sox had won five straight before falling on Wednesday against Cleveland, the omens are present.

For the motherhumping record, there is no such thing as: curses, omens, augurs, ghouls, ghosts, True Yankees, or franchises being haunted by fat ex-ballplayers who would have no reason to haunt said franchise, since the trade of the fat player led to him becoming the most famous athlete, maybe, in history.

But please, on with the omen discussion.

For instance, on Wednesday night Boston lost to Fausto Carmona and the Indians, 1-0. Nothing to be ashamed of, yet it was unsettling that Josh Beckett threw an outstanding game but lost on one measly mistake to Franklin Gutierrez, which turned into a solo shot. And it was Beckett’s first road loss since last September.

So spooky! So omen-ish!

The night before, The Sox won 1-0 on several bloop singles that fell just out of the reach of Indians' fielders.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble!

Also, Fausto Carmona is a very good pitcher. He defeated another team by pitching excellently.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble!

Not a problem. Nothing to panic over. Sometimes a black cat crosses your path, and most of the time it means nothing. Most of the time.

No, all of the time it means nothing. I know I'm losing my argument thread here, but now Ventre is crossing over from bad analogy to superstitious piffle. And I don't care if he's winking and "goofing around" and "being lighthearted." Black cats are not any different from other cats. And even in a universe where I good-naturedly agree to play along with the idea that there are "omens" in baseball, this isn't a fucking omen. Being defeated by an excellent pitcher 1-0 in game 3 of a series in which you win the other three games is not an omen of anything except that you are a good baseball team -- indeed, you have the best record in baseball -- and that you should be happy with the results of that series.

Meanwhile, the Yankees, a team some consider the luckiest men on the planet — usually the people who believe that live in, or hail from, the New England area — have managed to avert a complete oil spill of a season and are making a run.

They have gotten their share of good breaks in the last ten years or so, yes. They are also a $200m+ collection of excellent players who, recently, have been absolutely destroying the baseball in exactly the way that mathematics and reason predicts they should. They have also been pitching better. And thus: winning. To draw an analogy for you, Ventre: the Yankees are currently performing much like Carolina Klüft during her magical run at the 2003 World Championships in Paris.

The Yankees trailed by 14.5 games in late May, but they’ve won 11 of their last 13.
Probably nothing to fret over. I’m sure the Red Sox will be cool. Historically, they’re known for their composure down the stretch, especially with the numeral “14” involved. They had a 14-game lead in 1978, but it disappeared down the stretch, and Bucky Dent put an exclamation mark on the disaster with a game-winning home run over the Green Monster in a playoff game.

Yes, that is factually accurate. Tell me, though -- how is the number "14" involved here, though? Because at one point, several months ago, the lead was 14.5 games? And that means that this year and 1978 are linked, portentously? Excellent. By the way, man -- I enjoyed your movie.

But it’s silly to toss and turn over what might happen in the future. After all, what are the chances that the Boston Red Sox will somehow fail to live up to their promise? They have legions of devoted fans who live and die with their exploits. Why in the world would a team disappoint their fans like that?

What are you trying to prove here? I honestly don't understand. Are you blaming the team for falling short in past seasons? And insinuating that they did it, like, intentionally?

David Ortiz has 16 home runs this season. Last year he finished with 54. I’m sure that if he bears down and goes on a tear he can match that total. I wouldn’t worry about it.

The team signed Drew to a five-year contract in the offseason worth $70 million. Lately he’s been limping a lot. So far he’s batting .247, with six home runs and 38 RBI. But he’ll catch fire soon, I’m sure.

...this season [Curt Schilling] is just 6-4 with a 4.20 ERA in 15 starts, and he hasn’t pitched since June 18. Yet I feel certain that the 40-year-old veteran of 21 major-league seasons will spring to life soon and power the Red Sox to victory like he did in the days when he was pitching in Arizona alongside another invincible war horse, Randy Johnson.

Michael Ventre is sarcastically pointing out that: Ortiz is having an off-year (.340 EqA, .991 OPS), JD Drew is having an off-year (true) and Curt Schilling isn't as good as he was six years ago when he was in his absolute prime. As if he should be.

The PGA Championship is scheduled to take place in two weeks at Southern Hills in Tulsa, Okla. The best thing that could happen to the Red Sox would be for Mickelson to snap out of his funk and win another major.

(EDIT: I missed completely how dumb this last sentence was -- the phrasing, I mean. So I will here insert Junior's comment from the comments section below. Take it away, Junior.)

Best thing? Best? You know, actually, if you think about it, of all of the infinite things in the world that could happen between now and the end of the season, Phil Mickelson winning a major is somewhere right around 50th percentile. Because it has no impact on the Sox whatsoever. It goes something like this:

Bestest
-Sox win 60 games in a row, Yankees franchise disbands
-Ortiz gets healthy, Schilling comes back strong
-A-Rod starts looking human
-Barack Obama is revealed to have killed Pat Tillman
-Ugly Betty wins five Emmys
-Phil Mickelson wins a major
-A mother elephant sacrifices its life to safe its baby
-I eat a duck confit sandwich with fig jam
-Youkilis gets super into scuba diving and loses his love for baseball
-Manny loses his hand in a meat cutter
-Sox lose 60 games in a row, Yankees are awarded a Peabody and a Humanitas
Worstest

(END EDIT. Back to Ventre's column.)

That would illustrate to them that negative habits can be broken.

One more time -- "negative habits" like winning the Masters twice in three years and being one of the best golfers of his era and making millions and millions of dollars by being good at golf? Those negative habits?

I tell you what would be a good omen for the Red Sox. If Nathan Deakes could regain the form that led him to Gold at the 2002 Manchester Games. Deakes and the Sox are like totally parallel in terms of what they do athletically.

Labels: michael ventre, omens, red sox

No preamble. Let's just do this thing.

Joe Morgan: Good morning. I am looking forward to chatting with you all, and I am looking forward to going to Coopertown for the induction ceremony.

Ken Tremendous: Coopertown, eh? The fine people of Cheatham County await you.

Mark (Bangor, PA): Joe, Westbrook and Lee have had very disapointing seasons. Given their track records over the last 2 - 3 years, do you think the Indians could still get on a pretty good roll soon?

Joe Morgan: The track records are very improtant because the player knows he has done it before and that can help his confidence. But it is very difficult to turn around a season because when you are on the mound you start thinking about all your struggles. But I think both those pitchers are good enough to turn it around and win three or four starts in a row.

KT: Yes, this is a rambling, dumb answer, in which Joe lays down his patented two sentence information-less vamp before just answering the motherfletching Q. And yes, what he actually says is particularly dumb, because he goes: (1) track record will help these guys turn it around, right into (2) it's hard to turn it around when you are not living up to your track record.

But really, I just include this in order to remind everyone that last April Steve Phillips announced that Cliff Lee was the best lefthanded pitcher in the majors.

A-ha! Sneak attack! I bet Steve Phillips just sat down at his computer, opened Safari (he uses a Mac -- weird, right?) and FJM -- his homepage -- came up, and he saw there was a new JoeChat, and he thought, "Oh good. I'm safe. I can read this and not get slammed."

Got you, Phillips! Got you good!

Also, Joe Morgan stinks.

Kirby (NY): Hello, Joe. I have very few moments of clarity in my life, but I had one this morning: Bud Selig should be on hand for Barry's record-breaking homerun.

KT: I will summarize Joe's answer before you read it: "I agree." Now, watch how many words it takes Joe to say, "I agree."

Joe Morgan: I agree that he should make every effort to be there. But we do not know when Barry will hit it, but she should make every effort to be there. It is hard to follow someone around for two weeks when you are not sure. This is a very hard thing to predict, when he is going to hit the home run. But Selig should make the effort, and I think he will.

That's 73 words, if you care. Three of them are "but." He also refers to Bud Selig as "she." Is this a Bill Parcells/Terry Glenn situation? Or perhaps Joe thinks Selig is a post-operative transsexual -- a mistake for which I personally would forgive him.

Mark (New York, NY): Joe, do you think Mark Teixeira will be traded before the deadline, and if so where might he end up?

Joe Morgan: I am not sure he will be traded.

KT: Of course you aren't sure. No one is sure. But here is the current headline on ESPN.com, Joe's employer: MLB execs: Rangers intent on trading star Teixeira.

Texas may wait until next year to deal him. But if he does go somewhere everyone seems to be thinking it will be the Yankees.

Teams mentioned in that ESPN.com article: Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Angels, Braves and Giants.

But I do not know if they want to raise that payroll.

Yankees' payroll: unlimited by any factor.

I do not see Teixeira being traded this year especially coming off an injury.

Current headline on ESPN.com, Joe's employer: MLB execs: Rangers intent on trading star Teixeira.

Texas would probably get more value for him next year since he is not having a great season.

Players mentioned in ESPN.com article: Phil Hughes (NYY's #1 prospect), Joba Chamberlain (their #2 or #3 pitching prospect), Clay Buchholz (Red Sox' #1 prospect), Jacoby Ellsbury (their #1 positional prospect), "Dodgers' three top pitching prospects."

Kevin (Hamler, OH): Do the Tigers have enough bullpen pitching without Zumaya and Rodney to make a serios run at a world championship?

Joe Morgan: That is hard to say because you never know who is going to step up.

KT: There is a rule in screenwriting that if you can switch two characters' dialog without things seeming weird and effed up, you have failed to adequately define your characters. I will once again say that if you are a professional baseball writer, and you write a sentence that could be written regardless of the question that is asked, you have failed to provide adequate analysis. Now read that last sentence back to yourself, Joe.

But if they get those guys back I think they will win it all. At the moment it is very hard to tell what is going to happen in Detroit.

What kind of thing is this to write? What kind of help is this, to anyone? At the moment, it is very hard to tell what is going to happen in Detroit. That should be Joe's motto.

They have excellent hitters, 1-9. They have excellent starting pitching. It is relatively easy to predict what is going to happen in Detroit. They are going to make the playoffs, probably. BP's PECOTA-adjusted odds report has them at 71.3% to win the division and 18.9% to win the WC. There. I just predicted it.

But at this point I think they may be the best team in baseball and that is even considering the hot streak the Yankees are on.

So, it is very hard to predict what is going to happen to a first-place team that you believe is the best team in baseball. In that case, ipso facto, you are a terrible analyst.

Rob (Lime Rock, CT): If you were the White Sox GM would you trade Garland for Renteria as has been rumored this week?

Joe Morgan: I would, but I do not think the Braves should make that deal until the season is over. You don't need to make that deal now if you are the Braves. I am a big fan of Reteria, I think he is one of the most underrated players in the game for all he does. He is very consistent.

KT: Edgar Renteria's EqAs:

2003: .308
2004: .253
2005: .250
2006: .275
2007: .308

Also, I know errors are stupid, but in 2005 he made like 120 errors. He is: not very consistent. But kudos on using "consistent" and extending a record you already own -- this makes 3,409 consecutive days you have said or written the word "consistent." You have been very consistent in your use of "consistent." You are the Cal Ripken of "consistent"-using!

Paddy (St. Louis): Joe, With Tony Gwynn, going into the Hall this week, do you think he could have hit .400 in 1994? I'd like to think he would have.

Joe Morgan: Well that is very hard to answer.

KT: Hey, Joe, I have a question for your baseball chat.

Joe: Sure, but before you ask it, for security purposes, and to protect me legally, I must read the following statement: "I, Joseph Ignatius Bosephius Reginald Morgan, hereby declare that all questions posed to me are difficult to answer, and I cannot be held responsible for actually answering them. These questions may include, but are not limited to, sequences of words that challenge me to make predictions, analyze certain situations, or use my knowledge to form conclusions and/or extrapolations, all of which circumstances are unacceptable. The questioner must hereby state, for the record, that I am under no obligation, at any time, to provide information, to proffer opinions, or to "go out on a limb" in any way, seeing as all information is fluid, and also seeing as there is really no way to predict anything with any accuracy, and also seeing as trying to figure out what might happen is basically impossible -- especially given Hawking (et al.) and his work in positing parallel universes and/or dimensions, to say nothing of Schrödinger and the cat and all of that jazz about examining stuff and thus changing it inexorably -- and thus the very idea that anyone, including me, could actually "answer" a question is just about as absurd as shit gets, really, when you think about it." Just sign here--

KT: Okay.

JM: And here. And initial here. And this is just some more legal jargon absolving me of any monetary or emotional damages that might be incurred if I ever do decide to attempt to answer a question and it backfires somehow.

KT: How could it backfi--

JM: Honestly, it doesn't matter, because I am totally never going to answer a question, so just sign --

KT: Okay.

JM: And we're done. This copy is yours, this is mine, this one gets filed at the World Court, and this one goes to Coopertown, TN. Now. What was the question you had?

KT: Forgot.

I think if Brett and Carew were playing around 2003 those guys could have hit .400, and Tony was always a threat to hit .400. But remember when players were hiting .400 that was a very different era, batters got to see a pitcher a lot more; now a days teams bring in fresh pitchers more often and it makes it harder.

Rod Carew hit .359 or above four times. But George Brett had one flukey year when he hit .390 in 117 games. He never hit above .335 again. He was an excellent hitter, no doubt. But really? Brett would hit .400 in 2003? Fuck the heck are you talking about, man?

You say yourself one sentence later that it's harder to hit .400 nowadays due to specialty pitchers. Whether that's true is debatable, but what is the evidence that George Brett -- not Boggs, not Williams, not Gehrig, not Hornsby or Cobb, but Brett -- would have hit .400 in 2003? What the hell is wrong with you?!

William ( MA): In your opinion, who is the best hitter in baseball? Ichiro? Pujols? A-Rod? Jeter? And defend your position.

KT: I love an aggressive MassHole. Fantastic.

Joe Morgan: Well hitting is hard to define. You have to look at what you consider a good hitter: power, average, or a combo. Manny Ramrirez has been the best for the last 8-10 years, but now he is not hitting his normal share of home runs this year.

First of all, "Ramrirez" is how Astro the Jetsons' dog would pronounce Manny's last name. (Boo-yah! Pop culture!) Second, I like that he just flatly declares that Manny has been the best hitter for the last 8-10 years. Bonds has led his league in OPS+ six times since 1997, including a 262 spot in 2001. Manny has led his league once, at 174. Manny has led in Runs Created twice in the last decade, but ARod has done it four times (including this year, so far). Manny is one of the great modern-day hitters, but it is silly to declare so plainly that he has been the best.

Last year you probably would have said Pujols. But right now you have to include A-rod because he is the most productive hitter in the game, but that does not mean he is the best hitter.

Joe, you're such a tease! Just get to who you think it is!

But that is a very hard question to answer, because first you have to define what you thinka good hitter is.

Oh. You're not going to answer.

The answer, this year, is ARod in the AL, and probably Bonds or Miggy Cabrera in the NL. (Though what a year Chipper is having! And how about Magglio proving everyone wrong by living up to that huge contract? Interesting year. Too bad Joe never watches any of it, or feels the need to discuss any of it, because the league is pretty cool right now.)

chris (chicago): Joe, you saw Matt Holliday at the All-Star game...Do you think hes a legit future superstar?

Joe Morgan: we throw the word superstar around too quickly, after one great year. I think he has the potential, but you have to wait and see if the consistency is there. But I did like what I saw during the All-Star game.

KT: The slangdictionary.com entry for "covering one's ass" should link directly to Joe's brain. "Well, it's too early to tell, and we'll have to wait a thousand years before we have technology advanced enough to tell for absolute certain, and before we can even make any educated guesses he will have to be consistent for 25+ seasons so that we know it was not a fluke, but right now, with a gun to my head, if I have to answer, I'd say: Yes, I do believe that Boof Bonser is on the Twins' 40-man roster."

Joe Morgan: Looking forward to talking to you next week. I should have some Hall of Fame stories for you next time!

KT: Can wait!

Labels: fuck the heck, joe morgan, joechat

Lupica's got a new one. And it's a doozy.

Even at 100 RBI, A-Rod Yet to Earn Stripes

Labels: arod, fuck the heck, mike lupica, true yankee

Then you'll love ESPN's segment "Who's Now"! It's a sports segment about sports persons and it's on a sports network!

In this edition, ESPN, the Worldwide Leader in Sports, devotes several minutes of my time (yes: my time) to discussing, with Stuart Scott, Mike Greenberg, Adam Sandler, and Kevin James, which of Tom Brady and Maria Sharapova is more "now."

Scott: Lot of talent on their field, or court. And a lot of buzz, because, let's face it, everybody talks a lot about how hot these two are.

Greenberg: The one thing I was thinking going into this, if there's a toss-up, maybe you actually go to the sports. --

Off Camera Voice: (as if this is a shocking notion) Wow.

Greenberg: -- Who's actually the greater player. In my opinion, Brady is closer to being the best quarterback in football than Sharapova is to being the best tennis player in the world.

(There is a fraction of a second where everyone involved with this miserable tragedy seems to be thinking: Man. It is a little weird that this is the flagship program on the #1 sports network in the world, and this is a recurring segment with like tons of graphics and fan voting and stuff, and one of our regular anchor-types just suggested that maybe if we need a like tie-breaker issue to figure out which of these athletes wins this contest that we're having, we might actually examine their relative abilities in the sports which they play. Then, Stuart Scott says...)

Scott: If you guys were having a party, and you had to invite one of them -- it's a Hollywood party -- who do you invite?

And then Adam Sandler makes jokes about hotness, Sharapova vs. Brady's girlfriends, and Sportscenter "rolls on."

What happened to ESPN? Seriously.

Labels: espn, who's now

Hooray! Gallimaufry time! What better way to start the week?

Plenty of action for the Sunday night game on ESPN. Reader Colleen starts us off:

According to Joe Morgan, Adam Kennedy has "always been a great offensive player."

He has a career OPS+ of 89.

So true. So simple. Reader Evan L. noticed the same thing, but pointed instead to AK's .261 career EQA.

Maybe Joe meant: relative to all other human beings, Adam Kennedy has always been a great offensive player? As you may know, I like to give Joe the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.

Okay! Over on TCM, Charlie Dalton just changed his name to Nuwanda. And back at the FJM inbox, a number of readers noticed Joe Morgan's total misread of an ump's call on a stolen base attempt. We'll go with David S.'s version of events because he seemslike a good dude:

rolen steals 2nd, called safe, morgan says "easily safe" when crowd boos. they go to the replay that shows rolen CLEARLY out, morgan again says "easily safe." then they freeze it with rolen being tagged while nowhere near the bag, and both announcers are dead silent until the next pitch.

A quick pause to remind our dear readers that Gallimaufry is brought to you each and every week by Bacon Salt. Bacon Salt: Tastes like bacon...and salt!

Reader Mike mustered enough strength to listen to the voice of Suzyn Waldman, and for that, we congratulate him with a post of his observation:

During last night's Yankees broadcast, Waldman and John Sterling were talking about the possibility of Luis Vizcaino notching the win in both ends of the doubleheader. Sterling quipped that he could be the modern-day Wilbur Wood. This was Waldman's reply: "For those who don't know, Wilbur Wood used to start, and win, both ends of a doubleheader. A lot."

Only twice did Wood start both ends of a doubleheader. Never did he win both ends. In fact, in his most famous double-dip appearance, he took the collar two losses on the same day against the Yankees.

I just found out that Suzyn Waldman is from Newton, Massachusetts. Weird, right?

Also, say what you will about Mr. Keating's teaching methods. This guy really inspires his students. Sometimes you just gotta say "fuck the heck," right?

On with the 'maufry! Bruce Torres writes FJM to say:

Hey...

Want to find someone to sleep with living near by?
91% of our members already gotten some action with the help of our system..

Well guess what? it won't even cost you a penny,

It's all here

NDj48S8365rk
ASwd5638d41N46g51

Okay, Bruce! Good to know.

Reader Matthew K. writes for no reason other than to add to the ever-growing list of Eckstein nicknames:

David Husslehoff

Sure. Why not. Add it to the list. I'd go with "Hustlehoff," maybe, but...oh fuck -- I think Robert Sean Leonard's character is about to kill himself.

Reader Rick N. has an interesting thought on the ongoing "Who's Now?" situation:

dude, who's now would be brilliant if it were advertised as satire.

dude, maybe.

Actually, nothing blew my mind more about the whole "Who's Now" thing than the fact that Barry Bonds lost in the first round. I know it was up to the voters, and not ESPN itself, but seriously: every Bonds at bat is televised by ESPN. He dominates the front page of ESPN.com. Pedro Gomez pops up every fifteen minutes to tell me whether or not Bonds made a doody. He's about to break the all-time HR record -- and he's less "now" than Jeff Gordon? I don't get it.

And lastly, Lt. J.J. K. points us to this take on Joe Morgan's relation to the Sheffield/Torre/RealSports nonsense.

I'm not sure exactly what to make of it, but the author certainly doesn't like Joe Morgan. And I like that!

"O Captain My Captain!" You tell 'em, Ethan Hawke's character!

Labels: adam kennedy, barry bonds, david eckstein, espn, fuck the heck, gallimaufry, joe morgan

From reader Robert:

Dodgers and Mets, this morning. Leadoff walk to Wright, and Tim hits us with this gem:

"Folks, we don't want to throw a lot of numbers at you, but this year, 39% of leadoff walks have scored. That's about 40% of the time."

Labels: tim mccarver

Welcome to the 955th post here at Fire Joe Morgan, Inc.

You know, people always ask me, "Ken, why is it called 'Fire Joe Morgan?' Why not 'Fire Tim McCarver,' or 'Fire Bruce Jenkins,' or 'Help Us Save "Jericho!"'?" Well, it's simple. Yes, there are a lot of terrible analysts out there. But only Joe has what we really crave: a unique blend of ignorance, inexplicable anger, arrogance, and haughtiness -- all mixed together with Joe's trademarked penchant for (seemingly deliberately) not answering questions put to him during question and answer sessions.

And with that, here's post 955, which is: A JoeChat.

Bernard (Princeton, NJ): Hi Joe! At one point do the Red Sox start to worry about that team in the Bronx?

Joe Morgan: I think they have to worry about them now, because the Yankees are playing great. Roger Clemens have given them a shot in the arm, even though they're 3-6 in his starts. He's added life to a dead situation. I think they will stay in the race, but if Boston simply plays normally, the Yankees won't catch them.

Ken Tremendous: It's Clemens? Clemens is the one who is making the difference. Clemens, who had a 5.32 ERA in his first five starts, in which the Yankees went 1-4. It's him. The guy who gave up 5 earned in 5 weak to the DRays two starts ago. It's Clemens. Not ARod, who had a 1.281 OPS over those first five starts, in June. Not Wang, or Abreu heating up, or Cano heating up. It's been Clemens, who, by your own admission, hasn't pitched that great.

This is the laziest possible explanation for what has made the Yankees start winning. The real reason is: they were getting very unlucky and were underperforming, based on their runs scored/runs allowed Expected W/L formula, and it was only a matter of time until that changed. The dumb-as-nails Joe Morgan reason is: Roger Clemens! He's a good pitcher. He joined the team. The team started winning. Ergo: Clemens is the reason.

If Joe Morgan saw someone eating a Clark Bar on the street, and it started to rain, he would explain the rain by saying, "That guy ate some candy -- that was the difference right there."

Kwame (New York, NY): Joe can you pinpoint anything that would explain Beltran's struggles? He's killing the Mets in the middle of the order right now. Is it because Delgado is having a bad year? With his tools he should be hitting .290 during an "off" year.

KT: Here is what an analyst would say:

"Beltran is getting a little bit unlucky this year, as you can see here. But his numbers aren't so far off from his career norms. He's at .799 OPS this year, and his career OPS is .840 or so. his BB rate is down slightly but his K-rate is basically the same, so maybe he's just straining to get hits to help his struggling team instead of showing the same patience that gave him 95 BB last year."

Here is what Joe Morgan says:

Joe Morgan: I believe the Delgado situation is part of it. It's always easier when the guys around you are htting better, especially the guy behind you. You can't blame Delgado for what has happened to Beltran, though--he has to get his act together. I can't quite explain it, but maybe we've always expected too much of Beltran.

KT: Quick summary: Beltran's struggles are partly due to Carlos Delgado. You can't blame Carlos Delgado for Beltran's struggles. I have no idea what is causing Beltran's struggles. I blame the fans.

Randy(Knoxville,TN): Hi Joe...I dont get the move by the Cubs to get Jason Kendall. He isnt hitting or playing particularly well it seems. The buzz words being bandied about are 'leadership' and 'caretaker', but Koyie Hill seems to have handled our pitchers well. What is your take on Kendall and what he means for the Cubs? Thanks for the time, Joe.

Joe Morgan: I was shocked the Cubs wanted him that badly, because they gave up a pretty good lefthanded pitcher. It surprises me too, except they may be hoping he gets back to where he was with the Pirates. I don't think that will happen. I'm shocked they made that move.

KT: I will give it up for Joe here. I literally cannot believe he didn't talk about Kendall's leadership. Maybe we're making progress.

Scotty (Warren, Mi): If Zumaya and Rodney come back healthy for the Tigers pen are they the team to beat in the American League?

Joe Morgan: Everything being equal, Detroit is the best team in the AL. Because of the addition of Gary Sheffield, their offense will be stellar.

KT: "Will be?" When? Next year? It's pretty good this year. (Also, aside: how about Sheff's interview with Real Sports. Now that Carl Everett is off fighting imaginary dinosaurs in the IL, nobody brings the MLB-crazy like The Sheff.)

Last year they won mostly with pitching,

And the 8th most runs in baseball.

but they're more balanced this year. After them come the Red Sox--those are the two best teams at this stage. Things could change in the next couple of months.

Wait a second -- things could "change?" How? I guess he means that things could change by: more games being played. Good to know. Thank you for typing that so my eyes could flicker over it and I could learn something about baseball.

Joe (DC): Besides firing the owner, what are three things the Orioles need to do to become contenders again in the next 3-5 years?

Joe Morgan: I'm not as caught up on the owner being the problem there.

KT: You are alone in that regard.

He may have interfered in the past, but they're not one or two mistakes from being the team that they are--they've made more than one or two.

You mean...they seem to systemically make mistakes? Like, maybe, there's a guy who makes all the decisions and has for a long time, and he has made a lot of mistakes? What kind of person could have made all the mistakes that the organization has made without being fired? Oh. The owner.

Sean (Washington DC): Joe, great to see you getting an early start on the chats, thanks! I was wondering with the way Willis is pitching right now, what would a team really want to give up for him? Also, have you ever thought about writing a book?

KT: I am going to add some stage directions to Joe's answer. I will italicize them so you can tell what changes I have made.

Joe Morgan: (snootily) I've actually written five, although I've thought about writing another book soon. (collecting himself; defensive) I just haven't had the time. (having no idea what to say) I'm just shocked at how poorly Dontrelle has pitched. (desperately reaching into memory banks; forming wild guess) Each year he gets off to a great start, and then he slows down. He's been struggling ever since his good first month. (taking refuge in blandishments that provide no actual analysis) Right now, he looks like an average pitcher. (hedging bets; shunning opportunity to give actual insight) I don't know what people would be willing to give up for him, it would depend on how well they think their pitching coach could work with him. (Flourish. Exeunt. Curtain.)

Raymond (Wichita, KS): Hey Joe, What is your take on the Roayls sucess since the middle of May? Do you see good signs in the way they have been playing?

KT: For my next trick, I shall play: Count the Information-less Clichés.

Joe Morgan: Every team so far has had good streaks/bad streaks. (1) Every team has weaknesses. (2) It's gonna be an up-and-down (3) rollercoaster, (4) but I do see signs of them getting better, (5) and as long as Alex Gordon continues to get better, they will continue to build on that success (6).

I don't know what a man has to do to get fired from his job as a sports analyst. The question is about a specific team's improved performance over a specific period of time. The response is: every team has had good streaks/bad streaks, every team has weaknesses, it's an up and down rollercoaster, and finally the "answer that contains the question" magic of: they do show signs of getting better. This is terrible.

Adam (Dayton): Hey Joe! If you were GM of the Reds (there's a thought), would you deal Griffey Jr and/or Adam Dunn?

Joe Morgan: I would not deal Griffey. I thnk you have to have something/someone in an organization that the young players can look up to, and I think he's that guy. I would trade Dunn before Griffey, even though Dunn is younger. Trading Griffey won't solve their problems.

KT: Trading Griffey for no one wouldn't solve their problems. But what if -- and I know this seems crazy -- you consider what you might get back from the trade? What if you could trade Griffey to the Red Sox, for example, for Michael Bowden, Coco Crisp, Craig Hansen, and five million dollars? I don't know if you could -- this is literally the very first possibility I thought of -- but what if you could? That would help, long-term. And the awesome thing would be: you still have Adam Dunn, who is 27 and has a .908 OPS this year! Yayyyyyy! That would be fun!

(Leap ahead five years)

CINCINNATI, OH - July 20, 2012
In a gruesome and sad moment for sports fans everywhere, Cincinnati Reds' players Adam Dunn, Coco Crisp, Michael Bowden, and Craig Hansen committed ritualistic suicide at the Great American Ballpark today, the result of five years of depression brought on by a leadership void. "I guess they had no veteran players to look up to," said a team official. "They were rudderless ships, without a slightly aloof 38 year-old to show them the way."

Ironically, all four were having excellent years on the field.

The End.

John, Akron: Hopefully you will answer a Indians Question...What are your thoughts on Grady Sizemore as a centerfielder and also what do you expect out of Travis Hafner in the second half? Thanks for answering...

Joe Morgan: Grady Sizemore goes after the ball as well as anyone. He's not worried about fences, diving, or getting hurt. I still think Torii Hunter is the best in the AL, but Grady Sizemore will be the best very quickly.

KT: 2007 VORP by CF, AL

Ichiro, 44.5
Granderson, 37.6
Sizemore, 36.5
Hunter, 29.1

And since right now you are composing angry emails asking me about defense:

Ichiro: 11.1 WARP3
Granderson 10.9
Sizemore, 8.2
Hunter, 7.8

BP has Torii at 1 FRAA. One. Granted, they have Sizemore at -7. But the fact that his WARP3 projection is still higher than Hunter's means that it is unlikely that one could call Torii Hunter the best CF in the AL right now and not be a dumb-dumb.

This is the same exact mindset that led Joe to label Roger Clemens the "energizer" of the Yankees. He's just the most famous guy on the team. It's the "safest" answer, for someone who does no research and puts no thought into what he says.

Who's the best CF in the AL?
Torii Hunter! Remember that catch he made off Bonds in the ASG like three years ago? The guy is amazing!

What turned the Yankees' season around?
Clemens! 350 wins! Hall of Fame! Veteran!

Who's the Best President in history?
George Washington! Cherry trees! That painting in the boat!

What was the best dinosaur?
T-Rex, baby!

Maureen ( Boston): Joe, I was just wondering, what's your first baseball memory? I'm also thiking of taking my daughter to her first game this summer and besides Fenway, if cost was no object where would you recommend I take her?

Joe Morgan: Just as a pure baseball fan, i think you have to see Yankee Stadium--it has the greatest history in the game. There's nothing like walking through Monument Park. I went to the ballpark at 3:00 PM the first time I played there just to walk through there. I grew up watching the Yankees on TV winning, so that's my tradition of the game. Wrigley Field of course is a must-see. Most of the new parks are very similar, but AT&T Park has a great view of the sea. But if I were starting all over, it'd be Yankee Stadium and Monument Park.

What's the best stadium?
Yankee Stadium! 26 World Championships! Yankees!

Yankee Stadium, for those of you fortunate enough not to have ever been there, is a boring toilet-shaped stadium that had all the character aggressively redesigned out of it in the 1970's. Fenway, Wrigley, AT&T, Comerica, Petco, and Camden are 10x as nice. I have never been to PNC or Safeco, but I hear the same is true of them

But no, by all means, take your kid to an ugly stadium and let him see his first drunken fistfight.

john (denver): Do you think the rockies can contend, and how good do you think Matt Holliday is?

Joe Morgan: I think the Dodgers and the Padres are the teams to beat over there, mainly because of their pitching. The Rockies seem to be manipulating the balls in their stadium--one day it's 13-1, and one day it's 1-0. Arizona's also in there. Everyone has a chance there except the Giants.

KT: How can he get away with this? He is accusing the Rockies of cheating. Shouldn't Bud Selig get angry about this?

Also, I love the implication that the team is cheating because the scores vary from game to game. Because that never happens in other baseball parks, where, by MLB rule, the final score must always be 5-3.

Also, the DBacks have been outscored by 36 runs and despite their 50-47 record, have a PECOTA-adjusted 5% chance of making the playoffs. Just so you know.

Nick (Chicago): Do you make much of a team's record away from home? The Brewers lead their division with a sub-500 road record and the Tigers also lead their division with an outstanding road record.

Joe Morgan: I don't as much as some people do, and that's because it depends on how you play at the time.

KT: Your road record depends on how you play at the time. Got it.

Regardless of where you're playing, if you play poorly you'll lose, and if you play well you'll win.

This is the finest analyst ESPN has to offer you. Read that sentence again. This is analysis. This is insight. This is shit you can't get from the average Joe on the street. This is shit ESPN makes you pay money for. This is shit that can only be passed on to us, the mortals, from people who have played the game, who have immersed themselves in baseball and its inner workings for going on 50 years. This is shit that will help you understand the game better, that will let you watch the game with fresh eyes. This is: some hard-core Joe Morgan shit.

Washtionton DC: I am from St Louis Mo and a long time St Louis Cardinals fan. I was wondering what next year has in store for the Cardinals as of moving or acquiring players this year or during the off season?

Joe Morgan: I don't know,

At least he's honest.

because my understanding is that Walt Jocketty's contract may be up. If he gets a new contract, he'll start building this year and continue into next year, but I'm just not sure. They have some underperforming stars who are signed to long-term contracts, such as Edmonds and Rolen, so a lot will depend on how they play the rest of the way.

The man will simply not answer a question.

Joe Morgan: Enjoyed the chat as usual, and I'm looking forward to next week.

Why?

Seriously. Why are you looking forward to it? Do you actually enjoy it? Does it make you happy to write "I don't know" and "It all depends" and "We'll have to wait and see" and "If you play well you win, if you play badly you'll lose" over and over again?

How can that be fun for you?

How?

(A single tear runs down Ken's cheek. He does not wipe it away. It tumbles onto his keyboard in slow motion.)

(CLOSE ON: the tear, as it splatters, and sinks into the keys.)

(CLOSE ON: Ken's face. He is lost.)

How?

Labels: joe morgan, joechat

...if we didn't link articles like this?

Truly weird.

Labels: joe morgan, phil mushnick

ESPN's new segment Who's Now, Tuesday. The match-up: Tiger Woods vs. D-Wade. The panelists: Mike Greenberg, and (naturally) Kevin James and Jessica Biel.

Jessica Biel: "D-Wade, he's down-low, he's on the -- low profile. I like that about the guy."
Stuart Scott: "So that makes him more 'Now?'"
Jessica Biel: "I think so."
Stu Scott: "'Cause most people would say, if you're on the 'low-low,' you're not very "Now" if you're not going to parties."

Ignoring the sheer inanity of this back-and-forth, the phrase "On the D-L" or "On the down-low" is sometimes used in the African-American community to describe men who are married and live outwardly heterosexual lives, but also secretly go to gay clubs and have affairs with men. I'm sure this is not what Biel or Scott intended to imply, but still, I can imagine D-Wade watching this and saying, "Fuck the heck?!"

Also, I have a new idea for a segment. It is called "Which is When?" People get together and debate which athletes played at which times in history. Then someone looks up the answers on the internet and the segment ends.

Labels: d-wade, fuck the heck, stuart scott

Reader Lazarus sends us to SI.com's Power Rankings, where we find this gem:

Joe Torre met with George Steinbrenner for a nice lunch in Tampa the other day, and I'm sure at some point the subject probably turned to the Yankees. And George, I'd bet, at some point looked at his manager and said, "#$!&@* the heck?"

I assume they meant to write: "What the #$!&@*?" But they didn't. They wrote "#$!&@* the heck?"

Or, presumably: "Fuck the heck?"

Steinbrenner really is in poor health, if he is saying "Fuck the heck." That is not a phrase.

Labels: fuck the heck, george steinbrenner, sports illustrated, swearing

The dudes over at MSNBC.com have been letting me down recently. And by "letting me down," I mean: not writing like boneheads. Fortunately, Michael Ventre comes through today, in an analogy-laden piece about how the Yankees shouldn't re-sign Alex Rodriguez for lots of money.

Imagine for a moment that you’re a multi-billionaire, and you have a craving for a candy bar. And let’s just say for purposes of argument that your butler, chauffeur and personal assistant all have the day off.

I love imagination games! I am with you so far.

You pull up to a 7/11 in your Bentley, get out, walk in, grab a candy bar and bring it up to the register. The kid behind the register recognizes you as one of the wealthiest men in the world and says, “That’ll be 100 bucks.”

Ooh -- I know this one. I say, "No -- the pricetag says "55 cents." And I win the game!

Of course, you could easily whip out your wallet, peel off a C note and pay the guy. But you know he’s gouging you because you’re filthy rich. So you tell him what he can do with his $100 candy bar and you split.

Or, I could offer him 55 cents, and if he refuses, tell him I will report him to the Better Business Bureau. Am I playing this game right?

Now replace the kid behind the counter with Scott Boras, and the anonymous multi-billionaire with George Steinbrenner, and that approximates the situation that erupted recently involving Alex Rodriguez and the New York Yankees.

Oh. Wait a second. You failed to inform me that this candy bar is the very very best candy bar in the entire realm of candy bars. You didn't mention that it was in its prime, like, shelf life, in terms of freshness. And you also didn't tell me that I already own this candy bar, and that another 7/11 in Texas is subsidizing this candy bar -- paying me, in this analogy, like $25 or something to defray the cost of it. (This happened because the store owner in Texas is big, dumb, and fat, and loved the candy bar so much that seven years ago he agreed to pay $252 million for it when no one else was even offering more than like $160m. But that is neither here nor there.)

You also failed to mention that this candy bar isn't just something I will eat. It is a magical candy bar that will also make me a lot of money, because it is so awesome that people will come from miles around to pay money just to sniff it. Or whatever. The analogy is running out of steam.

Boras told a New York newspaper that he expects A-Rod to attract a contract worth in the neighborhood of $35 million per season if he opts out of his current deal, which he is expected to do. For that kind of money, it had better be one darned good candy bar.

It is. It is a super super good candy bar. You can tell how good it is based on its performance versus other candy bars:

New York Fun-Tastical Chocolate Factory Product Performance:

Pay-Rod Bar: 31 Nougats, 1.058 Macadamia Nut Ratio
Japanese Sugar Candy Explosion: 14 Nougats, .853 MNR
Posadalmond Smile Lemon Surprise: 10 Nougats, .924 MNR
Jeterrific Calm-Eyed Choco-Bunny: 7 Nougats, .882 MNR

No other New York candy bar has more than 7 nougats, or an MNR higher than .751. This chocolate bar is extremely important to this chocolate factory.

The situation is complicated,

And packed with peanuts!

depending on which Boras blast and which tabloid report you believe. Boras also said, under A-Rod’s current deal, there are stipulations that would pay the superstar about $32 million per season in 2009 and 2010 anyway.

Oh. So, wait a second. You're telling me -- to revisit the analogy at the beginning -- that I might be on the hook for this candy bar to the tune of like $94 anyway? That, plus the subsidy, and the yummy, Most Valuable Sweet Treat-winning composition of the candy bar, makes the original situation you posed, um, misleading? Wrong? Bad? What's the right word?

What Boras is saying, roughly translated: C’mon, guys. He’s already getting $32 million. What’s another $3 million per? It’s chicken feed, really. You can pay it out of petty cash.

Well, again, it's not that much, if they can extend him. The Texas 7/11 is paying you a decent chunk of that.

So while everybody is arguing about $32 million versus $35 million, Boras has made them all forget that nobody else in baseball makes more than A-Rod’s 2007 salary that is estimated at between $22 million and $27 million (depending on the source and how it’s calculated). Boras is taking a number that is completely out of whack and slowly getting everybody used to it.

Is it out of whack? Ichiro just got 5/90+. ARod is definitely better than Ichiro. And remember -- the original contract, that Tom Hicks signed in 2000, gave him this escalator to $32m or $1m more than the highest paid guy, or whatever it is. Don't blame Boras. Blame Hicks, if you blame anyone.

Supposedly, the Cubs and Red Sox will be willing to meet A-Rod’s price. Yet where is that information coming from? It smells like a Boras plant. I’m surprised we haven’t heard that the L.A. Galaxy wants to sign A-Rod to play next to David Beckham, or that MGM wants him to be the new James Bond. When Boras is finished, the hot rumor will be that A-Rod is about to merge with Google.

What does any of this have to do with candy?

Also, I am guessing that with the money the Sox, Giants, and Angels have coming off the books in the next couple years, there would be at least a few teams willing to do 6/190 or something. Especially if they thought ARod could go back to SS.

It’s true, [ARod is] a stud in the lineup. This year he’s hitting .312, with 31 home runs and 87 RBIs. But he’s doing it during a relatively meaningless season in which it became obvious early on that the Yankees just weren’t going to be in the playoff picture;

Oh buh-ruther.

First off, the Yankees are still in the playoff picture. They play their next like 30 games against the DRays, the Royals, the Fordham JV Team, and the Washington Generals. Second, and more importantly, how can you write this sentence and believe it is good? That's the real question. If it weren't for ARod, the Yankees would, to paraphrase Johnny Damon a while ago, be about 25 games back. They'd be nowheresville. They would stink to high heaven. He is -- and now I will actually quote Joe Morgan, just for kicks -- carrying this team.

in that regard, his current tear isn’t much different than the sparking stats he put up while a member of the bottom-dwelling Texas Rangers.

Explain to me what he is supposed to do differently than what he has done. How can he make his team any better than he is making it? Seriously, man. Explain this. I defy you to explain this. Should he have pitched for Chan Ho Park? Should be be the Yankees' 8th-inning bridge guy to Rivera? What do you want him to do?

When he has been on good teams, like the 2000 Mariners and the Yankees the past two years, he has put up fantastic numbers. When he has been on crappy teams, like this year's Yankees, he has put up fantastic numbers. What do you want him to do?

Don’t forget 2006. There was no salary drive. And there were indeed playoff hopes. A-Rod responded with still-admirable numbers for most players — .290 average, 35 homers, 121 RBI — but hardly $35 million-per-year mega-superstar numbers.

You are calling ARod out for having that season. Really. Really. His WARP3 that year was 7.3, and if he had been playing SS, instead of adjusting to third because Captain Selfless refused to move, it might have been in the 10's. And there was no salary drive in 2005, either, by the way, or 2004, 2003, or 2002, or 2001, and in those five years he was worth 63 wins to his teams.

He was much shakier in last year’s playoffs, with just one hit in 14 at-bats. In the 2005 postseason, he was only slightly better: two hits in 15 at-bats.

So. Just so I understand you.

7100 career AB with a .963 OPS and 495 HR -- which played a huge role in getting his teams get to the playoffs six times -- are less important than 29 AB over two years.

Go here. Scroll down to the Postseason Hitting area. Look at his overall numbers. Look at the fact that in 3 LCS he has a 1.025 OPS. Then -- and I want you, and all of your ilk to listen to me very closely -- never ever write drivel like that again.

At the moment, it appears his mental approach to the game is sound. But A-Rod is one of the sports world’s leading neurotics. Remember those patches of inferior play last season, followed by public discussions of his own fragile mental state?

Yes. And that definitely affected his play this year. He's at .284/.314/.339, with zero home runs. Oh no wait -- that's Juan Pierre. ARod is murdering the baseball every single day and has more than twice as many home runs as anyone else on his team.

It’s courageous for anybody to seek counseling while going through depression or difficult times. Yet he seems to be a completely different person this year. Unless he had a remarkable breakthrough after a visit to Jiffy Shrink, what that tells me is that the promise of money and stature keeps him focused, whereas the traditionally foremost reason to motivate an athlete — winning a championship — is a distant second or third.

Now, this might seem like a wild and completely unfounded accusation, but remember: Michael Ventre is a licensed psychologist. He got his MD/PhD from Stanford in 1996, and has been a practicing Clinical Psychologist in the New York area ever since. He is also the author of several books on athletes and their psychological motivations, including: Money or Success? The Athletic Mind in the 21st Century and Running in Place: The Scourge of Large Contracts and the Quest to Keep Athletes Motivated for Team Success. So he knows exactly what is motivating ARod.

I realize it takes an entire team, not one man, to win a title.

Do you? Honestly -- do you?

Pitching is more important than hitting. But after this, his 14^th major league season, he never will have played in a World Series, let alone won one.

In the 2000 ALCS against the Yankees he went 9-22 with 2 HR. What a choking asshole. (I cannot believe how many times I have had to write a version of this sentence on this blog.)

Maybe it is because he just hasn’t been on a team that had enough talent.

Huh. There's a thought.

Or maybe it’s because he has been, but he didn’t infuse his team with the kind of leadership qualities that picks everybody up and keeps them moving forward determinedly through good times and bad.

Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God Oh my God oh my God

Any team that signs A-Rod should also have extra room in the cargo hold for his baggage. If it isn’t a “Stray-Rod” front page with a stripper, it might be a gentle feud with a teammate (in the past two years it was Derek Jeter; at A-Rod’s next stop, who knows?), or another obscene message on his wife’s shirt, or fending off criticism when he does stuff perceived as Little Leaguesque like trying to knock the ball out of Bronson Arroyo’s glove in 2004, or yelling to distract an opponent like he did this season against Toronto.

He's done some stupid stuff. He's also hit 495 HR and he's 31.

He isn’t a bum. He’s arguably the best player in baseball. He’s worth the money he’s making. But is he worth a lot more than that? Is he worth $35 million per season, or more?

He'll be making $32m regardless, in a couple years. So, by definition, he is.

I'm hungry.

Labels: arod, food metaphors, michael ventre

The fine folks at NBCSports.com had me on today for some good old fashioned fantasy baseball talk. Got to chat with legendary Twins blogger/Rotoworld.com writer Aaron Gleeman, which was as close to an honor as a baseball blogger can get.

Here's the link to the segment. Enjoy.

Also, Dan Patrick appears to have been replaced on ESPN Radio by TV Voice of the Yankees - slash - Comparer of Jinxing Perfect Games to War Crimes Michael Kay. If this is permanent, they bought our site ten more years of posts.

Cowherd and Kay back-to-back. Yikes.

Labels: aaron gleeman, michael kay, nbc sports

Some weird stuff Sunday morning on ESPN. Stephen A. Smith was inexplicably like lurking around the studio for both Sportscenter and BBTN. It was so weird that at the end of SC he like didn't even have a chair, and had to awkwardly stand nearby the anchor desk. Then at the end of BBTN Steve Phillips said goodbye on behalf of himself and Krukie, leading Smith to give him a look like "What the hell?" and then eventually Phillips included him. Odd all the way around.

On SC they did that mentally challenged "Who's Now?" thing and it was Vince Young vs. Maria Sharapova. I felt bad for everyone involved, as they tried to figure out if Vince Young's 6 wins as a rookie were more "now" than Sharapova's $20m in endorsements. One of the most pointless arguments I have ever been exposed to.

America's Sweetheart files this report via email:

I have an idea for what to do after "Who's Now?" is over. It's called "what time is it?" A panel of ESPN experts would sit around and argue about what time it was. They would never agree because the time would always be changing. People could vote on-line and the it would all depend on when they voted.

At the end you would have some idea of what time it was.

Finally, on BBTN, Phillips and Kruk debate the "Worst Franchise in Sports." Phillips chooses the Phillies because their next loss will be their 10,000th. This is problematic for several reasons: first, because that says as much about the longevity of the franchise (starting in 1890) as anything else. Second, the team is only 4 games out this year and has a lot of good players. Third, the team has been in the WS as recently as 1993. The Phils aren't close to being the worst franchise in baseball, much less all of pro sports.

Not to be outdone, Kruk chose the New Orleans Saints.

Who played in the NFC Championship Game.

Last year.

Nice work, everybody.

Labels: espn, john kruk, stephen a. smith, steve phillips

Not familiar with Woody Paige's column and want to read one sentence that sums up his weird, tortured, strained, quasi-erudite attempts at wit? Okay.

Greek mathematician Archimedes solved the puzzle of the sphere inside the cylinder, but never studied the circle within the diamond. The Rockies must figure out that perplexing riddle on their own after the all-star intermission.

Labels: woody paige

I totally missed an All-Star Break JoeChat!

Joe Morgan: I think this might be the day the National League breaks its streak of All-Star losses.

Ken Tremendous: It was not!

The AL has a predominantly right-handed lineup, and I think LaRussa can counteract that.

KT: He can also counteract "good management" by allowing a decent hitter to hit in the absolute most crucial situation you can ever have in a baseball game, instead of the best hitter who has ever hit anything!

Matt (Philadelphia): Joe, how seriously do these players take this game? Hopefully they know that the last 8 World Series Game 7's have been won by the home team.

Joe Morgan: You don't have that many game 7's, first of all. How many times do we actually get to Game 7?

KT: In the World Series: 2002, 2001, 1997, 1991, 1987, 1986, 1985. So, 7 times in the last 21 series. Once every three years-ish. That's pretty often. Plus, home field also means you play the first two at home. That's a huge deal. What a weird thing to get huffy about, Joey. Can I call you Joey? We've been doing this for a while, you and me, right? Good. Joey it is.

It's true that homefield advantage gives the teams an edge.

KT: Whoa whoa whoa. Careful. You'll be laughed out of the Institution with such outlandish proclamations.

OF all the players in the game, there are very few who have a chance to play in the World Series.

KT: Objection, your honor. Relevance?

I don't think it's about home field advantage, it's about pride in your league.

KT: Pride in your league? I mean, come on. These guys share agents, they switch teams constantly... I just glanced at the rosters and counted a dozen guys who have switched leagues in the recent past before I got bored. You really think Mike Lowell is playing in the All-Star game for AL Pride? Or Orlando Hudson, for NL Pride? If anything, they're playing because it's cool to be in the ASG. Or because they like playing baseball. But League Pride? Even the umps did away with those AL-NL hats.

That's the only thing that can motivate the players. Home field advantage is four months from now, maybe. You have to depend on that pride to make it competitive. Guys from Tampa Bay right now are not thinking about home field advantage.

KT: Right, Joey, they are not, because they have a 0.000004% chance of making the WS. But the "guys" (plural is [sic]) from Tampa Bay are probably also not playing for AL Pride. Why would they want to help the Red Sox or Tigers play postseason games at home?

Here I will add: the decision to try to "make it count" by giving the winning league home field seems dumber and dumber to me every year. Who is watching this thing for that reason who would not watch it otherwise?

Paddy (St. Louis, MO): Hey Joe, After seeing the derby yesterday I was wondering, did you ever go through stretches where you crushed the ball in BP, but had trouble making good contact in live game situations? If so how did you get through it?

Joe Morgan: That happens every day! You get accustomed to one speed in batting practice. In the game, they'll change speeds on you. They go hard, throw with a lot of different speeds. Batting practice is really just to get warm. some guys take it as an indication of how they're feeling that day. You always want to have good sessions, but I've had bad sessions and good games, and vice versa. It's not always an indicator of success.

KT: I include this harmless Q and A only to relate this anecdote: sometime FJM poster -- and the best man at the wedding between Ken and Mrs. Tremendous -- Mr. America's Sweetheart, once accompanied Ken to San Diego to see a Pads-Sox game. This is pre-Petco, many years ago. I think maybe like 2003? Anyway, you know who put on the most impressive show in BP that day? That's right: Doug Mirabelli. This led to America's Sweetheart dubbing Mirabelli: "Batting Practice Hero Doug Mirabelli."

That's it. Not a great anecdote. B-minus, maybe? C+? Whatever. Mrs. Tremendous is working late. I got alllllll night.

John (Boston): Joe, nice job picking Vlad, who do you think will be the team to beat in the AL in the 2nd half?

KT: I did not watch the stupid HR Derby, but didn't someone tell me that Joe picked like four different people at four different times?

Joe Morgan: That's a difficult question. I think Boston has an edge in their division,

KT: What tipped you off? The ten game lead?

but I think the Tigers could be the best team in the AL, especially when they get Zumaya back and when their young pitches continue to improve. I think the Angels, if their pitching doesn't stay consistent, will not have the power to be the best team in the AL.

KT: He thinks, just to reiterate, that the Angels -- if their pitching doesn't stay consistent -- will not have the power (???) to be the best team in the AL. That is one effed-up if-then statement.

Also, he was asked who the team to beat was in the AL, and he named the three division leaders. Well done.

Frank (Washington, D.C.): Joe, as one of the all-time greatest second basemen, who is your favorite player at that position today? Utley? Cano?

Joe Morgan: There are a lot of good young second basemen in the game today. Cano is not having as good a season as he did a year ago, but he is still good. Hudson, Weeks, Roberts, Kinsler, are all excellent. A lot of these guys have the potential to be great. I though Cano would continue to move to the top, but a lot of stuff goes on there in NY, and I don't know whether it's affected him or not.

KT: Yeah, it must be hard for Robby Cano -- his name always in the tabloids, private life being delved into. Can't go anywhere without paparazzi following him around. Ugh. I'd say, in NYC, in terms of fame, it's

DeNiro
Letterman
Mayor Bloomberg
Robby Cano
Scorsese

The answer to the question "who is the best second baseman in baseball -- if you're interested in an actual answer, instead of a list of all the second basemen Joe can name -- is almost certainly Chase Utley, who has a 120-point OPS lead on the field and is third in ZR.

Dave (Boston): Joe, do you think Goose Gossage should be in the Hall of Fame? He was just asked in his chat if he's upset that he wasn't voted in yet, and he honestly replied that yes, he was.

Joe Morgan: I'm the Vice Chairman of the Board of the Hall, so it's not good for me to comment on every single player.

KT: It seems like every time Joey is asked a question about the HOF, he announces that he is on the board and that it wouldn't be proper for him to discuss specific players' candidacies. Then he does it anyway.

I'll do it this time.

Yup. There we go.

I think he should be upset that he shouldn't be elected. The writers are the ones who are voting for Goose Gossage. (...)

KT: The writers are the ones who are voting for everyone. Why is this worthy of inclusion in this chat?

Bessie ( Staten Island, NY): Yesterday i was watching MLB live and the guy(sorry forgot his name) said that the reason the Yankees haven't won or aren't winning is because most of them don't care. Do you think that's true?

Joe Morgan: No, I don't think anyone likes to go out there and lose. The Royals don't like to go out there and lose, even though they lose more than anyone.

KT: Except Tampa Bay, Texas, Washington, Houston, and Cincy, this year. But I get the point.

As a competitor, you hate to lose, otherwise you wouldn't have reached the Majors. There are a lot of reasons the Yankees aren't winning--their defense is not as good, their offense isn't consistent, and their starting pitching is not good.

KT: Second "consistent." And BTW, they have the 3rd most runs in baseball.

All the names mean nothing. Last year I got caught up in the mania and called it the best lineup I'd ever seen, and they went to Detroit and got shut down. I think it's a lack of consistent play.

KT: Third "consistent."

There are a lot of individual guys doing well--Jeter, A-Rod, Matsui, Posada--as individuals. Only A-Rod has been able to carry the team, though.

KT: There are a lot of individual guys doing well as individuals. Unfortunately, when Jorge Posada doubles, it only counts as a positive thing for him, and the team gets no benefit. Right? I don't know how baseball works. Also, Joey frequently uses "carry the team" as if it is a definitive, tangible thing. This strikes me as: funny.

Joe Morgan: I'm looking forward to the second half. It's like the beginning of a new season--whichever team gets off to a good start has a good chance of getting to the Series.

KT: Hear that, Nats? Win 8 of your next 10, and the World Series is yours!

Labels: joe morgan, joechat

Every time -- and this is not an exaggeration; I literally mean every single time -- a sportswriter writes an article about whether Player X is good enough to make the Hall of Fame, and that sportswriter has decided that: no, Player X is not quite good enough to make the Hall of Fame, the sportswriter smugly and anti-humorously writes some variation of the sentence: "It's not called the 'Hall of Very Good.'" Some incarnations include:

Classic: "It's the 'Hall of Fame,' not the 'Hall of Very Good.'"
Positive: "He belongs in the 'Hall of Very Good.'"
Sarcastic: "Maybe he'd get my vote for the 'Hall of Very Good.'"
Dickish/Cowherd-ian: "Um...hello? It's not called the 'Hall of Good.' It's called the 'Hall of Fame.' Fame, as in famous. 'Fame' is part of the equation!!!!! I am bad at my job!!!!!!!!'"

The #1 thing (out of eighteen or so total things) that bothers me about this, is that it's a purely semantic argument. If it were called "The Hall of 500 Homers" and a guy ended with 496 homers, then you could write an article where you sneeringly said, "Sorry -- it's not called the 'Hall of 496 Homers.'" But in this case, the term "Hall of Fame" itself is a vague, ill-defined phrase that is not clarified or elucidated in any way by contrasting it with the equally odd and ill-defined "Hall of Very Good." (Indeed, one could argue, there are already a lot of only "Very Good" players already in the Hall of Fame, so the whole thing is moot, and certainly should not be argued in the snide/condescending way in which it is frequently argued.)

Not exempt from this crew -- again, because there are literally no exemptions -- is Jean-Jacques Taylor of the Dallas Morning News, who wrote this little number about whether Craig Biggio belongs. Let's get right to the trite:

Biggio is in the Hall of Very Very Good.

Cue the band. Release streamers. Exit to your left.

The article isn't really offensive -- he merely argues that the old benchmarks of 500 HR and 3000 H might need to be adjusted as "shoo-in"-type numbers to account for steroids and the offensive explosion and so forth. Fine. But at the end, he writes this: (and this is the complete list. I have made no edits).

HALL OF FAMERS?

No Question:

Roger Clemens: Best pitcher of "live ball" era.

I agree.

Ken Griffey Jr: Injuries cost him a shot at Aaron's record.

Griffey is in. Yes.

Derek Jeter: Four rings say it all.

Really. That says it all. Really. Okay.

Well, congratulations, Ramiro Mendoza, Andy Pettitte, Tino Martinez, Bernie Williams, El Duque, Chuck Knoblauch, Gene Tenace, Dal Maxvill, Don Gullett, Bump Hadley, Luis Sojo, Mike Stanton, and Snuffy Stirnweiss -- you're in!

Mariano Rivera: The most dominant closer in the game.

I'd vote for him.

Alex Rodriguez: The game's best player.

Him, too.

WE NEED TO DISCUSS

Wait -- there are other no-brainers. Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux...no?

Craig Biggio: I love the consistency, but where is the greatness?

I guess that depends on how you define "greatness." He did play two very difficult positions, and a third, easier position... plus, 3000 hits is nothing to sneeze at. He stole 400+ bases at a 77% success rate. That's pretty good. I don't know. His career OPS+ is only 113. He's very definitely borderline. Unlike...

Jose Mesa: Don't laugh.

Too late.

If we don't adjust the standard, you must consider him because he has more saves than Bruce Sutter (300) and Goose Gossage (310).

He also has a career ERA+ of -- wait for it -- 101. He is 1% better than the average pitcher of his era, ERA-wise. His career WHIP: 1.473. He has about 1000 Ks in 1500 innings.

For comparison: Bruce Sutter had a 1.14 WHIP and a 136 ERA+. 800+ Ks in 1000 IP. He was a weird choice, but he's way better than Jose Mesa. Goose: 1.23 WHIP and 126 ERA+. 1500 Ks in 1800 IP.

I must not consider him. For anything. Saves are dumb.

Gary Sheffield: Will steroid allegations slow the only man to represent five different teams in the All-Star Game?

I don't know. I do know that he has a .926 OPS and a 146 OPS+ in 20 seasons and is still probably the best or second-best hitter on his team at 38. If he keeps hitting this way for a few more years, his numbers will be indisputable. They probably already are. As far as steroids go, I don't know why, but I kind of believe him when he says he didn't know what they were when Bonds gave them to him. He is so crazy, he might have actually believed they were flaxseed oil.

Oh -- also, the All-Star Game is stupid and should not be used to discuss a player's Hall of Fame candidacy. And the fact that he represented five different teams is probably a strike against him, if you take the "character" issue into consideration. (Not saying you should, but if you do, he's clearly a son of a gun, this guy.)

Frank Thomas: The former two-time MVP fell so low, he has also been Comeback Player of the Year.

How dare he...win three awards?

Frank Thomas has a .984 career OPS (11th highest all-time). He has a 158 career OPS+. He has a .422 career OBP. He has 500 HR. He has a .341 career EqA.

This is not really a question. Or if it is, it is pretty easily answered.

Jim Thome: Is he an overrated, one-dimensional player?

Thome needs a few more good years to solidify his bid, but he has a 149 career OPS+. He will go if he stays healthy for a while longer. He's definitely not overrated as a hitter.

And that's it. Those are the only people he mentions, for either category.

There are so many people to talk about. Manny, Bonds, Chipper, Glavine, Smoltz, Piazza, Trevor Hoffman, Helton, Vizquel...

Instead, he talks about Jose Mesa.

This puts him in my: Hall of Very Weird.

Labels: derek jeter, hall of fame, jean-jacques taylor, Snuffy Stirnweiss

Just watched Wednesday's PTI. Le Batard and Wilbon talk new contract for Ichiro, and ten seconds in, Wilbon's making Le Batard look like Richard Feynman. (I have to admit, I've got issues with Le Batard, but if you ask me, that dude ranks in like the top two percent of people who talk about baseball on TV, in terms of "getting it.")

Here are four things that Michael Wilbon actually said, and three things that he did not say, but should have. Collect 'em all!

"I don't care about OPS! That sounds like -- what is that, OPS is a rap title?"

"Long before anyone discovered on base plus slugging, people talked about runs scored, batting average, and hits in a season!"

"Just so everyone remembers: there was a song called OPP that came out seventeen years ago. When I say OPS sounds like a rap title, this is -- I think -- the reference I am making. Cuz I'm [at this point he does some upper body pop-locking] down with it, yo!"

"(On base percentage) is not as important (as batting average.)"

"I do this weird thing where I button the top button of my shirt, but I don't wear a tie, and usually I wear the kind of shirts where you can't even see the top button. I do this for a reason. And that reason is: I'm a crazy man."

"Let me ask you this: when (Ichiro) goes to second or to third, and he's in scoring position, does that count in the OPP or whatever it is?"

"Here, I've got one for your new, fake statistics: 'OPS. What can brown do you for you.' Get it? Like UPS. Nevermind."

Labels: batting average, ichiro, michael wilbon, naughty by nature, ops, pti

Apparently, Rick Hummel is in the HOF. And here is what he has to say about Tony La Russa's decision not to have the greatest hitting hitter in the history of hitting hit for a pretty good hitter in the bottom of the ninth with two outs and the bases loaded:

La Russa was both wrong and right in how he handled Pujols’ situation.

You are half right.

He basically was wrong in that a player of Pujols’ caliber -- reigning Gold Glover, former Most Valuable Player and batting champion -- should not be considered a utility player, i.e., the last position player available on the bench.

Totally agree. Maybe I should be in the Hall of Fame.

But he was right in not pinch-hitting Pujols in the ninth inning when the NL rallied and had the bases loaded with two out and Philadelphia's Aaron Rowand at the plate.

I cannot wait to hear exactly how you are wrong.

If he had used Pujols in that spot and the NL forced extra innings, he would have been in the position of needing Pujols to go to left field and defensively challenged Alfonso Soriano would have to go to center, with the distinct possibility of having a relief pitcher have to bat for himself in extra innings of an All-Star game.

This is insane. Insane. Flat insane. Dead flat weird insane, and possibly Mad Cow-ridden.

Here is the rationale: if Albert Pujols had pinch hit and tied the game or given the NL the lead, Alphonso Soriano would have to play center, and a pitcher might have to hit for himself. The horror, the horror! Alphonso Soriano not playing the perfectly ideal defensive position?! Webb has to take a few hacks? Run for the hills!!!

No doubt, those would be horrifying, "Hostel"-like NC-17-rated situations. But here's the thing, dumbass: if they happened, it would mean that the game was still happening, too.

If you are one out from elimination, you do your absolute very very best to extend the game. What in the world is the point of saving bullets if you might never get to fire them? Also, as many of you have already pointed out to me (this is an edit), and frankly I am humiliated that I didn't write this to begin with: if Pujols gets any kind of hit -- a thing he is much much much more likely to do than Aaron Rowand in that situation, about-to-be-cited small-sample-sized half-seasons of BA be damned forever to deepest darkest hell -- the NL probably scores two runs and the game is over anyway. Derrek Lee isn't the fastest dude in the world, but he's running on contact. My word, is this dumb.

The rationale for Pujols hitting for Rowand is based on history, because a check of the current averages shows that Pujols, homerless since June 14, is hitting .310. Rowand is hitting .310.

Seriously? Burn the Hall of Fame to the ground. It is worthless.

Albert Pujols is either the best hitter in baseball or he's damn close. He has 266 career HR and he's played in a total of like 65 baseball games. He has a .418 career OBP. And a walk, mind you, ties the game. He is 12 feet tall, and each of his lats weighs 80 pounds. His bat is 60 inches long and is made of Bigfoot's spine. He is a monstrous monster who eats sliders. Not balls that were used to throw sliders, mind you -- he has figured out a way to eat the concept of sliders. The dude hits with a closed stance only because Marty Barrett bet him he couldn't hit with a closed stance like Barrett did and still win the MVP and Pujols did it just to stave off the boredom that had come from solving baseball. He once hit a home run on a hit-by-pitch. He has more hits left-handed than anyone in baseball history has right-handed -- and he is right handed. He completed an MD-PhD at Hopkins in one hour and gave a graduation address (in Greek), and he had to miss a game against the Pirates in 2003, and he still went 2-4 with a double. The home run he hit off Lidge in the NLCS....just now landed, in Banff. He is awesome.

Aaron Rowand has a career .341 OBP and once broke his nose making an awesome catch in center. Neither of these things was useful in facing K-Rod.

You don’t bat for an All-Star player with the game in the balance, unless the second player is the pitcher.

I just hit my own hand with a hammer on purpose to make myself forget I read this.

Fictional 1998 All-Star Game:

Ninth inning, AL down by one, bases loaded, two outs. Ben Grieve strides to the plate. Art Howe leans over to Mike Hargrove.

Howe: Should we hit for Grieve here?
Hargrove: What? The guy's an All-Star!
Howe: Well...yeah. They're all technically "All-Stars." But we have Manny Ramirez on the bench. We could hit Manny for Grieve.
Hargrove: (scoffing) Apparently you've never read the works of Hall of Fame journalist Rick Hummel. Ben Grieve is an All-Star, and you don't hit for an All-Star unless it's a pitcher. Is Grieve a pitcher?
Howe: No.
Hargrove: Go get 'em, Grievey!
Howe: He already fouled out to third. Game's over.
Hargrove: What went wrong?!

And, knowing a little how La Russa’s mind works, you suspect that he didn’t want to generate any ill will by hitting for a Philadelphia player with the Cardinals to open a three-game series there Friday night.

Oh. Well, that makes perfect sense. He didn't want to alienate...another fucking team's fans?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!??!!??!!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!?!?!??!!?!??!?!!??!!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!
!?!?

!>!>
!
.ekflawef'AWE
;Q2O3IHR;8HFNEFIF'

ERROR
GOTO 10

Labels: all-star game, hall of fame, Rick Hummel, tony la russa

What's happening in St. Louis today? Let's check St. Louis Today and their prognosticator extraordinaire, Mr. Bryan Burwell.

Halfway through the tale of the 2007 baseball season, the Cardinals have not exactly given us some mind-twisting whodunit to solve. The Redbirds, in fact, have been no riddle at all. They reach the All-Star break giving us the rather predictable story of a struggling defending champion beset by too many injuries, and we all know how that plot line is supposed to go.

It's a little disingenuous -- or ignorant, take your pick -- to blame the 2007 Cardinals' woes on injuries. Because the 2006 Cardinals were two games over .500. They were a mediocre team that played in a terrible division, got hot at the right time, and won it all. Good for them. It's what makes baseball great and unpredictable. But it's not like they went from a 105-win team to a 75-win team because Lord Scrapford von Gritt tweaked his hustlebone.

Let's pause a moment to give Tony La Russa's gritty bunch of Memphis misfits a sincere tip of the cap for the effort that has kept them just on the fringe of contention.

Let us also praise him for leaving the best hitter in the history of ever on his bench as Aaron Rowand popped out against a guy who had walked the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth. Why does no one in the world ever allow for the possibility that Tony La Russa is a terrible manager? Sometimes he doesn't just arrange deck chairs on the Titanic -- he fixes the ones with wobbly legs, and then, while clinging to a piece of jetsam in the freezing North Atlantic, arrogantly insists that that chair would've come in handy if the boat hadn't broken in half and sunk.

There is ample reason to believe that what lies ahead must be better than what we've already read. Carpenter is either weeks or days away from returning to the rotation. Eckstein and Edmonds ought to be at or near 100 percent after the break and back in the lineup.

Aaron Miles 2007 EqA: .247
David Eckstein 2006 EqA: .251

Eckstein's return will not help you that much, Cardinal fans. I am sorry. Face facts. Grow up. Take four Advil, drink some coffee, and do away with your Scrap Goggles.

The Cardinals will host the Brewers and second-place Chicago Cubs in a six-game home stand at the end of the month that will be the first of 20 remaining games against the two teams they need to overtake to get into the postseason. There are 10 more games left against the Brewers and 10 more against the Cubbies, which will give the Redbirds all the opportunity to narrow that 7½-game gap.

The Cardinals have been outscored by 64 runs. Right now they are overperforming their ExWL by four games. Unless the Brewers go completely into the tank, it's time to make plans for 2008.

There's no need to bombard you with a zillion inside-baseball stats that will convince you that the Cards are on the verge of behaving like contenders or exposing them as gritty but flawed pretenders.

Second mention of gritty-ness. And no, it does not take one zillion "inside-baseball" stats. It takes one, and I just gave it to you. Outscored. 64 runs. Bad.

I don't care what the team ERA is over the last 15 games. I don't want to listen to anyone drone on about WIPS, OPS or any other exotic calculations that leave so many seamheads dizzy with delight and serve as all-knowing predictors of the future.

WIPS = not a thing, I don't think. OPS is not "exotic," unless you consider the mathematical formula A + B "exotic." And if you do want to get "exotic," I just checked BP's ExWL PECOTA-adjusted page, and the Cards have a 2.48% chance of making the postseason.

But here's the real money-shot:

I prefer to rely on more pragmatic stuff.

You prefer to rely on "pragmatic" stuff. As opposed to hard stats. As opposed to mathematic, science, and reason -- those flighty disciplines. Those wishy-washy, emotional, airy-fairy, astrology/tarot card-like augurs, used by ancient Romans to predict rainfall.

You and Murray Chass should get together, maybe with Wm. Safire, and just do a real-quick refresher course on what fucking words mean.

Here's all I care about. The Cardinals are getting healthy again, and that means they need to come back after the All-Star break not only with all hands on deck, but with a sense of urgency that reflects a team that is willing to compete.

They also need to hit better, and pitch better. But, sure, I guess "urgency that reflects a team that is willing to compete" would help. Move them from 2.48% to maybe somewhere in the upper 4s.

Labels: bryan burwell, cardinals, david eckstein, new age, tony la russa

Just talked to my man KT, on his way home from a rough day at Fremulon. All I can say is: if any of our readers are college seniors thinking about becoming insurance adjusters, do not put Fremulon at the top of your list of places to work. They will work you to tha bone!

(Note: This is, in no way, an indictment of Ken's boss, Rog Flavelman, who I have met several times at various F.I. barbecues and bowling parties. Rog is, simply put, a 100% stand-up, awesome dude. There are just some places that have -- I don't know -- an institutional agenda that puts the individual a distant second to the corporation itself. You know what I mean.)

Anyway, Ken tells me that we got some white hot e-mails in re: Timmy McCarvestone at the ASG, but he was too busy dealing with the usual Fremulonsense to post.

Bottom 2. Russell Martin at the dish. Timbo Mac points out that Martin (whose physical resemblance to Entourage's Turtle will be pointed out later in a riveting Fox graphic) has excellent speed for a catcher. Sixteen swipes already this year. Buck then asks Mac what his season high in stolen bases was. His answer?

A very confident: "thirteen."

Of course, the real answer, about which I am even more confident, is nine. Should we be surprised? Not really. This ain't the first time TM has exaggerated about his own abilities. Check it:

July 22nd, 2005, Cardinals at Cubs:
TM: "Derrek Lee is just an unstoppable force at the plate. Sometimes, you just have a season where everything goes your way."
Buck: "Did you have a season like that?"
TM: "I did. 1964. Set my career high in home runs for a season: 140."

August 1st, 1999, Expos at Braves:
TM: "Watch Jose Vidro leg out this triple on the replay. I tell ya, that is not an easy thing to do...hit a triple."
Buck: "You hit many in your day?"
TM: "Not too many, but when I did, I got four bases instead of three."

August 18th, 2002, Mets at Padres:
TM: "There we get a great look at Piazza's catcher's mitt, and how he frames the pitch. I myself never wore more than 1.8 catcher's mitts at a time."

June 4th, 2006, Orioles at Yankees:
TM: "Derek Jeter, of course, the fearless Captain of the Yankees."
Buck: "You were a captain once, were you not?"
TM: "I was indeed. I had the pleasure of being 3 captains, in fact."

Labels: all-star game, fremulon insurance, tim mccarver

Folks, let me tell you something about the insurance business. It's crazy. Incredibly unpredictable. Exhausting. Every day when you wake up, you don't know whether you'll be filling out a Wyoming Investigator's Traffic Accident Report, Code Sheet PR-802-A:


or reading that out of freaking nowhere, E-Claim.com and The Council on Ethical Billing are forming a strategic alliance! Man. Insurance creates strange bedfellows, am I right?

Anyway, what this insanity means, is that I don't get to spend as much time blogging as I would like. Fortunately, we have very dedicated readers, who send us links, quips, and comments. And from time to time, we cite them here, in a little segment we like to call: Gallimaufry Time!

The HR Derby led to some real gems. From btroup1:

Berman, Morgan, and Baker at the same table? Are you okay? Do I need to call a doctor?

Dusty: "My son wanted to go out there [to shag balls] but I told him he was too young." Where can I find a JT Snow .gif?

Here you go, buddy. I guess he wasn't too young then.

Daniel chimes in with a keen observation:

Is it me or does EVERYONE remind Joe Morgan of Ken Griffey Jr.? Rios, Holliday, the man selling hot dogs, everyone.

I, too, have noticed this phenomenon. "He reminds me of Ken Griffey, Jr." is to the JM arsenal what the Sherman Tank was to the Allies. It is rivaled only by "Willie Mays was the best player I ever saw" for sheer frequency of repetition.

David gets credit for citing my favorite moment:

Berman: Does it help [Holliday] that he plays three series here a year?

Joe: No, I don't think so. This is a home-run-hitting contest, not a...

[long pause]

...place where you get accustomed to the view, and so forth.

Excellent.

Many people have sent us the link to a brilliant FoxSports blog entry by Ed Hardiman, entitled: "Slobbermetrics, How [sic] Bill James and Math Nearly Destroyed Baseball." I began a lengthy post on this Pulitzer- and Mark Twain Prize-Winning article, and then decided it simply wasn't worth it. I will link it, in case you have not seen it and wish to waste two minutes of your life. For a fun home game, count how many commas are used inappropriately. And how many absolutely fucking terrible jokes he includes. This is the humor equivalent of anaesthesia-less knee surgery.

I sometimes feel bad for John Kruk. He is obviously uncomfortable on BBTN, and the producers make him argue things in which he does not believe. Tex5011 has no such sympathy:

The question was, "Who is the toughest out in the AL All-Star lineup?" Now, remember that this lineup features A-Rod, Jeter, and Ortiz. But Kruk's answer was Placido Polanco. There's a reason Polanco's batting eighth. Kruk, you are an idiot.

A quick glance at OBP lists will actually tell you who is the toughest out (Magglio-Ortiz-Vladdy-ARod, in that order). But Placido is only 6 OBP points behind Kenny Lofton.

Drew points us to a potential new target:

John Kincade, on his Sunday morning ESPN show, said:

"We don't need obscure, newfangled stats like OPS and WHIP to tell us who the best players are. We watch the games, we know who the best players are."

You make your list, I will make mine. Then we will have our teams play each other one million times. Mine will win.

I got a lot of feedback on the last Bruce Jenkins attack, mostly in re: the pitch count section. Some interesting points. Brett sez:

In a complementary sense, nobody can tally the list of "normal" young pitchers who lost effectiveness because of injuries (diagnosed or not) caused by managers ignorantly disregarding pitch counts. Because they became mediocre or worse and disappeared from the game. It's the classic statistical problem of survivorship bias. (People think the average hedge fund returns are X%, because they start today and work backwards and miss the funds that blew out a few years ago).

For every 1968 Bob Gibson you show me who pitched the beginning, middle and end of every triple header, I wish I could show you the legions of 60's pitchers who would have pitched longer and more effectively if they had been taken care of, but I can't because they're almost impossible to identify.

Well played, sir. Also well-played by Eric:

[Gibson] was indeed a once-in-a-generation freak. But by my reckoning, Bob Gibson
was kinda sorta finished at age 36. His age 37-39 seasons were quite ordinary.

Catfish Hunter is another oft-cited example [of innings-eating monsters]. He was done
at 30.

So it would seem that the non-freak pitchers, i.e., the "majority of pitchers" would be
cooked far earlier than 36. Now, I find nothing wrong with--altho I don't agree--the
argument that its management's prerogative to choose to win a World Series or two
with a couple of pitchers throwing 325 innings, shortening their careers in the process.
But Jenkins doesn't make that argument.

I would say that Gibby's 37 year-old season was still pretty damn good. But he was no Clemens, or RJ, at 38-39-40... He wasn't even Curt Schilling at 39. Now, obviously he threw many more innings at crazy ERA+ before that age. But as for whether it's a good idea? As Brett says above, you can't look at the most successful example in history -- the extremest outlier -- in order to get a good look at the results of an experiment. This is equal to the burn-out child's claim that good grades do not matter, because "Einstein dropped out of school in like eighth grade!"

The most in-depth comments came from Richard, who challenged the claim that pitcher abuse can be measured most by the number of pitches over 100 in an individual outing. I based this link-less statement on a Baseball Prospectus article in "Baseball Between the Numbers." Richard got all up in it -- in a way I truly admired and respected, BTW -- and after much research sent me this link to an excellent article at The Hardball Times. Essentially, it the scientific evidence for the BP PAP (Pitcher Abuse Point) data, which can be found here.

Now, I am just a mild-mannered insurance claims adjuster. I am not a scientist. The BP evidence looks compelling to me, but I trust THT and BP equally, and the two of them disagreeing (even if it was several years ago) makes me feel like mommy and daddy are fighting, and I don't like it. As soon as I take care of this Wyoming traffic accident claim, I am going to poke around some more and see what the real deal is. Fascinating stuff.

Enough math. Back to dumb. Ben writes in with this gem:

In introducing the Braves' starting lineup for tonights game, Jon Miller dubbed Willie Harris "The Pride of Cairo, Georgia."

Also hailing from Cairo: this dude.

Excellent.

Jason chips in, with a report on the hands-down best announcing duo in professional sports:

Listening to Hawk Harrelson and Darin Jackson is always a chore.

It was even more so, when, during yesterday’s Twins games, they repeatedly referred to the Twins’ old middle-infield combo of Luis Rivas and Cristian Guzman as “tough outs.”

Luis Rivas career OBP: .307
Cristian Guzman career OBP: .302 (which includes his season+ in Washington)

So maybe they always had good games against the White Sox and the announcers are just remembering that? I’d buy that.

Luis Rivas career OBP vs. CHW: .300
Cristian Guzman career OBP vs. CHW: .287.

It's always nice when the announcers label players as the exact opposite of what they really are. It's the Platonic ideal of "wrong."

Finally, many of you linked Peter Gammons's InSider blog entry about players with "energy." It's iffy, but it's not outrageous. He is just saying that certain guys have a lot of energy...I don't know. Call me a hypocrite, but I just cannot bring myself to lay into Gammo. Lifetime pass.

Labels: fremulon insurance, gallimaufry, hawk harrelson, home run derby, joe morgan, peter gammons, pitch counts

Drop knowledge bombs, Brucie:

The Great American Ballpark is a bandbox, a home-run haven, an almost impossible place to build a pitching staff.

True 'dat. According to ESPN's Park Factors Page, the GAP is the #1 easiest place to hit HR, and is #2 in runs. So far you have argued using reason and knowledge.

Look elsewhere: Philadelphia, Texas, Colorado or Boston, where the Curse of the Bambino lasted a million years.

And now you have ceased to do so.

Philly: #2 in HR, but only #10 in runs, and #18 in hits.
Arlington: #10 in HR, #15 in runs, #13 in hits

Coors is 4th in hits, 2nd in runs, and 8th in HR even with the humidor. Fenway is 1st in runs and 1st in hits -- but 24th in HR. Fenway is a relatively hard park to hit HR in, and has been for a few years.

Oh, and one more thing: there is no such thing as curses. And hyperbole or no -- a million years?

Hitters can't wait to step to the plate in those places. They're crowding the on-deck circle, digging hard into the batter's box, rudely leaning into every pitch. And after three innings, the home team trails, 8-5.

Well, except for Arlington, yes, you are pretty much right. These parks do all favor hitters.

Houston (reached the 2005 World Series) and Minnesota are conspicuous exceptions, but you get the point: It's not a good thing when opponents mark the calendar for a really good time in your ballpark.

Houston is an exception? To what? Enron/Minute Maid Park strongly favors pitchers in every single statistical category -- H, R, HR, 2B, 3B, BB. It is a solid pitchers' park. In 2005 it skewed towards hitters for HR, but was a pitchers' park in every other category. How is this an exception?

Admit it. You just look at it and think it's small and don't do any research, don't you? Don't you, you saucy little minx?

The Metrodome, too -- except for walks, which is 1.001 (essentially dead average in the category) -- favors pitchers in every category. So if you really want to look for an exception to your imaginary rule, how about citing...

...

...

... the 2004 Boston Red Sox? Who won the World Series? And play in Fenway? Which? You? Cited? Earlier?

This may sound crazy,

Can't wait.

but I'm saying the Giants would have a better record right now if they hadn't re-signed Bonds. Not first-place better, but a better winning percentage, and I'll guarantee you some of the players in the clubhouse feel the same way. Why? Because it would be about a team, not a home-run record. About the hint of change, not the same one-act play. Bonds' at-bats remain magical, no doubt about that, and it might be decades before we see another hitter so compelling -- but the burden of his presence makes the rest of the players wonder if they even matter.

There might -- might, I say -- be something to this. But mostly because the guy costs a lot of money, and they might have been able to sign other, better players with that money. Bonds is going to be worth 9.6 wins to his team this year, so you'd have to get 10 wins of improvement over what you have now in order to have a better winning percentage than you have with him. That's a lot of wins. Granted, the Giants have some terrible players. Roberts-Winn-Durham is a pretty sad 123. But you can't just say that they'd be better on psychological grounds only, without offering possibilities for whom they might have signed with the extra $$$.

Then later, in the random notes section, we get...

Out-of-nowhere prediction: Jose Valverde, Arizona's flighty reliever, gives up a costly late-inning homer and turns into Atlee Hammaker, never quite the same ...

You think that's novel? Please. I've been predicting Valverde-becomes-Hammaker for months.

Here's a handy summer reminder for all the managers and pitching coaches so lamely obsessed with pitch counts ("I know he's pitching a two-hitter, but hold on just a minute here -- 103 pitches!"): In the 1968 season, the Cardinals' Bob Gibson was never removed from the mound. Made 34 starts, completed 28. The other six times, he was removed for a pinch-hitter (twice in the seventh inning, three times in the eighth and once in the 11th, notes Bill Arnold of Sports Features Group). Not once did he make that walk to the dugout, usually a humbling and discouraging experience.

I wholeheartedly encourage you to visit this page, and poke around the web and read the scientific/medical basis for pitch counts. If you don't want to, I will coarsely summarize: it is not the amount of rest between outings that matters most to a player's arm's health. It is the number of pitches per individual outing above a certain benchmark -- roughly 100. Granted, science and reason cannot hold a candle to good ol' fashioned horse sense, the like of which you are demonstrating here.

Try to imagine this as you recall Tony La Russa crafting relief for the seventh, eighth and ninth innings before the game even starts, or Felipe Alou making six changes in five minutes. It's a different game today (the pitching-dominated '68 season forced a lowering of the mound), but Gibson's feat could be repeated. Same ball, same human arm. All it takes is a little integrity and common sense.

Integrity. And common sense. That's what it takes to make a guy throw 28 complete games.

Seriously. "Integrity." And "common sense."

Integrity, to me, and to the dictionary, means something along the lines of: adherence to an ethic, or a set of moral principles. It can also mean honesty. It escapes me how any of this has anything to do with MLB pitch counts.

I suppose he could be using "integrity" in the sense of "maintenance of a whole." Like in Star Trek when a Klingon laser destroys the Enterprise's hull's integrity. That would make sense -- all it would take for someone to replicate Gibson's 300+ IP and 28 CG in 1968 would be, by definition, the maintenance of his physical integrity. But I don't think he meant that.

Let me also add here that he is actually arguing, seemingly, for a CG qua a CG -- like, it doesn't matter what the game situation is. People should just throw more complete games. Bud Black should send Peavy out there and have him toss 145 pitches no matter if he's up by 9 or down by 6. Because that would be better...for...someone?

And as for the "it could happen today" argument. Well, maybe it could. But why would you want to try? Gibson was a freak -- a once-in-a-generation pitcher with a killer arm. Saying you could have someone replicate his longevity feat today is like the child's argument that he shouldn't study because "Einstein dropped out of school in 8th grade," or "Bill Gates dropped out of college!" The antecedent in question is not the norm, thus the results of the experiment in question should not be counted on to be repeated.

But what do I know? Have Barry Zito throw 307 innings this year. Maybe that will help your Giants turn things around.

Labels: all-star game, barry bonds, bruce jenkins, park factors

Perez tests positive, presumably for drugs that make you jumpy, likely to swing at anything.

Just think -- if this is how well he hit using greenies, just think how bad he would have been au natural.

Labels: drug testing, neifi perez

Welcome, chat analysis enthusiasts! Things are heating up over at FremIns, so I'm covering for KT this week. Joe's not particularly crazy this session, but let's give him a once over anyway.

Joe Morgan: Welcome to the show, looking forward to chatting with you today!

Junior: Apparently, Joe is under the impression that this Internet chat is a "show" of some kind. Perhaps this is the only way his handlers can convince him to do something computer-related. How many handlers do you think work Joe through these chats? The best bet is only one, of course, but how fun is it to imagine twelve serious-faced business-suited gentlemen consulting with Joe on every answer?

Brent S. (fhr): Joe, are you surprised by mike hargroves desicion to resign?

Joe Morgan: Very much so. The team was playing well. If they were losing, I wouldn't be surprised, but his team had the best record in June. It's going to be tough for the team to keep going.

Junior: Good job, Joe! Answered the question immediately. Joe also believes it will be "tough for the team to keep going" without Hargrove. Remember that as this chat highlight package continues to roll.

Dave, Detroit (Granderson The Next Mays?): Hey Joe, Sports Talk Radio in Detroit were discussing All-Star Snubs when Curtis Granderson's name was discussed... He's 3rd in the AL in Slugging % and is on pace to do something that hasn't been done since Willie Mays which is Hit .300, 20 Doubles, 20 Triples, 20 Home Runs, and 20 Steals along with playing Gold Glove caliber defense... How's Granderson not an All-Star???

SportsNation Joe Morgan: A lot of the problems are created when you have to put one player from each team on the All-Star team. The two guys who were added, Carl Crawford and Alex Rios, kept Granderson and Sheffield off the team. Numbers are not what is important. He plays the game the right way, and we don't know he's going to set that record. I definitely think Granderson was an All-Star, but there were other guys left off as well, such as Sheffield. If you look at Granderson and Grady Sizemore's numbers, you wonder how Sizemore is there and Granderson is not. Remember the players vote for the reserves, and the players chose Sizemore over Granderson.

Junior: Long answer, there, Joseph! And quite terrible. Let's see if you can figure this out, Dave from Detroit:

Numbers are not what is important.

Get it, Dave? You shouldn't be upset.

If you look at Granderson and Grady Sizemore's numbers, you wonder how Sizemore is there and Granderson is not.

Except you really should be upset. Based on numbers.

He plays the game the right way,

And presumably, Alex Rios and Carl Crawford are assholes who disrespect the game. The other day I saw Rios make two plate appearances swinging a Fender Stratocaster instead of a bat. It was incredible. Fouled out both times.

Paddy (St. Louis, MO): Hey Joe, I love to hear you talk about hitting. How would you alter your approach to hitting if you were batting 8th as opposed to 2nd?

Joe Morgan: That's a good question. every place in the lineup has a job to do. Leadoff hitters are supposed to get on, second-place hitters need to move them along, third-place hitters should be the best overall, and so on. In the eighth spot, if you're in the National League, your job is to get on basre so the pitcher can bunt you over. The eight spot is one of the most difficult places to bat in the NL, because you need to deal with the pitcher after you. In the AL, your 8th hitter is just there to drive in runs and hit the ball out every once in a while, because the ninth-hitter is usually a second leadoff man.

Junior: Now look, I've never played professional baseball, or any baseball, or watched any baseball, or looked up baseball in the dictionary, but it seems like Joe is overdramatizing the differences between your hitting approach in each spot in the lineup. Batting order doesn't matter all that much, if at all, and your leadoff guy is only guaranteed to actually bat leadoff once in the game. The point that the eighth spot in the NL is difficult because the pitcher's batting behind you is valid, but really, in most situations the best thing to do is get on base. Moving the runner over while giving up an out is typically counterproductive if your goal is to score the maximum amount of runs.

But again, keep in mind that I believe a "baseball" is a species of North Atlantic salmon.

Hilal (Boston, MA): How much influence does a manager really have on a team? What ways are there to grade a manager's performance other than win-loss record (which is exceedingly dilute)? Thanks.

Joe Morgan: We have all the smart baseball people out here today! Another great question. A manager doesn't have as much effect on the team as you might think, but it's moreso now than when I played. You have to keep players pointing toward the same goal and keep everybody happy. In the old days, the player had to make the manager happy so he could play. Nowadays, the manager has to make the player happy, because he'll play anyways. The manager is more important today than ever before. He has more effect on winning and losing than when I came into the big leagues.

Junior: I really like the "manager doesn't have as much effect on the team as you might think" answer. Although if you'll recall from several inches higher in this chat recap, Joe also said "It's going to be tough for the team to keep going" about the Mariners in the wake of Mike Hargrove's departure. If you want to be charitable, you could argue that Joe was saying the Mariners were playing over their heads regardless of the Hargrove situation, but this website isn't here to be charitable. I'll leave the charity to the other organization I founded a while ago.

That's it for now, kids. I gotta go to a real, physical baseball game! Never been to one before -- I hope the number-generating machines defeat the other number-generating machines! Ha ha. Who am I kidding? All machines are equal in this robot's view.

Labels: joe morgan, joechat

His name is Mark Kreidler. He's been a sportswriter for twenty years. He just wrote this article. Ladies and gentlemen, this man has a Hall of Fame vote.

Impact, not numbers, should define a player's HOF status

Team spirit, not numbers, should determine who wins the World Series

Feelings, not data, should tell us whether to release this new cancer drug

Aura, not page views, should determine what I, Mark Kreidler, get paid for these ESPN.com articles

Ladies and gentlemen, this man has a Hall of Fame vote.

This just in from the other side of the wall: It's time to reconsider the whole proposition.

The Hall of Fame benchmark labyrinth, that is. The numerical ladder to the pantheon just doesn't work anymore, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Sure. Benchmarks -- that is to say, fixed, round numbers of counting stats like wins or hits or doubles or sac flies -- should not be used on their own to determine Hall-worthiness. They have to be taken into context. The rates of these counting stats fluctuate over the history of the game. We can use more sophisticated numbers to see how a player compares to his peers.

That's what you're saying, right?

It is, in fact, going to force a general reconsideration of how to view players by those Hall of Fame voters who've traditionally taken the easy way out and looked for a statistical validation of their choices from year to year.

Oh boy. Stats are not the easy way out. The easy way out is throwing up your hands and saying "I like this guy. Great guy. Famous. Hall of Fame. Impact. Impactuous guy. This guy is better because he had more impact. I am making up what impact is as I go along."

Ladies and gentlemen, this man has a Hall of Fame vote.

And I should certainly know: I'm one such lunkhead. Been voting for years, and there are still times when I check the numbers -- at the last minute, sometimes -- to see if they bear out what I'm thinking.

Let me get this straight. You, Mark Kreidler, are saying that sometimes you take one last minute, perfunctory glance at the numbers before you cast your Hall of Fame vote? Even worse -- you're saying that at other times, you don't look at any numbers at all?

This is akin to Clarence Thomas freely admitting, Hey, sure, sometimes I read the case files if I've got some time to kill on the crapper or whatever. Other times, boom, straight in the garbage. Also, guess what I wear underneath this judge robe -- a bathrobe! Because hey, two kinds of robes! Did I just blow your mind?

Ladies and gentlemen, this man has a Hall of Fame vote.

The Hall voting always has been like that. It's an odd little procedure, very personal, very subjective,

Trust me, Mark, it's made very much more subjective when you refuse to look at numbers for more than five seconds.

and many of us have argued over the years that it is, in fact, a Hall of Fame and not of numbers.

This is my least favorite "argument" about anything ever. First of all, the words in the name of something do not determine the tools you use to make that thing. No one's saying "It's a House of Representatives, so let's all meet in a fucking house, okay?" (Sorry for all of the political references. I have no idea what's gotten into my brain.) Second, even if you wanted to nomenclature-parse the Hall of Fame, you would find the third word in the title to be the word "fame," which, taken literally, is a piss-poor criterion for entry into said institution.

So no, it's not called the Hall of Numbers, a foyer which presumably would include e and pi and Planck's constant, it's called the Hall of Fame. Thank you for that clarification. It helps us zero.

Ladies and gentlemen, this man has a Hall of Fame vote.

But as Rob Neyer explains elsewhere on this site, 500 homers ain't what they used to be. We have witnessed a dramatic devaluation of that figure over the past two decades, with greater accomplishment suddenly skewing upward into previously unimaginable territory -- 600 and beyond.

That is why we have numbers that help us compare between eras. This has been an issue throughout the history of the Hall, not one that just came up because Frank Thomas reached 500 home runs. I can't believe you're not aware of that.

Ladies and gentlemen, you know the end of this sentence.

And I'd add that there are important numbers -- wins,

No.

hits --

And no, not really.

that seem to be sliding the other way, gradually farther from the view of today's player. Biggio's achievement, that is, may well stand taller as the years go by. Three thousand hits and 300 victories aren't merely difficult to attain; they're becoming endangered species as statistics.

Well, of the 27 players with 3,000 hits, 11 played in the nineties.

You're going to see fewer Greg Madduxes or Tom Glavines, players who just stay and stay and stay. With five-man rotations and a normal season's worth of work, even a great pitcher is going to average maybe 15, 16 wins a year. At that rate, you've got to stick in the bigs for two decades to get to 300. Maddux is in his 22nd year, Glavine his 21st. How many more such players figure to come down the pike?

Pitchers are also playing at unprecedented levels of greatness well into their forties.

I wonder if, over time, 200 wins might become accepted as a career benchmark for pitchers -- the benchmark, maybe. You already see stories that celebrate a pitcher's 200th win, and rightfully so: every one of those victories was tough to get. Shoot, Mark Buehrle has 102 wins at age 28, and he's pretty good. Assuming 15 wins a year, he'll be about 35 by the time he gets to 200. Getting to 300 just looks out of the question.

There you have it. Because Mark Buehrle, a guy who looked totally lost and posted a 4.99(!) ERA as recently as last year, probably won't make 300 wins, we have to rethink this whole numbers thing.

And I think that's where the voters will have to go, too. Increasingly, we'll have to subtract some of our old notions from the Hall of Fame rubric. What if, over time, there just aren't any more 300-game winners? After Glavine (297) on the active list, there is Randy Johnson at 284. What if Johnson comes up, I don't know, seven shy? He was still, for years, the most feared and arguably most effective pitcher in baseball. That's worthy of a Hall conversation.

For God's sake, Mark Kreidler, no one who's not a total idiot is arguing that you can't make it into the Hall if you don't have 300 wins. The majority of guys already in the Hall don't have 300-win resumes.

And of course Randy Johnson makes it in. Stop talking about "most feared" -- what the hell does that even mean? Johnson has a career 137 ERA+ (Sandy Koufax's was 131), finished first or second in ERA seven times, led the league in strikeouts per nine innings for nine consecutive years, and is closing in on 4000 IP. It's not a conversation, it's a motherfucking 360-degree slam dunk with two balls in each hand.

Then again, does a Hall voter really need to see Jeter reach 3,000 hits to know he's deserving of a vote? Certainly not -- and good thing. The old benchmarks are coming down, in some cases literally. We're going to be voting in the years to come on impact as much as anything -- and that, to me, goes hand in glove with the concept of a Hall of Fame, not a hall of numbers.

Impact, which Mark Kreidler will measure in terms of the number of fragrances a player has named after him. Get cracking, Craig, there's still time for Biggieau (TM) to hit the market in time for your Hall of Fame case.

Labels: craig biggio, hall of fame, mark kreidler, randy johnson

What's a bunch of meta-sports-commentary commentators to do?

Bill Plaschke hasn't written an article in nine days. Wallace Matthews hasn't published since June 26. Woody Paige, apparently, has been neglecting his writing in favor of his on-going propulsion experiments. The White Sox are playing down to their PECOTA predictions, so no one at the Trib or CST can glow about Ozzie. Even this guy -- normally so reliable -- has taken a break to cover Wimbledon.

It's tough days here at FJM.

I post this only to ask you, our loyal readers, to be vigilant. Go about your lives. Go to the movies, have a picnic with your children, do all of the things you normally do. But also, send us links to poorly-conceived and -executed articles in your hometown papers. Because if you don't, then the journalists will have won.

Labels: bill plaschke, bruce jenkins, wallace matthews, woody paige