FJM is a closed forum, but we welcome reader feedback. We're especially interested in corrections of our work, and research (usually number-crunching) that we may not be able to do ourselves. Please check the comments section as well, where we often post readers' opinions, and, less frequently, announce that we were wrong about something.
You can e-mail dak,Ken Tremendous,Junior,Matthew Murbles, or Coach individually.
Or JoeChat? You decide. (This is last week's -- I'm a week behind. Sorry.)
Jim (Chicago): Do you think the Dodgers' Matt Kemp is the "next Dave Winfield" like scouts have been saying? He may not get as much press as some of the other young hitters in the game but I think he may in fact be the best offensive prospect in baseball. Your thoughts?
Joe Morgan: He's got a lot of ability. If he continues to improve, that's the key. How far he'll go depends on how hard he works and how much he improves.
KT: I'm excited. I'm optimistic. "How far he'll go depends on how much he improves" is exactly the kind of trademark tautological drivel I've come to expect from Mr. Morgan. Let's see if it continues.
Brick (Brooklyn): Predictions on how the AL east will turn out this summer? Are the Yankees a third place team?
Joe Morgan: I felt Boston was the best team at the beginning of the season, and have done well despite some rough stretches. Toronto has good pitching, but they do not have the offense that Boston has. The Yankees, you can never discount them because they are the Yankees. I do think the Yankees may have overestimated their contributions from Hughes and Kennedy.
In the "Is this Fremp or Morgan?" debate, this is a push. It contains a little too much direct-answer-to-the-question to be purely Joe, but there's no actual prediction made, which reeks of Joe. I'm lost now.
Kevin (Memphis): Hey Joe. Thanks for taking my question. Can the Cardinals sustain their success, or will Pujols alone not be enough to carry them to the playoffs?
Joe Morgan: When you have an Albert Pujols, he will make everyone around him better. If you get off to a good start when you were supposed to be a bad team, it builds a lot of confidence. The Cubs look like the best team in that division, but they are not the best team. They can win the division, I think, but the Cubs have to be favored.
Wait a second...Pujols..."confidence"...insane contradiction within a single sentence...nonsensical conclusion...?
Holy crap you guys. Joe's back! Ryan (NYC, NY): Do you think the Tigers can put their start behind them and have a "successful" season?Joe Morgan: I think they can definitely put the poor start behind them. Inconsistency is their problem right now.
Joe Joe Joe Joe Joe!
Even though he's lost a few games, they have to feel good that Verlander is looking good now, but I heard Willis had a setback in his recovery.
Uh oh. Too many specific facts and actual news. Fremp?
I do believe they will have a successful season. Everyone is bunched up there in that division. It's a long season and Detroit will definitely have a chance.
...I'm lost again.
Derek (St. Louis): Hi Joe. I watched the piece you did with Pujols Sunday night. When talking to today's hitters about their approach to the game, what similarities/differences do you find when compared to when you were playing?
Joe Morgan: Pujols is more similar in his approach and the way he talks about the game. The difference is the parks being smaller, the ball is livelier, and the pitching is not as consistent.
You know what's never talked about? In all of the "it was tougher in our day" griping you hear, it never gets mentioned that in the old days starters not only threw their arms off with like 500+ innings a year, but also: no split-finger FB. That pitch wasn't around when Joe played (or, it was when Bruce Sutter started throwing it, but let's say it wasn't around like pre-1976 or something). That's a huge weapon for pitchers, and it didn't exist. People should talk about that more, on their metacritical sports blogs and such.
There are more guys trying to elevate the ball, and more guys trying to dive into the plate as opposed to staying straight away. The approach that we had is not better than the approach today's players have. Some of the parks were bigger, and some were gigantic like the Astrodome. Albert Pujols' approach is simply attacking the ball and doing what he does best. He knows exactly what he's doing every time he steps in the batter's box.
I fell asleep like four separate times during this answer. Can someone just tell me whether it was Joe or Fremp?
Steven (Phx, AZ): How will Scott Kazmir do the rest of this year?
Joe Morgan: It depends on whether he feels like he's healthy.
Not whether he's actually healthy, mind you. Whether he feels like he's healthy.
If you don't feel like you're healthy, he may hold back at times. The first thing to answer is whether he feels 100 percent. That will be the tell-tale sign.
I don't know...that doesn't seem like the best way to figure out if he's going to pitch well...
He'll pitch well if he's actually healthy.
There it is.
Rory(Sacramento): How long until Robinson Cano breaks this slump? I know he will, but it's killing me waiting around for it.
Joe Morgan: I am shocked he's been in it this long, because he's such a fine hitter. Two years ago he came close to winning a batting championship. I'm shocked it's taken this long. But when he comes out, I think he'll hit well--just not up to .340.
I'm only leaving this in because I want to make a prediction: when Gary Sheffield retires, RoCa will be the hitter Joe talks about the most. Every single time his name gets brought up, Joe talks about how he, Joe, predicted that someday he, Cano, would win a batting title, and then he, Cano, almost did. This is the kind of happenstantial fact that can keep Joe talking about a player for 30 years.
"RoCa" is in honor of when the YES guys tried to get people to call Soriano "AlSo," and nobody bit.
Zach Rastall (Marinette, WI): Hi Joe you're awesome. What should the Brew Crew do about there horredous relief pitching?
Joe Morgan: There's not much they can do. They invested a lot of money in Eric Gagne, and if he doesn't work his way out of his problems, it will be a disaster. It hough they should have re-signed Cordero, but they lost him to Cincinnati. They'll have to live with that decision. Very few general managers will admit their mistakes. Gagne can turn it around, but who knows?
Here's the thing, man:
No, actually, here's the things:
They didn't invest a lot of money in Gagne, relatively speaking. It's one year, $10m. Now that's obviously not cheap, especially for an homme who suces as mal as he does, but they can cut him if they want to and next year, it's back to the drawing board (in a good way). Frankie Cordero, on the other hand, got $46m for four years from the dumbass Reds. He is 33 years old as of last Sunday, and he has walked 11 guys in 15 IP this year. The Reds are going to be paying this guy $10.5m when he is 36 and on the shelf with his eleventh TJ surgery. (Yeah -- eleventh. A lot happens to Cordero in the next few years.) And you think the Brewers should have signed him? And you think they're having a hard time living with the decision not to?
Gagne stinks, and he's not their closer anymore. They took a risk on a short-term contract and it didn't pay off. At least it's not a hamstringingly bad 4 year deal for a mediocre 33 year-old.
Logan (Reno, Nevada): I am heading back home to Houston for the summer...I know the astros are light on starting pitching, but if their offense keeps them around 500 do you think they might make a move for a decent SP? I would sure like to see a contender at minute maid this summer.
Joe Morgan: That's always a possibility. Make no mistake, people seem to underestimate the impact of Miguel Tejada.
Fremp is out. I'm calling it. This is all Joe. Q.: The Astros are light on starting pitching. If their offense keeps them at .500, do you think they will make a move for a starting pitcher?A.: Maybe. People underestimate Miguel Tejada.
They had a group of laid-back and quiet players, but Tejada is an energy guy, who helps them from that standpoint.
You know how else he helps them, fonebone? By hitting .340/.375/.532. (Though he's only walked 8 times in like 135 AB, so expect those numbers to go down, and soon...)
They have pitchers who are capable of winning, but add another pitcher or two and they have a much better shot.
Oh, Joe. I've missed you, buddy. Can you name one Astros starting pitcher? No. No, I don't think you can.
Charlotte: Joe: You were such a great hitter. What would you do to help Andruw Jones get back on track. He's just lost up there. And I can't believe he's really this bad.
Joe Morgan: I can't either. I can't believe he's having the problems he's having. I have not seen him play this year, as we haven't done a Dodgers' game and he's never int the highlights, so I couldn't give him any specific advice, but I am shocked at how long this slump has extended.
I am officially a broken record, but: Joe Morgan, the #1 analyst on the #1 baseball network in America -- multiple-time Emmy Award Winner -- has not seen a fucking DODGER GAME this year? Not one Dodger game?
I have a full-time job, and a decently complicated life, and a young child. There is not a single team in the majors I haven't watched play this year. I have watched at least one game of every major league team. You know why? I like baseball. Like checking out a Reds-Cubs game on a sleepy Saturday in late April. Like flipping over to a Giants game and imagine what it must be like to be Brian Sabean watching Barry Zito serving 80 MPH cheese to the NL. I like baseball, so I watch baseball. I just...I don't know how saying things like this doesn't get you fired. I really don't.
Brian (Philly): I know Chase Utley is getting all the MVP love in Philly, but what about Pat Burrell? The guy is tearing it up at the plate!
Joe Morgan: It's great to see him get some love somewhere, because everybody's been down on him. He could be a kind of a late bloomer. [...]
Pat Burrell, 2002 (age 25, 3rd year in the majors): .282/.376/.544. 37 HR, 116 RBI.
Mark (Bangor, PA): Hey Joe, have you picked out anything mechically wrong with Hafner's swing or has he lost his eye or bat speed?
Joe Morgan: I've only done the one Indians game early in the year, where it was cold and not conducive to hitting. [...]
And since I only watch games I am actually announcing, and thus only see one game a week, everyone with a specific question about a specific player that happens not to play for one of the eight teams I have covered so far can go fuck themselves.
Sincerely,
the #1 Booth Analyst on the #1 Most Important Weekly Baseball Broadcast on the WorldWide Leader in Sports,
Joe Morgan
Joe Morgan: I think that it'll be a very interesting summer, because there are teams in the race that we didn't expect to be playing well. Teams like the Diamondbacks have shown what they are made of.
That's it. That's how it ends.
Oh well. At least he's back. Fremp, we hardly knew ye.
We all know Barry Bonds is a bad dude. Does illegal whaling in Japan in the off-season, helps cars hit old ladies crossing the street, has a huge collection of pirated LaserDiscs. Crusty sportswriters -- I'm giving you this one. Not defending Barry's character.
But recently we've had a plethora of "good thing Team X didn't sign Barry!" pieces, culminating in that crazy Tim Kawakami thing that argued that Fred Lewis was better than Bonds. Essentially, these articles all hinge on the same premise: Barry's negative clubhouse presence outweighs what actually does on the field. Sure, they pay lip service to his age, his balky knees, his fielding -- but let's be honest, what they're really saying is that Barry Bonds' confirmed boogeymanness is totally more important than his ability to hit baseballs to Ganymede, Jupiter's sweetest moon.
I present to you Jeff Gordon. Not that one. Is unemployed outfielder Barry Bonds the victim of collusion among Major League Baseball owners?
Well, probably not organized, premeditated, let's-all-get-in-a-dark-smoky-boardroom-and-place-blackballs-into-a-mahogany-box collusion, no. But I'm starting to wonder what the fuck some of these teams are thinking.
Of course not. Only a blithering idiot would believe such nonsense.
For a guy about to spout nonsense, he's pretty harsh on idiots who believe nonsense.
The major leagues are awash with players mentioned in the Mitchell Report. The Cardinals, like many teams, didn’t hesitate to acquire players implicated in steroid and/or HGH investigations.
Okay, but like Larry Bigbie and Glenallen Hill and Nook Logan didn't break the all-time home run record, sullying one of the most hallowed numbers in sports in the process. Bonds has a little bit more stigma attached, no?
Still, the players' association is gathering information on Bonds’ unemployment. It is reviewing how the free-agent marketplace operated after the 2007 season.
We hope their investigators check this corner of cyberspace to get our take. Bonds isn’t in the big leagues because GMs believe his minuses outweigh his pluses in 2008.
Ways To Tell If Someone Is Both Old In Real Life And New To Cyberspace, #435: Uses the term "cyberspace."
Let's keep track of Mr. Gordon's pluses and minuses, and which are baseball-y and which are boogeyman-y.
Can he still hit? Probably. Last year he hit 28 homers in 340 at-bats. He still has a good eye, and lord knows he hasn’t gotten any smaller. He could still bring presence to a batting order.
Plus plus plus! Big plus. You know how many Cardinals hit 28 home runs last year? One. His name was David Eckstein. ("David Eckstein" is what I call Albert Pujols.)
But let’s walk through all the negatives:
* Bonds will turn 44 years old in July. How many other 44-year-old outfielders are flourishing in the big leagues this season?
How many 43-year-old outfielders OPS-ed 1.045 last year? Or .999 the year before, at age 42? * The former Gold Glove outfielder is now a defensive liability, due to his bad wheels.
Yes. He is better suited to be a DH. But weighed against his still-crazy offensive prowess, his bad fielding still might be worth it, Manny-style. Baseball Prospectus has Bonds at -12 and -4 Fielding Runs Above Average the last two years. Man-Ram's been clocking figures like -6, -21, -18, -12, and -13 for years. Big huge boulder of salt with these numbers, as fielding science is far from a reliable game, of course.
* Durability is also a major concern, since Barry played just 126 games last season.
True dat. * His salary expectations are out of whack with his diminished baseball value. At this point in his career, Bonds would put up Chris Duncan power numbers -– maybe a little better, perhaps a little worse. (Duncan had slugging percentages of .589 and .480 the last two seasons. Bonds came in at .545 and .565.)
This is just terrible cherry-picking. Sure, those slugging percentages look similar. But check out their respective OBPs, which is way more important than slugging in the first place:
Plus, if you're so concerned with how many games Bonds is going to play, how about Duncan, who basically needs to be platooned since he has a career .598 OPS against lefties? * Bonds is, by all accounts, a truly horrendous teammate. He has been a disruptive clubhouse presence dating back to his Pirates days.
Boogeyman.
* His unresolved legal issues would create distractions anywhere he went. With Bonds comes a media circus, an army of reporters poking and prodding at his combative and defiant persona.
Boogeyman. * He relishes the villain role, a posture that kills his marketing value. He wouldn’t generate box office buzz for his new team.
Now suddenly we're worried about marketing? Should we mark down Julian Tavarez for looking like a seventh-level cacodaemon? We probably should. Also, don't you think more people would still like to see aging dickhead Barry Bonds hit than, I don't know, Skip Schumaker?
Given all those factors, big league GMs opted to look elsewhere for offensive help: younger free agents, prime-age trade targets or home-grown players.
Especially for teams with horrible DHs, I find this to be inexplicable GMing.
Instead, the Cards relied on home-grown talent (Rick Ankiel, Chris Duncan. Skip Schumaker), bargain signing Ryan Ludwick and Rule 5 addition Brian Barton to man the outfield.
...
Ludwick has built a .675 slugging percentage as a part-time outfielder. Duncan hasn’t found his power stroke yet, but his .385 on-base percentage tells you he has enough patience enough to relocate his swing.
Something tells me Ryan Ludwick isn't going to keep up a 1.185 OPS all year. He has a career .333 OBP, so let's not all start saying he's better than Fred Lewis just yet. These are hungry players who bring energy to the group. They help make the Cards a more dynamic offensive and defensive team.
Skip Schumaker has 5 home runs in 178 major league games. Dynamic!
What would Bonds have done? Hit some homers, probably, but otherwise he would have dragged down the group with his egocentric behavior.
Here's where we get to the core of the matter: people life Jeff Gordon truly believe that the scowls outweigh the homers. Bonds' aura saps slugging points away from Ludwick and Duncan. It makes Aaron Miles flub ground balls. Barry's like a baseball dementor. (See, HatGuy? I can do Harry Potter references too!) Imagine how Bonds would have poisoned the clubhouse, honing in on Pujols and offering advice on how to handle his superstar status. One shudders at the thought of that relationship.
You think...Barry Bonds...would hurt Albert Pujols'...ability to hit baseballs. Me, I don't know, I think it would pretty fucking awesome to see these two guys swap hitting tips. God, that would be amazing.
Jesus, what if Pujols protected Bonds in the lineup or vice-versa? (Note to readers: "protection" is, as far as I understand, a myth.)
The team dealt Scott Rolen to shed his negative clubhouse presence.
And just to prove how nebulous, inconsistent, and scattershot sportswriters are when it comes to gauging "presence," the people in Toronto believed Rolen would have a positive impact on the team's "atmosphere":
"Also, replacing Thomas in the clubhouse with Scott Rolen, who's on track to return mid-May from a spring training finger injury will change the Jays' internal dynamics for the better. Rolen understands how to establish a productive atmosphere."
By moving Rolen and shunning Bonds, the Cards allowed Pujols to become an even stronger leader of his team.
Look at how the less-experienced players feed off him. Look at how Albert feeds off the hustle of all the guys fighting to establish their careers.
Yeah, he really needs Ryan Ludwick to push him. Without him, he was all "Blah, blah blah! 1.102, 1.039, 1.072, 1.106, and shit!" What a layabout!
The Cards’ early success this season underscores the value in assembling the right mix of personalities in addition to the right talent mix. This team isn’t hitting homers yet, but it keeps winning games.
In no small part because their ERA is third in the NL, which they couldn't possibly have done with Barry Bonds in the clubhouse frowning up a storm and repeatedly punching Yadier Molina in the gut, unprovoked.
Would Bonds have furthered their cause this season? Of course not. And that is why he sits home today, playing the role he plays best -- the unloved villain/victim.
The Cards are better off without him. And so is every other team.
Yes, the Mariners are much better off with Jose Vidro and his .546 OPS. OPS? More like OOPS!!!!111!!!ONE11!!!!///
It seems like the Cardinals might be okay in the outfield, so maybe Bonds isn't the best fit for them. But as writers of these pieces always seem to do, Gordon can't help but veer off into "AND NOBODY -- NOBODY -- SHOULD SIGN HIM BECAUSE HE IS TERRIBLE AND EVIL AND VILLAINOUS PURITY OF THE GAME CLUBHOUSE GRUMBLE GRUMBLE MEDIA RABBLE RABBLE CIRCUS!"
Cool. He's a jerk. We get it. Someone should probably sign him, though, because when he plays baseball he's damn good at it.
You know what? I'm going to agree with him here. The argument is all over the map, but if I were a GM, even with a struggling NL team, I'm not sure I sign Bonds. He is old, and even though he OPSed like 3.000 last year, I think he's so poisonous and distraction-y I wouldn't want him on my team. I mean, the Reds aren't going to make the playoffs even with the guy, so why sign him? And if you're a contender, and things are going pretty well...
I don't know. Maybe this is a time when it just isn't worth it.
Sometimes we at FJM Headquarters receive so many emails about one particular article that we have no choice but to put aside our busy work as mild-mannered pension plan monitors and such and just like lay out the article for all to see. Such is the case with this pointless list of the "10 Worst Franchises in Sports," by a nefarious Russian named Dave Golokhov, from the venerable sports reporting media outlet askmen.com. I don't know about you, but I was raised never to trust a Ruskie. This is why.
10. Los Angeles Clippers
...Most of the Clippers' struggles can be traced to [Donald] Sterling. Their .365 franchise winning percentage is the third-worst in the NBA and the Clippers have only had two winning seasons since Sterling bought the team in 1981.
Fair enough. Though they did win 47 game a couple years ago...but yeah, they stink. Almost as bad as the Knicks.
9. Vancouver/Memphis Grizzlies
The Vancouver Grizzlies were embarrassing in Canada and they haven't been much better since the move to Memphis. Vancouver compiled 56 wins throughout its first four seasons — a total that serious contenders top annually — and the team's downfall has been nightmarish draft days...
Okay, well, they kind of stink, too, but they did have three straight winning seasons from '03-04 to '05-06, including 50 wins that first year (though Jerry West is gone, I guess, so maybe that's old news). I don't know. I thought Rudy Gay was a great draft pick for them. Eh. They kind of stink too. But the Knicks definitely stink more. Can't wait to see where the Knicks rank on this list.
8. Atlanta Hawks
The Atlanta Hawks, averaging 28 wins per season between 1999-00 and 2007-08, were the Eastern Conference's whipping boy until the Charlotte Bobcats entered the league. The good news is that the Hawks are chock-full of upside since they've been selecting at the top of virtually every draft over the last decade. On paper, the Hawks have more potential than most teams, but they haven't learned to win or remove themselves from the worst sports franchises list.
Weird inclusion here, since they just stretched the 66-win Celtics to 7 games, and seem to have an awesome collection of young talent in the weak East. That Josh Smith fellow seems awfully good to me. This one is weird -- I would've put the Knicks here. But it's nowhere near as weird as number 7:
7. Minnesota Twins
"Moneyball" is to baseball what frugal is to cheap; it's a creative way of saying, "we're not going to pay for our stars or reward our veterans who have earned their keep."
There are 103 things wrong with this analogy. How many can you spot? Let me get you started: "Moneyball" has nothing to do with the Twins.
Sabermetrics and scientific stats are used to evaluate players and give a better indication of their worth, but teams like the Minnesota Twins use this strategy to kiss their superstars goodbye at the trade deadline or the first day of free agency.
Sometimes. Then they take the draft choices and turn them into young, excellent, cheap players who help them win baseball games at a rate that belies their small-market budget. This is called: being good at baseball management.
The Twins constantly sell proven veterans for prospects and draft picks, but when those youngsters finally develop, they get shipped away to start the cycle again. The Twins incessantly look to the future and winning now is not a priority. Translation: the Twins care more about the dollars than about winning.
Twins win totals, 2002-2006: 94, 90, 92, 83, 96. Four division titles in five years. You're telling me that a team that won four division titles in a five year stretch ending in 2006 is the seventh worst franchise in all of sports?
You know who's a terrible director? Scorsese. Did you see Kundun? Booooo-ring.
Puzzling personnel plays: Trading Johan Santana and failing to re-sign Torii Hunter.
I'm with you, kind of, on Santana, though what were they gonna do? It seems like they were right about not accepting Kennedy and Cabrera from the Yankees...maybe Lester and some other Sox prospects would have been better, but time will tell. As for Toriiii, well, let's look at that signing when the contract is up and see if the Angels got their money's worth. (Spoiler alert: they will have not gotten their money's worth.)
Remember ... 2002: A year removed from a contraction battle, the Minnesota Twins (under first-year manager Ron Gardenhire) make it to the American League Championship Series. With a solid roster and a light payroll, 2002 would have been the perfect season to sacrifice some future players to add some veteran players at the trade deadline and make a serious run. Instead, the Twins entered the playoffs with the youngest roster in the league and never stood a chance in the ALCS after beating fellow cheapskates, the Oakland Athletics, in the first round.
So...you're bashing them for being "cheap" and following a "Moneyball" philosophy, because in 2002, with the 4th lowest payroll in the sport, they got all the way to the fucking ALCS. They were one of the 4 best teams in the league that year. And another one of the best teams was the Oakland A's, about whom the book "Moneyball" was written.
You know who didn't make it as far as the $41m Twins that year? The $132m Yankees, or the $108m Red Sox, or the $105m Rangers, or the $103m DBacks, or the $101m Dodgers. And this means the Twins are a bad franchise?
Congratulations! That is bone-dumb.
#6 is the Bruins. 5 is the Detroit Lions.
4. Tampa Bay Rays
Expansion teams are typically a laughingstock for a few years, but in the Rays' case it's been permanent. In fact, a perennial assumption is that the Rays will finish fifth in their division. The Rays' best finish was in 2004, when they climbed to fourth in the American League East. They have finished fifth every other season and have never won more than 70 games.
More inexplicability here. Have you seen the Rays play? They're kind of awesome. They just locked up Evan Longoria. Shields is awesome. Upton is awesome. Kazmir is awesome when he's not hurt. Crawford is awesome. Obviously they won't come out of the East, but damn, that team is fun to watch. Two years ago you would've had something. Now, this just looks like you haven't done any research. I mean...you haven't even mentioned the Knicks yet.
3. Arizona Cardinals
The Cardinals logo appears next to "loser" in the NFL dictionary. The Cardinals have made just four playoff appearances in 45 years since Bill Bidwill got his hands on the team. Bidwill is known as a cheapo, which explains why the Cardinals are always short on star power and talent. The closest they've come to success was when Cuba Gooding, Jr. as Rod Tidwell, in the movie "Jerry McGuire," wore a Cardinals jersey.
I guess it's hard to argue this when you look at the last like 30 years, but again -- they won 8 games last year and were 7th in the league in points scored. If I were making this list, I would look for teams that are not only currently bad, but have bleak futures. Like the New York Knicks, who I assume will be listed here very shortly.
2. Kansas City Royals
Fine. Sure. They aren't very good. I guess that means the Knicks are #1?
1. Pittsburgh Pirates
Okay. That's fair. They are pretty rough. So, the Knicks are # 1/2?
Hey, you there. Sportswriter. Bet you thought you could write a logically unsound SAT verbal section-style analogy about Moneyball and get away with it. Sorry, buddy. Not when this sports journalism blogger just burned through two Miller Analogies Test prep books this morning (as I do every morning; it's a ritual like having a cup of coffee to me).
"Moneyball" is to baseball what frugal is to cheap;
<buzzer sound FX>
First of all, Moneyball is a book, not really a formal philosophy. But even putting that aside, let's do this in English. Moneyball, loosely speaking, is a general managing strategy that involves exploiting market inefficiencies in the sport of baseball...is to baseball, which is the sport of baseball...as frugal, a euphemism for the word "cheap"...is to cheap, which is the word "cheap."
Wha?
You don't have to have gotten a 600 on your M.A.T. to smell that this analogy is to correctness as Hillary Clinton is to giving up-ness! Wait, did that work? No. It did not, on several levels. (Humor and accuracy, no. Topicality and mordant political commentary, yes!)
"Moneyball" is not a euphemism for "baseball." "Frugal" is not a strategy for winning at the sport of "cheap." The whole thing is so tangled I can't even begin to suggest an alternative.
Oh, what the hell, here are a half dozen, each one at least as accurate as what this guy wrote:
Hey -- I have a question. SportsCenter is the show you watch to get highlights of sporting events, correct?
It's like "the news," but for sports. Where I can find news about what happened in sports.
I'm not wrong about this, right?
Except tonight -- and God knows how long this has been going on, and forgive me if I am late to this party -- there was a segment called The Bud Light FreezeFrame, wherein viewers were given the chance to vote on the "Image of the Week." And then Brian Kenny read -- aloud, so everyone could hear him; like, he didn't try to hide it at all -- various reader comments. One of them was in re: Williams hammering Rondo from Game 7 of the Hawks-Celtics series, and came from jpizzle39 (a commenter name so parodically parodic I couldn't beat it if I tried) and began "What a clothesline!"
I don't want to get all Bissingerian here, but do I need to be exposed to reader comments during SportsCenter?
No, I don't.
The Bud Light FreezeFrame. Every Wednesday on SportsCenter.
Thanks to those of you who pointed out that the foul was Game 7, not Game 4 (I think I was thinking "deciding game" or "4th win" or something). Also, I am aware that the Roman numeral sequence is not real or possible. I was trying to convey frustration with long number sequence. I should have made it longer. If I had written "Vol. MCMDVMXIIVMDCDMMMVVIIIII" everyone would have gotten it.
Times are slow in the sports metacommentary world. In lieu of more journo-evisceration, here are two tidbits about two of our favorite subjects, A-Rod and Juan Pierre.
"As tough and big as he seems, he is real wimpy around doctors or any type of medical situation," Cynthia Rodriguez said. "I was, like, not even having a baby; he was the one. The one nurse had a cold cloth on his head, the other nurse had the blood pressure on his arm and my mother was like rubbing his back -- and he is passed out on a couch.
"And I am there, in the middle of labor, and really, I am not being paid much attention to besides the doctor and a couple of nurses. And he is there, moaning. In between pushing, I am going, 'Honey, are you OK?' And are you breathing? Are you OK?'"
Derek Jeter, of course, regularly attends childbirths for fun and is a licensed obstetrician/gynecologist in twelve states. Delivered two of Mariano's kids -- without fancy medical tools. Just his hands, his calm eyes, his gut, and a shovel.
Second thing: Juan Pierre is reading FJM. Buster Olney explains:
Juan Pierre has always been an old-school free-swinger, someone who hacks first and asks questions later. But in the first five weeks of his season, there has been a dramatic change in Pierre.
"He's picking through pitches," said one talent evaluator. "I think with the competition going on" -- with four Dodgers outfielders competing for three spots -- "he had to re-think a little bit the way he was playing. In the time I've seen him, you can really see him trying to get on base, in a way that's different from in the past. There's a deliberate thought process going on there. His at-bats look different."
That's because they are different, so far. Entering Wednesday's game, Pierre is averaging 3.67 pitches per plate appearances, more than a quarter of a pitch better than the 3.40 pitches per plate appearance he averaged last year, and he is hitting .316, with a .388 on-base percentage. He's never had an on-base percentage of greater than .378.
So you're welcome, Juan, for inspiring you to change your approach and revitalize your career.
Next up: Bill Plaschke turns his back on Juan and accuses him of playing too much like a computer.
In FJM Heaven, every writer complains that high-OBP sluggers clog up the basepaths. In FJM Heaven, every article trumpets David Eckstein as an MVP candidate based on his grit, his heart, and the fact that he sleeps in a child's race car bed. In FJM Heaven, A-Rod is a worthless choker, wins matter more than WHIP, "it's not called the Hall of Very Good," and all bloggers live in their mothers' basements.
And in FJM Heaven, HatGuy writes about food for an entire column, every column.
No more candy cane lane? Say it ain't so, Joe! Yankees manager goes too far by banning goodies in the clubhouse
This is just a delight. I mean, I'm not even going to be an asshole for this one. Okay, maybe a little. If Braveheart
-- topical -- were playing for the Yankees in 2008 instead of the underdog Scottish Nationalists in 1305, he’d have climbed on a table in the Yankees clubhouse and delivered a line that would resonate through time: “You can take my life, but you can’t take my Reese's peanut butter cups!”
All of you readers who e-mail me to add the "food metaphors" label on every single post I write, this post is for you. You are legion, you are persistent, and I appreciate every e-mail.
HatGuy, Jesus...he's not even veiling his gustatory fascination with the aforementioned food metaphors anymore. This baseball column is just straight up about food. Think about that. Also, countdown until he mentions ice cream. 5...4...3... Alas, there is no William Wallace on the Yankees and no plans for Mel Gibson to play the brave rebel who leads the team against manager Joe Girardi, who has imposed a reign of health food on his team.
No Mel Gibson joke? You disappoint me, HatGuy. Hell, "sugar tits" even has a food in it. You definitely could have awkwardly shoehorned a dated, unfunny Gibson reference in there. Next time.
No candy in the clubhouse, Girardi has decreed. And no ice cream.
There it is. For the uninitiated, I refer you to what reader Zac once wrote us:
June 28, 2006, Mike Celizic writes "Sox Fans must boo Pedro heartily," and makes a choppy, hot fudge sundae/whipped cream joke:
"If anything else happens — the fans cheering wildly or the commentators congratulating them for booing boisterously or no one taking notice of the occasion at all...[I'd] be as disappointed as I’d be if I set out to construct a hot fudge sundae and discovered I was out of whipped cream."
July 7, 2006, Mike Celizic writes "Not Time for Yankees to Panic" and makes eerily similar whipped cream reference:
"It’s hard to make panic seem banal, but that’s what the Yankees have accomplished over the years... [blahblah] ...Panic should be saved for special occasions. For the Yankees, a day without panic is like a hot fudge sundae without whipped cream."
Yes, HatGuy -- we keep track of food metaphors and similes you made nearly two years ago. That is the kind of people we are. Food metaphor enthusiasts.
It’s not just at Yankee Stadium, either. By Girardi’s orders, stadiums the Yankees will visit this year have been asked not to provide M&Ms, Dove bars, or any other sweet succulence to his Yankees.
Forget FJM Heaven. This is HatGuy Heaven! The Yankees, food, sweet food, creamy food, chocolate, dessert, Yankee stadium, candy, ice cream, Dove bars (ice cream inside candy)! Instead, Girardi wants granola, nuts and dried fruits for his players to snack on. My guess is there won’t even be salt on the nuts.
d:(
(That's a HatGuy frowny-face.)
It makes you wonder why he doesn’t go all the way and ban apple pie and motherhood.
Because he wants his players not to eat junk food? Multi-million-dollar athletes whose bodies are finely-tuned machines designed to perform extraordinary physical tasks on an everyday basis? Yes, this man is Stalin because he doesn't want his players looking like this:
I understand his motivation — promoting healthy choices in all things. But no chocolate? No nougat and caramel? No Heath bars? Not even a roll of LifeSavers?
How many times do you think HatGuy stopped to eat something while writing this column? Fifteen? Twenty? I'm guessing he ate at least one of each and every food he mentions.
Girardi came to the Yankees with a reputation as something of an extremist, but this is ridiculous. We’re talking about grown men here. We’re talking about a freaking Reese's peanut butter cup.
Well, to be fair, you were the one who brought up the peanut butter cup.
It wasn’t that long ago — within the past 20 years — that baseball clubhouses were among the last refuges from a world that was becoming obsessed with inflicting “healthy” living on everyone — by law if necessary.
Yes, 'twas a fine time. The baseball men would laze about, drunk on molasses moonshine, cheeks puffed with tobacco crabgrass. No coloreds were allowed, and the only women were the Lace Tutu Girls, whose sole purpose was to light your cigar and freshen your martini -- toplessly, of course. Ah, 1988.
Once upon a time, players arriving for work could load up on free chewing and spit tobacco to get the nicotine that kept their engines running.
People say a lot of things about baseball. But one thing I think just doesn't get enough play is that it doesn't have enough mouth cancer.
Next to the tobacco was a rack of gum and candy. Coffee urns dispensed a brew so strong you felt you could slice it and eat it in a sandwich.
Food...metaphor? No. Yes. No, wait. No. Brain twisting...screw it, I'm adding the "food metaphors" label and the "liberal use of 'food metaphors' label" label. You happy, "food metaphors" label crazies? You're welcome.
Out of sight from the public but no less readily available were amphetamines — “greenies” — for those who needed to kick-start their games.
So you're pro-greenies? What? I'm lost.
When their work was done, the tired heroes foraged through a postgame buffet that included at least three items from the all-important grease food group. Coolers harbored all manner of soda pop and enough beer in the players’ favorite brands — Free and Free Lite — to get a fraternity house through rush week.
Yeah. That's partly why I bet a team of modern players would kick these lard-assy gentlemanly layabouts' asses. Just a guess.
Except Wade Boggs. Dude would drink 70 beers on a cross-country flight and still go 3 for 5.
It wasn’t something that the American Heart Association (or your mom) was going to endorse, but when you threw in the magazine collection — heavy on hunting, cars and women who had forgotten to bring their clothing to their photo shoots – it wasn’t surprising that ballplayers liked to get to the park early and stay later than absolutely necessary. Clubhouse life was as good as it got.
HatGuy's new rallying cry: Bring back Car & Driver & Porn & Guns magazine!
And then the health police started getting involved.
I think HatGuy is confused. You can still eat all of these things. Relax. Breathe deeply. Look in your pantry. They're still there. All of them: the Three Musketeers, the Butterfingers, the Snickers, the Milky Way Darks. Now look in your freezer. See the ice cream? Yep, it's still there. Hey, here's an idea: what if you crumbled up some of those candy bars on top of the ice cream? That's good, isn't it?
Now isn't that more fun than writing a column about there being no chocolate in the Yankees' clubhouse? Aw, he fell asleep. The little HatGuy's all tuckered out. Isn't that cute?
The first thing to go was free tobacco for reasons that should be obvious. Then teams started to get more healthy choices in the buffets. In some clubhouses the beer also disappeared.
There were good reasons for all of the decisions. Tobacco can kill you, and so can excesses of grease.
Or chocolate. Or -- gasp -- hot fudge sundaes with whipped cream. It's all fun and games when you're just making metaphors about sundaes, but when those metaphors become reality, it's your arteries that pay.
And if a player were to get drunk in the clubhouse and then get in an accident, the team could face heavy liability.
It’s not as if modern ballplayers are Babe Ruth wannabes who train on hot dogs, beer, cigars and babes. (Well, maybe the babes, but not the other things.) These guys work out year-round and many have nutritionists and trainers at their beck and call.
So they probably don't care that much about not scarfing down Turtles for three hours straight before the game.
Sure, you’ve got your C.C. Sabathias carrying on the weighty tradition of David Wells and other noted gourmands, but for the most part, these guys are as healthy and fit as anyone could ever want to be.
So is it that modern players are all so in shape that it doesn't matter if they eat junk in the clubhouse or that it was more fun back in the old days when all guys did was eat junk in the clubhouse?
Also, not really sure how fit Joba Chamberlain is. Maybe he's like the Kingpin and it's all solid muscle.
A Dove bar or a bag of M&Ms is not going to hurt them, and it just might make them feel better — and therefore perform better.
Oh, I get it. It's neither. It's that Chocolate Makes People Better At Things! You think the chocolate lobby has gotten to HatGuy? Look, we've all been tempted by the money Big Chocolate throws at us, but I've always thought of HatGuy has an incorruptible lone kook-type.
Chocolate can, in fact, be very good for you. Dark chocolate is full of anti-oxidants and contains a chemical that elevates your mood.
Yarrrgggh!!! Corporate synergy -- they wrote chocolate into the storyline!
Right here is probably where HatGuy sticks in some hard scientific evidence proving that chocolate improves your WARP3 -- This is well-known at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, where Harry Potter and his posse frequently were ordered to eat lots of chocolate to help them heal after a busy day battling Dementors.
Best part of an already unbelievable gold mine (of gold chocolate coins) of an article.
Chocolate isn’t junk food.
WE GET IT.
Some would argue it’s the best food nature ever contributed to our diet, a food loaded with anti-oxidants and imbued with a mood-elevating substance called theobromine, from which comes cacao’s scientific name — theobroma, the “food of the gods.” Was ever any product of nature more aptly named?
Holy f-ing s. He's really lost it, hasn't he? I'm worried. I'm honestly, no-kidding, 100% worried about Michael Celizic's mental state. Call me, Mike. Well, no. Don't do that. Just write an article about A-Rod faking his injury so he can avoid those high-pressure May at bats so I know everything's all right.
And now, just for the fun of it, I will now list each and every food (including repeats) or other consumptible (I made that word up to mean something you put in your body in a food-like manner) found in the column:
candy cane Reese's peanut butter cups candy ice cream M&Ms Dove bars granola nuts dried fruits salt nuts apple pie chocolate nougat caramel Heath bars LifeSavers candy bar Reese's peanut butter cup chewing and spit tobacco gum candy coffee sandwich greenies buffet grease soda pop beer tobacco beer grease hot dogs beer amino acids vitamins ginseng Dove bar bag of M&Ms chocolate dark chocolate chocolate chocolate best food nature ever contributed to our diet cacao "food of the gods"
We've come so far, baseball writers. You're citing OPS occasionally, you're learning that wins and losses for pitchers aren't all they're cracked up to be, you're even acknowledging the dubious worth of small sample sizes. It makes me proud, like a mama city raccoon watching her baby eat its first piece of leftover Taco Bell. So please, when you're doing the last of these three things, don't merely pay lip service to sample size and then leap to ridiculous conclusions, like Mr. Timothy Kawakami did today: 1. Barry Bonds is not missed, in part because Fred Lewis is a better player than Bonds was at the end of last year. (italics and insanity his)
In the top of the third inning last night, Macedonian superstar Kevin Kouzmanoff hit a home run off of Jamie Moyer. On Friday, May 20, 1927, Babe Ruth struck out against George Ernest "The Bull" Uhle. Kevin Kouzmanoff is a better player than Babe Ruth was during that at bat. (italics and hamhanded hyperbole mine)
EMPHASIS ON: BONDS AT THE END OF LAST YEAR. I’m of course not saying Lewis is better than Bonds at the height of his power/the injections or when Bonds was 27, as Lewis is now.
EMPHASIS ON: BONDS DURING AN ARBITRARY, TINY SMATTERING OF AT BATS THAT I CHERRY-PICKED COMPARED TO FRED LEWIS' HIGH BABIP-FUELED START THAT HE ALMOST CERTAINLY WILL BE UNABLE TO SUSTAIN.
I’m saying that Lewis is a better producer in LF for the Giants at this moment than Bonds would’ve been if he was currently playing LF for the Giants, or any other team, or DH-ing, or whatever.
Fred Lewis is hot as hell right now. He's got a .952 OPS. I'm sure even Kawakami would admit that he's performing a little over his head.
You know what Bonds' OPS was after the month of April last year?
1.349
That is not a typo. You know what Bonds' OPS for the year was?
1.045
It's early, motherfuckers. Nate McLouth has a 1.083 OPS. Let's keep our heads when comparing 27-year-old virtual rookies with the first- or second-greatest hitter of all time, even the hypothetical 349-year-old version of that hitter who would be playing this year.
(And Bonds would’ve only been worse this year, while Lewis is getting better.)
Probably. Though Barreee did increase his OPS from .999 to the aforementioned 1.045 from 2006 to 2007, at the age of 9,528.
Flash back to early August, when Bonds was a good player.
Something happened between early August and late August that made Bonds not a good player anymore? Did he lose an arm in a lathe accident? I feel like Barry Bonds with one arm in a lathe would still OBP in the high .300s. He hit HR No. 756 on Aug. 7, to break the all-time record.
Then he hit a few more, then went into a predictable post-record, pre-indictment lull. But there was still more baseball to played and Bonds knew his career was on the line. After the record-gazing, he still needed a big September to prove he could play at age 43. September should be a good barometer for what Bonds has/had left.
YES LET'S JUDGE THE ENTIRETY OF BARRY BONDS' REMAINING BASEBALL ABILITY ON THE BASIS OF ONE MONTH'S WORTH OF AT BATS, NOT THE REAMS AND REAMS AND REAMS OF DATA, INCLUDING THE SEVERAL MILLION RECORDS HE BROKE AND THE KIA SEPHIA HE CLEAN-AND-JERKED OVER HIS HEAD IN LATE OCTOBER 2007.
Here’s what Bonds did last September: 1 HR in 30 at-bats, 7 hits, (.233 batting average), 6 walks (.361 on-base), 1 double (.367 slug). That’s a .738 OPS, way, way under his alleged-steroid totals and career totals.
Did I say one month's worth of at bats? I'm sorry, I meant two weeks' worth. Tim Kawakami is judging Barry Bonds' current baseball-hitting prowess on 12 games' worth of data.
Through 9 games this year, Fred Lewis had a .388 OPS. That's worse than Alicia Silverstone would hit in the majors! Throw him into a viper pit of pit vipers! Through 10 games, it was .654. That's worse than Jennie Garth would hit in the majors! Drop him off of Mount Everest into the Marianas Trench! Through 11 games, it was .761. Eh, okay. That's about average, I guess. Through 12 games, it was .946. HE IS OUR NEW BASEBALL GOD.
The point is, after each one of these games, Fred Lewis seemed to be an entirely different player. The larger point is, you can't judge players after 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 games. What's frustrating is that Kawakami seems to know this (as we'll see from what he writes later), or seems to think he knows this, and yet he still wrote all of this nonsense about Lewis definitely being better than Bonds.
Here’s what Lewis is doing right now, comfortably settled into the lead-off spot at the end of April:
92 at-bats is better than 30, and Lewis appears to be developing into a productive offensive player. Then again, check out this hotshot:
35/104 15 4 26 1 .337 .926
Yeah. That's Xavier Nady. I just made you get a baseball-rection from Xavier Nady, 29 years old, .777 OPS in 551 career games.
-Lewis has the fifth-best OPS (.952) among regular LFs, ahead of Matt Holliday, Johnny Damon, Jason Bay and Carlos Lee, among others.
-That’s much more than Bonds could’ve logically been expected to produce this season, with or without steroid injections, with or without a federal indictment, with or without clogging up the clubhouse with his karma.
Well, there was that whole 1.349 OPS in April of last year. But more importantly, I think we have a new rival to "clogging up the basepaths." "Clogging up the clubhouse with his karma" -- it's delicious, pungent, and utterly nonsensical. Brian Bocock's karma wants to run free with the antelopes. But oh no, here comes Barry's karma (I picture these karmas looking a little like the creatures from Where The Wild Things Are)! It's fat and it's slow, and it's clogging up the clubhouse! Who cares about his karma's karmic OBP (kOBP) when he can't run the karmic basepaths (in the clubhouse)!
-Lewis obviously might and probably will cool down.
Thank you.
His defense isn’t very good (great play here, bad play there) and I’m not volunteering Lewis for Gold Glove consideration at any point. But Bonds was a sieve out there for the last three years. So Lewis is better in the field, too.
Sure. Not helping your point much that Lewis is a butcher in left field, but I'll give you this.
-I realize these are relatively small sampling sizes–September for Bonds, April for Lewis.
Relatively? Relatively?! This is like a dude telling a girl he just slept with, "I realize that I may be relatively chlamydia-y, but..."
You can't just say "Yes-these-are-small-sample-sizes-moving-on-I'm-using-them-anyway." That's, as Buzz Bissinger would say, fucking glib as shitfuck. You didn't even use an entire month for Bonds. You used 30 at bats. That's a fraction of an eye-blink in Barry Bonds' career. I just looked it up. He has 9847 at bats. Some of those could have been incorporated into your evaluation. More than 30 should have been.
But they’re the most legitimate comparable sample sizes.
Infinite monkeys on infinite MacBooks could not construct a more false sentence. Both players were extremely motivated to do well: Bonds to get another contract, Lewis to stay in the line-up. We’ve seen the results. I’m going with them.
-Therefore: Lewis is better than Bonds, and Lewis is a big reason why the Giants are, so far, out-performing the low expectations.
I'm willing to listen to arguments that a healthy, young, solid-hitting outfielder who plays every day and is far more valuable than Barry in the field might, just might have more value to a team than a gimpy, non-DH-ing Bonds. But what I'm not willing to do is accept 12 games' worth of semi-crappy at bats as ironclad evidence that Markus Winston Barrold Bonds IV is done as a hitter, and that MWBB IV's "karma" is going to "clog" its way to that many losses for whatever team it and he join.
Hey, I looked up Fred Lewis' batting average on balls in play. It's .414. This guy is going to fall off big time. Going out on a limb here, but I'm going to say that I don't think he's actually a better player than Barry Bonds.
