FIRE JOE MORGAN

It is one of the rules of blogging that the more individual posts you make, the higher the traffic will be to your blog. Unfortunately for the investors of firejoemorgan.com, (Bear Stearns, Countrywide Home Mortgage, Qwest, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, KBR, The National Iranian Oil Company, and Fremulon Insurance), we don't really understand those rules. Thus, I am now going to combine the last like four JoeChats into one monster "Best of July" JoeChat that will be long, dense, and unfun for everyone.

Ready?! Awesome!

Joe Morgan: Last week's interleague play, with the White Sox and the Cubs, was very telling. Home field means a lot; both teams were much more comfortable at home. I never thought home field was such a big deal when it came to good teams, but I found out differently.

I'm not going to make it. I'll never get through the marathon JoeChat. Go on without me. Tell my wife I love her.

Frank (Rockmart, GA): Do you think the NL East is wide open, or will the Phillies find some consistency soon and begin to pull away from the pack?

Since right away I can tell everyone ignored my suggestion to stop JoeBaiting, let's go with the flow and count the JoeBaits. This "consistency" is: 1.

Joe Morgan: I think it is wide open because all the team have weaknesses.

No perfect teams. Teams have weaknesses. 1975. Tony Perez. There: I just gave you all the answers you will find in this JoeChat.

The Phillies starting pitching needs help, as does the Mets' pitching and they need consistent offense as well. And the Braves I just cannot read; they lose close games and are not consistent.

It's amazing, isn't it, folks? We're like 4 years in to this grand experiment we call "JoeChats," and the issues we face are the exact same ones we faced in 2005. Consistency, indeed.

It is wide open and the team that plays well on the road will win it. The Marlins are a group of young guys, who is they get hot will be able to stay on a streak longer than the other team because they are so young.

[yikes]

Frank : The home team in the Rays-Red Sox series has consistently come out on top.

2.

Do you look for that trend too continue? Are the Rays going to the World Series?

Joe Morgan: I think it will continue. Like I said, it seems like home field has become more and more important. It seems like teams just play better at home. [...]

A fact somehow unique to baseball in 2008.

Brad(NM): Hey Joe..not many are talking about what a great season Oakland's having due to the success of the Rays and Cards and such. Do you give them a chance at winning the West? Where does their pitching staff rank in the league?

Joe Morgan: They have a chance, because when you look at the Angels their offense is down.

Side note: you know what's amazing? The Angels and A's, three weeks after Joe wrote this, have almost the exact same run differential, and the Angels are 12 games up. The Cubbies are +72 over the Brewcrew and they're tied. Pretty incredible.

If they had better offense they would be farther ahead at this point.

A fact somehow unique to the 2008 Angels, apparently.

So I think the A's have a great shot at winning the West, unless the Angels start hitting.

Angels: still not hitting that well. A's: almost no chance at winning the West.

You are right that the A's are flying under the radar, and that may be because the Rays have a bit of a better team and are leading their division. But the A's have the tools to get it done.

Hindsight = fun.

Kent Remendeaux (Oscenns City):

I'm flattered.

Hi Joe, love your work. Can Delmon Young start hitting more consistently

3.

and help the Twins overtake the White Sox and hold off the Tigers?

Joe Morgan: I have to admit I am shocked at his lack of power and production. Usually when a guys [sic] has a good first year you expect them [sic] to get better. Of course he had to adjust, in leaving Tampa, but we are far enough into the season that he should be coming around. There is something missing there right now. I still think he is one of the next stars of the AL, but I thought he would be further along at this point.

PECOTA's 50th percentile had Young at .288/.323/.445. 15 HR and 32 2B. Projected totals: .297/.338/.400. 6 HR, 29 2B. So, his HR numbers are down, but otherwise it's pretty close. And remember: he's 22.

The Twins will need him if they are to catch the White Sox. As far as the Tigers, they are on a thin rope, because if they have another bad stretch they are finished.

Can you be "on" a "thin rope?" You can be on a tightrope, and you can be on thin ice. I'm not sure you can be on a thin rope.

I am watching Gladiator right now. The accent work in this Oscar™-winning movie is truly terrible. Joaquin Phoenix sounds like a geeky high school kid reciting Monty Python sketches.

Joe Morgan: That is all the time I have for today. Thank you for all the questions. We'll chat again next week.

No. You will chat with me again right fucking now.

Joe Morgan: I think the addition of CC Sabathia to the Brewers will be the big difference-maker in the NL Central. If you're the Cubs, you need to fear the Brewers more than anyone else in that division. They may need to make a move in response.

Kudos to Big Joe on this one. Unless the Harden trade had already happened, and he just hadn't heard about it.

Blueberry Johnson (NY): Hey Joe! Any opinions on allstar selections? Biggest snubs?

I am going to label "Blueberry Johnson" JoeBait #4, because: Blueberry Johnson?!

Joe Morgan: I would say there are a few things that jump out at me. Ian Kinsler probably deserves to start over Pedroia, though Perdroia has had an excellent hot streak recently. [...]

"Perdroia?" It's pronounced: "Pedroierr."

Sam (Lake Bluff, IL): Joe, how many more wins does Sabathia give the Brewers? I know he was the biggest difference maker on the market, but how much of a difference does he really make in the standings?

Joe Morgan: It's hard to say that he'll make a difference of, say, ten games, because even if he goes 10-0, someone starting in his spot would have won at least a few of those games. I think his advantage is psychological--he lets the Brewers know that they can match up pitcher for pitcher with anyone. It energizes the whole Brewer franchise.

He also strikes people out and pitches well. That's another advantage he gives the Brewers. Seriously -- how did this movie win an Oscar? It's like a community theater Shakespeare play with one good actor and decent special effects.

Steve (New York): Joe, you did the Yankee game last Sunday, what were your thoughts on Joba Chamberlain?

Joe Morgan: He threw the ball well. I saw a guy who was quickly gaining major league starting experience. You have to remember, the Red Sox make hitting adjustments well, and aside from that one bad inning, he controlled them very well.

Questions for learning:

1. According to the text, how did Joba Chamberlain throw the ball?

(A. "Well.")

2. How do the Red Sox make hitting adjustements?

(A. "Well.")

3. How did Joba Chamberlain, aside from one bad inning, control the Red Sox?

(A. "Well.")

Corey: (Philadelphia, PA): Joe: What do you think of the Braves decision to put Francoeur in AA for a couple of games? Do you think Francoeur deserved the benefit of the doubt and just try to fix it at the big league level, rather than just being demoted that quickly?

Joe Morgan: I cannot go along with that decision to send him to the minor leagues. Jeff Francouer lives in that area,

Not a consideration.

has played well for that team for the last three years,

Kind of a consideration.

and drove in a hundred runs last year.

Maybe a consideration, in that he has been a pretty good hitter, but RsBI isn't maybe the best way to show that.

You have guys like Ryan Howard and David Ortiz batting under .200 for much of the season.

The last time Ortiz was under .200 was May 2. He followed that up with a month of 1.026 OPS. On the day he was sent down, Francoeur had a .287 OBP and was 7-his last-52. And he's 24. Sending him down to work on his swing wasn't an insane idea.

I did not like the idea of doing that because it messes with a guy psychologically. You have a hitting instructor in the big leagues--work it out with him!

You also have the minor leagues. Where players can practice baseball without harming the part of the organization that matters.

Andy (St. Louis): Joe, you said the race between the Cubs and Brewers is going to be great to watch, but have you forgotten about the Cardinals?! They are resilient and find ways to win. Ankiel is hot, Pujols is back, and the starting pitching has been excellent compared to original expectations. Do you think they have any chance of contending for the division crown or wild card?

Joe Morgan: You're right, the Cardinals are in that mix. [blah blah blah] We're talking about Sabathia, but if he gets hot and starts hitting like he did last year, that will only give the Brewers yet another shot in the arm.

I am assuming that he is saying that if Sabathia starts hitting "like he did last year," that will help the Brewers. For the record, last year, in a very telling sample size of 3 AB, Sabathia had 2 hits, for a very significant .667 BA. These are important facts that totally matter due to their significance in terms of mathematics, and are highly predictive because of how significant they are.

Three data points is only two more than 1, which is the absolute minimum number of data points a guy can have. (For the ever-growing record, CC is .264/.278/.472 in 53 career AB, which is pretty darned good for a pitcher, and pretty darned irrelevant in terms of the Brewers' chances this year.)

Gladiator is over and I am now watching Airplane II, which -- no joke -- has better acting than Gladiator.

Ben Morgan (Omaha, NE): Joe, as a White Sox fan I'm looking over my shoulder at the Twins and beginning to be a little worried. For a while I kept myself calm by convincing myself they weren't for real and they would cool off but how long can I use this defense mechanism? I think the Sox are for real but I'm starting to think this is more than just a hot streak for Minnesota. Thoughts?

The Twins are kind of a smoke-and-mirrors team. They're in the middle of the pack of most offensive and pitching categories, they're dead last in the AL in HR, and are only +21 in run differential. They've started to come back down to earth, predictably, since this chat took place, going 3-6 in their last nine games. Detroit has a better run differential, but are 4 games behind the Twinkies -- my guess is, as time goes on, here, Minnesota idles or fades, and Detroit is the team challenging Chicago for the division.

Joe's guess is: Ron Gardenhire is awesome and every team could win but who knows but we'll see but if things go wrong for a team then they won't win but maybe Chicago?

Joe Morgan: I agree, you should give Minnesota a lot of credit, especially Ron Gardenhire, the manager. He knows how to handle young players and they play hard for him. When I watched Minnesota play last night against Boston, I realized that this team is for real. It's going to go down to the wire with the White Sox and Twins. Detroit could be in it, but if anything goes wrong, they are finished. But I still like Chicago to win the division.

See?

Joe Morgan: In closing, I have never fel that the All-Star game winners should get home field advantage in the Series.

I agree.

It's an exhibition and not fair to the team in the Series.

Amen.

The best way to do it is to alternate it year by year.

...sorry?

That's the best way to do it? Randomly-declared oscillation?

Not, you know, who had the best record? Which might make teams play hard all the way through the end of the season? Which might make otherwise meaningless games in late September incredibly meaningful? Which means the greatest prize would meritocratically be awarded to the team who performed the best?

The best way to do it is to ignore the results of the sport you are playing in favor of a metronomic inevitability?

'kay.

This is more of a made for TV thing, and yet we still ended up with a tie once. I never lost an All-Star game when I was playing, so I don't think that should be the way you judge home-field advantage.

Yorps. This last part doesn't even make sense.

Let's keep it rolling!!!!!

Buzzmaster: We've got Joe!

Still!

Jacob (FL): Joe, you gotta feel for Dan Uggla after his performance last night. Could that affect him for the rest of the season?

Uggla since the break: 1-25, for a tidy .332 OPS. This is almost certainly the result of making those errors (which ended up not affecting the outcome of the game in any way) and not a random 25-AB fluctuation in the middle of the season. Because MLB players are frail little babies who never recover from things like non-game-affecting errors in stupid exhibition contests.

Joe Morgan: I definitely feel for him. I certainly hope it does not affect him, but we (meaning fans and media) will have an effect on how he handles the rest of the season. If we continue to bring it up and talk about it, it will be tough for him to deal with. The last error was a tough ball, as it jumped up at him, but it's obvious he was nervous out there, and understandably. It showed in his play.

I don't know. Maybe he was nervous. But maybe he just had a shitty night. He's never been Orlando Hudson out there at second. Give him a break.

These are now "comments" instead of "jokes." I think I'm dehydrated. I need a Joe I.V.

Chris. P (NY): What are the Chances of Bonds being a Yankee? Cashmen could of said No but he didnt. How well can Bonds do at Yankee Stadium?

I hate to be "this guy," but it delights me how many dumbdumb errors Chris P. (NY) made. He doesn't even know how to spell the name of his own GM. Because the Yankees are about to swarm all over everyone and win the East as Manny Ramirez claims that the Red Sox have never respected him and that they should give him $40m more when he asks out of a game against the Yankees in late July with a mysterious knee ailment, I am going to exact petty revenge by reprinting Chris. P (NY)'s question with [sic]s.

Chris. [sic] P [sic] (NY): What are the Chances [sic] of Bonds being [sic] a Yankee? Cashmen [sic] could of [sic] said No [sic] but he didnt [sic]. How well can [sic] Bonds do at Yankee Stadium?

God, that felt good.

Joe Morgan: As great a player as he has been, you can't say how well he would do this year because he hasn't had spring training, hasn't had live pitching to hit against, and hasn't played period. [...] I'm not sure why Barry wants to play, since playing less than half a season would make him a hired gun, and his place in the history of the game is better than a hired gun.

This...this is why we do what we do.

Barry Bonds shouldn't come back this year...because it would tarnish his reputation?

Barry Bonds.

Being a "hired gun" would tarnish.

his repu.

tation.

Here are things that could tarnish Barry Bonds's reputation, at this point:

1. Committing double murder of Tom Brokaw and Dame Judi Dench
2. Defecting to Afghanistan, joining Taliban, leading Afghan baseball team to Gold medal over American team in Beijing
3. Running high-end dog fighting ring where the dog fights take place on Princess Diana's grave
4. Inventing time travel but instead of traveling back in time to kill Hitler using it to go back to 1989 in order to start taking steroids earlier than he originally did

Things that will not make a motherfletching dent in Barry Bonds's reputation:

1. Being labeled a "hired gun" by playing for the Yankees

Joe Morgan: I think Clint Hurdle and Terry Francona managed the game very well last night, trying to win the ballgame instead of just making sure the players got in. Winning should be the first priority. Thanks a lot, everyone!

Thank you! Let's keep going!!!!

Andy (Grand Rapids, MI): Do you think the Tiger's can still win the Division?

Joe Morgan: Well they can still win it but they cannot have anymore 4-5 games losing streaks. They are on a thin line right now.

Can you be "on a thin line?" You can be on thin ice, you can be on a tightrope, there can be a thin line between love and hate, there can be a thin blue line or a thin red line, you can be on the red line, the orange line, the green line, or the blue line, but I'm not sure you can be "on a thin line."

The Marlins are leading the Cubbies 6-5 in the 6th (it is now the next day -- that's how long this JoeChatMarathon is) and Alfonso Soriano just popped up to second after a leadof single, shattering his bat so violently and horrifyingly I was sure all eight Marlins were going to be found dead with maple spikes in their foreheads. Something should maybe be done about these bats.

Blueberry Johnson (NY): Joe, Texas has been outscored by 33 runs this year. Yet, they are still have a .520 winning percentage. How are they doing it?

Joe Morgan: I think run differential is just a stat that does not mean a lot. Look at what the Dbacks did last year. Run differential is a deceptive stat.

First of all, a hearty "Welcome Back!!!" to Blueberry Johnson. How have you been, man? Great to hear from you again. I was not sure you were going to ask another question, since you are a fictional character from a children's story.

Second of all: Yes, good work, a stat that shows you how many runs you have scored versus how many runs you have allowed does not mean a lot. You know what does mean a lot? Team triples. If your team is tripling a lot, that means your guys are hustling, and you will win a lot. Just ask Arizona and San Francisco!

By no means look at run differential. If you did, you would see that the divisional leaders in run differential are all either in first place or within 1.5 games of first place, except for Oakland. Don't look at last year, either, because you'll accidentally learn that 4 division winners led their division in run differential. The Phillies were only 6 behind the Braves, and Arizona pulled one of the flukiest seasons ever (-20), somehow finishing ahead of the +101 Rockies, who then went to the World Series.

Just because there are quirks and occasional exceptions doesn't mean a stat is "deceptive." You don't have to be a genius to understand that the number of runs a team scores, and the number of runs it allows, is probably a pretty good indicator of how good the team is and how well it has played.

DLee just went yard to tie it up. That guy is awesome.

Fred (Montgomery Village): Joe, The Phillies have been doing pretty good without everyone hitting at the same time (Rollins, Utley, Howard, Burrell). How good will this team be once they all hit at the same time?

Joe Morgan: Well we are deep into the the season and they all hit well to get the lead and now they are not all hitting. Now they may not all start hitting at the same time, and even if they do they still need better pitching and bullpen support.

Opposite of analysis. The exact opposite of analysis. The platonic ideal of "nothing."

Jim Edmonds just tried to bunt a guy to second, in a suddenly-tie-game in the seventh with nobody out and DeRosa and Fukudome behind him. Jim Edmonds, in his career, has 7584 total plate appearances and 10 sac bunts. And a .933 OPS in his last 50 games. Good call, Lou.

DeRosa walks, Fuku pops up. If the Cubbies don't take the lead here, you'll know why.

Jordan (Slinger, WI): Joe: The Brewers are in the midst of a series with St. Louis right now, and have a series with the Cubs at the end of the month. Come August, who will be on top of the division?

Joe Morgan: I still think the team that is on top now, is still the team that will be on top later. The Cubs may be able to gain a few games here with the Brewers and Cards playing each other now. But when the Cubs are on the road they are not near the best team in the NL. It is a three team race, and will be right down to the wire. It is really hard to tell. Two weeks ago I thought it would be the Brewers, but teams go through spells.

It's time for the game where we take a 100-word answer from Joe and boil it down to its essence.

Jordan: Who wins the Central?
Joe: One of the teams in the Central.

SprungOnSporks (Longer Island): The Twins are 23-9 in their last 32 games. Can they keep it up and catch the ChiSox?

Joe Morgan: Well they are only a half game behind, so I think they already caught them in some ways. But it will be very hard to keep playing that type of baseball, winning 23 out of 32. I think they can win the division, but everyone in the division is looking back at Detroit at this point. I think it is going to come down to a three-team race as the season comes to a close.

"SprungOnSporks" has to be a JoeBait, or a shout-out, or something, and I appreciate it. Also:

Q. Who wins the A.L. Central?
A. One of the teams. Same as the N.L. Central.

Wild pitch to Daryle Ward. Both runners move up. Now they're walking Ward to load the bases. Wouldn't you love to have that out back, Lou?

Brian (Chicago): Do you think Francisco Liriano should be brought up, or do you think it will hurt the chemistry the Twins have created?

Joe Morgan: It will not hurt the chemistry because he is a pitcher. [...]

He's also quite good, and I haven't heard anything about how he's a terrible dude or anything, and also: you seriously wouldn't bring an awesome starting pitcher up because of completely unfounded "chemistry" concerns, Brian? You think Livan Hernandez is going to keep winning games with a 1.60 WHIP and the league hitting .332 against him? Really?

Mike Fontenot's bases-clearing double gets Jim Edmonds stupid bunt attempt off the hook. Reason and logic take another one on the chin.

Joe Morgan: I think we are going to see a lot of close races here in the second half of the season that come down to the very end. A lot of teams can win and many of these races will come down to which team gets hot at the right time.

Opposite of good.

Catch your breath everyone. We're done.

Labels: airplane ii, all-star game, barry bonds, blueberry johnson, bunting, gladiator, jim edmonds, joechat, joechat marathon, platonic ideal of "nothing", run differential, twins

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

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

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

This is why my blood boils when people cite All Star Game Appearances as a measure of a player's abilities. Take it away, Bruce Jenkins:

One of the game's most astute writers, Jayson Stark of espn.com, marveled this week at the National League's candidates to start the All-Star game at shortstop. Narrowing it down to a statistical analysis of his top five candidates -- J.J. Hardy, Jose Reyes, Hanley Ramirez, Jimmy Rollins and Edgar Renteria -- he still found it a difficult choice. No kidding. Here's an even better way to go: Omar Vizquel. He's the greatest defensive shortstop in the history of the game. He may well wind up with 3,000 hits. The game is in San Francisco. And not one of those guys would have a problem with it. They all bow to the master.

First of all, Omar is 40 years old and has 2508 hits. If he gets 3000, I will buy Bruce Jenkins a new car -- his choice of model -- and I will personally chauffeur him to the game when Vizquel reaches the milestone. I will pay for the tickets to the game, all the hot dogs Jenkins can eat, and I will perform a striptease for him after the game. I will then hang myself in the public square of Jenkins' choosing, with "I'm an Idiot" spraypainted across my chest.

But back to the main thesis of this piece of nonsense.

Omar Vizquel has a .213 EqA. .213. His traditional stats are a sparkling .242/.283/.282. And you want him to start the All-Star Game.

I mean, I get that he's a great SS, and his career should be held in very high esteem. But come the fuck on, man.

23 year-old Jose Reyes has a .334 EqA, and is already at 8 FRAA. That translates to an 11.3 WARP3 for the year. He might be the most exciting and talented all-around player in baseball.

23 year-old Hanley Ramirez has a .344 EqA. .344!!!

24 year-old J.J. Hardy has a .319 EqA and a SLG of .601.

28 year-old Jimmy Rollins has a .296 EqA with 9 HR.

Edgar Renteria has a .316 EqA and is pounding the ball.

This is an absolute golden age of NL SS. Baseball should make it mandatory that all of these guys be on the All-Star team. They should make videos of them playing and give them away free at all MLB games. Bud Selig should learn how to play the lyre so he can write paeans to each of these men, who are baseball's best chance to get kids hooked on their product.

And Bruce Jenkins wants 71 year-old Omar Vizquel to start the All-Star Game.

I understand the desire to celebrate the careers of great players. But seriously. Bruce. That's batshit insane.

Labels: all-star game, bruce jenkins, omar vizquel

Hey, everyone. I have a question. Whom do you think should have been elected to the Baseballings Halls of Famous?

Well, before the vote yesterday, Jayson Stark had some thoughts.

Tony Gwynn
Anybody who votes against this man should be embarrassed. If Tony Gwynn isn't a Hall of Famer, why do we even have a Hall of Fame?

ITA, my friend. I. T. A.

Gwynn's career batting average (.338) is better than any player's since Ted Williams (.344). Among men whose careers began in the expansion era (1961-present), Gwynn is out there at least 20 points ahead of everybody -- except two Hall of Famers (Wade Boggs and Rod Carew).

Yes, he was a very good hitter. BA is like the eleventeenth-best stat to use to prove his worthiness, but I still TA that he should be in.

Tony Gwynn hit .350 or better five years in a row -- a streak unmatched by any hitter since Rogers Hornsby. This guy won eight batting titles (tied with Honus Wagner for the most in National League history). He finished in the top 10 in the batting race in every full season of his career -- and finished in the top five in all but two.

Dude. Stop talking about Batting Average. Seriously. .306 career EqA. Career 132 OPS+, including 169 in 1994. Toss something fun in, like his four years of 10+ WARP3.

He was a 15-time All-Star.

All-Star appearances are exactly as good an indication of a player's abilities as are the number of pets he has, or the number of floppy hats his wife owns, or the fucking number of times he ate fucking skinless chicken breast in ninth grade. Do you people hear me? It's a goddamn popularity contest voted on by drunk idiots and 9 year-olds at Reds-Giants games in early May. Stop using it as a barometer of anything.

He won five Gold Gloves.

Gold Gloves are worth less than All-Star appearances. Derek Jeter has won 3 straight GG at SS, despite being -5 FRAA in 2004. His fielding cost his team a half win, and they gave him a GG. Raffy Palmeiro won a Gold Glove at 1B in a season in which he played like 7 innings there all year. Gold Gloves are often the baseball equivalent of Grammies -- they are given to veterans with famous names whose best days are far behind them.

He batted .500 (8-for-16) in the '98 World Series.

This guy went 12-27 in the 1996 NLCS. .444/.516/.630. Vote him in!

He was a total class act.

Marginally relevant.

...if Tony Gwynn isn't unanimous, I can't wait to hear the rationale of the folks who voted against him. They obviously weren't watching the same player I was watching.

Despite the fact that you did not mention any of the top like 6 reasons he belongs in the Hall...I continue to TA.

Cal Ripken Jr.
It's sure tough to think of any other negatives on this guy's report card. I've heard people say the streak was overrated. And in a vacuum, most iron-man streaks really are. But when you consider what this streak meant to the sport, what the night of 2,131 meant to the sport, how could we ever claim this particular streak was overrated?

The fact is, though, that Cal Ripken would be a Hall of Famer whether he'd played in two games in a row or 2,000 in a row. That streak made him an icon, but he was already a Hall of Famer. The streak was just a frame around a great career.

You're right on here, man. I mean, the guy put up some truly insane numbers for SS. He had a 17.0 WARP3 in 1991. Do you realize that is higher than any one of Barry Bonds's years? Even 2001? That's crazy. Think about that. Cal Ripken was worth more wins to the 1991 Orioles than Barry Bonds was to the Giants the year he hit 73 HR and walked a million times.

Ripken had six years of 10+ WARP3 and two more above 9.0. He had a .339 EqA in '91 and a .284 overall, for a guy who played 2600 straight games at physically demanding positions. BP has him at 130 FRAA career, which is pretty damned good. And many of his negative years came after he had switched to 3B. The guy redefined a position. He is the greatest power-hitting SS ever, considering ARod's ill-conceived switch to 3B. There is no legitimate argument to keep him out and a million reasons to vote him in. What do you choose, Starky m'boy?

Did you know that no player was elected to start the All-Star Game more times than Ripken (17 times in 18 years)?

I want to slap you.

(To be fair, he then goes on to talk about some legitimate stuff. But that is the first thing he cited.)

Mark McGwire

It's going to require quoting a lot of this section in order to get to the part where I get angry. Hang in there.

There are a million reasons not to vote for McGwire. But of all the reasons people have dredged up lately, the one I find most amazing is the revisionist history that he wasn't that good -- except for those four years (1996-99) when he morphed into Babe Ruth.

Well, hold on. Ask any scout who saw him at USC, and they'll all tell you the same thing: This guy was a big-time masher from the day he was drafted until the day he quit.

I'm not sure, but I don't think college scouts' thoughts on "mashing" count towards Hall of Fame candidacy. Can we get someone to check on that? Julie? (Julie is my Exec. Asst. here at Fremulon Insurance, Inc.) Julie? Can you real quick just stop filing those claims adjustments and figure out if college scouts' thoughts on "mashing" count towards HOF inclusion? No? They don't? And it's a stupid question? Thanks, Jules. Take the rest of the day off.

If it took Jose Canseco's magic potion to make him any good, how come he had a .618 slugging percentage in his rookie season? Andruw Jones, Adam Dunn and Jeff Kent have never slugged .618 in any season, if that tells you anything.

A fine point.

And if McGwire wasn't any good until 1996, how did he manage to put up six seasons with at least 32 homers and 90 RBI in his seven healthy seasons before that? That's as many seasons of 32-90 as Chipper Jones and Moises Alou have, combined.

You're kind of cherry-picking stats here, with the 32-90 thing, which is weird, but still, it's a good point, kind of. I hate using RBI for anything, but whatever, the point is: he was good.

If he wasn't any good, how did this man make 12 All-Star teams -- as many as Mike Schmidt?

No. No no no no no. No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no.

Everyone? Say it with me:

All-Star Game Appearances are Meaningless.

Do I need to keep saying this?

This guy was an All-Star twice. This guy was an All-Star. This guy had an ERA+ of 85 the year he was an All-Star. This guy is one of the worst hitters in baseball, and he was an All-Star.

And before you write me e-mails and tell me that it's the number of times that counts, that that is in some way a good representation of a player's value, Fred Lynn was an All-Star 9 times. Darryl Strawberry was an All-Star 8 times. Neither of them will ever sniff the Hall of Fame.

Stop using All-Star Game Appearances as a stat when you talk about a player's career value. It is dumb to the power of retarded.

The other shaky argument here is that McGwire just had one song on his jukebox, that all he could do was hit home runs, kind of like Dave Kingman. But if he was so one-dimensional, how did he win a Gold Glove? How did he compile that .394 career on-base percentage? And even if he had just one superior dimension, he had the best home run ratio of any player who ever lived (one every 10.6 at-bats).

See? Those are good arguments. I knew you had it in you.

Goose Gossage
The Goose has more than doubled his vote totals since 2000. So he's going to get in one of these centuries. But I have no idea why it has taken him this long. None.

Have the people who don't vote for him actually looked at his stats? In this guy's first 10 years as a closer, he spun off ERAs of 0.77, 1.62, 1.82, 1.84, 2.01, 2.23 and 2.27 twice. And he racked up those numbers while absorbing double the workload of today's closers. The guy threw 130 innings three times, and 99 or more two other times.

Good arguments.

No closer in history made more All-Star teams than Gossage (nine).

Bad argument.

And according to Retrosheet, he held right-handed hitters to a .211 batting average, .285 on-base percentage and .311 slugging percentage over a 22-year career.

Good arguments.

Andre Dawson
I covered the National League in the 1980s. And every debate about the best player in the National League back then included Dawson's name.

Neutral-to-bad argument.

He won an MVP award,

So did Terry Pendleton.

and finished second twice. He was a rookie of the year.

So was Walt Weiss.

He won eight Gold Gloves.

So did Mark Belanger, Dwight Evans, Garry Maddux, Frank White, George Scott, and Bobby Shantz, just to name a few. (BTW: based on these dumb arguments, why doesn't Dewey get more consideration? I don't think he should be in, but he's every bit as good as Hawk, and better than a lot of the other people considered "borderline.") Also, Gold Gloves are stupid and meaningless.

He had one of the most spectacular throwing arms of his era.

The same could be said of Cory Snyder.

And even though he needed to run his knees into more ice than the Titanic just to get out there, he still racked up 2,774 hits, 438 homers and 314 stolen bases. The only other players in history who can match that combination are Willie Mays and Barry Bonds.

This is one of the most egregious cherry-picks of all time. "The only other players with as many as 2774 hits, 438 homers and 314 SB are..." My goodness. (Although, now that I think about it, why is it any less arbitrary than like 3,000, 500, 300?)

So consider his whole package of credentials -- power and speed, defense and award votes, and the all-important non-statistical side of him, the leadership and the respect he commanded among his peers. Consider all that, and it's tougher to figure out why Dawson shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame than why he should.

I did consider that whole package, even the silly meaningless stuff, and I saw a guy who was very very good, but not great enough. If you don't believe me, read any of the previous posts where I break down the numbers. There's like fifteen of them.

Dale Murphy
...if we're entering an age when voters feel compelled to make moralistic statements against the cheaters, maybe those voters should think about making a more positive statement -- by voting for a guy so pure and clean, he made David Eckstein look like Albert Belle.

Even mentioning Eckstein in an article about the HOF makes my skin crawl. Because you know he's going to get like 40 votes in 2017, and there will be 1000 articles with titles like,

"Small Man, Big Heart, Why Not?"

and

"Cooperstown Should Open Its Big Doors to the Little Man Who Hustled"

and

"What the Eck? Why Not Cast a Big Vote for the Smallest Man With the Biggest Heart?"

and

"Little Man with the Big Heart Has a Tiny Chance of a Huge Honor"

and

"Big, Small, Big, Small, Small, Big, Small: Those Are the Sizes of David Eckstein's Heart, David Eckstein Himself, David Eckstein's Hustle, David Eckstein's Chances to Get Elected to Cooperstown, David Eckstein's Skin Pigment Count, David Eckstein's 'Talent,' and the number of Reasons David Eckstein Should Not Be Elected to the Hall of Fame Today, Respectively"

and maybe

"Smig: That is Small Plus Big, Which is What Eckstein Is"

Also, in re: making a positive statement by blah blah blah voting for clean people blah blah...I say to this: no.

Murphy's stats may not look so dazzling stacked up against the numbers of today. But in his heyday -- the decade of the '80s -- Murphy got more hits and scored more runs than anyone in the National League, tied Mike Schmidt for most RBI and was second to Schmidt in homers. He was also a back-to-back MVP, a five-time Gold Glove winner, a proud member of the 30-Homer, 30-Steal Club and a big enough star to lead the entire sport in All-Star votes in 1985. So he sure deserves to be getting more than 56 stinking votes.

He got 50 yesterday. Sorry, dude. He wasn't that awesome.

Jack Morris
Five years ago, Morris wasn't collecting even 100 votes. Now he's over 200. But you have to wonder if enough of these voters will ever be able to look past his 3.90 career ERA to get him to the podium.

Well, if you toss out that ERA (which is lower than Jason Schmidt's career ERA, by the way), what more evidence of this man's perpetual ace-hood could a voter ask for?

Jason Schmidt isn't a HOFer, so that's meaningless. Also, Jason Schmidt's career ERA+, which is an ERA-based stat that was invented in order to compare players of different eras, is 110, and Jack Morris's is 105. So, your comparison actually hurts your argument. So, you're a dummy for using it.

This is about more than just Game 7, 1991.

I should hope so. You don't elect HOFers based on one game.

Jack Morris pitched a no-hitter.

So did Eric Milton. Len Barker pitched a perfect game.

He started three All-Star Games.

I hate you.

He was a huge figure on three World Series pitching staffs.

He was a huge figure?! Hold the phone. Call Cooperstown! Did they know he was a huge figure?!

He always started Opening Day.

I just threw up in my mouth.

And consider this: From 1979 to '92, when Morris and Nolan Ryan were both doing their thing, Morris had 65 more wins than Ryan (233-168).

That's a very very very good indicator. Of how good the offenses of the teams Morris pitched for were. And how bad the offenses of the teams Ryan pitched for were. It is a very poor indicator of how good they were at pitching.

Jim Rice
The biggest reason I vote for him: The fear factor.

Insert Joe Rogan joke here. Or, if you're me, get sleepy and bail on it.

In the 11 seasons from 1975 to '85, Anerican League pitchers would have been happier to see Jack the Ripper heading up their driveway than Jim Rice heading toward home plate.

This is a very weird thing to write. I am tired. Pass.

Bert Blyleven
If Blyleven ever makes it to Cooperstown -- and he might, now that he's finally over 50 percent of the vote -- he'll owe it to men like Bill James, Rob Neyer and the bright statistical minds who now look at baseball in so many insightful new ways.

Until last year, I was one of those people who thought of Blyleven as a not-quite candidate, 287 wins or no 287 wins. But James did an incredible start-by-start study of Blyleven's career that convinced me it was only bad luck that kept him out of the 300-win club.

And Lee Sinins' indispensable Complete Baseball Encyclopedia proved just how dominant Blyleven was by computing how his Runs Saved Above Average compared to the greatest pitchers of modern times.

Blyleven gave up 344 fewer runs in his career than the average pitcher of his time. In the entire live-ball era, the only eight pitchers who beat him in that department are Roger Clemens, Lefty Grove, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Tom Seaver, Carl Hubbell and Bob Gibson.

Does a guy who hangs out with that crowd sound like a Hall of Famer to you? He sure did to me -- finally.

Out of nowhere, he ends with a rational, intelligent bang. Kudos.

And congrats to Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken. They deserve it. More than Andre Dawson.

Labels: all-star game, cal ripken, david eckstein, hall of fame, jayson stark, mark mcgwire, tony gwynn

Top 1st, All-Star Game 2006.

Brad Penny has struck out the first two batters by throwing nothing but fastballs. He's throwing hard. Your announcers are Joe Buck and Tim McCarver.

Buck: "Almost a riding fastball because it's taking off from the hand of Penny."
McCarver: "A Mark Wohlberg fastball. Catch me if you can."

Mark Wohlberg. Not Mark Wohlers. Or Mark Wahlberg. Tim McCarver clearly said a word that sounds like "wole-berg." You know, Mark Wohlberg.

So what was going on in the ol' McBean? FJM breaks it down:

(1) McCarver meant to say "Mark Wohlers." Knowing that we were all collectively prepared to never think about Mark Wohlers again, McCarver wanted us to think back 11 years to a time when Wohlers was relevant. "Catch me if you can" meant "catch this fastball if you can."

(2) McCarver meant to say "Mark Wahlberg," and believes that Mark Wahlberg was the star of the film "Catch Me If You Can." He was either confusing Wahlberg with DiCaprio, or "Catch Me If You Can" with "The Italian Job."

(3) McCarver meant to say "Mark Wahlberg," but was actually trying to refer to TV personality Mark L. Walberg, who, amazingly, has hosted not only Temptation Island but also Antiques Roadshow. "Catch me if you can" was something that made sense very briefly in -- and only in -- McCarver's brain.

(4) McCarver intentionally split the difference between pitcher Mark Wohlers and rapper-turned-actor Mark Wahlberg. He then added the cryptic "catch me if you can" as a way of saying something like: "catch my reference if you can, suckers -- it is a name I made up and is basically nonsense."

(5) McCarver was not watching the game. He was flipping through the Encore / Starz type channels on a small TV in the booth. "Boogie Nights" was on, and this caused McCarver to just blurt out the name Mark Wahlberg. Only McCarver was born in Memphis, and not necessarily as a result, speaks with a crazy accent. So he said "Mark Wohlberg." Then he changed the channel, and came across the movie "The Terminal," which he believed to be the film "Catch Me If You Can." (Starring, he believes, Marisa Tomei, Joe Pantoliano, and Dan Quisenberry.) After McCarver said what he believed to be the name of the new movie he was watching, someone from FOX sauntered into the booth and offered Tim a Kit-Kat bar and a $10 Borders gift card if he'd just watch the All-Star game.

I'd put the chances (in percent) of each being the actual case at 55/44/.5/.5/0 respectively.

Labels: all-star game, tim mccarver

A couple people e-mailed about this little nugget from CBS Sportsline's Scott Miller:

If you still haven't seen Texas center fielder Gary Matthews Jr.'s catch Saturday night in which he went up and over the center-field fence to rob Houston's Mike Lamb of a home run, drop what you're doing right now and go find the clip...Not much of a stretch to say Matthews Jr. deserves his spot on the AL All-Star team for this catch alone.

Where were you in 1994 when I was arguing for John Valentin after his unassisted triple play?

Labels: all-star game, scott miller

Zoinks.

It didn't take long for Ozzie Guillen's phone to ring Sunday. Then again, the White Sox manager knew it was only the first wave of a potential weeklong tsunami.

"I already had a couple of phone calls, not nice ones,'' Guillen said. "A couple of teams called, but I could care less what they think.

Anybody want to take my bet that this guy will either be out of baseball or beaten to a pulp within the next five years?

"Whoever is not on this team, they have my number. They have my PR department's number. Whoever doesn't like it, play better next year.''

Oh, but see, Ozzie, I'm guessing that the reason they were angry, whoever they were, is because their guys did play better, and you chose your own players instead. For example, you kind of can't play better than Travis Hafner has, since he leads the AL in OPS, and yet you took Paul Konerko, even though the other 1B/DH type on your own team was already going, and even though Hafner's OPS is more than 100 points higher than Konerko's, and even though Hafner leads Konerko is every single meaningful (and most unmeaningful) categories.

I know Konerko is good, but you have two guys who play the same positions from the same team -- your team -- instead of, say, one guy from your team and one guy from another team who is better.

You also decided to take Bobby Jenks, who is good and has a lot of "saves," instead of Francisco Liriano or Jeremy Bonderman or even John Lackey (anyone seen his OPS against recently?). These people all arguably "played better" than your guy, but you took your guy, so they got upset.

Guillen had been promising all along that when it came time to put together the American League All-Star team, he would take as many Sox players as he could.

Oh. So, it had nothing to do with "playing better." He actually already announced that the fix was in. "You want to win the election?" asked Boss Tweed. "Campaign better!"

He also knew his decision would come under a lot of scrutiny. By the time the fan and player voting ended, Guillen was left with getting an AL-leading six Sox players into the July 11 midsummer classic in Pittsburgh -- none of whom was voted in by the fans as a starter.

Sox right fielder Jermaine Dye, designated hitter Jim Thome and pitcher Jose Contreras were selected through the players' vote. First baseman Paul Konerko, pitcher Mark Buehrle and closer Bobby Jenks were selected by Guillen. Jenks and Contreras are first-timers to the game.

"I don't like it,'' Guillen said of the difficulty he faced in putting the team together. "But I do hope that I get to do it again next year. There are a lot of rules that fans and players have to know about. The manager really ends up picking two guys.

You picked three guys. And they were all from your team.

"It's a shame to have your hands tied like that. I didn't even get three of my favorite players on the ballclub.''

Oh, the humanity! You didn't even get your three favorite guys on the team? Ye Gods! What has the Major League Baseball All Star Game come to when Ozzie Guillen only gets to have six of his own players on the team -- and not even three of his "favorites?"

By the way, if I were on his team and was not one of these "favorites," I would be pissed off right now.

Guillen said catcher A.J. Pierzynski, second baseman Tadahito Iguchi and third baseman Joe Crede should have made the team. Pierzynski still has a chance as one of five AL candidates for one spot via Internet fan voting.

Pierzynski is actually deserving. He has a 2.8 WARP1 and a .281 EqA this year. Pudge is 3.0 and .263 (the higher WARP attributed to his defense). Iguchi...well, he has a .779 OPS, which isn't bad for a 2B (better than Loretta's, and he's starting). But he also has a 1.5 WARP1, thanks to some sub-par defense (-5 FRAA). He also has 66/23 K/Bb ratio. Which stinks. And a .257 EqA. Crede is a very good 3B, with a 3.5 WARP1 and .287 EqA.

But here's the problem. There's a guy named Travis Hafner. He plays for the Indians.

OPS: 1.084
WARP1: 4.6
EqA: .364 (!)

And there's a guy named Jason Giambi, who is a dirty dirty cheater, but he also has done this:

OPS: 1.054
WARP1: 3.4
EqA: .347

And as far as Iguchi, specifically, goes, there is a guy named Brian Roberts, who plays for the Orioles.

OPS: .787
WARP1: 2.2
EqA: .278

So, you can see that Crede and Iguchi are not quite--

"The one guy that I was really pushing [Crede] was the one guy that didn't make it,'' Guillen said. "I'm going to tell Joe, 'You can go, I'll stay. I've been to a few already.'''

Ozzie Guillen, career:

OPS: .625
K/BB: 511/.239
EqA: .229

I retroactively protest Ozzie's inclusion in all-star festivities. Unless he was there as a manager or coach, in which case, I doubly protest it.

Guillen, however, said he is not done campaigning to get Crede on the roster.

"It will be one week, and if someone gets hurt, I don't care -- pitcher, catcher, outfielder -- Crede is going,'' Guillen said. "That's the way it's going to be. If anything happens to those 32 guys on the field and they can't make it, Crede is going and I don't care who gets mad.''

Mad people will include: Hafner, Giambi, Verlander, Roberts, Bonderman, Robertson, Liriano, Mussina, Schilling.

To say nothing of Tremendous, dak, Murbles, Junior, Coach. Even Spinoza might freak a little, and he's a very calm guy.

Guillen had said two weeks ago that Contreras likely would be the AL starter, but with the right-hander now scheduled to start on the Sunday before the All-Star Game, Guillen already was coming up with a Plan B. Though Guillen wouldn't confirm it, Detroit Tigers left-hander Kenny Rogers is thought to be the front-runner.

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

Rogers has a 61/25 K/BB ratio and a DIPS ERA over 4.00. Johan Santana is so much effing better than Kenny Rogers it's like they're playing different sports. Liriano is a million times better, and Ozzie won't even put him on the team.

Kenny Rogers is 31st in the majors in VORP. And he's going to start an all-star game.

While all six of the selections were excited to be going, there seemed to be equally as much sympathy for their teammates who didn't make the team.

"The system's flawed,'' Konerko said.

Yes it is. Travis Hafner isn't on the team. Nor is Giambi. I'm glad you said it.

"I've been on the short end of it before because of the way the voting works out. They try to do it the best way they can, and I'm not sure there's a perfect way to do it.

No, there isn't. Deserving people like Mike Mussina and Francisco Liriano don't get to go because Ozzie chose Bobby Jenks, who is fine, but not as good as Mussina or Liriano. This is really mature of you, Paul, to be saying this.

"Every year, there's so many guys that do well and there's just so many spots. It's just bad when it happens to somebody close to you or yourself, and that's the case with Joe. The numbers speak for themselves. He should be there."

Oh.

Just to review, here's how Ozzie would like the 2006 AL All-Star Starting Line-Up to look:

C Pierzynski
1B Konerko
2B Iguchi
3B Crede
SS Who Cares
RF Dye
CF Who Cares
LF Who Cares
DH Thome

SP Contreras
RP Buehrle
Closer: Jenks

(Thanks to Ryan for the tip.)

Labels: all-star game, ozzie guillen

Is anyone else watching this?

Question from Karl Ravech: who should start the game for the A.L?

Krukie: Roy Halladay.
H.R.: Johan Santana.
Steve Phillips: Jose Contreras. Because "He hasn't lost a game this year. You need to win a game? Give the ball to the guy who hasn't lost a game." (Slight paraphrase.)

Now, I am a reasonable guy. I love the give-and-take of reasonable arguments from reasonable people. But there is an answer to this question, and the answer is Santana.

Halladay: 114.2 IP, 107 H, 1.05 WHIP, 62/13 K/BB, 3.73 DIPS
Santana: 118.1 IP, 94 H, 0.96 WHIP, 124/20 K/BB, 2.93 DIPS
Contreras: 96.2 IP, 87 H, 1.18 WHIP, 68/27 K/BB, 3.85 DIPS

Halladay...maybe. But Santana has twice as many strikeouts. Contreras maybe deserves to be on the team, but the best pitcher in the AL?

Ozzie has really outdone himself, though, by adding Mark Buehrle to the team, over, among others, Liriano, Mussina, and Schilling.

Buehrle: 116.2 IP, 125 H, 1.31 WHIP, 51/28 K/BB, 4.76 DIPS
Schilling: 114.1 IP, 110 H, 1.08 WHIP, 102/14 K/BB, 3.43 DIPS
Mussina: 116.1 IP, 99 H, 1.04 WHIP, 104/22 K/BB, 3.50 DIPS

And where's the Tiger love? Verlander, Bonderman, and Robertson all have better numbers than Buehrle (to say nothing of their selected teammate, Kenny Rogers). In fact, Bonderman's DIPS is 2.85. Why did I break down Mussina and Schilling instead of Bonderman? Oh well. Too late now. My computer has no delete key.

But the real crime is Liriano.

9-1, 1.99 ERA. in 81.1 IP, he's allowed 59 H, and has a 94/20 K/BB ratio. His WHIP is .97. The league is slugging .292 against him, with a .256 OBA. His DIPS is 2.44. He might be the best pitcher in the AL right now.

Look.

The All-Star Game is stupid. Every year, this one included, there are about a dozen crazy choices made, for starters and reserves. It's half popularity contest, quarter meaningless exhibition, quarter "this time it counts" MLB nonsense-fest. It doesn't know what it is. The fans vote! The players vote, too! The manager from last year's World Series team gets to do stuff! The C.E.O. of the concessions company who has the contract with the stadium where the game is played gets to choose one reserve third baseman! The soldiers in Iraq design the uniforms! The Royals don't have anyone in the game?! Get Mark Redman in there!!!

The whole thing is a mess.

I know that managers take their own guys. I know there are already too many Yankees and Red Sox on the roster, so I'm fine with no Schilling or Mussina. But Mark Buehrle is mediocre. The Tigers are good. Liriano is blisteringly awesome. Ozzie is a moron.

Labels: all-star game, ozzie guillen, steve phillips

...if Scott Podsednik beats out Jeter for the final All-Star slot?

It's a real idiot's dilemma.

Labels: all-star game, derek jeter, intangibles, scott podsednik

Tony DeMarco, MSNBC.com, on the All-Star Game Selections -- a few gems:

The subtitle of the column is:

Fans did fine job, but rules left some deserving players out

With the combination of fan balloting, voting by players, managers and coaches, a handful of selections by the game’s two skippers, the sticky one-representative-per-team rule, and even a popularity contest to determine the final man on each roster, the All-Star selection process has become more complicated than a presidential election.

It’s how Derek Jeter can (temporarily, we hope) be left off the American League squad, while Justin Duchscherer is on it. It’s why Morgan Ensberg will be at home next Tuesday, while Cesar Izturis and Felipe Lopez will be in Detroit...

Okay. There's his thesis -- that the voting process has led to some deserving players being left off the team. Cool? Let's see some of his examples.

American League Catcher: The fans got it right with Jason Varitek, the most-complete package behind the plate in the game. You can make cases for Bengie Molina and Joe Mauer as the backup, but this is the right time for hometown hero Ivan Rodriguez to make what could be a swan-song appearance as an All-Star before the Mauer era begins in earnest.

First of all, Bengie Molina only had 155 AB in the first half, and Joe Mauer is having a sub-par year. The only person you can really make an argument for as a back-up is Posada, who hasn't been great, but has more HR, a higher OBP, and higher OPS than Pudge. But the real point is, after telling us that the voting system was screwed up and led to deserving players off the team, you then immediately turn around and say that Pudge should be on the team because it's his "swan song" and he's a "hometown hero?" What the fuck kind of voting process is that, Tony?

First base: Where have all the sluggers gone? They’re not playing first base in the American League, that’s for sure. Mark Teixeira thankfully overtook a hot-in-April, dreadful-ever-since Tino Martinez as the obvious choice to start. The fact that the players picked Paul Konerko, a .245 hitter, as the backup speaks to the success of the White Sox.

No, it doesn't. It speaks to the success of Paul Konerko. Only Teixeira has a higher OPS among AL first basemen. Only Teixeira has more HR. You could make an argument for Sexson, but he's underperforming a little. Konerko isn't tearing it up, but he's a fine choice for a back-up. Except, damn, Tony DeMarco points out that he is hitting .245. So, that meaningless, luck-based statistic will have to triumph over logic and reason.

Mark Sweeney was added as the Royals' lone representative, and that was a better way to go than journeyman outfielder Emil Brown or rookie reliever Andy Sisco, two other Royals possibilities who emerged while Sweeney was on the disabled list.

First of all, it's Mike Sweeney. (Are you sure you're a baseball columnist?) Second of all, why is it a "better way to go?" You can't just say things like that. You have to defend them. Is it a "better way to go" because you're heard of Mark/Mike Sweeney, but you haven't heard of Emil Brown? Who cares if he's a "journeyman?" What does that have to do with anything? That's like saying, "Let's put Sweeney on this team -- Brown is allergic to peanuts." It's completely irrelevant. Emil Brown has an .827 OPS with 8HR hitting clean-up. Mark/Mike Sweeney has been injured, and has a .834 OPS with 9 HR. Seems pretty close to me. I'd rather see Emil Brown.

Shortstop: It’s an all-Oriole double-play combination, and rightfully so, as Miguel Tejada — another MVP candidate — was the fans’ choice over Jeter. And as much as Jeter deserves to be in Detroit, so does Texas’ Michael Young. Was there a bit of Yankee-hating going on with the other players, coaches and managers? Who knows? But it’s not a true American League All-Star team without Jeter, and he should be the choice in the internet voting for the final AL spot.

Oh boy. Hang on. Let me catch my breath. Okay. I'm okay.

Here is what DeMarco insinuates might be "Yankee Hating":

Young has more hits, more doubles, more triples, more HR, more RBI, higher BA, higher SLG, higher OPS, more RC, higher RC29, and a higher ISOP than Derek Jeter. But apparently, DeMarco's new, scientifically rigorous design for the voting process ignores these fuzzy "statistics" in favor of more technical metrics, like whether "it is a true AL All-Star team without" someone. Idiot.

Outfield: Vlad Guerrero and Johnny Damon were the correct fans choices. Manny Ramirez got the third spot even though his average is way down, but Ichiro Suzuki also is having an off year by his high standards — not that both don’t deserve to be on the roster. Under-appreciated Garret Anderson was a nice choice by Terry Francona, but it wasn’t easy over Hideki Matsui, Torii Hunter and Scott Podsednik, who also are among the AL candidates for the final vote-in spot.

Manny's average is way down? He's hitting .272 in 283 AB. Don't you realize that if he had had just eight more line drives drop in, or bleed through the infield, he'd be hitting .300? Eight. One every 11 days or so. Also, his OPS is over .900, he leads the league in stupid stats like RsBi...anyway. The point is, Tony DeMarco, shut up about BA. Also, if I hear one more person refer to Garret Anderson as "under-appreciated" I'm going to murder someone. He used to be under-appreciated. Now his production has dropped off, and everyone in the world has started appreciating him. For the record, he is 13th among AL OF in OPS, right behind (you guessed it) Emil Brown. And Scott Podsednik has no business being anywhere near the AL All-Star Team.

NL Catcher: Mike Piazza really shouldn’t be here anymore, but it’s not as if anybody truly got overlooked or unjustly left off the roster because of his presence. Players’ choice Paul LoDuca is about the best the league can offer as long as Ramon Hernandez is on the disabled list.

How about Michael Barrett of the Cubbies?? He has almost identical numbers to Piazza. Doesn't he have a claim to have been unjustly left off? (Interesting side-note: Barrett, Piazza, and Lo Duca all have a .757 OPS entering play today. Weird.)

That's all. The rest of the column is pretty inoffensive. Welcome to the club, Tony DeMarco!

Labels: all-star game, tony demarco

John Kruk just voted for Livan Hernandez to start the All-Star Game for the NL.

Why?

"He's an innings-eater."

Labels: all-star game, john kruk

More from our favorite son. It's not as egregious as usual; still, though, some good stuff here (again, all sp. and punct. are [sic]):

Paul (Atlanta, GA): Joe, appropriate punnishment for Kenny Rogers?

Joe Morgan: Well, that's not my job. Nor is it yours. Baseball will have to decide how far he stepped over the line. And, he definitely stepped over the line. Baseball will have to decide the punnishment ...

Ken Tremendous: Yeah, Joe, I think we all knew that you weren't actually the guy who was responsible for punishing Kenny Rogers. We just thought we were doing an on-line chat with you, in which you were assuming the role of a guy who is knowledgeable about baseball. You're allowed to give your opinions. In fact, you are being paid by ESPN to give your opinions. So don't be shy. Don't think that people might think ill of you for voicing your opinion, because, again, that is your job.

joe (chicago): Joe--Is it just me or are their more quick ejections this year? After what happenned in Philly and Florida last night, are the umpires just tired of taking so much abuse? I saw a game where a cardinal pitcher was ejected after LaRussa had pulled him from the game...

Joe Morgan: Well, I was in NY on Sunday and Sheffield threw his helmet down and was ejected immediately. My understanding is, if you throw equipment, you get fined for each piece of equipment you throw. It's not an automatic ejection like some people think. I didn't think Sheff should have gotten ejected for that, because, you know, it's in the heat of the battle, the Yankees were on a four game losing streak and Gary was upset. The umpires have to understand that their is emotion in baseball. I think this ejection was unwarrented. Unless there is direct confrontation, I don't think immediate ejection is appropriate.

KT: So, Sheffield shouldn't be ejected, because the Yankees were on a four-game losing streak? The umpires, in the split second after a bang-bang call when a player starts screaming and approaching them and throwing his helmet, should stop and think and say, "Yeah, he's upset, but can you blame him? His team isn't playing that well." Okay. So, Lou Pinella should never get ejected, because the DRays are playing .390 ball? But Ozzie Guillen should get ejected more, because his team is playing well, so he has less of a reason to get angry? Okay.

Joe (Indy, IN): Joe, what are you thoughts on Sheffield saying that he will be a cancer in the clubhouse to his new team if he is traded? As a former player, how would you handle that kind of attitude coming into the clubhouse?

Joe Morgan: First of all, I don't think that he would be a cancer, but it's his way of telling teams that he doesn't want to go any place because he doesn't have a no-trade contract. He made a special deal with the Yankees by not using an agent and by not asking for a no-trade clause. Therefore, his only defense against a trade is to tell somebody that he doesn't want to go there. BUT, I guarentee that IF he gets traded to another team, he will play and he will perform.

KT: Why does Joe Morgan have a boner for Gary Sheffield? "He made a special deal with the Yankees by not using an agent and by not asking for a no-trade clause?" That was his decision. He was probably stupid to do it, because the Yankees give away no-trade clauses like they're Orbitz gum samples. Why are you defending an indefensible act -- announcing loud and clear that he will raise hell if he is traded, while his team is trying to get on-track? Where is the Joe Morgan who talks incessantly of "intangibles" and "leadership?" And how can you guarantee that Sheff, of all people, will perform on another team? This is the guy who, by his own admission, threw balls away in Milwaukee so he would get traded. He is maybe the only player in all of MLB about whom you could NOT guarantee this.

Zac (McDonough, GA): Are you surprised about the division races (specifically NL East) and how they are panning out? Who woulda thought a month ago that Oakland would even be looking at the sunny side of .500 How do you see that race panning out this year?

Joe Morgan: I guess it surprises me most that all the teams in the East were over .500. I can understand teams like Oakland and the Yankees turning things around. The Yankees went 16-2 at one point. There's so much parity that teams can get hot and go on winning streaks and just as easily get cold and go on losing skids. There are a lot of mediocre teams out there. YOu'll see this off and on throughout the season.

KT: Joe? The question was about Oakland. Remember our little talk about answering people's questions?

Derek (NYC): Joe, there has been talk of a tigers resurgance since the disatrerous season of 2003 but I still think they have a ways to go, their only good pitcher is Bonderman and the Magglio signing looks to be horredous in retrospect

Joe Morgan: The signings do not look good, but Ordonez was a free agent signing so they didnt' have to give up anything but money. We'll have to see how much he contributes the rest of the season. Inconsistency has been the problem with the Tigers -- and every other mediocre team that is struggling. Streaks and skids, that's just the way of the game today. There just aren't any great teams. Every team has flaws. Every team is looking to the July trade deadline as a way to improve their team. Only the White Sox are pretty content with what they have. That should tell you something.

KT: "Didn't have to give up anything but money?" Joe, that contract is going to cripple them for years. (Plus, when you sign free agents you have to give up draft picks, but hell, we can't expect Joe to know that, because, well, he doesn't know anything.) Money is everything in baseball, especially with a mid-market team trying to claw its way back to respectability. Also, you talk about "inconsistency" like it's the same thing as "mediocrity." The Yankees have been "inconsistent." The Tigers are "mediocre." Mediocre teams are inconsistent, because they are mediocre. See? I think you think that every team should be the 1975 Reds. They were "consistent" (i.e. "really good" in Morganspeak).


Rob (DC): I can't believe there are no all-star game questions yet. But I will ask one, do you think Utley will be, and deserves to be on the All-Star team?

Joe Morgan: Obviously Jeff Kent is going to win the fans' voting, and rightfully so. I definitely think Utley has performed like an All-Star, but since Jeff is going to win, so Utley would have to be a player/manager pick, but I'm not sure what the manager will be looking for. The Cardinals Grudzielanek has played very well, also.

KT: One vote for veterans over youth in the All-Star Game. (Also, I think "what the manager will be looking for" is the best players in the league. Because, I mean, it's an all-star game.)

Alex (DC): While we're on the subject of the all-star game, who are your starting pitchers for each league?

Joe Morgan: In the National League I'd pick Dontrelle Willis although Livan Hernandez and Clemens would also be good choice. I think youth should be served in the All-Star game, that's what it's about. Youth moving into the spot light.

KT: One vote for youth being served in the All-Star Game.

Todd (Delaware): Do you agree with Fans if they vote Brian Roberts over Alfonso Soriano?

Joe Morgan: That's a tough question because they both deserve to be there. I'd say that Soriano has been an All-Star and has proven himself more than Brian Roberts. Roberts has never hit more than 4 or 5 homeruns before this year, Soriano has done it throughout his career. I would probably lean towards Soriano this year, know that Brian Roberts will eventually be an All-Star. Again, it's about track record for me.

KT: One vote for track record over youth in the All-Star Game. Does he even hear what he is saying?

Let's just look at those two sentences again:

"I think youth should be served in the All-Star Game, that's what it's about."
"Again, it's about track record for me."

Fantastic.

Also, Roberts: .365/.438/.614/1.052. Soriano: .282/.313/.557/.870. Anyone who doesn't think Roberts is the starting second baseman this year is an idiot. By the transitive property of idiocy, Joe Morgan is an idiot.

Labels: all-star game, joe morgan, joechat