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.
You guys are still into the Gin Blossoms, right? Cool. Me too.
Several of you sent us this little ditty from Rich Hofmann over at the Philly Inquirer. One had hoped that the dismissal of on-line internet web blog "My Blog" WWW-blogger Stephen A. Smithblog from the Inquirer's daily ranks might have jolted their sports dept. into a new era of good-ness.*
Alas.
New York disgustingly canonizes new ace before he even pitches
For the record, Johan Santana is the best pitcher in baseball. Let's remember that as we read this article about how "disgustingly" the Mets celebrated his arrival in Queens. He's the best pitcher in baseball. NEW YORK - In the realm of the nauseating, this was even worse than Eli Manning and the fellas parading the Lombardi Trophy through the Canyon of Heroes (because the Giants earned it, after all). You really had to see the way they welcomed Johan Santana to the New York Mets to believe it.
Not sure why a tickertape parade for a Super Bowl is, in any way, "nauseating." Did you mean to type "par for the course?" Or maybe "fully warranted" or "traditional?" Or "fun?" (Especially since the team in question just pulled off one of the great upsets in football history.) This would have had to have been a very bad typo indeed, but I have no other explanation for you calling it "nauseating." Anyway, on to Santana.
The news conference seemed to have seating for about 200 or so,
Ewwwwww! Nauseating.
and plenty of people were standing.
Ugh. Gross.
The luncheon menu featured chicken and beef satay,
Bleurgh. Barf.
rice pilaf, pasta, green salad and gourmet sandwiches.
Classless.
The festivities were broadcast live on two television stations, one radio station and two Web sites (mets.com and losmets.com).
How dare the Mets...allow...people to hear...the press conference? (I'm struggling here, to locate nausea. I'm sure it'll get easier. Hofmann seems so strident.)
First, a video was shown that featured all manner of New Yorkers, from Mayor Michael Bloomberg to Chris Rock to Jerry Seinfeld, proclaiming their city as the greatest place in the history of places.
New York's a pretty great city. Actually, do you have a copy of that? It sounds cool.
It was all very understated, as per the local custom.
Well, the time for restraint is definitely: introducing the best pitcher in baseball to fans and media who follow the team. I'm thinking a terse press release, ("Santana signs with Mets. 'We are pleased,' say team officials, understatedly."), followed by an ascetic black-and-white photograph session. Water should be served (room-temperature) and then local and state police calmly but firmly escort people to the exits.
Then Santana arrived and was introduced by general manager Omar Minaya. Then they lined up for pictures - ownership, manager Willie Randolph, everybody smile now. A public-relations functionary had them turn to the dozens of exploding still cameras, and then to the other cameras over there, and then, could the still cameras please kneel down so the television cameras in the back could get a clear shot? Turn this way, turn that way; the guy had the group pose for everybody with a camera except Google Earth.
Here. Maybe this will help you understand what you were watching. Have you not been to one before? They can be scary and confusing if you've never been to one before.
And then the PR guy attempted to shut down the last shutterbugs and begin the news conference by announcing, "Johan, your public awaits."
At which point, I gagged on some vomit.
You have now induced more nausea than any press conference possibly could.
The Mets themselves said all of the right things - third baseman David Wright said the Phillies were still the team to beat in the National League East, as did Randolph - but this was quite the welcome for Santana, the two-time Cy Young winner. And listening to the radio on the way home, you could tell it was clear that all of the pomp and circumstance has led Mets fans to the inescapable conclusion that they already have won the World Series, before the first golf club has been shipped to spring training.
Well, they did collapse last year, in horrific, almost 2004 ALCS Yankees-esque fashion. But they were 7th in the NL in team ERA, and 6th in Ks, and they really didn't have a #1 starter. Though their offense struggled late, if they had Santana last year, they'd've made the playoffs easily. So, despite Moises Alou being 58, and Glavine leaving, and Pedro being a wild card, you have to say that getting Santana makes them pretty effing tough.
And, in that spirit, Santana raised his hands at one point and showed off all the World Series rings he won in Minnesota.
Oh, wait.
Ha ha ha ha! He never won a World Series in Minnesota! What a douche. Only jerks and losers don't win World Series titles by themselves.
Santana has won 70 games in the last four years. Here's how the Twins have ended the season in runs scored in those four years: 12th, 8th, 14th (last), 10th.
"It takes 25 players," Santana said, more than once, in response to more than one question in more than one language. He seems a sincere sort, and he has been a great and durable pitcher (although only 15-13 last season).
His team had a .721 OPS. That's 13th out of 14 teams. The league -- the American League, mind you -- batted .225 off him with a .273 OBP. He had 55 more Ks than anyone on the Mets. And this was a down year for Santana.
His career ERA+ is 141. His career WHIP is under 1.1. He Ks 9.5/9 IP. His DERA is 3.20. He is left-handed. His change-up looks like it's being controlled by a dude playing RBI Baseball, who can maneuver it mid-air with a joystick. He is 28.
These are all things you could have written that would have been more relevant than "only 15-13 last year."
"I'm happy to be here," Santana said, at one point. "What happened last year stays in the past. I'm looking forward to '08 . . . We're going to start a new season, '08, and make it very special from now on."
Disgusting.
Take it home, Hofmann.
The Mets do not want to find out [what will happen if they are in a long divisional fight]... Because they just spent up to $150 million on one of those green Christmas-tree things you hang from the rearview mirror. They would hate to find out that it failed to mask the stench of 7/17.
(That's 7-game lead with 17 to play, not July 17th.)
Anyway, in an article about how gross and disgusting a press conference was, here are words that Rich Hofmann used in his article:
Nauseating Exploding Gagged Vomit Choked Stench
Crazy, right? As the Gin Blossoms once said, "And we started out to conquer doubt and frisbee / I should've been a whole lot farther."**
* [Edit: I am a moron, as reader Michael points out, because Hoffman writes for the Daily News and not the Inquirer. I'm leaving the thing about Stephen A. up, though, because I want his blog to be the #1-read blog on the internet.]
** Lyric chosen at random; does not relate to article in any way.
Does the statistic "RBIs per 100 at-bats" really measure how valuable a hitter is? You have cited that stat in at least two stories comparing Brian Schneider to Paul Lo Duca.
Schneider is a strong defensive catcher, and a below-average hitter. The RBI as a stat is not nearly as telling about a player's ability to be a productive hitter as are on-base percentage, slugging percentage, home runs, extra-base hits and even the vastly overrated batting average stat. I just feel that citing that statistic adds little, and is somewhat insulting to students of the game. -- James K., no hometown given
Good question, James. And more restrained than we stat-minded basement dwellers usually are. Very well done. Who can argue with such logic?
Oh. Marty Noble can.
I beg to differ, and I guess I'm obligated to explain my use of RBIs per 100 at-bats because yours is one nine [sic] e-mails I've received that have questioned it. To me, it is a fundamental and quite legitimate means of measuring run production.
Obvious thing:
Player A and Player B both have 500 AB. Both have 65 RBI. Player A and Player B are the same, in terms of run production, right? Wrong! You fell into my trap. I am a diabolical genius who totally just outsmarted you so bad.
Because what you don't know is that Player A hits clean-up for the Awesome City Crushers, and the three guys in front of him all have .950 OBPs, so in his 500 AB he had like 1450 guys on base and only drove in 65. He struck out like 400 times, never walked, and generally acted like a sullen dick. He is terrible. The only reason he is hitting clean-up is that his dad owns the team. It's totally unfair.
Player B hit lead-off for the North Suckington Suck-Bears. He was an excellent baseball player who walked all the time and hit like .450 with a .700 OBP, but in his 500 AB, his stupid sucky teammates had only gotten on base 20 times, total, in front of him, and he was so good he drove all of them, and also hit 45 solo bombs. (Why was he batting leadoff, am I right? Maybe it's because his manager saw that the Cubs were hitting Soriano leadoff and followed suit.)
Anyway, here's the undeniably true thing: Player B is better than Player A. Player B will create more runs than Player A 10 seasons out of 10, assuming their seasons were not total flukes.
Now here's something that will blow your mind. Player A is Mickey Mantle. Player B is Dustin Pedroia!!!!!!
(Just kidding. I made them up.)
Computers have contributed to a current glut of statistics that, to a degree, distort the picture. We have so many now that we lose focus on what is most important. The objective of the game is to win, and to win a team must outscore its opponent. Nothing, therefore, is more important than runs -- both producing and preventing them.
Wow. I am being taught a very valuable lesson here. Color me: chagrined. No -- ashamed. In all of my stat-mongering, I forgot that the idea of baseball is to win. I further forgot that in order to win, a team must outscore its opponent. Mary Noble's condescending spoonful of proudly provincial bullshit has jolted my RobotBrain™ back to earthly reality. Thank you, sir. Or, as my people say,
Runs and RBI totals provide insufficient information because neither tells us how many opportunities a player has had to produce. And in the case of catchers, who are unlikely to play every day, the number of opportunities helps us understand how they produce.
What's amazing is that he acknowledges a problem with RBI here. He even goes so far as to say that the problem is that RBI as a raw stat doesn't work because it ignores RBI as a percentage of RBI opportunities. Then explains his method of using RBI, which does little or nothing to fix the problem. It's like saying, "Throwing money into your toilet is bad, because if you throw money in your toilet, you won't be able to use it to buy food, or furniture. Instead, you should set it on fire, and toss the ashes into the toilet. That way, the toilet won't clog."
Knowing the potential rates of production affords us a better sense of what a player does, particularly if the rates are compared, as they were in the two instances you cited.
RBIs per 100 at-bats measures run production as ERA -- earned runs per nine innings -- measures pitching. It's a quite legitimate means of determining who does what.
Last year, Lo Duca had 487 plate appearances, and Schneider had 477. Pretty damn close. Given this fact, RBI/100 AB is essentially exactly the same thing as just asking "who had more RBI?" (Plus, you should use PA instead of AB, probably, since AB don't count walks.) If the difference were huge -- like 100 or more PA -- it might shed a little more light on the subject. But 10 PA? Two games?
What matters more is -- obviously -- how many guys were on base when they got their PA, and how successful they were driving them in. Schneider had 331 guys on base in his 477 PA. Lo Duca had 307. So Lo Duca drove in the same number of guys, in almost exactly the same number of PA, but there were 24 fewer guys on base for him. Now, 24 isn't a ton, but it's something, and the only thing a rational, non-condescending person could possibly conclude is that Lo Duca was more efficient in terms of driving in runs last year than Schneider was.
Now, this isn't the be-all, end-all of a batter's worth. Clearly, OBP, SLG, and myriad other things should be checked out. But Noble concerns himself solely with RBI, so that's what we're doing, here, on our Saturday, is looking through BP's sortable stats to determine that Lo Duca drove in runs at a higher rate last year than Schneider. (He also had a higher VORP -- 9.2 to 2.4.)
I'm too lazy to do this for the last three years, but it actually doesn't matter. It's the methodology I object to. Sorry -- mis-typed. It's the methodology logic objects to.
That Lo Duca might have had a higher on-base percentage or slugging percentage means less to me than the number of runs he produced. The next time a team wins a game because it produced a higher on-base mark and scored fewer runs than its opponent, please alert me.
This is hard-core boneheaded. The more guys are on base, the more chances they have to score. That can't be hard to grasp. Why fight it?
OBP, OPS, et al, are the ingredients in the recipe for offense. Runs are the meal.
"Food metaphors" label? Today is your lucky day.
Next question for Marty?
C'mon, Marty. Jerry Koosman must be considered for the Hall of Fame, given what we are witnessing today. He must be considered.
-- Ray, Matawan, N.J.
Must he, Ray? Must he really? A .500 pitcher with a 110 ERA+? With a 1.26 WHIP and barely a 2/1 K/BB ratio? Must he be?
I'm not quite sure if you're referring to something specific that I've written about Koosman or just making a general comment. I wish there were a place for Koosman in the Hall. He's a personal favorite. When he was healthy, he was as effective as almost any Hall of Fame pitcher and nastier than most of them. [...]
This bold claim might -- might -- be defensible in 1968, 1969, and 1976. I guess he wasn't healthy in any of the 16 other seasons.
Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax and Morris are popular answers to the question, "Which pitcher would you choose to start a must-win game?" Koosman wouldn't be a bad choice, either.
Homework assignment: name 100 pitchers since 1960 you would rather have start a big game then Jerry Koosman. (Don't really. Or if you do, don't send them to me. Print them out and post them on your wall, and look at them every day and say to yourself, "I am so happy Jerry Koosman is not in the Hall of Fame." And then say to yourself, "No one should ever use 'Who would I want to start a big game?' as a criterion for Hall of Fame induction." And then say to yourself, "I can't believe I spent an hour making this list. I should read more."
At least Noble doesn't actually say Koosman belongs in the HOF. That's something, I guess.
How can Aaron Heilman not be given a real shot as starter? He pitched a one-hitter. At least it'll stop him from wondering. And if it works? Remember, what good is relief if you're down by six or seven runs all the time? -- Charles F., Brooklyn, N.Y.
That one-hitter didn't make Heilman a lock to produce a 15-victory season as a starter. And making him a starter would affect one game in five. Losing him as a reliever might affect three or four games in 10. Chances are Heilman working as a starter wouldn't prevent being "down by six or seven runs all the time."
Noble's solution: make every pitcher a reliever. That way, they all get to affect the most games.
Not sure if you know this or not but you're binary code translates to THANkyou. "Thank you" would be: 0101010011010001100001110111011010110010000011110010110111101110101.
It sneaks up on you sometimes. One day you're the heart and soul of a team. People can't praise your intangibles enough. Your grit. Your heart. Your leadership. You're white, you sort of suck at getting on base, you make a lot of serious faces on the field. All the ingredients are there.
Then one day you wake up and you're no longer a grinder -- and Joel Sherman is writing articles about your team with headlines like this:
SHAKE IT UP METS WOULD GET MUCH-NEEDED JOLT FROM ROWAND AND ECKSTEIN
Hey, Paul Lo Duca just walked in. I'm going to let him type a little bit. Hold on --
Rowand? Eckstein? What about me, Paulie Bignuts?! I'm the Jolt cola on this team! I'm the hard-working stubbly lunch pailer! What happened to all those articles about how when Glassesface DePodesta traded me away the Dodgers lost their soul? I AM TEAM CHEMISTRY.
I am a pending free agent -- why isn't this article all about resigning me? Randolph is now enlisted for next year and the Mets should work to build a team that works for him. Here's what Hardball would strongly consider:
1. MORE PASSION
Fuck me! (It's still Paulie here.) I just hit Open Apple-F in Firefox and searched for "Lo Duca." I'm not even mentioned in the article! Va fangoule, Joel Sherman! That's-a spicy-a meatball-a! In general, I dismiss the emotional/chemistry stuff. Usually onlookers see what they want based on results (David Wells is a real-guy gamer when he succeeds and an out-of-shape dirtbag when he loses). But by the end of the disappointing season, Randolph and many of his key veterans were acknowledging a core that lacked urgency and ardor. There was too much privilege among this group, as if it were Duke waiting for its NCAA tourney invite rather than earning its way in.
Okay, Junior here. I've wrested the keyboard away from Lo Dukes. It's covered in marinara sauce. Sherman, seriously, it's hard to have it both ways here. How can you say "I dismiss the emotional/chemistry stuff" and then advocate signing a no-hit, no-field, aging Eckstein with your next breath?
Now the Mets lost because they had no "ardor"? Jesus Christ, man. What do you think ardor legitimately cost them? Two games? Three?
Lo Duca wants me to type that he's still extremely ardorous. Okay. Okay. I did it. Stop hitting me with your chicken parm sub.
There is a term in baseball, grinder, to describe those who bring it every day and treat each at-bat like a mini holy war.
What the Mets need is an Osama bin Laden-type in the two-hole. You know who was a phenomenal grinder? Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Too bad he was killed by a a laser-guided GBU-12 and GPS-guided GBU-38. Thanks a lot, troops!
The Mets need a whole lot fewer whiners and lawyers who sap the energy/togetherness in their clubhouse, and more grinders, especially because Randolph is so non-confrontational even with his worst offenders.
Tell me, please, which of these Metropolitans qualify as whiner-lawyers:
David Wright Jose Reyes Luis Castillo Carlos Delgado Moises Alou Carlos Beltran Shawn Green Paul Lo Duca Tom Glavine Pedro Martinez John Maine Orlando Hernandez Billy Wagner
You get the point. Actually, no. Let me spell it out for you. If the Mets win two more games, this is the exact same group of guys we're saying has incredible chemistry, whose unbreakable camaraderie bonded them together as the Phillies made their run, whose kinship and brotherhood and passion for the game carried them through tough times and led them to the playoffs. Am I wrong?
Look, the Diamondbacks are a club that believes in statistical analysis, yet recently gave Eric Byrnes a three-year, $30 million extension in recognition of what his daily zeal does for the group.
I'm really unclear on how much of that 30 million Josh Byrnes earmarked for daily zeal. Was it a 5 million zeal bonus? I think it was 2.5 million for the hair, 3.5 for falling down every time you throw the ball. So the Mets should look seriously at free agents Aaron Rowand to play center field and David Eckstein to play second base, and/or see if they could pry someone such as the Angels' jack-in-the-box Chone Figgins to be their jack-of-all-trades.
Okay, Aaron Rowand had a great year last year. Career year. WARP3 of 9.6. Here are his WARP3s from the last three years: 3.3 (missed some games), 6.0, 6.8. If you're the Mets, don't you already have a guy playing center field? A Carlos somebody? Who had a mild down year to the tune of 9.5 WARP? Who has posted WARP3s of 11.9, 5.6, and 9.9 recently?
By signing Rowand, the Mets would rob the NL East champ Phillies of a big piece. Putting Carlos Beltran in right field might diminish his leg injuries.
Maybe Sherman knows more about Beltran's injuries than I do, but it seems like a pretty big waste to play a good defensive center fielder in right in order to sign an inferior center fielder. With Eckstein, you must believe he could play second, that his body is not deteriorating fast at 32, and that he would accept a one- or two-year deal. If you buy all of that, Eckstein's peskiness and seriousness about winning would enliven the Mets.
Exactly like, say, Luis Castillo, a guy who was supposed to be pesky and winning-y and grinderish and who was already on the Mets this year? Castillo has 17 points of career OBP on Eck and he's faster, too. And he already plays second base.
Joel Sherman says the Mets need passion. Let's go through some of those 2007 Mets again.
David Wright Great character guy. MVP-type. Leader. Incredibly mature for his age. Works hard, plays hard. Passionate. Smiles.
Jose Reyes Fiery. Sparkplug. Catalyst. MVP-type talent. The future. Puts pressure on pitchers. Passionate.
Luis Castillo Veteran. Pesky. Bat control guy. Comes from Twins' winning system. Passionate. Smallballer.
Carlos Delgado Veteran. Knows how to win. Former MVP-type. Subject of innumerable Gammo articles praising his leadership and the way he mentors Beltran. Passionate.
Moises Alou Veteran. Pisses on hands.
Carlos Beltran Veteran. Uber-talent. Solid clubhouse presence.
Shawn Green Jew.
Paul Lo Duca Veteran. Heart, soul, heartsoul, leader, heartleader, guides pitching staff. Passionate. Hates to lose. Co-wrote this post. White.
Pedro Martinez Once threatened to drill Babe Ruth, a dead man, in the ass. Passionate.
Really, you see a bad, passionless apple in this suitcase full of apples?
Ah, fuck it. Just sign Eckstein and win the World Series. Do it.
Erik Kuselias remains a member of Mensa International, the society for people with high IQs
Little tip: if you're driving from the gym to Trader Joe's, do not accidentally listen to even more sports talk radio that you disparagingly blogged about earlier.
You might overhear official Mensa President and High Priest Erik Kuselias say something like the following:
The Phillies went out and got Tadahito Iguchi and Kyle Lohse. If you're a Mets fan, you've got to be wondering, where's our Kyle Lohse? You have to at least get someone so your fans can call up their friends and be like, we got this guy.
Look, I didn't discover fourteen new elements like Mensa founder Erik Kuselias did, but I'm pretty sure that making a trade so your fans have a reason to call their friends is a lousy move for a GM.
Kyle Lohse has been a serviceable, slightly below average starter (career ERA+ 95, 2007 ERA+ 101) with 80 K's in 131.2 IP this year. Hard to be that upset about Kyle Lohse doing anything. Sure, he might be a slight improvement over a Jorge Sosa or a Mike Pelfrey, but really: he's Kyle Lohse.
A gem from reader Devon: During the Mets-Nats today, Gotay singles in Reyes. LoDuca was wearing a towel on his head on the bench to keep cool.
Gary Cohen: "From now on, in RBI spots, the Mets are going to be putting towels on their heads. It'll be like the new rally cap...the towel head."
Can't wait for the Braves-Mets game where the Tomahawk Chop faces off against the Towel Head. Good luck racists! UPDATE: Reader Cary writes in, claiming that Cohen in fact said: "towel cap." Disappointing, if it's true.
James (Charlotte, NC): Hey Steve, love the chats. Do you think there's anything that Willie Randolph can do to help Wright and Delgado hit better? Does it make sense switching them in the lineup (I've always been a fan of a left-right-left-right lineup). They're the heart of the order yet contributing very little...Of course, a lot of things Willie Randolph does baffles me as well but it seems something needs to be done to help these guys get out of their slumps.
SportsNation Steve Phillips: I think the good new (sic) for the Mets is that they are both not hitting. What I mean is, they're 15-8 and have not gotten production from their two best players.
Two best players? Two best players? Even off the top of your head, you have to know that's wrong. Have to. Don't you?
Beltran Wright Reyes Delgado
If I told you to pick two of those players to have on your team this year, which two do you pick? Apparently, former Mets general manager Steve Phillips is going with Wright and the thirty-twelve-year-old Delgado.
Quickly, a rundown of their 2006 WARPs:
Beltran 10.4 Wright 9.0 Reyes 6.8 Delgado 5.4
On top of that, let us not forget that Steve Phillips was the man who in fact acquired Jose Reyes. Although you can't rule out the possibility that Phillips chose which players to acquire by throwing rings into a carnival-style array of glass bottles.
This isn't even criticism. I just thought it was funny. This guy Murray Chass wrote another article for some newspaper, and I'm not totally sure about this, but I think he might be old. Like really old. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying.
This the title of his column:
Heavens to Murgatroyd: Mets Are Hurting
Already don't know what he's talking about? I don't really blame you. "Heavens to Murgatroyd" is one of Snagglepuss's catch phrases. That's right. Snagglepuss, the animated anthropomorphic pink mountain lion created in 1959. Some may argue that Snagglepuss is an evergreen character (Bugs Bunny is like twenty years older), but honestly, when was the last time you and your buddies threw around a "Heavens to Murgatroyd" while watching the game?
Better still, I'm 90% sure Chass is actually referring to the original use of "Heavens to Murgatroyd" -- you know what I'm about to say ... Bert Lahr, Meet the People, 1944. A movie you'd have to be over 70 to have seen in the theaters.
So that's the title. Maybe he gets fresher in the actual article? I bet he'll break out a T.I. lyric or something. “What a revoltin’ development,” Jimmy Durante used to say.
First line. Jimmy Durante. Birthdate: February 10, 1893. 1893. “Well, here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten me into, Stanley,” Oliver Hardy used to say to his partner, Stan Laurel.
Very next line. Laurel and Hardy. Birthdates: June 16, 1890 and January 18, 1892.
Phenomenal. Murray's perfectly within his rights to write about 1920's pop culture. And of course, I know who Snagglepuss, Jimmy Durante, and Laurel and Hardy are. But taken all together, one right after the other ... it's simply magical. It's just never been clearer that he's a billion years old.
And then there's this: Correction: Sept. 30, 2006
The On Baseball column yesterday about the Mets’ postseason chances without pitcher Pedro Martínez misattributed the quotation, “What a revoltin’ development.” It was Chester A. Riley’s catchphrase in “The Life of Riley,” a sitcom in the 1950’s, not Jimmy Durante’s.
Murray Chass is so old he can't keep his 50-year-old references straight. And re-read that paragraph again. What the hell is a reference to Chester A. Riley in "The Life of Riley" doing in an article about Pedro Martinez and the Mets in 2006?!
