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.
This little back-and-forth between former bungling Mets GM and current bungling ESPN color guy Steve Phillips and current Indians GM Mark Shapiro (who's coming off as competent and intelligent so far) was so absolutely unsurprising it made me laugh out loud:
SP: So we saw you on the computer there. Now I played solitaire on my computer in my office. What were you looking at on the computer?
Wonderful. So simple, yet so beautiful. Of course he's being self-deprecating and playing for a laugh -- but seriously, Mets fans, isn't there a not-so-small part of you that believes this is true? I like how cavalier he is about admitting that as the manager of a company with hundreds of millions of dollars in payroll, he had no use for a computer.
I don't know -- e-mail or something? He wasn't fired until 2003. I think he could have at least been on Prodigy or Compuserve or something by then. Newsgroups? Maybe he should've logged onto alt.movaughnfatorreallyfat.fat.cooked.
Shapiro responds with an extremely reasonable answer:
MS: Those were minor league box scores from the night before. I think he gave me the injury reports, too. You get those once a week and try and get caught up. You need to keep your finger on the pulse of what's going on...
Not included: "You're right, Steve, fuck a computer. They're only good for solitaire and porn, and the special dirty solitaire I downloaded with naked ladies on the cards!"
Throughout the rest of the segment, Shapiro is baited again and again with weird, subtly anti-objective analysis questions. Dan Schulman goes with something like "Don't you have to go with your gut sometimes?"
MS: I want to have the information I have back up my gut.
He's more diplomatic than that overall, but well done, Shapiro. Phillips will not be denied, though: SP: You talked a little bit about the scouting reports and also about statistics. Where do the Cleveland Indians fall in this era where numbers have become more important than maybe the people (and where robots threaten to steal our women and our children)?
Parenthetical was implied, not spoken. Shapiro feints: MS: We want all the information. We want the best statistical information. We want the best scouting information available. Medical gets overlooked so frequently.
There's a reason the Indians are a well-run franchise and Steve Phillips' main job is to provide us with grist. The sign on his desk at work says
STEVE PHILLIPS EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, FJM GRIST DEPT.
It's back again. And here's what we definitively learned from day one of the 2008 MLB Season: Nothing, dummies. It's a small sample size.
So instead, let's gallimaufry it up.
Several readers sent us to this article, which contains many of my least favorite words:
The Blue Jays felt like they needed an infusion of gritty players, the type who can spell the difference between winning and losing in tight games, and they believe they've added those pieces in third baseman Scott Rolen and free agent shortstop David Eckstein.
Rolen is going to cost them $12m this year, and he's already out for a few weeks with a screw in his finger. He turns 33 in a few days, and has played in 310 games in the last three seasons. But: he's gritty. Boy oh boy, is he gritty.
Eckstein is: Eckstein.
"When they take the field, they're both always on the ground," Gibbons said.
That's how fucking professional these dudes are. They obey the laws of gravity no matter what.
"They give us a toughness that I think we need."
They -- the left side of your infield -- will give you 800 AB combined and 15 homers, if you are lucky. (Did I mention Rolen had 8 HR in 112 games last year?)
Wells, Toronto's star center fielder, likes the idea of having Eckstein drive opposing pitchers batty with his knack for fouling off pitches, making contact and getting on base out of the leadoff spot.
For the ever-growing record, Eck saw an average of 3.64 pitches per AB last year, tying him for 317th on the list of all NLers with, among others, notorious hacker Jacque Jones. N.B. that fucking Roy Oswalt had a 3.76. You want a lead-off guy to see a lot of pitches and drive 'em batty -- go with Roy.
The proverbial five tools for position players -- hitting for average, hitting for power, defense, arm and speed -- are covered throughout the survey [of MLB scouts], in one way or another.
Only one player really scored high in all of the above: Ichiro.
Really. Hitting for power. Huh.
Ichiro career: 67 HR in 4782 AB.
The panel of scouts rated him tops in all of MLB in the categories of Best Hitter, Best Bat Control, Best Outfielder, Best Arm and Best Baserunner. He also rated second in the categories of Best Bunter, Fastest Runner and Best Basestealer.
He also won Best Personality, Best Dancer, Girls' Choice for Brother, and Cutest Stubble. He is tearing things up at Central High, people! Rumor has it, this saucy little import has grabbed the heart of none other than Clarissa Prettyface -- Cheer Captain and Improbable Virgin -- and he is not letting go! But what will happen when her boyfriend Jock Fisterson finds out?
"You could put Ichiro down for almost everything -- best arm, best outfielder (when he wants to be), best basestealer, best hitter, and he could hit 50 home runs if he wanted to, but he'd rather get his 220 hits and bat .330," said one scout.
You guys don't get it. He's awesome. If Ichiro wanted to, he could play basketball and probably be like the best ever. So I voted for him for 2-guard in the NBA All-Star Game this year. He could fucking fly if he wanted to. That's why I put him down for "Best Bird Imitator." If Ichiro felt like it, he could totally discover important things about gamma ray bursts, which is why I voted for him for the Cal Tech Fellowship in High-Energy Astrophysics.
[Extreme side note. While poking around the internet looking at gamma ray burst articles and black hole articles and things -- part of my mandatory mom's basement/nerd study program -- I came across this article, which discusses the High Energy Astrophysics Division (HEAD) of the American Astronomical Society (AAS).
HEAD-AAS.
Why would you acronym yourselves to make HEAD-AAS?" What bunch of ass-faces.]
Diversion over. Let's take some mail, shall we? Edward writes:
In case you missed it, here's how David "I'm scrappy and pesky, and I should have gotten a 3-year deal for it" Eckstein's evening went:
1st inning: 0-1 count, lead-off groundout, setting up his team nicely with the first out.
3rd inning: Lead-off strikeout on 4 pitches, see 1st inning.
5th inning: With runners on 1st and 3rd and no outs. 1-1 count, grounds out to 1st, runner from 3rd doesn't score, though the runner on 1st does advance to 2nd.
7th inning: Runner on 3rd, 2 out. First-pitch ground-out to 3rd.
It must be said that he fielded his position flawlessly. But he did not remotely do his job as the lead-off hitter. 0-for-4, averages 2.5 pitches per at-bat, doesn't get the ball out of the infield.
Fun with small sample sizes. A lot of fun.
Adam writes:
The other day Steve Phillips said (this is a rough quote, the number is what is important): "The Detroit Tigers and Boston Red Sox could both score 1,000 runs this season."
The sheer stupidity of the statement is incredible. Now obviously anybody could score 1,000 runs in a season. Since 1900, however, only 7 teams have scored 1,000 runs in a season, with the modern-day record being 1,067 by the 1931 Yankees. Teams that have scored 1,000 runs in a season:
New York Yankees - 1,062 (1930), 1,067 (1931), 1,002 (1932), 1,065 (1936)
St. Louis Cardinals - 1,004 (1930)
Boston Red Sox - 1,027 (1950)
Cleveland Indians - 1,009 (1999)
PECOTA has the Sox at 838 runs this season and the Tigers at 849. I'm going to say neither hits 1000 (though that does seem low for the Tigers). This probably goes in the category of Crazy Things ESPN Analysts Say to Pique People's Interest in Early April, like when Krukie said RJ would win 30 games.
Michael writes in about this article from the way-back machine:
This is old, and I don't know what you can do with this, but my God out of nowhere Time Magazine talks about: Matsui's love of porn, how he trades it with the Japanese media and what a horny guy he is. How did this not instantly become something everyone heard?
Here's the relevant snippet:
Indeed, his only eccentricity, if it can be called that, is his extensive private library of adult videos. His refreshing ability to laugh self-deprecatingly about his porno collection, reporters say, is one reason why fans and even nonfans have taken to him so much. Says former reporter Isao Hirooka: "Hideki just wants to be like ordinary people."
Ordinary people do love porn. He might have us on this one, guys.
We have just scratched the surface here, but I'm afraid I will have to stop for now. I'm attending a meeting of HEAD-AAS later, and I want to make sure I'm sharp.
I saw the Improbable Virgins open for Husker Du at La Luna in Portland (OR) back in '94.
Pretty great show all in all, although they mostly played stuff from The Mostly Nowhere EP. Also closed with a cover of "Psycho Killer" which was downrighht enjoyable.
It's been a while since I live-blogged one of Steve Phillips's patented "here's what they need to do" type segments on BBTN or SC. This one just blew my skirt up. I'm going to go ahead and type it out in full...
Now that the Los Angeles Dodgers have Joe Torre in place, it's time for them to address their roster for the 2008 season. Here's what they need to do to be a playoff and World Series-contending team.
They need power. There's two positions they're going to go to. First: third base. They need to be in the market for Miguel Cabrera. There's rumors that the Florida Marlins are willing to trade him. They have to check it out and see if a deal can be made. They also have to talk to Scott Boras and see if there's a deal to be made for Alex Rodriguez. They have to land one of those two guys to add power to a line-up that was ranked fifteenth in home runs in the National League.
Next, they have to go to centerfield -- Juan Pierre has to move. To improve the defense and offense, Pierre has to go to left field, and look for the Dodgers to make a play for Andruw Jones or Torii Hunter, and even if they have to settle for Mike Cameron or Aaron Rowand, they will upgrade defensively and add power to the line-up.
And finally, now that they've added some pieces through the free agent market, it allows them to put together some young pitchers with some young position players, and go to the Minnesota Twins and knock their socks off, and bring Johan Santana to the West Coast.
If they make those deals, they're going to the World Series.
See? Super easy. Just give ARod $350m. Let's just start there, at that no-brainer -- give the guy $35m/yr for ten years, and lock him up. Or, if you don't want to do that, trade every good young cost-controlled player you have to the Marlins for an awesome player who is under your control for two more years, but who made $7.4 in arbitration last year and guess what? He isn't going to make less this year, or next, nor is he going to sign a long-term deal for anything less than like $22+m/yr for eight years. Hell, maybe $25m/10 years. $40m/fifteen years, plus a $200 McDonald's per diem? Some huge deal.
So, just, like, do that, you know, and then there's an easy second thing to do, which is: move your terrible overpaid CF to LF, and sign either the 32 year-old Hunter or 30 year-old Jones, either of whom you can have for around $80-120m for some number of years, and both of whom are probably over the hill defensively and maybe also offensively, and both of whom you'll be paying like $18m a year when they're 36 or 37 and they'll just be miserable, out there, in Dodger Stadium.
And so that's great, you did those two things, and your payroll shouldn't be that bad. $108m last year, with about $14m coming off the books in dead money...depending on whether you pick up Kent's $9m option***...but you also have to re-sign Saito...let's call it $100m (wild conservative guess). So, $25m for Cabrera and say $18 for Torii/Andruw gets you to $143. Not terrible. Then you just put together all of the great young cost-controlled players that you somehow magically still have after the Cabrera deal -- and you have probably traded Kemp, Loney, Billingsley, and some minor leaguers for him -- and you trade for Santana, somehow, (maybe Scott Proctor straight-up? Would Minnesota do that?) and you give him his $13.25, so we're at maybe $156m+, and you have no young cost-controlled players at all, like fucking none, at all, anywhere, at any level, anywhere, and if you are lucky enough to re-sign Santana and not quickly lose him to free agency and somehow give him the contract he will demand ($210m over 8 years?) you have a $170-$180m payroll that has:
1B Nomar 2B Kent SS Furcal 3B Cabrera LF Pierre CF Hunter/Jones RF ??? C Martin
P Santana P Penny P Loaiza P Schmidt P Lowe
With, again, fucking no one waiting in the wings when Nomar, Kent, Furcal, Penny, Schmidt, and probably someone else all go down with injuries on like April 9. Maybe Torre can work some magic?
Anyway, this plan seems good to me. Thanks, Steve. Enjoy the World Series, L.A.!
Some weird stuff Sunday morning on ESPN. Stephen A. Smith was inexplicably like lurking around the studio for both Sportscenter and BBTN. It was so weird that at the end of SC he like didn't even have a chair, and had to awkwardly stand nearby the anchor desk. Then at the end of BBTN Steve Phillips said goodbye on behalf of himself and Krukie, leading Smith to give him a look like "What the hell?" and then eventually Phillips included him. Odd all the way around.
On SC they did that mentally challenged "Who's Now?" thing and it was Vince Young vs. Maria Sharapova. I felt bad for everyone involved, as they tried to figure out if Vince Young's 6 wins as a rookie were more "now" than Sharapova's $20m in endorsements. One of the most pointless arguments I have ever been exposed to.
America's Sweetheart files this report via email:
I have an idea for what to do after "Who's Now?" is over. It's called "what time is it?" A panel of ESPN experts would sit around and argue about what time it was. They would never agree because the time would always be changing. People could vote on-line and the it would all depend on when they voted.
At the end you would have some idea of what time it was.
Finally, on BBTN, Phillips and Kruk debate the "Worst Franchise in Sports." Phillips chooses the Phillies because their next loss will be their 10,000th. This is problematic for several reasons: first, because that says as much about the longevity of the franchise (starting in 1890) as anything else. Second, the team is only 4 games out this year and has a lot of good players. Third, the team has been in the WS as recently as 1993. The Phils aren't close to being the worst franchise in baseball, much less all of pro sports.
Not to be outdone, Kruk chose the New Orleans Saints.
There's an interesting piece at ESPN where their baseball writers weigh in yes/no on Sosa to the HOF. A lot of good arguments. Steve Phillips's is not one of them.
Sammy Sosa is a Hall of Famer. Slam dunk. There is no smoking gun with him. There is just guilt by association. Just because he kept pace with Mark McGwire in home runs in 1998 doesn't mean he should be seen the same way as McGwire. Sosa made a statement in front of the House Committee on Government Reform in which he declared he had never used illegal performance-enhancing substances while McGwire did not.
Okay. Technically true. But Sosa also pretended he didn't speak English and shrank down in his chair and tried to hide in plain sight. It wasn't exactly an inspiring performance.
There are no former teammates pointing fingers at Sosa like there are at McGwire. He has never failed a drug test.
McGwire never tested positive for anything either. In fact, consider that Sosa did get busted for corking a bat during his playing days. Why would a player on steroids cork his bat? He wouldn't.
This is the part that gets me. Why wouldn't a player that cheated in one way also cheat in another way? I mean, if you're going to argue with hypotheticals and hearsay, I think it's perfectly logical that a guy on steroids might also cork his bat -- or vice versa.
When Sammy got caught it was June and he had just 6 HR. And he claimed that it was a bat he used for batting practice. Do a lot of guys use corked bats for bating practice? (Seriously -- I never saw that written about. Do they? It seemed weird.) The whole thing was super fishy, and in my mind marked him as the kind of dude who cheats.
I don't mind people arguing that Sammy should be in the Hall. It's legit. But arguing that he probably never did something illegal by pointing out that he did something else illegal is moronic. If you want to argue "yes," the only things you should hang your hat on are: he hit a buttload of HR, and he never technically tested positive.
Sosa made a statement in front of the House Committee on Government Reform in which he declared he had never used illegal performance-enhancing substances while McGwire did not.
is meaningless, since Raffy Palmeiro also said he had never gotten 'roidy, and he said it a lot more emphatically than Marky McG, and we all know what happened there.
Reader Taka, among others, wrote in about a "Clogging Up the Bases" sighting, on BBTN last night:
On the discussion of Bonds going to an AL team and DHing, Steve Phillips just showed his dismay by describing Bonds as "just like Giambi in that he walks a lot and hits some home runs, but when he's not hitting the home runs he's a baseclogger."
I did not see it. I assume he meant this in the pejorative sense.
If true, congratulations Steve Phillips, you have said the dumbest thing that anyone can say about baseball. Barry Bonds is (in the negative sense) a "baseclogger."
I was listening to ESPN Radio the other day -- SportsBash, I think -- and the first "who should be in the All-Star Game" moron call-in session was happening. Some guy called in to vote against Bonds, because he hasn't hit a HR in a while, and he "just hasn't been that good this year."
Barry Bonds is a bad dude, who used drugs and lied about it and cheated on his taxes and stuff. But he is the 6th-best baseball player all-time, and best active, in terms of not making outs. Which is, and apparently we still have to point this out -- the only real goal of baseball players.
His OBP this year is .487. At the age of like 70. His OBP, career, is .444. He is the all-time leader in walks.
Bonds, Henderson, and Ruth are your top three all-time in walks. Henderson, Bonds, Ruth are 1-2-4 all-time in runs. This is not a coincidence.
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.
I Think We're Overrating Everyday Players Here, Steve
Steve Phillips, calling the Red Sox-Mariners game today:
If you're an everyday player in the major leagues, you have to do something special. You either have to be a power hitter, you have to run and steal bases, and if you don't do either of those, you better be a .320 hitter or a guy that hits over .300 and make solid plays defensively. And that's really what Dustin Pedroia is going to have to do to lock himself into that role every day here in Boston.
Let's break it down.
If you're an everyday player in the major leagues
like Jack Wilson or Geoff Jenkins
you have to do something special
like Jay Gibbons and Ronnie Belliard do.
You either have to be a power hitter, you have to run and steal bases,
These things are of absolutely equal value.
and if you don't do either of those, you better be a .320 hitter
14 people in the major leagues did this last year.
or a guy that hits over .300 and make solid plays defensively.
37 people in all of baseball hit .300 in 2006. There are approximately 240 "everyday" position players. (Not counting DHs, platoons, etc.)
And that's really what Dustin Pedroia is going to have to do to lock himself into that role every day here in Boston.
Dustin Pedroia is the everyday starting second baseman for the Boston Red Sox. At this point, he's going to have to play himself out of that role.
Other than that, perfectly legitimate paragraph, there, Steve.
Okay, I lied. It's pretty terrible. It is, after all, Steve Phillips we're talking about here.
Let me ask you something. If you click on a link that says "Steve Phillips: Best tools in the game" and then you see a headline that says "Identifying those with the best tools in the game" and then you read a first sentence that says "Baseball is built on five tools: hitting for average, hitting for power, throwing, fielding and running," don't you expect to read an article about, I don't know, the guys who have the best tools in the game?
You might, but you would be wrong to expect such a thing, because you have entered the Steve Phillips Zone, where the rules of logic have no meaning and a man can say he's going to write about one thing but then just give up midway through the first paragraph and ramble on about whatever he feels like. A better name for this article would be "An Arbitrary List of Things I Think About Eighteen Players, Groups of Players, or Managers." Plus, to wrap everything up, there's a sixth category -- chemistry -- on the guys who have a sixth sense for creating it.
Perfect.
Let me interrupt Steve by pointing out that he himself has identified what are traditionally considered the five tools. They are, in his own words:
hitting for average hitting for power throwing fielding running
Before we even read the article, let's skim the subheadings and see what he lists as tools:
Sticks Muscle Arms Gloves Wheels Chemistry
"Sticks" -- okay, that's hitting for average. "Muscle" -- power. "Arms" -- that means throwing guys out, like Andruw Jones, right? No. This is where Steve Phillips lists pitchers. Because a five-tool guy is a guy who can hit for average, hit for power, field his position, run fast, and pitch a no-hitter, all in the same game. I think Barry Bonds did this once in 1987.
Basically, by the second sentence of the article, Phillips acknowledges he's just going to Larry-King-in-USA-Today this thing and wing it:
Here's a look at the players whose skills, or lack thereof, in each area could make or break their teams.
Here's a look at players who may be good or may be bad at things and thus may confer good or bad results on their teams, depending on if they're good or bad at the things.
This is what Phillips has to say about Adam Dunn:
If he focused on contact, he could hit 50 homers and drive in 150.
This seems like sort of a tall order. Albert Pujols, the awesomest hitter in baseball, has never hit 50 homers or driven in 150 runs, ever. All Dunn has to do is focus on contact for a historically great season? Jesus, get on that, Adam.
Dunn has 12 sacrifice flies in five full seasons; Justin Morneau had 11 last year.
This is a common criticism of Dunn, but I'm not so sure it's that big a deal. This guy notes that in 2003 and 2004, Dunn fucked up some sac fly opportunities because with a runner on third and less than two outs, 50% of his fly balls went for home runs. Whoops!
Here's what Phillips thinks about Tigers pitchers:
Tigers pitchers
A lasting memory from the 2006 Series is of Tigers pitchers throwing wildly to first and third bases. As isolated incidents, the errors aren't a big deal. In the Series they were huge, like Tony Romo's dropping the snap in the NFL playoffs. We'll know the Tigers are over it only when the pitchers make several plays after an error.
Does he really think the entire Tiger pitching staff is going to turn into a bunch of Knoblauchs because of last year's Series? These are the words of a crazy person. CHEMISTRY
Bob Wickman, RHP, Braves
Because they sit in the bullpen and work one inning at a time, it's not often that closers are team leaders. But there are many things about Wickie that his teammates admire. He cares more than most, he knows more than most and he makes sense when he speaks. Plus, he has overachieved with mediocre stuff.
This guy is a leader because "he makes sense when he speaks." He can walk without falling down. He eats food instead of rocks. He wears clothes instead of refrigerators. He is a chemist. Eric Chavez, 3B, A's
Last season, forearm problems sapped Chavez's strength and power. Many players would have opted out of the lineup to protect their stats, but Chavez knew the team needed his D, leadership and whatever offense he could provide. The A's made the playoffs by taking on the personality of their gritty and determined third baseman.
He gritted Frank Thomas to a 41.3 VORP and he gritted Nick Swisher to a .372 OBP. Glue guy. Grit guy. Glue grit. If he were in a band, it would be called Motley Glue. If he were a seminal 1941 John Crowe Ransom essay, he would be called "The New Griticism."
Anyway, there you go. A list of the guys with the best tools in baseball.
It's Baseball Tonight Bold Prediction Time! You may recall Krukie's brilliant "Randy Johnson will win 30 games" prophecy in 2005. (I certainly do, fondly.) I love that the producers force these already mentally-taxed guys to make increasingly outlandish, totally baseless guesses just so the graphic beneath them can say they're "bold." The on-air guys are doing poorly enough on their own. Now you're basically holding a gun to their head until they crack and say that Jason Schmidt will record 400 strikeouts.
You're up, Orestes Destrade:
All right, you want bold? I'll give you bold.
He says this in a totally unconvincing tone of voice.
Ichiro Suzuki will be the first guy to hit .400 since Ted Williams. How about that?
He clearly doesn't believe this. Why are you making him say this thing? This is great.
If he can walk more and strike out less, this guy has the opportunity to do that.
Ichiro has walked more than 49 times once in his career. As a point of reference, the year Ted Williams hit .406, he walked 147 times. It was only the fourth-highest walk total of his career.
And by the way, he's a free agent. 20% spike. They have done a survey and it's quantifiable. 20% spike. Guys that are in their survey year.
What? What "survey" is he talking about? Can anyone produce this for us? Also, it's solid gold that he ends this insane rant by mumbling "Guys that are in their survey year," a nonsense phrase that got stuck in his brain because he just said the word "survey" (and used that incorrectly).
Steve Phillips goes with the following retarded nonsense: Alex Rodriguez is going to be the MVP of the All-Star Game, the 2007 season, he's going to be the MVP of the World Series.
Who the fuck cares about the All-Star Game? This prediction made me laugh out loud.
He's going to finally become a Yankee,
This actually happened February 17, 2004. Unless you left out the word "True."
and he's going to opt out of his contract for next year.
So Steve Phillips understood the request "make a bold prediction" as "make five predictions and combine them together in an awkward list."
This segment has proved that in the context of the Baseball Tonight Bold Prediction, bold = crazy = pointless. Great TV, gentlemen.
Peter Gammons goes with "Grady Sizemore is going to be the MVP" and follows it up with some numbers or some shit. WRONG. Too defensible. Too uncrazy. Totally unpointless.
Just as a reminder, there was a chapter in Baseball Prospectus's "Baseball Between the Numbers" that showed something like a 10% boost in walk-year performance.
Baseball Prospectus used WARP to compare the walk years of 212 "prominent" free agents ('76 to '00) with their immediate pre- and post-walk years. Dayn Perry found that players experience a 9.4% spike in their WARP. Further, the average age of these FAs was 31, so the spike is probably not age-related. Perry also found that players played/pitched in more games in their walk years, by a margin of 6.3 pre-walk and 4.8 post-walk.
Karl Ravech is killing it out there. Take this exchange with Steve Phillips:
SP: Jeff Kent in the walk year of his contract, motivated to put up big numbers. They lacked power last year. They lacked Jason Kent's production -- er, Jeff Kent's production. I think they are a very well balanced team with great pitching.
KR: (skeptical) Is there tangible evidence that in a walk year, players produce better numbers?
SP: I don't think there's any question about it. Motivation -- particularly Jeff Kent. He's always put up huge numbers in that last year.
KR: (Tired, so very tired of all of this even though the year has only just begun. Seriously, he asked this question in a hilariously weary-sounding voice. This question was basically an eight-word-long verbal sigh.) What motivates you, Peter, in the NL West?
We Need the Bad Starting Pitcher Named Zambrano. Why Don't We Just Trade 'Em That Centerfielder, What's His Name? Kazmir?
Steve Phillips on Baseball Tonight: The Red Sox are closing in on a deal with the Padres with third baseman George Kottaras coming back (for David Wells). George Kottaras (a man with his own Wikipedia page!) has played all but three games at catcher this year. The other three were at DH.
EDIT: Trading Kazmir for Zambrano was not a Phillips move, of course. That was Jim Duquette. But would it have surprised you to see Phillips do something like that?
Of course, this is coming from a man who supports a team whose front office traded Mike Gonzalez and Freddy Sanchez for Jeff Suppan.
BETTER EDIT: This is extremely confusing. Let's just forget I wrote that headline. The new title post should read: "Minor Factual Error on Baseball Tonight Noticed, Then Needlessly Blogged About."
WILL THIS BE THE FINAL EDIT? EDIT: Reader Ryan correctly takes me to task:
The Red Sox didn’t trade Mike Gonzalez and Freddy Sanchez for Jeff Suppan. Mike Gonzalez was originally part of the Scott Sauerbeck deal, but when Pittsburgh discovered an injury to Brandon Lyon (one of two players they were getting back in the deal, along with Anastacio Martinez,) they accused the Red Sox of foul play, and so Boston, as a show of good faith, took Brandon Lyon (and Anastacio Martinez) back and returned Mike Gonzalez. When all was said and done it was essentially a Sanchez-for-Suppan-and-Sauerbeck deal. Still not a good deal, but not as terrible as people would have you believe.
When Sauerbeck was traded he did an interview with the Boston media and referred to himself cockily as a "curveball-flipping freak." I remember reading that and thinking, "This is not going to go well."
Today, I am happy to say I was wrong. Congratulations, Scotty Sauerbeck, on your induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame!
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.
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.
The story goes that when the Beatles were recording songs for "Sgt. Pepper's," Paul came in one day with "Getting Better," and, to his bandmates, sang the chorus:
Got to admit, it's getting better, It's getting better, all the time.
To which John added:
...It can't get no worse.
Now, let's put this anecdote in our collective pocket and visit the Kansas City Star :
The Royals denied a broadcast report Wednesday night that general manager Allard Baird had been fired with the intent to hire former Mets GM Steve Phillips as his replacement.
I hope someone else is watching Baseball Tonight right now, because I want to be sure I'm not experiencing some sort of FJM-wish-fulfillment hallucination.
Your lineup: Karl Ravech John Kruk Harold Reynolds Steve Phillips
Andy Pettitte's getting lousy run support tonight, and Ravech asks his friends, the baseball experts, how you get run support. My first reaction: that is a bad question, Mr. Ravech, sir, and I believe the correct answer is that you get run support by having a team that is good at scoring runs, plain and simple. That, and being lucky. My second reaction: three men are about to embarrass themselves on national TV. And they do not disappoint.
(GRAPHIC: (I shit you not) Harold: it's easier to hit with poor starting pitching)
He means poor starting pitching on your own team.
HR: I think a lot of times you see these clubs with great pitchers, and the great pitchers struggle to get runs, I think a lot of times, teams go in there and go, "We're not going to get a whole lot of runs today, you know, with this guy pitching." I think a lot of times when you have poor pitching (he really punches these two words) going, you know you gotta score some runs! (Really emphatic there.) And it becomes a mindset. You change the style of play that you play, you end up trying to bang a little bit more, you do a lot of things differently. I think when you know you have to score runs, it changes your style of offense.
Harold Reynolds must have a Ph.D. in mind-reading from the Sorbonne. It's easier to hit with poor starting pitching? "Easier"??? This is astonishing news. No wonder the Yankees are such good hitters. They're always trying to bang a little more, what with Jaret Wright constantly bumbling on the mound in the other half of the inning. Honestly, guys, who's going to acknowledge that the pitcher isn't responsible for getting his own guys to hit? Oh no, John Kruk is about to talk.
JK: See, I think it's easier to score runs when you have a pitcher on your side who's pitching for you --
As opposed to the embedded spy pitchers.
-- that is a great pitcher, because you know you don't have to score that many. And what it does, is, you know if you go up with a runner on third with less than two outs and you don't bring the run in, you think to yourself, "All right, well, so what? They're not going to score either. We'll have more opportunities."
So Krukie disagrees with Harold, but only because he thinks the exact opposite -- guys perform better for good pitchers! He did it -- he said the only thing that could possibly be dumber than what Harold said!
JK: Problem is, when you have a bad pitcher, and you don't deliver --
KR: (dull monotone) You're dead.
Ravech glassy-eyed, barely functioning.
JK: You know you're done!
(Crosstalk.)
HR: That means you gotta execute all the time!
JK: Not with a great pitcher. You can relax with a great pitcher.
HR: With a bad pitcher, you got to score runs.
This is amazing. You've got two guys arguing, extremely agitated, unbelievably passionate, and they're both wrong. It's like watching two Visigoths argue over whether the earth is square or shaped like the outline of a duck. Will somebody please speak up for reason? For logic? For just plain common sense?
SP: You're both wrong.
Thank you.
Because I don't think it's about the quality of the pitcher, it's about the pitcher and the atmosphere he creates for the team.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
(GRAPHIC:
Steve: pitchers earn their run support)
What the hell? Do you think he really believes this? Does Steve Phillips really think that Freddy Garcia (5.96 RS in 2005) "earned" better run support than Mark Buehrle (4.15) last year? How about David Wells (7.97) and Tim Wakefield (4.79)? The Red Sox hitters gave their all for someone pretty much everyone agrees is a grade-A asshole and phoned it in for a devout Christian who loves his wife and kids? (Note: may not be accurate representation of either man.) Is that what happened?
There's a rhythm and a flow that happens to a team when things are going well. When you're scoring runs, when you're playing well -- pitchers who work too quickly sometimes get their hitters out of a flow; they work too slowly, they get out of the flow. And when you have a star on the mound, sometimes everybody stands around and watches. Roger Clemens shut out nine times last year when he pitched for the Astros -- shut out seventeen times. I just think it's about the environment that the pitcher creates!
Oh, that's why Johan Santana got the best run support of anyone on the Twins last year. Because he's not a star.
HR: You're not watching when you're hitting! He ain't pitching against you!
SP: It's about the environment that the pitcher creates.
KR: (incredulous) You believe that? (dripping with sarcasm) They're so enamored with Clemens, they're just -- they can't do anything?
To be fair, Karl, you brought this up. Or maybe this was a bad producer's idea.
SP: I think they watch on days he pitches.
JK: (outraged) If that's the case, then the Houston Astros -- apologies to them -- they are the dumbest hitters in the world. If they're watching their pitcher and not concentrating on scoring runs, they're the dumbest team in the baseball [sic] and I don't believe they are.
But, but -- you just said guys hit better for good pitchers ... meaning they hit worse for bad pitchers. Why is that any less crazy? Steve is talking about environment or flow or rhythm or whatever bullshit he just came up with off the top of his head, but you're clearly just guessing when you say guys are more "relaxed" when good pitchers are on the mound.
KR: (incredibly sorry he brought the whole thing up)
I guess I'll keep watching this good show about baseball!
I thought they could get through a whole one-hour episode of Baseball Tonight without saying something outrageously, brain-stem-tinglingly dumb. Of course, I was a fool to have any faith in the Murderer's Row of Idiots that is Chris Berman, John Kruk, Harold Reynolds and Steve Phillips. Thirty-eight minutes in, we were treated to the following exchange:
Chris Berman: Who's the best lefty right now in your guys' minds, other than Phil Mickelson, in the bigs?
Clever. Topical. Phil Mickelson is in the news.
Steve Phillips: Well, I'm gonna tell you, I'm gonna go a little bit different because I know that these two guys over here are rather predictable with their picks. I'm gonna go with Cliff Lee of the Cleveland Indians.
Cue highlight package of Cliff Lee accomplishing his astounding tied-for-25th in the majors WHIP of 1.22 last year. This didn't happen, but it should've.
SP: Won 18 games last year. 18 and 5. This young guy is coming into his own as a pitcher. I think over the next few years, he's going to emerge as one of the best lefties in the game. There's no question about it. This kid has dominating stuff. He can get the strikeout. He gets the ground balls, and he pitches in big games. Cliff Lee, developing into one of the best lefties in the game.
The analysis on BBTN has sunk to new lows, even for these guys. Picking Cliff Lee as the best lefty in the game is basically a direct "f you" to the viewing audience. Steve Phillips is essentially saying "I will feed you blatant misinformation if you continue to watch this show. Everything I say will in fact be the opposite of true. I know nothing about baseball."
The correct answer is Johan Santana.
(Crosstalk.)
SP: (Preemptively defensive, anticipating a well-deserved skewering.) Okay, give me some predictability now.
Harold Reynolds: (Incredulous.) I like Cliff Lee. C.C. Sabathia is the best pitcher -- the best lefty on that team!
Incredible. Harold Reynolds, in responding to one of the stupider statements of our lifetimes, manages to be nearly as wrong as Phillips. Last year, Cliff Lee was better than C.C. Sabathia in almost every way. Better WHIP, better ERA, better ERA+, more innings, even more wins, which isn't important, but still. It's close between the two, but if you look at the 2005 results, it's hard to make an argument for Sabathia. You could perhaps justify saying Sabathia is better based on his fine 2003 season, but he's been in decline for the past two years.
Anyway, Reynolds goes on to pick Randy Johnson, which is borderline defensible. John Kruk, of all people, saves the day and picks Santana. Thank you, John Kruk, for being right for the first time in your life.
Hats off to reader "thedudes2212," who has this to say about Steve Phillips's choice of Cliff Lee, and his assertion that Lee can "get the groundballs":
Cliff Lee lifetime G/F: 0.76 lgAVG G/F: around 1.2 Cliff Lee G/F rank among qualified starters in 2005: 88th of 93
On his list of the top 50 free agents, he puts Paul Byrd (last three years, ERA+'s of 112, 110 and 132), a very reasonable middle-0f-the-rotation starter, at #49, three spots below #46, the corpse of Bernie Williams (OPS+ of 81 last year), a man who not only can no longer hit major league pitching, but was also so bad at playing center field his manager was forced to put Tony Womack out there.
Phillips on Williams:
He has been a big part of the great Yankee run over the last decade or so. Moving on, he would be a good fit on a younger team that is learning how to win where he can serve as a mentor and semi-regular player.
So a "mentor and semi-regular player" (read: bench guy) is more valuable than someone who can eat 200 innings with better-than-average results?
Phillips also believes Sammy Sosa (82 OPS+) and 4,823-year-old Jamie Moyer are better bets than Byrd. Byrd, apparently, is responsible for getting Alias cancelled, and that's, like, Steve Phillips' favorite show.
...has an opinion on the ten best moves of the 2005 off-season. Here's one:
6. Carlos Lee, Milwaukee Brewers for 7. Scott Podsednik, Chicago White Sox: These two are linked together forever now. This trade was one of those great baseball trades. It satisfied obvious needs for both teams and made both teams better. Lee is coming into his own. If he commits himself to getting in better shape, I think there is another level in his production.
Podsednik gave the White Sox their personality and style. He defined them for the first half of the season. What really proves his importance to the Sox is the fact that his leg issues have reduced his impact on the game and has, in turn, changed Chicago's approach as evidenced by their second-half swoon.
I thought we were done with this.
Scott Podsednik and his .699 OPS and his 0 HR did not help the White Sox win very many games. What did help them win games, in the first half, was extraordinary starting pitching and a very good bullpen. Scott Podsednik's injury coincided with a natural regression to the mean for their pitchers.
Carlos Lee has 32 HR this year. He has an .836 OPS and 40 doubles. He even has -- for those of you who care -- 12 SB and has only been caught 4 times. Does anybody really think that the White Sox offense would be worse if Carlos Lee were still on the team? Still?
