FJM has gone dark for the foreseeable future. Sorry folks. We may post once in a while, but it's pretty much over.
You can still e-mail dak,Ken Tremendous,Junior,Matthew Murbles, or Coach.
What a week. Mrs. Tremendous and I moved last Sunday, to a slightly larger house right outside Partidge, KS, in South Hutchinson. The friendly confines of Partridge were a little too confining...because Mrs. Tremendous is expecting! That's right, friends. It is my great joy to announce that Mrs. Tremendous is with child, and that little Timothy McCarver Joseph Morgan HatBoy Tremendous will arrive in our world sometime next Spring. I am as proud as a basement-dwelling Insurance Pension Plan Monitor can be.
But back to what's really important: this blog. In my distracted absence, I have neglected my duties, and that ends today. Let's check in with Joe, as he checks in with his perpetually-confused readers.
Joe Morgan: It's been a very unusual postseason, with all the sweeps. They surprised me because most of the teams were evenly matched. It just tells how a bounce here and there or a call here or there can change everything.
Ken Tremendous: Please remember that when you talk about how important wins are as a pitching stat.
Jon (Audubon, NJ): What should the Rockies concetrate on over the next 9 days until the World Series starts?
KT: Oh, Jon. Your use of "concetrate" warms my heart.
Joe Morgan: It's going to be difficult to stay sharp, because hitting is something you need to keep your timing on. It's difficult to do because unless you're facing game action, it's tough to keep your timing. Intrasquad games don't do it very well because there is not the same intensity. It's probably easier for pitchers to stay sharp. In any case, it'll be difficult for them to stay at the level they're playing at now.
KT: Possibly. Also, their pitchers get a ton of rest and they can travel comfortably and have won 20 out or 21 or something, so they're sitting kind of pretty, I'd say. Who knows. What do you guys think of "Plaschke" as a first name?
Jug (Benicia): Which team has the best home field advantage Joe? Rockies, Red Sox or Indians? Each park is so unique?
Joe Morgan: I would say the Red Sox and Rockies because of the way the game is played in their parks. Fenway has the Green Monster, which they take advantage of, and balls fly out of Coors, so positioning is important. Those ballparks confer a unique advantage to the home team.
KT: Balls fly out of Coors Field...so positioning is important. It is important to position the outfielders in the left field bleachers. Then they can catch those balls. Also, the Indians, Red Sox, Rockies, and D-Backs had nearly identical home-away records this year. For what it's worth.
Seth (Denver, CO): Mr. Morgan, how do you feel about the Rockies current run compared to what you and the Reds accomplished in '76? Even as a Rockies fan I must admit the Reds' run in the playoffs, at least to this point, is more impressive, but do you see similarities in how the Rox have handled themselves during this streak and the great Reds' team that went undefeated in the postseason?
KT: How is Joe going to claim that being 6.5 out on Sep. 15th and 2 out with 2 to play and then winning a one-game playoff and sweeping two postseason series is not as impressive than what the 1976 Reds did? Let's find out!
Joe Morgan: I have to say that the Rockies' streak is very impressive, because in my opinion, a lot of the teams that they played were equally matched up against them. To win seven games against teams that are your equal is more impressive than what the Reds did, because that team set a lot of records and were "the team". The only other difference would be that the Rockies did it against teams they were familiar with.
Ah. Very clever. He says that the 1976 Reds were so good that nothing they did was really impressive because they were just so damn good.
Jeremy (Blacksburg, VA): how long do you think the game will be between slow pitching byrd and wakefield?
Joe Morgan: I don't think it'll be five hours and fifteen minutes, but obviously it will not be played at a fast pace. Wakefield will throw a lot of pitches, will walk some guys, and let up some steals, and Byrd will pitch carefully. It will not be a faster-paced game like last night's was.
KT: Time of game: 3:12. Time of previous game: 3:28. Why do people keep insisting that Wakefield is a slow pitcher?
Ryan (San Francisco): These Sox are killing me. Their offense is just not playing consistent baseball. Maybe they should stop trying to blast HR's and try a little small ball. With the number of guys in that lineup who could potentially reach Coopertown one day, there is not excuse to only get two runs off of Westbrook.
KT: Oh, Ryan. Such lovely Joe-baiting. Coopertown. Small ball. Maybe I'm just emotional because my wife has produced an heir to the Tremendous family name, but...God love ya!
Joe Morgan: I talked to David Ortiz yesterday, and this reflects back to the question about the Rockies and their 9-day layoff. David Ortiz told me they'd only played five games in 14 days. That doesn't keep you sharp as a hitter, although he's hit the ball as hard as possible each time. That could be part of the problem, having that many layoffs of games in between. They'll have another off day after today. It will be a problem for the Rockies as well.
KT: Indians don't seem to be having a problem. Maybe it's...good pitching? Nah.
Pete (Miami): Is Todd Helton a Hall of Fame player?
Joe Morgan: A Hall of Fame player is supposed to be the dominant player at your position during your era, so you could answer the question yourself using that criteria. Has he been the dominant first baseman in his era?
KT: I'm thinking Joe means: no, he is not. Now, Helton is only 33, and obviously the next few years will tell us yea or nay. But his career line is .332/.430/.583, and his career EqA is .315, and he's an excellent fielder. I'd say he has a decent shot. How about "Big Red Machine Tremendous?" Is that good?
Brosef (NJ): Is Kaz Matsui this years David Eckstein in the playoffs?
Joe Morgan: Any time you go into the playoffs or World Series, guys who are unheralded have a chance to stand out more, because they will pitch to them more. David Ortiz has walked a lot of times, for instance, so they will not pitch to him like they will to a guy like Kaz Matsui.
KT: For the last time, (not really), David Eckstein is heralded. He's wildly heralded. Everyone in the sports journalism world heralds David Eckstein. He is actually way way over-heralded. How else can a guy who was 8-41 with 2 extra-base hits in the 2006 NLDS and NLCS emerge from that postseason and be considered a clutch playoff hitter?
Andrew (Toledo): Does Ryan have a counting problem, I only see one sure fire bet for the Hall from the Sox (Manny) and one maybe (Ortiz). Is the Red Sox lineup overrated?
Joe Morgan: I'm starting to wonder if a lot of lineups are overrated during the regular season. The Yankees scored tons of runs not just this year, but last year as well, and they got shut down in the playoffs both years.
KT: You think the Yankees' line-up was overrated? Seriously? How? How can that be? They had seven regulars score 90+ runs. They led the league in runs. They led the league in hits. They led the league in HR and were 3rd in walks. They led the league in OBP, SLG, and thus OPS, and OPS+. They hadn't seen Carmona or Sabathia at all during the regular season***, and lost a best-of-five series to those dudes, and your conclusion is that the Yankee offense is overrated?!
Mike, Brunswick Ohio: Who do you think wins? Cleveland or Boston?
Joe Morgan: The edge goes to Cleveland, because I think their pitching is set up better than Boston's is.
And because when you wrote this they were up 2-1 in the series.
Jon (Audubon, NJ): Why do some players like Eric Byrnes get a pass when they have a bad series because they play the game hard, but guys like Alex Rodriguez get blasted by the fans and media for not being clutch? Shouldnt all players be judged the same way, as one series is such a small sample size of overall performance?
KT: Jon, you're insane. Take this "logic" and shove it, friend. Leave baseball analysis to the experts, and go look at some birds or something. Am I right?
Joe Morgan: Unfortunately, the world is not fair, and baseball is the same way. If you look at it another way, Jeter was three for 17 and grounded into three key doubles plays, but there's nothing said about him because he's done well before. You're right; Byrnes and the other players should be judged the same way on a series-by-series basis, but it's not the way of the world. Personally, I think all players play hard, especially in the playoffs, but players like Byrnes, who I like a lot, have effort that is easier to see than someone else's.
I'm suspicious. I don't think Joe wrote this. I think he had a coughing fit and Rob Neyer snuck into the booth or something.
Joe Morgan: The one thing I have noticed is that I don't think the umpiring has been as consistent in these few games that I've seen. I'm not used to it being this inconsistent. The umpring has been a little erratic in the games that I've seen, though I have not seen each and every game. Even some of the calls on the bases have not been consistent. Thanks for your questions!
If this is the last JoeChat of the year, I am very glad that we got a send-off with three "consistents" in one paragraph. At least he's consistent.
Also, by "consistent" here, I think he means "accurate."
The Yankees did, in fact,face Carmona twice during the regular season, once in each of the two series the clubs played. You can look things like this up on the Internet:
Imagine the strength of the Red Sox' rotation if they had the good sense to get rid of 87-year-old Tim Wakefield. The knuckeball act has become dreadfully tedious; even the Yankees own him. He's had some nice moments over the years, but it's time to join the cows and the sheep out on the pasture.
I was curious as to why Jenkins has it in for Wake, so I invited him to come with me to a Sox-Giants interleague game in beautiful AT&T Park. Here's my transcript of that totally real event that happened:
(Ken Tremendous and Jenkins settle into their seats in the Club Level. Ken has one of those awesome cheese-infused sausages they sell; Jenkins, fairly drunk already, holds an egg crate filled with eleven beers and one hot dog. He also has a flask filled with Old Grandad whiskey, and a wineskin overflowing with chablis.)
(For some reason -- and I did not expect this -- he speaks with a slight British accent.)
Bruce Jenkins: My my, what a lovely day. Ken Tremendous: Yes, it sure is. Careful! Oops...
(Jenkins has spilled six of the eleven beers all over his shirt. He does not seem to notice.)
BJ: Tell me, Mr. Tremendous, is this the first professional baseball game you've ever seen? KT: Um, no -- I've seen, like, hundreds of -- look out! Oh boy.
(Jenkins has taken a bite of his hot dog; the entire dog squirted out the other end of the bun, falling on his lap. There is now a copious amount of relish and ketchup leaking through his unzipped fly.)
BJ: (gnawing happily on the empty hot dog bun) You were saying? KT: Yes, um, I've been to hundreds of games. BJ: (chuckles) Really. Because you being a "web logger" and all, I just assumed that you would spend all your time-- KT: -- in my mom's basement. BJ: (simultaneously) -- in your mom's basement!! KT: Very clever. BJ: Zing! I zinged you, m'boy! KT: Yes, you did. Well played. BJ: You web-log all you want, Kenneth. Endulge yourself in imaginary statistics like "VORP," HEEP, SKANK and VLZSKS. I'll be out here in the sun, talking about a little thing I like to call "Runs Batted In." (Belches loudly.) KT: Okay. So, listen -- about this thing you wrote about Tim Wakefield... BJ: Oh my, yes. His knuckleball act has become dreadfully tedious. The Red Stockings should put him out to pasture! KT: He did get roughed up by the Yankees -- a very good hitting club -- and he's struggled recently. But the guy isn't bad. Every year, he's good for 180 innings and a 4.20ish DIPS. Isn't that good for a fourth starter?
(Jenkins stares at me blankly.)
BJ: What did you call me? KT: (confused) What? I didn't call you anything. BJ: You listen to me, you rogue! You blackguard! I didn't fight in the Boer War to be insulted by a man who probably still lives in his mom's basement! (chuckles to himself) KT: I wasn't insulting you. I was just pointing out that no matter what kind of pitch the guy throws, he's a pretty good fourth starter. I mean, the Sox only pay him $4 million a year, and his K/IP ratio is better than Mark Buehrle's. BJ: Blorrrmp.
(Jenkins has vomited a little. I help him clean off his chin)
KT: There we go. You okay? BJ: Listen, I don't care what your so-called "statistics" say. The man's act has become dreadfully tedious.
(He produces a partially-eaten grilled cheese sandwich from his waistcoat and washes down the bite with a long draw off the wineskin.)
KT: Yes, you mentioned that. But what-- BJ: I mean, where is the man's fastball?! Where is the challenge pitch? Where is the wicked googly? KT: Is that...a curveball? Because he throws a curveball occasionally. And no matter what, the guy has had a 100-or-above ERA+ in 13 out of his 15 years. That's pretty good. BJ: Will you stop spouting statistics, you mom's-basement-dweller?! Where are you even getting this information? KT: From my Blackberry. BJ: (eyes light up) A blackberry? Sounds delicious!
(He eats my Blackberry.)
KT: Oh boy. BJ: (licking fingers) Excellent. KT: I needed that. BJ: Look, Ken Tremendous -- if that is your real name! KT: It's not. BJ: This game is about traditions, my friend. It isn't called "NumbersBall." It's called "Rounders." KT: "Baseball." BJ: And Rounders just isn't Rounders without the sweet smell of the chalk, and the loud crack of rawhide in the Snufflebucket, and the crisp feeling of flerbits in the mrrrrph mrrgggle...
(Jenkins is fast asleep. I gently take the wineskin off his back and wrap him in my new Noah Lowry jersey. The first pitch is thrown, and I settle in to watch a baseball game.)
(Two hours later, Jenkins offers his final salvo...)
Re: Bruce Jenkins' gem about pitchers with ERAs over 4.00 (specifically, 4.29) being lousy.
Noticed this, from Jenkins' column a couple days ago:
"Barry Zito's brilliance was there for all to see, particularly a handful of clowns in the New York media who dismissed Zito as a flake last winter, when the Mets were in the running to sign him as a free agent (between the lines, Zito is about as flaky as an anvil)."
Barry Zito's ERA this year is 4.21, and he's "an anvil."
Tim Wakefield's is 4.24.
The fictional pitcher from Jenkins' Sept. 2005 column had a 4.29.
I am not a trained psychologist, but I can say with 100% certainty that Newsday's Wallace Matthews has serious emotional problems. How else to explain this bizarre ad hominem attack on Tim Wakefield?
If the commissioner of baseball truly wants to get to the bottom of one of the great mysteries of his game, he can shelve the steroid investigation and start looking into how Tim Wakefield has managed to get away with his act for the past 15 years.
Let's just get a few facts and figures out of the way right off the bat, here. In his career, Tim Wakefield has thrown almost 2500 IP at an ERA+ of 109. That's pretty solid. Only twice has he ended the season with a below-league-average ERA+. In 2002 he had a 157 ERA+ and a WHIP just over 1.0. This year, at the age of 40, he has a 139 ERA+ in 57 IP. That's pretty darned good for a fourth starter.
In 1995, he was 3rd in the Cy Young voting and 13th in the MVP voting.
Let's face it, we already know that Juicin' Giambi, among many others, took steroids, that baseball's greatest batting records are already either irrevocably tainted or soon about to be, and that at least three of its MVP awards were won by cheaters under false pretenses.
What I want to know is, how in the world has Wakefield been able to draw a major-league paycheck since 1992 with the kind of stuff you generally see at a family barbecue?
What is your deal, man? How does this have anything to do with steroids, even in an over-the-top facetious way? Seriously, what are you talking about? The guy is a rock-solid MLB pitcher. He has better numbers year-in year-out than the majority of the other MLB pitchers. In this day and age, if a guy can throw the ball backwards over his head lefthanded and post a 109 ERA+ over 2500 innings, he's going to be very successful. In fact, one could argue that Wakefield's contract, which pays him $4 million a year in perpetuity at his team's discretion, is one of the absolute best veteran contracts in all of MLB for any team. His knuckleball, or whatever you want to call it, is a bigger menace to the game than steroids, growth hormone or Clomid will ever be. Okay. Even though you're joking, this is actually offensive to me. This is the sports journalism equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. You need to apologize for this. I'm not kidding.
When Wakefield is pitching, the game moves slower than David Ortiz going from home to first.
Here are the times of the 8 games Wakefield has pitched in this year:
April 6: 6IP., 2:14 April 13: 7IP, 2:49 (and the Sox scored 10 runs) April 18: 7IP, 2:24 April 23: 6IP, 3:02 April 28: 5.1IP, 3:25 (nine total pitchers used, one long injury delay) May 4: 7IP, 2:33 May 10: 7IP, 2:18 May 15: 7IP, 2:45
The average time of a baseball game in 2006 was 2:51. Tim Wakefield works very quickly, and the longer he pitches, the faster the games go.
If as many guys in major-league baseball threw the knuckler as have taken performance-enhancing drugs, the game and its fans would have died of boredom years ago.
Hey! What did I just say to you? This is shitty irresponsible journalism. Steroids are actual health risks. They kill kids sometimes. MLB stood idly by and allowed them to infiltrate and generally fuck up the game that I love. Tim Wakefield is a good dude who is good at baseball. His knuckleball has nothing to do with anything bad. If anything, actually, it is a cool (and dying) link to the past. So shut the fuck up.
At 40 years old, Wakefield might not be quite ready to retire, but it certainly is time to retire his reputation as a Yankees killer. After last night, when he allowed six runs and five walks in five stupendously mind-numbing innings, his record in his last nine starts against the Yankees stands at 1-7, with an ERA of 6.00. That's not even counting the home run he allowed to Aaron Boone that put the Yankees into the 2003 World Series. In October, he's done more for this franchise than Alex Rodriguez.
Wake has struggled against the Yanks recently. But look at this game (6IP, 2H, 2R and a win) and then look at this game a few days later (7IP, 5H, 1R, and the win), and then shut the fuck up, please, again, thank you.
So before you start to think that the Yankees, who have now won two straight, are back to normal, here's one bit of advice: Now, let's see them do it against a major-league pitcher.
If you thought the Yankees were "back to normal" after salvaging one game of a 3-game series with the Mets and then winning the first game of a series with the Red Sox, making them an awesomely "back to normal" 4-6 in their last 10 games, you are already a moron, and if you think that Tim Wakefield is not a "major-league pitcher" you are a double moron, and if you just blindly write spittle-laden hate pieces against a guy because he doesn't throw fastballs despite the fact that he has pitched an an above-average level for fifteen years, you are a triple-asshole moron, which are very rare. So, this is actually quite an honor, to be reading your writing, good sir!
Wakefield may very well be the least entertaining player ever to appear in a major-league uniform, unless of course passed balls, uncontested stolen bases, endless delays between pitches and three-ball counts on every batter is your idea of fun.
Well, your claims about speed have been scientifically disproven. Passed balls are indeed an element of his game, yes, as are a lot of stolen bases. Over his career, Wake walks 3.0 per nine innings. Tom Glavine is at 2.7, as is Randy Johnson. So, there you have it. Tim Wakefield: walking one more person every three games or so than Tom Glavine and Randy Johnson.
Last night's 6-2 victory over the Red Sox at Yankee Stadium was like watching a T-ball game, only slower. There's nothing remotely entertaining about watching big-league hitters stand rock still in the box, waiting for the ball to make its interminable trip from Wakefield's hand to home plate, then rock back on their heels to swing for Westchester County.
I happen to think it's incredibly entertaining to watch him pitch. It's weird and different and fun. Perhaps you would like all pitchers to be replaced by pitching machines, and for the batter to be able to program the pitch speed and location. Now that would be some fun-style baseball!
And the only thing slower than Wakefield's knuckler is the time he wastes in between throwing it.
I have already shown you to be a moron when you make this claim. And yet you continue to make it. Your only real move right now is to resign in disgrace.
Once Terry Francona, and the rest of Yankee Stadium, had seen enough, the remainder of the game moved along in an orderly fashion. By then, of course, Wakefield had done his job, at least for the Yankees. He got Rodriguez back on track in the first inning, allowing a monstrous two-run homer, and did the same for Giambi, who claims now to be playing with the help of nothing more than orthotics for his aching feet. In fact, Giambi's performance-enhancer of choice last night was Wakefield, who served him an upper-deck homer in the second and walks in the third and fifth.
He also did wonders for Johnny Damon, who had three hits off him, and Robinson Cano, who tagged him for a double and a three-run triple. In fact, by the time Wakefield was lifted, it was hard to believe this was the same Yankees team that was sitting dead in the water, four games below .500, 10 1/2 games behind the Red Sox and 7 1/2 games out of the AL wild-card spot.
The Yankees are very good hitters. They hit all kinds of pitchers. Last night they hit Wakefield. What is your point? That Wakefield losing that game is going to propel the Yankees to a return to glory? Well, Papelbon just struck out Captain Intangibles looking, and the Yankees are right back where they were before Wake took the hill.
A sweep would still leave the Yankees 7 1/2 games out,
Irrelevant, now.
and to reach 90 wins, the minimum number any team could expect to need to eke out a playoff spot, they would have to go 70-49 the rest of the way. Under any circumstances, it is a lot to ask.
Unless, of course, they get to face Wakefield 70 more times.
Why do you hate Tim Wakefield? What is your problem? Is this just sour grapes because ther Yankees are having a bad year, or something? Seriously. I need to know. Please, Wallace Matthews, if you ever read this, e-mail me and explain this weird factually inaccurate and bizarre attack so I can sleep at night.
(I mean, Papelbon just struck out Jeter looking to end the game, so I'll sleep fine. But I would sleep better if you e-mail me and explain yourself.)
The Post Wherein I Take A Throwaway Sentence in the Penultimate Paragraph of a Murray Chass Column Absolutely Devoid of New Information or Insight ...
... and I use it to bludgeon him to death.
Look, the column is no good. Boring, stale, rehashed -- and the big revelation is an allegation by an anonymous source that gasp! the Red Sox wanted to keep Daisuke Matsuzaka away from the Yankees.
Well, no shit.
My issue is with this paragraph, which appears in an odd little below-the-dot addendum at the end of the piece: Varitek was speaking before the Red Sox abandoned their plan to make Jonathan Papelbon a starter and restored him to the closer role he filled so capably for most of last season. But his exit from the starting rotation presumably weakens it. It now has two 40-year-olds, one of whom, Tim Wakefield, had a losing record last season that might have made the difference between the Red Sox making and not making the playoffs.
Read that last sentence again. According to Murray Chass, Tim Wakefield was (okay, "might have" been) the reason the Red Sox didn't make the playoffs last year. This is sort of like blaming Azerbaijan for fucking up the war in Iraq, except a million times more egregious and important and serious.
Mr. Chass, let me explain to you how you go about not writing a sentence like that. I know you don't cotton to VORP or WARP or people who believe, as I do, that the game of baseball is played by animatronic numbers swinging bats and fielding balls. Unfortunately, this method involves a computer, which you may have to purchase, and the Internet, which you may have to look up in a dictionary and then dismiss as a fad.
Alternatively, you could probably find this information at the library with your knowledge of card catalogs and the Dewey Decimal Classification System. It would only take several more hours and ten times the work.
First, find last year's baseball standings. You will discover that the Red Sox finished eleven games behind the AL East champion Yankees and nine games behind the Wild Card Tigers. So we'll go with nine games as the ground the Sox needed to make up to reach the playoffs.
Now look up Tim Wakefield. Yahoo (don't worry about what that is) provides a record of all of the games he pitched in last year. Huh. Look at that. In 23 games started by Wakefield, the Red Sox went 11-12.
Your claim, remember, is that "Tim Wakefield had a losing record last season that might have made the difference between the Red Sox making and not making the playoffs."
11-12. Nine games out. So Tim Wakefield would've had to have willed his team to go 20-3 in his games he started in order for them to even pull into a tie with the Tigers.
I think it's pretty fair to blame him for that.
---
I'm jumping all over Chass for a minor mistake in a minor piece written before the season has even started. But I think it's a minor mistake that reflects either carelessness (if you're willing to be charitable) or a fundamental misunderstanding of very basic statistics and player value. It's like Chass saw on a piece of paper that Wakefield went 7-11 and decided he had a terrible year because hey, that's losing and losing is bad. The year before he went 16-12. That's winning! There you have it: Tim Wakefield, 2006 goat.
Here's the thing: Wakefield may have finished 16-12, but in games Wakefield started in 2005, the Red Sox went 17-16. That's basically .500. Which is basically what they did in his starts in 2006. Because that's what Tim Wakefield gives you -- league-average ERA and hopefully, lots of innings. (His last three ERA+ years have looked like this: 100, 106, 100.)
Wakefield did miss starts last year, and that hurt the Red Sox, but keep in mind that that's not what Chass is saying. No: he is saying that 7-11 (losing!) somehow damned the Red Sox to that ignominious third place finish.
See, being afraid of numbers and resistant to change and unwilling to learn new things doesn't just make you look like a sad, anachronistic old kook. It can actually hurt your writing in concrete, demonstrable ways. It can make you assert things that with an ounce of research can be shown to be patently ridiculous.
I am beginning to think that Murray Chass could improve as a sportswriter.
