The African American pitchers who have won 20 games or more in a season refer to themselves as 12 Black Aces. Dontrelle Willis just joined the club. What is shocking is that he is only the 13th member, which will necessitate a name change for the group. Here are the members:
Vida Blue;
Al Downing;
Bob Gibson;
Dwight Gooden;
Mudcat Grant;
Ferguson Jenkins;
Sam Jones;
Don Newcombe;
Mike Norris;
J.R. Richard;
Dave Stewart;
Dontrelle Willis;
Earl Wilson
Since 1947 when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, there have have been 341 twenty game seasons, involving 186 different pitchers. So 7% of the pitchers who have accomplished 20 game seasons were African American. Of the 341 seasons, 30 were by African American pitchers, or 8.8%.
Of course, 12 Black Aces do not include those black players of hispanic descent. Without trying to identify which hispanic pitchers might be considered black, clearly pitchers like Pedro Martinez, Luis Tiant and Juan Marichal would be on the list. So too Joaquin Andujar and Mike Cuellar.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Ted Williams -- Best Hispanic Player
Chevrolet and Major League Baseball have released a ballot for the greatest Latino players ever, and Ted Williams is not on it. Some people are outraged at the omission.
In my opinion, this highlights the problem with classifying people by race or origin. It isn't that simple. And it doesn't matter.
Williams had a Mexican mother and grew up in San Diego. Is he a "latino" player? That depends on how you define latino. If you define it by blood, then yes. If you define it by country of origin, or prejudices suffered, then probably not. The GM press release says they want to honor players of "latino heritage." Does "heritage" mean bloodline, or experiential heritage associated with a particular classification? To me, a list of people that only identifies players with "latin" blood is ridiculous. Who cares? What do bloodlines have to do with quality? Why even bother to classify people by race or bloodline? I thought we were trying to get past all that. What's next, the "All-Irish" team starring Dale Murphy?
Maybe MLB/Chevrolet should have called the list "Players Born in Latin American Countries" or "Players Who Were Not U.S. Citizens" or "Players Who Were Treated as Hispanic Minorities in the United States." Clearly it makes more sense to honor those who have overcome prejudices and similar hurdles, as opposed to those who have "latin" blood in their veins. I don't see the point of compiling a list of every major league player who might qualify as "latino" by blood if they didn't have the same experiences as the latinos who were foreign-born, or non-English speaking, or otherwise identified as a different group.
Although I realize I'm treading on sensitive ground, I'm trying to figure out why it matters whether Williams is included on this list. Do latinos consider Ted Williams to be a source of pride? If so, why, unless he had similar experiences in terms of barriers and prejudices? If what he most has in common with them is a latin american parent, then using Williams as a source of pride is just a statement that bloodlines have something to do with quality. "Look, our guy with some Mexican blood is better than your guy with some Scottish blood."
Was Williams vocal about being hispanic? Did he consider it a source of pride when he played? Was he a great ambassodor for latinos? Maybe he feared prejudice when he was breaking in, but after a couple of years, Williams was the "greatest hitter that ever lived". A player of that caliber had the opportunity to cause people to look past heritage and look at merit. Yet it seems we know about Williams' hispanic lineage primarily because researchers dug up the information after Williams' playing days were over. If I were hispanic, I'd be much more proud of Felipe Alou.
Of course, the reality is that Chevy doesn't care about any of this. This is a PR stunt. They (and MLB) want to ensure they are reaching the broadest possible audience and are "inclusive," particularly in light of the recent controversy involving the San Francisco radio show host's comments about hispanics. They stepped into this morass, and they'll have to deal with those who feel Williams was slighted, but Chevy and MLB should have just left it alone.
And on the other side, if you are upset about Ted Williams being excluded, let it go. I see no point in delivering up another racial or ethnic controversy just for the sake of doing it.
In my opinion, this highlights the problem with classifying people by race or origin. It isn't that simple. And it doesn't matter.
Williams had a Mexican mother and grew up in San Diego. Is he a "latino" player? That depends on how you define latino. If you define it by blood, then yes. If you define it by country of origin, or prejudices suffered, then probably not. The GM press release says they want to honor players of "latino heritage." Does "heritage" mean bloodline, or experiential heritage associated with a particular classification? To me, a list of people that only identifies players with "latin" blood is ridiculous. Who cares? What do bloodlines have to do with quality? Why even bother to classify people by race or bloodline? I thought we were trying to get past all that. What's next, the "All-Irish" team starring Dale Murphy?
Maybe MLB/Chevrolet should have called the list "Players Born in Latin American Countries" or "Players Who Were Not U.S. Citizens" or "Players Who Were Treated as Hispanic Minorities in the United States." Clearly it makes more sense to honor those who have overcome prejudices and similar hurdles, as opposed to those who have "latin" blood in their veins. I don't see the point of compiling a list of every major league player who might qualify as "latino" by blood if they didn't have the same experiences as the latinos who were foreign-born, or non-English speaking, or otherwise identified as a different group.
Although I realize I'm treading on sensitive ground, I'm trying to figure out why it matters whether Williams is included on this list. Do latinos consider Ted Williams to be a source of pride? If so, why, unless he had similar experiences in terms of barriers and prejudices? If what he most has in common with them is a latin american parent, then using Williams as a source of pride is just a statement that bloodlines have something to do with quality. "Look, our guy with some Mexican blood is better than your guy with some Scottish blood."
Was Williams vocal about being hispanic? Did he consider it a source of pride when he played? Was he a great ambassodor for latinos? Maybe he feared prejudice when he was breaking in, but after a couple of years, Williams was the "greatest hitter that ever lived". A player of that caliber had the opportunity to cause people to look past heritage and look at merit. Yet it seems we know about Williams' hispanic lineage primarily because researchers dug up the information after Williams' playing days were over. If I were hispanic, I'd be much more proud of Felipe Alou.
Of course, the reality is that Chevy doesn't care about any of this. This is a PR stunt. They (and MLB) want to ensure they are reaching the broadest possible audience and are "inclusive," particularly in light of the recent controversy involving the San Francisco radio show host's comments about hispanics. They stepped into this morass, and they'll have to deal with those who feel Williams was slighted, but Chevy and MLB should have just left it alone.
And on the other side, if you are upset about Ted Williams being excluded, let it go. I see no point in delivering up another racial or ethnic controversy just for the sake of doing it.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Felipe Alou and Racism
Last night on Outside the Lines Felipe Alou referred to Krueger as "Satan". When Bob Ley asked Alou if Krueger should be fired, Alou said "No, I don't want anyone to lose his job."
Not even Satan?
I understand why Alou and the hispanic players are upset, but Alou has said he is "shocked" that the attitude expressed by Krueger is still alive. Is he really? Does he live under a rock? Is there anyone else here who believes that racism is dead and buried, even in team sports?
Generally, blurting out a comment like this indicates an underlying attitude. It does not mean Krueger walks around overtly hating other races, but it indicates that somewhere inside he sees Latin players as not having the same "baseball intelligence" as other races. His internal conflict slipped out to see the light of day.
Nearly every white person can think of an instance where he or she has had a racist thought, even if not intentional. Some of it is conditioning, because it takes a long, long time to get racism out of the system. Until all parents are free from racism (which is not even remotely close to being true), kids will pick up on those attitudes, whether explicitly taught them or not. In each generation, more and more kids (hopefully) will reject the outdated attitudes of their parents, but inevitably, many will carry them along. It's similar to attitudes we inherit from our parents about religion, politics, the environment, etc., except that racism is clearly an incorrect attitude to hold.
Some will carry the inherited attitudes along accidentally, absentmindedly reaching for the car door lock when a black person crosses the street in front of their car, for example. Then thinking, why the hell did I just do that?
Fortunately, many are wise enough not to blurt out something stupid on the radio...but then, most don't have a radio show.
Not even Satan?
I understand why Alou and the hispanic players are upset, but Alou has said he is "shocked" that the attitude expressed by Krueger is still alive. Is he really? Does he live under a rock? Is there anyone else here who believes that racism is dead and buried, even in team sports?
Generally, blurting out a comment like this indicates an underlying attitude. It does not mean Krueger walks around overtly hating other races, but it indicates that somewhere inside he sees Latin players as not having the same "baseball intelligence" as other races. His internal conflict slipped out to see the light of day.
Nearly every white person can think of an instance where he or she has had a racist thought, even if not intentional. Some of it is conditioning, because it takes a long, long time to get racism out of the system. Until all parents are free from racism (which is not even remotely close to being true), kids will pick up on those attitudes, whether explicitly taught them or not. In each generation, more and more kids (hopefully) will reject the outdated attitudes of their parents, but inevitably, many will carry them along. It's similar to attitudes we inherit from our parents about religion, politics, the environment, etc., except that racism is clearly an incorrect attitude to hold.
Some will carry the inherited attitudes along accidentally, absentmindedly reaching for the car door lock when a black person crosses the street in front of their car, for example. Then thinking, why the hell did I just do that?
Fortunately, many are wise enough not to blurt out something stupid on the radio...but then, most don't have a radio show.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
395 feet vs. 380 ft.
After Guillen and Castilla's complaints about the outfield distances in RFK Stadium, I started thinking about how much an effect 15 feet might have. Someone mentioned a memory that the Astrodome moved its fences a couple of times and it drastically affected the hitters.
I looked at the Astrodome's dimensions over the years, using the data at Ballparks.com. In 1965, the first year of the Astrodome, the fences were, left to right 340-375-406-375-340. For some reason, they lengthened the power alleys by 15 feet, so the dimensions from 1966-1971 were 340-390-406-390.
From 1972-1976 they shortened all the dimensions to 330-378-400-378-330. Then from 1977-1984 they went back to the same dimensions as 1966-1971. Then in 1985 they shortened again to the dimensions from 1972-1976, where they stayed until 1992 when they were reduced a little to 325-375-400-375-325.
In sum, from 1966-1971 and from 1977-1984, the dimensions were longer: 340-390-406-390-340. From 1972-1976 and from 1985-1992, the dimensions were shorter: 330-378-400-378-330 (with a slight reduction in 1992).
Ignoring the first year of the park (1965) and the first year of the new dimensions (1966), the above data provides 13 years of play with the dimensions twelve feet longer in the power alleys (the "Long Years") and 13 years of play with shorter power alleys (the "Short Years"). The 378/390 switch isn't a perfect match for the 380/395 distinction that Castilla and Guillen were complaining about, but it's probably close enough. One of the reasons the Astrodome is a a great example -- apart from the similar power alley dimensions -- is that weather is a non-factor.
Here is how the Houston team hit at home and on the road during the seasons with longer and shorter power alleys. First let's look at how they did on the road during those years (season averages):
Road
The road numbers are remarkably similar for all the years from 1967-1992, so we need not be too concerned about whether the quality or style of the various Houston teams in those 26 years are skewing the home data we are about to see. Because the road numbers are essentially neutral, they will not be of further use below. But in general, it was much much harder for the Astros to hit homers in the Astrodome compared to road parks, and much easier for the Astros to hit triples -- and to some degree doubles -- in the Astrodome compared to road parks, regardless of the Astrodome's dimensions.
Now the home data for the Astros (season averages):
Home
It's a little difficult to tell the effect of the dimension changes by looking at the raw data, articularly since the batting averages are .253 for both the Long Years and Short Years, which might lead to the conclusion that the longer dimensions did not affect hitting. So let's look at some rates.
Home
Now the differences become more obvious:
Doubles: During the Long Years, one out of every 5.73 hits was a double and in the Short Years one out of every 5.63 hits was a double. So, the dimension changes did not appreciably affect doubles.
Triples: During the Long Years, one out of every 20.68 hits was a triple and in the Short Years one out of every 32.53 hits was a triple. So, lengthening the dimensions increased triples by 57%.
Home Runs: During the Long Years, one out of every 22.96 hits was a home run and in the Short Years one out of every 15.28 hits was a home run. So, lengthening the dimensions decreased home runs by 33%.
Total Bases: During the Long Years, the Astros got 1.40 total bases per hit and in the Short Years got 1.44 total bases per hit. So, the dimension changes only slightly changed total bases per hit.
Putting it all together, lengthening the power alleys (and to some extent the foul lines and center field) shifts home runs to triples.
Looking at Jose Guillen's numbers at home in RFK, he has no triples and one home run. Kind of hard to say some of his would-be homers have been reduced to mere triples when he has no triples. As I mentioned in an earlier post, using a park home run adjustment analysis, RFK suppresses home runs by about half. So based on the park analysis and the Astrodome study, at most Guillen might be able to claim he should have one additional home run at RFK. (The other complainer, Vinny Castilla, has 6 homers at home, and one triple, so he may have a claim for another 3 homers. What is odd is that Castilla has only one homer on the road in approximately the same number of at-bats).
Side note on the Houston teams:
Over baseball history, singles have been worth approximately .46 runs, doubles .80, triples 1.02 and homers 1.4. Applying those to the Long and Short Year average seasons, you get approximately 385 runs for the Long Year seasons and 406 runs for the Short Year seasons, or about a 22 run per year disadvantage with the longer dimensions. That means on the hitting side, they should have been about 2 wins worse during the Long Years, all other things being equal.
Generally clubs build their teams to suit the stadium, so during the Long Years, so it is possible the Astros may have had a little less power and more speed, and in the Short Years may have had more home run hitters. However, the road data for the Long Years and Short Years is nearly identical, indicating on balance that the Houston teams in the Long Years and Short Years were equally capable in terms of power.
Houston did not have a significant number of power hitters in the Long Years. The Toy Cannon and Doug Rader were true power hitters, and combined for 5 seasons of 20+ home runs during the Long Years. The Astros also had Bob Watson, Dickie Thon, Joe Morgan and Cesar Cedeno during the Long Years, who had 9 seasons of 20+ home runs in their careers, but only two for Houston during the Long Years. Watson and Thon, strangely, had their only 20+ homer seasons during the Long Years -- and might be stretching the limits of any power hitter definition. In all, there were only 7 player seasons of 20+ home runs in the thirteen Long Years.
In the thirteen Short Years, there were 19 player seasons with 20+ home runs. The power on those clubs was Wynn (again - 2 seasons), Rader (again - 2 seasons), Cedeno (3 seasons), Lee May (3 seasons) and Glenn Davis (6 seasons). They also got 20+ seasons from Cliff Johnson, Kevin Bass and Franklin Stubbs.
It appears, then, that the Astros were at least trying to incorporate a little more power during the Short Years.
-----
*All park data is from Retrosheet.
I looked at the Astrodome's dimensions over the years, using the data at Ballparks.com. In 1965, the first year of the Astrodome, the fences were, left to right 340-375-406-375-340. For some reason, they lengthened the power alleys by 15 feet, so the dimensions from 1966-1971 were 340-390-406-390.
From 1972-1976 they shortened all the dimensions to 330-378-400-378-330. Then from 1977-1984 they went back to the same dimensions as 1966-1971. Then in 1985 they shortened again to the dimensions from 1972-1976, where they stayed until 1992 when they were reduced a little to 325-375-400-375-325.
In sum, from 1966-1971 and from 1977-1984, the dimensions were longer: 340-390-406-390-340. From 1972-1976 and from 1985-1992, the dimensions were shorter: 330-378-400-378-330 (with a slight reduction in 1992).
Ignoring the first year of the park (1965) and the first year of the new dimensions (1966), the above data provides 13 years of play with the dimensions twelve feet longer in the power alleys (the "Long Years") and 13 years of play with shorter power alleys (the "Short Years"). The 378/390 switch isn't a perfect match for the 380/395 distinction that Castilla and Guillen were complaining about, but it's probably close enough. One of the reasons the Astrodome is a a great example -- apart from the similar power alley dimensions -- is that weather is a non-factor.
Here is how the Houston team hit at home and on the road during the seasons with longer and shorter power alleys. First let's look at how they did on the road during those years (season averages):
Road
Seasons AB H 2b 3b HR
Long Years 2751 688 113 18 53
Short Years 2793 697 111 17 60
The road numbers are remarkably similar for all the years from 1967-1992, so we need not be too concerned about whether the quality or style of the various Houston teams in those 26 years are skewing the home data we are about to see. Because the road numbers are essentially neutral, they will not be of further use below. But in general, it was much much harder for the Astros to hit homers in the Astrodome compared to road parks, and much easier for the Astros to hit triples -- and to some degree doubles -- in the Astrodome compared to road parks, regardless of the Astrodome's dimensions.
Now the home data for the Astros (season averages):
Home
Seasons AB H 2b 3b HR
Long Years 2586 655 114 32 29
Short Years 2684 678 120 21 44
It's a little difficult to tell the effect of the dimension changes by looking at the raw data, articularly since the batting averages are .253 for both the Long Years and Short Years, which might lead to the conclusion that the longer dimensions did not affect hitting. So let's look at some rates.
Home
Seasons H/2b H/3b H/HR TB/H
Long Years 5.73 20.68 22.96 1.40
Short Years 5.63 32.53 15.28 1.44
Now the differences become more obvious:
Doubles: During the Long Years, one out of every 5.73 hits was a double and in the Short Years one out of every 5.63 hits was a double. So, the dimension changes did not appreciably affect doubles.
Triples: During the Long Years, one out of every 20.68 hits was a triple and in the Short Years one out of every 32.53 hits was a triple. So, lengthening the dimensions increased triples by 57%.
Home Runs: During the Long Years, one out of every 22.96 hits was a home run and in the Short Years one out of every 15.28 hits was a home run. So, lengthening the dimensions decreased home runs by 33%.
Total Bases: During the Long Years, the Astros got 1.40 total bases per hit and in the Short Years got 1.44 total bases per hit. So, the dimension changes only slightly changed total bases per hit.
Putting it all together, lengthening the power alleys (and to some extent the foul lines and center field) shifts home runs to triples.
Looking at Jose Guillen's numbers at home in RFK, he has no triples and one home run. Kind of hard to say some of his would-be homers have been reduced to mere triples when he has no triples. As I mentioned in an earlier post, using a park home run adjustment analysis, RFK suppresses home runs by about half. So based on the park analysis and the Astrodome study, at most Guillen might be able to claim he should have one additional home run at RFK. (The other complainer, Vinny Castilla, has 6 homers at home, and one triple, so he may have a claim for another 3 homers. What is odd is that Castilla has only one homer on the road in approximately the same number of at-bats).
Side note on the Houston teams:
Over baseball history, singles have been worth approximately .46 runs, doubles .80, triples 1.02 and homers 1.4. Applying those to the Long and Short Year average seasons, you get approximately 385 runs for the Long Year seasons and 406 runs for the Short Year seasons, or about a 22 run per year disadvantage with the longer dimensions. That means on the hitting side, they should have been about 2 wins worse during the Long Years, all other things being equal.
Generally clubs build their teams to suit the stadium, so during the Long Years, so it is possible the Astros may have had a little less power and more speed, and in the Short Years may have had more home run hitters. However, the road data for the Long Years and Short Years is nearly identical, indicating on balance that the Houston teams in the Long Years and Short Years were equally capable in terms of power.
Houston did not have a significant number of power hitters in the Long Years. The Toy Cannon and Doug Rader were true power hitters, and combined for 5 seasons of 20+ home runs during the Long Years. The Astros also had Bob Watson, Dickie Thon, Joe Morgan and Cesar Cedeno during the Long Years, who had 9 seasons of 20+ home runs in their careers, but only two for Houston during the Long Years. Watson and Thon, strangely, had their only 20+ homer seasons during the Long Years -- and might be stretching the limits of any power hitter definition. In all, there were only 7 player seasons of 20+ home runs in the thirteen Long Years.
In the thirteen Short Years, there were 19 player seasons with 20+ home runs. The power on those clubs was Wynn (again - 2 seasons), Rader (again - 2 seasons), Cedeno (3 seasons), Lee May (3 seasons) and Glenn Davis (6 seasons). They also got 20+ seasons from Cliff Johnson, Kevin Bass and Franklin Stubbs.
It appears, then, that the Astros were at least trying to incorporate a little more power during the Short Years.
-----
*All park data is from Retrosheet.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Palmeiro and Steroids
Okay, now my faith is shaken. Bonds took steroids? Who cares, no one likes him anyway. Canseco writes a doping book? Who cares, he was always a jerk and a crybaby. McGwire took steroids? I was never caught up in the McGwire hype, even during the battle with Sammy Sosa. They were so selfish, hugging each other and patting each other on the back. I liked it better when players on the opposing team treated each other as enemies and did not fraternize.
But Palmeiro? This one hurts. Here's a pure hitter who didn't need any help. He's quiet. Modest. Consistent. He doesn't hit .200 like McGwire. He doesn't treat everyone else like they are unimportant, like Bonds. He's not a nut case, like Canseco. He's a classic major league ballplayer.
He says he did not intentionally take steroids. I want to believe him. Especially after his testimony to Congress. But think about it. These guys are professional athletes. Except for 3 hours of "work" during the ballgame, they really have nothing else to do other than focus on what it takes to be a professional athlete. Conditioning and nutrition are normally a big part of that. Most athletes know exactly what goes into their bodies. They know how many grams of protein they've had each day. How many milligrams of each vitamin, etc. You're telling me Palmeiro didn't know something that was going into his body was a banned substance?
I want to believe him, but it's really hard.
In the meantime, I want to begin a player evaluation discount to account for the steroids, so that we can normalize the doped to the un-doped (not unlike a ballpark adjustment). I plan to call it the Genetically Normal Equivalents (GNOMES) or the Biologically Adjusted Discount (BAD), but I'm open to other suggestions.
But Palmeiro? This one hurts. Here's a pure hitter who didn't need any help. He's quiet. Modest. Consistent. He doesn't hit .200 like McGwire. He doesn't treat everyone else like they are unimportant, like Bonds. He's not a nut case, like Canseco. He's a classic major league ballplayer.
He says he did not intentionally take steroids. I want to believe him. Especially after his testimony to Congress. But think about it. These guys are professional athletes. Except for 3 hours of "work" during the ballgame, they really have nothing else to do other than focus on what it takes to be a professional athlete. Conditioning and nutrition are normally a big part of that. Most athletes know exactly what goes into their bodies. They know how many grams of protein they've had each day. How many milligrams of each vitamin, etc. You're telling me Palmeiro didn't know something that was going into his body was a banned substance?
I want to believe him, but it's really hard.
In the meantime, I want to begin a player evaluation discount to account for the steroids, so that we can normalize the doped to the un-doped (not unlike a ballpark adjustment). I plan to call it the Genetically Normal Equivalents (GNOMES) or the Biologically Adjusted Discount (BAD), but I'm open to other suggestions.
Guillen and RFK
So Vinny Castilla and Jose Guillen think they are getting gipped in RFK Stadium and it will affect contract negotiations. See http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2005/07/rfk-stadiums-false-dimensions-are.html. Guillen said "I should have 29 homers. I should be up there with Derrek Lee, Andruw Jones. You see the balls I'm hitting in those ballparks away from here. I just want to find out the truth on my own."
Using the methods described in Bill James' book "Win Shares", the Home Run Park Adjustment for Washington Nationals players would be .785, meaning you'd divide a player's home runs by that amount. Guillen has 19 home runs, so with the adjustment, he'd have about 24 if he played in neutral parks all the time (including on the road). However, only 1 of those extra 5 home runs would be at RFK (RFK itself actually suppresses home runs by half)...the others would come in road parks.
For comparison, the Braves have a Home Run Park Adjustment of .963, so Andruw Jones would have 33 home runs if he played exclusively in neutral parks. The Cubs have a Home Run Park Adjustment of 1.025, so Derrek Lee would have 31 home runs if he played exclusively in neutral parks. Guillen is not even close.
It is easy to see why Guillen doesn't like RFK...he only has 1 home run there, which is tied for 8th best on his team, even though he is the team's best hitter. But why, when the Nationals have gone into a nosedive and have lost the lead in the NL East, is he complaining about whether his personal home run totals are high enough at home? Maybe he should be worrying about the Nationals making the playoffs. In short, he is a head case.
Last year Guillen was the best hitter for the Angels. They were in a pennant race as the season wound down. They suspended Guillen for undisclosed reasons, just when they needed him most. The Angels made the playoffs, but did not put Guillen on the playoff roster and effectively released him. How much of a clubhouse problem must Guillen have been? He was their best hitter, and rather than fine him or something, the Angels basically said "You are such a cancer to this team, we are kicking you off the team, right in the thick of the playoff chase."
Using the methods described in Bill James' book "Win Shares", the Home Run Park Adjustment for Washington Nationals players would be .785, meaning you'd divide a player's home runs by that amount. Guillen has 19 home runs, so with the adjustment, he'd have about 24 if he played in neutral parks all the time (including on the road). However, only 1 of those extra 5 home runs would be at RFK (RFK itself actually suppresses home runs by half)...the others would come in road parks.
For comparison, the Braves have a Home Run Park Adjustment of .963, so Andruw Jones would have 33 home runs if he played exclusively in neutral parks. The Cubs have a Home Run Park Adjustment of 1.025, so Derrek Lee would have 31 home runs if he played exclusively in neutral parks. Guillen is not even close.
It is easy to see why Guillen doesn't like RFK...he only has 1 home run there, which is tied for 8th best on his team, even though he is the team's best hitter. But why, when the Nationals have gone into a nosedive and have lost the lead in the NL East, is he complaining about whether his personal home run totals are high enough at home? Maybe he should be worrying about the Nationals making the playoffs. In short, he is a head case.
Last year Guillen was the best hitter for the Angels. They were in a pennant race as the season wound down. They suspended Guillen for undisclosed reasons, just when they needed him most. The Angels made the playoffs, but did not put Guillen on the playoff roster and effectively released him. How much of a clubhouse problem must Guillen have been? He was their best hitter, and rather than fine him or something, the Angels basically said "You are such a cancer to this team, we are kicking you off the team, right in the thick of the playoff chase."
Thursday, July 28, 2005
The Padres Don't Deserve a Playoff Berth
The Padres have 3 guys who play first base or third base. Phil Nevin, Xavier Nady and Mark Sweeney. Some of those guys can play outfield, but the Padres best three players are in the outfield (Giles, Klesko and Roberts).
So what do the Padres do? They go get Joe Randa from Cincinnati. I like Randa, but now they've got four corner infielders. Last time I checked, there are only two corner infielder spots per game.
Of course, the Padres wanted Nevin in Baltimore, in return for Sidney Ponson. I guess they thought they could talk Nevin into it. Well guess what? Nevin's family vetoed the deal. Nevin negotiated for that right in his contract, and he had the right to say no. He had a choice between two winning teams, one in San Diego and one in Baltimore. Which would you pick?
The Padres told Nevin he wasn't going to play much anymore. Apparently this was supposed to be incentive for him to okay the trade. A threat. It didn't work. So Randa's at 3b. Nady and Sweeney are going to split time at 1b. Nevin will fill in....somewhere. Catcher? He's not a major league catcher.
Nevin has 8 win shares this year. Nady 7. Sweeney 5. It isn't clear that Nevin's productivity is over. However, Sweeney has the best rate, followed by Nady, followed by Nevin. But Nady and Sweeney are unproven, and Nady has fallen way off his hot start.
All for what? San Diego was going to get Sidney Ponson -- who must have a fantastic arm, because teams seem to want him. But Ponson sucks. He just sucks. Ponson had 7 win shares last year. He's got 1 this year. He's averaged 11 a year for his whole career. He's a below average pitcher! He's not going to help anyone in a pennant race.
So San Diego has created a glut of corner infielders and a divided clubhouse -- exactly what they don't need during their recent swoon. But maybe they are better off. They may have too many players and too few spots, and the clubhouse may be a disaster, but at least they didn't get the anemic Ponson (who incidentally got injured tonight). What a mess.
So what do the Padres do? They go get Joe Randa from Cincinnati. I like Randa, but now they've got four corner infielders. Last time I checked, there are only two corner infielder spots per game.
Of course, the Padres wanted Nevin in Baltimore, in return for Sidney Ponson. I guess they thought they could talk Nevin into it. Well guess what? Nevin's family vetoed the deal. Nevin negotiated for that right in his contract, and he had the right to say no. He had a choice between two winning teams, one in San Diego and one in Baltimore. Which would you pick?
The Padres told Nevin he wasn't going to play much anymore. Apparently this was supposed to be incentive for him to okay the trade. A threat. It didn't work. So Randa's at 3b. Nady and Sweeney are going to split time at 1b. Nevin will fill in....somewhere. Catcher? He's not a major league catcher.
Nevin has 8 win shares this year. Nady 7. Sweeney 5. It isn't clear that Nevin's productivity is over. However, Sweeney has the best rate, followed by Nady, followed by Nevin. But Nady and Sweeney are unproven, and Nady has fallen way off his hot start.
All for what? San Diego was going to get Sidney Ponson -- who must have a fantastic arm, because teams seem to want him. But Ponson sucks. He just sucks. Ponson had 7 win shares last year. He's got 1 this year. He's averaged 11 a year for his whole career. He's a below average pitcher! He's not going to help anyone in a pennant race.
So San Diego has created a glut of corner infielders and a divided clubhouse -- exactly what they don't need during their recent swoon. But maybe they are better off. They may have too many players and too few spots, and the clubhouse may be a disaster, but at least they didn't get the anemic Ponson (who incidentally got injured tonight). What a mess.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Triple Crown vs. .400
Last night on the ESPN telecast Joe Morgan and Jon Miller were debating whether it is more difficult to win the Triple Crown or to hit .400. Miller said it was more difficult to hit .400, because fewer players had done it in the modern era. A valid point.
Morgan said it was more difficult to win the Triple Crown. His reasoning was that to hit .400, everything is in the hands of the player. But for a Triple Crown, the RBI title is somewhat controlled by other players...whether they get on base in front of you.
Morgan is right about RBI being a dependent stat, but that alone cannot make .400 easier to obtain. A player may completely control hitting .400 (arguendo), but it is still a very very difficult thing to do. It is not nearly as hard to win a batting title, home run title or rbi title. What makes the Triple Crown difficult is doing it all in one year. As Morgan said, that depends on a lot of other things, including what stats the other players in the league put up. But the fact is: those other things are more likely to come together at the same time than achieving .400 is.
If you are a #3 or #4 hitter of high quality, you legitimately have a shot at the Triple Crown each year. RBI and HR go together somewhat. Leading the league in both is not particularly troublesome. Winning the batting title is an achievement, but someone does it every year. The trouble in achieving the Triple Crown is that high average hitters often do not hit with power, and vice versa. However, there is always a crop of 5-10 players who can do both. Can you say that about hitting .400?
A better argument for saying .400 is easier to achieve is the tendency today to intentionally walk hot hitters. A player who gets off to a hot start and is hitting .406 will have an easier time maintaining the .400 average if teams start walking him to avoid damage. Walks don't hurt your batting average.
Compare the Triple Crown, which has two categories of counting stats. Walks hurt. Every time a player like Derek Lee is walked, he preserves that high batting average but potentially loses ground in the home run and rbi race.
Morgan said it was more difficult to win the Triple Crown. His reasoning was that to hit .400, everything is in the hands of the player. But for a Triple Crown, the RBI title is somewhat controlled by other players...whether they get on base in front of you.
Morgan is right about RBI being a dependent stat, but that alone cannot make .400 easier to obtain. A player may completely control hitting .400 (arguendo), but it is still a very very difficult thing to do. It is not nearly as hard to win a batting title, home run title or rbi title. What makes the Triple Crown difficult is doing it all in one year. As Morgan said, that depends on a lot of other things, including what stats the other players in the league put up. But the fact is: those other things are more likely to come together at the same time than achieving .400 is.
If you are a #3 or #4 hitter of high quality, you legitimately have a shot at the Triple Crown each year. RBI and HR go together somewhat. Leading the league in both is not particularly troublesome. Winning the batting title is an achievement, but someone does it every year. The trouble in achieving the Triple Crown is that high average hitters often do not hit with power, and vice versa. However, there is always a crop of 5-10 players who can do both. Can you say that about hitting .400?
A better argument for saying .400 is easier to achieve is the tendency today to intentionally walk hot hitters. A player who gets off to a hot start and is hitting .406 will have an easier time maintaining the .400 average if teams start walking him to avoid damage. Walks don't hurt your batting average.
Compare the Triple Crown, which has two categories of counting stats. Walks hurt. Every time a player like Derek Lee is walked, he preserves that high batting average but potentially loses ground in the home run and rbi race.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Yankees' 1939 Road Performance
In the latest issue of The Baseball Reference Journal (No. 33, 2005) is an article by Ron Selter entitled "The 1939 Yankees, the Greatest Road Team Ever." Most of the article is devoted to explaining what an awesome year the Yanks had on the road, which is true.
However, the claim that they are the "greatest" implies that some comparison to other teams will be made. There is one paragraph devoted to that concept. The paragraph mentions that only two teams -- '06 and '09 Cubs -- had better road winning percentages, at .800 and .740. Selter then concludes the Yanks were better on the road, because their victory margin was 3.9 runs per game, whereas the '06 Cubs had a margin of 2.5 and the '09 Cubs had a margin of 2.0.
I can scarcely believe the BRJ published the article. First of all, it's just an article about what a great team the '39 Yanks were, and barely makes any attempt to measure them against other teams. Second, the numbers are not even correct. The '06 Cubs margin of victory was 2.66 (not 2.5) and the '09 Cubs margin of victory was 2.09 (not 2.0). Seems the Yanks got the benefit of some rounding up in the article, and the Cubs did not.
Finally, it is hard to understand how a larger margin of victory on the road by the Yanks supersedes the better road winning percentage of both Cubs teams. The margin of victory seems to mean when the Yanks won, they won bigger than the Cubs teams. But the fact is, they didn't win as much. So how were they better?
Let's look at the numbers. The following table shows the road wins, losses, runs scored by the team, runs against, and the league average runs scored:
Even if it is a plausible claim that a greater margin of victory makes you better than your winning percentage -- which of course it isn't -- it is far from clear that the Yanks actually have a greater margin of victory. Of course they have a greater absolute margin of victory, but since they played in the late 30s, when run scoring per team per game was 1.5 runs higher than in the first decade of the century, that absolute margin does not mean much.
Let's reduce the Yanks R/G and RA/G to a league run environment of 3.6 runs per game, to approximate the first decade of the century. What you get is 5.39 R/G and 2.72 RA/G for the '39 Yanks. The margin of victory is 2.67. The margin for the '06 Cubs is 2.66 and for the '09 Cubs is 2.09, as mentioned before. So even if the crazy proposition that margin of victory trumps winning percentage is treated as true, the '06 Cubs were at least as good on the road as the '39 Yanks.
Now look at their projected Pythagorean road records, using 1.83 as the exponent, and how the team performed relative to the projected road record.
First, I'll point out that using the very runs numbers that Selter used, the Yanks still produce a poorer road record than the '06 Cubs. Second, the Yanks underperformed their expected record by a larger margin than the '06 and '09 Cubs. To me, this indicates the Yankees were not the greatest road team. They did not even meet their expected winning percentage, falling short by 4 games, which is a substantial amount given the typical margin of error for the Pythagorean formula.
However, the claim that they are the "greatest" implies that some comparison to other teams will be made. There is one paragraph devoted to that concept. The paragraph mentions that only two teams -- '06 and '09 Cubs -- had better road winning percentages, at .800 and .740. Selter then concludes the Yanks were better on the road, because their victory margin was 3.9 runs per game, whereas the '06 Cubs had a margin of 2.5 and the '09 Cubs had a margin of 2.0.
I can scarcely believe the BRJ published the article. First of all, it's just an article about what a great team the '39 Yanks were, and barely makes any attempt to measure them against other teams. Second, the numbers are not even correct. The '06 Cubs margin of victory was 2.66 (not 2.5) and the '09 Cubs margin of victory was 2.09 (not 2.0). Seems the Yanks got the benefit of some rounding up in the article, and the Cubs did not.
Finally, it is hard to understand how a larger margin of victory on the road by the Yanks supersedes the better road winning percentage of both Cubs teams. The margin of victory seems to mean when the Yanks won, they won bigger than the Cubs teams. But the fact is, they didn't win as much. So how were they better?
Let's look at the numbers. The following table shows the road wins, losses, runs scored by the team, runs against, and the league average runs scored:
Team W L R/G RA/G LgAvg.R/G
'06 Cubs 60 15 4.86 2.20 3.57
'09 Cubs 57 20 4.54 2.45 3.66
'39 Yanks 54 20 7.80 3.93 5.21
Even if it is a plausible claim that a greater margin of victory makes you better than your winning percentage -- which of course it isn't -- it is far from clear that the Yanks actually have a greater margin of victory. Of course they have a greater absolute margin of victory, but since they played in the late 30s, when run scoring per team per game was 1.5 runs higher than in the first decade of the century, that absolute margin does not mean much.
Let's reduce the Yanks R/G and RA/G to a league run environment of 3.6 runs per game, to approximate the first decade of the century. What you get is 5.39 R/G and 2.72 RA/G for the '39 Yanks. The margin of victory is 2.67. The margin for the '06 Cubs is 2.66 and for the '09 Cubs is 2.09, as mentioned before. So even if the crazy proposition that margin of victory trumps winning percentage is treated as true, the '06 Cubs were at least as good on the road as the '39 Yanks.
Now look at their projected Pythagorean road records, using 1.83 as the exponent, and how the team performed relative to the projected road record.
Team Pythag Diff
'06 Cubs 61-14 -1
'09 Cubs 58-21 -1
'39 Yanks 58-16 -4
First, I'll point out that using the very runs numbers that Selter used, the Yanks still produce a poorer road record than the '06 Cubs. Second, the Yanks underperformed their expected record by a larger margin than the '06 and '09 Cubs. To me, this indicates the Yankees were not the greatest road team. They did not even meet their expected winning percentage, falling short by 4 games, which is a substantial amount given the typical margin of error for the Pythagorean formula.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Jack McKeon (update)
ESPN is reporting that Marlins' sources are saying McKeon will keep his job for the rest of the season. However, John Kruk, who played for McKeon in San Diego, said "When he first takes over the team, he's like a big cuddly grandpa. Then he becomes a manager." Apparently when he becomes a manager, he has a tendency to lose his team with "rants" and "some guys don't like that."
That's a fairly handy explanation. It fits his managerial profile in Kansas City, San Diego and Florida. That does not appear to be the way it happened in Cincy, but it sure looks like a pattern.
That's a fairly handy explanation. It fits his managerial profile in Kansas City, San Diego and Florida. That does not appear to be the way it happened in Cincy, but it sure looks like a pattern.
Derrek Lee -- Quadruple Crown?
We've still got two months to go, so I don't want to get too far in any discussion about Derrek Lee's chances for the Triple Crown. But it occurred to me that he really is shooting for an even more rare Quadruple Crown.
Here is the list of previous triple crown winners. The number listed after their name is where they ranked at their positions defensively by league, based on Win Shares (and treating outfield as a single position).
So Jimmie Foxx is the only player in major league history to win the triple crown and be the best at his position defensively (and deserve the Gold Glove). Yastrzemski actually won a Gold Glove in 1967, but Win Shares says he was the 6th best outfielder.
Lee was deserving of the Gold Glove in 2003 (and actually won it) and finished just behind Todd Helton in fielding Win Shares last year. So far this year he is trailing Helton again, but he's in second (according to The Hardball Times). It's possible that Derrek Lee would become only the second player in MLB history to win the triple crown and be the best at his position defensively.
Here is the list of previous triple crown winners. The number listed after their name is where they ranked at their positions defensively by league, based on Win Shares (and treating outfield as a single position).
Year Player Def. Rank
1878 P.Hines 6
1894 H.Duffy 4
1901 N.Lajoie 2
1909 T.Cobb 5
1922 R.Hornsby 7
1925 R.Hornsby 8
1933 C.Klein 10
1933 J.Foxx 1
1934 L.Gehrig 2
1937 J.Medwick 13
1942 T.Williams 5
1947 T.Williams 11
1956 M.Mantle 4
1966 F.Robinson 14
1967 C.Yastrzemski 6
So Jimmie Foxx is the only player in major league history to win the triple crown and be the best at his position defensively (and deserve the Gold Glove). Yastrzemski actually won a Gold Glove in 1967, but Win Shares says he was the 6th best outfielder.
Lee was deserving of the Gold Glove in 2003 (and actually won it) and finished just behind Todd Helton in fielding Win Shares last year. So far this year he is trailing Helton again, but he's in second (according to The Hardball Times). It's possible that Derrek Lee would become only the second player in MLB history to win the triple crown and be the best at his position defensively.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Jack McKeon
Last week I posted something about Lou Piniella, because watching the Devil Rays' games and his slovenly appearance, I got the idea he was nothing special as as manager. Apparently I'm wrong.
The other guy I most frequently see on t.v. (because I'm in Florida) is Jack McKeon. McKeon's head is apparently on the block. I must admit I don't see much brilliance there either. Some of that is his media personality. He speaks in short clipped sentences and certainly does not appear to enjoy being interviewed. He never sounds insightful.
So I did the same analysis on McKeon as I did on Piniella, using the Bill James measures.
Under Method 1, McKeon gets 13 points, which I mentioned in the Lou Piniella post. That's not too bad, but nothing special over a 14-year managerial career. He does poorly on Method 2, earning only 7 points over 14 years. That's 60 expected wins behind Piniella.
McKeon is an odd study. Those numbers don't look too good. He got his first managerial job in '73, with Kansas City. Since then, he's had two stretches in his career where he went 6 years or more without managing a club. And he's never managed a club for more than 4 years.
Unless the Marlins start winning fast, he's not gonna make 4 years at Florida either.
But he's won Manager of the Year twice (1999 and 2003).
Sounds to me like McKeon is an average manager who occasionally hits it big when the team he happens to manage gets hot.
The other guy I most frequently see on t.v. (because I'm in Florida) is Jack McKeon. McKeon's head is apparently on the block. I must admit I don't see much brilliance there either. Some of that is his media personality. He speaks in short clipped sentences and certainly does not appear to enjoy being interviewed. He never sounds insightful.
So I did the same analysis on McKeon as I did on Piniella, using the Bill James measures.
Under Method 1, McKeon gets 13 points, which I mentioned in the Lou Piniella post. That's not too bad, but nothing special over a 14-year managerial career. He does poorly on Method 2, earning only 7 points over 14 years. That's 60 expected wins behind Piniella.
McKeon is an odd study. Those numbers don't look too good. He got his first managerial job in '73, with Kansas City. Since then, he's had two stretches in his career where he went 6 years or more without managing a club. And he's never managed a club for more than 4 years.
Unless the Marlins start winning fast, he's not gonna make 4 years at Florida either.
But he's won Manager of the Year twice (1999 and 2003).
Sounds to me like McKeon is an average manager who occasionally hits it big when the team he happens to manage gets hot.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Fox's Funny Numbers
The All-Star game isn't as popular as it used to be. That's been true for years. But the Fox Network has a funny way of playing with numbers -- which isn't really surprising since they are masters of manipulation of the news.
Nielsen said approximately 8.8 million households watched the All-Star game. Fox said it estimates 29.5 million people watched. So that means about 3.3 people per household watched the game, according to Fox. Are they kidding?
I love baseball, yet my interest generally wanes during the All-Star game, once I realize there won't be any close plays or tension. This year it began waning either when Billy Bob Thornton read to us in a monotone voice how baseball is like an automobile assembly line, or when I first got a look at Jeannie Zelasco, who appears to be bigger than Bartolo Colon.
So, I do not believe for a second that more than 3 people per the 8.8 million households were gathered around the television enjoying a bowl of ice cream and watching 9 innings of baseball.
Personally I think viewership is in decline because it's no big deal to see the big stars. You can see them every night on about five channels. Part of it may be interleague play, and part of it may be free agency, but is there a pitcher/batter matchup we just haven't seen or can't expect to see? Maybe Jake Peavy has never faced Alfonso Soriano (I haven't checked), but I'm not tuning in the All-Star game to see that matchup. If they haven't faced each other in a regular season game, they soon will on ESPN, or WGN, or WTBS, or FoxSportsNet or some local channel.
And heads-up MLB: I don't care about home field advantage for the World Series while I'm watching the All-Star game, and neither do the players. Witness Tony LaRussa's midgame interview.
Nielsen said approximately 8.8 million households watched the All-Star game. Fox said it estimates 29.5 million people watched. So that means about 3.3 people per household watched the game, according to Fox. Are they kidding?
I love baseball, yet my interest generally wanes during the All-Star game, once I realize there won't be any close plays or tension. This year it began waning either when Billy Bob Thornton read to us in a monotone voice how baseball is like an automobile assembly line, or when I first got a look at Jeannie Zelasco, who appears to be bigger than Bartolo Colon.
So, I do not believe for a second that more than 3 people per the 8.8 million households were gathered around the television enjoying a bowl of ice cream and watching 9 innings of baseball.
Personally I think viewership is in decline because it's no big deal to see the big stars. You can see them every night on about five channels. Part of it may be interleague play, and part of it may be free agency, but is there a pitcher/batter matchup we just haven't seen or can't expect to see? Maybe Jake Peavy has never faced Alfonso Soriano (I haven't checked), but I'm not tuning in the All-Star game to see that matchup. If they haven't faced each other in a regular season game, they soon will on ESPN, or WGN, or WTBS, or FoxSportsNet or some local channel.
And heads-up MLB: I don't care about home field advantage for the World Series while I'm watching the All-Star game, and neither do the players. Witness Tony LaRussa's midgame interview.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Lou Piniella
I live in Florida, so I often see Tampa Bay Devil Ray games on television. I watch probably 30-35 Devil Rays games a year. I have never once seen Lou Piniella make a move that seemed significant, good or bad. He appears to do absolutely nothing.
His personal appearance lends credence to that. He has, shall we say, let himself go. During his playing days he was roughly 6'2" and 198 pounds. My own recollection was that it was never distributed on his frame in a way that screamed "work ethic." I don't know how tall he is now, but he's probably a couple of inches shorter with his gut bending him over. I'd put his weight at no less than 250, and probably more. He still does not wear it well. He has given up trying to wear a baseball jersey and just wears a warmup pullover, which either accentuates his belly or holds it in, or both. Many days he does not bother to shave. He couldn't be more different than Tony LaRussa or Terry Francona.
All of this got me to wondering what kind of manager is he. Is he really any good? In his book on managers, Bill James described two different methods of measuring a manager's performance. The first awards one point each for a winning season, winning the division, winning the league championship, winning the World Series, winning 100 or more games, and finishing 20 games over .500 (Method 1). The second predicts a team's record based on a team's tendency to finish .500, weighted by the team's record in the prior three years. If the team finishes with more wins than expected, we can attribute those wins to the manager (Method 2). James noted the flaws in Method 2 and said he preferred Method 1.
I tested Piniella on both Under Method 1, Piniella receives a very respectable 22 points. That's no Bobby Cox (58), Joe Torre (45) or Tony LaRussa (44), but it is better than Dusty Baker (17), Jack McKeon (13), Buck Showalter (11) and other current managers, and similar to Tom Kelly (19) who did a nice job managing the Twins over the years.
Under Method 2, Piniella comes out 67 runs ahead of expected, which is quite an achievement, except that nearly half that came through the 2001 Seattle club's performance. He still lags Cox (176) and LaRussa (72) but is ahead of Torre (33), who was in the negative until reaching the Yanks.
So I guess Piniella is as good as anyone else. Maybe managing a ballclub is like managing your investments. Studies have shown that investing in a manner that tracks a market index (essentially a do-nothing approach) is much more successful over the long run than actually managing your portfolio.
His personal appearance lends credence to that. He has, shall we say, let himself go. During his playing days he was roughly 6'2" and 198 pounds. My own recollection was that it was never distributed on his frame in a way that screamed "work ethic." I don't know how tall he is now, but he's probably a couple of inches shorter with his gut bending him over. I'd put his weight at no less than 250, and probably more. He still does not wear it well. He has given up trying to wear a baseball jersey and just wears a warmup pullover, which either accentuates his belly or holds it in, or both. Many days he does not bother to shave. He couldn't be more different than Tony LaRussa or Terry Francona.
All of this got me to wondering what kind of manager is he. Is he really any good? In his book on managers, Bill James described two different methods of measuring a manager's performance. The first awards one point each for a winning season, winning the division, winning the league championship, winning the World Series, winning 100 or more games, and finishing 20 games over .500 (Method 1). The second predicts a team's record based on a team's tendency to finish .500, weighted by the team's record in the prior three years. If the team finishes with more wins than expected, we can attribute those wins to the manager (Method 2). James noted the flaws in Method 2 and said he preferred Method 1.
I tested Piniella on both Under Method 1, Piniella receives a very respectable 22 points. That's no Bobby Cox (58), Joe Torre (45) or Tony LaRussa (44), but it is better than Dusty Baker (17), Jack McKeon (13), Buck Showalter (11) and other current managers, and similar to Tom Kelly (19) who did a nice job managing the Twins over the years.
Under Method 2, Piniella comes out 67 runs ahead of expected, which is quite an achievement, except that nearly half that came through the 2001 Seattle club's performance. He still lags Cox (176) and LaRussa (72) but is ahead of Torre (33), who was in the negative until reaching the Yanks.
So I guess Piniella is as good as anyone else. Maybe managing a ballclub is like managing your investments. Studies have shown that investing in a manner that tracks a market index (essentially a do-nothing approach) is much more successful over the long run than actually managing your portfolio.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Pedro and Kenny
Three weeks ago, Kenny Rogers was a jerk that many were talking about suspending for the rest of the year and Pedro was one of the best pitchers in the history of the game.
Now, Kenny Rogers is just flawed, but everyone feels a little sorry for him. Pedro is hated. What 's next? Lifting Kenny's suspension and applying it to Pedro?
I listened to Chris Berman, John Kruk, Peter Gammons, Harold Reynolds, Joe Buck and Tim McCarver all pay tribute to Kenny Rogers for holding a press conference against the advice of his lawyers. Yeah. Three weeks too late.
Where was Rogers' apology at the time of the incident? Was he being altruistic in holding this press conference? Hardly. It wasn't about contrition, though he played the contrition game quite well. It was about trying to salvage the All-Star game he had besmirched and reducing the boos he'd receive when he entered the game. Rogers held a press conference to justify his appearance at the All-Star game. If he was truly sorry, he should have apologized within a few days. If he recognized how badly he acted, he never would have appealed the suspension.
I'm not sure which conduct is more sickening: Rogers failure to apologize or the commentators blowing with the wind. How did Kenny Rogers suddenly become a stand-up guy and "courageous"? He certainly didn't look courageous pushing around a 5'7" guy with a video camera.
But Kenny got lucky, because Pedro Martinez stepped in to take the heat. Pedro is now the pet jerk. Pedro declined the invitation to the All-Star Game on the "been there/done that" platform, saying he wanted to give some young guys the chance. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. To me, it's actually humble. Yet he is being lionized because "fans want to see him pitch." (By the way, is this a game for the fans or is it to determine home field advantage in the World Series...let's make up our minds).
C'mon. He's gonna pitch one inning at most. I never tune into the All-Star game to see the pitchers, because they don't pitch enough to matter and they are at a disadvantage. They show off 20 pitches and sit down. They are usually in an unfamiliar role, and never even get into rhythm. Plus, fans can see Pedro on t.v. (or the Internet) in virtually every game he starts. I'd be surprised if even one fan failed to attend the game or consciously chose not to watch the game because Pedro declined the invitation. Let's not forget, the fans didn't select him to the team. And it isn't as if LaRussa was unable to find another All-Star pitcher for the roster.
The real problem is that people don't like it when someone is given a compliment and is unable or unwilling to accept it. We think of the All-Star game as a big compliment (which it is), and when someone rejects the compliment, they are rejecting us. Well guess what? Lots of us have that problem. Lots of us do not want attention for doing the job we are paid to do.
If Pedro wants to rest three days instead of showing off 20 pitches in a game in Detroit, and if Pedro wants to give some young guys the chance to experience the All-Star game, that's okay.
But get your priorities straight. Don't make Pedro out to be an asshole and congratulate Kenny for his courage.
Now, Kenny Rogers is just flawed, but everyone feels a little sorry for him. Pedro is hated. What 's next? Lifting Kenny's suspension and applying it to Pedro?
I listened to Chris Berman, John Kruk, Peter Gammons, Harold Reynolds, Joe Buck and Tim McCarver all pay tribute to Kenny Rogers for holding a press conference against the advice of his lawyers. Yeah. Three weeks too late.
Where was Rogers' apology at the time of the incident? Was he being altruistic in holding this press conference? Hardly. It wasn't about contrition, though he played the contrition game quite well. It was about trying to salvage the All-Star game he had besmirched and reducing the boos he'd receive when he entered the game. Rogers held a press conference to justify his appearance at the All-Star game. If he was truly sorry, he should have apologized within a few days. If he recognized how badly he acted, he never would have appealed the suspension.
I'm not sure which conduct is more sickening: Rogers failure to apologize or the commentators blowing with the wind. How did Kenny Rogers suddenly become a stand-up guy and "courageous"? He certainly didn't look courageous pushing around a 5'7" guy with a video camera.
But Kenny got lucky, because Pedro Martinez stepped in to take the heat. Pedro is now the pet jerk. Pedro declined the invitation to the All-Star Game on the "been there/done that" platform, saying he wanted to give some young guys the chance. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. To me, it's actually humble. Yet he is being lionized because "fans want to see him pitch." (By the way, is this a game for the fans or is it to determine home field advantage in the World Series...let's make up our minds).
C'mon. He's gonna pitch one inning at most. I never tune into the All-Star game to see the pitchers, because they don't pitch enough to matter and they are at a disadvantage. They show off 20 pitches and sit down. They are usually in an unfamiliar role, and never even get into rhythm. Plus, fans can see Pedro on t.v. (or the Internet) in virtually every game he starts. I'd be surprised if even one fan failed to attend the game or consciously chose not to watch the game because Pedro declined the invitation. Let's not forget, the fans didn't select him to the team. And it isn't as if LaRussa was unable to find another All-Star pitcher for the roster.
The real problem is that people don't like it when someone is given a compliment and is unable or unwilling to accept it. We think of the All-Star game as a big compliment (which it is), and when someone rejects the compliment, they are rejecting us. Well guess what? Lots of us have that problem. Lots of us do not want attention for doing the job we are paid to do.
If Pedro wants to rest three days instead of showing off 20 pitches in a game in Detroit, and if Pedro wants to give some young guys the chance to experience the All-Star game, that's okay.
But get your priorities straight. Don't make Pedro out to be an asshole and congratulate Kenny for his courage.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Records When Scoring 3 Runs or Less
| 3-runs | 2-runs | 1-run | Total | Total | |||||
| Team | W | L | W | L | W | L | Shutout | Wins | Losses |
| Royals | 4 | 7 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 15 | 5 | 5 | 37 |
| Devil Rays | 3 | 7 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 32 |
| Rangers | 3 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 22 |
| Rockies | 2 | 9 | 3 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 33 |
| Reds | 1 | 13 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 39 |
| D-Backs | 3 | 12 | 6 | 8 | 1 | 7 | 6 | 10 | 33 |
| Phillies | 3 | 6 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 11 | 5 | 7 | 29 |
| Giants | 5 | 9 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 10 | 3 | 7 | 31 |
| Marlins | 1 | 5 | 2 | 12 | 1 | 10 | 6 | 4 | 33 |
| Red Sox | 2 | 6 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 21 |
| A's | 3 | 5 | 2 | 11 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 30 |
| Yankees | 0 | 10 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 26 |
| Mariners | 3 | 5 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 34 |
| Astros | 5 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 8 | 10 | 7 | 29 |
| Twins | 5 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 11 | 4 | 6 | 24 |
| Padres | 3 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 12 | 28 |
| Pirates | 4 | 9 | 5 | 11 | 0 | 9 | 6 | 9 | 35 |
| Dodgers | 2 | 13 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 9 | 4 | 4 | 38 |
| Orioles | 5 | 8 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 26 |
| Cubs | 4 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 9 | 4 | 9 | 28 |
| Cardinals | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 9 | 17 |
| Mets | 4 | 12 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 31 |
| Brewers | 3 | 8 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 31 |
| Blue Jays | 3 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 24 |
| Indians | 6 | 5 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 8 | 4 | 9 | 27 |
| White Sox | 3 | 1 | 6 | 10 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 10 | 17 |
| Tigers | 6 | 13 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 33 |
| Braves | 3 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 9 | 17 |
| Nationals | 10 | 9 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 16 | 27 |
| Angels | 7 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 22 |
| 110 | 226 | 83 | 258 | 20 | 231 | 213 | 854 | ||
| 0.327 | 0.243 | 0.080 | 0.200 | ||||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)