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.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
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 | ||||||
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
The Fans Speak (and they stutter)
The voting is complete for the last roster spots on the All-Star team. Roy Oswalt was selected for the National League team and Scott Posednik for the American League team.
Oswalt is the correct choice. He is the 3d best pitcher in the NL, and his absence from the All-Star team was the biggest snub of the year. Hoffman finished second. Why? Because Padres fans vote like crazy on the Internet. Must be Silicon Valley-envy. Why was Hoffman even one of the five choices? He's been a dog.
The vote rounded out with Brandon Webb (5th best starter in the NL), Billy Wagner (2nd best closer in the NL) and Brett Myers (7th best starter in the NL). Everyone but Hoffman would have been a valid choice. The vote should have been Oswalt, Webb, Myers, Wagner and Hoffman (0 votes).
Posednik is not the correct choice. He narrowly beat Jeter. I respect Jeter, but I don't like him. Nevertheless, you can't pick Posednik over Jeter. Or Matsui. Or Crawford. Maybe you can take him over Torii Hunter, but I wouldn't. The vote should have been Jeter/Matsui (toss-up), Crawford, Hunter, Posednik.
Oswalt is the correct choice. He is the 3d best pitcher in the NL, and his absence from the All-Star team was the biggest snub of the year. Hoffman finished second. Why? Because Padres fans vote like crazy on the Internet. Must be Silicon Valley-envy. Why was Hoffman even one of the five choices? He's been a dog.
The vote rounded out with Brandon Webb (5th best starter in the NL), Billy Wagner (2nd best closer in the NL) and Brett Myers (7th best starter in the NL). Everyone but Hoffman would have been a valid choice. The vote should have been Oswalt, Webb, Myers, Wagner and Hoffman (0 votes).
Posednik is not the correct choice. He narrowly beat Jeter. I respect Jeter, but I don't like him. Nevertheless, you can't pick Posednik over Jeter. Or Matsui. Or Crawford. Maybe you can take him over Torii Hunter, but I wouldn't. The vote should have been Jeter/Matsui (toss-up), Crawford, Hunter, Posednik.
Useless Records (Congratulations Mr. Biggio)
On June 29, Craig Biggio set the all-time major league record for being hit by a pitch, passing Don Baylor. Are we that starved for baseball news? Here's what Biggio said about the record.
I remember Baylor getting hit a lot, and it was because he crowded the plate. He would not give in to the pitcher. Biggio isn't nearly as close to the plate. But Biggio will not move. He will not move even as the ball is coming at him. He sticks out that elbow pad and takes the hit. The Hall of Fame has asked for his arm pad. More than any other player, he violates the baseball rule requiring the batter to at least attempt to avoid the pitch.
Oddly, for the HBP that set the record, Biggio got tagged pretty good.
Remember, Biggio has more to "get done." Hughie Jennings is only 19 ouches away. If you can't get enough of Biggio's pursuit of the record, I've got just the place for you: PlunkBiggio.
I almost played for him [Baylor] one year. It was nice to be able to get it done here [in Colorado].
Get it done? Biggio has more career HBP than career home runs.
I remember Baylor getting hit a lot, and it was because he crowded the plate. He would not give in to the pitcher. Biggio isn't nearly as close to the plate. But Biggio will not move. He will not move even as the ball is coming at him. He sticks out that elbow pad and takes the hit. The Hall of Fame has asked for his arm pad. More than any other player, he violates the baseball rule requiring the batter to at least attempt to avoid the pitch.
Oddly, for the HBP that set the record, Biggio got tagged pretty good.
Remember, Biggio has more to "get done." Hughie Jennings is only 19 ouches away. If you can't get enough of Biggio's pursuit of the record, I've got just the place for you: PlunkBiggio.
Frank Thomas
Going into action tonight, Frank Thomas has 17 hits...and 10 home runs. That's a home run every 1.70 times he gets a hit.
I researched which players might have home run rates that high as a proportion of hits. I set a modest minimum of 10 hits to qualify. So far, Thomas has the lead. Here's the top 10 list without Thomas:
An interesting list for a couple of reasons. First, McGwire has three of the 10 spots, but the 1997 season is his National League total only. It would not be on the list if blended with his season at Oakland (though it would still be a high ratio). Second, Bonds' record-breaking season makes the list. Third, Babe Ruth is on the list, but it isn't a real season for Ruth. And fourth, there's a surprising player on this list: pitcher Don Drysdale.
I didn't like the way the list came out, because of Harshman, Medina, Dick Williams and Staton. So I changed the criteria to a minimum of 10 home runs. Here's how that turned out.
*Again, the 1997 McGwire season is National League only.
Frank Thomas would be #1 on this list, but he's got a long ways to go to have the most impressive H/HR ratio.
I researched which players might have home run rates that high as a proportion of hits. I set a modest minimum of 10 hits to qualify. So far, Thomas has the lead. Here's the top 10 list without Thomas:
| Year | Player | Hits | HR | Ratio |
| 1997 | McGwire* | 44 | 24 | 1.84 |
| 2001 | McGwire | 56 | 29 | 1.93 |
| 1956 | Harshman | 12 | 6 | 2.00 |
| 2001 | Bonds | 156 | 73 | 2.14 |
| 1958 | Drysdale! | 15 | 7 | 2.14 |
| 1935 | Ruth | 13 | 6 | 2.17 |
| 1988 | Medina | 13 | 6 | 2.17 |
| 1998 | McGwire | 152 | 70 | 2.17 |
| 1964 | D.Williams | 11 | 5 | 2.20 |
| 1993 | Staton | 11 | 5 | 2.20 |
An interesting list for a couple of reasons. First, McGwire has three of the 10 spots, but the 1997 season is his National League total only. It would not be on the list if blended with his season at Oakland (though it would still be a high ratio). Second, Bonds' record-breaking season makes the list. Third, Babe Ruth is on the list, but it isn't a real season for Ruth. And fourth, there's a surprising player on this list: pitcher Don Drysdale.
I didn't like the way the list came out, because of Harshman, Medina, Dick Williams and Staton. So I changed the criteria to a minimum of 10 home runs. Here's how that turned out.
| Year | Player | Hits | HR | Ratio |
| 1997 | McGwire* | 44 | 24 | 1.84 |
| 2001 | McGwire | 56 | 29 | 1.93 |
| 2001 | Bonds | 156 | 73 | 2.14 |
| 1998 | McGwire | 152 | 70 | 2.17 |
| 1995 | McGwire | 87 | 39 | 2.23 |
| 1999 | McGwire | 145 | 65 | 2.23 |
| 1955 | Ed Robinson | 36 | 16 | 2.25 |
| 2000 | McGwire | 72 | 32 | 2.25 |
| 1984 | Gamble | 23 | 10 | 2.30 |
| 1988 | Phelps | 24 | 10 | 2.40 |
*Again, the 1997 McGwire season is National League only.
Frank Thomas would be #1 on this list, but he's got a long ways to go to have the most impressive H/HR ratio.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)