Joe Girardi is a good guy, but he doesn't exactly have a lot of managerial experience. Sure he won the manager of the year, and he managed to win 78 games with an overachieving Marlins team. Still, that's only 78 games -- about 20 games below expectations in New York.
Granted, Girardi has a lot more talent to work with now. Is it his kind of talent? What I mean is, Girardi squeezed everything out of a Marlins team with an average age under 26. His experience is primarily with motivating young players. The oldest position player on the team with more than 100 at bats was Joe Borchard at 30, and he didn't even have 150 ABs. Next in line? Backup outfielder Alfredo Amezaga at age 28.
Last year the Yankees' average age was nearly 31. Cano and Cabrera are young. All the other position players are at least 30. Not only does Girardi not have a lot of experience generally, his meager experience was with a completely different kind of team in a completely different kind of market. Is the theory that the Yankees are getting old, and they want Girardi around for the young players?
I'm not knocking the hiring of Girardi, but I expected an experienced coaching staff to surround him. Here's who he has instead:
1st Base Coach: Tony Pena -- has managerial experience (if you count the Royals), and is the incumbent. So I guess this is where the experience is for Girardi. Question: What is a catcher doing coaching runners at first base? He stole 80 bases in 18 seasons (and was caught 63 times). I think Pena makes a better bench coach. Wonder if he can still throw from his knees.
3rd Base Coach: Bobby Meacham -- coached for Girardi in Florida, and is a Yankee, having spent all of his 6 seasons with New York. He was a very good baserunner and an average infielder, so he's not such a bad choice. I might swap out Pena and Meacham, though. Meacham would be helpful for steals. Pena, as a former manager, might be more suited to the dignified third base spot (or the aforementioned bench coach).
Hitting Coach: Kevin Long -- another incumbent who seems to be competent, since the Yankees hitters are not too shabby. I'm not convinced A-Rod, Jeter, Giambi, Matsui and Posada need a hitting coach at this point, much less one who never played in the majors. Where's the credibility? Maybe Mattingly was really coaching the hitters.
Pitching Coach: Dave Eiland -- I don't know a lot about his coaching experience, but he wasn't much of a pitcher. He started 70 games in the majors -- basically a little more than two seasons' worth as a 5th or spot starter. His ERA was basically about 25% worse than the league for his career. Of course there are lots of pitching coaches without distinguished playing records, but they don't coach the Yankees and work for an inexperienced manager. Let's face it, Girardi is the real pitching coach here. Eiland pitched 373 innings. Girardi caught pitchers for about 10,000 innings.
Bullpen Coach: Mike Harkey -- a failed prospect from the Cubs system but coached for Girardi in Florida. Harkey had lots of potential as a starting pitcher, but could never stay healthy. He pitched for 8 years and had a grand total of 27 relief appearances. What's he doing coaching a bullpen? (I can hear Harry Caray's voice slurring Mike Harkey's name even as I type this).
Bench Coach: Rob Thomson -- First of all, why do teams need a bench coach? I understood it when a grizzled vet like Don Zimmer with 60 years of baseball experience was whispering in the manager's ear. But Rob Thomson? He didn't even play in the majors. Is this the guy who is going to coach when Girardi gets thrown out of games? When I first saw this I was hoping it was former Giant second baseman Robby Thompson, but alas...
I might be wrong -- sorta hope I am -- but I don't think this coaching team is going to last long.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
That's Not Wright!
Rollins won the NL MVP, with favorite Matt Holliday and Prince Fielder trailing.
Where, pray tell, were the two best players in the National League: David Wright and Albert Pujols.
If someone further down the list had to win it, I guess I can accept that it is Rollins. He's an exciting player and good for the game. I still think his teammate Utley had a better year, even with a missing month.
Where, pray tell, were the two best players in the National League: David Wright and Albert Pujols.
If someone further down the list had to win it, I guess I can accept that it is Rollins. He's an exciting player and good for the game. I still think his teammate Utley had a better year, even with a missing month.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Chris Berman
Why does Chris Berman wish us all a very happy Thanksgiving? Does he think I care whether he wishes me a nice Thanksgiving? Have I been waiting all year just to get his best wishes?
National TV anchors are so full of themselves.
I hope Chris Berman has a very happy Thanksgiving too. Looks like he has a head start.
National TV anchors are so full of themselves.
I hope Chris Berman has a very happy Thanksgiving too. Looks like he has a head start.
Analyzing the Angels-White Sox Trade
Sox get Orlando Cabrera (SS)
Angels get Jon Garland (SP)
First the players.
Cabrera
Cabrera finished in my own Gold Glove standings at short. Interestingly, I gave the Gold Glove to Juan Uribe, the man who Cabrera will replace. Of course, Cabrera brings a lot more to the plate than Uribe, since Uribe is essentially a replacement-level hitter. There's no question this is an upgrade at SS for the Sox.
Did the Angels get equivalent value? Let's not forget that Cabrera is 33 years old...not exactly his prime. Cabrera's best year was 2001 with Montreal at age 26, and his second best year was 2003. Last year was his third best year, but the pattern for shortstops normally does not include a lot of upside at age 33. On the other hand, Cabrera improved every year he was with the Angels and exceeded his projections by about 25%.
Garland
You might argue that the Angels don't need the pitching. Lackey is a perennial Cy Young contender, and Escobar has been terrific the last two years. Toss in Jared Weaver and you've got a pretty good top 3. Joe Saunders was promising, and if Ervin Santana can get back on track, the Angles are in good shape. Don't forget, though, Escobar will be 32 next year, so he's no sure bet. Then again, he's had his two best years in 06-07.
Garland is a pretty good hedge against Escobar's downside risk, as Garland is only 28. Garland basically wore out his welcome in Chicago this year, with some atrocious starts. Looking at his final numbers, though, he wasn't too shabby overall. Garland was not as valuable as Escobar, but nearly as valuable as Cabera, and with less mileage on him.
Take away his three really bad starts (game scores below 10, all of which were among the worst all time), and he posted an ERA of 3.31 (not 4.23), gave up only 14 homers in 200 IP (his lowest rate ever) and and a WHIP of 1.20 (not 1.33). Good numbers. In fact, Garland was every bit as good in 07 as 06. It's hard to know if he can return to his 2005 form, but as is, he's a good #3.
This trade certainly benefits both teams in terms of getting a good player and filling a need. The outcome hinges, then, on whether the Angels can adequately fill the SS spot and whether the White Sox can fill Garland's spot in the rotation.
Replacing Cabrera
The Angels have three choices: Maicer Izturis, Erick Aybar and Brandon Wood. Izturis has played a lot of third, where he really can't hold up against other AL third basemen because of his bat and only average defense. He's a good value as a utility man, but isn't the answer to Cabrera.
Aybar is a prospect, more dazzling with the glove than the bat, and only 23 years old. He split time in 2006 between AAA and the Angels, and wasn't ready for prime time. In '07, he got fewer than 200 at bats, and did not impress. He was shaky at SS, and bad at the plate, showing neither patience nor power. He was basically replacement level, which is quite a setback for his 23rd year.
Brandon Wood doesn't seem ready either. Wood is one of the most highly touted players in the minors...drafted 9th overall in 2003. His power numbers in 2005 and 2006 led many to conclude he was destined for 3b. Then he only got 33 ABs for the Angels this year, and didn't hit a lick. He was pretty strong at Triple A, with 23 homers in 430+ ABs.
Wood will compete for the starting job in training camp. I'm guessing he won't quite be read, but will get the starting nod anyway, with Izturis filling in. Aybar looks like he's on the outside looking in. By mid-year, I suspect Wood will have the job for big league job for good.
Replacing Garland
Chicago better start from the ground up. Contreras and Vazquez are getting old, leaving only Buehrle with experience and a track record. Danks had a rough rookie year, but always transitions slowly to a new level. His morale could not have been good with this team. He could be a solid pitcher. Who is left? Gavin Floyd? Charlie Haeger, the knuckleballer? I'm trying to come up with another name. Jack Egbert (he was great in Birmingham, but is he ready to jump from Double A)?
I can see trading Garland and rebuilding, but don't you need young arms in the system to rebuild? I guess the White Sox will be buying -- not a good strategy at the prices charged by average pitchers these days. Other than Egbert, I don't see it.
Verdict
Any downside for the Angels will be remedied by mid-year. The White Sox will benefit at SS, but not enough to make up for the horrid pitching. And down the road, Garland will certainly be more valuable and successful in LA than Cabrera in Chicago.
Angels get Jon Garland (SP)
First the players.
Cabrera
Cabrera finished in my own Gold Glove standings at short. Interestingly, I gave the Gold Glove to Juan Uribe, the man who Cabrera will replace. Of course, Cabrera brings a lot more to the plate than Uribe, since Uribe is essentially a replacement-level hitter. There's no question this is an upgrade at SS for the Sox.
Did the Angels get equivalent value? Let's not forget that Cabrera is 33 years old...not exactly his prime. Cabrera's best year was 2001 with Montreal at age 26, and his second best year was 2003. Last year was his third best year, but the pattern for shortstops normally does not include a lot of upside at age 33. On the other hand, Cabrera improved every year he was with the Angels and exceeded his projections by about 25%.
Garland
You might argue that the Angels don't need the pitching. Lackey is a perennial Cy Young contender, and Escobar has been terrific the last two years. Toss in Jared Weaver and you've got a pretty good top 3. Joe Saunders was promising, and if Ervin Santana can get back on track, the Angles are in good shape. Don't forget, though, Escobar will be 32 next year, so he's no sure bet. Then again, he's had his two best years in 06-07.
Garland is a pretty good hedge against Escobar's downside risk, as Garland is only 28. Garland basically wore out his welcome in Chicago this year, with some atrocious starts. Looking at his final numbers, though, he wasn't too shabby overall. Garland was not as valuable as Escobar, but nearly as valuable as Cabera, and with less mileage on him.
Take away his three really bad starts (game scores below 10, all of which were among the worst all time), and he posted an ERA of 3.31 (not 4.23), gave up only 14 homers in 200 IP (his lowest rate ever) and and a WHIP of 1.20 (not 1.33). Good numbers. In fact, Garland was every bit as good in 07 as 06. It's hard to know if he can return to his 2005 form, but as is, he's a good #3.
This trade certainly benefits both teams in terms of getting a good player and filling a need. The outcome hinges, then, on whether the Angels can adequately fill the SS spot and whether the White Sox can fill Garland's spot in the rotation.
Replacing Cabrera
The Angels have three choices: Maicer Izturis, Erick Aybar and Brandon Wood. Izturis has played a lot of third, where he really can't hold up against other AL third basemen because of his bat and only average defense. He's a good value as a utility man, but isn't the answer to Cabrera.
Aybar is a prospect, more dazzling with the glove than the bat, and only 23 years old. He split time in 2006 between AAA and the Angels, and wasn't ready for prime time. In '07, he got fewer than 200 at bats, and did not impress. He was shaky at SS, and bad at the plate, showing neither patience nor power. He was basically replacement level, which is quite a setback for his 23rd year.
Brandon Wood doesn't seem ready either. Wood is one of the most highly touted players in the minors...drafted 9th overall in 2003. His power numbers in 2005 and 2006 led many to conclude he was destined for 3b. Then he only got 33 ABs for the Angels this year, and didn't hit a lick. He was pretty strong at Triple A, with 23 homers in 430+ ABs.
Wood will compete for the starting job in training camp. I'm guessing he won't quite be read, but will get the starting nod anyway, with Izturis filling in. Aybar looks like he's on the outside looking in. By mid-year, I suspect Wood will have the job for big league job for good.
Replacing Garland
Chicago better start from the ground up. Contreras and Vazquez are getting old, leaving only Buehrle with experience and a track record. Danks had a rough rookie year, but always transitions slowly to a new level. His morale could not have been good with this team. He could be a solid pitcher. Who is left? Gavin Floyd? Charlie Haeger, the knuckleballer? I'm trying to come up with another name. Jack Egbert (he was great in Birmingham, but is he ready to jump from Double A)?
I can see trading Garland and rebuilding, but don't you need young arms in the system to rebuild? I guess the White Sox will be buying -- not a good strategy at the prices charged by average pitchers these days. Other than Egbert, I don't see it.
Verdict
Any downside for the Angels will be remedied by mid-year. The White Sox will benefit at SS, but not enough to make up for the horrid pitching. And down the road, Garland will certainly be more valuable and successful in LA than Cabrera in Chicago.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Instant Replay
Why does baseball need to change anything? It had the most successful year in its long history. People love it for its quirks, including missed calls.
As approved by the general managers, it would only apply to home run calls: fair or foul, fan interference or not, etc. If the.re was public outrage about home run calls during the year, I could see the compulsion to take action. I don't think that outrage exists.
The worst calls I saw this year were on catchers' throws to second base, and outfielders' throws to home. Those are not part of the proposed instant replay -- nor should they be.
The real danger is the slippery slope. If we start here, how many years are we away from having the computer call balls and strikes? This seems to have happened in the NFL, as the reviewable plays morph. They are now reviewing everything in the last two minutes of each half. I'm tired of the delays. I'm actually tired of having all the controversies resolved by a ref sticking his head under a hood.
In baseball will they review everything in the 8th and 9th innings? That would be ridiculous.
No one inning is more important than any other. Will it slow the game down? Will the umps run off the field into the dugout to check out the replays? If the ball is called foul, does the batter stand at home plate awaiting the decision? And if the ump says home run, does the batter then start running. Blah.
Tennis has the system down. It is a challenge system. The player simply signals to the umpire he/she wants to challenge. It takes about 10 seconds for the computer to make the line call, and the umpire has it on a screen in the umpiring chair. It is also shown to the fans. Play resumes immediately. Seamless.
I see no way to make it seamless in baseball.
As approved by the general managers, it would only apply to home run calls: fair or foul, fan interference or not, etc. If the.re was public outrage about home run calls during the year, I could see the compulsion to take action. I don't think that outrage exists.
The worst calls I saw this year were on catchers' throws to second base, and outfielders' throws to home. Those are not part of the proposed instant replay -- nor should they be.
The real danger is the slippery slope. If we start here, how many years are we away from having the computer call balls and strikes? This seems to have happened in the NFL, as the reviewable plays morph. They are now reviewing everything in the last two minutes of each half. I'm tired of the delays. I'm actually tired of having all the controversies resolved by a ref sticking his head under a hood.
In baseball will they review everything in the 8th and 9th innings? That would be ridiculous.
No one inning is more important than any other. Will it slow the game down? Will the umps run off the field into the dugout to check out the replays? If the ball is called foul, does the batter stand at home plate awaiting the decision? And if the ump says home run, does the batter then start running. Blah.
Tennis has the system down. It is a challenge system. The player simply signals to the umpire he/she wants to challenge. It takes about 10 seconds for the computer to make the line call, and the umpire has it on a screen in the umpiring chair. It is also shown to the fans. Play resumes immediately. Seamless.
I see no way to make it seamless in baseball.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)