In tonight's Braves-Marlins game, the Marlins play-by-play man said his broadcast partner Tommy Hutton "had a very good career" against Hall of Famer Tom Seaver.
Now if you didn't see Hutton hit, you don't really know how unlikely this seems to be. Hutton played 12 seasons in the majors, but only had 1,919 plate appearances, which is only 160 a year. That's called hanging on. His OPS was .673, which was bad even by the standards of the 70s. Hutton was an above average hitter in only one of those 12 seasons.
But it's true that Hutton tore up Seaver. First of all, Hutton faced Seaver more than any other pitcher (62 PAs). The next closest was not very close: Rick Reuschel at 42 PAs.
Second, his slash line was 320/435/540 for a 975 OPS. Compare that to 248/339/334 in his "normal" life as a hitter. He had 3 homers against Seaver in 50 ABs, for a 6% home run rate. Hutton only hit 22 homers in 12 years, in 1655 ABs, for a 1% home run rate.
Third, he had 15 RBI against Seaver in those At-Bats, which is 1 RBI for every 3.3 ABs. In his normal hitting life he had 186 RBI (about 15 a year!), which is 1 RBI for every 8.89 ABs.
Perhaps even more amazing is that in Hutton's last three years, he was 0-for-10 against Seaver. So if you think those numbers above look good, imagine if he retired at the end of 1978. He only had 150 ABs in those last 3 years anyway.
Of course that's just 62 PAs. It doesn't mean Hutton would hit like that against Seaver over a full season. But even if you calculate the uncertainty of his numbers based on the small sample size, the low end of the estimates would be a 254/372/406 slash line, which is still significantly better than he did against everyone else.
Okay, so he wouldn't wallop the HoFer over 162 game seasons, but still, he actually did hit rake against Seaver when given the opportunity.
Apart from being a Seaver killer, how did Hutton stick for 12 years with a weak bat? He was a decent pinch hitter. Almost 20% of his at bats came as a pinch hitter, and he hit .266, quite a bit better than his non-pinch hitting average. And he had 46 RBI as a pinch hitter, which was 25% of his career total.
Showing posts with label Baseball Commentators. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baseball Commentators. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Dum (or not so Dumb) Things Said
1. Dum: In the Chicago/Milwaukee game Thursday, I was listening to the Brewers' telecast. The color commentator (Bill Schroeder, I think) was discussing Ryan Theriot and Mike Fontenot, and their value to the Cubs. He said "You're right. Theriot and Fontenot can hit anywhere up and down the order, one to eight."
This, of course, is literally true. They could also hit ninth. So could every other player in the major leagues. But how many teams in the majors would hit Theriot or Fontenot in the #3, #4 or #5 spots?
2. Not so Dumb: In the Rays/Orioles game on Thursday, Andy Freed, the Rays radio play-by-play man said "There's Chris Hoiles, member of the Orioles hall of fame." I scoffed. I remembered Hoiles as a so-so hitter with a pretty short career. How could he be in the O's HoF? For about half of my life, the Orioles were one of the best teams in the league. Hoiles played for them on the downswing.
Actually, Hoiles played for 10 seasons and compiled a 262/366/467 line (not park adjusted). I can't scoff at an 833 OPS from a catcher. Hoiles averaged about 1 win above average for his career -- at least at the plate -- and appeared to be an average and competent defensive player. I can buy that he's in the Orioles hall of fame. If Dempsey is, Hoiles ought to be.
This, of course, is literally true. They could also hit ninth. So could every other player in the major leagues. But how many teams in the majors would hit Theriot or Fontenot in the #3, #4 or #5 spots?
2. Not so Dumb: In the Rays/Orioles game on Thursday, Andy Freed, the Rays radio play-by-play man said "There's Chris Hoiles, member of the Orioles hall of fame." I scoffed. I remembered Hoiles as a so-so hitter with a pretty short career. How could he be in the O's HoF? For about half of my life, the Orioles were one of the best teams in the league. Hoiles played for them on the downswing.
Actually, Hoiles played for 10 seasons and compiled a 262/366/467 line (not park adjusted). I can't scoff at an 833 OPS from a catcher. Hoiles averaged about 1 win above average for his career -- at least at the plate -- and appeared to be an average and competent defensive player. I can buy that he's in the Orioles hall of fame. If Dempsey is, Hoiles ought to be.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
AL Rookie of the Year
On the Fox pre-game, Kevin Kennedy said Alexei Ramirez ought to get the AL Rookie of the Year over Evan Longoria because "he plays the infield and has played all year."
Oh dear, that is soooooo bad. Why do I keep getting surprised?
First, Longoria plays the infield. Last I checked third base is as much in the infield as second base.
Second, is it Longoria's fault that he missed 31 games with a bad wrist? It's too bad, and if that means he didn't contribute as much, fine. But if his performance exceeds that of Ramirez, why should the injury alone be a strike against Longoria?
Third -- and this is important -- Longoria has 466 plate appearances. Ramirez, who Kennedy credits for playing "all year" has 470 plate appearances! Longoria missed 31 games with an injury and only has 4 fewer plate appearances!
So Kennedy's rationale: infield and playing time, are essentially equal between the two. His comment is just plain uninformed.
Finally, let's look at performance, which ought to be the true arbiter of the award. Here are the BA/OBP/SLG for the two players:
297/320/483 - Ramirez
281/352/545 - Longoria
A 32 point OBP advantage and 62 point SLG advantage far outweigh Ramirez' 16 batting points advantage. It's the difference between a good 803 OPS for Ramirez and an 897 OPS for Longoria. Using Tango's quick and dirty OPS Wins formula, that's about 6.1 wins for Longoria and 4.3 wins for Ramirez. Based solely on batting.
Let's see what Baseball Prospectus says about their hitting, using Value Above Replacement Player, which relates their batting performances relative to a replacement player at their position:
21.7 - Ramirez
36.3 - Longoria
Wins are equivalent to approximately 10 runs, so BP confirms that the hitting different is around 1.5 wins. (Unlike the OPS wins, this BP measure is wins above replacement, which explains why the absolute numbers are so much lower than the OPS wins).
How about defense? BP says Ramirez has allowed 16 more runs than the average second baseman. Longoria has saved 15 runs above average for his position. (I'm a little surprised Longoria's number is so low...Longoria is one of the best I've seen at third). Anyway, that 31 run swing is a difference of about 3 wins.
Longoria missed 31 games, but has put up better rate numbers, and better cumulative statistics, than Ramirez who Kennedy credits with playing all year. A guy who misses 31 games but contributes about 4.5 wins more than another player, ought to be ahead in the Rookie of the Year race. The missed games are irrelevant, except to make the point about how much further ahead Longoria would be if he had actually been healthy!
Let's hope no one important was listening to Kennedy.
Oh dear, that is soooooo bad. Why do I keep getting surprised?
First, Longoria plays the infield. Last I checked third base is as much in the infield as second base.
Second, is it Longoria's fault that he missed 31 games with a bad wrist? It's too bad, and if that means he didn't contribute as much, fine. But if his performance exceeds that of Ramirez, why should the injury alone be a strike against Longoria?
Third -- and this is important -- Longoria has 466 plate appearances. Ramirez, who Kennedy credits for playing "all year" has 470 plate appearances! Longoria missed 31 games with an injury and only has 4 fewer plate appearances!
So Kennedy's rationale: infield and playing time, are essentially equal between the two. His comment is just plain uninformed.
Finally, let's look at performance, which ought to be the true arbiter of the award. Here are the BA/OBP/SLG for the two players:
297/320/483 - Ramirez
281/352/545 - Longoria
A 32 point OBP advantage and 62 point SLG advantage far outweigh Ramirez' 16 batting points advantage. It's the difference between a good 803 OPS for Ramirez and an 897 OPS for Longoria. Using Tango's quick and dirty OPS Wins formula, that's about 6.1 wins for Longoria and 4.3 wins for Ramirez. Based solely on batting.
Let's see what Baseball Prospectus says about their hitting, using Value Above Replacement Player, which relates their batting performances relative to a replacement player at their position:
21.7 - Ramirez
36.3 - Longoria
Wins are equivalent to approximately 10 runs, so BP confirms that the hitting different is around 1.5 wins. (Unlike the OPS wins, this BP measure is wins above replacement, which explains why the absolute numbers are so much lower than the OPS wins).
How about defense? BP says Ramirez has allowed 16 more runs than the average second baseman. Longoria has saved 15 runs above average for his position. (I'm a little surprised Longoria's number is so low...Longoria is one of the best I've seen at third). Anyway, that 31 run swing is a difference of about 3 wins.
Longoria missed 31 games, but has put up better rate numbers, and better cumulative statistics, than Ramirez who Kennedy credits with playing all year. A guy who misses 31 games but contributes about 4.5 wins more than another player, ought to be ahead in the Rookie of the Year race. The missed games are irrelevant, except to make the point about how much further ahead Longoria would be if he had actually been healthy!
Let's hope no one important was listening to Kennedy.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Ken Rosenthal
Ken Rosenthal is the on-the-field reporter for the Fox telecasts on weekends. He's awful.
First, I've never heard him say anything that you couldn't find anywhere else. He's no Peter Gammons.
Second, he's a terrible broadcaster. Everything he says has an air of bemusement about it. It's not quite as annoying as the look of bemusement permanently fused to George Bush's face, even when talking about tragedies. But Rosenthal had that look of bemusement while talking about Ned Yost's job being on the line if the Brewers miss the post-season. Is he proud of what he's saying? Have the producers told him to make it lighter, because it's Fox? Or is he flirting with Jeannie Zelasco?
Also, everything he says from the field sounds scripted...like he's reading from a teleprompter. It has the same feel as when a local reporter does a scripted lead-in from a live location, and then rolls a "package". Every time Rosenthal speaks, I think he's throwing to a package. But of course, there's no tape that follows. Just another scripted question from Zelasco and scripted response from Rosenthal.
How do guys like this get these jobs?
Side note: Jeannie Zelasco is dressed like Annie Oakley today.
First, I've never heard him say anything that you couldn't find anywhere else. He's no Peter Gammons.
Second, he's a terrible broadcaster. Everything he says has an air of bemusement about it. It's not quite as annoying as the look of bemusement permanently fused to George Bush's face, even when talking about tragedies. But Rosenthal had that look of bemusement while talking about Ned Yost's job being on the line if the Brewers miss the post-season. Is he proud of what he's saying? Have the producers told him to make it lighter, because it's Fox? Or is he flirting with Jeannie Zelasco?
Also, everything he says from the field sounds scripted...like he's reading from a teleprompter. It has the same feel as when a local reporter does a scripted lead-in from a live location, and then rolls a "package". Every time Rosenthal speaks, I think he's throwing to a package. But of course, there's no tape that follows. Just another scripted question from Zelasco and scripted response from Rosenthal.
How do guys like this get these jobs?
Side note: Jeannie Zelasco is dressed like Annie Oakley today.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Sabathia Trade
ESPN's producers get kudos tonight. During the Monday night telecast for the Brewers/Cardinals, Doug Melvin (Brewers GM) joined Steve Phillips and Orel Hershiser in the booth to talk about the trade.
What's neat is that they also got Mark Shapiro (Indians GM) on the phone and they extensively questioned Melvin and Shapiro about how the deal went down.
This was a truly unique perspective. No speculation about how it worked from a bunch of former players in the ESPN studios. The two dealers were there, live, answering questions about all the mechanics of the trade. It was useful also to have Steve Phillips, a former GM, asking those questions. He had a good perspective on the kinds of things that happen during major deals, but also a good sense of what the viewers would want to hear.
What's neat is that they also got Mark Shapiro (Indians GM) on the phone and they extensively questioned Melvin and Shapiro about how the deal went down.
This was a truly unique perspective. No speculation about how it worked from a bunch of former players in the ESPN studios. The two dealers were there, live, answering questions about all the mechanics of the trade. It was useful also to have Steve Phillips, a former GM, asking those questions. He had a good perspective on the kinds of things that happen during major deals, but also a good sense of what the viewers would want to hear.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Dodger Broadcasts
I don't think there's a better baseball experience than listening or watching a Dodgers telecast. Vin Scully solos on radio for three innings, and then switches to tv for the middle three, before moving back. Charlie Steiner and Rick Monday do t.v. and then radio. It helps that the Dodgers have an exciting young team.
There's so much experience on the broacast crew. To a young listener, the broadcasters are probably a little corny, and not hip enough. But they are classic baseball old school broadcasts. It's worth listening to a Dodger game on radio, even when t.v. is available.
The camera crew is experienced too. Tonight was a good example.
Blake DeWitt hit his first major league home run. The camera was poised in the dugout to capture this:
DeWitt enters the dugout taking off his helmet. His teammates do not meet him at the steps. They are uniformly sitting on the bench, looking out at the ball field, as if nothing happened. DeWitt is like a man on an island. DeWitt puts his bat in the rack. He sort of hangs his head. Can't decide what to do with the helmet. Then, when he decides to take it off, the Dodger bench explodes towards him, patting him on the back, hugging him, wrestling him around, etc. The silent treatment, and then the celebration for a kid's first MLB homer. Then the fans gave him a curtain call.
That's a great baseball moment...the kind of thing that made you want to play as a kid, and made me read box scores every morning. And good broadcasting to know that was coming.
There's so much experience on the broacast crew. To a young listener, the broadcasters are probably a little corny, and not hip enough. But they are classic baseball old school broadcasts. It's worth listening to a Dodger game on radio, even when t.v. is available.
The camera crew is experienced too. Tonight was a good example.
Blake DeWitt hit his first major league home run. The camera was poised in the dugout to capture this:
DeWitt enters the dugout taking off his helmet. His teammates do not meet him at the steps. They are uniformly sitting on the bench, looking out at the ball field, as if nothing happened. DeWitt is like a man on an island. DeWitt puts his bat in the rack. He sort of hangs his head. Can't decide what to do with the helmet. Then, when he decides to take it off, the Dodger bench explodes towards him, patting him on the back, hugging him, wrestling him around, etc. The silent treatment, and then the celebration for a kid's first MLB homer. Then the fans gave him a curtain call.
That's a great baseball moment...the kind of thing that made you want to play as a kid, and made me read box scores every morning. And good broadcasting to know that was coming.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Star
In the Milwaukee-Cincinnati game, fifth inning, Dunn is trying to score from second, and there's going to be a play at the plate.
Dunn, lumbering towards home, did not slide and he was tagged out. Clearly a baserunning blunder from Dunn.
FSN Ohio's announcers (Thom Brennaman and Chris Welsh) blamed the baserunning gaffe on Joey Votto. Their theory is that Votto, who was standing behind the plate, only signaled Dunn once. Ergo, it was Votto's fault that Dunn was thrown out.
Probably Votto should have been more emphatic, but you can't tell me the slow footed Dunn doesn't know there's going to be a play at the plate almost anytime he is trying to score from second. Plus, isn't it his job to look for Votto's signal? To say it wasn't emphatic is fine, but to say he has responsibility for Cincy not scoring the run, but Dunn does not bear responsibility, is ridiculous.
Of course, Dunn is a star, and Votto's a rookie. Rookie mistake, right? Plus, the commentators are probably closer to Dunn in the clubhouse, and no use making those interviews more awkward.
Dunn, lumbering towards home, did not slide and he was tagged out. Clearly a baserunning blunder from Dunn.
FSN Ohio's announcers (Thom Brennaman and Chris Welsh) blamed the baserunning gaffe on Joey Votto. Their theory is that Votto, who was standing behind the plate, only signaled Dunn once. Ergo, it was Votto's fault that Dunn was thrown out.
Probably Votto should have been more emphatic, but you can't tell me the slow footed Dunn doesn't know there's going to be a play at the plate almost anytime he is trying to score from second. Plus, isn't it his job to look for Votto's signal? To say it wasn't emphatic is fine, but to say he has responsibility for Cincy not scoring the run, but Dunn does not bear responsibility, is ridiculous.
Of course, Dunn is a star, and Votto's a rookie. Rookie mistake, right? Plus, the commentators are probably closer to Dunn in the clubhouse, and no use making those interviews more awkward.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Jeff Brantley, YOU ARE NOT A CLUTCH COMMENTATOR
Jeff Brantley, the former closer for the Giants, Reds and other teams, was doing the color commentary for the Arizona-Cincinnati matchup. Reds were down 5-3 in the bottom of the ninth. Phillips singles. Dunn singles. So there are men on 1st and 2d with no outs.
Encarnacion at the plate. Brantley keeps saying he should bunt, and Dusty Baker obliges. Back to this decision in a moment. After Encarnacion displays absolutely no talent for bunting, and has a 1-2 count, Brantley says:
I capitalized the last two sentences because Brantley was literally yelling, as if he were actually angry about it. The very next pitch -- approximately 2 seconds later -- Encarnacion clubbed one into the left field seats to give the Reds a 6-5 victory.
When hearing Brantley, I had two immediate thoughts: (1) lots of studies show there is no such thing as clutch ability that is repeatable from year to year and (2) what does he have against Encarnacion that would make him yell out to millions of people "This guy is not a clutch hitter"? I hope Brantley never has to interview him.
Now, let's consider whether Encarnacion should be bunting, assuming he is an average hitter (fair assumption) and average bunter (unfair assumption...he looked terrible bunting and had no sacrifices last year).
Cincinnati's win expectancy, down by 2 in the bottom of the ninth, with men on first and second, is 34.6%. If Encarnacion gets the bunt down, there will be one out and men on second and third. The win expectancy for that situation is 30.1%, so the bunt is a bad play for an average hitter/average bunter because it reduces Cincinnati's chances of winning by 5%.
Arguably Encarnacion is a slightly above average hitter, and he certainly is a below average bunter. The bunt, then is a pretty bad play, if you are actually expecting him to bunt. One caveat -- if you are merely attempting the bunt to draw the third baseman in, you may be increasing your chances of scoring if you then swing away. That's not what Dusty was trying however.
Encarnacion at the plate. Brantley keeps saying he should bunt, and Dusty Baker obliges. Back to this decision in a moment. After Encarnacion displays absolutely no talent for bunting, and has a 1-2 count, Brantley says:
If he can't bunt, get him out of there. Put someone else in. HE DOESN'T HIT IN THE CLUTCH. THIS GUY IS NOT A CLUTCH HITTER!
I capitalized the last two sentences because Brantley was literally yelling, as if he were actually angry about it. The very next pitch -- approximately 2 seconds later -- Encarnacion clubbed one into the left field seats to give the Reds a 6-5 victory.
When hearing Brantley, I had two immediate thoughts: (1) lots of studies show there is no such thing as clutch ability that is repeatable from year to year and (2) what does he have against Encarnacion that would make him yell out to millions of people "This guy is not a clutch hitter"? I hope Brantley never has to interview him.
Now, let's consider whether Encarnacion should be bunting, assuming he is an average hitter (fair assumption) and average bunter (unfair assumption...he looked terrible bunting and had no sacrifices last year).
Cincinnati's win expectancy, down by 2 in the bottom of the ninth, with men on first and second, is 34.6%. If Encarnacion gets the bunt down, there will be one out and men on second and third. The win expectancy for that situation is 30.1%, so the bunt is a bad play for an average hitter/average bunter because it reduces Cincinnati's chances of winning by 5%.
Arguably Encarnacion is a slightly above average hitter, and he certainly is a below average bunter. The bunt, then is a pretty bad play, if you are actually expecting him to bunt. One caveat -- if you are merely attempting the bunt to draw the third baseman in, you may be increasing your chances of scoring if you then swing away. That's not what Dusty was trying however.
Sideline Reporters
I've complained before about the third member of the broadcast team, particularly on ESPN, where the third member either gives us (a) meaningless information, (b) information readily available from any other source or (c) a product endorsement. Normally it's just an excuse to let someone other than the play-by-play and color men talk.
Watching the Mets at the Marlins, on FSN, I saw a useful report from Craig Minervini, the "sideline" reporter for the Marlins local broadcast. In the game, Carlos Beltran hit a deep fly to right that appeared to hit just above the yellow line on the wall. It was called a home run and Beltran did his trot.
Marlins manager Freddy Gonzalez argued, the umps conferred, and they changed the call. The replay shows it hit the railing and was clearly a home run. Even though it would have been hard to see exactly where the ball hit in real time from field level, it bounced way up in the air. It only would have done that if it hit the railing. If it hit the yellow line on the padded wall, it would barely have bounced at all.
Anyway, within minutes Minervini was in right field, in the stands, asking the fans in the front row exactly where the ball was hit. A fan pointed to the spot on the railing. Another fan with a scorebook said he recorded it as an HR, and only crossed it out when the umps got it wrong. That's good and fast work.
Watching the Mets at the Marlins, on FSN, I saw a useful report from Craig Minervini, the "sideline" reporter for the Marlins local broadcast. In the game, Carlos Beltran hit a deep fly to right that appeared to hit just above the yellow line on the wall. It was called a home run and Beltran did his trot.
Marlins manager Freddy Gonzalez argued, the umps conferred, and they changed the call. The replay shows it hit the railing and was clearly a home run. Even though it would have been hard to see exactly where the ball hit in real time from field level, it bounced way up in the air. It only would have done that if it hit the railing. If it hit the yellow line on the padded wall, it would barely have bounced at all.
Anyway, within minutes Minervini was in right field, in the stands, asking the fans in the front row exactly where the ball was hit. A fan pointed to the spot on the railing. Another fan with a scorebook said he recorded it as an HR, and only crossed it out when the umps got it wrong. That's good and fast work.
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.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
McCarver's Keys to Success
How are these "keys to success"?:
1. Red Sox want to close it out and sweep the Series; and
2. Rockies must win tonight.
1. Red Sox want to close it out and sweep the Series; and
2. Rockies must win tonight.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Ken Rosenthal vs. Craig Sager
Tale of the tape for Fox's sideline reporter and TBS' sideline reporter:
It's not that I like Craig Sager. It's that I cannot figure out who is doing the auditioning at Fox. Ken Rosenthal is literally reading scripts from the sidelines, and he has nothing interesting to add. You get the impression they write his material before the game, and then go to him every couple of innings so he can read the prompter. What is the point? Why do something like that?
The same reason local news reporters go "live" at 11:00 from their t.v. studio parking lot about stories that happened at 4:00. Because we want to pretend something is happening, even when it isn't.
Sure Craig Sager interviews old ladies and celebrities from the stands, but at least the whole thing is not rehearsed. At least he is real.
Category KR CS
Human or robot Robot Human
Looks comfortable? No Yes
Interesting comments? No No
Easygoing style? No Yes
Appears intelligent? Yes No
Can improvise? No Yes
Complexion Normal Orange
Clothing Wall St. Zoot suit
Activities in 1970s GI Joe TBS reporter
Activities in 1980s Beating off TBS reporter
Activities in 1990s Chess club TBS reporter
It's not that I like Craig Sager. It's that I cannot figure out who is doing the auditioning at Fox. Ken Rosenthal is literally reading scripts from the sidelines, and he has nothing interesting to add. You get the impression they write his material before the game, and then go to him every couple of innings so he can read the prompter. What is the point? Why do something like that?
The same reason local news reporters go "live" at 11:00 from their t.v. studio parking lot about stories that happened at 4:00. Because we want to pretend something is happening, even when it isn't.
Sure Craig Sager interviews old ladies and celebrities from the stands, but at least the whole thing is not rehearsed. At least he is real.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Nominee for Quote of the Year
Bob Brenly about Doug Davis' drive to center field in game 2 of the NLCS, despite the lifetime .070 batting average`: "I apologize Doug Davis. You can rake!"
(Note, this is the only nominee so far that I actually think is a good comment. It's funny. The others are funny only if you don't mind hearing commentators get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to state the obvious.)
(Note, this is the only nominee so far that I actually think is a good comment. It's funny. The others are funny only if you don't mind hearing commentators get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to state the obvious.)
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Underappreciated Brandon Webb
Maybe I'm sensitive about this because I'm a Webb fan, but I'm watching the TBS telecast at the start of the NLCS game 1, and Caray, Brenly and Gwynn are saying things like "we'll see if his sinker is working," "we'll know right away if he has his good stuff" and "he hasn't pitched well against the Rockies the last two years."
Someone who only watches playoff baseball, and doesn't watch every game, may not know who Brandon Webb is. The commentators are painting a picture that sometimes Webb is off so we've got to watch carefully to see if the good pitcher shows up, or the bad. Sometimes his sinker doesn't work? Sure, but not very often.
It isn't enough to say he won the Cy Young last year. Perhaps it's worth mentioning that if Peavy hadn't been lights out all year, Webb would probably win the Cy Young this year too. It wouldn't surprise me if hitters in the National League would rather face any other pitcher. As Derrek Lee said, "Hitting his sinker is like hitting a bowling ball."
Over the last two years, he is quite simply the best pitcher in the National League. Period.
Someone who only watches playoff baseball, and doesn't watch every game, may not know who Brandon Webb is. The commentators are painting a picture that sometimes Webb is off so we've got to watch carefully to see if the good pitcher shows up, or the bad. Sometimes his sinker doesn't work? Sure, but not very often.
It isn't enough to say he won the Cy Young last year. Perhaps it's worth mentioning that if Peavy hadn't been lights out all year, Webb would probably win the Cy Young this year too. It wouldn't surprise me if hitters in the National League would rather face any other pitcher. As Derrek Lee said, "Hitting his sinker is like hitting a bowling ball."
Over the last two years, he is quite simply the best pitcher in the National League. Period.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Nominee for Quote of the Year
Erik Karros just said on the Fox pre-game telecast:
"Meaningful games are important."
"Meaningful games are important."
Sunday, September 02, 2007
The Genius of John and Joe
ESPN Sunday Night Baseball has been on exactly 4 minutes as I start typing this. The first minute and a half includes the graphics, music, etc.
Then John and Joe get us started. Joe tells us that Vlad is the MVP this year. John tells us the Rangers scored 30 runs last week, the "all-time record."
John's statement is worse. Joe's is an opinion...a poorly formed opinion, but still an opinion. John's statement purports to be fact, but is simply untrue. What's disgusting is that there were plenty of news stories describing the feat, and ESPN has a team of researchers who could easily get the facts straight. It's even worse because they are prepared remarks at the beginning. Nobody can say he got it wrong because there was no time to research.
Normally it's Joe with the flubs, so lets look at where Vlad should rank in the MVP voting so far this year, using Baseball Prospectus' VORP (which does not include defense) and WARP3 (which does include defense).
Guerrero is 5th in VORP and 12th in WARP3, exclusive of pitchers. That would seem to make him an MVP candidate, but look how far behind Rodriguez and Ordonez he is in VORP, and how far behind Rodriguez, Granderson, Suzuki, Ordonez and Roberts he is in WARP3.
None of the pitchers outrank him in VORP, though I'm not sure if VORP is designed for comparisons among hitters and pitchers. In WARP3, he is behind Santana (9.3), and tied with Bedard and his teammate Escobar.
When John just asked him (21 minutes into the broadcast) why he chose Guerrero, Morgan said "'cause I'm watching him play right now. Next time I watch someone else play, I may change my mind."
Also, at minute 22, John referred to the 30-run game again, and this time said it was the most runs in the "modern era."
Then John and Joe get us started. Joe tells us that Vlad is the MVP this year. John tells us the Rangers scored 30 runs last week, the "all-time record."
John's statement is worse. Joe's is an opinion...a poorly formed opinion, but still an opinion. John's statement purports to be fact, but is simply untrue. What's disgusting is that there were plenty of news stories describing the feat, and ESPN has a team of researchers who could easily get the facts straight. It's even worse because they are prepared remarks at the beginning. Nobody can say he got it wrong because there was no time to research.
Normally it's Joe with the flubs, so lets look at where Vlad should rank in the MVP voting so far this year, using Baseball Prospectus' VORP (which does not include defense) and WARP3 (which does include defense).
Player VORP WARP3
Rodriguez 81.0 13.1
Granderson 53.6 12.2
Suzuki 57.5 11.7
Ordonez 73.1 11.0
Roberts 49.2 10.3
Jeter 44.6 9.4
C.Pena 45.4 9.3
Rios 40.5 9.3
Posada 57.0 9.2
V.Martinez 49.5 9.1
O.Cabrera 32.4 9.0
Guerrero 57.1 8.9
Guerrero is 5th in VORP and 12th in WARP3, exclusive of pitchers. That would seem to make him an MVP candidate, but look how far behind Rodriguez and Ordonez he is in VORP, and how far behind Rodriguez, Granderson, Suzuki, Ordonez and Roberts he is in WARP3.
None of the pitchers outrank him in VORP, though I'm not sure if VORP is designed for comparisons among hitters and pitchers. In WARP3, he is behind Santana (9.3), and tied with Bedard and his teammate Escobar.
When John just asked him (21 minutes into the broadcast) why he chose Guerrero, Morgan said "'cause I'm watching him play right now. Next time I watch someone else play, I may change my mind."
Also, at minute 22, John referred to the 30-run game again, and this time said it was the most runs in the "modern era."
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Nominee for Quote of the Year
On Baseball Tonight, John Kruk just said the following about Yuniesky Betancourt, the Seattle shortstop with the .711 career OPS:
"If he ever learns to hit in the big leagues, he's gonna be a stud."
"If he ever learns to hit in the big leagues, he's gonna be a stud."
Thursday, August 09, 2007
ESPN Is Like A Soft Drink
When you use it everyday, it seems like it is really really good. But take a year off and then try it. Horrible. Sugary sweet.
I was in a sub shop and SportsCenter was on, with what could only be called massively repetitive coverage of Bonds' home run. Scott Somebodyorother tossed it out to Pedro Gomez, whom Scott told us has been living at AT&T Park for the last 3 months covering this story. Having exhausted every other possibility, Scott asked Pedro for his insight on the home run.
Gomez said what stuck out in his mind was Bonds' response to a question at the press conference. Someone asked Bonds whether he had any advice for the public in determining who the real Barry Bonds is. Bonds said "Don't listen to you guys," referring to the media. Some members of the media chuckled. Gomez was not amused. He said if Barry has a bad image, it is his fault, not the media's fault. He explained that the media just presents it the way it is. It isn't the media's job to make Barry's image. It is Barry's job to make his own image.
I'm not sure what to make of that. Gomez is saying one of two things: (1) the media reports everything with a 100% objective view; what you see is the "true reality" or (2) sure we distort the hell out of things, but it's Barry's job to manipulate us so that his image is not tarnished.
I believe Gomez was saying the first. That's incredibly naive, even for a reporter who tries/hopes to report things objectively. I'm not suggesting Gomez distorts reality, but to say the media is merely showing us the world as it is means that he doesn't understand the media. ESPN is a business, designed to make money, and the more titillating the story, the better the ratings. That's reality!
Suppose the reporters crowd around Barry's locker and he says "Get the hell away from me. I want to be with my kids right now." Does that make Barry an asshole? Because he doesn't want to talk to someone at ESPN? As if he has an obligation to let them make money off his story.
Do I think Barry is a jerk? Yes. But consider why I might think that. My only access to Barry is through what I see on television and read on the Internet. I'm willing to acknowledge that I don't really know if he is a jerk because it is filtered through the media. Funny that Pedro Gomez can't acknowledge that.
Here's the sugary sweet part of the report. After about 30 seconds of Pedro Gomez "reporting," Scott then says "I'm not in charge of scheduling, but GO HOME! Get some rest! You deserve it." Am I supposed to enjoy this office talk between the two ESPN guys? Why is that on the air? I find it difficult to believe Gomez is completely worn out because he has to watch baseball every day and report for 60 seconds on Barry Bonds. 90% of the country is working harder than he is. But even if he is pulling all nighters, so what? He's handsomely paid to do his job. I don't feel sorry for him.
It has become a real pet peeve of mine when the news/sports anchor thanks a reporter for his hard work, or otherwise engages in a personal conversation with the reporter. That's not part of the news. The reporter's job is to report. Why must the anchor, another paid member of the same organization, thank him for doing his job -- and thank him on the air?
I was in a sub shop and SportsCenter was on, with what could only be called massively repetitive coverage of Bonds' home run. Scott Somebodyorother tossed it out to Pedro Gomez, whom Scott told us has been living at AT&T Park for the last 3 months covering this story. Having exhausted every other possibility, Scott asked Pedro for his insight on the home run.
Gomez said what stuck out in his mind was Bonds' response to a question at the press conference. Someone asked Bonds whether he had any advice for the public in determining who the real Barry Bonds is. Bonds said "Don't listen to you guys," referring to the media. Some members of the media chuckled. Gomez was not amused. He said if Barry has a bad image, it is his fault, not the media's fault. He explained that the media just presents it the way it is. It isn't the media's job to make Barry's image. It is Barry's job to make his own image.
I'm not sure what to make of that. Gomez is saying one of two things: (1) the media reports everything with a 100% objective view; what you see is the "true reality" or (2) sure we distort the hell out of things, but it's Barry's job to manipulate us so that his image is not tarnished.
I believe Gomez was saying the first. That's incredibly naive, even for a reporter who tries/hopes to report things objectively. I'm not suggesting Gomez distorts reality, but to say the media is merely showing us the world as it is means that he doesn't understand the media. ESPN is a business, designed to make money, and the more titillating the story, the better the ratings. That's reality!
Suppose the reporters crowd around Barry's locker and he says "Get the hell away from me. I want to be with my kids right now." Does that make Barry an asshole? Because he doesn't want to talk to someone at ESPN? As if he has an obligation to let them make money off his story.
Do I think Barry is a jerk? Yes. But consider why I might think that. My only access to Barry is through what I see on television and read on the Internet. I'm willing to acknowledge that I don't really know if he is a jerk because it is filtered through the media. Funny that Pedro Gomez can't acknowledge that.
Here's the sugary sweet part of the report. After about 30 seconds of Pedro Gomez "reporting," Scott then says "I'm not in charge of scheduling, but GO HOME! Get some rest! You deserve it." Am I supposed to enjoy this office talk between the two ESPN guys? Why is that on the air? I find it difficult to believe Gomez is completely worn out because he has to watch baseball every day and report for 60 seconds on Barry Bonds. 90% of the country is working harder than he is. But even if he is pulling all nighters, so what? He's handsomely paid to do his job. I don't feel sorry for him.
It has become a real pet peeve of mine when the news/sports anchor thanks a reporter for his hard work, or otherwise engages in a personal conversation with the reporter. That's not part of the news. The reporter's job is to report. Why must the anchor, another paid member of the same organization, thank him for doing his job -- and thank him on the air?
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Pitcher Prediction Evaluation
Pretty awful, but there were some very weird things going on today. Outlier performances are those performances that have less than a 15% chance of occurring. There were lots of those today. Outlier performances cannot be predicted.
Texas @ Cleveland
St. Louis @ Pittsburgh
Baltimore @ Boston
Chicago (AL) @ New York (AL)
New York (NL) @ Milwaukee
Philadelphia @ Chicago (NL)
Arizona @ San Diego
Cincinnati @ Washington
Colorado @ Florida
Houston @ Atlanta
Los Angeles (AL) @ Oakland
San Francisco @ Los Angeles (NL)
Team Winners (Grade: D):
CLE(Y), PIT(Y), BAL(N), NYY(N), MIL(N), CHN(N), SD(Y), CIN(N), COL(N), HOU(Y), LAA(Y), SF(Y)
Overall grade: C
Texas @ Cleveland
Pitcher IP H HR BB SO ER 5+Run%
Gabbard 4.1 5 1 4 4 4 38%
5.2 8 0 1 4 3 Grade: D
Westbrook 5.2 6 0 2 4 2 13%
6.0 5 0 1 5 0 Grade: C
St. Louis @ Pittsburgh
Pitcher IP H HR BB SO ER 5+Run%
Reyes 5.1 6 0 2 4 2 13%
5.0 4 0 3 4 3 Grade: B+
Youman 6.0 7 0 1 2 2 12%
5.0 5 0 3 3 3 Grade: C
Baltimore @ Boston
Pitcher IP H HR BB SO ER 5+Run%
Guthrie 6.2 6 1 2 5 2 15%
5.1 9 2 4 3 3 Grade: D
Wakefield 6.0 7 0 2 3 3 21%
7.0 6 0 1 5 3 Grade: B-
Chicago (AL) @ New York (AL)
Pitcher IP H HR BB SO ER 5+Run%
Garland 6.1 7 0 2 2 3 21%
1.1 9 1 0 1 8 Grade: F/outlier
Clemens 6.1 6 0 1 4 2 6%
1.2 9 0 0 0 3 Grade: outlier
(38 pitches)
New York (NL) @ Milwaukee
Pitcher IP H HR BB SO ER 5+Run%
Lawrence 6.1 7 1 2 4 3 24%
5.0 8 1 0 3 3 Grade: C
Capuano 5.2 6 0 2 4 3 12%
6.0 10 2 1 8 5 Grade: outlier
(5 ER "<" 12%)
Philadelphia @ Chicago (NL)
Pitcher IP H HR BB SO ER 5+Run%
Lohse 6.0 7 0 2 4 3 26%
1.0 2 0 1 0 1 Grade: outlier
(left with injury)
Marshall 5.2 5 0 2 4 2 13%
2.2 9 1 1 2 7 Grade: outlier
(7 ER "<" 1%)
Arizona @ San Diego
Pitcher IP H HR BB SO ER 5+Run%
Petit 5.1 6 1 1 4 3 16%
4.1 5 2 4 4 5 Grade: F
Peavy 6.2 5 0 2 8 2 7%
7.0 3 0 1 10 0 Grade: B
Cincinnati @ Washington
Pitcher IP H HR BB SO ER 5+Run%
Dumatrait 5.2 7 0 2 3 3 22%
3.1 8 0 3 3 6 Grade: D
Bacsik 5.2 7 1 1 2 3 25%
7.0 3 2 0 6 3 Grade: F
Colorado @ Florida
Pitcher IP H HR BB SO ER 5+Run%
Hirsh 5.2 6 1 2 6 3 23%
5.1 6 2 4 8 3 Grade: A-
VandenHurk 4.2 6 0 3 5 3 25%
4.1 4 0 3 5 2 Grade: A
Houston @ Atlanta
Pitcher IP H HR BB SO ER 5+Run%
Williams 5.2 7 1 2 3 3 28%
5.0 13 2 0 2 7 Grade: C-
Reyes 4.2 5 1 2 1 3 20%
3.0 4 2 4 1 4 Grade: C-
Los Angeles (AL) @ Oakland
Pitcher IP H HR BB SO ER 5+Run%
Saunders 6.0 6 0 2 3 2 12%
6.2 6 1 2 3 2 Grade: A
Gaudin 5.2 6 0 3 3 2 15%
6.0 7 2 3 3 5 Grade: C-/outlier
San Francisco @ Los Angeles (NL)
Pitcher IP H HR BB SO ER 5+Run%
Zito 5.2 6 0 3 4 2 15%
5.2 7 0 2 5 1 Grade: A
Tomko 6.0 8 0 3 4 4 35%
5.0 5 0 3 1 3 Grade: B
Team Winners (Grade: D):
CLE(Y), PIT(Y), BAL(N), NYY(N), MIL(N), CHN(N), SD(Y), CIN(N), COL(N), HOU(Y), LAA(Y), SF(Y)
Overall grade: C
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
More Genius from ESPN
Watching the Mets/Brewers contest, the ESPN team was talking about the brilliance of John Schuerholz in making deals. No denying that as a general principle.
Steve Phillips cited the Teixeira deal, saying Schuerholz was able to land the biggest catch "without even giving up a major leaguer." Then, realizing the error, he corrected by saying "except Saltalamacchia, but he's a new major leaguer. Otherwise, just prospects."
Just prospects? Unless you are the Yankees or Red Sox, prospects are the heart of the organization. It is debatable whether Salty and the prospects for Teixeira is a good deal or not for the Braves, but even if it is, Teixeira was not stolen for mere prospects. Salty will probably be one of the 3 best catchers in the AL by next year, and that's nothing to sneeze at. If one of the five prospects becomes an average major leaguer, Texas will come out ahead, considering Teixeira's contract.
There's plenty of analysis of this trade elsewhere, and I won't rehash the arguments. But it is idiotic to act as though giving up prospects is like getting a superstar for free.
The scariest thing is that Steve Phillips was a general manager! Perhaps that's why he's broadcasting now.
Steve Phillips cited the Teixeira deal, saying Schuerholz was able to land the biggest catch "without even giving up a major leaguer." Then, realizing the error, he corrected by saying "except Saltalamacchia, but he's a new major leaguer. Otherwise, just prospects."
Just prospects? Unless you are the Yankees or Red Sox, prospects are the heart of the organization. It is debatable whether Salty and the prospects for Teixeira is a good deal or not for the Braves, but even if it is, Teixeira was not stolen for mere prospects. Salty will probably be one of the 3 best catchers in the AL by next year, and that's nothing to sneeze at. If one of the five prospects becomes an average major leaguer, Texas will come out ahead, considering Teixeira's contract.
There's plenty of analysis of this trade elsewhere, and I won't rehash the arguments. But it is idiotic to act as though giving up prospects is like getting a superstar for free.
The scariest thing is that Steve Phillips was a general manager! Perhaps that's why he's broadcasting now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)