...but we're gonna do it anyway. Before Tim Lincecum had one of the best playoff pitching performances ever, Cam Inman wrote a piece where he tried to argue that Tim Lincecum can't be expected to pitch well in his postseason debut. A very fair thing to say, but the reasons he listed were awful, and warranted this short FJM Friday post. Note that had Lincecum not pitched well yesterday, Inman would have still been wrong.
Giants ace Tim Lincecum gets his turn tonight. To pitch a no hitter as Roy Halladay did in his postseason debut? Whoa, hold on there.
Yeah, about that...
Now is a great time to temper those enormous expectations of Lincecum...Lincecum did not pitch great in his first big-league debut. Or in his first Giants season opener. Or in his first All-Star Game. He made lackluster first impressions on those big stages. Tonight's platform looms larger.
It's quite fair to temper expectations for Lincecum, as with any pitcher. But the examples he cites as predictive are ludicrous (really any examples that supposedly would contain a predictive quality would be foolish). Lincecum is a completely different pitcher than the one that debuted against the Phillies in 2007. So he had a bad 2009 season opener. So what? And the All Star Game means nothing. It's not even a real game. You could point to as many games where Lincecum has performed well in pressure situations (and that would be wrong also). He pitched very well in the 2010 season opener. He was amazing this September in a pennant stretch. Anything could have happened yesterday; he happened to pitch like Bob Gibson. There was no way of seeing it coming. But there was certainly no reason to think he wouldn't pitch like that because of a poor performance in April of 2009.
It may go great, like Halladay's. Or perhaps he will follow in the Giants franchise lore of Christy Mathewson, whose playoff debut came in the 1905 World Series and featured 3 shutout victories in 6 days.
That's more like it.
Showing posts with label FJM Friday. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FJM Friday. Show all posts
Friday, October 8, 2010
Friday, October 1, 2010
FJM Friday: Helllloooo, Marchman...
So sorry about skipping Fire Joe Morgan Friday last week. Anyway, here we are, on a day the Giants could clinch the division, and Tim Marchman of SI is here to tell us we shouldn't be excited. Go for it, Tim!
This year's NL pennant races are the kind that could one day inspire songs: dour songs, about futility and lack of meaning, sung by moping teenagers.
Huh?
In theory, this has not been an especially dull race. In practice, September has been a month of listing apathy.
I'd say that in PRACTICE, it has been a very exciting month, and that it is your THEORY that states otherwise. No?
Teams winning out on the basis of being less mediocre than others will never be any more compelling than a bicycle race run on flat tires.
Bicycle races with flat tires sounds GREAT. Much better than normal bicycle races. I think this statement bothers me more than anything else in the article, because it at least SEEMS to be suggesting that the great runs by the Phillies and the Giants in September are just those teams being "less mediocre" than their rivals. The Phillies finally got everyone healthy, and are clearly the best team in the league. And the Giants, well, the Giants pitching staff has had one of the most impressive runs of superb pitching in the history of baseball. That's not mediocrity. That's excellence.
...take BR's SRS stat, which adjusts run differential for strength of schedule and rates teams by how many runs per game better or worse they are than an average major league club. By this measure, the 95 win Phillies are as good as the 87 win Red Sox, the 88 win Reds are as good as the 77 win A's, and the 88 win Padres are as good as the 82 win Blue Jays.
I have a hard time thinking that the A's are as good as the Reds, or that the Red Sox are as good as the Phillies. But still, I get it: the AL is better than the NL. So? The amazing Yankee dynasty of the late 1990's won the division with 87 wins in 2000. Were they a mediocre team? There are countless other examples through the 100+ year history of AL/NL baseball which show teams much worse than the 2010 Reds going to the playoffs. And there have been just as many collapses that are far worse than the Padres this season. Your sepia-toned view of the teams of yesterday is inaccurate.
NL partisans will protest, but there's lot of reason (sic) to think that a team like the A's would do quite well if dropped into the Senior Circuit next year.
Please don't do that. The Padres are boring enough. The last thing I wanna watch is Wade LeBlanc pitching to Mark Ellis.
The 2nd point is that the irrelevance of the Dodgers, Cubs, and Mets, 3 teams with enormous natural advantages -- makes for a huge, sucking void in the standings.
Those teams might be irrelevant THIS year, but each of them has had very recent success. The Cubs were a 97 win team in 2008. The Dodgers played in the last 2 NLCS. And the Mets were one of the best teams in the NL from 2006-2008. Of course, the real point here is that there is no precedent for THESE teams making baseball exciting. The Dodgers, like the Giants, are one of the most storied franchises in baseball, but just like the Giants, they have had as many miserable seasons as great ones. And the Mets and Cubs? Posterboys of painful mediocrity for most of the 20th century. When they are not in the NL bracket, they are not missed.
...it takes villains to make heroes: How much more meaningful would a Reds division win be if it came over a bullying Cubs team, vaunting over the money minted along Clark Street?
I understand there might be a rivalry between the Reds and the Cubs (though certainly not at the level of the Cardinals and Cubs), but still, I don't think the Reds fans care one bit about sticking it to Chicago. I mean, the Reds are the oldest franchise in baseball history, and have had periods of ENORMOUS success. They don't need to prove anything to anybody. Certainly not the Cubs.
Broad equality among teams, with none standing out as especially good or especially bad, and a diminishing of the power of big city clubs are essentially the goals of the apostles of competitive balance. In the ideal game of the parity preachers, all teams would be average, with some just being slightly less average than others. Each year, there would be hope and faith for all, and each year a cluster of slightly above average teams would trip into October questing for a large trophy.
I don't know who these "apostles of competitive balance" are. I do know that many people, quite rightly, protest the fact that Boston and New York won 13/14 AL East titles from 1994 to 2007. People want every team to have the chance to be great. That's all. Of course they can't all win at the same time.
As baseball's races this year show us, though, a game actually built on this line is on par with roach fighting, without the illicit kick -- one has interest in the spectacle, but unless money is involved, less in the outcome. A great race needs great teams; it needs the swagger of wealth; mostly, it needs the prospect of a team playing spectacularly well and still losing out on what it wants.
I don't see the races this year as being akin to a roach fight, although I've never seen a roach fight. In fact, it is insulting to hear you say that. Did you watch the series the Giants just played in Colorado? It was magnificent. It was great baseball. So sorry the fucking Mets weren't playing.
This year's NL pennant races are the kind that could one day inspire songs: dour songs, about futility and lack of meaning, sung by moping teenagers.
Huh?
In theory, this has not been an especially dull race. In practice, September has been a month of listing apathy.
I'd say that in PRACTICE, it has been a very exciting month, and that it is your THEORY that states otherwise. No?
Teams winning out on the basis of being less mediocre than others will never be any more compelling than a bicycle race run on flat tires.
Bicycle races with flat tires sounds GREAT. Much better than normal bicycle races. I think this statement bothers me more than anything else in the article, because it at least SEEMS to be suggesting that the great runs by the Phillies and the Giants in September are just those teams being "less mediocre" than their rivals. The Phillies finally got everyone healthy, and are clearly the best team in the league. And the Giants, well, the Giants pitching staff has had one of the most impressive runs of superb pitching in the history of baseball. That's not mediocrity. That's excellence.
...take BR's SRS stat, which adjusts run differential for strength of schedule and rates teams by how many runs per game better or worse they are than an average major league club. By this measure, the 95 win Phillies are as good as the 87 win Red Sox, the 88 win Reds are as good as the 77 win A's, and the 88 win Padres are as good as the 82 win Blue Jays.
I have a hard time thinking that the A's are as good as the Reds, or that the Red Sox are as good as the Phillies. But still, I get it: the AL is better than the NL. So? The amazing Yankee dynasty of the late 1990's won the division with 87 wins in 2000. Were they a mediocre team? There are countless other examples through the 100+ year history of AL/NL baseball which show teams much worse than the 2010 Reds going to the playoffs. And there have been just as many collapses that are far worse than the Padres this season. Your sepia-toned view of the teams of yesterday is inaccurate.
NL partisans will protest, but there's lot of reason (sic) to think that a team like the A's would do quite well if dropped into the Senior Circuit next year.
Please don't do that. The Padres are boring enough. The last thing I wanna watch is Wade LeBlanc pitching to Mark Ellis.
The 2nd point is that the irrelevance of the Dodgers, Cubs, and Mets, 3 teams with enormous natural advantages -- makes for a huge, sucking void in the standings.
Those teams might be irrelevant THIS year, but each of them has had very recent success. The Cubs were a 97 win team in 2008. The Dodgers played in the last 2 NLCS. And the Mets were one of the best teams in the NL from 2006-2008. Of course, the real point here is that there is no precedent for THESE teams making baseball exciting. The Dodgers, like the Giants, are one of the most storied franchises in baseball, but just like the Giants, they have had as many miserable seasons as great ones. And the Mets and Cubs? Posterboys of painful mediocrity for most of the 20th century. When they are not in the NL bracket, they are not missed.
...it takes villains to make heroes: How much more meaningful would a Reds division win be if it came over a bullying Cubs team, vaunting over the money minted along Clark Street?
I understand there might be a rivalry between the Reds and the Cubs (though certainly not at the level of the Cardinals and Cubs), but still, I don't think the Reds fans care one bit about sticking it to Chicago. I mean, the Reds are the oldest franchise in baseball history, and have had periods of ENORMOUS success. They don't need to prove anything to anybody. Certainly not the Cubs.
Broad equality among teams, with none standing out as especially good or especially bad, and a diminishing of the power of big city clubs are essentially the goals of the apostles of competitive balance. In the ideal game of the parity preachers, all teams would be average, with some just being slightly less average than others. Each year, there would be hope and faith for all, and each year a cluster of slightly above average teams would trip into October questing for a large trophy.
I don't know who these "apostles of competitive balance" are. I do know that many people, quite rightly, protest the fact that Boston and New York won 13/14 AL East titles from 1994 to 2007. People want every team to have the chance to be great. That's all. Of course they can't all win at the same time.
As baseball's races this year show us, though, a game actually built on this line is on par with roach fighting, without the illicit kick -- one has interest in the spectacle, but unless money is involved, less in the outcome. A great race needs great teams; it needs the swagger of wealth; mostly, it needs the prospect of a team playing spectacularly well and still losing out on what it wants.
I don't see the races this year as being akin to a roach fight, although I've never seen a roach fight. In fact, it is insulting to hear you say that. Did you watch the series the Giants just played in Colorado? It was magnificent. It was great baseball. So sorry the fucking Mets weren't playing.
Friday, September 17, 2010
FJM Friday: Worst Sportswriter - Bruce Jenkins in a Runaway
The Bruce is back in town! Our favorite "writer" over here at 8thInningWeirdness titled this week's 3 Dot Lounge blog post "MVP: Tulo in a Runaway". This is by no means the worst piece Bruce Jenkins has ever written. But it's still pretty fuckin' stupid. Enjoy.
It's a good thing pennant races aren't decided on the shortstop position alone. If that were the case, Colorado would leave the Giants in the dust. While San Francisco can only think of how to improve the position next year, Troy Tulowitzki is making a strong case for MVP -- and for my money, it's an easy call.
Read that again. Bruce Jenkins just wrote the most worthless paragraph in the history of sports journalism. We get what you want to say, Bruce: The Rockies have a better shortstop than the Giants. Why the hell did you have to dream up an absurd scenario where that one player is what decides pennant races? But enough about your completely inane ways of proving a point. It's that last sentence that bothers me the most. Tulowitzki isn't even in the top 3 for MVP. Joey Votto will probably win it, you could say Ryan Zimmerman is just as worthy, and Albert Pujols is still the best player in baseball.
Nothing against Albert Pujols or Joey Votto...but they don't have Tulo's entire package: great hitter, clutch hitter, world-class defense in the middle infield, and a perfect example of a team's ideal: Your best player is also the one who wants it most.
I understand what you mean: Pujols can't play shortstop, so he doesn't have Tulo's entire "package". Technically, it's an okay statement to make. But still, I find it very troubling when we can speak of a player having more of a "baseball package" than Albert Pujols. Tulowitzki is one of the best shortstops in baseball. He's young. He's good on defense. He hits for average and power. He's great.
But Albert Pujols? Albert Pujols will most likely retire as the greatest right handed hitter in baseball history. Better than Aaron, Mays, A-Rod, Frank Thomas, Manny Ramirez, DiMaggio, Rogers Hornsby, etc. A better hitter than all of them. He could go down as one of the top 5 baseball players of all time. Most likely top 10 at least. He's that good. Please don't tell me that Troy Tulowitzki has something that Pujols doesn't, even if you might be correct literally.
Also, that last part is enraging. What a surprise: a white middle infielder is the one on the team who clearly wants "it" most.
Tulowitzki has missed a number of games due to injury this year, and that's the only reason Colorado isn't leading the division.
And the reason why he shouldn't be the MVP. He hasn't played as much as Votto, Pujols, or Zimmerman, and his performance, unlike Joe Mauer's 5 month MVP season in 2009, has not been so head and shoulders above everyone else to warrant ignoring that fact. He's only got 461 plate appearances this season, in the middle of September. That's not enough. Not when Joey Votto is having the kind of season he's having. And just as we must take into account the park factor with Carlos Gonzalez, we must with Tulowitzki. He's a great hitter, but he benefits from Coors Field. Consider this: Tulo's regular OPS is .964. Zimmerman's is .894. But their OPS+ numbers are 140 and 141 respectively.
Earlier this season at AT&T Park, there was a game in which Tulowitzki made one of those mind-blowing plays from deep in the hole at shortstop, then homered deep into the left field bleachers on a chilly, windy night.
This Tulowitzki guy is starting to get some serious Jeter-treatment from sportswriters. At least he's good, I guess.
It was an evening that defined the best shortstop in baseball, and he's done it time and again this season.
I guess now we could argue that Tulowitzki is the best shortstop in baseball. But I don't think he's the runaway, the way A-Rod was 10 years ago. I might be foolish to say this, but I'd still take Hanley Ramirez and his horrible defense at short ahead of Tulo. 3 straight seasons with an OPS+ over 140 for Hanley. This is Tulo's first season at 140. He could end up being just as good, but I see Hanley as the more talented hitter. But I'd never expect Bruce Jenkins to write about Hanley Ramirez the way he just did about Tulo; Ramirez has certain traits that disqualify him from the title of "wanting it most".
It's a good thing pennant races aren't decided on the shortstop position alone. If that were the case, Colorado would leave the Giants in the dust. While San Francisco can only think of how to improve the position next year, Troy Tulowitzki is making a strong case for MVP -- and for my money, it's an easy call.
Read that again. Bruce Jenkins just wrote the most worthless paragraph in the history of sports journalism. We get what you want to say, Bruce: The Rockies have a better shortstop than the Giants. Why the hell did you have to dream up an absurd scenario where that one player is what decides pennant races? But enough about your completely inane ways of proving a point. It's that last sentence that bothers me the most. Tulowitzki isn't even in the top 3 for MVP. Joey Votto will probably win it, you could say Ryan Zimmerman is just as worthy, and Albert Pujols is still the best player in baseball.
Nothing against Albert Pujols or Joey Votto...but they don't have Tulo's entire package: great hitter, clutch hitter, world-class defense in the middle infield, and a perfect example of a team's ideal: Your best player is also the one who wants it most.
I understand what you mean: Pujols can't play shortstop, so he doesn't have Tulo's entire "package". Technically, it's an okay statement to make. But still, I find it very troubling when we can speak of a player having more of a "baseball package" than Albert Pujols. Tulowitzki is one of the best shortstops in baseball. He's young. He's good on defense. He hits for average and power. He's great.
But Albert Pujols? Albert Pujols will most likely retire as the greatest right handed hitter in baseball history. Better than Aaron, Mays, A-Rod, Frank Thomas, Manny Ramirez, DiMaggio, Rogers Hornsby, etc. A better hitter than all of them. He could go down as one of the top 5 baseball players of all time. Most likely top 10 at least. He's that good. Please don't tell me that Troy Tulowitzki has something that Pujols doesn't, even if you might be correct literally.
Also, that last part is enraging. What a surprise: a white middle infielder is the one on the team who clearly wants "it" most.
Tulowitzki has missed a number of games due to injury this year, and that's the only reason Colorado isn't leading the division.
And the reason why he shouldn't be the MVP. He hasn't played as much as Votto, Pujols, or Zimmerman, and his performance, unlike Joe Mauer's 5 month MVP season in 2009, has not been so head and shoulders above everyone else to warrant ignoring that fact. He's only got 461 plate appearances this season, in the middle of September. That's not enough. Not when Joey Votto is having the kind of season he's having. And just as we must take into account the park factor with Carlos Gonzalez, we must with Tulowitzki. He's a great hitter, but he benefits from Coors Field. Consider this: Tulo's regular OPS is .964. Zimmerman's is .894. But their OPS+ numbers are 140 and 141 respectively.
Earlier this season at AT&T Park, there was a game in which Tulowitzki made one of those mind-blowing plays from deep in the hole at shortstop, then homered deep into the left field bleachers on a chilly, windy night.
This Tulowitzki guy is starting to get some serious Jeter-treatment from sportswriters. At least he's good, I guess.
It was an evening that defined the best shortstop in baseball, and he's done it time and again this season.
I guess now we could argue that Tulowitzki is the best shortstop in baseball. But I don't think he's the runaway, the way A-Rod was 10 years ago. I might be foolish to say this, but I'd still take Hanley Ramirez and his horrible defense at short ahead of Tulo. 3 straight seasons with an OPS+ over 140 for Hanley. This is Tulo's first season at 140. He could end up being just as good, but I see Hanley as the more talented hitter. But I'd never expect Bruce Jenkins to write about Hanley Ramirez the way he just did about Tulo; Ramirez has certain traits that disqualify him from the title of "wanting it most".
Friday, September 10, 2010
FJM Friday: Bench Ostler
I don't know much about Scott Ostler. I always get him and John Shea mixed up. And I rarely read the Chronicle anymore, unless it is ruthlessly/pathetically looking for articles to appear on Fire Joe Morgan Friday. I feel like I've heard him on KNBR before, but that might have been John Shea. Except it was probably Scott Ostler, because I remember the guy being kinda awkward and not very engaging, giving lots of short answers. John Shea looks like a nice guy, who would wanna talk. Scott Ostler looks like, um, someone that might be like that guy I heard on KNBR a couple years ago. Whatever. Scott Ostler wrote some really dumb things in today's Sporting Green, so here they are in bold, with my thoughts in regular text.
Bench Panda. The Giants are making a dash for the playoffs. They need runs. Time to bench Pablo Sandoval.
Uh oh. This can't be going anywhere intelligent.
Sandoval's batting average is 61 points lower than last season, 76 points lower than 2008. Hello. Something is wrong.
As long as you're going to use the sarcastic "hello?" as a device in your article, please include the recommended question mark, a punctuation tool that provides the tone necessary for accomplishing your intended sarcasm. Also, did you really just cite his 2008 batting average? When he had 154 plate appearances?
He cannot hit right-handed. Against lefty pitchers, he's at .233. With one home run. One.
Yes, Pablo Sandoval has struggled mightily this year against lefties. But splits, especially single year ones, can be very deceptive, and should be analyzed with caution. Here's why:
Sandoval, right handed, 2010: 146 PAs - .233/.288/.316/.603
Sandoval, right handed, 2009: 159 PAs - .379/.428/.600/1.028
Pablo Sandoval can't hit left handers. Pablo Sandoval CRUSHES left handers. Which is it? Well, it's neither. Sandoval was simply a better hitter last year, and it happened that he was STRONGER from the right side. This year, for whatever reason, he is struggling as a hitter, and he happens to be weaker from the right side. Why? Quite simply, randomness. That's what it is. It's random. If Sandoval had a serious problem seeing lefties or with his right handed swing, he wouldn't have made it this far as a switch hitter. And he wouldn't have OPS'd over 1.000 last year as a right handed hitter.
He would be better off batting lefty against lefty pitchers, so at least he could concentrate on grooving his lefty swing. That's not going to happen.
This is not a good idea. There is a reason that switch hitters are switch hitters. It is an advantage to hit in the opposite direction of the pitcher. Yet I hear this a lot, that a switch hitter should just focus on the one side. It's usually the side that he is appearing to hit well from. But that kind of thinking ignores what I presented above, that switch hitters don't naturally hit better from a particular side, that it is randomness that makes it appear so.
But at the very least, Sandoval should sit down every time the other team throws a lefty. Take a seat.
Please stop writing with the short phrase style of Ernest Hemingway. "Take a seat". "Hello". "One". We get it. You are making a point. This is not a telegram. Stop. (Yes, I did do right there EXACTLY what I just told you not to.)
Juan Uribe can play 3rd. Aubrey Huff. Freddy Sanchez. Get hot bats in the lineup.
You didn't seriously just suggest that Aubrey Huff play 3rd base. Okay, you did. And yes, Aubrey Huff has played 3rd base in the past. But still, hell no. Aubrey Huff should not play 3rd. Of course, all 3 of these players CAN conceivable play 3rd base in place of Sandoval. But they all already have positions in the starting lineup. So who replaces them?
Shortstop (Uribe): Renteria = Not better than Sandoval
2nd Base (Sanchez): Fontenot = Not better than Sandoval
1st Base (Huff): Ishikawa = Not better than Sandoval, ESPECIALLY NOT AGAINST LEFTIES!
None of these players is better offensively RIGHT NOW than Sandoval, nor do they have the offensive potential of Pablo. So this does not improve the Giants scoring in the least.
I'm not saying the Giants should give up on Panda. But the final 3 weeks of the season is all about now; it's not the time for a reclamation project.
You're right, and if the Giants had a better hitter to put in the infield, then it might be the right move. But any of the hitters that would ostensibly take Sandoval's place as an everyday player are NOT better offensively. Any defensive improvement is negligible at best. So stick with Sandoval, because there's nothing else to do, and he COULD always suddenly heat up.
Oh, one more thing before the clock strikes midnight. Brian Wilson is not a candidate for the NL Cy Young. And he shouldn't be. No reliever should ever be, unless he pitches maybe 100 innings, has a perfect save percentage, and allows .500 baserunners per inning. Only then. Goodnight.
Bench Panda. The Giants are making a dash for the playoffs. They need runs. Time to bench Pablo Sandoval.
Uh oh. This can't be going anywhere intelligent.
Sandoval's batting average is 61 points lower than last season, 76 points lower than 2008. Hello. Something is wrong.
As long as you're going to use the sarcastic "hello?" as a device in your article, please include the recommended question mark, a punctuation tool that provides the tone necessary for accomplishing your intended sarcasm. Also, did you really just cite his 2008 batting average? When he had 154 plate appearances?
He cannot hit right-handed. Against lefty pitchers, he's at .233. With one home run. One.
Yes, Pablo Sandoval has struggled mightily this year against lefties. But splits, especially single year ones, can be very deceptive, and should be analyzed with caution. Here's why:
Sandoval, right handed, 2010: 146 PAs - .233/.288/.316/.603
Sandoval, right handed, 2009: 159 PAs - .379/.428/.600/1.028
Pablo Sandoval can't hit left handers. Pablo Sandoval CRUSHES left handers. Which is it? Well, it's neither. Sandoval was simply a better hitter last year, and it happened that he was STRONGER from the right side. This year, for whatever reason, he is struggling as a hitter, and he happens to be weaker from the right side. Why? Quite simply, randomness. That's what it is. It's random. If Sandoval had a serious problem seeing lefties or with his right handed swing, he wouldn't have made it this far as a switch hitter. And he wouldn't have OPS'd over 1.000 last year as a right handed hitter.
He would be better off batting lefty against lefty pitchers, so at least he could concentrate on grooving his lefty swing. That's not going to happen.
This is not a good idea. There is a reason that switch hitters are switch hitters. It is an advantage to hit in the opposite direction of the pitcher. Yet I hear this a lot, that a switch hitter should just focus on the one side. It's usually the side that he is appearing to hit well from. But that kind of thinking ignores what I presented above, that switch hitters don't naturally hit better from a particular side, that it is randomness that makes it appear so.
But at the very least, Sandoval should sit down every time the other team throws a lefty. Take a seat.
Please stop writing with the short phrase style of Ernest Hemingway. "Take a seat". "Hello". "One". We get it. You are making a point. This is not a telegram. Stop. (Yes, I did do right there EXACTLY what I just told you not to.)
Juan Uribe can play 3rd. Aubrey Huff. Freddy Sanchez. Get hot bats in the lineup.
You didn't seriously just suggest that Aubrey Huff play 3rd base. Okay, you did. And yes, Aubrey Huff has played 3rd base in the past. But still, hell no. Aubrey Huff should not play 3rd. Of course, all 3 of these players CAN conceivable play 3rd base in place of Sandoval. But they all already have positions in the starting lineup. So who replaces them?
Shortstop (Uribe): Renteria = Not better than Sandoval
2nd Base (Sanchez): Fontenot = Not better than Sandoval
1st Base (Huff): Ishikawa = Not better than Sandoval, ESPECIALLY NOT AGAINST LEFTIES!
None of these players is better offensively RIGHT NOW than Sandoval, nor do they have the offensive potential of Pablo. So this does not improve the Giants scoring in the least.
I'm not saying the Giants should give up on Panda. But the final 3 weeks of the season is all about now; it's not the time for a reclamation project.
You're right, and if the Giants had a better hitter to put in the infield, then it might be the right move. But any of the hitters that would ostensibly take Sandoval's place as an everyday player are NOT better offensively. Any defensive improvement is negligible at best. So stick with Sandoval, because there's nothing else to do, and he COULD always suddenly heat up.
Oh, one more thing before the clock strikes midnight. Brian Wilson is not a candidate for the NL Cy Young. And he shouldn't be. No reliever should ever be, unless he pitches maybe 100 innings, has a perfect save percentage, and allows .500 baserunners per inning. Only then. Goodnight.
Friday, September 3, 2010
FJM Friday: The AT&T Myth
I try not to read Ray Ratto that much. It's not that he's a terrible writer, it's simply that I can get discouraged when he is able to pen such hilarious lines like:
"...one would think that Oakland's 4-gamer in NY would cause some local buzz. One would also think that the Easter Bunny is a Teamster."
That's good stuff, folks. So good, I decide to avoid Ray's blog most of the time, because the last thing I want to do is unintentionally start copying his literary style. That would be like one thinking the Tooth Fairy is none other than Doctor Samuel Johnson (huh?).
Anyway, here's a 'lil piece from Ray's CSNBA blog. In this article, he's talking about the explosion of offense we saw in the recent Reds series, and how the extreme (for SF) heat that week turned AT&T Park into U.S. Cellular Field. He proposes that the Giants, if they knew what was best for them, would move their home park to a place that is more conducive for hitting. I know that this piece isn't completely serious, and was written mainly so Ray could craft some humorous gems, as you'll see below. But still, I feel that he is at least SOMEWHAT serious about what he is saying, and what he believes about AT&T Park.
Remember: his words in bold, mine in regular text. Because we use white instead of black for our letters on this blog, sometimes it can be hard to distinguish bold from regular. Hint: the bold stuff is the stuff that is 100% wrong.
Aha! The problem with the Giants' offense finally reveals itself. The ballpark is in the wrong place. Way the wrong place.
The ballpark is in a beautiful location. Every time I sit in the last row of the upper deck, I feel like I have the best seat in the house because of my view of the Bay. It's the best ballpark in baseball. Way the best.
After beating the Cincinnati Reds twice in 3 days by scoring a preposterous 38 runs in 3 games, it can be the only explanation left in a season full of explanations.
There are many explanations for the Giants still having an offense that struggles this season. It could be that they are 8th (out of 16 NL teams) in OBP. Same with slugging. The ONLY explanation is certainly not that it just isn't hot enough in SF. This becomes very clear when we look at the team splits and realize that they slug higher at home than on the road.
The heat...has turned The Thing on King into a veritable bandbox, as verified by manager Bruce Bochy after Tuesday's 16-5 win.
The Thing on King. I like that. I couldn't have thought of something that insanely clever. But I have one question, Ray: why? Oh, it's hilarious, but why say it?
"Most hitters like this kind of weather," he said while walking back to his office. "Days like this, the ballpark plays pretty fair." The intimation, of course, being that it typically isn't, and actually never was. It was, is, and until they lower the right field wall to, say 2.5 feet, a place for pitchers to do their best work. and hitters? Pfah!
More like: research? evidence? science? Pfah!
Nearly all research has concluded that AT&T Park is neutral for the most part. Yes, it can be tough with HRs for left handed hitters. But when it comes to hitting, scoring runs, or what we call "offense", it is right in the middle. Baseball Reference's park factor score for AT&T Park in 2010 is 104, where over 100 favors batters. I could end this right here, because the main point of your article has been proven wrong, but instead I'm gonna keep going and make this post unnecessarily long. It's what I do.
In other words, the Giants need to move the park. To, say, Livermore. Or Morgan Hill. Or Paso Robles.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it can get a 'lil hot in those places. Too bad you didn't give a few more examples, though, maybe 5, or even 7! I wasn't quite sure where you were going with that.
It's either that, or listening incessantly to more years of sports talk radio topics like "Brian Sabean can't develop hitters and he hates math." And I think we can all agree that we've had as much of that heroin-laced idiocy as we can stand.
Heroin? Really? If you were gonna go with the unoriginal, obligatory drug reference, couldn't you have said something better than heroin? Dope fiends just fall asleep when they shoot up, not call sports talk radio. When I read Thomas de Quincey's "Confessions of an Opium Eater" (I actually haven't read it yet, but let's pretend I have for the sake of the awesome 1821 reference), I don't remember him writing editorials in the Westmoreland Gazette about how overrated a cricketer William Clarke was. Oh, and Brian Sabean can't develop hitters for the most part, and he does appear to hate math.
39 runs in 3 games by the home team has never happened in this park. It didn't happen in the Barbie Fun House that was Candlestick Park, either. In fact, it hadn't happened since 1933.
Hasn't it been that hot at AT&T Park at SOME point in the last 10 years? And they didn't score 39 runs. You act as if what happened against the Reds wasn't what it was: just an anomaly, a freak occurrence. Not to mention the Giants franchise played their home games at the Polo Grounds from 1933 to 1958. The Polo Grounds, except for deep center field, was a hitter's paradise. In other words, your point is completely invalid.
While Giants honks will bathe in the comeback, and eternal pessimists will rage over the 5 errors, the secret truth here is that the solution to the offense doesn't require attacking the free agency market. It requires attacking the real estate market.
No.
Will this happen? Not while Baer lives, and not while the housing market remains flat. But watching the gentlemen seriously rake against what is, despite the current evidence, a good pitching staff demands an explanation, and the only thing different about this series was that it was played in Fresno conditions. Hot, with night and morning going to be hot.
Why are we talking about this? We should move the Giants home park as soon as possible because they scored a lot of runs on 3 hot days? And the housing market? Huh? I realized something just now that I hadn't when I started: this is one STUPID FUCKING ARTICLE!
(Hmmm. Maybe that explains how hitters who play in SF tend to stagnate but go down to Central Cali and hit like Tony Gwynn on crank).
Let me say there is NOTHING funnier than saying a person is like someone else "on ______". Gets me EVERYTIME. And it's one of those comedic tricks that just never gets old. Kinda like sarcasm.
"...one would think that Oakland's 4-gamer in NY would cause some local buzz. One would also think that the Easter Bunny is a Teamster."
That's good stuff, folks. So good, I decide to avoid Ray's blog most of the time, because the last thing I want to do is unintentionally start copying his literary style. That would be like one thinking the Tooth Fairy is none other than Doctor Samuel Johnson (huh?).
Anyway, here's a 'lil piece from Ray's CSNBA blog. In this article, he's talking about the explosion of offense we saw in the recent Reds series, and how the extreme (for SF) heat that week turned AT&T Park into U.S. Cellular Field. He proposes that the Giants, if they knew what was best for them, would move their home park to a place that is more conducive for hitting. I know that this piece isn't completely serious, and was written mainly so Ray could craft some humorous gems, as you'll see below. But still, I feel that he is at least SOMEWHAT serious about what he is saying, and what he believes about AT&T Park.
Remember: his words in bold, mine in regular text. Because we use white instead of black for our letters on this blog, sometimes it can be hard to distinguish bold from regular. Hint: the bold stuff is the stuff that is 100% wrong.
Aha! The problem with the Giants' offense finally reveals itself. The ballpark is in the wrong place. Way the wrong place.
The ballpark is in a beautiful location. Every time I sit in the last row of the upper deck, I feel like I have the best seat in the house because of my view of the Bay. It's the best ballpark in baseball. Way the best.
After beating the Cincinnati Reds twice in 3 days by scoring a preposterous 38 runs in 3 games, it can be the only explanation left in a season full of explanations.
There are many explanations for the Giants still having an offense that struggles this season. It could be that they are 8th (out of 16 NL teams) in OBP. Same with slugging. The ONLY explanation is certainly not that it just isn't hot enough in SF. This becomes very clear when we look at the team splits and realize that they slug higher at home than on the road.
The heat...has turned The Thing on King into a veritable bandbox, as verified by manager Bruce Bochy after Tuesday's 16-5 win.
The Thing on King. I like that. I couldn't have thought of something that insanely clever. But I have one question, Ray: why? Oh, it's hilarious, but why say it?
"Most hitters like this kind of weather," he said while walking back to his office. "Days like this, the ballpark plays pretty fair." The intimation, of course, being that it typically isn't, and actually never was. It was, is, and until they lower the right field wall to, say 2.5 feet, a place for pitchers to do their best work. and hitters? Pfah!
More like: research? evidence? science? Pfah!
Nearly all research has concluded that AT&T Park is neutral for the most part. Yes, it can be tough with HRs for left handed hitters. But when it comes to hitting, scoring runs, or what we call "offense", it is right in the middle. Baseball Reference's park factor score for AT&T Park in 2010 is 104, where over 100 favors batters. I could end this right here, because the main point of your article has been proven wrong, but instead I'm gonna keep going and make this post unnecessarily long. It's what I do.
In other words, the Giants need to move the park. To, say, Livermore. Or Morgan Hill. Or Paso Robles.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it can get a 'lil hot in those places. Too bad you didn't give a few more examples, though, maybe 5, or even 7! I wasn't quite sure where you were going with that.
It's either that, or listening incessantly to more years of sports talk radio topics like "Brian Sabean can't develop hitters and he hates math." And I think we can all agree that we've had as much of that heroin-laced idiocy as we can stand.
Heroin? Really? If you were gonna go with the unoriginal, obligatory drug reference, couldn't you have said something better than heroin? Dope fiends just fall asleep when they shoot up, not call sports talk radio. When I read Thomas de Quincey's "Confessions of an Opium Eater" (I actually haven't read it yet, but let's pretend I have for the sake of the awesome 1821 reference), I don't remember him writing editorials in the Westmoreland Gazette about how overrated a cricketer William Clarke was. Oh, and Brian Sabean can't develop hitters for the most part, and he does appear to hate math.
39 runs in 3 games by the home team has never happened in this park. It didn't happen in the Barbie Fun House that was Candlestick Park, either. In fact, it hadn't happened since 1933.
Hasn't it been that hot at AT&T Park at SOME point in the last 10 years? And they didn't score 39 runs. You act as if what happened against the Reds wasn't what it was: just an anomaly, a freak occurrence. Not to mention the Giants franchise played their home games at the Polo Grounds from 1933 to 1958. The Polo Grounds, except for deep center field, was a hitter's paradise. In other words, your point is completely invalid.
While Giants honks will bathe in the comeback, and eternal pessimists will rage over the 5 errors, the secret truth here is that the solution to the offense doesn't require attacking the free agency market. It requires attacking the real estate market.
No.
Will this happen? Not while Baer lives, and not while the housing market remains flat. But watching the gentlemen seriously rake against what is, despite the current evidence, a good pitching staff demands an explanation, and the only thing different about this series was that it was played in Fresno conditions. Hot, with night and morning going to be hot.
Why are we talking about this? We should move the Giants home park as soon as possible because they scored a lot of runs on 3 hot days? And the housing market? Huh? I realized something just now that I hadn't when I started: this is one STUPID FUCKING ARTICLE!
(Hmmm. Maybe that explains how hitters who play in SF tend to stagnate but go down to Central Cali and hit like Tony Gwynn on crank).
Let me say there is NOTHING funnier than saying a person is like someone else "on ______". Gets me EVERYTIME. And it's one of those comedic tricks that just never gets old. Kinda like sarcasm.
Friday, August 27, 2010
FJM Friday: Who Spells It "Mychael", Anyway?
Mychael Urban is a pretty nice guy. He's not the one you want to listen to when it comes to trade rumors, but he does a good job on CSNBA and KNBR most of the time, doing double duty on the Giants AND A's no less. His analysis is very good sometimes, and his knowledge of baseball is obvious.
Too bad for him that this week he decided to write about Freddy Sanchez on his CSNBA.com blog. I have a special radar for bad Freddy Sanchez opinions, and it often ends in you being featured on Fire Joe Morgan Friday. Don't worry, Mychael, nobody reads these posts anyway, they are for my own sick satisfaction. So, imaginary readers, remember: Mychael's writing in bold, my response in regular text.
And finally, it's time for the "Why" of the day: Freddy Sanchez not hitting 2nd.
The answer to that "Why" question is easy. Bruce Bochy has 8thInningWeirdness set as his homepage. Freddy Sanchez has been terrible offensively this year. He is the only regular starter with an OPS below .700. Having 2 back to back 4 hit games is a VERY good sign, don't get me wrong. But it doesn't erase a nightmare season at the plate. If Sanchez continues to hit the ball, I am perfectly fine with him hitting 2nd. Not ideal, but I'd concede. But it takes more than a single series to determine that.
He has every imaginable skill you need for the role, and some of those skills help you win games even when you're not getting hits.
I'm aware of these "skills" that a 2 hitter is supposed to have. Contact guy, bunting, moving the runner over, all that happy horseshit. None of it is relevant. It's pretty obvious to me that the only skill a 2 hitter really should have is the ability to hit and get on base. Maybe some speed on the bases. That's what you expect out of the guy getting the 2nd most at bats on the team. Now, Freddy Sanchez has an OBP that is about league average. Because of his complete lack of slugging this year, it is NOT ideal to have him getting a lot of opportunities. If his OBP were higher, that lack of power would be easier to deal with. But the combination makes for an embarrassing season long slump. A "contact guy" does not mean "good player".
If Sanchez is in the lineup, he should bat 2nd, with Huff, Burrell, and Posey to follow.
Wrong. If Sanchez STAYS really hot, then he can hit 2nd, in which case I'm fine with that order.
Burrell sees more fastballs that way, trust me.
I don't trust you. You have given me zero evidence to support that claim. As far as I know, there isn't much research to back up the "protection" theory of lineups. It's just as likely that Burrell would see more fastballs if there are players ON BASE in front of him. Having a player protect another in the lineup really only applies if you've got Barry Bonds or Albert Pujols doing the protecting. Buster Posey is gonna be great, but he isn't and won't ever be close to those guys. Speaking of Gerald Demp, one more thing in Urban's blog this week caught my attention, and this time it wasn't Mychael that was speaking nonsense.
...Buster Posey or Kurt Suzuki over the next 5 years? I asked 14 personnel people that question over the past 10 days, and was stunned that 3 people picked Suzuki. Why? "Simple," said one NL GM. "Track record." Can't say I agree with the man, but he's the one with the big corner office.
Whoever that man is that said that, he should be moved from his corner office to the basement immediately.
Too bad for him that this week he decided to write about Freddy Sanchez on his CSNBA.com blog. I have a special radar for bad Freddy Sanchez opinions, and it often ends in you being featured on Fire Joe Morgan Friday. Don't worry, Mychael, nobody reads these posts anyway, they are for my own sick satisfaction. So, imaginary readers, remember: Mychael's writing in bold, my response in regular text.
And finally, it's time for the "Why" of the day: Freddy Sanchez not hitting 2nd.
The answer to that "Why" question is easy. Bruce Bochy has 8thInningWeirdness set as his homepage. Freddy Sanchez has been terrible offensively this year. He is the only regular starter with an OPS below .700. Having 2 back to back 4 hit games is a VERY good sign, don't get me wrong. But it doesn't erase a nightmare season at the plate. If Sanchez continues to hit the ball, I am perfectly fine with him hitting 2nd. Not ideal, but I'd concede. But it takes more than a single series to determine that.
He has every imaginable skill you need for the role, and some of those skills help you win games even when you're not getting hits.
I'm aware of these "skills" that a 2 hitter is supposed to have. Contact guy, bunting, moving the runner over, all that happy horseshit. None of it is relevant. It's pretty obvious to me that the only skill a 2 hitter really should have is the ability to hit and get on base. Maybe some speed on the bases. That's what you expect out of the guy getting the 2nd most at bats on the team. Now, Freddy Sanchez has an OBP that is about league average. Because of his complete lack of slugging this year, it is NOT ideal to have him getting a lot of opportunities. If his OBP were higher, that lack of power would be easier to deal with. But the combination makes for an embarrassing season long slump. A "contact guy" does not mean "good player".
If Sanchez is in the lineup, he should bat 2nd, with Huff, Burrell, and Posey to follow.
Wrong. If Sanchez STAYS really hot, then he can hit 2nd, in which case I'm fine with that order.
Burrell sees more fastballs that way, trust me.
I don't trust you. You have given me zero evidence to support that claim. As far as I know, there isn't much research to back up the "protection" theory of lineups. It's just as likely that Burrell would see more fastballs if there are players ON BASE in front of him. Having a player protect another in the lineup really only applies if you've got Barry Bonds or Albert Pujols doing the protecting. Buster Posey is gonna be great, but he isn't and won't ever be close to those guys. Speaking of Gerald Demp, one more thing in Urban's blog this week caught my attention, and this time it wasn't Mychael that was speaking nonsense.
...Buster Posey or Kurt Suzuki over the next 5 years? I asked 14 personnel people that question over the past 10 days, and was stunned that 3 people picked Suzuki. Why? "Simple," said one NL GM. "Track record." Can't say I agree with the man, but he's the one with the big corner office.
Whoever that man is that said that, he should be moved from his corner office to the basement immediately.
Friday, August 20, 2010
FJM Friday: The Molina Theory
Before diving into this week's Fire Joe Morgan Friday post, I want to make it clear that we here at 8thInningWeirdness like Andrew Baggarly. He's a good beat writer, and I even had the pleasure of having him over for dinner and wine last summer. I enjoyed it greatly, especially when I realized the common interest we have for rare coins and recreational dry cleaning. But I can't try to ruin Bruce Jenkins' career every week; it's far too easy. This week Baggarly wrote a small piece on MercuryNews.com about the possible influence Bengie Molina's absence has had on Tim Lincecum. I think this theory is ludicrous and unfair to Buster Posey. So, with respect and as few sarcastic remarks as possible, here is my relatively short response to Baggs' article from Wednesday.
Among the many well-meaning amateur theories to explain Tim Lincecum's struggles this season, one appears to have some statistical merit.
Statistical merit? I like it. Hopefully statistical merit means more than just listing overall ERAs and W-L records. Didn't I promise I wouldn't be sarcastic?
Does Tim Lincecum miss throwing to Bengie Molina?
Maybe. But if he's really letting it get to him, then he's much less of a player than we thought. I don't think he's letting it get into his head. I just think he's going through a rough stretch. As all great pitcher do. In 1989, Roger Clemens had a 3.13 ERA and 1.216 WHIP. That season was after 3 great years for Clemens, 2 in which he won Cy Youngs. Clemens' age in 1989? 26, the same as Lincecum this year. After 1989, Clemens went on to post a 2.34 ERA in his next 3 seasons, winning another Cy Young and finishing 2nd and 3rd.
(Lincecum) was at 8-3 with a 3.12 ERA in 16 starts with Molina...Lincecum is 1-1 with a 3.32 ERA in 3 pairings with backup Eli Whiteside. In his past 7 starts with rookie Buster Posey, Lincecum is 2-3 with a 4.85 ERA.
I'll ignore your use of wins and losses, as if those were statistics with any meaning behind them. The use of ERA is okay, and tells us something to an extent. But it ignores the timeline of Tim Lincecum's season so far. Lincecum was great from Opening Day to the middle of May. Everyone who has watched the Giants this year would agree that his dropoff began May 15th, the 1st of 4 straight starts in which he walked 5 batters. He looked as lost as ever back in May as he does currently. The catcher in all of those starts? Bengie Molina.
Bengie Molina can't be the key to Tim's success as a pitcher, and at the same time be the catcher during his worst stretch of the season. It also just isn't fair to Buster Posey. 16 starts against 7 starts? Big sample difference. I won't even mention the offensive upgrade Posey brings every time Lincecum is pitching. Oh wait, I just did.
Lincecum didn't completely reject the effect the catching change has had on him, but he made it clear it wasn't an overriding factor.
Then I really just don't see the point of this article.
Lincecum: "I've had good games with Bengie and bad games with Bengie. I've had good games with Buster and bad games with Buster. I'll get used to throwing to Buster. It's been totally fine for me, working with him.
Sorry Baggs, but the Bengie Molina Theory is as amateur as any other, and I'm afraid it doesn't have much statistical merit.
Among the many well-meaning amateur theories to explain Tim Lincecum's struggles this season, one appears to have some statistical merit.
Statistical merit? I like it. Hopefully statistical merit means more than just listing overall ERAs and W-L records. Didn't I promise I wouldn't be sarcastic?
Does Tim Lincecum miss throwing to Bengie Molina?
Maybe. But if he's really letting it get to him, then he's much less of a player than we thought. I don't think he's letting it get into his head. I just think he's going through a rough stretch. As all great pitcher do. In 1989, Roger Clemens had a 3.13 ERA and 1.216 WHIP. That season was after 3 great years for Clemens, 2 in which he won Cy Youngs. Clemens' age in 1989? 26, the same as Lincecum this year. After 1989, Clemens went on to post a 2.34 ERA in his next 3 seasons, winning another Cy Young and finishing 2nd and 3rd.
(Lincecum) was at 8-3 with a 3.12 ERA in 16 starts with Molina...Lincecum is 1-1 with a 3.32 ERA in 3 pairings with backup Eli Whiteside. In his past 7 starts with rookie Buster Posey, Lincecum is 2-3 with a 4.85 ERA.
I'll ignore your use of wins and losses, as if those were statistics with any meaning behind them. The use of ERA is okay, and tells us something to an extent. But it ignores the timeline of Tim Lincecum's season so far. Lincecum was great from Opening Day to the middle of May. Everyone who has watched the Giants this year would agree that his dropoff began May 15th, the 1st of 4 straight starts in which he walked 5 batters. He looked as lost as ever back in May as he does currently. The catcher in all of those starts? Bengie Molina.
Bengie Molina can't be the key to Tim's success as a pitcher, and at the same time be the catcher during his worst stretch of the season. It also just isn't fair to Buster Posey. 16 starts against 7 starts? Big sample difference. I won't even mention the offensive upgrade Posey brings every time Lincecum is pitching. Oh wait, I just did.
Lincecum didn't completely reject the effect the catching change has had on him, but he made it clear it wasn't an overriding factor.
Then I really just don't see the point of this article.
Lincecum: "I've had good games with Bengie and bad games with Bengie. I've had good games with Buster and bad games with Buster. I'll get used to throwing to Buster. It's been totally fine for me, working with him.
Sorry Baggs, but the Bengie Molina Theory is as amateur as any other, and I'm afraid it doesn't have much statistical merit.
Friday, August 13, 2010
FJM Friday: Bruce Almighty!
Guess what, folks? It's Bruce Jenkins again today on Fire Joe Morgan Friday. Today's piece is from his August 7th "3 Dot Lounge" blog post. It's a gem! Keep in mind that a lot has happened since Bruce wrote this, such as Jose Guillen actually joining the Giants. But don't worry, it's as stupid and poorly researched as ever. As usual, bold text is his, regular text is my "retort".
Whenever the Giants win, their roster looks just fine for a postseason run. Whenever they lose, panic sets in, and it's time for an additional bat.
Actually, it's reality, not panic, but whatever. What's your week old opinion of Jose Guillen, who the Giants just acquired?
Jose Guillen: Good hitter, probably more consistently productive than Pat Burrell, but not worth the trouble.
Interesting that you would say that Jose Guillen is a more consistently productive hitter than Pat Burrell. You present no evidence to back this up, but I'm sure you at least did a little research to come to this conclusion, right?...oh dear, I'm afraid you did not.
Manny Ramirez: He can't stay healthy (3 stints on the disabled list this season)
True, and a valid point
he's avoiding the press
Irrelevant
and he carries a stigma - female fertility drug - that will dog him forever.
Sure, that's kind of embarrassing, but I don't think that anyone thinks about that too much when he's performing like one of the best hitters of all time. And if you simply mean that the PED connection will dog him forever, then you are wrong. Some day, it will be understood by the majority of baseball fans that PED's have a negligible effect on performance, and the great hitters of the "Steroid Era" will get the credit they deserve. I'm serious. If you feel like screaming at me, please just read this website.
Plus, he's nowhere near the hitter the Dodgers rode to glory 2 years ago.
So completely wrong, but at least you're sticking with today's theme: Blanket statements about a player's production that are easily proven wrong with one look at the numbers.
Manny Ramirez, 2008 with LA: .396/.489/.743/1.232
Manny Ramirez, 2010: .317/.409/.516/.925
Okay, so technically you are right. He isn't anywhere near the hitter he was for 2 months in 2008. But for those 2 months in 2008 he had one of the hottest stretches for any player in the past decade. You can't ask a hitter even like Manny to keep that up. His numbers this year, when he's been healthy, are great. They are potentially MVP numbers. I would LOVE to have that in my lineup. Now Bruce is gonna talk about Pablo Sandoval.
Never doubt someone who hit .330 on pure, natural instinct and can throw as hard with his left arm as his right. It says here he bounces back with a big September...
Sorry, where does it say that? Here? What the fuck are you talking about? Also, I don't think Sandoval being able to throw hard with both arms has ANYTHING to do with what we are talking about. But I agree, you can't give up on Sandoval. He was way too good last year. Finally, Bruce's thoughts on the division leading Padres, who the Giants are facing tonight.
Miguel Tejada is flat-out raking for the Padres, but defensively, they can't afford to play him (at shortstop).
No. NO. NO! Miguel Tejada's numbers with SD are bad enough right now, but I'll be fair and only give his Padres numbers as of when this was published, the 7th of August.
.243/.282/.351/.633
Flat-out raking indeed! Move over Buster Posey, Miggy's gonna be the NL Player of the Month for August!
You said Miguel Tejada is "flat out raking". He's OPS'ing .633. That's sad, Bruce. Really sad. It makes you look EXTREMELY unintelligent.
Hilarious: The San Diego Padres hang a Yoda doll in their dugout for good luck. On ESPN, Jim Rome countered that Yoda was a "coward and a "quitter" in "Star Wars," and the Pads had better wise up.
Hilarious? I don't think Jim Rome's "Yoda" comments about the Padres are quite at the level of Inspector Clouseau and "ze parallel bars" scene. But that's just my sense of humor, which must always have a little pain involved. That's why I like doing this to you every week, even though nobody else really cares.
Whenever the Giants win, their roster looks just fine for a postseason run. Whenever they lose, panic sets in, and it's time for an additional bat.
Actually, it's reality, not panic, but whatever. What's your week old opinion of Jose Guillen, who the Giants just acquired?
Jose Guillen: Good hitter, probably more consistently productive than Pat Burrell, but not worth the trouble.
Interesting that you would say that Jose Guillen is a more consistently productive hitter than Pat Burrell. You present no evidence to back this up, but I'm sure you at least did a little research to come to this conclusion, right?...oh dear, I'm afraid you did not.
Burrell, Career Numbers: .255/.362/.475/.838 / wOBA: .361 / WAR: 22.4
Guillen, Career Numbers: .270/.322/.441/.762 / wOBA: .329 / WAR: 7.0
One of these players is clearly the more productive one. I'll give you a hint: It's not the guy you thought. This only took about 5 minutes by the way. Couldn't you have spared 5 minutes and done the research, as opposed to just making up the erroneous conclusion that Jose Guillen is more productive than Pat Burrell? Anyway, you wanna talk about Manny Ramirez now, huh? Why? It's not like the Giants have any shot at getting him. But I'm fine with it, because it's another opportunity for you to make an ass of yourself!
Guillen, Career Numbers: .270/.322/.441/.762 / wOBA: .329 / WAR: 7.0
One of these players is clearly the more productive one. I'll give you a hint: It's not the guy you thought. This only took about 5 minutes by the way. Couldn't you have spared 5 minutes and done the research, as opposed to just making up the erroneous conclusion that Jose Guillen is more productive than Pat Burrell? Anyway, you wanna talk about Manny Ramirez now, huh? Why? It's not like the Giants have any shot at getting him. But I'm fine with it, because it's another opportunity for you to make an ass of yourself!
Manny Ramirez: He can't stay healthy (3 stints on the disabled list this season)
True, and a valid point
he's avoiding the press
Irrelevant
and he carries a stigma - female fertility drug - that will dog him forever.
Sure, that's kind of embarrassing, but I don't think that anyone thinks about that too much when he's performing like one of the best hitters of all time. And if you simply mean that the PED connection will dog him forever, then you are wrong. Some day, it will be understood by the majority of baseball fans that PED's have a negligible effect on performance, and the great hitters of the "Steroid Era" will get the credit they deserve. I'm serious. If you feel like screaming at me, please just read this website.
Plus, he's nowhere near the hitter the Dodgers rode to glory 2 years ago.
So completely wrong, but at least you're sticking with today's theme: Blanket statements about a player's production that are easily proven wrong with one look at the numbers.
Manny Ramirez, 2008 with LA: .396/.489/.743/1.232
Manny Ramirez, 2010: .317/.409/.516/.925
Okay, so technically you are right. He isn't anywhere near the hitter he was for 2 months in 2008. But for those 2 months in 2008 he had one of the hottest stretches for any player in the past decade. You can't ask a hitter even like Manny to keep that up. His numbers this year, when he's been healthy, are great. They are potentially MVP numbers. I would LOVE to have that in my lineup. Now Bruce is gonna talk about Pablo Sandoval.
Never doubt someone who hit .330 on pure, natural instinct and can throw as hard with his left arm as his right. It says here he bounces back with a big September...
Sorry, where does it say that? Here? What the fuck are you talking about? Also, I don't think Sandoval being able to throw hard with both arms has ANYTHING to do with what we are talking about. But I agree, you can't give up on Sandoval. He was way too good last year. Finally, Bruce's thoughts on the division leading Padres, who the Giants are facing tonight.
Miguel Tejada is flat-out raking for the Padres, but defensively, they can't afford to play him (at shortstop).
No. NO. NO! Miguel Tejada's numbers with SD are bad enough right now, but I'll be fair and only give his Padres numbers as of when this was published, the 7th of August.
.243/.282/.351/.633
Flat-out raking indeed! Move over Buster Posey, Miggy's gonna be the NL Player of the Month for August!
You said Miguel Tejada is "flat out raking". He's OPS'ing .633. That's sad, Bruce. Really sad. It makes you look EXTREMELY unintelligent.
Hilarious: The San Diego Padres hang a Yoda doll in their dugout for good luck. On ESPN, Jim Rome countered that Yoda was a "coward and a "quitter" in "Star Wars," and the Pads had better wise up.
Hilarious? I don't think Jim Rome's "Yoda" comments about the Padres are quite at the level of Inspector Clouseau and "ze parallel bars" scene. But that's just my sense of humor, which must always have a little pain involved. That's why I like doing this to you every week, even though nobody else really cares.
Friday, August 6, 2010
You Can't Count on Bruce
Last week's Ray Ratto response has inspired us to start something new on 8thInningWeirdness. Every Friday, we will feature a piece of poor sports journalism, and destroy it, in the famous firejoemorgan.com format. While we can't possibly match those guys' humor, we'll hopefully be able to use logic and reason in the same sinister, career destroying manner. Here are the guidelines: it must be about baseball, it must be written by a local sportswriter, or if a national writer, the piece must be about the Giants. My only worry is how I'm gonna resist not using a Bruce Jenkins column every week. Guess who's up today? Bruce! Not just one Bruce, 4 Bruces! That's right, it's been quite a week of bullshit from this guy, so let's get into it.
Our first piece is from his Saturday section in the Chronicle, the "3 Dot Lounge". I don't know what that means or where it comes from, but it's about as douche-chill inducing as "The Adande Lounge". This article is titled "You Can't Count on Caution". Here, Jenkins is talking about Stephen Strasburg, and decides it's the proper place to defend his buddy Dusty Baker.
Remember: Jenkins' words are in bold, while my response is in regular text.
It was a week of bitter frustration for the pitch-count fanatics. A very important pitcher hurt his arm, and there was no one to blame.
I don’t think there are any “pitch count fanatics”. In fact, It’s likely that Bruce’s belief in them is all a product of his own bitter frustration with advanced statistics. There are simply people who believe that it's smart to manage a young, expensive investment carefully. Part of that is keeping a pitch count and monitoring it.
Our first piece is from his Saturday section in the Chronicle, the "3 Dot Lounge". I don't know what that means or where it comes from, but it's about as douche-chill inducing as "The Adande Lounge". This article is titled "You Can't Count on Caution". Here, Jenkins is talking about Stephen Strasburg, and decides it's the proper place to defend his buddy Dusty Baker.
Remember: Jenkins' words are in bold, while my response is in regular text.
It was a week of bitter frustration for the pitch-count fanatics. A very important pitcher hurt his arm, and there was no one to blame.
I don’t think there are any “pitch count fanatics”. In fact, It’s likely that Bruce’s belief in them is all a product of his own bitter frustration with advanced statistics. There are simply people who believe that it's smart to manage a young, expensive investment carefully. Part of that is keeping a pitch count and monitoring it.
(Strasburg) didn’t have a single 100-pitch outing in his nine starts for Washington, nor did he ever pitch into the eighth inning. Still, down he went, with an aching shoulder. The Nationals played it by the modern-day book, and discovered that in the realm of a pitcher’s arm, there are no rules.
This is very dishonest Bruce. Just because Stephen Strasburg has been handled carefully, and still injured his arm, Bruce is declaring all caution with young pitchers to be a waste of time. He seems to be promoting a fatalistic approach. Let what happens happen, and do "as little as possible". Well, Bruce, baseball ain't Chinatown, so this won't fly.
Mark Prior had what appeared to be a smooth, stress-free delivery, and he blew out his arm not from overwork – don’t ever believe that nonsense – but because he had only so many bullets to fire.
Bruce brought up Mark Prior, and said blaming his nightmare of a career on overwork is “nonsense”. He of course is talking about the well documented theory that Dusty Baker, manager of the Cubs in 2003, overworked his young pitcher, leading to injury problems that never went away. Bruce, you brought it up, so I’m gonna talk about it, and guess what? I am going to cite pitch counts.
Mark Prior was the 2nd overall pick for the Cubs in the 2001 Draft. He was going to be picked No. 1 by the Twins, but they worried that they wouldn’t be able to sign him, so they took Joe Mauer (worked out pretty well, huh?). Prior signed with the Cubs for $10.5 million, a record until Stephen Strasburg was drafted. Much like Strasburg, Prior came up to the big leagues the next year. In 2003, he had his first full season as a major leaguer. It was a great one: he went 18-6 with a 2.43 ERA and 245 K’s. It would also be the last full season he would ever pitch. Prior has been plagued with injuries ever since the 2003-2004 offseason. Many believe that Dusty Baker is partly to blame for this, because of his disregard of pitch counts. Let’s look into it:
In 2003, Prior was 22, and in his first full season. He was a $10.5 million investment for the Cubs. Prior that year averaged 113 pitches per start. Yes, 113. That is obscene, but it is nothing compared to the number of pitches Prior threw per start in September, the month when most young pitchers feel fatigue because they are not used to working a full 6 month season. How many pitches did Prior average during this time? 126. 126. One. Hundred. Twenty. Six. Such things are unheard of. It’s almost hard to believe that it happened. 126 pitches per start in September, and you say that it’s “nonsense” to blame Prior’s injury problems on overwork in this season? Just for a little perspective, we will look at some of the best pitchers of this past decade, and how many pitches they averaged per start in their first full year:
Johan Santana, 2004: 101 / Roy Halladay, 2003: 103 / Roy Oswalt: 101
Barry Zito, 2001: 101 / Tim Hudson, 2000: 101 / Dan Haren, 2005: 99
John Lackey, 2003: 100 / Carlos Zambrano, 2003: 107 / Mark Buerhle, 2001: 103
All of these pitchers have been relatively healthy most of their career. It should also be noted that all of them had close to or the same amount of success in their first year as Prior did, so this is not a case where Prior simply deserved to throw more pitches because he was so good. It’s clear that Dusty Baker overworked him, because he didn’t understand the danger he was a 22 year old, $10.5 million investment in.
Here is a specific case from that horrible September. On the 1st of that month, Prior pitched against the Cardinals. By the 5th inning, the score was already 7-0 Chicago. Prior finished the 6th inning with a pitch count of 103. At that point, it might have made sense to take him out, but Baker let him go back out for the 7th. And Prior finished that inning with 112 pitches. So Baker decided to let him go out for the 8th inning, even though he had a 7-0 lead. With one out, Prior gave up a single and a walk. At this point his pitch count was 121. Dusty left him in to get the next 2 outs, and it took 10 more pitches, raising his total to an unheard of 131. 131 pitches for a 22 year old phenom in a 7-0 game. It’s indefensible. And that’s why we count pitches.
Bud Black had a great answer about Mat Latos. The kid has become the Padres’ ace, much sooner than anyone expected, and they wonder if they’ll have to expand the innings-pitched limit established for Latos in spring training. “A lot of it will be based on what we see with our eyes and what he tells us about how his arm feels,” Black said. And that friends, is the book – start to finish.
That is a big part of the book, yes. I'm not for a strict 100-pitch count or anything like that. It depends on what the game situation is, how the pitcher looks, how he is feeling. That all deserves a place in the good book. You know what else is in the book, Bruce? Don't have your young star pitcher throw 131 pitches in a blowout. Moving on, you have a few thoughts on the Wild Card I see. Ooh, and they are beyond dumb! Jackpot!
The Phillies…could win the NL East in a runaway – and the Giants need that to happen. You don’t want Philadelphia anywhere near the wild-card race.
I know this might be nitpicking, but I couldn’t help but dissect this sentence, and you know what I found lacking? All logic. Follow me for a second, okay? The Giants need Philly to win the division, because if they don’t, then they’ll be competing with the Giants for the Wild Card. That’s Bruce’s wisdom. As I see it now, there are 2 teams that could win the NL East: the Braves or the Phillies. Both are close to each other in the division race, and also close to the Giants in the Wild Card race. So no matter who runs away with it, won’t the other one be there to challenge the Giants for the Wild Card? If Atlanta wins the division, Philly will have a chance at the Wild Card. And if Philly runs away with it, Atlanta will be right there with the Giants. Does Bruce think that Philly running away with the division will demoralize Atlanta so much that they completely fall out of Wild Card contention? See, whoever wins the East, the other team will have a chance at the Wild Card. The only way Philly not running away with the division could hurt the Giants is if BOTH Philly and Atlanta got really hot, and Atlanta won the division, and Philly won the Wild Card easily. If the division race in the East is close, and the records of those two teams are close to the Giants, the 2nd place team will contend for the Wild Card, whether it’s Philadelphia or Atlanta. I hope I explained that in only a semi-confusing fashion. I know it doesn't really matter, but I think when a sportswriter makes a completely inane, meaningless, false statement, it's fun to pick apart.
Now time for the "3 Dot Blog", the internet version, and just as douche chilling.
It was hardly surprising to see Toronto hang onto Jose Bautista. The man has 31 home runs, for heaven’s sake, and he’s under contract through next year.
Jose Bautista, before his power surge this season, was a below average baseball player. Toronto wanted to trade him, but the right deal wasn't there. They wanted a good return for the league leader in HR's, but other teams were too wary of Bautista's high probability to regress drastically. Toronto now has him for next year, but they also have to deal with him earning a lot more money, and it's a dangerous investment. The man had a .729 OPS before this season, for heaven's sake.
The shocker is that nobody landed Adam Dunn, although it’s likely he’ll go in a waiver deal over the next few weeks.
No it isn’t.
Skip ahead to Wednesday of this week. Bruce wrote a piece on the Giants, and you had to know it would suck big time. His whole point in this article was how the Giants do the "little things". His example of foing the little things? Well, they don't just hit home runs. They also hit singles! When I think of a team doing the little things, I think of taking the extra base, or making a smart play defensively, or all the really stupid little things you can do, like bunts and hit and runs. I don't think hitting like a regular, good major league player amounts to doing little things.
Torres is a man of immense strength, but he’s too smart to let occasional bursts of power go to his head. So there he was Tuesday night, leading off a very important game against Colorado, singling up the middle to start a four-run rally. He lined out hard to left field in the second inning, and he went to the opposite field again with a single in the fourth. This is exactly what the Giants need from their most authentic leadoff man since Brett Butler. (Interesting that with Tuesday’s game well in hand, Torres homered in the ninth.)
Bruce Jenkins wishes Torres were a slap hitter. That’s just insulting. Andres Torres is slugging .500. He is at the top of the leaderboard in doubles. Just because you want him to be Juan Pierre doesn’t mean he will be. His power and patience in the leadoff spot has been invaluable to the Giants, and you have to focus on him hitting singles? It’s great that he hits singles, but everyone does that. Torres is great this year BECAUSE of his power and patience. And what does that crap in the parenthesis mean? So because the game was well in hand, he decided it was okay to hit a HR? You mean earlier in games he TRIES to not hit HR’s? If that’s the case, Bruce Bochy needs to talk to him. But of course that isn’t the case, because, as you said, Torres is too smart.
Now Jenkins is going to describe how Matt Kemp is someone who doesn't do "the little things". I hate Matt Kemp. I don't want to defend him. He's a terrible baserunner. But this is too much.
(Kemp) did get five hits, as it turned out, but a separate moment defined him. In the first inning of what turned into a 10-5 loss, Kemp ran at three-quarters speed heading to home plate on a single by Casey Blake – so much so that James Loney, sliding into third, was called out before Kemp touched the plate. The run was erased. Kemp hadn’t learned a thing.
As I said, I hate to defend Matt Kemp, but this is just ridiculous. Bruce Jenkins must really hate Kemp. All we have to do is look at a replay of the play in question, to realize that Kemp was running at a perfectly fast, earnest speed. But it shouldn’t even matter, because wasn’t it Loney who broke a fundamental baseball rule when he made the final out of the inning at 3rd base? It’s Kemp’s fault because he didn’t score before Loney was tagged out on a foolish attempt to take an extra base? Looks like Bruce, in however many years of watching baseball, hasn’t learned a thing. Or maybe he forgets everything he’s learned if it doesn’t support the point he’s trying to make.
And finally, Bruce's small section on page 2 of the Sporting Green from yesterday:
Bouncing A Few Thoughts Into The Dirt
Gotta give Jenkins credit for that self deprecating title. That is what it’s meant to be, right Bruce?
Easily one of the worst deals ever made: Carlos Gonzalez and Huston Street from Oakland to Colorado for Matt Holliday in November ’08.
It’s very justifiable to criticize Billy Beane for his revolving door of prospects. He traded Mark Mulder for Dan Haren. After getting 3 productive years of Haren, he flipped him for a truckload of prospects from Arizona. One of these players, Gonzalez, was traded to Colorado for Matt Holliday, who was traded to St. Louis for Brett Wallace, who was traded to Toronto for Michael Taylor. You’d think at some point Beane has to stop this and let his blue chip prospects at least do something in Oakland. And Gonzalez is having a great season in Colorado. Oakland might wish they still had him. But one of the worst deals ever? Easily? How? Oakland’s eventual return in the deal, Taylor, is a top prospect who hasn’t done anything yet. That is, he hasn’t shown what kind of major league player he’ll be, nor has he proven to be a bust. This is a trade that very well could go wrong for the A’s, but it’s completely beyond analysis at this point. You know what one of the worst deals ever is? Adrian Gonzalez and Chris Young from the Rangers to the Padres for Adam Eaton. How do we know this? Because it happened 5 years ago, and all the players have shown their major league ability. If Michael Taylor turns out to be a bust, and Gonzalez is Torii Hunter, then it will be a terrible trade. But that hasn’t happened yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)