|
Monthly archives: August 2003
Maroth to the Flame
2003-08-31 01:55
The Togers lost their 100th game of the year tonight, 5-2 against teh White Sox at home. The game also marked the nineteenth loss of the seaon for starting pitcher Mike Maroth (6-19). Detroit has 28 games left, which means that Maroth could have five more starts. Maroth has not won, or even failed to lose, more than two games in a row this season. Meanwhile, the Tigers are on a pace to better than 1962 Met's by one game with a 41-121 record. The Mets were 40-120. Of course, they were a first-year expansion team, not an extablished team with 103 seasons to their credit. But who's counting. Also, the Tigers do play 18 of 28 against playoff calliber teams though only 12 of 28 are on the road.
Permalink |
No comments.
Vile Card
2003-08-29 13:25
In the American League, the A's are continuing their tradition as baseball's answer to a Wagnerian opera, passing the Seattle Mariners as if they were standing still even while Oakland lost arguably their best pitcher this year in Mark Mulder. The M's, the first-place A's, and the Red Sox, all with 2 games of each other, are the main candidates for the wild card. The three Central teams are battling for the division crown with the two losers battling only for control of the TV clicker during playoff time. The NL once had similar battles just two weeks. The Braves and Giants had all but squirreled away their playoff spots, the Central was tight, three-team race, and the wild card was battle bteween two teams, the Phils and Marlins. The Phils had controlled the also-ran spot all season until Florida came on strong after the All-Star game. It looked like the wild card would boil down to the suddenly high-salaried, veteran Phils against the low-salaried, young (except for Jack McKeon) Marlins. On Sunday, August 17, the Phils had just won five straight, including a three-game sweep of the Cardinals, were heading for Milwaukee to start a 13-game road trip, and led the Marlins by one-half game. No other team was within four games of Philadelphia:
However, things have changed dramatically in the last couple of weeks. The Phillies get swept by the lowly but suddenly hot Brewers, lost two of three in St. Louis, and got pasted by Montreal for a merciless four-game sweep, in which the Expos outscored the Phils 39-17 (or an average game score of 10-4). On August 26, the Phils bullpen relinquished 10 runs in two innings to cough up a 10-4 lead (a game the Phils lead 8-0 in the middle of the fifth inning). So, the Marlins are now in complete control, right? Uh, no. They have only made up one-half game to tie the Phils. While the Quakers ran off a 1-9 road streak, the Retirees went 1-8. The wild card lead is now shared among five clubs (well, technically Montreal trails by fractions of winning percentage points) and three other clubs are within a game and a half of the lead:
If course, one of the Central teams will have to win the division crown so the wild card is really just a seven-team "race". However, that's still more than half the non-division leaders in the NL. The AL is the best argument for the wild card possible: there are a couple of very strong teams that may not win their division but could be just as strong as any other team come playoff time. The NL is the nightmare that all of us wild card detractors have feared all along: a collection of mediocre teams, one of whom is now guaranteed a playoff berth alongside truly dominant teams like the Giants and Braves. Not only that but the NL is assured of two these teams-the wild card and the NL Central winner-of oozing into the postseason. Oh, joy! Short of Larry Bowa going postal, I'm not sure how much excitement this snoozefest will engender. Consider that nary any of this teams is actually playing well. Despite the Phils/Marlins kamikaze travails of the last two weeks, they both share a piece of the wild card lead. Take a look at the records of the wild card teams since last Sunday:
A .421 winning percentage on average? That's worse that every team in the NL but the Padres for the year. Meanwhile the Brewers won 10 straight. So leaving aside the ethical dilemma of whether any of, let alone two, of these teams should make the playoffs-they are on a pace to be the worst NL playoff team in a non-strike year since the '73 Mets-, who will go? Here are their records since the All-Star game, including won-lost record, expected won-lost, ERA, and OPS (On-base Plus Slugging):
The Phillies finally became the team that everyone expected in 2003, with a powerful offensive and a problematic pitching staff. Houston and Florida should have the best records in the second half. However, the Cubs and the Marlins (despite the 1-8 run) actually have the best records. What do I think will happen? I expect the Astros to take control of the Central. They have the best team but continue to underwhelm. The Phils could turn around the current trend and wrest control of the wild card. However, they are just as likely to plummet and take manager Larry Bowa down with them. All of which would not bode well for next season when they move into a new stadium. Though the Phils' brass should last offseason that it is willing to finally open the coffers and get big-name free agents. If they fail to win the wild card, expect Bowa to be fired and the Phils to be very active in the offseason to create some positive PR for next season. The two Western clubs have been treading water in a sea of mediocrity. I see no reason, and they seem to offer none, why they would take the wild card berth. Their lack of offensive production is a concern. By the same token, the Cardinals lack of pitching is a real concern. That leaves the Cubs, Expos, and Marlins. Those three have been pretty even since the break-Florida was hotter at the outset and Montreal is hotter now. If I had my druthers, I would love to see the Expos make the playoffs. Something tells me that the Cubs while scrapping for the Central title will take the wild card. They just have that after-school-special feel about them. Even though the two teams that eke out a playoff berth from this pool will be David-like underdogs. Chances are and history tells us that one or both will advance to at least the NLCS. At least they'll have a better record than the champion Angels, who are sinking into the sunset like their ex-owner at the end of a B movie.
Permalink |
No comments.
Imagine There're No Sac Flies-It's Easy If You Try
2003-08-27 16:30
Give unto me, made lowly wise, How many times have you seen a line drive that is snared by an outfielder as a the runner from third tags up and scores a meaningless run late in a lopsided game? The batter gets a sacrifice fly though the last thing he was trying to do was sacrifice himself to stymie a possible rally. So why award his lack of success with a sac fly without an at-bat instead of a plain, old out? Because it's how the rule reads: SACRIFICES My friend Murray and I started an email conversation on the inanity of the sac fly rule in response to an item in Joe Morgan's chat this past week, in which Joe chastises the small-ball-foregoing modern batters for not going for the ever-valuable sac fly. Quoth Murray: Don't you think sac flies are stupid? Whatever you think about it as a tactic, at least a bunt is a discrete skill. A flyout is a negative outcome that has the positive effect of sometimes advancing runners a base. On occasion, a club is lucky enough to score a runner from third because of one. But otherwise, it's just an out, and batters aren't supposed to make outs deliberately. Most of the time, the batter isn't trying to make an out when he hits a sac fly. I think it should be accounted for the same way that a ground out that advances a runner home is handled. Major League Baseball itself has equivocated many times on the sacrifice fly issue. Even though the rule is almost one hundred years old, MLB has had a love-hate relationship with the sac fly. Here are the highlights of the rule's history: 1908: The sacrifice fly rule [10.09] is introduced. The original rule is very similar to today's version: If a runner scores on a caught fly ball, the batter is credited with a run batted in and is not charged with an at-bat. Unfortunately, the sacrifice flies are not recorded as a separate statistic: they are recorded under sacrifice hits (i.e., bunts). That's a lot of shifts back and forth on the issue over the yeas. For proof of baseball's still-existent hypocrisy on the sac fly rule, keep in mind that they negatively impact one's on-base percentage whereas bunts do not. Also, a hitting streak (consecutive game or consecutive at-bat) may be ended by a sac fly (Rule 10.24: "The streak shall terminate if the player has a sacrifice fly and no hit.") but not by a base on balls, hit batsman, defensive interference or a sacrifice bunt. Sacrifice flies are the second-class citizens of the sacrifice world. To quote Yukon Cornelius, "Even among misfits, [sac flies] are misfits!" So what has the sacrifice fly done to baseball. Well, before 1954 (i.e., 1908-30 and 1939, the first attempts at the sac fly) there is no statistical record of occurrences of sacrifice flies. The at-bats were reduced but they just did not record the sac flies (they were lumped with bunts). Since 1954, the obvious result of the sacrifice fly rule is to positively affect batting averages since the flyout at-bats were converted to sacrifices that did not enter into the batting average calculation. Slugging averages, since they are derived from at-bats, were similarly affected (and in turn OPS). Sac flies also directly affect runs batted in. On-base percentage, as we already discussed, includes sac flies. No other offensive stat was affected. The runs still score. The pitcher's and fielder's stats stay the same, an out was recorded and a run (ostensibly earned) was scored. Well, how much are the affected stats...um, well, affected anyway? Here's a table from 1954 with the batting average, slugging average, and OPS (On-base Plus Slugging) per league. Then the adjusted averages had sac flies counted as at-bats appear next (with the "+" designation). Finally, the yearly differences between the actual and adjusted averages appear (except OPS which is increased the same as the slugging) along with sacrifice fly occurrence (SF/PA) and the percentage of sacrifice flies to runs batted in (RBI%):
How about individuals? Are some affected more than others? OK, for starters here are the all-time leaders in sac flies, first the seasonal leaders and then the career leaders:
Now let's look at the men who have had the highest percentage of career runs batted in attributable to sacrifice flies (min. 100 RBI):
Now here are the lowest percentage of RBI attributable to sac flies:
As far as batting titles being affected by the sac fly rule, I can find one since 1954 that would change hands if the sac flies were counted as outs and therefore, at-bats. That was the 1970 AL batting title in which Alex Johnson edged Carl Yastrzemski after both officially ended at .329. Johnson's .32899 gave him the nod over Yaz's .32862. However, Johnson's three sacrifice flies compare to Yaz's two would have given the title to Yaz, .32746 to Johnson's .32739. So what kind if stat are we talking about here? It only affects batting and slugging averages minimally (historically. two and three points respectively). It only occurs less than one percent of all plate appearances (0.74%). The main beneficiary of the sac fly are weak-hitting middle infielders/center fielders and pitchers. The only real affect is on runs batted in, comprising 6.89% of them historically. So I propose that sacrifice fly rule be eliminated. If a player flies out and a run scores as a direct result, by all means credit the player with an RBI, just as he would be assessed if a ground out had plated the runner. However, charge that player with an at-bat. Baseball made a mistake fifty years ago rewarding players for possible unintentional results and it is about time that we reversed that mistake. I see three arguments against the elimination of the sacrifice fly rule: 1) History-Baseball is a very slow-turning ocean liner obeying Newton's First Law of Motion religiously staying in its current motion. It has now accumulated fifty years of sac fly history and that momentum outweighs any possible reason to change things. Let me answer them one by one. History: If the history of the sac fly rule teaches anything, it's that the rule has been modified often and it has yet to cause the downfall of Western society. Why keep something around just because of inertia? Statistical inaccuracies: First, the statistical record for the year's prior to 1954 in which the sac fly rule held sway are completely hosed. It appears that all sacrifice flies were recorded under bunts. Sacrifice bunts occurred about 3% of all plate appearances during the Teens and Twenties and had an all-time high of 3.72% in the 1917 AL season. With the original introduction of the sac fly rule, sacrifice hits increased about 25% in each league. They shot up 18% in the AL and 39% in the NL when the sac fly rule was expanded in 1926 to include all flyouts after which runners advanced. With the 1930 elimination of the sac fly rule, sacrifice hit rates dropped by 50% in the AL and 38% in the NL. The one-year revitalization of the rule caused sacrifice hits to shot up by over 50% (54% in the AL and 68% in the NL). 1940 witnessed a similar decrease of 42% in sacrifices per plate appearances in each league as the rule was again abolished. The statistical history, at this point, for all sacrifices is completely beclouded. Second, the years in which the sacrifice fly rule did not exist cause enough inaccuracies on their own to thoroughly muddy the water. Eliminating the rule now would be consistent at least with a greater amount of baseball's history. Small Ball: My first answer to this comment is a question. Did small ball originate in the Fifties, because that's as far back as the current sac fly rule goes? If not, then were batters in the Thirties and Forties dissuaded from hitting sac flies to help the team? Besides, if we want to reward a player for sacrificing himself to the strategies of small ball, the sac fly stat is a poor compensation. Why not record the sacrifice fly as an out and an at-bat, but record it along with a number of other sacrifices under a new stat, which I would call "Out with Consequence" (call it Indifferent Sacrifice, I don't care). I propose that an Out with Consequence would include the following and would record an RBI if a run scores (same as today): - Sacrifice Flies - Flyouts that advance a runner - Groundouts that score a run - Groundouts that advance a runner - Strikeouts on a busted hit and run There are probably others that I couldn't think of. However, I would keep sacrifice bunts out of the mix. The reason being that bunts are obvious and intentional but the sacrifices that I list above are not. You know that someone is bunting if he squares to bunt. If someone hits a fly ball to left with a runner at third, is there any real way to be certain that it was what he intended to do? No, there isn't. Also, he may be trying to lift a ball out of the infield to score a runner and popup to short or strikeout. With a sac fly, it's the results not the intention. Baseball itself segregates sacrifice flies from bunts by including the only former in on-base percentage. I would propose that bunts still be recorded separately and suggest that failed bunts (either by strikeout or a force out of the lead runner) be tracked as well. How many times are we told that a bunt is the correct strategy? Well, if you know that a player only bunts successfully 10% of the time, wouldn't that change your mind? Wouldn't it be nice to gauge the success of bunts empirically? Does their success rate merit their use in the middle innings of a close game? If the opposition fields the bunt well (i.e., their opponents have a low success rate), shouldn't we consider a different strategy? Well, we can't answer those questions now because we just record successful bunts. Unsuccessful bunts are just plain outs. I think that the Out with Consequence would best capture what baseball was originally trying to record and as Wilfred Brimley said, it's a tasty way to do it. It would not arbitrarily choose the sac fly strategy and ignore a boatload of others. And most importantly it wouldn't reward a player with a free plate appearance for an unintentional consequence. I propose adopting it and retroactively subsuming sac flies under its heading. Also, the sac flies from 1954 to today should become at-bats. The previous sac fly eras (1908-30 and 1939) would still be slightly off but unless retrosheet can differentiate between bunts and sac flies, I'm willing to live with it. The end result would be that the small-ballists would then have a real stat from which to pontificate. "Jones may only get on-base 30% of the time, but he leads the league in Outs with Consequence. He is a real team player." And we of the sabermetric bend would have a means to refute their argument ("But Smith gets on base 37% of the time with about the same number of Outs with Consequence. And he is successful in 90% of his bunt attempts. Isn't that more valuable?") It's not the final answer in the "small ball" debate, but it at least allows us to conduct a more substantive discussion of the matter.
Permalink |
No comments.
The Angry Beavers
2003-08-27 08:44
All but one of the Triple-A Portland Beavers had been suspended after they chased a Las Vegas fan, who heckled and then threw a stress-relief ball, that night's giveaway, at pitcher Tagg "You're It" Bozied. I guess the fan didn't understand the point of the giveaway. Like the Dodgers-Cubs scrum a few years ago that began because a fan stole catcher Chad Kreuter's hat in the bullpen, the suspensions must be staggered. The Beavers had only 9 available position players on Tuesday.
Permalink |
No comments.
Ron-dealt
2003-08-27 00:35
Well, I guess the Padre outfield was a bit overcrowded. After acquiring Brian Giles, the Pod People traded his predecessor, Rondell White, to the transaction-happy Royals for pitching prospects. What do the Royals need with pitching prospects anyway when their staff is getting progressively older over the course of the season. Their original rotation was Runelvis Hernandez (25), Jeremy Affeldt (24), Miguel Asencio (22), Chris George (23), and Darrell May (31). It is now: May (the only original one remaining), Jose Lima (30), Kevin Appier (35 and just went on the DL), Paul Abbott (35), Brian Anderson (31), and Jimmy Gobble (22). Their starters' ERA is just a hair under 5.00 for the season. I said in the offseason that the lack of experience and talent in the rotation would hurt them, but I had no idea that it might cost them a division crown.
Permalink |
No comments.
Life of Brian
2003-08-26 15:51
Welease Bwian! Brian Giles has goes from the frying pan and into the fire as the Pirates ship him to San Diego for what ESPN says is "pitcher Oliver Perez, a minor-leaguer and a player to be named later." Perez had been untradeable but the Padres may have considered now that he is 4-7 with a 5.38 ERA. San Diego outfield suddenly gets very crowded with Mark Jotsay and Sarge Matthews Jr. in center, Phil Nevin in right, and Rondell White in left. They also have Xavier Nady in the minor (how may be the player to be named in the Giles deal). White is a free agent and still may be traded before the waiver deadline.
Permalink |
No comments.
Fit To Be Tied
2003-08-26 14:58
Here's the tie breaker rule thanks to the Cub Reporter. It does not as a matter of fact include a coin toss for three teams:
If necessary, the subparagraph (d.) procedure of adding the immediately preceding game played by each team records shall be continued until such time as one team emerges with a better record and that team shall thereupon be declared the Division Champion and the other team shall be declared the Wild Card team.
teams being designated the A, B, C and D teams. A will play B at the home field of A, and C will play D at the home field of C, both games to be played the day after the conclusion of the championship season. The following day, the winners will play at the home field of A, or, if A lost that of B. The winner of the game shall be declared the Division Champion.
Permalink |
No comments.
Shall I Compare Thee to
2003-08-26 00:55
Shall I Compare Thee to A Summer's Joe Morgan Chat Day?Summer's lease hath all too short a date. Summer turns me upside down. Oh, summer, summer, summer. You know it's kinda like a merry-go-round, in a way. Also, a summer breeze makes me feel fine just so long as it's blowing through the jasmine of my mind. Mostly, the jasmine of my mind is telling me that summer is way too short. Or is it the jasmine of my brain-I get confused with the whole mind/brain jasmine duality. Anyway, it's almost over and with it the baseball season. This is the problem with baseball: the season builds to playoff races, then the excitement is ratcheted up a notch for the playoffs, and finally the World Series, the crown jewel (hopefully) of the season is played. And then we get four months of a whole lot of nothin'. Speaking of which, Joe Morgan's chats will end along with summer. This week's offering is a tepid rainout of an offering, but it is still Joe. We here at Mike's Baseball Rants love the Joe Morgan: he was one of the most exciting players we ever saw. And we love the Joe Morgan Chat Days ever more. Joe has experienced more on the field than most anyone this side of Minnie Minoso, but his analysis offers belies that depth of knowledge. Our quest is the nirvanic, hairs-standing-up-on the back-of-your-neck moment when Joe plumbs that cache of baseball knowledge while saying something plumb obtuse. And babe, don't you know it's a pity that the chats can't be like the Sunday nights, In the summer, with Joe Morgan. In the summer, with Joe Morgan. The GoodMoe (Lake Crescent, WA): What kind of team do you believe is more likely to win a World Series? A balanced team (Seattle), a pitching-dominant team (Oakland), or an offensive-juggernaut (Boston)?
Utek (LA): Hi Joe. Taking nothing away from Barry Bonds (who has been the most locked-in hitter over the past 3 years that I have ever seen), whenever Barry gets those rare opportunities to hit late in the game, it is always against the team's "situational lefty", ie soft-tossing breaking ball pitcher. Since Bonds has shown that he can hit left-handers, and can lay off curveballs out of the zone, and since you can count the number of hard-throwing lefty relievers on one hand, wouldn't it make more sense to throw your reliever with the best stuff against Bonds, rather than the one who throws left-handed?
BP (Boston, MA): Joe, how valuable can a closer be if he is only needed when you're already winning (according to you above)?
"7 or 8 years ago"? Wow, last week, Joe couldn't remember what he said the previous day and now he's spotting dimes from nearly a decade ago.] ken, atlanta, ga: What happens if there is a 3-way tie for the Central division (al or nl) at the end of the season? do they play a round robin playoff?
They would do the flip about one week before the end of the season if it looks like it might be a tie.
Brian Mongeau (Wellesley, MA): Why do you have such beef with the red Sox? I've heard you compliment other teams while announcing, but never my beloved BoSox. Are you still sore that we were able to take you to 7 games in '76, when we were supposed to be swept?
Chris Mullin- Cincinnati, OH: Earlier this week Mike Schmidt made some comments that he thought someting would happen (possibly reinstatement) with the Pete Rose situation soon after the end of this season. He made these comments after a meeting with Bud Selig that also included both yourself and Johnny Bench. Do you agree with Mike Schmidt's comments, and did you get the same impression from the meeting with the comissioner? Thanks!
Mark South Orange, NJ: Joe, while everyone is talking about Pete Rose and the Hall of Fame, I think a bigger travesty is Marvin Miller's rejection by the aloof former players on the Veteran's Committee. Could you explain why Miller wasn't given overwhelming player support for induction? How could so many players ignore Miller's contribution to their huge fortunes and to the game itself? Do the players on the committee even realize he won't be eligle again until he is 90? It puzzles me that there isn't more outrage for this injustice.
The BadMike (St. Louis) : Joe I don't understand the argument that Albert PUjols is less valuablr because he doesnt have a "position". Isnt the ability to play all over the place (LF, 3B, 1B) a luxury to have especially in a superstar player. ANd isnt it worth more if that player is at least average on defense at all his positions(LF, 3B), if not stellar.(1B) I am just curios where the problem is with him not playing left field or first base every day is. No one knocks utility guys for being able to play all over the place, as a matter of fact, most baseball people say the versatitlty is what wins those guys jobs. So why is it different for a superstar player, especially in the NL with all the double switches etc. Thanks.
Bill -- Royal Oak, MI: Joe- I enjoy your analysis and insight but have an issue with your 'splitting' both AL and NL MVP honors on ESPN.com today. This isn't something silly like the Presidential election - this is the MVP. We need a clear winner. I want answers. 1 winner, each league, who do you pick. Thanks.
Cal Buzz (Anchorage, AK): Mr. Morgan, after reading your article on the AL MVP, I have to argue that by your own standards, Bret Boone is clearly the MVP this year. Boone has bettered Giambi's numbers playing Gold Glove 2b! He shouldn't be penalized for playing on the same team as Ichiro. It looks like '96 all over again, where Arod lost the MVP because a Seattle sportswriter thought Griffey was the better player. Even if that was true, Arod's play that year was more valuable. Not only that, Boone is the leader in the clubhouse, way more than Arod or Griffey ever were. Boone is putting up Arod caliber offense and defense on a division leading team! Thanks for your time.
The criteria to which Cal refers are from here, from Joe's AL MVP article: "I view the MVP differently than most fans. I look at a player's contributions in the clubhouse and on the field, offensively and defensively ... the total package. Statistics and numbers tell you something, but intangibles are important too. Offensively, the most important element is run production -- the runs a player drives in and scores. Run production is more important than batting average or home runs. If everything is based on runs scored and runs batted in, here are the top 10 in the AL in that combined stat (I won't even critique the stat as a means to evaluate players):
His next criterion is "how the team of an MVP candidate fares". Delgado, Wells, and A-Rod are on teams that are out of the playoff hunt. That leaves Ramirez and Boone tied for fourth in combined runs. Factoring in defense-Joe's "complete package"-you end up with Boone. So Cal is right there. However, I don't think one can say that "Boone has bettered Giambi's numbers playing Gold Glove 2b!" Boone trails Giambi by 63 points in OPS, which comes from their on-base percentages (Boone has 49 walks to Giambi's 111). As far as Boone winning a Gold Glove, I think division-rival Mark Ellis will have some say there. He has played about the same number of innings at second base (actually about 50 fewer) but has accepted 83 more total chances. Boone did win the Gold Glove in 2002 (and does have fewer errors 3 to 11 than Ellis). By the way, here are all of the qualifying second basemen ranked by Zone Factor. Boone doesn't look like a strong candidate:
But, I guess, to quote Nigel Tufnel, "That's nitpicking. Isn't it?" Really, if you want a candidate from the middle infield, one who has been putting up superior numbers, then the ideal choice is A-Rod. But Joe won't go for that-no can do-because the Rangers are in the cellar. But with Boone's M's being again passed by the A's, if they don't qualify for the postseason, isn't Boone in the same boat as A-Rod? His team will just suffer a little longer before elimination. I guess that's my problem with these criteria, they are so arbitrary. A player plays well down the stretch but his team doesn't make the playoffs. Does he still get credit for his performance in MVP voting? Just get rid of the award and go with player of the year. It'll be less controversial. Oh, and as to who is doing better "lately", Ichiro or Boone. Boone is only batting .243 since the All-Star break, but leads Ichiro in OPS by 40 points. In August both have posted OPSs of .717 so far. If I had to pick an M's player by recent performance, I'd go with Edgar Martinez who has a .904 OPS since the break and .934 in August. Though, truth be told, the offense (along with their starting pitching) is a major reason why they are just 18-20 since the All-Star break. By the way, non-candidate Alex Rodriguez has a 1.208 OPS since the break, nearly 200 points more than the next AL batter.] Shane (Dayton, OH): Hi Joe. I ask this question every week and never get it answered. What do you think the possibility is of the MLB getting both a salary cap and a salary floor. I hate the fact that at the beginning of each year, you can already eliminate one-third of the teams from the pennant races. I think MLB should model around the NFL. What do you think?
Again nitpicking, as far as salary caps, they have one now. It's a soft cap called luxury tax, and all but the Yankees fear its name. As far as a salary floor, it was proposed during the last CBA, but too many low-salaried teams wanted to pocket their luxury tax money (including Bud's old/current team, the Brewers). It may get discussed in the next CBA. However, given that the owners declared victory after the "small-market" (huh?) Angels won the World Series, so don't hold your breath.] LAURENE BOLET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Why don't they create a team statistic for the Intentional Walk instead of sticking it to the poor pitcher's stats who didn't have any choice in the matter? It makes it look like his control is worse than it is.
If you don't want to charge an IBB to a pitcher, don't give him the benefit of the double play either. What about unintentional intentional walks? Look, if you don't like using intentional walks in your analyses, just subtract them out before calculating.Too much trouble, that's why Joe basis all pitching analysis all the all-consuming Win.] Brad NYC: Joe, Love you commentary and look forward to each and every chat. In your AL MVP article, you stated that Manny is the Sox most important player, but Nomar is the most valuable. Could you please clafify a bit. In my mind, Nomar is more valuable because he has the offensive production, runs the bases well, and plays a premium defensive position well.
Michael- Boston: How can you say Nomar wouldn't be as good? Did he not win two straight batting titles without Manny?
Nomar's best years were 1999-2000. They were the only times that he had an OPS in the top five in the league, or had an adjusted OPS in the top ten. This year his OPS ranks 12th in the AL and fourth on the Saux.] The UglyNomah, Bahwstuhn: How can "knows how to win" be quantified in a measureable statistic which shows how it is used and affects the game?
"[H]e will hit fly balls when he needs to...There are guys that have a runner at third with one out and is still trying to hit a HR." What Joe is advocating is hitting a sac fly to score the runner. However, wouldn't be infinitely better for the batter to hit a home run in that situation? Maybe he shouldn't be aiming for the fences, but a homer scores two and saves an out. Joe is correct that a strikeout when a player's trying to clobber the snot out of the ball is infinitely worse than a sac fly in that situation. But aren't there a number of other issues involved? Is the team leading or behind? Is it late or early in the game? Is the pitcher laboring? Who is up next? Are you home or away? Who invented liquid soap and why? Of course there are a myriad of factors. There are things that players do that don't show up in the box score (like moving a runner into scoring position in a late/close game). The stats we have are not perfect. But that is why we try to delve beyond batting average, home runs, and RBI. Thanks for validating sabermetrics, Joe!] Lance Oliver (KC): Why is the spitball, and scuffing baseballs illegal. I think it adds more flavor to the game.
Seriously, the pitches were made illegal because the powers that be though that they gave the pitcher an unfair advantage. It's the same as the balk rule or allowing walks after four balls. The pitcher controls so much of the game, and the development of the sport can be viewed as an incremental dissolution of the pitcher's power. By the way, the old saw that Carl Mays fatally hitting Ray Chapman causing the spitter to be outlawed just aint true. The Spitter had been repealed prior to the 1920 season. Chapman's death did change the number and the quality of the balls used in games. In The Glory of Their Times,Fred Snodgrass says, "We hardly ever saw a new baseball, a clean one. If the ball went into the stands and the ushers couldn't get it back from the spectators, only then would the umpire throw out a new one." That changed and helped bring about the offensive explosion of the Twenties.] Jackie Haswell, Tifton, Ga: What do you think about the chicken making his return in San Deigo. What is one of your most memorble laughs at a team mascot?
Really, the Chicken boxed an ump? And the ump knocked him out?!? (Ha. Ha.) That's great. Only the Chicken could come up with that. That reminds me of that episode of Gilligan's island when they almost got off the island but Gilligan screwed it up. Or that episode of Bewitched when Sam used her powers and Darin got angry. Or that episode of Three's Company that was full of double entendres. Oh, good times! That was awesome!]
Permalink |
No comments.
A Round and a Bouton
2003-08-25 11:08
Alex Belth has an interview with the always intersting Jim Bouton. My favorite: BB: Why are the old guys so threatened by the modern players? Is it because on some level they feel that they won't be remembered? Bouton's just an interesting, intelligent guy.
Permalink |
No comments.
Pujol-stered
2003-08-23 00:38
Albert Pujols just, lost his bid to extend his 30-game hit streak, going 0-for-5 in an odd Cards' loss to the Phils, 9-4. The game went from a 4-3 realtively low-scoring game through seven with the Cardinals continually edging out the Phils to a wild blowout in the Phils' favor. In the end Jim Thome and Pat Burrell both homered twice and the Phillies scored 7 runs in three innings off the Cards' atrocious bullpen. The game also featured a bench clearing after alleged reliever Esteban "Toward Triple-A" Yan threw inside to Marlon Byrd twice in a row. Somehow Yan stayed in the game even though a warning had been previous declared. The Cards acquired Sterling Hitchcock earlier in the day from the elated Yankees and he will start Saturday. They also liberated Mike DeJean from Milwaukee. DeJean should help but the Cardinals apparently have no credible bullpen aside from Jason Isringhausen. Yan was especially poor. At one point in the ninth it became apparent that the Cardinals had no one else in the pen to waste on the game, meaning that Yan would just have to take one for the team. Yet it seemed that he could not get a man out. Yan faced 9 men. here are the results of the first 7: HR, strikeout (to end the eighth), single, walk (including clearing the benches, one actual wild pitch, and one should-have-been wild pitch on the second inside pitch to Byrd), passed ball, single, single, walk. In total, one out, four hits, two walks, three runs, and an inherited runner who scored. Then the Cards got three outs on two quick bang-bang plays to the shortstop. The Phils maintain their one-game wild card lead over the Marlins, who are losing at San Francisco, with the ever-fading Dontrelle Willis getting knocked around (he had a 7.31 ERA in Auguts going into the game and allowed four runs in five innings). There are seven clubs within 4.5 games of Philadelphia.
Permalink |
No comments.
The Day of Whines and Rose
2003-08-22 09:57
BEFORE THE LAW stands a doorkeeper. To this doorkeeper there comes a man from the country and prays for admittance to the Law. But the doorkeeper says that he cannot grant admittance at the moment. The man thinks it over and then asks if he will be allowed in later. "It is possible," says the doorkeeper, "but not at the moment." Since the gate stands open, as usual, and the doorkeeper steps to one side, the man stoops to peer through the gateway into the interior. Observing that, the doorkeeper laughs and says: "If you are so drawn to it, 'just try to go in despite my veto. But take note: I am powerful. And I am only the least of the doorkeepers. From hall to hall there is one doorkeeper after another, each more powerful than the last. The third doorkeeper is already so terrible that even I cannot bear to look at him." These are difficulties the man from the country has not expected; the Law, he thinks, should surely be accessible at all times and to everyone, but as he now takes a closer look at the doorkeeper in his fur coat, with his big sharp nose and long, thin, black Tartar beard, he decides that it is better to wait until he gets permission to enter. The doorkeeper gives him a stool and lets him sit down at one side of the door. There he sits for days and years. He makes many attempts to be admitted, and wearies the doorkeeper by his importunity. The doorkeeper frequently has little interviews with him, asking him questions about his home and many other things, but the questions are put indifferently, as great lords put them, and always finish with the statement that he cannot be let in yet. The man, who has furnished himself with many things for his journey, sacrifices all he has, however valuable, to bribe the doorkeeper. The doorkeeper accepts everything, but always with the remark: "I am only taking it to keep you from thinking you have omitted anything." During these many years the man fixes his attention almost continuously on the doorkeeper. He forgets the other doorkeepers, and this first one seems to him the sole obstacle preventing access to the Law. He curses his bad luck, in his early years boldly and loudly; later, as he grows old, he only grumbles to himself. He becomes childish, and since in his yearlong contemplation of the doorkeeper he has come to know even the fleas in his fur collar, he begs the flea ' s as well to help him and to change the doorkeeper's mind. At length his eyesight begins to fail, and he does not know whether the world is really darker or whether his eyes are only deceiving him. Yet in his darkness he is now aware of a radiance that streams inextinguishably from the gateway of the Law. Now he has not very long to live. Before he dies, all his experiences in these long years gather themselves in his head to one point, a question he has not yet asked the doorkeeper. He waves him nearer, since he can no longer raise his stiffening body. The doorkeeper has to bend low toward him, for the difference in height between them has altered much to the man's disadvantage. "What do you want to know now?" asks the doorkeeper; "you are insatiable." "Everyone strives to reach the Law," says the man, "so how does it happen that for all these many years no one but myself has ever begged for admittance?" The doorkeeper recognizes that the man has reached his end, and, to let his failing senses catch the words, roars in his ear: "No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it."
I may have been the only person this side of Doug Llewelyn to take ESPN's "Pete Rose on Trial" a couple of weeks ago seriously (well, and that sketch artist). It may be because I conducted my own trial of hustling Mr. Charles Hustle peopled by fictional characters. I do have to say that my "trial" delved further into the facts then ESPN's version. The again, I employed more credible attorneys- Jimmy Stewart from Anatomy of a Murder, Perry Mason, Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny, etc.-than Johnny Cochran and Alan Dershowitz. (Actually, Cochran was on my defense team as well and said of the betting slips, "If the note isn't great, you must exculpate".) And judge was Ray Walston, who at least had a baseball connection via Damn Yankees, as opposed to ESPN's choice of Catherine Crier, who as a judge, the best thing I can say about her is that, to quote Rodney Dangerfield, she "must have been something before electricity." Anyway, below are my notes from the trial of the All-Century for what it's worth: Opening Remarks
Dershowitz (prosecution): Regarding Rule 21 d, he claims that "anyone who violates the rule will be declared permanently ineligible." This is just not true. If you bet on your own team, part of 21d, only then may you be declared permanently ineligible. Here's the rule in question: (d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year. - Regarding the Dowd Report: "The only question you will have is whether his extraordinary talents as a ballplayer, his extraordinary records, requires [sic] that baseball bend, break, this sacrosanct rule. I will argue to you that baseball should not break that rule. Certainly not unless and until Pete Rose acknowledges his mistake and admits that he bet on baseball and asks for the apology that he has not asked for until now." I have no idea what that "asks for the apology..." is about. Apology from whom? Long-dead Bart Giamatti for reneging on his deal? Fay Vincent for perpetuating this mess? Bud Selig for ignoring this issue and yet lifting Rose's ban so that MLB can cash in on his name for the All-Century merchandizing? [Or Dershowitz himself for appallingly attacking the sacrosanct Bill James on the stand?] What is this need for an apology about? If you believe that Rose bet on the Reds, the apology should not change your mind about his banning. If you don't believe that the evidence proves that he bet on the Reds, then an apology is superfluous. Actually an apology in that case would be the best piece of evidence that he should be banned. I guess if I were Rose, whatever he did or did not do, I would apologize for gambling on the game, an offense that carries a one-year ban, which he has more than served. However, I would never admit or apologize for betting on the Reds, because that would demand his permanent suspension. No one, including the lawyers here, seem to get that distinction. - Deshowitz evokes Shoeless Joe Jackson saying, "nobody doubts he is qualified for the Hall of Fame". Well, I do. For one thing, he only played nine full seasons and parts of four others since he was drummed out at the age of 30. His stats are extremely impressive-.356 batting average and an OPS 70% better than the park-adjusted league average-but in a deadball era he only collected 1772 hits. Had Jackson been hit by a bus after the 1920 season instead of being banned for life, would he be in the Hall of Fame? Probably, but he would not be the lock that everyone assumes him to be. There are non-Hall of Famers form Jackson's era who have not become a cause celebre because of their throwing a World Series but may be better candidates, e.g. George van Haltren. Still Jackson's 170 adjusted OPS is ranked seventh (tied) all-time. However, I ask you to consider Dave Orr. Orr is slightly behind Jackson in career adjusted OPS (161, 14th all-time). He played until the age of 30 in the 1890 season and had a .342 career batting average. He is technically not eligible for the Hall because he only played eight total seasons, but his 7 full seasons are not far behind Jackson's nine in quality. Orr's career wasn't ended by a bus but rather a paralyzing stroke. So why don't you hear a great outcry about the injustice of Orr not being in the Hall and of the unfair rule that bars his admittance? Because his career was too short and he has been largely forgotten. Frankly, had Jackson not played for the "Black Sox" but had a career that ended at 30, so too would he be largely forgotten, an asterisk in the statistical record. The one reason why he can never go in the Hall is the reason so many have been calling for his inclusion in Cooperstown.
Cochran (defense): "Baseball has not done the right thing. This case is really about baseball justice." This point does resonant with a good number of fans. They accept that Rose bet on his team, but the Power That Be in baseball, i.e., the commissioner, screwed him, so he should get off. It's the Joe Jackson-ites' weltanschauung re. Jackson and White Sox owner Charles Comiskey. I think that baseball has screwed Rose but that it's a separate issue from his innocence or guilt in the gambling issue. Cochran than lists his records and feats via a poster-sized index card. It looked like a cue card. Rose's stats are nice but are irrelevant to his guilt or innocence in the matter. Cochran displays a Giamatti letter to a judge for bookie Ron Peters saying that Peters has been honest and forthright before the investigation was completed. Cochran says that basically this shows that the case was a frame job, and he's right. Dowd was a prosecutor putting together a prosecutor's brief. That baseball bought it lock, stock, and barrel is either naïve or duplicitous depending on your point of view. Cochran points to the Rose-Giamatti agreement that there were no findings on whether Rose bet on baseball. It's a good point that goes very far in invalidating the prosecutor's case. Witnesses (Prosecution)
Lester Munson (SI): Munson is the Basil Exposition for the Dowd Report, which he can apparently recite at will without having discovered one of the many inconsistencies listed therein. - He claims that the Dowd Report supports the stance that Rose bet on baseball and the Reds. - Re. the betting slip, he states that Rose bet on baseball, it is in Rose's handwriting, and that Rose's fingerprint was on it even though the last item was not in the Dowd Report (Dowd blurted it out in his own defense later on). First, no mention is made that Dowd never saw the original betting slip. That went to the FBI, who were investigating Rose-and eventually convicted him-for income tax evasion. Dowd only saw a copy. Rose was made to copy the writing on the slip for the handwriting expert, a practice that is highly suspect since it very often yields a false match, especially with block letters. The slip has erroneous information ("Cin At Mon" and "LA At Houst" never happened on April 9, 1987). Not to mention, the means by which this piece of evidence was acquired. Stoolie Paul Janszen admitting to taking them from Rose's home after Rose had kicked out his girlfriend, who had been living with the Rose family. Is this kosher? Shouldn't Cochran blow a hole in this? - Re. a conspiracy to frame Rose: "If it was a conspiracy, a fantastic number of people would have to be orchestrated and some of them were personal enemies, who not only did not get along, you couldn't even have them in the same room. So there is really no possibility of a conspiracy to get Pete Rose." What? It does not take a conspiracy, just two men, Ron Peters (the bookie) and Paul Janszen (the go-for). Their various girlfriends and hangers-on only know what they know refracting through their perspectives. Actually, Peters was only getting the bets through Janszen, so he doesn't know what Rose was really doing. It only takes Janszen. That's how Rose designed it to cover his tail whether against tax evasion charges or baseball suspensions or both-you make the call. Besides, Janszen had a personal grudge against Rose for kicking out his girlfriend, not backing Janszen with various gamblers which resulted in threats on his life, an unpaid debt that Janszen claimed varied between $10 K and $50 K (all sited without note in the Dowd report), severing ties after Janszen was found to be involved in drugs, and not meeting Janszen's demands for money in exchange for "protection" (actually in the Dowd report in Janszen's testimony presented as supporting evidence in Janszen's favor). - Cochran does not ask Munson about any of the erroneous or conflicting evidence in the Dowd Report nor about his biased and ridiculous statements on the stand. He just alludes to the agreement. Cochran: "It's true, is it not, that per that agreement they were not to go out and contradict what was in that agreement. Is that correct?" Munson: "I believe there is disagreement on that, Mr. Cochran. I think that on one hand people say that they could talk about whether he bet on baseball. Pete Rose insists that part of the agreement was they could not talk about that." (What? A) Cochran did not mention betting on baseball. And B) what agreement allows for people "to go out and contradict" it? Is this man insane?) Cochran: "Well, let me tell you what the agreement says. The agreement says that they would not do anything to contradict what's in the agreement. If the agreement does not make a finding on gambling, then wouldn't you find that would be a contradiction to go out and say, 'Hey, he bet on baseball'?" - Re. the injunction on MLB that led to the Rose agreement, Munson calls the Cincinnati State Court ruling, the "home-court-advantage ruling for Rose." - Re. the Hall of Fame rule change to ban ineligible players, Munson says, "Permanently ineligible means permanently ineligible. You can file all the applications you want, but permanently ineligible has a certain meaning." As a matter of fact, it doesn't. This is a blatantly ridiculous and false statement. Heinie Groh, Ferguson Jenkins, Steve Howe, Dickie Kerr, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, and George Steinbrenner were all declared permanently ineligible only to be reinstated later. Mays, Mantle, and Jenkins are in the Hall of Fame. - Munson: "Pete Rose's efforts to keep all of this secret show that he too knew that he were caught gambling, especially on baseball, he would never be in the Hall." Well, we already know that gambling on baseball doesn't get you barred from the Hall of Fame. Betting on his own team would be required. Second, to quote Uncle Junior Soprano, at this time "Federal marshals are so far up [Rose's] ass [he] can taste Brylcreem". Rose would later be arrested on tax evasion. One of Dowd's discoveries is a trifecta won by Rose and cashed illegally under Janszen's name. Rose was a scumbag involved in criminal activity. Of course, he didn't want any of it to come out. However, not if it had anything to do, necessarily, with his baseball career. - In summary, if this is Sports Illustrated's investigative reporter, no wonder it is such an unreadable, poorly researched rag.
Jim Palmer: - Re ex-commissioner Bowie Kuhn, quoted Kuhn as saying his job is largely "trying to maintain the integrity of baseball." Boy, talk about a conservative player. How did he do those underwear ads without blushing? Did Palmer miss the memo about Kuhn trying to destroy his union? Kuhn was the man called the "village idiot" by Charlie Finley and about whom Red Smith said, "this [the 1981] strike wouldn't have happened if Bowie Kuhn were alive today"-the punch line is that Kuhn was the commissioner at the time. - To Rose, "This is not about you and me. For you to be where you belong, you have to let us know what really happened. And be responsible for it." Well, maybe he already has. Who are you, John Dowd? Have you examined every piece of evidence about the man to be so certain of his guilt? - Cochran gets Palmer to admit that he has never even read the Dowd report. What is he doing on the stand? Oh, he's Jim Palmer and this is a TV show, that's what. - Cochran introduces a line that he repeats over the course of the show/trial: Rose's performance as a player is Hall-worthy. His performance as a manager is not. So why does an infraction as a manager have an effect on his ineligibility to enter the Hall? Well, I think the whole man goes in the Hall, not just the player part. It's not like the time on Star Trek when the split the bad Captain Kirk and the good Captain Kirk apart in the transporter and kept tested the thing with two dyed-pink poodles that had survived the same bifurcation, one comatose and one rabid. Remember the Good Kirk lost the ability to make decisions without a little bad in him. Is Cochran using Kirk's split-literally-personality as an analogue for Rose: he changed when he became a manager to include an evil side necessary for making decisions? Let's put the Good Rose in the Hall and transport the Evil Rose into deep space? Dr. Jon Grant (compulsive gambling expert): Discusses compulsive behavior of a gambler and the desire for "winning big". The sickness strikes 3-4 % of adults and calls it a sickness similar to drug or alcohol addiction. - Cochran gets him to admit that he never examined Rose. Another waste of time. Steve Garvey (is not my Padre!): Sheez, does anyone else notice how white the players for the prosecution are? - "Peter Rose had and has a problem, and that's gambling. If he looked in the camera and said, 'I made a mistake. I ask for forgiveness', he'd be in the Hall of Fame today." This guy who openly admitted to fathering children by two different women out of wedlock is going to lecture to Rose about scruples? - Garvey repeats the line that no one on the permanently ineligible list has ever gone in the Hall. I guess Mays, Mantle, and Ferguson aren't big enough names for people to remember that this just taint so. - Cochran reminds Steve and his electric ego that Rose did admit that he gambled on other sports, just not baseball. Does Garvey who still stays in contact with Rose, according to his testimony, have some piece of evidence not in the Dowd Report? Otherwise why is he up on the stand? Oh, a) because he is Steve Garvey and b) because he pushes the party line of "Apologize Pete". Another waste of time.
Dan Shaughnessy Boston Globe: Shaughnessy has to mention Buckner. Get that plug. What is he, Bobby Bittman on the Sammy Maudlin Show? How long is he going to milk this bit? - Shaughnessy says Rose would "absolutely" be admitted to the Hall if he admitted to gambling. Who is he, the Amazing Kreskin? This line is rebutted well by the Parker line later on. - He states that there have never been any Hall of Fame votes for Joe Jackson. Of course, he threw a World Series and admitted to it. It's a different infraction than Rose is even alleged to have broken. If Rose admits to it, Shaughnessy wants to put him in!?! Witnesses (Defense):
Hank Aaron: Dershowitz gets him to admit that he has no information re. the evidence against Rose and that he should admit to gambling of he did it. That's a bit of an oopsy there. Arnie Wexler (Compulsive gambling counselor): Again the "expert" admits no direct knowledge of Rose's case. What's the point? - Dershowitz tries to turn Wexler's history-that of a recovered compulsive gambler-against Rose. He asks if it is possible to turn one's life around without admitting a problem, and Wexler says he's not sure. It all seems somewhat damning until you realize that no one has said definitive that Rose is even a compulsive gambler.
Bill James:James refers to his Hall of Fame book as The Politics of Glory and ignores the later (and I believe current) title. - James mentions NFL Hall of Famers Paul Hornung and Alex Karas (yes, Webster's dad), who were banned for gambling on league games at one point. Though, of course, the penalty in baseball for betting on baseball games is declared to be one year anyway. - Then he finally puts an end to this "permanently ineligible means permanently ineligible" saying that the number of Hall of Fame members who were ineligible at some point approaches fifty. That seems a bit high. Is he including suspensions for brawls and that sort of thing? Anyway, it's a valid point. - Dershowitz hammers away at James about his statement that Danita Marcum, Paul Janszen's girlfriend, failed a lie detector test. James cites a 20/20 report. Dershowitz counters with, "Is that how you do your research?" Then he asks if James even read the Dowd report. - James is probably the only one on the defense, including the lawyers, who read the Dowd report. His debunking of the gambling slips is not even brought up. The lie detector issue is a sidebar in James' analysis. The damn thing isn't even admissible, so who cares? The man who got Claus von Bulow off-he was portrayed by Jeremy Irons: of course he was guilty-has the gall to even speak to Bill James, let alone in this manner? - I feel bad for James. He is visible shaken by Dershowitz's badgering-there is no other word for it. James stammers on occasion and his joke about an "ear witness" to describe the men who overhear alleged conversations with Rose falls flat. James is the only credible witness that Cochran has, and apparently Dershowitz wants to do his best to discredit him. Dershowitz is a scumbag, but I guess that's his job. It seems a bit too LA Law-ish to me, but I guess it plays in Peoria. I'm surprised he didn't bring up Boston's "bullpen by committee" to throw in James' face.
Bill Lee: Why doesn't this guy have a show on ESPN? He calls the case a "work of fiction" and says what Rose did wasn't a "capital offense". - Really, Lee adds no substance to the defense, but the analysts think he is the best witness foe the defense, I guess, because he didn't cave in to Dershowitz. Lee dislikes Rose and accepts the worst of his behavior but thinks he should be in the Hall. How odd is the world when most baseball fans agree with a non-conformist nicknamed Spaceman? Dave Parker: Asked by Cochran, "Are you in the Hall of Fame." Parker responded, "No, but I should be." Cochran: "Any requirements to apologize to get in the Hall." - So the defense was basically Bill James making a few points while being harangued and not much more. At least the players for the defense were more interesting. Closing ArgumentsCochran: "Enough is enough" is the general theme. - Cochran says, "The Dowd Report is ineligible." Dershowitz: Calls Cochran's defense multiple choice: "If you don't like the first choice, pick the second." He's kind of right, but what's wrong with that? Isn't that the basis of reasonable doubt? - At one point he points to the erroneous "Cin At Mon" notation on the betting slip to underscore a dramatic point. This epitomizes the trial. - Ends with, "If you bet on the game, you can't go in the Hall of Fame." Pretty fly for a white guy. The Verdict[Reprinted from my July 18th post] The jury voted 8-4 that Rose should be eligible for the Hall of Fame. They then responded 11-1 to a poll by prosecuting attorney Alan Dershowitz that they believed Rose bet on baseball. Unfortunately, he did not poll them as to whether they felt Rose bet on any Reds games in which he managed (though I suppose that was the implication). That is the offense that carries the lifetime ban. Betting on baseball itself carries a one-year ban (ask The Lip), which Rose has more than served. So why is betting on baseball even an issue? Did he bet on the Reds? That's the only question that matters. Having reviewed the Dowd report and the rules involved, I can't agree with the jury's thought process even though I agree with their "verdict". If they believed there was evidence that Rose gambled on the game and on the Reds specifically, then how can they pronounce him innocent. Well, the old cliches that he had suffered enough-as if not being in the Hall is a torture-, that other sordid characters have their plaques at Cooperstown, etc. were tramped out by the jurors as each explained his or her stance. Many added that they think he should be Hall but should not be allowed to act as manager again, which is akin to saying if found guilty in the impeachment proceedings, Bill Clinton should have remained president but been restricted from serving as dog catcher in every American municipality. Only one juror mentioned the evidence.
Permalink |
No comments.
Stop the Madness!
2003-08-21 23:12
Watching SportsCenter earlier this evening, I heard Tim Crack-jian, er, Kirkjian's top-five AL Cy Young candidates. I think the winner was Jeff Weaver. I'm joking of course. Everyone knows that Esteban Loaiza has been surprisingly the best pitcher in the AL. So Kirkjian picked Loaiza, right? Right, he picked him fourth. Kirkjian's top-five were, in reverse order: 5. Mike Mussina My first reaction was that the list looked better upside-down (that's why I did the David Letterman countdown). They're all good pitchers, but can Halladay be the best? Let's see where they all rank according to a number of factors. The following is a table of the pitchers mentioned plus a couple others that are having good years. I listed the typical things that either impress me and/or impress the voters: ERA, wins, winning percentage, strikeouts per nine innings, strikeouts-to-walks ratio, quality starts (I know), walks plus hits per innings pitched (WHIP), opponents' OPS (On-Base Plus Slugging), Win Shares, and Baseball Prospectus' Support Neutral Wins Above Replacement (SNWAR). I then took the average of each player's rankings and ranked them by that:
I think this points out that Loaiza is still the strongest candidate. Mussina has very few weak areas but leads in nothing, and Hudson who leads in Win Shares and SNWAR, probably the most important categories, will not impress the judges with his scant 12 wins and low strikeout numbers. Meanwhile, Halladay and Mulder, Kirkjian's top two, were fifth and sixth-the list would have been better upside-down. Halladay really does not have much besides the wins (16) going for him. Well, Halladay is also among the league leaders in another category that I don't show here, Baseball Prospectus' Luckiest Starters, ones whose won-lost record far exceed statistical expectation. Really anything can happen before the award is finally doled out. Loaiza has started to falter; Hudson is coming on strong. I wouldn't be surprised to see that Hudson is the strongest candidate as well as the best pitcher. And that's kind of the point. The award is given after the season to the best pitcher (how ever you want to define that) over the course of the entire season. There is plenty of baseball left, and these analysts who are bored by the dog days of summer are doing a disservice by turning the awards into some sort of Heisman-like, media-inspired, popularity contest. ESPN has been running articles on the league MVPs as well. The media have done their best to warp the MVP into an award to the most impressive player on team in a pennant race. Oh, and the team must also win. Bonds is already facing negative press because his Giants are doing so well that they don't need him. ESPN voters picked Albert Pujols about twice as often as Bonds in their poll for the MVP race. Meanwhile, in the AL Alex Rodriguez, for at least the umpteenth time, is being totally ignored as this article on Rich's Weekend Baseball BEAT illustrates. Rodriguez is second in OPS, first in slugging, tied for first in Win Shares, first in home runs, sixth in RBI, and first in runs scored. And the man is a shortstop who won a Gold Glove last year. A-Rod has been the best player in the AL for quite some time and has hardly any hardware to show for it. Soon we'll be down to a handful of players in each league that the media will even acknowledge. So what do we do about it? First, get rid of the MVP. Keep the award but call it MLPPC-Most Liked Player on a Pennant Contender. Or just call it Player of the Year, and then A-Rod can possibly win it. Next, expand football season to 20 games and start the season August 1. Then the reporters will have some other story to talk about since the pennant races, which are the cynosure of their MVP voting, are not enough to hold their attentions. Either that or start the TV season a month earlier.
Permalink |
No comments.
Hey, Abbott! II
2003-08-21 21:49
No fear, good citizens. Dustan Mohr singled to short to lead off the sixth. Paul Abbott's no-hitter is gone, but the impending apocalypse has been avoided. And there was much rejoicing...
Permalink |
No comments.
Hey, Abbott!
2003-08-21 21:30
Don't look now but Paul Abbott, who entered the game with an 11.17 ERA, is pitching a no-hitter through four in Minnesota. Abbott has walked two and struck out three, and the Royals lead 3-0. If it goes into, say, the seventh inning, an apocalypse is possible.
Permalink |
No comments.
Grand Central
2003-08-21 08:58
With the Red Sox doing their annual Fosbury Flop, it appears that the only two division races that mean anything now are in the central division of each league. In both centrals: - There are three clubs with a game (or less) separating them. In the AL Central the Royals were swept by the Yankees and are suddenly just percentage points ahead of the White Sox and one-half game ahead of the Twins. The Twins and Royals face off for a three-game series in the Metrodome starting today, while the Sox host Texas for four games after having swept the Angels in a three-game series. The NL Central, The Cubs' Mark Prior shut out the 'Stros at Houston and had a no-hitter through five. The close out their series today. The Cardinals were shut out by Pittsburgh, 14-0, as Jerome Bettis scored twice. The Cardinals had three hits, two by Tino Martinez. Some how Jeff D'Amico pitched a complete game shutout and only struck out one; he also homered. The Cardinals pitchers allowed seven home runs to a team that has lost three starters in trades with the Cubs. The Cardinals are now 1-4 in their last their last five games, including a sweep at the hands of the Phils. Actually, none of these teams is all that hot with the Cubs losing three of their last four and the Astros, six of their last eight. So who's going to win? In the AL Central, I would bet on the White Sox. For one thing they are clearly superior when you look at their expected won-lost record (from Bill James' Pythagorean formula): Actual W L PCT GB Besides, the Sox can benefit greatly from the Royals and Twins beating up on each other. In the NL Central, the expected standings are quite different from the actual: Actual W L PCT GB |
Any one of those types of teams can win. Normally you would like to have balance. The more balance you have, the more chances to have to win. But it's an offensive dominated era. Until the last three days, I would have felt Atlanta with their offense would have the best chance. But then they lose 3 to the Giants. Balance is usually preferable.
[Mike: Wow, a logical, well thought-out answer.]
[Mike: Uh, Joe, "[W]ho said he is less valuable?" Um, you did last week: "Probably the only ching (chink?) in his armor is he doesn't have a natural, stable position. Most star players play one position and he is playing left and 1st and not much 3rd anymore." Sorry, I had to point that out.]
[Mike: Joe's back! Of course none of those things can possibly be quantified. This is just a way to sneak small ball into the conversation. 
