|
Monthly archives: May 2004
Just Re-Ward?
2004-05-29 00:57
In 2000, the Astros had four outfielders hit twenty or more home runs, and best of all for them three of them were 25 years old or younger. Daryle Ward slugged his 20 dingers in just 264 at-bats, and along with two 24-year-olds, Richard Hidalgo and Lance Berkman, looked ready to solidify the Astro outfield for years to come. It never worked out that way though. It wasn't until Moises Alou left in 2002 that the three youngsters all became the outfield stalwarts on a full-time basis. And that year Ward and Hidalgo struggled. Neither had lived up to expectation in 2001 either. So with Jeff Kent joining the team, the Astros decided to assign erstwhile second baseman Craig Biggio to center field, which meant they had to make a decision to unload one outfielder. Ward became the odd man out and was shipped to LA for a minor-league pitcher. As if hitting in a hitter's park (Minute Maid Park) weren't hard enough for Ward, he withered in Dodger Stadium. He played just 52 games but batted .163 with a .211 OBP, .193 slugging percentage, and a paltry .403 OPS, only 10% of the park-adjusted league average. When the Pirates promoted him from Triple-A Nashville on May12, it was to replaced another disappointed outfielder the mercurial Raul Mondesi. The move seemed quite appropriate. However, Ward has been seen a renaissance as a Buc. In his first 57 at-bats, he is batting .368, an OBP of .390, a slugging average of .789, and an OPS of 1.179, all of which would be career highs if he could keep it up. His OPS would be the second highest in the majors if he qualified for the batting title, and would be just two points ahead of former outfield-mate Lance Berkman. He also six home runs and 17 RBI in just 14 games and the other day hit for the cycle to become part of the first father-son team to do so (with Gary Ward). His OPS has gone up 776 points almost trebling his 2003 numbers. At 28 could Ward be coming into his own finally maturing enough to bury the demons that prevented him from fulfilling the expectations of stardom or is this just a fluke? Well, has anyone else ever had such a tremendous turnaround? I investigated and the answer is no. The largest one-year turnaround for a batter with at least 100 plate appearances was .556 by Gates Brown in 1968 (from 0.571 to 1.127). However, Brown was just a bench player, who played a total of 118 games in those two years. Besides, if Ward keeps it up, he'll get many more than 100 plate appearances. I readjusted the query to find the highest change with at least 100 plate appearances in the first year and 400 in the second. I found four with an OPS upswing of 400 points or more:
The only player since World War II is Dave Martinez, who went from a rookie part-timer to a starter with the Cubs in 1987, which is hardly analogous to Ward's situation. However, let's assume that Ward matches Martinez and ends up with a .806 OPS. The Pirates average park-adjusted OPS since moving into PNC Park is in the mid-.770 range. If that holds true for 2004, Ward's OPS would be just 4 percent better than the park-adjusted average. And that's just if he can keep up with an historic rate of improvement. Anything is possible, but I would have to think that the odds are against Ward becoming even an average player for the Pirates this year. But he may be an upgrade over Mondesi. I wonder if Mario Guerrero will try to hit Ward up for some cash because of it.
Permalink |
No comments.
Royal Pena
2004-05-28 01:24
Carlos Pena went 6-for-6 tonight with 2 home runs and 5 RBI to lead the Tigers over the Royals, 17-7. From May 4 to May 26, Pena also had six hits. However, it took him 16 games and 52 at-bats to do it. Over that period, Pena had 2 home runs and 6 RBI, one more than he had tonight. He also struck 19 times and batted .115. His 6-for-6 night raised his batting average 32 points (.204 to .236), OBP 25 points (.290 to .315), slugging 72 points (.387 to .459), and his OPS almost 100 points (.677 to .775). It's too bad that those numbers are all substandard for a first baseman (no wonder he's batting 8th). Meanwhile loser Brian Anderson falls to 1-7 with a 7.82 ERA, a .375 oppnents batting average, and 1.98 WHIP. He allowed 12 hits and 6 runs in four innings but walked just one. The good news was he did not allow a home run though he has allowed 13 in 10 starts this season. He projects to 4-26 on the season, but that might be generous given that he has lost seven straight. He has not gotten past the 6.1 innings in his 5 starts this month and has not allowed fewer than 4 runs in any of his 10 starts (though not always credited as eraned runs). It was the second time this season Detroit had scored 17, the other being April 23 vs. the Indians (17-3). It was their 7th time scoring runs in double digits this year. Last year, their first double digit run total didn't come until July 17, after the All-Star break, and they did it a grand total of three times.
Permalink |
No comments.
When Two Wrongs Do Make a Right
2004-05-26 12:36
Monday's game in Toronto ended with a walk-off, two-bone-headed play that would make Fred Merkle blush. The Angels left home uncovered and Chris Gomez escaped a rundown to score the winning run with two outs in the tenth on a very odd play. The game was tied, 5-5, at the start of the home half of the tenth. Ben Weber relieved Scot Shields and promptly walked Gregg Zaun, the leadoff hitter, on seven pitches. Chris Gomez next grounded into a fielder's choice to short. Eric Hinske then walked on six pitches. Then Josh Phelps flied out to right. So Chris Gomez was on second, Hinske at first and there were two outs. Next up was Simon Pond. On a 1-1 count. He hit a ball hard to the right side. First baseman Casey Kotchman dove and was able to knock it down. However, the ball dribbled past him for a single and was picked up by second baseman Adam Kennedy. He had no play, and it seemed as if the game would continue with the bases loaded and two out. But then the oddness ensued. Gomez unwisely rounded third and headed for home. Apparently, he lost sight of the ball and thought that it went through to right field. Replays showed that he ran through third-base coach Brian "Don't call me Paul" Butterfield's hold sign. (How appropriate is that he coaches for the Blue Jays?) Gomez was about halfway to home when catcher Bengie Molina received a throw from Kennedy and started heading up the line. Gomez, of course, headed back to third and it seemed that the inning would end with Gomez being tagged out in a rundown. Then the next oddity occurred. Inexplicably, when Gomez was about 20 feet away from Molina as well as from third baseman Alfredo Amezaga, Molina decided to toss the ball to Amezaga. When Gomez saw the throw, he instinctively headed for home and scored when no one was covering the plate to complete the rundown. (Remarkably, Pond was credited with an RBI on the play as well.) So Gomez, who had made the first blunder in initially attempting to score on the play, ended up scoring the winning run because of an ill-advised throw by Molina. Molina should have realized that there would be no one to cover the plate given that the right side of the infield was busy retrieving the ball and Weber was busy covering the bag at first. I could see him trying to get Gomez at third given that he was so far from the catcher. However, he should only have made the throw if he was still able to cover Gomez's retreat towards home. Even so, the throw is inherently ill-advised: it forces the runner to run toward home as the winning run. That's kind of a bad thing. If Molina had instead run Gomez back to third, the Angels would have been no worse off than before the play. They would still have a tie ballgame with two outs and the runner in scoring position. The only disadvantage would have been that the runner could score on a walk and given that Weber had already given up two walks in two-thirds of an inning, that was a real threat. However, had Gomez not strayed too far from third, that's what the situation would have been. What Molina should have done was run Gomez back toward third. He could have gotten rid of the ball once he was sure that Gomez was contained at third. However, he instead got rid of the ball definitely way too quickly. Also, on the replay I was surprised that Weber didn't make more of an effort to get into the play. One angle from the third-base dugout, showed Weber lingering at first after Kennedy threw home and jogged toward home as Molina threw to third. He reached home as Gomez scored. I guess his only excuse was that he couldn't imagine that Molina would actually get rid of the ball so quickly. It seemed that Molina was the only man in the stadium who thought that throwing the ball was a wise move. Here's what Jeff DaVanon had to say about what he termed a "freak play": "Everyone was screaming for Bengie to hold the ball but it was so loud. It was just odd." Angel manager and former catcher Mike Scioscia put it simply, "Bengie got caught in-between and we lost the play." ESPN added that Scioscia "thought Molina should have stayed at home or chased Gomez all the way up to third." As far as the RBI credited to Pond, all that I can figure is that he lucked out with a homer official scorer who bent the intent of the rules by exercising his own judgment. By my interpretation of the RBI rule, there's no way Pond should have received a RBI: RUNS BATTED IN 10.04 (a) Credit the batter with a run batted in for every run which reaches home base because of the batter's safe hit, sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly, infield out or fielder's choice…(d) Scorer's judgment must determine whether a run batted in shall be credited for a run which scores when a fielder holds the ball, or throws to a wrong base. Ordinarily, if the runner keeps going, credit a run batted in; if the runner stops and takes off again when he notices the misplay, credit the run as scored on a fielder's choice. Whatever Gomez did between third and home, he did on his own, well, with help from Molina. All that Pond did was get him to third. By the way, Jose Guillen was hit by a pitch for the sixth time this season and said the following during what ESPN called "a profanity-laced tirade": "I don't know how many times I've been hit and there's been no retaliation. I'm giving everything I got every day, playing hurt, playing in pain, and trying to win some games, and we don't get no help from nobody." Jarrod Washburn ignored the triple negative but was surprised by the content of Guillen's media message. He prudently said, "That's something between the hitters and the pitchers. That's something we'll discuss." For the record, even though Toronto starter Justin Miller hit Guillen and two others, Angel starter John Lackey did get his licks in by hitting Blue Jay leader Carlos Delgado and was ejected along with manager Mike Scioscia for hitting Pond with two outs in the sixth. Besides even though Guillen's six HBPs tie him for the lead in the AL. Craig Biggio has 8 for the Astros to lead the majors in the category (doesn't he always?). And Cincinnati's Jason LaRue has 7 in 82 fewer plate appearances than Guillen. It's small wonder that Guillen is on his fifth team in four years.
Permalink |
No comments.
Mighty Casey Kotchman Has Struck Out
2004-05-26 12:35
Rookie Casey Kotchman just strikeout for the first time on Sunday in his 46th plate appearance. Elias Sports Bureau reports that it was the longest stretch without a K at the beginning of a player's career since Bob Bailor went 51 plate appearances over three years (1975-77) and two teams (O's and the original Jays) without striking out. When one considers that Kothcman has now struck out once and walked just twice in 51 plate appearances, one realizes that Kotchman is a bit anxious to stay in the majors. He just got promoted from Double-A as the Angels turned to the former number-one pick to spell the oft-injured Darrin Erstad at first. (By the way wasn't that supposed to change when he moved to first?) That means that he makes some sort of contact with the ball 94.22% of the time, or that he walks or strikes out only 5.88% of the time. That seems extremely low for a ballplayer in the 21st century. I thought it would be interesting to take a look at all the ballplayers that have had what I'm calling a K+BB ratio under 6% with at least 50 plate appearance. There have been 106 since 1901. However, as you imagine, they are getting rarer all the time. The last to do it was the estimable Felix Fermin in 1995, and only three players have done in it in the last thirty years. Here are all the players since 1950 to have a K+BB Ratio under 6%:
By the way, the lowest since 1901 was pitcher Murry Dickson in 1948. He had one strikeout and one walk in 101 plate appearances for a K+BB ratio of 1.98%. Stuffy McInnis had the lowest for a batting title qualifier: 3.44% in 611 PA in 1924.
Permalink |
No comments.
Like School on Saturday—Summary
2004-05-25 12:15
Here are the parts to my series on the Hall of Fame that I'll be presenting at the Philly SABR meeting this weekend: Part: I,IA,II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, and Epilogue.
Permalink |
No comments.
The Independence Joe Morgan Chat Day After Tomorrow/Joe Morgan Chat Day-nouement
2004-05-24 12:14
A toast, to the end of the world. It's the end of the world as I know it and I feel fine. [Now I'll have some time alone.] Paradise, an endless movie. You walk in, sit down in the dark, it draws you into itself. Life is like a B-movie. You don’t want to leave in the middle of it but you don’t want to see it again. This movie is a toupee made up to look like honest baldness. Maybe this is a chick film and we just don't get it. I discovered early in my movie work that a movie is never any better than the stupidest man connected with it. There are times when this distinction may be given to the writer or director. Most often it belongs to the producer. Yeah, I want to write for the movies. "Goodfellas", shit like that. You know, there’s a cowboy movie where one joker says, “Mighty quiet out there. Too quiet,” he says. Same thing every time; it’s too quiet. All you need for a movie is a gun and a girl. I don't really do action movies. "Blue" Jay Sherman: But first, we have a special guest: Rainer Wolfcastle, star of the reprehensible McBain movies. Homer "Bush" Simpson: Ohhh, stupid movies. Who invented these dumb things, anyway? Homer [menacingly]: Was it you, Bart? —"Wayne" Simpsons The sorrow of not being movie stars overwhelms millions. I'll tell you a secret. The last act makes the film. Wow them in the end, and you've got a hit. You can have flaws, problems, but wow them in the end, and you've got a hit. Find an ending, but don't cheat, and don't you dare bring in a deus ex machina. Your characters must change, and the change must come from them. Do that, and you'll be fine. So the season is fully upon us. No, not baseball season. I'm talking about blockbuster movie season. Whether it's a super whiz-bang apocalyptic laughfest or a good guys vs. bad guys angst-ridden taut psychological drama among characters in tights, they're headed in our direction with guns a-blazing and product tie-ins a-milking every dollar possible from your pockets. Shrek 2has already made $123 M dollars. I haven't seen it yet but I feel as if I've seen every scene in the commercials that have been featuring the lead characters from M&M's to household cleaning supplies. I want to see it and enjoy it but I'm almost sick of it already from the damn commercials. I mean, when does a film generate enough money? How much more money can Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, and Cameron Diaz make for chrissake? The Day After Tomorrow, the worst named film since Friday After Next, expects us to suspend our disbelief while New York City is unexpectedly hit by a tsunami—no, unfortunately not the Nineties' alt-rock band, an actual storm—and has an overnight ice age hit. It's as silly as the scene in Ice Age when the saber-toothed squirrel end the last ice age with an acorn. And whenever I see Jake Gyllenhaal in the commercials, I think, "What is Bubble Boy doing in New York anyway?" Maybe Roland Emmerich can resurrect the star from his previous blockbuster bomb, Godzilla, or was it his son, Godzooki? Remember the unnecessary shot of the egg at the end, which was supposed to leave the door open to sequel until the film did so badly—what drug was Matthew Broderick on when he signed onto and acted in this crapfest anyway? That shot was worse than the cryptic "The End?" end-shots in old monster movies. Then there's Spiderman II, which promises to make you hate the likable first film. I'm still recovering from the damage done to the Matrix franchise by the ill-conceived final two chapters. Then there's another remake in Stepford Wives ("I was just going to get you a cup of coffee". Rinse. Repeat…) starring Mssr. Broderick, who had to go to Broadway after Godzilla, Inspector Gadget, and The Cable Guy. And then there's the middle-aged kids in the next Harry Potter flick. I like just about any scifi, but I just don't get the appeal of these scattershot, meaningless coming-of-age through ogre-baiting fests. We just survived the tacky Van Helsing and the "Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?"-esque Troy (this film is screaming out for Tony Curtis). I sustained damage to my cerebral cortex just by watching the previews of these films. And don't worry. There's no way to avoid these blockbusters whether it’s the endless trailers, product tie-ins, and the noise bleeding through the walls of your local megaplex as you try to enjoy the latest Almodóvar offering. The other option for your precious entertainment time is the season-enders for your favorite TV shows. You get the umpteenth ludicrous twist in Alias—did anyone care that Isabella Rossellini turned on her niece and isn't Sydney being sold out by her father just a way to top last year's dénouement? Each week brought a new earth-shattering entity or twist: the Alliance, the Covenant, the Vessel, a surprise half-sister and a surprise aunt both of whom are of course spies, both characters that died in last year's finale were brought back to life, Qunetin Tarantino does an misplaced walk-through, Sydney's face is on the age-old Rimabldi manuscript. "Ancient Chinese secret, huh?" The producer's wife, Patricia Wetting of "thirty something" fame, is an ill-conceived character who is a psychotherapist enthralled with the creepy Arvin "Don't Call Me Cancerman" Sloane, forgetting any ethics that go with her profession. Vaughn's wife is a double-agent with a British accent, whose father is a US Senator, and who as she is being shot to death by her erstwhile husband, mutters the number to a secret safety deposit box that holds the secret to Sydney's past for no apparent reason other than to have a cliffhanger for next season. And Marshall plays a set of drums, that just happen to be set up at CIA headquarters. What the..? Then we get series finales from "Friends" and "Angel". The big surprise is on "Friends" was that Rachel and Ross got together. Boy, that hasn’t been done more than a dozen or so times in the history of the show. The rest of the plot (Monica and Chandler's babies, destroying the foosball table, etc.) just served to open the door to Joey for his move to his own west-coast sitcom. "Angel" killed off the Buffy franchise by fighting a fight that they knew wouldn't put a crimp in evil's love life after killing off three major characters in the last half of the season and allowing scores more to walk out (what was the point of Lorne's character this year anyway?). Contrast that to Buffy's apocalypse-avoiding final show. It was nice to see the remaining characters fighting the good fight at the end but I was ready for this one to die all season. Meanwhile "24" is going through its laundry list of bad guys and red herrings as an excuse to get to the final frames. The presidential plot has been laughably meaningless. Meanwhile, Jack goes from drug addict to feelin' fine in less than a day. One character is shot in the throat and hospitalized and another is tortured to the brink of death, but, to quote Monty Python, "I got better". And the final bad guy who is ready to subject millions to a horrible death even including his daughter, just caves in time to set up the final episode. At least Kim, the superfluous eye candy, isn't being chased by any mountain lions this year. The "Sopranos" has been great if incredibly short this year. The last episode with Tony and Carmella getting back together more as a business arrangement than a real marriage and the shocking offing of Adriana, so that Drea De Matteo can go off to "Joey" next season, was tremendous. However, the show is famous for a big letdown in the season finales. This was best exemplified by the seemingly episode-long Uncle Junior aria that ended the show's third season. So what am I talking about? Summer entertainment just aint what it's cracked up to be just like Joe Morgan's baseball analysis career. And like summer entertainment, I had to pad and overblow my subject to overcome its shortcomings. Joe's chat isn't that good—or bad, depending on how you look at it—this week. Maybe if we just kill of ancillary characters along the way, it will enliven it a bit. Here goes. The GoodElaine (San Diego): Do you think the cause of Garret Anderson's back pain could be the fork that is stuck in him? Because, he's done!
I am far from Garret Anderson's biggest fan, but I have to agree with Joe here. The guy has turned himself into a very good player. His career could be over due to the injury, not because he's "done".] Juan (San Antonio): Joe, you used to play Minor League ball with the San Antonio Bullets. What are your fondest memories of playing/living in San Antonio?
Jeff (Swarthmore, PA): Hey Joe, now that the Phillies' bats are heating up, do you think they'll begin to distance themselves from their NL East Rivals? They have 3 potential 50 HR guys in Thome, Burrell & Abreu & a new park that looks like it will serves as one giant home run derby. Any reason to see them not winning the NL East? Thanks!
Victor (New York, NY): Will the lawsuit against Loria and potentially MLB by the former partners of the Expos prevent the team from moving next year?
Heath (College Station, TX): Joe, will Roger Clemens win the Cy Young, or at age 41, is this just first-half luck?
Peter (New Hampshire): Good morning joe! What do you think about Alou's hot bat! What a crazy scenario against his daddy the other night, huh?!
The BadNick (Atlanta): Joe....Thanks for taking my question...Do you think the braves, if they can hang around until everyone is healthy again, might still have a chance this year?
Mike G, NYC: Joe...Hope this doesn't sound too silly - Any chance the Mets are buyers at the All-Star Break? I don't think they are necessarily going to be too awful, if they can keep it together...
Alan (Cape Cod, MA): Joe, is Derek Lowe hiding an injury? He's constantly getting killed, and the SOX definately need him pitching well if they have any post-season hopes.
Washington DC.: What is the outlook for the Orioles? and, are their younger hitters (Matos, Bigbie, Gibbons, Roberts) the real deal?
Andrew (Madison, WI): Do you think it was too early for Montreal to decide to extend Vidro considering the awful numbers he is putting up this year?
Aaron (Arkansas): Who do you think is the hottest in the National League Central? Do the Cardinals have what it takes?
Bob Chicago IL: Who do you think is the more important person for the Cubs to get back healthy - Wood, Prior or Sosa? Thanks, love your work!
Well, Joe, I would usually agree with this argument at least in theory. However, the Cubs haven’t lost as much in going to Todd Hollandsworth to replace Sosa as they have by going to Glendon Rush and Sergio Mitre to replace Prior and Wood. Rush pitched well in his one start, but Mitre has a 5.82 ERA in his 8 starts and a 7.29 ERA so far in May.] The UglyHeath (Washington, DC): Question about my Halos. I'm already nervous about all these injuries. Is there any way they can withstand the charge by Oakland before some of their guys get healthy?
As far as the injuries happening "one at a time", Anderson and Salmon went down within three days of each other. Erstad went down over a week later, but that's more of a blessing in disguise anyway. Glaus went down the week before, and that could be a season-ending one. Actually, Anderson is the one that is being replaced the easiest, by Jeff DaVanon whose OPS is only nine points below GA's. Salmon has been spelled by a cast of thousands at DH, but their collective OPS is about 200 points above his this year. Kotchman's OPS is nine points better than Erstad's at first, not like that's really an accomplishment. The one injury that seems to be hurting the worst is Glaus's. His fill-in, Shane Halter, has an OPS over 300 points below Glaus. Unfortunately, he's the least likely to return. By the way, since losing these guys the team has a 16-5 May record so it doesn’t seem to be too much of a burden as yet.] Anthony, Dayton, Ohio: Joe, It is an honor to speak to you. If the Reds can stay a few games back going into the All Star break, do you think they will start to unload Griffey, Graves, etc., or maybe look for some help at third and pitching? With Dan O has GM, I can never tell what he is planning on doing.
This team has added players, esp. pitchers, each year at the All-Star break even when they were dark horses. How can they "delete some players to help them try and win the division"? What is this a war of attrition? How does that make any sense? The guy's basic question is meaningless as well: will they start to unload Griffey, Graves, etc. if they are in contention at the break? I guess anything's possible, but…] Matt (Budd Lake, NJ): Do you think pitchers are nervous when they are throwing a perfect game or just concentrating so hard and not really aware of it until the 9th inning?
And then he uses it as an excuse to bloviate on his playing days. Unbelievable.] Brad NYC: Is Jeter now in the decline phase of his career. As a Yankee fan who watches every game, even last year was a fluke in that he got more cheap hits - bloops and swinging bunts - than I've ever seen. Did this mask what has been a gradual year-by-year decline?
Jim (Franklin Lakes, NJ): Hey Joe: Do you think Derek Jeter's excessive lack of offensive production is due to feeling 'second-fiddle' to A-Rod, or is it more that he may see the regular season as monotonous? Thanks!
Joe can't plumb the depths of a pitcher's soul to determine if he's a bit nervous when he pitching a perfect game, and yet he knows Jeter's troubles stem from playing second fiddle? Torre seems to think that the move to leadoff after losing DP partner and former leadoff hitter Alfonso Soriano is what's ailing Jeter. And he's giving the team captain every opportunity to pull himself out of the abyss in the top two positions in the order. I couldn't tell you what Jeter's problem is. I doubt that his ego is bruised by the addition of A-Rod nor is the pressure of playing in NY anything more than de rigueur. It seems more likely that he has issues with which new hitting instructor Don Mattingly can't help him. It starts me to question if he's having a Robby Alomar post-2001 type career meltdown, just at a much younger age. We'll just have to see how he performs over the rest of this season and the rest of his career. I did think that he had a good shot at the Hall before this season though.] Augie (San Francisco, CA) : The Dodgers started 22-10 and every faithful Dodger blue fan was thinking this could be the year we get back to the playoffs. After losing 6 straight, their confidence must be taking a big hit at the moment. My question is do you think that they will bounce back and make the playoffs this year? Second, what do they need to be a serious contender? Who will they go after before trade deadline? thanks in advance...
Tito (Caracas, Venezuela): Hello Joe, What do you think of Melvin Mora performance so far, Do you think he is establishing himself as a 300's batter?
A 300s hitter? What, is the guy a Roman or something? Biggus Dickus was a big hitter back then. Mora is a career .272 hitter. Last year was his first over .275 (.317). Also, in 2003 he batted .349 in the first half and .188 in the second. He's off to a great start, but aside from the first half of last year, he has yet to establish himself as a .300 hitter.] Dave, Brooklyn NY: Hey Joe- I think baseball is in a real golden era...a fan can watch any game with digital cable options, internet stats and chats with greats such as yourself allow for sophisticated knowledge...why can't MLB market itself properly? All the talk about lack of parity belies the fact that with three divisions, wild cards, shorter playoff series and more of 'em, it's easier for more teams to compete...and they do...what do you think MLB can do to better sell what is an outstanding product?
Someone explain this to me: "Baseball has helped the marketing process by building smaller parks". It sounds like Spinal Tap manger Ian Faith's response to the question of whether the group's popularity was waning giving that they was playing at much smaller venues than the previous tour. Without missing a beat, Ian said, "No, no, no, their appeal has just gotten more selective."] Kurt Grand Rapids MI: I have noticed that my Tigers have really improved. Unfortunately the only people hitting are the newcomers. Is there some kind og player development problem within their organization? Why can't they produce good hitters?
Second, Will Clark? Will Clark? You may mean Tony Clark.He didn't come up 15 years ago. He became a regular in 1996. Bobby Higginson became a starter in 1995. Lastly, I think it's a universal problem… Look at a lot of other teams and you'll see the same thing. It's a problem at the minor league level. So where do all the players come from? They can't all come from Japan. It's just more of Joe's it-was-better-in-my-day-isms.]
Permalink |
No comments.
Derek and the Dominoes
2004-05-21 23:53
Derek Jeter is having a bad season. Wait, that's an understatement. Jeter is having an awful season. As of Thursday, his batting average (.194) was 120 points below his career average, his on-base percentage (.255) was 130 points below his career average, his slugging average (.288) was almost 180 points below his career average, and his OPS (.544) was a whopping 300 points below his career average. And that's after going 2-for-5 with a home run on Thursday (and 1-for-3 so far tonight). He has been batting mostly leadoff for the Yankees but occasionally has been moved down to second when Kenny Lofton has been used in the leadoff spot. Along the way, he has collected 170 at-bats, which are the most on the team and project to 706 for the full season, one more than Willie Wilson's 1980 record for at-bats in a season. He also projects to 133 strikeouts, which would be his all-time high, and 45 walks, which would be his all-time, full-season low (he had 43 in 119 games last year). His numbers as a leadoff hitter are even worse and he has been, in many ways, the worst leadoff hitter in the majors this year. Here are the worst leadoff hitters in the majors by batting average (qualifiers only):
Here are the worst by on-base percentage:
Here are the worst by slugging average:
Here are the worst by OPS:
So Jeter is not the worst in OBP, which is probably the most important category for leadoff hitters, but is so much worse in the others and is in the top, or bottom, two in every ratio category, that that he makes up for it. The Yankees' .184 batting average from the leadoff spot is the worst in the majors. They are second worst in OBP (.264) to the Royals (.249), worst in slugging (.287) and second worst again to KC in OPS (.550 to .548). Given that he has underachieved to such a great degree, I am surprised that the Yankees have been able to hang so close to the Red Sox. It also makes me wonder how truly awful Jeter's quarter of a season has been and what the alternatives for the Yankees could be. I made a list of all players with at least 400 plate appearances and with ratios not much better than Jeter's: a batting average no higher than .200, an OBP no greater than .260, a slugging average no greater than .290, and an OPS no greater than .550. I found 33 players all-time. The last time it had been done was 25 years ago by the touchstone of poor performance, Mario Mendoza. Here they all are, listed in reverse chronological order:
I listed position to see where, well, basically the pattern that fell out. The vast majority since World War I are shortstops though it's odd that there aren't that many before that. Jeter is, of course, a shortstop. However, he has been far from one in the Mario Mendoza mold. Jeter has always been known more for his offense than his defense, which is openly reviled in most baseball analysis. One other thing to notice from the list is that no one has nearly as many at-bats as Jeter is projected to have. Given that a) Torre has used him almost exclusively in the top two spots in the lineup, b) the Yankees have no viable alternatives at short (short of moving A-Rod to short and their troubles to third), and c) Jeter is making $18+ million per year, I see no reason why he won't reach the projection. Jeter's project total plate appearances would be around 776. There isn't anyone on the list within 150 plate appearances of the projection (Zoilo Versalles is the closest at 626). That begs the question of whether Jeter would be the worst batter to ever collect so many at-bats if he continues at the current pace. So I retrieved all the batters who have ever collected at least 650 at-bats all-time. There were 190. Then I compared their ratio stats to Jeter's Here are the five worst by batting average:
Here are the five worst by on-base:
The five worst by slugging:
And by OPS:
Jeter is much worse than the worst player in everything but slugging average. However, you'll say that projecting Jeter's season out based on the worst two months of baseball probably of his career is unfair. Jeter is a career .300 hitter and one that many, including me, expected to have a Hall-of-Fame worthy career. I agree that it's a safe bet that he will improve but by how much? Let's assume that Jeter gets the projected at-bats but hits his career average the rest of the way. He would finish the season at .285. That's not too bad, right? Let's say that he matches his career high of .349 from 1999. His batting average would be .312, one point below his career average. Maybe that's why Torre is sticking with Jeter. He leads off two-thirds of the time. It does seem insane to turn to Jeter for so many at-bats per game when Jorge Posada, their best hitter so far, is batting sixth. Or maybe Torre doesn't feel that anyone else could step into the role. Well, I disagree. I think the Yankees have three viable though unconventional candidates. First, why not try A-Rod in the leadoff spot? He owns a .381 career OBP and a .364 one this year. He also leads the team in steals with 6, twice as many as runner-up Jeter. You say that the Yankees need him too much in the third spot. OK, so how about Hidecki Matsui? Matsui has a .393 OBP this year and a .360 OBP in his two-year career. Well, if you don't like using your erstwhile slow Japanese slugger as Brian Downing-type leadoff hitter, then how about Gary Sheffield? Sheffield's power numbers are down this year and he is batting fifth. However, he does have a .399 OBP this year and .401 OBP for his career. Move him to leadoff and put Posada in the five hole. Not thrilled with a 35-year-old leadoff hitter? Well, they are not thrilling choices but the Yankees have to do something. This is more than a slight slump. Jeter is 29 and should be enjoying his best years. The more that his current woes continue, the more it calls into question his upturn last season. Jeter had been continually falling from the heights of his great 1999 season until he reversed the trend in his abbreviated 2003 season. What if 2003 was a fluke "career" year at the typical age of 28? Maybe Jeter won't improve that much offensively. Of course, with the rumors starting to swirl about New York acquiring Carlos Beltran, the may solve their problem through a trade. I'm not sure if the Yankees have enough spare parts to acquire the erstwhile Royal, but with his speed he could easily fill the leadoff hole. Maybe they can also package Kenny Lofton and/or a lefty middle reliever (Gabe White?) to the Phils to spell the beleaguered Rheal Cormier, they could also pry lose a dependable second baseman in Placido Polanco, thereby putting the Wilson/Cairo show on ice. This is of course speculation, but Chase Utley has started to hit the way the Phils have always expected him to (.964 OPS in his callup and three big hits, including a home run, and three RBI tonight) and it may not be possible or at least fair to send the 25-year-old back down. The order could be Beltran, Polanco, A-Rod, Giambi, Sheffield, Posada, Matsui, Williams/Sierra (DH), and Jeter. It's not too respectful of the Yankee recent history, but it does remove a sinkhole from the top of the lineup.
Permalink |
No comments.
Terrible News
2004-05-21 20:59
The great Doug Pappas is dead. I send my condolences to his many friends in the world of baseball and to his family.
Permalink |
No comments.
Phirst
2004-05-20 12:12
There's a feeling I get The Phils are now in sole possession of first place for the first time since April 27, 2003, when they were 16-10 and one-half game ahead of the Braves and the Expos. They are 16-8 since being swept by the Marlins, April 20, 21, and 22 (second only to Anaheim, 18-6, over the period). On April 12, they had just lost five straight (including another three-game sweep by the Marlins). They were last in the NL East, had the worst record in baseball, and were 4.5 games behind Florida, more games than any other team was behind their division leader at the time. They had a day off the next day, then a postponed game, and fell 5.5 games back. The Phils are 20-11 (.645) since April 12 (third best in the majors after Anaheim, 22-11, and Minnesota, 21-11). No other team in the NL East is over .500 over the same period (Florida is the next best at 16-17). The Phillies are 16-11 for May. And they haven’t been doing it with pitching, though the pitching hasn't been bad. The staff ERA is 3.95 in May but was 3.33 in April in which they were 10-11. The WHIP Is up (1.25 to 1.43) and the strikeouts per nine innings are down (6.67 to 5.40). Eric Milton is a great example. He was 2-0 with a 3.27 ERA but so far in May is 3-0 with a 5.64 ERA. Millwood is 2-0 with a 5.30 in May but was 2-2 with a 3.38 ERA in April. The Phils as a team are batting .278 in May with a .353 on-base percentage, .487 slugging average, and .840 OPS (and are 17 of 22 in stolen bases). Their numbers in April were .249/.332/.410/.742. Here are the Phils batters ranked by OPS improvement in May:
The offense has improved by getting guys like Lieberthal, Byrd (.348 OBP in May), and Bell involved and seeing improvements for Burrell and Abreu. They have gone from 4-5 drags on the lineup at the top and the bottom to nary a hole in the lineup. Unfortunately, with Polanco's injury, Rollins has been moved to the #2 spot to do more damage (.288 OBP). Utley is also doing poorly in his callup to replace Polanco, "forcing" Bowa to move Rollins up to #2. Actually, in Polanco's absence, Rollins does have a .742 OPS and .367 OBP in the #2 hole so he hasn't hurt them there. So now the Phils offense is just about where people expected it to be barring the injury to Thome. However, the starting rotation may be in trouble with Millwood and Milton winning ugly and Wolf missing a turn. I wouldn't be surprise to see Ryan Madson (0.36 ERA, 0.88 WHIP) get a chance to start. But with Rheal Cormier having a tough season, they may need Madson in middle relief. Stay tuned.
Permalink |
No comments.
Jeff Kent-Walt Weiss Memorial Baseball Darwin Awards, VI
2004-05-20 12:11
My friend Mike rightly reminded me that Sammy Sosa should make the list for landing on the DL for violently sneezing in his annual sweeps week melodrama. Serves him right for passing Mike Schmidt on the all-time homer list.
Permalink |
No comments.
The Burning of Atlanta
2004-05-20 00:43
Perfection itself is imperfection. After Randy Johnson throw a perfect game against the Braves last night right on the heels of an 18-strikeout drubbing at the throwing hand of Ben Sheets, the Braves batters finally scored four runs tonight in a 6-4 extra-inning loss to the D-Backs. The four runs were all in the eighth inning, after 18 straight scoreless innings. It's little wonder given that the Braves lineup more closely resembles the 2003 Richmond Braves than the 2003 Atlanta Braves. Wilson Betemit, Nick Green, Jesse Gracia, Adam LaRoche, Dewayne Wise, and Johnny Estrada? The Jones boys are patrolling the outfield, but with Marcus Giles and Rafael Furcal injured, this team is paper thin. Anyway, given that this offense was subjected to two very rare feats in two successive games, I wondered what the odds were that something like this would happen. Were the Braves just a victim of probability or did they have to work for those two drubbings? There have been 20 pitchers who struck out at least 18 batters in a game (the list is here). Johnson threw the 17th perfect game in baseball history. Going into this year there had been 363,334 games pitched (counting pitchers for each side separately). There have been 1138 games pitched this year. That's a grand total of 364,472. Ignoring the fact that the Braves have pitched some of those themselves, the odds that these two feats would follow each other are approximately 390,704,336 to one. ("Never tell me the odds."--Han Solo) That's pretty steep odds. The Braves came to the plate 58 times in those two games (31 against sheets and 27 against Johnson), and they had 31 strikeouts, 3 hits (one of which was a double and one a home run), one walk, one sacrifice bunt, and one run. That translates into a .054 batting average, an .070 on-base percentage, a .125 slugging average, and a .195 OPS. In addition, their opponents had a 31-to-1 strikeout-to-walk ratio. Prior to the Sheets game they had been struck out 244 times and walks 120 (a 2.03 K:BB ratio) in 1196 at-bats (or 20.4% of their at-bats resulted in a K as opposed to 55.4% in the two "feat" games).
Permalink |
No comments.
Freaky Fri-Joe Morgan Chat Day
2004-05-17 20:09
Personality is the supreme realization of the innate idiosyncrasy of a living being. It is an act of high courage flung in the face of life, the absolute affirmation of all that constitutes the individual, the most successful adaptation to the universal conditions of existence coupled with the greatest possible freedom for self-determination. Personality is the glitter that sends your little gleam across the footlights and the orchestra pit into that big black space where the audience is. Hey, you won't interfere with the basic rugged concept of me personality, will you madam? The only idea more overused than serial killers is [swapping] personalit[ies]. On top of that, you explore the notion that cop and criminal are really two aspects of the same person. See every cop movie ever made for other examples of this. Switch—Jimmy Smits. Hollywood just loves swapping characters' personalities. Whether it's Rob Schneider becoming a "hot chick", a male chauvinist becoming Ellen Barkin (and thereby providing fodder for penile jokes for a good hour and a half), George Burns turning into an 18-year-old cigar-chomping, scenery chewer, or the two main female characters exchanging personalities in Mulholland Drive like Sneetches having stars alternatively stuck on or removed from thairs (and clearly, Laura Harring was the Star-Bellied Sneetch in the equation if you get my drift, because I sure don't). Then there was the brief period in the '80s, in which child/teenage TV stars were given film projects based on the same premise (Witness Fred Savage in Visa Versa and Kirk Cameron in Like Father Like Son). As I remember it, this phenomenon started with a teenage Jodie Foster swapping personalities with her erstwhile mother, Barbara Harris. Both actresses deserved better. Foster was already a veteran of many years of acting starting with the tomboy/love interest on "The Courtship of (Mister) Eddie's Father" and had just been seen in Taxi Driver, released earlier that year. Harris was more famous as a stage actress, but she had just starred in Alfred Hitchcock's last film, the overlooked Family Plot. Disney dusted off the old chestnut last year by trading down in acting chops but up in cup size by recasting the film with their latest ingenue, Lindsay Lohan, opposite Jamie Lee Curtis, who'll for obvious reasons always be remembered as Ophelia from Trading Places by me and anyone else who was a teenage boy in the early '80s. Everyone seemed to like the re-make better—I didn't see it. Given that Hollywood can't seem to come up with an original ideas—how many versions of the same thriller can Ashley Judd make anyway—, this sort of overused idea seems exciting and new. Come aboard: they're expecting you. Even the glorious landscape of originality that is TV-dom was not safe from the scourge of personality swapping especially as shows ran out of other stupid ideas. I'm surprised that Jump The Shark doesn’t have a sub-category devoted to the issue, though admittedly it was never as prolific or pernicious as Ted McGinley. Gilligan's Island had a special episode in which they left the island, at least temporarily, and traveled to some mad scientist's personal island (I think it was the same guy from The Munsters who created a dumber, if you can believe it, version of Herman Munster named Johan). The mad scientist proceeds to swap the cast's personalities. Ginger is inexplicably swapped with the scientist's Tor Johnson-esque henchman, an odd move given that he was the only means of controlling the crew and Ginger was the hot chippy on the show (therefore, the joke). Then again who knows what the whacked-out scientist was into anyway. The episode ended with the Gilligan 7 returned to normal and the scientist and the henchman being swapped with a dog and a cat. And hilarity ensued. In an odd plot twist, the crew had to return to their island due to some screw-up by Gilligan. The venerable Flintstones even succumbed to the flimsy plot device. Fred has a bowling accident or rather his skull has one. Barney takes him to Dr. Len Frankenstone who ends up swapping his personality with everyone else on the show, just so that we get to witness Fred bark like Dino. There was even a low-budget kids sitcom in the Seventies named "Big John, Little John", starring the Brady Bunch's cousin Oliver, Robbie Rist, and some nondescript fatherly figure, who I always thought was MacLean Stevenson, but I am gratified to realize was not (as if "Hello, Larry" weren't bad enough). One would become the other and visa versa at the most inopportune moments. OK, so you are no doubt wondering what this has to do with Joe Morgan's weekly chat session. Well, I'm convinced, and I needed the documented proof, that ESPN is using the same kind of personality swapping with their online personalities or lack thereof. This week's experiment was evidently Joe Morgan and Rob Neyer, judging from their chats. There's also a trace of Jayson Stark's essence—maybe the remnants of his dearly department 'stache—in Neyer's message. So without further ado… The GoodMike ( Albany NY): Hey Joe, I believe Clemens will come back for another year. Your thoughts on that. Thanks
Peter (Alpharetta, Ga): What is wrong with Andruw Jones' swing this year? Has he bulked up too much where it has hurt him? Will he ever hit .300 with 40 homeruns and 125 RBI's or will he just go down as a great defensive centerfielder. Also, he looks very lazy on the field and never runs a ground ball out or hustles. Your Thoughts?
PJ (Newark): Recently on Baseball Tonight, John Kruk said that if he needed to start a team today, he would draft Michael Young out of all eligible major league players. Do you agree with this assessment?
All that is to say that Morgan responds appropriately when it comes to Michael Young. That Kruk would select Young speaks volumes of his analytical skills. Morgan selects a logical if very popular choice. He also answers the question directly, further proof that he's not himself.] Jamie Hoffman, St. Pual MN: Joe Mauer is one of the best young talents that I have seen. He has a smooth swing and a mind for the game. Can you see him, blossoming into one of the great catchers on both sides of the plate?
But Joe, you really don't seem yourself.] Haines (DC): Who has been your most suprising team this year?
OK, I created a table with the winning percentage differences from last year to this:
Texas is fourth, but given the loss of A-Rod and the attendant expectations for the team, I'll give it to Joe.] Nick (memphis): How impressed are you with what Carlos Zambrano is doing right now for the Cubs? Thanks
Ned(Los Angeles): Who will acquire Carlos Beltran before the trade deadline? (Yanks, Red Sox,Dodgers, Padres,White Sox, Angels?)
Sheez, it's already a foregone conclusion that he'll be traded. How the Royals have fallen.] Fawaz (T.O): What do you think of the idea that Alou should put Bonds in the lead-off spot? Would this help in that an IBB would put a man on with no outs?
Besides maybe the Giants' best bet is to camp their next best hitter, Marquis Grissom, behind Bonds, basically swapping their current spots in the lineup. And then put Feliz, their third best hitter, behind Grissom in his current #5 spot. Oh, and as for Joe's "40 or 50 more at bats", that's a bit high. The number three spot for all teams average 636.4 at-bats (and 729.4 plate appearances) last year per team. Number 4, 620.2 at-bats (712.2 PA). That's only 16.2 at-bats (and 17.2 PA) and that's for the entire team.] Chris (OR): Joe...what the heck is wrong with Albert Pujols? Thank you.
Kfields (Pittsburgh, PA): I understand the frustration with walking Barry. But shouldn't a manager do whatever necessary to win the game?
Besides, it's not as if the number of intentional walks being given out has gone through the roof (aside from the ones to Bonds). Ignoring Bonds' numbers, the average player drew an intentional pass only .67% percent of the time last year or once in each 149 plate appearances. For the average player that's about 3 or 4 per season. It's also much lower than the all-time average (.80%). The all-time high was in 1967 (1.06%) when batting averages were so low that it didn't hurt that much to give someone a free pass. Here are the decadal averages since they started recording IBBs in 1955:
You'll note that the number of intentional walks has been dropping steadily since the '70s. So why change the rule? Because we have the odd occurrence of have the sabermetrically minded and the traditionalists agree on something. The SABR-heads hate the idea of giving someone a free pass and the traditionalists feel that walking Bonds is not aesthetically pleasing. (I happen to fall into both camps, a dangerous mix admittedly.) Many get way too keyed up because of this issue. I agree with Joe's even-handed approach and, therefore, am convinced that someone has taken over his body.] The BadPeter (Alpharetta, Ga): Now that the dust has settled a little bit on this hot topic ... What was your thought of MLB canceling the Spider Man Ads on the bases and all this advertising in Baseball? Dont we see enough of this on billboards, tv, and the Jumbo-trons all around major league parks? Your Thoughts Joe?
Tony (Danbury, CT): I am struggling to think of another complete infield in recent history that looks so impressive at such a young age as the one in Texas does. Teixeira, Young, Soriano and Blaylock. Ages 24,27,28,23 years old. Do you think Texas will be able to keep thiem togehter for awhile????
As far as holding on to these guys, the each have at least three years before free agency and Texas should now have a bit of cash. Plugging his old articles instead of answering a question fully, boy, it sounds more and more like Joe all the time.] Cory Garron, Nova Scotia, Canada: Since I was born in 1980, I unfortunately never go to see you or the Big Red Machine play, and I never got to see one of those "pancake" catchers mitts you spoke of in your article. I assume it was kind of like taking 2 catchers mitts, one left handed, one right handed, and attaching them at the top of each glove. I was wondering what was the atvantage of those "pancake" gloves, or why where they originally used? p.s. The article about Bench and Pudge was my 2nd favourite article to the one you did about Ricky Henderson a couple years back. :)
It wasn't necessarily the advantage of the old glove but rather the disadvantage of continuing to use them. The advantages were that they protected the catcher and the ball, helping prevent the ball from getting away from the catcher. The disadvantage was that it was hard to get the ball out of the glove, which became an issue in the Eighties when people actually stole bases.] Ed (Edison, NJ): Do you think players that hit with a defensive over-shift on them (e.g., Jason Giambi) should adjust themselves to take advantage of the opennings? And if they were to work on it (hitting to the opposite field) how long would you think that it would take to make this adjustment?
Nick (Westchester): Shouldn't the San Francisco Giants be a negative story in the sense that they have the best player in the game at a bargain price, and just a dearth of talent everywhere else. It's not like this is a small market team either, they have a mid 80s payroll.
They made some choices that look bad right now, but some of them helped them win the division last year and helped them make the playoffs three of the last four. All teams age. It's just too bad that it's happening during Bonds' apotheosis.] Ryan (woodlands,Tx) : What do you think, Scutaro or Mclemore for the A's starting second baseman? Mark is obviously a proven veteran but he is old and there are some questions about his range on defense. Scutaro has been sharp both offensivley and defensivley but he has a low OBP (the A's philosophy) and is still learning certain aspects of the game.
Joe, what's happening. You're fading. Your face. You're turning into…Robbie Rist? Wait, no, it's Rob Neyer on a bad hair day.] The UglyMike (Houston, TX): Rob...always enjoy your columns. One thing that has surpised me this year is Jose Guillen's performance thus far. I thought 2003 was a fluke, but perhaps not? What do you think?
Besides, Clemente was a certifiable All-Star by age 25. Guillen had a flash in two-thirds of a season at a brand-new hitter's park after six seasons of never even coming near mediocrity (highest pre-2003 adjusted OPS was 88). He was just slightly above average (107 OPS+) in Oakland, and has just one month and change under his belt this year. Three of Clemente's five pre-All-Star seasons resulted in better park-adjusted OPSs than Guillen's best (88). And if their careers were so close, why isn’t Clemente one of Guillen's comps for similar batters through age 27. I'm not saying that Guillen will be a bust. I have my doubts. But what I am saying is that some prima facie similarities to Clemente mean absolutely nothing.] John D. (Chicago): Seeing has how Bonds wears more armor on his arm than a 13th Century knight and stands 6 inches from the plate, why don't more pitchers pitch inside to brush him back?
Joe-Rob, just enforce the batter's box. Who wants umps policing body army and verifying doctor's notes? That's what MLB needs to do. As far as not pitching inside, that's what got us in this mess we're in today. Pitchers retreated outside, batters erased the batter's box and stood closer to the plate, and then umps flattened and widened the strike zone. So now we have body armor, pitchers afraid to pitch inside, and batters who charge the mound on high middle-of-the-plate fastballs.] Duffman (Springfield): Why would they change the intentional walk rule for one player? Wouldn't getting players on base ahead of Barry solve the 'problem'?
Also, ATFQ! Wouldn't getting players on base ahead of Barry solve the 'problem'? No, getting someone who can drive Bonds in would change it. Joe-Jayson documented (i.e., exploited Elias' data to prove) that Bonds gets walked more often with men on base. How do you outlaw the intentional walk? The idea is ludicrous, but more on that later.] Jay (Newingington, CT): Hey Rob, what's the point of eliminating intentional walks if you can just pitch around someone? Throw 4 balls in the dirt and you're golden? There doesn't seem to be a good solution for the Bond's dilemma. Thanx!
First, Jay, you can't through balls in the dirt because when you intentionally walk someone it's usually with men in scoring position and balls in the dirt lead to wild pitches.' Second, Joe-Rob, the idea of treating any four-pitch walk as "intentional" is beyond laughable. There are four-pitch walks all the time. What, will they be outlawed or will the defense be doubly penalized or will it be left to the umps to divine the pitcher's intent in making a judgment? None of these choices is acceptable. Besides what prevents someone from sneaking one strike in—on the outside corner after a high and tight pitch, say—and then intentionally walking the batter? Well, what if you preclude catchers from leaving the catcher's box to receive a pitch? You would eliminate pitchouts and increase wild pitches. How about hiring Kathy Bates to hobble all of the catchers? Hmm, that has promise. Joe, something is happening again. I think that intentional walk talk is causing you to transmogrify again. Wait, you are turning into a prop comic, a guy uses stats like a baby treats a diaper, a guy who gets ducked by the everyone at Elias when his name comes up on the phone display. It's baseball's Carrot Top himself, Jayson Stark… ]
1. BAN THE INTENTIONAL WALK ALTOGETHER 2. LIMIT INTENTIONAL WALKS TO ONE PER PLAYER PER GAME 3. ON AN INTENTIONAL WALK, EVERY RUNNER GETS TO MOVE UP A BASE 4. YOU TAKE FIRST BASE ON YOUR FIRST INTENTIONAL WALK, SECOND BASE ON YOUR SECOND, ETC. 5. THE HITTER CAN DECLINE THE INTENTIONAL WALK, AS IF IT WERE, OH, A HOLDING PENALTY.
1. You suggested this as Joe-Rob. To quote Jack Black, "Next song! Next song!" 2. Again, the average player gets 3-4 a season. It's just the Bonds rule. What are we going to do if a pitcher intentionally walks Bonds a second time, make him waste a time out? "Next song!" 3. How about you make the pitcher spin the "Wheel of Gas"? How inelegant is this proposed rule? So an intentional walk could be more valuable than potentially an infield single? Yuck! 4. So now it counts more than a ground ball through the infield? Who's going to keep track of this tripe? How about a three-point line or an overtime loss counting for a point? This is baseball for crissake! 5. Again with the football analogies. Why compare baseball to an inferior sport? So you decline it and start where, at 3-and-0 or restart the entire count? What if he walks the batter again and again? Is there a penalty? Is it a safety? Lordy Mama, play the blues.] Matt ( Budd Lake, NJ): As a 2nd Baseman, what was your reaction to Posada getting hit in the face by that throw? Should the ball have been thrown over the top instead of being side-armed?
Posada was a good ten feet from the bag. Why should he get down? And he was sliding away from the bag. He was maybe a foot or two to the right of the bag but he was within the baseline (according to rule 7.08). Besides, how could he be sliding toward the runner AND not getting down? Besides, Amezaga received the ball high and could have thrown it however he liked but chose underarm. I'm not saying he intended to hurt Posada but made no effort to avoid him. And that wasn't too bright because it cost the Angels the double play.] Dave (Dublin, Ireland): Hi, Joe. I caught the Cubs-Dodgers game that you covered a couple of days ago. The Alex Cora 18-pitch AB was pretty amazing; did you ever try to prolong an AB against a starting pitcher late in a game by fouling off as many pitches as you could, hoping that he would tire or give in and throw you something down the middle of the plate for you to hit?
Wait, you demean a feat by a current player and you answer like someone who's never played the game. Joe, you're back!]
Permalink |
No comments.
Perez' Stroke-a genius
2004-05-17 00:16
If you missed it, perhaps the oddest at-bat of the year, or any other year for that matter, came Friday in Colorado and it became the turning point of the game. The at-bat consisted of four pitches, three of which were catchable fly balls. None were caught, but the Rockies went from a man on first with no outs to none on with two outs. It was all the odder as it came soon after what some are saying is the best at-bat of the year, Alex Cora's 18-pitch home run the other night. The score was 3-1 in favor of Colorado in the bottom of the fourth. The Phils had just gone down in order on eight pitches and resulted in three groundouts, two of which were to the pitcher. Jeromy Burnitz lead off the fourth with a home run to run the score to 3-1. Charles Johnson followed with a nine-pitch walk after falling behind 0-2. So basically Phils' starter Eric Milton was on the ropes and Rockie starter Joe Kennedy was cruising. Then came the at-bat. Matt "It's A" Holliday was up next. Holliday popped up the first pitch a few feet from first in foul territory. First basemen Jim Thome was set directly under the ball and seemed to get a glove on the ball but just flat out dropped it for an error. The next ball was hit closer to the dugout on the first base side. Again Thome got under the ball and again he dropped it for an error. Both seemed to hit off the heel of his glove. As if those two plays weren't odd enough after an 0-2 ball, Holliday hit a soft fly to second baseman Tomas Perez. Apparently, Thome's two dropped balls gave Perez an idea. Perez had the ball directly in front of him from his second base position a few feet in front of the cutout. However, the ball fell in front of Perez, who kept the ball in front of him and tossed the ball to first. Holliday was then out. A stunned Charles Johnson was then tagged out by Thome in foul territory for the double play. The next batter, Kit "Yes, That's My Real Name" Pellow, popped out on the next pitch to short to end the inning. The Phils went on to score three in the next half-inning on a two-out Jimmy Rollins single followed back-to-back home runs by Bobby Abreu and Pat Burrell on back-to-back pitches, both of which appeared to be aided greatly by the thin air at Coors—Burrell hit his on one knee with one hand. Jim Thome next singled to right on the next pitch and it looked like batting practice. It then took ten pitches to finally get Mike Lieberthal to fly out to end the inning. The end result was that the Phils took a one-run lead that they never relinquished. Milton stayed in for two more innings and held the Rockies scoreless. He is now unbeatable (4-0), while Kennedy lost for the first time in 2004. He's now 4-1. The win put the Phils at 6-1 on their road trip (they finished 8-2) and just a game behind division leading Florida. Colorado, meanwhile, is competing with the other dregs of the NL West for the honor of finishing a distant third, apparently. If you ask why first-base ump Wally Bell never called for an infield fly, it's because it never applied. By definition the infield fly rule is only invoked if there are runners at first and second or first, second, and third. And the ball must be fair, so the Thome balls were doubly disqualified. From the definition: An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out... If the ball is near the baselines, the umpire shall declare "Infield Fly, if Fair." The ball is alive and runners may advance at the risk of the ball being caught, or retouch and advance after the ball is touched, the same as on any fly ball. If the hit becomes a foul ball, it is treated the same as any foul. The rule that could have applied is 6-5 (l): 6.05 Even though it seems counter-intuitive, Bell's interpretation of the rule seems accurate: Perez never dropped the ball so Holliday was not out by 6.05(l) and the ball was not dead. Therefore, the ball was like any other ground ball in the infield. The batter was out when Perez' throw beat him to first. Meanwhile, Johnson was tagged out but would have been called out for being too far outside the baselines (rule 7.08: "Any runner is out when (a) (1) He runs more than three feet away from a direct line between bases to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball"). Colorado manager Clint Hurdle argued the play and the announcers discussed Perez' intent. However, Hurdle had no argument and whether Perez made an attempt to catch the ball or not had nothing to do with the call. What should Johnson have done on the play? Could he have avoided the tag? According to rule 7.08e: "Any runner is out when…[h]e fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags him or the base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner. However, if a following runner is put out on a force play, the force is removed and the runner must be tagged to be put out." When Holliday was out, Johnson was no longer required to advance. If he stood on first, he would have been safe. It seemed apparent that Perez let the ball drop, but whether he thought he would get the double play we'll never know. Given the fact that the runner can stay on first, it makes sense not to include it in the infield fly rule. That is, if the runner stays on first, then it's the same whether the fielder catches the ball or not. However, given the confusion that this play induced, I don’t see why more fielders (esp. second basemen) don't try the play. As long as you can get the runner at first OR you can fool the lead runner to stay near first and then force him at second, then it's worth an attempt. And you never know, you could get lucky like Perez and get two outs when the runners get confused. It seems worth the risk.
Permalink |
No comments.
Major Nelson
2004-05-14 20:12
Travis Nelson, The Boy of Summer, lampoons Bud Selig and various bloggers, including yours truly, via a farcical news conference. Apparently, I like lots of tables. Go figure!
Permalink |
No comments.
Gypsy Maroth
2004-05-13 23:56
"Even the los |
I wonder where you get that idea? Have you seen him play lately? He' hasn't been on the field. Back injuries are strange, sometimes they come and go, other times it takes awhile. He's a great player, certainly not done.
[Mike: Elaine! Elaine! Elaine!…Ben!
[Mike: No.]
[Mike: Bob from Chicago? Bob Hartley? How 'bout a game of "Hi Bob"?
[Mike: Heath from DC? Heath Shuler? I wondered what you were up to. How's Gus Ferrot?
[Mike: Right, we didn't even know he was coming back this year. Very logical.]
[Mike: Joe, you coming out of it. Your look of lucidity proves it. What does charity have to do with Spidey-Gate? You're avoiding questions. It's got to be Joe.]
It's a funny thing. Early in his career, Guillen was often compared to Roberto Clemente, who didn't really establish himself as a good major league player until he was 26. Guillen, meanwhile, didn't have his first good season until he was 27. I'm not saying they're the same, but I won't be shocked if Guillen turns out to be pretty good.
[Mike: Joe-Rob, isn’t this just a case of a player having a career year at the magic number of 27 years of age and starting off the next year strong? 
So is there anything baseball can do? Between our survey last year and our survey this year, we've gotten five suggestions that make any sense whatsoever: