I think this game really has become less a football game and more a national holiday. I don't think it's out of the question that the Monday after the Super Bowl becomes a holiday where everyone across the country gets a day off. It's not even remotely about the game as we all know. It could be an absolute blowout and I'll watch every minute of it, for the commercials obvi! Everyone and their cloned dog watches the Super Bowl, so that means that people who have work the next day will be leaving their parties or their living rooms at around 11, maybe not going asleep until 12am. I suppose the Super Bowl could be played on Saturday, but I imagine that the revenue made in Tampa for the whole weekend event is too great to cut it short a full day.
Plus, what's more American than the Super Bowl, especially when Bruce is playing at half time? The only thing I can think of is July 4th and Thanksgiving. One of those already is tied to Football, and July 4th is usually around the time that Brett Favre decides he is going to play again. He's toyed with retiring the last 5 or so years always coming to the same decision and if guys like Dan Orlovsky, Ryan Fitzpatrick, and Tyler Thigpen can all start games this year then Favre could probably give teams 20 tds 20 ints for another 10-15 years.
I clearly am no originator of this idea but I am a huge fan of it. I'm a huge fan of any 3 day weekends in general because the best part about having Monday off, is that Friday comes quicker. One day off makes 2 weeks infinitely better, pretty impressive. A problem with a Super Bowl holiday might be too many vacation days, but come on do we really need Columbus day. Although we rarely think of of the veterans during Veterans Day or the our lost ones during Memorial Day, I would never recommend removing those. But Columbus Day? Not every state recognizes it for good measure, so we can just axe it completely and in its place install a Super Bowl Day? This would make the Super Bowl weekend longer and would inevitably make more money, maybe this is part of Obama's plan for the economy, let's hope it is.
I guess the point of that ramble, if there is one beyond my boredom, is to how how bad this game is, yet we'll all watch it. The Steelers and the Cardinals. If you were to tell me that's the Super Bowl game after the first round of the playoffs I'd probably tell you I wouldn't care to watch it. Yet it's now the Super Bowl and I care to watch it.
With that said, I'm going with the Steelers to win. I've hinted at it a few times on this blog and I'll say it again, I believe the NFL playoffs and obviously the Super Bowl is a lot of luck. "Analysts" talk all year about momentum, yet the Cardinals stink up the end of the season and randomly get hot in the playoffs. 3 games is all you need to get to the Super Bowl, and if you were actually good during the season you only need 2 games. That is such a small sample size it's actually quite funny. No playoff system really sets up for the best team to win, but in the NBA you have to play like half a seasons worth of games to get to the finals, in the NFL you have to get lucky a few times. The NFL can't pride themselves on 'Any Given Sunday' then give credit to the teams that make it. The Cardinals aren't that great a team, they were 9-7 in a horrible division. But on 3 any given Sundays or Saturdays, the Cardinals won and now they're in the Super Bowl. "Analysts" will point to their momentum during these playoffs as reasons why they'll win completely forgetting momentum as the same reason they'll lose in the first round. I doubt it takes 16 games for something to 'click' for a team. The fact the Giants did something similar last year just helps my thinking that this happens, it doesn't disprove it.
If you haven't gotten my drift, I believe the Cardinals are largely lucky to be in this game. Not lucky as in a few balls bounced in their direction to allow them to win games they shouldn't have, but lucky as in they only had one game against each team to determine who is the better team. Could you imagine if the baseball playoffs were one game each round? Not that football can play a series, but it just shows you how random the results can be. That's why when picking who's going to win I'm going to look at the regular season pretty hard, unless someone was hurt all year who's now healthy or any other special circumstance.
In the beginning of the year the Steelers were tagged with the hardest schedule, they went on to win 12 games. The Cardinals won 9 games and were able to play 6 games against teams that went 13-35, 37.5% of their games were against teams that had a winning % of .271. The Steelers have the best defense in the league and have proven themselves over the entire season. You may not agree with me but I'm not going to give the Cardinals much credit for their postseason in terms of it meaning that they'll win this game. I think the Steelers will win pretty convincingly. Of course this whole thing has set up to this prediction being void of meaning because really for one more game the Cardinals can outplay themselves but I'm not going to be convinced the Steelers aren't the far better team.
Prediction: Steelers 31 Cardinals 17
Friday, January 30, 2009
Boomer Blasts Back!
Got to love those triple B's...
David Wells, among other Yankees, is not too happy with Joe Torre's book.
Torre said of Wells: “The difference between Kevin Brown and David Wells is
that both make your life miserable, but David Wells meant to.”
Wells said, “If I was trying to make his life miserable, I would have
succeeded. … If he had that many problems with those guys, why didn’t he face
them while they were there?”
Wells, who has not read the book but plans to buy one when it becomes
available next week, was especially critical of Torre for talking about things
that happened in the clubhouse.
“What we do as athletes, that’s our problem, our business, and a lot of
guys have come out and destroyed that,” Wells said. “That’s why they don’t have
any friends. You just don’t do that, and that’s what Joe did. When you break the
code, you’re a punk.”
I haven't read Torre's book and I won't, and I definitely haven't and will never read this one either:
So I obviously can't speak for what's in the book, but is there really any chance Wells didn't go 'inside the locker room' in his book? Can he rip Torre after he came out with a similar book? Better yet, can Torre rip Boomer then come out with a book years later? I guess they both can. Personally, I think Boomer wants to pitch for the Yankees again and at this point his best bet is to rip Torre. I'm not convinced it's a bad strategy either.
Is it All About the Innings?
One of the big reasons the Yankees signed Pettitte was that he was a reliable 200 innings. All that the Yankees needed was another guy in the rotation to give the Yankees innings, nothing more nothing less, just innings that wouldn't go to Sidney Fatson and Razzle Dazzle Rasner. Pettitte is a special case because in his 200 innings he's still very effective, but the point is it has now been mentioned in a lot of cases that teams should take the inning machine over the oft injured pitcher. Fangraphs had a nice little piece to put an end to this talk.
The aftermath of the Jon Garland signing by Arizona brought this idea out. What happened was Arizona figured one year of Garland and his mediocre 200 innings was more valuable than Randy Johnson's non reliable potential injury risk innings, illustrated when they didn't offer RJ a contract they deemed worthy to Garland. That clearly is not the case. In 2007 Johnson pitched only 56 innings, yet he was worth 1.6 wins. Last year Garland pitched 196.2 innings and was worth 1.9 wins. Johnson is an injury risk, but expecting him to only give 56 innings is highly unlikely, meaning the absolute worst case scenario for Johnson pitching a mere 60 innings is about as valuable as Garland pitching 200 innings like he did last year.
What's this all mean? Well one of the oft-injured pitchers that Fangraphs uses to illustrate their point, Ben Sheets, is still available as a free agent.
If teams continue to prefer inning eaters like Garland over potential injury/potential dominant starters like Sheets, their price tags may come down even lower than they are now and some team is going to find themselves with a gigantic bargain. Take the New York Mets, they're in talks with Oliver Perez who although is not consistently effective he consistently takes the mound. He'll require a multi year deal because of that, and Ben Sheets is waiting here possibly only looking for an incentive laden one year deal where if he pitches half the innings as Perez he can be just as effective.
This doesn't mean to say that innings aren't valuable, it's just that we shouldn't forget how effective those innings are. C.C. Sabathia and Roy Halladay throw more innings than anyone else in baseball but do it across so many innings it makes them among the most valuable pitchers in the game. Guys like Jake Peavy who may be slightly more effective in their 180 innings still don't match output that Sabathia or Halladay put out. So, innings are obviously a huge commodity it's just that when valuing them don't put your blinders on to the effective 100 inning guys who when coupled with a replacement player is just as valuable, and in many cases cheaper.
The aftermath of the Jon Garland signing by Arizona brought this idea out. What happened was Arizona figured one year of Garland and his mediocre 200 innings was more valuable than Randy Johnson's non reliable potential injury risk innings, illustrated when they didn't offer RJ a contract they deemed worthy to Garland. That clearly is not the case. In 2007 Johnson pitched only 56 innings, yet he was worth 1.6 wins. Last year Garland pitched 196.2 innings and was worth 1.9 wins. Johnson is an injury risk, but expecting him to only give 56 innings is highly unlikely, meaning the absolute worst case scenario for Johnson pitching a mere 60 innings is about as valuable as Garland pitching 200 innings like he did last year.
What's this all mean? Well one of the oft-injured pitchers that Fangraphs uses to illustrate their point, Ben Sheets, is still available as a free agent.
"Granted, we never know what would have happened if the injured pitchers lasted
the entire season. Still, do you really believe Johnson and Sheets would have
declined so rapidly that their statistics would drop them into the average
category? When pitchers with half of a season or so of statistics are evaluated,
the most common reaction is to think they could not possibly be as productive as
innings-eaters who stay on the field. This simply is not a universal truth. 106
IP of Ben Sheets in 2006 (+4 wins) + 105 IP of Replacement Level pitching (+0 wins) is equal to, or greater than, 211 IP of Jon Garland (+3.9 wins)."
If teams continue to prefer inning eaters like Garland over potential injury/potential dominant starters like Sheets, their price tags may come down even lower than they are now and some team is going to find themselves with a gigantic bargain. Take the New York Mets, they're in talks with Oliver Perez who although is not consistently effective he consistently takes the mound. He'll require a multi year deal because of that, and Ben Sheets is waiting here possibly only looking for an incentive laden one year deal where if he pitches half the innings as Perez he can be just as effective.
This doesn't mean to say that innings aren't valuable, it's just that we shouldn't forget how effective those innings are. C.C. Sabathia and Roy Halladay throw more innings than anyone else in baseball but do it across so many innings it makes them among the most valuable pitchers in the game. Guys like Jake Peavy who may be slightly more effective in their 180 innings still don't match output that Sabathia or Halladay put out. So, innings are obviously a huge commodity it's just that when valuing them don't put your blinders on to the effective 100 inning guys who when coupled with a replacement player is just as valuable, and in many cases cheaper.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The Sweet Sounds of Saves
Well known for their detailed statistical analysis, The Hardball Times changed directions for a bit and posted 50 great potential closer songs, a response to this and this. I like Chris Jaffe's use of some funk, definitely would help the pitchers find their groove, and I like the non use of current bad rap songs. I know he's not a closer, but am I the only one who finds it incredibly lame that Afraud, I mean Arod, uses the song "This Is Why I'm Hot" years after the awful song is gone from our minds?
There are so many potential great songs for a closer to come out to, people have to stop using the cliche ones. Anyways, to continue the ripoff the good idea trend, here is my criteria for acceptable walkout closer songs:
1.) It has to rock, it can't be a ballad. It also doesn't have to be metal in order to 'rock', I for one am tired of Hells Bells and Enter Sandman. I would like to think the kind of pitcher that likes to listen to "My Heart Will Go On" to get ready wouldn't have the proper mindset of a closer, and that the fans who would like that song would rather be somewhere else other than a baseball game to listen to Mrs. Dion.
2.) It has to be somewhat well known. I'm completely against the uber obvious cliche choices here, but I think the song has to be known by at least maybe 10% of the crowd at first, or be a song by a recognizable voice.
3.) It has to be a good song, at least decent. Any song that is kind of funny or gimmicky will quickly become more annoying than helpful.
4.) The lyrics should have some relation to the task at hand. This isn't vital, especially if the song qualifies in the other points, but a song that has a few lines that can be twisted to relate to a closer doing his job.
5.) Catchyness. No it doesn't have to be a pop song, but if the crowd can sing along to it that makes the entire walkout that much more impressive.
With that now done, here are some fine examples that I would recommend to anyone in need:
Rip This Joint-The Rolling Stones: This song definitely rocks, it's probably one of the faster Stones' songs that I can think of. It's lyrics are pretty fitting:
Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere-The Who: Another solid rocker similar to Rip This Joint, by a famous band but not necessarily one of their more famous songs. Regardless, Roger Daltrey's voice is easily recognizable. This is definitely a solid song, with an appropriate amount of catchyness, the crowd can even sing the backup parts. The lyrics explain the mindset of a closer maybe better than anything else:
I can go anyway, way I choose
I can live anyhow, win or lose
I can go anywhere, for something new
Anyway, anyhow, anywhere I choose
I can do anything, right or wrong
I can talk anyhow, and get along
Don't care anyway, I never lose
Anyway, anyhow, anywhere I choose
Nothing gets in my way
Not even locked doors
Don't follow the lines
That been laid before
I get along anyway I dare
Anyway, anyhow, anywhere
Wouldn't Brad Lidge benefit from that kind of attitude when he faces Pujols? For all we know maybe he had that on his ipod all last year on the Phillies.
Hit It & Quit It-Funkadelic: I'm not sure exactly if this fits well, or if it's completely wrong but I like it so suck on it.
I want you to hit it
Good god, hit it and quit it
I want you to, hooo-whoaa
Oh mama, hit it
Good god, hit it and quit it
I want you to, ohhhh, oh yeah
Oh mama, hit it
Good god, hit it and quit it
I want you to, oooh, oooh, oooh, oooh
Who doesn't like screaming ooh ooh? This song shows so much confidence in the pitcher that he is begging for the hitter to try to hit it. Or he's telling the batter to pick up a girl, do his business, and forget about her the next day. Either way let's recap ,does it fit the criteria? Rocker-check, Well known- half check, good song- check, lyrics- check, catchyness-check, definitely a good closer song.
Calm Like a Bomb-Rage Against The Machine: Now I don't know if the former members of Rage are big baseball fans, but this song was in the Matrix Reloaded (or wikipedia tells me so) and they went on to form Audioslave, so they can't really be anti selling out. Although there is a long intro and verse in the beginning, when this song starts to rock it really rocks, so that's no problem. Rage is big enough of a band for this to succeed and if mothers at Yankee games can sing "off to never never land" they could sing "there's a right to obey and a right to kill", no?
Where I End and You Begin-Radiohead: Yes, you read that correctly and yes it doesn't really work as a walkout song but I feel if I post something about music I have to throw Radiohead in there. Of all their choices this is probably up there. None of their songs are hits, except Creep, but that would be in a top 5 list of worst possible walkout songs. It's pretty rocky and some of the lyrics could make sense, namely "I will eat you alive" that repeats 4 times, pretty intimidating. It wouldn't be the worst choice, but in reality this is only on the list as my obligatory Radiohead callout.
So there are 5 of my recommendations. The first 3 pretty much fit all 5 of the criteria perfectly, the 4th is a good but not great choice, and the 5th is well kind of a joke in my world. If people actually read this thing I'd have a poll, or make a real long list with a lot of your contributions, but that's not the case. Screw it, I'll give it a try, are there any recommendations you have? I can promise that I will post them with my thoughts.
Finally one last side note: No offense to a good friend but "Come As You Are" by Nirvana could be one of the poorest choices for walkout songs that I have ever heard of. I don't care if it's only D-3 College Baseball, no one should come out to that song. "Take your time hurry up the choice is yours don't be late", are you talking to the batter, telling him to take your time in the batters box, get comfortable? "And I swear that I don't have a gun", so you're a closer throwing gas that is lying about his radar speeds? It is probably one of Nirvana's more optimistic songs, but that's like saying it's one of Katy Perry's better songs, bottom line: it's a bad choice X.
There are so many potential great songs for a closer to come out to, people have to stop using the cliche ones. Anyways, to continue the ripoff the good idea trend, here is my criteria for acceptable walkout closer songs:
1.) It has to rock, it can't be a ballad. It also doesn't have to be metal in order to 'rock', I for one am tired of Hells Bells and Enter Sandman. I would like to think the kind of pitcher that likes to listen to "My Heart Will Go On" to get ready wouldn't have the proper mindset of a closer, and that the fans who would like that song would rather be somewhere else other than a baseball game to listen to Mrs. Dion.
2.) It has to be somewhat well known. I'm completely against the uber obvious cliche choices here, but I think the song has to be known by at least maybe 10% of the crowd at first, or be a song by a recognizable voice.
3.) It has to be a good song, at least decent. Any song that is kind of funny or gimmicky will quickly become more annoying than helpful.
4.) The lyrics should have some relation to the task at hand. This isn't vital, especially if the song qualifies in the other points, but a song that has a few lines that can be twisted to relate to a closer doing his job.
5.) Catchyness. No it doesn't have to be a pop song, but if the crowd can sing along to it that makes the entire walkout that much more impressive.
With that now done, here are some fine examples that I would recommend to anyone in need:
Rip This Joint-The Rolling Stones: This song definitely rocks, it's probably one of the faster Stones' songs that I can think of. It's lyrics are pretty fitting:
Mama says yes, Papa says no,
Make up you mind 'cause I gotta go.
I'm gonna raise hell at the Union Hall,
Drive myself right over the wall
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul,
Round and round and round we go.
Roll this joint, gonna get down low,
Start my starter, gonna stop the show.
Oh, yeah!
Maybe it will require some explaining by parents to some teens on the verge of understanding innuendo, but the song's too good not use, how could that not pump you up? This isn't a well known Stones' song but any song by Mic Jagger (except maybe the one in the vid below) should give the crowd some familiarity. Punks, teens, Moms, and Grandads can all rock out to this while the closer gets himself ready.
Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere-The Who: Another solid rocker similar to Rip This Joint, by a famous band but not necessarily one of their more famous songs. Regardless, Roger Daltrey's voice is easily recognizable. This is definitely a solid song, with an appropriate amount of catchyness, the crowd can even sing the backup parts. The lyrics explain the mindset of a closer maybe better than anything else:
I can go anyway, way I choose
I can live anyhow, win or lose
I can go anywhere, for something new
Anyway, anyhow, anywhere I choose
I can do anything, right or wrong
I can talk anyhow, and get along
Don't care anyway, I never lose
Anyway, anyhow, anywhere I choose
Nothing gets in my way
Not even locked doors
Don't follow the lines
That been laid before
I get along anyway I dare
Anyway, anyhow, anywhere
Wouldn't Brad Lidge benefit from that kind of attitude when he faces Pujols? For all we know maybe he had that on his ipod all last year on the Phillies.
Hit It & Quit It-Funkadelic: I'm not sure exactly if this fits well, or if it's completely wrong but I like it so suck on it.
I want you to hit it
Good god, hit it and quit it
I want you to, hooo-whoaa
Oh mama, hit it
Good god, hit it and quit it
I want you to, ohhhh, oh yeah
Oh mama, hit it
Good god, hit it and quit it
I want you to, oooh, oooh, oooh, oooh
Who doesn't like screaming ooh ooh? This song shows so much confidence in the pitcher that he is begging for the hitter to try to hit it. Or he's telling the batter to pick up a girl, do his business, and forget about her the next day. Either way let's recap ,does it fit the criteria? Rocker-check, Well known- half check, good song- check, lyrics- check, catchyness-check, definitely a good closer song.
Calm Like a Bomb-Rage Against The Machine: Now I don't know if the former members of Rage are big baseball fans, but this song was in the Matrix Reloaded (or wikipedia tells me so) and they went on to form Audioslave, so they can't really be anti selling out. Although there is a long intro and verse in the beginning, when this song starts to rock it really rocks, so that's no problem. Rage is big enough of a band for this to succeed and if mothers at Yankee games can sing "off to never never land" they could sing "there's a right to obey and a right to kill", no?
Where I End and You Begin-Radiohead: Yes, you read that correctly and yes it doesn't really work as a walkout song but I feel if I post something about music I have to throw Radiohead in there. Of all their choices this is probably up there. None of their songs are hits, except Creep, but that would be in a top 5 list of worst possible walkout songs. It's pretty rocky and some of the lyrics could make sense, namely "I will eat you alive" that repeats 4 times, pretty intimidating. It wouldn't be the worst choice, but in reality this is only on the list as my obligatory Radiohead callout.
So there are 5 of my recommendations. The first 3 pretty much fit all 5 of the criteria perfectly, the 4th is a good but not great choice, and the 5th is well kind of a joke in my world. If people actually read this thing I'd have a poll, or make a real long list with a lot of your contributions, but that's not the case. Screw it, I'll give it a try, are there any recommendations you have? I can promise that I will post them with my thoughts.
Finally one last side note: No offense to a good friend but "Come As You Are" by Nirvana could be one of the poorest choices for walkout songs that I have ever heard of. I don't care if it's only D-3 College Baseball, no one should come out to that song. "Take your time hurry up the choice is yours don't be late", are you talking to the batter, telling him to take your time in the batters box, get comfortable? "And I swear that I don't have a gun", so you're a closer throwing gas that is lying about his radar speeds? It is probably one of Nirvana's more optimistic songs, but that's like saying it's one of Katy Perry's better songs, bottom line: it's a bad choice X.
Heil to the Chief
When I heard that the Cubs traded Ronny Cedeno and newly acquired Garrett Olsen to the Marlins for Aaron Heilman there was something I wanted to point out, but these guys beat me to it (not that anyone comes here first but whatever it makes me feel important).
So the Cubs traded Pie for Olsen and a single-a pitcher, then they couple Olsen with Cedeno for Aaron Heilman?
It made somewhat sense when the Cubs traded Pie for Olsen, not that much really but something at least, that obtaining major league ready young pitching could be what was needed for Peavy. Now that is totally out of the question as they have traded Pie and another valuable young prospect, Cedeno, for a 30 year old reliever who couldn't cut it in the Mets dreadful bullpen now turned starter
If Aaron Heilman the starter is part of your battle for the 5th spot in the rotation, why are there rumblings about the Cubs looking to trade Hill. At this point if it's a battle, is Hill any worse than the others? Because he clearly has little to no trade value.
The Cubs have no reason to think that they still won't be a top team in 2009, but moves like this are utterly questionable. Lou Pinella is a great manager, but part of his style is putting players in the doghouse, and the GMs then have to manage accordingly. Should teams take Lou Pinella even if it means potentially putting your higher level prospects in the doghouse where they may never come out? I think in the Cubs case maybe a hesitant yes, they're a veteran team that needs that extra push. But developing players is so important in baseball because you get similar if not better production at a significantly lower price. Dusty Baker favored his vets, and I guess it kinda worked in San Fran and Chicago (until they realized he hurt young arms and well favored veterans all the time), it will be interesting to see how that situation plays out in Cincinnati as they are loaded with good youngins.
All in all I can't say that what the Cubs are doing hurts them this year necessarily or that Pinella isn't helping the team for now, but they just traded 2 young prospects that are more valuable trade chips, for a questionable middle reliever. Those clearly aren't moves that are good for a franchise's future, let alone even the present. The Cubs were the favored team last year, and they could very well be that team again heading into the playoffs if their pitching holds up, and if that happens I don't want to hear anyone citing these moves as reasons for that. These are not 'winning' moves and I believe the team will do well in spite of them. Meanwhile the Orioles got a former top top prospect (Felix Pie) that still has potential for more or less nothing that was going to help the team, and the Mariners got a young middle infielder with potential for Aaron friggin Heilman. When the Mariners and Orioles are involved in trades that benefit themselves you know you messed up, or it just means each team is finally headed in the right direction.
So the Cubs traded Pie for Olsen and a single-a pitcher, then they couple Olsen with Cedeno for Aaron Heilman?
It made somewhat sense when the Cubs traded Pie for Olsen, not that much really but something at least, that obtaining major league ready young pitching could be what was needed for Peavy. Now that is totally out of the question as they have traded Pie and another valuable young prospect, Cedeno, for a 30 year old reliever who couldn't cut it in the Mets dreadful bullpen now turned starter
If Aaron Heilman the starter is part of your battle for the 5th spot in the rotation, why are there rumblings about the Cubs looking to trade Hill. At this point if it's a battle, is Hill any worse than the others? Because he clearly has little to no trade value.
The Cubs have no reason to think that they still won't be a top team in 2009, but moves like this are utterly questionable. Lou Pinella is a great manager, but part of his style is putting players in the doghouse, and the GMs then have to manage accordingly. Should teams take Lou Pinella even if it means potentially putting your higher level prospects in the doghouse where they may never come out? I think in the Cubs case maybe a hesitant yes, they're a veteran team that needs that extra push. But developing players is so important in baseball because you get similar if not better production at a significantly lower price. Dusty Baker favored his vets, and I guess it kinda worked in San Fran and Chicago (until they realized he hurt young arms and well favored veterans all the time), it will be interesting to see how that situation plays out in Cincinnati as they are loaded with good youngins.
All in all I can't say that what the Cubs are doing hurts them this year necessarily or that Pinella isn't helping the team for now, but they just traded 2 young prospects that are more valuable trade chips, for a questionable middle reliever. Those clearly aren't moves that are good for a franchise's future, let alone even the present. The Cubs were the favored team last year, and they could very well be that team again heading into the playoffs if their pitching holds up, and if that happens I don't want to hear anyone citing these moves as reasons for that. These are not 'winning' moves and I believe the team will do well in spite of them. Meanwhile the Orioles got a former top top prospect (Felix Pie) that still has potential for more or less nothing that was going to help the team, and the Mariners got a young middle infielder with potential for Aaron friggin Heilman. When the Mariners and Orioles are involved in trades that benefit themselves you know you messed up, or it just means each team is finally headed in the right direction.
Rich Hill
MLBTradeRumors recently brought up the idea of what to do with Rich Hill.
The Cubs would like to move him, obviously he is a lost cause in their franchise, and any team that is looking for a reclamation project well Hill is your man.
In 17 games (16) starts in 2006 Rich Hill looked promising, a tall lefty with a devastating Zito-like Curve pitching to a line of 6-7 with a 4.17 ERA in 99 1/3 innings. The next year he was given a full time job and did not disappoint going 11-8 with a 3.92 ERA, 1.195 whip and 183 strike outs in 195 innings (8.45 K/9). The wheels completely fell off this last year where although his ERA was ok at 4.12 it was misleading. In just 19 2/3 innings he walked 18, struck out 15 and had a 1.576 whip. His trip to the minors did not help where in 3 different levels combined (Rk, A+, AAA) he pitched 47 2/3 innings with a 5.85 ERA with 44 walks and 57 strike outs.
Sending Hill to the minors clearly did not help his control problems, and a team like the Cubs can't afford to keep him on the 40 man roster and hope he sorts it all out. For a team to want to acquire Hill, they can't really think of themselves as contenders to start the year (for they gotta live with his struggles to really see what he can do), they have to have a hole in the rotation. Tim Dierkes says that there are 6 candidates that he thinks can acquire Hill: the Royals, Mariners, Padres, Pirates, Marlins, and Orioles.
I don't disagree with any of those candidates, and I would throw the A's and the Nationals. I realize the A's have hopes to win the division this year, but I would never put accumulating cheap pitching with potential past Billy Beane, and the Nats well, they suck so why not try something.
One last little or not so little thought: Hill's FIP in in 2006 was 4.67, and 4.32 in 2007. Both years exceeding his actual ERA. I'm not sure what caused this because I don't think the Cubs have a particularly good defense, and Wrigley as we all know isn't a pitchers park, especially for lefty fly ball pitchers. Could it be that Hill was just lucky, or that his skill set will allow him to outpitch his expected ERA. He did have a slightly high LOB% and good BABIPs, but nothing too obscene to think he wasn't a quality pitcher. I think Hill was a little lucky and that made people think he was better than he is, it was wrong to think of him as a potential #1 starter, eventhough he has a knack for missing bats. His fall from grace came out of nowhere, but maybe he wasn't as good as we all thought to begin with. Teams that are looking to acquire him though should be aware that in the off chance Hill puts it back together, he would most likely have an ERA in the mid 4's. That's not to say that wouldnt be good, a 4.5 ERA with 180 innings is valuable, as we saw Garland get $6.25m in a down year. But to give up something of any value for a guy who at his best may only be a little better than league average? I'm starting to think this isn't worth the trouble it may be for teams. Although some teams like the Nats and Padres have nothing going for them so they could give him a spin, and quickly send him off to another team if he shows any form of light.
The Cubs would like to move him, obviously he is a lost cause in their franchise, and any team that is looking for a reclamation project well Hill is your man.
In 17 games (16) starts in 2006 Rich Hill looked promising, a tall lefty with a devastating Zito-like Curve pitching to a line of 6-7 with a 4.17 ERA in 99 1/3 innings. The next year he was given a full time job and did not disappoint going 11-8 with a 3.92 ERA, 1.195 whip and 183 strike outs in 195 innings (8.45 K/9). The wheels completely fell off this last year where although his ERA was ok at 4.12 it was misleading. In just 19 2/3 innings he walked 18, struck out 15 and had a 1.576 whip. His trip to the minors did not help where in 3 different levels combined (Rk, A+, AAA) he pitched 47 2/3 innings with a 5.85 ERA with 44 walks and 57 strike outs.
Sending Hill to the minors clearly did not help his control problems, and a team like the Cubs can't afford to keep him on the 40 man roster and hope he sorts it all out. For a team to want to acquire Hill, they can't really think of themselves as contenders to start the year (for they gotta live with his struggles to really see what he can do), they have to have a hole in the rotation. Tim Dierkes says that there are 6 candidates that he thinks can acquire Hill: the Royals, Mariners, Padres, Pirates, Marlins, and Orioles.
I don't disagree with any of those candidates, and I would throw the A's and the Nationals. I realize the A's have hopes to win the division this year, but I would never put accumulating cheap pitching with potential past Billy Beane, and the Nats well, they suck so why not try something.
One last little or not so little thought: Hill's FIP in in 2006 was 4.67, and 4.32 in 2007. Both years exceeding his actual ERA. I'm not sure what caused this because I don't think the Cubs have a particularly good defense, and Wrigley as we all know isn't a pitchers park, especially for lefty fly ball pitchers. Could it be that Hill was just lucky, or that his skill set will allow him to outpitch his expected ERA. He did have a slightly high LOB% and good BABIPs, but nothing too obscene to think he wasn't a quality pitcher. I think Hill was a little lucky and that made people think he was better than he is, it was wrong to think of him as a potential #1 starter, eventhough he has a knack for missing bats. His fall from grace came out of nowhere, but maybe he wasn't as good as we all thought to begin with. Teams that are looking to acquire him though should be aware that in the off chance Hill puts it back together, he would most likely have an ERA in the mid 4's. That's not to say that wouldnt be good, a 4.5 ERA with 180 innings is valuable, as we saw Garland get $6.25m in a down year. But to give up something of any value for a guy who at his best may only be a little better than league average? I'm starting to think this isn't worth the trouble it may be for teams. Although some teams like the Nats and Padres have nothing going for them so they could give him a spin, and quickly send him off to another team if he shows any form of light.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Pettitte Returns
So it looks like Andy Pettitte will remain with the Yankees next year. As I have said before (and countless others who actually know what they're talking about) keeping Pettitte makes a lot of sense for the Yankees. Yes the Yankees have some young options to put at the 5th starter (Aceves, Kennedy, Hughes), but why spend all that money on the rotation to cheap out on Pettitte, and risk giving 25-30 starts on a below average pitcher, a la Ponson, Rasner and co. like last year. Pettitte gives you innings, no ifs ands or buts about it, and that is mostly what the Yankees need, especially with Burnett as an injury risk, and Joba at an innings limit. But what some people don't realize is Pettitte is still a darn good pitcher...
According to Fangraphs, Pettitte was worth $19.9m last year, and that's not a fluke given that he was worth $18.6m in 07, $12.9m in 06, and $19.8m in 05. Most of that value lies in Pettitte's consistent 200 innings pitched as well as his FIP, which has been great the last few years, while his ERAs have been high. Pettitte had a 3.71 FIP last year with a 4.54 ERA and a 3.87 FIP in 2007 with a 4.05 ERA. The Yankees defense is obviously not great and that will hurt, and has hurt Pettitte's ERA recently, but a lot of it is also bad luck.
You can't blame people for reading into ERA a lot, but it's clearly not a good indicator of future success. We all remember Pettitte's struggles at the end of the last season in the 2nd half. But the guy pitched when he probably should have missed a couple starts, and all the other indicators point to Andy having a successful 2009. Pettitte's new contract at most will cost the Yankees $12m, and that's if he earns all the incentives which would obviously mean good things for the Yankees, and if he pitched as well as he did last year with luck on his side, the Yankees can come out of this way on top. Before this signing the Yankees left the door open slightly, but now it's firmly shut and the Yankees have the best rotation and best team on paper. What are your thoughts?
According to Fangraphs, Pettitte was worth $19.9m last year, and that's not a fluke given that he was worth $18.6m in 07, $12.9m in 06, and $19.8m in 05. Most of that value lies in Pettitte's consistent 200 innings pitched as well as his FIP, which has been great the last few years, while his ERAs have been high. Pettitte had a 3.71 FIP last year with a 4.54 ERA and a 3.87 FIP in 2007 with a 4.05 ERA. The Yankees defense is obviously not great and that will hurt, and has hurt Pettitte's ERA recently, but a lot of it is also bad luck.
You can't blame people for reading into ERA a lot, but it's clearly not a good indicator of future success. We all remember Pettitte's struggles at the end of the last season in the 2nd half. But the guy pitched when he probably should have missed a couple starts, and all the other indicators point to Andy having a successful 2009. Pettitte's new contract at most will cost the Yankees $12m, and that's if he earns all the incentives which would obviously mean good things for the Yankees, and if he pitched as well as he did last year with luck on his side, the Yankees can come out of this way on top. Before this signing the Yankees left the door open slightly, but now it's firmly shut and the Yankees have the best rotation and best team on paper. What are your thoughts?
Friday, January 23, 2009
A Blog? Ok. But a Paper?
It's one thing for a baseball blog to falsely state that Kent's position doesn't matter when it comes to the Hall of Fame, it's another for someone associated with a published paper. These are the kind of guys that vote on the Hall of Fame, it's getting to be ridiculous.
"But I say Kent cannot be looked at as a second baseman, especially in this day and age where middle infielders all over baseball are putting up numbers usually posted by outfielders and third baseman. We have to start judging players - other than catchers - as all part of the same pool. Is Nomar Garciaparra a Hall of Famer because he put up big numbers at shortstop?
Kent was never a great fielder. He had to hide somewhere and most teams chose to put him at second base. Also, Kent played in the steroids era, so all of the numbers from that time have to be judged on some sort of scale. 600 homers may have to be the new 500 homers.And while Kent’s numbers may have gotten him into the Hall of Fame 10 years ago, they are comparable to several other players who will be retiring soon or have already retired and likely won't ever get in.
Albert Belle has more homers (381) than Kent. Is he a Hall of Famer?
Gary Sheffield has more homers (499), hits (2,615) and RBIs (1,633) than Kent. Is he a Hall of Famer?Andres Gallarraga (399), Dale Murphy (398), Joe Carter (396), Jason Giambi (396), Vlad Guerrero (392), Graig Nettles (390), Dwight Evans (385), Harold Baines (384), Larry Walker (383) and Matt Williams (378) all have more homers than Kent. Only Guerrero has a legit shot to make it to Cooperstown."
How can you compare Kent to Nomar? Kent played in 17 full seasons, every single on of them primarily at 2b. Nomar has played in parts of 13 seasons 4 of which he wasn't really a short stop. Just because there are a few great middle infielders, once again does not mean they should be considered the same as outfielders. Albert Belle had his career cut short, if he didn't he would be a Hall of Famer, Gary Sheffield is by most smart accounts Hall of Fame worthy. Just because you can name a slew of corner infielders and outfielders that just have more homers than Kent does not deem them worthy. Placing Jim Rice in the Hall of Fame gives more credence to Dale Murphy, Baines, Walker etc, in the Hall, not Jeff Kent. And if this idiot had a ballot I'd imagine he'd vote in Rice.
How much more can you say about this, it's just too obvious but there are apparently enough clowns going around. Maybe someday we have to reconsider some of the landmark numbers like 500 homers and so on. But regardless, if Kent leads every 2b that has every played the game in that number, should we not consider that because Hanley Ramirez and Chase Utley are very good hitting middle infielders? Mr. Price says that middle infielders are usually putting up numbers like outfielders, and that we have to judge everyone the same, minus catchers of course. I guess because they usually put up those kind of numbers that we shouldn't give credit to the position they play. And I guess we can all agree catcher is a more demanding position and but at this point all the others are the same. Ugh, these guys reasoning is laughably pathetic, and I think I'm done talking about it.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Does Position Matter in the Hall?
Apparently not necessarily to this guy. In evaluating Jeff Kent the position he played, 2b, is going to be brought up a lot, and this writer seems to believe that is an old idea.
To give the writer credit, he concludes with comparing Kents stats to other 2b, and comes to the same conclusion that most people will have, he's a hall of famer. He however states that "His remarkably consistent excellence is his best argument for admittance to the Hall of Fame, not the fact that he played second base."
I simply wholeheartedly disagree. When Evaluating the Hall of Fame context is everything. The league that you play in, the era that you play in, and let's not forget the position that you play. Some positions are more demanding than others. You can't play 2b if you are 6'7' 250 pounds, you just can't. So the fact that Kent put up numbers that are great regardless of position, just further illustrateshow great of a player he was when you consider he played 2b.
Much has been said around the net about Fangraphs Value wins, and you know what they use in getting those values? Positional adjustments. That's to say that players that play tougher positions are worth more to their team. Even if the "pro-verbial no-hit all field middle infielder" is dead does not mean you shouldn't get bonus for your position. There is a reason David Ortiz didn't win an MVP, he didn't field and therefore didn't bring as much to the table that Arod did. That's no different than comparing a catcher to a corner outfielder, all else being equal (and it definitely doesn't have to be but just saying for now) the catcher brings more to the table than the outfielder. 1b is an easy position to replace, most people can play it and there are plenty of capable ones available. Middle infield is not.
"That Kent or any other middle infielder gets bonus points for not being an outfielder or corner infielder is unfair."
It's not that Kent gets bonus points for not being an outfielder, it's that he gets bonus points for being a 2b. There is a reason he played 2b in his 40s (wouldn't that prove that he was a fine defender?). You can't just assume players can be equally productive at all positions. Just because the game has evolved to where a few great athletes can hit and play demanding positions (Arod, Ripken, Sandberg, etc...) does not mean we should now consider every position equal. Hanley's offensive production at SS makes him one of the most valuable commodities in the entire game, it doesn't place the short stop position on the same line as an outfielder.
There is not much more I can say on this topic. Jeff Kent was a great hitter, and he did it at 2b and that's why he's a Hall of Famer. There are an infinite amount of hitters who if they played catcher would be first ballot Hall of Famers, but there is a reason that they didn't, they simply can't. So to not give Kent or anyone that plays a more demanding position his due credit is simply wrong, plain and simple.
"For his career, Kent compiled a .290/.353/.500 batting line with 1,320
runs scored, 560 doubles, 377 homeruns, and 1,518 RBI in 8,498 at bats. Those
are tremendous statistics for a second baseman. But, that’s the problem. His
statistics are elite for a second baseman, but merely good when taking his
defensive position out of the equation [...]
his Hall of Fame candidacy should not be decided by evaluating his
statistics by comparing them to other second basemen. This is especially true
given that Kent was not an above average fielder. The idea that each position
has a different set of offensive standards is ludicrous and out-dated [...]
The idea that middle infielders are expected to put up less offensive statistics than say a first baseman or an outfielder is something that was lost in the 1980’s. With the likes of Ryne Sandberg, Craig Biggio, Roberto Alomar, and presently Chase Utley at second base, and with shortstops like Cal Ripken, Alex Rodriguez, and presently Hanley Ramirez, the notion of the proverbial no-hit, all field middle infielder is dead and buried. That Kent or any other middle infielder gets bonus points for not being an outfielder or corner infielder is unfair."
To give the writer credit, he concludes with comparing Kents stats to other 2b, and comes to the same conclusion that most people will have, he's a hall of famer. He however states that "His remarkably consistent excellence is his best argument for admittance to the Hall of Fame, not the fact that he played second base."
I simply wholeheartedly disagree. When Evaluating the Hall of Fame context is everything. The league that you play in, the era that you play in, and let's not forget the position that you play. Some positions are more demanding than others. You can't play 2b if you are 6'7' 250 pounds, you just can't. So the fact that Kent put up numbers that are great regardless of position, just further illustrateshow great of a player he was when you consider he played 2b.
Much has been said around the net about Fangraphs Value wins, and you know what they use in getting those values? Positional adjustments. That's to say that players that play tougher positions are worth more to their team. Even if the "pro-verbial no-hit all field middle infielder" is dead does not mean you shouldn't get bonus for your position. There is a reason David Ortiz didn't win an MVP, he didn't field and therefore didn't bring as much to the table that Arod did. That's no different than comparing a catcher to a corner outfielder, all else being equal (and it definitely doesn't have to be but just saying for now) the catcher brings more to the table than the outfielder. 1b is an easy position to replace, most people can play it and there are plenty of capable ones available. Middle infield is not.
"That Kent or any other middle infielder gets bonus points for not being an outfielder or corner infielder is unfair."
It's not that Kent gets bonus points for not being an outfielder, it's that he gets bonus points for being a 2b. There is a reason he played 2b in his 40s (wouldn't that prove that he was a fine defender?). You can't just assume players can be equally productive at all positions. Just because the game has evolved to where a few great athletes can hit and play demanding positions (Arod, Ripken, Sandberg, etc...) does not mean we should now consider every position equal. Hanley's offensive production at SS makes him one of the most valuable commodities in the entire game, it doesn't place the short stop position on the same line as an outfielder.
There is not much more I can say on this topic. Jeff Kent was a great hitter, and he did it at 2b and that's why he's a Hall of Famer. There are an infinite amount of hitters who if they played catcher would be first ballot Hall of Famers, but there is a reason that they didn't, they simply can't. So to not give Kent or anyone that plays a more demanding position his due credit is simply wrong, plain and simple.
Shea It Aint So!
Keith Law's Top 100 Prospects
ESPN posted Keith Law's top 100 prospects, and it's definitely worth a glance. It looks like the Mark Teixeira at catcher synopsis for Matt Wieters is pretty legit, having heard that in other places and now by Law. Only a few years ago it looked like Brian Sabean was on his way to being fired with virtually no big prospects in the wings, and a team with literally 5 guys 35+ years of age. Now Lincecum has become a top 5 pitcher, and they have 2 top 10 prospects in Law's rankings, pitcher Madison Bumgarner and catcher Buster Posey. Nice job turning that team around that with some luck can win the NL West at no expense to their future. As you've been hearing all along, the Rangers boast by far the best farm system in the league, Law's list does nothing but reinforce that.
I also just want to say that I love when this stuff comes out and that I'm looking forward to more prospect overviews, season previews, fantasy previews, and more to hold us over as we inch closer to Opening Day.
I also just want to say that I love when this stuff comes out and that I'm looking forward to more prospect overviews, season previews, fantasy previews, and more to hold us over as we inch closer to Opening Day.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Jeff Kent Retires
Jeff Kent retired today. He finishes with a .290/.356/.500 line, a career 123 ops+ with 2461 hits, 377 homers, and 1518 RBI. He has the most homers ever by a 2b Impressive resume if you ask me. With Robbie Alomar and Jeff Kent the 90s saw a great trio of 2b, all among the top 2b that has ever played the game, and Kent including the other two belong in the Hall of Fame. It'll be interesting to see exactly where Kent ranks among the top 2b off all time, with Alomar and Biggio. Are they all top 10? I think Kent and Biggio are up on Alomar but among those which would I take? I'm not sure, Biggio got on base more, stole a ton more bases and was a gold glover. Kent had more power and aged a little more gracefully still slugging .500 into his 30s. Forced to choose I think I'd take Biggio. That's no knock on Kent, Biggio is a shoein Hall of Famer especially with the auto vote in of 3,000 hits, but Kent should be in not too long after him.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Ryan the Ripoff Howard
Ryan Howard asked for $18m in arbitration today. It's the third highest requested amount after Clemens $22m in 2005, and Jeter's $18.5 in 2001. Jeter however signed a long term contract and Clemens only ended up receiving $12.5m since his was prorated as he didn't play a full season.
Fangraphs says that Howard was worth $14.1m last year, $17.1 in 2007, and $25.7 in his 2006 MVP year, if you want to still give him credit for that award. Howard is a 29 year old bad glove 1b who has seen virtually all of his important stats decrease the last 3 years, obviously not a good trend. His wOBA has fallen from a superb .436 in 2006 to a solid .366 this year. That's still a good number, and I would never call Howard a bad hitter, but he plays 1b not 2b, and his .366 wOBA placed him 12th among 1b in the majors. Howard should be paid based off that, not off his 146 RBI, which although are impressive, don't nearly tell the story about his hitting. Justin Morneau gets MVP votes because he hits behind Joe Mauer, Ryan Howard is trying to be paid as a top 1b because he hits behind Rollins, Victorino, and Utley.
The Phillies could probably afford to keep Howard year to year, probably overpaying by a couple million. However, Howard is a product of batting in the lineup, many other 1b are capable of his production. If a deal comes around, although the fans would hate it citing his gawdy RBI numbers, it could make a lot of sense.
Fangraphs says that Howard was worth $14.1m last year, $17.1 in 2007, and $25.7 in his 2006 MVP year, if you want to still give him credit for that award. Howard is a 29 year old bad glove 1b who has seen virtually all of his important stats decrease the last 3 years, obviously not a good trend. His wOBA has fallen from a superb .436 in 2006 to a solid .366 this year. That's still a good number, and I would never call Howard a bad hitter, but he plays 1b not 2b, and his .366 wOBA placed him 12th among 1b in the majors. Howard should be paid based off that, not off his 146 RBI, which although are impressive, don't nearly tell the story about his hitting. Justin Morneau gets MVP votes because he hits behind Joe Mauer, Ryan Howard is trying to be paid as a top 1b because he hits behind Rollins, Victorino, and Utley.
The Phillies could probably afford to keep Howard year to year, probably overpaying by a couple million. However, Howard is a product of batting in the lineup, many other 1b are capable of his production. If a deal comes around, although the fans would hate it citing his gawdy RBI numbers, it could make a lot of sense.
Unrelated Football Crap
My bias is clearly towards baseball, but here is some football stuff in the spirit of the Super Bowl
- Here's a Yahoo article talking about how Edgerrin James' gamble on going to the Cardinals has paid off. It's all fine and dandy except that NFL playoffs lend themselves to luck, and you'd be hard pressed into telling me James has benefitted from being in Arizona, averaging basically 1 ypc worse than on the Colts, whatever you want to say he went to the money and the Colts knew they could easily replace their system running back which they did on their way to a Super Bowl. A couple weeks ago Edge is asking for his release as Arizona starts slipping and now suddenly he's so glad he went to Arizona because he knew he could take them to the next step?
- Kurt Warner was replaced by Eli Manning as the starting QB for the Giants in 2004. Since then and including that year Warner's worst QB rating was 85.8, Eli's best was this year at 86.4. Warner's worst completion percentage was 62.3%, Eli's best was 60.5% this year. Warner's worst yards per pass was 7.2, Eli's best was 6.8 this year. I guess it takes 5 years for Eli to equal a 35+ year old Warner. True Warner's fumbles killed the Giants (12 in just 10 games) but I think you can live with that when considering it's a somewhat flukey number, and he's proven to be the far better passer. For all the talk about how balanced the Giants are, how great their line is, how great their running game is, it seems as though their team revolves around a guy who literally shoots himself in the leg.
- There is such a small sample size in any playoff format, let alone football, that people overreact to the results. So it's nice to see that McNabb will be back. Instead of concentrating how he's done poorly in NFC championship games, maybe concentrate how he's taken underdog teams to that game.
- I'd be lying if I told you I read everyone's playoff predictions but I'm pretty sure they're all wrong, so I wouldn't listen to what they have to say. With that said, the Steelers will win convincingly.
Congrats
John Roberts can try all he wants, Barack Hussein Obama is officially our President, congratulations. I think the best part of this is that we don't have to hear or speak of President-elect anymore, saving ourselves countless gasps of air. Let's hope the next 4 years are as good as the last 4!!!!!
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Pitching With Peterson
Although jobless, Rick Peterson still likes to talk pitching. Former Mets pitching coach, Rick Peterson will be working with fullcountpitch.com twice a month talking about pitching. Yesterday was the first "Pitching Perspectives with Rick Peterson" where they talked about 4 areas of pitching. The most interesting thing to me was the "myth of 'getting ahead"
I never realized, or never knew that the batting average against a pitcher with a 0-0 count was the same as 1-0. It's not necessarily about getting that first pitch over as you hear every time on tv anytime a pitcher does it. Although to get to 0-2 where the BAA is below .200 you must start out 0-1, "the important aspect is how a pitcher gets ahead. 'You want to pitch to the bottom of the strike zone. The batting average of all balls put in play on a pitch at the bottom of the strike zone is .220. If you do fall behind, make sure it is at the bottom of the strike zone.' "
You also always hear announcers and analysts talk about keeping the ball down, and how a pitcher is tiring or just ineffective when pitching up in the zone, so I guess not everyone on tv or radio is always wrong. So is a pitch that hits the catchers spot but is called a ball a better pitch than a fastball up that's called a strike? If it's a swing and a miss most likely caused by a dominant fastball then maybe not, but otherwise I'd say yes. Keeping the ball low at 1-0, isn't any worse off than starting from scratch, and it generally would mean you're in control of what you're doing.
"One cannot listen to a game without hearing the announcer discuss the importance
of getting ahead in the count. While a pitcher should not make a habit of
falling behind, Coach Peterson points to some startling statistics. “Sure, you
want a pitcher to get ahead, but there is more to it than that. You know what
the batting average against is when the there is a new count (0-0)? .339. At 0
and 1, the batting average is .315. Take a guess at what it is if the pitcher
falls behind 1 and 0. It’s .339. You are statistically no worse off if you fall
behind on the first pitch. It’s really about location.” "
I never realized, or never knew that the batting average against a pitcher with a 0-0 count was the same as 1-0. It's not necessarily about getting that first pitch over as you hear every time on tv anytime a pitcher does it. Although to get to 0-2 where the BAA is below .200 you must start out 0-1, "the important aspect is how a pitcher gets ahead. 'You want to pitch to the bottom of the strike zone. The batting average of all balls put in play on a pitch at the bottom of the strike zone is .220. If you do fall behind, make sure it is at the bottom of the strike zone.' "
You also always hear announcers and analysts talk about keeping the ball down, and how a pitcher is tiring or just ineffective when pitching up in the zone, so I guess not everyone on tv or radio is always wrong. So is a pitch that hits the catchers spot but is called a ball a better pitch than a fastball up that's called a strike? If it's a swing and a miss most likely caused by a dominant fastball then maybe not, but otherwise I'd say yes. Keeping the ball low at 1-0, isn't any worse off than starting from scratch, and it generally would mean you're in control of what you're doing.
Pardon Me Roger
Clemens and his lawyers must be feeling the heat they are seriously entertaining the idea of trying to get a pardon from President Bush. As Buster Olney writes here, he gives the reasons why and why not Bush would pardon Clemens (if he's charged with perjury), one reason why he shouldn't:
Hard to argue there, but I wonder why this is even an idea. What good came come out of pardoning Clemens? I wouldn't be surprised if there are tons of people out there who can forgive the man for relying on faulty 'intelligence' but not for pardoning Clemens. Do any of you remember his 2004 State of the Union Address?
I couldn't not put the applause in there, too funny. But seriously, can he really address PEDs in his speeches and then pardon Clemens? Can he really pardon someone from lying under oath after his party impeached Clinton for the same reason? It wouldn't be the first case of hypocracy, but to give Bush some credit, I don't think it's going to happen or that it's even being seriously considered.
"If he pardons Clemens, there will be nothing quiet about it; it will be a
headline grabber that would only be overshadowed in the event the president
issued a pre-emptive pardon on behalf of Vice President Dick Cheney. The president has done a number of interviews in recent weeks, answering questions related to what his legacy would be -- and a pardon of Clemens, as he exits, would generate an enormous public-relations backlash as he heads out the door. "
Hard to argue there, but I wonder why this is even an idea. What good came come out of pardoning Clemens? I wouldn't be surprised if there are tons of people out there who can forgive the man for relying on faulty 'intelligence' but not for pardoning Clemens. Do any of you remember his 2004 State of the Union Address?
"The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football, and
other sports is dangerous, and it sends the wrong message -- that there are
shortcuts to accomplishment, and that performance is more important than
character. So tonight I call on team owners, union representatives, coaches, and
players to take the lead, to send the right signal, to get tough, and to get rid
of steroids now. (Applause.)"
I couldn't not put the applause in there, too funny. But seriously, can he really address PEDs in his speeches and then pardon Clemens? Can he really pardon someone from lying under oath after his party impeached Clinton for the same reason? It wouldn't be the first case of hypocracy, but to give Bush some credit, I don't think it's going to happen or that it's even being seriously considered.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Hot Stoves
The hot stove season is often a bad name for this time of year. Yea, when the Yankees are wheelin and dealin the stove sure seems hot, but with money tight and teams waiting it out it gets pretty lame. With that said, I've been enjoying these Yahoo! sports Hot Stove Dailies where they examine each teams offseason so far up until spring training (which is kind of around the corner, sssssiiiicckkkk!).
Recently I came across this one on the Cincinnati Reds. Pretty good stuff as usual, although I had a few problems. In talking about newly acquired CF Willy Taveras writer Steve Henson states:
An average on-base percentage is roughly .330, so .320 would seem subpar, an OBP of .308 (like the one Taveras had last year) is just downright awful. To give Taveras some credit he did have a .367 OBP in 2007, and in 2006 was worth $8.2m, but nothing he has done the last 2 years merited a multi year deal, let alone one worth upwards of $7m. Splitting the difference between his last two years makes Taveras a 50 sb threat that gets on-base at a league average clip but does so with literally no power. Next year CHONE projects Taveras to have a wOBA of .311 (wOBA is nicely explained here and here but for a really short horribly explained version... it's weighted on-base percentage and it's scaled to look like league average on-base percentage. It uses linear weights to properly assign value to all the positive outcomes a hitter can produce. Slugging treats a single as 1 and a homer as 4, which isn't fair since a homer isn't worth that much more than a single, so using OPS isn't so hot then. I'm not good with math and don't fully understand all of it, but just know it's a number that you look at and judge based on OBP but instead of just OBP in involves all hitting) Anways, the point of all that was to show that Taveras projects at about a .310 wOBA where wOBA "scales the result similarly to OBP, where .330 is about average, .370+ is great, and below .310 or so stinks", Taveras basically stinks.
Recently I came across this one on the Cincinnati Reds. Pretty good stuff as usual, although I had a few problems. In talking about newly acquired CF Willy Taveras writer Steve Henson states:
"The new center fielder and leadoff hitter is Willy Taveras, nontendered by the Rockies and a bargain for Jocketty at $2.25 million in 2009 and $4 million in 2010. Tavares, who made $1.95 million in 2008, would have been in line for at least $3 million through arbitration after leading the majors with 68 stolen bases. His on-base percentage was a subpar .308, but it was .367 in 2007 – maybe he’ll split the difference in ’09."Getting Willy Taveras isn't necessarily a bad move, and even if he's no better than last year, he's still better than Corey Patterson (.205/.238./344), but calling him a bargain is just ludicrous. According to FanGraphs' Win Values in dollar amounts, Taveras was worth $1.6m in 2007 and -$2.3m last year. So the past 2 years Taveras has been worse than a replacement player anyteam can find in AAA, yet giving him a two year deal ($2.25m in 09/$4m in '10) is a bargain? A 1 year deal for a mill or two is worth a shot I guess to see if Taveras can get on base at a decent clip and reek havoc on the basepaths, but to give such a one dimentional risky player a 2 year deal is not a good move by Jocketty, and is the kind of deal that if repeated enough will get him fired again as a GM.
An average on-base percentage is roughly .330, so .320 would seem subpar, an OBP of .308 (like the one Taveras had last year) is just downright awful. To give Taveras some credit he did have a .367 OBP in 2007, and in 2006 was worth $8.2m, but nothing he has done the last 2 years merited a multi year deal, let alone one worth upwards of $7m. Splitting the difference between his last two years makes Taveras a 50 sb threat that gets on-base at a league average clip but does so with literally no power. Next year CHONE projects Taveras to have a wOBA of .311 (wOBA is nicely explained here and here but for a really short horribly explained version... it's weighted on-base percentage and it's scaled to look like league average on-base percentage. It uses linear weights to properly assign value to all the positive outcomes a hitter can produce. Slugging treats a single as 1 and a homer as 4, which isn't fair since a homer isn't worth that much more than a single, so using OPS isn't so hot then. I'm not good with math and don't fully understand all of it, but just know it's a number that you look at and judge based on OBP but instead of just OBP in involves all hitting) Anways, the point of all that was to show that Taveras projects at about a .310 wOBA where wOBA "scales the result similarly to OBP, where .330 is about average, .370+ is great, and below .310 or so stinks", Taveras basically stinks.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Future Hall of Famers
People are going a little crazy with the Hall of Fame, so no reason I shouldn't. On the always satisfying Page 2 on ESPN.com I cam across this article about 40 future hall of famers. The author, David Schoenfield, reports that based on history at any given time in the majors there are 40 active players that will be in the hall. He last made a list 3.5 years ago, and this is his updated one.
The number 40 seems a bit high. When you look at the list you see why it's certainly possible, To simplify it a little, there are about 15 automatic entries, the Griffeys, Glavines, and the Jeters. Then there are the 10 or so guys that should get in at some point, but probably not right away, and may need some dust to settle before they get in, these are the Mussinas, Chippers, Kents. The last 15 represent a mix of guys that are in their decline phase and it's not known if their resumes will be enough, and the young guys that can end their careers tomorrow, these are the Heltons, Sheffields, and Hanleys.
Randy Johnson very well could be the last 300 game winner if he gets in on the Giants next year. With that said, I think that means voters have to change their minds on what makes a hall of fame pitcher. If the voters are going to give respect to closers as they have with Gossage, Eck, and Sutter (although he's definitely arguably not worthy) with Mo and Hoffman as shoeins more or less, they have to realize how the game has changed and pitchers just don't get as many decisions as they did before. Jack Morris and Bert Blyleven are not in the hall with 287 and 254 wins respectively, but they pitched in a time where it was kind of reasonable to use 300 as a threshold.
Guys like Muissina, Schilling, and Smoltz won't be held to those standards (or shouldn't) and should get in at some point in time. That sets up the young pitchers of today. Roy Halladay could end up with an amazing pitching resume but still be way short of 300 wins, yet still be a viable candidate compared to his peers. No pitcher besides RJ can be projected near 300 wins. CC Sabathia is only 28 and has 117 wins, but at this pace he'll need to play for 13 more years when he's 41 to get to 300.
Anyways, I really liked the idea of the list, and the list itself. I'm starting to come around to the idea of 40 players because even though anything can happen to Joe Mauer next year, any number of unlikely players can have their careers take off, and seriously who am I to doubt this guys historical work. Although I talk a little about the Hall of Fame and who I think should or shouldn't get in, I prefer predicting who can get in waaaay before they have the resume to do so, with players that I grew up watching, not Jim Rice.
The number 40 seems a bit high. When you look at the list you see why it's certainly possible, To simplify it a little, there are about 15 automatic entries, the Griffeys, Glavines, and the Jeters. Then there are the 10 or so guys that should get in at some point, but probably not right away, and may need some dust to settle before they get in, these are the Mussinas, Chippers, Kents. The last 15 represent a mix of guys that are in their decline phase and it's not known if their resumes will be enough, and the young guys that can end their careers tomorrow, these are the Heltons, Sheffields, and Hanleys.
Randy Johnson very well could be the last 300 game winner if he gets in on the Giants next year. With that said, I think that means voters have to change their minds on what makes a hall of fame pitcher. If the voters are going to give respect to closers as they have with Gossage, Eck, and Sutter (although he's definitely arguably not worthy) with Mo and Hoffman as shoeins more or less, they have to realize how the game has changed and pitchers just don't get as many decisions as they did before. Jack Morris and Bert Blyleven are not in the hall with 287 and 254 wins respectively, but they pitched in a time where it was kind of reasonable to use 300 as a threshold.
Guys like Muissina, Schilling, and Smoltz won't be held to those standards (or shouldn't) and should get in at some point in time. That sets up the young pitchers of today. Roy Halladay could end up with an amazing pitching resume but still be way short of 300 wins, yet still be a viable candidate compared to his peers. No pitcher besides RJ can be projected near 300 wins. CC Sabathia is only 28 and has 117 wins, but at this pace he'll need to play for 13 more years when he's 41 to get to 300.
Anyways, I really liked the idea of the list, and the list itself. I'm starting to come around to the idea of 40 players because even though anything can happen to Joe Mauer next year, any number of unlikely players can have their careers take off, and seriously who am I to doubt this guys historical work. Although I talk a little about the Hall of Fame and who I think should or shouldn't get in, I prefer predicting who can get in waaaay before they have the resume to do so, with players that I grew up watching, not Jim Rice.
Lowe To Braves
The Braves signed Derek Lowe for $60m over 4 years. The Mets were offering 3 years $36m, and you wonder if they really thought that was a legitimate offer considering the Braves gave more years and more per year. The Braves came into the offseason with a laughable rotation, but come out with Lowe, Vazquez, Jurrjens, Campillo, and also newly acquired Kenshin Kawakami, with Hudson joining the team later in the year recovering from injury. Pretty darn solid rotation giving teams some different looks, although their lineup rests entirely on Chippers ability to defy age and stay healthy.
The Braves were the staple franchise in baseball for a while and they're struggling to get back to the playoffs, but this is a good start. It won't be easy in the NL East which although doesn't hold a candle to the AL East, is pretty darn good. After going to college in the midwest, you fully realize the east coast bias in sports, believe me it's probably worth complaining about if you're from there. Unfortunately for them it doesn't look like it's going to get better especially in baseball where the Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, Bluejays are top teams in the AL and the Mets, Phillies, Marlins, Braves can be considered top teams in the NL.
The Braves were the staple franchise in baseball for a while and they're struggling to get back to the playoffs, but this is a good start. It won't be easy in the NL East which although doesn't hold a candle to the AL East, is pretty darn good. After going to college in the midwest, you fully realize the east coast bias in sports, believe me it's probably worth complaining about if you're from there. Unfortunately for them it doesn't look like it's going to get better especially in baseball where the Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, Bluejays are top teams in the AL and the Mets, Phillies, Marlins, Braves can be considered top teams in the NL.
SS or 3B?
I'm a little late to the game with this one, but here is a little overview of the Michael Young situation.
The Rangers have an excellent farm system, and one product of that is Elvis Andrus, who the Rangers want to play SS next year and move 'gold' glover Michael Young to 3B. Mr. Young to no real huge surprise was not too fond of the news and has said he'd like to be traded. Stupidly the Rangers gave him a 5 year $80m extension, and still owe him $62m over those years. So at this point a trade seems unlikely. Young is a 32 year old SS who, although has won gold gloves as recently as this year, is by all accounts a below average SS and is due a ton of money. Moving him to 3b would make the Rangers happy and would make him a better fielder at an easier position for him as he ages. It seems like a win win but it must seem like a downgrade to Young, although he'll be getting paid the same for doing an easier job.
People compare Young to Derek Jeter, stating that if Young played in NY he'd get a lot more praise than he does now in Texas somehow making him underrated. However, if he played in NY he'd get too much praise, have more people talk bad about his defense and basically be overrated. Jeter is comparable though as another solid hitting SS that shouldn't play SS based on his fielding, even though he has have been given awards for it. Michael Young has made some loud noise about changing positions way down in Texas and I wonder what it would be like in NY if the Yanks asked Jeter to move to LF. Soriano complained in Washington and cashed in a huge contract from the Cubs the next year. I imagine Young will cool down and play 3b on an exciting young team.
If that happens and teams go 2-2 in smooth major position changes that started with outbursts, will the Yankees move Jeter? He'll be 35 next season (wow that's insane) playing a position that he shouldn't have been for the last few years while being overpaid facing the end of his contract. It seems crazy to see Varitek in another uniform, I can't imagine seeing Jeter in one. The Yankees kind of have to keep him in some capacity or position on the field if you count the money he brings with merchandise. Can they afford to give him an extension while playing him at SS? I don't think so. At some point the Yankees and Jeter have to talk about his future and value to the team, and even if it means a position change and a bumpy road to start, it's a road definitely worth traveling.
The Rangers have an excellent farm system, and one product of that is Elvis Andrus, who the Rangers want to play SS next year and move 'gold' glover Michael Young to 3B. Mr. Young to no real huge surprise was not too fond of the news and has said he'd like to be traded. Stupidly the Rangers gave him a 5 year $80m extension, and still owe him $62m over those years. So at this point a trade seems unlikely. Young is a 32 year old SS who, although has won gold gloves as recently as this year, is by all accounts a below average SS and is due a ton of money. Moving him to 3b would make the Rangers happy and would make him a better fielder at an easier position for him as he ages. It seems like a win win but it must seem like a downgrade to Young, although he'll be getting paid the same for doing an easier job.
People compare Young to Derek Jeter, stating that if Young played in NY he'd get a lot more praise than he does now in Texas somehow making him underrated. However, if he played in NY he'd get too much praise, have more people talk bad about his defense and basically be overrated. Jeter is comparable though as another solid hitting SS that shouldn't play SS based on his fielding, even though he has have been given awards for it. Michael Young has made some loud noise about changing positions way down in Texas and I wonder what it would be like in NY if the Yanks asked Jeter to move to LF. Soriano complained in Washington and cashed in a huge contract from the Cubs the next year. I imagine Young will cool down and play 3b on an exciting young team.
If that happens and teams go 2-2 in smooth major position changes that started with outbursts, will the Yankees move Jeter? He'll be 35 next season (wow that's insane) playing a position that he shouldn't have been for the last few years while being overpaid facing the end of his contract. It seems crazy to see Varitek in another uniform, I can't imagine seeing Jeter in one. The Yankees kind of have to keep him in some capacity or position on the field if you count the money he brings with merchandise. Can they afford to give him an extension while playing him at SS? I don't think so. At some point the Yankees and Jeter have to talk about his future and value to the team, and even if it means a position change and a bumpy road to start, it's a road definitely worth traveling.
Hall Of Fame
So Jim Rice and Ricky Henderson are now in the Hall of Fame. Everyone agrees that Ricky deserves no question there. Everyone who writes via blog seems to think Rice doesn't deserve, and everyone who writes via published sources seems to think Rice does deserve. I'm not sure what to think of that other than, I'm a blog and I don't think Rice deserves, so I'm not really going against the curve there.
It was wishful thinking but I would have liked to have seen Rock Raines get in, or at least get more than the 22.6% that he got. In Rice's first year of eligibility in 1995 he got 29.8%, and his last year in 2009 he got 76.4%. That's a steady rise that maybe Raines can expect. Except for the fact that Raines got 24.3% last year, so this decline, albeit pretty small, obviously isn't a good sign.
I'd like to think that as we inch further away from the steroid years of approximately 1986-2005, that we'll start to appreciate the non possibly juiced home run players more, players like Raines or Trammel. So far that's not the case. How is it that some of these writers shy away from advanced and not so advanced stats like OBP, yet don't care about old school measures like stealing bases and defense? I guess even those are too annoying so they just go straight to RBI and vote for Rice, who has 12 more than Luis Gonzalez.
It comes down to a simple number for me, Rice has a career OPS+ of 128, Raines 123. Rice was a middle of the order hitter who writers like to say injected fear into the pitcher, Raines was on of the best leadoff hitters ever, yet their hitting output is vitrually the same.
It was wishful thinking but I would have liked to have seen Rock Raines get in, or at least get more than the 22.6% that he got. In Rice's first year of eligibility in 1995 he got 29.8%, and his last year in 2009 he got 76.4%. That's a steady rise that maybe Raines can expect. Except for the fact that Raines got 24.3% last year, so this decline, albeit pretty small, obviously isn't a good sign.
I'd like to think that as we inch further away from the steroid years of approximately 1986-2005, that we'll start to appreciate the non possibly juiced home run players more, players like Raines or Trammel. So far that's not the case. How is it that some of these writers shy away from advanced and not so advanced stats like OBP, yet don't care about old school measures like stealing bases and defense? I guess even those are too annoying so they just go straight to RBI and vote for Rice, who has 12 more than Luis Gonzalez.
It comes down to a simple number for me, Rice has a career OPS+ of 128, Raines 123. Rice was a middle of the order hitter who writers like to say injected fear into the pitcher, Raines was on of the best leadoff hitters ever, yet their hitting output is vitrually the same.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Baseball Not Paying 'Attention' to ADD?
ESPN had an article up today stating that:
Baseball has/had a steroid problem, and I suspect that other sports, most notably football, have an as bad if not much worse drug problem. Now that baseball thankfully upped the testing policy, it shouldn't be a surprise that players will try other means. The article goes on to state that between 3-5 percent of children have ADHD. It is possible then to have almost 8 percent of baseball players to have ADHD? Is there something about baseball that allows people with ADHD to excel? That's highly unlikely.
It's not hard to be prescribed ADD medication. From personal experience, I feel I was diagnosed with it just so the doctor could feel they did something. They looked at my tests and basically said "well I'm not sure I'd call it ADD, but looking at his grades I'd say he has it." It was the weakest diagnosed disorder I think I'll ever witness.
The point is you could probably twist anyone into having ADD. I don't mean to say it's not a legitimate disorder and maybe I'm insulting some doctors here, but who has never showed an instance of not being able to pay attention? The steroid problem clearly showed players will do ll they can, especially medication wise, to get better. If ADD medication helps their performance they will try to get prescribed, and from my experience it doesn't seem difficult to get that prescription. So no, there's no way that by coincidence baseball players have ADD more at a way higher percentage than the normal population. I don't know if it's a major problem or just a loophole that if closed off will start another one.
"Baseball authorized nearly 8 percent of its players to use drugs for ADHD
last season, which allowed them to take otherwise banned stimulants.
A total of 106 exemptions for banned drugs were given to major leaguers
claiming attention deficit hyperactivity disorder from the end of the 2007
season until the end of the 2008 season, according to a report released Friday
by the sport's independent drug-testing administrator.
That's up from 103 therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) for ADHD in 2007,
according to figures cited by baseball officials before a congressional
committee last year.
"This is incredible. This is quite spectacular. There seems to be an
epidemic of ADD in major league baseball," said Dr. Gary Wadler, chairman of the
committee that determines the banned-substances list for the World Anti-Doping
Agency."
Baseball has/had a steroid problem, and I suspect that other sports, most notably football, have an as bad if not much worse drug problem. Now that baseball thankfully upped the testing policy, it shouldn't be a surprise that players will try other means. The article goes on to state that between 3-5 percent of children have ADHD. It is possible then to have almost 8 percent of baseball players to have ADHD? Is there something about baseball that allows people with ADHD to excel? That's highly unlikely.
It's not hard to be prescribed ADD medication. From personal experience, I feel I was diagnosed with it just so the doctor could feel they did something. They looked at my tests and basically said "well I'm not sure I'd call it ADD, but looking at his grades I'd say he has it." It was the weakest diagnosed disorder I think I'll ever witness.
The point is you could probably twist anyone into having ADD. I don't mean to say it's not a legitimate disorder and maybe I'm insulting some doctors here, but who has never showed an instance of not being able to pay attention? The steroid problem clearly showed players will do ll they can, especially medication wise, to get better. If ADD medication helps their performance they will try to get prescribed, and from my experience it doesn't seem difficult to get that prescription. So no, there's no way that by coincidence baseball players have ADD more at a way higher percentage than the normal population. I don't know if it's a major problem or just a loophole that if closed off will start another one.
Royals, Ew
I saw that the Royals signed Willie Bloomquist for 2 years $3m and I was going to say something about it here. Then I checked around the net and saw everyone else comment about it, and figured I couldn't do a better job than this guy and this guy.
Bottom line, unless you count Gil Meche a success (pitching reasonably well on a team that won't compete until he's either bad or not under contract) the Royals haven't made a good signing in too long a time.
Bottom line, unless you count Gil Meche a success (pitching reasonably well on a team that won't compete until he's either bad or not under contract) the Royals haven't made a good signing in too long a time.
Saito to Sox
For a guaranteed $1.5m and $2.5m the Red Sox signed reliever Takashi Satio, formerly the Dodgers closer. This is just another addition on a pretty long list by the Red Sox this offseason who have already added Baldelli, Smoltz, Penny, and Ramon Ramirez. In 2003/2004 the Red Sox made a bunch of under the radar moves at the time that helped them win the World Series. They brought in Kevin Millar to play 1b and make dents off the Green Monster, picked up Big Papi for nothing, signed Bill Mueller, traded for Orlando Cabrera, signed Gabe Kapler. In addition to that they signed Keith Foulke and traded for Curt Schilling.
Is 2009 going to have the same results as 2004? It's hard to say, but as the Yankees keep throwing bagillions of money to huge stars, the Red Sox keep scavenging for under the radar talent, or just good deals. They have a great young core, mixed with vets, and now they are doing a great job sprinkling some bargains to fill out the roster. The Yankees said they wanted to get younger and more versatile, and it looked like they were going down that road when they traded for Swisher. Then they just signed the top 3 free agents, which doesn't mean they won't win, but it wasn't necessarily the plan before. The Red Sox on the other hand have built a remarkably well rounded roster with literally no weaknesses.
Getting these guys may not seem like difference makers, but like I said they didn't seem like that in 2004. Saito and Ramirez aren't Sabathia and Burnett but if they pan out the Sox could have the game over by the 5th inning handing it to Ramirez, Saito, Okajima, Papelbon. They also added such pitching depth that combined with their farm system puts them in a position to trade for really whatever they want, like a Curt Schilling via 2009 or maybe as previously mentioned a Hanley.
Is 2009 going to have the same results as 2004? It's hard to say, but as the Yankees keep throwing bagillions of money to huge stars, the Red Sox keep scavenging for under the radar talent, or just good deals. They have a great young core, mixed with vets, and now they are doing a great job sprinkling some bargains to fill out the roster. The Yankees said they wanted to get younger and more versatile, and it looked like they were going down that road when they traded for Swisher. Then they just signed the top 3 free agents, which doesn't mean they won't win, but it wasn't necessarily the plan before. The Red Sox on the other hand have built a remarkably well rounded roster with literally no weaknesses.
Getting these guys may not seem like difference makers, but like I said they didn't seem like that in 2004. Saito and Ramirez aren't Sabathia and Burnett but if they pan out the Sox could have the game over by the 5th inning handing it to Ramirez, Saito, Okajima, Papelbon. They also added such pitching depth that combined with their farm system puts them in a position to trade for really whatever they want, like a Curt Schilling via 2009 or maybe as previously mentioned a Hanley.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Yanks Cut Melky, Add Ed Reed!
Only kidding. But here is an interesting story about Ed Reed. Apparently he thinks he could play baseball, give a team some good defense, base running, and pinch hitting. I'm sure right now it's all just some chatter, nothing too serious. However, after watching a little of Ed Reed the past few games it's hard to argue against the fact that he could help out a team, maybe. Often times in football they describe the safeties as playing center field, just picking off errant passes (not even errant in Reed's case), and nobody does that better than Ed Reed.
You don't necessarily have to be the best athlete in the world to excel at baseball, but if all the best athletes played baseball we'd have some remarkable players that we wouldn't know about I bet. It's no secret that the MLB has virtually no black players in the league. They choose to play other sports, and that's not necessarily a terrible thing, but baseball could do more to show its sport off to millions of kids who choose basketball or football. Some strides have been made with clinics being introduced in inner cities, but most the effort is centered on latin players. Everyone knows about the issue so let's hope in the future more kids realize the awesomeness that is baseball, because let's face it they'd be great players. If Ed Reed studies film to make insane jumps on passes no QB thought he'd be around, who's to say he wouldn't study hitters tendencies and make remarkable jumps on the ball in center field? Hand-eye coordination is a crucial part of any sport, but it's pretty damn vital in baseball. It's no given that an amazing athlete will be able to pick up a bat and rake. But thoughts of LeBron ripping homers and throwing darts in the outfield, or Michael Vick skipping football to try his hand somewhere on the diamond are pretty intriguing.
With that said, there are baseball players who could have played football. Todd Helton QB'd at Tennessee before Peyton, Joe Mauer passed up a scholarship to play at FSU, Adam Dunn could have played at Texas, and we all know Kyle Farnsworth is the best tackler on the planet. So maybe it does go both ways, but I'd definitely like to see Mr Reed try his hand in center, he can't be worse than Melky last year, right?
You don't necessarily have to be the best athlete in the world to excel at baseball, but if all the best athletes played baseball we'd have some remarkable players that we wouldn't know about I bet. It's no secret that the MLB has virtually no black players in the league. They choose to play other sports, and that's not necessarily a terrible thing, but baseball could do more to show its sport off to millions of kids who choose basketball or football. Some strides have been made with clinics being introduced in inner cities, but most the effort is centered on latin players. Everyone knows about the issue so let's hope in the future more kids realize the awesomeness that is baseball, because let's face it they'd be great players. If Ed Reed studies film to make insane jumps on passes no QB thought he'd be around, who's to say he wouldn't study hitters tendencies and make remarkable jumps on the ball in center field? Hand-eye coordination is a crucial part of any sport, but it's pretty damn vital in baseball. It's no given that an amazing athlete will be able to pick up a bat and rake. But thoughts of LeBron ripping homers and throwing darts in the outfield, or Michael Vick skipping football to try his hand somewhere on the diamond are pretty intriguing.
With that said, there are baseball players who could have played football. Todd Helton QB'd at Tennessee before Peyton, Joe Mauer passed up a scholarship to play at FSU, Adam Dunn could have played at Texas, and we all know Kyle Farnsworth is the best tackler on the planet. So maybe it does go both ways, but I'd definitely like to see Mr Reed try his hand in center, he can't be worse than Melky last year, right?
Top Prospects
This is a little old but I just came across it. BaseballAmerica.com does weekly Q & A with Jim Callis, and here is one from December 22. Beyond seeing how the draft works out (Nationals with 2 top 10 picks?) I was interested in the top 10 prospects in the AL:
1. David Price, lhp, Rays
What he showed us in the postseason was just the beginning.
2. Matt Wieters, c, Orioles
He could be Mark Teixeira—as a catcher.
3. Brett Anderson, lhp, Athletics
The best player Oakland got in the package for Dan Haren.
4. Trevor Cahill, rhp, Athletics
It will be fun to watch his friendly rivalry with Anderson.
5. Neftali Feliz, rhp, Rangers
Just one reason the Braves wish they could undo their Teixeira trade.
6. Tim Beckham, ss, Rays
Yet another multitalented star-in-the-making for Tampa Bay.
7. Eric Hosmer, 1b, Royals
He could be the best of all the special hitters K.C. has drafted recently.
8. Lars Anderson, 1b, Red Sox
Even if Boston signs Teixeira, it will find room for Anderson in 2010.
9. Travis Snider, of, Blue Jays
Of these 10 guys, he might make the biggest 2009 impact in the majors.
10. Mike Moustakas, 3b, Royals
In a few years, he and Hosmer could combine for 70 homers annually.
The Rays won the AL East last year and now they're adding the undoubtedly top prospect in the AL and have another top 10 coming. A lot of teams complain or wish that their team would rebuild, pointing to the Rays as examples, but it's not that easy. The Royals have still dazzled us with some questionable moves like Jose Guillen, and Farnsworth, but with 2 top 10 positional prospects the Royals have somewhat of a future. The Rangers only have one guy on this list, but most say they have the best farm system in baseball, especially according to this guy. The Red Sox commitment to the youth is evident with Pedroia and Youklis, Lars ain't too far behind either of them. Everything Billy Beane does seems to be for a reason, and rebuilding the last 2 years gained him a good amount of prospects, including Brett Anderson from the D-Backs. Lastly, the Orioles must be crying right now looking above at the top 3 teams in the major leagues, with the Blue Jays a more than capable team, but if Wieters really is Teixeira at catcher, then it shouldn't be long until the O's make some noise, albeit not much noise.
New Look Sox
So the Sox are looking to sign both John Smoltz and Rocco Baldelli. Smoltz is reported to be around $5.5m with incentives that can bump it up to $10m. Combine Baldelli and Smoltz with the recently signed Penny and the Sox have a lot of little risk high reward players.
The Sox haven't signed the big names that the Yankees have, but they came into the offseason with a better roster. On paper the Yankees are still better I'd argue, but if these 3 signings work out, and they all have the potential to do so, the Sox will clearly compete in the toughest division in baseball. The top of the Yankees rotation is unquestionably better, but they have zero depth. That was the Sox strength and they just added on to it. Beckett, Lester, Matsuzaka, Smoltz, Wakefield, Penny all should start with Masterson and Buchholtz being two younger guys that could/should be starting on most teams.
I don't like to speculate (just kidding I love it) but I'd bet this means some trade could be in the works. It's hard for me to see how the Marlins would trade Hanley Ramirez when they have a chance to literally go to the World Series, and I know there is no such thing as too much pitching, but who needs 8 starting pitchers with a few more waiting in the minors? A team that's looking to do a trade that's who. To get Hanley would cost a boat load of prospects, Ellsbury Buchholtz and probably more. That's where the Baldelli signing gets interesting if the Sox are high on him he could make Ellsbury expandable and Buchholtz is already expandable with their pitching depth, add in another minor leaguer or two and suddenly the Sox have one of the most dynamic players in baseball. The Sox make a big deal about looking towards the future, trading away prospects in this case isn't trading the future. Hanley Ramirez isn't trading for Manny Ramirez at the deadline, Hanley is a top 5 player in his prime. I'm not sure if those rumors are legit juicy or just talk, but it's pretty cool to think about.
The Sox haven't signed the big names that the Yankees have, but they came into the offseason with a better roster. On paper the Yankees are still better I'd argue, but if these 3 signings work out, and they all have the potential to do so, the Sox will clearly compete in the toughest division in baseball. The top of the Yankees rotation is unquestionably better, but they have zero depth. That was the Sox strength and they just added on to it. Beckett, Lester, Matsuzaka, Smoltz, Wakefield, Penny all should start with Masterson and Buchholtz being two younger guys that could/should be starting on most teams.
I don't like to speculate (just kidding I love it) but I'd bet this means some trade could be in the works. It's hard for me to see how the Marlins would trade Hanley Ramirez when they have a chance to literally go to the World Series, and I know there is no such thing as too much pitching, but who needs 8 starting pitchers with a few more waiting in the minors? A team that's looking to do a trade that's who. To get Hanley would cost a boat load of prospects, Ellsbury Buchholtz and probably more. That's where the Baldelli signing gets interesting if the Sox are high on him he could make Ellsbury expandable and Buchholtz is already expandable with their pitching depth, add in another minor leaguer or two and suddenly the Sox have one of the most dynamic players in baseball. The Sox make a big deal about looking towards the future, trading away prospects in this case isn't trading the future. Hanley Ramirez isn't trading for Manny Ramirez at the deadline, Hanley is a top 5 player in his prime. I'm not sure if those rumors are legit juicy or just talk, but it's pretty cool to think about.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Hot Stove Update
So while I was out, (I wasn't really out just didn't post) there was some pretty big news in baseball.
- Pat Burrell signed for 2 years $16m with the Rays. He will primarily play DH as his defense isn't up to snuff for the Rays. He provides the Rays a big bat, albeit extremely streaky, that they need. If Crawford is healthy, Upton and Longoria keep improving, and Pena keeps it up that's a pretty potent lineup with Burrell behind all them. Burrell made $14m last year and was worth $12.6m according to fangraphs. If he repeats his hitting performance, playing DH will help his value as he won't be giving away runs in the feild, he should be worth well over what he is getting paid. Things really couldn't fall in line better for the Rays. They needed a bat yet couldn't afford a big one, bada bing bada boom the market sucks and Burrell falls in their lap cheaper than Raul Ibanez, who woulda thunk it
- Jason Giambi is on his way to Oakland. Seems as though it is for one year between $4m- $4.5m with an option for $5.5m. All along people speculated as if this would happen, and it did so it's no surprise. The real surprise may come in September when Oakland is 3 games ahead of the struggling Angels for the division lead. Giambi has been overpaid about every year he has been on the Yankees since his first two, but for this money he'll be great for Oakland. Daric Barton once part of the amazing steal for Mark Mulder, now doesn't have a spot and may have a tough time shedding the bust label.
- The Mets offered Derek Lowe 3 years for $36m, and it was rejected. Lowe isn't like Manny he should have suitors from several teams and the Mets may have low balled him like they did to Vlad in 2003. They are also in talks with another Boras client Oliver Perez.
- Andy Pettitte rejected the Yankees $10m offer. Andy had a worse 2008 than he did 2007, but he's still an above average pitcher and durable innings eater. It won't kill the Yankees to give him say a $14m offer, still a small paycut from his $16m last year. If Pettitte does worse than he did last year (unlikely given his great FIP although with the Yankees defense it'll always be lower than the actual ERA, maybe why they wanted strikeout pitchers, definitely why they wanted strikeout pitchers) he'll still be better than what Kennedy or Hughes can give. The way the Yankees are set up I think I'd take 200 dece innings from Pettitte over a potential great 120 innings from Hughes, and Kennedy can just fuggedaboutit
- Manny is still hanging around, no closer to signing than he has been all year. The Giants are now interested, but how much is anyones guess as no offer has been made yet. I think the Giants should just get him for 2 years. They've made some nice plays so far this offseason with Affeldt, Renteria, and Johnson, adding Manny could give them a shot at the weakest division ever basically.
A New Bias?
Everyone here knows how baseball is the best sport by far bla bla bla, but I can't hold my tongue any longer about a new up and coming sport. It's called Lonrobski (to get involved with the origins of the name is slightly confusing, embarassing, and overall just not worth it). If you like games that involve extreme hand-eye coordination, power, speed, agility, dexterity and most importantly simplicity this is clearly the game for you. You know ping pong/table tennis? It's that but you play with a tennis ball and hold the racket in your opposite hand. Games are usually played as doubles and to eleven in a series, best of 3,5,7 depending on the time you have. You can serve the ball anywhere on the table, and there are no lets, if it goes over it counts even if it rolls and is impossible to return. Each player swaps serving, team one player one serves, then team two player two, then team one player two, then team two player two.
That's really it as far as rules, except for maybe one more. I don't want to get involved in some of the legal aspects that are involved, but being in different states of mind only enhances the game, and your skill level. Now, will this game take off and be an amazing sport? Most likely. Will it have advanced statistical metrics and organized leagues and teams with player movement? No, so for the purposes of this blog you don't have to worry about Lonrobski taking over as Ben's Lonrobski Bias (god that sounds awful), but I recommend you start playing ASAP.
That's really it as far as rules, except for maybe one more. I don't want to get involved in some of the legal aspects that are involved, but being in different states of mind only enhances the game, and your skill level. Now, will this game take off and be an amazing sport? Most likely. Will it have advanced statistical metrics and organized leagues and teams with player movement? No, so for the purposes of this blog you don't have to worry about Lonrobski taking over as Ben's Lonrobski Bias (god that sounds awful), but I recommend you start playing ASAP.
Scouting Profile #1 Keith Fier
This is my first, and it could be my last scouting profile of collegiate and high school baseball players. A friend recommended I do this, so awwww here it goes...
Player Bio: Keith Fier #11, listed at 6-2 180, Shortstop for the Stony Brook University Sea Wolves. Born June 5th, 1986 in Armonk, New York. Son of Steve and Susan Fier. Steve was a die hard Mets fan and Keith shares the same first name as Mets legend Keith Hernandez on purpose. He has a younger sister Joanna Fier who goes by 'Jo' and plays volleyball at Hamilton. Went to Byram Hills High School in Armonk New York where he was a 4 year starter at shortstop for the Varsity. His freshman year in highschool he took over the heralded Bobcat shortstop position from future MLB draftee John Wolff. He was a two time member of the all-section team and was named to the all State team as a Senior being honored in as the Journal News Player of the Year in 2004, however with all that some felt he was snubbed as team captain. He also lettered all 4 years in Soccer. In the classroom Keith often found himself bored in and preferred to play games on his advanced graphing calculator. However, he showed off his intelligence with a variety of AP classes and accelerated Math and Science courses.
All of that led him to a scholarship at George Washington University in 2005. Things did not start nicely for Keith as the coach that had recruited him to be the star player he knew he could be left, and the remaining coach wasn't too fond with Keith. After redshirting his freshman year at GW he transferred to Stony Brook University where as a redshirt freshman in 2006 he hit .305 in 59 at bats in 22 games and 15 starts.
The promising 2006 campaign led to 2007 where Keith started in 54/55 games. He batted .253 in 170 at bats and showed off some speed stealing 13 bases in 17 attempts. a 15 game hit streak from April into May showcased some future talent. Now secure with a job with already 2 years of playing time under his belt, in 2008 Keith batted .282 in 131 at bats playing in 42 games 35 of them at short. Keith went a perfect 12-12 in steals, learning the little things of base stealing accompanying that with his lightening speed. There are no other hitting stats that would make your jaw drop, but Keith comes on where it matters most batting .400 in the NCAA Tempe Regional even going 2-3 with a RBI against 3rd ranked ASU.
Scouting: according to the baseball cube, they scout Keith by the following.
Keith has blistering speed, there is no denying this. Jose Reyes based on the same scouting scale also has a 98 speed to give you the kind of idea of the speed this kid has. With that speed, Keith has allowed himself to cut down on his strikeouts to put the ball in play and let his speed takeover. However, that hasn't allowed his patience at the plate to develop. He can foul off pitches and has a good nose of the zone, but too often Keith waits for the first good pitch to hit instead of waiting for the potential best pitch.
In high school Keith was a power hitter batting in the 3 or 4 slot in the lineup, where he actually showed good patience being one of 2 capable hitters on the team he often didn't get great pitches to hit. In College Keith hasn't been able to gain much power although he did hit his first home run in 2008. All is not lost in the power department however. Keith came in all sticks and bones, and now packing on some extreme muscle he should be able to find the gaps that with his speed will lead to extra base hits in bunches. If not, his speed will still make him more than a capable division one starter.
One minor concern for Keith comes in the injury department. Years of bad throwing motions in Armonk Little League led to a damaged shoulder that was repaired with some minor arthroscopic surgery this offseason. Keith says its fine and it shouldn't be an issue. However, with that Keith struggles with having some bad ankles. It isn't a glaring issue, and hasn't affected his speed yet obviously, but it's still important to note those issues.
Outlook:What's next for Keith? Well, as a 5th year senior the prospects of him getting drafted are not likely, but that doesn't mean he can't play professionally. One thing you can't teach is speed, and as I have told you Keith dominates that category. His athletic ability and speed allows him to be a good defender, and if the infield doesn't work out he could track fly balls all day if need be. A team would be stupid not to give this kid a shot to see how he could develop. He has the potential to be a plus defender at a variety of positions, and his speed and contact skills allow him to be good at the plate in those departments. This kid lives baseball and nothing would make him happier than to be able to make baseball a living. 2009 will be a crucial year for Keith as he plays his final year in college. All the tools are there and its now up to Keith to show 'em off. If he's not struggling his way along some minor league season next year or getting paid to play independent ball, I'll be shocked.
Player Bio: Keith Fier #11, listed at 6-2 180, Shortstop for the Stony Brook University Sea Wolves. Born June 5th, 1986 in Armonk, New York. Son of Steve and Susan Fier. Steve was a die hard Mets fan and Keith shares the same first name as Mets legend Keith Hernandez on purpose. He has a younger sister Joanna Fier who goes by 'Jo' and plays volleyball at Hamilton. Went to Byram Hills High School in Armonk New York where he was a 4 year starter at shortstop for the Varsity. His freshman year in highschool he took over the heralded Bobcat shortstop position from future MLB draftee John Wolff. He was a two time member of the all-section team and was named to the all State team as a Senior being honored in as the Journal News Player of the Year in 2004, however with all that some felt he was snubbed as team captain. He also lettered all 4 years in Soccer. In the classroom Keith often found himself bored in and preferred to play games on his advanced graphing calculator. However, he showed off his intelligence with a variety of AP classes and accelerated Math and Science courses.
All of that led him to a scholarship at George Washington University in 2005. Things did not start nicely for Keith as the coach that had recruited him to be the star player he knew he could be left, and the remaining coach wasn't too fond with Keith. After redshirting his freshman year at GW he transferred to Stony Brook University where as a redshirt freshman in 2006 he hit .305 in 59 at bats in 22 games and 15 starts.
The promising 2006 campaign led to 2007 where Keith started in 54/55 games. He batted .253 in 170 at bats and showed off some speed stealing 13 bases in 17 attempts. a 15 game hit streak from April into May showcased some future talent. Now secure with a job with already 2 years of playing time under his belt, in 2008 Keith batted .282 in 131 at bats playing in 42 games 35 of them at short. Keith went a perfect 12-12 in steals, learning the little things of base stealing accompanying that with his lightening speed. There are no other hitting stats that would make your jaw drop, but Keith comes on where it matters most batting .400 in the NCAA Tempe Regional even going 2-3 with a RBI against 3rd ranked ASU.
Scouting: according to the baseball cube, they scout Keith by the following.
| Scouting Report | |
| Power: | 1 |
| Speed: | 98 |
| Contact: | 86 |
| Patience: | 10 |
Keith has blistering speed, there is no denying this. Jose Reyes based on the same scouting scale also has a 98 speed to give you the kind of idea of the speed this kid has. With that speed, Keith has allowed himself to cut down on his strikeouts to put the ball in play and let his speed takeover. However, that hasn't allowed his patience at the plate to develop. He can foul off pitches and has a good nose of the zone, but too often Keith waits for the first good pitch to hit instead of waiting for the potential best pitch.
In high school Keith was a power hitter batting in the 3 or 4 slot in the lineup, where he actually showed good patience being one of 2 capable hitters on the team he often didn't get great pitches to hit. In College Keith hasn't been able to gain much power although he did hit his first home run in 2008. All is not lost in the power department however. Keith came in all sticks and bones, and now packing on some extreme muscle he should be able to find the gaps that with his speed will lead to extra base hits in bunches. If not, his speed will still make him more than a capable division one starter.
One minor concern for Keith comes in the injury department. Years of bad throwing motions in Armonk Little League led to a damaged shoulder that was repaired with some minor arthroscopic surgery this offseason. Keith says its fine and it shouldn't be an issue. However, with that Keith struggles with having some bad ankles. It isn't a glaring issue, and hasn't affected his speed yet obviously, but it's still important to note those issues.
Outlook:What's next for Keith? Well, as a 5th year senior the prospects of him getting drafted are not likely, but that doesn't mean he can't play professionally. One thing you can't teach is speed, and as I have told you Keith dominates that category. His athletic ability and speed allows him to be a good defender, and if the infield doesn't work out he could track fly balls all day if need be. A team would be stupid not to give this kid a shot to see how he could develop. He has the potential to be a plus defender at a variety of positions, and his speed and contact skills allow him to be good at the plate in those departments. This kid lives baseball and nothing would make him happier than to be able to make baseball a living. 2009 will be a crucial year for Keith as he plays his final year in college. All the tools are there and its now up to Keith to show 'em off. If he's not struggling his way along some minor league season next year or getting paid to play independent ball, I'll be shocked.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)