I don't know if this columnist is even primarily a sportswriter, but his contention is that the Dominican Republic is "lucky" not to have Alex Rodriguez on their team.
You know what? You've got problems with ARod's game? Okay.
Unimpressed with his situational hitting or you think he strikes out too often? Fine.
Nobody's perfect.
But if you claim you don't want him on your team because of a poor series vs. Anaehim last October, then you are simply a fool.
Besides, if Beltre and Ramirez are better choices, then convince me. How has Adrian Beltre performed in the postseason? How many rings does Aramis Ramirez possess?
It's really not too hard to find out.
Respectively, .267 in 15 at-bats and .250 (with 4 homeruns!) in 44 at-bats.
Should Adrian Beltre even be allowed to choke on an international stage since he's proven himself to be such a poor postseason performer in 15 at-bats?
Well, gee, Felz. It's only 15 at-bats.
Exactly.
So don't sweat the guy with a .305 career postseason average -- who hit .409 with power in his first ALCS when the opponent was the Big Bad Yankees -- who hit .429 with power in his first postseason appearance as a member of the Big Bad Yankees -- because he had a bad 15 at-bats against Anaheim.
The WBC games mean nothing. If the games don't mean anything, there is no pressure. If there is no pressure, then ARod can't choke. Nobody can choke in exhibition games.
But, as we all know with a quick perusal of his playoff stats, ARod is no choker, anyway.
Wait, what was I saying? My point is, even if the premise was correct, then the supporting facts would be wrong.
There is little doubt that the ARod/WBC story has already been written, before the games are played.
If ARod hits .625 with 10 homeruns, then this performance won't prove anything because the WBC is just glorified exhibition games against inferior competition. If ARod hits .200 with 0 homeruns, then it's more proof that he can't handle pressure.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Eli According To Felz.
Do you ever get the feeling that this blog is not really about baseball at all, but it's just an opportunity to rag on Mike Lupica?
Ever get that feeling?
How about that. That is very interesting.
Anyway, Lupica was right about Theo Epstein and that ruined my day, so I think I deserve some Satisfaction.
No, I don't follow football too closely. But I know just about everything Lupica says in this article is made up or flat-out incorrect:
"Ben Roethlisberger is the headliner for the Super Bowl, a star the game desperately needed. Roethlisberger now has played two AFC Championship Games his first two years in the pros, won one. And that's it, that's all, he's not just a better quarterback than Eli Manning for the time being, he is a better quarterback for all times, whether his team wins Super Bowl XL or not. Or we are told, coast to coast."
Ben Roethlisberger probably will be a better quarterback than Eli Manning for all time. But I think most observers are talking about the present and not the future. As for the present, Roethlisberger obviously wins, hands down.
"I must have missed this general assessment of things before the playoffs began. Or when the Steelers were in danger of not making the playoffs at all."
In all seriousness, I think Lupica missed this general assessment of things before the playoffs. Sarcasm isn't effective when you don't know what you're talking about.
The general assessment of Roethlisberger before the playoffs was that he was a much better quarterback than Manning and that Roethlisberger's playoff experience would come in handy. It's true that the general assessment typically put New England or Indianapolis into the Super Bowl -- how many teams can win three consecutive playoff games on the road? -- but only Lupica used the words "Giants" and "Super Bowl" in the same sentence.
When the general assessment turns out to be absolutely correct, Lupica can't claim that the general assessment never existed in the first place.
Just admit it, man. You were wrong. Acknowledge and move on.
Prepare yourself, dear reader. What you are about to read may be the most jaw-droppingly insane football analysis you will ever read in your life.
Ben Roethlisberger leads the Steelers to three straight road playoff victories. He beats Denver in Denver with a QB rating of, like, 150.
Before the half, Roethlisberger evaded a heavy blitz, ran to his left, and somehow lofted a pinpoint pass to Hines Ward in the back of the endzone. Amazing. Eli Manning could not dream about making that play.
For good measure, Roethlsberger also ran for a touchdown.
Mike Lupica, sports columnist, a man who basically ignores the Yankees regular season and only judges their success in the postseason, compares Roethlisberger's accomplishment to a backyard football game:
"But you knew the whole world would start piling on Eli the minute Roethlisberger, facing no rush, with wide open receivers all day, a dream setup for a quarterback whether he is playing in Denver or in a touch football game in the backyard, had lit up the Broncos."
How many people watched the AFC Championship Game? Tens of millions, I'm quite sure. Out of all these people, only Mike Lupica thought Roethlisberger was facing no rush and throwing to wide open receivers all day. Only Mike Lupica was unimpressed.
"Maybe Roethlisberger is going to turn out to be another Tom Brady, or Troy Aikman, or Joe Montana. And maybe he isn't."
Hard to argue with that logic. It has to be one of the two.
But what do you think is going to happen in the future, Mike Lupica? It's difficult to look into the future, but that's the gist of this article:
"Do I know if Roethlisberger is going to play in another Super Bowl after this one? I sure don't."
Neither do I, you rapscallion.
I do know that he's already in the Super Bowl and he's already way more accomplished than Eli Manning.
Yes, Mike Lupica. The Giants would be better with Ben Roethlisberger instead of Eli Manning. I don't know how anyone could seriously make the argument to the contrary. We don't need to talk about what might happen or what might have happened. We only need to talk about what has happened.
"Ken Griffey Jr. was going to be the one to hit 800 home runs once." No, he wasn't.
"Doc Gooden was going to win 300 games after he was 24-4 his second season in the big leagues." No, not really.
"And Kobe was going to win more titles than Michael." With or without Shaq?
I mean, get real, would you?
Griffey probably would have hit 800 homeruns, except he got hurt. Gooden may have won 300 games, except he got injured and got into drugs. Kobe still might win more titles than Michael.
But nobody in their right mind would predict a player to hit 800 homeruns, win 300 games, or win seven NBA titles. Most people understand these accomplishments are difficult indeed and the potential pitfalls are infinite.
But does everybody who praises Roethlisberger and predicts a bright future for him have to include the disclaimer about injuries?
"You know he is going to stand by the kid. Accorsi made as large an investment in Eli Manning as any general manager has ever made in a rookie quarterback, Accorsi's own personal legacy with the Giants is riding on him. But he is right to stand up for him, and not to run with the crowd. Once the same crowd wanted to run Phil Simms out of this town."
Well, duh. Here we go again. Lupica building up his side by creating a preposterous argument for the opposition.
Nobody is saying the Giants should give up on Eli Manning. Most people think Manning has a bright future (but most people also thought Ken Griffey Jr. was going to hit 800 homeruns! Which is relevant in no way whatsoever!).
But the present also counts for something. Ben Roethlisberger has a bright present and a bright future. He's a better NFL quarterback than Eli Manning.
Lupica's endless defense of Eli Manning borders on the pathological. Even Archie doesn't think Eli is that good.
Ever get that feeling?
How about that. That is very interesting.
Anyway, Lupica was right about Theo Epstein and that ruined my day, so I think I deserve some Satisfaction.
No, I don't follow football too closely. But I know just about everything Lupica says in this article is made up or flat-out incorrect:
"Ben Roethlisberger is the headliner for the Super Bowl, a star the game desperately needed. Roethlisberger now has played two AFC Championship Games his first two years in the pros, won one. And that's it, that's all, he's not just a better quarterback than Eli Manning for the time being, he is a better quarterback for all times, whether his team wins Super Bowl XL or not. Or we are told, coast to coast."
Ben Roethlisberger probably will be a better quarterback than Eli Manning for all time. But I think most observers are talking about the present and not the future. As for the present, Roethlisberger obviously wins, hands down.
"I must have missed this general assessment of things before the playoffs began. Or when the Steelers were in danger of not making the playoffs at all."
In all seriousness, I think Lupica missed this general assessment of things before the playoffs. Sarcasm isn't effective when you don't know what you're talking about.
The general assessment of Roethlisberger before the playoffs was that he was a much better quarterback than Manning and that Roethlisberger's playoff experience would come in handy. It's true that the general assessment typically put New England or Indianapolis into the Super Bowl -- how many teams can win three consecutive playoff games on the road? -- but only Lupica used the words "Giants" and "Super Bowl" in the same sentence.
When the general assessment turns out to be absolutely correct, Lupica can't claim that the general assessment never existed in the first place.
Just admit it, man. You were wrong. Acknowledge and move on.
Prepare yourself, dear reader. What you are about to read may be the most jaw-droppingly insane football analysis you will ever read in your life.
Ben Roethlisberger leads the Steelers to three straight road playoff victories. He beats Denver in Denver with a QB rating of, like, 150.
Before the half, Roethlisberger evaded a heavy blitz, ran to his left, and somehow lofted a pinpoint pass to Hines Ward in the back of the endzone. Amazing. Eli Manning could not dream about making that play.
For good measure, Roethlsberger also ran for a touchdown.
Mike Lupica, sports columnist, a man who basically ignores the Yankees regular season and only judges their success in the postseason, compares Roethlisberger's accomplishment to a backyard football game:
"But you knew the whole world would start piling on Eli the minute Roethlisberger, facing no rush, with wide open receivers all day, a dream setup for a quarterback whether he is playing in Denver or in a touch football game in the backyard, had lit up the Broncos."
How many people watched the AFC Championship Game? Tens of millions, I'm quite sure. Out of all these people, only Mike Lupica thought Roethlisberger was facing no rush and throwing to wide open receivers all day. Only Mike Lupica was unimpressed.
"Maybe Roethlisberger is going to turn out to be another Tom Brady, or Troy Aikman, or Joe Montana. And maybe he isn't."
Hard to argue with that logic. It has to be one of the two.
But what do you think is going to happen in the future, Mike Lupica? It's difficult to look into the future, but that's the gist of this article:
"Do I know if Roethlisberger is going to play in another Super Bowl after this one? I sure don't."
Neither do I, you rapscallion.
I do know that he's already in the Super Bowl and he's already way more accomplished than Eli Manning.
Yes, Mike Lupica. The Giants would be better with Ben Roethlisberger instead of Eli Manning. I don't know how anyone could seriously make the argument to the contrary. We don't need to talk about what might happen or what might have happened. We only need to talk about what has happened.
"Ken Griffey Jr. was going to be the one to hit 800 home runs once." No, he wasn't.
"Doc Gooden was going to win 300 games after he was 24-4 his second season in the big leagues." No, not really.
"And Kobe was going to win more titles than Michael." With or without Shaq?
I mean, get real, would you?
Griffey probably would have hit 800 homeruns, except he got hurt. Gooden may have won 300 games, except he got injured and got into drugs. Kobe still might win more titles than Michael.
But nobody in their right mind would predict a player to hit 800 homeruns, win 300 games, or win seven NBA titles. Most people understand these accomplishments are difficult indeed and the potential pitfalls are infinite.
But does everybody who praises Roethlisberger and predicts a bright future for him have to include the disclaimer about injuries?
"You know he is going to stand by the kid. Accorsi made as large an investment in Eli Manning as any general manager has ever made in a rookie quarterback, Accorsi's own personal legacy with the Giants is riding on him. But he is right to stand up for him, and not to run with the crowd. Once the same crowd wanted to run Phil Simms out of this town."
Well, duh. Here we go again. Lupica building up his side by creating a preposterous argument for the opposition.
Nobody is saying the Giants should give up on Eli Manning. Most people think Manning has a bright future (but most people also thought Ken Griffey Jr. was going to hit 800 homeruns! Which is relevant in no way whatsoever!).
But the present also counts for something. Ben Roethlisberger has a bright present and a bright future. He's a better NFL quarterback than Eli Manning.
Lupica's endless defense of Eli Manning borders on the pathological. Even Archie doesn't think Eli is that good.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Coming soon to overstock.com!
Oh, who am I kidding? I'm just being a sourpuss.
The anticipation is rising!
You can hear it from Tokyo to Toronto, from Havana to Hong Kong, from Sydney to St. Louis, from Milan to Maracaibo!
It's the drumbeat of national pride and prestige, and it is growing louder and louder as the first-ever World Baseball Classic grows nearer!
It's the singular heartbeat of Yankee fans worldwide praying that Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter don't get injured in useless exhibition games!
The anticipation is rising!
You can hear it from Tokyo to Toronto, from Havana to Hong Kong, from Sydney to St. Louis, from Milan to Maracaibo!
It's the drumbeat of national pride and prestige, and it is growing louder and louder as the first-ever World Baseball Classic grows nearer!
It's the singular heartbeat of Yankee fans worldwide praying that Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter don't get injured in useless exhibition games!
They allow .097 hitters into the Hall of Fame.
I'm not completely sure Sandy Koufax belongs in the Hall of Fame. He's certainly the primary example of a player who dominated for a short period of time, which is usually not the preferred entry requirement.
But I'm pretty sure this is the most perplexing anti-Koufax logic imaginable, graciously provided by the ethereal "Michael" from New York:
"I read your answer concerning Koufax and Mattingly, and you are mistaken. Koufax could not hit, he could not run, and his defense was only average. Koufax was a one-dimensional player. All he could do was pitch and nothing else."
But I'm pretty sure this is the most perplexing anti-Koufax logic imaginable, graciously provided by the ethereal "Michael" from New York:
"I read your answer concerning Koufax and Mattingly, and you are mistaken. Koufax could not hit, he could not run, and his defense was only average. Koufax was a one-dimensional player. All he could do was pitch and nothing else."
Stats are for geeks.
Back to Ian O'Connor's claim that Alex Rodriguez is the, ahem, "anti-Jeter" because ARod is paralyzed by fear and conscious of his image and a choker who can't make Little League plays in October:
"His play in October, especially when measured against the big-game guts of Derek Jeter, never did anything to help his cause. The slap of Bronson Arroyo's glove. The drop of Orlando Cabrera's bouncer. If only to disarm the heavily-armed critics surrounding his locker after his embarrassing Division Series performance against the Angels last October, Rodriguez likened himself to 'a dog'"
It seems to me if you're discussing Alex Rodriguez's postseason performance, then the first place you'd start is with Alex Rodriguez's postseason performance.
Let's go ahead and measure the postseason stats of Derek Jeter against those of Alex Rodriguez:
ARod: .305 ba, .393 ob%, .534 slugging%.
Jeter: .307 ba, .379 ob%, .463 slugging%.
I think most intelligent observers would exchange two points in batting average for 14 extra ob% points and 71 extra slugging% points. But without even discussing who's better, it's obvious at first glance that both have performed excellently in the postseason.
The difference in terms of production, of course, is that Jeter has had far more postseason appearances.
ARod has 118 at-bats with 6 hrs, 9 doubles, 0 triples, 16 rbis, and 19 runs.
Jeter has 462 at-bats with 16 hrs, 18 doubles, 3 triples, 47 rbis, and 81 runs.
The math is actually quite convenient for us. Multiply ARod's stats by 4 and you'll see he has been almost exactly as productive as Jeter per plate appearance. (If you need help, that translates to 24 hrs, 36 doubles, 0 triples, 64 rbis, and 76 runs.)
There ya go. Was that so hard? Go ahead and compare. ARod's postseason stats measure up almost exactly to Jeter's.
Now, one might argue that ARod's postseason numbers don't meet high expectations (after all, isn't ARod better than Jeter in the regular season?), but they're really not too far off. The power numbers are not quite what one would expect in 100+ at-bats from a man who has 400 homeruns by his 30th birthday, but even the power numbers aren't too far off.
Point being, the stats speak for themselves and any simplistic analysis ought to belie the idea that ARod has a history of choking in October.
I don't know if ARod has more "guts" than Jeter and I'm also not quite sure how to measure that. I'll leave that for image-conscious writers like Ian O'Connor. O'Connor seems more interested in analyzing press conferences than watching baseball games.
"His play in October, especially when measured against the big-game guts of Derek Jeter, never did anything to help his cause. The slap of Bronson Arroyo's glove. The drop of Orlando Cabrera's bouncer. If only to disarm the heavily-armed critics surrounding his locker after his embarrassing Division Series performance against the Angels last October, Rodriguez likened himself to 'a dog'"
It seems to me if you're discussing Alex Rodriguez's postseason performance, then the first place you'd start is with Alex Rodriguez's postseason performance.
Let's go ahead and measure the postseason stats of Derek Jeter against those of Alex Rodriguez:
ARod: .305 ba, .393 ob%, .534 slugging%.
Jeter: .307 ba, .379 ob%, .463 slugging%.
I think most intelligent observers would exchange two points in batting average for 14 extra ob% points and 71 extra slugging% points. But without even discussing who's better, it's obvious at first glance that both have performed excellently in the postseason.
The difference in terms of production, of course, is that Jeter has had far more postseason appearances.
ARod has 118 at-bats with 6 hrs, 9 doubles, 0 triples, 16 rbis, and 19 runs.
Jeter has 462 at-bats with 16 hrs, 18 doubles, 3 triples, 47 rbis, and 81 runs.
The math is actually quite convenient for us. Multiply ARod's stats by 4 and you'll see he has been almost exactly as productive as Jeter per plate appearance. (If you need help, that translates to 24 hrs, 36 doubles, 0 triples, 64 rbis, and 76 runs.)
There ya go. Was that so hard? Go ahead and compare. ARod's postseason stats measure up almost exactly to Jeter's.
Now, one might argue that ARod's postseason numbers don't meet high expectations (after all, isn't ARod better than Jeter in the regular season?), but they're really not too far off. The power numbers are not quite what one would expect in 100+ at-bats from a man who has 400 homeruns by his 30th birthday, but even the power numbers aren't too far off.
Point being, the stats speak for themselves and any simplistic analysis ought to belie the idea that ARod has a history of choking in October.
I don't know if ARod has more "guts" than Jeter and I'm also not quite sure how to measure that. I'll leave that for image-conscious writers like Ian O'Connor. O'Connor seems more interested in analyzing press conferences than watching baseball games.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
"Both teams played hard."
No, Ian O'Connor. Image isn't everything. Numbers are everything.
.321, 48, and 130 is everything.
But can ARod perform under pressure?:
"Alex Rodriguez might be the most talented ballplayer on the planet. But it's hard to belt a postseason homer, or even field a Little League bouncer in the Division Series, when you're more concerned with how people think you are performing than you are in performing."
Ian O'Connor does not understand how baseball works.
In the postseason, Alex Rodriguez has performed well. I know Ian O'Connor doesn't think so, but then Ian O'Connor is wrong.
In the postseason, ARod has hit .305 with 6 hrs and 16 hrs in 118 at-bats. The rbis are a little low, but he also has managed 19 runs, a .393 on-base% and a .534 slugging%. Those numbers are excellent and they're consistent with his HOF regular season numbers.
This is what Ian O'Connor doesn't understand:
(1) Given enought at-bats, every player in baseball history will hit a slump.
Every playoff superstar has choked in the playoffs if you choose to look at 10 or 15 at-bats. Mickey Mantle, Yogi Berra, Derek Jeter, Reggie Jackson, Manny Ramirez, Scott Brosius, anybody.
That is simply how baseball works.
If O'Connor wants to focus on ARod's last 30 playoff at-bats as proof that he can't handle pressure, then I can focus on his previous 30, which prove that he can. Those are hard numbers that ARod has generated, not the soft ARod image that O'Connor chooses to fabricate.
(2) When did ARod start becoming conscious of his image? When did this self-consciousness start to negatively affect his play on the field?
Because I don't think the Twins thought he was a Little League player when he singlehandedly bombed them in the 2004 ALDS.
But this is what Ian O'Connor is asking you to believe: ARod suddenly became conscious of his image and suddenly became unable to handle pressure starting in Game 4 of the ALCS vs. Boston. (Actually, it would have to be Game 5, because he hit a monster homerun in Game 4.)
It would be nice if ARod could let his numbers do the talking. But lazy columnists are going to ignore the numbers entirely and push the Choker angle, all the while claiming that ARod is oh-so image-conscious.
Rasheed Wallace had it right. From now on, every question should get the same response: "Both teams played hard."
.321, 48, and 130 is everything.
But can ARod perform under pressure?:
"Alex Rodriguez might be the most talented ballplayer on the planet. But it's hard to belt a postseason homer, or even field a Little League bouncer in the Division Series, when you're more concerned with how people think you are performing than you are in performing."
Ian O'Connor does not understand how baseball works.
In the postseason, Alex Rodriguez has performed well. I know Ian O'Connor doesn't think so, but then Ian O'Connor is wrong.
In the postseason, ARod has hit .305 with 6 hrs and 16 hrs in 118 at-bats. The rbis are a little low, but he also has managed 19 runs, a .393 on-base% and a .534 slugging%. Those numbers are excellent and they're consistent with his HOF regular season numbers.
This is what Ian O'Connor doesn't understand:
(1) Given enought at-bats, every player in baseball history will hit a slump.
Every playoff superstar has choked in the playoffs if you choose to look at 10 or 15 at-bats. Mickey Mantle, Yogi Berra, Derek Jeter, Reggie Jackson, Manny Ramirez, Scott Brosius, anybody.
That is simply how baseball works.
If O'Connor wants to focus on ARod's last 30 playoff at-bats as proof that he can't handle pressure, then I can focus on his previous 30, which prove that he can. Those are hard numbers that ARod has generated, not the soft ARod image that O'Connor chooses to fabricate.
(2) When did ARod start becoming conscious of his image? When did this self-consciousness start to negatively affect his play on the field?
Because I don't think the Twins thought he was a Little League player when he singlehandedly bombed them in the 2004 ALDS.
But this is what Ian O'Connor is asking you to believe: ARod suddenly became conscious of his image and suddenly became unable to handle pressure starting in Game 4 of the ALCS vs. Boston. (Actually, it would have to be Game 5, because he hit a monster homerun in Game 4.)
It would be nice if ARod could let his numbers do the talking. But lazy columnists are going to ignore the numbers entirely and push the Choker angle, all the while claiming that ARod is oh-so image-conscious.
Rasheed Wallace had it right. From now on, every question should get the same response: "Both teams played hard."
Thursday, January 19, 2006
They wished they knew how to quit Alex Rodriguez.
This article is supposedly a debate regarding the pros and cons of the World Baseball Classic.
The title says "The Great Baseball Classic Debate."
It link at ESPN.com says, "Point/Counterpoint: Is the World Baseball Classic an event worth holding?"
Well, I just read the article and I'm still not sure what Jim Caple and Buster Olney think about the World Baseball Classic.
I learned that Alex Rodriguez is indecisive, Alex Rodriguez is insincere, Alex Rodriguez makes a lot of money, and Alex Rodriguez is conscious of his image.
Nine entries on the World Baseball Classic. One guy supposedly debating the pros, the other guy supposedly debating the cons. of these nine entires, six mention Alex Rodriguez. No other player is mentioned by name.
You really don't care what team ARod plays for? Gee, you sure talk about it a lot, though. You also talk about his salary a lot.
His uniform, the country in which he lives, the country in which he was born. What he says, what he looks like, his haircut. His favorite movie, his favorite color, his zodiac sign.
Seriously, are you guys ... in love with Alex Rodriguez? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
You know, maybe there's a reason ARod watches what he says. Because groupies like Caple and Olney drool over every word like a fat guy eating a Big Mac.
The title says "The Great Baseball Classic Debate."
It link at ESPN.com says, "Point/Counterpoint: Is the World Baseball Classic an event worth holding?"
Well, I just read the article and I'm still not sure what Jim Caple and Buster Olney think about the World Baseball Classic.
I learned that Alex Rodriguez is indecisive, Alex Rodriguez is insincere, Alex Rodriguez makes a lot of money, and Alex Rodriguez is conscious of his image.
Nine entries on the World Baseball Classic. One guy supposedly debating the pros, the other guy supposedly debating the cons. of these nine entires, six mention Alex Rodriguez. No other player is mentioned by name.
You really don't care what team ARod plays for? Gee, you sure talk about it a lot, though. You also talk about his salary a lot.
His uniform, the country in which he lives, the country in which he was born. What he says, what he looks like, his haircut. His favorite movie, his favorite color, his zodiac sign.
Seriously, are you guys ... in love with Alex Rodriguez? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
You know, maybe there's a reason ARod watches what he says. Because groupies like Caple and Olney drool over every word like a fat guy eating a Big Mac.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Facts and Opinions.
10) Who do you consider baseball's single-season home run leader?
-- Barry Bonds (73 in 2001)
-- Mark McGwire (70 in 1998)
-- Sammy Sosa (66 in 1998)
-- Roger Maris (61 in 1961)
-- Babe Ruth (60 in 1927 )
The question itself is completely invalid. Barry Bonds is baseball's single-season homerun leader. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. The U.S. has fifty states and 2 + 2 = 4. I'm sure I couldn't get 100% agreement if I adminstered a poll on ESPN.com, but that doesn't change the facts.
I understand what they're getting at, though. They're questioning the validity of the steroids-enhanced homerun hitters. They're really asking, "Which feat do you consider most impressive?" Which is an opinion.
So, pretending the ESPN readers were answering the amended question, their opinions are as follows:
50.4% Roger Maris (61 in 1961)
31.6% Barry Bonds (73 in 2001)
8.3% Mark McGwire (70 in 1998)
8.0% Babe Ruth (60 in 1927)
1.7% Sammy Sosa (66 in 1998)
Let's just say that choice is ironic, considering the fact that Maris was ripped to shreds at the time. 162-game season, short porch, Mantle providing protection, no intentional walks, etc. The mythical asterisk next to his name in the record books.
Which is why I really hate the question in the first place. Why stop with Maris's 1961 season?
I'm more "impressed" with Jimmie Foxx's 50 in 1938 when the fences were 700 feet from home plate and the ball was dead. I'm more "impressed" with George Foster's 52 in 1977 when nobody else had more than 41. I might even be more "impressed" with Brady Anderson's 50 in 1996 even though he was probably on steroids and played in a small ballpark.
Brady Anderson was a leadoff hitter, what do you think about that? A leadoff hitter hitting 50 homeruns. He should be the single-season homerun leader!
Or maybe not. I'd have to think about it. It seems like pretty silly criteria and maybe my opinion is kind of dumb.
But it's not up to me to decide who has the most homeruns in a single season of baseball. That is a fact which is decided by a cold, hard, unemotional, unopinionated ledger. A homerun is hit, a notch goes next to the name of the man who hit it.
-- Barry Bonds (73 in 2001)
-- Mark McGwire (70 in 1998)
-- Sammy Sosa (66 in 1998)
-- Roger Maris (61 in 1961)
-- Babe Ruth (60 in 1927 )
The question itself is completely invalid. Barry Bonds is baseball's single-season homerun leader. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. The U.S. has fifty states and 2 + 2 = 4. I'm sure I couldn't get 100% agreement if I adminstered a poll on ESPN.com, but that doesn't change the facts.
I understand what they're getting at, though. They're questioning the validity of the steroids-enhanced homerun hitters. They're really asking, "Which feat do you consider most impressive?" Which is an opinion.
So, pretending the ESPN readers were answering the amended question, their opinions are as follows:
50.4% Roger Maris (61 in 1961)
31.6% Barry Bonds (73 in 2001)
8.3% Mark McGwire (70 in 1998)
8.0% Babe Ruth (60 in 1927)
1.7% Sammy Sosa (66 in 1998)
Let's just say that choice is ironic, considering the fact that Maris was ripped to shreds at the time. 162-game season, short porch, Mantle providing protection, no intentional walks, etc. The mythical asterisk next to his name in the record books.
Which is why I really hate the question in the first place. Why stop with Maris's 1961 season?
I'm more "impressed" with Jimmie Foxx's 50 in 1938 when the fences were 700 feet from home plate and the ball was dead. I'm more "impressed" with George Foster's 52 in 1977 when nobody else had more than 41. I might even be more "impressed" with Brady Anderson's 50 in 1996 even though he was probably on steroids and played in a small ballpark.
Brady Anderson was a leadoff hitter, what do you think about that? A leadoff hitter hitting 50 homeruns. He should be the single-season homerun leader!
Or maybe not. I'd have to think about it. It seems like pretty silly criteria and maybe my opinion is kind of dumb.
But it's not up to me to decide who has the most homeruns in a single season of baseball. That is a fact which is decided by a cold, hard, unemotional, unopinionated ledger. A homerun is hit, a notch goes next to the name of the man who hit it.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Steven Goldman puts Baseball Hall of Fame in Perspective.
I understand why the HOF wouldn't want the fans to decide. Fans are biased to a fault, naturally. NY fans would put Don Mattingly in but wouldn't even consider Al Oliver. It's not really fair and this process would vastly overemphasize a player's popularity rather than his on-field performance.
The professional baseball writers are supposed to bring some extensive knowledge to the process. They're supposed to know more than you and I. They're supposed to thoroughly analyze the careers of the borderline players and validate the voting process in a way that the casual fan can not.
But with Albert Belle receiving a mere 7% of the vote, the current process reveals itself to be little more than a popularity contest, anyway.
Steven Goldman questions the validity of the entire process and he makes a heckuva lot of sense:
"The Baseball Writers Association of America, is, if possible, a more benighted American institution than Congress. Whereas the Constitution says we have to deal with the latter, the former is inflicted upon us only at the sufferance of Major League Baseball, who tolerates their self-appointed guardianship of the major awards and the Hall of Fame voting. While it is broadly acknowledged that they are almost wholly unfit for this task — just read any of the dozens of columns the voters have written in the past weeks torturously justifying their votes to see why — their monopoly is shrugged at, as if it is a necessary, inescapable evil along the lines of sitcoms and dentistry.
Not only is there nothing inevitable about the BBWAA, but they should be stripped of their franchise. They use it irresponsibly.
With respect to Fred Lieb, Peter Gammons and all the other writers who started as team beat writers and went on to do bigger, better things, the job of the modern beat writer is not one with rigorous intellectual requirements. ... You have to have just enough intelligence not to (a) ask the players for autographs, (b) eat from the players' postgame spread, and (c) not show up in your underwear — and yes, these things have happened. Most importantly, you have to be credulous, very credulous, or risk losing your access.
Note that nowhere among this list of qualities is an appreciation of baseball history or an ability to judge ballplayers in and out of the context of their times. You get to come to your uninformed opinions without any sort of education whatsoever, except for the five Ws.
...
Of course, Gossage will now get in during one of the next elections, because otherwise the writers are going to have to admit to the basest hypocrisy — any rationale that considers Sutter a Hall of Famer also applies to Gossage. He'll get a fair chance next year, assuming the Writers can bring themselves to let Gossage be part of the glorification of Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken, next year's surefire inductees (Mark McGwire is eligible, too, but things may not go well). The only pitcher of note being added to the ballot is Bret Saberhagen, but the two-time Cy Young winner probably won't draw much support.
Somehow 54 people who clearly were not around to see baseball in the 1970s and early 80s will have to be convinced of their own fallibility over the next 12 months. Pathetic. "
The professional baseball writers are supposed to bring some extensive knowledge to the process. They're supposed to know more than you and I. They're supposed to thoroughly analyze the careers of the borderline players and validate the voting process in a way that the casual fan can not.
But with Albert Belle receiving a mere 7% of the vote, the current process reveals itself to be little more than a popularity contest, anyway.
Steven Goldman questions the validity of the entire process and he makes a heckuva lot of sense:
"The Baseball Writers Association of America, is, if possible, a more benighted American institution than Congress. Whereas the Constitution says we have to deal with the latter, the former is inflicted upon us only at the sufferance of Major League Baseball, who tolerates their self-appointed guardianship of the major awards and the Hall of Fame voting. While it is broadly acknowledged that they are almost wholly unfit for this task — just read any of the dozens of columns the voters have written in the past weeks torturously justifying their votes to see why — their monopoly is shrugged at, as if it is a necessary, inescapable evil along the lines of sitcoms and dentistry.
Not only is there nothing inevitable about the BBWAA, but they should be stripped of their franchise. They use it irresponsibly.
With respect to Fred Lieb, Peter Gammons and all the other writers who started as team beat writers and went on to do bigger, better things, the job of the modern beat writer is not one with rigorous intellectual requirements. ... You have to have just enough intelligence not to (a) ask the players for autographs, (b) eat from the players' postgame spread, and (c) not show up in your underwear — and yes, these things have happened. Most importantly, you have to be credulous, very credulous, or risk losing your access.
Note that nowhere among this list of qualities is an appreciation of baseball history or an ability to judge ballplayers in and out of the context of their times. You get to come to your uninformed opinions without any sort of education whatsoever, except for the five Ws.
...
Of course, Gossage will now get in during one of the next elections, because otherwise the writers are going to have to admit to the basest hypocrisy — any rationale that considers Sutter a Hall of Famer also applies to Gossage. He'll get a fair chance next year, assuming the Writers can bring themselves to let Gossage be part of the glorification of Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken, next year's surefire inductees (Mark McGwire is eligible, too, but things may not go well). The only pitcher of note being added to the ballot is Bret Saberhagen, but the two-time Cy Young winner probably won't draw much support.
Somehow 54 people who clearly were not around to see baseball in the 1970s and early 80s will have to be convinced of their own fallibility over the next 12 months. Pathetic. "
Monday, January 09, 2006
Perusing Baseball Stats Online Is Very Grueling.
"So what they provided, for those of us who take every Hall of Fame ballot as seriously as our tax returns, was a rare opportunity -- to direct a fresh look in the direction of some of those tough-call candidates who have been making our heads hurt for years.
Because we don't get overwhelmed by new candidates in years like this, we have a chance to reconsider old ones. And in the case of this particular voter, that wound up leading me to cast a vote for a player I've resisted for eight agonizing years -- Blyleven."
Jayson Stark claims to take his Hall of Fame ballot seriously, yet he also claims that he was overwhelmed by new candidates for the past eight years.
Bery Blyleven couldn't get his vote because, I guess, he was so distracted by Ryne Sandberg or Nolan Ryan. He was overwhelmed.
In an attempt to understand the life of a HOF voter, I have provided the following links, just as an example of the grueling work they must endure:
Nolan Ryan: 324 wins, 292 losses, 5,714 strikeouts. He was a pitcher. Seven no-hitters, if that helps.
Ryne Sandberg: .285, 282 homeruns, 1,061 rbis. He was a second baseman. Ten all-star games and nine gold gloves if that helps.
That was strenuous, wasn't it? I had to surf the 'Net for a little while. It seems to me like most of the work has already been done.
Everywhere I look, Blyleven's HOF candidacy is supposedly strengthened because this year's ballot is relatively weak. This makes no sense even to the most casual observer.
The voters reveal themselves as nothing more than flip-floppers or guys just looking for shomeone to shove up onto the podium next July:
"I don't think that makes me a flip-flopper, or a guy just looking for someone to shove up onto the podium next July. It simply reinforced my conviction that my favorite part of being a Hall of Fame voter is that it teaches me so much about players I didn't cover or players I saw just a little in their primes."
That's a touching personal reflection, but the problem is, Bert Blyleven didn't throw a single pitch in the last eight seasons. He didn't strengthen his candidacy in any way. He may have raised awareness of his candidacy and he may have garnered some high-profile supporters, such as Bill James. But if Jayson Stark really thinks Blyleven's a Hall of Famer, then he should have voted for him eight years ago.
Honestly? Determining a player's HOF credentials is really not that difficult.
Because we don't get overwhelmed by new candidates in years like this, we have a chance to reconsider old ones. And in the case of this particular voter, that wound up leading me to cast a vote for a player I've resisted for eight agonizing years -- Blyleven."
Jayson Stark claims to take his Hall of Fame ballot seriously, yet he also claims that he was overwhelmed by new candidates for the past eight years.
Bery Blyleven couldn't get his vote because, I guess, he was so distracted by Ryne Sandberg or Nolan Ryan. He was overwhelmed.
In an attempt to understand the life of a HOF voter, I have provided the following links, just as an example of the grueling work they must endure:
Nolan Ryan: 324 wins, 292 losses, 5,714 strikeouts. He was a pitcher. Seven no-hitters, if that helps.
Ryne Sandberg: .285, 282 homeruns, 1,061 rbis. He was a second baseman. Ten all-star games and nine gold gloves if that helps.
That was strenuous, wasn't it? I had to surf the 'Net for a little while. It seems to me like most of the work has already been done.
Everywhere I look, Blyleven's HOF candidacy is supposedly strengthened because this year's ballot is relatively weak. This makes no sense even to the most casual observer.
The voters reveal themselves as nothing more than flip-floppers or guys just looking for shomeone to shove up onto the podium next July:
"I don't think that makes me a flip-flopper, or a guy just looking for someone to shove up onto the podium next July. It simply reinforced my conviction that my favorite part of being a Hall of Fame voter is that it teaches me so much about players I didn't cover or players I saw just a little in their primes."
That's a touching personal reflection, but the problem is, Bert Blyleven didn't throw a single pitch in the last eight seasons. He didn't strengthen his candidacy in any way. He may have raised awareness of his candidacy and he may have garnered some high-profile supporters, such as Bill James. But if Jayson Stark really thinks Blyleven's a Hall of Famer, then he should have voted for him eight years ago.
Honestly? Determining a player's HOF credentials is really not that difficult.
Don't be ridiculous: You have no hats left to eat.
Inspired by Mike Lupica, I venture momentarily into Football According to Felz ...
This is a man who has implied for months that Eli Manning was ready to take the Giants to the Super Bowl.
This is a man who claimed the following on January 1: "Suddenly, rather amazingly, there is speculation about Herm Edwards coaching the Chiefs next season ... Here is how Edwards can get a contract extension: If the Jets are back in the playoffs again next season. If they aren't, then both he and Bradway are gone."
Less than a week later, Herm Edwards has a contract extension from the Chiefs.
When it's time to own up and admit he was wrong about Eli, he focuses on Tiki Barber's postgame reaction: "Did the Giants look like they got outcoached yesterday? Sure. When it's 23-0, it's on all of them. But if you think coaching was the headline here, and Barber clearly did, you were watching the wrong game."
Except the NY Post back page screams "Out-Foxed", the Star-Ledger's lead article mentions the coaching as its primary stroryline, and Newday's headline is "Outcoached & out door".
Coaching wasn't the headline, except it was. Coaching was the headline in every article except Lupica's.
Even if one disapproves with Tiki's reaction, it's very easy to prove that "coaching was the headline here." Just go to the bodega and look at the headlines.
This is a baseball blog and I've never talked about football before. I'm not really talking about football, though, I'm talking about credibility, or lack thereof.
Because it should be clear by now that this man has no inside knowlege, no understanding of the sports world, and doesn't even report the truth. He reports his Wishful Thinking version of the truth.
With that in mind, how can anybody take him seriously when he writes yet another love letter to Theo Epstein?:
"Just because Manny Ramirez gives an interview and says he wants to stay with the Red Sox doesn't mean he's going to stay with the Red Sox.
Or that the people in charge want him to stay.
I still believe Miguel Tejada for Manny and Matt Clement is still very much in play, and will until Tejada gets traded somewhere else.
I will also eat my hat if Theo Epstein doesn't end up back with Boston in some capacity before spring training."
Manny Ramirez no longer wants to be traded. Miguel Tejada no longer wants to be traded. (Again, those pesky headlines.)
Lupica still believes the trade is very much in play. Okay, fine. You can believe anything you want. It's quite possible the trade is very much in play.
But it's obvious that Lupica is making this up. He's pulling it out of thin air. He hopes Manny ends up on the Mets just like he hoped the Giants would make the Super Bowl.
This is not clear-headed sports journalism. It's a diary kept by a teenage girl. It's a little pink notebook with Eli and Theo and Omar written in big block letters, surrounded by hearts and smiley faces. It has no basis in reality.
Lupica will "eat his hat" if his Theo doesn't end up back in Boston "in some capacity" before spring training. Uh huh. Sure you will.
I have no ability to predict the future, but I feel confident that Lupica is eating that hat. Not because of any inside info regarding the Red Sox front office, but just because of Lupica's prognostication track record.
Lupica's hit rate is about as low as Eli's QB rating. (Zing! See what I did? That was totally Lupica-esque right there!)
This is a man who has implied for months that Eli Manning was ready to take the Giants to the Super Bowl.
This is a man who claimed the following on January 1: "Suddenly, rather amazingly, there is speculation about Herm Edwards coaching the Chiefs next season ... Here is how Edwards can get a contract extension: If the Jets are back in the playoffs again next season. If they aren't, then both he and Bradway are gone."
Less than a week later, Herm Edwards has a contract extension from the Chiefs.
When it's time to own up and admit he was wrong about Eli, he focuses on Tiki Barber's postgame reaction: "Did the Giants look like they got outcoached yesterday? Sure. When it's 23-0, it's on all of them. But if you think coaching was the headline here, and Barber clearly did, you were watching the wrong game."
Except the NY Post back page screams "Out-Foxed", the Star-Ledger's lead article mentions the coaching as its primary stroryline, and Newday's headline is "Outcoached & out door".
Coaching wasn't the headline, except it was. Coaching was the headline in every article except Lupica's.
Even if one disapproves with Tiki's reaction, it's very easy to prove that "coaching was the headline here." Just go to the bodega and look at the headlines.
This is a baseball blog and I've never talked about football before. I'm not really talking about football, though, I'm talking about credibility, or lack thereof.
Because it should be clear by now that this man has no inside knowlege, no understanding of the sports world, and doesn't even report the truth. He reports his Wishful Thinking version of the truth.
With that in mind, how can anybody take him seriously when he writes yet another love letter to Theo Epstein?:
"Just because Manny Ramirez gives an interview and says he wants to stay with the Red Sox doesn't mean he's going to stay with the Red Sox.
Or that the people in charge want him to stay.
I still believe Miguel Tejada for Manny and Matt Clement is still very much in play, and will until Tejada gets traded somewhere else.
I will also eat my hat if Theo Epstein doesn't end up back with Boston in some capacity before spring training."
Manny Ramirez no longer wants to be traded. Miguel Tejada no longer wants to be traded. (Again, those pesky headlines.)
Lupica still believes the trade is very much in play. Okay, fine. You can believe anything you want. It's quite possible the trade is very much in play.
But it's obvious that Lupica is making this up. He's pulling it out of thin air. He hopes Manny ends up on the Mets just like he hoped the Giants would make the Super Bowl.
This is not clear-headed sports journalism. It's a diary kept by a teenage girl. It's a little pink notebook with Eli and Theo and Omar written in big block letters, surrounded by hearts and smiley faces. It has no basis in reality.
Lupica will "eat his hat" if his Theo doesn't end up back in Boston "in some capacity" before spring training. Uh huh. Sure you will.
I have no ability to predict the future, but I feel confident that Lupica is eating that hat. Not because of any inside info regarding the Red Sox front office, but just because of Lupica's prognostication track record.
Lupica's hit rate is about as low as Eli's QB rating. (Zing! See what I did? That was totally Lupica-esque right there!)
Thursday, January 05, 2006
It's always about the Yankees and don't you forget it.
In a city of 10 million people, you probably could not find one Yankee fan who wants to see the Yankees play in the WBC. In fact, you might not be able to find one person who knows what the WBC is.
It's always about the Yankees. Murray Chass thinks that's a bad thing:
"Any time the Yankees are involved in a joint venture, they take a position most advantageous to themselves, often at the expense of others."
Yes, of course.
"Not so easily resolved is the problem posed by the Yankees, the only team that didn't vote for the Classic. From the start, George Steinbrenner didn't want his players in the tournament. If the Yankees were to be believed, all of their candidates for the tournament were injured."
Yes, of course. Chass's next article is going to be a rundown of pending Yankee DL disasters.
"Steinbrenner was once active in the American Olympic movement, but in his view, the March Classic will not benefit the Yankees. What's in it for them? An increase in international interest in baseball? An increase in international marketing revenue for baseball?"
Nothing, no, and no.
Nobody cares about the WBC.
"The Yankees, Steinbrenner would say if he were willing to speak publicly, do well enough on their own, generating revenue for themselves."
Right, and Steinbrenner would be 100% correct.
The Yankees obviously have little to gain. They're already worth $1 Billion with a B. It's why you're not writing an article about Damon Hollins. It's why you're not writing for the Kansas City Star-Tribune.
Murray Chass is writing about the Biggest Team in the Biggest Paper in the Biggest City. You'd think he'd understand. If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere. The city that never sleeps. I'll take Manhattan the Bronx and Staten Island, too. I recall Central Park in fall I tore my dress what a mess I confess.
This esteemed journalistic position does not prevent Chass from the following display of childlike pettiness:
"In this new era of international play, it seems that if Steinbrenner objects to his players competing for their countries, he could change his style. Let other teams sign players from Japan, Taiwan and Panama. And for good measure, let other teams sign the best free agents and do not trade for All-Star players."
For the record, George Steinbrenner "lets" other teams sign players from foreign countries and he also "lets" other teams sign the "best free agents". (What's a "best free agent," anyway? Does Josh Beckett qualify as a "best free agent"?)
But even if Chass objects in principle to the Yankee methodology, I fail to see what the WBC has to do with anything.
Is Chass really claiming that Steinbrenner should graciously trade Hideki Matsui to the Mariners because the Mariners would allow Matsui to play in the World Baseball Championship?
Is he serious? Is there a logical point in there somewhere? Out of the goodness of his heart, Steinbrenner should strive to make the Yankees a more mediocre team?
Steinbrenner's style, thank goodness, is to always put the Yankees first. That's why he tries to sign the best free agents. That's why he tries to trade for all-stars. That's also why he doesn't want his $100 million investments to risk injury while playing for a booby prize.
It's always about the Yankees. Murray Chass thinks that's a bad thing:
"Any time the Yankees are involved in a joint venture, they take a position most advantageous to themselves, often at the expense of others."
Yes, of course.
"Not so easily resolved is the problem posed by the Yankees, the only team that didn't vote for the Classic. From the start, George Steinbrenner didn't want his players in the tournament. If the Yankees were to be believed, all of their candidates for the tournament were injured."
Yes, of course. Chass's next article is going to be a rundown of pending Yankee DL disasters.
"Steinbrenner was once active in the American Olympic movement, but in his view, the March Classic will not benefit the Yankees. What's in it for them? An increase in international interest in baseball? An increase in international marketing revenue for baseball?"
Nothing, no, and no.
Nobody cares about the WBC.
"The Yankees, Steinbrenner would say if he were willing to speak publicly, do well enough on their own, generating revenue for themselves."
Right, and Steinbrenner would be 100% correct.
The Yankees obviously have little to gain. They're already worth $1 Billion with a B. It's why you're not writing an article about Damon Hollins. It's why you're not writing for the Kansas City Star-Tribune.
Murray Chass is writing about the Biggest Team in the Biggest Paper in the Biggest City. You'd think he'd understand. If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere. The city that never sleeps. I'll take Manhattan the Bronx and Staten Island, too. I recall Central Park in fall I tore my dress what a mess I confess.
This esteemed journalistic position does not prevent Chass from the following display of childlike pettiness:
"In this new era of international play, it seems that if Steinbrenner objects to his players competing for their countries, he could change his style. Let other teams sign players from Japan, Taiwan and Panama. And for good measure, let other teams sign the best free agents and do not trade for All-Star players."
For the record, George Steinbrenner "lets" other teams sign players from foreign countries and he also "lets" other teams sign the "best free agents". (What's a "best free agent," anyway? Does Josh Beckett qualify as a "best free agent"?)
But even if Chass objects in principle to the Yankee methodology, I fail to see what the WBC has to do with anything.
Is Chass really claiming that Steinbrenner should graciously trade Hideki Matsui to the Mariners because the Mariners would allow Matsui to play in the World Baseball Championship?
Is he serious? Is there a logical point in there somewhere? Out of the goodness of his heart, Steinbrenner should strive to make the Yankees a more mediocre team?
Steinbrenner's style, thank goodness, is to always put the Yankees first. That's why he tries to sign the best free agents. That's why he tries to trade for all-stars. That's also why he doesn't want his $100 million investments to risk injury while playing for a booby prize.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Mets get even younger & quicker.
A three-time All-Star and four-time Gold Glove winner, Boone's career has plummeted since the 2003 season. He was cut by the Seattle Mariners on July 3, dealt to Minnesota eight days later, then released by the Twins on Aug 1. He batted .221 with seven homers and 37 RBIs in 326 plate appearances.
"I don't know if he could rebound, but to bring in guy with his history on a minor league contract, I figured what is there to lose?" Mets general manager Omar Minaya said.
"I don't know if he could rebound, but to bring in guy with his history on a minor league contract, I figured what is there to lose?" Mets general manager Omar Minaya said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)