Well we've got 12 days left until Opening Day, which means it's season preview time. We'll be running it down team by team, with an added new wrinkle this time around: the beer of choice for fans of the team to enjoy whilst watching their team take the field! Nothing like that to help get you through a baseball season, especially if you're from Pittsburgh. Up next: the New York Yankees.
Lineup: Stacked. Future HOFers Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter make up the most famous left side of an infield in baseball, Mark Teixeira is a switch-hitting force to be reckoned with, Robinson Cano is one of the better second basemen going, and Jorge Posada has an outstanding bat for a catcher. In the outfield, Curtis Granderson figures to showcase excellent defense and hope to bounce back from a disappointing 2009 season - and Yankee Stadium's short porch in right should help that happen. He is flanked by the speedy Brett Gardner, whose defense figures to be well above average in left field, and Nick Swisher, whose eye at the plate and modest power makes him a suitable option. Nick Johnson will serve as the DH, and if that limited role helps him turn in a healthy season, then he should bring a near-.400 OBP to the bottom of this lineup. Basically, there are no real holes 1-9. The lineup was the best in baseball last season, and the addition of Granderson should help cover any regression from guys like Rodriguez, Jeter, and Posada. A bit of caution, though: this team is paper-thin. There is no depth to be had anywhere, and should one of the regulars suffer a serious injury, they'll likely have to make a midseason acquisition.
Rotation: Stacked. CC Sabathia heads up a rotation that also includes formidable arms in A.J. Burnett (who finally stayed healthy in a non-contract year) and Javier Vazquez (who had a case for the NL Cy Young last season). The ageless Andy Pettitte is back for another run, and is a fairly safe bet to provide league average production, as he has done over and over again throughout his career. The 5th spot is up for grabs right now, but for our money, the job should go to Phil Hughes. Joba Chamberlain, for all the attention afforded him, has not actually been a very good pitcher, and Hughes has a significant amount of promise - certainly more than Chamberlain. So 1-5, they should be about as good as anyone else. But again: No. Depth. There's no other starter on the roster whom you'd like to give the ball to for more than a spot start or two.
Bullpen: Aaaand...stacked. 3/3! Mariano Rivera is the best reliever of the saves era, and regardless of which of Hughes and Chamberlain the Yanks decide to use in a setup capacity, they'll have another lockdown option in the 8th (Chamberlain has been significantly better in relief than while starting). David Robertson is one of the best strikeout relievers going, and Alfredo Aceves, while not exactly a relief ace, is pretty solid. Oh, and Damaso Marte is left-handed. Sergio Mitre, Boone Logan, and Mark Melancoan suck, though.
Overall: For a juggernaut team - which they are, make no mistake about it - the Yankees are ill-equipped to handle a major injury. The punchless Ramiro Pena backs up 2nd and 3rd base as well as shortstop, and starting Nicks Johnson and Swisher back up 1st. Francisco Cervelli is the backup catcher, and Randy Winn is the fourth outfielder. Which is to say: they've got nobody good on the bench. And their best hope for a spot starter, since releasing Chad Gaudin, is Sergio Mitre. Who is awful. They can overcome these problems for awhile with the sheer amount of talent they have, but in the loaded AL East, they can't afford to throw too many PAs or IP at replacement level players.
Predicted Record: 94-68, 1st place AL East
Beer: Westvleteren 12. Any of the three will do, but 12 is the most expensive and most potent. Plus, it's widely regarded as one of, if not the, best beers in the world and carries no label - like the Yankees having no name on the back of the jerseys. The fun part about Westvleteren, as quoted from Wikipedia, is:
"Buyers were originally limited to ten 24-bottle crates of the beer per car, but as the beer increased in popularity, this was first reduced to five, then to two. For the Westvleteren 12 in 2009, it was limited to one case. When making an order now, the type and quantity of beer for sale are revealed. Sales are limited to one order a month per person per license plate and phone number. Also, the beer must be reserved on their "beerphone" (+32 (0)70 21 00 45) beforehand. The monks will never sell you any beer if you just drive up to the abbey hoping to get some. The reason for this is to eliminate commercial reselling, and hence give all visitors a chance to buy some."
That's right - it only comes in small quantities. Just like the Yankee players, there's a limited amount of goodness to be had. Perfect fit!
Showing posts with label cc sabathia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cc sabathia. Show all posts
2/18/10
MLB Jam: AL Semi-Finals
Oh boy, we're gettin to the quick now. 8 teams remain, including both 1 seeds and a couple of Cinderella stories in the (12) Houston Astros and (14) Baltimore Orioles. The backstopping darlings of the sabersphere (Wieters, Mauer) remain alive, to say nothing of the rangy (7) Mariners squad. SO! What will we see in today's action? Can Wieters and Mauer set the stage for a showdown that will surely be the end of us all? Will the Yankees continue their march of dominance? WE DON'T KNOW. Just kidding. We do. You don't. Yet. Games to 21, 2's and 3's, call own fouls and here...we...go.
Game 1: (1) New York Yankees vs. (5) Minnesota Twins
Players: Andrew Brackman/CC Sabathia vs. Joe Mauer/Pat Neshek
You know, the Yankees are a lot like the San Antonio Spurs in this business. We hope you'll ignore the cross-sport metaphor, considering that this whole thing is, you know, a cross-sport deal. In any event, they've got the David Robinson/Tim Duncan twin towers combo, their navy and white is more or less analogous to the Spurs' black and silver, and a title win by either feels more like a preordained event more than cause for celebration. It's a methodical march for these folks. So but then you can imagine the surprise when Sabathia goes all Tim Duncan and shoots 4-23 in a stunning display of selfishness and ineptitude considering that this is a game to 21. Sorry, boys, but you'll have to do better to beat Joe Mauer (the Kobe Bryant in the Yankees-Spurs analogy). Twins win, 21-17.
Game 2: (14) Baltimore Orioles vs. (7) Seattle Mariners
Players: Matt Wieters/Brian Matusz vs. Franklin Gutierrez/Milton Bradley
It's not too often that a 14/7 matchup features such elite talents. Neither team is to be trifled with, which we know is supposed to be said about all teams, but, well, some teams really suck (hi, KC!). But any team with Matt Wieters is a force, and any team featuring Franklin 'Death to Flying Things Jr.' Gutierrez is going to be a very tough out. So while they're low seeds, this isn't exactly an upset special - and neither team's trademarks of victory are going to work as well here. The chemistry between the Baltimore battery mates is impenetrable to Bradley's mercurial (we're legally required to say that word in any post where Bradley's name appears) nature, but the superb natural talents of Wieters is neutralized somewhat by Gutierrez's superhuman range around the court. The teams duel to an epic standstill - and at 50-50, both teams have had enough. So you know what's coming, of course: a shooting contest to determine the winner (no dunking). But after even that proves ineffective (it went on for hours and, while incredible to watch, also got repetitive), the teams decide that a sudden death point will win. They have a jump ball to determine who gets it first, which the Orioles win. Unfortunately for the Mariners, Bradley then tears an ACL arguing to the referee about the unfairness of the jump ball. Ironically, since we call our own fouls, Bradley was the ref - and, in fact, threw the jump ball in the first place. Poor guy. Orioles win, but we lost track of the score.
Oh, like there was any way we weren't going to have Mauer and Wieters facing off. Come on! Most exciting 5/14 matchup ever? Most exciting 5/14 matchup ever. Bracket time!
Game 1: (1) New York Yankees vs. (5) Minnesota Twins
Players: Andrew Brackman/CC Sabathia vs. Joe Mauer/Pat Neshek
You know, the Yankees are a lot like the San Antonio Spurs in this business. We hope you'll ignore the cross-sport metaphor, considering that this whole thing is, you know, a cross-sport deal. In any event, they've got the David Robinson/Tim Duncan twin towers combo, their navy and white is more or less analogous to the Spurs' black and silver, and a title win by either feels more like a preordained event more than cause for celebration. It's a methodical march for these folks. So but then you can imagine the surprise when Sabathia goes all Tim Duncan and shoots 4-23 in a stunning display of selfishness and ineptitude considering that this is a game to 21. Sorry, boys, but you'll have to do better to beat Joe Mauer (the Kobe Bryant in the Yankees-Spurs analogy). Twins win, 21-17.
Game 2: (14) Baltimore Orioles vs. (7) Seattle Mariners
Players: Matt Wieters/Brian Matusz vs. Franklin Gutierrez/Milton Bradley
It's not too often that a 14/7 matchup features such elite talents. Neither team is to be trifled with, which we know is supposed to be said about all teams, but, well, some teams really suck (hi, KC!). But any team with Matt Wieters is a force, and any team featuring Franklin 'Death to Flying Things Jr.' Gutierrez is going to be a very tough out. So while they're low seeds, this isn't exactly an upset special - and neither team's trademarks of victory are going to work as well here. The chemistry between the Baltimore battery mates is impenetrable to Bradley's mercurial (we're legally required to say that word in any post where Bradley's name appears) nature, but the superb natural talents of Wieters is neutralized somewhat by Gutierrez's superhuman range around the court. The teams duel to an epic standstill - and at 50-50, both teams have had enough. So you know what's coming, of course: a shooting contest to determine the winner (no dunking). But after even that proves ineffective (it went on for hours and, while incredible to watch, also got repetitive), the teams decide that a sudden death point will win. They have a jump ball to determine who gets it first, which the Orioles win. Unfortunately for the Mariners, Bradley then tears an ACL arguing to the referee about the unfairness of the jump ball. Ironically, since we call our own fouls, Bradley was the ref - and, in fact, threw the jump ball in the first place. Poor guy. Orioles win, but we lost track of the score.
Oh, like there was any way we weren't going to have Mauer and Wieters facing off. Come on! Most exciting 5/14 matchup ever? Most exciting 5/14 matchup ever. Bracket time!
1/19/10
MLB Jam: AL Edition
Well, this started as a post that was going to compile information about all the arbitration-eligible players in the league, like what they were being offered/countering with, what they signed for, etc. After all, a lot happens very quickly around this time of year. But then we found out that the indispensable Cot's Baseball Contracts is already doing just that. Sometimes, we just don't know why we bother.
But in any event we went through the trouble of logging in here, so, hey, might as well write something, right? A couple of days ago, over at our other gig on MLB Notebook, we briefly tossed out the idea of creating an MLB version of NBA Jam - hence the goofy title of this post. At the time, we weren't really sure how such a thing would work. Should we pick the two guys who'd be best at hoops, or the most representative players of the team regardless of hooping ability? If we did consider basketball skills, was there any chance that we could avoid charges of racism*? Should we look at baseball skills?
*Short answer: certainly not. Longer answer: certainly not, but it's not like we've got an enormous readership clamoring for controversy.
With no real answer in sight, we decided that this was probably a pretty silly idea. But then!
Well, no, there is no but then! moment. We're still fairly sure this is a dumb idea. But we're going to try to play it relatively straight, and pick the two guys who we think would make for a decent 2-on-2 team from each team's 40-man roster. Will it work? Well, that's for you to decide.
AL East
Baltimore Orioles: Matt Wieters and Brian Matusz
AL Central
Chicago White Sox: Brent Lillibridge and John Danks
AL West
Los Angeles Angels: Jered Weaver and Reggie Willits
Oakland Athletics: Jack Cust and Jerry Blevins
So there you have it. Feel free to let us know if you can think of better choices for any of the spots - we promise we won't be offended. Oh, and stay tuned for the NL version at some point in the near future. We hope.
But in any event we went through the trouble of logging in here, so, hey, might as well write something, right? A couple of days ago, over at our other gig on MLB Notebook, we briefly tossed out the idea of creating an MLB version of NBA Jam - hence the goofy title of this post. At the time, we weren't really sure how such a thing would work. Should we pick the two guys who'd be best at hoops, or the most representative players of the team regardless of hooping ability? If we did consider basketball skills, was there any chance that we could avoid charges of racism*? Should we look at baseball skills?
*Short answer: certainly not. Longer answer: certainly not, but it's not like we've got an enormous readership clamoring for controversy.
With no real answer in sight, we decided that this was probably a pretty silly idea. But then!
Well, no, there is no but then! moment. We're still fairly sure this is a dumb idea. But we're going to try to play it relatively straight, and pick the two guys who we think would make for a decent 2-on-2 team from each team's 40-man roster. Will it work? Well, that's for you to decide.
AL East
Baltimore Orioles: Matt Wieters and Brian Matusz
- Sliced bread, of course, is the greatest thing since Matt Wieters, and if Matusz can toss entry passes like a baseball, this team could get by on some Stockton/Malone mojo. They'll be a bit 'tweener-sized, since both are 6'5'', but they might be a nice darkhorse.
- The Sox are just not a very tall team - Dustin Richardson (whom we've never heard of ) is the tallest at 6'6''. So we're gonna go small ball with this team - Ellsbury's legs will play well at the point, and Pedroia seems like that annoying bastard at the Y who plays dirty and hits enough shots to feel secure in taunting everyone about it.
- Brackman is at least 6'10'' (he was listed at 7'0'' in the Cape Cod League) so he's a natural choice to be the big man for the Yankee squad. And have you ever seen a fat man play basketball who doesn't hit shots like it's his job? We haven't. And we're writing this. So there.
- Crawford gets the nod over the uber-athletic Desmond Jennings because he's got about 40 pounds on the guy. Niemann makes it because he's 6'9''. We also considered Matt Garza because of the aforementioned douche-factor that got Pedroia a spot, but we decided that Garza's more like the kind of guy that people on his own team resent during pickup games.
- We know it looks like this team will suck. But Jason Frasor's brother, Bobby Frasor, is the point guard at North Carolina, and Rzepczynski has a first-rate fitness program. So all we're saying here is that this team could be a dark horse.
AL Central
Chicago White Sox: Brent Lillibridge and John Danks
- "Baby Face" Brent Lillibridge is on the team because he looks sort of incredibly fragile, so he'll be able to draw plenty of charging calls against the bigger, badder teams. Danks' brother, Jordan, is an excellent athlete in center field, so maybe big bro John was blessed with some of that, too. What we're saying is, it's slim pickings on this team.
- We're going big with these guys. Carmona, a 6'5'' sinkerballer, should be able to throw a mean bounce pass - assuming he doesn't miss wildly every time. Masterson's 6'6'', and that's literally the only reason we can think of to put him on here. But unless Shin-Soo Choo has some Jeremy Lin in him, we're sort of at a loss for the rest of these guys.
- Couple of tall young guns here. We figure that since they're a pair of starting pitchers, they both spend plenty of their copious downtime with one another, and so have a good chemistry. Now let's all start pretending that "chemistry" has still never been used to settle an issue on this here blog.
- Sorry, but when a team is fielding two of the worst regular players in the league, they sort of have to be on the same team together. But, hey, at least Kendall has that Veteran Presence, eh? Let's just hope he doesn't break an ankle.
- Sort of the same reasoning here as with the Orioles...what, exactly, can't Joe Mauer do? And would Pat Neshek's sidearm game translate to roundball? And has anyone ever won a game while listening to Livin' on a Prayer? Stay tuned!
AL West
Los Angeles Angels: Jered Weaver and Reggie Willits
- Weaver, at 6'7'', would be one of the tallest players in this silly little contest. Willits has himself a speedy pair of legs, and since the other choices were the oft-injured Howie Kendrick and old Bobby Abreu, we took Willits. Though it would be funny to watch Fernando Rodney repeatedly throw chest passes into the crowd...that is, if he's not still standing on the mound in the Metrodome.
Oakland Athletics: Jack Cust and Jerry Blevins
- Cust's Three True Outcomes game at the plate clearly translates to the hardcourt like so: HR -> slam dunk; BB -> puppy two-footer; K -> missed three-pointer. Not the worst guy in the world to have on your team. Blevins is 6'6''. We're starting to see that size is something of a premium in MLB, so instead of going with the speedier Eric Patterson or Rajai Davis, we're gonna pick height. This is gonna be a plodding team, so for their sake, we may have to play half-court.
- Would you want to foul Bradley and get him angry? That's what we thought. And Gutierrez - a.k.a. Death to Flying Things - would clearly pull down every rebound in sight, and probably block a few shots as well.
- We're dipping into the defense theme again with Andrus, but Cruz is the real threat here. He's a stocky guy, at 230, but he's also got speed to burn, having stolen 20 bases last season.
So there you have it. Feel free to let us know if you can think of better choices for any of the spots - we promise we won't be offended. Oh, and stay tuned for the NL version at some point in the near future. We hope.
1/7/10
Thoughts on the Hall of Fame
So, as you probably know, the BaseBall Writers Association of America (looks funny when you do it that way, eh, BBWAA?) today saw their votes for the Hall of Fame bear their respective fruit. And, after all is said and done, we end up with the induction of...Andre Dawson!
Now, first of all, it's important to extend all due congratulations to The Hawk. He was a great player, and while we wouldn't have voted for him, I wouldn't argue too fiercely against anyone who did. Unless I was feeling particularly punchy. But that aside, Dawson was a prodigious combination of power and speed, and by all accounts could play the field as well as anyone in those days. He's one of three players ever (Barry Bonds, Willie Mays) to hit 400 bleacher treats and steal 300 bases, he had the respect of his peers (8 Gold Gloves, 4 Silver Sluggers), and won an MVP award. Plus, he was a Cubbie favorite, which means we grew up in a house that adored him.
So why, then would we have refrained from voting him in? Well, it comes down to one simple number: .323. That's The Hawk's career OBP. Let us put that in context for you: Kelly Johnson, a second baseman whom the Braves recently saw fit to non-tender, has a career .346 OBP. That's right - a gentleman whose OBP is 23 points higher than a current HOFer was apparently undeserving of a job with a team that could certainly use his services. It rather goes without saying that Dawson's .323 mark is the lowest OBP of any outfielder in the Hall - and, in fact, is 20 points lower than Lou Brock (who made the Hall for his base-stealing ability).
Now, again, the point of this post is not to deride the BBWAA for putting Dawson in. He had his moments, and they've certainly made worse decisions. No, the point of this post is to deride them for those worse decisions.
Let us first ask: how do you not vote Roberto Alomar in? A .300/.371/.443 line and a 119 OPS+ is great for anyone, but for a slick-fielding second baseman, it's incredible. A second baseman who, if you prefer counting stats, had over 2,700 hits, 210 homers, and nearly 500 stolen bases is a shoo-in. And yet, Alomar fell short. Why? It's almost certainly because writers are still clinging to this - and we cannot emphasize this enough - moronic idea that a player who isn't on Lou Gehrig's level isn't a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Oh...we're sorry...Lou Gehrig wasn't even a first ballot guy. Honestly, times like these make us wonder why we even bother caring about who makes the Hall, since the process is so clearly flawed.
And then we stop to consider the case of Bert Blyleven and...well, we get even more incensed. Here you have a guy who struck out 3,701 batters. He threw more shutouts than Pedro Martinez, Roy Halladay, Chris Carpenter, and CC Sabathia...combined. And the 8 players who rank ahead of him on the shutouts list are all in the Hall, as are the 13 pitchers behind him. He threw more innings than all but 13 pitchers in history, and you don't get to log that many innings without being outstanding. He boasts a stellar 2.8 career K:BB ratio, and placed in the top 10 in WHIP 11 times. But we'd like to go back to the stat with which we led off this paragraph - HE STRUCK OUT 3,701 BATTERS. 3,000 strikeouts, like 300 wins or 500 homers is one of those stats that's thrown around as an 'automatic entry' number. So why in the hell do writers think that the argument for Blyleven is merely that of SABRheads who don't care for old-fashioned stats? Why are they disregarding his enormous strikeout total and 287 wins? The word that's often thrown around is "compiler," and to steal from Buzz Bissinger (sorry, Buzz...we really like your work!), that just pisses the shit out of us.
Look, if a guy is going to "compile" stats, that means that he has to hang around long enough to do so. You want an example of a compiler? Look at Hank Aaron, who "compiled" 755 home runs? Did Nolan Ryan "compile" 5,714 strikeouts? Did Cy Young "compile" 511 wins? You're goddamn right they did. And so did everyone else who ever played the game of baseball and had their numbers recorded. That's the very definition of "compile." Now, we understand that baseball writers mean "compiler" in the sense that the players weren't great, but were merely hanging around as average-to-below-average contributors in order to add meaningless numbers to their counting stats. But even if that is the case, HoF-caliber players who are doing the hanging around act (cough...McGriff...cough) are doing so to try to meet the BBWAA's arbitrary definition of what makes a Hall of Famer.
Truth be told, it's nigh-impossible to understand exactly what thought process makes these writers vote the way they do. They eschew the sensibility that modern statistics provide us in order to stand by some misguided "gut judgment" of who is and who isn't a Hall of Famer...and if we're being honest, that's a simple abuse of their privileges. They aren't relying on the best possible information, but rather their own flawed, subjective ideas about who is the best and who isn't. Unless it's for reasons of pure hubris, we cannot fathom any reason why they would ignore statistical evidence in favor of their opinions. Why would you want to put yourself out there as an ignorant dullard who can bestow Baseball's highest honor upon undeserving players yet chooses to forgo understanding modern player evaluation?
Consider that food for thought, if not a call for a revolution in the voting system. The writers simply are not doing their job properly. They aren't treating their privileges with the respect they deserve; instead, they are content to get into pissing contests with dissenters and rely on their position as "Baseball Writer" to quell the arguments. It is, frankly, irresponsible and irrational - and that's without even getting us started on Tim Raines, Edgar Martinez, and Alan Trammell. All we want is for the BBWAA to wise up and embrace the way things are in today's world. Embrace the fact that we have better ways of evaluating players than thinking back on that one time we saw that one guy play and he hit a double and ran really hard. Embrace the fact that players' careers are a matter of public record, and that the people at large will know when you make indefensible choices. And embrace the fact that, if you choose to get into the aforementioned pissing contests, that your dissenters are better-informed (better-endowed, to continue the metaphor) than you. In short, wise up and appreciate these players as is your duty.
Now, first of all, it's important to extend all due congratulations to The Hawk. He was a great player, and while we wouldn't have voted for him, I wouldn't argue too fiercely against anyone who did. Unless I was feeling particularly punchy. But that aside, Dawson was a prodigious combination of power and speed, and by all accounts could play the field as well as anyone in those days. He's one of three players ever (Barry Bonds, Willie Mays) to hit 400 bleacher treats and steal 300 bases, he had the respect of his peers (8 Gold Gloves, 4 Silver Sluggers), and won an MVP award. Plus, he was a Cubbie favorite, which means we grew up in a house that adored him.
So why, then would we have refrained from voting him in? Well, it comes down to one simple number: .323. That's The Hawk's career OBP. Let us put that in context for you: Kelly Johnson, a second baseman whom the Braves recently saw fit to non-tender, has a career .346 OBP. That's right - a gentleman whose OBP is 23 points higher than a current HOFer was apparently undeserving of a job with a team that could certainly use his services. It rather goes without saying that Dawson's .323 mark is the lowest OBP of any outfielder in the Hall - and, in fact, is 20 points lower than Lou Brock (who made the Hall for his base-stealing ability).
Now, again, the point of this post is not to deride the BBWAA for putting Dawson in. He had his moments, and they've certainly made worse decisions. No, the point of this post is to deride them for those worse decisions.
Let us first ask: how do you not vote Roberto Alomar in? A .300/.371/.443 line and a 119 OPS+ is great for anyone, but for a slick-fielding second baseman, it's incredible. A second baseman who, if you prefer counting stats, had over 2,700 hits, 210 homers, and nearly 500 stolen bases is a shoo-in. And yet, Alomar fell short. Why? It's almost certainly because writers are still clinging to this - and we cannot emphasize this enough - moronic idea that a player who isn't on Lou Gehrig's level isn't a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Oh...we're sorry...Lou Gehrig wasn't even a first ballot guy. Honestly, times like these make us wonder why we even bother caring about who makes the Hall, since the process is so clearly flawed.
And then we stop to consider the case of Bert Blyleven and...well, we get even more incensed. Here you have a guy who struck out 3,701 batters. He threw more shutouts than Pedro Martinez, Roy Halladay, Chris Carpenter, and CC Sabathia...combined. And the 8 players who rank ahead of him on the shutouts list are all in the Hall, as are the 13 pitchers behind him. He threw more innings than all but 13 pitchers in history, and you don't get to log that many innings without being outstanding. He boasts a stellar 2.8 career K:BB ratio, and placed in the top 10 in WHIP 11 times. But we'd like to go back to the stat with which we led off this paragraph - HE STRUCK OUT 3,701 BATTERS. 3,000 strikeouts, like 300 wins or 500 homers is one of those stats that's thrown around as an 'automatic entry' number. So why in the hell do writers think that the argument for Blyleven is merely that of SABRheads who don't care for old-fashioned stats? Why are they disregarding his enormous strikeout total and 287 wins? The word that's often thrown around is "compiler," and to steal from Buzz Bissinger (sorry, Buzz...we really like your work!), that just pisses the shit out of us.
Look, if a guy is going to "compile" stats, that means that he has to hang around long enough to do so. You want an example of a compiler? Look at Hank Aaron, who "compiled" 755 home runs? Did Nolan Ryan "compile" 5,714 strikeouts? Did Cy Young "compile" 511 wins? You're goddamn right they did. And so did everyone else who ever played the game of baseball and had their numbers recorded. That's the very definition of "compile." Now, we understand that baseball writers mean "compiler" in the sense that the players weren't great, but were merely hanging around as average-to-below-average contributors in order to add meaningless numbers to their counting stats. But even if that is the case, HoF-caliber players who are doing the hanging around act (cough...McGriff...cough) are doing so to try to meet the BBWAA's arbitrary definition of what makes a Hall of Famer.
Truth be told, it's nigh-impossible to understand exactly what thought process makes these writers vote the way they do. They eschew the sensibility that modern statistics provide us in order to stand by some misguided "gut judgment" of who is and who isn't a Hall of Famer...and if we're being honest, that's a simple abuse of their privileges. They aren't relying on the best possible information, but rather their own flawed, subjective ideas about who is the best and who isn't. Unless it's for reasons of pure hubris, we cannot fathom any reason why they would ignore statistical evidence in favor of their opinions. Why would you want to put yourself out there as an ignorant dullard who can bestow Baseball's highest honor upon undeserving players yet chooses to forgo understanding modern player evaluation?
Consider that food for thought, if not a call for a revolution in the voting system. The writers simply are not doing their job properly. They aren't treating their privileges with the respect they deserve; instead, they are content to get into pissing contests with dissenters and rely on their position as "Baseball Writer" to quell the arguments. It is, frankly, irresponsible and irrational - and that's without even getting us started on Tim Raines, Edgar Martinez, and Alan Trammell. All we want is for the BBWAA to wise up and embrace the way things are in today's world. Embrace the fact that we have better ways of evaluating players than thinking back on that one time we saw that one guy play and he hit a double and ran really hard. Embrace the fact that players' careers are a matter of public record, and that the people at large will know when you make indefensible choices. And embrace the fact that, if you choose to get into the aforementioned pissing contests, that your dissenters are better-informed (better-endowed, to continue the metaphor) than you. In short, wise up and appreciate these players as is your duty.
9/10/09
Why Your Team Will Blow it in the Playoffs: New York Yankees
Well, it appears that just about all the playoff spots are decided. Per the excellent coolstandings.com, no team among the Yankees, Red Sox, Tigers, Angels, Phillies, Cardinals, Dodgers, and Rockies have a great shot of making the playoffs - barring a miraculous late season run, or the Rangers gelling together despite injuries and making good on their 36% chance of sneaking into the playoffs.
Now, this lack of drama is no fun at all in September, and it's nigh-unacceptable in the playoffs. So rather than just let things play out like they will, which is to say "predictably," we're going to try to throw a wrench into the hopes and dreams of fans of each of the aforementioned playoff probables. Because none of them are the Braves. AND SO: onward with the hating. First up: the New York Yankees, team with the best record in baseball and one of the easier teams to hate.
Why They're Great: Offense
The Yankee offense is spectacularly talented. Led by A-Rod, Jeter, and Teixeira, at least eight, and usually all nine, of their lineup regulars post above-average wOBA marks. Jeter in any other year would have a great MVP candidacy, A-Rod is performing above expectations after hip surgery, and Teixeira has been a good middle of the order force. But the players surrounding them have been meeting and/or exceeding expectations as well. Johnny Damon's found the fountain of youth, Nick Swisher's broken out the slugging stick (though only four of his dongers this year have been at home; how bizarre eh?), Jorge Posada has rebounded from injury better than we expected, Robby Cano is flashing talent again, and Hideki Matsui's knees are allowing him to play well as a DH. And they're also scoring 5.72 runs per game, which is the best mark in MLB. This is a team without a real hole when they're at the plate; opposing pitchers beware.
But Wait a Minute!
Do you really trust this team's pitching? We mean, REALLY trust it? It's great that they brought in CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett, whether or not CC has been worth the record contract they gave him. Both have been very helpful in getting them to where they are today. And of course there's Mariano lurking in the back of the pen, having one of the best seasons of his career. But let's look at the bigger picture here. What exactly are the Yankees going to be working with this postseason?
SP CC Sabathia
SP A.J. Burnett
SP Andy Pettitte
SP ...Joba? Sergio Mitre? Not Sergio Mitre, right? They wouldn't do that...would they?
Now, before we continue, let's just say this: we put little stock in past playoff performances. They are, to us, blown way out of proportion and seem to us - detached, coldhearted, and stat-minded as we are - to be more a function of small sample size than any special ability to bear down in clutch situations. That said...here's CC in the playoffs.
| Year | Tm | Series | Opp | ERA | GS | IP | H | ER | BB | SO | WHIP | H/9 | BB/9 | SO/9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | CLE | ALDS | SEA | 3.00 | 1 | 6.0 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 1.833 | 9.0 | 7.5 | 7.5 |
| 2007 | CLE | ALDS | NYY | 5.40 | 1 | 5.0 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 2.000 | 7.2 | 10.8 | 9.0 |
| 2007 | CLE | ALCS | BOS | 10.45 | 2 | 10.1 | 17 | 12 | 7 | 9 | 2.323 | 14.8 | 6.1 | 7.8 |
| 2008 | MIL | NLDS | PHI | 12.27 | 1 | 3.2 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 2.727 | 14.7 | 9.8 | 12.3 |
| 3 Seasons (4 Series) | 7.92 | 5 | 25.0 | 33 | 22 | 22 | 24 | 2.200 | 11.9 | 7.9 | 8.6 | |||
Well, that...um...speaks for itself. Let's move on to noted headcase A.J. Burnett! And, further, let's ignore that he's got exactly three (3) seasons of 200+ IP. And that two (2) of those came in contract years. And that, for what it's worth, he's never pitched in the postseason (we confess to being surprised at this point). Let's now imagine that everything people say about pitching in the postseason is true, and, moreover, that pitching in New York in the postseason is as nerve-wracking and spine-tingling and testicle-testing as they say. Is A.J. Burnett a guy you want running out there twice in a seven-game series? We're not sayin'...we're just sayin'.
So how about Andy Pettitte? He's got that veteran presence, that cool, calm demeanor that people love to talk about, right? He's been there before, he's seen it all, he can bring a level head to the clubhouse, blah blah blah. Here's the thing about Pettitte. He's 37. Over the last four years, he's pretty well established what he is at this point - a slightly above league average (105 ERA+, 1.41 WHIP) pitcher. And you know what? That's actually good enough when you've got a team that hits like the Yankees do. And Pettitte's been super durable throughout his career, so who knows if the age will affect him. So overall, Pettitte is actually in pretty good shape, but since this is the time for vitriol...he's old and doesn't have his best stuff anymore. So there.
This fourth spot is where things get interesting. We have to assume the Yanks'll start Joba there, but...honestly, would you feel comfortable betting so much as fifty cents on how they'll use him the next time he heads out to the mound? The Joba Rules or whatever are absurd, and left Keith Law saying that Joba "looked like he didn't know if he was coming or going" out on the mound. You expect a guy who's had his head toyed with by the Yankees for the last three years to be in good shape to pitch for them in the playoffs? Or that he'll actually, yknow, be good? It's worth mentioning a fact that gets lost in all the talk about the Joba Rules - he's posting the worst K/9, BB/9, HR/9, H/9, WHIP, and BAA rates of his career. In fact, he's just not been very good at all this season. A 4.45 ERA and 100 ERA+ aren't the stuff letters home are made of. And what if they decide to turn his starts into the three-inning disappearing acts we've been seeing of late? Does that mean Sergio Mitre will actually be taking the ball in high-leverage situations for multiple innings? For a team that's spending $200 million on payroll? We don't even need to pile on here...the guy's posting a 7.02 ERA. That'll have to speak for itself.
Oh, and the bullpen? Rivera is beyond reproach. Phil Hughes has been excellent, though we still think he should be a starter. Alfredo Aceves has been good, posting a nifty 2.39 WXRL. And Phil Coke has been a serviceable lefty. But beyond those four guys, well, there's not a lot of talent here. And depending on how scared they are of Rivera's injury problems, however minor they may be, he may be limited exclusively to one-inning duty. Which means that you've now got three guys handling all the significant bullpen innings that are being left behind by a rotation that will be of questionable efficacy. All we're saying is...we hope these guys are ready to try to hit their way into November.
7/2/09
On Pitch Counts
Yesterday, while watching Baseball Tonight - specifically, the Braves-Phillies highlight - the hosts mentioned that Jair Jurrjens had a no-hitter going through 7 and that Bobby Cox had said after the game, something to the effect of "I'm actually glad they broke up the no-hitter; I was concerned about his pitch count." The hosts then mentione that Jurrjens threw 97 pitches through 7 innings.
We - and we really can't put this strongly enough - hate pitch counts. This is not based on some old-school notion of "pitchers should be manly men who throw 400 innings a season like the good old days! Ed Walsh never would've come out of a game after 6 innings!" No, this is based on the idea that, to quote Herm Edwards, You Play To Win The Game. If your pitcher is dominating the WFC to the tune of a no-hitter through 7 innings, and he's showing no signs of tiring, don't pay attention to his pitch count. 100 is not some magic number whereby your pitcher's arm is going to fall off should he dare throw another pitch.
We know we're not breaking new ground here, which is in part why Cox's quote was so distressing. Countless pitchers, media types, and bloggers with much more of a head for research and numbers work than ourselves have gone on record saying things to the effect of: too much importance is placed on pitch counts these days. If a guy is struggling, it's hot out, he's having to nibble at corners all day, etc, then he might not be effective past even 75 or so pitches. If a guy's on cruise control, his stuff's all working, the slider's sludding, etc, then he shouldn't have a problem running it up to 120 pitches.
To wit: the idea of pitcher protection, according to the Hardball Times article linked above, came about around 15 years ago. And ever since then...well, pitchers are still getting hurt. It's a wildly violent, unnatural motion, pitching is, and no amount of pitcher protection is going to change that. You can ride a guy like CC Sabathia, and he won't get hurt. You can ride a guy like Mark Prior, and he will. Baby a guy like Ben Sheets, and he'll get hurt. Baby a guy like Roy Halladay and you're shooting yourself in the foot. It's a delicate science, to be sure, but we would argue that a basic tenet of pitching is to use your starters as much as possible. They're starters because they are more skilled at their craft than relievers; that's why they're handed more innings.
What we really want to say is this, and it's mostly directed towards the inimitable Bobby Cox, one of the greatest managers of all time: if your young stud pitcher is cruising, no-hitter or not, don't get the bullpen up just because he's nearing a hundred pitches. Stop making us question your acumen! This is twice in the last week.
We - and we really can't put this strongly enough - hate pitch counts. This is not based on some old-school notion of "pitchers should be manly men who throw 400 innings a season like the good old days! Ed Walsh never would've come out of a game after 6 innings!" No, this is based on the idea that, to quote Herm Edwards, You Play To Win The Game. If your pitcher is dominating the WFC to the tune of a no-hitter through 7 innings, and he's showing no signs of tiring, don't pay attention to his pitch count. 100 is not some magic number whereby your pitcher's arm is going to fall off should he dare throw another pitch.
We know we're not breaking new ground here, which is in part why Cox's quote was so distressing. Countless pitchers, media types, and bloggers with much more of a head for research and numbers work than ourselves have gone on record saying things to the effect of: too much importance is placed on pitch counts these days. If a guy is struggling, it's hot out, he's having to nibble at corners all day, etc, then he might not be effective past even 75 or so pitches. If a guy's on cruise control, his stuff's all working, the slider's sludding, etc, then he shouldn't have a problem running it up to 120 pitches.
To wit: the idea of pitcher protection, according to the Hardball Times article linked above, came about around 15 years ago. And ever since then...well, pitchers are still getting hurt. It's a wildly violent, unnatural motion, pitching is, and no amount of pitcher protection is going to change that. You can ride a guy like CC Sabathia, and he won't get hurt. You can ride a guy like Mark Prior, and he will. Baby a guy like Ben Sheets, and he'll get hurt. Baby a guy like Roy Halladay and you're shooting yourself in the foot. It's a delicate science, to be sure, but we would argue that a basic tenet of pitching is to use your starters as much as possible. They're starters because they are more skilled at their craft than relievers; that's why they're handed more innings.
What we really want to say is this, and it's mostly directed towards the inimitable Bobby Cox, one of the greatest managers of all time: if your young stud pitcher is cruising, no-hitter or not, don't get the bullpen up just because he's nearing a hundred pitches. Stop making us question your acumen! This is twice in the last week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
