Posts filed under 'General'
Jeff J. Snider
General
Now that the Andruw Jones Era is over in Los Angeles, I thought I’d run down just how much the Dodgers are going to end up paying for his “services,” along with a comparison of what A-Rod would have been paid last year on an equivalent scale.
At $36.2 million, Andruw Jones made:
–$1,096,969 for every hit
–$272,180 for every fair ball
–$2,585,714 for every RBI
–$482,667 for every game played
–$3,016,667 for every extra-base hit
–$12,066,667 for every home run
How much would A-Rod have made last year (remember, Yankee fans, it was a “down year”)?
–$1,096,969 x 154 hits = $168,933,226
–$272,180 x 393 fair balls = $106,966,740
–$2,585,714 x 103 RBI = $266,328,542
–$482,667 x 138 games = $66,608,046
–$3,016,667 x 68 extra-base hits = $205,133,356
–$12,066,667 x 35 HR = $422,333,345
And just for more fun, let’s see what A-Rod would make on the Andruw Scale in a GOOD season (like 2007):
–$1,096,969 x 183 hits = $200,745,327
–$272,180 x 463 fair balls = $126,019,340
–$2,585,714 x 156 RBI = $247,371,384
–$482,667 x 158 games = $76,261,386
–$3,016,667 x 85 extra-base hits = $256,416,695
–$12,066,667 x 54 HR = $651,600,018
Looks like the ~$51 million the Yankees have paid A-Rod the past two years has been a downright bargain.
January 17th, 2009 at 03:30pm
Jeff J. Snider
General
It seems like it’s the cool thing to rip on the All-Star game these days. A myriad of writers, both professional and mom’s-basement-dwelling, had criticisms of the selection process, or at least of some of the specific selections. One thing I have been pleased to see is that, at least among the things I have read (and let’s face it, I don’t have time to read everything, so my perception may not reflect reality), people aren’t just complaining — they’re actually suggesting concrete ways to fix it. Jayson Stark’s article in particular was focused not on whining, but on making suggestions. Some of his suggestions were remarkably similar to last year’s column, but there’s nothing wrong with a little repetition, I guess.
What I liked most about Stark’s column was that you can tell that he loves the All-Star game. A lot of the things I have read are written by people who clearly think the All-Star game is a waste of time. Some of them have said it explicitly, and others have made it clear from the tone of their criticisms. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, necessarily, but it’s an attitude that I can’t agree with, and it makes the opinions hard to agree with sometimes.
Like Jayson Stark, I love the All-Star game. Part of it is just my love for baseball in general — I’d rather watch a midseason game between the Royals and Mariners than a playoff game between the Lakers and Spurs. But even more than that, I love the magic of the All-Star game and its surrounding hoopla. Here are some of the specific things I loved about this year’s festivities:
- I loved watching the Home Run Derby, watching grown millionaires sitting cross-legged on the grass with their kids and their video cameras. (Why do they all have video cameras? Don’t they have TiVo?)
- I loved watching David Ortiz and other guys with superhuman ability marveling at the superhuman ability of Josh Hamilton.
- I loved seeing Hamilton nearly in tears as the magic of the moment washed over him. At one point, when he had hit 24 or 25 homers, I actually thought he was going to bawl.
- I loved seeing so many Hall of Famers in one place. I paused at one point to answer the phone or something, and when I got back, I noticed that I had happened to pause on a shot of Mike Schmidt, George Brett, Brooks Robinson, and Wade Boggs. How amazing is that quartet?
ландшафт
- I loved seeing Cal Ripken. Cal has always brought a smile to my face, but last night when I paused on his close-up and told my little boy, “Hey, that’s who you’re named after,” I thought I might join Josh Hamilton in the crybaby club.
- I loved seeing the best players currently in baseball play against each other.
- I loved seeing Jason Varitek chuckle at being booed by the Yankee Stadium crowd, and I loved hearing the New York fans cheering J.D. Drew. Seriously, Dodger fans booed Drew when he played for their team, Red Sox fans booed Drew last year when he played for their team, and Phillies fans boo him all the time because he refused to play for their team, and HE is the one Red Sox player who can get cheers from the Yankees fans?
- I loved seeing the relief on Dan Uggla’s face after Aaron Cook miraculously induced three weak grounders to save his bacon in the 10th inning.
There’s probably more. I’m sure of it. Overall, Monday and Tuesday were two great days. But I have some constructive criticism, because there were some problems that glared so brightly I sometimes had to consciously focus on the positive. Here are some of the things I didn’t love:
- Here’s the bottom line: Josh Hamilton won the Home Run Derby. He hit more home runs than Justin Morneau. The guy who hits the most total home runs should be the winner. If a team scores 85 runs in the first inning, then gets outscored 12-1 in the last eight innings, guess what? They win 86-12!
- Rick Reilly. In the interest of full disclosure, I have had a sore spot for Reilly ever since 2001, when he wrote an article for Sports Illustrated about BYU’s “unfair advantage” in football because most of their players had served two-year LDS missions and were therefore two years older than most of the guys they played against. I could write a ten page missive explaining all the problems there (most notably the fact that Mormon missionaries have less than twelve hours a week that isn’t devoted to proselyting, during which time they do their laundry, write letters to family and friends, go grocery shopping, and try to fit in a little light exercise here and there — not exactly the training regimen recommended for a college football player), but this is not the time or place for that. Since that time, I have tried to read a few things Reilly has written, but I’ve always either been bored or been overwhelmed by pretentiousness.
So when Reilly started ranting about all the “white guys” in the Home Run Derby, I wanted to punch him in the throat. He compared it to a “Kiwanis Club meeting,” a line so obviously premeditated and designed for laughs that you had to wonder why he never noticed that it wasn’t funny. Race is a sensitive topic these days, and that’s because of comments like this. Reilly had absolutely no viable suggestion for who SHOULD have been there (sorry, but Ryan Howard and Ken Griffey aren’t on the All-Star team, and Miguel Tejada is no longer a power hitter), nor did he seem to notice the inherent racism in the idea that we should have minorities just for the sake of having minorities.
But worst of all, when did we as a society decide that the only good kind of “diversity” is the “racial” kind. In this Derby, we had a 22-year-old rookie (Evan Longoria), a Canadian former MVP (Justin Morneau), a tiny little power-hitting second basemen who is a future MVP (Chase Utley), another tiny little power-hitting second baseman who was a Rule 5 draftee just three years ago (Uggla), a fat dude with bad knees and a mullet who happens to be one of the best hitters in baseball (Lance Berkman), a skinny little former Rookie of the Year who has started his career by hitting homers at a historic pace (Ryan Braun), and a fast little center fielder who happens to be leading the American League in home runs (Grady Sizemore). Oh yeah, and Josh Hamilton, whose story you may have heard about. Sure, the name recognition of previous Derbies was missing, but anyone who tells me it lacked diversity just because all the players were white is not a baseball fan, and therefore has no business being involved in ESPN’s coverage of a baseball event.
- Joe Buck and Tim McCarver actually thought running out of position players was a bigger problem than running out of pitchers. It’s like they’ve never seen an American League game before — with the DH, you can play with the same position players for as long as you need to, as long as no one gets hurt. And the guy with the best chance of getting hurt — the catcher — has an exception that allows him to be replaced in the event of an injury. So, to be clear, running out of pitchers was a bigger issue than running out of position players. If you follow my handy rule of thumb (“The only time Tim McCarver is right is if Joe Morgan disagrees with him”), you won’t have a problem.
- And now, the big one…
Major League Baseball needs to decide what the purpose of the All-Star game is, and then it needs to act accordingly. Is it an exhibition, or does it matter? Those two are mutually exclusive, and by trying to lead a double life, MLB has turned the game into something that is destined to fail. If it hadn’t been last night, it would have been next year’s game, or the year after that — eventually, we were going to have another extra inning game like in 2002. And since all they’ve done since 2002 is slightly expand the rosters and repeat “This time it counts” over and over, an extra inning game was bound to cause problems.
No, we didn’t end in a tie, so MLB executives probably see it as a success. But Brandon Webb and Scott Kazmir both pitched on one day’s rest after throwing 100+ pitches on Sunday. I’m sure Joe Maddon and Bob Melvin see a problem with that.
When Michael Young lofted that game-winning sac fly to right, I quickly scanned my brain to try to remember how good Matt Holliday’s arm is. Then I remembered that it was Corey Hart in right field, and I realized that arm strength is not one of the three things I know about Corey Hart. (1. Looked cocky and uninterested during Ernie Banks’ pregame pep talk. 2. Has bad facial hair. 3. Has no business playing right field in an All-Star game with the game on the line.)
Here is the NL lineup at the end of the game last night:
Miguel Tejada
Dan Uggla
Adrian Gonzalez
David Wright
Cristian Guzman
Corey Hart
Ryan Ludwick
Nate McLouth
Brian McCann
If I were a Major League manager, I’d be pretty pleased with that team. If I were an All-Star manager, though, I’d be wondering where all the All-Stars are. Oh yeah, that’s right, we took them out nine innings ago.
Plain and simple, if this game means anything, then you do not take your best players out of the game. They have a day off before and a day off after, so no position player needs a rest. Your starting pitcher goes more than two innings. Cristian Guzman never leaves the bench, and if he does, it certainly won’t be to play third base, a position he has never played before. (Honestly, a team with Chipper Jones, David Wright, and Aramis Ramirez — not to mention Russell Martin — finishes the game with Cristian Guzman playing third?!? I guess when you have a .687 career OPS, they’ll do anything to get your bat into the game.)
So, Mr. Selig, it’s time to decide: does the game matter or not? If it does, and if you really want to keep determining World Series home field advantage based on the All-Star game, then you need to make it clear and act accordingly. Get rid of the “every team must be represented” rule — Cristian Guzman deserves to be an All-Star because everyone else on his team is lousy? Make it clear to the non-starters that they might not get into the game. Make it clear that seven or eight of the twelve pitchers on the roster probably won’t get in the game. Either drop guys who are “unavailable” (like Webb and Kazmir last night) from the roster and replace them with fresh arms, or make the All-Star break longer so even guys who pitched the last game before the break are available for short relief. Oh yeah, and stop letting the fans put guys like Corey Hart on the team.
Or go back to the game being an exhibition. Let the managers schedule the entire pitching staff and pitch them at one-inning intervals. Make the rule coming in that if the game is tied after ten innings (or whatever), it is over and it’s a tie and who cares it’s just an exhibition isn’t this awesome being in Yankee Stadium with dozens of Hall of Famers and Rudy Giuliani? Go ahead and take A-Rod out after two at-bats and Albert Pujols after three. Go ahead and give Corey Hart and Cristian Guzman their moments in the sun. Keep putting guys on the team who are having career years and will soon be forgotten. And while we’re at it, let’s just go ahead and let the team with the better record have home field advantage in the World Series.
I honestly don’t care which route they take (I think I prefer the exhibition, but there are things about the other way that I like) — I just want them to make a decision and go with it. There’s no such thing as an exhibition that matters, and the schizophrenia is detracting from a beautiful event.
Those are my thoughts. Like I said, overall I loved the past two days, and I just want MLB to make it even better.
July 16th, 2008 at 03:34pm
Jeff J. Snider
General
It appears that Major League Baseball is going to implement instant replay, maybe even as early as August 1 of this year. This might say more about the things (and people) I read than anything else, but Joe Morgan is the only person I know of who is against it. (Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if at least a healthy minority of former players is against the idea, as former players sometimes seem to agree on a lot of things that go against what “outsiders” think.) But even amongst people who favor the idea (and especially among those who oppose it), there is concern about the “slippery slope”: If we start using replay for home runs, what’s to stop us from using it on everything?
I think Rob Neyer was mostly right when he said:
Now, about that old slippery slope … What sort of “assurances” would be worth a pail of warm tobacco spit, anyway? Sure, MLB can say this is as far as it’ll go, but what’s the point? One year, two years, five years down the road, absolutely nothing would prevent a change in policy. So I don’t expect MLB to make some empty gesture at this point.
And I wouldn’t want them to. Maybe today the guy in New York seems appropriate only for those home-run calls. But don’t you think our sensibilities might change? Here’s a prediction: Within five years, the expanded use of that guy in New York will be supported by even King Kaufman.
But I don’t think I agree with his prediction. I think there is a clear, discernible difference between home run calls and the other calls people are talking about with the slippery slope: distance. There are a lot of calls that umpires have to make, and for 99% of them, the guy responsible for the call is within a few feet. People worry about instant replay on balls and strikes, but there’s a guy getting paid to stand three feet from the plate and focus on nothing other than calling balls and strikes. Close plays at a base? There’s a man in blue within spitting distance making the call.
I am perfectly willing to accept — even embrace, to an extent — human error by the umpires, as long as we are putting them in position to make the right calls. The problem with home runs is that, in a best-case scenario, an umpire is 200 feet from the ball when he needs to make the call. Not to mention that it’s happening behind where he was facing when the ball was hit, which means he has to turn 180 degrees and pick up the flight of the ball again, all the while running out to get as close as possible to where the ball is going to land so he can try to make the right call.
When you talk about centerfield, it’s even worse. That blown call at Minute Maid Park in Houston the other week, when Geovanny Soto ended up with an inside-the-park homer on what should have been an outside-the-park homer … well, that poor umpire never had a chance. Super-slow motion replays showed us that it was on the left side of that yellow line, but do you really think an umpire has ANY chance to see which side of a yellow line a white ball hits from 250 feet away? I don’t think so.
Joe Morgan’s other argument is that home runs are not the only plays that affect the outcome of games, and he is absolutely right. But of all the plays that affect outcomes and expect middle-aged men to make calls from hundreds of feet away, the vast majority are home runs. And the others? I’m fine with using replay on them, too. I’d be fine with a rule that says, “Any play is eligible for review if the umpire responsible for the call was in his correct position and still more than 50 feet from the play.” Yes, there’s some quaint charm about umpires messing up and managers arguing with them — one of my favorite books of all time is “The Umpire Strikes Back,” by Ron Luciano, which is mostly stories of Luciano and Earl Weaver arguing about calls that Luciano screwed up — but I don’t think we need to resist opportunities for improvement just because we like to see Lou Piniella throw bases around.
And best of all, we wouldn’t lose those arguments. Arguments about balls and strikes or close plays on the bases are much more common than arguments about homers, and most arguments are more about the manager sticking up for his players than about the umpire being wrong, anyway. In Luciano’s entire book, there is only one story of him arguing about a home run call (although, I have to admit, it’s a doozy; it includes Luciano, who was famous for his flamboyant calls, saying, “I was all the way in the air when I realized I had no idea where the ball had landed”).
Overall, I am glad that replay is coming, and I am REALLY glad that the people I’ve been listening to — even Joe Morgan — have stopped talking about how much it will slow down the game. Because you know how quick the manager-vs.-umpire arguments always are.
June 17th, 2008 at 04:04pm
Jeff J. Snider
General
???????? ????? ????????
That picture you see is Richie Sexson ducking out of the way of a fastball. (Sorry that it looks like it’s a YouTube video; I took the screenshot while watching a YouTube video.) You might notice, of course, that the pitch is, as the French say, over le plate. But did that stop Sexson from charging the mound, throwing his helmet at the pitcher, and tackling him to the ground? Of course not. In Richie Sexson’s mind, the pitcher was throwing at him, and the fact that he missed by three feet isn’t enough to make it okay.
I’d say more, but I think in this case, a picture really is worth a thousand words.
May 9th, 2008 at 03:44pm
Jeff J. Snider
General, Web Stuff
I think I’ve always known this in the back of my mind, or perhaps in the cockles of my heart, but I never really thought about it until now. “Rantings & Ramblings” is, well, a stupid name for a website. Or more to the point, it is a stupid name for MY website.
I didn’t realize it until Craig over at Shysterball linked to me the other day, and he said, “…Jeff Snider over at Rantings & Ramblings….” My exact thought was what you see in the title of this post.
You see, I don’t really rant all that much. When you look up “rant” in the dictionary, you see words like “wild” and “tirade” and stuff like that. I do occasionally get passionate about things, but I like to think that I generally avoid the incoherence and irrationality that “ranting” implies.
And I really hope I don’t ramble too much, at least not in a bad way. I think rambling can be a beautiful art form (Joe Posnanski’s blog, to which I am a recent convert, is a great example). I also think that when left in the hands of amateurs, rambling is a sign of weak thoughts and/or weak writing skills. Blogs especially lend themselves to this kind of rambling, because hey, no editor! You don’t have to begin with the end in mind; you just start typing, and whatever comes out is your own special artistry. Only excepting that kind of writing, you know, sucks. With very few exceptions, I start writing knowing at least approximately what I want to say; and in those cases where I DON’T know where I’m going, that is a deliberate part of the process, and that lack of a road map becomes my road map. Freaky, eh?
So if I don’t rant much and I rarely ramble, the title “Rantings & Ramblings” ceases to have meaning and is left with just alliteration. Don’t get me wrong — I LOVE alliteration. But if I’m going to give my personal website a name based only on alliteration, I can surely come up with something more creative and less juvenile than “Rantings & Ramblings,” no? It just sounds so faux-edgy and pretentious, like something Lewis Black would come up with.
So with that said, I am officially announcing that I will be changing the name of my site as soon as I think of a better one. I don’t know if it will be something boring based on my name (which, you’ll notice, is also the domain name), or if it will be something that creatively describes me. Heck, it might even be alliterative. But whatever it is, it will be, at a minimum, accurate.
If you have any ideas, feel free to throw them in the comments.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:44pm
Jeff J. Snider
General
I did the American League the other day (background is in that post, too); today we will look at the National League.
Los Angeles Dodgers
Favorite: Russell Martin*
Why: There’s an asterisk there for a reason. Russell Martin is my favorite current Dodger, and one of my three favorite current players (along with Albert Pujols and Alex Rodriguez). I was in Dodger Stadium the day Martin made his Major League debut, and I have to admit that I was excited the day before when I saw Dioner Navarro injure his hand on TV, knowing it meant Martin would get the call. But I am a lifelong Dodger fan, and I have very fond memories of the 1988 World Championship team, including Orel Hershiser and his magical season. Well guess what? Orel in 1988 and Russell today are both represented by a Dodger jersey with the number 55 on back. And the 55 gives a minor shout out to Mike Marshall, my favorite player from my childhood and number 5 for the Dodgers.
Would I buy his jersey: Yep. Gimme a NNOB with number 55, and I am very happy.
San Diego Padres
Favorite: Shawn Abner
Why: When I was a teenager, our youth group from church went down to a Padres/Dodgers game in San Diego. Before the game, Shawn Abner was like the designated warm-up partner; he stood there for about a half-hour and played catch with just about every one of his Padres teammates. When he was done, he turned to me and tossed me the ball. The ball that every single Padre — even the good ones! — had just played catch with. He became my favorite Padre that day.
Would I buy his jersey: Probably. My only hesitation would be, like with the Bo Jackson White Sox jersey, that no one would know I was wearing a Shawn Abner jersey. They’d think my last name was Abner; or even worse, they might think my FIRST name was Abner (no offense, Mr. Doubleday).
San Francisco Giants
Favorite: Willie Mays or Mel Ott
Why: Having a favorite Giant is kind of like having a favorite venereal disease. As a Dodger fan, I just don’t like the Giants. (It’s not as intense as the way Giants fans feel about the Dodgers; the Giants could finish in 4th place, and as long as the Dodgers finished in 5th, Giants fans would be happy. It’s sad, really.) So my options are guys I loved on other teams who happened to play for the Giants (Brett Butler, Orel Hershiser, etc.) or go old school with Mays or Ott. I’d choose Mays or Ott because it wouldn’t have to be a San Francisco Giants jersey.
Would I buy his jersey: Yeah, I could go with a Mays or Ott jersey. Probably Ott, just because (as far as I know) he never godfathered Barry Bonds.
Colorado Rockies
Favorite: Larry Walker
Why: He was a good player outside of Colorado. Every other Rockie I can think of either never got a chance to prove he was good elsewhere (Todd Helton), proved that he WASN’T any good elsewhere (Dante Bichette, Vinny Castilla, etc.), or wasn’t any good anywhere (98% of the players who have played for the Rockies). Walker had his best years with Colorado, but he did just fine with the Expos before and the Cardinals after. And I have a soft spot for Canadians, for some reason.
Would I buy his jersey: I don’t think so. I don’t like the Rockies, I don’t like the way their jerseys look, and I don’t like Walker enough to justify it.
Arizona Diamondbacks
Favorite: Roberto Alomar
Why: Sure, he only played 38 games and had 110 at-bats for the D-Backs. But I am a big Alomar fan, and I don’t like the Diamondbacks, so I don’t care a whole lot.
Would I buy his jersey: Probably not. I wouldn’t mind having an Alomar jersey, but the only way it would say D-Backs on it is if it completed the set.
Chicago Cubs
Favorite: Ryne Sandberg
Why: I was a big fan of Sandberg when he was playing, and while his Hall of Fame induction speech rubbed me a bit the wrong way, I still love the guy.
Would I buy his jersey: Yep. I really like the Cubs home jerseys, and I would love to wear Sandberg’s number.
Houston Astros
Favorite: Jeff Bagwell
Why: Maybe it’s his first name. Maybe it’s the number 5. Maybe it’s a lot of things. But I have always been a big Jeff Bagwell fan, ever since he kind of came out of nowhere to win the Rookie of the Year award. Nolan Ryan also entered the picture, and I kind of wouldn’t mind having Ryan jerseys from the Mets, Angels, Astros, and Rangers; but I remember Ryan more as a Ranger, and Bagwell teamed with Craig Biggio to define the Astros for the better part of my lifetime.
Would I buy his jersey: Heck yeah.
Cincinnati Reds
Favorite: Tom Seaver
Why: For my entire life that I remember, I have had a vague dislike for the Reds. They were the Dodgers’ big rivals back in the day, and I still believe that they didn’t play their hardest against the Braves late in the 1991 season, helping the Braves overcome the Dodgers’ lead and dress up as Cinderella. I don’t actively hate the Reds, but I have a big ol’ helping of I-don’t-give-a-crap that gives me no desire to pick a Reds player from my baseball-watching days. So I am going with Tom Seaver, whose pitching I always admired.
Would I buy his jersey: It’s a tough call, but probably. I don’t know how often I would wear it, though, since I don’t like the Reds and I don’t care a whole lot for the look of their jerseys. Why am I buying it again? Hmmmmm…
Milwaukee Brewers
Favorite: Don Sutton
Why: It’s a tough call taking Sutton, who I liked a lot but more as a Dodger, and Robin Yount, who I liked less but I actually liked as a Brewer. I went with Sutton, although I also had to forget his time as a Braves announcer to do it.
Would I buy his jersey: Sure. I like the old 1980s Brewers jerseys, and I like Sutton.
St. Louis Cardinals
Favorite: Albert Pujols
Why: I like the Cardinals. Pujols is one of my favorite players. He’s number 5. It’s a no-brainer.
Would I buy his jersey: Absolutely.
Pittsburgh Pirates
Favorite: Roberto Clemente
Why: One of the first books I ever read was a little 150-page biography of Clemente, back when I was about eight or nine years old, and I developed an immediate respect and admiration for him as a player and a person. He’s right up there with Ripken and Gehrig on my list of favorite all-time players.
And speaking of Clemente and jerseys, I just gotta say how dumb I think Yankee fans are. LaTroy Hawkins wanted to wear number 21 to honor Clemente, but he met a huge backlash from Yankee fans because number 21 was Paul O’Neill’s number. Paul freaking O’Neill! Yes, he was a great Yankee, but not great enough to have his number retired (as evidenced by the fact that, you know, they haven’t retired it). Only Yankee fans could be so self-involved to think that Paul O’Neill is more important than a guy wanting to honor a great ballplayer and humanitarian like Roberto Clemente.
Would I buy his jersey: For sure. And it would be one of my prized possessions.
Atlanta Braves
Favorite: Dale Murphy
Why: It would definitely have to be someone from before the Glavine/Smoltz era began, because I can’t stand front-runner Braves fans. And being a Mormon, Dale Murphy was always a bit of a role model for me. I don’t know if Murphy should be in the Hall of Fame or not, but I believe he was criminally overlooked for consideration.
Would I buy his jersey: Yes, as long as it was a pre-tomahawk jersey.
Florida Marlins
Favorite: Ivan Rodriguez
Why: The first postseason my wife and I watched together was in 2003, when the Marlins beat the Yankees in the World Series. When Pudge held on to the ball as J.T. Snow barreled over him at the plate, ending the decisive game of the NLDS, the Marlins became our team for that postseason. Whenever I see Pudge, it brings back wonderful memories of teaching my wife about the game of baseball and sharing my favorite sport with my favorite person (hey, something can be cheesy AND true). That’s a good enough reason for me.
Would I buy his jersey: Yeah. I don’t care a whole lot for the look of the Marlins’ uniforms, but it’s not too bad.
Washington Nationals / Montreal Expos
Favorite: Pedro Martinez
Why: Pedro Martinez as an Expo reminds me of a simpler time in life. I knew Pedro was going to be great (as great as his brother Ramon, for sure) since he was a rookie with the Dodgers, so his success in Montreal was a sweet thing for me (with just a bit of bitterness about him being yet another Dodger who went on to greatness somewhere else). Pedro’s last couple years with the Expos and first couple with the Red Sox were just amazing, and it all started in Montreal.
Would I buy his jersey: Yes if I could fudge on the years a bit and go with the pre-1992 jerseys. Otherwise, it would be a toss-up.
Philadelphia Phillies
Favorite: Darren Daulton
Why: Lousy for eight seasons. Really good for two seasons. Injury-plagued for four seasons. Looked like Gaston from “Beauty and the Beast.” I have 247 of his baseball cards. What’s not to love?
Would I buy his jersey: Sure. I actually really dig the pinstripes with the blue stars dotting the “i”s.
New York Mets
Favorite: Sid Fernandez
Why: I like fat guys, even if they do throw with the wrong arm.
Would I buy his jersey: I’d have a hard time wearing a Mets jersey, for some reason. I don’t really dislike them (although I still hate their fans for cheering when Kirk Gibson tore up his knee sliding into second in the 1988 NLCS), but I always have a nagging negative feeling when I think of them. So no, probably not.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:06am
Jeff J. Snider
General, Links, Sports
Just FYI, a couple weeks ago I started a new site just for focusing on Joe Morgan (and probably other people who say stupid things about baseball). You can find it at http://www.joemorgansaid.com/. It has several items from this site, but there are a few posts that are exclusive to that site, and all future Joe Morgan content will go there instead of here. Enjoy.
September 5th, 2007 at 09:48am
Jeff J. Snider
General, Sports
A week or two ago, there was a very interesting and thought-provoking article on ESPN.com about Michael Vick, the city of Atlanta, and the role that racism has played in the public response to the allegations against Vick. It is titled “A History of Mistrust,” but it was the little blurb below the title that caught my attention:
Having trouble understanding how so many black Atlantans see the Michael Vick case as a racial conspiracy?
Try walking a mile in their shoes.
I read the article. I tried “walking a mile in their shoes.” And while my opinions maybe aren’t quite as black-and-white as they were before I read it, I find my feelings mostly unchanged.
(more…)
August 24th, 2007 at 01:38am
Jeff J. Snider
General, Sports, Web Stuff
You wanna know what bugs me? People who fling around superlatives like they have no meaning.
Example 1: Greg Anthony, a former NBA player and now a basketball analyst on ESPN, was asked who he thought would win the Western Conference Finals series between the San Antonio Spurs and the Utah Jazz. In (correctly) predicting that the Spurs would win, Anthony said, “Not that the Jazz haven’t had an unbelievable season — they have — but…” and then went on to explain why the Spurs would win. I’m sorry, Greg, but what exactly is “unbelievable” about going 51-31? Sure, they had a good season. I’d even go so far as to say that they did significantly better than they were expected to do. But unbelievable? Not unless you have a VERY weird standard of believability.
Example 2: On May 26, Manny Ramirez had a great game, going 4-for-4 and having a key hit in the game-winning rally. In the ESPN.com article about the game, Red Sox third baseman Mike Lowell had this to say:
Manny really looks like he’s in a groove. When he’s stinging the baseball like that, when he’s going up the middle, that’s when he’s the most dangerous. It seems like he’s done nothing so far, but he’s still on pace to have a great season.
So Mike Lowell said Manny was on pace to have a “great” season. Now, where I come from, “great” means “really, really good.” In fact, A-Rod proved last season that even a season that would be considered great by normal standards can be considered less-than-great when compared to an individual’s past performance. I certainly think that Manny Ramirez would fall in that same category, having averaged 40 homers and 127 RBIs a year over the past nine seasons (not to mention his .314 career batting average and 1.006 career OPS). So let’s take a look at Manny’s season as of May 26 and see if Mike Lowell was correct. At that point in time, Manny was on pace for:
–24 home runs
–103 RBIs
–.272 batting average
–.798 OPS
All four of those numbers would be far lower than Manny has put up in any full season in the Majors, and none of them really stand out as “great” even for an average player. Simply put, Manny was NOT, on May 26, “on pace to have a great season.” I’m just sayin’.
Example 3: On my brother’s website, he has a recurring feature called “Children’s Letters to Raven-Symone.” I won’t go into too many details; suffice it to say that Eric gets lots of emails from people who think he is Raven-Symone, and he publishes some of the funny ones. A recent edition included this tidbit from a letter:
I am of Spain i and seen your video of the cheetah girls a good pile of times
Lots of people enjoyed the phrase “a good pile of times,” and for good reason. But one commenter said this:
“I am of Spain” is quite possibly the greatest thing I’ve ever read.
For real? The second-best thing in that sentence is the greatest thing you have ever read? We all have different standards for greatness, but I feel safe in stating that this guy’s standard is all sort of screwed up.
Example 4: This one is only tangentially related, but I’m putting it here anyway. People on the Internet (at least the corners of the Internet I frequent) have a tendency, when they read a clever or funny phrase, to say something along the lines of, “I need to remember to use that.” (In the previously cited Reven-Symone blog entry, Eric himself did it when he said, “In other news, ‘a good pile of times’ is my new favorite figure of speech.” He even used the phrase in his very next humor column, when he said, “I’d been to this place a good pile of times for various reasons and had never seen the same doctor twice.”) I don’t really mind that; in fact, I am often incorporating things into my regular vocabulary that I read somewhere, either in a book or in a magazine or on the Internet.
But sometimes it just doesn’t make sense. Case in point: on my message board, there was a discussion about the latest Harry Potter book (caution: SPOILERS in that link), and one fellow said this about the word “Horcruxiness,” which another poster had just created:
…Horcruxiness (a great word, by the way, and one that I need to find a way to incorporate in my everyday life)…
So let me get this straight: you are going to find a way to discuss a very specific aspect of the Harry Potter books every day, just so you can use a made-up word? That seems a bit overboard to me. I guess if you wanted to incorporate it into every discussion you have about Harry Potter and Horcruxes, okay. But your everyday life? I don’t think so.
So there you have it: four (or three) examples of something that bugs me. Enjoy.
July 31st, 2007 at 01:11am
Jeff J. Snider
General, Sports
NOTE: I started writing this several weeks ago, and while I have tried to update all the references to time, I may have missed one or two. So if something doesn’t flow right, that’s why.
In mid-June on Sunday Night Baseball, Joe Morgan said the following (paraphrased):
You know I think wins are the most important stat to judge a pitcher by. There’s a big difference between pitching just well enough to win and pitching just bad enough to lose.
Then in his June 26th chat on ESPN.com, he had these two gems:
Bob (Brooklyn): What’s more important to evaluate a pitcher: Wins or ERA?
Joe Morgan: I’ve always believed that an ERA is like a batting average. It’s a personal thing. For instance, a guy could hit .300, but not be as valuable as a guy that hits .270. A guy that makes 7 outs out of 10 with guys on base, he’s not that valuable. But if you’re clutch, but hit .275, you’re more valuable. That’s why I think wins are better. It’s just as tough to win a game 7-6 as it is 1-0. The only thing that matters at the end of the year is how many games did we win.
Kyle (Kansas): What is the most overated stat in baseball?
Joe Morgan: Batting average and earned run average and this OPS stuff they do. OPS doesn’t tell you anything except about the individual. The same as the other stats. It doesn’t tell you anything about the team. A .300 average doesn’t help you win games, run production does.
Joe Morgan: I’m not saying those numbers don’t mean anything, I’m saying they’re overglorified.
I knew there were people out there who actually believed these things (based on the results of postseason awards voting), but it still surprises me to actually see someone put it that way. I want to address a couple things:
There’s a big difference between pitching just well enough to win and pitching just bad enough to lose.
That’s absolutely true, Joe. Unfortunately, you don’t actually find out where that fine line is for a given game until the game is over. So in the case of non-clairvoyant pitchers, the fact that this “big difference” exists does absolutely no good and makes no difference. The bottom line is this: a guy who pitches a no-hitter but loses on three errors by his teammates pitched a better game than a guy who gave up eight runs in five innings and wins 14-13. Sure, the one guy pitched well enough to win, but only because his teammates scored 14 runs. Wins and losses are a team statistic, and they are a very poor standalone judge of a pitcher’s effectiveness.
It’s just as tough to win a game 7-6 as it is 1-0. The only thing that matters at the end of the year is how many games did we win.
Now, Joe, you just took your true-but-pointless statement from above and ran it into the ditch of flat-out stupidity. First of all, no two 7-6 games are alike, just as no two 1-0 games are alike. So to lump them all together like that is silly. But more to the point, this statement is just false. In a 7-6 game, a pitcher can give up six runs. He may have felt just as much pressure as he would have in a 1-0 game (depending on when the runs were scored, etc.), but the bottom line is that he didn’t pitch as well, and if his team didn’t come through with the seven runs, he would have lost.
Let’s look at a hypothetical situation for a minute. Let’s say Josh Beckett pitches a complete game three-hitter with a dozen strikeouts and one run allowed. That’s a great game, right? Let’s say he pitches that exact game two starts in a row: the first time, the Red Sox don’t score, and Beckett loses 1-0; in the second game, the Sox pull it out and win 2-1. Beckett pitched the exact same excellent game both times, but he gets one win and one loss. Without doing anything different! Joe Morgan would have us believe that Beckett actually pitched better in the second game, because he pitched “just well enough to win,” whereas in the first game, he pitched “just bad enough to lose.” Those of us with brains can see that this is a stupid, ridiculous argument.
As for his point that wins are all that matters at the end of the season, that’s absolutely true — for a team. And the best way a pitcher can be a good team player is by putting his team in position to win every time out — by allowing as few runs as possible.
When I asked Rob Neyer if he was allowed to admit that Joe Morgan is a moron, he said:
I certainly wouldn’t say that Joe is a moron. He’s wrong about this, though. And frankly, I don’t think he really believes it. Just like you or me, he’d take Santana over Haren every time.
I want to believe that’s true. I really do. But at this point, I see no reason to think that Joe Morgan doesn’t actually believe that the guy with the best win/loss record is the best pitcher in the league. I’m sure it baffles Neyer, just as it baffles me, that anyone could actually be so dumb, but the only alternative is that Joe Morgan is some genius who is perpetuation the myth of his own idiocy for some reason that we mortals can’t quite grasp. Occam’s Razor tells me which is true.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:30am
Previous Posts
