Rantings & Ramblings

Best News Ever

Jeff J. Snider Sports

Hallelujah. That’s all.

Add comment March 31st, 2008 at 08:40am

Two words: Wow

Jeff J. Snider Personal & Family, Sports

As a Dodger fan from the 80s, this is the greatest thing I have ever seen:

I can’t believe they let Tom Niedenfeuer be in the video. Weren’t they worried that he’d give up a homer to a 128-pound cameraman?

(Thanks to my brother, Chris, for emailing me this link.)

Add comment March 19th, 2008 at 11:38am

This is awesome

Jeff J. Snider Sports

This video is pretty awesome. I would love to do this someday.

Add comment March 17th, 2008 at 01:29pm

So Shelley Duncan doesn’t think the Rays should be upset about his slide into second, which ignited a bench-clearing brawl. I could almost believe that, except that he actually refers to his slide as “play[ing] the game the right way.” Let’s see…

Terrible slide

Guess what, Shelley? The ONLY possible defense, the ONLY way I will believe that you weren’t being a jackhole and trying to hurt Iwamura, is if I hear the following explanation:

I am just really, really, really bad a sliding. I’ve been playing baseball for twenty years, but no one ever taught me how to slide. My dad is a pitching coach, you know. So I was going into second, and I knew I needed to slide, and my brain tried to remember how, and by the time it kind of remembered, I was already almost to the base, so as you can see, I slid so late that my shoulders went over the base. Oh, and there was a banana peel on the ground, which is why my spikes were so high. I mean, I obviously know that the purpose of sliding is to get my feet to the base, so of course I wouldn’t slide with my spikes that high, because it totally defeats the purpose. But no, I wasn’t trying to hurt anyone … I’m just a really crappy slider.

But no. Instead, we get him trying to tell us he was playing the game the right way…

1 comment March 14th, 2008 at 08:40am

One of these things is not like the others…

Jeff J. Snider Sports

Ryan Howard, 2006 NL MVP. Chase Utley, future NL MVP. Jimmy Rollins, 2007 NL MVP. Pedro Feliz. That’s the Phillies’ infield as of this afternoon.

Howard is a stud who, in three seasons, has won a Rookie of the Year and an MVP and driven in like a billion runs. Utley probably would have won the MVP last season if he hadn’t missed a month due to injury. And Rollins DID win the MVP. That is, without a doubt, one of the greatest young infields you will ever see (especially when you consider that Rollins and Utley are both above average fielders, too).

And then there’s Pedro Feliz. He of the .721 career OPS. He whose career high OBP is .305. He whose career batting average of .252 does nothing to help the fact that he averages 28 walks a season. Simply put, he is a terrible — TERRIBLE — offensive player at a position where offense is generally expected.

Some of my favorite parts of the ESPN.com article:

“If we get this done, he’s an upgrade defensively and he’s a run-producer,” general manager Pat Gillick said.

Sorry, Pat, but Feliz is not a run-producer. He benefited greatly by batting behind Barry Bonds and his ridiculous on-base percentage, but that is all. Stick with the “defensive upgrade” argument, because it’s the only one that’s not demonstrably false.

“We got better,” Manuel said. “He’s a good defensive player. He’s got power. He’ll hit probably sixth, seventh, somewhere in there. I think putting him down in our lineup will help him. He was called on to hit in the middle of the lineup in San Francisco. A couple years ago, he might’ve been pressing to do too much because they had Barry Bonds there.”

When life gives you lemons named Pedro, make crap up until it tastes kind of like lemonade. I’m sure there was LOTS of pressure always coming up to bat with Bonds on base and always having reporters ignoring you because Bonds is on the team, and I am 100% positive that THAT, and not a lack of offensive ability, is why Pedro Feliz has a career OBP of .288 and 3.3 times as many strikeouts as walks.

Feliz batted .253 with 20 home runs and 72 RBIs last season with the San Francisco Giants.

…

Feliz will likely replace the trio of Greg Dobbs, Wes Helms and Abraham Nunez that the Phillies used last season. Philadelphia’s third basemen batted .255 with 11 homers and 76 RBIs last year. Dobbs and Helms remain on the roster.

Note: yes, .255 is higher than .253, and 76 is more than 72. Also better: the combined .321 OBP of last years third basemen (versus Feliz’s .290); their 32 doubles (Feliz had 28); and their 59 walks (double Feliz’s 29).

Yes, the Phillies infield defense improves with the addition of Feliz. But to paint this as anything other than a defensive upgrade is just plain dishonest.

Add comment January 29th, 2008 at 12:52am

Buster’s Olney problem

Jeff J. Snider Sports

Buster Olney wrote today about Jim Rice’s Hall of Fame credentials. The title of the blog entry is “Rice was extraordinary in his time.” I read a lot of Fire Joe Morgan, ShysterBall, Vegas Watch, and other sites that have spent some time over the past few weeks discussing the Hall of Fame arguments made my some members of the media, and Jim Rice has been a fairly popular topic. His candidacy has inspired a lot of passion, at least in part because he played for the Red Sox, whose fans are known for being a bit passionate. (Yankee fans are passionate, too; the difference is that Red Sox fans appear to, you know, LIKE their players.)

So anyway, Buster Olney became the 1,483,671st journalist to write about Jim Rice in the past month, and I am going to become the 2,567,320th blogger to write about the journalists’ writings.

During Jim Rice’s incredible 1978 season, a total of two American League players had on-base percentages over .400: Rod Carew, with .411, and Ken Singleton, at .409. In 2007, eight AL players achieved an OBP of .400 or higher.

I knew we were in for it here, when Buster drew the line at .400. Jim Rice was never close enough to a .400 OBP to even know what it looks like. Rice’s career high OBP was .384, and his career OBP was .352. It reminds me of a few months ago, when Jayson Addcox of MLB.com complained that Juan Pierre “gets knocked for not having his [OBP] higher than .350,” when Pierre’s OBP was actually .324. I could take it to the next extreme and say something like, “It’s been forty years since a pitcher won 30 games in a season, so people really need to get off Chris Capuano’s back for only winning five last year.”

In fact, in the seven seasons played since the start of 2001, there already have been 42 AL players who have posted OBPs of .400 or better; in the entire decade, of 1970-79, there were only 36 AL players who achieved OBPs of .400 or better. It was a time of less offense and fewer runs, a time when teams didn’t value walks the way they do now, a time when the strike zone was larger, a time when hitting 20 homers and driving in 80 runs was an excellent year.

Really? Twenty homers and 80 RBI was an “excellent year”? I’ll give you “solid.” I’ve give you “acceptable for a corner outfielder.” And it’s true that neither of those would apply today. But the 1970s weren’t the freaking Dead Ball Era — guys like Mike Schmidt, Reggie Jackson, Eddie Murray, and Willie McCovey did some major mashing in that decade, all on their way to 500 homers. And more to the point, the fact that there were fewer home runs only makes it MORE valuable and important for a player to get on base often, so the slap hitters around him in the lineup can muster up all their strength to drive him in with three more singles.

So it’s almost laughable to hear and read about how Rice was nothing more than a very good player in his time. Look, if you stick his statistics into offensive formulas tailored for the way the game was played in the ’90s, he’s not going to look as good. Giving him demerits because he failed to draw walks is like diminishing what Pedro Martinez has accomplished because he has only two 20-win seasons.

Either Buster doesn’t know about modern statistics, or he is deliberately ignoring them. “Offensive formulas tailored for the was the game was played in the ’90s”? Come on, now. The whole point of statistical analysis, as far as I can tell, is to AVOID those generational biases. Did you know there are stats that actually … wait for it, wait for it … compare players to their peers?!?

But if you look at him within the context of his time, he was exceptional, as statistics generated by Steve Hirdt and Rob Tracy of the Elias Sports Bureau bear out:

* From 1975 to 1986, Mike Schmidt accumulated 12 seasons of at least 20 homers. Rice ranks second in that time frame, with 11.

* Only two players, in that time frame, accumulated 11 seasons of 85 or more RBI: Schmidt and Rice.

Again, I think this is setting the bar pretty low, even for the 1970s. It’s like looking at quality starts as a qualification for the Cy Young award — it’s the minimum expectation. You know why Jim Rice had at least 20 homers and 85 RBI every season? Because if he didn’t, he would have lost his job to someone who could hit well enough to play a power position like left field.

* The top four in OPS from 1975-1986: Schmidt at .932, George Brett .901, Eddie Murray .876, and Rice .842.

* He’s one of 11 guys to have led his league in total bases at least four times since 1900 (nine Hall of Famers, including eight top-tier Hall of Famers, A-Rod and Rice). Most seasons leading league in total bases (since 1900): Hank Aaron, 8; Rogers Hornsby, 7; Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Stan Musial, 6; Honus Wagner, 5; Chuck Klein, Lou Gehrig, Rice and A-Rod, 4.

* Rice batted .309 in more than 2,000 at-bats with runners in scoring position over his career, 11 points higher than his overall career batting average. Among players with 2,000 RISP at-bats over that span, it was second-highest to Brett’s .316.

* Rice was consistently regarded as one of the best players in the American League: He not only won the MVP Award in 1978 (beating out a pitcher who finished 25-3 and won the pennant-clinching tie-breaker game), but Rice had six top-five finishes in the MVP Award (3rd in 1975, 4th in 1977, 1st in 1978, 5th in 1979, 4th in 1983, 3rd in 1986).

Yes, Jim Rice was a very good hitter for most of the 12 seasons he was good. Olney has always put a lot of stock in the end-of-season awards, which I have always thought was at least a little silly. Back in the 70s, these awards were voted on by reporters who saw only the home team’s games, meaning they saw each visiting player maybe 15 times a year. There wasn’t the TV exposure there is today, either. So the people voting on the awards had only a couple things to go on: newspaper coverage and stats. Did you know that in the entire decade of the 1970s, Boog Powell (1970) was the only hitter to win an American League MVP award without leading the league in batting average, home runs, or RBIs? Those stats were the most important back then, and they were all the voters had to go on. So the fact that Jim Rice got lots of MVP votes doesn’t augment the argument; it’s just another way of saying he was a good power hitter.

But now that we’re on the MVP Train, Buster is determined to derail it and drive it off a bridge into the icy river below…

If you add up the total points accumulated in MVP voting from 1937, add up the annual points each player earned (and convert each year’s points total to its equivalent under the current voting format to account for differences in the number of teams and voters over the years), Rice fares well.

Not surprisingly, Barry Bonds has the most cumulative MVP points, followed by Musial, Williams, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Aaron, A-Rod, Frank Thomas, Schmidt and Joe DiMaggio. But here’s the point on Rice: Only two HOF-eligible players who stand in the top 40 on that list of cumulative MVP points have not been elected to the Hall: Rice (who stands 22nd) and Dave Parker (23rd).

Rice had more adjusted MVP points than HOFers Harmon Killebrew, Ernie Banks, Al Kaline, Johnny Bench, Dave Winfield, Carl Yastrzemski, Cal Ripken, Kirby Puckett, Lou Boudreau, Roberto Clemente, Roy Campanella, Nellie Fox, Ryne Sandberg, Tony Gwynn, Duke Snider, Gary Carter, Robin Yount, Phil Rizzuto, Rod Carew, Pee Wee Reese, Jackie Robinson, Willie McCovey, Lou Brock, Billy Williams, Paul Molitor, Red Schoendienst, Ralph Kiner, Carlton Fisk, Wade Boggs, Charlie Gehringer, Luis Aparicio, Larry Doby, Bobby Doerr, Tony Perez, Richie Ashburn, Enos Slaughter, Bill Mazeroski and Ozzie Smith.

This argument means nothing. Literally, a completely meaningless argument. Does Buster want us to believe that while the style of play has changed dramatically over the decades, the MVP voting has remained the same? I don’t see how an article that starts with a thesis that you can’t compare players from different eras ends up in this territory, comparing MVP votes of players from different eras. Wow.

Rice was a significantly better hitter at home than on the road, hitting .320, with a slugging percentage of .546 and 208 career homers in Fenway, compared with an average of .277 and 174 homers on the road. But again, consider the era, and how much less offense there was. If you were a team, you would like to have the guy considered to be most dominant home-field hitter in the game? Of course you would. Rice was taking advantage of the conditions in the games he played, much as Sandy Koufax did. From 1962-1966, Koufax had a home ERA of .1.37, in the pitcher-friendly Dodger Stadium, and a road ERA of 2.57. Does anyone say that this diminishes what Koufax accomplished, the way it is said about Rice?

No, no one says Koufax was less great because his road ERA was only 2.57. The difference here is that Koufax used his home field advantage to go from being great (2.57 when the league ERA was 3.27) to being immortal; Rice used his home field advantage to go from being good to being really good.

And now, to tie it all together, let’s go back to Buster’s initial thesis, that Jim Rice is judged unfairly because his stats from the Weak 1970s don’t hold up well to the stats tailored to the Strong 1990s. Guess what? Did you know that there are actually stats that tell you how a guy did compared to his peers? And that we have those stats available for everyone who has every played?!?

Jim Rice’s career OPS+ (OPS measured against the league average, and adjusted for ballpark factors) was 128 (remember, 100 is average). So over the course of his career, Jim Rice was 28% better than the average hitter.

I looked at all the hitters in the Hall of Fame, and I found 24 whose primary claim to Fame was as a power hitter. (This includes people like Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, and others who did other things extremely well in addition to power hitting.) I chose these guys because Jim Rice’s Hall of Fame credentials essentially boil down to his power. He was nothing special in the field, his .298 career batting average is good but not great, and he didn’t have any speed to speak of. If he ever gets elected to the Hall of Fame, it will be based mostly on his power.

The average OPS+ of these 24 power hitting Hall of Famers was 151, a full 23 points higher than Rice’s career number. The only one of the 24 with a lower OPS+ was Ernie Banks (122), and you may remember that he hit 512 home runs and played about half his career as a shortstop. Heck, the average OPS+ for the other 116 hitters, the ones who weren’t known mostly for their power — including defensive geniuses like Ozzie Smith and Bill Mazeroski and guys who shouldn’t even be in the Hall — was 123, just five points behind Rice.

Jim Rice was a one-trick pony who tried a few other tricks for a few seasons. He was a really good player for several years. He is not an all-time great, and he does not belong in the Hall of Fame.

2 comments January 11th, 2008 at 06:21pm

A sinking feeling

Jeff J. Snider Sports

The Yankees and A-Rod just finalized their deal. I have a very bad feeling that the timing is not a complete coincidence; I wonder if A-Rod was motivated to get it done before the Mitchell Report come out in 44 minutes. I really hope his name isn’t in there…

UPDATE: A quick search of the PDF version of the Mitchell Report shows only three instances of the word “Rodriguez,” all bibliographical references to Ken Rodriguez. I feel a little better, although Roger Clemens’ involvement, while not totally surprising, really kind of breaks my heart.

Add comment December 13th, 2007 at 12:16pm

More Andruw Jones thoughts

Jeff J. Snider Sports

Well, I slept on it. I fired off my “I don’t like this!” post around midnight last night, immediately after I heard of the Andruw Jones signing. It’s been 12 hours or so, and I’ve had time to think about it. Guess what? I still don’t like it. But I think I’ve decided my dislike is far more related to the Juan Pierre situation than the Andruw Jones situation. So basically, this year’s free agent center fielder signing has me upset about last year’s free agent center fielder signing.

Last night, in my list of pros and cons, I had the following two cons:

CON: Oh yeah, and the guy we just signed for $18 million a year batted .222 last year with a .724 OPS. Yes, he gets a decent number of walks, but when all your walks only get your OBP up to .311, I am not impressed.

CON: Jones is listed at 6′1″, 170 pounds. If Jones weighs 170 pounds, Iâ€™ll eat my hat, unless he beats me to it and eats it first. He is at least 220, and he will not be an elite center fielder for much longer (if he still is).

I am willing to semi-retract some of this. Obviously, Jones had an off-year in 2007, but rumor has it that he was hurt. If he can put up his usual .260-.265 average with an OPS in the .850-.900 range, he will definitely be an offensive help that the Dodgers sorely need. The Dodgers haven’t had a bona fide 35 HR, 115 RBI guy in a while (especially if you don’t count Adrian Beltre’s fluke season).

And as for the defense, the guy has won 10 straight Gold Gloves, and even with the terrible track record of GG voters, I am willing to bet that he deserved at least seven or eight of them. So replacing Juan Pierre (who has NO value on the offensive OR defensive side) with Andruw Jones (who has proven value on both sides) is definitely a good thing.

But therein lies the rub, TimTim. I don’t think he’s replacing Juan Pierre. He’s moving him to left field, where his offensive woes will stick out even more. In center, he’s a sore thumb; in left, he’s a hand in a freaking wood chipper. If Juan Pierre is in the Dodgers’ starting lineup on opening day, it is for one reason only: they still owe him $36 million, and teams don’t bench players who make that much money.

Here is what Rob Neyer had to say about it this morning:

With Jones aboard, every inquisitive Dodger fan wants to know what happens to erstwhile center fielder Juan Pierre, who’s still owed $36.5 million over the next four years. The early speculation is that he gets pushed into left field, but that’s only because it’s hard to imagine the Dodgers benching somebody they still owe $36.5 million. I’m not sure how general manager Ned Colletti explains this to his boss, but Pierre simply must be benched or traded (and if traded, the Dodgers will have to eat an unhealthy chunk of that kooky contract).

It really is that simple. When you have Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier as alternatives, playing Juan Pierre hurts you in every way. Ethier doesn’t have nearly the upside of Kemp, but both are — right now, today — better than Pierre, and they are 23 (Kemp) and 25 (Ethier), both significantly younger than Pierre. Oh, and did I mention that they both cost the Dodgers roughly a nickel a year?

Keith Law chimed in on this too:

On the one hand, this could just be an acknowledgement that the Juan Pierre contract was one of the worst of our time, so the Dodgers are treating it as a sunk deal, which they should do. (This would make them the second team to do this with a bad center fielder signing from last winter, on the heels of the Angels signing Torii Hunter two weeks ago after getting Gary Matthews Jr. the year before.)

On the other hand, this could mean the Dodgers intend to deal either Matt Kemp or Andre Ethier in a deal for one of the top starting pitchers on the market, such as Erik Bedard. Trading either of those guys would hurt the Dodgers’ offense — any scheme that puts Pierre in an everyday role hurts their offense almost as much as it hurts my eyes — but trading Kemp for anything less than a Bedard or a Johan Santana will come back to haunt the Dodgers for years.

Or, should they keep Kemp but send him to Triple-A or relegate him to part-time duty, they’ll retard his development, since Kemp is still raw as a baseball player and needs reps at the big-league level to continue to work in areas like pitch recognition and reading flyballs off the bat. They could make out better if they trade Ethier, who is just a fringe-average corner outfielder and unlikely to produce at a higher level than this, but that still hurts their club by giving Pierre 600 at-bats that should go to someone who can hit.

Neyer had a bit to say about the financial aspects of the Jones signing, too, but I don’t care much about that. Do I think $18 million a year is at least 40 percent more than Jones deserves? Absolutely. But hey, it’s not my money, and it’s not like a) the Dodgers are going to run out of money or b) they are going to lower ticket prices if their payroll is lower. The money is a non-issue for me as a Dodger fan.

So really what this boils down to is this: if the Dodgers’ outfield on opening day is Kemp, Jones, and Ethier, I love this signing. If it’s Kemp, Jones, and Pierre, I am not happy, but it’s still probably an improvement (essentially trading Ethier for Jones). If it’s Ethier, Jones, and Pierre, that means Matt Kemp has probably been traded, and I will have lost faith that Ned Coletti knows how to run a baseball team.

Ned, if you’re reading this: bite the bullet on Pierre. Trade him for whatever you can get. Eat the contract. I don’t care. Just don’t play him in 2008!

Add comment December 6th, 2007 at 01:12pm

I don’t like this!

Jeff J. Snider Sports

What don’t I like? This.

So the Dodgers signed Andruw Jones. Let’s list some pros and cons about this:

PRO: It gets Juan Pierre and his range of a 300-pound legless sloth out of center field.

CON: Unless the Dodgers can get some stupid team to take him, it puts Juan Pierre somewhere else in the outfield.

CON: Having Juan Pierre in an outfield corner puts either Andre Ethier or Matt Kemp on the bench (or, more likely, the trading block).

CON: Juan Pierre does not have the offense to play a corner outfield spot.

CON: Oh yeah, and the guy we just signed for $18 million a year batted .222 last year with a .724 OPS. Yes, he gets a decent number of walks, but when all your walks only get your OBP up to .311, I am not impressed.

CON: Jones is listed at 6′1″, 170 pounds. If Jones weighs 170 pounds, I’ll eat my hat, unless he beats me to it and eats it first. He is at least 220, and he will not be an elite center fielder for much longer (if he still is).

PRO: It’s only two years. If the Big Dodger In The Sky smiles down on Chavez Ravine, Jones will have two monster years, culminating with a career-ending injury making the final catch in the World Series-clinching game for the Dodgers in 2009, so they won’t be tempted to throw more money at him for his 33-36-year-old seasons.

PRO: Rob Neyer told me this last week:

Jeff (Eagle Mountain, UT): Will Andruw Jones ever hit .270 in a season again?

Rob Neyer: Absolutely. He’s still got some big seasons in his future, and I think he’s still got a solid shot at Cooperstown.

CON: I don’t believe Rob Neyer.

I hope I’m wrong. I hope Andruw regains the form he had a few years ago, both offensively and defensively. I hope he leads the Dodgers to a World Series championship. I hope the Dodgers have the sense to unload Juan Pierre on one of the teams looking for a center fielder.

I hope I hope I hope.

2 comments December 6th, 2007 at 01:36am

Idiocy about A-Rod

Jeff J. Snider Sports

It looks like maybe A-Rod is going back to the Yankees after all, despite Scott Boras’s best efforts. I find myself hoping he does, because the longer he’s a free agent, the longer I am bombarded by stupid, stupid people writing and talking about him.

Look, there’s only one good reason (and one decent reason) you wouldn’t want your favorite team to sign A-Rod. The decent reason is that your team already has a good third baseman, but it’s only a decent reason because no matter who you are, your team doesn’t have a third baseman as good as A-Rod. The only good reason is you know your team couldn’t afford to pay A-Rod what he will get and still pay other players to make a great team. Back in 2001, the Rangers took an interesting approach: pay A-Rod $100 million more than anyone else was offering, then spend the next three years complaining that you can’t afford anyone else. If you feel that your team would do that, that’s a good reason to not want A-Rod.

I am not kidding here. If you don’t want A-Rod on your team for ANY reason not mentioned in that last paragraph, you are a fool with absolutely no understanding of the game of baseball. Your name just might be Mike Philbrick, and you just might write an article for ESPN.com with a headline of “Your team should just say no to A-Rod.” Let me break this article down, in true FJM fashion:

Alex Rodriguez is going to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. He’s going to make everyone forget Barry Bonds’ home run record. He’s going to win his third MVP award in a few days. That’s great, Alex. Now do me one more favor … don’t come anywhere near my team.

Yeah, totally. Why would I want the best player in baseball on my team?

Apparently, I’m not alone in my thinking. Last time I checked the Page 2 poll results, 61 percent of you agreed with me. And here’s why: While he may put up ri-friggin’-diculous numbers, he’s much easier to boo than to cheer and will deliver countless awards that keep your team relevant but won’t deliver what you want — a World Series.

Okay, Mikey, so the first bit of evidence you use to support your ridiculous position is that the majority of people who took an online poll agree with you? And then the reason you give for WHY they agree with you really presents a Catch-22, because if that reason really IS the reason 61% of people don’t want him on their team, you should be using that as evidence that those 61% are clueless. Maybe you didn’t know this, but the regular season results are actually what determines who goes to the postseason (and, just to be clear, the World Series is played in the postseason). If you think the Yankees would have had a better chance of winning the 2007 World Series with Scott Brosius or Wade Boggs or Brooks Freaking Robinson manning the Hot Corner, you are sorely and laughably mistaken. The question has been posed elsewhere already, but do you really think A-Rod’s .820 postseason OPS (which, while below the standard of excellence he set in the regular season, would have put him in the top 40% of the league in the regular season) hurt the Yankees’ World Series chances more than Chien-Ming Wang’s 19.06 ERA or Derek Jeter’s .176 batting average? Do you realize that Jeter’s postseason OPS this year (.352) was one point less than A-Rod’s OBP (.353)? No matter how you slice it, A-Rod does not make the “Top Five Players to Blame for the Yankees Not Winning the 2007 World Series” list. And if you remember that they wouldn’t have made the postseason at all if he hadn’t put up one of the greatest seasons in history, your argument officially gets flushed down the toilet.

A-Rod defenders will recite career numbers and averages to you. Yes, they’re great. We never said they weren’t. But when are they great?

In 2007, A-Rod carried the Yankees in the early months with a record-setting offensive explosion … but in the ALDS he could manage only four hits in four games. A-Rod did manage to hit one homer … a solo shot in the bottom of the seventh inning while down 6-2 in an elimination game.

In 2006, A-Rod put up a 35-HR, 121-RBI, .290 performance … but in the ALDS against the Tigers, his .071 average so crippled the Yankees that manager Joe Torre dropped him to eighth in the lineup in Game 4 (he went hitless and the Yanks were eliminated).

In 2005, A-Rod won his second MVP award … but in the ALDS against the Angels he hit .133 with two hits and no RBIs. The Angels eliminated the Yankees in five games.

In the 2004 ALCS, A-Rod did hit .258 with five RBIs … but in Games 4 to 7 had only two RBIs and two hits. One of the defining moments of that series was when he slapped the ball out of Red Sox pitcher Bronson Arroyo’s hand in Game 6, helping to kill a potential Yankee rally in a game they would lose 4-2.

Ah, selective memory. First of all, he jumps straight from the “early months” of 2007 to the 2007 postseason. So either “early months” is referring to the entire regular season (remember, the record-breaking one), or he is just glossing over the 1.058 OPS A-Rod put up after the All-Star break this year.

Then he lists all the huge, monumental, colossal postseason failures A-Rod has had. Of course, he discounts the good parts, like that A-Rod batted .368 in the first four games of the 2004 ALCS immediately after he batted .421 in the ALDS against the Twins. Oh, but at least he mentioned the worthless home run Rodriguez hit in game 4 of this year’s ALDS. Because, you know, if your team is down by four runs in an elimination game, you’d have to be some sort of selfish jerk to only hit a solo homer when your team obviously needs a grand slam. Jerkface.

And the Bronson Arroyo play. To hear this guy talk, you’d think A-Rod’s blunder cost the Yankees the two runs they needed to tie the game. Of course, what ACTUALLY happened is that because of the interference call, Derek Jeter was sent back to first base, instead of being on second. But when Gary Sheffield popped up to the catcher to end the inning, Jeter wasn’t going to score even if he was standing halfway between third and home. A-Rod’s groundout helped to kill the potential rally; his interference did virtually nothing.

You will get All-Star appearances (he already has 11 of them), Silver Slugger awards (nine of them) and home run titles (five so far). But you won’t get to the World Series. And in the end, isn’t that late October parade what you really want?

That’s quite a leap. Because the Yankees haven’t been to the World Series in A-Rod’s four years with them, your team won’t get to the World Series if they get A-Rod. Did you know that A-Rod’s career postseason OPS — even after the lousy performances everyone talks about — is only two points lower than Derek Jeter’s career postseason OPS (.844 to .846)? Somewhere in Mike Philbrick’s mind, there is some fundamental reason that A-Rod has struggled in a few postseasons, and he is convinced that he will ALWAYS struggle in every postseason from now until the end of time. Of course, Rodriguez struggled in April 2006, too; and in April 2007, he set records. People who want to look only at past performance sure do conveniently overlook the past performance of A-Rod being the best player in baseball the past ten years.

Philbrick then goes into a discussion of the money, which, remember, is the only good reason to not want A-Rod on your team. So I won’t argue that point, although I will pick a quick nit with this paragraph:

No debate over A-Rod would be complete without discussing his contract. If you’re going to argue the reality of his gaudy numbers, you need to discuss the reality of how much it will cost your team. Conservative estimates have A-Rod getting a $300 million deal (10 years at $30 million per).

Mike Philbrick made up this “conservative estimate.” Well, maybe Scott Boras made it up, but Mike Philbrick believed it. Is/was 10x$30M within the realm of possibility? Sure. Was it a conservative estimate? No. I read many estimates and opinions that had teams only wanting to sign him for seven years.

So after making the point about locking up too much money in one player, Philbrick gets back to silliness:

It’s not just the long-term financial implications — the reality is that his contract will forever be a story. Three years in? It will still be discussed with every spring training opening and every early October exit. You’ll get the writer who fires up the calculator on his laptop and tells you how much money A-Rod got for each one of those many homers he hit. And if he hits 50 home runs, there will be cries that he should have hit 60. Ask Alex about his treatment in New York: Two MVP awards in four seasons and he still couldn’t win over the fans.

Make up your mind, Mikey! Just a few paragraphs ago, you talked about what a failure A-Rod is. Now you act incredulous that he hasn’t won over the New York fans? Maybe the New York fans are as dumb as you are.

Then there’s the issue of chemistry. Many people will tell you it’s all bull and that it doesn’t matter. If you have talent, chemistry will come. Really? How did talent work out for the Yankees this season? Or the Dodgers? The Mets seemed pretty talented, too. Sure, everyone seems to get along when you’re winning. But if you’re a clubhouse divided, winning can be more difficult — and don’t look to A-Rod to eliminate that issue.

I have never heard anyone say “If you have talent, chemistry will come.” What people actually say is that “chemistry” comes from winning, not vice versa. Yes, the Yankees had a lot of talent this year. They also had a lot of adversity with their pitching staff, AND the Red Sox and Indians both had a lot of talent, AND they drew the Indians (with the best 1-2 pitching punch in baseball) in a short series. Do you really think A-Rod comes to the plate with Jeter on second and thinks, “Well, back in 1997 when we were best friends, I totally would have driven him in right here. But now that we don’t like each other very much, I think I’ll just go ahead and ground out to third”? Exactly what role does chemistry play? The Red Sox have “great chemistry” because they won the World Series. If they had lost the World Series, they would have bad chemistry. Cause and effect get mixed up for some people.

We’ve all seen the interviews and the postgame comments delivered with the sincerity of a robot. We’ve also experienced the times when A-Rod needed a teammate to back him up and the silence was deafening. He comes across as an awkward CEO trapped in the body of a Hall of Famer. And while other teams may win with guys who are flaky or arrogant, there’s still something there that allows them to connect with their teammates. Is A-Rod capable of that? No. And for $30 million of your team’s payroll, you need a clubhouse leader.

Sorry, dude, but I think driving in those teammates 102 times, and being on base for them to drive you in 89 times, is probably going to connect with them. Is he best friends with all his teammates? Probably not (although I submit that the vast majority of people writing about it don’t have any idea what they’re talking about). But who cares? Teams don’t need their highest-paid player to be a clubhouse leader; they need him to produce on the field. And if a guy has one of the best seasons anyone can remember, I suspect that has more of a positive impact on the clubhouse than negative.

Finally, there’s the issue of being a fan. It sounds crazy, but people want their team to win a certain way. They don’t want to win with cheaters. They don’t want to win if the opposing team was without its staff ace or team MVP. That just wouldn’t feel as good. And you certainly don’t want to be accused of buying a title. If your team brings A-Rod on board, let the unfriendly dollar sign e-mails begin. You don’t want any part of a situation in which your friends can toss in the dreaded conversational asterisk while you bask in your championship glory.

What world does this dude live in? What fan cares about “buying a title”? Has he ever heard how much the fans in San Francisco adore Barry Bonds? Has he ever been to Yankee Stadium or Fenway Park? I could see this argument being valid if a team bumped up their payroll to $800 million or something outrageous and won the World Series, but not in today’s atmosphere. The Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, etc., have proven that a huge payroll doesn’t necessarily mean a World Championship (I have a lot more to say about that, but I’ll save it for another day), so no fan in their right mind would feel bad winning with the best player in baseball as their third baseman, no matter how much he was paid.

I asked Phillies fans Justin Isabell and Brian Waldron if they would want A-Rod for the chance to put their team over the hump. Remember, these guys are from Philadelphia, which is Iroquois for “city where the sports teams shred your soul.”

“I wouldn’t want A-Rod on my team, because it’s just that — a team,” said Isabell. “As nice as his glove and offensive production would be at the hot corner in Philadelphia, the most fun teams to watch and cheer for are true teams, not one player.”

Waldron added, “If they signed A-Rod I would be totally pissed. That means there’s no way they’re getting any pitching. Besides, there’s no way I can root for that guy.”

Brian Waldron makes a good point, the same point I made above: if your team can’t afford to put players around A-Rod, they shouldn’t sign him. But Justin Isabell is flat-out wrong. “The most fun teams to watch and cheer for are true teams, not one player.” Well duh. Every team has the same number of players, and I guarantee you no one would enjoy watching a team of 25 average players play the game (and finish in last place). Find me a team that has EVER won the World Series with no big stars on the team. Go ahead, I’ll wait. I didn’t think so. It’s easy to say you want to watch a “true team” play, but “true teams” are just “lousy teams” unless they have a big star or two.

Since Alex reached the majors in 1994, the Braves, Yankees, Marlins, Diamondbacks, Angels, Red Sox, White Sox and Cardinals have managed to win the World Series without him. The Indians, Padres, Mets, Giants, Astros, Tigers and Rockies have reached the World Series without him.

The Mariners, Rangers and Yankees — the three teams he’s played for — have never reached the World Series with him on their roster.

Which list do you want your team on?

First of all, I will knock the Braves off the list of teams that have won the World Series, since A-Rod didn’t play his first full season until 1996. So seven teams have won the World Series in A-Rod’s 12-year career, and eight others have lost the World Series. Know what this means? Absolutely nothing. TEAMS go to the World Series. No player has ever won a World Series. No matter how dominant Josh Beckett is, the best he can do on his own is a 0-0 tie game. Derek Jeter could hit a home run every time up, but if Chien-Ming Wang is pitching the way he did this postseason, they will lose every game 19.06 to 4. Teams win World Series.

I will not say A-Rod has been outstanding in the postseason the past few years. He has struggled, especially compared to his excellent regular season numbers. But looking into the future, I would much rather have the best hitter in baseball on my team than some “proven winner” who happened to play for a lot of good teams.

In 1986, Don Baylor played for the Red Sox, who lost the World Series in seven games. In 1987, Baylor played for the World Champion Minnesota Twins. In 1988, Baylor’s A’s lost to the Dodgers in the World Series. So obviously, Don Baylor was the most dominant player of the late 1980s, right? I mean, he went to the World Series three years in a row, with three different teams! That guy turns teams into winners!

Add comment November 17th, 2007 at 12:00pm

Next Posts Previous Posts

Rantings & Ramblings

…from a ranting rambler

Best News Ever

Two words: Wow

This is awesome

Come on, Shelley

One of these things is not like the others…

Buster’s Olney problem

A sinking feeling

More Andruw Jones thoughts

I don’t like this!

Idiocy about A-Rod

Categories

Blogroll

Personal Links

Archives

March 2010
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Sep
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31