Jeff J. Snider
Sports
I want to like Buster Olney. He seems like a nice guy, he grew up a Dodger fan, and he has a dream job. And to be fair, he doesn’t say stupid things nearly as often as Joe Morgan does. But if he was banned from ever mentioning Alex Rodriguez again, his STP (Stupid Thing Percentage) would go way down, as he seems to have some sort of intelligence block when talking about A-Rod.
Let me put a disclaimer first. I don’t think Olney has it out for A-Rod. I also don’t think anyone who disagrees with me is automatically an idiot. I think there are probably some valid reasons not to like A-Rod as a baseball player; I just don’t believe that 99% of the people who dislike him don’t do so for any of the valid reasons. People either dislike him because he is paid so much (for real, people: if your boss offered you $25 million a year to do the same job you are currently doing, would you really turn him down???) or because he’s good looking and one of the best baseball players of all time.
So there’s my disclaimer. Now, for Buster Olney. This is actually from his blog from March 17, but I just got around to reading it this weekend:
David Cone always told players in A-Rod’s situation that the instinct of fans is that they want to cheer you. They want him to do well. If he does well, they will cheer him, and the stories will reflect that. And if you think that this is entirely media created, remember that it wasn’t the media’s decision to bat him eighth in the lineup in the playoffs last year (that would be Joe Torre, after a summer’s worth of frustration with A-Rod’s inconsistency), or to have teammates come out and say he needs to get his head right (which is what Mike Mussina and Jason Giambi said, in so many words). It would be pure fiction to suggest that all is well in A-Rod’s world.
A lot of people have jumped on this bandwagon, pointing out A-Rod batting eighth in a playoff game as proof that he had a lousy season. This revisionist history — as if the Yankee fans didn’t start booing him until he struggled in the 2006 postseason — is ridiculous, and anyone who uses it loses a ton of credibility in my eyes. But the really bad part is the part about A-Rod being inconsistent all summer. Allow me to quote myself from October 11:
He batted .290 with a .392 on-base percentage and a .523 slugging percentage. Despite all the talk about his failures in the clutch, he batted .302 with runners in scoring position, .313 with RISP and two outs, and .474 with the bases loaded. Despite all the talk about how he was lousy most of the season, he had only one truly bad month: June. In every other month of the season, if you quickly multiply his numbers by six to emulate a six-month season, you will get between 30 and 48 homers and between 96 and 168 RBI. Yes, he had a lousy season defensively, tying his career high with 24 errors. And no, no one is going to argue that he had a great offensive season by his lofty standards. But anyone who thinks he had a terrible year is simply a fool.
So Buster, in short, when you say, “[Yankee fans] want him to do well. If he does well, they will cheer him,” you are either being naive or willfully stupid. Yankee fans want a World Series. If they don’t win the World Series, they want to blame it on the highest paid player (or perhaps the player they see as the biggest threat to their resident pretty boy, Derek Jeter — and I mean no disrespect to Jeter, only to Yankee fans). You live in a pipe dream if you really believe all A-Rod has to do to be loved is to play well; he won an MVP award in 2005 and played very well in 2006.
Buster Olney, I want to like you. But I need you to stop being an idiot.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:59pm
Jeff J. Snider
Sports
In the past, I have enjoyed pointing out when baseball commentators have made stuff up. (I have, in the past, nailed Joe Morgan, Tim Kurkjian, and Richard Justice.) But let me tell you this: when it’s Peter Gammons, I don’t enjoy it at all. But I’m going to give him as much benefit of the doubt as possible.
In this blog entry about Roger Clemens and his competitive drive on ESPN.com, Gammons says this:
There are pitchers happy to be 11-11 and maybe miss a half-dozen starts. Sonny Siebert once shut it down after 17 wins, saying he didn’t want to win 20 “because they’ll expect you to do it again.” Expectations are tough for some to deal with.
Now here’s the Bad News Part I: Sonny Siebert never won 17 games in a season.
And Bad News Part II: Siebert won 16 games three times (1965 and 1966 with the Indians, and 1971 with the Red Sox), but none of those seasons appear to be what Gammons was talking about.
–In 1965, he won his 16th game on September 28 and pitched the first nine innings of a 12-inning game on October 2, two days before the season ended. So he didn’t shut it down to avoid winning 20 games; he shut it down because the season ended.
–In 1966, Siebert won his 16th game on September 5. But then he pitched 11 innings and got the loss in a game on September 15, his last game of the season. So yes, he apparently shut it down a couple weeks early, but he shut it down after a loss, and at that point, winning four more games in the last 2-1/2 weeks of the season wasn’t exactly likely anyway.
–1971 was almost identical to 1966: he won number 16 on September 3, then took a loss ten days later and was done for the season. For all the same reasons as 1966, it just doesn’t appear that he took the rest of the season off to avoid winning 20 games.
Now, to the part where I give Gammons the benefit of the doubt: maybe Siebert really did say that at one point and was just talking out of his rear, and maybe Gammons just got the slight detail of the number of wins incorrect. Joe Morgan won’t get that kind of benefit of the doubt from me, since he’s proven repeatedly that he is not so bright, but Peter Gammons, one of my heroes and the greatest baseball writer in the world … he gets the benefit of the doubt.
February 26th, 2007 at 05:54am
Jeff J. Snider
Sports
Pitchers and catchers report to Spring Training today! After all these months of pretending to care about football and basketball and hockey, I can be a real sports fan again, because there’s finally a real sport to care about!
February 14th, 2007 at 09:22am
Jeff J. Snider
Sports
Read this article about the trade talks between the Rockies and Red Sox regarding Todd Helton. You want to know why owners hire general managers to handle trades and contracts and stuff? Because owners aren’t smart enough to shut up and refrain from making stupid statements that can serve no good purpose.
Exhibit A, the third paragraph of the article:
“This is Todd Helton we’re talking about,” [Rockies owner Charlie] Monfort told The Associated Press on Monday. “We’re not just going to give him up for nothing.”
So if this trade does go through, regardless of who else is involved, Mike Lowell and Julian Tavarez will start their Rockies careers knowing that their owner referred to them as “nothing.” (For the record, Monfort did backtrack a little and say that “Tavarez and Lowell are good.” Gee, thanks.)
Exhibit B, the thirteenth paragraph:
“We’re not just looking to save money,” he said. “I’d consider it a salary dump if we didn’t have anybody there who could play first base, and we do. I’m not saying they’re Todd Helton by any means. And they’d have some huge shoes to fill. But we have some guys there, a little bit of a logjam.”
The guy most likely to take over at first base is Garrett Atkins, who, admittedly, is no Todd Helton. After all, Atkins is more than six years younger, is hitting his peak instead of being two years into a somewhat steep decline, and had better numbers than Helton in every offensive category last season. But at least now he knows that his owner knows he’s not half the ballplayer Helton is.
So if this trade goes through, you have at least twelve percent of next year’s roster who have every reason to think their owner is a bit of a wiener. All in the name of driving a hard bargain. Way to go, Mr. Monfort!
January 29th, 2007 at 04:45pm
Jeff J. Snider
Sports
I remember back when people complained about sports writers’ “east coast bias” because they felt that the writers were biased towards teams on the east coast. Apparently, the term now refers to a writer writing something the reader disagreed with. Witness these letters to Buster Olney in response to an article he wrote about some intriguing young players to watch in 2007:
You think Bobby Crosby is a player on the rise? He’d be one if he played. I noticed no Cubs on there. What about Rich Hill? Your Yankees wish they had him. It’s funny you ESPN writers are so quick to dismiss Kerry Wood and Mark Prior but you’ll put an oft-injured guy on a list of “rising young stars” instead of Rich Hill. Your east coast bias goes on and on and on.
– James, Munster, Ind.
How you can look at young players (Rafael Furcal has been in the league for 7 years and is almost 30!) and not even cast an eye at Milwaukee, where Prince Fielder, Rickie Weeks, J.J. Hardy, and Chris Capuano play? All are on the verge of big years, and major steps forward… the majority of ESPN baseball writers appear to have an east coast bias, anyway, and it would be nice to spread a little long-due respect to Milwaukee …
– Brett Smith, Los Angeles
Hmmm…no interest in what is going to happen to Chris Duncan (22 HR in 280 ABs). Talk about Bobby Crosby and his 22 HR in 545 ABs? Duncan, like the entire Cardinal team (save Pujols and Carpenter) is completely overlooked to the point where it is ridiculous. Can he learn to hit left-handed or will he only be a platoon player? The corner outfield was a weakness for the team and Duncan is a key for the success of the team. But we’ll just ignore the World Champs and talk Yankees and Red Sox.
– Robert, Ann Arbor, Mich.
So one guy is upset that Olney mentioned Bobby Crosby (Oakland) instead of Rich Hill (Chicago). Another guy complains that he mentioned Rafael Furcal (Los Angeles) instead of a bunch of Brewers (Milwaukee). And then the third guy is ticked that Crosby got mentioned over Chris Duncan (St. Louis). And yet all three complain of “east coast bias,” either explicitly or implicitly. Wow.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:48am
Jeff J. Snider
Sports
So Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken got elected to the Hall of Fame, Mark McGwire didn’t, and everything else was exactly what we expected, too. Well, maybe not everything. Take a look at these vote totals from the bottom of the list:
Paul O’Neill, 12 votes
Bret Saberhagen, 7 votes
Jose Canseco, 6 votes
Tony Fernandez, 4 votes
Dante Bichette, 3 votes
Eric Davis, 3 votes
Bobby Bonilla, 2 votes
Ken Caminiti, 2 votes
Jay Buhner, 1 vote
You might be saying, “One vote is only 0.2% of the voters, what’s the big deal?” The big deal is that there is one voter who apparently thinks Jay Buhner belongs in the Hall of Fame. There are 12 who think Paul O’Neill belongs. If we assume that each of these votes was from a different person, I have just listed 40 voters who have demonstrated that they know exactly nothing about what makes a player worthy of the Hall of Fame. And they are the ones voting!!!
If I ever find out that the guy who voted for Jay Buhner is one of the eight who didn’t vote for Ripken, my head will literally explode, because I will put a stick of dynamite in my mouth.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:50am
Jeff J. Snider
Sports
The Yankees traded Randy Johnson back to the Diamondbacks. In order for that to happen, the D-Backs gave the Yankees a couple prospects and a Major League reliever, AND they signed Johnson to an extension through the 2008 season. So they will pay Johnson $26 million to play for them in 2007-08.
I don’t want to beat a dead horse, because I already thought it was stupid of the Yankees to extend Johnson through 2007 when they originally traded for him two years ago, but I can’t figure out what the D-Backs are thinking. I’m sure some of it has to do with trying to get butts back in the seats, after having all-time low attendance these last two years without Johnson. But the thing that puts butts in the seats is a good team. Johnson may raise the attendance every fifth day when he pitches, but that is a) not a hugely significant increase, and b) assuming that a 43-year-old with a history of back problems who just had back surgery will be available to start every fifth day.
If Johnson starts 30 games each of the next two seasons and is as dominant as he was in his previous stint with the D-Backs, this is a great trade for them. But I am here to tell you right now that it ain’t gonna happen. Johnson will start somewhere between 40-50 games over the next two seasons (if I had to break it down, I’d say 24 in 2007 and 18 in 2008), and his ERA will be in the 3.90-4.20 range. When he’s healthy, he will be a slightly above-average pitcher, but he will be exactly as healthy as you would expect a guy in his mid-40s with back problems to be. He will be 45 when the contract ends, at which point another sucker team may come along and offer him huge money to play until he is 47. More likely, he will retire after 2008 and spend a year or two in a wheelchair.
January 8th, 2007 at 09:34am
Jeff J. Snider
Sports
True or false: Lou Piniella would look the same without a nose as he does with one.
December 11th, 2006 at 04:00pm
Jeff J. Snider
Sports
Sorry it’s taken me so long to get to this. Unlike most people, I don’t feel as strongly about the American League MVP voting as I do about the NL voting, partly because I like Albert Pujols more than I like Derek Jeter, and partly because the AL doesn’t play real baseball. But anyway, here’s the short version on why Justin Morneau was not the correct choice for MVP:
When talking about value, you have to take position into account. Offensive production from a first baseman is not nearly as valuable as offensive production from a defensive position (middle infield, catcher, center field). You pay a first baseman to be an offensive force and try to catch as many balls as possible when the other infielders throw them to you. You pay the other guys to play solid defense and hopefully not be too terrible at the plate. (As Adam Everett shows, sometimes you pay a guy just for his defense, even though he IS terrible at the plate.) So if a shortstop and a first baseman have identical offensive stats, the shortstop is automatically more valuable (assuming, of course, that he’s at least average defensively).
So Justin Morneau has to be pretty special to be the MVP. And yes, he had a great season. But if you look at stats other than batting average (an overrated stat, by the way), his season was no better than Jason Giambi’s. A few more RBIs, a few fewer home runs, a lower OPS and OBP, a slightly higher SLG. Basically, Giambi and Morneau were interchangeable offensively, and you can throw Paul Konerko and Mark Texeira into the mix and not have much of a dropoff.
The other three guys who were in the conversation for MVP were Derek Jeter, Joe Mauer, and Johan Santana. Mauer was head and shoulders above every other catcher in the American League, and you can make a very strong case for him. Santana was so much better than every other starting pitcher in baseball that it’s ridiculous. And Jeter provided an amazing amount of value from a shortstop batting second in the lineup (lineup position is another value consideration, similar to defensive position).
In my mind, the MVP award should have gone to either Jeter or Mauer, because based on their positions and their spots in the lineup, they provided far more value to their teams than Morneau did. Look at it this way: if you were going to make trades based on last season’s performance, there are other first basemen you would consider trading Morneau for, but there is not a shortstop or a catcher you would trade Jeter and Mauer for, respectively.
If I had had an MVP vote, my ballot would have gone like this:
1. Derek Jeter
2. Joe Mauer
3. Justin Morneau
4. Johan Santana
Why Jeter over Mauer? Because with three guys in the top four, it’s tough to say that one Twin was the most valuable player in the league. (On a side note, imagine how good the Twins could have been if they had gotten contributions from ANYONE else.)
On the other hand, if the voting had gone Mauer, Jeter, Morneau, Santana, I would have no arguments.
December 4th, 2006 at 03:27pm
Jeff J. Snider
General
On Thanksgiving morning, the Deseret News published an article about how more and more people are selecting “American” as their ancestry on census forms. The “American” option is intended for people of Native American descent, but, according to the article:
The number of people selecting American ancestry is growing. In 1990, 57,268 Utahns reported only American as their ancestry. The number grew to 150,814 by the 2000 Census.
The article then goes on to explain some theories on why this is taking place:
Why people feel that way is difficult to determine, in part because of the anonymity of the census. A cross section of professionals including demographers, sociologists and genealogists came up with a variety of theories. It could be a simple misunderstanding of the question, or maybe people don’t know their ancestry.
Or it might even be a post-Sept. 11 form of patriotism.
For real, Deseret News? You think the 2000 Census displays “a post-Sept. 11 form of patriotism”? And you wrote an entire article with that as one of the driving theories? Wow.
November 30th, 2006 at 03:38pm
Next Posts
Previous Posts