faux foes?
by lboros on Jun 17, 2008 8:43 AM EDT
381 comments
last week a reader named jeremy sent me an e-mail which read, in part:
the cardinals played the phillies over the weekend, which gets them up to 12 games against above-average nl pitching staffs; they also have 3 games against the tampa bay rays, who rank 5th in the american league. so that gives them 15 games against good-pitching teams; they’re 10-5 in those games, for whatever it’s worth. here’s how the hitters have fared:
| AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | BB | | | AVG | OBP | SLG | R/G | |||
| vs above avg staffs | 533 | 70 | 143 | 19 | 3 | 18 | 48 | | | .268 | .329 | .417 | 4.67 | ||
| vs below avg staffs | 1901 | 264 | 518 | 106 | 9 | 51 | 246 | | | .272 | .358 | .418 | 4.71 |
jeremy’s concern does not appear to be entirely misplaced; the cards’ obp drops almost 30 points against good-pitching teams. but their overall scoring average doesn’t, and their average and slugging average have remained the same. another consideration --- the five pitching staffs in question have yielded an aggregate obp of .320 this year, and the cardinals beat that by 9 points. for that matter, they came out ahead on the other two markers as well, batting 16 points higher than the rest of the league against those 5 staffs and slugging 22 points higher. but then, it has to be noted that the cardinals generally avoided facing the ace of these good pitching staffs --- they didn’t have to hit against zambrano, kazmir, peavy, or hamels. that’s not a knock against the cardinals --- it’s not as if they are dodging good pitchers on purpose. but it might explain why they’ve outperformed the league against these good teams.
sample-size caveats apply heavily here; we can’t really draw any conclusions from a 15-game sample. the available evidence suggests that jeremy might be on to something, at least where obp is concerned; it’s worth keeping an eye on this. it will still be a while, though, before the cards run into a spate of difficult pitching. in their next 5 series (16 games), they only have 1 against a pitching staff that ranks in the upper half of its league --- the 3-game set at fenway. but starting on june 30, they will face good pitching on a daily basis for more than a month. 30 of their next 37 games will be against the mets, cubs, braves, padres, dodgers, and phillies, all of whom rank 8th or better in nl era. they’ll also have 4 games in that stretch vs the brewers, who rank 9th in the league; the only truly bad staff they’ll get to face is pittsburgh’s (last in the league in era). the good news is that pujols probably will be back on the field for most or all of that part of the slate.
jeremy’s inquiry got me wondering: does a similar effect help explain the unexpectedly good showing by the cardinals’ own pitching staff? apparently so: per BP, kyle lohse has faced the 5th weakest slate of opposing batters in the nl this year (aggregate ops of .709); wellemeyer ranks 7th (.709), looper 11th (.715), and wainwright 16th (.719); that’s among pitchers with at least 60 innings pitched to date (there are 60 such in the league). but before we write off the stl staff’s performance as a mirage, i have to point out that 4 cub pitchers (zambrano, dempster, lilly, and marquis) rank among the top 18 in terms of feeble opposition batters; if the stl pitchers are merely lucky, then the cubs’ hurlers are no less so. moreover, nearly all of the top 10 pitchers on the nl leaderboard rank among the top 15 or so in terms of low-ops opposition.
still, the cardinal pitching staff has only faced 3 teams this year with an aggregate OPS+ higher than 100 --- the cubs (111), phillies (110), and rays (103). they also have played 21 games against the astros and pirates, who both have OPS+s of 100 --- ie, dead average. in a total of 30 games against those clubs, the cards are 18-13, a .581 winning percentage; they’re 23-16 against everyone else for a winning percentage of .590. they’ve allowed 5.27 runs a game against the average-or-above lineups (4.76 runs/game if we eliminate the 20-run pasting at the hands of the phils, which skews the average), vs only 3.70 runs/game against below-average lineups.
cutting (belatedly) to the chase, it’s safe to say the cardinals still haven’t hit the difficult part of their schedule. only 18 of their games so far have come against teams that are currently .500 or better; the cards are 10-8 in those games, and 32-21 against losing clubs. they get 6 games vs the royals in the next couple of weeks, but beginning on june 30 they will face good competition nearly every night. 35 of their next 41 games will be against teams that are currently no worse than 1 game under .500 --- that includes 7 games each against the mets and braves, who are both 1 game under at the moment but can hardly be described as easy competition. it’s obvious carpenter won’t be back for any of that stretch, and unclear how much wellemeyer and / or wainwright will be available. . . . . best not to think about that now. they have an easy opponent at home this week, an extremely winnable series; better fatten up, because there may be some leaner times ahead.
0 recs |
381 comments
Email
Print
Comments
We've done well agianst good teams
Im more worried about the injuries to ace and best player than the strength of schedule right now. Combine those with the Injury to the Colonel and Yadi. Well, I just think that the injuries will have more effect on our record than the strength of schedule.
by Evilfrog on Jun 17, 2008 8:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i seem to remember
discussion on this site after the hot april that our schedule was easy due to a disproportionate number of home games, crappy opponents, etc., and that it would get a fair bit tougher in may. we seem to have made it through that stretch alright.
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on Jun 17, 2008 9:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
perhaps you're remembering
this post of two Sundays ago. It’s funny. I wrote about my Dad in the first couple of paragraphs and he just called this morning and told me he read that post so I went back and read it just before reading this. LB’s post today re: our pitchers and hitters does verify the conclusion I reached—that both us and the Cubs have faced relatively easy schedules so far and that it’s going to get tougher. It’s difficult to keep up w/ LB’s good work so I’m always happy when he verifies some of the stuff I’ve posted before.
by chuckb on Jun 17, 2008 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
in the end I don't care how it is done
I am happy with the theme behind LB’s post yesterday. Just keep faking it for 91 more games fellas (plus like the playoffs and stuff)
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't this an NL Central effect?
plus our lack of Cub games. The other divisions have 3 teams listed as top pitching staffs; only the Cubs were listed from NL Central. That’s why they haven’t faced top teams too, although I would think Houston is up there for offense ratings.
Of course then we get into this whole balanced schedule mess and team ratings, is the NL Central really bad pitching or does it have some really good offense (Cubs, Brewers, Stros)?
Whatever the case, since we’re mostly going to face NL Central foes I’m not too worried about it. Maybe our pitching and hitting numbers are a little biased downwards, but we still have shown we can compete with good teams.
by enoscountry on Jun 17, 2008 9:16 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't doing good mean your competition is doing bad?
Doesn’t a good pitcher lower the OPS of those he faces? And winning against another team lowers there winning percentage? Sometimes I think we worry too much about how good our opponents were or are going to be yet we seem to be holding our own against every one this year, no true blowout series and only a few blowout games.
by StLHugo on Jun 17, 2008 9:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
agreeed, it gets circular . . .
so it is hard to say whether a team is bad offensively b/c they are facing good pitching or because they are actually bad offensively
who will be the new MV3?
by sprfldcard on Jun 17, 2008 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It reminds me of Tommy Lasorda's
old joke about why his pitching career was so poor in comparison to a guy like Drysdale’s: “It wasn’t fair. Drysdale always got to pitch on the days the other teams weren’t hittin’.”
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jun 17, 2008 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like McCarver's quote:
“Bob Gibson is the luckiest pitcher I ever saw. He always pitches when the other team doesn’t score any runs.”
by Ray Lankford on Jun 17, 2008 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That basic joke has probably been around
as long as baseball has, actually.
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jun 17, 2008 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
dammit
didn’t mean to post a one worder. Don’t know how that happened…
Anyway, my actual remark was going to be that it most definitely is circular especially in regards to the pitching. When the cutoff is 60 innings, that means that’s roughly only 10 games. In one game, a pitcher could get as much as about 13% of those innings. So basically, if someone were to throw a no-hitter and have 7-8 other pretty mediocre starts, they’re probably going to show up pretty favorably in the stats.
For the hitters, since they play everyday, there’s a better sample size, so I would be concerned that our hitters haven’t faced the toughest pitching yet.
But the pitchers… I wouldn’t be concerned in the least.
by mtalken on Jun 17, 2008 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i knew somebody would make this argument
it may seem circular, but it isn’t. there just aren’t enough plate appearances between any single pitcher and any single hitter to skew the results.
think of it like this: lohse has faced kaz matsui 8 times this year (the most he has faced any opposing hitter) and held him to a .250 ops. matsui has had 221 plate appearances against other pitchers this year, with an ops of about .695 . . . . you can’t argue that matsui looks like a bad hitter because kyle lohse keeps getting him out. matsui is a bad hitter because every pitcher gets him out . . . .
kyle lohse has faced 361 batters this year. those 361 batters have taken, cumulatively, upwards of 10,000 plate appearances in 2008. his appearances against them are just a tiny fraction of their overall sample - not nearly enough to skew the sample up or down one way or the other.
by lboros on Jun 17, 2008 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is what i was thinking
The reason the Cards are beating ‘bad’ teams so often is because beating a team often is what makes it ‘bad’. I’d like to think of it more along the lines of proving their quality as a team rather than taking easy wins from crap teams.
But yeah, like you said \/ \/ \/ down there, it gets circular i think.
by cd on Jun 17, 2008 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, but
the other teams have played 70 games but only a few are against us. While our good pitchers may be able to lower their OPS some, the other 60+ games will weigh much more heavily than the few they’ve played against us.
by chuckb on Jun 17, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
the padres and dodgers aren’t bad teams because we went 2-1 against them; they’re bad teams because they are both 8 under .500 against the rest of the league (excluding us). the nationals are 1-5 against us, and 28-37 against the rest of the league.
by lboros on Jun 17, 2008 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
while that is true
the bad teams have to play someone, if the padres had played the Ms more often would they be as bad as they are? I think these stats are very relative and often change after the fact. If we play a .500 team one day and beat them then the next day they are counted as a sub .500 team. Most of the time someone looks at stats like “how many good teams have you beat” they look at a snapshot in time, who are the good teams today, now how many times did you beat them? They don’t take into account that the team may have been a “bad” team at the time or a bad team may have been a good team. When we last faced the Stros they were above .500 I think and now they are below. Were they good then? Are they really bad now? I just don’t put very much stock into those type of stats.
by StLHugo on Jun 17, 2008 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Padres are 13-7 in their last 20 games
Climbing, ever so steadily…
Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans
by Mr Redbird on Jun 17, 2008 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so if they hit .500
will that make our wins against them more important?
I know where you are coming from though they aren’t completely out of it yet since the DBacks are starting to slip some. It is weird that the Top 2 NL teams are in the Central and the NL West leader is only 4 games over .500.
by StLHugo on Jun 17, 2008 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do we keep looking for reasons to fail?
This team is pretty good. That’s the crux of it. They are just pretty good. They aren’t great, ala 2004. They aren’t horrible, ala THE ENTIRE 90’S. They really have no glaring weaknesses (weak-hitting middle infield excepted). They pitch fairly well. They hit for a bit of power. They walk some. They are fantastic in the field. And, to top it all off, they are fairly young and really deep.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Jun 17, 2008 9:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
I understand that there are weak areas and possible rough patches ahead, but I sometimes think it’s too easy to over analyze and lose the positives we have going. I don’t want to put blinders on, but at the same time, why look for trouble?
mel
by mel1975 on Jun 17, 2008 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it would be an incredibly boring site
if all we wrote, day after day, was some variation on “Gee, aren’t the Cardinals great?”
it certainly wouldn’t be worth my trouble to do that. what interests me is to weigh the team’s strengths and weaknesses and try to understand them.
by lboros on Jun 17, 2008 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed but...
I too think we over analyze just a bit. While I know it isn’t the case it almost seems like some are just waiting for the team to fail as predicted. Nobody thought we would be where we are right now and no one knows if it is sustainable. I like the analysis but all the analysis in the world wouldn’t have predicted where the Cards currently set. This might actually be a pretty good team. Yes, they are definitely overachieving and it’s probably not sustainable at this level but barring a major disaster (Albert being gone, God forbid) this team is probably going to be making some noise in September. It’s going to be a fun summer and the TLR/Dunc connection right now are pulling the right strings. I’m enjoying watching this team gut out every series.
by okiecardfan on Jun 17, 2008 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The whole point of this site
is to overanalyze. If you don’t want to ruminate on subjects that are not readily apparent to the average fan then I think it is a waste of time to come and read the content here. Furthermore, while I consider myself on the positive side as a fan, I am still interested in understanding the team’s deficiencies so that I might better understand when the team fails.
by indakind on Jun 17, 2008 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don't know
if i completely agree with that. Analyze, yes, but OVER? I dunno. Sometimes it has the feel of LOOKING for failure. I definitely am not a proponent of of “gee, aren’t the Cardinals great” everyday, but at the same time, I’m not sure I understand the need to look for failure to come.
mel
by mel1975 on Jun 17, 2008 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"If you don’t want to ruminate on subjects that are not readily apparent to the average fan then I think it is a waste of time to come and read the content here."
people come here for their own reasons, and the average fan can understand more than you give them credit for. And, overanalyze = “ignoring truths in favor of analysis” it’s inherently a bad thing.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jun 17, 2008 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
People with a strong statistical/analytical bent
will constantly compare the team’s actual standing to where their analysis of the numbers suggests the team should be. For that reason guys like lboros are not likely to fall prey to irrational exuberance (and hopefully will not fall prey to irrational pessimism either). Really, the best statistical analysts in baseball are likely to have the same sober qualities that we would see in good stock analysts. But we have so much emotion tied up in this entertainment that we love, that sometimes levelheadedness looks like pessimism.
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jun 17, 2008 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know, I know.
I know what you are getting at, but when we win, it seems we have to justify, statistically, that we DESERVED to win. I realize that over a season, the law of averages will drag a team more toward their true potential, be it good or bad. I also think that we, as devoted El Birdos, sometimes miss out on the simple joy of winning no matter what the numbers say.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Jun 17, 2008 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes. exactly.
I think that this is a part of what I feel as well.
mel
by mel1975 on Jun 17, 2008 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
right
i don’t think lboros got into today’s discussion thinking it was going to have a negative feel. it just happened that way. there are other times when he has a post where he thinks its going to be negative and the stats actually look positive.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
by FutureMan on Jun 17, 2008 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well
some of the analysis is worth it, just trying to figure out if we are going to be a legitimate contender in the second half. it will alter how the GM performs the next few months, for sure.
Ankiel is Jesus!
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 17, 2008 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think
this analysis screams of the age-old adage:
“There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
btw
not necessarily this analysis will alter how the GM goes about the season (unless he’s actually an avid reader?)
Ankiel is Jesus!
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 17, 2008 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
LB, I do agree with you.
I was making more of a comment on the overall tone of the blog this year versus others. It seems that last year, we were a fundamentally flawed team that was VERY top-heavy. We had a couple of superstars and a bunch of underperforming has-beens. Yet, with all the flaws, we as a community were much more optomistic in our tone than it seems to me. I know that is just one man’s view, therefore we need to have a small sample-size warning (I’ve always wanted to use that term, tee-hee), but it seems to me that the prevalent opinion goes something like this: “Yeah, we’re winning, BUT…..” Whereas last year the tone was more of: “Yeah we’re winning DESPITE…..”.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Jun 17, 2008 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i guess it's all in how you read it
i don’t think any of us would disagree that this team’s performance has been surprising. and few among us would deny that the team has some holes. you might think i’m a pessimist because i’m not sure whether or not the team can continue to surprise, and continue to win despite its limitations. other people might think i just have a healthy dose of skepticism about the team.
by lboros on Jun 17, 2008 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we can all have a healthy balance
We can realize this team does have flaws, expect that some of those may be eventually exposed, and still hope like heck that they aren’t. People sometimes make the mistake of reading what somebody thinks, and interpreting it as what they want. I’m comfortable that while everyone here may have different thoughts and views on any number of topics involving the team, we all want the same results. If we keep that in mind the discussions of whether people are being too negative or too positive become almost irrelevant.
by Merry CRasmus on Jun 17, 2008 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know why I think they are winning?
I truly believe this team is winning because they have 2 servicable players for EVERY position (except for Pujols). We can almost always put 2 hot bats in the outfield. We have 4 fair middle infielders that all play quality defense. We have a great defensive catching corps. We have loads of good young bullpen arms. There are reinforcements ready to do a decent job, no matter what the situation. Ahhh, depth is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Jun 17, 2008 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To reply to my own comment.
This depth allows us to do a much better job of hiding our ineffeciencies than in years past. Tony is able to put players in a position to succeed, rather than let them languish in failure. We are much more able to ride the “hot” bat now, as slumping ones will just sit the bench.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Jun 17, 2008 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey!
1996 was pretty magical, until Game 5 of the NLCS anyways (shudder)
Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans
by Mr Redbird on Jun 17, 2008 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
I thought the teams in the 90’s were pretty entertaining, if not quite as good as the 80’s and aughts for the redbirds. I liked watching some Guerrero, Lankford, and whoever else I’m forgetting right now.
Ankiel is Jesus!
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 17, 2008 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh yeah
Gilke, etc.
Ankiel is Jesus!
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 17, 2008 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, the late 90's were pretty cool.
I was in college in Lebanon, IL at the time, and I got to go to lots of games in the $4 bleacher seats. I even got in a playoff game or 2. I guess I was referring more to the 1990-94 era.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Jun 17, 2008 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep, with the exception
of 1997 which was one of the most painful seasons I can remember (even if we did land McGwire that year).
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jun 17, 2008 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One positive
as our schedule gets tougher, the same can be said for the Cubbies.
Proud President of the Unofficial Skip Schumaker Fan Club!
I don't care about your fantasy team.
by stltrav09 on Jun 17, 2008 9:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Cubbies...
I’ve put on the back-burner till October. Right now there just another foe, as I think there’s little chance of us beating them for the division. I’m keeping a closer watch on what the top four teams in the NL East and the top two teams in the West are doing, cause these are the teams that will keep us out of the playoffs…don’t want to ignore the Brewcrew either.
by cardzfanbub on Jun 17, 2008 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand where you are coming from
But, it’s difficult to put the Cubbies out of mind. The Cards have played 71 games this season and have 91 remaining, 12, or, 13% of which are vs. the Cubs. That’s a fair share of the remaining schedule, and a share that could very well determine our playoff fate. Luckily, we also have 6, or 6.59%, of our remaining games vs. K.C., beginning tonight in STL. Tickets are still available…
by bgh on Jun 17, 2008 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Takin off work
...on thursday afternoon for a day game. get out of the office!
by cd on Jun 17, 2008 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
KC
aren’t chumps this year regardless of record. Ask Arizona, that had to pitch a gem in order to not be swept.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
KC
is playing Bipolar baseball this season. It seems they have stretches where there are either playing very good baseball or stretches where they are absolutely putrid.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They're a momentum team
Highs are nice, lows are historically scary
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Luckily for me
the royals are just my second favorite team (way back in second). The Cardinals’ September swoon in 2006 almost killed me. How do those true blue royal fans put up with several of those a year?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the tough part of the schedule
will come in October. We should worry about it then:-)
by Harknights on Jun 17, 2008 9:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
May I say something to the Mets GM?
Shame on you for firing Willie Randolph and the coaching staff in the early morning by telephone.
Ugh. I do not think Randolph was a very good manager; I do not think Manaya has done a good enough job to replenish the team of old injury prone players. I do not think the youngsters have given their best. There are legitimate reasons to fire Mr. Randolph.
But fire him by phone? What a cowardly thing to do. Mr. Randolph deserved at least a face to face meeting.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jun 17, 2008 10:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Only one GM is documented to be reading VEB
And that’s Mo. Clearly, more should (I’m talking to you Walter), since it has a tremendously positive effect on the results for the Redbirds. ;)
by bgh on Jun 17, 2008 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ha! He sure hasn't listened to my rants.
But maybe he’ll pass the word to Minaya…...
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jun 17, 2008 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
With an addendum
I have another move that would jumpstart the Mets: trade their Reyes for our Reyes+ (yes, I’m aware that will never happen).
by bgh on Jun 17, 2008 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but it would be an exciting trade. possibly the most exciting trade in baseball.
by mattybobo on Jun 17, 2008 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
of course if he were to be traded to St Louis
he would no longer be the most exciting player in baseball.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Omar will hear...
plenty from the Noo Yawk media over the timing of this move!
If you’re going to fire your manager, why in the world would you make him fly all the way cross-country, win that night’s freakin’ game, and then can him at 3:15 AM Eastern? Talk about “twisting in the wind”!
"In this game, don't nobody know nuthin' about nuthin'." -- attributed to Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra
by The Ol Goaler on Jun 17, 2008 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope he gets raked over the coals......
He should. This is about the worst way to handle this. The worst….....
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jun 17, 2008 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Petersen (SP?) pitching coach and Randolph were fired but they kept Jerry Manuel?
I wonder why they kept Jerry Manuel as the interem coach? guess someone had to coach….
I guess the manager and pitching coach were not doing too well as they got fired.
by ICbirdfan on Jun 17, 2008 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he wasn't that bad with the whitesox
personally I would have cleaned house with the GM gone as well, as I don’t think it’s all Willie – however, any chaos with the Mets gives me a sense of ease.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only thing I know about their pitching coach is that
Oliver Perez was a trainwreck before he got there, and now he’s at least decent (120 ERA+ last year, 81 so far this year)
Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans
by Mr Redbird on Jun 17, 2008 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He has gotten pretty good results
from a group of pitchers that are all quite different. Especially worked well with Oliver Perez (who still has trouble staying “fixed”) and John Maine who really is on his way to being the most complete pitcher on the staff, Pedro becoming more of a finesse pitcher since his injury. Pelfrey’s been rocky….but even he has shown some improvement as the season has gone on. I think Peterson’s a good one. Someone will grab him before the week’s out.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jun 17, 2008 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kazmir
Peterson also suggested trading Kazmir b/c of his mechanics and slight build. He said he could do wonders with Victor Zambrano…...
by njnick on Jun 17, 2008 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everything I've heard said that was blown way out of proportion
"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA
by joker24 on Jun 17, 2008 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There were injury concerns with Kazmir
And he has been injured. A couple times in his young career. It still was a stupid trade.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jun 17, 2008 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope Walter has his head in the sand
I fear that Cincinnati will jump on Rick Peterson now that he is out of a job for 2 reasons;
1: I dont like the thought of that staff having a really good pitching coach
2: I don’t like the thought of Dick Pole not being around anymore
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yankees will snag Peterson , methinks
boo cubs, hooray beer
by Raconteur on Jun 17, 2008 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if i recall correctly
dick pole and dusty baker have a long-standing relationship. it might becounter-productive to fire pole, just because you view peterson as an upgrade.
I'd rather my sister be a prostitute than my brother a Cub fan.
by _pistol_ on Jun 17, 2008 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Pole was with Dusty in Chicago as a “consultant”. It was widely reproted and talked about here how even though the pitching coach was (and still is) Larry Rothschild, Pole was the one Dusty went to for all opinions and advice in regards to the pitching staff. It was even said that Dusty and Rothschild weren’t even on speaking terms most of the time.
by Tackle Box on Jun 17, 2008 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dusty is not too bright then....
Mr. Rothschild has done a very good job with that staff. He really has. Especially the relief corps…....and they have their own starter to reliever to starter doing well to in Ryan Dempster. He’s given up one run through 4 tonight.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jun 17, 2008 8:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed...
He really should have been canned in the offseason in my opinion. This all goes back to the collapse last season. They could have thrown millions at Torre or Girardi in the offseason to come in and man the helm.
This was extremely poor management from Minaya. None of these players have performed up to par, they’re pitching staff is still suffering from the Kazmir trade, that certainly has to go on the list of most one-sided trade ever. I think the best thing they could do is trade Moises Alou’s knee for Ozzie Guillen’s temper—maybe that would get them going….
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There IS a method to Guillen's madness.
He is, as my mother would say, crazy like a fox…...
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jun 17, 2008 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And....
He has a veteran laden team, much like the Mets. He knows that he can call them out in the media and he’ll get results. I think he and Kenny Williams played that chess match perfectly a couple of weeks ago….
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's right. He criticized them without naming names.....and the names he named (hitting coach and GM) were "safe" for him to call out.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jun 17, 2008 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ozzie is so full of it
Look. I live in Chicago so I hear EVERYTHING that guy says. He’s famous for saying he takes the blame on himself and how he doesn’t care what anyone thinks and if they want to they can fire him any day. Then as soon as he says he doesn’t care what people think and says “I’m the fing manager, I make out the fing lineup” he goes and throws the entire team under the bus. He blames the pitching coach, the hitting coach, everyone. He does it again and again, and before to long he’s going to get what he’s asking for.
by Tackle Box on Jun 17, 2008 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
They’re leading the AL Central right now, which nobody predicted, and he has a win now team with solid pitching and good offense.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No one predicted it
because everyone was too busy slobbering over the Tigers and Indians. They all refused to admit that the team made significant improvements over last year’s team.
The White Sox are as streaky as anyone (lost 2 out of 3 at home this weekend to the Rockies) and have taken advantage of what has turned out to be a crappy division.
Ozzie didn’t cause the Tigers and Indians to suck and they’ve been a win now team for 4 years.
by Tackle Box on Jun 17, 2008 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The thing is.....
The “improvements” they’ve made haven’t worked. It’s just that the pitching has rebounded to where it was in 2005 when they won it all.
Contreras, Floyd and Danks all had ERA’s in the 5’s last year for the ChiSox and this year Contreras and Floyd are in the 3’s and Danks has a 2.9 ERA.
Meanwhile, the three big pieces they picked up offensively, they’re 1 for 3:
Nick Swisher is batting at a .219/.335/.369 clip
Orlando Cabrera is at .262/.315/.346
Then, of course, the good news:
Carlos Quentin – .269/.374/.525
And as another person living in the Chicago region (at least for one more week, then I’m back down in Cardinal territory, yay!), I agree with Tackle Box. I think Ozzie has SOME method to his madness, but the shouting match with Kenny Williams, from everything the Chicago media had to say, almost got his butt thrown to the curb.
by mtalken on Jun 17, 2008 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's just what they like you to think *wink, wink*
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Possible, but I don't believe it....
Although who knows. Ozzie is seemingly out there enough to set up a conspiracy with his GM to fire up the team.
Just doesn’t seem like his style though.
by mtalken on Jun 17, 2008 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your right
Swisher and Cabrera haven’t earned their keep by hitting, but by sticking those two guys, plus Quentin, plus a healthy Crede on the field every day is what is really helping the team and it’s pitching. The pitching did well for the first month or so last year. I think they were one of the top pitching staffs early on. But they fell apart and had horrible defense to boot (seriously, Juan Uribe at shortstop and you guys complain about Aaron Miles).
And don’t forget Alexi Ramirez.
Plus, they added Scott Linebrink to a bullpen that was being re-worked last year. They made some pretty big changes.
by Tackle Box on Jun 17, 2008 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also...
Remember that they really haven’t played well offensively all season until the last few weeks. Swisher, Dye, and Thome have yet to really get going. They’ve been carried by Crede (who the Cards probably could have had for a mid-level prospect in the offseason, with Josh Fields waiting for a chance) and Quentin, who has to be the offseason pickup of the season so far. If the rest of that lineup starts hitting and Buehrle improves towards the mean they’ll be a tough team.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Mets are full of shit
Willie Randolph is not the cause of Delgado hitting .242. Randolph is not the cause of Pedro Martinez being injury prone.
Yeah, the collapse last year was monumental. But the Mets decided to retain him. Why fire him now simply because they had some injury problems, and that Delgado’s declined faster than anyone expected. It’s not like the Braves are doing much better than the Mets, and the Braves set the standard for quality in the NL East.
Idiocy!
And why not at least wait until the All Star Break. It’s like the team is being run by an adolescent.
So says, Titus Pullo (formerly The Dude)
by Titus Pullo on Jun 17, 2008 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Braves
Don’t have a monumental second half collapse on their record and a $130 million dollar payroll either.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
wasn't really even a second half collapse
they had it locked up with less than a month to go, .500 ball would have done it. If it was Arrogance I can’t say, but clearly when the roster expanded they needed to keep it in gear, they ran in neutral.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that is pusillanimous!
and I tend to agree w/ you re: Randolph but I think that Minaya is MORE responsible for the Mets current problems than Randolph is. They sold their soul to win two years ago and it didn’t work.
by chuckb on Jun 17, 2008 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
It didn’t :D
Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans
by Mr Redbird on Jun 17, 2008 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yadi really does play the game with joy
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jun 17, 2008 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was a beautiful moment
Who would have thought we’d have another like that in that series after Taguchi’s in the top of the ninth in game 2?
by random on Jun 17, 2008 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair to Minaya:
While this was perhaps the worst possible way to fire Randolph, from what the sportstalk shows are sayng this morning, Minaya was outvoted by basically everyone else in the Mets front office.
If Minaya hadn’t fired him, he might have lost HIS job, and then of course, the replacement’s first task would be to fire Willie Randolph. It still should have been done in New York, rather than making him fly across the country for one game before getting fired. It also should have been done about 3 weeks ago.
by mtalken on Jun 17, 2008 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's it exactly
Upper management is firing GM’s now (as we know from close experience)...Bavasi got the short haircut in Seattle when most people thought the manager was toast…it will be interesting to see what happens now…the Mets have a lot of money in that team…if they don’t turn it around in what should be a fairly winnable division, the Phillies success notwithstanding, Minaya might be next.
by tbell61 on Jun 17, 2008 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bavasi's a moron
and should’ve been gone long ago.
by chuckb on Jun 17, 2008 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wilpon was just on the radio
and he said that the firing of and timing of said firing for Willie was solely in the hands of Omar Minaya. Omar was ‘in charge’ and had the power to keep or fire Willie.
See what happens Omar when you cut loose the fall guy? You become the next in line to be the fall guy. The owner isn’t going to fire himself.
by Hardcore Legend on Jun 17, 2008 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Minaya knows that
really, I can’t think of any OTHER reason that Randolph would have lasted so long.
"the hardest decision to make is to do nothing; there is a terrible temptation to interfere." -gen patton
by SleepyCA on Jun 17, 2008 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
On an Unrelated note.
Im going to the game tonight. And again Looper is pitching. Looper is still the only pitcher I’ve seen at the new ballpark. Nothing against you Loop. But damn…
by Evilfrog on Jun 17, 2008 10:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
would it be a bad thing if he gave you a gem like the last one? I think he’s pretty solid this year, era really is blown out from two bad games, the rest were winnable. And he’s had a reasonable bat this year. Will KC be able to say the same with their pitcher?
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Looper
And I would love to see Looper pitch another game like he did last week. But on the same note, I would like to see someone else pitch. Not because I dislike Looper. But because this is my 5th time in a row see him pitch. You know?
by Evilfrog on Jun 17, 2008 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
ok, I see where you’re coming from. I caught Marquis a few times in a row so I know the pain.
Have a buddy with some damn nice seeing eye seats on a season ticket and already have a pact to go with him if Garcia pitches this year. That’s the kid I want to see this year if he’s called up.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you guys really need to quit complaining
you think that is bad? I once caught games in which Kips Wells pitched 2 times in a row. That is like getting 10 games worth of crappy pitching condensed into 2
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've been to three Cardinals games in my lifetime (all in Atlanta)
The first one was awesome (the experience and the game). The second two blew nuts. Hopefully I’ll get to a good one this season!
Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans
by Mr Redbird on Jun 17, 2008 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so you better not go to anymore
I don’t want to see the Cards give up 20 again. That second game had to be painful , I hope you made it all the way through.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I did make it through all three games
If I only get to see the Cardinals once a season, then damn it I’m getting my money’s worth!
Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans
by Mr Redbird on Jun 17, 2008 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
damn right!
I was hoping during this game though that Pence’s HR bal would hit me in the head so I would have a reason to leave (and forget the game). Unluckily though , it about 5 feet in front of me
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
my first game was
I have a love/hate relationship with the Cardinals' middle relief corps.
by madding on Jun 17, 2008 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It seems like everytime I go see the Cardinals at Wrigley
they’re facing Zambrano. It’s happened like 3 or 4 times the past couple of years
by Tackle Box on Jun 17, 2008 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
every time I go
the Cardinals win!
Ankiel is Jesus!
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 17, 2008 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please be sure not
to miss any games then. I bet if that trend continues, we’d all chip in for tickets and Old Styles.
Steriods is...is bad.
by Handsome Jimmy on Jun 17, 2008 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
my sister has never seen the Cards lose in person
we figured it up after the last game we went to, she is now 14-0. I tried to talk her into sending in all the old ticket stubs as proof and to ask for season tickets. At the very least they should give her tickets for the playoffs.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
big 0-4 last year
Last year my wife and I went to 4 games and saw 4 loses. One was a rain delayed Kip Wells bashing, one was a Sept Cubs game about 10 days after HGHgate started that Izzy blew after we rallied in the top of the 9th, one was JR Towles taking the Cards for a ride in his debut, and one was Wainwright’s CG lose to the Dodgers. 2 great games but still 4 crappy endings.
by StLHugo on Jun 17, 2008 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was brutal
but then last year seemed like a never ending season from hell.
Steriods is...is bad.
by Handsome Jimmy on Jun 17, 2008 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was at
Wainwright’s CG loss to the Dodgers too. That was a good game, not the horror fest that some of your games were, but still, a sucky ending. I saw 7 games in person last year (6 at Busch, 1 at Comerica) and went 3-4. My record this year is a perfect 4-0.
by cardsgirl95 on Jun 17, 2008 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow, that's very impressive
I’m 3-0 at Wrigley, and something like 3-1 at Busch, 0-1 at Milwaukee
Ankiel is Jesus!
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 17, 2008 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I saw the cards beat the cubs on the 4th of july a couple of years ago
at Wrigley. I spilled my beer on a cubs fan after hooting and hollering every time the cards had a run (which were more than a few that day if I remember correctly) and he was none too pleased. actually, they left the game after that (I apologized of course, it was an accident). I was lucky the guy wasn’t bigger than me I suppose (or a retarded teenager or frat boy)
Ankiel is Jesus!
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 17, 2008 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
just the opposite for me
I almost always see a Cardinal loss. Whether it be in Chicago or Milwaukee and this dated back like 6 years (some pretty good teams in there). I even went to a Cards/Pads playoff game (my only trip to Busch III), a series the Cards won 3-1 and they lost that game too.
Although I was at the Card/cub game last year that ended up like 12-10 and was won by a Pujols homer off Dempster that I think still hasn’t come down.
by Tackle Box on Jun 17, 2008 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the only time I've seen them in Milwaukee
they lost
Ankiel is Jesus!
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 17, 2008 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was at both of those games! That April 2007 game was lots of fun.
I was so happy to get tickets to see a playoff game in ‘06, but after shelling out for the tickets, the hotel, and flying my sister in from Denver to go with me, it was a little bit of a let-down. Add that to the fact that I had an opportunity to buy WS tickets but I had to travel a LOT for work – 23,000 miles flown in 32 days Oct./Nov. ‘06 – plus my Mom got married the day after the Series concluded, and I couldn’t go. I’m still a little bitter.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too." ~8-year-old Greg
by ChiTown CardFan on Jun 17, 2008 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The year we had Brett Tomko....
I went to 3-4 games and every one was pitched by Tomko.
I understand how annoying that is, although matty’s response below about getting Kip Wells twice in a row still sucks more.
by mtalken on Jun 17, 2008 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
I’ll take all of my painful ballpark memories because i never seen wells pitch
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One year, when Josh Towers
was a starter for the Orioles, I went to 5 games at Camden Yards. Towers started All. Five. Games. What a treat!
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jun 17, 2008 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I always go to games on Looper or Wainwright starts
boo cubs, hooray beer
by Raconteur on Jun 17, 2008 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Going into series vs. K.C. with one healthy catcher "a possibility"
Interesting piece in the P-D, which actually made me feel better about Molina’s injury (and worse, since he suffered a concussion last September, too):
Concussions to Jim Edmonds and David Eckstein led the team to try in spring training 2007 a computerized scan that provided baseline neurological information on the players. Almost the entire roster took the same test this spring to help the team better diagnose the severity of and recovery from concussions like the one Molina received Sunday.Molina was one of the players to undergo the test.
by bgh on Jun 17, 2008 10:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It's his brain, damnit! I still wish they'd DL him to be absolutely certain he's okay.
Glowing reports and all, there is a lot they don’t know about concussions and their after effects…why not err on the side of caution?
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jun 17, 2008 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree wholeheartedly
Especially, given the history Cardinals have with this: Matheny, Edmonds, and Eckstein…
by bgh on Jun 17, 2008 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Concussions should be called
“brain injuries.” Maybe then they’d be treated more seriously by the people. I think doctors generally recognize the severity of a concussion but we, in society, have been conditioned to believe that it’s no big deal. Football players often return to games in which they’ve suffered a concussion. We don’t truly recognize the implications, in my view, of concussions and so we treat them rather cavalierly, IMO.
by chuckb on Jun 17, 2008 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about "brain bruise (orcontusion).
that’s what it is.
by silent_bob on Jun 17, 2008 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sprained Brain
works for me.
Well who the hell can see forever?
by Alxfritz on Jun 17, 2008 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember after my third concussion (and it was a milder one)
I couldn’t keep my balance for very long at a time or go without headaches.Hell, they wouldn’t even let me play catch back in high school for over a week. Putting him right back behind the plate where just one foul ball could give him another one this soon is just plain crazy. I don’t think he will play for the next few days, but just having him around if LaRue goes down would just be too tempting.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is this gonna be like Reggie Ray in Not Another Teen Movie?
Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans
by Mr Redbird on Jun 17, 2008 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know who Reggie Ray is (never seen the movie)
but I figured I had to get in my Al Bundy moment and talk about something from high school.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yaddi's Concussions Left
Hopefully that number is waaayyy high.
by Tackle Box on Jun 17, 2008 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
at least they're being proactive
something you don’t see from the medical side of things too much.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think I'd call this response
proactive. The proactive response would be to DL him. I think what’s gonna happen here is that Tony will give Yadi 2 games off, then Yadi will talk Tony into putting him back out there, whether his head’s better or not. They are just asking for trouble if you ask me.
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jun 17, 2008 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Yadi wants to play
It can be hard to DL him.
by Evilfrog on Jun 17, 2008 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sure it is
You say “damn it Yadi, you are too important to fuck around with”
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really. Who's in charge here?
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jun 17, 2008 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If yadi doesnt agree with it
He can fight it. That’s what the players union is for. You can’t DL a player if he says he is healthy enough to play.
by Evilfrog on Jun 17, 2008 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two guys get a concussion
third has a history of it.
New medical approaches come out, Cardinals enlist several players to be apart.
= proactive.
I’m not talking about Yadi’s exact situation I’m replying to the actual post.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shades of Gray
At the end of the day you can really shade a stat towards your bias anyway you like. Even more so now as we have so many stats to chose from. Every guy on our team has weaknesses, bar El Hombre, but even he has injury concerns.
If one could consider a stat on “no doubter” home runs, then one could have one when it comes to games lost. We have very few of those. Usually there’s a key stat or issue that came into play. 15 LOB and lost, a fat fastball for a grand slam, pitcher not having it/ closer living a mental train wreck.
I can personally think off the top of my head about 8 or nine games where one mistake or one pitching change cost the game. So the ironic part of it is that we could very well be 6-8 games better than now, talk about expectations.
Humans and especially pro athletes are so complex that stats only provide insight, but never tell a story.
The 2008 Cardinals story?
Build a farm system that has the mantra “you prove, you move”. Give guys the chance to showcase what they can do and back them when they do it. Walk on the field thinking the “hard nine” not as a cliche, but as a religion. Have a manager that guides the kids to play to their strengths, and a GM that believes in now with an eye on the future.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 10:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
A great statement...pure wisdom AE
Humans and especially pro athletes are so complex that stats only provide insight, but never tell a story.
by ridgesee on Jun 17, 2008 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't agree that we could be a lot better
because we have WON just as many games the same way. In fact (also off the top of my head), I think we have won even MORE games that way than we’ve lost. Think about the last two Phillies games, or last Sunday against the Astros, or Skip Schumakers two run walk-off (Skip frickin’ Schumaker!).
"Give a man a fire, and he’ll be warm for a night. Set him on fire and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life."
by BigMOman on Jun 17, 2008 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point wasn't to say that we've had hard luck
yeah, Karma is a BAMF. It’ll balance out.
My point was that stats don’t tell a story and we could be questioning more stats due to having even a better record.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If one could consider a stat on "no doubter" home runs, then one could have one when it comes to games lost. We have very few of those.
check out http://www.hittrackeronline.com/ . it’s a home run tracking site that measures what they call “true distance”, categorizes by “no doubts” “just enoughs” and “lucky homers”, has leaderboards on various home run stuff, etc. very fun. i have no affiliation with the site, btw – this isn’t an ad.
by astrostl on Jun 17, 2008 10:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Adam Dunn
has 9 “no-doubters” this season…maybe Dusty should think twice about bunting a guy who hits one off his Mercedes every 12 AB’s…
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
adam dunn is the top of my head pick for the most underappreciated player in the game of baseball. reds fans were loudly booing him in our recent series. it’s ridiculous.
by astrostl on Jun 17, 2008 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, he can hit a lot of homers a long way...
but they still just count for 1 homer. He’s fat and lazy as well as being a horrible fielder.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Jun 17, 2008 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fat, lazy, I don't know enough about him personally to agree or disagree with you on that.
But it’s a fact that he gives you about 40 homers and about 100 RBI’s year in and year out. There are very few players that you can say that about in either league…...
I like him because he is the three true outcomes guy.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jun 17, 2008 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
his career on-base percentage is also .382 – compare that with whoever it is you do like.
by astrostl on Jun 17, 2008 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm
I only took a few people off the top of my head but Dunn must rank up pretty high. In fact according to BR he is 155th all time in OBP and 20th among active (both for career OBP).
Pujols .423
ARod .389
Edmonds .377
Griffey .373
Burrell .371
Beltran .355
Soriano .327
by StLHugo on Jun 17, 2008 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Skippy's OBP is .370 this year, but we harp on him ceaselessly.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Jun 17, 2008 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We?
Not everyone harps on him. But to answer why some do it is mainly because he augments that OBP with a .448 SLG where Dunn augments his career .382 OBP with a .519 SLG
by StLHugo on Jun 17, 2008 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
SLG isn’t an independent power statistic either, since it factors singles and schumaker has a higher AVG. isolated power (ISO) is SLG-AVG, a measure of extra bases alone. schumaker has a career .121 ISO, which i believe is about league average. i don’t think it’s exactly fair to compare the guy to adam dunn, but for what it’s worth he’s sitting on a stout .272 career ISO – a much more stark differential than what we’d see comparing SLG.
by astrostl on Jun 17, 2008 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
for his short career he’s got a less impressive but still above-average net .352 OBP: .321/.364/.468 against RHP, .223/.305/.234 against LHP, or .832 and .539 OPS respectively.
by astrostl on Jun 17, 2008 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He can't field...
This is true—but he gets on base at a .400 clip and hits 40 homers, and scores and drives in nearly 100 runs every year. Hard to argue with numbers like that.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
what is the deal
w/ people making comments like this? Where do you get that he is fat and lazy? He’s a big guy but how do you know his work habits? Document something if you’re going to make brash statements like this.
by chuckb on Jun 17, 2008 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
enough with the fat comments already
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I knew the guy in the minor leagues
I worked for the Rockford Reds baseball team (low A, now the Dayton Dragons) and he was anything but lazy. I would say he improved the most out of all players on that team and that team was loaded. Dunn, Austin Kearns, Gookie Dawkins, Corky Miller, Brandon Larson, Lance Davis, Antonio Perez to name a few. He wasn’t the best player on that team by a mile and he worked his ass of every day to get better.
He was big back then, and he’s still big. Athletic too.
by Tackle Box on Jun 17, 2008 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks for the insight into his work ethic in the minors
i think it has a lot to do with Cincinnatti’s gawd-awful announcers. Every chance they get, they either damn with faint praise or flat out insult a player- for instance, when Edwin Encarnacion made a tremendous backhanded play in this last series, saving runs, they said something to the effect of “that was a pretty good play by Encarnacion; usually he throws it away after making a play like that”... I couldn’t believe my ears.
And they constantly berate Dunn. It’s just sad. I mean, it is kind of understandable; he is much worse in LF than Chris Duncan, and we see how badly Duncan gets treated here. But he’s still the best player on the team, even with the lack of defensive skill.
"the hardest decision to make is to do nothing; there is a terrible temptation to interfere." -gen patton
by SleepyCA on Jun 17, 2008 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks for clearing that up
I like how people pretend to know what someone’s activities are based on how they look. how grade school of them
Ankiel is Jesus!
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 17, 2008 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
O Jeez, sorry there P/C Police.
OKAY, he is fat. He is listed at 6’6” and 275 lbs. That is fat. Is that documented enough for you?
As for his fielding, he is universally considered to be one of the worst outfielders in baseball. Look at the metrics. And, he’s not Chris Duncan bad. He’s lazy bad. I’ve watched him play quite a bit.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Jun 17, 2008 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And...
that still doesn’t change the fact that he has a career .382 on base, hits 40 homers a year, drives in 100 runs a year, and scores 80 runs a year. If Duncan played cruddy left field defense but had an OBP near .400 and hit 40 bombs a year none of us would be complaining about him…that’s why Dunn is underappreciated.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But, how much....
does his inability to run the bases and his terrible fielding offset his (admitidly great) offensive production. I remember a post LB did showing that Ryan Braun was such a bad 3rd baseman, that he cost almost as many runs as he created.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Jun 17, 2008 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
win shares and WARP are two methods that attempt to factor the big picture in one stat. according to his (subscriber-only) PECOTA card at baseball prospectus, dunn had a respective 5.8, 4.5, and 5.3 WARP in 2005, 2006, and 2007. win share data is publicly available at his hardball times page.
by astrostl on Jun 17, 2008 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chris Duncan
Has a career: .352 OBP/ .496 SLG/ .848 OPS
He might hit 40 HR a year if he is allowed to play every day…...
by ICbirdfan on Jun 17, 2008 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
against righties...
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And...
He’s yet to play more than 110 games a season…Dunn has played better than 140 games every year but one, and has a career OPS of .901, which is 53 points higher than Duncan’s. Dunn is a much better known commodity than Duncan—you can count on him to put up those numbers nearly every year when healthy.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's bad defensively, as I never said he wasn't
but we had one guy going on and on yesterday about C.C. Sabathia being “fat and lazy” and here you’re doing the same thing about Adam Dunn. These are 2 really good ballplayers who have, inexplicably, been called fat and lazy for no reason whatsoever. Babe Ruth was fat. What do you think of him?
As for lazy, why make characterizations like that w/o some sort of evidence or any kind of indicator pointing to his laziness? Do you have anything that substantiates that the guy is lazy? Bad defensively, yes—I never questioned that. But he is good in so many ways that calling him lazy, w/o reason, seems absurd. Now, if you have some information that leads you to conclude that he’s lazy, I’d be interested. However, if your conclusion that he is lazy is based on the fact that he weighs 275, I’m not. You should have something to back up brazen statements like that rather than just posting them in some screed on the ‘net.
by chuckb on Jun 17, 2008 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fat and Lazy
Adam Dunn. C.C. Sabathia. Babe Ruth. Tony Gwynn. Kirby Puckett. John Kruk (okay, bad example). Harmen Killebrew. Fernando Valenzuela.
by Tackle Box on Jun 17, 2008 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about Heavy and Good...
Seriously, lazy people don’t suceed in this game. It’s too damn hard to be any good if you just phone it in.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Jun 17, 2008 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
David Wells being the exception
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not to mention calling someone names
is childish. It is a waste of keystrokes and it makes people sound immature.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Could I also nominate Derek Jeter as the most overappreciated player in baseball?
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hwo could you say that?
he’s a winner, plain and simple. he’s the kind of guy that steps up to the plate and delivers clutchily in big games. in other words, a ball player.
in fact, i’ll nominate him for “most ball-player player in baseball” instead.
by mattybobo on Jun 17, 2008 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d like him a whole lot more if he wasn’t in NY and part of the MSM orgy fest.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
read
baseball between the numbers re: Jeter. He is the most OVERRATED player in the game and has been worse in the clutch than Alex Rodriguez. That’s not my opinion. That’s fact though listening to people like Tim McCarver would give you the opposite conclusion. ARod is now and has been more clutch than Jeter throughout his career.
by chuckb on Jun 17, 2008 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
oops...
my bad. i was actually being sarcastic, but it ended up not being very funny so i guess it wasn’t obvious enough. i personally hate derek jeter, for all of the reasons you just mentioned, plus the fact that he’s always on screen in televised games, with that empty look in his eyes which i’m sure the announcers always interpret as being full of “gamerly true-yankee-ness” or what have you.
by mattybobo on Jun 17, 2008 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry
yeah, I didn’t get it. Maybe if it had been anyone but Jeter b/c that’s all we hear about Jeter—he’s clutchy and a winner and all that jazz. Sorry again.
by chuckb on Jun 17, 2008 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's cool
maybe i’ll try “clutchitudinous” next time. i’ve been searching for a fake word like that to denote the fake skill that is “clutch”
by mattybobo on Jun 17, 2008 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For what it's worth
Bill James has publically stated that he was wrong in saying “clutch” doesn’t exist.
by Tackle Box on Jun 17, 2008 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think...
that there are certain skills that pertain to being “clutch”, but being in clutch situations is completely random, and being on good teams tends to lead toward more clutch situations than normal. Certain people just respond better when the pressure is on—that’s true in regular life as much as in sports.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
really?
hm. maybe i need to read up again then…
i think we can all agree though, that most of time things like “clutch guy” and the like are thrown around it’s fairly meaningless.
by mattybobo on Jun 17, 2008 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was in the piece done on
him on 60 minutes.
by Tackle Box on Jun 17, 2008 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
may look at this sometime, it’s the 60 minutes bit referenced
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bill James has publically stated that he was wrong in saying "clutch" doesn’t exist.
i watched the 60 minutes video you mentioned, and found it enjoyable so thanks for the pointer! he didn’t say anything about clutch, though.
the BROADCASTER, not james, says “james is rethinking that one [clutch hitting], especially after david ortizs’ 2004 walk-off home run that sent the red sox to the american league championship.” no confirmation was given, and it would be ridiculous if james of all people were to change statistical positions on the outcome of a one plate appearance.
it can be foolish to say anything does or does not exist out of hand, but i think if clutch hitting can’t be measured it can’t be that significant. i’m not aware of any current data that supports the theory of clutch hitting, and i think it would be a pretty big deal if it were to arise.
by astrostl on Jun 17, 2008 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
isnt clutch hitting
hitting anytime you have someone in scoring position with 2 outs?
I have always thought they should change the term that everyone uses as clutch hitting to “dramatic hitting”
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that’s one definition. others would look to late & close, 1-run games, etc. each way it’s sliced players have not yet been shown to have consistently elevated output in those situations over significant sample sizes.
by astrostl on Jun 17, 2008 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah
Oh well, memory was slighty fuzzy, but it’s not like James has said he didn’t agree with what the reporter is saying. And I think it has to do with more than just that one home run. Think of that home run as the straw that broke the camels back in regards to James’ stance on “clutch”.
by Tackle Box on Jun 17, 2008 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if one home run has anything to do with it, i think his credibility as an analyst would correctly plummet. no indication was given in the broadcast that james believes clutch exists, and i’m not aware of that sentiment being expressed elsewhere – only that it, like most things, could still be studied in different ways. before searching for the straw, let’s see if the camel’s back was actually broken!
by astrostl on Jun 17, 2008 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think what James has actually
said is that he can’t be sure there is no such thing as clutch hitting. But that’s clearly not the same as saying that he thinks there is such a thing. In other words, it’s agnosticism, not atheism.
Has he come out lately with more thoughts on that subject?
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jun 17, 2008 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if i remember correctly, both lb and i showed that Taguchi
had some sort of clutch ability. There are guys who have WPA numbers and the like exceed what you would expect from their regular production
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jun 17, 2008 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but if they were put in the clutch position often enough
that would almost certainly change.
"the hardest decision to make is to do nothing; there is a terrible temptation to interfere." -gen patton
by SleepyCA on Jun 17, 2008 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But they still have
something that others don’t in the relatively few “clutch” situations that they are put in.
by saladdays on Jun 17, 2008 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the simple question: who is “they”, and where is the proof? if consistent clutch ability has been found over a significant sample size, it would be a big deal in sabermetric circles.
by astrostl on Jun 17, 2008 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reacting to Valatan
He said that he and lboros proved some sort of clutch ability with Taguchi.
by saladdays on Jun 17, 2008 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's simply
someone who rises to the occasion rather than buckling. that’s all a clutch hitter is.
Ankiel is Jesus!
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 17, 2008 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would go further
and say it is someone who performs to their abiities in high pressure situations. Situations that often cause others to become distracted, too nervous to perform, etc.
by Tackle Box on Jun 17, 2008 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is THAT why Clemens had Viagra in his locker?
So he could perform to his abilities in high-pressure situations that can cause others to be distracted or too nervous to perform?
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Jun 17, 2008 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ba-zing
Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans
by Mr Redbird on Jun 17, 2008 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i was asking for names and supporting data, not a popular definition.
by astrostl on Jun 17, 2008 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Valatan gave you one already
I’m not a big stats guy, so I really don’t know who else. But I think there’s something to Bill James at least implying that there is no such thing as clutch hitting.
by saladdays on Jun 17, 2008 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
roger dodger, not hammering on you. i was just responding to clarify, and perhaps indicate that i might deserve enough credit to understand the premise of a subject i’m openly discussing!
as for the so taguchi example, here’s what i’ve got at a glance:
CAREER: .280 .334 .386
TWO OUTS, RISP: .267 .328 .382
LATE & CLOSE: .220 .315 .324
he’s a negative WPA player for his career, and his fangraphs CLUTCH stat shows no consistency from year to year – something i think would be necessary to make an argument for it as a skill.
by astrostl on Jun 17, 2008 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
James has said that
but he has, as some pointed out, more recently gone back on that. I think, and I’m not sure here, that he has concluded that there is some clutch ability (as Tom Tango did) but I think the evidence is pretty tenuous.
by chuckb on Jun 17, 2008 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if it's an everyday player, and it's sustained over a career...
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jun 17, 2008 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
though Taguchi is obviously not an everyday player
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jun 17, 2008 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i guess i shouldn't have said i don't think it exists at all
but it is certainly overemphasized, and often incorrectly cited by professionals who should know better.
on one hand, i would agree that albert’s 2005 homer off of lidge can be justifiably called “clutch”, but on the other hand, the constant argument that derek jeter is a “clutch player” and alex rodriguez is not is a bunch of hot air, as fjm and others have pointed out over and over again.
by mattybobo on Jun 17, 2008 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, he's bad, but his girlfriends are always so damn good looking!!!
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Jun 17, 2008 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's kind of hilarious
I was about to comment that the previous was the biggest joe morgan comment ever. I guess your wit is too sharply wrought a weapon than my dull blade.
by spencegrif on Jun 17, 2008 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
a Winner?
Just because you play on great teams your first 8 years does NOT make you a “winner”. Would you call Kobe Bryant a winner because he was the second best player on a three peat team? No, you’d call him a winner because he’s done it as the best player on his team. Jeter has NEVER been the best player on the Yankees. He’s a good ballplayer, but he’s certainly not the cornerstone type of player that everyone makes him out to be.
Tell me, what, exactly, has Jeter won since Paul O’Neill retired? With a $200 million payroll around him, David Eckstein would probably have played in numerous World Series as well. Those teams didn’t win BECAUSE Jeter. They won because they had good pitching, and unhittable bullpen, and good veteran leadership.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Derek Jeter as a person and he’s good for the game, but I tire of the hero worship. Had he played the first half of his career in Tampa, he’d just be another quality SS, not a demi-god and captain of the Yankees.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eckstein has played
in more world series in the last 7 years than Jeter…just sayin
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
again, sorry for the lack of sarcasm warning guys.
by mattybobo on Jun 17, 2008 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's ok
It’s just hard to separate sarcasm in that statement because, while it’s ridiculous, it’s a line that a ton of people take seriously.
A better comparison would be Robert Horry. People call him a “winner” and he’s hit some big shots for some good teams. But if he was hitting buzzer beaters for the Atlanta Hawks for his whole career he wouldn’t have seven rings, he’d be toiling at the bottom of the Eastern Conference. He’s been a solid player on a lot of teams, but his success has a lot to do with the teams he’s played on, not because he makes those teams “championship caliber”
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
although with horry
i think the fact that those shots came in the playoffs had more to do with his status than the team he was on. they weren’t just normal regular season shots for the hawks. they were huge shots that prevented elimination from or clinched a playoff series. if the name on the jersey was hawks in the lakers/blazers series it would have been the same. it might have been more than because it would probably have been “horry lifts a nobody team single-handedly.”
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
by FutureMan on Jun 17, 2008 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
wait...
If Horry plays for the Hawks that status changes to “Horry lifts a nobody team single-handedly”? That’s a non-sequitor. Not once in his career was he ever one of the top 5 offensive players on his team, NOT ONCE.
He’s been a role player on a number of really good teams and is a player who’s been gifted with seven rings while:
1. Not being able to create his own shot
2. Not having to ever carry the load offensively or defensively
3. Knocking down wide open threes when the look was created by someone else.
I think you made my point for me—if he wasn’t on all those great teams, then his persona wouldn’t be as honorific.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he also
throws cheap shots in the playoffs at the opponents best players. See Game 4, 2007 playoffs Suns & Spurs
At least he's better than Esteban Yan.
by jacksonian on Jun 17, 2008 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here in Houston
Robert Horry was, for a long time, known as the “Tin Man” b/c he had no heart. While he’s made some big shots, I wonder if we looked at the totality of his career, are we just remembering the few shots he made? It’s possible we remember 3 or 4 big shots made and don’t remember the 10 he missed? Or, did he get better as his career went along? Maybe he just happened to end up on really good teams where his big shots got noticed. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. Or, maybe he really did become a clutch performer. I don’t have any idea about the answer. I’m just trying to point out that the image that is created by the media isn’t always true. See: Jeter, Derek.
by chuckb on Jun 17, 2008 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is why I compared them to each other...
Although Jeter probably has already punched his first ballot ticket to the Hall of Fame—which shows that it really does matter who you play for, not necessarily how good you were; see: Murphy, Dale
Horry has made some huge shots. I’m a huge Lakers fan and he was a key element to those championship teams in the early part of this decade. He was a solid rebounder and defensive player who could guard a variety of players and he was tremendous at knocking down open shots. Which, if you’re watching game 6 right now, LA is sorely missing. (Well, that and Kobe quitting in the middle of the second quarter. He’s no Jordan—if a team was making a run on the Bulls, Mike would relentlessly attack the rim and get to the line, interrupting the other teams offensive flow)
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I pickd up on the sarcasm
I just had to point out the comparison between Eck and Jeter in that regard.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, it's A-Rod
If producing mind-blowing stats were the purpose of baseball, then A-Rod would deserve all of the praise he gets.
But as the point of baseball is to win, A-Rod has to be the biggest waste of pretty stats in the history of the game. I’ve never seen a bigger loser.
So says, Titus Pullo (formerly The Dude)
by Titus Pullo on Jun 17, 2008 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you can have a team of Jeters
and ill take a team of Arod’s…ill take my chances with that…granted Arod is only a better hitter, fielder, and base runner but Jeter kicks his ass in grit…
"Back in the day when I played, a pitcher had 3 pitches: a fastball, a curveball, a slider, a changeup and a good sinker pitch." - Mike Shannon
by nomar34 on Jun 17, 2008 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would take a team of...
Ankiels because at least they can hit, field and pitch (at least some times) ;)
by StLHugo on Jun 17, 2008 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
from CF
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Ankiel’s pitching problem is the mound was too close to the batter. He should be allowed to throw from second base.
by Red in Chicago on Jun 17, 2008 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Pitching Mounds are for Pussies”
Love, Ankiel
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wonder if
a game went into, say, 17 innings. All the pitchers were used up. The Cardinals are on the road and have just taken the lead by a run. Would TLR use Ankiel to finish the game? It would make a great sequel to The Natural, especially if it was the longest World Series game in history.
by Red in Chicago on Jun 17, 2008 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a chance
You can still see some of the effects of what Rick went through in Tony of today. The second most effected person in that whole diatribe was Tony IMO
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Rick would say
damn Tony, give me the damn ball so we can get this f-in game over with. One way or another my golden arm is going to finish this game.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can Jeter pitch?
Miles is Grit™
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
we need to start
a petition to get grit changed in the dictionary to miles. “He showed a lot of miles on that play!” i like that. has a certain ring to it.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
by FutureMan on Jun 17, 2008 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, gonna get in trouble for laughing at that one too loud at work.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Jun 17, 2008 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And your team would perform splendidly
only to go silent in October.
So says, Titus Pullo (formerly The Dude)
by Titus Pullo on Jun 17, 2008 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
show me...
take both players and put their postseason stats together in a lineup generator and see who’s lineup scores more runs….
I bet you that it’s not Jeter. A-Rod’s postseason numbers are not that bad—its the microscope he’s under every time he gets there…
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I used the lineup generator at Baseballmusings.com
Team of ARods: 7.238 runs per game
Team of Jeters: 6.049 runs per game
Unfortunately, it didn’t project how those stats would break down by month.
by Ray Lankford on Jun 17, 2008 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
some one has bought into the media hype...
Arod postseason: .279 .361 .483 .844
Jeter postseason: .309 .377 .469 .846
add in the better defense and how much better overall Arod is ill stick with him….
"Back in the day when I played, a pitcher had 3 pitches: a fastball, a curveball, a slider, a changeup and a good sinker pitch." - Mike Shannon
by nomar34 on Jun 17, 2008 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WPA
arod has offensively increased his team’s win expectancy every year since 1996. this isn’t a vacuum statistic, it’s a measurement against historical probability that shows when a player has left his team in a measurably better position to win after his plate appearance than it was before it. i wouldn’t go evaluating players by WPA, but i think it’s a good point to consider when people suggest that a given one isn’t contributing wins.
by astrostl on Jun 17, 2008 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is exactly why the Yankees were so
adamant about re-signing him.
by Tackle Box on Jun 17, 2008 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mr. Clutch
aka Derek Jeter, has a postseason OPS of .846.
The worst choker in the history of sports, aka A-Rod, has a postseason OPS of .844.
I think the reactionary New York hype machine has as much to do with both men’s reputations as anything. As is often the case, however, reality doesn’t exactly match the hype.
by Merry CRasmus on Jun 17, 2008 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Reputation Has a Source
A-Rod during the last four games of the 2004 ALCS: 2-17 (that s .058 avg. over those games)
Wanna know how the Red Sox accomplished a historic, unprecedented come-back? A-Rod and his mythic powers of loser-dom is a big part of the story.
A-Rod during the 2005 Divisional Series: obp .133 avg. .071 slg. .071
If Miles is grit, A-Rod deserves a picture next the following entry: choke (v.) as in “to choke”
Basically, my argument stands up as long as this loser never actually wins anything other than large piles of cash. So far, I’ve got a perfect record.
So says, Titus Pullo (formerly The Dude)
by Titus Pullo on Jun 17, 2008 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cherry Picking is fun
If we take those 4 games in 2004 and all the games in 2006(which I think you are referring to) away, then A-Rod has a .328/.400/.612 postseason line. But we don’t need to play all those games. Overall, his OPS is still right on par with the man recognized as one of the all time clutch postseason players, Derek Jeter. Mr. October himself, Reggie Jackson, has a career OPS of .678 in the LCS. Thank goodness the vaunted Reggie Jackson had teammates that could carry him to the World Series, where he could earn that clutch reputation, no? Otherwise he might be known as a choker. It’s unfortunate someone hasn’t been able to do the same for A-Rod and his .844 OPS.
The choker label is one of the most misused terms in sports. It’s the reliable crutch of lazy and “provocative” media personalities and often gets put on people without rings even if their personal performance isn’t that bad. Off the top of my head I can think of Peyton Manning, John Elway (Yes people used to think he was a choker), Eli Manning, Bill Self, Roy Williams, Steve Young, Phil Mickelson. Did all these people all of the sudden stop becoming chokers? Or were the people putting the label on them wrong all along?
by Merry CRasmus on Jun 17, 2008 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, but Derek Jeter BLEEDS for his team.
Just look, they are still replaying it on the YES network. He had to wear a band-aid for, like, a whole WEEK after falling in the stands. That is just awsomeness topped with creamy filling of cool, wrapped in a celophane wrapper of tough.
Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.
by Eckstreem on Jun 17, 2008 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
remember when Randy Johnson was a horrible choker?
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jun 17, 2008 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's Not Cherry Picking
It’s where his actual reputation actually comes from. You say, “Small sample size.” Well, yeah—that’s the nature of the post-season. It’s short, i.e., inherently unfair from a statistical point of view. But statistics do not hold a monopoly on the truth, or even on player evaluation.
A-Rod can point to his play against Cleveland last year to say that he can perform in October. He put up good numbers. But the Yankees lost.
So I guess it’s unfair—judging a player by the small sample sizes of play-off appearances and the outcomes of games. But I think that is how sports work, i.e., winning and losing championships is kind of the object of the game.
I guess you would say that it was arbitrary to consider Eli Manning an under-achiever, and then to change your mind just because he lead his team to an insane - insane - Super Bowl victory. But I think a player who never won, like Barry Bonds, would tell you that there is a fundamental difference between succeeding an falling short. And if you reduce everything to mere stats, then you have eviscerated the essence of sports—the challenge of being in the moment, of having to perform, and of succeeding during the one chance you have to do so.
So says, Titus Pullo (formerly The Dude)
by Titus Pullo on Jun 17, 2008 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not Fair
Because you’re totally cherry-picking your sample sizes!
He’s been a pretty good postseason player for most of his career, just not in that particular series. As I posted below, Jeter didn’t exactly set the world on fire those last four games either. Not to mention that he walked only once in those four games as the LEADOFF hitter for the Yankees. I bet A-Rod might have hit better if the players in front of him had been on base…yet Jeter is a “clutch” performer and A-Rod is a “choke-artist”. It’s ridiculous.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
His team lost
mainly because the rest of the team stunk out the joint, including Pope Jeter, who hit a fantastic .176 with a .352 OPS for the series.
You can’t blame A-Rod for his team’s shortcomings—even the great postseason players didn’t win series’ by themselves.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
contradictory data has been presented about his career performance in both the regular season and post-season, and it involves larger sample sizes than those on which you’ve selected.
by astrostl on Jun 17, 2008 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Baseball is a team sport
Which is where your argument fails. You are equating team success with individual success, and ignoring the fact that a player can have a phenomenal year, (ARod’s 2007: 177 OPS+) but play on a bad team. You do recognize this possibility, right?
I think your argument works, to a certain extent, with individual sports, such as golf. Look at Tiger—he’s fucking amazing. But he also doesn’t rely on anyone else when winning tournaments. What if, for the sake of argument, PGA events were played by two man teams in an alternate shot format. Suppose Tiger and I (not a good golfer) are on a team and we loose every single tournament, despite Tiger’s multiple rounds under par. Does that make Tiger a loser because he has the “mind-blowing stats” but didn’t win, which is the point of the game? Of course not. It would mean that he lost despite playing amazing golf because his partner sucks ass.
Sorry for the long-winded hypo, but I really can’t believe people still advance this argument.
by Ray Lankford on Jun 17, 2008 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is right.
We often talk about how Bonds’ career (well, not “we” but some do) has been a failure b/c he never won a WS. Yet, the guy was tremendous in the series against the Angels. His team came up short. The bottom line is that 1 person cannot carry a team in baseball—maybe in other sports, I’m not sure. But ARod is not a failure b/c he’s never won a WS. Same w/ Bonds.
by chuckb on Jun 17, 2008 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is true...
But if you look at those Pittsburgh teams of the late 80’s and early 90’s, most of Barry’s teammates performed pretty well in those series and Barry was a huge steaming pile in those series. He played very well for the Giants when they made their series run in ‘02…but his performances in the playoffs up to that point had been absolutely ugly.
Here’s his career numbers prior to 2002: .197/.270/.298 with 1 HR in 97 AB’s. For a player of his talent, that is the definition of pathetic. They may not have won anything had he played well, but they’re surely not going to win anything with their best player playing that poorly. I wouldn’t consider Bonds a failure as a player (as a person, well, that’s another story) just because he didn’t win a title.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But why only the pre-2002 numbers?
You even acknowledge that he had a good series against the Angels. Are you really going to call Barry’s playoff performance “pathetic” based on a couple series in the “late 80’s and early 90’s” while you consciously ignore the more recent example of his playoff performance.
You can make numbers say pretty much anything you want to if you pull them as selectively as you just did.
by Ray Lankford on Jun 18, 2008 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So
How did Derek Jeter (aka: God) perform in those games sir?
Answer: 4-17 with 1 extra base hit
he hit a fantastic .200/.333/.233 for the series.
THAT’S CLUTCH!
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh yeah
I have it bookmarked. Just saying we should have a stat on games lost that were no doubters. How would that pan out? I’m not sure. But we’ve given a load of games away with one or no at bats left (bottom 8th/9th on the road, top 9th at home). Those would be the games I would consider not being “no doubters”.
Games that would be? The Giants thrashing, the Phillies a couple of nights ago, a couple of Houston games etc.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you could look at WE%
And look at games where WE% was above a certain percentage (say 95%) for more than X (say 2) innings. Maybe? But that would be hard to compile the data, very manual intensive
"Give a man a fire, and he’ll be warm for a night. Set him on fire and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life."
by BigMOman on Jun 17, 2008 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Career leaders
So after looking up how good Dunn’s OBP really is I decided to take a look at some other leaderboard items on BR.
The best career slg% for a RH .6207 who owns it?
The best OPS by a RH 1.0438? Also the only active RH with over 1.0 career OPS, and with Helton and Bonds is one of the only 3 “active” players to have over 1.0 career OPS.
3rd best career OBP by a RH and best active OBP by a RH? .4231
If you answered ARod you are dead wrong. Any guesses?
by StLHugo on Jun 17, 2008 11:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Looper
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs