Growth?

For those of you that are new here, the genesis of this blog--about three years ago to the day, in fact--was largely inspired by Matt's and my infatuation with the long-extinct Fire Joe Morgan. Of course, with the hindsight of knowing that FJM's main contributor, Ken Tremendous (a.k.a. "Michael Schur"), is the man primarily responsible for Parks and Recreation, I have to wonder where my head was at. That said, FJM's influence over our blog in these three years--particularly my posts--has been tremendous (, Ken).

One of FJM's most recent posts at the time of our inception was this--a scathing deconstruction of a Baseball Tonight debate on run support. The notion being challenged was that a pitcher has some influence over the number of runs his team scores when he's on the mound--a sentiment that the BBTN panelists that night unanimously shared, though on highly disparate terms. One of those panelists was Steve Phillips who said:

There's a rhythm and a flow that happens to a team when things are going well. When you're scoring runs, when you're playing well -- pitchers who work too quickly sometimes get their hitters out of a flow; they work too slowly, they get out of the flow. And when you have a star on the mound, sometimes everybody stands around and watches. 

The reason I bring all of this up is that Phillips, during tonight's Mets-Braves game, reiterated points B ("work too slowly") and C ("star on the mound"), attempting to explain Johan Santana's poor run support since joining the Mets. 

Back in April 2006, my immediate instinct was to summarily reject the notion based on the premises that the FJM authors a) were funny, b) seemed to know what they were talking about, c) supported my own assumptions on the run support issue, d) supported my assumption that Steve Phillips is a goof, and e) generally agreed with me about everything. 

Three years later, though, I'm far more sympathetic to seemingly idiotic notions. In fact, when I finish writing this post, I plan to take up the issue with the number crunchers at FanGraphs to see if they can offer any further insight, but as I see it, the argument proposes the following hypotheses, each with tangible implications that could plausibly prove it true:

1) Pitchers hurt their run support by working too quickly.

Possible effect: His teammates mimic his haste at the plate, resulting in careless hacks early in the count.

2) Pitchers hurt their run support by working too slowly.

Possible effect: His teammates grow wary from the length of the game, resulting in careless hacks early in the count.

3) Pitchers hurt their run support by being too good.

Possible effect: His teammates grow complacent, diminishing their focus at the plate. 

4) Pitchers hurt their run support by sucking.

Possible effect: His teammates feel increased performance pressure at the plate, resulting in poor swing/take decisions.

Another thought to consider: Bad pitchers are more likely to create early deficits for his team. Early deficits encourage the oposing pitcher to pitch to contact, rather than inducing swings and misses. Pitching to contact is more likely to result in runs. Ergo, bad pitcher gets more run support than good pitcher.

I'm not necessarily giving Phillips the benefit of the doubt on all this, but I do think there's enough plausibility in these hypotheses that the ideas are worth considering. I can't imagine any effect would be remarkably pronounced, and I also suspect that the contradictory nature of each effect would cause their results--if any--to cancel out. But I could just as easily see one of these hypotheses bearing out, at least to some small extent.

I'll let you all know when FanGraphs gets back to me. (Or not.)

Read more...

The Dumbest Thing Ever Said on BBTN?

Maybe. On tonight's show, they were talking about this, and someone said "it's all about finding a way to win right there. Good job by them."

Wow. Just...wow. It's all about finding a way to win. In a game in which you get no hits and score the game's only run on a very questionable error/infield single, a two base throwing error on a steal attempt and a sac fly. That's the way they found to win. By relying on the Angels to make two mistakes right in a row that would allow them to win.

Fine, screw it. Joe Torre is just the best manager ever. He foresaw both of those errors, all old-tymey like.

Read more...

I guess it takes residents with money and mansions (and more-than-adequate means to leave) for the federal government to take notice of a distaster

Sorry... Short political diatribe that has nothing to do with this post, but I figured I'd slip that in.

Anyway, I wanted to get one last semi-philosophical baseball post in the books before the season ends and these posts become even less tolerable.

Tonight's lecture: Self-sacrifice.

Wanting to watch some baseball tonight, I caught Baseball Tonight featuring baseball-men talking about baseball tonight. They were doing their World Series preview / "Web Gem" awards show, and it got me all riled up about fancy defensive plays.

Ok, so this is a recycled conversation, but the show reminded me that those who make fantastic defensive plays are often hurting their teams and/or themselves.

Is this always the case? Of course not. Nick Punto, for example, was featured prevalently on this show, and--if you've ever seen Nick Punto's hitting statistics--you know as well as I do that if he were ever asked to take the rap on a Johan Santana murder charge, he should confess. Indeed, self-sacrifice may be his greatest asset.

But several players featured--Curtis Granderson, Russell Martin, Eric Byrnes--were shown making reckless plays that maybe, just maybe, they should have reconsidered. Actually, what got me going on this notion was that Coco Crisp catch that ended the ALCS. Yes, it was awesome and as dramatic a play as a play that an 11-2 lead in the ninth can produce, but was it worth risking a knee injury that could have cost him the World Series and, potentially, next season just to save Papelbon a few pitches? I doubt it.

Some featured plays, like Martin's over-the-railing catch of a foul ball, must have made some GMs wince and then die from heart attacks, while others were simply bad risks. One play was particularly egregious--a falling-away barehand scoop and peg by John Smoltz on a slow roller along the third baseline. It was a much easier play for Chipper Jones and should have never been handled by Smoltz.

Do I think that a player should pull up short every time he has a chance to make a run-saving catch? Well of course not. But I cringe every time I see a great player do something risky to make an out that will probably not impact the outcome of a game. One of their "classic" Web Gem clips was the famous Ken Griffey Jr. backhanded catch against the wall in a 1995 game. Of course, that was the same classic play that broke Griffey's classically valuable right wrist and put him on the DL for most of that season. Yes, Griffey returned to dominate the Mariners' incredible stretch run later that season which saw them make up 9 1/2 games in the standings and eventually go to the ALCS. But if Griffey had bailed out before going writst-to-wall at 67 miles-per-hour, I doubt the Angels ever build that lead.

"Don't be a hero" is a pretty tired cliche, but it's one that any MLB star should probably internalize. Great athletes, especially young ones, think they're indestructible, and I think it's one of the burdens of management to drill that into a guy before it's too late. Having said that, I doubt I'd heed that advice if I were a Granderson or a young Junior. It would probably take me at least three or four injuries to make a change in my game.

But as a spectator, I always dread that next unnecessary injury. I dread missing action from one of the game's most enjoyable athletes. I dread that sinking feeling I get watching a guy give up his future financial bonanza and his legacy on a risk that he didn't need to take.

I realize that those things happen, and they always will. But I just wish athletes would realize that they are bigger than the team and bigger than the game. They'll have their chance for heroic self-sacrifice if they so choose, but it doesn't have to be for an out.

Anyway, thanks for skimming. I'll be back in April.

Read more...

Ummm....Not for 8 seasons at the stadium several miles away

Baseball Tonight: Covering the highlights of the Padres-Giants game, Barry's last in San Francisco.

"Boats out in McCovey Cove, and boy did they become a familar sight over the 15 years Bonds spent in San Francisco."

Even more remarkable since more than half those seasons were played at Candlestick. And steroids or no steroids, you'd really have to whack the hell out of the ball to A) clear the upperdeck, and B) clear the parking lot to get to San Francisco Bay.


Sorry. Little things like that bother me.

Read more...

BBTN needs to be cancelled

Baseball Tonight was once a show that baseball fans could rely on for detailed highlights, insightful analysis, and legitimate reporting. These days, it's nothing but a gimmick-loaded suckfest hosted primarily by idiots. And tonight, ESPN may have aired the worst installment of BBTN ever. The lineup responsible for this travesty was Steve Berthiaume, Fernando Vina, Steve Phillips, and John "Krukie" Kruk.

The episode had a theme. Playing on the fact that so many staff "aces" made starts today, the entire show was card- and gambling-themed. So to begin the show, they did this ridiculous thing where each of the studio analysts drew a card from what appeared to be a stack of aces with pitchers' names taped on them--the analyst with the best ace being the "winner" of the show apparently. Man, that's some clever shit, guys.

From this point on, the entire show was an obnoxious string of "card" puns that made me want to punch the TV. In addition to the stupid card-themed lists they had the analysts compile--team with the "best hand," team with the "best trump card," team with the biggest "wild card," biggest homeruns in Cardinals history (you know, like "Cards" for short... get it? get it? eh? eh? pretty good, huh?)--I counted no less than a dozen independently-formed card puns delivered by the studio analysts--most of which made no sense, e.g. "Prince Fielder cashes in his chips" on a homerun highlight, "we'll ante up the day's best plays for you," referring to Mark Teixeira as the "Mark-ed card," etc.

That's not to mention the three or four times Phillips said a pitcher was "dealing" and the pair of times he made the same stupid pun about "King" Felix Hernandez being "a king, but is he an ace?"

Out of fairness, it should be noted that Berthiaume and Phillips were by far the guiltiest parties and that Vina had the dignity to refuse participation almost entirely. Surprisingly, so did Kruk, he only making one or two card puns, which he said in more of a mocking tone.

Never has it been more apparent to me that Baseball Tonight--like every other ESPN show that once had substance--has degenerated into embarassing self-parody and needs to go away for good.

Read more...