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...

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...

Even when you're right, you're wrong, Mr. Phillips

Do you think Sammy Sosa is a Hall of Famer?

Steve Phillips: Yes
Sammy Sosa is a Hall of Famer. Slam dunk. [steroids talk steroids talk steroids talk] In fact, consider that Sosa did get busted for corking a bat during his playing days. Why would a player on steroids cork his bat? He wouldn't.

Why would a man with an attractive wife have an affair? He wouldn't.

Why would a young woman of perfectly normal weight go on a diet? She wouldn't.

Why would Kenneth Lay steal from his employee stock holders when he was already rich? He wouldn't.

Why would Richard Nixon, holding a comfortable lead in the presidential election, have his campaign staff spy on his opponent? He wouldn't.

Why would a baseball general manager trade a 26 year-old Jason Isringhausen for a 37 year-old junkballer named Billy Taylor in 1999? He wouldn't. Unless he was Steve Phillips.

P.S.: For the correct answer on the Sosa matter, read the blurb by friend of YCS Keith Law.

Read more...

Stuff

Here's a typically stupid refrain I heard this morning from a typically stupid person known as Steve Phillips on a typically stupid medium known as ESPN Radio:

Greg Maddux has excelled in the major leagues despite an unfortunate deficiency in "stuff."

Here's how the topic came about. Host Trey Wingo asked Phillips whom he considers the pitcher of this generation--Clemens or Maddux. (Who doesn't love vague, irreconcilable barstool debate at 8:30am?) I think Phillips answered Clemens although I'm not really sure because I don't really care. But that's when he pulled out the "stuff" stuff.

Paraphrased, Phillips argued that Clemens has always had better "stuff," but Maddux has had a remarkable career because of his smarts and guile and all sorts of other nebulous qualities that apparently don't qualify as "stuff."

Now anyone who knows me will attest that I revere Greg Maddux--unhealthily so. Therefore, no one is more inclined to paint Maddux's career as a moral triumph than I am, but please Steve (and others), recognize Maddux's strengths for what they really are--strengths.

Maddux has an innate ability to put a ridiculous amount of left-to-right movement on a fastball and middle-to-lower right movement on a changeup/sinker ever since he came into the majors. Moreover, he's done so with the ability to place those pitches within an inch of his intended spot on an ungodly consistent basis. Are these innate physical pitching abilities any less "stuff" than velocity or bite on a slider?

I'm not saying Clemens is a slouch when it comes to control, nor am I saying that Maddux's ability to understand the hitting patterns and swings of opposing hitters aren't rare and unique abilities that transcend typical evaluation of major league pitchers. I'm simply saying that I'm tired of people playing off like Maddux's success has been the result of some black magic or telepathic mind control.

Greg Maddux is a pitcher with phenomenal control, an excellent repetoire, and an incredible grasp on pitch sequencing--all in all, a vast wealth of "stuff."

Read more...