For me, the martial arts action star ranking goes Jean-Claude Van Damme - Chuck Norris - Stephen Seagal. I don't like Seagal at all; even when people make fun of him I don't find it particularly amusing. Chuck Norris is good in theory, and the Chuck Norris Facts, when they first came out, were hilarious. I respected Norris' reaction to them, and he seems like a pretty alright guy. I just don't enjoy his movies that much. He's does well at being the "tough good-guy", but doesn't have the personality to pull off some of the silliness of his roles. Van Damme, on the other hand, is just a ridiculous character. His movies are all entertaining because they are all pretty much the same - some even have the same actor playing different bad-guys. It seems like in every Jean Clause Van Damme movie three things occur: (1) he does a split - he has the ability and he's damn sure going to make sure that the audience knows it; (2) he does a spinning jump kick - same reason as (1), plus, if you're lucky, they'll show two or three slow motion replays; and (3) there is a convoluted explanation for his accent - he can't just be from Europe, he has to be raised by his French uncle in New Orleans or in a French monastery in Japan. It also helps that he's a bad actor but still pretends like he's not. Anyway, this is all actually a lead up to a story about Mr. Norris.
"Hollywood action star Chuck Norris has become a cult figure among the U.S. military in Iraq and an unlikely hero for some in Iraq's security forces."
An Iraqi policeman has been nick-named after the Norris.
"At an Iraqi police graduation ceremony in Fallujah, graduates called out for their "Chuck Norris" to pose with them for photos.
"Truthfully, I didn't know who he was. I asked the Americans, and they said he was a great fighter, and that's why they named me after him. They showed me a video, and it's true, he's a great fighter" said police trainer Mohammed Rasheed.
With his handle-bar moustache, Rasheed has a vague resemblance to Norris."
""I've seen his videos, he's a hero. He saves the city, he protects women and children and he fights crime wherever it is. We should all be like Chuck Norris," Khaled Hussein said."
Just wait till they see Will Smith take on an entire alien attack, or Governor Arnold kill 80 men without being shot once (even when the bad-guys are hiding behind stuff and he's just standing out in the open). Then who's going to mess with us?
Read more ...
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
And I Thought He Was Injury Prone Before
This is a shame.
"Rocco Baldelli will be sidelined indefinitely - but is not retiring - because of what he said are "some type of metabolic and/or mitochondrial abnormalities,'' a condition that leaves him feeling extremely fatigued after just a brief workout.
"When I say "fatigued" my body is literally spent after a very short amount of time out on the field which makes it extremely frustrating and difficult, but it's kind of a reality right now,'' he said during a 13-minute session with reporters before Wednesday's game. "I feel like I've done a serious workout after a very short period of time, and it's a very odd feeling. ... I try not to be too dramatic when I explain what's going on, but it's not easy when you're out on the field for a very short period of time and you're done, and you're not really worth anything else out there. That's a tough thing to handle because you wonder why. You wonder why this is how your body feels.""
Tampa Bay didn't really need Baldelli with Upton now in center, but it would have been an excellent bonus to have the still talented player on the team. I've never heard of this type of thing before, and I hope there is some way to treat it. Maybe the Rays actually sign Bonds now? Read more ...
"Rocco Baldelli will be sidelined indefinitely - but is not retiring - because of what he said are "some type of metabolic and/or mitochondrial abnormalities,'' a condition that leaves him feeling extremely fatigued after just a brief workout.
"When I say "fatigued" my body is literally spent after a very short amount of time out on the field which makes it extremely frustrating and difficult, but it's kind of a reality right now,'' he said during a 13-minute session with reporters before Wednesday's game. "I feel like I've done a serious workout after a very short period of time, and it's a very odd feeling. ... I try not to be too dramatic when I explain what's going on, but it's not easy when you're out on the field for a very short period of time and you're done, and you're not really worth anything else out there. That's a tough thing to handle because you wonder why. You wonder why this is how your body feels.""
Tampa Bay didn't really need Baldelli with Upton now in center, but it would have been an excellent bonus to have the still talented player on the team. I've never heard of this type of thing before, and I hope there is some way to treat it. Maybe the Rays actually sign Bonds now? Read more ...
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
It'll Be A Battle Till The Bitter End (For League Lead In Walks)
Going from marveling at Ben Sheets' amazing control for a strike-out pitcher to a couple of guys in the O's rotation who have a ways to go to even be average in that department - Daniel Cabrera and Adam Loewen.
Daniel Cabrera has been frustrating pretty much everyone who has heard of him for years now. In consecutive starts to start the 2006 season he went: 1.1 IP, 3 H, 7 R, 7 BB 1 K; 5, 3, 1, 9, 10; 7, 5, 1, 1, 6. Consistent he is not. The guy will pitch 4 innings and give up 5 walks and 7 runs, and then come back and throw a complete-game shut-out with 2 walks and 10 K's. Every time you think he's finally put it all together, everything falls apart.
Let's take a look at Daniel's progression as a pitcher. K/9 has gone from 4.6 to 8.8 to 9.6 to 7.3. BB/9: 5.4 to 4.9 to 6.3 to 4.8. HR/9: 0.9 to 0.8 to 0.7 to 1.10. H/9: 8.8 to 8.1 to 7.9 to 9.1. When Leo Mazzone came aboard, Cabrera's stats other than walks continued to gradual improve, as they did the previous year. The BB/9, however, shot up well past his previous high. Then in 2007, in order to compensate for the high walk rate, Cabrera altered the way he pitched (from anecdotal evidence: he seemed to throw softer (93-95 as opposed to 96-97) and the fastball was straighter; he also seemed to "groove" more pitches in an effort to not walk guys) and while his BB/9 were a career best, all of his other stats dropped off. I'm fairly comfortable calling 2007 a bad experiment year that is more "outlier" than indicative of a new career path.
For 2008 I'm projecting an improved K/9 of 7.8 (though I think that he could easily go above 8.5 or even 9); some continued improvement in BB/9 to 4.5; the HR/9 getting back on track at 1.0; and a slightly improved hit rate at 8.8 per nine. An average of composite ERA and fielding independent ERA gives 4.42. I think this a perfectly reasonable projection and that Cabrera (with some luck) could get it under 4 in the next couple of years. Or, you know, he could walk 150 guys and be out of the league - whichever.
And now to the left-hander:
I like Adam Loewen a lot. I think he has a chance to be a top of the rotation starter in the future - I just don't think that's going to come this year. People may look at his 3.56 ERA from 2007 and assume further improvement. The truth, however, probably lies in between that 3.56 and his 5.37 from 2006.
While there was a drastic improvement in ERA, Loewen's K/9 fell from 7.9 to 5.0 and his BB/9 rose from an already very bad 6.6 to an atrocious 7.8. [2007 was a small sample size - 30 IP - but it still counts for something.] He went from being a bit unlucky on BABIP (.314) to a bit lucky (.286).
For 2008 I projected Loewen's K/9 to be a solid 6.9 - a small drop-off from '06, but much better than '07. His control was never very good in the minors (5.2 BB/9) and I have him at (what for him would be fantastic, but is still not good) 5.7. Loewen is quite good at keeping the ball in the park (0.3 HR/9 in the minors and in '07; 0.64 in '06) so a HR/9 of 0.6 sounds like it's in the right neighborhood. As for H/9, its been 8.9 and 8.1 in successive years, so 8.75 seems reasonable.
This produces an ERA of 4.53, which I think may still be a bit optimistic.
Adam Loewen has all of the tools (size; good velocity; movement on the cut-fastball; quality curveball) to be an effective pitcher, and most of the stats back it up (good K rate, low HR rate, low-ish (but not terribly flukey) hit rate) but the control is the big issue. If he can't get it below 5 per nine, then he can't be a #1 (or even #2) starter, and even a big improvement for 2008 will still have him amongst the worst in the league.
People seem to have Adam Loewen as the team's #1 or #2 starter with Daniel Cabrera as #3 (or sometimes worse). I think that is incorrect based on their respective levels of play to date, and that Cabrera possesses just as much potential as Loewen. It seems that people like Loewen better because he's younger, and so they can "dream" on him more. Cabrera is only 27 years old - for a tall pitcher who was rushed to the big leagues that isn't so bad. I'm holding out hope that he can make a quality career for himself.
[Interestingly, Daniel Cabrera is the 8th most similar pitcher to Adam Loewen through age 23.] Read more ...
Daniel Cabrera has been frustrating pretty much everyone who has heard of him for years now. In consecutive starts to start the 2006 season he went: 1.1 IP, 3 H, 7 R, 7 BB 1 K; 5, 3, 1, 9, 10; 7, 5, 1, 1, 6. Consistent he is not. The guy will pitch 4 innings and give up 5 walks and 7 runs, and then come back and throw a complete-game shut-out with 2 walks and 10 K's. Every time you think he's finally put it all together, everything falls apart.
Let's take a look at Daniel's progression as a pitcher. K/9 has gone from 4.6 to 8.8 to 9.6 to 7.3. BB/9: 5.4 to 4.9 to 6.3 to 4.8. HR/9: 0.9 to 0.8 to 0.7 to 1.10. H/9: 8.8 to 8.1 to 7.9 to 9.1. When Leo Mazzone came aboard, Cabrera's stats other than walks continued to gradual improve, as they did the previous year. The BB/9, however, shot up well past his previous high. Then in 2007, in order to compensate for the high walk rate, Cabrera altered the way he pitched (from anecdotal evidence: he seemed to throw softer (93-95 as opposed to 96-97) and the fastball was straighter; he also seemed to "groove" more pitches in an effort to not walk guys) and while his BB/9 were a career best, all of his other stats dropped off. I'm fairly comfortable calling 2007 a bad experiment year that is more "outlier" than indicative of a new career path.
For 2008 I'm projecting an improved K/9 of 7.8 (though I think that he could easily go above 8.5 or even 9); some continued improvement in BB/9 to 4.5; the HR/9 getting back on track at 1.0; and a slightly improved hit rate at 8.8 per nine. An average of composite ERA and fielding independent ERA gives 4.42. I think this a perfectly reasonable projection and that Cabrera (with some luck) could get it under 4 in the next couple of years. Or, you know, he could walk 150 guys and be out of the league - whichever.
And now to the left-hander:
I like Adam Loewen a lot. I think he has a chance to be a top of the rotation starter in the future - I just don't think that's going to come this year. People may look at his 3.56 ERA from 2007 and assume further improvement. The truth, however, probably lies in between that 3.56 and his 5.37 from 2006.
While there was a drastic improvement in ERA, Loewen's K/9 fell from 7.9 to 5.0 and his BB/9 rose from an already very bad 6.6 to an atrocious 7.8. [2007 was a small sample size - 30 IP - but it still counts for something.] He went from being a bit unlucky on BABIP (.314) to a bit lucky (.286).
For 2008 I projected Loewen's K/9 to be a solid 6.9 - a small drop-off from '06, but much better than '07. His control was never very good in the minors (5.2 BB/9) and I have him at (what for him would be fantastic, but is still not good) 5.7. Loewen is quite good at keeping the ball in the park (0.3 HR/9 in the minors and in '07; 0.64 in '06) so a HR/9 of 0.6 sounds like it's in the right neighborhood. As for H/9, its been 8.9 and 8.1 in successive years, so 8.75 seems reasonable.
This produces an ERA of 4.53, which I think may still be a bit optimistic.
Adam Loewen has all of the tools (size; good velocity; movement on the cut-fastball; quality curveball) to be an effective pitcher, and most of the stats back it up (good K rate, low HR rate, low-ish (but not terribly flukey) hit rate) but the control is the big issue. If he can't get it below 5 per nine, then he can't be a #1 (or even #2) starter, and even a big improvement for 2008 will still have him amongst the worst in the league.
People seem to have Adam Loewen as the team's #1 or #2 starter with Daniel Cabrera as #3 (or sometimes worse). I think that is incorrect based on their respective levels of play to date, and that Cabrera possesses just as much potential as Loewen. It seems that people like Loewen better because he's younger, and so they can "dream" on him more. Cabrera is only 27 years old - for a tall pitcher who was rushed to the big leagues that isn't so bad. I'm holding out hope that he can make a quality career for himself.
[Interestingly, Daniel Cabrera is the 8th most similar pitcher to Adam Loewen through age 23.] Read more ...
Milwaukee's Sheets Is One Of Baseball's Best
Ben Sheets isn't really well known amongst casual baseball fans these days. I would imagine that he is often thought of as the Brewers oft-injured #1 starter, as opposed to one of baseballs true ACES when healthy.
For his career, Sheets has an ERA+ of 113; 1048 K's and 266 walks for a K/BB ratio of 3.94 (Johan Santana is at 3.8 (career best of 5.3 in a season); Pedro Martinez is at 4.3 (8.5 best) for a couple of comparisons).
In 2004 he had 2.70 ERA (162 ERA+), 264 K's (10 per nine) and 32 walks (1.2 per nine) for K/BB ratio of 8.25 (!).
In 2005 he had (in only 106 IP) 116 K's and 11 walks. K/BB: 10.5 (!!!). That is insane. Crazy. Otherworldly. If he had pitched enough innings to qualify, that would have been the second best ratio of all time (Bret Saberhagen had 11 K/BB (143/13) in 1994).
I really wish Sheets could get his injuries under control (or have better luck) because he's only 29 and could put up some ridiculous seasons. Read more ...
For his career, Sheets has an ERA+ of 113; 1048 K's and 266 walks for a K/BB ratio of 3.94 (Johan Santana is at 3.8 (career best of 5.3 in a season); Pedro Martinez is at 4.3 (8.5 best) for a couple of comparisons).
In 2004 he had 2.70 ERA (162 ERA+), 264 K's (10 per nine) and 32 walks (1.2 per nine) for K/BB ratio of 8.25 (!).
In 2005 he had (in only 106 IP) 116 K's and 11 walks. K/BB: 10.5 (!!!). That is insane. Crazy. Otherworldly. If he had pitched enough innings to qualify, that would have been the second best ratio of all time (Bret Saberhagen had 11 K/BB (143/13) in 1994).
I really wish Sheets could get his injuries under control (or have better luck) because he's only 29 and could put up some ridiculous seasons. Read more ...
Perhaps A Lead-Off Pop-Up Will Psych Out The Pitcher
Here's a question: what gives an offense a better chance to have a multi-run (2+) inning; a lead-off walk or a lead-off homer?
Answer: "We had our friends at Stats, Inc. check and see whether more multi-run innings came with a lead off homer or a lead off walk. You would think that a lead off walk would lead to more big innings than a lead off home run. Not true. A lead off home run, this year, has lead to more multi-run innings than lead off walks. It's against conventional thinking."
Tim McCarver - famous baseball man - found such a result surprising, but is it?
Senario #1: The lead-off man walks. Now there is a runner on first with no one out, and the team has scored 0 of the 2 (minimum) runs it needs.
Senario #2: The lead-off man homers. Now there are none on with none out, and the team has scored 1 of the 2 runs it needs.
The situation can be then broken down to the following: which is more likely; and team scoring 2 runs with a man on first and no outs (#1), or a team scoring 1 run with no one on and no outs (#2)?
I think that this phrasing makes it more clear as to which choice makes the most sense.
While it is true that the team needs that second run regardless (much like a team with a 2 run lead in the bottom of the ninth doesn't care if the opposing runner homers or triples, since it's the second run that matters), a double-play or caught stealing or whatever erases the runner on first, where as that home run can't be taken away. There isn't any real reason to think that the walk (or anything) would be better than having the run already. [It reminds me of how in football they say to never take points off the board (a field goal) in return for a chance at a touchdown (after a penalty, for example). It's the same thing here, except you don't get extra points if the first hitter scores after a walk.]
Run Expectancy from 2005 (number of runs a team will score, on average, in the given situation).
#1 - 0.90 runs (runner on first, 0 outs)
#2 - 0.52 runs (no one one, 0 outs)
You will score an extra 0.38 runs with #1, but that doesn't make up for the 1 run that #2 already has in hand.
Also, someone who looked all of the situations described above from 2000-2006 found that #2 led to 2+ runs about 3% more often (22% of the time vs. 25%).
"It's conventional thinking" may be true, which is something that tends to bother me about broadcasters and many writers. [It amazes me how often "conventional thinking" is at odds with what I would consider to be common sense. Case in point, I asked a several baseball fans and a few (pretty much) non-fans the question, and the non-fans (with their lack of ingrained thinking) were correct more often. It's not their (fans) fault - it's what they have been told by people they trust to know what's going on.] Read more ...
Answer: "We had our friends at Stats, Inc. check and see whether more multi-run innings came with a lead off homer or a lead off walk. You would think that a lead off walk would lead to more big innings than a lead off home run. Not true. A lead off home run, this year, has lead to more multi-run innings than lead off walks. It's against conventional thinking."
Tim McCarver - famous baseball man - found such a result surprising, but is it?
Senario #1: The lead-off man walks. Now there is a runner on first with no one out, and the team has scored 0 of the 2 (minimum) runs it needs.
Senario #2: The lead-off man homers. Now there are none on with none out, and the team has scored 1 of the 2 runs it needs.
The situation can be then broken down to the following: which is more likely; and team scoring 2 runs with a man on first and no outs (#1), or a team scoring 1 run with no one on and no outs (#2)?
I think that this phrasing makes it more clear as to which choice makes the most sense.
While it is true that the team needs that second run regardless (much like a team with a 2 run lead in the bottom of the ninth doesn't care if the opposing runner homers or triples, since it's the second run that matters), a double-play or caught stealing or whatever erases the runner on first, where as that home run can't be taken away. There isn't any real reason to think that the walk (or anything) would be better than having the run already. [It reminds me of how in football they say to never take points off the board (a field goal) in return for a chance at a touchdown (after a penalty, for example). It's the same thing here, except you don't get extra points if the first hitter scores after a walk.]
Run Expectancy from 2005 (number of runs a team will score, on average, in the given situation).
#1 - 0.90 runs (runner on first, 0 outs)
#2 - 0.52 runs (no one one, 0 outs)
You will score an extra 0.38 runs with #1, but that doesn't make up for the 1 run that #2 already has in hand.
Also, someone who looked all of the situations described above from 2000-2006 found that #2 led to 2+ runs about 3% more often (22% of the time vs. 25%).
"It's conventional thinking" may be true, which is something that tends to bother me about broadcasters and many writers. [It amazes me how often "conventional thinking" is at odds with what I would consider to be common sense. Case in point, I asked a several baseball fans and a few (pretty much) non-fans the question, and the non-fans (with their lack of ingrained thinking) were correct more often. It's not their (fans) fault - it's what they have been told by people they trust to know what's going on.] Read more ...
Monday, March 10, 2008
Maybe His Players Take Naps When They Get On Base
I have absolutely no idea why the Cincinnati Reds hired Dusty Baker to be their manager. I could understand it if Ken Griffey Jr. was their star (best) player and they were close to the playoffs (and even then, I would still think it's a bad decision), but for this Reds team I just don't get it. Much has been said about Dusty ruining the careers of Kerry Wood and Mark Prior via overuse. It's true that those pitchers (especially Prior) were often asked to throw 110, 120, even 130 pitches in an outing, time after time. I don't think that all of the blame for their injuries can be placed on Baker's shoulders (the front office didn't stop him and they were the ones who brought Prior to the big leagues with very little experience
in the minors), but the decision to pull them or leave them in the game was generally his to make, and the way he went about it betrays a lack of understanding of the way things work in baseball.
I'm not saying that Dusty Baker doesn't know anything - he probably knows many, many more things about the sport than I do - or that I could do a better job as manager (I couldn't, probably). What I am saying is that given the scarcity of managerial positions, hiring Dusty Baker doesn't make sense. I find it very hard to believe that he is one of the 30 best people at what he does, and it's because of him that I don't think the Reds have much of a chance in the NL Central this year (or even in the coming years, if he's still around).
It has been shown time and again that having young pitchers throw lots of pitches over quickly increasing numbers of innings leads to arm injuries. Whether Dusty doesn't believe that is true, or he doesn't even realize that such research has been done, I cannot say. It seems inconceivable that a man being paid millions of dollars to guide a team to victory wouldn't do everything he could to put himself in the best position to do his job, but Baker's continued misunderstanding of how a baseball team wins games makes it pretty clear that Dusty thinks that Dusty knows how things work, real world be damned.
From a recent article on the Reds:
"Dusty Baker wants his hitters to hit. He likes aggressive hitters."
Like the 2005 Dusty led Cubs, who aggressived their way to a .324 on-base percentage - good enough for 11th (out of 16) in the league. That's why, even though the team was 1st in hits, 3nd in doubles, and 2rd in home runs, they were only 9th in runs scored. Todd Hollansworth and his .254/.301/.388 line played in 107 games as the team's main left fielder while Matt Murton (.321/.386/.521) played in only 51. The key stats for Dusty: Murton was only 23 while Hollansworth (the "veteran" who "knew how to play at the big league level") was 32. Hollansowrth's aggressive approach led to 2 more walks than Murton in over 100 more at bats.
The best player Baker ever managed (and the reason he won three Manager of the Year awards and still has a job) walked more than anyone who's ever played the game. Without Barry Bonds, those Giants teams would have seen some low OBP players at a lot of positions.
"He was talking about Joey Votto and finished with this:
“I really, really hate the called third strike. I hate that. You're guess and you ain't ready to hit.”"
I really, really hate when a player swings at a first pitch ball and grounds weakly to short. People apparently like Dusty because of his manner of speech, but that last sentence isn't something I want to hear from my "field general".
"On Votto: “He needs to swing some more. I talked to him about that. Strikeouts aren't the only criteria. I'd like to see him more aggressive.”
With the approach that he currently has all Joey Votto has done in the minor leagues is hit .289/.385/.476. In a brief stint in the majors he hit .321/.360/.548. I think the kid knows what works for him. I would hope that what Dusty means by aggressive is something along the lines of "when you get a good pitch to hit, put a good swing on it" as opposed to "when you have a pitch thrown in your general direction, swing at it", but the addition of Corey Patterson to the roster makes me think it's the latter. That Corey Patterson may start instead of Jay Bruce (.319/.375/.587 at three levels in the minors last year as a 20 year-old with 80(!) extra-base hits in only 133 games) is insane. Bruce is an "aggressive" hitter (135 K's) but apparently he doesn't swing and miss quite often enough to make up for his massive advantage in ability over Patterson. [Also, apparently Baker is "down" on Bruce because of a history of leg injuries - a history that is nonexistent. Baker doesn't even know what's going on with his (actually, baseballs') #1 prospect.]
And what about Adam Dunn (career .248/.381/.519)? Apparently he isn't aggressive enough either.
"“Like I said, I don't like called third strikes. Dunn’s not a kid. He's not old, but he ain't a kid. I bet you he gets better. He's from Texas, right? There’s not a cow in Texas if he don’t get better.”"
So, instead of basing his opinion of Dunn's offensive capabilities on his actual ability (he's walked over 100 times in every full season he's played and hit 40+ home runs four years in a row), Dusty is going to "bet you" he gets better and site his home state. Dunn struck out 165 times in '07 - and it doesn't really matter. If they were all called third strikes, it wouldn't really matter. Adam Dunn already does the things that help a baseball team score runs.
Let's go a little further :
This guy is in favor of Dusty Baker. He also says thing like "Numbers are fun to look at but dangerous to dwell on. Baker understands this. If Dunn walks 30 fewer times this year, he'll drive in 15 more runs. His on-base percentage will dip. Oh, no."
If Dusty actually understands how Adam Dunn walking 30 fewer teams will cause him to drive in 15 more runs, then I'd like to hear it. I guess if 10 of those at bats ended in home runs then OK, but it seems that Adam Dunn doesn't go to the plate looking to walk - he goes to the plate looking to hit the ball really hard, and if a pitcher isn't going to through him a strike (and thus, walk him) then swinging at those pitches isn't going to increase his productivity; it'll just lead to more pop-ups and ground-outs to second.
"If Votto takes fewer first-pitch strikes, his run production will improve." This doesn't make any sense - why would anyone say this? It's like if I said "Daniel Cabrera should be aggressive and hit more batters - it'll lower his ERA." I have a suspicion that when Joey Votto swings at a first pitch it is usually a strike - and that he hits it pretty darn hard.
"How Baker runs a game strategically is far less important than what he is able to pull from his employees, 162 times a summer."
That Dusty is a poor in-game strategist is besides the point - the only thing he'll be pulling from his players is their OBP in a downward direction. That is no way helps a team score runs. At this stage of baseball knowledge it should be criminal for a manager to think and say the things that routinely come out of Dusty's mouth.
This part was pretty good too - "Unless they're intentional walks, or the big boppers are being pitched around, walks aren't what you want from players hitting third through sixth. You want them up there smart-hacking."
That's right, you don't want walks from your 3-6 hitters; you want them from your 1-9 hitters. The 3-6 hitters are your power hitters. They sould hit lots of homeruns to go along with their high walk totals. Also, "smart-hacking"? What the hell?!? It's like how people called Ozzie Guillen's strategy in Chicago "smart-ball" instead of "small-ball". It seems that people that don't know what they're talking about think that just adding the word "smart" to things makes them a better idea.
The piece ends with this: "Here's a stat: Wins as manager: Dusty Baker, 1,162; Bill James, 0."
That's true. Unfortunately for the reporter (and Dusty Baker): number of intelligent baseball things they have said combined, ~ 7;
Bill James, 235,825...235,826...235,827....
An excellent explanation from Ken Tremendous: "At bats are complicated things. The best result of an AB is a home run. The worst is an out that advances no runners. (Or a triple play, I guess, but you get the idea.) In between are several thousand other possibilities. A walk is a successful AB no matter how you slice it. Patient hitters are good hitters, by and large, who help their teams a great deal more than impatient hitters, and the more a guy is patient, the more he will swing at a good pitch instead of any pitch, which increases the chances he will succeed."
This isn't even that bad. You can make a case that he wants aggressive hitters who also get on base and hit well and stuff. Nope.
"Baker has repeatedly talked about the desire to have a do-it-all lead-off hitter with speed. What kinds of hitters is he looking for further down the lineup? Does he want guys with lofty on-base percentages? The answer will likely not sit well with fans of the book "Moneyball," because Baker said he believes the OBP statistic is overvalued."
"Do-it-all lead-off hitter with speed"? Sounds crazy, I know, but Dusty is a think-outside-the-box sort of guy. OBP is overvalued by people who think it is literally the only stat that matters. Such people are crazy, but would still be able to put together a better line-up than Dusty Baker.
""I'm big on driving in runs and scoring runs," Baker said. "Guys in the middle should score about close to equal to what they drive in. On-base percentage, that's fine and dandy. But a lot of times guys get so much into on-base percentage that they cease to swing. It's becoming a little bit out of control."
See, I was actually big on having guys walk to get on base, but then to intentionally get picked off as to avoid scoring as much as possible. It's actually pretty hard to keep from putting a lot of runs on the board when guys are getting on you after another. These guys that don't swing: could it be because they know that they couldn't hit the thrown pitch very well, as opposed to how "into" OBP they are?
"What you do is run the pitcher's count up, that helps," Baker said. "You put him in the stretch, that helps. But your job in the middle is to either score them or drive them in. The name of the game is scoring runs. Sometimes, you get so caught up in on-base percentage that you're clogging up the bases."
It's tough to score runs when you're never on base. I guess Dusty wants all of his hitters to hit solo home runs all the time. What a novel suggestion - I wonder why no one else ever thought of it? He actually makes the implication that getting guys on (and "clogging up the bases") will lead to scoring less runs. Insane.
Ken Tremendous once again perfectly sums up how we "outsiders" and our "statistics" would try to win baseball games:
[I am 90% sure that if Dusty Baker and I each picked a Reds staring line-up for the season that mine would outscore his by at least 30 runs (that's about 3 wins worth).] Read more ...
in the minors), but the decision to pull them or leave them in the game was generally his to make, and the way he went about it betrays a lack of understanding of the way things work in baseball.
I'm not saying that Dusty Baker doesn't know anything - he probably knows many, many more things about the sport than I do - or that I could do a better job as manager (I couldn't, probably). What I am saying is that given the scarcity of managerial positions, hiring Dusty Baker doesn't make sense. I find it very hard to believe that he is one of the 30 best people at what he does, and it's because of him that I don't think the Reds have much of a chance in the NL Central this year (or even in the coming years, if he's still around).
It has been shown time and again that having young pitchers throw lots of pitches over quickly increasing numbers of innings leads to arm injuries. Whether Dusty doesn't believe that is true, or he doesn't even realize that such research has been done, I cannot say. It seems inconceivable that a man being paid millions of dollars to guide a team to victory wouldn't do everything he could to put himself in the best position to do his job, but Baker's continued misunderstanding of how a baseball team wins games makes it pretty clear that Dusty thinks that Dusty knows how things work, real world be damned.
From a recent article on the Reds:
"Dusty Baker wants his hitters to hit. He likes aggressive hitters."
Like the 2005 Dusty led Cubs, who aggressived their way to a .324 on-base percentage - good enough for 11th (out of 16) in the league. That's why, even though the team was 1st in hits, 3nd in doubles, and 2rd in home runs, they were only 9th in runs scored. Todd Hollansworth and his .254/.301/.388 line played in 107 games as the team's main left fielder while Matt Murton (.321/.386/.521) played in only 51. The key stats for Dusty: Murton was only 23 while Hollansworth (the "veteran" who "knew how to play at the big league level") was 32. Hollansowrth's aggressive approach led to 2 more walks than Murton in over 100 more at bats.
The best player Baker ever managed (and the reason he won three Manager of the Year awards and still has a job) walked more than anyone who's ever played the game. Without Barry Bonds, those Giants teams would have seen some low OBP players at a lot of positions.
"He was talking about Joey Votto and finished with this:
“I really, really hate the called third strike. I hate that. You're guess and you ain't ready to hit.”"
I really, really hate when a player swings at a first pitch ball and grounds weakly to short. People apparently like Dusty because of his manner of speech, but that last sentence isn't something I want to hear from my "field general".
"On Votto: “He needs to swing some more. I talked to him about that. Strikeouts aren't the only criteria. I'd like to see him more aggressive.”
With the approach that he currently has all Joey Votto has done in the minor leagues is hit .289/.385/.476. In a brief stint in the majors he hit .321/.360/.548. I think the kid knows what works for him. I would hope that what Dusty means by aggressive is something along the lines of "when you get a good pitch to hit, put a good swing on it" as opposed to "when you have a pitch thrown in your general direction, swing at it", but the addition of Corey Patterson to the roster makes me think it's the latter. That Corey Patterson may start instead of Jay Bruce (.319/.375/.587 at three levels in the minors last year as a 20 year-old with 80(!) extra-base hits in only 133 games) is insane. Bruce is an "aggressive" hitter (135 K's) but apparently he doesn't swing and miss quite often enough to make up for his massive advantage in ability over Patterson. [Also, apparently Baker is "down" on Bruce because of a history of leg injuries - a history that is nonexistent. Baker doesn't even know what's going on with his (actually, baseballs') #1 prospect.]
And what about Adam Dunn (career .248/.381/.519)? Apparently he isn't aggressive enough either.
"“Like I said, I don't like called third strikes. Dunn’s not a kid. He's not old, but he ain't a kid. I bet you he gets better. He's from Texas, right? There’s not a cow in Texas if he don’t get better.”"
So, instead of basing his opinion of Dunn's offensive capabilities on his actual ability (he's walked over 100 times in every full season he's played and hit 40+ home runs four years in a row), Dusty is going to "bet you" he gets better and site his home state. Dunn struck out 165 times in '07 - and it doesn't really matter. If they were all called third strikes, it wouldn't really matter. Adam Dunn already does the things that help a baseball team score runs.
Let's go a little further :
This guy is in favor of Dusty Baker. He also says thing like "Numbers are fun to look at but dangerous to dwell on. Baker understands this. If Dunn walks 30 fewer times this year, he'll drive in 15 more runs. His on-base percentage will dip. Oh, no."
If Dusty actually understands how Adam Dunn walking 30 fewer teams will cause him to drive in 15 more runs, then I'd like to hear it. I guess if 10 of those at bats ended in home runs then OK, but it seems that Adam Dunn doesn't go to the plate looking to walk - he goes to the plate looking to hit the ball really hard, and if a pitcher isn't going to through him a strike (and thus, walk him) then swinging at those pitches isn't going to increase his productivity; it'll just lead to more pop-ups and ground-outs to second.
"If Votto takes fewer first-pitch strikes, his run production will improve." This doesn't make any sense - why would anyone say this? It's like if I said "Daniel Cabrera should be aggressive and hit more batters - it'll lower his ERA." I have a suspicion that when Joey Votto swings at a first pitch it is usually a strike - and that he hits it pretty darn hard.
"How Baker runs a game strategically is far less important than what he is able to pull from his employees, 162 times a summer."
That Dusty is a poor in-game strategist is besides the point - the only thing he'll be pulling from his players is their OBP in a downward direction. That is no way helps a team score runs. At this stage of baseball knowledge it should be criminal for a manager to think and say the things that routinely come out of Dusty's mouth.
This part was pretty good too - "Unless they're intentional walks, or the big boppers are being pitched around, walks aren't what you want from players hitting third through sixth. You want them up there smart-hacking."
That's right, you don't want walks from your 3-6 hitters; you want them from your 1-9 hitters. The 3-6 hitters are your power hitters. They sould hit lots of homeruns to go along with their high walk totals. Also, "smart-hacking"? What the hell?!? It's like how people called Ozzie Guillen's strategy in Chicago "smart-ball" instead of "small-ball". It seems that people that don't know what they're talking about think that just adding the word "smart" to things makes them a better idea.
The piece ends with this: "Here's a stat: Wins as manager: Dusty Baker, 1,162; Bill James, 0."
That's true. Unfortunately for the reporter (and Dusty Baker): number of intelligent baseball things they have said combined, ~ 7;
Bill James, 235,825...235,826...235,827....
An excellent explanation from Ken Tremendous: "At bats are complicated things. The best result of an AB is a home run. The worst is an out that advances no runners. (Or a triple play, I guess, but you get the idea.) In between are several thousand other possibilities. A walk is a successful AB no matter how you slice it. Patient hitters are good hitters, by and large, who help their teams a great deal more than impatient hitters, and the more a guy is patient, the more he will swing at a good pitch instead of any pitch, which increases the chances he will succeed."
This isn't even that bad. You can make a case that he wants aggressive hitters who also get on base and hit well and stuff. Nope.
"Baker has repeatedly talked about the desire to have a do-it-all lead-off hitter with speed. What kinds of hitters is he looking for further down the lineup? Does he want guys with lofty on-base percentages? The answer will likely not sit well with fans of the book "Moneyball," because Baker said he believes the OBP statistic is overvalued."
"Do-it-all lead-off hitter with speed"? Sounds crazy, I know, but Dusty is a think-outside-the-box sort of guy. OBP is overvalued by people who think it is literally the only stat that matters. Such people are crazy, but would still be able to put together a better line-up than Dusty Baker.
""I'm big on driving in runs and scoring runs," Baker said. "Guys in the middle should score about close to equal to what they drive in. On-base percentage, that's fine and dandy. But a lot of times guys get so much into on-base percentage that they cease to swing. It's becoming a little bit out of control."
See, I was actually big on having guys walk to get on base, but then to intentionally get picked off as to avoid scoring as much as possible. It's actually pretty hard to keep from putting a lot of runs on the board when guys are getting on you after another. These guys that don't swing: could it be because they know that they couldn't hit the thrown pitch very well, as opposed to how "into" OBP they are?
"What you do is run the pitcher's count up, that helps," Baker said. "You put him in the stretch, that helps. But your job in the middle is to either score them or drive them in. The name of the game is scoring runs. Sometimes, you get so caught up in on-base percentage that you're clogging up the bases."
It's tough to score runs when you're never on base. I guess Dusty wants all of his hitters to hit solo home runs all the time. What a novel suggestion - I wonder why no one else ever thought of it? He actually makes the implication that getting guys on (and "clogging up the bases") will lead to scoring less runs. Insane.
Ken Tremendous once again perfectly sums up how we "outsiders" and our "statistics" would try to win baseball games:
"Huh. Seems like an odd way to go about winning baseball games, but okay. I mean, I would challenge your "driving in runs/scoring runs" strategy as outdated. Have you tried the modern and new methodology of: philosophizing about runs, and then sort of "surrounding" the runs with positively-charged ions, and then "inducing" runs with a combination of computer-aided design and game theory-based modeling?"Dusty Baker is a bad manager. Very bad. He may be a good "leader of men", but it bet Joey Votto won't be happy if he's hitting .250 because Dusty's making him swing at every first pitch strike. I bet Adam Dunn won't be happy if he gets benched for taking two third strikes in a game (while hitting two home runs). I bet Jay Bruce will certainly not be happy if he's hitting .350/.400/.600 in AAA while Corey Patterson and his aggressive .300 OBP are starting in the majors. This Reds team could challenge for the division title. That they probably won't can be laid almost entirely on the shoulders of Dusty "Clogging Up The Bases" Baker.
[I am 90% sure that if Dusty Baker and I each picked a Reds staring line-up for the season that mine would outscore his by at least 30 runs (that's about 3 wins worth).] Read more ...
America's Pastime & The Malk
What's better than Stephen Malkmus or Baseball?
Stephen Malkmus & Baseball. [http://17dots.com/2008/03/07/stephen-malkmus-fantasy-baseball-prejavascript:void(0)
Publish Postview/]
It actually came as a surprise to me the depth of knowledge that the Malk has about the sport. I knew he was a sports fan, but the average baseball fan probably doesn't know who Corey Hart is. The man reads Rotoworld - how awesome is that?
"But anybody who is playing against the Red Sox and anyone who is playing against the Yankees is my team." That's what I like to hear.
Passing up Hanley Ramirez for Ben Sheets was a bad move, but he admitted as much. It's always nice when a "famous person" you're a fan of ends up being someone you'd like to hang out with. It would be cool to get Malkmus to play on the Actuary's softball team. I would gladly give up my spot on the bench for him. Read more ...
Stephen Malkmus & Baseball. [http://17dots.com/2008/03/07/stephen-malkmus-fantasy-baseball-prejavascript:void(0)
Publish Postview/]
It actually came as a surprise to me the depth of knowledge that the Malk has about the sport. I knew he was a sports fan, but the average baseball fan probably doesn't know who Corey Hart is. The man reads Rotoworld - how awesome is that?
"But anybody who is playing against the Red Sox and anyone who is playing against the Yankees is my team." That's what I like to hear.
Passing up Hanley Ramirez for Ben Sheets was a bad move, but he admitted as much. It's always nice when a "famous person" you're a fan of ends up being someone you'd like to hang out with. It would be cool to get Malkmus to play on the Actuary's softball team. I would gladly give up my spot on the bench for him. Read more ...
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Hall of Fame Pitchers
Which one of these pitchers isn’t in the Hall Of Fame?
A: 224 – 184 record, 3.27 ERA (14% below league average), 2.4 BB/9, 6.8 K/9,
1.18 WHIP, 6 time All-Star
B: 273 – 225 record, 3.80 ERA (9% below league average), 3.2 BB/9, 4.1 K/9,
1.34 WHIP, 6 time All-Star
C: 243 – 142 record, 2.89 ERA (23% below league average), 1.8 BB/9, 5.9 K/9,
1.10 WHIP, 9 time All-Star
D: 250 – 144 record, 3.70 ERA (22% below league average), 2.0 BB/9, 7.1 K/9,
1.18 WHIP, 5 time All-Star
E: 224 – 166 record, 3.26 ERA (4% below league average), 2.5 BB/9, 5.3 K/9,
1.13 WHIP, 8 time All-Star, 1 Cy Young
If you said B because of the high ERA, higher walk-rate and low strike-out rate, then you’re wrong. That is Hall of Famer Red Ruffing. E because his ERA is only slightly better than the league average for the time he played? Nope – that’s Jim “Catfish” Hunter. It’s actually D: Mike Mussina.
[A is Jim Bunning and C is Juan Marichal]
Mike Mussina is one of my all-time favorite players. Maybe it's because he started playing for the O's about the same time as I started to get interested in baseball, but I associate the Moose (not Cal, or Brady, or whoever) with Baltimore having a good team. I know he left the team to go to the Yankees (unthinkable!) but I don't really blame him for it (much) and I still think he deserves to be enshrined in Cooperstown one day. One of my favorite things about Mussina is his repertoire. With the Orioles he relied mostly on his low-90s fastball (got up to 95 when he needed to), his change-up (rated among the best in baseball), and the thing he's most well known for (in addition to his unique motion to the set position) his knuckle-curve. In later years he threw cut-fastballs (in addition to the two and four-seamers), splitters and sliders as well. He could (and would) throw any pitch in any count to any hitter.
Mussina (born 12 -8-1968 in Williamsport, PA) was drafted by the Baltimore Orioles in the first round (#20) of the 1990 draft out of Stanford University (where he received a degree in economics. Mussina seems like a pretty smart guy: other than the econ. degree he is also a well-known fan of cross-word puzzles (and appeared in the documentary Wordplay) and reportedly was almost the valedictorian at his high school, but purposefully earned a lower mark so as to avoid having to give the commencement address.)
Having only spent a short time in the minors, Mussina was called up for a few starts in 1991; completing 2 out of 12 starts and sporting a 2.87 ERA. In his first full season ('92) Mussina won 18 games, had a 2.54 ERA, and pitched four shutouts. The 241 innings though, may be a primary cause in the shoulder injuries he experienced the following year. Mussina would go on to win at least 10 games for 16 consecutive years (that streak continues, and is an AL record) for the Orioles and Yankees. His ERA numbers have fluctuated from that career low of 2.54 to a high of 5.15 in 2007 (the previous high was 4.81 in 1996 when he still won 19 games). After the 2000 baseball season, citing a low-ball offer from O's owner Peter Angelos and a desire to be on a team that actually wants him and has a chance to win a World Series, Mussina signed a 6-year contract with the New York Yankees. The Yankees, though having won the WS in '98, '99, and '00, haven't won another one since.
Mussina is no longer the #1 starter he was back in the '90s, so people tend to forget just how good he was.
He is a 5-time all-star; a 6-time Gold Glove winner; and has been in the top 6 in CY Young voting 8 times. These awards don't necessarily mean that he was as good as they imply (the voting for each is flawed in different ways) but these are the same people who vote for the HOF, so it seems that they did have an appreciation of his talent.
He's been in the top six in ERA 9 times; the top six in WHIP 10 times; the top ten in fewest walks per nine innings 14 times (every year except '05 and '07); the top six in strike-outs per nine 8 times; the top ten in total Ks 10 times. He's also been in the top ten in adjusted ERA+ (adjusting his ERA to park/league/etc. and then comparing it to the league average) 10 times. He has almost never led the league in a category, but he was consistently among the best every year. He has 250 wins currently, with an outside shot at 300 (he'll have to hang on for at least 3 or 4 more years and get pretty lucky with run-support, which shouldn't be too much of an issue in NY). His 3.70 career ERA doesn't look that impressive, but the league average over his career has been 4.52. He has 52 complete games and 23 shutouts. He has never walked more than 69 batters in a year (and that was in 243 innings) and has struck out over 200 four times.
On multiple occasions Mussina has almost pitched a perfect game, including twice getting into the ninth inning. Against Cleveland in 1997 he gave up a single to nemesis Sandy Alomar (he also broke Mussina's nose with a batted ball the following year) with one out, but recovered to strike out the last two batters. [I remember that game – I was so mad when Alomar got that hit; it might have been the first time I cursed at the TV]
In 2001 versus Boston he gave up a single to Carl Everett with two down, but retired the next batter.
Mussina has also almost won 20 games several years. In 1992 we won 18; in 1994 he won 16 games but made only 24 starts (he was on pace for 22 victories); in 1995 and 1996 he had back-to-back 19 win seasons (in '96 he had a lead in his last start, but Armando Benitez blew the save); in 1999 he won 18; and in 2002 he set his Yankee high with another 18 win season. The almost bench-marks will count against Mussina, as HOF voters like round numbers to look at (Bert Blyleven's ridiculous exclusion based on this will be looked at later).
Let’s compare Moose to the other current HOF pitchers, if we put him in now. He would be 33rd (out of 66) in wins, 13th in winning percentage, 34th in WHIP, 7th in strike-outs per nine, 12th in total strike-outs, 2nd in strike-out to walk ratio, 16th in walks per nine, and 30th in ERA+. Mike Mussina would actually raise the bar for Hall of Fame pitchers.
Now it's time for some JAWS calculations. Through 2007 his career WARP3 (Wins Above Replacement Player adjusted for park, league, era, etc.) is 127.7. His "peak" score is [10.5 + 10.3 + 10.1 + 9.9 + 9.7 + 9.1 + 8.5] 68.1 (the top year was actually his first with the Yankees). That means his JAWS score is 97.9 - above the average for HOF starters already. Assuming he doesn't have any more top years in him, Mussina's "peak" score will remain the same, but every point of WARP3 he accumulates until he retires will bump the JAWS score up half a point. He should easily clear the 100 mark within a year or two.
If Mussina had a 20 win season and a Cy Young award would there even be a discussion? Does his exclusion based on a Benitez blown save and not being better than Pedro Martinez (23 wins, 2.07 ERA for a ridiculous 243 ERA+, and a 313-37 strike-out to walk ratio) in 1999 really make sense? I would like to hear any argument that doesn’t mention these two things (or the stupid “he doesn’t sound like a Hall of Famer”).
Mike Mussina was one of the best players at his position for the time that he played. He wasn't the best (Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Pedro for a few years), but those guys are some of the best (of the best) off all time. Mussina should get in, and he should get in on the first ballot. Jim Palmer has a JAWS score of 87 (106.8 career, 67.2 "peak") and he got it on the first ballot (with 93% of the vote). Mussina has a career ERA+ of 122, while Palmer is at 126. An average (162 game adjusted) season for Moose is 16-9, 227 IP, 219 H, 24 HR, 51 BB, 180 SO – Palmer: 16-9, 248 IP, 211 H, 19 HR, 82 BB, 139 SO. I’m not saying Mussina was better (maybe he was) but I am saying that the difference isn’t huge. Palmer was a great pitcher (and is a very amusing broadcaster) but considering the times in which they pitched, Mussina has better control (about twice as good, actually) and is the better strike-out pitcher (about 30% better adjusted K-rate); he pitched longer, his peak was better (as it too lasted a bit longer), but he's missing the Cy Young awards, playoff success, and meaningless factoid (Palmer never gave up a grand slam - so? Mussina went from 1995 till 2007 without giving one up. It doesn't really mean much, but people like that kind of stuff). Mussina has used the name "Simon Phoenix" (from Demolition Man) as an alias when signing into hotels. Doesn't that count for something? Read more ...
A: 224 – 184 record, 3.27 ERA (14% below league average), 2.4 BB/9, 6.8 K/9,
1.18 WHIP, 6 time All-Star
B: 273 – 225 record, 3.80 ERA (9% below league average), 3.2 BB/9, 4.1 K/9,
1.34 WHIP, 6 time All-Star
C: 243 – 142 record, 2.89 ERA (23% below league average), 1.8 BB/9, 5.9 K/9,
1.10 WHIP, 9 time All-Star
D: 250 – 144 record, 3.70 ERA (22% below league average), 2.0 BB/9, 7.1 K/9,
1.18 WHIP, 5 time All-Star
E: 224 – 166 record, 3.26 ERA (4% below league average), 2.5 BB/9, 5.3 K/9,
1.13 WHIP, 8 time All-Star, 1 Cy Young
If you said B because of the high ERA, higher walk-rate and low strike-out rate, then you’re wrong. That is Hall of Famer Red Ruffing. E because his ERA is only slightly better than the league average for the time he played? Nope – that’s Jim “Catfish” Hunter. It’s actually D: Mike Mussina.
[A is Jim Bunning and C is Juan Marichal]
Mike Mussina is one of my all-time favorite players. Maybe it's because he started playing for the O's about the same time as I started to get interested in baseball, but I associate the Moose (not Cal, or Brady, or whoever) with Baltimore having a good team. I know he left the team to go to the Yankees (unthinkable!) but I don't really blame him for it (much) and I still think he deserves to be enshrined in Cooperstown one day. One of my favorite things about Mussina is his repertoire. With the Orioles he relied mostly on his low-90s fastball (got up to 95 when he needed to), his change-up (rated among the best in baseball), and the thing he's most well known for (in addition to his unique motion to the set position) his knuckle-curve. In later years he threw cut-fastballs (in addition to the two and four-seamers), splitters and sliders as well. He could (and would) throw any pitch in any count to any hitter.
Mussina (born 12 -8-1968 in Williamsport, PA) was drafted by the Baltimore Orioles in the first round (#20) of the 1990 draft out of Stanford University (where he received a degree in economics. Mussina seems like a pretty smart guy: other than the econ. degree he is also a well-known fan of cross-word puzzles (and appeared in the documentary Wordplay) and reportedly was almost the valedictorian at his high school, but purposefully earned a lower mark so as to avoid having to give the commencement address.)
Having only spent a short time in the minors, Mussina was called up for a few starts in 1991; completing 2 out of 12 starts and sporting a 2.87 ERA. In his first full season ('92) Mussina won 18 games, had a 2.54 ERA, and pitched four shutouts. The 241 innings though, may be a primary cause in the shoulder injuries he experienced the following year. Mussina would go on to win at least 10 games for 16 consecutive years (that streak continues, and is an AL record) for the Orioles and Yankees. His ERA numbers have fluctuated from that career low of 2.54 to a high of 5.15 in 2007 (the previous high was 4.81 in 1996 when he still won 19 games). After the 2000 baseball season, citing a low-ball offer from O's owner Peter Angelos and a desire to be on a team that actually wants him and has a chance to win a World Series, Mussina signed a 6-year contract with the New York Yankees. The Yankees, though having won the WS in '98, '99, and '00, haven't won another one since.
Mussina is no longer the #1 starter he was back in the '90s, so people tend to forget just how good he was.
He is a 5-time all-star; a 6-time Gold Glove winner; and has been in the top 6 in CY Young voting 8 times. These awards don't necessarily mean that he was as good as they imply (the voting for each is flawed in different ways) but these are the same people who vote for the HOF, so it seems that they did have an appreciation of his talent.
He's been in the top six in ERA 9 times; the top six in WHIP 10 times; the top ten in fewest walks per nine innings 14 times (every year except '05 and '07); the top six in strike-outs per nine 8 times; the top ten in total Ks 10 times. He's also been in the top ten in adjusted ERA+ (adjusting his ERA to park/league/etc. and then comparing it to the league average) 10 times. He has almost never led the league in a category, but he was consistently among the best every year. He has 250 wins currently, with an outside shot at 300 (he'll have to hang on for at least 3 or 4 more years and get pretty lucky with run-support, which shouldn't be too much of an issue in NY). His 3.70 career ERA doesn't look that impressive, but the league average over his career has been 4.52. He has 52 complete games and 23 shutouts. He has never walked more than 69 batters in a year (and that was in 243 innings) and has struck out over 200 four times.
On multiple occasions Mussina has almost pitched a perfect game, including twice getting into the ninth inning. Against Cleveland in 1997 he gave up a single to nemesis Sandy Alomar (he also broke Mussina's nose with a batted ball the following year) with one out, but recovered to strike out the last two batters. [I remember that game – I was so mad when Alomar got that hit; it might have been the first time I cursed at the TV]
In 2001 versus Boston he gave up a single to Carl Everett with two down, but retired the next batter.
Mussina has also almost won 20 games several years. In 1992 we won 18; in 1994 he won 16 games but made only 24 starts (he was on pace for 22 victories); in 1995 and 1996 he had back-to-back 19 win seasons (in '96 he had a lead in his last start, but Armando Benitez blew the save); in 1999 he won 18; and in 2002 he set his Yankee high with another 18 win season. The almost bench-marks will count against Mussina, as HOF voters like round numbers to look at (Bert Blyleven's ridiculous exclusion based on this will be looked at later).
Let’s compare Moose to the other current HOF pitchers, if we put him in now. He would be 33rd (out of 66) in wins, 13th in winning percentage, 34th in WHIP, 7th in strike-outs per nine, 12th in total strike-outs, 2nd in strike-out to walk ratio, 16th in walks per nine, and 30th in ERA+. Mike Mussina would actually raise the bar for Hall of Fame pitchers.
Now it's time for some JAWS calculations. Through 2007 his career WARP3 (Wins Above Replacement Player adjusted for park, league, era, etc.) is 127.7. His "peak" score is [10.5 + 10.3 + 10.1 + 9.9 + 9.7 + 9.1 + 8.5] 68.1 (the top year was actually his first with the Yankees). That means his JAWS score is 97.9 - above the average for HOF starters already. Assuming he doesn't have any more top years in him, Mussina's "peak" score will remain the same, but every point of WARP3 he accumulates until he retires will bump the JAWS score up half a point. He should easily clear the 100 mark within a year or two.
If Mussina had a 20 win season and a Cy Young award would there even be a discussion? Does his exclusion based on a Benitez blown save and not being better than Pedro Martinez (23 wins, 2.07 ERA for a ridiculous 243 ERA+, and a 313-37 strike-out to walk ratio) in 1999 really make sense? I would like to hear any argument that doesn’t mention these two things (or the stupid “he doesn’t sound like a Hall of Famer”).
Mike Mussina was one of the best players at his position for the time that he played. He wasn't the best (Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Pedro for a few years), but those guys are some of the best (of the best) off all time. Mussina should get in, and he should get in on the first ballot. Jim Palmer has a JAWS score of 87 (106.8 career, 67.2 "peak") and he got it on the first ballot (with 93% of the vote). Mussina has a career ERA+ of 122, while Palmer is at 126. An average (162 game adjusted) season for Moose is 16-9, 227 IP, 219 H, 24 HR, 51 BB, 180 SO – Palmer: 16-9, 248 IP, 211 H, 19 HR, 82 BB, 139 SO. I’m not saying Mussina was better (maybe he was) but I am saying that the difference isn’t huge. Palmer was a great pitcher (and is a very amusing broadcaster) but considering the times in which they pitched, Mussina has better control (about twice as good, actually) and is the better strike-out pitcher (about 30% better adjusted K-rate); he pitched longer, his peak was better (as it too lasted a bit longer), but he's missing the Cy Young awards, playoff success, and meaningless factoid (Palmer never gave up a grand slam - so? Mussina went from 1995 till 2007 without giving one up. It doesn't really mean much, but people like that kind of stuff). Mussina has used the name "Simon Phoenix" (from Demolition Man) as an alias when signing into hotels. Doesn't that count for something? Read more ...
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Noah Lowry Coming Down With Steve Blass Disease?
Noah Lowry has been heading downhill in recent years anyway, but this is a new low. In his first spring training start of 2008, Lowry recorded 4 outs; he also walked 3, hit another, and threw two balls into the screen behind homeplate. That was his good start, however, as the Giants' lefty followed that up with a start versus Texas in which he gave up 4 runs on 9 walks, two wild pitches, and three more balls to the screen. On the bright side, he did keep the Rangers out of the hit column. A disaster of an outing even when it doesn't count.
Lowry's control fell off a cliff in '07. After walking a solid 3.34 pre nine innings in '05 and 3.17 in '06, his walk-rate shot up to 5.02 in '07. Coupled with a falling K rate (from 7.55 per nine to 4.75 and 5.02), Lowry is no longer the #2 pitcher he looked like as a 24 year-old. That he walked as many as he struck-out last year is a disturbing sign, but nothing could have prepared the Giants for this. If Barry Zito struggles, as he did in his last start, then the Giants' hopes - previously built on a strong rotation - are going to take a hit.
I remember Rick Ankeil falling apart on the mound, and I hope Lowry can figure things out soon, because he doesn't have a back-up career as a hitter (career .178 average). For now, his every appearance is going to be studied carefully by the Giants, even while it may be a kind of side-show for everyone else.
Edit: It seems Lowry has a minor wrist injury that may have contributed to his wildness. Hopefully he can heal up and come back and pitch effectively. Read more ...
Lowry's control fell off a cliff in '07. After walking a solid 3.34 pre nine innings in '05 and 3.17 in '06, his walk-rate shot up to 5.02 in '07. Coupled with a falling K rate (from 7.55 per nine to 4.75 and 5.02), Lowry is no longer the #2 pitcher he looked like as a 24 year-old. That he walked as many as he struck-out last year is a disturbing sign, but nothing could have prepared the Giants for this. If Barry Zito struggles, as he did in his last start, then the Giants' hopes - previously built on a strong rotation - are going to take a hit.
I remember Rick Ankeil falling apart on the mound, and I hope Lowry can figure things out soon, because he doesn't have a back-up career as a hitter (career .178 average). For now, his every appearance is going to be studied carefully by the Giants, even while it may be a kind of side-show for everyone else.
Edit: It seems Lowry has a minor wrist injury that may have contributed to his wildness. Hopefully he can heal up and come back and pitch effectively. Read more ...
Pitchfork + MLB 2K8
Pitchfork will be picking some songs for the Major League Baseball 2K8 videogame. That is both awesome and kind of scary. Considering how much P4K likes the stranger stuff (Animal Collective, Battles, etc.) I'm curious to see what their choices will include. It is common for me to listen to my own music while playing games anyway, so it's not going to affect me much (if I do eventually pick up the game). Any band that's chosen is going to see their name recognition go way up, which I'm not always a big fan of. If everyone knows who the Shins are then I can no longer use the band to filter out who may have similar musical taste to me.
Edit: It turns out I was spot on about Battles. I don't know how you're supposed to concentrate on playing the game when that's on. Blitzen Trapper is the only band put on by Pitchfork that I like but I don't think is well known.
Tracklist:
Battles - "Atlas" *
Black Rebel Motorcycle Club - "Need Some Air"
Blitzen Trapper - "Wild Mountain Nation" *
Dinosaur Jr. - "Almost Ready" *
Jay Reatard - "My Shadow" *
Kasabian - "Reason Is Treason"
LCD Soundsystem - "Watch The Tapes" *
Modest Mouse - "Dashboard"
Peter Bjorn & John - "The Chills"
The Cars - "Moving In Stereo"
The Cool Kids - "88" *
The Cure - "Never Enough"
The Flaming Lips - "The W.A.N.D." (no MF edit)
The Hold Steady - "Stuck Between Stations" *
The Presidents Of The United States Of America - "Cleveland Rocks"
The Revolution Fox Experiment - "Hyper Charlie"
The Strokes - "Someday"
* denotes a "Pitchfork Pick" selection Read more ...
Edit: It turns out I was spot on about Battles. I don't know how you're supposed to concentrate on playing the game when that's on. Blitzen Trapper is the only band put on by Pitchfork that I like but I don't think is well known.
Tracklist:
Battles - "Atlas" *
Black Rebel Motorcycle Club - "Need Some Air"
Blitzen Trapper - "Wild Mountain Nation" *
Dinosaur Jr. - "Almost Ready" *
Jay Reatard - "My Shadow" *
Kasabian - "Reason Is Treason"
LCD Soundsystem - "Watch The Tapes" *
Modest Mouse - "Dashboard"
Peter Bjorn & John - "The Chills"
The Cars - "Moving In Stereo"
The Cool Kids - "88" *
The Cure - "Never Enough"
The Flaming Lips - "The W.A.N.D." (no MF edit)
The Hold Steady - "Stuck Between Stations" *
The Presidents Of The United States Of America - "Cleveland Rocks"
The Revolution Fox Experiment - "Hyper Charlie"
The Strokes - "Someday"
* denotes a "Pitchfork Pick" selection Read more ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
