FIRE JOE MORGAN

Time Magazine Is Not A Source For Correct Baseball Information

2008-07-24T14:43:00.005-04:00

Time.com is running a horribly designed piece called "The Evolution of Barry Bonds" that requires you to click 21 times to get to all of the (extremely minimal) content. Each page has, in total, six numbers, one of which is the year.

For example:

1986

Games Played: 113
Batting Average: .223
Home Runs: 16
Runs Per At Bat: 25.8
Listed Weight: 185

That's all you get on one page. Oh, wait. You also get a picture of Barry, two giant ads for Health.com, approximately one hundred links to other Time.com articles, and two separate targeted (?) text ads that read

I "Hate" my Yellow Teeth

The Secrets Dentists don’t want you to know about Teeth Whitening!

But enough about their hideous design. What the fuck is

Runs Per At Bat: 25.8

That is not a thing, Time.com. That is not a recognizable baseball statistic, and even if it were, it wouldn't be a meaningful one. "Runs Per At Bat"? First thing that jumps out at you -- Time's "Runs Per At Bat" is pretty clearly not, in fact, actually runs per at bat.

In 1986, Barry Bonds scored 72 runs in 413 at bats for a runs per at bat total of 0.17433414. He scored 0.17433414 runs per at bat. That is what should appear in a table after the words

Runs Per At Bat

Right? Anyway, after some head-scratching, I figured out what Time.com means when they say "Runs Per At Bat."

Are you ready?

They mean "At Bats Per Home Run."

Of course! Obvious. How could I not see that's what they meant when they said, right there in black pixels on my white screen, "Runs Per At Bat"?

In 1986, Barry Bonds had 413 at bats and hit 16 home runs, for an at bats per home run total of 25.8125. That ratio went down precipitously as he infused himself with more and more awesome chemicals that make you strong, but if Time.com has its way you'll never find out about that, because it will take you four hundred clicks to even get to 1994 or so, by which time you've probably already gone off to play Line Rider or something.

EDIT:

Yes, as a couple of you have pointed out, this article is a year old. And it's still wrong.

Jim Riggleman Has Superhero-Level Powers Of Self-Deception

2008-07-23T16:51:00.006-04:00

And Jesse Baumgartner of MLB.com must be his sidekick. Take a look at these mind-bendingly denial-ridden snippets from a piece Baumgartner wrote about Seattle's abysmal DH situation:

Different approach at DH

SEATTLE -- Most American League teams use the designated hitter position to stick a little more pop in their lineup. David Ortiz of the visiting Boston Red Sox would be a prime example.

Most American League teams try to play someone who can hit in the position of Designated Hitter, a job whose description reads "Someone who can hit." It's taken approximately four billion years for life to evolve from some sort of self-replicating ribozyme into a creature, man, whose brain is able to complete the difficult task of assigning a good hitter to DH.

But that's not the way the Seattle Mariners approach that part of their team.

What if...

What if we played a bad hitter at DH? An execrably, eye-gougingly, fingernail-scrapingly awful hitter?

Would that help us win games?

"I'm just kind of using it just to try to have some contact in that spot, and maybe be able to move some runners and hit and run and that kind of stuff, get some at-bats for some guys," interim manager Jim Riggleman said.

Yeah, that's it. We don't want a home run hitter, or a doubles hitter, or a hitter at all. Give me a lamp at DH. Or an Eames chair. Is an Eames chair available? No? Then get Jose Vidro.

By the way, Mariners fans, your manager just said: The purpose of the DH is to "get some at-bats for some guys." Yes, the DH's at-bats don't officially count, do they? Riggleman's not sure. He has to check the rulebook.

"It's not a classic DH spot

-- the kind where the guy hits well --

where we're looking for our DH to give us 25 to 30 home runs and 100 RBIs, that's just not what we are. So I'm fine with it the way it is."

Now, on the one hand, I know he's the manager (interim manager at that), not the GM, so he kind of has to say things like this to put a good face on things, but on the other hand, what in the bloody flying fuck are you talking about? Would it be crazy for him to say, "Hey, sure, we're hoping to get a little more production out of that spot." Or even more sensibly: "We think Jose's going to hit a little better from here on out." Would that absolutely ruin Jose Vidro's confidence to the point that Vidro can no longer successfully OPS .584, as he's doing right now?

You heard me: Jose Vidro is OPSing .584. He's a few at bats short of qualifying for the OPS leaders minimum, but after a cursory look I'm pretty sure that would be the worst figure in the American League.

He's your DESIGNATED. H. I. T. T. E. R.

While the team sometimes puts an extra catcher in the lineup at DH,

That is such sad beginning to a sentence.

Jose Vidro has been the mainstay for much of the season -- Tuesday' s start was his 61st this year at the position.

Vidro is about as far away from Ortiz as you can get. He has just five homers this season and is hitting .223 with a .267 OBP and 41 RBIs.

Additional note to the Mariners: Jose Vidro has an EqA of .218 and a WARP3 of -0.5. He is one of the worst hitters in baseball. His numbers are embarrassing even for, like, a historically-great-fielding catcher. He does not field for your team.

But you knew that, right? I mean, there's no way this is a surprise to you or anything --

"I'm astonished to tell you the truth when I look up and I see Vidro's average is what it is,

I know you're a professional baseball manager and everything, but dude, seriously, Riggleman, have you ever even seen a game this year? Members of the uncontacted Yanaigua tribe of Bolivia know that Jose Vidro has a sub-.600 OPS, and you don't seem to have a clue. He plays on your team, bro-bro.

because I feel like every time he goes up there I'm very confident that he's going to give us a good at-bat," Riggleman said.

Things that belie Riggleman's confidence: EVERY SINGLE OTHER AT BAT JOSE VIDRO HAS HAD THIS YEAR.

"And for the at-bats that he has, he's knocked in quite a few runs ... he's been fairly effective in the way we want to use him.

There, my friends, is the standard if you want to be the designated hitter for the Seattle Mariners professional major league baseball club: in order to be considered "fairly effective," you merely have to be the worst hitter in your league. That is all.

Send your résumés to:

"I Want To Be The Mariners' DH"
c/o Jim Riggleman
.266 OBP Lane
Ridiculously Low Slugging Percentageburg, WA 98134

And for now, while many teams would prefer some additional pop in the lineup, the Mariners are content to stay with their different breed of designated hitter.

Can a baseball franchise be declared clinically insane? I believe, if organizations were to be treated as human beings, one of the legal criteria for a franchise to be officially designated "insane" would be

1. Franchise claims to be content with a .584 OPS player as their DH.

"It's not a classic DH situation, but I feel good every time he walks up to the plate," Riggleman said.

"It's not the classic DH situation where you expect a professional baseball player to at least put together a major league-quality at bat, but what do I know about baseball? I'm a millet farmer from sub-Saharan Africa," Riggleman said while farming millet. "I feel good every time he walks up to the plate, primarily because here, in America, I have clean water and food with enough niacin in it to stave off pellagra. Plus, very little chance of getting sleeping sickness."

"The numbers may say otherwise, but I think he's going to give us good at-bats."

Jose Vidro has been way better than a .584 OPS hitter in the past, so I hope for the Mariners' and Riggleman's sake he's right. On the other hand, Vidro's 34 and he batted .189 in the month of June. .189!

Maybe there isn't anyone in the entire Mariners organization who can hit better than that, or maybe Jim Riggleman is in such profound denial he's forgotten what the rules of baseball even are anymore.

Pepperidge Farm Cookie Ad Old Guy Voice In My Head: "That Reminds Me Of The Time..."

2008-07-23T13:48:00.004-04:00

Remember when John Kruk, Steve Phillips, and Harold Reynolds used to do Baseball Tonight together? Those were halcyon days for FJM. It was a more innocent time: gas cost 20 cents a gallon, the iPhone was a wild, unsubstantiated idea I had in my head, and women didn't yet have the right to vote.

This quote from Pirates manager John Russell reminded me of a particularly stupid night for Krukie, Phillips, and HR. A night so dumb, it will live on in transcript form on the Internet forever, or until our robot friends overthrow us and turn us into their information superhighway. Think about it.

On to the Russell business:

Manager John Russell was asked, too, if his team performs better behind Maholm.

The premise is that the Pirates looooooooove hitting behind Maholm because he's pitching not quite as crappily as the rest of the Bucs' pitching staff. Plus he's a gamer, and he picks up the tab at Cheesecake Factory every once in a while, not like Gorzelanny, that chipmunk-faced turd-ass.

"Oh, definitely," he replied. "I don't know if you can actually see it. But I know, when I played and we knew we had a guy starting who was going to keep you in the game, you feel like you have a chance to win. I remember playing with Steve Carlton, and we knew if we did our job, he'd do his. That's what Paulie's starting to supply for us."

Right, John. You know, I don't think I can actually see it. 'Cause look:

RUN SUPPORT

Tom Gorzelanny: 5.85
Zach Duke: 4.84
Ian Snell: 4.49
Paul Maholm: 4.45

Your guys actually hate Paul Maholm. They'd rather hit for Gorzy, who's been an absolute abomination with a 6.57 ERA and a 1.83 WHIP. Tony Peña, Jr. can pitch better than Tom Gorzelanny, and yet your Pirates, the same Pirates who claim to be trying so hard for nice, sweet, athletic Paul Maholm, are offensive monsters for noted dog-puncher Thomas Gorzo.

Anyway, time-travel your mind back to the distant past of Spring 2006, and re-read this nonsense for me. It's three men with three competing, equally ridiculous ideas, each more passionate than the last.

FJM At Work

2008-07-22T14:41:00.006-04:00

Hey, writers. It's easy to get on our good side. No need for invective, spittle, vitriol, or cantankerosity. Just be a cool dude, acknowledge that everyone screws up sometimes, and fix things. Jeff Passan, covered here earlier, just did it:

(Editor’s note: Jeff Passan is not an oddsmaker for a reason. His attempt at laying odds on teams making the postseason was, in the words on one e-mailer from MIT, “ridiculously stupid.” So he dusted off his TI-83, went to work and got them right. Updated odds are now included and mathematically correct.)

Humility. Civility. Progress. Human things.

Dusty Baker Loves OBP

2008-07-22T13:36:00.006-04:00

Mark this date down: July 20, 2008.

Ken Griffey Jr. and Adam Dunn don't have the best batting averages, but Reds manager Dusty Baker doesn't plan on doing anything different with the two sluggers when it comes to filling out a lineup card.

NATIONAL HOLIDAY!

Griffey's .236 average and Dunn's .230 average are the two worst of any active everyday starter. Only part-time catcher Paul Bako's (.213) is lower. But Griffey, the No. 3 hitter, and Dunn, the No. 5 hitter, are leading the way when it comes to on-base percentage, and for that reason, Baker isn't planning any changes.

Baker, long a skeptic of sabermetrics, the study of baseball statistics, began reading a blog called Fire Joe Morgan late Sunday afternoon.

"Those fellas make some good points," Baker said. "They're profane as hell, and they're probably gay, but they make some good points."

That's not what he said. What he said was:

"Their averages are low, but their on-base percentages are still high," Baker said. "Their on-base percentages are higher than some of the guys who are hitting.

I'm afraid. This is some parallel dream world, right? I've just taken salvia and fallen into a utopian fantasyscape populated by black David Dukes, funny Robin Williamses and OBP-loving Dusty Bakers. That is the only explanation.

Why do you love OBP, Dusty? Tell us tell us tell us all of the reasons!

I know they can hit, but it also helps to get on base and put a pitcher in the stretch. That's the thing. Most starters don't like being in the stretch."

Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh.

I feel sick.

The only...reason...to...get...on base...is...to...put...the pitcher...in the stretch?

?!

!

?

!?

On the list of good things about being on base, the order goes, roughly:

1. You're on base.

2. You didn't make an out.

3. Again, great, hey -- you're on base.

...

...

...

One million, four hundred thousand. The pitcher is in the stretch.

Besides loving OBP, Dusty Baker is also a big fan of the French Laundry.

"It's the most amazing place," said Baker. "What I liked best about it was that they give you a piece of fabric you can use to wipe your mouth, wipe your hands -- whatever you want. They call it a 'napkin.' I highly recommend the French Laundry."

---

ADDENDUM:

I'm actually happy for Dusty. It is a legitimate point to make that pitchers, in general, are a little worse from the stretch. It's just funny that he hates OBP so much that he feels like he has to bring up something relatively insignificant (compared to JUST BEING ON BASE IN THE FIRST PLACE) to justify even talking about it.

Reader Cletus adds:

While I agree that "getting on base" and "not making one or more outs" are by far at the top, putting the pitcher in the stretch is part of
the story.

MLB, 2007, bases empty: .262/.324/.417 (102,842 PA)
MLB, 2007, 1/-/-: .281/.339/.439 (34,166 PA)

The actual impact is slightly larger, given a runner on first is not a guarantee that the pitcher will go from the stretch (e.g., blowout, LHP with good move, Jack Cust on first, etc.). But even +37 points of OPS is nothing to sneeze at. It's virtually the only aspect of "lineup protection" worth caring about.

Caveat: A little bit of that will be selection bias: Good pitchers will be pitching more often with no one on, thus a mildly disproportionate amount of those 102,842 PA will be against pitchers with low WHIPs.

And another helpful caveat from Ed:

Good hitters tend to be clustered together at the top of the lineup. So, for example, your #2 hitter will have a runner on first far more frequently than your #9 hitter.

New Criterion For Being Good At Baseball: YOU MUST IMPRESS DAVID O'BRIEN

2008-07-22T01:01:00.007-04:00

---

Snap-billed mreetwass
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The snap-billed mreetwass is a legendary creature with the body of a unicorn, the tail of a griffin, the face of a Korean person, and the wings of a leprechaun (if a leprechaun had wings). The mreetwass feeds on DVDs of the Larry Sanders Show and reproduces once a year, always on Cinco de Mayo. The mreetwass is notable for only being identifiable by one Mr. David O'Brien of Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. O'Brien is the world's foremost and only authority on mreetwasses and Mreetwassery (the study of mreetwasses); all inquiries should be directed to him.

Wikipedia entry created by awesomeobrieninternet69 at 02:30, 21 July 2008.

---

Now imagine that same bullshit, but in place of the word "mreetwass" insert the words "impact offensive player." You pretty much have the premise of David O'Brien's piece on trading Mark Teixeira.

Is Teixeira, with his Gold Glove-level defense and likely .290-30-120 to .310-45-130 offensive range for many years to come, worth $20 mill a season? I’d say only to a team that has a huge payroll, at least $150 mill or so. Not to a team with a $100 mill payroll, because while he piles up stats, he’s not a player, at least from what I’ve seen, who puts a team on his back and delivers big hits when the team needs it most.

The mreetwass, you see, doesn't settle for hitting 35 home runs or 125 RBI. He concentrates on leading the league in Distance Carried (Team on Back Division) and Hits (Bigtime Department). He wins David O'Brien over.

All Teixeira has done is put up OPS+es of 150, 126, 144, and 131 the last four years, along with the aforementioned stellar defense. He does "pile up stats" because he's very good at baseball, and baseball people who watch baseball games record stats to show how good or bad someone is at baseball. That said, he will probably be overpaid. I can't stress this enough: I'm not arguing that he won't be overpaid. I'm taking issue with O'Brien's reasoning, not his conclusion. There are some perfectly good non-mreetwassian reasons to not retain Teixeira's services:

1) He has a career home/away OPS split of .955/.859, so some team paying for his fat home run totals and ostentatious slugging percentages may be being a little misled by the Ballpark at Arlington.

2) He plays first base, where you can usually find some decent hitting, and decent power hitting at that.

3) The first base thing means his defense, which is very good, is perhaps not all that valuable.

4) He will get something like 7 years, $140 million, and he's not quite on that super-elite near-1.000 OPS-hitting level of guys like Pujols or A-Rod or (pre-2008) Miguel Cabrera.

5) He'll be 29 next year, so in your megadeal for him you're going to be getting some 34- or 35-year-old Tex in there.

But I'm drifting from the point here, which is: what are David O'Brien's crazy reasons for pooh-poohing Teixeira?

Say, for instance, during the first six weeks of this season, when the Braves were dealing with a slew of injuries and Chipper Jones was carrying the offense with help from either Brian McCann or Yunel Escobar, but not much from Tex.

Stupid Tex -- didn't you know that all truly great players kick ass for the first six weeks of the season? That is prime time, baby. Real men mash in April.

Slow-starter or not (and he’s a slow-starter, every season), the Braves needed to count on him for power and RBIs, and didn’t get it on a regular basis until about two months into the season, when they were already back in the standings.

So if Teixeira swats 20 bombs post-All Star break in 2008, is he an asshole because he waited until his team was out of contention? I'm confused. I'm so used to the exact same argument being used against guys who peak too early. Hey, the 2007 Mets were 22-12 after six weeks. Was that the right time for them to play awesome?

Even yesterday, his two-homer, three-RBI game didn’t have much impact, seeing that both homers were solo shots, one early in the game when the Braves were already down 6-1, and the other, well, I’d have to look it up, it was so relatively meaningless near the end of an utter blowout loss.

Mreetwasses only homer when the game is within two runs either way. It's a switch they just turn on and off. Also, no solo shots: those are for dickheads.

Anywaym [sic], this isn’t to diminish his skills or output.

Not at all. You just called his last home run "relatively meaningless" and said he doesn't deliver "big hits when the team needs it most." How could he be offended?

He’s durable and piles up stats, year after year.

This is entering Blyleven territory. People, Jesus: stats are just records of things that happen in ballgames. You only "pile up stats" because you do good things, over and over again, game after game, year after year. Ergo: you are good.

But I know an impact offensive player, a player whose performance seems bigger than his numbers because he gets so many key hits. And I know the opposite.

And there we have David O'Brien's definition of the mythical mreetwass: it's someone who impresses David O'Brien. Someone who "seems" good. Someone who has the goddamn courtesy to get "key" "big" hits when David O'Brien is watching WPCH-TV and not when David O'Brien is in the kitchen for a second to pour David O'Brien a bowl of Smart Start for David O'Brien to eat.

Of course, there's also the opposite of the mreetwass, the shünkrogle. I wonder who might be one of those...

A-Rod, for instance. Dude piles up huge numbers, year after year. Tremendous numbers.

He must be terrible!

But let me ask you, how many SportsCenter highlights can you remember this year of A-Rod late-game homers or walk-off hits? Maybe a couple or few early on, but lately?

The shünkrogle, as we all know, is miserable in the all-important statistical category of SCHYCRL-GHW-OH,L (SportsCenter Highlights You Can Remember of Late-Game Homers or Walk-Off Hits, Lately). This trumps his OPS+ (159) and his EqA (.334) and his VORP (39.6).

The greatest thing about SCHYCRL-GHW-OH,L is that it's different for everybody. It could be 3. It could be 0. It could be 49.5. It's what you remember, and you can't be wrong about that. Finally, a stat that the fan can participate in. "What's your SCHYCRL-GHW-OH,L?" should be ESPN's new slogan for the big show.

A-Rod’s the highest paid player in the game, and many will tell you he’s the best player in the game. But he’s not the player I would build a team around if I could have any player. No way.

Mine neither, probably, at least not if we're talking about a team for both now and the future and not just this year. He's too old for that. But for this season, and this season alone, I'm not sure you can do too much better than A-Rod. Pujols? Utley? Berkman? Hanley? Chipper? Sizemore? Wright? It's a short, short list.

But you know, you just have to listen to the guy who literally wrote the Wikipedia article on mreetwasses (and probably shünkrogles, I have to check), David O'Brien. And he says, emphatically: NO WAY.

I have to hand it to David O'Brien. He's basically solved baseball analysis. Come up with a fake term ("impact offensive player"), fake-define it with subjective, self-referential, fake parameters ("from what I've seen...big hits when the team needs it," "performance seems bigger than his numbers," "key hits," "I know an impact offensive player"), and presto, you're Earth's premier expert on that fake term -- no amount of actual baseball information can ever change that. It's like creating your own Planet Baseball with the absolute data isolation of a short-lived Wikipedia page, and then ruling the shit out of that planet. You know what? Congratulations, David O'Brien. You have to respect that.

Wins Are Important

2008-07-21T15:57:00.004-04:00

Follow-up on the Johan Santana nonsense below, in re: wins:

Twins general manager Bill Smith, on Livan Hernandez, who improved to 10-6 with a 5.29 earned-run average with Saturday's victory over Texas: "I'll take the (10) wins. Who do you want, a guy who's 10-15 with a 2.80 ERA or a guy who's 16-8 with a 7.00 ERA? I'll take the 16-8."

Really? I'll take the other guy, and going forward, I will destroy you, because the guy with the 7.00 ERA sucks and has gotten lucky, and the guy with the 2.80 ERA is good and has gotten unlucky.

Do you really not understand this?! Seriously? You're a GM, and you don't understand this?

I can't believe he really said that. That would be grounds for immediate dismissal.

EDIT:

Yes, I understand that if this is being said about the past only, that it makes sense to be happier about more wins. But the fact is, in that situation it's irrelevant anyway, because those wins aren't due to that pitcher's performance. They are due to the hitters' performance. And if you are going into the playoffs, or looking at next year, you'd always rather have the good pitcher instead of the mediocre/bad pitcher anyway.

What he is saying is: "Would you rather have a dirtball who spends a lot of money on scratch-off tickets and just won $3000, or the steady, solid financial manager who earns 16% a year, reliably. I'll take the lottery guy! He won $3,000! That's way better than 16% a year."

Awards Are Important

2008-07-21T15:37:00.000-04:00

I go to New York for five days and Murray Chass starts a blog? What the hell is going on here?

Let's cleanse our collective palate with a lime sorbet known as: Phil Rogers's Mid-Season Awards.

Quick review: awards are meaningless, the criteria are absurd, this is all bunk.

Worst Surprise, Player: Johan Santana, Mets.

In the time it takes to read the explanation, try to name 50 guys who are "worse" surprises than Johan Santana. Go!

Who would have thought this guy would fail to grab a spot on the National League All-Star team?

Anyone who (a) understands that wins are overvalued and/or (b) knows that the ASG voting is borderline sociopathic, as evidenced by the facts that (b-sub1) Cristian Guzman had to be on the team as the Washington National representative and (b-sub2) that somehow the NL players or Clint Hurdle or a bunch of pederastic chimps or whoever actually chooses the reserves got together and decided that (b-sub2-sub1) Miguel Tejada and (b-sub2-sub2) Brian Effing Wilson should be on the All-Star Team, despite the fact that (b-sub2-sub1-sub1) Lance Berkman and (b-sub2-sub2-sub1) Tim Lincecum were already representing their respective teams and actually deserved to be there.

A two-time Cy Young Award winner in the AL, he was expected to dominate after being traded from Minnesota to the Mets. He pitched well, statistically, in the first half, going 8-7 with a 2.84 ERA in 19 starts.

Hmmm.

Trying to parse your complaint.

Categories Johan Santana Is In The Top 10 of So Far, In The National League:

Innings
Strikeouts
Strikeouts/9IP
ERA
WHIP
K/BB

But the Mets have been only 10-9 behind him.

How can you be this stupid?

The man is pitching very very well, as the above facts indicate. It's not his absolute best year ever, but he's having a very good year. You acknowledge that the team is only 10-9 behind him. And this is all presented in service of his election to "Worst Surprise, Player" in your mid-season awards.

I don't normally like to be strident, but that is incredibly stupid.

Let's imagine I am part of a 25-man team that makes frozen 4-cheese ravioli dinners. And every time I'm on a shift, I take my syringe and I expertly inject the pasta with goat cheese (my task) and I have like a 99.4% success rate of successful goat cheese injection, and when my raviolis go on to the next man on my team, ready for edam infusion, they are just perfectly formed and looking tasty and delicious. And by the time they reach the end of the assembly line, they are torn to shreds, leaking gouda, and somehow covered in bat feces -- so bad are the other men on Team Ravioli.

So my boss, Hunt Sperkleman, C.E.O. of Sperkleman Four Cheese Ravioli and Penne Arrabiata, Inc. (NASDAQ Ticker: SFCR: 92.50, +10.68, +13.1% as of Monday, 12:02 PM EST, thanks to rumors of a takeover bid from Sheinhardt Wigs), comes down to the assembly line, and he looks around and he sees all the morons on my team. He sees W.K. Horflitz, whose nose is running directly into the pasta cutter. He sees Janet Przyblr, who's on the phone, gabbing with her new husband, as chunk after chunk of unmelted brie just goes rolling by on the assembly line. He sees them all, and he says: "Ken! You're disappointing me!" and I say: "Why, Hunt?" and he says, "Only 8 out of 15 people who eat these raviolis like them!" and I say, "But I did my job!" and he says, "You can go ahead and end this metaphor now -- I think people get the idea."

The good news is that Santana is historically a fast finisher, although Thursday didn't bode well. He gave up five runs in four innings against the Reds.

Here.

On April 6 he gave up one run in 7 IP against the Braves and got a loss.

On May 4 he gave up one run in 6 IP with 8 Ks against the D-Backs and got an ND.

On June 6 he gave up one earnie in 6 IP and got a loss thanks to a second, unearned run.

In his next start, June 12, he gave up 3 H and 0 R in 7 IP (with 10 Ks) and got an ND because his team also scored 0 R in those 7 innings.

He then lost three decisions in a row, twice pitching okay, once going 7 strong against Seattle, giving up 7 H and 1 run but losing anyway because again, his offense did nothing.

He got another ND on July 4, going 8 innings, giving up only 6 H and 2 R, striking out 6 and walking zero, but -- and you see this trend emerging here -- his offense fell down like one of those little plastic deer when you push the button underneath its pedestal, causing its legs to collapse.

Here are the scores of the games the Mets have lost with Santana pitching, and the # of earned runs Santana gave up while in the game:

3-2 (2)
3-2 (3)
5-2 (1)
6-1 (4)
5-4 (0)
2-1 (1)
4-2 (3)
5-3 (4)
3-1 (1)

So, in the nine Santana-involved losses the Mets have suffered, they, the Mets, have scored a total of 18 runs. 2 runs a game. Their offense averages 2 runs a game, in those losses. And this face somehow makes Johan Santana the "Worst Surprise, Player" of the first half.

Let's go back to the assignment. How many Worse Surprises can you name?

Richie Sexson
Freddie Sanchez
Edgar Renteria
Melky Cabrera
Jeff Francoeur
Gary Matthews, Jr.
Robby Cano
Paul Konerko
Carl Crawford
Derek Jeter
Alex Gordon
Alex Rios
Miggy Tejada
Defending NL MVP Jimmy Rollins
Bobby Abreu
Brett Myers
Justin Verlander
Nate Robertson
Andrew Miller
Joe Blanton
Aaron Harang
Homer Bailey
Dontrelle Willis
Fernando Rodney
Ian Kennedy
Phil Hughes
Fausto Carmona
Jeremy Bonderman
Roy Oswalt

There are some.

All big-name players, pretty much, who have been disappointments (though some, like Verlander, are coming on strong). Hey -- how about Carlos Delgado? There's another one.

Rookie of the Year, AL: Jacoby Ellsbury, Red Sox.

Ellsbury is hitting only .269 but he has stolen 35 bases and scored 60 runs. He gets a slight edge over Tampa Bay's Evan Longoria and Texas' David Murphy.

Tacoby Bellsbury EqA: .255 (below average)
Evan Longoria EqA: .303 (way above average)

Please. I love the guy. He's part Native American, and quite sexy, but if you give Bellsbury the award you are doing so because of what he did last September and October, and that's insaner than insane. Longoria is destroying Bellsbury statistically this year -- and he's a great fielder, too. It would be a shame if Longoria lost.

Manager of the Year, NL: Jerry Manuel, Mets.

Get ready for some hard-core retroactive association.

This is a premature call, but you've got to be impressed with the 17-9 record since Manuel replaced Willie Randolph on June 17.

I do? The Mets underperformed all year. Then a thing changed, and they eventually started not underperforming. Should I be impressed with their 8-9 start after Randolph left? Because that's the awesome record they jumped out to in their first 17 games after Randolph left. 8-9. Thank God they got rid of him when they did, or they wouldn't have been able to go 8-9 in those next 17 games.

He has enabled an uptight clubhouse to relax and is riding a 10-game winning streak after Thursday's victory in Cincinnati.

This is all Manuel. Not Reyes, Pelfrey, Wright, Delgado, Beltran, Wagner, Maine, or anyone else. Manuel.

Florida's Fredi Gonzalez was looking like the choice before the Mets went on the winning streak. He has put his team into contention with a $21 million payroll, a nice little bit of sleight of hand.

Has had team in contention all year with payroll lower than salary of Derek Jeter, or ARod, or Giambi: nice little bit of sleight of hand.

Happened to be managing team with $680 million payroll when team finally stopped underperforming and reeled off 10 in a row: Manager of Year.

Jeff Passan: Royals Are Locks To Win The AL Central

2008-07-21T15:03:00.005-04:00

I get it: math's not cool. There's no social capital to be gained from knowing linear algebra or Zeno's paradoxes or how to add. But come on: at a certain point some examples of Sports Math are simple enough that they should enter the realm of Sports Common Sense. And fucking that math up is just sloppy, lazy or both. One example: playoff odds.

Jeff Passan has written good stuff. I heartily enjoyed learning that Ichiro gives a profanity-laden motivational speech deriding the National League before every All-Star Game. But seriously, dude, if you're doing a playoff odds piece, just make sure your numbers are somewhat close to adding up to 100%. Otherwise, you end up with shit like this (cut up and pasted):

Chicago White Sox
Odds: 8/1

Minnesota Twins
Odds: 8/1

Detroit Tigers
Odds: 15/1

Now, we know that at minimum, one team from the AL Central will definitely make the playoffs. That's how the rules work. But according to Passan, the White Sox have a 1 in 9 shot, the Twins the same, and the Tigers a 1 in 16 shot. Add those probabilities together and you get 11.11% + 11.11% + 6.25% = 28.47% ... meaning there is at least a 71.53% chance that someone else -- that is, the Royals or the Indians -- will win the Central. Congrats, Royals fans!

This isn't hard. I know it's all funny and hilarious and cool to say "Ha ha, I suck at math" or "There's a reason I didn't become a mathematician" or "I have a math-related learning disability" -- Lord knows I often introduce myself at cocktail parties with the last phrase and always get huge laughs -- but if you're writing a playoff odds piece, then it's inherently, at least in part, a math piece too. Sorry. You chose to build this house made out of shit, now you gotta get your hands dirty forming these shit bricks. Or something.

For comparison, Baseball Prospectus has the following playoff odds:

Chicago White Sox
71.81287%

Minnesota Twins
31.40557%

Detroit Tigers
6.38942%

In other words, the Sox are something like 2/5 shots, the Twins are a little worse than 2/1, and the Tigers are -- hey -- 15/1, or close to it.

BP's numbers leave the Royals at 0.22737% to make the playoffs. Sorry, Royals fans.

Postscript: Kudos, Jeff, on listing run differentials in your column.

Post-postscript: If any reader wants to run all the numbers team by team, division by division to show who Passan is really picking for the playoffs, I will welcome your email and question your life priorities.

About That Murray Chass Blog

2008-07-17T12:44:00.006-04:00

We might as well get to this. Yes, the first entry in Murray Chass' blog, a blog written by a professional sportswriter and and semi-professional blogophobe, needs a little editing ("Whatever impact honmefield [sic] advantage has").

The most glaring error in logic-slash-sanity, though, occurs two-thirds of the way through:

One way would be to reward [with home field advantage] the team with the better won-lost record. But that idea wouldn’t work logistically. Baseball can’t wait until days or even a week before the World Series is scheduled to start to determine where Series game will be played. Airlines and hotels don’t work that way.

Unless all of professional baseball is actually one long kabuki play, I'm pretty sure that at no point in history has anyone known where the World Series will be played until the winners of the two leagues have been determined (in modern times, that means waiting until the League Championship Series are finished). As reader Rob points out, last year "the host of World Series game one wasn't known until 11:33 PM on October 21st when the Red Sox finished off the Indians. Game one of the World Series was played on October 24th."

And yet those diabolical airlines and hotels, true gatekeepers of baseball's ultimate prize, acquiesced and let the Rockies fly to and stay in the city of Boston. Weird how modern society works, isn't it?

Someone may have even used a computer to book those flights and hotels.

*** UPDATE ***

Reader Chris contributes the following:

While I loathe having to defend Murray Chass, even a little, as someone who works in baseball, I can tell you that his point about booking hotels and flights is actually sort of right.

What reporters and others do is reserve hotels and flights for the four (or two, if they wait until the LCS starts) possible cities in each league for the dates that are already set based on the All-Star outcome. That's a lot better than having to do it for eight (or, uh, four, if you wait) for a whole host of possible combinations.

Thanks, Chris. I'm also hearing that the reason the NBA and NHL can use home-court/ice advantage in their playoffs is that they simply don't use as many hotel rooms overall compared to the World Series, so it's a little easier logistically.

*** UPDATE TO THE UPDATE ***

This is riveting stuff for some of you guys, so I'll print this rebuttal to Chris, which comes from Timothy.

MLB wouldn't have to book for 4 or 8 cities if they give it to the team with the best record. This is because, obviously, you can eliminate the team with the worst record from having home field. So, if they wait until the LCS, they would have to book in 3 cities instead of 2. If they do it before the LDS, they would book in 7 cities as opposed to 4. I doubt they do it before the LCS though, for two reasons:

1. The LCS typically runs almost 2 weeks, so doing it before this is probably enough time

2. If you book before the LDS, you would have to book several different cities for the LCS, then also several cities for the World Series to account for all possible combinations. Even in their current system, I doubt they do this.

So, presuming they wait until the outcome of the LDS to be final, booking 3 cities instead of 2 is a small inconvenience to have a better system in place for the team with the best record to get 4 games at home.

*** THE "WILL THIS BE THE LAST UPDATE?" UPDATE ***

From reader Matty:

As the director of reservations in an MLB city, and former director at a hotel that was the contractual home of MLB visiting teams in Chicago, I have SOME insight here (also, I was here both when the White Sox won the World Series, and the Cubs went to the playoffs on the last 2 occasions, so I’ve worked the situation). Every MLB city has a contracted “home” hotel for visiting teams. The contracts contain language that force the hotel to accommodate teams during the playoffs. Reservations are not a concern for them.

The media, does, indeed, make “speculative” reservations – but only a few days in advance. For instance, when the Cubs took a 3-1 lead on the Marlins, we had a huge spike in press reservations. After the Bartman game, roughly half of these cancelled. BUT, we didn’t get the big spike until the Cubs went up 3-1.

Q: When Is A Blog Not A Blog?

2008-07-16T14:38:00.008-04:00

A: It's still a blog. Its author is just in denial.

I felt a lot better about giving the Flooky and the Beans guy a boost in traffic, but I feel like it's our duty to report the following news: Murray Chass has started a blog. It's about shodo, the ancient Japanese art of calligraphy. Well, not really. Primarily, so far it seems to be a blog about hating blogs. At least that's what the very first words of its mission statement proclaim:

This is a site for baseball columns, not for baseball blogs. The proprietor of the site is not a fan of blogs.

Let me translate that into confusing ChassOrwellian-speak:

This is a blog for baseball columns, not for baseball blogs. The proprietor of the blog is not a fan of blogs.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. This blog is not a blog. Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

He made that abundantly clear on a radio show with Charlie Steiner when Steiner asked him what he thought of blogs and he replied, “I hate blogs.”

[shaking fist] You hear that, James Fallows, Malcolm Gladwell, and Murray Chass? I hate what you do. I hate it because of what it's called. It sounds funny. I hate it because there are some bad blogs. Meanwhile, there has never been a bad newspaper column, book, magazine, painting, mobile, or stele. Those forms of expression are fine.

Keep watching the space at http://www.murraychass.com/about.php to receive updates as to which types of media are acceptable. (Conundrum: http://www.murraychass.com/about.php has recently ruled that websites are now, in fact, unacceptable. So should you visit again? It's up to you.)

He later heartily applauded Buzz Bissinger when the best-selling author denounced bloggers on a Bob Costas HBO show.

He was alone, watching in his living room, but he remained convinced that the television machine had an applause input microphone (A.I.M.) that would allow Mr. Bissinger to hear his ovation. No amount of research on the nonexistence of the A.I.M. would convince him otherwise.

Bloggers, however, are welcome to visit this site; so are stats freaks, fantasy leaguers and Red Sox fans. How else will they know what is being said about them by a columnist they love to hate?

I, for one, am sick of wrongheaded writers telling me I love to hate them when in fact I hate to hate them. A note to Baylessian contrarians: you should take no joy in being so wrong about something that throngs of people rise up as one to denounce you. This should not be what it means to be a writer. When thousands of people write you angry emails about something you said or wrote that was wrong, you should not shrug your shoulders and say, "I must be doing something right if I got so many people interested!" No, sir. Sir, no. You were wrong. That is the end of the story. You were so wrong you made people angry. There is no glory in your profound wrongitude. Please stop doing this.

Otherwise, this site will most likely appeal primarily to older fans whose interest in good old baseball is largely ignored in this day of young bloggers who know it all,

Ignored? I would argue that no matter what kind of baseball fan you are, there is more baseball writing, research, opinion, and debate than there ever has been in the sport's history. Verducci is still writing some excellent, longer pieces for Sports Illustrated. Gammons writes a thing or three every week. Your man Buzz is still kicking around. Reilly, if you like his sort of thing, just signed an 18-year, $400-million deal, mainly (we hope) for writing. Every time I write a post, a Roger Angell column does not disappear from this plane of reality.

and new- fangled statistics (VORP, for one excuse-me example),

May I remind people that in this fateful piece for the New York Times, Murray Chass wrote "To me, VORP epitomized the new-age nonsense" and "For the longest time, I had no idea what VORP meant and didn’t care enough to go to any great lengths to find out." and "Finally, not long ago, I came across VORP spelled out. It stands for value over replacement player. How thrilling. How absurd. Value over replacement player. Don’t ask what it means. I don’t know."

So it is possible -- no, probable -- no, certain -- that Murray Chass still does not know what VORP means, and yet hates it with every fiber of his wizened being. This is the equivalent of a person who's lived in Muncie, Indiana his whole life hating a specific dish in a restaurant in Doha, Qatar.

which are drowning the game in numbers and making people forget that human beings, not numbers, play the games.

February 27, 2007, New York Times: "People play baseball. Numbers don’t."

Maybe Murray Chass just doesn't have that much more to say. That's okay. He's had a long, storied career. He's won awards. He was inducted, as he tells us in his biography, "into the Western Pennsylvania Jewish Sports Hall of Fame in Pittsburgh." But there's no need, Murray, to spit such vitriol at new ways of enjoying sports simply because you aren't interested in them.

E-mail comments are also invited, but visitors to the site are asked to omit the obscenities.

Remember, this is a man who several paragraphs earlier informed us that he "heartily applauded Buzz Bissinger when the best-selling author denounced bloggers on a Bob Costas HBO show." Bissinger began his applause-worthy, highly informed, well-reasoned, level-headed argument by telling the gentleman next to him "I really think you're full of shit."

“I have spent my professional life in the print world, where obscenities don’t see the light of day,” Chass said. “They will remain in the dark here as well. It will be a good test for bloggers and Red Sox fans to see if they can control themselves.”

"The time for obscenities is on national pay cable television, where a grown man and father of three can ambush an unsuspecting young writer with a torrent of spittle-accompanied expletives, thoughtlessly and carelessly excoriating an entire medium without retribution or moderation from the host. That is where obscenities belong, and that is where I applaud them. Shouted at other people, on television."

Mr. Chass: you're angry at nomenclature. Really. Ideas are ideas. Writing is writing. By starting this blog, you're acknowledging as much. Welcome to the blogosphere.

Weird Things To Say During The Home Run Derby, Vol. I

2008-07-14T22:54:00.004-04:00

Rick Reilly, after Josh Hamilton's 28-homer first round and all of the talk of Hamilton's apparently prophetic dream that he would someday compete in the Derby at Yankee Stadium:

It's a lousy night to be an atheist!

It already seemed weird at the time, but now it seems even weirder that God, if He does indeed exist, would shove it in the atheists' faces by having Hamilton break Bobby Abreu's hallowed first-round record of 24 home runs (was Abreu's night also a bad night for atheists?) and then come right back and force Josh to hit only 3 taters when the contest is on the line. Questionable storytelling sense, God.

P.S. Not only did Erin Andrews snub Justin Morneau for Hamilton immediately post-Derby, but during the trophy presentation she clearly pronounces his name as "Mar-neau," Executive Vice President of MLB Rob Manfred goes with something like "Myrrh-neau," and Boys and Girls Club Giant Check Giver Guy just flat out insults him with "Jason." We get it, guys: Morneau didn't do heroin. So he's bo-ring!

The lesson, as always: it's better to do heroin and then stop doing heroin and then lose the Home Run Derby after an impressive first round than it is to not do heroin and then keep not doing heroin and then win the Home Run Derby after a pedestrian first round. Of course, I'm not telling you anything you haven't heard a thousand times already.

Two Great Tastes That Go Great Together

2008-07-14T19:54:00.013-04:00

Of course, I'm talking about the State Farm Home Run Derby and alternative post-grunge southern rockers 3 Doors Down.

Gotcha! It turns out that combination is an unmitigated disaster! I was really talking about:

Here's how it works: I supply the Gallimaufry, you get hammered. Shot clock violation!

Let's kick it off with a tip from reader Zach G., who points us in the direction of CBSSports.com's Scott Miller. Scott has made some interesting choices for his Anti-All Star Team:

Shortstop: Jose Reyes, Mets.

He's got talent. He's got speed. He's got pizzazz. He's also got an infuriating case of immaturity.

I'd say he's got talent, speed, pizzazz, and an acute case of the 2nd highest OPS among shortstops. This guy is the opposite of an all-star? Jose Reyes?

Sure, his numbers are respectable. But this guy has the tools to be great. And he won't put out to get there.

Put out? I don't know, maybe it's not so crazy. Maybe Reyes should try letting some 16 year-old dudes feel him up at Siobhan's party next Friday night.

Dude. There's going to be so much Zima.

I was there in Anaheim when he threw a colossal fit on the field when interim manager Jerry Manuel removed him from the game as a precautionary measure to protect a mildly strained hamstring. It was the worst thing I've seen on the field since Jose Guillen threw a similar fit years ago while playing for the Angels.

And, sure, why not. I'll throw down the race card again. Why doesn't wanting to play so bad that he's willing to throw a fit about it garner him "gamer" status? Why are guys like Milton Bradley, Carl Everett, and Jose Reyes all considered "hotheads" or whatever while jerks like Paul O'Neill are applauded for their fiery style?

Speak of the devil...

Right field: Paul O'Neill, Yankees.

Yes, the comeback of the year! Anybody who has seen O'Neill at The Stadium in his broadcasting capacity this summer will tell you the guy looks like he still can play. Certainly, he has a high enough opinion of himself to give it a whirl.

So, one thing that Scott Miller and I have in common with not only each other but also every single person alive on the planet is that we hate Paul O'Neill.

But this is crazyballs. He doesn't play baseball anymore, so why is he on Scott Miller's Anti All-Star list?

The most asinine occurrence of the year came in April, when Yankees fans were giving it to reliever LaTroy Hawkins because he was wearing O'Neill's old No. 21. Nobody had worn it since Paulie, but because Hawkins' first choice was one of a zillion numbers the Yankees had retired, he had to pick another. So he attempted to honor Roberto Clemente ... and Yankees fans reacted as if he had dumped manure during the Pope's visit.

O'Neill, of course, had the perfect venue to make life easier for a new Yankee: the airwaves. He could have stepped up and urged fans to welcome Hawkins. Instead, O'Neill said he found it sort of surprising that someone was wearing his number. Strange to see his old number warming up in the bullpen, O'Neill said.

I feel sick in a way that I never quite have before. I have a headache that feels like it starts in my ears and then goes all the way down my spine, and my stomach feels like it's going to eat itself. It's not because of Scott Miller's writing, but because of the position he's put me in: I now have to defend Paul O'Neill.

O'Neill said that it seemed strange to him to see his old number warming in the bullpen, and for this act alone, Scott Miller is willing to overlook the fact that he doesn't even play baseball anymore and put him on a list of Anti All-Stars. Truly amazing.

Oh, and of course:

Third base: Alex Rodriguez, Yankees.

Let's just keep the 'maufry moving, shall we. Hey -- chug that shit! This is G+L time, remember?

Reader Tristan decided to subject to himself to the horror that is "1st and Ten" this morning. And for making such a decision, he got what he deserved. Garbage...and Nelly:

 I have to admit I haven't been watching the whole show, but I flipped
to it and saw the guest they have to match wits with Skip today is
Nelly. I kept it on to see what he would say, and he actually threw out some
decent, stat backed analysis of the Cardinals race to catch the Cubs.

"I think we can catch the Cubs. The point is, I think, will we have
enough offense down the stretch to catch the Cubs. I think our pitching is
where it is, I think our ERA right now is around 4.18, I think when we
won the world series it was around, like, 4.5, so I think right now we
can, but we're overachieving..." (A little more talk about picking up
a bat to protect Pujols)

Skip's turn to talk (I tivo'd back to get it right):

"I hope you're right because I have been driving your bandwagon since
opening day, cause there's something about this club I like, and I
can't really do it statistically on paper, but there's some spirit, some
character, someTHING going on there. And by the way, Tony LaRussa should
be the first half manager of the year in all of baseball..."

Nelly (primary jobs: Rapping, acting)- Knows the Cardinals ERA, doesn't
specifically mention Pythag, but I'd like to think that's what he was
referring to when he says the Cards are overachieving.

Skip (primary job: sportswriter)- Can't do anything specifically on
paper, attributes the Cardinals success to "something" going on there.

I understand tomorrow Woody Paige will be debating T. Pain on the merits of Schilling's case for the HOF.

People. There are seven members of the ESPN staff currently announcing the Home Run Derby. If that's not reason to drink, I don't know what is. (I guess maybe if your wife just left you or something? Seriously, though -- seven people? And one of them is Rick Reilly?)

Finally tonight -- you guessed it. More Adam Dunn bashing! This time reader Derek wants us to join in on the misery of reading John Fay's reporting on the Reds.

Four of their highest-paid, most experienced players are having bad years. Among Griffey, Adam Dunn, Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo, none is having even a mediocre year.

Forget the other guys -- I don't even care. We all love Adam Dunn here at FJM and we're not afraid to admit it. He gives us the kind of Three True Outcomes boner that's getting harder and harder to find in this post-steroids "emphasis on fundamentals" bullshit era that is so much less exciting and awesome than the days when everyone did a ton of drugs and hit the ball 4,000 feet and you didn't even have to worry about explaining to people about why it's stupid to bunt because it was never even an issue because for crissakes even your catcher could hit 30 home runs a year because he was doing things to his body that were making him better at baseball but of course god forbid people who play baseball should be allowed to do things that make them better at baseball --

Sorry. You're the ones who are supposed to getting drunk. I'm the 'mauf man. Apologies.

Adam Dunn is having a better than mediocre year. You all know this. He is doing the two things that are most important for hitters very well: getting on base (380 OBP) and hitting the ball hard (538 SLG). Unfortunately, John Fey has found someone to agree with him in his assessment that Dunn's year is -- again, remember this -- not just not great, but not even mediocre.

"That's a fair assessment," Baker said. "You pay attention to them because they're big guys. They're the highest-salary guys."

Good job, Dusty.

Our hearts continue to go out to the fine people of Cincinnati, who will have no choice but to drown their sorrows in Graeter's Ice Cream and Skyline Chili until DB steps down.

If all four were close to their average big-league numbers, the Reds probably would be right in the thick of the National League Central race.

Adam Dunn, career averages:
247 / 381 / 521

Adam Dunn, 2008:
228 / 380 / 528

Alright. You're drunk. And I've always been a huge Mike Gallego fan, and he's pitching in tonight's derby. So time for me to tune in.

Thanks to reader Ted for the G+L Store picture.

Turdclump

2008-07-13T12:30:00.006-04:00

The Kansas City Star's Jeffrey Flanagan has started a blog wherein he defines all the different types of sports fans. One of them is a "nerdy" character who loves stats. Guess what he named it.

Just guess.

You'll never guess -- just try, even though you'll never guess. It's hilarious.

I'm not going to tell you what it is, but you should try to guess, because you'll never get it.

It's hugely inventive, and super duper hilarious. Guess.

Remember that Mr. Flanagan writes for the KC Star -- one of the best sports newspapers in the country. The same paper that employs Joe Posnanski and Jason Whitlock (who's a bit goofy on TV, but the man can write). A smart, forward-thinking newspaper with interesting columnists and controversial opinions. Remember that, and then guess what Flanagan named this statistically-minded "nerd" character.

You'll never get it. It's fucking funny, though. Super funny.

Okay. Just guess.

What was your guess? Was it

Mom's Basement

?

If it was, you were right!!!!

Mom's Basement is a guy who never played sports &mdash or probably was embarrassingly bad at them — but nonetheless firmly believes he is an expert on any sport because he thinks sports can easily be reduced to a series of mathematical equations, or acronyms that go on forever, like the OPSTS, which I think stands for "Oh please shove those stats..."

This is painful. One long run-on sentence of pain and misery. Trite, poorly-written, turgid, and simplistic, and it wraps up in the neat little bow of: the worst version of that hacky "crazy stat acronym" joke I have personally ever seen.

Mom's Basement is aptly nicknamed because I'm convinced that's where, at 54 years old, he still resides, crouched over his computer, wearing his Star Trek jammies, researching whether, statistically speaking, it is better to bunt with a runner on second and none out in the fifth inning of night games during the mid to late spring when there is a Democrat in office and the national ratings for "American Idol" are exceeding the ARF (average rainfall) of Moose Squat, Alberta.

Why do you hate periods so much, Flanagan? Jesus. Maybe his editor said, "Okay, fine, you can write a totally hackneyed turdclump about nerds who like stats. But I'm limiting you to three sentences." And Flanagan was like, "Well then, I'm gonna get my money's worth!"

Let's break this monster down.

Mom's Basement is aptly nicknamed

You picked that name, braggart.

because I'm convinced that's where, at 54 years old,

I'm 32.

he still resides, crouched over his computer, wearing his Star Trek jammies,

Dude. Seriously? Star Trek?

Let me explain something to you. "Nerds" don't watch Star Trek anymore. This is a painful, painful joke. You cannot get hackier than this joke.

Jokes about nerds : Star Trek :: Jokes about airplanes : Those peanut bags are hard to open!

researching whether, statistically speaking, it is better to bunt with a runner on second and none out in the fifth inning of night games during the mid to late spring when there is a Democrat in office and the national ratings for "American Idol" are exceeding the ARF (average rainfall) of Moose Squat, Alberta.

Sorry. Can't do the breakdown anymore. It's just too awful. This chunk of text is the linguistic representation of what comes out of a person when they get a colonic.

Mom's Basement cringes at the notion that sports are actually played by human beings and ultimately won and lost by such non-statistical factors such as fear or intimidation or simply stronger wills.

Listen to me, friend. This character you are describing? This person doesn't exist. There is no such thing as "Mom's Basement." Yes, there are people of all ages who (foolishly, I guess? according to you?) attempt to learn things about the game they love. Those dicks. There are people who love statistics, who use spreadsheets, who like the back of the baseball card as much as the front. But they all love baseball. They all love watching baseball, and going to baseball games, and they all acknowledge that there are non-statistical factors at work. Mom's Basement, as you have described it, does not exist.

Mom's Basement is a boogeyman, invented by small-brained people with no aptitude for, or interest in, learning shit. It's the baseball equivalent of a dummy going to an art museum, looking at a Miró, and saying, "That ain't art! My 2 year-old could do that!!!!!!" It's a desperate, desperately unfunny, desperately boring, desperately hacky, desperately transparent attempt to make yourself feel better about not being smart enough to understand what OPS+ means, and because you don't know how to type "define:OPS+" into Google you invent this character and hope you can pick up a few cheap laughs from readers who are as uninventive as you are.

You write for a great paper, man. Act like it.

Today in Sacrifice Bunting

2008-07-11T01:46:00.004-04:00

Ah, sac bunting. While it is excessively polite -- "Here, other team, take one of my precious outs. No no -- I insist! Allow me to make it as easy as possible for you." -- it is also strategically numbskulled. If you took the idea of bunting and applied it to World War II, it would be the equivalent of notifying the Germans ahead of time that the Allies were heading for Omaha, figuring: hell, we still have the advantage at Sword and Juno.

Today, anecdotally:

Nate McLouth of the Pittsburgh Bucs, sporting an OPS in the upper .800's and 17 dongs on the season, stepped to the plate with a runner on in the late innings of a tie game against the New York Moustaches. Whether on his own or because he was following orders, he attempted to bunt on the first pitch he saw, and fouled it off so awkwardly you could sense his embarrassment. (Who can blame him? He probably hasn't been asked to bunt in a real game in years, given that he is an awesome hitter, and bunting is stupid for awesome hitters.) Then the next pitch arrived at home plate and he lined it into the RF seats for a 4-2 Bucs win.

Some of you out there will claim that Moustaches' pitcher Jose Veras grooved a FB on pitch #2 b/c he believed McLouth to be bunting. To you I say: get your own damn blog.

Also, reader carterman files this report:

Does it make sense to sacrifice bunt with a guy who had a .662 SLG (and 1.120 OPS) at Double-A, who despite currently hitting ~.210, had a 2-run homer earlier in the game, not to mention that he's a catcher, and has probably never had to sac bunt in his life? And then when he manages to pop it up over K-Rod's head and manages to get on base only when K-Rod throws the ball into center field, to sac bunt with your next hitter, who's hitting .335/.392/.549 coming into the game?

The Texas Rangers think this is an appropriate course of action down by 1 in the 11th inning with Max Ramirez and Ian Kinsler up at the plate. Even more baffling is that Ron Washington had been kicked out earlier, so you can't really pin this on him (unless you want to pin it on his philosophy or lack thereof).

I blame it not on Ron Washington, but on society. Society is to blame. And Ron Washington.

I Get Agita From Watching PTI's "Big Finish" When Shaughnessy is Co-hosting

2008-07-10T20:22:00.001-04:00

n/t