GoatRiders of the Apocalypse

Sweet Lou thinks Cub fans will be kind to Mark McGwire this year...what do YOU think?

Rob — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:35:58 +0000

Oh, well, he APOLOGIZED! That makes it all better.

0% (0 votes)

Hellllll NO! I'm gonna BOO the big swolled up prick!

25% (1 vote)

I'm bringing in containers of durty syringes to throw at his fat ass

0% (0 votes)

I'm gonna sink my teeth into the flesh of his acne-scarred back

50% (2 votes)

Huh? What? Isn't DeRosa still on this team?

25% (1 vote)

Sox Suck! Sox Suck! Sox Suck!

0% (0 votes)

Total votes: 4

How does X grab ya, Part XLIV

Rob — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:08:27 +0000

Today's Grabber - Braden Looper

And it has come down to this, where we discuss the relative merits of one Braden Looper, who very well could be the poster child of Meh.

We knew all along that the Cubs were not making big free-agent deals this winter; the biggest money we were planning to spend would be used on a B-level centerfielder, which is what happened. Hendry got rid of Bradley, tipping the scales in our favor in terms of both personality and mass (while giving up the majority of the heart and the talent in the deal). After Marlon Byrd and the Bradley dump, the only other piece everyone's been asking for is a veteran reliever.

Well, two, after you count the early signing of John Grabow. In retrospect, what is Grabow's true worth, when you consider some of the names still out there now, like Kiko Calero, Chan Ho Park, Duaner Sanchez, and Joe Beimel? Grabow is going to make more in 2010 and 2011 than these four guys, probably combined. Would someone else have swooped in and signed Grabow if we had decided to wait until the end of the off-season to re-sign him?

I tend to think so; others may argue, successfully in fact, that Grabow is in no way worth his new contract. I think he will be worth it. But definitely some clubs are going to get some bullpen arms cheaply in the next week or so.

It was always thought that we would sign at least one more. But, as I think about it, if we have room for one more minor signing of an arm, wouldn't it make MORE sense to look at a starter like Braden Looper, considering the uncertainity surrounding Ted Lilly, Jeff Samardzija and Tom Gorzelanny?

Now, Looper had over a 5 ERA with the Brewers last year, and they didn't feel they needed him back for a $6 million dollar option. Fair enough. He wants to play here! This is his off-season home, I guess. So what, you say? He sucks?

Maybe. He does have a 3-3, 3.57 ERA in Wrigley Field, albeit facing US. If he was one of those guys who could not handle pitching in Wrigley, I would totally wipe him from my mind. However, for small money, would it not make sense to sign him, see if he makes the rotation? If not, then he can either go into the pen, or trade or release him? At this point, the risk is low. He can eat some innings for us, cheaply, and I bet, more effectively than Gorzelanny and the Shark.

Because I am going to get real effin sick of typing out THOSE two names all summer. Shark and the Gorze, it is. Looper is just easier to write, and I am willing to bet, he sticks as a #5 starter.

Looper grabs me for a low-risk signing.

For better or worse, minus the "or worse" part

Kurt — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:22:49 +0000

Rob wrote a fine piece the other day, skirting the issue of Cub bloggers who manage to walk the precarious tight rope between a ridiculously inflated sense of self-importance and a throbbing, pulsing insecurity complex. Kind of harkens back to the old saying, "If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself." Who knew that Cubs bloggers could turn it into such a finely honed art? They've managed to feel both vain and bitter at the same time when comparing themselves to the same person!

At GROTA, we've thought often about being more of an insult blog. It's a winning concept - identify a stupidly written article (and there are so many out there), rip it to shreds, call the writer names that I'd never use in a face-to-face scenario because it would get me punched (or sued), and profit. Epic win for everybody. The problem is that it requires a tremendous amount of energy that I simply do not have. You would have to strap me to a chair and force open my eyes with toothpicks to get me to regularly read any of the blogs involved in this fiasco.

Maybe it's a winning concept, but then again tabloid journalism often is. And in this case, Cubs blogs are the equivalent of British tabloid op-ed pieces (often featuring writers with scowling pictures above their articles, looking angry and absurd), which feature ridiculous, contrived opinions expressed solely with the intent of evoking a titillating response from the reader. The only problem is that I get the feeling that these idiot bloggers actually mean most of what they say. They actually don't see a problem with the way they act, and they seem to feel a legitimate sense of surprise -- and uproarious anger -- if anybody does to them what they do to others (see an article I wrote this past year in which I merely quoted the things people were saying about me and responded to them -- you'd've thought I unapologetically ran over their children on live TV).

In this case, as you probably know, the target of the bloggers was at first Paul Sullivan. These dopes ask: "how dare he call an idiotic ex Cub an "idiot" (when I've called Sully and others names far worse) and actually get paid a good living for it, while I work in a cubical and stay up past midnight every evening just to blog!?!" And later the target became Julie, who is associated with Chicago Now. The dopes ask in her case: "how dare she latch her fat ass onto a multi-million dollar organization and get wide-spread traction for her work while I slave my fat ass off for maybe a thousand hits a day?!?!"

Well, folks, Paul Sullivan had the right to call Milton Bradley an idiot on his Twitter stream. It wasn't a big deal. He's also not obligated to let you shit-disturb on his page. Why should he? Does he owe you anything? Did you save his life back in 'Nam, only to be betrayed now by his ruthless Twit-Block? The bloggers who objected to Sully's name-calling also had the right to act -- that's right, "act" -- pissed and write a thousand word flaming diatribe against him. But shame on us (even me) for drawing attention to their ridiculous reaction. In making such a big deal out of this, we've given them all the reinforcement they'll ever need to keep acting cantankerous.

Meanwhile, if bloggers have the right to call Sullivan an idiot, then they also have the right to call each other -- and Julie -- names. She obviously doesn't like it, no matter how loudly she protests that she doesn't care, but that's probably part of why they do it. (I think they also like to call her "fat" because it's an easy misdirection of their raging jealousy. Remember, every Cubs blogger arrogantly thinks he or she is the best, and therefore is insanely jealous of any Cubs blogger who is widely recognized as being better. And Julie is better. Deal with it, champ.)

Sullivan has quietly ignored them. That was probably the right response. Not only is this shit way, way below his level, but there's nothing more infuriating than a calm response to an emotional attack. Julie, meanwhile, has made a pretty big deal out of the way she is treated by those dopes, which will just stoke their fire. That was probably not the smartest move on Julie's part.

I write this from my own experiences, of course. This blog has had a handful of run-ins with the sites responsible for this current round of drama. I swore off reading one of the blogs in particular after its head writer failed to wrap his mind around Rob, who follows the Cubs from an emotional stance, not a clinical one (I sort of think he -- the blogger, not Rob -- has Asberger's or something equally debilitating). Said blogger voiced an apparently sincere desire for Rob to drop a toaster while standing in a filled bathtub. I therefore assume he doesn't actually feel offended by Sullivan's use of the word "idiot," but I wouldn't know for sure. I am continuing in my sincere effort to never again read another of his written words. I think that's a lot easier than butting heads with he and his site repeatedly. I don't deny their right to exist and to spout fascist-level hatred at every opportunity, I just choose not to actively participate.

As for the guys on the other end of this debate, I personally believe that, like their debating rivals, they are sincerely unpleasant, petty people. Fortunately for them, a few are also actually pretty funny, hence their dips into the mainstream, which I'm sure has evoked all kinds of jealousy from the bloggers who think they're more deserving. (Sorry, champ, if you were more deserving you'd be on Kap's show, too.) Their problems are many, mostly surrounding their total lack of a sense of the appropriate. Sadly for the blogs they are associated with, sooner or later the ridiculous, flaming insults they launch will overshadow the content of the actual writers... assuming that hasn't already happened.

So, on one end we've got a group of Cubs bloggers who have no sense of the appropriate and, if given enough rope and time, will someday hang themselves with their words. On the other end we've got a group of Cubs bloggers who have no sense of the appropriate, mixed in with an overwhelming fight response to any criticism levied their way.

Sounds like the kind of match that the dating websites could only dream of. May their entanglement last forever, but GROTA and all sensible blogs will likely bow out.

Have at it, boys and girls. We'll be here, talking about the Cubs, for better or worse.

Where are your expectations for how the Cubs will perform in 2010?

AJ Walsh — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:30:45 +0000

World Series victors! WOOOO!!!

0% (0 votes)

They'll easily make the playoffs.

6% (1 vote)

If the division sucks, they might manage to win it.

75% (12 votes)

I'll be wishing we had a .500 team.

13% (2 votes)

Have you heard about those awful Chicago White Sox? They suck!

6% (1 vote)

Total votes: 16

This blog, for better or for worse, will always be about the Cubs team

Rob — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:59:38 +0000

Cub Blogger Nation has evolved, or devolved over the years, depending on your point of view. It appears that some of our best and brightest, and I sincerely mean it when I say it, have done their best to close the gap between themselves and what we'd call the 'legitimate media', which means the Sun-Times, Tribune and Herald, WGN radio, and the collection of TV outlets. They've met, befriended and betrayed, variously, Len Kasper, David Kaplan, Paul Sullivan, Bruce Miles, and others.

I mean, I see it. I'm not going to name names today, but I have met, broke bread with, sat at games with, and have followed the exploits of nearly all of the principals in last week's Cub Blogger Catfight. They are closer to the media action than we are here. They are closer to Chicago in proximity, they know people who know people, and if I had the combination of a) proximity, b) time, c) connections, I would do exactly the same thing.

I was jealous when a few of them got to be on Kaplan's show last month, I won't kid you. In fact, once upon I time, I considered myself to be equal to those guys in terms of notoriety, but due to the reasons cited above, plus some notable and unfortunate lack of focus in my personal life, I have fallen off the grid a bit. Yes, when I started writing about the Cubs starting in 1998, it was initially a journaling exercise, but after a few initial successes, I saw perhaps a future in the media surrounding the Cubs for myself.

And it may still happen, to a certain extent, someday, but there have been some decisions I have made, which many of the principals know about, that have caused me to separate from the inner circle of Cub blogdom that seems to have some connection to the "legit media".

What that means, for me, is that I don't get to do fun stuff like go on "Sports Central". But what that means, for you, that we don't have any affiliations with anyone that may serve to color our viewpoint of what we REALLY feel is important; simply, the chances that this God-forsaken franchise will ever win a Pennant and/or World Championship in our lifetimes.

I come out here to express my views on how close, or far away, the Chicago Cubs are from winning it all in any given year. So does Kurt and AJ, and whomever else comes along in the future. Now, sometimes, we'll hear something said or written by another blogger, or a member of the media, that is so contrary to the real picture that we may comment on it. That concept seems to be the core concept that is driving many of the most well-known Cubs blogs.

They've gotten too close, in my humble opinion. We here are unbeholden, and our only bias is to the success of the Cubs baseball team. Whether the announcers say dumb stuff or the game recaps and trade rumors in the paper are dumb, really doesn't matter much to us. This is all about the Blue W on the White Flag, nothing more or less.

This is where you can always go to find out what a small group of rabidly observant Cub fans notice about the team. End of story. Go Cubs!!

Why 3rd place would be great for the Cubs

AJ Walsh — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 04:24:46 +0000

The folks at Baseball Prospectus released their PECOTA-backed Projected Standings recently, which basically represents their best statistically-based guess at how each team in MLB will fare in 2010. The Cubs were projected to finish third according to those rankings, behind the Cardinals and Reds.

You're welcome to debate all you want about whether or not the Deadbirds or Stinkcinatti (those are the default insulting versions of each team's name, correct?) are more talented than the Cubs. But I don't think anyone will argue that this team looks primed for a World Series run. Our old guys are older, and not getting any less expensive.

On top of that, the team's financial flexibility appears to have run out. With all the debt the team has taken on following the Ricketts purchase, management's hands are tied when it comes to improving the team in any way that costs money.

I'd argue that this is a good thing for the franchise right now. Let me explain.

-----

Remember Felix Pie?

He was the latest can't-miss young stud that had a tough time breaking out while wearing a Cubs uniform. After the five-tooler posted a .637 OPS over 83 at-bats in 2008, Hendry&Co. decided to cut the cord, shipping Pie off to Baltimore in exchange for Garrett Olson and Henry Williamson.

Even while he was in Chicago, Pie's defense and speed were impossible to ignore. If only he could've elevated his batting average from the .240 range.

Having said that, at this point I'd like to direct your attention to the numbers Pie put up in the 2nd half of 2009. Over the course of 145 post-All Star break at bats, Pie posted a .290/.346/.497. In the AL East.

So much for that left-handed hitting, plus-powered center fielder.

------

Do you think Jeff Samardzija should be a starter or a reliever?

There's a question I'd love to ask Jim Hendry. Then again, I have a pretty good idea of what he'd say: something like, "I don't know."

That much is clear from the way he's handled the 10 Million Dollar Baby. Furthermore, not only does Shark keep getting switched from the rotation to the 'pen, it seemed he spent two out of every seven days on the bus between Chicago and Des Moines last year.

In Hendry's defense, there's a reason why the Cubs have insisted on jerking him around so much.

It's because, for the past few years, they've had a decent baseball team. And when you're that close to the playoffs, it's worth it to toy with a 25-year old fireballer's emotions if it means a game or two in the standings.

When you're that close to the playoffs, you can't afford to "waste at-bats" on a 23-year old left-handed hitting, plus-powered center fielder who can't get his average above .240.

When you're a team that hasn't won the World Series in 100 years with a halfway-decent team on the field, you're always going to feel compelled to try to win now.

Which brings us to 2010.

-----

Maybe Soriano and Soto will relocate their respective swings. Maybe D-Lee's neck will hold up, and maybe Aramis will play more than 130 games.

Maybe Theriot will ditch the home run swing and get back to a .300 average by flipping singles into right field again. Maybe Jeff Baker and Mike Fontenot will team up to create an effective offensive platoon at second base. Maybe Kosuke Fukudome and Marlon Byrd will end up being above-average hitters.

Unfortunately, none of those "maybes" are anywhere near sure things. (For the record, the likeliest of the bunch in my mind is a major Soto rebound.) Nonetheless, we find ourselves looking at a team that could -- "maybe" -- win the division. But maybe they'll go .500 instead.

In that case, back to the original issue: how does the team benefit from finishing in the middle of the division?

As soon as the Cubs are out of contention, the team can stop worrying about "wasting at-bats" on young developing players, or rushing live arms up into the majors to stay competitive. The Felix Pies of the world (read: Starlin Castro and Josh Vitters) won't suffer from added pressure, and the Jeff Samadzijas (read: Samardzija himself, Andrew Cashner, Jay Jackson, etc. etc.) can be patiently slotted into either a starting spot or a bullpen role.

Let's not sign any more expensive veterans to huge back-loaded contracts just yet. Instead, why not finally give some young talent the chance to develop, and go from there?

I'm not completely giving up on 2010. Only kinda.

No arb hearing for Cubs, Marmol

Rob — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:05:52 +0000

The Cubs and Carlos Marmol met halfway today and agreed to a 2010 contract worth around $2.1 million.

In my mind, this is fantastic news. The arbitration process would have done nothing good for the team or for the player. Marmol has one of the top three nastiest sliders in all of sports; but last year he frequently lost concentration, walked a ton of men, and also hit a ton as well. There is plain old wild - an Andy Pratt-esque character, that comes and goes just as quickly. There is effectively wild - like Kerry Wood, which is usually accompanied by a 100 mph fastball that hurts people when it hits them.

Carlos Marmol entered his own wild category last year. Not since Mitch Williams have I seen a guy dig himself more holes, then fill them back in more often than not. I believe that, as he becomes more mature, that Marmol will harness his stuff and learn to focus on the task at hand. By all accounts from the beat writers, he is a very immature man, and has nowhere to go but up in that category. Thus, he still has a tremendous amount of unrealized potential.

He knows that; his agent knows that, and the Cubs know that. But in an arb hearing, by design, there will be conflict. Marmol is a very emotional guy, and I don't think he wants to hear about his shortcomings, and how far he needs to go before he truly deserves big money. He more than likely thinks he deserves it now - he is the closer for the Chicago Cubs, for pete's sake!

On the other side, obviously Jim Hendry has NEVER officiated an arbitration situation - the last Cubs arb hearing involved Mark Grace! It is safe to assume that Hendry may be a person who avoids conflict, which is a fine human trait; yet, as the General Manager, perhaps it is a positive thing to call the players' bluff from time to time. It might in the long run serve as an aid to determining the true worth of your players.

Ryan Theriot is still far apart from the Cubs, and most likely will become the first Cubs arbitration case since Grace. I for one welcome that particular opportunity. Theriot is a decent second baseman, playing shortstop, he hits for a high average, but still ends up with a weak OPS, he supposedly adds 'intangibles' to his club, yet he is the dumbest Cubs baserunner now that Ronny Cedeno is carving divots in basepaths elsewhere.

I think an arb hearing will be constructive for the Cubs and The Riot. He's a tough enough boy to deal with the criticism; in fact, it may not hurt for him to hear it. If he can cut down the mental mistakes in his game, he may end up with a long, productive career. He is over 30 years old, while Marmol is a young 27. Both men, if all goes well, will get Paid in this league.

But I am not yet ready to hear about a man bursting into tears at an arb hearing. Hooray for the Cubs and Marmol for reaching an agreement before that happened.

Retire No.8

Kurt — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:47:27 +0000

Back before we knew that Andre Dawson would be adorned in the Hall of Fame as an Expo, there was some talk that, if he went in as a Cub, the Chicago organization would honor him by retiring his jersey. You'd think that I'd support this idea, since I love Andre Dawson in almost a gay way. But I'm not.

After all -- while Dawson certainly blazed his Hall of Fame trail in a Cubs uniform, while he is most certainly identifiable as a Cub above all other teams (at least in my semi-biased opinion), it is hard to argue that he meant more to the Cubs organization than a number of other guys whose numbers have not been retired. Therefore, before the Cubs raise the #8 flag in Chicago, they should strongly consider re-vamping their jersey-retirement system. Either that or they need to come clean and acknowledge that they are the biggest Hall of Fame marks in the history of the world, as they practically had to be goaded into retiring Ron Santo's number once they realized the Hall was too stupid to let him in. Ron Santo. As if they should've needed time to figure out that he is one of the great all-time Cubs.

My general take on jersey retirement is this: if there is a player who stayed with the team for a decade or more, who defined the team for a generation of fans -- whether he was Hall of Fame-bound or not -- then the team should honor him by retiring his jersey.

In Dawson's case, he's a bit short of that criteria, even though he was amazing as a Cub. In recent memory, though, the following players probably deserve props that the Cubs organization will never give:

Aramis Ramirez - he has a way to go before he's really justified as a pick. But if Aramis remains a Cub through 2012 or so, and if he keeps hitting the ball, then it should be locked in.
Carlos Zambrano - this will be his 10th season with the Cubs. Can you believe it? He's not even 30 yet! The Moose has been a Cubs since 2001, and he's been one of the best on the team since 2003. He shouldn't have to do much at this point to warrant being honored.
Sammy Sosa - sure, he's a douchebag. Sure, we sort of hate him. He cheated. He dishonored the game. But he was a helluva player! 13 years in Chicago, 545 career homers as a Cub, there's no doubt that Sosa's jersey needs to be hung up in Wrigley.
Kerry Wood eh, or maybe not. Yes, Wood was a Cub from 1998 through 2008. Sure, absolutely, he defined the team in his stay there. He pitched in more playoff series than any other Cub before him. He was also regularly injured and won a meager 77 games in his 10 years there. Not really worth honoring, even if we love him.
Mark Grace - The Mr. Cub of the 1990's. Aren't you sick of seeing mediocre middle infielders wear his #17?
Rick Sutcliffe - a borderline pick. He was a Cub for 8 seasons, 2 of which he spent mostly injured. But he also won the Cy Young, was a runner up another year for a last-place team, and definitively led the team until his last game pitched. And consider this factoid - despite his injuries, despite his two fewer seasons, Sutcliffe won 5 more games than Wood. Is that enough to honor him? Maybe not. But his name should be considered.
The Golden Age Cubs. It'll never happen, but why the heck haven't the Cubs retired jerseys for Phil Cavarretta (a Cub for 20 years), Stan Hack (a Cub of 16 seasons), Andy Pafko (9 years a Cub), Gabby Hartnett (a 19-season Hall of Famer), Billy Herman (11 years a Cub, and a Hall of Famer), Charlie Grimm (12 years with the Cubs), Hack Wilson (a Hall of Famer based solely on his six years of greatness in Chicago), or Charlie Root (200 wins as a Cub)?

Maybe the Cubs are holding off for World Championships. Maybe it's good that they are so selective in which numbers they retire. Or maybe they could just break down and show some respect for their players.

I dunno. Perhaps an online sportsbook like Sports Betting World should set up bets as to what the Cubs will do with Dawson and with other greats. But based on past actions, and in all cases, it's probably safe to say that they won't do the right thing. You can bet on that one for sure.

Laying the odds

Kurt — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:29:10 +0000

As we build steam toward Spring Training, Cub fans are already wondering if '10 will be another lost cause almost before it even starts. Well, I've done some searching, and not even a kick-ass sportsbook like Belmont has started laying the odds on the upcoming season, but perhaps we should consider the following facts:

Alfonso Soriano is not over-the-hill yet, is coming back from knee surgery, and cannot possibly duplicate the crappy down-year he had in '09
Cheer up, Rob, Geo Soto is apparently fit and fantastic
Aramis Ramirez aught to be healthier
Derrek Lee is in a contract season
Milton Bradley is gone
Dude. Seriously. Milton Bradley is gone.
The rotation remains blessed, the bullpen aught to be decent, and the offense might actually surprise us and be hole-free
Did the surprise team of '09, St. Louis, get any better?
Did any team in the Central get better?

If those facts are indeed true -- and for the most part they can't be contested -- then the Cubs just might surprise us by making another run for it. I don't know that I'd predict them to be World Series champs -- or even NL Central ones -- but there's no reason to assume they'll do worse. As amazing as '08 was in terms of career years and offensive production, '09 was almost an all-round unmitigated offensive disaster. It'll be better in '10. You can bet on it.

Kevin Millar brings his leadership skilz to the Cubs

Kurt — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:54:23 +0000

In honor of the recent free agent minor league acquisition of Kevin Millar, AJ EMailed me with a suggestion of republishing an article from 2008. I will be doing so now, verbatim, about the value (or lack-thereof) of Kevin Millar

Recently in the Shout Box, Keith wondered why Al Yellon seems to
have a man crush on Kevin Millar. Were you to mosey on over to Bleed Cubbie Blue,
you would read the following sentence: "I would still like to see the
Cubs sign Kevin Millar to back up LF, RF and 1B... and to be that
clubhouse presence that was missing, somehow, during the disastrous
2008 postseason."

Now, I'm not Al Yellon - obviously, because I permit links to and
discussions about other Cubs blogs, even though to do so apparently
threatens to eat into my readership and ad revenue somehow - but his
desire for Millar is obviously based on more than a clinical review of
the numbers. It's about a call into question regarding the intangibles
of baseball.

Let's take a close look at Kevin Millar.
The first thing we might notice is that the dude will be 37 next year.
After that, we might encounter that he batted .234 with a .323 OBP and
a .394 slugging percentage, although he did hit 20 homeruns and walk 71
times last year.

Going beyond that, we also find that, while Yellon wants Millar to
serve as a backup to 1B, LF, and RF, the guy has played a grand
whopping total of 3 games in the outfield in the past 3 years.

In other words, Millar's not going to win you games with his bat or
with his glove. I guess that he must have a high leadership score or
something, I don't know. Similar to Kyle's Scrappy White Player
Factor, maybe there would be a way to clinically determine a player's
Leadership Factor Score.

Some things that could go into calculating the score ...

Number of times player has had sex with a teammate's wife/girlfriend/sister/mother/daughter.
A promiscuous player is perhaps well respected by certain elements of
any clubhouse (like Mickey Mantle, who was a legendary skirt chaser),
but if he risks crossing a line, it could negatively effect how he is
seen by his teammates. If Lee Dershipman, our hypothetical example,
caves in at a moment of weakness and nails every piece of tail in a
teammate's immediate family, then he's going to lose Leadership Cred.

Points are assigned based on a scale of 1-10. If Lee has nailed a
teammate's wife, daughter (if she is under 18, multiply this loss x5
for every year she is underage), mother, or girlfriend, he loses 10
points. He loses 5 points for a teammate's sister - which can be
regained x2 if he winds up marrying her and 3 points for a cousin (1
point if the cousin is distant). If Lee sleeps with a teammate's
mother but then goes on to marry her, it's still creepy and upsetting
and he loses an additional 10 points. All losses are cumulative, so if
Lee bangs the teammate's wife on Monday, girlfriend on Tuesday, sister
on Wednesday, mother on Thursday, daughter on Friday, and a cousin on
Saturday, he loses 53 points over the span of the week. If he has them
all in one epic love-making session, multiply the losses x10.

Times a player has injured himself making a game saving play. There's
nothing a teammate respects more than when a player will throw his body
into a brick wall to make a game-changing catch. 10 points for each
catch that result in a minor injury, 5 points if it just looks painful,
and 20 points if the player has to go on the DL. Additional points get
tallied if:

Lee Dershipman has never been caught watching his own highlights by
a teammate. Nobody likes a narcissist. -10 points if he gets caught,
+10 points if he doesn't get caught.
Lee makes the bone-crushing catch during a contract year. Points
are doubled if the injury occurs before July, because he has basically
sacrificed his season - and shaved millions off his potential contract
offers - in the name of winning. Up to +40 points for this one.
Lee brags constantly about his catch to the media and others. -10,
unless said bragging lands him some trim, at which point it becomes +5

Times a player has delivered a game-winning hit. +2 points
for every successful game-winning hit, but -1 point for each time he
fails. There is also an additional cumulative effect to this
calculation. If Lee wins 2 games in 2 tries, he gets his score of +4,
but winning them consecutively adds a multiplier of x2. If he goes 4
for 4 in game-winning situations, Lee Dershipman scores +8 points x4,
for a total of 32 points. Similarly, if Lee goes down swinging
multiple times in a row, those failures culminate as well. So, if he
goes 0 for 5 in a row in clutch situations, he doesn't lose 5 points,
he loses 5 points x5, or 25 total.

Gives a rousing speech to his teammates. This is a tricky category because it can be used too often, but probably has to
be done occasionally in order to deliver enough leadership points to
make a real difference. If Lee gives a rousing speech to his teammates
while they are suffering through a losing streak and they are inspired
to win, he gains +10 points. However, if Lee gives these little
speeches too often, they begin to lose their potency, even if the team
keeps winning - 7 points for the second one, 5 for the third, 3 for the
fourth, -1 for the fifth, -3 for the sixth, and so-on.

If Lee gives a rousing speech but the team loses, there is no
negative effect to his score. However, if they get blown out, he
receives a -5, and if they lose because he makes an error or fails to
deliver a clutch hit, he receives a -10.

If Lee is more of a quiet leader type, and only gives one of these
speeches per season, he gains +25 points should his team win. Also,
all points are doubled if he wins the game for his team with either his
glove or bat.

There are other minor factors that would go into the Leadership Factor Score. I'll outline some of them via bullet point:

Is the first one out in a bench clearing brawl +5
Is the last one out in a bench clearing brawl -5
Takes a rookie under his wing +5, cumulative
Maintains a kangaroo court in the clubhouse +5
Yells at the manager in front of his team if the skipper is stepping over the lines +5
Yells at the skipper in private if he is stepping over the line +10
Never stands up for his teammates - 10 per situation
Has won a World Championship, +0 (sorry, any idiot can win a World Series)
Doesn't talk about his salary in the clubhouse or during a game +10
Talks excessively about his salary -10
Talks to the media, but only to take the blame for losses or to humbly discuss his successes +5 per time
Talks to the media excessively -10 per time

I'm sure there are others we can include as well, but what is
certain is this - no fan of baseball can accurately calculate these
numbers. It would take an impartial player in the clubhouse to observe
and log all of the relevant factors toward the LFS.

But is this Kevin Millar? Does he have such a high LFS that
it makes up for his poor production, his lack of defensive skill, and
his age? I dunno, are we having this conversation because he was the
one who coined the term "idiots" and said "cowboy up" to the Red Sox
during their '04 drive?

Regardless of what Millar's LFS is, I would have to argue that it's
just a smidgen overrated. I mean, yes, I'm the same guy who wrote
recently about the Cubs not having that guy on their team, which spurned a debate at Another Cubs Blog, but I've never suggested - nor would I - that that guy should be an over-the-hill hack like Kevin Millar. If the Cubs even need that guy, then he should be somebody who can actually hit the ball and play regularly.

Besides, for some reason I think I've heard stories about what an unmitigated douchebag Millar is.

So, Keith, to answer your question, Al Yellon is caving in to the
worst kind of overthinking fan mentality. He's subscribing to the
magic bullet - or, in this case, magic baseball bat - theory that one
player of a certain type can make all the difference in a season. I
don't know if Yellon took this point of view 10 years ago, but it's the
same sort of thing as proclaiming that 1998 19-game winner Kevin Tapani
"knows how to win" because he did it so often that year, despite
posting a 4.85 ERA. I guess Tapani must've immediately forgotten "how
to win," though, because he went on to lose 15 more games than he won
over the next 3 years (his record was 6-12, 8-12, and 9-14 each of
those years).

If Kevin Millar "knows how to win," if he has that intangible,
leadership quality the Cubs so desperately lacked these past two years,
if he swings a hefty, magic baseball bat, then how did the Orioles lose damn close to 100 games?

So much for leadership.