But to be fair, they are paying for their news (sorry papers!). There actually isn't too much stupidity in the text of this article by Phil Rodgers -- who looks a lot like a young Roger Ebert -- but the assertion should be grounds for termination.
Perfect time for Cubs to waive bye-bye to Carlos Zambrano
Really guys, if you want to make me work you can't just slap together "awesome player should be cut! Cut, I say!" It's far too easy to dismantle, mainly because it is fucking dumb.
Proving that I did not attend Kellogg, Wharton or even the Acme School of Business, I offer this proposition for Jim Hendry: First thing Monday morning, put Zambrano on waivers. If anyone claims him and the $62.75 million left on his contract, which runs through 2012, immediately trade him for whatever is being offered, from a bag of balls to a 32-year-old minor-leaguer.
I am wondering if you attended any sort of formal schooling beyond middle school.
Some team will claim him because they will get three-and-a-half seasons of 127 ERA+, 15-9 W/L, 200+ IP, 2:1 K:BB ratio and 3.5 ERA (162-game average). Yeah, it's like 20 mil/season, but aces aren't generally available on the waiver wire.
So other than the recent beanball fest -- which, to me is understandable because it's the White Sox -- here's the great evidence Rodgers produces:
The Cubs are 0-5 in Zambrano's starts in the playoffs, being outscored 31-15. We'll dismiss the 2003 NL Championship Series as old news and blame Piniella for lifting him when he was in a 1-1 game against Brandon Webb in the 2007 playoff opener, but his pitching had as much to do with the ugly Game 2 loss to Los Angeles last year as did the four infield errors.
I've written this before when it comes to Big Z, but please give the man a break.
His lines in those five starts:
5.2/3 R/4:0
6.0/6 R/3:1
5.0/2 R/5:4
6.0/1 R/8:1
6.1/3 R/7:2
He had ONE BAD FUCKING START and this guy wants him dropped. How do they let you write this? How about dropping every hitter for not scoring runs in the playoffs.
Trade him or bench him or something, but advocating cutting him is stupid. The guy is a good pitcher. Yeah, he's crazy and smashes shit sometimes, but is he any worse than Papelbon or Chamberlain or K-Rod or a host of other pitchers? Possibly, but he's 28 and better than "a bag of balls to a 32-year-old minor-leaguer."
And he hits home runs. Which is awesome.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Is Harold Reynolds the new Joe Morgan? We should all be so lucky
I love Joe Morgan. Not the ball player and especially not the analyst. But I love the man for spawning the funniest web site ever. Do I need to say it?
But with that beautiful site gone, Joe has gone unscathed as of late. But fear not, cause HR's got your back.
It's been real interesting in the last couple years as I've watched how the importance of statistics has taken over how to analyze a baseball game. I used to play for an old time manager named Dick Williams who used to tell me, the situation will dictate what happens." He used to call me to his office and say, "I should never have to give you a sign. You should know this is a bunt situation, you should know this is a situation where you need to take a trike, you should know the situation calls for getting the man over. I should never have to give you a sign, the situation dictates what happens."
There's nothing awful here, just a stupid anecdote confirming HR was really good at stinking at baseball.
But this thing is getting the full copy/pasta treatment.
But what I've been witnessing while I've been a broadcaster is everyone using these stats to try and explain the game of baseball.
"These stats." Props to the editor for cutting out "new fangled" in between.
Not all statistics work. Some do, some don't.
Someone tell HR stats aren't kitchen appliances. They neither do or do not "work," they can tell us things, and those things may be more informative than other things, but they don't need to be taken to repair men or greased up every 2,000 miles or whatever one does with cars. I'm a nerd, I don't know.
And one of the stats that has become real popular is OPS. On-base plus slugging. All of a sudden, it's this stat that defines whether a guy is a good ball player or not.
And praise be to Allah OPS is featured on major networks. It is a really simple stat (X + Y), and yes, it is flawed, but it is light years better than BA.
And the fact of the matter is, if you're a power hitter then the situation will dictate what a pitcher does with you - either walk you or pitch you real careful. So more than likely you're going to end up on base and therefore your on-base percentage goes up.
Well he may not like it, but he understands getting on base = on-base going up.
This in my mind has become the stat the everyone thinks is the be all and end all.
Harold's thinks this is the stat everyone thinks is the be all, end all. He thinks.
It is not.
I thought you thought everyone thought it was.
If you have a ball club that's a great offensive team then that changes everything. But if you have a guy like Adrian Gonzalez, for example, his OPS is going to be high - he's got a lot of home runs and walks a lot...because you're not going to pitch to him.
Do you know why people don't pitch to him? Because he is awesome and will hit home runs. And do you know why people pitch to sub .700 OPS players like you? Because you will most likely make an out or hit a single or bunt.
Power guys like Giambi and Dunn have always had high OPS because no one wants to pitch to them. But it takes two hits to score them from first.
And here is the crux of the argument: speed is >>>>>>>>> homers/walks.
This is how the game has changed. Dick Williams is pulling his hair out.
So you could say he's pulling his Dick hair out.
Yeah, I went there.
This is not something people have reinvented in the game. You can go all the way back to Dave Kingman. When Kingman was hot, you didn't pitch to him. If he wasn't hot, you pitched to him. Big power hitters swing and miss and strikeout. Or they hit home runs and walk.
Or they hit doubles. Or singles. Sounds like a good trade-off to me.
And at the end of the year their OBP is always going to be higher than most of the other guys on the team because they clog the bases.
Emphasis motherfucking mine. [Sidenote: is Blogging the Bases an awesome blog name or what?]
OK, their OBP is going to be higher because they clog the bases. Let that soak in for a moment. Pretend you're washing your hair.
...
A player's OBP is not high because he clogs the bases. I think Harold meant players who clog the bases have high OBP (which is wrong, Pujols, Dunn and the like are pretty good baserunners. Maybe not fast, but they don't have two left feet.). At least, I hope he meant that. Because if not, motherfucker, that shit makes no sense.
A few years ago this stat grabbed my ear when someone said that Ichiro doesn't walk enough. So I said, "What do you mean?" And they said his OBP could be so much higher if he walked more.
Truth.
The guy gets 200 hits a season! And he scores over 100 runs. I think that speaks for itself.
Also true. Still doesn't take away from the fact that more walks = higher on-base.
So as the old, wise Dick Williams used to tell me, "I should never have to give you a sign. The situation dictates what happens."
The situation being that you should never, ever be allowed to type again.
But with that beautiful site gone, Joe has gone unscathed as of late. But fear not, cause HR's got your back.
It's been real interesting in the last couple years as I've watched how the importance of statistics has taken over how to analyze a baseball game. I used to play for an old time manager named Dick Williams who used to tell me, the situation will dictate what happens." He used to call me to his office and say, "I should never have to give you a sign. You should know this is a bunt situation, you should know this is a situation where you need to take a trike, you should know the situation calls for getting the man over. I should never have to give you a sign, the situation dictates what happens."
There's nothing awful here, just a stupid anecdote confirming HR was really good at stinking at baseball.
But this thing is getting the full copy/pasta treatment.
But what I've been witnessing while I've been a broadcaster is everyone using these stats to try and explain the game of baseball.
"These stats." Props to the editor for cutting out "new fangled" in between.
Not all statistics work. Some do, some don't.
Someone tell HR stats aren't kitchen appliances. They neither do or do not "work," they can tell us things, and those things may be more informative than other things, but they don't need to be taken to repair men or greased up every 2,000 miles or whatever one does with cars. I'm a nerd, I don't know.
And one of the stats that has become real popular is OPS. On-base plus slugging. All of a sudden, it's this stat that defines whether a guy is a good ball player or not.
And praise be to Allah OPS is featured on major networks. It is a really simple stat (X + Y), and yes, it is flawed, but it is light years better than BA.
And the fact of the matter is, if you're a power hitter then the situation will dictate what a pitcher does with you - either walk you or pitch you real careful. So more than likely you're going to end up on base and therefore your on-base percentage goes up.
Well he may not like it, but he understands getting on base = on-base going up.
This in my mind has become the stat the everyone thinks is the be all and end all.
Harold's thinks this is the stat everyone thinks is the be all, end all. He thinks.
It is not.
I thought you thought everyone thought it was.
If you have a ball club that's a great offensive team then that changes everything. But if you have a guy like Adrian Gonzalez, for example, his OPS is going to be high - he's got a lot of home runs and walks a lot...because you're not going to pitch to him.
Do you know why people don't pitch to him? Because he is awesome and will hit home runs. And do you know why people pitch to sub .700 OPS players like you? Because you will most likely make an out or hit a single or bunt.
Power guys like Giambi and Dunn have always had high OPS because no one wants to pitch to them. But it takes two hits to score them from first.
And here is the crux of the argument: speed is >>>>>>>>> homers/walks.
This is how the game has changed. Dick Williams is pulling his hair out.
So you could say he's pulling his Dick hair out.
Yeah, I went there.
This is not something people have reinvented in the game. You can go all the way back to Dave Kingman. When Kingman was hot, you didn't pitch to him. If he wasn't hot, you pitched to him. Big power hitters swing and miss and strikeout. Or they hit home runs and walk.
Or they hit doubles. Or singles. Sounds like a good trade-off to me.
And at the end of the year their OBP is always going to be higher than most of the other guys on the team because they clog the bases.
Emphasis motherfucking mine. [Sidenote: is Blogging the Bases an awesome blog name or what?]
OK, their OBP is going to be higher because they clog the bases. Let that soak in for a moment. Pretend you're washing your hair.
...
A player's OBP is not high because he clogs the bases. I think Harold meant players who clog the bases have high OBP (which is wrong, Pujols, Dunn and the like are pretty good baserunners. Maybe not fast, but they don't have two left feet.). At least, I hope he meant that. Because if not, motherfucker, that shit makes no sense.
A few years ago this stat grabbed my ear when someone said that Ichiro doesn't walk enough. So I said, "What do you mean?" And they said his OBP could be so much higher if he walked more.
Truth.
The guy gets 200 hits a season! And he scores over 100 runs. I think that speaks for itself.
Also true. Still doesn't take away from the fact that more walks = higher on-base.
So as the old, wise Dick Williams used to tell me, "I should never have to give you a sign. The situation dictates what happens."
The situation being that you should never, ever be allowed to type again.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Good point guards are shit, don't draft them
*It's been a long time since I've posted. But in all honesty, I haven't found a whole lot to gripe about. I really hope the Boston Herald/NY Post/SI.com set hasn't had some overhaul where they stop being dumbasses. But here's the first salvo in what will hopefully be a summer filled with bullshit.*
Who's the most important player on a basketball team? The point guard, probably. He handles the ball the most and facilitates the offense. You can easily overcome a shitty one with a great two-guard (see: Kobe, Wade, "I play every position" LeBron), but having a great one is a huge help.
But fuck drafting one high. Chris Paul? Dude's a stiff. Deron Williams? Guy sucks. They aren't winners.
*Gun loading*
DEREK FISHER PROVES TITLES AREN'T WON WITH GREAT POINT GUARDS
This was the teaser that set me off. Fisher has four rings. Three of them with Shaq/Kobe and one with an insane Kobe. Fisher had dick to do with them winning, aside from some "clutch" threes (that one against the Spurs kills me) and not turning the ball over. Awesome great job!
To review: Avery Johnson has one ring, Jason Williams has one ring, Steve Nash and Jason Kidd none.
Conclusion: Johnson and Williams are better than two HOFers.
Kidd was in back-to-back finals and lost to awesome teams. What a schlub. Steve Nash has two (ill-gotten) MVPs and is unfortunately running a flawed team that probably could never win a title. They are both great. And yes, they have both never won a crapshoot filled with landmines played underwater, drunk and blindfolded.
Two starting point guards among the last 12 champions have been All-Stars. No Hall of Famer was in the role since Isiah Thomas with the Pistons in 1990.
This is so flawed because of the past 12 title winners, a whooping SEVEN of those were either the Spurs (Parker, who's an awesome PG remember) or Lakers (the land of two top twenty all-time guys). So this list is a whole huge weird mess of randomness.
Who's the most important player on a basketball team? The point guard, probably. He handles the ball the most and facilitates the offense. You can easily overcome a shitty one with a great two-guard (see: Kobe, Wade, "I play every position" LeBron), but having a great one is a huge help.
But fuck drafting one high. Chris Paul? Dude's a stiff. Deron Williams? Guy sucks. They aren't winners.
*Gun loading*
DEREK FISHER PROVES TITLES AREN'T WON WITH GREAT POINT GUARDS
This was the teaser that set me off. Fisher has four rings. Three of them with Shaq/Kobe and one with an insane Kobe. Fisher had dick to do with them winning, aside from some "clutch" threes (that one against the Spurs kills me) and not turning the ball over. Awesome great job!
Derrick Rose was Rookie of the Year. Chauncey Billups was a hero in Denver. Jameer Nelson and Mo Williams were difference makers in the East. Aaron Brooks almost changed history. Point guards also are expected to dominate the first 10 or 12 picks in the draft next week.
All those dudes are A) either very good or awesome at basketball B) except for Williams, first round picks and C) teams that made the playoffs. And where's Paul and Deron Williams? They made the playoffs too.
And then there's Derek Fisher. He of the season averages of 10 points and three assists. He of the 40 percent shooting in the playoffs.
And he of the four rings.
Alright, fuck this. I am dubbing this the Ramiro Mendoza corollary: when a dude wins a ton of rings being very lucky or like the tenth best dude (or worse) on his team.
There's your reality check. At one of the great historical intersections in the history of point guards, an unexplainable convergence of circumstances from the 2008-09 season into the June 25 draft into free agency next month, the reminder note being distributed after Lakers-Magic is that it does not take a great talent at the point to win the title. Big men (Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon), yes. Wing players who leave defenders with singed jerseys (Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Michael Jordan), absolutely. But not point guards.
Tony Parker is an awful PG. How the hell did Duncan win the title ... what's that? He won a Finals MVP? He is a two-time all-star who has averaged 18 points or more and 5.5 assists or more over the past four seasons and is only 26 years old? Well shit...
I will cede that the teams Howard-Cooper cherry-picked didn't need awesome PGs to win titles. But of those seven players, two are in the top ten OF ALL-TIME and the four big men are in the top fifty or forty.
Point is, you need awesome players to win.
Fisher is just part of the story. Take a look at the point guards who have won in the Finals the past decade or so, and it's clear teams do not need great point guards to win a championship, and teams where the best player is a point guard do not win.
Already this list is bunk for a few reasons. The Lakers have won four of the past ten titles. The Bulls got one, and the Spurs PG is great. Let's see this thang.
2009 -- Fisher.
2008 -- Rajon Rondo, Celtics. Certainly has All-Star potential, but not there yet.
2007 -- Tony Parker, Spurs. Three All-Star appearances, one Finals MVP.
2006 -- Jason Williams, Heat. With the asterisk that Wade handled the ball a lot.
2005 -- Parker.
2004 -- Chauncey Billups, Pistons. Four All-Star appearances.
2003 -- Parker.
2002 -- Fisher (35 starts in the regular season and all 19 starts in the playoffs) and Lindsey Hunter (47 starts in the regular season, most at the point). With the asterisk that Bryant handled the ball.
2001 -- Fisher. Started only 20 times in the regular season because a foot injury cost him the other 62 games, then started the entire playoffs. Brian Shaw and Ron Harper played the point a lot in the regular season. Plus: the Kobe asterisk.
2000 -- Harper.
1999 -- Avery Johnson, Spurs.
1998 -- Harper, Bulls. Asterisk: Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen.
To review: Avery Johnson has one ring, Jason Williams has one ring, Steve Nash and Jason Kidd none.
Conclusion: Johnson and Williams are better than two HOFers.
Kidd was in back-to-back finals and lost to awesome teams. What a schlub. Steve Nash has two (ill-gotten) MVPs and is unfortunately running a flawed team that probably could never win a title. They are both great. And yes, they have both never won a crapshoot filled with landmines played underwater, drunk and blindfolded.
Two starting point guards among the last 12 champions have been All-Stars. No Hall of Famer was in the role since Isiah Thomas with the Pistons in 1990.
This is so flawed because of the past 12 title winners, a whooping SEVEN of those were either the Spurs (Parker, who's an awesome PG remember) or Lakers (the land of two top twenty all-time guys). So this list is a whole huge weird mess of randomness.
The draft and free agency alone will alter the league for years. It just may not deliver a title. Because it doesn't take a great point guard to win.
I guarantee Chris Paul will win a title sometime as the best player on his team. Deron Williams is also very, very good and could get there. Jason Kidd has ran into some freight trains and Steve Nash's window is probably closed. Rajon Rondo and Derrick Rose look set to battle it out for decades, possibly contending for titles.
This has nothing to do with "title teams don't need point guards!" It's "title teams need really good players and a bunch of other shit to happen" to win. All-time greats help too.
If you are going to "prove" it doesn't take good PGs to win, how about deflating all the lottery PGs that stink now? I am sure that'd be more convincing than "the Spurs/Lakers -- winners of 58% of the last dozen titles -- didn't need one!"
It's good to be back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)