This Blog Was Founded on Statistical Ignorance, Dammit!

The label "statistical ignorance" is the ninth-most-used label on this blog, but only two of its 46 uses are after 2009.  I long for the good old days when our posts were often smarmily pointing out numerical fallacies in baseball analysis and not just Larry B bitching about pop sportswriters who write about movies and shit. But now that I'm out of the regular job world and into the grad student life, maybe I will find some time to bring "statistical ignorance" back.  Or maybe I'll just sit back and watch Larry wage his war against The Sports Guy.  

Anyways, I somehow ended up on this article: "5 Reasons Steroids Were Never the Real Problem in Baseball", by someone named Adam Tod Brown, and read it.  The whole article isn't really very interesting; it takes some sensible and some foolish angles on steroids, but overall it's nothing new.  But there was one spectacular goof, which I had to post about:

#3. Pitcher Is the Position With the Most Performance-Enhancing-Drug Suspensions

It's also important to note that of the 43 players suspended for using performance-enhancing drugs since 2005, 15 of them were pitchers. The next closest position was outfielder with 13, but that blanket term actually covers three positions on the field (left, right, and center fielder), so even then it's not really as close as it seems.

Oh!  Thanks for pointing out that outfield is a blanket term that actually covers three positions on the field!  It's a good thing you cleared that up, Mr. Brown.  But now that you mention it, gosh, maybe pitcher is the position with the most performance-enhancing drug suspension because pitcher is the position with the most players.  

In fact, the 35% pitcher ratio of pitchers suspendees to overall suspendees is actually lower than one might expect.  I'm too lazy to figure out exactly what percentage of MLB players are pitchers, but if you figure most teams carry 11 or so pitchers out of 25 roster slots, you'd expect a roughly 44% ratio.  Now this is hardly a large sample, and who knows how many cheaters evaded the testing... but this is the kind of article that suggests Adam Tod Brown needs to be beaten with a sock full of quarters.

Oh shut up, Jonah Keri

I'd like to open this post with a three paragraph rant about why Jonah Keri annoys me, but I don't have the time or energy and you probably wouldn't have the patience to read it. My damn high school language arts teachers told me a thousand times to "show not tell" when it comes to writing effectively, so I think I will take their advice to heart and jump right into the article. I will not take any other advice they gave me to heart, as doing so might cause me to become a crazy divorcee with seven cats.

/cheap shot at perfectly nice people

Houston, We Have (Lots of) Problems

The Astros' blueprint for rebuilding

Fuck NASA for putting their mission control center in Houston. Thanks for decades of godawful lines like that, with decades more doubtless to come.

There are thousands of ingredients that go into building a successful baseball franchise. But sometimes the difference between a great franchise and a lousy one can be summed up with a single number.

This was published on Grantland, which is why Jonah channels Simmons (who is in turn channeling that worthless shithead Malcolm Gladwell) in his first sentence by handing us an obnoxiously oversimplified explanation. Ever read "The Tipping Point?" Don't, it's a waste of fucking time. Sometimes what started a small idea or event picks up speed and turns into a really huge idea or event thanks to certain factors. SPOILER ALERT. Oh sorry, should have said that before the other sentence.

In 2005, 2006, and 2007, the St. Louis Cardinals drafted a total of 24 players who've since made it to the big leagues — the highest number for any team during that three-year span. The Cardinals won the World Series last year thanks in large part to players like Jaime Garcia, Jon Jay, Allen Craig, and Lance Lynn.

In the 2005, 2006, and 2007 amateur drafts, the Houston Astros drafted a total of four players who've since made it to the big leagues, the lowest rate of return in the majors. The Astros went 56-106 last year, good for the worst record in baseball and the worst in franchise history.

And this is why Jonah Keri stinks. He found a cool stat, completely unworthy of anything more than a tweet, and is now trying to build his whole argument around it. DUR THE ASTROS NEED TO DRAFT BETTER. No fucking shit they do! But that stat and the Garcia/Jay/Craig/Lynn bit distort the issue beyond usefulness. As soon as you start saying the Cardinals had a parade and raised a flag "in large part" due to those four guys, you're ruining your article. I can no longer read it. As I stare at the page and try to process the words, all my mind can see is a picture of you wearing a dunce cap while grinning like Lloyd Christmas.

Garcia was halfway decent during the regular season (3.56 ERA but only 1 WAR) and postseason, although he did his best to try to make sure the Brewers got to the WS instead of the Cardinals (2 NLCS starts, 8.2 IP, 7 ER). John Jay was a 4th OF who moved into CF after Colby Rasmus got traded. He was worth a whole 1.3 WAR during the regular season and then mashed his way to a .182/.262/.218 triple slash in 63 playoff PAs. Allen Craig had more WAR than Garcia and Jay combined even though he only got 219 regular season PAs, and crushed the ball in the World Series, but it's not like he was on the short list for team MVP. And Lance Lynn threw a whole 34 regular season innings and got lit up in the WS. The totals for these four guys: 5.8 WAR, half of which were Craig's.

Sure, they needed every win they got just to make the postseason. You still can't say they won that title "in large part" due to these guys. It's preposterous. It's not close to close to being true. Pujols, Carpenter, Holliday, and Berkman generated 20ish WAR. Only one of them is a Cardinals farm product, and the one who was most important down the stretch and in the playoffs (Carpenter, DUH) was acquired via free agency.

Twenty-four to four. That's what separates baseball's champs from its chumps.

No, what separated them last year was 1) the Cardinals having one of the ten greatest hitters of all time 2) the Cardinals having a dominant pitcher get hot at the right time 3) the Cardinals striking paydirt on Berkman, who appeared to be mostly done in late 2010 4) the Braves taking a gigantic shit in their collective bed and then playfully rolling in it rather than bothering to show up for any of their September games.

Dumbass fans of faux-objectivity say "HEY KERI SOMETIMES WRITES STUFF FOR FANGRAPHS THAT MUST MEAN HE'S A BASEBALL SUPERGENIUS!" Meanwhile, he's distributing garbage like this. The article goes on for another 1000+ words describing changes in the Astros front office (getting rid of Ed Wade might be the platonic ideal of addition by subtraction), but why read it? I'm too distracted by this nonsense. Writing that those four homegrown players are "in large part" to be thanked for the 2011 Cardinals championship is no less obnoxious than the hundreds of "that Eckstein really has some heart, doesn't he?" articles that prompted the invention of the internet back in 2006.

Call this post nitpicky if you want; I'm sure that's what the mouth-breathers from FanGraphs would do if they knew/cared about little ol' FJayM. If you read Keri frequently, though, I hope you'd at least agree with me when I say that he's not nearly as baseball savvy or as good a writer as he thinks he is. In other words, this post is about more than a quick throwaway intro of his. It's about everything he writes. In other other words, I don't know how well this post will stand up and feel the need to make excuses about it before anyone even gets a chance to read it. That's probably a good clue that it's time for me to stop writing. I wonder what's on TV?

/turns on Sportscenter

/has seizure

Baseball Is a Team Sport: Mike Tully is a Fool

Today's post comes to you courtesy of Mike Tully of the New York Times - a rarely-critiqued news outlet here on FJayM. But this one's worth the time. This one actually suggests that really bad players are not that bad, and that really good players are not that good, and it hits on some classic FJayM fallacies - both logical and statistical.

In fact, I'm going to be so bold as to slap the "wrongest thing that has ever been said about baseball" on this post. That's because the writer implies that David Eckstein is better than Carlos Beltran, that Jonny Gomes is better than Joey Votto, and that signing Carlos Pena was a masterstroke by the Chicago Cubs. It's amazing how he has managed to pick one statistic that justifies all kinds of stupid conclusions and throws them into one article. It's a smorgasbord of stupid.

[For some reason, the article opens and closes with a long extended comparison to North Carolina women's soccer. I've cut that part out]

To Create Winners, you have to Find Winners

Uh oh. The title has ominous foreboding to it. Maybe the Cubs should just hire Charlie Sheen as a consultant?

David Eckstein is one player whose contribution far exceeded his talent. A walk-on in college and a 19th-round draft pick, he still managed to make the postseason in 4 of his 10 major league seasons, played on two championship teams and was the most valuable player of the 2006 World Series.

This is so stupid. This is classic stupid. This is the epitome of the stupid Eckstein fallacy. Why does Tully define Eckstein's "contribution" as making the postseason, which is a team acheivement, instead of looking at Eckstein's individual contributions... say his sole season above 100 OPS+ or his two seasons above 3 WAR.

On the other end of the spectrum one might find Carlos Beltran, a four-time All-Star with the Mets. While he recovered from knee surgery last year, they won 48 of their first 88 games, and were only four games out of the National League East lead at the All-Star break. Then Beltran rejoined the team. The Mets went 31-43 (.419) the rest of the way and finished 18 games out of first place.

Carlos Beltran did have a bad season last year, but let the record show that Beltran, in comparison with Eckstein, has had exactly four times as many seasons above 3 WAR. And Eckstein is even two years older.

Their decline cannot be attributed solely to Beltran, but the Mets did not improve with him in the lineup.

What a stupid sentence. Their decline barely be attributed to Beltran. The man plays one position out of nine. How hard is that to comprehend?

On the other hand, the Mets went 42-36 (.538) with Ruben Tejada, the team’s highest winning percentage among position players with extended time on the field. Ike Davis had the best winning percentage at .503 (74-73); only David Wright was on the field for more Mets victories (75).

RUBEN TEJADA HIT .213 WITH A .588 OPS AND WAS ACTUALLY WORSE THAN A REPLACEMENT PLAYER LAST YEAR. A REPLACEMENT PLAYER LAST YEAR WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN ABOUT AS GOOD AS RUBEN TEJADA. WHO THE HECK IS RUBEN TEJADA ANYWAYS.

Baseball insiders cite factors like cohesion, rhythm and percentages to defend the idea of sticking with tried-and-true players. They argue, with some justification, that baseball involves failure and that players need time to work through it.

That time is during little league baseball, high school baseball, sometimes in college baseball, and minor leauge baseball. Not in Major League baseball.

Also, what are "cohesion", "rhythm" and "percentages"? Doesn't one of those things not belong with the others? I don't understand that sentence at all.

The Yankees’ Derek Jeter, who has won five championships, is coming off the worst offensive season of his 16-year career. Now the team is debating whether he or Brett Gardner should bat leadoff. No matter where Gardner bats, he should play; the Yankees were 93-57 (.620) with him in the lineup, and 2-10 without him. They seemed to get along just fine (21-4) without Alex Rodriguez. In the games Jeter played, the Yankees were 92-65.

Argh. So much stupid. Of all the arguments and claptrap I've heard this week about Jeter heading into this season, this is the worst. Seriously, people, shut up about Jeter and just let the poor man fade away into mediocrity without hyperanalyzing his slow descent.

Also, how did Derek Jeter win five championships? I thought the Yankees won five championships. Who were all those other guys in pinstripes? Were they batboys for Jeter? WAS SCOTT BROSIUS NOTHING BUT A HOTDOG VENDOR?

Should teams be slaves to such statistics? No, but they should notice. And they might be surprised.

Should teams pay any attention at all to such statistics? Not really. I guess these statistics are kind of worth noticing, but I think they are probably about 50th in importance, as statistics go. I'd rather judge a hitter by HBP (hey, at least it contributes to his own OBP) than by this stat.

Last season Cincinnati won the National League Central at 91-71 (.562). But in games Joey Votto, the league M.V.P., played, the Reds went 83-67 (.553). Six regular teammates finished with a higher percentage than Votto’s: Scott Rolen, .586; Jay Bruce, .574; Brandon Phillips, Orlando Cabrera and Jonny Gomes, .561; and Drew Stubbs, 560.

We're taking about a difference of four or five wins in each of these cases. Over a full season of baseball, anything can cause a differential of four or five wins. This is the exact opposite of a sample size fallacy - this is a huge generalization about winning that has nothing to do with individual production.

Absolutely nothing can be concluded from the above paragraph. Joey Votto is approximately one hundred times better than all those other Reds players, and any clown who cherry-picks win stats to try and even weakly suggest otherwise has his head in a sack.

Similarly, Texas was 71-62 (.534) with Josh Hamilton, the American League M.V.P., in the lineup. He finished behind several fellow position players: Ian Kinsler (.592), Elvis Andrus (.568), David Murphy (.565) and Michael Young (.561).

Bench Josh Hamilton! Bench Joey Votto! Call the fire department!

This is also a completely pointless paragraph. Nothing can be concluded from this generalization except that apparently individuals on a baseball team cannot win every game completely by themselves, even if he hits .359 and his OPS is 1.044.

Carlos Pena, who had a miserable 2010 season for Tampa Bay, is a remarkable example. He batted .196 and had 158 strikeouts, but the Rays were 88-56 (.611) with him in the lineup, the best among their regular players. They were 22 games above .500 with Pena, two games under without him. The Chicago Cubs signed Pena for one year and $10 million.

Awesome. The Chicago Cubs, who have had over a century now to get adjusted to failure, are now all set to win the 2011 World Series.

St. Louis traded shortstop Brendan Ryan to Seattle in the off-season after his career-worst .223 batting average. The Cardinals were 17 games over .500 with Ryan, seven games under without him. In his place is Ryan Theriot, whose Cubs went 43-53 with him in the lineup last year, 32-34 without him.

I predict the Cubs will surge past the Cardinals this year! Based solely on Ryan Theriot and Brendan Ryan!

Sometimes teams will find a player with an X-factor that goes way beyond talent. Leo Durocher once said that second baseman Eddie Stanky could not hit, field or run — all he could do was win. But Stanky was not helpless. He retired in 1953 with a .410 career on-base percentage, among the best in history.

Let's rewrite that sentence. Eddie Stanky could not hit, field or run - all he could do was walk, which helps a whole team win. Leo Durocher's statement was meant to be interpreted figuratively, and it's pretty stupid when New York Times writers interpret it literally to support a stupid thesis.

On-base percentage was not valued in the 1940s and ’50s, and that is the point. Certain players have always done things that keep them on the winning side, even if they are not always recognized.

Except that they ARE recognized - anyone who knows anything about Eddie Stanky could quickly recognize his walks and their resultant value to a team. That's why he was kept in the starting lineup.

Well, the 2011 season starts on Thursday. Get excited, baseball fans! After game #1 of the season, if your team wins, they should run the same lineup out there for the next game. After all, they will have won 100% of the games with those players!

I've Got a Bone to Pick with MSNBC's HR Department.....

Celizic wrote again. I continue to wonder what anyone ever saw in this guy.

Time for Manny, Torre to earn their keep
As the Dodgers struggle, focus should be on star, manager

You could focus on how Raffy Furcal shit the bed this year, or how someone sapped Russell Martin's power. You could focus on the fact that the first baseman can't slug his way out of a paper bag, or the fact that injuries have dilapidated the rotation to the point where knucklejunkit Chuck Haeger made a start (and will make another today) for arguably the best team in baseball. You could look at a little bad luck, or the fact that their "decline" is more rooted in how hot the Colorado Rockies are than how less-than-good the Dodgers are playing.

But you can ABSOLUTELY NOT focus on a guy who doesn't play for the team, or THE FUCKING STAR LEFT FIELDER HITTING .306/.424/.536. Remember these slash stats. You will be seeing them many times in this post.

When the Dodgers opened the vault to hire Joe Torre, it was because of his ability to manage teams under playoff stress. And when they dug deep to sign Manny Ramirez, it was because of his ability to drag a team into the playoffs by his dreadlocks.

Which he is failing miserably at to the tune of .306/.424/.536.

This would be a good time for both to live up to their reputation: Torre as the unflappable leader whose teams never panic, even when they can’t buy a win; Manny as one of baseball’s most reliable RBI machines.

The Dodgers are 6-4 in their last 10....they can't BUY a win.

And Manny sucks too. .306/.424/.536.

Nobody’s blaming Torre for what could be a memorable collapse should the Rockies continue their torrid pace and the Dodgers fail to remember how to win. At least not in Los Angeles, they aren’t.

The Dodgers are 12-14 this month. Vulnerable, but saying that they "forgot how to win", is insane. Most very good teams have at least one month like this.

And so the blame for the Dodger doldrums is falling squarely on the shoulders of Manny.

Ex....cuse me? You're pointing the finger at the best offensive player on the team, (who, might I add, is hitting .306/.424/.536)?

Normally, calling one player on the carpet for a team’s problems is too simplistic. But in this case, it’s not.

Mike Celizic has thoroughly analyzed the performances of everyone on the roster and has come to the conclusion that Manny Ramirez is the problem. He tried several different methods, and all of them output that Manny is the problem. I'm serious.

...

...

Naw, I'm kidding. He just figured out his batting average since the All-Star break and cited some freakish RBI stats.

If Manny were even half the player he was last year, the Dodgers would be comfortably in first place

1) The Dodgers are (sort of) comfortably in first place.
2) You're blaming Manny for not repeating one of the best two-month performances of all-time.
3) .306/.424/.536

and I’d probably be writing yet another column about the — groan! — AL East.

At least you recognize what a fuckstick you are about your writing topics.

At this time last year, Manny was as awesome a force as you’ll see. After arriving from Boston, he averaged an RBI a game and dragged L.A. into the playoffs.

Yes. This, Mike Celizic, is not what we in the baseball world called "normal". We call this superhumanly clutch, or fluketasticly spectacular. No one in the world can do that on a monthly basis.

He signed a short but sweet contract in the spring, took nearly two months off early in the season to serve a suspension for violating the league’s drug policy, came back with his signature dreads longer than ever, and then disappeared.

It's true. Ask opposing pitchers whether they noticed the guy hitting .306/.424/.536. Nowhere to be seen.

Brett Favre was better down the stretch for the Jets last year than Manny has been in August for L.A. John Smoltz wasn’t as bad for the Red Sox this year than Manny has been for the Dodgers.

First of all, who the hell is "Brett Favre"?

Second.....

A guy who had averaged a 55.4 passer rating and a 2/9 TD/INT over the last 5 games of the regular season, and a guy with an 8.32 ERA weren't as bad for their respective teams than the supreme junkiest player in sports, who has been hitting .306/.424./.536.

Huh.

I give up. If he doesn't get fired for writing that, I don't think he ever will.

He’s been so bad he got booed in Dodgers Stadium the other day when he misplayed a ball into a triple and put another 0-for-4 in the box score in another loss.

Asshole. WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DID IN JUNE, MANNY!

Dodgers fans aren’t given to booing — it takes too much energy and demands that the spectators actually pay attention to the game.

Mike Celizic isn't given to facts - they take too much research and demand that the writer actually follow the sport in question.

But even Dodgers fans have their limits, and Manny has found them with one of the worst months he’s probably ever had in his career.

Manny Ramirez, August: .306/.424/.536.

Naw, just kidding. It's .287/.391/.415. Quit dragging down the universe, Manny.

Through Sunday’s games, Manny had played 22 games in August. In two of those games, he performed like Manny, getting a home run and three RBIs in each of them. In the other 20 games, he has zero home runs and a grand total of six RBIs, a hitting pace that a lot of pitchers have little trouble keeping up with. He’s driven in just one run in his last dozen games.

Congratulations. You've found the worst possible way to evaluate a person's month-long performance in history.

He’s hitting .303 on the season, but only .254 since the All-Star break.

I told you there would be some dumb batting average-related thing in here.

The Dodgers are not a bad hitting team.

Uh huh.....

They lead the National League in team batting average and on-base percentage.

Which is "not bad", as you said.

Normally, that’s a sure formula for winning baseball. And when Manny’s driving in runs, it is.

Manny Ramirez is the only player on the Los Angeles Dodgers responsible for driving in runs. It's actually impossible for James Loney and Andre Ethier to do it.

The Dodgers are third in the NL in scoring, with 603 runs. But they’re 10th in slugging percentage

Clearly the fault of that .536-slugging Manny. By the way, Manny's complete line for the season? .306/.424/.536

All other things being equal, when Manny is hitting, they win. When he’s not hitting, they have problems.

When you set all other factors equal in two scenarios, the performance of the one variable factor will pretty much determine the difference in outcome of the two scenarios.

And that's totally how it's worked with the Dodgers this year.

So far, there’s no sign that Torre has done anything to light a fire under Manny.

No need to strike a match to ignite a fully spreading-and-dangerous wildfire.

Right now, nobody’s blaming Torre for that. But if things continue to go badly in Colorado and if that once huge lead continues to erode like a sand castle in a hurricane, somebody’s going to bring it up.

And if they don’t, they should.

Three-oh-six, four-twenty-four, five-thirty-six.

The Grinding of Axes: One Man's Defense of Jeter

Foxsports.com's Adam Kriegel offers his commentary on why the fans were right to vote 4.5 million times for Derek Jeter. I actually agree with the basic premise of this article (Derek Jeter is good) but this article commits several cardinal sins. Read:

At 35, Derek Jeter is considered well past his prime as an everyday shortstop. Don't take my word for it. Baseball's most sober and esteemed mathematicians have long since rendered their final analysis on the subject.

Actually, baseball's most sober and esteemed mathematicians have offered a meager resistance to the Jeter-love that exists throughout the sports universe, suggesting that perhaps the guy isn't the superhero everyone thinks he is.

And considering that his 2008 numbers were significantly lower than his career numbers in pretty much every category, the mathematicians didn't have to look far to analyze this downturn.

No surprise, either. By their mid-thirties, even the best ballplayers give up the position for less demanding assignments. At 36, Cal Ripken was a full-time third baseman. The logic is inexorable. Age and range are inversely proportional. Hence, Jeter's days are numbered.

It's like he's an old nag, shuffling off to the glue factory. Like Barbaro!

Still, when it came time to select a starting shortstop for the All-Star Game, Jeter received an astounding 4,851,889 votes, more than anyone in the American League, more than anyone not named Albert Pujols and Chase Utley.

Any sensible fan might note that Jeter was facing one of the least competitive positions on the ballot. Who's a good AL shortstop this year? Jason Bartlett?

Whereas Pujols was up against perhaps the most stacked position on the ballot.

He's now the oldest shortstop to start an All-Star Game since 37-year-old Luis Aparacio in 1971.

You are wrong. Ozzie Smith started the 1994 ASG at the ripe old age of 39. Even the MLB.com article correctly states that Jeter is the oldest American League starting shortstop since Aparicio.

Pure laziness on the part of Mr. Kriegel here. Or just a lack of baseball knowledge - since the mid-90s were full of completely unnecessary elections of Ozzie Smith when he was old enough to be like dead and played like eighty games a season.

So here's to the fans. For once, at least, you guys got it right.

Way to go, fans. You managed not to screw up a really easy choice, since Derek Jeter is really having a pretty darn good season this year.

I covered Jeter from '96 — when the burning question in New York revolved around whether he would be the equal of the Mets' defensive wizard Rey Ordonez — to 2001.

Really? That was the question? News to me.

And in all that time, through four Yankee championships, I don't think I ever fully appreciated the guy.

That makes you just about the only writer in America who didn't.

While his dating résumé, now as then, remains exemplary, I considered him too assiduously non-controversial, which is to say, boring.

Has anyone ever thought Jeter was boring just because he isn't an idiot?

In retrospect, it was a reaction to the gratuitously controversial regime that preceded his tenure in the Bronx. Jeter was the perfect consigliere for Joe Torre, a layer of heavy insulation against the irrational ravings of the principal owner. Still, his "Mr. Steinbrenner" act wore thin.

Huh?

But here it is, 2009, and Jeter has more hits than Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle. In the next couple of seasons, he'll pass the original iron man, Lou Gehrig, and Babe Ruth. In fact, he's a good bet to end up with 3,600 hits. And in his steady progression toward that number, he's beaten more than the odds.

It would be kind of nice to cite his 2009 statistics, which would be most relevant to this discussion, and clearly support your position, Mr. Kriegel. Yet you pointlessly cite his career hits, which is pretty much all anyone ever discusses when they discuss Jeter.

I think when Jeter gets voted into the Hall of More Than Very Good, he will have the emptiest plaque in Cooperstown. All it will list is his name and however many hits he ends up with. Has he ever even hit a double?

And though the baseball nerds insist he can't field his position, I'll remember with affection the same plays everyone else does: the glove-handed shovel pass that caught Jeremy Giambi at the plate in the 2001 ALDS, and Trot Nixon's foul ball he caught three rows deep in the left-field stands at the old Stadium.

It's too bad the baseball nerds' stats noticed all the times he didn't make those plays. That's almost unfair of them!

Are football and basketball and hockey nerds doing everything they can to actively ruin their respective sports? Or is it just baseball nerds?

Kriegel then goes on to say how great Jeter is, and compares him to a bunch of average shortstops. The conclusion, as I said, is true: Jeter is the best shortstop in the AL right now, and is certainly one of the top in the last 20 years.

But this article still sucks.

Stan McNeal: Perpetual Fuckstick

Stan McNeal has some All-Star game thoughts. Smartass that I am, I have counter-thoughts.

First comes the selection of the All-Star teams. Next comes the griping. Even with the rosters bumped to 33 players, I've got my complaints. Here's my top five.

Is anyone watching the Rangers?
No Kevin Millwood. No Ian Kinsler. Both should be on the club, especially Millwood.

I will grant you this. These are both very legitimate claims. Millwood not being on the team (as opposed to like, Wakefield, whom McNeal cites) is something of a cruel joke. Kinsler's numbers are significantly better than those of that shithead Pedroia, and given Kinsler's superior defense, I'll give him the nod over Aaron Hill, though it's very close. Hill over Kinsler is not worth crying over, so I'm guessing the complaint is against Pedroia. So I guess the problem here is the fan voting.

There's a far, FAR bigger Rangers-related fan-voting-oriented complaint out there though. Did you miss it, Stanley? How about the fact that this guy is starting the game after playing only 35 games at a .240/.290/.456 clip? America, this is absolutely unacceptable.

The Dodgers were snubbed, too.
The Cubs had eight representatives last year when they carried the N.L.'s best record into the break. This year, the Dodgers have the best record in the majors but only three All-Stars and just one — backup second baseman Orlando Hudson — who plays in the field.

Waaahh Waaaahhh Waaaahhh. The Cubs comparison is completely illegitimate. The Dodgers this year are a far more balanced powerhouse than the Cubs from last season.

Maybe the players split their votes between Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier, allowing Hunter Pence to gain a spot.

Correct ranking of these three players, not really close. Gap between Kemp and Pence is primarily due to positional difference and Kemp's awesome CF defense.

1) Kemp
2) Pence
3) Ethier

Please do not mention Ethier again.

Ethier leads the world in walk-off hits,

What did I JUST say?

Ohhhh...I forgot the almighty Walk-Off-Hit stat, the most sustainable and telling of stats.

and Kemp is hitting .303.

Pence is hitting .303. Please argue better. That was terrible.

Picking four first basemen in the N.L. was the way to go.
Don't blame Charlie Manuel for adding his own, Ryan Howard, to the team, even though Albert Pujols, Adrian Gonzalez and Prince Fielder are more deserving. First base is that loaded, and the game is in Howard's hometown. Plus, he would not have been in the home run contest if he didn't make the team.

NO. NO. NO. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

1) Ryan Howard has a .328 OBP
2) You just argued someone should be in the All-Star game because it's their hometown. Where do you get the right to criticize other peoples' selections?
3) Ryan Howard a) has a significantly lower EqA and b) plays an easier defensive position than Hunter Pence, whom you bitched about earlier. You think it's such a crime that Matt Kemp was snubbed, but it's okay to stick The Most Overrated Ever on the team FOURTH on the depth chart at his position?
4) The home run contest is SO FUCKING IRRELEVANT.

Only one Cub.
As that's all who should have been.

Why did you even write that?

Only one Red.
As that's all who should have been.

I just....don't understand the point.

(btw...just kidding dan-bob....Cueto was snubzilla-ed!)

Writer Attempts to Understand Fielding Statistics; Lobotomy Ensues

Paul Daugherty of the Cincinnati Enquirer is surprised by the Reds' recent stretch of reasonably good baseball. Who isn't? But this article is a slop-fest of statistical foolishness. Check it out:

[Note: this article dates to 5/18 - I simply hadn't gotten around to it till now]

Numbers Add Up to Better Defense

In baseball, defining good defense is like catching a butterfly with a frying pan.

That's why some of us are professional writers and some of us are bloggers. Similes, ladies and gentlemen: not just something your tenth-grade English teacher tested you on.

It's the team with the fewest errors, right? It's the team with the best fielding percentage. Fewer errors equals better defense. Of course it does.

This is what we call a "straw man" - Paul is setting up the old version of baseballthink and oversimplifying it. Then, he will refute it! Paul is smarter than conventional baseball wisdom. QED!

Not really. Reds center fielder Willy Taveras gets to flyballs that some major league outfielders couldn't reach in Danica Patrick's ride.

Pop culture references are not the exclusive property of Bill Simmons. Even hometown joes can use 'em!

What if Taveras gets to a ball in the gap and drops it? He gets an error. Does that make him a bad outfielder?

Can't be fielding percentage, then. Must be putouts. Has to be. An outfielder with a lot of putouts has to be good. He's catching more balls. Makes perfect sense. OK, seamhead, but what if his pitching staff includes more flyball pitchers than groundball guys?

I love the "OK, seamhead" part - as though Mr. Daugherty is conceivably addressing someone who had thought a lot about fielding, but hadn't thought of the last point (which really isn't that complex).

I hope someday I'm in an argument and someone says, "OK, seamhead, listen to THIS!" Then I will slink away like I did when I lost a sixth-grade cap war.

See what I mean?

Yes.

The Reds defense is better this year. Even as they've made more errors than 29 other major league teams.

Now we're getting interesting. They're last in the majors in errors. That's not a good sign.

I asked readers of my blog to tell me where to go. (They're very good at that.) Actually, I wanted Web sites that delivered cold, hard facts when it came to catching butterflies with frying pans. The posters delivered.

Wow, never mind. Daugherty is cool. He takes advice from his blog's commenters. I take back all the snide, backhanded insults I used earlier.

One offered this helpful tidbit: Compare "the statistics of fielding percentage, number of putouts and assists, along with doubles, triples and inside-the-park home runs allowed by the outfielders this year to the 2008 team after 32 games."

A helpful tidbit to be sure, but it's really hard to measure the stat of "doubles allowed by outfielders"... usually you measure the "doubles allowed by pitchers" stat. I hear Adam Dunn allowed 28375 doubles last year, which was only exceeded by this guy, who allowed 298329757 doubles last year.

Whuh?

I don't think this word is in the dictionary.

Who do I look like, Norman Einstein?

A veiled pop culture reference! TV commentator (and Notre Dame graduate) Joe Theismann once allegedly claimed that "A genuis is a guy like Norman Einstein".

Someone else suggested Batting Average, Balls In Play: BABIP.

BABIP sounds like the hero of a jungle movie. "Babip, come quickly! The lion is eating the little boy!"

To some people, this could be construed as vaguely offensive. To no people, this could be construed as funny. Also, most reasonable commenters who understand what BABIP is will recognize that it doesn't do a great job measuring defense. But hey! it's a funny acronym, and thus it has a place in this article.

A few offered UZR, which isn't a designer steroid

That was a joke! Did you catch it? You wouldn't have caught it if I hadn't separated it like this!

but something called Ultimate Zone Rating. I was directed to an author named John Dewan, who has published the Fielding Bibles, I and II. After the bosses said I couldn't expense the Bibles, I blew that one off,

Gosh, the newspaper industry sure has fallen on hard times when you can't spend thirty-three bucks on books you don't really intend to read because you already don't like stats.

blasphemously.

That was another joke! Get it? He blew off Dewan's book, a "Bible", so it was like committing blasphemy!

Baseballprospectus.com offers a Defensive Efficiency rating, "the rate at which balls put into play are converted into outs." The Reds rank fifth in the major leagues.

Hey! A stat! Maybe that's why the Reds are doing well at defense! Why don't you explain this, Mr. Daugherty? That would be a great way to support your claim that the Reds' defense is better this year.

There were a lot of other, very small numbers to look at, but I felt myself slipping into a coma, so I stopped reading them.

Why were the numbers smaller? I have a subscription to BP.com myself and I'm pretty sure all the numbers are the same size. Was there a font problem? Are you actually narcoleptic? [Note: the link is definitely worth the very short time you will invest in it].

Generally, I think baseball stats are like vegetables: An important part of a well-balanced diet and occasionally hard to swallow.

You just spent the whole time mocking pretty much all the statistics - from errors to fielding % to UZR to BABIP to defensive efficiency. Which stats do you like? Which stats, like spinach, are actually good for you, even though they look funny on paper and have weird acronyms? Food metaphors for everyone!

So where do we go with this?

Last year, the Reds were hurt by Ken Griffey Jr.'s diminished range in right field and Adam Dunn's general mismanagement in left.

Amen. I actually like the phrase "general mismanagement" - it aptly describes Mr. Dunn's fielding ability. These guys explain how it works. [Note: the video is worth your time if you've ever been an opposing fan in the left-field bleachers at Wrigley].

But how much better are they now, with Jay Bruce in right and the Chris Dickerson/Laynce Nix combo in left?

More importantly: What has Willy Taveras given them in center field?

What a good pair of questions to ask. Bravo, Mr. Daugherty!

For what it's worth, Nix's and Taveras' RF/9 is a bit above league average, and Dickerson's a bit below. In contrast, Dunn's and Griffey's RF/9 for 2008 are both significantly below league average. Since the Reds' staff is generally the same staff as last year, it seems that the Reds' defense has improved substantially since last year! You're right, Paul!

I asked Sam Grossman. Sam who?

The Reds Manager of Baseball Research and Analysis. Like most astute baseball people, Grossman has a degree in mathematics from Northwestern. He worked in insurance, decided he'd rather not, took a few minor league internships and was hired by the Reds in 2007. Grossman crunches the fielding numbers.

Shit. I should follow my dream like Sam Grossman.

He reads play-by-plays like they're the Dead Sea Scrolls.

More Bible allusions! Anyone who reads this post all the way through will be older than Jared!

They show where balls are hit - their "zone" - and what happened. From there, Grossman employs a double-secret formula similar to the one used by the UZR folks: How hard was the ball hit? Was it off a right-handed or left-handed pitcher? And so on. Then the numbers are compared to the league average.

I wonder how "double-secret" this formula is. I also like how he calls them "the UZR folks".

That's basically how the Reds concluded last winter that Taveras would be a great, um, catch

Another joke! Get it? It's a pun!

as a free-agent center fielder. "It was as simple as (Taveras) turning into outs a lot of balls hit to him," Grossman says. "He played in two big center fields, first in Houston, then in Colorado. He made plays most visiting center fielders wouldn't make." He still does.

He still has a .330 career OBP as a leadoff hitter. But that's not the point.

The UZR boys

Whatever happened to "UZR folks"? That sounds nicer. Either way, the "boys" and "folks" almost makes these dudes sound like rednecks. The good old UZR boys probably still live in their folks' basements anyways.

currently rank Taveras the second-best center fielder in the game. Jay Bruce - Jay Bruce! - is seen as the No. 1 right fielder. Overall, UZR says the Reds right now have the best outfield defense in baseball.

Excellent! Stats have proved Mr. Daugherty's point, even though he likes them about as much as he likes okra!

"Our formula rates our infield as average and our outfield a little above average," says Grossman, who adds helpfully, "Another guy uses what he calls 'probablistic model of range.' " We really don't want to go there.

I kind of want to go there. When you say "we" don't want to go there, Paul, don't include me in the royal "we". "You" and some other fans don't want to go there because it probably involves too much thinking. Baseball isn't about thinking. Baseball is about turning the double-play and executing bunts.

Grossman notes his work doesn't trump the eyeball work of scouts and general manager Walt Jocketty, but supplements and often confirms it. "A scout can tell you if a guy has good range," says Grossman. "This just quantifies it."

If a scout watches a guy play one game, how can he tell the extent of the player's range in all directions? The UZR, which "watches" every game a player plays, seems to be able to define a player's range a lot more accurately than a scout watching just a few games...

While stats are certainly not the end-all of baseball analysis, you gotta imagine that it stings a little bit for Grossman when he has to say shit like this.

To me, defense is judged best through daily watching. There ought to be a Web site: Watchthedamnedgame.com.

Paul, how are the Reds supposed to watch every game of every player they might want to trade for/sign/draft? It's just not plausible. Also, there is a web site like that: it's called www.mlb.tv and it's pretty great. I've subscribed the last five summers and there's no money better spent. I say, Paul, there ought to be a web site: www.firejournalistswhowritestupidthings.com.

"That's how I do it," Jocketty says. "We use (Grossman's) information as a baseline. I use input from scouts, and add my own. It all works together." But unless you're a genetic mutant or Bill James, you can't watch enough baseball to be an expert on every team's defense.

Wait, Bill James actually watches baseball? I thought played Strat-o-matic baseball in his garage every day. Huh.

Jocketty mentioned David Eckstein, the current San Diego Padres infielder who played shortstop on the St. Louis team that won the 2006 World Series. Eckstein's defense had to be seen daily to be believed. "Below average arm strength, OK range," Jocketty says. "But he always seemed to be able to position himself and get a throw off."

YES! Eckstein! It's like an unholy rule! Whenever any journalist wants to mention the "stats are stupid and some things in baseball are just unquantifiable", they have to cite the ECKSTEIN law. Seriously: as any discussion of statistical relevance in baseball grows, the probability of a comparison involving Eckstein approaches 1. It's a law.

Let me repeat one of the most ridiculous statments I've read recently:

"Eckstein's defense had to be seen daily to be believed".

Actually, nothing Eckstein does has to be seen to be believed. I've probably seen the guy play only three or four times in my whole life, and I can believe everything the guy does: play slightly-below average baseball.

Grossman says quantifying defensive ability "was the hardest thing to nail down, in the past. We're getting there."

Hooray for stat-guys!

The past? What's harder to judge now?

"The effect of team chemistry," he says. "The manager effect."

I can't wait until we come up with stats for these ones. The acronyms will be ridiculous!

The manager? That's an easy one. Just ask the fans what they think.

What? I thought this article was about defense?

A Very, Angry, Stupid, Boring, Statistical, Analytical, Don't-Even-Readal, Skip-Over-This-To-Other-More-Interesting-Thingsal Quickie

Richard Justice wrote an article explaining why the Yankees are still the third best team in the AL East (probably true). But I can't quite let things like this slide.....

Tampa Bay's outfield of Carl Crawford, B.J. Upton and Joyce might just be the best in baseball.

That is just plain fucking batshit crazy. I mean, defensively, sure. But plain ol' best?

The Yankees? How does an outfield of Xavier Nady, Brett Gardner and Johnny Damon ring your chime?

Not impressed? Didn't think so. Boston's is also better: Jason Bay, Jacoby Ellsbury, J.D. Drew.

You couldn't even go two paragraphs without naming a better outfield. But go ahead, you can keep Carl Crawford and his .318 OBP from last season (he's VERRRRRRRRRY overrated, folks!). And we don't have a clue what the fuck Matt Joyce is yet, but he's already part of the best outfield in baseball? Do you hear yourself talk?

It's also awesome to say things like this when guys like Adam Dunn, Pat Burrell, and Manny Ramirez haven't even been placed on teams yet.

Yet we've learned the last few years that chemistry and grit are as important as pure talent.

This is why it's been so hard to keep the Pittsburgh Pirates down.

This is why grit superstars Pat Burrell and Ryan Howard can with the World Series while chemistry stud Jimmy Rollins single-handedly denounces the entire phucking Philadelphia phan base.

This is why the White Sox edged out the Twins, because of gritty performances by key grit guys like Paul Konerko, Ken Griffey Jr, and Jim Thome. The supreme talent of Minnesota's Nick Punto, Carlos Gomez, and Alexei Casilla was no match for good ol' fashioned "grit", a word that as far as I can tell just means "trying his or her hardest", which 97% of the league does. Shut the fuck up, Richard Justice.

The Rays and Red Sox have a clubhouse chemistry that is impossible to overestimate.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, for the first time in the history of the universe.....THE IMPOSSIBLE!

They've got managers — Maddon and Terry Francona — brilliant at making the pieces fit and keeping the club headed in the right direction.

Talent, of course, is important, too, but in this era of parity, it's tougher and tougher to buy a championship.

Right, talent is important, too. You know, kind of like an afterthought.

The Yankees have spent more on payroll than any other team for several years. They haven't gotten out of the first round of the playoffs since 2004, haven't been to the World Series since 2003, haven't won a championship since 2000.

They tried buying a championship with Jason Giambi, Jaret Wright, Carl Pavano, etc. Never mind that chemistry and toughness were a huge part of how they won four World Series under Joe Torre.

Look guys, now we're trying to show chemistry's triumph over talent by using Jaret Wright as an example of "talent"!

Oh yeah, and that Carl Pavano......he totally played baseball the entire time he was on the team! And he played it every 5th day, with the highest level of talent. But he was no match for the chemistry of the opposing (Carl Pavano never got injured) hitters!

Jaret Wright sucks.

An SI football writer who might be dumber than Peter King

Meet Bucky Brooks, an NFL player turned writer. Surely he has a good idea of what the end of season awards should look like:

Offensive Player of the Year

1. Drew Brees, QB, Saints

2. Kurt Warner, QB, Cardinals

3. Adrian Peterson, RB, Vikings

4. Clinton Portis, RB, Redskins

5. Michael Turner, RB, Falcons

Meh. I personally think that Adrian Peterson and his 4.9 ypc and 109.3 ypg on a team with no passing game deserves the #1 spot, but QB's always get all the glory, so blah.

Anyhow, we probably don't need to look at who Bucky thinks the MVP should be because I'm sure it'll be the exact same as his Offensive Player of the Year list. Oh what the hay, let's take a gander:

MVP

1. Eli Manning, QB, Giants (Ranking last week, 5):

[Insert derisive remark aimed at Bucky for his acknowledgment that Eli Manning is not a top 5 Offensive player, while at the same time asserting that Eli is the Most Valuable Player in the NFL]

If a quarterback is ultimately measured by his ability to win games, then Manning's ascension to the top of the MVP race should not be a surprise.

That may be how a GM or a fan measures his QB's ability, but in no way should that be a determining factor for an MVP candidate. Seriously, anyone who likes the idea that Kerry Collins could win the MVP award if the Giants lose once and the Titans win out, take one step forward. That's what I thought.

The reigning Super Bowl MVP has guided the Giants to the league's best record (11-1) while producing career-best totals in passer rating, completion percentage and yards per attempt.

I don't give a shit if Eli is having the best year of his career. I care how he's doing against other quarterbacks. Here's where he ranks in the following categories.

Passer Rating: 7th
Completion Percentage: 16th
Yards Per Attempt: 15h
Touchdown Passes: T-8th
Football Outsider's Defense-adjusted Yards Above Replacement: 7th
Football Outsider's Defense-adjusted Value Over Average: 8th

There's not one single metric that suggests Eli Manning is a Top-5 quarterback, let alone MVP of the entire fucking league. The Giants are a very good football team and should probably win the Super Bowl, but lets leave it at that. Now please give the MVP award to Adrian Peterson or Tony Romo before I barf.

Bill Simmons: On top of things, as always

I'm not going to complain about all of Bill's lame jokes and dated references because I know he writes for ESPN, and they probably edit out a lot of good shit (although, no one put a gun to Simmons' head and forced him to re-up with ESPN). In addition, I continue to applaud Bill Simmons for being one of the first mainstream sports writers who began to question how/why Roger Clemens was having his best seasons at ages 41-43.

That all being said, I take rather serious umbrage with the following from his Friday NFL column:

RAVENS (-5) over Redskins

I can't wait for this sequence on "The Sports Reporters."

Mike Lupica: "If an aging baseball star had rejuvenated his career in a contract year like Ray Lewis did this year, to the point that he's almost UNRECOGNIZABLE compared with the has-been we've been watching the past three years ... we'd be asking all kinds of questions, wouldn't we? And that's really the difference between baseball and football, as we learned with Shawne Merriman's suspension last year. Ultimately, we don't care whether NFL players cheat or not!"

...

Lupica: "Look, I'm not saying Ray Lewis cheated. He was just the most logical example here ... unless you want to go with Rodney Harrison and the fact that they're still picking up pieces of his exploded LEFT QUADRICEP off the grass at Gillette Stadium."

So if he's the most logical example, then clearly comparing his stat lines to the past 3 years will prove what an obvious steroid user Ray Lewis is:

2005: Games: 6, Solo Tackles Per Game: 6.5, Assists Per Game: 1.33, Sacks: 1.0, INTs: 1

2006: Games: 14, Solo Tackles Per Game: 5.79, Assists Per Game: 1.57, Sacks: 5.0, INTs: 2

2007: Games: 14, Solo Tackles Per Game: 5.86, Assists Per Game: 2.71, Sacks, 2.0 INTs: 2

2008: Games: 12, Solo Tackles Per Game: 5, Assists Per Game: 1.92, Sacks: 1.0 INTs: 3

Conclusions:

1. If ever there was a time to claim Ray Lewis was on steroids, it was last year, as it's the only year out of the past 4 where his tackles and assists have gone up from the previous year.

2. Gregg Easterbrook would claim that Ray Lewis hasn't changed at all because the difference between 6.5 tackles per game and 5 tackles per game is indistinguishable to human beings.

3. Ray Lewis is on pace to double his INT total from 2006 and 2007. Might have something to do with picking 2 against Sage Rosenfels.

4. If you're not Gregg Easterbrook, then you would probably say that the only way Ray Lewis is "unrecognizable" from the past 3 years is that he's gotten worse.

5. Simmons used the following methodology for determining Ray Ray is on steroids:

"Hmm, the Ravens are above .500, and their game against the Redskins got moved to prime time. Must be that defense of theirs. Some guy from Football Outsiders mentioned that Haloti Ngata, Terrell Suggs, and Ed Reed are all really good, but that defense always comes down to Ray Lewis. Seriously, how old is that guy, like a thousand? What? He's 33? Not possible. He won a Super Bowl before the Pats dynasty started for fuck's sake! Dude is on steroids, no doubt. Shit look at the time, I need to iron my Teddy Bruschi jersey before going to my weekly Patriots Fans of LA Circle Jerk."

Gregg Easterbrook: Not a fan of Tom Brady, Randy Moss, logic

Brady is a superb athlete, but right now he may be at some supermodel's Mediterranean seaside villa wincing, because Cassel is demonstrating that Brady was not essential for the Patriots to win. If New England had melted down without Brady, that would have cemented Tom's reputation as an all-time talent. If the Patriots end up having a great season without Brady, nobody will hold that against No. 12, but the focus will shift away from Brady and toward the New England team and system overall. Say what you like about Bill Belichick -- and there are many things not to like -- he runs the best ship in the NFL. And choose your nautical cliché: the ship has steered off the rocks, is back to flank speed, is headed to the blue water, etc.

I understand that the Pats have had more go wrong for them this season than just losing Brady and might account for their less than perfect record, but this talk about possibly ditching Tom Brady (regardless of his health when he returns) is bat-shit crazy.

First of all though, I think it's pretty abysmal that Gregg Easterbrook lavishes so much praise on "the system," but completely ignores one of the biggest reasons for Cassel's success: Randy Moss. Observe the following Quarterbacks who've posted 90+ QB Ratings over 2 games or more in a season when playing with Randy Moss:

Randal Cunningham (his 2nd and last time)
Jeff George (his 2nd and last time)
Daunte Culpepper (3/5 seasons with Moss, hasn't posted a 90+ since Moss's departure)
Todd Bouman (Over the course of 3 games with Moss; the only other time in his career he started 3 games in a season was with New Orleans where he put up a 54.7 rating)
Gus Frerotte (never broke the 90 QB Rating threshold before or after)
Tom Brady (held a 90+ QB rating in 2 seasons without Moss, never had a season below 85.9)
Matt Cassel (currently sporting a 90.5)

Furthermore, while Cassel and the Pats currently sport a 7-4 record, they haven't exactly been playing the stiffest competition. The 2007 Pats played (and beat) 6 playoff teams, the 9-7 Cleveland Browns, and the 8-8 Philadelphia Eagles. The 2008 Pats get to play against The AFC West and The NFC West, the two worst divisions in the NFL, with 2 "playoff teams" among them who probably wouldn't make the playoffs in any other division.

Finally, while Cassel might've lit up the opposing defenses in the past two games and currently hold that 90.5 QB rating, it doesn't come anywhere close to the 117.2 with 4,806 yds and 50 tds that Brady had in 2007. Easterbrook, et all. seem to have forgotten this, and that is really stupid.

I'm Sorry, I Have to Call You Out on This One, Heyman

I don't have much time before heading out to Game 3 of the ALDS in Chicago today. But here's something that just pissed me off oh-too-much to ignore.

Jon Heyman made MVP / Cy Young picks recently.

Here are his choices for AL MVP.

1. Francisco Rodriguez, Angels. An alltime great season with a record 62 saves.

2. Carlos Quentin, White Sox. Broke his hand in a fit of anger, costing him the top spot here.

3. Dustin Pedroia, Red Sox. The "jockey'' may actually win it with a scrappy attitude and solid stats (118 runs, 54 doubles).

4. Justin Morneau, Twins. Without him and his 129 RBIs, what does that lineup look like?

5. Kevin Youkilis, Red Sox. The Red Sox campaign is for Pedroia, but this guy is just as pesky (.569 slugging, 115 RBIs).

6. Joe Nathan, Twins. Another great, underappreciated Twins star.

7. Joe Mauer, Twins. Great two-way catcher who won another batting title (.330) and is easily the best in his business.

8. Jermaine Dye, White Sox. Unnoticed star had a nice season.

9. Josh Hamilton, Rangers. As talented as anyone playing, including A-Rod, and 130 RBIs doesn't hurt his cause.

10. Evan Longoria, Rays. Even better, they already locked him up for six years.

Here are his choices for AL Cy Young.

1. Cliff Lee, Indians. Once-in-a-decade type season for this reclamation project (22-3, 2.54 ERA).

2. Roy Halladay, Blue Jays. The one pitcher in the league who can complete what he starts (nine complete games).

3. Francisco Rodriguez. Now holds the alltime saves record.

Let's throw out the fact that K-Rod is a completely and totally ridiculous choice for MVP. Really. We're just going to toss that part clear out the window. Possibly the craziest and stupidest thing anyone in the history of the universe has ever said, because there are at least 30 other relievers in baseball this season who could have broken the saves record playing for the Angels. (We're talking set-up men too, like Shields or Joba or Springer, or the entire Rays bullpen. Side note: Did anyone notice that this was Mariano Rivera's best season ever? That WHIP is sick!) I'm totally serious. Toss that entire bit out the motherfucking window. I will not make fun of you for saying this.

No, no. The problem I have with you, Jon Heyman, is this.

So K-Rod, whom you feel is the most valuable player in the entire American League, is only the 3rd best pitcher in the American League.

"Pitchers," for those who didn't know, are a subset of "players."

Why is the award handed out to supposedly the best player in the entire fucking American League going to a guy you feel is only the 3rd best pitcher????

Sure, Halladay and Lee are the two best "pitchers." They've racked up tons and tons of "Good Pitcher Points." But zero "Value Points". This is because Franklin Gutierrez is terrible and the Blue Jays gave Rod Barajas 102 at-bats in the #5 hole (and 9 batting cleanup!). These are the reasons that K-Rod is your MVP while being considered by Jon Heyman to be the 3rd best pitcher in the American League. (He isn't.)

There's only one way to describe this, and it's the made-up word that Larry B used > 10 times after passing out on my couch piss drunk after we went to game #163 on Tuesday.

That's "FWAP", Jon Heyman. One hundred percent grade-A FWAP!

Welcome to the national stage Joe Posnanski! Now you should be fired

Know who Joe Posnanski is? Neither did I until reading his wikipedia page which includes these entries:

"Thanks to his wit, observational humor and interest in both the human and analytical side of the game, many consider him one of the finest baseball writers working in the mainstream media. In 2003 and 2005, Posnanski was named the best sports columnist in America by the Associated Press Sports Editors...On August 19, 2008, he announced that he was joining the staff of Sports Illustrated.He currently writes a weekly online column for Sports Illustrated, and his blog is reprinted on www.si.com."

A fellow blogger, eh? Maybe we should cut him some slack? No, never, not after this article:

Favre is a throwback to what great quarterbacks used to be

So, before the article even begins, we're to assume that there's something inherently wrong with the way every QB except Favre plays the game. This should be informative.

Still, here goes: Bob Griese wore glasses in Miami; Steve Grogan ran around like mad in New England; Richard Todd was getting booed in New York; Joe Ferguson was more Buffalo than the wings; Bert Jones had this amazing arm in Baltimore; Pittsburgh's Terry Bradshaw used to hold his index finger on the point of the ball when he threw; Dan Pastorini loved to throw deep in Houston; Brian Sipe was my hero in Cleveland even though his passes wobbled in the wind (even when the wind was behind him); Kenny Anderson never seemed to miss a pass in Cincinnati; Dan Fouts piloted Air Coryell in San Diego -- I loved the way he shuffled back into the pocket; Craig Morton was ancient in Denver; Jim Zorn used to duck under and spin away from defenders like Shaggy and Scooby Doo running from ghosts; Kenny Stabler was the Snake in Oakland; Steve Fuller was boring in Kansas City.

That would be a list of every starting quarterback in the AFC in 1979. I was 12 then and didn't have to look up any of them. Twenty-nine years later and their names all come back as easily as the number nine multiplication table.

I can name the entire starting lineup of the 1993 Baltimore Orioles. Lotta characters on that team. They didn't win shit, but man did I enjoy watching them play. This has nothing to do with modern day football, but neither does anything you just said.

Now, as I mentioned, there is nothing that sounds more grumpy-old-man than rambling on and on about how quarterbacks used to be better. But that's not what I'm saying -- I doubt very seriously that quarterbacks used to be better. I just think they used to be more famous, more easily remembered, more beloved, more representative of their cities...The only two things I knew about Tampa was that DisneyWorld was there and that Doug Williams was the quarterback, and only one of those two things turned out to be correct.

I can't tell you anything about Minnesota except that they have lakes and Tavaris Jackson is their quarterback. I have proved absolutely nothing about the quarterback position.

That has changed, I think. There are only a handful of quarterbacks these days who pierce the imagination--

I don't know what you're trying to say, but you're probably hitting too close to home for Peter King's liking.

with Tom Brady going down in New England and Peyton Manning looking just a wee ancient in Indianapolis, it's more like a carpool.

We hold these conclusions to be self evident after WEEK 1 OF THE REGULAR SEASON.

You have Eli Manning in New York, of course, though you get the sense that some Giants fans are waiting impatiently for the statute of limitations on the Super Bowl miracle to end so they can start booing again.

New York fans would prefer to boo Eli Manning, than for him to be successful and win them another Super Bowl.

You have Donovan McNabb in Philadelphia, though he has not started every game in a season since 2003.

And therefore, no one associates the current Eagles team with McNabb despite the fact that he threw for about 1,200 yards on Sunday.

You have Tony Romo in Dallas, though he might want to win a playoff game at some point.

Or he could just keep on being a celebrity, which was your original desire for NFL quarterbacks at the beginning of the article.

You have Drew, Matt, Carson, Jay, Rivers, Roethlisberger -- good quarterbacks all, but they're probably not sweeping the nation.

They should be out stumping! November 7th is less than 2 months away!

Finally, there's Brett Favre.

Ah yes, because when you think of Green Bay, New Jersey, New York, you immediately think "Brett Favre."

He is the last quarterback standing, the one guy out there who inspires some of the feelings of those old-time quarterbacks. This is in part because he IS an old-time quarterback; the guy was flinging passes in the NFL before the Soviet Union collapsed.

In Soviet NFL, pass flings Brett Favre.

But there's something else here too, something about the way Favre still plays the game, something in the way he flings footballs into double coverage, the way he seems indestructible, the way he throws TERRIBLE interceptions but then comes back and throws absurd touchdown passes.

It's called being inconsistent; most people aren't lauded for it.

That's the way it used to be. It's stunning to go back 30 and 40 years and look at the statistics of the quarterback heroes. In 1979, Terry Bradshaw threw 25 interceptions, and he didn't even lead the NFL in that category (that would be my hero Brian Sipe with 26).

Terry Bradshaw is also the only quarterback ever to receive more undeserved praise than Brett Favre. Take away that defense and his receivers and you've got Joey Harrington 1979.

The only guy to throw 25 or more interceptions in the last seven years ... yeah, that would be Brett Favre in 2005 when he threw 29 of them.

And it was a truly dreadful year that most Packers fans would like to forget. That's not to say that it was Favre's fault, but seriously, that's absurdly bad.

In 1979 Grogan led the NFL in touchdown passes, but he completed only 48.7 percent of his passes. You know how unthinkable it would be now to have an every week starting quarterback who completed fewer than half his passes? And he wasn't the only one. Williams completed 41.8 percent of his passes that year (a quarterback should be able to hit that many passes at night with the lights out) and took Tampa Bay to the NFC Championship Game.

You're complaining that NFL quarterbacks are now held to a higher standard in completion percentage?

In 1979 quarterbacks threw deep. The yards per completion numbers were significantly higher then (12.7 yards) than now (11.3).

Here's a funny fact, Brett Favre has averaged 12.7 or more yards per completion all of 1 times in his career.

That meant quarterbacks dropped back deeper, got sacked more, and they turned the ball over like crazy. That's probably why America loves Favre so much, he's the last of the throw-hicans, he's up at the top of nearly every quarterback category, good and bad, most touchdowns, most interceptions, third most fumbles, seventh-most sacked, he's been thrilling fans and driving them crazy for 17 years now.

I can't believe this needs explaining. The object of football is to score more points than your opponent. By throwing interceptions, fumbling, and taking sacks that lead to punts, not only are you surrendering an opportunity to score, but you are allowing your opponent the chance to gain points. Therefore, turnovers/sacks= bad = something you don't want your qb doing.

That's what it used to mean to be a quarterback. That changed. Coaches took over the game. Geniuses started calling plays. Everyone started demanding more prudent football. Defenses got more sophisticated and specialized. Sackers got bigger and stronger and faster and more dangerous. Quarterbacks were told to "manage" the game rather than "win" the game.

What a crying fucking shame that NFL quarterbacks have been forced to accept that pro football is a team game, and every team is much better off if their quarterback doesn't throw interceptions in attempt to play the game like it used to be played.

Fantasy football became the rage so that now every David Garrard interception in Jacksonville infuriates some doctor in Ann Arbor, some insurance person in Toledo and some farmer in Kansas and some home builder in Orange County.

You know who's probably also a bit peeved? Jacksonville fans because their team now has a statistically worse chance of winning.

Peep this # of interceptions to % chance of victory chart (this is for playoff games in the Superbowl era):

0 = .790
1 = .567
2 = .318
3 = .161
4 = .037
5 = .000
6 = .000

So let me close by asking, if you were at Lambeau Field on January 20th, 2008, which of the following were you more likely to hear a Packers' fan say after Favre threw that second interception:

A. Man, I just love watching Favre play the game like it used to be played.

B. We are totally fucking boned right now.

Gene Wojciefaf;ejlfawefak;lfsdf'pawefawski

(I never get sick of "man, old Gene needs a new last name" jokes).

Anyway, he shifted to baseball mode. Which means I'm shifting into shit all over his face mode.

Playoff success all that matters to Angels

Now that's just fucking brilliant.

Josh Byrnes: "I don't care what the hell else happens. I just want the Diamondbacks to win the division and make a quick first round exit."

ANAHEIM, Calif. -- So here are the Los Angeles Angels, who pretty much clinched the American League West on Opening Day, who are so good opposing coaches tell closer Francisco Rodriguez, "We don't really like to play you guys," who might have the best owner in baseball and whose clubhouse might be the dullest thing this side of "Asparagus: The Documentary."

Wow. That is the worst-composed sentence in the history of the English language. 4 derivations of the word "who". Is that supposed to be clever or something? Let's check this one out piece by piece.

ANAHEIM, Calif. -- So here are the Los Angeles Angels, who pretty much clinched the American League West on Opening Day,

And had a worse run differential than the A's when the A's sold off their team...

who are so good opposing coaches tell closer Francisco Rodriguez, "We don't really like to play you guys,"

Attention everyone! If there's anyone out there that knows something about superlatives, please give ol' Gene here a lesson. Please? This was painful to read.

who might have the best owner in baseball

Probably.

and whose clubhouse might be the dullest thing this side of "Asparagus: The Documentary."

Larry, your Gene Wojciechowski = Michael Scott comparison is reallllly holding water.

They're in the HOV lane for 90-plus victories and a fourth division title in the past five years. And if you can find a weakness in their everyday lineup, the Rally Monkey will wax and buff your car.

OK, I'll give it my best shot.....I'm going to have to squint reallllly hard though.

How about this one? Every team in fucking Major League Baseball except the Braves has a left fielder who hits better than Garret Anderson. This is not a joke. If you rank every team's left fielder by EqA. Garret Anderson is almost dead last. He's worse than fucking Willie Harris. Does this count as a weakness? I think it does!

Good thing too. My car needs both of those things very badly.

Here's the problem: The Angels have a habit of acing the compulsories but falling off the balance beam during the postseason program.

I can think of 1532 easier ways to write that sentence. And only one worse. This is it.

"Here's the problematic nature of the situation: The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (formerly just the Anaheim Angels, and formerly the California Angels) have a compulsive tendency to obliterate the opposition in the primary seasonal region of the baseball calendar but stumble off of a 30-story building in Parsippany, New Jersey during the schedule of baseball events that occur in the future with respect to the said primary seasonal region."

Angels outfielder Torii Hunter sits in front of his locker Thursday afternoon, a freshly poured cup of coffee at his feet, and listens patiently as I detail the playoff exits.

Why is this conversation between these two men even occurring?

Hunter is the guy who left the only franchise he had ever known (nearly 15 years in the Minnesota Twins' organization) for the one franchise he hoped would offer him a free-agent deal this past offseason -- the Angels. So yeah, it's sort of tough to convince Hunter, who literally scouted the Angels before signing a five-year, $90 million contract over the winter, that he might have made a career mistake.

This might be a liiiiiiiiitle off-topic there, Gene.

Most of all, Moreno wants what Hunter wants: a championship. He'll come into the clubhouse, pull up a chair next to Hunter and say, "I need a ring. I want a ring."

Hank Steinbrenner and Jerry Reinsdorf want.....?

Wanting and getting are two different things. The Angels are loaded, although the recent injuries to second baseman Howie Kendrick (placed on the DL Thursday with a strained left hamstring) and shortstop Erick Aybar (hamstring) could alter the postseason equation.

Aybar will be back in like a week. How does that matter?

Then we're talking about a lineup that goes Chone Figgins, Aybar,

Yeah, go ahead and bat that .316 OBP 2nd and pretend that isn't a weakness.

Teixeira, Guerrero, Hunter,

Very good, very good, overrated, still good.

Garret Anderson,

2nd worst starting LF in baseball.

Juan Rivera,

Yeah....no need to mention that he's having an absolutely terrible offensive season or anything.

Or that offense is 100% of the reason a DH plays baseball....

Kendrick

Yeah, so in Gene's world, Kendrick, a very good hitter, bats 8th, while Erick Aybar, a poor hitter, bats 2nd. Great. I totally believe you've seen an Angels game this year, Gene.

and catcher Jeff Mathis.

He's fucking terrible. Every team in Major League Baseball has a catcher who hits better than Jeff Mathis. Even the Angels have very underrated Mike Napoli, who should probably be in this spot in your batting order, but whoops! You just scooted over to MLB.com and noticed that they have Mathis listed first on the depth chart, didn't you? Rookie mistake from an old man, Gene.

Oh, by the way, on the whole, that lineup that you just fed me is not good. At all. Mayyyybe average-ish. Maybe.

All five starters in the pitching rotation have 10 or more wins (Joe Saunders leads with 14).

Those five men are pretty much the team right there.

And Rodriguez has as many saves as the Cleveland Indians and the Seattle Mariners
combined.

Put any of the top 30% of closers in baseball on the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in place of K-Rod and they do the same fucking thing. If he wins the Cy Young over Cliff Lee (who is probably the most valuable player in the AL), that's fucking bogus, 58+ saves or not.

Teixeira homered Thursday night, his 28th of the year and eighth since the trade. That sort of power helps fill a pothole in the Angels' lineup.

No, it filled a Kotchhole. Kotchholes are like potholes except their presence doesn't slow down your car, and have a glove inside them that actually prevents future damage to your car.

Scioscia won't discuss the upcoming postseason because, well, I guess he's worried about the Angels blowing a 16-game lead in the division with 29 games left. This is standard-issue Scioscia doctrine.

"Let's talk about it a month from now," says Scioscia, the manager Hunter calls a "brainiac."

But...I thought the Angels only cared about winning in the playoffs?

A month from now will be the day after the end of the regular season. Then the playoffs will start. Hunter can already see it: a champagne fest, ring ceremonies, a Rose Garden presentation at the White House.

"I got that picture in my head," Hunter says. "But we got a long way to go, a long journey. When you get in the playoffs, everything is going to be different. … We could win 100-plus games, and it does not matter. When you get to the postseason, you got to change. You got to be totally different. Any mistake you make, you're going home."

The Angels can tell him all about it.

Great.

So Gene, thanks for writing this article in which you revealed to me the following things.

1) You have no clue that Howie Kendrick is a way better hitter than Erick Aybar
2) You think that listing off players constitutes proof that the Angels have a "loaded lineup"
3) You pretend that Jeff Mathis, Garret Anderson, and Juan Rivera aren't fucking terrible.
4) You don't have a clue that Mike Napoli exists.
5) You quite possibly are the worst composer of sentences the world has ever seen.

Anonymous Club Official Provides Amazing Insight

From Jayson Stark's hard hitting, weekly baseball column:

But how much is Teixeira worth? If Scott Boras is serious about establishing a 10-year, $230 million price tag on Teixeira, he won't have many bidders to play the Yankees against. Most teams view him as a five-year, $90 million kind of guy.

"What really stands out, when you've got Vlad and Teixeira back-to-back in the same lineup, is what he isn't," an official of one club said. "Let's put it this way: I know which one I fear, and it isn't him. To me, when you see truly great players, they always have that extra edge, that killer instinct. Well, if this guy has it, he doesn't project it.

Vlad last 28 days: .302/.375/.593
Teixeira last 28 days: .396/.486/.670

I can't really decide which witticism to go with, so I'll do a choose your own adventure type thing:

A. Confounded anger: "Seriously, two people got paid to pass this information along. How come they have jobs in sports? ARRRGH!"
B. Norm MacDonald: "Yeah, Teixeira sure isn't PROJECTING. Definitely not hitting CONSISTENTLY and with...uh...POWER."
C: Snippy article ending comment: "Must be a reason this guy wanted to remain anonymous. ZING."