After Investigation, NBC Sports Fires A's Broadcatser Who Said Racial Slur On Air

After conducting an internal review, NBC Sports California has fired Oakland Athletics broadcaster Glen Kuiper, effective immediately. 

Kuiper was suspended on May 5, after uttering a racial slur during a segment before a game against the Royals. Kuiper mentioned visiting the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City, but he uttered a racial slur when he should have said "Negro".

Kuiper kept on talking after uttering the slur while his booth partner, former pitcher Dallas Braden, did not  react at all. After numerous people wondered about Braden's non-reaction, he explained he hadn't heard the slur because of the "nuances of live television". 

It was not until the sixth inning that Kuiper vaguely referred to the incident, stating that something he said "didn't come out quite the way I wanted it to". The Athletics called using the slur "unacceptable". After  Kuiper was suspended, he issued another statement: "I could not be more sorry and horrified by what I said. I hope you will accept my sincerest apologies."

Associated Press:

A person familiar with the investigation said "the decision was based on a variety of factors, including information uncovered in the internal review." The person spoke on condition of anonymity and didn't divulge specific details because the network had not publicly disclosed the results of the investigation.

I'm assuming at least some of the "information uncovered" in NBC Sports' internal review included additional racist slurs used by Kuiper. He had been broadcasting A's games for more than 16 years and if his slate was clean during all that time and he was truly horrified, I can't see NBC firing him for uttering one repulsive word on the air. However, his initial apology was very lame and he made no real reference to what he said in his second statement either.

Red Sox Trade For A Pitcher Who Is One Year Younger Than This Blog!

On Thursday, August 12, 2004, the Red Sox shutout the Devil Rays 6-0.

The Right Arm of God pitched a complete game with 10 strikeouts, allowing six hits and zero walks. The Pro had two doubles, a single, a walk, and scored two runs. Approximately two months away from going through (and creating) some crazy shit, Flo went 3-for-5 and drove in two runs.

Also on that day, Diego Hernández as born in Pueblo, Mexico.

Hernández, now 18 but still one year younger than this blog*, was traded today by the Yankees to the Red Sox, only the seventh time in the last 55 years that the two long-time rivals have swapped players. Hernández pitched in the Dominican Summer League last year. In exchange, New York got outfielder Greg Allen, who played in 15 games for them in 2021.

*: Post #1 was on August 26, 2003. This is Post #9,290.

The Joy of Sox post for that 2004 game is here. The week before, the Red Sox had finally stopped dicking around – they'd been playing .500 ball for three months – and started a hot streak that showed everyone what they could do. From August 7 to September 8, Boston went 26-5.

And from October 17-27, they went eight and motherfucking oh. You probably didn't need the reminder, but . . .

Thomas Harrigan (mlb.com) goes through the seven previous trades. In 1997, four months after getting Tony Armas Jr. from the MFY, Boston sent him on to Montreal as the final player in the Pedro Martinez deal. (Thanks, Yanks!)

But then Harrigan fucks it all up at the end by including Babe Ruth under "Other Notable Trades". That was not a fucking trade. Yes, Boston exchanged Ruth's contract for cash, which is just as good as money, but that's usually – and correctly – referred to as a goddamn sale. Harrigan writes that it might be "the most famous sports transaction ever" (I'd say it is, no might be about it) and he does use the word "purchased", but it's the last item in an article about trades. It's been 103 years since that infamous event and sportswriters still can't correctly relate the most simple fact about it.

Sabermetrics Is The Revival Of An Old Discussion (Abolishing Fielding Percentage, 1877-1886)

[Draft Post, October 1, 2018]

The Newsletter of the Official Scoring Committee
Society for American Baseball Research (SABR)
Volume 2, Number 2, June 2017

Nineteenth Century Sabermetrics: Range Factor by Richard Hershberger

The National Association, the only professional league apart from the National League, in its convention of February 1879 voted to abolish the error column from the official scores of its games. What could possibly have motivated such a bizarre action? It turns out that this was a fairly mainstream idea at the time.

Baseball statistics underwent, as is well known, a revolution in the late 20th century, with the effects still being worked out. One common theme in the controversy (now mostly, and blessedly, past) was that the traditional baseball statistics—batting average, earned run average, and so forth—are straightforward, or even obvious metrics. Many on both sides in the debate agreed on this, while disagreeing whether this was a virtue or a failing.

The claim never really stood up to scrutiny. Batting average, the ne plus ultra of traditional stats, appears to be simplicity itself: Hits divided by At Bats. In reality a lot of complexity is hidden in those two terms. Hitting the ball and getting on base does not necessarily mean the batter got a Hit, nor does a turn at bat necessarily constitute an At Bat.

This observation merely scratches the surface. When we look closely at the history of the traditional statistics, they turn out to be the product of decades of discussion and experimentation by trial and error. They may seem obvious to us today, whether through long familiarity or simple hindsight. Either way, they were anything but obvious to even the closest observers of the day. The modern sabermetrics revolution is, it turns out, not a new phenomenon after all. It only seems that way because the discussion and experimentation had died down through much of the 20th century. Sabermetrics is not a new discussion. It is a revival of an old one.

Stew Thornley, our committee chair, has graciously invited me to write on the abstruse topic of scoring in the 19th century. My aim is to show the discussions and experiments that eventually led to the traditional statistics. My hope is that this will be a series, however irregular, and dependent upon your patience and tolerance. I begin in 1879 in media res to show a path considered, but not taken: the elimination of the error from scoring, and a surprising end to that path: the invention in 1886 of Range Factor.

The error was already an old stat by 1879. It went back to the 1850s, as a disapproving cluck of the tongue at the errant fielder. The 1860s saw the rise of the base hit as a stat. The error came into prominence with it, taking on a new and important role of ensuring that the batter did not get any undeserved credit. The newly prominent error was then in the early 1870s reapplied to fielding in a more systematic manner, resulting in the Fielding Average.

It was with Fielding Average that problems arose. Fielding Average was early recognized as an imperfect tool. Here is a discussion that nicely states the problem:

The sharp bounder between first and second base, that Gerhardt or Dunlap would field in a majority of cases, would be a safe hit were some other player on second base. The question then arises whether it is justice to Gerhardt or Dunlap to charge them with an error when they fail to stop such balls, while a lazy or indifferent second baseman allowed them to be scored as base hits by making no effort to stop them. The same is true of every other in-field position. A hard hit grounder past third base may, by the exercise of great agility, be stopped and thrown to first base in time to retire the batsman. The fielder gets credit for an assist only, no matter though he make the brilliant play a half dozen consecutive times. The seventh time he fails and is charged with an error, while a less agile baseman would fail to make an error, even, and the seven batsmen would score base hits. This is a manifest injustice. Base hits should depend upon the merits of the batsman, not upon the demerits of the fielder. If the league managers can frame any rule to rectify this error, they should do so. (Detroit Free Press, October 18, 1881)

The writer's challenge for a rule to rectify the problem went unmet until a century later Bill James invented Range Factor. There also was an early recognition of the subjectivity of scoring errors, and its susceptibility to homerism:

A pitcher would be charged with earned runs and base-hits against him by one scorer, while another would charge the field with the errors, thereby relieving the pitcher. In fact, this error business is ... ill defined in its rules ... (New York Clipper, February 8, 1879)

Some action should be taken in regard to official scorers. They are appointed by the club managers, and are generally, no doubt, moral young men, who want to secure a dead-head ticket to the games; but ... [i]n plain words, official scorers are liable to stretch their elastic consciences in favor of their home club, and will continue to do so until there are some fixed and definite rules for their guidance. (Detroit Free Press, October 18, 1881)

For all the failings of Fielding Average, and the error tabulation underlying it, it was the best fielding metric they had. It was, absent anything better, generally considered the best way to assess a fielder, and negotiate pay accordingly. People respond to incentives. Some players adopted the simple stratagem of only fielding balls they were sure they could handle. These were known as "record players" and widely condemned, even as the incentives to record playing remained in place. The solution is to change the incentives—to create statistics that better reflect team play. Many innovations, such as scoring sacrifice hits, had improving incentives as the underlying goal. This was the background to the proposal to eliminate errors. Here is an early proposal for the elimination of the error:

The abolition of the error columns. Bold, daring fielding on the part of every fielder would liven up the game twenty per cent. Base ball patrons will remember how, at times, a remarkable play by a fielder in taking great chances has enthused the spectators and given vim to the sport. But, with the error column staring them in the face, alas, most players take but few wide chances. Nothing is so disgusting to a crowd of lookers-on as to see a player shirk a difficult play when it is patent to all that he feared there were too many chances for an error against him to induce him to attempt the play. With no error record to go against him no chance would be slighted by a player, for then he would have every thing to gain if he made the play and nothing to lose if he failed. Give him the benefit of his assists and put-outs as usual, but demolish that demoralizing factor, the error column. (Cincinnati Enquirer, December 4, 1877)

The idea was a regular topic of discussion among scoring aficionados. In the end nothing came of it. The National Association was well into its tailspin into oblivion and already was irrelevant. Newspaper reports of its games often followed the traditional practice and included errors.

The National League seems never to have seriously considered the idea. The idea popped up from time to time through the 1880s, but had acquired the status of "old chestnut"—a theoretical notion to be chewed on in the winter months, but not a practical proposal.

I wrote earlier that Fielding Average was the best measure available until Bill James invented Range Factor. This is not quite true. The flamboyant and contentious sportswriter O. P. Caylor was the leading advocate of abolishing the error. Here he runs the idea up the flagpole in 1886. His proposal doesn’t stop with eliminating the error. He has a positive proposal for its replacement:

Do you ask what I would have instead of the error column? This: I would give every fielder credit for all he did—every assist and every put-out—without recording his failures. Then every fielder would be interested in taking every chance, however desperate, without fear of loss by doing so. I would then make out the players' averages by the number of assists and put-outs he had, divided by the number of games he played, and compare every man's record only with the record of the other fellows of his position. (The Sporting Life, February 3, 1886)

Put-outs plus Assists, divided by Games played: this is Range Factor, invented by O. P. Caylor in 1886. Caylor in 1877 was the baseball writer for the Cincinnati Enquirer. It is entirely likely that he wrote the proposal to eliminate errors previous quoted. His thinking had progressed over the ensuing decade. In 1886 he had a flash of genius. Sadly, the idea was both after its time and ahead of it. Had he worked out Range Factor in 1877, when the idea of eliminating errors was a viable proposal, Range Factor might have been adopted and grown beloved over the years, finding its way onto the back of baseball cards. As it was, the idea disappeared almost as soon as it appeared, not to be seen again for nearly a century.

Here we have a road not taken. While a missed opportunity, it shows the scope and the sophistication of the discussions. In later installments I will look at the roads that were taken and why.

Richard Hershberger is the author of Strike Four: The Evolution of Baseball (Introduction by John Thorn).

Nick Cafardo: "I Enjoyed The Days When Umpires Actually Made Mistakes"

Nick Cafardo, Boston Globe, January 26, 2019:

All of the time-saving ideas for improving pace of play are negated by time spent on instant replay. Get rid of it. I enjoyed the days when umpires actually made mistakes, and when managers would come out of the dugout to perform a colorful and entertainin argument, as Billy Martin and Earl Weaver once did. The technological advancements have made the game more boring.

1. Cafardo, who is ensconced in one of the most prestigious baseball writing gigs in the world, admits his longing for those halcyon days when umpires made blatantly wrong calls.

2. Besides expressing his joy in watching teams lose games because of incorrect calls, Cafardo believes that umpires no longer make mistakes.

3. Cafardo does not realize that a hot-headed manager "performing" a "colorful argument" delays the game, often for a much longer period of time than a replay review.

4. While modern technological advancements have only increased and improved our knowledge of baseball and helped us appreciate and marvel at the myriad amazing things that players can do, Cafardo yells at them to get off his lawn.

(He also misspelled "entertaining" (or his editor failed to correct the mistake).)

Cafardo's moronic statement reminds me of something equally idiotic that Steve Lyons said on NESN back in May 2016. Lyons admitted that replay "really shows some of the flaws in umpiring, because they miss some calls and they have to be overturned. But ... I still think they get most of it right. And when they don't, well, sometimes you're supposed to lose."

Cafardo's Sunday column began thusly:

A few issues to think about as we move closer to spring training:

The rift between team owners and players is growing wider by the day as big-name free agents remain unsigned in late January. Both sides are on a collision course toward a major blowup and threat to future labor peace.

Will the Players Association take major action to protest what it feels is unfair labor practices by the owners? There already are some discussions on the player side on things they could do to get the owners' attention. One suggestion was a spring training boycott.

That's it. End of discussion. Cafardo does not write another word on this subject. He casually mentions the possibility of every major league player refusing to report to spring training - which is scheduled to begin in roughly two weeks - and believes, apparently, that typing the words is enough "thinking" about that issue. (Also, a boycott of spring training will do more than get the "owners' attention".)

And since this is a Cafardo Sunday Baseball Notes Column, he must include (as mandated by law):

Complaints about "analytics":

Older players bring clubhouse chemistry. They act as leaders and de facto coaches. They bring all of the intangible things that younger players can't offer until they've gained a little wisdom and experience. They offer things that analytic models can't always calculate.

[He also says hard-working, blue-collar, family-supporting, quotes-to-Cafardo-giving scouts can't find work because teams are being run by boring nerds.]

Unquestioning huzzahs for the Yankees:

When you ask the game's general hierarchy which team has won the offseason, a common answer is the Yankees. And with good reason.

Funny and inconsistent things:

The Yankees hate finishing behind the Red Sox in the standings and getting beaten by them in the ALDS. ...

The Red Sox seem to be in no hurry to sign a reliever. [then, in the next paragraph] There are still plenty of bullpen arms left ...

A ton of questions (instead of doing the actual research, interviewing, and brain-work involved in finding possible answers, Cafardo the Baseball Insider asks the reader, as if she is writing the column with him):

Imagine if the Red Sox didn't have 35-year-old Steve Pearce. Would they have won the World Series? ...

If baseball is a $10 billion business, why are so many teams on an austerity program? ...

Do we really think [the Red Sox will] be able to re-sign all of the players whose contracts are up for renewal over the next two years? ...

Could the Phillies wind up with both Machado and Harper? Or would they hold back on signing both so they can put themselves in position to sign Mike Trout when he becomes a free agent after 2020? ...

[A]re Gio Gonzalez or Ervin Santana possibilities for [the Yankees'] fifth [starter] spot? ...

Is the reason the Indians have shopped Corey Kluber and Trevor Bauer more because in his new deal Carrasco will earn $3 million if he's traded before the end of 2019, and just $1 million after it? ...

What will the Orioles do with the first pick in the June draft?

Finally, there is this:

It appears the Red Sox have one more year to go for it.

After 2019, the Red Sox will no longer be allowed to try to reach the postseason. ... Damn it!

Michael Wilbon: Dumber Than Dirt (And Unashamed)

Here is some dirt.

I'm willing to bet that dirt knows more about baseball than ESPN's Michael Wilbon.

This story is a few weeks old, but is worth mentioning. After Mets pitcher Jacob de Grom won the NL Cy Young Award (with 29 of 30 first-place votes), Wilbon vented about the baseball establishment on "Pardon the Interruption":

I'm not with these people. I don't respect their judgment, actually, because I don't value what they value. I value winning the damn game more than the ERA. And therefore, it is analytical hijacking. They want to hijack baseball, they want to impose their will and tell you what's important. I don't share most of and maybe none of their values, and it's absurd.

Wilbon was not satirizing older, fuddy-duddy sportswriters who cannot be bothered to learn anything new and pine for the days when Wins and RBI and Batting Average were the cat's pajamas. No, he meant what he said. (Attention-seeking "hot takes" are so important that having everyone ridicule you as a clueless moron is better than being ignored.)

One commenter at that link noted: "Wilbon has been ranting for many, many months about this. Unfortunately for him, de Grom kept pitching so extraordinarily well ... Wilbon boxed himself in so much that could not admit the obvious, so now he's doubling down on his criticism of 'those people.' ... [H]e's so stubborn that he comes across as an ignorant blowhard."

According to SNY: "Back in September when it became apparent de Grom was the frontrunner for the award, Wilbon called it 'garbage' that he was even considered due to his then-losing record."

Wilbon was yelling at clouds in August, as well. This exchange is amazing: "I'm big on wins. ... I don't care what the ERA is. ... Win - The - Damn - Game. [He doesn't get any run support] Okay, you gotta hang tough then. [Hang though?] Yeah, don't allow any. [His ERA is 1.81] I don't care about his ERA. ... There are some nights when you gotta do a better job, when you gotta give up nothing or one because your guys aren't hitting."

Of course, giving up "nothing or one" was pretty much what de Grom did all summer long. He allowed two runs or fewer in 26 of 32 starts. In games in which he allowed NO runs, the Mets went 4-4. I guess de Grom should have been even "tougher" and allowed -1 runs.

Sarah Langs, Twitter (I reorganized her info):

Jacob de Grom: 1.70 ERA, best in MLB. He went 10-9 & Mets were 14-18 in his starts
Lucas Giolito: 6.13 ERA, worst in MLB. He went 10-13 & White Sox were 14-18 in his starts
That's the same number of pitcher wins and same team record... for the best and worst pitchers in MLB.

I was wondering what baseball will do when every single fan watching a game is more enlightened than the announcers, but then I read some of the other comments below that Awful Announcing story and realized that ignorance will never come close to going out of style.

Something I Learned Today: Wilbon believes that ERA - which the National League began officially compiling 107 years ago - is part of the tyrannical analytic movement that is ruining baseball.

John Smoltz: Not As Bad An Announcer As Ron Darling, But Still Very Horrible

In Game 1 of the World Series, John Smoltz would not shut the hell up. This annoyance was compounded by the fact that he usually failed to offer any insight whatsoever. It was nothing more than constant noise pollution that distracted from the game on the screen.

Sure, Smoltz is probably better than TBS's Ron Darling, but that's like saying the next Republican president will not be as bad as Donald Trump (presumably). It's just about the lowest bar there is.

Marc Normandin of SB Nation agrees:

John Smoltz hates baseball, which wouldn't be much of an issue if he was just grumbling about the state of the game in 2018 on his couch while thinking about the next morning's tee time. No, instead, Smoltz gets to do that from the comfort of the announcers' booth broadcasting World Series games on national television. ...

There's the little stuff, like calling players by the wrong name — Smoltz called Red Sox reliever Matt Barnes "Hembree" twice in one inning in Game 1, even though Hembree had not appeared in the game nor had been mentioned in any other context — and the bigger stuff, like spending the entirety of the replays of a key Yasiel Puig home run complaining about how he's too energetic and it annoys everyone around him. Smoltz was also giving this speech while the Dodgers' dugout was losing their minds celebrating said homer with Puig. Reading the room isn't exactly a Smoltz trait. ...

Baseball was a different game even nine years ago, yes, but it can't be that hard to find an analyst who understands the game on a deep level while not actively hating what they see in front of them during the series where MLB should be making brand new fans and appealing to current ones. ...

Smoltz complains about excessive celebrations, which for him is any celebration beyond a stoic nod or reserved fist pump. He complains about shifts. He came up with various ways to discredit Matt Kemp for hitting a homer early in Game 1 by saying that some other hits the Dodgers had were good examples of good hitting, while Kemp was simply lucky ...

I commented last October that [Smoltz] often got so close to actually being good, but then he'd just keep talking. This year, he occasionally flashes reminders he does know the game he's paid to announce, but he's time and time again showed a preference for using his mic time to complain instead. The World Series deserves better, and so do the people watching it.

You may recall that in Game 2 of last year's World Series, Smoltz said that if a team absolutely must score one run in the ninth inning to avoid losing a one-run game, hitting a single is better than hitting a home run.

Boston Globe Gets The Most Basic Baseball Facts Wrong

In today's edition of its 108 Stitches newsletter, the Boston Globe states:

IN GOOD STANDING: In League Championship Series history, 31 of 38 teams (82 percent) that claimed a 3-1 lead in a best-of-seven series have advanced to the World Series. Only three American League teams have ever come back from a 3-1 deficit in the ALCS: The 1986, 2004, and 2007 Red Sox.

This is wrong (and very easily fact-checked, if a newspaper editor felt that doing so was important).

The Royals came back from 1-3 against the Blue Jays in 1985, the first year the ALCS went to a best-of-7.

It has been done three times in the NL: Atlanta (1996), Marlins (2003), and Giants (2012).

Could Anything Top This Tweet As 'Exhibit A' In The Argument To "Kill The Win"?

The Ace of Spaeder:

The two longest streaks of consecutive starts with three or fewer runs allowed:

Jake Arrieta (Cubs) - 29 games - 24-1 record during streak
Jacob deGrom (Mets) - 28 games - 7-9 record during streak

The Red Sox Are Not Using An "Opener" When Chris Sale Starts On Tuesday

The Tampa Bay Rays have experimented this season with having one of their relievers pitch the first (and sometimes the second) inning, before switching to a pitcher more accustomed to working for many innings. People have taken to calling these repurposed reliever "openers" - the opposite of a "closer".

Teams score in the first inning more often than any subsequent inning, since a team is guaranteed (assuming its manager fills out a fairly traditional lineup card) to send its best hitters to the plate. The "opener" strategy allows the reliever to face a lineup's heavy hitters right away, giving the next guy (probably a starter) an advantage on his third time through the lineup. Also, a team will not pinch-hit at the start of a game to gain a platoon advantage.

During NESN's Red Sox broadcast on September 4, Dave O'Brien mentioned the "opener" phenomenon and stated that several teams have begun doing it. He said Chris Sale wanted to be referred to as the "opener" when he makes an abbreviated start on Tuesday and O'Brien subsequently began referring to him in that way.

Saw Tampa Bay won again today. They've won nine of their last 10. .. That whole 'opener' thing? That a lot of people said, Ahhh, it'll never catch on. Guess what it's doing? Teams are beginning to use it.

Both of O'Brien's statements are wrong.

Cliff Corcoran of The Athletic, in looking closely at what the Rays are doing, states that a team uses an opener when they begin "a game with a short outing by a pitcher who typically works in relief".

Chris Sale does not typically work out of the bullpen. Every single one of his appearances dating back to May 12, 2012, has been as a starting pitcher. That's 198 games. Tuesday night at Fenway Park against the Blue Jays will be no different. Sale is coming back from an injury, so he will be limited to only two innings or 40 pitches. But he remains a starting pitcher who is starting a game.

What about O'Brien's claim that this strategy is "catching on" with other teams? I'll let you be the judge. As of Saturday, in 2018:

I don't think I made a note about this, but O'Brien - perhaps on September 4, perhaps during another game - named a player who came up with the term "opener" this season. That is also wrong. Bryan Grosnick of Beyond The Box Score used the term "opener" in November 2013.

I shouldn't be surprised. Moneyball (written, of course, by Billy Beane) was published in 2003 and many announcers still - more than 15 years later - exhibit no knowledge of what the philosophy behind the title means.

Blue Jays Announcers Say The Red Sox "Took A Lot Of Heat" For Signing J.D. Martinez

How annoyed was I by all the crap during Tuesday's NESN broadcast? I realized, in the interest of my short-term sanity, I should listen to the Blue Jays' feed, with Buck Martinez and Pat Tabler, on Wednesday.

Although Martinez and Tabler praised every facet of the Red Sox team and organization for three hours, it was dreadful. Martinez's nasal whine is something you never get used to and Tabler's analysis invariably devolves into an aural instruction manual on how to play the game. But they did say a few amazing things while the Red Sox were pounding out 10 runs:

1. The MVP doesn't just have the best stats or is the best player. He's the most valuable.

2. The "analytical world" discounts the value of the stolen base.

3. The Red Sox took a lot of heat for signing J.D. Martinez.

4. A player with an OPS of .800 or higher is a "superstar".

T2, Jackie Bradley at the plate:

Buck Martinez: And that's the beauty of this Red Sox ball club. You can shut down their big guys, but there are enough bats in this lineup to do a lot of damage.

Pat Tabler: And that's why I think J.D. Martinez is going to get a lot of votes for the MVP. It depends on how you define MVP and what he means to a team. It's not just the guy with the best stats or the best player. It's the guy who is the most valuable, and by him going into this lineup, it's made everybody around him better and they've got some really good hitters at the bottom of the lineup now. ... That was the one thing missing from the Boston Red Sox last year, was that run producer in the middle of the lineup. Right now, they are the best hitting team in the American League. [Bradley walks]

Martinez: Yeah, and you know this, having been a player. When you have that horse in your lineup, everybody kind of defers to him. They say, well, okay, if we get in a jam, J.D. will take care of us. If we get up against a tough pitcher, J.D. will take care of us. Really takes a lot of pressure off the rest of the lineup.

Tabler: I remember that like it was yesterday, in 1992, when Dave Winfield came over here. That was the type of influence he had on the team, exactly the same kind that J.D. Martinez has had on the Red Sox this year.

Martinez: David Ortiz was that guy for so many years for the Red Sox. Of course, he didn't play last year and they really missed that presence. 1-0 to Eduardo Nunez. Bradley is perfect this season in steal attempts, he's 11-for-11. As I mentioned on the pre-game show, this is another aspect of the Red Sox that people were overlooking, their ability to steal bases.

Tabler: Yesterday, going into that game, they were tied for the league lead with 87. They picked up a couple more yesterday.

Martinez: The analytical world discounts the value of the stolen base, but having been a former catcher, I can tell you - it's a distraction. It's a distraction for the pitcher, the catcher, and the middle infielders. Everybody's got to keep an eye on Jackie Bradley Jr.

Tabler's explanation - the Most Valuable Player is the most valuable player - is not helpful.

When things look bleak, other Red Sox hitters are saying "J.D. will take care of us"? I do not believe that for a micro-second.

The analytical world does not discount the value of the stolen base. That is nonsense. Theo Epstein is happy to tell you there is a place for the stolen base in the modern game. But, as with bunting, the risk in many cases is not worth the reward. This FanGraphs article states that "stolen bases are only beneficial if they are swiped with roughly a 75% success rate":

This number stems from looking at a run expectancy chart and comparing the difference in expected runs after a successful stolen base and the difference in expected runs after a failed attempt. ... Of course the break-even point is not the same for every situation. Previous studies have shown this required success rate drops as the game moves into the later innings and increases the further a team is down by ...

I'm a huge supporter of "the analytical world" and I love the fact that the Red Sox run. They do it smartly and that shows in their high success rate.

T5, Mookie Betts leading off:

Martinez: Boston, the first team to record 80 wins this season. They were also the first team to have 80 wins in 2009.

No, they were not.

The 2009 Red Sox won their 80th game on September 8. At that point, four other teams had already won more than 80 games, including the Yankees with 90. Before 2018, the last time the Red Sox were the first team to 80 wins was 2007, when they were 80-51 on August 26.

Still T5:

Martinez: We mentioned the 80-34 record, the franchise's best winning percentage all-time. And they are projected to have 114 wins. Been a long time since they've gotten off to this great start.

Yes, never before is certainly a long time. Also, can 114 games be considered "a start" of a season?

Still T5:

Martinez: This is the guy, J.D. Martinez, signed as a free agent and - the Red Sox took a lot of heat for signing him. Like, really? We don't need his bat. Boy, do you ever need his bat. And the difference is dramatic.

Tabler: It was late, too, wasn't it?

Martinez: Real late.

Tabler: Late in the off-season.

Martinez: February, yep. Nobody wanted to step up.

Who with any connection to the Red Sox - from John Henry all the way down to seven-year-old fans - said of J.D. Martinez: "We don't need his bat"? And the organization took heat for signing him? When? Where? Who? ... Maybe other teams in the AL were pissed that a division winner for the last two seasons had now added a great hitter to its lineup, but that's about it.

They also seem to fault the Red Sox for not "stepping up" earlier to sign JDM. Dave Dombrowski's waiting game was an off-the-charts success because the Red Sox were able to get Martinez for about $100 million less than what he was reportedly looking for/expecting. This was one of the biggest stories of the winter - and Martinez and Tabler get it wrong from every possible angle.

B4, Devon Travis leading off:

Martinez: He got off to a slow start and was eventually sent back to the minor leagues. ... Since he's come back from AAA, Pat, he's been a very consistent hitter.

Tabler: And I love the OPS. His on-base plus his slugging. Up over .800. That's superstar territory right there. If you have a second baseman with an OPS of .800 or better, you've got a really good player.

Tabler considers a player with an .800 OPS a "superstar"? Going into last night's games, there were 63 players in the major leagues with an OPS of .800 or higher. That seems like an excessive amount of "superstars" to me.

Among MLB second basemen, there were five with an OPS over .800 and another two above .790. Could there be five (or seven) second basemen that qualify as superstars? If seven, that would mean that roughly one out of every four teams has a superstar at second base. Not just a really good player, or a star, or an All-Star, but a "superstar".

In May, Bill James posted an article titled "So what is a Superstar, zactly?"

You can make a relatively clear determination as to how many players in baseball are considered "stars". It's 2 to 5 per team. It is very clear, from the way that the word is used, that every team has stars. Baltimore has not been winning a lot of games this year, but you can still say who the stars of the team are (Manny Machado and Adam Jones). ...

An announcer will say about an opposing team that "There are a lot of stars on their roster" or "there are not many stars on this team", but he will very rarely say that there are NO stars on the team. ... The number of "stars" per team has to be somewhere between 2 and 5, so let's say that it is 3 or 4.

I'm not trying to tell you how many players should be considered stars; I am merely observing how the term is used. If you want to say "That is too many players to be considered stars; there should only be about 20 players in baseball considered 'true stars',", that's fine, but what you are really saying is that "I want to define the word differently than everybody else uses it." Define it however you want, but don't expect other people to pay attention to you.

If there are 3 or 4 stars per team, that means 90 to 120 in baseball. Let's say 100. If we have 100 "stars" in baseball, and 7 players who are superstars [this info from more than 2,000 fans in a poll James conducted], then we have an answer to one of the questions which causes confusion in this discussion: What percentage of stars should be considered superstars? It's about 7%. My best guess.

Having reached that realization, I then thought that maybe it would be fun to draw up a list of who exactly was a superstar at each moment in baseball history.

I love it: "maybe it would be fun". ... James quickly realizes that the number of superstars "has to be more like 15%". The entire article is, as you might expect, extremely interesting.

The New York Post Claims Red Sox And Yankees Have Been "Playing Ping-Pong" With MLB's Best Record "For Most Of The Year"? Is That True?

In a preview article for the four-game series between the Yankees and Red Sox that begins tonight at Fenway Park, Mike Vaccaro of the New York Post writes that the long-time rivals have been

playing ping-pong with the sport's best record for most of the year until lately, with the Sox edging out a little farther ahead.

One online definition of "ping-pong" as a verb is "to move back and forth or transfer rapidly from one locale, job, etc., to another; switch".

Has baseball's best record has been moving back and forth between the Red Sox and Yankees for most of the season?

You can probably guess that Vaccaro is full of shit for two reasons:

1.  I would not be posting if his statement was correct.
2.  You have followed baseball this year.

So with that in mind, I will give you a spoiler. When it comes to days spent in (or tied for) first place in the AL East, the Red Sox lead the Yankees 112-28.

This calendar shows the days on which the Red Sox or Yankees had MLB's best record. I went by winning percentage and used Baseball Reference's definition of a day, i.e., the standings after that day's games have been played. Purple squares are days on which the Red Sox and Yankees were tied for baseball's best record. A blank square means some other team held the best record.

The only time all season that could be considered ping-ponging was a small four-day stretch from June 29 to July 2.

The number of days that the best record "ping-ponged" completely from one team to the other? Eight. But not before May 22 and not after July 2.

March  - 0
April  - 0
May    - 1
June   - 5
July   - 2
August - 0

Atlanta Broadcasters Joe Simpson And Chip Caray Express Disgust At Dodgers' Batting Practice Attire

Atlanta broadcasters Joe Simpson and Chip Caray went on a now-well-circulated rant on Saturday, criticizing the Dodgers for what they were wearing during batting practice.

Simpson began shaking his fist at passing clouds in the fifth inning:

Simpson: You know that I grew up in the Dodger organization and certainly was taught how to play professional baseball and do things the right way. I want you to look at some things that were going on today in batting practice here, with the Dodgers. What do you see? T-shirts. You see Chase Utley with no socks and pants up over his knees. T-shirt. This was prevalent with their whole team. And I think about fans that come to SunTrust Park who are Dodgers fans and want to see their players. They had no idea who any of them were. Nobody had any kind of uniform or batting practice shirt on with their name on their jersey. They looked very unprofessional. And I think I can say this because I know what the Dodger organization was all about --

Caray: There's the bunt [by Atlanta pitcher Max Fried]. It is perfect.

Simpson: But if I were a Dodgers fan, I'd be embarrassed. And I don't know how Major League Baseball allows such attire when the gates are open and fans are watching. Chase Utley, I've had nothing but respect for him, his whole career, I think he's a great player and I thought he always played the game the right way. That was an embarrassment what he had on today during batting practice.

Caray: You think of all the merchandising that Major League Baseball does with their practice uniforms and the batting practice jerseys. I'm with you. Why not -- Look, it's called a uniform for a reason.

Dodger Thoughts:

That Simpson's comments were accompanied by a lengthy tape from batting practice only underscores what an orchestrated hit job this was. It's absolutely extraordinary for one team's announcers take a shot at an entire organization over this. ...

[S]omehow Simpson thinks that his take on what's appropriate for the Dodger franchise is more qualified than literally everyone working for the team today ... The sheer arrogance of it all is astounding. ...

Then there's the heartbreaking concern that Dodger fans who want to see their players "had no idea who any of them were." Think about that for a moment. Dodger fans committed enough to make the effort to see their team take batting practice play on a July afternoon in Atlanta wouldn't recognize Utley or Justin Turner or new hero Max Muncy. Guess what, Joe: Dodger fans of that caliber will recognize those guys in silhouette.

This entire kerfuffle, of course, is an even bigger hoot given the ongoing conversation about baseball marketing. Heaven forfend that a couple of hours before first pitch, any ballplayer shows off some individuality. ...

The only saving grace from tonight was that at least the ballplayers shown on the video were white. Because if Simpson had laid out this diatribe using Yasiel Puig as the object of his derision, my head would have truly exploded.

But Caray was not done!

@DodgersLowDown tweeted to Caray:

Completely classless tonight by you and Joe Simpson. Our boys have worn similar clothing when doing BP in LA even when Vin Scully was announcing and he never whined about our guys disrespecting the game the way you two did tonight.

Caray replied, in a tweet that no longer exists:

I'm not the guy taking BP in Capri-mimicking pants, no socks, and no "uniform." My partner merely pointed it out. Only mlb teamhesxseen be so non-"uniform." Why not wear MLB-issued BP jerseys with names on road so paying customers know who's who? Lighten up.

Really? Caray thinks the fan should lighten up? Holy shit!

Dodgers Digest posted tweets from fans and players:

Current players, former players ... local media, national media ... baseball was united through their sheer ridiculousness. [M]ost [Atlanta] fans I've seen are basically saying they hope this blows up so they can get a new announcing team.

Deadspin:

[C]rusty old fuddy-duddies Joe Simpson and Chip Caray threw the saddest little mid-game tantrum Saturday night ... Plenty to gripe about [in Atlanta's performance that night], but no — Simpson and Caray were distracted with disgust over what several Dodgers players chose to wear....to batting practice. So were the Dodgers players nude? Wearing codpieces? Were they taking batting practice while draped in the fresh hides of their enemies? No, it turns out they were taking batting practice in t-shirts. Regular old t-shirts.

Utley's shirt - which bothered Simpson so much he mentioned it twice in five seconds - was a Dodgers' K Cancer t-shirt. It was designed by former Atlanta reliever (!) Jason Motte's foundation; a portion of the proceeds go to benefit cancer research.

The Sporting News:

Simpson isn't shy about taking digs at opponents and opponents' cities ... Still, his old-man, "Back in my day" tsk-tsking about the Dodgers not being in full uniform for batting practice Saturday in Atlanta was bad even for him.

It's also a bit of a stretch for Simpson to claim he "grew up" in the Dodgers organization. He was drafted by the Dodgers in 1973 and had a grand total of 67 plate appearances in four years (1975-78), during which he hit .188/.224/.203.

USAToday:

It's worth noting that batting practice takes place two or three hours before game time and has no direct bearing on the day's result.

The Associated Press Fails To Get Even The Most Basic Facts Correct

The Associated Press began last night's game story (which was posted by NBC Sports Boston) with this sentence:

Mookie Betts homered on the first pitch of the bottom of the 10th inning to lift the Boston Red Sox to a 4-3 win over the Minnesota Twins on Friday night.

How hard is it to report the correct information?

It's apparently much harder than I thought.

What actually happened was:

Mookie Betts homered on the second pitch of the bottom of the 10th inning to lift the Boston Red Sox to a 4-3 win over the Minnesota Twins on Friday night.

Baseball Reference

MLB.com

And - although it is much less official - we have my scorecard:

It is almost 14 hours since the story was posted and it has not yet been corrected.

Okay, Winning Is Fun ... But Is Having Fun A Good Thing?

A short sequel to "Why Does The Boston Sports Media Want Us To Think A Successful Red Sox Team Is Boring?":

(weei.com)

Why Does The Boston Sports Media Want Us To Think A Successful Red Sox Team Is Boring?

I have watched, listened to, and read about a lot of Red Sox games since I turned 12 years old during the 1975 World Series. After almost three decades, I still had no idea if I would ever see my team win a World Series championship. Now there is a serious chance that I could see the Red Sox win their fourth championship in the last 15 seasons. This is amazing.

My entire attitude about the Red Sox was irrevocably altered after 2004. It was a huge change and I had no control over it. The lows are not nearly as low and while the highs certainly have been muted, I think it's a pretty good trade-off.

Here is the thing: I like it when my team wins. Winning is always better than losing. That probably seems obvious, but to judge by their words, I think some members of the Boston sports media would disagree with me. There are people covering the Red Sox who make a real effort to convince fans that (a) winning is not the most important thing, (b) when they win, it is either not fun or no big deal, and (c) if they lose, the only thing to do is panic. (Also, when the team does poorly, there is always at least one writer who sees it as his mission to shit on the fans for following a lousy team.)

What these writers and announcers want is a team that makes their jobs as easy as possible. They are lazy. They don't much care about baseball and they don't care about the Red Sox. They don't care about the fans they are writing for. They simply want to put in the least amount of work possible (maybe that's the real reason why they complain about the length of games).

When there is controversy, their jobs are easier. A circus is easier to cover than a seminar. With a circus, you describe the spectacle around you and give simple, blunt comments. When you cover a seminar, you've got to listen and you've probably got to ask questions. You've got to think. And thinking is Kryptonite to these guys. (P.S. I not really saying baseball is like a seminar.)

On July 8, Dan Shaughnessy wrote that baseball is now boring. It "has become the sanctuary of senior citizens". Its stars are "increasingly anonymous". The 2018 Red Sox:

are winning almost 70 percent of their games, but [they] are studiously bland. Boston's clubhouse is populated by polite young men who are careful with their words, rarely interesting and never provocative. It's as if they are trained to drain the color from their commentary. ... No controversy, No color.

Earlier in the column, he yawned: "Meaningless game after meaningless game ... So much winning. Whoop dee do."

Why, in the age of Twitter, are today's best baseball players so "anonymous"? Why do the current Red Sox players never say anything "provocative"? Why are they so "careful with their words"?

Could it be that they know everything they say is being examined from every possible angle by Shaughnessy and his peers? Have they been told (or seen from a distance) that the Boston sports media has made an art of taking things out of context, blowing things out of proportion, and riling up much of the fan base to hate a particular player? Might those players think, if they vilified a star player, it would be nothing for them to turn on me?

Are there times when Shaughnessy gets a small clue that perhaps HE is the cause of the alleged problems he finds with the Red Sox? (Sidebar: Shaughnessy in 2015: "Boston's Baseball Stars Are Never Boring")

I do not follow baseball because of what the post-game comments might be (though I find Mookie Betts's and J.D. Martinez's comments on hitting extremely fascinating). I would rather watch a very talented team win 100 games and spout cliches than suffer through a 55-win season but know that every crappy player was adept at witty banter or got into trouble on off-days.

Shaughnessy: "Analytics are out of control." Baseball has been "taken over by geeks".

The main reason why many writers hate the newer stats - though some of them certainly are no longer new - is they do not want to put in the time or mental energy to learn about them. They have had more than a decade to get up to speed on these things - they have months of free time during the winter - but they have done next-to-nothing. What they know about baseball is good enough. Because it is easier to call people "geeks" and say they live in their mother's basement.

Again, this is the sports media complaining about having to do its job. They want the players to conform to whatever makes their job less strenuous. Be outrageous, punch a teammate, start a fight in a bar ... do something interesting besides posting a 2.50 ERA or batting .350 or make eye-popping catches. Or being on pace to win more games in a season than any Red Sox team ever. Bo-ring.

Alan Siegel, writing in Boston Magazine (2013):

The Boston sports media, once considered one of the country's best and most influential press corps, is stumbling toward irrelevance. To put it bluntly, [the Boston sports media] is clogged with stale reporters, crotchety columnists, and shameless blowhards. ... [T]here's a conspicuous lack of creative analysis, which is compounded by the local media's apparent allergy to the type of advanced statistics that other outlets have used to shine new, interesting light on old sports.

I do not have the ability to watch the Red Sox pre- or post-game shows, but Jere does. And he often tweets about the negative spin - sometimes subtle, sometimes overt - on just about anything the Red Sox do:

May 22: Steve Lyons just said, "you gotta be a little bit worried that the only reason [the Red Sox] score runs is because someone hits a HR." Classic Boston media: "You shitty (division-winning) 2017 team, you don't hit HRs!" "You shitty (first place) 2018 team, all you do is hit HRs!"

May 24: TC was saying "believe me, if they had lost, we'd have spent a LOT of time on this play." Almost like a "you're on notice" thing. But they don't need that, all they need is a player getting a funny haircut or doing too many push-ups or whatever ...

June 7: I stopped reading 108 Stitches when it turned into the "here's the latest Cafardo/Shaughnessey article" report. But after skimming the subject line each day, I went back and found the following awesome phrases. (These are from JUST subject lines!) Keep in mind, the Sox are 43-19.

July 12: Boston writers: Maybe just once write about tonight's amazing moment at Fenway. Don't preface it with your backhanded bullshit like "they weren't likeable until this moment" or "the fans HATED the Red Sox except for this one time." Just describe what you saw ... Will this shit EVER end?

No. ... Or maybe when the dinosaurs finally retire, their replacements will be people who grew up on these "new ways" to think about the game and have little or no reason to shove a "gloom-and-doom" mindset down the throats of their readers and listeners. Maybe.

Steve Buckley's column on Monday was headlined: "There's A Lot Of Character In These Play Ball! Red Sox". However, his main point was: "The 2018 Red Sox have zero characters."

At 68-30, the Red Sox have the best record in baseball. ...

And yet it's funny: The Red Sox don't shake the room as they did in days of old, with Big Papi's bombast, Ramirez' goofiness, Pedro Martinez' swagger.

They just go out and . . . win.

Could someone please point out the "funny" to me?

Buckley complained that Mookie Betts's level-headed comments about his increased popularity are "the equivalent of eating all his vegetables and finishing his homework". Again, leaving the media to report on the games is not what the media wants.

(Also: Is it a requirement that any pop culture reference used by a sportswriter be wildly out-dated? Buckley checks that box when he gets all hip by referring to a movie from 35 years ago: "Tom Cruise may have had all the right moves, but Mookie Betts says all the right things." (Only one player on the Red Sox 25-man roster was alive when that movie was released. Steve Pearce was a six-month-old baby. Rafael Devers's parents were probably in the first or second grade!))

I want to point out - even if it is buried towards the end of this post - that there are exceptions. Alex Speier seems is relentlessly curious and driven by a real love of the game. I have always liked Michael Silverman and Sean McAdam. I'm sure there are others about which I am unaware.

Buckley seems sad when he closes by saying that the 2018 Red Sox don't have Pedro "talking about drilling the Bambino" or Kevin Millar "talking about downing pregame shots" or David Ortiz "complain[ing] about a scorekeeper's pen stroke that cost him" an RBI. These are all presumably cool things in Buckley's mind now, but back then, Ortiz was ripped as "selfish" and no writer praised Millar for pouring whiskey before playoff games.

Interestingly, in August 2003, a Daily News article reported that Millar was "keeping a list of writers who disparaged the team." I mentioned this in my very first post on this blog!

Now this is what the players should have been doing for at least the last 3 seasons. Identify the a-holes and simply shut them out, and give the fair and balanced© writers a scoop or two. That way, you punish the idiots, you show that being an objective journalist has its rewards and the players can still connect with the fans through the daily papers.

But I never heard about Millar's "list" again.

Buckley did grudgingly admit that the Red Sox do have a 68-30 record, "so there's that".

Treating how the Red Sox do on the field as an afterthought, as some sort of consolation prize. Silly me, I thought it was the whole point.

Please Ignore Any And All References To "Most Wins Before The All-Star Break" Factoids

Progressive thought has made significant strides into the world of major league baseball, but it still seems like logic and common sense is fighting a losing battle.

So many writers and announcers regurgitate worthless factoids, see causation where none exists, and put unwarranted faith in small samples. They do what previous generations of baseball media did. However, the men and women who currently cover major league baseball have a wealth of information previous generations never dreamed possible. But so many of them seem determined to close their minds off from this new information, to both their own detriment and that of their readers and listeners.

As the All-Star Break drew closer and the Red Sox kept mowing down their opponents, we kept reading about the possibility that this Red Sox team could have "the most wins" in franchise (or baseball) history before the ASB.

One example: Julian Benbow, Boston Globe:

[The Red Sox's] 68 wins top the 1969 Orioles for the most by any team prior to the All-Star break. It's the most wins in Red Sox history through 98 games.

Benbow's second sentence has solid information. If you are looking at the most wins in a set number of games, then every season is equal. But his first sentence is worthless. It sounds nice, but it is 100% nonsense.

(Actually, it's not total nonsense in this particular case, because the 1969 ASG was on July 23, one of the latest dates ever, so the Orioles had played 96 games by that time (65-31).)

Some things to think about:

1. Opening Day does not fall on the same calendar date each year (unlike, for example, Christmas).

2. The All-Star Game does not fall on the same calendar date each year (unlike, for example, the Fourth of July).

3. The 2018 season began on March 29, the earliest date in baseball history.

4. The 2018 All-Star Game will be played on July 17, one of the latest dates in baseball history.

5. The first All-Star Game was played in 1933. Looking at which team has the "most wins before the All-Star Game" immediately eliminates more than three decades of history.

There have been 88 All-Star Games played from 1933-2017. The majority of games were played between July 9-15.

The earliest date was July 6 (1933, 1938, 1942, 1983) and the latest dates were July 23 (1969, 1974), July 24 (1973), and July 25 (1972). (I did not count the August 9 date in the strike season of 1981 or the dates of the second game in 1959-62 when a second game was played.)

Tomorrow's game is definitely on the late side and coupled with the earliest start to a season, that's why the Red Sox have played 60% of their schedule already.

Some Opening Days were quite a bit later than others. In 1933, the year of the first ASG, the regular season began on April 12. In 1942, Opening Day was April 14. The 1938 season began on April 18.

At the All-Star Break in 1938, the Red Sox had played 67 games. (The White Sox had played only 61.) The 1938 Red Sox could not have topped the 2018 Red Sox's win total even if they had won every single game before the break (67-0).

When you are looking at the highest number of wins, placing teams that have played 67 games and 98 games on equal footing makes no sense whatsoever. But for a large percentage of the baseball media, common sense is often nowhere to be found.

JD Martinez Leads MLB In RBI, But He's Not The Red Sox's Best At Driving In Runs

In the fifth inning on Tuesday night, NESN's Dave O'Brien said Xander Bogaerts had been doing "damage with runners in scoring position" and he cited X's 44 RBI as evidence.

Bogaerts's 44 RBI is fourth-best on the Red Sox, tied for 33rd-best in the American League, and tied for 55th-best in MLB. (Games played on July 3 are not included in online stats as I am writing this.)

Not all of those 44 RBI qualify, however. Five of Bogaerts's RBI came from runners on first base (i.e., not in so-called "scoring position") and he drove himself in 12 times on home runs, so his true amount of RBI from runners at second and/or third is 27.

Where does that rank on the Red Sox?

# of RBI From Runners At 2nd And/Or 3rd

Andrew Benintendi   35
J.D. Martinez       33
Rafael Devers       27
Xander Bogaerts     27
Mitch Moreland      21
Mookie Betts        17
Brock Holt          15
Jackie Bradley      14
Eduardo Nunez       13
Sandy Leon           9
Christian Vazquez    7
Blake Swihart        3
Rick Porcello        2

The more opportunities a batter has to drive in runs, the more runs he will likely drive in. That should be obvious and it's why RBI totals - as a counting stat - can be misleading. You might think Player A is a better "run producer" because he finished the season with 120 RBI and Player B had only 95 RBI, but what if Player B drove in 95 of 320 possible runners (29.7%) while Player A drove in 120 of 450 runners (26.7%)?

Here is a concrete example from this year:

In 298 plate appearances, Mookie Betts has batted with runners on 97 times.
In 253 plate appearances, Mitch Moreland has batted with runners on 131 times.

Former Red Sox GM Theo Epstein:

Sometimes you guys [the media] get stuck evaluating players through home runs and RBIs. It's not the way most clubs do it these days. ... [Y]ou guys can talk about RBI if you want. We ignore them in the front office. ... If you want to talk about RBI at all, talk about them as a percentage of opportunity, but it simply is not a way that we use to evaluate offensive players.

Theo said that back in 2009.

The Red Sox's front office has not cared one whit about RBI totals for probably close to 15 years. But the perspective fans get from NESN (and other media) remains stuck in the dark ages. Is it crazy to want the network broadcasting the Red Sox's games to understand the team's philosophy and make an effort to enlighten fans?

"If you want to talk about RBI at all, talk about them as a percentage of opportunity ..."

Bogaerts has driven in 20.3% of runners on second base - fourth-best on the team, behind Martinez (23.4%), Benintendi (22.5%), and Betts (22.2%), and ahead of Leon (19.2%).

Bogaerts has also driven in 42.4% of runners on third base - third-best on the team, behind Benintendi (50.0%) and Holt (45.0%). After Bogaerts: Moreland (41.9%), Martinez (40.5%), Leon (40.0%), and Betts (36.8%).

And in case you are wondering which Red Sox batter is most successful in driving in runners from first base ... it's Sandy Leon (8.8%)! Beneath him on the list are Moreland (8.7%), Martinez (8.3%), Bogaerts (6.4%), Devers (6.2%), and Betts (5.9%).

So, put all of that together and we get:

Percentage Of All Runners On Base Batted In (Games 1-86)

Andrew Benintendi   18.87%
J.D. Martinez       18.83%
Xander Bogaerts     18.3 %
Sandy Leon          17.1 %
Mookie Betts        15.9 %
Mitch Moreland      15.7 %
Rafael Devers       15.28%
Brock Holt          15.25%
Jackie Bradley      10.6 %
Eduard Nunez         8.4 %
Christian Vazquez    6.8 %
Blake Swihart        5.7 %

Note #1: Martinez drove in three of four baserunners last night and passed Benintendi, who did not drive in any of his three baserunners. I am not changing my clickbait headline, though!

Note #2: Among all MLB hitters with at least 90 plate appearances, Steve Pearce has been the best at driving in runs this year: 28.6%.

Note #3: Aaron Judge: 16.2%, Didi Gregorius: 13.5%, Giancarlo Stanton: 12.0%.

Watching MASN & NESN: "Strong. ... America." With Good Pop.

On Monday night, I split my time between MASN (the Nationals broadcast) and NESN.

The Nationals' broadcast team is Bob Carpenter (13th season with the Nats and 35th year of MLB play-by-play) and F.P. Santangelo (14-year career, 8th season with MASN).

Just before the first pitch, an on-screen graphic stated the Red Sox were 70-13 in interleague games since 2013 - and that record was the best in MLB. (Well, I should hope so.)

But that had to be wrong. There was no way the Red Sox had an .843 winning percentage against the NL. That's a 137-win pace. I made a note to check this factoid.

MASN's stats for the starting pitchers were given in two parts and they included opponents' average and on-base percentage, as well as groundball and flyball ratios. Then Carpenter mentioned Mookie Betts's on-base percentage after the second pitch of the game. This seemed like a promising start (that claim of a 70-13 record notwithstanding).

My partner Laura was ironing during the first inning, and was treating the TV audio as if it were a radio. "These guys are not calling the game." I said TV announcers rarely call every single pitch, but she said this was extreme. I paid closer attention to Carpenter when pitches were not put into play. She was right.

In the top of the second, Carpenter did not call any of the first 12 pitches that were fouled off, balls, or called or swinging strikes. None! It was like they had never happened. There was either dead air - sometimes for as long as 15 seconds* - or Carpenter just kept telling whatever story he was in the middle of. When he finally did note a pitch had been thrown, he conveyed no real information. "It goes off-speed" or "Cutter, a little faster" is not calling a pitch.

*: The booth is silent. ... A pitch is made. ... More silence. ... Absolutely nothing is said by either announcers until right before the pitcher delivers his next pitch! "2-2."

Saying "high one for strike two" was better, but he failed to mention that the batter had swung and missed. Carpenter did this for several innings. It's clearly his "style". I've never heard an announcer who regularly failed to acknowledge more than half the pitches in every half-inning.

In the third, they discussed the "new innovations" in baseball. Santangelo mentioned a roundtable discussion devoted to how the game is changing. He was either part of the discussion or just listened to it, I wasn't sure. Carpenter asked him: "Any ways to stop it?" (Okay, he thinks innovation is bad.) Santangelo did say that the idea of banning shifts was insane.

I heard a new foul verb: "bumped". ... My ears also perked up when Carpenter said Soto's fifth-inning single was "gashed through the shift".

While my listening history with Santangelo is only about five innings, he was lousy. He had nothing to say about either pitcher's performance to a specific batter or in a general sense. His comments about the hitters were likewise non-specific and bland. He mentions something about Bryce Harper rising up in his stance to swing at a high pitch, but acted like Harper was doing that on every swing, something for which no evidence was offered.

This series includes a game played on July 4, so both teams have stars and stripes on the lettering of their shirts and caps. (Joe Kelly sported some interesting socks late in the game.) The catchers wore bright blue chest protectors covered with white stars; they resembled pajamas. When Santangelo said he thought Nats catcher Pedro Severino's gear was "awesome", Carpenter said it looked like Scherrzer "is throwing to a flag".

As MASN showed Severino, Santangelo continued:

That's sweet. I love it. ... The sleeve. ... The chest protector. ... The shoulder guards. ... Strong ... America.

Seriously. That's what he said.

I got more annoyed as the innings went on. After Rendon homered in the fourth, both announcers acted like the Nationals had won the pennant, as opposed to being down by two runs. When Santangelo started talking about how the Nationals will be serious contenders in the NL East and that he can't wait until "we" turn this season around, I had had enough.

Yes, they drove me to NESN.

(Wait! That 70-13 interleague record! ... I checked the facts at Baseball Reference. Since 2013, the Red Sox are 70-35 against the NL. I have no idea where MASN came up with 13 losses.

2013: 14- 6
2014:  9-11
2015: 13- 7
2016: 14- 6
2017: 16- 4
2018:  4- 1 (now 5-1)

From the Red Sox's Game Notes for Monday (which seem to have an error, also; BRef has a 20-5 record since 2017, not 21-5):

NESN: I listened to Dave O'Brien mention home runs 382 times over the final four innings. I'm convinced that by the end of the season, he will have said that every team's lineup has "good pop" in it. And he will have praised upwards of 80% of all batters as having "good pop" or "surprising pop" in their bats.

In the eighth and ninth innings, O'Brien pressed the point that "nothing has been easy tonight" and that the Red Sox had "no easy innings" and the game has been "a grind". Yet at the same time (almost literally), he gushed about Porcello's "very strong start", which seemed like an obvious contradiction.

O'Brien also mentioned something that most viewers might not know about Bryce Harper. The Nationals' star may be a great hitter, but did you know he has never had 100 RBI in a season?

It is clear that O'Brien - in 40-50 years as a baseball fan and as an announcer who is paid to study and think about the game - has never considered that batters have absolutely no control over how many runners are on base when they come to the plate. My thought was interrupted when O'Brien added that Harper had driven in 99 runs in 2015. ... I stared at the TV screen. O'Brien is faulting this guy for not driving in one additional runner so he could hit this arbitrary magic counting number?

I'd think OB was trolling fans if I (and many others) didn't have the very strong impression that he fancies himself quite the knowledgeable baseball man. ... Meanwhile, he extolls Chris Sale's combined performance against AL East teams and praises Jackie Bradley because the team has an excellent record when JBJ hits a home run. (After all, he does have a bit of "pop" in his bat.)

NESN: An Discussion About Batting Average (Or, Quarters Are More Valuable Than Pennies)

During NESN's broadcast of last night's Red Sox/Tigers game, Dave O'Brien and Dennis Eckersley had an interesting conversation about statistics and what certain statistics signify.

In the top of the second, OB and Eck were talking about what a great hitter Miguel Cabrera has been for years. An on-screen graphic showed Cabrera's .317 lifetime batting average.

O'Brien: Look at that career batting average.

Eckersley: That, to me, says it all. It's one thing hitting home runs, but hitting close to .320 lifetime ... I was talking to somebody. Nowadays, the hitters don't care about .300 any more. It's not about .300, it's about OPS.

O'Brien: I don't believe that at all. I don't believe that at all. I believe OPS is huge – don't get me wrong there. But everybody can look up as a hitter – if you're hitting .215 –

Eckersley: Well, okay, .215 is one thing, but they're not – you know, .300 doesn't mean quite the same.

O'Brien: See, I still think it's meaningful for hitters. You are raised believing that .300 means something.

Eckersley: Oh, I agree. But I'm telling you that that's changing. I mean, I don't think .300 is as important OPS.

O'Brien: Perhaps not as important as it used to be, but if you're hitting .299 on the last day of the season – I mean the difference between that and hitting .300, I still think it's huge.

Eckersley: Okay, okay. But what I'm getting at is the average doesn't really play as much anymore.

O'Brien: Yup. I know, it's on-base and slugging (sounding exasperated) and it's such a huge number.

Eckersley: Slugging. And on-base, you know?

O'Brien: I think if you talk to veteran hitters, maybe it's a little more so with veteran guys who have, you know, eight or nine years in the game, they still want desperately to hit .300. It still means I'm a good hitter. Can hit for average.

Eckersley: What's going to make you more money? I mean, you hit .300 with an OPS of .650, hurray.

O'Brien: Right. I see that point.

Eckersley: You see what I mean?

O'Brien: And, you know, you can hit 35 home runs –

Eckersley: And hit .240, I'm taking it.

O'Brien: Who care if you're striking out 200 times?

Eckersley: Right, your OPS is going to be .900.

(I did not include the calling of the game that went on during that exchange.)

A few things:

Listening to it again, O'Brien seems extremely concerned about pushing the point that older hitters are more obsessed with a .300 average. That might be true, but he offers no evidence. Plus his exasperation when saying what constitutes OPS is telling. It's pretty clear that he is not a big fan of "newer" stats, even if they give you a better gauge of a player's contribution. I find that very odd for a guy who is utterly obsessed with talking about home runs. Maybe he believes getting on base is not that important...

When I hear O'Brien mention a pitcher's career record against a team or a batter's hitting streak against teams in his division, I always wonder if he really believes he's sharing meaningful information. Part of me thinks, he's a smart guy, he's been involved in the game for a long time, there's no way he buys this crap ... and yet he devotes a lot of time spitting out those useless factoids.

The key, perhaps, is his comment about how fans are "raised believing that .300 means something". That statement is true - or it was certainly true when OB and I were young fans (he is 2½ months older than I am). However, O'Brien seems not to consider that a fan could grow up and read about the game and learn new things and realize that what he once believed is not exactly true and that he should think a different way. (The list of things I was raised believing that I have happily jettisoned is very long, indeed.)

However, I think O'Brien still sees the game as a 12-year-old. Which is not a completely bad thing. I certainly want an announcer to have, and express, joy during a game. But it also means that you might think batting average rules, pitchers' wins and fielding percentage are important, a hitter's or pitcher's career numbers against a team (which could have a complete different lineup of players in only four years) is meaningful, and home runs are super cool. How many times during a game does O'Brien talk about what could happen rather than what is happening: If Xander gets a hit here, that might score two runs. That has always struck me as something a kid would say.

Looking at the AL batting leaders, all 13 guys hitting over .300 have an OPS+ over 100 (meaning they are better than a league average hitter). But Jon Jay's OPS+ is only 105, so he is barely better than average (with a .307 batting average). near the bottom of the list is Gary Sanchez, who is batting .201. Yet because of Sanchez's walks and power, his OPS+ is 101. So the guy "hitting" .201 is nearly as productive as the .307 guy.

That is a very clear reason why batting average is so deceptive. Batting average says that walks do not exist and singles are exactly the same as home runs. (Which is like saying that all coins are the same, that pennies are as valuable as quarters.) Batting average tells you something, but there are other easily-accessible (and easily understood) stats that will tell you a lot more. Just because you believed something about baseball when you were 12 does not mean you must cling to it when you are 54.