FJM has gone dark for the foreseeable future. Sorry folks. We may post once in a while, but it's pretty much over.
You can still e-mail dak,Ken Tremendous,Junior,Matthew Murbles, or Coach.
Phil Rogers thinks that Andre Dawson should be in the Hall of Fame.
He is wrong. Let's examine why.
If Kirby Puckett is in the Hall, if Tony Perez is in the Hall, if Gary Carter, Ryne Sandberg and Ozzie Smith are in the Hall, Dawson needs to be there, too. He's every bit the player any of the other five are -- although, yes, we're comparing apples to oranges in some cases -- but is undervalued because he hit the Hall of Fame ballot in 2002, the year after Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs and Bret Boone drove in 141 runs.
Tony Perez shouldn't be in the Hall. Gary Carter is arguable, but he's a catcher. Ryno...eh. Ozzie Smith is in for defense and one memorable home run in the postseason. So, yes, you are indeed comparing apples to oranges. The closest actual comparison is Puckett, but Puckett's injury was non-baseball-related, which makes it a special circumstance.
Also, I do not in any way think that Hawk was "undervalued" because of the timing of his Hall of Fame eligibility. Plenty of other guys hit the Hall ballots in the years right after guys on steroids did crazy things. Tony Perez in 2000. The selfsame Gary Carter in 2003. Tons of roided-out people put up crazy numbers in those years, too.
Only his teammates and peers understood the daily battle he went through to get onto the field with knees that only an orthopedic surgeon could love...he destroyed them playing with reckless abandon on the concrete-like artificial turf at Montreal's Olympic Stadium. Maybe this wasn't as tragic as the irreversible glaucoma that ended Puckett's career in 1995, after 12 seasons. But there's reason to give Dawson the benefit of the doubt in terms of his Hall of Fame candidacy.
No there isn't. It's sad that he ruined his knees. But I doubt anyone will give Nomar Garciaparra "the benefit of the doubt" because he was hit on the wrist by Al Reyes in 1999 and was never the same player. Dawson had knee problems, and it hurt him, but you simply can't take potential or "what-ifs" into account.
No eligible player has ever collected as many hits (2,774) or RBI (1,591) without becoming a Hall of Famer -- a claim that Dawson will almost certainly pass to Harold Baines (2,866 hits, 1,628 RBI) when he goes onto the ballot a year from now.
It's not good for your cause to point out that another borderline HOFer has more hits and RBI than the guy you say should be in. But whatever. Here are some career stats for Hawk:
HR: 438 SB: 314 SB.
Not bad. But there's a lot of guys who had more.
OBP: a paltry .323. SLG: .482. OPS+: 119 RC27: 5.44
He is the very definition of a really good, but not great, ballplayer. By all accounts (I saw him play but don't remember) he was an excellent fielder -- very toolsy and all that. Great arm, fast, big, strong, whatever. But the numbers -- even in the clean era -- don't lie. There are lots of guys with much higher OPS+, for example, who are not close to the Hall. His career SLG doesn't get him within whiffing distance of the top 100 of all time. The 438 HR are good for 32nd all-time, which is obviously really good. But Dave Kingman had 442.
Look -- he was awesome. But he was not HOF calibre. If he hadn't been so injured, I have no doubt he'd be in. But he was injured a lot. So he's out. And for the record, it's not like he had to retire at 34. He played in 21 different seasons.
Dawson, who was such a good athlete that Davey Johnson started him in center field and Eric Davis in left in the 1987 All-Star Game, was the first player to ever put together 12 consecutive seasons in which he finished with double-figure home run and stolen base totals. He piled up 45 extra-base hits in 15 consecutive seasons, becoming the sixth name on a list that included only Henry Aaron, Stan Musial, Willie Mays, Mel Ott and Honus Wagner.
This is why people hate stat geeks. If you invent arbitrary categories -- even more arbitrary than the ones we use in standard discussions -- you can make an argument for anybody. I especially hate the "consecutive seasons" thing, because it punishes all-time greats who like missed part of a year due to WWII and stuff. Or guys who just had one year where they missed like 40 games due to a freak injury in an otherwise durable career. Or whatever. Also, in this specific case, 45 XBH...who cares? 45? That's 18 HR and 27 2B? You want to hang your HOF hat on that?
On the picture-perfect day he was enshrined into the Hall last summer, Sandberg took time to campaign for Dawson...
"No player in baseball history worked harder, suffered more or did it better than Andre Dawson," Sandberg said. "He's the best I've ever seen. I watched him win an MVP for a last-place team, and it was the most unbelievable thing I've ever seen in baseball. He did it the right way, the natural way, and he did it in the field and on the bases and in every way, and I hope he will stand up here some day."
I include this only because I love how bad Ryno is at talking. Look at that last sentence. It's like retarded Dr. Seuss.
Sandberg's comment about "the natural way,'' was, of course, a shot at the Jose Canseco generation of illegally-enhanced, often one-dimensional sluggers. The numbers Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Bonds and others put up from 1997 through 2003 diminished -- at least in reflection during that time -- the career statistics of hitters from the 1980s and early '90s, including Dawson and Jim Rice.
I don't buy this argument either. Rice was a borderline case before the steroids thing exploded. Dawson would have been just as borderline if he had retired in 1994.
Just for kicks: Jim Ed , in 1700 fewer AB, has only 50 fewer HR, and a higher career OBP, SLG, OPS+, RC27, etc. He won an MVP, like Hawk. And I'd still say Rice is at best borderline.
I've been re-reading a lot of David Foster Wallace essays, so I'm on a little bit of a grammar/syntax kick. Sorry. Maybe it's boring. But this line from Len Pasquarelli's latest ESPN column really made me snortle derisively:
"The five-year contract extension to which Southern California coach Pete Carroll agreed on Wednesday might make it a little more difficult for NFL teams to woe him away from the Trojans."
Texans Owner Bob McNair: Woe is us! The franchise is in shambles! I beg of you Pete Carroll, find it in your heart to join us in our quest for respectability!
When arrogance precedes racism, this is the end result. They act as if they never heard the comments. They act as if whatever was being said or written about the way they handled Ty Willingham's situation didn't apply to them. This is our world, you all should be happy to be living in it. That's their new Knute/NBC motto.
So when the University of Notre Dame extended Charlie Weis' contract to secure his services for 10 years just months after firing a coach who only three years ago was in the same situation with a better record (8-0 after the first eight games for Willingham, 5-2 for Weis at the time of his extension) during his first year, the validation of racism that so many people tossed at the university's feet in the wake of excusing Willingham last December was totally eclipsed by an arrogance unseen in the NCAA since Adolph Rupp and Bear Bryant thought "negroes" couldn't ball.
Yikes. Look, I'm not a huge Notre Dame fan (despite the fact that Mrs. Tremendous went there), and I'd be willing to bet that an all-Catholic university in Indiana has probably had its share of racism problems. As has virtually every institution of learning -- every institution period? -- in the country. (I would here also add that the founding of the University was partly due to the Catholic community seeking to establish a place where they could get a fine education without being discriminated against, hence the whole "Fighting Irish" deal. Neither here nor there.) But I think it's a bit much to just flat-out state that Ty Willingham's firing and Charlie Weis's extension were the products of racism.
Ty Willingham did get off to a very strong start in his first year -- 8-0. But his overall record in three years at ND was 21-15. Bob Davie, who is universally ridiculed and hailed as a massive failure in his three years at Notre Dame, was 21-16. Willingham was a pretty good coach at Stanford, but he was only 44-36-1 in his time there. And his Pac-10 titles came at a time when USC, UCLA, and other traditional powerhouses were pretty weak.
Also, and this is really key, Weis, who came one illegal Bush-push away from beating USC, and who turned Brady Quinn from an average passer to a future #1 overall draft pick, was rumored to be the frontrunner for like fifteen NFL coaching jobs at the end of the year. ND knew they had to do something to ensure that he didn't leave. So they extended him.
But this is a university, not an individual. And although ND athletic director Kevin White is the man in charge, it's not about his making the decisions as much as it is about the institution putting on display a serious complex of superiority. Oh, don't get me wrong, their actions are racist to the core. But their arrogance spoke much louder in this case. Notre Dame could care less about how careless they were. They didn't care how this would make them look in the eyes of African-Americans, or any white liberals who fight for civil rights against actions such as this every day. To ND, anyone not down with their program -- and how they run it -- is meaningless.
"Racist to the core." I don't know, man. That seems insanely strident -- and this is coming from a dude who loves a good strident piece of sports writing. Look -- is anyone in the ND athletic dept. a racist? Maybe. Who knows? But it's not good journalism to just look at two facts -- Willingham let go, Weis extended -- and conclude without any room for debate that it's hard-core racism. And my guess is, when you look at what Weis has done after three years (and yes, I know Willingham recruited the players, etc. etc.), you'll conclude that ND made the right choice.
That article (see link in post sub) is amazing in a number of ways. One of those ways is that Scoop seems to make points and then immediately contradict them; or else, he presents his arguments so badly that it is hard to see what side of the argument he is on. To wit, re-read this section from Junior's post:
For a target audience of several million that are forced to watch "Being Bobby Brown," in a Neilsen (sic) era when UPN stands for United Plantation of Negroes because it is one of the few networks where you find "quality" African-American programming, the "officialness" of Stephen A.'s hosting a daily sports talk show was bigger than anything Ron Artest or Terrell Owens did to push us a few steps back.
No one is "forced" to watch "Being Bobby Brown." If Scoop wants to comment on the sad state of African-American programming (both that intended for and that created by African-Americans), it might be better to get upset at the actual show than to assert that people are "forced" to watch it. As for the UPN thing...I don't even know what to make of that. And as for the third and final few clauses: it's just a big jumble. I assume what he is trying to say is that in a year when TO and Artest did things that perhaps cast a negative light on the African-American community, S.A. Smith getting a talk show was something that cast a positive light on said community. But to say that it was "bigger" than what they did "to push us a few steps back" is just a poorly-presented mixed metaphor.
Now read this, from the same article:
White Sox not getting the cover of Sports Illustrated
They said it wasn't on purpose. They said it was because of the way the World Series ended (on a Wednesday night) that it was impossible to put them on the cover of the issue. Whatever. Couldn't they have at least put them on the cover the following week?
Fair enough. But he continues.
Didn't the White Sox deserve the cover after their unexpected World Series win? But the slight was indicative of the way the media (and the North Side of Chicago) treated the Sox all along their improbable, impossible ride. From my own doubtful, bandwagon-sensitive column written right after the All-Star Game to Joe Buck's unforgettable omission of African-Americans when he mentioned the variety of cultures, races and nationalities that filled the South Side minutes after the Game 4 victory, the treatment of the White Sox shocking the world was similar to Toccara's treatment on "America's Next Top Model." Foul.
Two quick things:
1. Joe Buck's "unforgettable" omission? Does anyone really think Joe Buck intentionally or unintentionally meant to slight African-Americans? The story of the ChiSox, ethno-culturo-nationally speaking, was that they had guys from like fifteen countries. I'm sure that's what Joe was trying to highlight.
2. I don't know who Toccara is, but if you hate UPN so much, and think that it is indicative of some kind of problem in the African-American community, you probably shouldn't, immediately after stating that you have this problem, make an obscure and cozy reference to a UPN show, which reference clearly indicates that you are a huge fan.
Because after giving the Braves (1995), the Yankees (1996, 1998-2000), the Marlins (1997, 2003), the Angels (2002), the Diamondbacks (2001), and the Red Sox (2004, and they got the cover of Time too) the cover of the bible of sports magazines, they decided a non-playoff Monday night football game featuring Peyton Manning and Tom Brady was a bigger story. A more important story.
Okay. I get your point. I think it was a mistake too. In no way, shape, or form was it one of the "most important sports stories of the year," as Scoop claims, but I think it was a mistake. We're agreed. What's that? One more thing?
The sad part is (outside of Chicago), as wrong as SI was, it may have been right.
After the 3rd quarter of the Champs Sports Bowl today, a guy named Andrew Rizzo had the chance to toss a football through a tiny hole from 30 yards out for a million bucks. He came up about six yards short. Then the on-field MC presented him a check for $1000 and said, very loudly:
"Let's here it for Andrew Rizzo -- a winner in every sense of the word!"
Except, I guess, for the sense of the word "winner" that means "someone who [just] won a contest."
On a side note, I'd like to mention that amazingly, against all odds, even though I've seen a thousand of them, I am always -- ALWAYS -- excited to watch a dude try to toss/shoot/kick something through a hole in a piece of wood for money.
Just off the top of my head, I'll say no. But Brian Cashman disagrees.
The Yankees announced Thursday that they had agreed to a $1.5 million, one-year contract with popular outfielder Bernie Williams, who has been in pinstripes since 1991 and compiled statistics that put his name alongside the team's greatest players.
"He ranks right there with the Gehrigs and the Berras and the Ruths and the Mantles," Yankees general manager Brian Cashman said.
Now, Cash is probably in a good mood these days. He was able to use his daddy's checkbook to offer $52 million to a guy who is going to hit .265 with 4 HR in 2009, just to stick it to a team he hates. However, even the most extreme homer could not possibly justify this claim.
There are about a thousand things I could cite to prove my point. Here are just a few.
Bernie's career WARP3 is just over 100. Babe Ruth's is like 224. I guess you can look at these numbers and say that Bernie is roughly as valuable as Yogi Berra -- Bernie did walk a lot; hence his RC27 advantage over Yogi.
But as for the rest of them...
A CF who hit a total of 275 HR is no Mickey Mantle.
Okay, beating a dead horse, but think of it this way: In adjusted OPS+, arguably the most basic, cleanest stat we can use to measure how these guys stack up against each other, Babe Ruth is #1 all-time. Gehrig is #4 all-time. Mantle is #6 all-time.
Williams is not close to being in the top 100.
Among players with better lifetime OPS+'s than Bernie are: Will Clark, Bobby Abreu, Jim Edmonds, Darryl Strawberry (!), Jack Clark, Pedro Guerrero, Al Rosen, Larry Doby, Larry Walker, Chipper Jones, and two guys who play on Bernie's team -- Sheff and ARod.
Maybe Cashman was speaking poetically, like, "in terms of what he means to the Yankees" or something. But I don't think so. I think he meant it statistically. And I think he was crazy.
Want to Copy Someone? Do the Opposite of What They Do!
I have a question for Michael Ventre, who, one would think, has actually watched sports in order to prepare for his job as a sportswriter.
His article is called "Dodgers Hope ‘Red Sox West’ Brings Success" and has the subtitle: "Nomar signing cements move to try and [sic] copy Boston’s winning formula."
You can probably figure out what the article is about: the Dodgers have named Grady Little their manager, and now signed Nomar, and Billy Mueller, and also have Derek Lowe. So, Ventre writes, they are trying to copy the Red Sox' blueprint for success.
Here's my question for Michael Ventre: you are wrong.
Fine. Not really a question. Who cares.
Grady Little was fired because he (a) made one of the worst and most memorable blunders in the history of managing, and (b) did not in any way fit into the Red Sox' modified-Moneyball blueprint for success (RSM-MBFS). So, hiring him is the opposite of copying the RSM-MBFS.
Nomar is a 32 year-old SS with no plate discipline who was traded because his diminishing bat speed and history of injuries made him a bad fit in the RSM-MBFS. Therefore, (see above).
Billy Mueller was a very important part of the RSM-MBFS. But he is 34 and his skills are declining, so the Sox let him go. Don't you think that if he were a viable candidate to continue contributing to the RSM-MBFS he would still be a part of the RSM-MBFS?
Derek Lowe is a head-case who doesn't strike anyone out and the Dodgers gave him a 14-year $214 million contract.
Read the article. It's really dumb and talks about Ned Colletti a lot -- a guy who is so completely the opposite of the kind of dude who would be the architect for the RSM-MBFS it's not even funny.
Presenting Chris Berman's Top 10 Plays of the 20th Century:
10. Ozzie Smith's Barehanded Grab Off That Bouncer Up the Middle. 9. The Yalta Conference 8. Emmitt Smith Breaks Walter Payton's All-Time Rushing Record 7. Willie Mays in the '54 Series 6. Cuban Missile Crisis 5. Bobby Orr's Number Retired at the Garden 4. Berlin Wall Falls 3. Bobby Thompson, 1951 2. Remembering the Victims of 9/11 1. Mike Alstott (Bffft! Bffft!) Ploughs in from the Six for his Second TD of the Game Against the Panthers, December, 2003
There is an article in today's New York Times, the newspaper of record in the U. States of A., essentially about WARP. This is good news for fans of logic and reason everywhere. It's very basic stuff and goes into no detail about formulae or anything, but there is a pretty hilarious statement from Ron Gardenhire about Luis Castillo:
"He's worth 15 wins, potentially," Gardenhire said of Castillo, a .293 lifetime hitter acquired from the Florida Marlins. "We lost 30 one-run games last year. With Luis's ability to get on base, steal bases, score runs and play defense, a guy like that can make a difference in at least half those one-run games going the other way."
Now, Castillo is a good player. He had a .391 OBP last year. But he also put up a team-hurting 10-for-17 in SB. His WARP1 was 6.0 and WARP3 6.2. So, Gardenhire, a true Good Baseball Man, is off by 150%. Also, Nick Punto had almost 400 AB last year at 2B with a WARP3 of 2.3. So, Castillo's impact is something closer to maybe four extra wins.
Castillo is certainly an upgrade. A good move for the Twinkies. But is he worth 15 wins? No, Ron Gardenhire, he is not.
Just to give you some idea, 15 was exactly Barry Bonds' WARP1 in 2004, when he walked 232 times.
...whether it's the New York Post, or the Yankees, or what. But check this "rumor" out:
A delicious rumor involving the Marlins and Yankees swapping Chien-Ming Wang, Robinson Cano and Phillip Hughes for the Marlins outfielder Miguel Cabrera and lefty starter Dontrelle Willis didn't last long when it was shot down.
You're kidding. It was shot down?
Even with the firesale on, this is insane, even by hot stove standards.
"I will give you two okay things and one question mark for two of the best things in the world. Oh -- and the two awesome things are also really young. And one of them is the single biggest marketing tool in the league. Oh -- and both of the two awesome things are relatively inexpensive."
named Jason Smith who does ESPN Radio's all-night show sometimes. Last night I was driving home at 2:00 AM PST and I heard him talking about how bad the AJ Burnett deal (5/55) is for the Jays. He talked about how AJ's record lifetime is like 49-48 or whatever. I was like: okay. Fair enough. Then he said that the guy had had attitude problems with the Marlins. I was like: sure, I guess. Then he said that maybe if Burnett hadn't mouthed off last year and been benched for the last week of the season, who knows, maybe 5 years $55 million could have been 5 years $75 million. Then, without backing that up, he then proceeded to chastise AJ Burnett for what he labeled a "$20 million dollar mistake."
You can't just make something up out of nowhere and then use the made-up thing to criticize someone for something that actually happened.
Maybe if Paul Konerko had not only hit 40 HR last year but has also invented a cold fusion machine, instead of $60 million from the ChiSox he might have gotten $50 billion from the government. That's a $49.994 billion mistake.
Also, it should be noted that Smith was criticizing the Blue Jays for getting Burnett. Thus, by saying that Burnett might in actuality be worth more than he signed for, he was accidentally praising the Blue Jays. This did not seem to occur to Smith.
Also, Smith's favorite team? The Mets. Anyone want to talk about the contracts and deals they've been making recently?
Now on to more complicated stuff like "The art of booing".
I'm going to be really honest, I boo, and I'm not going to lie about it. If another team scores and I'm not happy about it, you bet I'm going to start booing! If a penalty is called that I don't think is fair or if someone hits one of our guys, and it was dirty, again, I'm going to boo.
Man. That shit is complicated. Thank you, Elisha Cuthbert! And as always, thank you for your honesty.
