Sorry to do this to all of you again, but because of a few discussions I had yesterday, I felt the need to defend myself. Hopefully this will be the last one; I don't want to lose any more readers than I already have.
Anyway, before I start, I said I would transcribe my brother's comment:
"Not that I agree (or disagree) with Ryan being in there, but I think you overlooked the "Bob's" as in Feller (1939 - 1948) and Gibson (1964 - 1973)."
Before I respond to that, I will explain a little bit of my methodology for choosing my players. At first, I browsed some stat lists and the Hall of Fame list to make my initial player list. Then I looked up their relevant stats. I immediately removed about six players from that initial list, az I was down to 34. Some of the 19 I chose from the 34 were obvious (Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, etc.), but others were very difficult. Right at the outset I should have said that many of the people on the bottom of the 19 are interchangeable with some that I left off the list; it's really a matter of preference. I imagine that the 19th and 20th greatest pitchers of all time were similarly successful. Anyway, here are the pitchers that were on the preliminary list but did not make the top 19:
Warren Spahn: 363 Ws, 382 CGs, 63 Shutouts, 3.09 ERA, 118 ERA+, 1.195 WHIP
Steve Carlton: 329 Ws, 254 CGs, 55 Shutouts, 4136 Ks, 7.135 K/9, 3.22 ERA, 115 ERA+, 1,247 WHIP
Gaylord Perry: 314 Ws, 303 CGs, 53 Shutouts, 3534 Ks, 3.11 ERA, 117 ERA+, 1.181 WHIP
Lefty Grove: 300 Ws, 298 CGs, 35 Shutouts, 3.06 ERA, 148 ERA+, 1.278 WHIP
Jim Palmer: 268 Ws, 211 CGs, 53 Shutouts, 2.86 ERA, 125 ERA+, 1.18 WHIP
Bob Feller: 266 Ws, 279 CGs, 44 Shutouts, 6.070 K/9, 3.25 ERA, 122 ERA+, 1.316 WHIP
Carl Hubbell: 253 Ws, 260 CGs, 36 Shutouts, 2.98 ERA, 130 ERA+, 1.166 WHIP
Bob Gibson: 251 Ws, 255 CGs, 56 Shutouts, 3117 Ks, 7.223 K/9, 2.91 ERA, 127 ERA+, 1.188 WHIP
Juan Marichal: 243 Ws, 244 CGs, 52 Shutouts, 2.89 ERA, 122 ERA+, 1.101 WHIP
Whitey Ford: 236 Ws, 156 CGs, 45 Shutouts, 2.75 ERA, 132 ERA+, 1.215 WHIP
Don Drysdale: 209 Ws, 167 CGs, 49 Shutouts, 2.95 ERA, 121 ERA+, 1.148 WHIP
John Smoltz: 207 Ws, 53 CGs, 16 Shutouts, 154 Saves, 2975 Ks, 7.952 K/9, 3.26 ERA, 127 ERA+, 1.170 WHIP
Dennis Eckersley: 197 Ws, 100 CGs, 20 Shutouts, 390 Saves, 3.50 ERA, 116 ERA+, 1.161 WHIP
Roy Oswalt: 112 Wins, 12 CGs, 4 Shutouts, 7.452 K/9, 3.07 ERA, 142 ERA+, 1.201 WHIP
As I mentioned to my friend last night, I would like to add a pitcher to my top 19. I put Babe Ruth on there because I thought it would be fun; now I'll put a real dude there. I admit I missed the boat on this one because I had never heard much about him:
Ed Walsh: 195 Ws, 250 CGs, 57 Shutouts, 1736 Ks, 5.271 K/9, 1.82 ERA, 146 ERA+, 1.000 WHIP
Here's the deal: the purpose of this post was not to list the 19 pitchers I would most want to pitch one game 7 of the World Series at their peak. I wanted to compile a list of the pitchers who had the best careers of all time. This is the crux of the argument I had with my friend last night. He would argue, based on yesterday's post, that Sandy Koufax, Addie Joss, Jack Chesbro, and Rube Waddell do not belong on my list. I will admit that Chesbro was a poor selection; I very much wanted to take note of his one ridiculous season. Chesbro's closing career line of 3.931 K/9 and 110 ERA+ are very pedestrian. I would like to retroactively remove him from the list.
That being said, I would like to explain why the other three should remain on the list. My friend maintains that a pitcher like Steve Carlton should be on the list because he was a terrific pitcher for 16 years. He claims that the last five-six years of his career should count less because he was older and was deteriorating. My argument is that if he plays poorly for long enough that his overall stats suffer, then he should be penalized for it. I think that if Carlton had retired in the early 80s instead of sticking around until 1988, he would be on the list. That's five full years of sub-par baseball forever attached to Carlton's stat line. My friend would argue that the other players I mentioned (Koufax, Joss, Waddell) got "lucky" that they never deteriorated or never had the opportunity to have those few bad seasons before they retired. I wouldn't exactly call Addie Joss lucky; he died of tubercular meningitis when he was 31. Waddell was "lucky" enough to learn and perfect pitching while outside of the Major Leagues, so he never went through a development stage. And Koufax literally destroyed his arm during the 1965 season, and despite the advice of his team physician he went out to pitch in 1966 and had another unbelievable year. He was forced to retire after that season even though he was at the peak of his performance.
Now, my friend would like to say that these pitchers would have worse career stats if they had played late into their 30s, and this is entirely possible. But I choose not to penalize players for the what-might-have-beens. In "Moneyball," Michael Lewis conveys Billy Beane's preference to draft players who have been successful; he doesn't go for the guys who have a lot of upside potential. I choose to do the same thing here. I don't care about what those guys might have done if they had played ten more years; I care about how they performed when they did play. And Koufax played to the tune of a 2.76 ERA, a 1.106 WHIP, and 9.278 K/9. Some of those other guys who played a long time have worse stats, mostly because they stuck around for too long. Carlton finished his career with a 3.22 ERA. Feller finished his career with a 1.316 WHIP, the highest on my list.
The only player I'm really penalizing for something out if his control is Bob Gibson. By all measures he deserves to be on my top 19. The reason I am penalizing him is because for only the 1968 season the pitcher's mound was raised, and pitchers as a whole enjoyed a season of success. The league ERA was 2.90 that year. The next lowest league ERA during Gibson's career was 3.27. Gibson enjoyed this season most of all:
22 Ws, 28 CGs, 13 Shutouts, 268 Ks, 1.12 ERA, 258 ERA+, 0.853 WHIP
Let's look at what happens to his career stats when you remove the 1968 season: his WHIP rises from 1.188 to 1.217, and his ERA rises from 2.91 to 3.07.
That's still a very nice career, but definitely less super-human. I guess I'm not being entirely fair; I really should replace that season with an average Gibson season, but that's too much work.
Anyway, keep your thoughts coming; I've already finished my work for the month, and there are still five business days to go. I'll need something to keep me occupied.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
The K-Zone
Before I begin, I just want to publicize that today is International Stuttering Awareness Day. As a former severe stutterer (and a current occasional stutterer), I feel that it's important for everyone to recognize this disorder and to try to be patient in our dealings with people who stutter. It can be an extremely embarassing and frustrating condition, az at least today, please try to be extra-sensitive. Thanks.
Intro #2: I'm on full-time baby-alert from yesterday until whenever my sister-in-law gives birth. If you're hanging out with me, or if you're in the car with me or something, just know that I might have to leave at a moment's notice. For G-d's sake, we're on the brink of having another Schmutter in the world; things are about to get a whole lot crazier.
And now, the steak.
You guys wouldn't believe how many of my readers were up-in-arms about my pitching list. Would you belive it was only one? Still, he was disgusted that I put Nolan Ryan on my list over Warren Spahn, Steve Carlton and Lefty Grove. Needless to say, all three had outstanding careers, and one could make a case that they belong on the list over Ryan. Grove has two things over Ryan:
1. His ERA+ of 148 dominates Ryan's 112, even though their raw ERAs are very similar (3.06 to 3.19).
2. His record of 300-144 rocks Ryan's 324-292
Grove also had one horrifyingly good MVP season in 1931:
31-4 Record, 27 CGs, 4 Shutouts, 175 Ks, 2.06 ERA, 1.077 WHIP
Carlton and Ryan have numbers that are almost identical. They both struck out a lot of guys (4136 and 5714), they both have the exact same WHIP (1.247), and their ERAs are virtually the same (3.22 and 3.19). Carlton also "suffers" from the Grove/Koufax "what do you say I go ahead and be ridiculously dominant for a coupla seasons." As my friend pointed out so astutely, Carlton literally carried his team in 1972, when he won over 40% of the games that the Phillies won:
27-10 Record, 30 CGs, 8 Shutouts, 310 Ks, 1.97 ERA, 0.993 WHIP (Phillies won 59 games that year)
We'll get to Warren Spahn in a second.
Now I've made cases for both Carlton and Grove to appear on my list. At this point I'd like to dip into something I learned in Pro Football Prospectus 2007. Using their complex statistical theory, they determined that a running-back who consistently gets three to four yards a carry but does not get any big runs of ten or more yards is more valuable in the long term than a back who gets stuffed at or behind the line sometimes but breaks for big runs more often. You feel me? Let me try that again. Let's say Player Q and Player J both have 200 carries for 1000 yards in one season; they both average 5.0 yards per carry. Now let's say Player Q gains exactly five yards on every single carry, but player J alternates between having five straight carries of zero yards each and five straight carries of ten yards each. Which player is more valuable in the long run? According to their analysis, Player Q is more valuable, because each time he carries the ball, he has a successful play. If they give him the ball on every play, eventually they will score a touchdown on every drive. However, player J will probably produce very few touchdowns, because his team will be forced to punt all the time.
Let's get back to baseball. Nolan Ryan, I believe, was a more valuable player over the course of his career than Grove or Carlton. Ryan was never a feast or famine pitcher like the other two; he never had a stretch of dominant seasons. His best ERA in any season in which he got more than 25 starts was 2.76, very nice but nowhere near as good as the seasons I mentioned above. But for basically 25 years you knew what you were getting with Ryan; a guy who was going to give you seven or eight (or nine) solid innings and a chance to win the game. Warren Spahn was very similar; he never had any over-the-top outstanding seasons (except maybe 1953: 23-7 record, 2.10 ERA, 188 ERA+), but he was always solid year-in and year-out. I just don't think he compiled good enough numbers to merit being on the list (2583 Ks, 3.09 ERA, 118 ERA+). Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, here's the key: The most predictable pitchers are the ones who have success with repeatable statistics. Here's what I mean:
As my friends at beyondtheboxscore.com (and many others) state, for the most part, the pitcher and the batter are in control of three things: walks, home runs, and strikeouts. Anything other than one of these "Three True Outcomes," or TTO for short, depends on luck and defense (at least for now. Baseball technology is always progressing, and eventually there will be substantial and trustworthy tools for determining trajectories and flight patterns of baseballs so that we can better analyze which players are better at hitting line drives and which pitchers are better at preventing them). As I've said before, a strikeout pitcher will tend to be more effective because a player can't get any hits if he doesn't put the ball in play. And if a pitcher can prevent hitters from hitting the ball in the air, then it's likely the ball will never leave the yard. Another words, the pitchers who will have the most success in the long run are the ones who consistently strike out a lot of hitters and give up few home runs. That's why Nolan Ryan was so successful for such a long time; he was really good at striking hitters out and at keeping the ball in the yard.
And just for argument's sake, don't ever mention Wins as a viable statistic when determining pitching skill. I mean, obviously a great pitcher will manage to win a lot of games, but when comparing pitchers you definitely can't use them. You can't say Spahn was better than Ryan because he had 39 more wins. I mean from 1953 onward, Spahn pitched on some pretty outstanding Milwaukee Braves teams; they averaged around 90 wins a year for the 13 years Spahn pitched there. Ryan pitched on some pretty awful teams in New York, California, Texas, and Houston. Those teams gave him fewer than four runs of support each game, and that made it a lot harder to win. I would venture to say that if he got half a run more support per game for his career, Ryan would have 50 more wins.
Anyway, here are the stats for Grove, Carlton and Ryan: (Strikouts per nine innings, Hits per nine innings, Walks per nine innings, and Home Runs per nine innings)
Grove: 5.175 K/9, 8.791 H/9, 2.711 BB/9, 0.370 HR/9
Carlton: 7.135 K/9, 8.059 H/9, 3.162 BB/9, 0.714 HR/9
Ryan: 9.548 K/9, 6.555 H/9, 4.670 BB/9, 0.536 HR/9
I think this presents a very compelling argument in favor of Nolan Ryan over the other two. Carlton was absolutely an amazing pitcher, maybe the best left-hander ever, but compared to these other two he sure did give up a lot of hits and home runs. Grove did an excellent job of keeping the ball in the yard, but he struck out so few batters (which was pretty standard during the 30s) and gave up so many hits that his WHIP was too high for me to put him in the top 19. As I mentioned in my paragraph about Ryan in my pitcher post, he walked the most guys of anyone ever. By far. It's for that reason, and that reason alone, that there's even a discussion about how great he was. But look how few hits he gave up! If you're basically walking or striking out every batter that comes to the plate, you're going to be pretty successful, especially if you have a rubber arm and can throw 150 pitches per game like Ryan did.
I think I've done an admirable job of defending myself, but since I love doing this I'd really love to hear some feedback from some of you, especially from the person who inspired to do this extra research.
Tomorrow's post: Why Sandy Koufax was head and shoulders above the Bobs (Feller and Gibson). I'll transcribe the comment I got from my brother through Blogger (he doesn't use facebook; he's an old fogey).
Intro #2: I'm on full-time baby-alert from yesterday until whenever my sister-in-law gives birth. If you're hanging out with me, or if you're in the car with me or something, just know that I might have to leave at a moment's notice. For G-d's sake, we're on the brink of having another Schmutter in the world; things are about to get a whole lot crazier.
And now, the steak.
You guys wouldn't believe how many of my readers were up-in-arms about my pitching list. Would you belive it was only one? Still, he was disgusted that I put Nolan Ryan on my list over Warren Spahn, Steve Carlton and Lefty Grove. Needless to say, all three had outstanding careers, and one could make a case that they belong on the list over Ryan. Grove has two things over Ryan:
1. His ERA+ of 148 dominates Ryan's 112, even though their raw ERAs are very similar (3.06 to 3.19).
2. His record of 300-144 rocks Ryan's 324-292
Grove also had one horrifyingly good MVP season in 1931:
31-4 Record, 27 CGs, 4 Shutouts, 175 Ks, 2.06 ERA, 1.077 WHIP
Carlton and Ryan have numbers that are almost identical. They both struck out a lot of guys (4136 and 5714), they both have the exact same WHIP (1.247), and their ERAs are virtually the same (3.22 and 3.19). Carlton also "suffers" from the Grove/Koufax "what do you say I go ahead and be ridiculously dominant for a coupla seasons." As my friend pointed out so astutely, Carlton literally carried his team in 1972, when he won over 40% of the games that the Phillies won:
27-10 Record, 30 CGs, 8 Shutouts, 310 Ks, 1.97 ERA, 0.993 WHIP (Phillies won 59 games that year)
We'll get to Warren Spahn in a second.
Now I've made cases for both Carlton and Grove to appear on my list. At this point I'd like to dip into something I learned in Pro Football Prospectus 2007. Using their complex statistical theory, they determined that a running-back who consistently gets three to four yards a carry but does not get any big runs of ten or more yards is more valuable in the long term than a back who gets stuffed at or behind the line sometimes but breaks for big runs more often. You feel me? Let me try that again. Let's say Player Q and Player J both have 200 carries for 1000 yards in one season; they both average 5.0 yards per carry. Now let's say Player Q gains exactly five yards on every single carry, but player J alternates between having five straight carries of zero yards each and five straight carries of ten yards each. Which player is more valuable in the long run? According to their analysis, Player Q is more valuable, because each time he carries the ball, he has a successful play. If they give him the ball on every play, eventually they will score a touchdown on every drive. However, player J will probably produce very few touchdowns, because his team will be forced to punt all the time.
Let's get back to baseball. Nolan Ryan, I believe, was a more valuable player over the course of his career than Grove or Carlton. Ryan was never a feast or famine pitcher like the other two; he never had a stretch of dominant seasons. His best ERA in any season in which he got more than 25 starts was 2.76, very nice but nowhere near as good as the seasons I mentioned above. But for basically 25 years you knew what you were getting with Ryan; a guy who was going to give you seven or eight (or nine) solid innings and a chance to win the game. Warren Spahn was very similar; he never had any over-the-top outstanding seasons (except maybe 1953: 23-7 record, 2.10 ERA, 188 ERA+), but he was always solid year-in and year-out. I just don't think he compiled good enough numbers to merit being on the list (2583 Ks, 3.09 ERA, 118 ERA+). Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, here's the key: The most predictable pitchers are the ones who have success with repeatable statistics. Here's what I mean:
As my friends at beyondtheboxscore.com (and many others) state, for the most part, the pitcher and the batter are in control of three things: walks, home runs, and strikeouts. Anything other than one of these "Three True Outcomes," or TTO for short, depends on luck and defense (at least for now. Baseball technology is always progressing, and eventually there will be substantial and trustworthy tools for determining trajectories and flight patterns of baseballs so that we can better analyze which players are better at hitting line drives and which pitchers are better at preventing them). As I've said before, a strikeout pitcher will tend to be more effective because a player can't get any hits if he doesn't put the ball in play. And if a pitcher can prevent hitters from hitting the ball in the air, then it's likely the ball will never leave the yard. Another words, the pitchers who will have the most success in the long run are the ones who consistently strike out a lot of hitters and give up few home runs. That's why Nolan Ryan was so successful for such a long time; he was really good at striking hitters out and at keeping the ball in the yard.
And just for argument's sake, don't ever mention Wins as a viable statistic when determining pitching skill. I mean, obviously a great pitcher will manage to win a lot of games, but when comparing pitchers you definitely can't use them. You can't say Spahn was better than Ryan because he had 39 more wins. I mean from 1953 onward, Spahn pitched on some pretty outstanding Milwaukee Braves teams; they averaged around 90 wins a year for the 13 years Spahn pitched there. Ryan pitched on some pretty awful teams in New York, California, Texas, and Houston. Those teams gave him fewer than four runs of support each game, and that made it a lot harder to win. I would venture to say that if he got half a run more support per game for his career, Ryan would have 50 more wins.
Anyway, here are the stats for Grove, Carlton and Ryan: (Strikouts per nine innings, Hits per nine innings, Walks per nine innings, and Home Runs per nine innings)
Grove: 5.175 K/9, 8.791 H/9, 2.711 BB/9, 0.370 HR/9
Carlton: 7.135 K/9, 8.059 H/9, 3.162 BB/9, 0.714 HR/9
Ryan: 9.548 K/9, 6.555 H/9, 4.670 BB/9, 0.536 HR/9
I think this presents a very compelling argument in favor of Nolan Ryan over the other two. Carlton was absolutely an amazing pitcher, maybe the best left-hander ever, but compared to these other two he sure did give up a lot of hits and home runs. Grove did an excellent job of keeping the ball in the yard, but he struck out so few batters (which was pretty standard during the 30s) and gave up so many hits that his WHIP was too high for me to put him in the top 19. As I mentioned in my paragraph about Ryan in my pitcher post, he walked the most guys of anyone ever. By far. It's for that reason, and that reason alone, that there's even a discussion about how great he was. But look how few hits he gave up! If you're basically walking or striking out every batter that comes to the plate, you're going to be pretty successful, especially if you have a rubber arm and can throw 150 pitches per game like Ryan did.
I think I've done an admirable job of defending myself, but since I love doing this I'd really love to hear some feedback from some of you, especially from the person who inspired to do this extra research.
Tomorrow's post: Why Sandy Koufax was head and shoulders above the Bobs (Feller and Gibson). I'll transcribe the comment I got from my brother through Blogger (he doesn't use facebook; he's an old fogey).
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Tzedakah Etiquette
As everyone knows, riding the subway can be a frustrating experience. This morning was just one such example. I arrived at the 59th street station at about 8:57, and a B or D train usually comes shortly. There are few things more frustrating than waiting for a B or D train and watching a C, an A, and then another C come by before the B or D. I'm sure you all notice this all the time. Like you'll be waiting on 59th street to go back uptown on the A and three Bs, four Cs, and two Ds come before the A finally arrives. And somehow this always seems to happen on a Friday when you're in a rush to get home for Shabbat. Anyway, that's just my daily vent.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the biggest ba'al chesed (good-deed doer) in the world, but one thing I find easy to do is give charity. Hopefully none of you will ever be in the position to have to beg, but if ever you do, please learn from my experiences with beggars:
1. I mention this topic today because I was leaving Milk and Honey at about 1:00, and I was accosted by a Jewish man asking for tzedakah right outside the entrance. Firstly, the man was exceedingly rude. He did not ask for money; he demanded that he be given it. Not only that, but when I ignored him and kept walking, he actually nudged me with his hand. If you're a beggar, don't ever EVER touch people; it's gross.
2. This one might only be annoying to me, but I'll hear what you have to say. Everyone knows that the subways are riddled with panhandlers, and some are more creative than others. It's rare that one will actually experience a peaceful subway ride; there will inevitably be one or more people playing music and collecting charity afterwards. Now I would posit that a person or people with a talent would be less likely to make money begging, because they actually have something positive to contribute to society. Meanwhile, I'm sure there are a lot of subway riders who find the music players annoying and would have gladly given to a normal beggar rather than being disturbed by the constant noise. I usually spend my subway rides reading or learning, az I hate when my subway car turns into a concert hall, especially during sefirah or the three weeks.
3. The remainder of my noteworthy tzedakah experiences occurred while I was in Israel. Right around Rosh Hashana time, I was approached by a woman right outside Sha'ar Ha'ashpot near the Wall, and she wouldn't stop bother me about "Rav Bina!! Rav Binaaaa!!" Anyway, when I went to give her a few one and two shekel coins she refused to take them stating that she would only accept paper money. Somehow, in my naivete, she finagled a 50 shekel bill from me. G-d knows I'll never let that happen again.
4. On most Thursday afternoons and Saturday nights during my year in Israel, I would find myself on Ben Yehudah street. I would often be engaged in conversation with a number of other people at the same time, just standing on the street. There used to be an old man who spoke no English (and no Hebrew as far as I could tell) who carried around those red strings to give to people who gave him charity. Anyway, he used to barge his way in on our conversations and shake his finger at us threatingly. I never gave that guy. I mean, I don't blame him for panhandling on Ben Yehuda, since it was always filled with rich American kids, but do it the right way. Like this dude:
5. In much the same way as the crazy old man, there used to be a nice gentleman who would traverse Ben Yehuda street with his wife and kid, and they would also look for groups of us and ask us for tzedakah. The difference is that this man spoke proper English and spoke humbly and apologetically. He would apologize profusely for disturbing us, and then would ask us if we could spare the smallest amount of money so that his wife and kid could eat. He was kind and friendly, and I would always give him.
Another words, don't be rude. Don't think that anyone owes you anything. Don't treat those who are more fortunate than you with disdain. Don't look a gift-horse in the mouth. Say "please" and "thank you."
Geez, look at me trying to lecture people on begging etiquette. These people mamash have NOTHING, and I'm busting their chops? Who the hell do I think I am? I'm a monster. Ignore everything I just said.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the biggest ba'al chesed (good-deed doer) in the world, but one thing I find easy to do is give charity. Hopefully none of you will ever be in the position to have to beg, but if ever you do, please learn from my experiences with beggars:
1. I mention this topic today because I was leaving Milk and Honey at about 1:00, and I was accosted by a Jewish man asking for tzedakah right outside the entrance. Firstly, the man was exceedingly rude. He did not ask for money; he demanded that he be given it. Not only that, but when I ignored him and kept walking, he actually nudged me with his hand. If you're a beggar, don't ever EVER touch people; it's gross.
2. This one might only be annoying to me, but I'll hear what you have to say. Everyone knows that the subways are riddled with panhandlers, and some are more creative than others. It's rare that one will actually experience a peaceful subway ride; there will inevitably be one or more people playing music and collecting charity afterwards. Now I would posit that a person or people with a talent would be less likely to make money begging, because they actually have something positive to contribute to society. Meanwhile, I'm sure there are a lot of subway riders who find the music players annoying and would have gladly given to a normal beggar rather than being disturbed by the constant noise. I usually spend my subway rides reading or learning, az I hate when my subway car turns into a concert hall, especially during sefirah or the three weeks.
3. The remainder of my noteworthy tzedakah experiences occurred while I was in Israel. Right around Rosh Hashana time, I was approached by a woman right outside Sha'ar Ha'ashpot near the Wall, and she wouldn't stop bother me about "Rav Bina!! Rav Binaaaa!!" Anyway, when I went to give her a few one and two shekel coins she refused to take them stating that she would only accept paper money. Somehow, in my naivete, she finagled a 50 shekel bill from me. G-d knows I'll never let that happen again.
4. On most Thursday afternoons and Saturday nights during my year in Israel, I would find myself on Ben Yehudah street. I would often be engaged in conversation with a number of other people at the same time, just standing on the street. There used to be an old man who spoke no English (and no Hebrew as far as I could tell) who carried around those red strings to give to people who gave him charity. Anyway, he used to barge his way in on our conversations and shake his finger at us threatingly. I never gave that guy. I mean, I don't blame him for panhandling on Ben Yehuda, since it was always filled with rich American kids, but do it the right way. Like this dude:
5. In much the same way as the crazy old man, there used to be a nice gentleman who would traverse Ben Yehuda street with his wife and kid, and they would also look for groups of us and ask us for tzedakah. The difference is that this man spoke proper English and spoke humbly and apologetically. He would apologize profusely for disturbing us, and then would ask us if we could spare the smallest amount of money so that his wife and kid could eat. He was kind and friendly, and I would always give him.
Another words, don't be rude. Don't think that anyone owes you anything. Don't treat those who are more fortunate than you with disdain. Don't look a gift-horse in the mouth. Say "please" and "thank you."
Geez, look at me trying to lecture people on begging etiquette. These people mamash have NOTHING, and I'm busting their chops? Who the hell do I think I am? I'm a monster. Ignore everything I just said.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Let's Do Pitchers
Let's do pitchers. Now in my last post I mentioned exactly 19 position players. 19 is a very special number to me for the following two reasons:
1. It is one of the prime factors of 190, which is the largest number such that it and all of its prime factors are palindromes in Roman Numerals. I'll let you read that again.
Digest it...
Chew it up into bite-size pieces...
See, 190 is CXC in Roman Numerals, and its prime factors, 2, 5, and 19, are II, V, and XIX in Roman Numerals, respectively (yeah, that was nine commas. That's too many...).
2. 19 is the number of resource hexes in Settlers of Catan.
Anyway, it's for those reasons that I will list 19 pitchers on my all-time team. And here they are:
(FYI, ERA+ is defined as a pitcher's ERA as compared to league average, also taking into account other factors such as ballpark and opponent. 100 is league average.)
Starting Five:
1. Walter Johnson (417 Wins, 531 Complete Games, 110 Shutouts, 3508 Strikeouts, 2.17 ERA, 146 ERA+, 1.06 WHIP)
The Big Train was definitely one of the greatest pitchers of all time. Don't get fooled by the low ERA, however; there weren't a whole lot of runs scored before the 1920s. Still, his ERA was about 38% better than league average for his career. His WHIP was also outstanding, fifth lowest of all time for starters who pitched over 1000 innings. Check out his 1912 and 1913 seasons:
1912: 33 Wins and 12 Losses, 303 Ks, 1.39 ERA, 240 ERA+, 0.908 WHIP
1913: 36 Wins and 7 Losses, 243 Ks, 1.14 ERA, 259 ERA+, 0.780 WHIP(!), and the MVP
As we get later in time, keep in mind that the pitchers pitched far fewer innings (Johnson threw 5914.2) and completed far fewer games. Still, Johnson has the most shutouts of all time, and his strikeouts per nine innings of 5.34 was very high for that era.
2. Christy Mathewson (373 Ws, 434 CGs, 79 Shutouts, 2.13 ERA, 135 ERA+, 1.054 WHIP)
Mathewson invented the screwball, and became almost unhittable for several years because of it. Check out these stats for the years 1907-09:
Wins: 24, 37, 25
Shutouts: 8, 11, 8
Strikeouts: 178, 259, 149
ERA: 2.00, 1.43, 1.14
ERA+: 123, 168, 222
WHIP: 0.962, 0.837, 0.828
His 37 wins in 1908 is third most all time in a season. In 1905, Mathewson pitched three complete game shutouts for the Giants in the World Series, giving up a combined 14 hits in the three games. ESPN selected this performance as the greatest in playoff history. The Sporting News ranks him as the seventh greatest player of all time. He was rightfully elected as one of the inaugural members of the National Baseball Hall of Fame along with legends Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson, Honus Wagner, and Ty Cobb.
Mordecai "Three-Finger" Brown (239 Ws, 271 CGs, 55 Shutouts, 2.06 ERA, 138 ERA+, 1.066 WHIP)
Brown became famous around the turn of the century for his pinpoint control and his unusual amount of spin on pitches. His throwing hand became mangled in a farming accident, and he turned this to his advantage, developing a deceptive curveball and change-up. His matchups with Christy Mathewson were the premier pitching events of the era. From 1906 to 1909 he and Mathewson were the absolute elite pitchers in baseball. In each of those seasons, Brown won at least 20 games, posted an ERA below 2.00, and had a WHIP below 1.000. Here is his pitching line from 1906:
26 Wins, 6 Losses, 144 Strikeouts, 1.04 ERA (lowest all time for a starting pitcher), 253 ERA+, 0.934 WHIP
His career 2.06 ERA is third lowest of all time for starters, and the lowest all time for pitchers who logged over 3000 innings.
Pedro Martinez (209 Ws, 3030 Ks, 10.201 K/9, 2.80 ERA, 160 ERA+, 1.03 WHIP)
Pedro is truly one of a kind. He is really a small dude for a modern baseball player at 5'11" and 170 lbs, and for such a "little" guy he's got the longest fingers I've ever seen. Anyway, nobody dominated his era quite like Pedro has. His 160 career ERA+ is the highest all time for any starter with over 1000 innings pitched. And his 2000 season might be the greatest season of all time for a pitcher:
18 Wins, 6 Losses, 7 CGs, 4 Shutouts, 284 Ks, 1.74 ERA, 285 ERA+ (highest all-time), 0.737 WHIP (also best ever)
I hope he's back for a full season next year; the Mets really need him.
Sandy Koufax (165 Ws, 40 Shutouts, 2396 Ks, 9.278 K/9, 2.76 ERA, 131 ERA+, 1.106 WHIP)
At the point of his retirement, Koufax was tops or close to it in almost every rate statistic. He was the first starter to finish his career having averaged more than one strikeout an inning. He is widely considered to be the greatest pitcher of all time at his peak, which lasted about six years, from 1961-6. In the final four years of his career he won at least 19 games, had an ERA no higher than 2.04, and a WHIP below 1.000. He was named to the All-Century Team, and was ranked 26th on The Sporting News's list of top 100 players. Just this year, he was honored as the last pick in the inaugural Israel Baseball League draft. In the words of Art Shamsky, former Mets player and current manager of Modi'in Miracle: "His selection is a tribute to the esteem with which he is held by everyone associated with this league. It's been 41 years between starts for him. If he's rested and ready to take the mound again, we want him on our team."
Relievers:
Denton True Young (7356 IP, 511 Ws, 749 CGs, 76 Shutouts, 2803 Ks, 2.63 ERA, 138 ERA+, 1.13 WHIP)
The man for whom the most prestigious pitching award in baseball is named hardly needs any introduction. He practically invented the art of pitching. He logged more innings and won more games than anyone ever. Additionally, Sabermetricians love him; from 1893 to 1906 he led the league in fewest walks per nine innings 13 times, and led the league in WHIP seven times. He is ranked 14th on The Sporting News's list of top 100 players and was named to the All-Century Team.
Grover Cleveland Alexander (373 Ws, 437 CGs, 90 Shutouts, 2.56 ERA, 135 ERA+, 1.121 WHIP)
Another outstanding pitcher, who is tied for the most wins in the National League with Christy Mathewson. He led the NL in ERA four times, wins five times, and strikeouts six times. The Sporting News ranked him 12th on the all-time list of players.
Roger Clemens (354 Wins, 118 CGs, 46 Shutouts, 4672 Ks, 8.553 K/9, 3.12 ERA, 143 ERA+, 1.173 WHIP)
I can't believe this guy is still pitching effectively. Some of those numbers up there are absolutely absurd for this day and age. Somehow, he managed to not only stay effective but improve during the steroid era. In addition to the impressive array of statistics above, he has also won a record seven Cy Young awards. His 4672 strikeouts are second all time to Nolan Ryan, and he's still going. He is currently ranked number 15 on The Sporting News's list, and he keeps rising. He is one of very few modern pitchers to win an MVP award, which he did in 1986.
Greg Maddux (347 Ws, 109 CGs, 35 Shutouts, 3273 Ks, 3.11 ERA, 134 ERA+, 1.141 WHIP)
You know, as much as he as vexed me and my Mets over the years, I never realized how truly dominant he was in the mid-90s. For a guy with a mediocre fastball to strike out that many guys is amazing; he's 12th all time. Did any of you even remember that he won four straight Cy Young awards from 1992 to 1995? Look at these two seasons:
1994 (strike-shortened): 16 Ws, 6 Ls, 10 CGs, 3 Shutouts, 31 BBs, 156 Ks, 1.56 ERA, 273 ERA+, 0.896 WHIP
1995: 19 Ws, 2 Ls, 23 BBs(!), 181 Ks, 1.63 ERA, 259 ERA+, 0.811 WHIP
Those seasons are borderline Pedro-esque. And he's still going. He'll definitely make it to 350 wins next season. Need I even mention the 16 Gold Gloves at the Pitcher position? A recent poll was taken from among a bunch of current players, and they were asked who the smartest person in baseball is. The only player (i.e. not a (general) manager) who received votes was Mr. Maddux.
Nolan Ryan (324 Ws, 222 CGs, 61 Shutouts, 5714 Ks, 9.548 K/9, 3.19 ERA)
There is a lot to be said about Nolan Ryan. No one ever pitched as long as Ryan did; his career spanned 27 seasons. For that reason he was able to amass incredible mounts of wins, and strikeouts (most all time by over 1000. His 383 Ks in 1973 remain a record). He has thrown the most no-hitters in history (seven), and holds the record for fewest hits allowed per nine innings among starters (6.56). However, due to his "power-pitcher" status and his longevity, he also holds the modern record for losses (292) and walks (2795, 962 more than second place.) Nonetheless, 27 seasons of Nolan Ryan are pretty darn good. One of the lasting images of my childhood is of a young Robin Ventura charging a 40+ year old Nolan Ryan on the mound after getting struck by a pitch. The still spry Ryan caught the 22 year old Ventura in a headlock and pummeled him in the head as the benches cleared. That dude was tough.
Tom Seaver (311 Ws, 231 CGs, 61 Shutouts, 3640 Ks, 2.86 ERA, 127 ERA+, 1.121 WHIP)
Tom Terrific obviously holds a special place in my heart because he is one of the three Mets whose number is retired, and he is the only one enshrined in Cooperstown to sport a Mets cap. I don't think I need to talk about his numbers much, but I would like to point out, for what it's worth, that at the time of his induction he received the highest percentage of votes of anyone ever, 425 out of 430. He was regarded by his peers as the best pitcher of his generation. The Sporting News ranks him as the 16th greatest player ever.
Randy Johnson (284 Ws, 98 CGs, 37 Shutouts, 4616 Ks, 10.776 K/9, 3.22 ERA, 137 ERA+)
The Big Unit has been among the most, if not the most intimidating pitcher of his time. At 6'10" tall, and pitching with a pronounced side-arm motion, batters have felt that Johnson appears to throw from much closer than other pitchers. Here's an amusing anecdote, which I'm sure many of you will remember. Back in the mid-90s in the All-Star game, Johnson had thrown a pitch inside to Phillies slugger John Kruk. Kruk was so afraid to get back into the box that he held the bat upside down for the next pitch. And who can forget the incident in spring training in 2001 when a 95 mph fastball seemed to spontaneously combust into a shower of feathers; Johnson had actually struck a bird in mid-flight. And now a couple of numbers. Johnson and Clemens are basically neck-and-neck in the race to finish second all-time in strikeouts. Johnson also has the highest K/9 of any starter ever.
Rube Waddell (193 Ws, 261 CGs, 50 Shutouts, 2316 Ks, 7.039 K/9, 2.16 ERA, 134 ERA+, 1.102 WHIP)
Waddell was the league's first true power-pitcher. No one had ever struck batters out as often as Waddell did. In 1903, Waddell led the league in strikeouts with 302, 115 more than second place. And in 1904 he had 349, 110 more than second place. Those 349 strikouts remained a record for one season for 60 years, and nobody struck out 300+ in two consecutive seasons until Sandy Koufax came along. If Babe Ruth is considered the inventor of the home run, then Waddell should certainly be considered the father of the strikeout.
Jack Chesbro (198 Wins, 260 CGs, 35 Shutouts, 2.68 ERA, 1.15 WHIP)
Chesbro was a contemporary of Waddell, and he actually was second in strikeouts to Waddell in 1904, the year Waddell had 349. Chesbro had an impressive enough career to garner a Hall of Fame election, even though his career only lasted for eleven seasons. Chesbro is noteworthy for having a most remarkable season in 1904:
41 Wins, 48 CGs, 6 Shutouts, 239 Ks, 1.82 ERA, 148 ERA+, 0.937 WHIP
His 41 wins remain a record that will probably never be broken.
Addie Joss (160 Wins, 234 CGs, 45 Shutouts, 1.89 ERA, 142 ERA+, 0.968 WHIP)
I love these old-school guys from the turn of the century; they're so interesting. Joss does not really get the recognition he deserves because his career was cut short by meningitis resulting in his early death at the age of 31. But for nine years he was one of the most dominant pitchers this league has ever seen. He has the lowest WHIP ever for any starter with more than 1000 innings. His election into the Hall of Fame in 1978 was also noteworthy because in order to be eligible, a player needs ten years of service. Joss is the only player for whom this rule was waived.
Johan Santana (98 Ws, 1381 Ks, 9.501 K/9, 3.22 ERA, 142 ERA+, 1.094 WHIP)
And he's only 28! In his eight years of service, Santana has proven to be the most dominant active pitcher. I can only imagine how much money he's going to make on his next contract (read: I can only imagine how much money the Yankees are going to throw at him). He has already won two Cy Young awards, both unanimously, and I'm sure he has a few more in him.
Closers:
Mariano Rivera (953 IP, 62 Ws, 443 SVs, 857 Ks, 8.093 K/9, 2.35 ERA, 194 ERA+, 1.046 WHIP)
Mo is almost unanimously considered to be the greatest closer of all-time, partially due to his almost pristine post-season resume. In 76 post-season appearances he has this line:
8 Ws, 1 Loss, 0.77 ERA, 34 Saves. It's hard to believe that every single batter who faces him knows exactly what pitch is coming, the greatest cut-fastball of all time, and they still can't hit it.
Billy Wagner (771 IP, 39 Ws, 358 SVs, 1014 Ks, 11.837 K/9, 2.40 ERA, 179 ERA+, 1.016 WHIP)
Hah, didn't see this one coming. But seriously, look at his numbers. He has the highest K/9 of any pitcher with more than 500 IP ever. Can't really do a whole lot if you can't put the ball in play. No reliever has thrown more pitches above 100 mph since the invention of the radar gun. He's still got a few years left in him, az we'll have to see if he gets the recognition he deserves.
And finally, just for fun:
Clemens: 118 CGs, 3.12 ERA, 1.173 WHIP
Young: 3.429 K/9, 2.63 ERA, 1.13 WHIP
Ryan: 3.19 ERA, 112 ERA+, 1.247 WHIP
Mystery Guest: 94 Ws, 107 CGs, 3.597 K/9, 2.28 ERA, 122 ERA+, 1.159 WHIP
Any guesses? It's Nick Punto! Just kidding. It's Babe Ruth! Geez, he coulda been a Hall of Fame pitcher too.
Okay, folks. Thanks for indulging my sweet tooth and allowing me to wallow in my own crapulence (how's that for a Simpsons reference!) for a short while. We'll return to my usual stupidity and lunacy next time.
1. It is one of the prime factors of 190, which is the largest number such that it and all of its prime factors are palindromes in Roman Numerals. I'll let you read that again.
Digest it...
Chew it up into bite-size pieces...
See, 190 is CXC in Roman Numerals, and its prime factors, 2, 5, and 19, are II, V, and XIX in Roman Numerals, respectively (yeah, that was nine commas. That's too many...).
2. 19 is the number of resource hexes in Settlers of Catan.
Anyway, it's for those reasons that I will list 19 pitchers on my all-time team. And here they are:
(FYI, ERA+ is defined as a pitcher's ERA as compared to league average, also taking into account other factors such as ballpark and opponent. 100 is league average.)
Starting Five:
1. Walter Johnson (417 Wins, 531 Complete Games, 110 Shutouts, 3508 Strikeouts, 2.17 ERA, 146 ERA+, 1.06 WHIP)
The Big Train was definitely one of the greatest pitchers of all time. Don't get fooled by the low ERA, however; there weren't a whole lot of runs scored before the 1920s. Still, his ERA was about 38% better than league average for his career. His WHIP was also outstanding, fifth lowest of all time for starters who pitched over 1000 innings. Check out his 1912 and 1913 seasons:
1912: 33 Wins and 12 Losses, 303 Ks, 1.39 ERA, 240 ERA+, 0.908 WHIP
1913: 36 Wins and 7 Losses, 243 Ks, 1.14 ERA, 259 ERA+, 0.780 WHIP(!), and the MVP
As we get later in time, keep in mind that the pitchers pitched far fewer innings (Johnson threw 5914.2) and completed far fewer games. Still, Johnson has the most shutouts of all time, and his strikeouts per nine innings of 5.34 was very high for that era.
2. Christy Mathewson (373 Ws, 434 CGs, 79 Shutouts, 2.13 ERA, 135 ERA+, 1.054 WHIP)
Mathewson invented the screwball, and became almost unhittable for several years because of it. Check out these stats for the years 1907-09:
Wins: 24, 37, 25
Shutouts: 8, 11, 8
Strikeouts: 178, 259, 149
ERA: 2.00, 1.43, 1.14
ERA+: 123, 168, 222
WHIP: 0.962, 0.837, 0.828
His 37 wins in 1908 is third most all time in a season. In 1905, Mathewson pitched three complete game shutouts for the Giants in the World Series, giving up a combined 14 hits in the three games. ESPN selected this performance as the greatest in playoff history. The Sporting News ranks him as the seventh greatest player of all time. He was rightfully elected as one of the inaugural members of the National Baseball Hall of Fame along with legends Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson, Honus Wagner, and Ty Cobb.
Mordecai "Three-Finger" Brown (239 Ws, 271 CGs, 55 Shutouts, 2.06 ERA, 138 ERA+, 1.066 WHIP)
Brown became famous around the turn of the century for his pinpoint control and his unusual amount of spin on pitches. His throwing hand became mangled in a farming accident, and he turned this to his advantage, developing a deceptive curveball and change-up. His matchups with Christy Mathewson were the premier pitching events of the era. From 1906 to 1909 he and Mathewson were the absolute elite pitchers in baseball. In each of those seasons, Brown won at least 20 games, posted an ERA below 2.00, and had a WHIP below 1.000. Here is his pitching line from 1906:
26 Wins, 6 Losses, 144 Strikeouts, 1.04 ERA (lowest all time for a starting pitcher), 253 ERA+, 0.934 WHIP
His career 2.06 ERA is third lowest of all time for starters, and the lowest all time for pitchers who logged over 3000 innings.
Pedro Martinez (209 Ws, 3030 Ks, 10.201 K/9, 2.80 ERA, 160 ERA+, 1.03 WHIP)
Pedro is truly one of a kind. He is really a small dude for a modern baseball player at 5'11" and 170 lbs, and for such a "little" guy he's got the longest fingers I've ever seen. Anyway, nobody dominated his era quite like Pedro has. His 160 career ERA+ is the highest all time for any starter with over 1000 innings pitched. And his 2000 season might be the greatest season of all time for a pitcher:
18 Wins, 6 Losses, 7 CGs, 4 Shutouts, 284 Ks, 1.74 ERA, 285 ERA+ (highest all-time), 0.737 WHIP (also best ever)
I hope he's back for a full season next year; the Mets really need him.
Sandy Koufax (165 Ws, 40 Shutouts, 2396 Ks, 9.278 K/9, 2.76 ERA, 131 ERA+, 1.106 WHIP)
At the point of his retirement, Koufax was tops or close to it in almost every rate statistic. He was the first starter to finish his career having averaged more than one strikeout an inning. He is widely considered to be the greatest pitcher of all time at his peak, which lasted about six years, from 1961-6. In the final four years of his career he won at least 19 games, had an ERA no higher than 2.04, and a WHIP below 1.000. He was named to the All-Century Team, and was ranked 26th on The Sporting News's list of top 100 players. Just this year, he was honored as the last pick in the inaugural Israel Baseball League draft. In the words of Art Shamsky, former Mets player and current manager of Modi'in Miracle: "His selection is a tribute to the esteem with which he is held by everyone associated with this league. It's been 41 years between starts for him. If he's rested and ready to take the mound again, we want him on our team."
Relievers:
Denton True Young (7356 IP, 511 Ws, 749 CGs, 76 Shutouts, 2803 Ks, 2.63 ERA, 138 ERA+, 1.13 WHIP)
The man for whom the most prestigious pitching award in baseball is named hardly needs any introduction. He practically invented the art of pitching. He logged more innings and won more games than anyone ever. Additionally, Sabermetricians love him; from 1893 to 1906 he led the league in fewest walks per nine innings 13 times, and led the league in WHIP seven times. He is ranked 14th on The Sporting News's list of top 100 players and was named to the All-Century Team.
Grover Cleveland Alexander (373 Ws, 437 CGs, 90 Shutouts, 2.56 ERA, 135 ERA+, 1.121 WHIP)
Another outstanding pitcher, who is tied for the most wins in the National League with Christy Mathewson. He led the NL in ERA four times, wins five times, and strikeouts six times. The Sporting News ranked him 12th on the all-time list of players.
Roger Clemens (354 Wins, 118 CGs, 46 Shutouts, 4672 Ks, 8.553 K/9, 3.12 ERA, 143 ERA+, 1.173 WHIP)
I can't believe this guy is still pitching effectively. Some of those numbers up there are absolutely absurd for this day and age. Somehow, he managed to not only stay effective but improve during the steroid era. In addition to the impressive array of statistics above, he has also won a record seven Cy Young awards. His 4672 strikeouts are second all time to Nolan Ryan, and he's still going. He is currently ranked number 15 on The Sporting News's list, and he keeps rising. He is one of very few modern pitchers to win an MVP award, which he did in 1986.
Greg Maddux (347 Ws, 109 CGs, 35 Shutouts, 3273 Ks, 3.11 ERA, 134 ERA+, 1.141 WHIP)
You know, as much as he as vexed me and my Mets over the years, I never realized how truly dominant he was in the mid-90s. For a guy with a mediocre fastball to strike out that many guys is amazing; he's 12th all time. Did any of you even remember that he won four straight Cy Young awards from 1992 to 1995? Look at these two seasons:
1994 (strike-shortened): 16 Ws, 6 Ls, 10 CGs, 3 Shutouts, 31 BBs, 156 Ks, 1.56 ERA, 273 ERA+, 0.896 WHIP
1995: 19 Ws, 2 Ls, 23 BBs(!), 181 Ks, 1.63 ERA, 259 ERA+, 0.811 WHIP
Those seasons are borderline Pedro-esque. And he's still going. He'll definitely make it to 350 wins next season. Need I even mention the 16 Gold Gloves at the Pitcher position? A recent poll was taken from among a bunch of current players, and they were asked who the smartest person in baseball is. The only player (i.e. not a (general) manager) who received votes was Mr. Maddux.
Nolan Ryan (324 Ws, 222 CGs, 61 Shutouts, 5714 Ks, 9.548 K/9, 3.19 ERA)
There is a lot to be said about Nolan Ryan. No one ever pitched as long as Ryan did; his career spanned 27 seasons. For that reason he was able to amass incredible mounts of wins, and strikeouts (most all time by over 1000. His 383 Ks in 1973 remain a record). He has thrown the most no-hitters in history (seven), and holds the record for fewest hits allowed per nine innings among starters (6.56). However, due to his "power-pitcher" status and his longevity, he also holds the modern record for losses (292) and walks (2795, 962 more than second place.) Nonetheless, 27 seasons of Nolan Ryan are pretty darn good. One of the lasting images of my childhood is of a young Robin Ventura charging a 40+ year old Nolan Ryan on the mound after getting struck by a pitch. The still spry Ryan caught the 22 year old Ventura in a headlock and pummeled him in the head as the benches cleared. That dude was tough.
Tom Seaver (311 Ws, 231 CGs, 61 Shutouts, 3640 Ks, 2.86 ERA, 127 ERA+, 1.121 WHIP)
Tom Terrific obviously holds a special place in my heart because he is one of the three Mets whose number is retired, and he is the only one enshrined in Cooperstown to sport a Mets cap. I don't think I need to talk about his numbers much, but I would like to point out, for what it's worth, that at the time of his induction he received the highest percentage of votes of anyone ever, 425 out of 430. He was regarded by his peers as the best pitcher of his generation. The Sporting News ranks him as the 16th greatest player ever.
Randy Johnson (284 Ws, 98 CGs, 37 Shutouts, 4616 Ks, 10.776 K/9, 3.22 ERA, 137 ERA+)
The Big Unit has been among the most, if not the most intimidating pitcher of his time. At 6'10" tall, and pitching with a pronounced side-arm motion, batters have felt that Johnson appears to throw from much closer than other pitchers. Here's an amusing anecdote, which I'm sure many of you will remember. Back in the mid-90s in the All-Star game, Johnson had thrown a pitch inside to Phillies slugger John Kruk. Kruk was so afraid to get back into the box that he held the bat upside down for the next pitch. And who can forget the incident in spring training in 2001 when a 95 mph fastball seemed to spontaneously combust into a shower of feathers; Johnson had actually struck a bird in mid-flight. And now a couple of numbers. Johnson and Clemens are basically neck-and-neck in the race to finish second all-time in strikeouts. Johnson also has the highest K/9 of any starter ever.
Rube Waddell (193 Ws, 261 CGs, 50 Shutouts, 2316 Ks, 7.039 K/9, 2.16 ERA, 134 ERA+, 1.102 WHIP)
Waddell was the league's first true power-pitcher. No one had ever struck batters out as often as Waddell did. In 1903, Waddell led the league in strikeouts with 302, 115 more than second place. And in 1904 he had 349, 110 more than second place. Those 349 strikouts remained a record for one season for 60 years, and nobody struck out 300+ in two consecutive seasons until Sandy Koufax came along. If Babe Ruth is considered the inventor of the home run, then Waddell should certainly be considered the father of the strikeout.
Jack Chesbro (198 Wins, 260 CGs, 35 Shutouts, 2.68 ERA, 1.15 WHIP)
Chesbro was a contemporary of Waddell, and he actually was second in strikeouts to Waddell in 1904, the year Waddell had 349. Chesbro had an impressive enough career to garner a Hall of Fame election, even though his career only lasted for eleven seasons. Chesbro is noteworthy for having a most remarkable season in 1904:
41 Wins, 48 CGs, 6 Shutouts, 239 Ks, 1.82 ERA, 148 ERA+, 0.937 WHIP
His 41 wins remain a record that will probably never be broken.
Addie Joss (160 Wins, 234 CGs, 45 Shutouts, 1.89 ERA, 142 ERA+, 0.968 WHIP)
I love these old-school guys from the turn of the century; they're so interesting. Joss does not really get the recognition he deserves because his career was cut short by meningitis resulting in his early death at the age of 31. But for nine years he was one of the most dominant pitchers this league has ever seen. He has the lowest WHIP ever for any starter with more than 1000 innings. His election into the Hall of Fame in 1978 was also noteworthy because in order to be eligible, a player needs ten years of service. Joss is the only player for whom this rule was waived.
Johan Santana (98 Ws, 1381 Ks, 9.501 K/9, 3.22 ERA, 142 ERA+, 1.094 WHIP)
And he's only 28! In his eight years of service, Santana has proven to be the most dominant active pitcher. I can only imagine how much money he's going to make on his next contract (read: I can only imagine how much money the Yankees are going to throw at him). He has already won two Cy Young awards, both unanimously, and I'm sure he has a few more in him.
Closers:
Mariano Rivera (953 IP, 62 Ws, 443 SVs, 857 Ks, 8.093 K/9, 2.35 ERA, 194 ERA+, 1.046 WHIP)
Mo is almost unanimously considered to be the greatest closer of all-time, partially due to his almost pristine post-season resume. In 76 post-season appearances he has this line:
8 Ws, 1 Loss, 0.77 ERA, 34 Saves. It's hard to believe that every single batter who faces him knows exactly what pitch is coming, the greatest cut-fastball of all time, and they still can't hit it.
Billy Wagner (771 IP, 39 Ws, 358 SVs, 1014 Ks, 11.837 K/9, 2.40 ERA, 179 ERA+, 1.016 WHIP)
Hah, didn't see this one coming. But seriously, look at his numbers. He has the highest K/9 of any pitcher with more than 500 IP ever. Can't really do a whole lot if you can't put the ball in play. No reliever has thrown more pitches above 100 mph since the invention of the radar gun. He's still got a few years left in him, az we'll have to see if he gets the recognition he deserves.
And finally, just for fun:
Clemens: 118 CGs, 3.12 ERA, 1.173 WHIP
Young: 3.429 K/9, 2.63 ERA, 1.13 WHIP
Ryan: 3.19 ERA, 112 ERA+, 1.247 WHIP
Mystery Guest: 94 Ws, 107 CGs, 3.597 K/9, 2.28 ERA, 122 ERA+, 1.159 WHIP
Any guesses? It's Nick Punto! Just kidding. It's Babe Ruth! Geez, he coulda been a Hall of Fame pitcher too.
Okay, folks. Thanks for indulging my sweet tooth and allowing me to wallow in my own crapulence (how's that for a Simpsons reference!) for a short while. We'll return to my usual stupidity and lunacy next time.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
100
I wanted to do something special for my 100th post, but then I thought, wait, 100 is just an arbitrary number with no more significance than 99 or 101. Like remember when The Simpsons had the 138th Episode Spectacular, and Bart wrote "I will not celebrate meaningless milestones" on the blackboard? Well, this is kinda like that, so enjoy.
Before we get things started I got a special request this week from a special reader to continue using the word "az." Now in order to reward my loyal readers, I will explain its origin. Seven years ago I spent an amazing six months at Yeshivat Hakotel in Jerusalem, the holy city. The head of the Yeshiva is Rav Aharon Bina, and his mastery over the English language is, umm, suspect. Not only that, but he refuses to actually speak to us in Hebrew for some reason. Anyway, he ALWAYS used the Hebrew word "az" instead of the English word "so," and anyone who ever does any impressions of him invariably will use the word "az" at one point or another. In an effort to please all my readers as much as possible, I will intermittently use the word "az" in the place of "so," az don't get scared.
Last night I went to a birthday party at a bar/club-ish type place on the upper west, and around midnight, there was quite a line to get in. While I was waiting I overheard that after midnight, patrons need to pay a $10 cover fee to enter, which was a tiny bit annoying because I got on line at 11:56, but okay, what can you do? I finally get to the front of the line, and the nice lady sitting by the door was clearly not having the best of nights, what with the constant pushing and complaining of long-time line-waiters. She even got so annoyed at a couple of women who were speaking ill of her once they got inside that she had the bouncer escort them out. (The cool part is that when the women were brought back outside one of the used the classic "what's your name?" line. You know like when you're having trouble with a Dell tech-support person or a verizon technician on the phone, and you want to scare them into helping you more, and you ask them their names so that you can tell their managers how poorly their help was? Anyway, the bouncer didn't even flinch; it was brilliant.) Now I was certainly in no hurry to get in, az I just engaged the woman in conversation, saying how people should chill out a little bit, and not always be so self-centered, and try to be more considerate, etc. So when I was finally allowed in she said I was nice and gave me a ticket so I wouldn't have to pay the cover. Az if you include the $10 I saved at the Verizon store (see the post "Fine, No Sports This Time (Much...), from July 17th, 2007), that's $20 I've saved so far just by being a nice guy. Lessons for all to learn...
Now we're getting to the delicious, room-temperature, creamy center of the Ring Ding that is my 100th post. I was discussing a few baseball related tidbits with my roommate the other day, and we decided we'd both come up with our all-time baseball teams. So I spent a little while at work compiling a spreadsheet with data about the top-players in history at each position. I haven't gotten around to looking up pitchers yet, but I'll get there next time. I'm going to list my all-time team and a few backups, along with some comments about each. (See my post "At the Risk of Losing Readership, Another Baseball Post" for the definitions of the stats.) Here goes:
Catcher: Mike Piazza (.308 BA, .922 OPS, 143 OPS+, 427 HR, 2127 Hits, .313 EqA)
And frankly, it's not even close. Piazza blows away the competition with a career OPS of .922 as compared to Yogi Berra at .830 and Johnny Bench at .818. His Equivalent Average also dominates any competitors at .313. No other catcher has a career EqA above .300. Granted, his defensive skills are definitely lacking, but he more than makes up for it with his hitting. It's Piazza in a landslide. Honestly, I thought this would be a lot closer, but I was wrong.
Backup: Bench (389 HR, 1376 RBI)
First Base: Lou Gehrig (Umm, everything: 1.079 OPS, 179 OPS+, .340 BA, 493 HR, 1995 RBI, 2721 Hits, .346 EqA, 10.8 RC/27)
I've only seen numbers of this magnitude from one other player ever (and we'll get to him a little later). Gehrig is just head and shoulders above all other first basemen. A 1.079 career OPS is just plain unheard-of these days. Even Alex Rodriguez who just completed one of the greatest offensive seasons of all time only had an OPS of 1.067. He really was one of the luckiest men on the face of the earth to have all that talent.
Backup: Albert Pujols (1.040 OPS, 169 OPS+, .332 BA, .342 EqA)
Second Base: Rogers Hornsby (1.011 OPS, 175 OPS+, 9.9 RC/27, .358 BA, 301 HR, 1584 RBI, 2930 Hits, .337 EqA)
And here all along I thought I was going to have to pick Joe Morgan, but once again this race isn't really close either. There has never been another second baseman to have a career OPS above 1.000, and for a period of eight years, Hornsby was absolutely unstoppable. From 1922 to 1929 (keeping in mind that he only played 107 games in 1923), these are his relevant stats:
Runs: 141, 89, 121, 133, 96, 133, 99, 156
Hits: 250, 163, 227, 203, 167, 205, 188, 229
Home Runs: 42, 17, 25, 39, 11, 26, 21, 39
RBI: 152, 83, 94, 143, 93, 125, 94, 149
Strikeouts: 50, 29, 32, 39, 39, 38, 41, 65
Batting Average: .401, .384, .424, .403, .317, .361, .387, .380
On-Base-Percentage: .459, .459, .507, .489, .388, .448, .498, .459
Slugging Percentage: .722, .627, .696, .756, .463, .586, .632, .679
OPS+ (remember, 100 is average): 207, 186, 222, 210, 124, 175, 200, 178
Jesus Freakin' Christ, this guy was a monster. And he was a bleeping second baseman!
Backup: Joe Morgan (132 OPS+, 268 HR, 1133 RBI, 689 SB, 2517 Hits, .311 EqA)
Shortstop: Honus Wagner (150 OPS+, .327 BA, 1732 RBI, 722 SB, 3415 Hits)
He's really the classic example of a dominant player from the dead-ball era. He only hit 101 home runs in his career, but still drove in about a zillion runs (18th all time) and hit a million extra base hits. It's no wonder his T206 card was once auctioned for $2.8 million. This is where my list got kind of dicey, because I wanted to limit my selections to players who have played at least 1000 games at his position, but the 3rd base position has been historically weak, so I made an exception. I selected Alex Rodriguez as my starting 3rd baseman and as the backup to Wagner, and put two backup 3rd basemen instead.
Backup: Alex Rodriguez
Third Base: Alex Rodriguez (.967 OPS, 148 OPS+, .306 BA, 518 HR, 1503 RBI, 265 SB, 2250 H, .324 EqA)
He's only played 621 games at 3rd base, but I'll give him a break because he's still active and he's way better than George Brett and Mike Schmidt ever were. What's interesting is that once again, even his historically good season isn't nearly as good as some of the seasons from back in the day, but it's a different game today. Anyway, by the time his career is over he'll be better than Brett and Schmidt in every single statistical category, and he already is in most of them. In six or seven more years he'll surpass Brett in hits, and he should pass Schmidt in home runs this coming season (518 to 548). I imagine he'll also end up with the requisite 1000 games as a 3rd baseman eventually.
Backups: Brett and Schmidt
Left Field: Ted Williams (1.116 OPS, 190 OPS+, 12 RC/27, .344 BA, 521 HR, 1839 RBI, .364 EqA)
Yeah, okay, maybe the greatest hitter ever. If he hadn't gone to serve his country in World War II and hadn't gotten hurt for about two seasons, he might have compiled a far more impressive array of numbers. He would definitely have gotten 3500 hits, 600 homers, and 2000 RBI. As it is, he had absolutely mind-boggling stats.
Backup: Barry Bonds (1.051 OPS, 182 OPS+, 762 HR, 1996 RBI, 514 SB, 2935 Hits, .356 EqA)
Center Field: Ty Cobb
Before you all get to roasting me for not picking Willie Mays, I just want to compare the stats, because this was really the toughest decision.
Cobb: .366 BA, .433 OBP, .512 SLG, .945 OPS, 167 OPS+, 8.8 RC/27, 117 HR, 1938 RBI, 892 SB, 4289 Hits, .329 EqA
Mays: .302 BA, .384 OBP, .557 SLG, .941 OPS, 156 OPS+, 7.9 RC/27, 660 HR, 1903 RBI, 338 SB, 3283 Hits, .328 EqA
The stats are really close. Mays obviously dominates in HR and SLG, but Cobb beats Mays in every other category. Now everyone says that Mays was probably the best fielding CF of all time, but Cobb was also extremely good. Again, this really was a tough decision, but Mays will still be in the starting lineup as the designated hitter. Or maybe I'll stick him in right field and let Ruth DH. Either one.
Backup: Willie Mays
Right Field: Nick Punto (.562 OPS)
Just kidding! It's Babe Ruth! (1.164 OPS, 207 OPS+, 12.6 RC/27, .342 BA, 714 HR, 2213 RBI, 2873 Hits, .368 EqA)
Yeah, there has never been and never will be a hitter quite like the Babe. Forget the fact that he invented the home run, no one has ever been able to duplicate his statistics. And I don't even mean his sabermetric stats that are adjusted for era, I mean EVER. PERIOD. He has the highest OPS of anyone who would qualify for the record. Same for EqA, same for OPS+, same for RC/27; I could keep on going. But I won't, because nothing more needs to be said. And besides, one of the funniest, and most apropos posters I've ever seen says everything for me. At a Phillies/Giants game last year, a fan held up a poster that read "The Babe did it on hot dogs and beer." Brilliant stuff.
Backup: Mel Ott (.947 OPS, 155 OPS +, 511 HR, 1860 RBI, 2876 Hits, .329 EqA)
Designated Hitter: Jimmie Foxx (1.037 OPS, 163 OPS+, 10 RC/27, .325 BA, 534 HR, 1922 RBI, .329 EqA)
Backup: Hank Aaron (155 OPS+, .305 BA, 755 HR, 2297 RBI, 240 SB, 3771 Hits, .326 EqA)
Backup: Mickey Mantle (.978 OPS, 172 OPS+, 9.3 RC/27, 536 HR, 1509 RBI, .340 EqA)
I'll come back to the pitchers one day this week.
Thanks to all my loyal readers and commenters. I couldn't have done this without your financial support. Wait, never mind.
Before we get things started I got a special request this week from a special reader to continue using the word "az." Now in order to reward my loyal readers, I will explain its origin. Seven years ago I spent an amazing six months at Yeshivat Hakotel in Jerusalem, the holy city. The head of the Yeshiva is Rav Aharon Bina, and his mastery over the English language is, umm, suspect. Not only that, but he refuses to actually speak to us in Hebrew for some reason. Anyway, he ALWAYS used the Hebrew word "az" instead of the English word "so," and anyone who ever does any impressions of him invariably will use the word "az" at one point or another. In an effort to please all my readers as much as possible, I will intermittently use the word "az" in the place of "so," az don't get scared.
Last night I went to a birthday party at a bar/club-ish type place on the upper west, and around midnight, there was quite a line to get in. While I was waiting I overheard that after midnight, patrons need to pay a $10 cover fee to enter, which was a tiny bit annoying because I got on line at 11:56, but okay, what can you do? I finally get to the front of the line, and the nice lady sitting by the door was clearly not having the best of nights, what with the constant pushing and complaining of long-time line-waiters. She even got so annoyed at a couple of women who were speaking ill of her once they got inside that she had the bouncer escort them out. (The cool part is that when the women were brought back outside one of the used the classic "what's your name?" line. You know like when you're having trouble with a Dell tech-support person or a verizon technician on the phone, and you want to scare them into helping you more, and you ask them their names so that you can tell their managers how poorly their help was? Anyway, the bouncer didn't even flinch; it was brilliant.) Now I was certainly in no hurry to get in, az I just engaged the woman in conversation, saying how people should chill out a little bit, and not always be so self-centered, and try to be more considerate, etc. So when I was finally allowed in she said I was nice and gave me a ticket so I wouldn't have to pay the cover. Az if you include the $10 I saved at the Verizon store (see the post "Fine, No Sports This Time (Much...), from July 17th, 2007), that's $20 I've saved so far just by being a nice guy. Lessons for all to learn...
Now we're getting to the delicious, room-temperature, creamy center of the Ring Ding that is my 100th post. I was discussing a few baseball related tidbits with my roommate the other day, and we decided we'd both come up with our all-time baseball teams. So I spent a little while at work compiling a spreadsheet with data about the top-players in history at each position. I haven't gotten around to looking up pitchers yet, but I'll get there next time. I'm going to list my all-time team and a few backups, along with some comments about each. (See my post "At the Risk of Losing Readership, Another Baseball Post" for the definitions of the stats.) Here goes:
Catcher: Mike Piazza (.308 BA, .922 OPS, 143 OPS+, 427 HR, 2127 Hits, .313 EqA)
And frankly, it's not even close. Piazza blows away the competition with a career OPS of .922 as compared to Yogi Berra at .830 and Johnny Bench at .818. His Equivalent Average also dominates any competitors at .313. No other catcher has a career EqA above .300. Granted, his defensive skills are definitely lacking, but he more than makes up for it with his hitting. It's Piazza in a landslide. Honestly, I thought this would be a lot closer, but I was wrong.
Backup: Bench (389 HR, 1376 RBI)
First Base: Lou Gehrig (Umm, everything: 1.079 OPS, 179 OPS+, .340 BA, 493 HR, 1995 RBI, 2721 Hits, .346 EqA, 10.8 RC/27)
I've only seen numbers of this magnitude from one other player ever (and we'll get to him a little later). Gehrig is just head and shoulders above all other first basemen. A 1.079 career OPS is just plain unheard-of these days. Even Alex Rodriguez who just completed one of the greatest offensive seasons of all time only had an OPS of 1.067. He really was one of the luckiest men on the face of the earth to have all that talent.
Backup: Albert Pujols (1.040 OPS, 169 OPS+, .332 BA, .342 EqA)
Second Base: Rogers Hornsby (1.011 OPS, 175 OPS+, 9.9 RC/27, .358 BA, 301 HR, 1584 RBI, 2930 Hits, .337 EqA)
And here all along I thought I was going to have to pick Joe Morgan, but once again this race isn't really close either. There has never been another second baseman to have a career OPS above 1.000, and for a period of eight years, Hornsby was absolutely unstoppable. From 1922 to 1929 (keeping in mind that he only played 107 games in 1923), these are his relevant stats:
Runs: 141, 89, 121, 133, 96, 133, 99, 156
Hits: 250, 163, 227, 203, 167, 205, 188, 229
Home Runs: 42, 17, 25, 39, 11, 26, 21, 39
RBI: 152, 83, 94, 143, 93, 125, 94, 149
Strikeouts: 50, 29, 32, 39, 39, 38, 41, 65
Batting Average: .401, .384, .424, .403, .317, .361, .387, .380
On-Base-Percentage: .459, .459, .507, .489, .388, .448, .498, .459
Slugging Percentage: .722, .627, .696, .756, .463, .586, .632, .679
OPS+ (remember, 100 is average): 207, 186, 222, 210, 124, 175, 200, 178
Jesus Freakin' Christ, this guy was a monster. And he was a bleeping second baseman!
Backup: Joe Morgan (132 OPS+, 268 HR, 1133 RBI, 689 SB, 2517 Hits, .311 EqA)
Shortstop: Honus Wagner (150 OPS+, .327 BA, 1732 RBI, 722 SB, 3415 Hits)
He's really the classic example of a dominant player from the dead-ball era. He only hit 101 home runs in his career, but still drove in about a zillion runs (18th all time) and hit a million extra base hits. It's no wonder his T206 card was once auctioned for $2.8 million. This is where my list got kind of dicey, because I wanted to limit my selections to players who have played at least 1000 games at his position, but the 3rd base position has been historically weak, so I made an exception. I selected Alex Rodriguez as my starting 3rd baseman and as the backup to Wagner, and put two backup 3rd basemen instead.
Backup: Alex Rodriguez
Third Base: Alex Rodriguez (.967 OPS, 148 OPS+, .306 BA, 518 HR, 1503 RBI, 265 SB, 2250 H, .324 EqA)
He's only played 621 games at 3rd base, but I'll give him a break because he's still active and he's way better than George Brett and Mike Schmidt ever were. What's interesting is that once again, even his historically good season isn't nearly as good as some of the seasons from back in the day, but it's a different game today. Anyway, by the time his career is over he'll be better than Brett and Schmidt in every single statistical category, and he already is in most of them. In six or seven more years he'll surpass Brett in hits, and he should pass Schmidt in home runs this coming season (518 to 548). I imagine he'll also end up with the requisite 1000 games as a 3rd baseman eventually.
Backups: Brett and Schmidt
Left Field: Ted Williams (1.116 OPS, 190 OPS+, 12 RC/27, .344 BA, 521 HR, 1839 RBI, .364 EqA)
Yeah, okay, maybe the greatest hitter ever. If he hadn't gone to serve his country in World War II and hadn't gotten hurt for about two seasons, he might have compiled a far more impressive array of numbers. He would definitely have gotten 3500 hits, 600 homers, and 2000 RBI. As it is, he had absolutely mind-boggling stats.
Backup: Barry Bonds (1.051 OPS, 182 OPS+, 762 HR, 1996 RBI, 514 SB, 2935 Hits, .356 EqA)
Center Field: Ty Cobb
Before you all get to roasting me for not picking Willie Mays, I just want to compare the stats, because this was really the toughest decision.
Cobb: .366 BA, .433 OBP, .512 SLG, .945 OPS, 167 OPS+, 8.8 RC/27, 117 HR, 1938 RBI, 892 SB, 4289 Hits, .329 EqA
Mays: .302 BA, .384 OBP, .557 SLG, .941 OPS, 156 OPS+, 7.9 RC/27, 660 HR, 1903 RBI, 338 SB, 3283 Hits, .328 EqA
The stats are really close. Mays obviously dominates in HR and SLG, but Cobb beats Mays in every other category. Now everyone says that Mays was probably the best fielding CF of all time, but Cobb was also extremely good. Again, this really was a tough decision, but Mays will still be in the starting lineup as the designated hitter. Or maybe I'll stick him in right field and let Ruth DH. Either one.
Backup: Willie Mays
Right Field: Nick Punto (.562 OPS)
Just kidding! It's Babe Ruth! (1.164 OPS, 207 OPS+, 12.6 RC/27, .342 BA, 714 HR, 2213 RBI, 2873 Hits, .368 EqA)
Yeah, there has never been and never will be a hitter quite like the Babe. Forget the fact that he invented the home run, no one has ever been able to duplicate his statistics. And I don't even mean his sabermetric stats that are adjusted for era, I mean EVER. PERIOD. He has the highest OPS of anyone who would qualify for the record. Same for EqA, same for OPS+, same for RC/27; I could keep on going. But I won't, because nothing more needs to be said. And besides, one of the funniest, and most apropos posters I've ever seen says everything for me. At a Phillies/Giants game last year, a fan held up a poster that read "The Babe did it on hot dogs and beer." Brilliant stuff.
Backup: Mel Ott (.947 OPS, 155 OPS +, 511 HR, 1860 RBI, 2876 Hits, .329 EqA)
Designated Hitter: Jimmie Foxx (1.037 OPS, 163 OPS+, 10 RC/27, .325 BA, 534 HR, 1922 RBI, .329 EqA)
Backup: Hank Aaron (155 OPS+, .305 BA, 755 HR, 2297 RBI, 240 SB, 3771 Hits, .326 EqA)
Backup: Mickey Mantle (.978 OPS, 172 OPS+, 9.3 RC/27, 536 HR, 1509 RBI, .340 EqA)
I'll come back to the pitchers one day this week.
Thanks to all my loyal readers and commenters. I couldn't have done this without your financial support. Wait, never mind.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Baseball Playoff System
Firstly, I've received a number of requests to stop using the word "az," so I'm gonna start using the word "so" again. There, happy? Sheesh.
Anyway, the rest of this post will be about sports, so anyone who's not interested in reading is free to skedaddle. Although, I don't quite understand how anyone can adamantly refuse to go to Shea Stadium because he or she hates the Mets and loves the Yankees too much, and still also dislike reading about baseball. But that's neither here nor there.
The point of this post is to point out the flaws in the baseball playoff system and to suggest possible options. Now, as everyone knows I am a staunch supporter of revisionist baseball theory, so the idea of doing things a certain way just because that's the way they've always been done makes me feel uchy (just as an aside, I had two separate girls use the adjectives "uchy" and "ichy" over the past two days. Wouldn't it have been great if one of them used the adverb instead? Like "uchily" or "ichily." What?). So right now the plan is to scrap the whole playoff system. Here's why the current system is not good:
1. Too small sample size: Each team plays 162 games over six months to get into the playoffs, and yet that can all end in a matter of three days. How can you get an accurate measure of which of two teams is superior in a best of seven (a best of five series, lo kol she'kein! Al achas kama v'kama) series? Over such a short stretch it is well within the realm of possibility that a guy like Alex Rodriguez can strike out ten times in a row and a guy like Kaz Matsui can hit five homers and have a .750 OBP.
2. Wrong teams make it: How is it fair that the team with the best record in the division will make the playoffs while a second or third place team with a far superior record will not? Take last year for example: the eventual world champion St. Louis Cardinals got into the playoffs by winning the NL Central division with an 83-78 record. However, the Toronto Blue Jays (87-75), Boston Red Sox (86-76), Chicago White Sox (90-72), Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (89-73), and Philadelphia Phillies (85-77) did not. That simply makes no logical sense.
3. The league that wins the All-Star Game gets home-field advantage in the World Series. Nothing more needs to be said here; this rule is certifiably incomprehensible.
Here are a few options I've considered:
(Disclaimer: I understand that these suggestions do not have the fans' best interests at heart; I'm just trying to preserve the integrity of the game; I'm not trying to just make a few bucks.)
Option 1 (boring but safe): Revert back to the old system of having only the winner of each league advance to the World Series. However, instead of having just a seven game series, have a 21 game series! The reason I chose 21 is that under the current system the World Series winner must win a total of eleven games. I feel like 21 games are enough to sufficiently determine the superior team.
Option 2 (awesomer yet vastly more complicated): Construct a Round Robin tournament in which the top four teams from each league play two games against each of the other seven teams in the tournament, one at each home field. The team from each league with the best record in the Round Robin advance to the World Series. If there are ties for best record, set up a one game playoff at a neutral stadium to determine the winner. The World Series will be a seven game series like we have now except with the following provisos, termed "Proviso Alpha" and "Proviso Beta" (I will use the characters "a" and "b" for short):
a. All seven games will be played at a neutral stadium just like the Super Bowl.
b. In order to accurately assess the performance of each team, there will be no fewer than four different starting pitchers for each baseball squadron. Another words, each team must name a different starter for each of the first four games of the series. And to make sure that there's no funny business, we will forbid any starter from appearing in any subsequent game as a reliever.
Okay, that was my brain storm of the day. I think there are still a few more details to add, but that's the general gist. I'd be really interested in hearing other ideas.
Anyway, the rest of this post will be about sports, so anyone who's not interested in reading is free to skedaddle. Although, I don't quite understand how anyone can adamantly refuse to go to Shea Stadium because he or she hates the Mets and loves the Yankees too much, and still also dislike reading about baseball. But that's neither here nor there.
The point of this post is to point out the flaws in the baseball playoff system and to suggest possible options. Now, as everyone knows I am a staunch supporter of revisionist baseball theory, so the idea of doing things a certain way just because that's the way they've always been done makes me feel uchy (just as an aside, I had two separate girls use the adjectives "uchy" and "ichy" over the past two days. Wouldn't it have been great if one of them used the adverb instead? Like "uchily" or "ichily." What?). So right now the plan is to scrap the whole playoff system. Here's why the current system is not good:
1. Too small sample size: Each team plays 162 games over six months to get into the playoffs, and yet that can all end in a matter of three days. How can you get an accurate measure of which of two teams is superior in a best of seven (a best of five series, lo kol she'kein! Al achas kama v'kama) series? Over such a short stretch it is well within the realm of possibility that a guy like Alex Rodriguez can strike out ten times in a row and a guy like Kaz Matsui can hit five homers and have a .750 OBP.
2. Wrong teams make it: How is it fair that the team with the best record in the division will make the playoffs while a second or third place team with a far superior record will not? Take last year for example: the eventual world champion St. Louis Cardinals got into the playoffs by winning the NL Central division with an 83-78 record. However, the Toronto Blue Jays (87-75), Boston Red Sox (86-76), Chicago White Sox (90-72), Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (89-73), and Philadelphia Phillies (85-77) did not. That simply makes no logical sense.
3. The league that wins the All-Star Game gets home-field advantage in the World Series. Nothing more needs to be said here; this rule is certifiably incomprehensible.
Here are a few options I've considered:
(Disclaimer: I understand that these suggestions do not have the fans' best interests at heart; I'm just trying to preserve the integrity of the game; I'm not trying to just make a few bucks.)
Option 1 (boring but safe): Revert back to the old system of having only the winner of each league advance to the World Series. However, instead of having just a seven game series, have a 21 game series! The reason I chose 21 is that under the current system the World Series winner must win a total of eleven games. I feel like 21 games are enough to sufficiently determine the superior team.
Option 2 (awesomer yet vastly more complicated): Construct a Round Robin tournament in which the top four teams from each league play two games against each of the other seven teams in the tournament, one at each home field. The team from each league with the best record in the Round Robin advance to the World Series. If there are ties for best record, set up a one game playoff at a neutral stadium to determine the winner. The World Series will be a seven game series like we have now except with the following provisos, termed "Proviso Alpha" and "Proviso Beta" (I will use the characters "a" and "b" for short):
a. All seven games will be played at a neutral stadium just like the Super Bowl.
b. In order to accurately assess the performance of each team, there will be no fewer than four different starting pitchers for each baseball squadron. Another words, each team must name a different starter for each of the first four games of the series. And to make sure that there's no funny business, we will forbid any starter from appearing in any subsequent game as a reliever.
Okay, that was my brain storm of the day. I think there are still a few more details to add, but that's the general gist. I'd be really interested in hearing other ideas.
Monday, October 01, 2007
A Smattering of Schmutter
I've determined that any events that occurred this weekend may be a result of my penchant for goading people into arguing with me about baseball statistics. I know I'm smarter than most people, az why do I feel the need to prove it to myself (and occasionally others) all the time? That's just silly.
Anyway, one of the aforementioned events, is not one that I need to discuss further. In fact, this event need not be discussed in my presence for the foreseeable future. The other events, which I will recount in exhausting detail, will be recounted in exhausting detail right now right now.
I spent the first days of Sukkot in Woodmere, NY. I think I like Woodmere a lot, but I'm not quite certain that Woodmere likes me. You see, I awoke Friday morning to learn that a tree branch from across the street broke in the middle of the night and landed on a branch on our side of the street, which proceeded to pendulum its way down and strike my poor car. I now have a slightly dented fender and a smashed right-turn signal. If I didn't figure it out then that nature (read: The Big Guy) was after my schmuttocks, it was the following day when I walked right into a low-hanging branch on my way to Cedarhurst. It certainly didn't help that I was reading while I was walking, but still.
Anyway, remember last year when I posted about how much I love Sukkot? At the same time, it's become apparent that some people (myself included) find it a burden, because if you want to have some semblance of a meal you need to find a sukkah in which to eat. I found this to be the case. However, if you actually try to go eat in a sukkah, you will often find yourself in excellent company. Par exemple, yesterday evening I had just returned from a not-so-pleasant event in Flushing Meadows, and on my way back I acquired for myself some shwarmas from Grill Point. I then joined some guys in the sukkah of one hundred and eighty two Bennett Avenue to eat said shwarmas. It really was quite the party; people were in and out of the sukkah all the time. The point is, it's nice to get together during the week and have a nice meal with a bunch of people. Az if you think you have time to get to a sukkah for lunch or dinner this week, give it a try; you might have a surprisingly nice time.
Remember when there was no such thing as amazon.com or bn.com or half.com, and if you wanted to buy a book you had to go to a bookstore and pay full price? I tend to buy used books on amazon.com a lot, az I have many old/used-ish books. Az like, the books usually have two prices on them, an American price and a Canadian price, right? Az you might see something like "In US $4.95, in Canada $5.95." Well, those days are ovah! For Nomah! (Hameivin yavin) I don't mean because books are more expensive now; I mean that for the first time ever (!), the Canadian dollar is worth more than the US dollar. I had to put the price of the Canadian dollar into the system at work today, and I noticed this. As of the close of the currency market today, one Canadian dollar is worth 1.0098 US dollars. The dollar is just getting clobbered these days. Even the Shekel is back up to a quarter each. Anyway, I just found that interesting.
That's all I got for today. I guess since it's now October 2nd, I'll wish you all a freilichen Gandhi Jayanti.
Anyway, one of the aforementioned events, is not one that I need to discuss further. In fact, this event need not be discussed in my presence for the foreseeable future. The other events, which I will recount in exhausting detail, will be recounted in exhausting detail right now right now.
I spent the first days of Sukkot in Woodmere, NY. I think I like Woodmere a lot, but I'm not quite certain that Woodmere likes me. You see, I awoke Friday morning to learn that a tree branch from across the street broke in the middle of the night and landed on a branch on our side of the street, which proceeded to pendulum its way down and strike my poor car. I now have a slightly dented fender and a smashed right-turn signal. If I didn't figure it out then that nature (read: The Big Guy) was after my schmuttocks, it was the following day when I walked right into a low-hanging branch on my way to Cedarhurst. It certainly didn't help that I was reading while I was walking, but still.
Anyway, remember last year when I posted about how much I love Sukkot? At the same time, it's become apparent that some people (myself included) find it a burden, because if you want to have some semblance of a meal you need to find a sukkah in which to eat. I found this to be the case. However, if you actually try to go eat in a sukkah, you will often find yourself in excellent company. Par exemple, yesterday evening I had just returned from a not-so-pleasant event in Flushing Meadows, and on my way back I acquired for myself some shwarmas from Grill Point. I then joined some guys in the sukkah of one hundred and eighty two Bennett Avenue to eat said shwarmas. It really was quite the party; people were in and out of the sukkah all the time. The point is, it's nice to get together during the week and have a nice meal with a bunch of people. Az if you think you have time to get to a sukkah for lunch or dinner this week, give it a try; you might have a surprisingly nice time.
Remember when there was no such thing as amazon.com or bn.com or half.com, and if you wanted to buy a book you had to go to a bookstore and pay full price? I tend to buy used books on amazon.com a lot, az I have many old/used-ish books. Az like, the books usually have two prices on them, an American price and a Canadian price, right? Az you might see something like "In US $4.95, in Canada $5.95." Well, those days are ovah! For Nomah! (Hameivin yavin) I don't mean because books are more expensive now; I mean that for the first time ever (!), the Canadian dollar is worth more than the US dollar. I had to put the price of the Canadian dollar into the system at work today, and I noticed this. As of the close of the currency market today, one Canadian dollar is worth 1.0098 US dollars. The dollar is just getting clobbered these days. Even the Shekel is back up to a quarter each. Anyway, I just found that interesting.
That's all I got for today. I guess since it's now October 2nd, I'll wish you all a freilichen Gandhi Jayanti.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Schmuttblog is Sponsored by the Number Eight and Viewers Like You
I got an e-mail from a friend earlier, and if I didn't know any better, I'd say it was me, posing as a girl, sending myself an e-mail, because it was totally something I would think about. I immediately had to start writing this post. Here's what she said: "also i like that this year is gonn abe [sic] 2008 because i like writng [sic] the nuber [sic] 8. just thought you would like to know." (just in case some of you are not familiar with what's in the square brackets, here is the definition from wikipedia: "...in writing, [sic] is placed within square brackets and usually italicized to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error." I, of course, never make transcription errors, or any other errors for that matter. Meanwhile, I have just been informed that the e-mail typer was "tired" az she should be given a get-out-of-jail-free card this time around. I've always used that excuse when I've accidentally ended a clause with a preposition, or when I've accidentally put one space after a period instead of two. Oh no, wait, how silly of me; there are no excuses.) At that point I started thinking, well, how many different ways are there to write an eight?
I determined that there are three ways:
1. I start at the top and move my pencil to the left and down, and do the entire figure eight without lifting my pencil. When I get back to the top I curve around again so I meet the beginning of the eight.
2. Some people like to do almost the same thing. The only difference is instead of curving around at the end, they just extend the line in the same direction, az it looks like the eight has a tail coming out of the top.
3. The weirdos out there like to draw two small "o"s that connect. IMHO, that takes entirely too long. I also don't enjoy when they are written quickly and the two halves don't actually touch. Then it just looks like a big colon.
I think my favorite numbers to write are "4," "5," and "9." Here's a funny story about writing the number nine. My junior year of college, I took a math course called Modern Analysis. It's a very theoretical discipline, az it's pretty hard to actually teach and learn. Anyway, a third of the way through the semester we had our first exam. Class went from 9:10 to 10:25 am, az the teacher, Patrick X. Gallagher, head of the math department and maniacal shirt-perspirer, would write the time on the chalkboard to let us know how much time we had left. Az since he wrote like "Time now: 9:35. Time left: 50 minutes," my friend and I actually discussed later how much we enjoyed the way he wrote the number nine. It occurred to us that we never noticed it until then because it was the first time all semester that he actually wrote the number nine. Modern Analysis is so theoretical that the only actual numbers he ever wrote were zero, one, and occasionally two. Otherwise he would only use variables. I hope I didn't lose any of you there. Better than writing about sports I guess.
Oh, and as long as I mentioned it earlier in my digression on "[sic]," I'd like to make sure that you all know the difference between parentheses, square brackets, and curly braces. Those things around the "sic" are square brackets. They're mostly used in math for matrices. Everyone knows what parentheses are, I hope. They're used in math to determine order of operations, in combinatorics, and when naming functions (e.g. f(x) is a function of x). Curly braces: { and } are mostly used in computer programming, but also in math for describing sets and probabilities, and for functions that have different definitions depending on the argument. For example:
f(x)
= {0 x<= 0
= {x x>0
Whenever I get a new student to tutor I always make sure that they know how to draw curly braces. If anyone wants a drawing lesson let me know. I charge $80 an hour. Good day all.
I determined that there are three ways:
1. I start at the top and move my pencil to the left and down, and do the entire figure eight without lifting my pencil. When I get back to the top I curve around again so I meet the beginning of the eight.
2. Some people like to do almost the same thing. The only difference is instead of curving around at the end, they just extend the line in the same direction, az it looks like the eight has a tail coming out of the top.
3. The weirdos out there like to draw two small "o"s that connect. IMHO, that takes entirely too long. I also don't enjoy when they are written quickly and the two halves don't actually touch. Then it just looks like a big colon.
I think my favorite numbers to write are "4," "5," and "9." Here's a funny story about writing the number nine. My junior year of college, I took a math course called Modern Analysis. It's a very theoretical discipline, az it's pretty hard to actually teach and learn. Anyway, a third of the way through the semester we had our first exam. Class went from 9:10 to 10:25 am, az the teacher, Patrick X. Gallagher, head of the math department and maniacal shirt-perspirer, would write the time on the chalkboard to let us know how much time we had left. Az since he wrote like "Time now: 9:35. Time left: 50 minutes," my friend and I actually discussed later how much we enjoyed the way he wrote the number nine. It occurred to us that we never noticed it until then because it was the first time all semester that he actually wrote the number nine. Modern Analysis is so theoretical that the only actual numbers he ever wrote were zero, one, and occasionally two. Otherwise he would only use variables. I hope I didn't lose any of you there. Better than writing about sports I guess.
Oh, and as long as I mentioned it earlier in my digression on "[sic]," I'd like to make sure that you all know the difference between parentheses, square brackets, and curly braces. Those things around the "sic" are square brackets. They're mostly used in math for matrices. Everyone knows what parentheses are, I hope. They're used in math to determine order of operations, in combinatorics, and when naming functions (e.g. f(x) is a function of x). Curly braces: { and } are mostly used in computer programming, but also in math for describing sets and probabilities, and for functions that have different definitions depending on the argument. For example:
f(x)
= {0 x<= 0
= {x x>0
Whenever I get a new student to tutor I always make sure that they know how to draw curly braces. If anyone wants a drawing lesson let me know. I charge $80 an hour. Good day all.
A Real Post This Time. Enjoy.
Az I've got a couple of items on tap tonight. Firstly, I'd like to add another product onto my ever growing list of things that are most commonly known by one of the brand names. Today one of my friends (you know who you are) e-mailed me, telling me that her coworker stole her whiteout, which made her sad, az she stole someone else's, which made her happy. Since it's right after Yom Kippur, and she needed to be punished for stealing, I corrected her usage of the word "whiteout" by saying that the brand name one is spelled "Witeout" without an "H." I'm kinda scared that she said that she totally knew I was going to say that. Anyway, put Witeout on the list, because nobody, and I mean NOBODY refers to the stuff as "liquid paper."
Moving right along... One of my friends referred me to a website called xkcd.com, which has a bunch of comics on it. As stated on the page, xkcd.com is "a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language." Another words, it's right up my side street. I can't even begin to tell you how much I enjoy some of the comics, but I'd like to mention one right now that really reminds me of something from my childhood. Comic #45 shows people walking on a tiled floor, and one of the people subconsciously walks on only the black tiles. The point is that the caption on the comic states, "the worst part is when the sidewalk cracks are out of sync with your natural stride." Anyone feel the same way? I totally remember that when I was younger I used to take exactly two steps every sidewalk tile. Maybe I'm weird but I know I definitely did this. Like you know how some baseball pitchers never step on the foul line when they come on and off the field (a la Turk Wendell)? It's the same thing. I never wanted to step on the cracks in the sidewalk. Now all that nonsense started to remind me of the stairwells down and up which I walked frequently when I was younger. Par exemple, I grew up in my parents' apartment on the third floor of
Everyone has clearly lost me, but I don't care. I'm doing this for me. In fact, I was reminiscing with my friend last night, and in order to remember something I actually referred to my blog! I was immensely pleased about that for some reason.
Anywho, in closing (this is where I would restate my thesis if I were writing the good ol' five-paragraph essay), I want to respond to someone who commented on my last post. Now, I was expecting at least one comment when I wrote:
Sample statements that would not be allowed:
"The Yankees are the best team in baseball."
"Derek Jeter is a good shortstop."
"Willie Randolph should be fired."
I'm not saying that any of the above statements are false (Only 1 of them is probably true)
The person who responded said "It's the Jeter one, right?" Now this might be someone trying to bait me into getting my dander up and attacking them with stats until their head a splodes (see Strong Bad E-mail #94, Video Games), or it might be a genuine guess as to which one is true. Well, let me tell you Captain Smarty Skirts, that is clearly the only one that is blatantly false. Derek Jeter, by every true metric, is a far below-average shortstop. I don't have his exact zone rating numbers or his defensive +/-, but when I do, you're gonna be sorry you ever messed with THIS guy. The one that was probably the most true was the first one. The Yankees, at this point, might be the safest bet to win the world series because their hitting is clicking at the right time, and their once suspect pitching staff has really become very solid with the influx of new talent (Hughes, Chamberlain, Kennedy, Mussina (sshh...(Ooh, three nested parentheses; good for me. And a semicolon to boot!))). But don't tell anyone I said that. Maybe I'm just bitter about giving up 13 fweakin' runs to the fweakin' Washington Mutuals in my last game of the season. I need to go to bed. Gnight me.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Just a Quick Word
Here's a real quickie because I'm insanely busy at work, what with all these holidays and such. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE must follow this rule, especially this time of year, and I'm going to put it in bold to indicate how strongly I feel about this:
IF YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT SPORTS THEN YOU CAN'T COMMENT ABOUT SPORTS.
There are a few exceptions to this rule. If you don't know anything about sports you're allowed to make blatantly obvious statements, such as:
"Man, the Yankees are playing well right now."
"I heard about that James Thome hitting his 500th home run."
"The playoffs are starting soon."
"The Mets pitching has been pretty awful recently."
Sample statements that would not be allowed:
"The Yankees are the best team in baseball."
"Derek Jeter is a good shortstop."
"Willie Randolph should be fired."
I'm not saying that any of the above statements are false (Only 1 of them is probably true); I'm saying that unless you have an armory full of ammunition to support a claim like any of those, don't say it, because I will attack you with stats until your brain explodes.
IF YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT SPORTS THEN YOU CAN'T COMMENT ABOUT SPORTS.
There are a few exceptions to this rule. If you don't know anything about sports you're allowed to make blatantly obvious statements, such as:
"Man, the Yankees are playing well right now."
"I heard about that James Thome hitting his 500th home run."
"The playoffs are starting soon."
"The Mets pitching has been pretty awful recently."
Sample statements that would not be allowed:
"The Yankees are the best team in baseball."
"Derek Jeter is a good shortstop."
"Willie Randolph should be fired."
I'm not saying that any of the above statements are false (Only 1 of them is probably true); I'm saying that unless you have an armory full of ammunition to support a claim like any of those, don't say it, because I will attack you with stats until your brain explodes.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
I Am So Smart, I Am So Smart, S-M-R-T, I Mean S-M-A-R-T
Man, am I glad that Junior returned from Brazil. He was reading a mailbag with questions and answers by Jon Heyman, a baseball expert who frequently appears on the Michael Kay Show on ESPN radio (Oo we got Jon Heyman, oo we got Jon Heyman, oo we got Jon Heyman on the Michael Kay Sho-oo-o-oo-o-oo-ow). Anyway, Junior dives right in, and reacts to a question by "beautiful, charismatic, saintly Carolyn" from Boca, and an answer by Herr Heyman:
From Carolyn: "Regarding your NL MVP candidates, how about those two guys in Florida? Yes, the Marlins are not in playoff contention, but it's hard to ignore Hanley Ramirez and Miguel Cabrera, especially considering they're first and second, respectively, in the NL in VORP, and rank in the top three in Runs Created. It looks like you went through all the playoff-contending teams, and chose a "good" player from each. Let me ask you: If Cabrera were on a playoff-contender this season, would there be any doubt who the MVP was?"
-- Carolyn, Boca Raton, Fla.
Junior: Carolyn makes a lot of good points, and I imagine she lives in a gleaming white Spanish-style home in Boca Raton and rides horses bareback in the springtime. But back to the point: yes, Hanley Ramirez and Miguel Cabrera sit 1-2 in the NL VORP standings (BP subscription req'd), followed very closely by Misters Wright, Jones (Larry, not Andruw), Utley and Pujols. A San Francisco outfielder ranks seventh. So yes, Carolyn, Cabrera would be a very strong MVP candidate if his team were any good, as would Hanley. As for your accusation that Mr. Heyman only looked at playoff-ish teams --
John Heyman: "Actually, you're right. That's exactly what I did, and how I came up with Prince Fielder as my NL MVP leader. His "good'' year is actually more than good, and the Brewers are right in the thick of the playoff race."
Junior: Prince is having a terrific year, and he probably actually is the lead dog in the NL MVP race because it's an award voted on by guys exactly like Heyman. Is this just? Well, he's 10th in the league in VORP, a full 21 points behind both Cabrera and H. Ramirez. He has an excellent EqA (.322 -- lower than Cabrera's, Pujols', Bonds', Utley's, Jones', heck, even Hanley's), and he plays indifferent to bad defense at the easiest position on the diamond. To be honest, I don't think he's all that strong a candidate.
Schmutter: Anyone who read my last post may now come to offer their obeisance.
If you want to read this from the source, check out http://www.firejoemorgan.com/ and look at the posts from Wednesday, August 29th, 2007.
From Carolyn: "Regarding your NL MVP candidates, how about those two guys in Florida? Yes, the Marlins are not in playoff contention, but it's hard to ignore Hanley Ramirez and Miguel Cabrera, especially considering they're first and second, respectively, in the NL in VORP, and rank in the top three in Runs Created. It looks like you went through all the playoff-contending teams, and chose a "good" player from each. Let me ask you: If Cabrera were on a playoff-contender this season, would there be any doubt who the MVP was?"
-- Carolyn, Boca Raton, Fla.
Junior: Carolyn makes a lot of good points, and I imagine she lives in a gleaming white Spanish-style home in Boca Raton and rides horses bareback in the springtime. But back to the point: yes, Hanley Ramirez and Miguel Cabrera sit 1-2 in the NL VORP standings (BP subscription req'd), followed very closely by Misters Wright, Jones (Larry, not Andruw), Utley and Pujols. A San Francisco outfielder ranks seventh. So yes, Carolyn, Cabrera would be a very strong MVP candidate if his team were any good, as would Hanley. As for your accusation that Mr. Heyman only looked at playoff-ish teams --
John Heyman: "Actually, you're right. That's exactly what I did, and how I came up with Prince Fielder as my NL MVP leader. His "good'' year is actually more than good, and the Brewers are right in the thick of the playoff race."
Junior: Prince is having a terrific year, and he probably actually is the lead dog in the NL MVP race because it's an award voted on by guys exactly like Heyman. Is this just? Well, he's 10th in the league in VORP, a full 21 points behind both Cabrera and H. Ramirez. He has an excellent EqA (.322 -- lower than Cabrera's, Pujols', Bonds', Utley's, Jones', heck, even Hanley's), and he plays indifferent to bad defense at the easiest position on the diamond. To be honest, I don't think he's all that strong a candidate.
Schmutter: Anyone who read my last post may now come to offer their obeisance.
If you want to read this from the source, check out http://www.firejoemorgan.com/ and look at the posts from Wednesday, August 29th, 2007.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
At the Risk of Losing Readership, Another Baseball Post
I was doing my usual perusal of the various baseball Sabermetrics blogs out there, and on beyondtheboxscore.com, as they do every week, they listed their weekly awards. Most of these awards are based on advanced statistics, and some of them make fun of traditional statistics, such as "The Rey Sanchez Batting Average Is All I've Got Award" and "The Harmon Killebrew Batting Average Is For Wussies Award." What caught my attention was the NL MVP award. He said that for the season, "the national media has seemed to have been hyping Prince Fielder and Ryan Howard more than Wright," although according to his metrics, the current MVP leader is Hanley Ramirez. Az I spent some time this morning compiling some stats from baseball-reference.com, baseballprospectus.com, and fangraphs.com, and came up with some of my own conclusions. I obviously chose to look at Wright, Fielder, Howard, and Ramirez, but I also tossed in four more legit MVP candidates (Utley, Pujols, Holliday, and Cabrera), and a couple other odds and ends (Bonds, Braun. (again, more odd than end)) to make it a nice round ten. I tossed in Bonds and Braun just to compare their stats with the others', even though there's a negligible probability that the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) will vote either of them in. And that's also what this post is about, not only my feelings about who should win, but also who I think has a legit shot at getting the votes from the BBWAA, who look at much different factors than I would. Anyway, you'll see which stats I used once I get to the players, but what I also did was rank each of the ten players in a few of the important stats from one to ten and summed that total at the end. A low total is good. You'll get the idea.
Stats used: OPS+: On Base Percentage + Slugging Percentage, measured against the league average, and adjusted for ballpark factors. League average is normalized to 100.
RC/27: Runs Created if that player took every at-bat for his team for a whole game.
WPA: Win Probability Added: The sum total of the probabilities of winning each game that was added by each of that player's at-bats.
EqA: Equivalent Average: A calculation of several hitting stats averaged to .260 to mimic traditional Batting Average.
VORP: Value Over Replacement Player: A baseballprospectus statistic, which determines how many runs a player has produced during the season above a replacement level player.
WARP1: Wins Above Replacement Player: A baseballprospectus statistic, which determines how many wins a player has produced during the season above a replacement level player.
Let's start with the guys that beyondtheboxscore.com thinks will win:
-Prince Fielder, 1B,
Pertinent Stats: 39 HR, 97 RBI, 99 Ks, .376 OBP, .604 SLG, 150 OPS+(Rank: 6), 8.28 RC/27(7), 4.04 WPA(2), .316 EqA(8), 49.8 VORP(8), 5.1 WARP1(8), 39(which I got by adding 6+7+2+8+8+8) Total Rank(7).
Prince will garner a lot of attention from the BBWAA because of his gaudy counting stats (HR, RBI), especially since he leads the NL in Home Runs. Additionally, since the Milwaukee Brewers moved to the NL, the team has been a disaster, az their return to contention this season makes their offensive leader an attractive choice. I believe he's having an outstanding season at the plate, and I think he does deserve a few votes, but we'll see soon that he might not even be the top MVP candidate in his own infield.
-Ryan Howard, 1B, Philadelphia PhilliesPertinent Stats: 34 HR, 106 RBI, 1 SB, 152 Ks, .388 OBP, .566 SLG, 142 OPS+(10), 7.77 RC/27(10), 1.88 WPA(9), .310 EqA(10), 39.2 VORP(10), 4.7 WARP1(9), 38 Total Rank(10).
Umm, he doesn't even belong in the discussion. He is 2nd on this list in HR, Walks, and RBI, which is pretty good, I guess... but he's either last or next to last in all the Sabermetric stats. That's not to say that he's having a poor season, not at all! He's just not the MVP.
Now let's move on to the real contenders:
-Matt Holliday, LF, Colorado Rockies
Pertinent Stats: 44 2Bs, 24 HR, 103 RBI, 102 Ks, .338 BA, .397 OBP, .580 SLG, 144 OPS+(9), 8.26 RC/27(8), 2.98 WPA(7), .313 EqA(9), 53.5 VORP(7), 7.4 WARP1(7), 47 Total Rank(9).
Man, he's just getting crushed by Coors Field. He has very nice numbers in all the counting stats, but the normalized Sabermetric stats are really penalizing him for his ballpark. Although his WPA is still low on the list, az maybe he deserves to be low on here. He also plays brutal defense, although I haven't been able to get any Zone Rating data, etc.
-Chase Utley, 2B,
Pertinent Stats: 42 2Bs, 18 HR, 84 RBI, .339 BA, .416 OBP, .592 SLG, 156 OPS+(5), 10.24 RC/27(2), 3.07 WPA(6), .327 EqA(4), 57.9 VORP(4), 7.2 WARP1(5), 26 Total Rank(5).
Utley is an interesting case because he's been injured for the last six weeks, but he's still managed to accrue some very nice stats, especially for a 2nd baseman. However, the time he's missed has affected his Sabermetric cumulative stats (VORP and WARP1), and he also gets marked down by the Citizen's Bank band-box in which he plays. Nonetheless, his rate stats (RC/27 and EqA) are outstanding, and his performance over the last month of the season could push him over the top. I love Max Kellerman, but each time he says that Robby Cano is a better hitter than Utley, I lose a little bit of faith in him.
-Albert Pujols, 1B,
Pertinent Stats: 30 HR, 84 RBI, 79 BBs, 54 Ks, .319 BA, .420 OBP, .568 SLG, 157 OPS+(4), 8.19 RC/27(9), 3.64 WPA(3), .330 EqA(3), 56.9 VORP(5), 9.2 WARP1(1), 25 Total Rank(3).
Jesus, he is such a good hitter. He started off the season in a horrible slump, but has come back since June with a vengeance. He leads the NL in WARP1, he never EVER strikes out, and according to soulofbaseball.blogspot.com, he's the top fielding 1st baseman in the league. I don't quite know why RC/27 doesn't like him, but since that's like my favorite stat, that's going to count heavily against him. I think he might very well deserve to be the MVP, but the BBWAA won't vote for him because he doesn't have many RBI, and his team has not played well this year.
-Miguel Cabrera, 3B,
Pertinent Stats: 30 HR, 91 RBI, 104 Ks, .318 BA, .397 OBP, .585 SLG, 158 OPS+(3), 8.43 RC/27(6), 3.49 WPA(4), .329 EqA(2), 60.9 VORP(2), 8.1 WARP1(2), 19 Total Rank(2).
What an excellent year he's having! It's really a shame that the Marlins pitching staff isn't nearly as good as it was last year, because if they made a playoff push, Cabrera would absolutely be the MVP if I had to choose. The only things that go against him are his RC/27 and his horrid play in the field. Again, I don't have any zone rating stats, but I've watched him play a lot, and I see that he has almost no range to his left or right, and watching him lumber in on a bunt is like watching an elephant on a nature show. Either way, he's still one of the best mashers in all of baseball.
-Hanley Ramirez, SS,
Pertinent Stats: 101 Runs, 23 HR, 41 SB, .331 BA, .389 OBP, .558 SLG, 149 OPS+(7), 8.54 RC/27(5), 2.06 WPA(8), .318 EqA(7), 71.0 VORP(1), 6.6 WARP1(6), 34 Total Rank(6).
This guy sure does bring a lot to the table. He hits Home Runs, he steals a lot of bases, he gets on base, and all of these contribute to his league leading VORP. If he could develop a little more plate discipline (44 Walks) and learn how to play shortstop (even worse than Jeter according to Soul of Baseball), he could truly become the best all around player in baseball. He might be already.
-David Wright, 3B, New York Mets
Pertinent Stats: 23 HR, 86 RBI, 28 SB, 77 BBs, 102 Ks, .316 BA, .410 OBP, .530 SLG, 149 OPS+(7), 8.78 RC/27(3), 3.16 WPA(5), .327 EqA(4), 60.8 VORP(3), 7.6 WARP1(3), 25 Total Rank(3).
He's my favorite player. It's really a crying shame that he doesn't have more RBI because he's really putting together a memorable season. His plate discipline has become terrific, and he's one of the top fielding 3rd basemen in the league. He's very close to projecting to 30 HR/30 SB this year, which would be quite a feat. He really knows how to run the bases, and really picks his spots well (28 SB, 4 CS). Combining his offense and defense makes him a very strong MVP candidate, but I still have to go with Cabrera this season.
And now, for fun:
-Ryan Braun, 3B, Milwaukee Brewers
Pertinent Stats: 82 Games, 332 ABs, 25 HR, 11 SB, .334 BA, .378 OBP, .648 SLG, 161 OPS+(2), 8.69 RC/27(7), 1.30 WPA(10), .327 EqA(4), 46.4 VORP(9), 3.5 WARP1(10), 42 Total Rank(8).
If only he was the starter for the whole season... It's amazing that he's even better than Ryan Howard in VORP, which is a cumulative stat. He has the highest SLG in the NL, and is on pace to set the rookie record for SLG. And he's Jewish! Check his page on wikipedia (Hebrew Hammer, Hah!)
-Barry Bonds, LF, San Francisco Giants
Pertinent Stats: 27 HR, 64 RBI, 126 BBs, .495 OBP, .595 SLG, 184 OPS+(1), 40 IBB, 11.35 RC/27(1), 4.53 WPA(1), .368 EqA(1), 55.9 VORP(6), 6.2 WARP1(7), 17 Total Rank(1).
Even at 43 he's playing a different game than everyone else. It's absolutely ridiculous that he's still performing at such a high level. If he wasn't a huge jerk and a cheater he'd get a ton of votes. I hate him.
Az here's what I think:
Should win: Miguel Cabrera
I want to win: David Wright
Will win: Prince Fielder
Monday, August 27, 2007
Adventures with Cell Phones
Let's rewind. Around ten weeks ago, I finally switched my mobile phone service from AT&T/Cingular to Verizon Wireless. I used to have a great phone, the Samsung D900, the slimmest slider phone available at the time. It had a 3.0 megapixel camera, it played mp3s, and it had bluetooth technology. It came with all the software and wires that you needed to transfer pictures and music between the phone and your computer. It could even hold around 12 songs in its internal memory. The only accessories I bought were a car charger and an adapter that enables you to use regular headphones to listen to music. Once I switched to Verizon, I decided I needed a phone that was, at the very least, only slightly less awesome than my old one, az I got a Moto KRZR. I was pretty pleased with it for a while, az I went ahead and bought a few accessories for it. I bought a car charger, and I also got this cheap CD and cable so that I could transfer songs from my computer. See, these new Verizon phones all have VCast, which allows you to download songs and such. What they don't tell you is that in order to take full advantage of VCast you need to buy the Verizon music kit, which is designed specifically for each phone. I obviously didn't want to spend the $30 on it, az I bought that cheap kit online. Needless to say it didn't work. I also bought an SD memory card, because unlike the old Samsung D900, the Verizon phones can only hold like three songs. Meanwhile, I determined after a couple of weeks that I didn't really like the phone, az I went ahead and exchanged it for the far-cooler LG VX8700, the prom queen of phones, as I mentioned previously. Az it became a waste for me to have bought the KRZR car kit and the music kit. Fine, they didn't cost that much. No big deal. Az now I have the LG, and I know two other people who have the same one, az I asked them if they have the music kit, and lo and behold, one of them did! Az I borrowed the kit from her and attempted to use the software and cable to put some songs onto my phone. The SD card I had bought worked for this phone too, az I figured I was set. Well, needless to say, again, that didn't work either. At this point I'm thinking, "screw it, I'll just buy another used ipod on ebay." But I really have no business spending that much money right now, especially since I already invested so much effort into getting the phone to work. Az I spoke to another friend, and he said I should just buy a card reader/adapter for my computer. That way, I could take the SD card out of my phone and attach it directly to my computer and put songs on it. Az that's what I did; I went to Radio Shack today and bought the adapter for like $10. I figure even if it doesn't work for the music I could still use it for transferring pictures or something; it's a useful item regardless. I came home after work and plugged in the adapter, and put the card in it, and it worked! I put like 25 songs on the card and replaced it in my phone. I started up the music player and a not-so-terrible sound came out of the phone's speakers. So far so good. Now the phone comes with an adapter for headphones, az I plugged the adapter into the phone. Then, as expected, I hit the next snag; the outlet on the adapter only fits 2.5 mm headphones. 99.9% of headphones are 3.5 mm. Why the hell do they do that?! Seriously, I went to a website to see if I could get some help, and this is what it said on a site that reviewed my phone:
"In fact, the retail package includes only a charger and a headphone adapter, and the adapter only accepts 2.5mm headphones. As the phone is branded a "V Cast Music Phone," we think this omission borders on false advertising. We can think of no dedicated music player that lacks memory, a transfer cable and a pair of headphones, but still Verizon Wireless sells these as separate "accessories." We can't say it enough, this is an unacceptable nickel-and-dime practice, and phones that are advertised as music devices will always lose points in our ratings if they lack the essentials needed to actually listen to music."
Now I'm really at my wit's end. I planned to go to Target to pick up a few odds and ends (mostly odd, not so much end), az I went to Radio Shack next door to buy a 2.5/3.5 mm adapter. I literally asked the guy 19 times if it was the item I needed, and he was absolutely certain it was. Az I get home and I plug the adapter into the adapter, and plug my headphones into the new adapter. Guess what? I only heard sound through one of the ear pieces. Az I borrowed my roommate's headphones to try to determine which was the defective part. His headphones didn't work either, az now I think there's a problem with the phone. I think I'm gonna go to the Verizon store tomorrow and ask them what I should do. If they tell me to buy their music kit, which comes with their headphones, I just might throw a temper tantrum. Why oh why did I leave you, my precious AT&T/Cingular? I feel as though I've betrayed you. Please forgive me. I'll be back in a little less than two years; I promise.
"In fact, the retail package includes only a charger and a headphone adapter, and the adapter only accepts 2.5mm headphones. As the phone is branded a "V Cast Music Phone," we think this omission borders on false advertising. We can think of no dedicated music player that lacks memory, a transfer cable and a pair of headphones, but still Verizon Wireless sells these as separate "accessories." We can't say it enough, this is an unacceptable nickel-and-dime practice, and phones that are advertised as music devices will always lose points in our ratings if they lack the essentials needed to actually listen to music."
Now I'm really at my wit's end. I planned to go to Target to pick up a few odds and ends (mostly odd, not so much end), az I went to Radio Shack next door to buy a 2.5/3.5 mm adapter. I literally asked the guy 19 times if it was the item I needed, and he was absolutely certain it was. Az I get home and I plug the adapter into the adapter, and plug my headphones into the new adapter. Guess what? I only heard sound through one of the ear pieces. Az I borrowed my roommate's headphones to try to determine which was the defective part. His headphones didn't work either, az now I think there's a problem with the phone. I think I'm gonna go to the Verizon store tomorrow and ask them what I should do. If they tell me to buy their music kit, which comes with their headphones, I just might throw a temper tantrum. Why oh why did I leave you, my precious AT&T/Cingular? I feel as though I've betrayed you. Please forgive me. I'll be back in a little less than two years; I promise.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Questions
Firstly, the first anniversary of my blog came and went without much fanfare last Thursday. Happy Birthday Schmuttblog! I didn't think you'd make it.
Anyway, I have noticed that there are certain questions people ask you, which are absolutely not fair. When people ask you these questions, they already assume that they know the answer, and no matter what your response is, they'll never change their minds, despite all anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
This one is an obvious one, and only applies when a woman is asking you: "Do you think I'm fat?" Never EVER answer this question. If you say "yes" then you're obviously a huge jerk and have absolutely earned a non-derech chiba smack in the face. But if you say "no," often times you'll be accused of lying and then you're in trouble because not only do you think she's fat, but also you lied to her face. See, women who ask you this ALWAYS think they're fat. Best to avoid answering this question if possible using one of the standard evasion methods: pretend you have a phone call, pretend you didn't hear the question, or pretend you need to use the bathroom.
The other two questions can come from members of either gender. The reason I bring up this discussion is because I had to deal with this question numerous times last night at my friend's wedding. "Have you had too much to drink?" Now, to be fair, I have developed a bit of a reputation as someone who enjoys a scotch from time to time, which is absolutely true, but I'm also an extremely responsible driver, az I feel completely confident that having one drink over a five hour span will not affect my driving. But someone who asks me that automatically assumes that I've had too much to drink and I'm only saying that I haven't because I want to be able to drive. Implying that someone has had too much to drink can be extremely offensive because there's no way to convince them otherwise. If you've been drinking, then unless you're completely plastered you won't admit that you're drunk. Feh!
This last one is a bit more innocuous, but can still be irritating: "do you like that girl?" As I said earlier, no one is asking you this question unless they think the answer is "yes." Now, if you say "yes" then you don't even get any credit for correctly responding, because the one who asked you will say something like "hah! I knew it!" and then act like it was his/her idea all along. But if you say "no," then the asker will say something like "okay, whatever you say..." and walk away smiling because he/she's positive you're lying. And then the only thing you can do is stand there, roll your eyes, turn your face up to shamayim and ask "why me?"
Tell me I'm wrong.
Anyway, I have noticed that there are certain questions people ask you, which are absolutely not fair. When people ask you these questions, they already assume that they know the answer, and no matter what your response is, they'll never change their minds, despite all anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
This one is an obvious one, and only applies when a woman is asking you: "Do you think I'm fat?" Never EVER answer this question. If you say "yes" then you're obviously a huge jerk and have absolutely earned a non-derech chiba smack in the face. But if you say "no," often times you'll be accused of lying and then you're in trouble because not only do you think she's fat, but also you lied to her face. See, women who ask you this ALWAYS think they're fat. Best to avoid answering this question if possible using one of the standard evasion methods: pretend you have a phone call, pretend you didn't hear the question, or pretend you need to use the bathroom.
The other two questions can come from members of either gender. The reason I bring up this discussion is because I had to deal with this question numerous times last night at my friend's wedding. "Have you had too much to drink?" Now, to be fair, I have developed a bit of a reputation as someone who enjoys a scotch from time to time, which is absolutely true, but I'm also an extremely responsible driver, az I feel completely confident that having one drink over a five hour span will not affect my driving. But someone who asks me that automatically assumes that I've had too much to drink and I'm only saying that I haven't because I want to be able to drive. Implying that someone has had too much to drink can be extremely offensive because there's no way to convince them otherwise. If you've been drinking, then unless you're completely plastered you won't admit that you're drunk. Feh!
This last one is a bit more innocuous, but can still be irritating: "do you like that girl?" As I said earlier, no one is asking you this question unless they think the answer is "yes." Now, if you say "yes" then you don't even get any credit for correctly responding, because the one who asked you will say something like "hah! I knew it!" and then act like it was his/her idea all along. But if you say "no," then the asker will say something like "okay, whatever you say..." and walk away smiling because he/she's positive you're lying. And then the only thing you can do is stand there, roll your eyes, turn your face up to shamayim and ask "why me?"
Tell me I'm wrong.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Malevolent
This morning I drove to work because I'm going straight to a wedding by the Jersey Shore. Now as everyone knows, you absolutely cannot park anywhere in midtown and it's foolish to even try, az I parked on 9th avenue and 45th street, roughly a 12 minute walk from my office. I drove two other guys down with me and we all got out of the car and started walking towards our offices. Around half a block away from the car I started to get the nagging feeling that I forgot to lock the car. That's the sort of thing that can drive a person mad over a period of several hours. Az I left work at around 11:45 for "lunch" and went to check the car. Obviously I remembered to lock it, az of course it was still there. I guess I'd gladly trade half an hour for some peace of mind.
Several months ago on Mike and Mike in the morning on ESPN Radio, the guys were trying to determine what word they should use to describe pitchers/pitches that are particularly difficult to hit. Baseball Tonight has a segment called "That's Nasty" where they show highlights of these pitchers/pitches. People e-mailed in suggestions to the Mikes such as "filthy," "raunchy," and "redonkulous." Some of those were okay, but the best I've heard is what I saw today in Bill Simmons's mailbag on ESPN.com. When referring to Joba Chamberlain's pitching, he says his stuff is "positively malevolent." Wow. Most of the adjectives they use have the connotation of physical cleanliness, but this takes it into the realm of good and evil. I never thought about a pitcher actually being a bad man when he throws certain pitches, but I like it.
On the topic of words, remember way way back, many centuries ago, not long after the bible began, my third post was about words I need to use more often. Well I was reading "The Guns of Avalon" by Roger Zelazny this week, and I came across an awesome word that I'll need to begin using immediately. One of the characters had called someone else a "ratfink" and the other character said that he was not familiar with that term of "opprobrium."
Opprobrium:
Disgrace arising from exceedingly shameful conduct; ignominy.
Scornful reproach or contempt: a term of opprobrium.
A cause of shame or disgrace.
Man, did Joba Chamberlain throw that pitch with opprobrium.
Several months ago on Mike and Mike in the morning on ESPN Radio, the guys were trying to determine what word they should use to describe pitchers/pitches that are particularly difficult to hit. Baseball Tonight has a segment called "That's Nasty" where they show highlights of these pitchers/pitches. People e-mailed in suggestions to the Mikes such as "filthy," "raunchy," and "redonkulous." Some of those were okay, but the best I've heard is what I saw today in Bill Simmons's mailbag on ESPN.com. When referring to Joba Chamberlain's pitching, he says his stuff is "positively malevolent." Wow. Most of the adjectives they use have the connotation of physical cleanliness, but this takes it into the realm of good and evil. I never thought about a pitcher actually being a bad man when he throws certain pitches, but I like it.
On the topic of words, remember way way back, many centuries ago, not long after the bible began, my third post was about words I need to use more often. Well I was reading "The Guns of Avalon" by Roger Zelazny this week, and I came across an awesome word that I'll need to begin using immediately. One of the characters had called someone else a "ratfink" and the other character said that he was not familiar with that term of "opprobrium."
Opprobrium:
Disgrace arising from exceedingly shameful conduct; ignominy.
Scornful reproach or contempt: a term of opprobrium.
A cause of shame or disgrace.
Man, did Joba Chamberlain throw that pitch with opprobrium.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Just Churning Out Some More Insanity
I have a few entirely unrelated things to discuss today.
Rick Ankiel! Come on down! You're the next contestant on "The Price is Right!" Speaking of which, how the hell is Drew Carey going to replace Bob Barker as the host? He's awful! He was terrible on "Whose Line is it Anyway?" Whatever, totally off subject. Anyway, yesterday marked the return of Rick Ankiel to the Major Leagues. Now before I scare all of you away (blah blah blah, more sports, I hate you Schmutter, write more about the A-train, write a song about me, send Trogdor over to my house, put on a purple thing and dance around. Well I've had it! I will never ever ever ever ever write a song about Sibbie. See SB E-mail #76 "Sibbie." Wow, been a long time since I had a Homestar Runner reference.), this is not a rant about statistics or bad sports writing/commentating; it's a feel good story about a man. Rick Ankiel was drafted by the St. Louis Cardinals in 1997, and in 1998 was their Minor League Player of the Year. In 1999 he was named the Minor League Player of the year for the entire Minor Leagues, az the Cards called him up to the Show in 1999. He had a very respectable first season in the Majors, posting high strikeout totals and an 11-7 record. He continued to pitch well in his second year and his team made the playoffs. The manager selected him to start the first game of the NLDS agains the Braves, and he began the game fairly well, but in the third inning, Ankiel absolutely fell apart. Little did anyone know that this was the beginning of the end of his pitching career. Here's how the third inning went down for Ankiel:
1. Greg Maddux walks
2. Rafael Furcal pops out in foul territory (1 out)
3. Wild pitch to Andruw Jones (Maddux advances to second base)
4. Wild pitch to Andruw Jones (Maddux advances to third base)
5. Andruw Jones walks
6. Wild pitch to Chipper Jones (A. Jones advances to second base)
7. Chipper Jones strikes out (2 outs)
8. Andres Galarraga walks, wild pitch on Ball Four (Maddux scores, A. Jones advances to third base)
9. Brian Jordan singles (A. Jones scores, Galarraga advances to second base)
10. Wild pitch to Reggie Sanders (Galarraga advances to third base, Jordan advances to second base)
11. Reggie Sanders walks
12. Walt Weiss singles (Galarraga scores, Jordan scores, Sanders advances to second base)
And then he finally gets replaced. No one knows why he was suddenly unable to pitch; his mechanics didn't change and he was completely healthy. He just couldn't pitch anymore. Since then he's been up to the Majors a few times, but continued to throw wildly. He was sent down as far as the Rookie Leagues, playing with kids right out of high school. During his time in the Minor Leagues he worked on his hitting and in 2005 after his recovery from Tommy John surgery he decided to abandon pitching and tried to reinvent himself as a slugging outfielder. His progress was delayed because of knee surgery in May of 2006, but was healthy enough to continue playing at the start of the 2007 season. He began the season at AAA Memphis, and through August 8th hit .267 with 32 Home Runs and 89 RsBI. He played a quite respectable outfield too with only seven errors in 95 games. He finally returned to the Major Leagues on August 9th and got one hit in four at-bats against the San Diego Padres. His one hit was a three-run homer to deep right field, and the Cardinals went on to defeat the Padres 5-0. I'm going to leave it as it is for now and let each of you come up with your own superlatives about this story.
Moving right along, I was reading The Soul of Baseball blog by Tom Posnanski online today, as I often do, and he made some comments about today's society. He mentioned that we have so much available to us today that we don't even need to be exposed to things with which we might disagree or things we dislike if we don't want to be. For example, he was at a restaurant and he heard a Billy Joel song playing on the radio there. It was the first time he had heard this song for like 15 years, because he is entirely in control of the music to which he listens. What he means is that you can listen to only the music you want because of Ipods and satellite radio, etc. I only take note of this story because something similar happened to me this week. My friend picked me up from work on Wednesday and I was looking through her CD collection to see if there was anything worth hearing, and I found the first Shalsheles CD. Az I popped it in the player and listened to Mi Ho'ish for a minute or two before deciding to switch to song eight, Asher Bara. Now over the past six years or so I've copied numerous CDs onto my computer. When I first copied Shalsheles 1 all those years ago, I deliberately did NOT copy Asher Bara; it's just that bad. Every couple of years I manage to get my hands on that CD and decide to listen to that song on the off chance that I've been wrong all these years. Nope, it's really an awful song. Yitzchok Rosenthal should really just stick to composing the songs and quit singing them. He has a decent voice like I have a decent voice, but his talents really lie in writing songs.
As I mentioned in an e-mail last night, we're rapidly approaching the best time of the year on the sports calendar. Yes, my friends, as the baseball season heads into the home stretch of the pennant races, the clock is ticking down to the opening kickoff of football season. That being said, I'm trying to organize both a Fantasy Football league and an Eliminator league. The purpose of this post is not to promote my leagues, but if any of you or your friends want to join please let me know. What I AM trying to accomplish with this post is to obtain some help from you. Here's the thing: last year I was involved in two fantasy football leagues. Fantasy football is really awesome, but it can be extremely nerve-wracking and time consuming. Last year I invited my friend and his infant son to come over to my apartment to watch the J-E-T-S Jets Jets Jets one Sunday. Let's just say that he was really giving me a hard time because I was barely watching the game; I spent the majority of the time following the stats from all the other games going on to see how well my fantasy players were doing. Az please, friends, don't let me fall into the same routine this year. Seriously, at like 1:45 every Sunday, give me a call and ask me what the score is and how many yards Chad Pennington and Thomas Jones have accumulated. Thanks.
Rick Ankiel! Come on down! You're the next contestant on "The Price is Right!" Speaking of which, how the hell is Drew Carey going to replace Bob Barker as the host? He's awful! He was terrible on "Whose Line is it Anyway?" Whatever, totally off subject. Anyway, yesterday marked the return of Rick Ankiel to the Major Leagues. Now before I scare all of you away (blah blah blah, more sports, I hate you Schmutter, write more about the A-train, write a song about me, send Trogdor over to my house, put on a purple thing and dance around. Well I've had it! I will never ever ever ever ever write a song about Sibbie. See SB E-mail #76 "Sibbie." Wow, been a long time since I had a Homestar Runner reference.), this is not a rant about statistics or bad sports writing/commentating; it's a feel good story about a man. Rick Ankiel was drafted by the St. Louis Cardinals in 1997, and in 1998 was their Minor League Player of the Year. In 1999 he was named the Minor League Player of the year for the entire Minor Leagues, az the Cards called him up to the Show in 1999. He had a very respectable first season in the Majors, posting high strikeout totals and an 11-7 record. He continued to pitch well in his second year and his team made the playoffs. The manager selected him to start the first game of the NLDS agains the Braves, and he began the game fairly well, but in the third inning, Ankiel absolutely fell apart. Little did anyone know that this was the beginning of the end of his pitching career. Here's how the third inning went down for Ankiel:
1. Greg Maddux walks
2. Rafael Furcal pops out in foul territory (1 out)
3. Wild pitch to Andruw Jones (Maddux advances to second base)
4. Wild pitch to Andruw Jones (Maddux advances to third base)
5. Andruw Jones walks
6. Wild pitch to Chipper Jones (A. Jones advances to second base)
7. Chipper Jones strikes out (2 outs)
8. Andres Galarraga walks, wild pitch on Ball Four (Maddux scores, A. Jones advances to third base)
9. Brian Jordan singles (A. Jones scores, Galarraga advances to second base)
10. Wild pitch to Reggie Sanders (Galarraga advances to third base, Jordan advances to second base)
11. Reggie Sanders walks
12. Walt Weiss singles (Galarraga scores, Jordan scores, Sanders advances to second base)
And then he finally gets replaced. No one knows why he was suddenly unable to pitch; his mechanics didn't change and he was completely healthy. He just couldn't pitch anymore. Since then he's been up to the Majors a few times, but continued to throw wildly. He was sent down as far as the Rookie Leagues, playing with kids right out of high school. During his time in the Minor Leagues he worked on his hitting and in 2005 after his recovery from Tommy John surgery he decided to abandon pitching and tried to reinvent himself as a slugging outfielder. His progress was delayed because of knee surgery in May of 2006, but was healthy enough to continue playing at the start of the 2007 season. He began the season at AAA Memphis, and through August 8th hit .267 with 32 Home Runs and 89 RsBI. He played a quite respectable outfield too with only seven errors in 95 games. He finally returned to the Major Leagues on August 9th and got one hit in four at-bats against the San Diego Padres. His one hit was a three-run homer to deep right field, and the Cardinals went on to defeat the Padres 5-0. I'm going to leave it as it is for now and let each of you come up with your own superlatives about this story.
Moving right along, I was reading The Soul of Baseball blog by Tom Posnanski online today, as I often do, and he made some comments about today's society. He mentioned that we have so much available to us today that we don't even need to be exposed to things with which we might disagree or things we dislike if we don't want to be. For example, he was at a restaurant and he heard a Billy Joel song playing on the radio there. It was the first time he had heard this song for like 15 years, because he is entirely in control of the music to which he listens. What he means is that you can listen to only the music you want because of Ipods and satellite radio, etc. I only take note of this story because something similar happened to me this week. My friend picked me up from work on Wednesday and I was looking through her CD collection to see if there was anything worth hearing, and I found the first Shalsheles CD. Az I popped it in the player and listened to Mi Ho'ish for a minute or two before deciding to switch to song eight, Asher Bara. Now over the past six years or so I've copied numerous CDs onto my computer. When I first copied Shalsheles 1 all those years ago, I deliberately did NOT copy Asher Bara; it's just that bad. Every couple of years I manage to get my hands on that CD and decide to listen to that song on the off chance that I've been wrong all these years. Nope, it's really an awful song. Yitzchok Rosenthal should really just stick to composing the songs and quit singing them. He has a decent voice like I have a decent voice, but his talents really lie in writing songs.
As I mentioned in an e-mail last night, we're rapidly approaching the best time of the year on the sports calendar. Yes, my friends, as the baseball season heads into the home stretch of the pennant races, the clock is ticking down to the opening kickoff of football season. That being said, I'm trying to organize both a Fantasy Football league and an Eliminator league. The purpose of this post is not to promote my leagues, but if any of you or your friends want to join please let me know. What I AM trying to accomplish with this post is to obtain some help from you. Here's the thing: last year I was involved in two fantasy football leagues. Fantasy football is really awesome, but it can be extremely nerve-wracking and time consuming. Last year I invited my friend and his infant son to come over to my apartment to watch the J-E-T-S Jets Jets Jets one Sunday. Let's just say that he was really giving me a hard time because I was barely watching the game; I spent the majority of the time following the stats from all the other games going on to see how well my fantasy players were doing. Az please, friends, don't let me fall into the same routine this year. Seriously, at like 1:45 every Sunday, give me a call and ask me what the score is and how many yards Chad Pennington and Thomas Jones have accumulated. Thanks.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Ridiculous
And no, I'm not trying to exorcise some boggarts. Hehe, get it? It's a Harry Potter joke! See how into pop-culture I am?
Wow, I need to spend the next several minutes hanging my head in shame.
Anyway, what actually was ridiculous was this morning's commute. The purpose of this post is not to tell the story of my commute, since I'm sure that most people have similar stories. By the time I get to the end of the story, you'll know why I'm telling it; it just had this one hilarious, brilliant moment. Here goes:
I got on the A train at 181st street at the usual time, around 8:25ish, and the doors were closing just as I got on. I usually try to walk as far south as I can because that's where I need to be to exit the station. Az at 175th street I get out of my current car and move to the next car. I bump into my friend and we chat a little bit, and soon the train arrives at 168th street. We waited there for about 15 minutes listening to the voice over the PA system telling us that the entire subway system is flooded from the torrential rains earlier that morning. So much for the downtown A experience, right? Anyway, my friend persuades me to go with him to the 1 train to see if we have more luck. Obviously we didn't and we ended up going back to the A train. We just missed getting back on our own train and had to wait 15 minutes for another one. Now we're riding downtown, stopping for a few minutes at each station. Finally, we get down close to 59th street, and the train stops for about 10 minutes twice just as we're closing in on the station. At this point everyone knows that it's the last stop on the train, and no one's complaining that they can't ride farther, because everyone is so hot by now that they can't wait to get off that G-d forsaken subway. Nonetheless, and this is the hilarious part, when the subway doors open, a woman sitting on one of the benches declares "getting off!" This was absolutely unbelievable, and I almost lost it. Blah blah blah, then I just walked to my office from Columbus Circle and arrived at a quarter past ten. I hope the commute back is quicker.
Wow, I need to spend the next several minutes hanging my head in shame.
Anyway, what actually was ridiculous was this morning's commute. The purpose of this post is not to tell the story of my commute, since I'm sure that most people have similar stories. By the time I get to the end of the story, you'll know why I'm telling it; it just had this one hilarious, brilliant moment. Here goes:
I got on the A train at 181st street at the usual time, around 8:25ish, and the doors were closing just as I got on. I usually try to walk as far south as I can because that's where I need to be to exit the station. Az at 175th street I get out of my current car and move to the next car. I bump into my friend and we chat a little bit, and soon the train arrives at 168th street. We waited there for about 15 minutes listening to the voice over the PA system telling us that the entire subway system is flooded from the torrential rains earlier that morning. So much for the downtown A experience, right? Anyway, my friend persuades me to go with him to the 1 train to see if we have more luck. Obviously we didn't and we ended up going back to the A train. We just missed getting back on our own train and had to wait 15 minutes for another one. Now we're riding downtown, stopping for a few minutes at each station. Finally, we get down close to 59th street, and the train stops for about 10 minutes twice just as we're closing in on the station. At this point everyone knows that it's the last stop on the train, and no one's complaining that they can't ride farther, because everyone is so hot by now that they can't wait to get off that G-d forsaken subway. Nonetheless, and this is the hilarious part, when the subway doors open, a woman sitting on one of the benches declares "getting off!" This was absolutely unbelievable, and I almost lost it. Blah blah blah, then I just walked to my office from Columbus Circle and arrived at a quarter past ten. I hope the commute back is quicker.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
A-train Experience Follow-Up
Wow! I got so many comments about my last post! I hope you all responded because you enjoyed reading and not because you disagreed with anything I said. Hold on. If so many of you have ridden the A-train experience, why haven't I seen any of you on the subway? I guess I'll have to be late more often.
Anyway, since so many of you commented, I decided to do a little bit of a follow-up. I'm going to totally botch this story, but no one will know the difference. Az the story goes as follows. roughly six years ago, I went down to Florida with my mother, and we were joining my grandmother who had already been there for a few days. We flew down to Ft. Lauderdale / Hollywood International Airport on Spirit Airlines (They've got spirit, yes they do. They've got spirit, how about you?), which isn't exactly the most luxurious airline of all time, but they got the job done. Az we landed safely on the tarmac, and while we're pulling into the gate, the captain adresses us over the loud-speaker and says something a-like-a-this-a:
We hope you enjoyed your flight with Spirit Airlines today. But if you didn't
I just...I just don't really care. In fact, I care so little about what you think of
me, that I'll do whatever I want. I will now sing to you.
And the captain did just that. We all found it highly entertaining. Now THAT's the Spirit Airlines experience!
Anyway, since so many of you commented, I decided to do a little bit of a follow-up. I'm going to totally botch this story, but no one will know the difference. Az the story goes as follows. roughly six years ago, I went down to Florida with my mother, and we were joining my grandmother who had already been there for a few days. We flew down to Ft. Lauderdale / Hollywood International Airport on Spirit Airlines (They've got spirit, yes they do. They've got spirit, how about you?), which isn't exactly the most luxurious airline of all time, but they got the job done. Az we landed safely on the tarmac, and while we're pulling into the gate, the captain adresses us over the loud-speaker and says something a-like-a-this-a:
We hope you enjoyed your flight with Spirit Airlines today. But if you didn't
I just...I just don't really care. In fact, I care so little about what you think of
me, that I'll do whatever I want. I will now sing to you.
And the captain did just that. We all found it highly entertaining. Now THAT's the Spirit Airlines experience!
Monday, July 30, 2007
The A-train Experience
On the way downtown to work this morning, I was riding the A-train as I am wont to do, and over the PA system I hear "...Welcome back from your weekend. This is the downtown A experience..." Now when I first heard that, I was very pleased with how outstanding it was, and I couldn't wait to get to my computer so I could write about it. But then I thought, hold on, what if the guy just said "This is the downtown A express train," which clearly sounds similar? Then my readers would think I was a lunatic and probably make fun of me forever (which is not a dissimilar situation to the one in which I find myself with my brother, whose 1-12 DeShaws team beat my 7-5 Heights team in softball yesterday. Although I did hit 1 for 2 with a double and a walk for a BA of .500, an OBP of .667, a SLG of 1.000 and an OPS of 1.667. However, I did pop out for the last out of the game). Az I listened carefully for the announcement when it came next, and it turned out, to my immense pleasure, that I heard correctly the first time. Now obviously I wouldn't refer to my daily commute as an "experience" of any particular interest, but I found it highly entertaining all the same. I associate the word experience with an event that is unusual or extraordinary. For example, I always refer to getting ice cream at Cold Stone Creamery as an "ice cream experience." It's because it's unlike any other trip to get ice cream. You get to watch them mix in the toppings, but the ice cream doesn't melt because they do the mixing on a freezing rock. And when you give them a tip, they sing. Oh, and also the ice cream is really good. Now THAT'S an extraordinary experience. Riding the A-train is the very definition of commonplace.
Okay, now I haven't mentioned my Dvorak typing for a while, but since you asked, I'll tell you that it's going very well. I'm up to around 70 words per minute, az I'm inching my way up to where I was with Qwerty. I'm definitely noticing that it's much easier to type this way; I really barely have to move my fingers at all. Now when I watch someone else type Qwerty I definitely notice how hard they're working when they type. Anyway, you know how when people are typing quickly and not-so-carefully, like when they're IMing, they tend to spell things incorrectly all the time. Like they'll type something like "teh" instead of "the," or "goping" instead of "going," or "ewhat" instead of "what." You know what I'm talking about? Because of the arrangement of the keys, if you miss your button by a little bit and hit the button next to it at the same time, you'll end up putting an extra letter in here and there. Az people get used to these things because they see it so often. But since I'm typing Dvorak I write typos that look weird. Like instead of typing "going" I'll write "goidng," or instead of "what" I'll write "whtat." I might not have explained that very well at all, but what can you do? It is what it is.
That's okay if you don't get it; nothing can dampen my spirits today. I even called a girl a "primate" today, and she said that was so nice. I guess I just get into these moods sometimes. Even though Jaime and Kameron both lost in "Az You Think You Can Dance" last week, I'm still in an obscenely good mood. Maybe because we're rapidly approaching wedding season. I dunno. I just hope it lasts.
Okay, now I haven't mentioned my Dvorak typing for a while, but since you asked, I'll tell you that it's going very well. I'm up to around 70 words per minute, az I'm inching my way up to where I was with Qwerty. I'm definitely noticing that it's much easier to type this way; I really barely have to move my fingers at all. Now when I watch someone else type Qwerty I definitely notice how hard they're working when they type. Anyway, you know how when people are typing quickly and not-so-carefully, like when they're IMing, they tend to spell things incorrectly all the time. Like they'll type something like "teh" instead of "the," or "goping" instead of "going," or "ewhat" instead of "what." You know what I'm talking about? Because of the arrangement of the keys, if you miss your button by a little bit and hit the button next to it at the same time, you'll end up putting an extra letter in here and there. Az people get used to these things because they see it so often. But since I'm typing Dvorak I write typos that look weird. Like instead of typing "going" I'll write "goidng," or instead of "what" I'll write "whtat." I might not have explained that very well at all, but what can you do? It is what it is.
That's okay if you don't get it; nothing can dampen my spirits today. I even called a girl a "primate" today, and she said that was so nice. I guess I just get into these moods sometimes. Even though Jaime and Kameron both lost in "Az You Think You Can Dance" last week, I'm still in an obscenely good mood. Maybe because we're rapidly approaching wedding season. I dunno. I just hope it lasts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
