We have seen Tim Keown comment before on Hispanics coming into the United States and taking the jobs of American baseball players. After the near-brawl between the Atlanta Braves and the Milwaukee Brewers, Tim Keown has decided to try his best to learn something from this incident. One may say, "All we can learn is that pitchers don't like to be shown up when a player hits a home run off him, but if a pitcher doesn't want to be shown up don't previously have hit the batter and then try not to give up a home run to that same batter." Tim Keown thinks there is more we can learn from this incident than just that. We can learn Americans players control their emotions and Latino players do not. It's true that we can learn that, but we can also learn about ourselves, dammit.
Great theater should never be discouraged. For that reason, there's no need for the actions of Carlos Gomez and Brian McCann to send you to the nearest fainting couch, muttering about what to tell the children.
My brief summary on this "theater."
1. Paul Maholm had hit Gomez earlier in the year so it's natural for Gomez to strut a bit after he hits a home run off Maholm.
2. Brian McCann was out of line (well, actually in the line) and should have just ignored Gomez as he crossed the plate rather than confront him on the basepaths. Shake your head, say "check the standings" or do something like that. Don't try to start a fight in the basepaths and then never really apologize for it.
3. Why is it three times in the past months teams that have shown up the Braves? Is it because teams know they can get the Braves un-focused, are the Braves assholes, or are they as a team just really, really sensitive?
4. There's no way this brawl should have happened because the Braves players should have been smarter to avoid any suspensions that could have resulted from the brawl. They needed to focus on the postseason, not jawing with a player from a non-playoff team.
5. No one is fainting or worried about what to tell the children. The Braves struggled going into that game and should be more worried about hitting the ball better and NOT giving up home runs, as opposed to an opponent's reaction upon hitting a home run off a Braves pitcher.
6. Freddie Freeman should not have been ejected.
Gomez and the Braves turned a game nobody cared about into something
thought-provoking and hilarious. A rare feat. So thanks, guys.
Ah yes, many sportswriters prefer drama to the actual sporting contest.
There are so many layers and sublayers here. There's the whole idea of whether Paul Maholm,
following the tradition of many before him, has at times decided that
hitting Gomez with a fastball is a better approach than trying to get
him out.
Well, it seems Maholm has trouble getting Gomez out this season at least. So maybe he should just not suck and find a way to get Gomez out and avoid all of this trouble.
There's Gomez and his General Sherman trip around the bases
A Civil War reference. Only 150 years too late.
With one swing of the bat and one nearly complete home run trot, Gomez
ignited a series of events that raised a ton of questions while
answering few.
I really think Tim Keown may be making this brawl out to mean a lot more than it really does. The batter hit a home run, stared at it, and then talked shit to the opposing players as he rounded the bases. The opposing players talked shit back as the player rounded the bases and then the opposing catcher got really angry and confronted the batter in the basepaths on the way to home plate. I'm not sure "a ton" of questions were raised. It seems pretty much like a simple brawl in baseball and thank goodness no one got hurt.
Gomez believes Maholm drilled him intentionally two months ago, and this
was his payback. "You hit me. I hit you," were apparently the words
that rocked the Braves' world. Is that a worse offense than
intentionally hitting someone?
No. There's no "worse" or "better" offense in this situation. There is no ranking of whether a hitting a batter is worse than strutting after you hit a home run off the pitcher who hit you. If the batter wasn't hit intentionally then the batter is being oversensitive. If the opposing team doesn't want to give up a home run to the batter and watch him strut, don't give up a home run to the batter. I think Tim Keown may be trying to make too much of this incident.
(I keep reading and hearing about Gomez's home run "celebration," but
what I saw was not a celebration, not with all that anger attached. It
was a spiteful display, equal parts vengeful and belittling. Don't get
me wrong: I enjoyed all parts of it, but I didn't detect any joy.)
I think there was joy in being spiteful, vengeful and able to belittle the Braves for hitting him a few months ago and then being able to hit a home run.
The greedy among us keep coming back to one specific question: What will McCann do for his next act?
How about have a great postseason and help the Braves win a playoff series rather than play the part of "Sheriff Over Baseball's Unwritten Rules"?
After confronting Marlins pitcher Jose Fernandez at home plate less than three weeks ago to discuss transgressions real or imagined after a home run,
Fernandez just happened to be pitching well against the Braves that night and then hit a home run. Notice a trend here? A team plays well against the Braves and McCann (and company) get pissy and start trying to be the unwritten rules police. Maybe they are just bad sports and can't enjoy the idea they are getting beaten, so they get pissy when an opposing player shows any type of joy at having hit a home run.
he upped the ante by walking down the third-base line to stop Gomez
before he could feel the satisfaction of his shoe hitting the plate.
If there was ever a time to bring up that the Braves are in the playoffs and the Brewers are not, this may be it. Don't become a human barricade in order to try and be the sheriff who judges which actions are appropriate and which are not.
Is there a chance McCann is working on a higher plane? Knowing his team
has been struggling -- and perhaps discounted as a legitimate World
Series contender as the postseason approaches -- is his judge-and-jury
act a calculated effort to send a message to his team and any future
opponents?
There is also a good chance the only message McCann is sending is that the Braves are more concerned with what the opposing team is doing as opposed to being worried about whether the Braves are hitting the baseball and playing well enough to win a playoff series or two or three. It shows me the priorities of the team could very well be in the wrong place.
If his motivation was to motivate, the Braves' response -- two hits and zero runs off Kyle Lohse in their nine offensive innings after the incident -- should have him considering other approaches.
By the way, two games later Chris Johnson threw his helmet in the dugout and got into a brief argument with Terry Pendleton. Perhaps the Braves have frustration stemming from the fact they haven't played well over the past month or maybe the entire team needs anger management. Either way, McCann probably was not working on a higher plane and was simply reflecting the hot head attitude the rest of the team tends to show every time they get their panties in a wad at the "disrespect" an opposing player is showing them...in a not-quite-coincidence usually this perceived disrespect is being shown while the opposing team is beating the Braves.
The responsible reaction is to state the obvious: Everybody was wrong -- Gomez, Freeman, Gomez, McCann, Gomez.
Considering this really wasn't that notable of an incident, then let's just say every party was wrong. Gomez should quit strutting and the Braves need to worry about things other than how respected they feel while protecting unwritten baseball rules.
At the risk of falling face-first into rhetorical quicksand -- I imagine
it looks like Alpha-Bits, only thicker and smellier -- what about the
cultural aspects of this? (Wait, is that an elephant in the room?)
Good point. Jose Fernandez is Hispanic, Carlos Gomez is Hispanic. The Braves just hate players with Hispanic names. Don't tell Fredi Gonzalez though.
It's a little frightening that Tim Keown is going to look at the cultural aspects of this situation, especially considering he wrote the article I linked in the beginning of this post about how Latin American players are taking the jobs of hard-working American baseball players. I'm not sure I trust Tim to anchor a conversation such as this one.
White players seem to have a death grip on The Code, while Latin players seem more comfortable with their emotions.
Asian players have no emotions and black players are all super-athletic and don't have to work as hard. Is there a stereotype that I missed?
To an extent, Tim Keown is a little bit correct and this is one of the ramifications of baseball being such a worldly game. Different cultures don't all act the same way. The cultural aspects of this seem to be that Latin players don't like to get hit with a baseball, just like white players don't like to get hit with a baseball.
The majority of American-born players were raised in a hypervigilant and
ultrasensitive baseball environment. From Little League on up, the
emphasis is on keeping emotions hermetically sealed. Do your job, keep
quiet about it and by all means take offense when someone strays from
your ethos.
If American-born players are raised to keep their emotions sealed then how does that explain American-born players taking offense when someone strays from their ethos? Doesn't this mean American-born players are raised to not show up someone else, but to use their own judgment when they think they are being disrespected and therefore this allows others to choose when that American-born player loses control of his emotions? In that way of looking at it, perhaps the American-born players aren't taught to keep their emotions heremetically sealed. After all, getting pissy and standing in the baseline when you feel you have been disrespected isn't exactly keeping your emotions in check.
Latin players come from a different environment, with fewer hang-ups and
perhaps without the same focus on narrow, ill-defined rules.
So you mean the unwritten rules that aren't really rules and only certain players pay attention to these rules as a set of guidelines on the appropriate type of behavior aren't universal? Brian McCann would like to stand in the baseline and refuse to allow you to pass in order to discuss this more fully.
One side preaches the humility necessary to achieve success in a sport
that is all about failure. The other sees a sport that is so fraught
with failure and frustration that grand achievements should sometimes be
honored accordingly.
It's the grand struggle between acting like you have been there and getting excited over your personal achievements. Of course, the media picks and chooses when they like their Latino athletes to celebrate grand achievements. Yasiel Puig is an asshole for staring at his home runs, but it was just so cute to watch Sammy Sosa run out to right field with a flag in his hand at the start of a game or do a little hop and happy stroll around the bases when he hit a home run. Of course then you have Mariano Rivera who was very business-like in how he did his job and Jonathan Papelbon who sometimes acts like he cured cancer after getting a save.
If everyone approached the game like McCann -- in other words, if
everyone always abided by the Big League Code of Honor -- baseball would
lose something. And if every home run trot became an exercise in angry
self-aggrandizement, the game would be anarchy.
I really think Tim Keown is blowing this game out of proportion into something it is not. Also, the annoying part about Brian McCann's actions is that it is clear he expects everyone to always abide by his honor code. It's one violation of the fake honor code that caused him to stand in the baseline and then get in Carlos Gomez's face. McCann seems to expect everyone to abide by the so-called "Big League Code of Honor."
It's clear Gomez chose the wrong time and place to deliver his message
of personal redemption. Within the rigid constructs of the game, he was
wrong and admitted as much.
I'm not sure Brian McCann ever said he was wrong to stand in the baseline and not allow Carlos Gomez to pass. I think that's wrong, that McCann acts like a jerk and then isn't sorry when it is clear that he was in some way in the wrong to block the baseline. Holding up unwritten rules you perceive to be violated is fine, but starting a brawl when your team is a week away from starting the playoffs is not fine.
And amid the moral, cultural and procedural questions raised by this
random confluence of events, one stands alone: Who among us is not
disappointed the Brewers and Braves don't play again right away?
Not me, because that would mean the Braves weren't in the playoffs and were still playing regular season games. I much prefer watching them play postseason games. Of course, I just hope no opposing player does anything to piss off Brian McCann or else he will risk a suspension to enforce unwritten rules that aren't his responsibility to enforce.
Showing posts with label atlanta braves. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atlanta braves. Show all posts
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Monday, September 9, 2013
0 comments Terence Moore, M.D. Discovers How to Prevent Major Elbow and Arm Injuries to Pitchers; Dr. James Andrews Shakes His Fist Violently at this Cruel Fate
I don't understand why MLB teams insist on hiring their own team doctors and trainers to monitor or diagnose players' injuries. It would be much more simple if each Major League Baseball just hired Terence Moore to be the doctor for every team in MLB. After all, he must have a medical license since he fancies himself a doctor. Terence must also be the greatest sports doctor in the world since he has knowledge on how to prevent major arm and elbow injuries to a pitcher. It turns out Terence Moore knows what no other doctors know, which is how to avoid injuries to a pitcher's elbow and arm, which prevents Tommy John surgery and a pitcher from having to sit out a full year. "How do we do this?" every MLB team asks in unison. Easy! Just pitch these pitchers as often and as much as possible. See, the human body responds to stress by preventing injury according to Dr. Terence Moore. His proof is that a few pitchers that are outliers managed to stay healthy during their career despite pitching a ton of innings. Well, as he is prone to do, Terence actually uses two pitchers who suffered major arm injuries as examples of pitchers who pitched a lot of innings and stayed healthy. Terence loves to submarine his own point.
The subtitle of this column is "Increase in arm ailments may be due to increase in clubs' cautiousness."
If Terence Moore were in a private practice rather than dispensing medical advice for free through MLB.com I'm sure he would also tell us the key to avoiding a heart attack is to eat as many fatty, greasy foods as possible. After all, your heart can't get strong until you make it work really hard to stay beating.
Pitchers need to throw more. That's the problem, and that's also the answer when it comes to this epidemic of starters and relievers completing a cycle these days.
This is an opinion, not a scientific fact. Don't present it any other way. Pitchers don't necessarily need to throw more and Terence has no proof this is "the answer" to ensuring pitchers don't get injured. Back in 2011 Atlanta Braves fans made 10,000 "Dr. James Andrews will see you next year" jokes about Eric O'Flaherty, Jonny Venters, and Craig Kimbrel due to the amount that Fredi Gonzalez used them. Guess what? Two of those three pitchers will be having major elbow surgery. I don't claim to be a doctor like Terence does, so I'm not entirely sure why O'Flaherty and Venters had major arm surgery. If I had to guess, it would be because of the amount they were used over the past couple of seasons.
Now you say, "but Ben that is anecdotal evidence that doesn't really prove anything" and you would be right. Unfortunately, Terence is using the same anecdotal evidence to support his position and he gets paid to write stuff like this.
First, they have impressive outings. Then they encounter aches and pains out of nowhere. After that, they sprint to the disabled list before a trip to a surgeon's operating table.
Here's the latest: Matt Harvey.
Throwing a baseball is very taxing on a pitcher's arm and it isn't a natural motion. Pitchers in 2013 throw the ball faster and harder than pitchers threw the ball 60 years ago. Let's not forget this. Medicine has advanced to where now we know exactly what is wrong with a pitcher as opposed to 50 years ago when a guy just inexplicably lost his velocity it was just chalked up to a pitcher just losing velocity. I don't see a bunch of people running around saying the key to curing cancer is to breathe in as many coal fumes as possible while sitting on a nuclear reactor. I don't think the cure for arm injuries is to further tax a pitcher's arm. 100 years ago people would mysteriously get sick and die. In 2013 we can diagnose why these people have gotten sick due to medical advancements. This means what once was called "taking ill and dying" or some other generic term that doesn't explain what the real cause is (much like "dead arm" was used to explain why a pitcher lost velocity) can now be diagnosed by doctors.
Basically, Terence is using outliers to prove his point and ignoring the fact doctors couldn't attribute a pitcher's "dead arm" to any certain cause 50-60 years ago to further his claim that the more a pitcher pitches the less chance he has of sustaining an elbow or arm injury. He's using the fact there was less knowledge about arm and elbow injuries 60 years ago as a way of indicating pitchers 60 years ago didn't hurt their arms. It's just not true.
He also has a splendid 2.27 ERA to complement a 9-5 record. Not only that, his throwing mechanics are as fundamentally sound as they come at 24 years old.
Which is why Mets general manager Sandy Alderson and others associated with the franchise and beyond say they are shocked by it all.
They can shocked all they want, but again, throwing a baseball at 95 miles per hour 60 times a day is an unnatural motion for the human body.
But he sought to spin things toward the positive this week by telling reporters that he was "optimistic" he could avoid surgery through a vigorous rehabilitation routine.
What's Dr. Terence Moore's suggestion for this vigorous rehabilitation routine? Throwing a baseball as hard and as often as possible every day of the week. That elbow will right heal itself up!
I'm not shocked, and you shouldn't be either. From now until the unforeseeable future, the only time you should respond with raised eyebrows after reading a health report on a Major League pitcher is when it says that pitcher won't need surgery.
Let's not be dramatic about it. Pitchers today throw their pitches faster than ever, so that causes more stress on a pitcher's elbow, which could explain the supposed increase in pitchers who need surgery.
This is an epidemic, all right. Consider the Braves, owners of baseball's best record. They also are continuing their decades-long run as a prolific franchise for pitching. They are second in baseball in team ERA at 3.22 to the Pirates' 3.19, but get this: Within the last five years, the Braves have witnessed seven of their pitchers undergo Tommy John surgery, and that's just at the Major League level.
And why have the Braves had so many arm injuries? They baby their pitchers. This didn't happen when the Braves had John Smoltz on the roster---wait, nevermind.
As for those other Braves pitchers with significant arm-related pain, well, they were like Harvey. Young. Vibrant.
They didn't die. They just had arm surgery. If Terence is looking for an exact explanation on why some pitchers have major arm surgery and other pitchers do not, then he isn't going to find one. I guess that's why he makes up the solution that today's pitchers (unlike "back in the day") are coddled too much.
It's got to be that throwing (or the lack thereof) thing, not only for the Braves, but for everybody, because pitchers used to throw forever. I'm talking about in the Major Leagues, in the Minor Leagues, in Little Leagues and in sandlot leagues.
And pitchers that used to throw forever also got injured, but they weren't diagnosed with an elbow injury or weren't told they required Tommy John surgery because doctors couldn't diagnose the problem. So it was attributed to a pitcher just losing velocity or some other mysterious cause.
And let's get that ridiculous example out of the way in Walter Johnson. After he made his Major League debut in 1903, he pitched 200 innings or more 18 times in 21 years. He even went nine straight seasons throwing 300 innings or more. Two-hundred innings once was the standard for starting pitchers during a given season. Now, not so much.
It's a ridiculous example because Terence is using an outlier to prove his point. Nine straight seasons of 300 innings or more is ridiculous. Having done some research into Johnson, his fastball was once measured at 91 miles per hour which is a speed that most pitchers couldn't get to back in his day. Pitchers today routinely throw that fast. So while it is fun to remember the good old days and notice that starting pitchers used to throw 300 innings in a season, the real question to ask is how fast were these pitchers throwing, because that can tell us how much stress was placed on the pitcher's arm.
Again, throwing a pitch is not a natural motion for the human body and the faster a pitcher throws a pitch the more stress is placed on the pitcher's arm. The more stress placed on a pitcher's arm, the more likely his body won't be able to endure the stress on the pitcher's arm, which causes arm or elbow injuries to occur. So I don't think the comparison to Walter Johnson is a great one because he is an outlier in an era where pitchers rarely threw the ball as hard as pitchers do 100 years later.
So basically Dr. Terence Moore is full of shit that throwing more is the answer to preventing a pitcher from being injured.
Different times, you say -- you know, regarding that iron man era of Johnson, Cy Young and the rest? How about Tom Seaver, who spent his only year in the Minor Leagues in 1966 at 21 throwing 210 innings? That would cause today's pitching coaches to faint. Later, Seaver threw more than 200 innings per season in 16 of his 20 years in the Major Leagues.
Tom Seaver is one pitcher over the last 100+ years of baseball. He, like Walter Johnson, is an outlier. He isn't the rule as Terence so desperately wants to make him, he is the exception to the rule.
Not the stuff of Seaver. Or of Bob Gibson (12 seasons of 200 or more innings, including two of more than 300). Or of Sandy Koufax (who finished three of his last four seasons throwing 300 innings or more).
Oh, you mean the same Sandy Koufax who retired prematurely because he had an arthritic condition in his throwing arm? I'm sure Terence thinks this was caused by Koufax's lack of throwing enough innings the year before (he only threw 323 innings) and the fact Koufax ended up with an arthritic arm had NOTHING to do with the amount of innings he threw. Nothing to see here, move along.
Still not current enough for you? The Braves' Big Three of Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and John Smoltz spent the overwhelming majority of their time during a given season hurling baseballs from a pitcher's mound, either in games or between starts. In addition to combining as a trio to throw more than 200 innings season after season,
Fine, I'll play this game with Terence. Of these three pitchers two of them didn't throw the baseball very hard, while one of them threw a hard fastball and a hard curveball, along with a split finger pitch. Two of these pitchers never had a major arm surgery, while one of these pitchers had shoulder surgery, Tommy John surgery, and various other arm injuries through his career.
Guess what? It was the guy who threw the ball hard, had a hard curveball, and a split finger pitch that ended up with the arm injuries, while the two pitchers who didn't throw the baseball hard stayed relatively injury-free. So Terence again uses a bad example in John Smoltz (the guy who threw hard) when discussing a pitcher who didn't suffer arm injuries, because while Moore holds Smoltz up as a guy who made it through his career by throwing a lot, Smoltz also had arm problems including Tommy John surgery. Smoltz threw his career high in innings during the 1996 and 1997 seasons (and was first in the majors in innings thrown both years) and when did he start having arm problems? That would be the 1998 season. I'm sure it is just a coincidence. It's just embarrassing for MLB.com that Terence writes for them. He does very little research and just has really half-assed explanations for the topics he is discussing.
Leo Mazzone was their legendary pitching coach, and he learned his philosophy of having members of his staff pitch, pitch and pitch some more from Johnny Sain,
Mazzone had a regiment where pitchers throw long-toss in between starts to warm up and strengthen their arm. Maybe it worked, maybe it didn't work. I just don't think it is a coincidence the softer throwing of the Braves Big Three starters didn't have major arm injuries while the harder throwing pitcher did. Of course I'm not a doctor like Terence Moore so I'm not going to claim my opinion is fact.
"I look back, and I'm trying to figure out the Tommy John surgeries we've had, and I only can come up with Kerry Ligtenberg, and then we had Smoltzie over a period of time [since he fluctuated between starting and relieving], which you can understand that one,"
This is a lie. Smoltz's arm injuries started when he was a full-time starter and the Tommy John surgery is what necessitated his move to the bullpen. So his arm injuries occurred while he was a starter and not because he went back and forth from the rotation to the bullpen. Besides, under Dr. Terence Moore's theory of throwing the baseball for as many innings as possible wouldn't putting Smoltz back in the rotation help prevent an arm injury because he is throwing more innings?
Instead, during the eight years since Mazzone left the Braves, baseball has become strikingly more protective of pitchers. Among other things, managers yank starters and relievers at the slightest sign of trouble, partly due to the emphasis on bullpen specialists, but mostly due to a heavy dependence on pitch counts.
More velocity on pitches is harder on a pitcher's arm. That's how it works. Pitchers who throw harder seem to be more susceptible to arm and elbow injuries. Matt Harvey threw hard, Stephen Strasburg threw hard, Kerry Wood threw hard, and Mark Prior threw hard. It's not a proven theory by any means, but it's natural to believe the harder a pitcher throws the more stress on the arm which could result in an injury.
Once a pitcher reaches a certain number of pitches during a game or even a season, he's history, just like Stephen Strasburg last autumn.
That's a completely different issue. Strasburg hasn't gotten re-injured because of a pitch count. Rightly or wrongly, he has been held back because of his previous arm injury. Given the fact Strasburg has already had Tommy John surgery it is smart to hold him back a bit. Maybe it's not. All I know is sportswriters bitched that Strasburg got held back last year and now they are bitching the Mets didn't pay attention to the signs that Matt Harvey was injured. Everytime a pitcher's arm is sore it doesn't mean he has something wrong with him.
I mean, how are these pitch counts working overall these days when it comes to keeping guys in the lineup?
Ask Harvey.
I mean, how does it make sense that the answer to pitchers avoiding arm surgeries lie in having the pitcher throw more innings?
Ask a doctor, Terence. It's managing stress on the arm, not putting enough stress on the arm to make the arm super-strong that is the key to preventing arm injuries.
The subtitle of this column is "Increase in arm ailments may be due to increase in clubs' cautiousness."
If Terence Moore were in a private practice rather than dispensing medical advice for free through MLB.com I'm sure he would also tell us the key to avoiding a heart attack is to eat as many fatty, greasy foods as possible. After all, your heart can't get strong until you make it work really hard to stay beating.
Pitchers need to throw more. That's the problem, and that's also the answer when it comes to this epidemic of starters and relievers completing a cycle these days.
This is an opinion, not a scientific fact. Don't present it any other way. Pitchers don't necessarily need to throw more and Terence has no proof this is "the answer" to ensuring pitchers don't get injured. Back in 2011 Atlanta Braves fans made 10,000 "Dr. James Andrews will see you next year" jokes about Eric O'Flaherty, Jonny Venters, and Craig Kimbrel due to the amount that Fredi Gonzalez used them. Guess what? Two of those three pitchers will be having major elbow surgery. I don't claim to be a doctor like Terence does, so I'm not entirely sure why O'Flaherty and Venters had major arm surgery. If I had to guess, it would be because of the amount they were used over the past couple of seasons.
Now you say, "but Ben that is anecdotal evidence that doesn't really prove anything" and you would be right. Unfortunately, Terence is using the same anecdotal evidence to support his position and he gets paid to write stuff like this.
First, they have impressive outings. Then they encounter aches and pains out of nowhere. After that, they sprint to the disabled list before a trip to a surgeon's operating table.
Here's the latest: Matt Harvey.
Throwing a baseball is very taxing on a pitcher's arm and it isn't a natural motion. Pitchers in 2013 throw the ball faster and harder than pitchers threw the ball 60 years ago. Let's not forget this. Medicine has advanced to where now we know exactly what is wrong with a pitcher as opposed to 50 years ago when a guy just inexplicably lost his velocity it was just chalked up to a pitcher just losing velocity. I don't see a bunch of people running around saying the key to curing cancer is to breathe in as many coal fumes as possible while sitting on a nuclear reactor. I don't think the cure for arm injuries is to further tax a pitcher's arm. 100 years ago people would mysteriously get sick and die. In 2013 we can diagnose why these people have gotten sick due to medical advancements. This means what once was called "taking ill and dying" or some other generic term that doesn't explain what the real cause is (much like "dead arm" was used to explain why a pitcher lost velocity) can now be diagnosed by doctors.
Basically, Terence is using outliers to prove his point and ignoring the fact doctors couldn't attribute a pitcher's "dead arm" to any certain cause 50-60 years ago to further his claim that the more a pitcher pitches the less chance he has of sustaining an elbow or arm injury. He's using the fact there was less knowledge about arm and elbow injuries 60 years ago as a way of indicating pitchers 60 years ago didn't hurt their arms. It's just not true.
He also has a splendid 2.27 ERA to complement a 9-5 record. Not only that, his throwing mechanics are as fundamentally sound as they come at 24 years old.
Which is why Mets general manager Sandy Alderson and others associated with the franchise and beyond say they are shocked by it all.
They can shocked all they want, but again, throwing a baseball at 95 miles per hour 60 times a day is an unnatural motion for the human body.
But he sought to spin things toward the positive this week by telling reporters that he was "optimistic" he could avoid surgery through a vigorous rehabilitation routine.
What's Dr. Terence Moore's suggestion for this vigorous rehabilitation routine? Throwing a baseball as hard and as often as possible every day of the week. That elbow will right heal itself up!
I'm not shocked, and you shouldn't be either. From now until the unforeseeable future, the only time you should respond with raised eyebrows after reading a health report on a Major League pitcher is when it says that pitcher won't need surgery.
Let's not be dramatic about it. Pitchers today throw their pitches faster than ever, so that causes more stress on a pitcher's elbow, which could explain the supposed increase in pitchers who need surgery.
This is an epidemic, all right. Consider the Braves, owners of baseball's best record. They also are continuing their decades-long run as a prolific franchise for pitching. They are second in baseball in team ERA at 3.22 to the Pirates' 3.19, but get this: Within the last five years, the Braves have witnessed seven of their pitchers undergo Tommy John surgery, and that's just at the Major League level.
And why have the Braves had so many arm injuries? They baby their pitchers. This didn't happen when the Braves had John Smoltz on the roster---wait, nevermind.
As for those other Braves pitchers with significant arm-related pain, well, they were like Harvey. Young. Vibrant.
They didn't die. They just had arm surgery. If Terence is looking for an exact explanation on why some pitchers have major arm surgery and other pitchers do not, then he isn't going to find one. I guess that's why he makes up the solution that today's pitchers (unlike "back in the day") are coddled too much.
It's got to be that throwing (or the lack thereof) thing, not only for the Braves, but for everybody, because pitchers used to throw forever. I'm talking about in the Major Leagues, in the Minor Leagues, in Little Leagues and in sandlot leagues.
And pitchers that used to throw forever also got injured, but they weren't diagnosed with an elbow injury or weren't told they required Tommy John surgery because doctors couldn't diagnose the problem. So it was attributed to a pitcher just losing velocity or some other mysterious cause.
And let's get that ridiculous example out of the way in Walter Johnson. After he made his Major League debut in 1903, he pitched 200 innings or more 18 times in 21 years. He even went nine straight seasons throwing 300 innings or more. Two-hundred innings once was the standard for starting pitchers during a given season. Now, not so much.
It's a ridiculous example because Terence is using an outlier to prove his point. Nine straight seasons of 300 innings or more is ridiculous. Having done some research into Johnson, his fastball was once measured at 91 miles per hour which is a speed that most pitchers couldn't get to back in his day. Pitchers today routinely throw that fast. So while it is fun to remember the good old days and notice that starting pitchers used to throw 300 innings in a season, the real question to ask is how fast were these pitchers throwing, because that can tell us how much stress was placed on the pitcher's arm.
Again, throwing a pitch is not a natural motion for the human body and the faster a pitcher throws a pitch the more stress is placed on the pitcher's arm. The more stress placed on a pitcher's arm, the more likely his body won't be able to endure the stress on the pitcher's arm, which causes arm or elbow injuries to occur. So I don't think the comparison to Walter Johnson is a great one because he is an outlier in an era where pitchers rarely threw the ball as hard as pitchers do 100 years later.
So basically Dr. Terence Moore is full of shit that throwing more is the answer to preventing a pitcher from being injured.
Different times, you say -- you know, regarding that iron man era of Johnson, Cy Young and the rest? How about Tom Seaver, who spent his only year in the Minor Leagues in 1966 at 21 throwing 210 innings? That would cause today's pitching coaches to faint. Later, Seaver threw more than 200 innings per season in 16 of his 20 years in the Major Leagues.
Tom Seaver is one pitcher over the last 100+ years of baseball. He, like Walter Johnson, is an outlier. He isn't the rule as Terence so desperately wants to make him, he is the exception to the rule.
Not the stuff of Seaver. Or of Bob Gibson (12 seasons of 200 or more innings, including two of more than 300). Or of Sandy Koufax (who finished three of his last four seasons throwing 300 innings or more).
Oh, you mean the same Sandy Koufax who retired prematurely because he had an arthritic condition in his throwing arm? I'm sure Terence thinks this was caused by Koufax's lack of throwing enough innings the year before (he only threw 323 innings) and the fact Koufax ended up with an arthritic arm had NOTHING to do with the amount of innings he threw. Nothing to see here, move along.
Still not current enough for you? The Braves' Big Three of Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and John Smoltz spent the overwhelming majority of their time during a given season hurling baseballs from a pitcher's mound, either in games or between starts. In addition to combining as a trio to throw more than 200 innings season after season,
Fine, I'll play this game with Terence. Of these three pitchers two of them didn't throw the baseball very hard, while one of them threw a hard fastball and a hard curveball, along with a split finger pitch. Two of these pitchers never had a major arm surgery, while one of these pitchers had shoulder surgery, Tommy John surgery, and various other arm injuries through his career.
Guess what? It was the guy who threw the ball hard, had a hard curveball, and a split finger pitch that ended up with the arm injuries, while the two pitchers who didn't throw the baseball hard stayed relatively injury-free. So Terence again uses a bad example in John Smoltz (the guy who threw hard) when discussing a pitcher who didn't suffer arm injuries, because while Moore holds Smoltz up as a guy who made it through his career by throwing a lot, Smoltz also had arm problems including Tommy John surgery. Smoltz threw his career high in innings during the 1996 and 1997 seasons (and was first in the majors in innings thrown both years) and when did he start having arm problems? That would be the 1998 season. I'm sure it is just a coincidence. It's just embarrassing for MLB.com that Terence writes for them. He does very little research and just has really half-assed explanations for the topics he is discussing.
Leo Mazzone was their legendary pitching coach, and he learned his philosophy of having members of his staff pitch, pitch and pitch some more from Johnny Sain,
Mazzone had a regiment where pitchers throw long-toss in between starts to warm up and strengthen their arm. Maybe it worked, maybe it didn't work. I just don't think it is a coincidence the softer throwing of the Braves Big Three starters didn't have major arm injuries while the harder throwing pitcher did. Of course I'm not a doctor like Terence Moore so I'm not going to claim my opinion is fact.
"I look back, and I'm trying to figure out the Tommy John surgeries we've had, and I only can come up with Kerry Ligtenberg, and then we had Smoltzie over a period of time [since he fluctuated between starting and relieving], which you can understand that one,"
This is a lie. Smoltz's arm injuries started when he was a full-time starter and the Tommy John surgery is what necessitated his move to the bullpen. So his arm injuries occurred while he was a starter and not because he went back and forth from the rotation to the bullpen. Besides, under Dr. Terence Moore's theory of throwing the baseball for as many innings as possible wouldn't putting Smoltz back in the rotation help prevent an arm injury because he is throwing more innings?
Instead, during the eight years since Mazzone left the Braves, baseball has become strikingly more protective of pitchers. Among other things, managers yank starters and relievers at the slightest sign of trouble, partly due to the emphasis on bullpen specialists, but mostly due to a heavy dependence on pitch counts.
More velocity on pitches is harder on a pitcher's arm. That's how it works. Pitchers who throw harder seem to be more susceptible to arm and elbow injuries. Matt Harvey threw hard, Stephen Strasburg threw hard, Kerry Wood threw hard, and Mark Prior threw hard. It's not a proven theory by any means, but it's natural to believe the harder a pitcher throws the more stress on the arm which could result in an injury.
Once a pitcher reaches a certain number of pitches during a game or even a season, he's history, just like Stephen Strasburg last autumn.
That's a completely different issue. Strasburg hasn't gotten re-injured because of a pitch count. Rightly or wrongly, he has been held back because of his previous arm injury. Given the fact Strasburg has already had Tommy John surgery it is smart to hold him back a bit. Maybe it's not. All I know is sportswriters bitched that Strasburg got held back last year and now they are bitching the Mets didn't pay attention to the signs that Matt Harvey was injured. Everytime a pitcher's arm is sore it doesn't mean he has something wrong with him.
I mean, how are these pitch counts working overall these days when it comes to keeping guys in the lineup?
Ask Harvey.
I mean, how does it make sense that the answer to pitchers avoiding arm surgeries lie in having the pitcher throw more innings?
Ask a doctor, Terence. It's managing stress on the arm, not putting enough stress on the arm to make the arm super-strong that is the key to preventing arm injuries.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
8 comments Idiocy: A Bleacher Report Specialty
There is some good stuff on Bleacher Report, blah, blah, blah. I always disclaim that. There's also shit on the site. Today's article is an example of the shit that can be found on Bleacher Report. I'm not perfect when it comes to discussing sports, but there are several types of comments that baseball and football fans can make which irritates the shit out of me. These comments usually assume that sports are like video games or come from sports fans who just come off as annoyingly simplistic. Three of these comments are:
1. "Let's draft Quarterback X in the fifth round and develop him to where he can be the starter in a few years."
On it's face, this doesn't seem like an annoying comment at all. It is the assumptions behind this comment that annoys me. It's the speaker's assumption a team can draft a player and then start "developing him" to be the starter in a few years. It's as if a lack of talent or the mental makeup to play the quarterback position can be overcome with some TLC and teaching. It just doesn't work that way all the time. It's not simple to take a fifth round pick, teach him to be a quarterback and then spit out a starting quarterback in a few years. Yes, it can happen, but this statement and the assumption of some magical "developmental technique" that can take a 5th round pick and turn him into a starter in a matter of three years annoys me.
2. "With all these linebackers we have, what about running the 3-4 defense?"
Oh sure, let's just fucking turn the entire defensive system around today. That doesn't sound like it would be difficult or take any sort of preparation or change in personnel to do. I read this comment all the time and it never fails to annoy me. There is more required to run a 3-4 defense than to have four good linebackers. This type of comment always seems to assume a team would need no other position adjustment to run a 3-4 defense than having four good linebackers on the roster. A team needs 3-4 linebackers who can rush the passer, a nose guard who can hold down the middle and keep the offensive linemen off the linebackers, and 3-4 defensive ends who can rush the passer but also hold the end. It's a different set of skills required for defensive players and the fact a team has four quality linebackers doesn't make the move easy. Throw in the defensive coordinator for a team may not have experience running a 3-4 defense and the comment becomes more annoying. More NFL teams are running hybrid defenses, but to blindly suggest a team just magically switch to a 3-4 defense in training camp as the magical key that turns the team around is stupidity.
3. "Let's send Player X down to the minor leagues and teach him to play a different position."
Baseball isn't a video game. You can't just send a player down to the minor leagues and teach him to play a new position and then call him up a year later to see him playing extremely well at that position. It's rare for a player who has played his entire career at catcher can just become a second baseman in a year's time. Well, that is unless you write for Bleacher Report, in which case teaching a 6'4" 230 pound catcher to play second base is just a piece of cake.
Dan Uggla's struggles are no secret for Atlanta Braves fans.
Uggla has been bad over his two years with the Braves, but he improved last year in terms of getting on-base and led the National League in walks. He's been bad in Spring Training again, but he has always struck out a lot and not hit for great average. It's not like he would improve as he got older. I'm still fine with him at second base and have faith he can at least continue to get on-base at the .348 clip with more power than he showed last year. I think Braves fans just tend to get in a panic sometimes.
Hitting .227 with 55 home runs and 160 RBI in his two years with the Braves, Uggla hasn't exactly lived up to his five-year, $62-million contract.
So the solution is to bench him or trade him? What could the Braves gain from having a non-contact hitter who is a poor defender on the bench? What could they possibly get through trade that would relieve them of Uggla's salary and make the team better? Those are my three questions that have no satisfactory answers.
With power throughout the Braves' order, fans aren't going to be patient if Uggla continues to struggle. And, let's face it, can you blame them?
Since Uggla is relied on for power, wouldn't it make more sense for Braves fans to be more patient since one of the biggest things Uggla provides (power) isn't in short supply on the Braves roster? They may not rely on him to hit home runs, so they can afford to be more patient with him.
Before you think this is an article intended to bash Uggla, here are some of the good things he's done for the Braves.
It's not an article to bash Uggla, but an article to bench Uggla and replace him with a catcher. That's so different from bashing him.
In 2012, Uggla batted .262 with runners in scoring position and .308 with runners in scoring position and two outs. So he can hit in the clutch.
Clutchiness is Uggla's thing. Who needs this in the everyday batting order? The Braves don't, that's for sure.
He brings power to the second base position, which is not seen much in MLB. Robinson Cano, Aaron Hill and Rickie Weeks come to mind.
Uggla had 19 home runs last year. That's good and one of the good reasons (his shockingly improved defense last year is another) to keep him in the lineup.
He also started and ended 2012 well, batting .271 in April and .280 in September.
Uggla has it in him to do well, but he seems unable to get things right in his head during the middle parts of the season.
Not entirely true. Uggla hit .293/.369/.586 during July 2011 and .340/.405/.670 during August 2011. For his career he has struggled the most in June, but he doesn't seem to consistently struggle during the middle of the baseball season over his career. He did struggle mightily in 2012, but I don't know if his middle season struggles are a trend or not.
Then there's the strikeouts.
He ranked fourth in the National League with 168 strikeouts, striking out 96 times with the bases empty.
Is it better to strikeout with the bases empty or better to strikeout with runners on-base? Uggla struck out a lot, but he also got on-base at a .348 clip and led the National League in walks.
Simply put, Uggla either just can't get the job done anymore or his brain is getting in the way of him hitting.
I'm glad we discussed this. Now what's the solution to this problem? Players making $39 million over the next three seasons generally just don't go away and it is hard for other teams to want to take on that salary for a declining player through trade.
Including this year, Uggla still has three years and $39 million left on his contract. But can the Braves afford another three years of Uggla's subpar performances?
These are the deep questions only the writers of Bleacher Report are willing to discuss. Can the Braves afford to pay a player $13 million when he doesn't play well? Can ANY MLB team afford to pay a player $13 million for a subpar performance? Probably not.
While there is nobody in the farm system that is ready to take over at second should Uggla continue to struggle, there are other possibilities.
Because any time an expensive player isn't performing up to snuff, it makes more sense to bench that player and then spend money and prospects to go find another player who can play that position.
Should the opportunity present itself before the trade deadline,
"Before the trade deadline," meaning before July 31st? If the Braves are going to replace Dan Uggla why would they potentially wait until July 31st to do so? This makes not of sense.
guys like Ben Zobrist and Omar Infante could be had for the right price.
So the idea is to replace .220/.348/.384 with 19 home runs, 78 RBI's, 94 walks, and 168 strikeouts with Omar Infante who hit .274/.300/.419 with 12 home runs, 53 RBI's, 21 walks and 65 strikeouts last year? How would this improve the team exactly? Presumably the Braves can't trade Uggla, or they would have to eat a lot of his contract, but they are free to take on $4 million more for Infante who at best is only a moderate upgrade and a free agent after the season? So how is the team improved for 2014 with Uggla one year older and still on the roster next year? So Uggla gets benched and then the Braves have the same issue next year. I don't think Infante is a solution.
Ben Zobrist would be an upgrade, but he also costs $5.5 million in 2013, $7 million in 2014, and $7.5 million in 2015. It's not very likely Zobrist could be had for cheap either. Assuming the Braves could trade Uggla, they would still have to eat at the very, very least half of his contract (which I doubt they could even get a team to cover that much). That means they would be investing $39.5 million in their second base position over the next three years at the absolute least, while giving up prospects for Zobrist. Interestingly, that's how much they currently have invested in Dan Uggla except they don't have to trade any prospects to get him.
So Zobrist would be an upgrade (which I would admit) at the cost of prospects and money during a three year span when the Braves will need to try to re-sign, sign, or pay through arbitration Brian McCann, Kris Medlen, Jason Heyward, Craig Kimbrel, Freddie Freeman, Andrelton Simmons. See the issue there? Uggla stinks, but the Braves can't afford to spend more money on the second base position over the next three years and expect to keep what they consider the core of their team.
With both slated to be free agents after this year, the Braves could put a decent package together to get one of the two during the stretch run.
Again, Zobrist isn't a free agent next year. There is a team option for 2014 and 2015. To trade prospects for Zobrist and not exercise these options would be stupid in my opinion. Meanwhile Omar Infante at this point doesn't seem like an upgrade. Plus, after the Braves have benched Dan Uggla should they just turn to him to be the starter in 2014? If you bench Uggla and replace him with Omar Infante then Uggla has to be traded, right? Who plays second base in 2014 for the Braves? Don't worry, the author has a really, really stupid suggestion for 2014.
Or the Braves could send Evan Gattis down to the minors to learn how to play second base.
Worst idea ever. Non-Braves fans have no idea who Evan Gattis is. That's fine. He has an interesting back story that is irrelevant for what I am going to write here. More importantly, he is a 26 year old catcher/outfielder who stands 6'4" and weighs 230 pounds. He crushes the baseball and the Braves are desperately trying to find a way for him to make the active roster, hence the move from catcher to left field. He is not quite the defensive catcher an MLB team would look for and he probably isn't the best full-time left fielder a team would look for either. But he mashes the baseball. A move to second base over the next year is not a good idea for Evan Gattis to make. Simply put, second base is not the place for a 6'4" 230 pound ex-catcher.
While there would be a major adjustment period for Gattis,
This adjustment period potentially being "his entire Major League career." When Dan Uggla is brought in as a defensive replacement, that's never good news. The funny part is the author wants to trade for Infante or Zobrist (he never tells us what will be done with Uggla, so I assume he will very covertly be murdered in order to be removed from the Braves payroll) and then put an ex-catcher at second base. Baseball is a video game apparently.
it could be beneficial for the Braves because he's hitting .438 with two home runs and 10 RBI during spring training.
So sending a player who is hitting the cover off of the ball down to AAA to learn a new position he has never played before would be beneficial to the Braves this year? How can that be beneficial to the Braves when Gattis wouldn't even be on the active roster? I have so many questions and no answers that can satisfy my curiosity as to where this bad idea came from.
If Gattis could learn how to play second base, that would solve two problems:
If Jason Heyward could be cloned it would solve many problems as well. If Dan Uggla could find the fountain of youth that would solve a few issues. If we could teach birds to carry the heavy weight of a human being and train them to fly to a specific destination then we could rid ourselves of air travel costs. If dogs could speak then we wouldn't have to wonder why they are randomly barking at a wall. There are so many "ifs" and so few answers.
It would provide him with the opportunity to be in the lineup
So would carrying him on the roster as a backup left fielder/catcher/pinch hitter this year. Sending Gattis down to the minors to learn a new position, how exactly does this provide Gattis a chance to be in the lineup? If Uggla is struggling this year then shouldn't the idea to be to replace Uggla this year, not a year from now? There are much easier ways to get a player's bat in the lineup than send him down to the minors for a year to learn a new position. In fact, sending Gattis down to the minors is a specific effort to take his bat out of the lineup for this year when he is tearing the cover off the ball.
and it would solve the Uggla problem all in one.
No, it wouldn't solve the Uggla problem because Uggla would still be on the roster and still cost $13 million per year. Now if you have an idea on how to trade Uggla, get value for him in a trade, get most of his contract off the books and also find a quality second basemen, then that's a great suggestion. Suggesting the Braves move a 230 pound catcher to second base is not a real suggestion and this is just embarrassing for you to even suggest.
1. "Let's draft Quarterback X in the fifth round and develop him to where he can be the starter in a few years."
On it's face, this doesn't seem like an annoying comment at all. It is the assumptions behind this comment that annoys me. It's the speaker's assumption a team can draft a player and then start "developing him" to be the starter in a few years. It's as if a lack of talent or the mental makeup to play the quarterback position can be overcome with some TLC and teaching. It just doesn't work that way all the time. It's not simple to take a fifth round pick, teach him to be a quarterback and then spit out a starting quarterback in a few years. Yes, it can happen, but this statement and the assumption of some magical "developmental technique" that can take a 5th round pick and turn him into a starter in a matter of three years annoys me.
2. "With all these linebackers we have, what about running the 3-4 defense?"
Oh sure, let's just fucking turn the entire defensive system around today. That doesn't sound like it would be difficult or take any sort of preparation or change in personnel to do. I read this comment all the time and it never fails to annoy me. There is more required to run a 3-4 defense than to have four good linebackers. This type of comment always seems to assume a team would need no other position adjustment to run a 3-4 defense than having four good linebackers on the roster. A team needs 3-4 linebackers who can rush the passer, a nose guard who can hold down the middle and keep the offensive linemen off the linebackers, and 3-4 defensive ends who can rush the passer but also hold the end. It's a different set of skills required for defensive players and the fact a team has four quality linebackers doesn't make the move easy. Throw in the defensive coordinator for a team may not have experience running a 3-4 defense and the comment becomes more annoying. More NFL teams are running hybrid defenses, but to blindly suggest a team just magically switch to a 3-4 defense in training camp as the magical key that turns the team around is stupidity.
3. "Let's send Player X down to the minor leagues and teach him to play a different position."
Baseball isn't a video game. You can't just send a player down to the minor leagues and teach him to play a new position and then call him up a year later to see him playing extremely well at that position. It's rare for a player who has played his entire career at catcher can just become a second baseman in a year's time. Well, that is unless you write for Bleacher Report, in which case teaching a 6'4" 230 pound catcher to play second base is just a piece of cake.
Dan Uggla's struggles are no secret for Atlanta Braves fans.
Uggla has been bad over his two years with the Braves, but he improved last year in terms of getting on-base and led the National League in walks. He's been bad in Spring Training again, but he has always struck out a lot and not hit for great average. It's not like he would improve as he got older. I'm still fine with him at second base and have faith he can at least continue to get on-base at the .348 clip with more power than he showed last year. I think Braves fans just tend to get in a panic sometimes.
Hitting .227 with 55 home runs and 160 RBI in his two years with the Braves, Uggla hasn't exactly lived up to his five-year, $62-million contract.
So the solution is to bench him or trade him? What could the Braves gain from having a non-contact hitter who is a poor defender on the bench? What could they possibly get through trade that would relieve them of Uggla's salary and make the team better? Those are my three questions that have no satisfactory answers.
With power throughout the Braves' order, fans aren't going to be patient if Uggla continues to struggle. And, let's face it, can you blame them?
Since Uggla is relied on for power, wouldn't it make more sense for Braves fans to be more patient since one of the biggest things Uggla provides (power) isn't in short supply on the Braves roster? They may not rely on him to hit home runs, so they can afford to be more patient with him.
Before you think this is an article intended to bash Uggla, here are some of the good things he's done for the Braves.
It's not an article to bash Uggla, but an article to bench Uggla and replace him with a catcher. That's so different from bashing him.
In 2012, Uggla batted .262 with runners in scoring position and .308 with runners in scoring position and two outs. So he can hit in the clutch.
Clutchiness is Uggla's thing. Who needs this in the everyday batting order? The Braves don't, that's for sure.
He brings power to the second base position, which is not seen much in MLB. Robinson Cano, Aaron Hill and Rickie Weeks come to mind.
Uggla had 19 home runs last year. That's good and one of the good reasons (his shockingly improved defense last year is another) to keep him in the lineup.
He also started and ended 2012 well, batting .271 in April and .280 in September.
Uggla has it in him to do well, but he seems unable to get things right in his head during the middle parts of the season.
Not entirely true. Uggla hit .293/.369/.586 during July 2011 and .340/.405/.670 during August 2011. For his career he has struggled the most in June, but he doesn't seem to consistently struggle during the middle of the baseball season over his career. He did struggle mightily in 2012, but I don't know if his middle season struggles are a trend or not.
Then there's the strikeouts.
He ranked fourth in the National League with 168 strikeouts, striking out 96 times with the bases empty.
Is it better to strikeout with the bases empty or better to strikeout with runners on-base? Uggla struck out a lot, but he also got on-base at a .348 clip and led the National League in walks.
Simply put, Uggla either just can't get the job done anymore or his brain is getting in the way of him hitting.
I'm glad we discussed this. Now what's the solution to this problem? Players making $39 million over the next three seasons generally just don't go away and it is hard for other teams to want to take on that salary for a declining player through trade.
Including this year, Uggla still has three years and $39 million left on his contract. But can the Braves afford another three years of Uggla's subpar performances?
These are the deep questions only the writers of Bleacher Report are willing to discuss. Can the Braves afford to pay a player $13 million when he doesn't play well? Can ANY MLB team afford to pay a player $13 million for a subpar performance? Probably not.
While there is nobody in the farm system that is ready to take over at second should Uggla continue to struggle, there are other possibilities.
Because any time an expensive player isn't performing up to snuff, it makes more sense to bench that player and then spend money and prospects to go find another player who can play that position.
Should the opportunity present itself before the trade deadline,
"Before the trade deadline," meaning before July 31st? If the Braves are going to replace Dan Uggla why would they potentially wait until July 31st to do so? This makes not of sense.
guys like Ben Zobrist and Omar Infante could be had for the right price.
So the idea is to replace .220/.348/.384 with 19 home runs, 78 RBI's, 94 walks, and 168 strikeouts with Omar Infante who hit .274/.300/.419 with 12 home runs, 53 RBI's, 21 walks and 65 strikeouts last year? How would this improve the team exactly? Presumably the Braves can't trade Uggla, or they would have to eat a lot of his contract, but they are free to take on $4 million more for Infante who at best is only a moderate upgrade and a free agent after the season? So how is the team improved for 2014 with Uggla one year older and still on the roster next year? So Uggla gets benched and then the Braves have the same issue next year. I don't think Infante is a solution.
Ben Zobrist would be an upgrade, but he also costs $5.5 million in 2013, $7 million in 2014, and $7.5 million in 2015. It's not very likely Zobrist could be had for cheap either. Assuming the Braves could trade Uggla, they would still have to eat at the very, very least half of his contract (which I doubt they could even get a team to cover that much). That means they would be investing $39.5 million in their second base position over the next three years at the absolute least, while giving up prospects for Zobrist. Interestingly, that's how much they currently have invested in Dan Uggla except they don't have to trade any prospects to get him.
So Zobrist would be an upgrade (which I would admit) at the cost of prospects and money during a three year span when the Braves will need to try to re-sign, sign, or pay through arbitration Brian McCann, Kris Medlen, Jason Heyward, Craig Kimbrel, Freddie Freeman, Andrelton Simmons. See the issue there? Uggla stinks, but the Braves can't afford to spend more money on the second base position over the next three years and expect to keep what they consider the core of their team.
With both slated to be free agents after this year, the Braves could put a decent package together to get one of the two during the stretch run.
Again, Zobrist isn't a free agent next year. There is a team option for 2014 and 2015. To trade prospects for Zobrist and not exercise these options would be stupid in my opinion. Meanwhile Omar Infante at this point doesn't seem like an upgrade. Plus, after the Braves have benched Dan Uggla should they just turn to him to be the starter in 2014? If you bench Uggla and replace him with Omar Infante then Uggla has to be traded, right? Who plays second base in 2014 for the Braves? Don't worry, the author has a really, really stupid suggestion for 2014.
Or the Braves could send Evan Gattis down to the minors to learn how to play second base.
Worst idea ever. Non-Braves fans have no idea who Evan Gattis is. That's fine. He has an interesting back story that is irrelevant for what I am going to write here. More importantly, he is a 26 year old catcher/outfielder who stands 6'4" and weighs 230 pounds. He crushes the baseball and the Braves are desperately trying to find a way for him to make the active roster, hence the move from catcher to left field. He is not quite the defensive catcher an MLB team would look for and he probably isn't the best full-time left fielder a team would look for either. But he mashes the baseball. A move to second base over the next year is not a good idea for Evan Gattis to make. Simply put, second base is not the place for a 6'4" 230 pound ex-catcher.
While there would be a major adjustment period for Gattis,
This adjustment period potentially being "his entire Major League career." When Dan Uggla is brought in as a defensive replacement, that's never good news. The funny part is the author wants to trade for Infante or Zobrist (he never tells us what will be done with Uggla, so I assume he will very covertly be murdered in order to be removed from the Braves payroll) and then put an ex-catcher at second base. Baseball is a video game apparently.
it could be beneficial for the Braves because he's hitting .438 with two home runs and 10 RBI during spring training.
So sending a player who is hitting the cover off of the ball down to AAA to learn a new position he has never played before would be beneficial to the Braves this year? How can that be beneficial to the Braves when Gattis wouldn't even be on the active roster? I have so many questions and no answers that can satisfy my curiosity as to where this bad idea came from.
If Gattis could learn how to play second base, that would solve two problems:
If Jason Heyward could be cloned it would solve many problems as well. If Dan Uggla could find the fountain of youth that would solve a few issues. If we could teach birds to carry the heavy weight of a human being and train them to fly to a specific destination then we could rid ourselves of air travel costs. If dogs could speak then we wouldn't have to wonder why they are randomly barking at a wall. There are so many "ifs" and so few answers.
It would provide him with the opportunity to be in the lineup
So would carrying him on the roster as a backup left fielder/catcher/pinch hitter this year. Sending Gattis down to the minors to learn a new position, how exactly does this provide Gattis a chance to be in the lineup? If Uggla is struggling this year then shouldn't the idea to be to replace Uggla this year, not a year from now? There are much easier ways to get a player's bat in the lineup than send him down to the minors for a year to learn a new position. In fact, sending Gattis down to the minors is a specific effort to take his bat out of the lineup for this year when he is tearing the cover off the ball.
and it would solve the Uggla problem all in one.
No, it wouldn't solve the Uggla problem because Uggla would still be on the roster and still cost $13 million per year. Now if you have an idea on how to trade Uggla, get value for him in a trade, get most of his contract off the books and also find a quality second basemen, then that's a great suggestion. Suggesting the Braves move a 230 pound catcher to second base is not a real suggestion and this is just embarrassing for you to even suggest.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
7 comments Terence Moore Senses Another Dangerous and Horrifying Trend in Baseball
Terence Moore has never been afraid to take on the small issues and blow them up into larger issues that immediately need correcting. He has already warned our fragile nation about the unoriginality of baseball celebrations, served as a guide into a fictional past where baseball players were all iron men, and cut off all of this talk about "needing expanded replay" by stating the umpires have an impossible job in the first place so there is no need to make their job easier. Terence Moore does love certain things though. He loves Dusty Baker and he loves the idea of a team signing every aging and declining free agent on the market. Today, Terence Moore is serving as the lone light in a vast wilderness of denial. He is warning us against the "dangerous" trend of six man pitching rotations. There's no telling how many innocent lives would be saved if everyone would just read this column about this "dangerous" new trend.
Just off the top of my head I can think of some other dangerous trends in baseball.
1. Excessive sunflower seed consumption. It can cause your stomach to rupture.
2. Excessive Gatorade consumption. It's like water, but a different color from water.
3. The water that falls to the dugout floor when a player throws a cup of water over his face. Someone could fall on that water you know. Where is MLB on this issue?
4. The hot water in most MLB locker rooms is much too hot. Even when players turn the water to the point where it should be lukewarm, it comes out very hot. This is a good way to get scalded, yet no one talks about this issue.
5. Microphones that reporters use...do they cause cancer? I've never heard definitive proof they don't.
6. There are steps leading out of the dugout, but why can't teams install escalators instead? A player could fall on the steps and injure himself running out of the dugout while celebrating a victory. Escalators could allow teams to celebrate a victory (preferably with an original celebration) in an orderly fashion.
7. The lack of hand sanitizer in team locker rooms. That's an easy way to spread disease among teammates.
8. Facial hair on baseball players. What are they hiding under there?
Though I'm not a fan of the concept, I don't know if I would ever describe a six-man rotation as "dangerous," much in the same way I would call the propensity of managers to use the bunt as a "life-altering" strategy. Though there have been some times when Fredi Gonzalez has called for a player to bunt and I've lost just a little bit of my will to live.
Atlanta is just the latest team to lose its mind by going to a six-man pitching rotation. Then again, Braves manager Fredi Gonzalez said their insanity is only temporary.
This is as opposed to Fredi's insistence on not using Craig Kimbrel in a tie ball game. That appears to be permanent insanity.
They all say that, though.
I don't even know what this means. How many teams have used six-man rotations and stuck with that rotation for 50% of the season? I have no idea where to research this, but I haven't heard of any in the last 10 years. So "they all say that" seems to have no precedent or reason for being said since most teams use a six-man rotation as a temporary solution.
Then, Gonzalez said he plans to return to a conventional -- by today's standards -- five-man rotation at the end of the month, after his team finishes its current streak of playing on 20 consecutive days.
"With our situation right now at this stage of the season, and some of our health concerns -- with [Tim Hudson's] ankle and Ben Sheets, with his history the last two years [of elbow problems], he hasn't really pitched -- we're going to do it," Gonzalez told reporters on Monday at Turner Field. His reasoning was logical, but only to a point.
Logic? You know Terence Moore doesn't respond to logic. Use some ill-conceived reasoning and maybe Terence Moore can accept your point of view. Even then Terence will punch you in the stomach until you admit Ken Griffey Jr is the greatest player the game of baseball has ever seen and Dusty Baker is a managerial genius.
Here's the biggest point: Six-man rotations aren't good.
Here's my biggest point: This is a stupid, stupid point. This is pretty much Moore saying "because" when asked why he doesn't like six-man rotations. To use the reasoning that six-man rotations "aren't good" as his biggest point is an incredibly juvenile and amateurish way of defending his position.
They ruin the timing of starting pitchers who normally rest four days between starts.
I can accept this reasoning. Sometimes starting pitchers don't care if their timing is interrupted, sometimes they do. This doesn't make six-man rotations inherently bad, especially because they are used as a temporary solution.
They don't allow your ace to pitch as often as he normally would.
The Braves don't have an ace pitcher. All of their starters are equally average. If Terence is going to specifically bring up the Braves as a team that should not use a six-man rotation he should probably also mention this concern doesn't apply to the Braves.
They force you to choose between playing with either one less reliever or one guy on the bench.
OMG! Really? It will force the manager to (gulps) manage the team? If Fredi Gonazalez had known a six-man rotation was effectively a way to sneakily force him to do his job well then he would have never agreed to it. Why would a manager want to put himself in a position where he has to manage his team and make decisions that affect the team?
And, for all we know, they could be the reason for that hole in the ozone.
Don't be snarky because you don't have any other good reasoning as to why you don't like six-man rotations. You are the one who refers to six-man rotations as "dangerous" in the column title, so you are pretty much making fun of yourself with this snark.
Gonzalez is going with a six-man rotation anyway.
Staring the danger directly in the face, Fredi Gonzalez chooses to face down this danger, while also being absolutely sure not to use his closer in a tie ball game in order to chase saves.
In addition to the combination of that 20-game stretch and pitchers healing from injuries, Gonzalez has the Kris Medlen dilemma. Medlen has operated mostly out of the bullpen during his career with the Braves, but the team has won 16 of his last 17 starts, and that includes his 2-0 record with a 1.62 ERA in three starts this season.
So why can't a good argument to go to a six-man rotation be made? The guy who would pitch out of the bullpen is currently pitching the best, there are two pitchers with injury issues in the rotation, along with Ben Sheets, who could conceivably have his arm fall off at any point in the near future.
This also is typical in sports, where you get one team enamored with a newfangled strategy, and then a bunch of teams follow.
It's also a product of teams finding another way to rest pitchers without putting that pitcher on the disabled list. A six-man rotation will probably always be a temporary solution in baseball. It makes sense in certain situations and for certain teams. I don't get how it is dangerous. When did exactly four days off become the optimal time a pitcher needs to rest between starts? Baseball writers freak out when a pitcher pitches on short rest and then freak out when a pitcher pitches on long rest. Pitchers are capable of pitching effectively on short or long rest over a short period of time.
Then they all become sheep, either on the way to grazing in postseason glory, or dropping over the cliff with the rest of the herd.
Which are pretty much the only two options for a baseball team. They either make the playoffs or don't make the playoffs.
There was the debut of the "point forward," which came out of nowhere in the NBA during the early 1980s out of necessity.
There was also "New Coke" and what a disaster that was, huh? Change is always bad.
Milwaukee Bucks coach Don Nelson watched starting point guard Nate Archibald pull a hamstring before a playoff game, and Nelson adjusted by telling forward Marques Johnson to bring the ball up the court. The point ... well, you get it.
The point being that Don Nelson found a way to innovate the game of basketball and this change can still be seen in the game of basketball today? That Don Nelson thought outside the box and the result was basketball coaches had another strategy they could use to take advantage of the talent on their roster?
I'm failing to see how the advent of the "point forward" was a bad innovation for the game of basketball.
So did everybody else, because the concept spread beyond Cheesehead Country, and it remains prevalent today through somebody named LeBron James.
This was another failed attempt to institute a dangerous new trend into the game of basketball. Thank God this trend was stopped befor---wait, you mean Don Nelson innovated a trend that is still around in the NBA? Then why is Terence Moore using this example as further proof the six-man rotation used by a handful of teams is dangerous and just "aren't good"? If the point forward is comparable to a six-man rotation then wouldn't that mean using a six-man rotation is an effective managerial strategy?
That's a great question I just asked myself and I can't provide the answer to myself. Why does Terence Moore use the point forward as an example of a trend in sports which wasn't good for the sport? I'm guessing it's because he's insane. After all, only an insane person would write an entire column about how baseball celebrations need to be more original and in another column call an umpire's job impossible, while using this as reasoning to not institute expanded replay in baseball.
In 1976, the Oakland Raiders kept losing defensive linemen, so they began to depend heavily on a 3-4 defense, with three defensive linemen and four linebackers instead of the NFL standard at the time of four linemen and three linebackers.
Now baseball has its version of the point forward, the 3-4 defense and the rest with its growing number of six-man rotations.
And it's dangerous people! Have you seen the movie "Cloverfield?" Remember the monster that destroyed New York City? That's the six-man rotation. Do you remember the little monsters the big monster spawned? That is the other teams in MLB using the six-man rotation just waiting to attack you on the subway tracks. If we aren't all careful, we are going to end up stuck under a bridge with a video camera as the six-man rotation stares at us menacingly before it kills us all. Terence Moore is just trying to prevent this from happening.
The Chicago White Sox just had one of them, and it looked like a highly questionable one after All-Star pitcher Chris Sale spent a 4-2 victory last week against the Kansas City Royals striking out seven without issuing a walk during his eight innings.
This is brilliantly bad writing. Terence wants us to assume the six-man rotation is inherently bad. If Chris Sale pitches poorly on five days rest then this is proof the six-man rotation threw off Sale's timing. It turns out Chris Sale pitched well after five days rest, but this isn't proof a six-man rotation could work, this is proof the six-man rotation is holding Chris Sale back from pitching well more often. It's Easterbrookian logic.
White Sox manager Robin Ventura suggested this week to inquiring minds that his six-man rotation is deader than Sale's left arm was near the end of July. He attributed his six-man strategy to Sale needing rest, along with veteran Jake Peavy and rookie Jose Quintana.
Because a six-man rotation is temporary for MLB teams. It is not intended to be permanent. Also notice how Terence Moore has just helped to submarine his own earlier comment in this column,
Atlanta is just the latest team to lose its mind by going to a six-man pitching rotation. Then again, Braves manager Fredi Gonzalez said their insanity is only temporary.
Even Pirates ace A.J. Burnett has been affected by the six-man rotation. He is the only one of the Bucs' six starters who has been treated like "Where's Waldo?" That's because Pittsburgh has moved Burnett around the rotation so he can maintain his normal amount of rest between starts, but it hasn't worked.
So even though Burnett is pitching on normal rest and isn't part of the six-man rotation the very idea his teammates are pitching in a six-man rotation is causing Burnett to pitch poorly. Is this what we are to believe?
After going 7-0 and having the Pirates finish 10-0 overall in his home starts this season, Burnett was pounded last weekend at PNC Park by the San Diego Padres during a 5-0 loss.
It sounds like the Pirates may have had a better chance to win this game if the offense had scored even one run. I guess that's Burnett's fault for not pitching to the score.
I don't get how if Burnett is pitching on four days rest that the six-man rotation messed with Burnett's timing. Nothing changed, so how could he have been thrown off? It's almost like Terence is just making shit up as he writes.
Just saying.
Terence is just saying that even though A.J. Burnett is pitching on normal rest the fact he got pounded on normal rest is proof a six-man rotation is dangerous. If Burnett had gotten pounded working on five days rest this would have been also used as proof a six-man rotation is dangerous.
I'm not a fan of six-man rotations, but there has to be a better argument than Terence Moore's attempts to prove his point with arguments like "just saying" and "six-man rotations aren't good." Of course, Terence also used strategic innovations which improved the NBA and NFL as reasons why a six-man rotation would never work. So it is possible he is losing grip on reality. I would do a celebration, but I'm sure Terence would find it unoriginal.
Just off the top of my head I can think of some other dangerous trends in baseball.
1. Excessive sunflower seed consumption. It can cause your stomach to rupture.
2. Excessive Gatorade consumption. It's like water, but a different color from water.
3. The water that falls to the dugout floor when a player throws a cup of water over his face. Someone could fall on that water you know. Where is MLB on this issue?
4. The hot water in most MLB locker rooms is much too hot. Even when players turn the water to the point where it should be lukewarm, it comes out very hot. This is a good way to get scalded, yet no one talks about this issue.
5. Microphones that reporters use...do they cause cancer? I've never heard definitive proof they don't.
6. There are steps leading out of the dugout, but why can't teams install escalators instead? A player could fall on the steps and injure himself running out of the dugout while celebrating a victory. Escalators could allow teams to celebrate a victory (preferably with an original celebration) in an orderly fashion.
7. The lack of hand sanitizer in team locker rooms. That's an easy way to spread disease among teammates.
8. Facial hair on baseball players. What are they hiding under there?
Though I'm not a fan of the concept, I don't know if I would ever describe a six-man rotation as "dangerous," much in the same way I would call the propensity of managers to use the bunt as a "life-altering" strategy. Though there have been some times when Fredi Gonzalez has called for a player to bunt and I've lost just a little bit of my will to live.
Atlanta is just the latest team to lose its mind by going to a six-man pitching rotation. Then again, Braves manager Fredi Gonzalez said their insanity is only temporary.
This is as opposed to Fredi's insistence on not using Craig Kimbrel in a tie ball game. That appears to be permanent insanity.
They all say that, though.
I don't even know what this means. How many teams have used six-man rotations and stuck with that rotation for 50% of the season? I have no idea where to research this, but I haven't heard of any in the last 10 years. So "they all say that" seems to have no precedent or reason for being said since most teams use a six-man rotation as a temporary solution.
Then, Gonzalez said he plans to return to a conventional -- by today's standards -- five-man rotation at the end of the month, after his team finishes its current streak of playing on 20 consecutive days.
"With our situation right now at this stage of the season, and some of our health concerns -- with [Tim Hudson's] ankle and Ben Sheets, with his history the last two years [of elbow problems], he hasn't really pitched -- we're going to do it," Gonzalez told reporters on Monday at Turner Field. His reasoning was logical, but only to a point.
Logic? You know Terence Moore doesn't respond to logic. Use some ill-conceived reasoning and maybe Terence Moore can accept your point of view. Even then Terence will punch you in the stomach until you admit Ken Griffey Jr is the greatest player the game of baseball has ever seen and Dusty Baker is a managerial genius.
Here's the biggest point: Six-man rotations aren't good.
Here's my biggest point: This is a stupid, stupid point. This is pretty much Moore saying "because" when asked why he doesn't like six-man rotations. To use the reasoning that six-man rotations "aren't good" as his biggest point is an incredibly juvenile and amateurish way of defending his position.
They ruin the timing of starting pitchers who normally rest four days between starts.
I can accept this reasoning. Sometimes starting pitchers don't care if their timing is interrupted, sometimes they do. This doesn't make six-man rotations inherently bad, especially because they are used as a temporary solution.
They don't allow your ace to pitch as often as he normally would.
The Braves don't have an ace pitcher. All of their starters are equally average. If Terence is going to specifically bring up the Braves as a team that should not use a six-man rotation he should probably also mention this concern doesn't apply to the Braves.
They force you to choose between playing with either one less reliever or one guy on the bench.
OMG! Really? It will force the manager to (gulps) manage the team? If Fredi Gonazalez had known a six-man rotation was effectively a way to sneakily force him to do his job well then he would have never agreed to it. Why would a manager want to put himself in a position where he has to manage his team and make decisions that affect the team?
And, for all we know, they could be the reason for that hole in the ozone.
Don't be snarky because you don't have any other good reasoning as to why you don't like six-man rotations. You are the one who refers to six-man rotations as "dangerous" in the column title, so you are pretty much making fun of yourself with this snark.
Gonzalez is going with a six-man rotation anyway.
Staring the danger directly in the face, Fredi Gonzalez chooses to face down this danger, while also being absolutely sure not to use his closer in a tie ball game in order to chase saves.
In addition to the combination of that 20-game stretch and pitchers healing from injuries, Gonzalez has the Kris Medlen dilemma. Medlen has operated mostly out of the bullpen during his career with the Braves, but the team has won 16 of his last 17 starts, and that includes his 2-0 record with a 1.62 ERA in three starts this season.
So why can't a good argument to go to a six-man rotation be made? The guy who would pitch out of the bullpen is currently pitching the best, there are two pitchers with injury issues in the rotation, along with Ben Sheets, who could conceivably have his arm fall off at any point in the near future.
This also is typical in sports, where you get one team enamored with a newfangled strategy, and then a bunch of teams follow.
It's also a product of teams finding another way to rest pitchers without putting that pitcher on the disabled list. A six-man rotation will probably always be a temporary solution in baseball. It makes sense in certain situations and for certain teams. I don't get how it is dangerous. When did exactly four days off become the optimal time a pitcher needs to rest between starts? Baseball writers freak out when a pitcher pitches on short rest and then freak out when a pitcher pitches on long rest. Pitchers are capable of pitching effectively on short or long rest over a short period of time.
Then they all become sheep, either on the way to grazing in postseason glory, or dropping over the cliff with the rest of the herd.
Which are pretty much the only two options for a baseball team. They either make the playoffs or don't make the playoffs.
There was the debut of the "point forward," which came out of nowhere in the NBA during the early 1980s out of necessity.
There was also "New Coke" and what a disaster that was, huh? Change is always bad.
Milwaukee Bucks coach Don Nelson watched starting point guard Nate Archibald pull a hamstring before a playoff game, and Nelson adjusted by telling forward Marques Johnson to bring the ball up the court. The point ... well, you get it.
The point being that Don Nelson found a way to innovate the game of basketball and this change can still be seen in the game of basketball today? That Don Nelson thought outside the box and the result was basketball coaches had another strategy they could use to take advantage of the talent on their roster?
I'm failing to see how the advent of the "point forward" was a bad innovation for the game of basketball.
So did everybody else, because the concept spread beyond Cheesehead Country, and it remains prevalent today through somebody named LeBron James.
This was another failed attempt to institute a dangerous new trend into the game of basketball. Thank God this trend was stopped befor---wait, you mean Don Nelson innovated a trend that is still around in the NBA? Then why is Terence Moore using this example as further proof the six-man rotation used by a handful of teams is dangerous and just "aren't good"? If the point forward is comparable to a six-man rotation then wouldn't that mean using a six-man rotation is an effective managerial strategy?
That's a great question I just asked myself and I can't provide the answer to myself. Why does Terence Moore use the point forward as an example of a trend in sports which wasn't good for the sport? I'm guessing it's because he's insane. After all, only an insane person would write an entire column about how baseball celebrations need to be more original and in another column call an umpire's job impossible, while using this as reasoning to not institute expanded replay in baseball.
In 1976, the Oakland Raiders kept losing defensive linemen, so they began to depend heavily on a 3-4 defense, with three defensive linemen and four linebackers instead of the NFL standard at the time of four linemen and three linebackers.
The Raiders eventually won the Super Bowl.
The 3-4 defense. Another dangerous trend in the NFL, which ultimately led to this defense still being used in the NFL 36 years later. Again, I just have to ask....why is Terence Moore using examples of trends in sports that turned out to last and help innovate the way the game is played as a reason why six-man rotations are bad? Is this some mind-game he is playing with me? Is he using reverse-reverse psychology? Why do I feel like he is watching every move I make? If Terence Moore really is insane, is HE the one that is dangerous? Is "six-man rotation" when used in the title just a code word for "Terence Moore?" Is Terence trying to tell us that he is slowly going insane and losing his grip on reality? There's a chance this column is actually titled "Terence Moore is becoming dangerous."Now baseball has its version of the point forward, the 3-4 defense and the rest with its growing number of six-man rotations.
And it's dangerous people! Have you seen the movie "Cloverfield?" Remember the monster that destroyed New York City? That's the six-man rotation. Do you remember the little monsters the big monster spawned? That is the other teams in MLB using the six-man rotation just waiting to attack you on the subway tracks. If we aren't all careful, we are going to end up stuck under a bridge with a video camera as the six-man rotation stares at us menacingly before it kills us all. Terence Moore is just trying to prevent this from happening.
The Chicago White Sox just had one of them, and it looked like a highly questionable one after All-Star pitcher Chris Sale spent a 4-2 victory last week against the Kansas City Royals striking out seven without issuing a walk during his eight innings.
This is brilliantly bad writing. Terence wants us to assume the six-man rotation is inherently bad. If Chris Sale pitches poorly on five days rest then this is proof the six-man rotation threw off Sale's timing. It turns out Chris Sale pitched well after five days rest, but this isn't proof a six-man rotation could work, this is proof the six-man rotation is holding Chris Sale back from pitching well more often. It's Easterbrookian logic.
Not coincidentally, the White Sox proceeded to acquire former Minnesota Twins ace Francisco Liriano, which accelerated their move to their six-man rotation. But then came Sale's gem against the Royals, along with questions about when he would pitch again in the six-man staff.
I'm reading the tea leaves here and saying Sale will pitch again in five days.White Sox manager Robin Ventura suggested this week to inquiring minds that his six-man rotation is deader than Sale's left arm was near the end of July. He attributed his six-man strategy to Sale needing rest, along with veteran Jake Peavy and rookie Jose Quintana.
Because a six-man rotation is temporary for MLB teams. It is not intended to be permanent. Also notice how Terence Moore has just helped to submarine his own earlier comment in this column,
Atlanta is just the latest team to lose its mind by going to a six-man pitching rotation. Then again, Braves manager Fredi Gonzalez said their insanity is only temporary.
They all say that, though.
By saying "they all say that, though" in reference to the six-man rotation being temporary, Terence is suggesting once teams go to a six-man rotation they never switch back to a five-man rotation. Yet, later in this column Terence gives the example of the White Sox as a team that used a six-man rotation and eventually switched back to a five-man rotation. So they don't all say that and nearly all teams who go to a six-man rotation eventually move back to a five-man rotation. There aren't simply enough quality starters in the majors to put a six-man rotation together over an entire season. Way to ruin your own comment, Terence.Even Pirates ace A.J. Burnett has been affected by the six-man rotation. He is the only one of the Bucs' six starters who has been treated like "Where's Waldo?" That's because Pittsburgh has moved Burnett around the rotation so he can maintain his normal amount of rest between starts, but it hasn't worked.
So even though Burnett is pitching on normal rest and isn't part of the six-man rotation the very idea his teammates are pitching in a six-man rotation is causing Burnett to pitch poorly. Is this what we are to believe?
After going 7-0 and having the Pirates finish 10-0 overall in his home starts this season, Burnett was pounded last weekend at PNC Park by the San Diego Padres during a 5-0 loss.
It sounds like the Pirates may have had a better chance to win this game if the offense had scored even one run. I guess that's Burnett's fault for not pitching to the score.
I don't get how if Burnett is pitching on four days rest that the six-man rotation messed with Burnett's timing. Nothing changed, so how could he have been thrown off? It's almost like Terence is just making shit up as he writes.
Just saying.
Terence is just saying that even though A.J. Burnett is pitching on normal rest the fact he got pounded on normal rest is proof a six-man rotation is dangerous. If Burnett had gotten pounded working on five days rest this would have been also used as proof a six-man rotation is dangerous.
I'm not a fan of six-man rotations, but there has to be a better argument than Terence Moore's attempts to prove his point with arguments like "just saying" and "six-man rotations aren't good." Of course, Terence also used strategic innovations which improved the NBA and NFL as reasons why a six-man rotation would never work. So it is possible he is losing grip on reality. I would do a celebration, but I'm sure Terence would find it unoriginal.
Monday, October 3, 2011
10 comments Since It Didn't Suck Enough Live, Let's Review Some Choking with a Bill Simmons Running Diary
So we all understand the baseball games Wednesday night were awesome and shitty at the same time. There was one guarantee coming out of this though. Win or lose, Bill Simmons would do a running diary or a column about, not the baseball games that night, but the Red Sox game that night. That's really the only way the "Sports Guy" will actually talk about baseball. The "Boston Sports Guy" will talk sports in the realm of how it affects the Red Sox. There is no pennant race if the Red Sox aren't in it. Think I'm full of shit? Last year was a great example. There was no pennant race column because the Red Sox weren't in a race for a playoff spot. It's Bill's column so he can do whatever he wants, but baseball is slowly becoming like hockey for Bill. It's only talked about in the context of his favorite team and if his team isn't in the playoffs, he ignores the sport completely. So that leaves us with a running diary of Wednesday night, which will probably be the last mention of baseball from Bill Simmons this year.
Before we get to Bill...how great was this? Dan Shaughnessy, you have failed. Look for him to write a book about this and then put some more rouge on those rosy cheeks of his for television interviews about the new fake curse he created.
One other thing, one part of this post on the Big Lead sort of irritated me.
The Phillies eventually took care of business in the 13th inning. The bright side? Does this unfortunate turn of events really bother anyone in Atlanta? The answer is most likely no, which is exactly why you aren’t cackling at them nearly as much.
Simply because Braves fans aren't yelling annoyingly loud, have widely known sportswriters putting it in everyone's heads how above everyone else our fan base is, and aren't located in Northeast doesn't mean Braves fans don't care. We do, even if the shitty fans actually living in Atlanta can't seem to show up for games. So yes, the unfortunate turn of events really does bother people in Atlanta. Maybe one day Braves fans will get their very own loudmouth sportswriters to get in the public eye and skew the public's opinion of the team to obnoxiously reinforce the idea we care, but I hope that day never comes.
I was paying for groceries in Los Angeles while wearing my trusty Tim Wakefield no. 49 T-shirt jersey. From behind me, I heard a raspy, older, female voice ask me, "You guys gonna win today?"
I turned around. The voice belonged to Amy Madigan, the actress who played Kevin Costner's wife in Field of Dreams.
First off, this is yet again another story Bill tells us to convey the idea he lives in Hollywood and rubs shoulders with celebrities all the time. If this hasn't been made clear enough at this point then you haven't read any other column/mailbag Bill has written where he name-drops celebrities or "insider" celebrity stories as much as possible.
Second, I am not sure I believe this story. It just seems too perfect for him to run into the lead actress from "Field of Dreams."
"Who's pitching?" she asked.
Well of course she thought this was funny! Bill is a really funny guy and he has celebrities who laugh at him as proof of this. Bill HAS to add that she thought this was funny, because he always wants his readers to know he is the funniest, most clever guy in the room at all times. Bill's ego will have it no other way. So despite the fact whether she thought of this comment is funny or not is relevant to the story (which it isn't and he made a similar joke on Twitter that same day), he has to add this in to the story so people who read his column know that a celebrity thinks Bill Simmons is funny. It basically just reinforces how funny Bill already knows he is.
That's what you do when your baseball season is falling apart: you search for signs … any signs, anything that means anything.
No, this is what you do when you don't have a real job and have time to think of this shit. Everyone else goes home, eats with their family and then watches baseball games hoping their team wins quickly enough so they can get some sleep and won't wake up tired.
The Red Sox hit that point about two weeks ago, midway through their improbable swoon, as they kept trotting out the Lackeys, Wakefields and Weilands with everyone thinking, "Wait, we don't have ANY other options?"
Do you know what other teams were thinking this? Every other team in Major League Baseball, except the options these teams didn't like were mostly retreads or rookies and not high-priced free agent acquisitions and 200 game winners. I do understand Wakefield and Lackey pitched poorly, but let's get some perspective.
As a fan of the Braves, a team that had a rotation comprised of three rookie pitchers during the month of September it is hard to feel sorry for Bill that Lackey and Wakefield were in the rotation. The Braves had their own John Lackey and his name was Derek Lowe and he was the #2 starter. It's just one of those things some teams have to deal with, having crappy guys in the rotation. Bill needs to drop the pity-party about the starting rotation. I understand the Red Sox had injuries, but nearly every MLB team (outside of the Phillies) doesn't completely love their rotation during the month of September.
It's been a surreal month for Red Sox fans: Our pre-2004 DNA told us to react the way we always did (total panic, woe-is-us complex, the whole thing); our post-2007 DNA told us, "You won twice, keep it in perspective, this isn't life or death, other teams have it worse";
Guess which DNA won for Bill? That would be 2004-DNA.
our sports-fan DNA told us, "You just spent the past six months watching a team that's probably going to kick you in the teeth … hard. It's coming."
Yeah but every single MLB team kicks their fan base in the teeth at some point during the season, except for the eventual World Series champion. I think it is safe to assume the fans of the World Series champion don't feel like they have been kicked in the teeth at the end of the season.
When Bill wrote this column it sure didn't feel like he was prepared to be kicked in teeth. This was a pretty tough collapse to handle, I will give him that, but if Bill paid attention to the rest of the playoffs this year he would see seven other fan bases about to be kicked in the teeth as well.
I ended up at my friend Daniel's house to watch Sox-Orioles and Rays-Yankees. And yes, I kept a running diary. Here's what transpired.
Having gone through the Scott Proctor Experience this year to the tune of a 6.44 ERA and 1.71 WHIP with the Braves, I have sympathy. He gave the Yankees a 9.00 ERA and 2.82 WHIP, which brings me to the question of "Why the hell Scott Proctor still has a job in the majors?"
At this point in the game, it would have been better to skip Proctor entirely and then throw in a utility guy or Jorge Posada (what the hell else does he have to do? Can he go from DH to pitcher? I should check the rulebook on that) to pitch for the Yankees. He could not be any worse than Scott Proctor has been since 2008. Proctor's arm injuries were a sign that he refused to heed. The sign was telling him he needs to take all the money he made in baseball and go find another career. He didn't listen and the Red Sox suffered.
By the way, Scott Proctor has pissed off three franchises this season. Atlanta, New York and Boston. What else can be expected of him? That's what he does. The best part is the playoffs aren't over. Somehow, I bet he manages to piss off a fourth team.
I apologize for the rant, I’m still scarred by the Scott Proctor Experience.
Before we get to Bill...how great was this? Dan Shaughnessy, you have failed. Look for him to write a book about this and then put some more rouge on those rosy cheeks of his for television interviews about the new fake curse he created.
One other thing, one part of this post on the Big Lead sort of irritated me.
The Phillies eventually took care of business in the 13th inning. The bright side? Does this unfortunate turn of events really bother anyone in Atlanta? The answer is most likely no, which is exactly why you aren’t cackling at them nearly as much.
Simply because Braves fans aren't yelling annoyingly loud, have widely known sportswriters putting it in everyone's heads how above everyone else our fan base is, and aren't located in Northeast doesn't mean Braves fans don't care. We do, even if the shitty fans actually living in Atlanta can't seem to show up for games. So yes, the unfortunate turn of events really does bother people in Atlanta. Maybe one day Braves fans will get their very own loudmouth sportswriters to get in the public eye and skew the public's opinion of the team to obnoxiously reinforce the idea we care, but I hope that day never comes.
I was paying for groceries in Los Angeles while wearing my trusty Tim Wakefield no. 49 T-shirt jersey. From behind me, I heard a raspy, older, female voice ask me, "You guys gonna win today?"
I turned around. The voice belonged to Amy Madigan, the actress who played Kevin Costner's wife in Field of Dreams.
First off, this is yet again another story Bill tells us to convey the idea he lives in Hollywood and rubs shoulders with celebrities all the time. If this hasn't been made clear enough at this point then you haven't read any other column/mailbag Bill has written where he name-drops celebrities or "insider" celebrity stories as much as possible.
Second, I am not sure I believe this story. It just seems too perfect for him to run into the lead actress from "Field of Dreams."
"Who's pitching?" she asked.
"Lester today. Tomorrow, I don't know. Might be Kevin Costner."
She thought this was funny.Well of course she thought this was funny! Bill is a really funny guy and he has celebrities who laugh at him as proof of this. Bill HAS to add that she thought this was funny, because he always wants his readers to know he is the funniest, most clever guy in the room at all times. Bill's ego will have it no other way. So despite the fact whether she thought of this comment is funny or not is relevant to the story (which it isn't and he made a similar joke on Twitter that same day), he has to add this in to the story so people who read his column know that a celebrity thinks Bill Simmons is funny. It basically just reinforces how funny Bill already knows he is.
That's what you do when your baseball season is falling apart: you search for signs … any signs, anything that means anything.
No, this is what you do when you don't have a real job and have time to think of this shit. Everyone else goes home, eats with their family and then watches baseball games hoping their team wins quickly enough so they can get some sleep and won't wake up tired.
The Red Sox hit that point about two weeks ago, midway through their improbable swoon, as they kept trotting out the Lackeys, Wakefields and Weilands with everyone thinking, "Wait, we don't have ANY other options?"
Do you know what other teams were thinking this? Every other team in Major League Baseball, except the options these teams didn't like were mostly retreads or rookies and not high-priced free agent acquisitions and 200 game winners. I do understand Wakefield and Lackey pitched poorly, but let's get some perspective.
As a fan of the Braves, a team that had a rotation comprised of three rookie pitchers during the month of September it is hard to feel sorry for Bill that Lackey and Wakefield were in the rotation. The Braves had their own John Lackey and his name was Derek Lowe and he was the #2 starter. It's just one of those things some teams have to deal with, having crappy guys in the rotation. Bill needs to drop the pity-party about the starting rotation. I understand the Red Sox had injuries, but nearly every MLB team (outside of the Phillies) doesn't completely love their rotation during the month of September.
It's been a surreal month for Red Sox fans: Our pre-2004 DNA told us to react the way we always did (total panic, woe-is-us complex, the whole thing); our post-2007 DNA told us, "You won twice, keep it in perspective, this isn't life or death, other teams have it worse";
Guess which DNA won for Bill? That would be 2004-DNA.
our sports-fan DNA told us, "You just spent the past six months watching a team that's probably going to kick you in the teeth … hard. It's coming."
Yeah but every single MLB team kicks their fan base in the teeth at some point during the season, except for the eventual World Series champion. I think it is safe to assume the fans of the World Series champion don't feel like they have been kicked in the teeth at the end of the season.
When Bill wrote this column it sure didn't feel like he was prepared to be kicked in teeth. This was a pretty tough collapse to handle, I will give him that, but if Bill paid attention to the rest of the playoffs this year he would see seven other fan bases about to be kicked in the teeth as well.
I ended up at my friend Daniel's house to watch Sox-Orioles and Rays-Yankees. And yes, I kept a running diary. Here's what transpired.
Madness is what transpired! Pure madness!
4:02 — A month ago, Ryan Lavarnway was in Triple-A. As recently as 48 hours ago, he wasn't playing. Today, in Game 162, with a playoff spot on the line? He's catching and batting fifth. Somehow, I'm fine with this. I can't think of anyone else I'd bat fifth. Welcome to the 2011 Red Sox season.
Lavarnway wasn't good at all, but the Red Sox still had two MVP candidates in the lineup. Let's keep this in mind.
4:07 — As the camera pans the Red Sox players standing for the national anthem, we see one blond-haired guy, and Daniel says, "Who's that?" Neither of us have any idea. Again, welcome to the 2011 Red Sox season.
Bill’s ignorance of who this blond-haired guy may be is not an indication that he doesn’t follow the Red Sox closely enough, but is a sign this player is irrelevant and probably not good at baseball. Once again, if Bill Simmons doesn’t know of you, then that makes you irrelevant to the world as a whole. Bill’s ignorance of a topic speaks to the irrelevance of that topic and is never a reflection on Bill’s own ignorance nor a reflection on how this ignorance on Bill's part is his own fault.
By the way, if you had explained to me as recently as 10 years ago that I'd be living in California and rooting for the Yankees on an iPad, I would have assumed that I was on the lam for a crime and doing whatever it took to survive.
Then Bill would say, “So I am living in California? Does this mean I know celebrities on a first name basis? If so, who are they?”
4:22 — Red Sox killer Robert Andino leads off for the Orioles as Daniel hisses, "That's just an eff you move by Showalter." Lester strikes him out. I've had Andino on my AL Keeper Team all season — he's a homeless man's Ben Zobrist. There's no better candidate to ruin the 2011 Red Sox season and join the Bucky Dent/Enos Slaughter/Aaron Boone group. He's the odds-on favorite.
There is no way, okay maybe there is a 10% chance, that Bill really wrote Robert Andino was the odds-on favorite to ruin the 2011 Red Sox season. He most likely wrote this in after the running diary was finished in order to make himself look smart. I see this simply because Bill probably only knows Andino from his AL Keeper Team and probably hasn’t paid very much attention to him this year. Just like I believe Bill writes some of the mailbag questions himself, I also believe he will go back and edit his running diaries to take out predictions or comments that make him sound stupid and replaces them with comments that make him look smarter.
That’s really one of the big drawbacks of a running diary. You have to trust your author not to edit too much of what he says in order to get some authenticity out of it. Otherwise, the author can make himself sound really smart if he wants to.
4:25 — J.J. Hardy's surprisingly good season (30 homers) inadvertently inspires Daniel and me to discuss whether we'd take HGH if we were baseball players. I decide that I wouldn't take it until I started slipping in my mid-30s, and then I'd start popping them like Pez.
This is awkward then. Bill, you are past your mid-30s and you have been slipping for a few years now. Better start retroactively popping them like Pez.
4:41 — Lester gets a long fly ball out from Baltimore's Secretly Scary Guy (Matt Wieters),
It’s not really a secret that Wieters is a scary guy. He’s a 25 year old catcher who hit .262/.328/.450 with 22 home runs and 68 RBI’s and it feels like he struggled to get those numbers. Basically, his ability is a lot higher than his numbers currently reflect.
then gives up an infield single to Baltimore's Openly Scary Guy (Adam Jones)
You mean the guy who hit .280/.319/.466 with 25 home runs and 83 RBI’s this year? It sure seems like the openly scary guy and the secretly scary guy have similar numbers. I wonder why one is secretly scary while the other is openly scary? I’m guessing it is because Bill just chooses to label them this way based on the three Orioles games he watched this year.
I feel as bad for Crawford as you can feel for someone who's worth nine figures…I still feel like Crawford could redeem himself someday — maybe even during these next five weeks. I'm rooting for him.
(Please, Lord, don't let that paragraph be thrown back in my face.)
And what do you know? This paragraph got thrown back in Bill’s face when Crawford couldn’t catch a fly ball at the end of the game. It’s almost like Bill wrote that last sentence in parenthesis AFTER the game was over. He’d never do that though, would he?
4:49 — Back-to-back singles by Ellsbury and Pedroia. 1-0, Red Sox, nobody out, David Ortiz up. Semirelated: I wish Ortiz named his different beards with monikers like "Insignia" and "Macarena." For tonight he shaved his mustache, shaved the left and right sides over his chin, but kept every other part of the beard and connected the soul patch to it. It would have been so much easier if I could have just told you, "Tonight Ortiz is wearing Insignia," right?
I try to be fair. I think this is a pretty good idea.
God forbid Lester or Beckett have one "Come on, fellas, everyone get on my back!" start these last three weeks.
These two guys did look pretty terrible over the last three weeks. Perhaps, and I am just eyeballing this, the reason the Red Sox struggled down the stretch isn’t because of Terry Francona (the horror he may not be at fault) and could be because few of the Red Sox pitchers pitched well during that time?
I know! It’s crazy to think about, but what if the players got most of the blame instead of Theo Epstein or Terry Francona?
5:22 — If you're looking for a guy to end innings by getting thrown out by three steps on bizarrely timed steals of second base, look no further than Mike Aviles. The good news: It's still 5-0 in Tampa.
The Red Sox got a .317/.340/.436 line out of Aviles (he hit .222/.261/.395 in Kansas City) and Bill isn’t happy because Aviles got caught stealing twice in six attempts. This further proves that Bill has no shame and will complain about any player on the Red Sox team even based on one play.
And is anyone more unstoppable than Mark Teixeira in Game 162, when the Yanks clinched the division a week ago?
I laughed at this. Bill has a point, even if he doesn’t know it. I got to watch Tex for a full year in Atlanta and he seemed like he was great at hitting the home run that put his team up 4-1 when it was already a 3-1 game (Of course, I would have loved for a Braves player to put the Braves up 4-1 Wednesday night, but that would ruin my point that Tex isn’t clutch so please don’t point this out). Tex is the best second-best player on a team in the majors. He’ll never be “the guy” on a great team, but he will always be the best second-best player on a great team.
Does it seem like a cheap shot to mention Tex's career line in the playoffs is .214/.320/.330 with 26 strikeouts in 122 plate appearances? I know this is a small sample size, but I feel like he gets off easy sometimes when discussing players who need to step up in the playoffs.
6:05 — I always love hearing the kicking Boston accents during the local NESN commercials (like the creepy Jordan's Furniture guy just now). It's too bad you can't pick the accents for commercials the same way you can manipulate the SAP button. I'd go with "Rhode Island" and maybe even blend "Chicago" in there every few weeks to mix it up.
Again, not a terrible joke. Bill's sort of on a roll. I’m a tough critic, but I would love this SAP-type button on my remote.
6:15 — Either Lester (87 pitches) just pitched around Wieters, or he can't find the plate anymore. Third and first, two outs, Adam Jones up. This goes beyond tense. Lester is laboring. Everyone on the Red Sox looks like a college kid whose girlfriend just told him, "We have to talk, I did something dumb last night."
And we’re back to typical Bill Simmons throwing out analogies that “speak to the average sports fan,” but are also vaguely sexist. Assuming "the average sports fan" dated a woman who cheated on him during college because she’s like most women and just a super huge whore.
7:18 — Bases loaded, no outs, Yankees winning by six, bottom of the eighth, Michael Kay saying, "The Yankees have used nine pitchers tonight, there's really nobody else available other than Scott Proctor,"Having gone through the Scott Proctor Experience this year to the tune of a 6.44 ERA and 1.71 WHIP with the Braves, I have sympathy. He gave the Yankees a 9.00 ERA and 2.82 WHIP, which brings me to the question of "Why the hell Scott Proctor still has a job in the majors?"
At this point in the game, it would have been better to skip Proctor entirely and then throw in a utility guy or Jorge Posada (what the hell else does he have to do? Can he go from DH to pitcher? I should check the rulebook on that) to pitch for the Yankees. He could not be any worse than Scott Proctor has been since 2008. Proctor's arm injuries were a sign that he refused to heed. The sign was telling him he needs to take all the money he made in baseball and go find another career. He didn't listen and the Red Sox suffered.
By the way, Scott Proctor has pissed off three franchises this season. Atlanta, New York and Boston. What else can be expected of him? That's what he does. The best part is the playoffs aren't over. Somehow, I bet he manages to piss off a fourth team.
I apologize for the rant, I’m still scarred by the Scott Proctor Experience.
7:39 — Somebody named Greg Golson flies out to end the top of the ninth — he looks like one of the fake Yankees who played against Billy Chapel's team in For Love of the Game. He might be an actor. I'm not even kidding.
Of course, please remember the fact Bill can’t recognize this player shouldn’t be a big deal since he couldn’t recognize one of the Red Sox players earlier in this running diary.
Let's add this to the "What the hell was Terry Francona doing this month?????" files no matter how this turns out.
I still don’t get the Francona/Red Sox separation. The whole “team chemistry” issue is bullshit because winning creates good chemistry. A manager is a player’s manager until the team starts losing in which case he runs too loose of a ship. A manager is a detail-oriented manager until the team starts losing in which case he is too overbearing and criticizes players for small mistakes. Maybe Francona didn’t do the best job in the clubhouse this year, but if the Red Sox pitchers didn’t pitch well in September and there weren’t injuries to the team then he would still be the manager. Maybe I don’t have my hand on the pulse of the issue but it seems to me like this a bit of an overreaction on both Francona and the Red Sox part.
8:02 — Here's all you need to know about tonight, this month and this season: I'm PETRIFIED of Robert Andino right now.
The odds are 95% now that Bill wrote this part of the running diary after the game was over in order to make himself sound smarter.
Although I'd still vote for Justin Verlander. It's hard to think of anyone being an MVP on a .500 team (Toronto) or a team that choked so memorably in September (Boston).
It’s not hard to think of someone as the MVP when on a .500 team or a team that choked in September. In fact, in the guidelines on how to vote for MVP it specifically states to ignore where that player’s team finished the season. It is fun to think otherwise though.
If there was an MVP to be given out this year, it was the NBA Finals MVP — you know, for that September streak when the Red Sox won six of 24 games.
I get it! Because Kobe Bryant went 6-for-24 in Game 7 of the 2010 NBA Finals against the Celtics!
The first 50 times Bill told this joke it wasn’t funny. Now it is just getting annoying. You lost, Bill. The MVP was also decided on the other six games in that series as well. But Bill’s non-funny joke based on a small sample size of one game just keeps getting less funny.
8:42 — The Braves are done. Lost in the 13th. I was afraid to mention them — they're like our co-Kings of Kollapse.
Bill also forgot to mention the Braves because he really hasn’t watched a single National League game this year and all. Since that’s the inferior league in MLB. I wish Bill could be completely honest. He watches MLB when the Red Sox are good and he only watches Red Sox games. He couldn’t tell you the best pitcher on the Arizona Diamondbacks’ pitching staff. Hey, and this is fine. He just shouldn’t call himself “the Sports Guy,” and go back to the moniker “the Boston Sports Guy.”
"Daddy needs another drink," Daniel says. That's going to be the title of my 2011 Red Sox book.
8:53 — Chris Davis keeps Baltimore alive with a double down the line, then Golson gets tagged out for the Yanks on a grounder to third (second and first, one out). And just like that, everything flipped. I can't wait to write about this in more detail this winter when I'm writing Daddy Needs Another Drink.
And Bill Simmons has co-opted his friend’s idea. Now, if Daniel was just a normal reader who wrote into Bill’s mailbag, then Bill would point out there is already a book called “Daddy Needs a Drink” and then try to improve on the reader’s idea so Bill could be the most creative guy in the room. Since Daniel is Bill’s friend, then Bill is fine with him having a creative idea, but Bill will have to steal it.
9:02 — Andino rips a single to left, Crawford dives for it, should catch it, seems like he's going to catch it … can't catch it.
Andino is the same guy Bill was worried about hurting the Red Sox earlier in this very mailbag!
They disintegrated over an entire month, day after day after day. You can't even explain how brutal they were unless you followed the free fall firsthand.
THIS COLLAPSE CAUSES THE WORST FEELING ANY TEAM HAS EVER FELT IN ANY SPORT EVER! MY SADNESS IS MORE SAD THAN YOUR SADNESS BECAUSE I CARE MORE!
I think I can imagine the feeling of losing a 9 game lead in early September.
If the 2004 Red Sox distinguished themselves by everyone chipping in, the 2011 Red Sox distinguished themselves by chipping out.
There we go. I knew we would get a 2004 Red Sox comparison at some point.
They choked away Game 162 by getting three guys thrown out on the basepaths, by blowing a 3-2 lead in the ninth, by botching a season-deciding fly ball, by letting Chris Davis, Nolan Reimold and Robert Andino
But Andino is like a poor man’s Ben Zobrist. Again, notice Bill’s use of italics for emphasis. I just noticed how he uses these italics and I have to say I love it.
This was a mercy killing. At least that's what I will keep telling myself. The 2011 Red Sox needed to go away.
I guess you could say the Red Sox didn't even deserve to make the playoffs even if they had made the playoffs?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)