4 comments Cliff Lee Needs to Just Win The Game Himself

We all miss the JoeChats that Joe Morgan used to do for ESPN.com. While it is nice he is no longer a member of the ESPN Sunday Night Baseball team, this also means we don't get Joe Morgan chatting with people on a weekly basis. We don't get him defending Ryan Howard using Matt Holliday as a comparable player, Morgan hating on wins and his consistent ability to stay consistent in answering consistently to the questions asked. So we need a Joe Morgan fix. Fortunately, Joe went on 94WIP with Michael Barkann and Ike Reese recently to talk about baseball recently. Joe Morgan has solved Cliff Lee's inability to win many games this year. His solution? Cliff Lee just needs to take it up on himself and go win some games.

We all know the Phillies have missed Ryan Howard and Chase Utley in the middle of the order this year, so let's look at what kind of run support Cliff Lee has received from his Phillies teammates when he pitches. Lee had made nine starts when Joe went on the radio and made his comments. Lee has pitched an average of 7 innings per start, has a 2.92 ERA, and is 0-3 on the season. The Phillies have scored 16 runs in 9 starts for him. Cliff Lee was 111th in run support average. Out of nine starts, here the scores from some games Lee has started, with Lee's innings pitched and earned runs in parenthesis:

April 7: 2-1 loss to Pirates (6 innings, 1 run)
April 18: 1-0 loss to Giants (10 innings, 1 run)
May 9: 10-6 loss to Mets (6 innings, 2 runs)
May 15: 4-3 win over Astros (8 innings, 1 run)
May 25: 5-3 win over Cardinals (7 innings, 3 runs)
June 5: 2-1 loss to Dodgers (7.2 innings, 2 runs)

This doesn't include the April 13 and May 20 losses where the Phillies scored three total runs in these two games. Let's just say Cliff Lee isn't getting great run support right now. He has gotten 16 runs in his nine starts. Fortunately, Joe Morgan has the solution for this.

This year, Cliff Lee seems to be getting the short end of the scoring stick with the Phillies. Joe Morgan says that sooner or later, Lee’s going to have to get a win on his own.

That's right. Lee needs to pitch a shutout, which he being a lazy and useless asshole, he hasn't managed to do yet AND he needs to drive in all the Phillies runs. Hey, if Dave Concepcion were a pitcher this is exactly what he would have done. Pitching 10 innings and giving up one run isn't doing enough to win a game. Pitching 8 innings and getting one run isn't enough to get a win either. Lee needs to drive in the necessary runs and pitch a shutout. It's really not that hard.

“There’s always a hard luck pitcher in the starting rotation,” Morgan told 94WIP’s Michael Barkann and Ike Reese on Wednesday. “There’s always going to be one guy that they score less for. Cliff Lee seems to be that guy for the Phillies.”

Which is why Cliff Lee needs to be a man and start working in the batting cage in order to drive runs in for himself.

Lee is winless so far this season, after losing a 2-1 decision to the Dodgers on Tuesday night. Lee pitched well, and took a 1-0 lead into the eighth, before giving up two runs with two outs in the inning.

Well there you go. Lee didn't do enough to win the game, did he? He threw 122 pitches but just couldn't get the job done. This isn't the fault of the Phillies' offense, not at all, that Cliff Lee hasn't won a game this year when he gives up two runs in 7.2 innings of work.

“There comes a time, when you’re a superstar, you’re the star, you’re going to have to do something,” Morgan said.

Joe Morgan directs this statement towards Cliff Lee, naturally, and not towards any of the Phillies hitters. It's not Jimmy Rollins fault. He doesn't need to do anything. His line was .247/.295/.344 when Morgan made these comments. Don't blame Shane Victorino. He's doing all he can hitting .248/.316/.407. What else can you expect from these guys? Cliff Lee is the guy who needs to step up and do something. After all, he's pitching well, so that should easily translate into also hitting well.

“Sometimes [Lee should say to himself], I’m going to have to win the game myself. I’m going to have to pitcher better than the other pitcher on the other team.”

Good idea. Lee already did this when he outpitched Matt Cain, when he outpitched Dillon Gee, when he pitched better than Jeff Karstans, and had the 9th best WHIP and 25th best ERA in the majors this year. Lee has outpitched other pitchers and just not had the luck to get a win. He's had tough luck this year. Outside of pitching a shutout every time out, and driving in the runs himself, there isn't much else he can do.

You can’t be perfect every time out,

Apparently Lee does have to be perfect every time out.

but there are times that the super star has to say I’m going to be better than the other guy on the mound tonight,” Morgan said.

How about there comes a time when Lee says, "How about the offense scores some runs for me? How about my offense is better than the other pitcher tonight, so I can continue to pitch the way I have and get some wins for my team?"

I get what Joe Morgan is saying, that it is on Cliff Lee to pitch well, but I think he's pitched pretty well and doesn't have a hell of a lot to show for it in terms of wins. Of course, this is further proof determining how effective a pitcher is based on wins is a losing proposition. Wins are a bad measurement of a pitcher's effectiveness.

I miss Joe Morgan. Here are some other nuggets from this radio appearance.

(At the 2:40 minute mark)

"Utley is a fine third place hitter and Howard is a great fourth place hitter. You take those two guys out and it just makes a ton of difference. I don't think anyone realizes how much that affects hitters on the offense...Chase Utley gets on and Howard hits a home run...so you have a lead right away and that's just not happening."

Joe Morgan doesn't think anyone realizes missing two All-Star players from the Phillies lineup is making a difference in how many runs they can score? Howard and Utley are the #3 or #4 hitters. Of course those paying attention realize Utley and Howard's absence affects the offense. Joe Morgan is the one telling Cliff Lee to just go out there, pitch better than the other pitcher and win the game. It sounds like Joe Morgan doesn't realize what a difference Utley and Howard make. If he did, perhaps he could have better advice for Cliff Lee than to simply pitch better. I'm pretty sure everyone else knows without those two guys, it is a huge hole in the middle of the Phillies lineup.

Notice that Joe is acknowledging that a pitcher gets wins when his team scores runs, so the amount of runs scored by the offense is tied to whether a pitcher wins a game or not. Let's go back two years to when Joe Morgan was outraged, stunned and outraged I tell you, that Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young Award despite only having 13 wins.

Here's a money quote from Joe about his feelings on this subject...

There are so many things that are involved other than just throwing a number on something. If people think I’m not for that, then they’re right. Because I still think it’s a team game.

Yes, it is a team game, but the Cy Young is an individual award. The Oscar for Best Actor doesn't always go to the male lead in the film that wins Best Picture.

I just wish Joe could put it together that runs are tied to a pitcher's individual performance. It's like Joe understands this because he makes comments that indicate he understands, but he refuses to accept it as a truth.

(At the 5:18 mark when asked about umpiring in MLB)

"It's very difficult to be an umpire in Major League Baseball. I mean, it's not that easy. It's not as easy as it looks. I was an umpire when I was a kid, in college, so I know how difficult it can be at times."

Because umpiring in college and umpiring in Major League Baseball are the exact same thing and all. Not to mention, these MLB umpires make their living doing this job so they should be the very best of the best at umpiring baseball games. I would hope the standard for MLB umpires is higher than that of a college kid umpiring. Simply because it is difficult to umpire a game doesn't mean umpires have a right to be bad at their job and miss calls nor does this mean instant replay shouldn't be expanded.

All in all, I would guess Joe Morgan was a very consistent umpire. He's a pretty short guy, so I wonder if he had to stand up behind the catcher, rather than kneel, so he could get a good look at whether a pitch was a ball or strike. Overall, I would guess he was consistently consistent at umpiring and enjoyed umpiring back in college when there were still all-around good MLB teams...unlike in today's game of baseball when so few teams go on a 25 game winning streak that occurred solely in Joe's mind. There are no elite baseball teams anymore you know.

(At the 6:45 mark when talking about umpires not working together to get a call right)

"I would be more critical of an umpire for not getting the play right, than I am them just blowing it."

Yeah, I know---wait, what? Aren't these the same thing, just phrased differently?

(At the 7:15 mark when asked umpires having too much of an ego to admit they got the call wrong)

"I criticize not that they missed the play, but they let it stand as a group. I don't blame just the guy who missed that play, I blame the other three guys too. Because they saw it and they should have said something like you're saying."

I would say blame the guy closest to the call. It is part ego, but the other umpires possibly didn't get as good of a look at the play and trust their colleague to have gotten the call right. Umpires work as a team. There is absolutely a need for umpires to get together to get a call right, but if the first base umpire says a ball hit down the line is foul and the home plate umpires thinks, but doesn't know, it was fair should he overrule him? I would say, "yes," but a certain point an umpiring team has to trust each other to get the calls right. So I blame the first base umpire mostly because he has the better view in a situation like this.

"The role of the umpire is not to control the game and all that stuff you hear. The role of the umpire is to make sure one team doesn't take advantage of the other, so the game is played fairly."

Yes, to an extent this is the role of the umpire. The umpire is there to control the pace of the game and to control what goes on during the game. So to an extent the umpire does control the game in quite a few ways.

For instance we've all played pick up games where you umpire and you cheat, not cheat, but you make calls in your favor.

No, that is pretty much cheating.

The umpire is there to make sure the game is played fairly and one team doesn't take advantage of the other."

We are arguing the same thing, where Joe and I both think the umpiring needs to be better, but we have different views on what an umpire does. Obviously the umpire is a neutral observer of the game, but the umpire also controls the game in that he makes ball/strike calls, ensures meetings on the mound don't last too long, listen to player complaints and generally controls the flow and direction of the game in certain ways. I don't see their role as simply being there to make sure one team doesn't cheat.

I miss Joe Morgan. He should hire someone to start a website (since we know he probably wouldn't this himself) and do chats every week.

6 comments Are You Being Serious? What Did You Expect From a Bill Simmons-Barack Obama Podcast?

Many of you have may have heard Bill Simmons got Barack Obama as a podcast guest. The questions and answers that followed were what you would expect from a non-journalist asking the President questions. It was about The Wire, Jeremy Lin, and various other easy to discuss topics. If you expected any differently from Bill Simmons then you aren't very bright for three reasons:

1. It is Bill Simmons. He isn't a natural interviewer. He has strengths. Interviewing the President of the United States wouldn't speak to his strengths.

2. He is interviewing the President of the United States. One would expect the questions to be vetted to where nothing controversial is asked or answered. The coup for Bill Simmons is getting the President to do a podcast. You shouldn't expect controversy to follow.

3. Seriously, it is Bill Simmons doing an interview. This is a guy who talked shit about Isiah Thomas for years and then immediately made up to him when he met him face-to-face. He makes Piers Morgan look light a hard-hitting interviewer. Again, Bill has strengths, but I wouldn't count interviewing as among them.

Well, this wasn't enough for Dan Levy. He wanted hard-hitting questions and answers. I can't believe he is being serious. I can't believe I am defending Bill Simmons.

Here are some choice quotes detailing what Levy wanted from this podcast/interview between Barack Obama and Bill Simmons:

Yes, I assume the questions had to be vetted, both by ESPN and by the White House, but that doesn't mean there weren't a host of questions Simmons could have asked the President of the United States of America other than "[s]ettle an office debate. Best Wire character of all time?"

I'm sure Simmons had other questions he wanted to ask, but couldn't because he wouldn't be allowed to do the interview if he was going to grill Obama on his foreign policy or his stance on immigration. This was going to be a vanilla "Obama picks his bracket" type interview. To expect otherwise is silly.

It wouldn't be as disheartening to read this interview if it wasn't so obvious that Simmons comes off inexplicably unprepared. He asked President Obama about taking the time to watch his daughter play basketball and when the President explained that he did some coaching last season, Simmons replied, "Really?"

Really? That's your response? How did you not know Obama coached last year? Heck, we talked about it a few weeks ago, and you know how we found out about it? ABC News emailed me the story. ABC News, part of the same media company Simmons works for, emailed sports writers their story about President Obama and Reggie Love coaching Sasha's basketball team less than a month ago and Simmons didn't even know about it?

I can see how Bill may have known this and is why he asked the question. But this is an interview and he is supposed to pretend to be shocked or pleasantly surprised at the answers. It isn't like Obama will say something and Bill will dismiss him by saying, "I knew that already." This is a staged podcast. There is nothing off-the-cuff about it considering the President of the United States is the person being interviewed.

But Simmons completely sidestepped any juicy questions in the entire conversation.

I am sure he sidestepped tough questions and in no way did the President's "people" tell Bill what he could and could not talk about.

How does a writer from Boston interview the President, ask six questions about different championship teams coming to the White House and not address the issue of Tim Thomas, the Boston Bruins goaltender, skipping his team's trip due to his very-public disdain for the current political climate?

Because this is a somewhat political question Obama would not want to answer. He isn't going to answer anything 1% political...especially about a hockey player who didn't visit the White House because he didn't agree with Obama's policies.

I could give Simmons the benefit of the doubt and assume the White House nixed questions about Thomas, but President Obama will answer 50 tougher questions than one about Thomas before lunch.

From actual journalists! Not from Bill Simmons, a guy who references pornstars and 70's and 80's television shows/movies in his writing. It's not Bill's place to ask tough questions.

There was also nothing from Simmons about the potential candidates the President might face, albeit in a sports context.

I am betting $100 anything related to other candidates was off limits. Dan Levy has to realize this, right?

He totally should have asked who would win a game of one-on-one between Romney and Rick Santorum.

This isn't exactly a hard-hitting question.

Those softballs would be a hit.

So basically Bill Simmons should have asked the softball questions that Dan Levy wanted him to ask.

Were questions about race in sports vetted out of the interview too?

I'm guessing they absolutely were vetted out. I don't know if Dan Levy has hard, but race is sort of touchy issue sometimes.

That said, Simmons had nearly four years since ESPN nixed his last chance to come up with questions. If that's the best he could do, it's a huge disappointment for those of us who fight every day to have podcasts treated with the same respect as more traditional forms of audio-visual media. The opportunity speaks volumes for online media. The execution fell on deaf ears.

Anything more hard-hitting from a guy who edits a sports website and the interview would never have happened. That's the bottom line. I hate defending Simmons, but if he wanted the interview he couldn't ask hard-hitting questions. The questions were stupid and softball. What did you expect?

At least he didn't get the President to ask if Reggie Love can hook Grantland up with Duke press credentials. Though perhaps that came after they stopped taping.

Ok, that was kind of funny.

Overall though, criticizing Bill Simmons for not asking tough questions. Dan Levy you are being serious? What else did you seriously expect from a guy who isn't an actual journalist and has no experience in asking hard-hitting questions that don't deal with making lists of the 76 (or whatever it is) greatest NBA players of all-time?

6 comments Murray Chass Continues the Battle Against Numbers, Says He Can Look In the Mirror To Know How Old He Is

Dylan Murphy of "Pardon the Opinion" and I did another podcast this week. We are going to try and make this a weekly thing if all possible. We did an NFL review of sorts from this past weekend. Unfortunately, the podcast file got corrupted and could not post at all so I can't link what we said since it apparently doesn't exist anymore. It's frustrating, but those are the breaks I guess and there isn't much to be done about it.

I didn't have anything to post for today, so I will call an audible (sports-related term being used on a sports-related site. How clever!). I am going to look at a rarity today, a not-so-bad column by Steve Phillips and then Murray Chass will continue his hatred against numbers.

First, I will get to the Steve Phillips column. I don't agree with everything he writes in this column and some of the ways he justifies his picks aren't the best, but Steve Phillips names his 2010 MLB Awards and gets them fairly correct (in my opinion) based on the low standards I would normally have for a Steve Phillips award column. I'll see what you think.

AL MVP:

This is really a two-player race: Josh Hamilton and Miguel Cabrera.

Cabrera is third in the league in hitting (.328), second in home runs (38) and first in RBI (126). He is a few points behind Hamilton in OPS. The fact that Cabrera has 31 intentional walks (to five for Hamilton) shows how little protection he had in the Tigers lineup.

Winner: Miguel Cabrera, Detroit Tigers

Not really the best way to defend his choice to go with intentional walks, but I do agree with his conclusion. I think Cabrera should be the guy.

AL Cy Young:

This is probably the most hotly debated award of the season. It challenges the belief that wins are one of the most important stats in defining the quality of a pitcher's performance. Felix Hernandez is leading some important categories, ERA and innings pitched. He is second in strikeouts and WHIP and third in opponents' slugging percentage and batting average. However, King Felix only has a 12-12 record. He would have the fewest wins ever for a Cy Young Award winner.

The good news for Hernandez is that voters are more educated now than in the past.

Murray Chass spits on your idea of voters being educated. He doesn't see how knowledge should have anything to do with who wins the Cy Young award. It's educated in his opinion to ignore alternative ways of evaluating a player at the major league level.

Winner: Felix Hernandez, Seattle Mariners

Steve Phillips doesn't even put CC Sabathia in his Top-5, which I am not sure I could agree with. I think that is discounting Sabathia's performance a little bit too much, but I agree with his conclusion. He had David Price second, which I also agree with him upon.

NL MVP:

This is a three-man race: Joey Votto, Albert Pujols and Carlos Gonzalez. Pujols currently leads the NL in home runs, RBI and runs scored. Pretty compelling numbers. Carlos Gonzalez leads the NL in batting average; he is second in RBI and runs scored. Joey Votto is first in OBP, SLG and OPS; he is second in home runs; third in RBI and fourth in runs scored. You can make a case for any of the three but Votto's Cincinnati Reds are headed to the playoffs.

I like the conclusion, but I don't like the reasoning. Using Phillips' own reasoning for why Miguel Cabrera deserves the AL MVP over Josh Hamilton, if the Reds are headed to the playoffs couldn't that mean Pujols had a weaker lineup around him? Pujols had 38 intentional walks, while Votto only had 8 intentional walks. This was the criteria Phillips used to decide Cabrera deserved the AL MVP over Hamilton. It is possible the same reasoning could be used to say Pujols deserves the NL MVP. I still agree with the conclusion, even if I would not use which team made the playoffs as the determining factor.

The Reds' pitching staff is not great (ranked eighth in the NL) so offense is what has gotten them to the playoffs. Votto's performance is the most valuable of the three.

That's really what it is all about in the end. Which player was most valuable to his team. Votto should be the winner probably, though it is close.

NL Cy Young:

So it comes down to Wainwright and Halladay. With his outing Monday night Roy Halladay lowered his ERA from 2.53 to 2.44. Wainwright has 20 wins while Halladay now had 21. Entering Monday the numbers slightly favored Wainwright over Halladay. Halladay pitches in Citizens Bank Park, which is a notorious hitters' stadium. Wainwright pitches in Busch Stadium which plays pretty fairly. Halladay leads in innings pitched and strikeouts.

I am pretty sure Joe Morgan would agree that more wins for Halladay means he deserves to win this award, but he has been pushing Wainwright on us all year long for this award pretty hard. I think Halladay is the obvious choice.

NL Rookie of the Year:

This is another tight race. Jaime Garcia is the lone pitcher in the race but he has a very strong case for the award.

On the hitters' side of things, Jason Heyward, Buster Posey and Gaby Sanchez can all make a case for the award.

The Giants made a bold move trading veteran backstop Bengie Molina to open space for Posey to move behind the plate and get more playing time. He has made the Giants' staff look brilliant as he has shown the ability to hit, hit with some pop, handle a pitching staff and throw out base-stealers. His .317 average is further enhanced by his 16 homers and 64 RBI.

I came in to this column with Heyward as my selection but the more I look at the numbers I believe that someone else has had more of an impact because of the two-way nature of the position.

Winner: Buster Posey, San Francisco Giants

I agree with this award as well. Even though he was called up late, and contrary to what Joe Morgan thinks about catchers, it is hard to come up as a young catcher and handle a pitching staff. Granted, Posey has a good pitching staff to handle, but he seems to have a done a good at a difficult position. I think the voting should go Posey, Heyward, and Garcia.

Anyway, I actually did not hate Steve Phillips opinion on the 2010 awards, which shocked me. Now onto Murray Chass. He is writing words in his non-blog again and this time he talks about Walk Jocketty's new team, the Reds, making the playoffs. Score one for people who hate statistics.

Walt Jocketty has too much class, is too much of a gentleman to thumb his nose, stick out his tongue and say to the St. Louis Cardinals and their principal owner, Bill DeWitt Jr., “na na na na na.” So I’ll do it for him: Na na na na na.

(Bengoodfella rolls on the floor laughing) Do another one! A good baseball column on a non-blog ALWAYS starts off with a good "na na na na" joke.

Dewitt deserves this rude treatment because three years ago, only a year after his Jocketty-built team won the World Series, he fired Jocketty. Now Jocketty’s new team, Cincinnati, is on the brink of dethroning the Cardinals as National League Central champions.

I am sure someone somewhere thinks this is the very definition of ironic.

I don't know if Walt Jocketty should have been fired from the Cardinals or not, but he was fired because of divisions in the front office, not based on his performance. Also, the Cardinals have had success since he left, so it is not like he was solely responsible for their overall success as a team.

The Cardinals had come off a 78-84 season in 2007 when Jocketty was fired and they made the playoffs last year in 2009. It's not like they gone in the toilet since Jocketty left.

DeWitt did not return a telephone call to discuss his decision to fire Jocketty, who said “not really” when I asked him if he understood why he was fired.

This comment is contrary to most people who get fired and understand completely why they were fired. I would say 99% of the time when a person is fired, even after being told the reason, they still don't completely understand. So Jocketty's lack of understanding for his firing doesn't mean it was the wrong decision at the time. Not only that, but you can't really ever trust either side's reasoning for why a person was fired because generally both sides see the situation completely differently from each other.

I can't believe I am semi-defending the Cardinals owner for firing a good GM, but I sort of am...I guess.

“It was philosophy, the direction they wanted to take the organization, how they put their team together,” Jocketty said. “I didn’t necessarily go along with the thinking. We had a pretty good organization in place. I was given the right to run the organization the way I thought it should be, and I think people would say we had done the right job in scouting and player development and had the right people, quality people, to run it.”

That was Jocketty's reasoning and here is why the Cardinals say he was fired from the team...

Jocketty took umbrage at the 2006 promotion of Jeff Luhnow, who had been head of amateur scouting, to a position that oversees both scouting and player development. The move came at the expense of Bruce Manno, one of Jocketty's closest aides.

"He clearly didn't agree with the decision," DeWitt said. "I think he said that publicly. I think that my view is that one person should run both: procurement, development and international. Three things, but international is really procurement. And he felt it should be split."

Murray is going to chalk this up to a win for the anti-statistics crowd when it was really an issue about how the front office should be split up and Jocketty didn't like his buddy got his position taken away.

There was also another reason the Cardinals left Jocketty go:

Though Jocketty had another year left on his contract, there were several media reports throughout the season that had the GM's name linked to possible job openings in other cities.

DeWitt said he spoke to Jocketty about those reports.

"We would have conversations about it," DeWitt said. "This was as early as mid-season, I guess, and he said he didn't know where the rumors were coming from and I certainly didn't know where they were coming from. We were focusing on the season, but I could sense he wasn't all that happy with the overall situation and some of the direction of the organization."

Naturally because Murray is a professional journalist he leaves this little tidbit of information out of the discussion as well. The Cardinals were all-but-sure that Jocketty would leave them for another team. This may have had something to do with his firing as well. Jocketty doesn't seem like such the noble hero forsaken by those who once loved him if it turns out he was seeking jobs elsewhere does he? It turns out just three months after he was fired Jocketty did get a new job with the Reds. Three months after that, he was the Reds General Manager. Maybe Jocketty wasn't actively seeking new employment, but where there are rumors there is also a grain of truth. Jocketty probably would have gone to another team at some point.

So with there being front office animosity and the feeling their GM was going somewhere else, Jocketty got fired. Maybe not the most popular or smartest move, but possibly also the pulling off of the Band-Aid in a situation where Jocketty would have left very soon regardless.

Jocketty was probably the most notable victim of the modern-day baseball war between evaluation and analysis. It mattered not to DeWitt that Jocketty’s belief in player evaluation had worked extremely well for the Cardinals. The owner was seduced by others in the organization into believing that statistical analysis was the way to go.

(Picturing basement-dwelling statistics lovers luring Bill Dewitt into the basement with promises of more profits and more championships, but at the very expense of his soul)

I don't know the inside situation, but it seems like there was more than just a disagreement over the importance of statistics in this situation. There seems to be other issues that caused the Jocketty-Cardinals divorce that Murray doesn't feel the need to address.

That was the method created by Bill James and was featured in the Michael Lewis book “Moneyball,” which ridiculed one Oakland scout not for his inability to judge players but for the fact that he was fat.

Fat people were mocked? Statistics-lovers have gone over the edge of sanity now!

However, John Schuerholz, architect of the Atlanta Braves’ unparalleled 14-year run in first place, criticized the “Moneyball” concept in his 2006 book, “Built to Win.”

Hmmm...not exactly. I've read the book. He did criticize statistics-based analysis, but in the realm of making it the sole way to evaluate a player, which doesn't happen.

“As portrayed in that book,” Schuerholz wrote, “it is a bogus concept because I know you can’t make baseball judgments entirely on statistical analysis to build a team.”

Notice the key parts of these sentences, "as portrayed in the book" meaning it is portrayed in real life differently, and "you can't make baseball judgments entirely on statistical analysis" with the key word being "entirely."

No one is saying to build an entire team around statistical analysis. I am not sure anyone has ever said that or that was the intent of the book. Schuerholz didn't seem to condemn statistical-based analysis, but just say it is limited in its scope, which is true, just like ignoring statistics completely limits the scope of analyzing a player. As far as Schuerholz goes, he did a great job as the Braves GM...but I'm also not going to go year-by-year with some of the trades made by Schuerholz towards the end of his time as Braves GM, but let's just say at one point Brian Jordan and Raul Mondesi were playing RF and LF respectively (as starters) and it was not 2000, but was 2005.

“He called me the day after I was fired,” Jocketty said in a telephone interview last Friday evening, when the Reds’ division-clinching number was three. “I wasn’t ready to go to work yet. I went there in the middle of January.”

I am sure there is a 100% chance that Jocketty had never talked about working for the Reds before he was fired. I am also lying about this.

Easier said than done, but Jocketty has done it quickly. A critical factor in his effort has been the addition of three men who worked for him in St. Louis – Jerry Walker, Cam Bonifay and Mike Squires. These scouts and scouting executives know how to use calculators and computers, but more important, they use their eyes and can evaluate what they see.

This is the most irritating thing in the world. Those who use statistics-based analysis do this as well! No person is sitting in an office and avoiding sunlight while recommending a team sign a player based completely on the numbers he sees on paper. Nearly every scout or executive worth a shit uses statistical analysis and their own eyes to judge a player. Any suggestion to the opposite is a lie.

Has Jocketty made any changes in his method of operation since becoming the Reds’ general manager? “No, not really,” he said but acknowledged that “you have to use a certain amount of statistics.”

Lately, Murray Chass has been the master of making a point and then disproving his own point in a column on in his non-blog.

While the Washington Nationals kept their pitching prodigy, Stephen Strasburg, in the minors for the first two months of the season because, they said, he had had no professional experience, the Reds put Mike Leake in their starting rotation from the start of the season despite his lack of professional experience.

Where is Mike Leake now? He is not really able to pitch the rest of the season because of arm fatigue. He's essentially in the same position as Stephen Strasburg, except the Nationals will be able to keep Strasburg a year longer than the Reds could keep Leake.

The right-handed rookie responded with an 8-4 record in 22 starts before he was shut down Aug. 24. By then Jocketty had promoted another rookie pitcher, Travis Wood, who has a 5-4 record in 15 starts.

It's really simple to start a rookie all year and then shut him down when you have another quality rookie pitcher in the minors. That's a nice luxury to have. If the Nationals shut down Stephen Strasburg, they would be stuck starting one of the shitty pitchers they currently have in their rotation. They don't have as many options in the minors as the Reds have, so it would not be as easy for them to start Strasburg all year and then replace him with another quality pitcher.

But Jocketty saved his pitching piece de resistance for last, summoning Aroldis Chapman Aug. 31. Earlier in the year Chapman, a Cuban defector, was a highly sought left-handed pitcher, the kind that usually costs a lot of money and the Reds shy away from.

But Jocketty liked what he heard from his scouts and convinced Castellini he was worth the $30.25 million the Reds gave him.

What? You mean Walt Jocketty didn't watch Chapman pitch with his own two eyes and get a feel for how he pitches without looking at statistics? I thought that is exactly what Jocketty stands for in the mind Murray Chass? Scouting without relying on others or statistics, but seeing a pitcher and just knowing he will be a good player.

Jocketty said, “We tried to tell the players in spring training we thought we had a team that had an opportunity to win but it was up to them to carry it through. I told them I thought we had a team that would be in contention and would be for some years to come.”

Jocketty has done a good job in Cincinnati. Granted, he isn't responsible for getting many of the current players on the team, but he is a quality GM. What I am trying to say is that Jocketty's departure from the Cardinals wasn't just about statistics, but was about Jocketty looking for other jobs and not liking how the owner split up duties in the front office. Murray Chass chalks it up incorrectly to a victory of the statistics-lovers of the world.

Bill DeWitt has to wonder if the Cardinals will be there with them.

Obviously the Cardinals will never be a successful MLB team again.

6 comments NFC South and NFC West 2010 Preview

I am going to do something a little different today. I am going to take more time writing MMQB this week and post it tomorrow, rather than today. So I am still posting MMQB this week.

Dylan and I did another podcast previewing the upcoming NFL year. This time we focused on the last two divisions we needed to cover, the NFC South and the NFC West. I hope you enjoy the chat. A couple notes of course.

1. I think I surprised myself with my Super Bowl pick.

2. There I go defending Matt Leinart again. It is almost like Woody Paige and Tim Tebow, but please know if the Cardinals had a better backup than Derek Anderson I would say Leinart needs to get benched. I think mention how much Anderson sucks 2-3 times (per minute).

3. I talk bad about the Saints and then say they will go 10-6 and say wonderful things about the 49ers and have them go 9-7 in a weak division. Go figure.

4 comments NFC East and NFC North 2010 Preview

Dylan and I are back with the first part of this week's NFC Preview. We were going to do it in haiku form in an homage to Gregg Easterbrook but decided against it. I know you were all concerned about this, so don't worry, I still ramble a little bit. I hope you enjoy the podcast and the NFC South and NFC West will be posted later this week.

Of course I can't just submit a link without commentary, so here are few of my self-conscious thoughts:

1. I have grown more and more confident by the day on my Raiders 8-8 pick. I don't regret much of the picks I made the other day, though I did like the Dolphins a bit much.

2. We did this before Sidney Rice was announced as injured. I won't change my pick, but combining his injury with Percy Harvin's headaches and I don't know how good I feel about the Vikings this year compared to the record I predicted they would have. The fairy tale ends this year and then Brett Favre will announce he wants to play for a different NFL team, retire, and then sign with a different NFL team.

3. We bust out the tissues for Donovan McNabb. Eagles fans may disagree.

4. That turnaround you heard was me liking what Mike Shanahan did with the Redskins. Of course it will lead to a couple barely above .500 years and then Dan Snyder will get angry and fire him, but for this year, I like them.

5. I hope you enjoy it and I tried to improve my voice, but it didn't work. Oh well.

5 comments AFC South and AFC West Preview

I have set up a College Football Pick 'Em League for Yahoo. Personally, this is my second favorite fantasy league because it keeps my interest in college football games I wouldn't normally care about on Saturdays. I have set it up against the spread and the games we will be choosing are Top 25 games and games the Yahoo editors choose as "worthy" of being chosen. The ID is 1704 and the password is "asu." Feel free to join and it doesn't take long each week to pick the games, plus it is fun to go against the spread. We only have five people now and it doesn't take long to do every week.

Dylan and I did the second part of our AFC Preview and he has posted it over on "Pardon the Opinion." I hope you enjoy the second part of the podcast and we will be doing the NFC Preview this upcoming week. A couple of notes:

1. I picked Oakland at 8-8 this year. I am buying on them and am not shy to admit it. No, I wasn't high when I picked them to go .500.

2. I also have the Chargers in the Super Bowl. I think this is the year they finally do it. Of course betting on the Chargers is never a smart thing to do.

3. I think I gave out a fake "Chargers award" at one point to the team that did well in the regular season and then choked in the playoffs. I don't know where that came from.

2 comments AFC North and AFC East Preview

I made my podcast debut the with Dylan Murphy from "Pardon the Opinion," which is a great blog I have linked to the right on the screen. We did an AFC Preview and like anything else I am involved with, it was way too long and extensive, so we had to split it up into two podcasts for the AFC. Dylan has posted the AFC North and AFC East preview here. You can click the link and hear the discussion, along with predictions from each us of us (with bonus explanations!), for the upcoming NFL season. Also, feel free to make fun of me, I don't mind.

Of course, because I mock bad journalism I have to give a few words making fun of myself on the podcast.

1. I may have used this joke on the podcast but my voice makes Bill Simmons sound like Barry White. I hate my voice and I think most people do hate their own voice. I needed Auto-Tune to make myself sound better.

2. You can actually hear the gnashing of teeth when I was asked about the Patriots prospects this year. I had no idea what to think about the Patriots. When asked about the Patriots for this year, I act like Dylan had asked me to do a quadratic equation and then told me my pet goldfish died. I sound sad to even give my opinion on the Patriots.

3. I talk about how I consider the Baltimore Ravens Super Bowl favorites...and then proceed to mention how I think they can be beaten by another AFC team in the playoffs.

4. I blanked on Trent Edwards' name. Actually, I blanked a lot...I apparently love dramatic pauses.

5. God, I hate my voice on this podcast. I will never make fun of Bill Simmons' voice again...if I ever have before.

Thanks to Dylan for having me on and I hope you guys enjoy it. We are doing the NFC Preview next week. The AFC West and AFC South preview should be up later this week.