Two things before I break down Bill Conlin's vehement defense of Ryan Howard:
1. We don't have a "Ryan Howard" tag on this blog? How is that possible? I'm pretty sure there were entire portions of Joe Morgan chats that dealt with Ryan Howard and Morgan's love of Howard. Very disappointing.
2. I think Ryan Howard is a great first baseman and one of the best first basemen in the National League. Nothing that follows is an indictment of how great of a first baseman he is. What follows is an indictment of Bill Conlin and his defense of Ryan Howard in light of Howard not making the All-Star team. Is that really worth getting worked up over Howard not making the All-Star team? It is an exhibition All-Star game. Granted he probably wants to play in it because, it is the best exhibition All-Star game in major sports, but that's another discussion.
Bill Conlin defends Ryan Howard against the evil doers in Philadelphia and he uses the most modern comparison to Howard, a player from the 1930's, as well as the non-all-encompassing statistic RBI's to help prove the point that Conlin may not know what decade it is. I'm shocked by the amount of comments who liked his methods and
that were agreeing with Bill. You can agree with his sentiment, but his method was shockingly poor. A great example of this poor methodology to prove what a great player Howard is by going back to the 1930's.
Thanks to Matt for emailing me about this article. I always appreciate a good head's up on a bad article.
ON THE DAY AFTER the All-Star Game was played in Phoenix without Ryan Howard, this column is directed at the haters and bashers who have been coming out of the woodwork in larger numbers than usual.
They are predictable as smog in a heat wave.
My state is currently having a heat wave. The heat index was 108 a few days ago. It is currently sitting at a temperature in the 90's as I sit in my mom's attic and type this. (checks window) There's no smog. I'm confused now. Perhaps I should be a meteorologist so I can understand this reference better.
They pretend to be knowledgable baseball fans, but trip themselves up every time because they are dead wrong.Bill Conlin misspelled the word knowledgeable in a sentence criticizing people for not being as smart as they think they are. Some would call this ironic.
Bill Conlin pretends to know who these haters are and pretends to know they aren't knowledgeable baseball fans, but he tripped himself up because he is dead wrong.
(There is nothing like a writer who takes a sentence containing an opinion and tries to pass it off as fact. It's like me saying, "There are people who think Albert Pujols isn't the best player in baseball. Those people are stupid and dead wrong." It's an opinion for God's sake, not a fact! I think maybe someone spit in Conlin's oatmeal the morning he wrote this, he's very angry)
And egregiously stupid.And Bill is a poor speller. I will let you decide his level of egregious stupidity on this.
Boy, talk about a shot across the bow. Calling these Howard-haters not real knowledgeable (except misspelling this word) and then calling them egregiously stupid. It sounds like he took personal offense to Howard not making the All-Star game. Which, because it is an exhibition game, is egregiously stupid.
I hear the reason why he was not voted into the All-Star Game by the fans - and Phillies fans basically ignored him while stuffing the ballot box for an injured Shane Victorino - is because the National League has all these great first basemen.
I like how Bill puts "great" in parenthesis. It's not like the reigning NL MVP or All-Star game MVP play first base or anything. The National League does have some great first basemen, even Albert Pujols didn't make the All-Star game this year. Let's look at the NL first basemen using basic easy statistics that Bill Conlin prefers (he LOVES RBI's) and some more advanced statistics that more reasonable humans use. All stats are as of the All-Star break.
Gaby Sanchez: .293/.374/.472, 13 home runs, 50 RBI's and an OPS+ of 132
Ryan Howard: .257/.353/.475, 18 home runs, 72 RBI's and an OPS+ of 127
Prince Fielder: .297/.418/.575, 22 home runs, 72 RBI's and an OPS+ of 169
Joey Votto: .324/.438/.507, 13 home runs, 55 RBI's and an OPS+ of 159
Albert Pujols: .280/.357/.500, 18 home runs, 50 RBI's and an OPS+ of 140
So I know Bitter Bill is being sarcastic, but there was some competition for first base in the All-Star game this year. Fielder and Votto deserved to make it and perhaps Howard got snubbed in favor of Gaby Sanchez, but someone had to represent the Florida Marlins in the game, so that makes some sense to have him on the team. Adding Howard and having 4 first basemen on the roster probably doesn't make sense. So basically, shut the hell up and quit crying.
And RH is no longer one of them . . .That's not at all what is being said. Bill is taking this a bit personal. What is being said is three first basemen in the National League are playing better than Howard through the first half of the year. It is easier for Conlin to make a big hysterical, dramatic conclusion rather than just accept this isn't a dig at Howard from now until the future, but just the facts based on his first half performance. Bill prefers to make a big hysterical, dramatic conclusion because then it makes it sound like those who are critical of Howard are that much more unreasonable. Bill passes this criticism of Howard as a complete indictment of his play when that may not be entirely true.
So, chew on this: Prince Fielder went to the All-Star Game and captained a Home Run Derby team that was blown out of the water by a couple of real hitters named Adrian Gonzalez and Robinson Cano, who put on one hell of a show.Chew on this: The Home Run Derby doesn't fucking matter when pertaining to this discussion. So which league won is irrelevant.
Chew even harder on this: You don't put players on the All-Star team simply to participate in the Home Run Derby. Maybe Bill Conlin would, but a reasonable person wouldn't.
Chew even harder on this and try not to choke: Prince Fielder won the MVP award and hit a home run in the All-Star game. Clearly, he deserved to be there regardless of how his team performed in the Home Run Derby.
Chew even harder on this and I hope it eventually gives you the shits: The performance of a player in the Home Run Derby (which I don't watch for one reason...Chris Berman. The fat turd who pretty much makes all things unwatchable) isn't indicative of how well that player performed during the first half of the season. So Howard's hypothetical performance in the Home Run Derby doesn't support his case for making the All-Star team.
Not that Fielder is chopped liver. He is, after all, tied for the league RBI lead with some slipping, already over-the-hill guy named Ryan Howard. Nobody said Ryan Howard was over-the-hill. He didn't make one All-Star team. Stop crying about it and just accept there were three better first basemen (or one first baseman who needed to represent his team on the squad) in the National League.
But let me mention that Howard bats cleanup for a first-place team that leads the majors in winsThis is so very, very irrelevant. Unless Ryan Howard started pitching, hitting and fielding with no other players on the Phillies team and I just happened to miss it. There is no one player that causes a team to lead the majors in wins. I'm guessing the Phillies pitching staff may have had something to do with the Phillies leading the majors in wins.
and has the biggest division lead at the break in either league.Yet again, incredibly irrelevant. What always interests me is sportswriters who hate advanced statistics tend to use statistics like RBI's, wins, and (in this case) division leads to try and prove a point. What's interesting about this is these can be misleading statistics. Basically, I think Bill Conlin hates advanced statistics because they don't allow him to easily mislead his readers.
Based on Conlin's statement you would think, "Man, the Phillies are really dominating their division" when this is true, but the lead is only 3.5 games. The other divisions are really close at this point. So while acknowledging how dominant the Phillies are, having the biggest lead in a division at the All-Star break shows how close the other divisions are. In fact, the second place team in their own division has the third best record in all of baseball.
So while is factually correct and the conclusion he wants you to reach, the Phillies are a great team, is also correct, they haven't run away with the division quite yet. I'm getting way off-topic because none of this really has much to do with Ryan Howard not making the All-Star game and the Howard-haters that Bill Conlin spits venom at. So regardless of the Phillies division lead, it doesn't necessarily contribute to Howard's All-Star worthiness.
Oh, but he's a butcher with the glove (all of four errors),Errors aren't the best way to determine how good a player is at a position. If I never go out of a five foot radius from my position then I may never commit a lot of errors, but I am also not getting to a lot of balls, which means I may not be a great defensive player. I'm not saying Ryan Howard is a bad defensive first baseman. I'm saying basing his defensive prowess only on how many errors he has committed is just so incredibly short-sighted. There's more to it, even if Bill Conlin wishes there weren't.
Therein lies the problem. Bill Conlin wants to continue to use some misleading statistics to back up his argument, while others (me) would prefer he supplement his argument with other statistics. That's the entire problem with the whole Sabermetrics v. Traditional statistics argument. We are yelling at each other in different languages, so there's no chance of an understanding being reached. Bill doesn't like UZR supplementing how many errors a player commits because he doesn't understand UZR and doesn't care to. I don't like just using errors because I know of other statistics which can supplement the "errors" statistics to determine a player's true defensive worth. Bill won't hear any of this and I dislike willful ignorance.
and is not providing close to acceptable return for the $125 million salary. (And since that contract just kicked in and he's on pace for 140 RBI, maybe you should wait a while on that.)This tells me that Bill Conlin doesn't even understand the criticism of Howard's contract and why some people project it to end up being a poor contract. The entire point of much of the criticism of the contract is that it did just kick in and he turns 32 years old in the offseason. So while it is hard for any player to justify this large of a contract, the fact it just kicked in is what makes people question the intelligence of the contract. These people project Howard won't age well as when evaluating he is going to be paid $125 million for 5 years. So saying the contract just kicked in and telling us how many RBI's, as if this proves anything of value, is misunderstanding the criticism of Howard. It's not this year the critics have a huge problem with Howard's contract, but it is years 3-5 which seem to be their concern.
Here's a typical email from a regular who has been on Howard's case since Day 1. He posted it just as the Phillies were about to explode for that 14-1 destructo of the Braves Sunday:The Phillies are paying Howard more than the Sox are paying Adrian Gonzalez a professional hitter. That would be funny if it wasn't so embarrassing.
I do think this is a bit overboard. Howard isn't that bad, though at this point I would probably take Adrian Gonzalez over Howard.
I replied: " . . . There's not one [censored] player worth what he's being paid . . . That's why there should be a statue of Marvin Miller in front of the MLPA headquarters."Actually, this is completely wrong. It is all relative to how much other players are paid to play the game of baseball professionally of course, but there are players on every MLB team worth what they are paid.
Jose Bautista makes $8 million this year. He has 31 home runs and an OBP of 0.468. I think he's worth what he is being paid.
Jair Jurrjens is paid $3.25 million to go 12-3 with a 1.87 ERA and 1.066 WHIP. He's not worth that amount of money?
Jacoby Ellsbury gets paid $2.4 million to hit .316/.377/.490 with 28 steals and 11 home runs. He's not worth that amount?
I could go on and on, but it is all relative to how much other players get paid for playing the game of baseball professionally, not to other professions. Bill Conlin is probably not worth as much as he gets paid if you compared his salary to every other profession. So the defense that "there's not one damn player worth what's he paid," isn't a great defense of Ryan Howard because it probably isn't true.
Didn't Bill Conlin just semi-defend Howard's contract by saying he was on pace for 140 RBI's? Now, Howard is like every other player and not worth this contract.
This was the generic chant from the Tab-and-Scrapple Choir.Let's keep the references to the post-Richard Nixon era please.
He doesn't hit for high enough average, he never hits in the clutch (See Mike Schmidt abuse files from the 1970s). He needs to bunt or slap the ball to left against the shift. Yada, yada, yada . . .Who are these people to criticize a player who Bill Conlin just said isn't worth his contract?
One guy even invoked the despicable, undecipherable WAR stat.This despicable WAR stat is just so much worse than the completely misleading RBI stat that Bill Conlin will base his entire defense of Ryan Howard upon. We all know a statistic is only useful unless it is really, really easy to figure out how to calculate that statistic. You know, that's why Calculus and any higher math over basic algebra isn't taught in high schools anymore. Numbers used in Calculus are SO HARD to figure out, so the entire course is despicable and undecipherable.
That's a totally bogus acronym for "Wins Above Replacement."It's not a bogus acronym. It actually is the acronym.
It presents a patentedly unsupported hypothesis that measures the "projected" performance of an "average" Triple A player called up to replace Major League regular A . . . I'm laughing too hard to continue.Translation: I'm too old and lazy to figure this statistic out so it must be terrible.
WAR isn't perfect, but what it does is compared players to a baseline other player. It sets a definite standard upon which to compare two or more players. RBI's does not do that. This is an incredibly basic thing to understand. RBI's has other variables that impact it when comparing two players, or even the same player between two years, while WAR tries to measure a player's performance using the baseline of a replacement player. The replacement player may be hard to understand, but it is a consistent baseline being used, which is very helpful when objectively comparing two or more players.
For example, Adrian Gonzalez had 101 RBI's in San Diego last year and he currently has 77 RBI's. Is he just that much better of a hitter this year or has his RBI total increased because he's had more players on-base to drive in while playing for the Red Sox? I would argue he has more runners to drive in and that's why his RBI's have increased. He's on pace to smash his career record for RBI's in a season and that has to do with the amount of runners on-base he had the opportunity to drive in. Using only RBI's, you could come to the conclusion Gonzalez is a better hitter this year. This is because RBI's depends on how many runners are on-base, so comparing Gonzalez's RBI's to Jose Bautista's RBI's isn't going to be an easy comparison due to each player having had different RBI opportunities presented to them while at-bat.
You saw what happened last season when Howard missed 19 games with an ankle sprain and was off-form the rest of the season, yet still managed 31 homers and 108 RBI.I will give the home runs to Conlin, but how many RBI's would Howard have had if he came up to the plate with no runners on-base? What if he came to the plate every at-bat with runners on-base? His RBI total would be affected by the variable of how many runners were available to drive in. This is an easy concept to understand, unless you are willfully ignorant about learning new things.
In the words of Edwin Starr at Woodstock: "WAR, what is it good for? Absolutely nothin.' [Hunh!]"In the words of Bengoodfella: "You are factually inaccurate yet again."
This another reason Bill Conlin probably hates new-age statistics, because they prove his pre-conceived notions or his assumptions incorrect. See, Bill is too fucking lazy to do research or learn new statistics. He is also too lazy to be accurate in his pop culture references. In this case, he quotes Edwin Starr who he claims was at Woodstock singing the hit "War." Bill passes up factual correctness in an attempt to be cute. He fails.
Edwin Starr was not only NOT at Woodstock, but the song "War" came out in
June 1970. Woodstock was in 1969. The song was released by the Temptations, but not sung by Edwin Starr at Woodstock. So unless Edwin Starr has a time machine we haven't heard about and he was able to go back in time and play on-stage at Woodstock and erase all evidence of his appearance, then Bill Conlin is not only making a dated cultural reference, but he is also factually inaccurate...which is par for the course.
Sure, this is a nitpicky point, but it goes to the heart of what irritates me with sportswriters who hate new-age statistics. I think they hate them because it would prove many of that sportswriter's assumptions to be wrong.
So let's move on to some serious power hitting by the man considered to be the greatest all-around hitter in franchise history. That would be Hall of Famer Chuck Klein.This is idiocy. Bill Conlin is comparing Ryan Howard to a guy who played 81 years ago. Jackie Robinson had not even broken the color barrier in 1944 when Chuck Klein retired.
Klein had a 1930 for the ages. So did the Phillies. He batted .386, but failed to win the batting title in a National League consumed by an orgy of offense. He scored 158 runs, flogged 250 hits, ripped 59 doubles, eight triples and 40 homers for a gargantuan 170 RBI.They must have been playing slo-pitch softball because the Phillies' team batting average was an incredible .315. That offensive juggernaut managed to lose 102 games in a 154-game schedule.If I had the time, I would say this is another reason why "wins" are a misleading statistic. How terrible was the Phillies pitching in 1930? It turns out it was
pretty bad. Ray Benge won 16 games with a 4.78 ERA. Ray Benge won 11 games with a 5.70 ERA. I wish Joe Morgan and Murray Chass could see how these wins were completely dependent on the amount of offense the Phillies had. If the Phillies didn't hit the shit out of the ball, how many games would this team have lost? 120 games?
Howard is tied for the NL RBI lead despite being an island in the stream. Until Chase Utley came back after missing 2 months, there was a mostly inept revolving No. 3 hole in front of him and a No. 5 hole committee that underperformed.Howard has 208 plate appearances with runners on-base out of 397 plate appearances. He's had runners in scoring position 133 of those plate appearances. So Howard seems to have had plenty of opportunities to drive runs in. In fact, I read somewhere he led the majors in at-bats with runners on-base, but I don't have the data to support this (or couldn't find it).
For the sake of comparison, Adrian Gonzalez has 403 plate appearances with runners on-base in 217 of those plate appearances. He's had runners in scoring position in 131 of those plate appearances. So Gonzalez and Howard have fairly similar plate appearances with runners on-base. I wouldn't say Howard has lacked for RBI opportunities.
So Howard has played very well, there's no doubt about that, but he's had plenty of opportunities to drive runners in, so it isn't like he was performing RBI miracles or anything.
In 1930, Klein had the best protection since the invention of the kevlar vest. He batted No. 3 with Lefty O'Doul hitting .383 in front of him. The cleanup hitter was third baseman Pinky Whitney, who batted .342.I see what Bill Conlin is trying to prove here, that Klein had great numbers with great protection, while Howard has great numbers without protection. Ignoring the idea
lineup protection is somewhat of a myth, Bill Conlin is still trying to compare Ryan Howard's modern day statistics to those of a player in a season 81 years ago. I'm not sure this comparison holds up at all. It was just a different game of baseball in the 1930's.
Klein was traded to the Cubs after his fifth full season:* The Chucker drove in 693 runs for an average of 138.6.
* Howard has driven in 680 runs for an average of 136.
* The Chucker hit 180 homers for an average of 36.
* Howard has hit 229 homers for an average of 45.8.
I am not sure anyone will argue Ryan Howard doesn't hit enough home runs or doesn't drive in enough runs. Using home runs and RBI's to prove...whatever the hell Bill is trying to prove isn't the end-all-be-all in discussing Ryan Howard. Using statistics from 1930 doesn't help the case much either.
At this point, I really have no idea what Bill Conlin is trying to prove, other than everyone who criticizes Ryan Howard sucks.
I'd rest the defense right there, but feel compelled to add that Klein spent most of his seasons here on teams in or near last place.See, here is another part of the problem. If we are comparing a single player against another single player we want to compare these two players based on their performance and try not to count in how well the rest of the team performed. So comparing two players based simply on RBI's is misleading because it drags in the team's performance when the comparison should be made based on the performance of each individual player.
I don't have to tell you where Ryan Howard has spent his five seasons.Which this leads me to respond that Howard has had better players around him than Chuck Klein. Which means more players on-base, which means more RBI's for Howard, which means using only RBI's to justify his greatness may not be completely accurate. The Phillies lineup does contain two ex-MVP's hitting in front of Howard for the past couple of years, so that has to be acknowledged as well if Conlin insists on comparing him to Chuck Klein.
Ryan Howard is a great first baseman, but justifying his contract by saying no player is worth that much money, mentioning his contract is just kicking in and he hasn't declined yet, and then basing the entire defense of Howard on the number of RBI's he has doesn't do a defense of Howard very much justice.
I still have no idea, other than to suckle at Howard's teat and stop all criticism of Howard by fans, what Conlin wanted to prove in this article.
