Murray Chass had a few thoughts about Stephen Strasburg and his innings count on his non-blog recently. Murray also takes a shot at defending his belief the wins statistic is very, very super important. Murray then takes on a reader who dares to question the all-knowing and relevance of the wins statistic, but as usual, really fails to make his point very clearly. For his grand finale, Murray loses the ability to read and criticizes a columnist for something he didn't write.
On the subject of Felix Hernandez, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: He is the best pitcher in baseball.
Murray believes Felix Hernandez shouldn't have won the 2010 Cy Young Award because he didn't have enough wins. Also, I'm not sure Murray has ever said Felix is the best pitcher in baseball before, but maybe he has. In my defense, I'm trying to lower my blood pressure so I only read Murray's non-blog once a week and I could have missed Murray's proclamation of love for Felix Hernandez.
I bring it up now for two reasons: his performance in his last three starts
And really, why wouldn't Murray fall in love with Hernandez based completely on a small sample size? It's really fitting that Murray hates on Hernandez for having a great 2010 season but not having enough wins, then falls in love with Hernandez in 2012 based on a three game sample size.
and the Washington Nationals’ mean-well but questionable pampering of Stephen Strasburg.
Naturally, Murray loves Hernandez based on a three game sample size and for another reason that has nothing to do with how well Hernandez pitches, which is based on how the Nationals are pampering Stephen Stasburg. I wouldn't be surprised if Murray states there is a third reason he loves Hernandez and that third reason is because Hernandez emigrated to the United States legally. Everything is on the table right now in terms of Murray's reasoning.
The pampering, of course, is intended to protect young pitchers’ arms. But if the idea is intended to protect and preserve young pitchers’ arms, why are 20 young pitchers from major league rosters among 30 pitchers recovering from reconstructive elbow surgery (a.k.a. Tommy John surgery) and why are 6 other young pitchers among 9 pitchers recovering from shoulder surgery?
I don't know. Are the attempts to preserve these pitcher's arms the reason they are getting injured or are these pitchers getting injured, so that means they need their arms better preserved? I hear there may be a new "X-Files" movie, so maybe they will tackle this big mystery.
I asked Chuck Armstrong, the Seattle Mariners’ president for 20 years, if the Mariners proceeded carefully with Hernandez in his early major league years.
“Actually, we did in his formative years,” Armstrong said, then cited a rule of thumb some people espouse: “No more innings than 10 times a pitcher’s age.”
This number is no less arbitrary than the Nationals putting a 160-180 inning limit on Stephen Strasburg. No one knows the correct amount of pitches a pitcher should throw to stay healthy, outside of "zero" pitches, of course. So to pretend "No more innings than 10 times a pitcher's age" is actual science is actual bullshit.
In six full seasons he has started, in order, 31, 30, 31, 34, 34 and 33 games (27 so far this season, with 7 more likely to follow). But he has had no need for elbow or shoulder surgery.
Why do some football players blow out their ACL when other football players do not? Why did Greg Maddux have a rubber arm? The reason for elbow injuries is incredibly hard to pinpoint. It isn't like an ACL or sprained ankle. A pitcher could feel a twinge and then it turns out his arm is shredded. It isn't like the pitcher's arm starts turning red as the elbow starts to get irritated and then finally falls off once the elbow is shredded. No one really knows why some pitchers have elbow problems and others don't.
The only person who has the answer to questions about Tommy John surgery and how to prevent a pitcher's elbow from blowing is probably Dr. James Andrews and he isn't talking because he makes a ton of money off performing the surgery. I know Dr. Andrews knows how to prevent these injuries, but until he is captured in the middle of the night and tortured until he gives the secret up, we as a general public are stuck guessing as to how to prevent pitchers from having elbows that get blown out.
“I wonder how many pitches he has in his arm. He’s not a maximum effort guy anymore. If he needs to get up to 95, 96, he can, but he doesn’t have to. Early on he often threw a lot of pitches. Now he tells me ‘I’m going to throw 98 pitches tonight’ and he does it.”
Hernandez is a 26 year old. Strasburg is 24 years old. Hernandez isn't a maximum effort guy anymore. What does this mean? I'm not sure, but the insinuation I get from the Mariners president is if Hernandez were a maximum effort guy perhaps he could have a higher propensity to get injured. Maybe that's part of the key to staying healthy, not being a max-effort pitcher.
Did you hear that up-and-coming pitchers? The key to not getting hurt is not trying your hardest. There will be a seminar at the Winter Meetings this offseason led by Hanley Ramirez and Brad Penny on exactly what this means and how to go about not trying your hardest. Red Sox fans upon learning this is how pitchers can prevent from being injured are shocked that John Lackey needed Tommy John surgery.
I had Hernandez in mind recently when I replied to a reader who disagreed with my view that wins for pitchers remain meaningful despite a contrary belief of advocates of new-age statistics.
Three complaints:
1. Wins are still relevant, but they aren't the end-all-be-all for how well a pitcher pitched. I've covered this repeatedly.
2. I use the term too often, but calling them "new-age statistics" makes me feel like I am burning incense and playing Yanni while crunching numbers. Can we call them "modern statistics" or "post-millennium statistics?" Just something that sounds cool and progressive...not something that sounds like I am drinking green tea and hanging out in a tent somewhere.
3. If Murray had Hernandez in mind when this reader questioned the use of the "wins" statistics and loves Hernandez now, does that mean he is ready to admit he was wrong about Hernandez not deserving the 2010 Cy Young Award?
Spoiler alert: No, it does not.
“How does a starting pitcher have ‘control?’” the reader wrote, referring to relievers’ giving up the starter’s lead.
A pitcher never has complete control of the outcome in a game. The only way a pitcher has some control over the outcome of the game is if he pitches 9 innings of shutout ball and hits a home run when he comes up to bat. Otherwise, he is subject to his team not hitting or fielding the baseball well. That's the bottom line...well, for Murray that's not the bottom line.
“By pitching nine innings,” I replied.
No, no, no, no, no. A pitcher still doesn't have control if he pitches nine innings. I can pitch nine innings and lose 1-0. I can pitch nine innings and lose 12-11. Sure, a pitcher who throws a complete game probably has a better chance of winning that game because the fact he pitched the full nine innings indicates he was pitching well. The number of innings a pitcher pitches (over five innings to earn the win of course) has nothing to do with the amount of control he has on whether he gets the win or not. "Win" is a team statistic. I don't hate this team statistic, and a pitcher can certainly take some variables out of the equation to earn the win by pitching the entire game, but this isn't a cure-all answer for a pitcher to gain control over whether he gets the win or not.
In today's game, pitchers simply don't pitch nine innings in most of their starts. This is part of the reason the "win" statistic has lost some relevance, because the rise of the specialty reliever has caused pitchers to have less control over whether they win or lose the game. This is how the game of baseball is evolving. Instead of admitting the direction baseball has evolved, Murray clings to the idea wins are still very, very relevant when this isn't true. Murray is more willing to hold on to a less-relevant statistic than he is willing to admit the direction baseball has evolved. It's kind of sad. I will give a very brief example to show how a team's offense affects a pitchers wins using very basic statistics that Murray should be able to understand.
First, I will compare Felix Hernandez to CC Sabathia over the last two years.
In 2010, Felix Hernandez had 6 complete games and won 13 games.
In 2011, Felix Hernandez had 5 complete games and won 14 games.
In 2010, CC Sabathia had 2 complete games and won 21 games.
In 2011, CC Sabathia had 3 complete games and won 19 games.
That was with the Yankees. Before that, Sabathia played for the Indians/Brewers when he managed to throw more complete games, but not win more games. As you can see, Sabathia didn't have to complete more games to ensure he got a win, while Felix Hernandez had to complete more games to ensure he got a win. It's almost like there is another variable the pitcher can't control which decides if a pitcher gets a win or not.
In 2006, Sabathia had 6 complete games and won 12 games.
In 2007, Sabathia had 4 complete games and won 19 games.
In 2008 (with the Indians and Brewers), Sabathia had 10 complete games and won 17 games.
A pitcher who completes a game has a better shot at getting the win, but if a pitcher has enough offense, he doesn't have to complete a game to get the win.
Should the Nationals, who have led the National League East since May 22, suddenly encounter trouble, Strasburg will not be able to help rescue them.
Well, he could theoretically pitch again if he had to. Strasburg could pitch in late September after a 2-3 layoff.
They are being cautious, overly cautious, I believe. Elbows are supposed to be stronger after Tommy John surgery. Using the rule of thumb Armstrong cited, 10 times Strasburg’s age would give him a maximum of 240 innings, well above the number he will have, even accounting for the operation.
That is true, but if Strasburg gets hurt and needs Tommy John surgery then they will be out until next year at this time. I don't know if it makes sense to sit Strasburg, but the "10 innings for every year of the pitcher's age" theory is still just a guess. It isn't an exact science, so Murray shouldn't act like it is.
A column in The New York Times two weeks ago said injury experts “have praised the team” for its stance on Strasburg’s injury, but the writer doesn’t name or quote any of his experts.
Scott Boras think it was a good decision to shutdown Strasburg. He is not an expert, but neither is Murray Chass. Again, there isn't one definite way to know what the best move in this situation was.
The writer, David Leonhardt, is the Times’ Washington bureau chief. Geography apparently qualifies him to make other questionable statements.
Apparently being an ex-sportswriter qualifies Murray Chass to make questionable statements about wins and how many innings pitched is too many pitched for a pitcher coming off Tommy John surgery.
Leonhardt also makes conflicting statements about the Nationals’ status.
This is annoying. I don't know what old-school sportswriters believe, but I believe it is polite to provide a link to an article that you are not only citing, but also criticizing at-length in a column. I thought Murray was supposed to be a professional sportswriter, not a blogger who completely disregards years of proven writing etiquette? Provide a link to the article you are criticizing.
I will link the article. Here is the part where Murray starts lying. Murray never provides a link to Leonhardt's column and the reason he doesn't do this is so he can misconstrue and lie about what Leonhardt wrote. What Murray wrote is in bold black and what Leonhardt wrote is in bold black italics.
On one hand, he writes that the Nationals are good enough to have a chance to make the World Series even without Strasburg, which probably isn’t so.
What Leonhardt wrote:
Even without Strasburg, the Nationals are a good team, good enough to have a shot at the World Series title.
Murray is talking about the Nationals simply making it to the World Series, when the sentence written by Leonhardt actually stated the Nationals have an actual shot at winning the World Series title.
On the other hand, he says that even with Strasburg, the Nationals probably wouldn’t make it because Baseball Reference ranks them only as the third best team in baseball, based on various statistics.
Here comes the lie. What Leonhardt actually wrote:
But it is certainly less likely. As is, Washington appears to be only the third best team in baseball, behind the Yankees and the Texas Rangers, according to a Baseball Reference ranking that takes into account team records, strength of schedule and run differential.
Leonhardt says the Nationals probably wouldn't WIN the World Series title. He didn't say they wouldn't make it to the World Series. There is a huge difference. The fact Murray has either (a) lied or (b) read this sentence like he wanted to read it, rather than read what it actually says causes Murray to continue with his criticism of Leonhardt (without providing a link to the article of course).
Two comments about that observation:
Baseball games are won and lost on the field, not on a sheet of statistics.
He was simply saying the Nationals are the third-best team when Strasburg is pitching every fifth day, so when Strasburg is no longer pitching every fifth day the Nationals may not be able to win the World Series. Murray shouldn't get his panties in a bunch because Leonhardt used statistics that Murray doesn't want to understand or is incapable of understanding.
If Leonhardt thinks the Nationals’ chances of getting to the World Series are not good, even with Strasburg, because they are ranked third behind the Yankees and the Rangers, is he suggesting that the Yankees and the Rangers would meet in the World Series?
Leonhardt said the Nationals chances of WINNING the World Series aren't good. He wasn't talking about the Nationals making it to the World Series without Strasburg when comparing them to the Yankees and Rangers, but WINNING the World Series with Strasburg. Reading comprehension is FUNdamental.
That’s not likely to happen because both are American League teams.
Great point dipshit and not a very good criticism. Perhaps you should read the sentence a little closer before criticizing what Leonhardt wrote.
A team from the National League would be needed, and if the Nationals are the top-ranked N.L. team, maybe they would be the N.L. representative.
It's always frustrating when a blogger like Murray Chass reads what he wants to from a column written by the mainstream sports media, then goes off half-cocked and criticizes this sportswriter for no good reason. Bloggers are so annoying.
It’s commendable that the Nationals want to protect Strasburg’s future, but even if he were to hurt his arm, he would live to pitch again and he and his grateful teammates might have World Series rings to gaze at as he awaits his next recovery.
What if Strasburg hurt his arm during the NL Divisional Series? Then Strasburg would have hurt his arm and the Nationals wouldn't have any World Series rings to gaze at.
I find it interesting Murray Chass finds bloggers to be so bad for the future of journalism, yet Murray is the one who doesn't provide a link to an article he criticizes, misconstrues what that article is stating, and blindly sticks to his point of view even in the face of contrary evidence.
Showing posts with label stephen strasburg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stephen strasburg. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Thursday, August 5, 2010
4 comments Murray Chass Thinks Baseball Has An Integrity Problem, Then Takes Activia Challenge
I have set up a Yahoo Fantasy Football League and those of you who have already expressed interest can feel free to join. Anyone else who wants to join can feel free to do so as well. I am planning on having a 12 team league and I have set up the league like last year's Yahoo league, but am open to any changes. The ID is 269298 and the password is "eckstein."
I wanted to go with something meaner in the title today, like "Murray Chass Thinks Baseball Lacks Integrity, Also Believes He Just Wet Himself," or "Murray Chass Talks About Baseball's Integrity Problem, Also Wants Kids To Get Off His Lawn." Actually, that last one isn't mean but probably true. Either way, Murray thinks baseball has an integrity problem and it doesn't deal with steroids. It deals with how teams manage their rosters.
Much like how an NFL team will put a player on IR for the season because they have an "injury" and don't want to cut that player and try to get the player through waivers on to the practice squad, MLB teams keep their players in the minors to save time on the arbitration clock. Yeah, it sucks for the players, but it is also the team's business to do this. Fans can hate it, the players can hate it, and Murray Chass can hate it but that's just the way it is. How an organization wants to manage its roster should be up to them, as long as it is within baseball's rules.
Baseball’s integrity was on my mind because I suspect that teams like the San Francisco Giants have undermined it. These teams just don’t seem like they’re trying to win, or at least doing everything they can to win.
San Francisco currently has one of the best records in baseball at 62-45. They have the second best record in the National League. Clearly, they have thrown this season away and don't give two shits about winning.
That’s a pretty damaging charge, I admit,
And also a completely wrong charge. Please admit that too.
But when a team doesn’t use the best players available to it, you have to question its motives and its integrity.
No you don't. You question the intelligence of the team in not using their best players. The Giants aren't cheating in any way by not playing their best players, other than cheating the fans in some ways. If they don't want to play certain players it's their choice. It is not a matter of integrity, but a matter of future and present fiscal responsibility.
I have a problem questioning the competitive motives of a team that as of Wednesday afternoon had a record of 62-45.
Teams don’t have to spend outrageous millions on free agents, but they have no excuse ignoring whatever means are already available to them. In the Giants’ case, I would say that means calling up catcher Buster Posey before they did.
Murray may just have been having a bad day when he wrote this, so that explains why he is grump, but the Giants already had Bengie Molina on the roster and were on the hook for his $4.5 million salary. He's not a great catcher, but he has not been completely terrible in the past. The Giants somehow (sarcasm) managed to survive without Posey and then when he was ready to start everyday they traded Molina for Chris Ray, who has a 2.53 ERA, 1.03 WHIP, and 174 ERA+ with the Giants. It was a good move by the Giants to keep Molina on the roster until they had Posey ready and could trade Molina.
The Giants delayed Posey’s callup by almost two months, and the delay effectively delayed by a year his eligibility for salary arbitration and free agency.
Which I have no problem with a team doing. It's not like the Giants needed Posey and bringing him up would give them one less year of control over him. Besides, Posey will probably sign a long-term contract buying out his arbitration years if he continues at this rate, so the arbitration clock is a moot point if that ends up being the case.
The Giants have played much better with Posey in the lineup, but it certainly isn't just because of him. The other players on the roster, like Pat Burrell, have contributed to the Giants hot streak as well.
That’s part of the manipulation of major league service time in which the owners engage. It’s a game I’ve written about before, most recently last month. Unlike collusion, it’s perfectly legal, and the clubs take full advantage of it.
It absolutely should be legal. A MLB team should not be forced to call-up a player to the majors because a third party thinks that player is "ready." Teams should have full control over their roster, which means they can call-up players when they want to. Does it suck for the player? Yes, it does. Unfortunately, I can't think of a reason or way to force teams to call-up a player who is deemed "ready."
Should the Braves call up Freddie Freeman to play first base because he is tearing up Triple-A and Troy Glaus is struggling? All signs point to Freeman being ready, so should MLB force the Braves to call him up? How in the hell would this be fair? He's ready, but a team shouldn't be forced to make roster moves in this manner.
What about other teams who have prospects ready in the minors? Should they be forced to call-up a player to take up a valuable roster spot.
The players whose service time is manipulated are forced to wait an additional year for salary arbitration and then free agency, and the fans are deprived of players who might help their team win.
The fans are deprived for two months of the season. For a starting pitcher, taking away two months of the season allows that starter to potentially not have to miss starts down the stretch (assuming he didn't pitch too many innings in the minors, which may be a big assumption), when games feel more important to a contending team. A pitcher would have to miss starts so his innings can be controlled. If a starter misses two months of the season and that pitcher had a controlled inning count count in the minors, this worry goes away.
In regard to a position player, I don't see how two months of minor league baseball will hurt his development over the long-term. Keeping a player in the minors to be sure he is ready is the safe move.
“Eligibility has nothing to do with it; that’s a moot point,” Sabean said. “The biggest factor was he hadn’t played much professional baseball. He was learning the catching position. We wanted to make sure he was comfortable at the plate.”
Joe Morgan is wondering why any catcher would have to learn the position. Veteran pitchers call their own games after all. It's such an easy position to learn to play.
Brian Sabean is lying when he says this...or at least not being completely truthful. I think we all know that. He shouldn't lie, he should just say it makes financial sense to keep Posey in the minors. Maybe Posey did need more experience at the professional level, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because as long as a team isn't breaking any rules they should be able to do whatever they want to do with the roster.
Then, talking about Aubrey Huff, Sabean said, “An opening came when Huff was moved to the outfield. That opened first base and gave us a chance to call him up and get him comfortable in the big leagues. We didn’t feel he would be ready at the beginning of the season.”
Maybe this is true, maybe it isn't true. My point is that it doesn't and shouldn't matter. Roster moves are the sole decision of a franchise and not a universal question to be debated among the masses. It's fine to second-guess the decision to keep Posey in the minors from the standpoint of how good of a player he could become, but the move to keep him in the minors doesn't lack integrity.
But let’s look at Posey. Called up May 29, he missed the first 47 games of the season. When he arrived, he hit the ground hitting and hasn’t stopped.
That's not true. Posey hit .259/.289/.341 in the month of June. He had 85 at-bats during that month and had one home run. This is compared to his July, where he hit .417/.466/.699 and seven home runs in 103 at-bats. Posey didn't hit the ground running really.
There’s no guarantee what Posey would have done had the Giants called him up earlier, but there’s no reason to think he could not have hit at a similar level for another 10 or 20 games.
It may have been a similar level, but I don't think Posey would be OPSing 1.165 for April and May if he had been called up. Pitchers have a learning curve to catch up with a talented player, and once pitchers figure out how to pitch to a batter, then the batter has to adjust. So Posey may have hit at the same level he did in July or he may not have.
If you doubt that the Giants’ strategy stems from economic motives, consider this. If the Giants legitimately believed that Posey needed more time in the minors, they could have kept him there for a month and a half and still brought him up earlier than they did.
Yes, they could. At that point, why not wait a few more days and get another year of service out of him? I don't see the problem with this from the standpoint of a franchise. They are playing within the rules set out, not circumventing the rules.
But if they had recalled him only 11 days earlier, May 18 – what could he have learned in those 11 days? – those 11 days would have given him enough time to have a full year of major league service (he was in the majors for 33 days last season).
I think we all know it is a financially motivated move. What I don't know is why Murray Chass says this move lacks integrity.
Stephen Strasburg, the year’s most dynamic rookie, will also need seven years. Unlike Posey, he will also need an extra year to be eligible for salary arbitration. When his four-year contract expires after the 2012 season, he will have two years and 118 days of major league service, falling about 20 to 22 days short of arbitration eligibility. An earlier callup – he was added to the Nationals’ roster June 8 – would have altered that status.
Right, it would have altered his status. Again, we know the real reason why the Nationals kept Strasburg in the minors, but I don't know why this lacks integrity...unless the lie by the GM for why the player is kept down is what concerns Murray. If this is the case, he should know GM's lie all the time about a lot of things, including trade rumors and many other things. This doesn't seem to concern Murray.
“I know the Nationals felt that Strasburg needed to be in the minors,” Selig said in a telephone interview. “They handled him very carefully and in my opinion very intelligently. How do you know if he’s ready if you don’t see him pitch in the minors? I’ve seen a lot of guys ruined who were rushed, moved too fast. Baseball people have to make those decisions.”
This is a dumb quote. What Selig should have said is,
"I am not going to tell an organization how they should go about their business as long as it is within the rules. Forcing teams to call-up players others deem as 'ready' is not any business of MLB. How an organization chooses to allocate personnel and progress players through their system is up to that organization."
As Selig pointed out, neither of us is Branch Rickey, but I doubt that it took a Branch Rickey to know that Strasburg was ready for prime time before the Nationals said he was. What was magic about June 8? Nothing except it was a safe salary arbitration date.
It is. It is also the time the Nationals chose to pitch Strasburg against a succession of weak teams like the Pirates, Indians, and Royals. That was not a bad streak of games to have Strasburg begin his career facing.
“We can talk about Mike Leake,” he said, “but someone made a decision that he was ready.” And a sound decision it was. The Reds were more interested in winning than in economics. They chose not to cheat their fans.
The Reds, who didn't cheat their fans, currently have a worse record than the Giants, who did cheat their fans according to Murray Chass. I know more goes into a team's record than when Mike Leake or Buster Posey were called up, but I don't think the Giants fan base feels cheated right now.
Another reason the Reds could afford to have Leake start the year on the roster is because they had Aroldis Chapman in the minors ready to take over any starts that Leake misses to keep his innings down. The Giants had an expensive catcher on the roster already and didn't feel the need to call up Posey to play first base, so they kept him in the minors.
If Murray Chass is really worried about teams cheating their fans he should pay more attention to bad signings in free agency and how the worst teams in the league (like the Pirates) are run. There are teams in MLB that are really cheating their fans by the product they put on the field and the personnel moves they make. MLB doesn't regulate this, nor should they, so why regulate when players are called up to the majors? Murray really doesn't give a crap about the fans, he just doesn't get baseball economics and so he thinks any move he doesn't completely understand is stupid.
“I don’t know anything about Posey; maybe he wasn’t ready,” Selig said of the catcher who stroked three hits in each of his first two games and 9 hits in his first 19 times at bat. “I have to rely on their player development people. They did have Molina,” he added, referring to Bengie Molina, whom the Giants traded less than two weeks after they recalled Posey.
I'm pretty sure it is not against MLB rules to keep a player in the minors, so I am not sure why Murray is grilling Bud Selig about the Giants decision to keep Posey in the minors.
Posey played in September of 2009 and he had 2 hits in 17 at-bats, so he got three hits in the first two games this year, not for his career.
And it also wasn’t economic with the Marlins and Mike Stanton (June 9), the Pirates and Jose Tabata (June 9), the Orioles and Jake Arrieta (June 10), the Indians and Carlos Santana (June 11), the Pirates and Pedro Alvarez (June 16), the Astros and Juan Castro (June 22), the Giants and Madison Bumgarner (June 26).
I can't blame teams for making sure they get to keep their young players longer...especially teams like the Pirates, Marlins, Orioles and Indians.
Teams have a right to try to save money but not at the expense of their players and their fans.
The Giants did start the year off slow but there's no guarantee if Posey was on the team in April and May he would have been able to turn this around by himself. The Giants have also benefited from other players performing well in June and July. I fail to see how the Giants fans have been hurt by Posey being under team control for one more year than if he had started the year with the team.
Teams have a right to save money however they see fit.
Baseball officials might not see it as a matter of integrity, but their credibility doesn’t represent the ideal.
Shut up. It's not an integrity issue. It's an economic and team competitive performance issue.
This was the same gang that negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement in August 1985, then only months later violated its terms on free agency.
25 years ago baseball officials colluded against free agents, so we can't trust them today. This is not the same gang that colluded against free agents in the 1980's. There are new baseball officials, GMs, and owners from 25 years ago.
There is a good chance Murray Chass thinks it is 1989.
I suppose it’s difficult for people to care about or recognize how a lack of integrity affects players and fans when they lack integrity themselves.
I would love to know which fans feel cheated they get to keep players like Stephen Strasburg, Mike Stanton, Buster Posey, and Jose Tabata for one additional year. Any long-term thinking fan would be perfectly willing to give up two months of this year for an additional year of control over these players. The Marlins, Pirates, and Nationals aren't going anywhere this year no matter when they called these players up and the Giants have a 62-45 record despite cheating their fans. So the fans shouldn't feel cheated by looking at the long-term ramifications of keeping these players around.
I still don't see the lack of integrity argument being made by Murray Chass. Are teams being financially thrifty? Yes. Are teams holding back players that could be ready for the majors? Possibly. Is holding back players better for the long-term financial success of the team? Probably.
What Chass misses throughout this argument is that if a player like Posey is a good player, he will get a long-term contract or a contract buying out his arbitration years before he would be eligible for free agency. So whether Posey would become a free agent after his sixth or seventh year in the majors wouldn't even come into play most likely.
I wanted to go with something meaner in the title today, like "Murray Chass Thinks Baseball Lacks Integrity, Also Believes He Just Wet Himself," or "Murray Chass Talks About Baseball's Integrity Problem, Also Wants Kids To Get Off His Lawn." Actually, that last one isn't mean but probably true. Either way, Murray thinks baseball has an integrity problem and it doesn't deal with steroids. It deals with how teams manage their rosters.
Much like how an NFL team will put a player on IR for the season because they have an "injury" and don't want to cut that player and try to get the player through waivers on to the practice squad, MLB teams keep their players in the minors to save time on the arbitration clock. Yeah, it sucks for the players, but it is also the team's business to do this. Fans can hate it, the players can hate it, and Murray Chass can hate it but that's just the way it is. How an organization wants to manage its roster should be up to them, as long as it is within baseball's rules.
Baseball’s integrity was on my mind because I suspect that teams like the San Francisco Giants have undermined it. These teams just don’t seem like they’re trying to win, or at least doing everything they can to win.
San Francisco currently has one of the best records in baseball at 62-45. They have the second best record in the National League. Clearly, they have thrown this season away and don't give two shits about winning.
That’s a pretty damaging charge, I admit,
And also a completely wrong charge. Please admit that too.
But when a team doesn’t use the best players available to it, you have to question its motives and its integrity.
No you don't. You question the intelligence of the team in not using their best players. The Giants aren't cheating in any way by not playing their best players, other than cheating the fans in some ways. If they don't want to play certain players it's their choice. It is not a matter of integrity, but a matter of future and present fiscal responsibility.
I have a problem questioning the competitive motives of a team that as of Wednesday afternoon had a record of 62-45.
Teams don’t have to spend outrageous millions on free agents, but they have no excuse ignoring whatever means are already available to them. In the Giants’ case, I would say that means calling up catcher Buster Posey before they did.
Murray may just have been having a bad day when he wrote this, so that explains why he is grump, but the Giants already had Bengie Molina on the roster and were on the hook for his $4.5 million salary. He's not a great catcher, but he has not been completely terrible in the past. The Giants somehow (sarcasm) managed to survive without Posey and then when he was ready to start everyday they traded Molina for Chris Ray, who has a 2.53 ERA, 1.03 WHIP, and 174 ERA+ with the Giants. It was a good move by the Giants to keep Molina on the roster until they had Posey ready and could trade Molina.
The Giants delayed Posey’s callup by almost two months, and the delay effectively delayed by a year his eligibility for salary arbitration and free agency.
Which I have no problem with a team doing. It's not like the Giants needed Posey and bringing him up would give them one less year of control over him. Besides, Posey will probably sign a long-term contract buying out his arbitration years if he continues at this rate, so the arbitration clock is a moot point if that ends up being the case.
The Giants have played much better with Posey in the lineup, but it certainly isn't just because of him. The other players on the roster, like Pat Burrell, have contributed to the Giants hot streak as well.
That’s part of the manipulation of major league service time in which the owners engage. It’s a game I’ve written about before, most recently last month. Unlike collusion, it’s perfectly legal, and the clubs take full advantage of it.
It absolutely should be legal. A MLB team should not be forced to call-up a player to the majors because a third party thinks that player is "ready." Teams should have full control over their roster, which means they can call-up players when they want to. Does it suck for the player? Yes, it does. Unfortunately, I can't think of a reason or way to force teams to call-up a player who is deemed "ready."
Should the Braves call up Freddie Freeman to play first base because he is tearing up Triple-A and Troy Glaus is struggling? All signs point to Freeman being ready, so should MLB force the Braves to call him up? How in the hell would this be fair? He's ready, but a team shouldn't be forced to make roster moves in this manner.
What about other teams who have prospects ready in the minors? Should they be forced to call-up a player to take up a valuable roster spot.
The players whose service time is manipulated are forced to wait an additional year for salary arbitration and then free agency, and the fans are deprived of players who might help their team win.
The fans are deprived for two months of the season. For a starting pitcher, taking away two months of the season allows that starter to potentially not have to miss starts down the stretch (assuming he didn't pitch too many innings in the minors, which may be a big assumption), when games feel more important to a contending team. A pitcher would have to miss starts so his innings can be controlled. If a starter misses two months of the season and that pitcher had a controlled inning count count in the minors, this worry goes away.
In regard to a position player, I don't see how two months of minor league baseball will hurt his development over the long-term. Keeping a player in the minors to be sure he is ready is the safe move.
“Eligibility has nothing to do with it; that’s a moot point,” Sabean said. “The biggest factor was he hadn’t played much professional baseball. He was learning the catching position. We wanted to make sure he was comfortable at the plate.”
Joe Morgan is wondering why any catcher would have to learn the position. Veteran pitchers call their own games after all. It's such an easy position to learn to play.
Brian Sabean is lying when he says this...or at least not being completely truthful. I think we all know that. He shouldn't lie, he should just say it makes financial sense to keep Posey in the minors. Maybe Posey did need more experience at the professional level, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because as long as a team isn't breaking any rules they should be able to do whatever they want to do with the roster.
Then, talking about Aubrey Huff, Sabean said, “An opening came when Huff was moved to the outfield. That opened first base and gave us a chance to call him up and get him comfortable in the big leagues. We didn’t feel he would be ready at the beginning of the season.”
Maybe this is true, maybe it isn't true. My point is that it doesn't and shouldn't matter. Roster moves are the sole decision of a franchise and not a universal question to be debated among the masses. It's fine to second-guess the decision to keep Posey in the minors from the standpoint of how good of a player he could become, but the move to keep him in the minors doesn't lack integrity.
But let’s look at Posey. Called up May 29, he missed the first 47 games of the season. When he arrived, he hit the ground hitting and hasn’t stopped.
That's not true. Posey hit .259/.289/.341 in the month of June. He had 85 at-bats during that month and had one home run. This is compared to his July, where he hit .417/.466/.699 and seven home runs in 103 at-bats. Posey didn't hit the ground running really.
There’s no guarantee what Posey would have done had the Giants called him up earlier, but there’s no reason to think he could not have hit at a similar level for another 10 or 20 games.
It may have been a similar level, but I don't think Posey would be OPSing 1.165 for April and May if he had been called up. Pitchers have a learning curve to catch up with a talented player, and once pitchers figure out how to pitch to a batter, then the batter has to adjust. So Posey may have hit at the same level he did in July or he may not have.
If you doubt that the Giants’ strategy stems from economic motives, consider this. If the Giants legitimately believed that Posey needed more time in the minors, they could have kept him there for a month and a half and still brought him up earlier than they did.
Yes, they could. At that point, why not wait a few more days and get another year of service out of him? I don't see the problem with this from the standpoint of a franchise. They are playing within the rules set out, not circumventing the rules.
But if they had recalled him only 11 days earlier, May 18 – what could he have learned in those 11 days? – those 11 days would have given him enough time to have a full year of major league service (he was in the majors for 33 days last season).
I think we all know it is a financially motivated move. What I don't know is why Murray Chass says this move lacks integrity.
Stephen Strasburg, the year’s most dynamic rookie, will also need seven years. Unlike Posey, he will also need an extra year to be eligible for salary arbitration. When his four-year contract expires after the 2012 season, he will have two years and 118 days of major league service, falling about 20 to 22 days short of arbitration eligibility. An earlier callup – he was added to the Nationals’ roster June 8 – would have altered that status.
Right, it would have altered his status. Again, we know the real reason why the Nationals kept Strasburg in the minors, but I don't know why this lacks integrity...unless the lie by the GM for why the player is kept down is what concerns Murray. If this is the case, he should know GM's lie all the time about a lot of things, including trade rumors and many other things. This doesn't seem to concern Murray.
“I know the Nationals felt that Strasburg needed to be in the minors,” Selig said in a telephone interview. “They handled him very carefully and in my opinion very intelligently. How do you know if he’s ready if you don’t see him pitch in the minors? I’ve seen a lot of guys ruined who were rushed, moved too fast. Baseball people have to make those decisions.”
This is a dumb quote. What Selig should have said is,
"I am not going to tell an organization how they should go about their business as long as it is within the rules. Forcing teams to call-up players others deem as 'ready' is not any business of MLB. How an organization chooses to allocate personnel and progress players through their system is up to that organization."
As Selig pointed out, neither of us is Branch Rickey, but I doubt that it took a Branch Rickey to know that Strasburg was ready for prime time before the Nationals said he was. What was magic about June 8? Nothing except it was a safe salary arbitration date.
It is. It is also the time the Nationals chose to pitch Strasburg against a succession of weak teams like the Pirates, Indians, and Royals. That was not a bad streak of games to have Strasburg begin his career facing.
“We can talk about Mike Leake,” he said, “but someone made a decision that he was ready.” And a sound decision it was. The Reds were more interested in winning than in economics. They chose not to cheat their fans.
The Reds, who didn't cheat their fans, currently have a worse record than the Giants, who did cheat their fans according to Murray Chass. I know more goes into a team's record than when Mike Leake or Buster Posey were called up, but I don't think the Giants fan base feels cheated right now.
Another reason the Reds could afford to have Leake start the year on the roster is because they had Aroldis Chapman in the minors ready to take over any starts that Leake misses to keep his innings down. The Giants had an expensive catcher on the roster already and didn't feel the need to call up Posey to play first base, so they kept him in the minors.
If Murray Chass is really worried about teams cheating their fans he should pay more attention to bad signings in free agency and how the worst teams in the league (like the Pirates) are run. There are teams in MLB that are really cheating their fans by the product they put on the field and the personnel moves they make. MLB doesn't regulate this, nor should they, so why regulate when players are called up to the majors? Murray really doesn't give a crap about the fans, he just doesn't get baseball economics and so he thinks any move he doesn't completely understand is stupid.
“I don’t know anything about Posey; maybe he wasn’t ready,” Selig said of the catcher who stroked three hits in each of his first two games and 9 hits in his first 19 times at bat. “I have to rely on their player development people. They did have Molina,” he added, referring to Bengie Molina, whom the Giants traded less than two weeks after they recalled Posey.
I'm pretty sure it is not against MLB rules to keep a player in the minors, so I am not sure why Murray is grilling Bud Selig about the Giants decision to keep Posey in the minors.
Posey played in September of 2009 and he had 2 hits in 17 at-bats, so he got three hits in the first two games this year, not for his career.
And it also wasn’t economic with the Marlins and Mike Stanton (June 9), the Pirates and Jose Tabata (June 9), the Orioles and Jake Arrieta (June 10), the Indians and Carlos Santana (June 11), the Pirates and Pedro Alvarez (June 16), the Astros and Juan Castro (June 22), the Giants and Madison Bumgarner (June 26).
I can't blame teams for making sure they get to keep their young players longer...especially teams like the Pirates, Marlins, Orioles and Indians.
Teams have a right to try to save money but not at the expense of their players and their fans.
The Giants did start the year off slow but there's no guarantee if Posey was on the team in April and May he would have been able to turn this around by himself. The Giants have also benefited from other players performing well in June and July. I fail to see how the Giants fans have been hurt by Posey being under team control for one more year than if he had started the year with the team.
Teams have a right to save money however they see fit.
Baseball officials might not see it as a matter of integrity, but their credibility doesn’t represent the ideal.
Shut up. It's not an integrity issue. It's an economic and team competitive performance issue.
This was the same gang that negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement in August 1985, then only months later violated its terms on free agency.
25 years ago baseball officials colluded against free agents, so we can't trust them today. This is not the same gang that colluded against free agents in the 1980's. There are new baseball officials, GMs, and owners from 25 years ago.
There is a good chance Murray Chass thinks it is 1989.
I suppose it’s difficult for people to care about or recognize how a lack of integrity affects players and fans when they lack integrity themselves.
I would love to know which fans feel cheated they get to keep players like Stephen Strasburg, Mike Stanton, Buster Posey, and Jose Tabata for one additional year. Any long-term thinking fan would be perfectly willing to give up two months of this year for an additional year of control over these players. The Marlins, Pirates, and Nationals aren't going anywhere this year no matter when they called these players up and the Giants have a 62-45 record despite cheating their fans. So the fans shouldn't feel cheated by looking at the long-term ramifications of keeping these players around.
I still don't see the lack of integrity argument being made by Murray Chass. Are teams being financially thrifty? Yes. Are teams holding back players that could be ready for the majors? Possibly. Is holding back players better for the long-term financial success of the team? Probably.
What Chass misses throughout this argument is that if a player like Posey is a good player, he will get a long-term contract or a contract buying out his arbitration years before he would be eligible for free agency. So whether Posey would become a free agent after his sixth or seventh year in the majors wouldn't even come into play most likely.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
5 comments Bill Plaschke Wants To Fix An Injustice
No All-Star Game would be the same without some manufactured controversy and sportswriters are glad to oblige. Bill Plaschke has written an article and thinks Stephen Strasburg had to make the All-Star Game. I have been surprised this year much of the focus in the pre-All-Star Game writing hasn't focused on how the game shouldn't be what decides homefield advantage in the World Series, but has focused on whether Stephen Strasburg deserves to be in the All-Star Game or not. Plaschke jumps on this bandwagon.
It's not a Most Valuable Player game. It's not a Best Statistical Player game.
The fan voting is a popularity contest and then the managers' choices are based on which player has the best statistics in each league. That's the purpose of the All-Star Game, to get the best players in each league together to play a game. The best players can be determined by using statistics.
This hootenanny in Anaheim next week, it's an All-Star game, which means the only requirement is that participants are stars.
Completely incorrect. The only requirement to START in the All-Star Game is to have the fans like you and vote for you. The other requirement if you aren't elected to the team is that you are among the best players at your given position, as judged by the manager of the team that represented your league in the World Series last year.
Saying stars should be in the All-Star Game is what causes there to be terrible voting (like happened in the past) that lets Cal Ripken Jr. in the game when he clearly doesn't deserve it and makes the All-Star Game voting a bit of a sham when players are automatically voted in despite the fact they aren't the best player at their position.
Whose appearance will make you stop, drop and stare?
No player's appearance will do this. The days of stopping, dropping and staring are over for me. Adults shouldn't do this when it comes to seeing an athlete play in an All-Star Game.
Who will make you shout to a neighbor or phone a friend? Of all the hundreds of baseball players who have paraded across the landscape this season, who will drawn the most stares under the brightest of lights?
There's no way to measure which player gets the most stares. The All-Star Game is intended to be a reward for the best players in each league, not a game where the participants are the best players the media has built up...though it does turn into that sometimes.
Forget the studs, who are the stars?
That's one paragraph.
For me, this year there is one.
That's another paragraph.
His name is Stephen Strasburg, and if he is not on the National League All-Star team being announced Sunday, then baseball just ruined its second perfect game of the season.
Well, it sounds like the entire season is ruined then. Strasburg was not selected because Charlie Manuel wanted us to leave him alone and let him get used to the majors. This is actually a really good idea. Strasburg hasn't pitched much in the majors and I know the media really, really, really wants him to be in the All-Star Game, but they should really, really, really calm down. If Strasburg is as good as he has shown then he will make other All-Star Games. No injustice was created by not selecting him.
I don't care that the Washington Nationals pitcher has been in the big leagues only since June 5, making him the most inexperienced All-Star ever.
Charlie Manuel does care and he is the one selecting the team after the fans vote for who gets to start. It's not a terrible, world-ending decision to leave Strasburg off the team. The All-Star Game will still take place without Stephen Strasburg, just like it will take place without Jason Heyward if the boo-boo on his finger doesn't heal in time for him to play.
I care about wow.
That makes you one person who cares about "wow." Choosing an All-Star team on an intangible concept like the "wow" factor is a sure sign of idiocy.
Nobody has created more of a major league wow this season, the 21-year-old kid striking out 53 and walking 10 with a 2.45 earned-run average.
That comes to a grand total of a WPG (wow per game) of 70.2, which is the highest WPG of any pitcher in the National League. You get WPG by subtracting strikeouts from walks, dividing by ERA and then multiplying by how many times Bill Plaschke's jaw hit the floor watching the pitcher pitch.
BUT I THOUGHT YOU CARED ABOUT "WOW?" WHAT OTHER FACTORS THAT CAN ALSO BE SEEN IN BUBBLE LETTERS IN A FIGHT SCENE ON THE 1960'S BATMAN TELEVISION SHOW SHOULD BE USED TO DETERMINE WHICH PLAYERS SHOULD MAKE THE ALL-STAR TEAM?
I'm looking for some Ker-pow dammit!
I care about wicked.
I don't care what Bill Plaschke cares about. I care about getting the best pitchers in each league on the same team to have an exhibition game. If Strasburg isn't one of those pitchers then my life shall go on.
I care about whoa. The inspiration for this column came when I stopped in my living room Saturday afternoon and found myself tuning to a completely ordinary televised game between the Nationals and New York Mets.
Talk about "whoa!" You mean Stephen Strasburg made you watch a baseball game that didn't involve the Dodgers? How does ESPN even allow this to happen? If Stephen Strasburg made a sportswriter interested in a baseball game being televised that should mean something. It's not like Plaschke is paid to talk about sports or anything.
I was watching, and a national audience was watching, because Stephen Strasburg is the new Tiger Woods.
Strasburg will be banging pornstars and cheating on his wife with cocktail waitresses in no time. I am sure Bill Simmons will think Strasburg's comeback ends up being significantly harder than Muhammad Ali's comeback.
I couldn't take my eyes off the kid. The Nationals didn't score for him again — they have scored one run for him in his last four starts — so he occasionally tried too hard, giving up two runs and four hits in five innings.
It's not that Strasburg is a fallible human being or may not have pitched incredibly well...see he was just trying too hard. So it's not his fault he gave up two runs. Stephen Strasburg never pitches poorly or gives up runs, he just tries too hard.
But he was a presence, and the game was an event, and baseball needs both of those to prop up a Midsummer Classic that even the spoils of home-field advantage in the World Series haven't much helped.
The one inning that Strasburg pitches in the All-Star will fix everything! Cancer will be cured! The crippled will walk again! Bill Plascke will retire and never write another column!
I think it would have been funny if Charlie Manuel had started Strasburg and then had him pitch eight or nine innings just to run his innings count up and freak the Nationals out.
For one night, Strasburg could bring all that back. He doesn't lead the league in wins — he has only two — but he will lead the game in camera flashes. He will lead the game in buzz.
So basically Strasburg will get all of the hype that he may or may not deserve after 5-6 starts in the majors if he pitches in the All-Star Game? Will he be ignored by the media because he didn't make the team?
In an online debate, the Tribune Co. polled four baseball writers about the possibility of Strasburg playing in the All-Star game. Not surprisingly, three of them disagreed with me.
This is not surprising to Bill Plaschke because even he knows his incredibly strong position that Stephen Strasburg could save the All-Star Game is ludicrous and has no factual basis.
Phil Rogers of the Chicago Tribune wrote, "It would be fun for everyone if he were there, but fair is fair."
Fair to whom? Maybe it's not fair to the players, but it's not their game. So maybe San Diego's Clayton Richard or St. Louis's Jaime Garcia are left off the team to make room for Strasburg. No offense to those emerging talents, but so what?
No offense to Stephen Strasburg, but so what if he is left off the All-Star Game roster? Richard or Garcia may not have the fan base or the hype Strasburg has, but they have pitched well and may actually deserve to be in the All-Star Game too. Someone has to be left off, so the guy who has made half the starts of the other pitchers is left off the roster. So what?
Um, the original All-Star game was nothing but a publicity stunt, an event created by Arch Ward to be a one-time part of the 1933 World's Fair in Chicago. It wasn't so much a game as a carnival ride.
Pick Strasburg to the team, and it becomes one again.
The All-Star Game doesn't need to be a carnival ride. It is supposed to be an exhibition game between the best players in each league. Every year someone gets left off the roster. Really, Joey Votto is the biggest omission.
Charlie Manuel of the Philadelphia Phillies, the All-Star game manager, should just pick him as one of his 13 pitchers. And just in case Manuel isn't certain, Commissioner Bud Selig should order it.
Holy shit, seriously? I know Strasburg would increase ratings (potentially), but if he isn't one of the best pitchers in the National League as judged by Charlie Manuel, why should Bud Selig get involved? This isn't a situation of life-and-death, it is a situation of a guy being left off the All-Star Game roster. That's it. Let's all calm down and start taking some deep breaths.
Then, can you imagine? Sixth inning, Strasburg on the mound, no American League hitter has ever seen him, the greatest bats in the world fearfully hacking like Little Leaguers, memory after memory.
No American League hitter has ever seen Strasburg other than the American League hitters that play for the Chicago White Sox, Cleveland Indians and Kansas City Royals...all of whom Strasburg has pitched against this year so far. Strasburg has pitched against as many AL teams as NL teams because he was called up during interleague play. Way to pay attention Plaschke.
For once, baseball needs to think outside the good ol' boy network and ignore the seamheads and get this right.
So Plaschke urges baseball to think outside the good ol' boy network who presumably let players who don't deserve to be in the All-Star Game into the game because they are popular, so that a player who may not deserve to be in the All-Star Game, but is popular can make the squad?
It's an All-Star game, and Stephen Strasburg is all star.
That last sentence was all shit.
I don't particularly hate Charlie Manuel's decision to leave Strasburg off the All-Star roster. There were plenty of other deserving pitchers and Strasburg probably will benefit from not being hyped up tremendously in the media for the one inning he would pitch if he did pitch in the game.
It's not a Most Valuable Player game. It's not a Best Statistical Player game.
The fan voting is a popularity contest and then the managers' choices are based on which player has the best statistics in each league. That's the purpose of the All-Star Game, to get the best players in each league together to play a game. The best players can be determined by using statistics.
This hootenanny in Anaheim next week, it's an All-Star game, which means the only requirement is that participants are stars.
Completely incorrect. The only requirement to START in the All-Star Game is to have the fans like you and vote for you. The other requirement if you aren't elected to the team is that you are among the best players at your given position, as judged by the manager of the team that represented your league in the World Series last year.
Saying stars should be in the All-Star Game is what causes there to be terrible voting (like happened in the past) that lets Cal Ripken Jr. in the game when he clearly doesn't deserve it and makes the All-Star Game voting a bit of a sham when players are automatically voted in despite the fact they aren't the best player at their position.
Whose appearance will make you stop, drop and stare?
No player's appearance will do this. The days of stopping, dropping and staring are over for me. Adults shouldn't do this when it comes to seeing an athlete play in an All-Star Game.
Who will make you shout to a neighbor or phone a friend? Of all the hundreds of baseball players who have paraded across the landscape this season, who will drawn the most stares under the brightest of lights?
There's no way to measure which player gets the most stares. The All-Star Game is intended to be a reward for the best players in each league, not a game where the participants are the best players the media has built up...though it does turn into that sometimes.
Forget the studs, who are the stars?
That's one paragraph.
For me, this year there is one.
That's another paragraph.
His name is Stephen Strasburg, and if he is not on the National League All-Star team being announced Sunday, then baseball just ruined its second perfect game of the season.
Well, it sounds like the entire season is ruined then. Strasburg was not selected because Charlie Manuel wanted us to leave him alone and let him get used to the majors. This is actually a really good idea. Strasburg hasn't pitched much in the majors and I know the media really, really, really wants him to be in the All-Star Game, but they should really, really, really calm down. If Strasburg is as good as he has shown then he will make other All-Star Games. No injustice was created by not selecting him.
I don't care that the Washington Nationals pitcher has been in the big leagues only since June 5, making him the most inexperienced All-Star ever.
Charlie Manuel does care and he is the one selecting the team after the fans vote for who gets to start. It's not a terrible, world-ending decision to leave Strasburg off the team. The All-Star Game will still take place without Stephen Strasburg, just like it will take place without Jason Heyward if the boo-boo on his finger doesn't heal in time for him to play.
I care about wow.
That makes you one person who cares about "wow." Choosing an All-Star team on an intangible concept like the "wow" factor is a sure sign of idiocy.
Nobody has created more of a major league wow this season, the 21-year-old kid striking out 53 and walking 10 with a 2.45 earned-run average.
That comes to a grand total of a WPG (wow per game) of 70.2, which is the highest WPG of any pitcher in the National League. You get WPG by subtracting strikeouts from walks, dividing by ERA and then multiplying by how many times Bill Plaschke's jaw hit the floor watching the pitcher pitch.
I care about wham.
BUT I THOUGHT YOU CARED ABOUT "WOW?" WHAT OTHER FACTORS THAT CAN ALSO BE SEEN IN BUBBLE LETTERS IN A FIGHT SCENE ON THE 1960'S BATMAN TELEVISION SHOW SHOULD BE USED TO DETERMINE WHICH PLAYERS SHOULD MAKE THE ALL-STAR TEAM?
I'm looking for some Ker-pow dammit!
I care about wicked.
I don't care what Bill Plaschke cares about. I care about getting the best pitchers in each league on the same team to have an exhibition game. If Strasburg isn't one of those pitchers then my life shall go on.
I care about whoa. The inspiration for this column came when I stopped in my living room Saturday afternoon and found myself tuning to a completely ordinary televised game between the Nationals and New York Mets.
Talk about "whoa!" You mean Stephen Strasburg made you watch a baseball game that didn't involve the Dodgers? How does ESPN even allow this to happen? If Stephen Strasburg made a sportswriter interested in a baseball game being televised that should mean something. It's not like Plaschke is paid to talk about sports or anything.
I was watching, and a national audience was watching, because Stephen Strasburg is the new Tiger Woods.
Strasburg will be banging pornstars and cheating on his wife with cocktail waitresses in no time. I am sure Bill Simmons will think Strasburg's comeback ends up being significantly harder than Muhammad Ali's comeback.
I couldn't take my eyes off the kid. The Nationals didn't score for him again — they have scored one run for him in his last four starts — so he occasionally tried too hard, giving up two runs and four hits in five innings.
It's not that Strasburg is a fallible human being or may not have pitched incredibly well...see he was just trying too hard. So it's not his fault he gave up two runs. Stephen Strasburg never pitches poorly or gives up runs, he just tries too hard.
But he was a presence, and the game was an event, and baseball needs both of those to prop up a Midsummer Classic that even the spoils of home-field advantage in the World Series haven't much helped.
The one inning that Strasburg pitches in the All-Star will fix everything! Cancer will be cured! The crippled will walk again! Bill Plascke will retire and never write another column!
I think it would have been funny if Charlie Manuel had started Strasburg and then had him pitch eight or nine innings just to run his innings count up and freak the Nationals out.
For one night, Strasburg could bring all that back. He doesn't lead the league in wins — he has only two — but he will lead the game in camera flashes. He will lead the game in buzz.
So basically Strasburg will get all of the hype that he may or may not deserve after 5-6 starts in the majors if he pitches in the All-Star Game? Will he be ignored by the media because he didn't make the team?
In an online debate, the Tribune Co. polled four baseball writers about the possibility of Strasburg playing in the All-Star game. Not surprisingly, three of them disagreed with me.
This is not surprising to Bill Plaschke because even he knows his incredibly strong position that Stephen Strasburg could save the All-Star Game is ludicrous and has no factual basis.
Phil Rogers of the Chicago Tribune wrote, "It would be fun for everyone if he were there, but fair is fair."
Fair to whom? Maybe it's not fair to the players, but it's not their game. So maybe San Diego's Clayton Richard or St. Louis's Jaime Garcia are left off the team to make room for Strasburg. No offense to those emerging talents, but so what?
No offense to Stephen Strasburg, but so what if he is left off the All-Star Game roster? Richard or Garcia may not have the fan base or the hype Strasburg has, but they have pitched well and may actually deserve to be in the All-Star Game too. Someone has to be left off, so the guy who has made half the starts of the other pitchers is left off the roster. So what?
Um, the original All-Star game was nothing but a publicity stunt, an event created by Arch Ward to be a one-time part of the 1933 World's Fair in Chicago. It wasn't so much a game as a carnival ride.
Pick Strasburg to the team, and it becomes one again.
The All-Star Game doesn't need to be a carnival ride. It is supposed to be an exhibition game between the best players in each league. Every year someone gets left off the roster. Really, Joey Votto is the biggest omission.
Charlie Manuel of the Philadelphia Phillies, the All-Star game manager, should just pick him as one of his 13 pitchers. And just in case Manuel isn't certain, Commissioner Bud Selig should order it.
Holy shit, seriously? I know Strasburg would increase ratings (potentially), but if he isn't one of the best pitchers in the National League as judged by Charlie Manuel, why should Bud Selig get involved? This isn't a situation of life-and-death, it is a situation of a guy being left off the All-Star Game roster. That's it. Let's all calm down and start taking some deep breaths.
Then, can you imagine? Sixth inning, Strasburg on the mound, no American League hitter has ever seen him, the greatest bats in the world fearfully hacking like Little Leaguers, memory after memory.
No American League hitter has ever seen Strasburg other than the American League hitters that play for the Chicago White Sox, Cleveland Indians and Kansas City Royals...all of whom Strasburg has pitched against this year so far. Strasburg has pitched against as many AL teams as NL teams because he was called up during interleague play. Way to pay attention Plaschke.
For once, baseball needs to think outside the good ol' boy network and ignore the seamheads and get this right.
So Plaschke urges baseball to think outside the good ol' boy network who presumably let players who don't deserve to be in the All-Star Game into the game because they are popular, so that a player who may not deserve to be in the All-Star Game, but is popular can make the squad?
It's an All-Star game, and Stephen Strasburg is all star.
That last sentence was all shit.
I don't particularly hate Charlie Manuel's decision to leave Strasburg off the All-Star roster. There were plenty of other deserving pitchers and Strasburg probably will benefit from not being hyped up tremendously in the media for the one inning he would pitch if he did pitch in the game.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
5 comments Joe Morgan(s) Changes The Day of His Chats, But This Doesn't Chance the Rhythm
Two weeks ago we had Joe Morgan's brain quit on him in mid-chat and last week we had the introduction of the childhood trauma-inducing Inconsistency Monster that has possibly caused Joe Morgan's adult infatuation with consistency. This week I think we have the imposter-Joe answering some questions and I think this for two reasons. First, Joe chats past 11:30am, which isn't very consistent of him since he never seems to have done this before and the "Buzzmaster" also doesn't have to capture Joe in order to get him in the room to chat. Joe chats on his own free will, which is a nice change.
The chat may have moved to Wednesday, but Joe's rambling paragraphs haven't ended fortunately for us. This week we learn what a great pitcher the lead singer for Dishwalla is, Joe singlehandedly destroys the English language and teaches us how to get stains out of a baseball uniform.
I am kidding about last part, but it really wouldn't shock me if Joe gave an impromptu Home-Economics lesson followed by a discussion of how consistency in baking is the key to a spectacular tasting spinach souffle.
JM: Hello!
Hey!
I did not think Stephen Strasburg could live up to all the hype ... but he was fantastic. He definitely performed as advertised. To strike out 8 of the last 9 is just amazing for such a young player. To have that kind of composure and stamina is amazing!
It appears Joe Morgan has been popping "uppers" before chat today. He is just so damn happy!
Daniel (Tallahassee)
Joe, I realize Strasburg was amazing but shouldn't the Pirates be kind of embarrassed by their performance? Like Tim Kurkjian said, several of those at-bats weren't even competititve. Do you think they let the hype around Strasburg get to them?
The chat may have moved to Wednesday, but Joe's rambling paragraphs haven't ended fortunately for us. This week we learn what a great pitcher the lead singer for Dishwalla is, Joe singlehandedly destroys the English language and teaches us how to get stains out of a baseball uniform.
I am kidding about last part, but it really wouldn't shock me if Joe gave an impromptu Home-Economics lesson followed by a discussion of how consistency in baking is the key to a spectacular tasting spinach souffle.
JM: Hello!
Hey!
I did not think Stephen Strasburg could live up to all the hype ... but he was fantastic. He definitely performed as advertised. To strike out 8 of the last 9 is just amazing for such a young player. To have that kind of composure and stamina is amazing!
It appears Joe Morgan has been popping "uppers" before chat today. He is just so damn happy!
Daniel (Tallahassee)
Joe, I realize Strasburg was amazing but shouldn't the Pirates be kind of embarrassed by their performance? Like Tim Kurkjian said, several of those at-bats weren't even competititve. Do you think they let the hype around Strasburg get to them?
JM: I don't think they should be embarrased.
Though the same can't be said for how Joe should feel about his ability to spell. He should be embarrassed about that.
If you go back and look, they hit a lot of balls hard. They were leading 2-1 so you can't say they weren't competitive.
Though the same can't be said for how Joe should feel about his ability to spell. He should be embarrassed about that.
If you go back and look, they hit a lot of balls hard. They were leading 2-1 so you can't say they weren't competitive.
I would say 14 strikeouts by a team in 7 innings is not being competitive. The mere fact the Pirates at one point had two runs doesn't mean they were competitive, it means Delwyn Young hit a home run with a runner on base. Joe shouldn't let the fact the Nationals can't score runs lead him to believe the Pirates were competitive. They got those two runs off a base hit and a home run. In fact three of the four hits Strasburg gave up were in the 4th inning. The Pirates weren't competitive the rest of the game against Strasburg.
David (Texas)
Has there ever been another debut that you can think of that compares to Strasburgs last night based on performance?
David (Texas)
Has there ever been another debut that you can think of that compares to Strasburgs last night based on performance?
JM: I always thought that when I saw J.R. Richards pitch that he was going to be the best pitcher ever.
I didn't know the lead singer of the 90's alt-rock band Dishwalla was a great pitcher. I guess you learn something new everyday. J.R. Richards could have been the best pitcher ever if he hadn't decided to become the lead singer of a band that was a one-hit wonder.
I think Joe meant J.R. Richard. He will continue to call him "J.R. Richards" throughout the chat. It says at the top of J.R. Richards wikipedia page, "not to be confused with baseball player J.R. Richard." Oh yes wikipedia, J.R. Richards is TO BE confused with the baseball player J.R. Richard.
We can excuse Joe though, he and Richard only played together for one year on the Astros. How is he supposed to remember the exact name of the pitcher he thought would be one of the best pitchers ever and also happened to be an ex-teammate of his?
I think Joe meant J.R. Richard. He will continue to call him "J.R. Richards" throughout the chat. It says at the top of J.R. Richards wikipedia page, "not to be confused with baseball player J.R. Richard." Oh yes wikipedia, J.R. Richards is TO BE confused with the baseball player J.R. Richard.
We can excuse Joe though, he and Richard only played together for one year on the Astros. How is he supposed to remember the exact name of the pitcher he thought would be one of the best pitchers ever and also happened to be an ex-teammate of his?
JM: He just had that stroke but didn't get to live up to his potential.
He didn't JUST have that stroke. It happened in 1980, which is 30 years ago, or "last week" as it is known in Joe Morgan's world. Joe was on the same team as Richard at the time when he had the stroke too.
He didn't JUST have that stroke. It happened in 1980, which is 30 years ago, or "last week" as it is known in Joe Morgan's world. Joe was on the same team as Richard at the time when he had the stroke too.
Or is Joe saying Richard just had the stroke, like it was a minor setback similar to some tendonitis in your elbow, that Richard should have bounced back from? If so, Joe Morgan you are a heartless bastard. I think he is already pretty heartless for throwing an extra "s" on Richard's name. As a baseball fan, you should know it is Richard, and you should know this more since you played on the same team as him.
Joe meeting J.R. Richard at a MLB social event:
(Joe Morgan sees J.R. Richard) "Hey, it's J.R. Richards. How are you" (pretends to shoot air guns into Richard's stomach and then shakes his hand)
(J.R. Richard clearly upset he is at the same event as Joe Morgan) "Joe, we played together. It is Richard, not Richards."
(Joe Morgan) "Well no wonder you went by J.R. Richards, who who wants to be called Richard Richards? Good move my friend. How's that stroke going?"
(J.R. Richard) "Joe, I had the stroke thirty years ago. I am fine now. J.R. Richards is the lead singer of a band called Dishwalla, I am J.R. Richard."
(Joe Morgan) "Ok, Richard Richards." (winks at J.R. Richard knowingly)
(J.R. Richard) "Seriously, I am not that guy. His band sang a song that went (starts singing) "Tell me all your thoughts on God..."
(Joe Morgan) "I'm sorry J.R. Richards, I can't tell you any of my thoughts on God because I haven't personally seen him. It's hard for me to say what I think because I haven't had a chance to see him yet. It seems like he is a good guy and has a firm grasp on what he does, but I can't say for sure because I haven't seen him yet. Hey, enjoy the party Richard Richards, I have to hit the road because I just saw Tony Perez walk in the room. Take care of yourself and please don't suffer another stroke."
(J.R. Richard screaming at Joe as he walks away) "I haven't had a stroke in thirty years and it is J.R. RICHARD!" (has another stroke)
From what I saw from Strasburg, he has a chance to be one of the greatest pitchers ever.
So Joe thinks Strasburg has the chance to be one of the greatest pitchers of all-time?
It's unfair to say he is better than some of the great pitchers of all-time,
Joe meeting J.R. Richard at a MLB social event:
(Joe Morgan sees J.R. Richard) "Hey, it's J.R. Richards. How are you" (pretends to shoot air guns into Richard's stomach and then shakes his hand)
(J.R. Richard clearly upset he is at the same event as Joe Morgan) "Joe, we played together. It is Richard, not Richards."
(Joe Morgan) "Well no wonder you went by J.R. Richards, who who wants to be called Richard Richards? Good move my friend. How's that stroke going?"
(J.R. Richard) "Joe, I had the stroke thirty years ago. I am fine now. J.R. Richards is the lead singer of a band called Dishwalla, I am J.R. Richard."
(Joe Morgan) "Ok, Richard Richards." (winks at J.R. Richard knowingly)
(J.R. Richard) "Seriously, I am not that guy. His band sang a song that went (starts singing) "Tell me all your thoughts on God..."
(Joe Morgan) "I'm sorry J.R. Richards, I can't tell you any of my thoughts on God because I haven't personally seen him. It's hard for me to say what I think because I haven't had a chance to see him yet. It seems like he is a good guy and has a firm grasp on what he does, but I can't say for sure because I haven't seen him yet. Hey, enjoy the party Richard Richards, I have to hit the road because I just saw Tony Perez walk in the room. Take care of yourself and please don't suffer another stroke."
(J.R. Richard screaming at Joe as he walks away) "I haven't had a stroke in thirty years and it is J.R. RICHARD!" (has another stroke)
From what I saw from Strasburg, he has a chance to be one of the greatest pitchers ever.
So Joe thinks Strasburg has the chance to be one of the greatest pitchers of all-time?
It's unfair to say he is better than some of the great pitchers of all-time,
Which is exactly what Joe just stated Strasburg has a chance be. So Joe's brain and fingers are again fighting for control over what Joe is saying. Joe's brain says let's hold our horses and not go overboard, but Joe's fingers are already filling out Strasburg's Hall of Fame nomination form.
He has great stuff. But you have to wait and see where this goes. Things can go wrong that you don't expect.
Like a lack of consistency or a stroke...just like that lead singer of Dishwalla.
Alex (dc)
Joe any plans yet for you and Jon to come to nats park and see strausburg pitch or on the road for Sunday night baseball since Orel was there yesterday
JM: I'd love to do one of his games, for sure. I thought MLB Network only used pitchers to cover the game. I wish they would have had a hitter there doing analysis to give that side of things. It would have been great to hear Tony Gwynn or Cal Ripken or George Brett give their take.
Alex (dc)
Joe any plans yet for you and Jon to come to nats park and see strausburg pitch or on the road for Sunday night baseball since Orel was there yesterday
JM: I'd love to do one of his games, for sure. I thought MLB Network only used pitchers to cover the game. I wish they would have had a hitter there doing analysis to give that side of things. It would have been great to hear Tony Gwynn or Cal Ripken or George Brett give their take.
I'm guessing it would have been a lot easier for MLB Network to use Tony Gwynn, George Brett or Cal Ripken to give their take on the game if they were actually employed by the MLB Network. All my research shows that MLB Network doesn't employ these people, so that makes it hard for them to give their take and cover the game.
Jason (Houston)
Which game would you rather have seen in person ... Halladay's perfect game or Strasburg's debut?
JM: That's a great question! That's a close your eyes and wake up and you'd be happy at either.
Jason (Houston)
Which game would you rather have seen in person ... Halladay's perfect game or Strasburg's debut?
JM: That's a great question! That's a close your eyes and wake up and you'd be happy at either.
(The English language hangs itself)
I've been involved in no-hitters, on both sides, but never a perfect game. The best thing for me was a Jim Malone no-hitter against us
(The English language tries to hang itself again)
Also, it was Jim Maloney who threw the no-hitter, not Jim Malone. J.R. Richard, you have company in the group of "people that Joe Morgan name drops, but name drops incorrectly," don't feel so bad my friend.
and then the next night our team pitched a no-hitter!
The pitcher for Joe's team didn't throw a no-hitter, it was the entire fucking team that pitched a no-hitter. Each player on the team got one inning to pitch and ended up throwing a no-hitter against the opposing team. That's back when teams were more consistent and there were teams that had good offenses and good defenses where anyone could throw a no-hitter no matter what position they played because THEY WERE BASEBALL PLAYERS DAMMIT!
Matt (Hattiesburg, MS)
I imagine you have quite a collection of baseball memorabilia. Do you have a favorite item? If you can own any piece of baseball history, what would it be?
JM: The one I'm the most proud of is the first ball I autographed as a Hall of Famer. I noted the time and the exact time and gave it to my father. My father passed away but we still have the ball.
(Joe Morgan's father in 1992) "I want to be buried with that ball you autographed for me right after you entered the Hall of Fame. It means so much to me."
(Joe Morgan) "Sure dad, I would be honored."
(Years later, Joe Morgan steals the ball from his father's casket at his father's wake) "My precious..."
john (cincinnati)
joe, do you think that pitching has re-emerged because baseball has cleaned up much of the p.e.d. problem (not including hgh)?
JM: That is one thing that has been pointed out. I have to be honest and say I tend to lean that way as well. But I also know that pitching has advanced more in the last few years than hitting. We went through a spell where the changeup was the best pitch and then the slider
What the hell is Joe even talking about here? So during the PED years, the changeup was the best pitch and then the slider was the second-best pitch. Did Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, Pedro Martinez, and Johan Santana not throw a fastball? Sure, they complemented that pitch with other pitches, but it isn't like pitchers were lobbing the ball up there. A changeup may have been a great offspeed pitch, but when has that really changed over the years?
Randy Johnson went 24-5 with a 2.32 ERA and 334 strikeouts right in the middle of the Steroid Era. There were good pitchers who weren't flamethrowers that won games as well, but there was never a time when the changeup and slider was the big pitch. There have always been good pitchers in MLB and they used their fastball very effectively and threw the ball hard.
... more trick pitches ... now you see the hard throwers being the most successful.
I guess Joe thinks a slider or a changeup is a trick pitch...not a way to keep the batter off balance, but a trick pitch. Also, hard throwers have always been successful. Just check out the Cy Young award winner list during the Steroid Era sometime to confirm this. Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez and Roger Clemens are all over that list.
Strasburg, Galarraga, Halladay, Jiminez .. all these guys are hard throwers with a great fastball. Four years ago that wasn't really the case, guys overpowering hitters.
From the period of 2005-2009 only three of the Cy Young Award winners in both leagues had less than 200 strikeouts.
Matt (Pittsburgh)
Hey Joe, if you had to face him, how would you approach an at-bat against Strasburg?
(Joe's brain thinks about it and believes this to be a good query)
JM: Good question.
(Joe's fingers take over and start typing gibberish)
One of the differences in a three-man booth is that everybody has their own thought or things they see at the park. It's not bad, just different. I'm limited to what I can talk about, Orel is limited, Jon, etc. There is only so much time.
(Joe's brain gives up and researches when dementia begins to over in humans)
I'm pretty sure Matt from Pittsburgh didn't ask Joe anything about the difference in a three-man booth versus a two-man booth.
I've been involved in no-hitters, on both sides, but never a perfect game. The best thing for me was a Jim Malone no-hitter against us
(The English language tries to hang itself again)
Also, it was Jim Maloney who threw the no-hitter, not Jim Malone. J.R. Richard, you have company in the group of "people that Joe Morgan name drops, but name drops incorrectly," don't feel so bad my friend.
and then the next night our team pitched a no-hitter!
The pitcher for Joe's team didn't throw a no-hitter, it was the entire fucking team that pitched a no-hitter. Each player on the team got one inning to pitch and ended up throwing a no-hitter against the opposing team. That's back when teams were more consistent and there were teams that had good offenses and good defenses where anyone could throw a no-hitter no matter what position they played because THEY WERE BASEBALL PLAYERS DAMMIT!
Matt (Hattiesburg, MS)
I imagine you have quite a collection of baseball memorabilia. Do you have a favorite item? If you can own any piece of baseball history, what would it be?
JM: The one I'm the most proud of is the first ball I autographed as a Hall of Famer. I noted the time and the exact time and gave it to my father. My father passed away but we still have the ball.
(Joe Morgan's father in 1992) "I want to be buried with that ball you autographed for me right after you entered the Hall of Fame. It means so much to me."
(Joe Morgan) "Sure dad, I would be honored."
(Years later, Joe Morgan steals the ball from his father's casket at his father's wake) "My precious..."
john (cincinnati)
joe, do you think that pitching has re-emerged because baseball has cleaned up much of the p.e.d. problem (not including hgh)?
JM: That is one thing that has been pointed out. I have to be honest and say I tend to lean that way as well. But I also know that pitching has advanced more in the last few years than hitting. We went through a spell where the changeup was the best pitch and then the slider
What the hell is Joe even talking about here? So during the PED years, the changeup was the best pitch and then the slider was the second-best pitch. Did Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, Pedro Martinez, and Johan Santana not throw a fastball? Sure, they complemented that pitch with other pitches, but it isn't like pitchers were lobbing the ball up there. A changeup may have been a great offspeed pitch, but when has that really changed over the years?
Randy Johnson went 24-5 with a 2.32 ERA and 334 strikeouts right in the middle of the Steroid Era. There were good pitchers who weren't flamethrowers that won games as well, but there was never a time when the changeup and slider was the big pitch. There have always been good pitchers in MLB and they used their fastball very effectively and threw the ball hard.
... more trick pitches ... now you see the hard throwers being the most successful.
I guess Joe thinks a slider or a changeup is a trick pitch...not a way to keep the batter off balance, but a trick pitch. Also, hard throwers have always been successful. Just check out the Cy Young award winner list during the Steroid Era sometime to confirm this. Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez and Roger Clemens are all over that list.
Strasburg, Galarraga, Halladay, Jiminez .. all these guys are hard throwers with a great fastball. Four years ago that wasn't really the case, guys overpowering hitters.
From the period of 2005-2009 only three of the Cy Young Award winners in both leagues had less than 200 strikeouts.
Matt (Pittsburgh)
Hey Joe, if you had to face him, how would you approach an at-bat against Strasburg?
(Joe's brain thinks about it and believes this to be a good query)
JM: Good question.
(Joe's fingers take over and start typing gibberish)
One of the differences in a three-man booth is that everybody has their own thought or things they see at the park. It's not bad, just different. I'm limited to what I can talk about, Orel is limited, Jon, etc. There is only so much time.
(Joe's brain gives up and researches when dementia begins to over in humans)
I'm pretty sure Matt from Pittsburgh didn't ask Joe anything about the difference in a three-man booth versus a two-man booth.
I tried to make sure the pitcher threw a strike. A lot of guys were swinging at pitches out of the zone. I think the only thing you can do is make sure you get a strike to hit ... and don't miss it!
It's a shame Joe Morgan isn't a hitting coach.
(Joe as a hitting coach) "Be sure to make the pitcher throw a strike and then hit that ball for a base hit."
(Player #1) "How do we make the pitcher throw a strike and then get a hit? We know how to swing a baseball bat, but HOW do we get a hit. Do we keep our hands inside our body while swinging, just try to make contract, swing hard...what approach should we take."
(Joe Morgan and begins to walk away) "Just be consistent in your swing."
It's a shame Joe Morgan isn't a hitting coach.
(Joe as a hitting coach) "Be sure to make the pitcher throw a strike and then hit that ball for a base hit."
(Player #1) "How do we make the pitcher throw a strike and then get a hit? We know how to swing a baseball bat, but HOW do we get a hit. Do we keep our hands inside our body while swinging, just try to make contract, swing hard...what approach should we take."
(Joe Morgan and begins to walk away) "Just be consistent in your swing."
(Entire team gives up baseball immediately)
Woody (C-Ville)
With everyone increasing the hype about Bryce Harper, do you see him becoming a star, average player or a bust?
JM: I've never seen him play but Strasburg has proven himself. We have to give Harper that same chance.
Right. Because there is just a natural comparison between a three-year college pitcher drafted and a 17 year-old junior college catcher who were both drafted #1 by the same team. I know Joe didn't make a direct comparison, but these two players should not have their progress measured in any way with each other, even in regard to how they prove themselves.
It's harder to become a refined hitter than a pitcher. Hitting is just tougher to do, period.
I don't know if this statement has any type of factual basis. I would actually think it would be harder to become a refined pitcher.
Woody (C-Ville)
Whats wrong with Zack Grienke this year? He doesnt seem like the dominant pitcher we saw last year.
JM: This tells you how difficult it is to stay a star. Another example ... Brendan Ryan hit close to .300 last year and is at about .190 now.
This may be the first and only time Brendan Ryan and the word "star" are used in the same sentence outside of "Brendan and Ryan, I have a question about whether that is a star I see in the sky or is that a comet?"
Shawn Figgins as well.
(The link here to a wedding for a "Shawn Figgins" was removed at the request of the linked wedding site) I hear the wedding was lovely though.
I know "Shawn" is a common misspelling of Chone Figgins' name, but if your career is based on following baseball and the players who play baseball, and you get paid to analyze baseball...shouldn't you know the correct spelling of Chone Figgins? The answer is "yes."
It's just incredibly hard to stay consistent in this league.
(Joe glances over in fear at the Inconsistency Monster who is slamming a baseball bat down in his hand repeatedly, waiting to go on the attack, knowing Joe only used the word "consistent" once in this chat.)
Chris Fiegler (Latham,NY)
What is the Hardest Stadium To Hit HRs at out of the ones you have Played in?
JM: The Astrodome ... where I played!
Where the hell else would be the hardest stadium to hit home runs, Chris from New York?
Here is the rest of Joe's "best" and "hardest" list from baseball history:
Best player of all-time: The entire 1975-1976 Reds team
Best player (for real) of all-time: Tony Perez
Best fielder of all-time: Dave Concepcion
Best hustler of all-time: Pete Rose
Hardest place to field a ground ball: The Astrodome and Riverfront Stadium
Hardest place to field a fly ball: The Astrodome and Riverfront Stadium
Funniest person in the world: Tony Perez
Best player who isn't in the Hall of Fame: Dave Concepcion
Hardest line drive ever hit: Anything Tony Perez hit, including his bunts
Best manager of all-time: Sparky Anderson
Most consta-consistent hitter of all-time: The entire 1975-1976 Reds team
Best pitcher of all-time: J.R. Richards
Dan (NY)
Strasburg's next start is June 13th at Cleveland. Then the Nationals have a VERY INTERESTING decision. They can pitch him every 5th game which would be June 19th at CWS and June 25th at Baltimore. OR They can pitch him every 5th day which would be June 18th at CWS and home June 23rd vs KC....If they go every 5th day, they get an extra home game from him and a TON more money (my guess is at least a million dollars).
JM: I don't think it's too much focus on the strikeouts. It was a perfect matchup for him. Free swingers. I think the event itself was over-hyped.
So Joe thinks the event was over-hyped? I wonder if he sticks to this position during this entire paragraph?
But I have to say he did his part. He lived up to the hype completely.
So the event was over-hyped, but Strasburg lived up to the hype completely...which means the event WASN'T over-hyped. Joe's answers certainly are roller-coaster rides for the reader.
(Joe Morgan's daughter asking him how late she can stay out at night) "Dad, can I stay out until midnight tonight?"
(Joe Morgan) "Sure, honey. You can stay out until midnight, that's fine. Be sure to be back before 11:30pm or I will ground you."
I was suspicious of him being as good as he is but he was great.
Joe was suspicious of Strasburg. Let's see if he can hold this position for more than one sentence.
We have to wait and see what he does the next time and the next time and the next time.
Nope, he can't. It sure sounds like Joe is still suspicious of Strasburg being good...either that or he is initiating a full-on assault of the English language and using "was" in the present tense. That's always a possibility.
Justin (Chicago)
Mark Priors debut: 6 innings, 4 hits, 2 runs, 1 HR, 10 k's......vs the Pirates. Wierd, huh?
JM: And I'm more skeptical than most. I've seen so many great pitchers come into the league.
So I guess Joe was using "was" in the present tense. Fuck you English language! Joe Morgan did want beat you down until your have no will live anymore.
Doc Gooden. J.R. Richards. Tom Seaver. I've seen so many great pitchers at the start of their careers. Some were good and some were great. No guarantees.
Joe just listed three great pitchers as an example of how you never know how a first start will lead to a career. A normal person would throw in a guy who had a great first start and a shitty career to prove a pitcher's career can go in any direction after a great first start...but Joe isn't a normal person.
Of course Doc Gooden got sidetracked by drugs and Richard (no "s") had a stroke, so basically Joe is saying if Strasburg doesn't use drugs or have a stroke he should make the Hall of Fame. There is no guarantee though, but outside of a freak accident or drug abuse, Strasburg should be inducted into the Hall of Fame since that is all that really held Gooden and Richard back.
I'm not a big fan of replay in general. There are so many plays that have a bearing on the outcome of the game. If you review everything, the pitcher is out there while something is being reviewed which chances the rhythm.
"Chances the rhythm..." I make die of you English language! You chance the accident by messing with Joe Morgan! He took words and makes them into longer words in sentence structure to make better worse life for you.
It was the final out so that call could have been changed.
I guess since it was the final out of the game, it didn't risk chancing the rhythm.
By the way, I want Joe to put out an album of jazz standards and call it "Chance the Rhythm." I want the cover to feature him with a red suede jacket over his shoulder leaning back slightly with the downtown lights of San Francisco at night in the background. If he doesn't do this, I will.
To review something in the 5th inning is different. I can live with it on HRs but what about a diving outfielder in the 5th inning with the bases loaded .. how do you fix that?
I would assume we could use the same rule that is used for a ground rule double and let the runners advance one or two bases.
Where would the runners go?
My best guess would be one of the three bases that are available for runners to stand while another batter is batting...or possibly to home plate and then their team's dugout. In lieu of this happening, all runners would be forced to hop a flight immediately to live in East St. Louis and given two days worth of food to see how long they can survive.
It becomes very complicated. I watched the end of the Bos-L.A. game last night and there were three replays. It really messed with the flow of the game for me.
I thought that game really chanced the rhythm too with all those instant replays (soft jazz music plays in the background with a saxophone prominent throughout as the reader reads this).
JM: Great questions today. I look forward to one of these days seeing Strasburg in person. He brings a lot to the game.
If only there was a way to get tickets to a baseball game. Why don't the Washington Nationals give their tickets away to the general public? That way Joe can see if Strasburg is more of a failure like J.R. Richards or a huge success like Tom Seaver.
Talk to you again next week!
May God have mercy on our souls.
Woody (C-Ville)
With everyone increasing the hype about Bryce Harper, do you see him becoming a star, average player or a bust?
JM: I've never seen him play but Strasburg has proven himself. We have to give Harper that same chance.
Right. Because there is just a natural comparison between a three-year college pitcher drafted and a 17 year-old junior college catcher who were both drafted #1 by the same team. I know Joe didn't make a direct comparison, but these two players should not have their progress measured in any way with each other, even in regard to how they prove themselves.
It's harder to become a refined hitter than a pitcher. Hitting is just tougher to do, period.
I don't know if this statement has any type of factual basis. I would actually think it would be harder to become a refined pitcher.
Woody (C-Ville)
Whats wrong with Zack Grienke this year? He doesnt seem like the dominant pitcher we saw last year.
JM: This tells you how difficult it is to stay a star. Another example ... Brendan Ryan hit close to .300 last year and is at about .190 now.
This may be the first and only time Brendan Ryan and the word "star" are used in the same sentence outside of "Brendan and Ryan, I have a question about whether that is a star I see in the sky or is that a comet?"
Shawn Figgins as well.
(The link here to a wedding for a "Shawn Figgins" was removed at the request of the linked wedding site) I hear the wedding was lovely though.
I know "Shawn" is a common misspelling of Chone Figgins' name, but if your career is based on following baseball and the players who play baseball, and you get paid to analyze baseball...shouldn't you know the correct spelling of Chone Figgins? The answer is "yes."
It's just incredibly hard to stay consistent in this league.
(Joe glances over in fear at the Inconsistency Monster who is slamming a baseball bat down in his hand repeatedly, waiting to go on the attack, knowing Joe only used the word "consistent" once in this chat.)
Chris Fiegler (Latham,NY)
What is the Hardest Stadium To Hit HRs at out of the ones you have Played in?
JM: The Astrodome ... where I played!
Where the hell else would be the hardest stadium to hit home runs, Chris from New York?
Here is the rest of Joe's "best" and "hardest" list from baseball history:
Best player of all-time: The entire 1975-1976 Reds team
Best player (for real) of all-time: Tony Perez
Best fielder of all-time: Dave Concepcion
Best hustler of all-time: Pete Rose
Hardest place to field a ground ball: The Astrodome and Riverfront Stadium
Hardest place to field a fly ball: The Astrodome and Riverfront Stadium
Funniest person in the world: Tony Perez
Best player who isn't in the Hall of Fame: Dave Concepcion
Hardest line drive ever hit: Anything Tony Perez hit, including his bunts
Best manager of all-time: Sparky Anderson
Most consta-consistent hitter of all-time: The entire 1975-1976 Reds team
Best pitcher of all-time: J.R. Richards
Dan (NY)
Strasburg's next start is June 13th at Cleveland. Then the Nationals have a VERY INTERESTING decision. They can pitch him every 5th game which would be June 19th at CWS and June 25th at Baltimore. OR They can pitch him every 5th day which would be June 18th at CWS and home June 23rd vs KC....If they go every 5th day, they get an extra home game from him and a TON more money (my guess is at least a million dollars).
JM: I don't think it's too much focus on the strikeouts. It was a perfect matchup for him. Free swingers. I think the event itself was over-hyped.
So Joe thinks the event was over-hyped? I wonder if he sticks to this position during this entire paragraph?
But I have to say he did his part. He lived up to the hype completely.
So the event was over-hyped, but Strasburg lived up to the hype completely...which means the event WASN'T over-hyped. Joe's answers certainly are roller-coaster rides for the reader.
(Joe Morgan's daughter asking him how late she can stay out at night) "Dad, can I stay out until midnight tonight?"
(Joe Morgan) "Sure, honey. You can stay out until midnight, that's fine. Be sure to be back before 11:30pm or I will ground you."
I was suspicious of him being as good as he is but he was great.
Joe was suspicious of Strasburg. Let's see if he can hold this position for more than one sentence.
We have to wait and see what he does the next time and the next time and the next time.
Nope, he can't. It sure sounds like Joe is still suspicious of Strasburg being good...either that or he is initiating a full-on assault of the English language and using "was" in the present tense. That's always a possibility.
Justin (Chicago)
Mark Priors debut: 6 innings, 4 hits, 2 runs, 1 HR, 10 k's......vs the Pirates. Wierd, huh?
JM: And I'm more skeptical than most. I've seen so many great pitchers come into the league.
So I guess Joe was using "was" in the present tense. Fuck you English language! Joe Morgan did want beat you down until your have no will live anymore.
Doc Gooden. J.R. Richards. Tom Seaver. I've seen so many great pitchers at the start of their careers. Some were good and some were great. No guarantees.
Joe just listed three great pitchers as an example of how you never know how a first start will lead to a career. A normal person would throw in a guy who had a great first start and a shitty career to prove a pitcher's career can go in any direction after a great first start...but Joe isn't a normal person.
Of course Doc Gooden got sidetracked by drugs and Richard (no "s") had a stroke, so basically Joe is saying if Strasburg doesn't use drugs or have a stroke he should make the Hall of Fame. There is no guarantee though, but outside of a freak accident or drug abuse, Strasburg should be inducted into the Hall of Fame since that is all that really held Gooden and Richard back.
I'm not a big fan of replay in general. There are so many plays that have a bearing on the outcome of the game. If you review everything, the pitcher is out there while something is being reviewed which chances the rhythm.
"Chances the rhythm..." I make die of you English language! You chance the accident by messing with Joe Morgan! He took words and makes them into longer words in sentence structure to make better worse life for you.
It was the final out so that call could have been changed.
I guess since it was the final out of the game, it didn't risk chancing the rhythm.
By the way, I want Joe to put out an album of jazz standards and call it "Chance the Rhythm." I want the cover to feature him with a red suede jacket over his shoulder leaning back slightly with the downtown lights of San Francisco at night in the background. If he doesn't do this, I will.
To review something in the 5th inning is different. I can live with it on HRs but what about a diving outfielder in the 5th inning with the bases loaded .. how do you fix that?
I would assume we could use the same rule that is used for a ground rule double and let the runners advance one or two bases.
Where would the runners go?
My best guess would be one of the three bases that are available for runners to stand while another batter is batting...or possibly to home plate and then their team's dugout. In lieu of this happening, all runners would be forced to hop a flight immediately to live in East St. Louis and given two days worth of food to see how long they can survive.
It becomes very complicated. I watched the end of the Bos-L.A. game last night and there were three replays. It really messed with the flow of the game for me.
I thought that game really chanced the rhythm too with all those instant replays (soft jazz music plays in the background with a saxophone prominent throughout as the reader reads this).
JM: Great questions today. I look forward to one of these days seeing Strasburg in person. He brings a lot to the game.
If only there was a way to get tickets to a baseball game. Why don't the Washington Nationals give their tickets away to the general public? That way Joe can see if Strasburg is more of a failure like J.R. Richards or a huge success like Tom Seaver.
Talk to you again next week!
May God have mercy on our souls.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
16 comments Steve Phillips Is a Crazy Person
Steve Phillips used to be the General Manager for a Major League Baseball team. I am sure everyone pretty much knew that, but I wanted to re-state that a team (the Mets) paid him to run their team, with the assumption he would lead the team to success. It didn't completely happen this way. This is a guy who didn't make altogether terrible moves with the Mets, but he traded for and signed veterans every chance he got. Along those lines, he stated two days ago he would trade Stephen Strasburg for Roy Oswalt. Steve Phillips is a crazy person.
Let's first look at Phillips' exact words and then go from there in discussing this.
"Here's the thing," Phillips told Mike Francesa on New York's WFAN Monday afternoon. "If I'm the Astros, I'm saying Washington Nationals, sure, [Roy] Oswalt, I think he'd fit great for you. I'll take Strasburg, and then I'll take...."
Here's the underrated part of this statement for me. It isn't just a straight up Oswalt for Strasburg trade, but Steve Phillips was going to try and ask for MORE players from the Nationals in return for Oswalt. I don't tend to overvalue prospects much, Strasburg is an exception. Strasburg is not only a marketing dream for the Nationals, but he is also a pitcher that AT WORST seems to be a quality #2 starter in the future. Oswalt is a #1 starter and a quality one at that. So it is not like the Nationals would be getting a crappy pitcher in return, but does Steve Phillips really think the Nationals would throw another player in the trade? It would have to be a AAAA guy who is in his upper-20's or a prospect that doesn't look like he has a bright future for me to think this is reasonable. Of course why would the Astros demand another player who doesn't look like he is worth having?
Of course there is a money aspect to this discussion as well. Oswalt is also 32 years old and costs $15 million this season, $18 million next season and has a club option for 2012 for $16 million with a $2 million buyout. I love Roy Oswalt as a pitcher and I can only think of two reasons the Nationals would trade Strasburg for Oswalt straight up.
1. The Nationals know something about Strasburg's future no other team knows (injury or he isn't that good of a pitcher). Neither of these situations seem to be the case here.
2. The Nationals want to win over the next two years and don't care what they have to do in order to make this happen. Bottom line, the Nationals aren't winning anything this year, so unless Mike Rizzo is delusional, this isn't the case either.
Where Steve Phillips has failed is he doesn't understand the Nationals marketing and pitching needs at this current point in time. Strasberg is a marketing dream for a team that can't get fan interest or ticket sales for their team. Strasberg is the future for the Nationals. To trade him is to essentially trade the future of the Nationals...until they draft Bryce Harper.
Phillips also doesn't understand that it doesn't even really make financial sense to trade Strasburg for Oswalt. Strasburg is a cheaper pitcher than Oswalt right now and is seen as the pitching savior of the franchise. Regardless of whether the actual trade makes sense in terms of value gained on each side, it doesn't make sense from a marketing, financial, and team competitiveness point of view. The Nationals aren't winning the World Series this year so they don't have a need to trade short term value for a long term value in Strasburg.
But yes, it would appear that Strasburg alone wouldn't be enough.
This is why Phillips is a crazy person to me. He wants the Nationals to give up more players than just Strasburg. Beyond what the point of trading Strasburg for Oswalt would be, how the hell does he really think the Astros could talk the Nationals out of giving up more players for Oswalt? Maybe Strasburg will never been as good as Oswalt is or has been, but try telling that to a Nationals fan base that has very little to cheer for.
A team shouldn't always cater to its fan base, but there comes a time when a team has to give a shit about selling tickets to the games.
Francesa immediately realized that this idea was, to use the technical term, dumb.
Let's first look at Phillips' exact words and then go from there in discussing this.
"Here's the thing," Phillips told Mike Francesa on New York's WFAN Monday afternoon. "If I'm the Astros, I'm saying Washington Nationals, sure, [Roy] Oswalt, I think he'd fit great for you. I'll take Strasburg, and then I'll take...."
Here's the underrated part of this statement for me. It isn't just a straight up Oswalt for Strasburg trade, but Steve Phillips was going to try and ask for MORE players from the Nationals in return for Oswalt. I don't tend to overvalue prospects much, Strasburg is an exception. Strasburg is not only a marketing dream for the Nationals, but he is also a pitcher that AT WORST seems to be a quality #2 starter in the future. Oswalt is a #1 starter and a quality one at that. So it is not like the Nationals would be getting a crappy pitcher in return, but does Steve Phillips really think the Nationals would throw another player in the trade? It would have to be a AAAA guy who is in his upper-20's or a prospect that doesn't look like he has a bright future for me to think this is reasonable. Of course why would the Astros demand another player who doesn't look like he is worth having?
Of course there is a money aspect to this discussion as well. Oswalt is also 32 years old and costs $15 million this season, $18 million next season and has a club option for 2012 for $16 million with a $2 million buyout. I love Roy Oswalt as a pitcher and I can only think of two reasons the Nationals would trade Strasburg for Oswalt straight up.
1. The Nationals know something about Strasburg's future no other team knows (injury or he isn't that good of a pitcher). Neither of these situations seem to be the case here.
2. The Nationals want to win over the next two years and don't care what they have to do in order to make this happen. Bottom line, the Nationals aren't winning anything this year, so unless Mike Rizzo is delusional, this isn't the case either.
Where Steve Phillips has failed is he doesn't understand the Nationals marketing and pitching needs at this current point in time. Strasberg is a marketing dream for a team that can't get fan interest or ticket sales for their team. Strasberg is the future for the Nationals. To trade him is to essentially trade the future of the Nationals...until they draft Bryce Harper.
Phillips also doesn't understand that it doesn't even really make financial sense to trade Strasburg for Oswalt. Strasburg is a cheaper pitcher than Oswalt right now and is seen as the pitching savior of the franchise. Regardless of whether the actual trade makes sense in terms of value gained on each side, it doesn't make sense from a marketing, financial, and team competitiveness point of view. The Nationals aren't winning the World Series this year so they don't have a need to trade short term value for a long term value in Strasburg.
But yes, it would appear that Strasburg alone wouldn't be enough.
This is why Phillips is a crazy person to me. He wants the Nationals to give up more players than just Strasburg. Beyond what the point of trading Strasburg for Oswalt would be, how the hell does he really think the Astros could talk the Nationals out of giving up more players for Oswalt? Maybe Strasburg will never been as good as Oswalt is or has been, but try telling that to a Nationals fan base that has very little to cheer for.
A team shouldn't always cater to its fan base, but there comes a time when a team has to give a shit about selling tickets to the games.
Francesa immediately realized that this idea was, to use the technical term, dumb.
"Never," he said. "They won't do that. They won't do that."
"No, they won't do that," Phillips agreed, briefly reentering the earth's orbit. "But let me ask you this: Do you think that Strasburg is going to be Roy Oswalt in his career?"
This is another time where Phillips fails to understand what he is actually arguing. This isn't really even about whether Strasburg would be as good as Oswalt, but whether the Nationals think Oswalt will help them more over the next 2-3 years more than having Strasburg for a minimum of 5-6 years will help them and whether money spent on Oswalt wouldn't be better spent in another fashion to help the Nationals compete. Basically the Nationals are going all-in on this current season and next season by trading Oswalt for Strasburg and that's not smart for them to do. They aren't close enough to contending to make this move. The Nationals could use this money they would spend on Oswalt to get 1-2 quality position players this offseason or make another trade while keeping Strasburg.
Another factor in why this wouldn't work is one player is 32 years old and the other player is 21 years old. So essentially the Nationals would be giving up 11 years in the majors with Strasburg (of course there is the money they would have to pay Strasburg in that time as well) for 2-3 years of Oswalt.
"You think he will? I don't know that," Phillips countered. "And even if he is, if I think that I want Roy Oswalt to help me win this year, you know what?
Well you never KNOW how good a pitcher will be, but given Strasburg's numbers in the minors this year it doesn't look like he is going to struggle to adapt to the majors too much. There is easily $18 million in salary difference in what Oswalt would cost to keep over the next two years (I am assuming the Nationals pay $3 million of his salary this year and assuming Strasburg is making $2 million over the next two years, which is fuzzy math, but my point is there will be a massive difference in salaries of the two players) over what Strasburg would cost to keep. This is another strike against this deal.
Is Oswalt worth $18 million more than Strasburg over the next season and a half? There's no way he is. This is the exact reason Steve Phillips got fired from the Mets, he is constantly thinking about NOW and not thinking that the Nationals aren't in a position to compete this year (I don't give a shit what the standings say) so there is no reason to pretend they are in a position to compete.
Besides, if the Nationals can compete (as they have so far) without Strasburg or Oswalt, adding Strasburg to the rotation will only make them a better team. Oswalt isn't good enough to make an average team a Wild Card team. I don't think Oswalt's talent today and in the future is worth more than Strasburg's talent today and in the future when you include salaries and other variables the Nationals need to factor in.
I'm one of the guys, I make that deal, because...."
"One of those guys" being a crazy person. There is no other person or team who would make this deal. I think even if the Yankees needed pitching and they had Strasburg they wouldn't trade him for Oswalt...and the Yankees are supposed to hate their prospects, right?
I mean, this is a team coming off back-to-back 100-loss seasons, with the lowest season-ticket base of its history, now poised to draft the most exciting teenage hitting prospect in years, whose best player hasn't yet entered his prime and whose fan base has been waiting for sustained competitiveness built around the man nicknamed Jeezus. So you'd trade him to help you compete for a wild card this year?
Exactly. Essentially Steve Phillips is advocating trading one of the building blocks of the team for a run at the Wild Card in the National League for the next two years. Because the Nationals won't be going further than the NLDS this year and they can't win the NL East over the Phillies. Making this trade would be one of the worst examples of advocating a short-term benefit and ignoring a long-term benefit in Major League history. What GM trades a potential elite pitcher for a shot an outside the Wild Card? I can't believe how wrong Steve Phillips is about this.
"You can't give up Strasburg, though," Francesa said
"Absolutely," Phillips insisted. "I mean, listen, he was a good college pitcher, he's a good minor league pitcher so far. But if I can get one of the top, what, top 5 starting pitchers in the game today for Strasburg?
The Mets management have to be beaming with pride today that Phillips is talking like this. ESPN is probably jealous they had to fire this genius. I'm not being sarcastic, they probably think this argument would have been great on the Coors Light Home Depot "Six Pack of Questions" for Steve Phillips sponsored by Applebees.
Here's the point that Phillips keeps missing: The Nationals don't have a need for a Top 5 pitcher like Roy Oswalt. Their team is doing well this year, but this success will end. They have lost 100 games the past couple of seasons and seem to be on their way back to the NL East basement. So it does not make sense to trade for a Top 5 pitcher (even though I don't know if Oswalt is a Top 5 pitcher). Even proposing this trade shows absolutely zero foresight.
Strasburg has also been better than "good" in both the minors and college. He's been excellent.
Because I really, truly, I hope that he could be that guy. I have to tell you, I don't know that he could be that guy. And with his delivery, I could see the potential of a Mark Prior sort of breakdown."
Now Steve Phillips thinks he is a pitching coach. He doesn't like Strasburg's delivery! Alert the media, Strasburg is going to have arm problems because Steve Phillips doesn't like his delivery!
This opinion from the guy who traded for Mo Vaughn in 2001 even though Vaughn had missed the entire 2001 campaign with an injury. He thinks Strasburg will have his arm breakdown based on the video he has seen from him, but he also thought Mo Vaughn was in such great shape he could easily recover from his injury and play first base in the National League. Steve Phillips knew this because Mo Vaughn hit the ball well off a fucking tee after his surgery in 2001. I'm not kidding.
Steve Phillips may believe Mike Rizzo is into collecting a fantasy team and not trying to actually improve the Nationals for the future. Come to think of it, that could have been his problem with the Mets as well, Phillips thought he was collecting a fantasy team and not putting together a team of productive baseball players.
Rob Neyer chimes in on this discussion and imagines if it makes sense to trade Oswalt for Strasburg for any team. Let's enter the analysis of crazy person land now.
Not the Nationals, though. Given where they are in the development cycle, it's simply impossible to justify trading six years of Strasburg for 10 months of Roy Oswalt. And that would be true even if Oswalt wasn't slated to earn nearly $30 million through the 2011 season.
I know people say dumb things, but Steve Phillips didn't say it just once and then take it back, he kept saying over and over he would make this trade. Aren't experts not supposed to be idiots?
But what if you're a contender, and the money's not all that important? Who's more likely to get you into the playoffs this season, and help you win the World Series?
Oswalt, clearly.
This is correct, but I don't think even the most eager World Series contender would make this trade. I can see what Rob Neyer is saying, but the fact is to have this trade make sense a team would have to want to win this year and not care about next year or two years after that. It isn't simply a discussion of whether a team could win with Oswalt or Strasburg in the rotation because there is going to be a next year.
This is another time where Phillips fails to understand what he is actually arguing. This isn't really even about whether Strasburg would be as good as Oswalt, but whether the Nationals think Oswalt will help them more over the next 2-3 years more than having Strasburg for a minimum of 5-6 years will help them and whether money spent on Oswalt wouldn't be better spent in another fashion to help the Nationals compete. Basically the Nationals are going all-in on this current season and next season by trading Oswalt for Strasburg and that's not smart for them to do. They aren't close enough to contending to make this move. The Nationals could use this money they would spend on Oswalt to get 1-2 quality position players this offseason or make another trade while keeping Strasburg.
Another factor in why this wouldn't work is one player is 32 years old and the other player is 21 years old. So essentially the Nationals would be giving up 11 years in the majors with Strasburg (of course there is the money they would have to pay Strasburg in that time as well) for 2-3 years of Oswalt.
"You think he will? I don't know that," Phillips countered. "And even if he is, if I think that I want Roy Oswalt to help me win this year, you know what?
Well you never KNOW how good a pitcher will be, but given Strasburg's numbers in the minors this year it doesn't look like he is going to struggle to adapt to the majors too much. There is easily $18 million in salary difference in what Oswalt would cost to keep over the next two years (I am assuming the Nationals pay $3 million of his salary this year and assuming Strasburg is making $2 million over the next two years, which is fuzzy math, but my point is there will be a massive difference in salaries of the two players) over what Strasburg would cost to keep. This is another strike against this deal.
Is Oswalt worth $18 million more than Strasburg over the next season and a half? There's no way he is. This is the exact reason Steve Phillips got fired from the Mets, he is constantly thinking about NOW and not thinking that the Nationals aren't in a position to compete this year (I don't give a shit what the standings say) so there is no reason to pretend they are in a position to compete.
Besides, if the Nationals can compete (as they have so far) without Strasburg or Oswalt, adding Strasburg to the rotation will only make them a better team. Oswalt isn't good enough to make an average team a Wild Card team. I don't think Oswalt's talent today and in the future is worth more than Strasburg's talent today and in the future when you include salaries and other variables the Nationals need to factor in.
I'm one of the guys, I make that deal, because...."
"One of those guys" being a crazy person. There is no other person or team who would make this deal. I think even if the Yankees needed pitching and they had Strasburg they wouldn't trade him for Oswalt...and the Yankees are supposed to hate their prospects, right?
I mean, this is a team coming off back-to-back 100-loss seasons, with the lowest season-ticket base of its history, now poised to draft the most exciting teenage hitting prospect in years, whose best player hasn't yet entered his prime and whose fan base has been waiting for sustained competitiveness built around the man nicknamed Jeezus. So you'd trade him to help you compete for a wild card this year?
Exactly. Essentially Steve Phillips is advocating trading one of the building blocks of the team for a run at the Wild Card in the National League for the next two years. Because the Nationals won't be going further than the NLDS this year and they can't win the NL East over the Phillies. Making this trade would be one of the worst examples of advocating a short-term benefit and ignoring a long-term benefit in Major League history. What GM trades a potential elite pitcher for a shot an outside the Wild Card? I can't believe how wrong Steve Phillips is about this.
"You can't give up Strasburg, though," Francesa said
"Absolutely," Phillips insisted. "I mean, listen, he was a good college pitcher, he's a good minor league pitcher so far. But if I can get one of the top, what, top 5 starting pitchers in the game today for Strasburg?
The Mets management have to be beaming with pride today that Phillips is talking like this. ESPN is probably jealous they had to fire this genius. I'm not being sarcastic, they probably think this argument would have been great on the Coors Light Home Depot "Six Pack of Questions" for Steve Phillips sponsored by Applebees.
Here's the point that Phillips keeps missing: The Nationals don't have a need for a Top 5 pitcher like Roy Oswalt. Their team is doing well this year, but this success will end. They have lost 100 games the past couple of seasons and seem to be on their way back to the NL East basement. So it does not make sense to trade for a Top 5 pitcher (even though I don't know if Oswalt is a Top 5 pitcher). Even proposing this trade shows absolutely zero foresight.
Strasburg has also been better than "good" in both the minors and college. He's been excellent.
Because I really, truly, I hope that he could be that guy. I have to tell you, I don't know that he could be that guy. And with his delivery, I could see the potential of a Mark Prior sort of breakdown."
Now Steve Phillips thinks he is a pitching coach. He doesn't like Strasburg's delivery! Alert the media, Strasburg is going to have arm problems because Steve Phillips doesn't like his delivery!
This opinion from the guy who traded for Mo Vaughn in 2001 even though Vaughn had missed the entire 2001 campaign with an injury. He thinks Strasburg will have his arm breakdown based on the video he has seen from him, but he also thought Mo Vaughn was in such great shape he could easily recover from his injury and play first base in the National League. Steve Phillips knew this because Mo Vaughn hit the ball well off a fucking tee after his surgery in 2001. I'm not kidding.
Steve Phillips may believe Mike Rizzo is into collecting a fantasy team and not trying to actually improve the Nationals for the future. Come to think of it, that could have been his problem with the Mets as well, Phillips thought he was collecting a fantasy team and not putting together a team of productive baseball players.
Rob Neyer chimes in on this discussion and imagines if it makes sense to trade Oswalt for Strasburg for any team. Let's enter the analysis of crazy person land now.
Not the Nationals, though. Given where they are in the development cycle, it's simply impossible to justify trading six years of Strasburg for 10 months of Roy Oswalt. And that would be true even if Oswalt wasn't slated to earn nearly $30 million through the 2011 season.
I know people say dumb things, but Steve Phillips didn't say it just once and then take it back, he kept saying over and over he would make this trade. Aren't experts not supposed to be idiots?
But what if you're a contender, and the money's not all that important? Who's more likely to get you into the playoffs this season, and help you win the World Series?
Oswalt, clearly.
This is correct, but I don't think even the most eager World Series contender would make this trade. I can see what Rob Neyer is saying, but the fact is to have this trade make sense a team would have to want to win this year and not care about next year or two years after that. It isn't simply a discussion of whether a team could win with Oswalt or Strasburg in the rotation because there is going to be a next year.
If you were really trying to win, you might remove him from the rotation in July or August and deploy him for the rest of the season as your not-so-secret bullpen weapon, like the Rays used David Price in 2008. But if you'd given the Rays a choice between Price and Oswalt that summer, wouldn't they have chosen Oswalt?
The Rays would have taken Oswalt over Price, but I don't know if the Rays would have actually traded Price for Oswalt. Every MLB team would want to trade prospects for proven players, but this trade doesn't exist in a vacuum and that is why I don't think even the most World Series-needy team would make this trade. To have this trade make sense for the team getting Oswalt, the only variable that will have to be paid attention to by a GM is the opportunity to win the World Series, and be willing to do anything to reach this goal.
Obviously, the Rays wouldn't trade Price for Oswalt today ... but it's worth mentioning that Price is now in his third major league season, and he's still not the pitcher we once thought he would become.
What does this tell us? The Rays may have made that trade, but they wouldn't have re-done the trade two years later, even when Oswalt is a better pitcher than David Price now (which I would perhaps start a debate over). It tells me no team is going to be so short-sighted as to make this trade.
Besides, David Price is currently 7-1 with a 2.41 ERA, ERA+ of 176, and a WHIP of 1.14 at the age of 24 years old. What kind of pitcher did Rob Neyer expect Price to be? I think he is pretty damned good right now. I don't know what potential Rob Neyer sees in him that he doesn't currently seem to be reaching.
Take the money out of it, and if I'm trying to win right now, I would rather have Roy Oswalt than Stephen Strasburg in 2010 and '11, because I think Oswalt is going to win more games in these two seasons.
Even if you take the money out of it, you still have to pay attention to two years down the road and whether Oswalt is THE missing piece that will guarantee your team a World Series. This trade only makes sense in a short-sighted vacuum where all other variables outside of "whether the trade will win a team the World Series" are ignored.
If I'm the Nationals, though? Fuhgeddaboutit.
I would say if you are any team in the majors, then it wouldn't happen. Teams that have GM's terrible enough to make this decision in such a vacuum aren't good enough teams to win the World Series with Oswalt anyway.
I am skeptical this crazy idea of Steve Phillips' would work in any situation, even for a World Series contender. Like I said, no team that has a GM stupid enough to trade Strasburg for Oswalt will probably be contending for a World Series title. That's not to say a stupid GM's team won't luck out and be competing at this point in the season of course, but generally dumb GM's have made stupid moves that don't put their team in a position to make the World Series. Obviously there are exceptions.
If a team needed a pitcher that badly, why didn't they go for a pitcher who cost a little bit less to acquire? Sure you wouldn't get a Roy Oswalt in return, but you also wouldn't be trading a guy with as much potential as Stephen Strasburg has.
One thing is for sure, Steve Phillips is a crazy person and it is not shocking he was fired by the Mets. I am not sure a Roy Oswalt for Stephen Strasburg trade would ever go down no matter the circumstances, but if it did then the reasoning would have to exist in a vacuum based on solely on winning the World Series THAT YEAR. I don't know how a team that thinks like this would compete beyond 2011.
The Rays would have taken Oswalt over Price, but I don't know if the Rays would have actually traded Price for Oswalt. Every MLB team would want to trade prospects for proven players, but this trade doesn't exist in a vacuum and that is why I don't think even the most World Series-needy team would make this trade. To have this trade make sense for the team getting Oswalt, the only variable that will have to be paid attention to by a GM is the opportunity to win the World Series, and be willing to do anything to reach this goal.
Obviously, the Rays wouldn't trade Price for Oswalt today ... but it's worth mentioning that Price is now in his third major league season, and he's still not the pitcher we once thought he would become.
What does this tell us? The Rays may have made that trade, but they wouldn't have re-done the trade two years later, even when Oswalt is a better pitcher than David Price now (which I would perhaps start a debate over). It tells me no team is going to be so short-sighted as to make this trade.
Besides, David Price is currently 7-1 with a 2.41 ERA, ERA+ of 176, and a WHIP of 1.14 at the age of 24 years old. What kind of pitcher did Rob Neyer expect Price to be? I think he is pretty damned good right now. I don't know what potential Rob Neyer sees in him that he doesn't currently seem to be reaching.
Take the money out of it, and if I'm trying to win right now, I would rather have Roy Oswalt than Stephen Strasburg in 2010 and '11, because I think Oswalt is going to win more games in these two seasons.
Even if you take the money out of it, you still have to pay attention to two years down the road and whether Oswalt is THE missing piece that will guarantee your team a World Series. This trade only makes sense in a short-sighted vacuum where all other variables outside of "whether the trade will win a team the World Series" are ignored.
If I'm the Nationals, though? Fuhgeddaboutit.
I would say if you are any team in the majors, then it wouldn't happen. Teams that have GM's terrible enough to make this decision in such a vacuum aren't good enough teams to win the World Series with Oswalt anyway.
I am skeptical this crazy idea of Steve Phillips' would work in any situation, even for a World Series contender. Like I said, no team that has a GM stupid enough to trade Strasburg for Oswalt will probably be contending for a World Series title. That's not to say a stupid GM's team won't luck out and be competing at this point in the season of course, but generally dumb GM's have made stupid moves that don't put their team in a position to make the World Series. Obviously there are exceptions.
If a team needed a pitcher that badly, why didn't they go for a pitcher who cost a little bit less to acquire? Sure you wouldn't get a Roy Oswalt in return, but you also wouldn't be trading a guy with as much potential as Stephen Strasburg has.
One thing is for sure, Steve Phillips is a crazy person and it is not shocking he was fired by the Mets. I am not sure a Roy Oswalt for Stephen Strasburg trade would ever go down no matter the circumstances, but if it did then the reasoning would have to exist in a vacuum based on solely on winning the World Series THAT YEAR. I don't know how a team that thinks like this would compete beyond 2011.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
14 comments Bert Blyleven Talks About Stephen Strasburg and Of Course Himself
We still have some room in the Yahoo Fantasy Baseball League. I think there are 3 slots left. The League ID is "420904" and the password is "eckstein." If anyone who wants to join has recommendations or preferences on how the league is set up, just use the message board for the league to say what you think. Everyone feel free to join.
We haven't heard from Bert Blyleven in a while. Fortunately he has posted a column about Stephen Strasburg and whether the Nationals should let him start the season on the team or not. I think don't the Nationals should...and of course it turns out they agreed. Either way, Bert Blyleven's explanation of why Strasburg should have started the season with the Nationals doesn't make a lot of sense the more he explains it. He lists criteria for when a young pitcher would be successful and the Nationals meet few of these criteria. I think the Nationals made the right move in putting Strasburg down at AA for a couple of reasons. Bert pretty much ignores any reason other than reasons based on Strasburg's potential.
The Washington Nationals aren’t quite sure what to do with Stephen Strasburg.
There's a shocker. When are the Nationals sure about anything really? They do know how to lose ball games and come in last in the National League East. That's about all they seem to be sure about. Oh yeah, they are also sure they are going to get some good prospects for Adam Dunn at the trade deadline this year.
On one hand, they have a pitcher with tremendous talent, a player who has breezed through his spring training appearances with ease, a No. 1 draft pick who they’ve lavished with a record $15.1 million contract.
On the other hand, there is no way if he succeeds he will stay on the Nationals team as soon as he becomes a free agent...even towards the last years of his arbitration years when other teams are going to want to trade for him and he becomes expensive for the Nationals to keep.
This is a franchise that has struggled mightily, losing 205 games over the last two seasons. Attendance has been poor and the play on the field even worse. The Nationals need some hope and an identity, so the temptation to rush their prized, young arm to the major leagues must be great.
They have him. Now the goal is to not fuck him up. Good luck with that.
But this team is not built to win just yet, as there are still many pieces to be put into place.
I will redo this sentence:
"But this team is not built to win, as they need an outfield, shortstop, second baseman, catcher, 3/5 of a starting rotation (including Strasburg), and three more quality pitchers in the bullpen. Other than that, they are right on the cusp of winning."
Also, why rush a pitcher to the majors when the team isn't even close to being ready to win?
So they must also be tempted to treat Strasburg with kid gloves. To bring him along slowly until they are certain he is ready.
Actually I think the temptation would be to throw him out there ASAP and sell some tickets before the fans completely give up on the team. (Do the Nationals have fans?)
Should the Nats throw Strasburg into action and risk putting undo pressure on his young arm and his confidence, or should they play it safe and save him for later?
What kind of undo pressure will pitching in the major leagues put on his arm that pitching in the minor leagues wouldn't put on his arm? The velocity is the same, sure major league hitters are better hitters, but it's not like 6 innings at AA are easier to throw mechanically than 6 innings in the majors. Sure, the hitters are tougher and it is may be more difficult to get outs, but 75 pitches in the majors is pretty much the same as 75 pitches in the minors. If they are worried about him, give him a pitch count and make sure you don't overwork him.
Or is that making this too easy?
But if they deem him ready physically, and provide the proper support around him, I believe they should take the chance and give Nats fans a reason to come to the ballpark.
Strasburg is physically ready. I don't think there is any doubt about that. If the Nationals wanted to wait for the proper support to surround him with then he would probably never make it to the major leagues...at least not with the Nationals. I think this, and financial reasons, were the reasons they sent him to AA.
As far as giving fans a reason to come to the park, he is only pitching once every five days, so what do the Nationals do to get fans to that ballpark the other four days when Strasburg isn't pitching?
Now that we have gotten past the introduction to the column, let's allow Bert Blyleven to talk about himself for a little bit. There is a line between giving your opinion as an ex-baseball player and bragging about your time in the majors. Bert loves to straddle this line.
I entered the majors with the Twins with a June call-up in 1970. I was only 19 and had only spent 1½ seasons in the minors, but even though I was young, I knew I was ready for the leap to the bigs both physically and mentally.
Of course he knows he was ready physically and mentally in retrospect. Really there is no certain way of knowing a player is mentally ready for the major leagues until he gets there. For some players a team may have a good idea if he is ready, but there is no way to know for sure. So it's easy for him to say now that he was physically and mentally ready.
John Olerud did it in 1989 and had a long, successful career, never playing in the minors until his attempt to hang on with the Red Sox in 2005. Jim Abbott (1989) and Pete Incaviglia (1986) also went straight to the majors and didn’t play in the minors until late in their careers.
All of these players played baseball in college and were drafted out of college to play in the majors...just like Strasburg.
But there are also cautionary tales as well, including two pitchers — David Clyde and Eddie Bane — who went straight to the majors the same year as Winfield, 1973.
David Clyde was 18 years old when he went straight to the majors. Eddie Bane went to college and David Winfield went to college as well. Both of these players went straight to the majors after college. David Clyde, probably the highest profile failure, did not. Anyone with an IQ over 50 can see even from this small sample size that a player should probably go to college before skipping the minor leagues and going to the major leagues immediately.
Of course Strasburg did go to college, so I would put him under the category of players like Abbott and Bane and not compare him so much to the David Clyde situation, which was pretty poorly managed at the time by the Rangers.
Clyde had a great arm, and Whitey Herzog once said he was “one of the best young left-handed pitchers I’ve ever seen.” But it takes more than a great arm to succeed. And perhaps rushed too quickly, Clyde saw injuries derail his career. He went 18-33 with a 4.63 ERA over parts of five seasons.
"Perhaps" rushed too quickly? He was 18 years old and never pitched once in the minor leagues. There is no way to actually rush a pitcher any faster than he was rushed to the majors, other than to rip him out of high school and put him in the majors immediately.
Physical issues aside, a young player needs plenty of help on the mental side of the game as well. That’s where not only your coaches, but your teammates come into play.
The Nationals have a pitching coach, Steve McCatty, who has never been a pitching coach in the major leagues before. In fact, Nationals fans didn't even seem to know who he was.
The first line of this article doesn't sound very good for the Nationals:
Steve McCatty’s ascension was almost as fast as his decline.
This in reference that McCatty went from a great pitcher to a crappy pitcher. Obviously a person doesn't have to be a great pitcher to be a great pitching coach, but McCatty really has no track record as a pitching coach and he is going to be in charge of the Nationals great young hope for the future. That has to be a little nervewracking for what little Nationals fans there are. I am not really sure how much pitching coaches really do, but the good coaches do make a difference with their pitchers and the bad ones seem to make a difference also...just in a bad way.
So basically I am saying I don't know if any of the pitchers on the Nationals roster or their pitching coach can help Strasburg with the mental part of the game. I wouldn't necessarily trust any of the current Nationals pitchers to give him advice nor do I know if McCatty is the best guy to be tutoring him either. Maybe Jason Marquis could give him advice, but other than that I don't know if there are that many qualified candidates to advise Strasburg.
I was fortunate with the Twins, as my team was loaded with good veteran players who were willing to help out a young kid.
Stephen Strasburg has Jason Marquis, John Lannan, Scott Olsen, J.D. Martin, Garrett Mock, Brian Bruney, Matt Capps, Tyler Clippard, and Jason Bergmann. It's not exactly a group of players many teams would want tutoring other young players. I probably wouldn't want Scott Olsen around any young players personally.
Luis Tiant, Jim Perry and Jim Kaat helped me out,
That's who Bert Blyleven had to tutor him. I would say "Advantage Blyleven" when it comes to this. Maybe the Nationals are counting on Jason Marquis to teach Strasburg how to have a near-.500 record and an ERA above 4.00.
and about half of our pitching staff had a lot of time under their belts by the time I came in, and those veterans were willing to show me the ropes and guide me through my rookie season.
Again, this is not the case with the pitchers around Strasburg. He is surrounded by pitchers who have been in the majors, but they haven't been terribly successful, plus they probably can't relate to what it is like having expectations put on him like Strasburg has. I find this to be a problem.
Does this mean Strasburg is going to fail? No, it doesn't, but it does mean if having good pitchers around him is important to Strasburg's development, then this could be a problem. It is also a reason in my mind to put Strasburg in the minors for a few months to start the season. Just so he can get used to non-collegiate batters before going up against major league hitters.
I can’t emphasize enough how important it is to have veteran help. It probably accounts for about 90 percent of a player learning the mental side of the game.
Bert's point of view is the Nationals should get Strasburg to the major leagues as soon as possible so he can help the team. This point of view doesn't exactly go well with his own statement that 90% of learning the mental side of the game is from veterans on the staff. The Nationals do have veterans, but Scott Olsen has his own personal problems he is dealing with to help Strasburg, so that leaves it up to the bullpen guys or Jason Marquis.
It's a sort of contradiction for Blyleven to believe Strasburg needs to be put in the majors, but he also believes it is important to have veteran help around him. The Nationals really don't have that. It's not a reason to hold Strasburg back, but it does make me wonder how Bert is so confident not giving Strasburg a month or two in the minor leagues is the right move. Obviously the Nationals agreed with me and disagreed with Bert.
In addition to your teammates, you also must have a good relationship with your position coach, in my case my pitching coach. He must understand what you’re going through and become something of a father figure.
That could very well happen, because Steve McCatty was on the cover of Sports Illustrated and from what I have read about him he seems to have been highly regarded. So he could very well be this for Strasburg. It complicates the decision on when Strasburg should pitch in the majors when Bert Blyleven says 90% of the mental aspect is learned from other veterans. At least I think it does. It also makes me wonder how Blyleven can say this and then also feel like Strasburg should have started the season in the majors.
My first pitching coach was Marv Grissom, a man I will never forget because he really helped me and brought me along. I’ll never be able to thank Grissom and my veteran teammates enough for helping me along at age 19.
In typical Bert Blyleven fashion, half of this column has been about Bert Blyleven himself and his adventures in the majors.
But what happens if he struggles? Do you send him down to the minors, or do you tell him he’s going to get a chance to work through his problems?
If Strasburg struggles and the Nationals send him down to the minors I think that would cause every Nationals fan to immediately start contemplating either switching to a different MLB team or just giving up on baseball....that's assuming there still are Washington Nationals fans out there.
I think that when a pitcher is that good, as Strasburg appears to be, you stay with him. You let him learn on the job in the big leagues. Don’t let him get too high or too low, and he’ll be fine.
How do you go about not letting Strasburg get too high or too low? Electroshock therapy. If he seems really happy, electroshock him, if he seems kind of sad, electroshock him.
In all seriousness, I am sort of with Bert on this, but he doesn't seem to realize that if Strasburg is getting killed in the majors then it may be better to send him down to the minors to gain some confidence or break any bad habits he may have. It's not like the Nationals need him pitching at the beginning of the season to avoid a last place finish.
You have to be focused to make it in the majors, and sometimes that’s hard when you’re young. For my part, I had no trouble being focused.
Well obviously. Bert Blyleven has never had trouble with anything. He was completely emotionally and physically ready when he went to the major leagues. He was like Robo-pitcher.
I didn’t want to party.
He just wanted to fart.
Strasburg has to open his heart and his soul to the idea of wanting to be the best, and he must focus on what he has to do to get there.
He also must not get too high or too low at any point either. That's important to know. The reason Joba Chamberlain is so inconsistent is because he fist pumps and acts excited after he gets out of an inning. The reason Homer Bailey has struggled in the majors is because he gets clinically depressed on the mound and rather than pitching he is singing songs by The Cure, trying to figure out the plot to "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and wondering where he went wrong in his life. (In all seriousness, it is important to be balanced on the mound, but performance often dictates how a pitcher feels after a start. So it's easy to stay balanced when you pitch well).
Ok, I do know Zach Greinke had depression problems and once he beat this depression problem he became a much better pitcher. I am not being sarcastic and saying a pitcher can pitch well depressed...there are degrees of depression and excitement that affect a player's pitching ability. I am just saying, getting too high or too low isn't such a bad thing in small amounts.
It’s all about having the total package, because you can’t make it by just having a good arm.
Mark Wohlers says he doesn't understand this statement. He thought that's all you needed for success.
The Nationals have a lot of money invested in Strasburg’s arm. They’re looking to build a team — and a fan base — for the future. As long as Strasburg’s makeup is good, I say let the kid find out if he is ready.
I say let him start if he is ready as well, which he obviously is, but the decision isn't that simple. What doesn't make sense is how Bert Blyleven says 90% of the mental aspect of the game is having veterans around to help him and that is how he succeeded in the majors, yet he never once talks about how Strasburg doesn't have this. This is a pretty obvious negative to letting him start the year in the majors without some minor league seasoning.
Amid all this bullshit advice Bert Blyleven is giving right now as to whether the Nationals should start Strasburg right now or not, an important part that should be taken into account is being completely ignored. You know, the whole financial aspect of starting Strasburg in the majors at the beginning of this year. This is probably the reason the Nationals put Strasburg in AA to start the season.
It's laid out well here.
Isn't there a money aspect to this decision as well? I know Bert focuses on the "player's" point of view and all, but how can any decision on whether the Nationals should have Strasburg start the year in Washington with the Nationals be made without talking about money? I don't think it can and Bert completely ignores this aspect of the decision.
Keeping Strasburg in the minors until late May will delay him reaching free agency and slow down his arbitration eligibility. This is important for the Nationals because if Strasburg is as good as everyone seems to believe he is and will be, they need to hold on to him as long as possible. If Strasburg is a great pitcher, I can't see the Nationals being able to compete with other teams to keep his services when he becomes a free agent. Specifically putting him down in AA at the beginning of the season is as much about the future of the Nationals as it is about making sure Strasburg is ready to handle major league pitching. The future is not now for the Nationals, so why pretend it is?
Strasburg's contract covers him for the next three seasons, which are known as his "zero-to-three" years, referring to a player's service time. But Strasburg will remain under team control beyond the life of the contract -- until he reaches free agency.
A player needs six full seasons in the majors to become eligible for free agency, and a full season is defined as 172 days. However, a zero-to-three player who is optioned for fewer than 20 days gets those days added back to his service time at the end of the year. To simplify: The Nationals need to keep Strasburg in the minors for about three weeks to prevent him from having six full years of service time at the end of 2015, thus retaining his rights through 2016. It's not being cheap. It's being smart. And every team does it.
So knowing this fact, which again I can't see how Bert Blyleven completely ignored this in his "analysis," it makes complete sense for the Nationals to be cautious with Strasburg and keep him in the minors until late May. Its not like they are trying to win the pennant this year or anything. Keeping Strasburg on the roster from Opening Day could gain them 5 wins, but millions of dollars down the road, plus Strasburg will get a chance to pitch in the minors and then debut in the majors with some (hopefully) confidence in what he is doing.
I don't see how Bert can leave this financial part out of the discussion and expect to be able to give an educated opinion on what the Nationals should do.
Under the above scenario, Strasburg would be tied to the Nationals for four years beyond the life of his current contract -- 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016...But the nature of the fourth year would depend on whether or not Strasburg will have qualified for arbitration as a "Super Two" player at the end of 2012.
I am sure a lot of people know this, but this means Strasburg could be eligible for arbitration after his third year (not full year) in the majors. So basically, if he is a good pitcher they don't want him to go to arbitration after his second year. They want to be able to slow down arbitration, sign him to an extension and buy out those years, or just not pay him that much money for his 3rd season in the majors. For a last place team, what is the point of bringing Strasburg up before late May anyway?
For the Nationals to be safe with Strasburg -- and prevent him from reaching Super Two status in 2013 -- they would probably need to keep him in the minors until late-May. If they do this, Strasburg would be considered a zero-to-three player in 2013, saving the Nationals a lot of money.
This has to be taken into account when deciding whether Strasburg should start the year in the majors or minors. The Nationals took this into account and make the smart, and easy, decision to start him in AA for the beginning of the season.
If, for argument's sake, Strasburg is as good as Lincecum, and thus is compensated equally via arbitration, his first three arbitration years will earn him $9 million, $14 million and $18 million. If Strasburg reaches Super Two status, those first three arbitration years would be 2013-15, with a fourth arbitration year in 2016, in which (in our little hypothetical universe) he would make the same $22 million as Lincecum.
This was a good article and explains exactly why Blyleven's analysis and his opinion falls short in actually discussing this situation in a fashion that gives complete information to the reader.
So, using our made-up numbers for Lincecum and applying them to Strasburg, here is what is at stake for the Nationals:
In other words, it could be worth about $18 million to the Nationals
So basically do the Nationals want to throw (hypothetically I admit) $18 million down the drain to get a maximum of 10 extra starts out of Strasberg? I wouldn't think so. It doesn't make financial sense at all if he ends up being as good as everyone says he should be.
One, this franchise has survived for five years without him. What's another two months?
That's a great point. In fact, that is THE point.
I don't have a general problem with Bert Blyleven's discussion of this issue, but it is the typical two-dimensional discussion of a complicated issue that some sportswriters like to make. It's all fine and good that Strasburg may be physically and emotionally ready for the major leagues, but is it even worth it for the Nationals to have him start the year with the team and start his arbitration clock early? I don't think so...and the Nationals ended up agreeing.
Even though he is obviously ready, the Nationals were right to play this one smart and keep Strasburg in the minors just to ensure he gets some confidence before he reaches the majors and to save a few million dollars down the road as well.
We haven't heard from Bert Blyleven in a while. Fortunately he has posted a column about Stephen Strasburg and whether the Nationals should let him start the season on the team or not. I think don't the Nationals should...and of course it turns out they agreed. Either way, Bert Blyleven's explanation of why Strasburg should have started the season with the Nationals doesn't make a lot of sense the more he explains it. He lists criteria for when a young pitcher would be successful and the Nationals meet few of these criteria. I think the Nationals made the right move in putting Strasburg down at AA for a couple of reasons. Bert pretty much ignores any reason other than reasons based on Strasburg's potential.
The Washington Nationals aren’t quite sure what to do with Stephen Strasburg.
There's a shocker. When are the Nationals sure about anything really? They do know how to lose ball games and come in last in the National League East. That's about all they seem to be sure about. Oh yeah, they are also sure they are going to get some good prospects for Adam Dunn at the trade deadline this year.
On one hand, they have a pitcher with tremendous talent, a player who has breezed through his spring training appearances with ease, a No. 1 draft pick who they’ve lavished with a record $15.1 million contract.
On the other hand, there is no way if he succeeds he will stay on the Nationals team as soon as he becomes a free agent...even towards the last years of his arbitration years when other teams are going to want to trade for him and he becomes expensive for the Nationals to keep.
This is a franchise that has struggled mightily, losing 205 games over the last two seasons. Attendance has been poor and the play on the field even worse. The Nationals need some hope and an identity, so the temptation to rush their prized, young arm to the major leagues must be great.
They have him. Now the goal is to not fuck him up. Good luck with that.
But this team is not built to win just yet, as there are still many pieces to be put into place.
I will redo this sentence:
"But this team is not built to win, as they need an outfield, shortstop, second baseman, catcher, 3/5 of a starting rotation (including Strasburg), and three more quality pitchers in the bullpen. Other than that, they are right on the cusp of winning."
Also, why rush a pitcher to the majors when the team isn't even close to being ready to win?
So they must also be tempted to treat Strasburg with kid gloves. To bring him along slowly until they are certain he is ready.
Actually I think the temptation would be to throw him out there ASAP and sell some tickets before the fans completely give up on the team. (Do the Nationals have fans?)
Should the Nats throw Strasburg into action and risk putting undo pressure on his young arm and his confidence, or should they play it safe and save him for later?
What kind of undo pressure will pitching in the major leagues put on his arm that pitching in the minor leagues wouldn't put on his arm? The velocity is the same, sure major league hitters are better hitters, but it's not like 6 innings at AA are easier to throw mechanically than 6 innings in the majors. Sure, the hitters are tougher and it is may be more difficult to get outs, but 75 pitches in the majors is pretty much the same as 75 pitches in the minors. If they are worried about him, give him a pitch count and make sure you don't overwork him.
Or is that making this too easy?
But if they deem him ready physically, and provide the proper support around him, I believe they should take the chance and give Nats fans a reason to come to the ballpark.
Strasburg is physically ready. I don't think there is any doubt about that. If the Nationals wanted to wait for the proper support to surround him with then he would probably never make it to the major leagues...at least not with the Nationals. I think this, and financial reasons, were the reasons they sent him to AA.
As far as giving fans a reason to come to the park, he is only pitching once every five days, so what do the Nationals do to get fans to that ballpark the other four days when Strasburg isn't pitching?
Now that we have gotten past the introduction to the column, let's allow Bert Blyleven to talk about himself for a little bit. There is a line between giving your opinion as an ex-baseball player and bragging about your time in the majors. Bert loves to straddle this line.
I entered the majors with the Twins with a June call-up in 1970. I was only 19 and had only spent 1½ seasons in the minors, but even though I was young, I knew I was ready for the leap to the bigs both physically and mentally.
Of course he knows he was ready physically and mentally in retrospect. Really there is no certain way of knowing a player is mentally ready for the major leagues until he gets there. For some players a team may have a good idea if he is ready, but there is no way to know for sure. So it's easy for him to say now that he was physically and mentally ready.
John Olerud did it in 1989 and had a long, successful career, never playing in the minors until his attempt to hang on with the Red Sox in 2005. Jim Abbott (1989) and Pete Incaviglia (1986) also went straight to the majors and didn’t play in the minors until late in their careers.
All of these players played baseball in college and were drafted out of college to play in the majors...just like Strasburg.
But there are also cautionary tales as well, including two pitchers — David Clyde and Eddie Bane — who went straight to the majors the same year as Winfield, 1973.
David Clyde was 18 years old when he went straight to the majors. Eddie Bane went to college and David Winfield went to college as well. Both of these players went straight to the majors after college. David Clyde, probably the highest profile failure, did not. Anyone with an IQ over 50 can see even from this small sample size that a player should probably go to college before skipping the minor leagues and going to the major leagues immediately.
Of course Strasburg did go to college, so I would put him under the category of players like Abbott and Bane and not compare him so much to the David Clyde situation, which was pretty poorly managed at the time by the Rangers.
Clyde had a great arm, and Whitey Herzog once said he was “one of the best young left-handed pitchers I’ve ever seen.” But it takes more than a great arm to succeed. And perhaps rushed too quickly, Clyde saw injuries derail his career. He went 18-33 with a 4.63 ERA over parts of five seasons.
"Perhaps" rushed too quickly? He was 18 years old and never pitched once in the minor leagues. There is no way to actually rush a pitcher any faster than he was rushed to the majors, other than to rip him out of high school and put him in the majors immediately.
Physical issues aside, a young player needs plenty of help on the mental side of the game as well. That’s where not only your coaches, but your teammates come into play.
The Nationals have a pitching coach, Steve McCatty, who has never been a pitching coach in the major leagues before. In fact, Nationals fans didn't even seem to know who he was.
The first line of this article doesn't sound very good for the Nationals:
Steve McCatty’s ascension was almost as fast as his decline.
This in reference that McCatty went from a great pitcher to a crappy pitcher. Obviously a person doesn't have to be a great pitcher to be a great pitching coach, but McCatty really has no track record as a pitching coach and he is going to be in charge of the Nationals great young hope for the future. That has to be a little nervewracking for what little Nationals fans there are. I am not really sure how much pitching coaches really do, but the good coaches do make a difference with their pitchers and the bad ones seem to make a difference also...just in a bad way.
So basically I am saying I don't know if any of the pitchers on the Nationals roster or their pitching coach can help Strasburg with the mental part of the game. I wouldn't necessarily trust any of the current Nationals pitchers to give him advice nor do I know if McCatty is the best guy to be tutoring him either. Maybe Jason Marquis could give him advice, but other than that I don't know if there are that many qualified candidates to advise Strasburg.
I was fortunate with the Twins, as my team was loaded with good veteran players who were willing to help out a young kid.
Stephen Strasburg has Jason Marquis, John Lannan, Scott Olsen, J.D. Martin, Garrett Mock, Brian Bruney, Matt Capps, Tyler Clippard, and Jason Bergmann. It's not exactly a group of players many teams would want tutoring other young players. I probably wouldn't want Scott Olsen around any young players personally.
Luis Tiant, Jim Perry and Jim Kaat helped me out,
That's who Bert Blyleven had to tutor him. I would say "Advantage Blyleven" when it comes to this. Maybe the Nationals are counting on Jason Marquis to teach Strasburg how to have a near-.500 record and an ERA above 4.00.
and about half of our pitching staff had a lot of time under their belts by the time I came in, and those veterans were willing to show me the ropes and guide me through my rookie season.
Again, this is not the case with the pitchers around Strasburg. He is surrounded by pitchers who have been in the majors, but they haven't been terribly successful, plus they probably can't relate to what it is like having expectations put on him like Strasburg has. I find this to be a problem.
Does this mean Strasburg is going to fail? No, it doesn't, but it does mean if having good pitchers around him is important to Strasburg's development, then this could be a problem. It is also a reason in my mind to put Strasburg in the minors for a few months to start the season. Just so he can get used to non-collegiate batters before going up against major league hitters.
I can’t emphasize enough how important it is to have veteran help. It probably accounts for about 90 percent of a player learning the mental side of the game.
Bert's point of view is the Nationals should get Strasburg to the major leagues as soon as possible so he can help the team. This point of view doesn't exactly go well with his own statement that 90% of learning the mental side of the game is from veterans on the staff. The Nationals do have veterans, but Scott Olsen has his own personal problems he is dealing with to help Strasburg, so that leaves it up to the bullpen guys or Jason Marquis.
It's a sort of contradiction for Blyleven to believe Strasburg needs to be put in the majors, but he also believes it is important to have veteran help around him. The Nationals really don't have that. It's not a reason to hold Strasburg back, but it does make me wonder how Bert is so confident not giving Strasburg a month or two in the minor leagues is the right move. Obviously the Nationals agreed with me and disagreed with Bert.
In addition to your teammates, you also must have a good relationship with your position coach, in my case my pitching coach. He must understand what you’re going through and become something of a father figure.
That could very well happen, because Steve McCatty was on the cover of Sports Illustrated and from what I have read about him he seems to have been highly regarded. So he could very well be this for Strasburg. It complicates the decision on when Strasburg should pitch in the majors when Bert Blyleven says 90% of the mental aspect is learned from other veterans. At least I think it does. It also makes me wonder how Blyleven can say this and then also feel like Strasburg should have started the season in the majors.
My first pitching coach was Marv Grissom, a man I will never forget because he really helped me and brought me along. I’ll never be able to thank Grissom and my veteran teammates enough for helping me along at age 19.
In typical Bert Blyleven fashion, half of this column has been about Bert Blyleven himself and his adventures in the majors.
But what happens if he struggles? Do you send him down to the minors, or do you tell him he’s going to get a chance to work through his problems?
If Strasburg struggles and the Nationals send him down to the minors I think that would cause every Nationals fan to immediately start contemplating either switching to a different MLB team or just giving up on baseball....that's assuming there still are Washington Nationals fans out there.
I think that when a pitcher is that good, as Strasburg appears to be, you stay with him. You let him learn on the job in the big leagues. Don’t let him get too high or too low, and he’ll be fine.
How do you go about not letting Strasburg get too high or too low? Electroshock therapy. If he seems really happy, electroshock him, if he seems kind of sad, electroshock him.
In all seriousness, I am sort of with Bert on this, but he doesn't seem to realize that if Strasburg is getting killed in the majors then it may be better to send him down to the minors to gain some confidence or break any bad habits he may have. It's not like the Nationals need him pitching at the beginning of the season to avoid a last place finish.
You have to be focused to make it in the majors, and sometimes that’s hard when you’re young. For my part, I had no trouble being focused.
Well obviously. Bert Blyleven has never had trouble with anything. He was completely emotionally and physically ready when he went to the major leagues. He was like Robo-pitcher.
I didn’t want to party.
He just wanted to fart.
Strasburg has to open his heart and his soul to the idea of wanting to be the best, and he must focus on what he has to do to get there.
He also must not get too high or too low at any point either. That's important to know. The reason Joba Chamberlain is so inconsistent is because he fist pumps and acts excited after he gets out of an inning. The reason Homer Bailey has struggled in the majors is because he gets clinically depressed on the mound and rather than pitching he is singing songs by The Cure, trying to figure out the plot to "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and wondering where he went wrong in his life. (In all seriousness, it is important to be balanced on the mound, but performance often dictates how a pitcher feels after a start. So it's easy to stay balanced when you pitch well).
Ok, I do know Zach Greinke had depression problems and once he beat this depression problem he became a much better pitcher. I am not being sarcastic and saying a pitcher can pitch well depressed...there are degrees of depression and excitement that affect a player's pitching ability. I am just saying, getting too high or too low isn't such a bad thing in small amounts.
It’s all about having the total package, because you can’t make it by just having a good arm.
Mark Wohlers says he doesn't understand this statement. He thought that's all you needed for success.
The Nationals have a lot of money invested in Strasburg’s arm. They’re looking to build a team — and a fan base — for the future. As long as Strasburg’s makeup is good, I say let the kid find out if he is ready.
I say let him start if he is ready as well, which he obviously is, but the decision isn't that simple. What doesn't make sense is how Bert Blyleven says 90% of the mental aspect of the game is having veterans around to help him and that is how he succeeded in the majors, yet he never once talks about how Strasburg doesn't have this. This is a pretty obvious negative to letting him start the year in the majors without some minor league seasoning.
Amid all this bullshit advice Bert Blyleven is giving right now as to whether the Nationals should start Strasburg right now or not, an important part that should be taken into account is being completely ignored. You know, the whole financial aspect of starting Strasburg in the majors at the beginning of this year. This is probably the reason the Nationals put Strasburg in AA to start the season.
It's laid out well here.
Isn't there a money aspect to this decision as well? I know Bert focuses on the "player's" point of view and all, but how can any decision on whether the Nationals should have Strasburg start the year in Washington with the Nationals be made without talking about money? I don't think it can and Bert completely ignores this aspect of the decision.
Keeping Strasburg in the minors until late May will delay him reaching free agency and slow down his arbitration eligibility. This is important for the Nationals because if Strasburg is as good as everyone seems to believe he is and will be, they need to hold on to him as long as possible. If Strasburg is a great pitcher, I can't see the Nationals being able to compete with other teams to keep his services when he becomes a free agent. Specifically putting him down in AA at the beginning of the season is as much about the future of the Nationals as it is about making sure Strasburg is ready to handle major league pitching. The future is not now for the Nationals, so why pretend it is?
Strasburg's contract covers him for the next three seasons, which are known as his "zero-to-three" years, referring to a player's service time. But Strasburg will remain under team control beyond the life of the contract -- until he reaches free agency.
A player needs six full seasons in the majors to become eligible for free agency, and a full season is defined as 172 days. However, a zero-to-three player who is optioned for fewer than 20 days gets those days added back to his service time at the end of the year. To simplify: The Nationals need to keep Strasburg in the minors for about three weeks to prevent him from having six full years of service time at the end of 2015, thus retaining his rights through 2016. It's not being cheap. It's being smart. And every team does it.
So knowing this fact, which again I can't see how Bert Blyleven completely ignored this in his "analysis," it makes complete sense for the Nationals to be cautious with Strasburg and keep him in the minors until late May. Its not like they are trying to win the pennant this year or anything. Keeping Strasburg on the roster from Opening Day could gain them 5 wins, but millions of dollars down the road, plus Strasburg will get a chance to pitch in the minors and then debut in the majors with some (hopefully) confidence in what he is doing.
I don't see how Bert can leave this financial part out of the discussion and expect to be able to give an educated opinion on what the Nationals should do.
Under the above scenario, Strasburg would be tied to the Nationals for four years beyond the life of his current contract -- 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016...But the nature of the fourth year would depend on whether or not Strasburg will have qualified for arbitration as a "Super Two" player at the end of 2012.
I am sure a lot of people know this, but this means Strasburg could be eligible for arbitration after his third year (not full year) in the majors. So basically, if he is a good pitcher they don't want him to go to arbitration after his second year. They want to be able to slow down arbitration, sign him to an extension and buy out those years, or just not pay him that much money for his 3rd season in the majors. For a last place team, what is the point of bringing Strasburg up before late May anyway?
For the Nationals to be safe with Strasburg -- and prevent him from reaching Super Two status in 2013 -- they would probably need to keep him in the minors until late-May. If they do this, Strasburg would be considered a zero-to-three player in 2013, saving the Nationals a lot of money.
This has to be taken into account when deciding whether Strasburg should start the year in the majors or minors. The Nationals took this into account and make the smart, and easy, decision to start him in AA for the beginning of the season.
If, for argument's sake, Strasburg is as good as Lincecum, and thus is compensated equally via arbitration, his first three arbitration years will earn him $9 million, $14 million and $18 million. If Strasburg reaches Super Two status, those first three arbitration years would be 2013-15, with a fourth arbitration year in 2016, in which (in our little hypothetical universe) he would make the same $22 million as Lincecum.
This was a good article and explains exactly why Blyleven's analysis and his opinion falls short in actually discussing this situation in a fashion that gives complete information to the reader.
So, using our made-up numbers for Lincecum and applying them to Strasburg, here is what is at stake for the Nationals:
*If Strasburg reaches Super Two status, he gets: $9 million in 2013, $14 million in 2014, $18 million in 2015 and $22 million in 2016, for a total of $63 million in those four years.
*If Strasburg fails to reach super two status, he gets: $3.9 million in 2013, $9 million in 2014, $14 million in 2015 and $18 million in 2016, for a total of $44.9 million.In other words, it could be worth about $18 million to the Nationals
So basically do the Nationals want to throw (hypothetically I admit) $18 million down the drain to get a maximum of 10 extra starts out of Strasberg? I wouldn't think so. It doesn't make financial sense at all if he ends up being as good as everyone says he should be.
One, this franchise has survived for five years without him. What's another two months?
That's a great point. In fact, that is THE point.
I don't have a general problem with Bert Blyleven's discussion of this issue, but it is the typical two-dimensional discussion of a complicated issue that some sportswriters like to make. It's all fine and good that Strasburg may be physically and emotionally ready for the major leagues, but is it even worth it for the Nationals to have him start the year with the team and start his arbitration clock early? I don't think so...and the Nationals ended up agreeing.
Even though he is obviously ready, the Nationals were right to play this one smart and keep Strasburg in the minors just to ensure he gets some confidence before he reaches the majors and to save a few million dollars down the road as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)