6 comments Jerry Green Puns it Up, Goes to War on WAR: Part 2

Many of you may remember this column from October 2012. In that column Jerry Green advocated for Miguel Cabrera to be named American League MVP over Mike Trout, mostly because Jerry Green doesn't like the use of advanced statistics and advanced statistics were used by many to support Trout's argument for American League MVP. Jerry Green has written a sequel to this masterpiece where he again uses a bad pun in the title and continues to blindly and ignorantly argue against the use of advanced statistics. I say Jerry Green ignorantly argues against the use of advanced statistics because I feel like he doesn't completely understand how these statistics can be used to evaluate a player. He doesn't understand mostly because he doesn't want to understand. For Jerry Green to accept advanced statistics as being useful would be admitting there are parts of baseball he doesn't understand and would make him feel like less of an expert. It's a fear of being left behind that causes many of these baseball writers to have such disgust for advanced statistics. The train is moving though, so they better get on or get left behind.

He had all the five tools that make ballplayers excel, to reach stardom and above. Five tools in a single package are rare and precious. The five tools apply to Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Barry Bonds (in the before segment, not the after), Roberto Clemente, Ken Griffey Jr., Henry Aaron, perhaps Ty Cobb.

That weekend in Anaheim, Trout led off the first ballgame with a double, then the second and, again, the third with home runs. He ran the bases with the wind at his tail. He saved a ballgame by climbing above the fence to steal a home run from Prince Fielder.

Yes, but what Mike Trout failed to do was be drafted by a team in the AL Central so that his team made the playoffs. Big mistake on Trout's part. He's got to lead his team to the playoffs to be considered for the MVP race, and even though Anaheim won more games than the Tigers in a more difficult division, Mike Trout wasn't quite the winning winner that Miguel Cabrera was. 

It was September and the Tigers left Anaheim confronted by doom. They were marked as an overrated, defeated, pretender of a ballclub.

We prejudged.

You mean sort of like how you (Jerry Green) prejudge those people who use advanced statistics to evaluate a baseball player's performance as basement-dwelling, numbers-loving nerds? 

War between the traditionalists — the baseball purists — and the new-fangled Sabermetricians, those who contaminate the sport's statistics with contrived numbers.

I don't like how traditionalists are "purists," as if there is something pure in using elementary statistics and nothing pure about using advanced statistics. Also, all statistics used in baseball are contrived. Don't believe me, Jerry? Grab the dictionary from your "study" down the hall. Don't look at me funny, I know you have a hardbound dictionary you use down in your "study." It's probably on the top shelf next to a group of encyclopedias. Look up the meaning of "contrived" and see the definition is: 

Deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously.

All statistics, including Jerry's precious RBI's, wins, and ERA, are contrived because they don't arise naturally. They have to be calculated or figured by someone. So advanced statistics are more complicated, yes, but they are no less contrived than the calculation for RBI's or ERA. 

I left Anaheim that weekend last September convinced Miguel Cabrera deserved to be the American League Most Valuable Player.

The challenge hit me immediately from the Sabermetric fantasizers.

They claimed Trout should be the MVP.

The horror! Not only do people disagree with Jerry Green, but they disagree with him using a methodology he doesn't care to understand, and frankly, a methodology that is too damn new-fangled to be taking seriously by a student of the game like Jerry. Well, Jerry is a student of the game as long as you don't expect him to learn anything new from the past 30 years of advanced statistical methods. Jerry is a student of the game of baseball in name-only. In reality, he shuns any advanced statistical methods. Because these advanced statistical methods are part of baseball now, he really isn't a student of the game. It's hard for me to take the opinion of a person who absolutely refuses to acknowledge advances in his chosen professional field.

Of course, the traditional, old-fashioned MVP voters among the baseball writers selected Cabrera based on his Triple Crown — as batting champion, home-run champion and RBI champion.

I have a lot of respect for a guy who wins the Triple Crown. It's hard to argue against a guy who won the Triple Crown when discussing MVP candidates. I don't care about the AL MVP race at this point. I'm over Mike Trout losing the AL MVP award for three reasons: 

1. It's a postseason award which I only care about in regard to discussing arguments as to who should win the award. Otherwise, I don't care too much about postseason awards. 

2. I don't really care. Just overall. I'm not a Tigers or Angels fan. I have no dog in this fight. I do have a dog in the fight when writers start criticizing the use of advanced statistics to evaluate a player's performance.

3. Miguel Cabrera deserved the MVP. I don't think he deserved it over Mike Trout, but it isn't a travesty he won. I can't speak for others who like advanced statistics, but in late February I think many are over Mike Trout losing the MVP award. The same can't be said for Jerry Green. He still wants to take the time to bash Sabermetrics, because he's clearly not over the very idea of Sabermetrics existing. 

Plus carrying a ballclub to an unexpected pennant.

Plus, this is somewhat irrelevant. The Angels won more games than the Tigers. So while the Tigers played well in the postseason, they wouldn't have made the postseason if they played in the AL West. Facts are facts. 

But now loving baseball — and the spring training speculation and boasts — from afar, I wonder if Trout could ever duplicate his rookie season.

Jerry Green is afraid Mike Trout will suffer the dreaded sophomore slump, huh? 

The sophomore slump is a huge pile of baloney, in my judgment.

So Jerry Green doesn't believe in the sophomore slump, but he's afraid Mike Trout will never duplicate his rookie season? It may be unrealistic to expect Trout to duplicate his rookie season after pitchers have had an offseason to adjust to him and find ways to pitch to him, but I would assume (barring any injuries) Trout won't have a problem adjusting to what pitchers throw him and could easily duplicate his rookie season a few times during his career. It's not like he will peak at 20 years of age (barring injuries of course). 

Great ballplayers have outstanding second seasons.

DiMaggio did. Mays did. Al Kaline won a batting championship in his second full season.

We're talking about comparing Mike Trout to Hall of Fame players. Let's step back just a little bit and not necessarily expect him to be quite at that level on a consistent basis. I have to think Jerry Green is setting expectations for Trout excessively high in order to point out his regression when it happens. This will give Jerry Green a chance to say, "See, I told you Miguel Cabrera should have been the 2012 AL MVP," as if the MVP measures a player's career performance rather than an individual year's performance. I'm on to you, Jerry. You can't fool me.

"Willie Mays had six tools," Kaline once told me.

"Huh? Six tools?"

"All five, plus enthusiasm," Kaline said simply.

He played stickball in the streets with kids in Harlem. He giggled.

I didn't know Willie Mays was a 12 year old girl at a One Direction concert. I'm starting to lose respect for Mays now. Let's not say Mays "giggled" as if the idea of him playing the game like a child makes him more alluring. It creeps me out a bit when sportswriters insist on referring to adult men as children. There's just something a little "off" about this. I get that kids like to have fun and are enthusiastic, but it's insulting and slightly creepy to want grown men to be children. 

He ran from under his cap.

Mays wore his cap too big so that it would look like he ran faster. So he didn't run from under his cap, he just didn't wear his cap to completely fit. 

He reported in shape, conditioned for his second season.

Right now, according to all reports about Mike Trout from the Angels' spring camp in Arizona, the wind has more tail to push.

Mike Trout is now fat in the opinion of Jerry Green. Interestingly, this it seem to hurt Miguel Cabrera in any way when he got fat after coming up to the majors as a 20 year old rookie. If Jerry Green really wants to start comparing players who got fat as they got older, look no further than Miguel Cabrera. Notice Green doesn't compare Trout to Cabrera on this issue, because if he did then the reader may realize a player's weight gain doesn't always hurt him from being a great baseball player. 

The Angels list Trout at 210 pounds. He reported at 241.

Not so svelte.

Muscle weighs more than fat by the way. Trout may not run as fast as he used to, this remains to be seen, but simply because an athlete has gained weight doesn't mean he has lost his athletic ability. Look no further than college basketball and NBA players. The first thing a young player generally tries to do is put on some weight in the form of muscle. Basketball is a different sport, but the principle of weight gain not necessarily affecting athletic ability (especially if the weight gain is in the form of muscle) stands as true. 

Trout, himself, on several sites claimed he is not fat and he would lose poundage during spring training.

So basically it's a non-issue that Jerry Green thought was enough of an issue to bring up in this column. 

The Los Angeles Times sent a reporter across the country to do a feature earlier this month on Trout in his hometown, Millville, N.J. Trout snubbed the guy, refused to talk then to the LA Times, a publication that covers him with exaggerated passion.

Contrary to popular belief, it isn't the right of the media to speak with whoever they want to speak with whenever they want to speak with that person. Jerry Green is being a bit careless with his wording when he says Trout "snubbed" the Los Angeles Times. From the article: 

Obliging everyone would leave little time to eat and sleep — much less to prepare for a baseball season — which is one reason Mike Trout declined to meet with The Times. But ignoring everyone invites jealous whispers that Trout has gotten too famous for his homespun hometown.

If you read that article then you will notice the Los Angeles Times sent a reporter out to Millville, New Jersey to talk about Trout and the town he grew up in. It doesn't appear Trout agreed to an interview. Nowhere in that article is there any semblance of a sentence saying, "Mike Trout agreed to speak with us and then declined once we had flown out to New Jersey." 

The reason there is no sentence like that in the article is because it didn't happen that way. The Los Angeles Times flew a reporter out to Millville, New Jersey to do a story on Mike Trout without having an interview lined up and/or fully knowing they may never get an interview with Trout. I haven't snubbed anyone who shows up at my front door wanting to talk to me when I tell them I don't care to speak right now. In this case, there's no snub involved because Mike Trout apparently never agreed to speak with the Los Angeles Times or the Los Angeles Times never had an interview lined up before sending their reporter to New Jersey. 

The bottom line is Mike Trout doesn't have to speak to the sports media if he doesn't want to, so Jerry Green needs to stop acting like Trout does have this obligation. 

Hurrah, he did provide quotes to the Times after he arrived at the Angels' camp in Tempe, Ariz.

He was at Spring Training, so of course he provided quotes to the media then. In the offseason, when a newspaper reporter knocks on Trout's door he isn't obligated to talk to that newspapers reporter. 

But as spring training continues, Cabrera and Trout have become cover-page fodder for an issue of ESPN The Magazine.

Oh my God! Mike Trout did an interview with ESPN The Magazine but didn't do an interview with a Los Angeles Times reporter! How dare he pick and choose which media entities he speaks with!

"WAR is the answer," ESPN The Mag declares as the headline to the feature article.
It is the answer to what?

A bad pun. It is the answer to a bad pun. 

The Sabermetrics professors fail to get it straight among themselves.

Again, this is a CRITICISM of Sabermetrics. It's a criticism that those people who use Sabermetrics are educated and are "professors." Apparently ignorance is cool. I don't understand how indicating a person who uses Sabermetrics to evaluate baseball players is very educated can be a criticism, but it seems I don't understand Jerry Green.

Sites such as Baseball-Reference.com, FanGraphs.com and Baseball Prospectus have different versions.

But there are certain unifying principles that each of these sites use to calculate WAR. The results are slightly different, but the principles used are the same. This is important to know. 

Generally, WAR includes all the traditional batting vitals and meshes in speed, stolen bases, defense, ballpark configuration, contributions and so on into a whirling blur.

It's not a whirling blur. WAR is several statistics meshed into one larger statistic. I don't get why some people are so intimidated by WAR. It's like sportswriters have never taken a statistics or calculus class. Can you imagine one of these anti-advanced statistics sportswriters storming out of a statistics class because the professor is meshing in too many calculations into one statistic? 

And the replacement is regarded as the average bench dweller in the majors or some ordinary minor leaguer — nobody identified.

Because if someone was identified then it would ruin the metric. This is basic advanced mathematics principles. There is a fictional average "replacement player" upon which current baseball players are measured. It makes sense to do this in order to come up with a constant so that a player's performance can be measured around this constant. 

"For Mike Trout supporters, WAR was simple and unimpeachable evidence of a perfect player performing at a nearly unprecedented level," Sam Miller wrote in ESPN The Mag. "For Miguel Cabrera supporters, WAR was the joyless and inscrutable tool of eggheads, trolls, all of us who never played the game."

And thus, the blather rolled on, extolling the marvels of WAR.

How is saying Cabrera supporters (like Jerry Green) think WAR is "the joyless and inscrutable tool of eggheads, trolls, all of us who never played the game" an inaccurate statement? Guys like Murray Chass and others in the anti-advanced statistics crowd are using terms very, very close to what Sam Miller uses in this column. Miller has paraphrased much of what the anti-WAR crowd says about the statistic. This isn't extolling the virtues of WAR, but paraphrasing criticism made by those who use WAR to measure a player's performance. 

How many times have we read that baseball is best left to those who "have played the game" or had an "old school" sportswriter call the Sabermetrics crowd a bunch of nerds? Maybe it's not stated in not so many words, but we've all probably read something like this. Sam Miller seems to be accurately summing up the opinion of guys like Jerry Green, but Jerry sees it as extolling the virtues of WAR. 

And God forbid someone actually writes a column in favor of WAR, because we all know the 10,000 articles about how WAR sucks written by elderly baseball writers aren't readily accessible on the Internet. Jerry Green's monthly column about how advanced statistics stink is Pulitzer Prize-winning kind of material, but any column about how WAR isn't so bad is just blather. Way to be open-minded to change. It sucks how the Internet doesn't allow ignorant sportswriters to control the message anymore, doesn't it? 

Admitted again — I am old-fashioned, proud. I respect tradition and believe in baseball purity. The sport is an American treasure.

Hey, me too! I also respect different ideas and don't immediately shoot them down because I am too lazy or too much on an ego-trip to adjust to any type of change in ideas or methods of measuring a player's performance. I don't think using WAR takes away from baseball's purity in any way. To indicate using advanced statistics takes away from any sport's purity is just ridiculous. 

Defense, base running — and hitting home runs and driving in runs — matter.

Absolutely, and that's why the WAR formula takes these into account when calculating a player's wins above replacement player. 

What WAR misses, again, is winning pennants, reaching the World Series.

Every single category that makes up winning the Triple Crown (batting average, home runs, and RBI's) doesn't take winning pennants and reaching the World Series into account either. But good try at making a snarky point. I bet sportswriting was much easier when no one could respond in a public way to a writer's silly contention like this one. 

WAR, and every other individual statistics, doesn't take winning pennants and reaching the World Series into account because they are individual statistics, not team statistics. Time and time again it seems certain sportswriters don't understand this.

And WAR fails to factor in weight gain 

If it did, then Miguel Cabrera could have had a higher WAR than Mike Trout last year. If we factored in Miguel Cabrera's weight gain from the age of 20 then his career WAR would skyrocket.

— and sour attitude.

How in the world does Mike Trout have a sour attitude? He didn't do an interview with the Los Angeles Times? The sports media doesn't have a right to interview Mike Trout. This isn't an opinion, but a fact.

Mike Trout was a fantastic rookie in 2012.

That was last year!

What's your point? Miguel Cabrera had a fantastic 2012 season as well. Whatever Trout/Cabrera do in 2013 has absolutely no bearing on which player deserved the 2012 MVP. You don't need to understand WAR to understand that.

12 comments Jerry Green Puns it Up, Goes to War Over WAR

Jerry Green is an old-school sportswriter. I say that not only because he is semi-retired, but also because he doesn't like the use of advanced statistics to judge a baseball player. Jerry appears to enjoy the use of older statistics and plain ol' logic when judging a baseball player. Obviously no one can argue with the use of logic since what is logical or not logical is dependent on someone's point of view. For example, I don't think it is logical to criticize the use of WAR to judge a player when the sportswriter doing the criticizing doesn't understand what the statistic means. That's logical to me. Jerry Green thinks Miguel Cabrera's MVP credentials over Mike Trout are logical, but mostly he just hates the use of advanced statistics.

For the record, with a gun to my head I would probably vote for Mike Trout as MVP, but it isn't the end of my world if Miguel Cabrera gets the AL MVP award. I don't believe the Triple Crown automatically means Miguel Cabrera should be the MVP, but I think a reasonable case can be made for Trout and Cabrera. I simply don't like Jerry Green's method of determining Cabrera is the American League MVP because it seems close-minded.

The talent is true. He plays with rare versatility in a game that dissects the skills of its athletes...

Yet he climbs fences, stretching above walls, to catch balls ordinary outfielders could never reach. He runs with the verve and the speed of a sprinter. And for most of this current season, he led the American League in batting.

Mike Trout is the finest ballplayer to reach the major leagues in the past half-century.

Let's get ready for the proverbial "but" to enter the discussion. It's never good when someone sits down and starts overcomplimenting you to the point it becomes awkward. There's usually a "but" towards the middle of that discussion that takes the conversation into a whole new direction.

In my judgment, Trout is the most talented player to enter the big leagues since Willie Mays joined the New York Giants in May 1951.

But he isn't MVP. Shit, did I just spoil the ending of this column?

Trout arrived in the majors on April 28 this season, from the Salt Lake Bees of the Pacific Coast League. Shipping him to a farm club was an obvious gaffe out of spring training by the often strategically challenged Angels.

Games won by strategically challenged Angels this year: 89 games, which would have been enough to win the AL Central if only Anaheim wasn't located in California.

Games won by Detroit Tigers this year led by Miguel Cabrera: 88 games, which wouldn't have been good enough to win any other division in the majors this year.

Indeed, measuring the old-fashioned numbers that we the purists still regard as sacred — batting average, runs batted in, home runs — Trout's rookie stats are superior to those compiled by Willie Mays 61 years ago.

Advanced statistics show this to be true as well. But those advanced statistics are evil we will soon learn.

No matter what — he must be the unanimous choice for the rookie of the year award. But MVP? Not this season.

Here's the "but" sentence. Mike Trout is the greatest rookie since Willie Mays, but there is an award for that and it is called the "Rookie of the Year" award. This is as opposed to Miguel Cabrera who wins the fictional "Triple Crown" award and the American League MVP.

The "no-matter what" boils down to Miguel Cabrera's season — and the ancient baseball rarity revered as the Triple Crown.

I understand, know and appreciate baseball history. So I am not blind to the accomplishment that Miguel Cabrera has achieved this year. There is a reason I wouldn't hate it if Cabrera won the MVP award. The fact Cabrera won the Triple Crown is just fantastic and is a sign he had a great year. I don't know if the fact Cabrera won the Triple Crown makes him the MVP. A perfect game is also a baseball rarity and Matt Cain threw one this year. Should he win the National League Cy Young award for this?

I get the Triple Crown is a season-long accomplishment, as opposed to a perfect game being only over one game, and Cabrera did have a great season. The Most Valuable Player is about which player had the best season and which player was the most valuable. Fortunately, because he was called up in late April we get an idea of how valuable Mike Trout was for the Angels. They were 6-14 before Trout got called up and 80-56 after he got called up. Granted, this wasn't all because of Mike Trout. Albert Pujols hitting like he is used to hitting had something to do with it. In my opinion, Mike Trout was the most valuable player in the American League this year for reasons that go beyond this. Yes, his WAR is incredibly high, but he also excelled in five phases of the game and in my opinion was more valuable to the Angels than Cabrera was to the Tigers. Even if it is a small sample size you can see how the Angels played before and after he was called up to the majors.

Cabrera is destined to lead the American League batting for the second successive year. He surpassed Trout a few weeks ago. Cabrera likewise is due to top the league in runs batted in. He is challenging Josh Hamilton for the AL's home run championship, the third segment of the Triple Crown. He tied him with his 43rd Saturday.

You can break it down into segments of the Triple Crown to basically restate the case, but the fact remains the same that Jerry Green is using Miguel Cabrera's Triple Crown as why he should win the MVP. He isn't including defense and that "lost art" old-school writers are conveniently forgetting to bitch about being a lost art right now, stolen bases. I find it that funny. For a few years now we have heard old-school, Sabermetric-hating writers talk about the lost art of the stolen base. They say more teams need to stop trying to hit home runs and start "manufacturing runs," using speed, guile and grit. Now "manufacturing runs" is all-but-forgotten when it comes to a player old-school baseball writers don't think should win the MVP award. Suddenly, stolen bases are giving a Sabermetric-candidate (which is what Mike Trout basically is) a better chance of winning the AL MVP and I don't hear much discussion about this lost art of stolen bases anymore.

Plus, Cabrera is powering the Tigers toward the postseason, the pennant playoffs — the qualifying tests leading to the World Series.

Great point! Why isn't Mike Trout leading the Angels to the playoffs? Is it because he just isn't the team leader that Miguel Cabrera is? Or is it because Mike Trout is the only decent player on his team so he has had a chance to shine on a bad team?

Well actually, the Angels won 89 games this year while the Tigers won 88 games. I heard this point of view given by an ESPN analyst recently during a Yankees-Red Sox game. The analyst said Cabrera was the MVP because he is leading his team to the playoffs. He said this despite the fact the Angels have won more games than the Tigers. This is conveniently not mentioned. So the only reason Cabrera is powering the Tigers towards the postseason is because the Tigers play in the AL Central. In every other division, the Tigers wouldn't even qualify for the Wild Card in either the American League and would be tied for the Wild Card in the National League. So if Jerry Green really finds it persuasive to say Cabrera is powering the worst playoff team in the majors to the playoffs, a team that has won 1 fewer game than Mike Trout's team, then I shouldn't really argue with that kind of idiocy. It's a losing deal...and yet I continue.

Cabrera is the American League's MVP. Not the multi-talented Mike Trout. 

The guy who can hit the baseball slightly better than Trout is the MVP, not the guy who can hit the baseball only slightly worse than Cabrera, yet run and field better. I think I got it.

And the Angels, it appears with a few games left this season, are not destined to reach the postseason. If the Angels fail, incidentally, it would be because they shipped Mike Trout to the minors for a few weeks out of spring training.

This is arguable and actually makes a case for Trout as MVP. The Angels still could have gotten off to a 6-14 start without Trout, but the odds are very good they would have won more games with Trout in the lineup. Of course, I find it interesting that Green doesn't think Mike Trout is the AL MVP, but also states if the Angels had called him up for the first 20 games of the season they would be in the playoffs. Seems like he is kind of valuable to the Angels, especially considering the Angels had a better record than the Tigers even without Trout being eligible to play in a little over 12% of the season.

This sort of thinking, of course, has baseball watchers — many with opinions similar to mine — condemned as reactionaries and opponents of progress.

No, I just think Jerry Green is not paying attention to three tools of the five-tool player that Mike Trout has shown himself to be. I do think it is bizarre Jerry Green touts how Miguel Cabrera is leading his team to the playoffs when any smart sportswriter should immediately notice two issues with this statement:

1. The Angels won more games than the Tigers this year. Again, the Tigers have the worst record of any division winner and they probably play in the worst or second worst division in the majors as well.

2. Jerry Green believes the Angels would have won more games if they had put Mike Trout in the starting lineup coming out of Spring Training. So not only does Jerry Green believe Trout is very valuable to the Angels, but the whole argument of "Miguel Cabrera led his team to the playoffs" becomes even more short-sighted and meaningless knowing this.

ESPN claims that Trout merits the MVP award — despite Cabrera's possible Triple Crown — on the basis of WAR.

I base my MVP vote on the idea that Mike Trout was (what I believe) the difference in the Angels season being sort of a disappointment or a big disappointment...and yet the Angels still won 89 games. I also base it on the fact I think Trout was not only the most valuable player, but also he was valuable in five phases of the game, while Cabrera was valuable in two phases of the game.

This is not the kind of war that Ted Williams fought in twice amidst his Triple Crown-style seasons. Or the war that brought Willie Mays into the Army during his career.

Ugh. Not really that funny. Jokes like this make me a little "green" when reading Jerry's columns. Get it? That's humor.

It is that relatively new "Moneyball" style of crackpot Sabermetrics stat described as wins above replacement. Whatever that means.

I hate those crackpot Sabermetric stats. They aren't nearly as reliable as using RBI's or a team's record to show why an individual should be the American League MVP. If you can't use data that is reliant on other players on that team's performance to measure an individual's worth then what is the point of life?

WAR — and there are versions disseminated by both websites Baseball-Reference.com and fangraphs.com — includes more skills than pure hitting and hitting for power. Stolen bases are considered, a number that actually can be counted.

WAR is by no means perfect, but it does encompass a player's all-around contribution to a team, including stolen bases.

Fielding likewise counts.

Just how fielding figures in … well, you look and watch. And then guess, and perhaps the guess works. Or doesn't.

Everyone knows fielding shouldn't count now and has never counted when determining the value of a baseball player. It's not like old-school sportswriters have ever allowed defense to count when determining the MVP or who gets in the Hall of Fame.

I guess Jerry Green doesn't see defense as part of baseball since it takes some effort to quantify the value of a player's defense. Who wants to put effort into voting for a postseason award? I never knew defense wasn't a part of the game of baseball, yet scrappiness and non-quantifiable attributes like leadership and clutchness are a part of the game and should be factored into a player's favor when discussing his value.

I realize I just sort-of created a straw man argument, but it feels so good.

And then the figure person tries to measure how an ordinary replacement player might compare to the established high-skilled player.

If you can't understand how to figure WAR then how is it possible to criticize what you don't understand? Didn't Jerry Green listen to Bob Dylan in the 1960's? Don't criticize what you don't understand. WAR is measuring how many more wins over a replacement player (AAA or AAAA player) a certain Major Leaguer adds to his team's win total. 

Once upon a time, the MVP was not decided on the basis of some imaginary numbers that are jammed into a murky, invented stat such as WAR.

This is nonsensical. All calculations are invented in some fashion. Batting average and ERA aren't "naturally occurring" statistics which require no calculation. WAR requires more calculation than some other statistics, but don't be afraid of it because it requires a little bit more work to understand. WAR isn't invented any more than other statistics are invented and it doesn't use imaginary numbers. WAR uses real numbers in the same way figuring out a player's ERA or batting average figures real numbers.

Were there no Calculus or Advanced Algebra classes when Jerry Green went to high school? I wonder this because I can see old-school sportswriters like Murray Chass and Jerry Green standing up on their desks at the age of 17 rebelling against "these imaginary and invented numbers" their Calculus teacher is forcing them to learn. At some point this opposition to difficult numbers to calculate speaks to a lack of education in terms of math and science. Calculating WAR isn't any different than the other "imaginary" calculations which created "invented" formulas used in high school math and science.

Unlike WAR there is no stat in Sabermetrics known as LOGIC.

There is no statistic in any sport called "LOGIC." In the land of invented statistics using imaginary numbers the use of "LOGIC" would be the king of invented statistics and imaginary numbers because there is no way to quantify what "LOGIC" really means since it is subjective to each individual person. For example, logically even if I disagree with something I take the time to understand it so I know exactly what I am disagreeing with.

And oops, WAR does not figure in baseball's most important statistic — finishing in first place during the regular season.

Hey Jerry, does your LOGIC statistic figure up how bragging the Tigers are finishing in first place with 88 wins in a weak division is a better showing than the Angels coming in third place in a stronger division with 89 wins? Because my LOGIC statistic says 89 games won is more than 88 games won, so bragging the Tigers won their division isn't the best way to campaign for Miguel Cabrera as the MVP. It's a losing argument, especially if we consider Jerry Green states the Angels would have won more than 89 games if Mike Trout had played in the majors for the entire month of April.

The Tigers are aimed — likely — for a first-place finish in their division now that all the white flags in Detroit have been ripped down.

Maybe Jerry Green doesn't have access to the Interwebs to find out the Angels won more games this year than the Tigers. If the Angels played in the AL Central, they would have won this division. I can't repeat how stupid this "the Tigers won their division" argument is when it comes to Miguel Cabrera's candidacy for AL MVP.

A ballplayer who leads his team to a first-place finish — nothing could be more valuable.

Other than a ballplayer who leads his team to a third-place finish with more wins than the ball-player who led his team to a first-place finish, while playing in 22 less baseball games?

There is no doubt that Mike Trout is first over Miguel Cabrera in both WAR I and WAR II.

But Cabrera is first in the American League.

Consider your point not made and LOGIC states you have failed to persuade me with your argument. Mike Trout was slightly more valuable than Miguel Cabrera was this year. I don't even need statistics to say this because I know it from watching both of them play (ouch, there is the old-school sportswriter "I saw them both play and that tells me all I need to know" argument used against an old-school sportswriter). Mike Trout's team won more games and Mike Trout stole more bases and played better defense, while still hitting at an extremely high level. If you can't beat them, use their own LOGIC against them.

5 comments This Just In: Peter Bourjos Is Fast, Probably Not Great at Baseball

Bill Plaschke wants us to know that Peter Bourjos is fast. This seems to be the only positive characteristic worth describing when it comes to Bourjos from Bill Plaschke's point of view. Plaschke also does his best to frame Pourjos as a baseball Peter Pan of sorts who hasn't quite grown up. He wants us to believe this is an admirable quality. So Bill and his ever-so-slight lisp will now write one sentence paragraphs desperately killing space in an effort to let us know just how fast Peter Bourjos truly is.

In the comments on Monday we were discussing the scrappiest players in the majors now that Lord Scrapstein Von Gritt has retired---I mean, refused to play if he can't start for a team. I submitted Peter Bourjos' name as one of the scrappiest players because he is so fast and he shows the correct amount of grit to performance required. See, a scrappy player can't be too good at baseball or else he isn't considered a scrappy player who gets the most out of his ability. I'm not sure why this is.

How fast is Peter Bourjos?

So fast he just took your sister's virginity and had a sandwich while you read this sentence?

(The sandwich will be a peanut butter and jelly sandwich as we will later learn)

In the first at-bat of his life, he singled to center, caught the ball and tagged himself out.

Why Bill, that could never happen! Do explain further! Is this a true story?

True story. It was his T-ball debut, and he was accustomed to chasing down his own hits when playing at the park with his father. So when he knocked the ball into the gap, he sprinted into the outfield, picked it up, and ran it back to the infield.

That's some scrappy shit right there. I like how Plaschke says he "knocked the ball in the gap." This is T-ball. The kids out there are generally 4-8 years old. The entire field is a gap to them.

"I gave the ball to some kid on the other team and he was like, um..." said Bourjos.

"Um...I'm six years old, I don't get the irony of this. Can I go home and watch 'Star Wars' now?"

How fast is Peter Bourjos?

Oh, so we are doing this again huh? This is a one sentence paragraph that is a repeat from a previous one sentence paragraph. I say this just in case anyone thinks Bill Plaschke is an incredibly creative writer.

So fast that this little-known Angels center fielder has pulled up alongside that famous Dodgers center fielder as one of the two most exciting players in Southern California this summer.

This is measured on the Plaschke Excitement Scale 3001. Bill will watch a certain player's best ten plays and scream encouragement as he watches each play with a basin at his feet. At the end of the 10 highlights, whichever basin ends up with the most spittle from Bill slightly lisping and screaming is one of the most exciting players in Southern California. Just in case you were wondering how the two most exciting players in Southern California were determined.

Let's look at Peter Bourjos line as of the All-Star break to see how he and Matt Kemp are the two most exciting players in Southern California:

.272/.323/.397 with 79 strikeouts and 18 walks...but he does have 6 triples. This is one exciting player, especially if you lower your expectations for "an exciting player in Southern California" tremendously.

Here are some other non-exciting Anaheim Angels players...

Jered Weaver 11-4 with a 1.86 ERA, 0.912 WHIP and 199 ERA+
Dan Haren 10-5 with a 2.61 ERA, 0.953 WHIP and a 142 ERA+
Jordan Walden 20 saves with a 2.84 ERA

Despite the fact Weaver is the All-Star Game starter for the American League, he just isn't as exciting as a guy who is superfast and is better suited as a fourth outfielder. That's what Bill wants us to believe.

Actually, Bourjos isn't even the most exciting centerfielder on the Angels team. That would be top prospect Mike Trout. Of course actual performance doesn't matter to Bill Plaschke or else Howie Kendrick or one of the four pitchers on the Angels pitching staff (including Scott Downs) would be exciting players. But no, it is Peter Bourjos because he is fast, while these other players are just good at the game of baseball.

So fast that his game rhymes with the pronunciation of his last name — gorgeous —

His game is not gorgeous. Unless someone finds a lot of beauty in a guy with leadoff hitter ability who manages to strikeout a lot and get on-base at a 32% clip.

He leads the league in highlight video catches. And he surely leads the league in causing a middle-aged columnist's daughters to scream.

So he's like a boy band member who plays baseball. I got it. This is irrelevant to his ability to play baseball. Jeff Francoeur had the ladies screaming for him because of his looks. A few years later in his career, he had both ladies and men screaming at him because he was terrible at the game of baseball.

Bourjos walked off the field, took off his cap and smiled into the crowd with messy black hair and the cherubic face of a 12-year-old who had just left an ice cream truck.

What's the deal with Plaschke writing about how Bourjos plays like a kid, talking about the sex appeal of Bourjos and then comparing Bourjos to a pre-teen with a cherubic face? This concerns me. There are other columnists who do this sort of things as well. Talk about how an athlete "plays the game like a kid."

At some point do some sports columnists develop a fascination with pre-teen boys playing baseball? Is that why Plaschke led off the story about Bourjos playing T-ball? I wonder if he asked for a T-ball team picture from Bourjos? If so, that's some creepy shit. Many players who seem to enjoy playing the game of baseball get compared to a pre-teen child playing the game of baseball, as if this is the highest form of a compliment an athlete can receive. Would Bill Plaschke rather be covering a Little League game rather than an Angels/Dodgers game? If so, why? To stare at the boys and how much fun they are having?

What if I wrote Abby Wambach played the game of soccer like a 12 year old girl? Then I mentioned it in another column how another female athlete played the game like a pre-teen girl and how Wambach had a doll face like a 12 year old girl would. At some point, you would wonder, "Does Ben want to watch a group of pre-teen girls play sports? If so, why?"

Among the thousands standing and cheering were my two daughters who were shrieking, "Who is that?"

I imagine both of Bill Plaschke's daughters don't have goatees nor a ever-so-slight lisp...though I guess I can't guarantee this.

I figured I should eventually get back down to Angel Stadium to find out.

Well naturally. It's not like you could spend this time writing a quality column.

I met Bourjos in an empty dugout Thursday afternoon for an interview that began with him thanking me.

Bourjos probably thanked Plaschke because he couldn't believe merely being fast, tickling Plaschke's pre-teen fetish and having a low OBP could get him such attention.

I explained to him that it is Angel fans who are having fun, especially all those young women who congregate on the field-level seats before the game to cheer Bourjos while he stretches, girls holding up signs such as, "You Have My Dad's Permission To Marry Me!"

How cute!

Just once, I'd like for a baseball player to take a fan up on this offer. I would like to see the player accept the women's proposal and move all of his stuff into her house the next day and then start helping her plan their wedding. The player should just be a general pest around the house and leave all of his clothes and other stuff everywhere and have his friends over after games to make her life pretty much a living Hell. That'll teach her to make random marriage proposals. I think I would pay to see this happen. Maybe then the people who make the cutesy "Marry Me" signs will think twice before bringing into the stadium. Probably not though.

Not really. Bourjos has a chance to one day become one of the symbols of baseball's post-steroid era, a sandlot kid who actually looks and acts like a kid.

I am 17% sure Bill Plaschke has a pre-teen boy fetish. Stop saying he plays like a kid. It's stupid and nonsensical. Also, it really is becoming creepy to me. I know the whole idea behind this thought is kids play the game just for the fun and it is pure and all of that crap. But, Peter Bourjos is a grown man who gets paid to play baseball. Stop comparing him to child for kicks.

I also greatly dislike all of this "symbol of baseball's post-steroid era crap" for players who just try really, really hard. The best symbol of baseball's post-steroid era are the following players:

Albert Pujols
Prince Fielder
Dustin Pedroia
Kevin Youkilis
Ryan Howard
Carl Crawford
Evan Longoria
Ryan Braun
Josh Hamilton
Matt Kemp
Troy Tulowitzki
Andrew McCutchen
Adrian Gonzalez
Brian McCann
Mike Stanton
Jose Bautista
Jay Bruce
Joey Votto
Mark Teixeira
Robinson Cano

These are all batters who hit the baseball really well and haven't been linked to steroids. These are the players who are the model for the post-steroid era. Not Sam Fuld. Not Peter Bourjos. Not any player who seems to try really hard, but players who put up great offensive numbers and haven't been linked to steroids.

How about Howie Kendrick? He plays for the Anaheim Angels. Why isn't he exciting to watch? Why isn't he a model for the post-steroid era?

He is a baseball junkie who literally lives across the street from the Anaheim stadium. His pregame meal includes a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich.

Does he drink milk with his peanut butter and jelly sandwich? I bet he does. Then he has macaroni and cheese as a snack between innings, not just any macaroni and cheese, but the special kids size servings that are in the shape of Toy Story 3 characters or Lightning McQueen. Then he stares at the "Fresh Beat Band" poster in his locker.

Are we sure Peter Bourjos isn't mentally handicapped? The only grown men I know that act like children are either emotionally stunted men or men who have some sort of mental handicap that doesn't allow them to function as an adult in society. Either way, I'm still uncomfortable with Bill Plaschke's (and other sportswriters) fetish that involves celebrating a player who has child-like qualities. It's creepy and if I were Peter Bourjos I would believe it to be a bit demeaning as well.

His destination on a recent day off in Southern California? Where else? Disneyland.

Where else? How about a place adults go...or at least a place adults without children may go? Disneyland is great, but the fact Peter Bourjos goes to Disneyland in his spare time has little to nothing to do with his ability to play baseball nor does it have much to do with how he plays the game of baseball. It does meet Bill Plaschke's need to make Bourjos seem like a child though.

Since his recall to the major leagues last August, it is the Angels who have been thankful, for an energy and athleticism reminiscent of past Angels center fielders Gary Pettis and Devon White.

I think I know what will make the Angels even more thankful. The fact Mike Trout has now been called up to the majors and he brings the ability to be very, very good at baseball to the Angels. Not that they need skill on the roster any more than energy of course.

"There have been times where I've been so focused on watching him chase down a ball, I realize I'm not standing in the right place," said first baseman Mark Trumbo, grinning.

One time Trumbo was watching Bourjos chase down a fly ball and realized he was standing in the women's bathroom. Bourjos has that type of ability. Like a child. Like a kid. Like a little kid playing on a swing, his hair waving in the wind, a big smile on his face, his small little hands gripping the swing. It's almost too much for Bill Plaschke to handle.

It's not always good, as Bourjos left the field with an apparent hamstring injury Thursday after an eighth-inning RBI double against the Seattle Mariners. He hurt himself after stopping suddenly between second and third base, the right decision also proving to be a painful one, the roaring crowd suddenly silenced.

Shit! Now we have to call up the best minor league player, Mike Trout! What are we going to do if he comes on the roster and only provides home runs and RBI's? We need to teach him to have energy and run really fast so he can learn to be one of the two most exciting players in Los Angeles. What a disaster!

The Angels are hoping the injury isn't serious, because they are serious about chasing a championship with a guy who used to practice wild catches while flying off a diving board into swimming pool.

Wow, that is some super specific criteria for what the Angels are looking for in a player to help them chase a championship. Actually...that's perfect. Because my cousin Tim used to do that off diving boards as well. He loves to practice wild catches off the diving board, so maybe the Angels could give him a tryout to replace Bourjos. He doesn't jump off the diving board and make wild catches like a little kid, which could be a huge drawback in the eyes of the Angels.

The biggest problem in Bourjos' game is the game itself.

Read that again. We have gone 75% of this column with how great Bourjos is for the Angels and how the Angels can't be serious about chasing a championship with him not being healthy. Then it turns out the biggest problem with Bourjos is that he isn't a good baseball player. It's like my biggest weakness when it comes to playing in the NBA is that I am not good enough to play in the NBA. Otherwise, I'm golden.

It requires more than catching and running. It also requires hitting.

But...he plays like a kid. Child-like. Disneyland. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Diving boards. Kid. Child. Fast. Bengoodfella sad.

Entering Thursday, Bourjos had a flailing career on-base percentage of .286 with 119 strikeouts and just 24 walks.

Yet according to Plaschke, the Angels are serious about trying to get a championship with him in the lineup. Yet, it seems his playing everyday with Vernon Wells in the lineup would do nothing but hurt the Angels chances at a championship. So everything Bill has told us so far while fawning over Bourjos seems to be pretty incorrect. Bourjos is fast, but is he really THAT important to the Angels? This is why this is bad journalism. It's like journalistic fluff piece self-pleasure. Plaschke writes and writes, but in the end this is just a fluff piece. It's just a useless piece of writing.

For him to maximize his Angels career, he has to eventually bat leadoff, but those numbers make that impossible.

So Bourjos is a scrapper who doesn't even get the most out of his talent? David Eckstein and Darin Erstad laugh in your face. Faker.

So Bourjos is a fast guy who doesn't get on-base and can't walk enough to hit leadoff, but also doesn't have enough power to hit anywhere in the middle of the order? Sounds like it is a real shame he got injured and the Angels had to call up Mike Trout.

"I know this, and I'm working on it all the time," he said. "Every day, shortening my swing, being more selective, I'll just keep working."

The joy in his voice makes him difficult to doubt.

That's why you don't listen to the joy in his voice and see the results on the field. We can't do that, it may ruin the illusion Plaschke has tried to create.

The serenity in his father's voice confirms it.

Oh dear God. Bourjos may very well improve because he is only 24 years old, but it's just really weird to talk about the joy in Bourjos voice and the serenity in his father's voice. I don't know why, it just is. I wonder if Plaschke has conversations with other sportswriters and talks about a player's child-like qualities...

(Bill Plaschke calling T.J. Simers) "You know T.J., that Peter Bourjos has a cherubic face and the cutest little hands."

(T.J. Simers sitting on Marcus Thames' front lawn) "I don't know much about Bourjos, but (starts yelling in the direction of Thames who is getting in his car) I KNOW MARCUS THAMES SUCKS!"

(Plaschke) "It is just like Bourjos is so fast, like a kid. A little blonde-haired kid that doesn't care about anything, but having fun and playing the game. It's just inspiri---"

(Simers) "HOW'S IT FEEL TO GET CUT THAMES. HUH?---WHAT? TRESPASSING? UP YOURS, I'M NOT TRESPASSING! I'M A JOURNALIST, JACKASS!"

(Plaschke) "Sounds like you are having real trouble T.J. Everything okay?"

(Simers) "Yeah, I just approached Marcus Thames to do an interview and he refused again. All I did was tell him how bad he sucked, what's his problem?"

(Plaschke) "Thames doesn't play like a little boy. I doubt Thames was good at T-ball too. His little feet probably didn't run around the bases with his 6 year old tongue hanging out as he ran---"

(Simers) "Bill, you are scaring me just a---NO FUCK YOU, THAMES! I DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF YOUR KIDS ARE AROUND. THEY ARE JUST LITTLE PIECES OF SHIT WHO CAN'T PLAY THE FIELD LIKE YOU! WHY WON'T YOU DO AN INTERVIEW WITH ME?"

(Plaschke) "Kids? There are kids there?" (gets in his car and drives to Marcus Thames house while still talking on the phone with Simers)

(Simers talking to Plaschke en route) "Bill, we have been concerned about you for a while. You talk about children way too much and how grown men play the game like children."

(Plaschke) "But, Bourjos plays the game like a kid and eats peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, like a child does. It's precious and cute to see a man act like a kid. It makes you want to dress him up like a 10 year old boy and---"

(Simers seeing Plaschke's car pulling up to the Thames house) "Bill, I am calling the police. I can see from here you aren't wearing a shirt. Why not? You talk about players playing like children way too much and it concerns everyone. HEY MRS. THAMES, YOUR HUSBAND CAN'T FIELD A BASEBALL WELL ENOUGH TO PLAY ON A CONSISTENT BASIS! CAN HE FIELD HIS POSITION IN BED? PROBABLY NOT! ONE INTERVIEW IS ALL I WANT. BE FAIR TO ME."

(Plaschke starts crying) "I want to watch men play like kids. It just isn't fair more players don't play like children. I want to go back to junior high school and not get chosen last in softball...just once...so I could have played like I was a child."

(Simers calls the police to pick up Plaschke and follows the Thames family to the grocery store while yelling out the window) "HEY THAMES, JUAN RIVERA REPLACED YOU! ASSHOLE! ONE INTERVIEW IS ALL I ASK AND YOU WON'T DO IT. WHY?"

"The thing that I like most about Pete's game is how he handles failure," said Chris.

I guess once you've gotten used to the failure, it becomes easier to handle. Rim shot!

"To him, every day is a new day, a new challenge, a chance to start over again."

Like a child. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

Thus supplying the definition of fast forward.

Umm, no. That's not the definition of fast forward. The definition of fast forward in this context is "a rapidly changing situation or series of events."

This quote is actually supplying an example of a tired cliche. Much like talking about a player and how he "plays the game like a kid" and overstating a player's importance to a team because the fans like him are also tired cliches.

2 comments Jay Mariotti Wants To Stop All Attempts at Having Fun

Many sportswriters like to point out the problems a sport has seen through years or decades and enlighten the public on how we can fix those problems over time. Jay Mariotti prefers to take one incident and blow it into a huge, massive problem that needs a fix RIGHT NOW. His target this week isn't steroids, minority representation in baseball, or the relative imbalance in salaries for teams...but it's those damn celebrations after a team wins a game dramatically.

You MLB teams will have no fun on Jay Mariotti's watch!

Know how baseball players can be stereotyped as the dumbest of the sports bunch, the ones who generally don't go to college and use their bridge to adulthood to pass gas and watch porn on minor-league bus trips?

I thought that was nearly every single athlete who got stereotyped in this fashion, not just baseball players. Clearly, Jay Mariotti knows better than I do since he is the professional sportswriter and I am just a guy with a working computer and a marginally firm grasp of the English language.

So a player rips a game-winning walkoff hit in May. Is that a good reason for two dozen grown men to rush maniacally from the dugout, bullpen and clubhouse and jump the day's hero?

Yes, it is. After arriving at the park hours before game time, killing time in the clubhouse before the game and playing nine innings (or more) of baseball, it is perfectly fine to celebrate a victory with the 24 other guys you spend your entire summer with traveling around playing baseball for money.

To nitpick, not all of the 24 players come from the dugout since presumably there are a few pitchers left in the bullpen.

I mean, openly maul the guy? It was only a matter of time before one of these moving dog piles resulted in a serious injury.

Even knowing an injury could occur doesn't mean the celebrations should stop. I can roll my ankle playing basketball, does that mean I should quit playing basketball and eat Cheez-Its and yell my opinion on sports at a television? I am not going to bore everyone with a discussion on risk, but everything has a risk to it.

I could take a piss and catch my private parts in the zipper. Does that mean I should go buy an adult diaper and never piss in a toilet?

I based that inevitability on the common-sense ideal that a hopping, tackling, chest-bumping, 5,000-pound scrum should not be engulfing a 6-foot-1, 225-pound first baseman, particularly when he is by far your most productive hitter,

I can count on one hand how many times some bizarre injury like this has occurred in the thousands of baseball, football, and basketball games each year. Gus Frerotte,Ted Ginn Jr, and Bill Gramatica come to mind immediately. That's not a bad ratio of having fun:being injured while having fun.

How about Jay Mariotti shuts up and lets everyone else enjoy sports despite the fact he obviously hates sports? Better yet, how about he just quits writing sports columns completely? Everyone in favor of this say, "yay."

What happened? Oh, he rounded third base, whipped his helmet amid the crowd frenzy in his home ballpark, eyed the delirium that was gathering at the plate, took a mighty leap -- and landed badly on his left ankle as his teammates mobbed him and slapped him on the back,

So it wasn't the actual mauling by his teammates that caused the injury, but Morales jumping up and down. Perhaps this article by Mariotti should encourage professional athletes to no longer jump up in the air because you NEVER FUCKING KNOW WHERE YOU COULD LAND! Perhaps you could land on a small child or even on a ball python which would then squeeze you to death and eat you. YOU DON'T WANT TO BE KILLED BY A JUNGLE SNAKE DO YOU?

He instantly went down in a heap, rolled on his back and lay in pain for 10 minutes before he was hauled off to the hospital. Suddenly, nothing was very angelic about the most exciting victory of the season for a struggling team that plays down the street from Disneyland.

Naturally reasonable human beings (that weren't Angels fans) got a small laugh out of hearing about this, looked up the YouTube video (which was taken down immediately by MLB) and then chalked it up to bad luck. Much like a line drive that hits a pitcher in the face, this a freak injury. We shouldn't ban baseballs and wooden bats should we? YOU NEVER KNOW WHEN SOMEONE COULD GET KILLED! Maybe baseball should be played with whiffle balls and bats, just to be safe.

Of course what happens if a person gets hit with a line drive off a whiffle bat? Those fucking fake huge golf ball-looking things can cause a pretty bad red mark on your skin. It's probably better to just not ever play baseball at all.

So much for another pennant run involving the perennial AL West champions.

Many people know the next day Howie Kendrick also got mobbed at home plate after a game-winning hit and what happened? His teammates were hitting him on the head and then they hit him with so much force they just fucking decapitated him. He's dead now, all because his teammates wanted to have a good time. See what baseball celebrations can do? They rip apart families and tear apart the moral fabric of our society.

Seriously, the next day the Angels again celebrated when Kendrick got a hit and no one got hurt. Just like no one has gotten hurt at 99.9% of the celebrations before that.

Some of baseball's greatest memories have involved celebratory scenes at home plate. But I don't remember Bobby Thomson being hog-pummeled by his New York Giants teammates after his homer won the 1951 National League pennant.

This is just retarded reasoning. I don't think I even want to speak to how stupid it is. So because 60 years ago baseball players didn't all celebrate at home plate there isn't a reason to do it today?

Maybe Chris Chambliss had it right back in 1976, when he didn't bother with the home-plate madness after his home run won a playoff series for the Yankees. Instead, he ran away from hundreds of crazies in New York by rounding third base and charging straight into the dugout. That way, no one gets hurt, and joy doesn't turn to sorrow.

Unfortunately if that person is the winning run, that person has to cross home plate or else the runner can be called out by umpires and game will continue. So as awesome as the idea of not touching home plate seems, it may not be too realistic.

On a weekend when Roy Halladay pitched a perfect game and a teen knuckleballer from Japan made her professional debut on U.S. soil, the talk around baseball, sadly, was about Morales' freak injury and how such silliness can be prevented in the future.

Jay Mariotti just caused the injury "freak," which sort of implies that there isn't much which can be done to prevent it. Who is to say Kendry Morales wouldn't break his foot walking into the dugout by missing a step? Should batters be escorted to the batter's box by a golf cart to prevent walking-related injuries?

(This would be awesome by the way)

I am not a huge fan of the celebrations at home plate, but I also don't believe they are inherently dangerous. I am not a huge Red Sox fan, but I still like the image of David Ortiz (or any other player that isn't playing the Braves at the time) flipping his hat off at home plate after hitting a walk-off home run. It is a sort of goose-bump moment for the fans and is exciting to watch. Of course Jay Mariotti hates the fans, so he would actually prefer they have as bad of a time as possible at a baseball game.

Stop beating up your own teammate after he wins the friggin' game, OK? Celebrate in moderation, you know?

Yes, this could perhaps be a solution, but this is the first and only time a player has gotten hurt during the home plate jumping/mauling celebration. Besides Morales got hurt by landing funny on his foot, not because of the actual celebration.

"It's a lesson for all of us. It's unfortunate,'' Scioscia said. "It was terrible, and it will change the way we celebrate. It's sickening to lose a player the way we lost Kendry.

Whether to immediately ban how his team celebrates is up to each manager, but I really don't think the celebration is "dangerous" as Mariotti so dramatically states in his title to this article.

As if being tested by the baseball gods, the Angels immediately were rushed into another game-winning scenario Sunday. This time, after Howie Kendrick's homer gave them a 9-7 win over Seattle, the traffic jam didn't exist. Kendrick simply crossed home plate without a jump, and when his mates did reach him, the celebration wasn't nearly as frat-boy-rowdy.

While Saturday's celebration reached an "8" on the frat-boy-rowdy scale, the celebration on Sunday only reached a "5" on the frat-boy-rowdy scale. I love measuring things that can't be measured.

The key part about what Kendrick did was that he DIDN'T JUMP, which is exactly what got Morales injured. You can't really have much more of a freak accident than a player jumping up in the air and breaking his foot. This can happen pretty much anytime, during a celebration or jumping for a line drive.

Still, the Angels are straining to reach .500.

The reason the Angels are having a bad year? Excessive celebrating. The Baseball Gods do not approve of a team having fun.

But with no Morales and a troubled pitching staff that has allowed the most runs in the AL, the challenge will be more difficult.

I am a little confused as to how Morales' injury will cause the pitching staff to still pitch poorly, but this entire article is based on the logic of a grouchy alarmist, so I probably shouldn't expect this to make sense.

But to replace Morales' power, it may take owner Arte Moreno to open the bank vault for Scioscia and general manager Tony Reagins. Paul Konerko has had a hot start for a stone-cold, Ozzie-wacko White Sox team but is making $12 million this season. Lance Berkman, who dearly wants out of a losing mess in Houston, makes more at $14.5 million.

I think the AL West is winnable for the Angels without Morales. I really do, but if not, the Angels do have the prospects to get another first baseman.

Carlos Delgado is available but injury-prone.

Let me guess...most of his injuries have occurred during celebrations at home plate?

For now, the Angels will stick with their own and hope for more consistency from the likes of Kendrick, Hideki Matsui, Juan Rivera and Erick Aybar.

You mean the Angels need their hitters to quit underperforming? I would think with or without Morales this needs to happen.

You'd think the Minnesota Twins would be empathizing with memories still fresh of an unfortunate 2002 episode involving Denny Hocking. While celebrating a playoff-series clincher, teammate Jacque Jones stepped on Hocking's middle finger and ravaged the nail. Without Hocking, the Twins lost to the Angels in the AL championship series.

Not Denny Hocking! Please tell me how the Twins got by without their utility infielder who hit .250/.310/.323. The answer? They didn't. The loss of Hocking's +OPS of 70 was too much to recover from for the Twins and they didn't couldn't even make the World Series without him.

Please tell me Jay Mariotti didn't just attribute the Twins loss in the 2002 ALCS to the loss of Denny Hocking to a middle finger injury...because I am pretty sure he just did.

As Angels star Torii Hunter said, recalling his time with the Twins that season: "That wasn't as bad as this. This is bad. Denny was our utility player.

Terrible, terrible comparison by Jay Mariotti. Why does anyone pay him for his opinion on sports?

Yet there was Twins manager Ron Gardenhire, defiantly vowing not to change the way his players react to emotional victories. "Probably 1,000 celebrations over the course of the last five years -- and there's one injury and now you want us to quit," he told reporters. "I don't tell them what to do at home plate. That's just an unfortunate accident.''

It's always sad to see alarmist overreaction and logic collide. Logically, the celebration at home plate is just a celebration where one player has gotten hurt and the alarmist says one player being hurt is a reason to stop doing it. Teams know the risks, I don't think the celebrations are really that dangerous.

Milwaukee Brewers outfielder Corey Hart, who was swarmed by teammates Friday night after his walkoff homer. "I've never heard of anyone breaking their leg. I mean, you might take it into consideration, but it's just a freak thing."

As I have stated several times, a player can get hurt doing pretty much anything. Mike Matheny missed the playoffs a few years ago because he cut his thumb with a hunting knife he had gotten as a present. Sammy Sosa got a back injury from sneezing. Though maybe he was trying to get the syringe in his lower back to avoid detection of his PED use because people were starting to notice the needle marks where he usually injected the PEDs (that would be great if this were true)...but the official story was that he got hurt sneezing. You can't stop freak injuries.

We were frightened Saturday when Cleveland pitcher David Huff, who was plunked in the head by an Alex Rodriguez liner, lay face down on the Yankee Stadium pitcher's mound for six minutes. I'm happy to report there is no sign of neuropsychological damage and that Huff was back in the clubhouse and telling jokes Sunday. But the fact the Morales and Huff stories happened within a matter of hours is cause for pause.

Because there is no similarity in any way between these two injuries and how they occurred? I have no idea what Mariotti means here. The only reason I am pausing is trying to figure out what the hell he means by this sentence.

Maybe the Brewers had it right last September. When Prince Fielder hit a home run, jogged around the bases and neared home plate, his teammates didn't batter him. No, they all fell down.

While falling down, a Brewer's player could pull a back muscle or roll too far back and end up with a neck injury. One of the Brewers could also have accidentally hit his head falling back and got a mild concussions. Is it likely? Not at all, but neither is landing the wrong way on your foot and breaking your leg in a celebration.

Harmless? Absolutely.

Absolutely not. A player can get injured pretending to fall down just as easily as a player can get injured in a mob of his teammates. The celebration of falling down is just as dangerous as a group of men getting together in a circle and jumping up and down.

Kendry Morales suffered a freak injury and there is absolutely nothing inherently dangerous about the celebration teams will have at home plate after an exciting victory. Sure, injuries can occur, but injuries can occur at any point in life. Teams know there is a risk of injury when they celebrate at home plate, but this doesn't mean a team shouldn't still celebrate an exciting moment.

0 comments I Was Wrong About the Angels

Here is a draft of a side note I wrote earlier today and was going to post:

If you can't do better than Chad Tracy and Micah Owings, then maybe you should not trade Mark Texiera. Also the Angels want everyone to know Joe Saunders and Ervin Santana are not available either. The Dodgers want to keep Loney as well. What is it with West Coast teams that they don't seem to understand you have to trade something to get something? Do they want to make the playoffs or win the World Series? Regardless, if Chad Tracy and Micah Owings are involved in a trade to the East Coast in the state of Georgia, I am going to write a 10,000 word essay at this web address with 1/10 of the words being R rated. I can't stay neutral if that happens.

Other than the bitching, you notice I mocked the Angels for not wanting to give up anything for a power hitter. Then I see this:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3510042

Sorry for showing my colors on this one but I think this is a trade that may allow the Angels to beat the Red Sox if they meet in the playoffs and actually gave the Braves a decent return. The Angels are no longer wimps.