Kevin Youkilis recently made the huge mistake of saying he considered himself a Red Sock at heart. Naturally because he plays for the New York Yankees now, this an unacceptable way to endear himself to the Yankees fans. Well, actually Yankees fans probably don't care how Youkilis considers himself as long as he plays well this year. They get that when Andy Pettitte was signed by the Astros a few years ago, Pettitte still considered himself to always be a Yankee even though played for the Astros. The New York media didn't enjoy this comment by Youkilis though, and so columnists like Johnette Howard say Youkilis needs to embrace New York. Sure, Johnette Howard would be outraged if Andy Pettitte stated he didn't consider himself to be a Yankee when he signed with the Astros, but it doesn't work both ways. It's fine for a long-time Yankees player who no longer plays for the Yankees to consider himself still a Yankee, but it isn't all right for an ex-Red Sox player to consider himself a Red Sox when he plays for the Yankees now. Embrace the Yankees, Kevin Youkilis, or go home forever. You'll never be a true Yankee!
So Kevin Youkilis
said on his first official day as a Yankee that he'll always be a "Red
Sock" at heart? On the list of crimes in the sports world, this is a
misdemeanor.
Or it's not a crime at all, but just a reflection that he cherishes the eight-and-a-half years he spent in Boston, winning two World Series during this time. This is the typical sportswriter opening that starts with "This topic I'm getting ready to talk about really isn't THAT big of a deal," followed by 500-1000 words making that topic a deal big enough to get an entire column out of it.
Still, somebody should've pulled Youkilis aside before he arrived at
spring training and told him that he doesn't want -- and the Yankees
shouldn't want -- his stay here looking like the second coming of Tom Glavine's turncoat years with the Mets.
Because if a veteran player is going to come play in New York then he better prepare to forget all of his friends, family and teammates who he knew prior to coming to New York. It's like baseball's own version of the Witness Protection Program. You play in New York, prepare to entirely give up your previous life.
So Johnette Howard starts off saying the crime Youkilis committed isn't a major crime and then says he doesn't want to be seen as a turncoat like Tom Glavine was seen as being. Soooooo...it IS a big deal that Youkilis still has fond memories of New York then, because it sort of seems like it is a big deal. This is like when a woman says, "Sure you can go out with your friends and get drunk as opposed to spending time at home with me while I have the flu. I would love to see you and have you take care of me, but it's no big deal to go out with your friends and leave me alone sick on a Saturday night."
Men don't fall for this trick anymore, so the joke is on you Johnette Howard. We know it isn't all right to go out and get drunk with our friends while you are sick and we know it isn't all right for Kevin Youkilis to say he will always be a Red Sock at heart. We know this is true because Johnette goes out of her way saying it is all right, which naturally means because she is writing a column about how it isn't all right, then it isn't really all right.
Everyone confused now?
New Yorkers remember the moral of that story: Love the one you're with.
Or else.
Say you love the Yankees OR ELSE! Boy, it sure doesn't seem like a big deal, does it? Johnette Howard seems to be enjoying some dominatrix-style journalism, but everything is cool in reality. It's just a misdemeanor for Kevin Youkilis to say he will always be a Red Sock. There's just hell to pay for saying this, that's all.
By the time Glavine came to a fiery end in the Mets' historically bad
September 2007 collapse -- serving up a horrifically bad
one-third-of-an-inning start on the final day of the season, and then
infamously promising he was not going to torture himself over it the
rest of his life -- it was easy for scalded Mets fans to say get out,
already. Just go.
It sounds to me like Johnette Howard has more of an issue with Tom Glavine than she has with Kevin Youkilis.
Go back to Atlanta on that midnight train or Peachtree Center bus or whatever TNT corporate jet you arrived on.
Yes, go back on whatever corporate jet TNT has provided, you big corporate shill. Go back to that corporate environment of Atlanta, Georgia and stay away from our small town of New York (Johnette Howard turns on YES Network happy she lives in a town without corporate shills).
No more lamenting how his stay here had a cloud of karmic doom hanging
over it from the minute he left the Braves in a snit -- angry that
general manager John Schuerholz didn't pay him what the Mets were
willing to give him -- and busted up his dental work on that cab ride
after he got here.
Okay, again, this article is supposed to be about Kevin Youkilis.
Glavine still lived in Atlanta.
Renounce your home in Atlanta or have your home burned down.
He had a legacy with the Braves that he cherished, and there were times
during his 61-56 run over five seasons with the Mets when he'd drop
hints that he wanted to return. No wonder the Mets and their fans were
feeling a bit chapped by the time he left.
Youkilis was in Boston for 8.5 years. Glavine was in Atlanta from 1987-2002. I would say he had pretty good ties to the city. Kevin Youkilis isn't Tom Glavine. Youkilis was traded away from the Red Sox, while Glavine only left to show John Schuerholz he could get big money somewhere else. Both teams moved on without each of these players, but Youkilis isn't bitter towards Boston and didn't sign with the Yankees to stick it to Boston. There's no real comparison to Glavine and I can completely see why Youkilis says he is a Red Sock at heart. It's a non-story.
Youkilis left Boston under uncomfortable circumstances, too. He didn't
want to go after eight-and-a-half seasons. Not really. But after former
Red Sox manager Bobby Valentine questioned the veteran's effort and
commitment, Youkilis was traded to the White Sox last June because the
breach between the two men seemed irreparable.
But then Valentine was gone mere months after Youkilis was. And now
there's this sad little feeling still hanging in the air that none of it
had to happen -- to Youkilis, I mean.
And given the chance to come back to Boston (come on, Youkilis could have come back if he really wanted to I would bet), he chose to sign with the Yankees. It's a non-story. The idea Youkilis has to pledge his allegiance to the Yankees and renounce ever saying anything good about the Red Sox is absurd. He's getting paid to do a job for the Yankees and he will do that job. I can't imagine Johnette Howard would be up in arms if Andy Pettitte had signed with the Astros and proclaimed that he still was a Yankee at heart. There aren't different rules for the Yankees and players can play for the Yankees and not pledge their undying loyalty. There is no lifelong blood oath a player has to make to play for the Yankees. There is simply a contract to be signed.
It's understandable.
Except, you know it isn't understandable because Johnette Howard is warning Youkilis about being a turncoat.
He took a one-year, $12 million contract with the Yankees because it was
the best offer he got. It's not like the whole league was clamoring for
his services at this stage of his career.
Oh yeah, the Yankees really took Kevin Youkilis and made him look like a fool. They gave a 34 year old declining player coming off his worst year as a professional $12 million to play first/third base. I bet Kevin Youkilis feels stupid right now.
I love the idea that Youkilis settled for the best offer he could get on the free agent market and that offer was $12 million. Isn't that the very purpose of free agency, to get the best offer available? $12 million for a guy coming off a .235/.336/.409 season, and that's with a .236/.346/.425 "revival" with the White Sox, isn't anything to sneeze at. I won't say the Yankees overpaid, but Youkilis did well for himself. To paint him as settling for a deal (like Howard seems want to do) isn't quite accurate.
So now that he pulled the trigger and he's here, Youk -- are we allowed
to call him that, or does that stay in Boston too? -- might want to ask
around for a little friendly advice on how to handle this from someone
other than Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, his brother-in-law.
Hey look, it's a reasonably forced Tom Brady reference that is presented only for this punchline:
Brady's only experience of making nice with New York is buying a
pied-a-terre in the West Village and not being mocked for his Uggs.
HAHA! Tom Brady dresses well, buys expensive apartments and shops in expensive parts of New York. Good one. Tom Brady knows nothing about pressure and having to adapt to playing in New York. He plays in New England where there are few media members and certainly no media members who enjoy seeing the local team fail.
In related news, Brady is married to a very well-known model. I get it's funny to rag on him for what he wears and his fashion-forward off-the-field reputation, but being married to a model do we expect him to dress like shit and not look good in public? Brady is wealthy and he can afford nice clothes. His wife wears nice clothes for a living. That is her living, dressing nice. So it is fun to pick on Brady, but it's like knowing Russell Martin is married to a real estate agent and mocking him for having a house with nice resale value.
Johnny Damon's
example, once he jumped from the Red Sox to the Yankees, is the better
example to follow. Damon always acted like he was all-in when he was
here. Yanks fans missed him when he left.
In what way has Kevin Youkilis not acted "all-in?" By saying he always feels like a Red Sock? That's just him saying he played for them the longest and had the best memories in Boston.
After watching Youkilis' gritty play for years, it's hard to believe any
conflicted feelings will roll through his mind once the games begin.
And yet, Johnette Howard was worried enough about Youkilis' conflicted feelings to write an entire column about how he should pledge his full allegiance to the Yankees and try to avoid being like that asshole turncoat Tom Glavine.
Still, Youkilis was smart to realize that even as soft rollouts go,
opening spring training by saying, "I'm not going to replace Alex Rodriguez" and "I'll always be a Red Sock" was not the most bang-up start.
Youkilis just has to say the right things and not give the New York media a whiff of any controversy they can blow up and turn into a huge issue. It's not like Youkilis has any experience handling an over-eager media horde who is looking to take one failure or incident and turn this one incident or failure into some big issue it probably doesn't deserve to be turned into.
Regarding A-Rod, he might've gone too far the other way.
Did Youkilis forget A-Rod isn't even A-Rod anymore? They played the
same number of games (122) a season ago and -- what do you know? --
their stats were nearly identical: Rodriguez hit 18 home runs, Youkilis
hit 19; A-Rod had 57 RBIs to Youkilis' 60; A-Rod hit .272, while
Youkilis finished at .235. They each had 51 walks.
So naturally Youkilis should have said, "Hell yes I am here to replace A-Rod. He sucks now and I am a better player." Because that would have gone over so well and not turned into a media circus with SportsCenter leading off the show with this news story. It would have created a dilemma for the New York media. Defend A-Rod or the guy who said he is a true Red Sock? I'm guessing the New York media would still defend the guy who says he feels like a Red Sock at heart. If given the choice, the New York media would probably defend Fidel Castro before taking A-Rod's side.
So no need to tiptoe into town, Youk. Bang your chest a little. And don't make the gaffe Glavine did.
I'm fairly certain that Tom Glavine never stated he would always be an Atlanta Brave at heart when arrived to play for the Mets. Maybe I just missed that quote. 2003 was a wild and crazy time for me.
Better to say nothing if you can't fake it even a little.
Love the one you're with.
If Johnette Howard remembers the lyrics to the chorus that precede this specific phrase, they go,
"If you can't be with the one you love, honey, love the you're with."
Basically the point of the song is to not drown in the sorrows of what you don't have, but enjoy what you do have. Youkilis aying he will always consider himself a Red Sock at heart is loving the one he is with, while acknowledging where he used to be. Stop blowing little shit like this into a big deal when it isn't a big deal.
Showing posts with label tom glavine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tom glavine. Show all posts
Monday, March 11, 2013
Friday, February 15, 2013
5 comments Jack Morris is a Winning Winner Who Just Wins
It should come as no shock that Jerry Green really likes Jack Morris and believes Morris should be in the baseball Hall of Fame. Jerry comes from the old school that says a pitcher who wins game is a very valuable pitcher because he "knows how to win" (as Joe Morgan used to say). Jerry also likes Jack Morris because Morris was super-clutch and had this one really great game that he pitched in the World Series and was otherwise great (but not Hall of Fame worthy) over the rest of his career. So because Jack Morris is a winner, had a lot of complete games, and pitched very well in this one World Series game he should be in the Hall of Fame. Even the title of the article sounds like a parody of those who champion Morris as a Hall of Fame pitcher. It is entitled "Former Tigers Ace Jack Morris Was a Complete Winner." It's like the article is asking to be posted here.
The article starts off with a picture of Lance Parrish and Jack Morris shaking hands. Naturally in Jerry Green's opinion, Lance Parrish should be in the Hall of Fame as well because he's a winner who catches winning pitchers and makes this pitcher win games.
All of baseball America fidgeted in suspense, all of us watching on television, all of those in the ballpark that night. Everybody but … the one guy who stood in the brightly lit middle of this World Series drama.
Wait, is Jerry Green summarizing the plot of "For the Love of the Game" again?
He managed to strike out the batter to end the top of the ninth, the score still zip-zip.
Jack Morris is a winning winner because Lonnie Smith is a dumbass and got confused by Chuck Knoblauch's deception and slowed down before he could score the eventual game-winning run to make the Braves win one-zip in nine innings.
And as he approached the dugout the manager waited, as managers do, with the hook. Their conversation is reconstructed something like this:
"Reconstructed" being a polite way of saying, "completely and utterly made up." Jerry Green is just creating this conversation from nothing to support his own contention. The conversation could have gone like Jerry said it did, as follows:
Manager: "Nice job. You've pitched nine. You're done. If we don't get a run now, I'm going to the bullpen."
Pitcher: "No, you're not. It's my game. I started it, I'll finish it. I want the ball."
This type of conversation completely fabricated by Jerry Green supports his contention that Jack Morris is a gamer who refuses to leave the game until the job is done. Naturally, this merits his being in the Hall of Fame since he is the first and only pitcher ever to insist he stay in a World Series game while the game is tied.
But..................the conversation could have also gone as follows:
Manager: "Nice job. You are staying in the game though. I'm not taking you out."
Pitcher: "I'm exhausted and Pierre and I have a party we need to get to later tonight. Please pull me."
Manager: "If you leave the game now I won't give you the shipment of cocaine I promised you after the game. I know how you and Pierre like to snort cocaine out of an underage boy's belly button. You leave the game, your blow leaves too."
Pitcher: "Fine, I'm staying in. This mustache does help keep the blow well-organized in my nose and catches any cocaine-related run-off though."
You know, the conversation could have gone either way. One way makes Jack Morris look like a hero and supports Jerry Green's point. The other way makes Jack Morris look like a homosexual pedophile with a cocaine problem. Hey, I can fabricate stories too.
So Jack Morris got his way, the only way he ever knew. Tom Kelly, the manager, relented, and Morris went out and pitched the 10th inning.
According to Jerry Green's story. According to my story, Jack Morris and his love Pierre did make it to the party to snort cocaine off an underage boy's belly button. Not coincidentally, Jerry Green's story is a desperate attempt to support the induction of Jack Morris into the Hall of Fame. When you don't have facts, make shit up.
And in the bottom of the 10th, the Twins scored the one run necessary to win. To win the game 1-0. To win Game 7 of a grueling World Series with the Braves. To win for Morris, a 10-inning shutout. To win a monumental ballgame etched deeply into the history of baseball itself.
One big win in a World Series Game 7 does not a Hall of Fame career-make. I'm all for taking a player's postseason success into account in addition to using that player's regular season career statistics as a measure for his Hall of Fame-worthiness. It seems the Hall of Fame candidacy for Jack Morris boils down to Game 7 of the 1991 World Series (while ignoring all of his other postseason performances), labeling him as the ace of X amount of MLB teams and remarking on how many complete games he threw as a starter. Those who favor Morris for Hall of Fame induction have to use these measures because otherwise he would be a prime candidate for the proverbial "Hall of Very Good."
He did win this game though. He's a winner.
To win, dammit!
To win! See what Jack Morris' Hall of Fame resume makes Jerry Green do? It makes him use foul language. He's so passionate about letting very good pitchers into the Hall of Fame that is intended to honor only the best of the best.
When the ballgame is over — a World Series game or a Super Bowl or a Thursday game in mid-June — all that truly matters is which team won.
This is very true, but as I have detailed probably 100 times, whether a pitcher wins a game isn't completely dependent on how well he pitches. It also depends on his run support. If the Twins had scored 10 runs against John Smoltz in the first six innings then Morris wouldn't be seen as such a hero. Alas, they did not score 10 runs in the first six innings so Morris is a hero. But the perception of Morris' performance is partially based on the run support he received. Wins are not only measures of how well a pitcher pitched, but also how much run support that pitcher received.
And in this World Series classic in 1991, the Minnesota Twins won — and Jack Morris won — and Tom Kelly won — and Kirby Puckett and Kent Hrbek — they all won.
Everyone won. We get it. You play to win the game.
I challenge all 600-plus voting colleagues in the Baseball Writers Association of America to find any other purpose for playing these ballgames — above winning.
Simply because the purpose of the game is to win doesn't mean because Jack Morris won a Game 7 in the World Series he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Look, Jack Morris entire resume, including his playoff record, don't merit him making the Hall of Fame. Morris was a workhorse in the regular season and was very inconsistent in the postseason. He's been very good and very bad. Check out Morris' postseason statistics.
Not even for money, profits.
Don't be naive. The players also play for money. Always have and always will.
Shut out — not like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, their careers tainted — a total zero Hall of Fame election. Jack stood up for 18 major league seasons with the Tigers, Twins, Blue Jays and Indians untainted — and unelected.
Part of the reason Morris isn't in the Hall of Fame is that he doesn't deserve to be. There's that. I can't wait until next year when Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux are up for Hall of Fame consideration. Those two pitchers are an example of what a Hall of Fame pitcher should look like. Their resumes make Jack Morris look like a hobo.
And that one shot next year is clouded by the first-year Hall of Fame eligibility of Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine. Plus Mike Mussina.
Don't you just hate it when deserving Hall of Fame candidates overshadow undeserving Hall of Fame candidates? It's just not fair (stomps feet on the ground).
In a re-analysis, it is obvious that the names of Bonds and Clemens and Sammy Sosa, along with Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, on the ballot caused the collected voting writers to shoot a blank.
"It threw all of us under the bus," Morris said during a telephone conversation the other day after he was shut out again.
No, they didn't Jack. You don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame and that is the conclusion that can be drawn. Move along and I bid you a good day, sir.
Maddux and Glavine are certainly first-ballot worthy — if a sufficient number of my 600-plus voting colleagues decide not to continue to try to shut down the Hall of Fame.
Jerry Green doesn't get it, does he? This year's vote wasn't a case of every player on the ballot not getting inducted because of the steroid users. This year's vote was a case of steroid users not getting elected and the other borderline Hall of Fame candidates not being elected based on their own merit. It's easier and lazier to blame Jack Morris' condition on the steroid users. While we are at it, I'm sure it is Jay Cutler's fault too. Let's partially blame him.
But it was Jack himself who pointed out a hidden issue. Maddux and Glavine pitched exclusively in the National League. No designated hitter there. Weak-hitting pitchers are locked at No. 9 in every NL batting order.
If Jack Morris thinks he would have been as good as Maddux and Glavine if he played in the National League then he is delusional. All of this Hall of Fame support from guys like Jerry Green is clearly going to his head if he thinks Maddux won 101 more games because he pitched in the National League his entire career. The same thing goes for Glavine. He didn't win 51 more games than Morris because he pitched in the National League.
Maddux won 355 games and Glavine won 305 games against NL batting orders. In comparison, Morris won 254 games against batting orders with nine qualified hitters.
God, you are a moron if you think one additional hitter in the lineup equates to 51-101 more games won for Jack Morris. Actually, Jerry Green is on the right track. Imagine how many more games Jack Morris would have won if he managed to keep his career ERA a little further below 4.00 or actually managed to put up statistics that deserve induction into the Hall of Fame. If Morris really was a Hall of Fame pitcher he would have statistics like Glavine and Maddux. Good point by Jerry.
Maybe playing in the National League did have something to do with Maddux or Glavine having the low ERAs they did, but there was still a level playing field because Maddux and Glavine were pitching against other pitchers who pitched in the National League. So Glavine and Maddux didn't win more games because they played in the National League since it was an even playing field. It doesn't make sense to say Maddux or Glavine had an advantage in winning more games than Morris if you think logically or think at all. Perhaps playing right smack in the middle of the Steroid Era that Jerry Green rails so hard against cost Maddux and Glavine some wins. Wait, Jerry didn't think of that counterpoint did he? He didn't think perhaps Glavine and Maddux had to pitch against juiced up players while Jack Morris did not.
I lean more towards the seven years from 1992-1998 when Maddux never had an ERA below 3.00 and had an ERA below twice as why he won so many games.
"I pitched my entire career in the American League during the DH era," Jack said. "How do you justify for that?"
How do you justify for Maddux/Glavine pitching right in the middle of the Steroid Era. Shut up and sit down. You aren't a Hall of Fame pitcher no matter how much you whine otherwise.
The quibble many negative-oriented baseball writers have with Morris, supposedly, is his career earned-run average of 3.90. It compares with ERAs of 3.16 for Maddux on his four National League clubs and 3.54 for Glavine on his two NL clubs.
"The league ERA in the American League is 0.38 higher than the National League," Morris said — a preciously rare statistic.
"I'd be a lot lower if I pitched in the National League."
Do you need your binky now?
Imagine how high Jack Morris' ERA would have been if he pitched in the National League against Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, and Barry Bonds while they were juicing. I'm not sure Morris could have had an ERA under 5.00.
"My point is I took the ball into a game longer than anybody," he said.
My point is this isn't Hall of Fame-worthy criteria alone.
"I pitched against 17 Hall of Famers," Morris said. "Maddux, Glavine and Mussina can't say that.
Partly because many of the players they pitched against aren't in the Hall of Fame yet.
Morris is a long-distance winner in this category. He pitched 175 complete games in his 18 seasons. Maddux pitched 109 complete games in 23 seasons; Glavine pitched 56 in his 22 seasons.
Wow, if it was the "Hall of Complete Games" then Jack Morris would be a first-ballot Hall of Fame pitcher. Let's play the cherry-picked numbers game. The lowest ERA Morris had in a single season was 3.05. Maddux had a lower ERA in a single-season 11 times, including three years right in the middle of the Steroid Era, and Glavine had a lower ERA in a single-season 6 times, including two years right in the middle of the Steroid Era.
When winning counts the most, in the pennant playoffs and the World Series, Morris excelled.
Really? He had a career 3.80 ERA in the postseason (sound familiar? His career ERA was 3.90) and posted an ERA over 6.00 in a postseason series 3 times. Morris only pitched in 7 postseason series in his career by the way. So he really wasn't that big when it counted most. He was awful in the postseason at times.
"I want the ball," Morris would tell Sparky Anderson before opening days and before the World Series. And Sparky would hand it to him. And then Sparky would ride with Jack longer than he would with any of his other pitchers. There were times Sparky would head out to the mound with his hook, looking toward the bullpen — and Morris would chase his manager right back to the dugout.
That's a great story. It doesn't mean Morris needs to be in the Hall of Fame.
That night in San Diego, Game 1 of the World Series, the Tigers won 3-2, by grace of Larry Herndon's two-run home run. Jack went nine, with Sparky twitching the last three innings. Four days later at Tiger Stadium, the Tigers defeated the Padres, 4-2, by grace of Alan Trammell's two home runs. Jack again went nine.
Notice how Morris needed the benefit of the offense scoring runs in order to win these World Series games. It's almost like winning games as a pitcher is connected in some way to the offense scoring runs for that pitcher.
I'd love to know what happened in 1992 World Series where Morris had an ERA of 8.44. Notice Jerry isn't telling any inspirational and exciting stories about Morris in that World Series when he went up against Atlanta again.
Morris' accumulated World Series ERA for the Tigers, Twins and Blue Jays is 2.96.
His career ERA in the ALCS? 4.87. The cherry-picking of statistics is fun.
Maddux and Glavine were great pitchers. No dispute.
But they did not match Morris' record in playoffs and World Series. Morris went 4-2 in World Series starts with three complete games and 7-4 overall in postseason starts with five complete games. In contrast, Maddux was 2-3 in World Series starts and 11-14 overall in the postseason. Glavine was 4-3 in the World Series and 14-16 in all postseason performances.
I'm afraid reading this idiocy is actually making me dumber. Jerry Green needs to realize that more goes into a pitcher's Hall of Fame resume than how well he pitched in the postseason. Maddux and Glavine are better than Jack Morris in nearly every category when it comes to the larger sample size of the regular season.
Not to mention, if Jerry is going to cherry-pick statistics, I will do so as well. He is showing us wins and losses in the postseason and as I have said repeatedly wins and losses aren't exact measures of how well a pitcher pitched. Clearly Jerry disagrees. Check on the career postseason ERA of Maddux, Glavine, and Morris. Both Maddux and Glavine have a lower ERA than Jack Morris did in the postseason. So Jerry blindly and ignorantly throws out "wins and losses" as his ultimate measure of Morris' postseason superiority over Maddux and Glavine, but this could just be an example of Morris receiving more run support than Glavine and Maddux.
It doesn't matter if the numbers are spewed out by a new-styled Sabermetrics whiz or an old-fashioned codger as I am — winning trumps everything else.
Yes, winning trumps everything, but it doesn't tell you everything. Not to mention, if Jerry Green can only base Jack Morris' Hall of Fame candidacy on complete games and Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, without even mentioning his regular season statistics, then that tells me all I need to know about whether Morris deserves to be in the baseball Hall of Fame or not.
The article starts off with a picture of Lance Parrish and Jack Morris shaking hands. Naturally in Jerry Green's opinion, Lance Parrish should be in the Hall of Fame as well because he's a winner who catches winning pitchers and makes this pitcher win games.
All of baseball America fidgeted in suspense, all of us watching on television, all of those in the ballpark that night. Everybody but … the one guy who stood in the brightly lit middle of this World Series drama.
Wait, is Jerry Green summarizing the plot of "For the Love of the Game" again?
He managed to strike out the batter to end the top of the ninth, the score still zip-zip.
Jack Morris is a winning winner because Lonnie Smith is a dumbass and got confused by Chuck Knoblauch's deception and slowed down before he could score the eventual game-winning run to make the Braves win one-zip in nine innings.
And as he approached the dugout the manager waited, as managers do, with the hook. Their conversation is reconstructed something like this:
"Reconstructed" being a polite way of saying, "completely and utterly made up." Jerry Green is just creating this conversation from nothing to support his own contention. The conversation could have gone like Jerry said it did, as follows:
Manager: "Nice job. You've pitched nine. You're done. If we don't get a run now, I'm going to the bullpen."
Pitcher: "No, you're not. It's my game. I started it, I'll finish it. I want the ball."
This type of conversation completely fabricated by Jerry Green supports his contention that Jack Morris is a gamer who refuses to leave the game until the job is done. Naturally, this merits his being in the Hall of Fame since he is the first and only pitcher ever to insist he stay in a World Series game while the game is tied.
But..................the conversation could have also gone as follows:
Manager: "Nice job. You are staying in the game though. I'm not taking you out."
Pitcher: "I'm exhausted and Pierre and I have a party we need to get to later tonight. Please pull me."
Manager: "If you leave the game now I won't give you the shipment of cocaine I promised you after the game. I know how you and Pierre like to snort cocaine out of an underage boy's belly button. You leave the game, your blow leaves too."
Pitcher: "Fine, I'm staying in. This mustache does help keep the blow well-organized in my nose and catches any cocaine-related run-off though."
You know, the conversation could have gone either way. One way makes Jack Morris look like a hero and supports Jerry Green's point. The other way makes Jack Morris look like a homosexual pedophile with a cocaine problem. Hey, I can fabricate stories too.
So Jack Morris got his way, the only way he ever knew. Tom Kelly, the manager, relented, and Morris went out and pitched the 10th inning.
According to Jerry Green's story. According to my story, Jack Morris and his love Pierre did make it to the party to snort cocaine off an underage boy's belly button. Not coincidentally, Jerry Green's story is a desperate attempt to support the induction of Jack Morris into the Hall of Fame. When you don't have facts, make shit up.
And in the bottom of the 10th, the Twins scored the one run necessary to win. To win the game 1-0. To win Game 7 of a grueling World Series with the Braves. To win for Morris, a 10-inning shutout. To win a monumental ballgame etched deeply into the history of baseball itself.
One big win in a World Series Game 7 does not a Hall of Fame career-make. I'm all for taking a player's postseason success into account in addition to using that player's regular season career statistics as a measure for his Hall of Fame-worthiness. It seems the Hall of Fame candidacy for Jack Morris boils down to Game 7 of the 1991 World Series (while ignoring all of his other postseason performances), labeling him as the ace of X amount of MLB teams and remarking on how many complete games he threw as a starter. Those who favor Morris for Hall of Fame induction have to use these measures because otherwise he would be a prime candidate for the proverbial "Hall of Very Good."
He did win this game though. He's a winner.
To win, dammit!
To win! See what Jack Morris' Hall of Fame resume makes Jerry Green do? It makes him use foul language. He's so passionate about letting very good pitchers into the Hall of Fame that is intended to honor only the best of the best.
When the ballgame is over — a World Series game or a Super Bowl or a Thursday game in mid-June — all that truly matters is which team won.
This is very true, but as I have detailed probably 100 times, whether a pitcher wins a game isn't completely dependent on how well he pitches. It also depends on his run support. If the Twins had scored 10 runs against John Smoltz in the first six innings then Morris wouldn't be seen as such a hero. Alas, they did not score 10 runs in the first six innings so Morris is a hero. But the perception of Morris' performance is partially based on the run support he received. Wins are not only measures of how well a pitcher pitched, but also how much run support that pitcher received.
And in this World Series classic in 1991, the Minnesota Twins won — and Jack Morris won — and Tom Kelly won — and Kirby Puckett and Kent Hrbek — they all won.
Everyone won. We get it. You play to win the game.
I challenge all 600-plus voting colleagues in the Baseball Writers Association of America to find any other purpose for playing these ballgames — above winning.
Simply because the purpose of the game is to win doesn't mean because Jack Morris won a Game 7 in the World Series he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Look, Jack Morris entire resume, including his playoff record, don't merit him making the Hall of Fame. Morris was a workhorse in the regular season and was very inconsistent in the postseason. He's been very good and very bad. Check out Morris' postseason statistics.
Not even for money, profits.
Don't be naive. The players also play for money. Always have and always will.
Shut out — not like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, their careers tainted — a total zero Hall of Fame election. Jack stood up for 18 major league seasons with the Tigers, Twins, Blue Jays and Indians untainted — and unelected.
Part of the reason Morris isn't in the Hall of Fame is that he doesn't deserve to be. There's that. I can't wait until next year when Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux are up for Hall of Fame consideration. Those two pitchers are an example of what a Hall of Fame pitcher should look like. Their resumes make Jack Morris look like a hobo.
And that one shot next year is clouded by the first-year Hall of Fame eligibility of Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine. Plus Mike Mussina.
Don't you just hate it when deserving Hall of Fame candidates overshadow undeserving Hall of Fame candidates? It's just not fair (stomps feet on the ground).
In a re-analysis, it is obvious that the names of Bonds and Clemens and Sammy Sosa, along with Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, on the ballot caused the collected voting writers to shoot a blank.
"It threw all of us under the bus," Morris said during a telephone conversation the other day after he was shut out again.
No, they didn't Jack. You don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame and that is the conclusion that can be drawn. Move along and I bid you a good day, sir.
Maddux and Glavine are certainly first-ballot worthy — if a sufficient number of my 600-plus voting colleagues decide not to continue to try to shut down the Hall of Fame.
Jerry Green doesn't get it, does he? This year's vote wasn't a case of every player on the ballot not getting inducted because of the steroid users. This year's vote was a case of steroid users not getting elected and the other borderline Hall of Fame candidates not being elected based on their own merit. It's easier and lazier to blame Jack Morris' condition on the steroid users. While we are at it, I'm sure it is Jay Cutler's fault too. Let's partially blame him.
But it was Jack himself who pointed out a hidden issue. Maddux and Glavine pitched exclusively in the National League. No designated hitter there. Weak-hitting pitchers are locked at No. 9 in every NL batting order.
If Jack Morris thinks he would have been as good as Maddux and Glavine if he played in the National League then he is delusional. All of this Hall of Fame support from guys like Jerry Green is clearly going to his head if he thinks Maddux won 101 more games because he pitched in the National League his entire career. The same thing goes for Glavine. He didn't win 51 more games than Morris because he pitched in the National League.
Maddux won 355 games and Glavine won 305 games against NL batting orders. In comparison, Morris won 254 games against batting orders with nine qualified hitters.
God, you are a moron if you think one additional hitter in the lineup equates to 51-101 more games won for Jack Morris. Actually, Jerry Green is on the right track. Imagine how many more games Jack Morris would have won if he managed to keep his career ERA a little further below 4.00 or actually managed to put up statistics that deserve induction into the Hall of Fame. If Morris really was a Hall of Fame pitcher he would have statistics like Glavine and Maddux. Good point by Jerry.
Maybe playing in the National League did have something to do with Maddux or Glavine having the low ERAs they did, but there was still a level playing field because Maddux and Glavine were pitching against other pitchers who pitched in the National League. So Glavine and Maddux didn't win more games because they played in the National League since it was an even playing field. It doesn't make sense to say Maddux or Glavine had an advantage in winning more games than Morris if you think logically or think at all. Perhaps playing right smack in the middle of the Steroid Era that Jerry Green rails so hard against cost Maddux and Glavine some wins. Wait, Jerry didn't think of that counterpoint did he? He didn't think perhaps Glavine and Maddux had to pitch against juiced up players while Jack Morris did not.
I lean more towards the seven years from 1992-1998 when Maddux never had an ERA below 3.00 and had an ERA below twice as why he won so many games.
"I pitched my entire career in the American League during the DH era," Jack said. "How do you justify for that?"
How do you justify for Maddux/Glavine pitching right in the middle of the Steroid Era. Shut up and sit down. You aren't a Hall of Fame pitcher no matter how much you whine otherwise.
The quibble many negative-oriented baseball writers have with Morris, supposedly, is his career earned-run average of 3.90. It compares with ERAs of 3.16 for Maddux on his four National League clubs and 3.54 for Glavine on his two NL clubs.
"The league ERA in the American League is 0.38 higher than the National League," Morris said — a preciously rare statistic.
"I'd be a lot lower if I pitched in the National League."
Do you need your binky now?
Imagine how high Jack Morris' ERA would have been if he pitched in the National League against Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, and Barry Bonds while they were juicing. I'm not sure Morris could have had an ERA under 5.00.
"My point is I took the ball into a game longer than anybody," he said.
My point is this isn't Hall of Fame-worthy criteria alone.
"I pitched against 17 Hall of Famers," Morris said. "Maddux, Glavine and Mussina can't say that.
Partly because many of the players they pitched against aren't in the Hall of Fame yet.
Morris is a long-distance winner in this category. He pitched 175 complete games in his 18 seasons. Maddux pitched 109 complete games in 23 seasons; Glavine pitched 56 in his 22 seasons.
Wow, if it was the "Hall of Complete Games" then Jack Morris would be a first-ballot Hall of Fame pitcher. Let's play the cherry-picked numbers game. The lowest ERA Morris had in a single season was 3.05. Maddux had a lower ERA in a single-season 11 times, including three years right in the middle of the Steroid Era, and Glavine had a lower ERA in a single-season 6 times, including two years right in the middle of the Steroid Era.
When winning counts the most, in the pennant playoffs and the World Series, Morris excelled.
Really? He had a career 3.80 ERA in the postseason (sound familiar? His career ERA was 3.90) and posted an ERA over 6.00 in a postseason series 3 times. Morris only pitched in 7 postseason series in his career by the way. So he really wasn't that big when it counted most. He was awful in the postseason at times.
"I want the ball," Morris would tell Sparky Anderson before opening days and before the World Series. And Sparky would hand it to him. And then Sparky would ride with Jack longer than he would with any of his other pitchers. There were times Sparky would head out to the mound with his hook, looking toward the bullpen — and Morris would chase his manager right back to the dugout.
That's a great story. It doesn't mean Morris needs to be in the Hall of Fame.
That night in San Diego, Game 1 of the World Series, the Tigers won 3-2, by grace of Larry Herndon's two-run home run. Jack went nine, with Sparky twitching the last three innings. Four days later at Tiger Stadium, the Tigers defeated the Padres, 4-2, by grace of Alan Trammell's two home runs. Jack again went nine.
Notice how Morris needed the benefit of the offense scoring runs in order to win these World Series games. It's almost like winning games as a pitcher is connected in some way to the offense scoring runs for that pitcher.
I'd love to know what happened in 1992 World Series where Morris had an ERA of 8.44. Notice Jerry isn't telling any inspirational and exciting stories about Morris in that World Series when he went up against Atlanta again.
Morris' accumulated World Series ERA for the Tigers, Twins and Blue Jays is 2.96.
His career ERA in the ALCS? 4.87. The cherry-picking of statistics is fun.
Maddux and Glavine were great pitchers. No dispute.
But they did not match Morris' record in playoffs and World Series. Morris went 4-2 in World Series starts with three complete games and 7-4 overall in postseason starts with five complete games. In contrast, Maddux was 2-3 in World Series starts and 11-14 overall in the postseason. Glavine was 4-3 in the World Series and 14-16 in all postseason performances.
I'm afraid reading this idiocy is actually making me dumber. Jerry Green needs to realize that more goes into a pitcher's Hall of Fame resume than how well he pitched in the postseason. Maddux and Glavine are better than Jack Morris in nearly every category when it comes to the larger sample size of the regular season.
Not to mention, if Jerry is going to cherry-pick statistics, I will do so as well. He is showing us wins and losses in the postseason and as I have said repeatedly wins and losses aren't exact measures of how well a pitcher pitched. Clearly Jerry disagrees. Check on the career postseason ERA of Maddux, Glavine, and Morris. Both Maddux and Glavine have a lower ERA than Jack Morris did in the postseason. So Jerry blindly and ignorantly throws out "wins and losses" as his ultimate measure of Morris' postseason superiority over Maddux and Glavine, but this could just be an example of Morris receiving more run support than Glavine and Maddux.
It doesn't matter if the numbers are spewed out by a new-styled Sabermetrics whiz or an old-fashioned codger as I am — winning trumps everything else.
Yes, winning trumps everything, but it doesn't tell you everything. Not to mention, if Jerry Green can only base Jack Morris' Hall of Fame candidacy on complete games and Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, without even mentioning his regular season statistics, then that tells me all I need to know about whether Morris deserves to be in the baseball Hall of Fame or not.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
4 comments Murray Chass Decides Tim Raines Is a Cheater Too
Murray Chass has taken the Internet by storm on his non-blog in the past by attacking Mike Piazza for being a cheater who used PEDs, he won't vote for Jeff Bagwell because somebody told him one time that Jeff Bagwell used PED's, and it is pretty much the fault of either (a) immoral assholes or (b) new-age statistics lovers if any accused, proven, or hinted-at steroid user ever is inducted into the Hall of Fame. Not satisfied with randomly attacking Mike Piazza for his bacne and using rumors to keep Jeff Bagwell out of the Hall of Fame, Murray has now decided Tim Raines is a junkie and that's why he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. Don't get me wrong, Murray has a vote (for one more year, just one more year) and he can vote for or not vote for any player he wants. It's not about voting to Murray though. It's about being able to attack players publicly on his non-blog. Murray is all about being moral and if he doesn't considered a baseball player to be sufficiently moral than that person doesn't get a vote from Murray Chass...unless that player is named Jack Morris. Jack Morris could use steroids and then do cocaine off a hooker's ass and Murray Chass would still vote him to be inducted into the Hall of Fame.
While this week’s results of the Hall of Fame election have prompted widespread discussion about Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa and Mike Piazza, I prefer to discuss Tim Raines.
Because the Hall of Fame waters aren't muddied enough, and with Murray Chass being bitter his second best friend forever (his first best friend forever is Fay Vincent) Jack Morris didn't get into the Hall of Fame, he takes a stab at pointing out why Tim Raines doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame either.
A 23-year major league outfielder, who had 70 or more stolen bases in six successive seasons in the 1980s,
I'm going to ruin it for everyone and tell you that Murray doesn't think Raines deserves to be in the Hall of Fame because he used drugs when he played in the majors. At a certain point, Murray is going to state a player doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame because he passed gas too often in the clubhouse and this hurt team chemistry.
Unlike Bonds, Clemens, Sosa and Piazza, Raines was untainted by the admission or the suspicion that he used steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs. Raines, however, made a different admission and had his own special taint.
Other than his biggest taint being that he is not Jack Morris?
With Raines’ vote total rising, the voting members of the Baseball Writers Association are either forgetting or ignoring that Raines admitted in 1982 and in subsequent years that he used cocaine.
I would assume the voters are ignoring the fact Tim Raines used cocaine since it didn't have a positive effect on his baseball career and generally voters haven't considered a player's personal life as a reason why that player should not make the Hall of Fame. Mickey Mantle chased women and abused alcohol. I realize neither of these activities are illegal, but he is in the Hall of Fame and wasn't the most moral guy. Plenty of baseball players have used drugs or not been the model or morality off the field. This hasn't stopped Hall of Fame voters from voting these players into the Hall of Fame or using this off-the-field issue as a reason the player should not be in the Hall of Fame. Murray is going to try to lump Raines in with the steroid users and he shouldn't. Tim Raines' cocaine use was an off-the-field issue, and even if it bled on to the field periodically, it didn't necessarily enhance his performance.
At one of the drug trials in Pittsburgh in 1985, Raines testified that he kept cocaine in the back pocket of his uniform pants during games and that when he had to slide, he slid headfirst to make sure he didn’t break the glass vial in which he kept the illegal drug.
Very salacious and informative. So if Dock Ellis were good enough to be elected into the Hall of Fame should he be denied induction because he pitched while on LSD?
That was Raines himself saying that – on the witness stand under oath in a federal court room. That wasn’t Clemens denying to Congress that he used steroids. That wasn’t Bonds telling a federal grand jury that he thought the substances he was using were flaxseed oil and arthritic balm.
Exactly. This wasn't Bonds or Clemens being questioned about using a substance that would enhance his performance and inflate his statistics. This is a case of a player having a drug problem and testifying to this fact. I'm not sure if Raines' cocaine use made him play baseball better or run faster. Comparing Bonds and Clemens to Raines isn't exactly the most accurate or reasonable comparison.
It was 30 years ago that Raines confessed to using cocaine, but there’s no statute of limitations on using illegal drugs in Major League Baseball.
Well, naturally he should be immediately arrested.
Why aren’t the writers holding Raines as accountable for his transgression as they obviously are, and as they should, in the case of the steroids studs?
Mostly because these are two separate issues. Raines' use of drugs is an example of him having an off-the-field issue that didn't enhance his ability on the field and therefore most likely didn't have a positive effect on his statistics. Steroids arguably can make a baseball player's performance better and can positively affect his statistics. I say "arguably" because I have seen articles about how steroids may not really help baseball players, but either way in this situation these are two separate issues that should not be lumped together.
Raines first appeared on the Hall of Fame ballot for the 2008 election. He received 24.3 percent of the vote that year, then slipped to 22.6 percent the next year. But his numbers have risen every year since and now have more than doubled, from 30.4 to 37.5 to 48.7 to 52.2.
It seems to be obvious from his percentages in the last two elections that some voter who refused to mark their ballots for Bonds and Clemens put an “X” next to Raines’ name.
Right, and this isn't a contradiction or hypocritical because Bonds'/Clemens' steroid use is a different issue and problem from Tim Raines' cocaine abuse. And of course some voters who refused to vote for Bonds and Clemens voted for Raines. Some voters who refused to vote for Bonds and Clemens voted for Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, and Fred McGriff. Those are three players who haven't been shown to use steroids, but there are suspicions about 1-2 of these three guys. There is a diversity of players on a lot of Hall of Fame ballots.
Yeah, he used cocaine, those voters might argue, but cocaine doesn’t help a batter hit home runs or help a pitcher recover faster from his last start.
But if a voter follows the BBWAA rules in regard to steroids, he should realize they also pertain to drugs such as cocaine.
I like how Murray dives deep into the BBWAA regulations to make sure Tim Raines doesn't enter the Hall of Fame. He's entitled to his opinion of course, but I don't see the reasonableness of leaving Raines out of the Hall of Fame simply due to his drug use. It doesn't seem like Raines used drugs for fun, but had an actual drug problem that was difficult to kick. It's hard for me to hold this against him when it comes time for Hall of Fame voting.
“Voting,” reads rule No. 5, “shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
Voters might not think about it consciously, but when they decide not to vote for a steroids user, they are invoking the “integrity, sportsmanship, character” clause. The same clause applies to Raines.
I'm not going to get in an argument over drugs and if someone who has integrity or character uses drugs. It's a losing argument with no winner. It sounds silly to me to point to Tim Raines and say, "You used drugs and have no character. Your contributions to the game will be ignored because you had a personal issue that shows you lacked character off-the-field."
Some people reject use of that clause, arguing that there are plenty of bad guys in the Hall of Fame and usually cite Ty Cobb as the poster boy for that group. But that’s not an excuse to put more bad guys in.
Very true. This is no excuse to put more "bad guys" in. This is proof the Hall of Fame voters have ignored the "morality clause" when a player has Hall of Fame-worthy statistics and made a big impact on the game of baseball. Tim Raines beat drugs nearly thirty years ago, but to Murray Chass he is still a "bad guy." Nice to see Murray is so forgiving and hasn't ever had any personal issues that would have kept him out of the "Crotchety and Bitter Old Sportswriters Hall of Fame."
I’ve never bought the argument that a player should be elected to the Hall because his statistics are as good as or better than a player who is a member.
That's not the case here. Tim Raines is comparable to several Hall of Fame members, including Lou Brock. It's fine if Murray doesn't think Tim Raines deserves induction, but the members of the Hall of Fame that Tim Raines is comparable to aren't among the worst players in the Hall of Fame.
Raines, the former Montreal Expos’ all-star is the last player left on the ballot who was involved with the Pittsburgh drug trials. Dave Parker’s last year of eligibility was 2011, when he received a meager 15.3 percent. Keith Hernandez fell off the ballot in 2004 when he didn’t gain the requisite 5 percent but a minuscule 4.3 percent.
Both Parker and Hernandez were judged for Hall of Fame induction based entirely on their merits on the field. It's not too much to ask that Raines also be judged by his play on the field and not be lumped in with steroid users simply because it is convenient for Murray to do so. I can't get in the head of Hall of Fame voters, thank God, but I would imagine Hernandez and Parker didn't make the Hall of Fame because their performance didn't merit induction as opposed to their participation in the Pittsburgh drug trials.
Incidentally, Kevin Koch has never made the BBWAA ballot. Koch was the Pittsburgh Pirates’ mascot, the man in the parrot costume, who moonlighted as the cocaine delivery man to the Pirates’ clubhouse.
Murray may not want to do a nationwide standup tour. Humor is not his strength.
In this election, Raines fared better than Clemens (37.6 percent) and Bonds (36.2) and much better than Sosa (12.5). I suspect the disparity among the three first-timers came from the view held by some writers that Clemens and Bonds had established their Hall of Fame credentials before they resorted to steroids.
Which, if I am being honest, I don't see as an entirely wrong viewpoint. It is difficult to determine when a player used steroids or not, but I can see why some voters would try to separate out the steroid and non-steroid years for a certain player.
The votes for first-timers Craig Biggio (a ballot-leading 68.2) and Mike Piazza (57.8) as well as third-timer Jeff Bagwell (59.6) indicate that writers either haven’t caught up to the latest reports of their alleged steroids use or, more likely, are willing to overlook the reports because the players were never caught using anything illegal.
Because God forbid there are open-minded sportswriters out there who refuse to convict Piazza, Bagwell and Biggio based on circumstantial evidence and their own personal belief these players used steroids. These writers probably have caught up to the latest reports but don't think it is fair to lump Piazza, Biggio and Bagwell in with Bonds/Clemens/Sosa. It is probably shocking for Murray to realize there are those willing to consider the idea their own preconceived notion about these players isn't a set-in-stone fact.
My favorite, Jack Morris, did not benefit from the absence of surefire first-timers on the ballot. With four fewer ballots cast, the pitcher gained three votes and only 1 percent to 67.7. Next year he could suffer with the addition of Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine to the ballot,
I'm looking forward to next year's Hall of Fame vote because it is going to be absolutely clear what a Hall of Fame pitcher is supposed to look like (Maddux and Glavine), while showing those pitchers who were just very good (Morris) probably don't deserve induction. The 2014 class is going to show the largest difference in guys like Jack Morris and real Hall of Fame pitchers.
or he could benefit if the voters say let’s put all the good pitchers in.
Here's the fundamental problem with Jack Morris being in the Hall of Fame. Even the strongest supporters of Morris will say he was a "good pitcher." Murray Chass is going to turn in a Hall of Fame ballot until Jack Morris is no longer eligibile. He is a huge supporter of Morris and even he says Morris was "good." Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux were great pitchers. So if the voters do anything they will see Glavine and Maddux's numbers and realize, "Holy shit, this is what a Hall of Fame pitcher is supposed to be," and Morris will lose votes due to this.
I found the most intriguing to come from Michael Weiner, the head of the players’ union, who issued this statement:
...Moreover, to penalize players exonerated in legal proceedings – and others never even implicated – is simply unfair. The Hall of Fame is supposed to be for the best players to have ever played the game.
The writers serve as judges of players’ careers but are not restricted as judges are in dealing with the law. We are free to use circumstantial evidence, and there is plenty of that with Bonds and Clemens, all of which points to them as cheaters.
Notice how Murray has absolutely nothing to say about the "others never even implicated" statement in regard to steroids. This is because Murray knows it is ridiculous to convict a guy like Jeff Bagwell based entirely on a rumor that he heard one time. Murray always glosses over why he won't vote for Bagwell because he hasn't seen his bacne and has no idea if Bagwell used steroids. He only relies on rumors when discussing Bagwell. Murray is not voting for Bagwell based on what somebody he trusts told him and I think that is wrong. It's easy to beat the drum against Bonds and Clemens, but Murray's reasoning in regard to Bagwell falls short in my opinion.
But the Hall of Fame voters don’t need any more proof than they used in this election.
I think you do. I think if you are stating Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza and Craig Biggio don't get your Hall of Fame vote because they lack "integrity, sportsmanship, and character" you better have a good reason for this claim other than bacne and a game of telephone with another sportswriter. To state a player lacks character and integrity isn't discussing his on-the-field exploits, but is criticizing him for his actions off-the-field. I think this is something there should be definitive proof of being true before not casting a ballot for these players. As I have said repeatedly, I think Biggio, Bagwell, and Piazza used steroids, but I have no proof so I'm not so closed-minded as to think my opinion is right.
In searching for something I had written for The New York Times some years ago, I came across an article written by Alan Schwarz in spring training of 2004.
Schwarz talked to some young fans about the steroids mess that was just starting to emerge publicly.
“It’s cheating,” an 11-year-old Florida fan said while watching an exhibition game.
Because the opinion of an 11-year-old can never be wrong. That's why Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift and One Direction are the greatest musicians in the history of music. That's why every boy band from the past 20 years is still going strong and selling millions of albums. That's why "Twilight" is going to win every Academy Award.
An 11-year-old's opinion is not an opinion I would strongly cite in support of nearly any argument.
”I’m angry,” said another young fan. “I don’t like people cheating in sports.”
”I’d feel bad if Barry Bonds used steroids,” the first fan said. ”Hank Aaron didn’t use steroids, did he?”
Therein lies Murray Chass' argument for why Tim Raines lacks integrity. Cocaine is the same thing as steroids. 11-year-old boys don't like cheaters and so grown adults shouldn't like cheaters. Because steroid users are cheaters and using cocaine is the same thing as steroids, then that means Tim Raines is a cheater and shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame for this reason. How can the opinion of an 11-year-old boy from 9 years ago be wrong or not universally accepted?
While this week’s results of the Hall of Fame election have prompted widespread discussion about Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa and Mike Piazza, I prefer to discuss Tim Raines.
Because the Hall of Fame waters aren't muddied enough, and with Murray Chass being bitter his second best friend forever (his first best friend forever is Fay Vincent) Jack Morris didn't get into the Hall of Fame, he takes a stab at pointing out why Tim Raines doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame either.
A 23-year major league outfielder, who had 70 or more stolen bases in six successive seasons in the 1980s,
I'm going to ruin it for everyone and tell you that Murray doesn't think Raines deserves to be in the Hall of Fame because he used drugs when he played in the majors. At a certain point, Murray is going to state a player doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame because he passed gas too often in the clubhouse and this hurt team chemistry.
Unlike Bonds, Clemens, Sosa and Piazza, Raines was untainted by the admission or the suspicion that he used steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs. Raines, however, made a different admission and had his own special taint.
Other than his biggest taint being that he is not Jack Morris?
With Raines’ vote total rising, the voting members of the Baseball Writers Association are either forgetting or ignoring that Raines admitted in 1982 and in subsequent years that he used cocaine.
I would assume the voters are ignoring the fact Tim Raines used cocaine since it didn't have a positive effect on his baseball career and generally voters haven't considered a player's personal life as a reason why that player should not make the Hall of Fame. Mickey Mantle chased women and abused alcohol. I realize neither of these activities are illegal, but he is in the Hall of Fame and wasn't the most moral guy. Plenty of baseball players have used drugs or not been the model or morality off the field. This hasn't stopped Hall of Fame voters from voting these players into the Hall of Fame or using this off-the-field issue as a reason the player should not be in the Hall of Fame. Murray is going to try to lump Raines in with the steroid users and he shouldn't. Tim Raines' cocaine use was an off-the-field issue, and even if it bled on to the field periodically, it didn't necessarily enhance his performance.
At one of the drug trials in Pittsburgh in 1985, Raines testified that he kept cocaine in the back pocket of his uniform pants during games and that when he had to slide, he slid headfirst to make sure he didn’t break the glass vial in which he kept the illegal drug.
Very salacious and informative. So if Dock Ellis were good enough to be elected into the Hall of Fame should he be denied induction because he pitched while on LSD?
That was Raines himself saying that – on the witness stand under oath in a federal court room. That wasn’t Clemens denying to Congress that he used steroids. That wasn’t Bonds telling a federal grand jury that he thought the substances he was using were flaxseed oil and arthritic balm.
Exactly. This wasn't Bonds or Clemens being questioned about using a substance that would enhance his performance and inflate his statistics. This is a case of a player having a drug problem and testifying to this fact. I'm not sure if Raines' cocaine use made him play baseball better or run faster. Comparing Bonds and Clemens to Raines isn't exactly the most accurate or reasonable comparison.
It was 30 years ago that Raines confessed to using cocaine, but there’s no statute of limitations on using illegal drugs in Major League Baseball.
Well, naturally he should be immediately arrested.
Why aren’t the writers holding Raines as accountable for his transgression as they obviously are, and as they should, in the case of the steroids studs?
Mostly because these are two separate issues. Raines' use of drugs is an example of him having an off-the-field issue that didn't enhance his ability on the field and therefore most likely didn't have a positive effect on his statistics. Steroids arguably can make a baseball player's performance better and can positively affect his statistics. I say "arguably" because I have seen articles about how steroids may not really help baseball players, but either way in this situation these are two separate issues that should not be lumped together.
Raines first appeared on the Hall of Fame ballot for the 2008 election. He received 24.3 percent of the vote that year, then slipped to 22.6 percent the next year. But his numbers have risen every year since and now have more than doubled, from 30.4 to 37.5 to 48.7 to 52.2.
It seems to be obvious from his percentages in the last two elections that some voter who refused to mark their ballots for Bonds and Clemens put an “X” next to Raines’ name.
Right, and this isn't a contradiction or hypocritical because Bonds'/Clemens' steroid use is a different issue and problem from Tim Raines' cocaine abuse. And of course some voters who refused to vote for Bonds and Clemens voted for Raines. Some voters who refused to vote for Bonds and Clemens voted for Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, and Fred McGriff. Those are three players who haven't been shown to use steroids, but there are suspicions about 1-2 of these three guys. There is a diversity of players on a lot of Hall of Fame ballots.
Yeah, he used cocaine, those voters might argue, but cocaine doesn’t help a batter hit home runs or help a pitcher recover faster from his last start.
But if a voter follows the BBWAA rules in regard to steroids, he should realize they also pertain to drugs such as cocaine.
I like how Murray dives deep into the BBWAA regulations to make sure Tim Raines doesn't enter the Hall of Fame. He's entitled to his opinion of course, but I don't see the reasonableness of leaving Raines out of the Hall of Fame simply due to his drug use. It doesn't seem like Raines used drugs for fun, but had an actual drug problem that was difficult to kick. It's hard for me to hold this against him when it comes time for Hall of Fame voting.
“Voting,” reads rule No. 5, “shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
Voters might not think about it consciously, but when they decide not to vote for a steroids user, they are invoking the “integrity, sportsmanship, character” clause. The same clause applies to Raines.
I'm not going to get in an argument over drugs and if someone who has integrity or character uses drugs. It's a losing argument with no winner. It sounds silly to me to point to Tim Raines and say, "You used drugs and have no character. Your contributions to the game will be ignored because you had a personal issue that shows you lacked character off-the-field."
Some people reject use of that clause, arguing that there are plenty of bad guys in the Hall of Fame and usually cite Ty Cobb as the poster boy for that group. But that’s not an excuse to put more bad guys in.
Very true. This is no excuse to put more "bad guys" in. This is proof the Hall of Fame voters have ignored the "morality clause" when a player has Hall of Fame-worthy statistics and made a big impact on the game of baseball. Tim Raines beat drugs nearly thirty years ago, but to Murray Chass he is still a "bad guy." Nice to see Murray is so forgiving and hasn't ever had any personal issues that would have kept him out of the "Crotchety and Bitter Old Sportswriters Hall of Fame."
I’ve never bought the argument that a player should be elected to the Hall because his statistics are as good as or better than a player who is a member.
That's not the case here. Tim Raines is comparable to several Hall of Fame members, including Lou Brock. It's fine if Murray doesn't think Tim Raines deserves induction, but the members of the Hall of Fame that Tim Raines is comparable to aren't among the worst players in the Hall of Fame.
Raines, the former Montreal Expos’ all-star is the last player left on the ballot who was involved with the Pittsburgh drug trials. Dave Parker’s last year of eligibility was 2011, when he received a meager 15.3 percent. Keith Hernandez fell off the ballot in 2004 when he didn’t gain the requisite 5 percent but a minuscule 4.3 percent.
Both Parker and Hernandez were judged for Hall of Fame induction based entirely on their merits on the field. It's not too much to ask that Raines also be judged by his play on the field and not be lumped in with steroid users simply because it is convenient for Murray to do so. I can't get in the head of Hall of Fame voters, thank God, but I would imagine Hernandez and Parker didn't make the Hall of Fame because their performance didn't merit induction as opposed to their participation in the Pittsburgh drug trials.
Incidentally, Kevin Koch has never made the BBWAA ballot. Koch was the Pittsburgh Pirates’ mascot, the man in the parrot costume, who moonlighted as the cocaine delivery man to the Pirates’ clubhouse.
Murray may not want to do a nationwide standup tour. Humor is not his strength.
In this election, Raines fared better than Clemens (37.6 percent) and Bonds (36.2) and much better than Sosa (12.5). I suspect the disparity among the three first-timers came from the view held by some writers that Clemens and Bonds had established their Hall of Fame credentials before they resorted to steroids.
Which, if I am being honest, I don't see as an entirely wrong viewpoint. It is difficult to determine when a player used steroids or not, but I can see why some voters would try to separate out the steroid and non-steroid years for a certain player.
The votes for first-timers Craig Biggio (a ballot-leading 68.2) and Mike Piazza (57.8) as well as third-timer Jeff Bagwell (59.6) indicate that writers either haven’t caught up to the latest reports of their alleged steroids use or, more likely, are willing to overlook the reports because the players were never caught using anything illegal.
Because God forbid there are open-minded sportswriters out there who refuse to convict Piazza, Bagwell and Biggio based on circumstantial evidence and their own personal belief these players used steroids. These writers probably have caught up to the latest reports but don't think it is fair to lump Piazza, Biggio and Bagwell in with Bonds/Clemens/Sosa. It is probably shocking for Murray to realize there are those willing to consider the idea their own preconceived notion about these players isn't a set-in-stone fact.
My favorite, Jack Morris, did not benefit from the absence of surefire first-timers on the ballot. With four fewer ballots cast, the pitcher gained three votes and only 1 percent to 67.7. Next year he could suffer with the addition of Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine to the ballot,
I'm looking forward to next year's Hall of Fame vote because it is going to be absolutely clear what a Hall of Fame pitcher is supposed to look like (Maddux and Glavine), while showing those pitchers who were just very good (Morris) probably don't deserve induction. The 2014 class is going to show the largest difference in guys like Jack Morris and real Hall of Fame pitchers.
or he could benefit if the voters say let’s put all the good pitchers in.
Here's the fundamental problem with Jack Morris being in the Hall of Fame. Even the strongest supporters of Morris will say he was a "good pitcher." Murray Chass is going to turn in a Hall of Fame ballot until Jack Morris is no longer eligibile. He is a huge supporter of Morris and even he says Morris was "good." Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux were great pitchers. So if the voters do anything they will see Glavine and Maddux's numbers and realize, "Holy shit, this is what a Hall of Fame pitcher is supposed to be," and Morris will lose votes due to this.
I found the most intriguing to come from Michael Weiner, the head of the players’ union, who issued this statement:
...Moreover, to penalize players exonerated in legal proceedings – and others never even implicated – is simply unfair. The Hall of Fame is supposed to be for the best players to have ever played the game.
The writers serve as judges of players’ careers but are not restricted as judges are in dealing with the law. We are free to use circumstantial evidence, and there is plenty of that with Bonds and Clemens, all of which points to them as cheaters.
Notice how Murray has absolutely nothing to say about the "others never even implicated" statement in regard to steroids. This is because Murray knows it is ridiculous to convict a guy like Jeff Bagwell based entirely on a rumor that he heard one time. Murray always glosses over why he won't vote for Bagwell because he hasn't seen his bacne and has no idea if Bagwell used steroids. He only relies on rumors when discussing Bagwell. Murray is not voting for Bagwell based on what somebody he trusts told him and I think that is wrong. It's easy to beat the drum against Bonds and Clemens, but Murray's reasoning in regard to Bagwell falls short in my opinion.
But the Hall of Fame voters don’t need any more proof than they used in this election.
I think you do. I think if you are stating Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza and Craig Biggio don't get your Hall of Fame vote because they lack "integrity, sportsmanship, and character" you better have a good reason for this claim other than bacne and a game of telephone with another sportswriter. To state a player lacks character and integrity isn't discussing his on-the-field exploits, but is criticizing him for his actions off-the-field. I think this is something there should be definitive proof of being true before not casting a ballot for these players. As I have said repeatedly, I think Biggio, Bagwell, and Piazza used steroids, but I have no proof so I'm not so closed-minded as to think my opinion is right.
In searching for something I had written for The New York Times some years ago, I came across an article written by Alan Schwarz in spring training of 2004.
Schwarz talked to some young fans about the steroids mess that was just starting to emerge publicly.
“It’s cheating,” an 11-year-old Florida fan said while watching an exhibition game.
Because the opinion of an 11-year-old can never be wrong. That's why Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift and One Direction are the greatest musicians in the history of music. That's why every boy band from the past 20 years is still going strong and selling millions of albums. That's why "Twilight" is going to win every Academy Award.
An 11-year-old's opinion is not an opinion I would strongly cite in support of nearly any argument.
”I’m angry,” said another young fan. “I don’t like people cheating in sports.”
”I’d feel bad if Barry Bonds used steroids,” the first fan said. ”Hank Aaron didn’t use steroids, did he?”
Therein lies Murray Chass' argument for why Tim Raines lacks integrity. Cocaine is the same thing as steroids. 11-year-old boys don't like cheaters and so grown adults shouldn't like cheaters. Because steroid users are cheaters and using cocaine is the same thing as steroids, then that means Tim Raines is a cheater and shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame for this reason. How can the opinion of an 11-year-old boy from 9 years ago be wrong or not universally accepted?
Saturday, June 6, 2009
7 comments Furman Bisher Recalls the Good Ol' Days But Can't Recall Much Else
We have all been acquainted with Furman Bisher and his extreme hatred of the Japanese people before. Today we get to learn a little bit about what Furman Bisher does like. Unsurprisingly he likes underachieving white outfielders with pretty smiles and really old pitchers who don't know when it comes time to retire...much like someone else who may be writing for the AJC on a blog nowadays (looking at Furman, but he is eating oatmeal and reading a book about birds). I would like to add that the farm system that Bisher proclaimed not bountiful enough had enough decent guys to make a trade for an above average outfielder and to replace a Hall of Fame pitcher in the starting rotation with a younger, better pitcher. I am not hinting that Furman doesn't know what he is talking about anymore, I am actually telling everyone that he doesn't know what he is talking about anymore.
-Let's start with the pretty white boy with an even prettier smile that is among the worst at his position in the major leagues.
These are disheartening days for the Braves. For Jeff Francoeur in particular.
Yes, because no matter how many trades the team makes they can't seem to put together a team good enough to challenge the Mets and Phillies. One year the pitching sucks, the next year it is the bullpen, then it is the hitting that sucks, then it is pitching again, and we are now back to the hitting stinking. Oh, and Jeff Failcoeur is a big, big part of that problem and has been for a couple of years now.
When Mark Bowman, of MLB.com, wrote that this might be a pertinent time to consider locating another employer for him, oh, did that set off a firestorm! A flurry of conjecture.
Conjecture being defined as "pure excitement," followed by the question of who would be stupid enough to trade for him?
Here was Keith Law's response to whether Jeff Francouer would be on a major league roster if he was not from Georgia:
Did anyone see the piece that indicated that Atlanta is looking at trading him? When you have an old car, and the alternator is dead, the battery is corroded, the undercarriage is rusted through so your left foot drags the pavement while you drive, the front windshield is shattered and the back windshield is gone, the starter makes a horrible noise when you turn the key, the car gets 4 mpg when it runs at all, and there's only one working headlight, it's probably too freaking late to try to sell it, don't you think? You could probably leave it on the curb with the keys in the ignition and a sign that says "TAKE ME" on the dash and still find it parked there the next morning.
So yeah, he's not real high on Failcouer right now.
Let me take you back to those Camelot days, when the Braves’ roster was plump with bright young prospects. There was a pod of them, all seeming to ripen at the same time. A sort of an informal Boy Scout troop of them, who went to each other’s weddings, and celebrated their togetherness like club members.
Here we go. I am surprised Furman can remember anything at all from more than 10 minutes ago. Did these guys also sleep in tents together and prick their fingers promising to be blood brothers until they die?
Remember their names, for some are long gone. Francoeur, Brian McCann, Macay McBride, Kelly Johnson, Ryan Langerhans, and two Canadians, Pete Orr and Scott Thorman.
I would not call these the Camelot days because out of that list there are two average to above average players in the group. These Camelot days also led to a grand total of 0 playoff series victories and have left a ton of underachieving in their wake.
Here's the problem with Furman Bisher. He is fucking stupid. He is trying to pass this rememberance off as truth, when it is revisionist history. There was no Camelot, just a lot of players who have underachieved and were called up too early because the Braves had no other options. This group of has by my count (without looking it up) 3 1st round picks, and 4 2nd round picks in the MLB Draft...there are currently three of these guys on the MLB roster and only two are even decent players. This is not Camelot, but a complete and utter failure to develop talent.
Francoeur played the odds, and banked on going to the arbitration table calling his shots. His timing couldn’t have been worse. What followed is the season of remission.
Francoeur had a salary of $460,000 in 2008 and he is making $3.3 million this year after going through arbitration. I wish my timing were this bad. How wrong can you be in making a statement about how his timing was bad? This is why I can't Furman Bisher seriously anymore. Hang up the typewriter my friend, it's time.
He heard sounds coming from the stands at Turner Field he had never heard before. Boos and taunts, mild at first, but for a local favorite who had reaped nothing but adulation through high school at Parkview and two-and-a-half gaudy seasons with the Braves?
Why is it that Furman thinks local white kids should not be booed? Sure, he was great in high school, but he is now and has been for a few seasons now, one of the worst outfielders at hitting the ball. He gets RBI's because he has hit behind McCann, Jones, and Tex for a couple of years. I could have 80 RBI's hitting behind them.
Look at these numbers for 2008 and 2009. There were red flags before that but no one paid attention to them.
While the Braves spent all manners of time waiting for two dear old relics to return to their days of pitching glory, patience ran low with Francoeur.
So the inference here is that the Braves have patience with Smoltz and Glavine, so why not with Francoeur? A simple answer will suffice. In Major League Baseball it is a lot easier to find a corner outfielder who can produce than it is to find pitchers who can go 6 innings and pitch quality starts.
Not to mention waiting on those two older pitchers was a mistake, so simply because a team makes a mistake on one or two players does not mean they have to make the same mistake again on another player. Smart teams learn from their mistakes and don't repeat them.
Was it because he had taken off to Texas in hope that Rudy Jaramillo, the Rangers’ hitting guru, might help him return to glory? It was furtively done, and true, he also recommended Andruw Jones try the same “cure.”
I'm no genius, but we have two players here coming off horrendous years last year. Both have had similar problems with striking out and bad hitting habits in the past. They both take the advice of the same hitting coach and one improves and the other players actually manages to have his numbers get worse. Why do you keep that player who doesn't improve on the roster again? How much patience does he require since he is regressing through his career? Any smart team would cut bait and bail.
Is there not enough patience to help him work his way through it?
There are other players on the team who are affected by his struggles. It's not just him out there. Baseball is a team sport, and much like Ortiz in Boston, if a player is struggling then it is time to move him as far down in the order as possible or get him out of there. How much time does a person deserve to get to perform?
Smart teams don't let one player drag them down, but just because he is a local white boy and has a pretty smile Furman thinks the Braves should stick it out with him on the field. He has moments and has potential, but that's all there is any more. Every team has a player that just seems to drag the team down and you can't fault them for trying to replace that player.
There were no good ol' days with Failcoeur on the roster, except the ones that Furman Bisher imagines in his Japanese hating head.
-ESPN had 4 items about Tom Glavine on their bottom line last night. The Braves cut a 43 year old pitcher, I did not know it would cause this much ruckus. I don't like the entire way the whole release of Glavine was done, I thought it could have been handled better, but I can't argue with them doing it because I did not think they should have signed him again in the first place. Nostalgia only gets you so far.
This doesn't stop Furman from not liking this move either. I wish the Atlanta Braves had let Furman Bisher choose the entire roster this year and then allow the team to go 51-111 with 15 players on the DL and Furman asleep by the 4th inning in his favorite rocking chair. You know what, he should just be the Commissioner of MLB. That would be interesting as well.
Well, they led him to the altar, but they couldn’t get him to say, “I do.” Speaking here of the “Tom Glavine affair,” which is not going away, and which the Braves will have plastered across their dossier for time to come.
The way it was handled was pretty poor but this move should have been made months ago when the Braves should have never signed him in the first place. There were zero other teams willing to offer him a contract this offseason. He had no other firm offers, but he gets a couple million from the Braves (he had already netted $1 million of that before he got released) this year, after getting $8 million for the worst year of his career last year. I just don't get why any team would owe a player more than an opportunity in a similar situation somewhere else.
Coming on the heels of the indifferent dealing with John Smoltz — who tired of waiting for a commitment — we now have become witness to the end of an era:
I think I am growing to hate Furman Bisher. Smoltz got $5 million guaranteed from the Red Sox and was only offered $2 million guaranteed from the Braves. It was about money, don't let my favorite Braves player ever tell you any different through his whining.
If they were going to release him, then why this agonizing process of rehabilitation tests at Gwinnett and Rome?
This is my only problem with this decision. How it was handled.
Then someone mentioned the speed readings that had been reported. “They were not accurate,” Wren said, “just ball-park figures.”
Noooooooooo...ball parks would not inflate pitch speeds. They would never do that.
A million dollars is a pittance for this club with an extended salary cap this season. They poured out millions to sign Derek Lowe, Kenshin Kawakami and Javier Vazquez.
Stupid foreigners! Taking the money of hard working Americans to play baseball and now they are taking the jobs of white American born players. Something has to be done immediately. Furman probably thinks we should bomb Japan again.
Surely another million wouldn’t have disturbed their budget, but deep down inside, you had to feel that it was a matter of, “is it worth for a 43-year-old pitcher coming back from surgery?”
No. Not when you compare it to bringing up a pitcher literally half of his age who has incredible minor league numbers. It's actually a pretty easy decision. Put a 43 year old guy on the mound who has a ceiling of 6 strong innings and a 4.00 ERA or call up a pitcher that struck out better than a batter an inning in the minor leagues and costs less money. It's not a hard decision.
For one who has won 244 games for you, yes. And for one who has been a reputable citizen, and deserves the courtesy of ending his career here, yes.
Again, Furman misses some facts. The Braves offered to let him retire, he declined to do that, so he chose not to end his career here. It wasn't a completely one way street. You also don't live in the past and expect to win here in the present and the future. No team should keep a player because of what he did for that team in the past.
They paid him $8 million last year to pitch horribly and be injured. They owe him nothing now, though the release could have been done with more grace, but it wasn't.
Details of why he left for the Mets have never been made clear,
They offered a third year and more money. I just made the details clear. You're welcome.
Who did the scouting? Who came to these decisions?
Probably the same guys who put together the Camelot you were just talking so wonderfully about and were also responsible for the glory days that you always speak so fondly of.
Why can't sportswriters get over the past and just accept that things change? There is no loyalty from teams and players now. It's an unfortunate part of the game. Actually, the Braves showed loyalty last year by signing Smoltz and Glavine for another year in the neighborhood of $22 million for both of them and that didn't turn out well...that may be the reason there is no loyalty now in baseball because many times loyalty means a team or player gets screwed over.
Here are three opposing articles from Mark Bradley, if you care to read them. No good exit strategy in these situations. Ripping Glavine. Sort of ripping Smoltz.
Thanks for reading this blog guys and girls (are there any?) I enjoy writing here (though I miss J.S. to help carry the load a little).
I think the Lakers are going to take Game 2 tonight.
-Let's start with the pretty white boy with an even prettier smile that is among the worst at his position in the major leagues.
These are disheartening days for the Braves. For Jeff Francoeur in particular.
Yes, because no matter how many trades the team makes they can't seem to put together a team good enough to challenge the Mets and Phillies. One year the pitching sucks, the next year it is the bullpen, then it is the hitting that sucks, then it is pitching again, and we are now back to the hitting stinking. Oh, and Jeff Failcoeur is a big, big part of that problem and has been for a couple of years now.
When Mark Bowman, of MLB.com, wrote that this might be a pertinent time to consider locating another employer for him, oh, did that set off a firestorm! A flurry of conjecture.
Conjecture being defined as "pure excitement," followed by the question of who would be stupid enough to trade for him?
Here was Keith Law's response to whether Jeff Francouer would be on a major league roster if he was not from Georgia:
Did anyone see the piece that indicated that Atlanta is looking at trading him? When you have an old car, and the alternator is dead, the battery is corroded, the undercarriage is rusted through so your left foot drags the pavement while you drive, the front windshield is shattered and the back windshield is gone, the starter makes a horrible noise when you turn the key, the car gets 4 mpg when it runs at all, and there's only one working headlight, it's probably too freaking late to try to sell it, don't you think? You could probably leave it on the curb with the keys in the ignition and a sign that says "TAKE ME" on the dash and still find it parked there the next morning.
So yeah, he's not real high on Failcouer right now.
Let me take you back to those Camelot days, when the Braves’ roster was plump with bright young prospects. There was a pod of them, all seeming to ripen at the same time. A sort of an informal Boy Scout troop of them, who went to each other’s weddings, and celebrated their togetherness like club members.
Here we go. I am surprised Furman can remember anything at all from more than 10 minutes ago. Did these guys also sleep in tents together and prick their fingers promising to be blood brothers until they die?
Remember their names, for some are long gone. Francoeur, Brian McCann, Macay McBride, Kelly Johnson, Ryan Langerhans, and two Canadians, Pete Orr and Scott Thorman.
I would not call these the Camelot days because out of that list there are two average to above average players in the group. These Camelot days also led to a grand total of 0 playoff series victories and have left a ton of underachieving in their wake.
Here's the problem with Furman Bisher. He is fucking stupid. He is trying to pass this rememberance off as truth, when it is revisionist history. There was no Camelot, just a lot of players who have underachieved and were called up too early because the Braves had no other options. This group of has by my count (without looking it up) 3 1st round picks, and 4 2nd round picks in the MLB Draft...there are currently three of these guys on the MLB roster and only two are even decent players. This is not Camelot, but a complete and utter failure to develop talent.
Francoeur played the odds, and banked on going to the arbitration table calling his shots. His timing couldn’t have been worse. What followed is the season of remission.
Francoeur had a salary of $460,000 in 2008 and he is making $3.3 million this year after going through arbitration. I wish my timing were this bad. How wrong can you be in making a statement about how his timing was bad? This is why I can't Furman Bisher seriously anymore. Hang up the typewriter my friend, it's time.
He heard sounds coming from the stands at Turner Field he had never heard before. Boos and taunts, mild at first, but for a local favorite who had reaped nothing but adulation through high school at Parkview and two-and-a-half gaudy seasons with the Braves?
Why is it that Furman thinks local white kids should not be booed? Sure, he was great in high school, but he is now and has been for a few seasons now, one of the worst outfielders at hitting the ball. He gets RBI's because he has hit behind McCann, Jones, and Tex for a couple of years. I could have 80 RBI's hitting behind them.
Look at these numbers for 2008 and 2009. There were red flags before that but no one paid attention to them.
While the Braves spent all manners of time waiting for two dear old relics to return to their days of pitching glory, patience ran low with Francoeur.
So the inference here is that the Braves have patience with Smoltz and Glavine, so why not with Francoeur? A simple answer will suffice. In Major League Baseball it is a lot easier to find a corner outfielder who can produce than it is to find pitchers who can go 6 innings and pitch quality starts.
Not to mention waiting on those two older pitchers was a mistake, so simply because a team makes a mistake on one or two players does not mean they have to make the same mistake again on another player. Smart teams learn from their mistakes and don't repeat them.
Was it because he had taken off to Texas in hope that Rudy Jaramillo, the Rangers’ hitting guru, might help him return to glory? It was furtively done, and true, he also recommended Andruw Jones try the same “cure.”
I'm no genius, but we have two players here coming off horrendous years last year. Both have had similar problems with striking out and bad hitting habits in the past. They both take the advice of the same hitting coach and one improves and the other players actually manages to have his numbers get worse. Why do you keep that player who doesn't improve on the roster again? How much patience does he require since he is regressing through his career? Any smart team would cut bait and bail.
Is there not enough patience to help him work his way through it?
There are other players on the team who are affected by his struggles. It's not just him out there. Baseball is a team sport, and much like Ortiz in Boston, if a player is struggling then it is time to move him as far down in the order as possible or get him out of there. How much time does a person deserve to get to perform?
Smart teams don't let one player drag them down, but just because he is a local white boy and has a pretty smile Furman thinks the Braves should stick it out with him on the field. He has moments and has potential, but that's all there is any more. Every team has a player that just seems to drag the team down and you can't fault them for trying to replace that player.
There were no good ol' days with Failcoeur on the roster, except the ones that Furman Bisher imagines in his Japanese hating head.
-ESPN had 4 items about Tom Glavine on their bottom line last night. The Braves cut a 43 year old pitcher, I did not know it would cause this much ruckus. I don't like the entire way the whole release of Glavine was done, I thought it could have been handled better, but I can't argue with them doing it because I did not think they should have signed him again in the first place. Nostalgia only gets you so far.
This doesn't stop Furman from not liking this move either. I wish the Atlanta Braves had let Furman Bisher choose the entire roster this year and then allow the team to go 51-111 with 15 players on the DL and Furman asleep by the 4th inning in his favorite rocking chair. You know what, he should just be the Commissioner of MLB. That would be interesting as well.
Well, they led him to the altar, but they couldn’t get him to say, “I do.” Speaking here of the “Tom Glavine affair,” which is not going away, and which the Braves will have plastered across their dossier for time to come.
The way it was handled was pretty poor but this move should have been made months ago when the Braves should have never signed him in the first place. There were zero other teams willing to offer him a contract this offseason. He had no other firm offers, but he gets a couple million from the Braves (he had already netted $1 million of that before he got released) this year, after getting $8 million for the worst year of his career last year. I just don't get why any team would owe a player more than an opportunity in a similar situation somewhere else.
Coming on the heels of the indifferent dealing with John Smoltz — who tired of waiting for a commitment — we now have become witness to the end of an era:
I think I am growing to hate Furman Bisher. Smoltz got $5 million guaranteed from the Red Sox and was only offered $2 million guaranteed from the Braves. It was about money, don't let my favorite Braves player ever tell you any different through his whining.
If they were going to release him, then why this agonizing process of rehabilitation tests at Gwinnett and Rome?
This is my only problem with this decision. How it was handled.
Then someone mentioned the speed readings that had been reported. “They were not accurate,” Wren said, “just ball-park figures.”
Noooooooooo...ball parks would not inflate pitch speeds. They would never do that.
A million dollars is a pittance for this club with an extended salary cap this season. They poured out millions to sign Derek Lowe, Kenshin Kawakami and Javier Vazquez.
Stupid foreigners! Taking the money of hard working Americans to play baseball and now they are taking the jobs of white American born players. Something has to be done immediately. Furman probably thinks we should bomb Japan again.
Surely another million wouldn’t have disturbed their budget, but deep down inside, you had to feel that it was a matter of, “is it worth for a 43-year-old pitcher coming back from surgery?”
No. Not when you compare it to bringing up a pitcher literally half of his age who has incredible minor league numbers. It's actually a pretty easy decision. Put a 43 year old guy on the mound who has a ceiling of 6 strong innings and a 4.00 ERA or call up a pitcher that struck out better than a batter an inning in the minor leagues and costs less money. It's not a hard decision.
For one who has won 244 games for you, yes. And for one who has been a reputable citizen, and deserves the courtesy of ending his career here, yes.
Again, Furman misses some facts. The Braves offered to let him retire, he declined to do that, so he chose not to end his career here. It wasn't a completely one way street. You also don't live in the past and expect to win here in the present and the future. No team should keep a player because of what he did for that team in the past.
They paid him $8 million last year to pitch horribly and be injured. They owe him nothing now, though the release could have been done with more grace, but it wasn't.
Details of why he left for the Mets have never been made clear,
They offered a third year and more money. I just made the details clear. You're welcome.
Who did the scouting? Who came to these decisions?
Probably the same guys who put together the Camelot you were just talking so wonderfully about and were also responsible for the glory days that you always speak so fondly of.
Why can't sportswriters get over the past and just accept that things change? There is no loyalty from teams and players now. It's an unfortunate part of the game. Actually, the Braves showed loyalty last year by signing Smoltz and Glavine for another year in the neighborhood of $22 million for both of them and that didn't turn out well...that may be the reason there is no loyalty now in baseball because many times loyalty means a team or player gets screwed over.
Here are three opposing articles from Mark Bradley, if you care to read them. No good exit strategy in these situations. Ripping Glavine. Sort of ripping Smoltz.
Thanks for reading this blog guys and girls (are there any?) I enjoy writing here (though I miss J.S. to help carry the load a little).
I think the Lakers are going to take Game 2 tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)