Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
Jon's other site:
Screen Jam
TV and more ...
1) using profanity or any euphemisms for profanity
2) personally attacking other commenters
3) baiting other commenters
4) arguing for the sake of arguing
5) discussing politics
6) using hyperbole when something less will suffice
7) using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively
8) making the same point over and over again
9) typing "no-hitter" or "perfect game" to describe either in progress
10) being annoyed by the existence of this list
11) commenting under the obvious influence
12) claiming your opinion isn't allowed when it's just being disagreed with
For SI.com, I wrote a column describing how the Colorado Rockies are anything but an overnight success.
Colorado's blinding 21-1 run over the past month obscures the fact that this was a team that had played .624 ball (58-45) over the three months prior to firing the turbo boosters. And the abrupt turnaround of a team that had posted losing records in the previous six seasons, including 76-86 in 2006, belies how timid a makeover the Rockies put themselves through during the previous offseason.And for those who would suggest that Los Angeles is too impatient a city to allow a team to build in this fashion, 1) I don't see that this is true, and 2) if it is true, look where it has gotten us.Unlikely as it may be for a franchise down on its luck for so long, frustration and desperation went on a disappearing act in Denver. Rather, Colorado's success this year had more to do with taking long, deep breaths than with long, deep moves into the trade and free agent markets. ...
Value what you have. That's my 2007-08 mantra.
Update: Controversy?! The all-time Los Angeles sports No. 49, according to the Daily News, is ... Tom Niedenfuer.
You sort of forget the good things he did do, before he became a bete noir.
I don't trust the brass to have the patience.
http://tinyurl.com/2njcru
http://tinyurl.com/2c3wgg
(no, not that Takashi Saito)
5 - made my heart stop for the first 10 words.
Plus, it has the added effect of making your pitchers overvalued due to their artifically supressed ERAs so you can spin them for something useful.
McCourt needs to understand this. Bringing in famous old players is a quick fix for sustaining fan interest. In the long haul, fans like to discover, not rent, superstars.
2nd, 3rd, 8th, 9th, 11th, 14th, 16th, 19th.
Two of the teams on the bottom, the Yankees (14th) and the Phillies (19th) were the two best offensive teams in baseball and won mainly with that. Cleveland is the only team that didn't score a huge amount of runs (6th in the AL) yet were still successful without a good defense. They prevented runs almost entirely with in house pitching with Paul Byrd being the only remotely relevant free agent pitcher.
It's not nearly enough data to reach a real conclusion, but this is leading me to think that right now to excel at run prevention you either need a great defense or home grown pitching talent.
I'd love to see a team get built with agnostics and atheists. The post game interviews would be a bit more interesting.
http://alyssa.mlblogs.com/alyssa/2007/10/an-open-letter-.html
Actually, I always liked the guy until his big choke... and even then felt sorry for him.
---
Speaking of rumored coaching shifts, anyone think there's a chance the Dodgers could let Honeycutt go and replace him with Orel Hershiser? I don't have that many problems with Honeycutt but would love to have Orel on the staff, rather than see him go elsewhere.
I think Hershiser wants to manage or do front office at this point.
I'm fairly confidnet that Kent produces enough offense to offset his defense especially on a team that had issues at other more offensively challenged spots.
I do think its a little early to say that the Dodgers won't play their young players instead of bringing in another crop of veterans. Right now, the only position that could even be considered would be 3B and the Dodgers have two guys already on the roster to compete for that position.
I think last year was just last year, it didn't work out. Now a lot will depend on what Jeff Kent does with his option and if the Dodgers try to go after a 3B in the free agent market.
Yeah, I suppose so. I can't picture Orel managing in Pittsburgh or Kansas City (well, maybe the latter), so you never know...
Penny
Lowe
Billingsley
Kuroda
Schmidt/Loaiza/Wolf
Would be an excellent rotation with the only real question mark coming from #5.
24 - Well, there are places where fans pine for him in some capacity, including Yankees fans (as pitching coach).
25 - How much would that cost the Dodgers? Do they have to do the ridiculous bidding process or is he a free agent?
"On behalf of all Red Sox fans, I'd like to tell the team's management how happy I am that they now owe J.D. Drew only $56 million. I'm starting to come around on merit pay for general managers.
$56 million.
Jesus wept."
Yep, the A's have recently been built on defense, when they could no longer afford the high OBP guys.
Morales/Jiminez in the rotation.
Those 3 things are the main differences between this year and last year.
The rapid development of Tulo has been unreal and made all the difference.
Even this year, in a down season, Drew still put up a .373 OBP, along with a .796 OPS.
If he plays CF, he's worth every penny even in a down year.
Not exactly.
The Rockies and Tigers finished 2nd in the NL/AL in runs scored during the regular season.
The "scoring runs" part of winning seems to have played a bigger role in them winning than preventing runs.
I'd be very leary of put so much value on defense, at the expense of hitting/pitching.
But maybe I'm missing something.
I'd like to hear Michael Scott answer that question.
That's how Boras markets him.
And that is why he is viewed as a disappointment.
If he made 8-10 million a year, played good defense in center and then did his standard offense, than he would get some slack.
But he doesn't.
I'd rather have Young/Kemp/Ethier and then save up for Santana, though
Bacon Candy Bar:
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/18/bacon-candy-bar.html
Grady is our manager. Now if things don't start out too well, I don't think we'll be very patient. But making a move now doesn't make much sense.
Most necessary invention ever.
A .373 OBP is a .373 OBP.
Its just that some of the traditional baseball media doesnt see the value on OBP, OPS, etc...not traditional baseball GMs...and both are focusing on HR/RBI's.
Carlos Beltran OPS'ed .744 his first year in NY. Sometimes good players have down years and bounce back.
So many factors turn things around slightly in a set period of time. Luck is a big factor. Pure luck. So is timing, circumstance, and assigned match-ups.
Examples:
1. If the Rocks don't hit two late inning home runs off the back end of our bullpen, do they even make the playoffs? Just not hitting one of those and they are on vacation at the end of September.
2. If the Dodgers win one more game last year (like April 30, 2006!), then we win the division and we play St. Louis in the first round. Does St. Louis handle us the way they did SD? Who knows. Luck. They got to play SD and got to face NY Mets when their lack of pitching depth hurt them more, in a seven game series.
3. Rocks sign Matt Herges, he has a great year. Who saw this coming. They pick up Kaz Matsui as a discard. Great moves or luck? Bringing up young pitchers late in the season and they hang in there enough to win some games. Lucky stretch, or are they true and solid major league arms? I say right now it is a good stretch, but if up for a length of time, MLB hitters could figure them out.
4. If Wakefield doesn't deflect the ball on Tuesday night and Pedroia turns a double-play, the seven run inning is only a one-run inning. A few inches and the game is totally different. Luck. Circumstance.
5. MLB makes schedules. Who you play and when during the season are determining factors in team records.
6. Did we really go 6 for 100 with RISP at one point this year? Did we forget how to hit, or did luck play a factor?
7. Smith's pinch hit basehit in game four of the Rocks series falls as a blooper to keep a 2 out inning alive. Rocks open the game up. If that ball is caught, D-Backs are out of the inning. Different game, eh.
The Dodgers just need to have some things fall our way next year. A good core of talent, solid leadership, consistent pitching and defensive, and a bit of luck. We got Saito out of nowhere. Boston picked up a discarded David Ortiz. Every team needs a shot in the arm like that.
48 - agreed, except for the saving up for Santana part.
The Rockies won the pennant because over the course of the season and the playoffs they played better than the rest of the National League. They were better. Period.
The 5 mil per year is more than the Dodgers would pay a manager. I know Torre turned it down as it was a pay cut in guaranteed money. I just don't think as we look at 08 that we'd consider the move on a financial level even if we thought he was the guy who could put the team on the same page.
Just speculating.
I just read about that yesterday in last week's Sports Illustrated (October 15, 2007). If you have a copy handy you'll find it on page 40.
I think it is both. I am not implying nor saying talent, skill, effort, etc. are factors to be ignored. That is not my point. I am simply stating and I still absolutely believe that luck and circumstance factor into who wins and when. Perhaps not always and not as the deciding factor, but they do indeed influence outcomes.
Here's the thing -- that game was the Beginning of the End of the Danys Baez era. That was the game where many people who previously thought that the guy might be OK changed their position to "We gotta keep on eye on this guy." I believe, though I could be wrong and I'm too lazy to look it up, that it was The End of the Lance Carter era, if such an era actually existed.
So let's say that Carter finishes that one up fine and Baez never comes in. Maybe they both stay with the Dodgers a little longer and the team loses multiple other games instead.
Change one thing, change the world, grasshopper.
That would be a very shallow and simplistic viewpoint to base who you want on your team.
Everyone says that the Rockies got lucky, but they won as many games as Arizona (granted they had one extra game) which means they had the second best regular season record in the NL. If the 20 wins at the end of the season were spread across the year, instead of bunched at the end, would anyone be calling them lucky?
I agree with your assessment, change one thing, and it all changes in resonse.
I'll gladly keep things as they are, including the by-products of that 4/30 game (the banishments of Baez and Carter).
Another way to put it is that "you make your own luck." The Rockies put together a very good team that was capable of getting to the World Series. They hit well and play good defense. Like any very good -- or even great -- team, they required a few bounces to go their way. That's not a knock on them; like I said, they were in a position to have those bounces go their way because they were so good to begin with.
Any team that wins 21 out of 22 at any point in the season is a very good team that has had some luck on their side.
As far as the Rock story goes, I love it. I wish it was us. I wish we didn't lose seven to them in Sept, but as long as we were out of it and got our 83 wins, I'm very happy for them and it gives me a fun team to pull for.
However, I still stand by my belief that a few things went their way. While over time these things likely balance out for all teams and people, when it makes a small difference at the right time, it can make a really big difference overall. Just my opinion. If you disagree, you can still come to my birthday party. I've been wrong before, but I indeed feel strongly about this particular opinion. Gotta run now. Be well my Dodger friends. I'm hoping for a seven game ALCS series and a seven game WS.
You seem to be arguing that luck plays no role. Maybe I'm wrong and not understanding your point -- if so, please explain. But if so, I don't get it. Chance plays a role in everything.
Rocktoberfest
>> The Rockies off the field are like the small-campus fraternity that gets involved in community projects, has a solid cumulative GPA and attends chapel regularly. The organization drew fire last season, in fact, when chairman and CEO Charlie Monfort implied, strongly, that the team looks to fill its roster with Christians, and general manager Dan O'Dowd added that "God has definitely had a hand" in some of the moves Colorado made and the games it won. (This season's 90-73 finish marked the fifth time in the franchise's 15-year existence that it ended with a winning record.) The subject hasn't surfaced this season, and O'Dowd said last week that the no-one-but-Christians-wanted angle was overblown. "Many people in this organization have a ton of faith, and I'm certainly one of them," says O'Dowd, who has been with Colorado since September 1999. "But it's not anything we talk about. Our focus is on getting players of good character. When you combine character with talent and nurture it within your own system, you have a good chance of succeeding. That's finally happened here." <<
http://tinyurl.com/2p9lox
I remember thinking they might have canceled each other out. I also remember a few of the games we let get away that might have been that one that made us the Wild Card instead of winning the division. Maybe SD had a few too. Either way, it was so close and it might have made a difference if we had home field for five games against STL instead of on the road against NYM.
I do not miss Carter or Baez. And I thought that was a good trade at the time. I though Danys would fill in for Gagne that year. I don't miss those guys. Carter was gone to the minors after that, took us to July to get rid of Baez. I'm sure he cost us a few more games before he left.
Gotta run!
A crazy bounce (or bad call) maybe changes the course of a game, and a team may use that game to build a winning streak. To me, that's not luck, it's the psychological reaction of very good athletes.
I like to play board games. My particular habit is getting way out in front of my opponents and then try to hold on as they chip away at my lead. It works enough -- about a third of the time -- that I haven't really changed my strategy.
Sometimes, my friends like to parse my victories -- why weren't we able to catch Humma? Well, he got lucky on his fourth turn when he ______________.
To some extent, it's true. I do get lucky sometimes. Another way of looking at it is that I look at what I have in hand and formulate a strategy around my assets.
Did my strategy work? Or did I get lucky? Or both?
Perhaps it's my time as a poker pro and dealing with people who would rather be lucky than good. Good players (and teams) do not need to rely on luck, bad players (and teams) need luck to win. At least, that's my take on life.
Now, would we be calling the Rockies lucky if they just played like this all season? No. They had the best pyhtagorean record in baseball. However, no team can win 20 of 21 and chalk it purely up to skill. There are tons of instances in the Rockies stretch where if things just went slightly differently, it would have been over.
As for the rest of them:
1. there is something to be said for the skill of "hitting it where they ain't"
2. there are several factors that lead to a higher BA w/RISP, including the fact that a sac fly does not count as an AB. What would be F9 in a regular at bat and counts against a player's BA doesn't count with a runner on third. On top of that, there are the situational aspects of the game.
3.stranding runners can be a showing of defensive and pitching skills.
There are so few sac flys that theres no way it would make a 50 point difference in hitting.
Also, no team can strand 90% of runners by skill against another competent team. Mid to high 70s, sure, but not 90 percent.
Hopefully your company has a shower somewhere.
now that being said, you have to be good to be lucky
a lousy team doesn't have good luck cause they are never in a position to take advantage or benefit by it...thus you don't see the lucky opportunities
a good team is in position to benefit...the Rockies are good...are they lucky? damn right...but they have been in position to benefit by their luck for the past 22 straight games
I still think Grady Little spead up Yhency Brazobans arm injury. Fresh from SERIOUS ALBOW surgery Grady used him like fresh 21 year old meat when he was coming off serious surgery, I don't think I'll ever like how Little handles the bullpen (remember Brox?) if anything hopefully McDonald, Elbert or Morris can prove major league ready in '08.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6851
Nicely said DzzrtRatt, it also shows the utter 360 in styles, L.A. Contra N.Y.
I think he was used more in the minors (rehab) I just don't think he was nurtured (is that the word I'm looking for?) like some other players do slash have.
his OBP was pretty good JoeyP but I'm sure the media is concentrating more on his 70 mill contract, I'm sure he'll bounce back next year, but man what horrible '07.
Luis Gonzalez: 3.3
Rudy Seanez: 3.1
J.D. Drew: 2.8
Juan Pierre: 2.6
""It wasn't the worst flight I've ever been on," quarterback John David Booty said. "But it was definitely the biggest drop."
>> Robinson writes to Dodgers owner Walter O'Malley in '62, admitting his loyalty to Branch Rickey and his "being stubborn" had probably led to a deterioration in his relationship with the team after Rickey left. <<
http://www.dailybreeze.com/sports/articles/10667071.html
That's what I imagine it's like being famous and rich. Women throw themselves at you. That's how Wilt Chamberlain hit 10,000. It started with a hug from a total stranger x 10,000.
OUCH!
5,000 of which were "women". I guess at that pace, you're more interested in keeping the assembly line going.
Yes, Coach.
But I'm on board with the theory that there ought to be a more portable sort of bacon. Cast iron griddles are inconvenient.
>>Robinson, however, would not side with either Republicans or Democrats in his quest for equality. [b]He stumped for LBJ in '64,[/b] Nelson Rockefeller in '68 and Hubert Humphrey in '72. Robinson had respect for Kennedy but was critical of his motives. [b]Robinson wasn't afraid to call Barry Goldwater a "bigot" and "white supremacist" during the '64 campaign,[/b] or to exchange ideas with Malcolm X about the right way for African Americans to have a voice in politics.<<
I thought Robinson supported Goldwater in '64 because he thought the Democrats were trying to use race as a political issue? Or, at least, that's what I read in a Bill James book.
This is not your father's Bravo.
Sorry coach, I see you up there in 112, but I'm not sure I'm ready for a real commitment.
>> Robinson and Nixon first met in 1952 at the Republican National Convention. Nixon shared a memory he had of Robinson playing football for UCLA in 1939. Robinson was more impressed with Nixon's pro-civil rights statements and ended up supporting him in the 1960 presidential campaign. <<
http://www.dailybreeze.com/sports/articles/10667071.html
>> LOS ANGELES -- Despite the sudden availability of Joe Torre, there is no indication from the Dodgers that anything has changed from the last day of the season, when owner Frank McCourt and general manager Ned Colletti said Grady Little would return as manager. <<
http://tinyurl.com/2wmvvr
http://tinyurl.com/2bhjs4
Apple wood smoked bacon is heavenly. That stuff is rediculous.
Robinson supported Nixon in 1960, but campaigned vigorously against him in 1968 and 1972 once it became clear that Nixon's lip service toward civil rights was exactly that.
Robinson's presidential endorsement career can be summed up thusly:
1960 - Nixon
1964 - Rockefeller
1968 - Rockefeller (before primaries), Humphrey (after primaries)
1972 - anyone but Nixon
>> Reilly's departure comes one day after Sports Illustrated announced a deal with Dan Patrick, the former ESPN "SportsCenter" anchor and radio host. Patrick will write a column for the magazine and have his new radio program simulcast on SI.com. <<
http://tinyurl.com/2lt6ad
90 - The problem with that is that the free agent market will provide plenty of other good alternatives in 2 or 3 years, but right now, there's nobody. There are some guys that are pretty good, but also really old (Lowell, Bonds, Posada). Not to mention that there's no pitching to speak of on the market apart from Mariano Rivera. But you'll have some legitimate talent after 2009 or 2010, and that will drive salaries down a bit.
I'm sticking with $250 million over 7 years.
Richard Nixon had a .313 campaigning EqA, but where was his soul?
Goldwater had Neifi Perez like campaigning skills, but a David Eckstein heart (because LBJ was gonna win anyway in 1964).
I think Bob Dylan said Goldwater was his favorite politician.
And with that, Rule 5 punches me in the face.
In his press conference Torre quite explicitly and specifically said that if he were to manage for another team, he would certainly not expect them to pay him what the Yankees offered.
On luck:
Luck isn't really an explanation for a win. It's more like saying that there is no explanation. Someone who plays a lot of poker should understand this! Sure, smart money is on the skillful player, and in the long run the guys who 'rely on luck' will get fleeced. But that's the long run. The explanation for why Joe Greenhorn won $1645 in the last four hands could easily be that he got lucky, which (I think) means there isn't any explanation.
http://www.dailynews.com/ci_7230907?
Is it me or is that a crazy way to do things. You can go cause we can't decide if we want you. And its apparently going to take us four months before we can figure this out. Huh? Who runs a business this way.
I hope we get Joe Girardi as our bench coach (future manager!) in all honesty I think Mariano Duncan returns but the windmill is a totally different story.135 I'm by no means a professional but I think the person who wrote that story could have phrased things better, this is baseball after all (revolving door) so in my opinion it's a non issue.
Joe Paterno: "I don't know. I guess they played better..."
Of all the coaches we have, the one I would have most liked to keep was Jauss. Cripes.
yeah, I've heard a lot of good things about him (I guess that's the reason The Bucs snatched him from us) oh well. I really hope Ned hires good people.
I just hope we keep Mariano Duncan. We need someone to yell at Peavy.
----
Hm. My two favorite college football teams playing each other. Do I root for UCLA or California? (Don't answer that.) At least one of them will win.
Well Cal has more to play for than UCLA, because there is no way we are winning the Pac-10.
How can you be that drunk so early?
They've decamped for drunker pastures.
150 Hm. I think I'll root for UCLA.
In the meantime, repeat after me: "TINSAPP."
I don't hate them and I hate a lot of things.
I'm not sure what Don Draper would say about it, though.
Go Bears!
channeling my sisters, I think there cute & I smile a little every time I see them. Andrew I think you channel Ebenezer Scrooge or something.
I'm thinking Tedford is a little too much of a gambler. Last week and this week, they had the opportunity to go ahead (today) or go into OT (last week) by just aiming for a FG. But he wants to take one shot too many at the endzone.
Holiday Bowl, here we come again.
USC covered finally.
Until they lose in Pullman next week.
The very drunk Cal fan was being walked out of the Rose Bowl by a female friend of his. He looked in really bad shape in the third quarter. I really wanted him to be around to taunt afterwards because he would have been too drunk to fight me effectively.
I pick my spots carefully.
Anyway, every headline I saw concerning Joe Torre's press conference has him describing the Yankees' offer as an insult.
And yet I can't find one quote from Torre where he uses the word "insult" to describe anything. I thought he pointedly avoided characterizing it that way. He said he thought the Yankees were telling him he didn't do a good job. He never said anything denigrating the Yankees for having that opinion.
I thought the Yanks offer was an insult. Apparently so did a lot of sportswriters. So then the headline should have said "Writer of this story thinks Yankees' offer to Torre was an Insult."
Did I miss where Torre uses that word?
>> "I expressed my dissatisfaction with the length of the contract," he said of the meeting. "I explained that and the fact that the incentives, which to me I took as, you know, an insult -- that we basically get to postseason and then all of a sudden we're satisfied with where we've gotten to." <<
http://tinyurl.com/2dcr9z
But it was still weird that so many of the stories that used that headline omitted the quote you just cited.
The crowd sure got quiet when J.D. Drew stepped up to the plate.
One note, I saw Verner's family before the game and told them that Al needs to get his first interception of the season today and it would be great if he could take it to the house. Well he did but I am no fool, I tell them that before every game.
Also, to Cal fans, enjoy Jackson while you can, he is great player.
Of course, the best film version of "A Christmas Carol" is "Scrooged."
The best film version of "A Christmas Carol" is anything that is not "Scrooged."
he's going to be a Viking next year :)
Are the Ducks looking ahead to next week?
I found it very interesting that I read something today that said it might not be coincidence that the Yanks watched teams like the Astros, Marlins and Rockies make the show with half the payroll. The implication is that while young players are risky, in that they may bite the dust, the half that make it are gonna beat old Vets, no matter how much they pay them. And the Yanks have apparently paid > a Billion, over five years.
193 If they cut down to 140 mil., they may meet us on the way up trying to pay our crippled old pitcher club. But------
this is not yet a comfortable game for a mild Sox fan like me, because it is to early. One of my goofy rules is that when a team roles up a large lead like this, they seem to become paralized in regard to scoring runs--so their pitching better hold.
I assume Oregon will be favored next week at home against USC.
Who's better, McFadden or Stewart?
I've seen that play before although not at the college level. Loyola High used to run that play a lot.
It would be a healthy development if owners established a practice of saying "are you insane?" when older players make demands like that. What Schilling is really asking for is a guaranteed seven-figure paycheck for a year into his retirement.
Same for players heading out of their prime years. It would be a very positive thing if Mike Lowell went into spring training without a team because no one would give him the four-year deal he thinks he deserves. When you hit 34-35, a two-year deal should be the maximum except in very unique cases. A longer deal only makes sense if the player will still be in his prime in the last year of it.
http://tinyurl.com/yon4fe
BCS prediction: Arizona State v Hawaii.
OK not really.
But alas--how many years might it take "baseball people" to get it?
http://tinyurl.com/2pmojs
http://tinyurl.com/2kyphh
http://tinyurl.com/yrr3s6
There is no economic or baseball rationale for long-term deals, unless it's to lock down a star young player past his arb and FA eligibility years. There's got to be some MIT economist who can do a study to prove that. If you find one, tell him or her I'll do the PR for free.
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.