Many Go; Few Understand

Free Shin-Shoo!

Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:38:51 GMT

Hey, I am back -- who knows for how long. Few random thoughts on the Indians so far, in no particular order.

1) Shin-Soo Choo is being wasted in AAA. Sure, Trot Nixon's not doing too shabby up until now in right field, but Choo calmly handled his demotion and is currently hitting .455/.625/.636 in Buffalo. Granted, it appears the Bisons have faced some bad pitching in these limited games, but the Indians would be doing just fine with him in the outfield instead of the kaleidoscopic platooning that is going on now.

2) Andy Marte is scuffling not because he is overmatched, but because he is being overaggressive at the plate. Marte's contract rate is 73%, which isn't great, but it is hardly catastrophic. Normally, a guy with that sort of CT% would be expected to hit about .250. Right now Marte is hitting a robust .136. with a Batting Average of Balls in Play of just .133, which is freakishly bad luck. While Marte's BA will certainly improve with more plate appearances, he is hacking at too many pitches too soon in the count. He's only seeing 3.22 Pitches Per Plate Appearance right now. He needs to relax and be more patient in finding his pitch.

3) How long will The Mad Skipper Eric Wedge remain patient with Marte? In a rather shortsighted move, yesterday Wedge yanked Marte for Garko in the seventh inning. Sure, the numbers said that Garko was more likely to get a hit and put the Indians ahead, but the Indians still had at least two innings of defense ahead of them. Casey Blake was moved to third even though he had only played six games at third since 2004. The results were immediately disastrous, but Hafner eventually bailed out the team.

4) Roberto Hernandez shouldn't be used in high leverage situations for a bit. That isn't saying he's toast, but he needs to work some things out and appears to be trying to do too much. Right now, fielding the ball seems to be sensory overload for Dear Roberto.

5) As for playing games in Milwaukee, I hope that isn't the apex of the season. I made some comments about the absurd situation at Reds and Blues.

Anyway, hopefully I'll be around more here in upcoming days.

HBP Rates Since World War Two

Mon, 02 May 2005 16:01:08 GMT

Pitchers are hitting batters today at an unparalleled rate since World War Two. In fact, the HBP rate of the past years makes the notorious 1960’s look candy ass.

AL NL (team average)
1946 18 22
1947 17 22
1948 22 20
1949 22 24
1950 27 28
1951 28 28
1952 31 30
1953 33 28
1954 27 29
1955 33 30
1956 35 25
1957 34 30
1958 32 31
1959 33 29
1960 34 28
1961 32 32
1962 34 37*
1963 34 37
1964 37 33
1965 32 40
1966 32 36
1967 40 35
1968 43 35
1969 37 37
1970 36 33
1971 36 33
1972 33 30
1973 33 30
1974 35 30
1975 33 31
1976 31 26
1977 33 28
1978 32 28
1979 30 28
1980 29 21
1981 20 15**
1982 27 25
1983 30 24
1984 30 21
1985 30 23
1986 36 26
1987 35 29
1988 39 31
1989 35 27
1990 36 29
1991 38 31
1992 42 33
1993 45 41
1994 30 32**
1995 43 45**
1996 52 49
1997 49 55
1998 55 52
1999 56 50
2000 48 56
2001 66 61
2002 61 56
2003 63 60
2004 65 59

* introduction of 162 game schedule
** strike/lockout years

Smitten Shapiro Signs Another Vet

Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:49:53 GMT

Mark Shapiro confirmed he is not the guy to finish the Indians' rebuilding process by signing Trot Nixon to a one year, three million dollar deal. Nothing against Trot Nixon, other than he is old, in a his decline that appears to have a severe power drop off, and can really only hit right handed pitching. However, the Indians have no need of Trot Nixon's services as they have a much younger and cheaper right fielder in Shin-Soo Chin, who will almost certainly outperform Nixon. The signing only accomplishes taking plate appearances away from other hitters, namely Choo and Garko.

Of course, Shapiro might have some sort of deal in the works that necessitates Nixon being around, but unless Shapiro found a way to neatly package Jason Michaels and Casey Blake for some passes to a titty bar, any future deal probably will be detrimental to the Indians, especially if Choo is involved. No, Choo is not the next coming of Manny Ramirez, but Choo is very young and very inexpensive. As of now, the Indians have a three million dollar bookend crowding the Twenty-Five Man Roster to complete the match Shapiro's other garage sale signing in David Dellucci. Dellucci and Nixon might make for a fine, but old left field platoon, but with Blake and Michaels around, you have a foursome of mediocrity that would terrorize the putting greens of any country club across the land.

If Shapiro can get rid of Blake and Michaels, which I highly doubt he will be able to do, then I'll eat all these words with a healthy portion of Stadium Mustard, even though my supplies are running a bit low. However, this appears to be the type of signing Shapiro can't resist --- the declining veteran who once impressed Shapiro in a more innocent time. Remember Brady Anderson? Alex Cora? Aaron Boone? Juan Gonzalez? (who thankfully had the decency to hurt himself so the Grady Sizemore era could begin).

Shapiro has not been exactly wise with the money that he has been allowed to spend. He signed Bob Wickman to an extension that allowed the Fat Man to purchase a Hometown Buffet for every finer and a few toes. Matt Lawton was paid an obscene amount. With The Hardball Times 2007 Annual breaks down teams spending in terms of contract status (FA, Arb, Non-Arb) with Net Win Shares Value, which essentially estimates the"expected" production from a player based on how he was signed (as a free agent, arbitration-eligible or not eligible for arbitration) and how much he was paid, and then compares that to how he actually did. A positive number is a good thing, a negative number is bad. One note -- the contract status isn't just for what happened last offseason; it is based on service time. Check out the Indians' last year:

Non Arb         ARB             FA            Total
+25,858,000     +8,469,000      -9,544,000    +24,782,000

The Indians did pretty well with their Non Arb and Arb guys, ninth in the majors in both, but were in the negative for Free Agents, meaning overall,.For a reference point, the Marlins and the Twins were the best in Non Arb with +52,382,000 and +48,705,000 respectively. Only the Devil Rays managed a negative number in Non Arb. Fourteen teams managed a negative in Arb, so compared to the rest of baseball, the Indians did fine with their Arb guys. The Diamondbacks had the best Arb compilation with +26,725,000. The Indians were 19th in FA, which isn't good, although the Yankees, who were the worst with -20,890,000, were over twice as bad. The White Sox received the most bang for their free agent buck with a +23,157,000.

Here are the Tribe's leaders on both ends of the spectrum:

Best                     Worst
Hafner    +12,012,000    Byrd     -3,030,000
Sizemore   +9,478,000    Boone    -2,425,000
Martinez   +4,785,000    Michaels -2,392,000
Lee        +3,775,000    Johnson -2,374,000

Shapiro tripped on his shrinking male appendage with the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse on the right.

Blake was a -799,000 while Broussard was a +1,428. Sowers was a +3,679,000, Peralta a +1,645,000, and Westbrook a +1,674,000.

Anyway, now that Reds (and Blues) is running smoothly, and Shapiro is intent on taking an ice pick to the team, I should be posting here with more frequency.

The Belle and Kiner Issue

Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:32:01 GMT

During the late 80's, baseball personalities had become as bland as a strawberry flavored barium enema. Those who followed baseball had been slowly desensitized with an unhealthy diet of astroturf dink ball and had forgotten just how exciting a three run homer was. The offensive explosion in the mid 90's changed all that, and Albert Belle quickly filled the role of the villainous bad ass hitter. Belle helped change the face of baseball, but his sure ticket to the Hall of Fame was derailed by his boorish behavior and a career ending injury.

Using Win Shares, Belle's final numbers roughly put him in the Jim Rice category of players.

             Total Win Shares

Rice            282
Belle           243

             Best Five Year Cumulative Win Shares

Rice            142
Belle           149

          Best Ten Year Cumulative Win Shares

Rice            227
Belle           237

Belle vs. LF HOFer Best Five Year Cumulative Win Shares

Ted Williams    221
Musial          207
Yaz             172
Delahanty       169
Simmons         165
Burkett         161
Medwick         157
Kiner           155
Stargell        153
B. Williams     152

Wheat           149
Belle           149
Clarke          147
Goslin          147
Kelley          144
Brock           143
Rice            142
Manush          139
Hafey           116
O'Rourke        110

Belle vs. LF HOFer Best Ten Year Cumulative Win Shares

Ted Williams    394
Musial          369
Yaz             336
Delahanty       293
Simmons         286
Burkett         283
Clarke          274
Goslin          269
Wheat           264
Medwick         261
Stargell        263

B. Williams 259
Brock 253

Kiner           249
Belle           237
Kelley          235
Manush          230
O'Rourke        195
Hafey           166

Belle's discussion has an interesting twist though. After accounting for his games missed for suspension, Belle was screwed out of about fifteen Win Shares by the 1994-1995 work stoppage. His 24 WS season in 1994 equates to a 35 WS season, even with the 7 games suspension. His 30 WS season in 1995 equates to a 34 WS.

I'm not advocating adjusting Win Shares for work stoppages. Shit happens, and a HOFer ultimatley must be judged by what he did on the field, not what he could have done. However, tweaking Belle's WS for the work stoppage gives us a clearer picture of his peak. Add those fifteen Win Shares to Belle's totals, and he has a 164 total for the five year peak and a a 252 total for the ten year peak. That is a hell of a five year peak and a very respectable ten year peak. Considering Belle did little else than that ten year peak, talk of his entrance to the Hall shouldn't last too long, except for one problem, Ralph Kiner.

Kiner and Belle's career's are similar. Kiner missed time due to circumstances beyond his control (war); Belle missed time to a work stoppage. Kiner's career was cut shot by a bad back, Belle's by a bad hip. Belle missed time in his prime, but Kiner missed time when he was very young. Belle's peak was definitely affected; whether or not Kiner's missed time would have affected his peak is not certain. Both were prolific HR hitters, Belle finishing his career with a 143 OPS+; Kiner 149.

             Total Win Shares

Kiner           242
Belle           243
Belle (adj)     258

             Best Five Year Cumulative Win Shares

Kiner           155
Belle           149
Belle (adj)     164

          Best Ten Year Cumulative Win Shares

Kiner           249
Belle           237
Belle (adj)     252

One of the poorest arguments for the Hall is, "Well this guy's not necessarily a bona fide HOFer, but he is in the Hall, so this guy with similar or slightly better numbers should be an automatic lock."

Is Kiner a bona fide HOFer? Probably -- he led the league in HRs seven times. In a comparison to Belle, his WS need a slight bump for the difference in amount of games on the schedules. Kiner was hitting HRs at a pace that wasn't seen since that guy named Ruth played.

So if Kiner is a legitimate HOFer, should Belle be in? Well, the poorest argument to keep a guy out of the Hall is, "He was an asshole, and assholes are disruptive to the team." Look, many of the guys in the Hall were assholes; Type A personalities often reach greatness in baseball. Belle wasn't a Dick Allen type of asshole that that did hurt his team by slacking or causing dissension in the clubhouse, but he was the type of asshole that corked his bat, visited the suspended list a few times, and had to be sent to the minors for attitude adjustments.

Many people use Win Shares per plate appearance to judge peak, and usually that is a good idea. However, guys getting suspended don't get penalized for their behavior, and guys on the DL don't get penalized for their lack of production on the bench. Belle wouldn't have lost too much stock for being suspended for twelve games over his career, so any argument that his suspensions took a large bite out of his production is bogus.

So what it the legitimate argument against Belle other than lack of longetivity? The easy route would be to take the Stephen King Dark Tower exit and just move on. However, I don't believe that there should be a static bar for entry to the Hall, and the game has changed since Kiner played. Rickey Henderson (535 WS), Barry Bonds (666 WS and counting), and Tim Raines (390 WS) have pushed the standards for left field higher. Manny Ramirez will probably end up with more games in LF than anywhere else.

I'm not sure if Belle's peak warrants an entry. Yes, his career was cut short by injuries , and the Hall has plenty of people who were given some slack for that. However, Belle's peak is not up there with the immortals, even if we don't adjust for the work stoppage. It is unfortunate that Belle's career was ended prematurely, but it did.

I Renew Correspondence With My Good Friend, Keith Olbermann

Fri, 08 Dec 2006 20:10:39 GMT

Dear Mr. Olbermann,

I recently had the misfortune of reading some of your book, The Worst Person In The World, at my dentist's office. I am sure it was left there by a masochist who begs to have his teeth drilled without any Novocain or nitrous, but I picked it up and flipped though it for shits and giggles since I quit reading your stuff/watching your show circa 2005. In fact, back then, I used to correspond with you when you used to write ridiculous things about steroids.

I lost interest in you when you started hammering Bill O' Reilly, and he started sputtering in return. Oh, don't get me wrong, I abhor O' Reilly and all the stupidity he is a face for, but you attacks were nothing more than intellectual bullyism to draw viewers. So you can kick Bill O' Reilly's ass in a battle of wits; who can't? Tucker Carlson? You are engaging an unarmed opponent, gleefully making him blubber more than he already does. Sure, you get a few cheers from the anti-O' Reilly, but that is like recruiting the AV Club to cheer for a those taking calculus exam.

You don't really think you are going to change the way those like O' Reilly feel about him? Those troglodytes are set in their ways, and anything ill said about the man who brings them their daily fire just makes them want to defend him more. O 'Reilly should be ignored, not slapped down in a gaudy display and intellectual superiority. Your words, while sharp, don't have the intellectual fire power to penetrate O' Reilly's reptilian skin. Watching you two go back and forth is like watching Stay Puff Marshmallow Man and the Pillsbury Dough Boy get in a fight by the keg after attempting to come down from a coke binge by washing down barbiturates with sour mash. The Clash of the Titans it isn't.

I don't besmirch you for attempting to beat up an intellectual cripple; I just choose to ignore you. However, I can across your "One of The Greatest Pitchers Of All Time" in which you listed Roger Clemens as one of your Honorary Worst People of All Time (written 10/24/05). Normally, I wouldn't bother correcting something that written over a year ago, but you just re-published your hatchet job of Clemens in your book, so since you are trying to make money of your tripe, I suppose it is fair game. The gist of your article was that Roger Clemens was some sort of post season pussy who should not be relied upon in a pivotal post season game. Let's take a look at your piece.

First of all, Bret Boone did not hit the game winning home run in Game Seven of the 2003 ALCS; his brother Aaron Boone did. This is one of those embarrassing mistakes that everyone occasionally makes, well maybe not. Confusing Aaron Fucking Boone with his brother Bret is pretty hard to do. The fact that you hadn't corrected the mistake a year later indicates that not many people bothered to read this piece the first time around.

However, the Boone thing is just a mistake, unlike the rest of your article which is a malicious attempt to stilt statistics and history to assassinate someone's character. This garbage goes well beyond the tactics that your pal O' Reilly employs; your slipping Ann Coulter the tongue. In fact, in your zeal to eviscerate Clemens, you make yourself sound like Rush Limbaugh explaining why global warming is a farce.

Your opening salvo against Clemens is that his team have lost seventeen of the thirty-post season games he has started, even though Clemens is 12-8 in the post season. Perhaps you didn't learn this in your time at ESPN, but if the starter is not the pitcher of record, chances are his teammates are responsible for the loss. However, you imply that the reason Clemens' teams lost seventeen times is because Clemens had to leave the games early or because he blew leads.

Let's take a look at Clemens' no decisions that resulted in a team loss:

Game 4, 1986 ALCS -- Bullpen blows a 3-0 lead in the bottom of the ninth, loses the game 4-3 in the eleventh.

Game 6, 1986 WS -- The Buckner game.

Game 2, 1988 ALCS -- Clemens gives up 2-0 lead in the seventh; Sox tie the game in the bottom of the frame, then Lee Smith loses it in the ninth

Game 1, 1990 ALCS -- Clemens leaves game with lead after 6 IP, bullpen gives up nine runs.

Game 1, 1995 ALDS -- Red Sox lose 5-4 in the 13th inning. Yes, Clemens gave up a 3-0 lead in the sixth, but the Red Sox also blew a save in the eleventh, plus they squandered scoring opportunities in extra innings.

Game 7, 2001 WS -- Rivera blows save

Game 4, 2003 WS -- bullpen loses game in 12th inning, 4-3.

Game 4, 2004 NLDS -- Clemens leaves with a 3 runs lead after 5 IP, bullpen gives up 4 runs. Astrosdon't score after the second inning.

Game 1, 2005 WS -- Clemens leaves after 2 IP with injury, giving up 3 ERs. Astros tie game in top of the third, but do not score the rest of the game and pen coughs up two runs to lose 5-3.

In most of those games, it is obvious that Clemens was hardly the reason for his team's defeat. To parade idea that Clemens was responsible for all of his team's seventeen losses is disingenuous. However, from there, you embark into complete stupidity, faulting Clemens for blowing 8 leads over the course of a game in 34 post season appearances (two of which were 1-0 first inning leads; the other six were 2-0 leads at various courses in the game). This shows a complete lack of any sort of baseball context. Clemens post season appearances are very equitable to what a starter would throw in a regular season in this modern era. Would you chastise a pitcher for blowing eight leads, including two 1-0 first inning leads, over the course of the season?

You then said Clemens was no Christy Mathewson or Bob Gibson. Mathewson's team was .500 in the post season when he pitched, just like Clemens. Let's see how these guys did with your dumb stat of "Blown Leads:

                              G   G w/Blown Leads      %
Mathewson      11   5                    45
Gibson          9   3                    33
Clemens        34   8                    24

I don' think we need to spend anymore time on this silly stat rooted in ignorance. You thought you could build a case by counting, but evaluating performance is much more than counting, something they obviously don't teach at ESPN. You also said that "[Clemens] is a guy with a post season record slightly less than that of his journeyman teammate Russ Springer," an obvious attempt at hyperbole. Here is a tip, Keith, hyperbole only works in snark if it is grounded in some sort of fact. Russ Springer hasn't even started a post season game.

Your slam on Clemens was baseball analysis at its worst, riddled with factual inaccuracies and absurdly erroneous evaluations of performance. In other words, your piece was what passes for sports journalism these days in media throughout the country, which is quickly dismissed. However, since you sit behind your anchor desk with an air of snarky moral superiority, kind of like a grumpy Stan Laurel devoid of humor, you should be smacked around when you behave like Coulter or Limbaugh. The fact that you read a teleprompter at ESPN when you weren't occasionally being thrown in a dugout doesn't mean you learned much about sports, especially baseball. Sure, you are capable of belittling the dimwitted O' Reilly, but if you are going to talk baseball, you need to bring better stuff. The last thing baseball needs is an aging tall, skinny Coulter/Limbaugh offspring offering baseball commentary on lower tier cable.

State Of The Blog

Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:03:12 GMT

There hasn't been much activity here lately because I have been concentrating my efforts at Reds and (Blues). Why? Because here I work for The Man (those ad revenues go to AOL, not me), and over there, I work for me. I'm not shutting this place down, but for now, I am going to post my non-Indians stuff over there. Once the Tribe stumbles out of hibernation, I am sure this place will be more active again. Until then, join us at Reds and (Blues) and bookmark us.

The Kids Are Alright: Lawrence and Tyler

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:28:57 GMT

Through a series of life choices, I find myself teaching journalism classes all day to a collection of students comprised mostly of middle class kids as I near the age of forty.. Once upon a time, I left the field of journalism as the idealism of education seemed to outshine the hollowness of being a rock critic. Empowering the poor seemed like a good idea at the time, but after fifteen years in the inner city, the poor were still poor. Idealism turned to cynicism of the system, and rather than becoming a burned out English teacher, I jumped at the chance to teach kids how the media should work instead of how it does work.

I used to launch little satellites with the goal of orbiting the word with purpose, now I release little commandos who will one day storm the media headquarters across the land. Sure, most of them will end up slaughtered in the lobby, but there is no such thing as a bloodless revolution. I steer the brighter ones away from the impending carnage, but not everyone can be bright. I'm sure in the end, the media conglomerates will prevail, but the sports department will be ours.

Which brings me to Tyler and Lawrence, two of my sharper baseball scribes. Recently, both of them were independently assigned an AL MVP piece to determine which AL player was worthy of the award (the assignment was before the Award was announced). Both of the lad are pretty well versed in rudimentary statistical analysis. They have worked the way up from OPS+ to Win Shares/VORP type stuff, although we have not hit any extensive defensive analysis. Both are excellent ballplayers themselves, so don't get the impression they are nerdy types.

On the day, the assignment was due, I asked Tyler first who was the AL MVP. "Justin Morneau," was his confident reply.

"When did you start doing drugs, Tyler?" I asked. "Are you out of your mind? Have I wasted the last two years of my life with you?" At this point, Tyler lost his look of confidence, but looked at me like I was about to start another one of my Socratic debates.

"He just looked at RBIs! Those are team dependent." Lawrence shouted through his laughter.

"Settle down, Lawrence," I interrupted. "I've heard people throw at you in games, plus it wasn't that long ago you thought Garret Anderson was one of the league's top players." I then looked at Tyler and grumbled something about lazy, shiftless teenagers taking shortcuts.

"I didn't just look at RBIs," Tyler stammered. "I looked OPS, HRs, and Isolated Power. Morneau was better than Jeter. Plus, Morneau had 309 plate appearances with runners on base, and Jeter had 327. Morneau drove in more runs with less chances. You tell us to account for the chances all the time." Suddenly, Lawrence looked as if he was going to pee his pants. His desperately had something to say, but didn't want to shout out in class.

"Okay, Lawrence, speak," I said.

"He got that from BP [Baseball Prospectus]," Lawrence spat. "However, he didn't account for runners in scoring position. It's easier to drive in guys if they are in scoring position, especially if they are on third base. Morneau had 257 plate appearances with RISP; Jeter 234."

"Breathe, Lawrence, it will be okay, " I said, feeling a little bit of pride mixed with a twinge of dread because I knew I had never instructed them to go this route. The lads were exploring on their own. Sure, one of them had his toe caught in a rabbit trap, but he'd be okay. These guys were not even teenagers yet; toes grow back at that age. Lawrence wasn't done yet, however.

"Look, Juneball, Jeter had an OPS over 1.00 with runners in scoring position. Morneau was around .975."

"Jeter is one of the worst defensive shortstops in baseball," Tyler retorted. The only guy on the planet that lets more balls through the infield is you, Lawrence."

"Boys, boys," I interrupted. "Let's not get nasty. You both hit like girls. Tyler, yes, Jeter isn't a good shortstop, but a shortstop has more inherent defensive value than a first baseman. Remember what inherent means? Good. Look, I can see how you picked Morneau over Jeter; I haven't taught you defense. But forget about Jeter for a moment though. Why did you pick Morneau to begin with? He isn't even the best player on the team. How did you overlook Joe Mauer?" Embarrassed silence ensued. Finally, a squeaky voice muttered,

"Mauer wasn't on the ESPN.com MVP tracker. I didn't bother looking him up."

"Next time don't rely on ESPN to do your heavy lifting, " I said, wondering how many MVP voters did the same thing as Tyler.

Keith Olbermann Can Go To Hell

Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:05:01 GMT

Keith Olbermann wrote a sanctimonious bullshit piece about steroids on his MSNBC blog. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

Dear Keith Olbermann,

You said with a straight face that in regards to the steroid problem in baseball, “the sports media did its best.” Well, Keith, while sports media has declined at a precarious rate in the last thirty years, even you limp dicks could have done a much better job than what you did. You have the audacity to say writers couldn’t find “the most unshakable and unattainable evidence”, so nothing could be reported. What an absolute crock of shit. The media didn’t find any of that sort of evidence because it didn’t bother to look hard because guys hitting home runs made their jobs much easier.

To suggest that a sportswriter could not have gleaned enough information to write an article on steroid abuse in baseball, despite years of tips and leads, is asinine. To insult your reader’s intelligence by suggesting the threat of libel action is what kept sportswriters at stymied is disingenuous. Libel cases are extremely rare in this country because the deposition process allows for trolling expeditions while the person on the stand is under oath. No one accused in Jose Canseco’s book is banging down any courthouse doors, pressing to get a libel case started.

Even if libel cases were prevalent in the country, not pursuing the truth because of the fear of a libel suit is sheer cowardice. You are insinuating that you and your brethren are a bunch of pussies. While sportswriters are an odious lot, some actually do have spines. Jose Canseco can crank out a book when he realizes selling his rings on e-bay isn’t going to generate that cash flow he was hoping for, but not one sportswriter could push the story into the forefront of America’s attention because they were afraid of being sued? Fuck you. All your doing is transparently trying to pass the buck.

The bottom line is the media sat on the steroid issue just like the owners did. You call the owners to task for not coming forth, but according to your ridiculous claim, nothing could be proved. If you coward sportswriters were afraid of libel suits, shouldn’t the owners have been afraid also? After all, nothing could be proved, according to you. Surely you are not saying the owners had a larger moral obligation than the sportswriters?

Where were your cries for stronger testing in 1987, Olberman? 1990? 1995? You sat at your Sportscenter desk and covered the homeruns as your network’s popularity rose, but never raised much fuss over steroids. Did you bosses keep you silent as they did not want to kill the goose that was shitting olden eggs, or did you just find your position comfortable? Or were you afraid of the Big Bad Wolf known as the libel lawsuit? Or were you just too busy bitching about Suzy Kolber?

You didn’t do squat to press the issue, even though you were in the position to blow the whistle. Now you point fingers the owners and the players’ union, forgetting that you were sucking on the hind tit also. Steroids made you Keith, steroids and the fucking X-Games. You ignored the former and refused to embrace the latter, but they made you. That is your legacy and taking sanctimonious potshots from a network cable station does not change that fact.

In recent weeks, it has become real trendy for the media to bash steroids in baseball, all because as something as stupid as numbers in a record book. You bastards kept mum on the issue until Bonds started nearing Aaron, then suddenly something needed to be done. This outrage has nothing to do with human safety; it has to do with asterisks. In fact, the only other time the media made any sort of stir about steroids in baseball laws when McGwire and Sosa were chasing Maris.

A couple of handfuls of NFL players recently were suspended for steroids, and hardly a word is said because of the speculations of who will testify in front of Congress. Congress should be hauling you and your professional brethren to Capitol Hill so you can testify why you chose to ignore the issue for so long. Your guys’ best defense would be utter incompetence, and with the sports media’s recent track record, you guys shouldn’t have to try to hard to get people to believe you.

The owners and players ignored the steroid issue for millions of dollars. Fans ignored the issue for entertainment. Sportswriters ignored it for the free wet bar and buffet in the clubhouse on game day. Everyone has his price, Keith, and yours was pretty low.

One sneering while holding you in complete contempt,

J.P.

Defensive Hope For The Tribe

Thu, 07 Dec 2006 03:32:13 GMT

Chronicles of The Lads converts David Pinto's PMR into a run value, which is a rather swell thing. Aaron Boone was rather atrocious defensively (no surprise), but in a limited sample size, Andy Marte was much better:

               Runs Above Average      RAA/350 chances
Marte          4.2                     10.7
Boone         -11.4                   -17
Difference     15.6                    27.7

Boone was by far the worst defensive third baseman in the AL according to this metric, about three runs worse than Aubrey Huff. Over the course of a full season, Marte's rate would be 27.7 runs better than Boone, almost three wins. Let's look at second base:

               Runs Above Average      RAA/460 chances
Barfield       4.2                     4.6
Belliard       -12.4                   -12.3
Difference     16.6                    16.9

Alternative Method

               Runs Above Average      RAA/460 chances
Barfield       .35                     .37
Belliard       -18.4                   -17.9
Difference     18.8                    18.3

Over the course of the season, Barfield offers about 16.5-19 runs in improvement over Belliard (Luna was quite bad also; -6.6 RR/-19 RAA.460). Peralta did well in this metric also; +12.6 RAA, fifth best in the majors.

AL Outfield Arms

Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:29:41 GMT

Yesterday at Reds and (Blues), I made some observations about NL outfield arms using information presented by John Dewan in THT's 2007 Annual. Let's take a look at the AL. Kills are runners gunned down by an outfielder's direct throw (unlike assists, outs with relay throws are not included) and Opps are opportunities the opposition had to take an extra base:

Team     Kills     Opps      Ratio
LAA      26        411       .063
TOR      24        410       .059
TEX      28        517       .054
TBR      25        521       .046
DET      18        411       .044
SEA      20        486       .041
BAL      20        486       .041
MIN      18        422       .043
KCR      19        534       .035
NYA      17        492       .034
BOS      15        454       .033
OAK      15        474       .032
CLE      14        503       .028
CHA       8        455       .018

Not surprisingly, the noodle arm Indians were near the bottom of this list. However, as I said with the NLers, Kills don't necessarily correlate to preventing runners from advancing. Let’s look at Runners Advanced Percentage (remember, the lower the number, the better):

         Advanced %
TOR      .439
OAK      .464
DET      .470
SEA      .471
TEX      .472
BAL      .475
MIN      .483
LAA      .489
CLE      .505
KCR      .517
CHA      .519
NYA      .524
TBR      .526
BOS      .526

AL outfielders are much better at preventing runners from advancing than their NL counterparts. Eight teams in the AL had a better Advance Percentage than the NL's best (Reds) while the NL had eight teams with a worse Advance Percentage than the AL's worst. I would say most of this has to do with league tendencies rather than talent in the outfield.