Protecting the Shields -- The Nick Cafardo Thread
- Thread starter MyDaughterLovesTomGordon
- Start date
- Status
I've been pleasantly surprised by Nick Green's decent level of play just like everyone else, but the Globe's Nick takes things to a whole different level this morning:
Who knows, Nick, who knows indeed.
Watch out, folks, we've got another "winning ballplayer":
His winningness basically stems from the fact that he was on the Braves for three playoff seasons, then on the stacked Cubs teams that have blown out of the playoffs the past two years. DeRosa's been good in the playoffs - .350/.422/.600/1.022 in 40 ABs - but his team's haven't won (only one NLCS in five tries, no WS). So what makes him a "winner?" Because he plays a lot of positions, but none of them very well?
Cleveland sure isn't doing much winning with his .235/.303/.429/.731 so far this year.
Is it because he looks like Nick Green?
DeRosa is a very average player: .278/.346/.422/.768 lifetime OPS+ of 97
His winningness basically stems from the fact that he was on the Braves for three playoff seasons, then on the stacked Cubs teams that have blown out of the playoffs the past two years. DeRosa's been good in the playoffs - .350/.422/.600/1.022 in 40 ABs - but his team's haven't won (only one NLCS in five tries, no WS). So what makes him a "winner?" Because he plays a lot of positions, but none of them very well?
Cleveland sure isn't doing much winning with his .235/.303/.429/.731 so far this year.
Is it because he looks like Nick Green?
Since it has since been shown that he had absolutely no desire to sign with Boston, I would not call this a "failure". At the very least, Cafardo should have noted that fact.
Still, that list must have taken a bit of time to work on.
***
I did like this nugget
though I wish he had listed the other 3.
EDIT:
Juan Pizarro, Cubs vs Mets, September 16, 1971 (off Tom Seaver)
Bob Welch, Dodgers vs Reds, June 17, 1983
Odalis Perez, Dodgers vs Arizona, August 28, 2002
The 'Bill Chuck files' are kind of like the retarded version of the Chuck Waseleski items that used to appear in there under Edes. Most of it is simple stuff presented as insight (though, the one above is just pure trivia which at least has its place).
I'd rather see Cafardo gone than CHB. I simply ignore CHB, but it's hard to totally skip the baseball notebook and Cafardo randomly shows up in things I do sometimes read, like the blog and the game write-ups.
I'd rather see Cafardo gone than CHB. I simply ignore CHB, but it's hard to totally skip the baseball notebook and Cafardo randomly shows up in things I do sometimes read, like the blog and the game write-ups.
Cafardo's piece on Joba in this morning's Globe may be the worst, most inept piece of sportswriting I've ever seen in the Globe.
Not a single mention that 9 of the 12 strikeouts were called and that five of those benefited from dubious calls. Instead, comparisons to Clemens and a report that Joba could feel his confidence grow as "hitters began swinging and missing."
In fact, Joba got 10 swings and misses in this game (versus 35 called strikes), breaking down as follows:
Jeff Bailey, career minor leaguer: 3
Nick Green, career minor leaguer: 2
David Ortiz, mired in worst slump of career: 3
Jacoby Ellsbury: 1
Jason Bay: 1
Wow, I got Jeff Bailey to swing and miss, I must be good!
In fact, during his last three innings he got all 8 outs by the K and the strikes in these ABs broke down 18 called, 6 fouls, 2 swings and misses by Bailey and two by Green. In this span of of 11 hitters, in fact, hitters other than Bailey and Green only swung at four pitches (two Pedroia fouls, an Ortiz swing and miss before walking, and a Lowell foul).
By way of comparison, on Opening Day Josh Beckett faced 1 more batter than Joba did, fanning 10 (seven swinging), and got 15 swings and misses, including 1 from at least every player in the lineup, none of whom were AAA injury callups:
Iwamura: 1
Crawford: 1
Longoria: 2
Pena: 4
Burrell: 1
Joyce: 2
Navarro: 2
Gross: 1
Bartlett: 1
And only 17 called strikes. (Note that B-Ref apparently fails to count caught foul tips in their swinging strike total.) Was anyone comparing this game to vintage Clemens?
I would guess that this sort of breakdown is much more typical of a 10+ K game.
I usually shake my head in wonder and dismay when a writer barely mentions an unusual aspect of a game. But when a writer completely fails to mention the absolutely bizarre -- that's just unfathomable. It's like you're buddy is raving to you about the BJ he just got from a "hot chick" and you're and you're like, "you realize that was a guy, right?"
Not a single mention that 9 of the 12 strikeouts were called and that five of those benefited from dubious calls. Instead, comparisons to Clemens and a report that Joba could feel his confidence grow as "hitters began swinging and missing."
In fact, Joba got 10 swings and misses in this game (versus 35 called strikes), breaking down as follows:
Jeff Bailey, career minor leaguer: 3
Nick Green, career minor leaguer: 2
David Ortiz, mired in worst slump of career: 3
Jacoby Ellsbury: 1
Jason Bay: 1
Wow, I got Jeff Bailey to swing and miss, I must be good!
In fact, during his last three innings he got all 8 outs by the K and the strikes in these ABs broke down 18 called, 6 fouls, 2 swings and misses by Bailey and two by Green. In this span of of 11 hitters, in fact, hitters other than Bailey and Green only swung at four pitches (two Pedroia fouls, an Ortiz swing and miss before walking, and a Lowell foul).
By way of comparison, on Opening Day Josh Beckett faced 1 more batter than Joba did, fanning 10 (seven swinging), and got 15 swings and misses, including 1 from at least every player in the lineup, none of whom were AAA injury callups:
Iwamura: 1
Crawford: 1
Longoria: 2
Pena: 4
Burrell: 1
Joyce: 2
Navarro: 2
Gross: 1
Bartlett: 1
And only 17 called strikes. (Note that B-Ref apparently fails to count caught foul tips in their swinging strike total.) Was anyone comparing this game to vintage Clemens?
I would guess that this sort of breakdown is much more typical of a 10+ K game.
I usually shake my head in wonder and dismay when a writer barely mentions an unusual aspect of a game. But when a writer completely fails to mention the absolutely bizarre -- that's just unfathomable. It's like you're buddy is raving to you about the BJ he just got from a "hot chick" and you're and you're like, "you realize that was a guy, right?"
Asking Cafardo to do that type of breakdown and criticism of the umpire is kind of like asking a pack of border collies to perform As You Like It. It's completely unrealistic and even the attempt would be laughable.
That article honestly reads as if Cafardo didn't watch the game and just looked at the box score after finishing off the free food in the press room.
That's a scary thought that actually is more believable than Cafardo being that stupid. I mean, there are household pets that could have done a better job, and I'm talking goldfish and rocks rather than puppies or kittens.
There was this gem today:
Carlos Beltran, CF, Mets: It has taken him a long time to mature, but he may have arrived
What the effing eff is this guy talking about? This is beyond lazy. I suspect that he has not followed baseball for at least ten years.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/arti..._oleary/?page=4
Carlos Beltran, CF, Mets: It has taken him a long time to mature, but he may have arrived
What the effing eff is this guy talking about? This is beyond lazy. I suspect that he has not followed baseball for at least ten years.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/arti..._oleary/?page=4
You know what lazy reporters do? Ask rhetorical questions.
You know what Nick Cafardo does every single week?
You know what Nick Cafardo does every single week?
According to Brooksbaseball.net, Joba benefitted from two dubious called third strikes (Drew in the 4th and Pedroia in the 5th). Baseball Reference says Beckett induced 13 swinging strikes on Opening Day, not 15. Your overall point, however, rings true. Like a tenured professor, Cafardo can't be terminated unless he touches a kid, and I suspect he knows this. Why else the shoddy, lazy journalism?
DH1 you're right. In his Apropos of Nothing column he brings up a very good question, "What ever happened to Pujols' Tommy John surgery?" For awhile last year people were saying that Pujols might be out for a year or so, this could be a blow to his career and then nothing. Pujols is lighting it up again and it seems as if no one remembers those statements.
So, Cafardo brings it up and never follows up on it. I mean, is he asking us? If so, why? How are we supposed to know? Doesn't he know someone in St. Louis that may be able to answer this question? Is he looking for our help?
If you were Alex Cora, how much would you want to kill Cafardo if he used the word "edge" one more time. Three times in five questions; which Cora managed to answer using all cliches. Again, great work Nick.
I have no idea what he means about Dom DiMaggio fixing a slumping ballplayer. I don't believe that he was a coach, so did he get his teammate a rebound from his brother's stable of whores, did he tell them to choke up, did he sacrifice a chicken in some bizarre Sicilian ritual. Again Nick, FUCKING TELL US -- DON'T BE FUCKING COY. You're a newspaper man, not a 16-year-old-girl.
So, Cafardo brings it up and never follows up on it. I mean, is he asking us? If so, why? How are we supposed to know? Doesn't he know someone in St. Louis that may be able to answer this question? Is he looking for our help?
If you were Alex Cora, how much would you want to kill Cafardo if he used the word "edge" one more time. Three times in five questions; which Cora managed to answer using all cliches. Again, great work Nick.
I have no idea what he means about Dom DiMaggio fixing a slumping ballplayer. I don't believe that he was a coach, so did he get his teammate a rebound from his brother's stable of whores, did he tell them to choke up, did he sacrifice a chicken in some bizarre Sicilian ritual. Again Nick, FUCKING TELL US -- DON'T BE FUCKING COY. You're a newspaper man, not a 16-year-old-girl.
Well he probably exhausted his list of sources (Brian Sabean and Shea Hillenbrand) and couldn't find out so he's turning to his few remaining readers for help.
He's been with the Globe since 1989 and yet I can't think of a single big story that he's broken. There has to be one, right?
Thank you.
I was wondering the same thing. Was Dom the king of hooking teammates up with fat chicks on the road or something? Why edge toward saying something but never get close to it.
Take the buyout Nick.
Rotoworld this morning cited a Ken Macha quote in the Boston Globe regarding Mat Gamel's expected playing time. My first thought was "why is this being reported in the Boston Glo..." and then before I could finish the thought, I had another. Ken Macha used to work for NESN, therefore Cafardo has heard of him, therefore this quote must have been in Cafardo's notes column. It all made sense.
Viola! (Gamel quote on page 2)
Viola! (Gamel quote on page 2)
QUOTE
2. No team in the majors could have used Javier Lopez?
Guess no one is looking for a lefty who can't get lefties out and plays an occasional RF.
2. No team in the majors could have used Javier Lopez?
Guess no one is looking for a lefty who can't get lefties out and plays an occasional RF.
It seems that Nick Cafardo found a new way of asking questions. It seems that this might be a new weapon of Caf-man's arsenal. It seems that this will be used every week until someone gets sick of it . It seems that I am now waiting for the next interesting of way of posing a boring question.
Or so it would all seem.
Or so it would all seem.
QUOTE (DieHardSoxFan1 @ May 10 2009, 03:21 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2278276
According to Brooksbaseball.net, Joba benefitted from two dubious called third strikes (Drew in the 4th and Pedroia in the 5th). Baseball Reference says Beckett induced 13 swinging strikes on Opening Day, not 15.
Since we're talking about accuracy in journalism: my strike zone analysis factors in the break on pitches and the depth of the strike zone, and is based on a thorough analysis of the de facto zone, which is very different than the rulebook one. It's more sophisticated than what Jnai currently offers.
And what part of "(Note that B-Ref apparently fails to count caught foul tips in their swinging strike total.)" didn't you get? I have to give them a heads-up on that one.
According to Brooksbaseball.net, Joba benefitted from two dubious called third strikes (Drew in the 4th and Pedroia in the 5th). Baseball Reference says Beckett induced 13 swinging strikes on Opening Day, not 15.
Since we're talking about accuracy in journalism: my strike zone analysis factors in the break on pitches and the depth of the strike zone, and is based on a thorough analysis of the de facto zone, which is very different than the rulebook one. It's more sophisticated than what Jnai currently offers.
And what part of "(Note that B-Ref apparently fails to count caught foul tips in their swinging strike total.)" didn't you get? I have to give them a heads-up on that one.
I'm amazed that no one has mentioned this gem from Sunday. It's like there's a stipulation in his contract that he must invent at least one eye-bleedingly, patently untrue, completely nonsensical assertion in every column:
QUOTE
One of the problems with young pitchers these days is that they haven't had enough seasoning. There was a time when teams felt a kid had to pitch at least 500 minor league innings.
Roger Clemens: 128
Jim Lonborg: 191
Oh, wait, maybe he means the 50's or the 40's. I swear these were the first two guys I thought to look up:
Sandy Koufax: 0
Bob Feller: 0
And of course Cafardo well knows that an IP back when "there was a time" does not equal a modern IP: Juan Marichal and Whitey Ford each had 600+ ml IP but were in the bigs to stay before their 22nd birthday.
Here's a fairly thorough list of the best pitchers of the farm system era (by peak adjusted ERA) with their number of minor league IPs (I don't have data for some of the guys in the 40's and 50's). Most of the guys at the bottom of the list were merely late bloomers; Tiant and Figueroa pitched 509 and 734 IP in the Mexican League, respectively.
mlIP
Name mlip ERA Sandy Koufax 0 2.09 Bob Feller 0 2.56 Robin Roberts 96 2.57 Bert Blyleven 123 2.47 Roger Clemens 128 2.02 Dave Stieb 128 2.38 Jim Palmer 129 2.35 Frank Viola 155 2.45 Mike Mussina 178 2.58 Bret Saberhagen 187 2.58 Tom Seaver 210 2.15 Hal Newhouser 230 2.11 Dwight Gooden 270 2.47 Don Drysdale 285 2.59 Billy Pierce 290 2.41 Kevin Brown 293 2.27 Steve Carlton 306 2.32 Frank Tanana 349 2.49 Pedro Martinez 383 1.78 Ron Guidry 394 2.17 Kevin Appier 401 2.49 Bob Gibson 410 2.16 Randy Johnson 418 2.07 Joe Horlen 439 2.56 Jerry Koosman 467 2.57 Sam McDowell 483 2.51 Greg Maddux 490 1.75 Orel Hershiser 512 2.50 Tom Glavine 537 2.53 Jose Rijo 571 2.38 Phil Niekro 615 2.53 Whitey Ford 636 2.44 Juan Marichal 655 2.32 David Cone 663 2.55 Jim Bunning 887 2.57 Gaylord Perry 892 2.55 Teddy Higuera 895 2.54 Luis Tiant 990 2.52 Gary Peters 1172 2.53
QUOTE
One of the problems with young pitchers these days is that they haven't had enough seasoning. There was a time when teams felt a kid had to pitch at least 500 minor league innings.
Roger Clemens: 128
Jim Lonborg: 191
Oh, wait, maybe he means the 50's or the 40's. I swear these were the first two guys I thought to look up:
Sandy Koufax: 0
Bob Feller: 0
And of course Cafardo well knows that an IP back when "there was a time" does not equal a modern IP: Juan Marichal and Whitey Ford each had 600+ ml IP but were in the bigs to stay before their 22nd birthday.
Here's a fairly thorough list of the best pitchers of the farm system era (by peak adjusted ERA) with their number of minor league IPs (I don't have data for some of the guys in the 40's and 50's). Most of the guys at the bottom of the list were merely late bloomers; Tiant and Figueroa pitched 509 and 734 IP in the Mexican League, respectively.
mlIP
Name mlip ERA Sandy Koufax 0 2.09 Bob Feller 0 2.56 Robin Roberts 96 2.57 Bert Blyleven 123 2.47 Roger Clemens 128 2.02 Dave Stieb 128 2.38 Jim Palmer 129 2.35 Frank Viola 155 2.45 Mike Mussina 178 2.58 Bret Saberhagen 187 2.58 Tom Seaver 210 2.15 Hal Newhouser 230 2.11 Dwight Gooden 270 2.47 Don Drysdale 285 2.59 Billy Pierce 290 2.41 Kevin Brown 293 2.27 Steve Carlton 306 2.32 Frank Tanana 349 2.49 Pedro Martinez 383 1.78 Ron Guidry 394 2.17 Kevin Appier 401 2.49 Bob Gibson 410 2.16 Randy Johnson 418 2.07 Joe Horlen 439 2.56 Jerry Koosman 467 2.57 Sam McDowell 483 2.51 Greg Maddux 490 1.75 Orel Hershiser 512 2.50 Tom Glavine 537 2.53 Jose Rijo 571 2.38 Phil Niekro 615 2.53 Whitey Ford 636 2.44 Juan Marichal 655 2.32 David Cone 663 2.55 Jim Bunning 887 2.57 Gaylord Perry 892 2.55 Teddy Higuera 895 2.54 Luis Tiant 990 2.52 Gary Peters 1172 2.53
QUOTE (Eric Van @ May 18 2009, 09:03 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2299697
Since we're talking about accuracy in journalism: my strike zone analysis factors in the break on pitches and the depth of the strike zone, and is based on a thorough analysis of the de facto zone, which is very different than the rulebook one. It's more sophisticated than what Jnai currently offers.
This seems pretty interesting...can you post this so we can see the mechanism behind it?
Since we're talking about accuracy in journalism: my strike zone analysis factors in the break on pitches and the depth of the strike zone, and is based on a thorough analysis of the de facto zone, which is very different than the rulebook one. It's more sophisticated than what Jnai currently offers.
This seems pretty interesting...can you post this so we can see the mechanism behind it?
It's not really fair to use Koufax as an example of someone who has no minor league innings pitched in order to prove this point. The main reason he never pitched in the minors was the "bonus baby" rules of the time, which meant he had to be on the major league roster immediately. I don't think there is much doubt that the Dodgers would have sent him to the minor leagues to work out his control issues if the rules allowed it.
QUOTE (Eric Van @ May 18 2009, 09:03 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2299697
Since we're talking about accuracy in journalism: my strike zone analysis factors in the break on pitches and the depth of the strike zone, and is based on a thorough analysis of the de facto zone, which is very different than the rulebook one. It's more sophisticated than what Jnai currently offers.
Jnai offers the data tracked by Pitch f/x, correct? Because if that's the case then he's offering equally as much as your sophisticated interpretation. The Pitch f/x system takes into account every relevant wrinkle, including break and plate depth.
QUOTE
And what part of "(Note that B-Ref apparently fails to count caught foul tips in their swinging strike total.)" didn't you get? I have to give them a heads-up on that one.
Did Joba garner any foul tips during the game? And pardon me for asking a question. Really, how rude of me.
Since we're talking about accuracy in journalism: my strike zone analysis factors in the break on pitches and the depth of the strike zone, and is based on a thorough analysis of the de facto zone, which is very different than the rulebook one. It's more sophisticated than what Jnai currently offers.
Jnai offers the data tracked by Pitch f/x, correct? Because if that's the case then he's offering equally as much as your sophisticated interpretation. The Pitch f/x system takes into account every relevant wrinkle, including break and plate depth.
QUOTE
And what part of "(Note that B-Ref apparently fails to count caught foul tips in their swinging strike total.)" didn't you get? I have to give them a heads-up on that one.
Did Joba garner any foul tips during the game? And pardon me for asking a question. Really, how rude of me.
QUOTE (DieHardSoxFan1 @ May 18 2009, 11:47 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2300139
Jnai offers the data tracked by Pitch f/x, correct? Because if that's the case then he's offering equally as much as your sophisticated interpretation. The Pitch f/x system takes into account every relevant wrinkle, including break and plate depth.
All Jnai is doing is plotting where pitch/fx says the ball was when it reached the front of the plate. Pitch/fx data includes break, but it does not extrapolate the trajectory of the ball to see where it is after it crosses the plane of the front of the plate. To do that you need ridiculously long math formulas which I would quote for you if my home network just didn't crash because Vista sucks.
It's funny, but Jnai's response to the difference in our strike zone analysis was not to defend his as just as good, but to ask me if he could see my work (he now has my permission to use it, with credit, in whatever way he wants).
QUOTE
Did Joba garner any foul tips during the game? And pardon me for asking a question. Really, how rude of me.
The insanely detailed pitch/fx system classifies a "swinging strike" and "foul tip" differently even though in every other accounting of baseball events they are lumped together as swinging strikes. I record them as swinging strikes on my scoresheet, and my pitch/fx spreadsheet correctly translates the foul tips into swinging strikes. I noted accurate counts for swinging strikes for Joba's game and for Beckett's game and pointed out that the b-ref data for swinging strikes are generally in error (since they were in error for Beckett's game in particular).
And, no, you didn't ask a question: you "corrected" me by citing a source I had already noticed and pointed out was inaccurate. And, yeah, that is a little rude (or it shows an inability to grasp the idea that b-ref might not be infallible).
Jnai offers the data tracked by Pitch f/x, correct? Because if that's the case then he's offering equally as much as your sophisticated interpretation. The Pitch f/x system takes into account every relevant wrinkle, including break and plate depth.
All Jnai is doing is plotting where pitch/fx says the ball was when it reached the front of the plate. Pitch/fx data includes break, but it does not extrapolate the trajectory of the ball to see where it is after it crosses the plane of the front of the plate. To do that you need ridiculously long math formulas which I would quote for you if my home network just didn't crash because Vista sucks.
It's funny, but Jnai's response to the difference in our strike zone analysis was not to defend his as just as good, but to ask me if he could see my work (he now has my permission to use it, with credit, in whatever way he wants).
QUOTE
Did Joba garner any foul tips during the game? And pardon me for asking a question. Really, how rude of me.
The insanely detailed pitch/fx system classifies a "swinging strike" and "foul tip" differently even though in every other accounting of baseball events they are lumped together as swinging strikes. I record them as swinging strikes on my scoresheet, and my pitch/fx spreadsheet correctly translates the foul tips into swinging strikes. I noted accurate counts for swinging strikes for Joba's game and for Beckett's game and pointed out that the b-ref data for swinging strikes are generally in error (since they were in error for Beckett's game in particular).
And, no, you didn't ask a question: you "corrected" me by citing a source I had already noticed and pointed out was inaccurate. And, yeah, that is a little rude (or it shows an inability to grasp the idea that b-ref might not be infallible).
QUOTE (Eric Van @ May 19 2009, 12:25 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2301220
All Jnai is doing is plotting where pitch/fx says the ball was when it reached the front of the plate. Pitch/fx data includes break, but it does not extrapolate the trajectory of the ball to see where it is after it crosses the plane of the front of the plate. To do that you need ridiculously long math formulas which I would quote for you if my home network just didn't crash because Vista sucks.
Indeed, Pitch f/x measures pitch break from the point of release to the front of the plate, but it also provides a three-dimensional view of each specified strike zone as well as home plate. In other words, this detailed view allows one to view the path of the pitch after it crosses the plane of the front of the plate. While it doesn't tabulate the break from release point to catcher's glove, it ensures the utmost accuracy of balls and strikes. Which is why I questioned your original hypothesis that Joba benefitted from five gift calls when in reality he received two. Of course a one-dimensional graph cannot possibly illustrate these nuances, but MLB's umpire monitoring system is comprehensive enough to render graphs downright archaic.
QUOTE
The insanely detailed pitch/fx system classifies a "swinging strike" and "foul tip" differently even though in every other accounting of baseball events they are lumped together as swinging strikes. I record them as swinging strikes on my scoresheet, and my pitch/fx spreadsheet correctly translates the foul tips into swinging strikes. I noted accurate counts for swinging strikes for Joba's game and for Beckett's game and pointed out that the b-ref data for swinging strikes are generally in error (since they were in error for Beckett's game in particular).
And, no, you didn't ask a question: you "corrected" me by citing a source I had already noticed and pointed out was inaccurate. And, yeah, that is a little rude (or it shows an inability to grasp the idea that b-ref might not be infallible).
Forgive me for questioning your evaluation system. Perhaps you're the one who shows an inability to grasp the idea that Van-ref might not be infallible.
All Jnai is doing is plotting where pitch/fx says the ball was when it reached the front of the plate. Pitch/fx data includes break, but it does not extrapolate the trajectory of the ball to see where it is after it crosses the plane of the front of the plate. To do that you need ridiculously long math formulas which I would quote for you if my home network just didn't crash because Vista sucks.
Indeed, Pitch f/x measures pitch break from the point of release to the front of the plate, but it also provides a three-dimensional view of each specified strike zone as well as home plate. In other words, this detailed view allows one to view the path of the pitch after it crosses the plane of the front of the plate. While it doesn't tabulate the break from release point to catcher's glove, it ensures the utmost accuracy of balls and strikes. Which is why I questioned your original hypothesis that Joba benefitted from five gift calls when in reality he received two. Of course a one-dimensional graph cannot possibly illustrate these nuances, but MLB's umpire monitoring system is comprehensive enough to render graphs downright archaic.
QUOTE
The insanely detailed pitch/fx system classifies a "swinging strike" and "foul tip" differently even though in every other accounting of baseball events they are lumped together as swinging strikes. I record them as swinging strikes on my scoresheet, and my pitch/fx spreadsheet correctly translates the foul tips into swinging strikes. I noted accurate counts for swinging strikes for Joba's game and for Beckett's game and pointed out that the b-ref data for swinging strikes are generally in error (since they were in error for Beckett's game in particular).
And, no, you didn't ask a question: you "corrected" me by citing a source I had already noticed and pointed out was inaccurate. And, yeah, that is a little rude (or it shows an inability to grasp the idea that b-ref might not be infallible).
Forgive me for questioning your evaluation system. Perhaps you're the one who shows an inability to grasp the idea that Van-ref might not be infallible.
QUOTE (SoxFanInCali @ May 18 2009, 11:42 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2300125
It's not really fair to use Koufax as an example of someone who has no minor league innings pitched in order to prove this point. The main reason he never pitched in the minors was the "bonus baby" rules of the time, which meant he had to be on the major league roster immediately. I don't think there is much doubt that the Dodgers would have sent him to the minor leagues to work out his control issues if the rules allowed it.
They were forced to keep him in the bigs at ages 19 and 20, where he had a roughly 1:1 K:W and didn't pitch much at all. At age 21 they could have optioned him and didn't, and he had the first of his four decent but non-Koufaxian seasons.
A similar thing happened to Jim Lonborg. By then, the rule was that all new signees from the previous summer were subject to a "first-year draft" unless protected on the 40-man roster, and furthermore, all but one of such players (the "designated optioned player") had to either be protected on the 25-man or clear waivers in ST. Lonborg and Tony C were guys who were kept in MLB, Rico Petrocelli apparently cleared waivers, while Reggie Smith and Sparky Lyle were unprotected by their original clubs and drafted by the Sox. (more details here).
It's not really fair to use Koufax as an example of someone who has no minor league innings pitched in order to prove this point. The main reason he never pitched in the minors was the "bonus baby" rules of the time, which meant he had to be on the major league roster immediately. I don't think there is much doubt that the Dodgers would have sent him to the minor leagues to work out his control issues if the rules allowed it.
They were forced to keep him in the bigs at ages 19 and 20, where he had a roughly 1:1 K:W and didn't pitch much at all. At age 21 they could have optioned him and didn't, and he had the first of his four decent but non-Koufaxian seasons.
A similar thing happened to Jim Lonborg. By then, the rule was that all new signees from the previous summer were subject to a "first-year draft" unless protected on the 40-man roster, and furthermore, all but one of such players (the "designated optioned player") had to either be protected on the 25-man or clear waivers in ST. Lonborg and Tony C were guys who were kept in MLB, Rico Petrocelli apparently cleared waivers, while Reggie Smith and Sparky Lyle were unprotected by their original clubs and drafted by the Sox. (more details here).
QUOTE (DieHardSoxFan1 @ May 18 2009, 10:56 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2301241
Indeed, Pitch f/x measures pitch break from the point of release to the front of the plate, but it also provides a three-dimensional view of each specified strike zone as well as home plate. In other words, this detailed view allows one to view the path of the pitch after it crosses the plane of the front of the plate. While it doesn't tabulate the break from release point to catcher's glove, it ensures the utmost accuracy of balls and strikes. Which is why I questioned your original hypothesis that Joba benefitted from five gift calls when in reality he received two. Of course a one-dimensional graph cannot possibly illustrate these nuances, but MLB's umpire monitoring system is comprehensive enough to render graphs downright archaic.
Looking back at the data, the punchout of Varitek in the 2nd, which you don't mention, was a complete gift. And the other two questionable calls (Bay in the 3rd, Lowell in the 5th) were low strikes that were within the rulebook strike zone -- but the de facto strike zone of the average MLB ump stops a good three inches short of the rulebook. (To be fairer to Joba, the Pedroia and Lowell punchouts were pitches that MLB umpires call strikes a bit more often than balls, so it's three gifts and two borderlines, which I lumped together as "dubious.")
Who is producing these 3-D views from the pitch/fx data?
Indeed, Pitch f/x measures pitch break from the point of release to the front of the plate, but it also provides a three-dimensional view of each specified strike zone as well as home plate. In other words, this detailed view allows one to view the path of the pitch after it crosses the plane of the front of the plate. While it doesn't tabulate the break from release point to catcher's glove, it ensures the utmost accuracy of balls and strikes. Which is why I questioned your original hypothesis that Joba benefitted from five gift calls when in reality he received two. Of course a one-dimensional graph cannot possibly illustrate these nuances, but MLB's umpire monitoring system is comprehensive enough to render graphs downright archaic.
Looking back at the data, the punchout of Varitek in the 2nd, which you don't mention, was a complete gift. And the other two questionable calls (Bay in the 3rd, Lowell in the 5th) were low strikes that were within the rulebook strike zone -- but the de facto strike zone of the average MLB ump stops a good three inches short of the rulebook. (To be fairer to Joba, the Pedroia and Lowell punchouts were pitches that MLB umpires call strikes a bit more often than balls, so it's three gifts and two borderlines, which I lumped together as "dubious.")
Who is producing these 3-D views from the pitch/fx data?
QUOTE (Eric Van @ May 19 2009, 12:25 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2301220
All Jnai is doing is plotting where pitch/fx says the ball was when it reached the front of the plate. Pitch/fx data includes break, but it does not extrapolate the trajectory of the ball to see where it is after it crosses the plane of the front of the plate. To do that you need ridiculously long math formulas which I would quote for you if my home network just didn't crash because Vista sucks.
How about rebooting the thing and sharing them with us?
If you really have something you're confident is better than B-ref, why not show it to us? DHSF1 is asking some very fair questions here, particularly since B-Ref is so respected in general.
All Jnai is doing is plotting where pitch/fx says the ball was when it reached the front of the plate. Pitch/fx data includes break, but it does not extrapolate the trajectory of the ball to see where it is after it crosses the plane of the front of the plate. To do that you need ridiculously long math formulas which I would quote for you if my home network just didn't crash because Vista sucks.
How about rebooting the thing and sharing them with us?
If you really have something you're confident is better than B-ref, why not show it to us? DHSF1 is asking some very fair questions here, particularly since B-Ref is so respected in general.
QUOTE (Eric Van @ May 19 2009, 12:25 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2301220
To do that you need ridiculously long math formulas which I would quote for you if my home network just didn't crash because Vista sucks.
I have the time. When you get a second, can you post them, as well as the explaination?
I'm pretty interested in this, and I've fallen behind the curve on the pitch f/x stuff...I'm begging to be taught.
To do that you need ridiculously long math formulas which I would quote for you if my home network just didn't crash because Vista sucks.
I have the time. When you get a second, can you post them, as well as the explaination?
I'm pretty interested in this, and I've fallen behind the curve on the pitch f/x stuff...I'm begging to be taught.
QUOTE (URISoxFan @ May 19 2009, 08:40 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2301481
I have the time. When you get a second, can you post them, as well as the explaination?
I'm pretty interested in this, and I've fallen behind the curve on the pitch f/x stuff...I'm begging to be taught.
First, the de facto strike zone, derived from a lot of 2008 data. Negative numbers mean distance outside the edge of the rulebook zone and positive numbers indicate inches inside the edge.
To the left:
-3.5 or worse, ball
-2.75 to -3.5, usual ball
-2.0 to -2.75, usual strike
-2.0 or better, strike
To the right:
-2.0 or worse, ball
-1.5 to -2.0, usual ball
-1.0 to -1.5, usual strike
-1.0 or better, strike
High:
0 or worse, ball
0 to 0.5, usual ball
0.5 to 1.0, usual strike
1.0 or better, strike
Low:
-0.5 or worse, ball
-0.5 to 0.5, usual ball
0.5 to 1.5, usual strike
1.5 or better, strike
You can see that the gray area ("usual strike" + "usual ball") to the right and at the top is only an inch wide, but it's 1.5 inches wide left and two inches wide low. The division between the "ball," "strike", and gray area is based on the data, after that I just divided the gray areas in half for the sake of consistency (which I also think would be the pattern with more data -- the actual number of pitches I had in the gray area wasn't enough to divide them up empirically).
And now, the hairy formulas to calculate final pitch position from the pfx data:
The actual position of a pitch to the umpire's left is (pitch/fx tags in {}):
=IF({@px}<0,10+12*{@px}+MAX(0,({@vx0}*(85/176/{end_speed})+0.5*{@ax}*((85/176/{end_speed})^2+2*(85/176/{end_speed})*(({@y0}-17/12)/({end_speed}+{start_speed})*15/11)))*12),"")
What this is doing is calculating how long the pitch is passing over the plate and how much it is moving from left to right while it is doing so. As with the strike zone report above, a value of "0" means on the edge of the rulebook strike zone, negative values are outside and positive ones over the plate; if the pitch was to the right of the center of the plate it just returns the null string. Numbers like "85/176" are mostly converting from mph to feet or inches per second.
(This actually is an estimation since it calculates time to the plate by averaging initial and final velocity. I just discovered that I haven't been using the inconsequentially more accurate version which solves a quadratic equation instead -- but here's the version of that for strikes to the ump's right:
=IF({@px}>0,10-12*{@px}-MIN(0,({vx0)*(85/176/{end_speed})+0.5*{@ax}*((85/176/{end_speed})^2+2*(85/176/{end_speed})*((-SQRT({@vy0}^2-2*{@ay}*({@y0}-17/12))-{@vy0})/{@ay})))*12),"")
An estimate of the high strike:
=({@sz_top}-{@pz})*12+1.5+192*((82.5/({start_speed}+{end_speed})+((17-MIN(8.5,12*ABS({@px})))/12)/({end_speed}*22/15))^2-((82.5/({start_speed}+{end_speed}))^2))-(17-MIN(8.5,12*ABS({@px})))/600*{@pfx_z}
This roughly calculates the drop due to both gravity and spin as the pitch passes over the plate. I have notes for a more accurate version that includes the interaction between the shape of the plate and the horizontal break of the pitch.
The low strike needs no adjustment and is simply:
=({@pz}-{@sz_bot})*12-1.5
The 1.5 in both of these is half a ball width.
I have the time. When you get a second, can you post them, as well as the explaination?
I'm pretty interested in this, and I've fallen behind the curve on the pitch f/x stuff...I'm begging to be taught.
First, the de facto strike zone, derived from a lot of 2008 data. Negative numbers mean distance outside the edge of the rulebook zone and positive numbers indicate inches inside the edge.
To the left:
-3.5 or worse, ball
-2.75 to -3.5, usual ball
-2.0 to -2.75, usual strike
-2.0 or better, strike
To the right:
-2.0 or worse, ball
-1.5 to -2.0, usual ball
-1.0 to -1.5, usual strike
-1.0 or better, strike
High:
0 or worse, ball
0 to 0.5, usual ball
0.5 to 1.0, usual strike
1.0 or better, strike
Low:
-0.5 or worse, ball
-0.5 to 0.5, usual ball
0.5 to 1.5, usual strike
1.5 or better, strike
You can see that the gray area ("usual strike" + "usual ball") to the right and at the top is only an inch wide, but it's 1.5 inches wide left and two inches wide low. The division between the "ball," "strike", and gray area is based on the data, after that I just divided the gray areas in half for the sake of consistency (which I also think would be the pattern with more data -- the actual number of pitches I had in the gray area wasn't enough to divide them up empirically).
And now, the hairy formulas to calculate final pitch position from the pfx data:
The actual position of a pitch to the umpire's left is (pitch/fx tags in {}):
=IF({@px}<0,10+12*{@px}+MAX(0,({@vx0}*(85/176/{end_speed})+0.5*{@ax}*((85/176/{end_speed})^2+2*(85/176/{end_speed})*(({@y0}-17/12)/({end_speed}+{start_speed})*15/11)))*12),"")
What this is doing is calculating how long the pitch is passing over the plate and how much it is moving from left to right while it is doing so. As with the strike zone report above, a value of "0" means on the edge of the rulebook strike zone, negative values are outside and positive ones over the plate; if the pitch was to the right of the center of the plate it just returns the null string. Numbers like "85/176" are mostly converting from mph to feet or inches per second.
(This actually is an estimation since it calculates time to the plate by averaging initial and final velocity. I just discovered that I haven't been using the inconsequentially more accurate version which solves a quadratic equation instead -- but here's the version of that for strikes to the ump's right:
=IF({@px}>0,10-12*{@px}-MIN(0,({vx0)*(85/176/{end_speed})+0.5*{@ax}*((85/176/{end_speed})^2+2*(85/176/{end_speed})*((-SQRT({@vy0}^2-2*{@ay}*({@y0}-17/12))-{@vy0})/{@ay})))*12),"")
An estimate of the high strike:
=({@sz_top}-{@pz})*12+1.5+192*((82.5/({start_speed}+{end_speed})+((17-MIN(8.5,12*ABS({@px})))/12)/({end_speed}*22/15))^2-((82.5/({start_speed}+{end_speed}))^2))-(17-MIN(8.5,12*ABS({@px})))/600*{@pfx_z}
This roughly calculates the drop due to both gravity and spin as the pitch passes over the plate. I have notes for a more accurate version that includes the interaction between the shape of the plate and the horizontal break of the pitch.
The low strike needs no adjustment and is simply:
=({@pz}-{@sz_bot})*12-1.5
The 1.5 in both of these is half a ball width.
QUOTE (Eric Van @ May 20 2009, 09:21 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2303544
To the left:
-3.5 or worse, ball
-2.75 to -3.5, usual ball
-2.0 to -2.75, usual strike
-2.0 or better, strike
To the right:
-2.0 or worse, ball
-1.5 to -2.0, usual ball
-1.0 to -1.5, usual strike
-1.0 or better, strike
Are these lateral corrections made from the pitcher's vantage point or the umpire's?
To the left:
-3.5 or worse, ball
-2.75 to -3.5, usual ball
-2.0 to -2.75, usual strike
-2.0 or better, strike
To the right:
-2.0 or worse, ball
-1.5 to -2.0, usual ball
-1.0 to -1.5, usual strike
-1.0 or better, strike
Are these lateral corrections made from the pitcher's vantage point or the umpire's?
From today's Extra Bases blog:
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/reds...as/extra_bases/
QUOTE
No days off in sight for Jason Bay. Francona was asked about whether Boston's best hitter needs some time off? Franocna said he offered to DH Bay in one game but the outfielder said he preferred to play in the field. Bay also told Francona he would never tell him if he needed a day off, which puts the decision squarely on Francona's shoulder. Strangle this issue even comes up. Can't players play 162 anymore?
Several typos followed by a useless rhetorical question. Maybe it's not fair to nitpick a blog post, but sheesh.
EDIT - It would actually be nice if Nick would do a column that tries to answer his question. What percentage of players play 162 these days? How does it compare to yesteryear? If there's been a change, when did it take place? What do front office people (preferably not Ricciardi) think about the issue?
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/reds...as/extra_bases/
QUOTE
No days off in sight for Jason Bay. Francona was asked about whether Boston's best hitter needs some time off? Franocna said he offered to DH Bay in one game but the outfielder said he preferred to play in the field. Bay also told Francona he would never tell him if he needed a day off, which puts the decision squarely on Francona's shoulder. Strangle this issue even comes up. Can't players play 162 anymore?
Several typos followed by a useless rhetorical question. Maybe it's not fair to nitpick a blog post, but sheesh.
EDIT - It would actually be nice if Nick would do a column that tries to answer his question. What percentage of players play 162 these days? How does it compare to yesteryear? If there's been a change, when did it take place? What do front office people (preferably not Ricciardi) think about the issue?
C
Corsi Combover
Guest
QUOTE
Kevin Youkilis is not only hitting behind David Ortiz in tonight's lineup, but he appears to have his back as well, defending him during this prolonged slump.
“Well, I think if everyone stopped asking questions about David Ortiz and left him alone and maybe he’ll start hitting again if everyone just leaves him alone. Maybe talk about the weather outside or something. Maybe get off the baseball convo (conversation) and maybe talk about something else. Maybe that’ll help him out.”
Never heard of such a slump buster, but who knows?
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/reds..._has_papis.html
Really, Nick? You don't think that maybe if David wasn't being barraged by questions on a nightly basis, he'd have a better chance of breaking out of his slump? Ugh.
Kevin Youkilis is not only hitting behind David Ortiz in tonight's lineup, but he appears to have his back as well, defending him during this prolonged slump.
“Well, I think if everyone stopped asking questions about David Ortiz and left him alone and maybe he’ll start hitting again if everyone just leaves him alone. Maybe talk about the weather outside or something. Maybe get off the baseball convo (conversation) and maybe talk about something else. Maybe that’ll help him out.”
Never heard of such a slump buster, but who knows?
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/reds..._has_papis.html
Really, Nick? You don't think that maybe if David wasn't being barraged by questions on a nightly basis, he'd have a better chance of breaking out of his slump? Ugh.
C
Corsi Combover
Guest
QUOTE (bosox188 @ May 20 2009, 07:01 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2304384
Does he ever not end a piece with a useless question?
I don't know, does he?
Does he ever not end a piece with a useless question?
I don't know, does he?
QUOTE (mabrowndog @ May 20 2009, 08:03 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2303601
Are these lateral corrections made from the pitcher's vantage point or the umpire's?
From the ump's. The zone and gray areas are wider to the left because the usual head position is to the right of the catcher.
Are these lateral corrections made from the pitcher's vantage point or the umpire's?
From the ump's. The zone and gray areas are wider to the left because the usual head position is to the right of the catcher.
QUOTE (SoxScout @ May 21 2009, 05:10 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2305832
The ultimate tracking device
Who's Jake?
Jake? He's the guy Teets pencils in at leadoff in CF most nights.
The ultimate tracking device
Who's Jake?
Jake? He's the guy Teets pencils in at leadoff in CF most nights.
What's worse? Musing that it makes sense that the Sox are scouting Jeff Francouer because he's a Sox fan or asking in unfunny jest "Will Wally The Green Monster have to wait as long as Jim Rice did for induction into the Mascot Hall of Fame?"
Don't click on this link
Don't click on this link
QUOTE (TheoShmeo @ May 31 2009, 07:42 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2324491
What's worse? Musing that it makes sense that the Sox are scouting Jeff Francouer because he's a Sox fan or asking in unfunny jest "Will Wally The Green Monster have to wait as long as Jim Rice did for induction into the Mascot Hall of Fame?"
Don't click on this link
That weekly Apropos of Nothing section is the biggest waste of space in the history of newspapers. What the hell is the sense of making the statement that he's going to miss the Metrodome with nothing else added? Is this supposed to pique our interest? If so, what use is it if we never find out *why* he's going to miss the Metrodome? It surely can't be the playing field itself. So is it the stadium's extra-wide toilets? Its generous heapin' helpin' of nachos? We'll never know and, worse, we really don't even want to know.
So what is the point of the garbage in this section? To piss us off and make us read it? (Yes, I think.)
Ron Gant was a heckuva an athlete but just an average person.
The National Anthem is more awe-inspiring when played at night than during the day.
If I could choose any player with whom to start a team, I'd make sure that it was either a good young player who could play many years for me or a good veteran who could lead by example.
It's worse than the mindless nonsense that Larry King (adds or used to add) to his columns. "I'm a dark meat guy." "I like apples a lot, but I like apple pie even better, and apple crisp is the best of them all. Especially when it's topped with vanilla ice cream." "Don't ask me to figure out my own taxes. I can't do it, I always rely on someone else to do them for me."
I just don't get it.
What's worse? Musing that it makes sense that the Sox are scouting Jeff Francouer because he's a Sox fan or asking in unfunny jest "Will Wally The Green Monster have to wait as long as Jim Rice did for induction into the Mascot Hall of Fame?"
Don't click on this link
That weekly Apropos of Nothing section is the biggest waste of space in the history of newspapers. What the hell is the sense of making the statement that he's going to miss the Metrodome with nothing else added? Is this supposed to pique our interest? If so, what use is it if we never find out *why* he's going to miss the Metrodome? It surely can't be the playing field itself. So is it the stadium's extra-wide toilets? Its generous heapin' helpin' of nachos? We'll never know and, worse, we really don't even want to know.
So what is the point of the garbage in this section? To piss us off and make us read it? (Yes, I think.)
Ron Gant was a heckuva an athlete but just an average person.
The National Anthem is more awe-inspiring when played at night than during the day.
If I could choose any player with whom to start a team, I'd make sure that it was either a good young player who could play many years for me or a good veteran who could lead by example.
It's worse than the mindless nonsense that Larry King (adds or used to add) to his columns. "I'm a dark meat guy." "I like apples a lot, but I like apple pie even better, and apple crisp is the best of them all. Especially when it's topped with vanilla ice cream." "Don't ask me to figure out my own taxes. I can't do it, I always rely on someone else to do them for me."
I just don't get it.
I really don't get the Wally quip, I mean at all. I know that it's supposed to be a light-hearted jab at the baseball establishment for "keeping" Jim Rice waiting for so long, but what's the point? And that's really the question I ask myself after reading his columns: what's the point? Every other paragraph ends with a question ... a question that he should be answering. I don't know why I read his crap because I learn nothing.
Ferm, you bring up an interesting point and is something that I was thinking while I was reading the paper today: every person on Earth has said that the Metrodome sucks. It's antiseptic, easy fly balls get lost in the roof and unless it's a World Series game, it's quieter than a morgue. Yet for some reason Nick Cafardo likes the place. Why does he like the place? I have no fucking clue. He doesn't tell us. It would be nice if he did because maybe, just maybe, it would give us an interesting point of view on the place. Even if he said, it has the best press box spread in the American League Central that would at least give me a clue as to what makes the HHH unique.
But Cafardo just won't do that. And I don't know whether it's because he's lazy or if he feels that this kind of writing allows him to be clever. If I had a guess it would be the latter. One of these days I'm going to write him an email and ask him about his choice of writing and whether he thinks it's an effective form of communication. I already have a pretty decent idea of what he will say.
Ferm, you bring up an interesting point and is something that I was thinking while I was reading the paper today: every person on Earth has said that the Metrodome sucks. It's antiseptic, easy fly balls get lost in the roof and unless it's a World Series game, it's quieter than a morgue. Yet for some reason Nick Cafardo likes the place. Why does he like the place? I have no fucking clue. He doesn't tell us. It would be nice if he did because maybe, just maybe, it would give us an interesting point of view on the place. Even if he said, it has the best press box spread in the American League Central that would at least give me a clue as to what makes the HHH unique.
But Cafardo just won't do that. And I don't know whether it's because he's lazy or if he feels that this kind of writing allows him to be clever. If I had a guess it would be the latter. One of these days I'm going to write him an email and ask him about his choice of writing and whether he thinks it's an effective form of communication. I already have a pretty decent idea of what he will say.
QUOTE (Ferm Sheller @ May 31 2009, 11:31 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2324611
That weekly Apropos of Nothing section is the biggest waste of space in the history of newspapers.
How can you say that when just a few pages over is Shank's "Piecing Things Together" column?
That weekly Apropos of Nothing section is the biggest waste of space in the history of newspapers.
How can you say that when just a few pages over is Shank's "Piecing Things Together" column?
QUOTE (ifmanis5 @ May 31 2009, 01:52 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2324847
How can you say that when just a few pages over is Shank's "Piecing Things Together" column?
Including this gem.
"Channel 4 is blatantly embedded with the Krafts and the Patriots. During a nightly newscast last week, an infomercial on the opening of a luxury hotel at Patriot Place was passed off as actual news. "All Access" comes with a price."
http://www.boston.com/sports/other_sports/...hings_together/
Is this guy serious? You work for a paper partially owned by the Red Sox A-Hole!!
How can you say that when just a few pages over is Shank's "Piecing Things Together" column?
Including this gem.
"Channel 4 is blatantly embedded with the Krafts and the Patriots. During a nightly newscast last week, an infomercial on the opening of a luxury hotel at Patriot Place was passed off as actual news. "All Access" comes with a price."
http://www.boston.com/sports/other_sports/...hings_together/
Is this guy serious? You work for a paper partially owned by the Red Sox A-Hole!!
Apropos of nothing, Nick seems to have infected Peter King's MMQB, as King went the "apropos of nothing" route for one of his tidbits.
Also, Joe Poz does his own, much more interesting version of "Apropos" (although I didn't really enjoy reading "So how about this" 30 times):
Also, Joe Poz does his own, much more interesting version of "Apropos" (although I didn't really enjoy reading "So how about this" 30 times):
The apropos of nothing piece is of course terrible, but it's like trying to distinguish a christmas light against a sun's worth of suck in this latest column.
He hides behind a supposed "panel" of "scouts, front office people, players, and coaches," but that doesn't make him unaccountable for a list full of ridiculousness. And who is this panel? When normal newspaper writers use a panel to make up a story, they tell us who the panel is - why not use ex-players, other media, etc., so that we can evaluate why these choices are being made the way they are? As it is, we'll have to assume they're all just Nick Cafardo in disguise.
Look at the rankings and rationale he provides:
QUOTE
6. Mike Scioscia, Angels: Survived a massive list of injuries to his pitching staff, and free agent losses like Mark Teixeira and Frankie Rodriguez. His teams are always well-prepared (6).
Okay, whatever - people respect Scoiscia even though he overmanages. But how has he "survived" the injuries and free agent losses? The team is 25-24. Is this meant literally? Like Cafardo thought he would actually die?
QUOTE
7. Charlie Manuel, Phillies: Easy does it, but he does it. Somehow wins with an average pitching staff. Great teacher of hitting (12).
Hmmm, somehow... Oh, I know how. They've scored 267 runs, second only to the Dodgers in the NL. That's how.
Rank in standings in each division of the leader in runs scored in the NL: 1, 1, 1. (The AL is a different story, but still.)
QUOTE
9. Lou Piniella, Cubs: Facing adversity with injuries and underperforming key players. Hasn't changed his style; master motivator (10).
Um, doesn't being a master motivator mean your players don't consistently underperform? Hasn't PinIella squandered stacked Cubs teams in the last two years, especially, in the playoffs, and doesn't he currently have them treading water at .500? EVERY team has injuries and underperforming players.
QUOTE
10. Dusty Baker, Reds: Experienced motivator whom players adore. Has the ability to minimize tough situations, as he did for many years managing Barry Bonds in San Francisco (11).
This is mind-blowing. Dusty Baker. Sure, his team is inexplicably over .500 right now, but did no one see the 2006 Cubs team? 66 and 96? He never won as many as 90 games with the Cubs in five years. If it wasn't for Barry Bonds, this guy wouldn't have lasted 5 years managing in the bigs. 10th best in the league my ass.
QUOTE
28. Don Wakamatsu, Mariners: Has done a good job changing the culture and making players accountable. Solid during a game, but the sample size is small (NA).
This is the real abomination. Wakamatsu, who's got the crap-ass Mariners three games under .500 despite being given a AAA roster (look at their lineup - they hit collectively .258/.311/.387) and being a first-year manager in the league, is the third-worst manager in baseball?
And then he puts the two most-recent hires as the last two. They're the two worst managers in baseball? Then why were they hired? They're not better than anyone else? Jim Tracy is a lifetime .500 manager (562-572). He's not better than Cecil Cooper or Manny Acta or Fredi Gonzalez? Why not? He's way more experienced and has a better lifetime record. There are a lot of managers on that list that aren't even close to .500 lifetime.
It seems to me that the list is just a list of the most well-known managers, not in any way indicative of their skills as tacticians or teachers. The managers of the major teams are at the top and the managers of the lesser covered teams are at the bottom. The managers with more tenure are at the top and the managers with less tenure are at the bottom. I love how Joe Maddon went from 21 to 8 because his team went to the Series. What, he got a whole lot smarter over night?
I think anyone who's actually watched the Rays over the past two years knew Maddon was a great manager when the Rays were bad and that's why most knowledgeable baseball fans saw the Rays coming last year (if not quite that fast). That the system could have ranked him 21st last year is bad enough.
This list is classic terrible Cafardo, and the Nationals piling on is so bad I can't even get into it. Did he really make a steroids weren't working joke?
He hides behind a supposed "panel" of "scouts, front office people, players, and coaches," but that doesn't make him unaccountable for a list full of ridiculousness. And who is this panel? When normal newspaper writers use a panel to make up a story, they tell us who the panel is - why not use ex-players, other media, etc., so that we can evaluate why these choices are being made the way they are? As it is, we'll have to assume they're all just Nick Cafardo in disguise.
Look at the rankings and rationale he provides:
QUOTE
6. Mike Scioscia, Angels: Survived a massive list of injuries to his pitching staff, and free agent losses like Mark Teixeira and Frankie Rodriguez. His teams are always well-prepared (6).
Okay, whatever - people respect Scoiscia even though he overmanages. But how has he "survived" the injuries and free agent losses? The team is 25-24. Is this meant literally? Like Cafardo thought he would actually die?
QUOTE
7. Charlie Manuel, Phillies: Easy does it, but he does it. Somehow wins with an average pitching staff. Great teacher of hitting (12).
Hmmm, somehow... Oh, I know how. They've scored 267 runs, second only to the Dodgers in the NL. That's how.
Rank in standings in each division of the leader in runs scored in the NL: 1, 1, 1. (The AL is a different story, but still.)
QUOTE
9. Lou Piniella, Cubs: Facing adversity with injuries and underperforming key players. Hasn't changed his style; master motivator (10).
Um, doesn't being a master motivator mean your players don't consistently underperform? Hasn't PinIella squandered stacked Cubs teams in the last two years, especially, in the playoffs, and doesn't he currently have them treading water at .500? EVERY team has injuries and underperforming players.
QUOTE
10. Dusty Baker, Reds: Experienced motivator whom players adore. Has the ability to minimize tough situations, as he did for many years managing Barry Bonds in San Francisco (11).
This is mind-blowing. Dusty Baker. Sure, his team is inexplicably over .500 right now, but did no one see the 2006 Cubs team? 66 and 96? He never won as many as 90 games with the Cubs in five years. If it wasn't for Barry Bonds, this guy wouldn't have lasted 5 years managing in the bigs. 10th best in the league my ass.
QUOTE
28. Don Wakamatsu, Mariners: Has done a good job changing the culture and making players accountable. Solid during a game, but the sample size is small (NA).
This is the real abomination. Wakamatsu, who's got the crap-ass Mariners three games under .500 despite being given a AAA roster (look at their lineup - they hit collectively .258/.311/.387) and being a first-year manager in the league, is the third-worst manager in baseball?
And then he puts the two most-recent hires as the last two. They're the two worst managers in baseball? Then why were they hired? They're not better than anyone else? Jim Tracy is a lifetime .500 manager (562-572). He's not better than Cecil Cooper or Manny Acta or Fredi Gonzalez? Why not? He's way more experienced and has a better lifetime record. There are a lot of managers on that list that aren't even close to .500 lifetime.
It seems to me that the list is just a list of the most well-known managers, not in any way indicative of their skills as tacticians or teachers. The managers of the major teams are at the top and the managers of the lesser covered teams are at the bottom. The managers with more tenure are at the top and the managers with less tenure are at the bottom. I love how Joe Maddon went from 21 to 8 because his team went to the Series. What, he got a whole lot smarter over night?
I think anyone who's actually watched the Rays over the past two years knew Maddon was a great manager when the Rays were bad and that's why most knowledgeable baseball fans saw the Rays coming last year (if not quite that fast). That the system could have ranked him 21st last year is bad enough.
This list is classic terrible Cafardo, and the Nationals piling on is so bad I can't even get into it. Did he really make a steroids weren't working joke?
I have no idea why Tony LaRusa went up from when this list was first picked.
He won in 1989 and 2006.
He won in 1989 and 2006.
QUOTE (John Marzano Olympic Hero @ Jun 1 2009, 03:24 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2326544
I have no idea why Tony LaRusa went up from when this list was first picked.
'The Genius' picks up points for every DUI.
I have no idea why Tony LaRusa went up from when this list was first picked.
'The Genius' picks up points for every DUI.
Oh, good grief.
QUOTE
Touching the bases
Apropos of nothing: 1. Coincidence or good-luck charm? David Ortiz hit the ball hard Wednesday in Detroit after he had his beard trimmed by LMontro, barber to the athletes. (See: montro99.com); 2. Are there any good baseball CEOs anymore?; 3. If I had an extra $500 million lying around, I'd buy the Texas Rangers; 4. Cleveland Indians Comedy Corner: Before this weekend's games, Indians hitters led the league in strikeouts (440) and their pitchers led the league in walks (231); 5. Nice touch by the Red Sox, having Tommy Harper represent them at the draft.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/arti...e_trade/?page=4
The answer is yes, Nick. His name is Larry Lucchino. He works for the same damn team you pretend to cover. There are probably others, but that's the one I came up with after 0.03 seconds of thought.
QUOTE
Touching the bases
Apropos of nothing: 1. Coincidence or good-luck charm? David Ortiz hit the ball hard Wednesday in Detroit after he had his beard trimmed by LMontro, barber to the athletes. (See: montro99.com); 2. Are there any good baseball CEOs anymore?; 3. If I had an extra $500 million lying around, I'd buy the Texas Rangers; 4. Cleveland Indians Comedy Corner: Before this weekend's games, Indians hitters led the league in strikeouts (440) and their pitchers led the league in walks (231); 5. Nice touch by the Red Sox, having Tommy Harper represent them at the draft.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/arti...e_trade/?page=4
The answer is yes, Nick. His name is Larry Lucchino. He works for the same damn team you pretend to cover. There are probably others, but that's the one I came up with after 0.03 seconds of thought.
- Status