Joe Posnanski: Lord of Lists

[Worst Trade Evah]

This part was wonderful:
QUOTE
And then: That team that spent $50 million more than any other team, that team with three sure Hall of Famers and as many as four others, that team that bought Milwaukee's best pitcher and Anaheim's best hitter and Toronto's No. 2 starter and Boston's favorite Idiot and the most expensive player in the history of baseball and so on, that team will win the World Series, and spray champagne on each other, and they will tell you that they won because they came together as a group and kept pulling themselves off the ground and didn't listen to the doubters.

And then, if you are a not a Yankees fan, you will want to throw up. If you are not a Yankees fan, you are left hoping that next year the randomness of a short playoff series will get the Yankees and allow some other team to win so we can celebrate the hope of Opening Day. And that's baseball.


Fris's point about the luxury tax is extremely well-made. Someone should forward that on to Joe P.

 

[Mr Jums]

QUOTE (drleather2001 @ Nov 7 2009, 02:44 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2673319
I agree with Pos (and you), but if you're going to make an argument that people will listen to, you have to isolate the key point.

For instance, you can't bring up the "nurturing the prospects" argument when talking about the Yankees, because the obvious rebuttal is "Pettitte, Posada, Jeter, and Joba are home-grown. Fuck you."

The reason that people don't want to hear the payroll argument is that it gets intertwined with bitterness from people like biased Red Sox fans, and people just tune out. That's not to say that Red Sox fans "aren't allowed" to make the payroll argument, but they have to narrow the argument. Watch for counter arguments. When talking payroll, it will never behoove Red Sox fans to compare the Yankees to the Red Sox, except in terms of dollars spent and as part of an overall inequality in baseball. Don't get into subjective arguments about "who does it better" or any of that. This is a business issue.

Posnanski does this well. Take heed.


This is an excellent point. I posted fairly quickly and maybe should have taken more time to frame my feelings better. My point about their attempts to to run their organization through building off of players from their own farm system was that they had explicitly tried to do this in the past couple of years, and it didn't especially work, though whether that's because they didn't have the players, Cashman was overruled, they weren't patient enough, I don't exactly know, I'm sure it's a combination of several things. How I stated the argument was not the way I'd approach it with my friends who are Yankees fans, as I tend to get pretty much the same response that you predicted, only usually more vulgar.

Posnanski does it very well because a) he knows a lot about sports, and covering the Kansas City Royals has a first hand look at a level of financial and talent inequity that we should consider ourselves fantastically lucky we don't have to deal with b) he is an utterly fantastic writer and c) he doesn't have that unfortunate built in bias that I (and basically all Red Sox fans do) against the Yankees that tinges our arguments, and lends an air of "sour grapes" to the point being made, regardless of whether that point is factually based or not.

In a sense though, I don't think it matters tremendously how the argument is framed. I can make the most factually solid, well thought out and eloquent argument in the world (or accomplish the same thing by printing a copy of Joe's article) and a typical Yankee will tell me to fuck myself or say yeah, so what? This seems like the type of thing where if you believe one side or the other, you aren't likely to be convinced otherwise.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

QUOTE (bob burda @ Nov 7 2009, 07:03 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2673397
... If you instead want to join the beaten biscuits, you slash payroll and take the Yankee payola in the form of your distribution of the luxury tax money.

.... The rest of the league is mostly fodder for these teams and the Yankees, and the "smarter" $s move in the "bottom-est" 8-10 teams is to slash the budget and take your profit from the Yankee hand out/luxury tax.
There is no distribution of the luxury tax to the "biscuit/fodder" teams. There is a distribution of all revenue sharing money to all MLB teams. (Of course in the case of the most profitable teams, the net effect of revenue sharing is to have money removed from their pockets.)

It's a small point, but a lot of fans confuse the luxury tax with revenue sharing.

 

[bob burda]

QUOTE (HriniakPosterChild @ Nov 8 2009, 01:32 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2674298
There is no distribution of the luxury tax to the "biscuit/fodder" teams. There is a distribution of all revenue sharing money to all MLB teams. (Of course in the case of the most profitable teams, the net effect of revenue sharing is to have money removed from their pockets.)

It's a small point, but a lot of fans confuse the luxury tax with revenue sharing.


Thanks for clarifying that. Does that mean there is a theoretical "break even" point for a team paying the luxury tax, where the distribution back is from the league is = to the amount paid into the pool?

 

[BucketOBalls]

QUOTE (bob burda @ Nov 9 2009, 12:08 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2676024
Thanks for clarifying that. Does that mean there is a theoretical "break even" point for a team paying the luxury tax, where the distribution back is from the league is = to the amount paid into the pool?


The luxury tax isn't paid back to teams. It goes into a central Industial Growth fund that MLB uses for things like player benefits and the promotion of the sport.
Edit: Doh. Sorry HPC.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

QUOTE (BucketOBalls @ Nov 8 2009, 09:41 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2676042
The luxury tax isn't paid back to teams. It goes into a central Industial Growth fund that MLB uses for things like player benefits and the promotion of the sport.
Wish I'd said that...

 

[Redkluzu]

I suggest all of you who questioned Belichick's decision last night read Joe today here.

QUOTE
He is about winning the game without passion or prejudice. He doesn’t give a damn if there were some hurt feelings on his defense. As we used to say in the old days: Tough noogies. He had no faith in his defense stopping Manning. And he coaches to win.* *And come to think of it: Wasn’t he showing MORE faith in his defense by thinking they could stop Peyton Manning’s Colts from the 30-yard line?


QUOTE
To me, the better knock on Belichick is the way the Patriots wasted (utterly wasted) two timeouts in that final, fateful drive....So I think Belichick coached lousy the last two minutes. But I also think the go-for-it call was vintage

 

[Statman]

QUOTE (Redkluzu @ Nov 16 2009, 06:55 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2687586
I suggest all of you who questioned Belichick's decision last night read Joe today here.


Posnanski's numbers are not as wide as he makes them out to be. In his column, he says:

QUOTE
And there you go — 78.8% chance of winning vs. a 70% chance if you punt. It really is clear cut.


However, Posnanski doesn't do any of his own calculations, but simply regurgitates the numbers put forth by Brian Burke in the New York Times. What Posnanski glosses over is that Burke's numbers are based on generalized league averages.

A calculation from the same New York Times "Fifth Down" blog presents the percentages customized to the specific offensive and defensive features of the Colts and the Patriots. Those figures show the percentages to be much closer than Posnanski makes them out to be (going for it: 77.3% vs. punting: 75.7%). Indeed, without a margin of error stated, I'd argue that these numbers show that it's impossible to know what was actually the right call.

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11...ourth-down-bid/

 

[Leather]

QUOTE (Statman @ Nov 16 2009, 07:29 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2687642
Posnanski's numbers are not as wide as he makes them out to be. In his column, he says:



However, Posnanski doesn't do any of his own calculations, but simply regurgitates the numbers put forth by Brian Burke in the New York Times. What Posnanski glosses over is that Burke's numbers are based on generalized league averages.

A calculation from the same New York Times "Fifth Down" blog presents the percentages customized to the specific offensive and defensive features of the Colts and the Patriots. Those figures show the percentages to be much closer than Posnanski makes them out to be (going for it: 77.3% vs. punting: 75.7%). Indeed, without a margin of error stated, I'd argue that these numbers show that it's impossible to know what was actually the right call.

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11...ourth-down-bid/


But those numbers still refute the idea that it was a horrible call (or even a bad one) because they seem to suggest it was a toss up.

 

[johnmd20]

QUOTE (drleather2001 @ Nov 16 2009, 08:53 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2687842
But those numbers still refute the idea that it was a horrible call (or even a bad one) because they seem to suggest it was a toss up.

Better than a toss up, the numbers suggest that it was in the Patriot's favor to go for it.

 

[Statman]

QUOTE (johnmd20 @ Nov 17 2009, 05:41 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2688137
Better than a toss up, the numbers suggest that it was in the Patriot's favor to go for it.


Actually they don't unless we know what the margin of error is.

 

[dwightinright]

QUOTE (Statman @ Nov 17 2009, 01:29 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2688588
Actually they don't unless we know what the margin of error is.



Fine. But the criticism has been that it was a HORRIBLE call. And that's clearly not the case.

 

[cannonball 1729]

QUOTE (Statman @ Nov 17 2009, 01:29 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2688588
Actually they don't unless we know what the margin of error is.

From the website:
QUOTE ( @ Nov 17 2009, 01:29 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2688588
They can simulate hundreds of thousands of N.F.L. outcomes in seconds, and their program is customizable to account for the strengths and weaknesses of the offensive and defensive units of each team.

The margin of error on a sample of hundreds of thousands is pretty darn close to zero. In fact, it's less than 0.2%.

 

[Alternate34]

Pos's 10 Under 30 HOFers

A little old, but interesting. Pos lists the 10 players under 30 he thinks will be eventual HOFers. Players have at least 500 GP, won 50 G for pitchers, or saved 100.

He admits its hard to predict at this point and demonstrates with a list 1985 under 30 "HOFers", noting 6 of the top 10 didn't make it.

I wonder about the 3B he picks. Generally 3B's have a hard time getting in because of the defensive and offensive demands upon them. Two 3B on the list seems to be unlikely and setting up the list for failure. I would probably replace Zimmerman or Wright with Felix Hernandez as Pos only has 2 pitchers on there (eligibility requirements remove Lincecum since he has yet to win 50 G).

 

[Seabass]

5,000 Words on Strat-O-Matic

This might be the best thing he's written.

 

[barew61]

QUOTE (Seabass177 @ Dec 23 2009, 11:19 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2740213
5,000 Words on Strat-O-Matic

This might be the best thing he's written.



Agreed. I had goosebumps while reading this for the entire second half of this story.

 

[Foulkey Reese]

This is such an awesome article.


http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2010/01/02/the-royal-decade/

 

[johnmd20]

QUOTE (Foulkey Reese @ Jan 2 2010, 08:15 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2750687
This is such an awesome article.

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2010/01/02/the-royal-decade/

Reading that made me grateful to be a Sox fan. The Royals' decade was comical and that was an excellent rundown of said decade. To be a Royals fan is to expect to lose. That sucks.

 

[Foulkey Reese]

QUOTE (johnmd20 @ Jan 2 2010, 09:18 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2750756
Reading that made me grateful to be a Sox fan. The Royals' decade was comical and that was an excellent rundown of said decade. To be a Royals fan is to expect to lose. That sucks.

I had the same exact reaction. Very thankful for Theo and Tito.

 

[Rough Carrigan]

QUOTE (johnmd20 @ Jan 2 2010, 09:18 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2750756
Reading that made me grateful to be a Sox fan. The Royals' decade was comical and that was an excellent rundown of said decade. To be a Royals fan is to expect to lose. That sucks.

Additionally sad because I still, to some degree feel sympathy for them as another terrific late 70's team trying to get past the mfy's. Sort of enemy of my enemy is my friend affection.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

That read is sobering. It must suck supporting a team where you are utterly certain they are going to screw up every single time.

The small market excuses are hysterical in the comments section. The Minnesota fucking Twins play in their division. You'd think they'd figure out it's not the lack of money that keeps them in the cellar.

 

[BoSox Rule]

Another very good read

Best Players in Baseball: http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2010/01/04...ball/#more-2974

 

[Leather]

QUOTE (BoSox Rule @ Jan 5 2010, 01:50 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2755066
Another very good read

Best Players in Baseball: http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2010/01/04...ball/#more-2974


It's shocking that Griffey Jr. isn't on there more than once as a "close."

 

[Zedia]

I enjoyed reading Joe's evisceration of CHB's "Morris is better than Schilling" line:

QUOTE
You want to vote Morris because he was a bulldog and had a great World Series game. Well, OK: Pucker up because the Boston blowhard who was more of a bulldog and had more great World Series games will be on the ballot soon.

 

[johnmd20]

QUOTE (Zedia @ Jan 5 2010, 09:03 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2755761
I enjoyed reading Joe's evisceration of CHB's "Morris is better than Schilling" line:

What a great column. Absolutely, positively a must read. He always slaps Chass in the face, too, but he does it in such a conciliatory way, you just have to love the guy. And he called Jason Whitlock "Big Sexy". Awesome.

 

[Leather]

Do yourself a favor and don't read the comments section, because the stupid still lives there.

To Wit:

QUOTE
Now I know what you’ll say about Biggio. His peak years were overwhelming! He was the best player in baseball for 5 years! But you know what, I saw Craig Biggio play, and he wasn’t ever the best player in baseball, ever, not for one second, even if he was the best player in Stratomatic.


"I saw him play! I know better than you! You just look at stats! (Oh, what's that? You see him play too, Joe? You actually watch games? Oh, well...um...)"

QUOTE
In Joe’s previous post, he mentioned what was so fantastic about Biggio’s best season. He walked, he got hit by a ton of pitches, and he didn’t hit into double plays. All true. And there isn’t a baseball fan in the country who would pay to see any of those things.


What if you pay to see your team win? And also, this is a perfect example of Joe's point about focusing on whatever stats fit your agenda. Joe didn't say that those were the ONLY things fantastic about Biggio's '97 season. Guy hit 22 HR and stole 47 bases. That's not exciting baseball?!

QUOTE
more stuff about OF and 1Bs being better power hitters and being implicitly more deserving then everyone else...


Ugh. If this asshole can't see the difference in hitting styles for a 2B vs. an OF or 1B then he's an idiot.

And, for the record, I always liked watching Biggio hit, run and field. If he played in Boston or NY, he'd be a legend; basically Dustin Pedroia with speed for about 8 years.

 

[BoSox Rule]

http://www.baseballanalysts.com/ joined the CHB fun

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/changeup/

QUOTE
"For me, it's the same with Hall of Famers. Some guys just strike you as Cooperstown-worthy and others do not. Edgar Martinez was a very fine hitter, but I never said to myself, "The Mariners are coming to Fenway this weekend. I wonder how the Sox are going to pitch to Edgar Martinez?''

YOU might not have said that but why don't you talk to Red Sox advance scouts? Because I am positive they agonized over it.

But there you have it, this is Dan’s standard. At this point, given how much we know about what makes a baseball player good, isn’t this just criminal. Isn’t this the very height of arrogance. Stat folks are often criticized for being arrogant themselves, but isn’t it the person that says “it is because I know it to be” who’s arrogant? Not the person who arrives at some sort of logical, objective and defensible conclusion based on reason?

I want to revisit a Bill James quote I used in a piece about Shaughnessy last year to reinforce this point:

"Virtually all sportswriters, I suppose, believe that Jim Rice is an outstanding player. If you ask them how they know this, they'll tell you that they just know; I've seen him play. That's the difference in a nutshell between knowledge and bullshit; knowledge is something that can be objectively demonstrated to be true, and bullshit is something that you just 'know.' If someone can actually demonstrate that Jim Rice is a great ballplayer, I'd be most interested to see the evidence."

Thanks, Bill! And great timing, because guess who Dan's going to bring up next?!?!

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

really interesting article thats linked in the comments section...Bonds being named TSN player of the decade...a very different Bonds that the media has shown us.

QUOTE
SN: You have been with the Giants for almost seven seasons. What's amazing about your career in San Francisco is that you haven't really been protected in the batting order. How have you managed to put up the big numbers despite drawing so many walks?

BONDS: It's not like I don't have a big hitter behind me. Jeff Kent is a good hitter.


haha, Barry complenting Kent? in fact, he seems humbled about this award....


QUOTE
I've never really analyzed what I have done because every year is a new challenge. I've never really had the time to say, "My stats for the '90s are better than anybody else." I've seen what Ken Griffey Jr. has done throughout the 1990s. Unfortunately, Mark McGwire has been hurt most of the time. If he was healthy, there's no telling what he could have accomplished. One of the my favorite players is Mark Grace, and he puts up big numbers every year. My thing has always been a year-to-year basis. Once the year is over, I have moved on to the next year and challenge.


and....

QUOTE
Let's face it: Time is running out. You are 34. You don't have many years left.

BONDS: Who? Me? I plan to play until I'm 40-something. I'm not old. I can play for a long time. I know I could do it at the same level for at least five more years.


QUOTE
TSN: Are you really going to retire after you reach 500-500?

BONDS: The way my body was feeling at that time, oh, yeah. I don't want to cheat the game of baseball by being a one dimensional player. I don't know if I could live with myself. I don't know if baseball can accept that with me because I'm under this microscope all the time. There is going to be a day I'm not going to steal bases any more. What is the media going to do with me then?

When I made that statement, I think I wanted to get away from the negative stuff the media had given to the public. It was an easy escape from the hurt and pain I felt the media caused during my life. They have allowed the fans of baseball to think I'm some crazy, maniac person. I figure that I won't cheat myself and I won't cheat the game if I reach 500-500.


http://tsn.sportingnews.com/baseball/bonds/qa.html
whoops...forgot the link

 

[Super Nomario]

QUOTE (drleather2001 @ Jan 6 2010, 02:24 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2756083
And, for the record, I always liked watching Biggio hit, run and field. If he played in Boston or NY, he'd be a legend; basically Dustin Pedroia with speed for about 8 years.

In his prime, I always thought Biggio was underrated. In the '90's he was the best second baseman and best leadoff hitter in the NL.

It's always interesting to note that Biggio came up as (and made an All-Star Team as) a catcher, and he also started in CF and LF for a couple years.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

QUOTE
"For me, it's the same with Hall of Famers. Some guys just strike you as Cooperstown-worthy and others do not. Edgar Martinez was a very fine hitter, but I never said to myself, "The Mariners are coming to Fenway this weekend. I wonder how the Sox are going to pitch to Edgar Martinez?''


If Shaughnessy really wrote this line (I didn't read his SI article), then he cribbed it from Bill Simmons. I can't remember if it was DC Bill or ESPN Bill but he was talking about HOFers and Bert Blyleven (I think) in particular, he said something to the effect of, "When Blyleven came to town me and my friends weren't breaking down the ticket booths to see him. He was a good pitcher on a bad team, there was nothing special about him." and then said something about HOFers need that "something extra".

I wouldn't be surprised if it was in the Baseball Hall of Fame Pyramid piece that he wrote a few years back.

 

[Dwayne Hosey For President]

QUOTE (John Marzano Olympic Hero @ Jan 7 2010, 08:40 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2757682
If Shaughnessy really wrote this line (I didn't read his SI article), then he cribbed it from Bill Simmons. I can't remember if it was DC Bill or ESPN Bill but he was talking about HOFers and Bert Blyleven (I think) in particular, he said something to the effect of, "When Blyleven came to town me and my friends weren't breaking down the ticket booths to see him. He was a good pitcher on a bad team, there was nothing special about him." and then said something about HOFers need that "something extra".

I wouldn't be surprised if it was in the Baseball Hall of Fame Pyramid piece that he wrote a few years back.

It wasn't in the context of a HOF discussion, but this is what BS said about Ripken in 2001.



QUOTE
For the past few months, one of the constant refrains in every American League city has been, "This is your final chance to see Cal Ripken Jr. play." Here in Boston, the Orioles cruised into town for a meaningless three-game series this week, and the local media coverage has been relentless:

Cal Ripken Jr. was awarded a press-box seat in Boston, but he rarely had fans on the edge of their seats.Come see Cal Ripken! He will never play in Boston again!!!! Do yourself a favor and come see this baseball legend for one final time!!!! He will roller-skate with Jesus Christ during the seventh-inning stretch! The greatest shortstop who ever lived!!!! Cal Ripken, everybody!!!!!!

Hey, it all looks good on paper. The great Cal Ripken. Future Hall of Famer. Two-time MVP. Best shortstop of his generation. More than 400 home runs. Nineteen consecutive All-Star appearances. Mr. Oriole. The guy who broke The Record That Could Never Be Broken.

I guess my question is this ...

Did somebody just wake me up from a coma?

I'm serious. I think I've been in a coma since 1982. And during that entire 19-year period, apparently (hopefully) I hallucinated everything that happened over that time, including the fact that I owned a white "Miami Vice"-style blazer, that I watched the Red Sox come within one strike of winning the World Series, that I once made someone a mix tape that started out with the song "Just Once" by James Ingram, and that I once saw a stark-naked Johnny Pesky in the Red Sox clubhouse.

I mention this only because, during that 19-year span which I apparently imagined, the Orioles came into town roughly 55-60 times and I never remember saying to myself, "Drop everything! Cal Ripken's in town! I need to get to the ballpark and see Cal Ripken!"

This never happened. It never even came close to happening.

....


Hey, it's my civic duty. I can't help it. Ripken might have been one of the best ballplayers of his generation; statistically, you could even argue that he was the greatest shortstop of all-time. Yet for someone to receive the suffocating amount of media adoration and publicity that Ripken has received over the past few months, one would have to assume that his contributions on the playing field surpassed mere statistical achievements. After all, stats aren't everything, right? There must have been something about this guy that kept people coming to the park and saying to themselves, "I'm going to see Cal Ripken play tonight!"

Well, I'm sorry ... I was alive from 1982-2001. I was following baseball. And during that entire time, I never heard anybody utter the words, "Cal Ripken's coming to town!" or even, "Hey, Cal Ripken's up!"

http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=1256352


It's funny that they use such similar rhetoric since from listening to Shank I know that internet writers' opinions aren't valid because they hide behind their keyboards.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

That is a such a moronic standard to hold a player to that it doesn't even deserve a rejoinder.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I forgot he said that about Ripken, but I'm pretty sure he said that about Blyleven too.

Either way, I agree with SJH, it's a pretty stupid way to determine whether a player is HOF worthy.

 

[donutogre]

QUOTE (BoSox Rule @ Jan 6 2010, 12:45 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2756373
http://www.baseballanalysts.com/ joined the CHB fun

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/changeup/


Thanks for posting these links...great writing on that site!

 

[Number45forever]

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2010/01/19/iron-fisk/

Awesome post from Joe. This guy is amazing.

 

[Leather]

Run Brett, Run

Joe says what people not from Wisconsin or Kiln, Mississippi are all thinking.

 

[mauf]

Joe Posnanski's latest blog post remembers Jim Bibby, who died yesterday at age 65.

The whole post (not that long by Joe's standards) is worth reading. This part is my favorite, because like Joe, Jim Bibby will always be entwined with childhood memories for me.

QUOTE
My personal experience with Bibby was, as mentioned, in 1976 and ‘77 when he pitched for the Cleveland Indians. The Tribe had traded Gaylord Perry for Bibby and cash and the most frustrating pitcher of my childhood, a lefty named Rick Waits. Those were my most impressionable baseball years, and those were odd Indians teams. The ‘76 Indians were actually decent — went 81-78, scored and allowed the same number of runs, had a kick-butt bullpen with Dave LaRoche, Jim Kern and Stan Thomas. Then, in ‘77*, they were supposed to compete because in addition to all that they signed Wayne Garland to a big contract, and young Dennis Eckersley seemed ready to emerge into stardom, and Rick Manning had won a Gold Glove, and Rick Waits was supposed to breakout and Duane Kuiper was Duane Kuiper and … no, it didn’t work out....

Bibby, though, pitched his guts out for the team, especially in ‘77. Nine times that year he started games and allowed one earned run or less. He pitched out of the bullpen in September, and except for one cataclysmic outing at Comiskey, he pitched well. I loved Bibby. Big, wild, overpowering, frustrating, scary, larger than life.

You know, baseball wasn’t like it is now where you can keep up with every rumor and every signing and every free agent. Well, maybe you could back then too … but I didn’t know how. The point is, I don’t know when I realized that the Indians no longer had Bibby. I suppose it was during spring training. I probably said to my Dad — what happened to Jim Bibby? And he probably told me that Bibby had signed with Pittsburgh. I don’t remember the moment or how I felt. I only remember watching the Indians in 1978 and wishing big Jim Bibby was still around … his big guy stature was somewhat replaced by Paul Reuschel, which wasn’t the same at all. The Indians lost 90 games again.

Bibby had his greatest moments in PIttsburgh. He went 12-4 with a 2.81 ERA for the We Are Family Pirates of ‘79 and pitched well in both the NLCS and World Series (though he did not get a decision in either). And in 1980, he had his bit or recognition — he won 19 games, finished third in the Cy Young voting, and threw a scoreless inning in his only All-Star Game. He was already 35 when that happened — Bibby had gotten a late start in the big leagues (he had been drafted and served two years in Vietnam).


I'm probably 10 years younger than Bibby, so my memories of him are from that 1979-80 stint with the Pirates. My Dad was raised in Pittsburgh and grew up going to games at Forbes Field, so Bibby was one of the first non-Sox players whose name I knew. The rest of his career was decidedly mediocre, but I'll always remember Bibby for those two great seasons. Godspeed, Jim.

 

[Leather]

Cool story about Al Michaels and Game 5 of the '86 ALCS.

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2010/02/22...michaels-story/

 

[dwightinright]

A bit of a typo in that story:

QUOTE
for the home run Dave Henderson hit off Donnie Moore to give the Angels the lead (but not win the game

 

[BucketOBalls]

Yup, he's still at it.

QUOTE
So, we’re going to start something here, something that I fully intend to regret, something I will call The Player of the Day. The idea is to write about an interesting player from a different team every day leading up to Opening Day. My hope is that the player will somehow reflect what I think about the team. You may ask: Why would anyone start a lunatic project like this?

And I would answer: Because it’s there


In a weird way, I think that sums up why Poz is one of the best out there.

1)He actually WANTS to write something like this.

2)He manages to not suck at it.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

This is a couple months old, but it's worth mentioning.

The best seats I ever had at Fenway Park were to see Cal Ripken play. My dad bought some seats about 10 rows up on the third base line specifically for that reason.

 

[loshjott]

QUOTE (drleather2001 @ Feb 24 2010, 09:59 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2824995
Cool story about Al Michaels and Game 5 of the '86 ALCS.

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2010/02/22...michaels-story/


That is a great story about a great game, and a great announcer. I still can't figure out, however, why Joe Posnanski would write a whole SI story and that long blog post about Al Michaels and never once mention his work after the earthquake on Oct. 17, 1989.

 

[Rudi Fingers]

Joe's article on the NCAA Basketball final last night was fantastic, as usual. I read this at 6AM - yes, folks, he writes this well on deadline.

A sample:
QUOTE ("Joe Poz")
The ball is in the air. And because the ball is in the air, anything is possible. Miracle? Heartbreak? Pandemonium? Silence? Yes. Anything. That's the beauty of a magical game like this, and also the pain. The basketball is in the air. If it misses, Duke wins one of the greatest championship games ever. And if it goes in (and it looks like it is going in), Butler wins the greatest game that has ever been played.

The basketball is in the air, a 45-foot shot that looks like it is going in, and Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski knows that if it goes in, the right team won. And he also knows that if it misses, the right team won, too. This is that kind of game. Both teams have played impossibly hard. Every player defended with every ounce of strength they had. Every player made a winning play -- something, a rebound, a block, a devastating pick, a tough foul, a big shot, a good pass, a hard drive to the basket -- that added a line or shade to this masterpiece. Duke wore white, and Butler wore dark blue (the opposite of the image they came into this game with), but they played so much the same -- the same energy, the same violence, the same togetherness, the same purpose -- that at some point they just seemed to mix together into this wonderful blend of gray.

And now it comes to this -- a ball in the air and the quirks of gravity and chance and the bounce. Duke could have pulled away. Several times it looked like Duke would pull away -- the Blue Devils had a four-point lead, a five-point lead, and they had the ball, and it just felt like one more basket, one more three-pointer would slay Butler once and for all. But Duke could not make the shot. Not on this crazy night.

Then again, a couple of times it looked like Butler had the magic, that beautiful magic that can happen when five players defend like one and everybody on the team believes in the absurd. With six seconds left, Butler star Gordon Hayward drove to the baseline, and, while fading out of bounds, shot a high-arching 15-footer that felt good leaving his hands, looked good falling toward to the basket, and would have given Butler the lead and perhaps the title. The shot, though, was a touch long and the ball bounced out.

And now, the buzzer sounds, the crowd is standing, America is watching, and the basketball is in the air -- Hayward's not-quite desperation 45-foot shot that will decide this game is in the air.

"It had a chance," Butler coach Brad Stevens would say.

"It looked good," Duke's Kyle Singler would say.

"I was just praying it would not go in," Duke's Nolan Smith would say.

"I thought it was going in," Butler's Matt Howard would say.

But you already know. The basketball is not in the air. The basketball hits the backboard a touch hard. The basketball hits the front rim. And the basketball falls away. It could have fallen. It did not fall. And Duke wins the national championship.

 

[Soxy]

Another fantastic blog from Joe Pos, this time dealing with the inequities of baseball and the Forbes Business of Baseball rankings:

QUOTE
But the whole theme that some teams TRY to win while other DO NOT TRY to win — well, even if there is some truth in that statement, it’s almost certainly overblown. Let’s put it this way:

– If you had to pick one team out there that is TRYING to win, you probably would say the New York Yankees.
– If you had to pick one team out there this is NOT TRYING to win, you would probably say the KC Royals.

OK, well, last year, according to the Forbes numbers, the Yankees made $441 million in revenue* and spent about $416 million on baseball. That means they spent 94.4% of their revenue on baseball, a nice high percentage.

And the Kansas City Royals? Well, they only made $155 million in revenue, and they spent about 146 million. That means they spent 94.3% of their revenue on baseball.


QUOTE
Percentage of revenue spent on payroll:

League average: 46.6%
New York Yankees: 46.9%

So this is what we have here: The Yankee difference is that they make much, much, much, much, much, much, more money than any other team in baseball.


QUOTE
But it doesn’t matter how nice a ballpark they build in Pittsburgh, or how much they win in Oakland, or if they go to 3D baseball on television in Cincinnati. It doesn’t matter how much they may tinker with revenue sharing and luxury taxes … the Yankees’ revenue stream from is so enormous, it will give them a gigantic competitive advantage that should make them the favorites to win every … single … year. True, they won’t win every single year because of baseball’s quirks — the fluctuations of age, the vagaries of a short series, the forcefulness of a hot starting pitcher, the volatile state of free agency, the overconfidence that winning breeds and so on. And there will be shifts in baseball; that’s one great thing about the game. Nothing is permanent.


link

 

[Redkluzu]

Yes, Soxy, I liked that article too. Since we spend $268 to their $441million, and are the 3rd highest spender, do these numbers infuriate or justify or just make you want to spend more to win more?

QUOTE
Since the strike, the New York Yankees have won 57.9% of their games — that’s 94 wins per year. That’s the most in baseball... The Yankees have won 100 games five times...made the playoffs every year but one...won the toughest division in baseball 11 of the 15 seasons...five World Series and two other pennants....And still, you get the distinct impression from many Yankees fans that they feel — they KNOW — that the Yankees have underachieved.

You know what? The Forbes numbers suggest those Yankees fans are right.

 

[dynomite]

I know that saying "Joe Posnanski wrote something fantastic" these days is a little bit like saying "Those original Star Wars movies are pretty good, huh?" around here, but I thought I'd just toss a little love his way for the following paragraph about the firing of Trey Hillman:

QUOTE
There are ways, I suppose, to make a lousy team less lousy and he was unable to to do that. There are signs, I suppose, of a manager being better than the talent around him, and he did not really show those signs. But more than that, it seems to me that when you give a manager Jose Guillen and say “Here’s your best hitter,” and you give a manager Kyle Farnsworth and Juan Cruz and say “They will get you through the seventh and eighth innings,” and you give a manager Yuni Betancourt and say, “Now you have an everyday shortstop” … what you are really saying is, “We will be firing you at an undisclosed future date.”
Link

His writing has been so excellent for so long that it's easy (for me at least) to overlook it sometimes, or take it for granted. ("Of course it's good, it's Joe Pos!") What a fine writer this man is.

 

[SocrManiac]

Joe's piece today made me feel a little better about the imperfect game. A little.
Link


Not a lot.

 

[Maalox]

That was wonderful.

 

[JimD]

Simply magnificent. Joe is the best sports columnist in America right now.

 

[tims4wins]

QUOTE
And when my young daughters ask, “Why didn’t he get mad and scream about how he was robbed?” I think I will tell them this: I don’t know for sure, but I think it’s because Armando Galarraga understands something that is very hard to understand, something we all struggle with, something I hope you will learn as you grow older: In the end, nobody’s perfect. We just do the best we can.


Well said, Joe.