Archive for Rants
Why sending Hughes to the minors is a waste
Posted by: | Comments
One of the ongoing themes of Spring Training has been Phil Hughes and the possibility of being sent to the minors in 2010 to pile up innings. In his Chan Ho Park post earlier this morning, Ben wrote about just that, so allow me to excerpt…
For the Yanks, the best AAA candidate would seem to be Phil Hughes. He has an innings limit and should be working as a starter for as long as he can this year. If that means starting the year at AAA and being the first arm called up, that’s a risk I’d be willing to take. The Yanks could send Aceves down and keep Hughes in the 8th inning role, but this move reeks of short-term planning at the expense of long-term success. Last year, the Yanks’ pitchers enjoyed unexpected health. Can we expect them to do it again this year?
No, we can’t expect them to do it again this year, however keeping Hughes in the bullpen to start the year isn’t just a short-term move. If a starter were to go down, there’s Chad Gaudin, or Al Aceves, or Sergio Mitre, or Ivan Nova to fill in. There’s no shortage of candidates to make a spot start or three. However, if a starter were to go down for an extended period of time, well then you can stretch Hughes out to start. There’s no reason it can’t be done. Everyone’s all freaked out after Joba Chamberlain hurt his shoulder in 2008, but that’s one data point in a sea of them. There’s no evidence that moving back into the rotation caused Joba’s shoulder to bark. He’s a pitcher, it could have started acting up for a million reasons.
Just last year, we watched Bobby Parnell, Justin Masterson, J.A. Happ, and Scott Feldman start the season in the bullpen before moving to the rotation. Jonathan Sanchez, Carlos Zambrano, Johan Santana, Roy Halladay, Roy Oswalt … all those guys make the transition during the season as well. It can be done. Pretty easily too. But I digress.
There’s several reasons the Yanks shouldn’t send Hughes down to the minors. First off, he’s one of the seven or eight best pitchers in the organization, top to bottom, and the best big league ready arms should always good north when the club breaks camp. Secondly, the single most important thing a young pitcher must learn how to do is get big leaguers out. That’s it. If he can’t get Major League hitters out, then he’s hurting the team. If Hughes’ spends the season in Triple-A Scranton getting stretched out in advance of filling a rotation spot in 2011, then what do you have? You have a guy who can give you 170 innings next year, but may or may not know how to pitch out of jams and what not.
Sure, it sounds fine. He’d just be the fifth starter after all. Those guys aren’t crucial. But what’s the alternative? Hughes spends the season in the bullpen, at worst, and next year you’re looking at a guy who can give you say, 130-140 innings that will probably be a bit better because he’s more experienced. Hughes has nothing to learn in the minors, at all. He can throw 35 changeups a game, but big deal. Throwing changeups to in big league situations is different than throwing them to minor leaguers. And there’s no rule against throwing changeups out of the bullpen. He can still work on it.
Look, I want Phil Hughes to be a starter for the long haul as much as the next guy. I just think that the minimal gain you get towards his future innings limit is completely negated by missing out on all of that experience against big leaguers. We know Hughes can go through a lineup three times, he’s done it his entire life in the minors. All he’s going to do in Triple-A is spin his wheels. You don’t learn anything from carving guys up, you learn from making mistakes and getting smacked around a bit. Keeping Hughes in the Majors to start the year puts the best team on the field and is the best thing for his development.
Frankly, I’m kind of astonished I had to write this post. There’s a lot of dumb ideas tossed around in Spring Training because there’s nothing else to talk about, and this is the perfect example of that.
Photo Credit: Kathy Willens, AP
The Early Season Grind
Posted by: | CommentsFor whatever reason, the Yankees haven’t been a very good team early in the season lately. Last year they went just 12-10 in April, but 91-49 the rest of the way. If you go back three years, the Yankees are 35-39 in April but 251-161 from May on. It’s frustrating, and no one can seem to figure it out what’s causing this. We’ve just come to accept it.
In his blog post today, Buster Olney examined each American League team’s schedule in the early going. The Yanks have the third toughest schedule in the early going (according to Buster), thanks to 12 straight games against teams that finished .500 or better last season to start the campaign. Just 19 of their first 41 games will be played in the Bronx, and given their recent historical suckiness in April, it’s really not all that hard to envision a scenario in which the Yanks are under .500 on May 1st.
Of course, there’s two sides to every coin. The rough April (and part of May) means that June through September will be much kinder. The Yanks will play just three games against a team that finished over .500 last year (the Phillies) from May 28th through June 25th of this season, and 11 of their first 17 games in September are against some perennial doormats. With fewer games against the better teams in the league in the second half, that means winning streaks stay alive longer, and losing streaks don’t last very long.
A good start is always nice, and yes games in April count just as much as games in August and September, but the Yanks are going to face a tough part of the schedule at some point, and I like that they’ll do it in April. More than likely, they would have stumbled to a .500 or so record in that month, but now it’ll come with the reassurance of knowing that they’ll have a chance to build some serious momentum in the second half and go on into the playoffs with the head of steam like last year. Oh sure, it’ll give the talking heads a lot to … uh … talk about.
“They’re complacent!”
“The starters are worn down from last year!”
“They miss Hideki Matsui and Johnny Damon!”
I can see all the headlines now, but it’ll just be the usual MSM gibberish. The important thing is that the toughest part of the schedule will be behind them, and they’ll have a chance to make the rest of the league pay once the team hits their stride. Now, just imagine if they get off to a hot start…
When Johnny went marching away again
Posted by: | Comments
AP Photo/Rob Carr)
“I know where I want to be next year. I want to be here in New York.”
Maybe I let myself get suckered in by Johnny Damon last spring and summer. Maybe I listened to him speak in radio interviews and locker room chats in May, after games in August and on Sirius XM as recently as November and dared to believe he was telling the truth.
“This would definitely be the best place for me. I’d sure love to keep taking advantage of that right-field porch.”
It would have been simple for Damon to stay in New York City. All he had to do was tell that to his agent and urge Scott Boras to make one last contract work. After all, Damon will be playing his age 36 season in 2010, and with his defense slowing down, he’ll need to DH. With that short porch in right field, Yankee Stadium was perfectly suited to Damon’s bat, and while Brian Cashman has wisely improved the team’s defense, Damon would have had a role to play yet.
“I don’t know where else I would want to go to. Obviously, that’s not the right thing to say when you’re about ready to approach free agency, but I’m very happy with playing in New York, and my family’s happy I play for New York. There’s no bigger place to go.”
Yet, this past weekend just days before he had to report to training camp somewhere, Johnny Damon finally reached an agreement with the Detroit Tigers on a one-year deal rumored to be worth $8 million. He’ll inexplicably receive a no-trade clause, and even though his wife was reported to be unhappy with the move and even though the Yanks had extended him a multi-year offer, Damon will take his bat and glove to the pitcher’s park of Comerica and hope for the best.
In the Bronx, last week Brian Cashman sounded somewhere between a jilted lover and a shocked businessman — shocked at Scott Boras’ hubris and the way Damon and his agent seemingly misplayed this off-season. He offered the incumbent left fielder a two-year deal worth $14 million, and even though that money represented a significant pay cut for Damon, it would remain the best one Johnny had on the table all winter. At the time, Cashman too knew it would be the top offer Damon would get.
“The industry the last two free agent markets seems to be going downward and the player’s ages are going upward,” Cashman said. “It makes more sense to be patient. My attitude is if this is the place you want to be, you will make it happen. Johnny Damon professed his love for the Yankees, wanted to be here and was given every chance to be here. He’s not here anymore and I don’t feel that is the Yankees’ fault. They have to reconcile why they are not here, not me. If people want to be here and be a part of something, then find a way to work it out.”
Cashman was clearly irked at the way the negotiations went down. “Scott Boras said, ‘Bobby Abreu’s contract is $9 million a year right now on the table so why would we do that? So I expect to see a Bobby Abreu contract.’” the Yanks’ GM said. “I hope he does not sign for something less than our offer. That means he should have been a Yankee and that’s not our fault.”
At the same time, Ken Rosenthal wonders if Boras is to blame. The Fox Sports scribe believes Boras wanted to keep the Cardinals believing that the Yanks were interested in Matt Holliday and therefore never engaged the Yanks on Damon until it was far too late. From what we’ve heard in the past about Boras and from a business perspective, this conspiracy theory would make sense. After all, Holliday will make Boras far more money over the next eight or ten years than Damon will, and it just makes sense for Boras to push Damon to the side while focusing on his younger and more valuable clients.
Here we are, then, without Johnny Damon. I know my tone here sounds more annoyed than I actually am. I didn’t like Damon’s defense, and I can see his production completely falling off a cliff this year, especially away from his home run haven. Yet, something about Damon made me believe his sincerity. Today, though, I know how Red Sox fans felt after the 2005 season. Johnny Damon might talk the talk, but when it came time to walk the walk, money — and less than he could have gotten in the first place — ruled the day instead.
In which an owner talks about something he doesn’t understand
Posted by: | CommentsThe Yankees catch a lot of grief because of their payroll, and whether you think it’s fair or not is another discussion for another day. Most of those outside of the Tri-State Area will bitch and moan every time the Yankees sign a CC Sabathia or a Mark Teixeira, yet won’t give an iota of credit whenever the team makes a shrewd move like grabbing Nick Swisher as an ultra-buy low or finding a big league arm (Al Aceves) and a top pitching prospect (Manny Banuelos) in Mexico for the the total cost of a replacement level player ($400,000). It’s the way it is, and most don’t think twice when fans of other clubs complain.
However, when team owners start to run their mouth, especially when they aren’t even in the same sport, well then something’s not right. At a press conference yesterday, Baltimore Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti took an unprovoked shot at GM Brian Cashman and our beloved Bombers…
“It certainly doesn’t show up in the standings,” Bisciotti said. “If I’m a Yankees fan, I’m upset we’re not winning 130 games with the roster that they have and the money that they pay out. I think it’s a disgrace they only beat the average team by 10 games in the standings with three times the money. I’d fire that GM. You don’t need a GM. All you have to do is buy the last Cy Young Award winner every year.”
Dare I say … Boversimplification?
I’m sure Mr. Bisciotti is a smart dude, you kind of have to be to make the kind of money needed to buy an NFL franchise. However, what the hell is he talking about that it doesn’t “show up in the standings?” The Yankees have won almost 100 more games than any other team in baseball over the last 14 years. They could have gone 0-162 in 1996, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2007, or 2008, and they still would have the best record in the game over that time. They’ve won the most World Championships in the last two decades, the most division titles, most pennants … how doesn’t it show up in the standings?
The goal isn’t to win 130 games in the regular season, at least not around these parts. The goal is to win 11 in the playoffs. If Bisciotti is going to talk trash about the Yankees not getting bang for their buck, then maybe he should look in a mirror first. The team he owns has missed the playoffs more times in the last five years than the Yankees have in the last 16. Something about throwing stones in glass houses seems appropriate here.
Anyway, thanks for the laugh Steve.
The illusion of parity
Posted by: | CommentsDid you know that, during the last decade, all but seven teams reached the playoffs? And did you further know, that during the 2000s, 19 of baseball’s 30 teams reached the playoffs more than once? Never mind the fact that eight of 30 teams make the playoffs every year; that’s parity!
Or at least it is if you’re ESPN’s Senior Editor David Schoenfield. In the companion piece to his crazy realignment scheme, Schoenfield spent yesterday’s Hot Stove U. column writing about parity in baseball. Schoenfield starts with the proposition that baseball has a competitive balance equal to or greater than that of the NFL, and then he finds some proof.
From the get-go, Schoenfield’s proof isn’t what we would call rigorous. Baseball enjoyed eight different World Series champs in the 00′s while football has seen six or maybe seven Super Bowl champions. “Baseball has more champions, nearly half of its 30 teams have reached the World Series, and more than two-thirds have played in a league championship series,” he writes. “The NFL totals are clearly similar.”
Schoenfield goes on and on about baseball’s maybe, not-quite-there competitive edge and even manages to talk about how money helps. He writes:
There is no denying that a correlation exists between payroll and success (good players, after all, generally cost more money). Check out the table below. Of the 10 teams that won the most games in the decade, six were in the top 10 in total payroll. Of course, payroll is not the sole determining factor in winning, as many pundits want you to believe. The Twins and A’s both made the playoffs five times in the decade, and the team that spent the smallest amount, the Marlins, won a World Series. And market size is not always a direct line to payroll. St. Louis plays in the 20th-largest market, smaller than Minneapolis, Denver, San Diego or Cleveland, and not much larger than Tampa or Pittsburgh. Of course, the Cardinals are often wrongly portrayed as a large-market franchise simply because they are successful.
Notice the number of times Schoenfield turns to the one-offs. Yes, the Marlins won the World Series, but they did so not with the lowest payroll but with the 20th lowest figure. They are an outlier and not even an unreasonable one at that. Media market size, meanwhile, doesn’t matter as much as Schoenfield would have you believe because baseball revenues are driven by in-stadium finances and reach. The Cardinals might play in the relatively small St. Louis, but their popularity and reach extend well beyond the borders of that Midwestern city.
Schoenfield is right about one thing here though: There is a correlation between money and winning. Take a look at this table reproduced from numbers the ESPN scribe provides:
The best-fit line returns an R-squared of 0.45. This suggests a fairly strong correlation, over the span of 10 years, between wins and money spent on payroll. It doesn’t imply causation, and money isn’t the only factor in winning. But in terms of an argument for parity, this graph one doesn’t help the cause. Outliers will win; small-market, low-payroll terms will get lucky now and then; but money will come out on top more often than not.
It’s easy, in the end, to link this to the Yankees. That mark in the upper right-hand corner — the one with more wins and more dollars spent than anyone else — represents the Yanks, and as the 2003 Marlins skew the data, so do the Yankees. Without them, the R-squared drops to 0.36, still a reasonably strong indication of correlation but one that definitely allows for other factors. Of course, with the Yanks making the playoffs nine out of ten times, that leaves just seven spots for the other 29 teams, and any edge can help.
So is there parity in baseball? I don’t think so, and I believe Schoenfield overstates his case. Money can still get you places. Whether that is a bad, though, is an entirely different question all together.
Guest Post: Parrying with Jon Heyman’s HOF ballot
Posted by: | CommentsAs we know, yesterday, the BBWAA elected Andre Dawson and no one else. The outcome was horrendous; the explanations even weaker. Today, RAB regular TommieSmithJohnCarlos grew so fed with Jon Heyman’s explanation of his ballot that he penned a massive response in the style of the late, great Fire Joe Morgan. You know how it goes.
…Generally, I’ve voted for one or two more players than average in most years, and this year should be no exception. This time I listed six “yes” votes — Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, Andre Dawson, Jack Morris, Dave Parker and Don Mattingly.
Quickly:
Alomar: YES
Larkin: YES
Dawson: A solid player, but NO
Morris: NO
Parker: NOT F$%&ING REMOTELY, CHICO
Mattingly: NOT QUITE
Seriously, Dave Parker? Dave “.290/.339/.471/121+” Parker? Dave “Al Oliver and Rusty Staub were better players than me” Parker? Dave “people only love me because I wore a fancy black pillbox hat with horizontal yellow stripes and sang Sister Sledge songs” Parker? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
There is no such thing as a stats vs. scouting debate
Posted by: | CommentsI did not make up that headline. I believe it, but other people have said it before me. Stats can tell you some things, scouting a player can tell you others. Some people take either extreme, but I think that for the most part we understand that both are necessary components of the game. Keith Law demonstrated this today. He revealed his Cy Young ballot and presented his rationale for picking Tim Lincecum.
Lincecum led the NL in FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching) and WAR (Wins Above Replacement), both of which normalize a pitcher’s stats to account for the help he received from his defense, and he led both categories by wide margins. He also led the NL in VORP, which adjusts for park but not for defense, by a narrow margin.
Law was trained as a scout during his tenure in Toronto, and continues to act in that capacity today for Scouts, Inc./ESPN. Yet he uses advanced metrics in justifying his ballot. He understands the value of both, because he’s familiar with the benefits of both. I wish there were more writers like that.
Does Scioscia know that his team has two key free agents?
Posted by: | CommentsThe Angels made a valiant effort in the ALCS, but they fell short against a superior team. I think that much was clear. Yes, I’m a biased Yankees fan, but I think that when you look at the whole picture, the Yankees were the better team and won in the end. Not that the Angels are a bad team. Far from it. Some people have argued that they were the second best team in the majors this year, ahead of any NL team, and while I don’t necessarily agree, I’m definitely receptive to that argument.
While their success in 2009 is undisputed, the Angels are a team in transition heading into 2010. They locked up Bobby Abreu, which fills a need, but they also have looming decisions on two key free agents, John Lackey and Chone Figgins. The Angels would suffer a big setback if they lost both their ace pitcher and leadoff hitter. They might be able to replace Figgins, though he’s definitely the best third baseman on the market, but they can’t replace Lackey with a free agent. So, it stands to reason that if the Angels don’t bring back their two guys, they could be a bit weaker in 2010.
Mike Scioscia is hearing none of that. At a fundraiser last night, reporters couldn’t help from asking the Angels’ skipper questions about the team’s future. Among them was a question about the Yankees “buying” another World Series title. Scioscia took the bait.
“I don’t care if the Yankees go out and spend $350 million next year, we’re going to beat them because we have the team,” Scioscia said.
Setting aside the near impossibility of spending $350 million on a baseball team, Scioscia might be speaking a bit too soon here. The Angels have some serious work to do this off-season. That’s not to say that they can’t field a strong team in 2010. Rather, it’s to say that if they don’t move to improve their starting pitching, they could be in for some trouble. Their rotation will consist of Jered Weaver, Scott Kazmir, Joe Saunders, and Ervin Santana. That’s just not going to cut it, not with the Rangers and Mariners improving.
Sure, managers have to stand by the strength of their team, but Scioscia went out of his way to make a statement about his. That’s fine, but in criticism of his statement, I don’t think the Angels are anywhere close to set for next season. Losing Figgins would hurt, as it would be difficult to replace him at third base and atop the order. But losing Lackey could hurt most of all, because it will be even more difficult to replace him atop the rotation. So no, as it stands, the Angels do not have the team. We’ll see what measures they make to build that team in the next few months.
A brief musing on the Silver Slugger awards
Posted by: | CommentsYesterday afternoon, to nearly no fanfare, Major League Baseball announced the winners of the 2009 Silver Slugger awards. Among the American League winners were Mark Teixeira and Derek Jeter, and the rest were your typical mix of good hitters, popular players and Torii Hunter. No one wrote a 900-word rant on Baseball Prospectus about the inanities of the awards; no one on The Book Blog wrote a sarcastic press release about the awards. They were simply ignored.
So my question is this: Why do so many get up in arms over Gold Gloves and not just ignore them as we do the Silver Sluggers? Both awards are fatally flawed; the winners are chosen by the coaches and managers in each league and not by people who are either more neutral or exposed to more games by the simple fact that they’re not on the field. The selection process doesn’t make sense, and the awards are basically industry recognition of popularity and a job decently well done. It’s hardly a coincidence that six players in the AL won both Silver Sluggers and Gold Gloves. These aren’t objective awards; they aren’t meant to be; and everyone should just come to grips with that reality.
Knowing when to be a gracious runner-up
Posted by: | CommentsJimmy Rollins is not known for keeping his mouth in check. He has spent the past few seasons antagonizing Mets fans in Spring Training by proclaiming the Phillies better than the Mets and the team to beat in the NL East. With the Mets’ injury-inspired fade this year, Rollins was right, and he didn’t let discretion get the better part of him for the World Series.
In fact, prior to the Series, Rollins let his mouth do the talking again. Considering how he hit this Fall Classic, his mouth, in fact, was the only thing doing much talking. “Of course we’re going to win,” Rollins said before the Series started. “If we’re nice, we’ll let it go six. But I’m thinking five, close it out at home.”
Three games into it, and Rollins’ prediction couldn’t come true. After losing Game 1, the Yanks had beaten the Phillies in three straight, and in Rollins’ original clincher, the Phillies had to fight to force Game 6. After the Yankees won last night, Rollins was the only member of the team who managed to make their World Series loss about the Phillies.
“They were the better team this series,” Rollins said after the game. “Do I think we’re the better team? I really do. They just executed. I think we weren’t playing bad, but they were playing that much better. They got the hits, we didn’t. It’s that simple.”
Other Phillies acknowledged the Yankees’ run to a title. “We got beat,” Ryan Howard said. “They were the better team. They outplayed us. You have to tip your hat to them.”
Manager Charlie Manuel praised the Yanks as well. “We just didn’t play as good as we can, but at the same time, we also played a real good team who did a good job, and they’ve had a great season,” he said. “They definitely deserved to win.”
Since Game 2 of the ALDS, when David Robertson pitched out of a bases loaded, no out situation without allowing the run, the Yankees had that championship feel to them. They beat back a pesky Angels’ team and beat a very good Phillies team. After seven months and 114 wins, the Yankees are on top.
I can understand Rollins’ frustration. The Phillies out-hit the Yanks in this World Series, thanks to Chase Utley and Jayson Werth, but the rest of the team didn’t really show up. Rollins, the lead-off hitter, scored just three runs, and Ryan Howard struck out 13 times. His sixth-inning home run last night came too late to save the Phillies.
But Rollins, one of the game’s better ambassadors, should know when to tip his cap to the other team. I understand team pride; I understand riling up the fan base. But I also understand that the Yankees, a better team than the Phillies, won. After the beanings this week, the bad blood will flow between the Yankees and the Phillies in Spring Training. Maybe Jimmy Rollins should save the trash talking for then.
