FJM has gone dark for the foreseeable future. Sorry folks. We may post once in a while, but it's pretty much over.
You can still e-mail dak,Ken Tremendous,Junior,Matthew Murbles, or Coach.
Once again, allow me to congratulate the New Jersey Somethings on their richly deserved victory yesterday. For the record, I am disappointed but not upset. When one's teams have been on a run like my teams have since '02, it's dumb to complain. And the Pats losing yesterday will ultimately be about maybe 20% more irritating than them winning, and thus forcing me to listen to people say that their season wasn't legitimate because of SpyGate.
(For the record, you can't just add "Gate" to something to indicate "scandal." The hotel, as we all know, was the Watergate. It wasn't like there was a like Nixonian/"Chinatown" water scandal, and someone said, "Hey -- 'gate' is the LME root for 'cover-up.' Let's call it Water-gate.")
In any case, nice work, Giants. Nice work, Eli, and David Tyree's helmet, and Tom Coughlin. Super Bowls should be about upsets. It's what makes them fun.
To cleanse my palate as we head into the dark time when Michigan State basketball gets top billing on any given weekend, here's a quick bases-clogging sighting, sent to us by many of our eagle-eyed readers:
"On-base percentage is the highest thing on the list," manager Tony La Russa said at the team's annual Winter Warm-Up. "If you've proven that you can get on base, that will give you the best chance to lead off.
Sanity at last.
It doesn't mean it's the only thing. Say [Molina] has an on-base percentage of .700 in Spring Training. I don't think I'm going to lead him off because he clogs those bases a little bit. But I'm going to wait, let guys play."
Oops. And he was doing so well.
My friend, if anyone on your team ever has an OBP of .700 -- even someone as slow as one of the Molina Bros. -- I'd say you should definitely lead him off. Or hit him second. Or third, depending on his other numbers.
Once again, let us remind all baseball-minded persons out there that the object of the game is to "clog" bases. That is how you score runs. (And yes, I do realize he is not totally pulling a Dusty here. I just don't think anyone should ever use the term "clogging [up] the bases.")
Pitchers and catchers report in a few days. Eli Manning is your reigning Super Bowl MVP (which I'm pretty sure is my fault.) Ladies and Gentlemen, the state of our nation is: meh.
Apparently, Rick Hummel is in the HOF. And here is what he has to say about Tony La Russa's decision not to have the greatest hitting hitter in the history of hitting hit for a pretty good hitter in the bottom of the ninth with two outs and the bases loaded:
La Russa was both wrong and right in how he handled Pujols’ situation.
You are half right.
He basically was wrong in that a player of Pujols’ caliber -- reigning Gold Glover, former Most Valuable Player and batting champion -- should not be considered a utility player, i.e., the last position player available on the bench.
Totally agree. Maybe I should be in the Hall of Fame.
But he was right in not pinch-hitting Pujols in the ninth inning when the NL rallied and had the bases loaded with two out and Philadelphia's Aaron Rowand at the plate.
I cannot wait to hear exactly how you are wrong.
If he had used Pujols in that spot and the NL forced extra innings, he would have been in the position of needing Pujols to go to left field and defensively challenged Alfonso Soriano would have to go to center, with the distinct possibility of having a relief pitcher have to bat for himself in extra innings of an All-Star game.
This is insane. Insane. Flat insane. Dead flat weird insane, and possibly Mad Cow-ridden.
Here is the rationale: if Albert Pujols had pinch hit and tied the game or given the NL the lead, Alphonso Soriano would have to play center, and a pitcher might have to hit for himself. The horror, the horror! Alphonso Soriano not playing the perfectly ideal defensive position?! Webb has to take a few hacks? Run for the hills!!!
No doubt, those would be horrifying, "Hostel"-like NC-17-rated situations. But here's the thing, dumbass: if they happened, it would mean that the game was still happening, too.
If you are one out from elimination, you do your absolute very very best to extend the game. What in the world is the point of saving bullets if you might never get to fire them? Also, as many of you have already pointed out to me (this is an edit), and frankly I am humiliated that I didn't write this to begin with: if Pujols gets any kind of hit -- a thing he is much much much more likely to do than Aaron Rowand in that situation, about-to-be-cited small-sample-sized half-seasons of BA be damned forever to deepest darkest hell -- the NL probably scores two runs and the game is over anyway. Derrek Lee isn't the fastest dude in the world, but he's running on contact. My word, is this dumb.
The rationale for Pujols hitting for Rowand is based on history, because a check of the current averages shows that Pujols, homerless since June 14, is hitting .310. Rowand is hitting .310.
Seriously? Burn the Hall of Fame to the ground. It is worthless.
Albert Pujols is either the best hitter in baseball or he's damn close. He has 266 career HR and he's played in a total of like 65 baseball games. He has a .418 career OBP. And a walk, mind you, ties the game. He is 12 feet tall, and each of his lats weighs 80 pounds. His bat is 60 inches long and is made of Bigfoot's spine. He is a monstrous monster who eats sliders. Not balls that were used to throw sliders, mind you -- he has figured out a way to eat the concept of sliders. The dude hits with a closed stance only because Marty Barrett bet him he couldn't hit with a closed stance like Barrett did and still win the MVP and Pujols did it just to stave off the boredom that had come from solving baseball. He once hit a home run on a hit-by-pitch. He has more hits left-handed than anyone in baseball history has right-handed -- and he is right handed. He completed an MD-PhD at Hopkins in one hour and gave a graduation address (in Greek), and he had to miss a game against the Pirates in 2003, and he still went 2-4 with a double. The home run he hit off Lidge in the NLCS....justnow landed, in Banff. He is awesome.
Aaron Rowand has a career .341 OBP and once broke his nose making an awesome catch in center. Neither of these things was useful in facing K-Rod.
You don’t bat for an All-Star player with the game in the balance, unless the second player is the pitcher.
I just hit my own hand with a hammer on purpose to make myself forget I read this.
Fictional 1998 All-Star Game:
Ninth inning, AL down by one, bases loaded, two outs. Ben Grieve strides to the plate. Art Howe leans over to Mike Hargrove.
Howe: Should we hit for Grieve here? Hargrove: What? The guy's an All-Star! Howe: Well...yeah. They're all technically "All-Stars." But we have Manny Ramirez on the bench. We could hit Manny for Grieve. Hargrove: (scoffing) Apparently you've never read the works of Hall of Fame journalist Rick Hummel. Ben Grieve is an All-Star, and you don't hit for an All-Star unless it's a pitcher. Is Grieve a pitcher? Howe: No. Hargrove: Go get 'em, Grievey! Howe: He already fouled out to third. Game's over. Hargrove: What went wrong?!
And, knowing a little how La Russa’s mind works, you suspect that he didn’t want to generate any ill will by hitting for a Philadelphia player with the Cardinals to open a three-game series there Friday night.
Oh. Well, that makes perfect sense. He didn't want to alienate...another fucking team's fans?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!??!!??!!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!?!?!??!!?!??!?!!??!!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!
Reader Ken, and others, have pointed out that what he might mean by not "generating any ill will" is: he didn't want to piss off Rowand and the Phillies themselves. Which is: still insane.
What's happening in St. Louis today? Let's check St. Louis Today and their prognosticator extraordinaire, Mr. Bryan Burwell.
Halfway through the tale of the 2007 baseball season, the Cardinals have not exactly given us some mind-twisting whodunit to solve. The Redbirds, in fact, have been no riddle at all. They reach the All-Star break giving us the rather predictable story of a struggling defending champion beset by too many injuries, and we all know how that plot line is supposed to go.
It's a little disingenuous -- or ignorant, take your pick -- to blame the 2007 Cardinals' woes on injuries. Because the 2006 Cardinals were two games over .500. They were a mediocre team that played in a terrible division, got hot at the right time, and won it all. Good for them. It's what makes baseball great and unpredictable. But it's not like they went from a 105-win team to a 75-win team because Lord Scrapford von Gritt tweaked his hustlebone.
Let's pause a moment to give Tony La Russa's gritty bunch of Memphis misfits a sincere tip of the cap for the effort that has kept them just on the fringe of contention.
Let us also praise him for leaving the best hitter in the history of ever on his bench as Aaron Rowand popped out against a guy who had walked the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth. Why does no one in the world ever allow for the possibility that Tony La Russa is a terrible manager? Sometimes he doesn't just arrange deck chairs on the Titanic -- he fixes the ones with wobbly legs, and then, while clinging to a piece of jetsam in the freezing North Atlantic, arrogantly insists that that chair would've come in handy if the boat hadn't broken in half and sunk.
There is ample reason to believe that what lies ahead must be better than what we've already read. Carpenter is either weeks or days away from returning to the rotation. Eckstein and Edmonds ought to be at or near 100 percent after the break and back in the lineup.
Aaron Miles 2007 EqA: .247 David Eckstein 2006 EqA: .251
Eckstein's return will not help you that much, Cardinal fans. I am sorry. Face facts. Grow up. Take four Advil, drink some coffee, and do away with your Scrap Goggles.
The Cardinals will host the Brewers and second-place Chicago Cubs in a six-game home stand at the end of the month that will be the first of 20 remaining games against the two teams they need to overtake to get into the postseason. There are 10 more games left against the Brewers and 10 more against the Cubbies, which will give the Redbirds all the opportunity to narrow that 7½-game gap.
The Cardinals have been outscored by 64 runs. Right now they are overperforming their ExWL by four games. Unless the Brewers go completely into the tank, it's time to make plans for 2008.
There's no need to bombard you with a zillion inside-baseball stats that will convince you that the Cards are on the verge of behaving like contenders or exposing them as gritty but flawed pretenders.
Second mention of gritty-ness. And no, it does not take one zillion "inside-baseball" stats. It takes one, and I just gave it to you. Outscored. 64 runs. Bad.
I don't care what the team ERA is over the last 15 games. I don't want to listen to anyone drone on about WIPS, OPS or any other exotic calculations that leave so many seamheads dizzy with delight and serve as all-knowing predictors of the future.
WIPS = not a thing, I don't think. OPS is not "exotic," unless you consider the mathematical formula A + B "exotic." And if you do want to get "exotic," I just checked BP's ExWL PECOTA-adjusted page, and the Cards have a 2.48% chance of making the postseason.
But here's the real money-shot:
I prefer to rely on more pragmatic stuff.
You prefer to rely on "pragmatic" stuff. As opposed to hard stats. As opposed to mathematic, science, and reason -- those flighty disciplines. Those wishy-washy, emotional, airy-fairy, astrology/tarot card-like augurs, used by ancient Romans to predict rainfall.
You and Murray Chass should get together, maybe with Wm. Safire, and just do a real-quick refresher course on what fucking words mean.
Here's all I care about. The Cardinals are getting healthy again, and that means they need to come back after the All-Star break not only with all hands on deck, but with a sense of urgency that reflects a team that is willing to compete.
They also need to hit better, and pitch better. But, sure, I guess "urgency that reflects a team that is willing to compete" would help. Move them from 2.48% to maybe somewhere in the upper 4s.
I edited this post after an email from reader Venkat, who pointed out that Rowand swung at the second pitch, no the first, as I had originally written. I guess I was so blind with fury at La Russa for being such a bonehead I missed a pitch.
Yes, Eckstein is an almost league average player. His return isn't an exciting thing to herald. But, it will improve the Cardinals far more than you expect because, (assuming Tony La Russa hasn't lost his mind completely), it will enable the Cardinals to bench Adam Kennedy and his .252 slugging percentage, putting miles at second and eckstein at short.
It's hardly A-Rod and Robbie Alomar, but it's a vast improvement over trotting Kennedy out there every day.
Also, the team currently has four relievers in the rotation, who are to be gradually filtered out of the rotation and replaced with actual starters.
Maroth will outpitch Todd Wellemeyer. Chris Carpenter will as sure as hell outpitch Kip Wells. Barring an injury to Ben Sheets (the unlikliest of outcomes!) or Prince Fielder, they will probably have issues catching the Brewers, but they could theoretically contend for the divsion title still, especially with all of the hitters they have at their 25% PECOTA predictions.
I of course intended no pooh-poohing of Carpenter's impact. But I did pooh-pooh Eck's based on Miles's #'s, forgetting entirely about the festering corpse of Adam Kennedy, who is the odd man out once Baron Grittle von Scamperstein returns. And if/when Albert turns it on, it is possible, I guess, that the team catches the Brewers. But it wouldn't be because of Eckstein. It would be because Eckstein removed Kennedy.
1. Tony La Russa He put to rest the notion his players tighten up come October with one of the great managing jobs of our time last year. It's no easy thing to make an 83-win team believe it can win. Now he's made me believe. He's an original thinker who's unsurpassed strategically. "I have tried to guess along with him on what moves he'll make next,'' David Eckstein told me in spring training, "and it just can't be done.''
If you haven't already, I invite you to read Buzz Bissinger's book 3 Nights in August, about La Russa. The purported aim of the book is to show how brilliant La Russa is as a strategist. The actual accomplishment is to make one feel like one wouldn't trust La Russa to take care of one's cats, much less one's baseball team. It starts with an anecdote about how Albert Pujols has a severe arm injury -- one that allows him to swing a bat but not throw. La Russa wants to play him anyway, to like intimidate the other team (which doesn't know about the injury), so he puts him in left field and tells him to casually underhand the ball to the SS if it gets hit to him. A doctor has told La Russa that Pujols, the most important player on the team by a factor of fifty, is risking severe like career-threatening shit if he throws a baseball. This is a not-super-important game. I mean, what the hell?
Avid readers of this blog might remember many months ago when I wrote that I was going to do a lengthy review of this book. I started reading and making notes. By page 80 I had filled ten notebook pages with scribbles and exclamation points and frowny faces, and decided the task was just too big.
And before we go talking about how La Russa is a master strategist because his crappy team won the WS after winning 83 games last year, let's all remember that he controlled three of the most disappointing WS teams in recent history -- the 88 A's (104 wins, McGwire/Canseco, 3 16 game winners and Eck, blown out in 5 games by the Dodgers), the '90 A's (who got humiliated by the Reds) and the '04 Cardinals (who won 105 games and got brushed aside like sidewalk trash).
2. Jim Leyland Perhaps he isn't the master strategist that La Russa is, but as a salesman and motivator, no one's better. His only blemish is his short time in Colorado, when his heart wasn't in it.
I fail to see why it's okay that his heart wasn't in it when he had a tough job. As opposed to when he managed the '97 Marlins, the best team money could buy, or the ultimately disappointing 90's Bucs. I think he's a fun guy, and a good manager, but shouldn't a big part of a manager's evaluation be how he does when he gets handed a pile of crap? (And please don't tell me the '06 Tigers were a pile of crap. They were well-positioned to be a solid team with that pitching.)
3. Mike Scioscia Smart and solid, he's extremely even-keeled, and his players have bought into his aggressive, NL style.
Whatever. He's fine.
4. Joe Torre Fourth place for the four World Series rings. But can he please take it easy on his favorite relievers? He especially needs to be careful with Andy Pettitte and Mariano Rivera.
I don't really know what to make of Torre. I happen to think that the most important job a manager does is handle the clubhouse and the owner. He has a tough clubhouse and a terribly whimsical/crazy owner, and is always even-keeled, so, to quote that weird guy who writes a weekly column about Starbucks and The Sopranos for SI.com, I think I think he's good. He also has a $200m payroll every year and occasionally makes some really odd decisions.
5. Lou Piniella He didn't do his best work in Tampa, and baseball people noticed. Plus, he's been cited by some for mishandling pitchers. He certainly can lose his cool, as well, but that's part of his charm. Wouldn't want to have to match wits against him in the postseason, though that might not be anyone's worry this year.
I believe Sweet Lou is insanely overrated. Tampa never seemed one ounce better off with him than with anyone else. But what really irritates me is that he's sitting here at #5, and is followed by
6. Bobby Cox I'm sure most would rank him higher. But since the goal is to win titles, that has to be seen as a failing.
I mean, you've got to be kidding me.
Figuring out what effect, if any, a manager has on a team is very difficult. Moneyball famously talks about how Billy Beane loved Art Howe because Howe sat stoically in the dugout and stared straight ahead and had the appearance of a leader, while essentially just following orders. He presided over those overachieving computer-generated teams that everyone loves to call underachieving because they got terribly unlucky in October, and then he went to the Mets and stunk up the place.
As I said, most anecdotal evidence (because empirical evidence with managers seems misleading) says that managers' most important job is that of a sheep dog -- herding the players in the same direction, keeping them from going astray over the course of a long season, focusing them on the task at hand, that kind of thing.
If that is at all true...who is better than Bobby Cox? He didn't win titles? He won every division title from 1844 to 2005. He throws some of the best player-protecting temper tantrums in the game. His guys love him. He handles veterans and rookies and retreads and rich guys and does gutsy things like make John Smoltz a closer. If I were GMing a team, I might get Bobby Cox to run it. Assuming he secretly agreed to run it Moneyball-style.
7. Grady Little He was knocked hard for sticking with Pedro Martinez in the 2003 ALCS, when his critics apparently would have rather seen him turn the game over to a very iffy bullpen. He's a low-key guy who doesn't get the plaudits he deserves.
Grady Little is a bad manager. He is a very nice man who says pleasant things in a pleasant drawl. He has no business being anywhere near a dugout. And this is not sour grapes. This is common sense.
9. Ozzie Guillen It may look like he's managing on emotion, but few know the game better.
He hits Podsednik first, doesn't care about OBP, thinks everyone should steal, bunts all the time, and says racist and insulting things. But he has a fun accent!
10. Terry Francona The Red Sox skipper keeps his cool in a tough environment. He manages both the clubhouse and game well.
If these are your criteria: put Torre first, Terry 2nd, Cox 3rd, and everyone else 4th.
11. Ron Gardenhire Always has the Twins hustling, just like in the Tom Kelly years.
He also thought Luis Castillo was worth 15 extra wins for his team. He seems decent, I guess, though he does some funky things with his line-up.
Managers are a mystery. Uneven payrolls and the large element of luck in short series make conclusions about their abilities very difficult. In general they should probably be judged on their overall team management skills, on and off the field -- controlling their players well and also letting them have fun without letting things get out of control...all that jazz.
However, I believe -- and this is from memory, so correct me if I am wrong -- that it was Rick Pitino who once said that the only time a basketball coach really has any tangible influence over that fluid game was coming out of a timeout, when (s)he could set up a specific play. If there is any corresponding truth in baseball, then people who famously make bonehead moves at crucial situations should never be on the list of best managers in baseball.
It should be noted that in the same article, Heyman seems to imply credit to Schuerholz for the acquisitions of Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Andruw and Chipper. ("...the one who procured the talent")
Glavine was drafted well before Schuerholz took over.
Smoltz was acquired in a trade (Doyle Alexander to the Tigers) during Cox's tenure as GM of the Braves, which I think a lot of people (including paid journalists) forget.
And this is just speculation on my part, but given that Chipper was drafted in the first season of Schuerholz's tenure as GM, it's at least somewhat likely that it was Cox and his team who did the early legwork on that one.
is almost as vexing to me as the cult of Joe Morgan. Here's Mark Kreidler's take:
Tony La Russa, a man with the gravitas to actually make the comparison, said this about Albert Pujols' home run: "It would be tied for first with the most dramatic home runs that have ever been hit."
Obviously unquantifiable, but...really? It was incredibly dramatic, but it won Game Five of an NLCS. Kirk Gibson? Bobby Thompson? Maz in the 1960 WS? Joe Carter? How about Hendu in 1986 -- that was a Game 5. Carlton Fisk? Jesus -- Bucky Dent?
Kreidler goes on to praise LaRussa for being stoic. Then he says this:
But in a roundabout way, maybe Pujols hits that home run because La Russa is who he is as a manager. Maybe the Cards don't panic, down 4-2 with two out in the ninth inning on the road against arguably the best closer in the game, precisely because Tony La Russa's emotional range as manager doesn't allow for free-form nervous expression.
I'm going to go ahead and say that in no way, shape, or form, does Tony La Russa's demeanor have anything to do with Pujols's HR. I think Pujols's HR is due to Pujols being the best hitter in baseball, and also due to Brad Lidge hanging a slider right over the middle of the plate.
If you want to see something almost as impressive as Pujols' home run, go back to the video and observe Pujols' expression during that at-bat. He stands in against Brad Lidge, and Pujols is just the embodiment of professional calm and concentration. His body barely moves at all. The swing on the home run is pure, of course, but it is also almost routine in its execution. Maybe Albert Pujols, as great as he is, also has a little La Russa in him. David Eckstein, too, for that matter.
There is no Tony La Russa in Albert Pujols. And to say that there is any "David Eckstein" in Albert Pujols (can we get through one article about the Cardinals without mentioning David Eckstein?), is to ignore the fact that Albert Pujols himself embodies all of the things that people praise David Eckstein for: hustle, determination, smarts, etc. Why does that mean there is "David Eckstein" in Albert Pujols? Did David Eckstein invent these things?
Plus, he fanatically studies video, researches the pitchers he is facing, and prepares for games better than anyone in the league. Which is why he hit that home run.
Also, Tony La Russa was being stoic, which totally helped him, I guess.
