Saturday, November 29, 2003
Gate 17 Departing from Phoenix to Boston
To be quite honest with you, I didn't think it was going to happen. As each day passed on and on, and Curt showed about as much desire to come to Fenway Park as I do of donating my kidney to Alonzo Mourning, I feared that Curt would be wearing pinstripes next year and not red socks.
I am honestly shocked this happened. Not just that Curt actually accepted the deal, but that the deal was ever in place to begin with. I was extremely skeptical of John Henry when Bud Selig essentially fixed the sale of the team, but this ownership and management team has been great. I was a Billy Beane guy, and when he was the Sox GM for a cup of coffee I couldn't have been happier. When he screwed us, I felt like kicking my dog. But I don't have a dog, so I kicked my neighbor's dog. That being said, Theo Epstein could be the next great GM in baseball, if he isn't already.
Tonight, I am going to bed knowing that we just added the best available pitcher to our team, and at a very very good price. That is a damn good feeling. And this was a damn good trade. For at least a few days, all is well in Red Sox Nation, and with Pedro and Curt going 1-2, things are going to be well in 2004.
(Note: I am not anti-donating a kidney to Alonzo Mourning, but Jesus, people die everyday as a result of not getting organs. Where are all those donors then? You only want famous athletes to get your organs? And why don't we celebrate the people that actually DO donate to anonymous people?
That being said, if Curt Schilling needs my kidney to pitch next year, he can have it.
I'm only kidding.
He can have both.)
To be quite honest with you, I didn't think it was going to happen. As each day passed on and on, and Curt showed about as much desire to come to Fenway Park as I do of donating my kidney to Alonzo Mourning, I feared that Curt would be wearing pinstripes next year and not red socks.
I am honestly shocked this happened. Not just that Curt actually accepted the deal, but that the deal was ever in place to begin with. I was extremely skeptical of John Henry when Bud Selig essentially fixed the sale of the team, but this ownership and management team has been great. I was a Billy Beane guy, and when he was the Sox GM for a cup of coffee I couldn't have been happier. When he screwed us, I felt like kicking my dog. But I don't have a dog, so I kicked my neighbor's dog. That being said, Theo Epstein could be the next great GM in baseball, if he isn't already.
Tonight, I am going to bed knowing that we just added the best available pitcher to our team, and at a very very good price. That is a damn good feeling. And this was a damn good trade. For at least a few days, all is well in Red Sox Nation, and with Pedro and Curt going 1-2, things are going to be well in 2004.
(Note: I am not anti-donating a kidney to Alonzo Mourning, but Jesus, people die everyday as a result of not getting organs. Where are all those donors then? You only want famous athletes to get your organs? And why don't we celebrate the people that actually DO donate to anonymous people?
That being said, if Curt Schilling needs my kidney to pitch next year, he can have it.
I'm only kidding.
He can have both.)
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Joy and Pain
Why did I have to promise a new entry on a day when there are numerous interesting things to talk about? Because I'm an idiot. Anyway, lots of stuff to talk about so let's get right to it.
---Curt Schilling might be the next member or the Boston Red Sox starting pitching staff in 2004. Essentially, if the Sox can get an extension done with Schilling in the next two days, he will be the Game 2 starter in the 2004 World Series. All the Sox have to give up is Casey Fossum (no, that is not a joke, Casey Fossum), Brandon "Tendonitis, Maybe" Lyon, and some prospects. If you are a Red Sox fan and this doesn't excite you than stop reading and go put on the Lifetime channel.
Schilling isn't just a good pitcher, he is great. I don't care how much he will make and I don't care that it might mean they can't resign Pedro in a year. Who cares? You go for it NOW before you lose all these pieces. Remember, this team was 5 outs away from winning the AL last year. Schilling doesn't just improve them, he improves them dramatically. And the only 37 year olds that should ever be given pitching extensions are power pitchers Like Nolan Ryan or Randy Johnson (I won't address Clemens, because he only got in shape and pitched well BECAUSE he didn't get the extension.) And if someone says "Schilling was hurt last year, he is risky" then punch them in the face. He broke his hand trying to get a ground ball up the middle. His shoulder and arm and body were fine! And he still submitted a sub 3 era! I'm getting giddy just thinking about him and Pedro pitching together.
Especially since he is such a horse, eating up a lot innings, he'll allow the Sox to go easier on Pedro.
(At this point I have lost the ability to rationally discuss this trade. Pitching pitching pitching wins championships. Pitching pitching pitching beats good hitting. Pitching pitching pitching cures cancer. Pitching pitching pitching was the first man to walk on the moon. PITCHING!!!! SCHILLING!!!!)
---Alonzo Mourning has to retire because of his kidney disease. He needs a transplant. It won't save his career, but it will hopefully save his life. I have no idea what kind of guy Alonzo Moruning is, although I have never read anything bad about him. And I do know that I thought he was hysterical and dead on last week when he told Kenyon Martin "You can't be a leader in the trainer's room crying, 'My ankle, my ankle.''' In spite of my ignorance about him as a person, I am always greatly upset when an athlete's career has to end prematurely because of something awful and outside of the scope of sports. This isn't even the worst case of something like this in 2003. Let us not forget NHL player Daniel Snyder who died in a car crash earlier this year. It always feels like a waste. Athletes aren't just young, they are living the dream of most of us, and getting paid a lot to do it. I'm sure Alonzo Mourning would much rather live another 40 years as healthy as he can instead of forcing a few more games out of his broken down body. But I am also sure that doesn't ease the pain of having to let go of the game he loves.
---If you have ESPN Motion, then go the NHL page and watch the trailer for Miracle. In the coming months I will talk about this movie at great lenght. But let me just say this, they better get it right. The problem with a movie like this is you can't screw it up, you can't be good, you have to be great. This is the single greatest sports moment of the 20th century, don't mess it up.
---I still think we get ARod and send Manny to Texas. I think ARod will force their hand.
---Finally, on another depressing note, Warren Spahn passed away at the age of 82. When he pitched for the Braves him and Johnny Sain made up the Johnson/Schilling tandem of their era. The old saying on how the Braves would win was "Spahn and Sain and pray for rain." Warren Spahn was one of the all time greats and doesn't get nearly the recognition he should for it. I don't have anything poetic to say about his passing. It is just a sad day for baseball.
Why did I have to promise a new entry on a day when there are numerous interesting things to talk about? Because I'm an idiot. Anyway, lots of stuff to talk about so let's get right to it.
---Curt Schilling might be the next member or the Boston Red Sox starting pitching staff in 2004. Essentially, if the Sox can get an extension done with Schilling in the next two days, he will be the Game 2 starter in the 2004 World Series. All the Sox have to give up is Casey Fossum (no, that is not a joke, Casey Fossum), Brandon "Tendonitis, Maybe" Lyon, and some prospects. If you are a Red Sox fan and this doesn't excite you than stop reading and go put on the Lifetime channel.
Schilling isn't just a good pitcher, he is great. I don't care how much he will make and I don't care that it might mean they can't resign Pedro in a year. Who cares? You go for it NOW before you lose all these pieces. Remember, this team was 5 outs away from winning the AL last year. Schilling doesn't just improve them, he improves them dramatically. And the only 37 year olds that should ever be given pitching extensions are power pitchers Like Nolan Ryan or Randy Johnson (I won't address Clemens, because he only got in shape and pitched well BECAUSE he didn't get the extension.) And if someone says "Schilling was hurt last year, he is risky" then punch them in the face. He broke his hand trying to get a ground ball up the middle. His shoulder and arm and body were fine! And he still submitted a sub 3 era! I'm getting giddy just thinking about him and Pedro pitching together.
Especially since he is such a horse, eating up a lot innings, he'll allow the Sox to go easier on Pedro.
(At this point I have lost the ability to rationally discuss this trade. Pitching pitching pitching wins championships. Pitching pitching pitching beats good hitting. Pitching pitching pitching cures cancer. Pitching pitching pitching was the first man to walk on the moon. PITCHING!!!! SCHILLING!!!!)
---Alonzo Mourning has to retire because of his kidney disease. He needs a transplant. It won't save his career, but it will hopefully save his life. I have no idea what kind of guy Alonzo Moruning is, although I have never read anything bad about him. And I do know that I thought he was hysterical and dead on last week when he told Kenyon Martin "You can't be a leader in the trainer's room crying, 'My ankle, my ankle.''' In spite of my ignorance about him as a person, I am always greatly upset when an athlete's career has to end prematurely because of something awful and outside of the scope of sports. This isn't even the worst case of something like this in 2003. Let us not forget NHL player Daniel Snyder who died in a car crash earlier this year. It always feels like a waste. Athletes aren't just young, they are living the dream of most of us, and getting paid a lot to do it. I'm sure Alonzo Mourning would much rather live another 40 years as healthy as he can instead of forcing a few more games out of his broken down body. But I am also sure that doesn't ease the pain of having to let go of the game he loves.
---If you have ESPN Motion, then go the NHL page and watch the trailer for Miracle. In the coming months I will talk about this movie at great lenght. But let me just say this, they better get it right. The problem with a movie like this is you can't screw it up, you can't be good, you have to be great. This is the single greatest sports moment of the 20th century, don't mess it up.
---I still think we get ARod and send Manny to Texas. I think ARod will force their hand.
---Finally, on another depressing note, Warren Spahn passed away at the age of 82. When he pitched for the Braves him and Johnny Sain made up the Johnson/Schilling tandem of their era. The old saying on how the Braves would win was "Spahn and Sain and pray for rain." Warren Spahn was one of the all time greats and doesn't get nearly the recognition he should for it. I don't have anything poetic to say about his passing. It is just a sad day for baseball.
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Caution: Have Sandwich Ready If you Want To Finish This in One Reading
The MVP voting for both leagues this year couldn't be more different, but both are highly debatable and interesting. Unlike its American League counterpart and its anyone can win contest, the National League Most Valuable Player race has only two horses running: "Likeable" Barry Bonds and "23-year-old" Albert Pujols. From what I can see and have read, most baseball people and writers think it is funny to even consider giving it to anyone other than Barry Bonds, but public sentiment seems to be in favor of Pujols.
Why this is I am not sure, but I have some ideas. I imagine baseball people favor Bonds because they understand what he has done the last few years, and that is control every game he is a part of. The only other baseball player to ever do that (at least, as far as I can be convinced) is George Herman Ruth. Basically, the argument for Pujols is an argument against one of the two most dominant players of all time. That's a long time and an even harder position to defend.
Public sentiment for Pujols might be a result of a couple of things. One, he was in the hunt for the Triple Crown for awhile, and everyone loves a Triple Crown winner. Even more impressive was he competed for the Triple Crown AND he's a gelding. Unbelievable. The last gelding to compete for the Triple Crown was Hank Greenberg in 1935. Wait......wait.
I imagine that the fans are also sick of seeing Bonds win every year. People get bored of watching the same people or teams win. Especially when the aformentioned winner's head gets bigger and bigger every year to the point the public fears it might explode. (Do you think Barry's kids get scared at night when he goes to tuck them in? He looks like one of the monsters in Ernest Scared Stupid. But I digress.)
Finally, I think public sentiment favors Pujols because everyone hates Barry Bonds. Rooting for Barry Bonds to win anything is like rooting for Ebola to infect people. "Yeah! Go Ebola!" Funny thing is, reports say that Pujols' teammates hate him and that he is also an a-hole. Who knows, and who cares, the point is the public doesn't want to root for Barry Ebola.
So, then, who really is the NL MVP? I don't know, but if you want to keep reading, I am going to do my best to answer that question with everyone's favorite mind numbing figures - STATISTICS!
Here is a breakdown of what I consider to be the most important stats for both hitters last year and where they ranked in the National League. (I apologize for the following chart, but it was the best I could do.) Pujols' numbers are are first and in bold, Bonds' numbers are second and in italics.
Batting Average----- .359, 1 ----- .341, 3
Runs----- 137, 1 ----- 111, 5
RBIs----- 124, 4(tied) ----- 90, 24
Homeruns----- 43, 4(tied) ----- 45, 2(tied)
Hits----- 210, 1 ----- 133, 60
Doubles----- 51, 1 ----- 22, 78(tied)
Walks----- 79, 17 ----- 148, 1
On Base %----- 439, 3 ----- .529, 1
Slugging %----- .667, 2 ----- .749, 1
OPS----- 1.106, 2 ----- 1.278, 1
Win Shares----- 41, 1 ----- 39, 2
On the surface, the numbers would seem to indicate that Bonds was the better player. He had a commanding lead in on base percentage, walks plus hits divided by plate appearances, (considered to be the single most important stat for a hitter) and slugging percentage, total bases divided by at bats (considered to be the second most important stat for a hitter). Now, a Pujols' defender might point to the fact that Pujols led in more of what I have already said I consider to be the most important hitting categories. However, that doesn't stand for two reasons. One, Bonds leads, by a whopping margin in the most important categories. Two, Bonds' fewer hits and RBIs are a result of his huge amount of walks. His 148 were 37 more than the second place finishers Jim Thome and Todd Helton. Bonds had only 390 registered at bats, which easily accounts for his diminished numbers in the other at bat-dependent categories. To get on base over 50% of the time when you come up to bat 538 times is astounding. It makes one appreciate even more how good Barry was lat year when he got on base over 60% of the time!
The only way one could argue for Pujols over Bonds is in the amount of games played. Pujols played in 157 games to Bonds' 130. So the question begs, do those 27 games make up for Bonds obvious advantage. Before I get to that, let me just address any other factors.
Defense: No one is accusing either of these guys of being Andruw Jones, and since they both played left field (Pujols actually started at first base in 36 games) we can say that neither has an advantage of playing a "tough" defensive position. Bonds is historically a good defensive outfielder and had a higher range factor and fielding percentage than Pujols this year. I do not know of a good way to measure either of these two defensively, so let's say if there is any advantage it is a slight one to Bonds.
Running: Neither of them ran much, but Bonds can and Pujols can't. Pretty simple. Barry might not take off for second like he used too, but at least he is a threat. Pujols might as well be called "Station" because that's how he runs.
Park Factors: All the numbers I got on this confused me and made me have a panic attack. Believe me when I say that it appears that the Giants Pac Bell was a tougher place to hit than Busch Stadium, even though Bonds OPS was .197 points higher at home.
Teams: The Giants had the second best record in the NL and the Cardinals finished third in their division. If the whole "winning team" theory matters to you, you'd have to give an advantage to Bonds, but it is hard to penalize Pujols considering his team was a MASH unit all year and was still in contention with two weeks to go in the season.
So all of these other factors also indicate that Barry Bonds was the more valuable (and better player) this year. Except for games played. Pujols was hurt for a period this year too, and a bunch of those games played were actually just pinch hitting duties, but still, he was there and available and contributing. So do those 27 games make up for Bonds dominance? They obviously did in Bill James' Win Shares formula, since Pujols was 2 win shares better (that isn't very much though.)
Barry Bonds was not hurt for most of those games he missed. His father Bobby was dying and Barry spent time with him before he passed away. Obviously, he missed some games after his father's death. It's one thing to be J.D. Drew and miss 142 games with a hangnail, but to miss games for something like that is completely understandable and excusable in the real world of baseball.
But when you are talking MVP race, those games do matter. And I guess for most of the people that voted for the NL MVP, it might have been the deciding factor. Either candidate is deserving, but I think Bonds will and should get it. The production is just too dominant that the 27 games difference cannot make up for it. I would have preferred Bonds for 130 games last year than Pujols for 157, some of which were extremely part time. If Pujols does win it will be because he played in more games and the words "Triple Crown" came up for awhile.
But since baseball writers vote for the award, not the public, you can probably bet that tomorrow will be another victory for Ebola.
I just hope his head doesn't explode with happiness, it could infect the entire Pacific Ocean area.
The MVP voting for both leagues this year couldn't be more different, but both are highly debatable and interesting. Unlike its American League counterpart and its anyone can win contest, the National League Most Valuable Player race has only two horses running: "Likeable" Barry Bonds and "23-year-old" Albert Pujols. From what I can see and have read, most baseball people and writers think it is funny to even consider giving it to anyone other than Barry Bonds, but public sentiment seems to be in favor of Pujols.
Why this is I am not sure, but I have some ideas. I imagine baseball people favor Bonds because they understand what he has done the last few years, and that is control every game he is a part of. The only other baseball player to ever do that (at least, as far as I can be convinced) is George Herman Ruth. Basically, the argument for Pujols is an argument against one of the two most dominant players of all time. That's a long time and an even harder position to defend.
Public sentiment for Pujols might be a result of a couple of things. One, he was in the hunt for the Triple Crown for awhile, and everyone loves a Triple Crown winner. Even more impressive was he competed for the Triple Crown AND he's a gelding. Unbelievable. The last gelding to compete for the Triple Crown was Hank Greenberg in 1935. Wait......wait.
I imagine that the fans are also sick of seeing Bonds win every year. People get bored of watching the same people or teams win. Especially when the aformentioned winner's head gets bigger and bigger every year to the point the public fears it might explode. (Do you think Barry's kids get scared at night when he goes to tuck them in? He looks like one of the monsters in Ernest Scared Stupid. But I digress.)
Finally, I think public sentiment favors Pujols because everyone hates Barry Bonds. Rooting for Barry Bonds to win anything is like rooting for Ebola to infect people. "Yeah! Go Ebola!" Funny thing is, reports say that Pujols' teammates hate him and that he is also an a-hole. Who knows, and who cares, the point is the public doesn't want to root for Barry Ebola.
So, then, who really is the NL MVP? I don't know, but if you want to keep reading, I am going to do my best to answer that question with everyone's favorite mind numbing figures - STATISTICS!
Here is a breakdown of what I consider to be the most important stats for both hitters last year and where they ranked in the National League. (I apologize for the following chart, but it was the best I could do.) Pujols' numbers are are first and in bold, Bonds' numbers are second and in italics.
Batting Average----- .359, 1 ----- .341, 3
Runs----- 137, 1 ----- 111, 5
RBIs----- 124, 4(tied) ----- 90, 24
Homeruns----- 43, 4(tied) ----- 45, 2(tied)
Hits----- 210, 1 ----- 133, 60
Doubles----- 51, 1 ----- 22, 78(tied)
Walks----- 79, 17 ----- 148, 1
On Base %----- 439, 3 ----- .529, 1
Slugging %----- .667, 2 ----- .749, 1
OPS----- 1.106, 2 ----- 1.278, 1
Win Shares----- 41, 1 ----- 39, 2
On the surface, the numbers would seem to indicate that Bonds was the better player. He had a commanding lead in on base percentage, walks plus hits divided by plate appearances, (considered to be the single most important stat for a hitter) and slugging percentage, total bases divided by at bats (considered to be the second most important stat for a hitter). Now, a Pujols' defender might point to the fact that Pujols led in more of what I have already said I consider to be the most important hitting categories. However, that doesn't stand for two reasons. One, Bonds leads, by a whopping margin in the most important categories. Two, Bonds' fewer hits and RBIs are a result of his huge amount of walks. His 148 were 37 more than the second place finishers Jim Thome and Todd Helton. Bonds had only 390 registered at bats, which easily accounts for his diminished numbers in the other at bat-dependent categories. To get on base over 50% of the time when you come up to bat 538 times is astounding. It makes one appreciate even more how good Barry was lat year when he got on base over 60% of the time!
The only way one could argue for Pujols over Bonds is in the amount of games played. Pujols played in 157 games to Bonds' 130. So the question begs, do those 27 games make up for Bonds obvious advantage. Before I get to that, let me just address any other factors.
Defense: No one is accusing either of these guys of being Andruw Jones, and since they both played left field (Pujols actually started at first base in 36 games) we can say that neither has an advantage of playing a "tough" defensive position. Bonds is historically a good defensive outfielder and had a higher range factor and fielding percentage than Pujols this year. I do not know of a good way to measure either of these two defensively, so let's say if there is any advantage it is a slight one to Bonds.
Running: Neither of them ran much, but Bonds can and Pujols can't. Pretty simple. Barry might not take off for second like he used too, but at least he is a threat. Pujols might as well be called "Station" because that's how he runs.
Park Factors: All the numbers I got on this confused me and made me have a panic attack. Believe me when I say that it appears that the Giants Pac Bell was a tougher place to hit than Busch Stadium, even though Bonds OPS was .197 points higher at home.
Teams: The Giants had the second best record in the NL and the Cardinals finished third in their division. If the whole "winning team" theory matters to you, you'd have to give an advantage to Bonds, but it is hard to penalize Pujols considering his team was a MASH unit all year and was still in contention with two weeks to go in the season.
So all of these other factors also indicate that Barry Bonds was the more valuable (and better player) this year. Except for games played. Pujols was hurt for a period this year too, and a bunch of those games played were actually just pinch hitting duties, but still, he was there and available and contributing. So do those 27 games make up for Bonds dominance? They obviously did in Bill James' Win Shares formula, since Pujols was 2 win shares better (that isn't very much though.)
Barry Bonds was not hurt for most of those games he missed. His father Bobby was dying and Barry spent time with him before he passed away. Obviously, he missed some games after his father's death. It's one thing to be J.D. Drew and miss 142 games with a hangnail, but to miss games for something like that is completely understandable and excusable in the real world of baseball.
But when you are talking MVP race, those games do matter. And I guess for most of the people that voted for the NL MVP, it might have been the deciding factor. Either candidate is deserving, but I think Bonds will and should get it. The production is just too dominant that the 27 games difference cannot make up for it. I would have preferred Bonds for 130 games last year than Pujols for 157, some of which were extremely part time. If Pujols does win it will be because he played in more games and the words "Triple Crown" came up for awhile.
But since baseball writers vote for the award, not the public, you can probably bet that tomorrow will be another victory for Ebola.
I just hope his head doesn't explode with happiness, it could infect the entire Pacific Ocean area.
Monday, November 17, 2003
Yeah, I Said It
Now baseball writers often do foolish things when voting for year-end awards. You know, like refuse to give Alex Rodriguez his rightfully earned MVP award year after year, but I have a hard time imagining that the majority of them aren't intelligent people.
I wrote that only two days ago. Sure enough Roriguez won the AL MVP today.
I do not know who the most valuable player in the American League was in 2003. However, I do know two things:
1) No one was MORE valuable to his team than Alex Rodriguez, as far as being the best player in the game. (If you want to make the "losing team" argument, fine, but for this point I think we can all agree that on an individual basis no one was BETTER than Arod.)
2) Shannon Stewart was NOT the MVP of the league.
Now, point 1 is important, point 2 - not so much.
The reason point one is important is because there was no clear cut choice in the AL this year for MVP. So you can make a very strong argument for and against about 6 or 7 guys. So, since the award went to someone that we can all basically agree on was at the very least the best player, than I don't have much problem with it going to a guy on a losing team.
Point 2 I mention because somehow Shannon Stewart ended up in the top 5 of voting, with one of my favorite baseball writers, Jayson Stark, championing his cause. The reason smart people might be confused about Shannon Stewart's impact after being traded to the Twins midseason is because they are ignoring (or are too lazy to investigate) the REAL reason for the Twins turnaround. Their improved pitching in the second half, NOT Shannon Stewart, was the reason for their upswing. It just so happened that the pitching got better after Stewart's arrival, not because of his arrival. And unless Shannon Stewart was playing left field AND became the pitching coach for Minnesota, there is no reason for his name to appear on anyone's AL MVP ballot, let alone first place.
Now clearly Jayson Stark is an intelligent man, but for some reason he was way offbase with this one. But, like I said, even intelligent baseball writers do foolish things. It just so happened that this year they didn't.
Now baseball writers often do foolish things when voting for year-end awards. You know, like refuse to give Alex Rodriguez his rightfully earned MVP award year after year, but I have a hard time imagining that the majority of them aren't intelligent people.
I wrote that only two days ago. Sure enough Roriguez won the AL MVP today.
I do not know who the most valuable player in the American League was in 2003. However, I do know two things:
1) No one was MORE valuable to his team than Alex Rodriguez, as far as being the best player in the game. (If you want to make the "losing team" argument, fine, but for this point I think we can all agree that on an individual basis no one was BETTER than Arod.)
2) Shannon Stewart was NOT the MVP of the league.
Now, point 1 is important, point 2 - not so much.
The reason point one is important is because there was no clear cut choice in the AL this year for MVP. So you can make a very strong argument for and against about 6 or 7 guys. So, since the award went to someone that we can all basically agree on was at the very least the best player, than I don't have much problem with it going to a guy on a losing team.
Point 2 I mention because somehow Shannon Stewart ended up in the top 5 of voting, with one of my favorite baseball writers, Jayson Stark, championing his cause. The reason smart people might be confused about Shannon Stewart's impact after being traded to the Twins midseason is because they are ignoring (or are too lazy to investigate) the REAL reason for the Twins turnaround. Their improved pitching in the second half, NOT Shannon Stewart, was the reason for their upswing. It just so happened that the pitching got better after Stewart's arrival, not because of his arrival. And unless Shannon Stewart was playing left field AND became the pitching coach for Minnesota, there is no reason for his name to appear on anyone's AL MVP ballot, let alone first place.
Now clearly Jayson Stark is an intelligent man, but for some reason he was way offbase with this one. But, like I said, even intelligent baseball writers do foolish things. It just so happened that this year they didn't.
Saturday, November 15, 2003
It's All Relative, Really
One of my favorite baseball writers, Rob Neyer, wrote the following about this year's NL Rookie of the Year Voting:
A number of intelligent people are upset because Dontrelle Willis beat out Brandon Webb for the NL Rookie of the Year Award, and I can't say I blame them, considering that 1) Webb's ERA was significantly better than Willis', and 2) Webb's team plays in a hitter's park, while Willis' team plays in a pitcher's park.
While I agree that Webb probably deserved to win the award over the Florida Phenom (for half a season at least), I can see an argument for still voting for Willis over Webb.
If someone were to ask you who was THE rookie of 2003, not who was the best, you would probably answer Dontrelle Willis. Willis came up and didn't just pitch great, but brilliantly. And it wasn't just how well he pitched, it was the way he pitched and the excitement he caused. Willis games became events, and considering that the Marlins weren't drawing very well, that was a big deal. Also, after a while Willis pitched games were getting huge national coverage. Being the lead story on SportsCenter is ALWAYS good for business. (I take that back and change it to "usually" good for business. See Kobe Bryant for example.)
So if we decide that the two best rookies were Webb and Willis (which may not be the case, but for the sake of my point, shh) then can we give Willis bonus points for his monetary impact for the Marlins and his good publicity for baseball? I don't know if I would, but I can certaintly see someone's argument if they did. If Rob Neyer wants to take points away from Willis because he had the (mis)fortune of pitching in a picther's ballpark, then maybe he and we should give Willis bonus points for pitching under a much larger media spotlight than his counterpart.
Now baseball writers often do foolish things when voting for year-end awards. You know, like refuse to give Alex Rodriguez his rightfully earned MVP award year after year, but I have a hard time imagining that the majority of them aren't intelligent people. So something had to make them vote for Dontrelle Willis over Brandon Webb. Maybe it is the points I mentioned, maybe it is something I never even considered. But ultimately it doesn't really matter because intelligent baseball fans on the whole KNOW that the right person does not always win. Rob Neyer also knows this.
Of course, Rob Neyer also would have voted for Scott Podsednik as NL Rookie of the Year, so what's the difference?
One of my favorite baseball writers, Rob Neyer, wrote the following about this year's NL Rookie of the Year Voting:
A number of intelligent people are upset because Dontrelle Willis beat out Brandon Webb for the NL Rookie of the Year Award, and I can't say I blame them, considering that 1) Webb's ERA was significantly better than Willis', and 2) Webb's team plays in a hitter's park, while Willis' team plays in a pitcher's park.
While I agree that Webb probably deserved to win the award over the Florida Phenom (for half a season at least), I can see an argument for still voting for Willis over Webb.
If someone were to ask you who was THE rookie of 2003, not who was the best, you would probably answer Dontrelle Willis. Willis came up and didn't just pitch great, but brilliantly. And it wasn't just how well he pitched, it was the way he pitched and the excitement he caused. Willis games became events, and considering that the Marlins weren't drawing very well, that was a big deal. Also, after a while Willis pitched games were getting huge national coverage. Being the lead story on SportsCenter is ALWAYS good for business. (I take that back and change it to "usually" good for business. See Kobe Bryant for example.)
So if we decide that the two best rookies were Webb and Willis (which may not be the case, but for the sake of my point, shh) then can we give Willis bonus points for his monetary impact for the Marlins and his good publicity for baseball? I don't know if I would, but I can certaintly see someone's argument if they did. If Rob Neyer wants to take points away from Willis because he had the (mis)fortune of pitching in a picther's ballpark, then maybe he and we should give Willis bonus points for pitching under a much larger media spotlight than his counterpart.
Now baseball writers often do foolish things when voting for year-end awards. You know, like refuse to give Alex Rodriguez his rightfully earned MVP award year after year, but I have a hard time imagining that the majority of them aren't intelligent people. So something had to make them vote for Dontrelle Willis over Brandon Webb. Maybe it is the points I mentioned, maybe it is something I never even considered. But ultimately it doesn't really matter because intelligent baseball fans on the whole KNOW that the right person does not always win. Rob Neyer also knows this.
Of course, Rob Neyer also would have voted for Scott Podsednik as NL Rookie of the Year, so what's the difference?
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
I Dare You
Excuse me my faithful audience, but today's entry is really only for one person. However, I feel I must address him and the situation.
Ben, listen to me. You are one of us, or at least you were. But something has happened to you since you got that Oscar of yours, and I don't like it. The rest of your brethren here in Red Sox Nation doesn't like it. Forget the fact that you decided you wanted to be a movie star instead of an actor, forget the fact that you have made some of the worst movies of my life (Ben, how about we just pretend Daredevil never happened? Okay? We'll call it your Rocky V), forget the fact that your friend and fellow local boy Matt Damon is a respected artist and you are now referred to as Bennifer, forget all of that!
My biggest problem, and really, the biggest problem of all that care about you hear in The Hub is your girlfriend, the Yankees fan.
Ben, we are all allowed to have one Yankees fan as a friend. It's fine. It helps us feel better about ourselves because we know they are bad people and we are good. My Yankee friend is a kid by the name of Jason, and there isn't a day that goes by that he doesn't make me feel better about myself and my baseball team. But marrying a Yankees fan? Un-for-giv-a-ble Ben, unforgivable. Aside from the fact that "Jenny" is a egotistical, hate-mongering, sell out, she is from the Bronx and swear allegiance to The Empire.
Ben, there's only one course of action, and aside from saving your soul, it would be one of the greatest moments in Boston history. You need to publicly, and brutally, break up with J'Lo.
Think about it, your wedding day, she walks down the aisle, with her 300 foot train covering her 200 foot behind, steps up and says I do. Then, the Priest turns to you (assuming you can find a Priest who could possibly allow this union to happen) and asks you if you take her hand.
Then, you scream "No F*&^%$ Way. Screw you you pinstriped lard a$$!" Rip off the tux to reveal your Pedro shirt and then throw her to the ground like she's Don Zimmer.
At this point, I feel there is no other way for this to end than what I just said. C'mon Ben. She is going to divorce you in a year anyway, beat her to it. Let us win just once. You can do what Puff Daddy couldn't. You could go out a winner. And when it's all over, we will welcome you back with open arms and no mention of Pearl Harbor.
Ben, we miss you. And we care about you. Do the right thing. And if you don't believe me it is the right thing, then you should probably know that Grady Little is in favor of you two getting married.
And he liked Daredevil.
Excuse me my faithful audience, but today's entry is really only for one person. However, I feel I must address him and the situation.
Ben, listen to me. You are one of us, or at least you were. But something has happened to you since you got that Oscar of yours, and I don't like it. The rest of your brethren here in Red Sox Nation doesn't like it. Forget the fact that you decided you wanted to be a movie star instead of an actor, forget the fact that you have made some of the worst movies of my life (Ben, how about we just pretend Daredevil never happened? Okay? We'll call it your Rocky V), forget the fact that your friend and fellow local boy Matt Damon is a respected artist and you are now referred to as Bennifer, forget all of that!
My biggest problem, and really, the biggest problem of all that care about you hear in The Hub is your girlfriend, the Yankees fan.
Ben, we are all allowed to have one Yankees fan as a friend. It's fine. It helps us feel better about ourselves because we know they are bad people and we are good. My Yankee friend is a kid by the name of Jason, and there isn't a day that goes by that he doesn't make me feel better about myself and my baseball team. But marrying a Yankees fan? Un-for-giv-a-ble Ben, unforgivable. Aside from the fact that "Jenny" is a egotistical, hate-mongering, sell out, she is from the Bronx and swear allegiance to The Empire.
Ben, there's only one course of action, and aside from saving your soul, it would be one of the greatest moments in Boston history. You need to publicly, and brutally, break up with J'Lo.
Think about it, your wedding day, she walks down the aisle, with her 300 foot train covering her 200 foot behind, steps up and says I do. Then, the Priest turns to you (assuming you can find a Priest who could possibly allow this union to happen) and asks you if you take her hand.
Then, you scream "No F*&^%$ Way. Screw you you pinstriped lard a$$!" Rip off the tux to reveal your Pedro shirt and then throw her to the ground like she's Don Zimmer.
At this point, I feel there is no other way for this to end than what I just said. C'mon Ben. She is going to divorce you in a year anyway, beat her to it. Let us win just once. You can do what Puff Daddy couldn't. You could go out a winner. And when it's all over, we will welcome you back with open arms and no mention of Pearl Harbor.
Ben, we miss you. And we care about you. Do the right thing. And if you don't believe me it is the right thing, then you should probably know that Grady Little is in favor of you two getting married.
And he liked Daredevil.
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Still Kicking
While Jeremy Wahlman might be the only one still checking this thing (thanks Jer, your support is inspiring), I assure you I have not given up on it. It is just that recently I have been completely flabbergasted by what happened in the month of October. I just can't will myself to write about anything without eventually it disintegrating into just another "Why Grady?" column.
On the plus though, I have officially stopped reading Dan Shaughnessy's columns. Does anyone even like him anymore? Are there any Boston sports fans he has yet to alienate? Too bad, the guy can/could write. Too bad he's such a dope.
While Jeremy Wahlman might be the only one still checking this thing (thanks Jer, your support is inspiring), I assure you I have not given up on it. It is just that recently I have been completely flabbergasted by what happened in the month of October. I just can't will myself to write about anything without eventually it disintegrating into just another "Why Grady?" column.
On the plus though, I have officially stopped reading Dan Shaughnessy's columns. Does anyone even like him anymore? Are there any Boston sports fans he has yet to alienate? Too bad, the guy can/could write. Too bad he's such a dope.
