You know, I really don't like the Luis Castillo trade, and all anyone does is rave about it. I mean, they canned Ruben Gotay when he was red hot for a guy who was OPB-ing .356 while Gotay was hitting .356.

Looks like a very happy man, ne?

What's the opposite of a man-crush? That'd be my feeling toward Castillo (or, because I'm not a man, does it have to be the opposite of the opposite of a man-crush? I digress).  My undying hatred for him has sort of gone unsaid lately because Castillo has been solid since coming over-- .324/.377/.394 with a .281 EqA-- but the law of averages has nothing good in store for him. His career numbers are unimpressive, complete with an admittedly impressively average .264 EqA.

At the time of the trade, here are how the offensive numbers stacked up:

Castillo

OBP: .356
OPS: .708
EqA: .252 (eight points below league average FTW)
VORP: 4.8 (he's creating 4.8 more runs than some call-up guy would)

Gotay

OBP: .382
OPS: .871
EqA: .300 (!)
VORP: 13.5

Oh, and Castillo has zero home runs. None. Zero. At all. This season. In about 30 fewer games, Gotay has 4.

Regardless, it's obvious that Gotay is an offensively superior player. But, says everyone who I have spoken to, he is a veteran who is obviously better defensively. That the 'veteran' argument could be used to keep Shawn Green in the lineup over Lastings Millege notwithstanding, let us compare them defensively:

Catillo FRAA: -8 (So, he's prevented -8 runs more than the average player. No, this is not good.)
Gotay FRAA: -3

Gotay's isn't good by any stretch of the imagination, but it's better than Castillo's.

So, we've replaced a good offensive and average-to-below-average defensive player with someone who is all-around... worse? What?

 

Heat Up

Good hustle Beltran, good hustle.

If Carlos Beltran stays this hot for even just two or three weeks-the rest of the season notwithstanding-the Mets should cruise into the post-season. Finally, they're getting something they haven't been getting all season: production out of the cleanup spot. Has anyone else noticed that the Mets improved when Delgado was out of the lineup? Does anyone else realize why? 

 

Chill Out

.

At the time of my writing this, the Mets are tied with the Red Sox for biggest lead over second place in their division with a 5.0 game lead, and are third (BoSox, Angels) in the majors in winning percentage. So as people continue to wonder what is wrong with the Mets this season, I'm inclined to answer: nothing. 

Seriously, it's ridiculous to compare this season with the joke that was last season's division race. Not only are the other two really competitive teams (Braves, Phillies) much better, the frontrunners in the other divisions (Cubs, Diamondbacks) are better. You can't expect to have a 15-game lead on second place every season. Your team is not going to go 162-0. 

The Mets are on pace to win 93 games, only 4 short of last season.

 

 FTW

.

Did anyone else notice how many times Rose and McCarthy messed up on Tuesday's radio broadcast? They confused Beltran and Delgado at least twice, forgot how many out there were at least once, and said Beltran was hitting 'leadoff' when it was obviously supposed to be 'cleanup,' among several other things. I'm a stickler, but I can deal with mental lapses once in a while... Tuesday night was just plain strange.

 

Random

 

The Rangers will not sign Mike Peca. The Rangers will not sign Mike Peca. The Rangers will not sign Mike Peca. 

I'm going to just keep repeating that to myself and hope that it comes true. 

It takes some ego to contact a team people are predicting to be hella good and ask them to sign you.

I'm really, really sorry. I screwed up and posted this on FanFicRants and the wrong thing here (don't ask... staring at a screen for hours on end will do that to you). Unfortunately, now everyone in both places thinks I am an absolute lunatic. There are worse things, I guess, but it does sort of suck.

Regardless, here is my latest post. It's a bit rant-y and just my general thoughts on the matter, but take it for what it is. And this is the right thing this time.

 EDIT: Oh, and I hate Barry Bonds. I'm sad following yesterday. But I don't feel the need to waste both of our time and take 15 paragraphs to say so, so there it is: my feelings on Bonds.

---

 

 

You know what the problem with ARod is? He's not a team player. He's a choker, a headcase, and he only thinks of himself. He doesn't have what it takes to be in the spotlight. And until he owns the postseason, he'll never be a True Yankee, light years away from the behemoth of Jeter.

Never mind that he outhit Jeter in the 2004 LDS. Or that in his postseason career, ARod is .280/.375/.485. Or that the average ERA for a Yankees pitcher of any caliber in the postseason over the last 4 years is 5.07-- and that includes the 0.00 ERAs of middle relievers who only got 2 outs. Or that, sans ARod, the median average over that period of time was .237.

None of that matters. ARod is the problem, and must be due-ly ridiculed and subsequently exterminated.


... I live in the New York area, so I hear even more wallowing about the Yankees' various woes than people who live elsewhere probably thought possible; not only am I subjected to the standard ESPN barrage, my local media reports it, too. And although things have quieted down tremendously because he is having a ridiculous year, people still insist on writing about how he's just dragging the Yankees down (the fact that without him they'd have been 10 extra games back aside). And with the-- gasp!-- 21 extra at-bats it took for him to go from 499 to 500, things have gotten rather bad again.

So here are thoughts on ARod from someone who doesn't really care about the Yankees. To put them in paragraph format, I imagine, would be rather jumbled, so I'll number them and see where it leads me.

1. First of all...

I'm a Mets fan. I should not have to defend Yankees player(s) against their own fans, especially when said player(s) are probably one of the greatest player(s) ever. I mean, I hate ARod just as much as I should. But, oddly, Yankee fans hate him more. I do not understand this. Maybe it's the fact that I root for teams that historically lose, but I don't really understand venting frustration on players who aren't the problem. Which could be why I never booed Marek Malik, but I digress.

2. He wins. In general.

Not to be redundant, but ARod is generally an amazing player. Without getting too nerdy, his career OPS is .987. For a point of comparison, Bonds' is 1.051... and this is taking into account those insane years where Bonds' OBP was above .500. ARod, is very, very good. 

Nerdier, his career WARP3 is 142.0. This means he averages a 10.1 WARP3 a year during his career. Hank Aaron averaged an 8.8 WARP3. ARod is very, very good. 

Hell, he even won an MVP with the Yankees. So it's not like his numbers have drastically dropped off over the past three or four years or anything. He had one year where he came down to Earth a little-- notice how .290/.392/.523 with 35 HR is "down to Earth"-- and he was mauled. And he's still being mauled. Defend that. ARod is very, very good.

3. Fielding

As a third baseman, ARod averages 14.25 errors a year. As a shortstop, he averaged 10.9 errors a year. Jeter, through his career as a shortstop, has averaged 14.46 errors a year.

Just thought, you know, I'd point that out.

Not to take anything away from Jeter, of course. As a Mets fan, I hate him, but that's only because he's a great player. But he's not a great fielder.

4. Constantly. Every. Day. Ever.

The worst thing about the whole ARod shebang, in my opinion, is that you can't get an article about anything else from a New York sportswriter. That's hyperbole, of course, but when religiously week after week at least one paper has at least one article about True Yankeeism and how ARod doesn't qualify it does grate a little. I'm sure there's other things to talk about, even pertaining to the Yankees.

A friend once suggested an "ARod-Out day," in which any journalist who discussed ARod would be immediately reprimanded. He then pondered this and changed it to an ARod-Out week. How about an ARod-Out year? If anyone writes or says anything bad about ARod and does not immediately thereafter justify it legitimately, they are fined $1,300 (big number, yes, but this is hypothetical and $13 just didn't seem like enough).

5. Actual Concern? No.

I don't know if anyone knows The Brushback, but they once ran a fake article whose headline read, "ARod seen with popcorn in teeth; team commitment questioned." I think that pretty much sums it up. As long as he's still performing, which he has been consistently, does it matter if he wants to go to the park with his family? Isn't that a good thing? And really, is that actual news that you should actually be reporting? If you're that desperate, why not make the front page, "Litte girl adopts dog no one loves," or something? Really, the more the articles come out, the more I have to ask... who cares?

6. Laughter is the best medicine

That's all my brain is manufacturing right now. Maybe I'll have more thoughts if all of this persists. All I know is, if/when ARod leaves New York like predicted because everyone is being absolutely ridiculous, it will not be a good thing for the Yankees. And this will amuse me.

The Brushback also ran the headline, "LeBron gives clutch performance, becomes True Yankee," which pretty much sums up all of my thoughts on that matter.

I saw this and I just had to MST3K it. I had to. It was driving me crazy that no one had done it yet. It basically MSTs itself. It's good to know the pay people to barely be able to write in English.

 

 

Sabermetrics, is the Scientology of baseball.  It all started in a tiny, airless, room, where the guy who got picked last in Little League, perfected his revenge.  This handy guide will help clear up the wildest misconceptions spread by this extremely annoying and exceedingly irrelevant cult. 

First of all, who spotted the comma misuse? Really, all three of them? Good for you! I am quite fond of the scientology comparison. You know, the idea of applying statistics to baseball and the idea that we are all descendants of an alien species who plan to one day come and free us are pretty much identical. Oh, and they both start with an 'S.' And, uhm, not to nitpick... but if the room was airless... doesn't that make it a vacuum? As in, the air pressure outside your body is less than inside? As in you'd explode? And die? If nothing else, at least you wouldn't be able to breathe. And as such, would die. 

So, a dead guy who doesn't know how to use commas and believes he will be saved by aliens is responsible for this. Gotcha. 

 Definition.
Sabermetrics is also known as, long winded pointless dissertation, insufferable boors with calculators, or guys with pocket protectors.   If you're like me, you don't need to know the equation for cracking oil to figure out you got a batch of bad gas in your car.  Or live near the Devil Rays or Royals, to realize beauty might be skin deep but bad goes all the way through.

Look, satire is great. I love it. But for the love of all that is sarcastic in the world, when you write soemthing like this and clearly demonstrate that you have no grasp on the English language you insult all of us, and no one appreciates that. This said, who sees the 7 grammatical errors here? But I digress. I also would like to point out that stating the exact same point three times but rephrasing it does not make one's argument any stronger.

For anyone who doesn't know, sabermetrics is the application of statistical analysis to baseball. It allows you to compare players in different ways, as well as players in different eras. Contrary to what our buddy seems to imply (and for your benefit I will use complete sentences, unlike him), it focuses not mainly on the performance of teams, but of individual players. In case you haven't noticed, the stats we usually measure a player by are very flimsy. For example, there are about 10-15 hits difference between someone hitting .300 and someone hitting .280. Yet, someone hitting .300 is having a great year and someone hitting .280 is having an okay one. Wins, also, are an extremely overblown stat, and it doesn't take any kind of formula to figure out that a pitcher's wins are in direct correlation to his team's offensive ability. IE, if a pitcher loses 10 games 2-1, and he's 0-10, does this make him a bad pitcher? Or course not. But from wins, you wouldn't know that. As such, sabermetrics looks for more reliable stats. I don't know about you, but I can definitely see how this is the work of the devil.

 Humor.
Sabermites believe they have a sense of humor.  Sadly, it can only be expressed mathmatically.

 You mean like yours can only be expressed by first massacring the written English language?

 

Sorry.

 Reality.
Using pseudo-algebraic conclusions to describe the infinite intangibles of great baseball is like using cement to describe Mozart.  Abstract baseball minutia stacked like pancakes doesn't get around the real consistent opinion voiced by those who watch baseball daily and this churns the guts of Sabermites. 

First of all, I would like to introduce you to a simile, my friend. The main function of a simile in English is to correlate two unlike things in a way that makes their similarities obvious. And, sorry, but equations:baseball :: cement:mozart is not an acceptable simile. You get zero points for trying. Come again! 

This is another thing people always seem to say that I don't get. How is this 'pseudo-algebraic?' You know what that means, right? First of all, batting average is found by an algebraic equation, and this seems to be the Holy Grail. Secondly, no one pulled the equations out of thin air. They're still calculated with all of the usual stats, it's just a little more complicated. For example, the EqA formula: 

(H + TB + 1.5*(BB + HBP + SB) + SH + SF) divided by (AB + BB + HBP + SH + SF + CS + SB)

Okay, it's a lot more complicated than "H divided by AB." But if you break it up, all of the fancy letters in there are familiar things. Hits, total bases, walks, hit by pitch, stolen bases, etc. Also, it's calculated so that it runs parallel to batting average. So, .260 EqA is about average, and .300 EqA is pretty good. It's not that alien. Furthermore, no one is out to describe the intangibles of baseball. There are a lot of things about athletes that can't be measured, but most of them aren't too useful in trying to predict the outcome of a game. Leadership qualities are great for making sure guys don't impale each other, but a good hitter is a good hitter, even if he's a jerk. Instead, sabermetrics tries to describe the tangibles in a more organized, logical way. Yes, logic. Notice how I used those commas correctly?

And look, don't get me wrong, nothing beats watching Endy Chavez make that insane catch against the Cards in last year's NLCS. No one could have predicted that. And that's why nothing can detract from the fun of baseball. It's just interesting and really valuable to look at the sport differently, and it's a much more reliable way to rate players.

 Initialize.
Acronyms sow maximum confusion.  Sabermites concoct bewildering thickets of initials around feeble wild BLEEP guessing.  EqA's are as likely to stick a homemade shank in VORP's as they are to end up drunk at Bill James annual Christmas party where King Herod's win shares always make trading for the baby Jesus look silly.

 I'll be honest, when I first took to SMs, the acronyms were a little overwhelming. But Jeebus, it's really not that complicated. I mean, come on. One of the standard baseball acronyms is BAA, and you're making fun of EqA? And really, is it so hard to just google the acronym and have Wikipedia explain it to you? For the lazy bums, the most common ones:

 VORP: Literally, 'value over replacement player.' It's measured in runs, so basically it's how many extra runs player X is producing for your team. Oh, the horror! As a measuring point, ARod's 2005 VORP was 99.7. VORP only takes offensive production into account.

WARP: 'Wins above replacement player.' Similar to VORP, except it takes defense into account and is measured in how many extra wins a guy is good for to your team. David Wright's 2006 WARP was 9.0. ARod's 2005 WARP was 10.3 (his 2006 being 6.0).

ERA+, OPS+, etc.: Any time you see a stat with '+' after it means that the stat is measured at a baseline of 100. +stats are measured according to the specific season about which you are talking. So, if someone hits 50 home runs and had a 1.2 OPS in 1995 and has an OPS+ of 160, that means they hit 60% better than the league average that year. However, if someone had 50 home runs with a 1.2 OPS in 1940, their OPS+ would probably be significantly higher because less people were hitting with those numbers back then. This allows you to compare players in different generations.

I already went over EqA, and I refuse to explain WHIP on the grounds that when a stat is comparable on Yahoo!Sports, it's not so obscure that it should deter you.

 Equate.
Never allow anyone near the prime equation of sabermetrics, A+B=Shut the Hell Up.  This is sports for math club members.   

I see 2 grammatical errors. That this is meaningless aside, I would like to point out that my 'prime equation' is: "comma misuse + incomplete sentences + bad similes + poor capitalization + not making sense = bad satire"

 Gross Tonnage.
The complicated formula for "Hey that guy just bunted the runner to second..." would fill this entire page.  SABER stat-bot hysteria amply illustrates the "Star Trek Factor," now that Kirk's too fat to worship, Sabermites invented an arcane statistical abstract to replace dialectic Klingon arguments that made their life worth living...   

You know that 'gross tonnage' is a measure of a frigate's shipments, right? Sense is irrelevant, I suppose. I see 4 errors. I would also like to refer to the rule stated above: restating a point in different words does not make your argument any better. I already addressed the 'EMG DA FERMULA IZ 2 LONGGGG!!!1one' crap.

 Strength of Nattering (SON).
Sabermite's tirelessly redefine everything in SABER-speak, until, the non-SABER person drops from exhaustion or retreats to a sport like ice curling.

 See above, except replace, 'EMG DA FERMULA IZ 2 LONGGGG!!!1one' with, 'EMG DA AKRONIMS R 2 H4RD!!!!11eleven"  

Value.
According to SABER dogma, a single just isn't worth a double.  Take that Ty Cobb, you BLEEP because 75% of your hits aren't all that and a bag of SABER chips. 

 I'm not really sure what this means, honestly. Maybe that's because there aren't any blatant grammatical errors here and that is distracting me. Regardless, I think this is a reference to how SLG% is considered important (again, if it's comparable on Yahoo! it's not that obscure), and how a single that bounces off the wall is more impressive than a single that dribbles through the infield. Although explaining that further seems almost redundant, I suppose I will. The swinging bunt is luck. The massive single is, too, but for the defense. The dribbler can become a double play. The massive single can become a home run, thus-- gasp!-- improving one's odds of winning the game.

 Slide Rule
Its not, never slide head first, its never attend a game of baseball without a slide rule, so you'll have something to look at.

 If you don't see the massive grammar faux paus in here, leave. Now. And furthermore, shouldn't that make it the 'slide rule rule?' And even furthermore, why would I pay admission and then not watch the game?  

I find it pretty funny that the general defense for anti-sabrites is, "OMG U HATE BASEBAL BECUZ U MAK ALL TESE FERMULAS!" In my always-humble opinion, to spend so much time on this stuff, not only do you have to love baseball, you have to be near-obsessed.

 Worship the Stat Gods
Barry Bonds is a perfect example, the thought of losing all those succulent steroid drenched numbers sends the average Sabermite into a slobbery, mad dog, frenzy.  They would rather chew off the non-math lobe of their brain than let go, or admit, that Barry might indeed be full of nincompoop.

 Look, Barry Bonds is a horrible man. He's a liar, a cheater, and generally not that pleasant to be around. Not enough bad stuff can happen to him. But there's no denying that he puts up numbers, and although that doesn't vindicate him in my opinion, that is the point of sabermetrics. If he hits and home run and the game ends 1-0, the Giants don't lose just because he's a lying, cheating, jerk.

 What Can You Do?
I know the answer to every problem is "sing a song" but if organizing a world wide series of concerts is beyond your grasp, try these simple SABER killing phrases:

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
Albert Einstein

"The last time I checked baseball is best played on a field and not on a calculator."

"People who count don't."

 I'm personally quite fond of these phrases myself:

"If you can't properly punctuate your sentences, don't write any."

"If you don't have an argument, don't make one. And further, don't repeat yourself and try to trick people into thinking you have something when you don't."

"It's Optimum, or it's not."

"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house."--Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

I like that last one, though I'll admit I didn't come up with it.

---

 

---

Two web sites every sports/grammar/logic fan should visit, particularly those of baseball:

The Brushback, at http://www.thebrushback.com . It's a satirical newspaper I came across by accident maybe two years ago. It consists of fake full-lengh articles ("Jesus Becomes Free Agent, Signs with Devil), paragraph mini-articles ("Most Meaningless Award ESPY Given To ESPYs"), and very funny headlines ( "No-hitter grossed out by Randy Johnson Flirting With It"). The one thing it consistently does better than anything else, however, is put into fake news exactly what everyone else is thinking (IE, "Controversial Study: Other Baseball Teams Besides Yankees and Reed Sox Exist"). Updates every Wednesday.

Fire Joe Morgan, at http://www.firejoemorgan.com . A hilarious blog started by a group of friends who are professional writers in teh entertainment industry and diehard baseball fans. They mercilessly mock all of the bad and illogical sportswriting out there, including but never limited to Joe Morgan. The writing is always witty and often hilarious, and brings up many good points about attitudes towards baseball. Updates as its runners please.

Both deserve more of a fanbase than they have. Just an FYI.

The New York Rangers are an easy team to hate. They hail from the big-market media frenzy that is New York. They have a reputation for shovelling out ridiculous amount of money for big-name players. And although their fans aren't nearly as obnoxious as, say, Yankee fans (though, this could be because the Rangers haven't really won that much in the past decade), they do tend to be a tad out there.

However: there is no basis for coming down on the Rangers for their big spending on Scott Gomez and Chris Drury, and even less of one for people who are whining that this is proof that the salary cap does nothing. People are having a field day with flimsy, flaming spouts about how horrific the Rangers' progress during teh offseason has been.

First of all, the signing of Drury and Gomez is not some ellaborate scheme to build a team consisting entirely of superstar players. Instead, itis exactly what most Rangers fans have pleaded with Glen Sather to do for a long time now. It's a step toward building a well-rounded competeing franchaise that will endure.

Well, with $7 million a year, 
Drury should look like a high roller.

It's no secret that Brendan Shanahan is getting up there in years; chances are he will retire in New York after this season. Jaromir Jagr isn't at all far behind on that list, followed limpingly by Marty Straka. After these three key components leave, there needs to be someone young sturdy to take their place in a figurative leadership as well as a literal put-together-a-full-roster-that-isn't-brutal role. In signing Gomez and Drury, the Rangers have aquired two players to build around when their current older stars leave within the next year or two, not purposely robbed the free agent market in order to spite small-market teams and then run home laughing.

Which leads to the second point: the Rangers are not going to continue (or will not if they have any brains, anyway) on forever signing big-time free agents away from other tems with front-loaded deals.  What people don't hear about within the Rangers' franchise is the ample amount of young home-grown talent. During and before the massive lockout firesale, they aquired many young players that will presumably flank Gomez and Drury in years to come, including but not limited to Petr Prucha, Brandan Dubinsky, Nigel Dawes, Colton Orr, and the dynamic Ryan Callahan-- and that's only those who are slated to play next year. Furthermore, this will hopefully be supplemented by smaller signings such as, say, Sean Avery (although he is not worth the 4 mil he is probably seeking) or Matt Cullen.

Meanwhile, the Rangers are not looking to drain the market of defense, either. For some reason, everyone seems to think that the Rangers are lacking in defensemen. And oddly enough, their solution is to sign a 'star' denfensemen, prosumably so they can commence in complaining. But I digress. There does not need to be some superstar signing to have a reliable defense, as the Rangers proved last year when they had second-best goals against in the Eastern Conference.

Freddy Meyer gives Ryan Callahan
some love.

The pair of Marek Malik and Michael Rosival is very solid, although Malik does in fact skate as if he is dragging a piano. Jason Strudwick was an odd signing, but understandable on the ground that he has had two moderately successful years as a Blueshirt. Paul Mara, although whoever gave him 3 mil/year should be slapped, is a strong guy with a nice shot who played well after his aquisition last season. And again, perhaps more than offensively, the Rangers have the internal talent to back this up. Fedor Tyutin, although he got hurt and had a tough second half, was perhaps the best defensemen while the Rangers struggled during teh beginning of the season. Couple Thomas Pock with the revelation that has been Dan Girardi and the  promise that is Marc Staal, and Henrik Lundqvist is in pretty good shape. On average, he stops 92% of what is thrown at him anyway.

This, in turn, leads to another point. This Rangers' currently being able to hold Drury, Gomez, Jagr, etc. as well as the Flyers' signing of Briere does not mean that the whole cap idea is for nothing. Use your brains for a second.

Assuming that maybe five of the Rangers' young guys become at least moderately successful, good, key players, eventually these guys are going to want big, long-term contracts. What there is to do with $75 million I'm not sure, but they seem to want it. Regardless, there is going to come a point where the young guys mature and demand large amounts of money like Gomez and Drury got.

Now, in the old days, this wouldn't have been a problem. The Rangers would have shelled out as much as necessary-- probably too much-- to keep their guys. However, in the era of the salary cap, you can't spend $45 mil on four guys and expect to run a functioning team. So, they sign maybe two of them, and the rest leave to bloated contracts on other cities, whether they be small- or big- market. This spreads the talents around, and 'evens the playing field' as people seem to like to say, in that the Rangers can't expend ridiculous amounts of money to keep people away from small-market franchises. This effect may take time to work, but it is logically what will happen.

 
If he can connect the dots, so can you!

So stop whining.

Meanwhile, good luck to the Penguins building around that Crosby contract.