Three things are certain - death, taxes, and Jim Leyland blowing up after a slow start. Some may think the act would get old. Some may also be wrong. In the twenty games the Tigers have played after the first two Jim Leyland blow ups, the Tigers are 28-12 winning by an average of 4.7 runs per game.
They are 1-0 after Leyland's third blow up of his tenure in Detroit. The problem this year is the plethora of teams the Tigers must hurdle to gain one of the top four spots in the American League. The Rays no longer represent six or seven sure wins. The Roylas have slightly improved. Even the Orioles aren't easy outs this year.
That said, Jim Leyland doesn't have two World Series appearances and numerous playoff appearances because he's a dummy. Leyland recognized that 2008 is a longshot. Naturally, he blew up over the fact that the Motor City Kitties have no wins in 2009. "You think I like smoking eight packs of cigarettes a day stressing over this winless ball club? Do you think I down a bottle of Jim Beam each day because I enjoy it? Don't answer that!"
ESPN's Joe Morgan criticized the timing of the rant. "I don't see the need. They still have Gary Sheffield. They just need more consistency." Respected Detroit writer, Mitch Albom noted, "This should have been done ten games into the season instead of forty. All these impending wins could have helped for this season, instead of getting the Tigers off to a 71 game lead on the 2009 season."
When approached with the various criticism, Leyland responded, "Do you think I eat a pound of chewing tobacco each day because it tastes good?" Dontrelle Willis, with television cameras off, took reporters aside and said, "This #### was cute when McKeon was doing it. This guy is plain nuts. I have my agent looking into my contract to find a retroactive no trade clause."
More details on the 2009 Tigers as they become known.
In Gene Wilder's world, a contract that reads "I, the undersigned do hereby et cetera et cetera signed Charlie Bucket" is an executable agreement. Over at the four letter, many commentators and old guard writers closely associated with the four letter, have apparently passed Gene Wilder Esquire's legal course.
The excuse I often read here, or hear from the commentators themselves is that "I am an opinion show." One would think that "opinion" is a word that defines itself, but for those paid to give it, opinion=gospel according to me. So yes it is your opinion, but it is no more right than another opinion, or gasp, facts.
The man that can be added to the growing list that already includes Bill Conlin and Stephen A Smith, is Colin Cowherd. It is no surprise that Colin would draw my ire here at IJWMFTT. Sure my ire is just opinion, but ESPN ombudsman seems to be somewhat of an ally.
If you recall, Bill Conlin jokingly, unkowingly, or frankly ambivalently suggested a blogger genocide would be a good thing. Stephen A Smith suggested that blogs should be regulated or held to a standard like his profession, a profession responsible for a publication like this. But that's a bad paper. What about the Times? See, there's good and there's bad. You have to accept them both.
Colin Cowherd recently blasted Brian Roberts for invoking God in his apology for steroid usage. I'm not here to parse the words of the dozens of apologies that we will hear in the coming weeks. I agree, to say that one is regretful as soon as the needlt breaks the skin may be a stretch. Where was the regret with all of the activity exhausted to acquire the needle? More over, to say that this apology only comes forward with the Mitchell Report in the open is a fair statement. So it is natural to question: are you sorry for the action, or sorry that you have to say you're sorry?
But what is the problem for using "the G word" in an apology? Don't worry folks - we're headed in the g word direction. I made a slight mention of Tony Dungy's "transgression" in a post primarliy about Brian Billick. I noted that people started questioning him after having the gaul to exercise his rights beyond that whole free speech portion of the first amendment. If someone wants to say that invoking God in sports speeches is not a free pass, then I am fine with that. This is a world of mortals, and we are left to answer to one another while we are here.
That said, it is not wrong for someone to opine, but to prosthelize that: "Don't use God as a prop in the face of crisis. Keep it to yourself" is wrong. It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. It's always funny to hear a broadcaster say things like "Don't like what we say, change the station." But when the religion portion of the equation is involved, censorship is the proper course of action. Listen up media: you wanted Brian Roberts' statement. You got Brian Roberts' statement. Stop trying to remake that statement in your own image.
Note: I'm not trying to suggets that every seeing eye single is an act of God. But I've heard and read a lot of mockery recently, so I wanted to comment on it in one lump sum.
A sampling of religion and sports mixing for the good, bad, or whatever.
It's pretty easy to come down hard on the Pittsburgh Pirates. Alongside the Devil Rays, Orioles, Atlanta Hawks, and Arizona Cardinals, they are more than a decade and counting for losing seasons in major professional sports. Heck, one could come down on them, as did Colin, for announcing their manager on the same day the Dodgers will announce the arrival of Joe Torre. To boot, the Steelers play a division foe tonight (as an aside, I can't stand Colin and Salisbury's editorials on the Ravens. I guess if you aren't an affiliate, it's okay to make grandiose statements. I guess they've never heard of streaming). So the Pirates aren't even going to be the biggest story in their own town.
One could also come down hard on the Pirates for their choice in manager. Perhaps this Russell fellow is a competent guy. Perhaps he's worth a few victories. I tend to believe that managers have some impact, but not a double digit win impact. There are anomalies such as Bob Melvin (a good anomaly) and Sam Perlozzo (a bad anomaly). For the most part, the manager is interchangeable. If Joe Torre or Eric Wedge managed the Red Sox during the playoffs, they probably still win the World Series. Whether they get to the playoffs with a different manager is a worthwhile debate (Which I'd welcome in the comments).
Do most fans believe my assertion to be true? Probably not. Hey, I'm all for firing an incompetent ####. Costing a team games is worse than just happening to manage a bad team. I'm not sure Jim Tracy was costing the Pirates any games, but the fanbase, at some point, does come to believe it. So why replace Tracy with someone who was on a losing staff? If the manager was the problem, shouldn't you go out and make a splash? Probably, but then again, Lou Piniella was an expensive non-factor in Tampa. As I said, I see both sides to this story, and could be swayed either way.
Real quick though, on to today's egregious error. Colin Cowherd declared that "The Pittsburgh Pirates have been lousy for 25 years." 2007-25=1982. Six winning seasons in that time. Three division titles. It's nothing to write home about, but it's an exaggeration to say that they have been lousy for 25 years.
With 2.4 million being the high water mark, an inferior roster, and an unproven manager, the last thing this team needs to have piling on them is people believing that this team has been awful for more than a generation.
Apparently I am a problem. The bloggers and Internet folk are "children." His radio show is his forum. This blog is mine. Just because I show some discourse towards his views, doesn't make my views childish. With that in mind, I will show some discourse towards his assertion that Joe Girardi and his "in your face style" will put the Yankees over the top.
First, let me say this - in an earlier post, I was ambivolent towards the forced retirement of Joe Torre. At some point, the tail wags the dog. The Yankees felt that it was heading in that direction, so they saved hemselves some cash. But don't tell me that the Yankees will be better because of a new manager. They could be better with a new manager, but not necessarily because of the new manager.
Colin Cowherd thinks the manager should get in the face of veterans. Do you really need to yell at A-Rod. Does captain deuce require the histrionics. Will that style help Chien-Ming Wang pitch better (CMW is far from what I'd call a veteran)? He performed well below expectations, thus the Yankees lost...IN THE PLAYOFFS! Who managed that team to the playoffs? How many World Series did Torre win as a manager?
Don't tell me that Torre can't win the big one. Don't tell me that Girardi is the missing link. Girardi will likely do as well as Torre for less money. That's fine. He may do better. That's fine too. But the manager's affect is felt more in managing the bullpen and setting a good lineup, as opposed to the cliches he spouts in the clubhouse. I'm not sure that Girardi is markedly better at doing those things (game management) to the point that they are World Series favorites heading into 2008. The Yanks finally made a good economic decision. That's the real story.
Some time in the seventh inning, the news broke. A-Rod will test the free agent waters. If all goes well for the BoSox this offseason, the telling image from this past World Series (aside from the one below) will be owner John Henry, on his blackberry, clearly thrilled that the players union can't nix another deal his ballclub makes with A-Rod.
Of course, people in the media still don't get it. It was perfect that Mike Lowell was the MVP, because it exposed the short term memories of so many in the media. After all, how could you not re-sign Lowell? Why take the choking dog A-Rod, who only cares for himself, when you could have the World Series MVP for less?
Well I have a theory for you all. What if Boston were to sign both. In their best "Oliver Twist" schoolmaster voice, Joe Buck, Mike Greenberg, et al would likely say "Both?!?!" Yes, both. The Red Sox are not constrained by a salary cap. Seats at Fenway are a premium. People will pay whatever price necessary to see their beloved Red Sox. So how could I possibly claim that the Sox can land both?
Everyone is forgetting a MAJOR detail. What position has been a huge disappointment since the departure of Orlando Cabrera? Renteria tried, so did Lugo. The Red Sox could use a premier shortstop. "But A-Rod plays third." Ugh. Alex Rodriguez is A SHORTSTOP! In a move of utter selfishness, A-Rod moved his better shortstop glove over to third. He did this because if he were to play short, he would have upstaged captain deuce. Playing third was a compromise that allowed him to be a Yankee. That selfish choking dog jerkface. Every error committed by A-Rod at third was amplified, whilst any error made by Mr November was swept under the rug as a freak occurrence likely caused by one of A-Rod's Ben Franklins hitting Jeter in the face.
Anyhow. They all want to know now - just how will A-Rod be treated in New York. He'll be treated the same in a different uniform as he was in a Yankee uniform. And for those who don't listen to much WFAN or read the New York rags, what I mean is, he won't be treated very kindly. Hey, if you're going to treat him like a visiting player, he may as well BE a visiting player.
So Colin Cowherd is a primary, almost obsessive, topic here on IJWMFTT. I'll gladly make this concession: I don't think he's some kind of failure. I don't think he lacks entertainment. What I do think is that he goes out of his way to be outspoken to the point that he won't let the facts get in the way o####ood story.
In an instance when Colin is having a solid show about Joe Torre, he still can't help but be part of this bit of bandwidth. He had Steve Phillips on to discuss the Torre situation. Phillips had this to say:
"When they (managers) are on you, you try harder. When you try harder, you fail more."
Now, as a believer in employing sabermetric principles, I am one of the few of the opinion that a manager has a noteicebale impact on the team. Batting orders, pitching changes, pinch hitters, pinch runners, bunt/steal - all of these impact a team's ability to produce outs on defense whilst increasing team EqA on offense.
According to Bill James, this all adds up to 11,000 decisions per year. Granted, 10,000 of those decisions may be uniform amongst all managers, thus the impact a manger has can be felt in less than 10 percent of their decisions. But ask people if they think Bob Melvin and his management of his pitching staff had an impact on the team, and they would have to say yes (See a link to a good story about this on UltraMega's blog - Crashburn Alley in my favorites).
Where I do agree with the sabermetricians is that a manager does not impact whether a specific hitter/pitcher records a hit/out on a given at bat. Phillips doesn't want a rah rah guy in the clubhouse. Frankly, I'm ambivolent about a screamer. It's fun for the fans, but we're talking about the actual management of a team here. One could say that people would try less if they had to work for a screamer. So Phillips' conclusion is accurate, since TRYING LESS=FAILURE.
Thus, Phillips' logic arriving to that conclusion is off kilter. "When you try harder, you fail." Huh? If Manny Ramirez hits the ball he hit last night 150 times, and winds up on first base all 150 of those times, his slugging percentage would be slashed by 40 percent (accounting that he will also have 30+ homers). In this instance, like most, trying less led to failure.
The Yankees are a results based organization. If Joe is quiet and fatherly Joe, and the team goes to the World Series, we aren't complaining about him not being a rah rah guy. If you want to bash the Yankees, bash them for getting rid o####uy who usually pushes the right buttons. But understand, someone can probably come in and push those buttons for less cash, rah rah or otherwise.
Colin Cowherd declared that it was a bad idea to go with a gimmick when you're down in a series. Okay, I agree with that. I have always felt that Wakefield works better when spelling a flamethrower, and that given enough pitches, one of them gimmicks won't gimmick and go for a three run homer. But just to nitpick - Colin said that Wakefield has an ERA approaching 5.00, and that in five innings, guess how many runs he gave up? Well it was five, but the inflection in his voice led us to believe that he was supposed to give up five runs. Five runs in five innings is an ERA of 9.00, so he underperformed.
He also got into this winning as a team thing, implying that this is the reason the Indians are up 3-1 in the ALCS. I love how every success is now tied to some intangible. But it's not just the intangible, it's the implication that the losing team automatically doesn't have it.
So the team that scored the third most runs and had the second highest OBP did so as a series of individuals instead of as a team (referring to Boston here)? Are we saying that Grady Sizemore helps hold Victor Martinez's bat a la a dad helping his four year old? Are we saying that their runs come as a team, and Boston's are selfishly scored (I would hope the info I just provided disspells that notion)?
Here's a dirty little secret: you know those selfish home runs that jerks like A-Rod, Adam Dunn, and Manny hit as individuals whilst others play for their teams? Yeah, well, Cleveland hit more of them than Boston this season. It would seem that Boston's style of play IS team baseball (using the mindset of the sports media and baseball pundits like John Kruk). But they're losing right now to a good baseball team, so they aren't really a team at all. They're a bunch of selfish choking dogs [/laying on the sarcasm].
From last night's SportsCenter, following Navy's crazy win over Pitt (Wannstedt and Cavanaugh are the worst duo imaginable to run a team): The team with the lowest batting average in the league, had the best record in the NL. "Go figure." Fine then Shtu, I accept your challenge.
In fact, half the people with an Internet connection could figure as well. But you're a Tar Heel, and I'm a lowly Terp, so you're probably right. This conundrum is totally unexplainable. I would have to liken it to other unexplainable phenomena such as: sunrises, the pen falling off my desk, thunder, and many more.
Oh wait, eureka: rotation of the Earth, gravity, colliding air masses, and antiquated statistics. I'm a flippin' genius. Look skeptics, I'm not saying batting average is uselss. You can compare one to the other, and get a FEEL for the better player. But what if I told you that there were BETTER metrics? Again, BA isn't useless. That antique rocking chair could be used in your office, but the ergonomically designed chair from Ikea is BETTER.
So I am to figure out why higher batting averages don't equate to wins, or in the Diamondbacks case, why lower batting averages don't equate to losses. Well, even by "newer" metrics like OBP, the D-backs were still at the bottom of the league. That said, they had a better slugging percentage than 7 teams in the NL. Now factor in the following: 2nd best stolen base percentage, 6th best at not grounding into double plays, and 2nd fewest sacrifice bunts.
Why is that important? Basically, all those types of outs are not included in the batting average calculation. By being one of the best teams at avoiding outs, as a whole, they were able to make the playoffs. It should also be noted that the 2nd best road pitching in the league offset some offensive shortcomings, which allowed them to win just enough games. Let's remember, I'm not trying to explain how this team won 100 games. I only had to explain 90 wins.
Hey! High EqA, big innings, and good pitching. Sounds like some of the leading principles of a book I once read. So there you go Shtu. Avoid outs with runners on base. Don't put runners on base. You win.
Does the coincidence vs causality argument strike again? I think so. This time it's Mike Greenberg with the offense. Here are the two out RBI posted by the Indians and the Yankees:
Indians: 14 Yankees: 2
Mike Greenberg then declares that THIS is HOW you win in the postseason. THIS is WHY I write this blog. This stat largely reveals WHY the Indians won. It's not necessarily a how. Some may think that I am picking on grammar and syntax, but I'm not. The word "how" plus the emphasis he placed on it seems to indicate that he is the gatekeeper to the holy secret of MLB postseason success. "You win by getting more two out RBI. That's how you do it."
To say that this is "how to win" baseball games is akin to saying to your first two hitters each inning, "Come here Grady and Casey. Here's what we're gonna do this inning. Mussina has lost a lot of bite on that knuckle curve. But you're not going to slap it into right field. Oh NO! You're going to watch each pitch. If you get out, it's okay. See, they tell me that none of our runs count unless they come with two outs. So it would be silly for you to try scoring runs with no outs. Got it?!?"
Finally, I'm sure it's en vogue to call Alex Rodriguez some clever name. I won't, nor will I construct a valid defense. One has already been done well over at www.firejoemorgan.com
I can't wait until the ALCS starts, and the Sox take game one when Dustin Pedroia tears a hole in his pants sliding into home. The rest of the Red Sox will naturally follow suit becuase, after all, that's how they win their games.
Colin Cowherd really needs to learn the difference between coincidence and causality. On multiple occasions today, he has said that there is no correlation between A and B, thus C is true. No, that's not true. It just makes A and B unrelated. A vs. C is a separate trial.
This post piggybacks on the post I did about denbunking the debunked myths held regarding the MLB playoffs. We try to find the golden key that guarantees playoff success. Frankly, it's hard. Even I, as a trumpeter of the statistical analysis cause, has to admit that 162 games get boiled down to a Dave Roberts steal or Joe Torre playing the infield in against Luis Gonzalez.
Back to Colin and his beliefs about the playoffs. He used the tired old phrase about good pitching beats good hitting - going as far as to suggest that only one of the past eight champions has hit their way to a title. Didn't Detroit have good pitching? He also said that home run champions TYPICALLY don't make the playoffs. In the wild card era, roughly half the home run champs have made the playoffs. It's not typical, one way or the other. A and B have no relation. All of this is, of course, laying the groundwork for A-Rod talk if the Yankees lose. "A-Rod needs to be clutch blah blah." Look. A-Rod was worth 13 more wins than a AAA call up, and worth 9 more wins than lovable Brosiusesque role players. It's just the way it is. Without A-Rod, we wouldn't have to worry about Yankees choke in October talk.
We can all have our beliefs about what wins in these playoffs, but there is no golden rule. The games have to be played. Enjoy it. And that's a "stat geek, mom's basement blogger" saying it.
