TekWatch: Avast Ye Matey

I cannot construct a sentence about this picture in my own mind without a Katrina of laughter demolishing the effort.

So here's a stream of consciousness, Ulysses-style word association about the captain-on-captain action:

• homosexual
• homosexual
• not that there's anything wrong with it
• okay there does appear to be something wrong with it in this context what with the hooks and swords and tek's opportunity to use any new tricks on papelbon
• really very homosexual

Awards time

Drumrolls, please. This year's first annual

Primarily Baseball

award for

Excellence in Sportswriting Excellence

for the pursuit and achievement of excellence in sportswriting excellence

in the year of our Fucking God Damn Lord 2007

goes to Primarily Baseball.

This special site, in its mere three months of existence, brought trenchant analysis and unparalleled wit to baseball fans the world over. It pissed off such luminaries as diehard Jason Varitek fans, most of whom were overweight. Thanks to Primarily Baseball, the might of the righteous on earth is today stronger than it has ever been. May God continue to bless America.

Ladies and Gentlemen

As long as Johan Santana isn't being traded, why not take a moment to digest every one of Thomas Friedman's columns, past and future, in handy, four-minute YouTube form. I warned you.

The Lady Doth Protest Too Much

methinks.

¡Santana Trade Johan Now Instant Bonzai!

There's a rumor going around that the Sox-Santana deal will be made within days. I've checked it out. Here's how these rumors get started.

1. A man employed by the Twin Cities' Pioneer Press--a paper probably too thin to wipe my ass with--wrote in an opinion column that "there's buzz that the Santana trade could be made within days." Buzz. Buzz. Buzz is less than "sources speculate." Buzz means there isn't even a source. Buzz is how the earth hums when you put your ear to the ground. And all Buzz tells us is that the Santana trade could be made within days. This is necessarily true. There's no attempt to proffer a likelihood or confidence level, because those freaky things would require weighing of evidence, which would necessitate thought, and we can't have that, now motherfucking can we.

2. Everyone else reports it.

Hold on

Let me get this straight. Bud Selig is presenting people with awards named after himself?

If Selig were cool, the self-named award would make him even cooler. But it's always struck me that if a cesspool could snivel, it would look a lot like Bud Selig.

So I Guess This Means the Sox Should DFA Manny...

When Jack and I (ok, it was mainly Jack) created Primarily Baseball a few months ago, the last thing I ever suspected is that we would evolve into a forum for critiquing Baseball Prospectus. My first post, in fact, relied almost entirely on work done at Baseball Prospectus. Joe Sheehan is probably my favorite baseball columnist, Nate Silver is one of the smartest sabermetricians I know of working today, and most of the other writers are very good too.

That said, this has to be the dumbest fucking thing ever written.

(Password necessary, I'm afraid.)

For those who can't access the article--or choose not to suffer Huckaby's meandering verbiage-- the basic point is that replacement level, as traditionally understood, has been set much too low by baseball analysts, at least for players on the "left end" of the defensive spectrum (i.e. 1B/DH's and bad fielding corner outfielders). Replacement level is supposed to be the level of a typical AAA player or backup, i.e. the sort of player that can be easily acquired for little to no cost. The notion plays a large value in many value metrics, which are built around the assumption that it is the contributions a player makes above what a replacement level player would have done that constitute that players value to his team. Typically, replacement level is set to be around 75-80% of league average performance.

Now, the thesis that replacement level performance is actually higher than sabermetricians have thus far assumed is not, on the face of it, an absurd claim. It may even be true. However, Huckaby gives absolutely support to this thesis. His argument, so far as I can tell, is the following: Jack Cust was a replacement level player last year, in the sense that the A's acquired him from the Padres AAA affiliate after injuries had decimated their roster. Thus, we can use Cust as a reasonable benchmark for replacement level. Cust, in case you forgot, immediately started raking upon joining the A's: he hit 6 home runs in his first 7 games, including a walk off blast off one Joe Borowski. His numbers regressed as the year wore on, but Cust still finished the year with an extremely impressive .256/.408/.504 line (as that suggests, he was an amazing Three True Outcomes hitter; over 58% of his plate appearances resulted in a walk, a strikeout or a home run.) Using Cust as the definition of replacement level, Huckaby posts a long list of big name players--including Mike "MVP" Lowell--who were below replacement level by this definition.

The problem with this argument seems blindingly obvious: just because Cust happened to be freely available talent--a term sometimes, perhaps incorrectly, considered synonymous with replacement level--does not imply that the calibre of his performance was somehow replacement level. Suggesting as much makes as much sense as saying that that Mike Piazza represents "63'rd draft round talent." Jack Cust drastically outperformed general expectations last year.

Amazingly, in his subsequent chat, Huckaby denies that Cust's performance last year was really all that surprising, saying "And did Cust *really* exceed reasonable expectations by all that much? I don't think so." Um, well, I can't say I remember exactly what people's expectations were, but I am pretty damn sure they were a hell of a lot lower. Look at it this way: Cust's Equivalent Average--one of BP's stats for evaluating general offensive perfomance--was seventh in the American League, just behind Jim Thome and ahead of Vlad Guerrero (Thome and Guerrero have better slash stats on the surface, but they both played in much better hitters parks than Cust). Guerrero and Thome, in case any one forgot, are Hall of Fame calibre hitters who had terrific years. Does anyone think that, if the expectations were that Cust would be anywhere close to that level, he would have begun the year rotting in AAA? Don't you think that the Padres--who are, I might add, one of the more sabermetrically astute franchises in baseball--would have promoted him if they thought he would be a better hitter than Vlad fucking god damn Guerrero? Hell, there is no way Billy Beane thought he was going be that good; if he did, why did he bother signing a 38 year old Mike Piazza in the off-season for vastly more money than Cust would receive despite the fact that Piazza hasn't been the hitter Cust was this year since 2002?

Cust was a desperation move on Beane's part that payed off big time. One could argue, of course, that Cust's stellar minor league numbers merited some team giving him a major league shot. But suggesting that Beane thought he was going to receive the quality of production that Cust offered--and, implicitly, that there are numerous minor leaguers out there who could provide something comparable to Cust's 2007 performance--is batshit insane.

That was way too much time to make a really obvious point.

Before You Attack Me, Know That Jesus Told Me To Post This

Excessive Google searches capped by bold inferences indicate that it's been an offseason of change for Big Papi. David Ortiz is now white, balding, a tremendous fan of Jesus Christ, and a deliciously awkward writer.

About David Ortiz Ministries: " . . . In conclusion, having traveled throughout Europe, the Middle East, the Caribbean, the Continental United States and Latin America, David Ortiz is, without doubt, one of our most cherished, talented and theologically prepared Hispanic assets."

As the Red Sox slugger embarks on his new journey, Primarily Baseball extends its best wishes to David and his familial assets.

Condemning human nature

It doesn't make much sense to condemn human nature. It is, at least, unconstructive. But it is what some critics of steroid use in baseball are doing.

From the Mitchell Report, we know, broadly, what we already knew and what perspicacious observers foresaw all along. In a competitive sport in which super-excellence was rewarded with enormous money and fame and in which there was almost no enforcement of a legal and baseball-wide ban on a means of improving performance, a good number of players used the nominally forbidden means.

Some of the alleged users were superstars pursuing an even greater greatness. Others were replacement-level players struggling to stay in the major leagues. Many players, probably a substantial majority, did not use steroids.

Baseball's steroid scandal simply affirms the premise of the American government's design. Most people aren't angels. They tend to pursue their own interests. But they're not generally evil, either. By aligning the self-interests they will perceive with the collective interests of society, institutions--constraints a group of people imposes on its members--may curb undesirable behavior and allow individuals to interact on fair terms.

Major League Baseball and law enforcement should enforce their policies forbidding the use of steroids and other harmful performance-enhancing substances. Those policies are, in my view, justified. The players and their union deserve blame for long opposing testing. If players thought it was right to juice up, the more honest position would have been to advocate overturning baseball's and legislators' ban on steroids--a position, of course, that would have been untenable. And the individual players who used steroids and other banned drugs deserve moral blame. After all, most of their peers, facing the same pressures, probably stayed clean.

While deserving our blame, the cheaters also deserve our empathy. When cheating seemed likely to bring large rewards at little cost, many people cheated. We shouldn't be shocked. We shouldn't even be surprised.

Red Sox to be undefeated in 2008

Eric Gagne has declined the Red Sox arbitration offer. He is rumored to be in discussions with the Brewers, which is not the Red Sox. If the Brewers don't sign him, he is rumored to be likely to sign with one of 28 teams, none of which is the Red Sox.

In other words, the Red Sox have gained more than in any possible deal for Johan Santana.

(Also noteworthy is the way MLB.com lends credibility to the Gagne-to-Brewers rumors: by citing "multiple Internet reports." Perhaps those reports are credible, but on its face, that's about as high a standard as "according to a thought that occurred to me while I was talking a shit.")

Fucking Will Carroll

Fucking Will Carroll.

On Tuesday he reported: "Johan Santana to the Red Sox is all but done. Jon Lester, a center fielder, Justin Masterson and Ryan Kalish are the package. More details now."

1. A center fielder? You tricky bitch. Is it Crisp or Ellsbury? Do you know or not know? Use parallel structure or explain the deviation, motherfucker.

2. "More details now" is already wrong the moment anyone reads it.

3. And Carroll's next post didn't come until Wednesday, when he reported that medical issues were holding up the deal. Cancer, Carroll speculated in a sentence reeking of bullshit, was "not likely the issue here; the Sox, with their connections to The Jimmy Fund, have access to some of the best oncologists in the world." Will Carroll did not elaborate on when he became Baseball Prospectus writer by day and Jon Lester's doctor by night, along with when the cure for cancer was developed but kept secret to everyone but Jimmy Fund-affiliated doctors, the Red Sox, Jon Lester, and Will Carroll.

So, no Santana yet, but sports reporters enjoy the power trip.

The Worst Thing Ever Written, Ever

From--you guessed it--Curt Schilling's 38pitches.com:

In 1997 when I gave my life to Christ a pretty cool thing happened. I lost the ability to hate anything or anyone. I’ve gotten mad, said stupid and bad things, but I truly don’t hate anyone or anything. Hating takes way too much energy and effort. There’s way too much to do and experience in life to waste time hating so I just don’t.

I could have put the quote in context, but that wouldn't have made it any less fucking god damn awful.

Surprising / Not Surprising

Today's Surprising / Not Surprising derives from the Boston Globe.

Surprising:

Pedroia led the league [in 2007] in something called BPS on OutZ, which translates to batting average plus slugging percentage on pitches outside the strike zone. Pedroia was listed at .664, just ahead of notorious bad-ball hitter Vladi Guerrero of the Angels (.662). Ramirez was second-worst in the league in the same category at .189.

The minuscule Pedroia hits outside pitches even better than Vlad? Surprising. Manny, one of the best hitters to play the game, and whom my eyes seem to remember landing a lot of hits on bad pitches, was awful outside the strike zone? Double surprising.

Not surprising:

Pedroia also had the second-lowest strikeout-per-plate-appearance average (.072), a category in which Varitek ranked fifth-highest (.236).

Tek strikes out more than Manny trying to pick up women outside a Greenpeace convention. Definitely not surprising.

You Don't Say

Amidst the hoopla over the new Tampa Bay uniforms, Rays adviser and crime dog Fred McGriff pointed out the obvious:

"I think these are great for a change, but the players still have to go out and play the game."

Clearly, McGriff overlooked that the new unis will bring enduring and all-powerful Momentum.

Schilling Says Goodbye

Wonder how those Curt Schilling “goodbye” letters to all his teammates read? Primarily Baseball doesn’t, because it has falsified one. Let’s have a look:

Dear Hidecki Okijima,

I wanted to take this opportunity to say what I fear might be goodbye. Me and my wife Shonda have had a marvelous time playing for the Boston Red Sox, and getting to know you in particular. As I face the prospect of free agency, I wanted to send our regards, and possible heartfelt goodbye, to both you and Mrs. Matsuzaka.

Hidiki, remember all the glories we shared together? I remember coaching you, in spring training, to throw on the corners rather than down the middle. That greatness continued right up to the World Series, where I dubbed your and Papelbon’s combined shutdown relief of my strong outing as the “Papijima” or “Okibon” show! I combined your last names!

Times like those will forever live in the heart of me and my wife Shonda, and our several kids. They sometimes make me forget that you ever bombed Pearl Harbor. Personally, I think people should let the past be the past.

I’ll be sure to give you a ring if I am ever in China. That said, I hope this is not goodbye. Daisuke, if my hopes come true, I will look forward to being your teammate, friend, and mentor next year again.

Warmest regards,
Curt & Shonda Schilling

The Mud Hens Strike Back

If only Sterling and Waldman could opt-out of their contracts. Or lives. Whatever relieves my ears of their daily impression, What An Orgasm Stretched Out Over Three Hours And Rendered As Baseball Announcing Sounds Like.

Point is, the opt-out is my new favorite tool. Through it, A-Rod has managed to unite Sox fans and Yankees fans in hatred of himself. And anyone but Scott Boras should find this stunt pretty awesome.

TekWatch: Tek Cleans

Tek finally shows his true worth: as a cleaner of lockers, not to mention a wearer of sweaters that are wrong at any price.

Maybe that's why teammates love him. I'd have no problem telling others about the preternatural pitch-calling ability, or really whatever, of anyone who cleaned up my shit every day.

Actually, I would pay her slightly below minimum wage and ignore her lack of green card until she stole something I cared about. But still.

Christ Opts Out

After propelling the Colorado Rockies to late-season success that fell short of a World Series championship, Jesus Christ left the Rockies this afternoon.

Repeated Christ: "I died for their sins, and they can't win me one World Series fucking ballgame?"

Christ reserved his harshest criticism for manager Clint Hurdle. Hurdle, Christ said, "lacks zeal."

"Clint Hurdle is lucky he's in fucking baseball," said Christ.

Though primarily irate, Christ sprinkled in jokes and self-critique, noting that "this is what I get" for pinning hopes on "some cocksucker named Troy Tulowitzki."

Following in the footsteps of Alex Rodriguez, Christ will opt-out of his contract with the Rockies, meaning he is now a free agent. Scott Boras, Jesus' agent, expects the savior to garner a lucrative contract. But Christ himself declined to discuss his future, simply repeating that he was sure Tulowitzki is homosexual.

Jesus

It has become apparent that Jesus Christ himself wants the prayer-happy Rockies to lose the World Series in four games to the infidel Red Sox.

Sound retarded? You bet your ass.

I quote the "logic":

What an amazing witness for the transformative power of Jesus would it be if the Rockies doused the Sox in champagne and celebrated their victory and praised God all the time. That would make people wonder about Jesus.

In fact, when the Rockies lose in four games, no one will give a shit whether the Rockies applaud or sacrifice their first-born. Still, I vote for the latter.

TekWatch: Profiling Tek, Working Class Hero

It didn’t take long this postseason for the Tek Kool-Aid to look good and sugary. Let’s get to it.

Heart of the Order: Jason Varitek

Careful readers always check MLB.com’s ample footnotes; the one here clarifies that “heart of the order” means below the heart of the order, near the tubes that discharge excrement like Julio Lugo.

When you mention the word "leader" in baseball circles, the image of Jason Varitek probably comes to mind first in the minds of many.

If you mean the many who think first of the bottom of the leader list, then float up to the middle, and back down, then yes, Jason Varitek pops to fucking mind.

Since [Varitek became starting catcher in 1999], the Red Sox are 14-3 in potential elimination games, and it isn't a reach to point to Varitek's leadership and refusal to panic as a reason for that impressive mark.

It isn’t a reach if you’re listing every possible factor. Then again, it isn’t a reach to think that the Sox might be 15-2, 16-1, or 17-0 if they had a catcher who could hit the ball really well.

High school and college students probably don't use as many loose-leaf binders as Varitek, who is a picture in preparation. Varitek doesn't just study scouting reports -- he breaks them down and dissects them.

This is the most compelling evidence I’ve seen. Let’s see if there’s any evidence that this preparation makes a significant difference in Red Sox pitching performances.

When Josh Beckett arrived at Spring Training this season, coming off a disappointing 2006, he was asked if there was a lesson he learned that he could convey to the newcomer of this year, Daisuke Mastuzaka. "If I could tell Matsuzaka anything, it would be, 'Trust 'Tek’”….All that trust later, Beckett had a dominant regular season, winning 20 games, and his brilliant postseason work has fueled the Red Sox to the World Series. It further exemplifies the type of things that can happen when pitchers put their faith in their so-called "guide."

After all those binders, Varitek realized in 2007 that Josh Beckett should once in a while throw one of those shit-kicking curveballs he, you know, has in his arsenal of pitches. Tek’s a little slow, but so methodical. Or maybe Beckett did not throw any curves in 2006 because of blisters on his hand! Which factor could matter more?

Excuse me. I’m having a sargasm. I just can’t get over the dominance of Jason Varitek, Working Class Hero. When you work hard and don’t shave, nothing can stand in your way. Someday you, too, boys and girls, by the grace of the mediocrity God gave you, can get credit for things that are mostly the doing of others.

Along with wife Karen, Varitek has become a fixture in community endeavors. This season, he hosted the second annual Jason Varitek Celebrity Putt-Putt Tournament, with proceeds going to Boston Children's Hospital.

If it’s the Jason Varitek Celebrity Putt-Putt Tournament, who are the celebrities? The guy who used to buff the floor of the Boston Garden before Celtics games?

Seriously, Tek's smart. It’s hard to swing and miss in putt-putt.

For the last four years, Varitek has run a "Tek's 33" program, in which kids from Children's Hospital come to Fenway Park and meet Varitek, while enjoying batting practice and watching a game.

Our Working Class Hero is also a Pretty Nice Guy. I just hope the kids get to see Manny Ramirez so they don’t leave disappointed.

Irony Alert

A-Rod named the clutchiest player?

But I thought in clutch situations A-Rod curled up into a multi-million-dollar ball that only Derek Jeter's gentle massaging could decongeal.

I suppose it's fitting: not only is this a fake, Pepsi-sponsored, fan-voted award, but the value the award honors, clutchitudeness, is pretty bogus too.

Problem with Karma

If the Rockies win the series, it will of course be because they are the team of destiny, and their incredible hotness carried them past a clearly superior team. If they lose, it will of course be because their long lay-off sapped them of their momentum.

What I can guarantee you will not see is claims of the form "the Rockies maintained their momentum and great play, but unfortunately ran into a better team whose superior execution outweighed the Rockies momentum" or "The Rockies lost their momentum and played quite poorly, but luckily for them the meltdowns of Daisuke Matsuzaka and Jon Lester, and the subpar performance of Curt Schilling allowed them to sneak by and claim the crown." That is because, of course, there is no way judging karmic forces except by results; if they were real, than the last two scenarios would certainly be possible, and not even that implausible. Karma is a massive bullshit dump for sportswriters to anoint heroes and villains and for athletes to make people think they are better people than the rest of us.

Personally, I am just looking forward to the best teams of their respective leagues meeting tonight. No magic necessary.

Introducing TekWatch

This is the first in a series of TekWatch posts, which point out the many manifestations of Jason Varitek's overratedness.

"Tek" is the Red Sox catcher. By objective standards, Tek is mediocre to mediocre-good: his on-base percentage is a barely above average .350, his slugging has fallen to the low .400s, his arm is nothing special, and he strikes out as often as Tom Brady gets laid, which, obviously, is all the fucking time. He can't even catch Tim Wakefield's knuckleball, or refuses to, and certainly refuses to learn. This forces the Sox to retain Doug Mirabelli, who makes Varitek look like Jesus Christ himself has squatted down to catch the baseball.

But screw objective standards. Tek is beloved. Why? I put this question to Red Sox fans, even before they got plastered for the night/afternoon. They invariably gave one of two responses:

1. He is the team "captain." Why, you can see it right there on his uniform, marked by a gigantic "C"! That must mean something?!

It means he's got "C" on his uniform where a blank space ought to be.

2. He is a great pitch caller. No one calls pitches like Tek.

Isn't the pitcher mostly in charge of pitching? I've never heard of any other catcher being assessed primarily by his ability or inability to call pitches. Maybe Varitek does call pitches well, but who the hell knows? And if he's got such a great sense for fooling batters, why does he strike out as often as high school girls used to reject Dustin Pedroia?

With that preamble, I present the inaugural TekWatch. Like so many things dumb, today's TekWatch quote is brought to us by MLB.com:

So what changed that put Boston over the top this year?
One difference was that Boston's starting rotation had three pitchers with at least 15 wins this year and the club's bullpen was the best in the league. . . .The Red Sox also avoided major injuries this year, unlike last year when they lost captain Jason Varitek to knee surgery in August and had a bunch of other core players out at the same time.

Those unnamed "other core players" include Manny Ramirez. Manny Fucking God Damn Ramirez. One of the top players of all time. Wikipedia notes that Ramirez missed 28 games starting in August. Sounds close, and if I trusted Wikipedia for my college thesis, I'm trusting Wikipedia for this.

Manny FGD Ramirez is an "other core player" compared to Jason Varitek. That's like saying the war in Iraq was launched by Poland and some other core nations.

____________________

* Update in response to reader comments:

Thanks for the kind comments. I am intrigued by the idea that people who dislike my criticism of Varitek also want me to spell his name right as I criticize him. So I've made the correction.

Let me note, in all seriousness, that Varitek, while not a great catcher, is a good one. He ranked fifth among major league catchers in VORP this year, clocking in at 23.4. I'm skeptical that his supposed "pitch calling" ability makes much of a difference, I'm highly skeptical that 99% of the people who laud Tek's pitch calling ability are in a position to know anything about the subject, and I'd love to hear evidence in support of Tek's pitch calling making a difference, but unless his pitch calling shaves a half-run off every pitcher's ERA, my point stands. Tek's reputation outstrips his ability. Given all the great players on the Red Sox, Tek t-shirts are way too popular, and Manny Ramirez shirts, for starters, too rare. The upshot is some funny remarks that make out Varitek to be the star of the Sox. These remarks TekWatch will expose and mock, invoking profanity in excess. Onward!

Earl Weaver, God

This is so great, it deserves its own post.

Ump: "You are a liar, Earl!"
Earl: "You are!"
Ump: "A liar!"
Earl: "You are! You are!"

My only worry is that "God" doesn't go far enough.

PS: And this one. It may be even better. By gosh, it is. Earl Weaver: Much, Much Better than God.

PPS: It's not even fucking close.

Why I (Still) Hate J.D. Drew

Will Leitch argues that fans hate J.D. Drew because he seems indifferent. Leitch (over)writes, "More than being money-hungry, more than being loud and obnoxious, more than being a felonious boor, the one athletic transgression we cannot forgive is indifference."

Actually, Boston fans hate J.D. Drew because he hasn't been very good. He's been average, for an unaverage salary of $70 million. An apparent attitude of indifference may be icing on the cake, but I promise, had he hit .323 and slugged .613--as he did in 2001--Boston fans would overlook his failure to slam his helmet and curse god whenever he makes an out.

His five-RBI game six notwithstanding, J.D. Drew has hit pretty damn lamely this year. That's why he'll always be "Nancy" to me--until he performs better.

More broadly, I'm sick of hearing about the supposed power of cosmic and karmic forces in baseball. The Red Sox "lack energy;" the Red Sox "have energy." The Indians had mountains of "momentum" after three straight wins--which somehow the Red Sox overcame. Probably because the Sox are so "confident" and have "been there before." Fox's broadcasters spent much of game five of the ALCS alternately delivering paeans to "postseason experience" and pining for not-even-rookie Jacoby Ellsbury to start game six in center field.

Attitude doesn't matter nearly as much as conventional wisdom thinks it does, and fans don't care nearly as much about it as conventional wisdom thinks they do. If attitude were the only thing discernible about baseball, it might warrant substantial discussion. But that is so far from the case. Baseball is fascinating game, rich in statistics that yield objective information about player talent. Attitude, I grant you, may be the only thing discernible about baseball to blowhards and idiots. The least they could do is shut up, or not be hired.

Twerp

In game 4 two nights ago, Dustin Pedroia took what I thought was an extremely awkward slide into first attempting to avoid a tag from Victor Martinez on a routine ground ball to first; he sort of fell down head first into the ball. This is one of the few occasions where a player actually should slide into first, but I remember wondering why he didn't go in feet first. It appears, in retrospect, that he was doing an imitation of Boston's favorite role model.

Schilling's number

Do the Indians have Curt Schilling's number? After the game, Schilling said:

The home run that Jhonny [Peralta] hit is going to be the one that I'll wonder about forever, simply because based on what -- our history, what we did to them yesterday, what we did to them the first at bat, I went to the pitch I wanted to go to, I threw the pitch I wanted to throw and I hit my spot, and he hit a home run. I'm not used to that one. He put a great swing on a pitch I thought was the right pitch; obviously it wasn't....But it was a game, had I executed, we should have won.

In other words:

1. I executed, but the Indians still hit me; and
2. I didn't execute, so the Indians hit me.

Perhaps point 1. was hard to admit without qualification. Schilling seemed to pitch game two of the ALCS as desired. His control was on, his change looked good, his splitter came around by the third inning or so. He looked as good as he did against the Angels--except that the Indians can actually hit.

The home run pitch to Peralta was just the pitch Schilling intended to throw. That's equally true, it appears, of the home run pitch to Grady Sizemore. Schilling's 88 mph deliveries are to fastballs what David Ortiz is to baserunning: heading in the right place, but pretty fucking slow. Schilling simply might not have the stuff anymore to keep great lineups at bay.

All this means gives reason to feel very uneasy about Schilling's next start against Cleveland. Schilling is likely to pitch no better than he pitched in game two--and that's if he's on his game.

Fucking Tool

What a clown.

Say What?

Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports is generally one of the less terrible members of the mainstream sports media, and often has inside information that is quite interesting. He is, though, capable of some real doozies. A few days ago, he published this. Yesterday, he decided to pull a 180 and write this. Personally, I would probably send Beckett out on short rest; even though the Rockies are hot, and even if Beckett is tired, the Sox would still be the strong favorites in the world series; thus, they should play this series as if it were the world series. I also think, however, that pitch counts and the "babying" of pitchers has been a great development for baseball in general. Look how many great pitchers are pitching well into their forties these days; is it really better to have this kind of thing happen?

Two Birds

I know, I know, I shouldn't let this site degenerate into a sort of FJM-lite, mainly because there is no way we could do it as well as them. Still, there is some stuff that is just so stupid I can't help saying something. Take, for instance, this piece, written by a senior national columnist at the self-proclaimed World Leader of Sports. There is so much good stuff in there that it really deserves a line-by-line takedown, but I'm just going to focus on my favourite part: Gene suggests that a one year deal worth $2M for Barry Bonds would not be an insult.

Gene might have had a point--if he had been writing in 1987. In 2007, baseball players tend to earn just a little more money. To take the most recent of literrally dozens of possible examples, Joel Pineiro just signed a two year deal for $13M. Joel Pineiro. The man has been a well below average pitcher for the last four years. He is now a middle reliever. Thirteen million dollars. And Gene thinks, in this sort of market, $2M for BARRRY FUCKING BONDS is not an insult?

Maybe senior is a polite way of saying senile.

When I logged on to write this post, I noticed this by Ken Rosenthal, who is quickly removing himself from my short list of mainstream sports writers with more than 2 brain cells. Like judging a book by its cover, this article's stupidity can be fully surmized by the opening sentence. It is akin to writing "Tom Brady is a great quaterback. He is not a great football player" or "Roger Federer is a great server, volleyer, forehand hitter and backhand hitter. He is not a great tennis player."

Reactions to Red Sox 4, Angels 0

1. Dominant. That was a classic '07 Red Sox game: great pitching, great defense, and solid, smart hitting.

2. Francona is pissing me off, after choosing the disadvantageous eight-day series and starting Dice-K second instead of Schilling. No way Beckett should have started the ninth. Maybe Beckett demanded it, but a manager's supposed to be able to tell his players to yield when the team's best interest demands. The Sox are hugely rested and off tomorrow; Beckett had no business starting the ninth after having thrown 101 pitches through eight. In fact, this was a good place to try out Okajima to see if he's still got his stuff. We'll see if Francona's folly costs the Sox (and Beckett's ERA) some runs Thursday. Perhaps Francona wanted a super-rested bullpen in case Dice-K stinks in game two.

3. To what extent was Ortiz's home run hit off a bad pitch and to what extent was it great hitting by Ortiz? Obviously the curve stayed too high, but it did seem to have a lot of movement. I suspect most hitters would have swung and missed, but I'm not sure.

4. To me the best hit ball wasn't Youkilis's or Ortiz's homer but Mike Lowell's RBI single. He extended to smack the low-and-away pitch--probably the hardest pitch to hit--into center field, slightly left of dead center at that. I imagine that takes some strength, and I only imagine because clearly it's strength I don't have.

PLUS:

The Angels are starting Joe Saunders over John Lackey in Game 4? That's according to the Angels' website. I assume they seek to avoid Escobar being overworked or injured and would start Lackey in game 5. But they really have no margin for error against a Sox team that is slightly, but clearly, better in every category (offense, fielding, starting pitching, bullpen pitching). Saunders pitched splendidly against the Sox this year, but the Angels ought to prefer starting Escobar or Lackey over Saunders for the purpose of winning the series, unless Escobar's health is extremely bad (yet somehow not so bad to start game 2).

Goddamn, Fire Joe Morgan's JoeChat is hilarious today. I know Joe Morgan is dumb, but the depth and myriad applications of his stupidity never cease to amaze and confound. It's beautiful, really. I'm choking up just thinking that someday Joe will pass on or, becoming recognized as senile, be taken off the air.

Ponderable

If Manny Ramirez committed a felony, might a judge acquit him on grounds that it was "just Manny being Manny"?

Tiebreaker

There's something about a one-game tiebreaker. It may be the most intense game there is--even more than the final game of a playoff series. The World Series too. There, at least the losing team doesn't go home empty handed: they are champions of their league (which in the American League means something). Today, the Padres or Rockies are playing one single game--a completely inadequate metric--to decide who gets a mere shot at the playoffs and who goes home with no titles to show for the season. Only in a one-game tiebreaker, everything a team has worked for over 162 games is on the line. Too bad for the Rockies they're facing Jake Peavy.

Anyone

who is not following the National League today does not like baseball. Personally, I'm rooting for the Phillies and Rockies, but really a four way tie would be the best.

If Sterling and Waldman were Sox announcers (god forbid)

Sterling: The Reeddd Sooxxxxxxx Wiin! Thhheeeeeeeeee Reedd Sooxxx Wiinnnnnn! The Red Sox are division champs!

Waldman: [orgasms, dies, keeps screaming]

Crazy

A lot of people complain about the competitive balance of baseball, and the fact that the same teams seem to make the playoffs every year. If, out of the current five team scramble for three playoff spots in the NL the Rockies, Phillies, and Diamondbacks prove victorious--and that is certainly a distinct possibility--then there will only be ONE team that made the playoffs this year that also made them last year. That is an insane degree of turnover.

Please, no

From mlb.com:

If Clemens is unable to pitch, Matt DeSalvo or Kei Igawa could fill in.

The quotable Griffey

Ken Griffey Jr. on his injury:

"The best way I can describe it is it felt like somebody bungee-jumped off my right nut" (Cincinnati Post).

Pitching the playoffs

The Red Sox are in the playoffs. But the ALDS will be tough for Boston--maybe more than the ALCS. That's because they will face either the Angels or the Indians, who pack respective 1-2 punches of Lackey-Escobar and Sabathia-Carmona, either of which outshines Beckett-Schilling/Matsuzaka/Buchholz. Who pitches for Boston?

The length of the ALDS will be seven or eight days, depending on whether Boston wins the division and whether it gets the best record in the AL.

Here's how I'd slot the rotation for a seven-day series:

Game 1: Buchholz
Game 2: Beckett
[offday]
Game 3: Schilling
Game 4: Matsuzaka
[offday]
Game 5: Beckett

Buchholz starts first so Beckett can pitch on normal rest and Buchholz can move into the bullpen, able to go in long relief for Dice-K in case the Japanese wonder has another shitty start. In turn, Matsuzaka would be in the bullpen in game one in case Buchholz falters. Schilling and, yes, even Matsuzaka should be superior to whoever's starting against them. The smart money would have the Sox taking game one or two and both three and four, leaving a fresh Beckett to start the ALCS.

Here's my rotation for an eight-day series, which would happen if Boston got the best record and elected for eight days or if Boston finished in the wild card and played the best-record team that elected for eight days:

Game 1: Beckett
[offday]
Game 2: Schilling
[offday]
Game 3: Matsuzaka
Game 4: Beckett
[offday]
Game 5: Schilling

Francona will probably use just this formula, using Buchholz as the lights-out guy in the bullpen. That makes a lot of sense. Buchholz could be extremely valuable in the pen, and the three offdays mean he could be used in four of five games. Francona would manage to respect Matsuzaka while minimizing Matsuzaka's playing time, because Matsuzaka would never get enough rest to pitch out of the bullpen and Buchholz could do long relief in game three in case Matsuzaka stinks. The key assumptions in this formula are that Buccholz is a talented unknown, requiring flexibility, and that Schilling is on his game. Those are sound assumptions.

Here's a ballsy alternative:

Game 1: Beckett
[offday]
Game 2: Buchholz
[offday]
Game 3: Schilling
Game 4: Beckett
[offday]
Game 5: Buchholz (or Matsuzaka)

As I said, ballsy--intending to start Buchholz twice, including in game five. Here's why it works: you still get Beckett twice, and if Buchholz falters in his game-two start, you know about it early and yank him for game five. Matsuzaka goes to the bullpen for games one and two. If Buccholz blows game one, Matsuzaka rests in games three and four and starts game five. Smart money has the Sox winning behind Schilling and taking two of four Beckett-Buchholz starts--but it's close. The key assumptions in this formula are that Buccholz is awesome and ready for prime-time, that Matsuzaka is comfortable with pitching out of the bullpen, and that Schilling isn't great. Problems are, Schilling has pitched great lately, and god knows if Dice-K can come from the pen. But uber-confidence in Buccholz, if justified, could overcome those problems, especially if the Sox feel they need something better than a 1-2 of Beckett-Schilling and are willing to gamble.

The big question is whether the Sox, if they finish with the best record in the AL, should choose a seven- or eight-day series. Francona would be a fool not to choose seven. The Sox don't want to face the Lackey-Escobar or Sabathia-Carmona pairs twice; although not probable, they could easily win three of four games. Despite the Sox strengthening their bullpen with Buccholz or Matsuzaka in the eight-day series, the Sox bullpen is already stronger than the Angels' or the Indians' and will benefit from gaining Tim Wakefield and Jon Lester in either scenario.

I'll leave the difficult task of Yankees' rotation to Blackadder, though he may wish to wait until we get a better read on Mussina, Kennedy and even Clemens. Personally, I'd bench Wang in favor of starting Kyle Farnsworth--not to mention bringing A-Rod to play catcher and moving Posada to center field.

Record Breaker

Last year, Ryan Howard won the MVP with a monster offensive season, hitting 58 home runs and authoring a batting line of .313/.425/.659 (that's batting average/on base percentage/slugging percentage) Personally, I think Pujols was better, but Howard was really awesome. This year, Howard has 194 strikeouts, one away from tying the all time record in a single season. It seems almost certain that Howard will be the first person ever to strike out 200 times in a season.

Quite a falloff for Howard, huh? Um, not really. Last year he struck out 182 times, and this year his line before tonight's game was .265/.388/.569, which while not as good as last year is still one of the 10 best in the National League. Howard is a wonderful example of why you shouldn't look at strikeout totals to judge players; while strikeouts are worse than other types of outs, they are not that much worse, and they are much better than double plays. It is more than possible to be incredibly productive and strike out a lot; in fact, strikeouts correlate positively with most good measures of hitting productivity (although I am almost positive they correlate negatively with batting average.) Striking out a lot is often a sign of patience and willingness to work the count, while a low strikeout total is often (not always) an indication of an impatient hitter with a reasonably high batting average but few walks or home runs. There are, of course, some truly special hitters who manage to combine great power and a high walk rate with a low strikeout total, but there are never going to be many guys who are that special (Ruth and Gehrig, by the way, had very high strikeout totals relative to their time; if Ruth were playing today, he would likely set the career strikeout record.)

Oh yeah, and that A-Rod kid can play a little...

Weird

So J.D. Drew hits a home run, and Papelbon allows a grand slam. I think we've entered the twilight zone.

Die Eric Gagne

That is the extent of my thoughts.

Hype

So I know I shouldn't let this sort of thing bother me, but it does. Every year mlb.com gives out the Hank Aaron award, ostensibly to the best hitter in each league. The problem is that the award is determined by fan vote, with the result that fame and popularity play an even bigger role than they do in BBWAA voting. Case in point, the American League winner last year was Derek Jeter; while I think Jeter was robbed of the MVP, I don't see how anyone could think he was a better hitter, than, say Travis Hafner.

This year, the voting has been narrowed down to five, and there is some major silliness. The worst is that Barry Bonds, who in case anyone forgot PASSED HANK AARON FOR THE ALL-TIME RECORD IN HOME RUNS THIS YEAR, and is currently posting the highest OBP for anyone other than himself since Mickey Mantle in 1962, was not deemed deserving of the HANK AARON award by sufficiently many fans to warrant a place in the top 5. Jose Reyes, who everybody likes because he smiles a lot and runs really fast, is on the list, despite the fact that he is a barely above average hitter. Yes, I know he is a very good hitter for a shortstop, so his VORP is very high; but that sort of consideration is relevant to MVP voting, which attempts to account for total value. The Hank Aaron award is supposed to be for the best hitter. Right now, the best hitter--who also happens to be one of the three best hitters ever, and at his peak was probably better than anyone ever--is not on the ballot. The fans should be ashamed.

Liveblogging the Yanks game

The Yankees are playing a day game against the Jays, meaning we'll be at work, meaning we can devote our full attention to baseball.

Jack, 1:33 pm: 3-0 Jays! But the joy of the Jays lead is nearly erased by the fact that Susan Waldman, cunt extraordinaire, is back on the radio. I mean "cunt extraordinaire" in a descriptive sense. She must have an extraordinary cunt to have so many shrieking orgasms every time any Yankee does anything good.

Red Sox sweep*

*In an imagined world where Manny Ramirez was healthy and playing rather than benched, stoned and dreaming of ponies and cake.

In Friday's game, an amazing Yankees comeback was spoiled by an even more amazing Red Sox walk-off win. Manny Ramirez smacked a three-run home run clear over the Green Monster as the Sox took game one, 10-8. J.D. Drew left the game with a concussion.

Saturday was a Red Sox romp, as the Sox roughed up Chien-Ming Wang and the Yankees' bullpen for 15 runs, five driven in by Sox slugger Manny Ramirez. J.D. Drew left the game with tenderness in his brain.

Sunday saw another Manny-powered win. The game was tied 1-1 until the bottom of the fifth inning, when Manny Ramirez smacked a bases-loaded, bases-clearing triple to right-center field. Later Ramirez made a sensational defensive play, scaling the Green Monster to rob Derek Jeter of a three-run homer. The Red Sox won 5-1. J.D. Drew left the game with encephalitis, leading doctors to find a career-ending series of tumors.

Rubber Game

Well, this is not the best pitching matchup of the series, but it may have the best story: Clemens, arguably the greatest pitcher in baseball history, the prodigal son of the Red Sox trying to secure his legacy as a Yankee in probably his last season; and Schilling, adoped favorite, owner of the most famous red sock in history and self-proclaimed Yankee killer. The last time these guys met, it was a doozy.

Here's hoping this isn't the last time this year these teams play each other.

Fausto Carmona...

now leads the AL in ERA. He's sort of the opposite of Yorman Bazardo; probably the coolest name in baseball.

Why Andy MacPhail is wrong

Note: This article contains some math: nothing heavy-duty, indeed stuff that probably many college-educated readers have seen at some point in their life, but may well have forgotten. I know this may alienate some readers, but unfortunately I don't see any way of getting to the conclusions I want without it. If you don't understand the math at one point, you will have to just trust me that the conclusions I draw really do follow from the premises.

I was watching an Orioles-Red Sox game last week--a good game, a pitching duel between Jeremy Guthrie and Josh Beckett--when Andy MacPhail, the COO of the Orioles, came on. When asked what he would do to remedy yet another disappointing season, he emphasized that he would focus heavily on improving the Orioles' pitching. MacPhail could not resist appealing to a number of hoary old chestnuts, such as that "pitching is 75% percent of the game" and other such nonsense; but it still seems like he has a good point. After all, the Orioles offense is bad, but not outrageously so. Their pitching, despite the presence of arguably the most dominant pitcher in the AL this year (Bedard), has been abysmal; they are second only to the incomparable Tampa Bay Devil Rays in runs allowed per game.

While plausible, is there any way of testing MacPhail's contention? After all, even though their offense is not in the sorry state of their pitching, the Orioles would certainly be helped by improved hitting. Is there some way of telling whether they should be focusing on their hitting or their defense (overall defense, e.g. pitching and fielding)? Baseball Prospectus' book Baseball Between the Numbers looks at this question in one chapter, and although it is good the chapter is, ironically, more historical and anecdotal. I want to take a more technical look at the question.
My starting point is one of the best formulas of sabermetrics, Bill James' pythagorean winning percentage. What this formula says is that, if RS is the number of runs a team scores and RA is the number of runs a team allows, their pythagorean winning percentage is RS^2/(RS^2+RA^2) (the name comes from the exponent "2" reminding James of the Pythagorean formula in Euclidean Geometry; other exponents are actually more accurate, but this does not affect the analysis.) With some notable exceptions, this formula usually predicts a teams actual wins to withing about 3 games, and the prediction is even more accurate when several seasons are considered. It also, during the season, a better predictor of future performance than past record (a fact which the Yankees and the Mariners have exemplified this year, in opposite ways.) As such, the pythagorean winning percentage is sometimes considered a better reflection of a teams "true talent" than their actual winning percentage (the interested reader can consult this article by a math professor at Brown for a derivation of the formula under reasonable assumptions about run distributions.)
To simplify notation, we will use x instead of RS, y instead of RA, and write P(x,y)=x^2/(x^2+y^2) for the pythagorean winning percentage. The goal of teams front office should be to make P(x,y) as big as possible, i.e. to win as many games as possible (actually, this is not quite right; we will discuss a complication a little later.) Thus, the question of whether to focus on hitting or fielding becomes: does P(x,y) increase more when x increases or when y decreases? Ideally, we would look at this question by looking at the marginal benefit of scoring one more run compared to allowing one less, i.e. we would compare P(x+1,y)-P(x,y) with P(x,y)-P(x,y-1). Unfortunately, these expressions are ugly. Instead, we will note that, even though as a matter of fact x and y are always positive inegers, the formula P(x,y) still makes sense if they are arbitrary real numbers. Thus instead of considering the marginal benefit P(x+1,y)-P(x,y) we instead look at the partial derivate Px(x,y) of P with respect to x, and similarly we consider -Py(x,y), the partial derivate with respect to y, in lieu of P(x,y)-P(x,y-1).
These derivates are trivial to compute, but I don't want to clutter this post with more symbols. After computing them, one looks at the ratio -Py(x,y)/Px(x,y); then improving defense is more valuable than improving hitting if and only if this ratio is bigger than 1. After a little algebra, one can compute that
-Py(x,y)/Px(x,y)=x/y
In other words, the ratio of the benefit to improving offense to the benefit to improving defense is equal to the ratio between runs scored and runs allowed! This is a conclusion that, to the best of my knowledge, has not appeared before. It has immediate applications to the problem at hand: one would expect a team to score more runs than it allows if and only if it is an above average team, i.e. has a record over .500. Thus, good teams should focus on improving their pitching, while bad teams should focus on their hitting. Furthermore, the better you are, the larger the ratio x/y presumably is, and therefore the larger the relative benefit to improving defense compared to offense; the inverse point holds for bad teams. This is a surprising result: it says, for instance, the Red Sox should be focusing more than any other team this offseason on improving their pitching, while the Devil Rays should be focusing primarily on improving their hitting.

There are a few other things worth pointing out. First, as already mentioned, the exponent "2" was irrelevant to the computation; a reader who knows calculus can convince him or herself that in fact the same ratio holds irrespective of the exponent. Furthermore, it has been shown that similar formulas work pretty well in other sports, like baseketball and hockey, albeit with slightly different exponents. Thus, the conclusion of this post--good teams should focus on defense, bad teams on offense--is true for many other sports as well.

So, was MacPhail wrong? Probably; there are still complications. For instance, it may be the case that, even though improving hitting would benefit the O's more than improving pitching, it is cheaper to improve pitching, so the marginal benefit to the team's bottom line. However, a) I doubt that that this is true, given how expensive pitching is, and b) I don't think MacPhail would admit on public television that he was sacrificing the success of the team to maximize profits. Of course, the Orioles won't ever contend with pitching this bad (although if Bedard and Guthrie and keep it up and Mazzone can teach Cabrera to control himself, they would have a pretty nice 1-3); but at the moment, of bigger concern to MacPhail should be the fact that no one on the team has as many as 20 home runs.

God, sports writers can be stupid

Don't you think Buster Olney regrets
this? (you need a subscription to read the whole thing, but you can really get the point from the first few paragraphs).

Boy, They Aren't Kidding...

Read the headline to this. Then notice later on, Papelbon says "I can't remember a closer who ever went through a season without blowing a save. If you're a closer that goes through a season and doesn't blow a save, I'd like to meet you."

Um, Jon, hate to break it to you, but I suspect you've already met the guy.

Yorman Bazardo

That's all. Just pointing out the best name in baseball.

What I know about Bazardo:

1. He pitches for the Tigers.
2. He was probably beat up in middle school.

I mean, being named Bazardo is enough. But that wasn't enough for the parents. They named him Yorman, too.

Dice-K divided against himself

Five billion bucks that at least one headline of a Boston newspaper tomorrow morning reads "Dice-OK."

Tonight's outing against the Yankees summed up Daisuke's promise and problems alike. At times Matsuzaka seemed simply awesome, mixing pitches impressively and landing 95-mph fastballs with movement in the barely hittable part of the strike zone. But often he lost control, looking just plain sloppy. Usually Matsuzaka pitches well overall but loses control for one inning, bizarrely regaining composure the next inning. Tonight he presented his most succinct Jeckyll-Hyde act yet, going wild at the start of the fourth inning (double, triple and four-pitch walk, which almost understates how bad Daisuke looked) and suddenly finding himself at the end (strikeout and double play, deserved by quality pitches). He went on to dominate in the fifth and struggle in the sixth. Overall, I'd say he got lucky to give up two earned runs in 5.2 innings: he allowed four hits and five walks, though also struck out seven.

Yet Daisuke showed unambiguously why he has the stuff to be one of the best pitchers in baseball. He must learn to locate consistently. Given his high within-game, even within-inning, variance, his root problem might be mental.

The Yankees teeing off against Okajima and Papelbon will go unmentioned.

Devils

As a Yankee fan, I am obliged to hate the Angels almost as much as I do the Red Sox; hence the title. They are, nevertheless, a fascinating team for so thoroughly bucking recent trends in baseball analysis.

In one sense, the answer to how the Angels are so good is easy: they score a lot of runs, and don't get scored on very much (it is misleading to say that they are 12'th in baseball in ERA, since that includes National League teams without the DH; more relevant is the fact that they are 5'th in the AL in RA per game.) Their divergence from their expected record, while real, is too small to warrant coming up with a special explanation.

Thus, the relevant question is how they manage to score so many and allow so few runs. The few runs allowed part is easy: they have some
excellent defensive players, two ace pitchers, and a solid bullpen, including a great closer (Ok, I'll stop with the links.)

Their offense, however, is more interesting. They score a lot of runs, despite displaying little power or patience at the plate. However, as Jack mentioned the Angels are still a respectable 5'th in OBP, in large part because of their very high .286 team batting average. The Angels have an extremely aggressive approach at the plate, putting the ball in play more often than other teams; as such, their overall performance is more tightly tied to their overall batting average than most. Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus (they're going to come up a lot) had a useful insight into this approach: since batting average displays more year-to-year variance than secondary batting skills, one would expect the performance of the Angels offense to display such variance. The Angels take a high risk, high reward approach to hitting; some years, the
schtick works, other times it doesn't (Sorry, I lied about the links.) In other words, the Angels have just had a lot of their batted balls fall in for hits this year; next year, they may not.

I still haven't touched on the Angel's baserunning, which is the part of their game about which crusty old men who wish it were still the 60's most like to wax lyrical. How much of an effect does their running game have? As Jack points out, they only steal bases at a 73% success rate; given that the break-even stolen base rate in the current offensive environment is about 72%, it is unlikely they are adding many runs this way.

There is more to baserunning than stealing bases; more important are features that were sadly not recorded until recently, namely, advancing on outs and taking the extra base on hits. And the Angels are spectacularly good at that sort of baserunning, far better than any other team in baseball. In a series of articles last year on Baseball Prospectus, Dan Fox carried out an exhaustive study of baserunning. Fox estimated that the Angels added about 20 runs last year in non-stolen base baserunning (though they gave up about 8 runs by getting thrown out so often stealing); no other team was above 8. 20 runs is a lot, worth about 2 wins in the standings. Thus, assuming their baserunning this year is comparable to last year (which is a big assumption), we would expect them to have scored about 20 runs more than expected. This assumption is roughly borne out: using Bill James's simplest runs created formula (AB*OBP*SLG) the Angles should have scored 732 runs this year when in fact they have scored 761. I know, 29 is not the same as 20, but given the coarse nature of baseball statistics this seems pretty good to me.

Of course, having just said all that, the Angels were just shut out by the Orioles with Jon Leicester on the mound, so maybe they just suck.

By the way, I nominate this for dumbest thing ever. Unless the guy is a Sox fan.

Why are the Angels so good?

The Angels' team ERA, 4.19, is 12th in baseball. They are fifth in on-base percentage, .346, and runs scored, 761.

Why do the Angels have the second-best record? Even their expected record (based on runs scored and runs allowed), while worse than their actual record, is third best.

Thomas Boswell credits manager Mike Scioscia's strategy of aggression on the basepaths. Boswell's argument isn't satisfying. The Angels are 18th--below the MLB median--in stolen base percentage (73%). They just run more, leading the majors in stolen bases and caught stealing alike. The Angels' stolen base percentage is low enough that, if conventional wisdom of statistics experts is right, running more often shouldn't much help, and if anything should hurt.

The only way to save the Scioscia strategy, as far as I see, is to argue for psychological effects. Constant baserunning keeps other teams on their toes all game long. Yet psychological effects haven't flummoxed opposing catchers, who throw out Angels' runners at above-average rates. In fact, considered in the abstract, psychological effects might just as well hurt the Angels because opposing outfielders will know from the crack of the bat to come up throwing.

Other ideas?

Julio Lugo, nut

Welcome to Primarily Baseball.

I quote:

Lugo fondly recalled a magical moment when the team flew over the international date late in the Pacific Ocean.

“I was (video)taping out the window and it was one of the most impressive things I’ve seen in my entire life,” he said. “We were flying across it and, I swear, it was completely day time and then in 30 seconds, it was completely dark. It was incredible. I’ll never forget it.”

Now that, well, didn't happen. Julio Lugo either is cleverly duping the Boston Herald reporter or had assumed that being airborne somehow lifts the illegality of certain substances. Which is it? According to Wikipedia,

Lugo has received controversy in the Boston media regarding incessant crotch grabbing during games....It's even been suggested that local Red Sox network NESN attempts to only show him from above the waist to avoid TV embarrassment.

In short, Julio Lugo would be awesome, if only he could hit.