No Time For Losers
Where's Pete Mackanin? The Tigers coaching staff is seeminly comprised of everyone else associated with 14 years of losing baseball in the 'burgh, including 3 of the last 4 skippers (Jim Leyland, Gene Lamont, this blog's namesake Lloyd McClendon) and a couple of guys who stuck around after the glow from the Bonds era wore off (Andy Van Slyke and Don Slaught). Likeable fellows, all. Throw in a resurgent Sean Casey and the spectral presence of an infamous Rule 5 loss (Chris Shelton), and you've got a whole lot of unhappy Pirates fans playing a game of "What If?"
But what works in Detroit -- excuse me: what makes the Tigers amazing in '06 -- would've amounted to another 66 win season in Pittsburgh. The key to this team, as has already been written everywhere and become a part of its mythology, is Mike Illitch's bold move with signing Pudge to a fat 4-year contract. The Tigers took a couple of players labeled as damaged goods (Ivan Rodriguez and Magglio Ordonez), burned off some terrible contracts and got really lucky as the aging cornerstones (Dmitri Young) held value and some long-in-development prospects (Marcus Thames) finally found a groove. Plus, you can't touch that pitching staff: Justin Verlander and Joel Zumaya on the 1-2, vaporizing memories of the Adam Bernero dark ages.
Won't be around to watch the first game of this World Series (in fact, I'll probably miss the whole thing), which sucks. It usually takes a few weeks for me to pull of the Pirates fan hat and trade up for the MLB fan hat after the regular season has ended. Which is to say: I never pay much attention to the respective League Championship Series but turn on a dime and bark like a rabid dog when its World Series time. Props to the Cardinals for going the distance against the hated Mets, but the Mets were smoke and mirrors after the All-Star Break. Detroit looks invinvible this year. 4-2 seems like a reasonable prediction. And fellas, send me some YouTube links for all of the highlight reel-worthy plays, a'ight?
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
What's wrong with this picture?
I'm back. Sort of. Real-world commitments are nipping at my heels and I haven't really been moved to pontificate on the subject of baseball this off-season. The World Baseball Classic has not put me in the mood, nor has Frank DeFord's usually reliable Wednesday-morning commentary on NPR's Morning Edition. DeFord's back to beating the drum on Barry Bonds and steroids -- his latest report calls for MLB to expel Bonds and cast out all cheaters. I was onyl on my first cup of coffee this morning, but I swear DeFord was invoking Lady MacBeth's "out, out damn spot" monologue on this morning's thinkpiece. Total histrionics.
Anyway, here's the new stadium design that the Washington Nationals unveiled during a press conference yesterday afternoon. At first glance, I don't like it -- for $611 million dollars, I'd think a firm could envision something a little more creative than this rehash of Milwaukee's ballpark. The idea here is that patrons will get a distinct view of the Washington Monument, with outfield sightlines penetrating towards the West of the city. But why not reorient it for a better view of the riverfront, which is one of the main calling cards of the parks in San Francisco and Pittsburgh? Basically, the Nationals will go from having the ugliest stadium (RFK, not really their fault) in MLB to having the ugliest new-school park in MLB (the White Sox can breathe a heavy sigh of relief). I feel a little bad for Anthony Williams and the city council, but the ownership situation needs to get squared away soon before the goodwill from '05 is erased. Because Jim Bowden just engineered the worst off-season of any team and the prospects of even a middle-of-the-pack finish look dreadful with that pitching staff.
Big ups to DMZ at U.S.S. Mariner for his recent scientific/ sabermetric study of the classic "Baseball Bugs" cartoon. He discussed Richard Feynman and wormholes and suggests probable causes for all of the myriad improbabilities in the cartoon world. The entire staff of that blog is currently writing circles around any of the baseball hobbyists, but that post is firing on all cylinders. Read it and weep.
I'm back. Sort of. Real-world commitments are nipping at my heels and I haven't really been moved to pontificate on the subject of baseball this off-season. The World Baseball Classic has not put me in the mood, nor has Frank DeFord's usually reliable Wednesday-morning commentary on NPR's Morning Edition. DeFord's back to beating the drum on Barry Bonds and steroids -- his latest report calls for MLB to expel Bonds and cast out all cheaters. I was onyl on my first cup of coffee this morning, but I swear DeFord was invoking Lady MacBeth's "out, out damn spot" monologue on this morning's thinkpiece. Total histrionics.
Anyway, here's the new stadium design that the Washington Nationals unveiled during a press conference yesterday afternoon. At first glance, I don't like it -- for $611 million dollars, I'd think a firm could envision something a little more creative than this rehash of Milwaukee's ballpark. The idea here is that patrons will get a distinct view of the Washington Monument, with outfield sightlines penetrating towards the West of the city. But why not reorient it for a better view of the riverfront, which is one of the main calling cards of the parks in San Francisco and Pittsburgh? Basically, the Nationals will go from having the ugliest stadium (RFK, not really their fault) in MLB to having the ugliest new-school park in MLB (the White Sox can breathe a heavy sigh of relief). I feel a little bad for Anthony Williams and the city council, but the ownership situation needs to get squared away soon before the goodwill from '05 is erased. Because Jim Bowden just engineered the worst off-season of any team and the prospects of even a middle-of-the-pack finish look dreadful with that pitching staff.Big ups to DMZ at U.S.S. Mariner for his recent scientific/ sabermetric study of the classic "Baseball Bugs" cartoon. He discussed Richard Feynman and wormholes and suggests probable causes for all of the myriad improbabilities in the cartoon world. The entire staff of that blog is currently writing circles around any of the baseball hobbyists, but that post is firing on all cylinders. Read it and weep.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Hallitosis
Langstaff has a pretty neat wrap-up of this year's Hall of Fame class over at Corsairs Affairs (formerly One Man Band). I'm pretty much in agreement with his ambivalent feelings towards Bruce Sutter and his picks for more deserving candidates (Goose Gossage, Bert Blyleven and Alan Trammell). I really wanted to see those three make the cut; I wouldn't be upset if Jim Rice was in the mix, too. None of the other folks on the ballot did much for me as HOF candidates. As Lang suggests, it's all about the split-finger fastball, which may or may not be asignificant enough innovation to merit includsion to the Hall. Sutter's Cy Young season is a nice line item on his resume, though by no means an arbiter of a reliever's ultimate worth: Hoyt Willhelm didn't have one, and he's in the Hall. Whereas fellow closer Mark Davis did get the hardware in his 1989 season, the only standout in an otherwise unremarkable career.
Maybe 8 excellent seasons (1976-82, 1984) is enough: Sutter tossed between 80-100 innings and had ERAs way below league average (his career ERA is a full point below league average, too). All this compares favoravly to, say, Mariano Rivera (who will still a better choice when all is said and done). On raw numbers alone, why not Lee Smith with 178 more saves over his career? I dunno. Over at Hardball Times, Aaron Gleeman takes a much more defiant stance and says "no way." I'd ignore the portion where he compares Sutter and Blyleven because it gets a little goofy: "Broken down to the most simplistic terms possible, would you rather have 4,970 innings of a 3.31 ERA [Blyleven] or 1,042 innings of a 2.83 ERA [Sutter]? Would you rather have 300 saves and 68 wins [Sutter] or 287 wins [Blyleven]?"
Gleeman's completely on point here, but his argument is strongest in the Sutter-to-Gossage comparison. Gossage has more saves, more innings, more wins, more win shares. It's a travesty that he's not already in the Hall. Goose could certainly help his cause by not being a total fucking douchebag about it, but maybe the incessant bitching and moaning about wussy modern-era closers is what saw his vote tally increase from 55% to 65% on this year's ballot. He'll make it in sooner rather than later. As will Jim Rice. Blyleven and Andre Dawson have decent shots if they can stay on the ballot long enough. Isn't this pretty much the M.O. with the hall voters: first- or second-ballot induction or you rot for 8-12 years? As for Alan Trammell, the bedrock of some terrible Tigers teams throughout the 1980s and 90s, I dunno what the voting committee is doing, but I'll try to talk about it at length in the next post. I'm still shaking cobwebs off.
Langstaff has a pretty neat wrap-up of this year's Hall of Fame class over at Corsairs Affairs (formerly One Man Band). I'm pretty much in agreement with his ambivalent feelings towards Bruce Sutter and his picks for more deserving candidates (Goose Gossage, Bert Blyleven and Alan Trammell). I really wanted to see those three make the cut; I wouldn't be upset if Jim Rice was in the mix, too. None of the other folks on the ballot did much for me as HOF candidates. As Lang suggests, it's all about the split-finger fastball, which may or may not be asignificant enough innovation to merit includsion to the Hall. Sutter's Cy Young season is a nice line item on his resume, though by no means an arbiter of a reliever's ultimate worth: Hoyt Willhelm didn't have one, and he's in the Hall. Whereas fellow closer Mark Davis did get the hardware in his 1989 season, the only standout in an otherwise unremarkable career.
Maybe 8 excellent seasons (1976-82, 1984) is enough: Sutter tossed between 80-100 innings and had ERAs way below league average (his career ERA is a full point below league average, too). All this compares favoravly to, say, Mariano Rivera (who will still a better choice when all is said and done). On raw numbers alone, why not Lee Smith with 178 more saves over his career? I dunno. Over at Hardball Times, Aaron Gleeman takes a much more defiant stance and says "no way." I'd ignore the portion where he compares Sutter and Blyleven because it gets a little goofy: "Broken down to the most simplistic terms possible, would you rather have 4,970 innings of a 3.31 ERA [Blyleven] or 1,042 innings of a 2.83 ERA [Sutter]? Would you rather have 300 saves and 68 wins [Sutter] or 287 wins [Blyleven]?"
Gleeman's completely on point here, but his argument is strongest in the Sutter-to-Gossage comparison. Gossage has more saves, more innings, more wins, more win shares. It's a travesty that he's not already in the Hall. Goose could certainly help his cause by not being a total fucking douchebag about it, but maybe the incessant bitching and moaning about wussy modern-era closers is what saw his vote tally increase from 55% to 65% on this year's ballot. He'll make it in sooner rather than later. As will Jim Rice. Blyleven and Andre Dawson have decent shots if they can stay on the ballot long enough. Isn't this pretty much the M.O. with the hall voters: first- or second-ballot induction or you rot for 8-12 years? As for Alan Trammell, the bedrock of some terrible Tigers teams throughout the 1980s and 90s, I dunno what the voting committee is doing, but I'll try to talk about it at length in the next post. I'm still shaking cobwebs off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)