When teams "fighting" for the most ping-pong balls overtakes pride and the natural competitive desire for "W"s, it's time to do something. As analytics grabs a tighter rein on sports in general, the old "why would we ever not do everything we can to win" gives way to the more logical long-term thinking that teams are employing by resting and benching their veterans and better players. I don't fault teams for planning for the future but the fact that Lakers fans are upset when their team wins, regardless of standing, it isn't the best look.
Enter my solution for tanking. The Late-Season Inversion Table.
Currently, out of 1000 combinations, the teams in the lottery receive - in descending order - 250, 199, 156, 119, 88, 63, 43, 28, 17, 11, eight, seven, and six assigned combinations. Once a team is eliminated from playoff contention and with trades that contain protections, there is little reason besides aesthetics to put a competitive product on the floor. But what about young teams that are growing? Is this best for their growth? Isn't it better for the Lakers or the Nets... oops, never mind... to learn to win and not be punished for picking off teams with better records?
The first 62 games of the NBA season is 75.6% of the season. If you take the 1000 combinations and reduce the possibilities to 200, 140, 115, 95, 65, 45, 30, 20, 14, 10, seven, six, five, and four you have 756 combinations. For the last 20 games, you have 244 combinations up for grabs. The lottery teams with the BEST records in those 20 games receive 50 extra combinations then 36, 32, 28, 24, 20, 16, 12, nine, seven, four, three, two and one. No matter what happens, the team with the worst record over the first 62 games will still have the most combinations - even if they finish with the worst record, they receive 201 combinations and the next highest a team could have would be 190 (if the team with the second-worst record over the first 62 games finishes with the best record over the final 20).
With additional combinations available at each position, teams will want to win and improve their odds of a high draft pick instead of tanking to do so. For teams that are hopeless and can't seem to win regardless, do we really want to "reward" them by improving their odds? Doesn't make sense to me.
Sunday, April 09, 2017
Tuesday, October 04, 2016
Seven Steps to Fixing the Diamondbacks
On Monday, October 3, the Arizona Diamondbacks decided to completely turn tear out and light on fire the page on their latest major overhaul, relieving General Manager Dave Stewart and Manager Chip Hale of their duties while removing Tony La Russa from his post as Chief Baseball Officer (he is expected to be reassigned but remain with the organization). The newly-removed regime was put in place starting in May 2014, with the hire of La Russa, continued with the hire of Stewart and former vice-president of baseball operations De Jon Watson in September 2014 and completed in October of that year with the hiring of Hale. In their two seasons at the helm, the Diamondbacks went 148-176*.
La Russa and Stewart - and as a by-product, Hale - will be remembered for engineering some of the most widely-panned transactions in baseball during their time with the organization. While much has been written about these moves, the path to guiding the Diamondbacks to their first winning season since 2011 has yet to be charted. Here are some thoughts to possibly speed up the ardent task.
1) Move into the 21st Century with the new front office - One of the biggest criticisms of La Russa and Stewart was their reliance on outdated methods of player evaluation and roster construction. Despite occasional lip-service to the importance of analytics in interviews, the actions taken by the La Russa-led front office suggest they refused to accept the length to which the landscape has changed in the past five years. This group succeeded the tandem of Kevin Towers and Kirk Gibson who even La Russa noted were behind the times in THEIR acceptance of modern metrics.
2) Rebuild the farm system - Probably the most damning evidence of damage done by La Russa and co. was their dismantling of a once-promising farm system. Since the arrival of Stewart, the Diamondbacks have traded away former No. 1 overall pick Dansby Swanson (rated the #4 prospect in baseball per MLB.com in 2016), Touki Toussaint and Aaron Blair (both in the top 70 of MLB.com's 2015 rankings) among others. Their overall farm system ranking plummeted from the sixth-best in baseball to 22nd.
3) Move on from Yasmany Tomas - Immediately upon handing Tomas a 6-year, $68 million contract, scouts and analysts throughout baseball wondered what the Diamondbacks had in the 24-year-old Cuban. About two weeks into spring training, it became clear what they had - a Designated Hitter stuck in the National League. It almost seems laughable the amount of time they put into trying Tomas at third base. He isn't much better in the outfield and despite hitting 31 home runs in 2016, the rest of his game is so poor, he accumulated -0.4 wins above replacement bringing his two-year total to -1.7 WAR. Due to his power and relative youth, Tomas is much more valuable as a trade piece to an American League team in a hitter-friendly park than he is to the Diamondbacks and could bring back a decent return.
4) Improve the defense to improve the pitching - While much of the focus on the disappointing 2016 season centers around the two high-visibility acquisitions of Zack Greinke and Shelby Miller and the poor run prevention in general, every starting pitcher with 20 starts for the Diamondbacks had a FIP (fielding-independent ERA) between 0.25 and 1.28 higher than their ERA, with Miller having the largest separation. Removing Tomas' 35 fielding runs below average (Rtot on baseball-reference.com) from the equation would go a long way to helping, however, the rest of the team still fielded to an additional 15 runs below average. A full season from a healthy A.J. Pollock in 2017 will go a long way to improving the outfield defense without the need for a new player. Two of the leaders this season in fielding runs ABOVE average, by the way? Former Diamondbacks Ender Inciarte (+27) and Adam Eaton (+22).
5) Make an educated guess on Jean Segura's future - This is where things get tricky. Jean Segura came to the Diamondbacks over the winter from the Milwaukee Brewers in exchange for back-end starter Chase Anderson, Aaron Hill with two prospects traded in the deal also. He entered spring training in a battle for at-bats in the middle infield and never looked back. He exceeded expectations from day one and finished with a league-leading 203 hits and a slash line of .319/.368/.499. His 5.4 WAR led the team. Is this the case of a young player finally making adjustments, having a fresh start and reaching his potential? Or - is this a career-year fueled by a .353 BABIP and a career-high 8.5% HR/FB rate. The Diamondbacks still have Segura under club control for two seasons before reaching Free Agency so even if he comes back down to Earth in 2017, he is still a good value but then they aren't beating the market, so-to-speak. If the new management team decides this is the player Segura is now, they would be wise to lock him up to a team-friendly contract before he reaches Free Agency. If they feel he outperformed his future potential, they would be wise to see what they can get for him after such a fine season.
6) Cornerstones on the corners - While Paul Goldschmidt is considered one of the top all-around players in the game, Jake Lamb cemented himself this season as an upper-echelon everyday third baseman across the diamond before a late-season slump diminished his season-ending numbers. Despite the swoon, Lamb still finished with an .840 OPS. On defense, Lamb battled some issues this season but his track record suggests this was a product of the adjustment to being an everyday player or just a case of a defensive slump. The other issue where poor management led to a lack of growth was Lamb's regression against left-handed pitching. In the minors, Lamb displayed an ability to hit lefties at every level. Unfortunately, Hale decided to sit Lamb against most left-handed starters for the past two seasons and in the few opportunities he received, the rust was apparent with a .573 OPS over 202 plate-appearances. One of the things Lamb is lauded for by scouts is his approach, so there is hope that he can overcome the lack of reps from the past two seasons to reach his full potential.
7) IF Chip Hale didn't irreparably ruin Daniel Hudson, the Diamondbacks have their closer - The morning of June 21, Hudson woke up with a 1.61 ERA, a 24/9 K/BB ratio and had given up two home runs in 28 innings. That night, in Toronto, Hale decided it would be a good idea to send a pitcher with TWO Tommy John surgeries in his rear-view mirror out to the mound for a third consecutive night. Two nights later, Hudson began a stretch that lasted 32 days and included 15 appearances, 9.1 IP a 10/7 K/BB ratio and a 24.21 ERA. From August 5 through the end of the season, Hudson rebounded strong with 21.1 IP that featured a 24/6 K/BB ratio and a 1.66 ERA. Hale finished the season by pitching Hudson three consecutive days again, but one hopes his blatant carelessness doesn't cause Hudson harm down the road. If Hudson is managed properly, he has the makeup and ability to be an ideal high-leverage reliever.
*Baseball-reference was used for all stats and info in this article.
La Russa and Stewart - and as a by-product, Hale - will be remembered for engineering some of the most widely-panned transactions in baseball during their time with the organization. While much has been written about these moves, the path to guiding the Diamondbacks to their first winning season since 2011 has yet to be charted. Here are some thoughts to possibly speed up the ardent task.
1) Move into the 21st Century with the new front office - One of the biggest criticisms of La Russa and Stewart was their reliance on outdated methods of player evaluation and roster construction. Despite occasional lip-service to the importance of analytics in interviews, the actions taken by the La Russa-led front office suggest they refused to accept the length to which the landscape has changed in the past five years. This group succeeded the tandem of Kevin Towers and Kirk Gibson who even La Russa noted were behind the times in THEIR acceptance of modern metrics.
2) Rebuild the farm system - Probably the most damning evidence of damage done by La Russa and co. was their dismantling of a once-promising farm system. Since the arrival of Stewart, the Diamondbacks have traded away former No. 1 overall pick Dansby Swanson (rated the #4 prospect in baseball per MLB.com in 2016), Touki Toussaint and Aaron Blair (both in the top 70 of MLB.com's 2015 rankings) among others. Their overall farm system ranking plummeted from the sixth-best in baseball to 22nd.
3) Move on from Yasmany Tomas - Immediately upon handing Tomas a 6-year, $68 million contract, scouts and analysts throughout baseball wondered what the Diamondbacks had in the 24-year-old Cuban. About two weeks into spring training, it became clear what they had - a Designated Hitter stuck in the National League. It almost seems laughable the amount of time they put into trying Tomas at third base. He isn't much better in the outfield and despite hitting 31 home runs in 2016, the rest of his game is so poor, he accumulated -0.4 wins above replacement bringing his two-year total to -1.7 WAR. Due to his power and relative youth, Tomas is much more valuable as a trade piece to an American League team in a hitter-friendly park than he is to the Diamondbacks and could bring back a decent return.
4) Improve the defense to improve the pitching - While much of the focus on the disappointing 2016 season centers around the two high-visibility acquisitions of Zack Greinke and Shelby Miller and the poor run prevention in general, every starting pitcher with 20 starts for the Diamondbacks had a FIP (fielding-independent ERA) between 0.25 and 1.28 higher than their ERA, with Miller having the largest separation. Removing Tomas' 35 fielding runs below average (Rtot on baseball-reference.com) from the equation would go a long way to helping, however, the rest of the team still fielded to an additional 15 runs below average. A full season from a healthy A.J. Pollock in 2017 will go a long way to improving the outfield defense without the need for a new player. Two of the leaders this season in fielding runs ABOVE average, by the way? Former Diamondbacks Ender Inciarte (+27) and Adam Eaton (+22).
5) Make an educated guess on Jean Segura's future - This is where things get tricky. Jean Segura came to the Diamondbacks over the winter from the Milwaukee Brewers in exchange for back-end starter Chase Anderson, Aaron Hill with two prospects traded in the deal also. He entered spring training in a battle for at-bats in the middle infield and never looked back. He exceeded expectations from day one and finished with a league-leading 203 hits and a slash line of .319/.368/.499. His 5.4 WAR led the team. Is this the case of a young player finally making adjustments, having a fresh start and reaching his potential? Or - is this a career-year fueled by a .353 BABIP and a career-high 8.5% HR/FB rate. The Diamondbacks still have Segura under club control for two seasons before reaching Free Agency so even if he comes back down to Earth in 2017, he is still a good value but then they aren't beating the market, so-to-speak. If the new management team decides this is the player Segura is now, they would be wise to lock him up to a team-friendly contract before he reaches Free Agency. If they feel he outperformed his future potential, they would be wise to see what they can get for him after such a fine season.
6) Cornerstones on the corners - While Paul Goldschmidt is considered one of the top all-around players in the game, Jake Lamb cemented himself this season as an upper-echelon everyday third baseman across the diamond before a late-season slump diminished his season-ending numbers. Despite the swoon, Lamb still finished with an .840 OPS. On defense, Lamb battled some issues this season but his track record suggests this was a product of the adjustment to being an everyday player or just a case of a defensive slump. The other issue where poor management led to a lack of growth was Lamb's regression against left-handed pitching. In the minors, Lamb displayed an ability to hit lefties at every level. Unfortunately, Hale decided to sit Lamb against most left-handed starters for the past two seasons and in the few opportunities he received, the rust was apparent with a .573 OPS over 202 plate-appearances. One of the things Lamb is lauded for by scouts is his approach, so there is hope that he can overcome the lack of reps from the past two seasons to reach his full potential.
7) IF Chip Hale didn't irreparably ruin Daniel Hudson, the Diamondbacks have their closer - The morning of June 21, Hudson woke up with a 1.61 ERA, a 24/9 K/BB ratio and had given up two home runs in 28 innings. That night, in Toronto, Hale decided it would be a good idea to send a pitcher with TWO Tommy John surgeries in his rear-view mirror out to the mound for a third consecutive night. Two nights later, Hudson began a stretch that lasted 32 days and included 15 appearances, 9.1 IP a 10/7 K/BB ratio and a 24.21 ERA. From August 5 through the end of the season, Hudson rebounded strong with 21.1 IP that featured a 24/6 K/BB ratio and a 1.66 ERA. Hale finished the season by pitching Hudson three consecutive days again, but one hopes his blatant carelessness doesn't cause Hudson harm down the road. If Hudson is managed properly, he has the makeup and ability to be an ideal high-leverage reliever.
*Baseball-reference was used for all stats and info in this article.
Friday, September 11, 2015
#neverforget
In the first few days after the world changed, I remember being one. Black, white, brown, red. Pigmentation didn't matter. Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Atheist. Religion didn't matter. Republican, Democrat, Independent, Socialist. Political belief didn't matter.
We were all just one. I can't even say "Americans" because across the vast majority of the world there was such an outpouring of support and love that we as a nation hadn't experienced - or needed up until that point. We were One Nation. Indivisible. Seemingly across the world.
We were all just one. I can't even say "Americans" because across the vast majority of the world there was such an outpouring of support and love that we as a nation hadn't experienced - or needed up until that point. We were One Nation. Indivisible. Seemingly across the world.
Since those first few days, in the last 14 years, we've fragmented. Instead of strengthening our resolve and finding our best through unspeakable tragedy, we've slowly turned on each other. We have run toward our like-minded and mirror-imaged selves and huddled, drawing the play that doesn't exist to come out on top. We've allowed our thought process to be "whatever category we defined ourselves as"... vs. the world. Instead of being empathetic, we are judgmental. Instead of trying to understand differences, we shame. When tragedy happens now, we group people together and make them the bad guy. It didn't happen before that day and it doesn't need to happen now.
It is so easy to hate and to judge and to allow our lack of understanding of a faith, of a race, of a belief to distort. When people with bad intentions band together under the guise of a religion, race representative or as a false prophet; they use that group as a shield or defense against our ability to single them out for what they are and their true intentions. We then make the mistake of not singling those people out. Instead, we lump in all the good people whose beliefs or appearance that small segment is falsely representing and make that whole group the enemy instead of pulling those people closer and acknowledging they are not the same. We run to our corner yet again and push further away. By doing this - we let the perpetrators of that day win. They wanted to tear us down. Looking back, we tore ourselves apart.
Be empathetic. Care. Love. Draw towards hidden similarities instead of repelling against obvious differences. Focus on the human aspect first. We can have differences without hate. We can have love without repercussion. We can do this. One Nation. One World. Indivisible. #neverforget
It is so easy to hate and to judge and to allow our lack of understanding of a faith, of a race, of a belief to distort. When people with bad intentions band together under the guise of a religion, race representative or as a false prophet; they use that group as a shield or defense against our ability to single them out for what they are and their true intentions. We then make the mistake of not singling those people out. Instead, we lump in all the good people whose beliefs or appearance that small segment is falsely representing and make that whole group the enemy instead of pulling those people closer and acknowledging they are not the same. We run to our corner yet again and push further away. By doing this - we let the perpetrators of that day win. They wanted to tear us down. Looking back, we tore ourselves apart.
Be empathetic. Care. Love. Draw towards hidden similarities instead of repelling against obvious differences. Focus on the human aspect first. We can have differences without hate. We can have love without repercussion. We can do this. One Nation. One World. Indivisible. #neverforget
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
The Problem is Us... And A Possible Solution
Roger Goodell is not the problem. Ray Rice isn't the problem. Greg Hardy and Ray McDonald are not the problems. The problem is us. You. Me. Woman or man; black, white or other.
We stand on our soapbox and demand change. We donate to domestic violence centers and Traumatic Brain Injury victims. We hashtag the crap out of every important, heart-wrenching catchphrase. We open ourselves up with our stories and share with strangers our struggles. Obviously, these are all helpful and meaningful steps, but they don't solve the problem. Every single person who does this - then turns on their Sunday Ticket package (or Thursday Night/Monday Night Football), sets their fantasy lineup, calls in their bets, purchases their jersey and their next home game ticket - is the problem.
When Donald Sterling's already-known-to-be-bigoted voice was heard spewing the vile many NBA people (and most residents who ever lived in his tenements) were already aware of, hundreds of season-ticket holders called the Clippers prepared to cancel their season tickets. Dozens of players league-wide and specifically on the Clippers openly discussed boycotting the games. The swift change did not occur because of social media or because of loud voices on your TV. Change occurred because millions of dollars were at risk. It is time to put the NFL's BILLIONS of dollars at risk.
The NFL has many major problems right now. Many of them cannot be fixed easily, but one of the things that can be fixed is to make sure that if you are accused of domestic violence, you do not step on the field again unless you are FULLY exonerated. Not acquitted, not "charges dropped" by a terrified spouse. Exonerated. If you are found to be totally innocent, you can receive your back-pay & welcomed back on the field. If you are not, goodbye football. Just because you are one of the best in the world at something does not guarantee you the privilege of getting rich from that ability.
If you are incapable of controlling your emotions and your temper around the people you love NOW - how will you be able to do that with the inevitable CTE and other mind-altering brain injuries you suffer from years of football?
It will not be easy, it may not even be legal, but then again the NFL itself shouldn't be legal but has anti-trust and tax-free exemptions. What's one more rule that doesn't apply to the rest of America?
We stand on our soapbox and demand change. We donate to domestic violence centers and Traumatic Brain Injury victims. We hashtag the crap out of every important, heart-wrenching catchphrase. We open ourselves up with our stories and share with strangers our struggles. Obviously, these are all helpful and meaningful steps, but they don't solve the problem. Every single person who does this - then turns on their Sunday Ticket package (or Thursday Night/Monday Night Football), sets their fantasy lineup, calls in their bets, purchases their jersey and their next home game ticket - is the problem.
When Donald Sterling's already-known-to-be-bigoted voice was heard spewing the vile many NBA people (and most residents who ever lived in his tenements) were already aware of, hundreds of season-ticket holders called the Clippers prepared to cancel their season tickets. Dozens of players league-wide and specifically on the Clippers openly discussed boycotting the games. The swift change did not occur because of social media or because of loud voices on your TV. Change occurred because millions of dollars were at risk. It is time to put the NFL's BILLIONS of dollars at risk.
The NFL has many major problems right now. Many of them cannot be fixed easily, but one of the things that can be fixed is to make sure that if you are accused of domestic violence, you do not step on the field again unless you are FULLY exonerated. Not acquitted, not "charges dropped" by a terrified spouse. Exonerated. If you are found to be totally innocent, you can receive your back-pay & welcomed back on the field. If you are not, goodbye football. Just because you are one of the best in the world at something does not guarantee you the privilege of getting rich from that ability.
If you are incapable of controlling your emotions and your temper around the people you love NOW - how will you be able to do that with the inevitable CTE and other mind-altering brain injuries you suffer from years of football?
It will not be easy, it may not even be legal, but then again the NFL itself shouldn't be legal but has anti-trust and tax-free exemptions. What's one more rule that doesn't apply to the rest of America?
Wednesday, October 09, 2013
Kevin Towers has it all wrong
If the new market inefficiency is being the "toughest", most prideful organization even at the cost of putting opposing hitters on base - or worse, injuring other players and possibly getting your own players hurt - then the Arizona Diamondbacks and GM Kevin Towers may be onto something.
In a radio interview on Arizona's KTAR 620 on Tuesday, Oct 8, Towers took the stand that if his pitchers - who were already 7th in the Majors in HBP - don't start retaliating when his hitters - who were hit the 10th FEWEST times - get plunked, they will quickly find themselves in a new uniform. For some with "options", this means back to the minors where you can apparently be taught the Diamondbacks version of "an eye for an eye". For others, one can only assume they will be traded for .60 on the dollar like many of the players traded away from the Diamondbacks in the past few seasons.
It apparently doesn't stop just when a Diamondback gets hit. From his comments, Towers believes if you're having too much fun or being silly in your dugout, you should have a ball thrown at you at 90MPH+. Referring to a game vs. the Dodgers late in the season when Towers saw the NL West Champions enjoying themselves too much for his liking he stated, "Literally, if I would have had a carton of baseballs I would have fired them into the dugout from where I was sitting behind home plate." Now, I'm going to hope that is just a case of "literal" abuse, but even in hyperbole, WHO CARES? There are two much more reasonable solutions. 1. Beat them. Play better from the start and beat them. Then you won't care what they are doing in their dugout, I feel pretty confident about that. 2. Ignore them. If you feel they are acting undisciplined, unfocused or... *gasp* having too much fun playing a game, ignore them, focus on the task at hand and instead of suggesting you put MORE runners on base by hitting them, quietly come back and maybe win the game.
If another team adopts this same juvenile... technically, this should be categorized as infantile... way of thinking, will we just have a batter being hit every inning? When does it stop, when there's a brawl on the mound or in foul territory? That didn't work out well for the Diamondbacks this season when they tried to go that route. They were mocked across the country and generally lost a bit of respect among most baseball fans. Will it stop when a player loses playing time because of an injury suffered? When a season or career ends?
What do these 2012 D-backs have in common: Justin Upton, Chris Young, Stephen Drew, Ryan Roberts? All are players whose new 2013 teams made the playoffs. They contributed in varying degrees to their teams, obviously, but they were players who reportedly didn't fit with the gritty, gutty Diamondbacks being molded in the image of their manager Kirk Gibson and apparently the image Towers is now taking to the next level. They supposedly weren't gritty enough to be a part of a winning team, yet there they all were.
One of the oddest parts to me in this is that the Diamondbacks are one of the most forward-thinking and progressive organizations when it comes to the fan experience. They also have some of the most intelligent and rational players on twitter (Brandon McCarthy and Daniel Hudson immediately come to mind). Maybe it is time for Towers to join this millennium in his mindset and worry about acquiring players who will get on base and not put players on base instead of trying to find players who are willing to carelessly do the opposite under the guise of "protect(ing) one another".
In a radio interview on Arizona's KTAR 620 on Tuesday, Oct 8, Towers took the stand that if his pitchers - who were already 7th in the Majors in HBP - don't start retaliating when his hitters - who were hit the 10th FEWEST times - get plunked, they will quickly find themselves in a new uniform. For some with "options", this means back to the minors where you can apparently be taught the Diamondbacks version of "an eye for an eye". For others, one can only assume they will be traded for .60 on the dollar like many of the players traded away from the Diamondbacks in the past few seasons.
It apparently doesn't stop just when a Diamondback gets hit. From his comments, Towers believes if you're having too much fun or being silly in your dugout, you should have a ball thrown at you at 90MPH+. Referring to a game vs. the Dodgers late in the season when Towers saw the NL West Champions enjoying themselves too much for his liking he stated, "Literally, if I would have had a carton of baseballs I would have fired them into the dugout from where I was sitting behind home plate." Now, I'm going to hope that is just a case of "literal" abuse, but even in hyperbole, WHO CARES? There are two much more reasonable solutions. 1. Beat them. Play better from the start and beat them. Then you won't care what they are doing in their dugout, I feel pretty confident about that. 2. Ignore them. If you feel they are acting undisciplined, unfocused or... *gasp* having too much fun playing a game, ignore them, focus on the task at hand and instead of suggesting you put MORE runners on base by hitting them, quietly come back and maybe win the game.
If another team adopts this same juvenile... technically, this should be categorized as infantile... way of thinking, will we just have a batter being hit every inning? When does it stop, when there's a brawl on the mound or in foul territory? That didn't work out well for the Diamondbacks this season when they tried to go that route. They were mocked across the country and generally lost a bit of respect among most baseball fans. Will it stop when a player loses playing time because of an injury suffered? When a season or career ends?
What do these 2012 D-backs have in common: Justin Upton, Chris Young, Stephen Drew, Ryan Roberts? All are players whose new 2013 teams made the playoffs. They contributed in varying degrees to their teams, obviously, but they were players who reportedly didn't fit with the gritty, gutty Diamondbacks being molded in the image of their manager Kirk Gibson and apparently the image Towers is now taking to the next level. They supposedly weren't gritty enough to be a part of a winning team, yet there they all were.
One of the oddest parts to me in this is that the Diamondbacks are one of the most forward-thinking and progressive organizations when it comes to the fan experience. They also have some of the most intelligent and rational players on twitter (Brandon McCarthy and Daniel Hudson immediately come to mind). Maybe it is time for Towers to join this millennium in his mindset and worry about acquiring players who will get on base and not put players on base instead of trying to find players who are willing to carelessly do the opposite under the guise of "protect(ing) one another".
Tuesday, August 06, 2013
Trying to fix a terrible top 10... the Greatest Singers list.
In 2008.... wait - let me start from the beginning - which, ironically, comes way past that point. Earlier this evening (see?), whilst drinking a good amount of wine (keep that in mind while you drink this and spot any grammatical errors or jumps in logic), I played a game where I tried to guess the top 10 on Rolling Stones' 100 Greatest Singers. What I didn't realize is the list had nothing to do with the quality of singer. It was more a "Most Iconic and Influential Artist" list. Not any less important, but - spoiler alert - if Freddie Mercury isn't on your top 10 greatest singers (#18 on the RS list), your list is... well, worthless.
I'm not an expert on the subject, but I did some time as a professional musician... ok, I guess technically that makes me an expert, but not in the critical sense. Although I was a pretty choppy guitarist, I feel pretty strongly that my vocal strengths are what allowed me to be paid on a regular basis. My (drunken) point is, I feel I can make a reasonable top 10 on the best singers in popular music. I'd love to hear your list or if you REALLY feel Bob Dylan is a top 10 singer of all-time, let me know. Maybe I can have my mind changed. This is not based on influence or frontman status or songwriting ability - just the best singers in my opinion. Thanks for reading - and enjoy.
#10: Christina Aguilera - The youngest in my list is also a victim of the era in which she was popular. Though the vocal gymnastics were sometimes a bit much - and what kept Mariah off this list - make no mistake, Aguilera has a sultry, smooth voice (Genie in a Bottle, Beautiful, multiple tracks from Back to Basics) that would stand out in any decade of popular music. Also, she is able to change gears and sing with some fire and growl (Dirrrty, Lady Marmalade) unlike many artists with that angelic a voice.
#9: Steven Page - I am placing Mr. Page this LOW because of my affinity for Barenaked Ladies. I'm worried that their being my favorite group may cloud my judgment. I will tell you that for most of my adulthood, I would place Page at Number Two on my personal list of favorite vocalists. His vocal range is broad, theatrical and more powerful live when in top form than any studio recording could show. With BNL, songs like Break Your Heart, Call & Answer, and What A Good Boy featured the depth and power that he brought. After departing the band in 2009, Indecision, Entourage and A Different Sort of Solitude are a few highlights, though I'm waiting for a solo effort that showcases the amazing vocal ability and passion I've seen since I fell in love with the old band 20 years ago. It's still there, as I saw Steven this spring and - even in a small venue with mediocre acoustics - he blew the audience away. I just hope he writes a song or two that does justice to one of the best pop voices of all time.
#8: Al Green - The Rev. He doesn't have the cache or the grand number of hits that some of his contemporaries had, but his voice could carry a tune, an album, a world if it needed to. We all know about Let's Stay Together, but take a few minutes and listen to it again. The rise from soulful storytelling throughout the first verse to sensual pleading toward the end of the track is some of the most passionate singing you can find and the basis for many an R&B song later in time.
#7: Art Garfunkel - It's odd to put a "second banana" in as one of the best singers of all time. After splitting for the 2nd (and most permanent) time in 1970, Garfunkel was unable to duplicate the success experienced with Paul Simon, while his erstwhile partner found both critical and commercial approval as a solo artist. This does not diminish the pure, haunting sound of Garfunkel's tenor voice. Whether in The Sound of Silence or The Boxer or one of their many other hits, Garfunkel's harmony stays with you in a way many voices fail to.
#6: Whitney Houston - A tragic ending and a less-than-graceful fall from public adoration does not diminish what Houston was during her prime. While I considered Mariah Carey for the top 10, the vocal gymnastics that almost got Aguilera booted were what did her in. I always consider Houston, Carey and Aguilera as a lineage of sorts, but Aguilera and Houston were able to shift into a higher gear that Carey never found in my opinion (this duet helping my argument). Houston's rendition of the National Anthem remains the most powerful and memorable. "The Voice" was also able to find a more sultry tone with songs like My Name is Not Susan, among others. Of everyone on my list, Houston is the one artist who I feel could vary as high as #1, but her massive talent did not produce a "Live" album or tour of epic magnitude and longevity that would have propelled her further up.
#5: Stevie Wonder - Very few artists have the catalog or the credentials of Little Stevie Wonder. A career that spans five decades with very few valleys and many peaks along the way. Another artist who was able to change gears and demonstrate vocal range not just in tone, but in emotion, Wonder crafted hits over many years with one of the most silky smooth voices in popular music. He tells a story with each lyric and can paint a tapestry with his bee-bopping and interludes. There is a nasal quality that has gotten more noticeable over the years, but for me it is not distracting (until recently) as much as it is a unique layer to his voice.
#4: Prince - One of the most under appreciated artists in modern music, Prince partially has only himself to blame by being a recluse and a mystery. He is, however, one of the most talented musicians we've ever been graced with. He manages to be underrated as both a guitarist and a vocalist, which is extremely hard to pull off. Maybe I place too much stock in songs like Darling Nikki and Sexy MF, but Prince could... well, fuck you with his voice and there was nothing you could - or want to - do about it.
#3: Marvin Gaye - Another tragic death, and much like Houston years later, a career that deserved a much better final act. Gaye sang one of the most influential songs ever released , "What's Going On", and due to the high political impact, it was only able to be released because of the vocal quality on that record (Gaye refused to record further material until it was released, but had it not been amazing, the record label would have just sued him for the next album). Gaye had one of the most soulful voices to ever be recorded and from "Heard it Through The Grapevine" up through "Let's Get it On", influenced millions of singers to come.
#2 Elvis Presley - Much of the mystery and eccentricity that clouded his life and his death masks the fact that this man was "The King" and deserved the crown. No singer before or since has been able to cross so many genres so successfully. Whether it was gospel, soul, country or Rock 'n' Roll, Presley was a master of them all. When Garth Brooks tried to crossover and be a rock star under a different name, failing miserably, it was a reminder that Presley could effortlessly pull off that feat multiple times, sometimes on the same album.
#1 Freddie Mercury - Proof of Mercury's vocal abilities is not best found in his amazing range (bass low F to soprano high F) nor his tonal qualities on such Queen staples as Somebody to Love or Don't Stop Me Now. It is best proven by the fact that Mercury recorded an Opera album in 1988 (with operatic soprano Montserrat Caballé) that spawned a top-10 (UK & others) single. This was no vanity project - it was the official anthem of the 1992 Barcelona (the album and song name) Olympic games. Mercury's voice lived on long after his death in movies, TV and radio airplay. The songs remain fresh (well, maybe not Radio Gaga...) and his voice is still one of the most haunting, mesmerizing in history.
Other singers I debated include: Frank Sinatra, Maxwell, Michael Jackson, James Taylor, Paul McCartney, Annie Lennox, Leann Rimes, Smokey Robinson, Lionel Richie, George Michael
Who do you think I missed? Who do you think I nailed? Let me know in the comments!
I'm not an expert on the subject, but I did some time as a professional musician... ok, I guess technically that makes me an expert, but not in the critical sense. Although I was a pretty choppy guitarist, I feel pretty strongly that my vocal strengths are what allowed me to be paid on a regular basis. My (drunken) point is, I feel I can make a reasonable top 10 on the best singers in popular music. I'd love to hear your list or if you REALLY feel Bob Dylan is a top 10 singer of all-time, let me know. Maybe I can have my mind changed. This is not based on influence or frontman status or songwriting ability - just the best singers in my opinion. Thanks for reading - and enjoy.
#10: Christina Aguilera - The youngest in my list is also a victim of the era in which she was popular. Though the vocal gymnastics were sometimes a bit much - and what kept Mariah off this list - make no mistake, Aguilera has a sultry, smooth voice (Genie in a Bottle, Beautiful, multiple tracks from Back to Basics) that would stand out in any decade of popular music. Also, she is able to change gears and sing with some fire and growl (Dirrrty, Lady Marmalade) unlike many artists with that angelic a voice.
#9: Steven Page - I am placing Mr. Page this LOW because of my affinity for Barenaked Ladies. I'm worried that their being my favorite group may cloud my judgment. I will tell you that for most of my adulthood, I would place Page at Number Two on my personal list of favorite vocalists. His vocal range is broad, theatrical and more powerful live when in top form than any studio recording could show. With BNL, songs like Break Your Heart, Call & Answer, and What A Good Boy featured the depth and power that he brought. After departing the band in 2009, Indecision, Entourage and A Different Sort of Solitude are a few highlights, though I'm waiting for a solo effort that showcases the amazing vocal ability and passion I've seen since I fell in love with the old band 20 years ago. It's still there, as I saw Steven this spring and - even in a small venue with mediocre acoustics - he blew the audience away. I just hope he writes a song or two that does justice to one of the best pop voices of all time.
#8: Al Green - The Rev. He doesn't have the cache or the grand number of hits that some of his contemporaries had, but his voice could carry a tune, an album, a world if it needed to. We all know about Let's Stay Together, but take a few minutes and listen to it again. The rise from soulful storytelling throughout the first verse to sensual pleading toward the end of the track is some of the most passionate singing you can find and the basis for many an R&B song later in time.
#7: Art Garfunkel - It's odd to put a "second banana" in as one of the best singers of all time. After splitting for the 2nd (and most permanent) time in 1970, Garfunkel was unable to duplicate the success experienced with Paul Simon, while his erstwhile partner found both critical and commercial approval as a solo artist. This does not diminish the pure, haunting sound of Garfunkel's tenor voice. Whether in The Sound of Silence or The Boxer or one of their many other hits, Garfunkel's harmony stays with you in a way many voices fail to.
#6: Whitney Houston - A tragic ending and a less-than-graceful fall from public adoration does not diminish what Houston was during her prime. While I considered Mariah Carey for the top 10, the vocal gymnastics that almost got Aguilera booted were what did her in. I always consider Houston, Carey and Aguilera as a lineage of sorts, but Aguilera and Houston were able to shift into a higher gear that Carey never found in my opinion (this duet helping my argument). Houston's rendition of the National Anthem remains the most powerful and memorable. "The Voice" was also able to find a more sultry tone with songs like My Name is Not Susan, among others. Of everyone on my list, Houston is the one artist who I feel could vary as high as #1, but her massive talent did not produce a "Live" album or tour of epic magnitude and longevity that would have propelled her further up.
#5: Stevie Wonder - Very few artists have the catalog or the credentials of Little Stevie Wonder. A career that spans five decades with very few valleys and many peaks along the way. Another artist who was able to change gears and demonstrate vocal range not just in tone, but in emotion, Wonder crafted hits over many years with one of the most silky smooth voices in popular music. He tells a story with each lyric and can paint a tapestry with his bee-bopping and interludes. There is a nasal quality that has gotten more noticeable over the years, but for me it is not distracting (until recently) as much as it is a unique layer to his voice.
#4: Prince - One of the most under appreciated artists in modern music, Prince partially has only himself to blame by being a recluse and a mystery. He is, however, one of the most talented musicians we've ever been graced with. He manages to be underrated as both a guitarist and a vocalist, which is extremely hard to pull off. Maybe I place too much stock in songs like Darling Nikki and Sexy MF, but Prince could... well, fuck you with his voice and there was nothing you could - or want to - do about it.
#3: Marvin Gaye - Another tragic death, and much like Houston years later, a career that deserved a much better final act. Gaye sang one of the most influential songs ever released , "What's Going On", and due to the high political impact, it was only able to be released because of the vocal quality on that record (Gaye refused to record further material until it was released, but had it not been amazing, the record label would have just sued him for the next album). Gaye had one of the most soulful voices to ever be recorded and from "Heard it Through The Grapevine" up through "Let's Get it On", influenced millions of singers to come.
#2 Elvis Presley - Much of the mystery and eccentricity that clouded his life and his death masks the fact that this man was "The King" and deserved the crown. No singer before or since has been able to cross so many genres so successfully. Whether it was gospel, soul, country or Rock 'n' Roll, Presley was a master of them all. When Garth Brooks tried to crossover and be a rock star under a different name, failing miserably, it was a reminder that Presley could effortlessly pull off that feat multiple times, sometimes on the same album.
#1 Freddie Mercury - Proof of Mercury's vocal abilities is not best found in his amazing range (bass low F to soprano high F) nor his tonal qualities on such Queen staples as Somebody to Love or Don't Stop Me Now. It is best proven by the fact that Mercury recorded an Opera album in 1988 (with operatic soprano Montserrat Caballé) that spawned a top-10 (UK & others) single. This was no vanity project - it was the official anthem of the 1992 Barcelona (the album and song name) Olympic games. Mercury's voice lived on long after his death in movies, TV and radio airplay. The songs remain fresh (well, maybe not Radio Gaga...) and his voice is still one of the most haunting, mesmerizing in history.
Other singers I debated include: Frank Sinatra, Maxwell, Michael Jackson, James Taylor, Paul McCartney, Annie Lennox, Leann Rimes, Smokey Robinson, Lionel Richie, George Michael
Who do you think I missed? Who do you think I nailed? Let me know in the comments!
Thursday, May 23, 2013
The Latter-day Rush to Judgment
On The Triangle blog of Grantland today, Jonah Keri examines the resurgence OR depending on your viewpoint, the continued excellence of David Ortiz. About 25% of the blog post discusses the accusations (most recently by the Boston Globe) and circumstantial evidence linking Ortiz to PEDs. Though Keri (one of my favorite baseball writers) correctly takes the Globe story to task for focusing on the gun that does not have any smoke emanating whatsoever (the 14-game small sample size vs. the previous two seasons that seemed... different), we must be reminded... that we asked for this.
In the wake of the PED scandal in Major League Baseball, one of the most frequently cried arguments and criticisms was the sport media's complicity during this time. We derided the writers and analysts who fawned over Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa and Nook Logan - ok, maybe not him so much - without question. We, the baseball-loving public that turned our own eyes, made The Fourth Estate the co-conspirator in the alleged smearing of our National Pastime. We demanded this not happen again and many people expressed betrayal and naivete mostly due to feeling duped after spending $120 on a shiny new Eric Gagne jersey.
Fast-forward a few years and Ortiz is putting up numbers that belong in the heart of the "steroids era". At his age and build, he should not be experiencing a statistical renaissance eerily similar to his original eye-opening rise to prominence in his age 26-29 seasons. Ortiz claims it is unfair for us to question the reasons for this and his defenders want to once again do their best impression of an ostrich, but they must be reminded that - right or wrong - this is what they wanted. For Ortiz, he only has his peers, and possibly himself, to thank.
In the wake of the PED scandal in Major League Baseball, one of the most frequently cried arguments and criticisms was the sport media's complicity during this time. We derided the writers and analysts who fawned over Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa and Nook Logan - ok, maybe not him so much - without question. We, the baseball-loving public that turned our own eyes, made The Fourth Estate the co-conspirator in the alleged smearing of our National Pastime. We demanded this not happen again and many people expressed betrayal and naivete mostly due to feeling duped after spending $120 on a shiny new Eric Gagne jersey.
Fast-forward a few years and Ortiz is putting up numbers that belong in the heart of the "steroids era". At his age and build, he should not be experiencing a statistical renaissance eerily similar to his original eye-opening rise to prominence in his age 26-29 seasons. Ortiz claims it is unfair for us to question the reasons for this and his defenders want to once again do their best impression of an ostrich, but they must be reminded that - right or wrong - this is what they wanted. For Ortiz, he only has his peers, and possibly himself, to thank.
Saturday, April 06, 2013
Welcome to... WrestleMANIA!
Despite the lackluster build-ups for most of the matches, the one benefit has been a wider range of possibilities as we head to the biggest night in pro wrestling. Without giving a match-by-match prediction - I'm only really hitting on the co-main events - there are some things I feel are possible that would be reasonable conclusions to some programs while also taking some major players in fresh directions.
Two things to keep in mind - nobody ever correctly predicts these things, but it's fun trying. Oh sure, you can often predict the match winner correctly using Matt Fowler's almost-scientific 85% accurate "Rule of Opposite Momentum" that states the guy with the big advantage over his opponent in the week(s) leading up to the show will... lose on the big stage. It's the story they tell in the match or the direction they take the wrestlers that people consistently try to decipher... and usually miss on. Also, if any of the "dirt sheets" or writers with a lot of eyeballs (I enjoy the above-mentioned Fowler & David skedman) correctly predicted anything leading up to the show, it's been said Vince McMahon will completely take it in a different direction - even if that new direction makes zero sense or isn't as entertaining. At least he can say nobody saw it coming.
Fortunately (?) for me, the sets of eyeballs that read this blog rarely reach triple digits so if by some miracle I channel one of the WWE writers and "call my shot", it won't matter enough to change anything. Without further ado, here are some things I feel can happen tomorrow night in MetLife Stadium.
CM Punk vs. The Undertaker
The rumors that CM Punk is taking some much-deserved time off after Wrestlemania probably doesn't change much for this match. It came together quickly and if not for the unfortunate passing of Percy Pringle, they'd have been hard-pressed to find a real reason for this match. The ideal way to keep "The Streak" alive while giving CM Punk something worthwhile would be a no-decision style finish. This would allow WWE to use the streak down the road for The Undertaker's legacy (keeping it a perfect 20-0 in their annals) while CM Punk can do what he does best - twist the ending into him beating The Phenom and using that to keep his heat while he takes some time off.
John Cena vs. The Rock
I don't see any benefit if Rocky wins this match. They made the best of having a part-time champ and The Great One already seems to be a bit bored with his return engagement. Cena teased a heel turn in the weeks leading up to this "Once in a Lifetime..." rematch and if CM Punk is taking time off, well that does leave a spot open for top heel. What I see happening is Cena winning the match mostly as a face (a couple heel-style moves but gray area things that doesn't scream HEEL TURN) but getting badly "hurt" in the process. While meekly celebrating his victory, Dolph Ziggler (who I think loses in the tag team championship with Big E Langston) brings his MITB briefcase to the ring with AJ and cashes in clean. This could set off Cena, causing him to flip out and decimate Ziggler - or even better, giving an AA to AJ - thus completing the heel turn and giving him and Ziggler a program to carry the company for the next couple of months.
Two things to keep in mind - nobody ever correctly predicts these things, but it's fun trying. Oh sure, you can often predict the match winner correctly using Matt Fowler's almost-scientific 85% accurate "Rule of Opposite Momentum" that states the guy with the big advantage over his opponent in the week(s) leading up to the show will... lose on the big stage. It's the story they tell in the match or the direction they take the wrestlers that people consistently try to decipher... and usually miss on. Also, if any of the "dirt sheets" or writers with a lot of eyeballs (I enjoy the above-mentioned Fowler & David skedman) correctly predicted anything leading up to the show, it's been said Vince McMahon will completely take it in a different direction - even if that new direction makes zero sense or isn't as entertaining. At least he can say nobody saw it coming.
Fortunately (?) for me, the sets of eyeballs that read this blog rarely reach triple digits so if by some miracle I channel one of the WWE writers and "call my shot", it won't matter enough to change anything. Without further ado, here are some things I feel can happen tomorrow night in MetLife Stadium.
CM Punk vs. The Undertaker
The rumors that CM Punk is taking some much-deserved time off after Wrestlemania probably doesn't change much for this match. It came together quickly and if not for the unfortunate passing of Percy Pringle, they'd have been hard-pressed to find a real reason for this match. The ideal way to keep "The Streak" alive while giving CM Punk something worthwhile would be a no-decision style finish. This would allow WWE to use the streak down the road for The Undertaker's legacy (keeping it a perfect 20-0 in their annals) while CM Punk can do what he does best - twist the ending into him beating The Phenom and using that to keep his heat while he takes some time off.
John Cena vs. The Rock
I don't see any benefit if Rocky wins this match. They made the best of having a part-time champ and The Great One already seems to be a bit bored with his return engagement. Cena teased a heel turn in the weeks leading up to this "Once in a Lifetime..." rematch and if CM Punk is taking time off, well that does leave a spot open for top heel. What I see happening is Cena winning the match mostly as a face (a couple heel-style moves but gray area things that doesn't scream HEEL TURN) but getting badly "hurt" in the process. While meekly celebrating his victory, Dolph Ziggler (who I think loses in the tag team championship with Big E Langston) brings his MITB briefcase to the ring with AJ and cashes in clean. This could set off Cena, causing him to flip out and decimate Ziggler - or even better, giving an AA to AJ - thus completing the heel turn and giving him and Ziggler a program to carry the company for the next couple of months.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Possible solution to NBA age-limit rules
After reading the always-excellent Howard Bryant's take on the current state of the NCAA tournament, one thing in particular stood out to me.
Bryant wrote, "Only the NBA's unethical (if not illegal) age limit keeps the top tier of college player in school for a year."
Eventually, some aspiring and talented young man with the inability to pass the required college entrance exams - or the lack of resources to have them passed for him - will challenge this rule. There are ways the NBA and NCAA can defend it since they allow a player to go overseas or the developmental league, however that is not always in the best interests of the player involved. Brandon Jennings' draft stock took a hit when he went overseas for a year, costing him money and possibly slowing his development due to the different style of play and the major cultural and language differences. Recently, Aquille Carr has made the decision to play abroad due to the money. If he were able to be drafted into the NBA, that would make it possible - even as a likely 2nd-round draft pick - to provide for his family (he has a child) and still get the coaching and structure needed to help him reach his potential. Now, if his draft stock falls while overseas like Jennings' did, he may not be drafted next year.
Maurice Clarett unsuccessfully attempted to use litigation to forgo the final years of his college eligibilty when he was drafted after his freshman year at OSU. That doesn't mean the NBA will be able to thwart a challenge especially when the argument involves being able to provide for a baby. There is a possible way, however, to make sure every high school senior that wants to enter the NBA can't do so before they are mentally and emotionally ready (if they're not physically ready, the NBA scouts and GMs will take care of that part by not drafting them).
By allowing students who want to bypass the one-year waiting period an opportunity to take a Wonderlic-style test (including on-court questions as well as off-court), with a minimum score required to enter the NBA draft, you are minimizing litigation risk and also avoid diluting the NBA product as was happening with so many "not quite ready for primetime players" that were entering the draft in the years before the 2005 CBA was ratified. If a student does not reach the required score - and you should make it so only 10-15% qualify - they are required to attend a college program for either one or (preferably) two years before qualifying for the draft.
While many students would not be able to skip college, they can't say it's because of an unfair NBA rule - they will be forced to recognize it's because they are not ready to pursue their career of choice and get the training and coaching needed to realize their dream.
Bryant wrote, "Only the NBA's unethical (if not illegal) age limit keeps the top tier of college player in school for a year."
Eventually, some aspiring and talented young man with the inability to pass the required college entrance exams - or the lack of resources to have them passed for him - will challenge this rule. There are ways the NBA and NCAA can defend it since they allow a player to go overseas or the developmental league, however that is not always in the best interests of the player involved. Brandon Jennings' draft stock took a hit when he went overseas for a year, costing him money and possibly slowing his development due to the different style of play and the major cultural and language differences. Recently, Aquille Carr has made the decision to play abroad due to the money. If he were able to be drafted into the NBA, that would make it possible - even as a likely 2nd-round draft pick - to provide for his family (he has a child) and still get the coaching and structure needed to help him reach his potential. Now, if his draft stock falls while overseas like Jennings' did, he may not be drafted next year.
Maurice Clarett unsuccessfully attempted to use litigation to forgo the final years of his college eligibilty when he was drafted after his freshman year at OSU. That doesn't mean the NBA will be able to thwart a challenge especially when the argument involves being able to provide for a baby. There is a possible way, however, to make sure every high school senior that wants to enter the NBA can't do so before they are mentally and emotionally ready (if they're not physically ready, the NBA scouts and GMs will take care of that part by not drafting them).
By allowing students who want to bypass the one-year waiting period an opportunity to take a Wonderlic-style test (including on-court questions as well as off-court), with a minimum score required to enter the NBA draft, you are minimizing litigation risk and also avoid diluting the NBA product as was happening with so many "not quite ready for primetime players" that were entering the draft in the years before the 2005 CBA was ratified. If a student does not reach the required score - and you should make it so only 10-15% qualify - they are required to attend a college program for either one or (preferably) two years before qualifying for the draft.
While many students would not be able to skip college, they can't say it's because of an unfair NBA rule - they will be forced to recognize it's because they are not ready to pursue their career of choice and get the training and coaching needed to realize their dream.
Monday, July 09, 2012
WARNING FOR THE YANKEES
Despite going into the All-Star break with the best record in baseball and the largest division lead they have had since 2004 (also 7.0 games), there is reason for concern for the New York Yankees.
The concern is not - and almost never is - about making the playoffs. With the addition of a second wildcard team, the Yankees look to remain a postseason presence for years to come. As is always the case in New York, it's not about making the playoffs, it is about winning in the playoffs and this is where the Yankees may do what they've done ten of the last 11 years... fail.
Offensively, despite the frequent cries, the issue is neither "relying" on the long ball or an "inability" to hit with runners in scoring position. Long known for their ability to wear down a pitching staff, the Yankees are on pace for 1168 strikeouts. This would be their highest K total since 2002 and the third consecutive year that number has increased. The Yankees are also on pace for 575 walks. The only year since 2001 they have failed to eclipse 625 was 2008, also the only year the Yankees have not made the playoffs in this century. These combine to put the Yankees on pace for their lowest on-base average in over ten years.
As the core of the Yankees offense continues to age (32.7 average hitters' age - highest in team history) and their bats continue to slow, it makes sense that they must make their decision to swing earlier, thus decreasing their pitch recognition ability leading to increased swings and misses and decreased pitches out of the strike zone taken. Mark Teixeira (.334) is currently in his fourth year of a sliding OBA. Derek Jeter (.354) and Alex Rodriguez (.357) both are getting on base at a rate 28 points lower than their career marks. Raul Ibanez - getting way more action than the Yankees were hoping due to Brett Gardner's injury - has a ghastly .298 OBA. Even the relative spring chicken Nick Swisher (.336) is heading toward his lowest OBA as a Yankee.
Over the course of a season, when facing weaker teams with diluted pitching staffs, the deficiencies are not as glaring. However, when facing the best pitching staffs as you do in the postseason, along with no fifth starter, the inability to run up pitch counts and get on base will hurt. In a not-so-small sample size of 27 games, the Yankees currently average 3.9 runs per game against likely postseason opponents (Rangers, White Sox, Rays and... Orioles (!)) while scoring an average of 5.3 runs against all other teams.
Most Yankee fans cannot tell you how many 100 win seasons the Yankees have had in the last 11 years (four) because that is not what's important to them. Ask them how many times the Yankees have been Champions and they are far more likely to know the answer - an answer that will likely remain unchanged come November 1.
The concern is not - and almost never is - about making the playoffs. With the addition of a second wildcard team, the Yankees look to remain a postseason presence for years to come. As is always the case in New York, it's not about making the playoffs, it is about winning in the playoffs and this is where the Yankees may do what they've done ten of the last 11 years... fail.
Offensively, despite the frequent cries, the issue is neither "relying" on the long ball or an "inability" to hit with runners in scoring position. Long known for their ability to wear down a pitching staff, the Yankees are on pace for 1168 strikeouts. This would be their highest K total since 2002 and the third consecutive year that number has increased. The Yankees are also on pace for 575 walks. The only year since 2001 they have failed to eclipse 625 was 2008, also the only year the Yankees have not made the playoffs in this century. These combine to put the Yankees on pace for their lowest on-base average in over ten years.
As the core of the Yankees offense continues to age (32.7 average hitters' age - highest in team history) and their bats continue to slow, it makes sense that they must make their decision to swing earlier, thus decreasing their pitch recognition ability leading to increased swings and misses and decreased pitches out of the strike zone taken. Mark Teixeira (.334) is currently in his fourth year of a sliding OBA. Derek Jeter (.354) and Alex Rodriguez (.357) both are getting on base at a rate 28 points lower than their career marks. Raul Ibanez - getting way more action than the Yankees were hoping due to Brett Gardner's injury - has a ghastly .298 OBA. Even the relative spring chicken Nick Swisher (.336) is heading toward his lowest OBA as a Yankee.
Over the course of a season, when facing weaker teams with diluted pitching staffs, the deficiencies are not as glaring. However, when facing the best pitching staffs as you do in the postseason, along with no fifth starter, the inability to run up pitch counts and get on base will hurt. In a not-so-small sample size of 27 games, the Yankees currently average 3.9 runs per game against likely postseason opponents (Rangers, White Sox, Rays and... Orioles (!)) while scoring an average of 5.3 runs against all other teams.
Most Yankee fans cannot tell you how many 100 win seasons the Yankees have had in the last 11 years (four) because that is not what's important to them. Ask them how many times the Yankees have been Champions and they are far more likely to know the answer - an answer that will likely remain unchanged come November 1.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Berkman for President!
I never thought of myself as a big Lance Berkman fan. I always thought he was a good player who seemed likeable. Not ever the best at his position or in the game but borderline-elite in his prime.
The reason I write this is a blog post on grantland.com today that when reading it comes across as somewhat mocking Berkman, saying he "has been in the category of athletes who genuinely believe they were as good as one of their more buzzed-about teammates... Lance is a two-time member of this club, first as an Astro with Jeff Bagwell and currently as a Cardinal with Albert Pujols. Comparing Bagwell and Pujols' numbers with Berkman, it seems insane for him to think he's as good, if not better."
The biggest issue I have with this blog is there is absolutely no substance to back this claim up. I don't remember EVER seeing anything that gave that impression whether it was an interview, a story, a clubhouse gripe, etc. I did a few Google searches (Lance Berkman jerk; Lance Berkman on Jeff Bagwell) and found nothing. I asked the writer, thinking maybe the evidence or links had been edited out. His response to me via twitter: "he wasn't picking up the phone this morning. line was busy." Now, at first, I wasn't quite sure what he meant by this. I thought maybe he misunderstood my question, but as I thought about it more, I realized he was probably just mocking me for questioning his blog post. Maybe I'm wrong and missing the joke or the point. Either way, I feel when you say someone is firmly entrenched in a club of some sorts, you probably should have seen the membership card.
Then, as I thought about it, I wondered how far apart Berkman was from Bagwell when they played together. That's really the only time period you can count when comparing in this fashion. Although Bagwell at his peak was a historic hitter, they played together for the first five full seasons of Berkman's career and the last five of Bagwell's.
Lance Berkman Batting Stats for Years 2000 to 2004
Jeff Bagwell Batting Stats for Years 2000 to 2004
In only their first full season together did Jeff Bagwell have a higher OPS (1.039 to .949). Every other season they played together, Lance Berkman was - by most statistical accounts - a better hitter. So, I guess what I'm saying is if Berkman DID think he was a better player than Bagwell during their time together, it's possibly because he WAS. Go figure.
Also, the other player Berkman was compared to? Albert Pujols? His slashline this year: .299/.366/.541; Berkman's was .301/.412/.547. Again, I don't know that Berkman feels he's as good as Pujols, but for this season - their only season together - he was.
This post was written with statistics from baseball-reference.com and information from the usually awesome Grantland.com and writer Rembert Browne's post here: http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/8186/lance-berkman-finally-right-about-lance-berkman
The reason I write this is a blog post on grantland.com today that when reading it comes across as somewhat mocking Berkman, saying he "has been in the category of athletes who genuinely believe they were as good as one of their more buzzed-about teammates... Lance is a two-time member of this club, first as an Astro with Jeff Bagwell and currently as a Cardinal with Albert Pujols. Comparing Bagwell and Pujols' numbers with Berkman, it seems insane for him to think he's as good, if not better."
The biggest issue I have with this blog is there is absolutely no substance to back this claim up. I don't remember EVER seeing anything that gave that impression whether it was an interview, a story, a clubhouse gripe, etc. I did a few Google searches (Lance Berkman jerk; Lance Berkman on Jeff Bagwell) and found nothing. I asked the writer, thinking maybe the evidence or links had been edited out. His response to me via twitter: "he wasn't picking up the phone this morning. line was busy." Now, at first, I wasn't quite sure what he meant by this. I thought maybe he misunderstood my question, but as I thought about it more, I realized he was probably just mocking me for questioning his blog post. Maybe I'm wrong and missing the joke or the point. Either way, I feel when you say someone is firmly entrenched in a club of some sorts, you probably should have seen the membership card.
Then, as I thought about it, I wondered how far apart Berkman was from Bagwell when they played together. That's really the only time period you can count when comparing in this fashion. Although Bagwell at his peak was a historic hitter, they played together for the first five full seasons of Berkman's career and the last five of Bagwell's.
Lance Berkman Batting Stats for Years 2000 to 2004
| Year | Tm | G | PA | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | SB | CS | BB | SO | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000-2004 | HOU | 741 | 3142 | 2590 | 506 | 792 | 193 | 17 | 152 | 520 | 35 | 25 | 489 | 521 | .306 | .420 | .569 | .989 | 149 | ||||||
| Average | 148 | 628 | 518 | 101 | 158 | 39 | 3 | 30 | 104 | 7 | 5 | 98 | 104 | ||||||||||||
| per 162 games | 163 | 689 | 568 | 111 | 174 | 43 | 4 | 34 | 114 | 8 | 6 | 108 | 115 | ||||||||||||
Jeff Bagwell Batting Stats for Years 2000 to 2004
| Year | Tm | G | PA | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | SB | CS | BB | SO | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000-2004 | HOU | 794 | 3508 | 2938 | 585 | 842 | 170 | 11 | 183 | 549 | 44 | 20 | 498 | 631 | .287 | .395 | .539 | .934 | 134 | ||||||
| Average | 159 | 702 | 588 | 117 | 168 | 34 | 2 | 37 | 110 | 9 | 4 | 100 | 126 | ||||||||||||
| per 162 games | 162 | 716 | 600 | 120 | 172 | 35 | 3 | 38 | 112 | 9 | 5 | 102 | 129 | ||||||||||||
In only their first full season together did Jeff Bagwell have a higher OPS (1.039 to .949). Every other season they played together, Lance Berkman was - by most statistical accounts - a better hitter. So, I guess what I'm saying is if Berkman DID think he was a better player than Bagwell during their time together, it's possibly because he WAS. Go figure.
Also, the other player Berkman was compared to? Albert Pujols? His slashline this year: .299/.366/.541; Berkman's was .301/.412/.547. Again, I don't know that Berkman feels he's as good as Pujols, but for this season - their only season together - he was.
This post was written with statistics from baseball-reference.com and information from the usually awesome Grantland.com and writer Rembert Browne's post here: http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/8186/lance-berkman-finally-right-about-lance-berkman
Monday, October 03, 2011
An Indecent Proposal
There is almost no worse feeling in fantasy football than to see one of your early-round draft picks run into a mascot and wreck his knee in the month of September. One feeling that IS worse, however, is to see another stud you own get carted off the field the very next week. Your #1 running back (Jamaal Charles - 1st Rd), gone for the year. #1 receiver (Kenny Britt - 4th Rd) - same fate.
Unfortunately, both injuries happened early in their respective games and I lost those weeks partially due to their minimal opportunities. The other primary reason I lost was a deficiency at tight end. I scored 3 points with my TE the first three weeks combined.
The one position that I had excellent depth was quarterback. I took Aaron Rodgers with my 2nd round pick - ecstatic that he was still available at that point. I also was lucky enough to get both Matthew Stafford late and Josh Freeman, who was still available in the next-to-last round. I needed to make a move.
I had good depth at both RB and WR, but I was worried that I didn't have a true #1 anymore. Some of my other high picks (Frank Gore & Dwayne Bowe) had disappeared at least two of the three weeks and did not look like they could be counted on to carry my team. I knew to have any real shot at coming back - I needed to make a big move. I knew I would not be able to get equal value for Stafford. Although I think he will perform close to Rodgers most weeks - and through three weeks, he had outscored Rodgers - he would not bring the same return that Rodgers would. I decided I would try and trade Rodgers for a top-flight RB or WR. The only problem was, the only teams that had a need for a QB did not have anyone I wanted. I briefly discussed Rodgers for Ray Rice but was quickly shot down. I also proposed Rodgers for Jones-Drew but was rejected. Those were the only two RB I felt would outscore my current backs enough to make a trade worth it. I had two choices - I could keep my roster intact, wasting one top 5 QB every week on my bench or I could go for broke.
The movie "Moneyball", though not entirely true to the book and the premise, delves into taking advantage of "market inefficiencies". In it's simplest form, it is when current prices do not reflect actual or future value to the organization or the actual information. A better reference point is the book "The Extra 2%" by Jonah Keri which is also about finding gains in players other organizations undervalue but in broader terms, describes how the Tampa Bay Rays used ANY imbalance or advantage they could to gain even the slightest edge. I decided I would look to take advantage of a market inefficiency. I would also use basic math to find arbitrage in a deal.
Rob Gronkowski of the Patriots was the #1 TE by a margin of 20 points through three weeks. He had been consistently targeted and effective for a top offense that loves to throw the ball. He also plays for a coach that when he finds a strength will continue to use it to his advantage - the two-TE setup along with Wes Welker in the slot is very difficult to cover for most of today's defensive schemes and his targets had increased three consecutive weeks. "Gronk" had outscored my TEs by 13, 20 and 22 the first three weeks. Rodgers overall had been outscored by Stafford by four points. If I had Gronkowski in my lineup and had used Stafford all three games instead of Rodgers, my record would be 2-0-1 instead of 1-2. By trading Rodgers for Gronkowski, I was causing a NET GAIN in my points each week. Was it risky? Absolutely. Could it backfire? Yes, but by outscoring the AVERAGE TE by nine points every week and not losing any points by switching quarterbacks, Gronkowski was considerably more valuable to MY team than Rodgers at the time.
I know some may look at this and say, "Well, that's a small sample size and Stafford won't outscore Rodgers the rest of the way. Look at what Rodgers did this Sunday!" That may be fair, but how much will he outscore him by on an AVERAGE week. Sunday's game was a freak occurrence. Nobody will score 48 points consistently. Even taking into account the outlier game that Rodgers had, he has outscored Stafford by an average of seven points. If, for the rest of the season that holds true (it will more likely be 3-4 points/week) and Gronkowski averages 12 points per game which was 10 more than my current waiver wire TE strategy, I have still made a trade that improved my team in two ways. I have increased my net average total per week AND have a larger advantage at a specific position over my opponent. Just like the stocks, past performance is not an indicator of future results and that bore fruit this week when Gronkowski was shut down by the Raiders and Rodgers had a career game against the Broncos. That'll happen, but due to the injuries to my star players, I felt by staying put I guaranteed myself no shot at the playoffs - I had to think outside the box and I still like the trade I made.
Statistics from ESPN were used in this post as well as general information from Moneyball and The Extra 2%. If you only read one of these books (you should read both), read the latter.
Unfortunately, both injuries happened early in their respective games and I lost those weeks partially due to their minimal opportunities. The other primary reason I lost was a deficiency at tight end. I scored 3 points with my TE the first three weeks combined.
The one position that I had excellent depth was quarterback. I took Aaron Rodgers with my 2nd round pick - ecstatic that he was still available at that point. I also was lucky enough to get both Matthew Stafford late and Josh Freeman, who was still available in the next-to-last round. I needed to make a move.
I had good depth at both RB and WR, but I was worried that I didn't have a true #1 anymore. Some of my other high picks (Frank Gore & Dwayne Bowe) had disappeared at least two of the three weeks and did not look like they could be counted on to carry my team. I knew to have any real shot at coming back - I needed to make a big move. I knew I would not be able to get equal value for Stafford. Although I think he will perform close to Rodgers most weeks - and through three weeks, he had outscored Rodgers - he would not bring the same return that Rodgers would. I decided I would try and trade Rodgers for a top-flight RB or WR. The only problem was, the only teams that had a need for a QB did not have anyone I wanted. I briefly discussed Rodgers for Ray Rice but was quickly shot down. I also proposed Rodgers for Jones-Drew but was rejected. Those were the only two RB I felt would outscore my current backs enough to make a trade worth it. I had two choices - I could keep my roster intact, wasting one top 5 QB every week on my bench or I could go for broke.
The movie "Moneyball", though not entirely true to the book and the premise, delves into taking advantage of "market inefficiencies". In it's simplest form, it is when current prices do not reflect actual or future value to the organization or the actual information. A better reference point is the book "The Extra 2%" by Jonah Keri which is also about finding gains in players other organizations undervalue but in broader terms, describes how the Tampa Bay Rays used ANY imbalance or advantage they could to gain even the slightest edge. I decided I would look to take advantage of a market inefficiency. I would also use basic math to find arbitrage in a deal.
Rob Gronkowski of the Patriots was the #1 TE by a margin of 20 points through three weeks. He had been consistently targeted and effective for a top offense that loves to throw the ball. He also plays for a coach that when he finds a strength will continue to use it to his advantage - the two-TE setup along with Wes Welker in the slot is very difficult to cover for most of today's defensive schemes and his targets had increased three consecutive weeks. "Gronk" had outscored my TEs by 13, 20 and 22 the first three weeks. Rodgers overall had been outscored by Stafford by four points. If I had Gronkowski in my lineup and had used Stafford all three games instead of Rodgers, my record would be 2-0-1 instead of 1-2. By trading Rodgers for Gronkowski, I was causing a NET GAIN in my points each week. Was it risky? Absolutely. Could it backfire? Yes, but by outscoring the AVERAGE TE by nine points every week and not losing any points by switching quarterbacks, Gronkowski was considerably more valuable to MY team than Rodgers at the time.
I know some may look at this and say, "Well, that's a small sample size and Stafford won't outscore Rodgers the rest of the way. Look at what Rodgers did this Sunday!" That may be fair, but how much will he outscore him by on an AVERAGE week. Sunday's game was a freak occurrence. Nobody will score 48 points consistently. Even taking into account the outlier game that Rodgers had, he has outscored Stafford by an average of seven points. If, for the rest of the season that holds true (it will more likely be 3-4 points/week) and Gronkowski averages 12 points per game which was 10 more than my current waiver wire TE strategy, I have still made a trade that improved my team in two ways. I have increased my net average total per week AND have a larger advantage at a specific position over my opponent. Just like the stocks, past performance is not an indicator of future results and that bore fruit this week when Gronkowski was shut down by the Raiders and Rodgers had a career game against the Broncos. That'll happen, but due to the injuries to my star players, I felt by staying put I guaranteed myself no shot at the playoffs - I had to think outside the box and I still like the trade I made.
Statistics from ESPN were used in this post as well as general information from Moneyball and The Extra 2%. If you only read one of these books (you should read both), read the latter.
Monday, August 08, 2011
I'm back, baby!
Over the past week, while fighting off bronchitis and the flu, I found myself falling into a funk. I figured it was a combination of my sickness (right now, I spent five minutes trying to come up with a witty "feeling like... " but no analogy I could come up with short of dog's ass fit adequately and I didn't even think that quite fit) and the stress of my current situation and the feelings that inevitably go along with it.
What I didn't even consider is that my funk could by explained simply by the fact that I couldn't do my pushups at night.
Up until last Monday, when I really started to feel terrible, I would do pushups every night before bed. I have to give credit here, my coworker Hugo Lujan is a competitive bodybuilder and looks amazing. I asked him a way to build up my arms at home and he suggested the nightly pushup routine. I'll never forget when he said, "Within a week or two, if you stick to it you won't be able to go to bed without doing them. They become addictive." I shrugged that off. I love being active and playing sports, but I've never been a workout guy. Don't like running, don't like working out for the most part.
I started about a month ago with two sets - the first set was 20; the second, 15. I didn't feel sore after but my shoulder bothered me a bit while I was doing it and I didn't want to push it. My goal (and Hugo's goal for me) is to get to 100 pushups per night. Each night, regardless if I had been out, been drinking, been doing whatever, I came home, either put on the "workout" channel on DirecTV or queued up some songs on Spotify and did my pushups. After a few days, my shoulder didn't hurt so I moved up to sets of 20 and 20. Approximately each week since then I've moved up five per week and last week before I fell ill, I moved up to 30 and 25.
Then I got sick. My first night, I forced my way through the pushups because I refused to believe I was really sick and just blamed stress. The next six nights, this was not an option. There were times I couldn't make it down the stairs to make tea, let alone do pushups. So over the weekend, I really started to feel down. I was slowly feeling better physically and got out of the house, but I was just sad and upset. I had a hard time feeling good about myself, my situation, even my new apartment. Today, I still have the cough from the bronchitis, but for the most part I feel good yet I felt terrible. There were exceptions, I have some great people in my life who put smiles on my face and I appreciate them immensely, but I was feeling very low.
Tonight, I said, "I'm doing my pushups". I'm not about to let myself go. I've dropped 48 pounds in the last nine months and there's no way I'm ever being lethargic, inactive or unhealthy again (like I've been forced to be the past week). I put on my tunes and planned on taking a couple extra sets because of the time off, but making sure to get in my 55. First set, 20. OK, I told myself, your strength isn't back all the way, don't get frustrated. Second set, 20. The arms were feeling a bit trembly, but 15 more was all I had left. My next set, 10. Oh, no! What did I do? Is my body still weak from being sick? Did I lose that much ground? New song hits (99 Problems, for what it's worth) and I'm determined. I did 12 crunches and found a second wind. 4th set, 15 more. We blew past 55 but it took double the sets and the song just started. I decided I wanted to hit 80. 12 more crunches and I'm feeling great. This is the "high" that I had fallen in love with. One more set of 15 left. I blew through the first 12 and the last three had that sweet burn that I never thought I would enjoy. 80 pushups.
You know what happened next? I felt amazing. I felt clarity. I felt peace. Everything made sense again. Even my chest and sinuses felt better. Whatever amazing endorphins go through your body when you work out each night, when you deprive your brain of that after a few days, I think it rebels. Mine certainly did. So if you're feeling in a funk - break out a few pushups or go for a run. You might be amazed how much better you feel after.
What I didn't even consider is that my funk could by explained simply by the fact that I couldn't do my pushups at night.
Up until last Monday, when I really started to feel terrible, I would do pushups every night before bed. I have to give credit here, my coworker Hugo Lujan is a competitive bodybuilder and looks amazing. I asked him a way to build up my arms at home and he suggested the nightly pushup routine. I'll never forget when he said, "Within a week or two, if you stick to it you won't be able to go to bed without doing them. They become addictive." I shrugged that off. I love being active and playing sports, but I've never been a workout guy. Don't like running, don't like working out for the most part.
I started about a month ago with two sets - the first set was 20; the second, 15. I didn't feel sore after but my shoulder bothered me a bit while I was doing it and I didn't want to push it. My goal (and Hugo's goal for me) is to get to 100 pushups per night. Each night, regardless if I had been out, been drinking, been doing whatever, I came home, either put on the "workout" channel on DirecTV or queued up some songs on Spotify and did my pushups. After a few days, my shoulder didn't hurt so I moved up to sets of 20 and 20. Approximately each week since then I've moved up five per week and last week before I fell ill, I moved up to 30 and 25.
Then I got sick. My first night, I forced my way through the pushups because I refused to believe I was really sick and just blamed stress. The next six nights, this was not an option. There were times I couldn't make it down the stairs to make tea, let alone do pushups. So over the weekend, I really started to feel down. I was slowly feeling better physically and got out of the house, but I was just sad and upset. I had a hard time feeling good about myself, my situation, even my new apartment. Today, I still have the cough from the bronchitis, but for the most part I feel good yet I felt terrible. There were exceptions, I have some great people in my life who put smiles on my face and I appreciate them immensely, but I was feeling very low.
Tonight, I said, "I'm doing my pushups". I'm not about to let myself go. I've dropped 48 pounds in the last nine months and there's no way I'm ever being lethargic, inactive or unhealthy again (like I've been forced to be the past week). I put on my tunes and planned on taking a couple extra sets because of the time off, but making sure to get in my 55. First set, 20. OK, I told myself, your strength isn't back all the way, don't get frustrated. Second set, 20. The arms were feeling a bit trembly, but 15 more was all I had left. My next set, 10. Oh, no! What did I do? Is my body still weak from being sick? Did I lose that much ground? New song hits (99 Problems, for what it's worth) and I'm determined. I did 12 crunches and found a second wind. 4th set, 15 more. We blew past 55 but it took double the sets and the song just started. I decided I wanted to hit 80. 12 more crunches and I'm feeling great. This is the "high" that I had fallen in love with. One more set of 15 left. I blew through the first 12 and the last three had that sweet burn that I never thought I would enjoy. 80 pushups.
You know what happened next? I felt amazing. I felt clarity. I felt peace. Everything made sense again. Even my chest and sinuses felt better. Whatever amazing endorphins go through your body when you work out each night, when you deprive your brain of that after a few days, I think it rebels. Mine certainly did. So if you're feeling in a funk - break out a few pushups or go for a run. You might be amazed how much better you feel after.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Jack of all trades... master of - any?
The bio I had for my original twitter account said, "Jack of all trades, master of none". There are times when this is a blessing and times when it is a curse.
I've been lucky enough to have a plethora of different experiences in my life and made money while experiencing them. Everything from overnight security at a Christmas Tree lot on the Upper East Side (86th in between 2nd & 3rd) to sportswriter for a regional newspaper to a musician and poker player. I've learned a lot about many different things, but what is my specialty?
If you ask me what I do BEST, I would probably say communicate. It's why I've always done very well in sales and customer service (man, I could sell an $80. Christmas tree to a drunk couple at 3 AM like NOBODY!) but also done well with behavioral health and writing.
It seems like in today's world, everyone has a niche. I can do a lot of different things for many people, but does that help me fit in anywhere if I'm going to work for someone else? When you're self-employed (been there, too), that is a plus because you're not outsourcing everything that needs to be done and you don't have to stop multiple times a day to learn what to do in different situations - but when you're in the market for a job, how do you explain to a company that your core competency is... a little bit of everything? Your primary benefit to your employers is you're always the one who can be handed off-the-wall assignments and tackle them effectively. That's hard to describe in a cover letter or resume.
I've been lucky enough to have a plethora of different experiences in my life and made money while experiencing them. Everything from overnight security at a Christmas Tree lot on the Upper East Side (86th in between 2nd & 3rd) to sportswriter for a regional newspaper to a musician and poker player. I've learned a lot about many different things, but what is my specialty?
If you ask me what I do BEST, I would probably say communicate. It's why I've always done very well in sales and customer service (man, I could sell an $80. Christmas tree to a drunk couple at 3 AM like NOBODY!) but also done well with behavioral health and writing.
It seems like in today's world, everyone has a niche. I can do a lot of different things for many people, but does that help me fit in anywhere if I'm going to work for someone else? When you're self-employed (been there, too), that is a plus because you're not outsourcing everything that needs to be done and you don't have to stop multiple times a day to learn what to do in different situations - but when you're in the market for a job, how do you explain to a company that your core competency is... a little bit of everything? Your primary benefit to your employers is you're always the one who can be handed off-the-wall assignments and tackle them effectively. That's hard to describe in a cover letter or resume.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Another look at Jeter and some shocking comps
It seems everyone has written about the relationship and negotiations between the New York Yankees - mostly Brian Cashman and the Steinbrenner Bros. - and Derek Jeter and his agent, Casey Close. I didn't think I would have much unique to add until I was observing a debate about Jeter's worth to the Yankees going forward. I'm surprised at how many Yankee fans and baseball fans in general think the Yankees should give in and pay "El Capitan" whatever he wants for services rendered and not punish him for one bad season despite his advanced age.
If Jeter were 31 and coming off his worst season, I don't think the Yankees would be giving pause to paying him like an elite ballplayer. The problem is, the chances are high that he is not an elite ballplayer anymore. To give him four years or more at $20M plus, would exacerbate an already problematic budget situation in the years ahead.
The Yankees have $95M committed for the 2013 season to four players - Mark Teixeira (33 that season), A.J. Burnett (36), C.C. Sabathia (33) and Alex Rodriguez (38). There is a reasonable chance that they will also be paying the replacements for Burnett in the rotation and Rodriguez at 3B if he moves to DH. With the Yankees, it's never safe to assume who will be signed long-term, but it would be a worthwhile bet to say they will be paying large truckloads of cash to Robinson Cano, Cliff Lee and any other Free Agent they go after over the next three seasons.
There are only three active players born in the same year as Jeter (1974) with a higher career OPS (on-base avg. plus slugging pct.). We'll get to the names in a bit, but what we're trying to do is take away the name and just look at the anticipated value. They have all been All-Stars multiple times, have all made at least $13M in a season, all had a higher OPS last season than Jeter, but all had lower OPS marks than their career mark. Despite having better offensive statistics throughout their career AND last season, nobody is lining up to pay these players anything near the amount the Yankees are reportedly offering Jeter ($45M/3Yrs) because it is recognized they are in the twilight of their career with declining skills.
Two of the players were paid $7M LESS in 2010 than they were in their peak. The third is in this FA class with Jeter and will absolutely take a marked pay cut to play in 2011. The players? Two former teammates that the Yankees quickly cut bait with in previous years when it was generally assumed their best years were behind them. Hideki Matsui - let loose after winning World Series MVP in 2009 - and Bobby Abreu, who was dumped after a 20HR/20SB, .296/.371/.471 season in 2008. The third player - Magglio Ordonez - is coming off a season-ending injury which complicates the comparison, but was on pace for 20+ HR and a .300 BA.
The Yankees were not wrong for cutting ties with these players to get younger and to avoid paying players for past performance instead of future returns. It was the right move. The problem is the name - Derek Jeter. The Captain. Mr. November. Author of "The Flip Play" and "The Dive". Master of his "patented jump throw".
The more accolades & nicknames you receive as a ballplayer, the less likely you are to live up to them in the future.
Someone involved in the online debate mentioned earlier (Patrick Gallagher - host of The D League Show - www.thedleague.com) said he wouldn't give those players the $20M/year he would give Jeter because "they have not been consistent. Last season was Jeter's 1st bad season in some time." If you took a poll of Yankee fans - or maybe even people in the game - they would generally agree with that assessment (I did before investigating) and justify the higher price tag for Jeter. A closer look at the numbers, however, flush out the truth.
In 13 full seasons, Abreu has had 12 seasons with an OPS of .800+. In 10 full seasons (and three partial seasons due to injury), Ordonez has only fallen short of an .800+ OPS once. In six full seasons, Matsui has eclipsed .800 in every one but his rookie year. Pretty consistent, eh? In 15 seasons, Jeter has failed to reach an .800 OPS four times. There goes that argument.
Sometimes a closer look reveals all the wrinkles you don't want to see. $20M+ for more than three or four years? If it weren't for the name Jeter, you wouldn't even think twice.
As always, baseball-reference was used extensively for the statistics found in this blog. In addition, ESPN Insider Keith Law's top 50 Free Agents was referred to for information. Special thanks to Patrick Gallagher and Megan Marshall for their entertaining debate that gave birth to this blog idea.
If Jeter were 31 and coming off his worst season, I don't think the Yankees would be giving pause to paying him like an elite ballplayer. The problem is, the chances are high that he is not an elite ballplayer anymore. To give him four years or more at $20M plus, would exacerbate an already problematic budget situation in the years ahead.
The Yankees have $95M committed for the 2013 season to four players - Mark Teixeira (33 that season), A.J. Burnett (36), C.C. Sabathia (33) and Alex Rodriguez (38). There is a reasonable chance that they will also be paying the replacements for Burnett in the rotation and Rodriguez at 3B if he moves to DH. With the Yankees, it's never safe to assume who will be signed long-term, but it would be a worthwhile bet to say they will be paying large truckloads of cash to Robinson Cano, Cliff Lee and any other Free Agent they go after over the next three seasons.
There are only three active players born in the same year as Jeter (1974) with a higher career OPS (on-base avg. plus slugging pct.). We'll get to the names in a bit, but what we're trying to do is take away the name and just look at the anticipated value. They have all been All-Stars multiple times, have all made at least $13M in a season, all had a higher OPS last season than Jeter, but all had lower OPS marks than their career mark. Despite having better offensive statistics throughout their career AND last season, nobody is lining up to pay these players anything near the amount the Yankees are reportedly offering Jeter ($45M/3Yrs) because it is recognized they are in the twilight of their career with declining skills.
Two of the players were paid $7M LESS in 2010 than they were in their peak. The third is in this FA class with Jeter and will absolutely take a marked pay cut to play in 2011. The players? Two former teammates that the Yankees quickly cut bait with in previous years when it was generally assumed their best years were behind them. Hideki Matsui - let loose after winning World Series MVP in 2009 - and Bobby Abreu, who was dumped after a 20HR/20SB, .296/.371/.471 season in 2008. The third player - Magglio Ordonez - is coming off a season-ending injury which complicates the comparison, but was on pace for 20+ HR and a .300 BA.
The Yankees were not wrong for cutting ties with these players to get younger and to avoid paying players for past performance instead of future returns. It was the right move. The problem is the name - Derek Jeter. The Captain. Mr. November. Author of "The Flip Play" and "The Dive". Master of his "patented jump throw".
The more accolades & nicknames you receive as a ballplayer, the less likely you are to live up to them in the future.
Someone involved in the online debate mentioned earlier (Patrick Gallagher - host of The D League Show - www.thedleague.com) said he wouldn't give those players the $20M/year he would give Jeter because "they have not been consistent. Last season was Jeter's 1st bad season in some time." If you took a poll of Yankee fans - or maybe even people in the game - they would generally agree with that assessment (I did before investigating) and justify the higher price tag for Jeter. A closer look at the numbers, however, flush out the truth.
In 13 full seasons, Abreu has had 12 seasons with an OPS of .800+. In 10 full seasons (and three partial seasons due to injury), Ordonez has only fallen short of an .800+ OPS once. In six full seasons, Matsui has eclipsed .800 in every one but his rookie year. Pretty consistent, eh? In 15 seasons, Jeter has failed to reach an .800 OPS four times. There goes that argument.
Sometimes a closer look reveals all the wrinkles you don't want to see. $20M+ for more than three or four years? If it weren't for the name Jeter, you wouldn't even think twice.
As always, baseball-reference was used extensively for the statistics found in this blog. In addition, ESPN Insider Keith Law's top 50 Free Agents was referred to for information. Special thanks to Patrick Gallagher and Megan Marshall for their entertaining debate that gave birth to this blog idea.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
2010 - We should have known & ideas for '11
We fooled ourselves.
We believed in a team that played .500 ball - one game under, actually - since August 1. We kept saying they would turn it on come playoff time, would kick it up a notch. Despite having his worst season as a pro, in which he was a below-average SS on both sides of the ball, we believed Derek Jeter would flip a switch and be Mr. November. We felt that Mark Teixeira would be fine even though he, too, was coming off a season that was below his standards. Sure the power numbers looked okay, but in addition to being his worst statistical season since his rookie year, Teixeira disappeared late in games, hitting .225 in innings 7-9. We didn't realize that Alex Rodriguez may be on the downside of his career. He hit 30 HRs for the second consecutive year (he hadn't been below 35 since 1997), missed 25+ games for the third year in a row, and had the lowest OBP (.341) he's had since he was a teenager.
Why didn't we see this coming? 40% of our starting rotation had ERAs above 5.25. The Yankees were atrocious defensively behind the plate - In part-time duty, Francisco Cervelli had 13 errors & I kept waiting for Girardi to put himself in as a defensive replacement each time Jorge Posada let a fastball three inches away from the target get by him. The more you look at the numbers and the makeup, it becomes more surprising not that we lost to the the Rangers, but that we made the postseason at all.
But, to paraphrase Mark McGwire, I'm not here to talk about the past. It's time to look to the future - to 2011. What changes should the Yankees make to return to the World Series? The obvious and most persistent question is whether the Yankees will sign Cliff Lee. Obviously, they will make every effort to obtain him and though there are always dark horses lurking, it looks like it will be a battle between the Yankees and the Rangers to acquire his services. The Yankees probably have the financial advantage, but the Rangers have a head start at building loyalty and emotional ties, especially if they come back and beat the Giants in the World Series. I think the Yankees will use CC as a recruiting tool and will eventually win out for his services. For everywhere else, let's go through position-by-position.
Catcher - Jorge Posada should not catch more than once or twice a week, if at all. When healthy, he still has power, but he had his lowest batting average in over a decade in 2010 and was brutal behind the plate in almost every facet of the defensive game. He is under contract for one more season and hopefully can go out with a bang. In what will be a recurring theme, what is best for the Yankees in 2011 and what is likely to happen are two different things. We will likely find out early on if the low BA was a down year or if the 39-year-old has finally given in to Father Time. Keep in mind, Posada has a bit of a reputation for being moody and some feel that the relationship between he and Girardi is cool at best. If he doesn't get the reps he feels he deserves it could cause a rare problem in the clubhouse.
After a hot start offensively, Francisco Cervelli lived up (down?) to his reputation and may or may not have hit his weight from June-August. He had a torrid September, hitting .394/.553/.485, but that was aided in part by an unheard of .448 BABIP (BA on balls in play-see italicized note below). On the positive side, he displayed an improving eye as the season wore on, getting 16 BB after the All-Star break in 110 PA as opposed to 17 BB in 207 1st half PA. The biggest problem with Cervelli was a huge regression in his defense. The Yankees could live with a .240 slap-hitter if he threw out 43% of baserunners and handled pitches off the plate, as Cervelli did in 40 games in 2009. This season, baserunners stole 55 times on 64 attempts - a 14% CS rate. Cervelli also tied for the league lead in errors by a catcher with 13. Basically, he was no better than Posada, even if the fist pumps and energy may have masked his futility. I couldn't find any expert or scout who felt strongly whether he was suffering from growing pains, taking his poor at-bats behind the plate with him or whether 2009 was a small sample size and the 2010 version was what we will see in the future. I feel like he can be a serviceable back-up catcher, but when thrust into a full-time role his weaknesses become more evident. I'm a big proponent of defense being more important than offense with your catcher, but you need at least one or the other.
Jesus Montero - currently sitting in the top 8 of most prospect reviews (Baseball America & Baseball Prospectus have him at #4), Montero is likely the future for the Yankees behind the plate. There is significant chatter as to whether he can be a serviceable defensive catcher, but it appears the Yankees are committed to giving him every opportunity. The only problem is his bat appears to be ready for everyday duty in the majors, but his glove (mitt?) is still a work in progress. He did show progress this year both with the bat and behind the plate, and without any big-name catchers hitting the market this winter, I think the Yankees will look at him long and hard in Spring Training.
What they should do: I don't think you can keep the kid down any longer. Bring Montero up next season and let Girardi show that he can teach the tools of ignorance. Posada will get a fair-share of ABs and will catch on occasion with Cervelli being the third C and emergency IF. (Montero 100 GS; Posada 40; Cervelli 20)
What they will do: Despite their history, I don't think the Yankees will stand up to their "core-four" and limit them as much as they should. I think they will see what happens in March and unless Montero forces their hand, they have Posada and Cervelli split time until mid-season when they bring up Montero.
BABIP is considered a measure of how lucky a hitter is - the average is usually around .300 except for the Ichiro's of the world who get more infield hits. His BABIP for the season was .353 - Austin Jackson led the majors with a .396 BABIP for what it's worth.
First base - I won't spend much time on the obvious positions. Teixeira will turn 31 in April, should be fully recovered from his hamstring injury and is signed through 2016. He consistently starts slow (.235 career April BA) and his 2010 BA was 30 points below his career average, but his power has remained steady and his defense is as valuable as it gets for his position. It would be a luxury to have a Berkman-type backup to give him a rest once in awhile, but it doesn't appear that he needs it at this stage of his career. Hopefully the hamstring injury doesn't return down the road.
What they should & will do: Teixeira will play his usual 155-160 games there.
Second base - Robinson Cano grew up this season. There were no mental lapses on the field, there were no issues with hustling down the line. Whatever the reason, the light went on this year and Cano should finish in the top-3 in MVP voting, win the Silver Slugger and possibly Gold Glove. He walked more than the last two seasons combined without losing his aggressiveness and he committed only three errors all season. He should be hitting third everyday, but I don't know if they will risk bruising the egos of Teixeira and Rodriguez by moving one or both of them down.
What they should & will do: Cano will have the longest tenure at 2B since Willie Randolph manned the position from 1976-1988.
Third base - This is where things start to get interesting again. One of the things it seems we overlook about the Steroid Era is that even with today's advances in medicine and training, it is probably not normal to have a 2nd peak of your career in your late-30s without artificial help. At the age of 35, Rodriguez has played 2303 games - 101st all-time. There are four players in the Hall of Fame whose careers ended between 1995-2003 and played at least 600 more games than Rodriguez' current number. In the full seasons following their 2300th game, these four Hall members had cumulative batting averages of .249, .267, .272 and .275. The highest HR total in a season among these four legends is 28 during this time. These late-career stats were from Dave Winfield, Eddie Murray, Cal Ripken and Rickey Henderson.
This is not cherry-picking stats. They are the only players who have played in enough games to make a legitimate comparison and retired within the last twenty years. The only other comparison we could use is Barry Bonds. If we were still in the "loosey-goosey" era A-Rod enjoyed so much, that would be a valid comparison. I think we can all agree, it is not. Using the career comparison tool on Baseball Prospectus, the closest to Rodriguez from ages 23-31 were Mickey Mantle and Ken Griffey Jr. The twilights of their career were not pretty. It can fall apart fast for any athlete. The Yankees have $174M tied up in Alex Rodriguez over the next seven years. They gave Rodriguez that contract based on his first four years in the Bronx when he averaged 157 G, slashes of .303/.403/.573, 22 SB and what had become above-average, if not excellent, defense. It is certainly possible that Rodriguez defies the odds. He could deny the effects of old age, he could avoid the joint and muscle issues that have plagued many other athletes who used steroids for long periods of time. It is just not likely.
For 2011, we can still reasonably expect 30 HR, a .280 average and solid defense, although his range has definitely diminished over the past two seasons. I think due to the injury risk and the apparent need for rest, the Yankees will try to find a solid backup who they can plug into the lineup for extended periods of time at various infield positions. Ramiro Pena is not the answer nor is Cervelli, though I think they will continue to see if he can improve there. They should go out and get a veteran who can play multiple positions (SS & 3B) and not kill the team offensively. There are quite a few Free Agents that will be available this winter that may fit the bill. Most of them are on the downside of their career but will fill in adequately and will probably be willing to backup if it means playing with a contender. The type of player I have in mind is Juan Uribe. If he resigns with the Giants or is given a starting job elsewhere, there are others that will be available (Ty Wigginton, Pedro Feliz, et al.), although Uribe is ideal since he can play SS as well.
What they should do: The Yankees need to find someone who can fill in if Rodriguez misses more than the 24-36 games he's missed each of the last three seasons. Having a replacement who can come in late in blowouts and allow Rodriguez to DH once or twice a week could help extend his shelf life. Ideally, I think Uribe is the solution. They can afford to give Uribe $1M or $2M more than he is worth to anyone else because he is pretty close to the ideal fit for their needs. (Rodriguez 120 GS; FA pick-up 40)
What they will do: Declining range at 3B is not as apparent or painful as at SS, where most of the focus will be. Of course, having a 3B who can cover ground takes some pressure off a SS with limited range. Offensively, the days of 40+ HR and a .300+ average are likely over, but the Yankees are hoping Rodriguez is on a plateau and not on a downhill slide. I have not heard a utility person mentioned in early offseason talks, so they may feel Rodriguez can come back and truly be an "everyday" player with only the occasional appearance at DH. Also, discussions about fifth infielders doesn't drive many headlines, so it may be something they plan to address and haven't been asked about. I think they are anticipating Rodriguez for 140-150 games at 3B with one of their young backups from 2010 filling in when necessary.
Shortstop - Let's be blunt. The Yankees would be better off treating Jeter like they've treated Rizzuto, DiMaggio, Jackson, Williams, Ruth and almost every other beloved Yankee from days gone by. It is more likely that the future Mrs. Jeter star in an adult film in 2011 than Jeter bounces back with a season of 30 SB and an OPS (on-base plus slugging pct.) of .871 with Gold Glove defense like 2009. For this reason, the Yankees would be foolish to sign him to anything but a one- or two-year deal. If GM Brian Cashman sticks to his word that they will spend money based on results and not milestones or history, then they will offer Jeter a 1-year deal for about $10M plus incentives that can go all the way up to $18M with a mutual option for 2012. No other team will offer Jeter more for his services at this point. There may not be better options available through Free Agency this season, but the Yankees' hands wouldn't be tied down the road and if Jeter refuses to move positions or down in the lineup, it will be much easier to thank him for his many years of tremendous service and move on. There's a reason why no Yankee has ever had 3,000 hits. The Yankees, much like the Patriots of recent years in the NFL, have always been willing to cut ties a year too early rather than a year (or three) too late because it can set the franchise back in multiple ways by holding on for too long.
Now that we've gotten logic out of the way, Derek Jeter will be lining up along the sideline on opening day being announced as the starting SS. He will be a liability in the field. Toward the end of the season, he even had difficulty making his pivot-jump throw going to his right. It may come up that he was injured, which changes everything, but if it hasn't come out by now, I don't expect anything to be revealed over the winter. One of the best things with Jeter, even at this age, is his durability. He has logged seven straight seasons of 150+ games. Of course, each year his risk of injury increases, but he has always kept himself in shape and he is a safe bet to show up for work everyday.
What they should do: The Yankees should tell Jeter - go out and get your best offer. Shop around. The best offer you get, we will beat by $2M and match the years. The Yankees can afford to play chicken. If Jeter leaves, they have the trade chips in the minors (Romine, Brackman) to go out and upgrade. That's right. I said upgrade. I don't think Jeter wants to leave, even if his feelings may be hurt. He is likely an average shortstop at best at this point, but he's THEIR average shortstop. (Jeter 130 GS; FA pick-up 30)
What they will do: I don't think the Yankees will give Jeter a blank check, but I do believe they will set up a deal that includes future considerations and a position with the club upon his retirement. I think they will probably overpay to keep The Captain happy and will give him a year or two too many. They are quickly setting themselves up for disaster if they give Jeter the four-year deal that some have speculated. Can he transfer to 3B like his idol Ripken? Will Rodriguez move to full-time DH in a year or two? I'm afraid we're going to find out.
Outfield - For the first time since 2004, the Yankees go into the offseason without a need to upgrade their OF in anyway. It doesn't mean they won't attempt to, but they don't need to. Another side-effect of the Steroid Era hangover is some people don't realize how good Brett Gardner is. Ballplayers like Gardner are the ones that will be coveted in the years to come. In addition to outstanding defense with 12 assists and earning the Fielding Bible Award for top defensive LF, he led the team in OBP (.383), SB (47) and should be the leadoff hitter for the next few years. Defense and speed. They're two facets of the game that don't go into slumps.
Curtis Granderson turned his season around in the middle of August after some work with hitting coach Kevin Long. He finished the year at only .247, but his slugging pct. of .468 was 22nd in the league. Higher than Alexis Rios, Hideki Matsui, Torii Hunter and Nick Markakis among others. Although his speed and range seems to have diminished slightly since his mid-20s, he still provided above-average defense when healthy and, along with Brett Gardner was able to cover a lot of range in the gaps. For the most part, he provided exactly what the Yankees wanted. Solid CF play for the first time in years with some power toward the bottom of the lineup. It looks like there may be some upside to the BA and OBP after the way he finished the season, so it would not surprise me to see a .265-.270 season with 30 HRs in 2011.
Nick Swisher was possibly the biggest surprise for the Yankees in 2010. He shortened his swing from last year and became more aggressive early in counts. This resulted in career-highs in BA (.288), SLG (.511 - 10th in AL), and total bases (289). Although his OBP went down slightly, it was a fair trade-off from the player who, along with Cano, helped carry the Yankee offense during the first half of the season when other bats were struggling and earned his first All-Star appearance. He also had his best season in the OF, finishing with 10 assists and displayed good range for someone with below-average speed. Because of this, Swisher's value has never been higher. If the Yankees decide to make a trade this winter, don't be surprised if Swisher is the cornerstone. He is owed $9M in 2011 and that is a reasonable price even for medium-sized payrolls. If the Yankees decide they want Tampa Bay FA Carl Crawford - Swisher, not Gardner, is likely to be considered the expendable piece. What could they get for Swisher? The Nationals are looking to upgrade their lineup and have good, young starting pitching. I'm sure there are other teams out there that would like to have Swisher both on the field and in their clubhouse.
What they should do: As much as I like Swisher, I think this year was his peak. Trade him for pitching or prospects. Go out and get Crawford. An outfield of Crawford, Granderson and Gardner would cut down the doubles and triples against Yankees pitching considerably. Granderson should still sit against tough lefties and the Yankees need to decide whether the bat vs. lefties that Marcus Thames provided is worth his horrendous work in the field or if they should look elsewhere for someone to fill that role. (Crawford 160 GS; Granderson 130 GS; Gardner 150 GS; Thames/other 4th OF 30-40 GS)
What they will do: If the Red Sox pursue Crawford aggressively, the Yankees may go after him for the block as much as for their own needs. I think the Yankees (incorrectly) view Swisher as more integral to their success than Gardner and if they obtain Crawford, they may see what they can get for Gardner. I don't think the Yankees have much interest in the other top OF free-agent, Jayson Werth.
Starting Pitching - CC Sabathia (21-7, 3.18) was every bit the ace and workhorse that the Yankees were hoping for when they signed him two seasons ago. Phil Hughes (18-8, 4.19) started out the season by giving up 2 ER or less in eight of his first 10 starts. He only accomplished that feat five more times the rest of the year as he went through a full season as a starter for the first time. The future is bright for Hughes, but he must learn to keep the ball down at Yankee Stadium, where he gave up 20 of his 25 HRs on the season.
A.J. Burnett was maddening. Last season, the "bad A.J." didn't take the mound quite as often as "good A.J." He was frustrating and still gave the team no shot to win on too many occasions, but the moments of brilliance were enough to give us hope coming into this season. This season, A.J. had a 1.08 ERA in his 10 wins and a 10.35 ERA in his 15 losses. Read that again. 1.08 ERA in wins, 10.35 ERA in losses. How must it feel - not only for him, but for his teammates - to go out every fifth day and have no clue whether you're going to watch Picasso paint a masterpiece on the mound or a monkey throwing poo at the strike zone (and missing often)?
When Javier Vazquez was acquired in what some Yankee fans now affectionately call the "Boone Logan trade", there were two camps of people. The ones (myself included) who said it was a tremendous mistake because Vazquez could not handle New York and his worst season in this century was the one he spent in New York when he crumbled in the 2nd half and postseason. There were also people who saw him coming off his best season in 2009 with Atlanta, felt he had matured and that 2004 started off brilliantly, he was an All-Star that season and just wore down and was injured. Despite teasing the Yankee faithful with a 6-2 stretch in June and July that featured a 3.28 ERA, Vazquez' worst-case scenario was that he would fall apart in the second half of the season again and be of no help to the Yankees come the postseason. Vazquez was pulled from the rotation twice during the second-half and with an opportunity to pitch his way back on the postseason roster, he gave up 10 hits and 7 ER in 4 2/3 IP in Toronto. Thank you, Sir. We've seen enough.
Andy Pettitte was masterful through the first 85 games of the season. He was 11-2 with a 2.70 ERA and was being considered as the starter for the American League All-Star team. He was better than anyone could have imagined. The only question was if Pettitte's 38-year-old body would begin to break down. Sure enough, Pettitte pitched only 15 2/3 innings after the All-Star break as he recovered from a groin injury. The Yankees were 54-31 after Pettitte's win that day. The rest of the way, they went only 41-36. He did recover, though, and was their best pitcher in the postseason, going 7 innings in both of his starts and giving up just two runs each time. Had he pitched against anyone other than Cliff Lee in the Texas series, things may have been different... but that's a whole different blog post. It remains to be seen whether Pettitte will come back again, but my gut feeling is that the time spent rehabbing from the injury was enough to convince him to stay home and spend time with his family.
What they should do: Obviously, Sabathia and Hughes will be the primary holdovers. I don't know if Burnett can be saved. I don't know if anyone knows. The Yankees have too much money invested in him over the next three seasons to cut the cord at this point, and he will be in their rotation to start 2011. I think the Yankees lose Pettitte to retirement, which would mean they have two spots to fill. Cliff Lee will of course be the primary target for the Yankees in the offseason and they have to be considered the favorite for his services. The fifth starter will either come through the somewhat unappealing Free Agent market - Jorge de la Rosa, Carl Pavano (just kidding, put down your weapons), and Brad Penny are some of the "marquis" names - through a trade (my preference - see OF section), or the Yankees will give Ivan Nova a chance to show he belongs. (Sabathia, Lee, Hughes, Burnett/Nova and de la Rosa/SP from trade)
What they will do: The Yankees will spare no expense to get the only top-flight SP on the market this offseason. Lee, Sabathia, Hughes and Burnett are probably penciled in Cashman's notes for next season. I think they will look to spent as little as possible on a #5 starter and see what the landscape is around the trade deadline.
Relief Pitching - Mariano Rivera (33-38 saves, 1.80 ERA, 0.83 WHIP), the oldest of the core four, also seems to be the most ageless of the group. He had a typical season - which, for him, means excellence. There appeared to be chinks in the armor toward the end of the season, but Rivera has shown those chinks before, only to bounce back without issue. One of these years, the magic cutter will stop doing tricks, but it would be foolish to think we know when that will be.
Joba Chamberlain (73 G, 4.40 ERA) was the relief version of Burnett, alternating between awesome and awful from appearance to appearance and too often leaning towards awful. David Robertson (61.1 IP, 3.82 ERA, 71 K) recovered from an atrocious start to make a positive contribution. The problem is he still walks way too many hitters (4.8 BB/9 resulting in a 1.50 WHIP) to be the eighth-inning guy or potential Rivera fill-in. The potential is there to be a dominating presence, but it remains to be seen if he can control his stuff without diminishing it. Boone Logan appears to be the LOOGY (Left-handed One Out GuY) for the future. Against 91 LHB, he was incredible - .190 BAA with one extra base-hit (a 3B), 10 BB and 30 K. Against 78 RHB, 3 HR, 10 BB and only 8 Ks, .279 BAA. These specialists are important to a bullpen, especially in the postseason and Logan should be that guy for the Yankees. The transition from starter to reliever went very well for Sergio Mitre (54 IP, 3.33/1.09 WHIP - 2.45/0.97 as reliever) and if the price is right, he should be retained in 2011 as a key cog in the bullpen. Kerry Wood was excellent during his stay in NY (0.69 ERA in 26 IP) and seemed to shine in the big city, but he was so good it likely drove his price and role beyond what the Yankees are willing or able to provide. If money were truly no object to the Yankees, they would pick up Wood's $11M option for 2011 or offer him a two- or three-year deal for at least $8M/yr. Hal Steinbrenner has said he wants to stay around the same payroll as last year ($206M) and if they re-sign Jeter and Rivera, sign Lee and/or Crawford, there will not be enough left for Wood. If the Yankees were able to sign Wood, it would solidify the back-end of the bullpen and give the Yankees a legitimate insurance policy for Rivera better than any other option.
What they should do: The Yankees should re-sign Rivera for the same $15M he made this year (unless he is willing to give a discount - unlikely) and although there are some warning signs in his peripherals, he has shown he can be an elite closer even after losing a few MPH from his famous cutter. Unless if there is a stud like Rivera was in '96 or Joba in '07 (or Wood at the end of this season) I don't like having a designated 8th-inning guy. You use the guy or guys that match up best to get to your closer, but Girardi likes to have someone he can refer to as "that guy". Jonathan Albaladejo should be given every chance during the spring to earn a full-time role and possibly be the 8th-inning guy after shutting down hitters in Scranton (AAA) for the past two seasons. Joba still can contribute to a bullpen, I just don't know if it can be in NY. He is still inexpensive, so they can afford to take a wait-and-see approach. Robertson, Mitre and Logan are all either under contract or arbitration-eligible. (Rivera, closer; Logan, LOOGY; Mitre, 2-inning guy; Albaladejo, Robertson, Chamberlain round out staff)
What they will do: They will re-sign Rivera and give Chamberlain another opportunity to establish himself in the bullpen. They will keep the same young guys that served them well this year and probably add a second lefty to the pen.
Financially, the Yankees have approximately $150M tied up for 2011 (including arbitration-eligible players). I think they will try to get Jeter to sign for the same $15M they've been giving Rivera the past three seasons. With Rivera and Jeter, that would bring them to $180M. Cliff Lee may have cost himself some money with his two WS starts, but he is still likely to command $20M/year. This brings the Yankees to $200M. At this point, they can either trade Swisher (-$9M) and sign Crawford for $15-18M to get them to their approximate limit or they can keep Swisher and sign a back-end SP and utility player for $10M.
Here's how I think the Opening Day lineup should look:
Gardner (RF)
Crawford (LF)
Cano (2B)
Teixeira (1B)
Rodriguez (3B)
Montero (DH/C)
Jeter (SS)
Posada (C/DH)
Granderson (CF)
Here's how I think the Opening Day lineup will look:
Jeter (SS)
Granderson (CF)
Teixeira (1B)
Rodriguez (3B)
Cano (2B)
Swisher (RF)
Posada (C)
Montero (DH)
Gardner (LF)
Either way, the Yankees could bury themselves for the next few years like they did frequently in the 80's if they're not careful with how they spend their money this winter. They're talking tough and smart right now - but will they be able to stick to the plan?
Much of the statistics and info within this blog were gotten from: baseball-reference.com, Cot's Baseball Contracts, Mark Feinsand of the Daily News & Jessica Quiroli - freelance MiLB writer extraordinaire. Many thanks to them.
We believed in a team that played .500 ball - one game under, actually - since August 1. We kept saying they would turn it on come playoff time, would kick it up a notch. Despite having his worst season as a pro, in which he was a below-average SS on both sides of the ball, we believed Derek Jeter would flip a switch and be Mr. November. We felt that Mark Teixeira would be fine even though he, too, was coming off a season that was below his standards. Sure the power numbers looked okay, but in addition to being his worst statistical season since his rookie year, Teixeira disappeared late in games, hitting .225 in innings 7-9. We didn't realize that Alex Rodriguez may be on the downside of his career. He hit 30 HRs for the second consecutive year (he hadn't been below 35 since 1997), missed 25+ games for the third year in a row, and had the lowest OBP (.341) he's had since he was a teenager.
Why didn't we see this coming? 40% of our starting rotation had ERAs above 5.25. The Yankees were atrocious defensively behind the plate - In part-time duty, Francisco Cervelli had 13 errors & I kept waiting for Girardi to put himself in as a defensive replacement each time Jorge Posada let a fastball three inches away from the target get by him. The more you look at the numbers and the makeup, it becomes more surprising not that we lost to the the Rangers, but that we made the postseason at all.
But, to paraphrase Mark McGwire, I'm not here to talk about the past. It's time to look to the future - to 2011. What changes should the Yankees make to return to the World Series? The obvious and most persistent question is whether the Yankees will sign Cliff Lee. Obviously, they will make every effort to obtain him and though there are always dark horses lurking, it looks like it will be a battle between the Yankees and the Rangers to acquire his services. The Yankees probably have the financial advantage, but the Rangers have a head start at building loyalty and emotional ties, especially if they come back and beat the Giants in the World Series. I think the Yankees will use CC as a recruiting tool and will eventually win out for his services. For everywhere else, let's go through position-by-position.
Catcher - Jorge Posada should not catch more than once or twice a week, if at all. When healthy, he still has power, but he had his lowest batting average in over a decade in 2010 and was brutal behind the plate in almost every facet of the defensive game. He is under contract for one more season and hopefully can go out with a bang. In what will be a recurring theme, what is best for the Yankees in 2011 and what is likely to happen are two different things. We will likely find out early on if the low BA was a down year or if the 39-year-old has finally given in to Father Time. Keep in mind, Posada has a bit of a reputation for being moody and some feel that the relationship between he and Girardi is cool at best. If he doesn't get the reps he feels he deserves it could cause a rare problem in the clubhouse.
After a hot start offensively, Francisco Cervelli lived up (down?) to his reputation and may or may not have hit his weight from June-August. He had a torrid September, hitting .394/.553/.485, but that was aided in part by an unheard of .448 BABIP (BA on balls in play-see italicized note below). On the positive side, he displayed an improving eye as the season wore on, getting 16 BB after the All-Star break in 110 PA as opposed to 17 BB in 207 1st half PA. The biggest problem with Cervelli was a huge regression in his defense. The Yankees could live with a .240 slap-hitter if he threw out 43% of baserunners and handled pitches off the plate, as Cervelli did in 40 games in 2009. This season, baserunners stole 55 times on 64 attempts - a 14% CS rate. Cervelli also tied for the league lead in errors by a catcher with 13. Basically, he was no better than Posada, even if the fist pumps and energy may have masked his futility. I couldn't find any expert or scout who felt strongly whether he was suffering from growing pains, taking his poor at-bats behind the plate with him or whether 2009 was a small sample size and the 2010 version was what we will see in the future. I feel like he can be a serviceable back-up catcher, but when thrust into a full-time role his weaknesses become more evident. I'm a big proponent of defense being more important than offense with your catcher, but you need at least one or the other.
Jesus Montero - currently sitting in the top 8 of most prospect reviews (Baseball America & Baseball Prospectus have him at #4), Montero is likely the future for the Yankees behind the plate. There is significant chatter as to whether he can be a serviceable defensive catcher, but it appears the Yankees are committed to giving him every opportunity. The only problem is his bat appears to be ready for everyday duty in the majors, but his glove (mitt?) is still a work in progress. He did show progress this year both with the bat and behind the plate, and without any big-name catchers hitting the market this winter, I think the Yankees will look at him long and hard in Spring Training.
What they should do: I don't think you can keep the kid down any longer. Bring Montero up next season and let Girardi show that he can teach the tools of ignorance. Posada will get a fair-share of ABs and will catch on occasion with Cervelli being the third C and emergency IF. (Montero 100 GS; Posada 40; Cervelli 20)
What they will do: Despite their history, I don't think the Yankees will stand up to their "core-four" and limit them as much as they should. I think they will see what happens in March and unless Montero forces their hand, they have Posada and Cervelli split time until mid-season when they bring up Montero.
BABIP is considered a measure of how lucky a hitter is - the average is usually around .300 except for the Ichiro's of the world who get more infield hits. His BABIP for the season was .353 - Austin Jackson led the majors with a .396 BABIP for what it's worth.
First base - I won't spend much time on the obvious positions. Teixeira will turn 31 in April, should be fully recovered from his hamstring injury and is signed through 2016. He consistently starts slow (.235 career April BA) and his 2010 BA was 30 points below his career average, but his power has remained steady and his defense is as valuable as it gets for his position. It would be a luxury to have a Berkman-type backup to give him a rest once in awhile, but it doesn't appear that he needs it at this stage of his career. Hopefully the hamstring injury doesn't return down the road.
What they should & will do: Teixeira will play his usual 155-160 games there.
Second base - Robinson Cano grew up this season. There were no mental lapses on the field, there were no issues with hustling down the line. Whatever the reason, the light went on this year and Cano should finish in the top-3 in MVP voting, win the Silver Slugger and possibly Gold Glove. He walked more than the last two seasons combined without losing his aggressiveness and he committed only three errors all season. He should be hitting third everyday, but I don't know if they will risk bruising the egos of Teixeira and Rodriguez by moving one or both of them down.
What they should & will do: Cano will have the longest tenure at 2B since Willie Randolph manned the position from 1976-1988.
Third base - This is where things start to get interesting again. One of the things it seems we overlook about the Steroid Era is that even with today's advances in medicine and training, it is probably not normal to have a 2nd peak of your career in your late-30s without artificial help. At the age of 35, Rodriguez has played 2303 games - 101st all-time. There are four players in the Hall of Fame whose careers ended between 1995-2003 and played at least 600 more games than Rodriguez' current number. In the full seasons following their 2300th game, these four Hall members had cumulative batting averages of .249, .267, .272 and .275. The highest HR total in a season among these four legends is 28 during this time. These late-career stats were from Dave Winfield, Eddie Murray, Cal Ripken and Rickey Henderson.
This is not cherry-picking stats. They are the only players who have played in enough games to make a legitimate comparison and retired within the last twenty years. The only other comparison we could use is Barry Bonds. If we were still in the "loosey-goosey" era A-Rod enjoyed so much, that would be a valid comparison. I think we can all agree, it is not. Using the career comparison tool on Baseball Prospectus, the closest to Rodriguez from ages 23-31 were Mickey Mantle and Ken Griffey Jr. The twilights of their career were not pretty. It can fall apart fast for any athlete. The Yankees have $174M tied up in Alex Rodriguez over the next seven years. They gave Rodriguez that contract based on his first four years in the Bronx when he averaged 157 G, slashes of .303/.403/.573, 22 SB and what had become above-average, if not excellent, defense. It is certainly possible that Rodriguez defies the odds. He could deny the effects of old age, he could avoid the joint and muscle issues that have plagued many other athletes who used steroids for long periods of time. It is just not likely.
For 2011, we can still reasonably expect 30 HR, a .280 average and solid defense, although his range has definitely diminished over the past two seasons. I think due to the injury risk and the apparent need for rest, the Yankees will try to find a solid backup who they can plug into the lineup for extended periods of time at various infield positions. Ramiro Pena is not the answer nor is Cervelli, though I think they will continue to see if he can improve there. They should go out and get a veteran who can play multiple positions (SS & 3B) and not kill the team offensively. There are quite a few Free Agents that will be available this winter that may fit the bill. Most of them are on the downside of their career but will fill in adequately and will probably be willing to backup if it means playing with a contender. The type of player I have in mind is Juan Uribe. If he resigns with the Giants or is given a starting job elsewhere, there are others that will be available (Ty Wigginton, Pedro Feliz, et al.), although Uribe is ideal since he can play SS as well.
What they should do: The Yankees need to find someone who can fill in if Rodriguez misses more than the 24-36 games he's missed each of the last three seasons. Having a replacement who can come in late in blowouts and allow Rodriguez to DH once or twice a week could help extend his shelf life. Ideally, I think Uribe is the solution. They can afford to give Uribe $1M or $2M more than he is worth to anyone else because he is pretty close to the ideal fit for their needs. (Rodriguez 120 GS; FA pick-up 40)
What they will do: Declining range at 3B is not as apparent or painful as at SS, where most of the focus will be. Of course, having a 3B who can cover ground takes some pressure off a SS with limited range. Offensively, the days of 40+ HR and a .300+ average are likely over, but the Yankees are hoping Rodriguez is on a plateau and not on a downhill slide. I have not heard a utility person mentioned in early offseason talks, so they may feel Rodriguez can come back and truly be an "everyday" player with only the occasional appearance at DH. Also, discussions about fifth infielders doesn't drive many headlines, so it may be something they plan to address and haven't been asked about. I think they are anticipating Rodriguez for 140-150 games at 3B with one of their young backups from 2010 filling in when necessary.
Shortstop - Let's be blunt. The Yankees would be better off treating Jeter like they've treated Rizzuto, DiMaggio, Jackson, Williams, Ruth and almost every other beloved Yankee from days gone by. It is more likely that the future Mrs. Jeter star in an adult film in 2011 than Jeter bounces back with a season of 30 SB and an OPS (on-base plus slugging pct.) of .871 with Gold Glove defense like 2009. For this reason, the Yankees would be foolish to sign him to anything but a one- or two-year deal. If GM Brian Cashman sticks to his word that they will spend money based on results and not milestones or history, then they will offer Jeter a 1-year deal for about $10M plus incentives that can go all the way up to $18M with a mutual option for 2012. No other team will offer Jeter more for his services at this point. There may not be better options available through Free Agency this season, but the Yankees' hands wouldn't be tied down the road and if Jeter refuses to move positions or down in the lineup, it will be much easier to thank him for his many years of tremendous service and move on. There's a reason why no Yankee has ever had 3,000 hits. The Yankees, much like the Patriots of recent years in the NFL, have always been willing to cut ties a year too early rather than a year (or three) too late because it can set the franchise back in multiple ways by holding on for too long.
Now that we've gotten logic out of the way, Derek Jeter will be lining up along the sideline on opening day being announced as the starting SS. He will be a liability in the field. Toward the end of the season, he even had difficulty making his pivot-jump throw going to his right. It may come up that he was injured, which changes everything, but if it hasn't come out by now, I don't expect anything to be revealed over the winter. One of the best things with Jeter, even at this age, is his durability. He has logged seven straight seasons of 150+ games. Of course, each year his risk of injury increases, but he has always kept himself in shape and he is a safe bet to show up for work everyday.
What they should do: The Yankees should tell Jeter - go out and get your best offer. Shop around. The best offer you get, we will beat by $2M and match the years. The Yankees can afford to play chicken. If Jeter leaves, they have the trade chips in the minors (Romine, Brackman) to go out and upgrade. That's right. I said upgrade. I don't think Jeter wants to leave, even if his feelings may be hurt. He is likely an average shortstop at best at this point, but he's THEIR average shortstop. (Jeter 130 GS; FA pick-up 30)
What they will do: I don't think the Yankees will give Jeter a blank check, but I do believe they will set up a deal that includes future considerations and a position with the club upon his retirement. I think they will probably overpay to keep The Captain happy and will give him a year or two too many. They are quickly setting themselves up for disaster if they give Jeter the four-year deal that some have speculated. Can he transfer to 3B like his idol Ripken? Will Rodriguez move to full-time DH in a year or two? I'm afraid we're going to find out.
Outfield - For the first time since 2004, the Yankees go into the offseason without a need to upgrade their OF in anyway. It doesn't mean they won't attempt to, but they don't need to. Another side-effect of the Steroid Era hangover is some people don't realize how good Brett Gardner is. Ballplayers like Gardner are the ones that will be coveted in the years to come. In addition to outstanding defense with 12 assists and earning the Fielding Bible Award for top defensive LF, he led the team in OBP (.383), SB (47) and should be the leadoff hitter for the next few years. Defense and speed. They're two facets of the game that don't go into slumps.
Curtis Granderson turned his season around in the middle of August after some work with hitting coach Kevin Long. He finished the year at only .247, but his slugging pct. of .468 was 22nd in the league. Higher than Alexis Rios, Hideki Matsui, Torii Hunter and Nick Markakis among others. Although his speed and range seems to have diminished slightly since his mid-20s, he still provided above-average defense when healthy and, along with Brett Gardner was able to cover a lot of range in the gaps. For the most part, he provided exactly what the Yankees wanted. Solid CF play for the first time in years with some power toward the bottom of the lineup. It looks like there may be some upside to the BA and OBP after the way he finished the season, so it would not surprise me to see a .265-.270 season with 30 HRs in 2011.
Nick Swisher was possibly the biggest surprise for the Yankees in 2010. He shortened his swing from last year and became more aggressive early in counts. This resulted in career-highs in BA (.288), SLG (.511 - 10th in AL), and total bases (289). Although his OBP went down slightly, it was a fair trade-off from the player who, along with Cano, helped carry the Yankee offense during the first half of the season when other bats were struggling and earned his first All-Star appearance. He also had his best season in the OF, finishing with 10 assists and displayed good range for someone with below-average speed. Because of this, Swisher's value has never been higher. If the Yankees decide to make a trade this winter, don't be surprised if Swisher is the cornerstone. He is owed $9M in 2011 and that is a reasonable price even for medium-sized payrolls. If the Yankees decide they want Tampa Bay FA Carl Crawford - Swisher, not Gardner, is likely to be considered the expendable piece. What could they get for Swisher? The Nationals are looking to upgrade their lineup and have good, young starting pitching. I'm sure there are other teams out there that would like to have Swisher both on the field and in their clubhouse.
What they should do: As much as I like Swisher, I think this year was his peak. Trade him for pitching or prospects. Go out and get Crawford. An outfield of Crawford, Granderson and Gardner would cut down the doubles and triples against Yankees pitching considerably. Granderson should still sit against tough lefties and the Yankees need to decide whether the bat vs. lefties that Marcus Thames provided is worth his horrendous work in the field or if they should look elsewhere for someone to fill that role. (Crawford 160 GS; Granderson 130 GS; Gardner 150 GS; Thames/other 4th OF 30-40 GS)
What they will do: If the Red Sox pursue Crawford aggressively, the Yankees may go after him for the block as much as for their own needs. I think the Yankees (incorrectly) view Swisher as more integral to their success than Gardner and if they obtain Crawford, they may see what they can get for Gardner. I don't think the Yankees have much interest in the other top OF free-agent, Jayson Werth.
Starting Pitching - CC Sabathia (21-7, 3.18) was every bit the ace and workhorse that the Yankees were hoping for when they signed him two seasons ago. Phil Hughes (18-8, 4.19) started out the season by giving up 2 ER or less in eight of his first 10 starts. He only accomplished that feat five more times the rest of the year as he went through a full season as a starter for the first time. The future is bright for Hughes, but he must learn to keep the ball down at Yankee Stadium, where he gave up 20 of his 25 HRs on the season.
A.J. Burnett was maddening. Last season, the "bad A.J." didn't take the mound quite as often as "good A.J." He was frustrating and still gave the team no shot to win on too many occasions, but the moments of brilliance were enough to give us hope coming into this season. This season, A.J. had a 1.08 ERA in his 10 wins and a 10.35 ERA in his 15 losses. Read that again. 1.08 ERA in wins, 10.35 ERA in losses. How must it feel - not only for him, but for his teammates - to go out every fifth day and have no clue whether you're going to watch Picasso paint a masterpiece on the mound or a monkey throwing poo at the strike zone (and missing often)?
When Javier Vazquez was acquired in what some Yankee fans now affectionately call the "Boone Logan trade", there were two camps of people. The ones (myself included) who said it was a tremendous mistake because Vazquez could not handle New York and his worst season in this century was the one he spent in New York when he crumbled in the 2nd half and postseason. There were also people who saw him coming off his best season in 2009 with Atlanta, felt he had matured and that 2004 started off brilliantly, he was an All-Star that season and just wore down and was injured. Despite teasing the Yankee faithful with a 6-2 stretch in June and July that featured a 3.28 ERA, Vazquez' worst-case scenario was that he would fall apart in the second half of the season again and be of no help to the Yankees come the postseason. Vazquez was pulled from the rotation twice during the second-half and with an opportunity to pitch his way back on the postseason roster, he gave up 10 hits and 7 ER in 4 2/3 IP in Toronto. Thank you, Sir. We've seen enough.
Andy Pettitte was masterful through the first 85 games of the season. He was 11-2 with a 2.70 ERA and was being considered as the starter for the American League All-Star team. He was better than anyone could have imagined. The only question was if Pettitte's 38-year-old body would begin to break down. Sure enough, Pettitte pitched only 15 2/3 innings after the All-Star break as he recovered from a groin injury. The Yankees were 54-31 after Pettitte's win that day. The rest of the way, they went only 41-36. He did recover, though, and was their best pitcher in the postseason, going 7 innings in both of his starts and giving up just two runs each time. Had he pitched against anyone other than Cliff Lee in the Texas series, things may have been different... but that's a whole different blog post. It remains to be seen whether Pettitte will come back again, but my gut feeling is that the time spent rehabbing from the injury was enough to convince him to stay home and spend time with his family.
What they should do: Obviously, Sabathia and Hughes will be the primary holdovers. I don't know if Burnett can be saved. I don't know if anyone knows. The Yankees have too much money invested in him over the next three seasons to cut the cord at this point, and he will be in their rotation to start 2011. I think the Yankees lose Pettitte to retirement, which would mean they have two spots to fill. Cliff Lee will of course be the primary target for the Yankees in the offseason and they have to be considered the favorite for his services. The fifth starter will either come through the somewhat unappealing Free Agent market - Jorge de la Rosa, Carl Pavano (just kidding, put down your weapons), and Brad Penny are some of the "marquis" names - through a trade (my preference - see OF section), or the Yankees will give Ivan Nova a chance to show he belongs. (Sabathia, Lee, Hughes, Burnett/Nova and de la Rosa/SP from trade)
What they will do: The Yankees will spare no expense to get the only top-flight SP on the market this offseason. Lee, Sabathia, Hughes and Burnett are probably penciled in Cashman's notes for next season. I think they will look to spent as little as possible on a #5 starter and see what the landscape is around the trade deadline.
Relief Pitching - Mariano Rivera (33-38 saves, 1.80 ERA, 0.83 WHIP), the oldest of the core four, also seems to be the most ageless of the group. He had a typical season - which, for him, means excellence. There appeared to be chinks in the armor toward the end of the season, but Rivera has shown those chinks before, only to bounce back without issue. One of these years, the magic cutter will stop doing tricks, but it would be foolish to think we know when that will be.
Joba Chamberlain (73 G, 4.40 ERA) was the relief version of Burnett, alternating between awesome and awful from appearance to appearance and too often leaning towards awful. David Robertson (61.1 IP, 3.82 ERA, 71 K) recovered from an atrocious start to make a positive contribution. The problem is he still walks way too many hitters (4.8 BB/9 resulting in a 1.50 WHIP) to be the eighth-inning guy or potential Rivera fill-in. The potential is there to be a dominating presence, but it remains to be seen if he can control his stuff without diminishing it. Boone Logan appears to be the LOOGY (Left-handed One Out GuY) for the future. Against 91 LHB, he was incredible - .190 BAA with one extra base-hit (a 3B), 10 BB and 30 K. Against 78 RHB, 3 HR, 10 BB and only 8 Ks, .279 BAA. These specialists are important to a bullpen, especially in the postseason and Logan should be that guy for the Yankees. The transition from starter to reliever went very well for Sergio Mitre (54 IP, 3.33/1.09 WHIP - 2.45/0.97 as reliever) and if the price is right, he should be retained in 2011 as a key cog in the bullpen. Kerry Wood was excellent during his stay in NY (0.69 ERA in 26 IP) and seemed to shine in the big city, but he was so good it likely drove his price and role beyond what the Yankees are willing or able to provide. If money were truly no object to the Yankees, they would pick up Wood's $11M option for 2011 or offer him a two- or three-year deal for at least $8M/yr. Hal Steinbrenner has said he wants to stay around the same payroll as last year ($206M) and if they re-sign Jeter and Rivera, sign Lee and/or Crawford, there will not be enough left for Wood. If the Yankees were able to sign Wood, it would solidify the back-end of the bullpen and give the Yankees a legitimate insurance policy for Rivera better than any other option.
What they should do: The Yankees should re-sign Rivera for the same $15M he made this year (unless he is willing to give a discount - unlikely) and although there are some warning signs in his peripherals, he has shown he can be an elite closer even after losing a few MPH from his famous cutter. Unless if there is a stud like Rivera was in '96 or Joba in '07 (or Wood at the end of this season) I don't like having a designated 8th-inning guy. You use the guy or guys that match up best to get to your closer, but Girardi likes to have someone he can refer to as "that guy". Jonathan Albaladejo should be given every chance during the spring to earn a full-time role and possibly be the 8th-inning guy after shutting down hitters in Scranton (AAA) for the past two seasons. Joba still can contribute to a bullpen, I just don't know if it can be in NY. He is still inexpensive, so they can afford to take a wait-and-see approach. Robertson, Mitre and Logan are all either under contract or arbitration-eligible. (Rivera, closer; Logan, LOOGY; Mitre, 2-inning guy; Albaladejo, Robertson, Chamberlain round out staff)
What they will do: They will re-sign Rivera and give Chamberlain another opportunity to establish himself in the bullpen. They will keep the same young guys that served them well this year and probably add a second lefty to the pen.
Financially, the Yankees have approximately $150M tied up for 2011 (including arbitration-eligible players). I think they will try to get Jeter to sign for the same $15M they've been giving Rivera the past three seasons. With Rivera and Jeter, that would bring them to $180M. Cliff Lee may have cost himself some money with his two WS starts, but he is still likely to command $20M/year. This brings the Yankees to $200M. At this point, they can either trade Swisher (-$9M) and sign Crawford for $15-18M to get them to their approximate limit or they can keep Swisher and sign a back-end SP and utility player for $10M.
Here's how I think the Opening Day lineup should look:
Gardner (RF)
Crawford (LF)
Cano (2B)
Teixeira (1B)
Rodriguez (3B)
Montero (DH/C)
Jeter (SS)
Posada (C/DH)
Granderson (CF)
Here's how I think the Opening Day lineup will look:
Jeter (SS)
Granderson (CF)
Teixeira (1B)
Rodriguez (3B)
Cano (2B)
Swisher (RF)
Posada (C)
Montero (DH)
Gardner (LF)
Either way, the Yankees could bury themselves for the next few years like they did frequently in the 80's if they're not careful with how they spend their money this winter. They're talking tough and smart right now - but will they be able to stick to the plan?
Much of the statistics and info within this blog were gotten from: baseball-reference.com, Cot's Baseball Contracts, Mark Feinsand of the Daily News & Jessica Quiroli - freelance MiLB writer extraordinaire. Many thanks to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)