One of the bigger surprises of this year’s Hall of Fame vote to me was the fact David Cone went one-and-out on the ballot. In my January 14 Hardball Times article Daze of whine and posers all I had to say on the subject was “David Cone (3.9%) … I thought he might hang around and wouldn’t be surprised to see him get some attention from the VC.”
He strikes me as a guy that was probably a bit underappreciated by both the media and the sabermetric community hence he didn’t get a lot of attention during the vote. I do think however that his peers (or whatever form the VC will take) will one day show him a lot more love.
Probably the most striking aspect to his career from my point of view is that a David Cone likely would not happen today with the emphasis on protecting hurlers’ arms and pitch counts. Cone enjoyed a remarkable 12 year run from 1988-1999 and was known as a guy with a rubber arm. Indeed he made 348 regular season starts in those years and topped 120 pitches in 130 of them; of those 130 turns, 58 times he threw over 130 pitches, he tossed 140 or more on a dozen occasions and in one iron man outing--he tossed a 166 pitch shutout against the San Francisco Giants in July 1992 whiffing 13.
Amazingly, that was part of an eight start stretch where he went 6-0, 3.15 ERA, struck out 80 in 60 IP averaging 137 pitches per game; his pitch counts were 134, 136, 142, 134, 166, 132, 115 and 138.
Ouch.
Cone made his résumé in those seasons and it was indeed a very impressive 12 years: 175-96, 3.15 ERA (lg. ERA: 4.17), topping 200 innings eight times in ten full campaigns (1994-95 were shortened by the strike) and was over 190 frames in the other two non-strike seasons. He pitched 2468 innings overall and struck out 2331; over those 12 seasons he was third in ERA behind Greg Maddux and Roger Clemens, fifth in innings pitched, fourth in RSAA (Runs Saved Against Average) behind Maddux, Clemens and Randy Johnson, third in strikeouts (Johnson and Clemens), second in winning percentage (Maddux) and fourth in wins (Maddux, Clemens and Tom Glavine).
He won a Cy Young Award, enjoyed a pair of 20-win seasons picked up four World Series rings as a starter (he picked up a fifth as a reliever for the Yankees in 2000), and although he didn’t fare well in LDS play, he was 6-2, 3.01 ERA in over 80 LCS/Fall Classic innings and had a stellar 2.12 ERA in the five World Series in which he appeared.
During those 12 seasons he certainly held his own against the greats of that era. He was considered the team leader of the great Yankee team of 1996-2000 and has a perfect game on his ledger to boot--in all, I think a case can be made for the Hall of Fame for one David Brian Cone.
Chapeaus and such…
While the offseason the Yankees enjoyed has some clubs calling for a salary cap, I do think that Selig is serious about not being interested in one at the moment. To begin with, he is in a poor position to decry player costs when he’s pulling down $18 million a year--a level that only a small handful of players are currently at; also there is the small matter that MLB is actually doing a lot better than the other three sports (all with caps) insofar as percentages of revenue being devoted to player salaries.
A salary cap usually assigns a fixed percentage of revenues to be used for compensation and to match the other three sports baseball would actually have to agree to devote more money to salaries. Of course, if ownership does push for a cap and agrees to this (higher percentage) you can bet your bottom dollar/salary floor that management feels confident that it can hide a lot of revenues in third/related party transactions and funnelling funds to interests under the same corporate umbrella.
Still, it would be funny to watch Selig squirm in front of the microphones about how the sport needs to curtail player costs while being questioned about how much he makes. Of course, the big question that I would ask baseball’s commander-and-thief would be “How can a sport that loses so much money afford to pay their commissioner $18 million a year?” Heck, each club kicks in on average as much as all the clubs put in combined to pay his predecessor Fay Vincent’s salary; Vincent made about $600,000 when given the boot.
See ya on the other side…
This will be my last post for a little while--I go under the knife for the ol’ ticker at 7:15 AM Monday. Again, thanks for all the notes and well-wishes; once I’m fixed…er, repaired, I’ll be back with a vengeance. I’ve submitted a column for SMSN Sports that will run next week--beyond that it’s wait-and-see. Regardless, I’ve been a busy boy this week and here’s the latest:
Somebody needs A-Clue (SMSN Sports) A lighter look at Alex Rodriguez’s recent pratfall--my editor rejected my suggestion for a title: “Like A-Burgeon(ing problem).”
A-Reck (Hardball Times) I don my tinfoil hat and deal with something that I’ve always wondered about regarding the enigmatic-Rod.
Five questions: Toronto Blue Jays (Hardball Times) I do this every year with my usual mix of optimism and snark.
Best Regards
John
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Yank-ing chains...
I love classic cars--besides the styling, my favourite thing are those old big block engines where size matters and you’re judged on your cubic inches; there’s just something about seeing eight old oil can sized pistons to set the ol’ heart a-flutter.
After I retire I want to modify a smaller, economy style car by somehow managing to squeeze as big an engine block as I can, tricking it out to get maximum low end torque out of the beast and somehow succeeding to hide the “little car that could” (kick your butt)'s secret behind a dead-smooth idle with no hint of a lope.
But I digress--kinda.
Anyway, imagine for a moment you wanted to build the ultimate engine and money is no object. You do all kinds of research because you want all the biggest, baddest parts--top of the line for your creation: engine block, camshafts, pistons, alternator, manifolds, exhaust system etc. You find that different manufacturers (Ford, Toyota, BMW etc.) have developed the best of the best of these parts and when your shopping is done you have nothing but state-of-the-art, high end performance/output parts.
Now put the engine together.
If you’ve ever worked on an engine you know of what I speak. You’ll be doing a lot of work getting it assembled.
There used to be an old gag where a guy bought a new fangled carburetor guaranteed to reduce gas consumption 50%, spark plugs that would cut it down 10%, a high-tech air filter good for another 20%, synthetic oil that would kick in 15%, and a gas filter that would cut consumption 10% then proceeded to install them one afternoon--after he was done it was time to take it for a spin and he drove his car 15 miles and the gas tank overflowed.
We learn two lessons from these: one optimum performance does not rely on simply having a collection of the biggest, baddest parts simply thrown together regardless of whether or not they fit and just because you throw a bunch of stats together doesn’t mean that you add them up and come up with the correct total unless you understand what the numbers truly mean.
To me, this is my ongoing navel-gazing regarding the whole old school/new school battles over understanding baseball.
Every year, a given team will add a superstar player or two and it’s easy to assume that they can factor those totals (whether traditional/sabermetric/adjusted) onto the current roster and assume the team has added X number of wins.
A baseball team is not a collection of individuals acting in isolation--it’s a unit, a single entity, an engine if you will and for maximum performance a degree of thought has to be put into the individual parts and whether they can act as a single entity. A given part may not be a high end state-of-the-art piece of machinery but if it’s the correct part for the engine--one that improves its performance then that’s the piece the engine needs.
Just because you assemble a lineup of guys that average 100 runs scored per season doesn’t mean that a team is guaranteed to score 900 runs.
I’m not writing this to bash sabermetrics since I feel quite strongly that the sabermetric movement has been a major plus for baseball. To continue the analogy from a different perspective--if an engine needs a part, it would asinine to suggest (as an example) that a piece from a 1987 Crown Victoria is the correct piece just because 15 years ago the person making the suggestion bought a used Crown Vic and it was the best car they ever owned.
In short--the old school philosophy based on hunches, a previous good experience with no context is as disastrous as simply looking at players as numbers, throwing them together and adding the numbers together to see if it’s a winning combination and going from there.
An engine just doesn’t need parts--it needs fluids: oil, transmission fluid, antifreeze, power steering fluid etc.
If the players constitute the “parts” then perhaps the fluids represent the intangibles: chemistry, teamwork, leadership, hustle, grit--the never say die attitude--a team cannot function absent these things and the quality of them can be the determining factor between comparable engines/teams.
My point?
I’ve taken a lot of heat for my prediction that the Yankees are an 85 win team this year--many have pointed out the talent on hand and the additions made and all but guaranteed me a 95+ win club based on the numbers.
I know these things already.
However, I wasn’t dissing the Yankees--to me they’re a team in transition; they’re an old club--yes, they’ve added a couple of talented pitchers but then again in recent seasons they brought aboard other talented pitchers: Randy Johnson, Kevin Brown, Javier Vazquez, Carl Pavano (the man was talented--it just ended at the Adam‘s apple), Jose Contreras, Jeff Weaver (don’t laugh--Weaver was 25 when he joined the team and had a 3.97 ERA over his previous 551 IP), Jon Lieber (4.10 ERA in 686.2 IP from 1999-2001) etc. but for whatever reason the Yankees didn’t get what they expected from them. The numbers were certainly there but when added to the engine, their (the pitchers) performance suffered--it was a poor fit for these men.
Hence, I am not automatically assuming that C.C. Sabathia and A.J. Burnett will translate into Sabathia’s NL numbers or A.J.’s 2008 performance in 2009 with the Yankees. Yes, Mark Teixeira is a significant upgrade to Jason Giambi but Alex Rodriguez was an off-the-charts step up from Aaron Boone and what happened there?
The Bronx Bombers are still finding their way in the new information age; according to Joe Torre, Brian Cashman once suggested to him to bat Doug Mientkiewicz and Jason Giambi 1-2 in the batting order because of their high OBP.
Seriously.
They’re climbing a steep learning curve and are a bit behind--they’ll get there but there’s work still to be done.
Since Andy Pettitte was drafted, how many starting pitchers did the Yankees develop and retain that have tossed two seasons of 200 IP? How many have they drafted?
Almost 400.
Let’s face it--that is a staggering level of ineptitude…only Chien-Ming Wang (I’ll count 199.2 IP as good enough to qualify) since 1991.
This means that the organization has had to import their starting pitching--players developed by other clubs with differing philosophies; it worked when teams had trouble retaining their own talent but in Selig’s Brave New World fewer and fewer ace-quality pitchers hit the marketplace (or become available in trade) and have had to settle on guys that could perform in some environments but not necessarily in the Bronx.
The big change in the Yankees’ fortunes really came about between 2003-2004 when they lost Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte and David Wells (the latter two being southpaws--duh) and went to an all right handed rotation (a bad fit in Yankee Stadium) and nobody in 2004 tossed 200 innings while the departed trio had all topped that mark the previous year.
Again, the importance of the right parts as opposed to the shiniest ones was demonstrated.
The Yankees added two right handed pitchers for 2009 but how many of the candidates for the rotation are consistent 200 inning starters and can be reasonably counted on to assume that kind of workload?
Sabathia is a good candidate, Pettitte might have one more 200 inning season in him, Wang might--but that’s far from a sure thing, Burnett has never had back-to-back 200+ inning seasons and the organization will not try to get that many out of Joba Chamberlain, Ian Kennedy or Phil Hughes.
Will Sabathia and Burnett be Mike Mussina and Roger Clemens 2.0 or the second coming of Javier Vazquez and Carl Pavano? We won’t know and can’t assume the former (or the latter to be fair).
As to the offense, aside from age issues, they’re hoping Nick Swisher will replace Bobby Abreu’s production and barring a miracle that’ll be a step back plus A-Rod will be out for awhile.
Sure, there’s talent there but the 1965 Yanks looked good on a paper as well and were coming off four straight pennants.
The Yankees will be fine but I think they are in transition--a lot of players came off the books and next year Johnny Damon, Hideki Matsui and Andy Pettitte will likely be gone as well.
Hence, I see an 85 win team and fair minds can disagree.
I’m not sure what all the fuss is about--the last time they won it all they were an 87-win team in the regular season.
Oh well, such are the hazards of prognostication.
P.S. For those who accuse me of being biased against the Yankees there’s a wonderful tool called “Google”--I think you’ll find about a 10:1 ratio of positive to negative articles when the club is a column topic for yours truly and there’s no way I could find work in the New York media with those kinds of numbers.
Best Regards
John
After I retire I want to modify a smaller, economy style car by somehow managing to squeeze as big an engine block as I can, tricking it out to get maximum low end torque out of the beast and somehow succeeding to hide the “little car that could” (kick your butt)'s secret behind a dead-smooth idle with no hint of a lope.
But I digress--kinda.
Anyway, imagine for a moment you wanted to build the ultimate engine and money is no object. You do all kinds of research because you want all the biggest, baddest parts--top of the line for your creation: engine block, camshafts, pistons, alternator, manifolds, exhaust system etc. You find that different manufacturers (Ford, Toyota, BMW etc.) have developed the best of the best of these parts and when your shopping is done you have nothing but state-of-the-art, high end performance/output parts.
Now put the engine together.
If you’ve ever worked on an engine you know of what I speak. You’ll be doing a lot of work getting it assembled.
There used to be an old gag where a guy bought a new fangled carburetor guaranteed to reduce gas consumption 50%, spark plugs that would cut it down 10%, a high-tech air filter good for another 20%, synthetic oil that would kick in 15%, and a gas filter that would cut consumption 10% then proceeded to install them one afternoon--after he was done it was time to take it for a spin and he drove his car 15 miles and the gas tank overflowed.
We learn two lessons from these: one optimum performance does not rely on simply having a collection of the biggest, baddest parts simply thrown together regardless of whether or not they fit and just because you throw a bunch of stats together doesn’t mean that you add them up and come up with the correct total unless you understand what the numbers truly mean.
To me, this is my ongoing navel-gazing regarding the whole old school/new school battles over understanding baseball.
Every year, a given team will add a superstar player or two and it’s easy to assume that they can factor those totals (whether traditional/sabermetric/adjusted) onto the current roster and assume the team has added X number of wins.
A baseball team is not a collection of individuals acting in isolation--it’s a unit, a single entity, an engine if you will and for maximum performance a degree of thought has to be put into the individual parts and whether they can act as a single entity. A given part may not be a high end state-of-the-art piece of machinery but if it’s the correct part for the engine--one that improves its performance then that’s the piece the engine needs.
Just because you assemble a lineup of guys that average 100 runs scored per season doesn’t mean that a team is guaranteed to score 900 runs.
I’m not writing this to bash sabermetrics since I feel quite strongly that the sabermetric movement has been a major plus for baseball. To continue the analogy from a different perspective--if an engine needs a part, it would asinine to suggest (as an example) that a piece from a 1987 Crown Victoria is the correct piece just because 15 years ago the person making the suggestion bought a used Crown Vic and it was the best car they ever owned.
In short--the old school philosophy based on hunches, a previous good experience with no context is as disastrous as simply looking at players as numbers, throwing them together and adding the numbers together to see if it’s a winning combination and going from there.
An engine just doesn’t need parts--it needs fluids: oil, transmission fluid, antifreeze, power steering fluid etc.
If the players constitute the “parts” then perhaps the fluids represent the intangibles: chemistry, teamwork, leadership, hustle, grit--the never say die attitude--a team cannot function absent these things and the quality of them can be the determining factor between comparable engines/teams.
My point?
I’ve taken a lot of heat for my prediction that the Yankees are an 85 win team this year--many have pointed out the talent on hand and the additions made and all but guaranteed me a 95+ win club based on the numbers.
I know these things already.
However, I wasn’t dissing the Yankees--to me they’re a team in transition; they’re an old club--yes, they’ve added a couple of talented pitchers but then again in recent seasons they brought aboard other talented pitchers: Randy Johnson, Kevin Brown, Javier Vazquez, Carl Pavano (the man was talented--it just ended at the Adam‘s apple), Jose Contreras, Jeff Weaver (don’t laugh--Weaver was 25 when he joined the team and had a 3.97 ERA over his previous 551 IP), Jon Lieber (4.10 ERA in 686.2 IP from 1999-2001) etc. but for whatever reason the Yankees didn’t get what they expected from them. The numbers were certainly there but when added to the engine, their (the pitchers) performance suffered--it was a poor fit for these men.
Hence, I am not automatically assuming that C.C. Sabathia and A.J. Burnett will translate into Sabathia’s NL numbers or A.J.’s 2008 performance in 2009 with the Yankees. Yes, Mark Teixeira is a significant upgrade to Jason Giambi but Alex Rodriguez was an off-the-charts step up from Aaron Boone and what happened there?
The Bronx Bombers are still finding their way in the new information age; according to Joe Torre, Brian Cashman once suggested to him to bat Doug Mientkiewicz and Jason Giambi 1-2 in the batting order because of their high OBP.
Seriously.
They’re climbing a steep learning curve and are a bit behind--they’ll get there but there’s work still to be done.
Since Andy Pettitte was drafted, how many starting pitchers did the Yankees develop and retain that have tossed two seasons of 200 IP? How many have they drafted?
Almost 400.
Let’s face it--that is a staggering level of ineptitude…only Chien-Ming Wang (I’ll count 199.2 IP as good enough to qualify) since 1991.
This means that the organization has had to import their starting pitching--players developed by other clubs with differing philosophies; it worked when teams had trouble retaining their own talent but in Selig’s Brave New World fewer and fewer ace-quality pitchers hit the marketplace (or become available in trade) and have had to settle on guys that could perform in some environments but not necessarily in the Bronx.
The big change in the Yankees’ fortunes really came about between 2003-2004 when they lost Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte and David Wells (the latter two being southpaws--duh) and went to an all right handed rotation (a bad fit in Yankee Stadium) and nobody in 2004 tossed 200 innings while the departed trio had all topped that mark the previous year.
Again, the importance of the right parts as opposed to the shiniest ones was demonstrated.
The Yankees added two right handed pitchers for 2009 but how many of the candidates for the rotation are consistent 200 inning starters and can be reasonably counted on to assume that kind of workload?
Sabathia is a good candidate, Pettitte might have one more 200 inning season in him, Wang might--but that’s far from a sure thing, Burnett has never had back-to-back 200+ inning seasons and the organization will not try to get that many out of Joba Chamberlain, Ian Kennedy or Phil Hughes.
Will Sabathia and Burnett be Mike Mussina and Roger Clemens 2.0 or the second coming of Javier Vazquez and Carl Pavano? We won’t know and can’t assume the former (or the latter to be fair).
As to the offense, aside from age issues, they’re hoping Nick Swisher will replace Bobby Abreu’s production and barring a miracle that’ll be a step back plus A-Rod will be out for awhile.
Sure, there’s talent there but the 1965 Yanks looked good on a paper as well and were coming off four straight pennants.
The Yankees will be fine but I think they are in transition--a lot of players came off the books and next year Johnny Damon, Hideki Matsui and Andy Pettitte will likely be gone as well.
Hence, I see an 85 win team and fair minds can disagree.
I’m not sure what all the fuss is about--the last time they won it all they were an 87-win team in the regular season.
Oh well, such are the hazards of prognostication.
P.S. For those who accuse me of being biased against the Yankees there’s a wonderful tool called “Google”--I think you’ll find about a 10:1 ratio of positive to negative articles when the club is a column topic for yours truly and there’s no way I could find work in the New York media with those kinds of numbers.
Best Regards
John
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Tinfoil hat time!
Now what?
I was looking forward to doing a post-mortem with Jack Marshall when the decision in the Bonds collusion arbitration case came down however a wrench has been thrown into the works. MLB/MLBPA agreed to postpone the grievance until after the trial so what happens now that the trial has been delayed?
Let’s face it, absent Greg Anderson’s testimony or the unlikely overturning of Judge Susan Ilston’s decision to exclude evidence that was illegally obtained; if it does go to trial Bonds’ has an excellent chance of skating plus the government runs the risk of having its dirty laundry brought out into the public purview plus Jeff Novitzky--a hero in the minds of many--would end up looking as bad as Bonds once the defense got through with him.
If the other agents working initially on the BALCO case are called to testify by the defense, Novitzky will end up being mentioned in the same breath--not with Elliot Ness--but Mark Fuhrman, another lawman whose comments aided a different African American superstar of professional sports in a courtroom…O.J. Simpson.
According to these ones “Jeff has never held back what he felt about Bonds” stating that “Novitzky hated Bonds”; “[Novitzky] envisioned congressional hearings, book deals and TV” and that BALCO “…was turned into a publicity stunt” to forward Novitzky’s career and his vendetta against the slugger. According to another agent, Novitzky stated regarding Bonds "He's such an [anus] to the press, I'd sure like to prove [that he used steroids]."
Toss in the fact that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) opened an investigation of Novitzky (that was nothing short of a godsend to BALCO founder Victor Conte) and the Bonds’ defense team has nothing short of a cornucopia of dirt on the agent.
Even if the government wins the battle and gets a conviction on any one of the counts (believe me, they’re willing to settle for that and declare victory) they could lose the war since their actions in pursuing the case will demonstrate that they are the ones that endanger the public well being and not the defendant.
After all, if you cherish your constitutional rights, Jeff Novitzky is the guy you need to keep an eye on--not Barry Lamar Bonds. Bonds might call you a nasty name or ignore you completely were you to approach him but he isn’t likely to break down your door without a warrant, seize your goods and later lie about what they did while inside or harass folks you care about.
The odds of seeing Bonds led away in shackles is a longshot at best.
One has to wonder why the government is pursuing this when it appears their objectives have been met regarding Bonds; I don’t think there is anyone that believes that he didn’t use anabolic steroids at some point in his career, his legacy has been irreversibly tarnished, his chances for the Hall of Fame is in jeopardy, he is out of baseball and will not return--in short: Barry Lamar Bonds has been disgraced.
To continue to pursue this would be to expose the low dealings of the government and Novitzky to the general public--many of whom still believe they’re doing the work of God in all this; they may get a conviction on one of counts but ultimately may end up looking like the real villains when all is said and done.
As of right now--they are at their best point in time: Bonds is wearing the black hat and the government can simply drop the case spinning it by saying they have bigger fish to fry and John Q. Public will feel that Bonds “got off” on a technicality but the Oedipus complexing offspring of unmarried parents was guilty of everything up to and including betraying Jesus Christ for 30 pieces of silver.
So why the delays?
Surely a man as intelligent as Novitzky has to realize that a trial will not serve his career or reputation well and the feds have to be suspecting that they might actually do the impossible and turn Bonds into a sympathetic character--especially if all the facts become public knowledge.
Even if they get Anderson to testify, the defense will most certainly detail chapter and verse the goon tactics used by the federal government to get his cooperation. When all is said and done (assuming their best case scenario and BLB is fitted with an orange jumpsuit) even the most ardent Bonds-basher may wonder if the right person was put behind bars.
Any fair minded person weighing the sins of Barry Lamar Bonds against those of the people pursuing him would be able to discern who are the truly dangerous folks and menace to their personal well being.
Therefore (pauses to don the tinfoil hat) are the two events somehow related? An indefinite postponement of the trial would seem to create an almost indefinite postponement of the collusion hearing. If the feds drop the case, the arbitration could proceed almost immediately and if MLB knows their guilty as sin they would have no illusion about how it would play out.
However, if they string it out a year or two, which would in turn delay the grievance which in turn would put Bonds at an age where there would be zero chance he could be given a major league job. It would certainly serve Novitzky’s vendetta well--he could crow to his friends that it was he that got Public Enemy No. 1 out of baseball thereby protecting impressionable children. Certainly the feds want to make sure Bonds is no longer part of the national pastime and if they cannot put him behind bars, they can take steps to ensure that he is barred from ever “contaminating” the game ever again.
While hard time would definitely cause Bonds’ anguish--could it be that the feds would consider inflicting the end of his career a nice consolation prize? After all, the bottom line in all this is making sure that the surly ballplayer learns some manners and if you’re going to be spoken of as one of the game’s greats then you have to make nice with the white power structure in society and the media.
I guess time will tell.
Best Regards
John
I was looking forward to doing a post-mortem with Jack Marshall when the decision in the Bonds collusion arbitration case came down however a wrench has been thrown into the works. MLB/MLBPA agreed to postpone the grievance until after the trial so what happens now that the trial has been delayed?
Let’s face it, absent Greg Anderson’s testimony or the unlikely overturning of Judge Susan Ilston’s decision to exclude evidence that was illegally obtained; if it does go to trial Bonds’ has an excellent chance of skating plus the government runs the risk of having its dirty laundry brought out into the public purview plus Jeff Novitzky--a hero in the minds of many--would end up looking as bad as Bonds once the defense got through with him.
If the other agents working initially on the BALCO case are called to testify by the defense, Novitzky will end up being mentioned in the same breath--not with Elliot Ness--but Mark Fuhrman, another lawman whose comments aided a different African American superstar of professional sports in a courtroom…O.J. Simpson.
According to these ones “Jeff has never held back what he felt about Bonds” stating that “Novitzky hated Bonds”; “[Novitzky] envisioned congressional hearings, book deals and TV” and that BALCO “…was turned into a publicity stunt” to forward Novitzky’s career and his vendetta against the slugger. According to another agent, Novitzky stated regarding Bonds "He's such an [anus] to the press, I'd sure like to prove [that he used steroids]."
Toss in the fact that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) opened an investigation of Novitzky (that was nothing short of a godsend to BALCO founder Victor Conte) and the Bonds’ defense team has nothing short of a cornucopia of dirt on the agent.
Even if the government wins the battle and gets a conviction on any one of the counts (believe me, they’re willing to settle for that and declare victory) they could lose the war since their actions in pursuing the case will demonstrate that they are the ones that endanger the public well being and not the defendant.
After all, if you cherish your constitutional rights, Jeff Novitzky is the guy you need to keep an eye on--not Barry Lamar Bonds. Bonds might call you a nasty name or ignore you completely were you to approach him but he isn’t likely to break down your door without a warrant, seize your goods and later lie about what they did while inside or harass folks you care about.
The odds of seeing Bonds led away in shackles is a longshot at best.
One has to wonder why the government is pursuing this when it appears their objectives have been met regarding Bonds; I don’t think there is anyone that believes that he didn’t use anabolic steroids at some point in his career, his legacy has been irreversibly tarnished, his chances for the Hall of Fame is in jeopardy, he is out of baseball and will not return--in short: Barry Lamar Bonds has been disgraced.
To continue to pursue this would be to expose the low dealings of the government and Novitzky to the general public--many of whom still believe they’re doing the work of God in all this; they may get a conviction on one of counts but ultimately may end up looking like the real villains when all is said and done.
As of right now--they are at their best point in time: Bonds is wearing the black hat and the government can simply drop the case spinning it by saying they have bigger fish to fry and John Q. Public will feel that Bonds “got off” on a technicality but the Oedipus complexing offspring of unmarried parents was guilty of everything up to and including betraying Jesus Christ for 30 pieces of silver.
So why the delays?
Surely a man as intelligent as Novitzky has to realize that a trial will not serve his career or reputation well and the feds have to be suspecting that they might actually do the impossible and turn Bonds into a sympathetic character--especially if all the facts become public knowledge.
Even if they get Anderson to testify, the defense will most certainly detail chapter and verse the goon tactics used by the federal government to get his cooperation. When all is said and done (assuming their best case scenario and BLB is fitted with an orange jumpsuit) even the most ardent Bonds-basher may wonder if the right person was put behind bars.
Any fair minded person weighing the sins of Barry Lamar Bonds against those of the people pursuing him would be able to discern who are the truly dangerous folks and menace to their personal well being.
Therefore (pauses to don the tinfoil hat) are the two events somehow related? An indefinite postponement of the trial would seem to create an almost indefinite postponement of the collusion hearing. If the feds drop the case, the arbitration could proceed almost immediately and if MLB knows their guilty as sin they would have no illusion about how it would play out.
However, if they string it out a year or two, which would in turn delay the grievance which in turn would put Bonds at an age where there would be zero chance he could be given a major league job. It would certainly serve Novitzky’s vendetta well--he could crow to his friends that it was he that got Public Enemy No. 1 out of baseball thereby protecting impressionable children. Certainly the feds want to make sure Bonds is no longer part of the national pastime and if they cannot put him behind bars, they can take steps to ensure that he is barred from ever “contaminating” the game ever again.
While hard time would definitely cause Bonds’ anguish--could it be that the feds would consider inflicting the end of his career a nice consolation prize? After all, the bottom line in all this is making sure that the surly ballplayer learns some manners and if you’re going to be spoken of as one of the game’s greats then you have to make nice with the white power structure in society and the media.
I guess time will tell.
Best Regards
John
Friday, March 13, 2009
A match made in...?
Believe it or not, there is somebody on the players’ side of the baseball coin that has become almost indispensable to the New York Yankees.
Scott Boras.
To the casual observer it would seem it is the other way around--after all, with teams doing a lot of Selig-inspired belt tightening there appears to be only one club willing to break the bank with any kind of regularity and we all know who that is; that being the case how can it be said that the Yanks need Boras?
Glad you asked.
Revenue sharing has truly been a double edged sword to the fortunes of the Bronx Bombers: on the one hand, the amount of luxury taxes paid as well as baseball’s welfare program cost the Yankees a lot of coin (although they will pay less with the new yard since stadium costs can be deducted from their obligations), yet the other hand of the equation is what has harmed the Yanks.
This offseason has featured what has been the Yankees stereotypical modus operandi: look at free agent market, find highest profile player(s) on said market all culminating with massive amounts of money being thrown in the direction of said players. I forget who said/wrote it, but this offseason wasn’t so much a free agent spending binge as much as it was a simple restocking of the shelves since the club had so many expensive players with expired contracts. Their payroll will likely be lower this season than it was in 2008.
Regardless, it’s pretty clear that this is the Yankees primary approach to talent acquisition. The farm system isn’t where they look for raw materials and between high finishes and player purchases; they haven’t had optimal drafting positions for several years. All they can hope for is top amateurs falling in the draft due to signability issues and guess what kind of kids tend to be viewed as hard to sign in the draft?
Scott Boras clients.
However, this isn’t the main way Boras benefits the “Evil Empire.” After all, how many spots on the 25 man roster have been filled internally in recent seasons? There have been Melky Cabrera, Robbie Cano, Joba Chamberlain, Ian Kennedy and Phil Hughes and none of the latter trio has established themselves as rotation stalwarts. The Yankees look either to trades of other clubs’ superstar “buyers’ remorse” contracts (often negotiated by Boras) or the free agent market.
The thing is, a lot of teams have used revenue sharing funds--not as money spent in the free agent market, but--as a way of locking up their best young developed talent through the arbitration years and 1-3 free agent seasons. This trend, designed to give teams a degree of cost certainty, has (1) kept teams from trading away their best arbitration eligibles for fear of losing big time and (2) kept the best young potential free agents from even hitting the marketplace where the Bronx bankroll awaits.
There is one notable exception to this pattern: players represented by Boras.
Boras is a big believer in getting his players into free agency where competitive bidding takes place and it’s generally understood that a player that wishes to sign an extension absent testing the market is done so against Boras’s advice.
With the free agent market becoming an increasingly inefficient way to build a competitive roster (for example: I predicted that David Purcey will probably enjoy a better 2009 than A.J. Burnett) and teams realizing (at least this year) that a multi-tooled, albeit inexperienced, player from their own system has as good a chance at delivering comparable value than a 1-2 dimensional slugger that cannot run, field or throw well that wants eight figures and is hovering around his mid-30’s.
If a team has developed a stud, clubs are more frequently locking them up and in a lot of cases revenue sharing and equitable distribution of new revenue streams are giving clubs the capital to do just that.
Further, players seem more inclined to take the extension offered rather than wait a season or two for free agency figuring that the money is available now and there’s no guarantee they will not get injured before they reach the threshold.
A good example is Johan Santana--he’ll been in professional baseball almost two decades without ever becoming a free agent consistently taking the money when offered rather than trying to get out into the marketplace.
This offseason might exacerbate the trend as experienced veterans for the most part didn’t see the offers they envisioned when they declined arbitration. With clubs hoarding draft picks as never before and teams increasingly realizing what is replaceable talent and what is not (such as middle relievers) more and more players might be inclined to avoid the perils of the free agent market (now that clubs are using it to their advantages) and simply grab the extension when it becomes available.
This means fewer and fewer quality free agents available to the Yankees.
It looks as if Boras clients may be their best shot at top flight free agents in the coming years.
It’ll be interesting to see what occurs when the Bronx Bombers decide to building clubs more economically.
The latest…
I’ve done a “Five Questions” preview of the Toronto Blue Jays for the Hardball Times that should go up soon. I hope to do another article (or two) for THT before “the big day” and once I take a few days off to recover, get back into my regular slot there before they forget about me (they’ve been trying for years but I’m like the stench from a particularly noxious blast of flatus--I just don’t go away).
Who’s afraid of the big bad Yanks? (SMSN Sports): Hey, they signed some talent but there are more holes on that roster than in my memory after I turned 40.
Bringing the game back to baseball (SMSN Sports): Why I think the WBC rocks.
Best Regards
John
Scott Boras.
To the casual observer it would seem it is the other way around--after all, with teams doing a lot of Selig-inspired belt tightening there appears to be only one club willing to break the bank with any kind of regularity and we all know who that is; that being the case how can it be said that the Yanks need Boras?
Glad you asked.
Revenue sharing has truly been a double edged sword to the fortunes of the Bronx Bombers: on the one hand, the amount of luxury taxes paid as well as baseball’s welfare program cost the Yankees a lot of coin (although they will pay less with the new yard since stadium costs can be deducted from their obligations), yet the other hand of the equation is what has harmed the Yanks.
This offseason has featured what has been the Yankees stereotypical modus operandi: look at free agent market, find highest profile player(s) on said market all culminating with massive amounts of money being thrown in the direction of said players. I forget who said/wrote it, but this offseason wasn’t so much a free agent spending binge as much as it was a simple restocking of the shelves since the club had so many expensive players with expired contracts. Their payroll will likely be lower this season than it was in 2008.
Regardless, it’s pretty clear that this is the Yankees primary approach to talent acquisition. The farm system isn’t where they look for raw materials and between high finishes and player purchases; they haven’t had optimal drafting positions for several years. All they can hope for is top amateurs falling in the draft due to signability issues and guess what kind of kids tend to be viewed as hard to sign in the draft?
Scott Boras clients.
However, this isn’t the main way Boras benefits the “Evil Empire.” After all, how many spots on the 25 man roster have been filled internally in recent seasons? There have been Melky Cabrera, Robbie Cano, Joba Chamberlain, Ian Kennedy and Phil Hughes and none of the latter trio has established themselves as rotation stalwarts. The Yankees look either to trades of other clubs’ superstar “buyers’ remorse” contracts (often negotiated by Boras) or the free agent market.
The thing is, a lot of teams have used revenue sharing funds--not as money spent in the free agent market, but--as a way of locking up their best young developed talent through the arbitration years and 1-3 free agent seasons. This trend, designed to give teams a degree of cost certainty, has (1) kept teams from trading away their best arbitration eligibles for fear of losing big time and (2) kept the best young potential free agents from even hitting the marketplace where the Bronx bankroll awaits.
There is one notable exception to this pattern: players represented by Boras.
Boras is a big believer in getting his players into free agency where competitive bidding takes place and it’s generally understood that a player that wishes to sign an extension absent testing the market is done so against Boras’s advice.
With the free agent market becoming an increasingly inefficient way to build a competitive roster (for example: I predicted that David Purcey will probably enjoy a better 2009 than A.J. Burnett) and teams realizing (at least this year) that a multi-tooled, albeit inexperienced, player from their own system has as good a chance at delivering comparable value than a 1-2 dimensional slugger that cannot run, field or throw well that wants eight figures and is hovering around his mid-30’s.
If a team has developed a stud, clubs are more frequently locking them up and in a lot of cases revenue sharing and equitable distribution of new revenue streams are giving clubs the capital to do just that.
Further, players seem more inclined to take the extension offered rather than wait a season or two for free agency figuring that the money is available now and there’s no guarantee they will not get injured before they reach the threshold.
A good example is Johan Santana--he’ll been in professional baseball almost two decades without ever becoming a free agent consistently taking the money when offered rather than trying to get out into the marketplace.
This offseason might exacerbate the trend as experienced veterans for the most part didn’t see the offers they envisioned when they declined arbitration. With clubs hoarding draft picks as never before and teams increasingly realizing what is replaceable talent and what is not (such as middle relievers) more and more players might be inclined to avoid the perils of the free agent market (now that clubs are using it to their advantages) and simply grab the extension when it becomes available.
This means fewer and fewer quality free agents available to the Yankees.
It looks as if Boras clients may be their best shot at top flight free agents in the coming years.
It’ll be interesting to see what occurs when the Bronx Bombers decide to building clubs more economically.
The latest…
I’ve done a “Five Questions” preview of the Toronto Blue Jays for the Hardball Times that should go up soon. I hope to do another article (or two) for THT before “the big day” and once I take a few days off to recover, get back into my regular slot there before they forget about me (they’ve been trying for years but I’m like the stench from a particularly noxious blast of flatus--I just don’t go away).
Who’s afraid of the big bad Yanks? (SMSN Sports): Hey, they signed some talent but there are more holes on that roster than in my memory after I turned 40.
Bringing the game back to baseball (SMSN Sports): Why I think the WBC rocks.
Best Regards
John
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
WBCito
I haven’t written much about the WBC (except for last week’s SMSN column that I’ll provide a link for as soon as this week’s is up) but it isn’t from a lack of interest in the event.
For me, I haven’t gotten too worked up about Canada’s fortunes in all this--I’m too busy enjoying watching real live baseball and checking out the talent that is being developed around the world. There has been some tremendous play from faces both familiar and otherwise and some great storylines and upsets.
Speaking of which--I may be risking my hoser citizenship but I was appalled when Rogers Sportsnet switched away from the first Dominican/Netherlands game with the underdogs protecting a one-run lead in the bottom of the ninth with none out and the speedy Willie Taveras on first to the Canada/US contest. I mean, here we’re watching an upset unfolding along the lines of the Miracle on Ice or Tyson/Douglas and instead of seeing the denouement of this remarkable game we get to see Jake Peavy pitch to the top of Team Canada’s batting order.
Look, I want the locals to win as much as the next guy but I prefer watching history being made. Nobody talks about what other program they were watching when Paul Henderson scored in the 1972 Summit Series and if in a few decades from now that game (as well as the rematch) becomes the stuff of legend nobody is going to give a rip about my telling folks how Peavy handled the top of the first inning against a team that was eliminated by the Italian jugger-not.
Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports was nice enough to let me cry on his shoulder about this and he assured me that I wasn’t crazy (shaddap) for feeling that way.
But I digress.
While enjoying watching Pedro Martinez (hopefully for not the last time), Joey Votto and thinking that the first team that really goes bonkers (bonkers?) in international scouting will have a huge advantage until other teams catch up, my mind (such as it is) began mulling about how all this might impact the Toronto Blue Jays in 2009.
Granted, there might seem to be much correlation at the moment but I did witness something of which I think Cito Gaston could make good use this season. Obviously, the biggest blow to the Blue Jays in the offseason was the fact that 60% of their rotation is gone and with Dustin McGowan’s setback it could be a long time before we see any resemblance to the 2007-08 starting staff at the Rogers Centre.
As of right now--three rotation spots are set with Roy Halladay, Jesse Litsch and David Purcey with Matt Clement coming on strong; now what to do with the fifth spot or if one of the other quartet goes down with an injury?
Yes, perish the thought that a Jays’ pitcher might get hurt but it helps to deal with every possible scenario regardless of how far-fetched it may seem at the time.
Currently, there are a ton of available pitchers: Casey Janssen, Rickey and Davis Romero, Brett Cecil, Brad Mills, Scott Richmond and possibly Wade Miller but there are concerns about overworking the likes of Cecil, the Romeros, Janssen and the rehabbing Miller--how does Gaston make it all work?
How about doing it WBC style?
In the tournament, starting pitchers are limited to 70 pitches in round one although they can finish the plate appearance of the hitter to whom they’ve thrown pitch No. 70. Why not take a variation of that and have co-starters--one day you start the game and let Cecil toss 70 pitches (unless he’s ineffective) and follow that with Casey Janssen for 70? The next time open with Janssen and follow with Cecil (and mix and match accordingly)--that way, the kiddie corps gets experience without the risk of overuse while the creaky corps (the rehabbing vets that make the 25-man roster) gradually get to rebuild their arm strength without worrying about carrying a load they haven’t borne since the U.S. government was in the business of catching big criminals and not large cranials.
The best part of this is that the rooks (hopefully) get reinforcement about the importance of throwing strikes and getting ahead of hitters--if they want to last long enough for a “W” they’d best not nibble and give the batters too much credit and attack the strike zone with their “A” material the same way they did in the minors.
A common stumbling lock for promising youngsters at the big league level for the first time is they stop doing what got them to that point in the first place; they sometimes give hitters too much credit and try to be too fine. One thing we’ve learned in watching the WBC is that a well thrown pitch in the strike zone is tough to hit--we’ve witnessed pitchers on Team Netherland that will likely never sniff a major league job get big league hitters--in some cases, elite bashers--out. Anything that drills into the heads of the youth movement that strike one and pitching ahead on the count is always a recipe for success--even at the major league level--is a good thing.
It probably won’t happen but I’m married with two teenaged daughters and I’m used to giving out advice that is completely ignored and made fun of--c’est la merde!
Thanks everyone…
I was genuinely touched with the show of support regarding my recent medical issues--thanks for the notes and mentions offering their best wishes. I met with the surgeon on Friday and says I should be in the O.R. in the next 2-4 weeks (although they haven’t given me a day and time yet). He seemed fairly confident that all I will need is an angioplasty but he can’t know that for a certainty until they get inside and have a look around.
Bottom line--I don’t expect to be down long; on the small chance that things to terribly awry I have made my wishes known that I want the surgeon to approach things “Mythbusters” style and do whatever it takes to blow me up. I’ve taken in a lot of nitro and don’t want it to go to waste.
If I gotta go…I wanna go out with a bang!
Best Regards
John
For me, I haven’t gotten too worked up about Canada’s fortunes in all this--I’m too busy enjoying watching real live baseball and checking out the talent that is being developed around the world. There has been some tremendous play from faces both familiar and otherwise and some great storylines and upsets.
Speaking of which--I may be risking my hoser citizenship but I was appalled when Rogers Sportsnet switched away from the first Dominican/Netherlands game with the underdogs protecting a one-run lead in the bottom of the ninth with none out and the speedy Willie Taveras on first to the Canada/US contest. I mean, here we’re watching an upset unfolding along the lines of the Miracle on Ice or Tyson/Douglas and instead of seeing the denouement of this remarkable game we get to see Jake Peavy pitch to the top of Team Canada’s batting order.
Look, I want the locals to win as much as the next guy but I prefer watching history being made. Nobody talks about what other program they were watching when Paul Henderson scored in the 1972 Summit Series and if in a few decades from now that game (as well as the rematch) becomes the stuff of legend nobody is going to give a rip about my telling folks how Peavy handled the top of the first inning against a team that was eliminated by the Italian jugger-not.
Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports was nice enough to let me cry on his shoulder about this and he assured me that I wasn’t crazy (shaddap) for feeling that way.
But I digress.
While enjoying watching Pedro Martinez (hopefully for not the last time), Joey Votto and thinking that the first team that really goes bonkers (bonkers?) in international scouting will have a huge advantage until other teams catch up, my mind (such as it is) began mulling about how all this might impact the Toronto Blue Jays in 2009.
Granted, there might seem to be much correlation at the moment but I did witness something of which I think Cito Gaston could make good use this season. Obviously, the biggest blow to the Blue Jays in the offseason was the fact that 60% of their rotation is gone and with Dustin McGowan’s setback it could be a long time before we see any resemblance to the 2007-08 starting staff at the Rogers Centre.
As of right now--three rotation spots are set with Roy Halladay, Jesse Litsch and David Purcey with Matt Clement coming on strong; now what to do with the fifth spot or if one of the other quartet goes down with an injury?
Yes, perish the thought that a Jays’ pitcher might get hurt but it helps to deal with every possible scenario regardless of how far-fetched it may seem at the time.
Currently, there are a ton of available pitchers: Casey Janssen, Rickey and Davis Romero, Brett Cecil, Brad Mills, Scott Richmond and possibly Wade Miller but there are concerns about overworking the likes of Cecil, the Romeros, Janssen and the rehabbing Miller--how does Gaston make it all work?
How about doing it WBC style?
In the tournament, starting pitchers are limited to 70 pitches in round one although they can finish the plate appearance of the hitter to whom they’ve thrown pitch No. 70. Why not take a variation of that and have co-starters--one day you start the game and let Cecil toss 70 pitches (unless he’s ineffective) and follow that with Casey Janssen for 70? The next time open with Janssen and follow with Cecil (and mix and match accordingly)--that way, the kiddie corps gets experience without the risk of overuse while the creaky corps (the rehabbing vets that make the 25-man roster) gradually get to rebuild their arm strength without worrying about carrying a load they haven’t borne since the U.S. government was in the business of catching big criminals and not large cranials.
The best part of this is that the rooks (hopefully) get reinforcement about the importance of throwing strikes and getting ahead of hitters--if they want to last long enough for a “W” they’d best not nibble and give the batters too much credit and attack the strike zone with their “A” material the same way they did in the minors.
A common stumbling lock for promising youngsters at the big league level for the first time is they stop doing what got them to that point in the first place; they sometimes give hitters too much credit and try to be too fine. One thing we’ve learned in watching the WBC is that a well thrown pitch in the strike zone is tough to hit--we’ve witnessed pitchers on Team Netherland that will likely never sniff a major league job get big league hitters--in some cases, elite bashers--out. Anything that drills into the heads of the youth movement that strike one and pitching ahead on the count is always a recipe for success--even at the major league level--is a good thing.
It probably won’t happen but I’m married with two teenaged daughters and I’m used to giving out advice that is completely ignored and made fun of--c’est la merde!
Thanks everyone…
I was genuinely touched with the show of support regarding my recent medical issues--thanks for the notes and mentions offering their best wishes. I met with the surgeon on Friday and says I should be in the O.R. in the next 2-4 weeks (although they haven’t given me a day and time yet). He seemed fairly confident that all I will need is an angioplasty but he can’t know that for a certainty until they get inside and have a look around.
Bottom line--I don’t expect to be down long; on the small chance that things to terribly awry I have made my wishes known that I want the surgeon to approach things “Mythbusters” style and do whatever it takes to blow me up. I’ve taken in a lot of nitro and don’t want it to go to waste.
If I gotta go…I wanna go out with a bang!
Best Regards
John
Not this again...
About a month ago we discussed about the potential role player agents might have played in the whole steroid debacle. A quick refresher:
This information made it to George Mitchell’s ears according to McNamee but wasn’t considered pertinent enough to include in the Mitchell Report.
As time goes on it is becoming increasingly obvious that the Mitchell Report was little more than an expensive bit of propaganda for public and government consumption to hopefully put the steroid era into the last tense while pretty much giving management absolution while offering up enough names to make it clear that (1) it was all the greedy players’ fault (2) the problem is now licked and (3) Bud Selig has now officially done everything in his power to rid the sport of the anabolic menace.
I think in the not too distant future we’ll find out more and more about what Mitchell wilfully ignored and that a handpicked member from the side of management produced a tome that reflected the investigator’s vested interests. It was little more than one of Selig’s beloved “Blue Ribbon Reports” he points to that allegedly provide answers to the problems vexing the sport and are always completed with minimal to zero (closer to zero) input from the players’ side.
I just find it odd that nobody seems interested in investigating the agents’ role in all this--then again, that would only happen if they were truly interested in getting to the bottom of things instead of simply creating an illusion that the problem was thoroughly dealt with and eradicated.
Plus ca change.
Jeter…
What’s funny about Torre and Verducci’s recollection is how Derek Jeter is portrayed: the ultimate team player that is ultra focused on winning--the one that leads the way to victory. Throughout the book we see time and again examples of Jeter doing whatever it took on and off the field to ensure that the New York Yankees would ascend to the summit of October baseball. If a teammate needed support--Jeter was there; if a player needed to be set straight it was Jeter that would do so; if Torre needed a message sent to the troops Jeter would be the messenger and if Torre required a change in program he could count on Jeter’s unconditional support to make it work for the betterment of the New York Yankees.
It was always about winning; about the glory of the pinstripes--no matter how difficult the problem or personality of someone on the roster it was Derek Jeter flying to the rescue a la Superman to straighten out the erring teammate and keep the machinery running smoothly.
Jeter was the consummate professional--nothing shook him from the annual goal of winning the World Series and he would lead the way and unclutter the path to October; he would literally do whatever it took, no matter how distasteful to get it done.
However, what became clear is that he had a massive blind spot--Alex Rodriguez. If anyone could’ve eased A-Rod’s transition to the pinstriped empire it was Jeter and I don’t think there’s a person alive that feels that a focused, hitting-on-all-cylinders Alex Rodriguez wouldn’t be a major asset in winning games, series, post season berths and championships.
Yet, something funny happened--it turned out there was something Jeter found more important than winning and that was making sure that Alex Rodriguez knew that he was still ticked over his comments in Esquire. No matter how much A-Rod struggled to fit in, to contribute to the team’s success Jeter seemed quite content to watch Rodriguez struggle in the New York spotlight.
His actions (or inaction) made it clear early, often and repeatedly that the third baseman was on his own and that the fans and the media were free to “have at 'im” with Jeter’s tacit approval. So what if A-Rod’s struggles with himself and his game might cost a few games and even a post season series or two--it seemed for all the world that Jeter now viewed winning as demonstrating on a daily basis that he was the crown prince of the Bronx and Rodriguez wasn’t.
What was worse, is that Torre was reluctant to tell Jeter to man up and do whatever was needed to make Rodriguez feel emotionally settled enough to play at his best. The Yankee roster would try every other solution to help A-Rod get it together, to get his head straight except have Jeter do what he did for so many other struggling teammates.
While Torre/Verducci used up an entire chapter to discuss the problems with Alex Rodriguez it is pretty clear that there was fault from both sides in getting the new arrival to fit in with the team dynamic. After seeing Jeter portrayed as the modern day “Pride of the Yankees” in the early part of the book--especially during the glory years of 1996-2000 we witness what appears to be a stark change in the shortstop once he realizes that he’s king of the mountain.
He reminds us of the alpha female in a high school sophomore class dealing with a new female student that is every bit as pretty as she and feels threatened. While the Yankees might have “lost their way” after the departure of the class of 96-00 it appears that St. Derek might have forgotten what got him to the top in his preoccupation to making sure everyone realized that he now determined who was worthy to wear the fabled pinstripes and would be anointed “a true Yankee.”
Best Regards
John
“There’s one guy we need to hear from in all this…Suffice it to say, I wasn’t overly surprised to find this nugget in “The Yankee Years”: player agents were often involved in procuring PED for their clients. Granted, it was Brian McNamee making the assertion but it is notable that he also pointed out that general managers had come up to him and said “We don’t care what they’re taking, I just don’t want to know about it.”
Scott Boras.
His agency does far more than represent professional athletes--he is also involved in the minutiae of his clients’ careers. He provides every service imaginable for his stable including psychological counselling. There are doctors, trainers everything required for building up a player to max out whatever talents exist in a given player’s body.
For all his faults, the man provides an incredibly high level of service for the men he represents. He often boasts about how involved his agency is in the professional lives of the players under the umbrella of Borascorp.
Some of the high profile names that have been part of all this in recent years include A-Rod, Ivan Rodriguez, Eric Gagne, Kevin Brown, Rick Ankiel, Gary Sheffield and Barry Bonds.
All have been linked to the sport’s steroid era either through BALCO, positive tests, the Mitchell Report and Jose Canseco’s literary masterpiece “Green Eggs and Deca” (AKA “Juiced”).
For a man so involved in the physical and psychological upkeep of his stable could he possibly have been so ignorant or so blinded to what the players were taking?”
This information made it to George Mitchell’s ears according to McNamee but wasn’t considered pertinent enough to include in the Mitchell Report.
As time goes on it is becoming increasingly obvious that the Mitchell Report was little more than an expensive bit of propaganda for public and government consumption to hopefully put the steroid era into the last tense while pretty much giving management absolution while offering up enough names to make it clear that (1) it was all the greedy players’ fault (2) the problem is now licked and (3) Bud Selig has now officially done everything in his power to rid the sport of the anabolic menace.
I think in the not too distant future we’ll find out more and more about what Mitchell wilfully ignored and that a handpicked member from the side of management produced a tome that reflected the investigator’s vested interests. It was little more than one of Selig’s beloved “Blue Ribbon Reports” he points to that allegedly provide answers to the problems vexing the sport and are always completed with minimal to zero (closer to zero) input from the players’ side.
I just find it odd that nobody seems interested in investigating the agents’ role in all this--then again, that would only happen if they were truly interested in getting to the bottom of things instead of simply creating an illusion that the problem was thoroughly dealt with and eradicated.
Plus ca change.
Jeter…
What’s funny about Torre and Verducci’s recollection is how Derek Jeter is portrayed: the ultimate team player that is ultra focused on winning--the one that leads the way to victory. Throughout the book we see time and again examples of Jeter doing whatever it took on and off the field to ensure that the New York Yankees would ascend to the summit of October baseball. If a teammate needed support--Jeter was there; if a player needed to be set straight it was Jeter that would do so; if Torre needed a message sent to the troops Jeter would be the messenger and if Torre required a change in program he could count on Jeter’s unconditional support to make it work for the betterment of the New York Yankees.
It was always about winning; about the glory of the pinstripes--no matter how difficult the problem or personality of someone on the roster it was Derek Jeter flying to the rescue a la Superman to straighten out the erring teammate and keep the machinery running smoothly.
Jeter was the consummate professional--nothing shook him from the annual goal of winning the World Series and he would lead the way and unclutter the path to October; he would literally do whatever it took, no matter how distasteful to get it done.
However, what became clear is that he had a massive blind spot--Alex Rodriguez. If anyone could’ve eased A-Rod’s transition to the pinstriped empire it was Jeter and I don’t think there’s a person alive that feels that a focused, hitting-on-all-cylinders Alex Rodriguez wouldn’t be a major asset in winning games, series, post season berths and championships.
Yet, something funny happened--it turned out there was something Jeter found more important than winning and that was making sure that Alex Rodriguez knew that he was still ticked over his comments in Esquire. No matter how much A-Rod struggled to fit in, to contribute to the team’s success Jeter seemed quite content to watch Rodriguez struggle in the New York spotlight.
His actions (or inaction) made it clear early, often and repeatedly that the third baseman was on his own and that the fans and the media were free to “have at 'im” with Jeter’s tacit approval. So what if A-Rod’s struggles with himself and his game might cost a few games and even a post season series or two--it seemed for all the world that Jeter now viewed winning as demonstrating on a daily basis that he was the crown prince of the Bronx and Rodriguez wasn’t.
What was worse, is that Torre was reluctant to tell Jeter to man up and do whatever was needed to make Rodriguez feel emotionally settled enough to play at his best. The Yankee roster would try every other solution to help A-Rod get it together, to get his head straight except have Jeter do what he did for so many other struggling teammates.
While Torre/Verducci used up an entire chapter to discuss the problems with Alex Rodriguez it is pretty clear that there was fault from both sides in getting the new arrival to fit in with the team dynamic. After seeing Jeter portrayed as the modern day “Pride of the Yankees” in the early part of the book--especially during the glory years of 1996-2000 we witness what appears to be a stark change in the shortstop once he realizes that he’s king of the mountain.
He reminds us of the alpha female in a high school sophomore class dealing with a new female student that is every bit as pretty as she and feels threatened. While the Yankees might have “lost their way” after the departure of the class of 96-00 it appears that St. Derek might have forgotten what got him to the top in his preoccupation to making sure everyone realized that he now determined who was worthy to wear the fabled pinstripes and would be anointed “a true Yankee.”
Best Regards
John
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Bud the...
Well, let’s get back to the fascinating stuff in “The Yankee Years.”
To begin with--how much do you think the commissioner of baseball is aware of the official goings-on at the annual baseball winter meetings? One would think the commander-and-chief of the sport should have a pretty good handle on the agenda and whatnot.
Rewind to 1998: the baseball winter meetings in Nashville…there, MLB medical director Dr. Robert Millman and Dr. Joel Solomon (he served the MLBPA in the same capacity) made a presentation to various baseball executives and team physicians about the benefits of testosterone usage. Simply put, they were asserting that there was little medical evidence that steroids were harmful.
We’re reminded of MLBPA No. 2 Gene Orza’s claim that steroids were no more hazardous than cigarettes. How true that is (to what degree) I have no idea--all I know is that one player’s smoking will not coerce another to do likewise to keep up.
But I digress.
If Bud Selig can claim that he was ignorant of steroids in the game in 1998 he is either (1) a liar or (2) too stupid to live yet alone be the CEO of a billion dollar industry.
Probably the most disturbing aspect of all this is the union’s role in all this--the thing is, Marvin Miller is a principled man; we can argue until we’re blue in the face about the value of some of his principles but I feel comfortable that his are of good faith if occasionally misguided.
I’ve often felt that Don Fehr was cut from the same cloth--I’ve differed with Fehr on a number of issues over the years yet not once did I ever feel he was being dishonest, dishonourable, capricious or underhanded. I have believed that while he occasionally could be imprudent he would always be acting in a manner that demonstrated good motives.
I think he is basically a good man but I can’t help but wonder if he lost his way somehow.
The big problem for a man like Fehr is that to affect significant change in MLB require that he work with completely amoral individuals that are ultra focused on improving profits regardless of the ethics involved (or ignored) and since the fiscal succubi of MLB realize that the quickest way to more money is damaging the MLBPA it’s easy to empathize why he would be leery of any joint ventures requiring becoming bedfellows with such ones.
We’ve seen that with drug testing--players are falling right, left and center while the commissioner is feigning either ignorance or diligence on the issue. No owner or commissioner has been called before a grand jury, nobody’s prosecuting any member of management for misleading statements made before the various government committees regarding drugs or their economic status over the years and nobody on that side is facing jail time or government scrutiny.
Marvin Miller said these things would happen if drug testing were brought into the sport and we’ve seen it occur--the media focuses on the Barry Bonds, the Alex Rodriguez’s, the Mark McGwire’s and the Roger Clemens decrying their lack of honour while the vast majority of anyone on the management side has all but been given a free pass by the government, media and general public despite their obvious complicity.
Small wonder that Fehr was/is reticent about dealing with such ones where trust is of paramount importance.
What makes me wonder if Fehr jumped the tracks due to Gene Orza; Orza is allegedly the one that tried to find enough false positives to drop the ratio of positive results in the 2003 survey testing below 5% that provided the window of opportunity for the samples to be seized by the government, he has been accused of tipping players about upcoming tests, he’s the one that trivializes the effects of steroid use.
It’s hard not to get the impression that he has no problem with players using steroids even if it means coercing other players to use to keep up and obtaining the drugs from dubious and unhygienic sources further risking their health. It’s a completely irresponsible position when you consider that giving workers a safe and healthy work environment is a sacred tenet of any union.
However, the salary bar is the sacred cow the modern MLBPA--not worker well being.
If I had to hazard a guess, I’d suppose that Fehr is trying to merge or balance two philosophies--the ones espoused by Miller and the ones adhered to by Orza and the mix is toxic. Miller lacks pragmatism on the issue while Orza lacks compassion. Fehr should’ve been more proactive and creative--possibly setting up something in house. While Fehr believes that mandatory testing is a violation of privacy why couldn’t he have set up a “probable cause” regulation (along the lines the sport had in the 1980’s) for the union where a player would be tested if the MLBPA thought a player was juicing?
It wouldn’t be that hard--just set up an tips hotline where players could anonymously inform the union if they had strong reason to believe a teammate was using anabolic steroids. A positive test (from a union administered test) would result in sanction (such as loss of licensing money for a first offense and revocation of membership for a second offense) and he could’ve tried to create an environment where usage would be frowned upon. In short--create peer pressure to play clean and hit them in the pocketbook when they don’t; after all, if an economic incentive causes players to use then certainly incentives not to use could be put in place.
All this could happen out of the public eye without management’s knowledge.
Sadly, as has often happened in MLB things only go to extremes where both sides think in win-lose scenarios; both sides feel that for them to win, the others must lose. This has been the mindset within the game since Marvin Miller became executive director of the MLBPA.
Unfortunately, Miller was one who sought “unconditional surrender” on a lot of issues--including drug use by players. If owners wanted to get rid of the perception of drug use by players (be it recreational or performance-enhancing) he was adamantly against it--not so much because he wanted players to use drugs but rather the issues of privacy were more important. If that meant players should be allowed to break the law--so be it; that was a concern for the judicial system and not MLB.
There was no middle ground.
Fehr cut his teeth on Miller’s ideologies and while the vast majority were bang on--Miller is imperfect like the rest of us and prone to blind spots.
Regardless, what is done is done but one thing we all need to do is get as accurate a picture of this era as possible. We should never forget that despite his recent male bovine fecal matter on the subject, Bud Selig is a big reason steroid use within the sport grew to the extent it did. He doesn’t care if players use steroids as long as the public and government think it is and he is painted as the man that rid the sport of the scourge.
Best Regards
John
To begin with--how much do you think the commissioner of baseball is aware of the official goings-on at the annual baseball winter meetings? One would think the commander-and-chief of the sport should have a pretty good handle on the agenda and whatnot.
Rewind to 1998: the baseball winter meetings in Nashville…there, MLB medical director Dr. Robert Millman and Dr. Joel Solomon (he served the MLBPA in the same capacity) made a presentation to various baseball executives and team physicians about the benefits of testosterone usage. Simply put, they were asserting that there was little medical evidence that steroids were harmful.
We’re reminded of MLBPA No. 2 Gene Orza’s claim that steroids were no more hazardous than cigarettes. How true that is (to what degree) I have no idea--all I know is that one player’s smoking will not coerce another to do likewise to keep up.
But I digress.
If Bud Selig can claim that he was ignorant of steroids in the game in 1998 he is either (1) a liar or (2) too stupid to live yet alone be the CEO of a billion dollar industry.
Probably the most disturbing aspect of all this is the union’s role in all this--the thing is, Marvin Miller is a principled man; we can argue until we’re blue in the face about the value of some of his principles but I feel comfortable that his are of good faith if occasionally misguided.
I’ve often felt that Don Fehr was cut from the same cloth--I’ve differed with Fehr on a number of issues over the years yet not once did I ever feel he was being dishonest, dishonourable, capricious or underhanded. I have believed that while he occasionally could be imprudent he would always be acting in a manner that demonstrated good motives.
I think he is basically a good man but I can’t help but wonder if he lost his way somehow.
The big problem for a man like Fehr is that to affect significant change in MLB require that he work with completely amoral individuals that are ultra focused on improving profits regardless of the ethics involved (or ignored) and since the fiscal succubi of MLB realize that the quickest way to more money is damaging the MLBPA it’s easy to empathize why he would be leery of any joint ventures requiring becoming bedfellows with such ones.
We’ve seen that with drug testing--players are falling right, left and center while the commissioner is feigning either ignorance or diligence on the issue. No owner or commissioner has been called before a grand jury, nobody’s prosecuting any member of management for misleading statements made before the various government committees regarding drugs or their economic status over the years and nobody on that side is facing jail time or government scrutiny.
Marvin Miller said these things would happen if drug testing were brought into the sport and we’ve seen it occur--the media focuses on the Barry Bonds, the Alex Rodriguez’s, the Mark McGwire’s and the Roger Clemens decrying their lack of honour while the vast majority of anyone on the management side has all but been given a free pass by the government, media and general public despite their obvious complicity.
Small wonder that Fehr was/is reticent about dealing with such ones where trust is of paramount importance.
What makes me wonder if Fehr jumped the tracks due to Gene Orza; Orza is allegedly the one that tried to find enough false positives to drop the ratio of positive results in the 2003 survey testing below 5% that provided the window of opportunity for the samples to be seized by the government, he has been accused of tipping players about upcoming tests, he’s the one that trivializes the effects of steroid use.
It’s hard not to get the impression that he has no problem with players using steroids even if it means coercing other players to use to keep up and obtaining the drugs from dubious and unhygienic sources further risking their health. It’s a completely irresponsible position when you consider that giving workers a safe and healthy work environment is a sacred tenet of any union.
However, the salary bar is the sacred cow the modern MLBPA--not worker well being.
If I had to hazard a guess, I’d suppose that Fehr is trying to merge or balance two philosophies--the ones espoused by Miller and the ones adhered to by Orza and the mix is toxic. Miller lacks pragmatism on the issue while Orza lacks compassion. Fehr should’ve been more proactive and creative--possibly setting up something in house. While Fehr believes that mandatory testing is a violation of privacy why couldn’t he have set up a “probable cause” regulation (along the lines the sport had in the 1980’s) for the union where a player would be tested if the MLBPA thought a player was juicing?
It wouldn’t be that hard--just set up an tips hotline where players could anonymously inform the union if they had strong reason to believe a teammate was using anabolic steroids. A positive test (from a union administered test) would result in sanction (such as loss of licensing money for a first offense and revocation of membership for a second offense) and he could’ve tried to create an environment where usage would be frowned upon. In short--create peer pressure to play clean and hit them in the pocketbook when they don’t; after all, if an economic incentive causes players to use then certainly incentives not to use could be put in place.
All this could happen out of the public eye without management’s knowledge.
Sadly, as has often happened in MLB things only go to extremes where both sides think in win-lose scenarios; both sides feel that for them to win, the others must lose. This has been the mindset within the game since Marvin Miller became executive director of the MLBPA.
Unfortunately, Miller was one who sought “unconditional surrender” on a lot of issues--including drug use by players. If owners wanted to get rid of the perception of drug use by players (be it recreational or performance-enhancing) he was adamantly against it--not so much because he wanted players to use drugs but rather the issues of privacy were more important. If that meant players should be allowed to break the law--so be it; that was a concern for the judicial system and not MLB.
There was no middle ground.
Fehr cut his teeth on Miller’s ideologies and while the vast majority were bang on--Miller is imperfect like the rest of us and prone to blind spots.
Regardless, what is done is done but one thing we all need to do is get as accurate a picture of this era as possible. We should never forget that despite his recent male bovine fecal matter on the subject, Bud Selig is a big reason steroid use within the sport grew to the extent it did. He doesn’t care if players use steroids as long as the public and government think it is and he is painted as the man that rid the sport of the scourge.
Best Regards
John
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Winning...
Getting back to “The Yankee Years” I was struck with an odd epiphany: winning means different things to different players; in a perfect world, we would hope that all 25 players on our rooting interest’s roster all desperately want to win the World Series and that winning means winning games, winning series, winning playoff berths, winning playoffs and of course the big enchilada--winning the World Series.
After all, how could it be any less? These guys are hyper-competitive, they had to beat our other players from little league through AAA to reach the majors, they’re used to success so surely once they finally nab one of the 750 available big league jobs they are fully and unconditionally committed to the next logical goal--the final dog pile of a given season.
I mean--what else is their possibly to win once you reach the major leagues?
Believe it or not--quite a bit.
Players are as pragmatic as the next guy and realize that generally the odds of being one of the chosen few to enjoy the ultimate moment of October glory is a longshot year in and year out. However, there are other things a player might try to win: a regular job, an All Star berth, post season awards, their first seven (or possibly eight) figure salary, free agency and a massive contract; for a pitcher it could be 20 wins, 200 strikeouts, an ERA title, 50 saves or possibly a promotion from setup man to closer, from reliever to starter etc. A position player might view a win in terms of 30 HR, 40 doubles, 50 steals, 200 hits, a .300 average or topping the century mark in runs scored or RBI.
These things are freely available to a player each and every year (for the most part) whereas they realize that unless things break right in the early going it’s very difficult to realistically envision a shot at winning it all. Even if they are fully committed to it after a 30-35 start to the season, how many guys in the locker room truly share the same optimism and drive? If in their heart of hearts they feel maybe a handful of teammates want to keep digging game in and game out for the brass ring how good would they feel their chances are of getting out of that particular hole with only lukewarm support?
On the other hand, personal goals remain attainable for a much longer part of the season often requiring little more than a decent hot streak to keep them within range of those achievements.
Toss in a few other factors: what if a few of your compatriots are in the final year of their contract or up for arbitration for the first time? Will they be willing to sacrifice their personal stats to try to win a game when the team is 30-35 and they’re down in the eighth inning of a two-run game with man on first and second and nobody out?
Do they move the runners along, try to get the ball to the right side, attempt to make contact and go for a base hit or even be willing to take a walk when the count is 3-1 and the fastball isn’t necessarily in their dead-red power zone or do they go for the glorious three-run jack and try to be a hero and add three ribbies to their tally even though they bat second?
Or would they shorten their stroke and choke up on the bat, simply try for a single and at the very least make sure the runners move up even if it means taking a walk and letting the guy behind them have the RBI?
These decisions are made in every game by every team in every spot in the standings and the deciding factor is what a given player views winning and success to be and it isn’t necessarily synonymous with winning the Fall Classic. The odds of winning the World Series may be slim to none in some players’ minds but the odds of getting an extra million in the next contract are excellent if they finish with 100 as opposed to 97 RBI.
It would seem that a lot of players embrace a philosophy that what is good for them is good for the team and (as an example) what team couldn’t use a 100 RBI man? If everybody felt as that player did and everybody in the everyday lineup got to 100 RBI then chances are good that they’d win the division--right?
On the surface it seems logical but in reality it doesn’t work because sometimes the goals of one player (100 RBI) comes at the expense of another player’s goal (100 RBI) and frictions develop, finger pointing begins, accusations of selfish play begin and hopes of winning it all begin to dwindle.
Remember--these guys are human; not accumulations of statistical data.
Getting back to the thoughts in the Torre/Verducci book that is what distinguished the 1996-2001 Yankees from the 2002-present Yankees; for the most part the team put together a group of very talented players and achieved a unity of purpose--winning it all regardless of the effects on individual numbers. After they lost the 2001 World Series to the Diamondbacks a lot of those core players moved on and a bunch of extremely talented players were added every year but often these players didn’t define winning the same way.
I’m not saying they didn’t want to win it all--they did; but to hear Torre tell it, they didn’t want to win it all at the expense of all other considerations. It seemed that men like Randy Johnson, Kevin Brown, Alex Rodriguez, Gary Sheffield, Carl Pavano, Raul Mondesi, Jeff Weaver, Kenny Lofton etc. had other goals, motivations and distractions which affected the team’s ability to perform at its optimal level.
As I said the other day--it’s an interesting look behind the scenes; I don’t necessarily accept it all as gospel but it does give some food for thought and an additional data point when analyzing success or failure and getting a better grasp on the so-called "intangibles."
Best Regards
John
After all, how could it be any less? These guys are hyper-competitive, they had to beat our other players from little league through AAA to reach the majors, they’re used to success so surely once they finally nab one of the 750 available big league jobs they are fully and unconditionally committed to the next logical goal--the final dog pile of a given season.
I mean--what else is their possibly to win once you reach the major leagues?
Believe it or not--quite a bit.
Players are as pragmatic as the next guy and realize that generally the odds of being one of the chosen few to enjoy the ultimate moment of October glory is a longshot year in and year out. However, there are other things a player might try to win: a regular job, an All Star berth, post season awards, their first seven (or possibly eight) figure salary, free agency and a massive contract; for a pitcher it could be 20 wins, 200 strikeouts, an ERA title, 50 saves or possibly a promotion from setup man to closer, from reliever to starter etc. A position player might view a win in terms of 30 HR, 40 doubles, 50 steals, 200 hits, a .300 average or topping the century mark in runs scored or RBI.
These things are freely available to a player each and every year (for the most part) whereas they realize that unless things break right in the early going it’s very difficult to realistically envision a shot at winning it all. Even if they are fully committed to it after a 30-35 start to the season, how many guys in the locker room truly share the same optimism and drive? If in their heart of hearts they feel maybe a handful of teammates want to keep digging game in and game out for the brass ring how good would they feel their chances are of getting out of that particular hole with only lukewarm support?
On the other hand, personal goals remain attainable for a much longer part of the season often requiring little more than a decent hot streak to keep them within range of those achievements.
Toss in a few other factors: what if a few of your compatriots are in the final year of their contract or up for arbitration for the first time? Will they be willing to sacrifice their personal stats to try to win a game when the team is 30-35 and they’re down in the eighth inning of a two-run game with man on first and second and nobody out?
Do they move the runners along, try to get the ball to the right side, attempt to make contact and go for a base hit or even be willing to take a walk when the count is 3-1 and the fastball isn’t necessarily in their dead-red power zone or do they go for the glorious three-run jack and try to be a hero and add three ribbies to their tally even though they bat second?
Or would they shorten their stroke and choke up on the bat, simply try for a single and at the very least make sure the runners move up even if it means taking a walk and letting the guy behind them have the RBI?
These decisions are made in every game by every team in every spot in the standings and the deciding factor is what a given player views winning and success to be and it isn’t necessarily synonymous with winning the Fall Classic. The odds of winning the World Series may be slim to none in some players’ minds but the odds of getting an extra million in the next contract are excellent if they finish with 100 as opposed to 97 RBI.
It would seem that a lot of players embrace a philosophy that what is good for them is good for the team and (as an example) what team couldn’t use a 100 RBI man? If everybody felt as that player did and everybody in the everyday lineup got to 100 RBI then chances are good that they’d win the division--right?
On the surface it seems logical but in reality it doesn’t work because sometimes the goals of one player (100 RBI) comes at the expense of another player’s goal (100 RBI) and frictions develop, finger pointing begins, accusations of selfish play begin and hopes of winning it all begin to dwindle.
Remember--these guys are human; not accumulations of statistical data.
Getting back to the thoughts in the Torre/Verducci book that is what distinguished the 1996-2001 Yankees from the 2002-present Yankees; for the most part the team put together a group of very talented players and achieved a unity of purpose--winning it all regardless of the effects on individual numbers. After they lost the 2001 World Series to the Diamondbacks a lot of those core players moved on and a bunch of extremely talented players were added every year but often these players didn’t define winning the same way.
I’m not saying they didn’t want to win it all--they did; but to hear Torre tell it, they didn’t want to win it all at the expense of all other considerations. It seemed that men like Randy Johnson, Kevin Brown, Alex Rodriguez, Gary Sheffield, Carl Pavano, Raul Mondesi, Jeff Weaver, Kenny Lofton etc. had other goals, motivations and distractions which affected the team’s ability to perform at its optimal level.
As I said the other day--it’s an interesting look behind the scenes; I don’t necessarily accept it all as gospel but it does give some food for thought and an additional data point when analyzing success or failure and getting a better grasp on the so-called "intangibles."
Best Regards
John
Monday, March 2, 2009
Taking a step back....
Ugh.
Let’s give the chorus their happily ever after and imagine for a moment watching the evening news and watching Barry Bonds shackled at the wrists, clad in an orange jumpsuit heading for a vacation at the public’s expense.
The media orgasms and many have a warm glow. We hear plaudits about how the children have learned a valuable lesson from Bonds’ conviction.
Final price tag: somewhere between $60-100 million.
According to USDA 2007, just fewer than 11 percent of American households experience food insecurity. Put another way, 35.5 million Americans including 12.6 million children were not always sure when or where they would eat their next meal in 2006. With job losses mounting due to the global economic meltdown coupled with the increasing population we can be sure that the total is much higher today.
It is probably north of 15 million right now but we’ll just use 15 million for this; don’t you feel better now with Bonds incarcerated? Just think, there are 15 million children in the U.S. of A that will go to bed in the aftermath of this with three thoughts: “steroids are bad” "perjury is wrong" and “I’m so hungry.”
Of course, with government funding cuts coming to many school nutritional programs many may not eat anything of substance since there’s little at home and nothing at school.
But at least the children are safer with Barry Lamar Bonds behind bars. I’m sure they’re suitably grateful that the government, media and many overweight sports fans are so concerned with their well being that they cheered from the sidelines as perjury laws were broken, constitutional rights violated and money that could have been used to feed them were used by people determined to put Barry Lamar Bonds in the clink for perjury over his anabolic steroid usage.
Of course, this hasn’t happened yet much to the chagrin of many in the media and those that believe everything they read; the potential delay of Bonds’ trial as the government prosecution is looking to postpone it as they seek to appeal Judge Susan Ilston’s refusal to allow certain evidence to be used in court because of how it was obtained in some cases (such as violations of the fourth amendment and perjury as Jeff Novitzky apparently deceived the court, charging that the agent’s affidavit for a search warrant “did not disclose that a grand jury subpoena had been issued for the same material and that a motion to quash the subpoena was pending in the same district”—deceiving the court is perjury for those of you scoring at home).
However, if you want to protect the children you need to fight evil with evil; if Bonds commits perjury and breaks the law then the law must be broken and perjury committed and tens of millions of tax dollars be committed (even if children go to bed hungry) so justice can be done!
Barry Lamar Bonds is a bad man but if “society needs protected from big headed liars” as one enlightened person opined on the San Francisco Chronicle’s feedback section then might I suggest people equip their children with polygraph machines and a measuring tape as a means of defence against any “big headed liars” like Bonds that may menace them on their way to school? If a man from a van asks them to come aboard with the promise of candy be sure to train them to hook them up to the polygraph machine, ask them if they’ve ever used steroids and ask for a cranial measurement; if it checks out it’s all good!
Hop on board, eat the candy and enjoy the ride—what’s the worst thing that can happen since society is working hard to get big headed liars off the street?
Yes, Bonds is not somebody to look up to but from my point of view those that are hoping to see him do time regardless of the costs required (monetary and otherwise) pose a much bigger danger to children. Let them starve for their own good—malnutrition is bad but possibly growing up and playing major league baseball while denying using steroids is far, far worse so let’s do what’s right and make sure Barry Lamar Bonds suffers for what he did.
Hopefully one day folks will have their dreams come true and wake up to that glorious morning where they can begin their day with the heady knowledge that their quality of life is much better now that Bonds is behind bars.
I wonder how many will spend that first day going into the poorer sections of where they live and telling the hungry children that despite the rumblings in their stomachs they’re far better off than they were the day before?
Seeing as this has all been for their benefit we can only assume that the municipalities will have adequate crowd control personnel on hand to deal with the overflow.
Or not.
Yes, Bonds broke the law and may well skate but guess what? There are a lot of child molesters, brokers in kiddie porn and the child-sex trade out there that have broken the law and have yet to face justice.
Where do we want law enforcement and government money being spent on: eradicating these evils or making sure a surly ballplayer does hard time? Do we want to see eight figures spent of feeding children or seeing a PED using ballplayer that lied to the government but isn't named Miguel Tejada behind bars?
It’s about perspective—we’ve lost all semblance of it.
Best Regards
John
Let’s give the chorus their happily ever after and imagine for a moment watching the evening news and watching Barry Bonds shackled at the wrists, clad in an orange jumpsuit heading for a vacation at the public’s expense.
The media orgasms and many have a warm glow. We hear plaudits about how the children have learned a valuable lesson from Bonds’ conviction.
Final price tag: somewhere between $60-100 million.
According to USDA 2007, just fewer than 11 percent of American households experience food insecurity. Put another way, 35.5 million Americans including 12.6 million children were not always sure when or where they would eat their next meal in 2006. With job losses mounting due to the global economic meltdown coupled with the increasing population we can be sure that the total is much higher today.
It is probably north of 15 million right now but we’ll just use 15 million for this; don’t you feel better now with Bonds incarcerated? Just think, there are 15 million children in the U.S. of A that will go to bed in the aftermath of this with three thoughts: “steroids are bad” "perjury is wrong" and “I’m so hungry.”
Of course, with government funding cuts coming to many school nutritional programs many may not eat anything of substance since there’s little at home and nothing at school.
But at least the children are safer with Barry Lamar Bonds behind bars. I’m sure they’re suitably grateful that the government, media and many overweight sports fans are so concerned with their well being that they cheered from the sidelines as perjury laws were broken, constitutional rights violated and money that could have been used to feed them were used by people determined to put Barry Lamar Bonds in the clink for perjury over his anabolic steroid usage.
Of course, this hasn’t happened yet much to the chagrin of many in the media and those that believe everything they read; the potential delay of Bonds’ trial as the government prosecution is looking to postpone it as they seek to appeal Judge Susan Ilston’s refusal to allow certain evidence to be used in court because of how it was obtained in some cases (such as violations of the fourth amendment and perjury as Jeff Novitzky apparently deceived the court, charging that the agent’s affidavit for a search warrant “did not disclose that a grand jury subpoena had been issued for the same material and that a motion to quash the subpoena was pending in the same district”—deceiving the court is perjury for those of you scoring at home).
However, if you want to protect the children you need to fight evil with evil; if Bonds commits perjury and breaks the law then the law must be broken and perjury committed and tens of millions of tax dollars be committed (even if children go to bed hungry) so justice can be done!
Barry Lamar Bonds is a bad man but if “society needs protected from big headed liars” as one enlightened person opined on the San Francisco Chronicle’s feedback section then might I suggest people equip their children with polygraph machines and a measuring tape as a means of defence against any “big headed liars” like Bonds that may menace them on their way to school? If a man from a van asks them to come aboard with the promise of candy be sure to train them to hook them up to the polygraph machine, ask them if they’ve ever used steroids and ask for a cranial measurement; if it checks out it’s all good!
Hop on board, eat the candy and enjoy the ride—what’s the worst thing that can happen since society is working hard to get big headed liars off the street?
Yes, Bonds is not somebody to look up to but from my point of view those that are hoping to see him do time regardless of the costs required (monetary and otherwise) pose a much bigger danger to children. Let them starve for their own good—malnutrition is bad but possibly growing up and playing major league baseball while denying using steroids is far, far worse so let’s do what’s right and make sure Barry Lamar Bonds suffers for what he did.
Hopefully one day folks will have their dreams come true and wake up to that glorious morning where they can begin their day with the heady knowledge that their quality of life is much better now that Bonds is behind bars.
I wonder how many will spend that first day going into the poorer sections of where they live and telling the hungry children that despite the rumblings in their stomachs they’re far better off than they were the day before?
Seeing as this has all been for their benefit we can only assume that the municipalities will have adequate crowd control personnel on hand to deal with the overflow.
Or not.
Yes, Bonds broke the law and may well skate but guess what? There are a lot of child molesters, brokers in kiddie porn and the child-sex trade out there that have broken the law and have yet to face justice.
Where do we want law enforcement and government money being spent on: eradicating these evils or making sure a surly ballplayer does hard time? Do we want to see eight figures spent of feeding children or seeing a PED using ballplayer that lied to the government but isn't named Miguel Tejada behind bars?
It’s about perspective—we’ve lost all semblance of it.
Best Regards
John
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The Yankee Years...
Well, I just finished the controversial Joe Torre/Tom Verducci screed and will be doing a formal review in the very near future. Regardless, it will provide fodder for a lot of columns and thoughts throughout the season.
To begin with, I think the initial rhetoric over the book was way over the top. I really didn’t get the feeling that anyone was being thrown “under the bus” even though selected excerpts taken out of context might make it appear that way.
For the most part, it seemed like a good faith effort by Torre in detailing his time with the Yankees and the various people he came into contact with--it seemed fair even though I wouldn’t take as gospel everything in it having only heard his side of the story. It actually served as a very insightful behind-the-scenes look at how winning teams are put together and that while talent is indispensable--a lot more is needed to create a championship ball club.
Quite frankly, within the pages you get a fairly good idea of “tangiblizing” (not a real word obviously) what is often referred to as the "intangibles." I’ll probably get into this in more detail at The Hardball Times this year but I came up with an analogy that I think best describes how an inferior collection of players can form a better team than a bunch of superstars.
When I use the word “inferior” I don’t mean vastly so, think in terms of the difference between a team with the talent levels of the Boston Red Sox and the Toronto Blue Jays--the Jays are an inferior team but can generally hold their own against the denizens of Fenway even though the Red Sox would generally be expected to win.
Anyway, imagine a tug-of-war between 25 bodybuilders and perhaps 25 high school football players; generally, you would give the edge to the big, beefy barbell boys in such a match up as well you should. However, suppose the bodybuilders each decided to pull the rope in whatever direction suited them; to the left, right, upward, toward the ground, backward etc. while the all the high school football players pulled the rope in the same direction…
Well, that’s the picture I got when comparing the Yankees of 1996-2001 to the 2002-present; the earlier edition didn’t have the sheer talent on hand of the latter clubs but they did all pull in one direction and were enormously successful. The overspending Yankee teams of later vintage pulled in all directions--they were too talented not to win at least 90 games most years but there were too many directions--too many agendas on the team and not a consistent focus.
It does show up.
The baseball season is a marathon and as such there is sentiment of “We’ll get 'em tomorrow” if things go bad at some point in a game and while everybody on the field is certainly putting forth effort, it’s with an expectation of failure on that given day which can become a self fulfilling prophecy. However, at what point does a team reach that mindset in a game: after getting down six runs in the early going; three unearned runs breaking up a tie game in the sixth; when there’s a match up of No. 1 starters and one of them gives up a three-spot before getting an out?
Or, is there such a “desperation to win” as the book says that they’re busting their butt trying to win until the final out is recorded and expect to defy the odds and pull out a victory?
Teams (and players) do vary quite a bit in that respect.
It’s all part of the somewhat quantified intangibles that I learned from the book.
Probably the biggest tangible difference between the pre-post 2001 Yankees was the depth and quality of the starting pitching and the numbers do bear this out but you don’t fully appreciate how huge it was until you delve into Torre’s thoughts on the matter.
Again, this is just a basic overview as I will expound more thoroughly on these and other aspects of it in the near future.
At any rate, I do think that Torre had good reason to be unapologetic about what he contributed--for instance, for the first time I actually feel an affinity for Alex Rodriguez. He comes across in the book as unmistakably human with all too human quirks, foibles, insecurities etc. It’s easy to see that not having a strong male role model growing up stunted his personal growth and I feel more strongly than ever that he was exploited by Scott Boras who knew precisely what buttons to push.
Further, he had trouble fitting into the Yankees’ clubhouse largely because how he was treated (read: spoiled) by Seattle and Texas. He seems to have had drummed into his head that the best way he could help his club win was by being incredibly self-centered about his statistics. Somebody made the world revolve A-Rod and he came into a team where the world revolved (or once did) winning it all with little regard to personal numbers and he was lost in such an environment.
Remember Steve Phillips remarks about Boras’s outrageous demands when Rodriguez was a free agent after 2000 while Phillips was GM of the Mets? It’s hard not to believe Phillips in light of the preferential treatment A-Rod received in Texas and it was a major culture shock to both Rodriguez and his new teammates when the Bronx Bombers traded for him.
If anything, Torre and Verducci make the future Hall of Famer finally seem human and quite frankly, I find myself liking him a lot more than I did before I read the book and hope he finally conquers his inner demons.
Speaking of which…
I’m going to have to do a lot of thinking about my view of statistics. Regular readers of my work know that while I generally accept a not insignificant number of sabermetric principles I am by no means a sworn advocate of “(most) everything is explained by the numbers.” As Torre says, the game has a heartbeat and the player's blood flows the same as anyone else. My latest mental quandary surrounds whether the same numbers (even sabermetrically adjusted) are of equal value. It’s sort of a “chicken-or-egg” question in that I wonder if a collection of terrific statistical accumulators automatically makes a winning team or whether winning teams simply end up with players with terrific accumulated stats.
It’s along the lines of my thoughts on run distribution over raw accumulation.
I’m probably not explaining myself really well right now but let me put it another way: take two lineups of slightly unequal talent; the (batting) team with the better talent each unequivocally set the goal of hitting 30 HR and driving in 100 runs come hell or high water. The lesser team simply worries about winning each game unconcerned with personal stats--which team would win over the course of the season? Who would end up with the better statistics?
Let’s look at two seasons of Yankee third basemen: Alex Rodriguez in 2004 and Scott Brosius in 1998:
I don’t know--it’s something I will be exploring.
My latest mischief…
Follow the…Buddy? (Hardball Times)
Bud Selig: Buddy or bully? (SMSN Sports)
The golden age of drug use in baseball (SMSN Sports)
A personal note…
As you’ve no doubt noticed, my contributions here and at THT are down. I’m sorry about that--I have been dinged with a health issue regarding my heart and it’s--barring a miracle--going to require surgery and likely quite soon. Between my energy level being almost nil coupled with my body adjusting to shots of nitro and a steady diet of beta blockers even getting out of bed is a chore some days (daze?).
Nitro is what I like to call “instant hangover”--one spray, wait one minute and feel like Andrew Stoeten and Dustin Parkes after a night of merry-making.
Nasty, nasty stuff.
Hopefully, all I’ll require is an angioplasty but there does loom the chance of bypass surgery--if it’s the latter I have no idea how long I’ll need to get back in earnest. If it’s the former it should be pretty straightforward. I’ve kept myself in good shape with good personal habits and I have supernatural recuperative powers and will not need much down time.
No, I'm not getting old--now shut up and either pull my finger or get off my lawn!
Regardless, I don’t think my life is in danger and cannot
To begin with, I think the initial rhetoric over the book was way over the top. I really didn’t get the feeling that anyone was being thrown “under the bus” even though selected excerpts taken out of context might make it appear that way.
For the most part, it seemed like a good faith effort by Torre in detailing his time with the Yankees and the various people he came into contact with--it seemed fair even though I wouldn’t take as gospel everything in it having only heard his side of the story. It actually served as a very insightful behind-the-scenes look at how winning teams are put together and that while talent is indispensable--a lot more is needed to create a championship ball club.
Quite frankly, within the pages you get a fairly good idea of “tangiblizing” (not a real word obviously) what is often referred to as the "intangibles." I’ll probably get into this in more detail at The Hardball Times this year but I came up with an analogy that I think best describes how an inferior collection of players can form a better team than a bunch of superstars.
When I use the word “inferior” I don’t mean vastly so, think in terms of the difference between a team with the talent levels of the Boston Red Sox and the Toronto Blue Jays--the Jays are an inferior team but can generally hold their own against the denizens of Fenway even though the Red Sox would generally be expected to win.
Anyway, imagine a tug-of-war between 25 bodybuilders and perhaps 25 high school football players; generally, you would give the edge to the big, beefy barbell boys in such a match up as well you should. However, suppose the bodybuilders each decided to pull the rope in whatever direction suited them; to the left, right, upward, toward the ground, backward etc. while the all the high school football players pulled the rope in the same direction…
Well, that’s the picture I got when comparing the Yankees of 1996-2001 to the 2002-present; the earlier edition didn’t have the sheer talent on hand of the latter clubs but they did all pull in one direction and were enormously successful. The overspending Yankee teams of later vintage pulled in all directions--they were too talented not to win at least 90 games most years but there were too many directions--too many agendas on the team and not a consistent focus.
It does show up.
The baseball season is a marathon and as such there is sentiment of “We’ll get 'em tomorrow” if things go bad at some point in a game and while everybody on the field is certainly putting forth effort, it’s with an expectation of failure on that given day which can become a self fulfilling prophecy. However, at what point does a team reach that mindset in a game: after getting down six runs in the early going; three unearned runs breaking up a tie game in the sixth; when there’s a match up of No. 1 starters and one of them gives up a three-spot before getting an out?
Or, is there such a “desperation to win” as the book says that they’re busting their butt trying to win until the final out is recorded and expect to defy the odds and pull out a victory?
Teams (and players) do vary quite a bit in that respect.
It’s all part of the somewhat quantified intangibles that I learned from the book.
Probably the biggest tangible difference between the pre-post 2001 Yankees was the depth and quality of the starting pitching and the numbers do bear this out but you don’t fully appreciate how huge it was until you delve into Torre’s thoughts on the matter.
Again, this is just a basic overview as I will expound more thoroughly on these and other aspects of it in the near future.
At any rate, I do think that Torre had good reason to be unapologetic about what he contributed--for instance, for the first time I actually feel an affinity for Alex Rodriguez. He comes across in the book as unmistakably human with all too human quirks, foibles, insecurities etc. It’s easy to see that not having a strong male role model growing up stunted his personal growth and I feel more strongly than ever that he was exploited by Scott Boras who knew precisely what buttons to push.
Further, he had trouble fitting into the Yankees’ clubhouse largely because how he was treated (read: spoiled) by Seattle and Texas. He seems to have had drummed into his head that the best way he could help his club win was by being incredibly self-centered about his statistics. Somebody made the world revolve A-Rod and he came into a team where the world revolved (or once did) winning it all with little regard to personal numbers and he was lost in such an environment.
Remember Steve Phillips remarks about Boras’s outrageous demands when Rodriguez was a free agent after 2000 while Phillips was GM of the Mets? It’s hard not to believe Phillips in light of the preferential treatment A-Rod received in Texas and it was a major culture shock to both Rodriguez and his new teammates when the Bronx Bombers traded for him.
If anything, Torre and Verducci make the future Hall of Famer finally seem human and quite frankly, I find myself liking him a lot more than I did before I read the book and hope he finally conquers his inner demons.
Speaking of which…
I’m going to have to do a lot of thinking about my view of statistics. Regular readers of my work know that while I generally accept a not insignificant number of sabermetric principles I am by no means a sworn advocate of “(most) everything is explained by the numbers.” As Torre says, the game has a heartbeat and the player's blood flows the same as anyone else. My latest mental quandary surrounds whether the same numbers (even sabermetrically adjusted) are of equal value. It’s sort of a “chicken-or-egg” question in that I wonder if a collection of terrific statistical accumulators automatically makes a winning team or whether winning teams simply end up with players with terrific accumulated stats.
It’s along the lines of my thoughts on run distribution over raw accumulation.
I’m probably not explaining myself really well right now but let me put it another way: take two lineups of slightly unequal talent; the (batting) team with the better talent each unequivocally set the goal of hitting 30 HR and driving in 100 runs come hell or high water. The lesser team simply worries about winning each game unconcerned with personal stats--which team would win over the course of the season? Who would end up with the better statistics?
Let’s look at two seasons of Yankee third basemen: Alex Rodriguez in 2004 and Scott Brosius in 1998:
Now, put 2004 Rodriguez on the 1998 Yankees and Brosius on the 2004 club and how much of a difference does it make on those two teams despite Rodriguez’s better stats? The answer seems simple based on the numbers but does the “when” those hits/walks/outs occurred and their impact on their teammates factor in and if so--how much?Player AVG OBP SLG HR RBI OPS+
A-Rod .286 .375 .512 36 106 131
S-Bro .300 .371 .472 19 98 121
I don’t know--it’s something I will be exploring.
My latest mischief…
Follow the…Buddy? (Hardball Times)
Bud Selig: Buddy or bully? (SMSN Sports)
The golden age of drug use in baseball (SMSN Sports)
A personal note…
As you’ve no doubt noticed, my contributions here and at THT are down. I’m sorry about that--I have been dinged with a health issue regarding my heart and it’s--barring a miracle--going to require surgery and likely quite soon. Between my energy level being almost nil coupled with my body adjusting to shots of nitro and a steady diet of beta blockers even getting out of bed is a chore some days (daze?).
Nitro is what I like to call “instant hangover”--one spray, wait one minute and feel like Andrew Stoeten and Dustin Parkes after a night of merry-making.
Nasty, nasty stuff.
Hopefully, all I’ll require is an angioplasty but there does loom the chance of bypass surgery--if it’s the latter I have no idea how long I’ll need to get back in earnest. If it’s the former it should be pretty straightforward. I’ve kept myself in good shape with good personal habits and I have supernatural recuperative powers and will not need much down time.
No, I'm not getting old--now shut up and either pull my finger or get off my lawn!
Regardless, I don’t think my life is in danger and cannot
(had you going--didn't I?)
...wait for the energy bounce back after my body has recovered from the shock of surgery. I expect to cover the baseball season as cantankerously and petulantly as always. In the meantime, I’m going to keep writing as much as my energy level and personal feelings of grievance and indignation will allow so consider yourselves forewarned.
Best Regards
John
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
