but I’m going to do it anyhow, because science is not about your feelings. Or my feelings. Or this guy’s feelings, either, I guess.
Jordan DiPietro is not a baseball writer, and The Motley Fool is not a baseball publication. I guess it’s about stocks or some shit. I don’t really know; it’s not about baseball, so I clearly don’t know anything about it. And he, in turn, clearly doesn’t know anything about baseball. Normally I’d leave this alone, since, as I say, he’s not really a baseball writer, but it’s much too hilarious and adorable.
Growing up, you probably had a favorite baseball player. Being a Philadelphia native, mine was Mike Schmidt. Considered probably the best third baseman of all time, Schmidty led the league in home runs for eight seasons, RBIs for another four, and sits at number 14 on the all-time home run list.
He was a true slugger, and I loved every bit of him.
This is a good start. Made me feel comfortable with the fact that this guy, who is presumably an investment journalist, was going to be slinging around some baseball words. But that was apparently just to get me off my guard, since the very next thing he says is:
Was Schmidt really that good?
Like every baseball fan, I spouted off stats like they meant something, but as Michael Lewis points out in Moneyball, stats are deceiving in several ways. They magnify essentially small differences, they conflate circumstances with skill, and they’re often looking at the wrong thing.
I actually (believe it or don’t) haven’t read Moneyball, though it’s on my to-read list. However, I am familiar with it, and one thing I’m fairly comfortable in saying is that Michael Lewis does not point out that stats are deceiving and don’t mean anything. Stats themselves do not "conflate circumstances with skill" or "look at the wrong thing." Stats always look at the right thing, and always tell you exactly what you asked for. The trick to using stats intelligently is to know what you want to see.
For example, we place absurd emphasis on home runs and RBIs.
No, Jordan, "we" do not. Home runs are pretty important, but aren’t the be-all end-all of hitting ability. I don’t give two dicks about RBIs, and I don’t personally know anybody who does (though, yes, I’m well aware that the law firm of Morgan, McCarver, and Kruk considers them very important).
While RBIs are considered an individual achievement
Only stupid people think that. Like the aforementioned Morgan, McCarver, and Kruk.
to knock runners in, runners have to be in scoring positions. The best swing in the world won’t earn RBI points if the bases are empty.
I appreciate the point you’re trying to make — that RBI is a team-dependent stat — but, really, Jordan, you should try making it without simultaneously being wrong. The best swing in the world — which, for these purposes, results in a home run — absolutely will score you an "RBI point" even if the bases are empty.
And while I’m on the subject, "RBI points?" What’s next? WHIP points?
And it turns out that, in the end, home runs and RBIs are poor predictors of overall success.
Well, not really. They’re pretty good predictors at the team level. The teams with the most RBIs in 2009 were the New York Yankees in the AL, and the Philadelphia Philadelphians in the NL. You might have heard about a series these two teams played against one another, yes? Those two teams also led MLB in home runs. This is because teams that have a lot of home runs and a lot of RBI have really good offenses, and, thus, are good teams.
On an individual level, yeah, RBI is pretty garbage. Home runs are still a useful predictor of playing ability, though. I’d take a dude with a 162-game average of 100 HR even if he, like, never walked at all.
The metrics that matter, however — on-base percentage and slugging percentage, especially in combination — aren’t very well known.
"In combination," Jordan, those two stats are called "on-base plus slugging." Do you see? And OBP, SLG, and OPS are obscure to the point where they’re on the backs of fucking baseball cards these days. They’re really pretty mainstream.
Johnny Bench? Reggie Jackson? They come to mind as some of the greatest players of all time, but what about Stan Musial? Or Mel Ott? Both of the latter players are significantly lesser known, yet the stats that matter are just as good or better.
Don’t you love this part? I love this part. Never mind the crazy idea that Stan Musial and Mel Ott — two players in the Hall of Fame — are unknowns. Never mind the crazy way Jordan overlooks that maybe, just maybe, he’s heard more about Johnny Bench and Reggie Jackson because they played in the 80s rather than in the 40s and 50s like Ott and Musial. Let’s just focus on the fact that he just referred to f(x)ing Stan Musial and Mel Ott as "lesser known" players.
Everybody’s familiar with the baseball-playing abilities of famous baseball player Jimmy Rollins, but I’ve discovered an amazing fact. You probably haven’t ever heard of him, but this obscure player called "George Herman Ruth" actually had better statistics! Astounding!
They’re on the all-time list for walks, and consequently, they have higher OBPs than both Johnny Bench and Reggie Jackson. Oh — and they have World Series rings as well.
Everybody’s on the all-time list for walks, Jordan. You might wish to mention where they rank on said list, which is: eighth (Ott) and thirteenth (Musial). Reggie Jackson is 29th, by the way, which isn’t too shabby. Also, hey, Johnny Bench won two World Series rings with with Cincinnati in 1975 and 1976 (the "Big Red Machine?" No?) and Reggie Jackson has four World Series rings (two with Oakland and two with New York). They called him "Mr. October," yeah? So fuck the heck are you talking about in re: rings?
That’s pretty much it. The rest of it’s boring stuff about stocks. Really the only remaining line that’s worth making fun of on a blog is this one:
Hank Aaron has it all — he’s on the all-time home run list, he’s on the all-time walk list, he has a World Series ring, and most importantly, he has an on-base percentage that rivals most.
Well, no, I would say the most important thing is the home runs. Think about this, people: Jordan DiPietro just mentioned Hank Aaron and downplayed his second-highest-of-all-time home run total of 755 in favour of his fairly pedestrian career OBP of .374.
Insider’s tip, Jordan: if you’re using baseball metaphors in a way that’s intended to downplay the importance of home runs, motherfucking Hank Aaron is not the best choice for your example.
January 8th, 2010
Posted by
Darien |
Baseball |
no comments
This is one of the most banal pieces of crap sportswriting I’ve seen in a while. It’s by Stan McNeal in Sporting News, which is more than one hundred years old and is getting damn crotchety in its old age. Get a load of this cranky shit this dude is "hoping" for:
1. Joe Mauer stays with the Twins.
Yeah, that would be sweet, wouldn’t it? Everybody likes Joe Mauer, and everybody likes the Twins, and it would be cute and cuddly if he stuck around. But now watch Stan blow this way out of proportion:
Losing Mauer to a major market would not only be a blow to the Twins and their new ballpark but to the entire game.
A blow to the entire game, you say? Yeah? Why’s that? Because more people would get to see an awesome catcher play baseball?
So the Twins should open up their checkbook. They’ve got their outdoor ballpark set to open, and since they didn’t pony up for a retractable roof, there should be an additional $100 million or so to spend on the reigning A.L. MVP.
You don’t know much about high finance in the world of baseball, do you, Stan. Here’s an insider’s tip: $100 million is nearly the entire amount of money the Twins spent on Target Field. The rest of it was paid by the Hennepin County taxpayers (congratulations on your new, higher taxes, Hennepin County residents!). Here’s another insider’s tip: baseball contracts aren’t just a dollar value, but also, like, a number of years, and your proposal kind of makes it sound like you think the Twins should offer Mauer a one-year extension for $100 million. So what do you mean? Five years? Seven? Ten? Those are unpossible, difficult, and easy for the Twins to handle, in that order.
Over the next 10 years, he will put enough butts in the seats to prove more than worth it.
Oh, ten. Okay. Yes, if the Twins can sign Mauer to a ten-year, $100 million contract, they should do so. Just checking real quick… yeah, looks like Matt Holliday, who put up comparable numbers last year, is three years older, and plays a position way up the defensive spectrum, got a deal just like that. So the Twins should be golden!
What? He actually got 7/$120M? Fuck. Hate to spoil this for you, Stan, but it’s not looking like it’s going to be super easy to get Mauer locked up for 10/$100M after all.
And he’ll be worth more than $10M/year for the next ten years in terms of attendance? You’re sure of that, Stan? Now, this is tough to argue in future terms, but we can look at past seasons. On page 190 of the Baseball Prospectus book "Baseball Between the Numbers" is a breakdown of the cash value to the team provided by every additional regular-season win, and they value that at $747k (they arrive at this value through a lot of really complicated analysis I’m not going to get into here, but suffice to say they’re a lot smarter than me and Wrongway Jones here). Joe Mauer’s WARP1 in 2009 — his MVP year — was 8.1, meaning he was worth 8.1 more wins than a AAA callup. That means Mauer brought the Twins $6,050,700 in revenue, well shy of even your highly rosy $10M cost.
The reality of things is much more complicated, and involves playoff odds and on and on, but here’s the catch: do you really think Joe Mauer is still going to be worth 8+ wins to his team as a 37-year-old catcher? Because that is what he will be at the end of this 10/$100M deal.
Nerd digression ends. Back to mockery.
2. Ichiro Suzuki hits third in the Mariners’ lineup.
I love this one. This is so absurdly, batshit insane. And get the reasoning:
For three reasons: 1. To prove Ichiro isn’t as selfish as he sometimes is made out to be.
To prove Ichiro isn’t selfish, he will hit in the spot in the lineup generally reserved for the team’s biggest superstar. The spot where Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, Albert Pujols, and Derrek Lee hit. As a display of humility.
2. They have Chone Figgins to lead off, and he reached base more than even Ichiro last season.
He did — his OBP was .395 to Ichiro’s .386. That difference isn’t a whole lot. And, for what it’s worth, Ichiro has a 15-point career advantage (.378 to .363).
3. To see Ichiro have a 25-homer, 100-RBI season to go with all those 200-hit campaigns.
I… what? To see Ichiro… I’m sorry, I need to read that again. Did that really say what I think it said?
3. To see Ichiro have a 25-homer, 100-RBI season to go with all those 200-hit campaigns.
I just can’t… I mean, Ichiro?
3. To see Ichiro have a 25-homer, 100-RBI season to go with all those 200-hit campaigns.
3. To see Ichiro have a 25-homer, 100-RBI season to go with all those 200-hit campaigns.
3. To see Ichiro have a 25-homer, 100-RBI season to go with all those 200-hit campaigns.
3. To see Ichiro have a 25-homer, 100-RBI season to go with all those 200-hit campaigns.
3. To see Ichiro have a 25-homer, 100-RBI season to go with all those 200-hit campaigns.
That is the most insane thing I’ve ever heard. Ichiro Suzuki has 84 career home runs. In nine seasons. His season high is fifteen, and you think that dropping him two places in the batting order will produce a 25-homer season? You clearly don’t know anything about baseball.
3. To not have to type "steroids" or "performance-enhancing drugs" for the rest of the year.
If Ichiro Suzuki hits 25 home runs, you will be typing those words more times than you ever have in your eighty-four years on this earth.
5. Matt Holliday says it was all about the money.
Uh-oh. It’s about to get cranky in here.
The Cardinals are expected to sign the slugger to a long-term contract as soon as this week. When the news conference is staged, both sides can be expected to play happy and Holliday will go on about St. Louis being a great baseball town with wonderful fans and the ideal fit for him. If that’s true, why have negotiations plod along for nearly three months?
I mean, I agree. It was pretty shitty of Holliday to drag the negotiations out like this, when he could have signed up and helped the Cardinals win some games these past few months.
Also — and I know this is a crazy idea — but maybe the negotiations dragged out because there was no benefit to ending them early, and millions of dollars to be gained by waiting. I mean, I don’t know about you, but if I received a contract offer for a job that didn’t start for five months, and I had reason to believe that I could get several million more dollars just by, like, waiting a while before I signed it, I think I’d probably hold off. Clearly, Stan, you don’t know anything about business.
And while on the topic of Cardinals’ press conferences, I’d like to see Mark McGwire talk about the past, finally.
And how does this fit in with your desire not to write about performance-enhancing drugs? Stan, honestly. I’m starting to think you don’t even know anything about what’s coming out of your mouth.
7. Jamie Moyer wins 15 games. The older I get, the more I root for the old guys.
Oh, you’re old? No fooling? I wouldn’t have guessed. That aside, I actually agree with this: I think it would be cool if 47-year-old Jamie Moyer has a good year. And finally Stan isn’t whining about some damn thing!
9. No more instant replay.
You’re whining again, Stan. And being really fucking old. And senile, I think; do you not remember the 2009 postseason, Stan? How the umpires blew, like, a fuckton of calls? Like, including this absolute stunner? Holy shit does baseball need some type of replay/challenge mechanic. Stop being a complete fucking luddite.
While we’re at it, no more designated hitter.
And no more of that god-awful rock and roll music!
No games played in sub-30 temperatures (that I’m covering, anyway).
And why don’t they make that punk kid Tim Lincecum cut his hair and sit up straight!
No more tantrums by Milton Bradley.
Also: no more tantrums by ninety-year-old boneheads who write for the Sporting News.
No more one-sided trades forced by economic disparities.
I agree. It was totally unfair that those poor, small-market Tigers were forced to trade Curtis Granderson for no good reason. I mean, it’s not like it’s their fault that they gave out a metric fuckchunk of terrible contracts! The Yankees should pay for this transgression!
And remember that time when those evil, huge-market Cardinals forced the poor, innocent Athletics to give up the washed-up corpse of Mark Mulder? And how all the A’s got in return was Dan Haren, Kiko Calero, and Daric Barton? Totally unfair.
And please, no more chest-thumping, especially after someone hits a home run with his team losing.
God, I’m with you here. Especially if it’s a three-run homer, since, as we all know, you can’t win ballgames with that shit. Doesn’t help the team at all. It’s just to pad your personal stats. REAL baseball players would bunt every time they come up to bat with the team losing. Even if the bases are empty. They’d bunt for a hit, then steal second, third, and home on three consecutive pitches. And then they’d steal fucking first from the dugout just so they could score again.
10. The Twins meet the Rockies in the World Series.
That would actually be really cool. The Twins and the Rockies are good, fun, young franchises with a lot of talent.
A Series that didn’t end until Thanksgiving because of snow would be enough to convince TV honchos to tighten the October schedule. Wouldn’t it?
Oh lord, he’s just whining again. Stan, cool it. Go take a nap, man. It’s past your bedtime.
January 8th, 2010
Posted by
Darien |
Baseball |
no comments
