Some Fucking Amazing Shit

From the Reds MLB site, Ryan Freel on how he would pitch if he ever did the 9 positions in
one game thing:

"I would definitely throw the first one behind the guy's head," Freel
said. "Just to make him think, 'I don't know what the heck is going on.' Then
I'd provably groove in a strike and hopefully he doesn't hit a home run. Then
I'd probably throw the next one over his head again and play around with him."

And if the batter takes issue and charges the mound?

"I'm hoping Dunn can come in from left field real quick," Freel
said. "Actually, I'll just run out to left field. The guy won't catch me, I'll
tell you that."

That sounds like the strategy that Wily Mo Adams used for streetball when we were 12. Except I was way faster.

Huzzah!

Looks like we won't have to change the blog title for at least two more years: Freelio's contract was extended until 2009.

Hot damn!

Ah Ha! Got You, Peter Jerk!

That's my new name for Peter King when he talks about baseball: Peter Jerk.
It's got a certain ring to it.

Here's what Mr. Jerk said in Monday Morning QB ("QB" referring to the position in game of American football, a game that is not baseball):

Mike Scioscia's a great manager [the Angels are 6-6]. Charlie Manuel's not. The Phillies [3-8] look like they never went to spring training.

Here are multiple reasons why this is a dumb thing to say:

(Preface) First of all, I'm going on the premise that PJ is basing his wise observations solely on the records of the managers' respective teams. Am I missing something here? Did Scioscia reportedly do something really inspiring or noble in the past week?....
And did Manuel kick Jimmy Rollins in the shins for only OPSing 1.177 in the first couple weeks? BP has no quotes from either in their weekly roundup, so I guess not.


1) Managers have little to no control over wins/losses. It's been estimated that the most influentialest managers affect the outcome of only 10-12 games per year*. That's less than one every 15 games or so. No team has played more than 13 games as of today.

Beep beep boop bop beep bop bup. I just put the numbers in my calculator and it told me that Mike Scioscia and Charlie Manuel have probably only influenced the outcome of 0.815 games so far this year (and that's rounding up). This means that they are not solely responsible for the performance of their teams.


2) But even if they were, the Angels are technically underperforming (keeping in mind #4 below). They're only at 6-6 and they were predicted by most to be in the World Series! How does that make Mike Scioscia a great manager?


3) I'm still confused; robot helping aside, how is Mike Scioscia a great manager?


4) Small sample-size, dickhead. And this is something that writers of ANY and EVERY sport should be aware of (and violate constantly even so), so several extra "you are suck"s heading your way, PJ. It's been two weeks; The Yankees are in 4th and the Reds are atop the NL Central. These things might change.


There, now you've had it, Peter King! Surely you have learned your lesson and will never try to write about baseball again. Surely!


*UPDATE:

References:

-"a team that has a good versus an average manager is likely to win several more games over a season, all else equal"

Singell, L.D. 1993. Managers, Specific Human Capital, and Firm Productivity in Major League Baseball. Atlantic Economic Journal 21(3): 47-59

-plus, a whole bunch of stuff in the article "Is Joe Torre a Hall of Fame Manager?" from the book from the Baseball Prospectus guys: Baseball Between the Numbers: Why Everything You Know about the Game is Wrong [check out a preview on Google books].

Debunking Some Reds Myths

Wooeee! Look at this fun little feature! What a clever prompt I've created for myself! Here we go!

So, anyways, I feel compelled to bring some clarity to both the local and national consciousness about the Reds and certain players. And since I'm not a scout nor a beat writer nor a really rich old guy who lives near Sarasota or Cincinnati, I gotta do this based solely on statistics. Bear with me.


MYTH 1: Alex Gonzales Gots Glove

This isn't a myth so much as a lame excuse for me to bring up the disparity between what EVERYONE says about A-Gon's defense and what the statistics say. I can't say I've ever seen the guy play defense, but word is he's ultra-smooth, and he's been given rave reviews by pitchers, managers, and beat writers alike (although the only statistic they ever point out is that he only made 7 errors last year, woopdeefreakingdoo).

So it was kind of disconcerting when I looked up his BP card and found out that he rates below average in pretty much all defense metrics they use (keeping in mind that even sabermetricians aren't really pleased with the ability of any currently available defense metric available at the moment):

FRAA(Fielding Runs Above Average): <0 in all but 2 of his 9 full seasons, which is at least better than Felipe Lopez (negatives in every season), but certainly no Juan "manos de oro" Castro (negatives in only 2 of his 11 seasons). I wish I knew what this meant.

That said, I'm pretty sure there's something there that the stats are picking up. I posted an abbreviated version of my theories on C. Trent's blog a couple weeks ago and he responded as such:

after watching lopez, aurillia and clayton for the last couple of years, he
looks like ozzie freakin' smith. i think the guy is really, really good

i've read as much as i can about sabermetric ways to measure defense -- picked up john dewan's fielding bible -- and as impressive as the research and the conclussions are, i still look at defense as a know it when you see it kinda thing

In spite of and because of C. Trent's dorkiness, I believe him. Plus, there was that one time I saw Gonzales turn a slick-ass double play. You should have seen it. Can't put a number on that shit. Yeah! Stats are for fats!

No seriously, though, in this case I do actually think the stats blow.



MYTH 2: There are more myths

It's true, there aren't. I just wanted to bring up the Gonzales thing. It wigs me out. Suck it.

The Only Prediction That Counts. Because It Comes With Boobs.

Foxxy Sports' Monica Leigh gives the real lowdown on the NL Central. She thinks the Cardinals blow, too. And she stakes the Reds' chances on Junior's health. Also, the Pirates have "loads of hung...young hungry players." BUT the biggest news is that she picks the Cubs to "maybe even win! The World Series for the first time in 98 years."

Oh my God, just watch it. It's amazing. You'll see.

You know, the worst part about this is that the level of research that was put into making those predictions and displaying them on posterboard that was placed just to the right and below the camera was not that much less than that put in by some actual sports networks.

Also, my favorite anchor: Gretta Van Substance

Move Over, Complaining-About-East-Coast-Bias; Making-Fun-of-the-Cardinals-Woes is the New Kid in Town

I'll take on some bad karma here and rejoice just a little that Chris Carpenter's right elbow is inflamed. Not that I would ever wish injury on anyone.

John Heyman Hates Me

Here I am getting my hopes up because the Reds are universally predicted to be terrible- thus paving the way to become a true "surprise" team- and lo and behold, SI's John Heyman picks them both as a possible "surprise" team and as the division winner.


Fucking great. There goes the season. Thanks, Heyman.



Ass.


Also, OPENING DAY IS 22 MINUTES AWAY AND I'M GOING TO WET MY PANTS!!!!

Fucking Bold Predictions

Thank Jesus, Opening Day is tomorrow.

(what but no the metscards blah blah blah suck all of the balls that I have )

And so it's high time I get on the prediction bandwagon. Here we go:

Overrated Team of the Year: Diamondbacks

I've read about 43 articles about how the Diamondbacks are the surprise team of the year- I guess because they have about 20 hotshot rookies and a rotation full of washed-up aces and Brandon Webb. So whatever, they might be good.

BUT, the things is, one lesson I've learned from reading this prediction shit for at least a decade now: the team picked to be the surprise team NEVER EVER EVER actually ends up doing that well.

For example: The Brewers have been the surprise team for the past 5 years. Also, the Reds were a "surprise" team pick in 2003 (69-93).

I can't think of any others off the top of my head, but I swear that this is pretty much a law carved in stone. Its converse is also true: the actual "surprise" teams are UNIVERSALLY PREDICTED TO BE SHITTY. For example: the Tigers and Marlins last year, the Indians and White Sox in 2005, the Royals of 2003, the Reds of 1999, etc. Given that,

Surprise Team of the Year: Nationals

In contrast to the D-Bags, the Nats have been labelled by most journalistic outlets as the worst team in the history of baseball, and I'm not entirely sure that's fair. They do at least have a solid young core in Zimmerman, Kearns, Lopez, and Patterson. PLUS, they can count on adding Dunn, Harang, and Griffey midseason in a trade for Jim Bowden's loud fart.

The Suck Team: Cardinals

I really want to think I'm not getting my hopes up, but good lord, the Cardinals have the potential to be utterly awful this year. I already wrote about how converting Braden Looper is a loud Jim Bowden fart waiting to happen. Also, with Edmonds falling apart from years of being an asshole to the Reds, the only bats they have are Pujols and Rolen. Aside from that, they have a slew of preschoolers filling out the rest of their lineup and the worst hitting catcher in the world in Yadier Molina (last out of every single other player last year in VORP). AND their only good starter just got lit up for 5 runs in 6 innings tonight. The suck team.

How the Reds Will Do: Dunno

This is getting stupid. Here's what we have going for us: the Reds are UNIVERSALLY PICKED TO DO SHITTY.

On the other hand; Eric Milton.

Josh Hamilton Prediction:

.254/.332/.900, 10 hr, 51 rbi, 35 shutouts