|
="bmfc1":1mmyd2ah]"I need to work on some of them," Selig admitted [speaking of major league owners concerning the WBC]. "There is a time in life to put the best interests of the game ahead of your provincial, self-interests."
OK Bud, so I should be happy if/when my guys that are playing in the WBC, and they are "my guys" since I spend thousands of dollars to watch them (live, on TV, and via the internet) and wear their stuff, are being worn out, and possibly playing injured, because you perceive (and it's only a perception), that it is for the greater good of baseball.
Then I guess I should be happy when WS games go to midnight on a work night and school night, because you've decided that this is in the best interests of the game--I shouldn't be "provincial" that my son, who watches baseball all season long, can't watch the WS because that's looking out for my own interests and not those of baseball.
I should be happy that you ignored steroids, and have thereby made a mockery of the record book, because you decided that doing nothing was better for the game than taking action and possibly hurting revenue.
I should be happy that owners have absurd boundary lines for blackout restrictions, such that fans in Las Vegas are blacked out on Extra Innings and mlb.tv from seeing five teams even though none reside within reasonable driving distance of their home, because this, somehow, is in the best interests of the game.
You are not the game Bud. You don't determine what is right and what is wrong. How I hate you.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/w ... index.html[/quote:1mmyd2ah]
Amen brother.
|
G-Fafif
Mar 22 2009 03:04 PM
|
|
Hosannas.
|
holychicken
Mar 22 2009 03:33 PM
|
|
I agree with the bulk of your post. However, I just don't understand what it has to do with the WBC. Each one of those problems should be viewed individually. . . just because he has made some boneheaded moves does not make everything he says boneheaded.
I think he is right when it comes to the WBC. I don't get why there is so much disdain around here for it.
It's fun. It's entertainment. Isn't that what baseball? Or at least should be?
|
metsmarathon
Mar 22 2009 03:49 PM
|
|
i'm surprised nobody (to my knowledge) has looked at how the participants in the last WBC fared in-season vs their prior and subsequent years. i mean, there's all this hullabaloo about how the WBC simply sheds the players in it, and how its gotta be just awful for them, and how much it surely will ruin their season and the hopes of their paying fans.
yet there's been no objective attempt that i've seen to prove or disprove it.
|
m.e.t.b.o.t.
Mar 22 2009 03:55 PM
|
|
this looks like a job for m.e.t.b.o.t.!
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket
Mar 22 2009 04:11 PM
|
|
Far be it from me to defend Selig, or take shots at a cranky old man post but I don't think the WBC as a jumping-off point for Bud's failures makes a lotta sense. It's not perfect but I agree it's a good thing for baseball. And I like it better than Spring Training by a long shot. Injuries, schminjuries, I say.
And, you know, night baseball was an institution long before Bud took the reigns and the TV stuff, while dumb, is too important to the "small marketers." Roids? Sure he looked the other way, but he shares the blame with lots of people including you and me. IMO, his real crime was punting to Congress on that issue.
|
Edgy DC
Mar 22 2009 04:17 PM
|
|
I believe there has, and, to my recollection, the stats showed that ERAs for players tended to go up in the year following the 2006 WBC.
Now, that may well be a case of B following A, but not being caused by A. Pitchers always have trouble maintaining a consistent performance from year to year, and, since it's likely that a pitcher will have had a good season the year preceding his selection to a presitigious tournment, that may be nothing. Or it may be something.
Let's just look at the US pitchers, as they should have the most MLB-ers.
<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" border="1" bordercolor="black"><tr bgcolor="gray"><td><b>Pitcher</td><td align="center"><b>2005 Age</td><td align="center"><b>2005 ERA+</td><td align="center"><b>2006 ERA+</td></tr><tr><td>Cordero</td><td align="center">23</td><td align="center">224</td><td align="center">134</td></tr><tr><td>Fuentes</td><td align="center">29</td><td align="center">164</td><td align="center">142</td></tr><tr><td>Jones</td><td align="center">37</td><td align="center">190</td><td align="center">116</td></tr><tr><td>Lidge</td><td align="center">28</td><td align="center">184</td><td align="center">84</td></tr><tr><td>Nathan</td><td align="center">30</td><td align="center">165</td><td align="center">283</td></tr><tr><td>Shields</td><td align="center">29</td><td align="center">154</td><td align="center">159</td></tr><tr><td>Street</td><td align="center">21</td><td align="center">253</td><td align="center">134</td></tr><tr><td>Clemens</td><td align="center">42</td><td align="center">226</td><td align="center">193</td></tr><tr><td>Majewski</td><td align="center">25</td><td align="center">139</td><td align="center">95</td></tr><tr><td>Peavy</td><td align="center">24</td><td align="center">134</td><td align="center">99</td></tr><tr><td>Timlin</td><td align="center">39</td><td align="center">202</td><td align="center">109</td></tr><tr><td>Wheeler</td><td align="center">27</td><td align="center">191</td><td align="center">176</td></tr><tr><td>Willis</td><td align="center">23</td><td align="center">151</td><td align="center">112</td></tr><tr bgcolor="gray"><td><b>Mean</td><td align="center"><b>29.0</td><td align="center"><b>183</td><td align="center"><b>141</td></tr></table>*Al Leiter, who retired after the 2006 WBC is not included.
These data may mean nothing, or they mean something innocuous like the US hired too many older pitchers in 2006, but they don't look good, and they do indicate more study and observation would be worthwhile.
|
Edgy DC
Mar 23 2009 07:18 AM
|
|
And yeah, I'm still confused why asking the teams to sacrifice for an international tournament is conflated with asking the fans to sacrifice for the enrichment of the teams.
|
bmfc1
Mar 23 2009 08:31 AM
|
|
Because it is typical of Selig to cite the vague "best interests of the game" as the reason for doing anything. It wasn't the first time he said that and it won't be the last--even if it screws you and me.
WS games that end around midnight? It's in the game's best interests because FOX pays the owners a lot of money. Have numerous days off in the middle of the playoffs? The game benefits because more playoff days means more money, even if it impacts the outcome. A WS that will be played in November (game 7 is scheduled for November 5)? That's in the best interests of the game because of the WBC, even though the players (and fans, but that's irrelevant to him) will be cold and this affects the quality of the play.
|
Edgy DC
Mar 23 2009 08:34 AM
|
|
I just think you chose the wrong quote as a jumping off point.
|
bmfc1
Mar 23 2009 08:51 AM
|
|
Thank you for your critique.
|
Fman99
Mar 23 2009 09:56 AM
|
|
I'm rooting for Bud to be thrown down into a well and get trapped like Baby Jessica.
Only instead of rescuing him we could just throw Jeter jerseys down to him.
|
G-Fafif
Mar 23 2009 10:07 AM
|
|
| ]"There is a time in life to put the best interests of the game ahead of your provincial, self-interests." |
I get the good of the country, good of the team, good of the game, et al, but I'm a baseball fan because I have provincial self-interest in baseball. Anything left over after that stems from the provincial self-interest.
Bud's overseen some positive developments in his job. But he gets on my nerves.
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Mar 23 2009 10:26 AM
|
|
="metsmarathon":2fjlrxr8]i'm surprised nobody (to my knowledge) has looked at how the participants in the last WBC fared in-season vs their prior and subsequent years. i mean, there's all this hullabaloo about how the WBC simply sheds the players in it, and how its gotta be just awful for them, and how much it surely will ruin their season and the hopes of their paying fans.
yet there's been no objective attempt that i've seen to prove or disprove it.[/quote:2fjlrxr8]
A little more follow-up on the question, courtesy of the Times' Dan Rosencheck/PECOTA. (In brief: over an admittedly tiny sample size-- we'll have better numbers after this year, naturally-- pitchers seem to deteriorate a bit, while hitters seem to show a marginal increase in giddy-up.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/sport ... l?_r=2&sq="Nate%20Silver"%20AND%20"World%20Baseball%20Classic"&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1237825385-LcX8RqYR39YBg+bH8EnSYw
|
Fman99
Mar 23 2009 10:32 AM
|
|
Scott Miller of CBS Sportsline blames ol' Davey for falling asleep at the till. Interesting take.
| ]
Without commitment to excellence, Team USA might never win WBC title
March 23, 2009
By Scott Miller
LOS ANGELES -- Where was the sense of urgency?
Team USA's Davey Johnson managed Sunday's World Baseball Classic semifinal in the same casual manner in which too many Yankees view this tournament. Yankees, as in, the vast majority of USA citizens -- not necessarily (but including) Team Steinbrenner.
And therein lies the problem.
Team Japan, which clocked Team USA 9-4 to move into the title game Monday against Korea, has been training zealously for the WBC since mid-February. So has Korea, which Monday night has the opportunity to score what would rank as perhaps the greatest baseball victory in the country's history.
The players from Team USA, meantime, scatter to their various spring training sites the same way they haphazardly convened, the inconvenient Grapefruit and Cactus League interruptions done with for another year, with most fans and many other big leaguers still not quite sure what to make of the WBC.
While nobody doubts the commitment of Team USA members such as David Wright, Derek Jeter, Jimmy Rollins and Jake Peavy, the vast majority of folks this side of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans still view this event as something to be avoided, like spinach.
"I think a lot of guys wanted to play but, for whatever reason, they didn't," Team USA's Derek Jeter said. "Recruiting? I think everybody knows what it's about. It's a tough time of year."
The gathering here in Los Angeles these past two days doesn't appear to have done much to have changed any minds. Following the lopsided Korea-Venezuela game Saturday, Johnson appeared to nap through the fourth inning, which quickly turned into a five-run, game-turning boon for Japan and a disaster for Team USA.
Following two hard singles and a tough error by second baseman Brian Roberts that easily could have been ruled a hit, Kenji Johjima stepped to the plate with three left-handed hitters -- Japan's eight-nine-one hitters -- due up next.
Yet, not only did Johnson fail to make a move toward his well-staffed bullpen, he didn't even have anybody warming up. No left-handers, no right-handers, nobody. And Team USA is carrying 14 pitchers.
It was a windy, cold, mid-50s evening. Team USA starter Roy Oswalt is nowhere near midseason shape. The first four batters in the inning hit ropes.
Yet the game proceeded with Oswalt for four more hitters. And into that span, Japan worked an RBI triple, an RBI single and a run-scoring double.
"I tried to get [John] Grabow up," Johnson said. "I didn't think it was going to take him so long. It was my fault. It took him longer in the cool weather to get loose."
How much longer?
"I hoped to have him ready by the [No. 8] hitter. But it was awfully cold out there, and he has a little bit of a tight groin muscle. And I should have just got him up a little earlier than I did."
Afterward, there was the predictable batch of questions about whether the Asian style of ball -- sound execution, attention to detail, moving runners along on the bases -- could teach the Americans a thing or two.
The short answer is, probably yes.
But that's also far too simple to be anywhere near a complete answer.
It is difficult to take this tournament seriously when Johnson, say, allows Peavy to remain in the game while getting bludgeoned (six runs allowed in two innings as Puerto Rico mercy-ruled Team USA earlier in the tournament) because he needs to "get his work in."
Or when he mismanages his bullpen in a single-elimination situation. Or when he says, as he did Sunday, that he thought Oswalt "was throwing good enough to stay in the ballgame." Or when he sends young Evan Longoria to the plate as a pinch-hitter as the potential tying run with one out and a man on third in the eighth -- without warning. Shane Victorino was set to bat when, suddenly, Johnson told Longoria -- a kid who just joined the team and had not yet batted in the WBC -- to go get 'em.
"He probably had a gut feeling," Victorino said.
It is difficult to take this tournament seriously when Team USA players shuttle in and out like it's a country club, guys canceling at the last minute before the start of the WBC or abandoning ship midstream because of injuries. And then, in the case of Boston second baseman Dustin Pedroia, they're healthy enough to play in a Grapefruit League game a few days later.
It's difficult to take it seriously when Team USA is playing guys out of position -- Mark DeRosa was at first Sunday against Japan, Adam Dunn in right field -- or playing guys based more on reputation than skill -- Jeter was at shortstop and Jimmy Rollins at designated hitter when the other way around clearly would be more conducive to winning. Team USA committed three errors Sunday, and four of Japan's nine runs were unearned.
It is difficult to take it seriously when so many elite players, especially pitchers -- CC Sabathia, Josh Beckett, A.J. Burnett and Jonathan Papelbon, to name a few -- continue to pass. Especially noticeable is the lack of pitching provided by the Yankees and Boston (outside of Daisuke Matsuzaka, who started for Japan on Sunday), who remain politically correct publicly regarding the WBC but privately, obviously, prefer to put winning above anything else and not take any chances with their meal tickets. And can you blame them?
"I know we have some general managers who are somewhat reticent. I'm going to be as kind here as I can," Commissioner Bud Selig was saying the other night. "Look, the clubs hear this all the time, but I'm going to say this to you as directly as I can: This is a time in life where I know how important your individual club is -- this is a time to put the best interests of the game ahead of your own provincial self-interest."
So what's left is Japan-Korea for a fifth time in this WBC, a title game that is sure to be crisp and riveting -- and put much of this country into a deep slumber.
What's left is for Jeter to return to the Yankees, and Wright to the Mets, and Ryan Braun to Milwaukee, and for them probably to answer several more stray questions along the lines of whether America's game really is America's game anymore.
Which ignores the premise, of course, of what might happen if Team USA truly fielded a team on which all of its elite players played. Jeter, to his credit, wouldn't bite when asked about that.
"I'd love to get another crack at [Japan] with the same team tomorrow," he said. "That's just making excuses. You can't sit here and say if we had this person or if we had that person. They played good."
True. But as for what Selig says is the greater good, the growth of the WBC, until Team USA gets serious about installing a manager who isn't past his prime and fielding a truly elite team, this tournament is never going to be anything more than an interesting novelty in this country.
|
|
metirish
Mar 23 2009 11:03 AM
|
|
| ]
"He probably had a gut feeling,"
|
Victorino on being pinch hit for........ouch
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Mar 23 2009 01:09 PM
|
|
"... until Team USA gets serious about installing a manager who isn't past his prime... "
Davey was let go by Schott after a .543 win percentage over parts of three years because she disapproved of his living with his fiancee before their marriage. He was let go in Baltimore because Angelos disliked him personally, not because he was ineffective-- despite early exits, his Orioles made the playoffs in both years he managed them, and he took the AL Manager of the Year award the day he was fired. He was let go in LA after one losing season-- his ONLY full one as a manager-- and finishing in second place the next.
He stayed away because of family issues-- among other things, his own throat cancer, and his daughter's death in 2005.
Thanks to the preponderance of LOOGYs and ROOGYs and the accompanying short benches, the game today-- with fewer real creative opportunities for strategy-- is MUCH less complicated, save for bullpen overmanagement. There's a reason why Lou Pinella-- who never really stood out as a creative problem-solver or master switch-puller among peers like Whitey, Sparky, Davey and the like-- shines brightly among the current crowd (see: use of DeRosa/Fontenot/Theriot in covering for Soriano's absence last year).
I'm not a huge fan of most Sportsline stuff-- the editors apparently encourage their columnists (whether explicitly or implicitly) to take strong opinions and "mix it up" (see: Gregg Doyel, Ray Ratto) rather than offer well-considereded analysis that might come off as wishy-washy. It's like the nightmarish inverse of ESPN.com, or talk radio in online text form. This seems more of the same.
|
smg58
Mar 23 2009 01:25 PM
|
|
Could somebody explain to me why you're more likely to get hurt in a WBC game than in a spring training game?
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Mar 23 2009 01:40 PM
|
|
| ="smg58"]Could somebody explain to me why you're more likely to get hurt in a WBC game than in a spring training game? |
From the Out of My Ass Reckonin' Department:
Is there any increased likelihood of the actual incidence of injury? Probably not much, if any.
The likelihood of oplayers' pushing their recovery time (see: Chipper) or playing through an injury (see: Youk, Wright, Choo) when the games' results "mean something" is probably a good deal greater, though.
|
Benjamin Grimm
Mar 23 2009 01:50 PM
|
|
="smg58":3i5xg2vu]Could somebody explain to me why you're more likely to get hurt in a WBC game than in a spring training game?[/quote:3i5xg2vu]
The theory is that, in a game that "counts" the player is more likely to push himself than in a spring training exhibition game.
|
metsmarathon
Mar 23 2009 02:16 PM
|
|
="G-Fafif"]| ]"There is a time in life to put the best interests of the game ahead of your provincial, self-interests." |
I get the good of the country, good of the team, good of the game, et al, but I'm a baseball fan because I have provincial self-interest in baseball. Anything left over after that stems from the provincial self-interest.
Bud's overseen some positive developments in his job. But he gets on my nerves. |
but that statement is not spoken to you, the fan. it is spoken to the owners, who bud feels should look at the bigger picture - widening the scope and draw of major league baseball - which is intended to increase business and revenues for the league, and all teams. the health of the league as a whole should be in the interest of each owner.
incur a slight risk this year in exchange for a greater reward in subsequent years.
|
metsmarathon
Mar 23 2009 02:18 PM
|
|
="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":2z0lbidl]="metsmarathon":2z0lbidl]i'm surprised nobody (to my knowledge) has looked at how the participants in the last WBC fared in-season vs their prior and subsequent years. i mean, there's all this hullabaloo about how the WBC simply sheds the players in it, and how its gotta be just awful for them, and how much it surely will ruin their season and the hopes of their paying fans.
yet there's been no objective attempt that i've seen to prove or disprove it.[/quote:2z0lbidl]
A little more follow-up on the question, courtesy of the Times' Dan Rosencheck/PECOTA. (In brief: over an admittedly tiny sample size-- we'll have better numbers after this year, naturally-- pitchers seem to deteriorate a bit, while hitters seem to show a marginal increase in giddy-up.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/sport ... l?_r=2&sq="Nate%20Silver"%20AND%20"World%20Baseball%20Classic"&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1237825385-LcX8RqYR39YBg+bH8EnSYw[/quote:2z0lbidl]
i read that too. the one thing that it skipped over was how did pecota do for those players in other year, or how did pecota do for other players in the wbc year?
does pecota tend to undervalue hitters and overvalue pitchers?
probably not, on the whole, but the article left it unsaid.
|
metirish
Mar 23 2009 02:19 PM
|
|
One day when the WBC is a big deal and MLB Network is the exclusive carrier the owners will love it.
|
Edgy DC
Mar 23 2009 02:22 PM
|
|
All that about Johnson is true. Plus add to this ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":o8pqbeb3]He was let go in Baltimore because Angelos disliked him personally, not because he was ineffective-- despite early exits, his Orioles made the playoffs in both years he managed them, and he took the AL Manager of the Year award the day he was fired.[/quote:o8pqbeb3]
the fact that his Orioles were screwed over as the eventual World Series champs and their Beacon benefited from cheating.
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Mar 23 2009 02:44 PM
|
|
The really oversimplified answer is that PECOTA relies on fitting a given player's past stats to the performance of comparables (fetched using the Bill James concept of similarity scores); it then bases the future perf forecast on the historical performance of these comparables (like a "prediction of best fit"). [It's the current statistical crux of Baseball Prospectus' annual season previews-- damn good, oughta-be-required reading.]
It tends to be a bit conservative-- wins aren't nearly as evenly distributed as its models predict-- but generally VERY good at predicting both individual and team-- via guessing at depth chart/playing time for the coming year-- performance (for instance, forecasting the Rays' rise last year, minus a handful of wins). Not only that, but the margin of error-- which was best last year among major projection systems like Marcel, CHONE and Vlad (and Vegas betting odds)-- has decreased steadily in every year between its inception in 2003 and today. In short, I heart PECOTA.
|
metsmarathon
Mar 23 2009 03:04 PM
|
|
oh, i do too. but as far as using it to compare the WBC participants expected outcomes versus their actual outcomes leaves me wanting a control group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
