This Is The Worst Piece Of Sports Journalism I Have Ever Read

It’s worth criticizing John Donovan’s piece on SI.com for its take on the Yankees. The article’s primary purpose is to diagnose where the Yankees went wrong during the winter, thus affording them their poor start. This is a worthy purpose indeed, because no one on planet earth could have predicted the Yankees’ record thus far. Donovan’s analysis, however, is bad. His tacit negligence in looking up statistics, as well as his frequent contradictions and logical inconsistencies make this piece truly awful. Let’s take a look.

Hindsight being as eagle-eyed as it is, it’s easy to see just where the present-day Yankees went wrong. They tried to restock their farm system and compete at the big league level at the same time. They pulled away from what they do best — nobody bullies people in baseball with a checkbook quite like the guys in the pinstriped front office, whether it’s in the free-agent market or at the trade table — and that’s costing them now.

Awesome. Everyone complains that the Yankees only win by outspending other teams. The Yankees (relatively speaking) abandon this strategy for one off-season, during which they restock the farm system, and they are getting lambasted for being cheap. Super.

Let’s look, with some of that unerring hindsight, at just some of the ways that the Yankees have burned this baby:

Indeed, let’s. This way I can show every intelligent reader why I am more qualified than you for your job.

1) They counted on Carl Pavano…This guy had one good year, in 2004 for the Florida Marlins. One…Sure, they had laid out for that $40 million contract, and so it probably wasn’t too much to ask for a little return on their money. But since when does spending money guarantee results?

But, wait…you said in the opening paragraph that the Yankees are bad because they didn’t spend money. Now you’re criticizing them for spending money on a player that, at the time, was in incredibly high demand (Baltimore, Detroit, Boston). And if spending money doesn’t guarantee results, as you just said, then why are you partially attributing the Yankees’ downfall to not spending enough? I am curious about what exactly Donovan would have done during last off-season, because so far he’s advocated both spending and not spending. Pick one.

2) They underestimated the importance of getting Daisuke Matsuzaka.

Oh boy.

You bid $32 million for the right to talk to Matsuzaka, the phenomenal right-hander from Japan, and you figure you’re doing plenty. As it turned out, the Yanks, in their new conservatism, badly miscalculated. Their offer was nearly $20 million less than Boston’s. And the decision to go low is killing them.

I think Donovan’s dictionary is faulty, because phenomenal means “really really good” or “awesome” or, in a sports context, “game-changing”. Matsuzaka has an ERA+ of 93. 100 is, by definition, average. Matsuzaka has been a below-average pitcher so far. He is 34th in the AL in ERA. Players with better ERAs include Chad Durbin, Carlos Silva, Joe Kennedy, Boof Bonser, Paul Byrd, Steve Trachsel (!), Gil Meche, and Chad Gaudin. I don’t know how else to say it. Matsuzaka has not been worth the $100 million so far. Is it early? Yup, sure is. But to say that the Yankees’ failure to acquire a below-average pitcher is the reason they’re playing poorly is idiotic.

Also, if Daisuke Matsuzaka was on the Yankees, he’d be 8th in ERA among their starters. Yankee starters better than Matsuzaka so far this season include: Carl Pavano, rookie Tyler Clippard, rookie Matt DeSalvo, and Darrell Rasner. To quote baseball analyst John Donovan, “since when does spending money guarantee results?” The Yankees are being criticized again for “going low” on Matsuzaka, therefore making their finanical restraint ”kill them”, even though Donovan’s point is that the Yankees should have spent more money during the off-season. But what about the money not equaling results thing? Does this make sense to anyone?

3) They blew it on Igawa, who wasn’t going to be a star anyway.

This is fine. Igawa is bad. But he’s not THE reason the Yankees are playing poorly.

4) They forgot just how old they really were.

What?

The Yankees saw the aging of their roster coming. They were trying to get younger. That’s the whole idea of re-stocking the farm system. It’s an admirable goal, and it’s needed.

Donovan now thinks it was admirable and necessary for the Yankees to re-stock the farm system. Mere paragraphs before, he said the Yankees are bad because they tried to rebuild and not spend money. Pick one.

At 29.9 years old the Yankees are among the majors’ oldest teams, ranking in the bottom third in average age.

The Red Sox’ average age is 30.9. I looked it up. They seem to be doing just fine.

No one could have expected all of those players to struggle as they have. It’s just another example of the extreme bad luck that the Yankees have run into this season.

This is the absolute closest Donovan gets to correctly diagnosing the Yankees’ problems so far. Unexpectedly poor pitching early + random, crazy, unpredictable, lineup-wide slump = bad record.

But many of the injuries have been to older players. Shouldn’t the Yanks have seen this coming?

Again, the Red Sox are old and they are doing just fine. And also, John Donovan, like three sentences earlier you said, and I quote, “the Yankees saw the aging of their roster coming”. Now you’re wondering why they didn’t see this coming. Pick one.

5) They essentially traded Gary Sheffield for Abreu in the offseason.

Sheffield has a career OPS+ of 145. Abreu’s is 135, and that’s including his horrendous and unforeseen OPS+ this year of 66.

So, in choosing between two similarly productive outfielders, would you rather have the 38 year old crank with wrist problems and a violent swing or the low-maintenance 33 year old guy with no injury history? And what if you knew you could trade the 38 year old crank for some decent prospects AND keep the 33 year old guy? I thought so.

6) They thought they could get by without a decent-hitting first baseman.

Damn right they did. Posada, Giambi, Cano, Jeter, A-Rod, Matsui, Damon, and Abreu. Damn freaking right.

The Yanks were right in that they probably could survive without much production at first base — if everyone else was hitting. They’re not.

Super, let’s criticize the Yankees again for the bad luck that the author himself recognized was a random, weird part of the problem.

7) They banked, literally, on Roger Clemens. The pro-rated portion of $28 million (about $18 million) for a guy who impacts one game a week? That’s more like the old-school, spend-at-will Yankees. But that doesn’t automatically make it smart.

Firstly, you used “literally” wrong. And secondly, oh my God, $18 million for a guy who impacts one game a week??? What about, like, your homeboy Matsuzaka, who cost the Red Sox $100 million to be bad (so far)? He also impacts one game a week. Oh, but right, that’s different. Getting locked into a long-term deal with an unknown quantity who only affects one game a week is a MUCH better idea than spending $18 million in the short-term for a low-risk investment. I get it.

There are also more contradictions here about the Yankees’ spending. Donovan chastises the Yankees for spending money on Clemens, which is exactly the type of spending he encouraged earlier in the article. Then he praises them for reverting to their successful, more-freely spending ways. Then he says it’s not necessarily smart for them to spend. Pick one.

Still, it’s hard to believe that the Yankees couldn’t have somehow used that cash in the trade market this summer to bolster the roster for a second-half run.

Somehow I think the Yankees will still be able to afford players at the deadline. Just a hunch though.

But if the Yanks are completely, undeniably out of it by July, their next move is clear: Hold on to what’s left of their money and spend it next winter. They’ll need it, because if they plan on getting back in the game, they’re going to have to start doing business the old way.

Okay, so now the Yankees should “start doing business the old way”, which means spend money. This is despite the fact that you, John Donovan, have repeatedly said that spending does not guarantee success. And also, if the Yankees start spending more money, media hacks like you will start complaining again about how the Yankees’ spending ruins baseball.

This article is garbage. It is quite possibly the worst analysis I have ever read. It is lazy, contradictory, and dismally-researched. I don’t know who is more of an idiot – John Donovan or his editor.

By the way, if you want the real reason why the Yankees have been bad so far, look here.

Peril!!!

Mets broadcaster during tonight’s Mets-Giants game, after a Damion Easley double:

“At your own peril throw Damion Easley a fastball.”

Damion Easley (career): 91 OPS+, .405 SLG (versus the league’s .429 SLG during Easley’s career), .251 EqA

Another Reason Joe Torre Should Be Fired

During the 5/29 Yankees-Blue Jays game, Andy Pettitte begins to slow down in the bottom of the 8th. There is a runner on 3rd with 1 out. The score is 2-2. Given this situation, strikeouts are super super important. If a reliever is brought into the game, he should be a good strikeout pitcher, and if not, induce more ground balls than fly balls. Right? Makes sense.

Joe Torre, because he is an idiot, brings in Scott Proctor. As most intelligent Yankee fans will tell you, Brian Bruney has been wasting away in the bullpen for some unknown reason. Meanwhile, Torre continues to give important innings to Luis Vizcaino and Scott Proctor. This game is no exception. Here are the options (season numbers):

• Scott Proctor: 3.65 ERA, 1.30 WHIP, 5.47 K/9, 0.49 G/F
• Brian Bruney: 1.57 ERA, 1.09 WHIP, 9.89 K/9, 0.59 G/F

So, in English, this means that Bruney strikes out batters almost twice as much as Proctor, which is the most important skill in this situation. The most important secondary skill in this situation is the ability to induce ground balls, which Bruney also does better than Proctor (his career G/F is 0.89).

The batter flies to deep center, and the runner tags up and scored, 3-2 Blue Jays. Yankees lose 3-2.

It took me 30 seconds to find this information. Why does Torre even bother to bring that binder with him into the dugout?

O Offense, Where Art Thou?

During tonight’s Yankees-Blue Jays broadcast, color commentator John Flaherty:

 ”Jeter here shows you can run on [Jays' catcher] Jason Phillips. Phillips is known more for his bat than for his glove.”

Jason Phillips has a career 83 OPS+ and a .245 EqA. For the more traditional folk, his career batting average is .254 and his OBP is .319. I suppose Flaherty can technically be correct; if Phillips is an F- at fielding, he can be a D- at hitting and still be “known more for his bat than for his glove”. But that’s not what he meant.

Jon Lester = Ace

ESPN anchor Michelle Bonner during 5/25’s SportsCenter:

“The Red Sox are getting ready to welcome back another one of their aces, Jon Lester.” (emphasis hers)

Jon Lester’s career major-league statistics:

• 81 IP, 91 H, 43 ER, 4.76 ERA, 4.3 BB/9, 1.65 WHIP

He’ll probably be good eventually. He is not an “ace” right now.

Basic Tenet of Journalism #1: Remembering Factual Information

Hey, kids! It’s Keesup, and tonight I’ll be hosting a crash course in how to be a good, responsible journalist! Let’s dig in!

The first lesson is about keeping stories in context, so you know whether something is truly newsworthy. A big part of this is remembering other stories, so you know whether or not your story is repeating information that’s already well-known. We’ll start with something that’s not newsworthy.

Jason Giambi did an interview with a shoddy national newspaper and touched upon the issue of performance-enhancing substances:

“I was wrong for doing that stuff,” Giambi said Wednesday before the Yankees played the Chicago White Sox. “What we should have done a long time ago was stand up — players, ownership, everybody — and said, ‘We made a mistake.’ We should have apologized back then and made sure we had a rule in place and gone forward. Steroids and all of that was a part of history. But it was a topic that everybody wanted to avoid. Nobody wanted to talk about it.”

But good students will note that Jason Giambi testified to a grand jury in 2003. He admitted that he used anabolic steroids and HGH. And he publicly apologized. So, there’s not really any new information in the USA Today Story. I guess that he’s expressing an opinion on an important matter, but still, I might save this for a news-in-brief tucked away. Everyone got it? Okay, class dismissed. Time for ice cream!

Wait, I’m sorry. You, in the back, you have something to add? Could you take off those Mickey Mouse ears? They’re a bit distracting. Thanks.

Okay, I think you need to calm down? You’re angry? Why are you angry? What do you mean, this is the closest to admitting that he took steroids? He did admit it. Four years ago.

You think it showed poor judgement? Why? How? He discussed something that was public knowledge. It was hypocritical? Maybe, but I think you’re making way too big a deal out of this.

Why should anyone investigate this? There’s nothing actionable here. Cashman wants to get out of his contract? I would too. (Jason Giambi is grossly overpaid.) Why are you making such a big deal out of this?

No, actually, I didn’t know “Pirates of the Carribean: At World’s End” is only in theatres May 25. It’s not like there have been any advertisements or anything.

Any more questions?

At Least TRY To Hide Your Bias, Peter Gammons

During tonight’s Mets-Yankees game on ESPN, Peter Gammons chimed in from the little near-dugout media box thingy about the state of the Red Sox. Fine. He said the Red Sox’ only real concern right now is Josh Beckett’s injury, which Gammons went on to say is pretty mild and “not a blister”. Beckett should only miss one more start. Fine.

Then Gammons said the blister avulsion was caused by a “defective baseball”.

Wha…what? I know your Red Sox homerism comes through sometimes, but at least try and be subtle, Mr. Gammons.

Pop Quiz #2!

You all did so poorly on the first Pop Quiz that I’ve decided to give you a chance to redeem yourselves. Your lowest grade will be dropped at the end of the semester. Ready? Here we go:

Which of the following actual final scores from May 19th, 2007, best fits the definition of a “rout”?

• (a) 13-3
• (b) 10-7
• (c) 6-1
• (d) 14-0

If you picked (a), (c), or (d), you are wrong. The correct answer is (b), which was the final score of tonight’s Mets-Yankees game. I know it’s a “rout” for sure because ESPN.com’s front page currently reads “Wright hits 2 HRs, Mets rout Yanks”. 3 run win = rout, get it? This will be on future quizzes.

For future reference, the 13-3 was a “hammering” and the 6-1 an “overpowering”; 14-0 simply reads “Braves hand Red Sox 14-0 loss”. Interestingly, when the Red Sox won 13-3 it was a “hammering” but they were simply “handed” a 14-0 loss later in the day.

 EDIT: ESPN.com’s front page now reads “Wright hits 2 HRs, Mets scorch Yanks”. Better than “rout”, still inaccurate. Yes, this is a touchy subject. Get over it.

The State Of The Yankees Address

There are probably two prevalent thoughts amongst you, the Fan Interference readers, with respect to me and the Yankees. Thought #1 is “HA! Explain the Yankees’ season NOW, Special K!”. Thought #2 is “Who is Special K, and why do I care about his opinion?” While I cannot make you care about my opinions (but you should, because they are smart and you can never hear enough smart things), I can attempt to explain what the hell is going on with the New York Yankees.

After the loss to the Mets today, my first reaction was pretty much anger. I was angry with the players for not performing, Joe Torre for being on quaaludes, and Brian Cashman for shoddy roster construction. Watching this team over the last few weeks has been easily my most frustrating experience as a sports fan (Jordan’s Bulls regularly beating Ewing’s Knicks is a close second, or anything Vanderbilt football-related for that matter). Being the analytical sort, I have been trying to come up with an explanation for the Yankees’ terrible, awful play. At last, I have come up with my official current stance on the New York Yankees’ 2007 season through May 19th:

The Yankees have been historically unlucky.

Before the angry, torch-wielding mobs show up on West 87th Street, demanding I admit that the Yankees just aren’t that good, I implore you to listen to my reasoning. I have no idea if I’m right or not – there are, after all, 121 more games to be played. Maybe the Yankees aren’t that good, who knows. But right now, I am of the reasoned opinion that the Yankees have just been incredibly unlucky.

We can start with the starting pitching. In April, Yankee starters gave up runs at a blistering, alarming rate. This was, in my opinion, due primarily to injuries. Lots of injuries. Random, bizarre, unforseen injuries (excluding Carl Pavano). The Yankees’ projected rotation coming out of Spring Training was Chien-Ming Wang, Andy Pettitte, Mike Mussina, Carl Pavano, and Kei Igawa. Wang didn’t pitch until April 24th, because of a hamstring injury. Mussina only made two starts in April because of a hamstring injury. Igawa sucked. Pavano is hurt again and out for the year. Only Pettitte hasn’t missed a start. The result of all these injuries was the promotion of several minor-league pitchers.

Contrary to popular belief, the Yankees have a good farm system, particularly with respect to starting pitching. The Yankees’ FIVE call-ups can easily be divided into two categories: servicable/good pitchers, and outright scrubs. The former group consists of Darrell Rasner, Phil Hughes, and Jeff Karstens. Guess what happened to them? Broken hand, torn hamstring, broken leg. Scrubs Matt DeSalvo and Chase Wright managed to stay healthy and therefore sucked. So what we have here is a pitching staff that, primarily in April, was unable to stay healthy. When they did get hurt, their generally decent replacements all got hurt too. Ouch.

Yet the Yankees’ offense thrived in April, scoring 5.35 runs per game, which was good for 4th in baseball. The Yankees’ team ERA in April, however, was 5.02 (27th). As the calendar turned to May, it seemed reasonable to assume that as the starting pitchers returned from injuries, the team would begin to reach its potential.

Nope. Despite a 3.83 team ERA in May (12th in baseball), the Yankees have continued to suck. Why? A regression in offense and bad luck. The Yankees have scored 4.88 runs per game in May, which is only a small drop to 9th in baseball. The Yankees have outscored opponents 83-63 in May, yet have a 9-9 record. Furthermore, the Yankees’ expected record based on their season’s run differential is 22.5-17.5 – quite different than their actual 18-23 record. Given this information, it would seem likely that a correction is coming. After all, it is extremely difficult for a team to maintain a losing record while outscoring its competition. This gives me hope.

What makes it difficult to fully accept this likely correction, however, has been the Yankees’ offense of late. While Jeter, Posada, Matsui and Mientkiewicz(!)/Phelps have performed well in May, important cogs such as Damon, A-Rod, Giambi, Abreu and Cano have posted a .607 OPS between them. That’s awful. While the pitching in May has been average-to-good, the offense has been declining.

So what do we make of all this? The pitching in April sucked, but the offense was clicking. The offense in May has sucked, but the pitching has been fine. Intuitively, one would expect a .500ish record based on these occurrences. Let’s put the Yankees at 21-20 then. Throw in the 83-63 run differential in May leading to a 9-9 record, and you’ve got your bad luck. So let’s take off a few wins, putting the Yankees at – ta-da – their actual 18-23 record.

To form a reasonable, educated opinion on the rest of the Yankees’ season, we must ask ourselves if the pitching and the hitting will ever overlap. My cautiously optimistic answer to this is “yes”. A rotation of Wang, Mussina, Pettitte, Clemens and Hughes – which is very close to being a reality – is a reason for optimism. Even if one of them gets hurt, the Yankees can insert Igawa or Tyler Clippard for a turn or two. Hey, the Red Sox are 29-13 with Julian “Acid Fight” Tavarez as their fifth starter, so Igawa or Clippard wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world. If the Wang-Mussina-Pettitte-Clemens-Hughes rotation materializes (and it seems likely), the starting pitching should be fine.

This rotation would be useless, however, if the Yankees continue hitting like they have in the past few weeks. The question is whether or not this is the “real” Yankee offense or a slumping one. I think it is somewhere in the middle. I am not concerned about Jeter, Posada, A-Rod, or Matsui. They should all perform up to their expected levels. Damon worries me a little because of his nagging injuries; he’s probably due for a slight decline. Abreu has looked awful at times, but there’s no way he’s become a .600 OPS hitter this quickly. There’s no reason to think he won’t rebound. Cano concerns me primarily because of his inability to lay off bad pitches. He needs Ritalin or something. But he is only 24 and to expect another .890 OPS season without a regression would be unreasonable. I say Cano rebounds, but not quite to his 2006 form. Then there’s Giambi, who worries me the most. He’s 36, physically breaking down, and seemingly cannot consistently get around on fastballs. While he remains useful because of his fantastic eye, he seems the most likely candidate for a sharp decline. The net effect is, in all likelihood, a slight offensive regression as compared to 2006.

Despite all these statistics and whatnot, I think the rest of the Yankees’ season can be determined just but looking at a few simple numbers and remembering a few key circumstances:

• The Yankees’ pitching in April was awful, and now it’s solid. Furthermore, it is now solid and has upside. The return of Phil Hughes – along with Clemens’ arrival – calls for some improvement over the Yankees’ 11th best team ERA and 10th best OPS against. Theoretically, this should make the bullpen more effective as well.
• The Yankees’ offense in April was fantastic, and now it’s slumping. Again, there is upside. The chances of Damon, Abreu, Cano and Giambi continuing to perform at this level is highly unlikely. A simultaneous precipitous decline in all four’s offensive ability would be one of the craziest things I’ve ever seen in baseball. In any case, the Yankees are 3rd in baseball in runs scored, and 4th in OPS.
• The Yankees have outscored their opponents 221-198 this season. Based on this differential, the Yankees should have a record around 22-19, not 18-23. 
• For emphasis, Chien-Ming Wang, Mike Mussina, Darrell Rasner, Jeff Karstens, and Phil Hughes have - in total – missed substantial time due to freak injuries. When they have been healthy (and none has a history of injuries), they have been effective. Furthermore, a rotation of Wang-Pettitte-Mussina-Clemens-Hughes is fast-approaching. This bodes well.

The season pretty much rides on two events occurring: the offense regaining some semblance of its 2006 form, and the pitching staying healthy. I’d say each event has a good chance of occurring. The remaining question is, quite simply, will it be enough to reach the playoffs? I don’t have an answer for this. It seems highly unlikely that the Yankees can win the AL East, although that would be sweet if they did. The most realistic goal is the Wild Card. I certainly think that the Yankees can do it. I watch each and every minute of each and every game, and I can tell you with complete honesty that I have never seen a team subjected to more bad luck than the 2007 Yankees. Everything that could wrong has gone wrong (knocking furiously on wood). I am pretty confident that the Yankees will bounce back and play good baseball for the rest of the season. I remain uncertain, however, as to whether that will be enough to get to the playoffs. 

An Uncontested Layup

SportsCenter anchor Scott Van Pelt narrating the Spurs-Suns highlights:

“[Amare] Stoudemire had 17 of his 38 points in first half.” (emphasis his)

17/38 is 44.7%, which means Stoudemire had about half of his total points in the first half, which is completely unspectacular. Emphasis = unnecessary.