Want To Be Recognized As An Elite Defender? Become An Exceptional Hitter

The 2009 AL Gold Glove winners have been announced. Do you notice a pattern? If you don’t, perhaps my inclusion of each player’s 2009 OPS+ will give it away:

• C – Joe Mauer (170)
• 1B – Mark Teixeira (149)
• 2B – Placido Polanco (88)
• 3B – Evan Longoria (130)
• SS – Derek Jeter (132)
• OF – Ichiro Suzuki (127)
• OF – Torii Hunter (126)
• OF – Adam Jones (106)

As you can see, six of the eight winners are exceptional hitters. One is above average, and another is mediocre. Nevertheless, the voters would have you believe that not only are these players incredible offensive forces, they are elite defenders as well. Is this possible? Sure. Some guys have all the luck. Is this probable? Not at all, especially because we can quantify defensive ability better than ever before.

If Gold Gloves were awarded based solely on defensive merit (as is the stated purpose of the award), the recipients should have been:

• C – Gerald Laird (64)
• 1B – Kendry Morales (137)
• 2B – Dustin Pedroia (110)
• 3B – Evan Longoria (130)
• SS – Elvis Andrus (82)
• OF – Ichiro Suzuki (127)
• OF - Franklin Gutierrez (103)
• OF – Carl Crawford (113)

The more I think about Gold Glove voting, the more irritated I get. I can’t profess genuine surprise that the recipients are superior hitters; this has almost always been the case. What really gets me is that the voters sometimes appear to ignore defensive measurements altogether when choosing the best defenders. For example, Gerald Laird had as many errors as Joe Mauer in 2009 and threw out base-stealers at a much higher rate. Ah, but look at Mauer’s offensive numbers! He gets the award. Cy Young and MVP voting may be flawed, but at least the voters look at pitching and hitting statistics when making their selections – however useless those statistics might be. If Cy Young voting worked the same way Gold Glove voting does, selections would be based on how well the pitcher hits.

Gold Glove awards should go to the best defenders, period. Until that happens, I think I might have just convinced myself that this award is the biggest sham in sports.

 

1-1

Before last night’s game, I meant to post something like the following:

I just can’t shake the feeling that Bad A.J. will be showing up tonight. The Phillies are patient and Burnett is wild anyway, which is not a good combination. I also can’t shake the feeling that Pedro Martinez is going to junkball his way through six scoreless innings in his return to the Bronx. I would love to be wrong in both cases.

I was mostly wrong, and I couldn’t be happier. Burnett struck out nine and walked two in seven innings of outstanding work. Martinez’s performance (6 IP, 3 ER, 2 BB, 8 K) seemed pedestrian by comparison, but he really was in control for most of his outing. Both pitchers were pleasures to watch, even if I was actively rooting for Pedro’s rehabilitated shoulder to fall off.

On a less heartening note, the front page of ESPN.com has a “story” about Alex Rodriguez’s 0-for-8 performance so far in the World Series. You can get to it by clicking the image captioned “A-Rod’s Struggles.” You can probably imagine how I feel about this, but I want to point how just how stupid (and really, there is no other word for it) this article is. The article basically consists of Yankee players saying “it’s only eight at-bats”, “he’s the reason we’re here”, and “we’re not worried”, while Gene Wojciechowski retorts with “they can dress it up all they want, but A-Rod is choking.” It’s utter nonsense, and I’m profoundly disappointed that it took eight (EIGHT!) unproductive at-bats for national columnists to start readying the torches and pitchforks.

Go get ‘em in Game Three, boys.

David Cross Should Stick To Comedy

This afternoon, I returned to Manhattan from Connecticut on a very crowded train. I turned to my iPod for entertainment, but quickly realized that I have added little new music in recent months (suggestions are welcome), and that I am bored with my current selection. There was a cute and especially bug-eyed pug across the aisle, but with me being neither its owner nor adjacent, its fun factor was limited. The same went for another charming dog in the alcove ahead of me. I was a man with few options.

Consequently, I found myself reading my girlfriend’s copies of New York magazine (which included a heartening article by Jay Jaffe) and Time Out New York. The latter contained a barely noticeable excerpt from an exchange with comedian David Cross, who offered his opinions on the New York Mets:

“Oh, man. If you want to talk baseball, I’ll do that all day. I can’t believe they didn’t even make a play for [Victor] Martinez.”

“I feel bad for Mets fans. Now, I don’t really give a [damn] about the Mets – or Mets fans, really – but when you pay that much money for tickets, and then a little over halfway through the season you just say, ‘Nah, we give up. [Screw] it…’ I can’t imagine Minaya being there next year. Just some bad, bad moves. They go in and sign the best pitcher in the majors, and then there is no backup for him? John Maine?”

The most important bit of information here is the Mets’ record at the trading deadline and at the time of the interview. At the trading deadline, the Mets were 49-53 – ten and a half games behind the Philadelphia Phillies in the NL East and 6.5 games back in the wild card. In late August, approximately when Cross was questioned (I’m assuming), the Mets were 17.5 games back in their division and 13 games behind the wild card leader. Also, from the trading deadline through late August, the Mets were without the services of Carlos Delgado, Jose Reyes, J.J. Putz, John Maine, Carlos Beltran, Fernando Martinez, Jonathon Niese, David Wright, and Johan Santana for long stretches. And owner Fred Wilpon has lost millions in the Bernard Madoff scandal. What, exactly, would Cross have the Mets to do combat this litany of problems?

So – and I can’t believe I’m saying this – I think we can all forgive the Mets for not being totally equipped to handle this ludicrous streak of horrible luck. The Mets didn’t make a play for Victor Martinez because they (a) had no money and (b) were 6.5 games out of the division with most of their best players on the disabled list for the foreseeable future. The Mets did not say “[screw] it.” They said “we’re broke, we’re not looking good for the playoffs, and everyone is hurt – we probably shouldn’t trade prospects to take on more money for a lost cause.” Finally, is Cross really criticizing the Mets for not having a comparable replacement for Johan Santana? There isn’t a team in baseball that can replace 200 innings of 3.00 ERA pitching from within the organization.

Look, Mets’ general manager Omar Minaya has made some questionable moves and even more questionable public relations decisions. But everyone – sportswriters, fans, comedians – can feel free to stop piling on the Mets for a legitimately promising season that was derailed by a freakish, unforeseen, and unprecedented rash of injuries.

I know Cross is just a comedian, but give me (and if not me, the Mets) a break.

Like Shooting Fish In A Barrel

I’m a little worn down from yesterday’s extra long post and a hectic day at work, so I’ve chosen to produce the easiest bit of content I know: a critique of a Joe Morgan chat. Enjoy these nuggets and – if you’re in New York City – stay dry.

Matt (New Jersey): Hey Joe. Other than Pujols, is there any better 1B than Justin Morneau? What a fantastic player he is…

Joe Morgan: You’re 100% correct, with the exception of Pujols. Justin Morneau for the last 3 years continues to improve. That’s the mark of a great player, that you continue to improve. He’s considered an offensive player as much as anything. He doesn’t run as well as Pujols, but he’s a great hitter. Prince Fielder and Justin Morneau are the future stars at that position, though Pujols is still young.

Justin Morneau was born on May 15th, 1981, making him almost exactly seven months younger than Albert Pujols. I will bet you a popsicle that Joe Morgan thinks Morneau is five years younger than he actually is. Also, I’m pretty sure that Fielder and Morneau’s 1.000ish OPSes make them current stars at the first base position.

Michael (Houston): Do you think the Astros can really do it?

Joe Morgan: Yes. I don’t know what’s the in water there in Houston, but it seems to energize these guys in the second half every year. I thought they could have made the playoffs last year, except for the hurricane that moved those three games from Houston to Milwaukee. I think they can make the run this year.

If Joe Morgan thinks the Astros can make the playoffs, then they aren’t going to make the playoffs. After this anti-endorsement, I’m more confident about this than ever. For more detailed explanations about the Astros forthcoming failure, look here and here.

Matt (Jacksonville): Joe, the Cubs can’t seem to get on a consistent roll. Is there anyway for them to get consistency this year?

Joe Morgan: Last year there was something about the Cubs personality of the team. There was something different. They were a fun team to watch. I enjoyed watching them. I enjoyed talking to them. There just seems to be a different personality of the team this year. In addition, the confidence level has fallen a little bit. The injury to Ramirez set them back. Everyone talked about DeRosa and he’s one of my favorite players, but Jason Marquis is also gone. It’s just a little different now. The answer is, I don’t know if they’ll be able to re-gain that consistency of last year, but they still have a shot at their division.

The Cubs’ mediocre record has nothing to do with a change in team personality. It has everything to do with this:

• 2008: .354 OBP, .443 SLG, .797 OPS
• 2009: .323 OBP, .403 SLG, .726 OPS

Their offense has gone from one of the very best in baseball to one of the very worst. But yes, let’s waste an entire paragraph attributing the Cubs’ decline to “a different personality” and not the inability to hit a baseball.

Ben (Lincoln, NE): So Mr. Morgan, are the White Sox legit contenders? Because it seems most analysts still only think the Tigers or Twins have a real shot at the AL Central… and I’m not sure why they ignore the southsiders…

Joe Morgan: I definitely believe the White Sox have a chance. Any time you have Dye, Thome, Ramirez, you have a good team. I don’t know when Carlos Quentin is coming back, but if they can get healthy, I think they definitely have a chance.

Carlos Quentin returned to the White Sox yesterday, as reported by Joe Morgan’s employer. He also played in last night’s game, going 1 for 4 with a single. But that’s okay, I’m sure Morgan’s professional responsibilities don’t include knowing about a 2008 MVP candidate’s recent return from an injury.

Time to grab some dinner, watch Sergio Mitre make his season debut, and wonder why the Yankees refuse to put Phil Hughes into the rotation. Until next time.

Steve Phillips’ Assessment Of Carlos Beltran Is New Nadir In Sports Analysis

I’m a little late to the party on this one, but the most recent bit of stupidity from ESPN’s Steve Phillips warrants mentioning, however tardy. 

As you might know, the much-maligned former general manager went off the deep end a little bit in a recent Mets-Braves broadcast. Phillips apparently partook in the current fad amongst baseball analysts and sports radio hosts, which is the diagnosis of what exactly is wrong with the New York Mets (answer: it’s May). The popular conclusion to this diagnosis – thanks partly to the team’s own GM – is usually that the Mets lack an “edge” or the toughness necessary to win consistently. Phillips did nothing to correct this ambiguous and useless sentiment. Instead, he offered a more specific criticism by targeting center fielder Carlos Beltran as a symbol of what is wrong with the Mets. Of course, his argument maintained the total ambiguity that so often characterizes a poorly conceived position on an issue. Many writers took note of Phillips’ dumbfounding tirade and responded with an appropriate mix of disbelief and chagrin. I’d recommend you check out Ted Berg, Bob Raissman, Sam Page, and Joe Posnanski’s responses in particular.

Steve Phillips’ recent chat on ESPN.com provided an opportunity for him to clarify, amend, and reconsider his clearly wrongheaded position on the Mets and Carlos Beltran. As a general fan of clarity and accountability, I was more than a little interested in Phillips’ response to the inevitable question about his infamous denunciation. Indeed, the last question of the chat was an admirably restrained disagreement with Phillips’ position. In light of the overwhelming evidence against Phillips’ argument, I was sure he would concede at least some ground. I was totally wrong:

Beltran Stays (New York): Steve, while I respect your work, I disagree with your statements about Carlos Beltran on Sunday Night Baseball. The guy has done nothing but produce, and name me a CF who’s better in the game right now. 

Steve Phillips: If the Mets don’t make the playoffs, I firmly believe they need to reconfigure the core of this team. While Beltran does have talent, I just don’t see him as a winning player. Even after my comments on Sunday night, Beltran let a fly ball drop in between himself and Angel Pagan in the Dodger game. I see him putting up numbers but not making plays to win games. I would take Torii Hunter, Grady Sizemore, Curtis Granderson, and Nate McLouth over Beltran, and use the financial difference to improve the team in other ways. Beltran isn’t a $17 million dollar a year player. He just doesn’t have the kind of impact for that kind of money. 

Steve Phillips: Many people think that Alex Rodriguez is the best player in the game, but he’s never won anything. I look at Beltran in a similar fashion as Rodriguez–a great talent that just doesn’t seem to have what it takes to win championships. Maybe the Mets can keep him and add pieces to the core around him and still win. But when you’re dealing with a budget and the screams of immediacy in New York, I’m not sure the Mets can wait to piece it together around him. I know there are a lot of people who disagree with me, but it’s just the way I see it. Beltran is a very good person and a solid citizen, in addition to being a guy who puts up numbers. I like him, I just don’t think they can win with him. 

Once again, Phillips reveals that he is simply not a smart person. His arbitrary labeling of Beltran as a non-”winning player” illustrates his total ignorance of how baseball works while doing nothing to cut through the pervasive ambiguity of his argument. Allow me to be perfectly clear about the fact that Beltran is an exceptional, wonderful, Hall of Fame-caliber baseball player. His .370 batting average ranks first in baseball among outfielders. That goes for his .467 on-base percentage. His .584 slugging percentage ranks eighth. He does these things while providing extraordinary baserunning and defense. Phillips just cannot seem to grasp that these numbers represent the careful recording of real-life events that have occurred in real-life baseball games played by real-life baseball players. “Putting up numbers,” particularly those of Beltran’s caliber, is synonymous with ”making plays to win games.” It’s also ridiculous and unfair to say that Beltran “just doesn’t seem to have what it takes to win championships.” He’s been on some horrendous teams and some unlucky teams in his career. That’s why he hasn’t won a World Series.

I wonder if Phillips thinks the same of Tony Gwynn, Ken Griffey Jr., Jim Thome, or any other Hall of Fame-caliber player that hasn’t won a championship. I’m guessing he’d draw yet another arbitrary and ambiguous distinction to keep Beltran separate from those players.

 

Mark Schlabach Would Be Bad At Marketing

This past weekend, one of my good friends from college sent me this link to Mark Schlabach’s very early college football rankings. He prefaced its consumption with the demand that I pay special attention to the blurb accompanying Schlabach’s #6-ranked team, the Ohio State Buckeyes. Being a dutiful person, I complied. Here’s the blurb:

It’s hard to imagine the Buckeyes’ being as good as last season without star players such as Chris “Beanie” Wells, James Laurinaitis and Malcolm Jenkins. But quarterback Terrelle Pryor will probably be better in his second season as a starter, and the offensive line might be much better after underperforming the past few seasons. The Buckeyes feel good about tailbacks Dan “Boom” Herron and Brandon Saine, and receivers DeVier Posey and Taurian Washington showed glimpses of productive play during spring practice. Michigan transfer Justin Boren looks like a star at left guard, and Andy Miller and Mike Adams were still battling at left tackle at the end of spring drills. Sophomore Michael Brewster is one of the better centers in the country. Ohio State’s defensive line is as deep and talented as any unit in the country. But there are two new starters at linebacker, and cornerbacks Jenkins and Donald Washington won’t be easily replaced. The Buckeyes open the season with difficult non-Big Ten games against Navy and USC, and play league road games at Penn State on Nov. 7 and at Michigan on Nov. 21.

So, to recap, Ohio State will be good because:

• Terrelle Pryor will probably be better
• The offensive line might be much better
• Two receivers “showed glimpses” during practice
• Two guys are still fighting for the starting left tackle spot
• There are two new starters at linebacker
• It will be hard to replace two starting cornerbacks
• Their non-conference schedule is difficult

Well I’m sold.

Unselfishness Is Unnecessary In Baseball

A few nights ago, I flipped to the fairly-new MLB Network during a commercial. Harold Reynolds was moderating a discussion about this year’s World Baseball Classic. There were two analysts, one of whom I did not recognize. The other was former Cincinnati Reds shortstop Barry Larkin, who made a point with which I strongly disagree. Here’s what he said:

REYNOLDS: How is Team USA approaching the WBC differently this year compared to last time around?

LARKIN: I think the key difference is that this year, Team USA has moved away from taking just the best players, and instead has taken the best team. You’ve got guys like Mark DeRosa, who you can move around a bit and who’s willing to do the little things for the team. You’ve got to have players who are willing to put a bunt down, hit behind a runner, and play situational baseball. You’ve got to have those players who are willing to sacrifice their personal stats for the good of the team.

I think Larkin’s assessment demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how baseball works. In baseball, more so than any other major sport, it is more important to have the best players instead of the best “team.” This is because baseball is, essentially, a long and exhausting series of one-on-one encounters. Baseball is the pitcher versus the batter, and then versus the next batter, and so on and so forth until the first pitcher becomes tired or ineffective. Then, it’s the new pitcher versus (usually) the same batters as before. The outcome of each individual encounter is either something that helps create a run or detracts from its creation. If a lineup is comprised of nine players who are good at not making outs, and a pitching staff is comprised of players who are good at getting the opponent out, then you have a good team.