Team-Wide Trends Continue To Elude Joe Morgan

I’d like to apologize for the lack of content recently. I spent much of last week working on a large piece, hoping to post it on Friday. Then I sent it to the smartest person I know, who lived up to that billing by pointing out several problems with the argument and its lack of focus. So, licking my wounds, I’m returning to the drawing board with no estimated time of arrival. I’ve also started a new job working with middle schoolers to improve their literacy skills (those of you that have followed Fan Interference since its inception can feel free to shudder now). Although it’s only part-time, it requires a significant commute and some work outside the classroom, so finding time to post will become marginally more difficult. But, much like utilizing both sabermetrics and scouting, I’m confident that a balance can be found.

Today’s offering is meager but meaningful. One week ago, I posted a blurb about ESPN analyst Joe Morgan’s infamous reluctance to look things up before offering his opinion. Well, Morgan did it again in today’s chat:

Matt (St. Louis): Hi Joe, From the current playoff contenders which team do you think is the best well rounded?

Joe Morgan: I think St. Louis in the National League. They have excellent starting pitching. Good relief pitching. Until recently Ryan Franklin was great as a closer and I think he can be again in the playoffs. In the American League, I’ve been believing in the Yankees for the last month. But you have to wonder about their starting pitching. Sabathia will get the job done, but you have to wonder about Burnett. Pettitte has the shoulder problems and Joba is a star in the Yankees’ minds and no where else. But I guess all the good teams have some weaknesses. Philly doesn’t have a closer. Anaheim is just now getting their pitching in order, but you have to wonder about their power. Boston, their starting pitching, Lester and then Beckett, but he’s been struggling until recently.

Astute baseball fans will quickly notice Morgan’s incorrect assessment of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim’s perceived deficiency – lack of power. The Angels rank fifth in baseball in slugging percentage, 11th in home runs, 12th in triples, and 14th in doubles. Morgan’s argument for the St. Louis Cardinals is peculiar in two ways: (1) the Cardinals rank 12th in slugging, 15th in home runs, 19th in triples, and 11th in doubles and (2) his argument consists entirely of touting their pitching. I’m not sure the answer to Matt’s question is the Angels. But if Morgan is going to pass over the Angels because of their weak hitting, he can’t go for the Cardinals either.

The more interesting aspect of Morgan’s response is its relationship to the rest of the mainstream sports media. Traditionally, the sports media is slow to pick up on changes in a team’s style of play. I’ve written about this phenomenon before, in which people base their analysis on their perception of a team’s style (usually rooted in history) rather than what the data tells them. Good examples of this include last year’s persistent declaration that the Pittsburgh Steelers are a running team, even though they finished the season ranked 23rd in rushing. Or that the Minnesota Twins are built on defense and unselfish play (read: bunting), when in reality they rank 21st and 25th in those categories. It’s a pretty common practice.

Joe Morgan has consistently demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to evaluate each edition of each baseball team on its own terms. That much is unsurprising. What’s quite surprising – and more than a little disconcerting – is how he’s been left in the dust by even the most obtuse of his peers. I will refrain from naming names, because I still haven’t given up hope that a major sports media network will offer to buy this blog from me for millions of dollars (note: kidding), but I’ve consistently heard these members of the mainstream sports media admire the Angels’ sudden shift from a punchless team to a slugging one. I never thought I’d see the day when the talking heads aren’t praising the Angels for their headiness, grit, guts, baserunning, and timely hitting, but that day has come. The word is out, and everyone knows it: for the first time in years, the Angels can really, really hit. Everyone but Joe Morgan, professional baseball analyst, that is.

… And there goes my multimillion-dollar absorption.

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.

Jim Thome Must Play First Base For Dodgers’ Deal To Make Sense

I was shocked this morning to learn that the Los Angeles Dodgers had acquired Chicago White Sox designated hitter Jim Thome. I was even more shocked when I read the following nuggets:

“I think it’s made us stronger,” Dodgers manager Joe Torre said after a 5-3 loss to the Diamondbacks. “We have a threat off the bench now, and in Garland we certainly have someone who knows how to pitch.”

. . .

Dodgers general manager Ned Colleti envisions Thome playing a role similar to the one Matt Stairs filled for the World Series champion Phillies last year — he hit a key home run against the Dodgers in the NLCS.

“We’re not bringing him over here to play first base,” Colleti said. “We’re bring him here to come off the bench and be a great influence in the clubhouse. He’s one of the true great guys in the game.

“In fact, the night before the deadline he called me. … He just said: ‘I just want to be honest with you. I’d love to come. I want to help you guys any way I can. But playing first base is not something I’m going to be able to do — maybe in an emergency situation, perhaps.’”

As usual, ESPN’s Rob Neyer has beaten me to the punch here. The main issue, obviously, is that Thome apparently refused to play first base for the Dodgers. This doesn’t upset me so much, because it’s better than the alternatives – Thome saying he would man the position and then refusing to do it after his arrival, or the issue going undiscussed altogether. What is a little disconcerting is Colleti’s willingness to let a player dictate when and where he’ll play. Colleti hasn’t always made the most confidence-inspiring moves in his tenure as the team’s general manager, but the one thing that any front office executive cannot afford to do is allow the inmates to run the asylum. Even if that inmate is a possible Hall of Famer. Instead, Colleti should have said “thanks Jim, but no thanks” and continued to search for other ways to improve the team.

I say this because acquiring Thome makes no sense unless the plan is to play him at first base at least some of the time. Thome is by no means washed up. He’s hitting .249/.372/.493, which makes him roughly the fourth-best hitter on his new team. More importantly, he’s a significant offensive upgrade over incumbent first baseman James Loney, who’s hitting .274/.350/.387. Loney is clearly the better defender and baserunner, but his punchless bat makes Thome the better choice to play first base (even if he hasn’t played there since 2007). The Dodgers could even find a nice middle ground and play Thome at first when Clayton Kershaw (a strikeout pitcher) and Randy Wolf (a fly ball pitcher) are on the mound, and use him as a pinch-hitter otherwise. Anything is better than using him exclusively off the bench.

There is certainly an opportunity cost to playing Thome in the field. James Loney – who is only 25 years old – loses some time to develop and perhaps suffers a bruised ego. But the Dodgers are clearly and rightfully in “win now” mode, which means those sorts of concerns are to be dealt with later. And giving Thome three or four plate appearances a game gives the Dodgers the best chance of thriving in October.

The Chicago White Sox Are Not “Underachievers”

Kenny Williams and Ozzie Guillen, possibly bickering about whose idea it was to trade Nick Swisher for Wilson Betemit

Yesterday, Chicago White Sox general manager Kenny Williams offered his opinion about the state of his team:

“I’m not happy with the past road trip. We lost two games that we should’ve won. That [would've] put us a half game out of first place. We’ve thrown away a dozen games that way this year. We’ve deserved what we’ve got. I’m not happy. I’m not happy with a lot of what I see, we’re underachievers, period.”

Manager Ozzie Guillen shared Williams’ feelings:

“The way Kenny built this ballclub, there’s no doubt we’re better than .500. Look at our lineup, look at our pitching staff. Don’t look at our defense, please. Don’t look at that one, we’re horrible. But if you look at the team and say this is a .500 team, you have to be wrong.”

I’m sorry, but I don’t see any evidence to support their labeling of the White Sox as “underachieving.” The team is 61-58 this season, and has outscored opponents by 15 runs. Three games above .500 is just about what you’d expect for a team with a +15 run differential, so there’s no argument there. But maybe Williams and Guillen are referring to the individual performances that actually comprise a team’s runs scored and runs allowed. Maybe they see a roster full of players that simply haven’t done what was expected of them.

Let’s look at the offense first. 33-year-old Paul Konerko has improved his OPS from .782 to .819. Given that players in their 30s rarely make real improvements, this can’t been seen as disappointing. Alexei Ramirez’s OPS has dropped from .792 to .749, but his OBP has increased and he’s on pace for the same number of home runs, so there’s not much to complain about there. 35-year-old Jermaine Dye is having basically the same season as last season, except for a decline in doubles. But… he’s 35. Somehow, 33-year-old Scott Podsednik has given the White Sox 418 plate appearances of .297/.349/.392 hitting, which currently stands as the second-best season of his career. That’s actually a huge bit of overachieving. 32-year-old A.J. Pierzynski has improved his OPS by nearly 100 points, which is both improbable and fortuitous. 38-year-old Jim Thome is having a marginally better season than last. Rookie Gordon Beckham has been incredible at third base. Second base and center field have been offensive black holes, but that’s what you get when you rely on Chris Getz, Jayson Nix, Brian Anderson, and Dewayne Wise for production. The only truly disappointing bat in the White Sox lineup has been Carlos Quentin, who simply hasn’t returned to form following his return from a foot injury. On the aggregate, however, you could make a pretty strong argument that the White Sox have actually overachieved offensively.

Maybe the pitching staff has regressed since last season. Mark Buehrle is pitching almost exactly as well as he did last season. Gavin Floyd’s ERA has increased very slightly, but he’s walking fewer batters, striking out more, and keeping the ball in the ballpark. His ERA should drop to a sub-2008 level. John Danks‘ ERA has risen from 3.32 to 3.96, but relying on him for a repeat performance would be imprudent management. Jose Contreras has been much worse than last year, which is to be expected from a 37-year-old with one good season to his name. Clayton Richard was league-average before being traded to the San Diego Padres in the Jake Peavy deal. Bartolo Colon was the Scott Podsednik of the pitching staff, improbably giving the team 62 innings of 4.19 ERA ball before getting injured. The bullpen has basically repeated its very good 2008 performance. Last year, White Sox relievers posted a 4.06 ERA, .731 OPS against, and 2.49 K/BB. This season, those numbers are 3.85, .732, and 2.11. As you can see, White Sox pitching hasn’t underachieved either. The defense has been exactly as bad as it was last season, too.

It appears to me that the White Sox are truly and sustainably exactly what Ozzie Guillen denies they are – a .500 team. Offensively, the team has overachieved at every position except for second base and center field, positions Kenny Williams apparently chose to punt by relying on awful players for league-average production. The pitching staff has seen consistency from those in their primes (Buehrle, Floyd), growing pains from those approaching it (Danks), and ineptitude from the inept (Contreras). None of that should be surprising to Williams or Guillen.

In the end, Williams’ and Guillen’s shared assessment is a reminder of how managers of questionable quality think. Far too often, they look at previous season’s good individual performances and decide that they will hold constant. They decide that the player has sustainably improved his skills, and that his excellence will become his new norm. In other words, they see what they want to see instead of what a reasoned mix of statistics, scouting, and common sense suggests. This failure to evaluate personnel properly affects the perceived needs and ultimate construction of future teams. It also leads to quotes like the one above, which baffles me not because I agree with it, but because it’s so obviously wrong.

Checking In On My Five Strongest Pseudo-Predictions

I get much of my material from wrongheaded or outright stupid predictions. Without assertions like this, this, and this, Fan Interference would be reduced to the ramblings of a man with nothing against which to push back. So, since I’ve spent some time lambasting particularly ridiculous augury, it seems only fair that I take an objective look at my five strongest pseudo-predictions for the 2009 Major League Baseball season. Here they are:

THE YANKEES’ & RED SOX’ OFF-SEASONS

In early March, Jayson Stark argued that the Red Sox’ free agent signings did as much to improve their team as the Yankees’ did theirs. As usual, this story was reduced to the tale of the underdog Red Sox (and their $120 million payroll) valiantly persevering in the face of the monolithic Yankees and their infinite resources. My problem with Stark’s argument was his failure to grasp the idea of marginal improvement. At the start of the off-season, the Red Sox had a much stronger team than the Yankees. Therefore, their free agent signings (a fourth outfielder, a fifth starter, a bullpen arm, and more starting pitching depth) were good but only a slight improvement for an already wonderful team. The Yankees, on the other hand, had a flawed team that required serious work in important areas. So they signed C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, and Mark Teixeira – three of the top five available free agents. These signings represented a significant improvement because of the team’s initial weakness. Stark failed to understand this, making his argument irksome and faulty.

Let’s take a look at how the Red Sox’ signings have performed in the first half of the season. Rocco Baldelli – signed as insurance for J.D. Drew and to hit left-handed pitching – has put up a .282/.358/.471 line in 85 at-bats. These are wonderful numbers for a fourth outfielder, but no one should be surprised that Baldelli has against had some problems staying healthy. Brad Penny was signed to be the team’s fifth starter, but he’s pitched even worse than that. He has a 5.02ERA and a 1.50 WHIP, with pretty good control but floundering stuff (118 hits in 98 innings). Takashi Saito was brought in to shore up the bullpen with an experienced power arm. He has been merely fine, striking out 28 in 30 innings but walking too many batters. Lastly, John Smoltz was supposed to be a late-season boon to the Red Sox rotation. At this point, we simply don’t know if the signing was a good one or not. Smoltz has thrown 20 innings in four starts, producing a 5.40 ERA. It’s just too early to tell. As you can see, the Red Sox imported a solid group of bit players, but nothing warranting emphatic commendation.

The Yankees signed C.C. Sabathia to replace Chien-Ming Wang, who was masquerading as the team’s ace. Sabathia has had an good but not great first half, posting a 3.66 ERA while struggling somewhat with his control. We must consider him a slight disappointment at this point, even if it is early. A.J. Burnett’s 3.81 ERA is deceptive. He’s walked far too many batters, but his ability to strike out batters has kept this number from getting out of control. He’s done what many expected – wild variance between dominating and worthless starts. Mark Teixeira has been wonderful. The durable first baseman has a .280/.381/.551 line with 23 home runs, even with a woeful first month of the season. He has fulfilled the lofty expectations.

There is simply no competition between these two groups of players. The Red Sox signed a group of useful parts that will play relatively minor roles in the team’s race for the pennant. The Yankees signed an elite group of talent that will make or break their attempt to make the postseason. Baldelli, Penny, Saito and Smoltz have been worth roughly two wins so far this season. Sabathia, Burnett, and Teixeira have been worth nine.

Both then and now, you could easily make an argument for Red Sox superiority over the Yankees. But if the debate is about the quality of talent imported during the winter, there is no contest. Stark’s assertion appears just as wrong now as it did then.

Unsustainable Offense Powers Blue Jays’ Hot Start

At work yesterday, one of my fifth graders approached me and asked “who do you think will win the AL East?” I attempted to cop out and said either the Red Sox or the Yankees, but he was having none of it. He pressed for a definite answer. After much hemming and hawing, I settled on the Red Sox. He furrowed his brow, nodded appreciatively, and then lingered expectantly. Suddenly it occurred to me that the boy was not interested in my infinite wisdom or renowned augury. Instead, he had asked the question of me so that I would ask it of him in return – a habit that does not always disappear with the dawning of adulthood. I conceded. “Who you you think will win it?” His eyes lit up. “The Blue Jays!” he declared with total certainty. Mission accomplished.

The Toronto Blue Jays have been surprisingly good so far in the young season. Their 18-9 record is the best in the American League, and third baseball-wide behind the St. Louis Cardinals and the Los Angeles Dodgers. By itself, this is a nice little story. What has given the story national legs, however, has been the teams beneath the Blue Jays in the standings: the Boston Red Sox, the New York Yankees, and the Tampa Bay Rays. The Blue Jays weren’t supposed to be competitive, given the divisional competition. Yet they currently reside atop the toughest division in Major League Baseball, providing a contrarian position for literally dozens of fifth graders across the country. 

Unfortunately for the Blue Jays, their early success is unsustainable. This is obvious to some degree; the Blue Jays are winning two-thirds of their games, which extrapolates out to 108 wins. That isn’t happening, because it hardly ever happens to any team. Even so, the reason for what will be fleeting superiority is an offense that is performing at an incredibly high level. Torrid starts from seven hitters constitute almost the entire reason for the Blue Jays’ success. When these bats cool off – and they will – Toronto will begin its gradual slide down the AL East standings.

Yankees’ Deployment Of Gardner And Cabrera Indicates Wishful Thinking

Brett Gardner is one half of the Yankees’ biggest problem.

 

April is a tough month for intelligent baseball fans with no scouting background. We can’t offer any useful insight or make reasoned predictions because the sample sizes are so small. As the samples become greater, sure, we can start to put our powers to good use. But until then, scouts have a tight grip on the most important information to be gleaned from some 20 baseball games per team. They can tell whose arm action is slower, or whose hip rotation is off, not me. Heck, I might have just made up those terms. People like me want to have something interesting to say about a player or team, but for the most part, saying anything other than “it’s too early to tell” is probably just guesswork at this point. There are, however, diagnoses that we can make with a much greater degree of certainty than others. One such example is the focus of this post, and that is the Yankees’ situation in center field. 

It’s too early to doom the Yankees’ starting pitching and bullpen, like so many are in the process of doing. It is not too early to gag violently at the thought of Brett Gardner and Melky Cabrera manning the position for the entire season. A look at their respective minor and major league numbers reveals that neither has any business starting on a contending team, particularly one that is clearly trying to win the World Series immediately. If the Yankees are truly going all-in on this season – and the Sabathia, Teixeira, and Burnett signings indicate that they are – then they need to upgrade center field soon. Allowing the Gardner-Cabrera duo submarine a season after committing all that money to premium talents indicates either a total lack of understanding or plain old hubris. A brief examination of the two players will support this position.

90-Win Season An Absurd Expectation For The Houston Astros

Astros Manager Cecil Cooper expects to win 90 games this season.

I forget how it happened exactly, but I recently discovered that prominent members of the Houston Astros expect to win 90 games this upcoming season. Manager Cecil Cooper was quite clear about this, saying:

“We should win 90 games . . . I believe we’ll win 90 games, 90-plus.”

Left fielder Carlos Lee:

“If we stay healthy, yeah, we can win 90.”

Star first baseman Lance Berkman:

“I believe that we can win at least 90 games. At least 90. It could be 91 . . . Why wouldn’t we [win 90]? We won 86 last year. I feel like we have a better team this year.”

I’m here to burst Cooper, Lee, and Berkman’s respective bubbles. I’m going to tell you exactly why the Astros won’t sniff 90 wins this season, and why even mentioning that number as a remotely possible goal is ludicrous. “Why wouldn’t we win 90?” Here’s why you won’t, in succinct and ruthless bullet-point format:

Serious Questions About The #1 Seeds

In a little over an hour, the greatest four days in sports will commence. Right now, there are 64 teams in college basketball that – rightly or wrongly – believe that they can win the six games necessary to be crowned national champions. Monday morning, there will only be 16 teams left after the frenzied weeding-out process has finished. Most people have one of the #1 seeds eventually emerging as the last team standing. This is by no means ridiculous, since Louisville, Pittsburgh, UConn, and North Carolina are each certainly capable of winning it all. Each team, however, also has an issue or two that I believe will eventually become its undoing. 

The Cardinals have an enticing mix of factors working in their favor. They’re deep, balanced, and versatile. They have the apparently necessary “senior leadership” quota filled via Terrence Williams’ presence. They play exceptional defense and are hardened by the rigorous Big East schedule. Rick Pitino is an enormously successful and experienced postseason coach. Ostensibly, there is very little wrong with this mix. Then I am reminded of a text message I received from my Louisvillian friend very early in the season. It was bitingly accurate in its simplicity: “I hope we haven’t contracted Memphis Syndrome.”

“Memphis Syndrome,” in this case (are there other cases?), is synonymous with total futility at the free-throw line. As you may remember, last year’s Memphis Tigers shot 61.4% from the line, “good” for 329th in the country. In spite of this, the Tigers made it all the way to the national championship game, where this shortcoming finally did them in. All season, pundits had intelligently attached the “if they can hit their free-throws” caveat to any analysis of the Tigers’ chances. And all season, coach John Calipari had essentially said “we’ll hit them when we need them.” Well, they needed them against Kansas, and they didn’t hit them. The rest is history.

I bring this up, obviously, because I’m concerned about Louisville’s ability to convert at the free-throw line. They are not as inept as the 2008 Tigers were; the Cardinals shoot 64.3%, which ranks 302nd in the country. Samardo Samuels, Earl Clark, and Terrence Williams lead the team in free-throw attempts. They shoot 67.1%, 65.6%, and 57.3%, respectively. The rest of the gang is no great shakes either. I’m not sure why college basketball analysts aren’t hammering away at this deficiency the way they did with Memphis last year. I think some of it has to do with the seemingly perpetual quest to bring Memphis down from their lofty perch on top of Conference USA, but that’s an argument for another time. Ultimately, I believe the Cardinals will fall because of this shortcoming, although I am not rooting for it.

I can and will sum up Pitt’s issue in much fewer words than I did Louisville’s. Quite simply, the Panthers’ success is causally linked to DeJuan Blair’s ability to stay on the court and out of foul trouble. When he’s in the game, the Panthers are incredibly difficult to beat. When he’s not, they become an above-average team instead of an exceptional one. Small sample size be damned, I remain somewhat skeptical of coach Jamie Dixon’s decision-making with respect to his most important player. Like so many coaches, Dixon opts to sit his star player when foul trouble arises instead of letting him play through it because of his importance. To be fair, Dixon has done this in regular season games, when a loss doesn’t result in the end of the season. Perhaps Dixon will be more flexible in his management of Blair’s foul trouble, given the single-elimination format. In any case, I don’t think Blair can go six straight games against high-quality opponents and not run into serious foul trouble. Levance Fields’ iffy groin isn’t helping things either.

The Huskies don’t have one glaring issue, but two more moderate issues that could be disastrous if they occur simultaneously. The first and most obvious problem is the indefinite absence of guard Jerome Dyson. Perhaps Kemba Walker and Craig Austrie can continue to compensate for Dyson’s missing production, but it’s a tall order. The other and potentially exacerbating problem is center Hasheem Thabeet’s variance in performance. Thabeet is capable of both monster games and Grade-A stinkers. In looking at his game log, you also might notice that his performance tends to dip significantly when facing good teams. Of course, this can be said of virtually anyone. But UConn can ill-afford for this trend to continue, particularly with Dyson’s absence. Unfortunately for the Huskies, they face nothing but quality teams the rest of the way.

Ty Lawson’s toe. That’s it. It’s the most-watched digit in America right now, upon which the exchange of millions of dollars rests. If Lawson’s toe is truly fine, then this tournament is the Tar Heels’ to lose. North Carolina’s point guard is the most efficient offense in the country’s engine. He, not Tyler Hansbrough, is the team’s best player. He’s about as important to the Tar Heels’ success and DeJuan Blair is to Pittsburgh’s. I usually don’t put much stock in things like this, but some of the quotes seen here are pretty disconcerting. Teammate Bobby Frasor is saying “he’s not the same Ty we’ve all seen,” and Lawson himself is saying “it’s just pain when I’m cutting back and forth.” That’s cool, it’s not like there’s tons of cutting back and forth in basketball. I think you get my point. Much like the Blair situation, I don’t see Lawson physically holding up for six straight games. 

* * * * * * *

After long and serious thought (seriously), I’m picking Memphis to win the national championship. I’m not sure they’re as good as last year’s team, but that’s the whole point: I’m not sure. For each of the #1 seeds, I know of a serious danger or deficiency that could very well end their tournament experience. As for the Tigers, well, I don’t know. They spent another year absolutely annihilating everyone in their middling conference. Maybe this means they’re just picking on the little guys, or maybe it means they’re really good. Ultimately, that’s the reason I’m picking Memphis. I don’t know exactly what they are, but they might be exceptional. 

Happy March Madness, everyone. 

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.