Just a tease

I've got a biggums coming soon, but here is a quick TSTIHAD from TGWNA BFF Joe Morgan:

Joseph Feldstein (Stamford, CT): Behind Glavine, Maine, Perez, and Pelfrey who should be that 5th starter until Pedro returns?

SportsNation" height="11" width="24"> Joe Morgan: I really like Maine and I think he will be a very good pitcher. I think the Mets are going to win the East.

Honestly, if you're one of Joe Morgan's kids and you read this chat, you've got to be a little worried about the pops, right? Doesn't he sound like he's going to be forgetting where he put his teeth soon? (Correct answer: Wrapped around Frank Robinson's dick)

Anyway, I've been reading The God Delusion, and despite the fact that I'm only about 100 pages through after a couple of days, it's already beginning to adjust the way I see things (obviously not in terms of religion; more in terms of how I view people who continue to believe in things despite mountains of evidence that proves the opposite is correct). Here's another Q&A from the Morgan chat:

Muggsi (Newport, Rhode Island): Hi Joe, please answer a Tigers question for me. I'm curious about the work that Lloyd McClendon is doing with Curtis Granderson. He's not striking out as much (for now), and he seems to be a little more patient. But he always seems to be in 0-2 counts. Should this be addressed, and if so, will he become a better hitter because of it? Thanks for your response.

SportsNation" height="11" width="24"> Joe Morgan: He will be a better hitter with patience and and once he learns how to handle pitch counts. You do not want to be 0-2. I talked to him last season and he is a very smart player, and I think he will be a very good player. I think McClendon can really help him if they work together.

While this really is the perfect example of a Joe Morgan response to a question -- he doesn't actually ever answer the question, he mentions that he talked with the player at some point and has something obliquely nice to say about said player, thinks the player will be "good," and gives some unnecessary dap to a manager/coach that only Joe Morgan thinks is actually competent -- that's neither here nor there. What is important is that Joe's not alone in thinking that 0-2 counts are a product of poor pitch counts/discipline. While this certainly can be the case, I wonder if it really is?

That's a rhetorical question; I already know the answer. I'll write more about this, and other TGD-inspired perspectives, after I manage to get the other half of TGWNA the F off my couch.

The Stupidest Thing I've Heard All Day, April 12

Just in case anyone wondered what went through Steve Phillips' head when he made some of the worst personnel moves in the history of professional sports, here's an example of this man's line of thought:

(Re: B.J. Upton)
Upton is still raw and at times overly agressive while hitting. He's hitting .385 but has struck out 11 times in 25 ABs. That's a formula for failure--it's just a matter of time. I think the Devil Rays should trade Upton at peak value and try to bring some pitching back for their organization.

I doubt highly that many professional baseball G.M.s take time out of their busy days to read online chats by the guy who used to be their insurance policy against being the worst within the peer group. Well, maybe Bavasi does, but he won't count in about two weeks anyway. Anyway, here's what Steve Phillips has to offer on one of the most scrutinized young players in the major leagues:

1) He's still raw: This would make sense, as Upton is 22. Thanks Steve.

2) At times he's overly aggressive when hitting: This could probably be said about every major league hitter, with the possible exception of the laconic Bobby Abreu and the incomparable Albert Pujols. Everyone else gets out of line sometimes. This is not helpful analysis.

3) He's hitting .385: This is awesome because Steve, in the same sentence, admits that Upton's only had 25 at-bats. Twenty-five at-bats! Mind you, it is 175 doggy at-bats, so maybe it does mean something.

4) He's struck out 11 times in those 25 ABs: Again, it's 25 AB! STOP ACTING LIKE THIS SAMPLE SIZE IS INDICATIVE OF WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT FROM 22-YEAR-OLD B.J. UPTON WHO IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE AWESOME AT BASEBALL.

SORRY AB Sorry about the screaming.

5) The "that's a formula for failure" line: No, it's not. Again, let me pull out a list that's come in handy before:

NL

Dunn-CIN	194
Howard-PHI	181
Hall-MIL	162
Soriano-WSN	160
Bay-PIT	156

That's a list of the gentlemen who struck out more than anyone else in the National League last season. Also doubles as: A list of five of the most valuable players in the NL last season.

For the last time, everyone: Strikeouts are really not that bad at all. Provided you are good at hitting, a concept that is not mutually exclusive with striking out.

6) I think the Devil Rays should trade Upton at peak value and try to bring some pitching back for their organization.

I just want everyone to read that sentence again. I'll wait.

...

For the last year, just about everyone has taken turns stomping on B.J. Upton's nuts, because he hasn't hit quite like he was expected to and it's turned out that he couldn't catch a grounder off the bat of a little leaguer. He's gone from SS to 2B to 3B to possible outfielder and back to 2B this season. That many position changes would make Jenna Jameson's head spin. All the while, the Devil Rays have publicly wrung the franchise's metaphorical hands over what to do with this guy, like he was some kind of ticking, iron-gloved time bomb. Two days before Spring Training came to a close, they announced they weren't going to dick around with him as some kind of super-utility player, instead opting to stick him at second base, where at least they're used to having shitty defenders. The general vibe coming from Tampa is that the club is treating the keystone like it's a fucking quarantine island for the worlds biggest-swinging leper.

Then, to top it all off, idiot pundits like Steve Phillips won't get off the kid's ass for two seconds, constantly nattering about his strikeouts (no mention of that ugly .308 OBP he put up last year, though) and his defense, and referring to him as a giant disappointment.

Yet, his value is at its peak because he's hitting .385 in 25 fucking ABs.

When I started writing this, I was in a good mood and I wanted it to be funny. Now, I'm just really angry and I want to make a time machine and fly back in time and abort Steve Phillips.

(Too soon?)

Do not attempt to feed the HOFers

Check the technique, yo: Mike Schmidt is wicked pissed, and he's dropping shit like a pidgeon.

Unprompted, Mike Schmidt ticked off two names that, well, "tick me off. Pat Burrell and Adam Dunn, because they strike out so much."

First of all, I absolutely adore how incapable the Philadelphia media is of spending more than one week without broadsiding Pat Burrell. If Jim Salisbury walks into a McDonald's, and sees Burrell not tip the guy at the cash, it'll be in a story the next day. Nevermind the fact that no one tips people at McDonalds; that Burrell doesn't is more evidence that he's not a team player who strikes out too much and doesn't hustle to first and isn't even an adequate defensive left fielder and is responsible for the Great Hunger, because he was a secret British eco-terrorist in 1845.

Anyway, Schmidt has a problem with Burrell, and Dunn as well, because they strike out a lot. They are also high-OBP power hitters who are expected to slug at least .500 on a yearly basis. But I understand, to a point; Schmidt was one of those extremely rare power hitters who also managed to strike out infrequently. We can't expect him to understand the toils of lesser mortals ... oh, yes, we totally can:

This came from a guy who struck out 1,883 times during 18 years with the Phillies, including five seasons of more than 135 whiffs. He struck out so much early in his career that teammate Willie Montañez called him "Ah-choo" because strikeouts create the same breeze as a sneeze.

A guy who struck out so much that a nickname of his referred to his inability to avoid taking the collar is really pissed off that Burrell and Dunn strike out so much. It should be noted that the nicknames of those players are "Pat the Bat" and "Big Donkey," respectively. I do not believe either of those nicknames have to do with striking out, so obviously they have baseball talents that far outweigh their weaknesses, real or imagined.

Schmidt, the keynote speaker yesterday morning at a breakfast in Dayton, Ohio, said he regretted the way he approached hitting during his Hall of Fame career.

"Now I know that if I had choked up on the bat with two strikes and hadn't been so aggressive and gave in to the pitcher, I wouldn't have struck out so much. And that's what guys like Dunn and Burrell have to realize," Schmidt added.

Poor Mike Schmidt. I'm sure what he's thinking, when he's named to another publication's All-Century Team and is called pretty much unarguably the greatest third baseman of all-time by people who study baseball for a living, he thinks to himself, "They shoulda picked Carney Lansford!" You know why? Because Carney Lansford choked up on the fucking bat when there were two strikes, dammit.

Mike Schmidt career OPS+: 147
Mike Schmidt career SsTP (Sumbissions to Pitcher): 1883

Carney Lansford career OPS+: 111
Carney Lansford career SsTP: 719

Yep, Schmidt really should have spent less time being one of the singular offensive forces in the game and more time worrying about "not giving into the pitcher," which apparently means assuring the pitcher that you're content tapping out to the shortstop in an effort to avoid the ignominy of striking out.

Schmidt said that with a game on the line, pitchers don't mind facing guys like the Reds' Dunn and the Phillies' Burrell because they know they can strike them out.

"How do I know this? Because when I played, pitchers wanted me up there with the game on the line," he said. "They'd rather face me than a guy behind me like Greg Luzinski, who would put the ball in play.

I want to meet the pitcher who doesn't mind facing Burrell or Dunn in tight situations. I will not meet this pitcher, because he is such an idiot that he drowned yesterday in his bathroom sink while shaving.

As for the whole "they'd rather face me than Luzinski because he'd put the ball in play," thing, I think Schmidt has been dipping into my hash supply.

Mike Schmidt, SsTP/162 games: 127
Greg Luzinski, SsTP/162 games: 133

Anyway, not content to simply be wrong with his anecdotes, Schmidt decides to also be wrong with statistics. This is a wonderful quote:

"I look at Dunn and Burrell and I go, 'My God, if these guys cut their strikeouts down to 75 or 80, they put the ball in play 85 or 90 more times a year.' That's at least 15 more home runs a year and at least 35 more RBIs a year."

Mike Schmidt has already told us the way a batter can, theoretically, cut down on his strikeouts is to choke up on the bat, shortening his swing. When one shortens his swing, it cuts down (often drastically) on his power. Or so one would think; Mike Schmidt has actually found the door to the Matrix, here, because he's theorizing that shortening one's swing will actually cause one to hit home runs more frequently.

Burrell, HR/balls in play, 2006: 11.4
Burrell, HR/balls in play, in Schmidt's fantasy world of shortened swings: 6

That's fucking genius.

Schmidt hit 548 home runs, was National League MVP four times, and was named the top major-league player of the 1980s, despite his strikeouts. He wonders whether Dunn and Burrell watch St. Louis superstar Albert Pujols, a guy who hits not only for power but also for average, and strikes out fewer than 70 times a year.

"I mean, why would Dunn and Burrell watch what Pujols does and not want to be like him, as good as he is?" Schmidt said. "When their careers are over, they are going to wonder how much they left on the table, how much they left on the field. If only they had choked up with two strikes, spread their stances out. What they are doing now is not great, it is mediocrity."

We're going to ignore the fact that trying to compare Pat Burrell to once-in-a-generation hitters like PooHoles and Joe DiMaggio (guys who hit for power despite not striking out a ton) seems to be a favorite theme of Philadelphia sportswriters. What we are not going to ignore is the sheer lunacy Schmidt is displaying here: He actually thinks that the only thing separating PooHoles and Burrell is the latter's stubbornness in re: Striking Out. If only Burrell would strike out less, he'd suddenly turn into one of the single most incredible offensive players in the history of the sport.

Justin, my good friend, can you please explain to me why it is that retired Phillies greats are turning into total fucking retards?

Also, just because stuff like this is interesting to me, did anyone notice this?

Burrell in 2005: .289/.389/.504
Burrell in 2006: .258/.388/.502

Burrell, at one point, was benched because he was having such a "horrible" season (that is not a quote from anyone in particular), but did anyone on the coaching staff notice that, with the exception of batting average, he was having a virtually identical (and excellent) offensive season this year as he did last year? If anything, Burrell's '06 is more impressive, because he had to fade a 31-point drop in BA in order to keep his OBP and SLG in order. That's unreal! By all means, Kevin Towers, if Pat Gillick is dumb enough to pay any portion of this gentleman's salary, I would be more than happy to remove this albatross from the Philadelphia lineup.

Also:

Take a gander at 2006 most egregious SsTP offenders in the NL:

NL

Dunn-CIN	194
Howard-PHI	181
Hall-MIL	162
Soriano-WSN	160
Bay-PIT	156

I mean, fuck those guys. Always giving in to the pitcher and shit. When they're not too busy being five of the most valuable hitters in all of baseball.