Thursday, May 1st, 2008...11:32 am
Banny Log 043008
Start No. 6: Vs. Texas Rangers
Innings: 3
Earned runs allowed: 7.
Strikeouts: 3
Walks: 2
Homers: 3 (Yikes!)
Decision: Loss (3-3)
Number of pitches: 90
Number of strikes: 52
BABIP: .538 (7 for 13)
Season BABIP: .265 (30 for 113)
Well, that was bad. There’s not really a whole lot else to say about it. Bill James says that when he was watching Royals games in the 1980s he could always tell in the first inning how good pitcher Danny Jackson would be that day. I don’t know if I can make that claim about Banny yet but … I could tell you during his battle with leadoff batter Ian Kinsler on Wednesday that Banny was off. He started off Kinsler game with two balls, and then he threw a third ball that the home plate umpire for inexplicable reasons decided to call a strike. It was, all-in-all, an eight pitch at-bat, and even though Brian got the out, I don’t think Brian hit his spot one time, and with any pitcher (but especially with Banny) that’s a bad sign.
He just has to be fine to be successful. Now, I think he will be fine most nights. But every so often, he’s going to have one of these nights, especially in a hitter’s park with the wind blow out. First inning, after getting Kinsler, he gave up a single to Michael Young, and he gave up a hard line drive to Josh Hamilton, and he threw an 88-mph fastball over the outside half that Milton Bradley* poked the other way for a home run. It wasn’t a terrible pitch — Bradley sort of dove over the plate and hit it up into the wind and it carried out — but again I think it missed the spot, caught a little too much plate, was a little high. I’m sure Banny would have liked it to be a little better. He then had a 10-pitch battle with David Murphy. It clearly wasn’t his day.
*Plenty has been said and written about the joyous attitude of Milton Bradley, but he was especially wonderful this game. He cracked his helmet after grounding out to second base … which is no big deal except this was with the Rangers holding a 7-0 lead and it was one batter after Josh Hamilton had hit a grand slam. Then he went to the outfield and just moped. Later he struck out with his team up 9-1 and he broke a bat over his knee. Then he took himself out of the game because, apparently, he wasn’t feeling great. A banner day.
The second inning was a lot worse — the worst inning for Banny this season. Some of it was the wind, which was really howling pretty good. Some of it was a frustrated Rangers team swinging out of their shoes. But most of it was just Banny being off. He was trying to throw an 88-mph fastball outside to the immortal Brandon Boggs (career numbers: .667/.714/1.167, 407 OPS+ — I mean, you are a Jedi, young Brandon) and he missed his spot by about eight inches, which is a bad miss, and Boggs yanked it over the fence. With the bases loaded, Banny again missed his spot to Josh Hamilton, caught too much of the plate, and Hamilton crunched a home run to left-center. That was a weird one — off the bat it definitely looked like a pop-up. But Hamilton is really strong, and as mentioned the wind was a blowin’, and the ball carried out.
That pretty much sums it up. Mama said there would be days like this. Banny is terrific about breaking things down, coming up with a good attack plan, pitching to batter’s weaknesses and so on. But he’s a contact pitcher with an 88-mph fastball — he’s got to be really good, really sharp, and it doesn’t hurt to have the wind is BLOWING IN. Chalk it up to a bad day. “I knew it,” Banny told our Star’s baseball maven Bob Dutton. “I honestly felt like I was pitching on the moon tonight.”
* * *
I want to go off on a crazy, unorganized tangent about statistics for a moment here. It is all over the map, but hey, I’m told that’s what blogs are all about.
There is a certain kind of person who will say, quite often, that there are things statistics cannot measure. Much of this, is BS, of course. For instance, they will say, “You can’t measure a player’s heart.” But, of course, it depends what they mean by “heart.” We CAN measure how often that player gets on base, how often he gets to ground balls, how often he goes first to third on a single, how many pitches he takes per at-bat, how often he swings at pitches out of the strike zone, how successful he is sacrificing runners (where is our “sacrifice percentage” stat anyway?) how often he strikes out (and why is the stat “strikeouts per at-bat?” Shouldn’t it be “strikeout per plate appearance?” Shouldn’t it count as a non-strikeout when a batter works his way for a walk?), how often he hits into double plays (and how often he doesn’t), how often he hits in clutch situations — runners on base, runners in scoring position, runners in scoring position with two outs, runners in scoring position two outs in tie game, runners in scoring position two outs in tie game late innings, and so on. We can, from the numbers, extrapolate lots of pretty meaningful information about a player’s ability to stretch singles into doubles*, doubles into triples, his ability to cut off balls hit in the gap, his talent for moving runners over, on and on. And this doesn’t even get into the information we have about pitchers which is, needless to say, voluminous.
* Not to get off on another Pete Rose distraction but … why not? DId I mention the book? I saw that someone wrote a comment about Pete Rose that made some interesting points, though I would tend to disagree with them. The writer was trying to say that there was nothing special about the way Rose played the game, that everyone plays hard (I don’t agree with this), everyone slides headfirst (now), that you need speed not will to stretch singles into doubles (though Pete wasn’t fast), that looking and acting disgusted after striking out does not mean you care more. He also threw out a David Eckstein comparison, which is low.
I do agree with the part about what it means to care more, but my point is not that Rose acted disgusted or broke bats or any of that. I’m not sure he did any of that. What Rose did was never, ever give up an at-bat. He never ever took a day off (if it were not for a fluke, he would hold the NL record for most consecutive games). He constantly took extra bases on whiny Milton Bradley outfielders who were still moping about their last strikeout. He got on base, and he moved on the bases, and he scored runs, and he took every advantage that could be taken. He was not naturally gifted in those five tools — he had no power, average speed, an unimpressive arm and little defensive grace (though he did win two Gold Gloves). I’m not praising him for his hustle. I’m praising him for being a GREAT PLAYER through hustle and will and unquenchable hunger to get hits — I’m praising him for putting up 135 OPS+ year after year**, for putting up 27+ win shares in 12 different seasons, for being a key player on three World Series champs and seven pennant winners, for getting on base almost 6,000 times, and doing all THAT based on hustle and passion and intensity.
**Brilliant reader Richard rightly points out in the comments that Rose only had a 135 OPS+ four time in his career. But for 10 years, from 1967 to 1976, Rose averaged a 135 OPS+.
The question was raised: Would you want your kid to be like him? Of course not. But that’s not the right question. Would I like my kids to attack life with just a little bit of Pete Rose’s intensity? You bet.
So, anyway, getting back to statistics — we can measure a lot of things. It is true, we can’t precisely measure what a player means in the clubhouse or how much his cheering in the dugout fires up his teammates or the effectiveness of a player in a team meeting. There are definitely things that unmeasurable, and because they are unmeasurable their value tends to be overstated by some and understated by others, depending on how they feel about the guy.*
My mathematical formula: The value you find in Derek Jeter’s gamerness is in direct proportion to how much you like Derek Jeter. I’m sure that’s worded incorrectly, but you get the point.
But I think most of the time when someone says that you “can’t measure someone by their stats,” I think they mean that the statistics do not say what they want them to say. They know — intuitively, logically, naturally — that the player is more (or less) valuable than the statistics show. There is something lost in translation, something emotional and real that the statistics do not measure. I think this is a very human response to things. Bill James will tell you that baseball is way too complicated to be summed up easily, by numbers and calculations*.
*Of course, it’s also way, way, way, WAY too complicated to be summed up easily by pithy manager quotes or nonsensical lines about a player’s “courage” or ridiculous cliches like “baseball is 75% pitching” or wildly incomplete statistics like batting average — this is why Bill got into this racket in the first place.
I think the poll to the right — facing off George Brett and Mike Schmidt — might get to this point. By statistics, especially some of the more advanced metrics, Mike Schmidt was the better of the great players. He had the higher OPS+, the better Eqa, more Win Shares and so on. He also won three MVPs (to Brett’s 1), 10 Gold Gloves (to Brett’s 1), he mashed 548 homers (to Brett’s 317) and so on.
Brett has his statistical advantages too — 250 more doubles, 75 more triples, more total bases, much better postseason performances, much higher batting averages (meaning that his OPS+ are much less walk-based) and so on. Still, when you look at this dispassionately, Schmidt seems the better player. They were both outrageously good — we always lose sight of this when comparing two great players. They were both INCREDIBLE players. But Schmidt was the better fielder, the more powerful hitter, the more likely to get on base, and as such he would be considered better.
There’s only one problem with that: I’m entirely convinced that Brett was the better player.
Why? Well, I am tempted to go into great detail about stuff the stats don’t show — the energy that Brett played with (Schmidt was, for all his great qualities, more of a moper and self-doubter), the way Brett always seemed to rise to the occasion (who could forget the game against Toronto in ‘85?), the way he carried punchless Royals teams like the 1985 team all those victories (Schmidt’s teams couldn’t win pennants until Pete Rose came along). You can’t see it in the stats!
But the truth is, I just like Brett’s game more. I love stats, I don’t think I need to say that to this audience, but I’d rather have Brett. I honestly believe that if I was starting a team, I’d take Brett. Is it because he hit a huge player homer in ‘76 (that was forgotten after Chambliss hit his homer), because of the three homers off of Catfish in the playoffs, because of the upper deck shot off Goose in 1980, because of the one-man wrecking crew game against Toronto in ‘85, because he hit .337/.397/.627 in nine postseasons (while Schmidt hit .236/.304/.386 in eight — SMALL SAMPLE SIZES!), because Brett was better in 1980 than almost anyone ever …
Sure. It’s because of all of those things. It’s because I live in Kansas City. It’s because a good friend of mine, a Phillies fan, never liked Schmidt all that much. It’s because I’m a contrarian by nature, and the conventional wisdom is Schmidt was better. It’s because while I like watching left-handed hitters more than right-handed hitters. It’s because my middle name is Michael. It’s because I’ve had long conversations with Brett about a thousand things. It’s because I grew up an American League fan. It’s because while I love stats and put a lot of faith in stats, I’m as bullheaded as the next guy. I could tell you the core numbers don’t make a fair case for Brett. But the closer truth is that I just like Brett more.
I remember way back in high school, I was at a bible study — not to get all religious on you, but there was this girl and, well never mind — and the person leading it was ranting about the impreciseness of science. He was making the case for faith over fossils. Then someone asked him a great question, one I’m sure you’ve heard many times. She asked, “If there was a scientific discovery tomorrow that proved persuasively that everything the bible happened exactly as described, would you quote that discovery?”
And the guy was honest. He said: “Yes. I would quote it. But I would believe my heart.”
Loading ...
27 Comments
May 1st, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I like your reasoning and support for Brett. It’s fair and valid and probably representative of millions of people (mostly midwesterners, I’m sure ;-).
I think one reason it’s okay to make a choice like that, between two all-time greats, is that, basically, it boils down to “how can you go wrong?” When you’re choosing between the best of the best - when you know that whoever you choose, you’ll be in the top 0.0001% of players - then the only real way to distinguish them is how you feel personally.
It’s easy to choose between choosing a Cal Ripken or Alex Rodriguez over a David Eckstein, no matter how much you like Eck, because there’s such a chasm of talent between those guys. But when you’re at the top of the mountain, and the only thing separating one or the other is a small crack in the ground, then you’re allowed to go with your heart. because, like i said before, how could you be wrong?
(sorry for the extended metaphor there… hope it’s not too crappy)
Plus, it’s just fun to have that kind of discussion, because, really, who was the better third-baseman? or shortstop? or right-fielder? that’s one reason why we all love baseball
May 1st, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Joe! You may choose Brett, but you would be wrong to do so. I am ok with that, but you have to admit to taking the lesser player due to aesthetic reasons. I am the same way about Donnie Baseball.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Banny will be fine, just a bad night to be pitching.
On the other points, I’d have to say that Jeter’s douchebagness is in direct proportion to how much I hear about how great he is.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Joe, you mention in the 5th (stanza? paragraph?) up from the bottom that “You can’t see it in the stats!”
But isn’t that what Win Shares tries to accomplish? Carrying teams to victories and pennants, etc.?
I like your way of thinking though with it. It’s why I currently love watching Nick Markakis play. He’s got good numbers going for him right now, but something about the way he plays hard every night for a pretty crappy team is very appealing to me.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Here’s what your old Bible study leader should’ve said (paraphrasing a passage from Mortimer J. Adler’s How to Think About God):
The proposition that God exists is not an empirical proposition. Therefore, all new empirical propositions (whether of current science or past history) can neither reinforce nor destroy my belief in God.
This makes it so that one does not have to choose between the false dichotomy of science (social or natural) or God. Both exist and both provide truths. It’s our job, and it’s a tough one, to reconcile the truths provided by both.
But, on Brett versus. Schmidt, I’m with you JoPoe: Give me Brett any day. To quote an old bumper sticker, “George Brett for President!” - TL
May 1st, 2008 at 1:14 pm
There is a certain kind of person who will say, quite often, that there are things statistics cannot measure. Much of this, is BS, of course. . . . We CAN measure how often that player gets on base. . .
This is exactly how I think about that stuff: Oh, you think “grit” is important? Then it’s in there (”there” meaning stats with a reasonable correlation to win scoring/prevention).
All that intangible stuff, if it matters, is reflected in the statistics. If it doesn’t matter, like what color hair the guy has, it’s not in the statistics.
The only exceptions are the fringe areas of defense (the Milton Bradley example above) , and the “he makes his teammates better” voodoo nonsense. I admit that there’s no way to know whether Eckstein’s short stature actually makes Alex Rios a better hitter. That doesn’t make be believe it, though.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Joe, what was the fluke that caused Pete to miss out on the NL consecutive games streak? I promise to still buy the book even if this nugget is revealed ahead of time.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Joe, you mention “Sacrifice Percentage”, and it’s worth mentioning that that’s a treacherous area to get involved in, for a few reasons. A lot of them are summed up in a great THT article from a while back:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/do-batters-try-to-hit-sacrifice-flies/
A pertinent quote:
Adam Dunn, you may recall received criticism during the season for never getting any sacrifice flies. Looking at his numbers, it appears that he does not change his hitting approach in sacrifice fly situations, at least as far as walking and striking out are concerned. He does seem to have hit more than his share of pop-ups, but the sample is very small. He actually had 4 sacrifice flies during these opportunities, a number reduced by the fact that almost 50% of the fly balls he hit went for home runs, whereas a typical number is 10-12%. (”That Dunn sure sucks. Keeps hitting home runs instead of sacrifice flies!”)
May 1st, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I hear ya, Joe, in regards to George Brett. I have no doubt that he is in the uppermost echelon of ballplayer in baseball history. But, as Tim Lacy pointed out, people in KC wanted George Brett to be President, in Philly, we grew up knowing Schmidt was God.
George Brett in 1980 had, in all likelihood, the best season by a third basemen ever. I know that Schmidt, as wonderful as he was, was never quite as good as Brett was that season. But such is my love for Schmidt that I cannot accept the argument that Brett is better. Good, great, outstanding, amazing… all of them are George Brett. But, better? In relation to Mike Schmidt? No, sir.
I’ll tell you that, in my experience, I hear often, in discussions of the Greatness of Third Basemen, I hear about how Brett was on the level, offensively with Schmidt, and that Brooks Robinson blew him away with the glove. And, I’ll tell you, I don’t care what the numbers say. I’d take Schmidt’s 10 gold gloves over Robinson’s 16 every day of the week. I’d don’t care what the supposed numbers say. The Phils made the playoffs to win the Series (the only time in a million years of baseball) after Michael Jack hit a homer in the 11th inning to take the Phils to the postseason, his third hit of the game, and his 4th time safely reaching base. I tell you that Robinson’s glove was outstanding, but on a screamer down the line, I’m certain Schmidt could make it there, and not, necessarily, Brooks.
I will accept not argument with either my brain or my heart that tells me that anyone could play third base as well as Schmidt. And even when someone reminds me that A-Rod is better, I will still take Schmidt, because, I, like anyone who is a fan and not an analyst, am biased beyong belief.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:04 pm
“Pitching = 75% of baseball” has ALWAYS drove me crazy.
Just looking at it logically, at any given moment, one team is pitching while the other team is batting. Stands to reason, hitting is EXACTLY 50% of baseball, and pitching/defense are EXACTLY the other 50%!
Sometimes the obvious answer is obvious for a reason!
May 1st, 2008 at 3:17 pm
One stat I just love that is disused is runs scored. It’s one of the only stats from the old days that actually contains some measure of baserunning skill.
Brett 1583 runs or 95 per 162 games
Schmidt 1506 runs or 101 per 162 games
With Brett’s shorter minor league apprenticeship and longer decline phase and supreme post season stats, a good argument can be made for George.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:53 pm
TC - As someone who grew up an Orioles fan I can tell you, Brooks gets to the screamer down the line.
May 1st, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Brett was teriffic in 1980, but I find it a little hard to believe that a season with 117 games played can be the best ever at a position other than catcher. I’d probably take Al Rosen’s 1953, possibly among others. Even Brett’s 1985 has a case as being better.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 am
Just one problem with Pete Rose: he bet on baseball. Oh, and one problem with your opinions of Pete Rose:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/rosepe01.shtml
He had four seasons in his CAREER with an OPS+ of 135 or higher, and never two in a row. He had a fine string of 15 seasons in a row with an OPS+ of 115 or higher, but that’s not nearly the same thing as 135+.
Rose also had a string of five seasons in a row when his OPS+ was under 100, but by golly his getting the hit record was more important than having the first baseman actually be somebody above average offensively.
I will give you Rose’s hustle and desire and clearly a HOF caliber career without his last 5 years and last 559 hits. But I also give you Mario Soto being burned out early (did Rose the manager bet on those games?) and a terrible 198 SB to 149 CS ratio (did all his hustle really always help his team) and Ray Fosse’s broken shoulder when Rose would have been just as safe with a hook slide.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/07/10/SP51494.DTL
As for Brett versus Schmidt, most would consider them the two best third basemen of all time. If I needed to get a runner on base, my third baseman would be Boggs. If I needed a clutch RBI, it would be Brett. If I needed a homer, it would be Schmidt (or maybe ARod). And if I needed a great fielding play, it would be Brooks, or Nettles as a close second. And none of them were Dodgers, curse my luck.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:04 am
Brett? Schmidt? Boggs?!?! How is Eddie Matthews not part of this debate? Is everyone too young to remember?
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:54 am
Well, here’s the problem with the likes of Pete Rose: can you get the characteristics you say you’d like your child to emulate without all the other scumbagginess (?) that comes with it? Is that same unwillingness to “give up” on any at-bat the same thing that may (let me emphasize “may”) have induced him to pitch Mario Soto to death or to break Ray Fosse in two in an exhibition game? Does a person with even an iota of life perspective work that way? Is there even a remote chance in Hades they will ever be able to function bearably outside of a sports arena? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but Pete Rose doesn’t seem a very good argument in the affirmative.
Oh yeah, and I second the Eddie Matthews comment above.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Not to get too far off topic, but, Tim Lacy… how exactly is the proposition that X exists *NOT* an empirical one?
If things exist, they can be measured or observed. We might not have the best tools to measure them (e.g., grittiness) or the most precise observations, but being empirically demonstrable is the *definition* of being “real.”
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Dear Andrew,
You have articulated the classic positivist argument. The philosopher/scientist Auguste Comte is the preeminent historical example of positivism (here’s ~a bit~ of info. on him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Comte).
But, 5 is a number, yes? 5 exists, yes? Can a number be measured? No, it’s a ~unit of~ measurement. Dreams exist, yes? Can we measure quarks or other subatomic particles? Barely. Can we measure the cosmos? No. By definition, the cosmos—and the other items—cannot be measured.
Therefore, non-material items do exist. God is among this group of non-empirical, non-measureable, non-material items.
- TL
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Mathews and Schmidt seem like basically the same hitter. My impression is that Schmidt is thought to be superior defensively by a good amount. But yeah, it’s not like Mathews doesn’t belong in the conversation.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Come on, Joe. The exact same qualities - passion, intensity, an “unquenchable hunger to get hits - are the qualities that Yankee fans adored in Paul O’Neill (an adoration that you didn’t seem to understand). O’Neill averaged a 135 OPS+ from 1993-99. So he didn’t have the longevity of Rose, but no other player in history did. Both were key players on a dynasty. Paulie didn’t have any natural speed but he too took a lot of extra bases on snoozing outfielders, played hard, played hurt…he had those immeasurable skills and the numbers (his career OPS+ was 120 to Rose’s 118!) And I’d take Schmidt over Brett any day. But at least you can admit your irrationally biased on that one.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:59 am
The real problem with statistics is that they are concerned with what happened in the past. Past performance is no guarantee of future success–at least that’s what my broker keeps telling me. Good Christians believe in the possibility of redemption. Even if you failed yesterday (as indicated by your stats) it is still possible to succeed today. That’s what baseball is about.
A couple of days ago, the Royals gave Mike Maroth his unconditional release. I wish him well. Assuming he wants another shot somewhere, I hope he gets it.
May 4th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Joe, I love your blog, but I have to take issue with some of the Pete Rose/Derek Jeter comments you made.
Lets look at some numbers:
Pete Rose 1963-1974 (his first 12 full seasons)
1859 Games, 2337 hits, .309/.376/.432, 394 doubles, 117 HR, 701 RBI, 8 All-Star teams, 7 top 10 MVP finishes (and 1 win), ROY, had yet to win a championship.
Derek Jeter 1996-2007 (his first 12 full seasons)
1820 Games, 2344 hits, .318/.389/.463, 382 doubles, 195 HR, 926 RBI, 8 All-Star teams, 6 top 10 MVP finishes (no wins), ROY, 4 championships.
Pretty close. Defensively, as you said neither were particularly graceful in the field, and both won gold gloves (jeter at a premium position), and both are talked about in that same “gritty, gutty, hustles” kind of way…but for some reason you praise Rose for it and snark at Jeter’s “gamerness.”
Honestly, can you think of any contemporary player that is more similar to Rose on the field while avoiding all of Rose’s baggage off of it than Jeter?
May 4th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Brett was more to fun to watch, for me anyway, but I think Schmidt was clearly superior. Better fielder, better power hitter, more likely to get on base, less brittle. Schmidt had a pretty lousy post-season career, but he did mash in the ‘80 WS (.381/.462/.714).
I will admit I’d go with Brett if my life depended on just one game. And I think that’s probably where Joe is coming from.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
One footnote to Brett’s colossal HR in the Chambliss game. The only reason it tied the game instead of putting KC ahead is because of the run NY had scored on Brett’s error.
(Brett also cost the Royals 2 runs in the first game with a 2-error first inning.)
May 5th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
“Who can forget that homer against Toronto in 1985?”
This is the same argument that Yankees fans use to say they’d pick Scott Brosius over Alex Rodriguez any day. Because Brosius, once, hit a big homer in the World Series. World Series he got to on the back of stellar pitching.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I love your in-depth review of my comments about Pete Rose. Seriously.
I never meant to imply that Pete Rose wasn’t a great player. He was, and probably even deserves to be in the Hall of Fame (though if I was Pete, I wouldn’t keep fighting that fight. Do you really want to be in the Hall of Fame, knowing that every current living member in the Hall probably hates your guts - Joe Morgan excepted probably- and that 7 people will show up for your induction ceremony?)
I will readily accept that Pete Rose was a great player through his hustle. I think I have watched Pete play only two or three times (on TV) in his career, and never really thought to myself “Wow, that guy plays hard!” but whether thatt.
Btw, I never said that everyone plays hard every day. What I said was that I think that 99% of all players show up to play every day. There are the few who come to the park and you already know they’ve taken the day off, even though they’re in the lineup, but most guys try their hardest to play the best game they can and to win the game for their team.
This seems endemic to baseball writing in general. Guys are always praised for “Running hard on a pop up to short!” or for “Running out a ground ball!”
Yet if you were to look at every at-bat, you’d see that 99% of all players do this. We never notice that though. We tend to see the one guy who doesn’t do it on a particular at-bat, and that’s the memory that sticks. If we have a few of those guys in a week, suddenly we have this idea that all baseball players are slackers, and only David Eckstein and Dustin Pedroia really care.
There are several players who don’t care. But the large, large, large majority does.
There are quite a few players who don’t play hard. Or perhaps not crazy insane hard every single day. But there are lots who do.
Pete Rose was a great player, and a great hustler. I just don’t subscribe to the idea that he was the all-time leader in Hustle+ and nobody has ever come close.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Btw, I love the “You can’t measure a player’s Heart!” part, because afterwards you mention all the things that typically those with “Heart” are said to do.
I think we need to just come up with an uber-stat that takes all these things into account, call it Heart, and make David Eckstein’s Heart scale to 100. Just for the sheer joy of hearing hackey sports writers grind their teeth when they find out that A-Rod has 279 Heart.
Leave a Reply