Comments on: A Cab Ride and Nadal http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/ A Rough Draft Blog Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:16:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Micah http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/#comment-27554 Micah Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:27:11 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/#comment-27554 MIB: Well, there are two ways to beat Manesh (or me) - one, actually get a majority of your winners IN, as I said above. But yes, you can also out-Manesh Manesh. This is harder than you think, though. See, the thing about playing like Manesh is that you know this is your game. And to play it, you have to be prepared to sit there and do it all day. Don't give in to the big shot, just get it back time and time again and wait for the other person to get fed up. You're quite right that someone with better overall skills should be able to last longer, but you can make points go on for an awfully long time if neither person's willing to hit winners, and so what it really comes down to is who's got more mental stamina. Generally speaking, the person who's better - whose game this is not - hasn't mentally trained themselves to play a whole match of dinking and dunking the ball (and they can, actually, be more prone to make errors this way despite their superior skills, since they're out of their comfort zone in terms of how they usually play in matches). So they're often not capable of out-Maneshing Manesh. Clearly, you know what you're doing, but it isn't quite as easy (for most people) as you make it out to be. Trust me, a lot of people tried to do that to me in high school. A few of them could beat me at my own game, but those were very rare - I lost a LOT more games to people who were hitting winners than I did to people who tried to beat me at my own game. I beat most of the latter. MIB:

Well, there are two ways to beat Manesh (or me) – one, actually get a majority of your winners IN, as I said above. But yes, you can also out-Manesh Manesh. This is harder than you think, though.

See, the thing about playing like Manesh is that you know this is your game. And to play it, you have to be prepared to sit there and do it all day. Don’t give in to the big shot, just get it back time and time again and wait for the other person to get fed up. You’re quite right that someone with better overall skills should be able to last longer, but you can make points go on for an awfully long time if neither person’s willing to hit winners, and so what it really comes down to is who’s got more mental stamina. Generally speaking, the person who’s better – whose game this is not – hasn’t mentally trained themselves to play a whole match of dinking and dunking the ball (and they can, actually, be more prone to make errors this way despite their superior skills, since they’re out of their comfort zone in terms of how they usually play in matches). So they’re often not capable of out-Maneshing Manesh.

Clearly, you know what you’re doing, but it isn’t quite as easy (for most people) as you make it out to be. Trust me, a lot of people tried to do that to me in high school. A few of them could beat me at my own game, but those were very rare – I lost a LOT more games to people who were hitting winners than I did to people who tried to beat me at my own game. I beat most of the latter.

]]> By: Man in Black http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/#comment-27498 Man in Black Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:17:38 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/#comment-27498 Lets be honest here, this blog is a large collection of geeks and nerds and other non-prom king losers of one form or another. And the fact that Joe lost to Manesh, is of little consequence. You are supposed to lose Manesh particularly the first time, maybe even the second time. But after you lose to Manesh the third time, it is time for you to turn in your JoePo blog card and retire to something less difficult than keeping up with the Jones (and Whites and James…) Why is it that after I lose to the proverbial Manesh a third time do I have to turn in my JoePo blog card you ask, well the answer is simple. Manesh has one game to play, and has no other physical skills to change to if it is not working out. Don’t you think that just once in a while he would hit a topspin passing shot if he could? Now, the more talented player adapts and overcomes Manesh, he takes a little off the ball so to keep it in the court, he only tries to hit Manesh if Manesh is standing really close to the net on a short ball. You have to out-Manesh Manesh. Let him know that you will run down every shot and hit it back, hit a short ball and go back to the baseline so that it nullifies his lob, if you are at the net and Manesh lobs and your overhead has been inconsistent, you let it bounce and hit your nice topspin forehand, when he runs that down in the corner and lobs again, you dink it back over the net ten feet inside the service line and watch him run. Then you just repeat. Adapt and overcome. Manesh will wilt, I have seen it before. Or Manesh will try to play the power game and whip out his big serve and topspin forehand. Now if his big serve would go in and his topspin forehand consistent, he would have used them to begin with. Thus Manesh losses either way to the more talented player. My personal favorite is when you double bounce a ball to Manesh (hit a ball short, that he thinks will have enough pace to get to him, but instead dies, and he is stuck thinking of all the balls he has run down today, this short ball was completely available to him, but his brain didn’t let him get to it. Adapt and overcome. It is a good life lesson. By the way, you can ONLY hit Manesh with the ball if he is also a jerk and deserves to get hit by the ball. Then by all means… Mike from DC, thank you very much for snickering at us ‘tennis and golf’ losers as you went to Football and baseball and basketball practice. We were snickering at you too, because while you thought we were unathletic and unpopular, we thought you were arrogant and stupid, and we won’t be lined up to have our knees, shoulders and hips replaced when we are fifty. In fact, we are only twenty pounds heavier than high school, because we still have sports to play, unlike you, who sit around and watch sports and bore everyone with the details of when you used to play, and how you could have gone pro if only… Despite moments of respite, a tennis player needs the strength of a shot putter, the endurance of a marathoner, the grace of a ballerina, and the precision of a surgeon. During a match a pro might swelter in the sun for four hours, hit three thousand balls, and run ten miles. You show me a guy who is good at tennis and I will show you a guy who is good at any sport. If you have followed tennis over the years, you remember Jim Courier. He was a terrific player, who sort of lost his passion and dedication for the game at the end of his career. He retired at age 25 or something like that. He was also a big baseball fan (Cinncinati Reds) and loved playing baseball when he was a kid. Can you imagine a man who was number 1 in the world in tennis, walking onto a baseball field and getting professional instruction? I think we would have been a gold glove fielder in about 15 practices, and he had a rocket arm, with pin point control. But could he hit a curveball? To be the number one player in the world, and return the serves that were hit at him at 120mph+, I think yeah, probably he hit a curveball. I plan to write a work of fiction about this very scenario someday. Lets be honest here, this blog is a large collection of geeks and nerds and other non-prom king losers of one form or another. And the fact that Joe lost to Manesh, is of little consequence. You are supposed to lose Manesh particularly the first time, maybe even the second time. But after you lose to Manesh the third time, it is time for you to turn in your JoePo blog card and retire to something less difficult than keeping up with the Jones (and Whites and James…) Why is it that after I lose to the proverbial Manesh a third time do I have to turn in my JoePo blog card you ask, well the answer is simple. Manesh has one game to play, and has no other physical skills to change to if it is not working out. Don’t you think that just once in a while he would hit a topspin passing shot if he could? Now, the more talented player adapts and overcomes Manesh, he takes a little off the ball so to keep it in the court, he only tries to hit Manesh if Manesh is standing really close to the net on a short ball. You have to out-Manesh Manesh. Let him know that you will run down every shot and hit it back, hit a short ball and go back to the baseline so that it nullifies his lob, if you are at the net and Manesh lobs and your overhead has been inconsistent, you let it bounce and hit your nice topspin forehand, when he runs that down in the corner and lobs again, you dink it back over the net ten feet inside the service line and watch him run. Then you just repeat. Adapt and overcome. Manesh will wilt, I have seen it before. Or Manesh will try to play the power game and whip out his big serve and topspin forehand. Now if his big serve would go in and his topspin forehand consistent, he would have used them to begin with. Thus Manesh losses either way to the more talented player. My personal favorite is when you double bounce a ball to Manesh (hit a ball short, that he thinks will have enough pace to get to him, but instead dies, and he is stuck thinking of all the balls he has run down today, this short ball was completely available to him, but his brain didn’t let him get to it. Adapt and overcome. It is a good life lesson.

By the way, you can ONLY hit Manesh with the ball if he is also a jerk and deserves to get hit by the ball. Then by all means…

Mike from DC, thank you very much for snickering at us ‘tennis and golf’ losers as you went to Football and baseball and basketball practice. We were snickering at you too, because while you thought we were unathletic and unpopular, we thought you were arrogant and stupid, and we won’t be lined up to have our knees, shoulders and hips replaced when we are fifty. In fact, we are only twenty pounds heavier than high school, because we still have sports to play, unlike you, who sit around and watch sports and bore everyone with the details of when you used to play, and how you could have gone pro if only…

Despite moments of respite, a tennis player needs the strength of a shot putter, the endurance of a marathoner, the grace of a ballerina, and the precision of a surgeon. During a match a pro might swelter in the sun for four hours, hit three thousand balls, and run ten miles.

You show me a guy who is good at tennis and I will show you a guy who is good at any sport.

If you have followed tennis over the years, you remember Jim Courier. He was a terrific player, who sort of lost his passion and dedication for the game at the end of his career. He retired at age 25 or something like that. He was also a big baseball fan (Cinncinati Reds) and loved playing baseball when he was a kid. Can you imagine a man who was number 1 in the world in tennis, walking onto a baseball field and getting professional instruction? I think we would have been a gold glove fielder in about 15 practices, and he had a rocket arm, with pin point control. But could he hit a curveball? To be the number one player in the world, and return the serves that were hit at him at 120mph+, I think yeah, probably he hit a curveball. I plan to write a work of fiction about this very scenario someday.

]]> By: daniel_sf http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/#comment-27368 daniel_sf Sun, 17 Aug 2008 06:13:44 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/#comment-27368 That "what's the point?" feeling you describe, I know it well. I didn't see the match you mentioned, but I DID see a women's Olympic badminton match between China and, I think, Malaysia (?). Anyway, the Malysian (?) had the very same "what's the point" expression on her face the entire match... That “what’s the point?” feeling you describe, I know it well. I didn’t see the match you mentioned, but I DID see a women’s Olympic badminton match between China and, I think, Malaysia (?). Anyway, the Malysian (?) had the very same “what’s the point” expression on her face the entire match…

]]> By: Richard Aronson http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/#comment-27305 Richard Aronson Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:49:48 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/#comment-27305 I'm reminded of the famous lines from the first episode of "The Mary Tyler Moore" show: Lou Grant: "You got spunk. I hate spunk." Well, I hate scrappy, because it seems racist to me. The next black player I hear called scrappy will be the first. It seems that scrappy is an artificial label given to players who probably aren't as good as replacement players waiting in the minors, but will definitely give some intangibles that justify why the white guy is starting. Maybe the intangibles are semi-tangibles, like high fielding percentage, but I'd rather have the guy with the higher range factor. My example is Willie Randolph. Nobody ever called him scrappy. But why not? He was a good percentage base stealer (typical of scrappy). And he made the greatest defensive play I've ever seen by an infielder, in medium right field. Late in Randolph's career, he was with the Dodgers. They employed a converted first baseman, Mike Marshall, in right field, probably because Marshall was slightly less slow than a very old Eddie Murray. Because Marshall was slow, he tended to play deep, to have a better chance of cutting off line drives; he did have a decent enough arm to at least make the average runners hold on first. And one left handed slugger (I want to say Strawberry, but I honestly don't remember anything about that game except this play) took a mighty swing, and lofted a high fly ball to medium right field, right to where a normally placed right fielder would have been positioned, or maybe a few steps in on a slugger like Straw. Marshall was fooled completely by the swing, and broke back on the ball, preparing to climb the bullpen gate to keep the dinger in the park, no doubt. Randolph, with the bases empty, broke out on the ball, and with both the ball and Marshall in front of him, saw Marshall running the wrong way, and so Randolph kept on running, and running, and running. In medium right field, running full speed the whole way with his back to the infield, Randolph desperately lunged for the ball, barely got it inside his glove, for the greatest catch ever made by an infielder. Randolph took one step. He took two steps. And then Mike Marshall, who had recovered from his expedition to the warning track, charged into Randolph full speed and knocked Randolph down and the ball loose. The batter wound up on third. The official scorer, seeing no recourse (ball in the glove, then dropped) charged Randolph with an error, but wiser minds prevailed on him to let Randolph off the hook and rule it a triple. They couldn't persuade him to give Marshall the error, since Marshall had never gloved the ball. Randolph lay on the grass for a while, hoping that somebody had gotten the license plate of the truck that had hit him. And then Randolph got up and finished the game. And that *should* be scrappy. But nobody ever called Randolph scrappy, and I contend it's because he was a) too good and b) not white. But I digress. Scrappy to me is a way the team justifies playing a below average ballplayer because he is consistent, reliable, a known factor. Scrappy ballplayers don't help teams win many games, but they also don't cost the teams many unexpected losses. They don't cause the manager ulcers from stupid plays as they get their low OPS+ numbers, because managers don't get ulcers from outs, only plays that should have been made. And in the case of Scrappy David Eckstein (who is listed as four pounds heavier than Willie Randolph, is not as good a base stealer as Randolph, is nowhere near as good a second baseman as Randolph was but has managed to stay at shortstop, has a post season OPS under .700 but people think he's a gamer in the playoffs) it's a joke. There are a dozen minor league shortstops who cannot hit as well as Scrappy Eckstein but will save far more runs with their glove than their bats cost them, and in so doing also save the pitchers a lot of outs, maybe keep the bullpen a little fresher, maybe enable worse pitchers to not have to pitch as often. You want to know why the Cardinals are doing so well? Part of it is they swapped scrappy David Eckstein for not scrappy Cesar Izturis. They went from below average at OPS+ to downright lousy at OPS+. But they picked up a ton of range factor at the most important position on the field, which translates into more outs for the pitchers and a healthier pitching staff (which for a team with three rotation guys on the DL was huge), and they also picked up some excellent speed (16/4) instead of not much speed at all (2/1). One out of every eight games or so Eckstein gets on base once when Izturis makes out. But more than seven out of every eight games Izturis reaches a ball Eckstein doesn't reach. The difference in range factor is so huge that Eckstein would need to get on base like Barry Bonds to compensate for it. I mean, in this day and age, the numbers are right there at: http://www.baseball-reference.com/i/izturce01.shtml and we can see that over nine innings Izturis reaches almost 1/2 more balls than the average shortstop and way more than Eckstein. Call it an extra 78 balls reached per season. Call it an extra 75 outs (some will be double plays, but what the heck). For a guy with 600 plate appearances, that's the defensive equivalent of .125 points of on base percentage. Add .125 to Izturis's .320 OBP and it's .445, .090 higher than Eckstein. Who looks more valuable now? Say, maybe we *can* quantify defensive wizards for HOF consideration! Sure, we all know the value of plays made (offensive and defensive) within the context of a team. Eckstein is pretty good at getting on base for a middle infielder. For a team that needs a decent OBP guy he is worth more; more good hitters help the rest of the team's offense. But he hurts their defense, forcing the pitchers to wear out sooner. And given that these numbers are right there, not hard to find for free, let alone for a team with the resources of any major league club, why are there scrappy players still hurting teams? Heck, the Angels have two decent fielding shortstops (Ayber and Maicer Izturis) who are clearly and easily shown to be more valuable than Eckstein. In fact, people wonder why the Angels have the best record in baseball despite their Pythag numbers, despite Lackey missing half the season so far and Escobar the whole season, and I'll tell you: the Angels have tremendous defense, which means the whole pitching staff needs fewer pitchers, thus in all the close games they use their good pitchers, and the bad pitchers only have to come in (and make things worse) in the losses. Their good pitchers stay fresh from extra outs made, so they win the close games because they are using better pitchers in almost all the close games. And notice: the Angels had Eckstein and didn't keep him. There are lots of good fielders out there. Note the Dodgers got Angel Berroa for next to nothing from KC; with the Dodgers he is fielding .031 better Rf9 than the NL average. Maybe that's better than expected for Berroa, maybe not; he's certainly not hitting. Berroa over Eckstein is roughly four more plays made per six games. Eckstein over Berroa is roughly three more times on base per six games. Berroa also makes fewer errors, but Eckstein's "bat" is worth something with his slugging percentage also. The thing is, Eckstein was given a roster spot. Berroa needed injuries to Furcal and Nomar and the failure of Chin-Lung Hu to hit to be given his major league roster spot. So maybe the Jays (and their anti-Dunn idiocy) really just don't understand how to use statistics. Heck, looking at Hu, maybe the Dodgers really did make a mistake. His Rf9 was almost half a run a game better than league average, and with 115 chances at shortstop he made zero errors. ZERO! So over 150 games that means he reaches about 75 more balls and also makes about 14 fewer errors. That's worth about 145 points of OBP, which would put him at about .364 based on his crappy hitting this year. So maybe the Dodgers didn't need to trade for Berroa. That doesn't explain the Blue Jays, or even the Royals. I don't want to rag on Eckstein overly much. Any major leaguer who gets on base .350 or higher and plays in the middle of the field has some value. And he *is* a smart player, played shortstop for two World Series winners, seems to have a lot of intangibles. But I'm not convinced that Eckstein is more valuable than Berroa (even admitting that Berroa is fielding better than expected), and I'm sure that Eckstein isn't as valuable as Cesar Izturis. But boy, is he worth more than Tony Pena. How a guy with below average range and fielding percentages and an OPS+ of 2 managed to drive out Angel Berroa is beyond me. Must be Super Scrappy, I guess. I’m reminded of the famous lines from the first episode of “The Mary Tyler Moore” show: Lou Grant: “You got spunk. I hate spunk.” Well, I hate scrappy, because it seems racist to me. The next black player I hear called scrappy will be the first. It seems that scrappy is an artificial label given to players who probably aren’t as good as replacement players waiting in the minors, but will definitely give some intangibles that justify why the white guy is starting. Maybe the intangibles are semi-tangibles, like high fielding percentage, but I’d rather have the guy with the higher range factor.

My example is Willie Randolph. Nobody ever called him scrappy. But why not? He was a good percentage base stealer (typical of scrappy). And he made the greatest defensive play I’ve ever seen by an infielder, in medium right field.

Late in Randolph’s career, he was with the Dodgers. They employed a converted first baseman, Mike Marshall, in right field, probably because Marshall was slightly less slow than a very old Eddie Murray. Because Marshall was slow, he tended to play deep, to have a better chance of cutting off line drives; he did have a decent enough arm to at least make the average runners hold on first. And one left handed slugger (I want to say Strawberry, but I honestly don’t remember anything about that game except this play) took a mighty swing, and lofted a high fly ball to medium right field, right to where a normally placed right fielder would have been positioned, or maybe a few steps in on a slugger like Straw. Marshall was fooled completely by the swing, and broke back on the ball, preparing to climb the bullpen gate to keep the dinger in the park, no doubt. Randolph, with the bases empty, broke out on the ball, and with both the ball and Marshall in front of him, saw Marshall running the wrong way, and so Randolph kept on running, and running, and running.

In medium right field, running full speed the whole way with his back to the infield, Randolph desperately lunged for the ball, barely got it inside his glove, for the greatest catch ever made by an infielder. Randolph took one step. He took two steps. And then Mike Marshall, who had recovered from his expedition to the warning track, charged into Randolph full speed and knocked Randolph down and the ball loose.

The batter wound up on third. The official scorer, seeing no recourse (ball in the glove, then dropped) charged Randolph with an error, but wiser minds prevailed on him to let Randolph off the hook and rule it a triple. They couldn’t persuade him to give Marshall the error, since Marshall had never gloved the ball. Randolph lay on the grass for a while, hoping that somebody had gotten the license plate of the truck that had hit him. And then Randolph got up and finished the game. And that *should* be scrappy. But nobody ever called Randolph scrappy, and I contend it’s because he was a) too good and b) not white.

But I digress. Scrappy to me is a way the team justifies playing a below average ballplayer because he is consistent, reliable, a known factor. Scrappy ballplayers don’t help teams win many games, but they also don’t cost the teams many unexpected losses. They don’t cause the manager ulcers from stupid plays as they get their low OPS+ numbers, because managers don’t get ulcers from outs, only plays that should have been made. And in the case of Scrappy David Eckstein (who is listed as four pounds heavier than Willie Randolph, is not as good a base stealer as Randolph, is nowhere near as good a second baseman as Randolph was but has managed to stay at shortstop, has a post season OPS under .700 but people think he’s a gamer in the playoffs) it’s a joke. There are a dozen minor league shortstops who cannot hit as well as Scrappy Eckstein but will save far more runs with their glove than their bats cost them, and in so doing also save the pitchers a lot of outs, maybe keep the bullpen a little fresher, maybe enable worse pitchers to not have to pitch as often.

You want to know why the Cardinals are doing so well? Part of it is they swapped scrappy David Eckstein for not scrappy Cesar Izturis. They went from below average at OPS+ to downright lousy at OPS+. But they picked up a ton of range factor at the most important position on the field, which translates into more outs for the pitchers and a healthier pitching staff (which for a team with three rotation guys on the DL was huge), and they also picked up some excellent speed (16/4) instead of not much speed at all (2/1). One out of every eight games or so Eckstein gets on base once when Izturis makes out. But more than seven out of every eight games Izturis reaches a ball Eckstein doesn’t reach. The difference in range factor is so huge that Eckstein would need to get on base like Barry Bonds to compensate for it.

I mean, in this day and age, the numbers are right there at: http://www.baseball-reference.com/i/izturce01.shtml and we can see that over nine innings Izturis reaches almost 1/2 more balls than the average shortstop and way more than Eckstein. Call it an extra 78 balls reached per season. Call it an extra 75 outs (some will be double plays, but what the heck). For a guy with 600 plate appearances, that’s the defensive equivalent of .125 points of on base percentage. Add .125 to Izturis’s .320 OBP and it’s .445, .090 higher than Eckstein. Who looks more valuable now? Say, maybe we *can* quantify defensive wizards for HOF consideration!

Sure, we all know the value of plays made (offensive and defensive) within the context of a team. Eckstein is pretty good at getting on base for a middle infielder. For a team that needs a decent OBP guy he is worth more; more good hitters help the rest of the team’s offense. But he hurts their defense, forcing the pitchers to wear out sooner. And given that these numbers are right there, not hard to find for free, let alone for a team with the resources of any major league club, why are there scrappy players still hurting teams? Heck, the Angels have two decent fielding shortstops (Ayber and Maicer Izturis) who are clearly and easily shown to be more valuable than Eckstein. In fact, people wonder why the Angels have the best record in baseball despite their Pythag numbers, despite Lackey missing half the season so far and Escobar the whole season, and I’ll tell you: the Angels have tremendous defense, which means the whole pitching staff needs fewer pitchers, thus in all the close games they use their good pitchers, and the bad pitchers only have to come in (and make things worse) in the losses. Their good pitchers stay fresh from extra outs made, so they win the close games because they are using better pitchers in almost all the close games. And notice: the Angels had Eckstein and didn’t keep him.

There are lots of good fielders out there. Note the Dodgers got Angel Berroa for next to nothing from KC; with the Dodgers he is fielding .031 better Rf9 than the NL average. Maybe that’s better than expected for Berroa, maybe not; he’s certainly not hitting. Berroa over Eckstein is roughly four more plays made per six games. Eckstein over Berroa is roughly three more times on base per six games. Berroa also makes fewer errors, but Eckstein’s “bat” is worth something with his slugging percentage also. The thing is, Eckstein was given a roster spot. Berroa needed injuries to Furcal and Nomar and the failure of Chin-Lung Hu to hit to be given his major league roster spot. So maybe the Jays (and their anti-Dunn idiocy) really just don’t understand how to use statistics.

Heck, looking at Hu, maybe the Dodgers really did make a mistake. His Rf9 was almost half a run a game better than league average, and with 115 chances at shortstop he made zero errors. ZERO! So over 150 games that means he reaches about 75 more balls and also makes about 14 fewer errors. That’s worth about 145 points of OBP, which would put him at about .364 based on his crappy hitting this year. So maybe the Dodgers didn’t need to trade for Berroa. That doesn’t explain the Blue Jays, or even the Royals.

I don’t want to rag on Eckstein overly much. Any major leaguer who gets on base .350 or higher and plays in the middle of the field has some value. And he *is* a smart player, played shortstop for two World Series winners, seems to have a lot of intangibles. But I’m not convinced that Eckstein is more valuable than Berroa (even admitting that Berroa is fielding better than expected), and I’m sure that Eckstein isn’t as valuable as Cesar Izturis. But boy, is he worth more than Tony Pena. How a guy with below average range and fielding percentages and an OPS+ of 2 managed to drive out Angel Berroa is beyond me. Must be Super Scrappy, I guess.

]]> By: GRAPHITE http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/#comment-27229 GRAPHITE Sat, 16 Aug 2008 03:10:58 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/#comment-27229 The criteria for a sport being part of the Olympics are not particularly well defined, being more guidelines for discussion than codes to obey. Baseball qualifies on the geographical spread count — it's a major sport in North America, parts of South America and Asia and is also played to some extent in Europe, Australia and other places — but not a lot else. I think the major factor against it is the gulf between the world's best players and the competitors who turn up at the Olympics. Soccer, for instance, also has a disparity with the Olympics being contested by national under-23 teams — which puts it a few steps below the World Cup. But each team is allowed two "extras", which results in someone like Ronaldinho, rated somewhere in the top five players globally, turning out for Brazil. Other major professional sports send their best — basketball is stacked with world class performers, cycling has competitors coming from the Tour de France, and tennis sends Grand Slam winners. By sending nothing but minor leaguers, baseball effectively thumbs its nose at the IOC, who understandably take offence. Basically, a sport has to have the Olympics as its pinnacle of achievement or send competitors who've competed at the highest level. Baseball does neither. The criteria for a sport being part of the Olympics are not particularly well defined, being more guidelines for discussion than codes to obey. Baseball qualifies on the geographical spread count — it’s a major sport in North America, parts of South America and Asia and is also played to some extent in Europe, Australia and other places — but not a lot else.

I think the major factor against it is the gulf between the world’s best players and the competitors who turn up at the Olympics. Soccer, for instance, also has a disparity with the Olympics being contested by national under-23 teams — which puts it a few steps below the World Cup. But each team is allowed two “extras”, which results in someone like Ronaldinho, rated somewhere in the top five players globally, turning out for Brazil. Other major professional sports send their best — basketball is stacked with world class performers, cycling has competitors coming from the Tour de France, and tennis sends Grand Slam winners.

By sending nothing but minor leaguers, baseball effectively thumbs its nose at the IOC, who understandably take offence.

Basically, a sport has to have the Olympics as its pinnacle of achievement or send competitors who’ve competed at the highest level. Baseball does neither.

]]> By: Kuiper Belt http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/#comment-27212 Kuiper Belt Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:02:45 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/#comment-27212 I think it's the IOC sticking it to baseball over the steroid issue, and softball got caught in a crossfire that it doesn't understand. I think it’s the IOC sticking it to baseball over the steroid issue, and softball got caught in a crossfire that it doesn’t understand.

]]> By: Creston http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/#comment-27201 Creston Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:10:26 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/#comment-27201 "And yet Atlanta took the Olympic track stadium and converted it to a baseball stadium. So you’d think London could convert a baseball stadium into a soccer stadium or cricket field." Sure they could, but that would cost even more money, and by all reports, London is very very very worried over how much it's going to cost to host the Olympics. Also, every soccer and cricket team in the vicinity of London already has a kick-ass stadium, so it's doubtful they'd really find any useful purpose for it, other than a saturday afternoon pickup game or something. There really is no other reason than that London doesn't want to build 2 stadiums they won't use. Rogges had already said that though baseball and softball would be canned for 2012, they could apply for reinstatement in 2016. What? If you think the sport doesn't belong, why can it come back in 2016? This is just disgusting politics that rape the world's greatest sport. If a city can't afford to build the stadiums required for all the hosted sports, DON'T GIVE IT THE OLYMPICS. The current IOC is full of nothing but wastes of air. “And yet Atlanta took the Olympic track stadium and converted it to a baseball stadium. So you’d think London could convert a baseball stadium into a soccer stadium or cricket field.”

Sure they could, but that would cost even more money, and by all reports, London is very very very worried over how much it’s going to cost to host the Olympics.

Also, every soccer and cricket team in the vicinity of London already has a kick-ass stadium, so it’s doubtful they’d really find any useful purpose for it, other than a saturday afternoon pickup game or something.

There really is no other reason than that London doesn’t want to build 2 stadiums they won’t use.

Rogges had already said that though baseball and softball would be canned for 2012, they could apply for reinstatement in 2016. What? If you think the sport doesn’t belong, why can it come back in 2016?

This is just disgusting politics that rape the world’s greatest sport. If a city can’t afford to build the stadiums required for all the hosted sports, DON’T GIVE IT THE OLYMPICS.

The current IOC is full of nothing but wastes of air.

]]> By: Mikey http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/#comment-27190 Mikey Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:57:08 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/#comment-27190 "I’m fascinated by the question of what kind of guys we root for." Yeah, me too. I always root for cerebral guys, whether they have great natural ability or not. Love Maddux, always liked David Cone, love watching Peyton Manning. I always enjoy the Banny Log on this blog. Bill Bradley is before my time but I like watching film of those old Knicks teams. Jerry Bailey was a great thinking jockey for any of you who care about horse racing. Tiger is like that of course but he's SO good I can't identify with him. I get a kick out of "see ball, hit ball" guys like Manny Ramirez too but it's not the same. It's always the thinkers that I want to follow more closely. “I’m fascinated by the question of what kind of guys we root for.”

Yeah, me too. I always root for cerebral guys, whether they have great natural ability or not.

Love Maddux, always liked David Cone, love watching Peyton Manning. I always enjoy the Banny Log on this blog. Bill Bradley is before my time but I like watching film of those old Knicks teams. Jerry Bailey was a great thinking jockey for any of you who care about horse racing. Tiger is like that of course but he’s SO good I can’t identify with him.

I get a kick out of “see ball, hit ball” guys like Manny Ramirez too but it’s not the same. It’s always the thinkers that I want to follow more closely.

]]> By: Mark H http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/#comment-27186 Mark H Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:52:47 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/#comment-27186 Graham… That's ME (well, like me). I was the kid who was slow, out of shape, but hit a beautiful topspin forehand. I got up to #2 on my HS team, but couldn't crack the #1 player… a Manish type. Obviously playing #1 he could hold the racquet and had the ability to place the ball a little with a little pace, but his total game was defense. He placed the ball just well enough that you had to hit 2 or 3 nice shots to hit a winner, but he rarely gave you an opening, and you couldn't just blast him at net or he was good enough to place a ball right past you. But his Tennis was not at all graceful and when you’d been playing the game and taking lessons since you were 10, and this kid who only started playing in 9th grade keeps beating you, well, it hurts. I can relate at some level with Federer. In fact, I was always a big Ivan Lendl fan growing up because I could translate my game into his: strong baseline player, fair (at best) at net, and wasn't really that athletic. Nadal... I can't even imagine how to play the game the way he does. I've tried to hit a forehand with his grip, and almost broke my wrist!! Joe, you gotta start swinging the racquet again. There are open tennis courts all over the US, just waiting for people to get out there and play. I've started networking again, and I'm giving my son lessons, and I feel so much better… How many people who played HS football are still playing football into their 30's and 40's??? Not many!!! But just about everyone who played HS tennis can still get out there and swing their racquet!! Joe, give it a try. Call your local club and find a clinic.. Get out there! You'll regret all the tennis you've been missing! Graham… That’s ME (well, like me). I was the kid who was slow, out of shape, but hit a beautiful topspin forehand. I got up to #2 on my HS team, but couldn’t crack the #1 player… a Manish type. Obviously playing #1 he could hold the racquet and had the ability to place the ball a little with a little pace, but his total game was defense. He placed the ball just well enough that you had to hit 2 or 3 nice shots to hit a winner, but he rarely gave you an opening, and you couldn’t just blast him at net or he was good enough to place a ball right past you. But his Tennis was not at all graceful and when you’d been playing the game and taking lessons since you were 10, and this kid who only started playing in 9th grade keeps beating you, well, it hurts.

I can relate at some level with Federer. In fact, I was always a big Ivan Lendl fan growing up because I could translate my game into his: strong baseline player, fair (at best) at net, and wasn’t really that athletic. Nadal… I can’t even imagine how to play the game the way he does. I’ve tried to hit a forehand with his grip, and almost broke my wrist!!

Joe, you gotta start swinging the racquet again. There are open tennis courts all over the US, just waiting for people to get out there and play. I’ve started networking again, and I’m giving my son lessons, and I feel so much better… How many people who played HS football are still playing football into their 30’s and 40’s??? Not many!!! But just about everyone who played HS tennis can still get out there and swing their racquet!! Joe, give it a try. Call your local club and find a clinic.. Get out there! You’ll regret all the tennis you’ve been missing!

]]> By: Chris C. http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/#comment-27131 Chris C. Fri, 15 Aug 2008 03:00:16 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/14/a-cab-ride-and-nadal/#comment-27131 I've always thought that Federe was like Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Wayne Gretzky, in that you wanted to see them win because of how amazing it would be to watch. You knew you'd see feats that you wouldn't see if anyone else were playing. I've always wondered how it would feel to be beaten by Federer, wouldn't you have to just laugh? He'd be hitting shots that are impossible and making it look effortless, like the whole rally was just a prelude for him hiting that one absurd angle. You couldn't get frustrated, he's making up new rules on the spot, what chance do you have? Enjoy yourself! Everytime I watch Federer-Nadal I'm reminded of those same kids that I used to play, who get to everything, lobbed, punched, pushed, and made you less interested in winning and more interested in hitting them with a ball. As you perfectly described, Nadal is that kid, or kids, only suped-up. Nicholson's Joker watching tennis: "I have given a name to my pain, and it is Nadal." Thank you for another story from my youth that you've told better than I could ever have. I’ve always thought that Federe was like Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Wayne Gretzky, in that you wanted to see them win because of how amazing it would be to watch. You knew you’d see feats that you wouldn’t see if anyone else were playing. I’ve always wondered how it would feel to be beaten by Federer, wouldn’t you have to just laugh? He’d be hitting shots that are impossible and making it look effortless, like the whole rally was just a prelude for him hiting that one absurd angle. You couldn’t get frustrated, he’s making up new rules on the spot, what chance do you have? Enjoy yourself!

Everytime I watch Federer-Nadal I’m reminded of those same kids that I used to play, who get to everything, lobbed, punched, pushed, and made you less interested in winning and more interested in hitting them with a ball. As you perfectly described, Nadal is that kid, or kids, only suped-up.

Nicholson’s Joker watching tennis: “I have given a name to my pain, and it is Nadal.” Thank you for another story from my youth that you’ve told better than I could ever have.

]]>