The Art of Second Guessing
Posted: October 30th, 2008 | Filed under: Baseball, Other Sports, Playoffs | 52 Comments »
This began as a little side note to discuss Tampa Bay manager Joe Maddon’s rather odd and unfortunate choice to let lefty reliever J.P. Howell hit for himself in the seventh inning just so he could face righty Pat Burrell the next inning. Then I got a few emails about a second-guess column written on the Kansas City Chiefs site … anyway it turned into this mess:
There is something dramatically unfair about the second guess. The second guess is unfair even when, as people like say, it is a first guess. I’m sure just about every brilliant reader of this blog was shouting “What the heck is he doing,” the very instant Joe Maddon allowed Howell to hit for himself.
But timing isn’t the unfair part of second guesses. Even a second guess made BEFORE the manager or coach makes a move is, I think, unfair. That is because a second guess lasts forever.
Think about this: In the dimension of second guesses, Dave Stapleton always fields the ground ball, Dan Marino leads the New York Jets to three Super Bowl championships, and the Boston relief crew shuts down the New York Yankees every time. In the dimension of second guesses Portland has the NBA team of the 1990s, Mike Dukakis never steps into that tank, Steven Spielberg decides there have been enough Peter Pan movies, I never ask the tough-looking dark-haired girl in the 10th grade if she wants to go roller skating*, and the Kansas City Royals, featuring Chase Utley, Albert Pujols and Tim Lincecum (heck throw in Carlos Beltran and Ryan Braun too), are the ones playing the Phillies in the World Series.
*Yes, roller skating. Man, you should have seen that turndown. Actually, I’m glad you didn’t see it. It was not a great experience. I mean, seriously, roller skating? That’s what I asked? What the heck was I thinking — that I lived in American Graffiti? Roller skating. And the worst part is that I didn’t even know HOW to roller skate.
Yes, the issue with second-guessing is that it’s a stacked-deck. You already know how first-guess turned out. It is like getting to see what you missed behind Curtain No. 1. But as far your guess goes, the second guess, you will never know if it would have succeeded, if it would have failed, if it would have changed the game at all. You will never get to see what was behind Curtain No. 2 — was it the trip to Puerto Vallarta* or was it the billy goat that eats beer cans?
*I always thought Puerto Vallarta sounded SO exotic when they would give away those trips on the various game shows. Wow. Puerto Vallarta. But then, I always thought that those four day, three night trips for two to scenic and romantic Reno, Nevada sounded great too. Since then I’ve been to Reno — scenic, romantic, not so much.
So, there’s a strand of dishonesty behind the whole idea of second guessing, there’s an undeserved assurance that your way would have worked in ways that the original choice failed.
On the other hand — a stupid decision by a manager or coach or GM or sportswriter or anybody else deserves to be ripped. And,it isn’t second guessing, I don’t think, to call the thought process BEHIND a decision dumb and wrongheaded. I had a couple of brilliant readers send along an article written on the Kansas City Chiefs Web site by someone who goes by the nom de plume of “Rufus Dawes,” an old Civil War hero*. The article, which is about second guessing, suggested that it was unfair for people to rip the Chiefs for going conservative in the final minutes of the New York Jets game last Sunday. Just so you know: The Chiefs led the Jets by four points with about five minutes left, and they got the ball. A couple of first downs probably would have put the game away. Instead, the Chiefs ran the ball three times, fell about a yard short of the first down, punted the ball away and watched Brett Favre drive right down the field and throw the game-winning touchdown pass.
*Yeah, I know. You don’t have to say it.
The argument there is that it’s unfair for anyone to second guess the Chiefs’ decision to run three straight times because it almost worked (almost!) and because there’s no way to know if a pass or two would have given the Chiefs a first down. Maybe a pass would have been worse — maybe it would have been incomplete (stopping the clock) or maybe it would have been intercepted and returned for a touchdown or maybe …
And I understand and appreciate the argument. But here’s why I think that point is flawed (and yes, I’m getting back to Maddon here, slowly): I don’t think anyone is second guessing the FOOTBALL DECISION to run the ball three straight times. I’m not. No, I’m second-guessing the PHILOSOPHY behind running the ball three straight times. The way I see it, the Chiefs were 1-5. They were going nowhere. They were playing at New York, where they were almost two touchdown underdogs. They were — because of a series of chance occurrences such as Jets coach Eric Mangini apparently taking the week off leading into the game — in position to win the game. And the Chiefs played scared.
Sure, it almost worked. Lots of stuff almost works in football — almost is the beauty of football.
Yes, the alternative might have been worse. But what in the hell did they have to lose?
Think about this simply for a minute: There is absolutely no question whatsoever that if a coach needed a first down to save his soul, he would not run the ball into the line three straight times. If running the ball into the line three straight times was a team’s best shot at getting a first down, coaches would run the ball every single down for the rest of their lives.
That’s just who they are. Football coaches, as a rule, are conservative people by nature. They want to control things, they NEED some sense of control, they want to eliminate chance, they want to strip away as much risk as they possibly can. You know the axioms of football coaching. Hold on to the football. Eliminate penalties. Make the smart pass. Don’t try and do too much. Protect the quarterback. Stay in your gap. This is why coaches, before every game, jabber endlessly and nervously about special teams. A special teams play is a quagmire, an uncontrollable situation, a kicked ball, 11 men running the length of the field, 10 men blocking and one trying to negotiate his way through, there are so many things that can go wrong, blocked kicks, fumbles, penalties, injuries … it’s no wonder coaches lose sleep thinking about special teams.
Point is: Herm Edwards, the Chiefs coach, and Chan Gailey, the Chiefs’ offensive coordinator, knew full well what they were doing. They didn’t run the ball three time because they thought that was the best way to win. They ran the ball three times into the line because it was safer that way. There was less chance of turning over the ball or losing big yardage. Sure they would have LIKED to get the first down, but they were only willing to risk so much in the effort — they could always punt the ball away and count on the defense. THAT is what I second guess. I do not understand what the heck they were so afraid of.
Now, we move to Joe Maddon — he had a different situation. Maddon had convinced himself before Wednesday’s game conclusion that he heliked, really liked, the J.P. Howell vs. Pat Burrell matchup. I mean he REALLY liked it. Now, to start, I am trying for the life of me to figure out what he liked … all I see is:
– Pat Burrell this year hit 39 points higher, on-based 55 points higher and slugged 53 points higher against lefties.
– Pat Burrell in his career hits 25 points, higher, on-bases 58 points higher and slugs 77 points higher against lefties.
– J.P. Howell this year was very effective against both lefties and righties, but righties did do slightly better.
– J.P. Howell, over his still short career, has allowed righties to hit 17 points higher, on-base 26 points higher, slug 49 points higher.
– Best as I can tell, Howell had only faced Burrell one time in his entire life, and he walked him.
So I literally have NO EARTHLY IDEA why Maddon made his move — I’m sure he had some sort of complicated match-up theory working. He must have really believed in it because, remember, he not only allowed Howell to pitch against Burrell but he wanted that matchup so badly he actually LET HOWELL HIT in the seventh inning. Maddon called it a “crazy thing” after the game, and it was all that and then some.
Again, I don’t want to second guess the move itself because, yes, we know what happened. Howell bunted Jason Bartlett to second, but the Rays did not score. Then in the bottom of the seventh, Howell hung a curve, Pat Burrell whacked it off the center field wall (on another night, it would probably have been gone) and his pinch-runner scored the game-winner on Pedro Feliz’s single. We know that.
But my second guess here is not about the move itself. My second guess is — and I appreciate this greatly because I know I would be the same way – that I think Joe Maddon fell in love with his own thinking. I think this happens to all of us: You think about one thing too much, and it grows in your mind, and you start to lose a little focus on reality.
I think it was Robert Klein who talked about how sometimes, when you lose your keys, your mind will start to play tricks on you. You will start to think, “OK, let me think here, I was downstairs, and I had my keys in my hand, and I was making a tuna sandwich, and I had some leftover tuna, and I remember I put the leftover tuna in a bowl, and I put some plastic wrap over it, and, you know what, of course, I’ll bet that I put I put my keys in the tuna bowl, I’m sure that’s what I did, I’ll bet the keys are right in the tuna.” Then you go to the fridge and open it up and, of course, the keys are not in the tuna, how stupid was that, why in the heck would your keys be INSIDE THE TUNA BOWL?
I think Maddon fell for the key-in-the-tuna factor. I think he’s a terrific manager, and I think he’s a great guy, and I think that sometime during the 46-hour delay (probably at 3 a.m. one night) Maddon started to convince himself that for some convoluted reasons he would be better off not sharing with anybody Howell was the perfect matchup against Burrell, that Burrell simply would not be able to handle his curveball, that there was nobody in the entire world who was more qualified to get Pat Burrell out than J.P. Howell.
And I think Maddon just lost focus, just lost the forest. Burrell was relatively useless the whole series. He had not gotten a single hit, not one. He had not scored a run or driven one in. He had walked three times (once by Howell, of course) and generally speaking he looked like the easiest out in the Series (which is saying something considering how Longoria and Pena played the first four games).
Then, for reasons that defy logic, Maddon went way out of his way to give Burrell a curveball-throwing lefty to face in the late innings of the decisive game of the World Series. Burrell knew what a gift looked like. He bashed the ball off the wall. There were no second guesses necessary. He did not miss the first time.
Loading ...
One would think a manager should simply make the decisions based on the numbers. I would rather lose based on what is the best statistical approach, then make some decision that has no real basis, simply a “feeling” that I have encountered.
http://statisticianmagician.mlblogs.com/
“The Key in the Tuna.” Is that not the title of an Agatha Christie mystery?
If you google “key in the tuna” you get two hits only. This post and one other. Kind of interesting; or not.
I think the sudden emergence of David Price in the ALCS completely screwed up Maddon’s thinking. He had a perfectly good bullpen rotation that had helped his team win 97 games, but suddenly he had this new weapon, a lefty flamethrower that could pitch three innings if he needed him.
From that point forward, every relief decision seemed to be made with Price in mind, even if it messed up the rest of the bullpen rotation. Instead of just using Price and Howell to get out Utley and Howard (who Charlie Manuel conveniently insisted on batting consecutively), and letting Balfour, Bradford et al deal with everyone else, Maddon was focused on when and where he was going to unleash Price for some two-inning stint.
There are so many problems with this decision that it’s simply mind-boggling.
1. You are trailing 3-1, not leading 3-1.
2. The other team hits last.
3. Given 1 and 2, in the short term, scoring is much more important than preventing runs.
4. The Rays are so ridiculously talented that they later pinch hit with a guy who was an injury replacement to their postseason squad yet STILL HIT 20 REGULAR SEASON HOME RUNS.
5. The Rays are so ridiculously talented that they later pinch hit for THE GUY WHO’D JUST HOMERED TO TIE THE GAME.
This was a blatantly poor decision because late in a World Series deciding game, you must maximize your chances to score while minimizing your opponent’s chance to score. Even if Howell was a better matchup for Burrell than other relievers – a hard case to argue but possibly true – the difference in expected runs scored by the Phillies when starting the inning with Howell over Bradford is minimal. However, the difference in expected Rays runs if you pinch hit for Howell versus bunting with Howell is absolutely gigantic.
I can understand Joe’s logic about how silly it is to put All-Star teams together after the fact and claim your team drafted poorly. I don’t get his logic about the unfairness of the first guess. I love Joe Maddon. He’s done a brilliant job this year. But this is his job. It’s a highly paid job with extremely high status. How well he does his job impacts sports history forever and thus the sports experience of a huge number of fans. As a result . . .
You simply cannot make such a mistake. If you do not have the core competency to correctly make a crucial – and very simple – decision at the key moment, you are not competent for that job. This decision was unfathomable.
JOE — that’s probably what Maddon DID do. I don’t think he’s the type to go on a “hunch.” That’s Joe’s point.
The only thing is, I wonder if Maddon didn’t take this “into the tuna bowl” but looked at it from a different angle. Maybe he looked at Burrell’s OPS against left-hander’s at Citizen’s Bank park or something; more detailed metrics beyond the blather that the announcers spew. Something meaningful.
Perhaps, in THAT way, he tried to OVERsimplify. But then again, I guess that really is thinking the keys are in the fishbowl . . .
I’m wondering if anyone was second guessing Maddon’s decision to bunt in the first place. I certainly wondered about it. This seemed like one of those great chances to bunt yourself out of a big inning. But in the long run, the Rays inability to hit in general cost them the series. No second guessing needed there.
I’m intrigued by this idea of coaches or managers–even general managers–playing for their soul or, for that matter, their life.
First off, the ratings would have been huge if Joe Maddon were made to perform seppuku after the Rays lost. He also would not have let Howell hit.
Perhaps that is just a tad over the top, but public humiliation could work too. For instance, let’s say any NFL President/General Manager/CEO entering the second decade of a five year plan had to address the crowd before every home game dressed in nothing but a bonnet and diaper. I think there would be some meaningful change or, at least, no more five-year-plan declarations.
I was confused by the “tough-looking dark-haired girl in the 10th grade” passage. In most stories, she goes on to become the wife.
Maddon’s moves could be explained by the fact that so many
people spent the year talking about what a genius he is that he started to believe it himself. His tendency to have pitchers throwing at hitters at crucial times was total bush-league. More
chicken-bleep, than brilliance. In the end it seemed to displease the baseball Gods who waited for the appropriate moment for the deserved fate of the legend in his own mind.
“First off, the ratings would have been huge if Joe Maddon were made to perform seppuku after the Rays lost.”
Would that be before or after the Phillies’ victory celebration?
Not only did Howell hit, but the Phils let their relief pitcher (Romero) hit as well in the bottom of the inning. The odds in two relief pitchers getting to hit in the late innings of a world series game are 123,000 to 1. I just made that number up, but you get my point.
Also, I have to rant about the home plate umpire calling a checked strike 2 on Hinske. First of all, it wasn’t a strike. Second of all, if that homeplate umpire can see the ball and the swing then he is a God-Like figure walking amongst us mortals.
If he goes to the third base ump and he calls him out, then it is just a bad call made by the right guy. But for him to pretend like he saw it correctly, is a complete botch job. He was proabably the same homeplate ump that called out JD Drew in Game 7 of the ALCS.
Paul P-
My thoughts exactly on the checked swing pseudo-strike called on Hinske. I immediately thought of the Drew “swing” in the ALCS Game 7. Guess it was payback time.
Maybe it’s a generation thing–I’m a college kid–or maybe it’s a “I’m stupid” thing–I repeat, I’m a college kid–but I confess I have NO idea what the Rufus Dawes posterisk is all about. Anyone?
So, why did Jason W. say that Herm is change we can believe in? I still cannot get over that article. Jason should be fired for such a terrible article!
Please fire Jason W.
Jason Whitlock is Rufus Dawes. That’s the reason for the pseudonym as he doesn’t want to be embarrassed that he is actually supporting King Carl. Think about it. He actually wrote an article when Dawes first appeared and speculated as to who it was. The best place to hide is in plain sight, much like the movie, The Usual Suspects.
If Maddon is like me, he still can’t get that “fish, fish, fishy, fishy, fish, fish” song out of his head from game 3. And if it has clouded his judgment like it has mine, I fully excuse him for thinking this was the best way to handle Pat the Bat.
Maybe this is an oversimplification, but watching the Rays all year brought me to the conclusion that Maddon had just gotten into the rigid thinking that “Howell is now the guy.”
It’s difficult to explain, but that’s because so much of Maddon’s thinking this year has been difficult to fathom — e.g. great hitters or great potential hitters bunting even without the third baseman playing deep and without a lumbering guy on first, lots of hit-and-runs in ostensibly low-profit situations, sending the catcher to steal.
But one of the most telling, I think, is his use of Troy Percival. I don’t think Troy could film a local radio spot without getting back spasms or straining a hammy. And Maddon sent him out there again and again and again and again, when almost EVERY TIME, Percival would hurt himself on the first or second pitch, then walk two men on (or three!) and get yanked. This went on, seemingly forever, until Troy mercifully managed to get hurt for the rest of the season.
At which point, Maddon started riding Dan Wheeler giddily into the same oblivion. Walk two batters, then get some BABIP outs or maybe a bullshit call way outside for a strike. End of inning. Or… walk the third guy, get yanked. It was the same script as with Percival and the same script over and over: a guy who went out there throwing junk, often put himself behind, then got overmatched by unfavorable circumstances he created himself.
The thing with Percival and Wheeler is that they were both like gambling. They managed to pay off inexplicably and randomly but juuuuuust often enough for Maddon to keep going back. And I think the same thing happened with Howell that happened with Wheeler and Percival. As Percival shrank from favor, Wheeler stepped up, as did Howell. And when Wheeler quasi-imploded in the ALCS, Howell seemed to step up. And Maddon just rode that horse for as long as he could, and, in the process, I think he effectively managed himself out of other possible options. (How many batters did Bradford face in the WS anyway?—Three? WS and ALCS combined?—Five? And didn’t he have a record of zero postseason runs going in?)
I realize this is very unscientific of me, and I apologize for the absence of numbers. I’m frankly too tired to look them up, and if someone annihilates me with a bunch of postseason lines, then I definitely have to defer to them. All I can say is that, having watched the Rays all year, and having watched and talked it over with other fans who’ve likewise watched all year, we all detected a tendency on Maddon’s part to “settle” on a guy and see him as the answer to the exclusion of other opportunities. I think Howell became that guy, and once that happened, Maddon was going to give him a much longer leash than he would anyone else. Even if it meant managing on faith and gut and less on any real numbers.
We need a parallel universe where these second guesses can be tested. Perhaps, had Howell been replaced, Burrell ( or a lefty pinch hitter like Stairs or Dobbins) would have hit a home run. We know what happened, but we will never know what would have happened. The essence of the second guess is the presumption that what you want to happen will in fact happen. That approach is even more like the keys in the tuna, except there is no way to check the tuna bowl. Doing something differently does not guarantee the outcome will be better.
I’m not suggesting that this is necessarily good tactics, but perhaps Maddon wasn’t thinking about the Burrell matchup at all, but rather that he was going to bunt no matter who he sent up to the plate and 1) JP Howell can bunt as well as anyone else available; and 2) he wouldn’t have to burn a PH that he might need later.
Like I said, I’m not arguing for this line of thinking (and I don’t even know if #1 above could possibly be true), but I’m just suggesting that maybe there was a different thought process.
I like Joe Maddon and think he’s a very good manager. That said…
Boy, did he get a lot of press this postseason. I know people will say that it’s because he’s trying to take some of the pressure off his young team and that he can’t control what the press focuses on, but I would say “Joe Maddon is Really Smart” was one of the top story lines of the postseason.
Off the top of my head, I can only think of 3 professional coaches/managers in this country that are able to overshadow their teams in that way: La Russa, Belichick and Phil Jackson and no offense to Joe Maddon, but love or hate those guys, they’ve all won multiple championships.
I think all those guys have also had their moments where the “I’m really smart” storyline went to their head (for La Russa, this happens approximately 4 times a game). I wonder if that isn’t what happened to Maddon here. He made a lot of really questionable decisions in the WS – certainly more than I remember seeing him make in the 30 or so games I saw them in this year. And the only seeming rationale for these decisions would be he had a hunch…except this is a guy who doesn’t really rely on hunches.
It occurs to me, that maybe Maddon has already entered the Iconic Coaches/Managers club. I mean, Belichik’s got his hoodie, La Russa has the transition lenses and dead animal on his head, and Maddon has the Sarah Palin glasses. Maybe weird fashion choices is their signal to one another that they’re geniuses.
What’s your take on the Phillies fans booing Selig and the Rays even after they had won the World Series? I thought it was pretty classless to boo the Rays when Gillick congratulated them on a great season.
Oddibe-
Couldn’t agree with you more. I thought that took away from the celebration – the phans were actually booing while the WS trophy was being handed over. What exactly are you upset with at that point? Show some class.
I think Maddon was overcoaching. He thought about individual matchups so much he lost sight of the game. No idea why he pinch hit for Baldelli, which I think was worse than letting Howell hit.
The bullpen did not change because of Price. The 7-0 implosion against Boston is what shook the bullpen. I thought the restart should have been started Edwin Jackson. That way you have a long reliever and still have Price to close.
First time in my life I’ve ever heard of or considered the “Key in the Tuna” possibility.
^^ Mike
I was thinking the same things about Baldelli, and of course that was glossed over by Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber. My only thought was that maybe he couldn’t physically hit at that point, with his condition?
It’s Philly. I would have been extremely disappointed if they DIDN’T boo Selig.
Seems to me Maddon is a big “energy” guy. New agey type manager. He also has the “Guru” syndrome, almost obsessively in need to be the father figure, the wise old steady hand leading his talented but ‘raw’ young team.
This was a classic “guru” as manager decision. Take a calculated risk, that is admittedly a little “crazy” but if it works… If it works… The kids will see that I’m really a genius, it will inspire them to continue the belief that I am the magician – and we can and WILL win this thing. Heck, we’re down 3-1, we need something unorthodox, crazy if we’re going to recapture true “momentum” and have a chance to come back at home.
IMO. This is where Joe Maddon was coming from with that call.
Oddibe:
“What’s your take on the Phillies fans booing Selig and the Rays even after they had won the World Series? I thought it was pretty classless to boo the Rays when Gillick congratulated them on a great season.”
What you have to understand about the Philadelphia Fan is this: if you are NOT on their team, you are hated. Simple and plain. I am a lifelong Philadelphian but only a fan of the Sixers, and the culture of fandom down here is all bloodlust.
The Phillies and Rays have no rivalry or history, so to the outside fan it comes off “classless” when fans boo the Rays, Bud Selig, Bill Giles, Dave Montgomery, etc. But these people care SO MUCH ABOUT WINNING and have been starved, tortured, let down, and beat down so many times that any and everything that stifles that process of winning a championship gets bit with venom.
I winced a bit when Gillick praised the Rays and the fans booed, but that’s their nature. They are not going to suddenly turn into the crowd at the Met because they won their chip. They pride themselves on being combative, confronting, obnoxious, loyal, rowdy, drunken, and die hard at all times. For better or worse, this what they are and what they ALWAYS will be.
Quick side rant on Philadelphia fans:
The media, by and large, hates them. Michael Wilbon. Merril Hodge. Joe Buck. It’s easy. It requires no thought or dissection. The history is there. But the one thing people never point is that Philadelphia fans ALWAYS SHOW UP. They might stay away for one season if a team is just out and out bad and prices are high for seats but by and large they give their all to their teams. When Santa was booed, that Eagles team was something like 1-14 going into their last game at home in the snow and there was 50,000 people there. Where else does that happen?
I’m late to the party, but I can’t believe your praise for Bud Selig. Here are some of the things we have to thank old Bud for :
- Cancelled the World Series. (yay, labor peace! Good job Bud!)
- Let the steroids issue GROW until CONGRESS forced him to put an end to it. All the while turning a blind eye and pretending he had no idea what was going on. (Let’s praise Bud for ending the steroid era! Woohoo…)
- Gave home field advantage in the freaking WORLD SERIES to the league that wins the nonsensical all-star game.
- Allowed two of the game’s biggest records to be currently held by baseball’s biggest cheat.
- Was going to put a picture of SPIDERMAN on every base, until the FANS howled at him to stick that idea right next to his head, which is up his @ss. Then whined like a little child about how the fans “complain all the time.”
- Let FOX dictate when the World Series should start and end, causing teams to have to wait for over a week before playing again. There are now, by my estimate, 387 off-days in baseball’s postseason. Nothing like waiting 6 days after the LCS for the World Series to start. Yay Bud!
- Semi-Responsible : The era of publicly funded ballparks.
- Introduced the ludicrous concept of teams opening the season in Japan, causing those teams to play like crap for three weeks once they get back.
- Allowed Jeff Loria to kill the Montreal Expos, then gift-wrapped him another franchise – the Marlins – which he is now killing as well.
- Appears to be the principle force that’s keeping Mark Cuban from buying the Cubs. (Which 99% of all people think would be GREAT for baseball.)
No, you’re right, Bud Selig is TEH AWSOME!!!!!1!1!!
On another note : Congrats Philly!
ZR:
It happens in Foxboro.
Creston:
“Allowed”…. By Baseball’s “biggest cheat”.
I assume you’re talking about Barry Bonds, arguably the greatest hitter in the history of the game. (period)
OK. Did Selig “allow” him to play THIS year? Was that right? fair? In your book? And to suggest Barry was the “biggest cheat” is just laughable. Best player who used? I’d listen to that line… But biggest cheat? That list must start with Canseco, no?
ZR – that was the least defensible defense of a fan base I’ve ever heard. You admitted that Philly fans are crude and incapable of good sportsmanship, yet you excuse them for this because they’re “diehard”. Come on.
ZR: I don’t remember Buffalo being blacked out when they sucked. Did the Jets? I don’t remember, but it could have happened. Also, it probably gets cold in Kansas City and they sure do lose a lot recently.
I don’t have anything necessarily against the Philly fans, like all the Northeast cities they have their identity and they try to live up to it. I don’t see them as any more diehard than other fans in NY, Boston, Washington, etc.
why in the heck would your keys be INSIDE THE TUNA BOWL?
You have never met my wife, have you? Her keys, her cellphone, her comb, her drink, and even the cat’s scoop of food have all wound up in the refrigerator or even in the freezer.
Football attendance figures have little to do with fan loyalty, and everything to do with having only 8 home games. You want to see “loyalty”? The New York Giants won 4 games in 2003, and averaged over 78,000 fans. Why? Because they sell out every game. Why? Because there are 8 of them.
In 1996 the Phillies went 67-95, and were 9th out of 14 NL teams in attendance. In 1997, they went 68-94 and were dead last in the NL in terms of attendance. It would be nice to blame this on Veteran’s Stadium, but then when you look at the 2005 Phillies, in only their second season in their shiny new stadium, they were once again 9th in attendance, with around 600,000 tickets sold than in ‘04, despite finishing second in the NL East. Not a bad team. Brand new ballpark. Still not filling up the seats.
You can say lots of things about Phillies fans, but saying they “always show up” just isn’t true.
The Phillies and Rays have no rivalry or history, so to the outside fan it comes off “classless†when fans boo the Rays, Bud Selig, Bill Giles, Dave Montgomery, etc. But these people care SO MUCH ABOUT WINNING and have been starved, tortured, let down, and beat down so many times that any and everything that stifles that process of winning a championship gets bit with venom.
I winced a bit when Gillick praised the Rays and the fans booed, but that’s their nature. They are not going to suddenly turn into the crowd at the Met because they won their chip. They pride themselves on being combative, confronting, obnoxious, loyal, rowdy, drunken, and die hard at all times. For better or worse, this what they are and what they ALWAYS will be.
So, classless?
I assume you’re talking about Barry Bonds, arguably the greatest hitter in the history of the game. (period)
You can put (period) at the end of a sentence, but that doesn’t make it actually true.
Babe Ruth : ..342/.474/.690, 207 OPS+, .374 EqA.
Barrold Bonds : .298/.444/.607, 182 OPS+, .355 EqA.
And sure, we can go into the whole “Ruth never faced black players!” and then I can counter that Ruth lost several years of his prime to pitching, and then I can say that Bonds had steroids and better training, and you can counter that the level of players faced today is so much better etc etc etc. The cold hard statistics say that Barry Bonds was not, in fact, a better hitter than Babe Ruth.
OK. Did Selig “allow†him to play THIS year? Was that right? fair? In your book?
That exactly proves my point. If you’re going to collude against Barry Bonds, which I’m 100% convinced has happened this year, why wait until THIS YEAR?! Why not do it LAST year, and prevent the big ass from breaking the homerun record? As always, Bud’s execution leaves a lot to be desired.
And to suggest Barry was the “biggest cheat†is just laughable. Best player who used? I’d listen to that line… But biggest cheat? That list must start with Canseco, no?
That’s fair enough. In my mind it sort of resonated as “biggest star to have cheated (the most).”
I stand corrected on that.
Here’s where I found myself second-guessing the Rays strategy late in Game #5….They were able to steal bases in record form vs all of there post-season opponents. I know it goes against some conventional wisdom but why wasn’t Crawford running when Upton was batting in the 8th? Instead, we saw Upton hit into a short-2nd-1st DP. Then in the 9th inning, (and I;m really going off now but…) if they were not going to hit any more of Lidge’s sliders why not have there ultra-speedy base-stealer (Perez?) try a run at 3rd base soon after swiping 2nd? Yes, one should NEVER make the third out of an inning on a baserunning play at 3rd base, but they had a better chance of scoring on a wild throw by the Phils catcher or a wild pitch on one of Lidge’s hard sliders than they did hitting one square and scoring the runner from 2nd base. Sort of like Little League strategy, yes, but given the circumstances, it was the way to go in my gut.
Creston: Aren’t you demonstrating that Bonds is *arguably* the greatest hitter of all time with this:
And sure, we can go into the whole “Ruth never faced black players!†and then I can counter that Ruth lost several years of his prime to pitching, and then I can say that Bonds had steroids and better training, and you can counter that the level of players faced today is so much better etc etc etc
I also think Ruth is the greatest, but I don’t think it’s at all strange to think that an argument could be made for Bonds (or Williams, for that matter).
Mark W.
I am pretty sure that the rule about not making the third out at third base goes quadruple when it is potentially the last out of the World Series.
Of course Babe Ruth made the last out of a WS trying to steal a base once and he did OK in subsequent WS
And as I recall, the 2nd out of the 9th inning was a line drive off one of Lidge’s sliders right at the RF.
Brent: Yes, I understand, but had the Rays pinch-runner been settled on third base and then the liner to RFhad been hit we’d have had a tie game…
Lots of ‘ifs” but it seemed to me that basestealing was one thing that the Rays were doing that the Phils (or the weather) could not stop.
Creston – With respect, your clear disdain for Barry is tainting your views. Your “argument” of Ruth vs. Barry proves my point that it is indeed arguable. (period) You don’t compare Big Papi to Ruth do you? Or who else to Ruth…?
Also your fervor for Collusion against Barry is just wrong in my book. Why single him out? Because he broke your beloved HR record? Not consistent, makes no sense. By all accounts Barry was a HOF’er (or well on track) before he saw much lesser players Sosa and McGwire make a mockery of the game he loves.
In any case, even if you want to believe the worst about Barry and the best about steroids, doesn’t it prove he was a hitter from another planet since he was better than anyone clean and much much, much better than anyone on Juice – and at quite an advanced age as well.
The Barry hating is really old and tiring to baseball lovers like myself. It’s just weak. Have a constant standard. And keep it real.
He May have started juicing
“Ruth never faced black players!â€
I assume that meant “Black Pitchers,” and I hear that argument often, but nobody outside of the Negro Leagues faced many Black Pitchers, to be honest.
Ted Williams career OPS+ was 191. Unlike Ruth, he faced some black pitchers. Unlike Ruth, who lost some seasons because he was a pitcher early in his career before it was clear that he could hit like Babe Ruth, Williams lost almost FIVE seasons in his prime to WWII and Korea. Williams’ OPS+ the seasons before he entered military service: 235 and 217. Then he came back and put up 215 and 205 in 1946 and 1947. I think a strong case can be made that Williams was the greatest hitter of all time. I’d pick Ruth as the greatest player because of his non-hitting accomplishments. But Bonds is not higher than third.
Even third is somewhat suspect. Ty Cobb had a career OPS+ of 167 without ever hitting more than 12 homers in a season. He noticeably eschewed the home run, and there is a story that he once had a double header where he hit three homers just to prove he could, but didn’t feel it was pure and true to baseball. Cobb also has the highest career batting average, something highly valued back then. I’m not certain Bonds was a better batter than Cobb. It gets hard comparing folks so dissimilar. I do know that Bonds isn’t higher than fifth on my list of players I’d pick if I had an all time team with something important at stake. I *think* I’d go Ruth (RF), Williams (LF), Cobb (CF), and ARod (SS) before I’d consider Bonds (DH; yeah, I know, young Bonds was a gold glover, but young Bonds does not hit well enough to get picked ahead of Mays, Aaron, Frank Robinson, or plenty of other outfielders). And I’d probably be picking Cy Young before all those outfielders. I mean, if I have to settle for Mays or Aaron or FRob, how bad is it, really?
That said, I agree with Bonds. It has to have been collusion that no team in baseball was willing to take a flyer on the best hitter of his generation, especially for the stretch run. Could the Angels have used a DH like Bonds? What about the post Manny Red Sox, or even the Rays? The only AL playoff team that legitimately did not need Bonds at DH was the White Sox, and we saw how long they lasted. Supposedly he would have signed for league minimum, throw a bunch of incentives at him, give him a one year contract with no risk (the trial doesn’t start until next year) and if he’s disruptive in the clubhouse, then cut him. Young Barry won three MVPs and everybody (but the writers) loved him. So yeah, it was collusion. And it stinks. If Pete Rose could get at bats long after he was a valuable hitter, if Willie Mays could flail at breaking balls and watch fly balls drop in front of him, then Barry Bonds (ops+ 170 in 2007) deserved a chance to DH for a contender.
Honestly. A business card for Halloween?!?!? As a PK (pastor’s kid), I can understand a well-meaning member of the clergy “blessing” a trick-or-treater–with parental consent. Try as I might, I cannot think of a respectable reason for dropping a business card in a child’s bucket, regardless of your profession. Is this a friend of the family? Is this a scratch-n-sniff business card? Do your daughters make a habit of calling strangers?
RE: Babe Ruth, Bonds
It isn’t/wasn’t a case of Ruth vs Bonds…they battled a pitcher(s), not one another. As such, Ruth failed at a .658 clip for his career, Bonds failed to the tune of .702 (these failure rates for each players batting average on a scale of .1000)
You’ve heard of the term “all things being equal”? Well of course they never are/there is no such thing. I can make as good an argument for either player having more advantage than the other based on era, but that is being nothing more than subjective in the final analysis.
Leaving the very real impact of steroid use/other advantages out of the equation for the moment, raw ’stats’ affirm that Ruth needed only 8399 at bats to hit 714 hrs – Bonds needed 837 more or extra at bats – 9236 total – to but even ‘tie’ Ruth. When Bonds had a similar # of at bats as Ruth (8399), Bonds had managed only 619 hrs- 95 less hrs than Ruth (Hank Aaron at a similar # of at bats as Ruth had hit only 493 hrs.) As well, Ruth obliterates Bonds via stat per stat almost across the board when each players ‘opportunities’ were similar and are the measure.
Some will argue players are better today in all sports than yesteryear – this is debatable, but for the sake of argument let us suppose it is the case. While all things are not equal, the fact is any baseball advances or improvement to date are all encompassing – at all positions- it must follow. In other words pitchers haven’t advanced ‘more’ than hitters…it thus follows the stats bear out the fact that Ruth, the best of his time, playing against the best pitchers his time, was better than Bonds was his era playing against the best pitchers now.
Yeah but, yeah but “the pitchers are better today!” If that is true, so too are the batters, i.e. a Bonds. “But, a Babe Ruth never faced the best pitchers.” Neither did Bonds if we are being equitable. For every pitcher Ruth didn’t face for reasons of era, discrimination etc., just the same for reasons era & the best athletes today playing other sports (like football & basketball) neither did Bonds. Put simply, neither guy be it Bonds or Ruth faced a Sandy Koufax – and neither faced in MLB regular season play a Satchel Paige…or Bob Feller, or Steve Carlton, or Bob Gibson, or…well, you get the gist.
Best against the best nee opportunity vs opportunity, Babe Ruth was the better hitter in general than Barry Bonds & also the better hr hitter specifically, hitting hrs at a ratio of 1 for every 11.76 at bats, compared to Bonds 1 hr every 12.92 at bats, career ratios for both Ruth & Bonds.
“Yeah but the pitchers walked Bonds more than Ruth!” No, they did not – at least as long as each player had an equal # of opportunities. As such, Ruth actually led Bonds in times walked too, Bonds only exceeding Ruth at the end of his San Francisco career.
For comparison sake, Hank Aaron needed 3,965 more at bats than Ruth to reach 755 hrs, only 41 more than Ruth; Bonds in 1448 more at bats than Ruth, hit only 48 more career hrs.
In summary, the fact Bonds hung around long enough to eventually hit more hrs than Ruth doesn’t make him better, it only places him further beyond a finish line for a race that Ruth already won many years afore.
I can get into the particulars era vs era advantages each player (which I’ve done before elsewhere) but this blog would soon become a ‘War & Peace” addendum, so will leave well enough alone…for now at any.
Re the pastor’s business card … at least it wasn’t from The Human Fund.
I’ve enjoyed the Bonds / Ruth arguments. Thanks gentlemen. I agree with the brilliant Richard A on taking Ted over Barry, not sure I’d take Arod but I can see the argument. Also that the collusion against him in ‘08 was borderline criminal.
I didn’t see the game, but there must have been some second guessing on the Chiefs against the Bucs.
Joe, what are your thoughts on this neutral site WS game idea? I think Shysterball did about as good a job on it as can be done, but I think you”re in a unique position to talk about it because you’re pulled by both sides of the discussion:
On the pro side:
- You’re a sportswriter
- You’re notoriously in the pocket of Big Business (as the disgusting commercialization of this blog confirms)
On the con side:
- You’re a rational human being.
Joe,
I think it was Carlin / banana guacamole instead of Klein / bowl of tuna, unless Carlin and Klein had almost identical bits (which happens with comedians fairly often, of course).