Going Dark
Posted: January 15th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball, Other Sports | 74 Comments »
I know I said this before … but the blog really is going dark for a few days as I work feverishly to finish a book, write about Scott Pioli, watch the Pittsburgh Steelers play the Baltimore Ravens and various other fun and surprising things that I’ll be sure to fill you in on.
A few quick thoughts before I go …
1. I cannot begin to tell you how much I hate those Dodge Ram commercials, you know, with the loud music, and the quick Olver Stone cuts, and the black and white words popping in (with the sound effect of a hammer whacking against a metal plate) and the guys who are absolutely amazed by the fact that the engineers could find the technology to stick a glove-compartment-like-trunk on the side*. Man, I really hate those commercials … more than I can remember hating almost any commercials. It’s something visceral. It’s something deep rooted. Those commercials not only do not entice me to buy a Dodge Ram. They make me want to never use the words Dodge or Ram ever again. From now on, we call it “evadeball.†From now on, Merlin Olsen was a member of the Los Angeles Uncastrated Male Sheep.**
*It’s a Rambox! That’s pretty frickin’ cool!
**You want to talk about a great name for a band … can’t imagine much better than “Uncastrated Male Sheep.â€
Now, obviously, these Dodge Ram commercials are not meant for me. I don’t want a truck. I have never wanted a truck. And I don’t really do the outdoors. I don’t hunt. I don’t fish.* I don’t camp. I don’t haul. I don’t enjoy driving through mud. I don’t want to drive anywhere where there are large explosives going off. Shoot, I don’t even eat outdoors at restaurants … unless it’s a 45-minute wait for an inside table. I mean, hey, don’t get me wrong, I love the outdoors, love being outdoors … I just would prefer not killing anything or getting killed or sleeping on the ground. It’s just who I am.
And so the commercials are clearly not geared to sell me anything. Still, I hate them. I have no idea why I feel so strongly about it. It probably wouldn’t hurt to seek some professional help.
*Margo does not especially like me mentioning this, but when we got married she got me a fishing rod as a wedding present. Margo’s father loves fishing and loves hunting, and I think she hoped that fishing might be a bond between us. I have no idea where that fishing rod is, of course, but I can tell you that for my birthday this year Margo bought me a soft-serve ice cream maker. So you can say that after all these years she knows me a lot better. Waking up at 5 a.m. to catch fish in the cold — not my kind of bonding experience. Sitting at a living room table eating overly rich chocolate ice cream with sprinkles and little M&MS — yes, she knows much much better now.
2. I have some Hall of Fame wrap-up thoughts, but those are for another day. Except this: I noticed some brilliant readers were breaking down Bert Blyleven’s ERA by wins, losses and no-decisions. They ARE interesting. Here are the numbers.
Blyleven in wins: 1.60 ERA
Blyleven in losses: 5.40 ERA
Blyleven in no-decisions: 3.90 ERA.
You can take away a lot from that. Here’s what I take away from it: Bert Blyleven in his 155 no-decision — in his NO DECISIONS — had the same ERA that Jack Morris had over his entire career. I think every voter who votes Morris but not Blyleven should have that tattooed on his/her arm.
Here are some other breakdowns of interest:
Greg Maddux: 1.83 ERA in wins; 5.66 ERA in losses; 3.16 ERA in NDs.
Roger Clemens: 1.73 ER in wins; 5.80 ERA in losses; 3.74 ERA in NDs.
Nolan Ryan: 1.45 ERA in wins; 5.60 ERA in losses; 3.44 ERA in NDs.
Tom Seaver: 1.61 ERA in wins; 4.92 ERA in losses; 3.49 ERA in NDs.
Gaylord Perry: 1.54 ERA in wins; 5.26 ERA in losses; 3.71 ERA in NDs.
Don Sutton: 1.66 ERA in wins; 5.70 ERA in losses; 3.64 ERA in NDs.
Phil Niekro: 1.77 ERA in wins; 5.37 ERA in losses; 4.02 ERA in NDs.
JIm Palmer: 1.52 ERA in wins; 5.02 ERA in losses; 4.00 ERA in NDs.
Steve Carlton: 1.73 ERA in wins; 5.28 ERA in losses; 4.32 ERA in NDs.
Ferguson Jenkins: 185 ERA in wins; 5.27 ERA in losses; 4.57 ERA in NDs.
Catfish Hunter: 1.76 ERA in wins; 5.43 ERA in losses; 4.27 ERA in NDs.
Jack Morris: 2.29 ERA in wins; 6.18 ERA in losses; 4.74 ERA in NDs.
Interesting. I have some thoughts about it … we’ll pull them out upon our return. In the meantime, I pulled out Morris for obvious reasons, he simply does not fit with the group above him. He was a durable guy who took advantage of a team that scored a LOT of runs. To have a substantial percentage of Hall of Fame voters call Jack Morris “a winner†while offering NO Hall of Fame support for Lou Whitaker and little for Alan Trammell tells you a lot, I think, about the misreading of statistics and the power of myth.
3. I have written quite a lot about new Kansas City Chiefs general manager Scott Pioli here and here. I find the guy fascinating, in large part because I think he’s so utterly NOT fascinating. He is, I’m told, a big Springsteen fan. We will see.
4. I have received many emails from Royals fans and national baseball fans who are beginning to have serious questions about Royals general manager Dayton Moore. Well, I think, in many ways that matter, Dayton has done, and is doing, a terrific job. There is so much that he has done below the surface. I think the Royals organization is much stronger. I think their minor league system is getting stronger and better run. I think they are much, much more competitive in Latin America. I believe the Royals will improve their record this year for the fourth straight year.
Of course, I’m not crazy about what they have done on the big league level this off-season. But I realize now that it all depends on how they use the players they have acquired.
They signed Willie Bloomquist. If he gets 200 or so at-bats next year and plays seven positions, then that could be a nice pickup. If he gets 400 at-bats next year, then that might be an absolutely disastrous signing.
They traded for Mike Jacobs. If he plays solely against righties and gets a lot of DH time, then that could be a real help. If he plays first base every day, then I suspect that might not work so well.
They signed pitcher Horacio Ramirez. If he has a good camp and can fit in somehow as a fifth starter, that might be OK. If he has a lousy camp but they keep him on anyway because they paid him 1.9 million, that will really be awful.
They signed Kyle Farnsworth for too much money. If they use him in the seventh inning, keep his role consistent, call on him when they need a big strikeout, he might be valuable and return to 2005 form. If they feel indebted to him because he’s a veteran and has a big salary and is the unpredictable Kyle Farnsworth, well, that could turn out to be a horror movie.
And so on. Scott Pioli in his opening press conference didn’t say much, but he did say that he was not interested in collecting talent, he was interested in building a team. I do think there’s something to that. Dayton and the Royals have acquired several players who, from an outsider’s point of view, do not seem to fit together. But let’s see how it looks at the end of spring training.
5. Go Arizona. That’s all I can say about that.
6. And oh yeah, we’ll have plenty to say about the new Hall of Fame first class Presidents poll later. It’s long been my dream to build up a Hall of Fame for everything. Next Hall of Fame poll: First class of television stars.
Loading ...
enjoy your break, Joe. (I bet we see you tomorrow…)
I hope Pioli becomes what we need him to become. I hope the same for Dayton. Thanks for what you do Joe.
JMac
How is Abe not a unanimous choice? This people need to have their voting priviliges taken away from them.
Is an outrage.
But a good first class. Let see how picks up votes next year.
“I have no idea where that fishing rod is, of course, but I can tell you that for my birthday this year Margo bought me a soft-serve ice cream maker”
You are lucky man Joe. Good luck getting the book wrapped up.
Grover Cleveland needs more support in your HOF poll. The guy is President not once, but twice. If nothing else he’s the “Comeback President” – he’s even gonna get two of then $1 coins! He’s the namesake of the most irritating Sesame Street puppet (pre-Elmo). Not only did he get in as a bachelor, but then he got married in the White House and to the youngest first lady ever (21!). And of course, he has a great baseball connection. His daughter is the excuse for the Baby Ruth bar to protect it from Babe Ruth laying claim to infringement.
You guys! Jefferson was not that great of a President! He had an excellent collegiate career, but was sub-mediocre once he got to the show.
Also, come on, Jackson may be the Ty Cobb of Presidents, but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t hit the ball. Anyone with a whole freaking AGE named after them deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.
You’ll be back, Joe.
You don’t know how to quit us.
The first class of the Television Stars Hall of Fame?
Lucy, of course.
Ernie Kovacs.
Probably Uncle Miltie.
Rod Serling.
J. Fred Muggs.
Two thoughts on the President HOF:
1. James Madison does not deserve to be lumped in with James Monroe. One guy was the father of the freaking Constitution, while the other guy, um, wasn’t. Not saying that Madison should be a sure-fire HOFer (the War of 1812 wasn’t pretty), but still: he wrote the freaking Bill of Rights.
2. At the moment, it looks like not quite 800 people have voted, and FDR is sitting at only 67 percent. Really? I mean, really?
“How is Abe not a unanimous choice? ”
There is a section of the country where people still refer to “the war of northern aggression”. In that part of the country, Abe is not universally beloved. Also, there are some people who gaze upon NASCAR, country music and the modern GOP and think maybe Abe should have just let them go.
The truck commercial that gets me is the one with either Dennis Leary or a Dennis Leary sound-alike talking about how you’re going to be in and out of your truck bed 50 or 60 thousand times, so clearly you need their truck with the little step*. But, really, 50-60K? I mean, if you have the truck 10 years, that’s 5-6 thousand times a year. Into the bed 10 times a day, every day only get you to 3650 times a year.
And of course this is all said in that Dennis Leary faux-tough-guy, I’m-talking-to-an-idiot voice, that doesn’t strike me as a great way to address a customer. It works when he does standup and he’s talking about idiots and you’re in on the joke with him. When you’re the one he’s talking to/about, not so much.
*the step actually seems like a fine idea.
The reason you (and I) hate the Ram commercials is because they play to a certain stereotype about men and imply, very aggressively, that you should LOVE the commercial because you’re a man.
“Over the last 35 years or so, the Chiefs have had only one successful period — that was the time between 1990 and 1997 just after Carl Peterson arrived — and what made them good then is they were hungry, they brought in football players who hit, they beat opponents with superior special teams, they sacked the quarterback, they ran the football, they had an identity and a purpose and an intensity.”
I read a good deal of online sports writing, and most of it is either interesting or witty or whatever, but your writing is in a class of its own because it so often inspires me. Not in a cheesy, Disney’esque way, but in a “now I want to watch some sports” way or a “man I wish I had been there for that” way or a “I need to find someone one right now and talk about this” way. This bit above hit me particularly hard; it took me back and reminded me that it wasn’t just the team that had an identity during those years, but also us fans. As spectators, we were the kind of fans who loved Chiefs football: we sniffed derisively at teams with high-powered offenses that featured the passing game, and we were excited about things like time of possession, field position and the slow attrition of a defensive line as it gave ground under relentless pressure from our offensive lines. Man I hope those days return. But in the meantime I’ve got your writing to keep me fired up and hopeful for a renaissance in KC football.
I noticed in the HOF wrap ups this week, several commentators who bemoaned the lack of support Blyleven got noted his shutouts (eg. “as many shutouts as Pedro and Clemens *combined*”). I think you’re on to something here, Joe.
~
Not only did he get in as a bachelor, but then he got married in the White House and to the youngest first lady ever (21!).
Well, duh. I mean, what better license is there to pick up chicks than becoming President?
Man, I got so impassioned writing that comment that I almost finished it with “Love, Ted”. Apparently Joe’s writing really does get to me.
Joe, I don’t think you’re the only one that hates those commercials. I am right there with you and I said in my mind “I will never bother buying this brand” because of them. I thought I was losing my mind, but thankfully, there is a second insane person out there.
Few votes for Ike, here. I think he is secretly one of the better ones. Beside the highway and that, which is no small potatos, he did two amazing things.
1) Retired from the military. He could have gone in as a general; he was wildly popular and could have worn his uniform into the executive branch. But he didn’t cotton to a sitting general being the CiC (much like how Washington disbanded the militia so there wouldn’t be a sitting army with loyalty to a man rather than the office.
2) Brown v Board of Education. Didn’t like it. Wasn’t a racist, but thought it was too soon. Still sent the National Guard out to enforce the decision. Becuase that is what the Constitution demanded of him. Seems small, but that is the point: he didn’t think he was bigger than the office, and knew that the President was bound by the Constitution. Seems really refreshing, doesn’t it?
I am not saying he is truly great. But I think for those things, for being humble in office, he deserves a lot more credit than he gets.
Also, that military-industrial complex warning? HoF stuff.
(Granted he also had Nixon as Veep, but never seemed to like it)
Jefferson gets in on the Louisiana Purchase alone. Why does Washington get in? Because he’s first?
James K. Polk is very much the Bert Blyleven of the Hall of Fame of Presidents.
Washington gets in because he provided the things the country most needed in its first president: stability, honor, restraint, moderation. No, he didn’t do dramatic achievements or soaring oratory (hell, his inaugural addresses were some of the worst speeches ever written), but in a brand new country that was very suspicious of centralized authority, he made the office accepted and respected. Without that example, the country might not have survived the ensuing Federalist/Anti-Federalist disputes and the Alien and Sedition Acts.
The Madison/Monroe field is dumb, Joe. Madison >> Monroe. It’s not close.
Ike would look much better if this were a ranking of presidents. But in a Hall of Fame vote, well, steady competence won’t get you in on the first ballot.
Keith beat me to it. Where’s the love for The Napoleon of the Stump? You’d think a nickname like that would earn him some Catfish Hunter-style votes…
How does G. H.W. Bush not beat G. W. Bush?
How?
Ladies and gentlemen, Bruce Springsteen and the Uncastrated Male Sheep?
I don’t know about you, but if I hear that at the beginning Live ‘75-85, I would feel a touch uncomfortable while Bruce plays Thunder Road by himself.
Wow-right after I voted it said there were 1,000 total votes. Do I get a prize??
Go George.
A vote for Andrew Jackson is like a vote for… let’s see, what baseball player was as loathsome as Ty Cobb yet only an average talent?
Nobody with any sort of libertarian leaning will vote for FDR.
So I have a thought about the Royals signings that may or may not be original, but I haven’t seen anyone else talk about it. First, a short rambling story that I’ll relate to the Royals in a minute. I’m from Manhattan, KS and one interesting thing that I voted on several times while I was there was sales tax initiatives. I remember voting on whether or not to approve a sales tax increase to build a new Police Station a few years back… we needed a new police station, and I felt that was a justifiable taxable expense, so I voted for it – and so did a lot of other people because they apparently felt the same way. A few years later, as the tax was about to expire (building paid for), they placed something else on the ballot – can’t remember what it was, but it was total crap. Something I didn’t even want, let alone think anyone should pay for. But here’s the caveat – they put it on the ballot as “the tax won’t increase, it’ll just remain the same.” Yeah – but it WON’T GO DOWN LIKE IT WOULD OTHERWISE. I voted against it, but dumb people voted for it – I think largely in part because they felt it didn’t cost them anything. (These things have been defeated before when they were introduced as NEW tax).
OK – here’s the comparison… right now, Dayton’s got Glass by the purse strings – and he knows it. He also knows that in a couple years, we’re gonna NEED some good cash to pay Butler, Gordon, Greinke, and perhaps guys like Hosmer and Moustakas, AND perhaps a Free Agent or two, because we’ll be competitive. Maybe, Dayton’s working the system – it will SEEM to hurt less to the Glass family to increase payroll incrementally than it will to suddenly ask to double it… so you drop some money on some guys that will help us to get a bit better (but maybe not a lot), then in a couple years, you cut and run, and use the money for good use… think about it:
Guillen $12 Million/year – Gone in 2 years
Bloomquist $2 Million/ year – Gone in 2 years
Jacobs (don’t know the figure) – Gone in 2 years
Farnsworty – 4.5 million/year – gone in 2 years
Olivo – $3.25 million/year – Gone in 2 years
That’s a LOT of money freed up for whatever we want to do in two years, and like the suckers in Manhattan, Glass won’t see it as in increase, just “money he’s already spent.” Maybe Glass is smarter than that, but its an explanation worth considering.
Slam dunk television HOFers:
Jackie Gleason
Dick Van Dyke
Mary Tyler Moore
Ed Sullivan
The Three Stooges
Lucille Ball
Red Skelton
Alfred Hitchcock
The Cast of Seinfeld
-Ordered the dropping of the atomic bomb to end WW2.
-Involved in the charter of the UN.
-Historic expansion of social security.
-Doctrine that halted Soviet attempt at global domination.
-Marshall Plan that successfully stimulated war-torn western European economies.
-Created CIA and National Security Council.
-Key role in establishing Israel.
-Established NATO.
-Desegregated the US Armed Services.
-Intervened in Chinese Civil War
-Kept China and Russia from escalating the Korean War.
All presidents whether Republican, Democrat, or Whig have reason to be jealous of Truman’s work.
“talking about how you’re going to be in and out of your truck bed 50 or 60 thousand times”
It’s pathetic, but I have had the exact same thought as this guy and also bothered to do the math.
Not previously mentioned nominees to consider for the TV Hall of Fame ballot:
Johnny Carson
Walter Cronkite
Bill Cosby
Edward Murrow
Jim McKay
Sesame Street Muppets
Bart Simpson
Ronald Reagan is ahead of Truman, Jackson, and Adams??? Although I didn’t vote for him, James K. Polk’s wonderfully stated case: http://www.lyricsdepot.com/they-might-be-giants/james-k-polk.html
How in the HECK is Jack Kennedy ahead of Jackson or the Madison/Monroe tandem? outside of avoiding global nuclear war, that man did NOTHING.
George Washington set the standard and stepped down after two terms. “His Excellancy” is a great book and gives terrific insight into GW. The first, although his bridge is getting pricey.
John Adams set Paul Giamatti up for a Golden Globe. Not just the 2nd- a true revolutionary.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison penned the Declaration of Independence/Federalist Papers (don’t discount Alexander Hamilton’s efforts too). Read Burr by Gore Vidal. It will give a respect for all the “fathers” that founded this country.
James Monroe- the guy had his own Doctrine!
Lincoln- maybe others would have done the same thing, but it was him that kept the United States united. Sure, it was at the end of a musket, but it had to be done. But for Lincoln, we’d all be speaking English today.
Wilson- 14 points! God gave Moses 10. WW had 14!
FDR- set the wheel in motion for LBJ to finish. Not all his programs worked, and some were corrupt, but his effort and steady hand was needed.
Kennedy was/is overrated. LBJ is all of what Kennedy could have been but never wanted to be. LBJ inherited a lost war but created the Great Society. Civil Rights Act seems obvious now, but good for him, and us.
Bubba- hey, it worked out for all of us. Consider the alternative
W-
Obama has the opportunity to fulfill the greatest of potential, or be an utter disappointment. I hope it is the former.
If I ever had musical talent and started a band, I always thought the perfect band name would pay homage to that moment on the old Wheel of Fortune when you didn’t have enough money left for anything else, and you didn’t want to put it on account, so you bought…
The Ceramic Dalmations
Some of these early presidents are getting votes for name recognition and not their presidencies. Are any of the first five Presidents particularly impressive as Presidents? I mean, Washington is crucial on the battelfield, but what’d he do after? Adams gives us the Alien & Sedition Acts. Jefferson does get points for the Louisiana Purchase. Madison let the White House get set on fire – is that a free pass, really? And Monroe – he got a doctrine going at least.
13% don’t think Washington is top 5 POTUS.
8% don’t think Lincoln is.
People, what’s the matter with you? OK, maybe they both are overvalued, but to find _five_ more important? Impossible.
Reagan and Truman are above JFK – so there are some reasonable JoeBlog readers after all. I’d put both above Teddy (I like him, but what Truman and Reagan have done is important) and FDR (well, I understand you, Americans, like his myth, but I don’t like socialists).
BTW where’s Coolidge? I want Coolidge. Give me my Coolidge. One of the others isn’t enough.
Bonelli, just so you know, active duty military members are not allowed to serve as an elected official. Ike could not have worn his uniform in office, except on special military-related occassions. All retirees get that privilige, but he would have not been able to do that and been presented as the President.
That is very specifically done to keep the military out of politics.
And for those who want to trouble shoot me, the Reserves and National Guard are not Active Duty. While they may get called to active duty at times, apecial exemptions are given to them if they are serving as an elected official in civilian life. But they would not be allowed to serve as president while wearing a uniform.
You made a nice point, but it was inaaccurate. I like Ike, too.
Speaking of great names for bands, I’ve always felt that “Ugly Bags of Mostly Water”, would serve a band well.
I’m outdoorsy in the fact that I like to get drunk on patios.
Madison and Monroe as a tandem have to be Top 5.
Btw, those of you who knocked Monroe, the Monroe Doctrine shaped our foreign policy for a century and longer. It led to 2 wars and the Panama Canal. And it helped the Central and South American countries throw off the yoke of colonialism and found their own nations.
I think Monroe was top 10 by himself, as was Madison. Together, they have to be top 5.
Washington’s force of personality gave the country a chance to solidify it’s Constitutional institutions without the threat of a monarchy or military despotism, or significant foreign invasion, as he could maintain decent relations with Britain and France. He set the standard of two terms which lasted until FDR.
Polk seems like Koufax to me, small amazing peak, retires.
I went back and forth with Jackson and Jefferson. I voted for only three of the Rushmore guys in the end. I had to go with Jackson even though he was really a dick to the Indians and kinda went off on Biddle’s Bank of the US. He actually stared down South Carolina, more than the rest of the Democrats after him ever could. Hell, the Whigs, for that matter. You could make the case that the civil war would have been in the 1820s without him. And THEN we’d be screwed. Jefferson was just as opportunistic, but didn’t have the cojones. The stuff his newspapers did politically and the case he made against Burr are every bit as vindictive. Jefferson buys a bunch of land, putting us further in debt, Jackson shoves a bunch of native americans around so land can be settled easier and more safely, and clears away that debt.
At Keith (16) and mark (18), you’re right! I voted for him. And as Pat (28) points out, he’s one of the few who has a catchy pop number to make his case for him! James K. Polk, our eleventh president!
Lincoln makes me conflicted. Undeniable greatness and yet still said that if he could preserve the Union without freeing a single slave, he would. And he let the war drive him to religion, which feels like a real weakening. Still, really a powerful person.
FDR is the hands-down winner of all time, though. And he has the most beautiful memorial in D.C.
I’m not wild about the moves Dayton has made this offseason, but the Royals have improved in wins each year he has been here so I’m still on board with him. Each signing he makes is making that much more difficult to stick with though. Farnsworth, Crisp, and Bloomquist?? I hope he knows what he is doing.
I like fishing. There’s nothing better than a cool quiet morning on a deserted stream in the middle of nowhere. January sucks.
We need some guidelines for hall of fame voting, Joe.
1) Do people’s work outside of the strict name of the poll count? So, in this case, are we talking just about their performance as president, or the entire careers of the folks who were ever presidents?
2) Do you want to offer any guidance on peak v. longevity? I mean, FDR has got the longevity thing, but peak might work out differently.
3) Should we considered the negative or just the positive? (e.g. threatening to pack the court)
4) Should an impactful but negative president count highly in this poll? I mean, the current president has had some enormous impacts and I think will prove to be one a more significant historical figure than most presidents. But it won’t necessarily be for good things — though, to be fair, some of it will take a decade or more to fully evaluate.
5) How should we evaluate short term impact vs. long term impact?
And how the hell do you lump together two presidents? WTF?
The superior Roosevelt was clearly TEDDY. FDR just prolonged the Great Depression until he did a good job with WWII.
The truck commercials I hate are the Chevy ones where Howie Long belittles the features that the other trucks have (and the Chevy doesn’t) as not being manly enough. Yes, and the grapes were sour, too.
McKinley coming in with 4 votes, which means Karl Rove:
a)reads the blog;
2)visits from four different computers, allowing him to vote multiple times!
Makes you wonder, was JoePosnanski.com part of the reading contest between Rove and W?
The truck commercial I hate came on right after the one Joe mentioned. It starts by saying that the truck was probably designed by the smart guy you cheated off of in science class.
On the Cardinals.
1) They still feel like an NFC East team to me. I see them in the playoffs, and I think NFC East. I feel like the NFC East had three playoff teams, and the two teams in the NFC Championship game. Clearly, the NFC East remains the best division in football.
2) Did you know that the Cardinals have the fifth worst winning percentage (.413) of all active NFL franchises? Isn’t that a bit better than you would have thought?
Well, the Houston Texans are the worst (.357), but they’ve not been around long enough to really count, in my book. With one really good season next year (i.e. 13-3), they jump ahead of the Cardinals. Obviously, that’s not going to happen too soon, but point is that there’s a really small sample size there.
Not surprisingly, Tamps Bay is the worst of the established franchises (.398). But if they go 8-8 next year, they are up over .400. And at 15-1 they’re at .414. Not really that far back from Arizona.
Then come the Falcons and the Saints. They were formed a year apart, and both have a .411 winning percentage, barely behind the Cardinals. Nine wins next year, and the Falcons are up to .418 (after 666 games). Nine wins bring the Saints up to .415.
(Yeah, I know. The Cardinals could increase their franchise winning % next year. But it won’t be by a lot — see below. Also, these are %’s in the same way the turnover ratios are ratios. Sue me.)
2) Not team has lost as many games as the Cardinals. 674. Not other team has lost even 600 games. No other team has lost 574 games. Yes, the Cardinals have lost 100 more games than anyone else.
Now, let’s compare that to the Phillies 10,098 losses. The Braves, with 9,807 losses would have to lose every game for nearly two seasons to have as many losses as the Phillies have right now. Or, if the phillies played .500 ball for the next few years, the Braves would have to go winless for like 5 years to catch them in losses.
What about the Cardinals? Well, the Lions have 105 fewer losses than the Cardinals. That’s more than six and half season’s of going winless. And if the Cardinals play .500 ball — a much less likely proposition than for the Phillies — the Lions would have to go winless for 14 years to pass the Cardinals in losses. (Now which is more likely? The Cardinals playing .500 ball for 14 years, or the Lions going winless for 14 years? Kinda hard to figure that one out, isn’t it?)
3) The thing about the Cardinals is that they’re old. I mean really really old. Like Only then and the Brears go back to 1920. (By the way, the Bears have 14 more wins than the cardinals have losses.) They are old than the Packers, the Giants, MyBelovedRedskins and everyone else. They don’t just go back sixy years. They go back nearly 90 years. They, like the Phillies, have been bad for a very very very long time.
4) The Cardinals have such rich history of losing that they would need to go undefeated for three full years to surpass the Bengals’ current franchise win % (.435).
5) And last, I am going finish with the most AMAZING Cardinals statistic of all. The one that it nearly impossible to believe……they have 2(!!!!) NFL titles. 1947 and 1925.
I went my whole life never hearing about the terrible socialist FDR who prolonged the Great Depression until it became a Republican talking point this year.
Any stats for Bob Gibson’s wins/losses/no decisions?
For the TV HOF, I am going with a first class of 5 nominees, like the President’s HOF and only using entertainers (so no journalists, etc.)
Inaugural TV Stars
- Lucille Ball
- Jackie Gleason
- Johnny Carson
- Ed Sullivan
- Big Bird
I went my whole life never hearing about the terrible socialist FDR who prolonged the Great Depression until it became a Republican talking point this year.
Seriously? I don’t know if they used the word “prolonged,” but I had Democrat history teachers my whole life, and every one of them said that for all the hype, the New Deal didn’t do anything to end the Great Depression and that WWII finally ended it. It was in the textbooks.
By the way, I think FDR was a pretty good president when you factor in his war record and his calming influence on the people. I just don’t think he delivered well when it came to his biggest problem entering the office, namely the Great Depression. (He also gets negative points for running four times, in my book).
Just to add another point for any non-jokesters in the 13% who kept Washington out of the first class: the guy established some HUGE precedents about how the federal government’s powers work. When (among other things) he sent federal troops in response to the Whiskey Rebellion, refused lavish titles, and stepped down after two terms, he showed that the new federal government had real muscle to carry out its responsibilities without becoming a tyrannical dictatorship–a widespread fear about the Constitution at the time. He was someone who recognized that the new institution was bigger than his quite enormous public stature.
Lesser guys with the same opportunity would have crowned themselves king. I suspect our government institutions would be quite different had another George W been around in the 1790s. I’m basically arguing that Washington’s VORP is Pujols-esque.
-Intervened in Chinese Civil War
-Kept China and Russia from escalating the Korean War.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at, there.
For one thing, the US had been supporting the GMD for years before Truman took office, and, through no fault of Truman’s or anyone’s at State, the GMD decisively lost well before it became official in ‘49.
And, um… “Kept China…from escalating the Korean War”? Really?
Truman did a lot of good – far more than he was given credit for at the time, no doubt. So much that you left off one of the biggest – the Berlin Airlift.
But that China business, I don’t know.
FWIW, my ballot:
- Washington
- Jackson
- Lincoln
- TR
- FDR
The VORP reference is interesting. So who is a replacement level President – a President you could find at any time just hanging around another elected office? I guess in some ways Gerald Ford would be about replacement level. I look at George HW Bush as replacement level. Career politician of no great distinction. Was beaten in his bid for a second term (a requirement for a replacement level president). Though he presided over a sluggish economy, there were no huge disasters in his presidency (aside for the whole vomiting at state dinners thing).
I would nominate Jimmy Carter as replacement level, but even though his Presidency was not particularly good, I think he’s too singular to be the replacement level.
To comment on the whole “did FDR make the Depression better or worse” business:
- I think some folks forget that the Great Crash happened three years before he took office. The problems were pretty well entrenched by the time he started to tinker.
- It’s also widely understood that “the New Deal” was some sort of grand plan. It wasn’t – they were desperate times and the FDR administration took a “throw a bunch of stuff against the wall and see what sticks” approach. So, it is often evaluated as if it were governed by an over-arching strategy, when it never was.
- In a time when there’s good reason to have recently complained about McMansions with 3 SUVs in the driveway for only two drivers, it’s easy to forget just how poor so many Americans were even before the Depression hit. And those who had little margin for error, lost it. It was far worse than many of us can imagine.
- To those critics at the time who recognized the lack of long-term planning in the New Deal, someone, I think it was Harold Ickes said “People don’t eat in the long term, they eat in the short term.” When people criticize FDR’s handling of the Depression by saying more should have happened, they sometimes forget what was prevented from happening, like widespread famine and massive rioting.
LBJ deserves a nomination; Madison deserves one to himself.
When people criticize FDR’s handling of the Depression by saying more should have happened, they sometimes forget what was prevented from happening, like widespread famine and massive rioting.
I give him credit for that. Much of what he did was good and needed. But you mention that the New Deal was not an overarching philosophy. Maybe the plan wasn’t, but the ideas behind them were. There was no way to work out of the “emergency plan” that was put into effect and it was idealized and expanded by future generations, because it represented a philosophy that government has both the responsibility and the ability to right the wrongs of society.
It is clear that the government programs did not fix the economy. I’m open to the idea that no policy would have, but the historical fact is that FDR’s programs didn’t, and it’s my opinion that they probably stretched out the depression.
FDR was good with the war and that, along with his general leadership of the people, probably puts him in the top 10-15. But he falls short of the top 5 because he did not turn the economy around and he did a lot to entrench bureaucracy and his own personal power by running for president four times.
My top five were:
1- Washington
2- Lincoln
3- Teddy Roosevelt
4- Andrew Jackson
5- Ronald Reagan
LBJ deserves a nomination
…for the opposite list.
Jimmy Carter was well below replacement level in my book. He screwed economy, he screwed foreign policy (Iran, Afghanistan, he tried to take US out of Korea, West Bank/Gaza fiasco, Panama treaties). I think he was the worst POTUS of 20th century, even Harding hasn’t done so much wrong things.
As for FDR – it would be difficult to show that his economical policies were in fact good for economy. For his popularity – they were.
Oh, my top 5
Washington
Lincoln
Jefferson
Reagan
Coolidge (yeah, I know, but I like both his ideology and personality)
It is clear that the government programs did not fix the economy. I’m open to the idea that no policy would have, but the historical fact is that FDR’s programs didn’t, and it’s my opinion that they probably stretched out the depression.
No, they might not have “fixed” the economy, but they certainly helped. Banks were stabilized, farm prices were stabilized, people were put to work building and doing things that we still use and/or enjoy today (Ever driven the Merritt Parkway? Those are WPA underpasses every mile or so, and they’re beautiful. Ever seen an historical mural in some government building built before the Depression? Did you know the CCC planted 1 Billion trees?)
You talk about the Depression being stretched out – do you know why it maybe lasted longer than it otherwise would have? In no small part, because the FDR administration saw that things were improving and cut back on some programs, and things got worse again. Not because the programs weren’t working.
As for FDR – it would be difficult to show that his economical policies were in fact good for economy.
Before FDR there was no such thing as home ownership being a natural part of the American Dream. Changes in banking regulations that FDR forced through made home ownership much more feasible for a far greater proportion of Americans than ever before. Used to be, you’d have to put down 50%+ and pay outrageous interest. Policies put forth by FDR changed that.
The Depression was so terrible that just about the best anyone could have done was to keep the country barely afloat, and FDR did more than that.
A funny thing, too – those who tear down FDR are often Reagan admirers who will on the one hand say that no government programs help the economy, then say on the other that FDR didn’t solve the Depression, WWII did. Um, what was WWII if not a government program.
But, then, I don’t generally understand idealouges.
Re WWII recovery (quoting mr Lowry):
“During World War II, 12 million men were conscripted into the military, food was rationed, and people couldn’t buy consumer goods like cars and appliances. Suffice it to say, its utility as a model for economic recovery is quite limited”.
Re WWII recovery (quoting mr Lowry):
Really? What Mr. Lowry, the 30yo editor of the The National Review or whatever, the snotty conservative guy?
Whoever, is he really arguing against WWII as one of the greatest engines of economic growth in our nation’s history? Really?
Please, let me know which Mr. Lowry you’re referring to, so I can continue to avoid him.
Ad personam? Phooey.
I’ll go after the guy when what he says is nonsense. Sue me.
Regarding Note 1 — on annoying ads.
To coin a term: Adverse-tising: Advertising so annoying that it makes you less likely to buy a product than never having seen the advertising at all.
Attention all Madmen: Insipid tunes, bad acting, manipulative statistics, intrusiveness, stupid writing, crashes to my browser from your pop-up window — just remember, I’m taking notes.
1 write-in for Millard Filmore!! The Pete Rose of Presidents!!!
You have a chance with Farnsworth, it is an odd numbered year.
Brian
you’re a communist. Your opinions don’t matter at all.
See? Ad personam is easy. And worthless. If you disagree with what Lowry wrote – attack the arguments, not the person. Elementary, dear Watson.
LBJ deserves a nomination …for the opposite list.
Perhaps so- he was responsible for worsening the Vietnam War, a major demerit. He also created large new social spending programs, which of course have both benefits and drawbacks. However, he was also responsible for ending the Jim Crow laws that defined the South just forty years ago. Without the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we would not be a country capable of electing a black president today. For that alone, I think he deserves a nomination.
Almost two thirds of Blyleven’s career innings pitcher were in a league with the designated hitter. The DH has been shown to increase league average ERAs by 1/2 to 1 run per game. Almost everybody listed by Joe with better ERA numbers than Blyleven spent a big chunk of time not facing the DH, either because they were in the NL or because they predated the DH. If you normalized his wins, losses, and no decisions by league ERA, I bet Blyleven gains on almost all the other pitchers listed (the big obvious exception being Clemens), and he’s already beating some of the HOFers at the bottom of the list. In other words, Blyleven’s victories had an ERA of 2.26 better than his league average, his losses 1.41 worse, or whatever the numbers actually are. I apologize for not doing the work myself but I don’t know how to get that much granularity for my (unpaid) level of statistics access other than by charting out each of Blyleven’s starts, and that would take me some time. But my close approximation is that by ERA for league average, Blyleven passes half a dozen HOF guys when you normalize for league.
What that *really* shows to me is that recent HOF voters have been heavily favoring pitchers who played the majority of the their time in the NL. I’m sorry, but facing a pitcher is a lot easier than facing a DH. Again, we have BBWAA not doing adequate homework on league and park effects (such as Larry Walker’s MVP) to the detriment of pitchers who pitched in the worst possible environments: teams that were in small AL cities who aggregated under a .500 record aside from their starts. Blyleven gets the triple crown of ignorance.
Finally (on baseball awards) claiming there is no east coast bias is just hogwash. In 1985, for an egregious example, Don Mattingly won the MVP with an OPS of .938, beating out George Brett (on a World Series winner) with an OPS of 1.021. Brett also won a gold glove at a more important defensive position and had an OPS+ *SIXTY* points better than the next best hitter on his team. Heck, the Royals won the series that year with only three hitters with an OPS+ of 98 or better, and the other two were under 120. The Yankees had *SEVEN* players with an OPS+ above 100 that season and Mattingly didn’t even lead his own team, being one point behind Rickey’s batting (and 78 stolen bases behind Rickey). So in raw offense Brett was by far the best, in context Brett was by far the best hitter on his team as well as the league, Brett was intentionally walked *EIGHTEEN* times more than was Mattingly that year (31 to 13), but Mattingly got MVP. No media bias my donkey’s bottom! In 1985 Brett clearly had one of the best seasons ever by a third baseman. Mattingly didn’t clearly have one of the best seasons ever by a Yankee first baseman (Gehrig alone had 13 better seasons by OPS+), let alone league wide. But Mattingly got the MVP, and still gets HOF votes because east coast bias gave him an MVP he didn’t deserve which in turn makes him look like a better HOF candidate than he really is.
Jim Rice, supposedly the most feared hitter in the league, was intentionally walked 5 times in 1985. His season high in intentional walks was 10. George Brett was intentionally walked more in a season than Rice’s season high ten times. Brett had more intentional walks than Rice (6 to 5) even in Rice’s MVP season of 1978, when Rice played in 163 games (including a playoff) and Brett only played in 128. How does Rice get labeled the most feared hitter in the American League if there is no east coast media bias?
Just because some team/award combinations for some cities *don’t* show apparent bias (such as numbers of Cy Young Awards) doesn’t mean there is no bias. If the New York teams deserved two CYAs but won four, that’s still media bias. Like I wrote before, Carlton won a CYA with an ERA+ of 119; Blyleven had a *ton* of better seasons without even getting a CYA vote, let alone an award. Carlton’s in the HOF; Blyleven isn’t. Carlton played in the NL, Blyleven mostly against the DH. Carlton plays in a big east coast city; Blyleven played in the boonies. No east coast media bias my donkey’s donkey.
If there is one thing the internet has done for baseball, it has made it impossible for the small market super star to stay hidden. Even the least conscientious voter would have to list the great player on a small city team on his MVP or CYA ballot, or he’d look stupid. So I think awards are becoming less inaccurate. But HOF voting still comes from awards earned back in the days when small market teams were shunned.
You want to hate truck commercials? The ones that drive me crazy are Howie Long’s for (IIRC) Ford. He talks about other trucks having features like a step as if the step is a bad thing. Well, the Howie Longs of the world can always choose not to use that step if it’s there, but for a lot of folks that step is the difference between being able to effectively use the full bed of the pickup and not. I’d be reasonably persuaded by some of those commercials that talk about things like HP and MPG, but that one idiotic commercial ruins that entire truck line for me.
My degree is in American history. My five presidential HOF votes were the top five vote getters last I looked. Depending on ones perspective on what is most important in a president, I can see why any of the top five might get edged out by a few others. We not only have a lot fewer presidents than we do baseball players, but they generally have shorter careers. And how do we normalize presidential stats between guys before we went coast to coast and after, or guys who were “lucky” enough to be perceived as a strong wartime president and those guys who either were elected in time of peace or were adroit enough diplomats to avoid war? What about a guy like Quincy Adams, who may have been the greatest Secretary of State we ever had? Does writing the Monroe doctrine earn him points as president? But even though I voted for (say) Lincoln and Washington, I can see how some folks with strong opinions might not vote for Washington (kept slaves, really was a better general than president) or Lincoln (couldn’t reach a diplomatic solution to avoid the Civil War). Even though he was a crook, Nixon started the EPA, (eventually) got us out of Vietnam, normalized relations with China and the USSR, pushed the nuclear clock backwards, and yet some of my friends cite him as being the worst ever for Watergate and for some of what he had Kissinger and the U.S. Military do in southeast Asia.
So I think voting for baseball players is much easier. The game is easier to normalize, careers are longer, there are lots more careers, and I cannot imagine a friendship ending over whether Rickey Henderson deserved 100% of the HOF votes. But I’ve seen friendships end in political discussions about two of our most recent presidents, and given time I suspect that I may see the same happen with Obama.