So how about this?
Posted: June 9th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball, Pop Culture | 61 Comments »
Time for another installment of “So How About This.” A regular Wednesday feature?
– So how about this: Brilliant Reader Rich points out that the Los Angeles Dodgers ALREADY have 17 different pitchers this year with a victory. That’s just staggering stuff.
In case you are wondering … the record for most different pitchers with at least one victory belongs to the 2002 San Diego Padres. They had 23: Jason Boyd, Mike Bynum, Clay Condrey, Tom Davey, Adam Eaton, Alan Embree, Jeremy Fikac, Trevor Hoffman, Mike Holtz, Kevin Jarvis, Jonathan Johnson, Bobby Jones, Brian Lawrence, Jason Middlebrook, Doug Nickle*, Rodney Myers, Jake Peavy, Oliver Perez, Steve Reed, Dennis Tankersley, Brian Tollberg, Brett Tomko, Brandon Villafuerte,
*Just remember: Dougie Five Cents!
And if you think that’s amazing — I do — the Padres had seven MORE pitchers who had losses but no wins and seven MORE pitchers who pitched but had no decisions. The 37 pitchers who appeared in a game BY FAR the most in baseball history.
The team with the fewest number of pitchers to get a win? The 1906 Boston Beaneaters had four pitchers get victories — Irv Young, Vive Lindaman, Big Jeff Pfeffer (not to be confused with Tiny Jeff Pfeffer) and Gus Dorner, The Beaneaters set the record because (1) That was deadball, when teams would routinely have five, six, seven pitchers in a year and (2) They sucked — went 49-102 that year.
The team of relatively recent vintage with the fewest number of victories pitchers: The 1980 Oakland A’s. They only had seven pitchers who won a game. Billy Martin sent five starters out there for 211 innings or more — and they combined for 79 victories. Reliever Bob Lacey won three games, fellow reliever Jeff Jones won once.
– So how about this: There is a Facebook fan page for “Sleeping.” I was unaware that sleeping needing marketing.
– So how about this: The Kansas City Royals took Aaron Crow in the first round … that means in the last four years, the Royals have TWICE taken a tall right-handed pitcher who was drafted in the first round the year before, refused to sign, and went down to Fort Worth to pitch. Luke Hochevar, the first of those, has not quite paid off yet.
– So how about this: There are only two players in tennis’ Open Era who have won the career grand slam: Andre Agassi and Roger Federer. I think that winning the French Open clinched Federer’s place as the greatest ever … or at least the greatest in the Open Era (it’s awfully hard to compare tennis players going back to the time of Laver and Emerson and Budge and all those guys).
Personally — and I know this is not a popular opinion — I don’t think Pete Sampras is the guy he needed to beat to get there either. I don’t mean to knock Sampras: He might be the greatest grass tennis player ever, and he might be the greatest hard court tennis player ever. He was an absolutely marvel. But he never won a French Open, never reached the final of a French Open, never was a real threat at the French Open. He was not an elite clay court player (though he did win the Italian Open one year), and to me that knocks him out of the discussion. I mean, we are talking about the BEST EVER here.
Bjorn Borg was great on all three surfaces — he did not ever win a U.S. Open, true, but he reached four finals and he won more than a dozen hard-court tournaments. Ivan Lendl’s weakness was grass — he was literally allergic to grass — but he twice reached the Wimbledon final. Agassi’s game was not built for grass, but he won at Wimbledon in one of the great runs in tennis history. John McEnroe had a very short but brilliant peak — sort of the Sandy Koufax of tennis — and he should have won the French Open in ‘84 — he blew a two set and a break lead against Lendl. That would have given him major victories on all three surfaces. Mats Wilander won majors on all three surfaces, but for some reason he was never a factor at Wimbledon.
Point is: Winning all four majors, on three different surfaces, seems to me to be the most telling of tennis achievements. Jimmy Connors could never reach a French Open Final. Stefan Edberg was a beautiful player on grass and hard courts but lost in his only French Open Final (to Michael Chang). Gustavo Kuerten could outlast anyone on clay, but he was a non-factor on hard courts or grass. Boris Becker was incredible on grass and hard courts but he never won a single clay court tournament.
Anyway, I think Federer has knocked them all out now. I don’t know who wins on grass (Off the top of my head, I’d pick Sampras over Federer in final), who wins on clay (I’d pick Nadal over Borg), who wins on hard courts (I’d pick Federer over Lendl), but the question is best of all time. And that’s Federer.
–So how about this: That’s a story you probably saw about a kid who tried to break into a grocery store while wearing a Snuggie. I would hope that the Snuggie people would include that in the next commercial (“You can hold a baby! You can camp out! You can knock off a liquor store! You can commit manslaughter!).
–So how about this:
Joe Mauer’s first 18 games this year: .397/..494/.750
Joe Mauer’s second 18 games this year: .435/.506/.806
– So how about this: A brilliant reader named Bill Chuck has been sending me (and others) occasional updates on on the ongoing battle between the 2009 Washington Nationals and the 1962 New York Mets.
Through 56 games:
2009 Nationals: 15-41
1962 Mets: 16-40
2009 Nationals: 262 runs scored, 337 runs allowed, minus-75 runs.
1962 Mets: 225 runs scored, 327 runs allowed, minus-102 runs.
– So how about this: The Kansas City Royals started the year 18-11 in their first 29 games and were in first place in the American League Central. Twenty-eight games later, they have the worst record in the American League.
You know, the Royals pitching staff is not that bad. They have Zack Greinke, Gil Meche, Joakim Soria … but their lineup is an abomination. You know, the Nationals are really not bad offensively. Having a lineup with Ryan Zimmerman, Adam Dunn and Nick Johnson — ANY of those guys hit third for the Royals (hell, Josh Willingham could probably hit third). The rotation and the bullpen are an abomination, however …
And it makes me wonder: If you combined the Royals pitching staff and the Washington Nationals offense, could that team contend?
– So how about this: Greg from Kansas City — no idea who you are Greg, but I appreciate it — asked Joe Morgan during an ESPN chat if he was excited about 09/09/09.
Joe Morgan’s response: “The only thing I think of when I think about the Big Red Machine are the unsung players who didn’t get the publicity they don’t get. Griffey should have won a batting title that year. Geronimo was the best center fielder in the game. Concepcion would have been my choice to start a team at shortstop. Then you had such great pitchers, like Gullett, Billingham and others. I just hope the other guys get their dues in the book. In fact, I did not want them to retire my number in Cincinnati until they found a way to honor the other guys, and they did.”
I know that if I was one of the guys at FJM, I would probably have a field day with that paragraph. But hey, any time Joe wants to talk about the book, I’m all for it.
Loading ...
About the Royals, you wrote: “Twenty-eight games last” which should probably be “Twenty-eight games later.” I suspect that the Royals pitching plus Nationals hitting would not contend because of defense. Plus the Nats aren’t really that good hitting.
The ‘03 Tigers were also 16-40. Gotta have them in the mix between ‘09 Nats and ‘62 Mets. Only thing that kept those Tiggers 1 game up on those Mets, was a hot final week… they were determined not to be the worst. Of course, none of them got anything on the fabulous 1899 Spiders.
Guess that happens when you depend on your memory for facts dating back 30+ years… Griffey’s run for the batting title happened the next season, when Madlock beat him on the last day. And 1976 was when Geronimo hit .307 (in addition to being a Strat 1 with a minus five arm in CF… and that likely helps explain why it’s so easy for me to recall that history).
On Jimmy Connors – he won the US Open 5 times on 3 different surfaces. He won it when it was played on grass (1974), clay (1976), and hard courts (1978, 1982, 1983). I hadn’t known until yesterday that the US Open wasn’t always a hard court tournament.
Joe:
Patrick McEnroe agrees with you on Federer. He said as much in an interview this weekend. I think he is pretty authoritative when it comes to tennis (although he admitted he only saw the guys from the 60s on tape, not live)
Oh, the arms that Billy Martin ruined in Oakland in 1980-81. Norris, Langford, Keough, Kingman and McCatty. The A’s went 147-124 those 2 years and those 5 went 130-106 or 87% of the decisions in the 2 years. After compiling 46 CG in those 2 years and 15 the next year, Langford pitched in 10 games in 1983-84, at the age of 31. After compiling 36 complete games in 1980-81, Norris was out of baseball by 1984 (at the age of 29). After compiling 30 CG in 1980-81, Keough was ineffective in 1982 (but did have 10 more CG) and then was a regular starter again (at the age of 27). McCatty completed 27 games in the two years and then was a spot starter from 1982 on (at the age of 28) Kingman took the least abuse, compiling only 10 Complete games in 1980 and 3 in 1981, but he too was out of baseball by 1983, at the age of 28.
The sentence on Keough should read “then was *not* a regular starter again”
You had me at Dougie Five Cents
If only FJM were still in business!!!
I don’t know that Rod Laver is properly appreciated. He won the Grand Slam twice (and I mean in the same calendar year, folks) both before AND after the Open era. From 1963-68 he could not compete in Grand Slam events, but won eight “pro majors” (there were only three per year) during that time. By 1970 he was 31 years old and, while still effective, past his prime.
Comparing players from different eras is always difficult, but relative to their peers Laver was a better player than Federer.
Also, liked your SI column on the baseball draft. I agree with you– I love baseball, but really couldn’t bring myself to watch more than a few minutes of the draft coverage. No one really knows anything about these guys, and most likely we’ll never hear of the vast majority of them again. If we do, it will probably be years from now. Odd. I wonder if they’ll ever find a way of making the draft An Event. I kinda hope not.
Heheheheh… Dougie Five Cents. Can’t go wrong with an “Annie Hall” reference.
Ricky beat me to it…How is Rocket Rod Laver not in this discussion? He could just give that determined Aussie “look” from across the net and have his way into a tourney’s semifinals.
I’m an Edberg guy and hold that French Open final to be very important in his career. With that in mind….
1) It’s not just that Federer now has a French Open title. He has four straight finals appearances at Roland Garros, one of them a win. Winning is important — criticially important — but there is a lot to be said for coming in second, too. This speaks well of Lendl, whom I never liked. He’s got lots of runner-ups, and those two at Wimbeldon mean a lot, even if he couldn’t pull off the win.
2) There is also, in my mind, the question of one-timers. Another thing I like about Edberg is that he had two US Open wins, two Wimbeldon win and two Australian Open wins. Becker also had six Grand Slam wins, but dispersed less evenly (3 Wimbeldon and 1 US Open). Lendl’s eight wins are spread evenly (3-3-0-2) across the three he won. Agassi has eight, also, but the fact they he won all four is lessened to me by the fact that he only one the French and Wimbeldon once each. That’s better than Lendl, but not by much.
More generally, a more even spread across the 4 Grand Slam tournements is more impressive to me tha an less even spread. Federer’s has 3-1-5-5 is more impressive to me than Sampras’s 2-0-7-5 not just because he won all four, but also because his 14 are more evenly split across the four. Heck, I would go so far as to say a more even spread can beat a greater number of titles. If Federer was 3-3-3-3, I’d think that a greater accomplishment than Sampras’s 2-0-7-5.
Thus, between his lack of a French Open final and single Australian Open title, I think that Connor’s career (8 grand slam titles) was less impressive than Edberg’s and certainly far less impressive than Lendl’s.
3) The last question is longevity vs. peak. Edberg’s peak — which I am defining as the span of time over which he won grand slam tournmements — was not exceptionally long among this crowd. Federer’s has been the shortest — so far! Sampras spread is 14 titles over 10 years. Federer spread is 14 over just 8.5. Given the same total accomplishment, I think that that doing it over a shorter span of time demonstrates greater ability or even dominance. (Another point for Edberg over Becker, by the way. Not that that comparison means anything to me. No, not at all). Of course, anyone who can average more than one grand slam title/year over a period of years is doing something amazing.
Just remember: Dougie Five Cents!
“Whaaat an assshole”
Joe, I cannot believe you are repeating the canard about Lendl’s alleged allergy to grass — that was just an excuse he gave for not winning Wimbledon.
Lendl reached the finals at Wimbledon in 1986 and 1987, and the semis in 1983, 1984, 1988, 1989, and 1990. And, in one of my all-time favorite sports memories, the year he decided not to play Wimbledon at all because of his supposed allergy, he spent Wimbledon fortnight in England — playing golf! (To the best of my knowledge, grass is fairly common on all non-miniature golf courses.)
I have to agree with those who wonder about the omission of Rod Laver. I know his counting stats are not the same, but that is not really his fault, since pros were not allowed in the majors until 1968. (It would be kind of like blaming Ted Williams for sitting out five years.) He won the Grand Slam his last year as an amateur (1962), turned pro and wanderd in the tennis wilderness until 1968, when pros were allowed in the majors, and then won the Grand Slam again in 1969. From 1964 to 1970, he was ranked #1 in the world.
I do not mean to take anything away from Federer, who is magnificent and may well be the best ever, but if the conversation does not include Rod Laver… well, it would be like having a conversation about the greatest pitcher of all time, and not even mentioning Lefty Grove (and not just because Laver was left-handed).
Doug Nickle is worth five times what Brad Penny is worth.
“If you combined the Royals pitching staff and the Washington Nationals offense, could that team contend?”
I’ll sketch this out and we’ll see if anybody wants to revise.
Washington has scored 262 runs. +1 better than the NL average.
KC has allowed 272 runs. +8 better than the AL average.
So take it as a combined run differential of +9. I’ve got that projecting to a .517 winning percentage, or 84-78.
Most similar real-world teams right now would be the Twins, who are at +8 and playing .483 ball (projects to 78 wins), and the Reds who are +7 and .526 (85 wins).
I dunno. Slightly above .500 for a combined Nats bats/Royals arms team seems kinda right to me.
Something that hasn’t been brought up in the tennis discussion is that Connors won a US Open (1976) when it was on clay, although a different clay surface than Paris. Connors also won the Open on grass and hard courts, the only person to win one tourney on three different surfaces.
Connors never won the French, true, but in 1974 he was banned from that tourney as part of a dispute between the French and players participating in World Team Tennis. Many of the world’s top players on both the mens and womens sides didn’t play the French that year because of that dispute. Connors won the other three majors that year.
So how about this – If there’s a documentary made about the Royals’ fall from first to last, it could be called “29 Games Later”
By the way, using the same math I used in #16 a team made up of Nats pitchers and Royals hitters projects to a .273 winning percentage, or a 44-118 record.
So many people seem to be suddenly espousing the “Greatest Ever” argument with Federer simply because he won his 14th major (not that it’s anything to sneeze at, mind you), but I just can’t get on board. To me, he seems to be a great player in a very watered-down era in men’s tennis.
Back in the mid-late ’80s (when I believe the sport was at its zenith (not to mention hair bands)), there were deep fields at every major – Borg, McEnroe and Connors were entering their twilight, but still highly competetive. You had Lendl, Edberg, Wilander, Becker and others (Stich)from Europe; several emerging Americans including Agassi, Courier and Chang; and you also had solid tourney players like Pat Cash and Aaron Krickstein in the mix.
* My God, I can’t believe I remember that much about tennis.
Think back over Federer’s career, and who had been there as his rival other than Nadal? Moreover, that rivalry has only emerged in recent years. Where has he been challenged other than Roland Garros (by Nadal)?
I don’t believe that his dominance is due to his … well, dominance. Men’s tennis in America has been practically non-existent during his entire run, and for whatever reason(s), men’s tennis across the globe just isn’t what it was twenty years ago. I find that the lack of depth and competition is odd, particularly when the sport has seen advances in technology similar to that of golf – which is deeper and more competetive than ever.
You may NOT begin your rebuttals by comparing Federer to Tiger Woods, however. There is none. Please try something else.
I have to voice my belief that Federer is clearly the best of all-time. I have a sentimental attachment to Edberg, and equally believe that he is overlooked in the pantheon of all-time greats. He surely deserves to rank in the top ten of the Open era behind Fed, Sampras, Borg et al.
Aaron Crow turned down $3.5MM at the 11th hour from the Nats last year. Sits out, wastes a year of development and/or service time, and slips three places in this year’s draft. It’ll be interesting to see what he signs for now.
Joe,
You need a “Pele” or “Beckham” option on the best soccer player poll so the smart-ass soccer-know-nothings (like me) have an option we’ve heard of.
@BillP:
So if Federer lost more often, you’d be more inclined to think he was good? Sounds reasonable to me.
Mikey, you are just taking the Nats’ offense and the Royals’ pitching….granted, that is a nice shortcut, but not “combining” the teams. You would have to cherry pick the best Royals’ hitters (realizing those terms are incongruous) and the best Nats pitchers (Ibid) in order to construct the RoyaNats.
One thing that’s worth noting in the tennis discussion is that the three (or four) major surfaces aren’t as different as they used to be. Back in the day they watered down the clay courts and used pre-opened balls in Paris, and Wimbledon was a slick turf where the ball would barely come off the ground. Winning on both surfaces required completely different styles of play. Nowadays, everything more or less plays like a slightly varied hard court, so Federer can get away with playing a hard court game. If Federer had played in Sampras’s prime, I think he would have been hard-pressed to win a French.
Also, I have a hard time declaring one player the greatest ever when he’s been consistently dominated by one of his contemporaries. The Nadal factor really hurts Federer’s claim to the top spot.
I think the “greatest ever” discussion is inherently problematic, because (as Joe pointed out) you would probably have a different champion for each surface. If you’re going to pick a number one, though, Sampras’s singular dominance in one arena (Wimbledon) has to be factored just as much as his problems in another arena. After all, some of these guys could win on every surface, but they could never put together the extended dominance of one that Sampras did, and that has to count for something.
To me, it comes down to Sampras and Laver. Federer is in the discussion, but as long as he’s consistently losing to Nadal, he just can’t be the greatest ever.
I guess someone should start Tennis Prospectus, although the interest in the sport (to me) seems a lot lower these days.
It’s not like Federer is Larry Holmes or something, though. Nadal is a great player, and still building his body of work.
There’s also the fact that Federer is still 27, and while not quite the force he once was, has a lot of tennis left in him. I would consider him the prohibitive favorite at Wimbledon this year, what with Nadal’s knees. I think it’s likely that he’ll win a couple more after that. So it’s not unreasonable in my mind to see him finish with 17 or 18 majors – heck, if not for Nadal, he’d already have that many.
The only real arguments against him that I can see are a) Nadal, since he’s really struggled head-to-head. Part of this, though, has to do with the fact that they’ve played most of their matches on clay (where Nadal is quite arguably the greatest of all time) – they’ve split their hard-court matches 3-3, Federer is 2-1 in grass matches, and Nadal is 9-2 on clay.
The other one is Laver, and I confess that I simply don’t know how to make that judgment. It was a different era (and, BillP, Laver probably had less serious competition than Federer), and there was the 6-year break when he turned pro, but it seems to me that Rod Laver is the only one who has an argument.
“I don’t believe that his dominance is due to his … well, dominance. Men’s tennis in America has been practically non-existent during his entire run, and for whatever reason(s), men’s tennis across the globe just isn’t what it was twenty years ago. I find that the lack of depth and competition is odd, particularly when the sport has seen advances in technology similar to that of golf – which is deeper and more competetive than ever.”
I don’t know…well, just about anything about tennis, so I won’t debate, specifically, your assertions, but it does bring up sort of a sports version of the chicken-or-the-egg debate…that is to say, is Federer dominating in a watered-down era, or does the era appear watered down because Federer is so dominant?
The Spiders were 10-46 after 56 games. Their record was set thanks to an absolutely amazing 1-40 finish. I don’t know what is more amazing. That or that the club only had one two-game winning streak the entire season.
People aren’t “suddenly” stating Federer’s case as the best ever, they’ve been stating it for years.
I love Edberg, but to me the contenders for best ever are Laver, Federer, Sampras, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl and Agassi. I think Connors, Edberg and Becker round out the all-time top 10, but I don’t think there’s a serious case for any of those 3 as the best ever. I think it’s probably Federer, but it is definitely true that he has not had as much competition. All of the other great players in the discussion had to contend with at least one and generally several other all-time greats. Federer caught Agassi at the very end, but otherwise has only had Nadal, and even Nadal only became a force on surfaces other than clay in the last 2 years. Before 2008 Nadal was just a rich man’s Thomas Muster. Now Nadal is maybe the 11th-best of all time (and by all time I mean the Open Era). He’s either 11th or 1th depending on whether you put him ahead of Wilander. Which I do.
To ceolaf @ 12: If you’re going to give credit for runner-ups, which I think you should, you have to give Agassi more credit. Aside from his 8 wins, and winning all 4 on 3 different surfaces, he also lost 2 French finals, a Wimbledon final, and 4 US Open finals. So he made the finals of 15 grand slam tournaments from 1990 through 2005.
Lendl’s runner ups at Wimbledon were good, but it wasn’t just Wimbledon. He also never won the Aussie when it was on grass. His 3 grass finals (2 Wimbys, 1 Aussie) were all lost in straight sets. But he was a dominant hardcourt player. The best ever probably. In the 8 years from 1982-198, he made the US Open final 7 times (and lost to Mac in the semis in 1984) and won it 3 times. Stretch that to January 1990 and you can add 2 Aussie titles on hard court. He was virtually unbeatable on cement for the entire 1980s.
Regarding that Aussie Open, despite being a major, before 1987 the Australian just was not as important as the other 3 tournaments. It used to be in December, instead of January, which meant it was the last major of the year, and was played during the holidays. It routinely had the weakest field. They pushed the December 1986 tournament back a month, to January 1987, and suddenly every top player with dreams of a grand slam had to go to keep that dream alive, and it also no longer conflicted with Christmas.
John McEnroe’s 7 titles are not spread out at all. 4 US and 3 Wimbledons. But the only reason John McEnroe never won the Australian was because he rarely played it. During his 16 year career from 1977-1992, he only played the Australian 5 times, mostly later in his career. (Bjorn Borg never won the Aussie for the same reason. he never played it. Every year he’d win the French, win wimbledon, and lose the US. So he’d skip the Aussie. You can bet if he’d ever won that US he’d have gone to Australia to try to get the grand slam.) McEnroe didn’t play it at all from 1977-1982. If he hadn’t blown that French final in 1984, he would certainly have played the 1984 Australian in December, because he won Wimbledon and the US and would have had a shot at the calendar grand slam.
McEnroe is also inarguably the greatest doubles player ever. In addition to his 7 singles titles, he won 9 grand slam doubles titles, again, all at the US or Wimbledon. He won the Wimby doubles all 3 years that he won the singles. And he won the his lone French Open title in mixed doubles with Mary Carillo. None of the other great players in the discussion really even played doubles, let alone excelled like Mac did. By comparison, Ivan Lendl won 6 doubles titles in his entire career. Mac won over 70. Lendl never made the finals of a grand slam doubles tourney, let alone won one.
(This is another + in Edberg’s column, by the way, who won 3 GS doubles titles). Pete Sampras, for example, never even played doubles at grand slam tournaments after 1990.
Which is a long way of saying that I think that lost 1984 French Open final is the single factor which prevents Mac from being the greatest of all time. A) He’d have won majors on all 3 surfaces, b) he would probably have won the grand slam in 1984, and c) he certainly would have won the Aussie eventually, as he’d have wanted to complete that career GS.
To BillP @ 20:
C’mon man. You can’t put Pat Cash on the level of Aaron Krickstein for godsake. Cash won Wimbledon, made back-to-back Aussie finals, and a US Open semi (where he lost an epic 5-setter to the greatest hardcourt player of the era, Lendl). Krickstein made one US semi and one Aussie semi and that’s it.
To Eric @ 26…that’s a point, although I think you’re overstating the similarity between grass and clay these days it’s true they don’t play as differently now as they used to.
On the other hand, way back in the day there were only 2 surfaces. Grass and clay. The Aussie, US and Wimbledon were all on grass and the French was on clay. So in a sense, there is more variation in the surfaces now than there was in the days when the US Open was still being played at Forest Hills.
I think it’s more that Federer just has less competition at the French than Sampras had. The only other great player beside Federer is Nadal. Aside from the great players Sampras had to deal with such as Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Courier, etc., on clay there was Muster, Kuerten, Bruguera. I think the lack of those guys is as much a factor in Federer continually making the French final as it’s not being as slow as it used to be. And also, Federer is awesome.
In regard to why the men’s tennis field is so thin these days, it’s that tennis has fallen so far as a participatory sport, there is less of a group of athletes to draw upon. In the ’70’s tennis was the new “in” sport, tennis clubs were hot and the cool apartment complexes put in multiple courts to attract young, hip residents. Now, for example, an older apartment complex near my house has just torn out a ten court multiplex that had fallen into disuse. I would bet the number of people who play tennis recreationally has fallen at least 80% from its peak in the ’70’s.
Is it possible, or likely, that the technological advances in tennis have served to reduce, not increase, the talent pool of tennis, in that it is a somewhat expensive sport to play at anything other than the lowest levels? (I’m speculating somewhat here, I don’t really know what sort of money goes into tennis equipment but certainly less than goes into basketball or football.) This is also, I think, a big reason that baseball has seen a dip in black players – many black families simply cannot afford to play baseball, especially when the more popular alternatives, basketball and football, are so cheap.
@Jeff #25,
I prefer the “Natoyals.” Also, I bet it would be hard to pick from either managerial candidate to head that team!!
There is a Facebook fan page for “Sleeping.” I was unaware that sleeping needing marketing.
I am currently a Facebook fan of “not being on fire”. It’s fun.
Sorry to nitpick and maybe it’s just me, but for some reason the “So how about this” at the start of each thought gets grating. Any chance of using the acronym after first usage, both for text flow and the acronym’s humor value?
Is there some sort of Strat-o-matic type game for tennis? That might be fun to play, to match up players from different eras. I don’t follow tennis anymore, but in the 70’s there were so many colorful players who were really fun to watch.
And there also needs to be a game like that for heavyweight boxing.
Billy Martin’s A’s probably contributed to the idea of pitch counts becoming more accepted. They showed that by that point in time, you couldn’t ride pitchers like you could have in the 1950’s anymore, they would be damaged and ruined. It took a while for the damage to be evident, and a while longer for people to react to it, but I don’t remember any team riding their starters that hard ever since.
As both a huge fan of Joe and a once highly competitive tennis player who is old enough to have seen Gonzalez, McKinley, Hoad and the rest from ‘55 on, it is a pleasure to see you post on Federer. It is a 2 man discussion…..Laver and Federer.
Today, based on length of dominance/world class play I would vote Laver. Having said that……there has never been a tennis player as exhilerating to watch as Federer. He may yet surpass Laver regarding peer records yet never cash a grand slam ….which Laver did twice….7 years apart!
Federer combines the demeanor, the class and the command of the most versatile and complete arsenal of shots and strokes ever displayed on a court. He is as stunning and as much of genius in his sport as Tiger is in Golf.
For you tennis devotees…..or just those who truly appreciate a brilliantly written sports essay …..I am linking to an essay about Federer (and Nadal to a much lesser extent) from a 2006 NY times piece from the always stunning genius of David Foster Wallace……enjoy the brillance all!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20federer.html
Perhaps my favorite part of the Snuggie story is the fact that the lieutenant that spoke with the media about the incident was none other than Michael Richards. So how WOULD Kramer handle that situation?
How about we reverse the Royals question to, “Which team that is already good would be made better with the Royals bullpen?”
I think the answer is probably none. Maybe someone gets 5 more wins in a season with the Royals bullpen, but nothing dramatic. If the bullpen were full of superstars then maybe the Royals would be a .500 ballclub….
I can’t believe I read this much about tennis. It’d almost be like spending the last 15 minutes reading comments about MLS or PBR.
Olentangy @ #34
I don’t know if you’ve noticed this but there’s a whole world outside the USA. In this world people kick, throw, hit, roll, do all sorts of sporty things with balls, and do them well. That the US no longer supplies a host of competitors to a given sport means nothing — except that standards in the US must have slipped. Overall standards? In tennis? Incredibly high.
Now, on to Laver. When the Rocket was at his peak, tennis was, internationally, a two-horse race, the Aussies and the Yanks. There was the odd European, Nastase for one, but no Russians, no Czechs, no Germans, the Swedes hadn’t emerged and as recently as the 1980s Spain lost a round of the Davis Cup to New Zealand, of all countries.
Who was Laver beating? Until Jimmy Connors turned up for his epic against John Newcombe in the 1975 Australian Open, no outside top-liners bothered with it. As an in-joke, it was referred to by the players as the Australian Closed. (In a completely separate joke, Joan Collins was referred to as the British Open.)
The shift in tennis power came about when the offspring of the first generation of Europeans to live in times of plenty were old enough to take part in something that had hitherto been confined to the well-heeled or well-sponsored. If this made life tougher for the Aussies and Yanks, so what. Think of it as the tennis equivalent of baseball in 1948.
I used to think that Newcombe-Connors final was one of the greatest spectacles ever staged, in any sport. Then a couple of years ago I saw a replay. My God. I was embarrassed for them.
You spelled Dwyane Wade wrong in the poll.
interesting that you could find a way to comment on the royals and tennis in the same post, and a poster pointed out that there are other sports played here and outside the u.s. that you overlooked…interesting because you can get the essence of baseball, tennis, soccer, and (low grade) track and field by simply watching the royals defense try to deal with slow bouncing and rolling baseballs in the infield and their offense trying to return serves and run bases. they are not skilled, but it can be fun to watch…of course, it would be more fun if you were rooting for the other team…one sometimes wonders if the royals might be better off using tennis rackets instead of bats and gloves for hitting and fielding.
[...] Posnanski gave this little nugget on his site the other [...]
Wow. One remark about tennis and look! Do you guys just sit on your hands and grit your teeth during all the baseball talk? Hee.
I know nothing about tennis that I haven’t learned from David Foster Wallace, though, so I’m mainly commenting just to tell chuck @ 40, “Nice job.”
“Derivative Sport in Tornado Alley” from _A Supposedly Fun Thing . . ._ is also great. And, of course, _Infinite Jest_ has something about tennis in it . . . and the end of the world.
Hey, we could be talking about Tom Hanks’ epic tennis performance in “Bachelor Party” instead.
I love that McEnroe was such a doubles and Davis Cup fanatic. As much as he’s portrayed as a selfish jerk on the court (and despite my love for him and his game, he was), he loved the team aspect of tennis, something that’s just not appreciated.
It’s too bad doubles isn’t more popular. I think it’s fun to watch and it’s really fun to play.
I remember when, after retiring from singles competition, McEnroe played mixed doubles with Stefi Graf at Wimbledon. They made it to the final (maybe the semis?) and she withrdrew because she was in the singles final. McEnroe was so disappointed. I think he even ripped her during the TV broadcast.
My favorite tennis match is probably the one from “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.”
To Shane @ 50. That happened in 1999, 7 years after McEnroe . It was the semis that Graf withdrew from. And Mac did rip her very publicly, though i don’t know if it was during the TV broadcast or not. And Graf lost the singles final anyway in straight sets to Davenport.
Since someone mentioned the MLB draft, and Joe wrote a nice column about it… Joe, if you have any pull with Royals organization, can you see if they will grossly overpay their fifth round pick, Louis Coleman?
If Coleman can bring home a title this year, he could very easily go down as the greatest LSU baseball player ever. I absolutely love that guy. If his right arm fell off in the seventh inning, he’d finish the game left-handed. I’ve never seen a guy who wanted to win as badly as he does.
I know he’s a senior so he has no bargaining position. And I know the Royals aren’t exactly known for opening up the checkbook. And I know there’s a lot of tread on those tires. But, man, is Coleman a ton of fun. I’d love if he got a big payday.
And not that you care, but to show I’m not a total homer… LSU outfielder Jared Mitchell had no business going in the first round. I think a first rounder should be able to hit left handed pitching. And not strikeout in nearly a third of his at bats.
“…the unsung players who didn’t get the publicity they don’t get.” Classic Joe Morgan.
You really have to appreciate a Joe Morgan quote that mentions Dave Concepcion but is not followed by “should be in the Hall of Fame.” It’s quite a rarity.
I don’t know much about tennis, but for pure enjoyment, I’ll take Tom Hanks in “Bachelor Party.” What a backhand!
There’s a great soccer player named “Kaka?” Really?
“And it makes me wonder: If you combined the Royals pitching staff and the Washington Nationals offense, could that team contend?”
Here was my quick, summary-level answer to this question. As opposed to Mikey, I used WAR for my analysis, instead of runs. I’m not sure if it’s better or worse, but whatever.
First off, a team made up entirely of replacement level players would go 44-118, for a winning% of .271. I’m personally not entirely positive how this number is found, but people far smarter than me have said it so. So I believe them.
Extrapolated into now, just 58 games into the season (going into today), and your team made entirely of replacement level players would have 15.7 wins.
Next, let’s look at Fangraphs’ fantastic WAR statistic, or Wins Above Replacement. The Royals’ pitching staff has been worth 9.4 wins above an entirely replacement-level staff – second best in the majors, in case you were interested. The Nationals’ hitting has been worth 6 wins above average. Combine the two figures together, and that’s 15.4 wins. Combine that to the 15.7 initially, and you have 31 wins. This doesn’t include fielding, so we’ll just assume replacement level fielding.
In 58 games, that’s a 31-27 record. So, probably not good enough to compete, but theoretically good enough given a weak-enough division.
stephen — Most of your comment was cool. But your claim that the Royals don’t spend money on the Draft was kind of comical, given the fact that last year, the Royals spent more money on the draft THAN ANY OTHER TEAM IN MAJOR LEAGUE HISTORY.
So, no, they aren’t averse to spending.
Cory – you realize, of course, that as of this instant, the New York Mets are 31-27. Basically, they’re the Naturoyals. I just felt a deep chill in my bones.
nightfly – Actually, I didn’t even realize that. That’s crazy.
Of course, assuming replacement level fielding with either the Royals’ or Nationals’ fielders is probably wishful thinking. Still, though.
I forgot how much I hate Joe Morgan.
Washington Nationals should be always competitive enough to keep pace with the others. I really like them; they’ve always been my favourite teams in MLB. Just read about them here:
http://www.nationalsclub.com