What Our Eyes See
Posted: September 24th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball | 101 Comments »
This is not — repeat NOT — that angry 20,000 word diatribe about Hall of Famer Jim Rice that I originally proposed after reading his Sullivan Tire blog post about Zack Greinke, the appropriately titled “Greinke is a Good Pitcher — Not Dominant.” I should probably repost his words here because last time I linked to it, the site went down. I did not mean for that to happen, of course. And I won’t even try to guess what Web host Sullivan Tire is using.
In any case, here are Jim Rice’s words:
Zack Greinke didn’t really impress me last night. He pitched well and maybe I caught him on a bad night, but to me he didn’t seem dominant. Greinke has may have the lowest ERA in the AL since Pedro Martinez in 2000, but he doesn’t strike me as the dominant force that Pedro was during his statistical peak. Don’t get me wrong, Greinke pitched very effectively but he was not the unhittable beast on the mound that Pedro or Clemens (or even Johan Santana) were during their reign of dominance.
He only gave up two hits in 6 innings but struggled with his command and, with 5 strikeouts, it’s not like he was punching tickets up and down the Red Sox lineup.
He reminds me of a right-handed Roger Moret. He has that long and lean frame but good speed on his fastball and sporadic command.
Now … there just isn’t a lot good to say about a post that would compare Zack Greinke to Roger Moret. I mean, to me this is like watching the young Dwight Gooden and saying he reminds you a bit of Bruce Kison. It is true, yes, that both Moret and Greinke are carbon-based life forms who at one time made money by pitching baseballs.
But, again, this is not going to be that diatribe. No, I only decided to write something about this because it gives me a chance, once again, to discuss one of the biggest themes of this blog … that is, the issue of how much you can really see when you watch a baseball game.
We’ll start with a basic point and (hopefully) universal premise: Jim Rice was a very good baseball player. We have talked way too much about his Hall of Fame case, but no matter where you came down on that case, you would certainly concede he was a very good baseball player. He was a very good hitter. Please feel free to change “very good” to “great” or “legendary” if you are a Jim Rice fan. I am simply talking bare minimums.
As a very good player and a very good hitter, it’s fair to say that JIm Rice knows something about the game and he certainly knows something about pitchers. He has faced some excellent pitchers — Jim Palmer, Ron Guidry, Nolan Ryan, Jack Morris, Dave Stieb, Bert Blyleven, Charlie Hough, Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins, Goose Gossage, Bret Saberhagen, Vida Blue, Tom Seaver … on and on and on. I am going to great lengths to make an obvious point here, but I really want to hammer this home. Jim Rice, no matter what you may think of his analytical skills, knows a little something about this game of baseball.
OK. So we’ve overblown the point. Jim Rice — a Hall of Famer who has faced so many great pitchers, who has been around the game for so many years — watched Zack Greinke pitch six shutout innings against the Boston Red Sox. Greinke allowed two hits. He struck out five. He walked three — two back-to-back. Nobody made it past second base against him. He threw a 97-mph fastball, and he threw a 71-mph curveball, and he mixed in perhaps the best slider in the American League and a change-up that made Kevin Youkilis look foolish.
And you could color Jim Rice unimpressed.
No. More than that. He somehow came away from this game thinking that Zack Greinke — who is second in the American League in strikeout-to-walk, who averages more than a strikeout per inning, who is sixth in the league in walks per nine — is some sort of wild Roger Moret type who has sporadic command. You probably never thought you would see a sentence shared by Zack Greinke and “sporadic command.”*
*I can’t help it … no diatribe, but I do think we’ll have to start a series called “Jim Rice scouting reports.” Our first installment:
Albert Pujols didn’t really impress me last night. Yes he went 2-for-4 and maybe I caught him on a bad night, but he didn’t hit a single home run. He may have the most home runs in the league but he doesn’t strike me as a home run hitter. Don’t get me wrong, he hit two doubles, and those were fine, but he’s not the home run hitter that Willie Mays was or Babe Ruth or Josh Gibson, if you believe what people say.
He reminds me of a right-handed Lloyd Moseby. He has that solid stance and doubles-power swing.
Please don’t misunderstand. Jim Rice has every right to be unimpressed with Zack Greinke. He has every right to write that on his blog. He has every right to think to himself, “Damn, if I was at the plate, I’d crush this poor kid.”
My point is that he watched Zack Greinke pitch for six innings — Jim Rice, Hall of Famer — and his scouting report COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG. I mean, hey, I’m sure there are faults you could find with Greinke. COMMAND, as mentioned, would not be one of those faults. And I don’t know what “unhittable beast” means — maybe it’s a technical term — but Greinke gave up two hits and has allowed the fewest hits per nine in the American League.
Of course, Rice specifically compared Greinke to Pedro — the most dominant pitcher in baseball history, I think — and apparently this is a cool trick the great players turned analysts will use. They will make their point by comparing a player to an all-time great. I pulled a snippet out from a Joe Morgan chat just the other … where to prove that a “speed guy” is better at the top of the lineup than an “on-base guy,” Joe compared Wade Boggs to Rickey Henderson. Not to Omar Moreno or Gary Pettis or Willy Taveras, mind you. No, to Rickey Henderson. Well, who would your rather have? The slow on-base guy (Wade Boggs, I guess) or the fast guy (Rickey Henderson, who has a .401 career on-bae percentage?). Well, who would you rather have? Rickey, of course. Well, I rest my case.
But, wait, that’s not fair because Rickey was a great on-base guy.
Right. He stole a lot of bases. He created havoc.
No, wait, I’m saying that doesn’t prove a speed guy is better than an on-base guy because Rickey was an on-base …
Exactly. You have to go with Rickey.
You know what this is like? It’s like having a basketball argument about whether you would rather have a good shooter or a good rebounder? Well, I’d rather have the good shooter. It’s obvious. I mean, would you rather have Dennis Rodman or Larry Bird?
But wait, Larry Bird was also a good rebounder and a great passer and I don’t think that’s a fair comparison.
Right. You would rather have Larry Bird. Exactly. There’s my point. You take the shooter.
But why didn’t you compare Dennis Rodman to, say, J.J. Reddick or someone like that who can shoot but can’t do anything else …
Right. Larry Bird. It’s obvious.
Same thing here. If you want to say that Zack is not dominant because he’s not as good as Pedro in his prime (Rice does also mention Clemens and Santana — two more all-time greats), well, you can say that I guess. You can also say that Kevin Youkilis does not strike me as a great player because he’s not as good as Jimmie Foxx in his prime. You can say that Dustin Pedroia is fine, but he’s no Ty Cobb. Jacoby Ellsbury’s defense left me cold — he’s no Willie Mays. Hey, this is fun!
Back to Zack. There are a half million ways to show that he is having one of the greatest pitching seasons in baseball history. Here’s another one for you, an easy one: ERA less than 2.10, more than a strikeout per inning (min. 200 innings). That has happened 10 times, with seven different pitchers — and three of those were in that crazy pitchers year in 1968.
The non-1968 pitchers who have done it — and you only need one name for each: Koufax. Clemens. Pedro. Seaver. Greinke.
And yet, Jim Rice watched Greinke pitch on a night when he did not allow anything close a run … and he could not see it. I don’t think he was being purposely obtuse — maybe he was. But I think, no, he just couldn’t see it. He was AWARE that Greinke had a low ERA. He might have been aware of Greinke’s strikeout numbers, his walk numbers, his home run allowed numbers. He had obviously heard plenty about Greinke’s year. But he SAW a pitcher who just didn’t seem dominant.
And beyond everything else, I would hope that maybe this would be yet another reminder that our baseball eyesight — no matter how much we love the game, no matter how much we have studied the game, no matter how well we PLAYED the game — is imperfect. Are there things people can see that are not reflected in the numbers? Of course. And it shouldn’t be any other way. Baseball is a game to be watched, to be enjoyed, to be argued about, and people’s observations can be wonderfully accurate.*
*After all, as Tom Tango points out, it isn’t just the Royals favorite stat to mock, UZR, that shows how bad a shortstop Yuni Betancourt is. It’s also the naked eye. That link, incidentally, shows that two sets of fans rank Yuni as a dreadful defensive shortstop. You can go to the bottom and see it. Of course, I’m sure the Yuni-Is-A-Good-Defensive-Shortstop Society would tell you those are FANS talking, and what do they know?
But, observations can also be WILDLY off, especially when you are looking at just a few innings, or just one game, or just one series. I had a discussion with Royals radio announcer Ryan Lefebvre about the defensive statistic Ultimate Zone Rating — he doesn’t like the stat (though he vaguely appreciates the effort) because he thinks defense is not quantifiable, and he cannot tolerate that the people who created the stat were not AT THE GAME. They were NOT WATCHING LIVE. Also Torii Hunter would finish TENTH. What kind of a stat is that? It ranked Torii Hunter TENTH. He simply cannot get over this.
I told him that, look, I understand having difficulties with defensive stats — I’m sure they have plenty of flaws and and absolutely they will get better over time. And maybe UZR was just way off on Torii Hunter. Maybe the stat is way off all the time. But maybe not. It’s important to say that just because a baseball stat does not tell you what you believe does not make it wrong. I might think B.J. Upton is a great young hitter, but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s hitting .237. I might think Cole Hamels is fabulous, but his ERA is 4.11 and he’s only throwing quality starts 50% of the time this year. I wasn’t telling Ryan I thought he should believe in UZR so much as he should not write off the possibilities that a well-designed defensive stat could challenge our convictions and perhaps offer a deeper insight into the game. Even if it didn’t rank Torii Hunter exactly where our eyes told us.
After all if Jim Rice can mistake Zack Greinke for Roger Moret after six scoreless innings … well, it’s not a bad idea for anyone to at least look up a few stats. You know. Just to be sure.
Loading ...
Circle me an obtuse-’feared’-hall-of-famer.
I’m surprised there are no comments on there refuting him.
“…a well-designed defensive stat could challenge our convictions and perhaps offer a deeper insight into the game.”
Sheer genius.
And I won’t even try to guess what Web host Sullivan Tire is using.
I will. HOSTMONSTER.
Great article. Though it is getting a little tiring defending Greinke. I mean, what else can you say? If you watch him pitch in person (as I will Sunday), on TV, or just read the stats, all signs point to #23.
But this has plagued baseball for a while. When do all the stats, records and awards become meaningless as the actual game passes them by? We don’t need voters to tell us who the best pitcher of 2009 is.
I would have refuted him but he is one of the most feared analysts of all time and I just…
oh nevermind.
Heck, I live in CT so I’ve seen Greinke pitch once this year, and it was against Boston. Maybe I watched some other game but I saw a guy look pretty dominant out there.
I’m tellin’ ya, if Beckett or Lester had thrown the exact same game he’d be praising how dominant they were.
Best part of that six inning performance in my book? Seeing Zack turn around towards 2nd base laughing after striking out Jason Bay. Wonder if Rice Rice Baby caught that one?
“It’s important to say that just because a baseball stat does not tell you what you believe does not make it wrong.”
I think this is a critical, often overlooked point. It seems to be especially important to the “intangibles” debate (a variation of the “not quantifiable” point you bring up).
Look, if it’s truly “intangible”, then (by definition!) it has no impact. If it has an impact, there’s a tangible result that can be quantified. So saying “Player X brings Intangibles to the team which just can’t be Quantified” is shorthand for one of two things — either it’s “I haven’t yet found a stat (or there hasn’t yet been a stat invented) that shows what I want to say about Player X” (which is fine) or “All statistics about Player X are lies” (which isn’t)
Thanks Joe. I feel better now. I was furious when I read his blog. You fought back with a classy approach. I’m glad I read this before I went turrets on him and dropped every 4-letter word in the book as a response to his blog. What’s the deal with his blog anyway? It’d be like you having a blog that’s part of Governor Stumpy’s website…
I think I know why there are no comments disagreeing with Rice. Here is the beginning of the post I made, including the comment from the site…
1. john says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 24th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
This has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read in my life. There is no way any knowledgeable baseball fan would watch that and post this. You are hereby banned, Mr. Rice, from blogging. You have lowered the collective intelligence of the everyone who reads this garbage.
if what Lefebvre is claiming – that there are things about baseball that can only be gained by watching a game, in person, live – is true, then what does he know about Torii Hunter? he’s only seen Torii a handful of games each season. using his own standards, Lefebvre shouldn’t know if Torii is 10th or 1st or whatever.
I don’t think there’s a way a current or future player not employed by the Red Sox can impress Rice. The game is too sullied by illegal drugs, bad hair and baggy uniforms, I’m afraid.
This was the same Jim Rice who deemed Derek Jeter an example of what is wrong with today’s players.
At some point, refuting stupidity is pointless. Outside of Roger Moret, I can’t imagine anybody read that and agreed with it.
About UZR.
This isn’t so true about the values you see on Fangraphs, but as far as the older UZR stuff – every bit of data recorded for that came from STATS, Inc. And they recorded it by putting people in pressboxes. Now data comes from BIS, where people watch it on TV screens instead.
The point is, UZR is simply the product of quantified and aggregated human observation. Now Lefebrvre may not appreciate that. (And quite frankly, it may be the weakest link in the whole system.) But no, someone is watching those games, and that’s how we get UZR.
My “Jim, you my friend, are a moron” post has been awaiting moderation for 3 hours
this whole thing reminds of a Keith Law chat from a couple months ago:
What was so bad about the Royals trade? The Royals have scouts who watched the guy play. I trust those guys a lot more than any stupid stat.
Keith Law (1:20 PM) I enjoyed the counterargument about how you have to see a guy play every day to evaluate his defense. In that case, don’t you need about 200 guys in your scouting department?
Felix Hernandez says he would vote for Greinke. I think Jim Rice may be enjoying the curmudegeon role too much; wait to apply for Andy Rooney’s job when he’s done with it.
Ever have one of those days where you learn your favorite player is a dolt?
Yeah, me too.
It sucks.
The same people who think Greinke isn’t dominant also think Jim Edmonds was a great center fielder, failing to realize that he only made all of those catches because all of his jumps were lousy. I loved Jim Rice as a player but this is asinine.
Joe – I was initially going to make the Bird/Fill-in-the-blank comparison yesterday so bravo for making it without my help
This is a classic case of how one defines dominance. For some folks, it’s purely strikeouts. You hit double digits, you’re dominant, never mind if you walk four or five while doing it. (Mark Langston, we hardly knew ye). So the guy with a line of say, 7-3-0-0-4-10 on 120 pitches is considered more “dominant” than 8-2-0-0-1-6 on 95 pitches.
That’s why I always loved Bill Lee’s line that a truly perfect game was 27 outs on 27 pitches.
All due respect to the “naked eye” fans’ evaluation of defensive shortstops stat, but there’s some pretty serious selection bias going on there. I would have to imagine that anyone going to Tom Tango’s site to fill out a questionnaire about defense is pretty darn well versed in advanced metrics and therefore knows quite well how different players are ranked statistically and are inclined to be sympathetic with the whole project of defensive statistical research. I’m guessing old-school scouting types aren’t logging on to Tom Tango’s website to fill out a their scouting impressions of baseball players. It’s the equivalent of a foxnews.com survey confirming that yes, Obama is a socialist.
I think it’s more a case of “Zach is so good, he makes it look easy” that only comes with being at the top of your game and in complete command. Watching it was very different than trying to hit.
I went to Boston once in the 80s and saw Rice play. Dude struck out three times and ran like his knees were broken. He’s no hall of famer in my books. He would have made a good triple-A player though with a bit more speed and better recognition of the breaking ball.
Not to defend Rice, what he wrote is stupid. But sometimes the best pitchers make it seem like they’re so close to getting lit up. The fly balls never seem to make it all the way out and the ground balls always seem to go right at guys. Bob Gibson wrote how he would pitch to the lesser guys. He said he would throw a fastball just off enough so that a guy could hit it, but he couldn’t hit it out. The guy would hit it and it would be a fly out to the warning track and the hitter would be like ‘I just missed it’. I think Grienke has a lot of that in him. (I wished I had seen the game, I was driving home and got home in the seventh inning. Stupid work.)
This Red Sox-Royals series was the first time I have had a chance to watch Yuni play. I had been accepting your opinion of his defensive ineptitude but I hadn’t really seen it for myself. Thanks to Thursday night’s game my naked eye agrees.
I’m especially glad that someone pointed out the Joe Morgan example about leadoff hitters.
it’s so absurd that it’s laughable.
Another example: “Are relief pitchers more valuable than starters?”
Of course they are! Who would you rather have pitching for you, Mariano Rivera or Oliver Perez? End of story.
Circle me FJM
I love that there are NO responses to Rice’s post. Nothing like protecting the feelings of a cranky, wrong-headed buffoon. And to think of how many times you hear people criticize people who leave comments for being afraid of answering for their views…
It was a humorous read, but i’d rather have William Shakespeare in his day.
Joe,
Just a few issues with your argument:
1. Grienke walked 3 in 6 innings, that’s 4.5/game, that is not good. What Rice saw that day, and he did say from what he saw against the Sox, Grienke did not have excellent command.
2. Grienke didn’t seem overpowering to Rice, maybe he wasn’t on that day. Maybe Grienke just seems like the kind of guy you could hit, Maddux never seemed overpowering to me, except you can’t hit them.
3. Rice is an old fogey who thinks today’s players are not as good as the ones from his day, wow, we’ve never seen old people like that before. He thinks the players from his day would crush Grienke, can you prove him wrong? Maybe the hitters were better, maybe they weren’t. Although they probably weren’t, no steroids, HGH use as far as we know back then.
4.You use Jim Rice to show that scouts and personal observation can be wrong based on his report of one player from one game. Scouts can be wrong, but generally I believe they watch a player for more than one game. Also no one has hired Rice as a scout. The fact that he was a very good hitter does not necessarily make him a good judge of pitching talent does it? Plus he didn’t have to hit against Grienke so he does not have a hitter’s perspective on facing Grienke. He has a fans and maybe he is not astute, or trained, or experienced enough to properly judge from that perspective. Not that it would stop him, him being so modest and shy and all.
5. Jim Rice, who the fuck listens to Jim Rice? When did he become the Einstein of baseball? Seriously, Jim Rice? You chose his argument, bend it to your use, and try to show that you can’t rely on observation. Maybe you should be using the opinion of some well respected scout, who you know, makes a living from evaluating baseball talent. Ask a few of them to build a consensus. These are the people whose observations may actually be worth something.
6. Stats are useful, especially when you know there context. The same statistics in AAA do not mean as much as in the NL, which in turn need to be taken with a grain of salt before comparing them to the AL. It is safe to say that there are plenty of players in the NL who would be successful in the AL, but I would actually like to have my best scouts review that player well before offering him a fat contract to play in the AL East. Stats need context, we have seen that doing well in the NL does not always transfer to the AL, both in pitching and hitting. Some stats are more useful than others, OBP for instance does tend to show a good batting eye regardless of the league you are in. I just think as a major league GM you wouldn’t make a decision without examining both the stats and the observations of your trained, experienced scouts. It would seem foolish and unwise to put all your eggs in one basket, you may value one more than the other, but you would need to review both.
7. Jim Rice?
8. Is this the same Jim Rice that dissed current ballplayers?
9. Jim Rice?
10. Seriously, Jim Freakin’ Rice?
Joe Mauer on Zack Greinke:
“A pitcher can’t go out there and score runs,” Twins catcher Joe Mauer said. “If a pitcher is going out there and is doing his job, he should be rewarded. I hope the voters don’t hold that against him.”
I’ve thought for a while that it would be fascinating to have a smart baseball writer – or even just a fan who can write a little – go an entire baseball season watching games every day and NEVER looking at statistics of any kind, including the standings. This person’s observations on the season would be fascinating, to me anyway. Would their perceptions of who’s having a big year be anywhere close to reality?
Unfortunately, for any paid writer or semi-serious blogger total withdrawal from all stats would basically keep you from being able to do your job. Would be a cool exercise though.
Only 2,000 words? I would have enjoyed the other 18,000 too.
I was a big Jim Rice fan growing up, and I hate talking ill of Red Sox greats, but…the guy’s a knucklehead.
Rice–the player–had a couple “magical” seasons, most notably 1978. He hit .315, hit 46 HRs, knocked in 139, scored 121, hit 15 triples, and probably put the fear of God in plenty of pitchers.
It’s been said before, but his splits:
On the road– .269/.325/.512 (.837 OPS)
Fenway– .361/.416/.690 (1.105 OPS)
This is not really a fair comparison–apples to oranges–but oh well:
Zack also fares better at home (1.73 ERA to a 2.48 on the road) but it’s a hell of a lot closer than Rice’s feast or kinda-famine. He’s actually got lower WHIP and opponent BA on the road. And a 2.48 ERA WOULD STILL LEAD THE A.L.!
All things considered (which I haven’t done here obviously), Zack Greinke is probably having a better season–in historical context–than Jim Rice EVER had. Including 1978. And Rice is a hall-of-famer.
Rice grounded into plenty of double plays and has a gazillion multi-strikeout games (okay, I didn’t really look that up), so there were plenty of times where a guy WHO ONLY SAW HIM ONCE would have said, “eh, this guy isn’t that great. He’s certainly no Ted Williams. He’s swingin’ with a Swiss cheese bat up there.”
And Jim Rice has only watched Zack pitch ONCE this year?!!? The guy is terrorizing the AL, and he hasn’t bothered to watch him? What, they don’t have any extra TV sets at NESN? He can’t personally afford Extra Innings? How can you be paid to provide baseball insight and yet not bother to watch the AL’s leader in numerous categories at LEAST once? He never got curious during Zack’s ridiculous start to the season–”nah, I’ll just wait until the Sox face him to decide for myself.”
Maybe it’s Zack’s windup. Pedro and Johan has more stylish windups, so perhaps Zack needs to add a little more flair. Maybe drill a couple of guys to show he’s more of a “competitor.” Maybe figure out how to make the ball actually dissappear completely halfway to the plate and then reappear in the catcher’s mitt. Then Jim will be more impressed. Effin’ knucklehead.
Who would you rather have showing up drunk for games, leaving the mound in the middle of the game to chase passing fire engines, and wrestling alligators in a traveling circus during the off-season:
Zack Greinke or Rube Waddell??
I rest my case.
” I don’t think he was being purposely obtuse..” There is no way that I am the first one to catch the reference to one of my favorite movies, am I?
A hometown analyst makes a bold statement about an opposing player. There’s a first.
A former player, no less. And one who may feel a little slighted for having to wait so long to get into the Hall of Fame.
Oh, and did I mention that he’s on TV now, and when more people tune in or view his blog, the better it is for his career?
I wonder if more people will be visiting his blog or tuning in to NESN now to see what foolish thing he will say next…
Do I agree with Rice’s analysis? Does anyone? Does it matter?
I’m thinking this is all just an homage to Shania Twain. Okay, so you lead the AL in virtually every major pitching statistic. That don’t impress me much.
Hey, you take out that first inning and Paul Byrd shut down the Royals too. So Paul Byrd did what Greinke did. Byrd is as good as Greinke (except for the first inning)
/sarcasm off.
Ha! They’ve taken the post down entirely. So, is it 1. a sign of recognizing the error of his ways or 2. a sign of being unable/unwilling to face what’s likely been universal criticism (though again, it’s not as though they were publishing the comments, anyway. nor do I imagine he was the one reviewing them)?
My thought when I read the comparison from Jim Rice was more about the nature of each pitcher. Clemens and Pedro were both ‘type A’, very excitable personalities that grab attention which is certainly part of their allure. Greinke will never be this kind of guy – he’s reserved, he prefers to not get noticed. I’m OK with this quiet strength and it suits him and the Royals well.
All this defending Greinke talk is just because he pitches in KC. If he pitched in Boston or New York (maybe even LA) they would have already given him the Cy Young. Here you go, no need to drag this formality out.
Peter Gammons comments are a perfect example. If it doesn’t happen in the AL East it isn’t really happening, it doesn’t matter. I mean Kazmir went from a 5.92 ERA in the East to a 2.01 in the West. That shows right there how superior the East is and how Peter Gammons’ grandmother could have a nearly 2.00 ERA with 200+ K in the Central. It’s not just him, it’s all over. It’s really tiresome to hear about the same few teams over and over and over in the national media.
[...] Here is the original: Joe Posnanski » Blog Archive » What Our Eyes See [...]
[...] Bats Blog5. JoPo takes issue with Jim Rice taking issue with Zack Greinke(notes). Shaming ensues. Joe Posnanski 6. Red Sox fans would rather not see Jason Varitek(notes) play in the postseason. Surviving [...]
They didn’t take the post down, they just moved it to another page.
[...] Bats Blog5. JoPo takes issue with Jim Rice taking issue with Zack Greinke(notes). Shaming ensues. Joe Posnanski 6. Red Sox fans would rather not see Jason Varitek(notes) play in the postseason. Surviving [...]
@46
So it is. I must have caught it right as they made the transfer, because where it is now on the front page of the blog, it wasn’t before. I stand corrected. So much for recognizing being wrong, I guess
In 1975, the one year Rice got to watch Roger Moret pitch regularly. This must be what Rice’s thinking of… but even in Moret’s best season, he only had Greinke-in-Boston type days – twice. That’d be –
7/27 @ NYY (9 IP, 0 ER, 6 H, 1 BB, 6 K’s)
8/16 @ CHW (7 IP, 0 ER, 2 H, 2 BB, 2 K’s)
Now check out some of Moret’s splits in ‘75…
In his 14 W’s (95 IP), he had a fine 2.08 ERA (very Greinke-like, in a pitchers era). In his 83 2/3 other IP he gave up 51 ER… giving him a fat 5.48 ERA for almost half the innings he threw that year!
Compared to THAT Jeckyll & Hyde act, Greinke is very dominant.
I’d like to see someone pick 83 2/3 IP by Greinke this year that add up to a 5.00+ ERA. Don’t think it could be done. To be fair, you should pick closer to 100 IP… as that’s closer to his half way mark.
but maybe dominance to Jim Rice is about how a pitcher buckles down once guys are on and he just tightens up and keeps the other team from putting on a rally.
Although…Moret’s allowed OBP w/ RISP was .348, while The Greinke’s is .236…so Jim wouldn’t have any argument there either.
Just what was he looking at on Tuesday night? What was he expecting? Greinke just made one of the best offenses this decade, look like the Royals for 6 innings. Isn’t that the epitome of dominant?
Joe–how about a Billy Butler post? He’s only a homer and a double away from 20 and 50 this season respectively. As best I can find (by looking up and down the baseballreference.com single season doubles page), here is the list of players to hit 50 doubles in their age 23 or younger season:
Hank Greenberg (23) – 63 doubles
Grady Sizemore (23) – 53 doubles
Enos Slaughter (23) – 52 doubles
Stan Musial (23) – 51 doubles
Albert Pujols (23) – 51 doubles
Miguel Cabrera (23) 50 doubles
Feel free to correct me if I have omitted anyone. Assuming Butler can muster one more double this season, that would be some pretty good company.
I don’t need a stat to tell me Lefebvre is an annoying bitch.
19: Devin Clancy said at 4:10 am on September 25th, 2009: “Ever have one of those days where you learn your favorite player is a dolt? Yeah, me too. It sucks.”
I’m betting Greg Maddux is not going to let me down in this regard.
Could someone please tell me why Joe isn’t considering Greinke for AL MVP? I don’t get it. Mauer isn’t just competing against Jeter and Longoria, but every *player* in the AL. I can imagine some reasons, but I don’t know why Joe isn’t considering it. Joe, what gives? Is it something against pitchers? Or is it that Greinke can’t be valuable playing for a losing team?
I don’t know where to find most advanced stats, but for example, Greinke’s WAR is 8.7 compared to Mauer’s 7.7.
[...] Bats Blog5. JoPo takes issue with Jim Rice taking issue with Zack Greinke(notes). Shaming ensues. Joe Posnanski 6. Red Sox fans would rather not see Jason Varitek(notes) play in the postseason. Surviving [...]
You had to go and ruin it by mentioning Willy Taveras.
Awesome post, Joe. Thanks as always.
No Red Sox fan under the age of 30 likes Jim Rice (at least none should). He was overrated, surly, and never, ever, ever, ever, ever, has anything good and insightful to say about anything. He was a main reason why players like Wade Boggs skipped town; he’s the old school nutso who thinks players who work for walks are team killers. He’s homerific (and not the Dennis Eckersley style in which he makes fun of the other team’s crappy players all game and you just smile and agree, he’s had tons of fun with Emilio Bonifacio and Miguel Olivo) and bad at analyzing. And now, well, America can finally see how bad he is. Screw Jim Rice, Dwight Evans should have been the one in the Hall of Fame, and Jimmy should be managing some community college team in Vermont or something.
Charlie Hough?
Hahahaha, I was the one in the JoeChat comments section throwing a mini, bored at work, online shitfit over that logic process.
It’s like being asked “What’s more important for a cleanup hitter, pure power, or balance?” and answering “pure power, because who would you rather have, Albert Pujols, or Kevin Youkilis?”
Then when you say “wait a minute, Pujols is a very balanced hitter, he can get on base and is an elite masher, this isn’t fair, why not use Ryan Howard or Mark Reynolds?”, they just ignore.
Or for more obvious visualization, asking “what’s more important for a running back, speed or vision”, and saying “speed, cause who would you rather have, Barry Sanders or Marshall Faulk?” Wait a minute, why are you using Barry Sanders, a way extreme end of the bell curve, as an example of a typical “speed” guy? Why not Reggie Bush or Lawrence Maroney?
BTW, PioDoggy is a terrible commentor.
@22 Robert S.: Good point, well put.
Brilliant piece Joe. I never read you before SI and didn’t know what the big deal was considering I had read maybe 5 of your columns. I am officially convinced that you know what you are talking about and that is definitely something I can get behind.
“Don’t get me wrong, Greinke pitched very effectively”
It appears you have gone out of your way to get him wrong anyway.
Jim was talking about Greinke on one night. On that night, he was not reminiscent of Pedro or Clemens. He was simply very effective. Which is exactly what Jim said.
If you feel the need to bring up Greinke’s K/BB ratio for the season, you are missing his completely harmless point by several miles.
as of 10:11am PT, the post is not present on the Ask 14 blog.
Jim Rice reminds me of Clark W Griswold’s father-in-law in Christmas Vacation.
“A little lights, they’re not twinkling”
Does he also know that Greinke took a liner off the arm in his previous start?
Joe – Thanks for the “carbon-based life form” reference. I don’t often see that mentioned in my sporting reads. Well done!
Perhaps Mr. Rice is of another based life form so he does recognize excellence in another type of life form? Nah, he’s just another idiot athlete paid to say things that tend to be wrong.
@tapin
I fully agree that the point you quote is indeed critical and well written. However that does not make the rest of your conclusion valid.
There are indeed intangibles involved in the game and they do indeed affect the outcome of sporting events from time to time. They are intangible because they cannot be measured (yet) not because they do not exist. Color me a guy who is real tired of intangibles getting too much ink but that doesn’t mean they are not real.
Sadly, even in baseball – the game most given to statistical analysis – it is simply not possible to quantify every single detail. And even if it were possible, it would still be possible for a bad team to beat a great one when the stats fall its way.
That is why we all love the game, whether we realize it or not.
@50:
Alex Rodriguez (20) – 54 doubles
What can’t Ryan stand about the inventor of UZR (MGL) not being there? Is he supposed to personally be at every game? What does that even mean? Was the inventor of “batting average” at every game. This is a nonsensical objection. I’ll assume that Ryan wasn’t drunk when he said this. Perhaps that’s overly generous.
But, of course, this can’t be what Ryan means. He must think that UZR involves data that isn’t recorded by those at the game. This is, of course, also wrong. Both the non-public version of UZR (using STAT, inc. data) and the FanGraphs version (using BIS data) take data from video and multiple stringesr at every game, who not only record hit location (zone) and batted ball type, but also how hard/soft/medium the hit was… and so on.
I imagine you enlightened him, Joe, although I’m sure he didn’t need it. A professional broadcaster making assertions about a baseball stat surely wouldn’t do so without knowing what he’s talking about.
I mean, it’s not like he works for the Royals front office or anything.
Joe -
I’m the bus driver for the Felix Hernandez fan club. I annoy all my friends by writing anticipatory “Felix Day” facebook status predictions. I think he’s going to win multiple Cy Youngs. I think he’s going to win 300 games. I think he’s going to end up in the Hall of Fame.
But, if I had a Cy Young vote in 2009, I’d vote for Zack Greinke. Felix, at 23 years-old, will have to be content being the second best pitcher in the American League. That ain’t bad.
But the reason I’m commenting is that the Seattle radio folks are beating the Cy Young drum for Felix. Trying to create some sort of anger about the fact that Felix will be unbelievably wronged when Zack Greinke wins the Cy Young.
Except the fans ain’t having it. They know. It feels like Greinke winning is inevitable. That’s my impression, at least. Looks like the best man will win.
I can’t wait to see who the best man is in 2010. My money’s on Felix.
@27 I too was glad to see the comment Joe made about Morgan’s chat but I also feel the need to try and explain something – and I hope people will read past the next sentence to read it all.
Joe Morgan was right to say that it would be better to have rickey leading off instead of boggs. there simply is no doubt about that.
Joe understands that the best speed guy leading off raises havoc with the opponent. Heck even Vince coleman who certainly didn’t get on enough to justify hitting lead off was 100% able to frustrate opponents whenever he was on first. And it wasn’t just a cliche either – he could make a weak swing on a great pitch and beat the throw to first and then steal 2B and maybe 3B and score on 2 equally weak hit GBs.
What pitcher wanted to give up an earned run for making a dozen great pitches and watching one guy reach first due to speed? So they overreacted to him being on first and often made things worse for themselves by turning equally bad hitters into better hitters by giving them fatter pitches to hit.
The understanding of how that worked and of how he impacted pitchers is what I am certain has Morgan saying that you need speed at the top of the lineup – to the point that he also says OBP isn’t necessary as much as speed. Likewise with Baker.
Yet what he is actually saying is that a speedy OBP guy is best to leadoff and there I would think we all would agree. It is simply his inability to include OBP into the discussion that makes him a laughingstock (justifiably IMO).
My point is that while taking people to task for their mistaken view, it is probably a good idea to recognize the valid points contained behind the statement.
Anyone who watched the lame hitting cardinal teams of the early 80’s torment their foes will understand the power of speed. And those of us who kept watching the same formula be applied with horrendous results after 1987 will understand the flaws of such thinking as well.
Balanced viewpoints are always best.
Let’s cut to the chase:
Jim Rice was a decent power hitter for about 10 years but never “dominant” in anything. His HOF credentials are suspect. Two factors figured greatly into his induction BESIDES the 15 years it took to convince voters that he deserved to get in. He played his career in Boston in a very HR friendly park. And due to his aforementioned career in Boston, where east coast elitists genuflect ritualistically, his case gets more cred than say someone with the same numbers that played their career in “flyover country.”
Sorry, but the only reason Rice gets his mug on the camera is because Boston media would (and have) sell their first born and forgive all past misdeeds when a “hometown” hero gets national recognition. Even if that hometown hero was a complete a-hole to the fans & media during is playing days. His analysis has no credibility.
If you stare at the upper left hand corner of the Mona Lisa from 2 inches away…it really isn’t that impressive!!!
The thing is, the Sox are absolutely dialed in right now. They are rolling over people, and Greinke stopped them cold.
thanks for the lloyd moseby shout out. i loved llllllloyd (as the blue jays stadium announcer always called him) when i was growing up. long live lloyd!
I know I will probably get bashed, but I kind of agree with Rice.
Here is what we know
Greinke tied his lowest K total of the season, a total that is more then 2 Ks lower then his average start (he averages 7.39 K per GS) and 2 K lower then his average K/9 (7.5 K/9 in game, 9.53 K/9 on season)
Greinke tied his lowest Strike per Pitch total of the season with the 53/91 (or .582). On average, he is at .632 Stirke/Pitch.
Greinke tied his highest Walk per Game total (3), which is 1.5 walks/game higher then his average and more then 2.5 Walks higher then his per inning average (4.5 BB/9 in game to 1.93 BB/9 on season)
Greinke only went 6 innings, which is 1.1 innings shorter then his average. (7.39)
Greinke held a .133 BAbip in surrendering those 2 hits in 15 chances. That is microscopic. If he had (could) post his season average .310 BAbip, he would have surrendered 4.65 hits.
Now spread all those things over 200 innings to represent a season (with his normal .310 BAbip creating a normal Hit total)
33 Starts, 200 IP, 6.06 IN/S, 166 K, 100 Walks, 1.66 K/BB, 667 AB, 155 H, .232 BAA, 1.275 WHIP
And this again is what Rice started by saying
“He pitched well and maybe I caught him on a bad night, but to me he didn’t seem dominant.”
I think that is correct. The end results were great (6 IP, 0 Run, no one past 1st) but if he duplicated those rates over a full season, he likely ends up looking like a fairly average pitcher. It was not the best Greinke night; he just wasnt dominant – he was pretty average with some luck in that particular game.
That said, Greinke is generally dominant. Also, his having a not-quiet-him night doesnt mean Rice should be trying to make a big-tado about it. A simple “I don’t think we saw the best Greinke had based off his seasons performance” would have been the way to go. Had he left it at that, he would have technically been right, and not made an ass out of himself. But to try and defend his feeling off that one game by comparing it to some of the best to ever toe the mound is downright laughable.
Part of being one of the alltime best is succeeding with little effort, even when you dont have your best stuff – that is exactly what Greinke did, and that would have been the best thing to focus on if you were to write an article about Greinke based off that single game.
@ 72
While I agree Rice’s HoF credentials are suspect, Fenway is a hitter friendly park, but check out the park factor for Fenway on ESPN.com for solely Home Runs:
2001: 1.011
2002: 0.815
2003: 1.204
2004: 0.974
2005: 0.891
2006: 0.727
2007: 0.876
2008: 0.85
2009: 0.891
Fenway is much more a doubles hitter’s park a la Dustin Pedroia (has a big home/road OPS split for his career, but a .343 home BABIP vs. .290 road BABIP doesn’t help matters much for him).
It’s still ridiculous that a token “pretty good” player got into the Hall of Fame for a 3 year hitting explosion early in his career. Compare to Tim Raines, who broke in a few years later, loses in OPS+ 130 to 123 (but wins in the much better EqA .308 to .296), better defender (at least in the 80’s, before the Montreal years started taking its toll on him), actually owns rings, and doesn’t come across as an arrogant prick, probably won’t get in the Hall of Fame. I honestly think the reason why Rice got in was the Boston media. Not because of promotion of his career, though, but promotion of an idea: the idea that there was this massive media conspiracy to keep Rice out of the hall because he was a jerk to them. Soon the debate wasn’t about his career, but about this. For it all, Rice gets in, before the way more deserving Blyleven, Raines, Trammell, and heck, Andre Dawson too if you want to forget the years of run down defense and crap OBP in favor of the awesome power hitting CF.
Okay, long post.
This was the only time I ever saw Jim Rice play in person:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/KCA/KCA197807230.shtml
I was unimpressed. He didn’t seem very dominant to me; he hit into a double play, and he even got pinch-hit for leading off the eighth.
Fenway park factor, HRs from RH batters only, from seamheads.com:
1975: 146
1976: 132
1977: 141
1978: 140
1979: 124
1980: 110
1981: 127
1982: 115
1983: 92
1984: 144
1985: 102
1986: 90
1987: 98
1988: 114
1989: 115
Willing to concede Greinke is the best starter. But if the CY Young’s stated criteria is the best pitcher ine ach league, why is Mo Rivera ignored again? Simply he is the best pitcher on the best team. Without him even with a great lineup the Yanks might only barely be a playoff team. His ERA is under 2, his WHIP under 1, his Ks per over 1. he has only 2 blown svaes in 44 chances. If not now, when? The award has gone to closers only 11 of 97 times(and one of’em was roider Eric Gagne!). But at some point either seperate relievers altogether for award time or include them. And given the Yanks’ run that moved them fron also rans in June to comfortable division leaders by Labor Day, they don’t do it without Rivera going 34 straight games without blowing a save .
First thing I saw was the Brockton Rox were in trouble.
That would suck, I live right down the road from Brockton, MA. They’ve been a welcome addition to the Boston South area and it’d suck to lose them.
Lot of those PF’s are surprising.
Random factoid: The Red Sox moved the bullpens into right field so Ted Williams would have an easier time hitting home runs.
I wonder if this was said by someone else would Posnanski have made such a big deal. My guess is no. The fact it was Rice who said it is what set Posnanski off. He still can’t get over the fact Rice is in the Hall of Fame so anything he does he will use to continue to carry out his vendetta against the selection.
Was what Rice said foolish? Yes. Does it merit this lengthy column? NO!!!.
Rice isn’t the topic of the post, Andy, Rice is simply the example of it.
It’s an inverse of the token “statistics lie” article, that in many cases, eyes lie.
Small minds always like to fish for arguments from the shallow end of the pond..
I had a small epiphany today, and though I know I cannot be the first person to make this connection, I’m going to post it like I am because, hey, this is the Internet so it really doesn’t matter.
Statistics are like instant replay.
Just like instant replay, statistics give you a different perspective that you don’t get live. Just like statistics, there are different perspectives from instant replay, some which don’t tell you much and others that show hidden information, some low-tech and simple and others as high-tech and deep you can get.
So next time someone tries to downplay statistics, ask them their opinion of instant replay; not even it’s use on the field, but on TV and by writers and broadcasters. If they say they like having those perspectives, you can point out the similarities.
Statistics aren’t like instant replay — they’re like the box score in the next day’s paper. They tell you what happened, and give you an idea of who-did-what, but don’t show you anything about how anything actually happened..
JoeyO #76
If you are going to adjust his hits to consider BABIP, why not just go all the way and use FIP? Grienke allowed 3 walks , 0 home runs and 5 strikeouts in 6 innings. That’s a 3.0 FIP, which is still awesome.
Plus, I doubt Jim Rice cares about BABIP anyways.
Jim Rice is a good writer, but he’s no Hemingway.
[...] Joe Posnanski: What Our Eyes See [...]
“If you are going to adjust his hits to consider BABIP, why not just go all the way and use FIP?
Because BAbip is a common rate factor that works to every ML at bat where a ball is put in place. We have all parts of a BAbip equation, and know what the end hit totals should be. Our specific 6 innings didn’t give a HR rate, HBP rate, or IBB rate – three things which are near impossible to avoid over an extended amount of time no matter who you are. You can remove the luck factor with regard to BAbip over extremely small sample sizes. You cant do it with FIP.
“Plus, I doubt Jim Rice cares about BABIP anyways.”
He does, he just doesn’t (or doesn’t know to) call it BAbip. What he knows is, you put the ball in play X amount of times and you should be surrendering somewhere around Y amount of hits. That is what Rice is saying when he claims Greinke seemed hittable.
If you are adjusting for BABIP, you have to go all the way and use FIP, it’s as simple as that.
No Nick, no you wouldnt. And its as simple as FIP making no sense what so ever over short sample sizes as it heavily weighs events which do not happen very often. Over something as minuscule as 6 innings, a single HR has a huge effect. And a starting pitcher usually averages a HR in 1 to 2 of every 3 games started.
Case in point, had that day been one of those where Greinke surrendered a single HR, his FIP would go from 3.03 to 5.20. A single HBP or IBB has a pretty big effect itself, as one of either of them being added adds .50 to the FIP result. Watching Greinke make a start without surrendering a HR, HBP or IBB is more luck then skill on his part – he has averaged about one of those every other game. This makes FIP pointless over something as small as 6 innings.
BAbip is never pointless though, a pitcher putting a ball in play X amount of times should result in Y amount of hits (pretty much on a 3/10 scale), no matter what.
So, BAbip you know will be 3/10, FIP has no way of knowing though as a large sample size is needed to see the rate at which a pitcher will surrender HR or hit batters.
[...] an important article about why you can’t trust your eyes. It’s nothing personal. It doesn’t make you stupid. But really, you can’t trust [...]
“Watching Greinke make a start without surrendering a HR, HBP or IBB is more luck then skill on his part – he has averaged about one of those every other game. This makes FIP pointless over something as small as 6 innings.”
BABIP, and everything else really, is pointless over 6IP too. That’s the whole point. Rice is making conclusions about Greinke, however qualified, based on a meaningless small sample. Its just dumb.
“BABIP, and everything else really, is pointless over 6IP too. That’s the whole point. Rice is making conclusions about Greinke, however qualified, based on a meaningless small sample. Its just dumb.”
No, BAbip isnt pointless over 6 IP. You know it should be .300-ish, no matter what. Will it be .300-ish every single game? No, but it will end up that with something like a 95% certainty. So if you watch a game where a player allows 15 balls in play, you know with a 95% certainty that 4-5 of those balls generally should have been hits – the fact they werent just means that the odds of a higher BAbip the next time out goes through the roof.
Which is why you can watch one game where a player walks 3, strikes out 5 and only sees 2 of 15 balls in play land for hits and realize that it wasnt that great of a performance.
If you are simultaneously giving up a high Walk rate while putting so many balls into play, you truly are not dominating. You are putting yourself almost completely in the hands of luck, and you are raking up a higher pitch count which means you likely wont go deep – leaving you hoping for a low BAbip and your bullpen to pick up your slack.
This is why I said that Rice started out correct and has a perfect point – it was not a dominant performance at all. The results might have been there, but the way he got them was more luck then performance – his performance was merely average.
What Rice doesnt have a point on is trying to expand on that to the point he is comparing one performance to the greats of the game. That is the dumb thing he did. He should have said it was a fairly average performance and talked about how his ability to still succeed without his best stuff instead of trying to make the one poor performance into an argument that comes off as if it is against him. It makes it seem a personal attack in doing so, and then of course, you get the other side of that – the personal attacks here. He took a correct statement (wasnt dominant) and made it into an illogical debate with a fanbase where everything but the topic at hand (wasnt dominant that game) is the conversation.
I agree with the article and enjoyed the discussion, but I was also amused by the name Charlie Hough being included with the phrase “excellent pitchers”. I’m not trying to be critical — I enjoyed watching him pitch, and he pitched a lot of innings and kept his team in the game, so he was fairly good. I was just surprised to see his name after “excellent pitchers”.
More Greinke-for-Cy ammunition:
Sabathia’s current W-L record (19-7) works out to a .730 winning percentage. That’s 89 points above team — which is impressive enough.
Greinke’s 16-8 record (.667) comes for a .410 team. That’s 257 points above team. Or about three times Sabathia’s margin.
“Greinke and the tyranny of the win column”
http://www.mankatofreepress.com/ethomabaseball
Thanks, Joe. Keep up the good work!
I liked Greinke’s comment after the game against Boston, where he said that he only really starts trying when there’s people on base. He basically said that when there is no one on, he tries to pound the zone and attack the hitters and invite contact. When runners get on, however, is when he really turns it on and “starts trying” as he so bluntly put it. That’s the sign of a pitcher who really believes in his stuff. And I think that showed after he got into that bases-loaded, no-out jam in the Twins game last weekend. Weak grounder to get the force at home, struck out Joe Mauer and made him look silly (which doesn’t happen to Joe Mauer), and struck out Michael Cuddyer. This guy knows he has “it”…and I just hope the Royals can put some pieces around him so that maybe, maybe he sticks around after his contract is up.
Oh, and Jim Rice is a moron.
[...] Rice is Hall-of-Fame-caliber dumb. (HT: [...]
Great post – love the wit and sarcasm. Of course, we know now that barring injury, Zack is going to be an elite pitcher for a handful of years to come. I’m sure the likes of Mr. Rice were similarly unimpressed with Greg Maddux at the beginning of his run. He didn’t “look” like a beast either.