Now I know you all thought I'd go with a picture of Chuck Norris here, but honestly, how could I pass up this blockbuster poster? I mean, James Van Der Beek, Usher, Ashton, McDermott, RLC! Do movies get any bigger or better? I submit that they can not. Now let's talk some baseball.
This off-season many teams have been rearranging squads in hopes of putting out a better product in 2010 than they did in 2009. So far we've discussed a few major deals and a couple teams specifically. Today we will center on the Texas Rangers and their selective, risky, but possibly very rewarding additions thus far.
The Rangers, under the gaze of team president Nolan Ryan, have seen a return to high pitch counts. Mr. Ryan himself pitched over 300 innings in both his '73 and '74 campaigns with the California Angels, and pitched over 250 innings four other times. That theory of strong starting pitching is a fantastic idea in my humble opinion, because I'm sick of guys being taken out of a game exactly at 100 pitches. You pay them millions, let them earn it.
However, with their first major signing of the off-season, the Rangers decided to pick a high-risk, high-reward pitcher, who isn't known as a stamina machine. Rich Harden may have some of the best born pitching talent of the past few decades, but he's been plagued by injuries his whole career. During his seven years in the Bigs, Rich Harden has pitched one full season as a starter. Technically he pitched a full season with the Chicago Cubs last year, but he only started 26 games, and if we are going to start calling that starting pitching, then the line between starting and relief pitching is going to blur even further. But since the Rangers have some other young pitching talent, Harden doesn't need to be an ace. Additionally though, the Rangers probably should have held on to Kevin Millwood since he's an innings-eater.
The new pitching policies in Texas may not work for Harden however. In Harden's particular case, it might be best to start him five games in a row, and then sit him for a turn in the rotation. The guy can be dominate, but he'll probably never throw 200 innings a year.
Now on to the next big signing for the Rangers; Vladimir Guerrero. The Rangers may have gotten away with a steal here since they signed him to a meager 1-year $5 million deal. Sure, there are probably incentives as well which could push the final price tag up a few notches, but Vladimir is a great veteran presence on any club. Yes his defense is gone so he will only be DHing, but that's what he was doing in Los Angeles, so it's nothing new he's going to have to get used to. He's a career .321 hitter and although he had his worst year ever last year, he still hit .295 with a decent enough on-base percentage. He hit 15 homers in only 100 games due to injuries, but if he can stay healthy enough to DH for, let's say 140 games, you're talking potentially 30 homeruns for Vladdy. I know he's getting older and is losing some pop, but he's going to a band-box ballpark where his career average there is .394 with 14 homeruns and 33 RBIs in merely 50 games. He could have a resurgent season, to say the least.
The Rangers have also added some depth in the bullpen with quality reliever Darren Oliver, and recently signed Colby Lewis who was pretty dominant in the Japanese leagues the past few years. The Rangers also somewhat inexplicably signed Khalil Greene to a one year contract. Lean, mean, Mr. Greene has been a potential threat to produce for years now, but never seems able to put everything together. And last year he was diagnosed with social anxiety disorder, which doesn't make the future any brighter for Mr. Greene days as a starter somewhere. Khalil may fill a bench role admirable however, and be serviceable as a infield backup. The only other item of note to add right now is that Texas is interested in seeing Ben Sheets pitch, but so are a handful of other teams, so nothing is imminent.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Instant Replay
I have been a pretty big fan of the MLBNetwork channel since its inception. While ESPN is talking about Tiger Woods being an asshole or gun charges for Gilbert Arenas, I can instead put on something that provides actual information and entertainment. On a sidenote, I love the fact that the MLBNetwork was able to coax Peter Gammons, basically baseball's prophet, away from ESPN. No more five minutes clips for you Mr. Gammons.
I also love the fact that I won't always agree with what the MLBNetwork has to say. That is due in part to the wide variety of retired players, writers, and analysts that inhabit the studio. Sometimes I love what Al Leiter says, sometimes he's an idiot. Usually Bill Ripken annoys the hell out of me, but other times he makes great points. And that's one of the reasons I love the programming.
Last night, however, was probably the first time I felt a little angry at what one commentator said. The commentator was infamous wildman pitcher Mitch Williams. Now I have no problem with Mitch Williams. In fact when I was a kid, the only way I could remember that my doctor's last name was Williams, was to think that his first name was Mitch. But last night Mr. Williams tried to reason an argument for the extension of instant replay into calls of fair and foul.
While I agree with Mitch's assessment that fair and foul calls are crucial to the game and need to be called accurately, he then said that calls at the bases should stay within the confines of the umpire's judgement. Am I mistaken, or is Mitch saying that a fair or fall call down the line is more important than calling a runner safe at first?
Even if that's not Mr. Williams point, he brought up an unwinnable argument when it comes to instant replay and baseball. That is, 'When is instant replay OK, and when isn't it?' Now I don't suggest that I have the answers, but I do know that Mr. Williams opened up a can of worms when he made his statements. The idea of using instant replay at all, in some people's minds', is anti-baseball. Baseball is a game of human judgement. What the umpires call, should stand, some say. When instant replay was brought in last year on a more permanent basis, it was relegated to homerun calls. This was a concession to baseball purists because it technically kept instant replay off the field (i.e. the ball would be leaving the playing field during a homerun), and that quelled some fears.
But to bring instant replay down onto the field and impact the game in a more microscopic way, begs trouble. If fair and foul should be part of the instant replay gambit, then why not base-running calls, or fielding plays such as an outfielder trapping a ball in his glove instead of catching it. This is my problem with what Mitch Williams said. If you open instant replay up past homerun calls, then where does it stop. Some may say that even allowing homerun calls to be replayed has ruined the sanctity of the game. Like I said before, I don't have the answers, but if things continue down this path, I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years baseball managers have a little red flag in their pocket like in football. Maybe they could challenge three calls a game, or maybe nine to make it more baseball like. But then how do you keep the game moving with challenges? Another problem with instant replay. And another suggestion from Mr. Williams that catcher visits to the mound be regulated. Again, this is invading the playing field. Now baseball would be determining what players can and can't do on the field to make defensive preparations. Where does it stop? Who's to say how long you can visit a mound, and with what frequency? Will baseball then overrule the 'shift' defense or say outfielders can't play too shallow?
Instant replay may work great for some sports. I think it was one of the best additions to football in the past 30 years. But baseball is different. Baseball has and probably should always be a game of human judgement and error. When you start meddling with that, you change the game. Maybe the committee Commissioner Bud Selig has set up will hash out these arguments and give baseball something wonderful that will improve the game. Or maybe it will just cause chaos, and longer games. Either way, one thing is certain. Instant replay, in any form, will never satisfy everyone. Someone will always complain about something. But that's kind of the beauty of baseball. It is a game of arguments and frustration. Managers are allowed to go out and argue with an ump over a missed call. And honestly, who doesn't love seeing a little dirt getting kicked once in a while?
I also love the fact that I won't always agree with what the MLBNetwork has to say. That is due in part to the wide variety of retired players, writers, and analysts that inhabit the studio. Sometimes I love what Al Leiter says, sometimes he's an idiot. Usually Bill Ripken annoys the hell out of me, but other times he makes great points. And that's one of the reasons I love the programming.
Last night, however, was probably the first time I felt a little angry at what one commentator said. The commentator was infamous wildman pitcher Mitch Williams. Now I have no problem with Mitch Williams. In fact when I was a kid, the only way I could remember that my doctor's last name was Williams, was to think that his first name was Mitch. But last night Mr. Williams tried to reason an argument for the extension of instant replay into calls of fair and foul.
While I agree with Mitch's assessment that fair and foul calls are crucial to the game and need to be called accurately, he then said that calls at the bases should stay within the confines of the umpire's judgement. Am I mistaken, or is Mitch saying that a fair or fall call down the line is more important than calling a runner safe at first?
Even if that's not Mr. Williams point, he brought up an unwinnable argument when it comes to instant replay and baseball. That is, 'When is instant replay OK, and when isn't it?' Now I don't suggest that I have the answers, but I do know that Mr. Williams opened up a can of worms when he made his statements. The idea of using instant replay at all, in some people's minds', is anti-baseball. Baseball is a game of human judgement. What the umpires call, should stand, some say. When instant replay was brought in last year on a more permanent basis, it was relegated to homerun calls. This was a concession to baseball purists because it technically kept instant replay off the field (i.e. the ball would be leaving the playing field during a homerun), and that quelled some fears.
But to bring instant replay down onto the field and impact the game in a more microscopic way, begs trouble. If fair and foul should be part of the instant replay gambit, then why not base-running calls, or fielding plays such as an outfielder trapping a ball in his glove instead of catching it. This is my problem with what Mitch Williams said. If you open instant replay up past homerun calls, then where does it stop. Some may say that even allowing homerun calls to be replayed has ruined the sanctity of the game. Like I said before, I don't have the answers, but if things continue down this path, I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years baseball managers have a little red flag in their pocket like in football. Maybe they could challenge three calls a game, or maybe nine to make it more baseball like. But then how do you keep the game moving with challenges? Another problem with instant replay. And another suggestion from Mr. Williams that catcher visits to the mound be regulated. Again, this is invading the playing field. Now baseball would be determining what players can and can't do on the field to make defensive preparations. Where does it stop? Who's to say how long you can visit a mound, and with what frequency? Will baseball then overrule the 'shift' defense or say outfielders can't play too shallow?
Instant replay may work great for some sports. I think it was one of the best additions to football in the past 30 years. But baseball is different. Baseball has and probably should always be a game of human judgement and error. When you start meddling with that, you change the game. Maybe the committee Commissioner Bud Selig has set up will hash out these arguments and give baseball something wonderful that will improve the game. Or maybe it will just cause chaos, and longer games. Either way, one thing is certain. Instant replay, in any form, will never satisfy everyone. Someone will always complain about something. But that's kind of the beauty of baseball. It is a game of arguments and frustration. Managers are allowed to go out and argue with an ump over a missed call. And honestly, who doesn't love seeing a little dirt getting kicked once in a while?
Monday, January 4, 2010
Jason Bay
Once again, it's been a little while since my last post, but the holidays have taken a toll on my time. Since then, my favorite team (the New York Mets) has signed OF Jason Bay to a four-year $66 million deal. Am I a fan of this signing? Not really. Will I still write a blog about it? Hell yes.
Well, it's official. Almost. Jason Bay still has to pass a physical and get a clear bill of health about his troublesome shoulder. Assuming that he passes though, he'll be joining the Mets this spring, patrolling left field. But where will he fit into the lineup, or in the dugout? Where will he fit into the clubs' dynamic?
There is talk that Bay will be the number five hitter, or maybe even number three. Wouldn't batting cleanup would be ideal for Mr. Bay? Over the length of his career Bay has been a very productive RBI man, and last year in particular he was second in AL RBIs. He can definitely hit for power, and even though the complaints about Citi Field keep pouring in, he'll get his home runs as well. Since Carlos Beltran nor David Wright are true cleanup hitters, they should be placed around Bay to secure his power potential.
Now let's assume that Reyes and Beltran will return to form in 2010. That means a return to lead-off for Reyes and most likely Luis Castillo accompanying him in the two hole. That puts either Wright or Beltran in the three spot. Beltran does have power, but it's somewhat inconsistent. Wright is more of an average guy, and he's starting to pull more every year, so unless his power numbers return to 2008 status or better, a decreasing average isn't going to help him become a steady number three hitter. But I still think last year's numbers for David were a result of mental pressure and having no hitting support around him, so I think Wright will make the better three hole hitter. Meaning that Beltran then hits fifth, providing on-base protection for Bay.
So Jason will play left field and hit cleanup, potentially. What will he do in the dugout? This is slightly more problematic. Bay has certainly never been called a team cancer, but he has never been a team leader either, according to various reports. Which means he'll probably go to the ballpark, collect his stats and fade into the background, like everyone else on the team. That is my major complaint about this signing, and pretty much everything Omar Minaya does as general manager of the Mets. He doesn't sign guys with passion. Paul Lo Duca was the last person on the team with any palpable intensity that permeated throughout the clubhouse. Delgado, Wright, Beltran, they are all great players, but not one is an outspoken leader. The only guy on the team now with any fire is Reyes, and everyone keeps saying how he needs to tone it down because too many crybaby opponents get their feelings hurt when he celebrates. I'm sorry, but I thought that was the point of winning, to celebrate it. Bay may fit in the clubhouse, he may even be a fantastic statistical signing for the team. But what the Mets really need, is a leader. Until they get that, from either a power bat or much needed pitching help, they'll do nothing but float in the middle of the pack.
Well, it's official. Almost. Jason Bay still has to pass a physical and get a clear bill of health about his troublesome shoulder. Assuming that he passes though, he'll be joining the Mets this spring, patrolling left field. But where will he fit into the lineup, or in the dugout? Where will he fit into the clubs' dynamic?
There is talk that Bay will be the number five hitter, or maybe even number three. Wouldn't batting cleanup would be ideal for Mr. Bay? Over the length of his career Bay has been a very productive RBI man, and last year in particular he was second in AL RBIs. He can definitely hit for power, and even though the complaints about Citi Field keep pouring in, he'll get his home runs as well. Since Carlos Beltran nor David Wright are true cleanup hitters, they should be placed around Bay to secure his power potential.
Now let's assume that Reyes and Beltran will return to form in 2010. That means a return to lead-off for Reyes and most likely Luis Castillo accompanying him in the two hole. That puts either Wright or Beltran in the three spot. Beltran does have power, but it's somewhat inconsistent. Wright is more of an average guy, and he's starting to pull more every year, so unless his power numbers return to 2008 status or better, a decreasing average isn't going to help him become a steady number three hitter. But I still think last year's numbers for David were a result of mental pressure and having no hitting support around him, so I think Wright will make the better three hole hitter. Meaning that Beltran then hits fifth, providing on-base protection for Bay.
So Jason will play left field and hit cleanup, potentially. What will he do in the dugout? This is slightly more problematic. Bay has certainly never been called a team cancer, but he has never been a team leader either, according to various reports. Which means he'll probably go to the ballpark, collect his stats and fade into the background, like everyone else on the team. That is my major complaint about this signing, and pretty much everything Omar Minaya does as general manager of the Mets. He doesn't sign guys with passion. Paul Lo Duca was the last person on the team with any palpable intensity that permeated throughout the clubhouse. Delgado, Wright, Beltran, they are all great players, but not one is an outspoken leader. The only guy on the team now with any fire is Reyes, and everyone keeps saying how he needs to tone it down because too many crybaby opponents get their feelings hurt when he celebrates. I'm sorry, but I thought that was the point of winning, to celebrate it. Bay may fit in the clubhouse, he may even be a fantastic statistical signing for the team. But what the Mets really need, is a leader. Until they get that, from either a power bat or much needed pitching help, they'll do nothing but float in the middle of the pack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)