When last we discussed Mike Trout here, the Angels had recalled him due to an injury to Peter Bourjos. I admit that I may have had delusions of grandeur, but there was always the chance that he wasn't quite ready. Indeed, his .163/.213/.279 line in 14 games showed that he wasn't quite ready for The Show. If the Angels were in the same position as the Mariners or Astros, playing for 2012 and beyond, it may have made sense to see what he could do in the last two months anyway, but the Angels are not in that position. Engaged in a closer-than-expected race with the Angels in the American League West, the Angels couldn't give Trout the playing time a super prospect needs. Here's where things get a little bit silly.
On August 1, the Angels demoted Trout all the way back down to AA - the level where he'd dominated to a .324/.415/.534 clip in 341 plate appearances. All six tools were on display, and he was the youngest player in his league. The only four players with higher OBPs were between 4 and 12 years older than Trout was. Given that level of production, wouldn't a promotion to AAA have been forthcoming, even if the major league promotion wasn't there?
Apparently Tony Reagins - who, let's let it be said, should have every decision he makes about an outfielder be thoroughly questioned - didn't think so, and sent Trout to continue his apprenticeship at a level where he seemingly has nothing left to learn. What has Trout done there? Why, the same thing he did every night - try to take over the wo.... errr, make AA pitchers feel bad about themselves. In 41 post-demotion plate appearances, he is batting .343/.439/.543, with 3 doubles, 2 triples, 4 steals and 6 walks.
Let me say this definitively. Mike Trout is ready for AAA.
The Angels keeping Trout in AA doesn't just stunt his progress, it stunts theirs as an organization. Most likely, Trout will be a major league callup in September. Wouldn't a month of facing AAA pitching - a major step up from AA for a variety of reasons, most notably the ability of pitchers to throw off-speed pitches for strikes - better prepare Trout to contribute when he does? If there IS a flaw in his game that AAA pitchers could expose, isn't working it out now, rather than next season, the best bet? If he dominates at AAA as well, doesn't he have to be considered a starter next year, to heck with how much money they owe Vernon Wells (who happens to have the worst OBP in the major leagues)?
The Angels, for all the dumb things they do like not playing Mike Napoli and trading Mike Napoli, have won a lot of games the last 10 years. The biggest reason they've won is from contributions from home grown talent. They will need to continue to do so in order to keep up with the Rangers, so it it is worth watching their handling of Mike Trout going forward.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Dontrelle Willis is Back
Yes, I know he's been back in the majors for a month, and generally has pitched well. Last night though, we got the first indication that Dontrelle Willis isn't just back as a major league pitcher, but might be back as an very good one. Despite not getting the win, Willis game up only 3 runs in 8 innings, striking out 10 and walking only 1. It was the first time he'd pitched 8 full innings since September 25th, 2007.
In my mind, it doesn't seem like the presence of "Dontrelle Willis, formidable major league starting pitcher" was that long ago, but the last time Willis had a sub 5.00 ERA was 2006, when he was only 24 years old. That was his fourth season, and up to that point, he has a 58-39 record, with a 3.44 ERA. A 3.44 then is even more impressive than it is now, good for an ERA+ of 121. In 817 innings, he had struck out 611 and walked 257, and allowed only 65 home runs.
Those aren't quite elite numbers, but Willis was more than the numbers. He was a charismatic guy, a great interview, and had probably the most fun delivery to watch in the game. He was also one of the best hitting pitchers in the game. All in all, he might not have been the #1 pitcher you'd pick to start your team around, but if you were buying a ticket for one night? You wanted to see Dontrelle Willis.
The common narrative seems to have become that Willis fell apart when he was traded to the American League, but that's really totally true. I mean, he was really, really terrible for the Tigers, but it was 2007, his last year with the Marlins, that he began his steep decline. His walk rate grew, his strikeout rate fell, and his home runs allowed doubled. In doing so, he posted a 5.17 ERA, leading the NL in earned runs allowed. After that season, he was dealt to the Tigers, with Miguel Cabrera, for top prospects Andrew Miller and Cameron Maybin.
In the American League, Willis was lost. In 101 innings, he posted a 6.85 ERA, walking 92 and striking out 68. It was said by many that he had "Steve Blass disease," the affliction which prevents previously good pitchers from being able to throw strikes. However, while Blass disease is a mental tic, others thought Willis's problems were more of the mechanical nature. With a windup that included so many moving parts, this certainly sounded like a possibility. It led the Tigers to hold onto Willis for two and a half years, before they finally lost their patience and traded him for journeyman starter Billy Buckner on June 1, 2010. After a successful debut with the Diamondbacks (6 shutout innings, though he walked 4), things went downhill quickly there as well. After only 22.1 innings pitched, Willis had given up 17 runs, striking out only 14 while walking 27. Only July 6th, Willis was released. He was signed to minor league deal with the Giants, but never sniffed the majors.
What made his struggles so disappointing wasn't just that he was pitching so poorly, but that he was working so hard to get through it, to no avail. Upon Willis being designated for assignment by the Tigers (before the trade was worked out), manager Jim Leyland said "I just applaud his efforts. It's been a long road back. The consistency just wasn't there. The uncertainty just ran out. He's been a great teammate. It's sad, really. I know how hard he worked. It just didn't work out.”
Knowing he would need to prove himself back in the minors, Willis signed a minor league contract with the Reds before the 2011 season. Accepting assignment to Louisville, Willis continued to work hard. This time though, for the first time in half a decade, the hard work appeared to be paying off, giving the Reds notice. The 5-2 record, 2.63 ERA, 67 strikeouts and only 5 home runs allowed in 75.1 innings pitched were nice, but what led them to believe he was ready to come back to the majors was the fact that he'd walked only 20 batters in that time.
On July 10th, Willis was recalled by Cincinnati to replace the struggling Edinson Volquez. He gave them 6 solid innings, giving up only two runs, leaving the game leading 3-2. Unfortunately, the Reds bullpen could not hold on, but the return of Willis was a great sight for any baseball fan. In his first five starts, Willis pitched fairly effectively, with a 3.41 ERA in 29 innings. His 17 strikeout to 11 walk ratio wasn't exactly setting the world afire, but it's certainly within the range of acceptability.
Last nights performance against the Rockies brought Willis's comeback to another level. As mentioned above, it was the first time he'd completed 8 innings since September 25, 2007. It was his first 10 strikeout game since August 14th of that same year. It was his highest game score since that September 25th start, and his second highest since 2006. Though it's been only 37 innings, Willis has to be encouraged that his 3.41 ERA is the second best among Reds' starters this year, and that his 118 ERA+ would put him 14th in the NL, between Hiroki Kuroda and Tim Hudson.
Of course, pitching that well for six starts is much less impressive than doing it for an entire season, but I see no reason to rain on this parade. What's important here is that Dontrelle Willis is pitching well in the major leagues again. Therefore, I call for an official moratorium on any tempered optimism regarding the success of Willis's comeback, until further notice, under the punishment of having your status as a fan of the game of baseball revoked. This is one to root for.
In my mind, it doesn't seem like the presence of "Dontrelle Willis, formidable major league starting pitcher" was that long ago, but the last time Willis had a sub 5.00 ERA was 2006, when he was only 24 years old. That was his fourth season, and up to that point, he has a 58-39 record, with a 3.44 ERA. A 3.44 then is even more impressive than it is now, good for an ERA+ of 121. In 817 innings, he had struck out 611 and walked 257, and allowed only 65 home runs.
Those aren't quite elite numbers, but Willis was more than the numbers. He was a charismatic guy, a great interview, and had probably the most fun delivery to watch in the game. He was also one of the best hitting pitchers in the game. All in all, he might not have been the #1 pitcher you'd pick to start your team around, but if you were buying a ticket for one night? You wanted to see Dontrelle Willis.
The common narrative seems to have become that Willis fell apart when he was traded to the American League, but that's really totally true. I mean, he was really, really terrible for the Tigers, but it was 2007, his last year with the Marlins, that he began his steep decline. His walk rate grew, his strikeout rate fell, and his home runs allowed doubled. In doing so, he posted a 5.17 ERA, leading the NL in earned runs allowed. After that season, he was dealt to the Tigers, with Miguel Cabrera, for top prospects Andrew Miller and Cameron Maybin.
In the American League, Willis was lost. In 101 innings, he posted a 6.85 ERA, walking 92 and striking out 68. It was said by many that he had "Steve Blass disease," the affliction which prevents previously good pitchers from being able to throw strikes. However, while Blass disease is a mental tic, others thought Willis's problems were more of the mechanical nature. With a windup that included so many moving parts, this certainly sounded like a possibility. It led the Tigers to hold onto Willis for two and a half years, before they finally lost their patience and traded him for journeyman starter Billy Buckner on June 1, 2010. After a successful debut with the Diamondbacks (6 shutout innings, though he walked 4), things went downhill quickly there as well. After only 22.1 innings pitched, Willis had given up 17 runs, striking out only 14 while walking 27. Only July 6th, Willis was released. He was signed to minor league deal with the Giants, but never sniffed the majors.
What made his struggles so disappointing wasn't just that he was pitching so poorly, but that he was working so hard to get through it, to no avail. Upon Willis being designated for assignment by the Tigers (before the trade was worked out), manager Jim Leyland said "I just applaud his efforts. It's been a long road back. The consistency just wasn't there. The uncertainty just ran out. He's been a great teammate. It's sad, really. I know how hard he worked. It just didn't work out.”
Knowing he would need to prove himself back in the minors, Willis signed a minor league contract with the Reds before the 2011 season. Accepting assignment to Louisville, Willis continued to work hard. This time though, for the first time in half a decade, the hard work appeared to be paying off, giving the Reds notice. The 5-2 record, 2.63 ERA, 67 strikeouts and only 5 home runs allowed in 75.1 innings pitched were nice, but what led them to believe he was ready to come back to the majors was the fact that he'd walked only 20 batters in that time.
On July 10th, Willis was recalled by Cincinnati to replace the struggling Edinson Volquez. He gave them 6 solid innings, giving up only two runs, leaving the game leading 3-2. Unfortunately, the Reds bullpen could not hold on, but the return of Willis was a great sight for any baseball fan. In his first five starts, Willis pitched fairly effectively, with a 3.41 ERA in 29 innings. His 17 strikeout to 11 walk ratio wasn't exactly setting the world afire, but it's certainly within the range of acceptability.
Last nights performance against the Rockies brought Willis's comeback to another level. As mentioned above, it was the first time he'd completed 8 innings since September 25, 2007. It was his first 10 strikeout game since August 14th of that same year. It was his highest game score since that September 25th start, and his second highest since 2006. Though it's been only 37 innings, Willis has to be encouraged that his 3.41 ERA is the second best among Reds' starters this year, and that his 118 ERA+ would put him 14th in the NL, between Hiroki Kuroda and Tim Hudson.
Of course, pitching that well for six starts is much less impressive than doing it for an entire season, but I see no reason to rain on this parade. What's important here is that Dontrelle Willis is pitching well in the major leagues again. Therefore, I call for an official moratorium on any tempered optimism regarding the success of Willis's comeback, until further notice, under the punishment of having your status as a fan of the game of baseball revoked. This is one to root for.
Monday, August 08, 2011
According to Nick Cafardo, Alex Rodriguez is More Valuable Than J.D. Drew
Seriously. This was a line written (apparently without irony) by Nick Cafardo in his column in today's Boston Globe, regarding what we "learned" from this weekend's three game series:
Wouldn't it be news if losing J.D. Drew ended up being more important than losing Alex Rodriguez? I mean, Rodriguez is a three time MVP (and he was robbed at least another two other times), and is the highest paid player in baseball by a ridiculous amount. SHOULDN'T losing him be worth more than Drew, a declining player in the fifth year of a five year contract?
I like J.D. more than most Sox fans, and I think he's generally earned the contract they gave him. He was excellent at the end of 2007 and was one of their most productive players the next two years. They likely don't make the playoffs in 2008 without the way Drew played in the first half. He's never gotten enough respect from Sox' fans, because people believe that, since he's not the helmet-slamming type, that he "doesn't care." That's sort of ridiculous, but whatever. Fan's can be unreasonable sometimes.
What was the point of what Cafardo wrote though? As a man who is paid about writing about baseball for a living, shouldn't he be a bit more objective, or at least reality-based? So did he write that to further tear down Drew? As though he should be embarrassed at being less valuable than Alex Rodriguez?
You know what's funny, though? Since Rodriguez went down, the Yankees are 18-9, while the Sox are 12-6 without Drew. Exactly the same winning percentages. Of course, this has more to do with the fact that the rest of the Yankees have done a good job, but it certainly doesn't enhance the argument that the loss of Rodriguez has significantly crippled the Yankees. Furthermore, while Josh Reddick has probably taken the right field job for the rest of the year due to his play during (and before) Drew's absence, Yankee 3B have played pretty well with Rodriguez out. Eduardo Nunez has hit a respectable .281/.328/.386 in his starts at third. Eric Chavez has mashed at a .344/.364/.438 clip - a performance good enough to convince Joe Girardi that he, rather than Jorge Posada, is the team's starting DH going forward. When Rodriguez does come back, the presence of Chavez (if he stays healthy - a HUGE if, of course) will mean they are a better team than they were before Rodriguez's injury.
All of that is digging deeper than we need to though. The fact is, either Nick Cafardo a) didn't previously realize that J.D. Drew was less valuable than Alex Rodriguez, or b) has made it a point to knock down Drew every chance he gets, as if Drew doesn't get enough grief. Either way, it should be considered as exhibit #5,923 why Cafardo is not competent or qualified to be the top Red Sox columnist for the Globe.
"It's safe to say the impact of losing Alex Rodriguez was far greater than the Red Sox' loss of J.D. Drew."If I'm reading that correctly, Nick Cafardo learned that Alex Rodriguez is more valuable than J.D. Drew.
Wouldn't it be news if losing J.D. Drew ended up being more important than losing Alex Rodriguez? I mean, Rodriguez is a three time MVP (and he was robbed at least another two other times), and is the highest paid player in baseball by a ridiculous amount. SHOULDN'T losing him be worth more than Drew, a declining player in the fifth year of a five year contract?
I like J.D. more than most Sox fans, and I think he's generally earned the contract they gave him. He was excellent at the end of 2007 and was one of their most productive players the next two years. They likely don't make the playoffs in 2008 without the way Drew played in the first half. He's never gotten enough respect from Sox' fans, because people believe that, since he's not the helmet-slamming type, that he "doesn't care." That's sort of ridiculous, but whatever. Fan's can be unreasonable sometimes.
What was the point of what Cafardo wrote though? As a man who is paid about writing about baseball for a living, shouldn't he be a bit more objective, or at least reality-based? So did he write that to further tear down Drew? As though he should be embarrassed at being less valuable than Alex Rodriguez?
You know what's funny, though? Since Rodriguez went down, the Yankees are 18-9, while the Sox are 12-6 without Drew. Exactly the same winning percentages. Of course, this has more to do with the fact that the rest of the Yankees have done a good job, but it certainly doesn't enhance the argument that the loss of Rodriguez has significantly crippled the Yankees. Furthermore, while Josh Reddick has probably taken the right field job for the rest of the year due to his play during (and before) Drew's absence, Yankee 3B have played pretty well with Rodriguez out. Eduardo Nunez has hit a respectable .281/.328/.386 in his starts at third. Eric Chavez has mashed at a .344/.364/.438 clip - a performance good enough to convince Joe Girardi that he, rather than Jorge Posada, is the team's starting DH going forward. When Rodriguez does come back, the presence of Chavez (if he stays healthy - a HUGE if, of course) will mean they are a better team than they were before Rodriguez's injury.
All of that is digging deeper than we need to though. The fact is, either Nick Cafardo a) didn't previously realize that J.D. Drew was less valuable than Alex Rodriguez, or b) has made it a point to knock down Drew every chance he gets, as if Drew doesn't get enough grief. Either way, it should be considered as exhibit #5,923 why Cafardo is not competent or qualified to be the top Red Sox columnist for the Globe.
Friday, August 05, 2011
The Dreaded "Comments Section"
Ok folks. This post has nothing to do with any statistical analysis, and is only very loosely related to baseball. Furthermore, it's about a subject I don't really know a lot about - I might be two years behind the curve, and I may be talking out of my backside. I'm willing to accept that.
I was just at Grantland.com, and I noticed they have a new function for users to comment on their articles, through their Facebook account. I like this.
One of the best and worst things about the internet is the anonymity it brings. On the positive, it gives people a lot of access to guilty pleasures that might be considered socially unacceptable. Suppose you really like listening to, say, the musical stylings of Jessica Simpson. If this were still 1990, you'd have to go to Sam Goody to purchase her new single. Today we have iTunes and Youtube and heck, you can even join a fan forum for her. Completely anonymously. That's awesome, and just one of about 40 quadrillion ways our lives are better than they were 20 years ago.
On the other hand, anonymity seems to give people the right to say anything they want.. Anything. No matter how stupid, bigoted, deranged, twisted, short-sighted and just plain wrong, people could say anything they wanted. Which is ok - I'm a firm believer in free speech. So why, then, do comments sections turn into such vile cesspools? The problem doesn't come from the fact that people can say what they want - it's the fact that they can say it without repercussion.
The reason free speech works so much better than censorship is because, once a speaker has been censored, he can make yourself into a victim, a political prisoner of sorts. "Look what the man doesn't want you to hear!" This is true, no matter how awful the message. When a racist loser like Fred Phelps (and yes, I'm using an obviously extreme case) can freely be a bigot, it's fine, because in response, I'm free to call him a racist loser. More importantly, most reasonable people can see that he is a racist loser. If he were censored though? It would, in a backwards way, raise sympathy not only for him, but for his pathetic beliefs. "He is just saying what THE GOVERNMENT doesn't want you to hear."
So, it follows that the check on unbridled free speech isn't censorship - it's shame. It's that human nature dictates that people don't want their peers to consider them complete morons. So most people, when entering into an argument with someone, are going to at least try to have facts on their side, rather resort to ridiculous ad hominem attacks about the person they're arguing with.
This doesn't happen in comment sections. Go on any of the very, very large internet sites, read a column, and then try to read through the comment section. If your brain isn't hurting about 30 seconds in, you're either incredibly tolerant of the stupid, or among them. Nearly every comment is met with an outlandishly mean character attack. There is zero intelligent discussion of any issue. Ever. Why? Because there is no recourse. You can write as vicious a reply as you'd like, because there is no shame in being wrong, and no shame in being mean.
(Note. This isn't true of the smaller, better regulated forums out there, which are fundamentally different than major websites for a variety of reasons. These function more like societies, where people will take on leadership roles and call out the foolish on being foolish. Sure, a certain amount of homogenous groupthink will go on, but that's true of any society, really. And, in the better forums, well-reasoned dissent is welcomed and discussed. In my criticism of comments sections, I'm talking more about the large scale, international type sites, like ESPN.com, Yahoo (probably the worst), MTV.com, YouTube, etc, that are essentially impossible to moderate.)
This is why Grantland's decision to have their comments section through Facebook makes so much sense. If someone is commenting on an article, he won't care what blazersgrrl144 or DetroitFan06 thinks of him. He WILL, however, care what that cute girl in his chemistry class or his potential new boss thinks. This will make the responses more measured, and the less measured responses more shamed. A random person saying "hey rotflmaoattheknicks, you're being f*&(^@ mean" doesn't mean as much as your co-worker saying "hey William Johnson, you're being f*&(^@ mean."
Not that the system is perfect. A lot of people don't use Facebook (though I'd imagine 98% of the sort of person who would comment on an ESPN article do), and the privacy concerns are real. Still, even though it's not perfect, it has to be better.
I was just at Grantland.com, and I noticed they have a new function for users to comment on their articles, through their Facebook account. I like this.
One of the best and worst things about the internet is the anonymity it brings. On the positive, it gives people a lot of access to guilty pleasures that might be considered socially unacceptable. Suppose you really like listening to, say, the musical stylings of Jessica Simpson. If this were still 1990, you'd have to go to Sam Goody to purchase her new single. Today we have iTunes and Youtube and heck, you can even join a fan forum for her. Completely anonymously. That's awesome, and just one of about 40 quadrillion ways our lives are better than they were 20 years ago.
On the other hand, anonymity seems to give people the right to say anything they want.. Anything. No matter how stupid, bigoted, deranged, twisted, short-sighted and just plain wrong, people could say anything they wanted. Which is ok - I'm a firm believer in free speech. So why, then, do comments sections turn into such vile cesspools? The problem doesn't come from the fact that people can say what they want - it's the fact that they can say it without repercussion.
The reason free speech works so much better than censorship is because, once a speaker has been censored, he can make yourself into a victim, a political prisoner of sorts. "Look what the man doesn't want you to hear!" This is true, no matter how awful the message. When a racist loser like Fred Phelps (and yes, I'm using an obviously extreme case) can freely be a bigot, it's fine, because in response, I'm free to call him a racist loser. More importantly, most reasonable people can see that he is a racist loser. If he were censored though? It would, in a backwards way, raise sympathy not only for him, but for his pathetic beliefs. "He is just saying what THE GOVERNMENT doesn't want you to hear."
So, it follows that the check on unbridled free speech isn't censorship - it's shame. It's that human nature dictates that people don't want their peers to consider them complete morons. So most people, when entering into an argument with someone, are going to at least try to have facts on their side, rather resort to ridiculous ad hominem attacks about the person they're arguing with.
This doesn't happen in comment sections. Go on any of the very, very large internet sites, read a column, and then try to read through the comment section. If your brain isn't hurting about 30 seconds in, you're either incredibly tolerant of the stupid, or among them. Nearly every comment is met with an outlandishly mean character attack. There is zero intelligent discussion of any issue. Ever. Why? Because there is no recourse. You can write as vicious a reply as you'd like, because there is no shame in being wrong, and no shame in being mean.
(Note. This isn't true of the smaller, better regulated forums out there, which are fundamentally different than major websites for a variety of reasons. These function more like societies, where people will take on leadership roles and call out the foolish on being foolish. Sure, a certain amount of homogenous groupthink will go on, but that's true of any society, really. And, in the better forums, well-reasoned dissent is welcomed and discussed. In my criticism of comments sections, I'm talking more about the large scale, international type sites, like ESPN.com, Yahoo (probably the worst), MTV.com, YouTube, etc, that are essentially impossible to moderate.)
This is why Grantland's decision to have their comments section through Facebook makes so much sense. If someone is commenting on an article, he won't care what blazersgrrl144 or DetroitFan06 thinks of him. He WILL, however, care what that cute girl in his chemistry class or his potential new boss thinks. This will make the responses more measured, and the less measured responses more shamed. A random person saying "hey rotflmaoattheknicks, you're being f*&(^@ mean" doesn't mean as much as your co-worker saying "hey William Johnson, you're being f*&(^@ mean."
Not that the system is perfect. A lot of people don't use Facebook (though I'd imagine 98% of the sort of person who would comment on an ESPN article do), and the privacy concerns are real. Still, even though it's not perfect, it has to be better.
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Happy Birthday Tim Wakefield!
Tim Wakefield turns 45 today. Wakefield is the oldest player in baseball, 8 months and 22 days older than Omar Vizquel. Despite not being in the starting rotation to start the season, he is fourth on the team in innings. He doesn't miss many bats anymore, and gives up more homers than ever, but could, conceivably, start a postseason game for the Sox.
I'll be at Fenway tomorrow, as Wakefield takes his second shot at his 200th win. The Indians have a good lineup, though opposing pitcher Carlos Carrasco has struggled mightily recently. That should give the Sox a good chance to slug their way to a win. That would make him the 111 pitcher in history to reach the 200 win milestone. Looking further down the road, Wakefield needs 7 wins to tie Cy Young and Roger Clemens for the most wins in Red Sox history. Looking at the schedule, Wakefield would get 10-11 starts if he were to remain in the rotation, so the chances of that are slim. Still, I will be rooting for him - I've seen Wakefield pitch live (or on TV, for that matter) more than anyone else.
So Happy Birthday #49, and good luck!
I'll be at Fenway tomorrow, as Wakefield takes his second shot at his 200th win. The Indians have a good lineup, though opposing pitcher Carlos Carrasco has struggled mightily recently. That should give the Sox a good chance to slug their way to a win. That would make him the 111 pitcher in history to reach the 200 win milestone. Looking further down the road, Wakefield needs 7 wins to tie Cy Young and Roger Clemens for the most wins in Red Sox history. Looking at the schedule, Wakefield would get 10-11 starts if he were to remain in the rotation, so the chances of that are slim. Still, I will be rooting for him - I've seen Wakefield pitch live (or on TV, for that matter) more than anyone else.
So Happy Birthday #49, and good luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)