SB Nation User Blog: BillyMojo

Hijack of a GobbleForCyYoung discussion, Volume Two -- Why is the AL considered "tougher" than the NL? (or in other words, why is the NL considered weaker than the AL?)

BillyMojo — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:17:22 -0000

It was a long comment so I decided to continue my signature character and make this a fanpost on its own and remove it from the context of the original discussion. What is it that makes the NL a weaker league overall? Is it really?

Like many of our discussions we're probably oversimplifying this issue.

Or overcomplicating it. Look at us, we’ve got everyday players on our roster who hit with equal numbers (or worse) than NL pitchers. Maybe we ought to look around at the other teams in the AL and see if it’s true from team to team. I think unless everyone in the order is above .250/.300/.300 then there’s one spot in the order even in the AL that is comparable to the 9-hole hitter in the NL (pitcher).

The style of play is obviously different and we all know that, but in effect the NL managers have a more versatile “DH” concept in their application of situational offensive substitutions.

So I don’t know what the reason would be for the statistical superiority of American League pitching — or even if that’s what we’re looking at. Is is just team vs. team comparison? Or the recent historical dominance in the All-Star Game? Or just overall won-loss records in interleague play?

Is it market based? Chicago has both the White Sox and the Cubs. New York has Mets and Yankees. Los Angeles has Dodgers and effectively the Angels too. San Francisco has Giants and effectively A’s. (holding up three fingers) Out of the thirty… THIRTY major league organizations, what percentage of each league occupies major markets? Are there more ‘major market’ teams in the AL that have more $$ to spend?

I think there are too many questions to be answered to simply say that AL is tougher than NL because AL has the DH.

The NL can’t carry players like that to insert in their lineup during interleague

I’m in agreement with that. I do think though that they carry players like that and insert them in games regularly in offensive substitutions, but more often those guys that get inserted are more versatile types that get contact-hits and bunts rather than just long-balls.

I would even go so far as to have Thome on my 25-man roster in the NL for $12M and I’d probably have a defensive negative at 1B, but would that come out in the wash with the offensive positive? So if he gets tired and has to have an extra off-day per week, my league minimum utility guy can give him that day off, but if that guy comes to the plate in the 7th or 8th and I’m down by a run with someone on base no matter how many outs, my “Thome” is coming to the plate.

Lord, I was born a rambling man, and here I go again.

My Thread Hijack of GobbleforCyYoung's "Coco to the DL" fanshot

BillyMojo — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:40:09 -0000

I got excited and was typing what I was thinking, let's trade Mike Jacobs and Coco Crisp now before the break and see what we can do to improve the team; I wound up writing a reply that could generate enough to be a post on its own so here ya'all go. Food for arguments? Take it for what it's worth. Run with it.

Jake or Coco to Atlanta for

Frenchy?

Now see I don’t know a damn thing about Francoeur (spelling?) other than what I’ve read on here and I’ve seen on a Braves blog that someone has made a “Failcouer” jersey. I gather that they like him in Atlanta like we love our TPJ. They think he’s a bust and they want to get rid of him.

My whole idea of CoCo or Jake to the Braves for him could be taken as a joke, but from what I’ve read it could be taken seriously. Now if Coco went to the Braves for Frenchy, we’d still have the possibility of Jake to the Giants. What could we get from them for him?

Big point of question, to get equal value is a waste of time; but that’s an apples-to-apples thing. We obviously don’t just want to deal our apple that can’t hit lefties or field anything for the same apple. We do need to get the same line offensively though (what is Jake’s AVG/OBP/SLG? … too lazy to look it up) No so I lied. Right now overall for the year it’s .229/.312/.432 and granted we’ve still got 100 games to play in which he may bring those numbers up. Yeah well he’s leading the team with 10 dingers but that has slowed his pace down to a sub-Balbonian 26 HR’s for the year. It’s not just imaginary that it’s hard to hit 30 HR’s in a season when you play half your games at the K.

It seems to me that we could get someone who could actually play defense and put up those offensive numbers at the same time, and have it be a win-win situation for each club. Obviously we expected more out of Jake than this. But damn, didn’t we know going in that he couldn’t field or hit LHP? Is there “Seitzer” experimentation going on that we’re noobishly unaware of? Someone posted a long dealio regarding Jake’s approach the other day, noting his uncharacteristic “patience”.

Either way, who is the “orange” out there that would fit in a good trade for our “apple” Mike the Jake-o-nator. I would love to see him be the guy I want him to be but dreams are not reality. I like the good ol’ boy driving monster truck just crushing the urine out of the ball. I like his attitude. He’s my kind of player. Basically he doesn’t do anything half-assed. He either crushes the crap out of it or powerfully swings and misses. No half-assed strikeouts, but whole-hearted “aren’t you nancy-boys glad I didn’t hit that pitch” strikeouts. But enough of that; I love the Jake but the reality is he’s a negative to the team right now. (Am I wrong?) We can’t put him in a COF position where he’d be sub-JoGui could we. That’s just totally out of the question. If we could put CoCo’s legs on JoGui we’d have something, but that kind of Frankenstein dreaming is a waste of time. I’m talking reality, and to repeat the reality is that Jake don’t fit this team. (dammit)

I was excited in the off-season that we got him and Coco. Now, as reality has set in, “what she said”… not so much.

So now, go back and re-read al lthe above and substitute Covelli Crisp for Jacobs. Except for the “Plain ol Country Boy attitude” stuff and colorful vernacular. Pure numbers, make Coco the apple, and find the orange out there in the 29 other clubs who would be a win-win trade. Is there one? Are there any? Is our best strategy to just keep them both and let them ‘develop’ under our current ‘coaching’ approach? There are still 100 games to play and after a dismal what 7 wins out of the last like 30 games we are still only in the middle of June and only 5.5 games out.

Keep in mind that I still think taking second in the division this season would be a vast improvement over the last several years. I’m not disillusioned. But there’s one thing that we could do to make it all better.

“win the whole fuckin’ thing”

So seriously you guys, who cold we get in trade for Coco and Jake?

Hulett optioned to make room for Crisp

BillyMojo — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:43:33 -0000

Hulett optioned to make room for Crisp

Looks Like The Rays Fans Have Their Pre-game Excuse Lined Up

BillyMojo — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:42:46 -0000

Looks Like The Rays Fans Have Their Pre-game Excuse Lined Up

From the way they talk it sounds like they're running out their equivalent of our "bad" Banny from the past tonight.

Andy "Bannenstine" ???

The silent assasin hates ballerinas

BillyMojo — Sun, 31 May 2009 15:06:18 -0000

The silent assasin hates ballerinas

Must've looked like Leslie Nielson

BillyMojo — Fri, 29 May 2009 14:28:45 -0000

Must've looked like Leslie Nielson

In the Naked Gun movie

PCL umpire in MLB ejects 4

To satisfy my own ego... Breakout Players

BillyMojo — Fri, 15 May 2009 12:36:08 -0000

I'm making this a separate thread. I edited some errors and changed some descriptors to make it less than R-rated and added a few lines.

I posted a question under the Willie's Power is Blooming fanshot, the question was:

Can anyone recall a player who stayed in the majors for their first four or five years just being “right at replacement level” less than or equal to mediocrity; who had a breakout year and then was a .320/.400/.550 line for the next “forever” seasons until retirement?

If memory serves me correctly they break out in their first or second full year more often, or almost always.

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems the superstars get that way because they start out that way.

But I’ll tell you what, for 45 of 46 hits to be singles, and that out of 192 PA’s; projecting to the line what’s his name put up there; damned if it doesn’t look like the guy you might want batting leadoff or #2. If Willie’s gonna get tagged as a career .280/.380/.280 hitter -crap to me that looks like a fairly above average guy, and I’ll take that for modest contract money any day.

I never thought he was anything but.

Retro came back with Raul Ibanez and maybe Hoagy. Good call Retro!

And I was thinking Zack would be an example too but I disqualified him because for what it’s worth I feel like this is only his second full season as a starter. He’s not the same person he was 4-5 years ago, and call it what it is, mental illness is under control and he’s a new person. (before mud gets slung I want to say I mean no offense.) Basically Zack is now the type of superstar of which I speak.

While good, Raul and Hoagy aren’t the level I’m looking for but don’t shoot me yet let me explain. We’ve got maybe two, but I’m still leaning toward actually meaning even a higher quality player than Hoagy. I’m talking more Johnny Damon-Carlos Beltran-Ken Griffey type. I mean superstar. Isn’t that the expectation we have for Butler-Gordon-Moose-Hosmer-et al?

Hey don’t get me wrong I agree Raul and Hoagy are far better than just above average, and they did bloom a few games late.

I think a big bunch of my point lies inherently within the system. Organizations can’t afford to screw around with a guy for six years after he’s been developed in their farm system waiting for him to become something. He’s gonna have to put up or shut up, or he’ll get Mendy Lopezzed. (DFA’d or released outright) So you don’t get to see someone last that long, and/or basically it just ain’t gonna happen.

But the problem with that theory is that it flies in the face of my other faith, that coaching still makes a difference even at this elite level. There are guys at the level though that to my curmudgeonly skewed opinion have no business being there. But that allows the opportunity for the coaching to have a major impact.

So the backup for the latter point, there are a bunch of guys at the MLB level that to my curmudgeonly skewed opinion should not be there will be explained. My Grand dad taught me this at a very young age. He explained to me that the level of talent was deflated by expansion. Back in 1969 I was four years old and HE was the curmudgeon. Baseball was the American game for all boys, not soccer.

There are now thirty count ‘em thirty major league organizations all with 25 man rosters. That’s 750 roster spots to be filled by the very top of the very top level players. You’ve got to be damn good to be one of those 750. But that’s a significantly higher number of spots to be filled by prospects that have been playing ball since they were five years of age, than there were even in 1968 before THAT expansion that put the Royals and others in the league.

Back when I was five, there was no tee-ball league. We had pitchers. Every boy in town played little league baseball. How many towns had how many teams? There weren’t summer soccer leagues. We had baseball and we loved it and dreamed of playing in the bigs.

Diamondbacks, Rockies, Marlins, (Expos/Nationals), (Astros/Colt-.45’s), Brewers? (Braves moved to Atlanta from Milwaukee), (where did the Pilots go so they don’t count… aren’t they the Rangers now?), Mariners, Royals, Rays (Browns switched towns from St. Louis and became the Orioles). If my grandad were alive today, well, he’d be awful hungry and pissed off because he’s been in a box six feet under for about 29 years, but back in his day there were probably over 6,000,000 boys competing for not 750 roster spots from the age of five till the age of 18. There were only what, how many teams I should look it up to make this more like a professionally written piece but I won’t I’ll make it short and say five teams in each of four divisions for a grand total of only 500 roster spots. So there are 250 spots available now that weren’t in the “old” days. That means 250 guys that are there that by Grandpaw’s opinion, aren’t really good enough to be there. That’s a significant increase. One full third more spots.

There aren’t as many Little League programs any more. I’ve not done the research necessary to back that statement up, it’s just my observation. I don’t think that there are as many little boys playing ball these days as there were when I did it. So we are drawing talent from a smaller pool to fill a larger number of spots.

In 1990-something a guy got drafted by a big league club. Here, look up his stats.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=merribr01

Brett Merriman was born on Friday, July 15, 1966, in Jacksonville, Illinois. Merriman was 26 years old when he broke into the big leagues on April 8, 1993, with the Minnesota Twins. His biographical data, year-by-year hitting stats, fielding stats, pitching stats (where applicable), career totals, uniform numbers, salary data and miscellaneous items-of-interest are presented by Baseball Almanac on this comprehensive Brett Merriman baseball stats page.

Look at that. I would have loved to even have that career let alone be a superstar. Just to throw balls at batters for 34 games over two stressful years in spotty but still Major Leauge games. Coaching did that, through several organizations.

I can tell you from experience through peewee league, pony league, Babe Ruth league, and American Legion Baseball, this guy did not amaze me. I mean I lit this guy up like a Christmas tree, but when he’s a 15 year old pitching to a 16 year old that’s what you expect. In Babe Ruth he threw two consecutive seven inning no-hitters, but then again they were against the worst team in the league. (not my team ) But none of that crap really matters. Brett made it and I’m proud of him. (no dammit he’s not my brother) Point is, he must have got some coaching at Grand Canyon State so that he would even get looked at let alone drafted. Into a farm system where he must have had even MORE quality instruction. Then he got called up to one of those “extra” 250 spots for 34 glorious chances to play MLB.

How many players are just a little bit better than that? All those guys, the guys that are filling those 250 more roster spots, are the guys that teams need to get that little edge. That’s why I believe in this day and age coaching at the highest level is so incredibly important. It’s gonna be the guy that tweaks Farnsworth just a little bit to get two inches of movement on a fastball that goes only ONE mph slower but becomes 75% harder to hit.

Five more wins over the course of a season is complemented by FIVE FEWER losses, and in a division like the AL Central right now, that is the difference between the top and the bottom, not the top and second place. Well maybe that's a drastic statement, but it's the difference between 81-81 and 86-76.

And now for other good news I still think Gil Meche is hurt.

80-somethings

BillyMojo — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:19:58 -0000

2008 Angels

2007 Cubs

2006 Cardinals, Padres, & Dodgers (wc)

2005 Padres

2004 (none)

Don't want to go back any further but those are teams that made post-season appearances winning their divisions (and one wc) with 80-something wins. The low 90-somethings aren't a whole lot different, but they are a hell of a lot more common, and I think it has more to do with having one team in your division that is a total dog.

We aren't the total dog anymore.

The Bellhorn Syndrome - from Darren Everson in Wall Street Journal

BillyMojo — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:49:29 -0000

Article in, of all things, yesterday's Wall Street Journal on page D8 written by Darren Everson included some quotes from John Schuerholz. This article made some light bulbs go on above my head. The writer describes something he calls the "Bellhorn Syndrome" because of what Mark Bellhorn did for the BoSox in the 2004 World Series, compared to what he did during the regular season.

Additionally their are references to the swings in performance made by Brad Lildge of rthe Phillies last year compared to his previous season's suckage in Houston. As well as Tony Percival in Tampa Bay, Matt Thornton in Chicago, and Gabe Kapler in Milwaukee. The topper of all toppers though was Jeremy Affeldt's transformation from what we all saw him doing for the Royals into what he did for the Rockies.

It's made me realize that this is some of the cause for the seemingly maddening moves that GMDM and other GMs around the league are making. They are intentionally seeking that magic man that they can pick up for meager $$ that transforms somehow. To sort of quote the article, they are convinced that it is the intangible circumstance that will change a team from an 80 game winner into a 90 game winner.

It also goes on to say that this is a direct result of the increasing parity. Formerly there were a few predictably dominant teams. Now through evolution more and more small market teams are finding ways to compete and win. With the parity on the rise, it's precisely what it's going to take. That unexplainable improvement in a player whose forecast amounts to "don't touch this guy with a ten foot pole".

There has to be the counterpart to this as well. I don't have time to look it up but you guys can probably roll names of the tips of your tongues. Name the guys that went flat? You pay someone a big chunk of money based on his performance last year for another team and then his ERA for the season you have him is 1.50 higher than it was the previous year? It's maddening things such as that causing the 90 win teams to change into 80 win teams. Thoughts?

Forgive me if this is a duplicate post (Greinke)

BillyMojo — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:05:04 -0000

I've been looking and I don't have the time at the moment to verify it.

Has any pitcher ever started a season 4-0 with 0.00 ERA? If they did, how many IP's did they have? like 3 per game?

I've been looking for one. I started with most recent and haven't found any. I may just not be looking in the right places; and it's possible even that there's a duplicate post on here somewhere -- that somebody already did the research and found that even though it's early, Greinke has already done something that no other pitcher ever has done.