After the nice run of wins, these two losses probably returns some to their prior glass is half empty mental state. And I am starting to understand this phenomenon, why Giants fans get so down on the team even though the past four seasons have been the most successful period in San Francisco Giants franchise history, and among the best in Giants franchise history: it is media driven.
It started long before it became a trend, with the bad road losses, when the Giants were 8-8 on the road previously and it was fully acknowledged that it was oddities to lose to Toronto and Colorado like that. And it has spiraled downward, justifiably, ultimately, as the team succumbed to injuries that followed - which is the sole reason for the downturn, not that road trip. Enough that one beat writer, who had not written for a long time on his blog, suddenly decided that the season was over, that it was time to give up.
And now, after a nice streak of wins, you get one loss to the D-backs, after a well-pitched game by Bumgarner, you get another beat writer talking about how the Giants don't have much of a chance of winning the division, because we would need to beat both the D-backs and D-gers to get the division title, and we are in even worse position to try to get either of the wild cards.
Showing posts with label Media Bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media Bias. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Monday, June 25, 2012
Bengie's Thoughts On Timmy
Dan Brown of the Merc has a great interview with Bengie Molina that Alex Pavlovic kindly shared with his blogging audience early, which I've linked here. This is exactly what I've been saying here and other places, that Tim is fighting himself mentally. And Bengie provides a lot of good information about pitching, catching, and his thoughts on Timmy (mostly) plus some comments on Buster, and Hector Sanchez, catching in general. I highly recommend reading the article. It even noted the Chris Lincecum interview on USA Today, and Molina noted how cruel sports can be.
USA TODAY Out of Line Baiting Papa Lincecum
I would add here, like I added on the original USA Today article interview with Chris Lincecum, that it is the media that is crucifying Tim, specifically USA Today. Most fans I've seen are concerned, of course, but not "crucifying" Tim. Of course, there are whack jobs in any group, but the vast majority are still very supportive of Tim.
And they should be. As Papa Lincecum noted, Tim has given us two Cy Youngs and a Worlds Championship. We are indebted for life to Tim, is the way I see it. And his father expressed that rather forcefully in his article.
But it was not the fans bringing up that Tim could be sent to the minors, nor was it Giants management - in fact, just the day before that interview, Sabean was interviewed on CSN regarding Tim and he said, very clearly, that Lincecum is a part of our rotation, that there will be nobody will be coming in to take his spot in the rotation, and if the experts - Bochy, Righetti, and Gardner - think that Tim needs a break, then that will happen, but at that moment, they saw no need for one. Said that Tim's record "speaks for itself," that "he's our starting pitcher." As far as I can tell, it was USA Today who brought up the fact that Lincecum could be sent to the minors, to which, of course, Papa Lincecum exploded when it was brought up.
That's where the media toes the line between reporting news and making news. True, Timmy could be sent down. I've certainly been aware of that, so I'm sure others are, including Giants management. But nobody from the Giants have said that. And the Giants blogs I've been going to have not suggested that either, not even close.
What does USA Today think would happen if they brought up that fact to Chris Lincecum? What would be the logical, common sense reaction? It would be similar to asking a father what if a terrible thing happened to your child, of course you are going to get a strong negative reaction. Why put people through such a mental exercise when nobody remotely connected with the team had even intimated that something like that is possible? What purpose does it serve, other than to sell more newspapers (or in today's world, get more eyeballs reading)?
And I think USA Today generally does a very good job of reporting on baseball, so I'm disappointed in them that they took the low road in baiting Papa Lincecum with that loaded "what-if" scenario. I expect better from them. And I hope Tim knows that it was not fans nor Giants management who brought up the minors to his Dad, I hope it does not negatively affect his signing a long term deal with the Giants, as his father intimated. I'll be very angry with the USA Today if Lincecum leaves us because of their baiting of Tim's father in that interview.
USA TODAY Out of Line Baiting Papa Lincecum
I would add here, like I added on the original USA Today article interview with Chris Lincecum, that it is the media that is crucifying Tim, specifically USA Today. Most fans I've seen are concerned, of course, but not "crucifying" Tim. Of course, there are whack jobs in any group, but the vast majority are still very supportive of Tim.
And they should be. As Papa Lincecum noted, Tim has given us two Cy Youngs and a Worlds Championship. We are indebted for life to Tim, is the way I see it. And his father expressed that rather forcefully in his article.
But it was not the fans bringing up that Tim could be sent to the minors, nor was it Giants management - in fact, just the day before that interview, Sabean was interviewed on CSN regarding Tim and he said, very clearly, that Lincecum is a part of our rotation, that there will be nobody will be coming in to take his spot in the rotation, and if the experts - Bochy, Righetti, and Gardner - think that Tim needs a break, then that will happen, but at that moment, they saw no need for one. Said that Tim's record "speaks for itself," that "he's our starting pitcher." As far as I can tell, it was USA Today who brought up the fact that Lincecum could be sent to the minors, to which, of course, Papa Lincecum exploded when it was brought up.
That's where the media toes the line between reporting news and making news. True, Timmy could be sent down. I've certainly been aware of that, so I'm sure others are, including Giants management. But nobody from the Giants have said that. And the Giants blogs I've been going to have not suggested that either, not even close.
What does USA Today think would happen if they brought up that fact to Chris Lincecum? What would be the logical, common sense reaction? It would be similar to asking a father what if a terrible thing happened to your child, of course you are going to get a strong negative reaction. Why put people through such a mental exercise when nobody remotely connected with the team had even intimated that something like that is possible? What purpose does it serve, other than to sell more newspapers (or in today's world, get more eyeballs reading)?
And I think USA Today generally does a very good job of reporting on baseball, so I'm disappointed in them that they took the low road in baiting Papa Lincecum with that loaded "what-if" scenario. I expect better from them. And I hope Tim knows that it was not fans nor Giants management who brought up the minors to his Dad, I hope it does not negatively affect his signing a long term deal with the Giants, as his father intimated. I'll be very angry with the USA Today if Lincecum leaves us because of their baiting of Tim's father in that interview.
Friday, June 08, 2012
Your 2012 Giants: Shark Infested McCovey Cove Welcomed
Gregor Blanco has been a great addition to the team. We were lucky he fell into our laps, the Chronicle had a nice article about that (and how Brian Johnson came to our rescue again). He is the Vogelsong of the 2012 campaign, who was the Torres of the 2011 campaign, and who was the Uribe of the 2010 campaign. I had been meaning to write on him and the below I had posted on El Lefty Malo and, of course, tweaked it (a lot) for publishing here, as per usual, as is my wont.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Media's Biased Influence, Once Again
One of my pet peeves about the media is that they bias their writing, which either influences the audience to feel a certain way, and/or caters to that stance. As usual, the Giants offense is good boy that gets punished.
One reporter notes, "Given eight innings against one of the league's worst bullpens, the Giants couldn't overcome a deficit..." It was 8-0 and they scored 5 runs in 8 innings. Even Murderer's Row Yankees rarely overcame an 8-0 deficit, though (had to count them) they had an amazing 35 games out of 152 where they scored 9 or more runs (not going to check how many 8 run deficits are overcome by a team). And that's a 5.63 ERA on the part of the bullpen, not exactly stellar.
Another newspaper similarly headlined that the Giants couldn't overcome Barry Zito's start, like that is the offense's fault.
They scored 5 runs, which is plenty enough to win most games. There aren't any team today that can regularly overcome an 8-0 deficit. Even the best offense would have trouble scoring 9 runs, while down 8 runs. The offense did well to do what they did. The headline should have been more about Zito's poor start exacerbated by poor defense, not about the offense not overcoming an 8-0 deficit.
The biggest comeback win this season was 6 runs in the NL. Only 47 of the 706 games played in the NL this season even had one team score 9 runs, let alone come back from an 8-0 deficit. The Giants offense did a great job coming back. At least the Chronicle acknowledged that, noting "never-say-die" spirit.
Giants Showing More Offensive Fight
That's what I've been saying since Matt Cained the D-backs with his 2-run double and broke up that doubleplay, the Giants have been showing a lot more fight, either winning the games or at least coming back despite being behind, though there have been plenty of games where they overcame deficits to win. Cain showed the offense how it's done, and he has won his last two starts because of the offense, not in spite of it, as he hasn't been quite the Cain we know and love.
This is the spirit a team needs to win their division and go deep into the playoffs. I'm still hoping that the May 12th game was the turning point for our team. So far, it has been.
One reporter notes, "Given eight innings against one of the league's worst bullpens, the Giants couldn't overcome a deficit..." It was 8-0 and they scored 5 runs in 8 innings. Even Murderer's Row Yankees rarely overcame an 8-0 deficit, though (had to count them) they had an amazing 35 games out of 152 where they scored 9 or more runs (not going to check how many 8 run deficits are overcome by a team). And that's a 5.63 ERA on the part of the bullpen, not exactly stellar.
Another newspaper similarly headlined that the Giants couldn't overcome Barry Zito's start, like that is the offense's fault.
They scored 5 runs, which is plenty enough to win most games. There aren't any team today that can regularly overcome an 8-0 deficit. Even the best offense would have trouble scoring 9 runs, while down 8 runs. The offense did well to do what they did. The headline should have been more about Zito's poor start exacerbated by poor defense, not about the offense not overcoming an 8-0 deficit.
The biggest comeback win this season was 6 runs in the NL. Only 47 of the 706 games played in the NL this season even had one team score 9 runs, let alone come back from an 8-0 deficit. The Giants offense did a great job coming back. At least the Chronicle acknowledged that, noting "never-say-die" spirit.
Giants Showing More Offensive Fight
That's what I've been saying since Matt Cained the D-backs with his 2-run double and broke up that doubleplay, the Giants have been showing a lot more fight, either winning the games or at least coming back despite being behind, though there have been plenty of games where they overcame deficits to win. Cain showed the offense how it's done, and he has won his last two starts because of the offense, not in spite of it, as he hasn't been quite the Cain we know and love.
This is the spirit a team needs to win their division and go deep into the playoffs. I'm still hoping that the May 12th game was the turning point for our team. So far, it has been.
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Media Bias Warps Fans Views
I love reporters - I read the newspaper almost every day - and the Giants are blessed to have good reporters covering them in Andy Baggarly, Hank Schulman, and Chris Haft (plus John Shea Hey often fills in for Hank). They add immeasurably to our enjoyment of our favorite team by bringing us the news regularly and also busting scoops, like Neukom getting replaced. But their bias against the Giants (and if it is just misunderstanding on their part, well, the result is still bias) has colored the fan base against Sabean and Bochy.
The latest writings to get my dander up are by Baggarly and Haft (Shea has often gotten be riled up as well, and I assume Schulman has at some point, but not that I can recall at the moment). And Haft got me riled up with another post he had.
Baggarly
I love Baggs and he brings the most and best news about the Giants to us fans. So I feel a tinge of guilt to pointing him out, but somebody needs to point out the Emperor's new clothes.
First is a minor quibble, but still, his is a widely known, well-respected source of Giants information. He noted that "Sandoval batted .379 from his (natural) right side". Only, his natural side is his left side, as he was born left-handed, but learned (and pretty well) how to throw right-handed. The story is that Sandoval's hero at some point was Omar Vizquel, so he wanted to play SS to emulate his hero, but, obviously, left-handers can't play SS, so he learned to throw right-handed in order to play SS, and from then on he was right-handed, for all intents and purposes. (that's actually a common thing, my mom was left-handed but did a lot of things right-handed)
The other I was more perturbed by, which is when he said that Bochy "preferred Orlando Cabrera to Crawford later in the summer." Because he has inside information, the way it is written, he makes it looks like Bochy preferred Cabrera. What I want to make clear is that any manager should know that having a younger player is better than having an older player, if they are equal in performance.
So that is the conundrum, was Crawford better than Cabrera. At that point, Crawford hadn't played much above the A-level, so all we really had to judge him was his results at the major league level. At the time of the trade, he was batting .190/.275/.261/.536, but if you took away his first two good weeks of hitting, over the next seven weeks (June 9-July 30, when trade for Cabrera), he hit .161/.242/.196/.438 in 29 games started and 37 games played.
So sure, Cabrera was not doing that well, but Crawford at the time of the trade had been hitting poorly over the prior 7 weeks (almost 2 full months of starting, putting the lie to people complaining that Giants management don't play young players), but his hitting was plummeting, as his last three weeks he was hitting .100/.l62/.100/.282, which does not take a sabermetric degree to figure out isn't really good. Really, do people need to make it personal that Bochy and Sabean hates young players or prefer Cabrera over Crawford?
The point was not that Cabrera wasn't any good anymore, nor that the Giants preferred Cabrera over Crawford, but that Crawford had cratered offensively and the Giants felt that he needed to back off, take some time in the minors to fix some things they saw, plus hopefully Cabrera could put in a finishing kick (unfortunately he didn't). Ultimately, the Giants prefer production and Crawford wasn't giving it to them, so they rolled the dice with Cabrera. I have no problem with that, particularly if they thought that Crawford could use the lesser pressure and learn some new batting techniques.
And you know what, the Giants did figure out something. Crawford when he came back was an improved hitter, he hit .225/.295/.325/.620, 12 starts in September plus some other games he got into. If he can hit that over a full season, it would be great to go with his stellar defense at SS. I preferred Cabrera over Crawford given how poorly Crawford was doing for a long time (almost 2 months) plus was doing nothing offensively for almost a month. And it had nothing to do with "preferring Cabrera over Crawford", at least from the numbers perspective. And now I hope the Giants give Crawford the chance to start, but with someone backing up who could keep the seat warm if Crawford still needs some tweaking down in the minors.
That short stretch and his nice showing in the AFL (though he tailed off at the end, but that could have been because he was distracted by his upcoming nuptials) plus, more importantly, his OK contact rate in the majors, he had a 84% contract rate overall (good hitters are at 85% and higher), plus improved by month, 80.5% in June, 84.4% in July, 86.0% in September. I understand small samples and all, but I think that the 84% overall bodes well for the future, plus he improved over time.
In another recent post, (I had intended this to go out on Saturday but somehow screwed that up) he also opined that "you could argue that Sabean should have a larger budget than $130M, after the Giants sold out every game last season. You might be right." Then again, maybe you won't.
OK, I wrote something I wanted to bring over here at Extra Baggs but apparently my comment got removed by his moderator (his ears must have been burning with this sitting waiting to post :^). There are a lot of factors involved with the revenues that prevents them from spending more. Sure, selling out makes a lot of revenues but it also means that you pay a lot more in revenue sharing. The Giants are basically paying into that what the A's get, and the A's have just been pocketing that money instead of making the team good enough to compete and draw bigger crowds in Oakland, they are the team fans should be badgering about increasing their payroll.
In addition, their revenue sharing went up because they accounted for the stadium cost over a 10 year period, per the revenue sharing rules, and thus they started paying even more into revenue sharing starting in 2011.
Plus, they have a host of stadium related expenses which the Giants fans were unwilling to vote to give to the team so they had to build their own park. First and most of all is the $20M mortgage payment, which is mostly principal by now, so they have less interest to write off, taking away more income that they could add to payroll. There is also the stadium upkeep that they have to do because they do own the park. The events they hold there when baseball is not playing helps offset that, but I doubt it covers the entire bill for a full year worth.
I would also point out that a sell-out at SF is not a huge park, it can only hold 42,000 fans, which about average among the top teams. And they averaged $26 per ticket in 2010, the lowest among the top seven teams in valuation. The Red Sox, for example, averaged $53 per ticket in 2010, the Yankees $63. The other were at or just above $30 per ticket. So while they are selling out, apparently that has more to do with their fancy dynamic ticket pricing to ensure sell-outs.
Their payroll in 2010 was in line with their revenues. Player expenses was $114M in 2010 vs. gate receipts of $107M. The Yankees had $236M vs. $300M in gate. Red Sox, $187M vs. $176M in gate. D-gers, $118M vs. $107M in gate. Cubs, $157M vs. $146M in gate. Mets, $139M vs. $123M in gate. And Phillies with $150M in revenues and $124M in gate. And they bumped up their payroll for 2011 to the $120M range.
So, no, I don't think an argument could be made for the Giants spending much more than $130M on payroll in 2012, not unless Larry Ellison bought the team and put all his billions into the team. Until that happens, or until the prices catches up with the top teams and top $30 per ticket, which would add around $15M to the gate (and maybe that happened in 2011, but still that only bumps player expenses to around $122M per the Forbes numbers).
Haft
Now, he wasn't as bad as I had initially thought. Still, he makes the case that adding Melky Cabrera is not "enough to correct the vast imbalance between their skilled pitching and somnolent hitting." Well, as I showed in the Posey post, yeah, it does, because he is forgetting that Posey is part of the new mix in the offense in 2012. Why do people not get that losing one of your best hitters, particularly your clean-up batter, does not cripple the offense?
Then in the article about the extensions for Sabean and Bochy, he noted some other things. In response to Baer, he retorts:
And Bochy was hampered first by the tight-fisted Padres' owners, who dismantled his World Series team right after they made it in, causing him to suffer through 5 losing seasons before the team was rebuilt to win again, plus he took over the Giants during their rebuilding phase, but if you are keeping track, he has three winning seasons with the Giants versus two losing, and does not look like he'll be losing any in the coming seasons either.
Giants Thoughts
These inaccuracies are what are coloring many of the Giants fans thoughts regarding the team. They are teaching this fan base, which are not obsessive enough to dig deeper and thus rely on the beat writers to guide them, to spout the same inaccuracies when they go on-line or talk with their Giants fan friends.
I also just realized that beat writers have a vested interest in having a riled up fan base. I'm not accusing any of them of doing this on purpose or knowingly, but it would make logical sense for them to mislead the fan base in order to keep them disgruntled.
That is something I realized about KNBR night-time hosts, they must have realized at some intellectual level that they need to push the buttons and be controversial and hard on the Giants to keep the callers coming in and goading the callers to call in to complain about the Giants, mainly because a contented fan base do not have much interest in calling in and complimenting the Giants. In fact, all that would be necessary is one call praising the Giants and that would be it. Crickets chirping the rest of the 3-4 hours of the show. So it behooves them to get the fan base riled up and calling in, by pointing out everything and anything, paticularly by biasing the audience towards a touchy-feely position (he loves vets, he signed bad contracts) that really doesn't hold up when the facts are piled on top of each other, but when talking off the cuff, can be easily defended for people who are not really that into the Giants and where facts are not as readily discovered and presented.
Basically, if the fanbase were happy, there probably would not be as much people talking about the Giants and complaining about them in particular. It is just human nature not to have the impetus to say or do anything when things are going well. Less people talking equals less people buying newspapers to see what is happening, less people visiting their websites to see what is happening, less people following his twitters to see what is happening. less people calling into shows, less people listening to shows. This makes economic (survival) sense to keep the fans at least a little hungry and angry, as that stirs up interest in your product, which is news.
It is like the story about the guy who started eBay because his girlfriend at the time wanted to sell her collection of Pez dispensers. Which wasn't true, but the eBay publicist gave that out on a lark, apparently, and that story got legs like you wouldn't know it, as one columnist after another, assuming that the original story was true (it was told by an eBay employee afterall), passed it along. I thought it was true until I read an article exposing that lie.
It is also similar to the Barry Bonds "I'm better than Babe Ruth" comment a few (OK, many) years back. He clearly (to the reporters who knew him) was joking about that, but one reporter who was there didn't know him, so he just reported that verbatim without the context that Bonds was clearly joking, and that blew into a media storm, as one writer after another assumed that the story was true, which culminated with the head of the Babe Ruth Museum taking a pot shot at Bonds.
Another Bonds incident that got blown up and passed around like a joint was when he angrily addressed the throng of writers crowding up to speak to him after the Giants lost the 2002 World Series. Most of them presented him as a surly angry person in their articles regarding that interview, but the ones up front made it clear that when he told everyone to back off in a loud voice, it was because the idiots in the back were pushing forward and the reporters up front threatened to crush Bonds' son, who was with him.
In neither Bonds case, once the truth was known, none of the writers would write a follow-up article noting, "Ooops, I got that one wrong, sorry". But it sure generated a lot of columns and a lot of interest (lots of comments bashing Bonds).
But while I understand that this is the nature of the beast, it does not mean I have to be happy about it either. I hate inaccuracies in the news with a passion, because that will color people's imprressions for a long time, whether true or false. And particularly in the case of the Giants, as I am afraid that the ownership might decide to appease the angry willagers with their pitchforks and torches asking for the heads of Sabean and Bochy.
I will join them and lead the way with my pitchfork when I think Sabean and Bochy are doing anything to endanger the Giants present and future. But as I've been writing for over 4 years now, Sabean has the Giants on the right track and in a good situation. We can be the team of the 2010's decade if the ownership is willing to make it so with their payroll, dipping into the rainy day fund as necessary, freeing Sabean to make baseball moves. I was more encouraged when Neukom was in charge, but will allow Baer time to show his true colors. And as I've written and research on Bochy as well, I've realized that he's a special one too. I am happy for their extensions, they were well deserved.
The latest writings to get my dander up are by Baggarly and Haft (Shea has often gotten be riled up as well, and I assume Schulman has at some point, but not that I can recall at the moment). And Haft got me riled up with another post he had.
Baggarly
I love Baggs and he brings the most and best news about the Giants to us fans. So I feel a tinge of guilt to pointing him out, but somebody needs to point out the Emperor's new clothes.
First is a minor quibble, but still, his is a widely known, well-respected source of Giants information. He noted that "Sandoval batted .379 from his (natural) right side". Only, his natural side is his left side, as he was born left-handed, but learned (and pretty well) how to throw right-handed. The story is that Sandoval's hero at some point was Omar Vizquel, so he wanted to play SS to emulate his hero, but, obviously, left-handers can't play SS, so he learned to throw right-handed in order to play SS, and from then on he was right-handed, for all intents and purposes. (that's actually a common thing, my mom was left-handed but did a lot of things right-handed)
The other I was more perturbed by, which is when he said that Bochy "preferred Orlando Cabrera to Crawford later in the summer." Because he has inside information, the way it is written, he makes it looks like Bochy preferred Cabrera. What I want to make clear is that any manager should know that having a younger player is better than having an older player, if they are equal in performance.
So that is the conundrum, was Crawford better than Cabrera. At that point, Crawford hadn't played much above the A-level, so all we really had to judge him was his results at the major league level. At the time of the trade, he was batting .190/.275/.261/.536, but if you took away his first two good weeks of hitting, over the next seven weeks (June 9-July 30, when trade for Cabrera), he hit .161/.242/.196/.438 in 29 games started and 37 games played.
So sure, Cabrera was not doing that well, but Crawford at the time of the trade had been hitting poorly over the prior 7 weeks (almost 2 full months of starting, putting the lie to people complaining that Giants management don't play young players), but his hitting was plummeting, as his last three weeks he was hitting .100/.l62/.100/.282, which does not take a sabermetric degree to figure out isn't really good. Really, do people need to make it personal that Bochy and Sabean hates young players or prefer Cabrera over Crawford?
The point was not that Cabrera wasn't any good anymore, nor that the Giants preferred Cabrera over Crawford, but that Crawford had cratered offensively and the Giants felt that he needed to back off, take some time in the minors to fix some things they saw, plus hopefully Cabrera could put in a finishing kick (unfortunately he didn't). Ultimately, the Giants prefer production and Crawford wasn't giving it to them, so they rolled the dice with Cabrera. I have no problem with that, particularly if they thought that Crawford could use the lesser pressure and learn some new batting techniques.
And you know what, the Giants did figure out something. Crawford when he came back was an improved hitter, he hit .225/.295/.325/.620, 12 starts in September plus some other games he got into. If he can hit that over a full season, it would be great to go with his stellar defense at SS. I preferred Cabrera over Crawford given how poorly Crawford was doing for a long time (almost 2 months) plus was doing nothing offensively for almost a month. And it had nothing to do with "preferring Cabrera over Crawford", at least from the numbers perspective. And now I hope the Giants give Crawford the chance to start, but with someone backing up who could keep the seat warm if Crawford still needs some tweaking down in the minors.
That short stretch and his nice showing in the AFL (though he tailed off at the end, but that could have been because he was distracted by his upcoming nuptials) plus, more importantly, his OK contact rate in the majors, he had a 84% contract rate overall (good hitters are at 85% and higher), plus improved by month, 80.5% in June, 84.4% in July, 86.0% in September. I understand small samples and all, but I think that the 84% overall bodes well for the future, plus he improved over time.
In another recent post, (I had intended this to go out on Saturday but somehow screwed that up) he also opined that "you could argue that Sabean should have a larger budget than $130M, after the Giants sold out every game last season. You might be right." Then again, maybe you won't.
OK, I wrote something I wanted to bring over here at Extra Baggs but apparently my comment got removed by his moderator (his ears must have been burning with this sitting waiting to post :^). There are a lot of factors involved with the revenues that prevents them from spending more. Sure, selling out makes a lot of revenues but it also means that you pay a lot more in revenue sharing. The Giants are basically paying into that what the A's get, and the A's have just been pocketing that money instead of making the team good enough to compete and draw bigger crowds in Oakland, they are the team fans should be badgering about increasing their payroll.
In addition, their revenue sharing went up because they accounted for the stadium cost over a 10 year period, per the revenue sharing rules, and thus they started paying even more into revenue sharing starting in 2011.
Plus, they have a host of stadium related expenses which the Giants fans were unwilling to vote to give to the team so they had to build their own park. First and most of all is the $20M mortgage payment, which is mostly principal by now, so they have less interest to write off, taking away more income that they could add to payroll. There is also the stadium upkeep that they have to do because they do own the park. The events they hold there when baseball is not playing helps offset that, but I doubt it covers the entire bill for a full year worth.
I would also point out that a sell-out at SF is not a huge park, it can only hold 42,000 fans, which about average among the top teams. And they averaged $26 per ticket in 2010, the lowest among the top seven teams in valuation. The Red Sox, for example, averaged $53 per ticket in 2010, the Yankees $63. The other were at or just above $30 per ticket. So while they are selling out, apparently that has more to do with their fancy dynamic ticket pricing to ensure sell-outs.
Their payroll in 2010 was in line with their revenues. Player expenses was $114M in 2010 vs. gate receipts of $107M. The Yankees had $236M vs. $300M in gate. Red Sox, $187M vs. $176M in gate. D-gers, $118M vs. $107M in gate. Cubs, $157M vs. $146M in gate. Mets, $139M vs. $123M in gate. And Phillies with $150M in revenues and $124M in gate. And they bumped up their payroll for 2011 to the $120M range.
So, no, I don't think an argument could be made for the Giants spending much more than $130M on payroll in 2012, not unless Larry Ellison bought the team and put all his billions into the team. Until that happens, or until the prices catches up with the top teams and top $30 per ticket, which would add around $15M to the gate (and maybe that happened in 2011, but still that only bumps player expenses to around $122M per the Forbes numbers).
Haft
Now, he wasn't as bad as I had initially thought. Still, he makes the case that adding Melky Cabrera is not "enough to correct the vast imbalance between their skilled pitching and somnolent hitting." Well, as I showed in the Posey post, yeah, it does, because he is forgetting that Posey is part of the new mix in the offense in 2012. Why do people not get that losing one of your best hitters, particularly your clean-up batter, does not cripple the offense?
Then in the article about the extensions for Sabean and Bochy, he noted some other things. In response to Baer, he retorts:
"I strongly believe that Brian and Bruce are the best at their crafts in the game," Baer said.That just totally ignores the fact that there was a rebuilding in the middle of all that, a rebuilding and losing that was necessary to restoring competitiveness. Plus, he didn't really name anyone with more winning teams, probably because there are FEW who have, as Sabean is the longest tenured GM, some GMs out there have not even GMed as many seasons as Sabean has had winning seasons (11 winning teams, by the way).
Other current GMs have assembled more winning teams than Sabean, who has built five postseason qualifiers (1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2010). A handful of active managers have tasted triumph more consistently than Bochy, whose teams have finished 1,360-1,376, including 409-401 by the Giants since 2007.
And Bochy was hampered first by the tight-fisted Padres' owners, who dismantled his World Series team right after they made it in, causing him to suffer through 5 losing seasons before the team was rebuilt to win again, plus he took over the Giants during their rebuilding phase, but if you are keeping track, he has three winning seasons with the Giants versus two losing, and does not look like he'll be losing any in the coming seasons either.
Giants Thoughts
These inaccuracies are what are coloring many of the Giants fans thoughts regarding the team. They are teaching this fan base, which are not obsessive enough to dig deeper and thus rely on the beat writers to guide them, to spout the same inaccuracies when they go on-line or talk with their Giants fan friends.
I also just realized that beat writers have a vested interest in having a riled up fan base. I'm not accusing any of them of doing this on purpose or knowingly, but it would make logical sense for them to mislead the fan base in order to keep them disgruntled.
That is something I realized about KNBR night-time hosts, they must have realized at some intellectual level that they need to push the buttons and be controversial and hard on the Giants to keep the callers coming in and goading the callers to call in to complain about the Giants, mainly because a contented fan base do not have much interest in calling in and complimenting the Giants. In fact, all that would be necessary is one call praising the Giants and that would be it. Crickets chirping the rest of the 3-4 hours of the show. So it behooves them to get the fan base riled up and calling in, by pointing out everything and anything, paticularly by biasing the audience towards a touchy-feely position (he loves vets, he signed bad contracts) that really doesn't hold up when the facts are piled on top of each other, but when talking off the cuff, can be easily defended for people who are not really that into the Giants and where facts are not as readily discovered and presented.
Basically, if the fanbase were happy, there probably would not be as much people talking about the Giants and complaining about them in particular. It is just human nature not to have the impetus to say or do anything when things are going well. Less people talking equals less people buying newspapers to see what is happening, less people visiting their websites to see what is happening, less people following his twitters to see what is happening. less people calling into shows, less people listening to shows. This makes economic (survival) sense to keep the fans at least a little hungry and angry, as that stirs up interest in your product, which is news.
It is like the story about the guy who started eBay because his girlfriend at the time wanted to sell her collection of Pez dispensers. Which wasn't true, but the eBay publicist gave that out on a lark, apparently, and that story got legs like you wouldn't know it, as one columnist after another, assuming that the original story was true (it was told by an eBay employee afterall), passed it along. I thought it was true until I read an article exposing that lie.
It is also similar to the Barry Bonds "I'm better than Babe Ruth" comment a few (OK, many) years back. He clearly (to the reporters who knew him) was joking about that, but one reporter who was there didn't know him, so he just reported that verbatim without the context that Bonds was clearly joking, and that blew into a media storm, as one writer after another assumed that the story was true, which culminated with the head of the Babe Ruth Museum taking a pot shot at Bonds.
Another Bonds incident that got blown up and passed around like a joint was when he angrily addressed the throng of writers crowding up to speak to him after the Giants lost the 2002 World Series. Most of them presented him as a surly angry person in their articles regarding that interview, but the ones up front made it clear that when he told everyone to back off in a loud voice, it was because the idiots in the back were pushing forward and the reporters up front threatened to crush Bonds' son, who was with him.
In neither Bonds case, once the truth was known, none of the writers would write a follow-up article noting, "Ooops, I got that one wrong, sorry". But it sure generated a lot of columns and a lot of interest (lots of comments bashing Bonds).
But while I understand that this is the nature of the beast, it does not mean I have to be happy about it either. I hate inaccuracies in the news with a passion, because that will color people's imprressions for a long time, whether true or false. And particularly in the case of the Giants, as I am afraid that the ownership might decide to appease the angry willagers with their pitchforks and torches asking for the heads of Sabean and Bochy.
I will join them and lead the way with my pitchfork when I think Sabean and Bochy are doing anything to endanger the Giants present and future. But as I've been writing for over 4 years now, Sabean has the Giants on the right track and in a good situation. We can be the team of the 2010's decade if the ownership is willing to make it so with their payroll, dipping into the rainy day fund as necessary, freeing Sabean to make baseball moves. I was more encouraged when Neukom was in charge, but will allow Baer time to show his true colors. And as I've written and research on Bochy as well, I've realized that he's a special one too. I am happy for their extensions, they were well deserved.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Optimism: In the Eye of the Beholder
Many commenters have called me optimistic over the years. When I was a frequent contributor at McCovey Chronicles (until I was driven away by the Naysayers), there was a regular (who I think is a mod, bad memory but I think his handle was Goofus), who would ask "I need to hear something good about the Giants: ogc?" (and he meant it in the nicest way possible) I've been called Pollyanna for my efforts as well.
I can see why people see me that way, but I've been blessed/cursed with the ability/need to see all the sides of the story, no matter the situation. And that helped me survive my dad passing away when I was young and has served me well all my life. But the curse is that some view me as wishy-washy because of that.
However, I can live with the messiness that is life, there is the good, the bad, and the ugly, this is not something others with OCD tendencies can do. For those with long memories, I view myself much like Marvel Comic's character, the Watcher, in observing the Giants (except that I'm rooting for the Giants, while the Watcher is stoic).
What this reminds me of is a common conundrum in business investing. Sometimes, the key difference between whether one person/company invests while another avoids is because where one sees risk, the other sees opportunity. It is not necessarily a matter of risk tolerance either, though that is a huge factor in a lot of situations, but there are cases where success and failure swings clearly on the point of view of the observer, their perspective of the situation.
Lets take the Giants, for example, since this is a Giants blog :^). I have been seeing a lot of negative talk in the media. And I understand that, the Giants are in a bad stretch of losing right now, and to teams they should to beating. I could point out names but really, most of the Giants media are beating the negative drum. Same for Giants fans, but that seems to go without saying, unfortunately.
Again, I understand that. It's never good to be losing 17 out of 24 games. To lose games that you should be winning. To watch good pitchers suddenly lose it and cost us the game. To watch hitters not produce. I get that.
But I've also been following baseball for 40 years now (whew, just realized that!). Plus, I love history, so I've read about (and perused through baseball-reference.com) a lot of baseball pennant chases and epic successes and fails on the playoff front, like the Boston Braves in 1914 or the 1964 Phillies, or more recently, the Rockies with their late season drives or the Padres last season. So I've both seen a lot plus know a lot.
Two games behind is nothing. A lead like that can disappear in two days. We know it and we've seen it (like last season for the Giants or really any season, any team).
We've also seen teams go from good to bad to good again. We know it and we've seen it (like last season for the Giants or really any season, any team).
Lots of Giants fans see "losing, losing, and more losing" and they lose their heads and say the sky is falling. I've seen it many times over the years, I've seen it last year and this year. They have a terrible angst about losing, from June Swoons to worries about the offense, "the bad son", while the pitching, "the good son", is totally ignored.
Great Pitching Makes Winning Easier
We have a lot of great pitching. Maybe they are tired from the long extended run in 2010. Probably not, at least overall, as my data showed about how the pitching is doing in August. They certainly have been more inconsistent than they have been this season, but then again, they were very insistent last season as well, until they righted the ship and dominated in September and October. Doesn't mean it will happen now, but they are great pitchers and have accomplished a lot, including their streak of 18 straight games with 3 runs or less given up, 23 straight games with 4 runs or less given up, that they did in September of last season.
That's not optimism. That's a fact: we have great pitching. Great pitching keeps us in a lot of games. Sure, they will cough up games like they did yesterday, or when BWeez blew his save. But more often than not, they have done the job for us. Plus, the better the pitchers, the less the offense has to do in order to win.
Doesn't mean that they will do it for us this month or this season, I totally agree. But it won't stop me from enjoying these games in September. Baseball is meant to be enjoyed. Else why get so passionate about it?
Media: Nattering Nabobs of Negativism
I think the media is at fault for at least part of that. That seems to be how the media operates, I've learned. Whether the stock market (with the quarter to quarter obsession that investors generally have) or baseball, where all they can write about is the here and now negativeness.
Honestly, I find that to be very knee-jerk reactionary. I hate the swings from the highs to the lows - unless it is warranted. But I saw that a lot in investing, a stock with no news at all could lose or gain 10 percent in a short period of time, just because people were nervous or not.
It could be bad news about the economy.
Followed by good news.
Followed by bad news.
Followed by good news.
One could get whiplash following all that. I see the similarities in baseball.
It is all about "what are you doing now". Bad quarterly earnings report? Totally negative investor vibe and stock losses. Bad losing streak? Total negative fan vibe, lots of bitching and moaning.
Even Keel
If you are like that, my blog is not for you. I try to steer an even keel, but will be positive when warranted, negative when warranted.
An optimist, to me, is someone who thinks positively about the situation without considering the negatives. That is the heart of the definition of optimist: a person disposed to take a favorable view of things." I don't view myself that way.
If I were a doctor, I would be a horrible doctor in that I would tell people when there is no hope. I see no gain from sugar-coating the reality. My bluntness has been softened by years of socializing, but that's where my brain goes to first.
I present the positives mainly because the negatives are all out there and part of my assumption is that my readers know all about the negatives there, that they are savvy enough fans who do not need me to hold their hand, that they are looking for that extra edge in understanding the Giants chances for making the playoffs.
If there were relentless optimism out there, I would point out the negatives, like, we only have 4 healthy starters right now, Wilson might not get healthy anytime this season, Beltran too, someone has noticed Pablo getting fatter, we have no reliable lead-off hitter, and our offense is still sputtering.
Pitching Staff Rules!
Still, overall, there is our lovely starting pitching and great bullpen. As it showed to great effect last season and this season, we can win a lot of games despite poor offense. They averaged 3.66 RS per game the last month, yet the team still went 19-10 because they only allowed 2.07 runs per game that last month. The Pythagorean on that is 21-8, so they actually underperformed.
So about yesterday's loss by the Giants. People forget that Cain is human. People forget, but he lost a key game for us in the final series against the 'Dres last season, he did not come through for us. Of course, he really came through for us in the playoffs, spinning 21.1 IP of pure shutout gold for us in 3 starts.
That's the key to the Giants pulling the division title out of the hat this season, yeah, sometimes our pitching sucks, but more often than not, they come through big time, like the 9.1 IP of shut-out relief by the bullpen the other day or Lincecum giving up only one run in his loss.
Still, if you want to focus on the negative, the pitching has not been doing its job lately, and for a long while. Since July 3rd, the pitching had kept the opposition from scoring more than 3 runs only 23 out of 45 games, per my metric on the side. They have only been 23-22 in keeping the opposition from scoring 4 runs or more. That is why they have been 20-25 since then.
Enjoy the Ride, Enjoy the Season
Will our heroes come through? That is the drama that I enjoy, whether we make the playoffs or not. Of course, I'll be bummed, but I will have the shiny and great pitching staff plus blossoming middle lineup (Sandoval, Posey, Belt) to keep me warm for the next few seasons. As well as a shiny 2010 World Championship trophy!
So enjoy the pennant chase, Giants fans. That is something Pirates and Royals fans have not enjoyed for nearly a generation now.
Enjoy our great pitching. This is something that does not come around often, but when it does, you have to enjoy it. You can bitch all you want about the offense, but remember this: baseball is a zero sum game, any improvements in offense would have come at a cost to our pitching (and perhaps fielding too; see Keppinger).
Think about all the fans who wanted to trade away Cain. Think about all the fans who wanted to trade away Lincecum. Think about all the fans who wanted to break up the pitching in order to get the offense. Think about what won us our championship: it was our pitching, period.
Mistakes are a Given: It is What You Do to Make up For Them
When pitching is this good, you don't need good offense, you don't even need average offense, though, obviously, that is preferable. I would love to have great offense, but accept that this is the cost of having a great pitching staff. The people who all point to the mistakes on offense that have occurred over the years are more OCD than I am: mistakes will happen.
The key in any business is: how does your strategic plan still function when mistakes are made? Is it flexible enough to handle tactical issues, like a lot of injuries, or unexpected poor performances?
People write off unexpected good performances as luck, but the fact of the matter is that in life, there will always be unexpected good and bad performances, and they tend to balance out over time. It has nothing to do with luck, it has to do with there being a balance in life. Many view the unexpected good as luck, but that is how the baseball bounces sometimes, one player's good luck is another player's bad luck. I see people noting the good luck of Burrell hitting well for us last season, but they then ignore the bad luck of Panda being Pablo instead.
And as much as injuries have hurt the Giants this season, I think that last year was very injury marred as well. DeRosa was basically done before the season began, too bad he was too stubborn to see that and ended up starting a bunch of games before DLing. Renteria was never really that healthy until his tendon snapped off. Molina suffered from injuries from foul balls in May that he never recovered from, he was hitting .880 on May 12th then faded from there. Schierholtz was injured early and he reported afterward that he came back too soon and never really fully recovered. Franchez was injured early too and missed a number of games. Rowand was hit in the face with a HBP, and while he hit well once he came back, he has not been the same since, he at least in his first two seasons hit well for 3-4 months before disappointing, but he hasn't been good for any extended period. Torres missed a lot of the pennant race with his appendicitis. Guillen was hitting .800 OPS for us for 6-7 weeks until his neck problem made him horrible for the last 1-2 weeks of the season.
There were pitcher injuries too. Wellemeyer was injured. Affeldt missed a while on the DL. Runzler suffered a bad injury as well. If I recall right, Ray also had some sort of injury. Mota made the DL once, as well.
So it is not like we were "lucky" about injuries last season, we had a fair number of significant injuries, losing our starting LF, RF, CF, SS, 2B, plus our 3B and C were affected but not DLed, as well as a key set-up reliever, for parts of the season (most for DeRosa and Renteria, I would throw Schierholtz and Sandoval in there too).
The key is having such a good pitching staff that you can ride out a lot of problems. When your pitching is that good, you don't need to pay that much to other teams for offense, as even average offense would actually be valuable to you. You can make a lot of mistakes there and still win a lot of games. Injuries in your pitching staff is covered when a good pitching is missing. You just have to kiss a few frogs along the way. Despite not having Wilson or Romo, the relievers have been pretty good in their stead, it hasn't been catastrophic, though they certainly could have used Wilson in yesterday's game.
Giants Appear to be Set for Future
The plan is generally working, which the Naysayers refuse to acknowledge. Of course, that is barring catastrophic injury, but even then, we have so many that we might even be able to ride out the loss of one good pitcher.
The Giants have been averaging roughly 90 wins the past three seasons (including this one). At some point, they must realize that luck is not the reason for all this success. I think they are just being pig-headed, but only the truly dense can believe that they can explain away three seasons of 90 wins average as luck. But I'm patient, I expect this to continue, then they will have no more excuses.
Not only is it working, but with a lot of young hitters coming up, the lineup looks to be cheap and good, not just average, within a couple of years, especially once Gary Brown or Francisco Peguero come up and become our lead-off hitter, while the middle is filled with Sandoval, Posey, and Belt. That plus our pitching, assuming Neukom ponies up the money to keep everyone (which will be tough with Lincecum, Cain, Bumgarner, Wilson, Sandoval, Posey getting big dough soon), should make the 2010's the Decade of the Giants, the Team of the 2010's.
I can see why people see me that way, but I've been blessed/cursed with the ability/need to see all the sides of the story, no matter the situation. And that helped me survive my dad passing away when I was young and has served me well all my life. But the curse is that some view me as wishy-washy because of that.
However, I can live with the messiness that is life, there is the good, the bad, and the ugly, this is not something others with OCD tendencies can do. For those with long memories, I view myself much like Marvel Comic's character, the Watcher, in observing the Giants (except that I'm rooting for the Giants, while the Watcher is stoic).
What this reminds me of is a common conundrum in business investing. Sometimes, the key difference between whether one person/company invests while another avoids is because where one sees risk, the other sees opportunity. It is not necessarily a matter of risk tolerance either, though that is a huge factor in a lot of situations, but there are cases where success and failure swings clearly on the point of view of the observer, their perspective of the situation.
Lets take the Giants, for example, since this is a Giants blog :^). I have been seeing a lot of negative talk in the media. And I understand that, the Giants are in a bad stretch of losing right now, and to teams they should to beating. I could point out names but really, most of the Giants media are beating the negative drum. Same for Giants fans, but that seems to go without saying, unfortunately.
Again, I understand that. It's never good to be losing 17 out of 24 games. To lose games that you should be winning. To watch good pitchers suddenly lose it and cost us the game. To watch hitters not produce. I get that.
But I've also been following baseball for 40 years now (whew, just realized that!). Plus, I love history, so I've read about (and perused through baseball-reference.com) a lot of baseball pennant chases and epic successes and fails on the playoff front, like the Boston Braves in 1914 or the 1964 Phillies, or more recently, the Rockies with their late season drives or the Padres last season. So I've both seen a lot plus know a lot.
Two games behind is nothing. A lead like that can disappear in two days. We know it and we've seen it (like last season for the Giants or really any season, any team).
We've also seen teams go from good to bad to good again. We know it and we've seen it (like last season for the Giants or really any season, any team).
Lots of Giants fans see "losing, losing, and more losing" and they lose their heads and say the sky is falling. I've seen it many times over the years, I've seen it last year and this year. They have a terrible angst about losing, from June Swoons to worries about the offense, "the bad son", while the pitching, "the good son", is totally ignored.
Great Pitching Makes Winning Easier
We have a lot of great pitching. Maybe they are tired from the long extended run in 2010. Probably not, at least overall, as my data showed about how the pitching is doing in August. They certainly have been more inconsistent than they have been this season, but then again, they were very insistent last season as well, until they righted the ship and dominated in September and October. Doesn't mean it will happen now, but they are great pitchers and have accomplished a lot, including their streak of 18 straight games with 3 runs or less given up, 23 straight games with 4 runs or less given up, that they did in September of last season.
That's not optimism. That's a fact: we have great pitching. Great pitching keeps us in a lot of games. Sure, they will cough up games like they did yesterday, or when BWeez blew his save. But more often than not, they have done the job for us. Plus, the better the pitchers, the less the offense has to do in order to win.
Doesn't mean that they will do it for us this month or this season, I totally agree. But it won't stop me from enjoying these games in September. Baseball is meant to be enjoyed. Else why get so passionate about it?
Media: Nattering Nabobs of Negativism
I think the media is at fault for at least part of that. That seems to be how the media operates, I've learned. Whether the stock market (with the quarter to quarter obsession that investors generally have) or baseball, where all they can write about is the here and now negativeness.
Honestly, I find that to be very knee-jerk reactionary. I hate the swings from the highs to the lows - unless it is warranted. But I saw that a lot in investing, a stock with no news at all could lose or gain 10 percent in a short period of time, just because people were nervous or not.
It could be bad news about the economy.
Followed by good news.
Followed by bad news.
Followed by good news.
One could get whiplash following all that. I see the similarities in baseball.
It is all about "what are you doing now". Bad quarterly earnings report? Totally negative investor vibe and stock losses. Bad losing streak? Total negative fan vibe, lots of bitching and moaning.
Even Keel
If you are like that, my blog is not for you. I try to steer an even keel, but will be positive when warranted, negative when warranted.
An optimist, to me, is someone who thinks positively about the situation without considering the negatives. That is the heart of the definition of optimist: a person disposed to take a favorable view of things." I don't view myself that way.
If I were a doctor, I would be a horrible doctor in that I would tell people when there is no hope. I see no gain from sugar-coating the reality. My bluntness has been softened by years of socializing, but that's where my brain goes to first.
I present the positives mainly because the negatives are all out there and part of my assumption is that my readers know all about the negatives there, that they are savvy enough fans who do not need me to hold their hand, that they are looking for that extra edge in understanding the Giants chances for making the playoffs.
If there were relentless optimism out there, I would point out the negatives, like, we only have 4 healthy starters right now, Wilson might not get healthy anytime this season, Beltran too, someone has noticed Pablo getting fatter, we have no reliable lead-off hitter, and our offense is still sputtering.
Pitching Staff Rules!
Still, overall, there is our lovely starting pitching and great bullpen. As it showed to great effect last season and this season, we can win a lot of games despite poor offense. They averaged 3.66 RS per game the last month, yet the team still went 19-10 because they only allowed 2.07 runs per game that last month. The Pythagorean on that is 21-8, so they actually underperformed.
So about yesterday's loss by the Giants. People forget that Cain is human. People forget, but he lost a key game for us in the final series against the 'Dres last season, he did not come through for us. Of course, he really came through for us in the playoffs, spinning 21.1 IP of pure shutout gold for us in 3 starts.
That's the key to the Giants pulling the division title out of the hat this season, yeah, sometimes our pitching sucks, but more often than not, they come through big time, like the 9.1 IP of shut-out relief by the bullpen the other day or Lincecum giving up only one run in his loss.
Still, if you want to focus on the negative, the pitching has not been doing its job lately, and for a long while. Since July 3rd, the pitching had kept the opposition from scoring more than 3 runs only 23 out of 45 games, per my metric on the side. They have only been 23-22 in keeping the opposition from scoring 4 runs or more. That is why they have been 20-25 since then.
Enjoy the Ride, Enjoy the Season
Will our heroes come through? That is the drama that I enjoy, whether we make the playoffs or not. Of course, I'll be bummed, but I will have the shiny and great pitching staff plus blossoming middle lineup (Sandoval, Posey, Belt) to keep me warm for the next few seasons. As well as a shiny 2010 World Championship trophy!
So enjoy the pennant chase, Giants fans. That is something Pirates and Royals fans have not enjoyed for nearly a generation now.
Enjoy our great pitching. This is something that does not come around often, but when it does, you have to enjoy it. You can bitch all you want about the offense, but remember this: baseball is a zero sum game, any improvements in offense would have come at a cost to our pitching (and perhaps fielding too; see Keppinger).
Think about all the fans who wanted to trade away Cain. Think about all the fans who wanted to trade away Lincecum. Think about all the fans who wanted to break up the pitching in order to get the offense. Think about what won us our championship: it was our pitching, period.
Mistakes are a Given: It is What You Do to Make up For Them
When pitching is this good, you don't need good offense, you don't even need average offense, though, obviously, that is preferable. I would love to have great offense, but accept that this is the cost of having a great pitching staff. The people who all point to the mistakes on offense that have occurred over the years are more OCD than I am: mistakes will happen.
The key in any business is: how does your strategic plan still function when mistakes are made? Is it flexible enough to handle tactical issues, like a lot of injuries, or unexpected poor performances?
People write off unexpected good performances as luck, but the fact of the matter is that in life, there will always be unexpected good and bad performances, and they tend to balance out over time. It has nothing to do with luck, it has to do with there being a balance in life. Many view the unexpected good as luck, but that is how the baseball bounces sometimes, one player's good luck is another player's bad luck. I see people noting the good luck of Burrell hitting well for us last season, but they then ignore the bad luck of Panda being Pablo instead.
And as much as injuries have hurt the Giants this season, I think that last year was very injury marred as well. DeRosa was basically done before the season began, too bad he was too stubborn to see that and ended up starting a bunch of games before DLing. Renteria was never really that healthy until his tendon snapped off. Molina suffered from injuries from foul balls in May that he never recovered from, he was hitting .880 on May 12th then faded from there. Schierholtz was injured early and he reported afterward that he came back too soon and never really fully recovered. Franchez was injured early too and missed a number of games. Rowand was hit in the face with a HBP, and while he hit well once he came back, he has not been the same since, he at least in his first two seasons hit well for 3-4 months before disappointing, but he hasn't been good for any extended period. Torres missed a lot of the pennant race with his appendicitis. Guillen was hitting .800 OPS for us for 6-7 weeks until his neck problem made him horrible for the last 1-2 weeks of the season.
There were pitcher injuries too. Wellemeyer was injured. Affeldt missed a while on the DL. Runzler suffered a bad injury as well. If I recall right, Ray also had some sort of injury. Mota made the DL once, as well.
So it is not like we were "lucky" about injuries last season, we had a fair number of significant injuries, losing our starting LF, RF, CF, SS, 2B, plus our 3B and C were affected but not DLed, as well as a key set-up reliever, for parts of the season (most for DeRosa and Renteria, I would throw Schierholtz and Sandoval in there too).
The key is having such a good pitching staff that you can ride out a lot of problems. When your pitching is that good, you don't need to pay that much to other teams for offense, as even average offense would actually be valuable to you. You can make a lot of mistakes there and still win a lot of games. Injuries in your pitching staff is covered when a good pitching is missing. You just have to kiss a few frogs along the way. Despite not having Wilson or Romo, the relievers have been pretty good in their stead, it hasn't been catastrophic, though they certainly could have used Wilson in yesterday's game.
Giants Appear to be Set for Future
The plan is generally working, which the Naysayers refuse to acknowledge. Of course, that is barring catastrophic injury, but even then, we have so many that we might even be able to ride out the loss of one good pitcher.
The Giants have been averaging roughly 90 wins the past three seasons (including this one). At some point, they must realize that luck is not the reason for all this success. I think they are just being pig-headed, but only the truly dense can believe that they can explain away three seasons of 90 wins average as luck. But I'm patient, I expect this to continue, then they will have no more excuses.
Not only is it working, but with a lot of young hitters coming up, the lineup looks to be cheap and good, not just average, within a couple of years, especially once Gary Brown or Francisco Peguero come up and become our lead-off hitter, while the middle is filled with Sandoval, Posey, and Belt. That plus our pitching, assuming Neukom ponies up the money to keep everyone (which will be tough with Lincecum, Cain, Bumgarner, Wilson, Sandoval, Posey getting big dough soon), should make the 2010's the Decade of the Giants, the Team of the 2010's.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Odds and Ends: Media
Just some reactions to what I read in the newspaper:
A's Bias
The columnist I wrote about the other day beats up on the Giants about their offense, and yet I have not seen one column about what the A's were thinking nor about how poorly they have played so far. What made them think that their starting rotation was ready for the big time after going out and getting Matt Holliday, Jason Giambi, and Orlando Cabrera to boost the offense? And not that I regret it, because then the Giants ended up with him, but they really could have used a starter like Randy Johnson, who is also an East Bay native and a natural attraction since he's going to win 300 games, plus, more importantly, could have been the ace of the staff for them, or at worse #2 to maybe Duchscherer. They chose not to do that.
The A's right now, even with all the big batters they added, which, by the way, pushed top prospect Daric Barton to the minors, are averaging under 4 runs per game. Where is the vitriol for their lousy offensive performance, particularly since they went out and got Matt Holliday and Giambi? Why no nasty column? I mean, the Giants we already know will have a bad offense, picking on them when they are struggling is, well, beating a dead horse, we all knew that already, what's the big deal?
However, the A's made the huge blockbuster trade for Holliday and the nostalgic signing of Giambi to boost the offense, and neither has a homerun yet. In fact, the Giants have been pounded about their lack of offense and homers, but they currently have more than double the homers that the A's have, and they have scored about the same number of runs, 50 for the A's, 45 for the Giants: both poor, but that was expected for the Giants, not so much for the A's given their upgrades on offense.
And, despite the great ERA overall for the pitching staff, their K/9, BB/9 and K/BB are horrible, and if that continued, their ERA should soar much higher. So why not talk about how badly they are doing in those departments, particularly walks, which is over 4 walks per 9 IP. I know that this is being hammered on the Giants in their coverage, yet I don't see that at all for the A's. The A's starter walked 4 batters last night, and all that was noted was that he did that, nothing about the high number of walks, nothing about the lack of strikeouts (which I've been hammering on about how the Giants have been building right).
Walk-Aversion Has its Limits
Speaking of walks, it was noted by one writer that because Cain had a walk-free outing, he "never allowed any jams to turn into big innings." And on the surface, that makes a lot of sense, "no walks good, lots of walks bad". However, he failed to note that Cain gave up 9 hits in his 6 innings too. That's not good either, as hits are worse than walks for creating runs.
And I understand that the pitcher has minimal control over the number of hits he gives up, as espoused by DIPS theory, but he does have some control and that is via strikeouts. Cain in his first full season struck out batters at a 8.4 K/9 rate, helping him to a low 7.4 H/9. But his K/9 has dipped from that high to 7.3, 7.7 and only 6.2 so far this season (albeit small sampling). He has likewise reduced his walks as well, at about the same rate, so that his K/BB rate has been remarkably steady, 2.06, 2.06, 2.04, 2.17.
So what is the overall result from his trying to reduce his walks, which has been high? His WHIP has increased from 1.28 to 1.26 to 1.364 to 1.368. And if he has been allowing more baserunners (per his WHIP) while reducing walks, that means he's been giving up a lot more hits. And hits hurt you more than walks.
The good news about this year is that his BABIP is abnormally high, at .328, and reducing it to .300 would return his H/9 back to last year's 8.5, resulting in a reduced WHIP back to his 1.26 of previous years, assuming he can keep his BB/9 down below 3 (currently 2.8 BB/9).
Thus, as good as he has been the past two years, he could be, at age 24, be taking the next step in his development, much like Lincecum did last year when he turned 24, towards becoming a complete pitcher. Getting his walk rate down has been his big need as a starter, and he has made progress, but this is his first time with his walk rate below 3.0 after 3 starts in the season and thus astonishingly the latest it has been that low, and amazingly enough, this is already his 4th season starting off the season with the Giants. And he was already very good the last two seasons, with ERA in the mid-3's for the most part (3.64 and 3.76), so if he is able to keep his walk rate down, while keeping his strikeout at or above where it is now, we could see Cain leaping to being considered for the Cy Young this season, with a low to mid 3 ERA.
Other Giants News
* Hinshaw down, Holm up, but Sandoval starting at catcher today. Is it a coincidence that Zito is starting today? Last season, hitters in 5 games hit only .213/.293/.311/.604 with Sandoval starting at catcher, .273/.368/.414/.782 with Molina starting 22 games (much worse with Holm catching). Then again, Sandoval caught Zito when Zito was going good at the end of the season, I wonder how well hitters hit with Molina catching for those games at the end of the season too.
* Rotation will be shifted, skipping Sanchez. Some are outraged, but he's the 5th starter, and while he did pitch really well in his last outing, it makes a lot of sense, as that does two important things: now the D-backs face Lincecum, Johnson, Cain, and Cain is better than Sanchez, plus it puts the rotation to Zito, Sanchez, Lincecum against the D-gers, whereas before it would have been Cain, Zito, Sanchez. Nothing against Cain, but I would rather have Lincecum facing them than Cain. That also moves Lincecum from facing D-Rox to facing the D-gers, which is more important as the D-Rox are struggling too, so now they face Johnson, Cain, Zito.
Then we're on the road for a week, Sanchez/Lincecum against the Cubs, Johnson/Cain against D-Rox, and Zito/Sanchez/Lincecum against the D-gers. Thus the move allows Lincecum to face the D-gers twice, instead of them avoiding him twice. I think that is a Win/Win situation, putting our best pitcher against the top team in our division, instead of missing them twice.
However, I wonder how long the drop to 11 man pitching staff will last because Friday May 1st will be the start of 17 days of playing games without a break. I would expect somebody to be dropped to the minors, probably between Velez and Torres, before the start of the road trip that begins on May 4th. And they only have two days off the whole month of May.
A's Bias
The columnist I wrote about the other day beats up on the Giants about their offense, and yet I have not seen one column about what the A's were thinking nor about how poorly they have played so far. What made them think that their starting rotation was ready for the big time after going out and getting Matt Holliday, Jason Giambi, and Orlando Cabrera to boost the offense? And not that I regret it, because then the Giants ended up with him, but they really could have used a starter like Randy Johnson, who is also an East Bay native and a natural attraction since he's going to win 300 games, plus, more importantly, could have been the ace of the staff for them, or at worse #2 to maybe Duchscherer. They chose not to do that.
The A's right now, even with all the big batters they added, which, by the way, pushed top prospect Daric Barton to the minors, are averaging under 4 runs per game. Where is the vitriol for their lousy offensive performance, particularly since they went out and got Matt Holliday and Giambi? Why no nasty column? I mean, the Giants we already know will have a bad offense, picking on them when they are struggling is, well, beating a dead horse, we all knew that already, what's the big deal?
However, the A's made the huge blockbuster trade for Holliday and the nostalgic signing of Giambi to boost the offense, and neither has a homerun yet. In fact, the Giants have been pounded about their lack of offense and homers, but they currently have more than double the homers that the A's have, and they have scored about the same number of runs, 50 for the A's, 45 for the Giants: both poor, but that was expected for the Giants, not so much for the A's given their upgrades on offense.
And, despite the great ERA overall for the pitching staff, their K/9, BB/9 and K/BB are horrible, and if that continued, their ERA should soar much higher. So why not talk about how badly they are doing in those departments, particularly walks, which is over 4 walks per 9 IP. I know that this is being hammered on the Giants in their coverage, yet I don't see that at all for the A's. The A's starter walked 4 batters last night, and all that was noted was that he did that, nothing about the high number of walks, nothing about the lack of strikeouts (which I've been hammering on about how the Giants have been building right).
Walk-Aversion Has its Limits
Speaking of walks, it was noted by one writer that because Cain had a walk-free outing, he "never allowed any jams to turn into big innings." And on the surface, that makes a lot of sense, "no walks good, lots of walks bad". However, he failed to note that Cain gave up 9 hits in his 6 innings too. That's not good either, as hits are worse than walks for creating runs.
And I understand that the pitcher has minimal control over the number of hits he gives up, as espoused by DIPS theory, but he does have some control and that is via strikeouts. Cain in his first full season struck out batters at a 8.4 K/9 rate, helping him to a low 7.4 H/9. But his K/9 has dipped from that high to 7.3, 7.7 and only 6.2 so far this season (albeit small sampling). He has likewise reduced his walks as well, at about the same rate, so that his K/BB rate has been remarkably steady, 2.06, 2.06, 2.04, 2.17.
So what is the overall result from his trying to reduce his walks, which has been high? His WHIP has increased from 1.28 to 1.26 to 1.364 to 1.368. And if he has been allowing more baserunners (per his WHIP) while reducing walks, that means he's been giving up a lot more hits. And hits hurt you more than walks.
The good news about this year is that his BABIP is abnormally high, at .328, and reducing it to .300 would return his H/9 back to last year's 8.5, resulting in a reduced WHIP back to his 1.26 of previous years, assuming he can keep his BB/9 down below 3 (currently 2.8 BB/9).
Thus, as good as he has been the past two years, he could be, at age 24, be taking the next step in his development, much like Lincecum did last year when he turned 24, towards becoming a complete pitcher. Getting his walk rate down has been his big need as a starter, and he has made progress, but this is his first time with his walk rate below 3.0 after 3 starts in the season and thus astonishingly the latest it has been that low, and amazingly enough, this is already his 4th season starting off the season with the Giants. And he was already very good the last two seasons, with ERA in the mid-3's for the most part (3.64 and 3.76), so if he is able to keep his walk rate down, while keeping his strikeout at or above where it is now, we could see Cain leaping to being considered for the Cy Young this season, with a low to mid 3 ERA.
Other Giants News
* Hinshaw down, Holm up, but Sandoval starting at catcher today. Is it a coincidence that Zito is starting today? Last season, hitters in 5 games hit only .213/.293/.311/.604 with Sandoval starting at catcher, .273/.368/.414/.782 with Molina starting 22 games (much worse with Holm catching). Then again, Sandoval caught Zito when Zito was going good at the end of the season, I wonder how well hitters hit with Molina catching for those games at the end of the season too.
* Rotation will be shifted, skipping Sanchez. Some are outraged, but he's the 5th starter, and while he did pitch really well in his last outing, it makes a lot of sense, as that does two important things: now the D-backs face Lincecum, Johnson, Cain, and Cain is better than Sanchez, plus it puts the rotation to Zito, Sanchez, Lincecum against the D-gers, whereas before it would have been Cain, Zito, Sanchez. Nothing against Cain, but I would rather have Lincecum facing them than Cain. That also moves Lincecum from facing D-Rox to facing the D-gers, which is more important as the D-Rox are struggling too, so now they face Johnson, Cain, Zito.
Then we're on the road for a week, Sanchez/Lincecum against the Cubs, Johnson/Cain against D-Rox, and Zito/Sanchez/Lincecum against the D-gers. Thus the move allows Lincecum to face the D-gers twice, instead of them avoiding him twice. I think that is a Win/Win situation, putting our best pitcher against the top team in our division, instead of missing them twice.
However, I wonder how long the drop to 11 man pitching staff will last because Friday May 1st will be the start of 17 days of playing games without a break. I would expect somebody to be dropped to the minors, probably between Velez and Torres, before the start of the road trip that begins on May 4th. And they only have two days off the whole month of May.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Sabean Just Mad About Falsehoods Created And Propagated By Media
The media is at it again, misrepresenting Sabean to the public again. He does not get cranky when outsiders talk about the Giants potential dealings, which a recent columnist states as a truth beyond doubt, and thus influence readers that such a stance is the truth. The ol' "repeat it often enough, it becomes the truth" trick.
He gets cranky when the media publishes false items and, for example, make it look like the Giants are making a big offer when they have done no such thing. And when this false rumor gets repeated all over the media because other media sources pick it up and spread the falsehood even further, it just gets bigger like the Giants are doing something when they were just interested bystanders.
It is the sports world equivalent of the Enquirer tabloid reporting where celebrities reportedly do things they did not do.
That is what he was cranky about.
Instead of understanding his point of view, which I thought journalists are suppose to do, you know, be objective, an observer, they instead close ranks, round up the wagons and protect their own.
Which was surprising to me because this particular journalist was one of the ones who actually defended Bonds when other media sources were spreading falsehoods about what Bonds said and did in a press conference.
He gets cranky when the media publishes false items and, for example, make it look like the Giants are making a big offer when they have done no such thing. And when this false rumor gets repeated all over the media because other media sources pick it up and spread the falsehood even further, it just gets bigger like the Giants are doing something when they were just interested bystanders.
It is the sports world equivalent of the Enquirer tabloid reporting where celebrities reportedly do things they did not do.
That is what he was cranky about.
Instead of understanding his point of view, which I thought journalists are suppose to do, you know, be objective, an observer, they instead close ranks, round up the wagons and protect their own.
Which was surprising to me because this particular journalist was one of the ones who actually defended Bonds when other media sources were spreading falsehoods about what Bonds said and did in a press conference.
I guess things have changed, and not for the better.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
If You Are Going to Comment On the Giants, Please Be Up To Date
One of my pet peeves is media people who like to comment on the Giants and talk authoritatively as if they know everything. That's part of the joy of being obessessive and compulsive, I can't stand being wrong and so I try to learn as much as I can about whatever subject it is I hope to know. I once knew probably 80-90% of every movie that had come out, who the major stars were and what the general plot was, but marriage and particularly parenthood has stopped that passion. So I really hate when media people get their facts wrong.
For example, the KNBR Sportsphone host has, for a long while now, typically received my ire here and elsewhere because they act like they know everything and while I'm a relatively tolerant person (for example, I enjoy listening to Ralph Barbieri in the afternoon still, after all these years; not everyone would do that), they would invariably say something that is patently not true about the Giants within 6-8 minutes and I would have to change my radio to another station, just to get away from that. And I love sports, for example, I used to watch basketball, bowling and golf back in the 70's, when most people didn't, I mean, the NBA playoffs AND championships were so bad that they were broadcast after midnight, so as not to disturb prime time TV. I frequently broke my bedtime curfew to watch the games.
Particularly galling since they are the Giants radio station, they should at least find somebody who can speak knowledgeably without mis-speaking "facts". I can understand that they are under more scrutiny because of being the Giants home on the radio, and thus they can not be and should not be homers, but there is a way of being the Giants home without getting facts wrong. Constantly. That's part of being in the media, speaking to the true facts, not basing your opinions on things that are frankly not true. That's the job of any media talking-head, speaking to the facts, they should be able to find someone who can do that, that should be the lowest the bar can be placed.
Today's Whipping Horse is Baseball Prospectus
Another who gets on my nerve is Baseball Prospectus. I believe they are biased against the Giants and I've written on it before. They use every (or a lot of) opportunity they get to bash Sabean. Here is a recent posting on their free Unfiltered blog, talking about a rumor from Chicago about the Giants:
Phil Rogers is reporting that the Giants are looking for a First Baseman and are willing to give up one of their young starters to get one. He mentions Paul Konerko and Derrek Lee, but … really? Why give up Matt Cain for that when someone like Adam LaRoche is almost as good (on a straight VORP comparison) for much less. Previous rumors of a Prince Fielder for Cain deal must have died down.As any good Giants fan should know, Sabean stated, unqualified and categorically, Cain and Lincecum are untouchables and he believes he can trade other pitchers for what the Giants need, which he did not define other than middle-of-lineup power hitter, plus said that Sandoval was the probable starting 1Bman. Now, of course, that's probably in pencil and he could be looking for a 1B, but I would have to assume 3B is his first priority.
Still, the main point is that any Giants fan with interest in the team would have known that Sabean has already pointed out these two as untouchables. And any media pundit, or "expert", who feels qualified enough to comment, particularly on another media person's open speculation, should at least inform himself of what the situation is before he goes talking off a high horse about how the Giants shouldn't do that. Or do they really believe that Dewey won the presidency long ago because the headline told them so?
And, thinking further on why they might write this anyway, if they don't believe that Sabean is telling the truth on that, then they should explain why they don't and give reasons why. I don't accept them as experts on the Giants if they are not going to even get their facts straight.
And I love Baseball Prospectus, I buy their book every year, I like getting their stats, and their commentary on individual players are pretty good and comprehensive. I would subscribe but prefer to spend my money elsewhere, like food, CDs, movies, and the technology to do stuff like this. But I still like their work.
Giants Thoughts
And if I were to speculate based on what they reported, I would say that there is probably very little likelihood that the Pirates are going to trade with the Giants, they have been burned twice, badly, in recent years by Sabean, first the Schmidt trade, then the Morris trade. They are trying to rebuild their reputation with their fans and fans have long memories (just ask any of us :^), so if they were to make another trade with the Giants, they will probably burn some of the goodwill they have earned as new on the job people, and if the trade turn out badly - again - they would have probably lost a large portion of their fanbase who were willing to give them a fair shake (and particularly any of those fence-sitters who are still mad over the Pedro Alvaraez fiasco).
And that Jason Bay trade isn't turning out so well so far, with Andy LaRoche and Craig Hansen doing so poorly, and Brandon Moss doing OK, but not great. Even Morris, who is still in the minors, did poorly. Unless the Giants made an offer they couldn't refuse - which they won't - they are not going to trade with us, there's too much bad history and too much that has gone wrong already in their short tenure.
In addition, the Giants are looking for long-term solutions, not short-term like Derrek Lee or Paul Konerko, and they might not even perform in the short-term. For Lee, he has had pretty average seasons twice in the past three seasons, though an injury was part of it, but his GIDP almost doubled this year, which could be a sign that he is starting to physically slow up, as part of his value is his speed at the position. And his power is way down from his peak years, he looks like he on his decline already, both in terms of power and speed.
And for Konerko, he has had two straight years of decline, particularly in 2007 from his peak years, and he's basically been average the past two years. In particular, he was way below average on the road in 2008 - he was horrible, .204/.295/.331/.626 - whereas before he was good both at home at his homer-happy park and on the road. I would not give up much for him, he could be horrible for us at our un-homer-happy park for two years.
And both for around $12-13M. No thank you. Again, it was media speculation based on media speculation, with Strum und Drang layered on because the first media speculation was pretty stupid when you look at it, but then the second media speculation gets to look good as if they were complaining about the team, when really they are complaining about the other media.
Friday, July 25, 2008
How Little BP Pays Attention to the Giants
I've complained before about what I see as Baseball Prospecutus' bias against the Giants - I like their work but that's how I see it. They seem like they are run by A's fans because they like to take pot shots at the Giants whenever they can - and ironically they fully supported the A.J. Pierzynski trade that every Giants fans lambaste today but nobody seemed to notice that.
With Free Week at BP, I ran across this article at BP, won't bother linking because it'll end soon, I realized. Here is the text, which analyze transactions made by the team:
Anybody who has bothered to read up on the Giants in recent weeks would know that the Giants plan on playing Lewis and that Roberts will come off from the bench. In fact, this has been basically acknowledged in the press for a few months now, as Roberts gave an interview to sfgiants.com where he was asked what if he comes back and Lewis continues to start, and Roberts said that he knows that is a strong possibility and that he's OK with it, he would find ways to contribute to the team from off the bench. In fact, I've read that even while he was in rehab, he was working with young players.
Now, whether he means that or not is another thing. But at least his story has been consistent, when it was closer to him returning, he again noted the same self-less aim to help the team in any fashion that he can. And he seems like a very sincere and open fellow, appreciative of the benefits that being a major league baseball player provides, so his response rang true with me on my B.S. meter.
In addition, anybody reading up on the Giants recently would know that Fred Lewis is battling a painful bunion that is so serious that if it were operated on to take care of it, it would take 8 months to recover from it. So, it would actually make sense to give Lewis some rest right now in particular, to give his bunion an extended rest, heck, DL him for two weeks to give Roberts extended play and showcase him while letting Lewis get some relief. They should have just dropped him and brought up Roberts at that point, though I still wonder if I'm right with my speculation that they would finally put him under the knife in August so that he's ready around the start of the 2009 season - wait any longer and he's gone for a big part of the 2009 season.
So the questions that immediately comes to my mind is multi-fold. Do they care about the quality of what they write? Perhaps this was a glitch, but anyone following the Giants carefully would know this. Perhaps they feel that they don't need to follow any team that carefully, but then why are they selling their services for very good money. Perhaps they simply don't care about the Giants but that is not a healthy position for an organization that should be objective to take. Maybe they just don't care about their customers, they will just accept what they do or "No Stats FOR YOU!", in the tradition of that soup server in Seinfeld. I do wonder.
With Free Week at BP, I ran across this article at BP, won't bother linking because it'll end soon, I realized. Here is the text, which analyze transactions made by the team:
The pity of having Roberts back is that while it's worthwhile to get him straight back into the lineup to showcase him as much as possible before the deadline, and while it's equally sensible to keep Randy Winn in the lineup for the same reason, the problem is that starting both and playing the club's best corner outfielder at the same time is a mutually exclusive proposition, because Fred Lewis has done nothing that merits his getting taken out of the lineup. Still, this should pass, since the odds that both Roberts and Winn are still on the roster on August 1 have to be less than 50-50, because failing that, one of the vets will have to sit, and that's going to lead to complaints, and that isn't going to help Brian Sabean get anything close to value.
Anybody who has bothered to read up on the Giants in recent weeks would know that the Giants plan on playing Lewis and that Roberts will come off from the bench. In fact, this has been basically acknowledged in the press for a few months now, as Roberts gave an interview to sfgiants.com where he was asked what if he comes back and Lewis continues to start, and Roberts said that he knows that is a strong possibility and that he's OK with it, he would find ways to contribute to the team from off the bench. In fact, I've read that even while he was in rehab, he was working with young players.
Now, whether he means that or not is another thing. But at least his story has been consistent, when it was closer to him returning, he again noted the same self-less aim to help the team in any fashion that he can. And he seems like a very sincere and open fellow, appreciative of the benefits that being a major league baseball player provides, so his response rang true with me on my B.S. meter.
In addition, anybody reading up on the Giants recently would know that Fred Lewis is battling a painful bunion that is so serious that if it were operated on to take care of it, it would take 8 months to recover from it. So, it would actually make sense to give Lewis some rest right now in particular, to give his bunion an extended rest, heck, DL him for two weeks to give Roberts extended play and showcase him while letting Lewis get some relief. They should have just dropped him and brought up Roberts at that point, though I still wonder if I'm right with my speculation that they would finally put him under the knife in August so that he's ready around the start of the 2009 season - wait any longer and he's gone for a big part of the 2009 season.
So the questions that immediately comes to my mind is multi-fold. Do they care about the quality of what they write? Perhaps this was a glitch, but anyone following the Giants carefully would know this. Perhaps they feel that they don't need to follow any team that carefully, but then why are they selling their services for very good money. Perhaps they simply don't care about the Giants but that is not a healthy position for an organization that should be objective to take. Maybe they just don't care about their customers, they will just accept what they do or "No Stats FOR YOU!", in the tradition of that soup server in Seinfeld. I do wonder.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Zelebrating Zito
Perhaps it is in the newspaper columnist credo or handbook to be negative. Or perhaps they are just biased against the Giants, as the Merc's columnists have appeared to be since the A's announced their move down south (nothing like public commercial butt kissing). Or maybe it is just the media's inclination towards the negative.
But it is not like being a fan means that you are not realistic or objective about things. Yes, Zito has been terrible up to now as a Giants. But that doesn't mean that we Giants fans couldn't enjoy what Zito has done over the past three games since he announced that he's back (plus his former high 80's velocity is back, reportedly).
One criticism I've seen is that the 88 MPH recorded at home over the weekend against LA was inflated, with an off-handed comment that it also recorded a D-ger "journeyman" reliever at 97 MPH, implying that there's something wrong with the radar gun in SF. The fact is that even journeyman pitchers can throw 97 MPH, particularly when that journeyman is a 6 foot, 6 inches and 230 pounds specimen. If the critic was interested in the Giants in any significant way this season (or even knowledgeable about baseball in general), he would have known that the Giants have their own pitcher, who used to easily top 100 MPH but couldn't make the team because he was too wild, walking too many (Erick Threets if that critic is reading) and that high 90's journeymen are dime a dozen because they could never harness that speed to effectively get batters out.
In addition, this was reported even before Zito returned home to SF. He was recorded at such relatively high velocity in the previous games on the road as well. So unless he is claiming the Giants conspired to change the radar at the parks away as well as at home, then his claims of a return of his velocity is accurate and true.
Another comment I've seen is that Zito has to duplicate his great effort against the D-gers "only about 11 or 12 more times" this season to make this a "non-terrible" season. Only someone who is trying to set up someone else for failure by setting unrealistic expectations to ensure failure would say that, because Zito's Saturday's 7 IP, 6 hits, 1 walk, 10 strikeout effort is nothing like what Zito has regularly done in his career. At best, he does that maybe once, twice a season - since 2002 Zito has had 10+ strikeouts in only 1-2 games per season. The last (and only) time he even had over 2 games with 10+ strikeouts was his first full season in 2002, when he had 5 such games.
Zito does not need to do anything but pitch like he did for the A's just prior to joining the Giants. That will include games like Saturday when he is dominating the other team. It will include games where he is as clueless as he has been for most of the start of this season and the start of last season. Overall, though, there will be a lot of good pitching, with a high 3 ERA, if he simply reverts to past performance levels. To suggest that he needs to duplicate Saturday's outing roughly a dozen more times this season, when he's never done anything close to that before, is outrageous. He just has to pitch below 4 ERA for the rest of the reason to show that things are better, well, that and keeping his velocity up this high.
Positive Points
As reported in the media, this was his first 10+ strikeout game since 2005. What I thought was more interesting was the 3 games since Zito said he was back. So I went through his game log on the fabulous Baseball-Reference.com website and found these interesting facts about 3 game streaks he has had in recent (and not so recent) years:
In addition, since 2002, he hasn't not had that many 3 game stretches, period, where he struck out more than innings pitched. Two in 2002 but zero in 2003, averaging out to one such three game stretch of strikeout excellence from 2002 to 2005, one such three game stretch of strikeout excellence and command of location (that is, strikeout more than double walks) every 2 years or so over the past 7 seasons.
So these are positives I take from the last three games. Yes, he needs to continue to pitch well to show that he is past his previous problems as a Giants pitcher. But he hasn't pitched this well over a three game stretch for 4 seasons now, and hasn't really done this that often in his career, since his first full season in the majors.
Could it be a fluke? Perhaps. But since it is something he did only when he was pitching better in general, it could also be a sign that he has finally turned things around. The velocity reported of 88 MPH is one sign. This three game stretch is another. Peripherals generally don't lie. These are all positives I see.
But it is not like being a fan means that you are not realistic or objective about things. Yes, Zito has been terrible up to now as a Giants. But that doesn't mean that we Giants fans couldn't enjoy what Zito has done over the past three games since he announced that he's back (plus his former high 80's velocity is back, reportedly).
One criticism I've seen is that the 88 MPH recorded at home over the weekend against LA was inflated, with an off-handed comment that it also recorded a D-ger "journeyman" reliever at 97 MPH, implying that there's something wrong with the radar gun in SF. The fact is that even journeyman pitchers can throw 97 MPH, particularly when that journeyman is a 6 foot, 6 inches and 230 pounds specimen. If the critic was interested in the Giants in any significant way this season (or even knowledgeable about baseball in general), he would have known that the Giants have their own pitcher, who used to easily top 100 MPH but couldn't make the team because he was too wild, walking too many (Erick Threets if that critic is reading) and that high 90's journeymen are dime a dozen because they could never harness that speed to effectively get batters out.
In addition, this was reported even before Zito returned home to SF. He was recorded at such relatively high velocity in the previous games on the road as well. So unless he is claiming the Giants conspired to change the radar at the parks away as well as at home, then his claims of a return of his velocity is accurate and true.
Another comment I've seen is that Zito has to duplicate his great effort against the D-gers "only about 11 or 12 more times" this season to make this a "non-terrible" season. Only someone who is trying to set up someone else for failure by setting unrealistic expectations to ensure failure would say that, because Zito's Saturday's 7 IP, 6 hits, 1 walk, 10 strikeout effort is nothing like what Zito has regularly done in his career. At best, he does that maybe once, twice a season - since 2002 Zito has had 10+ strikeouts in only 1-2 games per season. The last (and only) time he even had over 2 games with 10+ strikeouts was his first full season in 2002, when he had 5 such games.
Zito does not need to do anything but pitch like he did for the A's just prior to joining the Giants. That will include games like Saturday when he is dominating the other team. It will include games where he is as clueless as he has been for most of the start of this season and the start of last season. Overall, though, there will be a lot of good pitching, with a high 3 ERA, if he simply reverts to past performance levels. To suggest that he needs to duplicate Saturday's outing roughly a dozen more times this season, when he's never done anything close to that before, is outrageous. He just has to pitch below 4 ERA for the rest of the reason to show that things are better, well, that and keeping his velocity up this high.
Positive Points
As reported in the media, this was his first 10+ strikeout game since 2005. What I thought was more interesting was the 3 games since Zito said he was back. So I went through his game log on the fabulous Baseball-Reference.com website and found these interesting facts about 3 game streaks he has had in recent (and not so recent) years:
- In this 3 game streak, he went 18.2 IP, gave up 16 hits and 6 walks, 1 HR and struck out 20. His ERA was 3.38 and batting line against was .222/.291/.347/.638
- The last time he had a 3 game streak where he struck out more than his innings pitched was from 6/7 to 6/17 2005. He went 17 IP, gave up 14 hits and 11 walks, 2 HR and struck out 20. His ERA was 5.29 and batting line against was .222/.338/.365/.703
- The last time he had a 3 game streak where he struck out more than his innings pitched and struck out double what he walked was 9/12 to 9/22 2004. He went 18 IP, gave up 15 hits and 7 walks, 1 HR and struck out 21. His ERA was 3.00 and batting line against was .224/.293/.313/.606. Also of note was that he had two other 3 game streaks in 2004 where he struck out equal to or more than the innings pitched and struck out at least double what he walked: 4/29 to 5/11 and 6/3 to 6/15.
- He had no 3 game streak where his strikeouts were more than IP in 2003.
- In 2002, he had two such streaks, basically one after another, from 5/11 to 5/21 and from 5/21 to 6/1, bookended by 10+ strikeout games. Together that is his last 5 game streak where he struck out more than innings pitched.
- In 2001, his first full season, he had a large number of them. He had a 6 game streak to start the season, a 3 game from 5/16 to 5/27, a 9 game from 6/22 to 8/4, a 3 game from 8/20-30, and a 5 game from 9/10 to 10/7.
In addition, since 2002, he hasn't not had that many 3 game stretches, period, where he struck out more than innings pitched. Two in 2002 but zero in 2003, averaging out to one such three game stretch of strikeout excellence from 2002 to 2005, one such three game stretch of strikeout excellence and command of location (that is, strikeout more than double walks) every 2 years or so over the past 7 seasons.
So these are positives I take from the last three games. Yes, he needs to continue to pitch well to show that he is past his previous problems as a Giants pitcher. But he hasn't pitched this well over a three game stretch for 4 seasons now, and hasn't really done this that often in his career, since his first full season in the majors.
Could it be a fluke? Perhaps. But since it is something he did only when he was pitching better in general, it could also be a sign that he has finally turned things around. The velocity reported of 88 MPH is one sign. This three game stretch is another. Peripherals generally don't lie. These are all positives I see.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Mediots Beware: It's Hammering Hank Time!
Mediots: (ME-DE-ots) Concatenation of "Media Idiots"; those of the Media who ignore what is being said by an interviewee in order to promulgate their point of view.
As I've been harping, the Media sees what they want to see and Hank Aaron has finally came out and gave his side of the story at his local paper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. As I noted, even with Hank's great and inspiration video message, the media would continue to claim that Aaron in some way was protesting Bonds passing him up.
This should clarify thing greatly and, as I expected, the media is not owning up to pushing their point of view, of seeing the errors of their ways, heck, they won't even apologize for ALL THIS TIME putting words into poor Hank Aaron's mouth when he did not feel that way. They talk about how classy an individual Aaron is, doesn't he deserve a public apology from EACH AND EVERY SPORTS COLUMNIST WHO MISPOKE ON AARON'S INTENTIONS AND FEELINGS? How classy is it that the mediots misrepresented someone they view as so classy and yet are so classless to admit publicly that they were wrong?
Avoidance of the Hubbub, Not of the Chaser
Let's go through the column point by point, shall we? First off, Aaron "didn't want any part of this Bond thing, because it reminded him of that Ruth thing ,when he was an African-American player chasing the record of a white icon through a slew of death threats and hate mail." Not many remember, but Aaron when through a lot of BS (hate mail, death threats, etc.) when he was approaching Ruth's record, and when his parents went to hug him once he did it, they did it not of joy alone, but because they feared that someone might shoot him dead; not too much time had passed since JFK, RFK, and MLK were assassinated, so that was in their heads at that time.
Hank Aaron did not enjoy that period of time, much like Roger Maris didn't enjoy his time approaching then passing Ruth's single season record. The media pressure, the hate mail, the much ado about nothing as far as they were concerned. They just wanted to do their job and not be part of this circus orchestrated by the media. Just like then, he just want to live his life and not be harassed by the media.
If I were to interpret this, I would say that it appears that Aaron is saying that the media is treating Bonds the same way Aaron was treated when he was approaching the record, since Aaron is now the white media icon and Bonds is the one receiving all the hate mail. And thus Aaron shows that he sympathizes with Bonds in this regard, via his reluctance to interact with the media during the final stretch this season. Because Aaron did not enjoy that aspect of the chase, and this was giving him flashbacks to when he was the one getting the hate mail.
He's His Own Man: None of Them Know Him, Including Bonds
Hank Aaron is the strong silent type who is his own man. As he noted, "Oh, I'm tremendously relieved. I'm so glad this [Bonds' record chase] is done with, and now I can just go my own way." Along with the media scrutiny and ridicule for not making some sort of statement, apparently Bonds was upset that Aaron never called him in general or visited him when the Giants came to Atlanta.
Aaron had an answer for Bonds, any others who were acquaintances, and, ultimately, the mediots themselves:
Aaron was clearly frustrated that people, particularly those he thought were friends, couldn't see his point of view, though he understood why, and was bothered that people would still butt into his business and tell him what the right thing to do is. Like he doesn't have a brain of his own, so thus they have to give him their advice, when it was just that they themselves didn't understand his situation. He clearly had enough of these acquaintances who thought they knew what was best for him to do.
He's Old and He Don't Mind Admiting It
The next thing I thought was interesting was about where he was when Bonds passed him up. He noted that he "was asleep. It was 1 o'clock in the morning [chuckling]. Heck, I'm not going to sit up and watch a baseball game. It's just like I wasn't going to be able to travel all over the world to watch [Bonds break the record]. It wasn't being disrespectful or anything. It's just a matter of, hey, the body needed to go to sleep." The mediots just couldn't identify with a 73-year old man who, though he tries to stay fit, is mature enough to concede when his body cannot take the extended travel.
Also, he wasn't trying to ignore Bonds' chase, but he had his own life, his own schedule, his own things he felt was important to do. For example, the week before Bonds tied Aaron, he was supporting an annual event in Puerto Rico called the World Children's Baseball Fair, which had more than 4,000 kids from around the world. He's too humble to note it, but he's an important man and he has obligations, a life of his own to pursue.
And Aaron clearly did not ignore Bonds' approach of his record, as he recorded that video message to Bonds and the baseball world that played after Bonds set the new record over a month ago. The Giants management noted in a few interviews that they had approached Aaron and he agreed to do the message. They gave him some talking points that they thought he could expound on, but Aaron did it his way, the way he wanted to do it.
And, personally, I cannot imagine a better speech that could have been made, it was sincere, beautiful and heartfelt. I still cannot believe that anyone could take that and try to twist it like Aaron was still giving a negative message to Bonds. And yet the mediots persist.
He's Not Avoiding Bonds; He's Happy for Bonds
The last point I wanted to note upon was what he said after being asked if Aaron will do something with Bonds: "Eventually, if I happen to see him somewhere, I'd probably say something to him. To be honest, I'm as happy for him as anybody." He's as happy for him as anybody, there's no way to twist that in an Bonds Hating way, Hank Aaron was happy for Barry.
Who Watches the Watchmen?
Hopefully some of the mediots got Hammering Hank's message loud and clear, that he has no hard feelings against Bonds, that he is happy for him. Unfortunately, a lot of the mediots don't care to read up on the subjects they write on, they are happy to be obtuse and oblivious and ignorant, so they will miss this illuminating interview and continue to live with blinders on. And as I've written before, they don't feel the need to apologize or to point out when they provided a knee-jerk reaction or had their facts wrong, particularly regarding Barry Bonds, they just move on and ignore the facts.
And which I find ironic, since newspapers and magazines are designed to be read by people who are not any of those, people read the newspaper to be in the know, to not be obtuse, oblivious, or ignorant. I grew up admiring journalists and still love reading the newspaper everyday, but something is not right if they can go on and on about any subject but has nothing filtering them or correcting them when they are wrong. Where are their editors? Where is their conscience? Where is their journalistic integrity?
Giants Thoughts
As I have posted here before, the media has been reading Aaron's silence to mean that he was unhappy with Bonds and his linkages to steroids, using his silence as a media hammer to strike out against Barry Bonds. Clearly, from this interview with Hank Aaron (ironically enough, via the media - there are still some good eggs out there), Aaron should have dispelled any notion by the mediots that he was showing up Bonds in any way by not being there. He's old, he can't travel all over the country to wait for Bonds to hit the record breaker. To quote Aaron, "It wasn't being disrespectful or anything."
As Hank Aaron showed with this interview, he is his own man, he will live and conduct his life the way he sees fit, despite everyone's good (and bad) intentions. He's happy for Bonds and glad to move on from the hullabaloo and live his own good life. He just didn't like getting asked all sorts of questions about Bonds and the record, and was uncomfortable in the situation that the media put him in. He wasn't trying to be disrespectful, as he is as happy for Bonds as anybody, but nobody understood him, because they are not in it, like he was. Hopefully the mediots finally get that and stop bothering him. Assuming they bother to keep up with the news.
As I've been harping, the Media sees what they want to see and Hank Aaron has finally came out and gave his side of the story at his local paper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. As I noted, even with Hank's great and inspiration video message, the media would continue to claim that Aaron in some way was protesting Bonds passing him up.
This should clarify thing greatly and, as I expected, the media is not owning up to pushing their point of view, of seeing the errors of their ways, heck, they won't even apologize for ALL THIS TIME putting words into poor Hank Aaron's mouth when he did not feel that way. They talk about how classy an individual Aaron is, doesn't he deserve a public apology from EACH AND EVERY SPORTS COLUMNIST WHO MISPOKE ON AARON'S INTENTIONS AND FEELINGS? How classy is it that the mediots misrepresented someone they view as so classy and yet are so classless to admit publicly that they were wrong?
Avoidance of the Hubbub, Not of the Chaser
Let's go through the column point by point, shall we? First off, Aaron "didn't want any part of this Bond thing, because it reminded him of that Ruth thing ,when he was an African-American player chasing the record of a white icon through a slew of death threats and hate mail." Not many remember, but Aaron when through a lot of BS (hate mail, death threats, etc.) when he was approaching Ruth's record, and when his parents went to hug him once he did it, they did it not of joy alone, but because they feared that someone might shoot him dead; not too much time had passed since JFK, RFK, and MLK were assassinated, so that was in their heads at that time.
Hank Aaron did not enjoy that period of time, much like Roger Maris didn't enjoy his time approaching then passing Ruth's single season record. The media pressure, the hate mail, the much ado about nothing as far as they were concerned. They just wanted to do their job and not be part of this circus orchestrated by the media. Just like then, he just want to live his life and not be harassed by the media.
If I were to interpret this, I would say that it appears that Aaron is saying that the media is treating Bonds the same way Aaron was treated when he was approaching the record, since Aaron is now the white media icon and Bonds is the one receiving all the hate mail. And thus Aaron shows that he sympathizes with Bonds in this regard, via his reluctance to interact with the media during the final stretch this season. Because Aaron did not enjoy that aspect of the chase, and this was giving him flashbacks to when he was the one getting the hate mail.
He's His Own Man: None of Them Know Him, Including Bonds
Hank Aaron is the strong silent type who is his own man. As he noted, "Oh, I'm tremendously relieved. I'm so glad this [Bonds' record chase] is done with, and now I can just go my own way." Along with the media scrutiny and ridicule for not making some sort of statement, apparently Bonds was upset that Aaron never called him in general or visited him when the Giants came to Atlanta.
Aaron had an answer for Bonds, any others who were acquaintances, and, ultimately, the mediots themselves:
And you know what? That's basically the way Bonds has answered some of the media's questions in the past, that they are not in it, that they can't understand, and he was viewed as arrogant for saying that."It really got to the point where a lot of people started wanting to give advice about what you should do, and they didn't know what the hell the situation was. I mean, these were people that you had been knowing for a long time, but they couldn't figure out why I wasn't getting involved in this thing.
Then they would come forward and say things like, 'Well, you need to do this. You need to do that.' They wanted to give you all of this advice, and they didn't know what was all involved in it, really.
That's the thing that really bothers you. Friends that you've had a long time are all of a sudden coming forth and telling you things like, 'Well, I don't understand why you aren't making comments, or why aren't you doing blah, blah, blah.'
Well, you know what? You're not suppose to understand any of it, because you're not in it."
Aaron was clearly frustrated that people, particularly those he thought were friends, couldn't see his point of view, though he understood why, and was bothered that people would still butt into his business and tell him what the right thing to do is. Like he doesn't have a brain of his own, so thus they have to give him their advice, when it was just that they themselves didn't understand his situation. He clearly had enough of these acquaintances who thought they knew what was best for him to do.
He's Old and He Don't Mind Admiting It
The next thing I thought was interesting was about where he was when Bonds passed him up. He noted that he "was asleep. It was 1 o'clock in the morning [chuckling]. Heck, I'm not going to sit up and watch a baseball game. It's just like I wasn't going to be able to travel all over the world to watch [Bonds break the record]. It wasn't being disrespectful or anything. It's just a matter of, hey, the body needed to go to sleep." The mediots just couldn't identify with a 73-year old man who, though he tries to stay fit, is mature enough to concede when his body cannot take the extended travel.
Also, he wasn't trying to ignore Bonds' chase, but he had his own life, his own schedule, his own things he felt was important to do. For example, the week before Bonds tied Aaron, he was supporting an annual event in Puerto Rico called the World Children's Baseball Fair, which had more than 4,000 kids from around the world. He's too humble to note it, but he's an important man and he has obligations, a life of his own to pursue.
And Aaron clearly did not ignore Bonds' approach of his record, as he recorded that video message to Bonds and the baseball world that played after Bonds set the new record over a month ago. The Giants management noted in a few interviews that they had approached Aaron and he agreed to do the message. They gave him some talking points that they thought he could expound on, but Aaron did it his way, the way he wanted to do it.
And, personally, I cannot imagine a better speech that could have been made, it was sincere, beautiful and heartfelt. I still cannot believe that anyone could take that and try to twist it like Aaron was still giving a negative message to Bonds. And yet the mediots persist.
He's Not Avoiding Bonds; He's Happy for Bonds
The last point I wanted to note upon was what he said after being asked if Aaron will do something with Bonds: "Eventually, if I happen to see him somewhere, I'd probably say something to him. To be honest, I'm as happy for him as anybody." He's as happy for him as anybody, there's no way to twist that in an Bonds Hating way, Hank Aaron was happy for Barry.
Who Watches the Watchmen?
Hopefully some of the mediots got Hammering Hank's message loud and clear, that he has no hard feelings against Bonds, that he is happy for him. Unfortunately, a lot of the mediots don't care to read up on the subjects they write on, they are happy to be obtuse and oblivious and ignorant, so they will miss this illuminating interview and continue to live with blinders on. And as I've written before, they don't feel the need to apologize or to point out when they provided a knee-jerk reaction or had their facts wrong, particularly regarding Barry Bonds, they just move on and ignore the facts.
And which I find ironic, since newspapers and magazines are designed to be read by people who are not any of those, people read the newspaper to be in the know, to not be obtuse, oblivious, or ignorant. I grew up admiring journalists and still love reading the newspaper everyday, but something is not right if they can go on and on about any subject but has nothing filtering them or correcting them when they are wrong. Where are their editors? Where is their conscience? Where is their journalistic integrity?
Giants Thoughts
As I have posted here before, the media has been reading Aaron's silence to mean that he was unhappy with Bonds and his linkages to steroids, using his silence as a media hammer to strike out against Barry Bonds. Clearly, from this interview with Hank Aaron (ironically enough, via the media - there are still some good eggs out there), Aaron should have dispelled any notion by the mediots that he was showing up Bonds in any way by not being there. He's old, he can't travel all over the country to wait for Bonds to hit the record breaker. To quote Aaron, "It wasn't being disrespectful or anything."
As Hank Aaron showed with this interview, he is his own man, he will live and conduct his life the way he sees fit, despite everyone's good (and bad) intentions. He's happy for Bonds and glad to move on from the hullabaloo and live his own good life. He just didn't like getting asked all sorts of questions about Bonds and the record, and was uncomfortable in the situation that the media put him in. He wasn't trying to be disrespectful, as he is as happy for Bonds as anybody, but nobody understood him, because they are not in it, like he was. Hopefully the mediots finally get that and stop bothering him. Assuming they bother to keep up with the news.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
And the crap begins: Ann Killion of the San Jose Mercury
And the crap begins, here's Ann Killion's take. She calls the Giants and the record tainted. What's tainted is her writing.
Rose-Colored Glasses
As she shows in this piece, she still clings to her image of her beloved Willie Mays as a beacon of pureness compared to the evil stain that is Barry Bonds. So either she is in denial or she is not that big a baseball fan because it has been pretty much exposed that Willie Mays not only was a user of a liquid red amphetamine, but he was giving it to other players for a "pick-me-up", essentially a non-profit pusher, a sharer of illegal drugs. How many of his homeruns are "tainted" by the use of amphetamines?
Not that I have anything against Willie, he's one of my favorite Giants players and will always have a place in my heart, but it just shows how unrepentant these Barry haters are, juxtaposing the two baseball greats and treating the situation as black and white when it is all grey.
He's Not a Travelling Man, Is that OK With You?
As I suspected, she again ignores the fact that Hank Aaron is a 70+ year old man who doesn't want to go travelling around the country on the Barry Bonds HR tour - as I noted, he would have begun this trip at least 3 weeks ago and disrupted his whole life and routine - and who can fault that? Well, reporters do, even after Hank taped one of the most sincere, heartfelt, touching, history-spanning speeches ever, she and others disrupt that by mentioning that he wasn't there.
Hello?!? Would you make someone who you are good acquaintances with but not good friends with travel around the country while you try to catch up and beat that acquaintance? Just to feed your ego? People have lives, as momentous as the moment was, not everyone feels the need to be there.
Aaron, as was noted, is a private man, I would even say a humble man, so why can't reporters just respect his wish to be in the background, to not acknowledge his greatness? Perhaps he feels that this is Bonds's moment and does not want to intrude on it. And yet reporters insist on reading into his actions or non-actions and inserting their bias and feelings into their reporting.
Aaron's Choice
The fact is despite all the crap reporters has written about how Aaron is unhappy about it, Aaron had the opportunity to respectfully decline to a videotape. Then he had the opportunity to add whatever qualifiers he wished to his videotaped message, I doubt that the Giants thought that they could control everything he says, and you can also be congratulatory but clearly withhold support, much like Selig has. Or he could have waited until now, once Bonds reached his milestone, and give Barry both barrels publicly for all to see. Instead he chose to show his support of Barry in a very public way.
No, the fact is Aaron gave his support fully and without reservation in his video speech, he was very genuine in his congratulatory statement. Please listen to it, I wholeheartedly recommend it. If you are from that era, you will feel goosebumps, it was quite moving. If Aaron, who would have the most reasons to resent the moment, could be so positive about the situation, why can't writers be the same.
Different Strokes for Different Folks
Yet Killion persists, noting "Yes, important witnesses were missing." Well, I watched Hank Aaron hit #715 on TV and I don't recall seeing Babe Ruth's daughther there nor the representative of the Babe Ruth museum, whose most recent successor took to the airwaves with a denunciation of Bonds when Bonds was misquoted/misinterpreted as dissing Babe Ruth. They, by Killion's logic, were important witnesses and they were missing and therefore they were unhappy and resentful of Aaron passing up the Babe.
But everybody is different. If my friends are getting married, or getting some big award, I would be there in a heartbeat, but if some acquaintance who I know who works in my field and who might be beating me out for something, I don't know that I would care to be there. That's his or her moment, I am part of the past. Others might feel the need to be there and support your colleague in their moment of triumph.
But if I were someone's godfather or father figure, I would do my best to be there, though if I'm in my 70's there is going to be some physical limitations, particularly in regards to travel today, with all the security measures making trips longer and harder to handle. So why make such a big deal over Willie Mays showing up and Hank Aaron not? Barry hasn't talked with Aaron in a couple of years now; they are just acquaintences.
If Ann Killion won some writing award, would she expect all the past winners to come by and show her some love? If she got recognized by the White House for exemplary work as a sports news columnist, would she expect the past winners to show up too, just to show how important you are? No, but you would hope that your friends and family can be there to share in the moment with you.
Insulting
What I find insulting is that these reporters seem to know exactly what Aaron is feeling and doing and they've probably never even met the man in his life or had more than a passing conversation or interview. Yet they deem themselves capable of interpreting his actions to mean one thing or another. Aaron's actions spoke loud and clear but the reporters are not hearing it, they are stuck with their blinders on, because they are right and you are wrong.
Except, whoops, they are just as culpable about the situation, they had a chance to hoist Canseco and McGwire up by their necks in the 90's, particularly McGwire when he was caught with the Andro and then with his tepid response to that until he realized that he was in deep doo-doo. Where where the Gary Hart exposers when that happened?
It couldn't have been that hard to catch them then, they were really into using it back then, a little diligence would probably have given you the story of a generation, of a lifetime. Perhaps they should be like the priest Dinsmore in "The Scarlet Letter" except that they should scourge themselves in public for allowing that to happen. They left the barn door was left wide open and now they are mad at the horses and cows that left the barn, when they should be mad at themselves.
Reporters Only Deluding Themselves
She feels sorry for people who are longtime Giants fans. The facts of the case is that we don't know how involved or complicit Barry Bonds was and probably never will. In this world of Unabombers, Osama Bin Laden, 9/11, BTK killer, is it really that outrageous to suppose that Greg Anderson did all this on his own without Bonds knowledge?
Perhaps he refuses to testify and "rot" in jail as she puts it because he feels guilty for dragging his childhood friend into this mess and testifying would do nothing for Bonds's reputation? Maybe he feels he is doing it as penance for doing this to Bonds. In any case, if he says Bonds is clean, no one will believe him so why speak up, and if he says that Bonds was unknowingly using, then he would have buried his friend when Bonds didn't do anything to bring this on himself other than to help out an old friend.
We still don't know if he was just boasting to boost his business or because it was true. Both he and Conte has publicly stated that Bonds is clean but then threw all these other athletes under the bus. Why would Conte lie for Bonds? He would get more fame and notoriety for bringing down the career homerun king than he would for gold medal winners where cheating is pretty much dime a dozen and not some outrageous thing to consider. Baseball is still swirling in scandal and that would be good for getting him more publicity, more notice. That's why he gave that exclusive interview to 20/20 (I remember that as the TV show), because he loves the limelite and likes being viewed as the big-shot ring-leader.
And Greg Anderson is a nobody without his connection to Bonds. Of course he has to take some credit for Bonds's improvement, how else is he going to get his drug buyers to buy from him. "Oh, he's a natural freak; but buy my stuff, I'm connected to him!" We don't know if that was bravado and a lie or the truth. It would not be the first time a salesperson lied about his product if he did all this on his own. And of course there's folder with "BLB" on it, he has to show his marks, er, buyers, that he's authentic, that Bonds is really using.
Real or Not Real
And it could be that it is true that Bonds was really taking. But that's my whole point, there are a lot of ways to look at the situation and we don't really know what's real and what's not. Jayson Blair claimed to be writing the truth. Another had Howard Hughes diary, another had Hitler's. Lots of other writers have twisted the truth, the facts, to fit what they wanted to say.
For while most of us are pretty sure Bonds was using, with intent being the dividing line, the main thing is that we don't know for certain yet. Given that the prosecutors want to nail Bonds, and that Pearlman gave very specific information about the alleged meeting that Bonds reportedly claimed to start using the hard-stuff, one would think that after 18 months since this revelation came out with Pearlman's excerpts, the government would have tracked down these people and gotten them to testify against Bonds for perjury.
How Hard to Figure Out?
It should not be too hard, you just subpoena Ken Griffey Jr and get the names of these people; though if it's true, he could claim memory problems, in which case you go through his taxes and see which athletic clothing companies paid him money over the years, and start asking there. How many major athletic clothing companies are there in the world, and how many of them had contact with Ken Griffey Jr. It should not take 18 months to dig that up if they are reduced to coerce a nobody like Jason Grimsley to casually walk up to Bonds, who he was only acquainted with, and start talking about steroids.
Same with the tax evasion that Bonds's ex-mistress has accused of. It has been over a couple of years now that she leveled that at him. Seems pretty cut and dried, she should know the approximate date and location this happened, you check in local newspapers for the announcement in the local library, you locate the business that did the card show, you check their tax records for paying Bonds for baseball card signing income against Bonds's reported income for that year. If the IRS got Pete Rose and Willie McCovey pretty quickly on this in he 1990's, then they should be able to get Bonds pretty easily too, IF HE DID IT.
After all this time, one would think the government would have had more than enough time to bring Bonds up on either or both charge. And yet no word yet on either one. How hard could it be?
Sigh: Resignation
I am resigned to the fact that there might never be any resolution of this. I'm open to either way, whether he cheated or didn't. Obviously, if he didn't use then that is great and I hope the reporters would eat their words and apologize publicly instead of burying their "oops, I did it again" inside the front page where no one will see their errors that they made. But how do you prove a negative? That's like trying to answer the question, "do you still beat your wife," there's no way to really answer that in a satisfactory way.
If all this was true, then I will not demonize Bonds if he really did decide that he couldn't stand being passed up by other players who are using. The press and the league put him in that position, if either were doing their jobs, then he might not have thought he need such an edge, and while he made the wrong choice, I would be able to sympathize with his helplessness over the situation.
Cheating is in Human's and Therefore MLB's DNA
And the story of lesser players using any means to get an edge has been going on longer than when the story of Faust being tempted by the devil was written. Humans will always be tempted to cheat in some way, whether speeding while driving, keeping extra change given you by the cashier, or selling their brother with the multi-color robe into slavery.
And cheating has been happening since the beginning of baseball, from John McGraw's brand of dirty play (he was known to block or trip baserunners while the umpire, only one then, followed the flight of the ball), to Ty Cobb's sharpened spikes (he would willingly maim and stab anyone who dared to tag him out), to the spitball, to throwing games, to the lively ball (there were people who loved the dead-ball era and viewed the live-ball era to be a cheat), to the hidden-ball trick and stealing signs, to amphetamines, to scuffing/altering the ball (Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton were known for that), to modern science allowing players to play more years than previously, to corked bats, and finally to steroids and other PEDs.
Where is the line? What's more unnatural than taking someone's ligament out of their leg and transplanting it into their arms and allowing them to pitch like they used to? It allows a player to do more than what their natural body could do without medical help. Of course, everyone can do that, but some recover and some are even better, but there are a good number of whom who are not the same again.
Of course, it's not illegal in society so there's that, but I find maiming people generally to be illegal and spitballs are definitely illegal in baseball. So why hasn't Gaylord Perrry (who I also loved as a ballplayer, I've regretted that trade for a long time) been drummed out of baseball by writers: he has admitted to cheating, not everybody utilized this cheat, he got a lot of fame out of his cheating, doing things pitchers don't normally do, plus it got him into the Hall of Fame. If the press is worried about legitimizing cheats, why hasn't there been a backlash against him, particularly after he wrote a book about all his cheating.
What I'm Doing
I am enjoying this moment because cheating or no cheating, he was going to be among the greats in terms of the number of homeruns he was going to have. Not to besmirch Aaron, but we don't know if he ever used amphetamines either. Ours is the steroid era but his is the amphetamine era. That's the times we live in today, we can't trust athletes, we can't trust celebrities, we can't trust journalists, we can't trust business leaders, we can't trust politicians, we can't trust our president. Father doesn't know best anymore, and the Beav is no longer doing harmless hi-jinks, he's out racing his new sports car his daddy gave him, running over and killing an elderly couple out for a stroll, before killing himself and his best buddy by wrapping the car around a tree.
But as a baseball fan, legal or illegal, tainted or not tainted, earned or unearned, it is still a moment that only comes around about once every lifetime in baseball, and I've been lucky enough to live to see it twice, and, god willing, I'll be around to see the next one, whether it's A-Rod or Albert or some 9 year old tugging at his daddy's arm and asking him to play baseball with him.
As some historians say, most times we are usually too much in the middle of our times to provide proper perspective on our era, our times, and besides which, there are still a lot of unknowns today that might be revealed in the future and change our view of our past. In addition, feelings that run strong now for some people might fade over time as they finally see things for what they really were.
Did William Shakespeare write all his great works or did he get credit for someone else's work? Either way, it is still a great body of work. However Bonds got to be as good as he is, his swing is still a thing of beauty, as are his homeruns, as steroids certainly didn't help Neifi Perez hit at all and he's been caught three times already whereas Bonds is only accused of using.
For me, I would feel worse accusing someone of something they didn't do, than I would believing that someone was innocent and proven wrong. I already feel some of that guilt because I had defended Bonds for years but it was impossible after Balco, so I retreated to the position of him using Human Growth Hormone (HGH) to be good still afterward. Now that it has been shown that HGH does nothing to help an athlete become better, then what's the answer for why Bonds continue to do well? Particularly since I assume he's followed closely by government agents and his associates would be investigated as well once suspicious activity occurs.
So I will enjoy Bonds's performances as history sorts itself out. Maybe he will be cleared, maybe he'll be proven to be a cheat; most probably we will never get any resolution, only suspicions and accusations. But it will always be a heck of a homer: "It's Outta Here! #756!"
Rose-Colored Glasses
As she shows in this piece, she still clings to her image of her beloved Willie Mays as a beacon of pureness compared to the evil stain that is Barry Bonds. So either she is in denial or she is not that big a baseball fan because it has been pretty much exposed that Willie Mays not only was a user of a liquid red amphetamine, but he was giving it to other players for a "pick-me-up", essentially a non-profit pusher, a sharer of illegal drugs. How many of his homeruns are "tainted" by the use of amphetamines?
Not that I have anything against Willie, he's one of my favorite Giants players and will always have a place in my heart, but it just shows how unrepentant these Barry haters are, juxtaposing the two baseball greats and treating the situation as black and white when it is all grey.
He's Not a Travelling Man, Is that OK With You?
As I suspected, she again ignores the fact that Hank Aaron is a 70+ year old man who doesn't want to go travelling around the country on the Barry Bonds HR tour - as I noted, he would have begun this trip at least 3 weeks ago and disrupted his whole life and routine - and who can fault that? Well, reporters do, even after Hank taped one of the most sincere, heartfelt, touching, history-spanning speeches ever, she and others disrupt that by mentioning that he wasn't there.
Hello?!? Would you make someone who you are good acquaintances with but not good friends with travel around the country while you try to catch up and beat that acquaintance? Just to feed your ego? People have lives, as momentous as the moment was, not everyone feels the need to be there.
Aaron, as was noted, is a private man, I would even say a humble man, so why can't reporters just respect his wish to be in the background, to not acknowledge his greatness? Perhaps he feels that this is Bonds's moment and does not want to intrude on it. And yet reporters insist on reading into his actions or non-actions and inserting their bias and feelings into their reporting.
Aaron's Choice
The fact is despite all the crap reporters has written about how Aaron is unhappy about it, Aaron had the opportunity to respectfully decline to a videotape. Then he had the opportunity to add whatever qualifiers he wished to his videotaped message, I doubt that the Giants thought that they could control everything he says, and you can also be congratulatory but clearly withhold support, much like Selig has. Or he could have waited until now, once Bonds reached his milestone, and give Barry both barrels publicly for all to see. Instead he chose to show his support of Barry in a very public way.
No, the fact is Aaron gave his support fully and without reservation in his video speech, he was very genuine in his congratulatory statement. Please listen to it, I wholeheartedly recommend it. If you are from that era, you will feel goosebumps, it was quite moving. If Aaron, who would have the most reasons to resent the moment, could be so positive about the situation, why can't writers be the same.
Different Strokes for Different Folks
Yet Killion persists, noting "Yes, important witnesses were missing." Well, I watched Hank Aaron hit #715 on TV and I don't recall seeing Babe Ruth's daughther there nor the representative of the Babe Ruth museum, whose most recent successor took to the airwaves with a denunciation of Bonds when Bonds was misquoted/misinterpreted as dissing Babe Ruth. They, by Killion's logic, were important witnesses and they were missing and therefore they were unhappy and resentful of Aaron passing up the Babe.
But everybody is different. If my friends are getting married, or getting some big award, I would be there in a heartbeat, but if some acquaintance who I know who works in my field and who might be beating me out for something, I don't know that I would care to be there. That's his or her moment, I am part of the past. Others might feel the need to be there and support your colleague in their moment of triumph.
But if I were someone's godfather or father figure, I would do my best to be there, though if I'm in my 70's there is going to be some physical limitations, particularly in regards to travel today, with all the security measures making trips longer and harder to handle. So why make such a big deal over Willie Mays showing up and Hank Aaron not? Barry hasn't talked with Aaron in a couple of years now; they are just acquaintences.
If Ann Killion won some writing award, would she expect all the past winners to come by and show her some love? If she got recognized by the White House for exemplary work as a sports news columnist, would she expect the past winners to show up too, just to show how important you are? No, but you would hope that your friends and family can be there to share in the moment with you.
Insulting
What I find insulting is that these reporters seem to know exactly what Aaron is feeling and doing and they've probably never even met the man in his life or had more than a passing conversation or interview. Yet they deem themselves capable of interpreting his actions to mean one thing or another. Aaron's actions spoke loud and clear but the reporters are not hearing it, they are stuck with their blinders on, because they are right and you are wrong.
Except, whoops, they are just as culpable about the situation, they had a chance to hoist Canseco and McGwire up by their necks in the 90's, particularly McGwire when he was caught with the Andro and then with his tepid response to that until he realized that he was in deep doo-doo. Where where the Gary Hart exposers when that happened?
It couldn't have been that hard to catch them then, they were really into using it back then, a little diligence would probably have given you the story of a generation, of a lifetime. Perhaps they should be like the priest Dinsmore in "The Scarlet Letter" except that they should scourge themselves in public for allowing that to happen. They left the barn door was left wide open and now they are mad at the horses and cows that left the barn, when they should be mad at themselves.
Reporters Only Deluding Themselves
She feels sorry for people who are longtime Giants fans. The facts of the case is that we don't know how involved or complicit Barry Bonds was and probably never will. In this world of Unabombers, Osama Bin Laden, 9/11, BTK killer, is it really that outrageous to suppose that Greg Anderson did all this on his own without Bonds knowledge?
Perhaps he refuses to testify and "rot" in jail as she puts it because he feels guilty for dragging his childhood friend into this mess and testifying would do nothing for Bonds's reputation? Maybe he feels he is doing it as penance for doing this to Bonds. In any case, if he says Bonds is clean, no one will believe him so why speak up, and if he says that Bonds was unknowingly using, then he would have buried his friend when Bonds didn't do anything to bring this on himself other than to help out an old friend.
We still don't know if he was just boasting to boost his business or because it was true. Both he and Conte has publicly stated that Bonds is clean but then threw all these other athletes under the bus. Why would Conte lie for Bonds? He would get more fame and notoriety for bringing down the career homerun king than he would for gold medal winners where cheating is pretty much dime a dozen and not some outrageous thing to consider. Baseball is still swirling in scandal and that would be good for getting him more publicity, more notice. That's why he gave that exclusive interview to 20/20 (I remember that as the TV show), because he loves the limelite and likes being viewed as the big-shot ring-leader.
And Greg Anderson is a nobody without his connection to Bonds. Of course he has to take some credit for Bonds's improvement, how else is he going to get his drug buyers to buy from him. "Oh, he's a natural freak; but buy my stuff, I'm connected to him!" We don't know if that was bravado and a lie or the truth. It would not be the first time a salesperson lied about his product if he did all this on his own. And of course there's folder with "BLB" on it, he has to show his marks, er, buyers, that he's authentic, that Bonds is really using.
Real or Not Real
And it could be that it is true that Bonds was really taking. But that's my whole point, there are a lot of ways to look at the situation and we don't really know what's real and what's not. Jayson Blair claimed to be writing the truth. Another had Howard Hughes diary, another had Hitler's. Lots of other writers have twisted the truth, the facts, to fit what they wanted to say.
For while most of us are pretty sure Bonds was using, with intent being the dividing line, the main thing is that we don't know for certain yet. Given that the prosecutors want to nail Bonds, and that Pearlman gave very specific information about the alleged meeting that Bonds reportedly claimed to start using the hard-stuff, one would think that after 18 months since this revelation came out with Pearlman's excerpts, the government would have tracked down these people and gotten them to testify against Bonds for perjury.
How Hard to Figure Out?
It should not be too hard, you just subpoena Ken Griffey Jr and get the names of these people; though if it's true, he could claim memory problems, in which case you go through his taxes and see which athletic clothing companies paid him money over the years, and start asking there. How many major athletic clothing companies are there in the world, and how many of them had contact with Ken Griffey Jr. It should not take 18 months to dig that up if they are reduced to coerce a nobody like Jason Grimsley to casually walk up to Bonds, who he was only acquainted with, and start talking about steroids.
Same with the tax evasion that Bonds's ex-mistress has accused of. It has been over a couple of years now that she leveled that at him. Seems pretty cut and dried, she should know the approximate date and location this happened, you check in local newspapers for the announcement in the local library, you locate the business that did the card show, you check their tax records for paying Bonds for baseball card signing income against Bonds's reported income for that year. If the IRS got Pete Rose and Willie McCovey pretty quickly on this in he 1990's, then they should be able to get Bonds pretty easily too, IF HE DID IT.
After all this time, one would think the government would have had more than enough time to bring Bonds up on either or both charge. And yet no word yet on either one. How hard could it be?
Sigh: Resignation
I am resigned to the fact that there might never be any resolution of this. I'm open to either way, whether he cheated or didn't. Obviously, if he didn't use then that is great and I hope the reporters would eat their words and apologize publicly instead of burying their "oops, I did it again" inside the front page where no one will see their errors that they made. But how do you prove a negative? That's like trying to answer the question, "do you still beat your wife," there's no way to really answer that in a satisfactory way.
If all this was true, then I will not demonize Bonds if he really did decide that he couldn't stand being passed up by other players who are using. The press and the league put him in that position, if either were doing their jobs, then he might not have thought he need such an edge, and while he made the wrong choice, I would be able to sympathize with his helplessness over the situation.
Cheating is in Human's and Therefore MLB's DNA
And the story of lesser players using any means to get an edge has been going on longer than when the story of Faust being tempted by the devil was written. Humans will always be tempted to cheat in some way, whether speeding while driving, keeping extra change given you by the cashier, or selling their brother with the multi-color robe into slavery.
And cheating has been happening since the beginning of baseball, from John McGraw's brand of dirty play (he was known to block or trip baserunners while the umpire, only one then, followed the flight of the ball), to Ty Cobb's sharpened spikes (he would willingly maim and stab anyone who dared to tag him out), to the spitball, to throwing games, to the lively ball (there were people who loved the dead-ball era and viewed the live-ball era to be a cheat), to the hidden-ball trick and stealing signs, to amphetamines, to scuffing/altering the ball (Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton were known for that), to modern science allowing players to play more years than previously, to corked bats, and finally to steroids and other PEDs.
Where is the line? What's more unnatural than taking someone's ligament out of their leg and transplanting it into their arms and allowing them to pitch like they used to? It allows a player to do more than what their natural body could do without medical help. Of course, everyone can do that, but some recover and some are even better, but there are a good number of whom who are not the same again.
Of course, it's not illegal in society so there's that, but I find maiming people generally to be illegal and spitballs are definitely illegal in baseball. So why hasn't Gaylord Perrry (who I also loved as a ballplayer, I've regretted that trade for a long time) been drummed out of baseball by writers: he has admitted to cheating, not everybody utilized this cheat, he got a lot of fame out of his cheating, doing things pitchers don't normally do, plus it got him into the Hall of Fame. If the press is worried about legitimizing cheats, why hasn't there been a backlash against him, particularly after he wrote a book about all his cheating.
What I'm Doing
I am enjoying this moment because cheating or no cheating, he was going to be among the greats in terms of the number of homeruns he was going to have. Not to besmirch Aaron, but we don't know if he ever used amphetamines either. Ours is the steroid era but his is the amphetamine era. That's the times we live in today, we can't trust athletes, we can't trust celebrities, we can't trust journalists, we can't trust business leaders, we can't trust politicians, we can't trust our president. Father doesn't know best anymore, and the Beav is no longer doing harmless hi-jinks, he's out racing his new sports car his daddy gave him, running over and killing an elderly couple out for a stroll, before killing himself and his best buddy by wrapping the car around a tree.
But as a baseball fan, legal or illegal, tainted or not tainted, earned or unearned, it is still a moment that only comes around about once every lifetime in baseball, and I've been lucky enough to live to see it twice, and, god willing, I'll be around to see the next one, whether it's A-Rod or Albert or some 9 year old tugging at his daddy's arm and asking him to play baseball with him.
As some historians say, most times we are usually too much in the middle of our times to provide proper perspective on our era, our times, and besides which, there are still a lot of unknowns today that might be revealed in the future and change our view of our past. In addition, feelings that run strong now for some people might fade over time as they finally see things for what they really were.
Did William Shakespeare write all his great works or did he get credit for someone else's work? Either way, it is still a great body of work. However Bonds got to be as good as he is, his swing is still a thing of beauty, as are his homeruns, as steroids certainly didn't help Neifi Perez hit at all and he's been caught three times already whereas Bonds is only accused of using.
For me, I would feel worse accusing someone of something they didn't do, than I would believing that someone was innocent and proven wrong. I already feel some of that guilt because I had defended Bonds for years but it was impossible after Balco, so I retreated to the position of him using Human Growth Hormone (HGH) to be good still afterward. Now that it has been shown that HGH does nothing to help an athlete become better, then what's the answer for why Bonds continue to do well? Particularly since I assume he's followed closely by government agents and his associates would be investigated as well once suspicious activity occurs.
So I will enjoy Bonds's performances as history sorts itself out. Maybe he will be cleared, maybe he'll be proven to be a cheat; most probably we will never get any resolution, only suspicions and accusations. But it will always be a heck of a homer: "It's Outta Here! #756!"
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Congrats to Barry Bonds on #756: the New Home Run King
Congratulations to Barry Bonds on hitting career home run #756 today, off Mike Bacsik, whose father, incidentally, also faced Hank Aaron when he had 755 and Bobby Bonds, Barry's dad. He will now live in history, linked with Barry. Hopefully, it is a duty that he does not mind.
Reporters Are Full of Crap
Giving reporters across the land a giant F-U middle finger salute, Hank Aaron was the video presentation the Giants played after his historic home run. Unfortunately I was not able to listen to the game at that time, but Jon Miller said that it was very appropriate and inspiring (I just listened to it off sfgiants.com and it was).
Most reporters have been implying (or worse saying) that Aaron was not comfortable with being associated with Bonds, that he was unhappy about Bonds passing him up, that he felt that Barry had obtained his homers illicitly and hated that Barry was going to pass him illegitimately.
However, clearly, with Hank Aaron willingly taping a congratulatory message for Barry, he showed that he had no problem with Barry, that all the reporters were full of crap for saying that Aaron had a problem with Barry passing him up. His message was sincere, humble, grand and expansive, and inspirational. There was no reservation in his message, unlike what Selig has been passing off as congratulatory messages, no mention of anything untoward or wrong with Barry passing him up.
It probably was as I has suspected: who wants to travel with Barry all over the country while waiting for 756 to happen. Barry has been within reach since July 19 when he hit 2 out in Chicago. That was 19 days ago, and since the Giants have been playing almost a game a day, probably 17-18 games ago. That would have been a good 3 weeks of traveling, from Chicago, to Milwaukee, to SF, to LA, to SD, again to SF (approximate; from memory). That's tough travel for young ballplayers, even worse for someone in his 70's like Hank.
Reporters Have No Shame
The reporters even got it wrong about his children. I read that they were not that supportive or excited. But his son met him at the plate and gave him lots of hugs and pats on the butt, then, from Jon Miller's description (on sfgiants.com), all his children were there and celebrating with their Dad. How do these reporters sleep putting words and feelings in children's mouths, reflecting how they feel and not what the children are feeling?
I wonder how the reporters will twist things now that Aaron has showed them where his sympathies lie. I doubt any of them will admit that they got it horribly wrong or apologize for characterizing Aaron as being unsupportive of Barry in his pursuit. I know that they won't apologize for stating that his children were unsupportive. Like most errors made by reporters, they will probably bury it quietly, hoping that no one noticed that the reporters were way off base.
Good Job Barry, Now Hit Some More
Congrats to Barry, hopefully this will release a stream of homers as he makes it harder for A-Rod, Pujols, and others to catch up with him. And thanks for all the homers.
Reporters Are Full of Crap
Giving reporters across the land a giant F-U middle finger salute, Hank Aaron was the video presentation the Giants played after his historic home run. Unfortunately I was not able to listen to the game at that time, but Jon Miller said that it was very appropriate and inspiring (I just listened to it off sfgiants.com and it was).
Most reporters have been implying (or worse saying) that Aaron was not comfortable with being associated with Bonds, that he was unhappy about Bonds passing him up, that he felt that Barry had obtained his homers illicitly and hated that Barry was going to pass him illegitimately.
However, clearly, with Hank Aaron willingly taping a congratulatory message for Barry, he showed that he had no problem with Barry, that all the reporters were full of crap for saying that Aaron had a problem with Barry passing him up. His message was sincere, humble, grand and expansive, and inspirational. There was no reservation in his message, unlike what Selig has been passing off as congratulatory messages, no mention of anything untoward or wrong with Barry passing him up.
It probably was as I has suspected: who wants to travel with Barry all over the country while waiting for 756 to happen. Barry has been within reach since July 19 when he hit 2 out in Chicago. That was 19 days ago, and since the Giants have been playing almost a game a day, probably 17-18 games ago. That would have been a good 3 weeks of traveling, from Chicago, to Milwaukee, to SF, to LA, to SD, again to SF (approximate; from memory). That's tough travel for young ballplayers, even worse for someone in his 70's like Hank.
Reporters Have No Shame
The reporters even got it wrong about his children. I read that they were not that supportive or excited. But his son met him at the plate and gave him lots of hugs and pats on the butt, then, from Jon Miller's description (on sfgiants.com), all his children were there and celebrating with their Dad. How do these reporters sleep putting words and feelings in children's mouths, reflecting how they feel and not what the children are feeling?
I wonder how the reporters will twist things now that Aaron has showed them where his sympathies lie. I doubt any of them will admit that they got it horribly wrong or apologize for characterizing Aaron as being unsupportive of Barry in his pursuit. I know that they won't apologize for stating that his children were unsupportive. Like most errors made by reporters, they will probably bury it quietly, hoping that no one noticed that the reporters were way off base.
Good Job Barry, Now Hit Some More
Congrats to Barry, hopefully this will release a stream of homers as he makes it harder for A-Rod, Pujols, and others to catch up with him. And thanks for all the homers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)