david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (05/18/85)
Semi-random notes on the baseball season so far:
We are now about 20% into the season, and four teams have
substantially defied my expectations. I'm sure most others who have
ventured guesses on the outcomes on this year's races have been defied
by at least a couple of the following. So, let us ask those musical
questions, beginning with:
ARE THE PIRATES THIS BAD?
I could've sworn that the Pirates did some reasonable things during
the offseason to correct their offensive deficiences (acquiring Kemp
and Hendrick). Moreover, Madlock HAS to have a better year and
Thompson looks to me like he's going to have a good one. So what
gives? I've got two suggestions, one concrete and one speculative:
(a) Injuries. The New York Times recently ran a list of
man-days lost to injuries by major league teams, and the
Pirates topped the list. Only the Mets were close (though
I would have weighted starts missed by Berenyi more
heavily than days missed by regulars, and thus would have
put the Pirates second in a more reasonable measure). The
question arises, though, why would injuries rock this team
so badly while evidently not crippling the other hard-hit
team in the majors? Thus, the speculation...
(b) Grand Juries. Are too many places on the Pirate roster
occupied by men awaiting the results of the grand jury
probe into drug dealing at Three Rivers?
ARE THE PHILLIES THIS BAD?
Piece of cake. No, the Phillies aren't this bad. We can list the
Phillies' difficulties as:
(1) Mike Schmidt. So, he's off to a slow start. Given the
fact that he's been by far the most productive player in
baseball over the last ten years, he's entitled. The
question is: have his skills deteriorated, or he will he
rebound? Yes, his defense has gone from spectacular to
competent. Yes, he can no longer steal the base at the
killing moment. But I see nothing wrong with the bat;
Schmidt will be back.
(2) John Russell. It looks like he's going to wash out (at
least for this season) and be sent back to AAA. Compound
this with their too causual dumping of Matuszek, and the
first base position becomes wide open. For now, the
Phillies are platooning Corcoran with Russell, but they
are going to need a right-handed first-baseman to replace
Russell if he fails to hit lefties as well as righties.
I've heard a rumor that the Phils are trying to talk Greg
Luzinski out of retirement (probably would have been a good
idea in March, but seems to be much riskier in May), but
they'll probably settle for Wockenfuss, who was productive
in that role last year. This problem, too, shall pass.
(3) Jeff Stone. Seems as though he forgot how to run. Some
experimenting with alternative left fielders is likely all
that's needed to remind Stone that speed HURTS a team if
it isn't used wisely.
(4) Steve Jeltz. Another wash-out (though, unlike Russell,
I'm not so sure he'll make good in the future). I can't
see Aguayo as an every day shortstop, and they've dumped
De Jesus and Garcia (though I can't see either of them as
an every day shortstop). There may be some real trouble
here. Will the Phils be forced to trade Diaz for a real
shortstop, instead of for bullpen help? (And when ARE
they going to move Diaz?)
(5) The Bullpen. It's not as bad as everyone says. It's just
not good. Rumor had it that before the Mets began getting
close to acquiring Carter, they offered the Phils Sisk for
Diaz --- and the Phils refused. Despite Sisk's rough
start (to phrase it mildly), if it were true, I'd have to
say the Phils erred badly.
ARE THE EXPOS THIS GOOD?
I'm not sure. Dawson's back, and that helps, and Brooks and Law
have contributed what the Expos were hoping for. It could be just a
collective hot start (which I suspect), or maybe the Expos as a team
are MORE than the sum of their parts (wouldn't that be a change from
Expo tradition). Something which was disturbing me was: why is
Fitzgerald fifth in the league in OBA? Last year, it was something
around .300. Now it's about .350. The Expos have been batting him
low in the order (as the Mets did last year) -- has he really become
more selective at the plate?
ARE THE ANGELS THIS GOOD?
No. Emphatically not.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidsamuels@h-sc1.UUCP (ronald samuels) (05/20/85)
> ARE THE PIRATES THIS BAD? Yes, well maybe. > (a) Injuries. The New York Times recently ran a list of > man-days lost to injuries by major league teams, and the > Pirates topped the list. Only the Mets were close And they still have untapped tallent in Tidewater. I really can't believe it!! I thought at the beginning of the year that depth would be the Met's weakness, and it's turning out to be a strength. > ARE THE PHILLIES THIS BAD? > > Piece of cake. No, the Phillies aren't this bad. Come on, any team averaging more than an error a game is in pretty bad shape > ARE THE ANGELS THIS GOOD? > > No. Emphatically not. > David Rubin > {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david Agreed, wait till that rookie pitching gives out and their old men start to get tired late in the seaon. -- Ron Samuels Harvard University Science Center ...harvard!h-sc1!samuels (or better yet) ...harvard!h-sc4!samuels_b
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (05/22/85)
> And they still have untapped tallent in Tidewater. I really can't believe > it!! I thought at the beginning of the year that depth would be the > Met's weakness, and it's turning out to be a strength. I, too, am pleasantly surprised, but at least I can say that I didn't join the stampede of hand-wringers over the Mets' pitching that has occurred in the media. An important ramification is that the Terrell-Johnson trade looks like a great one, despite Johnson's slow start and the Mets' injuries. Now, it is still possible that even more injuries will accrue to the staff or that Johnson is going to have a bad year, in which case it will have hurt the Mets THIS year. But I now believe that with all the arms apparently available at AAA that Terrell was a replaceable (but still desirable) quantity (and how many sinkerballers do we want on the staff, anyway?). Johnson has shown me a lot, even in his slump. He has turned out to well ABOVE average on the field (but defense is the most easily learned skill, right Davey?), to be a good and smart baserunner, and to have a good eye at the plate. I have little doubt that by this time next season, Johnson will be established as the first successful full-time thirdbasemen in the Mets history, relegating Knight to right-handed pinch-hitting duty. It isn't often that a .140 hitter impresses me as a sure success, especially after coming over in a trade that I questioned at the time. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (05/22/85)
> > ARE THE PHILLIES THIS BAD? > > > > Piece of cake. No, the Phillies aren't this bad. > > Come on, any team averaging more than an error a game is in pretty bad > shape Thorn and Palmer have suggested the following decomposition of baseball influence: Hitting: 48% Pitching: 44% Fielding: 6% Running: 2%. This is based on the supposition that baseball is 50% offense and 50% defense ("every run scored is a run allowed, and vice versa"); that 88% of all runs scored (allowed) are earned, and therefore the pitcher's responsibility (with the 12% of runs attributed to poor fielding); that stolen bases simply don't produce many runs (fans and managers (except Earl Weaver) often see the the direct benefits of a stolen base, but underestimate the indirect cost of a caught stealing (head this, Tanner!)). Thus, poor fielding is not FATAL, and a poor fielding team with good hitting and fair pitching (the Phillies, e.g.) ought to still perform respectably. Now we needn't interpret those numbers as the Truth to accept the lesson that fielding pales in importance when compared to hitting and pitching. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david