QMAX ratings: (3,3) for Smyly (Success Square)
(5,3) for Sanchez (Uncategorised)
(1,2) for Porcello (Elite Square)
Bullpen Awards: None
Batters' Aggregate LI Win Values:
Kinsler 0.285
V-Mart 0.230
Avila 0.066
Suarez 0.061
Davis 0.054
Jackson 0.029
JD-Mart 0.005
Cabrera 0.004
Holaday -0.018
Castellanos -0.049
Hunter -0.111
Sunday, 29 June 2014
Tigers 2014 Games 73, 74, 75: verrunt in Texas
The Tigers began their Texas tour with a visit to the Ballpark at Arlington, possibly my least favourite ballpark in the major leagues, with its pastiche approach to architectural design. They came away with three victories, led by the bats of Ian Kinsler and Victor Martinez. The starting pitching was solid, with an excellent start from Rick Porcello, but the bullpen again suffered ugly moments, with both Joe Nathan and Al Alburquerque giving cause for concern in Game 74 (25th June). From here it was on to Houston, to face an Astros team that wasn't playing with quite the verve it had in late May and early June.
Wednesday, 25 June 2014
2014 Nationals Game 75: omnes salve basipilus ex Earl Weaver!
All hail the three-run homer! Adam LaRoche's bat pretty much carried the team to victory, with his home run in the third inning. I was not particularly confident after the bases-loaded flop in the second inning, but my pessimism proved unwarranted, even after Gio Gonzalez pitched himself into a jam in the Brewers' third. The bullpen never looked worried, either. The ideal game for aficionados of Earl Weaver baseball, with a quality pitching performance and enough offense to bring home the 'W'.
Highest Leverage PA: 3.1, Gomez fly out vs Gonzalez, Brewers 3rd. Highest LI Win Value: .554 LaRoche homer vs Garza, Nationals 3rd. QMAX rating: (3,4) for Gonzalez (SS). Bullpen Award: None.Batters' Aggregate LI Win Values:
LaRoche 0.601 Desmond 0.214 Werth 0.113 Zimmerman 0.043 Rendon -0.004 Dobbs -0.005 Hairston -0.010 Span -0.068 Espinosa -0.243 Gonzalez -0.291 Lobaton -0.296
Tuesday, 24 June 2014
2014 Nationals Fielding Review #4
Here is an update to last time's fielding numbers. My source for this is Fangraphs, which includes all the main metrics that interest me except for Michael Humphreys' Defensive Regression Analysis.* From Fangraphs, I've used Mitchel Lichtman's Ultimate Zone Rating, my personal first choice of the 'converted-to-runs-play-by-play' metrics, and my preferred measure of RZR. The last is Revised Zone Rating, which is like a fielding average but counts balls hit into a zone, rather than those the fielder actually reached. I have included the MLB positional averages for RZR, to help give the players' numbers some context. DRA is added to these two, while I have dropped Dewan's Defensive Runs Saved. Note that catchers do not have a Zone Rating. Instead, I have used the runs saved by framing, supplied by StatCorner.com
Player UZR Change RZR Change LgAverage DRA Change PFr Lobaton (C) n/a -- n/a --- n/a 6.6 +0.3 -1.7 Ramos (C) n/a -- n/a --- n/a 2.5 -0.2 -0.6 Span (CF) -3.4 -2.0 .925 -.004 .923 - 3.9 -0.3 n/a Espinosa (2B) 0.1 +0.1 .790 +.011 .784 1.1 -1.2 n/a LaRoche (1B) -1.4 +0.9 .807 -.065 .812 - 5.8 -4.7 n/a McLouth (LF) -0.7 +0.3 .880 --- .873 - 1.3 -0.5 n/a Harper (LF) -1.6 +0.1 .875 --- .873 - 2.9 -0.3 n/a Desmond (SS) -3.9 +0.7 .799 +.004 .793 - 8.7 +2.0 n/a Werth (RF) -2.3 -1.0 .933 +.001 .900 - 4.0 -3.2 n/a Rendon (3B) 0.5 +1.5 .713 +.006 .706 0.4 -0.6 n/a Zimmerman (LF) 0.7 -- .971 --- .873 2.2 -- n/a minimum 160 innings
Let's start by looking at where the systems agree. UZR, RZR and DRA all think that Denard Span's fielding declined, with UZR seeing the decline as quite sharp. All three are also of the opinion that Ian Desmond's fielding has improved, with DRA seeing a substantial improvement. All other indicators are mixed, but RZR and DRA think Adam LaRoche's fielding has suffered in the past couple of weeks. DRA and UZR think Jayson Werth's fielding has declined. The interesting thing here is that in the last review DRA thought these same two players improved. I am of the opinion that this might well reflect the influence of Werth's counterparts on other teams pushing the league averages up. LaRoche's sharp RZR decline makes me think the falls in UZR and DRA are more meaningful.
Looking at overall sums, UZR sees a slight improvement of +0.6, which might have been a lot better except for the bad scores from Werth and Span. DRA, by contrast, sees a -8.7-run decline, which is almost an entire win. RZR sees all the regulars performing around league average, with the exceptions of Werth and Ryan Zimmerman. Owing to family issues, I haven't been able to follow the games over this time, so I can't comment about which I think better matches my impressions.
Both catchers saw their pitch-framing runs saved decline by 0.3.
____
* These are available at the Baseball Gauge of Seamheads.com. Humphreys wrote the excellent Wizardry, which is a way of looking at fielding using only the traditional statistics, and not the newfangled play-by-play metrics.
Tuesday, 17 June 2014
2014 Tigers Fielding Review #1
I am adding the Tigers to my survey of fielding numbers, which I have been meaning to do since the start of providing these. So I will alternate the Tigers and the Nationals, with updates every other week. My source for this is Fangraphs, which includes all the main metrics that interest me except for Michael Humphreys' Defensive Regression Analysis.* From Fangraphs, I've used Mitchel Lichtman's Ultimate Zone Rating, my personal first choice of the 'converted-to-runs-play-by-play' metrics, and my preferred measure of RZR. The last is Revised Zone Rating, which is like a fielding average but counts balls hit into a zone, rather than those the fielder actually reached. I have included the MLB positional averages for RZR, to help give the players' numbers some context. DRA is added to these two, while I have dropped Dewan's Defensive Runs Saved. Note that catchers do not have a Zone Rating. Instead, I have used the runs saved by framing, supplied by StatCorner.com
Player UZR Change RZR Change MLBaverage DRA Change PFr Avila (C) n/a -- n/a --- n/a 1.0 -- -8.8 Holaday (C) n/a -- n/a --- n/a 0.4 -- -2.0 Kinsler (2B) 5.2 -- .822 --- .789 - 1.2 -- n/a Jackson (CF) -3.9 -- .917 --- .924 - 2.2 -- n/a Cabrera (1B) 3.8 -- .823 --- .812 9.3 -- n/a JD Martinez (LF) -1.6 -- .900 --- .872 0.4 -- n/a Davis (LF) -4.5 -- .838 --- .872 0.3 -- n/a Romine (SS) -2.7 -- .709 --- .775 - 4.4 -- n/a Hunter (RF) -14.0 -- .825 --- .895 - 9.4 -- n/a Castellanos (3B) -1.2 -- .615 --- .709 - 3.4 -- n/a minimum 130 innings
Without the same amount of information monitored as this blog has for the Nationals, it is impossible to ascertain whether the Tigers' fall-off in performance is associated with bad fielding. However, there are several obvious pieces of information to draw from these numbers. One is that the Tigers' outfielders aren't doing very well. On all measures we see negative numbers except for J.D. Martinez' RZR and DRA, and Rajai Davis' DRA. But the DRA numbers aren't much above average.
The infield pffers a slightly better picture, with Ian Kinsler and Miguel Cabrera doing well under UZR and DRA is really enthusiastic about Cabrera. However, RZR sees the left side of the infield as quite a problem, with both Andrew Romine and Nick Castellanos well under the league average.
I do have data for overall team fielding going back some weeks. The Tigers' team UZR has fallen quite sharply over the last ten days to two weeks, from average-ish to moderately bad. (UZR thinks the worse teams are the Indians and Astros). The Tigers are probably at the fringe of what is tolerable. Defensive Runs Saved sees the picture a bit worse, with the Tigers being the fourth-worst team in MLB. RZR shares UZR's ranking.
On pitch framing, Alex Avila is one of the worst in baseball, with only three catchers with lower scores.
____
* These are available at the Baseball Gauge of Seamheads.com. Humphreys wrote the excellent Wizardry, which is a way of looking at fielding using only the traditional statistics, and not the newfangled play-by-play metrics.
Tuesday, 10 June 2014
2014 Nationals Fielding Review #3
Here is an update to last time's fielding numbers. My source for this is Fangraphs, which includes all the main metrics that interest me except for Michael Humphreys' Defensive Regression Analysis.* From Fangraphs, I've used Mitchel Lichtman's Ultimate Zone Rating, my personal first choice of the 'converted-to-runs-play-by-play' metrics, and my preferred measure of RZR. The last is Revised Zone Rating, which is like a fielding average but counts balls hit into a zone, rather than those the fielder actually reached. I have included the MLB positional averages for RZR, to help give the players' numbers some context. DRA is added to these two, while I have dropped Dewan's Defensive Runs Saved. Note that catchers do not have a Zone Rating. Instead, I have used the runs saved by framing, supplied by StatCorner.com
Player UZR Change RZR Change MLBaverage DRA Change PFr Lobaton (C) n/a -- n/a --- n/a 6.3 +0.2 -1.2 Ramos (C) n/a -- n/a --- n/a 2.7 -- -0.3 Span (CF) -1.4 +1.2 .929 -.003 .914 - 3.6 +0.4 n/a Espinosa (2B) 0.0 +0.3 .779 +.013 .789 2.3 -2.2 n/a LaRoche (1B) -2.3 -2.1 .868 +.022 .812 - 1.1 +2.9 n/a McLouth (LF) -1.0 -- .880 --- .872 - 0.8 -- n/a Harper (LF) -1.7 -0.2 .875 --- .872 - 2.6 +0.8 n/a Desmond (SS) -4.6 -0.1 .795 +.033 .775 -10.7 +0.8 n/a Werth (RF) -1.3 -3.5 .932 -.023 .895 - 0.8 +2.0 n/a Rendon (3B) -1.2 +2.8 .707 +.009 .709 1.0 +1.5 n/a minimum 130 innings
The abysmal Nationals' fielding of the early season now seems to have done a little bit of 'regression to the mean, no matter what particular statistic one looks at. We see some extreme results, with DRA, the method using traditional fielding statistics, seeing improvement from Adam LaRoche and Jayson Werth, while UZR takes a remarkably opposed view. RZR splits the difference, with one up and one down. Interestingly, RZR now sees Ian Desmond as an above-average shortstop, while DRA and RZR think he is improved but still the worst regular on the team. Anthony Rendon has improved quite dramatically with more time at third base.
If one sums the UZR changes, the Nationals' regulars have deteriorated by about -1.6 runs, and locates the problem on the right side of the field, with Werth and LaRoche dampening the improvement elsewhere. DRA sees a 6.1-run improvement, which is half a win. The Nationals are winning more, too. Once again, my own impression aligns more with DRA.
As a side note, the pitch-framing data for the catchers shows some improvement for Lobaton, who scored -2.1 last time.
____
* These are available at the Baseball Gauge of Seamheads.com. Humphreys wrote the excellent Wizardry, which is a way of looking at fielding using only the traditional statistics, and not the newfangled play-by-play metrics.
Monday, 9 June 2014
Report on a Project for Idle Moments
For the past couple of months, I have been working my way through the Carson Cistulli-Dayn Perry podcasts at Fangraphs, from the very beginning up to the point where I started downloading them as part of my Fangraphs.com podcasts-via-iTunes subscription, which I took up about a year ago.
Let me start the report with my initial thought about these conversations, which is that they were a sorry example of what happens when one has a position of authority, as an editor, and a misplaced sense of what might appeal to an audience. In other words, they are exercises in self-indulgence, of a kind that, having worked myself in the media for several years, I am all too familiar with. So often one hears 'wouldn't it be a good idea to...' from people either on the fringes of the industry, or outside it altogether. A professional examination of the idea leads to the answer 'no, it would not'. This is rarely enough to stop an idea with supporters in the right place. And yet — although I don't know where to find download data for these Cistulli-Perry exchanges, they do appear to have an audience of some kind. There is a sort of 'what on earth will they do next?' fascination involved here. And that, my dear readers, is what drew me in.
Having first heard what was clearly either a fully matured version of an original idea or, possibly, a show that has 'jumped the shark', I assumed that it hadn't actually started like this. It just couldn't have. It has a certain polish, a shape that has been honed by some practice. The repartee is that of two chess players who have come together on many occasions, and know each other well enough that they will allow the other to advance towards a well-worn position, confident that, having stopped it before, they can accomplish the stalemate again. The individuals themselves are somewhat interesting, too.
Dayn Perry is a figure of some renown in the sports media of the internet era. He currently works for CBS Eye on Baseball, 'the home for all baseball fans' as he repeatedly reminds us. However, at the time the podcasts commenced, he was, like many talented individuals, underemployed by a system that is as ruthless as any nineteenth-century factory in taking in young men and transforming them into prematurely aged, broken individuals, who move from casual job to casual job, trying to piece together a sufficient income to keep body and soul together. The media industry is a cruel place, where at times even 'who you know' joins 'what you know' as a worthless commodity. His persona as presented in the mature versions of the podcasts is of a foul-mouthed, crass individual with a rather better estimation of himself than is warranted. Like the archetypal sophomore literature student, his intent is to make you remember him through his ability to disturb the bounds of propriety. Although he now lives in that most American of cities, Chicago, he is originally from Mississippi. His contempt for his origins is repeatedly manifest, and being a Southerner turned Midwesterner, he bears a cross of arrogant insularity, a burden he does not recognise. For a while, he emphasised a sort of ultra-patriotism that might be seen as an aspect of this insularity; a costume that, obviously satirical, has lost its former prominence. When he isn't playing a part, Perry is clearly a man of boiler-plate American liberal views. Mostly, he just seems to be in a temper.
Carson Cistulli is at first glance a far more sympathetic character. His vocal manner strives to achieve a kind of patrician rectitude, although that vowel at the end of his surname is the death knell for any serious attempt to achieve membership of the WASP Ascendancy. However, no people do patrician elegance better than the Italians, so Sig. Cistulli should treat this supposed shortcoming with the kind of patrician contempt that from time to time he unleashes against Perry, when the latter's transgressions go too far. Like Perry, Cistulli is a student of literature specifically. Unlike Perry he has some knowledge of civilisation more generally. He has odd blind spots, however, as the occasion when he plainly seemed unaware of what a Pietá is. His grasp of Classical culture is far stronger than a typical member of his generation, which is to be applauded in these grim times for our Western heritage. His generously paternalistic politics match this old-fashioned patrician manner. He claims to be an elitist, and I heard no reason to doubt this assertion. It is all of a piece. While some might assert he is pretentious, he shows sufficient familiarity with demotic culture to belie that notion. ('Pretentious' is usually bandied about by people lashing out at the possibility that one is looking down at their cultural choices. One is not really interested in their cultural choices, and they mistake a lack of interest for a feeling of superiority.) The fact is, at second glance, Cistulli is a far more sympathetic character, too.
Yet these personas are finished. Tracing the history of the podcast, one can see the development. Most significantly, when the series began, there was an attempt to link these conversations with goings-on in the world of baseball. The very first had an introductory character, and Perry is very guarded. The shape of the future became apparent in a subsequent encounter, where there were minor eruptions such as remarks about Cistulli's ethnic heritage, and the first bleeping-out of Perry swearing like a trooper. However, Perry goes on to fret about this shocking attempt, pleading with Cistulli not to post the conversation so that his mother won't hear. If anything, in this episode the two almost reverse their later characters, with Perry dodging all of Cistulli's little jabs. Neither persona was as yet crafted as fully as it would be. Cistulli is far from his patrician demeanour, especially in his vocal manner, while Perry is not universally out to shock.
Two weeks later, under the title 'The Great Dayn Perry Experiment' we had the first free-form chat between the two, during which Perry answered demands for 'Trick or Treat' on Hallowe'en, a remarkable metaphor for what was to come. Are these podcasts 'tricks' or 'treats'? That is for each listener to determine. Cistulli characterised this podcast as a search for a new style, suited to Fangraphs. The opening music, while still Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass, was changed from 'The Charmer' to 'Spanish Flea', which people of my vintage might remember from The Dating Game. Yet they weren't quite ready to dispense with baseball altogether, as they talked over the recent St Louis Cardinals victory over the Texas Rangers in the World Series. They conclude with an agreement, between themselves, that this had been a 'terrible' podcast. It is hard to disagree that this was a trick, perhaps because they still held that the podcast had to discuss baseball.
The nadir of this stage of experimentation came with 'Dayn Perry, mustachioed gentleman' during which one heard Cistulli nearly break down in tears of frustration at Perry's unwillingness to co-operate with the production beyond responding to Cistulli's questions. The episode ended with 4 minutes and 33 seconds of dead air, an homage to John Cage. This was followed by the first episode in which we see, nearly fully formed, the personas that I have described above, as Perry turns from a defensive churlishness to a truculence that Cistulli applauds. The chemistry between the two blossoms as they discuss Perry's history as a baseball-card collector, (a topic that dissipates the truculence momentarily) and propose the vandalisation of Manny Sanguillén's Wikipædia page. Cistulli's trick is to get Perry to talk about his personal relationship to baseball, as opposed to talking about baseball events themselves. This was the elusive podcast gold.
For the acme of these exchanges one might find it hard to surpass Dayn Perry Can't Help You. However, even as the exchanges acquired a degree of comedic value, they began to decline in frequency. In the summer of 2012, they began to appear biweekly, rather than the advertised weekly occurrence. An attempt at weekly appearances returned in the autumn, but after the World Series, it became quite clear that the two of them could no longer meet regularly, and in the course of 2013 they drifted into appearing about once a month. This is where things stand at the moment.
So what to make of these entertainments? Are they worth listening to? I give a reserved 'yes' in answer. They are not as funny as they think they are, and a lot depends on how Perry responds to Cistulli's attempts to pursue variety, as in the case of the most recent 'Allow Dayn Perry to Disappoint You', when Perry, daunted by being put on the spot by having to invent questions to answers supplied by the listeners, gives up on the project. However, when Cistulli begins by touching on his own personal vulnerabilities when confronted by a beekeeping PhD in 'Dayn Perry, Spleen of Chicago' we again achieve podcast gold. And that is the key. When these two address their own fears, or confront their own pasts, they create compelling listening. When they don't, we're all [beeped].
Let me start the report with my initial thought about these conversations, which is that they were a sorry example of what happens when one has a position of authority, as an editor, and a misplaced sense of what might appeal to an audience. In other words, they are exercises in self-indulgence, of a kind that, having worked myself in the media for several years, I am all too familiar with. So often one hears 'wouldn't it be a good idea to...' from people either on the fringes of the industry, or outside it altogether. A professional examination of the idea leads to the answer 'no, it would not'. This is rarely enough to stop an idea with supporters in the right place. And yet — although I don't know where to find download data for these Cistulli-Perry exchanges, they do appear to have an audience of some kind. There is a sort of 'what on earth will they do next?' fascination involved here. And that, my dear readers, is what drew me in.
Having first heard what was clearly either a fully matured version of an original idea or, possibly, a show that has 'jumped the shark', I assumed that it hadn't actually started like this. It just couldn't have. It has a certain polish, a shape that has been honed by some practice. The repartee is that of two chess players who have come together on many occasions, and know each other well enough that they will allow the other to advance towards a well-worn position, confident that, having stopped it before, they can accomplish the stalemate again. The individuals themselves are somewhat interesting, too.
Dayn Perry is a figure of some renown in the sports media of the internet era. He currently works for CBS Eye on Baseball, 'the home for all baseball fans' as he repeatedly reminds us. However, at the time the podcasts commenced, he was, like many talented individuals, underemployed by a system that is as ruthless as any nineteenth-century factory in taking in young men and transforming them into prematurely aged, broken individuals, who move from casual job to casual job, trying to piece together a sufficient income to keep body and soul together. The media industry is a cruel place, where at times even 'who you know' joins 'what you know' as a worthless commodity. His persona as presented in the mature versions of the podcasts is of a foul-mouthed, crass individual with a rather better estimation of himself than is warranted. Like the archetypal sophomore literature student, his intent is to make you remember him through his ability to disturb the bounds of propriety. Although he now lives in that most American of cities, Chicago, he is originally from Mississippi. His contempt for his origins is repeatedly manifest, and being a Southerner turned Midwesterner, he bears a cross of arrogant insularity, a burden he does not recognise. For a while, he emphasised a sort of ultra-patriotism that might be seen as an aspect of this insularity; a costume that, obviously satirical, has lost its former prominence. When he isn't playing a part, Perry is clearly a man of boiler-plate American liberal views. Mostly, he just seems to be in a temper.
Carson Cistulli is at first glance a far more sympathetic character. His vocal manner strives to achieve a kind of patrician rectitude, although that vowel at the end of his surname is the death knell for any serious attempt to achieve membership of the WASP Ascendancy. However, no people do patrician elegance better than the Italians, so Sig. Cistulli should treat this supposed shortcoming with the kind of patrician contempt that from time to time he unleashes against Perry, when the latter's transgressions go too far. Like Perry, Cistulli is a student of literature specifically. Unlike Perry he has some knowledge of civilisation more generally. He has odd blind spots, however, as the occasion when he plainly seemed unaware of what a Pietá is. His grasp of Classical culture is far stronger than a typical member of his generation, which is to be applauded in these grim times for our Western heritage. His generously paternalistic politics match this old-fashioned patrician manner. He claims to be an elitist, and I heard no reason to doubt this assertion. It is all of a piece. While some might assert he is pretentious, he shows sufficient familiarity with demotic culture to belie that notion. ('Pretentious' is usually bandied about by people lashing out at the possibility that one is looking down at their cultural choices. One is not really interested in their cultural choices, and they mistake a lack of interest for a feeling of superiority.) The fact is, at second glance, Cistulli is a far more sympathetic character, too.
Yet these personas are finished. Tracing the history of the podcast, one can see the development. Most significantly, when the series began, there was an attempt to link these conversations with goings-on in the world of baseball. The very first had an introductory character, and Perry is very guarded. The shape of the future became apparent in a subsequent encounter, where there were minor eruptions such as remarks about Cistulli's ethnic heritage, and the first bleeping-out of Perry swearing like a trooper. However, Perry goes on to fret about this shocking attempt, pleading with Cistulli not to post the conversation so that his mother won't hear. If anything, in this episode the two almost reverse their later characters, with Perry dodging all of Cistulli's little jabs. Neither persona was as yet crafted as fully as it would be. Cistulli is far from his patrician demeanour, especially in his vocal manner, while Perry is not universally out to shock.
Two weeks later, under the title 'The Great Dayn Perry Experiment' we had the first free-form chat between the two, during which Perry answered demands for 'Trick or Treat' on Hallowe'en, a remarkable metaphor for what was to come. Are these podcasts 'tricks' or 'treats'? That is for each listener to determine. Cistulli characterised this podcast as a search for a new style, suited to Fangraphs. The opening music, while still Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass, was changed from 'The Charmer' to 'Spanish Flea', which people of my vintage might remember from The Dating Game. Yet they weren't quite ready to dispense with baseball altogether, as they talked over the recent St Louis Cardinals victory over the Texas Rangers in the World Series. They conclude with an agreement, between themselves, that this had been a 'terrible' podcast. It is hard to disagree that this was a trick, perhaps because they still held that the podcast had to discuss baseball.
The nadir of this stage of experimentation came with 'Dayn Perry, mustachioed gentleman' during which one heard Cistulli nearly break down in tears of frustration at Perry's unwillingness to co-operate with the production beyond responding to Cistulli's questions. The episode ended with 4 minutes and 33 seconds of dead air, an homage to John Cage. This was followed by the first episode in which we see, nearly fully formed, the personas that I have described above, as Perry turns from a defensive churlishness to a truculence that Cistulli applauds. The chemistry between the two blossoms as they discuss Perry's history as a baseball-card collector, (a topic that dissipates the truculence momentarily) and propose the vandalisation of Manny Sanguillén's Wikipædia page. Cistulli's trick is to get Perry to talk about his personal relationship to baseball, as opposed to talking about baseball events themselves. This was the elusive podcast gold.
For the acme of these exchanges one might find it hard to surpass Dayn Perry Can't Help You. However, even as the exchanges acquired a degree of comedic value, they began to decline in frequency. In the summer of 2012, they began to appear biweekly, rather than the advertised weekly occurrence. An attempt at weekly appearances returned in the autumn, but after the World Series, it became quite clear that the two of them could no longer meet regularly, and in the course of 2013 they drifted into appearing about once a month. This is where things stand at the moment.
So what to make of these entertainments? Are they worth listening to? I give a reserved 'yes' in answer. They are not as funny as they think they are, and a lot depends on how Perry responds to Cistulli's attempts to pursue variety, as in the case of the most recent 'Allow Dayn Perry to Disappoint You', when Perry, daunted by being put on the spot by having to invent questions to answers supplied by the listeners, gives up on the project. However, when Cistulli begins by touching on his own personal vulnerabilities when confronted by a beekeeping PhD in 'Dayn Perry, Spleen of Chicago' we again achieve podcast gold. And that is the key. When these two address their own fears, or confront their own pasts, they create compelling listening. When they don't, we're all [beeped].
Thursday, 5 June 2014
2014 Amateur Draft Starts Tonight
Sorry for being AWOL for the last week or so. I am trying to redesign those little summaries of games I provide for my many readers so that I can catch up quickly by dealing with whole series at a time, and this should go into effect shortly.
Today, I was looking at the draft coverage on the always-excellent Baseball America because tonight the amateur draft begins. This year, because I have listened to many Baseball America podcasts during the ccllege season, I am perhaps better informed than ever before. I still remember the first amateur draft I followed, the 2005 one. In those days, it was a conference call broadcast on the internet, with scouting reports and video offered by MLB.com I know that in 2009-10 one could still access this kind of information for earlier drafts, like the one conducted in 2002. If you still can access those lists, you'll see all the information one had to go on back in those days.
Tonight, MLB Network will offer a kind of Barnum & Bailey circus presentation by comparison with the spartan era of ten years ago. I have to say, the more glamour associated with the draft, the less appealing I find it. There were years when I would have been disappointed to miss the draft, but this year I am actually electing not to follow it at all,* beyond the much more extensive work I have done up to now. I know, for example, that Carlos Rodon was considered a lock at #1 in February, that his stock fell considerably, but now he is thought by Baseball America's Mock Draft to be destined for the Miami Marlins at #2 because he is the kind of Cuban-American star that the organisation has always favoured, when they could get one. (Remember Robert Andino, a 2002 second-rounder whose greatest fame came with the Orioles?)
The Nationals are choosing a Tommy John victim, RHP Erick Fredde, according to the BA Mock Drafters, while the Tigers are after Casey Gillaspie, a college hitter whose name I have seen and heard around. Reading the comments in that thread I linked above, though, suggests that the Nationals may take a chance on one of my two favourite names in the draft, Touki Toussaint, another Tommy John victim whose stock has been higher throughout the amateur season. Toussaint has far more upside that Fredde, so I would applaud the Nationals if they nabbed him ahead of Fredde. However, if one explores the Mock Draft at John Sickels' Minorleagueball.com, the community there sees Michael Conforto coming to the Nationals. Baseball America has Conforto going to the Cubs at #4, which just goes to show how far a community of fans can depart from the scuttlebutt of really existing MLB front offices. Finally, Jim Callis and Jonathan Mayo at Mlb.com have a very different picture, with Gillaspie or Kyle Freeland to the Nationals, and RHP Nick Howard or OF Derek Hill to the Tigers.
I'm not a fan of speculation, which is why I focus on summaries of what happened in games. I haven't a clue who the Nationals (or the Tigers) should take, because at #18 it is going to depend on too many variables of the players already taken. Furthermore, by the time one gets to pick #18 (let alone #23), one is looking at getting a Willie Wilson or an RA Dickey at best. The median pick looks to be a kind of below-replacement character like Royce Ring.
Because I'm in a keeper Diamond Mind league, I take more interest in the draft than the average fan. But, this year, for the first time in my modern baseball fandom, it is not going to be the festival of hope over experience that it traditionally has been.
_________
* Well, I might follow a Twitter feed like @MLBDraftTracker that just listed the picks.
Today, I was looking at the draft coverage on the always-excellent Baseball America because tonight the amateur draft begins. This year, because I have listened to many Baseball America podcasts during the ccllege season, I am perhaps better informed than ever before. I still remember the first amateur draft I followed, the 2005 one. In those days, it was a conference call broadcast on the internet, with scouting reports and video offered by MLB.com I know that in 2009-10 one could still access this kind of information for earlier drafts, like the one conducted in 2002. If you still can access those lists, you'll see all the information one had to go on back in those days.
Tonight, MLB Network will offer a kind of Barnum & Bailey circus presentation by comparison with the spartan era of ten years ago. I have to say, the more glamour associated with the draft, the less appealing I find it. There were years when I would have been disappointed to miss the draft, but this year I am actually electing not to follow it at all,* beyond the much more extensive work I have done up to now. I know, for example, that Carlos Rodon was considered a lock at #1 in February, that his stock fell considerably, but now he is thought by Baseball America's Mock Draft to be destined for the Miami Marlins at #2 because he is the kind of Cuban-American star that the organisation has always favoured, when they could get one. (Remember Robert Andino, a 2002 second-rounder whose greatest fame came with the Orioles?)
The Nationals are choosing a Tommy John victim, RHP Erick Fredde, according to the BA Mock Drafters, while the Tigers are after Casey Gillaspie, a college hitter whose name I have seen and heard around. Reading the comments in that thread I linked above, though, suggests that the Nationals may take a chance on one of my two favourite names in the draft, Touki Toussaint, another Tommy John victim whose stock has been higher throughout the amateur season. Toussaint has far more upside that Fredde, so I would applaud the Nationals if they nabbed him ahead of Fredde. However, if one explores the Mock Draft at John Sickels' Minorleagueball.com, the community there sees Michael Conforto coming to the Nationals. Baseball America has Conforto going to the Cubs at #4, which just goes to show how far a community of fans can depart from the scuttlebutt of really existing MLB front offices. Finally, Jim Callis and Jonathan Mayo at Mlb.com have a very different picture, with Gillaspie or Kyle Freeland to the Nationals, and RHP Nick Howard or OF Derek Hill to the Tigers.
I'm not a fan of speculation, which is why I focus on summaries of what happened in games. I haven't a clue who the Nationals (or the Tigers) should take, because at #18 it is going to depend on too many variables of the players already taken. Furthermore, by the time one gets to pick #18 (let alone #23), one is looking at getting a Willie Wilson or an RA Dickey at best. The median pick looks to be a kind of below-replacement character like Royce Ring.
Because I'm in a keeper Diamond Mind league, I take more interest in the draft than the average fan. But, this year, for the first time in my modern baseball fandom, it is not going to be the festival of hope over experience that it traditionally has been.
_________
* Well, I might follow a Twitter feed like @MLBDraftTracker that just listed the picks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)