If at first your don't succeed...

Try try again? And again? And......

When John Hart resigned as the Rangers' general manager following the 2005 season, the job was handed over to his incredibly young (only 28 at the time) protégé Jon Daniels. Hart had focused his efforts to improve the team's offense rather than the pitching ever since he arrived in Texas in 2001. Even before then Hart had always hungered for offense, building his previous franchise, the Cleveland Indians, around the theory that you could ignore pitching and merely outscore the opposition every time.

Well, his theory worked…to an extent. His dual trips to the World Series gave him the confidence to maintain that mentality when he changed franchises and to implore Daniels to do the same afterward he resigned.

Daniels learned well, keeping the team in a competitive state where they are well within reach of a playoff birth (something they haven’t seen since 1999). His recent acquisition of Carlos Lee has stirred the baseball world, as it is the first transaction involving a major player in the final weeks of the trading portion of the season. Yes he has added one of the more potent available bats to an already strong offense, but once again the Rangers are without any sort of pitching.

Padilla and Millwood are the only two starters with an ERA under 5.00 and are undoubtedly the weakest 1-2 combo of any team within reasonable playoff contention. There bullpen has been dodging bullets all season, the only bright spot has been Otsuka's emergence as a reliable closer. In fact other than Otsuka and Padilla no other pitcher has a WHIP under 1.30 (for those unfamiliar with the stat, 1.25 is considered decent).

Surely the Rangers could just slug there way to playoffs and then....

Well that's where the fairy tale ends because the Ranges have tried this style of play before. The offense has been the center point of the team's meager success for over a decade. Though they did capture 3 division titles over the 10 year span, the team also holds a collective 1-9 record once reaching the October spotlight and it's because they lacked pitching. The Rangers have not had a starter with an ERA under 4.00 for a decade, other than occasional appearances by a man called Rogers (Kenny seems it necessary to play for the Rangers every couple of seasons just to give the appearance that the franchise is focusing on building a legitimate staff).

Daniels even went to the effort of signing Kevin Millwood you say? Millwood has been shaky 2 or 3 starter and is not the man to be harnessing the reigns of a staff in a historically hitter's ballpark. He's not the man that'll lead you to a title, and while many would argue that Daniels was merely building a team to make the playoffs, not the World Series, why on earth did he just trade for a 2 month rental at the cost to his bullpen and possible future of his outfield? (Actually that's not fair because Laynce Nix is a bust, Mench is mediocre, but not great, and Cordero's mechanics are so disrupted that he shouldn't be expected to return to his previous until at least the beginning of next season).

The Indians did it! They trampled teams in their wake to two AL Pennants! We could just keep adding offense and be true tribute to John Hart!

Yes they did, but even they had three mediocre starters (Orel Hershiser, Dennis Martinez, and Charles Nagy) who were better than Rangers' two man tandem. The Indians had also assembled one of the most potent offenses this half century has ever seen. In 1995 they EIGHT players hit above .300 and two years later they had a 3-4-5 combo that all had at least a .320 average and 20 home runs. Eddie Murray, Manny Ramirez, Kenny Lofton, David Justice, Jim Thome, Randy Alomar, Sandy Alomar Jr., Matt Williams, and Carlos Baerga all started in the Indians' array of lethal lineups throughout the 90's. Hell Richie Sexson and Brian Giles were on the bench!

When that kind of hitting can't get you a championship I don't know why any general manager or owner would believe they could do it in an era that has suddenly begun to swing back to an age of pitching. All of the previous championships teams have structured their teams around an aspect of their pitching: The White Sox' starting staff, the Red Sox' Schilling/Martinez (+ an incredibly underrated bullpen), the Marlins' young guns, the Angels’ untouchable pen, Schilling/Johnson in Arizona, and the Yankees' dynasty could not have existed without a bevy of veteran starters and the greatest closer in baseball.

One must one wonder how long it will take Daniels and other GM's to finally listen to cliché saying that still rings true: Good Pitching Always Beats Good Hitting (especially in a seven game series).

Joe Morgan is an Absolute Embarassment

Billy Beane: Sometimes Joe doesn't like facts to get in the way of his opinions.

I don't expect every major leaguer to welcome the new onslaught of numbers and statistics into "their" game with open arms, but at the very least I'd appreciate an open mind. Players like Reggie Jackson and Derek Jeter oppose the controversial destruction of the concept of clutch hitting, but that is not surprising considering their pasts. Joe Morgan is also skeptical of the conclusions drawn from numerous calculations but is far more vocal about his opinion (the custom in MLB is that if you strongly object to a statisitcal calculation that you can't refute effectively, just remain quite unless questioned about it).

On multiple occurrences Morgan has berated Michael Lewis' Moneyball, though he has the misguided view that Beane wrote the book despite constant attempts to inform him otherwise. While the book is clearly biased in its presentation of a new outlook on baseball, one must give it credit for introducing a revolutionary scheme. Morgan abhors the new statistical discoveries to such a large degree that he has not even read the book that he claims is completely devoid of worth.

Sadly, not only has Morgan's rash disregard for reason not tarnished his public reputation, it hasn't slowed down his announcing career either. Morgan carries his misguided beliefs into the booth every time he works for espn who has ironically paired him with one of the more passive, but quality, play by play announcers in the business, Jon Miller. On several occasions have I listened to Morgan's stupidity run unchecked on national television and I am becoming increasingly frustrated with Morgan's pure idiocy.

Last year Cubs manager Dusty Baker opted not to pinch hit for one of his scrawnier hitters (the Cubs are filled with scrappy mid-infielders and I apologizing for not remembering the collection of junk the Cubs are forced to use) in a bases loaded situation trailing by two. Morgan repeatedly belittled Baker for not pinch hitting, claiming that the batter "didn't drive in runs, he only scored them". On the third pitch the little man launched the ball into the right field bleachers, giving the Cubs the lead. Before he could get to second Baker blurted out "You know I've been talking to Dusty lately about how this kid has really turned his hitting ability around and made himself a better player." I nearly jumped through a window. I wish I had been sitting in the booth to replay the previous 3 minutes where Morgan would not shut up about Baker's foolishness to Morgan himself.

On July 2nd, the Yankees responded to the Mets' early 4 run lead with an offensive explosion in the 3rd inning. After the Mets were already down three runs (they'd eventually end the inning down 9-4) Morgan decided it was time to use the clarity hindsight to blame Randolph for the sudden turn events. "He should've pulled Soler earlier and brought in Darren Oliver!" screamed Morgan multiple times before his co-worker Jon Miller interjected with an obvious flaw in Morgan's proposition, "But with an 11 game lead in the division, wouldn't you prefer to not put a strain on your bullpen and suffer possible repercussions down the rest of the season?" Miller's qualm was a result of Pedro's recent injury and the Mets were preparing to start Oliver the following day in his place. "You can't worry bout the 11 game lead, you have to win today. All you have to worry about is winning this game, I don't care about how far ahead you are in the division." countered Morgan.

0 games as a manager
0 games as a bench coach
0 games as any type of hitting, pitching or fielding instructor
0 games as a base coach
0 games as an affiliate of an major league organization in an influential position

There lies the managing career of Joe Morgan after his retirement in 1984.

1.5 years as manager of New York Mets.
1 year as Yankee bench coach
10 years as Yankee third base coach

Randolph played a coaching role in 4 world championship teams and has turned an underachieving team into the NL's strongest.

For the following 2 innings Morgan assaulted Randolph's move (or lack thereof) until Miller finally conceded his numerous attempts to reason with his counter part with basic baseball logic. Sure enough the Mets, hindered by lack of available arms, needed Oliver in the next game.

A week later, on ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball game, Morgan was present at the NL Central showdown between the Astros and Cardinals. The Cardinals had gotten leadoff man Eckstein on trailing 2-0 on the top of the eighth. Morgan insisted that Spiezio should bunt despite the fact that St. Louis needed two runs, not one. Instead of listening to Morgan, Larussa smartly put the hit and run on and Spiezio delivered with a single that advanced Eckstein to third. Morgan's comment: "See, now that's a lot better than a bunt." Needless to say the Cardinals proceeded to score five runs that inning, and after several misuses of their fatigued bullpen they allowed the Astros to tie the game and send it into extra innings. In the twelfth the Cards once again had Eckstein on 1st with nobody out, but this time with Iguchi at the plate. Not surprisingly Morgan strongly advocated the bunt (though to his credit the Cards did need just one run to take the lead) but Miller caught him off guard, "Yes but if you bunt, you're taking the bat out of the hands of your best clutch Albert Pujols" referring to Phil Garner's predictable decision to intentionally walk Pujols with 1st base open. Morgan's response (word for word) "Yes, but you want to score runs!"

Silence. Miller didn't understand and frankly no one else ever will understand the thought process that occurs in Joe Morgan's head.

Over the wall or down the line: Toughest plays in baseball (1-5)

5. Into the Stands
There comes a time when every infielder must make that scary transition from the security of the playing fields into the chaotic, and sometimes hostile, atmosphere of the stands. Failure results only in a foul ball, but a real player will put his body on the line to make a crucial out any day of the week. These plays are as equally challenging and scary as catchers and other infielders who wander into dugouts and camera booths; neither have been designed for the safety of a man charging over 3-4 the foot wall.

4. Shortstop in the hole
Patented by Derek Jeter, but before he was leading the Yankees to titles a skinny man named Omar was making ridiculous off-balanced throws of his own. While Vizquel has alwats taken heat for not being an offensive threat (and at times even a liability) he has on countless occasions tracked a ball down to his right and all the while anticipating the need to make the difficult throw to first. Both of these men excel at what they do and have inspired countless youngsters to continually practice making the play from the outfield grass in left.

3. Third baseman down the line
Not to be out done says Scott Rolen! Once compaired to the other great Phillie 3B, Mike Schmidt (who never receives enough recognition for his work with his glove), Rolen perfectly executes the "run, backhand the hard groundball, then hurl it in the exact opposite direction in which you are going" play. Sometimes a player will have enough time to plant his feet and fire but its far more entertaining to watch a third baseman do a spin/leap/catapult-esque throw that is just in time to catch the startled hitter who was probably already thinking double. A combination of arm strength and an above average ability to make a quick ball transfer (essential for most infield plays) are required to make this challenging and aesthetically pleasing play.

2. Over the wall
...and through the padding, to sportscenter's top 10 we go. Sorry, got carried away there. Ever heard of a man called Fred Lynn? Well way before Gary Matthew's robbery of Mike Lamb (which can only be matched by the play where the Japanese guy literally climbs the 10 foot high wall), Lynn was crashing into posts and teammates as he robbed countless hitters of home runs and extra base hits. For our purposes "running into wall at full speed" can be considered a lesser, but still significant subset of this category of plays. But the toughest part is the not the danger, its the perfection of timing. After running your ass off to get to the wall, you must now jump at precisely the right moment to snag that ball before its out of reach.

1. Over the shoulder
If you don't have one of those "o shit i got to catch this cause nobody else will" moments as soon as this ball is hit, you're not going to grab it. Frankly these plays are not as fun to watch but they are the most difficult play to make by an player on the fielder. These plays are usually witnessed in centerfield, either by a SS or 2B tracking down a flare (these balls are sometimes down the line too) or a centerfielder just flat out showing off. The only time I've seen a first baseman make this play was by Donny baseball (Don Mattingly) who went straight up the line, made the catch and then immediately turned around to find the runner on third trying to sneak home (needless to say Mattingly threw him out at the plate). So why exactly is this play so hard? You have to run at full throttle while watching a ball that's behind your back and then be able to either stop running or dive at precisely the right moment (there's no time to spin around, you've gotta make this play with your back to the catcher).

Top 3 plays involving going behind the back (no order):
Jim Edmonds: This guy has made this play so many fucking times I'm ready to get down and start worshiping him. (Ok maybe that's a little far, but he's still damn good at what he does) The most spectatular play was when he went straight back and flung his body parallel to the ground and amazingly caught the ball. How the hell he pulled that play off I'll never know.
David Wright: The barehand play is raved about by every Met fan I have ever met (and even some non-Shea lovers). Sadly I have never seen this play in its entirety, only snipits from several of sportscenter's montage. I will allow this play in merely because it combines this style of catch with the barehand clause, but if you are reading this and have seen the play PLEASE FIND ME A COPY!
Willie Mays: "The Catch" will forever be remembered as the first (and possibly greatest) Web Gem caught on video. Take Mattingly's play: put in the outfield, double the distance he had to run, double the distance he had to throw the ball back in, and then infinitely increase the magnitude of the catch because of the setting.

One final play I want to discuss (because I'm a Yankees fan and because I was at this game): Derek Jeter's "play of the year" (awarded by Baseball Tonight) in 2005 was the greatest play I have ever witnessed live and I am still amazed when I see it from all the other camera angles. This play gets the half-credit point for over the back, full credit for in the stands, and further points for the timing of the play: 12th inning of a game against the Red Sox in a pennant race.

The Running of the Bulls

During the 2006 NBA regular season, fate seemed to be heavily favoring the Detroit Pistons. Fresh off two straight appearances in the NBA finals, they roared to a 37-5 start, causing many observers to coronate them as the 2006 NBA champions halfway through the year. Although they went just 27-13 after this point, that was still a respectable record, and there wasn't much for them to compete for anyways. Yet as we all know, they had a miserable playoff run, barely getting past a mediocre Cleveland team (which in my mind, didn't even play that well), and were put out of their misery by the surging Heat in the Eastern Conference Finals. The momentum that they had been building under Joe Dumars had suddenly come to a crashing halt.
The Chicago Bulls, on the other hand, were out of playoff contention nearly the entire year, before a late-season surge that brought them to 41-41 earned them the seventh seed and a tough first-round series with the Miami Heat. The Bulls looked surprisingly game in this series against the team that would eventually claim the NBA Finals by the same margin that they defeated the Bulls (4-2) by. One of the youngest teams in the NBA, it could certainly have been said after their first-round exit that they would be a team to watch in the coming years.
As America now knows, these two teams are now forever connected, with the Bulls having signed Ben Wallace, considered to be the rock of the Pistons, to a four-year, $60 million contract. This begs the question: Have the Bulls now passed the Pistons as the Heat’s primary contender for the 2007 Eastern Conference crown?
Subjectively, the fit seems to be great for Chicago. Scott Skiles is a tough, defensive-minded coach, and Ben Wallace is commonly regarded as the best defensive player in the NBA today. However, I wish to go beyond first impressions, and undertake a more thorough analysis of the impact a player like Ben Wallace can have on the Bulls (and what his loss could mean to the Pistons).
Since standard defensive stats often don’t capture the true talent of a star defender (although Ben Wallace does block more than his fair share of shots), a fuller appreciation of Ben Wallace’s impact on the defensive end can be garnered by examining the plus/minus statistics provided at www.82games.com. In the 2005-06 season, the Pistons defense played 10.6 points per 100 possessions better with Wallace on the court as compared to off the court. Although such a high number is probably a fluke due to small sample size and a weak bench, his positive effect has been consistent: the defense was 3.5 points better in 2004-05, 3.0 points better in 2003-04, and 3.1 points better in 2002-03. Based on this, I make a rough estimate that Ben Wallace has improved the Pistons’ defense by 3-4 points per hundred possessions during his tenure in Detroit. This may sound like a small number, but in fact improves the team by about 7 to 10 wins per year, if he has in fact improved the defense that significantly. Obviously, there are other factors, but this is probably a reasonable ballpark estimate of Wallace’s impact defensively. If you subtract 7 wins from the Pistons’ expected win total from 2006 (calculated using Pythagorean winning percentage), you get a 53-29 team. If you add 7 wins to the Bulls’ expected win total from 2006, you get a 50-32 team. Suddenly the difference between a 41-41 team (43-39 expected) and a 64-18 team (60-22 expected) is reduced to almost nothing.
However, I would have forecasted the Bulls for significant improvement even without the addition of Ben Wallace and the reason is one of the youngest rosters in the league. Shooting guard Ben Gordon will be 23, point guard Kirk Hinrich 26, forward Luol Deng 21, forward Andres Nocioni 27, guard Chris Duhon 24, center Tyson Chandler 24 (although he may be traded). Ben Wallace will be 32, but hasn’t shown any sign of slipping yet, even if he could be a risk by the time he hits the last year of his contract and will be 35. I also feel that 20 year old first-round draft pick Tyrus Thomas has the chance to be the best player in the 2006 NBA draft, as he was able to play at a very high level in the NCAA despite only being a freshman, dominating the NCAA tournament defensively and on the glass. Even if he is not ready to contribute offensively, signs point to him being able to contribute defensively right away, helping to make the Bulls a potentially dominant defensive team.
I also feel that there may be a bit of a delay factor working in favor of the Bulls. Often times, a team is slated for great things in an upcoming season only to apparently underachieve. This allows them to be forgotten the following season, and I have seen many teams succeed at this point, revealing the hype to have come a year early. This scenario no longer applies to the Bulls perfectly, as they will hardly be forgotten with the addition of Wallace, but keep in mind that they were seen to have underachieved this season after a surprising 47-35 campaign the year before. However, natural regression to the mean took place, and most of the Bulls’ young players (who may have overachieved the year before) didn't make significant strides. Their expected win-loss record only dropped by 1 win however, and it is not unreasonable to suggest that after a year of stalled development, the Bulls’ youngsters are if anything, safer bets to have break out seasons. Players like Ben Gordon and Luol Deng have star potential given their youth and what they have accomplished so far. The more young players who break out offensively, the more powerful the Bulls will be, given that with the addition of Ben Wallace and Tyrus Thomas, they may now possess the best defense in the NBA. Chad Ford’s summation of the trade on espn.com laments how the Bulls will be imbalanced towards defense, but I would point out that there’s no such thing as too good of a defense, and if your defense is the best in the NBA, even a mediocre offense can take you pretty far. More importantly, with so many young players, it is not hard to imagine the Bulls taking sizable strides on offense as well.
However, even with the rise of the Bulls, the Pistons do not need to hit the panic button. With a little defensive depth added to the roster, they shouldn’t drop below the 50-55 win level. Since the team played so much worse without Ben Wallace on the court this season, this may be an indication that his substitutes were huge negatives on the basketball court. A glance at the roster shows that Detroit had no frontcourt players behind the Wallaces in the frontcourt besides Antonio McDyess, which would probably explain why the team faltered so badly in Ben’s absence. The writers at ESPN seem to think that Detroit may address their needs by adding Joel Przybilla or Nazr Mohammed, but I would caution Detroit from spending a lot of money on a player like Przybilla, who would be on the roster not to replace Wallace, but to keep the team from falling apart. However, looking through the available free agents, there certainly seems to be a dearth of big men who could contribute defensively, so perhaps the Pistons’ hand will be forced in this regard. To address ESPN one last time, Chad Ford suggests that the Pistons could re-cast themselves as a more running, up-tempo team to fit into the new NBA (which would involve playing McDyess at PF and Rasheed Wallace at C). He seems to envision them as being a more offensive-minded team, but this makes little sense, since it wouldn’t address the team’s defensive concerns whatsoever, and the team already ranked 4th in the NBA in offensive efficiency (1 place higher than their defensive ranking!) in 2006. Whether Ford’s plan fits into the new “style” of the NBA or not, it would be a hard argument to make that a simple roster shift could turn the Pistons into such an offensive juggernaut so as to offset their pending defensive decline. Ford overreacts to the lackluster offensive performance the Pistons put on in the playoffs, ignoring that the Pistons did not play like that for over 90 games until Game 3 of the Cleveland series. In my opinion, the Pistons do not need to be shifted around to improve their offense, as the offense will hardly suffer from the loss of Wallace. The potential defensive problem absolutely cannot be ignored, however.
In closing, I would also recommend that the Pistons try and find someone who can coach their team, as Flip Saunders has proven time and time again that he cannot coach beyond the regular season. My fellow statistically-oriented analysts always made the argument that none of Saunders’ Minnesota teams performed under expectations in the playoffs, as they were always the underdog, yet this argument only seems to hold up if you assume that the favorite always wins in a 7-game series. Yes, none of those Minnesota teams were going to win the NBA title or anything with a different coach (excluding perhaps the 2004 version), but you would have to think that they should have won a series or two between 1997 and 2003, instead of bowing out in the first round in seven consecutive appearances. Moreover, Flip Saunders has now had his chances to coach a favorite in the playoffs twice, and failed to make the NBA Finals both times. Do I even need to mention that the friction between him and Ben Wallace may have been one of the impetuses for Ben Wallace’s eventual departure? In conclusion, the addition of Ben Wallace and the corresponding improvement of the Bulls may turn out to be perfect timing in terms of returning the Bulls to the sort of win-loss records that they posted in the Jordan years. The Pistons, in their current state, do not really have a full roster, so they will certainly need to address their issues of depth via free agency or trades.

Over the wall or down the line: Toughest plays in baseball (6-10)

I was mortified when espn's top play of the first half of 2006 was some hockey goal that I had never seen aired before, ever. The rest of the top 10 was rounded out by over 4 amazing catches by outfielders and an awkward play by a second baseman. Having read over a dozen Bill Simmons articles in the past week (work is exceedingly boring) and thanks to the provoking words of my buddy Unaiz I got to thinking about the toughest plays to be made in baseball. The infamous John Kruk believes that fielding is contagious and that players are always trying to “one up” their teammates. Well here’s a guide to determining just how much awe we should be showing for some of the tougher defensive plays in Baseball.

I’d also like to note that there are always exceptions to these rules. Anything done with bare hands or during the 9th inning (or any critical moment) gets extra bonus points. Also to be noted; I have no idea what bonus points are, just that they should be distributed them wisely.

We'll lead off with the 6-10:

10. Outfielder coming in
You've seen plenty of these plays on sportscenter or Baseball tonight, and they occur so often that you're only intrigued because it's always cool to see guy fly through the air. Frankly these plays aren't excessively hard. You are already charging, have a clear view of the ball, and have plenty of time to judge whether diving is necessary or not. The only danger is in allowing the ball to get passed you in your haste, which can lead to multiple extra bases for the hitter. These plays are equivalent to difficulty of leaping plays by infielders to snag line drives. A infielder merely requires a good vertical and an adequate sense of timing in order to rob a batter of a line drive single.

9. Ground ball to the right side
The second baseman and first baseman have the luxury of a short throw/run to first base. This play also applies to shortstops going up the middle who also benefit from their momentum carrying them in the direction of the throw. *One exception to this classification is the incredible play made by rookie Ozzie Smith (then with the Padres) who when diving to his left was caught off guard as the ball redirected itself (via rock). He reached back with his bare hand mid-dive and miraculously caught hold of the baseball. He then climbed to his feet and fired to first as if he had just fielded a simple grounder. Actually, anything Ozzie did defies all these rules, he was truly a spectacle to behold. Free Bonus Points for all Ozzie plays! (I’m remaining undecided as to whether Omar Vizquel deserves the same type of treatment.

8. Slow roller
Iguchi's tumbling play on a ball back up the middle cracked espn's top ten for this half year, as he threw the ball with his arm parallel to and only an inch above the ground. The more common version is seen on a bunt or nubber down the third base line that a third baseman must quickly field and hurl over to first. The best hot corner gunner that ever saw to exemplify this skill was Scott Brosius who never seemed to miss an opportunity to show off his big hands that would swoop down and cradle the ball before throwing the runner going running to first. Yea I know that sounded a little gay……I don’t care.

7. Line drive back at the pitcher
These pitchers are usually just trying to protect themselves let alone rob the hitter of a hit. To have the presence of mind to not only defend oneself but to knock down the ball and then throw out the hitter is something to be praised. The most memorable version of these plays is Terry Mulholland's impressive stab at a hard hit grounder back up the middle that proceeded to wedge itself within the webbing of his glove. Mulholland, quickly realizing his conundrum, jogged half way to first before lofting his entire glove to the first baseman for the out. Another amazing play was by Mike Stanton, (not the current lefty, but a 6'2" righty who only spent 7 brief seasons in the majors in the 80’s) who caught a line drive traveling a 100+ mph with his outstretched bare hand.

6. Outfielder to his side
These plays carry the equal risk of letting the ball get away and allowing the hitter a shot at a triple, but judging these shots is harder. From the crack of the bat you've got to decide whether to cut the ball off or risk going horizontally airborne in order to prevent the ball from reaching the outfielder fence. These plays are comparable to the diving plays made by infielders who have a shorter time to react but are not scorned if they miss because the result is often a single, or a double down the line at worst.