Media Counter Punch
This was supposed to be about the Jets, I know. But local media was swept away with baseball: Mets/Yanks/Beltran and the Hall of Fame. Tomorrow is Jets day, we're told.
First, a little football from first-class Jets whiner Joe Benigno, who stepped forward with the usual gloom and doom that you'd expect from a guy who's spent the better part of his life rooting for this team to no avail. But it was a little much when he capped his WFAN show by telling new partner Sid Rosenberg that, while his team (the Jets) is in the playoffs and Sid's team (the Giants) isn't, "You're going to be a lot more happy with your QB when it's all said and done than I'm going to be with mine."
So, Chad Pennington's Jets career has been deemed (or is that doomed) a failure before the ink is dry on his new contract. The guy is hurting right now. His shoulder is going to need post-season surgery. Yet Jets fans refuse to acknowledge the obvious about the impact of Pennington's injury on his performance. Let's look at Chad before and after his shoulder injury:
Pre-injury: 144-216 for 1,643 yards (7.6 YPA) with 9 TDs and 3 Picks. Passing rating of 100+.
Post injury: 98-154 for 1,030 yards (6.7 YPA) with 7 TDs and 6 picks. Passing rating of 80+.
This is simple, avaiable with a mouse click and clearly relevant. Yet I never have heard it on the sports stations here or read it in the papers. If it has been written somewhere, people aren't putting these very big and simple puzzle pieces together. Chad is hurt. End of story.
Now on to baseball (which we'll be analyzing this year for our syndication clients).
On Hall of Fame day, there's going to be a lot of silly things said by people who have never heard of Baseball Prospectus, yet alone read it.
We'll start with Chris "Mad Dog" Russo and Mikey "Three Times" Francesa on WFAN. (Francesa figures a point becomes incontrovertible if you repeat each point as many times as Dorothy clicked her heels.) Highlights from the show: "Jim Rice must be in the Hall of Fame." "The man averaged 30-100 for a decade." "Rice's seasons were legendary for their time." "They're punishing Rice because they didn't like him."
Later, on ESPN Radio in New York, Michael Kay also opined that Rice was being punished for being "ornery with media."
Russo and Francesa did do a good job comparing Rice to Orlando Cepeda (think blind squirrels and acorns), but they failed to note that Cepeda was voted in by the ex-players on the Veteran's Committee, not the writers. Rice did have three great years in 1977, 1978 and 1979 when he had a park-adjusted on base plus slugging percentage (OPS) about 50 percent over par relative to his time. Putting Rice in the Hall of Fame wouldn't be the worst thing that the voters have done. He has similarity scores with four HOFers who are among the weaker members: Cepeda, Willie Stargell, Billy Williams and Duke Snider.
No serious discussion of Rice's HOF candidacy is complete without a full vetting of his career home/road splits. Thanks to retrosheet.com, complete splits are readily available. Rice was .320/.374/.546 at home and .277/.330/.459 on the road and thus arguably a product of a Fenway. Cepeda? His splits are incomplete but what little there says that he hit better on the road.
Later, Russo and Francesa had the Head of the Baseball Writers' Association (Daily News columnist Bill Madden) on to discuss the voting. All agree that "Eddie Murray didn't compare to Jim Rice as a hitter." (Madden didn't Vote for Rice, but not for the problem with the splits but because he didn't even hit 400 homers.... sigh.)
Forgetting the counting stats, Murray had a much longer peak than Rice, though he never reached Rice's slugging heights. Of course, Murray was better at getting on base than Rice but Russo and Francesa only mention the value of walks in the context of "table setters." These guys are deferring to Rice simply because he hit more homers, but then they should have said qualfied by saying that they didn't compare as "home run hitters." Certainly, Murray does compare to Rice as a hitter and slugger, even at their respective peaks when you consider the park factors. Murray's career home/road splits: .291/.372/.473 at home, .289/.362/.495 on the road.
Picking up a common theme here in New York, Francesa said that Kirby Puckett doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame if Mattingly doesn't belong. (The backdoor way of getting Donnie Baseball on that sacred ground.) Russo did say that Puckett was a centerfielder, but Francesa said that Puckett "wasn't Paul Blair" so the point was quickly dropped.
Yes, Mattingly and Puckett do have similar career stats though they got there in different ways. But Mattingly's stats are devalued because he plays a much less important defensive position. In other words, it's easier to find first basemen with offensive stats comparible to Mattingly than centerfielders with stats comparible to Puckett. (Francesa also compared Wade Boggs to Rod Carew without mentioning that Boggs had 400 more walks and played third base vs. half his career at first.)
By the way, Puckett was helped a lot more by the Metrodome than Mattingly was by Yankee Stadium (though Mattingly never hit more than 14 homers on the road). But Russo and Francesa didn't mention Puckett benefitting from the Metrodome carpet so they're not using information selectively, they're just ignorant about park factors (unless you're talking Coors or Camden Yards, facts be damned in the latter case).
Finally, Newsday columnist John Heyman (on with Michael Kay) said the the Yankees are not really financially constrained by the luxury tax because 1) revenue sharing is a much bigger amount of money and 2) the Yanks won't have to share the $60 million or so they are now sharing when they get the go-ahead to build their new stadium because 3) that money will go to the stadium so therefore they will 4) be saving countless millions right there. Heyman's ready for a job in the government budget office with that kind of reasoning. So, you save money when you stop spending it on one thing (revenue sharing) and start spending it on another (a new stadium). I know that investing in your own stadium is more beneficial than writing checks to the Royals and Brewers, but this wasn't Heyman's point. The fact remains that it doesn't free up revenue to invest in Carlos Beltran as Heyman suggested.
Finally, Kay riled using stat milestones as the sole basis for voting someone into the Hall of Fame. I commend him for that. But then he bizarrely continued that "just because Tommy John and Jim Kaat don't have 300 wins doesn't mean they shouldn't be in the Hall." So, Kay was complaining about these milestones being too exclusionary. Kay also wants Jack Morris in the Hall of Fame. Who's next? Joe Niekro? Frank Tannana? Ed Figueroa?
First, a little football from first-class Jets whiner Joe Benigno, who stepped forward with the usual gloom and doom that you'd expect from a guy who's spent the better part of his life rooting for this team to no avail. But it was a little much when he capped his WFAN show by telling new partner Sid Rosenberg that, while his team (the Jets) is in the playoffs and Sid's team (the Giants) isn't, "You're going to be a lot more happy with your QB when it's all said and done than I'm going to be with mine."
So, Chad Pennington's Jets career has been deemed (or is that doomed) a failure before the ink is dry on his new contract. The guy is hurting right now. His shoulder is going to need post-season surgery. Yet Jets fans refuse to acknowledge the obvious about the impact of Pennington's injury on his performance. Let's look at Chad before and after his shoulder injury:
Pre-injury: 144-216 for 1,643 yards (7.6 YPA) with 9 TDs and 3 Picks. Passing rating of 100+.
Post injury: 98-154 for 1,030 yards (6.7 YPA) with 7 TDs and 6 picks. Passing rating of 80+.
This is simple, avaiable with a mouse click and clearly relevant. Yet I never have heard it on the sports stations here or read it in the papers. If it has been written somewhere, people aren't putting these very big and simple puzzle pieces together. Chad is hurt. End of story.
Now on to baseball (which we'll be analyzing this year for our syndication clients).
On Hall of Fame day, there's going to be a lot of silly things said by people who have never heard of Baseball Prospectus, yet alone read it.
We'll start with Chris "Mad Dog" Russo and Mikey "Three Times" Francesa on WFAN. (Francesa figures a point becomes incontrovertible if you repeat each point as many times as Dorothy clicked her heels.) Highlights from the show: "Jim Rice must be in the Hall of Fame." "The man averaged 30-100 for a decade." "Rice's seasons were legendary for their time." "They're punishing Rice because they didn't like him."
Later, on ESPN Radio in New York, Michael Kay also opined that Rice was being punished for being "ornery with media."
Russo and Francesa did do a good job comparing Rice to Orlando Cepeda (think blind squirrels and acorns), but they failed to note that Cepeda was voted in by the ex-players on the Veteran's Committee, not the writers. Rice did have three great years in 1977, 1978 and 1979 when he had a park-adjusted on base plus slugging percentage (OPS) about 50 percent over par relative to his time. Putting Rice in the Hall of Fame wouldn't be the worst thing that the voters have done. He has similarity scores with four HOFers who are among the weaker members: Cepeda, Willie Stargell, Billy Williams and Duke Snider.
No serious discussion of Rice's HOF candidacy is complete without a full vetting of his career home/road splits. Thanks to retrosheet.com, complete splits are readily available. Rice was .320/.374/.546 at home and .277/.330/.459 on the road and thus arguably a product of a Fenway. Cepeda? His splits are incomplete but what little there says that he hit better on the road.
Later, Russo and Francesa had the Head of the Baseball Writers' Association (Daily News columnist Bill Madden) on to discuss the voting. All agree that "Eddie Murray didn't compare to Jim Rice as a hitter." (Madden didn't Vote for Rice, but not for the problem with the splits but because he didn't even hit 400 homers.... sigh.)
Forgetting the counting stats, Murray had a much longer peak than Rice, though he never reached Rice's slugging heights. Of course, Murray was better at getting on base than Rice but Russo and Francesa only mention the value of walks in the context of "table setters." These guys are deferring to Rice simply because he hit more homers, but then they should have said qualfied by saying that they didn't compare as "home run hitters." Certainly, Murray does compare to Rice as a hitter and slugger, even at their respective peaks when you consider the park factors. Murray's career home/road splits: .291/.372/.473 at home, .289/.362/.495 on the road.
Picking up a common theme here in New York, Francesa said that Kirby Puckett doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame if Mattingly doesn't belong. (The backdoor way of getting Donnie Baseball on that sacred ground.) Russo did say that Puckett was a centerfielder, but Francesa said that Puckett "wasn't Paul Blair" so the point was quickly dropped.
Yes, Mattingly and Puckett do have similar career stats though they got there in different ways. But Mattingly's stats are devalued because he plays a much less important defensive position. In other words, it's easier to find first basemen with offensive stats comparible to Mattingly than centerfielders with stats comparible to Puckett. (Francesa also compared Wade Boggs to Rod Carew without mentioning that Boggs had 400 more walks and played third base vs. half his career at first.)
By the way, Puckett was helped a lot more by the Metrodome than Mattingly was by Yankee Stadium (though Mattingly never hit more than 14 homers on the road). But Russo and Francesa didn't mention Puckett benefitting from the Metrodome carpet so they're not using information selectively, they're just ignorant about park factors (unless you're talking Coors or Camden Yards, facts be damned in the latter case).
Finally, Newsday columnist John Heyman (on with Michael Kay) said the the Yankees are not really financially constrained by the luxury tax because 1) revenue sharing is a much bigger amount of money and 2) the Yanks won't have to share the $60 million or so they are now sharing when they get the go-ahead to build their new stadium because 3) that money will go to the stadium so therefore they will 4) be saving countless millions right there. Heyman's ready for a job in the government budget office with that kind of reasoning. So, you save money when you stop spending it on one thing (revenue sharing) and start spending it on another (a new stadium). I know that investing in your own stadium is more beneficial than writing checks to the Royals and Brewers, but this wasn't Heyman's point. The fact remains that it doesn't free up revenue to invest in Carlos Beltran as Heyman suggested.
Finally, Kay riled using stat milestones as the sole basis for voting someone into the Hall of Fame. I commend him for that. But then he bizarrely continued that "just because Tommy John and Jim Kaat don't have 300 wins doesn't mean they shouldn't be in the Hall." So, Kay was complaining about these milestones being too exclusionary. Kay also wants Jack Morris in the Hall of Fame. Who's next? Joe Niekro? Frank Tannana? Ed Figueroa?
Entry #110490066824932943 posted by Catherine Salfino at 11:10 PM
<< Home