Home of the Rant

I don’t want to say “I told you so” but, I told you so.

In all seriousness though it wasn’t like I was going out on a limb saying Buster Posey needed to be called up the big league club. Not at all. That limb was fully crowded and just waiting to break over Brian Sabean’s head at any minute.

But for the applause he gets, if he gets one at all, for bringing The Posey to the majors, he deserves a big “huh?” for playing him at first base.

Understandably first base is a decidedly easy position to play. As most would say, the fat kid plays first. So it isn’t a stretch to think an athlete like Posey – who played shortstop at Florida State before he was moved behind the plate – could handle the position with relative ease while waiting for the sink hole that is Bengie Molina to up-anchor and leave port. Unfortunately for Giants fans, that isn’t immediately.

Why? Why is it that a player with already “old-player skills” like Molina, that’s playing a premium defensive position in his age 36 season, is allowed to continue to rot his place on the diamond and payroll while an obviously more talented player is forced to play musical positions? Because Posey “hasn’t learned how to handle a pitching staff.”

Maybe that’s not the exact reason, but it’s certainly on the short list that the Giants organization will give. Others would include: “Molina calls a good game”, “Bengie is a leader out there”, and “we need Bengie’s veteran presence and power in the lineup”.  All perfectly good explanations for the awarding of playing time, you know, if those certain traits even existed.

But they don’t.

We must first remember that Brian Sabean is the same general manager who decided it was a good idea to say AAA baseball “wasn’t very good” when we listen to his thoughts on roster construction. He’s also the same GM that handed out big money contracts to Aaron Rowand, Edgar Renteria, and thought Randy Winn should be a starting right fielder AND gave him this freakishly horrific contract.*He and Dayton Moore should give a seminar on how to best waste money.

*To be fair, I suppose, Brian Cashman of the Yankees also thought it was a good idea to give Winn a contract. He didn’t think he would be a starter necessarily, but you just know when he gave him $1 million he thought “we got ourselves a great 4^th outfielder” when anyone that can read statistics would have said “you’ve got yourself a well-groomed beard and little else.”

So when GMs, and other people around baseball, start using their ever-favorite buzzwords like “handles a pitching staff”, and “leader”, and “plays the game the right way”, and “pitch to contact” – oh sorry that’s a ridiculous phrase to be addressed at another time – we should all gather around and be skeptical of what exactly it is they think they’re seeing.

Baseball uses the ever-safe veterans because they know what they’re going to get, even if what they get is terrible. Somehow when a veteran fails, it tends to look better in the eyes of baseball because they can justify poor performance in these little things unseen to us common folk. They justify their place on the roster with nonsense traits that have little to do with winning, and more to do with covering the GMs backside.

Jason Kendall should bat second because he “really handles the bat well.”

Raul Ibanez should continue to play because he “plays the game the right way.”

Bengie Molina needs to catch because he really “handles a pitching staff.”

None of these “abilities” should in any way be the measuring stick by which playing time is awarded. Handling the bat well I’m sure would be a fine trait if it weren’t being used up in the position that will be getting the second most at-bats in the order. Instead of using that spot for someone that can, you know, hit, the Royals use it with someone who has a lower OPS than some pitchers.

After Ibanez had a terrific April and half of May to start the 2009 season, he has since shown that he is in fact 38-years-old, and is no longer deserving of everyday playing time in the majors. They would be better off with some sort of Ibanez/Ben Francisco* platoon or just calling up Double-A phenom Dominic Brown.

*Another interesting part about baseball is the label game. Once a player is given a label based on what someone sees – fourth outfielder, utility guy, long relief guy – it is nearly impossible for that label to be removed. Or, even though he may be out-producing an injured player or the player he sits behind in limited chances, he will never get the chance to fully unseat the current starter because of his label.

The label game will be in full effect in New York and Kansas City when Carlos Beltran and Rick Ankiel return to the lineup healthy. Angel Pagan is a fine player. So is Mitch Maier. But both will be replaced – though in Pagan’s case because the Mets won’t sit Jeff Francoeur – once each teams “starting outfielder” returns, even though they will both be better than the guy they’re sitting behind.

Molina may in fact have some redeemable traits that make him a quality defensive catcher. But does he have any of those traits, both offensively and defensively, to be considered a starting catcher? Most likely not and certainly not when the value of Posey’s bat almost assuredly outweighs the value of Molina’s glove.

Perhaps at this very moment in time Molina is ahead of Posey defensively. Fine. But it’s pretty clear there is nothing left for Posey to learn in the minor leagues, and if “handling a pitching staff” is really a measurable skill that Posey is lacking, there is nothing left for him to learn in Triple-A where the pitching he’ll be handling “isn’t very good” anyway

‘Til next time.

So the MLBPA is considering filing a grievance against the owners for possible collusion stemming from the lack of reckless spending during the “post-2009 free agent market.”

The only reaction I have to this is the same one Charlie Donovan had towards Rachel Phelps when she told him to sit down.

It makes perfect sense for the players union to do all they can to make sure their clients are getting all – and them some – according to what the market dictates. That is the creed all unions are charged with. They are to make sure things are always done in the workers best interest. Only in this case, it has little to do with the economy, and more to do with baseball people slowly understanding how baseball actually works.

Before Moneyball – yes, the M word – teams were largely stuck in neutral with regards to how they evaluated players. It was all about what you saw.

This guy’s fast.

This guy’s got great power.

Boy the ball really jumps off his bat.

And my favorite, he really plays the game the “right way,” as if there is any skill called the “right way”.

All, I suppose, perfectly fine ways of looking at baseball if you were content with walking around with your head in the sand and thinking the world is flat. But as technology evolved, our understanding of certain mathematical factors evolved, and player trends stayed the same, very smart people started to see patterns and thought to themselves: what does this all mean?

Great evolvements in human history come from curios minds. The exploiting of market inefficiencies in baseball is one of them.

All Moneyball set out to prove was that certain skills, mainly the skill of getting on base, were undervalued in the market because it wasn’t a clearly seen ability. At least, not one if you never bothered to think about it objectively. Getting on base is the most important offensive skill in baseball because the game is governed by outs, not by runs, and the fewer outs you make the more runs you create. It’s simple.

But for decades baseball organizations were routinely run by those that were “brought up with the game,” which is a fancy way of saying they never got outside their bubble to learn from a more objective view point.

And within that bubble of subjectivity lies the problem. It was incurious people learning from incurious people – a breeding ground for unoriginal thought and devolvement. It was the reason then, and still is today, that baseball is the most poorly run business in the country. Players of little to no value are paid more than players of actual productive value, because there are still those that believe baseball is entirely in what you see, and not what has been proven.

Take the Kansas City Royals for instance.

This last off-season the GM Dayton Moore signed Rick Ankiel, Scott Podsednik, and Jason Kendall, all while having players already on the roster that would provide equal to, or more value, for a fraction of the cost.

Kendall was given a 2 year, $6-million deal even though he’s an atrocious hitter, has overrated on base skills (his stats largely reflect hitting in front of the pitcher in the National League) and is 36 years old. The deal was justified because he calls a great game (an extremely overrated, and subjective, skill), knows how to handle a pitching staff (another extremely overrated, and subjective, skill), and is a “winner.”

Now we can argue the merits of those traits and whether or not they actually mean anything or have anything to do with a team win, but what cannot be argued is those (presumed) traits Kendall brings to the table are not enough of a positive difference when compared to Brayan Pena’s actual talent, to justify the extra $5+ million the Royals are spending.

In any other business in the United States personnel is paid based on what they are producing not what they might produce, or could produce, or someone, somewhere, thinks they can produce. Kendall has been a below average Major League player for more than three years now. There is no reason to conclude he should warrant money the “market dictates.” His value is minimal; he should be paid, minimally.

The players union may claim collusion because money isn’t being thrown around as wildly as it used to be, but I think – I hope – that’s done more because they have to and not because they think it’s true.

Baseball is getting smarter, not cheaper. Team executives understand more the true value of players around the evolvement of statistics, and are dolling out their money more according to what they prove and not according to what they think. Baseball is starting to act more like a responsible business.

The union should be glad they still have the Royals.

I’m interrupting my “Right Way” post* to throw down some thoughts I’ve had, am having, and maybe will continue to have, about the whole Tiger Woods situation.

Yes I know it technically can not be called an interruption when I just haven’t written Part 2 yet, but saying “interrupting” does more to help my cause, so that’s what you get.

Some months ago when the story began to come out about the Tiger Woods affairs and the circumstances surrounding the wreck of his vehicle, I remember listening to radio pundits and reading folks in the media for what they had to say. Usually, mostly, I have my own very strong, and sometimes wayward, opinions about things that fit me and my lifestyle, but I like listening and reading to what other intelligent people have to say to see if I’m on the right track.

And so when the story initially broke there seemed to be three camps: 1. I don’t care what this guy does in his personal life, he’s a great golfer. 2. I don’t care what this guy does in his personal life, he’s a great golfer, and I always knew he was kind of an a-hole anyway. 3. See, he’s human after all.

Now one of these camps infuriates me to no end with just how ridiculous the notion is but let’s take it one step at a time.

1. I can understand the sentiment of not caring what he does when he’s not playing – because I don’t – be the notion that he’s a golfer and a golfer only, strikes me naïve. Yes he’s probably the best in the world at what he does and probably the best of all time, but there’s more to it than what you do in your chosen* profession, and I’m not talking merely about his “responsibility” to his fans because he has none.

I use the word “chosen” because that’s exactly what it is: chosen. No one asked Tiger Woods to be a golfer. No one asked Tiger Woods to endorse Nike, Gatorade, and Gillette, and be all over our TVs. No one asked Tiger Woods for anything. He chose it. He knew what he was getting into. This is like the celebrity that shouts about how the paparazzi are intrusive and doesn’t let them live normal lives. Well, don’t be a celebrity. No one follows me to work everyday with a camera. No one I’ve ever known is followed to work everyday with a camera. You chose that life now shut-up and deal with it. If you don’t like it, get out. The world needs ditch diggers too.

I’m talking about his responsibility to People. You see Tiger Woods, as well as all of us, have the responsibility to be decent, respectful, responsible people that don’t cheat, steal, and treat others poorly. Most everyone follows these Rules of People. Some don’t. And to those that don’t eventually it catches up to them. And eventually, they hold press conferences saying they’re sorry.

2. The camp that I am firmly entrenched in. Look it isn’t as if this kind of behavior was all that impossible to see coming. Yes we thought, or were made to think, that Tiger Woods was/is a man of incredible integrity and character, thus he’s put on a pedestal. But his actions on the course – constantly yelling at spectators, demeaning his old caddy, how he publicly talked trash on his old swing coach – are things that should have flashed huge warning signs.

Does this camp also walk the fine line between hatred and jealousy? Absolutely. And maybe that’s why this camp is probably the most vocal out of the three. But out of hatred and jealousy a person can find their worst critics, and therein, find there clearest path to personal maturity. This is especially the case for Tiger Woods.

We saw a little bit of why this is true today in the Apology 2010 press conference. Tiger took a little responsibility, and even went so far to say that he felt entitled* to certain pleasures and therefore acted on them. Woods’ harshest critics have been saying from the first day this whole thing happened this was the case for a man that was raised as a phenom, portrayed as a savoir, and celebrated as infallible. Woods has always acted like he was above the rest of us mortal people because of his on course, and largely irrelevant, golfing abilities.

One of the things that bothers me most about people is when they give themselves personal descriptive adjectives in an effort to explain who they are as a person. My favorite is “I’m mature.” Mature is a descriptive term that can only be given to you by someone else. It’s a perceived or earned adjective. When Woods today said he felt “entitled,” I didn’t think he was caught in a personal web of reflection, looking back saying “I was a real idiot.” I thought he was using some buzzword that he had heard time and again. Which, really, is what people are doing when they say “I’m mature.”

But now that his whole aura has taken a shot I’m shocked at the number of people that have been overcome by surprise at who Woods really was/is. A person that tries to manipulate and control everything around him – but I guess, let’s be honest, if I had that kind of pull I may do the same thing – clearly has something to hide. It doesn’t necessarily have to be something on the scale of cheating on your wife with upwards of 20 or more women, but something to hide nonetheless. So the revelation of his “transgressions” (aren’t you getting tired of hearing that word? Buzz) didn’t come as a surprise to me, I always found the guy a little dishonest and selfish anyway.

3. And then there’s the ridiculous. The “he’s only human” or “see, he’s just like the rest of us” excuse. Um, what? Yes, I suppose, you could make the argument that he’s only human in body and spirit, but shouldn’t that be where it stops? I’m only human but I’ve never yelled at someone taking a picture, or INVITED reporters to a press conference and told them they can’t ask any questions. (So is it really a press conference?) This is like the agents or publicists for actors whose clients get caught with drugs and say “he’s only human.” WHAT? Again, I’m only human, yet I’ve never smoked a joint, seen a joint, or ever intend on being around a joint. There are ethical and moral boundaries some people choose to live by. Remember, there are certain responsibilities each of us hold to People.

The “he’s only human” gambit is more along the lines of an “I’m sorry but.”

I’m sorry I didn’t put the dishes away, but I was tired.

I’m sorry I didn’t put the seat down, but I was in a hurry.

I’m sorry I called you those names, but I was really upset.

I’m sorry I cheated on my wife and acted like a jerk for the last 15-years to everyone I’ve ever been in contact with, but I’m only human.

See?

Being “only human” doesn’t give you a hall pass to being a jerk, an adulterer, a selfish jackass. Being “only human” means those things never crossed your mind in the first place.

Til’ next time.