Two posts in June? Why the fuck not.
I happened to take a quick look at Joe Mo's chat today and I thought a few question/answers were worthy of posting here. Because they sucked.
These are cut and pastes so typos are as they showed up in the chat.
John (CA): What are your thoughts oin Tommy Hanson so far?
Joe Morgan: I haven't seen him, and I havent read a lot about him, but everything I hear about him on TV, he's going to be a star. But I don't use other peoples' judgements on players, I like to see them. I don't follow the lead of others in terms of rating players. I like to do it myself.
Summary:
I haven’t seen him.
I haven’t read anything about him.
People say he’s good.
But I don’t listen to people.
I barely watch baseball.
I don't read anything about baseball.
Question answered?
No.
Ben (Lincoln, NE): Joe, what's your take on the White Sox?
Joe Morgan: That's a team that I just can't figure out. Every time I think they're going to go down and they should start rebuilding, they win a few games ago.
To keep my brain from exploding I’m going to just pretend he didn’t end that second sentence with “ago”. So, if this means what I think it means, then no team should ever rebuild unless they go an entire season without a winning streak.
Contreras came back and looks great. They look good for a moment and then they fall back. So, I can't figure them out.
Seriously. At first I’m like…this team has won a few games in a row, they're AWESOME!…then they lose 3 in a row…so I’m like…this team SUCKS! Then they go and win a game again! Make a decision White Sox! Are you going to lose all the time or win all the time? You can’t just be a .500 team or something! Winning, then losing and back and forth and back and forth. I can’t analyze that.
They have some young players and veteran players, but I just can't figure them out.
This is the third time Joe said he can’t figure them out. He's typed 6 sentences.
Also, I fucking love this sentence. Read it again, it's beautiful. It's like Joe concedes that he can't "figure out" teams that have all veterans or all young players. But this White Sox team, well shit they have both....and he still can't figure them out.
They could turn things around and win the division or they can fall deeper toward the bottom of the division.
So they’ll either be awesome and win the division or they’ll suck.
Jason (DC): Joe, Is Magglio Ordonez toast, or will he rebound in a big way?
Joe Morgan: That's a puzzling situation for me, because Jim Leyland said he's benched indefinitely. I don't know if I've heard that phrase used before with the benching of a star. Something is going on there, and we don't know what it is. I find it hard to think that a guy that has had success and can just disappear. My first thought is that he needs a wake up call and this is what that is. Maybe he just needs a good ol' fashioned kick in the pants and this is it.
So, is Magglio Ordonez toast or will he rebound in a big way?
ben (los angeles): if you were the manager of the Dodgers what would you do with Pierre when Manny returns? It doesn't seem productive or fair to bench him.
Joe Morgan: I finally found someone who agrees with me. I said this on Sunday Night Baseball. You're not talking about a bench guy in Pierre. You're talking about a guy with a lifetime average of over .300. If I'm the Dodgers, instead of benching him, I'd try to trade him for a good starting pitcher. Don't make a mistake about it, the Dodgers as good as they are need another starting pitcher. But thanks for agreeing with me. I like people that agree with me. Though I like people that disagree with me so I can explain my side.
No one is going to trade a “good starting pitcher” for a guy who should be a platoon outfielder on a good team. The last 5 years that Pierre was a full-time player, these were his finishes in OBP: First, Second, Second, First, Third. Just kidding, that was "Outs Made". Also, Joe absolutely does not like people that disagree with him as evidenced by his pettiness against anyone who has brought up Moneyball since Billy Beane commissioned IBM to build a computer to write it for him.*
*See Firejoemorgan archives.
Ryan (VA): Hey Joe is Chipper Jones a 1st ballot Hall of Famer if he doesnt reach the 500 homerun mark?
Joe Morgan: Being honest with you...that's a great question. I don't normally answer those questions because I'm on the Board and I don't want it to look like I'm pushing for a player while he's still playing. however, I think that Chipper will end up in the Hall of Fame.
A. I like that Joe is honest when he's answering these chat questions.
B. Joe always reminds people that he’s on the Board and that he shouldn’t give an opinion.
C. Joe always then gives his opinion.
D. He accomplished A-C without answering the question.
Showing posts with label Chat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chat. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Fun With Numbers: Stuart Scott Edition
From Stuart's latest chat:
Justin P. Elkhorn Wisc.: Yo Stu, I am 17 years old and Brett Favre has been the only quarterback I've known, and he retired on my birthday (great present). But, where do you think he ranks among the best?
Stuart Scott: (10:08 AM ET ) If you consider everything, passing ability, leadership, toughness, I would definitely put him top five, Marino, Elway, Montana, Johnny U. and Steve Young. I know counting Brett that's six--stop quibbling. Footnote: I don't put Brady and Peyton in there yet only b/c they are still playing.
So he puts him in his top 5, with 7 others.
Justin P. Elkhorn Wisc.: Yo Stu, I am 17 years old and Brett Favre has been the only quarterback I've known, and he retired on my birthday (great present). But, where do you think he ranks among the best?
Stuart Scott: (10:08 AM ET ) If you consider everything, passing ability, leadership, toughness, I would definitely put him top five, Marino, Elway, Montana, Johnny U. and Steve Young. I know counting Brett that's six--stop quibbling. Footnote: I don't put Brady and Peyton in there yet only b/c they are still playing.
So he puts him in his top 5, with 7 others.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
David Tyree has a Good Sense of Humor
Giants WR David Tyree did an ESPN chat today. It included the following:
Mikey (NY): Congrats on becoming a NY hero! You seem to have avery strong hands, is that just natural, or do you work on your hand strength?
David Tyree: (12:53 PM ET ) What are you trying to say?!?! I'm married! But no.
and later...
Herb (Philly): Was there any stickum on your helmet?
David Tyree: (1:12 PM ET ) Are you really a Giants fan? Because I cannot release information to the enemy.
David Tyree: (1:13 PM ET ) We may have a Stick'um gate on our hands.
Mikey (NY): Congrats on becoming a NY hero! You seem to have avery strong hands, is that just natural, or do you work on your hand strength?
David Tyree: (12:53 PM ET ) What are you trying to say?!?! I'm married! But no.
and later...
Herb (Philly): Was there any stickum on your helmet?
David Tyree: (1:12 PM ET ) Are you really a Giants fan? Because I cannot release information to the enemy.
David Tyree: (1:13 PM ET ) We may have a Stick'um gate on our hands.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Stuart Scott Chats Shit Up
Stuart Scott brought his game to the ESPN chats yesterday. Here’s a few questions:
Josh (B-more): 1,200 wins for Pat Riley, Sturat. How do you rate him among all-time coaches?
Stuart Scott: (4:38 PM ET ) He's in the top-5 along with Red Auerbach, Phil, Lenny Wilkins, and my guy Matt Guokas.
Matt Guokas in front of Red Holzman? Chuck Daley? Don Nelson? Larry Brown? 50 other guys? Matt Guokas with a career .430 win % and one 50 win season and an 8-9 playoff record? I’m missing something.
Shug (VA): Yo Stuart. Everyone's talkin bout the Pats, but there's another undefeated team down there in Carolina. How far will the Tar Heels go before tasting defeat?
Stuart Scott: (4:39 PM ET ) Carolina goes undefeated this year, and wins the national title. Maybe I'm a tad partial.
Ha ha! Stuart went to UNC. I’m not reminded of that like every week.
Stuart Scott: (4:40 PM ET ) Ps. There's really no reason to speak of a college BB team going undefeated in Dwecember. None.
He’s not asking if they’ll go undefeated. He’s inferring the opposite; that they will lose. Then he’s asking when you think they will lose. You have terrible reading comprehension.
Zach (LA): Who's the biggest surprise in the NBA so far this year?
Stuart Scott: (4:44 PM ET ) the Magic.
As of this chat, Orlando is 16-5, which is good, but with their talent I’m just not that surprised. Since I didn’t do any projections or anything, it’s not fair for me to pick on this one. But isn’t Chicago going from a .598 team, who was projected by many to continue improving, falling all the way to a .333 team a much bigger surprise? People at least thought Orlando would improve, I didn’t see any predictions of a huge regression from Chicago.
Matt Guokas? How fucking random is that?
Josh (B-more): 1,200 wins for Pat Riley, Sturat. How do you rate him among all-time coaches?
Stuart Scott: (4:38 PM ET ) He's in the top-5 along with Red Auerbach, Phil, Lenny Wilkins, and my guy Matt Guokas.
Matt Guokas in front of Red Holzman? Chuck Daley? Don Nelson? Larry Brown? 50 other guys? Matt Guokas with a career .430 win % and one 50 win season and an 8-9 playoff record? I’m missing something.
Shug (VA): Yo Stuart. Everyone's talkin bout the Pats, but there's another undefeated team down there in Carolina. How far will the Tar Heels go before tasting defeat?
Stuart Scott: (4:39 PM ET ) Carolina goes undefeated this year, and wins the national title. Maybe I'm a tad partial.
Ha ha! Stuart went to UNC. I’m not reminded of that like every week.
Stuart Scott: (4:40 PM ET ) Ps. There's really no reason to speak of a college BB team going undefeated in Dwecember. None.
He’s not asking if they’ll go undefeated. He’s inferring the opposite; that they will lose. Then he’s asking when you think they will lose. You have terrible reading comprehension.
Zach (LA): Who's the biggest surprise in the NBA so far this year?
Stuart Scott: (4:44 PM ET ) the Magic.
As of this chat, Orlando is 16-5, which is good, but with their talent I’m just not that surprised. Since I didn’t do any projections or anything, it’s not fair for me to pick on this one. But isn’t Chicago going from a .598 team, who was projected by many to continue improving, falling all the way to a .333 team a much bigger surprise? People at least thought Orlando would improve, I didn’t see any predictions of a huge regression from Chicago.
Matt Guokas? How fucking random is that?
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Stuart Scott's Bad Decisions Would Include Jason Giambi Pitching
From today’s chat:
Lane (Kukuihaele, HI): If you were to manage the Yankees next season could you win 100 games?
Stuart Scott: (4:22 PM ET ) No. I'm not abaseball manager, don't even play one on TV. I fI said yes I'd be disrespecting every manager. They have jobs for a reason. Other people can't do them. Joe couldn't do a flawless hour on SportsCenter.
Stuart Scott: (4:22 PM ET ) If I amange Yanks my bad dec Arod would hit .160, Jeter would be catching, Giambi pitching...hint for all armchair people who think you could...you can't.
I can’t. I agree. He's kidding, obviously, but what the fuck?
Also, Pam(Princeton), can you get off his dick?
Pam(Princeton): Stu, I find men who love hanging out with their daughters very sexy
Stuart Scott: (4:30 PM ET ) Not really what I was after, but I'm flattered, thank you.
Remember this post from mid-August?
Pam(Princeton): Stu, not sucking up here, but I think you are really handsome
Can someone out there get Pam in Princeton a fucking date?
Lane (Kukuihaele, HI): If you were to manage the Yankees next season could you win 100 games?
Stuart Scott: (4:22 PM ET ) No. I'm not abaseball manager, don't even play one on TV. I fI said yes I'd be disrespecting every manager. They have jobs for a reason. Other people can't do them. Joe couldn't do a flawless hour on SportsCenter.
Stuart Scott: (4:22 PM ET ) If I amange Yanks my bad dec Arod would hit .160, Jeter would be catching, Giambi pitching...hint for all armchair people who think you could...you can't.
I can’t. I agree. He's kidding, obviously, but what the fuck?
Also, Pam(Princeton), can you get off his dick?
Pam(Princeton): Stu, I find men who love hanging out with their daughters very sexy
Stuart Scott: (4:30 PM ET ) Not really what I was after, but I'm flattered, thank you.
Remember this post from mid-August?
Pam(Princeton): Stu, not sucking up here, but I think you are really handsome
Can someone out there get Pam in Princeton a fucking date?
Monday, September 17, 2007
Stop Asking Stuart Scott to Predict Things!
Okay, back from hiatus. I haven’t read a thing in two weeks. I jumped in with the Stuart Scott chat from 9/14. Along with 90 questions about the Patriots, all with the same answer, there is this question asking Stuart for his opinion on Greg Oden.
Mike(NY): Is Greg Oden the next Sam Bowie? This injury reminds me when KiJana Carter blew out his knee in training camp and effectively ending his career before it began.
Stuart Scott: (5:23 PM ET ) Mike-What do I look like Nostradamus? Asking me to predict future, I don't do that...I'll give my opinion...NO. Think he's more talented than Bowie was, and I'll be an optimist.
Um, Stu…I think Mike was asking for your opinion…is Greg Oden the next Sam Bowie? Don’t get all bent out of shape. You had no problem predicting that Prince Fielder and A-Rod would both hit 60 homeruns, it seems kind of weird to go Joe Morgan on Mike from NY.
Mike(NY): Is Greg Oden the next Sam Bowie? This injury reminds me when KiJana Carter blew out his knee in training camp and effectively ending his career before it began.
Stuart Scott: (5:23 PM ET ) Mike-What do I look like Nostradamus? Asking me to predict future, I don't do that...I'll give my opinion...NO. Think he's more talented than Bowie was, and I'll be an optimist.
Um, Stu…I think Mike was asking for your opinion…is Greg Oden the next Sam Bowie? Don’t get all bent out of shape. You had no problem predicting that Prince Fielder and A-Rod would both hit 60 homeruns, it seems kind of weird to go Joe Morgan on Mike from NY.
Monday, August 20, 2007
“Too Little Too Late for Yankees to Make Playoffs”
Well that sounds dumb, right? I’ll let Steve Phillips tell you why you’re the dumb one. Dummy.
Vinny (New York): With a gun to your head, still Seatle over the Yanks for the Wild Card? Yankees are looking pretty impressive, just taking care of most people's "best team in baseball."
Steve Phillips: The Yanks looked good beating an undermanned Tigers team, I agree with you. But I think the Mariners will hold on and win the Wild Card. Their starting pitching is just good enough and their bullpen in unreal. They have one of the best defenses in babseball, and they are starting to produce on offense. I think it is too little too late for the Yankees to make the playoffs.
With 38 games remaining, the Yankees are 4 games behind Boston to win the division and .5 (that’s POINT FIVE) behind the Mariners for the wild card. They play Boston 6 times and they play Seattle 3 times. Obviously, at this point, ANYTHING could happen. They could take the AL East or (more likely) the Wild Card or collapse and miss the playoffs.
Now how the hell could anyone conclude that it’s “too little too late” for them to make the playoffs? It’s not like there’s 7 games left - and if there were would that even be too late? Does he just hate the Yankees?
Friday, August 17, 2007
Stuart Scott Is Not Surprised That Others Yell Booyah at Work
Stuart Scott does a bi-weekly chat called the “Two-Way”, on ESPN.com. A handful of questions and answers get used for a one-page write-up in ESPN the Magazine. I checked out this week’s expecting the normal bland question and answer session. What I got was a trainwreck of booyahs and suckups. All grammatical errors (in the bold print) are as they were in the chat. It starts out like a normal chat, and then the wheels come off a bit. I cut several items out because it was way too long.
SprungOnSports (Long Island): How long can Donaghy end up in the slammer? Will we always be suspicious now when a controversial call is made?
Stuart Scott: (4:10 PM ET ) Not alegal expert.
Really? The Sportscenter anchors aren’t all lawyers? I pegged the “winner winner chicken dinner” guy as a Yale Law man. I think Sprung on Sports realizes you’re not an expert, but is just curious as to what your opinion is. Although I find it annoying that Sprung asks token questions in like every chat.
No idea how long, I've heard up to 25, but I have no expertise in that field.
Okay, not a lawyer – fair enough. Let’s move on.
I didn't get law degree.
Are you serious? You didn’t get (a) law degree to spout “Booyah” and “cool as the other side of the pillow” on TV. Also, you just said the same thing in three straight sentences.
Unfortunately and unfairly so I think a questionable call some might stop and think...it doesn't make sense. if it's as Stern sense, one bad apple, there's no realistic reason to quesion calls. No reason to think every QB is going to be charged with a crime because one has been charges. And that doesn't mean he did it...
Are you sure you don’t have a law degree? Those are some well crafted sentences. Can anyone parse this? Is it me or did this answer morph into a Michael Vick answer? Booyah!
SprungOnSports (Long Island): Do you think that Imus deserves another shot in radio?
Sprung on Sports gets up every day and reads the headlines, and says “I’m going to ask 3 different ESPN personalities what they think about THIS!”
Stuart Scott: (4:11 PM ET ) To be honest I could care less. I don't wonder if he deserves another shot. If someone wants to give him another shot I'm not losing sleep. If he's blackballed from radio I'm not losing sleep. I don't care to wonder about his future.
How To Say The Same Thing In 5 Consecutive Sentences, by Stuart Scott.
Franco (Philly): Stu I recently got kicked out of a board meeting for repeatedly yelling, "Booyah", do you think they were right to kick me out?
At this point I figured Franco was just making a friendly jab at Stu, and I would have thought Stu would ignore him. But Stu actually answers this, like it’s a real question. By the time Franco is done posting in this chat though I can’t tell what the F is going on.
Stuart Scott: (4:15 PM ET ) If you are yelling anything during aboard meeting you should get kicked out. You should listen, instead of yelling out random quotes.
Stu, I don’t think Franco REALLY got kicked out of a board meeting for repeatedly yelling Booyah, I think he’s just trying to be dorky and see if you’ll respond. No normal human being uses Booyah in an office setting, never mind in the presence of the bosses in a serious meeting.
Stu then had to step out for a few minutes….
Franco (Philly): Damn Stu I thought you would have my back with yelling "Booyah!"
Booyah Franco, Booyah.
Marsh (St. Louis): Stu, right on about board meetings, BOOOYAH!
I think Stu is wrong on board meetings, I think all board minutes should be written in rhymes or Snoop Dogg-ized:
“AGREED, that the P.I.M.P. who be the CEO should be grizzanted 50,000 shares of Cizzommon S to the T ock. Playa has guizzided this mothafuckin company to record dollas for 8 Quarters in a row, true dat”
Moderator: (4:28 PM ET ) What's a better, less ominous title? Keep it clean, please!
What are people writing in that we have to keep it clean? This chat is getting out of control. It only gets weirder from here.
Sean (Philly): Same thing happened to me Franco, except mine was "Winner Winner Chicken Dinner".
That’s what Sportscenter has come to. Winner winner chicken dinner.
Stuart Scott: (4:31 PM ET ) Sorry bout that
No problem.
Ben (Lawrence, KS): I think the moderator was actually Franco from Philly. He was kicked out for yelling Booyah!
Sure Ben.
Fach (NY): Stu, who would be the worse cell mate, vick or donaghy?
Stuart Scott: (4:34 PM ET ) You are making a joke of two serious situations. It's too bad for Donaghy and his family but he's an admitted felon. Vick as we speak isn't a criminal. Now the only one who could be anyone's cellmate is Donaghy.
Vick has been indicted; couldn’t he be someone’s cellmate, if convicted? Last I heard he hadn't pleaded out of any jail time.
justin (appleton, wi): Stu do you play madden,if you do what's your username i'd love to take you on head to head. Oh sorry head to cheese head
Stuart Scott: (4:37 PM ET ) Don't play video games, have no idea about fantasy FB..
Madden is a video game; not fantasy football.
sorry, I burst your bubble.
It ok Stu it ok my bubble burst but ok
In summer I work, work out, some golf, real FB and I spend free time with my family and friends. I watch Entourage, Rescue M eand So You Think with my two daughters..can't find the time to play Madden
A favorite of Stu is to tell you how he’s too f’ing busy to do whatever loser things you do, loser. He’s playing football and working out while you’re playing your fantasy Maddens, loser! Play real football!
Pam(Princeton): Stu, you seem a little testy today, everything alright/
No Pam, that’s just Stu. Stuart Scott: (4:40 PM ET ) Laughing.
Yeah right…
I'm great. Gonna do SC tonight, hosting halftime of the preseason game on ESPN>.only concern is, have to wait til tomorrow to watch So You Think...it's probly gonna be Danny, I want Sabra, though...both of them are drop dead phenomenal
Did everyone follow that? Me neither - let’s move on.
Paul (Portland, OR): Thank goodness! Someone who doesn't play video games...or it sounds like, doesn't watch reality TV either (not counting sports, which is a version of reality TV I guess).
Paul I don’t think you had to qualify your statement to clarify that watching sports is different than watching Rock of Love.
Stuart Scott: (4:41 PM ET ) no one please clal me tonight and tell me who won. I'll watch on DVR tomorrow
This was really his answer to Paul’s, um, statement.
“no one please clal me tonight and tell me who won. I'll watch on DVR tomorrow”
This is “Mr. I play football and watch cool TV shows and have no time for your stupid fantasy sports booyah” guy? He’s now imploring people on an ESPN chat to not tell him who won some stupid reality show I’ve never heard of.
Paul (Portland, OR): Whoops. Didn't realize you were referring to "So You Think You Can Dance". I guess you DO watch "reality" tv.
For some reason Stuart posts Paul’s disappointed response – he’s coming to the realization that Stu isn’t as cool as he thought. Let’s see how Stu responds!
Stuart Scott: (4:44 PM ET ) big ups to M.D. now M.D.R. and her man K.R.
Bill Simmons has a long running joke about "speaking Stu Scott". I honestly think we’ve crossed through another dimension here. Sort of like the space-time continuum put in a blender with a bunch of abbreviations and Booyahs. I guess he’s congratulating someone for getting married, as a response to Paul’s observation?
Franco (Philly): Stu do you think it would be acceptable if at the next board meeting instead of yelling "Booyah" if i told my boss that he was "as cool as the other side of the pillow!"
I can’t tell if Franco is cool and is making fun of Stu (like me!) or if he’s very very very lame and he wants Stu to like him.
Stuart Scott: (4:49 PM ET ) Franco--Sucking up isn't pretty either. Boss'd be more impressed if you did more listening! Listen more, talk less, suck up less
Stu is opting for none of the above and thinks Franco just needs advice on how to act at work. Which I’m beginning to think is the right way to go.
Stuart Scott: (4:50 PM ET ) stop groveling man, save the booyah for when you get home
Or, never? You could use the booyah…never? Because at this point it’s like saying “whoomp, there it is!”
Krackman (Newark, NJ): Stu I thing Franco want to be you? Next he will get a fade and wear suite like you. Careful he may be a groupy.
Stu wanted us to read this, but there’s no response. I will say that I would expect nothing less than the above from a guy named Krackman in Newark.
Roman (Waco, TX): Hey Stu, in my opinion, the top five shows on T.V. are CSI (Las Vegas), PTI (with both Kornheiser and Wilbon), America's Test Kitchen, House, and of course SportsCenter. What is your top five?
Stuart Scott: (4:58 PM ET ) 24, FNLights, Grays Anatomy, Rescue Me, Lost....
In all seriousness, Stuart usually spends his chats offering real opinions on current subjects, and it’s not usually this terrible (it is difficult to read, though), but this became a Bill Simmons chat a half hour ago. Without the jokes. He has to be in a meeting or eating dinner or something while he does this. It's all so half-assed.
Ben (Lawrence, KS): Is ESPN making a "Sportscenter Anchors" poster series? Where can I get a vintage Bob Ley?
I have no idea what to add. Neither did Stu he didn’t respond. Ben, you’re weird.
Pam(Princeton): Krackman needs to lay off the krack! that's some grammer job
And that is perfect irony. No response from Stu.
Pam(Princeton): Stu, not sucking up here, but I think you are really handsome
Yeah that’s not sucking up at all.
Stuart Scott: (5:00 PM ET ) Pam---Thank you. And I was telling Franco the Groveler about work stuff..genuine flattery I'm all good with!
Work stuff? FRANCO DID NOT REALLY GET KICKED OUT OF A BOARD MEETING YOU IDIOT! Why am I getting upset about this?
Oh right, I’m a petty asshole.
Sean (Philly): America's Test Kitchen? I may have to DVR that so I can find out what it is.
You do that. See in Keith Law chats there are a lot of book recommendations, but what you don’t see is this:
Joe blow: Keith, what are you reading?
Keith Law: I’m reading “In Search of Lost Time”
Joe blow: Hey cool I’ve never heard of that book. I will now “log on” to amazon.com, and I will enter that name in the search field with my credit card in hand and I will purchase it.
Because Joe blow is just wasting our time. Stu? He puts that shit in. With no response.
Ben (Lawrence, KS): Stu, If ESPN does a "Sportscenter Anchors" poster series, will yours feature you dunking on Shawn Bradley?
Ben this is the second time you’ve asked about getting Sportscenter anchor posters. This is not amusing and is a little disturbing. Also, wouldn’t the poster just be him sitting behind a desk with that stupid smirk on his face?
Stuart Scott: (5:01 PM ET ) No, it'll feature me catching TD pass over Champ Bailey
Oh, or that of course.
Ryan (Schulenburg, TX): Stuart, i'll give you major cash if you can catch a TD pass over my favorite player, champ bailey.
Stuart Scott: (5:03 PM ET ) Ryan, I make enough cash...that's about my own pride
You’re rich and awesome. Pride isn't getting you to catch a pass over Champ Bailey.
Franco (Philly): Agree with you on Grey's Anatomy pal!
This is not interesting! I don’t read chats to hear what Franco in Philly likes! I read them to try to figure out what Stu is saying so I can make fun of it! Also, Franco, please put Stu’s dick down for a few minutes, okay buddy? I thought you were picking on him with the board room booyah thing, but now I’m thinking you’re just kissing his ass.
Pam(Princeton): You are welcome! Now, can we please talk CFB next time?
If you wanted to talk college football, Pam, then maybe you should have asked him a college football question instead of hitting on him. He's here to answer questions, not just toss topics out there.
In case you haven’t noticed, Pam, Ben, Sean and Franco have like 200 posts in this chat.
Sean (Philly): I still haven't seen Rock 4.5 (Rocky 5 never really happened in my mind), have you seen it?
What movie is he talking about, Rocky Balboa? That’s topical.
Sean (Philly): Mental Booyah's Franco, Mental...
Yes, those posts are exactly as they went down, with no response. Sean in Philly had 8 posts.
Ryan (Schulenburg, TX): I wanna see Chris Berman rob a Barry Bonds homerun in one of those poster series!
I’m so lost. What poster series? Is this really fun? I want to see Linda Cohn 69 Pam Oliver in a poster series! No!! I don’t!!!
Pam(Princeton): FN lights is the best show no one watches
Pam, thanks so much for that insight. That was your 8th post. Also, you could have asked a college football question there as well, since that's what you want him to talk about.
Franco (Philly): Relax there Krackman. Just because I have a little mancrush on Stu doesn't mean I wanna be like him.
Franco after your first post I thought you were kind of funny, now you're just a whacko. The Philly/New Jersey/New York area apparently grinds to a screeching halt when Stuart Scott is chatting.
I can’t wait to see them actually craft this into an ESPN the Magazine column.
SprungOnSports (Long Island): How long can Donaghy end up in the slammer? Will we always be suspicious now when a controversial call is made?
Stuart Scott: (4:10 PM ET ) Not alegal expert.
Really? The Sportscenter anchors aren’t all lawyers? I pegged the “winner winner chicken dinner” guy as a Yale Law man. I think Sprung on Sports realizes you’re not an expert, but is just curious as to what your opinion is. Although I find it annoying that Sprung asks token questions in like every chat.
No idea how long, I've heard up to 25, but I have no expertise in that field.
Okay, not a lawyer – fair enough. Let’s move on.
I didn't get law degree.
Are you serious? You didn’t get (a) law degree to spout “Booyah” and “cool as the other side of the pillow” on TV. Also, you just said the same thing in three straight sentences.
Unfortunately and unfairly so I think a questionable call some might stop and think...it doesn't make sense. if it's as Stern sense, one bad apple, there's no realistic reason to quesion calls. No reason to think every QB is going to be charged with a crime because one has been charges. And that doesn't mean he did it...
Are you sure you don’t have a law degree? Those are some well crafted sentences. Can anyone parse this? Is it me or did this answer morph into a Michael Vick answer? Booyah!
SprungOnSports (Long Island): Do you think that Imus deserves another shot in radio?
Sprung on Sports gets up every day and reads the headlines, and says “I’m going to ask 3 different ESPN personalities what they think about THIS!”
Stuart Scott: (4:11 PM ET ) To be honest I could care less. I don't wonder if he deserves another shot. If someone wants to give him another shot I'm not losing sleep. If he's blackballed from radio I'm not losing sleep. I don't care to wonder about his future.
How To Say The Same Thing In 5 Consecutive Sentences, by Stuart Scott.
Franco (Philly): Stu I recently got kicked out of a board meeting for repeatedly yelling, "Booyah", do you think they were right to kick me out?
At this point I figured Franco was just making a friendly jab at Stu, and I would have thought Stu would ignore him. But Stu actually answers this, like it’s a real question. By the time Franco is done posting in this chat though I can’t tell what the F is going on.
Stuart Scott: (4:15 PM ET ) If you are yelling anything during aboard meeting you should get kicked out. You should listen, instead of yelling out random quotes.
Stu, I don’t think Franco REALLY got kicked out of a board meeting for repeatedly yelling Booyah, I think he’s just trying to be dorky and see if you’ll respond. No normal human being uses Booyah in an office setting, never mind in the presence of the bosses in a serious meeting.
Stu then had to step out for a few minutes….
Franco (Philly): Damn Stu I thought you would have my back with yelling "Booyah!"
Booyah Franco, Booyah.
Marsh (St. Louis): Stu, right on about board meetings, BOOOYAH!
I think Stu is wrong on board meetings, I think all board minutes should be written in rhymes or Snoop Dogg-ized:
“AGREED, that the P.I.M.P. who be the CEO should be grizzanted 50,000 shares of Cizzommon S to the T ock. Playa has guizzided this mothafuckin company to record dollas for 8 Quarters in a row, true dat”
Moderator: (4:28 PM ET ) What's a better, less ominous title? Keep it clean, please!
What are people writing in that we have to keep it clean? This chat is getting out of control. It only gets weirder from here.
Sean (Philly): Same thing happened to me Franco, except mine was "Winner Winner Chicken Dinner".
That’s what Sportscenter has come to. Winner winner chicken dinner.
Stuart Scott: (4:31 PM ET ) Sorry bout that
No problem.
Ben (Lawrence, KS): I think the moderator was actually Franco from Philly. He was kicked out for yelling Booyah!
Sure Ben.
Fach (NY): Stu, who would be the worse cell mate, vick or donaghy?
Stuart Scott: (4:34 PM ET ) You are making a joke of two serious situations. It's too bad for Donaghy and his family but he's an admitted felon. Vick as we speak isn't a criminal. Now the only one who could be anyone's cellmate is Donaghy.
Vick has been indicted; couldn’t he be someone’s cellmate, if convicted? Last I heard he hadn't pleaded out of any jail time.
justin (appleton, wi): Stu do you play madden,if you do what's your username i'd love to take you on head to head. Oh sorry head to cheese head
Stuart Scott: (4:37 PM ET ) Don't play video games, have no idea about fantasy FB..
Madden is a video game; not fantasy football.
sorry, I burst your bubble.
It ok Stu it ok my bubble burst but ok
In summer I work, work out, some golf, real FB and I spend free time with my family and friends. I watch Entourage, Rescue M eand So You Think with my two daughters..can't find the time to play Madden
A favorite of Stu is to tell you how he’s too f’ing busy to do whatever loser things you do, loser. He’s playing football and working out while you’re playing your fantasy Maddens, loser! Play real football!
Pam(Princeton): Stu, you seem a little testy today, everything alright/
No Pam, that’s just Stu. Stuart Scott: (4:40 PM ET ) Laughing.
Yeah right…
I'm great. Gonna do SC tonight, hosting halftime of the preseason game on ESPN>.only concern is, have to wait til tomorrow to watch So You Think...it's probly gonna be Danny, I want Sabra, though...both of them are drop dead phenomenal
Did everyone follow that? Me neither - let’s move on.
Paul (Portland, OR): Thank goodness! Someone who doesn't play video games...or it sounds like, doesn't watch reality TV either (not counting sports, which is a version of reality TV I guess).
Paul I don’t think you had to qualify your statement to clarify that watching sports is different than watching Rock of Love.
Stuart Scott: (4:41 PM ET ) no one please clal me tonight and tell me who won. I'll watch on DVR tomorrow
This was really his answer to Paul’s, um, statement.
“no one please clal me tonight and tell me who won. I'll watch on DVR tomorrow”
This is “Mr. I play football and watch cool TV shows and have no time for your stupid fantasy sports booyah” guy? He’s now imploring people on an ESPN chat to not tell him who won some stupid reality show I’ve never heard of.
Paul (Portland, OR): Whoops. Didn't realize you were referring to "So You Think You Can Dance". I guess you DO watch "reality" tv.
For some reason Stuart posts Paul’s disappointed response – he’s coming to the realization that Stu isn’t as cool as he thought. Let’s see how Stu responds!
Stuart Scott: (4:44 PM ET ) big ups to M.D. now M.D.R. and her man K.R.
Bill Simmons has a long running joke about "speaking Stu Scott". I honestly think we’ve crossed through another dimension here. Sort of like the space-time continuum put in a blender with a bunch of abbreviations and Booyahs. I guess he’s congratulating someone for getting married, as a response to Paul’s observation?
Franco (Philly): Stu do you think it would be acceptable if at the next board meeting instead of yelling "Booyah" if i told my boss that he was "as cool as the other side of the pillow!"
I can’t tell if Franco is cool and is making fun of Stu (like me!) or if he’s very very very lame and he wants Stu to like him.
Stuart Scott: (4:49 PM ET ) Franco--Sucking up isn't pretty either. Boss'd be more impressed if you did more listening! Listen more, talk less, suck up less
Stu is opting for none of the above and thinks Franco just needs advice on how to act at work. Which I’m beginning to think is the right way to go.
Stuart Scott: (4:50 PM ET ) stop groveling man, save the booyah for when you get home
Or, never? You could use the booyah…never? Because at this point it’s like saying “whoomp, there it is!”
Krackman (Newark, NJ): Stu I thing Franco want to be you? Next he will get a fade and wear suite like you. Careful he may be a groupy.
Stu wanted us to read this, but there’s no response. I will say that I would expect nothing less than the above from a guy named Krackman in Newark.
Roman (Waco, TX): Hey Stu, in my opinion, the top five shows on T.V. are CSI (Las Vegas), PTI (with both Kornheiser and Wilbon), America's Test Kitchen, House, and of course SportsCenter. What is your top five?
Stuart Scott: (4:58 PM ET ) 24, FNLights, Grays Anatomy, Rescue Me, Lost....
In all seriousness, Stuart usually spends his chats offering real opinions on current subjects, and it’s not usually this terrible (it is difficult to read, though), but this became a Bill Simmons chat a half hour ago. Without the jokes. He has to be in a meeting or eating dinner or something while he does this. It's all so half-assed.
Ben (Lawrence, KS): Is ESPN making a "Sportscenter Anchors" poster series? Where can I get a vintage Bob Ley?
I have no idea what to add. Neither did Stu he didn’t respond. Ben, you’re weird.
Pam(Princeton): Krackman needs to lay off the krack! that's some grammer job
And that is perfect irony. No response from Stu.
Pam(Princeton): Stu, not sucking up here, but I think you are really handsome
Yeah that’s not sucking up at all.
Stuart Scott: (5:00 PM ET ) Pam---Thank you. And I was telling Franco the Groveler about work stuff..genuine flattery I'm all good with!
Work stuff? FRANCO DID NOT REALLY GET KICKED OUT OF A BOARD MEETING YOU IDIOT! Why am I getting upset about this?
Oh right, I’m a petty asshole.
Sean (Philly): America's Test Kitchen? I may have to DVR that so I can find out what it is.
You do that. See in Keith Law chats there are a lot of book recommendations, but what you don’t see is this:
Joe blow: Keith, what are you reading?
Keith Law: I’m reading “In Search of Lost Time”
Joe blow: Hey cool I’ve never heard of that book. I will now “log on” to amazon.com, and I will enter that name in the search field with my credit card in hand and I will purchase it.
Because Joe blow is just wasting our time. Stu? He puts that shit in. With no response.
Ben (Lawrence, KS): Stu, If ESPN does a "Sportscenter Anchors" poster series, will yours feature you dunking on Shawn Bradley?
Ben this is the second time you’ve asked about getting Sportscenter anchor posters. This is not amusing and is a little disturbing. Also, wouldn’t the poster just be him sitting behind a desk with that stupid smirk on his face?
Stuart Scott: (5:01 PM ET ) No, it'll feature me catching TD pass over Champ Bailey
Oh, or that of course.
Ryan (Schulenburg, TX): Stuart, i'll give you major cash if you can catch a TD pass over my favorite player, champ bailey.
Stuart Scott: (5:03 PM ET ) Ryan, I make enough cash...that's about my own pride
You’re rich and awesome. Pride isn't getting you to catch a pass over Champ Bailey.
Franco (Philly): Agree with you on Grey's Anatomy pal!
This is not interesting! I don’t read chats to hear what Franco in Philly likes! I read them to try to figure out what Stu is saying so I can make fun of it! Also, Franco, please put Stu’s dick down for a few minutes, okay buddy? I thought you were picking on him with the board room booyah thing, but now I’m thinking you’re just kissing his ass.
Pam(Princeton): You are welcome! Now, can we please talk CFB next time?
If you wanted to talk college football, Pam, then maybe you should have asked him a college football question instead of hitting on him. He's here to answer questions, not just toss topics out there.
In case you haven’t noticed, Pam, Ben, Sean and Franco have like 200 posts in this chat.
Sean (Philly): I still haven't seen Rock 4.5 (Rocky 5 never really happened in my mind), have you seen it?
What movie is he talking about, Rocky Balboa? That’s topical.
Sean (Philly): Mental Booyah's Franco, Mental...
Yes, those posts are exactly as they went down, with no response. Sean in Philly had 8 posts.
Ryan (Schulenburg, TX): I wanna see Chris Berman rob a Barry Bonds homerun in one of those poster series!
I’m so lost. What poster series? Is this really fun? I want to see Linda Cohn 69 Pam Oliver in a poster series! No!! I don’t!!!
Pam(Princeton): FN lights is the best show no one watches
Pam, thanks so much for that insight. That was your 8th post. Also, you could have asked a college football question there as well, since that's what you want him to talk about.
Franco (Philly): Relax there Krackman. Just because I have a little mancrush on Stu doesn't mean I wanna be like him.
Franco after your first post I thought you were kind of funny, now you're just a whacko. The Philly/New Jersey/New York area apparently grinds to a screeching halt when Stuart Scott is chatting.
I can’t wait to see them actually craft this into an ESPN the Magazine column.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Steve Phillips Was GM of The NY Mets
The above statement is a fact. I don’t know what Jonah Keri has done for work, but I'm willing to be he wasn't given the keys to a major market team with a lot of money to spend. Let’s compare their views on the Yankees acquiring Johan Santana.
Keri, from today’s chat:
Matt, MN: Santana to the Yankees for Hughs and Cabrera. If your the Twins do you take it? If your the Yankees do you offer it?
Jonah Keri: It just wouldn't happen. Simmons had a good column on this for the Mag...teams very rarely make this kind of ballsy trade anymore. He was referring to the NBA, but there's plenty of "I don't want to look bad, so I'm going to go the safe route" going on in MLB front offices too.
If were the Twins, though? Yes, I'd take it.
Okay - so that's Keri's opinion.
Colie (NYC): I know Santana is a great pitcher. but why would the yanks trade away years and years of talent on a FA after 2008???
Jonah Keri: Exactly. They wouldn't.
I think Jonah’s right, unless the Yankees are suddenly sour on Hughes. Hughes is cost controlled, young and they could just buy Santana after next year and have them both, if they want. It’s not like Clemens, Pettitte and Mussina are young, and Pettitte has a $16 million player option for next year and Mussina is under contract (at $11.5m). Makes sense to make a run at Santana after next season and slot him in during 2009 with the aforementioned big money guys coming off the payroll (Clemens this year) and younger, cheaper pitchers (Hughes, Chamberlain, etc.) emerging alongside Wang. They could really build a great, young rotation.
Hey Steve Phillips, what do you think?
Al (Basking Ridge, NJ): Mr. Phillips, if you are the Yankees GM, would you make a trade for Johan Santana and what pieces would you be willing to part with? Thanks.
Steve Phillips: I would do just about anything to get him. If money is a factor, and I am the Yankees, I would not resign A-Rod and use that money for Santana. Instead of giving A-Rod 36 mil. per year, why not give Santana 22 mil. and go out and get a 14 mil. per year 3B. I would put Hughes in the deal, along with Cabrera and another young prospect if neccesary. Hughes may blossom as time goes on, but he is not going to be Santana-like.
Oh, a solid young outfielder who could start in CF for you + Hughes + ANOTHER prospect for a year and half of Johan Santana, and THEN extend him for $22 million a year.
Keri, from today’s chat:
Matt, MN: Santana to the Yankees for Hughs and Cabrera. If your the Twins do you take it? If your the Yankees do you offer it?
Jonah Keri: It just wouldn't happen. Simmons had a good column on this for the Mag...teams very rarely make this kind of ballsy trade anymore. He was referring to the NBA, but there's plenty of "I don't want to look bad, so I'm going to go the safe route" going on in MLB front offices too.
If were the Twins, though? Yes, I'd take it.
Okay - so that's Keri's opinion.
Colie (NYC): I know Santana is a great pitcher. but why would the yanks trade away years and years of talent on a FA after 2008???
Jonah Keri: Exactly. They wouldn't.
I think Jonah’s right, unless the Yankees are suddenly sour on Hughes. Hughes is cost controlled, young and they could just buy Santana after next year and have them both, if they want. It’s not like Clemens, Pettitte and Mussina are young, and Pettitte has a $16 million player option for next year and Mussina is under contract (at $11.5m). Makes sense to make a run at Santana after next season and slot him in during 2009 with the aforementioned big money guys coming off the payroll (Clemens this year) and younger, cheaper pitchers (Hughes, Chamberlain, etc.) emerging alongside Wang. They could really build a great, young rotation.
Hey Steve Phillips, what do you think?
Al (Basking Ridge, NJ): Mr. Phillips, if you are the Yankees GM, would you make a trade for Johan Santana and what pieces would you be willing to part with? Thanks.
Steve Phillips: I would do just about anything to get him. If money is a factor, and I am the Yankees, I would not resign A-Rod and use that money for Santana. Instead of giving A-Rod 36 mil. per year, why not give Santana 22 mil. and go out and get a 14 mil. per year 3B. I would put Hughes in the deal, along with Cabrera and another young prospect if neccesary. Hughes may blossom as time goes on, but he is not going to be Santana-like.
Oh, a solid young outfielder who could start in CF for you + Hughes + ANOTHER prospect for a year and half of Johan Santana, and THEN extend him for $22 million a year.
Steve Phillips, I Don't Like You
Has anyone ever noticed that Steve Phillips either doesn’t move his hands at all when he talks, or he moves them around like a mad man – like every word gets some dramatic hand movement?
Yeah… me neither…let’s look at some chat answers. These aren’t Joe Morgan level bad but I’ve already started typing.
Greg (Gig Harbor, WA): Morning Steve. I'm curious about your thoughts on the Mariners. Do you think they have the starting pitching to reach the playoffs? They seem to just be steady and I think that's a great asset in this league.
Steve Phillips: Here is something you should know, there have been only two teams to ever make the playoffs with a starting rotation with a record below .500. The Mariners starting pitchers are currently just under the .500 mark. But with the improvement in the offense and one of the best bullpens aound, I think the Mariners have a great chance to win a Wild Card and even the West if they get hot.
Summary – Mariners’ starting pitching is not that good, but offense is “improved” and they have one of the best bullpens. They have a great chance to make the playoffs.
I’m going to reorder a couple of questions here to get this one next:
Mike (Fresno): True or false - the Yankees will make the playoffs.
Steve Phillips: False. The easy thing to say right now is that they will make it because of how they have played out of the All-Star break. But the reason they are winning now is because of their offense, which is very, very good. But to be a playoff team you have to pitch. And I have my doubts that the offense will continue to go as it is going, and I do not think they have the pitching to bail them out when the offense is not there. But they deserve a lot of credit for fighting their way back into this race, because myself, along with many others, counted them out a long time ago.
Summary – Very, very good offense (an understatement), but pitching not good enough.
Let’s take a crude look at some quick stats:
Post All-Star Break:
Runs Scored:
Mariners – 157 – 7th in AL
Yankees – 246 – 1st in AL
Team ERA:
Mariners – 4.98
Yankees – 4.48
To me, this is an odd train of thought. The Yankees have better hitting and better starters, but the Mariners will get in because their hitting is “improved” and their bullpen is very good. The Yankees score substantially more runs and give up less runs, but their pitching is not good enough, in comparison to the Mariners, whose starters have a sub .500 W/L record, which to you (Steve Phillips) is meaningful in a historical sense. Oh okay.
The Mariners run differential so far this year is 6. The Yankees’ is 149.
Liz ( Big Apple): Please tell me the Idea of Tony Larussa Managing the Yankees next year or in my lifetime is a joke? (I'm 29)
Steve Phillips: I would be surprised if LaRussa would want to come to New York to manage. He is a tremendous manager, and he may be having his best year ever with all the adveristy he has faced in St. Louis this year. But I do not think Tony, at this stage in his career, would want to deal with the NY media and all that comes with it. There has been speculation that he will go to the Reds, but I find that hard to believe, since it will be difficult to put a winning team together in that ball park. Joe Torre should be the Yankees manager for as long as we wants, in my opinion. Nobody could have done a better job in the last 12 years.
Why will it be difficult to put a winning team together in that ball park? Why would OPPOSING TEAMS have a better chance of winning in Cincinnati than the Reds, if they can field a quality team? He must mean that Riverfront Stadium is old and out dated (not enough luxury boxes) and therefore is not “economically viable” to generate the required revenues to field a competitive team. Oh…their ballpark… is new?
Being serious for a second, is the thought behind this that it's easier to hit homeruns, and therefore it increases the variability of results (lesser players can hit homeruns easier). If that is the case, you can focus the pitching staff on pitchers who give up fewer homeruns and load the team with power hitters. As opposed to, say, flyball pitchers and guys who steal bases. I'm being overly simplistic, but you get the point - no team should be doomed to losing because of their ballpark.
Adam (Flushing, NY): What are the chances that A-Rod signs with the red Sox next season? What would they have to give up in order to get him.
Steve Phillips: Well if he is a FA they would not have to give up anything, and the Yanks would never trade him to the Red Sox. But it will cost somewhere inthe range for 30 million dollars per year for 8 or more seaons to sign him. remmeber this, he is a great player, but he has yet to win a title, and baseball is not just an individual game. You need to have a balanced and deep roster to win, and no matter what your payroll, giving one guy 30 mil. limits what you can do with your roster.
That’s true, since there’s a salary cap in baseball and you can’t just spend a ton of money on other players…we wouldn’t want teams like New York and Boston doing that! His point is moot if you can afford to spend $150 million plus on the rest of the team. Really, are we looking at baseball players this way in 2007? Measuring them in championships? You can not treat MLB players like NBA players. Ted Williams and Barry Bonds never won championships…so fucking what? They are arguably the two best offensive players ever.
MATT (MINN): Where is Tory Hunter going to end up?
Steve Phillips: I think there are many places he could end up, from Boston to Atlanta to Philadelphia, Baltimore, Texas, and so on. I think he will be the most highly pursued FA this offseason, including if A-Rod is a free agent. Teams will look at the price tag on Rodriguez and think that they can sign Hunter and two other players for the same amount of money. He is still in his prime and would be a great addition to any team.
A summary of that Q & A:
MATT (MINN): Where is Tory Hunter going to end up?
Steve Phillips: Anywhere!
Also, Steve Phillips has the biggest hard-on for talking bad about A-Rod and/or the Yankees. I vividly remember Steve Phillips talking about A-Rod during his crazy-bad summer last year when he hit like 2 homeruns OPS’d .179. I remember him saying last July that A-Rod was intimidated by New York and would never get back to where he was if he stayed there. He and Harold Reynolds were saying this, and John Kruk was just saying that he was in a little bit of a slump and would be fine. You don’t forget moments when John Kruk is the only guy who is right.
Nick (Philly): Any chance Cole Hamels can pull out the Cy Young award this year? If it weren't for the bullpen, he'd be close to 20 wins already.
Steve Phillips: I think it will be very difficult for him, unless he rattles off seven or eight high quality performances that lower his ERA under 3. Chris Young (2.02) and Jake Peavy (2.23) have better ERAs. Hamels is a good young pitcher who will win a Cy Young award, but it just wont happen this year.
Side note: Young and Peavy pitch in a pitcher’s park. But check this out, Jake Peavy has a 1.06 ERA on the road.
Yeah… me neither…let’s look at some chat answers. These aren’t Joe Morgan level bad but I’ve already started typing.
Greg (Gig Harbor, WA): Morning Steve. I'm curious about your thoughts on the Mariners. Do you think they have the starting pitching to reach the playoffs? They seem to just be steady and I think that's a great asset in this league.
Steve Phillips: Here is something you should know, there have been only two teams to ever make the playoffs with a starting rotation with a record below .500. The Mariners starting pitchers are currently just under the .500 mark. But with the improvement in the offense and one of the best bullpens aound, I think the Mariners have a great chance to win a Wild Card and even the West if they get hot.
Summary – Mariners’ starting pitching is not that good, but offense is “improved” and they have one of the best bullpens. They have a great chance to make the playoffs.
I’m going to reorder a couple of questions here to get this one next:
Mike (Fresno): True or false - the Yankees will make the playoffs.
Steve Phillips: False. The easy thing to say right now is that they will make it because of how they have played out of the All-Star break. But the reason they are winning now is because of their offense, which is very, very good. But to be a playoff team you have to pitch. And I have my doubts that the offense will continue to go as it is going, and I do not think they have the pitching to bail them out when the offense is not there. But they deserve a lot of credit for fighting their way back into this race, because myself, along with many others, counted them out a long time ago.
Summary – Very, very good offense (an understatement), but pitching not good enough.
Let’s take a crude look at some quick stats:
Post All-Star Break:
Runs Scored:
Mariners – 157 – 7th in AL
Yankees – 246 – 1st in AL
Team ERA:
Mariners – 4.98
Yankees – 4.48
To me, this is an odd train of thought. The Yankees have better hitting and better starters, but the Mariners will get in because their hitting is “improved” and their bullpen is very good. The Yankees score substantially more runs and give up less runs, but their pitching is not good enough, in comparison to the Mariners, whose starters have a sub .500 W/L record, which to you (Steve Phillips) is meaningful in a historical sense. Oh okay.
The Mariners run differential so far this year is 6. The Yankees’ is 149.
Liz ( Big Apple): Please tell me the Idea of Tony Larussa Managing the Yankees next year or in my lifetime is a joke? (I'm 29)
Steve Phillips: I would be surprised if LaRussa would want to come to New York to manage. He is a tremendous manager, and he may be having his best year ever with all the adveristy he has faced in St. Louis this year. But I do not think Tony, at this stage in his career, would want to deal with the NY media and all that comes with it. There has been speculation that he will go to the Reds, but I find that hard to believe, since it will be difficult to put a winning team together in that ball park. Joe Torre should be the Yankees manager for as long as we wants, in my opinion. Nobody could have done a better job in the last 12 years.
Why will it be difficult to put a winning team together in that ball park? Why would OPPOSING TEAMS have a better chance of winning in Cincinnati than the Reds, if they can field a quality team? He must mean that Riverfront Stadium is old and out dated (not enough luxury boxes) and therefore is not “economically viable” to generate the required revenues to field a competitive team. Oh…their ballpark… is new?
Being serious for a second, is the thought behind this that it's easier to hit homeruns, and therefore it increases the variability of results (lesser players can hit homeruns easier). If that is the case, you can focus the pitching staff on pitchers who give up fewer homeruns and load the team with power hitters. As opposed to, say, flyball pitchers and guys who steal bases. I'm being overly simplistic, but you get the point - no team should be doomed to losing because of their ballpark.
Adam (Flushing, NY): What are the chances that A-Rod signs with the red Sox next season? What would they have to give up in order to get him.
Steve Phillips: Well if he is a FA they would not have to give up anything, and the Yanks would never trade him to the Red Sox. But it will cost somewhere inthe range for 30 million dollars per year for 8 or more seaons to sign him. remmeber this, he is a great player, but he has yet to win a title, and baseball is not just an individual game. You need to have a balanced and deep roster to win, and no matter what your payroll, giving one guy 30 mil. limits what you can do with your roster.
That’s true, since there’s a salary cap in baseball and you can’t just spend a ton of money on other players…we wouldn’t want teams like New York and Boston doing that! His point is moot if you can afford to spend $150 million plus on the rest of the team. Really, are we looking at baseball players this way in 2007? Measuring them in championships? You can not treat MLB players like NBA players. Ted Williams and Barry Bonds never won championships…so fucking what? They are arguably the two best offensive players ever.
MATT (MINN): Where is Tory Hunter going to end up?
Steve Phillips: I think there are many places he could end up, from Boston to Atlanta to Philadelphia, Baltimore, Texas, and so on. I think he will be the most highly pursued FA this offseason, including if A-Rod is a free agent. Teams will look at the price tag on Rodriguez and think that they can sign Hunter and two other players for the same amount of money. He is still in his prime and would be a great addition to any team.
A summary of that Q & A:
MATT (MINN): Where is Tory Hunter going to end up?
Steve Phillips: Anywhere!
Also, Steve Phillips has the biggest hard-on for talking bad about A-Rod and/or the Yankees. I vividly remember Steve Phillips talking about A-Rod during his crazy-bad summer last year when he hit like 2 homeruns OPS’d .179. I remember him saying last July that A-Rod was intimidated by New York and would never get back to where he was if he stayed there. He and Harold Reynolds were saying this, and John Kruk was just saying that he was in a little bit of a slump and would be fine. You don’t forget moments when John Kruk is the only guy who is right.
Nick (Philly): Any chance Cole Hamels can pull out the Cy Young award this year? If it weren't for the bullpen, he'd be close to 20 wins already.
Steve Phillips: I think it will be very difficult for him, unless he rattles off seven or eight high quality performances that lower his ERA under 3. Chris Young (2.02) and Jake Peavy (2.23) have better ERAs. Hamels is a good young pitcher who will win a Cy Young award, but it just wont happen this year.
Side note: Young and Peavy pitch in a pitcher’s park. But check this out, Jake Peavy has a 1.06 ERA on the road.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Joe Morgan Does Research!
Just kidding.
I know it's sacrilegious to comment on a Joe Morgan chat, since Firejoemorgan invented it (and the whole "tear apart bad baseball journalism" thing). But I got one question into this week's chat and had to see if he was right.
John (Washington, DC): Joe, I was wondering if you were impressed with the Phillies this weekend, and if you think that they have the best offense in the National League?
Joe Morgan: (11:22 AM ET ) If you look at the numbers they are scoring more runs per game, but you also have to think about the fact that the games will be played in their ball park, which is a small park. I would not say they have the best offense in the NL, but they do have a core of very smart and patient players. But I think the numbers have a lot to do with the small ballpark.
Phillies runs per game:
Home - 5.55
Away - 5.39
Over the course of the year that would indicate a 12 run difference, or a run about every 7 games. The very best part about his response was the fact that he starts his answer by telling you to look at the numbers, but then just hypothesizes that they are scoring more at home due to the small park. Like there are no numbers to look at with respect to the home/away angle.
I'm sure Ken at FJM will do what I did but make it funny or something.
*Update: Junior at FJM picked it up. It's here.
I know it's sacrilegious to comment on a Joe Morgan chat, since Firejoemorgan invented it (and the whole "tear apart bad baseball journalism" thing). But I got one question into this week's chat and had to see if he was right.
John (Washington, DC): Joe, I was wondering if you were impressed with the Phillies this weekend, and if you think that they have the best offense in the National League?
Joe Morgan: (11:22 AM ET ) If you look at the numbers they are scoring more runs per game, but you also have to think about the fact that the games will be played in their ball park, which is a small park. I would not say they have the best offense in the NL, but they do have a core of very smart and patient players. But I think the numbers have a lot to do with the small ballpark.
Phillies runs per game:
Home - 5.55
Away - 5.39
Over the course of the year that would indicate a 12 run difference, or a run about every 7 games. The very best part about his response was the fact that he starts his answer by telling you to look at the numbers, but then just hypothesizes that they are scoring more at home due to the small park. Like there are no numbers to look at with respect to the home/away angle.
I'm sure Ken at FJM will do what I did but make it funny or something.
*Update: Junior at FJM picked it up. It's here.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Stuart Scott: Two Wya Reevew
Stuart Scott does a chat about every two weeks on ESPN.com (called the two-way). It’s usually pretty non-eventful and is riddled with typos and not so new analysis on subjects. Somehow ESPN the Magazine thinks it worth using in the magazine. I can only think he’s typing this up on a blackberry at a block party somewhere with Pookie and Ray-Ray. Let’s look at a few of Stuart’s answers from this week.
jamie (shaker heights): will glavin be the last 300-game winner in our lifetime?
Stuart Scott: (11:01 AM ET ) I tthink Randy Jophnson has a slim chance, but beyond that, I can't see any more than a lot of middle and late relievers and closers.
I will give you two American Dollars if you can tell me what the hell he’s talking about. I’m not going into the 300 game winner thing….again, but if you read that without guessing at his point it sounds like we’ll mostly see middle relievers and closers winning 300 games. Clearly not his point, but his point wasn’t clear.
joe (jamaica plains): it's tough not to like the Sox getting gagne, but their problem this year seems more hitting than pitching. What do you think?
Stuart Scott: (11:03 AM ET ) I think pitching wins championships. True the Sox aren't hitting, but if Eric is anywhere close near to the 82? saves he had a few years ago, the Sox are in good shape.
I realize that it’s common to put a question mark after something that you’re a little unsure about. But couldn't he take 30 seconds and clarify what he is saying? It sounds like he's saying 82 saves in a season. I realize now that he must mean Gagne's streak of 84 straight saves. But clearly Gagne is not THAT good this year. If he thinks Gagne saved 82 games in a year, that’s like saying; “well if Barry Bonds can put together another 115? Homerun season the Giants will be all set.”
Also, Boston is 5th in the Major Leagues in runs scored. Third since the All-Star break. Last year’s World Series champs were 16th in ERA during the regular season.
laurel (cherry hill nj): Seen the simpsons movie? How do you rate it?
Stuart Scott: (11:09 AM ET ) i've never even watched an episode. Never even 30 seconds of one. Nothing personal, just never got around to it.
This further supports how/why Stuart Scott and myself are the exact opposites in every way.
ariel (frankfurt germany): are you down with the Harry Potter series Stuart--movies or books--
Stuart Scott: (11:20 AM ET ) my oldest daughter is a bifg fan. Soi I haer about them from her. At Holloween, I was Dumbledore even though I didn't really know hwho he was til I did it with beard and cape.
I just left this in so you didn’t think I was exaggerating about typos and him not making sense.
He’s either:
A. On a blackberry
B. He can’t type
C. He’s dictating his answers to someone who doesn’t speak Stuart Scott (credit to Bill Simmons).
D. Booyah!
jerry: We know the Yanks and Sox watch each others moves very carefully, but do you thinik when a team like the Celts trades for a KG, it puts pressure on a team like the Red Sox to make a move as well, b/c of the fans?
Stuart Scott: (11:22 AM ET ) No I think its the other way around . The Sox don't feel pressure, but Boston fans do feel angst about any move any Boston or NY team makes. When the Pats won the first SB, fans ran around NO yelling Yankees suck Yankees suck. There's something wrong there, but they do hav ehelp for those kinds of problems.
I agree that Yankees suck chants are stupid at non-Yankees related events. Like the one we started at a wedding ceremony last month. But, see, Jerry is acknowledging that the Sox and Yankees watch each other, and his question was just about Boston teams watching other Boston teams. Booyah!
Bobby (ohio): do you think griffey can pass bonds?
Stuart Scott: (11:23 AM ET ) no, no way. Junior' s on e of the best players ever, but cmon. It's too late.
Yeah Bobby, what are you….stupid? Booyah!
Randy(Knoxville,TN): Fair point....but if you add a Mark Jackson/Rod Strickland type, and a P.J. Brown type, you likely win 65+ games....even if your bench is weak. Ask MJ if it cant work. Who was Jud Buechler anyway?
Stuart Scott: (11:26 AM ET ) i though you were a Mark Jackson type. That's why I put you in the lineup.
I am on a roll today….take that Randy! Booyah! Doesn’t make sense? What? Well boo-fucking-yah! Did that make sense?
The crazy thing is that Randy’s question was pretty stupid and easy to argue with. Mark Jackson/Rod Strickland types aren’t really available and are expensive if they are, and Jud Buechler was like the 11th man on those Bulls teams. They had much better complementary guards than him.
jamie (shaker heights): will glavin be the last 300-game winner in our lifetime?
Stuart Scott: (11:01 AM ET ) I tthink Randy Jophnson has a slim chance, but beyond that, I can't see any more than a lot of middle and late relievers and closers.
I will give you two American Dollars if you can tell me what the hell he’s talking about. I’m not going into the 300 game winner thing….again, but if you read that without guessing at his point it sounds like we’ll mostly see middle relievers and closers winning 300 games. Clearly not his point, but his point wasn’t clear.
joe (jamaica plains): it's tough not to like the Sox getting gagne, but their problem this year seems more hitting than pitching. What do you think?
Stuart Scott: (11:03 AM ET ) I think pitching wins championships. True the Sox aren't hitting, but if Eric is anywhere close near to the 82? saves he had a few years ago, the Sox are in good shape.
I realize that it’s common to put a question mark after something that you’re a little unsure about. But couldn't he take 30 seconds and clarify what he is saying? It sounds like he's saying 82 saves in a season. I realize now that he must mean Gagne's streak of 84 straight saves. But clearly Gagne is not THAT good this year. If he thinks Gagne saved 82 games in a year, that’s like saying; “well if Barry Bonds can put together another 115? Homerun season the Giants will be all set.”
Also, Boston is 5th in the Major Leagues in runs scored. Third since the All-Star break. Last year’s World Series champs were 16th in ERA during the regular season.
laurel (cherry hill nj): Seen the simpsons movie? How do you rate it?
Stuart Scott: (11:09 AM ET ) i've never even watched an episode. Never even 30 seconds of one. Nothing personal, just never got around to it.
This further supports how/why Stuart Scott and myself are the exact opposites in every way.
ariel (frankfurt germany): are you down with the Harry Potter series Stuart--movies or books--
Stuart Scott: (11:20 AM ET ) my oldest daughter is a bifg fan. Soi I haer about them from her. At Holloween, I was Dumbledore even though I didn't really know hwho he was til I did it with beard and cape.
I just left this in so you didn’t think I was exaggerating about typos and him not making sense.
He’s either:
A. On a blackberry
B. He can’t type
C. He’s dictating his answers to someone who doesn’t speak Stuart Scott (credit to Bill Simmons).
D. Booyah!
jerry: We know the Yanks and Sox watch each others moves very carefully, but do you thinik when a team like the Celts trades for a KG, it puts pressure on a team like the Red Sox to make a move as well, b/c of the fans?
Stuart Scott: (11:22 AM ET ) No I think its the other way around . The Sox don't feel pressure, but Boston fans do feel angst about any move any Boston or NY team makes. When the Pats won the first SB, fans ran around NO yelling Yankees suck Yankees suck. There's something wrong there, but they do hav ehelp for those kinds of problems.
I agree that Yankees suck chants are stupid at non-Yankees related events. Like the one we started at a wedding ceremony last month. But, see, Jerry is acknowledging that the Sox and Yankees watch each other, and his question was just about Boston teams watching other Boston teams. Booyah!
Bobby (ohio): do you think griffey can pass bonds?
Stuart Scott: (11:23 AM ET ) no, no way. Junior' s on e of the best players ever, but cmon. It's too late.
Yeah Bobby, what are you….stupid? Booyah!
Randy(Knoxville,TN): Fair point....but if you add a Mark Jackson/Rod Strickland type, and a P.J. Brown type, you likely win 65+ games....even if your bench is weak. Ask MJ if it cant work. Who was Jud Buechler anyway?
Stuart Scott: (11:26 AM ET ) i though you were a Mark Jackson type. That's why I put you in the lineup.
I am on a roll today….take that Randy! Booyah! Doesn’t make sense? What? Well boo-fucking-yah! Did that make sense?
The crazy thing is that Randy’s question was pretty stupid and easy to argue with. Mark Jackson/Rod Strickland types aren’t really available and are expensive if they are, and Jud Buechler was like the 11th man on those Bulls teams. They had much better complementary guards than him.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Todd in Irvine, Please Leave Keith Law Alone
From today's chat:
Todd (Irvine, CA): Keith, there's word out of San Diego that the Padres could be after Jason Jennings and Mark Loretta, and that Marcus Giles could be part of that deal.
Keith Law: (1:51 PM ET ) I haven't heard anything about this other than the note you sent to my mailbag and the ten times you've asked it today!
Another highlight from the chat:
T Yuba City CA: It seems like many of the baseball folks at ESPN are Angel Haters. What gives??
Keith Law: (2:33 PM ET ) It's something we did at orientation when I was first hired. We spent a whole hour on Angel-hating - the why, the how, the when, etc.
Todd (Irvine, CA): Keith, there's word out of San Diego that the Padres could be after Jason Jennings and Mark Loretta, and that Marcus Giles could be part of that deal.
Keith Law: (1:51 PM ET ) I haven't heard anything about this other than the note you sent to my mailbag and the ten times you've asked it today!
Another highlight from the chat:
T Yuba City CA: It seems like many of the baseball folks at ESPN are Angel Haters. What gives??
Keith Law: (2:33 PM ET ) It's something we did at orientation when I was first hired. We spent a whole hour on Angel-hating - the why, the how, the when, etc.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Buster Olney, what?
From Today’s chat:
swayne (Delmar, NY): Buster, Do you see the Yanks making any significant deals by July 31? What are they targeting? Also: who would you rather have down the stretch -- Lackey or Chris Young?
Buster Olney: (1:21 PM ET ) Swayne: Young. Pitchers' park.
I don’t know why this question would involve ballparks. Buster doesn't get many fantasy questions and this wasn't framed as such. I think the question was supposed to be about which pitcher would you want on your team with the ballpark being whatever park you're playing in.
swayne (Delmar, NY): Buster, Do you see the Yanks making any significant deals by July 31? What are they targeting? Also: who would you rather have down the stretch -- Lackey or Chris Young?
Buster Olney: (1:21 PM ET ) Swayne: Young. Pitchers' park.
I don’t know why this question would involve ballparks. Buster doesn't get many fantasy questions and this wasn't framed as such. I think the question was supposed to be about which pitcher would you want on your team with the ballpark being whatever park you're playing in.
Monday, July 9, 2007
I Tried To Get Buster Olney to Fight Rob Neyer
But it didn’t work.
Jeff (Ogdenville): Buster, Rob Neyer disagrees with your statements from last week's chat, where you were doubtful that any other pitcher would win 300 games, except Sabathia. Do you really think he's the last chance to win 300 games?
Buster Olney: What did that motherfucker say? I'll fuck his shit up, yo! You think I was named Buster by my momma? I was named Buster by my gang... the motherfucking Killaz! West siiiiiiiiide!
Okay that's not what he really said...real response below:
Buster Olney: Jeff: I don't have the breakdown in front of me, but it stands to reason that as time goes on, starting pitchers will continue to have fewer and fewer victories, which cuts down the 300 chances... Right now, among young and active pitchers, C.C. has the best shot. Rob and I will check back in 25 years and fight it out then...
It stands to reason that starting pitchers will continue to have fewer and fewer victories? Why would starting pitchers win less games than starting pitchers during the Maddux/Glavine/Clemens/Johnson era? Anyway, this topic is dead.
So let’s just move on to this:
Hal (Florida): favorite song?
Buster Olney: Shine, Collective Soul...
Buster and I are similar actually. Shine would be my answer to that question too. If you qualified it as the favorite Collective Soul song from the early 90’s that was on MTV/VH1 50 times a day that I never want to hear again.
Jeff (Ogdenville): Buster, Rob Neyer disagrees with your statements from last week's chat, where you were doubtful that any other pitcher would win 300 games, except Sabathia. Do you really think he's the last chance to win 300 games?
Buster Olney: What did that motherfucker say? I'll fuck his shit up, yo! You think I was named Buster by my momma? I was named Buster by my gang... the motherfucking Killaz! West siiiiiiiiide!
Okay that's not what he really said...real response below:
Buster Olney: Jeff: I don't have the breakdown in front of me, but it stands to reason that as time goes on, starting pitchers will continue to have fewer and fewer victories, which cuts down the 300 chances... Right now, among young and active pitchers, C.C. has the best shot. Rob and I will check back in 25 years and fight it out then...
It stands to reason that starting pitchers will continue to have fewer and fewer victories? Why would starting pitchers win less games than starting pitchers during the Maddux/Glavine/Clemens/Johnson era? Anyway, this topic is dead.
So let’s just move on to this:
Hal (Florida): favorite song?
Buster Olney: Shine, Collective Soul...
Buster and I are similar actually. Shine would be my answer to that question too. If you qualified it as the favorite Collective Soul song from the early 90’s that was on MTV/VH1 50 times a day that I never want to hear again.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
A Voice of Reason in the 300 Win Discussion
This post, which you’ve no doubt read dozens of times by now, was basically about Mark Kriedlers’ insane assertion that we would see less players achieving 3,000 hits in the future because they were getting too rich or something. Numbers, logic, and history make that assessment sound sort of unrealstic. If anything, we seem to be trending towards more 3,000 hit club members. But the other point that Mark Kriedler was making was that there would be less 300 game winners. That’s a reasonable assumption, although it’s worth noting we have two active 300 game winners (way over 300) and two pitchers who are very close to 300. But 3 of those pitchers are on the short list of the best pitchers of the last 50 years, and the other is a first ballot hall of famer.
The 300 game winner thinking was explored more on ESPN.com this past week, first in this chat, with Buster Olney.
Jonathan (Tampa, FL): Will there ever be another 300 game winner after Glavine and possibly Randy Johnson?
Buster Olney: Jonathan: C.C. Sabathia might give himself a chance -- he'll get to 100 later this summer, after he turns 27. But beyond that... I doubt it, with the way pitchers are protected at an early age and with the way teams will quickly place high-priced guys on the DL for even a minor injury.
So Buster seems to be saying that C.C. Sabathia may be the last guy with a chance to get to 300 wins. That’s pretty bold. C.C. Sabathia is a fine pitcher, but to insinuate that we’ve seen the last of the Sabathia’s of the world is nonsense. It’s not like Sabathia came up at 16 years old, or has done anything that dozens of other pitchers won’t do in the near future.
Jason (Brooklyn): Buster, I completely disagree with you that there will probably not be a 300 game winner beyond C.C. Just because the game is currently trending in a particular direction (protecting pitchers) doesn't mean that it will continue to do so in the future. Also, it always seems that every generation of baseball players have a few all time greats that are able to buck the trend. Who will it be? who knows, but someone probably will. I'll bet you any amount of money some guy you've probably never heard of will break 300 wins within the next 30-50 years.
Buster Olney: Jason: OK... disagree, but see your point.
Jason’s overall point is a decent one, but I disagree with his thoughts that “protecting pitchers” may go out of vogue. Not when good ones are more than $10 million a year and they are so scarce. If we had 50 Johan Santana type quality pitchers, then yes they would be pampered less, because the supply is greater. But I doubt that the quantity of great pitchers will ever become so skewed that pitcher protection becomes less important.
Let’s summarize Buster’s points:
1. Pitchers are protected at an early age
2. Teams quickly place high priced guys on the DL to avoid injury
Isn’t this likely to lead to more pitchers being healthy for longer and pitching into their 40’s? There’s always going to be injury prone pitchers, but there’s also always going to be those pitchers that escape injury and pitch long enough, under the right circumstances, to win 300 games. Tommy John won 288 games and had a certain well known arm ailment that required a surgery. With modern medical advances he was just able to pitch a very long time and was “pretty good”. He’s not in the Hall of Fame.
As usual, Rob Neyer came along as the voice of reason, with this blog post (on 7/3):
Somebody will win 300 again
(parts deleted)
In other news, Roger Clemens pitched well, which I find inherently more interesting than his reaching a round number. Nevertheless, the question does come to mind: Who among our current young moundsmen might even approach the lofty marks set by Mr. Rocket?
I've got a Baseball Digest article, somewhere in the pile of materials on my desk, that laments the imminent demise of the 200-game winner. This was published in the 1950s, and you probably know that a great number of pitchers have won 200 games since then. So yes, it's difficult to imagine any currently active young pitcher winning 300 games. My prediction, though: Somebody will do it. I don't want to run through a big list, but just looking at this page, I see a few intriguing combinations of youth, health, and success: Roy Oswalt, C.C. Sabathia, Johan Santana.
Will one of them win 300? Probably not. But somebody.
So what about 350? Clemens is there, and a year from now Greg Maddux probably will have joined him. But if it's hard to imagine any young pitcher someday winning 300, it's almost impossible to imagine one of them winning 350.
Is it really, though? Do we really have any idea what doctors and druggists will be doing for pitchers in 20 years, when Yovani Gallardo and Felix Hernandez are "only" 41? If I'm lucky here and there, I've got another 50-some years of being a baseball fan. And I believe someday I'll see a pitcher win more games than Roger Clemens won.
I took a rudimentary look at a handful of active pitchers focusing on their career wins and their ages. I then did a rather simple calculation. I calculated the years they had until turning 40 (using baseballreference’s age), and then plugged in an average win total of 15 per year, and lastly I added in their current win total. Full of flaws I know, but I wanted to just gauge where this situation was. I'm sure that people smarter than me have these things down to specific probabilities.
If the following pitchers can average 15 wins a year until they are 40, this will be their approximate win total at that time (this is really skewed because we are in the middle of a season, as well):
Sabathia – 303
Jeremy Bonderman – 294
Dontrelle Willis – 290
Carlos Zambrano – 284
Jon Garland – 283
Mark Buehrle – 282
Jake Peavy – 276
Barry Zito - 273
Roy Oswalt – 270
Johan Santana – 267
Josh Beckett – 263
Roy Halladay - 254
John Lackey/Ben Sheets – 251
Now, many of those guys won’t even win 200, so I’m not at all saying that they will win that many games. There’s a chance that none will. But if Johan Santana can stay healthy, I’d put some money on him getting to 250. Believe me, I get the flaws in this calculation, but I did it for a sanity check. I'm also not considering mechanics and current volume of innings.
I also get that hardly any of those guys projected to win 300 games. However running the same calculation on a 27 year old Clemens, Maddux, Glavine and Johnson would have projected them at 311, 310, 290 and 239, respectively. More than one of those guys above will likely pitch past 40 as well. Who knows, one or two could pitch to 44 or 45. If they are good enough to be in a major league rotation at that point, there's a decent chance they're winning 300.
Stating the obvious, to win 300, any player will need to play on good offensive teams for a while, be healthy, and a good bullpen will definitely help. A lot of things out of their control, which is why I don’t give a crap if a guy makes it to 300 wins anyway. You want to make a bet that as long as Santana is healthy he’s averaging at least 15 wins? I would take that bet. He’ll have a few years around 18-20 to help the cause too. Plus there’s guys like Verlander and Hamels, who are off to a great start to make a run at 300. The point is, one of those guys could hit their stride, stay healthy, and pitch into their 40's to get to 300. If they all fail, there will be the future generations.
So many variables are involved that’s its crazy to try to get too scientific. But please, tell me why we won’t see another Tom Glavine? That makes no sense.
So once again, Rob Neyer brings some reason to a discussion. Well, him and Jason from Brooklyn.
The 300 game winner thinking was explored more on ESPN.com this past week, first in this chat, with Buster Olney.
Jonathan (Tampa, FL): Will there ever be another 300 game winner after Glavine and possibly Randy Johnson?
Buster Olney: Jonathan: C.C. Sabathia might give himself a chance -- he'll get to 100 later this summer, after he turns 27. But beyond that... I doubt it, with the way pitchers are protected at an early age and with the way teams will quickly place high-priced guys on the DL for even a minor injury.
So Buster seems to be saying that C.C. Sabathia may be the last guy with a chance to get to 300 wins. That’s pretty bold. C.C. Sabathia is a fine pitcher, but to insinuate that we’ve seen the last of the Sabathia’s of the world is nonsense. It’s not like Sabathia came up at 16 years old, or has done anything that dozens of other pitchers won’t do in the near future.
Jason (Brooklyn): Buster, I completely disagree with you that there will probably not be a 300 game winner beyond C.C. Just because the game is currently trending in a particular direction (protecting pitchers) doesn't mean that it will continue to do so in the future. Also, it always seems that every generation of baseball players have a few all time greats that are able to buck the trend. Who will it be? who knows, but someone probably will. I'll bet you any amount of money some guy you've probably never heard of will break 300 wins within the next 30-50 years.
Buster Olney: Jason: OK... disagree, but see your point.
Jason’s overall point is a decent one, but I disagree with his thoughts that “protecting pitchers” may go out of vogue. Not when good ones are more than $10 million a year and they are so scarce. If we had 50 Johan Santana type quality pitchers, then yes they would be pampered less, because the supply is greater. But I doubt that the quantity of great pitchers will ever become so skewed that pitcher protection becomes less important.
Let’s summarize Buster’s points:
1. Pitchers are protected at an early age
2. Teams quickly place high priced guys on the DL to avoid injury
Isn’t this likely to lead to more pitchers being healthy for longer and pitching into their 40’s? There’s always going to be injury prone pitchers, but there’s also always going to be those pitchers that escape injury and pitch long enough, under the right circumstances, to win 300 games. Tommy John won 288 games and had a certain well known arm ailment that required a surgery. With modern medical advances he was just able to pitch a very long time and was “pretty good”. He’s not in the Hall of Fame.
As usual, Rob Neyer came along as the voice of reason, with this blog post (on 7/3):
Somebody will win 300 again
(parts deleted)
In other news, Roger Clemens pitched well, which I find inherently more interesting than his reaching a round number. Nevertheless, the question does come to mind: Who among our current young moundsmen might even approach the lofty marks set by Mr. Rocket?
I've got a Baseball Digest article, somewhere in the pile of materials on my desk, that laments the imminent demise of the 200-game winner. This was published in the 1950s, and you probably know that a great number of pitchers have won 200 games since then. So yes, it's difficult to imagine any currently active young pitcher winning 300 games. My prediction, though: Somebody will do it. I don't want to run through a big list, but just looking at this page, I see a few intriguing combinations of youth, health, and success: Roy Oswalt, C.C. Sabathia, Johan Santana.
Will one of them win 300? Probably not. But somebody.
So what about 350? Clemens is there, and a year from now Greg Maddux probably will have joined him. But if it's hard to imagine any young pitcher someday winning 300, it's almost impossible to imagine one of them winning 350.
Is it really, though? Do we really have any idea what doctors and druggists will be doing for pitchers in 20 years, when Yovani Gallardo and Felix Hernandez are "only" 41? If I'm lucky here and there, I've got another 50-some years of being a baseball fan. And I believe someday I'll see a pitcher win more games than Roger Clemens won.
I took a rudimentary look at a handful of active pitchers focusing on their career wins and their ages. I then did a rather simple calculation. I calculated the years they had until turning 40 (using baseballreference’s age), and then plugged in an average win total of 15 per year, and lastly I added in their current win total. Full of flaws I know, but I wanted to just gauge where this situation was. I'm sure that people smarter than me have these things down to specific probabilities.
If the following pitchers can average 15 wins a year until they are 40, this will be their approximate win total at that time (this is really skewed because we are in the middle of a season, as well):
Sabathia – 303
Jeremy Bonderman – 294
Dontrelle Willis – 290
Carlos Zambrano – 284
Jon Garland – 283
Mark Buehrle – 282
Jake Peavy – 276
Barry Zito - 273
Roy Oswalt – 270
Johan Santana – 267
Josh Beckett – 263
Roy Halladay - 254
John Lackey/Ben Sheets – 251
Now, many of those guys won’t even win 200, so I’m not at all saying that they will win that many games. There’s a chance that none will. But if Johan Santana can stay healthy, I’d put some money on him getting to 250. Believe me, I get the flaws in this calculation, but I did it for a sanity check. I'm also not considering mechanics and current volume of innings.
I also get that hardly any of those guys projected to win 300 games. However running the same calculation on a 27 year old Clemens, Maddux, Glavine and Johnson would have projected them at 311, 310, 290 and 239, respectively. More than one of those guys above will likely pitch past 40 as well. Who knows, one or two could pitch to 44 or 45. If they are good enough to be in a major league rotation at that point, there's a decent chance they're winning 300.
Stating the obvious, to win 300, any player will need to play on good offensive teams for a while, be healthy, and a good bullpen will definitely help. A lot of things out of their control, which is why I don’t give a crap if a guy makes it to 300 wins anyway. You want to make a bet that as long as Santana is healthy he’s averaging at least 15 wins? I would take that bet. He’ll have a few years around 18-20 to help the cause too. Plus there’s guys like Verlander and Hamels, who are off to a great start to make a run at 300. The point is, one of those guys could hit their stride, stay healthy, and pitch into their 40's to get to 300. If they all fail, there will be the future generations.
So many variables are involved that’s its crazy to try to get too scientific. But please, tell me why we won’t see another Tom Glavine? That makes no sense.
So once again, Rob Neyer brings some reason to a discussion. Well, him and Jason from Brooklyn.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Jalen Rose Speaks the Truth
Jalen Rose, from today's chat on ESPN.com:
Jalen Rose: Enjoy tonight's draft! But remember, you will not see an outfit that looks better than Jalen Rose's suit in 1994!
Jalen Rose: Enjoy tonight's draft! But remember, you will not see an outfit that looks better than Jalen Rose's suit in 1994!
Word, Jalen.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Simmons v. Cowherd part II
On today's Bill Simmons chat:
Mason: (SC): You should bring Cowherd on the BS report so he can show you how to do interesting radio.
Bill Simmons: (4:50 PM ET ) Does "interesting" mean "skim somebody's column over a 2-minute break, then pick it apart on live radio with no facts to back it up?"
I'm asking this with all honesty......Do people like Colin Cowherd? I thought he was one of those guys that you just listen to because he's so terrible, yet so smug that you just listen to get mad. Just me? Sweet.
By the way Round 1 was covered by awfulannouncing and a few other outlets/blogs.
Mason: (SC): You should bring Cowherd on the BS report so he can show you how to do interesting radio.
Bill Simmons: (4:50 PM ET ) Does "interesting" mean "skim somebody's column over a 2-minute break, then pick it apart on live radio with no facts to back it up?"
I'm asking this with all honesty......Do people like Colin Cowherd? I thought he was one of those guys that you just listen to because he's so terrible, yet so smug that you just listen to get mad. Just me? Sweet.
By the way Round 1 was covered by awfulannouncing and a few other outlets/blogs.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Keith Law Does Not Like his Coworkers
Who can blame him? This is actually a positive post (about Keith) for a few chat answers he had on today’s ESPN chat. Keith is usually to the point, but I thought these were worth sharing with all 2 readers of this site.
Andy (Houston): Biggio is not getting any press because he is one of the most stand up players in all of sports. maybe he he bad mouthed his teamates (Owens), demanded trades (Kobe), or whined non stop (Owens again) he would be on sports center more often. It's sad that a future HOF isn't getting any press for this great milestone.
Keith Law: Seriously, you're making me want to write an article on how one player's selfish pursuit of a rather meaningless milestone is helping to sink his team's playoff hopes. Isn't that a story? If his initials were B.B., don't you think this would be a regular rant in sports sections everywhere? What if Biggio was African-American, or Latino? He's getting a free pass. Just be happy with that.
A fair point to pretty much beat down the Biggio fans. Biggio came up a few times in the chat, as to why he’s not getting as much attention for approaching 3,000 hits as some past players have received. It’s because he sucks, and it seems to be to the detriment of his team. Rather simple. He’s lucky he’s not getting negative attention, as Keith points out.
Also, how ludicrous is this guy's point, that Biggio doesn't get comparable attention because he's a "stand up player"? Like the most recent inductees into the 3,000 hit club were a bunch of hated guys (Gwynn, Ripken, Boggs, etc.). Well I hated Boggs but that's beside the point.
Bill "Sports Guy" Simmons (ESPN Studios) : Can't we talk Celtics basketball in your baseball chat?
Keith Law: Go away. And stop talking about Ronald Jenkees. Every time you mention him I think of Leroy Jenkins, and hear him shouting his own name over and over...
I would not have expected him to take this question, since they get thousands in these chats and given that they are employed by the same company, but then he also seems to let out some animosity towards Simmons. Simmons and Law would be exact opposites really. Simmons likes to talk about MTV crap and the NBA; Law is MLB with a focus on scouting, and literature. For the record I find them both somewhat entertaining, but for different reasons.
Fran (Helsinki, Finland): I hate this whole trend of glorifying scrappers. I like the workingman's hero as much as the next guy, but enough is enough. Biggio isn't good enough to play everyday anymore and he is sinking his team by chasing a milestone that does nothing for himself or the sport.
Keith Law: Couldn't agree more. The David Eckstein Fetish still baffles me. That's great that he plays hard. It's nice that he's succeeded against all odds. Why he gets more love than, say, Jimmy Rollins (or this year JJ Hardy) is beyond me.
Firejoemorgan does a good job of beating the hell out of the Eckstein/Erstad love thrown around, but you can't disagree with Keith here as well.
Dusty Baker (Egoville, Wisconsin_: Why won't the Orioles consider me for their coaching vacancy?
Keith Law: Maybe they're familiar with your work.
Just good, honest, accurate, short answers. The Dusty answer is outstanding when you consider they share an employer.
*Update*
As a couple of readers pointed out, there is also this gem:
Richie (Seattle): What's your take on the new ESPN player ratings? I haven't heard you or Neyer mention them.
Keith Law: Just a toy. No analytical value.
Andy (Houston): Biggio is not getting any press because he is one of the most stand up players in all of sports. maybe he he bad mouthed his teamates (Owens), demanded trades (Kobe), or whined non stop (Owens again) he would be on sports center more often. It's sad that a future HOF isn't getting any press for this great milestone.
Keith Law: Seriously, you're making me want to write an article on how one player's selfish pursuit of a rather meaningless milestone is helping to sink his team's playoff hopes. Isn't that a story? If his initials were B.B., don't you think this would be a regular rant in sports sections everywhere? What if Biggio was African-American, or Latino? He's getting a free pass. Just be happy with that.
A fair point to pretty much beat down the Biggio fans. Biggio came up a few times in the chat, as to why he’s not getting as much attention for approaching 3,000 hits as some past players have received. It’s because he sucks, and it seems to be to the detriment of his team. Rather simple. He’s lucky he’s not getting negative attention, as Keith points out.
Also, how ludicrous is this guy's point, that Biggio doesn't get comparable attention because he's a "stand up player"? Like the most recent inductees into the 3,000 hit club were a bunch of hated guys (Gwynn, Ripken, Boggs, etc.). Well I hated Boggs but that's beside the point.
Bill "Sports Guy" Simmons (ESPN Studios) : Can't we talk Celtics basketball in your baseball chat?
Keith Law: Go away. And stop talking about Ronald Jenkees. Every time you mention him I think of Leroy Jenkins, and hear him shouting his own name over and over...
I would not have expected him to take this question, since they get thousands in these chats and given that they are employed by the same company, but then he also seems to let out some animosity towards Simmons. Simmons and Law would be exact opposites really. Simmons likes to talk about MTV crap and the NBA; Law is MLB with a focus on scouting, and literature. For the record I find them both somewhat entertaining, but for different reasons.
Fran (Helsinki, Finland): I hate this whole trend of glorifying scrappers. I like the workingman's hero as much as the next guy, but enough is enough. Biggio isn't good enough to play everyday anymore and he is sinking his team by chasing a milestone that does nothing for himself or the sport.
Keith Law: Couldn't agree more. The David Eckstein Fetish still baffles me. That's great that he plays hard. It's nice that he's succeeded against all odds. Why he gets more love than, say, Jimmy Rollins (or this year JJ Hardy) is beyond me.
Firejoemorgan does a good job of beating the hell out of the Eckstein/Erstad love thrown around, but you can't disagree with Keith here as well.
Dusty Baker (Egoville, Wisconsin_: Why won't the Orioles consider me for their coaching vacancy?
Keith Law: Maybe they're familiar with your work.
Just good, honest, accurate, short answers. The Dusty answer is outstanding when you consider they share an employer.
*Update*
As a couple of readers pointed out, there is also this gem:
Richie (Seattle): What's your take on the new ESPN player ratings? I haven't heard you or Neyer mention them.
Keith Law: Just a toy. No analytical value.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
1996 Chicago Bulls - 72-10
But Bill Simmons wants more, he wants them to beat the 1986 Celtics at some point in that season, along with the '87 Lakers, the '85 Bears and the '27 Yankees. I don’t know what Bill Simmons has against the ’96 Bulls, but whatever it is I have to disagree. In his latest chat he devotes a lot of time to fielding questions related to the Bulls (and the Sopranos). I know he’s reacting more to the questions and an analysis done by John Hollinger that has the Bulls as the best team ever, but he says some things here that are nutty and difficult to ignore. You can tell that the chatters were getting frustrated with him as well. I like Bill’s work and he knows a ton about the NBA, a lot more than me, but this was not impressive.
It starts with a discrete question about Karl Malone being allowed in the discussion of the greatest PF ever, with Tim Duncan. I agree with Simmons that Duncan takes that, hands down. Simmons follows with three paragraphs, the last one is below.
Bill Simmons: Here's the point: You always have to factor in "quality of the league" for any of this historical stuff. Malone's resume is "helped" by how they made the Finals for 2 straight years, but what about all the years when they didn't make it with stronger teams? All right, I'm done venting. But I want Hollinger to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better scoring system. Any system that makes the '96 Bulls better than the '92 Bulls (the single best MJ team) and doesn't make the 2001 Lakers a top-7 team of the past 30 years needs to be refined.
There is no measure or system that could be compiled that would result in a conclusion that the ‘92 Bulls were better than the ’96 Bulls. The ’96 Bulls win this argument based on record, playoff record, point differential, and points scored per game and allowed per game (relative to the league). They were a deeper team, with better numbers, and they went 72-10. They also came back the next year and won 69 games. No numbers based system will have the '92 team coming out on top.
Here is Hollinger's analysis. It has a lot of flaws, and I agree with Simmons' overall point that it's weighted towards teams with inferior competition.
Brian (Worchester): WOAH WOAH WOAH! Are you saying the 1996 Bulls aren't the best team ever? I HATE the Bulls but I still have to respect their alltime greatness!
Bill Simmons: Yes. Emphatically. I think they won the most games ever. I would not have them in the top-10. You're telling me they could have beaten the 2001 Lakers in a series? Or the '86 Celtics? Or the '85 Lakers? or the '83 Sixers?
Gimme a break. Bill Simmons doesn’t have the ’96 Bulls in his top 10 NBA teams ever. I don’t know where to start, so I won’t. But that’s fucking crazy-talk. Pontificating on who would win a 7 game series is a lot of fun, but there’s no way he can name 10 teams that would take the ’96 Bulls in a 7 game series.
Mac (Tuscaloosa AL): I think that Hollinger is making the assumption (which you have to in an "objective" system) that the quality of play is constant. Otherwise, it devolves into argument about the level of play, which can't be proved, and you wind up with (as I saw on a blog this weekend, referring to the statements you made in a column) someone saying that the Celtics and Lakers of the eighties can't be among the greatest ever because Bird and Magic weren't "athletic" by today's standards -- like they were considered athletic then.
Bill Simmons: Then that's the wrong assumption. You cannot evaluate the last 60 Finals teams without coming up with some method to figure out A) quality of the league for that season, and B) quality of each conference. For instance, if the Spurs destroy the Cavs (which they should), does that make them one of the best teams ever? Hell, no! I think they're the 2nd best team of the past 10 years, but again, they shouldn't get extra credit because they happened to beat a subpar Eastern rep four teams in the Finals.
Agreed.
Bill Simmons: The fix for Hollinger is easy - include a variable where he awards points for each season for strength/weakness of the league and strength/weakness of the Finals opponent. For instance, the '85 Lakers beat a really good Celtics team. Isn't that between 10-15 times more impressive than the '96 Bulls rolling through a terrible conference and beating a young Seattle team that was about 2 years away from peaking (and never did because Kemp went nuts)?
This is where I lose Bill. The fact that the ’85 Lakers beat a great team in the finals helps to substantiate their greatness. But the fact that the ’96 Bulls did not beat a team of the same caliber should not discount their greatness. It makes it more difficult to support, but it does not mean that they wouldn’t have beat the crap out of much much better team in that same position. Their greatness is not limited by that of their opponents, it just becomes more difficult to support (if that makes sense). That’s what Simmons viewpoint seems to be. I fail to see how the Lakers going through the Suns, Blazers and Nuggets before facing the Celtics in 1985 makes them world beaters (this is in response to the terrible conference comment). Was that great competition in the Western Conference? Simmons loves to just hide under the blanket statement of “everyone was good back then”. How historically great were the ’86 Rockets? Better than the '96 Sonics?
Does anyone ever say, "well the '85 Bears were good but they can't be considered one of the best teams because they beat a crappy Patriots team in the Super Bowl?" Of course not. It is fair to say the fact that they were not really tested on the biggest stage makes it difficult to gauge the team's ceiling.
Also the fix for Hollinger is the “Bill Simmons patented ‘what my gut says’ variable”.
Barrett (Nashville): Hey Bill, I understand your point about Hollinger's rating system, but yours is flawed as well. How do you define a "really good Celtics team" objectively? Sure, it's a fair assumption that they were better than the '96 Heat or Knicks, but how do you compare on a standardized basis? You can't, because if the entire league is subpar one year, you can only statistically compare it to itself.
Bill Simmons: You just described my problem with NBA stats in a nutshell: You cannot interprete the NBA solely through stats. It's inane. Too much depends on situations, talent levels from year to year, quality of teammates, circumstance and everything else. Stats are incredibly helpful, but at a certain point, you have to incorporate analysis, homework and opinion as well. The 2001 Lakers didn't peak until the playoffs, but they decimated a really good conference (an especially strong year for the West), crushed the Sixers in the Finals and trotted out a team with an unstoppable center at his absolute peak, as well as Kobe during a point in his career where he may have been his most valuable because he was still OK with being Robin to Shaq's Batman (and was still awesome by himself, as witnessed by the way he destroyed the Kings with the 48-point game in the playoffs).
I agree with Bill’s general point of NBA stats. It’s not like baseball.
If the 2001 Lakers didn’t peak until the playoffs started, shouldn’t that be a little bit of a knock on their greatness? I get that the stats from the 2001 season may not be the best representation of their ability, but it is a record of their performance, in many ways. I agree, those Lakers teams were great. Among the best ever. I just can’t unequivocally throw out that they are better than the ’96 Bulls.
Bill Simmons: Anyway, any scoring system that A) overvalues the '986 Bulls, and B) undervalues the 2001 Lakers needs to be tinkered with... that was my only point. I am confident that Hollinger will figure this out.
No backtracking, your point is clearly broader than that. Any scoring system that has the ’96 Bulls in the top 10 teams of all time, in your opinion, needs to be tinkered with. The problem is that if you polled all the players, coaches, writers, and used every statistical analysis, the overwhelming conclusion would be that they are in the top 5.
Messiah (NY): I don't understand one thing about your Malone argument. You said that he made it to the finals by default because the rest of the teams had finally declined, but you say the Bulls played in a horrible year for basketball in 96. How can both of those be true?
Bill Simmons: '96 thru '99 was the weakest stretch in the history of the league. the Jazz were heavily favored to come out of the West in '96, they choked against the Sonics.
Those Jazz teams (’97 and ’98) were good. You can’t decide now that they weren’t good teams. I have every confidence that if Jordan doesn’t un-retire those Jazz teams win back to back championships. Just like if Jordan doesn’t retire, the Houston Rockets probably don’t win any championships.
Also, they did not choke against the Sonics. The Sonics were good! They won 64 games! 9 more than the Jazz! How’s that a choke? You can’t just say that the ’96 through ’99 period was the weakest stretch in the history of the game. That’s crap. That’s just a convenient canvas to use to set up your anti-Bulls arguments. What was the strongest? Oh right, the period where your favorite player and favorite teams were good.
Vernon (Indianapolis): Sorry to keep harping on this issue, but you're way off on the '96 Bulls. Rodman was still very good (a hall-of-famer if he wasn't nuts), Ron Harper was solid, Kukoc was making the mold for Eastern Europeans everywhere and they still had the dynamic duo. And if you think p-o'ed Jordan in 1996 loses to anyone ever you haven't watched an NBA game in your life.
Vern-dog, I agree with you completely.
Bill Simmons: Congrats, but who's guarding Shaq on that team? Who's guarding McHale? Who's guarding Kareem? Shawn Kemp destroyed them in the Finals, what do you think those guys would have done?
Luc Longley is guarding Shaq, like he did in ’96 when they played the Magic in the playoffs. Dennis Rodman is guarding McHale, he was a good defender. I mean, Mchale will get his points but it's not like Rodman's any slouch there. Who the hell is guarding Jordan? The best scorer of all-time? Huh? I mean, no one could handle Mchale, but the Celtics lost games right? Oh right, there were a lot of Mchale stoppers in the 80's.
I mean, who’s guarding Shaq on the ’96 Bulls? This isn't THAT hypothetical! This happened. It can’t be the guy that actually guarded Shaq when they destroyed Shaq’s 60 win team can it? Shaq would eat up that guy! Yes, I know Shaq was better in '01, but I just found that amusing. That Bulls team had 3 lock-down defenders and outstanding team defense. They went through Mourning, Ewing and Shaq in those playoffs. I think that hurts your argument of them not being able to handle big men on defense.
I also love the revisionist history on Kemp. Kemp averaged about 20 and 11 during the regular season that year, shooting 56% from the floor. He was a very good player before he decided to focus on eating and making babies. He destroyed the Bulls to the tune of 24 and 10 on 55% shooting. This equals…..TOTAL DESTRUCTION!
Mike (Hartford): Who guards Shaq? Who guards Kareem? Who guards McHale? For crying out loud, who guards Jordan! I think you are grossly underestimaing the ability of a hungry Jordan (which is pretty much the only Jordan there is). I think Jordan was too mentally strong and the supporting cast was too competent to ever be defeated by anyone. Too much fire, too much willpower, too much Jordan that year.
Thanks, Mike.
Bill Simmons: Hey, I loved MJ, thought he was the best basketball player ever. But his career was unbelievably fortunate - he never faced Hakeem in his prime, or Shaq, or Duncan, or Moses... that team was constructed in a way that any big man and true point guard gave them trouble, but they never faced both at the same time.
This is just retarded. Can’t you flip that around and point out that virtually no one except Isiah’s Pistons succeeded against Jordan after he had 3 seasons under his belt? Oh right, there were no good players for 10 years. Or Bird was fortunate he didn’t have to face Shaq, Jerry West, Kobe Bryant, Duncan and Jordan (in his prime)? What is the point? Ask Barkley, Ewing, Stockton, Malone, and Drexler, all all-time greats, how they feel about playing in the Jordan era. I’m sure Hakeem would rather Jordan been out of the league (or mostly in ’95) than in it in ’94 and ’95 or he may not have those rings.
I've already discussed this problem with big men that you just made up. Gary Payton, John Stockton, and Jason Kidd are all-time great "true point guards" and I don't remember them giving the Bulls any real headaches. The 96-98 Bulls did not have problems with "true point guards", but you could argue they had some problems with really quick, smaller guards like Damon Stoudamire and Allen Iverson. I don't think this translates into Dennis Johnson and Magic. I think they are much better equipped to handle bigger guards that are not lightening quick penetrators.
Todd (Tucson): If the 2001 Lakers played the 1996 Bulls, would Ron Harper guard himself?
Bill Simmons: That would be fantastic.
The 2001 Harper would win though, because the Western Conference was THAT strong!
Cory-AZ: yea, the 1991 Lakers didn't have a great point guard in Magic, and a good enough center in a young Divac + Sam Perkins Combo...Also, Ewing and Starks werent good. I think Ewing is underrated reason being Jordan always destroyed him in his prime
Bill Simmons: Not a good example - the Lakers got killed by injuries in that series.
What?????? I’m not going to look anything up here, but I know that finals well. The Lakers were lucky to win game 1 (Perkins hit the three, Jordan’s 18 footer rimmed out). To my knowledge the Lakers got killed by injuries to the tune of James Worthy and Byron Scott having to sit out game 5. The Lakers were down 3-1. That series was done. That’s just nuts. They were both good players at the time but the Lakers had zero chance of winning games 5, 6 and 7.
Adam (chandler, az): Was watching the replay of game 4 87 finals (magic's skyhook), and heard this stat....the Lakers had won in the garden in 85, and since that point the C's were a ridiculous 94-3! I'm pretty sure either of those 2 teams would've handled the '96 Bulls
Bill Simmons: Me, too.
Look, those teams were great, but Bill has offered us nothing here. Who’s the greatest of all-time? I have no idea, but the ’96 Bulls are top 5, and much of what Bill’s saying is terribly misleading. If the ’86 Celtics played in Chicago and the ’96 Bulls played in Boston, who wants to guess how differently this line of questioning would have gone? He’d be talking about how he and J-bug were discussing that Jordan was to the NBA was Alton was to the Real World/Road Rules challenges or something.
It starts with a discrete question about Karl Malone being allowed in the discussion of the greatest PF ever, with Tim Duncan. I agree with Simmons that Duncan takes that, hands down. Simmons follows with three paragraphs, the last one is below.
Bill Simmons: Here's the point: You always have to factor in "quality of the league" for any of this historical stuff. Malone's resume is "helped" by how they made the Finals for 2 straight years, but what about all the years when they didn't make it with stronger teams? All right, I'm done venting. But I want Hollinger to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better scoring system. Any system that makes the '96 Bulls better than the '92 Bulls (the single best MJ team) and doesn't make the 2001 Lakers a top-7 team of the past 30 years needs to be refined.
There is no measure or system that could be compiled that would result in a conclusion that the ‘92 Bulls were better than the ’96 Bulls. The ’96 Bulls win this argument based on record, playoff record, point differential, and points scored per game and allowed per game (relative to the league). They were a deeper team, with better numbers, and they went 72-10. They also came back the next year and won 69 games. No numbers based system will have the '92 team coming out on top.
Here is Hollinger's analysis. It has a lot of flaws, and I agree with Simmons' overall point that it's weighted towards teams with inferior competition.
Brian (Worchester): WOAH WOAH WOAH! Are you saying the 1996 Bulls aren't the best team ever? I HATE the Bulls but I still have to respect their alltime greatness!
Bill Simmons: Yes. Emphatically. I think they won the most games ever. I would not have them in the top-10. You're telling me they could have beaten the 2001 Lakers in a series? Or the '86 Celtics? Or the '85 Lakers? or the '83 Sixers?
Gimme a break. Bill Simmons doesn’t have the ’96 Bulls in his top 10 NBA teams ever. I don’t know where to start, so I won’t. But that’s fucking crazy-talk. Pontificating on who would win a 7 game series is a lot of fun, but there’s no way he can name 10 teams that would take the ’96 Bulls in a 7 game series.
Mac (Tuscaloosa AL): I think that Hollinger is making the assumption (which you have to in an "objective" system) that the quality of play is constant. Otherwise, it devolves into argument about the level of play, which can't be proved, and you wind up with (as I saw on a blog this weekend, referring to the statements you made in a column) someone saying that the Celtics and Lakers of the eighties can't be among the greatest ever because Bird and Magic weren't "athletic" by today's standards -- like they were considered athletic then.
Bill Simmons: Then that's the wrong assumption. You cannot evaluate the last 60 Finals teams without coming up with some method to figure out A) quality of the league for that season, and B) quality of each conference. For instance, if the Spurs destroy the Cavs (which they should), does that make them one of the best teams ever? Hell, no! I think they're the 2nd best team of the past 10 years, but again, they shouldn't get extra credit because they happened to beat a subpar Eastern rep four teams in the Finals.
Agreed.
Bill Simmons: The fix for Hollinger is easy - include a variable where he awards points for each season for strength/weakness of the league and strength/weakness of the Finals opponent. For instance, the '85 Lakers beat a really good Celtics team. Isn't that between 10-15 times more impressive than the '96 Bulls rolling through a terrible conference and beating a young Seattle team that was about 2 years away from peaking (and never did because Kemp went nuts)?
This is where I lose Bill. The fact that the ’85 Lakers beat a great team in the finals helps to substantiate their greatness. But the fact that the ’96 Bulls did not beat a team of the same caliber should not discount their greatness. It makes it more difficult to support, but it does not mean that they wouldn’t have beat the crap out of much much better team in that same position. Their greatness is not limited by that of their opponents, it just becomes more difficult to support (if that makes sense). That’s what Simmons viewpoint seems to be. I fail to see how the Lakers going through the Suns, Blazers and Nuggets before facing the Celtics in 1985 makes them world beaters (this is in response to the terrible conference comment). Was that great competition in the Western Conference? Simmons loves to just hide under the blanket statement of “everyone was good back then”. How historically great were the ’86 Rockets? Better than the '96 Sonics?
Does anyone ever say, "well the '85 Bears were good but they can't be considered one of the best teams because they beat a crappy Patriots team in the Super Bowl?" Of course not. It is fair to say the fact that they were not really tested on the biggest stage makes it difficult to gauge the team's ceiling.
Also the fix for Hollinger is the “Bill Simmons patented ‘what my gut says’ variable”.
Barrett (Nashville): Hey Bill, I understand your point about Hollinger's rating system, but yours is flawed as well. How do you define a "really good Celtics team" objectively? Sure, it's a fair assumption that they were better than the '96 Heat or Knicks, but how do you compare on a standardized basis? You can't, because if the entire league is subpar one year, you can only statistically compare it to itself.
Bill Simmons: You just described my problem with NBA stats in a nutshell: You cannot interprete the NBA solely through stats. It's inane. Too much depends on situations, talent levels from year to year, quality of teammates, circumstance and everything else. Stats are incredibly helpful, but at a certain point, you have to incorporate analysis, homework and opinion as well. The 2001 Lakers didn't peak until the playoffs, but they decimated a really good conference (an especially strong year for the West), crushed the Sixers in the Finals and trotted out a team with an unstoppable center at his absolute peak, as well as Kobe during a point in his career where he may have been his most valuable because he was still OK with being Robin to Shaq's Batman (and was still awesome by himself, as witnessed by the way he destroyed the Kings with the 48-point game in the playoffs).
I agree with Bill’s general point of NBA stats. It’s not like baseball.
If the 2001 Lakers didn’t peak until the playoffs started, shouldn’t that be a little bit of a knock on their greatness? I get that the stats from the 2001 season may not be the best representation of their ability, but it is a record of their performance, in many ways. I agree, those Lakers teams were great. Among the best ever. I just can’t unequivocally throw out that they are better than the ’96 Bulls.
Bill Simmons: Anyway, any scoring system that A) overvalues the '986 Bulls, and B) undervalues the 2001 Lakers needs to be tinkered with... that was my only point. I am confident that Hollinger will figure this out.
No backtracking, your point is clearly broader than that. Any scoring system that has the ’96 Bulls in the top 10 teams of all time, in your opinion, needs to be tinkered with. The problem is that if you polled all the players, coaches, writers, and used every statistical analysis, the overwhelming conclusion would be that they are in the top 5.
Messiah (NY): I don't understand one thing about your Malone argument. You said that he made it to the finals by default because the rest of the teams had finally declined, but you say the Bulls played in a horrible year for basketball in 96. How can both of those be true?
Bill Simmons: '96 thru '99 was the weakest stretch in the history of the league. the Jazz were heavily favored to come out of the West in '96, they choked against the Sonics.
Those Jazz teams (’97 and ’98) were good. You can’t decide now that they weren’t good teams. I have every confidence that if Jordan doesn’t un-retire those Jazz teams win back to back championships. Just like if Jordan doesn’t retire, the Houston Rockets probably don’t win any championships.
Also, they did not choke against the Sonics. The Sonics were good! They won 64 games! 9 more than the Jazz! How’s that a choke? You can’t just say that the ’96 through ’99 period was the weakest stretch in the history of the game. That’s crap. That’s just a convenient canvas to use to set up your anti-Bulls arguments. What was the strongest? Oh right, the period where your favorite player and favorite teams were good.
Vernon (Indianapolis): Sorry to keep harping on this issue, but you're way off on the '96 Bulls. Rodman was still very good (a hall-of-famer if he wasn't nuts), Ron Harper was solid, Kukoc was making the mold for Eastern Europeans everywhere and they still had the dynamic duo. And if you think p-o'ed Jordan in 1996 loses to anyone ever you haven't watched an NBA game in your life.
Vern-dog, I agree with you completely.
Bill Simmons: Congrats, but who's guarding Shaq on that team? Who's guarding McHale? Who's guarding Kareem? Shawn Kemp destroyed them in the Finals, what do you think those guys would have done?
Luc Longley is guarding Shaq, like he did in ’96 when they played the Magic in the playoffs. Dennis Rodman is guarding McHale, he was a good defender. I mean, Mchale will get his points but it's not like Rodman's any slouch there. Who the hell is guarding Jordan? The best scorer of all-time? Huh? I mean, no one could handle Mchale, but the Celtics lost games right? Oh right, there were a lot of Mchale stoppers in the 80's.
I mean, who’s guarding Shaq on the ’96 Bulls? This isn't THAT hypothetical! This happened. It can’t be the guy that actually guarded Shaq when they destroyed Shaq’s 60 win team can it? Shaq would eat up that guy! Yes, I know Shaq was better in '01, but I just found that amusing. That Bulls team had 3 lock-down defenders and outstanding team defense. They went through Mourning, Ewing and Shaq in those playoffs. I think that hurts your argument of them not being able to handle big men on defense.
I also love the revisionist history on Kemp. Kemp averaged about 20 and 11 during the regular season that year, shooting 56% from the floor. He was a very good player before he decided to focus on eating and making babies. He destroyed the Bulls to the tune of 24 and 10 on 55% shooting. This equals…..TOTAL DESTRUCTION!
Mike (Hartford): Who guards Shaq? Who guards Kareem? Who guards McHale? For crying out loud, who guards Jordan! I think you are grossly underestimaing the ability of a hungry Jordan (which is pretty much the only Jordan there is). I think Jordan was too mentally strong and the supporting cast was too competent to ever be defeated by anyone. Too much fire, too much willpower, too much Jordan that year.
Thanks, Mike.
Bill Simmons: Hey, I loved MJ, thought he was the best basketball player ever. But his career was unbelievably fortunate - he never faced Hakeem in his prime, or Shaq, or Duncan, or Moses... that team was constructed in a way that any big man and true point guard gave them trouble, but they never faced both at the same time.
This is just retarded. Can’t you flip that around and point out that virtually no one except Isiah’s Pistons succeeded against Jordan after he had 3 seasons under his belt? Oh right, there were no good players for 10 years. Or Bird was fortunate he didn’t have to face Shaq, Jerry West, Kobe Bryant, Duncan and Jordan (in his prime)? What is the point? Ask Barkley, Ewing, Stockton, Malone, and Drexler, all all-time greats, how they feel about playing in the Jordan era. I’m sure Hakeem would rather Jordan been out of the league (or mostly in ’95) than in it in ’94 and ’95 or he may not have those rings.
I've already discussed this problem with big men that you just made up. Gary Payton, John Stockton, and Jason Kidd are all-time great "true point guards" and I don't remember them giving the Bulls any real headaches. The 96-98 Bulls did not have problems with "true point guards", but you could argue they had some problems with really quick, smaller guards like Damon Stoudamire and Allen Iverson. I don't think this translates into Dennis Johnson and Magic. I think they are much better equipped to handle bigger guards that are not lightening quick penetrators.
Todd (Tucson): If the 2001 Lakers played the 1996 Bulls, would Ron Harper guard himself?
Bill Simmons: That would be fantastic.
The 2001 Harper would win though, because the Western Conference was THAT strong!
Cory-AZ: yea, the 1991 Lakers didn't have a great point guard in Magic, and a good enough center in a young Divac + Sam Perkins Combo...Also, Ewing and Starks werent good. I think Ewing is underrated reason being Jordan always destroyed him in his prime
Bill Simmons: Not a good example - the Lakers got killed by injuries in that series.
What?????? I’m not going to look anything up here, but I know that finals well. The Lakers were lucky to win game 1 (Perkins hit the three, Jordan’s 18 footer rimmed out). To my knowledge the Lakers got killed by injuries to the tune of James Worthy and Byron Scott having to sit out game 5. The Lakers were down 3-1. That series was done. That’s just nuts. They were both good players at the time but the Lakers had zero chance of winning games 5, 6 and 7.
Adam (chandler, az): Was watching the replay of game 4 87 finals (magic's skyhook), and heard this stat....the Lakers had won in the garden in 85, and since that point the C's were a ridiculous 94-3! I'm pretty sure either of those 2 teams would've handled the '96 Bulls
Bill Simmons: Me, too.
Look, those teams were great, but Bill has offered us nothing here. Who’s the greatest of all-time? I have no idea, but the ’96 Bulls are top 5, and much of what Bill’s saying is terribly misleading. If the ’86 Celtics played in Chicago and the ’96 Bulls played in Boston, who wants to guess how differently this line of questioning would have gone? He’d be talking about how he and J-bug were discussing that Jordan was to the NBA was Alton was to the Real World/Road Rules challenges or something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)