Jonah Keri shits out a worthless 2013 retrospective, part 2 of 2

Before we get started, earlier today Deadspin informed me that Scott Miller and Danny Knobler were fired by CBS Sportsline.  Cue up the Nelson Muntz laugh, especially for Knobler (Miller wasn't THAT bad, although he certainly was bad), but mostly, be angry that Heyman remains employed.  Fuck that guy with a blender.

Now for the rest of Keri's groundbreaking opus regarding how baseball teams should be constructed and managed.

3. Having no weaknesses can be just as effective as being loaded with multiple stars.

Which team wins--Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson, Rickey Henderson and twenty two high school players?  Or 25 above average MLB players?  THE ANSWER MAY SURPRISE YOU.  Buckle your seatbelts and get ready for some fascinating analysis.

The A's have turned this idea into an art form. Josh Donaldson enjoyed a big breakout season in 2013. Otherwise, this was a team that relied on contributions from a wide array of players, all the way down to the bottom of their lineup, the back of their rotation, relief middlemen, and key guys off the bench. 

The Astros and Marlins, meanwhile, actually used no relief middlemen (who the hell came up with that term?) or key guys off the bench.  They just ran out the same 9 guys for 162 straight games.

After two decades of losing seasons, the Pirates finally broke through, rolling all the way to the playoffs. 

Did they do it because of Andrew McCutchen, Starling Marte and a dominant bullpen?  No, of course not.  CLINT BARMES WAS THE KEY.  (Side note: Clint Barmes appeared in 108 games and had 330 PAs.  He OPS+ed 58.  Clearly, the Pirates had no superstars or weaknesses.)

Though Andrew McCutchen will likely take home NL MVP honors soon, the Buccos succeeded largely on the strength of diversified talent. They got solid contributions from their nos. 3 through 5 starters (Gerrit Cole, Jeff Locke, and Charlie Morton), from the bottom of their lineup (Jordy Mercer, once he grabbed the starting shortstop job), 

Fair enough, Barmes eventually lost his job.  But still, even if we allow for the fact that I'm picking nits and the Pirates actually were a very well-balanced team, holy Jesus on a pogo stick, no fucking shit not having any weaknesses can be as good as having some superstars to go with a bunch of terrible players.  I'm a Rockies fan.  I get it.  So does everyone else who knows anything about baseball.

and from several relievers beyond the closer and primary setup man (Justin Wilson and Tony Watson chief among them). With the trade deadline approaching, there were some wildly ambitious calls for a blockbuster move. Instead, Pittsburgh filled out its roster with useful complementary parts: Byrd to plug a hole in the outfield (he was great), and a past-prime but still functional Justin Morneau to help at first base (he hit for zero power but did at least post a .370 on-base percentage in 25 games).

I'm not going to point out the fact that the Pirates lost in the first round, as did the A's (for like the 7th time in their last 8 playoff appearances), because that's a doucheball thing to do.  Nevertheless, recent anecdotal evidence suggests that if the goal is not just to make the playoffs but to succeed once you get there, you might want some superstars like David Ortiz, Jon Lester, Buster Posey, Matt Cain, Albert Pujols, Adam Wainwright, etc.

Lest you think this is only a worthwhile strategy for low-payroll teams, remember the mockery the Red Sox went through when they devoted their offseason energy to acquiring players like Shane Victorino, Mike Napoli, Stephen Drew, Jonny Gomes, Mike Carp, and Uehara, and the results they got from these complementary players.

That's the worst anecdotal support for a bad argument I've ever read.  

1) The Red Sox already had a bunch of stars which is why it made sense to surround them with complimentary guys 

2) Victorino, Napoli and Uehara are hardly "complimentary guys," each would play a significant roles on any team in MLB 

3) What mockery did the Red Sox go through for signing those guys?  I sure didn't read about it 

4) Jonah Keri is a twat

4. Keep an eye on the minors.

No fucking way.  Again, beyond those three quick words, sarcasm escapes me.  I can't even respond to that in greater detail.

As productive as in-season trades can be for some aggressive teams, the ideal scenario is to promote from within and have rookies shine. 

More of Jonah Keri's patented, trademarked, top secret team building tips:

1) Be sure to have both pitchers AND hitters

2) Guys who were good in high school and college tend to be good as pros

3) It's easier for guys to catch the ball when using gloves, make sure all fielders are using them

The Cardinals 

Oh fucking hell.  Not this narrative again.  HERPA DERP CARDINALS BEST RUN TEAM IN BASEBALL DO THINGS THE RIGHT WAY (as if such a thing exists) HOME GROWN PLAYERS LOW PAYROLL (they're in the top 10 or close to it every year) NONE OF THIS FANCY FREE AGENT NONSENSE.  But yeah, I'm sure Carlos Beltran and Matt Holliday (technically a trade, but they still had to resign him on the open market while he was shopping around) have nothing to do with their success during the past several seasons.  That's only, you know, two of their three best hitters.  Go back to 2011 and you've got Holliday and Lance Berkman, another free agent.  BUT BUT BUT YADI  Kill yourself, imaginary Cardinals fan talking in all caps in my head. 

rode great hitting with runners in scoring position and big contributions from veteran stars like Yadier Molina, Matt Holliday, Carlos Beltran, and Adam Wainwright in their pennant-winning campaign. But they probably don't make the World Series (or maybe even come close) without huge contributions from their rookies: 

This is true of like, every championship team ever.  Yes, they got huge contributions from established players.  BUT ALSO THERE WERE SOME YOUNG GUYS HOW NOVEL.  Can you name a recent championship or EVEN playoff team that DIDN'T get help from a variety of experienced and young players?  Christ, even the 2009 Yankees, with a payroll of a jillion dollars and an average age of like 35, had 23 year old Phil Hughes, 24 year old Melky Cabrera and 23 year old Joba Chamberlain playing significant roles.

If you're looking for teams that might outperform expectations next year, scan the high minors of their farm systems for major league–ready talent. 

This is like a tip you would read in a baseball video game instruction booklet.  "To improve your team try to trade with other teams for some of their young stars."  No fucking way, really?  Look for major league ready talent in the high minors as an indicator of future success?  You don't say.  Got any tips as to how I could more effectively drive my car?  Should I insert the key into the ignition before pushing the gas pedal?

5. Don't overreact to a bad season.

This is the only one of his five points that has any level of nuance.  And it's still fucking moronic.

Last Sox reference: 

OH MY GOD CHICKEN AND BEER.  CARL CRAWFORD AND ADRIAN GONZALEZ.  93 LOSSES.  NEVER FORGET NEVER EVER FORGET.  9/11 AND PEARL HARBOR ROLLED INTO ONE.  THE FACT THAT THEY WON A WORLD SERIES THE NEXT YEAR IS LITERALLY THE MOST IMPRESSIVE ACCOMPLISHMENT IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY.

If a talented team can play poorly enough to lose 93 games, then come back the next season and win it all, that bodes well for some of 2013's biggest disappointments. Everyone in the world loved the Nationals heading into this season. But Washington disappointed thanks to subpar seasons by multiple players. 

I don't mind the Nationals, but they disappointed because their 2012 was lucky as hell.  Look at that roster--how did it win 96 games?  They're not as bad as they were in 2013, but they sure as fuck aren't as good as they were in 2012.  That's an 86 win team right there if I've ever seen one.  A rotation that's good at the top but has no depth.  A so-so bullpen, featuring really only one shutdown guy (Clippard).  A lineup that should be good if everyone stays healthy, but which will never come close to staying healthy, because Ramos, Zimmerman, Harper and Werth are hurt all the time.  Let's not get carried away about the potential of the 2014 Nats.  They'll probably miss the playoffs again.

Adam LaRoche's power dipped dramatically, 

He's 33 and was never that good in the first place.

Wilson Ramos missed half the year 

Who could have seen that coming, what with his 238 GP in 4 MLB seasons?

(and Kurt Suzuki stunk in his stead), Bryce Harper missed 44 games, Danny Espinosa was awful, and the bullpen ran into trouble frequently. Think of the Nats' 2013 season as a bad result among a range of outcomes for a young and very talented team. And expect them to be right back in the playoff hunt in 2014, with a great trio of starting pitchers, a balanced lineup, and better luck than they had this year.

Oops, nevermind, let's get carried away and assume those problems with rotational depth, the so-so bullpen, and the injury-prone players will just solve themselves.  I don't know what their team BABIP or BABIP allowed was, but if we want to talk about luck from another angle, they actually outperformed their pythag wins by two last year.

The Jays can't claim the recent success the Nats had in 2012. 

Oh my God, this team again.  TORONTO BLUE JAYS, 2012-2013 OFFSEASON CHAMPS.  Wait, wasn't one of his points from this very article (in my last point) that we shouldn't get carried away with that kind of thing?  I forgot, the Blue Jays are the darling of every hipster baseball writer, so now we get to hear about how they're sure to turn things around in 2014 after somehow failing to win the AL East in 2013, as every Jonah Keri in the world told us they would last year.

In fact, with the Pirates making the playoffs this year, Toronto now owns the second-longest playoff drought in baseball, behind only the 28-years-and-counting Royals. But there were some good reasons for the baseball world to get excited about the Jays this year, even if 2013 ended with a last-place finish in the AL East. 

It didn't just end with that.  It also consisted of that throughout pretty much all of April, May, June, July, August and September.  It was kind of a running theme.  They sucked.  Badly.  Thoroughly.  Deeply.

Granted, the starting pitching sucked, the defense sucked, and Jose Reyes missed a big chunk of the season as everyone figured. But Toronto had a bunch of terrible players suck up tons of playing time this year, which in a twisted way bodes well for 2014. Replace the replacement-level performances of Melky Cabrera, J.P. Arencibia, Emilio Bonifacio, and Maicer Izturis with even average production and that alone could spur a charge back to contention. 

Just get a new catcher, second baseman, left fielder and shortstop (to play during the 120 games when Reyes is hurt)!  Just like that!  That'll fix those starting pitching woes!

As we wrote back in August: 

Oh good, a dash of Will Leitch-esque-ian first person plural.  Thank you so much.

"It's entirely possible that the Jays are a pretty good team hiding inside a terrible season."

I hope they lose 130 games next year.

We'll have to wait a while to see how it all plays out. 

Oh, will we?  Can't we just go down to the mall and buy a time machine to speed things up?

In the meantime, get ready for another hectic Hot Stove season, then for new contenders and new stars to emerge next year. Just 104 days until pitchers and catchers report. Can't wait.

Can't wait for Jonah Keri to hopefully one day go the way of Miller and Knobler.  I can only dream.

Watch some writers employed by Forbes bumblefuck their way through an article about baseball

I mean, this should be pretty obvious, but don't expect great baseball analysis from a publication that's not at all in the business of analyzing baseball. In fact in the case of Forbes you can probably expect some pretty shitty baseball analysis. Blogger Monte Burke has two moron co-workers. Apparently they like to discuss Hall of Fame credentials with one another. Cue up Yakety Sax and listen as you read their thoughts.

Here’s one of my favorite games to play: take all the current players in Major League Baseball and pretend that their careers ended today. Which players do you think would be locks for the Hall of Fame?

One of your favorite? That sounds a little hyperbolic. The "who's a HOFer" game can't even really be played more than once a year. It's not even a game. It's just an exercise in random bullshitting. You can't just start your column with that kind of statement and expect to get away with it. Not on my watch. Writing blog posts about bad HOF articles is one of my favorite non-games.

I’m not talking about which players project to be Hall of Famers someday. Their careers end now. Who’s in?

Keep that qualification in mind.

I have my list. I bugged two of my sports-obsessed colleagues here at Forbes to produce their own lists. Kurt Badenhausen and Tom Van Riper

are both about as informed about baseball as the average ESPN commenter

were gracious enough to spend their lunch breaks pouring over

sic

MLB rosters and producing their own lists.

I’ve listed first the players who we all agree are in, with short comments from all of us. Then I’ve listed the players that only appeared on one or two “ballots,” with comments from only their nominators. For the record, I think there are 8 HOF locks. Kurt thinks there are 9. Tom is the most liberal of the group when it comes to the HOF (the first time he’s ever been called a liberal, mind you). He sees 13 locks.

Right, so keep in mind that we're talking about "locks" here. Guys who are locks based solely on what they've done up until right now.

Part of the fun of this game is the barstool arguments it inevitably creates.

I'm pretty sure that's the entire essence of the game, actually. Without it the game does not exist. Just trying to separate the concepts of "make a list of players you think are HOF locks" and "don't be afraid to disagree with the choices other people make" is blowing my mind right now.

Agree with the choices? Disagree? Don’t be shy.

OK!

Here are the players we all agree are in the HOF:

Derek Jeter

“Rarely, if ever, the game’s top shortstop in any given year.

Totally relevant that he happened to be a close second behind Garciapara and then A-Rod during the prime of his career. Very relevant.

But his sustained excellence at the position (.313 average; 2,975 hits) since 1996 makes him an obvious choice.” –Tom

“Would Jeter be a HOFer if he had spent 16 years in a weak-hitting Pittsburgh Pirates line-up?” –Kurt

I'm going to go with "yes." I'm pretty sure getting 3,000 hits as a shortstop while mixing in some power and speed gets you into the hall. Even if you're not MISTER NOVEMBER, CLUTCHEST CLUTCHER TO EVER CLUTCH (Jeter alltime during the regular season: .313/.383/.450, Jeter alltime during the postseason: .309/.377/.472)

“Long, very solid, championship-filled career.” –Monte

Someone tell Paul O'Neill to start working on his induction speech!

Alex Rodriguez

“Over 600 homers while hitting .303 lifetime. Probably a top five all-time player.” –Tom

He might be one of the top 30 batters in history- probably. Which would maybe put him among the top 50 players. There's a chance he's one of the 5 best currently active batters... and he was definitely a top 5 player during the 2000s. I dunno, how far do we want to stretch our criteria to make Tom's comment less ridiculous? Top 5 player? All time? Get the fuck out of here.

Mariano Rivera

“Undeserving in my opinion—the Hall of Fame is no place for relief specialists who see such limited action. But the press already has him in.” –Tom

Being an insanely dominant closer for 15 years is super easy. Just ask all the other guys who have done it. I mean, hell, anyone can close. Just ask any of the countless relievers who have significantly better career numbers in non-save situations than in save situations.

Albert Pujols

Nothing too outrageous here.

Chipper Jones

“Jones will get in, but I’m not sure he is the first ballot lock some people think. He led the league once in a major statistical category (batting average in 2008) and had zero Gold Gloves at 3^rd base.” –Kurt

If "number of times leading the league in a major statistical category" is one of the first twenty things you look at when determining someone's worthiness for the HOF, you are a card-carrying zilcheroo.

Jim Thome

“There’s just no avoiding a guy with 593 career homers.” –Tom

“We need one untainted slugger from the steroid era in the Hall.” –Kurt

“Numbers game: 593 home runs.” –Monte

Not that I think Thome doesn't belong, but so far voters are doing an outstanding job of avoiding McGwire and his 583 home runs.

Ichiro Suzuki

“Overrated in my opinion—doesn’t walk or hit for power. But the press loves Ichiro, and his 2,301 hits and a .330 lifetime average over 10-plus seasons will get him there.” –Tom

Tom.... I have no words for you.

That’s seven guys that we all agree are locks today. Here’s where we start to disagree:

And here's where it starts getting good.

Ivan Rodriguez

“Best catcher of his generation and has close to 3,000 hits.” –Kurt

“.297 batting average and 311 home runs. Johnny Bench-like numbers.” –Monte

So Tom apparently doesn't think I-Rod gets in. If you ignore the potential steroid hurdle (first of all Rodriguez has never been formally linked to them, and second of all Tom apparently is because his blurb on A-Rod doesn't mention them) that's patently insane- he's one of the top 2 or 3 catchers of all time. If Carlton Fisk is in, you'd better believe Pudge is making it unless steroids become an issue.

Roy Halladay

“Prediction: by the time the voters consider Halladay, advanced metrics will have overtaken traditional stats like career wins. So forget his ‘mere’ 175 victories

That's actually a pretty low number by HOF standards. Just saying.

and concentrate on his .663 winning percentage. He’s also led his league in complete games six times.” –Tom

You know those voters are suckers for complete games. That's how Cy Young snuck in there.

“175 wins feel light, but 2 Cy Youngs push him over; only Tim Wakefield has more wins among current pitchers.” –Kurt

Probably the least relevant or compelling statistic you could have used. "Hey this 34 year old has more victories than almost any active pitcher! I mean, TIM WAKEFIELD has more, but you know, that's Tim Wakefield for you." Also, Halladay's stats up until now are very comparable with Ron Guidry's career stats. And Guidry never made it despite being a Yankee with two rings and a Cy. I bet Halladay gets there, but it's going to take several dozen more wins and a few hundred more strikeouts.

***

And here’s where Tom takes over:

And here's where it gets really, really, really good.

Vladimir Guerrero

“A premier offensive player of his era (.942 OPS; .319 batting average). Also a fine outfielder with a strong arm in his younger years.” –Tom

Certainly a defensible pick, although it's not like a .942 OPS or .319 BA are mind blowing considering the era in which he played.

Bobby Abreu

“Six .300 seasons and eight 100 RBI seasons. Quietly amassed a Cooperstown career alongside his rookie class of 1996 brethren Jeter and Guerrero.” –Tom

Ah, so corner OFs with 2300 hits and a little under 300 HRs are locks now? Wow, the Hall is going to get crowded pretty quickly. Garrett Anderson, O'Neill, and Ellis Burks: you're in! And Brian Giles, don't give up hope. You're a little light in the hits department but you might sneak in. I mean Abreu's a really good player but no. No no no.

Chase Utley

“The premier second baseman in MLB over the past nine years with a .893 OPS.” –Tom

He's injury prone (has only cleared 120 games or 600 PAs five times) and as a result he has a mere 1100 hits and 178 HRs. He's very good but no, not even close this time. The batters most similar to him who are retired (via baseballreference) are John Valentin, Al Rosen, and Mike Stanley. Yyyyyyyyyyup.

Miguel Tejada

“The steroid taint could hurt him, but this is a top offensive player at a central position (shortstop) from 2000 to 2007. Tejada was AL MVP in 2002 and drove in 150 runs in 2004.” –Tom

Less ridiculous than Utley but not by much. Other than a nice stretch from 2000 to 2005 he's been somewhere between bad and above average. More than half his career has been spent as a "oh yeah... he's decent" player. Not gonna cut it. Plus the roids.

Todd Helton

“Compiled some of his big numbers at pre-humidor Coors Field, but a guy who has hit .324 lifetime with a .977 OPS won’t be left out.” –Tom

I'm a Rockies fan so I suppose I'm obligated to say OF COURSE TODD IS GETTING IN WOOOOOO THE GUY DOES IT ALL HE'S MR. ROCKIE AND HE'S BEEN THE HEART AND SOUL OF THAT TEAM FOR MORE THAN A DECADE. But yeah realistically he's probably 50/50 at this point. And the only reason the odds are that good is because he's a guy who sportswriters love.

In conclusion Forbes is a completely illegitimate publication and you shouldn't trust them to accurately analyze anything*.

* - related to baseball

Doug Gottlieb- Colin Cowherd Lite?

Probably not. But listening to him is occasionally similar to being "in the herd." Today he was railing on the recently launched Tampa Bay Rays bandwagon.

Now, I'm not saying we should immediately cancel the rest of the season and crown them world champs. But I am saying that they look legit. Their run differential is solid. Their rotation is legit, pending Edwin Jackson and Matt Garza's abilities to continue being slightly better than mediocre. Kazmir and Shields will hold down their end of things just fine. The lineup is meh, but good enough. Longoria has been better than expected and may come back to Earth, but Crawford and Pena have performed well below expectations and could easily end up having good second halves. Their one real concern should probably be their bullpen, which is tenuously leaning on Troy Percival and J.P. Howell.

ANYWAYS- If you want to go ahead and predict that they're going to implode after the break and finish with 83 wins, I have no problem with that. Just don't do it like Doug:

Here's a dirty little secret about this team: they're a lot better at home than on the road.

Really? Wow. I've never heard of a successful sports team like that before. Forget all those nice things I just said about them- they play better at home than on the road! For shame.

Seriously, their road record currently sits at 19-19, so it's obviously not a huge problem for them (so far). Write this down and remember it: if the Rays keep their pace and win 40 road games this season, they're in the playoffs.

And then you look at their schedule, and you see that they play 17 of their final 24 games on the road. So I think that's going to be their undoing.

OK. I see that. I also look at the rest of the schedule and note that they will end up playing exactly 81 home games and 81 road games, same as everyone else in the league. They might lose a couple games on the Red Sox or Yankees during that tough September, sure, but by then there's at least some chance they'll be able to absorb that kind of rut and still make the postseason.

In conclusion: saying a team that's .500 on the road will not make the playoffs because of the disparity between their home and road records is dumb.

Also in conclusion: there's no point in really paying attention to a guy who got kicked off his first college basketball team for committing credit card fraud.

MLB.com: A Frozen Wasteland

I was trolling about MLB.com, looking for an article to disparage. Since Major League baseball puts forth very little effort in finding the best candidates for pretty much very position except baseball player, I wasn't surprised to see a good deal of tripe. I read this article on the high level of talent of MLB 3rd sackers. I know that the readers of this site share my distaste for the current format of the All-Star Game, but if we're going to hit at low-hanging fruit like Scoop Jackson, we might as well hit them for a home-run-mixed-metaphor.

My favorite bit from that article:

Some established AL stars such as Hank Blalock, Eric Chavez, Joe Crede and Chone Figgins have seen their seasons get off to relatively slow offensive starts. But don't count out late surges from players who can turn it on when the stakes are high.

When the stakes are high?! I can't wait until the stakes get high for the annual June All-Star Game/Pennant Race, where Clutch Players turn it on in order to get those Crucial Hits to help their team to first place... in June. Bryan, in case you forgot, this article is about the All-Star game. I have never been in a major league player's mind, but I am certain that no player considers the stakes higher at any point in the first half of the season - ostensibly the time when you suggest the stakes are high.

The point is: no player in MLB considers the stakes to be "high" in June, the middle of the All-Star game voting process. In fact, that might be the time in which the players consider the stakes to be lowest!