An Overdue Roundup of the Worst of the Jeter Love

I'm sure you came to this blog today to read something that might make your day better.  Probably you came to read Larry's latest takedown of Simmons, and that seems to do the trick for some people.  But I doubt many of you came here with the intent to make your day worse. I apologize in advance, then, since this post drags up stuff that you had hopefully repressed by now, stuff that hasn't been in the news for a month now, stuff you didn't even want to think about back when it was news.  I'm talking about the ridiculous end-of-year Jeter adulation.  Yes, it was terrible, and if you watched even a few minutes of sports tv or read any sports websites in the month of September, you were subject to a cacophonous cavalcade of catastrophic commendation.

Hopefully we never hear from Jeter again, and he fades into the sunset until he is eventually elected into the Hall of Fame and we have to do another Jeter Month, which is something I'm looking forward to about as much as a car crash.  But it will have to be done, because everyone loves the steely-eyed shortstop so much that their brains turn to mush and they start spewing folderol.

Let's start with Jayson Stark: Ten Astounding Jeter Numbers

3,461. This, of course, is Derek Jeter’s hit total. And holy, schmoly, that’s a lot of hits. Heck, it’s more than Hank Greenberg and Shoeless Joe Jacksoncombined (3,400)

Way to cherry-pick the guy who gave up his age-30 to age-34 seasons to serve in World War II, as well as a guy whose career was ended partially because baseball needed a scapegoat.  Actually Hank Greenberg, in about half as many seasons, won two MVPs to Jeter's zero.  But that's giving the Hebrew Hammer some credit for doing things like hitting home runs, which is unfair because Jeter can't do it.  How about the fact that Shoeless Joe, in about half as many full seasons, led his league in hits as many times as Jeter?  Both of these guys were better baseball players than Derek Jeter.

2,673. Here’s another super-cool number. It’s the number of games Jeter has played at shortstop. And it's not only more games than Ernie Banks and Robin Yount played at short put together, but also the most games by any man in history who played one defensive position and never played anywhere else -- not even in the 19th inning, for one batter. Pete Rose played six positions. Ty Cobb played seven. Stan Musial played five (including pitcher). And Derek Jeter played one position. And only one. Now that’s how it ought to be done. 

This is a great number... to prove how much Jeter is a jerk.  In fact, Mr. Stark's conclusion here is totally wrong.  This is NOT how it should be done.  Frankly, when your team acquires acquires younger and better shortstop, you should move to third base, especially when he's actually better at fielding than you are.  

And besides that, the worst part about this paragraph is that Stark cites these other greats as examples of what not to do... Rose, Musial and Cobb shifted positions so they could help their teams put the best nine guys on the field. Jeter wouldn't even take a few steps to his right.  Not once, not even in the 19th inning for one batter.   

It's a disgrace that Jayson Stark is so eager to praise Jeter that he cites this stat as an example of Jeter's personal amazingness, as though it had nothing to do with his team. As though Derek Jeter personally had the courage and fortitude to only play shortstop for his whole career, while those other Hall of Famers were too weak to do so, or that Jeter was so astoundingly amazing the Yankees had no choice but to ever play him at shortstop for his whole career, even when they paid a quarter of a billion dollars to acquire a better one.  

Heck, you might even argue that playing multiple positions at a big-league level actually makes you a better all-around ballplayer. In my whole life I've never heard anyone equate playing more positions with being a worse player.

1. Finally, there’s this astounding number. According to Elias, it’s the number of games Jeter has played, in his entire career, in which his team, the mighty Yankees, was mathematically eliminated from some sort of race for some sort of trip to the postseason. One meaningless game in 20 seasons? Whoa. On one hand, it would be nuts to argue that was all Derek Jeter’s doing.

So then don't.  You have the chance here to NOT do that, but now you're going to go ahead and do that.  Terrible work here, Mr. Stark

On the other hand, what defines his career better than that? A man who lived for the big game -- and played nothing but big games. For 20 years. What better way to put a frame around the career of one of the greatest shortstops who ever turned a 4-6-3? 

I agree - a guy who consistently played for a really amazing team, a team with 20 straight years of consistently above-average to amazing baseball, and who benefitted, perhaps more than any player in history, from being a long-lasting above-average player who also happened to be surrounded by above-average players.  Has there been any other player who has benefitted as much as Jeter has from being on consistently good teams? 

Enough from Jayson Stark.  Here's a bit from Andrew, a guy who I think once actually posted something on this site.  He pointed me to a bit from Colin Cowherd on the radio: "Jeter was a .300 hitter, but he hit .350 every time he was in the world series . You don't see that with other players in other sports.Jordan didn't score more in the playoffs"

Andrew points out that Jordan's career ppg is 30.1, and his playoff ppg is 33.4. 

It's also worth noting that Jeter did not in fact his .350 every time he was in the World Series.  In fact, his career World Series average is only 12 points higher than his regular reason average, and that his career ALCS average is 53 points lower.  It's  also worth noting that one of Jeter's worst World Series performance overall was his only seven-game World Series (2001).where he hit .118 and did not walk. But I guess he did hit a clutch home run. But you'd think if he were so clutch, he might have helped his team a little more in that series. 

And just because I'm a glutton for punishment, I even went to MLB.com and found an article by somebody named Tim Healey that could not have had a more inaccurate title, even if it were titled "South Wins Civil War" or "Larry B Ascends Stairs to Parents' Kitchen". It's called "10 Jeter stats that demonstrate his dominance". An accurate title would be: 10 Jeter stats that demonstrate his team's dominance" or "10 Jeter stats that demonstrate his longevity" or "10 Jeter stats that demonstrate his PR team's dominance"

1. Winning percentage: .593 Jeter is the leader in personal winning percentage (minimum of 1,000 games) among active players, his career record of 1,626-1,116 producing that .593 mark.

Ow ow ow ow this hurts my brain so much.  My brains are leaking out my ears.Someday I will understand why people care that Jeter is the leader in personal winning percentage, like he was playing tennis or something. Are we going to add "wins" to the stat column for position players, too?

3. Two hundred-hit seasons: 8. Gehrig is the only other Yankee to collect 200 hits in a single campaign that many times. If you want to use consecutive seasons as a tiebreaker, Jeter twice had streaks of three straight seasons with 200-plus hits, while Gehrig only did that once. (Gehrig fell two 1933 hits shy of a five-season streak.)

Fine, I know that hits is Jeter's marquee stat. And eight 200-his seasons is really good. But the ridiculous thing is that Tim Healey is going to great lengths to show how, in this comparison, Jeter is better than Lou Gehrig, without bothering to mention that Lou Gehrig's chance at a second such streak in 1938 was cut short by the unfortunate and unlucky fact that Gehrig was CRIPPLED BY A TERRIBLE AND DEBILITATING NEUROMUSCULAR DISEASE.  (Aside Try saying that last sentence in your best Norm voice, like this clip). If Larrupin' Lou had been as good as Jeter he wouldn't have let that happen.

Oh, and that Gehrig would have almost certainly had a five-season streak if he had the benefits of Jeter's era, because Lou was playing in a 154-game season. Duh.

News flash to Tim Healey: if you've found a stat that proves that Jeter is better than Lou Gehrig, you're using the wrong stat. Unless you want to use longevity stats to show how much better Jeter was, in which case you're being a total asshole to a guy who might have been given a bad break, but who by all accounts was a much better human being than Jeter was.

7. Parting gifts: 18

Obviously this is a terrible article, and obviously it is the worst thing I've ever read about baseball, but this is even worse than that. Somehow this stat demonstrates Jeter's dominance?

Jeter's early retirement announcement was a savvy PR move. It's the classic getting ahead of the story move, so he could control the narrative, and thus nearly all of the stories were about his historic career, and not his below-average season, which may have contributed to the Yankees' missing the playoffs. And it meant that eighteen teams oughta be ashamed of themselves for puckering up to Jeter and giving expensive presents to a multimillionaire.

I can't even finish this article because it, somehow, actually goes downhill from there.

It's ten AM and I'm all set for a terrible day.  Hope I've made yours worse.

Shameless Homerism

The yearly posts about 'Is ____ a Hall of Famer?' are out. The results will be in January 6th. We've covered a bunch of these in the past, and they're usually good for a debate. But the purpose of this brief post is to link to an article supporting the candidacy of the second-most-famous baseball player named Barry in the 1990s.

Ladies and gentlemen, wearing #11 and captain of your Cincinnati Reds, Barry Larkin.



Given that, over the last few years, the Reds have been a much poorer baseball team than the favorite teams of the other writers on this blog (White Sox, Rockies, Cardinals, etc)... this is about all I can get excited about lately.

Baseball Grab Bag

Or should I say, baseball copout/mail-it-in post. I'm having a little trouble finding full, intact awful articles right now. That doesn't mean there aren't snippets of dumbassery and wrongness floating around though.

------------------
Tuesday on Baseball Tonight, after the cast finishes watching highlights of the Royals' 9-3 dismantling of the Indians-

John Kruk: Can I change my pick to win the AL Cental?
Karl Ravech: Did... did you have the Indians?
Kruk: Yeah. I need to change that.
Karl: Wow, John, that was pretty ballsy of you. (See what he did there?)

OK, Karl didn't really say that last one. That would just be mean. But the first three lines are legit. Really, Kruk? The Indians? I mean, I understand the division doesn't have a clear favorite. But you might not want to go with the team that limped to a .500 finish last year even after getting an unbelievable, certainly unrepeatable performance out of a random usually-crappy pitcher. You might also want to pick a team which can actually play defense, and which has a decent bullpen. Just my thoughts.

----------------------
Earlier tonight, during a discussion about Jackie Robinson's career and accomplishments, the usually-reliable Ravech talked about how Robinson died tragically in a plane crash. No, Karl, pretty much any decent baseball fan knows that was Roberto Clemente. Close, though. (He corrected himself after a commercial break just a few minutes later.)

------------------------
This is extremely old, but since this is a lazy post, I might as well reach all the way back to the weekend. During Sunday Night Baseball everyone's favorite quasi-racist analyst, Joe Morgan (has he mentioned what an undeserved raw deal Barry Bonds and Gary Sheffield get from the media recently?) was praising Alfonso Soriano for Soriano's ability to hit home runs. At some point the following tumbled out of his confused mouth:

I mean, even though he's in the leadoff spot, I like his power. He led off the game with a solo home run tonight. That's a run, right there!

That is correct. Good.

I mean, I would rather have that than a run-scoring single when a guy is on second base.

Well, in one case you get a run and the bases are empty. In the other you get a run AND you get another guy on base. So I can totally see why you'd prefer the former. Obviously, Joe's brain is too small to think through and compare those two scenarios. I guess what he was trying to say is that he likes home runs. Can't disagree there! Someone give Joe an ice cream or a box of popcorn or a shiny thing to keep him busy for a while.

---------------------
Our favorite ESPN grit-loving analyst, one Jerry E. Crasnick (the "E" stands for Eckstein, his favorite player of all time) has a new article out about guys you've never heard of who had to scrimp and scrap and grit their way onto major league rosters. Jerry has a little bit of TMQ in him in that regard. Who gives a shit about good players? I want to hear more about shitty players who are just barely teetering on the brink of being employed as professional athletes. Here is a collection of choice snippets from that article.

-According to the Seattle Times, Jakubauskas sold Christmas gifts at Nordstrom and worked for a cement company to pay the bills while playing independent ball. Judging from his performance in the Cactus League, his department store clerking days are history.

Someone get Rick Reilly on this story. This guy doesn't know the meaning of the word "quit!" Except when it comes to quitting his cement company job. Or maybe he's still holding that down to make a couple bucks on the side, who knows?

-"My legs were shaking a little bit," he told Tom Krasovic of The San Diego Union Tribune.

That's what Albert Pujols said, referring to when he- oh wait, no, Albert Pujols has never said that. Only guys who know full well that they shouldn't be in the bigs say this kind of stuff.

-He violated minor league baseball's drug policy with Triple-A Buffalo, and achieved a degree of notoriety as a Rochester Red Wing when he lost a 50-yard match race with that lovable thoroughbred loser, Zippy Chippy.

More fodder for Reilly.

-"He called his dad and his wife, and I had to get away from him because it looked like he was close to tears," manager Dusty Baker told the Dayton Daily News.

How'd this get into the article? Crying isn't gritty.

-He struggled with the elements and had a rough outing defensively in center field. But he went 3-for-9 at the plate in his first five games in Cincinnati, and he's still hanging around.

Not for much longer, because he (I don't care who it is, if he's featured in a Crasnick article he probably sucks) probably sucks.

-It appeared his playing days were over in October 2007 when he severed the thumb and three fingers on his throwing hand in a table saw accident while making a window frame in his garage. A hand specialist reattached the four digits, but not without complications: There was a difference of opinion when Hill insisted he would be ready to play by spring training of 2008, and the doctor tempered his euphoria with some distressing news. "Right before surgery, the doctor told him the tendons near his pinkie finger might be a problem and delay his return," said Cubs general manager Jim Hendry. "So Koyie told him, 'If you get in there and that's an issue, just cut the pinkie off. I can play without it.' True story."

His pain threshold is also off the charts.

He should be well suited for MMA fighting then. Oh, what's that? He's a baseball player? Hmm, that probably won't do much for him.

-In eight big league seasons, Miller has established himself as a walking Jayson Stark blog item for his ineptitude with a bat. The nadir came from 2004 through 2006, when he endured a 1-for-55 funk with Cincinnati, Minnesota and Boston. For those keeping score at home, that's a batting average of .018.

For those keeping score at home, here's a guy who almost definitely has no place playing major league baseball.

-But all the starters are right-handed and he's a lefty, so manager Ken Macha should find a way to work him in here and there.

Ah, the essence of the subjects of this article- their ceiling is to play occasionally, possibly because of a lineup idosyncracy.

--------------------
Finally, I thought this was pretty hilarious. Jayson Stark writes a somewhat entertaining column throughout the baseball season called "Useless Information." It's a collection of just that, all kinds of weird stats and factoids (based on events that happened in games during the previous week or so) you'd never know how to find on your own. So naturally this week, re: the Dodgers' Orlando Hudson, and the cycle he recently hit for by the 6th inning:

But the only cyclist we know of who completed his cycle any faster than that was Gregg Jefferies, who went cycling by the fifth inning on Aug. 25, 1995. (Andy Van Slyke's great quip after that game: "He could have done it twice. He could have had the bi-cycle.")

But here's our question: Was Jefferies the quickest cyclist in history? If you can help, let us know at uselessinfodept@yahoo.com.

Dude. You're the one writing the column, who presumably has access to a stats department and at least a couple of interns. I'm going to leave this one to you.

And of course, watch me look like an ass when next week's column features twelve diligent readers who did the research and wrote in to help Jayson out with his question.

OK, that's all for now, I'll be less lazy next time! Maybe! I hate to beg for tips, but if you've got 'em, send 'em. Also, if anyone knows where the other guys who write for this blog are, let them know that I could use a hand around here every fucking other week or so.

Jayson Stark's Weird Take on the 1998 Home Run Chase

Stark is a pretty legit baseball mind/writer. It's rare he appears on FireJay (although I did enjoy writing this unfunny post about him way back in the blog's infancy). But I think I have to call him out for one part of this A-Rod article. What he says is so strange that it sticks out like a sore thumb and serves as a glaring distraction from his point.

At times like this, I always tell the story of what it was like to follow Mark McGwire around in September 1998. I saw this man hit 17 of his 70 home runs that season. I saw records topple. I saw powerful numbers rise and fall.

But more than that, I measured the feat I was watching by who else showed up to catch the show. And by that I mean Bruce Springsteen. And Bruce Hornsby. And Barbara Walters. And MTV. And "Good Morning America." And many, many others just like them.

Springsteen- a pretty legit inclusion. Everyone else on that list- what? Hornsby had peaked in relevance about ten years earlier. Walters was more relevant then than she is now, but still. MTV? Who gives a fuck about MTV in the context of sports? Unless they're throwing a rock n' jock celebrity softball game, I sure as hell don't. I have no idea how you could possibly gain access to lists of people who attended baseball games more than ten years ago, but if you could, I bet a five minute scan of it from Cubs and Cardinals games played the fall of 1998 would yield at least ten more relevant names than Bruce Hornsby or Barbara Walters.

I guess Stark probably made this list based off of celebrities/networks/shows he actually interacted with that fall rather than just celebrities/networks/shows he heard were in attendance. Still really hurts his article, in my opinion. "A-Rod... steroids... tainted records... holy shit, did you know Bruce Hornsby was there when Sosa hit his 64th home run in 1998? That's when you know your sport is getting big: when Hornsby starts watching."

Bruce Hornsby. What the fuck?

Anonymous Club Official Provides Amazing Insight

From Jayson Stark's hard hitting, weekly baseball column:

But how much is Teixeira worth? If Scott Boras is serious about establishing a 10-year, $230 million price tag on Teixeira, he won't have many bidders to play the Yankees against. Most teams view him as a five-year, $90 million kind of guy.

"What really stands out, when you've got Vlad and Teixeira back-to-back in the same lineup, is what he isn't," an official of one club said. "Let's put it this way: I know which one I fear, and it isn't him. To me, when you see truly great players, they always have that extra edge, that killer instinct. Well, if this guy has it, he doesn't project it.

Vlad last 28 days: .302/.375/.593
Teixeira last 28 days: .396/.486/.670

I can't really decide which witticism to go with, so I'll do a choose your own adventure type thing:

A. Confounded anger: "Seriously, two people got paid to pass this information along. How come they have jobs in sports? ARRRGH!"
B. Norm MacDonald: "Yeah, Teixeira sure isn't PROJECTING. Definitely not hitting CONSISTENTLY and with...uh...POWER."
C: Snippy article ending comment: "Must be a reason this guy wanted to remain anonymous. ZING."

A Bit of Credit Where a Bit of Credit Is Due

I'm not saying he's the next F. Scott Fitzgerald, but I was very pleasantly surprised with the conclusion of this piece by Jayson Stark. Hey, how come home teams have been winning games at a surprising pace so far this year? (And speaking of which, how come David Eckstein has a World Series MVP trophy? How come Alex Rodriguez's playoff stats aren't that great since he became a Yankee? How come I sometimes flip a coin five times, and it comes up heads every single time?) Is it any one of a bunch of bullshit, anecdotal explanations? Most writers would be tempted by these foolish and almost definitely WRONG options. But not Jayson. (At least, not this time.) His conclusion- it's probably a matter of small sample size.

I like it.

Super Top Secret Exclusive Scouting Reports

I almost wasn't going to write anything tonight, but then I stumbled onto this hilarious piece by Jayson Stark in which he polls a combination of managers, execs, and scouts and asks them who the "scariest" hitter in the game today is. For starters, it's probably an article that didn't need to be written. Even if the interviewees actually had really poignant and insightful things to say about the subjects (they don't, but if), it still just comes down to the fact that Pujols/Guerrero/Ramirez are really good hitters.

But as bad as that concept is, its awfulness completely overshadowed by horrific execution. Check out these quotes Stark managed to pick up; I'm surprised I didn't need an Insider subscription to gain access to this incredibly valuable information.

Re: Pujols

"He's the total package," said the Mets' Willie Randolph. "He's capable of adjusting to any pitch and any pitcher. You come inside, he'll pull it. You pitch him away, he'll take you the other way."

Is... is that allowed? Are you allowed to pull inside pitches? And take outside pitches the other way? Does the commissioner's office know about this? No wonder he's so good- he's cheating!

Re: Guerrero

"Vlad's the answer," said one AL executive, "because there's no one else in that lineup I fear. Torii Hunter is a really good all-around player. But the difference between him and Vlad is, Vlad's a guy who makes you feel like you can't breathe the whole time he's at the plate."

The actual difference between the two of them is that one is a pretty good (if overhyped) hitter, while the other is fucking incredible and will probably merit HOF consideration one day.

"I'd go with Vlad because the plate isn't 17 inches wide with him," laughed a long-time advance scout. "It's more like 25 inches. He's an amazing guy. He's not a guy with a swing you'd put in an instructional video. But, somehow, he puts that bat on the ball no matter where the pitch is."

Man, if I want to become a better beer league softball player, I'm going to have to consider altering my approach at the plate to mimic what these guys are doing. (Larry B writes vigorously in marble notebook labeled "Stuff To Do" on front) Put... bat... on... ball.

Re: A-Rod

"He has the ability to change the game with one swing," said one manager who requested anonymity.

Unlike most players, who usually need between ten and fifteen swings to change a game.

"He's like Pujols," said a scout. "There's no way to pitch him."

Hilariously, that's not even the most useless quote Stark will credit to an anonymous scout before this column is over. Wait for it- it's a doozy.

Re: a package deal of Ramirez/Ortiz

Pitch to Manny or pitch to Big Papi? Or neither? Or both? That turned into the big debate within the debate.

The term "debate" being used loosely given the divisive quality of the analysis being given.

Tampa Bay manager Joe Maddon said he prefers not to mess with Ortiz. "He has a propensity for hitting in the clutch situations," Maddon said. "He just lives for the moment."

Ramirez, on the other hand, is miserable in the clutch and prefers to live for three weeks ago.

But Joe Torre picked Ramirez, even though the former Bronxian is now safe from both of them out in L.A. "He's always been one of the top five hitters in the game," Torre said of Manny. "But when gets in that 'determined' mode, he's really, really difficult to deal with."

So I guess if you're an opposing team, the key to getting through the Red Sox lineup is to try to make Ramirez hit in the moment and then force Ortiz into being determined. If you accidentally get those two backwards, the results will be disastrous.

And Toronto's John Gibbons sounded like a man who has decided you can't win either way. "The tough part of saying the guy you fear the most is Manny is, you've got Ortiz, too," Gibbons said. "When Ortiz is on, there's no point in pitching around him because then you have to face Manny."

Take notes, kids. If you want to be a big league manager one day, you have to be able to identify subtle nuances of lineup construction like Gibbons has here.

"What the hell," muttered one scout. "It's pick your poison."

Sounds like that scout has been out in the sun too long, or is maybe getting up there in years and has become disenchanted with the world around him. Anything else to offer? No? Just damned if you do, damned if you don't? Great. Be sure to forward that hot tip straight to your general manager's office the next time the Red Sox come to town. I'm sure there's something the team can do with it.

Re: Ichiro

"The guy that we probably end up walking the most is Ichiro because you can't set him up," said Boston's Terry Francona. "He has a way of dictating things, depending on how he feels. Left-handers don't bother him, either. And you can't double him up. Lots of ways to beat you."

Among the top two examples Francona can come up with to explain why Ichiro is good: his ability to hit into fielders' choices.

Re: Utley

"He hits for average, hits for power, has a great idea of the strike zone," said an NL manager who preferred not to be named.

The manager must've been afraid that if Utley found out who was saying this kind of stuff about him, he'd hit for even more average and power against the manager's team while developing an even greater idea of the strike zone.

Re: Chipper Jones

"Still the best pure hitter in the league, from both sides of the plate," said Washington's Manny Acta.

Wow, that's a little bold. But give Acta credit for not saying something like "He's really good. He'll get hits against you when your pitchers throw him the ball."

Re: Derrek Lee

"He can hit the ball out of the park," said one scout.

Remember when I said look for that fantastically useless quote from an anonymous scout?

Thanks Jayson. Don't sleep on Prince Fielder, though- there are so many ways he can beat you. And don't forget the fact that Hanley Ramirez does some great stuff when he's in the batter's box. Oh- and Miguel Cabrera really likes food.

Chat Wrap With...

A fucking retard.

Ladies and gentleman: Jayson "Proper statistical analysis is for queers" Stark.

This weeks' question? WHICH MLB TEAM IS IN TROUBLE AFTER 6 GAMES? IS IT THE ROCKIES OR THE TIGERS. I MEAN, FUCK, THERE'S ONLY LIKE 156 GAMES LEFT.

THE CASE FOR THE ROCKIES

Let's be honest. This may have been a dominant team for 22 games last September and October but that's about it. Throw out that 21-1 streak, and the Rockies are 75-79 since Opening Day 2007.

Let's be honest. What the fuck is the point of using single season records if you are just gonna pick out large hunks of data and throw them out the fucking window? Take away a horrendous June 1-9 road trip, and the rockies suddenly win the NL west by 9 games! Wow, Look at that!

Dan (Chicago): When a team is sub .500 for 90% of the year and .950 for 10% of the year, I tend to believe in the larger sample size.

Jayson Stark: Well put. In their defense, and in the interest of presenting accurate facts, they were four games over .500 for 90 percent of the year (through Sept. 15) before that 21-1 magic kicked in.

Jayson and Dan from Chicago using big 9th grade statistics vocab here! "Percent" and "Sample Size?" I'm not sure how the average ESPN.com user will deal with these difficult words. Here's the thing though: when a hitter can't really hit for average and strikes out a lot, but hits for power (ie a shitload of home runs,) when he makes contact, we (as smart baseball fans) say he still has plenty of value. Why in the world would you throw out a streak like that when looking at the 2007 rockies? It makes no sense.

Plus that streak plays into the overall sample size for the 2007 season, which said that the Rockies were without a doubt one of the elite teams last year.

For reference, the rockies in 2007 had the best run differential of any team, the lowest second half ERA (and they play at Coors Field) and a pretty good lineup.

Nevertheless, the Rockies are in a very difficult division to dig their way out of.

Speaking of sample size: THE 2008 SEASON IS LIKE, A WEEK OLD!

Also, so this quick post isn't all Rockies-centric, here's this gem:

I refuse to believe, by the way, that Trevor Hoffman will have this many issues all year. People can't wait to write that guy off, for some reason. And he's one of the five greatest closers of all time.

Um, Jayson, maybe it's because:

1. he's getting up there in years
2. Has shown a steady decline over the past few season in all his peripherals (WHIP, k/9, k/bb etc), not to mention the easy to observe decrease in the velocity and movement of his pitches. Oh but i forgot, he's one of the greatest closers of all time. stupid me

I didn't realize until like half an hour ago how much I hate Jayson Stark. But man do I hate that guy

It's Unexplainable

Really, the obsession that baseball writers have with these two.

I don't love Jayson Stark or anything, but he's usually a pretty reasonable guy. And actually, this article isn't over-the-top; it just repeats pretty much everything said about Rolen and the most bad ass shortstop-turned-German-wrestler around.

The highlights:

DUNEDIN, Fla. -- It's 786 miles (and one trip through the customs line) from Busch Stadium to the Rogers Centre. But Scott Rolen and David Eckstein don't measure that journey on their odometers.

What are they measuring it on? Their rulers? Their yardsticks?

Oh. Yeah. Probably their hearts. There's a lot of miles on old Eckstein's heart, seeing as he's motorvated every team he's ever been on to many wins.

No matter what you've read or heard, they never wanted to leave St. Louis, a place where they won together. A place where they were once showered with sea-of-red adoration together. But stuff happens. And it sure did happen to them.

Stuff does indeed happen, Jayson.

So now here they are, bound for the left side of the infield in a city north of the border. Here they are, about to become the first two infielders to transplant themselves into some other team's infield, within two years of starting at least 80 games for a World Series champion, since Bill White and Dick Groat went from the Cardinals to the Phillies in 1966.

Classic Stark.

Here they are, in their blue jerseys and blue caps -- not even a red sweatsock in sight. And it sure is fascinating that their new employers don't seem the least bit interested in the events that propelled them toward their awkward exits from St. Louis.

Not just a regular sock, ladies and gentlemen, but not even a red SWEAT sock is visible.

"Those two guys exemplify what we want to be," Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi says. "That's why they're better fits for us. They're grinders, and they're dirtbags. Not that the guys we had before weren't. But that might be the one piece we were missing, from the standpoint of getting in there with the Red Sox and Yankees and just grinding it out from a day-to-day standpoint."

In nearly every profession in America, being called a "dirtbag" is a pretty bad thing. Yet, in some strange fashion, Ricciardi seems to be using it as an endearing term. Strange.

Do not fear, AL East fans. The Blue Jays are in the hands of a man who thinks that the difference between his team and the Red Sox/Yankees juggernauts is a lack of grinding it out on a day-to-day standpoint.

"Just the style of these two guys is something we needed," manager John Gibbons says. "It's not like either of them are such great players that everything comes so easy to them; they're cruisers. They both get down and dirty. And teams that win always have their share of those guys. I think we needed more of that."

What? I would think that if they had to work hard at certain things, they would be the opposite of cruisers! I think of "cruisers" as players who are :

1. So good at baseball they seem to cruise their way to ridiculous statistics every year with little effort (see Pujols, Albert and Rodriguez, Alex)
-or-
2. Very average at baseball but have the happy disposition that makes them just cruise through the clubhouse, because nobody is really jealous of their skills and their MVPs. (see Casey, Sean).

OK, maybe these guys are cruiser #2. Also, I like how John Gibbons gives them a nasty backhanded compliment: they're not so good ... they have to work hard!

Once, their old team said the same stuff about these two men. And it was all true. The fit was perfect, for both of them. They played on a 100-win team together in 2005. They played on a team that won the World Series in 2006. Eckstein was a World Series MVP. Rolen ripped off a 10-game postseason hitting streak.

I like how Stark uses these gaudy stats to describe how these two men had such successful careers. I like how they pleasantly obscure the fact that, in the last three seasons, those two gentlemen put together one combined season in which they OPS+'d over the league average.

That's how "stats" are "good". They can make a way for a pretty below average player seem like the best player in baseball.

There's a bunch of other crap about Rolen fighting with LaRussa and Eckstein being small. But that's the worst of it. I hope that my boss never tells me I'm not too good at my job, but he likes how I grind my way through the work day.

Jayson Stark, I've Forgiven You.

Thank you for the top half of this column.

Jayson Stark, I Have a Request, Sir

Please, PLEASE stop writing things about how overrated or underrated people are. It's subjective, so it's tough to be wrong, but you manage to do it anyway.

Here, we learn that Craig Biggio is the most underrated 2B ever.

You want a player who was overshadowed by other stars? Heck, he played with Jeff Bagwell, Lance Berkman, Moises Alou, Luis Gonzalez, Richard Hidalgo, and Steve Finley -- all of whom commanded at least as much national hoopla as Biggio did.

Richard Hidalgo is a true star. I bet if we took a poll among casual baseball fans (either now, or in 2000/2003 when he was actually relevant), more people would have heard of Craig Biggio than Richard Hidalgo. Remember the Killer B's? Biggio was very famous for being part of several different trios of B-men. Steve Finley???

And it wasn't the lineup that ever seemed to be the face of the Astros, anyway. It was all those pitchers: Roger Clemens, Roy Oswalt, Andy Pettitte, Randy Johnson, Billy Wagner, Brad Lidge, Mike Hampton, Mike Scott, Darryl Kile.

The only face that Brad Lidge could put on the Astros is a barfing face. He was a sick closer (a guy that pitches a relatively small number of innings) for like two years. Ask Mike Sweeney if that's long enough to become the face of a baseball team.

You want those always-helpful height issues? Biggio mastered them nicely, too. He could have grown an extra inch and made it to 6' even. But he understood, even during puberty, that that one little inch might eliminate him from consideration by important literary volumes like this one.

I acknowledge that you're kidding, but still, why did this get printed?

You want a man who avoided October? Okay, Biggio didn't quite do that. His teams did make the playoffs six times. But this fellow appeared in 2,564 regular-season box scores before he played in his first World Series game in 2005. That was more than any player in the whole World Series era (1903-present). So how poetic was that?

What does this have to do with Craig Biggio being underrated? And to answer your question, RIDICULOUSLY POETIC.

Finally, you want intangibles?

No, they aren't important, thanks.

We'll give you some serious stinkin' intangibles.

Gah, it's not like I thought you'd listen.......

What other seven-time All-Star (Non-Pete Rose Division) was willing to change positions four times (from catcher to second base to center field to left field and then back to second base) during his career, mostly because his team's lineup worked better if he made those moves? Okay, so Carlos Beltran and Willy Taveras had something to do with those final two relocations.

Position changes are very tangible. They are visible things that show up in stat books. Alfonso Soriano and Alex Rodriguez were required to change their positions......why doesn't that give them intangibles?

So what we have here is a player who has spent his career skating along two trails that don't always run parallel. One is leading him to the Hall of Fame. The other dragged him into this very chapter in this very book. So he can head for the window and cash that daily-double ticket any time he's ready.

No. Craig Biggio should not be in the Hall of Fame. Here's what it boils down to. Career .282 EqA. Career -123 FRAA. If you discount his first season in which he played in only 50 games, career 123.3 WARP3, which boils down to about 6.5 per season. Pretty good, but not Hall of Fame quality. A true future Hall of Famer, Frank Thomas, averaged 8.18 WARP3 in his full seasons, including 7 straight seasons 9.8 or higher.

Please don't use any cherry-pickish stats that try to convince me otherwise. When you're an above-average professional baseball player and you play for 20 years, you're inevitably going to be high on a lot of stat lists.

Oh, it's not as if Biggio has played his whole career incognito. The Astros showed up in October enough to assure that your average Baseball Tonight viewer knew his name, and could even spell it. But how many of those folks realized they were watching one of the all-time greats at his primary position (i.e., the position that didn't involve shin guards or mad sprints around the outfield)? Remarkably few.

You're right. Very few realized this. That's because you're making it up.

But that's what Craig Biggio is, you know -- an all-time great. By the time he's finished, the only men in history who accumulated more hits than him while spending most of their careers playing second base will be Eddie Collins (3,315) and Nap Lajoie (3,242). And in case those names don't bring back any vivid memories, it might be because they were both doing some of their best baseball work during World War I.

It's remarkable that Biggio has been serviceable at second base for so long, granted, but if you don't have a shitton of hits after playing for 20 years, that's sad.

And no player in National League history has hit more home runs leading off games than Biggio (who did that for the 50th time in 2006).

What did I tell you about cherry picking? And home runs leading off games are just about the least useful home runs you can hit.

It may be true that he wasn't passing Aaron in the kind of extra-base hit Aaron became most noted for. But for a guy like Biggio, doubles fit right into his underratedness formula. If you're known for hitting home runs, you're always in danger of making somebody's overrated list (even this one).

Overrated list? I thought that was the "being good at baseball" list.

If you want to be underrated, you do stuff like hit 50 doubles in back-to-back seasons. (Biggio is one of only four men to do that since the 1930s.) And roll up 50 doubles and 50 stolen bases in the same season. (Biggio's 50-50 season in 1998 made him the first player to do that since Tris Speaker, who did it in 1912.)

Stolen bases are a one-way ticket to overratedness. Scott Podsednik. Juan Pierre.

I've seen this man play enough to recognize that, at his peak, he may not have been as dominating as Joe Morgan, or as dazzling a worker in the second-base leather shop as Roberto Alomar. But Craig Biggio was still scoring 100 runs at age 38, and still hitting 20 homers at age 40. And he hustled his butt off to first base every time he put a ball in play. That's not something you can say about every guy who hangs around this many years.

The fact that he hit 20 homers at age 40 is impressive. I'll leave that little bit out and rephrase this paragraph.

"He may not have been as good a hitter as an actual Hall of Fame quality 2nd basemen, or as good a fielder as a Hall of Fame quality 2nd basemen, but he's still going to the Hall of Fame. He scored 100 runs at age 38, which shows he was really good at getting knocked in by hitters behind him (his .337 OBP that season is evidence that this was less Biggio's doing than others). Much like almost all players that play professional baseball, Biggio runs hard to first base to try to avoid an out or to get extra bases out of his hits."

Dependability and durability are qualities we sometimes take for granted -- when, in fact, they're the most valuable ingredients to look for in any athlete.

Ooooooohhhhhhhhh, sorry Jayson. The answer we were looking for was.....you're never going to believe this....yep....it's "talent".

I don't know what Biggio's actual chances are of becoming a Hall of Famer. In my mind, he's had a very good career, but he shouldn't be in, simply because even if a case was made for him being a truly great player, it would only hold between 1994 and 1998. The rest of his 20-year career is filled with average to above average performances.

Stark's Top Ten Most Overrated

I really have a lot of work to do, but a friend of mine alerted me to a Jayson Stark article delineating who he thinks are the top 10 most overrated players in baseball. He thought the article was very well written. Obviously, I thought, Jayson Stark + opinion = sketchy. Sure enough, this is my study break

I by no means have a problem with everyone he listed, but a few of these are seriously awful.

First off, here's the definition of "overrated" according to Stark.

Overratedness -- like underratedness -- is all relative, remember. It's about perception. It's about illusion. It's about myths. It's about assumptions we tend to make about all kinds of players -- assumptions that sometimes turn out not to match up real well with a condition best described as "reality."

So the question I kept aspiring to answer as I wrote my book -- and as I wrote this companion column -- was this:

How does the perception of this player match up with the kind of player he really is (or was)?

Here we go.

No. 1 -- Barry Zito

Fine. He should be a #3 starter on a contender and is filthy rich now. I won't argue.

No. 2 -- J.D. Drew

It's like, when I clicked on the link, I thought, "please, please let J.D. Drew be on this list."

Nobody denies that Drew has massive talent oozing out of his eyebrows. You can tell because he entered this season as one of only 13 active players with a career slugging percentage over .500 and an on-base percentage over .390.

But now the bad news: Those other dozen players have made a combined 70 All-Star teams (and all have made at least two apiece). And Drew has made, well, zero.

I learn a lot from Jayson Stark. Mark Redman > J.D. Drew. Scott Podsednik > J.D. Drew.

If you're trying to make a case for a player being overrated, why are you citing his lack of All-Star game appearances? All-Star game appearances are evidence of a player being rated HIGHLY. If anything, this makes Drew underrated. That having been said, DONT EVER USE ALL-STAR GAMES AS EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING AGAIN. Travis Hafner and Francisco Liriano, the best hitter in the AL per plate appearance and pitcher per start last season, weren't on the All-Star team. And the game took place before either got hurt.

It sure is funny how all that talent has added up to just one 30-homer season, only one 100-RBI season, a .180 lifetime average in seven postseason series, no All-Star at-bats, nearly 400 games missed with a massive assortment of injuries and a $14 million a year paycheck. Let's just say this guy is realllly fortunate the Red Sox's great start has obscured his messy .169 average since April 21 -- because so far, the occupants of Fenway have been shockingly patient with him.

Speaking of patience, Drew has walked once in just over every 10 at bats. His batting average is bad, but he's still on-basing above the league median. When his bat gets luckier, the numbers will be more J.D. Drew-like. Poststeason series stats are ridiculously irrelevant. And oh, the paycheck thing. Let's do a comparison between someone that is not on this list and J.D. Drew

J.D. Drew: Career .303 EqA. Contract: 5 year/$70M
Carlos Lee: Career .275 EqA Contract: 6 year/$100M

Drew has especially been great in his recent career, posting EqA's of .335, .323 (limited time), and .305. He is a very good baseball player. I don't care what your batting average and All-Star games say.

No. 3 -- Andruw Jones

I'm not gonna argue. He's seen as a great defensive outfielder, and hasn't been above average by FRAA since 2003.

No. 4 -- Juan Pierre

Attaboy Starkie

No. 5 -- Bobby Abreu

Boy, do people love arguing about this fellow. Who can blame them?
The folks who only peruse Abreu's numbers don't just wonder what he's doing on this list. They wonder when he's getting inducted into the Hall of Fame. How multitalented is Bobby Abreu? Well, he does happen to be the only active player with a .300 career batting average, a .400 on-base percentage, 200 homers and 250 stolen bases. And his .909 career OPS tops the OPS of Sammy Sosa, Chase Utley, Derrek Lee and many, many, many other famed batsmiths out there.

Right. He's a great player.

But there sure are a lot of people who watched him in Philadelphia who think Abreu is the poster boy for an unquantifiable division of the All-Overrated Team -- players who mysteriously seem to be less than the sum of their spectacular numbers.

We'll put that subset of people living in that one American city into group A. The rest of the world (the sensibles, if you will) into group B.

When people battle me on this guy, I always sum it up this way: As great as Bobby Abreu can be, he lacks that all-important Derek Jeter gene. There is no voice in his head, screaming: "This ball has to be caught." Or: "That runner on third has to be driven in." In Philadelphia, where he was the centerpiece of the franchise, that one flaw showed up way too glaringly. Now, in New York, as the Yankees flounder, they're getting aggravated over the same stuff. Funny how that happens.

Look Stark, I don't know what to tell you. The Derek Jeter gene is recessive. Both of Abreu's parents were carriers, but Bobby just got unlucky.....or did he?

At the age of 7, Abreu showed tremendous talent. He would beat all the other kids in dodgeball. He would dive all over the place playing kickball. No one, and I mean NO ONE, could attack the monkey bars with as much intensity as this kid, boy lemme tell ya. And he had this mysterious gleam in his eye that made him look fierce, yet calm. One day, his parents asked him how he was able to perform so well. Bobby told them that there were voices in his head screaming at him to do his best at everything. His parents had heard enough. It was off to the child psychiatrist. After about a half year, the voices dissapeared and the gleam in his eye was gone. And that's the sad tale of how Abreu lost the phenotype of the Derek Jeter gene.

To all sportswriters who wonder why there are blogs making fun of the things you say, re-read what Stark just wrote. It enrages people who would love to have your jobs when you invent intangibles that make writing easy and devoid of any cogent analysis.

No. 6 -- Brian Giles

Remember back when Giles was a perennial 37-homer, 100-RBI, .600-slugging walk machine in Pittsburgh? What happened to that Brian Giles?
That one-time .600 slugging percentage didn't even make it to .400 last season -- and has submerged below .350 in 2007. And that quick, 37-homer bat mostly ropes balls the other way now -- leaving us with a guy who has as many homers this year as Kip Wells (one).

Not to suggest that Brian Giles isn't still a really useful player. Still cranks out tough at-bats and walks 100 times. Still gaps 35-40 doubles a year. But there's a difference between a star player and a useful player. And it's a difference that can propel a guy right onto an overrated list just like this one.

Based on the way you defined overratedness, there's really no major issue here. I would argue that not many people think he's a star player, though. and that most would agree that he is a very useful guy with power who gets on base. Based on the way you're arguing things, you could say anyone aging is overrated, just because they aren't as good as they were before. Giles is 36. He's past his prime. He's inevitably going to get worse.

No. 7 -- Alfonso Soriano

I kinda agree, just beacuse a guy as talented as Soriano should get on base more.

No. 8 -- Richie Sexson

Sexson and Adam Dunn fit into a category of overratedness I figured I'd better get to in this column someplace: Guys We Love Because They Can Pulverize A Baseball About 900 Feet.

I have no problem with the Richie Sexson argument. I have major issues with people saying that Adam Dunn is overrated. He consistently puts up 40 HR seasons while getting on base a lot. Just because of Dunn's low batting averages, he has become one of the most underrated players in the game.

No. 9 -- Bob Wickman

A little bit. I think people slam him too much, but a little bit. The 3.57 career ERA. He's underrated because

No. 10 -- Jeff Suppan

Agreed.

Again, why is Carlos Lee not on this list?

as usual, jayson stark takes things 5 or 6 steps too far

resident espn number cruncher stark recently wrote a column about who the best NL shortshop has been so far this season (and thus should be picked as the all-star game starter). the premise being, of course, that many of them have played very well thus making it difficult to choose. an interesting enough topic for an article. stark brings up jj hardy, jose reyes, hanley ramirez, and jimmy rollins. good, great, grand. theres youre whole article and discussion, right? wrong. rather than quit while hes ahead, stark goes buck wild and basically roll calls every single guy eligible.

And we haven't even touched on a fifth shortstop who is batting .331 (Edgar Renteria).

actually a very good choice, maybe better than rollins, but dont you think its getting a little crowded here? jayson, maybe you should just take it easy, get up, walk around, not write anything for a little while. (imaginary jayson stark, drunkenly slurring his speech in my brain: "ILL TELL YOU WHEN IVE HAD ENOUGH!")

Or a sixth shortstop (Rafael Furcal) who just ripped off three straight four-hit games.

currently OPS+ing 97, whereas the first five guys are all over 120 (and all but rollins are over 140). but sure, lets decide the all star team based on 3 games in may.

Or a future Hall of Famer (Omar Vizquel),

sadly, this actually is often a good all-star qualification from the fans' perspective. anyone with a brain, however, knows hitting .247 with a .290 OBP should not get you into the all star game. im pretty sure stark has a brain.

your incumbent World Series MVP (David Eckstein),

comically irrelevant. he's also OPSing a shade under .600. but just because jayson brought him up, im raising the lunchpail alert to yellow. (it had been down to green for just a few hours there.)

two rising stars (Troy Tulowitzki and Stephen Drew),

neither of whom is close to being an actual star yet.

a guy with seven home runs (Alex Gonzalez)

and an OPS+ of 101.

or three of the the best defensive shortstops on earth (Adam Everett, Khalil Greene and Jack Wilson).

all the guys on this list are some of the best defensive shortstops on earth. really says something about these three that this was the only nice thing stark could think of to say about them.

So go ahead. Fill out your ballot. You can't go wrong.

i would say: you can't go wrong, as long as you pick reyes, rollins, renteria, hardy, or ramirez. i picture stark shouting out this list to his fellow espn writers howard dean-style, naming them rapidly in a frenzied tone. that would be funny.