In the last 48 hours, I experienced different sides of a baseball diamond just like I was 12 or 13 years old again.
Sunday brought about a group of 11 "gentlemen" (I use this word loosely) playing 12" softball for a couple hours, while a day later had me, Jen, her friend Megan & her boyfriend Russ partaking in a White Sox/Yankees game.
There were just a few differences in each of these experiences than my teenage days.
In the case of Brian (Age 30) v. softball, the ball won. And I think it beat most of us "old" bastards, based on the lack of skill, speed, power and coordination that many of us displayed. Unlike days past, which featured mammoth blasts and amazing catches, this particular day saw guys eating hamburgers on the field and hot dogging on the base paths. There were very few plays which showed any skill or grace. My only moment in the sun (one which burned both of my arms and neck) was tracking down a ball about 35 yards away from me in full-sprint mode, finishing it off with a Louganis-like dive to make the catch.
However, being the "old man's diamond experience" blog here, this couldn't come without injury. About 10 minutes after we finished playing, I felt a groin injury develop. It didn't last long luckily, but the fact that it even occurred made me realize how different sports experiences would be after the age of 30, especially if I go years without playing these sports. Whether it be some extra stretching, warming up or practice, I will need to treat these activities differently when I play in the near future.
And as far as the ole ball game with the White Sox and Yankees goes, Brian (Age 30) has a much different look towards the game than Brian (Age 13) did. Age 30 lives in a sports fandom culture that is now aware of all the cheating going on in sports. Where as with football where performance-enhancers are largely ignored by the general public, the cheaters in baseball have angered the fans, who supposedly want a clean, honest game. Age 30 Brian is so numb to it all that his favorite experience with the game lies mainly in the endless data mining that he does, as if he was 5 years old again, learning math at a very early age by trying to figure out a player's batting average. Watching the actual product and pretending to get angry at these players has no appeal to Brian Age 30. After all, the memories of the home run chase, as drug-induced as it might have been, produced real excitement and enjoyment in baseball fans everywhere. Hell, many of our favorite musicians would not have written the classics that you still listen to today without their own version of performance-enhancing drugs. Knowing that these guys in the past did PEDs doesn't influence how I felt at those moments of my sports-watching life. I may be in the minority with these feelings, but all these guys getting busted feels good on one hand (because they're weeding out the cheaters) but on another hand feels like a CD that can't get past that skip on Track 9 (worn out and annoying to hear).
I can no longer look at these guys as heroes, and to be honest, they never should have been my heroes. As we grow older, we realize these athletes are humans just like all of us. They cuss, drink, smoke, and have other bad vices (some worse than others) just like all of us. Putting these guys on a pedestal isn't fair to them, and it sure as hell isn't fair to the kids who buy their jerseys expecting these guys to be model citizens. Let's enjoy the game, and instead of expecting a $30M man being your kid's hero, how about you do what you can to make sure your kid looks at YOU that way instead?
So as I sat there, listening to the boos raining down on Alex Rodriguez in his first appearance of 2013, I had a lessened version of the above paragraphs in my head. A-Rod is days away from likely serving a suspensions through the end of the 2014 season (over 200 games), so people had to get their last shots in on him before he disappears onto his own island. I couldn't work up that same anger, as described above. I was observing kids around me and how they were reacting to the chorus of boos. Some emulated the people around them, while others weren't really sure how to react. If the Age 13 version of me lived in the Age 30 world I current inhabit, I would likely be in the latter category.
Think about it from a teenager's point of view: ever since you've been following baseball, all you have ever heard about on Sportscenter has been about guys taking drugs that makes their performance better. You hear all of the adults around you, whether they be on the sports shows you have watched or the adults (like your dad or uncles), who share a mix of anger, disappointment and resentment towards those guys who cheated over the past couple decades. You want to embrace the sport and the athletes who you try to emulate when in the batter's box in Pinto league, but how do you react when coming across this?
Between these two experiences, I realized that I will always love playing it while I can (in this case, it was 12" softball - same difference in this story) and following it. After all, the statistics, which I believe were largely responsible in my math abilities being so strong from an early age, will always be there. Even if the players playing it on the professional levels might not be clean, I will always have a special place in my heart for the game.
8/05/2013
NFL Division by Division - Odds, Teams w/ Value & Pick
For about a month or so now, the wagering site 5dimes has had a variety of NFL odds up, including all of the divisions. If there's a story to be told from the division odds, it's that there is just as many hotly contested divisions as there is run-away winners (although we know that there's a good chance that one or two of these big favorites bombs out).
I wrote a season preview in June, which I have changed a little already and will slightly amend before the season starts.
Odds as of 8/3/13
Chi +373
Min +600
Det +625
Value: I think value lies in both Chicago & Detroit. The Bears were in the division race for much of 2012, and I am starting to believe that Marc Trestman will boost their offense to new heights this season. In Motown, you have a team that is a year removed from a playoff appearance. They've added Reggie Bush, who should fit into the pass-happy offense perfectly. And not having the distraction of Titus Young from the onset should help a big deal.
Pick: Chicago. I don't trust Green Bay's defense. Not that I expect them to be as terrible as they looked in their playoff loss to the Niners, but I don't know how far Rodgers can carry them by himself. Also, is this the year where Rodgers might miss some time due to injury? He escaped injury last year despite getting sacked 51 times (NFL high). If the offensive line doesn't improve, the Packers could be a hit away from being a 7-9 team.
I think the Bears will take a big step this season under Trestman, who has had a track record (both as an NFL coordinator & CFL coach) as a great offensive mind. The defense should still be solid enough to carry them (defensively last year: top 5 in yards/play & top 3 in points allowed).
Dal +250
Wash +255
Phil +425
Value: Dallas. This is under the assumption that you believe that the Cowboys will be in the same position as they always seem to be the past couple years - a win away from winning the division, only to lose to the eventual NFC East champ. If that's the case (and you believe in history repeating itself), then backing Chip Kelly may be your best value, as his Eagles face the Cowboys in the Week 17 finale. In all honesty, the talent with Dallas always seems to be there. It's a matter of it all coming together.
Pick: NYG. This division seems to be as much of a toss-up as the odds indicate. Some might think the Eagles are getting too much respect from oddsmakers, but they still have a few playmakers that can thrive in a Chip Kelly system. I believe he's going to have a few wrinkles that open the eyes of his NFC East opponents. As far as my flipping of the proverbial four-sided coin, I think you'll see the Giants bounce back after a rough finish last season pushed them out of the playoffs. Cruz and a motivated Nicks (playing for his next contract, likely with another squad) will provide Eli all the weapons he needs, and David Wilson projects to fill in nicely for the departed Ahmad Bradshaw, assuming the former can learn to block and stay on the field. Why not the Redskins? I expect some regression, as this is what tends to happen with teams going from losing records to 10+ wins: (h/t Joe Fortenbaugh). Plus, RG3's health will always be a worry - he will have to learn when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, and when to walk out of bounds.
Sea +110
Stl +925
Ari +3400
Value: By far, the best value in this division is St. Louis - might be the best value in NFL. Following a 4-1-1 campaign within the division last year, I believe the Rams will be just as tough (and will do better outside of the division than last year). If Bradford can maximize the talents of Tavon Austin and Richardson/Pead can fill the Stephen Jackson void, I don't see why they can't contend in this division (9-7/10-6 possible). The defense was middle-of-the-road last year, so any improvement there will help solidify this value.
Pick: San Francisco...although this might be more of a homer pick. Until Harbaugh doesn't win the NFC West, I will not pick against him. Seattle might be a smarter pick, but between both of these teams, they've lost a few playmakers that each was counting on for the 2013 season (Crabtree & Harvin). I can't wait to see these divisional match-ups. I will be intrigued to see how Wilson & Kaepernick will play as this is the first training camp that each of them entered as the unequivocal starter. Sophomore blues or sensations?
NO +170
TB +525
Car +650
Value: Maybe I'm a sucker for the second year in a row, but I think the Panthers once again have great value. They finished the season strong (wins in last 4 games) and were top 10 in yards per play and top half in yards allowed per play. Cam Newton looks to build on a deceptively good sophomore campaign (I say deceptive because based on all the critiques he got from the media, you would never know he finished with 3800+ passing yards, 700+ rushing & combined 27 TDs). Their success will be tied into how well their defense plays - I think they'll play well enough to be a 10 win team and make the playoffs.
Pick: New Orleans. Two words sell this pick for me - Sean Payton. I have New Orleans back to their machine-like ways (and I think they'll be respectable on defense). I think Atlanta will take a step back (9 or 10 wins). I have Carolina as a surprise playoff team. I'm not a believer in Tampa - perhaps Freeman, Jackson, Martin & Revis will humble me.
Balt +230
Cin +235
Cle +770
Value and Pick: Cincinnati. Anyone who has been within earshot (or in the case of social media, within Twittershot) of me who watches football as much as me knows how high I am on Cincinnati this year. Why?
Mia +400
NYJ +2000
Buf +2200
Value: None. If Miami was a little lower (like around +800/900), I would definitely suggest them as the value pick. Tannehill showed more promise in his first season than most people expected. While they lost Reggie Bush, Lamar Miller is the back that may be the fantasy sleeper of the year. Their defense will need to force more than 16 turnovers (4th lowest) if they wish to take away the AFC East crown from the Patriots.
Pick: New England. It is hard to forget about all of the distractions and injuries. It is also hard to forget that Tom Brady is starting the season without his top-5 receivers from last year. And that defense? Yikes. However, as long as Brady stays upright, the Patriots will take the division crown again. Expect career years from guys like Danny Amendola & Shane Vereen in the absence of these missing Brady targets.
SD +750
KC +800
Oak +2500
Value: San Diego. Earlier in the offseason, I may have considered Kansas City for this pick. I started to think about the moves made, and the one I did not consider for the best made was the Chargers firing Norv Turner in favor of Mike McCoy. Not only do you get rid of a coach who has historically under-achieved with top talent while in San Diego, but you hire a coordinator whose team just got done whipping you around in the division last year. Having a new voice in Philip Rivers' ears may help provide a resurgence in the veteran quarterback's career. Danny Woodhead will give him a receiving target out of the backfield, and a full year with Danario Alexander lining opposite of Malcom Floyd should propel the offense that was near the bottom of the league last year. Ryan Mathews can help with this cause if he can finally live up to his potential.
Pick: Denver. With all of the above being said, Denver is still the team to beat in this division. You saw what happened last year when they added a legitimate quarterback to the fold. Manning developed quick chemistry with Demaryius Thomas & Eric Decker. I am curious to see how the offensive line injuries, particularly at center, will affect Manning's performance. For now, I don't see a reason to downgrade them out of their well-deserved division favorite status.
Indy +270
Ten +875
Jax +3300
Value: None. Like the Dolphins, I'm not seeing good value at the Colts' current odds. They went 11-5 last year despite being outscored by 30 points. Their comeback wins severely masked their horrible defense (T-2nd worst 6.0 yards/play, only behind the Saints). And even their offense wasn't as efficient as advertised - bottom third in the league in yards per play (5.2 yards/play). While Andrew Luck should improve and is likely to be a perennial Pro Bowler, I just don't see how there isn't severe regression with the Colts this year. I'm smelling 6-10/7-9.
Neither the Titans nor the Jaguars are worthy of many words in this section.
Pick: Houston. They may have a problem advancing past the AFC Division Round, but Houston is the class of this division for the third year in a row. Arian Foster may see less carries, but he and Ben Tate will still provide the ground-and-pound attack for the Texans. DeAndre Hopkins will be a nice addition to the offense. And the defense, which was already solid, got smarter with the addition of Ed Reed. I can see this being the type of move that gets Houston past the AFC threshold and into the Super Bowl.
I wrote a season preview in June, which I have changed a little already and will slightly amend before the season starts.
Odds as of 8/3/13
NFC North
GB -155Chi +373
Min +600
Det +625
Value: I think value lies in both Chicago & Detroit. The Bears were in the division race for much of 2012, and I am starting to believe that Marc Trestman will boost their offense to new heights this season. In Motown, you have a team that is a year removed from a playoff appearance. They've added Reggie Bush, who should fit into the pass-happy offense perfectly. And not having the distraction of Titus Young from the onset should help a big deal.
Pick: Chicago. I don't trust Green Bay's defense. Not that I expect them to be as terrible as they looked in their playoff loss to the Niners, but I don't know how far Rodgers can carry them by himself. Also, is this the year where Rodgers might miss some time due to injury? He escaped injury last year despite getting sacked 51 times (NFL high). If the offensive line doesn't improve, the Packers could be a hit away from being a 7-9 team.
I think the Bears will take a big step this season under Trestman, who has had a track record (both as an NFL coordinator & CFL coach) as a great offensive mind. The defense should still be solid enough to carry them (defensively last year: top 5 in yards/play & top 3 in points allowed).
NFC East
NYG +215Dal +250
Wash +255
Phil +425
Value: Dallas. This is under the assumption that you believe that the Cowboys will be in the same position as they always seem to be the past couple years - a win away from winning the division, only to lose to the eventual NFC East champ. If that's the case (and you believe in history repeating itself), then backing Chip Kelly may be your best value, as his Eagles face the Cowboys in the Week 17 finale. In all honesty, the talent with Dallas always seems to be there. It's a matter of it all coming together.
Pick: NYG. This division seems to be as much of a toss-up as the odds indicate. Some might think the Eagles are getting too much respect from oddsmakers, but they still have a few playmakers that can thrive in a Chip Kelly system. I believe he's going to have a few wrinkles that open the eyes of his NFC East opponents. As far as my flipping of the proverbial four-sided coin, I think you'll see the Giants bounce back after a rough finish last season pushed them out of the playoffs. Cruz and a motivated Nicks (playing for his next contract, likely with another squad) will provide Eli all the weapons he needs, and David Wilson projects to fill in nicely for the departed Ahmad Bradshaw, assuming the former can learn to block and stay on the field. Why not the Redskins? I expect some regression, as this is what tends to happen with teams going from losing records to 10+ wins: (h/t Joe Fortenbaugh). Plus, RG3's health will always be a worry - he will have to learn when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, and when to walk out of bounds.
NFC West
SF -105Sea +110
Stl +925
Ari +3400
Value: By far, the best value in this division is St. Louis - might be the best value in NFL. Following a 4-1-1 campaign within the division last year, I believe the Rams will be just as tough (and will do better outside of the division than last year). If Bradford can maximize the talents of Tavon Austin and Richardson/Pead can fill the Stephen Jackson void, I don't see why they can't contend in this division (9-7/10-6 possible). The defense was middle-of-the-road last year, so any improvement there will help solidify this value.
Pick: San Francisco...although this might be more of a homer pick. Until Harbaugh doesn't win the NFC West, I will not pick against him. Seattle might be a smarter pick, but between both of these teams, they've lost a few playmakers that each was counting on for the 2013 season (Crabtree & Harvin). I can't wait to see these divisional match-ups. I will be intrigued to see how Wilson & Kaepernick will play as this is the first training camp that each of them entered as the unequivocal starter. Sophomore blues or sensations?
NFC South
Atl +150NO +170
TB +525
Car +650
Value: Maybe I'm a sucker for the second year in a row, but I think the Panthers once again have great value. They finished the season strong (wins in last 4 games) and were top 10 in yards per play and top half in yards allowed per play. Cam Newton looks to build on a deceptively good sophomore campaign (I say deceptive because based on all the critiques he got from the media, you would never know he finished with 3800+ passing yards, 700+ rushing & combined 27 TDs). Their success will be tied into how well their defense plays - I think they'll play well enough to be a 10 win team and make the playoffs.
Pick: New Orleans. Two words sell this pick for me - Sean Payton. I have New Orleans back to their machine-like ways (and I think they'll be respectable on defense). I think Atlanta will take a step back (9 or 10 wins). I have Carolina as a surprise playoff team. I'm not a believer in Tampa - perhaps Freeman, Jackson, Martin & Revis will humble me.
AFC North
Pitt +170Balt +230
Cin +235
Cle +770
Value and Pick: Cincinnati. Anyone who has been within earshot (or in the case of social media, within Twittershot) of me who watches football as much as me knows how high I am on Cincinnati this year. Why?
- Defense - Geno Atkins has Defensive Player of the Year potential while the defense as a whole has top 3 potential. Atkins anchors the best defensive line in the division, a line which includes Michael Johnson (11.5 sacks) and Carlos Dunlap (6 sacks). They bring back a secondary that allowed the 7th-least passing yards. Their linebacking core added James Harrison, who has lost a step but could be a veteran presence that pushes the defense to greater success.
- Weakened rivals - Baltimore will miss the leadership of Ray Lewis & Ed Reed on defense. Joe Flacco will desperately miss the absence of Anquan Boldin & Dennis Pitta (Boldin to free agency, Pitta to injury). These two guys caught half of Flacco's 22 passing TDs in the regular season and 7 of his 11 TDs in the postseason. Torrey Smith is a deep threat, but is he capable of making up for the missing Boldin/Pitta connections? Jacoby Jones had a good Super Bowl, but overall not a guy you want as your #2. And while many expect Pittsburgh to bounce back from a disappointing campaign, I'm not sold on their offense being able to do its share to win this division. Last year, they were in the bottom third in yards/play, thanks in large part to a 3.7 yards/carry. Will Le'Veon Bell help out? Perhaps, but I'm not sure it'll be enough to help.
- Offense upgrades through the draft - Tyler Eifert will give Andy Dalton another tight end to throw it to (Jermaine Gresham being the other), which should help open up the field for A.J. Green. Giovani Bernard has a chance to take the running back reigns from Benjarvis Green-Ellis. Either way, both moves add much-needed depth to the offense.
AFC East
NE -425Mia +400
NYJ +2000
Buf +2200
Value: None. If Miami was a little lower (like around +800/900), I would definitely suggest them as the value pick. Tannehill showed more promise in his first season than most people expected. While they lost Reggie Bush, Lamar Miller is the back that may be the fantasy sleeper of the year. Their defense will need to force more than 16 turnovers (4th lowest) if they wish to take away the AFC East crown from the Patriots.
Pick: New England. It is hard to forget about all of the distractions and injuries. It is also hard to forget that Tom Brady is starting the season without his top-5 receivers from last year. And that defense? Yikes. However, as long as Brady stays upright, the Patriots will take the division crown again. Expect career years from guys like Danny Amendola & Shane Vereen in the absence of these missing Brady targets.
AFC West
Den -380SD +750
KC +800
Oak +2500
Value: San Diego. Earlier in the offseason, I may have considered Kansas City for this pick. I started to think about the moves made, and the one I did not consider for the best made was the Chargers firing Norv Turner in favor of Mike McCoy. Not only do you get rid of a coach who has historically under-achieved with top talent while in San Diego, but you hire a coordinator whose team just got done whipping you around in the division last year. Having a new voice in Philip Rivers' ears may help provide a resurgence in the veteran quarterback's career. Danny Woodhead will give him a receiving target out of the backfield, and a full year with Danario Alexander lining opposite of Malcom Floyd should propel the offense that was near the bottom of the league last year. Ryan Mathews can help with this cause if he can finally live up to his potential.
Pick: Denver. With all of the above being said, Denver is still the team to beat in this division. You saw what happened last year when they added a legitimate quarterback to the fold. Manning developed quick chemistry with Demaryius Thomas & Eric Decker. I am curious to see how the offensive line injuries, particularly at center, will affect Manning's performance. For now, I don't see a reason to downgrade them out of their well-deserved division favorite status.
AFC South
Hou -265Indy +270
Ten +875
Jax +3300
Value: None. Like the Dolphins, I'm not seeing good value at the Colts' current odds. They went 11-5 last year despite being outscored by 30 points. Their comeback wins severely masked their horrible defense (T-2nd worst 6.0 yards/play, only behind the Saints). And even their offense wasn't as efficient as advertised - bottom third in the league in yards per play (5.2 yards/play). While Andrew Luck should improve and is likely to be a perennial Pro Bowler, I just don't see how there isn't severe regression with the Colts this year. I'm smelling 6-10/7-9.
Neither the Titans nor the Jaguars are worthy of many words in this section.
Pick: Houston. They may have a problem advancing past the AFC Division Round, but Houston is the class of this division for the third year in a row. Arian Foster may see less carries, but he and Ben Tate will still provide the ground-and-pound attack for the Texans. DeAndre Hopkins will be a nice addition to the offense. And the defense, which was already solid, got smarter with the addition of Ed Reed. I can see this being the type of move that gets Houston past the AFC threshold and into the Super Bowl.
7/31/2013
Random Baseball Musings on Trade Deadline 2013
I've had a little hiatus from writing, but some MLB stuff has me wanting to scribe today...
The trade deadline in baseball came and went without much fanfare. And that shouldn't be a surprise.
With so many teams still within sniffing distance of the playoffs (including division leaders, there are 15 teams within 5 games of a playoff spot entering today) and the extra wild card spot helping keep teams in the playoff race, there's not a lot of teams willing to pull the trigger on major moves. Some of these teams on the fringe are in the uneviable position of "Should I Stay or Should I Go?", not far enough out of the playoffs to concede anything but far enough where you're going to have to gain X number of games on a bunch of teams in the next two months.
Trading guys was no problem for the crap de la crap of baseball (Astros, Cubs, White Sox all trading top half of the rotation starters to contenders). Hell, we even got one of the best trades for names in MLB history, as the Orioles shipped Hoes (L.J. Hoes - he's real, trust me) to Houston for Bud (Bud Norris). The only other trade I can think of with better names was when Detroit traded Furbush to Seattle for Fister.
Two stories that have transpired from the past couple weeks could not have been timed out better. As A-Rod, among many others, awaits his suspension from MLB on his role with the Biogenesis facility that has trampled the season of Ryan Braun, Albert Pujols went on the disabled list with a torn plantar facia, an injury that has been bothering him all season. According to many sources, it sounds as though he may be done for the year - just like his fellow Angels are (14 games back in AL West, 10 games back in Wild Card as of today).
The timing of this news has led a lot of sites to ask which of the contracts was worse - A-Rod or Albert? What the real question should be is: is this the end of long-term deals? It was going to be difficult for either of them to truly live up to the expectations of the size and length of their respective contracts (each got 10-year deals).
Here's what Albert has done since 2012 since becoming a member of the Angels. Those are not terrible stats, but when compared to the first 11 years of his career, there's a sharp decline in all of his power numbers (from 162 game averages of 43 home runs .328 average, .420 on base, .617 slugging with St. Louis to 31 home runs, .275 average, .338 on base, .485 slugging with the Angels.) In other words, he went from a Hall-of-Fame player to a guy that's above average, but definitely trending downwards (and in a hurry). There's still eight years on his mega-deal (10 years, 240M), so there's still time for him to turn things around (perhaps the injury has hurt his production?). But more likely, this is the sign of a player who is on the latter half of his career who can still produce at above-average player percentages. However, above-average is not what the Angels paid for.
As I said back in 2011, I thought it was smart for the Cardinals not to overpay for Albert. In my lifetime, they are as smart and steady of an organization as there has been in the majors, almost always in playoff contention. They made it to three World Series with Albert (won two), so they definitely got their money's worth and the very best of his contract. For this contract to be worth it for the Angels, I think they will need to win at least one World Series.
In that same article linked in the previous paragraph, I noted the stats of A-Rod since he signed his deal. Nothing has changed that would support this being a smart contract for the Yankees - a sub-par 2012 and a non-existent 2013 that is likely to end in suspension tell that story. They did win a title with him in 2009, which honestly seems decades ago with how much has happened in baseball and with A-Rod since then.
In the aftermath of these deals, I think you will see these big market teams be smarter in making these long-term deals. Should a long deal be made, it will be similar to the Dustin Pedroia extension with the Red Sox (a 6-year deal that signs him through his 38th birthday). Signing a 31-year-old guy to a ten-year-deal has proven to be a foolish move. The best of these guy's careers has already passed, and paying a 38/39 year-old Pujols close to $30M is going to be a disaster towards a team's payroll - the return on investment is going to be brutal for the Angels. If another 10-year deal is to be made, it will be for a guy in his mid-20s, which would be infinitely smarter than the Albert & A-Rod deals.
Ironically, it's contracts like these that have helped teams with smaller payrolls become contenders - as these teams have no chance in hell of ever being able to sign a guy to that long and rich of a contract.
A list of each team's payroll entering 2013 shows that you can contend in MLB with a lower payroll. Out of the six division leaders through July 30, there's more teams in the bottom half leading divisions than their higher spending bretheren:
AL West: Oakland (60M, 27th overall out of 30 teams)
AL East: Tampa Bay (57M, 28th)
AL Central: Detroit (148M, 5th)
AL Wild Cards & Contenders: Boston (150M, 4th), Baltimore (90M, 15th ), Cleveland (77M, 21st), Texas (112M, 12th)
NL West: Los Angeles (216M, 2nd)
NL East: Atlanta (89M, 16th)
NL Central: Pittsburgh (79M, 20th)
NL Wild Cards & Contenders: St. Louis (115M, 11th), Cincinnati (107M, 13th), Arizona (89M, 17th)
While not likely to happen, it is possible that none of the top-10 spending teams make the playoffs. That would require Detroit and Los Angeles (the NL version) to tail off in the last two months and for Boston to slip out of the Wild Card - all of which I don't see happening. Best case scenario for the big spenders - three of the top 10 make it.
You may think some of these teams are flukes, but keep in mind that the Rays have been in the playoffs or on the fringe of it for a while now, Oakland won the division last year, and Pittsburgh has had strong first halves of seasons for three straight years now. These teams are all heading in the right direction and have solid player bases to remain contenders for the foreseeable future.
Argue all you want about MLB needing a salary cap, but I don't think that's accurate. In fact, it has forced these smaller teams to think outside the box, crunching numbers that were not studied decades ago in order to maximize the talent on its limited payroll (at least limited compared to the Yankees and Red Sox of the world).
I'll take my chances with the Rays, Pirates & Athletics' set-up for the next five years over what we have on both sides of Chicago.
Dead Trade Winds
The trade deadline in baseball came and went without much fanfare. And that shouldn't be a surprise.
With so many teams still within sniffing distance of the playoffs (including division leaders, there are 15 teams within 5 games of a playoff spot entering today) and the extra wild card spot helping keep teams in the playoff race, there's not a lot of teams willing to pull the trigger on major moves. Some of these teams on the fringe are in the uneviable position of "Should I Stay or Should I Go?", not far enough out of the playoffs to concede anything but far enough where you're going to have to gain X number of games on a bunch of teams in the next two months.
Trading guys was no problem for the crap de la crap of baseball (Astros, Cubs, White Sox all trading top half of the rotation starters to contenders). Hell, we even got one of the best trades for names in MLB history, as the Orioles shipped Hoes (L.J. Hoes - he's real, trust me) to Houston for Bud (Bud Norris). The only other trade I can think of with better names was when Detroit traded Furbush to Seattle for Fister.
The End of Long Deals?
Two stories that have transpired from the past couple weeks could not have been timed out better. As A-Rod, among many others, awaits his suspension from MLB on his role with the Biogenesis facility that has trampled the season of Ryan Braun, Albert Pujols went on the disabled list with a torn plantar facia, an injury that has been bothering him all season. According to many sources, it sounds as though he may be done for the year - just like his fellow Angels are (14 games back in AL West, 10 games back in Wild Card as of today).
The timing of this news has led a lot of sites to ask which of the contracts was worse - A-Rod or Albert? What the real question should be is: is this the end of long-term deals? It was going to be difficult for either of them to truly live up to the expectations of the size and length of their respective contracts (each got 10-year deals).
Here's what Albert has done since 2012 since becoming a member of the Angels. Those are not terrible stats, but when compared to the first 11 years of his career, there's a sharp decline in all of his power numbers (from 162 game averages of 43 home runs .328 average, .420 on base, .617 slugging with St. Louis to 31 home runs, .275 average, .338 on base, .485 slugging with the Angels.) In other words, he went from a Hall-of-Fame player to a guy that's above average, but definitely trending downwards (and in a hurry). There's still eight years on his mega-deal (10 years, 240M), so there's still time for him to turn things around (perhaps the injury has hurt his production?). But more likely, this is the sign of a player who is on the latter half of his career who can still produce at above-average player percentages. However, above-average is not what the Angels paid for.
As I said back in 2011, I thought it was smart for the Cardinals not to overpay for Albert. In my lifetime, they are as smart and steady of an organization as there has been in the majors, almost always in playoff contention. They made it to three World Series with Albert (won two), so they definitely got their money's worth and the very best of his contract. For this contract to be worth it for the Angels, I think they will need to win at least one World Series.
In that same article linked in the previous paragraph, I noted the stats of A-Rod since he signed his deal. Nothing has changed that would support this being a smart contract for the Yankees - a sub-par 2012 and a non-existent 2013 that is likely to end in suspension tell that story. They did win a title with him in 2009, which honestly seems decades ago with how much has happened in baseball and with A-Rod since then.
In the aftermath of these deals, I think you will see these big market teams be smarter in making these long-term deals. Should a long deal be made, it will be similar to the Dustin Pedroia extension with the Red Sox (a 6-year deal that signs him through his 38th birthday). Signing a 31-year-old guy to a ten-year-deal has proven to be a foolish move. The best of these guy's careers has already passed, and paying a 38/39 year-old Pujols close to $30M is going to be a disaster towards a team's payroll - the return on investment is going to be brutal for the Angels. If another 10-year deal is to be made, it will be for a guy in his mid-20s, which would be infinitely smarter than the Albert & A-Rod deals.
The Rise of the Small Payrolls
Ironically, it's contracts like these that have helped teams with smaller payrolls become contenders - as these teams have no chance in hell of ever being able to sign a guy to that long and rich of a contract.
A list of each team's payroll entering 2013 shows that you can contend in MLB with a lower payroll. Out of the six division leaders through July 30, there's more teams in the bottom half leading divisions than their higher spending bretheren:
AL West: Oakland (60M, 27th overall out of 30 teams)
AL East: Tampa Bay (57M, 28th)
AL Central: Detroit (148M, 5th)
AL Wild Cards & Contenders: Boston (150M, 4th), Baltimore (90M, 15th ), Cleveland (77M, 21st), Texas (112M, 12th)
NL West: Los Angeles (216M, 2nd)
NL East: Atlanta (89M, 16th)
NL Central: Pittsburgh (79M, 20th)
NL Wild Cards & Contenders: St. Louis (115M, 11th), Cincinnati (107M, 13th), Arizona (89M, 17th)
While not likely to happen, it is possible that none of the top-10 spending teams make the playoffs. That would require Detroit and Los Angeles (the NL version) to tail off in the last two months and for Boston to slip out of the Wild Card - all of which I don't see happening. Best case scenario for the big spenders - three of the top 10 make it.
You may think some of these teams are flukes, but keep in mind that the Rays have been in the playoffs or on the fringe of it for a while now, Oakland won the division last year, and Pittsburgh has had strong first halves of seasons for three straight years now. These teams are all heading in the right direction and have solid player bases to remain contenders for the foreseeable future.
Argue all you want about MLB needing a salary cap, but I don't think that's accurate. In fact, it has forced these smaller teams to think outside the box, crunching numbers that were not studied decades ago in order to maximize the talent on its limited payroll (at least limited compared to the Yankees and Red Sox of the world).
I'll take my chances with the Rays, Pirates & Athletics' set-up for the next five years over what we have on both sides of Chicago.
7/22/2013
Closer to Go(o)d: Some Surprising Stats on the Recent Use of Closers in Baseball
As I sit staring at my computer screen Sunday afternoon while Fernando Rodney did the best he could to blow a ninth-inning lead for the second straight day, I couldn't help but think that the Tampa Bay Rays would need to fix this problem in order to have any shot at winning the World Series. With how stubborn some managers can be to make change when the team is winning (the Rays have won 15 of their last 17 games), I was wondering how reluctant Joe Maddon might be to pull the struggling closer from his late-inning duties for someone else in the pen (maybe even through a trade).
To help me out with this (to see if Maddon might do this), I was surprised to see a certain trend that has developed in the past ten years when it comes to successful teams changing closers during the season. Dating back to the Marlins use of Ugueth Urbina (acquired via mid-season trade), there have been seven teams who have made the World Series while using a closer down the stretch and into the playoffs who was not the closer on the team to start the year. The other six new closers were with the team to start the year as middle relievers or set-up guys. Many of these guys had been with the organization for several years before even getting their first real chance to close.
Here's a list of the closer match-ups and career saves for the World Series winners and losers since 2001. The save total mentioned is how many career saves they had entering the season that they made the World Series:
I was surprised to see a few things here:
Using this data, it makes me feel a lot better about my Tampa Bay Rays World Series bet, which I made before the season started. Well, assuming Maddon follows his own example from 2008, when he used Dan Wheeler to close down the stretch for a struggling/injured Troy Percival.
Closer to Another Change?
Another item that signals a potential change in closer for the Rays is their willingness over the last half decade to not rely on any particular closer for a multiple year period. I broke down the save leaders on each team from 2008 to 2012 to see how often, from year-to-year, teams had a shift in closers.
The Rays are among three teams who have had a different reliever lead the team in saves for each of the past five seasons. The others (Blue Jays and Nationals) have had far less success in this time period than the Rays (458 - 352 record, 56.5%) in this stretch.
In all, there have been 75 different relievers to lead a team in saves over the past five seasons. With 150 total team seasons played in this span for MLB's 30 teams, this means that the average closer has led his team in saves for two seasons (and since full-time closers always get the most saves on a team, you can argue that this is the lifespan of the average closer).
The breakdown of how many times these relievers led their respective teams in saves:
Most closers have a short shelf-life for several reasons:
I'll take my chances with those numbers than with Rodney, who issues too many walks to be counted on to close out games long-term (an eye-popping 5.4 BB/9 & 1.35 WHIP this season, numbers which are more on par with his career numbers than last year's numbers of 1.8 BB/9 & 0.78 WHIP).
Oh yeah, and one more thing that would work perfect with McGee, at least when it comes to recent World Series trends: he has only 1 career save, earned earlier this season.
To help me out with this (to see if Maddon might do this), I was surprised to see a certain trend that has developed in the past ten years when it comes to successful teams changing closers during the season. Dating back to the Marlins use of Ugueth Urbina (acquired via mid-season trade), there have been seven teams who have made the World Series while using a closer down the stretch and into the playoffs who was not the closer on the team to start the year. The other six new closers were with the team to start the year as middle relievers or set-up guys. Many of these guys had been with the organization for several years before even getting their first real chance to close.
Here's a list of the closer match-ups and career saves for the World Series winners and losers since 2001. The save total mentioned is how many career saves they had entering the season that they made the World Series:
| WS Winner | WS Loser | |||
| 2012 | Romo* (3) | Valverde (242) | ||
| 2011 | Motte* (3) | Feliz (42) | ||
| 2010 | Wilson (86) | Feliz (2) | ||
| 2009 | Rivera (482) | Lidge (164) | ||
| 2008 | Lidge (123) | Wheeler* (25) | ||
| 2007 | Papelbon (35) | Corpas* (0) | ||
| 2006 | Wainwright* (0) | Jones (226) | ||
| 2005 | Jenks* (0) | Lidge (30) | ||
| 2004 | Foulke (143) | Isringhausen (130) | ||
| 2003 | Urbina* (174) | Rivera (243) | ||
| 2002 | Percival (210) | Nen (271) | ||
| 2001 | Kim (15) | Rivera (165) | ||
| *less regular season saves than main closer, but used as closer in playoffs | ||||
I was surprised to see a few things here:
- The lack of experience that the closers who have won World Series this decade. Seven of the last eight World Series have had a closer who entered the season with 25 or less career saves.
- The number of times a team has had the balls to change a closer during the season. For seven managers to do this in the midst of successful seasons is a testament to how good of managers some of these guys are. In many of these cases, the new closer likely saved the team from missing the postseason altogether.
- Brad Lidge is tied with Mariano Rivera for most times being the closer of a World Series team this century.
Using this data, it makes me feel a lot better about my Tampa Bay Rays World Series bet, which I made before the season started. Well, assuming Maddon follows his own example from 2008, when he used Dan Wheeler to close down the stretch for a struggling/injured Troy Percival.
Closer to Another Change?
Another item that signals a potential change in closer for the Rays is their willingness over the last half decade to not rely on any particular closer for a multiple year period. I broke down the save leaders on each team from 2008 to 2012 to see how often, from year-to-year, teams had a shift in closers.
The Rays are among three teams who have had a different reliever lead the team in saves for each of the past five seasons. The others (Blue Jays and Nationals) have had far less success in this time period than the Rays (458 - 352 record, 56.5%) in this stretch.
In all, there have been 75 different relievers to lead a team in saves over the past five seasons. With 150 total team seasons played in this span for MLB's 30 teams, this means that the average closer has led his team in saves for two seasons (and since full-time closers always get the most saves on a team, you can argue that this is the lifespan of the average closer).
The breakdown of how many times these relievers led their respective teams in saves:
- Three closers have led a team in saves for all five years during this stretch (Jose Valverde, Jonathan Papelbon, Huston Street), all of whom have played for multiple teams during this stretch.
- Nine closers have led four years, including Kevin Gregg, who has led four different teams in saves during this time (the only player with this distinction).
- 13 closers have led three years - this is the most common length of a closer's career it seems.
- 10 closers have led two years.
- 40 closers have led a team in saves for only one season.
Most closers have a short shelf-life for several reasons:
- Many times, relievers become relievers because they sucked as starting pitchers. Not too many pitchers actually get drafted as relievers when they come out of college. If they sucked as starting pitchers, they're likely to be relievers for the rest of their career should it be something they excel at - otherwise they won't last long in the big.
In a typical good reliever's career, there will be a handful of seasons that aren't as good. Sometimes, these seasons are bad enough to prevent these guys from ever getting another closing gig. Or you may argue that some of these guys had fluke seasons during their brief success and their lack of talent eventually caught up to them when the league figured them out (like Shingo Takastu with the White Sox). - In the case of some closers, especially the ones who have led a team in saves only once, they were the replacement for a closer who got hurt early in the season. Sometimes, these guys are able to handle the role well and last more than a couple seasons as closer for another team.
- Certain guys get pigeon-holed into specific roles that cannot be explained. A closer-in-waiting, who has better overall numbers and stuff than the guy closing, may never get a full-time chance to be closer if his manager prefers to stick with a guy he likes who might have more experience than these guys "in waiting".
I'll take my chances with those numbers than with Rodney, who issues too many walks to be counted on to close out games long-term (an eye-popping 5.4 BB/9 & 1.35 WHIP this season, numbers which are more on par with his career numbers than last year's numbers of 1.8 BB/9 & 0.78 WHIP).
Oh yeah, and one more thing that would work perfect with McGee, at least when it comes to recent World Series trends: he has only 1 career save, earned earlier this season.
7/17/2013
The Unemployment Chronicles Chapter 2: Linking Myself In
Last week, my unemployment became official when I submitted my lay off notice to the Illinois Department of Employment Services (IDES). It felt weird waking up on a Monday and having no work junk emails to delete. It also felt weird waking up around 10-11am or so. I decided to give myself a little time to unwind following the lay off, hence the extra sleep.
That's not to say I haven't been looking for jobs - I have. But my focus in the days leading up to my last day at Tango2 and my first days/first week of unemployment were more or less about getting my cards in order. The best way to do that, I've found, is through LinkedIn.
Many of you are probably already familiar with LinkedIn, but for those who aren't, the site is a more professional version of Facebook (let's just say, you might not want to have that picture of you taking jello shots with your friends as your profile for this site). LinkedIn is basically an online resume of what you want prospective employers and networks to see.
For those of you who wish to use LinkedIn optimally, here's a few things I've found out that can help the most:
Now's the time for me to set myself up with some hard leads and get myself some interviews. Hopefully that will be chronicled in one of the next Unemployment Chronicles.
I may need some help with my resume, so anyone who knows anyone who specializes in resumes, I'd be glad to send you mine to see what I may need to edit.
Thanks for reading. Please feel free to connect with me on LinkedIn if you haven't already. I would be glad to write you a recommendation if I've worked with you in the past or endorse some skills of yours.
That's not to say I haven't been looking for jobs - I have. But my focus in the days leading up to my last day at Tango2 and my first days/first week of unemployment were more or less about getting my cards in order. The best way to do that, I've found, is through LinkedIn.
Many of you are probably already familiar with LinkedIn, but for those who aren't, the site is a more professional version of Facebook (let's just say, you might not want to have that picture of you taking jello shots with your friends as your profile for this site). LinkedIn is basically an online resume of what you want prospective employers and networks to see.
For those of you who wish to use LinkedIn optimally, here's a few things I've found out that can help the most:
- One of my favorite features of LinkedIn is the recommendations section. The people you add as connections and vice versa can vouch for your work history by writing up a small blurb of their interactions with you at your current or past job.
One of my recommendations for the recommendations section is to initiate the recommendations yourself. Write about your colleagues who you have interacted with the most and let the world know about their professional strengths. In many cases, you'll find that these colleagues will return the favor and publicly vouch (on LinkedIn) for how great of a job you did for the company. - There's also an option on the site for you to endorse people's skills. This can work in several ways - you can add skills yourself or you can have someone endorse you for a skill. In this particular section, the skills that you have been endorsed for the most will show up towards the top of this section. Again, like the previous point, I recommend taking the first step and endorsing people's skills in hopes that they can return the favor.
- While I haven't utilized these yet, I recommend joining groups in your area of employment or desired area of employment. There are groups for just about every different type of profession, and to help you further, there are a lot of groups specific to professionals in a certain city or region. This can help you connect quickly to people in your area and profession that you may have never known before. I am in a few groups myself, but have not utilized these as well as I should.
- And last but not least, you can check out jobs a lot easier than you can on most of those job building sites. Most of the jobs that pop up on my page are relating to my last role as a Sales Support Specialist. My guess is that it caters to what you have mentioned in your job history in your profile, so make sure you provide up-to-date and accurate job titles for the companys you have worked.
Now's the time for me to set myself up with some hard leads and get myself some interviews. Hopefully that will be chronicled in one of the next Unemployment Chronicles.
I may need some help with my resume, so anyone who knows anyone who specializes in resumes, I'd be glad to send you mine to see what I may need to edit.
Thanks for reading. Please feel free to connect with me on LinkedIn if you haven't already. I would be glad to write you a recommendation if I've worked with you in the past or endorse some skills of yours.
7/16/2013
No Tying in Baseball: Looking Back at 2002 MLB All-Star Game (The Most Meaningful Meaningless Game in All-Star History)
Entering the 2013 MLB All-Star game, there's been 10 mid-season exhibition games that have been played that have counted. And by counted, I mean that the winner of these glorified exhibition games, or at least that's what they should be (as they were for the seven decades before that) earned the right to home field advantage for its respective league.
It didn't have to be that way.
The 2002 All-Star game, held on July 9th of that season, was coming at an awkward time for the game. The players and owners were staring down the barrel of more labor issues...another strike. I remember this because I was a few days away from going on a 12-day baseball road trip and was considering making a sign to carry to games, "No Balls, Two Strikes, We're Out". I did not make this sign, somewhat out of laziness and also I thought it would be inconvenient to carry that sign around everywhere. Where was I....oh yeah, awkward times. The last thing the MLB wanted at this point was some controversial occurrence to mar everything that promised to be with the All-Star festivities.
Some of the best MLB players were on display*, a who's who of the steroid era: Bonds, Sosa, Giambi, A-Rod, Manny.
Bud Selig had nothing to worry about...right?
No way. In fact, the game started out with one of the best All-Star plays in recent memory, as Torri Hunter scaled the wall to bring back a Bonds dinger in the first inning of the game, prompting a rare playful Bonds to run out to the outfield to launch Hunter over his back.
Who would have known that play could be one of the reasons why the All-Star format changed the following year? The use of 19 pitches (10 NL/9 AL) in the following 10 innings, and Bud Selig declares the game a tie in front of the Milwaukee fans, who greeted the news from their former owner by showering the field with beer bottles and tremendous hostility.
In 22 half-innings of baseball, Joe Torre and Bob Brenly managed to run out of pitchers to use. In less than a years-time, the two skippers go from battling in a memorable seven-game World Series (won by Arizona) to being the center of the ugliest non-steroid story that baseball has seen since the 1994 strike.
Why did they use all of these pitchers? Well, one of the traditions at this time in these games is to make sure as many of these All-Stars get to play as possible. A look at the box score shows that only two pitchers between both teams threw more than 30 pitches (Mark Buehrle & Freddy Garcia). Those two were among only five pitchers who toed the pitching rubber for multiple innings. It is understandable that managers do not want to burn these pitchers out in an exhibition, but to have 14 of 19 guys pitch an inning or less lends itself to a catastrophe such as this. Without increasing the total of pitchers allowed on the roster or allowing some of these guys back on the mound in case a game goes long, you were bound to have this happen at some point.
When Garcia struck out Benito Santiago in caught-looking fashion to end the eleventh inning, it was Selig and other MLB brass who were left caught looking at a result (a tie game) that could have easily been prevented. Whether it be forcing the managers to have better management of your pitchers, allowing pitchers to re-enter the game, or allowing for the addition of more pitchers, there were ways around avoiding this tie.
The irony of people booing at the end result of an exhibition game oozes with the tragic irony that Shakespeare plays thrived upon. It was the sole reason that Selig vowed that a tie would never happen again, bestowing home field advantage in the World Series to the team that won the glorified exhibition game.
And despite this World Series stipulation, the commissioner's office made sure to keep some of the format of previous games (i.e. mandatory one player from each team, no matter how undeserving the team may be) that directly conflict with the best of each league playing for the rights of the extra game for their league (ideally one of the players' every-day team).
It made no sense when it started in 2003. It still makes no sense now in 2013.
For a sport that is usually so rooted in the past that traditionalists have a hard time adjusting to changes in the game - interleague baseball, wild card, sabermetrics, instant replay - one item that it should revert back to its traditions is making the baseball an actual exhibition game, just like it was in 2002. Let every team continue to be represented. Let the game be fun, where even guys like Bonds can enjoy themselves without the extra burden of having to play for its league's right to earn the World Series home field.
Never thought I would say this, MLB, but for once, don't embrace the change you made ten years ago.
*couple interesting notes:
It didn't have to be that way.
The 2002 All-Star game, held on July 9th of that season, was coming at an awkward time for the game. The players and owners were staring down the barrel of more labor issues...another strike. I remember this because I was a few days away from going on a 12-day baseball road trip and was considering making a sign to carry to games, "No Balls, Two Strikes, We're Out". I did not make this sign, somewhat out of laziness and also I thought it would be inconvenient to carry that sign around everywhere. Where was I....oh yeah, awkward times. The last thing the MLB wanted at this point was some controversial occurrence to mar everything that promised to be with the All-Star festivities.
Some of the best MLB players were on display*, a who's who of the steroid era: Bonds, Sosa, Giambi, A-Rod, Manny.
Bud Selig had nothing to worry about...right?
No way. In fact, the game started out with one of the best All-Star plays in recent memory, as Torri Hunter scaled the wall to bring back a Bonds dinger in the first inning of the game, prompting a rare playful Bonds to run out to the outfield to launch Hunter over his back.
Who would have known that play could be one of the reasons why the All-Star format changed the following year? The use of 19 pitches (10 NL/9 AL) in the following 10 innings, and Bud Selig declares the game a tie in front of the Milwaukee fans, who greeted the news from their former owner by showering the field with beer bottles and tremendous hostility.
In 22 half-innings of baseball, Joe Torre and Bob Brenly managed to run out of pitchers to use. In less than a years-time, the two skippers go from battling in a memorable seven-game World Series (won by Arizona) to being the center of the ugliest non-steroid story that baseball has seen since the 1994 strike.
Why did they use all of these pitchers? Well, one of the traditions at this time in these games is to make sure as many of these All-Stars get to play as possible. A look at the box score shows that only two pitchers between both teams threw more than 30 pitches (Mark Buehrle & Freddy Garcia). Those two were among only five pitchers who toed the pitching rubber for multiple innings. It is understandable that managers do not want to burn these pitchers out in an exhibition, but to have 14 of 19 guys pitch an inning or less lends itself to a catastrophe such as this. Without increasing the total of pitchers allowed on the roster or allowing some of these guys back on the mound in case a game goes long, you were bound to have this happen at some point.
When Garcia struck out Benito Santiago in caught-looking fashion to end the eleventh inning, it was Selig and other MLB brass who were left caught looking at a result (a tie game) that could have easily been prevented. Whether it be forcing the managers to have better management of your pitchers, allowing pitchers to re-enter the game, or allowing for the addition of more pitchers, there were ways around avoiding this tie.
The irony of people booing at the end result of an exhibition game oozes with the tragic irony that Shakespeare plays thrived upon. It was the sole reason that Selig vowed that a tie would never happen again, bestowing home field advantage in the World Series to the team that won the glorified exhibition game.
And despite this World Series stipulation, the commissioner's office made sure to keep some of the format of previous games (i.e. mandatory one player from each team, no matter how undeserving the team may be) that directly conflict with the best of each league playing for the rights of the extra game for their league (ideally one of the players' every-day team).
It made no sense when it started in 2003. It still makes no sense now in 2013.
For a sport that is usually so rooted in the past that traditionalists have a hard time adjusting to changes in the game - interleague baseball, wild card, sabermetrics, instant replay - one item that it should revert back to its traditions is making the baseball an actual exhibition game, just like it was in 2002. Let every team continue to be represented. Let the game be fun, where even guys like Bonds can enjoy themselves without the extra burden of having to play for its league's right to earn the World Series home field.
Never thought I would say this, MLB, but for once, don't embrace the change you made ten years ago.
*couple interesting notes:
- Three current Sox were selected for that game - Paul Konerko, Robin Ventura (as a Yankee...and a player) and Adam Dunn (Reds). If you count A.J. Pierzynski, there were four White Sox members in 2012 who were involved in the game played ten years earlier.
- Five of the nine AL Starters (Giambi, Alfonso Soriano, A-Rod, Hunter, Ichiro) and two of the NL starters (Todd Helton & Jimmy Rollins) are on active MLB rosters. An additional nine AL bench/pitchers and two NL bench players are still active.
7/14/2013
The Zimmerman Case & The Many Questions I Still Have
I tried staying away from blogging about this, but with so many random thoughts going on in my brain about the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case which just wrapped up last night, I had to try writing them out and maybe make some sense out of everything. It may very well be a fruitless activity, but here goes nothing...
In cases involving murder, rarely will you find one that does not have a passionate base of people rooting for a particular outcome - in recent cases, like Casey Anthony, the rooting interest is on the side of conviction (perhaps the result of the way the media may frame a case from the onset).
What I found most interesting in this case (Zimmerman) was that there was a clear line in the sand, with two different beaches of people just hoping beyond hope that "the right verdict" would be read to conclude the trial. More on this later...
When the verdict was announced, I was not shocked at the result. My feeling all along was that this would happen. In the justice system, cases such as this have to have a prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty (or at least that's how they're supposed to work). It was not an issue of whether he killed Martin, but whether it was in self-defense. Based on the details provided, there appeared to be a physical altercation before Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. It was enough for the12-person jury (another editor's note: mistaken again, I had 12 in mind when I wrote this last night and did not fact-check it. It was a 6-person jury) to find Zimmerman not guilty of the second degree murder charge.
Now just because I believe that he would be found guilty mean I think he should be? That's where my line of thinking starts going in different directions.
While I understand the ruling of "not guilty" based purely on the legal system grounds of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self-defense, I'm not understanding the social network celebration I saw from a select few, as if Zimmerman was their close relative about to be locked up for a long time. Were you celebrating something specific, like this was a victory for gun rights? Or were you a proponent of the verdict because you feel it upholds what a justice system is supposed to do in a murder case - make it the burden on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty? Or was it something else altogether?
Like so many others, I have more questions than answers when this case came to a close. These questions include questions to people I know.
For those of you who side with Zimmerman, what are your thoughts on him disobeying the order to not approach Martin? If he was going to do whatever the hell he wanted anyways, why call the cops in the first place? These questions, as well as many others involved with this case, may never get definite answers.
While it may be difficult, given the emotion behind the case, to have a rational discussion, I welcome anyone's perspective on this that may have a different viewpoint or different spin on this. Feel free to message me (privately if you'd like, and we can keep it private); I'd like to hear your thoughts.
In cases involving murder, rarely will you find one that does not have a passionate base of people rooting for a particular outcome - in recent cases, like Casey Anthony, the rooting interest is on the side of conviction (perhaps the result of the way the media may frame a case from the onset).
What I found most interesting in this case (Zimmerman) was that there was a clear line in the sand, with two different beaches of people just hoping beyond hope that "the right verdict" would be read to conclude the trial. More on this later...
When the verdict was announced, I was not shocked at the result. My feeling all along was that this would happen. In the justice system, cases such as this have to have a prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty (or at least that's how they're supposed to work). It was not an issue of whether he killed Martin, but whether it was in self-defense. Based on the details provided, there appeared to be a physical altercation before Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. It was enough for the
Now just because I believe that he would be found guilty mean I think he should be? That's where my line of thinking starts going in different directions.
- If Zimmerman does not leave his car, then Martin is likely alive today.
- If Martin didn't "look the part" of someone who Zimmerman would find suspicious, then Zimmerman likely leaves Martin alone, result the same as the situation above.
- In the moment where he left his car
when he was explicitly told not to(editor's note: I mistakenly remembered the 911 tape as it had been played. No explicit instructions were given to Zimmerman to stay in the car, although one could argue that the operator response of "You don't have to do that" when Zimmerman stated he was going to leave his car would at least implicitly state that he should stay in his car and leave it to authorities), did Zimmerman waive any reasonable claim to the controversial Stand Your Ground in Florida? Or does it only apply when the actual altercation occurs (which starts the moments after Zimmerman leaves his car and likely does not occur if he stays put)? I have no legal background, so I am not aware. Based on the verdict, it appears that the altercation is the basis of it and not the initial leaving his car. - If Zimmerman was not carrying a gun when, by the accounts that I have read Martin was beating down on him in their altercation, would Zimmerman have lost his life? Was he really worried that his life was in danger and thought that the gun was the only way to save himself? This seems to be where the case was decided - I think. The prosecution had to prove the Stand Your Ground didn't apply here.
Those who I have read supporting the verdict range in scope. Some respect the ruling on the grounds that the justice system worked because (in their eyes), the charges of second degree murder could not be proven to the full-proof extent of which is expected in criminal cases (civil court may prove to be a different battle altogether).
Then there have been those who have other issues and/or agendas involved in the case. Out of the people I have seen supporting Zimmerman, I know that many of these people have come out in full-support of conceal and carry in the past. Was this the only reason that some people were rooting for Zimmerman to win? For some of my Illinois folks, who are still trying to figure out how the state's new conceal laws will be read/enforced, I believe it was. There may be a few other issues on the table which led some to Zimmerman's side, perhaps related to race. Whether someone would actually admit to that is another issue altogether.
Those who are disappointed with the ruling believe that the justice system failed on many levels. The system (in their eyes) failed to convict a man who shot a 17 year old dead, one who posed no immediate threat to Zimmerman until he stepped out of his car when given instructions not to do so.
Not only do many think the system failed, but that it failed again. The reference of many in this sense refers to minorities, who have historically been on the discriminated side of the justice system. When a murder case contains the appearance of racial profiling (in this case, Zimmerman profiling Martin) and the victim's friends and family see a ruling like Martin's did, it's understandable to doubt the system.
While I understand the ruling of "not guilty" based purely on the legal system grounds of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self-defense, I'm not understanding the social network celebration I saw from a select few, as if Zimmerman was their close relative about to be locked up for a long time. Were you celebrating something specific, like this was a victory for gun rights? Or were you a proponent of the verdict because you feel it upholds what a justice system is supposed to do in a murder case - make it the burden on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty? Or was it something else altogether?
Like so many others, I have more questions than answers when this case came to a close. These questions include questions to people I know.
For those of you who side with Zimmerman, what are your thoughts on him disobeying the order to not approach Martin? If he was going to do whatever the hell he wanted anyways, why call the cops in the first place? These questions, as well as many others involved with this case, may never get definite answers.
While it may be difficult, given the emotion behind the case, to have a rational discussion, I welcome anyone's perspective on this that may have a different viewpoint or different spin on this. Feel free to message me (privately if you'd like, and we can keep it private); I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)