Spring!

No better way to welcome spring than to have a couple of business meetings, on a park bench, in the shadow of a shiny MLB stadium. Actually, there are probably many better ways to welcome spring, but I went with the park bench thing.

This is Petco Park in San Diego, one of the nicer stadiums I have visited (and the nicest one, in the shadow of which, I ever conducted business)

Which Sport has the Best Athletes?

I am not answering that question in this post. I will however narrow the field.

I can often be heard defending baseball players as highly skilled, intelligent, disciplined and, indeed, athletic. At other times, you may hear me lament the fact that pitchers cannot run from the bullpen to the mound and outfielders, when stranded on base, cannot run to the bench for their glove before returning to defense. Instead, it must be delivered to them while they stroll toward the wall. I contribute both of these examples to laziness, not to a lack of athleticism.

Yesterday I heard this real news report about Manny Ramirez who is preparing for the end of his suspension by playing a few minor league games. An ESPN reported said "Manny got 3 at-bats last night, he's going to try to last 5 innings tonight and hopefully get 3 more at-bats. If all goes well, he wants to try to play 7 innings tomorrow."

Are you kidding me? He plays left field. In a full game, a left fielder might, if really active, burn 20 calories. I think almost any 50-year old accountant could step away from his desk in mid-tax season and play a nine inning baseball game. He may not play well but he would be fit enough to last. Manny is a 38 year old professional athlete and he has to work up to nine innings?

You may now officially strike baseball players from the list of sports worth considering in your answer to the question posed by the title of this post.

Switch Pitcher

Contributed by Auggie
--------------------------------

As a young baseball fan I would often bat opposite handed in the hopes of becoming a legitimate switch hitter. Then I had the bright idea “what if I could throw with both hands”? What an advantage that would be - simply switch hands depending on which side of the plate the batter was hitting from. Not to mention the arm strain you could save by switching it up. Why hadn’t anyone done this yet?

I immediately set out to improve the coordination in my ‘other’ hand by performing a multitude of daily tasks. It wasn’t easy but I was a determined young fool. Then one day while enjoying a hearty plate of macaroni and cheese I over shot my target and accidently performed rhinoplasty surgery on myself with a fork. I realized then what a daunting task it would be to develop the requisite coordination in this arm. If I couldn’t even feed myself then punching out Wade Boggs with a nasty slider down and away seemed like, well, too much work really.

Now I am happy to report there is hope of witnessing this phenomenon. A forward-thinking father realized that to develop these skills you need to start young, and so he trained his son to throw with both hands at a very early age as told in this story by ESPN’s Rick Reilly. I for one will be watching with interest.

The End of My Innocence

This one caught me by surprise. The evidence strongly suggests that Manny Ramirez is a steroid user and he has been suspended by MLB for 50 games in accordance with their banned substance abuse policy.

Who's next? Jeter? Youk? Santana? Is anyone legal?

My reaction to this story is the manifestation of MLB's worst nightmare. I have lost my ability to believe that the game is mostly clean. Now I think cheating is the norm.

I have written that I don't think steroids make a major impact on hitting and I stand by that. But I do think that using them is cheating and it changes my perspective on the game if it appears that a high percentage of the game's stars are cheaters.

Good Baseball Trivia

Question: Who is the one player who was on the field when Pete Rose Broke Ty Cobb's all-time hits record AND when Hank Aaron broke Babe Ruth's all-time HR record?

This is a great bit of trivia given the importance that MLB fans have traditionally placed on those two records. It is quite amazing that one player, a notable baseball name in his own right, was on the field on both occasions given that Rose set the hits mark in 1985 and Aaron became the HR King in 1974.

To be sure you didn't accidentally see the answer below before you were ready, I wrote it backwards and inserted a "b" between each letter of the player's name.

Answer: bybebvbrbabg bebvbebtbsb

#6 Prettiest Play

I didn't include it in my top 5 because it is so uncommon. When it does happen, it never seems to be an aesthetic play for some reason or another.

But this was beautiful - probably because it was a lefty at bat.

Thank you Jacoby for reminding me. The sixth prettiest play in baseball is the steal of home.

Top 5 Prettiest Plays

Following last night's post on the prettiest play in baseball, my imaginary inbox has virtually overflowed with opinions. Let me set the record straight about the top 5 prettiest plays:

1. This has already been covered; it's the 3-6-1 DP with Micky Lolich on the mound. I once saw him hit a triple and thought that Lou Brock could have circled the bases two times before Micky lumbered into third.

2. Clearly, the second prettiest play is the 1-2-6 strike-em-out throw-em-out double play.

3. Our top offensive entry on the list is the hit and run with a right handed hitter grounding through the hole vacated by a 2nd baseman covering the steal.

4. I always love the bases loaded double play on an infield grounder that leads to a force play at home and a throw-out at first. I guess the 5-2-3 is the prettiest.

5. Duh, it's the suicide squeeze. But only when it works.

There you have it. No need to email me your pablum about run-downs and pick-offs and triple plays; they are all interesting but rarely pretty.

Prettiest Play in Baseball

I expect there will be many different opinions out there in imaginary reader land but I probably won't allow any of them to sway me.

Certain baseball situations produce certain baseball plays over and over again. Some times such a play is routine and looks the same no matter how may times you see it. I would say a two hopper hit directly at the shortstop with a strong accurate throw to first is pretty common and looks pretty much the same every time you see it.

That is not to say that every 6-3 put out looks the same as there are clear aesthetic differences between the high chopper that must be aggressively charged and followed by an across the body throw and the ripper up the middle that must be scooped from shallow center and flicker to first at an obtuse angle.

For my money, the play that always looks sweet is the 3-6-1 double play and the fatter the pitcher covering first the better. Anyone disagree?

5 baffling sports-related questions

1) How do athletes' salaries become public information? Who has the right to talk about their compensation agreements other than themselves? If any of my imaginary readers know the answer to this, please send me an email.

2) Why do so many athletes, coaches, analysts, and journalists speak of "going out on top" as a noble way to exit the game? To me that is the height of cowardice. If an athlete loses his drive and motivation after climbing to a certain height on the ladder of success, then I think that is a good reason to retire. But quitting so that everyone's last impression will be the one when you won is just another way of saying "now that I've succeeded, I can no longer bear to let anyone see me fail". I will never understand this attitude and I am amazed (and quite frankly, flabbergasted) at how casually and comprehensively it has been socially embraced. The poster boy for "staying too long" seems to be Willie Mays who loved the game so much he couldn't walk away even after his skills had diminished. In my eyes, that makes him all the more worthy of my adulation. He loved the game and played for as long as he could earn a spot on someone's roster, even if he no longer played like a superstar.

3) What is the basis for the common belief that a certain style of play or approach to competition may work in the regular season but not in the play-offs? I understand that the stakes are higher in the post-season and that there may be more pressure to perform on a bigger stage but the rules of engagement, the equipment, and the fundamental competitive parameters are unchanged. A competitive advantage in the regular season is still an advantage despite the date on the calendar, right? So why do I hear this nonsense spewed repeatedly by "experts" while other "experts" nod in agreement? Anyone?

4) Why does the NBA allow its referees to call games in such a way that the home team is expected to shoot significantly more free throws in a match-up than the visitig team? Over and over again...game after game...season after season. This is a direct affront to the notion of fair play. What is the purpose of this travesty?

5) Ever been to the circus? Isn't it mind-boggling to see the upper limits of physical precision that a person can achieve with a concentrated effort? A human being can fly off a trapeze and land on a lever that flings his brother 30 feet into the air where, after a few twisting somersaults en route, he lands squarely on his uncle's shoulders and proceeds, in one fluid motion, to pull a 14-inch carving knife from his teeth with his left foot and flings it through an apple that is strapped to his daughter's head as she rides a roller-skating elephant along a high-wire with no net. Pretty impressive if you ask me. So, why has no major league pitcher developed a behind-the-back pick off move to first base? It is a very simple maneuver compared to the upper limits of what we know we can achieve. Do I have to think these things up or can we expect that the guys who are getting paid to win will start stretching their bounds a little?

Don't Hate Me!

As best as I can recall, I became a fan of the Boston Red-Sox in the summer of 1971. It may have happened before then but certainly not after. If you are even half-way good at math you'll no doubt conclude that this has afforded plenty of time to learn the rules of Red-Sox Nation and I think I have a pretty good command of my role as a faithful follower.

I also think I have a pretty good sense of what is in my heart and lately, there have been a couple of un-Red-Sox-like feelings skirting around in there. I'm not talking about strong passions, just a fleeting sense here and a casual preference there. Not real strong sensations but unmistakeably present and of the type that emanate from the heart.

Here goes. I think I really want Manny to have a great year with the LA Dodgers and part of my wish is tied to my respect for and admiration of ex-Yankee skipper Joe Torre. I know I am supposed to hate both of those guys but I really can't. Manny quit on his team (my team!) which I cannot respect but I am really incapable of carrying a grudge and while my brain is telling me he acted dishonorably in Boston, my heart is rooting for him. I followed his free-agency lunacy, rejecting the Dodger's offers while seeking a more lucrative deal. I know his behavior struck a bitter chord with the public; turning down millions of dollars when so many people are embracing difficult financial times. But what can I say? In my heart I wish him nothing but success. I don't know if this is right or wrong but it is honest.

As for Torre, I can't hold his Yankees association against him. Since I am coming clean, I'll go on the record and say there are many Yankees players I have liked over the years (even the years prior to 2004 when it was sooooo easy to hate that entire franchise from the ownership right down to the fans). I have always really liked Bernie Williams, Derek Jeter, and Jorge Posada. I also like Matsui but mostly because he doesn't leave the batter's box between pitches (one of my top recommendations to those seeking ways to speed up the game). As for Torre, I think he has always played the game right, handled the players right, held his own in a dicey relationship with Steinbrenner, and been a general credit to the game of baseball.

Here's to Manny, Torre, and a great year in 2008...may they lose the World Series to Boston in seven games!

Much ado about steroids...

Look, I'm not condoning it and I join you all in questioning the morality of cheaters...but I really don't think the use of banned substances requires that asterisks begin populating the MLB record book. It seems that those screaming loudest about this issue are trying to protect something as inconsequential as statistics. Not the game, not the players, their concern is for the statistics. Particularly acute screaming has been heard in reference to hitting statistics, especially the hallowed records for home runs hit in a season and in a lifetime. As I will argue below, the statistics are probably only minimally influenced, if at all, by the recent era of increased steroid use in MLB.

If you've ever tried to hit a baseball thrown by an athlete who intends to make you miss it, then you know that "raw strength" is way, way down on the list of physical characteristics needed for success. In fact, physical characteristics as a group are surely subordinate to intellectual characteristics required for success. For example, it takes carefully honed judgment to learn the strike zone and stone-cold discipline to obey that judgment in the heat of competition. It also takes snap-cognitive reflexes to estimate the velocity of the pitch, which may be quite different from the velocity of the previous pitch thrown, and to make the necessary timing adjustment to begin a swing. If the proper timing can be instantly deduced, a hitter still needs lightning-quick decisiveness to determine if the pitch will arrive in a hittable location. Furthermore, a cultivated ability to discern one pitch from another based on a pitcher's motion and/or release point and/or the spin on the ball is primal in hitting success and surely benefits hitters more than any physical characteristics I could name.

Also in the non-physical realm, let's consider psychology, mental toughness, and what I will call "baseball intellect" as it pertains to why one tries to hit the ball in the first place.

First, psychology: Hitting is largely a confrontation between a pitcher and a hitter. There is an element of history between the two stemming from previous at bats and who "won" those encounters. Both parties rely on that history to inform themselves and seek advantages against the other. Each is aware of what the other may have learned last time around and a silent chess match unfolds across the pitches of every at bat. Hitters try to own the plate by crowding close to ensure that they can hit a ball on the outside corner. Pitchers try to reclaim turf by throwing inside and moving the batter back in the box. The psychological victor is heavily favored to win the physical battle and, as far as I know, steroids confer no psychological advantages.

Consider mental toughness: Given the enormity of the competitive pressure under which MLB hitters often find themselves playing, the intellectual challenges described thus far are commonly exacerbated by the emotions of the moment. To remain calm, to concentrate, and to focus one's intellect on the physical task at hand, despite the swirling emotions, the energy of the crowd, and the tension of the competition, requires a confidence and a state of mind that steroids really cannot facilitate. In fact, the scant evidence available suggests that steroids might attenuate mental focus in favor of emotional intensity which would theoretically serve to reduce hitting efficiency.

And finally, baseball intellect: There is a lot to think about during an at-bat and the hitter with acumen for distilling the nuances of the game is advantaged. The contemplative hitter benefits when he knows the pitcher's "go to" pitch and can anticipate the pitch, velocity, and/or location that the pitcher favors in certain circumstances. Furthermore, knowing the game situation is important. For example, if there is a runner on third base, the pitcher may be less inclined to throw low and may resist throwing a breaking pitch to reduce the possibility of a passed ball that would allow the runner to score. Using such knowledge demands that the hitter know and process the score of the game and the stage of the game in order to make a judgment about if such a run would be important enough to influence pitch selection or location. He must also consider who bats next and what kind of success that hitter has had against this pitcher (and against any pitcher who might be called in for relief) as all of this information will greatly influence the likelihood of seeing pitches in the strike zone versus seeing less hittable pitches that might culminate in a walk. In this example, he must also know and process the speed of the runner on 3rd base, the depth of the backstop, and the mobility of the catcher to properly calculate the likelihood of that runner influencing pitch location. Clearly, there is a lot to consider in addition to hitting the ball. It is the hitter who can process this multitude of information and draw a likely conclusion (during the brief moment between two pitches) who will step back into the batter's box with a distinct advantage against the pitcher. Such advantages are not likely derived from abusing banned substances.

If one has the intellect and processing speed for making good swing decisions, the psychological dexterity to spar and win against a crafty pitcher, the mental toughness to tune out the distractions and master the moment, and the baseball intellect to anticipate the probable tendencies of his opponents, then we may begin to consider the physical characteristics of good hitters. But don't kid yourself, even among the physical characteristics that abide successful hitting, it is the non "strength-based" skills such as hand-eye coordination, timing, and flexibility that serve a hitter more faithfully than power.

Alas, if the majority of the disparity between good and bad hitters is explained by the characteristics above, some small portion is certainly attributable to strength. There is no doubt that steroids can help hitters gain strength. Of course, steroid use may also lead to unnatural development of those muscles specifically taxed in weight training and to strength imbalances across muscle groups. This is a recipe for injury and injuries tend to hamper on-field performance and suppress the accumulation of gaudy statistics.

I know what you're thinking....home run statistics went through the roof exactly when steroid use appears to have become more prevalent. The hallowed records fell! What's more, the numbers have diminished in the face of tighter drug testing by the league. Both thoughts are commonly reported, both are untrue. Yes, the records fell; no, the statistics did not go through the roof; no, home run hitting has not declined in the face of drug testing. A look at the data clearly shows that the number of home runs per at bat has been flat for forty years. A few hitters have pushed single season records upward but this may have more to do with economics than with physics. A salary premium has come into effect for home run hitters, which probably has players swinging for the fences more often in a bid to earn higher pay. This plausible explanation is supported by the facts that strike-outs per at-bat have risen dramatically even though the strike zone has shrunk in the recent era. The economics of the game have shifted the focus from “contact hitting” to “power hitting” and the most gifted sluggers have set new records.

Also, let's not forget about our old friend "multi-colinearity" who would suggest that another coincident development that most probably aided the power hitters in their home run campaigns is weight training. It is well documented that widespread weight training, even in the off-season, first became common during the period in question. The conventional wisdom had always been that baseball required flexibility, speed, coordination, and other physical attributes that might be diminished by bulky muscle mass. The home run kings of my childhood, (those whose records are now being fiercely protected by aforementioned screamers), did not lift weights. Presumably, they didn't take steroids either. The point is, weight training and steroids came to town at the same time and new home run records were set shortly thereafter. Naming steroids as the driving factor in the new records requires an unscientific leap.

Last but not least, let us bear in mind that raw strength also favors pitchers and many of the alleged abusers have been pitchers. I concede that steroid based strength has probably helped some hitters hit more home runs but probably not as much as better weight training programs have helped. Furthermore, these hitters have performed against juiced pitching. I invite any body-builder with bulging, steroid-fueled muscles to step into the batters box and see if he can even make a good decision to swing or not. Every major league player has the strength to hit a home run. In fact, I suspect that most grown men, be they accountants or auto mechanics, probably have the strength to hit a baseball out of a major league park -- it really is not about strength. The greatest home run hitters are usually strong but they are smart first, talented second, and strong last.