In a trade that shall rock the very foundations of baseball for eons to come, the Indians traded Justin Masterson for a pretty decent outfield prospect. His stats on Baseball Reference are promising, and he’s been tearing up AA. Might even get a September call up, although it’s far more likely we’ll see him next season. He strikes me as Michael Bourn, but healthy and with a contract that isn’t horrific. That’s if he doesn’t develop power. If he does, we could be looking at a Mike Cameron with better plate discipline. Sign me up for that!
The changes, specifically, are two: first, you have to sign a conduct clause in order to cast a ballot and second, you now get 10 years instead of 15 years on the ballot. The first rule is to prevent the Dan Le Batard scenario from occurring again, obviously. Sadly, the conduct clause includes nothing about denying votes to the sort of people dumb enough to not vote for Greg Maddux.
It’s the second change that’s getting the press, and rightfully so. Whether you take the Let’s Go Tribe approach (“shorter period = quicker access to the Veterans committee”) or the Sports on Earth approach (“shorter period = fuck the steroid era guys”), it’s going to be an adjustment. In the short term, it will only affect two players — Alan Trammell (who should get in) and Lee Smith (who shouldn’t, probably). It theoretically would affect Don Mattingly (shouldn’t get in either), but he’s already in year 15. I very much doubt this decision was made about any of those three players, though. It’s about, for either good or bad, cycling through candidates as quickly as possible.
Here’s my take. The steroid era is a fart in a closed room with no windows. We have to pass through the room, even linger in it, to get to the “post-steroid room” on the other side (which is presumably a less flatulent room). The question for us is this: how bad is the fart? We could install a window and let the fart out of the room. We could hold our breath. We could spend our time worrying about who farted. We could ignore the room altogether. Or, we could recognize it’s not that bad, we’re all mature adults, and can handle a bit of fart if the stuff in the room is worth it (and it is).
In my metaphor, here are the possible solutions:
1. “Installing a window.” Directions from the Hall of Fame remove the mystery from the process; instruct voters that, barring an actual positive test or suspensions, allegations of steroid use cannot be used as grounds to deny a player entry.
2. “Hold our breath.” This is what most voters are doing now, and this is what the new decision seems to indicate as far as the expected outcome. If we can just hang on, holding our breath, for a few more years, we can all pretend the steroid era didn’t happen. It’ll work itself out.
3. “Worrying about who farted.” The witch-hunt solution. Determine who is to blame for the problem (spoiler alert: it won’t be ‘baseball writers’) and place it all on them. ‘The players’ is the current en vogue solution.
4. “Ignore the room.” Everything and everyone in the steroid era is tainted, either by actual guilt or through association, so the only logical solution (according to this theory) is simply to write it off as a bad job.
5. “Recognize it’s just a fart.” The steroid era is unpleasant; it is not the end of the world. Judge players based on the evidence (shocking concept, I know) and not random guesswork.
My preferred solution is #5, but I think the BBWAA is about 90% #2 and 10% #4 right now. Recognizing that reality, I support the decision to reduce the period, if only because we’ll be holding our breath for less time.
Since the blog has been quiet, I decided to elevate our discourse to a higher plane of understanding. One, indeed, might say that had Cliff Lee been throwing more gas, his most recent start might have been a more effective one.
That was the first video, incidentally, I have watched on this PC since my return from Russia. I cannot imagine a better choice. ‘MURICA!
The one World Cup game I saw ended up being a doozie, as Germany defeated Argentina 1-0 in extra time. Unlike a standard 1-0 affair, this game ended up being a gripping (well, for soccer…) match, and it’s good to see the kids of 2006 (Schweinsteiger, Lamm, Podolski, and the like) pull this one off.
Bonus reading: how the World Cup in 2006 helped re-instill some measure of German pride in Germany as such. I hope 2014 helps further.
You can see the actual rosters here. Apart from the gaping vortex of suck starting at shortstop for the AL (thanks, fans!), there aren’t huge numbers of obvious snubs. I do find it bizarre that the AL team’s manager loaded up on first basemen and outfielders. But there is one All-Star that isn’t, who I’d like to introduce you to.
|162 Game Avg.||162||559||518||64||140||33||1||19||67||4||1||30||103||.269||.315||.447||.762||113||232||8||5||3||2||1|
Lonnie Chisenhall is kind of an awful 3B defensively. He also is just shy of enough ABs to qualify for the batting title. These are details. You know what it isn’t a detail? Being 8th in the entire major leagues in Offensive WAR. A stat that, I will remind you, “punishes” players with less playing time, since it’s a counting stat. Every other player in the top ten is going to the All-Star game, except for Kyle Seager, who is eligible for the final vote (because they’ve stupidly decided only pitchers are eligible for the AL).
Do I think Chisenhall’s performance is sustainable? Of course not. I think he has the chance to be a very good player, but not this good. But isn’t recognizing weird half-seasons precisely what the All-Star games are for?
BTW, if the AL loses the World Series because Derek Jeter fucks up — and I bet he will, since he’s awful this year — I hope it’s the Yankees who get screwed over.
It’s only July and Buffalo’s season is already ruined. Kiko Alonso tore his ACL and will not play this year. Right now, they’re talking about Preston Brown, their third-round draft pick. Here’s the problem: Buffalo is in a 4-3 this year. Brown, like Brandon Spikes, is a slow (4.8 40), run-stuffing linebacker. As a middle linebacker, Brown has good potential, and his upside is basically Brandon Spikes. As a weak-side linebacker going up against tight ends or slot receivers, Brown’s probably not a very good choice. Unfortunately, Buffalo doesn’t have many options available to them: Brown is a downhill, MLB type; Keith Rivers is probably locked into one of the two OLB spots; Nigel Bradham is fast and has the measurables, but isn’t really good in coverage; Randell Johnson is a rookie who was terrible against coverage in college. Ty Powell was a 7th round pick last season (Seahawks) who has some potential. The Bills will probably try some combination of these four guys, but losing Alonso hurts a lot.
Current prediction: 6-10. That might change as we get closer to September, but I’m really not thinking this will be the year the Bills break .500.
I like Paul Hoynes about 80% of the time, as opposed to Bill Livingston, who I like about 5% of the time (and even that 5% makes me feel icky). Then I read his latest mailbag. Here’s the money question, and the answer.
Hey, Hoynsie: Is there any theory behind Asdrubal Cabrera’s decline? It seems like at his age, he should be hitting his prime and getting better. – Glen Toplyn, Pittsfield Township, Mich.
Hey, Glen: Cabrera has never been a darling of the defensive metric experts who calculate range with computers and calculators. He probably has lost a step or two defensively, but I notice he’s been diving for more balls behind the bag, which could be an indication that his legs are feeling better after being beat up earlier in the season.
Offensively, he’s been a solid contributor on a team that really doesn’t blow you away with its run scoring ability. After hitting .220 in April, Cabrera hit .274 with three homers and nine RBI in May. In June his average dipped to .243, but he hit four homers and drove in 17 runs, second on the team to Lonnie Chisenhall’s 21.
Among AL shortstops, he’s tied for first in homers, leads in runs and is fifth in OPS. Cleveland fans have been tough on any shortstop not named Omar Vizquel. They didn’t like Jhonny Peralta and take delight in picking apart Cabrera’s game.
This is Cabrera’s seventh year with the Tribe and he’s been a solid contributor and cares a lot more than people think. He’s a free agent after this season and almost assuredly won’t be back. Then the paying public can train their computers and magnifying glasses on Francisco Lindor, but I think they’ll miss Cabrera.
First of all — it’s 2014. Using RBI to evaluate how good a player is really, REALLY stupid. Phenomenally stupid. I like his other points about Cabrera’s offense, compared to his peers. But bringing up RBI kind of killed his credibility. However, being a really good hitter for an AL shortstop doesn’t make him a good hitter.
|162 Game Avg.||162||687||613||85||166||38||3||15||76||12||5||52||118||.270||.332||.412||.744||106||253||16||8||9||5||2|
Those are decent numbers. They aren’t great, but decent. A shortstop who can slug over .400 is relatively rare these days. Except he isn’t doing that right now. Cabrera is a valuable player because he’s a good hitter for a shortstop or second baseman. He’s far from a great player, and really hasn’t been since 2011. The good news is, he’s already reached last year’s WAR in 200 fewer ABs. But what he isn’t — what he’s never been — is anything but a league average shortstop defensively. Last year his defense cost the team a win. At his best, his defense has given the team a win (which was back in 2008 — 1.7 wins, to be exact.) He’s playing slightly below replacement level with the glove this year,but if his bat continues to be reasonably productive, he’s a worthwhile player.
The “calculators and computers” line was clearly an attempt to tap the Bill Livingston portion of his audience. Nobody uses calculators any more, Paul. That’s just stupid. I get his point — Asdrubal Cabrera deserves credit for being a solid SS, which he absolutely does — but Cleveland fans aren’t being dicks when they rip his defense; it’s genuinely not very good. Oh, and Hoynsie: believe it or not, the very best season Jhonny Peralta had? He was still an Indian. He peaked at 23. He’s become useful as a Tiger and Cardinal, but for a long time, was awful. If anything, Cleveland was excessively patient with him.
Meanwhile, we already know Francisco Lindor is awesome with the glove, and he’s holding his own with the bat. I think the chances of Cabrera being an Indian next year are really, really low. I think he’ll be gone in a few weeks. I don’t know what return we’ll get — maybe a fringey prospect or a role player — but I do know that Lindor’s time is coming, and that we’ll probably forget all about Cabrera.
So, our resident Penguatroll listed the presidencies in rank order from Truman on. Here’s my list.
12. Barack Obama. We’ve still got two years left, but you can fill out a 16-seed bracket with legitimate scandals. He’s a complete joke when it comes to foreign policy. Quick: name someplace with which the US has better relations than in 2008, or a place which is significantly better off as a result of US foreign policy than in 2008. Well, I can answer that second question: Iran and Russia. On domestic policy, we have “Recovery Summer” 5 years running, the ever-giving miracle known as Obamacare, and scandals ranging from selling weapons to Mexican drug lords, using the IRS to spy on oppositional political groups, etc. Lately, the only way one Obama scandal gets out of the news is if another one gets in (think Obamacare, the ever-unfolding IRS scandals, the Bergdahl exchange, the EPA ruling that they control everything, and so on). Further, a Vice President says a lot about a President: George W. Bush had Dick Cheney, who could shoot a man in the face; Bill Clinton had Al Gore pre-supercrazy (and only kinda-crazy); Ronald Reagan had George H. W. Bush, who knew hundreds of ways to kill a man and probably tried them all. Barack Obama has Joe Biden.
11. Jimmy Carter. Carter was history’s greatest monster. On foreign policy, he was at least as bad as Obama, and in a time in which foreign policy mattered more. Nevertheless, at least Carter worked on airline deregulation, brought on Paul Volcker, and wasn’t using the IRS and FBI against political enemies. Also, Carter only had one term in which to fail, whereas Obama has the opportunity to fail over twice as long a stretch.
10. Lyndon Johnson. The Great Society is a millstone around the necks of future generations and Johnson’s mishandling of Vietnam in 1964 for political reasons was unforgivable, and the idea that anybody thought clowns like Robert McNamara and McGeorge Bundy were the best options for running the DOD seriously angers me. The joke about Johnson that Barry Goldwater used was that Johnson was the mayor of a one TV tower town. Johnson should have stayed there.
9. John Kennedy. Our Penguatroll gives Kennedy way too much credit, in my opinion. The Cuban Missile Crisis came about for two reasons: first, Kennedy mis-handled Bay of Pigs so badly that he probably should have been impeached; secondly, Kennedy was such a clown at the Vienna Summit in 1961 that Khruschev decided he could push the envelope. In other words, Kennedy took the United States to the brink of nuclear war to make up for his previous failures. I give him credit for not cracking, but a President Eisenhower or President Nixon would never have been pushed that far in the first place. Oh, and a President Nixon in 1961 would have prosecuted Bay of Pigs effectively and kept Cuba in the western sphere of influence. Bonus negatives for the aforementioned McNamara and Bundy; this was Kennedy’s doing.
8. Gerald Ford. Ford didn’t do much and basically just exists. He got an unfair rep because he tripped on airplane stairs once and he didn’t understand the easy way to whip inflation (hint: stop printing so much money). The Nixon pardon hurt him short-term, but like our resident Penguatroll argues, it’s probably for the best in the long run.
7. Harry Truman. I give him credit for a muscular response to Greece and Italy during tumultuous times. I’m not a fan of Truman’s domestic policy, which was an attempted expansion of the Roosevelt policy. Thankfully, a post-war Republican party forced significant spending and tax cuts and really stymied Truman; otherwise, he would have ended up lower on the list.
6. Richard Nixon. I give him credit for fighting in Vietnam, as opposed to the slipshod “limited war” crap that Kennedy and Johnson ran. I also give him credit for reaching out to a post-PedoToad China and formalizing their turn against the Soviets. I take away a lot of credit due to his terrible economic policies. Also, I want to give him some residual goodness for his days on HUAC and the work he did in nailing Alger Hiss as a traitor and Communist spy. On the other hand, the EPA was a bad idea which has become worse and worse over time. Nixon was also responsible for price controls and was the true poster child for stagflation, even though Carter gets a majority of the scorn. Nixon was truly the anti-Clinton.
5. George W. Bush. Flip-flip 4 & 5 if you want; I already did. With regard to foreign policy, here’s something you probably don’t hear very often: US foreign relations improved significantly during the Bush administration. President Bush was wrong on Vladimir Putin, but at least eventually realized it. On the other hand, he expanded US influence further into Europe, drawing in countries like Poland, the Czech Republic, and Georgia. More importantly, he improved relations with India significantly. It’s important to remember that US-India relations were historically pretty sour (part of why the US was so friendly with Pakistan during the Cold War), but under Bush they improved. Unfortunately, Obama failed to follow through on these lines and has ruined potential American influence expansion globally. On Iraq, I consider it to have been a success as of 2009: the Baathists were defeated, Iraq was no longer a haven for international terrorist organizations, and the potential for a free and democratic Iraq was there. Unfortunately, candidate Obama was strongly against the war and President Obama pulled American troops, leading to a situation in which ISIS controls a third of the country and the dictator-in-training is cozying up to Iran to solidify his tenuous grasp on power. I think 25,000-40,000 troops with the right leadership would have prevented this scenario. On domestic policy, Bush was full of ups and downs: the 2003 tax cuts were great and free trade agreements with several countries helped. On the other hand, No Child Left Behind was a bad idea (hint: if Ted Kennedy was for it, you should probably be against it), bailouts were a terrible idea, and spend-spend-spend is never a good idea. Bush had good ideas like Social Security reform, but instead of pushing that harder, went for amnesty and Harriet Myers.
4. Bill Clinton. A person with a combination of Nixon’s foreign policy and Clinton’s domestic policy would have been…well, probably Dwight Eisenhower. A person with a combination of Clinton’s foreign policy and Nixon’s domestic policy would have been nestling between Obama and Carter at the bottom of the list. Clinton was the politician qua politician of our generation. I absolutely hate how much of a slimy, slippery toad he was (but no PedoToad, as at least he liked his girls over the age of 18), but after Hillarycare went down and Republicans won the Congress in 1994, Clinton returned to his populist centrist routine. The end result was prosperity throughout the ’90s for a president beset by scandals that nobody seemed to care about.
3. George H. W. Bush. Tony calls him “[p]ossibly the most successful single term President the country has ever had.” I say no: James K. Polk was that by a landslide (and land grab). Despite that, I agree with his assessment that Bush was solid. On raising taxes, Bush’s bald-faced lie is probably what made him one of the most successful single-term presidents rather than a very successful two-term president.
2. Dwight Eisenhower. Ike showed us that Presidents should play a lot of golf. As a side note, a lot of people make fun of Barack Obama constantly playing golf, but honestly, I’d rather he be hitting the links than doing stupid things. Eisenhower had a pretty solid idea of what a president should—and, more importantly, should not—be and helped America return to a sense of normalcy after World War II. I give him a lot of credit and rank him rather higher than most historians would on the all-time list. On net, the interstate highway system was outstanding, although there have been cultural costs (as well as benefits).
1. Ronald Reagan. Beating the Commies, beating stagflation, beating History’s Greatest Monster (and Walter Mondale, but seriously…), all that adds up. Reagan was the prior generation’s politician qua politician, but used his powers for awesome rather than sliminess. I rank him the second-best president of the 20th century, behind the great Calvin Coolidge.
Net difference, throwing out Ford (because somebody was too chicken to include Gerald Ford in a ranking): 15 points of ranking. We only had one match (Truman), but you can definitely see three groups in which we shuffle candidates: Reagan-Eisenhower-Bush, Nixon-Clinton-Truman-Bush, and Obama-Johnson-Carter. Kennedy is the only president in which we have a serious disagreement, and that’s without me talking about how much of a drug-addicted creep he was.
Inspired by the Quinnipiac Poll which found Barack Obama to be the worst president since World War II, I decided to make my own list ranking the Presidents of ‘Murica since the war. I count peak, in Presidents, more heavily than career length, with one exception.
Honorable mention: Gerald Ford. I can’t really fault him as a President, as he basically did nothing of note except pardoning Nixon (which saved the country from a trial it really didn’t need at the time). He gets an Incomplete; if he had played himself on the Simpsons, I would have given him a C+.
The objectively bad Presidents
11. Jimmy Carter. Carter did more damage in a shorter time than anyone else. If Barack Obama is “the wrong way to be a President”, Jimmy Carter is the “Max Power” of Presidents. The energy crisis and Iran were managed extremely poorly. Nice guy, bad President.
10. Lyndon Johnson. Credit where credit is due — he used Kennedy’s death to launch himself into a landslide victory. That’s good politics, at least, if nothing else. Great Society was a trainwreck, and I don’t know if anybody was hated by more of his subordinates.
9. Barack Obama. Won the Nobel Peace Prize for “not being George W. Bush.” Has mismanaged almost every foreign crisis he’s been involved in. Obamacare is not as a big a trainwreck as The Great Society… yet. I appreciate his moral position on gay rights, but that’s not enough to overcome the other problems.
8. George W. Bush. Afghanistan was a good move that might turned out badly; Iraq was not. So much failed potential in domestic programs — privatizing Social Security would have been a big step towards getting him out of this group. No Child Left Behind places way too much on standardized testing. Patriot Act itself isn’t horrid, but the potential for mischief is not worth the cost.
The President I have trouble ranking
7. Harry S. Truman. Soft on Communism immediately after the war… but ended segregation in the military. Containment was the right play if we weren’t going to go to a general offensive against the Soviets. Handled Korea okay, faced up to Douglas MacArthur and won. Not nearly enough credit for Civil Rights as a whole. He didn’t do anything objectively bad, in my opinion, but could have done better.
The good Presidents
6. Bill Clinton. Gets way too much credit for “fixing” the economy (for which the President deserves less credit than how good the weather is, except the President can’t do as much to break the weather), but deserves some. Made real progress with Ireland, handled the Balkans better than a lot of other people have (which is, admittedly, grading on a curve). Might be a kind of a jerk towards women, but as more time progresses, he gets a bit more shine to him until we have a president who’s objectively better.
5. Richard Nixon. I really like what he did in foreign policy — reaching out to China gave the US a counterweight to the Soviets, getting us out of Vietnam as delicately as possible (after actually trying to win the damn war). Even did a pretty good job with the Middle East. Solid healthcare reform plan. Created the EPA, a mixed blessing, perhaps. However, Watergate was unbelievably stupid and completely unnecessary. A bit weak on science.
4. George H. W. Bush. Possibly the most successful single term President the country has ever had. The First Gulf War was a masterpiece of foreign policy foresight and military strategy. Had the guts to raise taxes, which is sometimes necessary and not always an evil if coupled with spending cuts. Worked more on science than Nixon did. Ended the Cold War (even if he was cleaning up what Reagan had already started).
The great Presidents
3. John F. Kennedy. A willingness to aggressively fight the Cold War in a way that no President had before or since. His victory in the Cuban Missile Crisis could be the single greatest foreign policy achievement since World War II. Cut taxes, worked for civil rights reform, and funded the space program. Vietnam is a major blemish on his record, maybe the only one. There’s no way he could have been worse than Johnson in 1964.
2. Ronald Reagan. Devoted a lot of attention to the economy, even if the results didn’t come out as planned. Displayed decisive leadership when it was needed. An aggressive, well considered foreign policy on the whole is slightly diminished by Iran-Contra.
1. Dwight D. Eisenhower. The man killed Nazis. Ended the Korean War, worked effectively with the Soviets in the Suez Canal Crisis. DARPA and NASA. Built infrastructure, something governments are supposed to do and keep forgetting about because it isn’t sexy enough. Continued Truman policies in desegregation. Economic prosperity. Effectively used his Vice President (Nixon) in a way that few Presidents have since.
So, that’s my list. I suspect Kevin’s — if he ever comes to the site again — would be quite different.
I think 99% of becoming a QB in the NFL is just being “gritty.” Why else would the Browns have such a fascination with Brian Hoyer, who has had a mediocre career to this point. I’m not saying he’s good or bad. I just think it’s odd that a backup QB — and while I think Johnny Football will sit for a good part of his first year, there’s no way he does for a second — is worth extending. I’d rather see Mitchell Schwartz get an extension, to be honest.