Butt-hurt Buster and ESPN paywall dreck

Much of Buster Olney's baseball stuff this offseason has been behind the ESPN+ paywall.

Why?

If paywalling is supposed to indicate a value level, and not just Red Satan trying for more bucks, why?

What brought this to a head was a piece where he said MLB needs to encourage Bryce and the Phillies to be like the NBA on player recruitment.

I Tweeted:

@Buster_ESPN You're apparently too clueless to know that the NBA has tampering rules that they actually fine ppl over, and so, if MLB went NBA on "recruiting," Bryce Harper wld be cutting Adam Silver a $50K check? https://t.co/SuTBOU6mo2

— ATrealDonaldTrump  🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) March 9, 2019

And, that set him off.

He Tweeted back that I obviously didn't read the piece because he does acknowledge that.

I said, no, because the paywall, because IMO the paywall (for ESPN stuff) often isn't worth it, and because, if he did acknowledge the NBA's tampering fines, he buried the nut graf below where the paywall kicks in.

So, he said:

Then you critiqued and complained about the content of a piece you acknowledge you didn't read. That's kinda funny.

— Buster Olney (@Buster_ESPN) March 9, 2019

No problem, Buster.

As I told him back? No more and no less funny than what ESPN decides to put behind a paywall.

Basically, since Jim Caple stopped doing his baseball old box score trivia columns, I have found little of interest on ESPN on baseball. For more than five years, I've thought it was the weakest coverage area of ESPN's three major sports. Maybe that's in part the Benjamins, as it has much less invested than in football and probably less than in the NBA.

But, even as Yahoo's web layout quality continued to decline, among free sites, give me Jeff Passan and Tim Brown ahead of anybody at ESPN for any portion of that time period. (Of course, Red Satan has now stolen Passan.) I might halfway take Craig Calcaterra, even. And, of course, Ken Rosenthal is better, but I'm not paying The Athletic's paywall, either. I'm frugal and not that much of a sports nut. Buster's one compadre, who has gone to The Athletic himself, definitely not worth it. Dave Schoenfield? Meh. Much of Buster himself, meh.

Football has long been good because of ESPN's investment level. Hoops was good with some of Simmons' acolytes when Grantland existed. (Note how many of them did NOT follow him out the door.) Still is.

Hockey? Not a major sport.

Maybe this is kind of like Times Select, the first NY Times paywall, which "hid" only columnists.

==

Meanwhile, I'll regularly update teh stupidz.

March 26, more Buster derp and duh: Bet you didn't know before Buster told us all that there will be a hot trade market this summer for Madison Bumgarner.

May 12, the claim that Jon Lester is in the conversation for Cooperstown. Age 35 and just over 45 WAR? Not in my conservation. Call me back in two years and we'll talk then.

Mike Trout is not actually chasing Babe Ruth

Starting with David Schoenfield, folks at ESPN baseball coverage, and now ESPN Stats and Info, have been claiming that Mike Trout is chasing Babe Ruth, namely Ruth's 1923 season, for the best year in baseball history by WAR.

He's not, unless he's trying for second place.

You see, I got curious, and went on Baseball-Reference myself.

The best year in MLB history is NOT Babe Ruth's 1923. Not at all.

But, who?

It's Walter Johnson's 1913.

The Big Train had 15.2 WAR on the mound, compared to Ruth's 14.3 at the plate.

Now, somebody will pop up that single-season WAR numbers can vary half a WAR point, so just maybe Ruth is ahead.

Nope.

Johnson also had 1.4 at the plate for 16.6 WAR total.

Now, ESPN Stats and Info had one of their staff snootily tweet back to me when I tweeted this, that it was about position players only.

Well, Schoenfield never said that.

This dude said "it was implied."

I said "oh really"?

He then said that WAR favored pitchers, especially in the dead ball era.

First, as I've blogged before,1913 was semi-live ball, not totally dead. About all rules had been standardized, homers were up a tick, doubles up two or three ticks, etc.

Second, if you throw out pre-1920 years, as I then told this guy, half of the top WAR years were by batters anyway. (I took top 50 and threw out from there.) One third of post-1910 were, and almost all of the 1910-20 years that stay are Johnson's. Take top 50 and ties I then said "bye!"

Let's look at modern pitchers — post-1910, in my take — who are at least in the ballpark of the Babe's year.

Johnson, again, 14.8 in 1912
Dwight Gooden, 13.3 WAR (an under-21 record) in his phenomenal 1985
Pete Alexander, 12.7 in 1920
Walter (Guess Who) Johnson, 12.7 in 1914, part of a phenomenal three-year stretch.
Steve Carlton, 12.5 in 1972
You know Who, 12.5 in 1915, part of a phenomenal four-year stretch
Ed Walsh, 12.2, 1912
Roger Clemens, 12.1, 1997
Hal Newhouser, 12.1, 1945
Bob Gibson, 11.9, 1968
Old Pete, 11.9, 1916
Ferguson Jenkins, 11.9, 1971

So, ESPN Stats and Disinformation Guy? Not Even Wrong. That's 13 seasons by 9 pitchers. Even if we go to 1920 or later, we have seven seasons by seven pitchers. Post-integration?  Still have four seasons by four different pitchers.

Besides all of the above, it's fun busting ESPN's chops and doing so in a better-informed fashion than Deadspin.

#BoycottESPN for two weeks

That's what I'm doing, officially of last night, over Jemele Hill's two-week suspension by Great Red Satan for telling people they should consider boycotting Dallas Cowboys advertisers. (I'm not rich or even close to it, nor am I that capitalistic, but I'll for it, even though my personal boycott wouldn't make much difference.)

On the big picture, there's other issues involved.

Yes, Hill is not hired as an opiner or commenter. Nonetheless, the "richness" of Red Satan, the sports world equivalent of mainstream media, silencing its own staff is laughable.

And, it's over the NFL. In other words, ESPN doesn't want Hill to risk killing the goose laying its golden eggs. It's not the first time Red Satan's been accused of pulling punches regarding the No Fun League. Some, including this opiner, say that some of its early coverage of the NFL's problems with chronic traumatic encephalopathy were behind the curve. Related to that, this opiner says that ESPN could, if it wanted to, especially in the wake of Aaron Hernandez' suicide, look at CTE in major-college football, too, but that's another golden-egged goose.

Of course, the media in general, when at the big mainstream level, likes to shush its employees at times. Even at medium level, it does. I'll have a post related to that in other ways later this week.

That said, that problem goes beyond the media. Employees' rights to the First Amendment have become ever more folded, spindled and mutilated. And, while the GOP has led the charge to make this happen, the Democrats have generally sat passively by.

If I were a day trader at Goldman Sachs of Hillary Clinton speaking fame, and I Tweeted, even on a personal Twitter account, about boycotting Dallas Cowboys advertisers, I'd get a suspension of two weeks at minimum, if Goddam Sachs has ever done bond offerings or other capital raising for any said advertisers. I might get such a suspension even without it.

Beyond that, when Zack Lowe claims the Cavs are ahead of the Celtics in this year's NBA Eastern Conference, its actual sports coverage is going down hill. Lowe went so far as to hint the depth (? Isaiah Thomas is out how long? Derrick Rose WILL be out at some point and so will Dwyane Wade) the Cavs got in the Kyrie Irving trade could make it competitive in the NBA Finals against the Warriors. I know Woj can't do everything hoopswise there, but maybe more than that?

But "I want to watch my team," you say, and "they're on ESPN."

I don't have cable, and there are Internet workarounds. Figure the rest out for yourself.

And, as far as politicizing? Five Thirty Eight is often centrist dreck.

Deadspin officially enters self-parody

I normally browse Deadspin for a few to several minutes about once every two weeks.

First, it's quick to do, as about one-fifth to one-quarter of its "stories" are actually advertorial spam, written by the same folks who do their blogging. And yes, blogging is what the actual "stories" are; there's really not much original reporting there.

Related to that, it's "fun" to have Deadspin bitch (not just the Guardian's "tsk, tsk") at people for using ad-blockers even as they have this 20-25 percent ratio of advertorial spam crapola.

Sidebar: Like SB Nation and other sites who had their chops busted recently for paying people with little more than "exposure," I wonder what Deadspin actually pays people.

The other reason to browse Deadspin is to see how much it trolls the Red Satan.

And, last week, that's where it entered self-parody with this headline: "ESPN Boss John Skipper Cites Possibility Of "Social Hectoring And Trolling" In Robert Lee Decision."

First of all, I actually kind of agree with the ESPN decision. Who's to say that RWNJs wouldn't, say, visit Lee's hotel room? Actual fans do it regularly the night before big playoff games to visiting teams' hotels.

Secondly, it wasn't about political correctness. And, if it were, Deadspin would be hypocrite of the month for calling that out.

Above all, though, "social hectoring and trolling"?

Sounds like Deadspin is worried some nutbar fans will hone in on its anti-ESPN gravy train.

And, in all of this, shows its years of ownership by Nick Denton and Gawker.

#BillSimmons is past his sell-by date; can he start anew? And #NateSilver? #538?

Bill Simmons, ready to pontificate elsewhere?

As Simmons nears the end of his three-week suspension by ESPN for calling NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell "Roger Goodell," speculation about his future has heated up again.

With the NBA staying with ESPN and Turner Sports on its massive new TV deal, that leaves TNT as the only place to which Simmons could reasonably jump from ESPN, since basketball is No. 1 in his sports heart of hearts, right?

Well, TNT, while having a great and funny hoops pregame set (and having Simmons mixed with Sir Charles Barkley and Shaquille O'Neal would be nothing if not entertaining), it strikes me as thin on the ground on other sports, and per the piece, very thin on the ground on web presence.

Well, what if he decided to become a free agent instead?

Sounds interesting, no?

Well, not based on Grantland's web traffic, it doesn't sound interesting at all to would-be investors. (And, I'm sure Deadspin's top writers all know those traffic numbers and their 5x edge over Simmons, which is part of why they semi-regularly kick him in the nads. And, I'm sure ESPN knows, and Simmons knows, at least in part.

That said, if he did want to jump to a third party not named Turner, here's some possibilities. In terms of what IT needs, Yahoo would make a smart bet. Jeff Passan is young and snarky enough on baseball, he'd be a good mix. Yahoo's got other good sports columnists; some of them would love to do more long-form stuff.

But, especially if he wanted to go indie, who would leave Grantland to go with him? Jalen Rose? He might like getting a bigger ESPN presence. Bill Barnwell or Zach Lowe? They're both straight-up sports analysts, tied only to Simmons' branding and not his style or schtick.

He's need a second banana of sorts, too, probably. I don't know how much he likes Keith Olbermann, or if he'd be willing to pair with Dan Patrick.

And, although baseball isn't the NFL, it's still (even if audience skews older) bigger than the NBA, and Simmons has never been a baseball guy. He's got Ben Lindbergh now, but, in the past, has had to poach guest contributions/semi-regular appearances from the likes of Jonah Keri.

Building a brand in part as an indie films guy isn't a bad thought. I mean, that's what the Grantland 30-for-30 pieces are. That still couldn't be your overall vehicle, but it could be something. Plus, as far as trying to beat the Hollywood money bushes, Simmons has movie and TV critiques now part of his set-up.

Because you can't really build on Simmons the writer much more.

On his best writing ... he may not be past all parts of his sell-by date, but in his current incarnation is on the day-old shelf indeed.

He also, if he went indy, would need a COO type person. Not so much to keep Simmons on an editorial string, but somebody to override Bill's haphazard management; somebody to run the nuts-and-bolts stuff and, while OKing some of Simmons' zany ideas, saying no to others.

As for how likely any of this is? I don't know.

You'd also have to have a CFO type person who is both a rainmaker for financial backers and also a rainmaker for marketing, if Simmons were no longer part of the Great Red Satan.

Look at Ezra Klein and Vox. It's kind of struggling away from the Washington Post, and Ezra has more background on pushing himself than does Simmons, I think, plus more knowledge of how you do this from his time at the Post.

Speaking of him, that leads me to the lead anchor that is Nate Silver and 538.

Why isn't he doing better? That probably is dependent in fair degree on multiple parties having had wide-eyed, and poorly focused, ideas about the art of the possible with Silver at ESPN/Grantland.

First, Silver had had a narrow niche, vis-a-vis the WSJ's Big Data folks who eventually jumped ship there, and Ezra, and how he expected to readily build that niche at a sports website not a news website, I have no idea. It was blind, and dumb, leaps of faith from everybody involved.

Second, as the likes of Sam Wang was showing in 2012 (he outdid Silver on Senate races), while very good, Silver's success wasn't unique. It was the best-known not because of Nate Silver but because of New York Times.

That leads to the baseline questions, ideas and visions.

On 538, other than general touting, I'm not sure exactly how Simmons pitched it, what Silver pitched, and what ESPN expected.

First, other than British/European soccer, Americans aren't that interested in international sports. They don't want to read about pool in Zimbabwe, or whatever it was I saw a month or so ago that triggered a "538's new low" email to a friend.

Second, I do think that, based on the idea that Silver was politically liberal, and that some of his pieces might impart that, would bring a new mix of liberal-leaning news+sports readers to both 538 and Grantland. Well, his halfway anti-global warming piece with  Roger Pielke Jr. (and, AFAIK, he's never done the promised "clarifications" follow-up) shot that idea right in the ass. And, other news analysis pieces since then have done the job further. I got into a Twitter back-and-forth about 10 days ago with one of their writers, penning a piece I thought was too pro-fracking. It eventually caught the eye of somebody at least halfway more professional in the enviro world than me, who jumped in with backup stats.

Third, "Big Data" on news stories is just news analysis. To some degree, reporting on annual municipal budgets is just a small level version of Big Data. Other than trying to build on his own narrow polling niche (and it was narrow), plus the growing fame of Ezra Klein, plus the WSJ website (that has, like Ezra, since gone off on its own), Silver didn't have a lot he was brining to the table.

I expect ESPN to want some "restructuring" at 538 shortly after it hits the 1-year mark.

The NYT's decision to let him go, and the WaPost's similar call on Ezra, tell me that Brat Pack journos have been overvaluing themselves, that legacy brands recognize that, and that semi-legacy brands like ESPN will come to that decision more and more in the future.

Why does Jim Caple and #ESPN hate the #Cardinals?

ESPN seems to get more and more fact-free all the time.

Sorry, Jim, but you're "off base" about
MLB stadium funding. / ESPN image

(The most recent example before this week was ombudsman Robert Lipsyte claiming the reason the Big Red One suspended Bill Simmons was for his calling NFL commissioner Roger Goodell a liar without proof, when in actuality, Keith Olbermann had done the same a couple of days earlier. Actually, Simmons got suspended because he dared ESPN to suspend him.)

The most recent example? Baseball columnist Jim Caple (who gave me less reason to read him this year when he discontinued Off Base, his old game box score trivia columns) has a new one up about reasons to like and dislike each of this year's MLB playoff contestants.

About the Cards, under cons?

With so many postseason appearances in recent years, the Cardinals are becoming the new Yankees. Actually, they're worse than the Yankees because their shortstop isn't Derek Jeter -- it's PED cheat Jhonny Peralta. Rewarding Peralta with a $52 million contract so soon after he was busted in the Biogenesis scandal is intolerable for a team that so proudly "does things the right way." And don't get me started on the Rally Squirrel.

First, beyond the slam on Peralta, did Jeets ever speak out about Andy Pettitte or Roger Clemens using PEDs? Erm, NO!

Second, he then says this about the Giants, under pros:

Like the Cardinals, the Giants build their teams the right way, using a lot of homegrown talent. Unlike the Cardinals (and every other team), they also built their stadium the right way, by paying for it themselves.

Uhh, wrong again, at least partially! 

The Cards did the majority (albeit not all) of their stadium funding themselves:

Public financing: $45 million long-term loan from St. Louis County. 

Private financing: $90.1 million from the Cardinals, $9.2 million in interest earned on the construction fund, and $200.5 million in bonds to be paid over a 22-year period ($15.9 million per year) by the team. Anheuser-Busch agreed to a 20 year naming rights deal (through the 2025 season) which will help offset construction costs.

That wasn't hard to find at all!

Nor was it hard to find, via info at the same website on the AT&T Park, that Caple was wrong about the Giants, too:

Private financing: $170 million loan from Chase Manhattan Bank, $70 million from the sale of charter seat licenses, $102 million from the sale of naming rights, sponsorships and other sources, and $15 million in tax increment financing by the city's redevelopment agency.

Now, that website, and Caple, may call that "private," I as a newspaper editor, and most John and Jane Citizen folks, would call it "public" as its based on local tax dollars.

That's why Wikipedia also calls tax increment financing "public." Here's the specifics of how a TIF works:

TIF is a method to use future gains in taxes to subsidize current improvements, which are projected to create the conditions for gains above the routine yearly increases which often occur without the improvements. To provide the needed subsidy, the urban renewal district, or TIF district, is essentially always drawn around 100s or 1000s of acres of additional real estate (beyond the project site) to provide the needed borrowing capacity for the project or projects. The borrowing capacity is established by committing all of normal yearly future real estate tax increases from every parcel in the TIF district (for 20–25 years, or more) along with the anticipated new tax revenue eventually coming from the project or projects themselves. If the projects are public improvements paying no real estate taxes all of the repayment will come from the adjacent properties within the TIF district. Although questioned, it is often presumed that even public improvements trigger gains in taxes above what occurs, or would have occurred in the district without the investment.

See the number of times "tax" or "taxes" occurs in that? That's clearly "public," as in governmental, funding. And, since the TIF includes an area broader than the actual planned development area, it's a transfer of tax funds from one entity to another.

In other words, Caple is some mix of liar, idiot and West Coast "homer." He even admits that he grew up "a passionate Giants fan." Show him some love on Twitter!

#ESPN shows #NFL dollars still come first over #Simmons "rant"

Bill Simmons / Via Washington Post

Its ombudsman can brag all he wants about Ray Rice coverage on Outside the Lines, but that was limited to the Baltimore Ravens, not the NFL home office.

When Bill Simmons, who, despite all his own faults and issues, carries a lot of monetary and other water in Bristol, Conn., repeatedly calls NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell a liar? Well, we can't have that!

So, Simmons gets a three-week suspension.

Bill, one suggestion? Do a post-suspension "mailbag" about the suspension, just to jerk ESPN's corporate chain. You know you want to.

Was it the profanities? Well, ESPN didn't explicitly say that. At the same time, the WaPost notes that both Keith Olbermann and Teddy Bruschi have called for Goodell to be fired. Its four bullet points about the suspension are worth a read.

Also, per SI, maybe it was in part to show that, despite whatever water Simmons carries, ESPN wants to show he doesn't get preferential treatment.

And, since he called out his bosses:

“I really hope somebody calls me or emails me and says I'm in trouble for anything I say about Roger Goodell. Because if one person says that to me, I'm going public. You leave me alone. The commissioner's a liar and I get to talk about that on my podcast ... Please, call me, and say I'm in trouble. I dare you.”

I think they had little recourse.

That said, pulling the podcast is stupid. Deadspin, via Slate, and I assume other places, has a cached version.

Bill, one suggestion? Do a post-suspension "mailbag" about the suspension, just to jerk ESPN's corporate chain. You know you want to.

The Post notes that, if somebody besides ABC/ESPN lands the next NBA contract, he'll likely "walk" to wherever that is. At the same time, ESPN may be very ready to let him walk. It seems like Bill's already creating elbow room.

On the other hand, if, say, NBC gets the NBA, does it want Simmons? Bill, you might want to check that out, too, before angering Bristol too much more.

Update: ESPN appears to be circling the wagons on this one. Ombudsman Robert Lipsyte is also claiming that calling Goodell a liar, and not the challenge to ESPN management, was the primary reason for the suspension. It's like ESPN doesn't even care that this think called the Internetz exists.

ESPN still won't cry uncle on A.J. Burnett

During spring training, I blogged about how bad the Phillies' contract for A.J. Burnett was. True, it was "only" for two years (despite ESPN claiming it was a 1-year deal at first) for a sweet $33.5 million. (I consider any X-year contract with a player option to be an X+1-contract for the obvious reason that, if he's teh suck, the team's still stuck with him for X+1 years.)

That's in refutation to ESPN's Jonah Keri, who said, at that time, when I asked if he was going to update this year's bad contracts list, he said "no," saying on Twitter:

Burnett had a great 2013 & signed 1-year deal, so no.

I would NOT call that last year "great."

And, as noted, I would not call his contract a 1-year deal.

Even I, though, was generous. Here, on that blog post, is my preseason prediction for Burnett:

185 innings. ERA+ of 102. A WAR of 1.3 and WAA of -0.2. 

He may well get the innings pitched. But, at a current ERA+ of 90, WAR of 0.9 and WAA of -0.3, the rest of his year would take a "push" to hit those numbers.

And, in a trade deadline piece, Jayson Stark is admitting the player option is a reason the Pirates don't want him back. However, he's still not willing to call it a bad contract. Nor a two-year contract.

#Cardinals thoughts: What is it with Tampa Bay fans on Price and Zobrist?

Rays fans, at least judging by visitors here and the more ardent ones I've run into on NBC, seem to be drinking the Kool-Aid of their GM, Andrew Friedman, on overvaluing the trade value of David Price. And, they seem to be in a league of their own on overvaluing the trade value, or value in general, of Ben Zobrist.

Price first.

I'm not the only Cards fan to say that whatever Freeman is wanting for Price, it seems to be too much, especially since he turned down an offer from the Oakland A's that included Addison Russell, who one commenter here admitted is one of the top 5 prospects in the minor leagues.

I've blogged before that a likely final offer by the Cardinals was better than what the Rays could likely get from other teams, per a guesstimate of those other teams offerings made by a Tampa sportswriter, no less.

Not all of us Cardinal fans are alike. One, at least, among NBC commenters, hugely overvalues Tyler Lyons, who in my opinion will never be better than a regular back-end starter, and IMO probably won't even be that. Some probably think it funny that, after Boston-inspired, Boston-fueled rumors that the Cards were interested in Jake Peavy started getting airplay, I suggested a reverse salary dump, sending Matt Holliday to Beantown as part of a larger trade. Why did I suggest that? Because Holliday's on Cardinal books for three more years, if he doesn't waive his no-trade, and his age-related decline curve is about the same as a certain Tampa second baseman.

But we're all agreed on one thing: Friedman seems to be getting greedy on Price, and Rays fans are even worse.

I've noted before that Friedman faces two ticking clocks. One, of course, is the July 31 waiver-free trade deadline. If Friedman can't move Price before then, his trade value drops, and drops a fair degree, of course.

The second is March 31, 2015. After that, Price becomes strictly a rent-a-player. A team unsure of resigning him, who trades for him after the start of next year's season, would be unable to offer him the qualifying offer at the end of that season, of course.

But, hold everything.

Masahiro Tanaka is now on the disabled list with what's been diagnosed as a partial ulnar collateral ligament tear. No Tommy John surgery planned yet, but if non-surgical methods don't work, it will be the knife. And, the Rays may know that by July 31; if not, they can probably at least assume they won't be seeing the Tanaka of his first dozen starts. Between that and CC Sabathia likely not coming back this year, stressing the back end of the rotation to where it will blow up, the Yankees are due to sink, no matter the skippering genius of Joe Girardi.

And, in Toronto, Adam Lind, for 2 months, is hitting the DL, joining Edwin Encarncion, though his injury is much less severe.

Friedman, at a minimum, has to wait until close to the trade deadline unless he gets a big offer. He has to see how series Tanaka's injury is, how much they fall and may continue to fall if it is serious, and then, see if his own team's recent surge can continue. Ditto on the Jays.

If answers to all the above are favorable, the Rays could be in third place in a weak AL East at the trade deadline, and close to passing the Jays into second, assuming the Orioles don't also slump.

In any case, the Price being right or wrong is seemingly not a Cardinals problem any more. I'm sure that Yadier Molina going on the shelf for the rest of the season with his thumb injury surgery means John Mozeliak's not trading for anybody. Well, not as a "buyer." It makes me wonder, speaking of Holliday, if the Cards might become a "seller," in fact.

Meanwhile, per my Holliday comment, picking up that other thread.

I've already blogged that I think the Rays' infielders' previous years' defensive performance is overrated due to Tampa's early and aggressive use of defensive shifts, a tactic much of the rest of the league is now catching up to. (Zobriest's dWAR is down a lot this yer, and Evan Longoria has a negative rating.)

Another issue is that 2B has a relatively rapid aging curve.

Looking at relatively recent history? Robbie Alomar’s last season was at 36. Lou Whitaker’s last full season was at 36. Bobby Grich’s last full season was at 36. Second base has a pretty rapid aging curve on the far side of 35; Ryne Sandberg also illustrates this.

Zobrist will be 34 next year.

On another post, a Tampa fan, after saying Zobrist is so valuable, hinted at the idea of a straight-up trade of Kolten Wong for him, or those two being a primary trade focus.

Well, you can't have it both ways; you can't say Zobrist is so great, then say you'd want him and Wong mentioned in the same breath. As for value? I said that if Zobrist offered the Cards 3.5 WAR next year, and Wong 2.5, it's only a 1-WAR trade. Hardly enough for getting rid of long-term control of Wong before we see him play out. And no, I don't think that's an overestimate on Wong. In fact, it may very well be an underestimate by a full point of WAR.

Hence, the people, whether Rays fans or ESPN baseball writers who, in general, look stupider by the day, thinking the Cards had a black hole, or near it, at 2B, "had to" have a replacement there, etc., and saying all of this because Wong had a slow start, and then, after his send-down and call-back, played much better until he had played several games with an injured shoulder before going on the DL. Seriously, the "Worldwide Leader," at least in baseball, becomes a leader only in stupidity. (Well, with the new 538, it becomes a leader in hyperbole, too.)

As for Rays fans? I appreciate the frustration of being in a small market while you've had a winning team until this year. Don't blame Cards fans, or Cards writers, or even neutral writers smarter than the ones at ESPN, for calling you out on your greed, though.

Blame the people who don't show up for Rays games. Maybe you could never have a huge market. But, you don't have that small of a population market, either. Greater Tampa-St. Pete is bigger than metro Cincinnati. Or Kansas City. Or Pittsburgh. And, that's not counting getting a few Orlando fans to make a relatively short trip.

Just a little more attendance would also allow for a little more in ticket prices, even at a place like the Trop. It would also help the next TV contract a bit. With that in mind, if that were happening, the Rays could easily run an $85M payroll, and probably a $90M one.

So, if you have Stockholm syndrome, don't blame me; blame the people not filling the seats.

I vote 10 in #Cooperstown, uphold principle on #roiding, keep "small Hall"

Here's the 2014 Hall of Fame ballot.

And, in a few brief words, I'll show how I can vote 10 quality players in, not vote in pretty obvious and unrepentant users of performance-enhancing drugs, and still avoid ESPN's Big Hall drooling.

Per previous discussion, most recently updated here, I'm not willing to let the most likely roiders, like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, in without some contrition, not just by them, but lots of others. It's not just the contrition, it's to get info from them on how they did it so we can improve current testing. It's to figure out, like a Roids+ similar to ERA+ and OPS+, approximately how much to adjust their records.

Call me back when that happens.

Meanwhile, the 10? Going by last year's voting rank, for the non-newcomers, followed by them:

1.  Craig Biggio.

2. Jeff Bagwell.

3. Tim Raines.

4. Curt Schilling.

5. Allen Trammell.

6. Jeff Kent.

7. Greg Maddux.

8. Tom Glavine.

9. Mike Mussina.

10. Frank Thomas. 

I've blogged more than once about Jack Morris and his anti-sabermetric career. About Larry Walker and how a non-Coors career would have dinged his counting stats as well as WAR, etc, plus injuries and so forth. About Edgar Martinez in a similar vein, discussing the injuries and games missed, etc., for a DH. Lee Smith falls under my generally being underwhelmed by closers.

Here's my in-depth wrap of last year's candidates, and another of this year's.

Mike Piazza? After reading recently, via CBS, about what Jeff Pearlman quotes him, and quotes other players as saying about him, while I'm not quite in Murray Chass territory, I want to think a bit more.

To ESPN-type fluffers who don't take my stance on roiding? You can easily add Bonds and Clemens by having Kent and, say, Schilling, wait a year. You can then deal with lesser roiders after that.

And, at the same time, this still would put a brake on your fluffing. That's even as Jim Caple flings out yet one more paean to Morris. Good fucking doorknob, give it a rest. Caple should stick to his "Off Base" columns, and by the amount of HOF fluffing ESPN's other writers do, they should become Republican presidential pollsters.

Or, take them out and shoot them. Shoot Jayson Stark twice for being a flip-flopping hypocrite (no, not a repentant mind-changer) on this issue. 

That also said, when ESPN's current staff has people voting for Fred McGriff ahead of Mussina, one realizes that a sports writer is just a lucky man with a big opinion who found a big place to land.

And, Michael Knisley has some very interesting thoughts about some "Name" players who might not stay above 5 percent this year.

#ESPN spinelessness bites it in the a** on #NFL #concussions

We all know that The Worldwide Leader is all about the sports dollars at bottom line.

That's why its chickenshit withdrawal from working with PBS' Frontline on an extended documentary about concussions was not surprising. Nor was its ombudsman's weaselly attempt to justify that move.

Well, now, news that the NFL has agreed to settle a lawsuit by retired players, for the handsome amount of $765 million, puts ESPN's cowardice in a whole new light. So too does past touting of all it's done to cover the issue.

So does the fact that ESPN's story and blog about the settlement fail to mention the WWL's withdrawal from the Frontline piece. It's arguable that the Frontline issue didn't need to be in the story, even if ESPN's doing fairly serious overwrite of the AP piece. But, for Seifert to leave it out of the blog? Nope. Not good.

That's even more the case when either Seifert himself, or whoever writes his heads, trumpets how this "saved the game."

Nooo ... with no admission of guilt, and for relatively low cost — likely due to most the plaintiffs not having the money to stand up to Daddy Warbucks, personified by the Commish, Roger Goodell, in a trial and appeals — it saved the NFL. Not "the game," if by that we mean football in general.

Now, for about a third of (estimated possible damages), the league has settled the case before its dirty laundry was aired in court, and without admitting any guilt.

But, that's the NFL, not "the game." Seifert admits as much in the last graf:

 The NFL can go forth with certainty and continued vigilance, but for now at least, with no fear about its future in American culture.

Bingo. I'm sure there's dirty laundry. But, barring another suit, we won't know. (See below for that.)

In fact, in the AP's story used as the base for ESPN's write-up, player lawyer David Frederick explicitly accused the NFL of covering up studies linking concussions and neurological problems.

But both story and blog hint that the NFL had "done all it could" on this issue.

More bollocks. Daddy Warbucks' continued push for an 18-game season, also not mentioned by the WWL, is proof beyond Frederick's claims that it had not. (I'm assuming this is the final nail in the coffin for Daddy Warbucks' push for that 18-game season.)

Let's also take note that the $765 million settlement is only 40 percent of the cost of the NFL's annual contract with ESPN.

Meanwhile, the No Fun League could be on the hook for some bucks over this:

The N.F.L., legal experts said, still must clarify how much of any settlement its insurance companies will cover. Several of them have argued in court that they do not have to indemnify the N.F.L. because of the policies they wrote. A lawyer representing Alterra America Insurance, which wrote one policy for one year for the N.F.L., told the judge that a settlement could cost $2.5 billion, a figure some legal experts considered conservative. The league and the plaintiffs had to consider their mounting legal bills. 

This ought to be fun.

And, maybe we will get a lawsuit that goes to discovery on this. A group of retired players may not have deep pockets vis-a-vis Daddy Warbucks. A major insurance company does.

===

That all said, what's actually in it for players?

Barring a rush of last-minute retirements, the players who sued, plus all other eligible retirees, will get $150K per person, roughly. Players can opt out, but it's doubtful they'll do better against Daddy Warbucks in a future suit.

That doesn't count the money going to the baseline medical fund.

As for the money going to research, assuming Frederick is right, a key question is going to be: who monitors that fund, including how its money is spent and how its findings are reported?

Other notes include the observation

Tim Hudson not close to Hall of Fame

Except in the mind of ESPN fluffer David Schoenfield, Atlanta Braves pitcher Tim Hudson is NOT, NOT, NOT building a Hall of Fame career.

There has to be something in ESPN's water coolers to for them to consistently spout nonsense like this.

Schoenfield first reverts to the non-sabermetric stat of winning percentage, showing he knows he has a weak case. He at least admits Hudson is not there yet, though he insists he's "getting there" on a HOF career.

Wrong.

Per his Baseball-Reference page, he's got very little black ink, and not even a lot of gray ink. For not walking a lot of people, his WHIP is on the high-ish side. He's only been over 6 WAR twice in his career. And, at 37, the clock is ticking on him getting counting stats.

If he gets to 240 wins, which he could by the end of 2015, at age 39, then let's talk about how close he is.

And, it's in the water over there at ESPN, for sure. Jonah Keri thinks Kevin Brown is a HOFer.

Not.Even.Close.

#ESPN fluffs another non-HOFer, Jimmy Rollins of Phillies

ESPN seems to have reached another new low in touting a player as a potential Hall of Famer who's not even close. This time, it's Phillies shortstop Jimmy Rollins, and the touting isn't from Jayson Stark or Jim Caple, but David Schonfield at the SweetSpot blog.

Here's all you need to know about why, per physicist Wolfgang Pauli, Schoenfield is "not even wrong": Rollins' career OPS+ is below 100.

That's right, he's a below-MLB average hitter for his career.

My minimum, for batters, is generally 110. Rollins' 97 isn't close. Other negatives? Career WAA below 20, and there's no chance he'll get it above 30, let alone 35, by the time he retires.

That said, he plays a skill position, shortstop, right?

But, he's no Ozzie Smith. He's not even a Barry Larkin.

And, the last of his Gold Gloves? Won with a dWAR of exactly zero. And, he's not going to win any more.

Oh, by the time he ends his career, I'd put him in the Hall of Very Good. But not the HOF.

But, here's what all Schoenfield claims as "Yes" material:

• Career length. He's already at 2,024 hits as he enters his age-34 season; 3,000 is probably out of reach (he'd have to average 154 hits through age 39), but he should end up well north of 2,500.
• Speed. He has 403 career steals and just 83 caught stealing. His career total of 61 baserunning runs ranks 16th since 1901, according to Baseball-Reference.
• Power at a premium defensive position: 421 doubles, 105 triples, 193 home runs. Since 1901, he's 13th in extra-base hits among players who played at least 75 percent of their games at shortstop or second base. (Eight of the 12 ahead of him are in the Hall of Fame, and the others are Jeff Kent, Derek Jeter, Miguel Tejada and Lou Whitaker. Five of the next seven are Hall of Famers as well.)
• Defense. Four Gold Gloves and pretty good advanced defensive metrics (plus-51 runs via Baseball-Reference).
• Durability. Nine seasons of 154-plus games. Durability is a skill.
• That MVP Award in 2007. It was much-maligned in some circles at the time, due to his .296 average and .344 OBP (offensive numbers were still sky-high in 2007), but it wasn't that egregious as he ranked sixth (Baseball-Reference) and seventh (FanGraphs) among NL position players in WAR. I mean, this wasn't Andre Dawson 1987 or anything.
• Championship teams. Played on five straight division winners and has a World Series title. So far.
• Fame. I'd say yes.

Let's dissect those in reverse.

1. He won't break 2,500 in the next three years. The way he's tailed off, he probably ends at just over 2,600. That's not "well north" of 2,500.
2. Speed? Yes, he is good at that. But, not as good as Oz, who had nearly 600 steals.
3. Power at a primo defensive position? Yes, he's good, but in a bandbox ballpark for much of his career, and he's overrated as a fielder at his primo position.
4. Defense? He's below average for his career on range factor. I've noted his fourth GG was undeserved. He's not good at all on total zone runs. His career putouts, assists and DPs turned as shortstop aren't fantastic.
5. Durability? Three of his last five seasons have missed that mark.
6. MVP award? Schoenfield himself qualifies it.
7. Championships? Not the primary cause of them, himself.
8. Fame? Per Schoenfield, now we ARE back at the Jack Morris argument.

Puhleeze.

Finally, Schoenfield misses the "smell test," or rather, the "eyeballs test."

Do you, if not immediately, fairly quickly think "Hall of Fame" when you look at Rollins? I don't.

#ARod, Jayson Stark, and an #ESPN shit-pile of hypocrisy

Jayson Stark/ESPN pic

If you're a baseball fan, unless you've been on a desert hermits' retreat, you've heard about New York Yankees injured former superstar third baseman Alex Rodriguez and his huge, newly-revealed, alleged mega-use of steroids, testosterone, HGH and more.

The scheme clearly rivals Barry Bonds and his alleged BALCO roiding and whatever program. We don't know as much about any "program" of Roger Clemens, but we have a good inkling of what he probably did.

I've been pretty consistent on how this whole era should be handled.

But not everybody.

We turn to, where else? ESPN.

Cue up the Jayson Stark hypocrisy alert.

This week, he wants to make roiders feel more pain. Or alleged roiders. Or possible ones. Or maybe ones:

Not one of those players (A-Rod, Nelson Cruz, Gio Gonzales) has ever tested positive for any PED. But that's irrelevant in a situation like this. The commissioner holds the power to suspend players without a positive test if there is firm evidence that they used, or even possessed, a banned substance. ...

So somewhere along the line, the price these men must pay for this crime has to grow large enough to force them to feel the pain. Two-month suspensions alone aren't enough. In-season blood tests aren't enough. Even public humiliation isn't enough.

And it won't be enough until the suspensions grow longer and the penalties grow stiffer -- because, clearly, the thought of losing 50 games worth of pay isn't scaring the people who need scaring.

Sounds like a great, tough, hardline stance, right?

Three weeks ago, he wanted to vote Bonds and Roger Clemens into the Hall of Fame.

On Bonds, he says:

There was only one Barry Bonds

So if you prefer to paint a picture of the baseball world that pretends the 1990s, and the first few seasons of this century, didn't happen, you can erase Bonds from that portrait and not vote for him.

Or you can say this man was convicted of a federal felony (obstruction of justice) directly related to PED use and not vote for him for that. 

Or you can say that no one of his generation was more responsible for obliterating the meaning of the history and the records that once made baseball special and not vote for him for that reason.

If you want to take any of those stances, I get it. But to me, the thought of having the ultimate baseball museum try to make us believe that a player this great was invisible is absurd. Absurd.

He's even more directly hypocritical with Clemens:

One of my distinguished fellow panelists, the great Frank Deford, suggested that day that it was the job of voters to keep any player who'd been proven to use PEDs out of the Hall of Fame. So let me ask you: Is Roger Clemens a "proven" user?

The Department of Justice couldn't "prove" that he used HGH, or that he committed perjury when he claimed he hadn't. Right? So you tell me: Is Clemens innocent or guilty?

Again, I understand the argument for both sides. But no one sums up how difficult it is to answer these questions better than the Rocket does. Guilty or innocent? Clean or dirty? Pick your own standard. Decide for yourself. There's no right answer. ...

C'mon, friends. We can't have a Hall of Fame without Roger Clemens in it. Can we? What kind of Hall of Fame is that?

Which is it, Jayson? Do we give them a pass because we can't prove anything, or through the book at them because we just suspect something?

And, no, this isn't apples and oranges. You said more than two-year suspensions are needed. Isn't that, in part, what a barring from the Hall of Fame is?

You know, it would NOT be hypocrisy if you said, "I blew it three weeks ago," or something similar.

But, hey, Jayson, it's called teh Internet. We got your old column right in front of us. If you don't apologize, if you don't admit you've done a 180 course reversal, it IS hypocrisy. A big, steaming shit-pile, just like I said.

Oh, I Tweeted Stark, too. No response. (And no surprise here.)

Here's my take on the breaking story. Shorter version — Yanks are stuck with him and MLB needs to do more about Hispanic/Latino use of PEDs in the Caribbean.

Premature to jump to Tiger conclusions?

Bob Harig's story title says that, but, he does anyway.

Between "max-size" baseball Hall of Fame writers and Tiger whores, ESPN sure has "favorite suck-up" writers in abundance.

Anyway, back to Tiger. The fact that he's changing putters again says the title's right and Harig's wrong. Meanwhile, another ESPN writer, Gene Wojciechowski, is touting that Tiger could be peaking for The Masters.

Puhleeze. If Tiger's struggling enough with the flatstick to again make a mid-tourney change, he's not putting well enough for Augusta's greens.

Comcastrophe?

No, I don't have cable TV or cable Internet, but Josh Silver of Free Press is right - the FCC's OK of the Comcast takeover of NBC (besides putting the lie to yet another Obama campaign promise) matters to all of us:

You might be saying, "I'm not a Comcast customer, so I'm not worried." But Comcast will jack up the prices that other cable and online distributors pay for NBC content, and you'll pay higher prices -- we promise.

You might be saying, "I can just get a new Internet provider if I don't like it." But there's almost no broadband competition. And as TV, radio, phone and other services increasingly become Internet-based, cable will be the only connection that's fast enough to deliver high-quality media and services to most Americans.

You might be saying, "Why should I care about a business deal between two giant companies?" But this merger is certain to be the first domino to fall in a series of mega-media mergers. The FCC's blessing of Comcast-NBC will embolden companies like AT&T or Verizon to try to gobble up content providers like Disney and CBS, creating a new era of media consolidation where even fewer companies control the content you watch and all the ways you watch it.

And, as far as takeovers? Wouldn't the ABC/ESPN juggernaut love to partner up with another communications company?

ESPN's HOF fluffers don't like Blyleven

With all the "fluffers" among ESPN's baseball writers, as far as Hall of Fame voting, Bert Blyleven STILL barely makes the cut there.

The fluffery includes Jayson Stark actually wanting to vote for 12 people on this year's ballot.

Of course, on Blyleven, ESPN readers are even worse; apparently, all the sabermetrics still hasn't enlightened a magic 75 percent.

How will make this year's baseball HOF? Who SHOULD?

Here's the official 2011 HOF ballot.

And here's my take on who should get in this year, who should get in eventually, and who WILL get in, either this year or eventually, among top candidates.

Bert Blyleven - Should get in this year, should have been in long ago. I think he will get in. But, less than 80 percent vote.

Robbie Alomar - Probably will get in this year; if he does, it will be in the 75-80 percent range, like Blyleven. Should he be? Despite all the Gold Gloves, he has a negative career defensive Win Above Replacement. And, only once, in an individual season, was his dWAR +1.0 or better. He is still a good enough offensive 2B to qualify.

Barry Larkin - Deserves in eventually, but not this year. Anybody with ZERO points under Baseball-Reference's black ink line should NOT be a first-year entrant. Should get in eventually, but probably not this year.

Larry Walker - Should not get in, any year, though I loved the guy as a Cards fan. Great fielder, but, outside of pre-humidor Colorado, he's a much more iffy batter, for his road splits as a Rocky, before that as an Expo, and after that. Had he not had injury problems, maybe he could have "sold us," but, he did and so he couldn't. (Todd Helton will face similar issues, and with the number of 1B in the league, probably won't qualify either.)

Jeff Bagwell - May get in this year but probably not. If he doesn't do it in another year or two, could get lost in the shuffle. I think he deserves in, but, the relatively early career dropoff at a relatively undemanding position, 1B, may be a negative. Bagwell and Walker are the only first-year eligibles who (currently) deserve serious consideration for the future.

Jack Morris - No, no, never! The luckiest pitcher of the last 30-40 years. Were it not for Game 7 of the 1991 WS, we wouldn't even be discussing him. And, I don't think he will, not just this year but any year.

Lee Smith - No, all counts. I agree that saves by themselves are overrated. In the era of the one-inning or less closer, you've got to have more. Plus, his career WHIP is above 1.25, a big red light in my book. (Yes, many sabermetricians say pitchers can only control walks, not hits; that's only partially true on hits.)

Edgar Martinez - No on "should" get in. Relatively fragile for playing primarily DH and couldn't even get 2,500 hits, despite a .312 BA. And, he probably won't. Being a DH without flashier career numbers may be held against him.

Tim Raines - Up there w/Bagwell of the best shot besides Blyleven and Alomar this year. Should he? I'm not anti-Raines, but I'm not as sold on him as some are.
Alan Trammell - Won't get in, and I don't think he should. Nice, but just not quite there.

Fred McGriff - Just can't quite pull the trigger on him. And, I think that will be his "will he" fate, too.

Rafael Palmeiro - No, not until he fesses up, on the "should." And probably ditto on the "will he." Hence my "currently" on Bagwell. That said, Rafe is like Barry Bonds; without juicing, he probably would have been a HOFer any way. He might still have gotten 3K hits, with 400 HRs, 400 2B, and 1,600 RBIs.

Mark McGwire - Big Mac made a semi-confession. He might have been less injured without 'roiding, and maybe gotten to 2,000 hits, which shows just how one-dimensional he was. I mean, six career triples and just two after his rookie season? And at least Palmeiro had a decent glove.

Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, et al. Still not HOFfers and I hope no veterans committee sneaks them in 20 years from now.

Meanwhile, don't believe most ESPN fluffery on this subject.

No wonder so many ESPN readers think Rob Neyer's a douche. Not only Jack Morris, but Keith Hernandez and Dave Parker get a HOF shoutout from him. He even says a "possible case" could be made by unnamed "others" for Kevin Brown.

Jim Caple is another HOF maximalist. Must be something in the ESPN Kool-Aid.

He won't exclude roiders. Wants to vote in the vastly overrated Jack Morris. And Alan Trammell. And Edgar Martinez.

Add Fox's Tracy Ringolsby to the HOF fluffers, specifically the Black Jack Morris fluffers.