Saturday a.m. stuff

by Adam J. Morris on Feb 10, 2007 9:48 AM CST in News

Quiet day, with the biggest news probably being that a truck loaded up with the Rangers equipment has left Arlington and is en route to Surprise, Arizona, with the start of camp looming...

Kat O'Brien writes on the Rangers' efforts to attract more fans from Dallas and Fort Worth, instead of relying so heavily on folks from Arlington and the Mid Cities. Winning would seem to be the easiest way to solve that problem, it seems...

A few other things out there in the baseball world...

Bernie Williams has turned down a minor league deal from the Yankees.

Phil Rogers has a piece at ESPN that suggests that the Angels have the best outfield in baseball, with Garret Anderson, Gary Matthews Jr., and Vlad Guerrero. Even if GMJ can repeat his performance from last year -- which seems pretty unlikely -- Garret Anderson isn't good, and there are better outfields around the league. I'm not sure where Rogers is coming from on this...

And Hal McCoy has a piece, that shows the continuing descent of Mike Schmidt into self-loathing grumpy old man syndrome, as Schmidt rips Adam Dunn and Pat Burrell for striking out too much:

Unprompted, Mike Schmidt ticked off two names that, well, "tick me off. Pat Burrell and Adam Dunn, because they strike out so much."

This came from a guy who struck out 1,883 times during 18 years with the Phillies, including five seasons of more than 135 whiffs. He struck out so much early in his career that teammate Willie Montañez called him "Ah-choo" because strikeouts create the same breeze as a sneeze.

Schmidt, the keynote speaker yesterday morning at a breakfast in Dayton, Ohio, said he regretted the way he approached hitting during his Hall of Fame career.

"Now I know that if I had choked up on the bat with two strikes and hadn't been so aggressive and gave in to the pitcher, I wouldn't have struck out so much. And that's what guys like Dunn and Burrell have to realize," Schmidt added.

Schmidt said that with a game on the line, pitchers don't mind facing guys like the Reds' Dunn and the Phillies' Burrell because they know they can strike them out.

"How do I know this? Because when I played, pitchers wanted me up there with the game on the line," he said. "They'd rather face me than a guy behind me like Greg Luzinski, who would put the ball in play.

"I look at Dunn and Burrell and I go, 'My God, if these guys cut their strikeouts down to 75 or 80, they put the ball in play 85 or 90 more times a year.' That's at least 15 more home runs a year and at least 35 more RBIs a year."

Schmidt hit 548 home runs, was National League MVP four times, and was named the top major-league player of the 1980s, despite his strikeouts. He wonders whether Dunn and Burrell watch St. Louis superstar Albert Pujols, a guy who hits not only for power but also for average, and strikes out fewer than 70 times a year.

"I mean, why would Dunn and Burrell watch what Pujols does and not want to be like him, as good as he is?" Schmidt said. "When their careers are over, they are going to wonder how much they left on the table, how much they left on the field. If only they had choked up with two strikes, spread their stances out. What they are doing now is not great, it is mediocrity."

Here's what jumps out at me...

Mike Schmidt is the greatest third baseman of all time, even with all the strikeouts he now bemoans. To beat himself up at this point of his life because he struck out too much suggests he needs therapy.
The idea that pitchers wanted him up in key situations, rather than Greg Luzinski, because Schmidt was more likely to strike out is ludicrous, since Luzinski struck out at a higher rate than Schmidt over the course of their careers.
There's no way reducing their strikeouts would result in 15 more homers apiece for Dunn and Burrell.

Tweet Comment 36 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

ad campaign

i guess that article by kat o'brien explains why i've been seeing ranger billboards all over the far north dallas area recently.

Though i'd have to say one large reason they don't get many fans from dallas/north dallas suburbs is the distance and traffic factor.

Pimps be damned, it's harder out here for a Rangers fan!

by rentz on Feb 10, 2007 9:55 AM CST reply actions

That's right....

The distance and the traffic problems are bad coming from the northside of Dallas. I have an easier time coming from the south.

by Redcaps on Feb 10, 2007 10:09 AM CST reply actions

Distance/traffic problems

I can't speak to the traffic problems, because I am used to coming from the south as well. Maybe when they get the Buch extended that will help.

But as far as distance, I'm way up in north Plano almost to Frisco, and it only takes me about thirty minutes in normal traffic to get to the Six Flags/TBiA area. That doesn't seem that horrible.

by Brett Perryman on Feb 10, 2007 3:56 PM CST up reply actions

Do you have a helicopter?

When I lived in Frisco and worked in Plano, it would take forever to get to the park almost every time. Now and then you'd be lucky enough that it would be a relatively easy drive, but that wasn't the norm. Not for me, anyway.

by debaser on Feb 10, 2007 3:59 PM CST up reply actions

Like I said

I haven't had to battle traffic to get into the park from up here, as the times I remember going last year after I moved up here I don't think I came in straight from the NE in bad traffic times.

But avoiding known traffic problems (thank you traffic.com) during non-game times, it's not that long of a drive.

by Brett Perryman on Feb 10, 2007 4:42 PM CST up reply actions

yeah

same area as me, i just take 190 till it ends, takes about 30-40min.... the real killer part is the traffic leaving the game, but thats the same for people nomatter where they live, because that area around the stadium can't handle it.

personally, i only make it to a handfull of ranger games because of distance, but this year im looking at rough rider ticket packs, because its just a few minute's away

Pimps be damned, it's harder out here for a Rangers fan!

by rentz on Feb 10, 2007 4:02 PM CST up reply actions

Schmidt

He's coming from a good place, wishing Burrell and Dunn would put up even better numbers. He's basically claiming there are techniques for reducing your strikeouts, so why not use them.

Yes, I know, both players put up good numbers already.

GMJ is going to have a really nice year, even if he starts tailing off afterwards. He's young enough to get in excellent shape, and has the motivation of proving he wasn't a waste of a big contract. My take.

by hightowersmith on Feb 10, 2007 10:33 AM CST reply actions

GMJ

or he's set for his next 10 lives, has no incentive to work hard, and reverts back to the career 89 OPS+ he had before last year.

I wouldn't be shocked if leaving Texas and going to Anaheim doesn't drop his OPS below .700.

------------
:) - Obligatory smiley showing I don't mean whatever mean
spiritedness is likely contained in the preceding post

by jtts on Feb 10, 2007 11:01 AM CST up reply actions

Gotta disagree

If every player who was set for life (or the next ten, as you say) stopped working hard, then no established players would work hard.

Unless you have some firm reasoning for thinking that's the way GMJ will react to having big money is his life, I have to doubt your assessment.

FWIW, I also think he'll regress, but I think he'll do so because he's just not that good at baseball rather than complacency caused by the new contract.

"Well, everyone knows Custer died at Little Bighorn. What this book presupposes is: Maybe he didn't? " -Eli Cash

by thedirkatron on Feb 10, 2007 11:07 AM CST up reply actions

The contract year phenomena is out there

I have no more proof that he'll dog it after his payday than you have that he suddenly feels a need to step up and earn that paycheck.

I think we mostly agree. I think his numbers will regress for 3 reasons (in order of importance):

He's not very good at being a baseball player man.
Switch to a pitcher's park from Arlington.
Lack of a contract year incentive.

------------
:) - Obligatory smiley showing I don't mean whatever mean
spiritedness is likely contained in the preceding post

by jtts on Feb 10, 2007 11:19 AM CST up reply actions

Hmmm...

Yes, some players do have career years in their contract years. (Soriano, Derosa and GMJ, for example.)

But some also stumble in their contract years. (Eaton, Jeff Weaver, Barajas and Aubrey Huff for example.)

Someone out there in the baseball blogosphere has probably done some sort of study on this subject, and done a lot better job of it than I could ever do.

Does anyone know of a statistical analysis of players in their contract year versus the next year?

It'd be interesting to see how much (if any) dropoff players suffer the year the year after signing a fat long term contract.

"Well, everyone knows Custer died at Little Bighorn. What this book presupposes is: Maybe he didn't? " -Eli Cash

by thedirkatron on Feb 10, 2007 11:50 AM CST up reply actions

I can't definitively back this up because I don't

have all the salary info for guys that didn't start the year in the majors, but as far as I can tell, Gary Matthews Jr will be the 5th player ever to earn at least 6 million dollars in his first year of post-arb FA and make more in year one than all his previous years combined.

The list:
Player - PreFAEarnings - Year1 Salary
Alex Rodriguez - 12.03MM - 22.00MM
Jason Giambi - 10.06MM - 10.43MM
Shawn Green - 5.74MM - 9.42MM
Bobby Bonilla - 4.85MM - 6.10MM
Gary Matthews - 4.85MM - 6.00MM

------------
:) - Obligatory smiley showing I don't mean whatever mean
spiritedness is likely contained in the preceding post

by jtts on Feb 10, 2007 1:06 PM CST up reply actions

This is one of my favorite days of the year

The trucks have left Arlingont! chills

Oh, and the Barack announcement. That's exhilirating too.

Edwards-Obama '08

by RangerMoto on Feb 10, 2007 10:45 AM CST reply actions

ACK

*exhilarating

Edwards-Obama '08

by RangerMoto on Feb 10, 2007 10:46 AM CST up reply actions

Obama

I admit I know nothing about the guy so why is he a good candidate? Enlighten me.

by LoneStarBallUser on Feb 10, 2007 11:08 AM CST up reply actions

obama

I think one reason that people like him is he takes a position and sticks to it, which has long been the knock on democrat's is they flip flop.

Pimps be damned, it's harder out here for a Rangers fan!

by rentz on Feb 10, 2007 11:51 AM CST up reply actions

The reason they flip flop

is becasue they run on polls and as opinions or audiences change so do their positions. Barack is a joke. His positions are non existant except the same old tired Dem position of class warfare spinkled with love and optimism. If he doesn't learn to flip flop, he will never be electable on a national level.

Hokie Hokie Hokie Hi Tech Tech VPI Go Hokies!

by jackbnimble on Feb 10, 2007 1:02 PM CST up reply actions

Charisma, character, intelligence

I think he'd be much less polarizing than Hillary, or even Gore (though I'd love to see Gore run and win again).

Towel drills cannot help a pitcher throw a baseball better.

by SteveP on Feb 10, 2007 1:00 PM CST up reply actions

LMAO

"..win again."

That kills me.

When all else fails, there's always delusion. - Conan O'Brien

by mtex on Feb 10, 2007 1:02 PM CST up reply actions

you and about 3117 other Americans

I don't even know what that means, but it sounds inflammatory, huh?

------------
:) - Obligatory smiley showing I don't mean whatever mean
spiritedness is likely contained in the preceding post

by jtts on Feb 10, 2007 1:08 PM CST up reply actions

oooooh

well put.

So sad that that's true. And the casualty rate will only escalate over the next two years of the Bush regime. Worst. President. Ever.

Barack will try to paint himself as a DC outsider (not exactly a novel idea, but I think it's a smart tack), focusing on getting us out of the Iraq quagmire (where we're only making the situation worse, while accelerating a new worldwide arms race. Putin is right), universal health care, spurning alternative energy research, etc. You'll hear more about his platform over the next year. His charisma is intoxicating.

On a related note, I can't believe that the 08 presidential race is already near full swing. Pretty soon, candidates will have to announce their candidacy for reelection before they're even elected the first time...

Edwards-Obama '08

by RangerMoto on Feb 10, 2007 8:38 PM CST up reply actions

well

he won the popular vote and recounts in Florida done by various news organizations show Gore winning florida as well. supreme court banned recounts, basically appointing the shrub as prez.

Towel drills cannot help a pitcher throw a baseball better.

by SteveP on Feb 10, 2007 1:13 PM CST up reply actions

It's not that simple..

We studied that case in depth in law school. While your view is the popular view, there's much more to it than that. The SCOTUS actually had legal reasoning behind their decision, a fact most tend to forget, or overlook.

by Topgun22 on Feb 10, 2007 2:46 PM CST up reply actions

i'm sure they have legal reasoning

behind every decision. I'd hope so at least.

Towel drills cannot help a pitcher throw a baseball better.

by SteveP on Feb 10, 2007 3:02 PM CST up reply actions

Recounts

Recounts done by various organizations all show Bush winning Florida.

In fact, the specific recount that Gore requested (ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties) would have resulted in Bush winning.

The reality is that the Florida election was basically a tie. There would be every bit, if not more, basis for Bush supporters to say that Gore stole the election if he had been declared the winner as there is for Gore supporters to claim that Bush stole it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2000_Florida_results#Post-electo ral_studies.2Frecounts

by BurntOrange on Feb 10, 2007 5:21 PM CST up reply actions

Edit

"all" in the first sentence" should be "also".

by BurntOrange on Feb 10, 2007 5:21 PM CST up reply actions

Arlington*

Damn, I must've been barely awake when I was typing that this morning.

Edwards-Obama '08

by RangerMoto on Feb 10, 2007 8:39 PM CST up reply actions

Angels in the outfield

On its face, it seems ludicrous to say that an outfield which boasts Garrett Anderson as its left fielder is the best in baseball. But, the author's point is that no team has a completely dominant outfield. Certainly the Red Sox and Yankees have that potential, but given injury issues, it's far from a sure thing. I wouldn't want to bank on JD Drew, and the Yankees have run out Crosby, Cabrera, and Williams in recent years. It seems within the realm of possibility that the Angels could have one of the top outfields in baseball. The article made me feel slightly less pessimistic about the Rangers outfield this year.

In other news, I was surprised to see that Jeff Francoeur had an OBP of less than .300 last season. That's Barajas bad.

It's Coagulicious!

by trza on Feb 10, 2007 1:14 PM CST reply actions

Francoeur

His line last year after falling behind 0-2:
120 ABs, 15 hits, 63 KOs, 1 BB, .125/.139/.200/.399

Think he had any clue what was going on when the AB didn't start well?

------------
:) - Obligatory smiley showing I don't mean whatever mean
spiritedness is likely contained in the preceding post

by jtts on Feb 10, 2007 1:35 PM CST up reply actions

i'm not sure what a KO is in baseball

but I think its an appropriate stat to keep for Frenchy given how bad he was.

------------
:) - Obligatory smiley showing I don't mean whatever mean
spiritedness is likely contained in the preceding post

by jtts on Feb 10, 2007 1:36 PM CST up reply actions

Yah

I'd much rather have the Yanks or BoSox OF's next year than the Angels'.

I know there is some injury risk with both (Matsui in NY/ Covelli and Drew in Boston), but I'd rather take that kind of risk than take the risk of hoping that GMJ is for real and that Garrett Anderson might magically morph back into a good player.

Personally I think the list of best MLB OF's goes Boston, NYY, then everyone else.

"Well, everyone knows Custer died at Little Bighorn. What this book presupposes is: Maybe he didn't? " -Eli Cash

by thedirkatron on Feb 10, 2007 1:40 PM CST up reply actions

I'd put Cleveland in the mix for best AL OF

Some combination of Sizemore, Dellucci, Blake, and Nixon will put up very solid numbers. Like with the Red Sox and Yankees, there are injury concerns (particularly with Nixon and Blake), but there's a ton of talent there also.

------------
:) - Obligatory smiley showing I don't mean whatever mean
spiritedness is likely contained in the preceding post

by jtts on Feb 10, 2007 2:03 PM CST up reply actions

I may

be crazy but ... Tampa Bay should be stout. Crawford, Baldelli, Young, and Gomes/Norton as a fourth. That's a very strong and cheap outfield.

by BHill on Feb 10, 2007 3:59 PM CST up reply actions

Allow me to correct Schmidt's statement:

He said: "I mean, why would Dunn and Burrell watch what Pujols does and not want to be like him, as good as he is?"

He should have said: "I mean, why would all 5,000 players in Organized Baseball watch what Pujols does and not want to be like him, as good as he is?"

I think it's important to understand that other players are inherently as talented as Pujols, but they just don't want it bad enough. Shame on them.

by Lucas on Feb 10, 2007 1:19 PM CST reply actions