The Boston Red Sox are supposedly trying to work a deal that will send the best right-handed hitter of this generation, Manny Ramirez, somewhere that isn't playing in front of the green monster.
Reports and quotes from Manny himself have indicated that he isn't happy, they aren't happy with him, and he just flat out doesn't want to be there. Is this really anything new?
Did Manny every really run hard on ground balls in the infield? Just the other day, I saw him hit a ball down the line, put his head down and bust it down the line and got to second.
Manny's 36. He picks his spots. He hits, he hits a lot. Sure, he doesn't put the numbers up that he used to. That's what happens when you're 36 and aren't on the juice. But, he can still consistently drive runs in. The other night, I saw him drive a ball on the outside corner into the right-center field gap. Few hitters, with runners on second and third, stay on that pitch with less than two strikes and just drive it for a base-hit. Manny just gets hitting. He gets the science that is driving in runs.
So why do you trade him? How can he possibly be so unhappy? I mean, sure, he should have been suspended for getting after the traveling secretary. At the same point, I'm sure the Red Sox handled everything behind closed doors, which given the chance, was the right thing to do. But I want to know exactly what it is that Manny feels so poorly treated by. I really want to know what that is. Because if they've been treating him and other, allegedly great players, any differently now than when he was putting rings on their executives fingers, Theo and the boys are nuts.
But I don't think they are. I think Manny is needing attention, as always. Let's face it, he's a baby and he's probably mad that Favre is now the biggest baby in professional sports.
What's interesting is the cash involved. The Red Sox have something along the lines of a $20 million option for Manny they can pick up. Which they aren't going to give to a 36 year old who isn't going .330/40/140 every year. Instead he goes .300/30/120, but whatever and is the most clutch player in the game. Regardless, I don't know if even I, a huge ManRam fan would find $20 million in that. I suppose, the only way you can justify that cash is with a ring. And if ManRam goes to the Marlins, watch out.
You don't want anything to do with a team that has Hanley and Manny Ramirez on it. Nothing to do with it whatsoever. You think the Cubs want to face the Marlins, again, in the NLCS? I don't think so. I don't want that.
I just can't get the Red Sox. Just deal with him for another two months and get done with it. Don't pick up his option move on, sign Teixera, and be done. It's not hard. But if you want to win, win, and you do it with Manny Ramirez in the middle of your lineup.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
I'm Actually Going to Say It
College football can't get here fast enough. I have found myself just talking to myself in the car about college football. This is ridiculous. It needs to show up in a hurry.
But this is going to be a very interesting year in college football. The schedules align in an odd manner and there are some certain rock stars in the league who are captivating audiences.
The most prolific is obviously Florida quarterback Tim Tebow. This happens when you're a junior returning with a Heisman. Of course, No Owens isn't a big endorser of Tebow. But let's get this out there: Tebow is the perfect fit for his system and flourishes in it. He's a solid, solid football player. Deserving of the Heisman last year? You know I don't think he was the best player on his team. That team goes as Tebow goes. So what does that mean?
I posed this question to a buddy of mine at the bar last night: Since 1991, how many teams have won national titles with their quarterback being "the man?" Now, by "the man" I'm referring to...the guy that has to win games for his team. In that time frame, I counted three: Charlie Ward, Vince Young, and Tommie Frazier. That's not a very high percentage...
The point is this. Teams that have success have role playing quarterbacks, not quarterbacks that are supposed to put their team on their back. Look at the great Miami and USC teams from earlier this millennium. Ken Dorsey and Matt Leinart were great players because they knew their role; get the ball to Andre Johnson, Roscoe Parrish, Willis McGahee, D'Wayne Jarrett, Steve Smith and Reggie Bush...not do it themselves. By the way, Danny Wuerffel, that wasn't his team that was, let me throw the ball up to Reidel Anthony, Ike Hilliard and Jacquez Green's team.
So where do you put the burden of your team? Look at last year. Who was Matt Flynn. A fifth year guy who knew the system, didn't make many mistakes and didn't try to do too much. Wins a national title. Look at Chris Leak. Once he harnessed his system, he facilitated for his playmakers. In the national picture this year, I don't like Florida as much as others. I don't like teams who's play is so dependant on their quarterback. Sure Tebow was even hurt last year, but what was his record against ranked teams? Remember they had four losses last year. When was the last time a four loss team had a Heisman winner? You'd probably have to look in the pre-ESPN decides who win the award, era.
Again, when measuring quarterbacks, success is the most important. Wins, big wins and championships. Tebow is a phenomenal talent and a great player. But while his teammates are in Gainesville busting it all summer, Tebow is on mission trips. Now, I'm not going to there's anything wrong with bringing assistance to the needy, but what I will say is that Tebow, who's measured as such a leader by the press because he does jumping jacks after two hard gains, isn't a guy who relates to his players. He's a rock star...who has absolutely nothing in common with anyone on his team. Maybe I'm wrong about his "leadership" abilities, but I know that the other SEC quarterbacks spent their entire summer busting it with their teammates on the field, in the weight room, and at the bars. The latter two are the ones that really count.
Tebow is a great talent. He puts up great stats. But that doesn't necessarily mean wins. And Tebow has so much talent on the field, but his style doesn't traditionally lead to titles. Now, Florida has a great team and a lot of talent, but I see them finishing as the #3 team in the SEC East.
But this is going to be a very interesting year in college football. The schedules align in an odd manner and there are some certain rock stars in the league who are captivating audiences.
The most prolific is obviously Florida quarterback Tim Tebow. This happens when you're a junior returning with a Heisman. Of course, No Owens isn't a big endorser of Tebow. But let's get this out there: Tebow is the perfect fit for his system and flourishes in it. He's a solid, solid football player. Deserving of the Heisman last year? You know I don't think he was the best player on his team. That team goes as Tebow goes. So what does that mean?
I posed this question to a buddy of mine at the bar last night: Since 1991, how many teams have won national titles with their quarterback being "the man?" Now, by "the man" I'm referring to...the guy that has to win games for his team. In that time frame, I counted three: Charlie Ward, Vince Young, and Tommie Frazier. That's not a very high percentage...
The point is this. Teams that have success have role playing quarterbacks, not quarterbacks that are supposed to put their team on their back. Look at the great Miami and USC teams from earlier this millennium. Ken Dorsey and Matt Leinart were great players because they knew their role; get the ball to Andre Johnson, Roscoe Parrish, Willis McGahee, D'Wayne Jarrett, Steve Smith and Reggie Bush...not do it themselves. By the way, Danny Wuerffel, that wasn't his team that was, let me throw the ball up to Reidel Anthony, Ike Hilliard and Jacquez Green's team.
So where do you put the burden of your team? Look at last year. Who was Matt Flynn. A fifth year guy who knew the system, didn't make many mistakes and didn't try to do too much. Wins a national title. Look at Chris Leak. Once he harnessed his system, he facilitated for his playmakers. In the national picture this year, I don't like Florida as much as others. I don't like teams who's play is so dependant on their quarterback. Sure Tebow was even hurt last year, but what was his record against ranked teams? Remember they had four losses last year. When was the last time a four loss team had a Heisman winner? You'd probably have to look in the pre-ESPN decides who win the award, era.
Again, when measuring quarterbacks, success is the most important. Wins, big wins and championships. Tebow is a phenomenal talent and a great player. But while his teammates are in Gainesville busting it all summer, Tebow is on mission trips. Now, I'm not going to there's anything wrong with bringing assistance to the needy, but what I will say is that Tebow, who's measured as such a leader by the press because he does jumping jacks after two hard gains, isn't a guy who relates to his players. He's a rock star...who has absolutely nothing in common with anyone on his team. Maybe I'm wrong about his "leadership" abilities, but I know that the other SEC quarterbacks spent their entire summer busting it with their teammates on the field, in the weight room, and at the bars. The latter two are the ones that really count.
Tebow is a great talent. He puts up great stats. But that doesn't necessarily mean wins. And Tebow has so much talent on the field, but his style doesn't traditionally lead to titles. Now, Florida has a great team and a lot of talent, but I see them finishing as the #3 team in the SEC East.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Wie Don't You Understand?
Michelle Wie has been invited to play again. With men.
Wie was supposed to be done with playing with the boys. Years of missing the cut at men's events (she has made only one) and a poor start to her career on the LPGA Tour conspired to bring some sense into the teen phenom's scheduling. With the wise, and cautious, David Ledbetter offering advice in the background, Wie had decided to stick to women's events.
At least Dave had thought it through a little.
What is this girl's problem? Aside from the fact she apparently was about to turn in her best, professional performance before she got DQ'd for not signing her scorecard...you'd think someone would take a hint. What's Ty Tryon doing these days?
Maybe Wie is going to be something, some day. But again, win on your own tour, follow the rules of your tour before jumping around. Any tournament director that's giving this girl exemptions is just a joke.
Wie was supposed to be done with playing with the boys. Years of missing the cut at men's events (she has made only one) and a poor start to her career on the LPGA Tour conspired to bring some sense into the teen phenom's scheduling. With the wise, and cautious, David Ledbetter offering advice in the background, Wie had decided to stick to women's events.
At least Dave had thought it through a little.
What is this girl's problem? Aside from the fact she apparently was about to turn in her best, professional performance before she got DQ'd for not signing her scorecard...you'd think someone would take a hint. What's Ty Tryon doing these days?
Maybe Wie is going to be something, some day. But again, win on your own tour, follow the rules of your tour before jumping around. Any tournament director that's giving this girl exemptions is just a joke.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
How Can We Forget?
Amidst all of the hoop-la of this past week, you know the pointless Dan Uggla-lost All-Star Game and the Favre saga, we have conveniently forgotten that The Open Championship is officially underway.
The big question is obviously, what's going to happen without Tiger? Well, for the first part, I can tell you there will probably be less "Get In The Hole" guys. I can also tell you that David Duval, once the #1 player in the world, threw up a 41 on the front this morning. Greg Norman and Jean Van de Velde are also tied for second.
But this is a different game. It's like, even if Tiger was there, there is still a good shot that he wouldn't win. It's not automatic. Especially in The Open with the amount of players who play more frequently on the links style courses. So in my opinion, this is a different animal than say Tiger being out of The Masters, US Open, or the PGA. I always like the crazy B list Euros to win The Open. The Paddy's and Monty's and Karlsson's and the Bjorno's (I'm assume T. Bjorn is no where to be found but he's still the man).
We don't talk much about my boy Phil. Nor should we these days. Frankly, he's been playing average golf, especially with the likes of Kenny Perry running around (who doesn't appear to be in the field). Phil's game is just not suited to win in The Open. Wild drives kill you more than anywhere up there. And flop shots, for no reason, don't hold on their greens. Phil is built to play in America, he should just stay home. It's not like he plays many tournaments anyways.
As you know, I love watching golf. And The Open might be the most fun tournament of the year. There are more players hitting balls from the spots of amateurs in The Open than in any other tourney. I know I've never played a links course, but in all reality, why do they just not hit the ball in the fairway? To me it always seems like players out think themselves at The Open. Maybe it's because my game is always going for the pin, no matter what. That's probably how a guy can shoot 88 with a 50 on the front. Either way, I'd like to see some guys play the American game on that course. Not including Mickelson as he can't find a fairway anyhow.
Enjoy The Open, and watch it without Tiger. It was probably give the tournament more excitement anyways. Especially with Van de Velde in the hunt.
The big question is obviously, what's going to happen without Tiger? Well, for the first part, I can tell you there will probably be less "Get In The Hole" guys. I can also tell you that David Duval, once the #1 player in the world, threw up a 41 on the front this morning. Greg Norman and Jean Van de Velde are also tied for second.
But this is a different game. It's like, even if Tiger was there, there is still a good shot that he wouldn't win. It's not automatic. Especially in The Open with the amount of players who play more frequently on the links style courses. So in my opinion, this is a different animal than say Tiger being out of The Masters, US Open, or the PGA. I always like the crazy B list Euros to win The Open. The Paddy's and Monty's and Karlsson's and the Bjorno's (I'm assume T. Bjorn is no where to be found but he's still the man).
We don't talk much about my boy Phil. Nor should we these days. Frankly, he's been playing average golf, especially with the likes of Kenny Perry running around (who doesn't appear to be in the field). Phil's game is just not suited to win in The Open. Wild drives kill you more than anywhere up there. And flop shots, for no reason, don't hold on their greens. Phil is built to play in America, he should just stay home. It's not like he plays many tournaments anyways.
As you know, I love watching golf. And The Open might be the most fun tournament of the year. There are more players hitting balls from the spots of amateurs in The Open than in any other tourney. I know I've never played a links course, but in all reality, why do they just not hit the ball in the fairway? To me it always seems like players out think themselves at The Open. Maybe it's because my game is always going for the pin, no matter what. That's probably how a guy can shoot 88 with a 50 on the front. Either way, I'd like to see some guys play the American game on that course. Not including Mickelson as he can't find a fairway anyhow.
Enjoy The Open, and watch it without Tiger. It was probably give the tournament more excitement anyways. Especially with Van de Velde in the hunt.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Many Takes, Here's Mine
This whole Brett Favre saga is starting to even get to me. Get to me that I think I was sick over it on Friday night.
The speculations of Favre coming back that had been reported in the past few weeks were just kind of like, whatever. You knew these things were going to happen. I mean, didn't you? I didn't actually think this was going to happen though.
So let's lay the facts out there quickly, alright? January 2008, Favre throws worst pass ever resulting in a playoff loss. February 2008, Mike McCarthy meets with Brett Favre to let him know that the Packers want him back for the next season. March 2008, Brett Favre retires from the Green Bay Packers. Somewhere between then and now, Brett Favre apparently is in great shape because he's been throwing with a high school team. Two weeks ago, rumors fly that Favre wants to come back. Last Friday, Favre claims the Packers don't want him to play for them and asks for his unconditional release.
First, before I absolutely start to rail my second favorite athlete ever, let me tell you that this has been a really, really hard thing for me to deal with. Because somewhere, we have to draw the line of what's right and what's wrong, not what we feel inside about a guy.
Now. Brett Favre retired from the Green Bay Packers in March. More or less, he quit, under contract. So, as much as I may not have noticed, but the world didn't stop spinning when Favre retired. From that second, the Packers have been making every arrangement that follows them having a new starting quarterback for the first time since Don Majkowski. Aaron Rodgers, who's had to deal with this saga for how many years, was finally the guy, the day that Favre retired, left, quit.
The Packers had an alright draft, bringing in two quarterbacks to their roster, Louisville's (should have been Tennessee's) Brian Brohm and LSU's Matt Flynn. Both guys have apparently been solid during mini-camp. Rodgers has been taking the necessary steps as a leader in the locker room and in the community as this is now his spot. The Packers have moved on since Favre formally announced his intentions not to play.
Before we get any further, what were those reasons? Weren't they not because he didn't want to play, but because he couldn't handle the daily grind, the film study, and the...off season workouts? So do we find it surprising that Favre is trying to find a Roger Clemensesque deal, where basically he can do whatever he wants whenever he wants because, he deserves it? I mean, I am surprised, but the pieces really fall into place.
No man, other than Michael Jordan, is bigger than the team. Favre is trying to state his case for being bigger than the franchise in this scenario. He doesn't run the team, the GM and Head Coach do. The second that they let Favre start to dictate their policy, where does it end? How much of an impression does this set for the young team as to what this franchise is all about? Favre retired, he was supposed to have moved on and the Packers had no choice but to. To me, this almost seems like a ploy because of what Favre didn't want to deal with he's not having to. It almost seems like this was Favre's plan all along. Retire, not deal with the other stuff and come back. They'll want me.
Maybe we do. Maybe the Packers are a better team tomorrow with #4 under center. Maybe they aren't? But what are they supposed to do? The Favre Saga has become more drama-filled in the past 3 years than MTV knows what to do with. If I was the Packers, this is what I'd do. Contractually, he is still theirs. So I'd make a move, put him on the roster at the last QB spot and tell him, if he wants to play, he better work at it because they've seen nothing from him. Aaron Rodgers is their guy and if Favre wants the spot, he better take it because that's all he's going to get.
If they take Favre back, what does that mean? Well the circus comes back to town and the focus is not on the team but on Favre's status. Is he going to play, will he be traded, what color is his hair? It's what to expect. Favre is making a mockery of the Packers right now, and there are some Packer fans out there who apparently think it's alright. I don't.
The speculations of Favre coming back that had been reported in the past few weeks were just kind of like, whatever. You knew these things were going to happen. I mean, didn't you? I didn't actually think this was going to happen though.
So let's lay the facts out there quickly, alright? January 2008, Favre throws worst pass ever resulting in a playoff loss. February 2008, Mike McCarthy meets with Brett Favre to let him know that the Packers want him back for the next season. March 2008, Brett Favre retires from the Green Bay Packers. Somewhere between then and now, Brett Favre apparently is in great shape because he's been throwing with a high school team. Two weeks ago, rumors fly that Favre wants to come back. Last Friday, Favre claims the Packers don't want him to play for them and asks for his unconditional release.
First, before I absolutely start to rail my second favorite athlete ever, let me tell you that this has been a really, really hard thing for me to deal with. Because somewhere, we have to draw the line of what's right and what's wrong, not what we feel inside about a guy.
Now. Brett Favre retired from the Green Bay Packers in March. More or less, he quit, under contract. So, as much as I may not have noticed, but the world didn't stop spinning when Favre retired. From that second, the Packers have been making every arrangement that follows them having a new starting quarterback for the first time since Don Majkowski. Aaron Rodgers, who's had to deal with this saga for how many years, was finally the guy, the day that Favre retired, left, quit.
The Packers had an alright draft, bringing in two quarterbacks to their roster, Louisville's (should have been Tennessee's) Brian Brohm and LSU's Matt Flynn. Both guys have apparently been solid during mini-camp. Rodgers has been taking the necessary steps as a leader in the locker room and in the community as this is now his spot. The Packers have moved on since Favre formally announced his intentions not to play.
Before we get any further, what were those reasons? Weren't they not because he didn't want to play, but because he couldn't handle the daily grind, the film study, and the...off season workouts? So do we find it surprising that Favre is trying to find a Roger Clemensesque deal, where basically he can do whatever he wants whenever he wants because, he deserves it? I mean, I am surprised, but the pieces really fall into place.
No man, other than Michael Jordan, is bigger than the team. Favre is trying to state his case for being bigger than the franchise in this scenario. He doesn't run the team, the GM and Head Coach do. The second that they let Favre start to dictate their policy, where does it end? How much of an impression does this set for the young team as to what this franchise is all about? Favre retired, he was supposed to have moved on and the Packers had no choice but to. To me, this almost seems like a ploy because of what Favre didn't want to deal with he's not having to. It almost seems like this was Favre's plan all along. Retire, not deal with the other stuff and come back. They'll want me.
Maybe we do. Maybe the Packers are a better team tomorrow with #4 under center. Maybe they aren't? But what are they supposed to do? The Favre Saga has become more drama-filled in the past 3 years than MTV knows what to do with. If I was the Packers, this is what I'd do. Contractually, he is still theirs. So I'd make a move, put him on the roster at the last QB spot and tell him, if he wants to play, he better work at it because they've seen nothing from him. Aaron Rodgers is their guy and if Favre wants the spot, he better take it because that's all he's going to get.
If they take Favre back, what does that mean? Well the circus comes back to town and the focus is not on the team but on Favre's status. Is he going to play, will he be traded, what color is his hair? It's what to expect. Favre is making a mockery of the Packers right now, and there are some Packer fans out there who apparently think it's alright. I don't.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
On Site
Tonight, No Owens will be on location at the Sommet Center in Nashville. The event taking place is Poison with Special Guests Dokken and Sebastian Bach. I'm sure good tickets are still available.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Breakfast, Lunch and a Mid-Day Snack at Wimbledon
I woke up early to watch tennis yesterday. I pretty much didn't move most of the day. Thankfully, it was arguably the greatest match in the history of tennis.
In case you missed it, Rafael Nadal beat NO favorite Roger Federer in a five set marathon finally breaking Federer at 7-7 in the fifth set. Nadal became the first player to win both the French Open and Wimbledon in back to back years since Borg in 1980 and denied Federer the chance at becoming the first ever six-in-a-row champion at the All England Club.
The match was like nothing I'd really ever seen. When Nadal came out and broke in the first, I thought it was over. I thought that the Federer reign was done. Then the rain came down two sets and Federer seemed to kick it in winning the third and fourth before neither player dropped a set on serve until overtime in the fifth.
The interesting thing is, Federer should have won in four. Federer was up 4-2 in the second before losing 4 straight games. It was almost embarrassing. Federer served well all match, except for one game. And that's the one that will undoubtedly haunt him. He let Wimbledon go in the second, not in the fifth.
But though we can analyze Federer's losing the tournament, it's hard to take away the match from Nadal. He was unreal. Absolutely unreal. He was broken, what, once? In that second set and broke right back. He hit's unreal passing shots off balanced, with a two-handed backhand as if he knows exactly where Federer is going to be when Roger comes to net.
I think Nadal is just a smarter tennis player than Federer. He makes better decisions, adjusts, and doesn't try to beat himself. Federer will play his game and do it over and over. Granted, it's worked well, but he's now lost on his turf. Will Federer rock some ridiculous outfits next year?
The thing about Nadal's preparation that astounds me the most is his use of his serve. His ace total is obviously not what Federer's is. But he structures the points to his favor with his serve. So though he's not getting the glam numbers with the aces, he's getting the awkward returns he wants from his carefully positioned serves. The higher percentage play and if you didn't notice, the play that wins you titles.
Yesterday was an amazing day for tennis. Even Johnny Mac was emotional. But you probably witnessed the greatest match of all time if you watched yesterday. And as much of a Federer fan that I am, it really didn't bother me to see him lose that way. Seeing such a great sporting event like that is enough for me. But a changing of the guard is in the air as Nadal is moving closer to being the #1 player in the world. But can Nadal win on the hard court? We will see very soon.
In case you missed it, Rafael Nadal beat NO favorite Roger Federer in a five set marathon finally breaking Federer at 7-7 in the fifth set. Nadal became the first player to win both the French Open and Wimbledon in back to back years since Borg in 1980 and denied Federer the chance at becoming the first ever six-in-a-row champion at the All England Club.
The match was like nothing I'd really ever seen. When Nadal came out and broke in the first, I thought it was over. I thought that the Federer reign was done. Then the rain came down two sets and Federer seemed to kick it in winning the third and fourth before neither player dropped a set on serve until overtime in the fifth.
The interesting thing is, Federer should have won in four. Federer was up 4-2 in the second before losing 4 straight games. It was almost embarrassing. Federer served well all match, except for one game. And that's the one that will undoubtedly haunt him. He let Wimbledon go in the second, not in the fifth.
But though we can analyze Federer's losing the tournament, it's hard to take away the match from Nadal. He was unreal. Absolutely unreal. He was broken, what, once? In that second set and broke right back. He hit's unreal passing shots off balanced, with a two-handed backhand as if he knows exactly where Federer is going to be when Roger comes to net.
I think Nadal is just a smarter tennis player than Federer. He makes better decisions, adjusts, and doesn't try to beat himself. Federer will play his game and do it over and over. Granted, it's worked well, but he's now lost on his turf. Will Federer rock some ridiculous outfits next year?
The thing about Nadal's preparation that astounds me the most is his use of his serve. His ace total is obviously not what Federer's is. But he structures the points to his favor with his serve. So though he's not getting the glam numbers with the aces, he's getting the awkward returns he wants from his carefully positioned serves. The higher percentage play and if you didn't notice, the play that wins you titles.
Yesterday was an amazing day for tennis. Even Johnny Mac was emotional. But you probably witnessed the greatest match of all time if you watched yesterday. And as much of a Federer fan that I am, it really didn't bother me to see him lose that way. Seeing such a great sporting event like that is enough for me. But a changing of the guard is in the air as Nadal is moving closer to being the #1 player in the world. But can Nadal win on the hard court? We will see very soon.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
The Chase For Baseball's Most Impressive Number
Home Runs. RBI. Even today you hear about these crazy things that Bill James invented like 15 years ago and they are now becoming in vogue like an OPS, adjusted or not.
All of these things are nice and great. But if you want to ask me what the most important stat in baseball is, it's the old fashion, no frills attached batting average.
If you hit for a strong average, you get on base. You get on base, you have the ability to score runs. If you hit, you have the ability to knock runs in. The higher the average, to me, the higher the value. A guy with a high career average tells me that I know exactly what I'm going to get day in and day out, year in and year out. Home runs can come and go and RBI can fluctuate if you're on a team that doesn't have people around you or if you're hitting in a certain spot in a batting order (pending it's in the top 5 spots, Edgar Renteria is a .280 hitter, but .330 hitting in the 7 hole, imagine if Al Pujols hit 7).
So to me, average is the ultimate in consistency. Home runs can come and go, but a guy who's going to hit .320 is going to give you a strong presence at the park everyday, and in a season that is 162+ games, I prefer consistency over the flash.
So to me, the quest for .400 is always very interesting. There's a reason that the last guy's name to do it is Ted Williams and names like Mantle, Yount, and Gwynn never accomplished it. It's singly the hardest feat to accomplish in baseball, possibly in all of sports, in my opinion.
So we have Chipper Jones who has been red hot pretty much all year and has been up over .400 and in the .390's for most of the season. Chipper's having a great year and has the other numbers to back up his average to come towards the mid-back end of a really nice career. So the question comes to, can Chipper do this?
Well, here's the plan for hitting .400. I hit .403 or .407 or something like that the summer after my freshman year of high school. Granted, the competition wasn't the best and I was hitting three with Ryan Trembath behind me so I clearly saw good pitches, but I was hitting really well that summer. Bob Conner printed off our stats at the end of the year and I remember studying the game by game log and wondering how I got to the final average that I had. What the sheet looked like was a bunch of 1-3 and 1-4 games with a few multi-hit games sprinkled in.
For a guy chasing the big number, it's every hit that counts. Get them however you can get them. So what's interesting is that Chipper is a power hitter. Can he beat out infield hits? I don't think so. Neither could Ted. But as long he can keep one hit, in any fashion, in the boxscore he has a shot.
I just don't see a guy like that doing it. Someone who can create the intangibles. Someone like Ichiro or Carl Crawford. A guy who hits 1-2 in the lineup who's job it is to create offense for the rest of the lineup. Chipper has one nice luxury and that's he has Mark Texiera hitting behind him. Tex is the key for Chipper's run because you can't pitch around Chipper and if you do, you get to one of the best hitters in the league. I hope Chipper does it, but don't get your hopes up. If he does, he owes Tex a new Porsche.
All of these things are nice and great. But if you want to ask me what the most important stat in baseball is, it's the old fashion, no frills attached batting average.
If you hit for a strong average, you get on base. You get on base, you have the ability to score runs. If you hit, you have the ability to knock runs in. The higher the average, to me, the higher the value. A guy with a high career average tells me that I know exactly what I'm going to get day in and day out, year in and year out. Home runs can come and go and RBI can fluctuate if you're on a team that doesn't have people around you or if you're hitting in a certain spot in a batting order (pending it's in the top 5 spots, Edgar Renteria is a .280 hitter, but .330 hitting in the 7 hole, imagine if Al Pujols hit 7).
So to me, average is the ultimate in consistency. Home runs can come and go, but a guy who's going to hit .320 is going to give you a strong presence at the park everyday, and in a season that is 162+ games, I prefer consistency over the flash.
So to me, the quest for .400 is always very interesting. There's a reason that the last guy's name to do it is Ted Williams and names like Mantle, Yount, and Gwynn never accomplished it. It's singly the hardest feat to accomplish in baseball, possibly in all of sports, in my opinion.
So we have Chipper Jones who has been red hot pretty much all year and has been up over .400 and in the .390's for most of the season. Chipper's having a great year and has the other numbers to back up his average to come towards the mid-back end of a really nice career. So the question comes to, can Chipper do this?
Well, here's the plan for hitting .400. I hit .403 or .407 or something like that the summer after my freshman year of high school. Granted, the competition wasn't the best and I was hitting three with Ryan Trembath behind me so I clearly saw good pitches, but I was hitting really well that summer. Bob Conner printed off our stats at the end of the year and I remember studying the game by game log and wondering how I got to the final average that I had. What the sheet looked like was a bunch of 1-3 and 1-4 games with a few multi-hit games sprinkled in.
For a guy chasing the big number, it's every hit that counts. Get them however you can get them. So what's interesting is that Chipper is a power hitter. Can he beat out infield hits? I don't think so. Neither could Ted. But as long he can keep one hit, in any fashion, in the boxscore he has a shot.
I just don't see a guy like that doing it. Someone who can create the intangibles. Someone like Ichiro or Carl Crawford. A guy who hits 1-2 in the lineup who's job it is to create offense for the rest of the lineup. Chipper has one nice luxury and that's he has Mark Texiera hitting behind him. Tex is the key for Chipper's run because you can't pitch around Chipper and if you do, you get to one of the best hitters in the league. I hope Chipper does it, but don't get your hopes up. If he does, he owes Tex a new Porsche.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)