by Gregg Pearlman
Sunday, July 23, 2000
Can you believe the All-Star Game was nearly two weeks ago? I can't. Of course, I saw maybe the last three innings -- lately I always seem to be too busy on All-Star night, which is probably for the best, because that way I get to miss Giants players playing poorly. This year Jeff Kent went 0-for-2 with a couple of ground-outs, and apparently he missed a double-play ground ball. Not that this means that he had an actively bad game; it's just that the Giants seem to reek in the All-Star Game year after year. If there's a losing pitcher for the National League, it's Atlee Hammaker. Or Jeff Brantley. Or Rick Reuschel. Or Shawn Estes. Or Rod Beck. Or Robb Nen. Or Scott Garrelts. (Of course, I'm aware that not all of these guys lost All-Star Games or were even on losing teams, but still.) If there's a hitter needing to hit into a game-ending double play, it's Chris Brown. Or Will Clark. Or Barry Bonds. Or Jeff Kent. (Not that that always happened, either.) I'm just relieved that Kent's All-Star showing was merely unremarkable as opposed to actively embarrassing. And I'm sure that he means it when he says it's enough just to be there.
The Giants had a very nice homestand immediately after the break -- they're almost never home after the break -- but that does not mean that they've averted the Annual Post-All-Star-Game Nightmare Road Trip. They just haven't been on it yet.
Well, that's not true. They've played the first two games of that trip, splitting them against the Dodgers. Visions of Annual Nightmares had to wing their way through the bruised psyches of Giants fans everywhere following Friday night's horrendous 6-5 loss, in which yet another Giants-related dream was dashed by Eric Karros, the kind of player every team (except the Giants) should acquire for the express purpose of playing him against the Giants. The guy'd be a triple-crown winner, even if he went to AL West teams during interleague play. Mark my words: If he ever goes to an American League East or Central team, he'll have an OPS in the neighborhood of .650 and he'll exhibit record-settingly bad defensive prowess -- as long as those teams never play the Giants.
I don't like Eric Karros much.
Anybody who disagrees with me is a rotten egg. Those choosing to agree are Jon R., Rob W., Anson, Grant, Ron M., Paul L., Francisco, Jonathan, Tobias, DLew, JVV, Wayne, Chris F., Richard, Jason, Tom J., Walter, Don T., Tim I., Dan L., Pat M., Doug N., Douglas M., David N., Basil, Tom N., John W., Thomas A., Dave L., and James F.
There's no reason on God's green earth that the Giants should have lost that game to the Padres, but they did, almost certainly because I took my son, Adam, to his first outing at the Beautiful New Ballpark. I'm pretty sure he went mostly to go down one of the Coke-bottle slides, because he started asking to go home pretty early on -- specifically, in the top of the first inning, before any Padres were retired.
In fact, there was no strong indication that any Padres would ever be retired. Mark Gardner gave up hit after hit after hit after hit, including two singles off the wall, in the first. Somehow, though, he only trailed 3-0 after two, and he settled down wonderfully after averting disaster in the third. The Padres had runners on second and third with nobody out when Bobby Estalella fired a throw down to Russ Davis at third, picking off Aaron Boone. The inning ended when the batter hit a fly ball to medium right field, and Armando Rios threw out the runner trying to advance from second.
The Giants managed to tie it up in the fourth on Barry Bonds' 31st home run, the first Splash Hit it was ever my pleasure to witness. Well, I didn't see the ball actually hit the water, but replays confirmed that it did. (He also did it in the Shawn Estes game, the 18-0 squeaker over the Expos in which Estes hit the first grand slam for a Giants pitcher in over 50 years. However, when Bonds hit his home run, I was still standing outside the stadium, waiting for my brother-in-law.)
The pitchers traded zeroes for quite a while, then Alan Embree gave up a couple of crap hits in the tenth to lose it 4-3. With Marvin Benard having started the bottom of the inning with a single, I was nearly screaming for Dusty Baker not to have Bill Mueller bunt, because surely that would've meant a walk for Bonds, leading to a plate appearance by Jeff Kent, who just hadn't been hitting at all since the break. So for a change, Dusty listened to me, and as if to show me that I can't possibly know what I'm talking about because I'm not a Baseball Insider, he flashed the Hit Into A Double Play sign, and Mueller complied. Then Bonds smoked a mammoth drive toward center field, where Ruben Rivera, timing his leap perfectly, snatched it away from the hopeful crowd to end the game. I never saw the ball actually enter his glove, and I will never believe that the umpires actually checked on this. It reminded me of the story in Durwood Merrill's book about Robin Yount pretending, in similar fashion, to have robbed Kirby Puckett of a game-winning home run. Merrill had the brains to check... and Yount showed that he didn't have the ball. Not here, though.
Very discouraging. It now makes me 2-1 at Pac Bell this year, which makes the argument less convincing that the Giants should ensure that I attend every home game for free. It also makes Adam 0-1, which means it's probably his fault. Or maybe it could be that of James Farrar, long-time Giants newsgroup regular, whom we had the pleasure of meeting that night. Or maybe it's just that the three of us must never attend another game together.
The Giants managed to split the two-game series with San Diego, then headed to LA for certain disaster. They had a two-run lead going to the bottom of the eighth. Shawn Estes, who'd been walking a tightrope much of the night but had settled down, decided to allow a couple of baserunners right away. Felix Rodriguez decided to obey somebody's Give Up A Home Run sign, whereupon Karros deposited a shoulder-high fastball over the wall in left. Thanks, life. Jeff Shaw, who'd been miserable in save situations before hitting the DL, smoked the Giants in the ninth, and it was all over.
Thank goodness this is baseball, however, and that whoever makes decisions about these things decided that there'd be a game practically every day during the season. I fussed and fumed over this loss for maybe a couple of minutes before thinking, "You know, there's another game tomorrow, and one the day after that. We could actually win this series."
So the Giants made an effort yesterday to do exactly that, as Rich Aurilia, Bobby Estalella, and Armando Rios provided all the offense with home runs, and Livan Hernandez beat the Dodgers 5-2. Very sweet. I decided to bask in that one a little longer than I'd suffered the previous night.
Today's game starts around five o'clock on ESPN2 -- apparently the Giants and Dodgers don't provide enough entertainment for ESPN....
"The Giants got humiliated by the A's last year right after the All-Star Break and then they proceeded to go into a skid, and the Diamondbacks went into first place. Could it be that the roles are reversed this year? A slight difference in that the Diamondbacks are playing the A's before the break rather than after. The Giants are about the same amount of games out of first that the Diamondbacks were this time last year."
"Ahhh! All this positiveness is music to my soul," says Rob W. "Absolutely no substitute for the power of positive thinking. I know for a fact it exists within the Giants clubhouse and now it's working everywhere in Giantsdom. There certainly isn't much to complain about now, is there?"
"Who me?" says Jon. "I'm not being positive. I am simply discussing what has just recently happened. If it sounds positive it's only because the recent events are positive. I refuse to look much further into the future and inject any positive spin on it.
"So there isn't any positive thinking happening here... but maybe in the Giants clubhouse. That's where it belongs. Giants fans are allergic to it."
"How come everyone's been taking shots at Gregg lately?" Anson chimes in. "I can't believe you're daring him to complain!" "He wouldn't dare, would he?" says Rob.
Not while I'm weeping, I wouldn't.
"Is it just me or did the first half of the season go by quick?" says Gaetano. "I think that we all have to be optimistic about the way the Giants finished the first half. I wouldn't worry too much about [the loss to the Cardinals before the break]. It was the last game of the half, and the Giants already had one the series. Giving Kent, Burks, and Bonds an extra day's rest was a good idea. Bonds is going to be fine. Kent has had a great first half, and we all know that he will continue to play hard throughout the season. One positive sign from yesterday was the young players almost coming back on the Cardinals. Being down eight to two, and then scoring five runs to make it a one-run ball game shows a lot of heart. You have to be encouraged by what you've seen from all of the young guys during the first half of the season. Even our bullpen has shown signs of improvement over the past 10 days. Okay, enough about the first half. Now the journey really begins.
"As we all know, the past three seasons have not gone well for the Giants coming out of the All-Star Break. They need to come out strong this year. I think they have the next eight games at home, and then they go on the road, but they stay in the state of California. I really believe that the rest of this month will make or break their season. When they hit August they have to be either in first place or very close to it. August is going to be a tough month. They have to travel across the country, and that is going to take its toll on the team. Hopefully Ortiz can somehow get back his form from last season. If not, Gardner will have to fill in more. It looks like the rest of the starting staff is getting it together.
"One thing we don't have to worry about is our offense. Our bullpen is going to have to pick it up a lot more. I'm sure by the time we hit the trading deadline the Giants will make a move or two to shore up the bullpen. And, of course finally we have injuries. The one thing that has hurt the Giants over the past three seasons has been injuries to key players in the second half of the season. We all have to hope that everyone stays healthy, but the good news is that we have some good young proven talent on the bench to fill in. Dusty gave the young guys a lot of playing time in the first half just in cast he has to go to them down the stretch.
"Well that's it. All we can do now is wait and see what happens. I hope when I do this again at the end of the season the Giants are heading into the playoffs."
"At the All-Star Break the Giants, as a team, are batting .294 with a .373 OBP and .496 slugging percentage," says Grant. "For contrast, here's Will Clark's 1990 line, when he was second on the team in OPS: .295/.357/.448. And Kevin Mitchell's '90 line: .290/.360/.544.
"If you'd have told me in 1990 the '00 Giants would be hitting about the same as a team of Kevin Mitchells and Will Clarks at the All-Star Break, I'd have wet my pants. 'So, what are we? Fifteen, sixteen games up?'"
"I guess it's just another indication that baseball is being made an absurdly offense-oriented game," says Ron M.
"Well, yeah," says Jon. "That's one component of this message. But I think that the main point is that our Giants are sitting on top of the heap. Everything's in context. Granted, baseball is becoming more offense oriented. I won't bother citing the reasons; I'm sure we're all bored by hearing them over and over again. But most importantly within this context, if your team is at the top of the heap then that's something to be positive about."
Well, here at EEEEEE!, that's almost an absurd statement. Good thing we have Paul L. on the group. "Of course, you know the flip side of this," he says: "The Giants' team ERA, at 4.90, is a third of a run higher than the worst pitcher who logged at least 50 innings for the '90 Giants (that being Don Robinson at 4.57). And if you told me in 1990 that the 2000 Giants would be pitching about the same as a team of Atlee Hammakers and Bob Kneppers, I would figure we'd be lucky to have won 15 games."
"I have come to the conclusion baseball has changed in the past 10 years," understates Grant.
"Amazingly enough, nobody in the media seems to mind the selection of Joe Girardi as catcher," says Francisco. Yes, I have heard the stories of Todd Hundley and Javy Lopez [who were injured], but what about Estalella? He's put up numbers almost twice as good as Girardi's in less time. Of course I wouldn't expect the All-Star managers to remember a Giants platoon player, but it's kind of disappointing to know that they must not look at stats at all."
"I think you can't expect a half time player to get chosen, no matter how well he's doing," says Jonathan. "Girardi, of course, is about as poor a choice as you can possibly imagine. Bad player having mediocre year -- sure says All-Star to me."
"I was eating my cornflakes while reading on ESPN.com that Girardi had been selected to the roster by Cox," says Rob. "I damn near spewed Kellogg's finest all over my computer. Jeez, what a joke. I don't think I'll watch the game and go fishing instead."
"Girardi's stats aren't bad, but I'd agree that Estalella's are better," says Tobias. "I think it goes to the fact that All-Star picks don't typically go to young upstarts who've only had one good half-season. Joe Girardi is a long-time respected veteran... who's had one good half-season.
"I actually loved what Bobby Cox said about 'selecting' Girardi. Really must've filled Joe with a sense of pride. Cox basically said words to the effect that Javy Lopez wasn't available, and Todd Hundley was busy. Then he said something about being 'unable to contact a few other guys.' At this point, I'm thinking that Mitch Meluskey was incommunicado, Bobby Estalella had his cell phone turned off, and Ron Karkovice, Steve Lake, Ed Ott, Bob Melvin and Doug Gwodsz were all away in the Yukon Territory on a 'Bad Former Backup Catchers Reunion and Hunting Trip.' That left Biff Pocoroba and Bruce Benedict, who, being former Braves and all, would've been ideal choices for Bobby. Unfortunately, Biff and Bruce have severed all ties with the Braves due to perceived slights made on Braves' broadcasts over the years, by Skip Caray and Don Sutton. So they wouldn't take Cox's phone calls. Cox had no choice but to go ahead and name Girardi.
"At least, that's how I imagined it going down."
"In our biannual 'agree on something' post, I agree [with Jon]," says DLew. "In fact, I'm kind of pissed Estalella didn't make it. Checking their stats:
Player G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI AVG Joe Girardi 61 212 34 64 12 0 4 21 .302 Bobby Estalella 54 161 29 46 14 2 9 34 .286[I don't have walk data, but their respective slugging percentages are .425 and .565. Somehow I doubt that Girardi has managed to make up the difference in OBP. -- GP]
"I mean, granted, I'm an Estalella fan but Bobby Cox is and has been bugging me as manager on the NL squad forever. He said that if Kent weren't elected, he was going to choose Vidro and Viña because they're having better years! Come on now, Bobby."
Good point. You could most likely translate Cox's remark as, "If Kent weren't elected, I was going to choose Vidro and Viña because it would be an egregious slap in the face to Giants fans."
"Maybe if the Giants would win the NL pennant...," says Tobias.
And another thing, adds DLew: "Why did Bob Costas and Joe Morgan have to wait until Kent was up to kind of yawn off the fact that a bunch of people have 80 RBIs? Sheesh. Don't talk about Kent's amazing come-from-behind All-Star starter spot... talk about how 80 RBIs at the break is no biggie. That kinda pissed me off. Typical Morgan: downplay anybody who looks better than you: 'When I was playing second base for the Cincinnati Reds I....'"
I've had a similar gripe about Morgan for years -- not so much that he has to downplay other players' accomplishments and compare them to his own; more a need to inject himself into a situation: "When I played for the 1976 Reds and won my second straight MVP and we swept the Yankees in the series, sometimes I used to get eye-boogers, too."
"I was also really irritated by their shabby treatment of Kent," says Paul, "especially since they missed half of his at-bat talking to someone (I don't even remember who). I mean, yes, RBIs are easier to come by these days, but he still has the most of anyone in the league.
"But then again, I found both Costas and Morgan to be really annoying. Especially when Costas was babbling about how it's impossible to compare people across eras because conditions have changed so much. Newsflash, Bob: just because you don't know how to do it doesn't mean it can't be done."
"Well, that would require work," says Tobias.
I don't have a problem with Costas, generally, but the sentiment is so typical: "If I don't know how to do it, it can't be done." This, of course, goes nicely with Morgan's "I'm a Baseball Insider, so what I say about statistics must matter more than what you say about them" stance."
"I recall it was mostly Twerp Costas who downplayed the RBI totals of Kent," says Rob." Of course, Joe didn't disagree -- I guess he knows where his bread gets its butter."
Which is funny, given the stance Morgan takes in his autobiography, which is that "run production" is the only meaningful offensive statistic -- runs scored and runs batted in. If RBIs are as important as Morgan apparently believes, he should've been lionizing Kent.
"I find the NBC baseball coverage to be, on the whole, smarmy and self-serving, from the stupid music during introductions to Hannah Storm and Jim Gray blathering," says Rob. "God, what a bore. Shoot, it's just another ballgame. Get the kids off the field and in the stands where they belong, can the music, lose Brandy, fire Costas and Gray, send Hannah back to CNN, bring in JVV and Tobias for play-by-play, and have a real good time playing ball. Selig, et. al., seem to think that the game by itself isn't sufficient to hold the attention of Joe and Joan Casual Fan, so they have all manner of peripheral BS going on. As long as those idiots are running the game I don't hold out much hope that we'll ever see a return to the game I grew up loving. The entire spectacle, except for the actual game itself, sucked. I wish now that I had gone fishing."
"I got the distinct impression that Costas had been lying in wait with his little RBI notes, just waiting for Kent to get up so he could blast away," Tobias says. "It was cheap, it denigrated Kent unfairly -- it seemed like he was being singled out. I mean, if you're going to say Kent's 85 RBIs are worthless, what does that make McGwire's, Sheffield's, Sosa's, Piazza's, et al.'s RBIs? Those guys must really be lousy, right, Bob?"
"Costas would kiss their asses," says JVV. "A few people are coming around to the notion that the Giants are a good team, but I suspect that if the Giants do have a good second half, the vast majority of commentary will label them as overacheivers."
"If Costas' snub of Kent suggests he doesn't think highly of the Giants, then he's a bit two-faced given the gist of his book Fair Ball," says Jon. "He slams the present economic structure of baseball and offers his opinions on how to fix the problems. The way the Giants operate, with a relatively reasonably sized payroll, getting the most out of their players, having their success or lack thereof be the result of baseball decisions rather than the ability to throw as much money as possible at a problem at any time like a Steinbrenner or a Rupert Murdoch, you would think that would garner some admiration from him. The Giants seem to be operating similarly as to how Costas envisions clubs to operate after his fixes to baseball's inequities kick in. But I guess he can do his preaching in his book, but in real life he's still in awe of the glitzy clubs that have $90 million payrolls that have five Ken Griffey-type players and not care about good solid teams."
"The [apparent All-Star philosophy of] 'exhibition-over-competition' produces these by-products," says Tobias:
[Yeah. There's only so much we, as viewers, can do to conjure up intensity in our own minds.
"Well, that's about the only place we'll find it," Tobias says. "How likely are we to see another Rose-bowls-over-Fosse type play, given the current climate and attitude?"
Exactly. Then again, I don't want to see that again, even during the regular season or the Series. I hate seeing ballplayers get hurt. Of course, in the All-Star Game it was just foolish. On the other hand, since Fosse annoys me so much now... ah, forget it.
I still care about the game -- I want to see it, and I want to see the NL win every year, just like they did when I was a kid, but it's fair to say that my heart doesn't pound -- unless anything happens to a Giant... meaning that I expect Our Boys to look foolish in the All-Star Game, so I get antsy whenever a baseball comes near them. (And tell me history's not on my side.)
"Well, recent history is, anyway. Hmmm... maybe Giants performances started to go south about the time that exhibition (read 'entertainment') began taking priority over competition. Then we could pinpoint the beginning of the end as 1983."
That's good. I'll just keep telling myself that. It'll make Atlee's performance okay. Eventually. -- GP]
[The Kruk incident was funny, but... not funny enough, you know?
"Exactly right. It's one of those things that maybe makes you laugh at the time, but later on it kind of dawns on you that it really isn't funny at all. I think it was Norman Lear who once said, 'I can get people to accept anything if I can get them to laugh at it first.' Not sure if he was referring to Sally Struthers or the '62 Mets."
And the Walker thing just made me mad. During the radio broadcast of the 2000 All-Star Game, they kept talking about how Johnson had something "special" planned for his first pitch, and were speculating on what it might be. One possibility was that he'd deliver it a la Diamondbacks teammate Byung-Hyun Kim: submarine style. I kept thinking, "How 'bout throwing a 'strike' for your 'special' pitch, guy?" -- GP]
[So it seems. It's almost like the effort defensive players make in the Pro Bowl -- not to mention the rules forbidding defensive effort. -- GP]
[This is all valid, but also, most of the pitchers are starters who know they're not going to go much more than an inning, so they (a) air it out on every pitch, and (b) throw strikes. There'll be a fresh arm in there next inning to do it all over again. -- GP]
[My feelings are mixed on this. I want Giants players to play, period; I don't really care much about the others. But I do like the idea of everybody playing. I see no point in it otherwise. However, it ain't Little League, so there shouldn't be anything like a rule about everybody playing. Also, there was talk about Joe Torre holding back Chuck Finley in case the game went extras... but what if it had gone, say, 20 innings, and the Finster had had to go all the way? That's where you start talking about the weirdo catcher rule -- a weirdo rule, not a rule about weirdo catchers -- wherein if your last available catcher gets hurt, he can be replaced by a catcher who's already left the game. I think this is bunk -- I mean, yeah, it's not like I'd want to see Jose Vidro don mask and chest protector, but hey, this is a baseball game, a major league baseball game; we don't do free substitution up here.
"Hey, I know! Why not have 'emergency catcher' be one of the duties set aside for the honorary team captains? I'll bet Dale Murphy could still strap on the ol' tools of ignorance in a pinch...."
I'm picturing guys like Stan Musial, and other former honorary captains... pitchers, for instance.
But my point is, if they do that with catchers, you'd think they'd have to do it with pitchers, too -- which might be harmful to more guys than just the poor sod who throws 11 exhibition innings.
"I'll bet Bobby Cox would've been willing to loan out Ryan Dempster, just as a courtesy," had Finley been stuck in the game for several innings.
Which brings up an interesting concept: What if, say, Pedro Martinez had been in the game, and Torre deliberately pitched the guy too long? I mean, as an All-Star manager you can do things -- subtle things, admittedly; too subtle in most cases -- that could affect the pennant race.
I wonder if maybe they oughta go back to the two-game format. Or something.
"I like the idea of everyone playing. I just don't think it should take priority over a team winning. The games I remember, growing up in the '60s and '70s, featured most of the All-Stars getting to play. But a few guys didn't make it in, and it seems like Clemente, Mays, McCovey, and Aaron always got to stay in the game a lot longer. First, win the game; second, try to get everyone in the game."
Third, if you're gonna keep people in a lot longer, make sure they're Giants.
"In the Rose/Fosse game (in 1970), Dick Dietz happened to be a reserve catcher. I really had no expectation that he'd make it in, but late in the game, off the bench he came, to pinch-hit. He drove in a key run."
He homered in that game. I don't know if it was that at-bat, because I think he went 2-for-2.
"That was exciting, of course, but what made it even more so was the sense that the manager [who had to be Gil Hodges] had turned to Dietz looking for a key hit. That was how the game was played back then. Now, when someone comes in, it's more like the manager's just throwing him a bone."
Yeah. Or sticking him in solely to pinch-run, which is unconscionable. It really has reached a point where, on those occasions when I get to watch the whole All-Star Game, once the Giants have come and gone, I'm at least tempted to change the channel. -- GP]
[Agreed entirely. Especially... "If I ain't startin', I ain't departin'." -- GP]
"What to do? How should I know? I'm just some poor schlub at a computer! I just think somehow that both leagues and MLB in general needs to start caring a lot more than they seem to now, about who wins and loses these games and about the actual quality of the games.
"Maybe if the rosters were dropped down to 25 or even 20, that might help some.
"Maybe if Thursday could also be an off-day, allowing for more pitchers to be available to pitch and go longer than just an inning."
Agreed. None of this idiot interleague stuff where you play the A's on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and then the Rangers on Sunday. Give me a break. Just have Thursday be an off-day -- the players, I suspect, wouldn't mind -- and do normal series.
"Maybe [things would improve] if the rule about one rep per team were removed. I don't know, though. I'm one of the few who actually likes that rule. Also, I'm afraid that Bobby Cox would just bring the entire Braves starting lineup, starting rotation, and half the bullpen."
I do consider it important that each team has a representative. I'm not sure the All-Star manager should have the right to select his pitchers and reserves, though... but I don't know who should.
"Maybe if cash prizes were offered to the winning team? Nahhh, we'd be talking billions of dollars. Too expensive. How about if winning players all get the option of renegotiating their contracts or becoming free agents at the end of the season?
"I don't know, I'm grasping at straws here. I just think something should be done, before the All-Star Game becomes about as interesting as the NBA All-Star Game or the NFL Pro Bowl."
Do you even watch those? I don't. Not interested in watching defensive ends jogging or point-guards hitting wide-open threes, one after another, because their defenders look too bored to play.
"Well, okay, this year I happened to be in an airport when the Pro Bowl was on all those different TV screens that festoon the terminal ceilings. So, I did look at a little of that game. But only when I wasn't sleeping."
For me, a lot of the indifference has to do with the fact that the Pro Bowl's after the Super Bowl -- the climax. I mean, there's no point in having a denouement. But in basketball, well, it's in midseason. I think I mostly don't watch it not only because of the three-point-shooting, defense-free atmosphere but also because when a Warrior manages to get in the game, I expect the worst, and hey, it's only basketball -- it's not like it's baseball or something.
"For me, [the bit about defenders looking bored] all comes down to what the ultimate purpose of sport is in our society. Is it primarily just to entertain, or is it primarily competition, for the benefit of those who participate?"
At the topmost level, the former and maybe 5% of the latter. As you move downward, her abdomen quivering with anticipation, you... wait. Once more: As you move downward in terms of levels, I'd say the percentage of the latter increases drastically... once you get out of professional sports altogether -- at which time it's gotta be close to 100% the former.
"Personally, I believe it has to be the latter."
("Oh, Tobe-meister," she moaned. "I never thought it could be like this!")
"Obviously entertainment is a very important result, but without the integrity of competition, the whole exercise rings hollow and meaningless."
This is dead on. I think the "5% of the latter" kind of represents the hope of amateurs like us that it's 100% of the former. In other words, to the extent necessary, we conjure up the integrity, so to speak. This is not to say that the players don't care about competition, but that the folks who run pro sports mostly care about entertainment -- that is, in terms of how much they'll make off it."
"That's why I enjoyed watching a Harlem Globetrotters game once or twice when I was a kid, but that was about it."
What I'd like to have seen were the games when they played against NBA teams and won. What I don't know, though, is if they had to adhere to NBA rules or if it was okay to stand at midcourt and do things that violated the rules, etc.
"It's also why I still care about the Giants. I still am naive enough to believe that Peter, Brian, Dusty, Barry, Jeff, et al. still care about winning a championship, and that everything they do is with that end in mind."
That's that 5%. We all want that, except Tjames, and we're all "little boy" enough to believe. As cynical as I can be on this topic, I deeply want that championship, and I choose to think that everything the Giants do is an attempt to achieve that championship. -- GP]
Chris F. says that "1996 was a year with lots of injuries to regulars (Williams, Thompson, et al.) and a real test of the Giants' minor league system. Benard was the only rookie call-up that amounted to anything. Jay Canizaro was called up from Double A when Robby Thompson went down. He was the best they had in the minors at second base, and he was so obviously not ready it was sad. (Never mind his success now with the Twins today.) Trenidad Hubbard is another dubious major leaguer -- of course he went as part of the Williams/Kent trade."
"Sabean gets tons of credit because the team wound up so much worse than their talent level in 1996, thanks to all the injuries," says Jonathan. "The 1997 team also was really lucky (far more wins than runs scored/runs allowed would predict). And Sabean gets credit for Dusty's ability to improve hitters; either that or both Bob Quinn and Sabean are equally good at finding hitters about to improve.
"The one that I, at least, was really wrong about was Snow/Watson. Snow's been around league average since the trade; I would have thought he'd be a major drag on the team."
JVV says, "I've posted this sentiment before, but I look at the Williams trade this way: The Giants decided they had to get rid of either Bonds' or Williams' salary. Dumping Williams' salary looks like the better move in hindsight. I say this because I think we can assume that Matty's wife was going to leave him anyway (unless she hated Cleveland so much it led to the divorce), and he would have demanded to be traded to Arizona or retire, to be around his kids after the divorce. If the Giants sent Bonds to Cleveland, they would have been out Matty's services too by 1998."
"When Sabean looked down on the field back in July '96 and said 'We only have four major leaguers,' I'm fairly positive that Bonds, Williams, and Glenallen Hill were three of the four Sabean was thinking of," says Tobias. "Hill was having a good year for the Giants in '96, and Sabean later mentioned Hill along with Bonds, as one of the Giants' key guys going into '97. I thought maybe Shawon Dunston was the fourth, but now I'm guessing he was probably injured in July. Probably Sabean meant Rick Wilkins."
I think what'll happen is that over time, about half the Giants fans will remember Sabes as a genius and the other half will remember him as a lucky bumbler. Compare and contrast to unlucky bumbler Tom Haller. But I have to think that this guy has done more for the franchise than Bob Quinn, and that probably was true the day he traded Kirt Manwaring.
"I'm sorry," says Richard, "but I cannot allow any comment about Tom Haller in here to be anything other than totally negative. Tom Haller was a dunce. Tom Haller was an incompetent moron. Tom Haller was the worst judge of baseball talent in the history of the franchise. Tom Haller could not run a baseball organization any better than he could run the bases. [Tobias says, "Just out of curiosity, did anyone else go look up the fact that, in his major league career, Tom Haller stole 14 bases and was caught 30 times? Maybe he wasn't so bright on the field either." -- GP] Tom Haller set the franchise back 20 years."
My apologies. I meant not to praise him with faint damning.
"Tom Haller fired Frank Robinson as manager and within a year hired Jimmy Davenport for the same position, which at the very least proves he was an idiot.
"Tom Haller was, in the Baseball God pantheon, the general manager's archetypal equivalent of the anti-Christ. (Granted, the franchise was back on its feet within six months of his firing, but calling Tom Haller, General Manager, an 'unlucky bumbler' is an insult to bumblers around the world.)"
"As well as to those who are 'luck-challenged," says Tobias. "You're right, of course. Giants fans the world over must never forget these things. Tom Haller was a bad, bad man."
Well, I'll forward an apology to my Bumblers Mailing List. Actually, it's called "Bunblers," and I probably won't reach any of them because (a) I'll accidentally forward it to everybody in my address book except that list, and (b) they've probably already given me mistyped e-mail addresses anyway.
GIANTS MAKE MOVE"Of course," Grant adds, "this was prompting by two East Coast-generated articles today suggesting the Giants are going to deal Burks and Aurilia to the Yankees and Mets, respectively. Enough already. Sheesh."Joe Eastern
East Coast Media Services
July 14, 2000SAN FRANCISCO-The San Francisco Giants pulled the trigger on an expected cost-cutting trade today.
The Giants shipped outfielder Ellis Burks, starter Kirk Rueter, and reliever Robb Nen to the Mets for Benny Agbayani. All three players acquired by the Mets will be free agents after the current season.
"There comes a point in the season where you really have to assess your situation," Giants General Manager Brian Sabean said. "We couldn't afford to lose all three players (to free agency) next season."
The deal strengthens the New York lineup, rotation, and bullpen. "Chortle, snicker, snicker," Mets GM Steve Phillips said. "Snork, hee, chortle."
"We are 3-1/2 games back of Arizona, and 2-1/2 back of the wildcard," said Sabean. "We felt we needed to look towards the future. Agbayani is under contract, or something."
Phillips noted the Mets' need for offense and dependable starting pitching. "Give, hee, give me a second," Phillips said. "Snork, hee, chortle."
"I wish we were in the same position as the Mets," added Sabean, "but the fact is, we're 3-1/2 games back, not three. We couldn't get caught with our pants down."
In a related story, Mets GM Steve Phillips was hospitalized today after a massive amount of milk shot out of his nose.
A point, he's got. To hear the East Coast reporters tell it, teams like the Giants exist merely to provide fodder for "real" teams like the Yankees.
"It's great that the team is winning," says Jason. "Brian Sabean thinks that because of this, the team may stay status quo down the stretch in the trading deadlines. I think it would be naive to think that the Giants don't have any way to improve the ballclub. There are several obvious areas in which they could improve.
[Also, with Nathan and Johnstone recently hitting the DL, the Giants reportedly are looking for pitching. I'm sure Jerry Spradlin is available. -- GP]
"Between Johnstone's injury and Embree's subpar performance, getting another setup man to complement Rodriguez [whom the scoreboard exhorts us to call "X-Rod" -- GP] is important, preferably a lefty," says Tom J. "Fultz can still do middle relief, and Embree and/or Johnstone are middle relief or trade bait, although I'd prefer to keep Johnstone to see how he does after his bulging disk is taken care of. (But will it be this season even?) Their respective contract situations come into play, of course."
"The old argument was, 'Kent means we don't need power from Mueller, since between the two we have one for power and one for average," says Tom. 'This is true. Now that Mueller's average and OBP have dropped, then the only justification for keeping him is 'He has a track record of having a high average, and we should give him more time to turn it back around.' If you buy that, we still could use a better backup than Davis. Can Ramon play third in a pinch?"
[I don't think so, really. I don't think he can hit well enough, and I truly believe his defense is overrated. -- GP]
"The suggestion was floating around recently that Mueller has let the 'we need more power' clamor get to his head, started trying too hard to hit it out, and stopped being patient enough to get his walks, etc. I think there is something to this. But until/unless he turns it around, I'd just as soon drop him back to eighth and give Aurilia a shot at second, now that he's starting to come back."
[That would probably make sense -- more sense than batting Estalella eighth, anyway. I wonder, though, if Mueller's thought processes have gone that far, or if he merely let it get into his head that walks are for wussies or something. I've been on the Mueller bandwagon for a long time, but if he's not even walking, he has very little in the way of an offensive game. Sure, he's already tripled last year's home run output... but he only has six. And it's not like he's hitting a lot of gap shots, either. I don't want to see Mueller go; I want him to improve. -- GP]
[Hello, Kirt Manwaring! -- GP]
[Eh. Estes has reached a point where he walks a ton of guys and doesn't strike anybody out -- the walk and whiff numbers are almost equal -- and Ortiz and Livan Hernandez give up lots and lots of hits. Rueter's no great shakes either. However, they're all still more stable than last year, as a group. -- GP]
"Third base... that's the place where an upgrade is in order. I'm not going to speculate on who they should get. That's stupid. I hate it when people say, 'Oh, the Giants should go get so-and-so.' We don't know the first thing about contract situations, who's really available, what's the cost, etc. I do know what the team needs, and I feel confident in commenting about that."
Walter, echoing Tom, says, "I would like to see the Giants try Martinez at third. He has the hunger to play every day; Dusty has been able to turn that into above-expectation performance in the past with players who have had to wait their turn for several year (like Benard, Mueller, and Aurilia). He has been outstanding at the plate in limited duty and has the kind of energy that could really invigorate the lineup. If he replaced Mueller in the number-two spot, he would profit greatly from seeing lots of fastballs come his way. {Defensively] he has 'average' range but a slightly higher error rating at third than Mueller (who has 'very good' range) -- mostly due to lack of experience -- but he's certainly better than Davis defensively and his bat should make up for the difference between him and Mueller with the glove.
"While I agree that the Giants could use another pitcher, I'd hate to see them make a trade for an 'experienced' pitcher. Historically, trade deadline deals for relief pitchers are the kind that often come back and haunt a team that traded away a young prospect to get the temporary help. I'd hate to see the Giants give up a promising youngster just to have an overpaid 35-something who would rack up a five-plus ERA in the final eight weeks of the season."
"You just laid out the two fundamentally different philosophies of managing a baseball team, represented by Roger Craig and Jim Leyland," says Don T. "Now that I think of it, you may be right in that Dusty shows signs of more influence of the Craig philosophy this year rather than the Leyland.
"Leyland's way is predominant these days, due to some extent because of Leyland's relative success with it, and because it's basically an easier way to manage. The Craig philosophy takes long-term planning, seeing the big picture, rather than blowing your whole wad every game.
"I think with a team like the Giants, the Craig way, at least this year, is more promising, especially with the young starters and the overburdened bullpen. Of course, the great manager knows when and how to apply both methods. If the Giants end up this year either winning the division or a wild-card spot or even just seriously challenging for both down to the end, I'll admire Baker even more than I do now."
Margin W L 1 8 16 2 13 6 3 8 3 4 4 4 5 5 1 6 5 2 7 4 5 8 0 1 9 1 1 10 0 1 11 0 0 12 0 0 13 0 0 14 0 0 15 0 0 16 1 0 17 0 0 18 1 0 1-3 29 25 4-6 14 7 7-9 5 7 10+ 2 1One might say they're not playing badly in the close games, but they're not playing well enough. However, in two- or three-run games, they're 21-9. So just maybe a little too much focus is placed on those one-run games -- I don't know.
"Maybe a bit, but the one-run games are also a pretty good indication of your bullpen," says Tim I. "And, given that, it's no surprise that the Giants stink in the one-run game. Think about how many leads the pen has turned into one-run losses. And I won't name any (Johnstone) names here."
"I think the Giants used to be 3-15 in one-run contests, so at least they went 5-1 in their [next] six," says Dan L.
Well, that's worth knowing. It hadn't occurred to me that they'd turned it around so drastically, even with Nen getting so many saves lately.
"The one loss during that stretch, if I'm not mistaken, was that last game in St. Louis (8-7) where neither Bonds, Burks, nor Kent started. If that's any consolation...."
I feel much better now.
"Already nine decisions by exactly seven runs? That seems like a lot, especially as the numbers for eight runs and higher are so low."
I don't know what the numbers "should be like," but nine seems like a lot to me, too, and symptomatic of The Times In Which We Live.
"Remember how everyone made a big deal about how 'lucky' the Giants were in '97 because of their record in one-run games and because they won 10 games more than their Pythagorean projection?" says Tim. "I wonder if the same people are calling them cursed this season."
"Well, according to my calculations, their Pythagorean win projection through [game number 90] would be 50.39, vs. the actual 50," says Richard. "After being 'unlucky' most of this year, they have finally caught back up. A 12-2 stretch will usually do that for you, I think."
"I would agree that most of the unbalance now comes from interleague play," says Wayne, "but this year we play a team like the Marlins six games in Florida and three at home, and we may play another nondivision team 11 or 12 games. I do not mind an unbalanced schedule where we play each team in our division a certain number of games, and each team in the other division a certain but lesser number of games. So far interleague play has aided the central division as far as the wild card is concerned, although the standings so far this year do not bear that out. Playing the West in interleague play cannot help in the wild-card race. But the so-called balanced schedule now is truly not balanced. Also the schedule, the way they have it set up, has some weird travel schedules, mostly because of interleague play."
"On the majorleaguebaseball.com site, they have a headline about interleague play boosting attendance by 14.4%," says Tim I. "What is presumably not said:
"I guess it just offends me to see this spun into saying that people love interleague play in general. Tell that to folks watching, oh, something like Royals-Brewers or Devil Rays-Phillies."
"Just like Detroit sold out a game against Houston Saturday," says Pat M. "Let's not mention that had as much to do with a statue being unveiled for Willie Horton (don't ask... local hero... but a ticket seller nonetheless). The other thing they fail to mention is the small sample size. The games you mentioned have a much larger impact on total interleague attendance than a Boston-Yankees weekend series has on total attendance exclusive of interleague play.
"But don't let the facts get in the way of Bud Selig's ideas being publicized as the greatest thing since sliced bread."
To Doug N.'s question, "Why would you take out [the geographic-rivalry interleague games]?," Pat says, "You take them out because given the number of interleague games that are played, these games here skew the total largely. There are so many regular games that even the best rivalries that play on weekends get lost in the shuffle (you did also notice that all but one interleague series per team was scheduled on the weekend). When you consider how many interleague games there are, six New York-New York games have a much bigger impact of interleague attendance than regular games. When you don't factor this kind of thing in, it skews the numbers.
"It would be one thing if MLB would just say 'We want these teams to play each other,' rather than try to say, 'Well the fans like it: attendance is up 14% over regular games.' Of course, the owners aren't so confident as to have some of these interleague games in April on a weeknight, when the regular games interleague play supposedly is outdrawing are being played.
"I'm not fan of interleague play, but it would be better if baseball were just honest and say they want certain teams playing each other, rather than trying to spin it with statistics that are almost as misleading as their financial numbers."
"The interleague games feature a much higher percentage of these 'marquee' matchups than intraleague games do," agrees Tim. "Within your league, you play each team a few times with no unbalanced schedules. With interleague play, you won't play most of the other league's teams where little potential for rivalry exists, and you always play your cross-town rival (if any) several times. Apples. Oranges."
"Right, but that's the one of the points of interleague play," says Douglas M. "Yanks-Mets, Giants-A's, Dodgers-Angels, and White Sox-Cubs are part of the reason interleague play was instituted in the first place."
"No, it's the only point of interleague play," says David N. "They sold it as 'getting to see new teams and new players,' but evidently nobody really cares about that.
"Why does every team need to play 18 interleague games, or whatever we're up to now, merely because four regional series might attract fan interest? If one desperately wants those four series named above, then designate one interleague 'natural rival' for each team, and have each team play that rival six times, and eliminate all the other interleague games. Or something."
"The selling point -- and fan interest -- isn't specifically with interleague play but rather with local interest," Tim says. "I would submit that it's irrelevant that the Mets and Yankees are in different leagues; put them in the same league and they still draw the same crowds when they play each other.
"I believe MLB's argument for interleague play is really more of an argument for realignment based on geographical interests. Instead, they make it sound as if interleague games have higher interest just because they're interleague... as if people in Kansas City will flock to see the Brewers but not the Twins. It's not the conclusion, but rather the spin, that I find fault with."
Dickey says, "The goal was to have four solid starters and an outstanding reliever, so a team really needed only five good pitchers.... For most teams, the other relievers were pitchers who couldn't make it as starters. They were used in mop-up roles, when the other team had a big lead and the game virtually was conceded."
But that was then. I'd love to see some injury-number comparison by era.
"At that time, starters often would throw more than 250 innings. The best pitchers sometimes would exceed 300 innings. Yet, sore arms were much more rare than they are today."
Is that true? Are we forgetting a significant number of young pitchers with brief careers because of blown-out arms? (I'm asking, not telling.)
"How did they do it? By training to throw that many innings and by learning how to pace themselves. Contrary to what the rotisserie-league geeks think" -- Glenn, you wear a troll-beard. Don't go calling anybody else a geek. -- "it's not the number of pitches that matters but the type. A pitcher who constantly throws at top speed is going to tire much faster than one who uses his best fastball only in the really tight situations."
Is this true?
"I really have nothing to say about this other than to say that a separate widespread criticism is that pitchers nibble too much these days because they're afraid the ball is juiced," says Basil. "Can't win either way."
"Pitching is unquestionably worse overall than it's ever been, but don't blame the pitchers. Put the blame on the managerial and coaching decisions that have put inferior pitchers into prime-time roles."
Dickey said during the Giants game that night that what he failed to point out in the article is that the strike zone is obviously smaller these days. Also, Mike Krukow called him on the concept "inferior," saying that he'd rather have seen "inexperienced," which is probably more on the mark.
Dickey writes, "At that time, starters often would throw more than 250 innings. The best pitchers sometimes would exceed 300 innings. Yet, sore arms were much more rare than they are today. How did they do it? By training to throw that many innings and by learning how to pace themselves."
"And by burning out at a young age," offers Tom N. "Let's take a look at that 1972-74 A's rotation:
"Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Randy Johnson, David Wells, Al Leiter, Darryl Kile, et al.: All those guys are pitching effectively now at an age when all the members of that A's rotation were effectively through."
"Somehow I think the 'roto-geeks' know the distinction between the number of pitches and the type," says Basil. "One thing I think a good pitcher needs these days is a quality change-up. I'd say that this is one example of a lack of instruction."
"I think the equipment is different," says Wayne. "The balls are much livelier, and the bats are actually better than ever."
"The balls have been tested and found to be within specs," says John W. "From what I've seen on television, the pitching isn't all that impressive. Sure, the 'name' pitchers do all right but there are a lot of mediocre pitchers to fatten those batting stats. No?"
"Yes, yes!" says Rob W. "Way too many guys pitching scared (behind in the count)."
"Despite the Giants' recent success (and in anticipation of their post-All Star break fold), I feel compelled to comment on my favorite subject -- that being, their absolute, total inability to produce quality starting pitching," says Thomas A. (Not Tom Austin.) Clearly we are of one mind, here. This is one of my favorite complaints, too.
"I simply cannot understand why the Giants are unable to produce quality starters. I don't get it. It confounds me."
The thought occurs that the fix is in....
"I can understand the basics of quantum theory and the issues surrounding Medicare funding of pharmaceuticals, but I do not understand the Giants' historical inability to produce quality starting pitching. I have been alive since 1963. I am too young to really lay claim to Marichal and Perry, so I can honestly say that the Giants have never had a quality starting pitcher in my lifetime."
Well, sort of. Marichal's last top-notch year was '69; he was terribly sick the next year (thanks in large part to the team's Japan trip), rebounded for 18 wins in '71... and that was pretty much it. Perry had had a couple of terrific years and was really heading into his own... when the Giants thought it might be a great idea to trade for Sam McDowell, whose best years were behind him and who, by his own admission, had terrible alcohol problems. Since then, no consistent, top-level starters. None. I mean, McCormick was very good, but (if I remember reading correctly) had trouble staying healthy. But he wasn't home-grown, and in truth, Marichal was the Giants' last great home-grown starter (unless you count Perry, who had some great years, but whom I have trouble calling great for some reason).
"Yes, they have occasionally produced the singular seasons of guys like Ron Bryant and Bill Swift," says Tom. "However, I am talking about the ability to produce a guy who is productive (i.e., 15 or more wins) for several seasons as a Giant."
Yeah. I mean, sorry, but Barr and Halicki don't count.
"I'm not choosy -- farm system, trades, it does not matter. The best they seem able to do is produce junkballers via trades who can win on offensively talented teams for two seasons or so (a la Krukow and Reuschel). I'm talking about guys who show up as youngsters, win lots of games, and sustain that for a good portion of a career while wearing orange and black. The Dodgers and Braves seem able to do this while drunk, wearing blindfolds, and playing 'Take Me Out to the Ballgame' on a kazoo."
Fix. In.
"The Giants could not do this if the existence of the human race was at stake. Even in these days of seeming success, we're depending on 'if Estes and Ortiz can come around.' Trades don't work, the farm system does not work, nothing works. EEEEEE!"
I really think that organizationally, they simply don't know how to evaluate pitching, or where to look for it. I have to wonder if they've simply had lousy scouts for 40 years. Why would that be outside the realm of believability?
"What makes this particularly frustrating are several taunting nuances. They are:
[Torres.„GP]
As evidence, here are some names: Bryant, Montefusco, Halicki, Knepper, Whitson, Bordley (the next Tom Seaver), Downs, Hammaker [Torres.„GP], VanLandingham, and oh yes, Ortiz. It's a continuous chain. Let's just start calling Ainsworth "Ain't Worth It" now -- it will save time.
[It's so unfair. It really is. You have to include Mike Remlinger in the list, too, as well as all these other guys you'd hear Krukow going on about on TV -- Darin Blood (who's back in the organization, by the way), What's-His-Name Rambo, Jason Grilli, too damn many others to remember.
Torres, though, to be fair, really was looked upon as the next Marichal in the same way they try to turn every damn center fielder since Mays into Mays. -- GP]
[But our broadcasters are pretty decent....
Again, I really don't know what it is. They talk a pretty good game -- Dick Tidrow sounds like he knows what he's doing, for instance -- but results? A dominating performance once in a blue moon, really. -- GP]
[Somewhere out there, someone will be reading this and going, "Well, it's obvious. Here's why...." Only they won't tell us, or the Giants. -- GP]
I didn't even mention how the All Star game inevitably leads to the breakdown of any quality Giants starter. If I detailed this, I would sound too much like I think the black helicopters are coming for me.
"That's it. If you could explain to me why sustained starting pitching is beyond the Giants' grasp, I would appreciate it. It must have something to do with a fundamental flaw in their scouting system. If someone could locate the common denominator across all of their various ownership and GM groups throughout the years, perhaps they could pinpoint the flaw."
You know, I have to think training might be an issue, too. Whenever someone looks like he's ready to kick butt for the Giants, he gets hurt: Bryant, Swift, Estes.... The work people like Baseball Prospectus and Rob Neyer are doing is also inexact -- has chiefly to do with pitch counts, which I think is a valid thing to study, but even they know that the cutoff point of 100 pitches is arbitrary. I don't know what should be studied, exactly, but my feeling is that once the Giants get a feel for Pac Bell, they really need to find out what to study, and study it. Maybe they need to emulate the Braves' approach to training, or maybe their organization approach to pitch selection has to be examined -- I really don't know. But I would think that this team needs to put some heretofore unexpended effort into it.
I wonder what this might have had to do with Pac Bell. What I mean is, the Giants had played in a pitcher's park for eons, and yet they often produced offensive powerhouses and pitching-poor staffs. So I wonder if the approach was to design and build a stadium that would cater much more to the hitters... and then -- silly them -- it turns out the new place is a pitcher's park, too. That might be a huge shot in the dark on my part, but I wonder anyway.
"I bring this up because if the Giants catch Arizona and the Mets take the wild card, would the Braves play the Mets in the first round or draw the weaker of the other two division winners?"
"I have found the following to be good rules of thumb when thinking about the Giants in the postseason," says Richard:
"Oh shut up, Gregg!" says Anson.
Richard says, "Armed with these, all the other published rules are quickly proved irrelevant.
"Having said all that, I am 99% sure they still have the rule that you don't play your own division's wild card team in the first round."
"I have found from the last 60 years that every time Giants fans start thinking playoffs early, Like before September 30, they go into a tailspin," says Wayne. "Let's hope that this year we can avoid such weird historical Giants Karma. Which, however, I believe, is all centered around Jim Davenport."
"Well, at least they're focused on their OBA.
"Not that Huson needs to bow down before OPS, but isn't it funny that he considers an out the play that helps his team the most?
"Beyond that, I have two more questions:
To support its contention that baseball has a growing revenue disparity, the committee released dozens of economic charts, among them one that showed the Yankees generated the most revenue last season, $177.9 million, while Montreal generated the least, $48.8 million.In 1995, the first year following the strike that wiped out the World Series, the Yankees led baseball with $97.7 million in revenue, while Montreal had the least, $27.6 million.
According to the report, only the Yankees ($64.5 million), Cleveland ($45.9 million) and Colorado ($12.4 million) generated an operating profit from 1995-99.
San Francisco had the largest operating loss from 1995-99 ($97 million). Toronto lost $87.6 million and Anaheim lost $83.3 million.
As an industry, baseball had an operating loss of $212 million last year on revenue of $2.787 billion.
"If the Giants really lost that much money between 1995 and 1999 (and I have to say that a $20 million average loss seems mind-bogglingly unlikely to me), I can kind of understand why they are planning to rake in the cash over the next year or so."
"Feh," offers Jonathan. "Do you know of any businesses that don't take advantage of windfalls?"
"But $20 million per year!" Richard says. "Over that time, I would assume their payroll averaged around $45 million (it couldn't have been all that high in '95 and '96), and it just seems hard to believe that their other operating costs could have been much more than an additional $20-25 million per year (I don't remember how much rent they were paying, but I thought it was something like $5-6 million per year). Could their revenues really have been only around $45-50 million per year on average? Hell, even Montreal looks to have averaged maybe $35 million (based on the two data points we have for them) over that time period."
No, the Giants probably have made money every single year," Jonathan says.
"Not that the Yankees care in the least, of course," says Richard.
Jonathan makes the following points:
"Richard," Jonathan continues, "you didn't include the key paragraph:
"'Giants owner Peter Magowan said much of his team's loss was due to expenses preparing for the construction of privately financed Pacific Bell Park, which opened this year, and he anticipated his ownership group would make that money back.'
"in other words, not operating loss; this is long-term investment."
Well, first, it was a hell of a catch. The fan, who had to be in his fifties or even early sixties, covered a lot of ground in getting to the ball. Second, it was very hard to tell on the replay, but I eventually concluded that it was kosher -- i.e., the guy never protruded over the fence, while Greer's glove did, in which case it's the fan's ball, if he can get it. Of course, they only showed one angle, so I can't be sure.
I suspect Rangers fans have an entirely different take on the situation, though.