by Gregg Pearlman
Sunday, September 19, 1999 -- Happy Birthday To Me
The Giants have continued a disturbing trend: they don't gain enough when they win, and lose too much what they lose. Recently they brought an eight-game gap down to five, lost ground, brought an 8-1/2-game gap down to six, and lost ground again yesterday. Right now the Giants are 82-66, seven behind the beloved team of horrid Diamondbacks fans. Despite playing wonderful ball for over a month, it could be all over for the Giants in four days. Talk about unfair.
The recent results:
Every loss, at this point, is devastating. The Diamondbacks don't lose when the Giants do -- and even if they did, the tragic number would still decrease by one. As it is, when the Giants lose, the number decreases by two. Now it's eight.
About all we Giants fans have to celebrate right now is that for the first time since 1963, the Giants have five 20-homer hitters: Barry Bonds, who hit his 32nd yesterday; Ellis Burks, who's stuck on 28; Jeff Kent, with 21; and J.T. Snow and Rich Aurilia, with 20. It's kind of neat in itself, but I'd sure prefer, oh, I dunno, a World Championship. (By the way, in case you hadn't heard: The last 20-homer fivesome was Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, Orlando Cepeda, Felipe Alou, and Ed Bailey. My sister tells me these were the lyrics to a KSFO song around that time, though she didn't realize why until now.)
I haven't thrown in the towel, and will continue to fail to do so until or unless the Giants are mathematically eliminated. The disgusting part is that elimination could take place next week. At Candlestick. When the Diamondbacks come to town What I'm not sure the Diamondbacks understand is, what needs to happen is that from here on in, the Giants absolutely must win every single game, while the Diamondbacks lose every single game. Simple dimple. I mean, it's not literally like that: The teams would be tied if the Giants managed to outwin the Diamondbacks by only seven games, rather than 14, but it's still a tall order, in the same sense that the sun is a hot place.
I realize that the Giants were five out with 10 to play last year, and not only did they make up the ground, but they even managed to have the wild-card spot bagged -- until Robb Nen decided to give up a game-winning home run to Neifi Perez in Denver, after the Giants blew a healthy lead. So in other words, it could happen. It's hardly time for despair yet. But it sure doesn't look good. The Diamondbacks tease us by losing here and there, acting as though they may cooperate, but those dreams fade quickly. Like that's fair.
Meanwhile, the world's most obnoxious, infantile Diamondbacks fans have taken root in the Giants newsgroup. I've mentioned this before. I bring it up again because they won't go away. Oh, sure, when the Giants do very well, they lay low, but they're looking forward to dancing on our tombs, and they're reminding us loudly, frequently, and, simply put, without regard for the welcome attendees to the party they've crashed. They're not dangerous people, nor even harmful, but have taken great pains to break up this party by knocking over the tables and emitting copious gaseous output at the top of their bowels, so to speak. "They've killed the group," one regular remarked to me, in private.
I don't think they've done that, but what they've done is attempt to dominate it with sheer numbers of posts (all cross-posted to the Diamondbacks newsgroup, incidentally; most of that group's members don't respond, or at least not much). The tone of the troll posts is, to say the least, snotty. Mostly these folks resort to taunting -- "You've been around for 40 years without going all the way! We're gonna do it in our second year!" Obviously what's most galling is that this may turn out to be entirely true, but that's beside the point. To me it's a bit like making fun of an oppressed people for being oppressed.
Many of us are wise enough to killfile these trolls. That means they tell their e-mail programs never to show them any posts generated by the trolls, or, possibly, even containing their names. Sadly, what that means is that there are otherwise very few posts in the Giants newsgroup to read.
Others respond to the trolls in kind, which sometimes can be funny, but mostly it just encourages them and irritates other posters, resulting in infighting -- which probably fulfills one of the trolls' major goals. I read the posts and think, "Sad"; then I read the responses and think, "I wish we'd all just ignore these guys. They don't rate the attention." But I don't respond to them -- they don't deserve the effort. I do, however, resent the effect these subhumans have had on the group.
More, though, I resent the effect the Diamondbacks have had on baseball. The trolls will argue that shrewdness, and shrewdness alone, has brought them -- the trolls -- the success they deserve as longtime fans of a second-year team, and that only incompetence has prevented the Giants from reaching the pinnacle. Nowhere in the equation is money. I would agree that Diamondbacks management has been shrewd -- at least shrewd enough to spend assloads of money on the all-too-great Randy Johnson; wise enough to employ a settled, evidently happy Matt Williams (and Matty hits when he's happy); either cunning or lucky enough to get career years out of guys like Jay Bell and Luis Gonzalez, and come across a major find in Erubiel Durazo. And more power to them. But do the Diamondbacks do any of this without absolutely tons of money? Of course not. They had to pay a ludicrous sum just to get into the major leagues; doesn't it stand to reason that they'd have plenty more where that came from?
EEEEEE! Contributing Editor Richard Booroojian says, "There's all this talk about the Diamondbacks moving to the American League, but I don't want to see that. Right now they have a whole bunch of players having career years, just like the 1993 Giants, and I look forward to their downfall. I want them in the National League so I can watch it and laugh."
I feel the same way... but I wonder how much of it is just whistling in the dark? We've watched the Marlins buy a world championship, taking out the Giants in the process, but that was such an obvious joke -- i.e., Wayne Huizenga very clearly procured an all-star team full of fine players who all played well at once. However, the difference between Huizenga and Colangelo is that the latter cares about baseball and the former doesn't. Once Huizenga's team won it all, he got out, and the team was gutted. This won't happen with the Diamondbacks.
What might happen is what happened with the Giants, but somehow I doubt it: Loss of a key player (Will Clark) in favor of (a) not knowing that another key player was through (possibly as the result of a late-season face-breaking pitch), (b) a free-agent pitcher who himself had had a career year, but had otherwise made a career solely out of beating the Giants, (c) not understanding that you're not going to get better years out of certain players (like Kirt Manwaring), and (d) not getting the fact that marginal players (Steve Scarsone, Mike Benjamin, et al.) aren't likely to reclaim whatever magic they had when it was needed.
I do expect the Diamondbacks to be more "shrewder" than that (which really means "richer and luckier"), and I don't picture them going into the tank any time soon. On the other hand, many of their key players are nearly doddering. I don't know how good their farm system is, but what difference does it make? They'll always have deep pockets absolutely stuffed with cash, like the Dodgers -- who, unaccountably, are far less "shrewd." They should have no trouble purchasing the players they need. All we can hope for is that their management does go the way of the Dodgers by apparently losing IQ points by the bunch, and letting their chemistry go to hell.
Well, that's not all we can hope for. The main thing we can hope for right now is the Giants overcoming a seven-game deficit over the next 14. And if they can, I'd prefer to leave the Diamondbacks trolls to wallow in their misery... without the Giants newsgroup giving them the satisfaction of taunting them. Let 'em suffer by themselves.
I can only speak for myself, but this season hasn't been fun enough. It's too much like 1998 in that a bad stretch murdered the season, and great play toward the end was undone all too quickly. It's too much like 1988 in that they couldn't catch a team that simply had no business winning. (In fairness, the Dodgers vastly overachieved that year. Kirk Gibson won himself an MVP on the basis of nothing but appearing "inspirational"; in fact, my opinion is that no matter how much the writers protest that the votes go in before the postseason, that's a lie, and that Gibson really won the award based on his lone at-bat in the World Series. But all the Dodgers really had that year was Orel Hershiser (who probably should've won the award). They kept leading off with guys like Alfredo Griffin, for crying out loud. Let us just say that the "whole" was greater by far than the sum of its parts.
That's true of the Diamondbacks, too, but they're at least playing well individually; they're a better team than the 1988 Dodgers -- but there's no way they should be. Just no way. And the similarity between this and 1988 is that there's no reason the Giants shouldn't have, and cannot have, caught the team ahead of them -- other than being the Giants.
"So maybe we won't win this division," says Fernando, "but I think after all is said and done we have to say that this year has been a good year. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the Giants will end up with 91 wins or so. That's not too bad! Plus we are seeing some improvements in pitching Estes, Ortiz, Nathan, and Hernandez will make a nice starting rotation next year. I really hope we can sign a number-one or -two starter free agent over the offseason that would help a lot too. Plus a new ballpark always sparks a team, so we could be off to a great start in the next millennium!"
"We won't be signing a 'number-one or -two starter' over the summer," says Ron M. "If our staff is going to be tinkered with, it's going to be at the tail end. Those guys are our top four next year. Rueter and Brock will battle it out for the fifth spot, I guess. It's weird to talk about a guy with one of the highest active winning percentages in baseball battling it out for a fifth spot, but that's the way it looks to me.
"If Estes can keep his head on straight, Ortiz's arm doesn't fall off, Nathan can prove this season wasn't a fluke, and Hernandez can keep pitching the way he has since we acquired him, we'll have one of the best rotations, top-to-bottom, in the NL. Those may be some pretty big ifs, however."
"Oh, I don't think Rueter has anything to worry about," says John B. "Certainly not from Brock. Brock will be battling for a spot in the bullpen next spring. I think Rueter is fine. He's had a few more 'off' outings this year, but generally, he's done a good job. And like you say, he just keeps winning.
"I agree with you: I really like this rotation. The only thing I'd add is that I'd like to see Hernandez pick things up a bit next year, from how he's pitched since '97. I think better conditioning on his part is probably a must for next season."
"For all the talk about not having a number-one starter, I think the Giants have five solid pitchers to take the rotation into the new park," says Jason E. "Hernandez may have thrown a bunch of innings early, but maybe not. He could be Nomo, he could be Smoltz. Nathan continues to look like he is the real deal, Estes is coming back into form, Ortiz looks good too. Rueter simply goes out and wins 65% of his starts.
"Maybe not an 'ace' but five starters who can go out, compete, and win a lot more games than they drop, and not a single old arm in the lot. For every bit of paranoia about 'too many innings too young' (of which only Hernandez really looks like this could be a problem), there is also a case of five starters who are good now, and young enough to reasonably expect them to improve."
Regarding Rueter, Jason says, "The importance of a won-loss record cannot be minimized."
"Sure it can," says Tjames. "Watch: won-lost records don't mean anything. They puff up stat lines and give mediocre pitchers a lot more money than they deserve. A good pitcher will always have a good ERA, but good pitchers don't always have good won-lost records."
"I'll say I simply disagree," continues Jason. "A great pitcher always has a good ERA, but it's not an absolute measure."
"Nothing is," Tjames says. "Some measures are more important than other measures, however, and I think ERA (an especially RA, without the errors) is a lot more revealing than won-lost. I can usually tell something about a pitcher just by looking at how many runs he gives up, for instance, but won-lost -- unless it's 24-3 or something outlandish -- doesn't tell me much at all. Okay, maybe moreso with starters than relievers -- if won-lost records are somewhat meaningless to begin with, relievers' won-lost is something akin to dada."
"But ERA can be very misleading," Ron says. "A good bullpen, for example, can easily save a pitcher close to a run a game. (If you figure that most pitchers get pulled in an inning when they struggle and put a man on base. A good bullpen doesn't let that batter score. A bad bullpen does."
"But no way does this translate into a run a game," says Jonathan. "There are way too many times a pitcher leaves for a pinch hitter, or after a home run. At the same time, the differences between bullpens aren't that enormous; a good bullpen will let fewer of the stranded runners in, but it's not an 'all or nothing' thing."
Ron continues; "Similarly, ERA can be grossly distorted by a few bad outings. For example, let's say a pitcher gives up six runs every fourth time he's out there. And every other game, he gives up two. If he averages six innings a start, his ERA is going to be 4.5 -- just about the league average.
"And yet this pitcher will probably go 3-1 over those games even on an average team. This is much better than the 4.50-ERA pitcher who gives up 4.5 runs per game, like clockwork, who'll probably go 2-2 over those four starts. Over the course of a 32-start season, the first pitcher will net the team eight extra wins -- and yet their ERA is identical -- and this is playing for the same team, with the same average run support, etc.
"If he gives up three runs during those other three games, rather than two, his ERA is 5.60, and yet he'll still probably win more than he loses -- yet a pitcher who gives you a predictable five to six runs a game, every game, is going to get taken out of the lineup pretty damn fast unless his name is Mark Gardner. (This is, in fact, not too different from what Rueter's done over the last few years.)"
"It's true that ERA doesn't account for that, and that it matters," says Jonathan. "How the runs are distributed across games would be one of those things worth looking at. Again, it's not likely to make huge changes in rankings from raw ERA, but it does matter."
Ron says, "In my opinion, the best measure of a pitcher is the differential between the pitcher's winning percentage and the team's. Being a .500 pitcher on a division-winning team is no great accomplishment. Being a .500 pitcher on a cellar-dweller is."
"Feh," Jonathan offers. "Now you're adding in even more stuff: not only the teams' hitting, but the quality of the other pitchers. A league-average pitcher on the Braves is going to be awful by this calculation, while the same pitcher would look terrific on the Giants. And that's if run support were even across pitchers, which is obviously not true."
"[Saying that won-lost record doesn't matter at all is] like looking at batting average without taking into account clutch hitting," says Jamal. "(I don't want to get into a whole discussion here about the existence of clutch hitting.) Some hitters have a way of getting the big hit when the game is on the line even though their average may not be all that impressive. There are certainly hitters that opposing managers don't want to see up in certain situations.
"Similarly, some pitchers don't pitch very well with a large lead and end up giving up a lot of runs in games they still win. However, these same pitchers might be very tough when the game's on the line. Keep in mind that hits and ERA are also tainted because of the defense playing behind the pitcher.
"Yes, won-lost records can be overrated. But to say that they don't mean anything is to swing the pendulum way too far in the other direction, in my opinion. There are pitchers that find ways to win close games, and these pitchers will, in general, have better won-lost records than others with similar ERAs."
"Fine," replies Tjames. "They mean something. A very little, insignificant-when-compared-with-superior-metrics something, but something nonetheless. [Won-lost record] would be about the 25th or 26th stat I looked at when I was trying to decide, 'Hey, is this guy any good?'"
"So, what are the 24 more important stats?" wonders Anson.
"We don't actually know whether 'clutch' pitching exists or not," says Jonathan. "I tend to think within-inning clutch pitching does exist -- but I doubt 'pitching to the score' exists, and no one has ever found it."
Jason says, "Inevitably, a season comes down to 'wins' vs. 'losses.'"
"Yes," says Tjames: "team wins vs. team losses. Pinning wins and losses on pitchers is irrelevant. What if you have two guys who went 15-5; one of them pitched for a team that scored six runs a game when he pitched and he had a 5.00 ERA, while the other guy's team scored three runs a game and he had a 2.50 ERA? You don't think the second guy's wins were worth a lot more than the first guy's? Won-lost doesn't tell me enough."
"While I agree that Rueter isn't a great pitcher, he has the best career percentage of any active lefty," Jason says. "What was Rueter's average run support? Won-lost may not tell you enough, but it says something."
"Right," Tjames says: "14-8, 5.12 tells me he gets a lot of run support. Let's confirm that. In 1999 the Giants have scored 6.78 runs for every nine innings Rueter has pitched. In 1998 they scored 7.91 per nine for him. Now look at Kevin Brown: the Dodgers have scored 4.47 runs per nine innings for him in 1999. Ismail Valdes gets 4.52.
"Here's the Giants starters, with their won-lost records and run support per nine innings:
W L ERA RS
Ortiz 17 9 3.74 5.75
Nathan 6 3 4.09 5.45
Estes 11 8 4.50 6.41
Hernandez 7 11 4.71 4.95
Rueter 14 8 5.12 6.78
How about a pretty bad team with a lot of mediocre records:
W L ERA RS
Brown 16 8 2.99 4.47
Valdes 9 14 3.69 4.52
Dreifort 13 13 4.79 6.30
Park 10 10 5.69 5.47
Perez 2 10 7.43 3.71
"I'd say correlating ERA and run support tracks pretty well, generally, to win-loss records, how about you?
"It's really very simple," says Fernando: "Rueter has won with Montreal, a shitty team, [and] with the Giants, a not-as-shitty team. The guy is a winner, period. Don't ask why, just accept it. A guy doesn't have five straight years of good luck -- it just doesn't happen. One year, yes; five, no. His overall ERA is just over 4.00 for his career, which is not that bad: In this era of the lively baseball and your steroid-enhanced hitters, it's more than acceptable. A good analogy is a quarterback who wins the Super Bowl, maybe his quarterback rating isn't all that high, he has a great defense and running game, but he's still a winner isn't he?"
Tjames has an answer for the notion that a player can't have five straight years of good luck: "Two words: Dante. Bichette."
Andrew B. says, "Bichette has thin air and a large outfield to attribute to his numbers. Rueter has no such advantages to skew his success."
"Rueter plays for a winning team that scores a lot of runs, runs that help compensate for his generally poor pitching and give him a better won-lost record than he would otherwise expect," says Tjames. "He also pitches in 3Com, which, while not nearly as extremely biased against hitters as Coors Field is against pitchers, is one of the worst hitters parks in the league. Of course he has advantages. On a low-scoring team, he'd be a sub-.500 pitcher. You don't think it helps a little that [Rueter has] pitched the last three years for very good Giants teams?" Tjames says. "I mean, there's not much outside of that: before he was on the Giants, his career record was 25-12."
"Man, you should check your math before you post something like that," Jason says: "25-12 is a [.676] winning percentage. That isn't just good, it's exceptional. And do remember, that was with the Expos. Granted, he did have a better ERA then, but the league ERA is also escalating in over the last several years."
"I don't need to check my math," Tjames says. "It's just that I'm not especially interested in a small sample size like 37 decisions."
"Whoa!" says Ron. "Hold up a second. If 37 decisions is a small sample size for looking at won-loss record, how is it enough when you're looking at ERA and run support. None of the guys you listed have had 37 starts this season."
Jason continues: "I absolutely think that it helped that he pitched for a Giants team that won more than it lost, but I also think that Rueter is one of the reasons that they won more than they lost. Winning percentage isn't everything, but ERA isn't either."
"Then what is?," says Tjames. "Is he just feisty? Do his grimaces intimidate the opposition? What can you find about his performances that translate to consistently good pitching, aside from the end result of a W or an L?"
"Is a pitcher who consistently has a good ERA but consistently loses a ton of close games really better than a pitcher that generally holds a lead but every once in a while gets bombed?" Jason says. "The latter will win more games for his team and that, above all, is what really counts."
"Are we talking 10-9 games where he wins, or 3-2 games where he loses? says Tjames. "I'll take the latter guy every time. Pitchers don't have inherent skills that make their offenses score more or fewer runs when they're on the mound. It's just dumb luck."
This, I think, is the key statement in this entire discussion.
"No," Ron says. "But there are pitchers who find what it takes to dig deep and win when their team needs it. There are battlers who figure that if the opponent has scored two, they haven't done their job if they've given up three, and there are guys who figure if they pitch a complete game where they only give up three runs, then they've done their job regardless of whether or not the team goes home victorious. And I'll take the former every time."
"Okay, name three of them," says Jonathan. "I think it's possible that such creatures exist, but no one has ever identified one successfully."
"How do you know that these pitchers who supposedly dig deep and win games all by themselves exist?" says Greg L. "Frankly, when evaluating a pitcher, I think ERA is okay, but certainly not perfect (and not very useful at all when looking at relief pitchers). I'd tend more towards hits per inning, walks per inning, and strikeouts per inning. I don't think though that there's any perfect measure to evaluate pitchers against each other. It's kind of like pornography and the Supreme Court: I know good pitching when I see it.
"I would definitely think about trading Rueter if there was a good deal out there for him, since plenty of people think the same way Ron and whoever started this thread (can't remember) do about pitcher's winning percentage. Heck, Joe Morgan is one of them."
I'm glad Greg brought this up, as I have followed this discussion with interest for exactly that reason. To be annoyingly self-referential, I went on at some length about Morgan's book in one of my "Looks at Books" pieces. To quote us both (insufferably, I admit):
"Morgan says, 'Say a guy goes through a season with a 2.98 ERA but has a losing record. What that tells you is the guy pitches well enough to lose. A pitcher's job is to bring home the bacon, not to hold down his ERA.' Good, Joe. So getting batters out is a selfish act on the part of the pitcher. Let's not even mention that the win, as defined by the rulebook, is an arbitrary statistic: You have a lead after five innings that never disappears, you get the win. But if you hold the opposition to three runs, or two, and lose... you haven't done your job. It's your fault, moundsman. Why, you can't depend on us non-run-producing hitters to save your self-centered ass by scoring four freaking runs. In other words, to Morgan, run support plays no part, and the pitcher is the sole determinant of who wins and who loses. Well, Joe, You're a Pro, So You Must Know."
"Morgan pretty much contradicts himself by saying, 'Jack Morris is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. Morris finished last season with a 4.00+ ERA -- but he won 20 games! True, Morris pitched with a world champion team, but so what. All of those winning games were equal, whether the score was 1-0 or 10-9. The point is that Morris did what he had to do to win.' Damn right he did -- he gave up fewer runs than his team scored. Morgan believes runs and RBIs tell you about hitters, but not about pitchers, and certainly not about teams. It's astounding. Pythagorean Theorem? I think he'd dismiss it out of hand, never mind the research that led to it, or the numbers that support it year after year after year.
"'Don't look at their ERAs,' he chirps, 'look at how consistently they won.'
"I see. So if your team scores 5.8 runs a game and bats .287, and you go 20-10 with a 4.65 ERA (when the league average is 4.3), you're a 'winner.' Next year, after your team's idiot GM trades Andre Dawson for Omar Moreno and sticks him at the top of the lineup, causing huge holes in the third and first slots, and you go 11-14 with a 3.18 ERA while your team scores three runs a game, you've gone into the tank. Good call, Li'l Joe!"
Frankly, it scares me a little that this guy is seen as an "expert" on baseball.
Like Jonathan, I don't believe in "pitching to the score," either. All a pitcher can do is hold off the other team as much as possible. He can't make his own hitters support him. Indeed, don't we often hear about how, when a team's pitching poorly, the hitters feel pressure to score more runs? Not to mention how, when a team isn't hitting, the pitchers feel more pressure. I mean, if you're throwing a 1-0 gem in the ninth, then walk a batter and give up a home run, the papers will say that you "made only one mistake the whole game, but it was a big one," and so you're the goat. But what about your teammates, who made dozens of mistakes at the plate all day? (And that's without taking into consideration that maybe your opponent, and his teammates, made fewer mistakes than you and yours did.)
"On the other hand, the Giants are going to end up the year as the number-one offense in the NL, and even with Bonds aging he's still probably going to be more valuable next year overall. And I have to say that it's getting hard to be as pessimistic as I'd like to be about the pitching staff. Barring injury -- and they have been overworked, of course -- Estes and Ortiz should be a very solid top two, and you'd think you could put a bottom of the rotation together out of Nathan, Woody, Livan, and Brock. I'd still rather have a lot more depth than I see right now, but things don't look all that bleak as far as pitching is concerned."
"Oh my," says Richard. "I don't know how to handle this. I greatly respect Jonathan's opinions, and he is suddenly almost happy. This is way too good to be true. I assume the other shoe is about to drop."
I have to wonder about that, too. Adding optimism to EEEEEE! is like adding gun oil to a nice mixed-green salad. I'd like to think things will be better overall once the Giants move to their Beautiful New Ballpark, but all I can really guess is that things will be different. It looks like a hitter's park supreme -- not Coors, but maybe, I don't know, Wrigley. I'm optimistic that maybe, just maybe, the San Francisco Giants may eventually field a batting champion, but a world champion? That'd be awful nice. Even nicer if they'd just cough up the dough. Their payroll isn't exactly Expos-like, but so much of it is going to Barry Bonds, for instance, and a hell of a lot of it will go to J.T. Snow for four more years. Robb Nen must be the highest-paid pitcher on the staff, which indicates youth, certainly, but also a certain lack of quality.
"Baseball Weekly reports that the Giants' board has approved a $52 million payroll for next season," says Mr. Bomb. "This year was around $45 million, I think; the loss of Javier ($1 million) and Hayes ($1 million) [are] certain. J.T. [will be] making about $3 million extra next year. All other moves equal, that leaves about $6 million to $7 million more next year. Thoughts?"
"The San Francisco Chronicle said a lot of that would go to the guys eligible for arbitration," says JVV, such as "F.P. Santangelo [and] John Johnstone."
"Plus, you're not factoring in a $1.5 million raise for Rueter, $1 million for Barry, $425,000 for Mueller, $300,000 for Aurilia, $1.6 million for Estes, etc...," says Henry. "That adds up awfully quick."
If Mr. Bomb's numbers are right, the increase would be one of 15.6%, which seems significant -- hell, I'd be delighted with a 15.6% raise, for instance -- but Henry's right: a million here, a million there.... I imagine that Jay Canizaro, who homered in yesterday's rather horrific loss, might get a look as the "backup power-hitting infielder" next year, and we'd certainly save on money that way; similarly, Calvin Murray may get a look as the "fifth or sixth outfielder," with Santangelo being seen more as "super sub," and this would save over Javier. But when you're subtracting, partial-million-dollar sums help a team go nowhere fast when it's trying to cut payroll -- or cut it enough to add someone significant.
The Niners lost 41-3. A frightful game.
"After the game, as I walked on the field so my kids could run the bases, I looked around and thought back on all the games I attended there over the year, all the great wins, years of seasons tickets, the memorable playoff games in the late '80s, the earthquake game, the great players I got to see in person, all the way back to that game when I was first a fan and I got Willie Mays' autograph, and I thought 'What a dump this place is.'
"I will remember all the great times I had as a Giants fan at Candlestick, but I will never remember Candlestick as anything other than cold and windy and sterile, with bad bathrooms and bad traffic. I am glad they are moving out of there, even if it means I don't get to go as often to the games. Some things don't deserve to be, and Candlestick for baseball is one of them. Sorry, Horace Stoneham, the last and worst part of your mostly useless legacy is finally going to be put behind us.
"I guess I was surprised to find out I had no warm spot in my heart for the place at all. Giants si, Candlestick no."
"All true," says Woody. "I mean, it'd sorta be like confusing the sentiments you have for members of your family, and sadness at seeing the cardboard box you were all raised in burn down. I just wish that getting out of there didn't rely on jumping on baseball's owner-driven New Stadium trend. I mean, yeah -- the Giants are without a doubt one of the few teams that actually, truly need a new park, but how come we had to await the era of Sunday caps, concierge service, center field Jacuzzis, and Broken Record du Jour to get it? Yeah, I know -- baseball's a business. Nice business."
As for Greg Maddux, Ken K. says, "Hey kids, Anyone else notice that we had six straight hits against Greg Maddux? The Chronicle said 'unprecedented.' Also, Spradlin got out of a jam without the other team scoring. Gardy got out of a jam without the other team scoring."
"Geez, when you look at it this way, it sounds optimistic," says John G. "What's wrong with you?
"These are not portentous signs of a miracle comeback, but merely harbingers of hope sent to us by the Gods that are meant to torture and mock us as a second-year team romps to the crown that the Giants agonize to reach over timespans best measured in decades.
"You call us 'kids,' and yes, we were all kids once, back when we believed the Giants could go all the way, back when cotton candy was a treat and exercising all day in the sun was thought to be play. But now, Ken K., to call us 'kids' and point out the unlikely positives of Spradlin and Gardner inheriting baserunners and not allowing them to score is to taunt us cruelly, tempting our hearts to enflame with hope once again. Now, we are grindingly bitter and hopeless adults, or we are not Giants fans. To be an unrequited Giants fan is our job, and it is its own reward, for the team offers no other.
"Get behind me, Ken K."
"Hey, the Giants beat the best pitcher around," says Ken. "Bonds hit a homer. Aurilia made a brilliant defensive play. Mueller made a terrific play to end the game. I got a new cap. It was a damn nice game.
"I never said we were going anywhere this year. Eight out with 19 to play is too tough. And I've had my heart broken by the Giants plenty of times.
"But they've also supplied plenty of thrills: Mike Ivie's pinch-hit grand slam; Chris Speier hitting a triple to complete the cycle; Will Clark's bases-loaded single up the middle against the Cubs; Rod Beck getting out of a bases-loaded no-out jam against the Dodgers and Brian Johnson's home run; Barry Bonds' [recent] tenth- inning home run last week.
"If and when we finally do win the World Series, all the pain and suffering will make it all the more worthwhile."
My fear is that on that day, we'll all think, "Now what?" Well, the next day, probably; on that day, we'll be in paradise.
"Sorry to be Mr. Positive today," says Ken, "but I just noticed that the Dodgers are 19.5 out with 19 to play.
"The LA Dodgers and their zillion-dollar payroll have been eliminated from the race. Yay!"
One of the Arizona Subhumans says (or "textually ejaculates," as Woody puts it), "That just means it's impossible for the Dodgers to catch the Diamondbacks. It's still mathematically possible for the Dodgers to catch the Giants."
"Yeah? So?" says Woody, at which point he descends into long-anticipated madness upon noting that Ken's e-mail sig. file sports his phone number:
"I now know Ken K. telephone number, and will call it whenever he's not there to have phone sex with it. It will be a constant reality of his nonpresence, like the face in the mirror that sneers at him each time he closes his eyes, or the man behind him who makes the peace sign over his head, and manages to remain behind him whenever he turns. Beware, Ken K.! I am the sinister force of trans-Atlantic telephonic underpants. The evil that lurks in hair follicles of all Dodgers. The small and undetectable brain wart that makes Tjames the way he is! I am all that is without reason, and ergo horrid. I am the hot tub in center field! I am Buck Showalter's hair stylist! I bondo Randy Johnson's jobes before outings, and you have fallen into my power!"
Woody's just joshing Ken -- who's really taken it in the shorts today but who's never done anybody any harm in his life (that he's willing to tell us about) -- but makes the point that no response to a typical idiot Diamondbacks troll post is complete without him, Woody, being really obnoxious about it.
Tjames joins the fun: "I am the small thing under the sink that demands Nutella. I am impervious to eggs. The guitar that when played by Scott Baio on the ABC-TV movie emits a dog-pitched distress call that summons packs of female mandrills in heat. The mouth and remaining lip of the rotting monkey corpse tossed thoughtlessly away in a suburb of Sacramento, California that screams endlessly for meat. The lone discarded Welly boot I saw on the freeway yesterday; it is filled with sorrow and shit.
"I am the little moth in your pudding. I am the little ball of fuzz that is always attached to your pants. I am the spot on the face of that guy who is in the Neville Brothers. I am the structural weakness in your bridge. I am the milk at the bottom of the bowl after you've finished your cereal; you don't want to drink me, but you will. I am the heartbreak of Matt Williams' psoriasis. I am the Space Cowboy; some people they call me Maurice: woo wooo!
"I dispense flatulence to the poor and steal bicycle parts from Christians when they're not looking.
"I am the drive-by shooter in the Shriner car! I smoke banana peels and wear a beanie what has a propeller on top! I like ham!
"I irritate monks. I rub cold beets on nuns. I annoy Rotarians. I am a paper airplane enthusiast. I am 'old school.' I am shaped vaguely like an upside down bowling pin.
"My tricycle has suicide doors! My mobile Tesla coil will defeat Godzilla! My hair is constructed from space-age polymers! Polymers! I enjoy the smell of gasoline! I have a trampoline made out of wheat thins! I race sports cars wearing a burlap suit! I surf oatmeal! I feed animal crackers to the animals at the zoo just because I enjoy irony! I aspire to live in an iron lung!
"I don't even have a reason for the things that I do!"
Woody counters: "I follow Eric Gregg around all day, and just when he thinks he's forgotten about me, I shout 'Strike? You're out!.'
"I tell Nancy Reagan she never looked younger. I tell Ronnie to take a nice walk in the mall. I pull over and instruct cops I've been speeding all day -- face on them."
"Glenn Dickey and Ray Ratto also weigh in with scathing opinions of their own. Dickey, for his part, has always been a big booster of the A's, and East Bay sports in general (not that there's anything wrong with that). His ridiculous position is that because the A's have had more success on the field, they should not be the team that leaves, if any one has to leave. Ratto, one of my favorite writers, actually, is blind to the fact that both teams have had to scrape and scrap for what really has been pretty meager attendance, for the most part, ever since the A's arrived in 1968."
"Well, I dislike the A's as much as the next guy, says Richard, "but I have friends who are A's fans, and they have the same look to them as I did when Bob Lurie sold the Giants' fans down the river in 1992. Nobody should have to lose a team they have followed since childhood because Bud Selig and his idiot cadre want to make more money (or even more irritatingly, because George Steinbrenner doesn't want to have to pay his excess salary penalty, ignoring the fact that he is making a ton on TV rights on games against teams like the A's, for which he does not have to share one dollar).
"I know there are several sides to this, and of course I am for the Giants first and foremost, but still. I felt betrayed in 1992, and Lurie didn't even have a bona fide buyer in San Francisco at that point. How should Oakland fans feel? It isn't their fault that Horace Stoneham was too stupid to keep the A's out when he had the chance. If he had had any brains at all, those people would now be happy Giants fans as they should be.
"Well, at least they would be Giants fans."
"If [Bud] Selig had become the puppet years ago, this could be the Giants being forced to leave the Bay Area," JVV points out. "Fortunately, a good number of teams have stadiums in the works.
"Does anyone think Selig would have fucked over the Brewers if they were for sale to a local group?"
"I know some Giants fans would say 'good riddance' to the A's, but this is indeed a class-A fuck-over," says Tim I. "No team acting in good faith to find local buyers deserves this.
"For a game which claims to prefer sales which preserve local ownership and keep the team in the area, this one makes no sense."
"Well, the current owners will make $20 to $30 million more by being able to sell to a group that will be able to move the team," says Jack M. "The only people who are really getting the shaft are A's fans. Sounds like a lot of lip service (to small-market fans) to me. Since when does MLB not go running to greener pastures when the opportunity presents itself? The Giants and A's are two good examples of this, and the A's will be again unless a miracle occurs."
"In the long run, there won't be any hard-core A's fans if the team moves," says Ron M. "Just like almost everyone -- everywhere in the Bay Area -- who grew up in the '80s is a 49er fan, because they were the only show in town, the loss of the A's will mean that the Giants get the next generation of East Bay Baseball fans."
"All we've heard for years from the owners is movement being detrimental to baseball. Never does an opportunity go by for these guys to show what asses they truly are," says Jerry D.
"Well, if Selig and Co. manage to rig the game to ensure a move out of Oakland," says Woody, "some of us (i.e., those of us of non-Gatesian revenues who live in the Bay Area) will also get an eventual shaft. I mean, let's not forget that the only game in town will then be at Telephone Company Park -- a venue Peter Magowan has explained he built small because 'you want to create demand via scarcity.' Hardcore A's fan may never stoop to frequenting Giants games regularly, but a lot of casual East Bay fans would certain do their part to forward the cause of 'scarcity.'"
"Plus, not like anyone is weeping over it, but has anyone (perhaps Jonathan knows) seen and understood the legal framework under which baseball essentially forced a legitimate (i.e., lawful) owner to give up her team? I mean, Marge Schott may be detestable (actually, she is), but I don't get how they arranged things so she had no choice but to back down."
Tjames says, "They told her they would suspend her if she didn't sell, just like they told her they would suspend her in 1996 if she didn't give up day-to-day control of the team. Then they told her she couldn't sell the team to her cousin. I still can't figure this out.
"The ESPN report of the owner's meeting the other day reads like bad satire. Schott forced out of baseball. Redraft of the Major League Agreement to merge the leagues 'in all areas but the field'... for now. Leonard Coleman quits because he realizes he's become "'irrelevant.' Selig offered a new job for Budig. No word on that yetig. The A's sale tabled without comment. The Expos sale tabled with a lot of arm-waving and hoohah. And then the owners cut out real quick so they didn't get flattened by Hurricane Floyd."
Woody says, "Call me cynical (guffaw), but what we're seeing is the last steps towards creating the single league that both fans and players have said they don't want to see. First we had interleague play. Then we had ideas advanced about doing away with the AL/NL division. Then we had the Brewers jump from one side to the other (with talk of others following suit, making the distinction an increasingly porous one). Now we have -- in what should have been marketed as 'A 100-Year-Old Baseball Record Broken!' -- the direction and management of the NL and AL being fused into a single MLB power that will have to overcome no hurdles or procedural turns in order to take smoke-filled-room decisions and apply them, immediately, as changes. I am betting that by 2005, the names 'National League' and 'American League' will be history, as will be any lingering division. Course, by then, I'll have become a full-time soccer fan."
"You're gonna love it," says Tjames. "Here's my prediction, 2001-style:
PACIFIC DIVISION Seattle San Francisco Oakland/Sacramento/Pleasant Hill Los Angeles Anaheim San DiegoSOUTHWEST DIVISION Arizona Texas Houston Colorado St. Louis (just Kansas City because)
MIDWEST DIVISION Chicago Chicago 2 Minnesota Pittsburgh Cleveland Milwaukee Toronto
SOUTHEAST DIVISION Atlanta Florida Tampa Bay (now known as "Frogurts" after lucrative marketing deal) Detroit (so what?) Cincy (who cares?)
ATLANTIC DIVISION New York New York 2 Boston Philly Baltimore Virginia (former Montreal)
Playoffs: First two teams in each division, except for Atlantic division which gets three teams in playoffs, plus next best five teams as wild cards. Division winners play wild-cards in first round.
Round one: 16 teams Round two: 8 teams Semifinals: 4 teams World Super Championship Series Bowl: 2 teams
Winner goes to Disneyland, loser gets a $25 million "rebuilding grant."
Also, the regular season schedule is cut to 82 games to make room for expanded playoffs and "maintain optimum fan interest."
"The main reason is proximity for travel," Henry answers. "The Giants traditionally had a Single-A team in the Midwest League, which made it harder for team brass to go visit.
"The Giants also like the idea of having their own prospects play head-to-head because, they fell, it brings out the best of their competitiveness.
"While Bakersfield is considered a slightly lower team than San Jose, the real difference is this: The Giants tend to put their best hitters in Bakersfield and their best pitchers in San Jose to take advantage of differences in the two ballparks.
"That's why shortstop Cody Ransom, one of the organization's best prospects, spent most of the season at Bakersfield before his promotion to Shreveport, bypassing San Jose entirely, and why Jake Esteves went from San Jose to Shreveport.
"The A's, incidentally, also have two Cal League affiliates (Modesto and Visalia), which means 40 percent of the league consists of San Francisco and Oakland prospects."
I don't have anything to add to this, except that I'd always wanted to know, too.
home road LA 6 6 SD 6 6 Col 6 7 Arz 7 6 Hou 3 6 StL 3 6 Mil 3 6 ChC 6 3 Cin 6 3 Pit 4 4 Fla 3 6 Atl 3 6 Phi 6 3 Mon 6 3 NYM 4 4 Oak 3 3 Ana 0 3 Sea 3 0 Tex 3 0P.S. further reports the following "oddities":
Dave M. points out "another oddity: Time would be better spent playing against division opponents rather than the American League and vice versa However baseball doesn't do that. Weird."
Isn't this enough to tell MLB, or at least the schedule-makers, that the setup is completely screwy? Point 5, there, is enough all by itself. Heck, just about any one of these points is enough by itself.
For the third straight year, this kind of thing happens with the Cardinals.
And I'd be interested how many other teams have to go through the 8,211-mile road trip, and how often. The good news there, I suppose, is that it's not after the All-Star Break this time.
"Can't claim to be upset with the April visits down my way, but both series?" says Florida resident Jim J. "I'm not planning on moving away next summer, but perhaps I should think about it, given that my season is clear after April."
JVV provides the schedule for immediately after the All-Star Break:
July 13-15, Oak July 16-18, Tex July 19-20, SD July 21-23, @LA July 24-26, @SD"Great," says Richard. "So when, post-All Star Break, the Giants fall on their faces and embarrass us all again, it will be against division foes and Oakland so as to do the maximum damage in the standings and to our egos. This is great news for San Diego, because this probably means they are going to be in the race next year (and get a nice five-game swing that week)."
Well, the sunny side of this, anyway, is that at least we don't head hit the road immediately after the break....
"By the way, I thought interleague was going to start rotating next year."
Also not rotating, specifically on a spit, will be the idiots who decided that interleague play would be a fixture, plus the other idiots who've built in the above dive.
Henry says, "Selig says rotation of interleague divisions will begin in 2001."
Joy.
"Maybe we can get the AL Central but not Cleveland," says Carlos. "Of course, by 2001 that will be the most powerful division in baseball and the Indians will be the cellar dwellers."
I have the feeling that this rotation stuff will finally expose interleague play as the sham it is. Will we pack the stadium to watch the Twins? How 'bout them Devil Rays?
In any case, once again the Giants open and close the season on the road. Good job, schedule makers. Pro stuff.
"It should be noted," Henry notes (see?), "that the Giants asked the league to start with a week-long road trip to give them extra debugging time for the new stadium."
Oh. Then, good job, Giants people....
This busts me up, actually. Since when do the Giants have to ask to open on the road? I think they opened at home in '97, but they almost never do, and I can't remember if they've ever opened and closed at home.
Henry wrote in the next day's Chronicle that the preference is to open on the road so as to eliminate a few cold, early days. I bet the fans don't mind them much, though.
Carlos says, "They should have asked for a 14-game road trip to start the season, just to see how much the schedulers would go to trash us (I know, be careful what I ask for, but hey, that's one less gigantic road trip to hurt us later in the season)."
The other thing is, to be fair, there probably isn't any particular disadvantage to opening and closing on the road. It's just nice for Fan Appreciation Day to be on the last game of the season. (Well, they have Fan Appreciation Weekend now, which lacks the punch.) And, hey, it's nice to open the season in front of the home fans -- as the Giants' opponents know, annually.
"The story is basically this: The Tigers are being sold, and the new owners are going to trade him to another team. He has to decide if he's going to keep playing or retire out of spite.
"Yet what team is wishy-washy enough to trade (during the offseason, mind you, not one of them post-All-Star-Break 'team bolstering' trades) for him?
"Yep, the Giants.
"Even in Tinseltown, the Giants cling to washed-up pitchers. Art imitating life, I guess. Sad that this was my first thought as soon as they told him he was being traded."
This was my first thought upon reading in the review that Costner's character was to be traded to the Giants.
"Heh," adds Jon R. "I wonder if Mark Gardner was retained as a consultant for the making of this film."
I appreciate the kind words from Lan, here, and I'm mainly including them because a huge percentage of the words in EEEEEE! are generated by the readers of EEEEEE! This fan letter is for you.
"I was watching SportsCenter last Sunday," says Jeff C. "Dan Patrick was doing the highlights for the Giants' 8-4 win over Maddux and the Braves. When he got to the replay of Bonds' home run off Derrin Ebert in the eighth, Patrick clearly said, "EEEEEE!" as the ball went over the fence.
"Of course, one could say he was making a joke about the pitcher's name, which he had just mentioned moments before, since it's pronounced EE-bert, but I actually believe it was a tribute to Gregg's articles."
"Or maybe a reaction to Gregg's articles," suggests Woody.
"Gregg, I think you should demand some royalties from Mr. Patrick. At the very least, request an appearance in one of their cool commercials."
I like the sound of royalties.
Copyright ©1999 by Gregg Pearlman
Last updated 9/19/99 Gregg Pearlman, gregg@EEEEEEgp.com