One Night Only! (How Manny Edition)
This edition of One Night Only knows which side its bread is buttered on.
(Games listed in order of likely awesomness. NERD scores in parentheses.)
Chicago Americans (5) at Cleveland (3) | 7:05 ET
Starting Pitchers
White Sox: Edwin Jackson (8)
162.1 IP, 7.65 K/9, 3.71 BB/9, .318 BABIP, 51.8% GB, 10.2% HR/FB, 3.97 xFIP
Indians: Justin Masterson (6)
151.1 IP, 6.78 K/9, 4.10 BB/9, .341 BABIP, 60.7% GB, 11.0% HR/FB, 4.23 xFIP
Manny Being Manny Traded via Waivers
Let’s be clear about one thing, America: this game is miles more interesting if newly acquired Manny Ramirez is playing in it. And let’s be clear about another thing, America: NERD doesn’t really have a way of accounting for this.
Or, at least not yet.
Maybe — how about this — maybe a game becomes an automatic 10 when one of the most talented, yet enigmatic, players of his era joins a team just on the fringe of playoff contention — a team that, for the entire season, has slotted a no-hit journeyman into the DH spot and also features a mouthy Latin whack job for a manager.
Cool?
Out of Left Field. Literally. Kind Of.
Though it’s become commonplace to say that the White Sox have effed themselves by fielding* Mark Kotsay at DH — and while, yes, Mark Kotsay, isn’t a good DH — it’s actually not the position at which they’ve failed hardest. Because, while Chicago’s DHs have posted a 92 OPS+ relative to the league average DH, the team’s left fielders (ahem, Juan Pierre) have posted only an 83 OPS+ relative to other left fielders. No, OPS+ isn’t perfect, and, yes, maybe Pierre picks up some overall runs via stolen bases and such. But it’s still bad, people.
Action, Jackson
Edwin Jackson, in case you didn’t know, has been good since joining the White Sox. Like, disgusting-good. Blam, line: 28.0 IP, 10.93 K/9, 2.25 BB/9, 58.9% GB, 2.55 xFIP, 1.1 WAR. And he’s got 21 Ks over his last two starts.
*Not the precise word, obviously, but what’s better? Batting? Deploying?
Colorado (6) at San Francisco (4) | 10:15pm ET
Starting Pitchers
Rockies: Esmil Rogers (9)
49.1 IP, 8.21 K/9, 3.10 BB/9, .393 BABIP, 48.1% GB, 6.5% HR/FB, 3.71 xFIP
Giants: Madison Bumgarner (7)
73.0 IP, 6.41 K/9, 2.34 BB/9, .322 BABIP, 44.8% GB, 10.9% HR/FB, 4.30 xFIP
Regression Alert
Esmil Rogers has exploded to the top of the NERD charts recently. Why’s he there? Let me count the ways.
1. Bad Luck. Despite an ERA of 5.66, Rogers is actually currently sporting only a 3.71 xFIP. Rocky pitchers will always have inflated-looking BABIPs — Coors has a BABIP about 20 points higher than league average — but his current number is far above what it ought to be.
2. Velocity. Rogers’ fastball is currently averaging 94.3 mph overall (and 93.7 mph as a starter). That’s faster than fastballs belonging to a whole bunch of guys typically classified as power pitchers, guys such as Josh Beckett, Mat Latos, Francisco Liriano, Brandon Morrow, and CC Sabathia.
3. Age. Rogers only just turned 25, which means he’s been 24 for the majority of the season, which means he’s on the youngish side of things. Also, besides a four-inning start last season, it’s his first real season in the majors.
Andres Torres Watch
Last Night (v Colorado): 4 PA, 2 K.
Entering Playing: .284/.366/.498 (.351 BABIP), .379 wOBA, 138 wRC+, 5.7 WAR (8th among hitters).
Andres Torres Watch (Totally Subjective Remix)
Andres Torres remains talented and handsome. I want him to be my power animal.
A Brief Critique of Dave Cameron
About two weeks ago, to celebrate the arrival of 2010 minor league stats to the site, our Full-Time Employee Dave Cameron wrote a brief article singing the praises of Luis Rodriguez, who, after years of serving as a sort of Quad-A utility infielder, is having a crazy season. To quote Cameron:
In 354 plate appearances, Rodriguez is hitting .296/.360/.502. That is not a typo – the diminutive middle infielder is outslugging Jesus Montero. A guy who has slapped the ball on the ground for most of his career, he’s already launched 15 home runs in the International League, and 31 of his 90 hits have gone for extra bases. He’s done this while maintaining his excellent bat control, as he again has more walks (34) than strikeouts (30).
Because I’m a human person, this story warms the cockles of my heart. Moreover, I celebrate our generally unassailable Editor for calling attention to Rodriguez’s achievement.
However, I do take umbrage at one of Cameron’s maneuvers, and it’s this: in a moment of poor judgment, Cameron opted to title his post “The Next Andres Torres?” Because it’s phrased as a question, I’ll provide the answer here post-haste:
No.
“Oh, but Carson,” maybe you’re saying, “Torres was also a career minor league who also improved considerably during what would otherwise be considered the end of his peak years.” To this I reply: “Sure, but is Luis Rodriguez anywhere near as handsome as Andres Torres?” Let’s check.
Conclusion: no way, friend.
Milwaukee (8) at Cincinnati (7) | 7:10pm ET
Starting Pitchers
Brewers: Yovani Gallardo (8)
149.0 IP, 9.97 K/9, 3.74 BB/9, .338 BABIP, 43.3% GB, 6.8% HR/FB, 3.42 xFIP
Reds: Aaron Harang (5)
100.1 IP, 6.73 K.9, 2.51 BB.9, .331 BABIP, 37.7% GB, 11.5% HR/FB, 4.33 xFIP
Just One Brief Note
This game marks the return of Aaron Harang from the DL. That’s what we in the industry refer to as “need to know” information.
Also Playing
These games are very likely playing at some kind of sporty channel near you.
pNERD = Pitcher NERD
tNERD = Team NERD
Game = Time and Average NERD for Game
* = Estimated NERD
Carson Cistulli has published a book of aphorisms called Spirited Ejaculations of a New Enthusiast.
Strong to quite strong homo-erotic themes to today’s post. Nonetheless, you had me at “mouthy Latin whack job.”
Just checked in to read my first Carson Cistulli article in a couple of months. I quit reading back then because I couldn’t stomach all the cutesy, snarky bullshit with which Carson dresses up his columns. He doesn’t seem to have improved on this point.
I’m not denying that a site full of sober, dry, statistical writing could use some lightheartedness. But Carson’s faux-naive sarcasm isn’t actually clever – it’s a pretty tired conversational mechanism that works considerably less well in print – and it obfuscates what actual informational value is to be found in Carson’s articles. And the deliberately ironic homoeroticism is offensive – not because it’s pejorative but because it involves employing one of the least original, most obvious sports humor memes ad nauseum.
The mock overconfidence and mock disdain for more established and careful writers, the constant repetition of a joke (Colby Lewis anyone?), the dramatization of every last detail – these devices are rarely funny, and a more confident writer – a writer whose work justified a certain amount of Carson’s bravado – would almost certainly prefer subtlety and wit to the humor profile of a middle school lunchroom.
For the life of me, I cannot see what value FanGraphs finds in letting Carson write on the site. His articles are an absolute low point for me, and I won’t be reading another one.
+1
I couldn’t disagree more strongly. I think Carson Cistulli is one of the two or three best baseball writers around, and I think his addition to FanGraphs has been terrific.
Some people don’t like snark and references to handsome men; I get that. But I don’t think I’m alone in enjoying it; it’s not just the men Carson’s having imaginary sex with or the people his mom pays to play with him or write flattering comments. (Carson’s mom pays well.)
–JRM
Sir, as you appear rather intelligent, I’m more than willing to engage you on what does and what does not constitute suitable writing — for this site or in general.
Furthermore, I’ll invite you to use a less shrill tone, as you can rest assured that I’m an actual person who’s actually reading your comments.
These pieces are intended as celebrations. That’s most important of all. It’s my desire to have readers derive from these pieces the sort of joy that they receive from the the very best ballgames — a sense of hope, of energy, of stepping out of time. (I’m sure I fail a lot, but that’s a different consideration.)
Really, I want anything I write to be the literary equivalent of that scene at the end of Short Cicuit (maybe Short Circuit 2?), where Johnny 5 has the mohawk and “Holding Out for a Hero” is playing in the background. I remember, as a kid, feeling an unparalleled joy during that whole thing, of jumping around my living room, excited about a living robot and Bonnie Tyler.
Let’s let all of life be like that, if possible.
In re certain of your charges — “snarky,” “sarcas[tic],” “ironic” — these are things I’ve heard before, and will, I’m sure, continue to hear.
I will caution any- and everyone, however, against dismissing something as sarcastic when it could, in fact, be playful. In The Spirit of Zen, Alan Watts writes that Zen masters
“used to refer to each other as ‘old rice-bags’ and with uncomplimentary terms, not out of any professional jealousy, but because it amused them to think that they and their wise and venerated brothers were supposed by ordinary standards to be so especially holy, whereas they had all realized that everything was holy, even cooking-pots and odd leaves blown about by the wind, and that there was nothing particularly venerable about themselves at all.”
Nor must we be Zen masters to conduct ourselves in such a way — or adherents to Eastern philosophy, at all. The point remains: in some cases, one’s use of name-calling or vulgarity is borne not out of bitterness or anger, but out of a wild humility — a humility that could easily be misconstrued as bravado.
My problem is not with a little goofing around. I much prefer solid analysis with a dose of levity to the kind of self-seriousness one often finds in mainstream publications. My problem is that you overdo it so dramatically. The themes of your jokes are unoriginal, and you repeat individual jokes – or instantiations of a joke type – so often as to utterly extinguish any glimmer of funniness it might retain were it left on the shelf for a time.
My point is not that humor – or even sarcasm – has no place here. It is that your jokes are unoriginal and tired. I gain nothing from, upon searching for analysis, having to skim through for the 40th time your drooling hyperbole about whomever you’re idolizing this week.
I assure you that I realize that you are an actual person. My comments all have to do with the writing you publish on FanGraphs, and nothing to do with you personally. I suggest that if you don’t want to have hurt feelings you either get some thicker skin or stop making your writing available for free.
No, Manny, no.
This writing is freely available to the public. If you don’t want to read it, then go ahead and don’t read it.
I think I speak for a lot of others here when I say that when I come to Fangraphs I instantly look for a “One Night Only!” title and read the article that follows first.
I suggest that you do the opposite, being the unemotional and humorless robot that you are. If you don’t enjoy reading analysis of baseball with comedy thrown in, then I might suggest you to click on the “Leaders” tab in the top right, select the “Major League” option, and then enjoy your preference of fine statistical analysis.
In other words:
Deal with it.
+1 Matt Defalco
Look! Manny thinks he is clever!
Oh boo hoo, he knows his shit and touches it with humor (which i find hilarious… Andres Torres’ picture? priceless.)
No one needs to know that you’re not gonna read him anymore.
But, what’s the combined effect of Aaron Harang coming off the DL with Aroldis Chapman expected to be available in the Reds bullpen?
AHA! Probably our newest member of the MLB to break the NERD scale.
(Although he isn’t a starter)
It would be one thing if Carson’s only selling point to these article’s was his unconventional style, but it’s not. There’s really good information in here, and I find the conversational tone helps not harms in that regard. It also may help to listen to a podcast; Mr. Cistuli talks like he writes. He’s not trying to create a character here.
Manny:
If you don’t like it, don’t read it. You sound like a music critic. Why act like such a total jerk? Who are you to decide what is good and bad? Why can’t you just let people do what they want to do? What harm could this writing possibly have?
What a waste of time it is to attack someone that is totally harmless to you. It just makes everyone involved feel worse. Completely immature.
Mike:
Suppose I said: If you don’t like my comments, don’t read them. Why act like a jerk by writing a critical reply?
Or suppose I said: If Carson doesn’t want my negative feedback, he shouldn’t write articles.
Those would be very dumb things to say, but they would rely on a position pretty similar to the one you endorse in your comment. FanGraphs opens comments presumably because it wants feedback and it wants to encourage dialogue about the content they post here. I’m simply exercising my right to provide my opinion. Negative feedback can be useful: if I am not alone in genuinely disliking Carson’s writing, then this is something FanGraphs would presumably like to know, since they rely on returning readers.
Moreover, you seem to hold the view that no one is in a position legitimately to provide feedback unless that to which they are responding is forced upon them. But that’s absurd. It would follow that no art, film or music criticism is legitimate, that the only legitimate complaints were about things that infringed our rights in some way or another.
People who explicitly produce their work for mass consumption rely on the willingness of others to engage in a free exchange of ideas. Negative feedback is a part of that – an important part, I would argue.
Manny, I would suggest that while people will often respond to a post like yours with comments such as, “if you don’t like it, don’t read it,” or “who are you to judge,” what actually compels them to respond in that way is not the opinion you hold, but the way you share it.
Of course you are more than entitled to your opinion, and I’m sure Fangraphs does appreciate knowing if their writers or liked or disliked. But you come across as a condescending, arrogant, self-important prick (for no conceivable reason), and people lash out with the first things that cross their mind.
Don’t feed the troll, Mike.
Hey Mike, Don’t feed the troll.
Shut up, me.
Does anyone realize that the Luis Rodriguez picture is actually Everth Cabrera?
yep! wrong light-hitting Padres shortstop!
this is Luis Rodriguez:
http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/San+Diego+Padres+v+Los+Angeles+Dodgers+Sr-qnooHlael.jpg
Well, it’s better than the alternative. I almost went with a photo of Jerry Orbach, instead.
Carson, is the picture of Andres Torres from Age of Mythology by chance? Looks awfully familiar…
Yup, I noticed that too.
Love the ONOs, love the comments, keep it up Carson.
bottom line: anybody who doesnt appreciate/doesn’t understand Carson’s writing style basically doesn’t get what good writing actually is.
its funny, relevant, and it works.
go read the blithering dunderheadedness of assjockeys like AJ Mass over at ESPN if you truly want to see an abomination of sports journalism.
also, i assume “Manny” spent the majority of his morning on dictionary.com looking up all the big boy words he used to try and dress up his first ill-informed response.
“obfuscates?” child please.
Pay no attention to his comments. Thats just Manny being Manny
you win the thread
Is there any possibility that the Phillies team NERD will go up, now that the injured players (Chase Utley, notably) are back? Also, September is traditionally a very interesting time to watch Phillies baseball.