Sports on the Brain

From the man who brought you the Brewers 44 game update and Baseball Offense 101: The Brewers, the Brewers 83 game mid-season update! For those who are new to the idea of my little updates, I introduce some basic statistical analysis about the Brewers, focusing on something that the Brewers are either doing or not doing, and end with an analysis of their record compared to what the numbers say. It is extremely nerdy and numbers driven, but I find it interesting nonetheless. Also, these little updates are meant as a supplement to however a fan feels about the team; essentially a better way of understanding what a fan sees in a larger context. For example, any Brewers fan can tell you that the Eric Gagne signing was one of the worst signings in team history, and that $10 million for what now amounts to a broken down reliever that can't seem to get anyone out is a waste of money. The numbers though, give a more in depth look at what Gagne cost the team other than a few blown saves and wins, the numbers can break down the effect on the bullpen through overuse and extended games. The numbers don't replace the fans' opinion, but merely supplement what is easily seen with a more precise understanding.

Since I'm in a pitching mood, I though that I would delve into the intricacies of the Brewers pitching staff. Just looking at the pitching staff, any fan can see that the staff is Ben Sheets and four other guys just hanging on. Sheets has good outings and pretty much lives up to the standard of an "ace" pitcher on a staff. The rest of the pitching staff has their ups and downs, but the starters are serviceable. At least that's what a fan would see, and hearing the opinions on the radio and newspaper, it seems that everyone is in agreement. But the numbers tell a slightly different story about the Brewers staff. The staff as a whole is 7th in the National League in Earned Run Average (found by multiplying 9 times the number of earned runs then divided by the total innings pitched), led by Sheets' 2.83 ERA. But more importantly, the staff is 6th in ERA+, a statistical device used to measure a pitching staff more precisely given the inherent advantages/disadvantages of pitching in their home park.

To digress slightly, sabermaticians (of which I am definitely not one) have developed a way of understanding the effects of a ballpark upon both pitching and hitting. These uber-nerds have taken the color commentator axiom of "pitcher's park" versus "hitter's park" and created a way of analyzing the park to see which type of park it is. It is one of the most complicated mathematical formulas I have ever seen (granted I'm not the biggest math fan on earth), requiring several different steps to come up with the numbers that are plugged in to a separate equation to create "park factor," the numerical value assigned to parks to determine if they are hitter or pitcher friendly (for a more in-depth look at the formula, go to baseball-reference.com). If the resultant number is greater than 100 the park is a hitter's park, if the number is less than 100 the park is a pitcher's park. For example, Coors Field is known as a hitters park because of the thin air, and it is, checking in with a 109-109 split (first number for hitters park factor, second number for pitchers park factor, some splits are different), making it very friendly for hitters. Dodgers Stadium in Los Angeles is known throughout the league as a pitcher's park, yet the numbers show a split of 105-104, meaning that it plays more as a hitter's park. Turner Field is considered a hitter's park, yet the splits go 98-97 making it a very friendly pitcher's park. Miller Park has a split of 102-102, making it a slightly more friendly hitter's park than pitcher's park, now back to the Brewers staff.

Since we know what kind of factor a park has on a pitcher, we can calculate the ERA of a league average pitcher given the ballpark factor (yes, the uber-nerds have created the "league average player," a fictional player whose stats are the exact average for a league in a given year or series of years). That number is known as lgERA, for league-average ERA adjusted to ballpark. If you take the lgERA and divide it by the ERA you get ERA+, the statistic used to measure the ratio of the league's ERA adjusted to ballpark with the ERA of those pitching in the ball park. Thanks to the wonders of math, any number higher than 100 is an above average ERA+ and any number below 100 is a below average ERA+. The top two ERA+ teams in the National League are the Dodgers and the Cubs, at 116. The Brewers check in at 104, tied with the Cardinals, whom they trail in traditional ERA measures. What ERA+ is saying is that the Brewers staff as a whole is pitching well in a ballpark designed to favor hitters, and that is fueling their current good play. The problem with the staff lies in another, simpler statistic. The staff gives up 3.87 runs per home game, but a whopping 5.13 runs per road game. This inconsistency is killing the Brewers on the road, as the offense scores 4.68 runs at home and 4.38 runs on the road. Every time out the Brewers offense is going to get you 4.5 runs, but the staff could be shuffling between a one run victory and a two run loss. I don't know how to fix that, but it needs to get done because of the last set of stats that I always write about.

The Brewers record stands at 45-38 through yesterday's game against Arizona, on pace for a 88-74 record. The offense has scored 375 runs, and the defense and pitching have allowed 378 runs. According to Pythagorean Win-Loss (the measure of a team's record given runs scored and allowed, removing luck from the picture), the Brewers should be a paltry 41-42, on pace for a nice 80-82 season. This is reflected in their runs scored and allowed per game, which are pretty much even at 4.52-4.55. If the staff doesn't cure their road woes, or the offense doesn't increase total production, this run of good play will eventually fizzle out into a maddening "win two, lose three, win three, lose two" format that will drive fans crazy.

I've been sitting in front of my computer thinking about the state of the sports world in America. More accurately, I have been thinking about the sports world, taking care of some business, and listening (and watching) to Sri Lanka-Bangladesh one day international cricket in the Asia Cup from Pakistan. For those of you confused by that sentence, let me parse it for you: I have been thinking about sports because that is what I do; I have been checking my work schedule and email to make sure I'm up to speed on life; and I have been watching a cricket match between Sri Lanka (the island country off the south coast of India) and Bangladesh (the relatively newly formed country to the east of India) that is played over the course of one day instead of the usual week or so for a Test event, and it is being played in Pakistan (the country to the west of India). Part of my thoughts were directed to the concept of an American man sitting in his office watching a cricket match halfway around the world and the probability of a similar situation occurring somewhere else in America. Just to make my probability thought slightly more dramatic, I immediately discounted all people of Pakistani, Indian, Sri Lankan (actually Singhalese and Tamil), and Bengali decent. I figured that there were probably 20 people in the whole country who are Caucasian like myself (amongst other things) and watching that particular cricket match, and maybe 13 of us actually knew the rules and could understand the commentary. And that made me sad, to think that there isn't a more international flare to the sports scene in America, that we don't seem to care about any sports happening outside our own borders (with a notable exception), and we have the gall to believe that we are watching the best athletes in the world compete in the best sports in the world with the most passionate fans in the world.

I have a hard time believing that other people don't find it somewhat interesting that the MLB, NBA, and NHL have the gumption to call their respective championships the "world title." Baseball is played in Japan and Mexico, yet the Nippon League (I'll even admit the Mexican league is second rate) champion never plays the Major League champion. Basketball is played around the world, yet the Euroleague champion never plays the NBA champion. Hockey is played in Europe and Scandinavia, they even have good professional leagues, yet Lord Stanley's cup is considered the world championship. This bugs me for those sports. The NFL can call the Super Bowl winner "world champion" because no one else plays football in the entire world. NASCAR can call the Sprint Cup winner world champion, because no other country has stock car racing. I am irked by the notion that because an athlete wins an American competition, he or she is automatically the best in their field because America is the best at everything. And I would like to shatter some of that illusion if I may.

Sports media in this country paint a picture that America is the land of sports greatness. That our leagues are peerless in their competition, and that we have a truer example of fandom than anywhere else in the world. When someone points out that the American soccer team and other non-television sport American athletes don't receive any support, that person is shouted down as bringing up sports that no one in this country truly cares about, and other countries are doing similar things. Now I can't speak for other countries, but it appears to me that when I watch the Olympics fans of countries cheer for whoever is from that country in any event, but no matter, I'll stick to the "true fandom," of televised sports in America.

A common example given to show the "true fandom" of the American public is the spirit and overall ridiculousness of the crowds. For example, the bleacher fans in Chicago are famous for being extremely loud, boisterous, and unfriendly to opposing fans (not to mention drunk). Sports media types love talking about the Chicago fans and their dedication to the team, as well as their sometimes boorish behavior (throwing beer cups and other refuse at fellow fans and players on the field). The fans in Philadelphia are notorious for their behavior: throwing batteries at Santa Claus, cheering when Michael Irvin was almost paralyzed, and being generally considered a madcap group of fans. Boston is considered an extremely partisan sports town, with the mutual antipathy of the Yankees and Red Sox fans taking center stage in any discussion about American fandom as an example of the "greatest rivalry in sports," or some such nonsense.


Let me take  you outside our borders to a place and area that puts all these places to shame. I am not talking about European soccer, with its overzealous fans. Americans, however blithely, understand the importance of soccer in the rest of the world. I would hope that the audience for the World Cup final is two to three times greater than the audience for the Super Bowl. The European soccer fan is treated to several advantages and displays of fandom from their own government. England declares banking holidays on days when the English national team plays, Spain closes down the country when their team plays, other European countries shut down the government for important matches. Hopefully, Americans understand the dedication to soccer, but the place I'm talking about puts even European soccer fandom to shame. In the Indian sub-continent cricket is taken to a whole new level of passion and distress for fans and players. The Indian national cricket team had a horrible showing in the last cricket World Cup, the fans in India rioted, burned the captain (Rahul Dravid) and best player's (Sachin Tendulkar) effigies, then looted their homes. When Pakistan was eliminated from the World Cup, their coach was killed mere days after the final match. On the occasion that India plays Pakistan, the visiting team is placed under heavily armed guard and police and soldiers with riot gear escort the team to and from the stadium. Players who are on a team that defeats the other are lauded as heroes, the losers are ridiculed and occasionally threatened with harm. Now that is a rivalry.

But, dear fan, you don't have to try and watch cricket. It is definitely an acquired taste. If you are of hardy enough spirit, I would start with an hour or so of one day international (ODI) cricket. That is the quickest form of high level cricket, as it limits each team's turn at bat to 300 total balls bowled (pitched) unless they are all bowled out. However, an ODI match can last about 8-10 hours. For the more adventurous, Test cricket is the stereotypical cricket match that the average person thinks of when asked about cricket. It is played in the traditional white sweaters, shirts, and pants and lasts five days. While being the longer version of the game, it is definitely the most skilled version, with not only the players being the best in their respective countries, but the countries themselves who can play Test cricket are limited to 10 different countries (with promotion available to other countries only after an extended period of competitive play and competence shown). If you love football, enjoy the hard hitting action and the pace of the game, honestly, give rugby a try. Find a match in which the New Zealand, South African, or Australian teams are playing and watch a half. It is hard hitting and exciting to watch, especially when New Zealand and Australia are playing each other, that is some high level rugby. If you enjoy rugby, you could also give Australian rules football a try, it is an interesting variation which features awesomely dressed refs with hats and jackets that make really cool hand signals when there is a score.

For those with a more strategy or tactical bent to their sports fandom, don't be afraid to watch the occasional America's Cup race. The defending team has its own unique history, being an all New Zealand crew racing a $60 million yacht named Alinghi for a group of Swiss backers (by the by Switzerland has no ocean to speak of) against the winner of the challenger series, a group of New Zealanders who replaced the New Zealanders on Alinghi on their own boat backed by the New Zealand yacht club who alienated the guys who are now on Alinghi. That confusing piece of background is only the beginning, as Alinghi has won and defended the Cup against New Zealanders while changing the rules as the possessor of the Cup to prevent their fired skipper from racing against them. The yacht racing is really good too.

What I'm trying to say is that it's a wide, wide world out there, with many different sports and many different fans. Taking a look around can not only broaden your perspective of sports, it can broaden your perspective on life.

Before I get to the meat of my post today, I'd just like to mention that a great comic passed away over the weekend, George Carlin. While being famous for several things, I will most remember George Carlin's routine about the difference between football and baseball. The act is extremely funny, and anyone who is a football or baseball fan should listen to it over and over again. RIP George.

I've spent a post blasting USA Basketball for their selection of their women's senior national team, and especially the appalling treatment of Becky Hammon. Her story has actually become more bizarre, as she has been officially referred to as a traitor for playing for Russia instead of sitting at home watching the US team play in the Olympics. The hilarious part of this whole public relations debacle is that Jon Robert Holden plays guard for the Russian National Team as well, yet we're not calling Jon Holden a traitor. We only call players traitors when they are good and play for someone else, making the opponent a better team that might challenge our team. Holden's Russian team won the FIBA European Championships, but is still ranked 16th in the world, whereas the women's team is ranked 3rd and is the defending bronze medalist from the last Olympics. Heaven forbid a good player leaves the country without never having represented their national team and goes to a contending national team without even receiving a tryout for their own Olympic team. We'll let other players, who are successful in international play, go be on foreign teams, but definitely not one who might make a difference for a foreign team.

On the men's side of things, USA Basketball announced their 12-man roster for the Olympics today and apparently people are forgetting the last couple of performances of our national team. The 2004 Olympic team won a bronze medal which led the higher ups in USA Basketball to actually attempt to create a "team." They hired Jerry Coangleo to run the selection and team building process and he in turn hired Mike Krzyzewski to coach the team. Krzyzewski hired his own staff, and the team was hand picked for the World Championships in Japan. After another bronze medal, efforts were redoubled to pick a team that would bring back the gold medal in Olympic basketball. The theory behind all the moves was that USA Basketball was defeated because there were more countries that have caught up to us with their own professionals, as well as having teams that play together for years and have better team work. The solution to the theory goes: we create a more seamless group of players who play well together as a team, our natural speed and superior athleticism will overwhelm any team we play. As soon as our 12-man Olympic roster was announced those in the know were rejoicing, talking how our speed and athleticism will roll over other teams in the tournament. The lone dissenting opinion comes from ESPN's Chris Sheridan, who has mentioned that the United States is bringing 3 traditional inside players only to the Olympics which is a major problem as depth issues in the front line could hurt the United States. He also mentioned that FIBA teams tend to slow the game down against the United States, limiting the speed and athleticism factor.

Not only do I agree with Sheridan's opinion, but I think he should have gone further. This roster is littered with "NBA stars" and not built to win FIBA basketball. International basketball is completely different than American style basketball. First of all, the rules are completely different, as is the court dimensions. There is an extended key (shaped liked a trapezoid, wider at the baseline, narrower at the free throw line) that forces big men away from the basket, as well as a shorter three point line that narrows the available space for larger teams. As such, success depends on bigs who can move away from the basket and reliably hit the 15 footer. Secondly, zones are more prevalent in FIBA basketball as they are the best way to defend superior inside teams. Success depends on having shooters who can space the floor and punish teams that deploy a zone defense. Thirdly (and most importantly) the FIBA game is more physical and less referee driven than NBA basketball. Players are not bailed out for reckless drives to the basket with foul calls, and there is no "home court advantage" of referees being swayed by a crowd to make a call in favor of a certain team. And, because it needs to be said, American political and economic policies abroad do affect the calls the Americans receive, and they will definitely be the most reviled team in the tournament.

The biggest mistake on the roster is the arrogance of the selection committee in choosing the members of the team. The obvious arrogance is the thought of bringing only 3 big men to the tournament, especially the three they chose: Chris Bosh, Dwight Howard, and Carlos Boozer. The three bigs can't shoot, and will be limited by the zone defenses of the opposing countries. The next arrogance is this assumption that Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, and Dwyane Wade will be successful against the Olympic competition. I have no doubt that those four players are the best four players in our country, and quite possibly the best four basketball players on the planet (say what you will about both James and Bryant, but any measure they are both the best players playing today in the world). But their skills are defined by the NBA style of play, especially the bailout calls they receive from the refs. With the exception of Bryant, the other three are not adept long range shooters whose effectiveness will be mitigated not only by zones, but by the refs not giving them multiple trips to the line. Once again, the US has built a team that going to sell plenty of soft drinks, but probably won't win a gold medal.

After watching the merciless beating the Celtics gave the Lakers last night in the finale of the NBA Finals, I got to thinking about the television coverage that permeated the series. In between quarters, after important timeouts, during pre-game, and at halftime there seemed to be a sideline reporter or commentator interviewing or opining on something that happened with the head coach or important player. This constant stream of interviewing and commentary on the game is now considered normal for most major sporting events. Obviously, a November match up between the Bobcats and the Hawks is not going to garner 1/1000th the attention game 6 of the NBA Finals is going to receive; however, the broadcasters, producers, and sideline reporters for that November throw away game between two horrible teams are still going mine every last detail that they can out of the teams, their budget is just smaller. All this got me to thinking about television has changed the face of sports (and yes, I do see the irony in blogging about television and sports on a website run by a television station).

Television has changed every last aspect of our sporting lives, some changes for the better, some for the worse. Increased coverage means that the Bobcats and Hawks are playing on television and not just playing out a game without any television coverage at all. Networks, starving for more programming after the major sports, have begun broadcasting lesser known sports, as well as earlier games/rounds/playoffs of major sports. The NHL, of all leagues, managed to negotiate a television contract even though the ratings for the league aren't even close to the average rating for a UCONN women's basketball game. Money is poring into other sports from television rights, and those sports are improving dramatically. Players in the major sports are seeing salary increases at the bottom tier of their union structure, while endorsements and business opportunities have increased recognizable player salaries to unheard of levels. I can now watch every NFL game practically at the same time, I can catch every MLB game of every team every night the season happens, I can watch every NBA game on a single night, and I can even find some NHL games whenever they might be televised. Once a strictly regional sport, NASCAR has become essentially the fourth major sport after the NBA, MLB, and NFL; and, thanks to television pressure and loss of consistent revenue, open wheel racing finally ended their years-long dispute and merged back into a single racing circuit in America. I can even watch Formula 1 racing on American television, which is insane, since I doubt there are any American drivers in Formula 1.

Television also increased the internet presence. Besides my awesome voice occasionally popping up on the internet, there are countless others who write about whatever they want in an open forum. Players like Gilbert Arenas (of the Wizards) and Curt Schilling (of the Red Sox) are blogging, and Mark Cuban (owner of the Mavericks) has his own blog that he maintains. Thanks to the pervasiveness of the internet, television companies now broadcast games online, which allowed me to watch several matches of the Cricket World Cup (I'm a West Indies man myself, but I think my dad would root for India, and my mom, just to be contrarian, would root for Australia or New Zealand). I can watch the Spanish National team destroy Russia in the European Soccer Championships, then flip over and watch my beloved All-Blacks work over the Wallabies in Auckland. And if that isn't an obscure enough reference for everyone, I can spend the next day flipping between Phil Taylor beating up an opponent at 501 at the dartboard and watching Alinghi work on windward and leeward tactics in preparation for a challenger.

But television and the internet have brought some troubling changes to the sports world as well. The increased coverage has brought increased scrutiny to every single thing that happens in the sports world, and athletes are becoming more and more guarded. Does anyone really know an athlete anymore? Adam "Pac-Man" Jones maybe the devil incarnate, or he may be just a misguided guy who really likes strippers, or he could be a normal guy who has the worst luck in history. Any of those things is possible, but in a mad rush to cover every angle before a competitor trumps your coverage, television and radio have taken a "ready, fire, aim" approach to coverage, and the athletes are reacting violently to the increased pressure and scrutiny. Fans will never see some of the following controversial things ever again, just because it would be too much of a media circus if any of this happened:
1. Billy Martin would never manage a game in the major leagues. While being a great manager and motivator, Billy Martin was an alcoholic, an inveterate drunk who once chased a player around the dugout with a bat. Imagine the reaction on ESPN if that were to happen today.
2. Dave Cowens would be institutionalized for an indeterminate period of time. Dave Cowens was so intense a competitor for the Boston Celtics, so intense a personality, that he got burned out and left the team during the 1977 season. His stint as a cab driver around Boston is famously remembered by those around New England during that time. If that happened today, the cab would be followed constantly, and Cowens would need to be hospitalized and put on drugs to calm him down.
3. Muhammad Ali would probably have been killed by some enraged fan. Ali was the most outspoken athlete of his day, a polarizing figure who has become a giant of his time. If Ali said half the things he said back in the 1960s and 1970s today, there would be riots all over the country as every word he uttered would be parsed for "true" meaning, and some wacko would probably have taken a shot at him. He also would not be as famous or important a figure because of the death of boxing.
4. Red Auerbach would be criticized constantly for lighting up his cigar. Mind you, he wouldn't be criticized because he was a sore winner who reveled in showing up opponents, he'd be criticized for smoking indoors and sending the wrong message to his young fans. He'd probably be forced to do a PSA about the dangers of mouth, throat, gum, and jaw cancer.
5. The Colts would have destroyed the New York Jets in the Super Bowl. Joe Namath's comment that the Jets were going to win the Super Bowl would have been plastered all over the news for the entire Super Bowl week and the Colts players would have been asked daily about the guarantee. Thus fired up, the Colts would have destroyed the Jets. Of course, we would never have some second string player guaranteeing a victory for no other reason than just to see his name in print, so maybe it would have been better.
6. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar would have been railroaded for not wanting to stay in Milwaukee, as well as being lauded for demanding a trade to a bigger market and better team. It would have been the great debate of the season, whether the Bucks should trade Jabbar or wait until he leaves in free agency, and my head would probably have exploded from the 100 posts I'd do on the idiocy of trading Jabbar.

Television has changed the face of sports, and the increased scrutiny and attention has driven athletes into protective shells, surrounded by managers, agents, friends, bodyguards, wives/girlfriends, and the occasional child. Sports has changed, but the biggest part, at least from an aesthetic view is the degradation of sports broadcast commentary. Play-by-play guys and color commentators have become lazy because of replay and the need to fit in all the necessary commercials. And that is the biggest loss of the television era, no more Howard Cosell, no more Vin Scully, no more Keith Jackson, no more great commentators who possessed the ability to paint a scene and be involved in the action. The closest we get nowadays (excusing Al Michaels, who has definitely slipped into a "just give me my check, I said 'do you believe in miracles!' mode) is Gus Johnson and Ron Franklin. Listen to those two guys if you get the chance in the future. Gus Johnson gives his heart and soul to every broadcast he does, and listening to him get excited about a game is great. Ron Franklin is the consummate professional when it comes to college football broadcasts, and his slight southern accent fits right in with the flow of the game and is wonderful to hear. But keep in the back of you mind this last thought:
As Bobby Thompson stepped to the plate on October 3, 1951 four men were calling the game for four separate radio stations. The great Ernie Harwell was calling the game for the Giants flagship, Red Barber was calling the game for the Dodgers flagship, Russ Hodges was calling the game on the secondary Giants station, and Gordon McLendon called the game for the national broadcast. The great call of "The Giants win the pennant! The Giants win the pennant!" was Russ Hodges call, and will go down in history as one of the great calls of all time. If the game was played today, the call would not be as historic or meaningful, as the television broadcast would probably have gone to commercial so the sideline reporter could grab Thompson for an immediate interview...instead of being carried off on the shoulders of his teammates, the sound of the crowd echoing in his ears.

I listen to too much am sports radio when I am in my car and at home. I'll readily admit that listening to that much sports radio can drive a person slightly insane (unless they're already at that point) because all of the disparate opinions that are voiced possess so little thought. I'm not asking for much out of callers except half of a brain cell. Callers should have a basic understanding of the sport they are calling about, as well as passing knowledge of some of the governing rules inherent in the business side of the sport. For example, nothing annoys me more than a caller telling the host that the Bucks should trade Mo Williams (price: $7.75 million) for Chauncey Billups (price: $10 million). The salary cap prevents a straight up trade such as that, so why bother making the call into the station if you can't understand the basics of NBA trading?

Currently, my new annoyance (and most things eventually annoy me) is this need for callers to complain about the Brewers offense and how "one dimensional" it is, and to fix the offense the Brewers should steal more and play small-ball. And the really annoying thing is that the hosts seem to agree with the callers, talking about how the Brewers should get moving on the basepaths, lay down more sacrifice bunts and flies, and generally waste outs left and right. So I thought I would educate the average Brewers fan with the basics of offense and what works and doesn't work from a statistical and historical perspective. But before I get to that, three minor points that have nothing to do with offense:
1. Can we play or trade Tony Gwynn Jr already? Like I have posted earlier, you can't keep Gwynn on the major league roster and never play him if you want to trade him, and if you're grooming him for a future in center field, then why did you move Matt LaPorta to left field in the minors? I don't understand these moves. If LaPorta is the future in right field (his listed position in Huntsville), which he seems to be since his offense is great, and Braun is the present and future in left, where does that leave Corey Hart? If Hart is good enough to play center field everyday, then why the Bill Hall Experience last season or the Cameron deal this season? If Hart is not good enough to be an everyday center fielder, then the Brewers have a logjam of young talent at the corner outfield spots, and who plays center field? If it's Gwynn, then why aren't we platooning Cameron and Gwynn in center field? The way I see it, the Brewers have Gwynn, Hart, LaPorta, and Braun (with Matt Gamel possibly moving to outfield is his 3B defense doesn't hold up) all slated to be in the outfield, with only two available outfield spots (Braun is in left), which won't be good later on and isn't good now when there are several holes to be filled on the roster.
2. When is Doug Melvin going to start getting some blame for what's going on this season in Milwaukee? Just wondering when all the Ned Yost haters turn their ire onto the man who not only hired and extended Yost, but hasn't signed an impact free agent and screwed around with this team way too much over the past few years.
3. The New York Mets have to be the most classless organization in sports. They fired Willie Randolph at 3 eastern today, 3 AM eastern. Wow. I have nothing more to say than Willie Randolph should be the next manager of the Milwaukee Brewers.
Now, on to baseball offense.

Baseball offense is the most straightforward thing in the world, though I have no idea how it has become so convoluted and confusing. Simply put, a baseball offense is successful if it outscores its opponent in a game, and unsuccessful if it does not. Taking this concept one step further, a team's offense is successful if it scores more runs than allowed, and is a failure if it does not score more runs than allowed (though there are some exceptions like the Arizona Diamondbacks who were outscored, but still managed to win the NL West). Adding one more step, a team's offense should be measured against the league relative to only one statistic, runs scored. Understanding this simple fact is the basis of understanding a baseball offense and how it should work.

If the point of the offense is to score runs, then players should be judged by their actions relative to the goal of scoring runs. Any action that takes away from a run scoring opportunity should be viewed as a negative, and any action that adds to a run scoring opportunity should be viewed as a positive. But is goes merely beyond this simple definition and into a slightly more complex attitude. Outs, in any form, are bad for an offense, and those things to prevent outs, in any form are good for an offense. Immediately, proponents of small ball style baseball are up in arms, saying that sacrifice bunts and flies are not bad for an offense, as they put players in scoring position and score runs. To that I give a simple example:

Team A leads off the inning with a single. The player on first steals second, and advances to third on a sacrifice bunt. The player then scores on a sacrifice fly. Team A leads 1-0 with two outs. Team A batter strikes out to end the inning.
Small ball proponents say that the "manufacturing" of the run proves that an offense can be driven by sacrifices and small ball tactics. To that I return to the example. The lead off hitter gets on with a single. The stolen base attempt is a possible waste of an out (strictly speaking, a steal needs to be successful 80% of the time to positively effect an offense, more often than not a stolen base is an event that neither positively nor negatively effects an offense), but is successful. The batter at the plate wastes an out bunting the runner to third, when a single or any extra base hit would possibly score the runner, as well as a walk being beneficial by adding another base runner. The third hitter hits a sacrifice fly to score the man from third wastes an extremely important out. Picture in your mind the example scenario, but instead of generic names, go with Corey Hart singles and steals second. JJ Hardy sacrifices Hart to third, then Ryan Braun (!) hits a sacrifice fly to score Hart. In a million years would you ever expect the goal of Braun to be to hit the ball in the air to right field moderately deep? Small ball promotes wasted opportunities for the players who are being paid enormously large sums of money to produce multiple runs for the team.

Back to the main point, outs, in any form are bad for an offense. But the worst out, the absolute worst out possible is a strike out. Much as there are infinite possibilities for an offense with one out remaining in an inning, there are infinite possibilities for a ball put into play. A strike out robs the offense of these possibilities, robs the offense of its ability to correctly "put pressure on the defense." A good offense puts pressure on a defense by putting multiple balls into play throughout an inning, especially with men on base. A bad offense doesn't put balls in play, doesn't have men on base, and doesn't hoard outs like a precious commodity. Which brings me to the most important statistic of all, on base percentage.

I cannot stress the importance of on base percentage enough. Teams with a high obp tend to win more games then teams with a low obp. Teams that score a ton of runs have higher obp than teams with a low obp. Simply put obp is the ability of a player to avoid getting an out. To demonstrate the incredible power and importance of obp, let's go through a thought exercise. In the above example with Team A, in that inning Team A hit .500 (1 hit, two ABs), had a slugging percentage of .500 (1 TB, 2 ABs), and had a .250 obp (1 hit, 4 PA). Team A managed to score 1 run that inning. Team B comes up to bat and manages a perfect obp, 1.000. What is the amount of runs that Team B would score: infinite. Team B would never get an out, and never end their inning. That's how important obp, its striving for perfection, moving towards the unattainable. The closer your offense is to perfection, the more runs you score; the more runs you score, the more games you win.

So people, the Brewers don't need to steal more bases, they need to take more walks, not conceded so many outs.

It's been an interesting week here in southeast Wisconsin. As we've been continuously flooded by rain and strangely beautiful storm clouds, I've been doing my usual dose of heavy thinking. And I cam to some interesting conclusions about my life as a sports fan (and participant). My first and foremost conclusion I came to is that my father (and mother) managed to teach me practically everything that I know as a sports fan and how to communicate that with the world, and for that I owe them many thanks.

I learned through my parents two very different approaches to both playing sports and watching sports. My mom, for lack of a better term, is firey when watching sports (especially those that I'm playing), though she keeps herself somewhat calm on the surface. From her I learned about being outwardly passionate about sports, learned how to care about something other than myself, and to believe in things larger than myself. Because of her, I'm the guy who shouts at the TV when my teams are losing, the one who complains constantly (as you can tell by ranting) about the effort and skill of my teams, the guy who goes to games and can't bear to watch certain points because I'm too anxious (wait, it gets better). When I'm coaching, I'm extremely, extremely passionate and demanding of my team and myself. I've shouted at referees, hollered at other coaches, and have sometimes acted like a madman. I am definitely a firey sports fan and coach because of my mother. Thanks mom (happy belated Mother's Day).

My dad, for lack of his own better term, is icy when watching sports (especially those I'm playing or those he's coaching), and he keeps himself calm on the surface. From him I learned about thinking through about sports, learned to look at the big picture of the game, and to trust both stats and gut feeling. Because of him, I'm the guy who analyzes things like the Pythagorean win-loss formula, who constantly looks at a separation between what I can see with my own eyes and what I can understand through stats, the guy who is a sports nerd first, jock second (this gets better too). When I'm coaching, I'm extremely, extremely analytical about my teams and precise about what I expect from them. I've spent entire practices on footwork and arm placement, watched countless hours of film, and spend spend an inordinate amount of time devising and writing scouting reports. I am definitely an icy sports fan and coach because of my father. Thanks dad (happy Father's Day).

I am a combination of my mom and dad in all things. Without the other I would not exist, and without the other I would be either incredibly firey or incredibly cold about sports. I enjoy being the combination of my two parents, and through them, I enjoy the sports fan and player I have become, so thanks again mom and dad.

I can't believe that I'm about to write this post. I've battled back and forth in my head about the backlash that I might receive from this post. I'm really that angry right now, extremely pissed. But I also know that I'm about to write somewhat passionately (and disjointedly) about something that nobody cares about (including myself about 99.99% of the time). And while the subject of my rant is something that not many care about, the theme is something I think we can all get behind. So...let's get started.

I'd like to introduce you to Becky Hammon. Becky grew up in Rapid City, South Dakota loving the game of basketball. She became a pretty good, if slightly undersized 5-6 point guard, with a gorgeous jump shot and the tenacity that comes from being undersized. Her work ethic (As befits a resident of South Dakota) is exemplary, and she earned a basketball scholarship to Colorado State. While at Colorado State, Becky managed to earn All-American honors, as well as holding scores of records (all-time leading scorer, assists, steals), and her number was retired in 2004. After her Colorado State playing career was finished she managed to get signed by the New York Liberty of the WNBA in 1999. From 1999-2006 she played for the Liberty, initially backing up Teresa Witherspoon, then starting for the Liberty. She was traded to the San Antonio Silver Stars in 2007 and led that team to a second place finish in the Western Conference, finishing second in the WNBA MVP voting. Since the WNBA season is during the summer months (non-basketball season), Becky, like most professional women's basketball players played for European teams overseas, starting with a Spanish team, eventually playing for CSKA Moscow, a large Russian club. This summer, the successful Becky Hammon, a quality point guard born in Rapid City, South Dakota, the MVP runner-up in the WNBA, will play in the Beijing Olympics in the women's basketball competition realizing a dream that many young boys and girls have growing up in the heartland. And if she wins the gold, she will stand with her teammates on the top of the medal podium listening as the eloquent bars of her team's national anthem plays. Not the Star Spangled Banner mind you, Gosudarstvenny Gimn Rossiyskoy Federatsii (State Hymm of the Russian Federation). Becky Hammon will be playing for Russia at the Olympics, not for the United States. And I can't think of a bigger endemic problem in American sports then the fact that Becky Hammon is playing for Russia.

I'm pissed. Really angry. And not at Becky Hammon. Becky Hammon is trying to fulfill a dream that is denied to her by her own country. You see, Becky can play for Russia because she has never appeared for the United States in any competition, ever. Not the World University Games team, Pan American Games team, Under-18 National Team, Under-19 World Championships team, Under-20 National Team, Under-21 World Championships team, or the Senior National team. Because of this oversight, she can play for any country in the world. She plays for Russia because they actually want her to play for them, they want to use her skills to help them win a medal. USA Basketball seems to want to market their players, not necessarily win the gold medal (though that is just assumed at this point). And just to hammer that point home, Becky Hammon was not named to the list of 23 players invited to try out for the Senior National team for the 2008 Olympics. She wasn't even named on the list, the MVP runner up and WNBA veteran wasn't even named on the tryout list. It actually took several phone calls from Hall-of-Fame member Nancy Lieberman to finally get her on the list, after they had expanded it to 30, in September, a few days before tryouts began, while Becky was preparing for her season in Russia since she wasn't on the initial list released earlier in the year. Given the choice between playing for CSKA (and their 4year/$2 million contract) and heading to a tryout after being left off the initial tryout list that she needed a Hall-of-Famer to use her reputation to get her on, she took the contract offer from CSKA and began to play. As part of her contract, the Russians threw in a passport, allowing her to become a member of their national team. And now she's being called "unpatriotic" by the USA coach, Anne Donovan and blasted for not sitting at home again while players she is better than walk into the Olympic Stadium and compete for a medal.

I'm not pissed at Sue Bird (or any of the other 8 players who have already made the team). I went to watch her UCONN team win the Midwest Regional final in Milwaukee during her senior season (and I think that UCONN team is one of the all-time great basketball teams ever, the only women's team to make my personal list). I'm extremely pissed at the following people: Renee Brown, head of the selection committee (WNBA Chief of Basketball Operations); Jennifer Azzi and Teresa Edwards (former players), athlete representatives; Carol Blazejowski (New York Liberty General Manager/President), Roger Griffith (Minnesota Lynx Chief Operating Officer), Kelly Krauskopf (Indiana Fever General Manager/Chief Operating Officer), Penny Toler (LA Sparks General Manager), WNBA representatives; and Pat Summitt (University of Tennessee Coach), NCAA representative. These eight people are to blame for the horrible treatment that Becky Hammon received. Especially since five committee members work for the WNBA. These people place marketing ahead of winning without seemingly understanding their own league and pool of players. I want to know what the excuse is for not having Becky on the list. Is it because they didn't think that she was good enough? She was the MVP runner up and an accomplished collegiate and professional player. Is it because she might not be more well-known? Her jersey is the second most popular jersey in the WNBA. Is it because she might not have the right "look" (has to be acknowledged that the sport needs to be sold to men and Corporate America, so a certain look is preferred)? Go find a picture of her, she's the freaking poster child for middle America wholesomeness (heck she did some sideline work for ESPN at NBA games in 2006, and we know how looks-driven television is). Is it because she hasn't been there before, and doesn't fit in with the more marketable names you can select? Or is it a pure basketball decision that is an extreme mistake? I want answers!

The reason I'm really just so pissed off is a simple one. I have a wonderful girlfriend who I love dearly and live with. Some day we're going to be married and (hopefully) have children. I happen to be 6' tall, and she happens to be 5-2. I would like to have a daughter (as well as a son, but I want to scare the crap out of a guy like me who comes to take my daughter out on a date, that would be really, really fun), and thinking purely athletically, the best I can hope for is a daughter who is 5-6. And if she inherits some of my natural athletic ability, some of my girlfriend's intense work ethic and drive, and the bulk of our brains, she could end up being like Becky Hammon. And I don't want her dream of playing in the Olympics dashed by politics and reasons bigger than winning. You see, it used to be that women's sports in America at the Olympic level were about winning only, not marketing, or branding, or name recognition from a focus group in a mall in Des Moines. Look at our women's senior national soccer team. From 1991-1999 the first three women's World Cups were held, and we won 2 and finished 3rd in the other, most famously in 1999 when Brandy Chastain scored the winning penalty kick and ripped off her uniform top. From the moment that Chastain fell to the ground in joy at winning until the present day, the women's senior national team has headed downhill in competitions. We have finished 3rd the past two World Cups, which is respectable if you're Norway or Brazil. Our team was originally built to win, not built to make money and sell things to people. The biggest and best case in point of the decline in our national team's attitude was reflected in the last World Cup. The starting goalkeeper for the USA was Hope Solo. After a difficult 2-2 draw against North Korea, the United States won their next three matches to reach the semifinals against Brazil. Solo was riding a 300+ minute scoreless streak heading into the match against Brazil, having played not only every minute of the World Cup, but the vast majority of minutes in all the friendlies, qualifications, and tune up matches leading up to the World Cup. Inexplicably, manager Greg Ryan decided to bench Solo in favor of Brianna Scurry, reasoning that Scurry had a better record against the Brazilians, pointing to her beating them in 1999 at the World Cup. Of course, the United States took their worst defeat ever losing 4-0. Afterwards Solo blasted Ryan to the media citing her non-playing as a decision based not on winning, but on favorites. Solo was then benched for the third place match, and was asked to take a different plane home, not the team charter.

Decisions like Ryan's, inexplicable decisions to go with the more recognizable face instead of the winning player, make me wonder if I should already be mentally preparing for difficult decisions about where my daughter should be playing, who she should be playing for, and how I can make her more marketable. And that's why I'm pissed about the Becky Hammon story, as it seems that it is no longer the policy of this country to organize teams that will play in front of a world television audience on the basis of winning, but on the basis of who is going to sell the most shoes, diet soft drinks, fast food, and cars to the rest of the world. And that is a sad development for all of us.

The Brewers are winning, so I have nothing to complain about with them (not that I'm always going to be complaining about the Brewers). The Stanley Cup finals are going on, but nobody seems to care about hockey anymore, so I can't write about a topic nobody likes (even if I do enjoy playoff hockey). I have honestly tried to understand the obsession with NASCAR, but I haven't found the guy (or gal) who can adequately explain to me what is going on besides people driving in circles for 3 hours or so (and I won't even get into the lack of support for open wheel racing, even though F1 racing is the most popular racing circuit in the world). The Belmont Stakes is this weekend, and everyone loves Big Brown to win the Triple Crown, so nothing major to discuss there. No major PGA tournaments going on, and its too early for a Ryder Cup preview post. So that leaves the NBA. Enough ink has been spilled about the Lakers-Celtics final (which I called after some fishy officiating in the Spurs-Lakers series), so I thought that I would post my own mock draft for the NBA draft, especially since the Bucks are in the limbo group of picks (6-10) and might need some help. I'm only going to focus on the lottery teams (picks 1-14), and will not consider any trades unless they are officially made before the draft.

First of all, let's review how screwy the picking process is in the NBA draft. I don't mean the lottery system, or the allocation of picks after the 14 lottery teams, I'm talking about how NBA teams feel about where the pick sits and what to do with it. Teams drafting 1-5 are theoretically the worst teams in the league, and need the most help. Most drafts go, at best, 5 deep in guaranteed, sure-fire talent. Every once in awhile there is a draft like 2001 (I think), when the only halfway decent player drafted was Kenyon Martin and no one else has distinguished himself in any way. However, picking 1-5 means you're going to get a pretty decent, NBA ready player, so your pick focuses on that premise (unless you're the Hawks). Picking 10-14 is the bottom of the lottery, and teams picking at that level are either thisclose to making the playoffs or beset by injuries/mismanagement, so the pick is either a player picked a little too high because he's immediately ready to play, or a development pick that needs a few years but can back-up a position of need immediately. Teams picking at 15-30 are either playoff teams looking for depth and potential future starters, or a lottery-level team that picked up an extra pick in a salary dump trade looking to build depth and youth. Teams picking 6-10, like the Bucks are, are lottery teams that are bad, but unlucky enough to fall out of the top of the lottery and into a position where most picks are considered a reach at that particular spot and there are no trade partners available to trade down with because drafts don't go 8-10 deep in quality players. More often than not, upside is the rule rather than ability, as non "upside" players picked here have definitely maxed out their ability level and you get what you see. On to the Mock Draft:

#1--Chicago Bulls; 33-49 (4th Central)
Michael Beasley, 6-10, PF, Kansas State
I'm going against the grain and say that Beasley will end up on the Bulls. GM John Paxson seems to have this thing about over-thinking every decision he makes. Can't seem to hire a coach after seven weeks, can't seem to pull the trigger on a trade during the season for Kobe or KG, can't seem to make decisions without thinking though all the possible outcomes. I say he can't trade Kirk Hinrich or Chris Duhon and will think that all he needs is a low post presence, and that Derrick Rose coming to Chicago with all his old friends and expectations (he went to high school in Chicago) will be a horrible idea, so he'll go with Beasley, who's just as good, but fits a need position.
#2--Miami Heat; 15-67 (5th Southeast)
Derrick Rose, 6-3, PG, Memphis
Miami will zoom up to the podium after the Bulls debacle of a pick and take Rose, pair him with Wade and Marion, and run through the Eastern conference.
#3--Minnesota Timberwolves; 22-60 (4th Northwest)
Kevin Love, 6-10, PF, UCLA
This is where I think the draft goes off the rails. Kevin McHale is not the best GM in the world, and it doesn't seem that he has a plan. But I do think that he pairs Love up with Al Jefferson in a bizarro Robert Parrish/Kevin McHale frontcourt in Minnesota. I think it might work with Jefferson manning the low block and Love manning the high post, running the high-low offense through Love to Jefferson, spreading the floor with Corey Brewer, Randy Foye, and Rashad McCants. Love's passing coupled with the athleticism of the other four starters would make a pretty potent combination.
#4--Seattle Sonics; 20-62 (5th Northwest)
OJ Mayo, 6-4, PG, USC
After the Love pick, Sam Presti (the GM) will be fielding about 100 phone calls from literally every team picking behind him to move up for Mayo. Since Presti is smart, he'll pull the trigger on the best deal for his team, allowing him to pick up another pick, shed a contract, and select a better fit down in the draft. However, if Mayo is off the board Seattle won't get those phone calls, and I think they don't take Mayo or even Jerryd Bayless, I think they might reach for Russell Westbrook. But I'm going to stick Mayo here as the pick if Love goes 3rd because a team will move up for Mayo.
#5--Memphis Grizzles; 22-60 (5th Southwest)
Brook Lopez, 7-0, C, Stanford
As much as I like Stanford players, I don't think Brook Lopez is going to get much better than he is now. What he is though is a polished inside presence that could help Memphis, I guess. Memphis doesn't really care about winning, or selling tickets, they're prepping to move somewhere after the Sonics hostage situation is over, so they can move to wherever they want. Lopez fits a need, in that he plays basketball, can breathe, and is better than Darko Milicic (and they already have about 15-75 point guards on the roster already).
#6--New York Knicks; 23-59 (5th Atlantic)
Jerryd Bayless, 6-3, PG, Arizona
This is the team that is most affected by the Timberwolves/Sonics moves ahead of them. I think that if the draft goes like I think it will Bayless will fall to the Knicks, however, if the movement doesn't happen, I think the Knicks look to either DJ Augustin (a major reach) or Russell Westbrook (a developmental prospect). Either way, this team is focusing on building for 2010 when LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and others become available.
#7--Los Angeles Clippers; 23-59 (5th Pacific)
Danilo Gallinari, 6-9, SF, Italy
The Clippers are going to pull the trigger on this waste of space. I figure that with all the movement ahead of them plus the general incompetence of the front office, the Clips are going to draft for the future. Everyone knows that they're going to lose Corey Maggette and Elton Brand will look around and want to get out of LA. With those two loses, the Clips will want to move to rebuilding, and taking a project foreign guy is the way to go I guess if you're looking to rebuild for 5 years from now.
#8--Milwaukee Bucks; 26-56 (5th Central)
I'll save this for last
#9--Charlotte Bobcats; 32-50 (4th Southeast)
DJ Augustin, 6-0, PG, Texas
Larry Brown loves jerking his lineups around, really likes to play veterans over rookies, and hates developing players. So the perfect pick for a Larry Brown coached team is definitely not a one-and-done college player, not a foreign player who needs to adjust, and not a project in any way. Brown wants a finished product that he can mold, and his controlling exacting personality will adore an experienced point guard without any pre-conceived notions of how to play point in the NBA. Augustin is a good fit for that reason, and because Raymond Felton will probably get injured yet again.
#10--New Jersey Nets; 34-48 (4th Atlantic)
Darrell Arthur, 6-10, PF, Kansas
The Nets need an inside presence. They have Devin Harris and Vince Carter in the back court, Richard Jefferson on the wing, and 7-0 Nenad Krstic playing out of position at power forward. Adding Arthur would move Josh Boone out of the starting lineup backing up Krstic, with Sean Williams backing up Arthur. That starting five could run with any team out east and give some west teams a good run for their money.
#11--Indiana Pacers; 36-46 (3rd Central)
Eric Gordon, 6-4, SG, Indiana
Jermaine O'Neal has to go (preferably along with Jamaal Tinsley) and Indiana needs to look to rebuild. With Danny Granger and Mike Dunleavy on the floor, the Pacers have two good wing players, but no shooting guard. I believe that they think they can get one more season out of Travis Diener as a starter at point guard before drafting his replacement next season. With Troy Murphy the Pacers have an athletic-ish big who can move and shoot. What they don't have is a slashing, scoring shooting guard. I think the Pacers draft Gordon move Granger and Dunleavy to the wings, and play extremely small and run, run, run.
#12--Sacramento Kings; 38-44 (4th Pacific)
Anthony Randolph, 6-11, PF, LSU
The Kings have no inside presence, neither do they have a point guard. I believe that they solve their point guard problems either next year in the draft or through free agency (probably TJ Ford at this point). With Randolph the Kings get a player with pretty good "upside," who actually rebounded in college (8.5/game), which is a skill neither Brad Miller or Spencer Hawes is particularly good at.
#13--Portland Trailblazers; 41-41 (3rd Northwest)
DeAndre Jordan, 7-0, C, Texas A&M
I believe the rumors that the Blazers are trying desperately to get away from making this pick. They have enough young guys littered on their roster to fill two different teams, so adding another is not the best of plans. Either they trade down to draft a foreign player to leave in Europe, or they trade the pick for some immediate veteran help. In either of those scenarios, I believe that the team moving up will draft Jordan, the 7-0 center from Texas A&M who has great upside but questionable work ethic. But, as they say, you can't teach size. If the Blazers are forced to pick, I think they still take Jordan as a front line position back up for both Greg Oden and LaMarcus Aldridge.
#14--Golden State Warriors; 48-34 (3rd Pacific)
Joe Alexander, 6-8, SF, West Virginia
For a team that doesn't bother to do anything but run, shoot, and score in bunches, you can never have enough wing players. And with Baron Davis needing a new contract and the reluctance of Golden State to spend large sums of money there could be a hole at the wing as everyone moves up a notch on the position chart (Monta Ellis to PG, Stephen Jackson to SG, nobody at SF). Joe Alexander could fill that hole nicely as an athletic, good shooting, rebounding wing that would be a perfect fit in the Don Nelson offense.

Drum roll please........
With the 8th pick in the 2008 NBA Draft, the Milwaukee Bucks select:
Russell Westbrook, PG, UCLA (6-3)
New GM means a new direction for the Bucks. I hope that John Hammond took notes during his tenure in Detroit for how to build a consistent winner. With the hire of Scott Skiles, Hammond has already put a stamp on the team, defense and teamwork will be prized over histrionics and a refusal to pass. With this pick, Mo Williams and his non-point guard playing is gone from the team, traded away to anyone willing to take him. Westbrook steps in to that Chauncey Billups defensive point guard role, Redd plays the sweet-shooting Rip Hamilton run around in circles on offense role, Bobby Simmons or Desmond Mason plays the Tayshaun Prince stopper role (maybe they can even trade for Prince using Mason or Simmons), and Andrew Bogut, Yi Jianlian, and Charlie Villanueva rotate through the "big guys down low who communicate on defense and protect the rim " role (and since none of them can do that, hopefully the Bucks can trade or release some players to get ones that can). This is the pick the Bucks should make. And hopefully they do (or until I read some more rumors and make a new mock draft).

On Saturday and Sunday CBS decided to show some fights from the Elite XC series of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA). Fortunately for me, I managed to miss all the fights on television as it was my girlfriend's younger sister's high school graduation, and we spending time with her. However, that hasn't stopped me from listening to sports radio, reading sports blogs, and generally trying to keep myself up to date in the world of sports; and I have learned that apparently there is a great debate between the relative merits of boxing and MMA. It is actually quite an interesting debate, if a bit misguided as die hard fans of either sport irrationally defending there particular institution while viciously (and maliciously) attacking the other side. I thought that I would take my own stance within this cultural debate and enlighten my fellow readers (and mom and dad) as to my own tastes within the world of violent person versus person unarmed combat.

I originally enjoyed boxing. As a child born in the 80s I believe I am contractually required to state that I was obsessed with Sugar Ray Leonard and Mike Tyson, and that boxing hasn't been the same since. I will now break that contract and officially state that I didn't really like Mike Tyson, nor did I enjoy Sugar Ray Leonard (there is only one "Sugar Ray," Sugar Ray Robinson, no one else should be allowed to be Sugar Ray). I appreciate the technical skill of Leonard, and I actually could see the careful defense of Mike Tyson while throwing those vicious punches, but I am not a fan of either boxer. As strange as it sounds, I am a big fan of Joe Frazier. First of all, he had a great nickname: Smokin' Joe Frazier. That just sounds cool. Mostly though, I enjoyed his style of fighting, a relentless, attacking approach to bouts, constantly moving forward, ducking and diving around his opponent's defense to get inside and work body shots upwards towards the head. Its a unique style that isn't used much anymore, as every fighter wants to be Muhammad Ali and fight with their hands down, moving away from their opponent to land quick punches and move away. But just as there hasn't been another Frazier, there will never be another Ali either, and mimicking Ali in both fighting style and attempted bravado does not make a boxer Ali. There is only one Ali, and there will always be only one Ali.

Notice though, that my fandom and enjoyment of boxing is rooted in two fighters from the 1960s and 1970s. I've seen (via ESPN Classic) Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Jake LaMotta, Rocky Marciano, and Sugar Ray Robinson fight, yet those fighters, extremely gifted and talented fighters, can't hold my attention the way the first Ali-Frazier fight can. I guess it is styles that make fights and Ali-Frazier was simple: Frazier had the one punch (his devastatingly quick left hook) that Ali couldn't dodge, and Ali's quick hands made getting through his defense an extremely difficult task for Frazier. Back to my point, my fandom is rooted in boxing before the Rumble in the Jungle. Don't get me wrong, the Rumble in the Jungle was a great fight, as Ali became only the second heavyweight ever to regain the title after losing it. The hype surrounding the fight was huge, and the swirling vortex of media attention has made it into a cultural phenomenon. Which is great, but it's also the first fight Don King ever promoted. And that fact signals the decay and destruction of boxing as a credible sport. Once promoters like King realized the huge amounts of money a "mega-fight" generated, established contenders and ranking lists went out the door. To put together a marquee fight within a general framework of worthiness of fighters to meet in the ring some governing body needed to make a fighter a contender and the other a champion, thus the alphabet belts were created, along with the alphabet governing organizations (WBA, WBO, WBC, IBF). Now boxing can have four different "champions" at each weight class who may or may not have to fight another "champion" to either regain, lose, or defend the "championship" belt. As boxing moved into this cesspool of shady promoters, corrupt organizations, and indifferent fans people of my generation moved away from boxing looking for another way to see a good, clean, hard fight between two worthy, well-matched opponents. And MMA, through the Ultimate Fighting Championships (UFC), delivered.

The UFC (it is both the name of the governing body/promotions group and the name of the pay-per-view broadcasts) started on November 12, 1993 as an 8 man tournament to ultimately answer the question of whether a wrestler could beat a boxer in a straight fight. The promoters invited two kickboxers, a savate practitioner, a karate expert, a shootfighter (a hybrid style of fighting combining moves from several disciplines including: wrestling and kickboxing), a sumo wrestler, a boxer, and a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (a local extension of judo that is easily recognized as an organized, strategic, and tactical assault on an opponent with the goal of getting the opponent on the ground, gaining a dominant position, and forcing a submission through joint locks and choke holds) expert, son of one of the inventors of the style, Royce Gracie. Gracie won the tournament which was a huge success on pay-per-view. Through the years, the UFC evolved from a sideshow, niche spectacle into an actual sport, certifying itself with each of the state athletic commissions and implementing standardized rules. Weightclasses were added, so the spectacle of seeing 170 lb. Royce Gracie fighting 260 lb. Dan Severn was never to be again. What ended up happening was the UFC became a legitimate sport not a sideshow. As an added benefit of standardizing the rules and creating weightclasses, the fighters began to truly study different martial arts, attempting to at least gain legitimate understanding and technique and really becoming Mixed Martial Artists. For example, my personal favorite MMA fighter is the Brazilian, Anderson Silva (I know, I guess I'm a front runner, but I don't know any better, he just happened to be fighting when I was learning about the skills needed and I like watching his fights), the current UFC middleweight champion. He studied both Thai kickboxing and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. This combination of skills was unheard of before UFC went standardized, forcing fighters to adapt or perish.

What the UFC gave to my generation is a patina of legitimacy to a fighting sport. Other series have jumped up to fill in behind UFC (Pride fighting, Elite XC, World Extreme Cagefighting), competing with UFC for talent and money. However, unlike boxing, in which the WBA champion and the WBO champion would never fight each other unless millions of dollars and a percentage of pay-per-view buys were guaranteed, MMA fighters cross over between some of the series to see who has the best talent, to test themselves against the best fighters. So there is a semblance of sanity to MMA governing bodies, unlike boxing, which appears to not have a governing body.

I guess, in the end, all that matters is personal preference for entertainment dollar. My parents and my girlfriend would never sit down and voluntarily watch either a boxing match or an MMA fight, unless there was a specific reason to watch (I'm sure my parents could watch an old Ali fight). But the entertainment that boxing and MMA provides is geared towards me and not them. And honestly, I can't watch another boxing fight until boxing gets its house in order. And I mean seriously cleans up the sport and legitimizes it again. At the same time, if I'm going to watch MMA, I'm definitely going to watch UFC (because of better quality fighters) and not settle for a random guy fighting an internet sensation named Kimbo Slice on CBS.

I've written plenty about the Brewers so far this season, most of my posts revolve around nerdy analysis of how the Brewers are doing compared to their statistics. Are the Brewers playing above their stats (that is, are they getting lucky)? Are the Brewers playing below their stats (are the Brewers unlucky)? What can the stats tell the hardcore and casual fan about their team, and how can that help inform their own commentary and fandom (however irrational it may be from time to time). With the two glaring exceptions of Derrick Turnbow (who should just give up pitching at this point and focus on doing something else) and Eric "The Walking, Talking Human Gas Can" Gagne most of the Brewers are well liked throughout Milwaukee. I'd like to emphasize the "most" portion of that sentence, as not all the Brewers are well liked, even by their own management it seems. Which brings me in my incredibly roundabout way to Bill Hall.

Now, I have asked in the past if the General Manager of the Brewers, Doug Melvin, has any idea of what he's doing. I've demanded to know what the manager, Ned Yost, was thinking on certain plays throughout the season. And now, I'm merely going to ask if the organization has any concept of the damage their haphazard moves do to a player. It's one thing to move a player around the infield, or make a shift from infield to corner outfield. The Brewers have done it successfully with Ryan Braun, the Cubs (and Nationals) have done it successfully with Alfonso Soriano, hopefully the Matt LaPorta outfield experience is working in Huntsville, the Marlins moved Miguel Cabrera from third base to left field for a season or two, and even the overspending, high payroll Yankees have at least discussed moving Derek Jeter to the outfield (which will never happen, but they must have sat down and had a discussion or two, if you believe the newspapers and bloggers). It is an entirely different proposition to move a player from infield to the demanding position of center fielder, as the Brewers did to poor Bill Hall last season. And I'll tell you why.

Bill Hall has managed to play in 677 games for the Brewers, his entire major league career to this point. He's 28, signed in 1998 and spent 4 seasons in the minors before debuting in 2002. From 2004 to 2007 he managed a minimum of 126 games each season, getting his at bats in fill in work, the standard role of a utility player on a team, picking up at bats in blowouts, Sunday games, injury fill ins, the second leg of double headers, and getaway games. His breakout season came in 2006 when he belted 35 home runs in only 148 games. Then the fun started. Up until 2007, the season in which Bill Hall played 136 games (130 as a center fielder), he had played 7 total career games in the outfield, out of a possible 447. He had played 440 games at second base, short stop, and third base. Suddenly, Bill Hall was the starting center fielder for the Brewers. Why was Bill Hall moved to center field? Bill Hall was moved because of widely held belief that a player's statistics dictates his positional value. The belief stems from the idea that first base, third base, left field, and right field are easier defensive positions, so your best hitters (and weakest defenders) play those positions to maximize their hitting (not wasting energy on defense) while minimizing the risk of poor defense costing games. Catcher, second base, short stop, and center field, being in the middle of the diamond, are considered the more difficult defensive positions, so sacrificing offense for a better defensive player at one of those positions is acceptable. However, if you can find the rare player (and I mean rare, like Mays, Mantle, DiMaggio, Snider rare) who can play center field well and hit for power, you have an advantage over other teams at that particular position. Which once again brings us back to Bill Hall and 2007.

The Brewers decided to move Hall to center field assuming two things: one, his superior power numbers and playing every day would make him a better center fielder in the national league; and two, he opens up a spot on the field for Craig Counsell to keep warm until Braun comes up from AAA. That was the theory at least, that Bill Hall would play well enough to cover up for his mistakes in center field, Counsel would hold down the fort until Braun was ready for a stretch run with the team poised to make a move, and the combination of Braun's power at third (a traditional power position) and a superior power center fielder in Hall (a non-traditional power position) would push Milwaukee over the top (by the way, this is the same logic that lead to the Cubs playing Soriano at center for too long, and not catching fire to overtake the Brewers until they moved him to left and let Felix Pie play center, and not hit that well). What the Brewers grand plan forgot to take into account was the taxing effect playing center has on players. There really is a reason why a power hitting center fielder is tough to come by, the position demands, day in and day out a dedication to defense and the craft of playing the outfield. Heck, trained center fielders who have played for years at the position misplay balls, or lose a step and need to be moved, or are so focused on defense that their offensive numbers atrophy. Defensively Bill Hall was not that bad, committing 9 errors on the season in over 1000 innings of play in center. What killed the Brewers was that every measurable hitting statistic went down, to the point that Bill Hall was just another center fielder, and there was no advantage to having him at that position, as his poor defense was not made up with above average offense. The Brewers went out and got another center fielder, Mike Cameron, and moved Hall to third as Ryan Braun proved to be even worse at third than expected necessitating a move to left. After all the maneuvering Bill Hall ended up back where he started, playing the infield. Unfortunately for Hall, his power numbers still aren't up to par for a third baseman, so the Brewers benched him and are going with a platoon system at third with Russell Brayan.

I believe that Bill Hall should be traded, if for no other reason than to get him off the team and somewhere where they understand his skill set. He's a free swinging player with occasional pop who can hit for doubles, but strikes out way too much. More than that though, he's a utility infielder who could make an okay everyday second basemen. What the Brewers should learn from this is to make decisive moves based upon personnel on hand, not based upon movement for movement sake. Tony Gwynn, Jr. would have been a good move in center, but the Brewers decided against it in 2007 and again in 2008, now Gwynn is almost untradeable for anything other than spare parts and prospects, merely because there is no large sample size of statistics to get people excited about. I just won't ever understand this team I guess.

The Brewers won last night, in Pittsburgh, which for some reason, is a house of horrors for the team. It's interesting that the Brewers have such a poor record playing Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh when the Pirates are one of the worst teams in baseball, but maybe the ball park effects or sightlines or hitting background just doesn't make the Brewers feel comfortable. Either way, I'm glad the team put together a 7-2 victory over the Pirates. In that victory though is a question I have for the general public, hopefully you can answer it for me, since I can't seem to figure it out. And no, I could care less about the decision to put the new human gas can, Eric Gagne in the game. At this point, shouldn't Gagne just walk out there with an actual gas can, pour it on the mound, light the mound on fire, then have Stetter (or whoever, Torres or someone) run out with a fire extinguisher to put out the flames? Wouldn't we all get the metaphor, then Stetter (or Torres or someone) can get the final three outs of the game.

No, my question has to do with the questionable strategy employed by the always interesting Ned Yost, the ADHD afflicted 8-year old of major league managers. Now, just to be clear, I understand that the Brewers won. I also get that they won pretty handily, and that the game was not really in any doubt because of the inept Pirates offense. But I am asking this question because the Brewers aim to be a great team, a winning team, and winning teams don't do what Ned called for, no matter the opponent. As I ask this question, just remember that Ned did this against the Pirates, what's going to stop him from trying this against the Cubs, or Diamondbacks, or any other good, winning team. So let me set the scene for you, then I'll ask my question:

Its the top of the 5th. Milwaukee leads Pittsburgh 1-0. Manny Parra is pitching what amounts to a gem against the Pirates. Paul Maholm is pitching for the Pirates, and has given up 6 hits so far to the Brewers, and is constantly around the plate (his three strikeouts include two of Manny Parra, and a lead-off strikeout by Weeks). Jason Kendall leads off the 5th with a beautiful (for him) seven pitch at bat, grounding out to third on the seventh pitch. Rickie Weeks follows Kendall with a great 6 pitch at bat, singling to right on pitch number 6. Of all people, Mike Cameron follows Weeks with a 7 pitch walk, putting Weeks on second. Ryan Braun (who should officially be called "the red-hot Ryan Braun") singles to center on the fifth pitch of his at bat, scoring Weeks and moving Cameron to second, still with one out in the inning. Prince Fielder strides to the plate with Milwaukee leading 2-0, and men at first and second, exactly the situation you want your power hitting first baseman to be up at bat with. Fielder settles in and takes ball one. On the next pitch, both Mike Cameron and Ryan Braun attempt a double steal. Prince, seeing the motion (and probably given the take sign) watches a strike go by as Ronny Paulino (the catcher) fires a strike of his own to Jose Bautista at 3rd throwing out Cameron. Fielder then proceeds to strike out, ending the inning.

With that setting, here is my question: why do you send Braun and Cameron to steal with Prince Fielder up and a big inning possibly underway? If Cameron went alone, I can understand that, and I would bench Cameron until he gets some sense in his head, that would be his second blunder of the game on the basepaths (he managed to get doubled off on a clearly playable line drive to right that he thought was a sure hit). But Braun went, and Fielder was taking the whole way, so Ned made the call for a double steal. I'm having a hard time understanding the benefit of the move. But I'll attempt an analysis of both the absolute good, and the absolute worst that could happen. The absolute best situation that could happen with a double steal is that Ronny Paulino throws the ball into left field, Cameron scores, Braun advances to second, and Fielder gets to swing away without a double play in order. Hopefully, Fielder singles Braun home, and the big inning continues. Or even better, Prince homers after the error, scoring both him and Braun, and the big inning continues. In either instance, the best you could hope for can be accomplished without the steal. Prince singles Cameron home from second, with Braun and Fielder at first and second with only one out or Prince crushes a three run homer. Either way, the best you could hope for is mirrored by a result similar to not stealing. The absolute worst thing did happen, the Brewers managed to again run themselves out of a big inning. Cameron is thrown out a third, and Fielder strikes out, ending the inning.

I just don't understand the strategy behind the decision at all. The thinking has to be that Prince is going to ground into a double play, and we need to avoid that by sending the runners to preserve the big inning potential. And, by running with Fielder up, we're hoping that a breaking or off-speed pitch low and away is thrown (which is likely since teams would pitch around Fielder to get to Hart) allowing us to safely execute the double steal. Also, the book on Ronny Paulino might be that his arm is below average and you can run on him. Even given all that, I still don't understand the benefit of the strategy. If the Pirates are pitching slightly around Prince, doesn't that improve his chances of a walk? Or at the very least, if Prince gets ahead in the count, he might get a pitch to drive? He's also a left handed hitter, giving the catcher a clear shot to third especially if the pitch is away to Fielder moving him more towards third base. I guess its again under the theory that the Brewers need to "put pressure on the defense." Of course, they ran themselves out of another inning (which in the end didn't matter, but picture this, Gagne in the ninth with a 2-0 lead instead of 7-0 lead, that Jason Bay homer seems a bit more tough to swallow as it ties the game and is another blown Gagne save), the second time that game that they had done so. I also understand that Bautista almost lost control of the ball after the tag and that under baseball rules Cameron might have been safe at third, but that doesn't excuse the call by Yost. Even if it had worked, its still a dumb call because the ultimate benefit is mitigated. Let's say that I'm John Russell. There's one out in the fifth, and Cameron and Braun have just stolen third and second. Don't I immediately hold up four fingers to Maholm and Paulino? Don't I reset my potential double play? Don't I then want to pitch to Hart over Fielder? You see, I cannot see any benefit at all to initiating a double steal, especially with Prince at the plate. Braun is seeing great pitches because Prince hits behind him, and Prince is seeing horrible pitches because Hart bats behind him. In any situation in which you can force the team to throw to Prince to prevent loading the bases (while preserving their double play potential) don't you take it? The benefit of Prince seeing a pitch he could get a hold of more than off sets the benefit of loading the bases for Corey Hart.

But if anyone else has a better explanation, go ahead and let me know.

Its been 44 games in the Brewers season, and after watching the disaster that was the Boston series, I thought I'd do a little nerd-esque analysis of the Brewers. Once again, for those of you tuning in for a nice rant or an interesting post about TGWICL you are forewarned, this is going to be another statistical analysis of the Brewers performance. But first...

Two things occurred to me over the past week. One, the Doug Melvin/Brewers Plan post got a little out of the way from me, which I realize now that I've had time to sit down and process some information into a more coherent babble in my head. Two, for those of you out there who wonder or care, I just enjoy writing this blog a little too much. Its fun for me to just sit down and write a Joyceian stream of consciousness about sports and topics that I enjoy. So, in case you're keeping track, I really enjoy doing this and wish this was a full time job for me. Sadly, it isn't, but that hasn't deterred me from writing some more.

Also, before we start crunching the numbers, I have a few impressions from watching this Brewers team that didn't really get hammered out in my previous post.
1. What kind of baseball team are the Brewers? I kind of asked this question in my last post, but wasn't too clear about my thinking. Baseball people love talking about American League versus National League baseball. As much as I can figure, when a media-type talks about AL baseball, its code for non-stealing teams that take pitches and have power throughout the lineup (you know, non-thinking, non-exciting winning baseball). NL baseball is code for stealing, bunting, sacrificing, defensive teams that attack pitches and don't have much power throughout the lineup (you know, over-thinking, overly dramatic, overly exciting, occasionally winning baseball). Using that as a basis, I can't figure out who the Brewers are as a baseball team. While all teams use both styles of play, teams do build around one idea or the other, with some teams (A's, Yankees, Red Sox as "AL style" and Marlins, Twins, Angels as "NL Style") going extreme in their strategy (some of this is the nature of the leagues, with the NL having the pitcher and the AL the DH). What is the Brewers style? I want to believe that they are in the "AL style" camp, with hitters 1-7 being able to hit with power (the pitcher and Jason Kendall being the exceptions), but manage to over-think situations and play small ball. For example, the Brewers will attempt to steal with power hitters up at the plate; won't take many pitches to ensure that the starters are more worn down when facing the power hitters the second time through; randomly bunting with the middle of the lineup; and be overly aggressive on the basepaths to "force the issue" (I hate it when baseball teams "force the issue," there is nothing more moronic than taking an out at second after a sure single to "put pressure on the defense"). The Brewers sometimes forget that there is one number, and one number only that matters in baseball: 27. That's it, the only number that counts: 27. Anything that takes away from 27 is bad (strikeouts, "forcing the issue," random bunting, over-stealing), anything that preserves 27 is good (walks, smart baserunning, conservative steal attempts, bunting with a purpose). The Brewers need to remember one axiom, one thing to keep in their heads at all times: "When there is an out left to an offense, anything can happen, once that out is gone, nothing can happen."
2. I'm getting sick of interleague play currently construed. As Bob Costas pointed out in hie book Fair Ball interleague play is here to stay, and it can be a good thing. But this haphazard way of playing interleague is a little ridiculous on two counts. The first is obvious, its going to be a long, long, long time before the Yankees come back to Miller Park, and I doubt my A's are ever coming. The set up of randomly assigned games in interleague play is patently ridiculous. I don't need to see the Twins every year, and the good people of Minneapolis don't need to see the Brewers every year either. It should be like the NFL, with each division matched up and rotated every year. That way I know I can either go to Yankee Stadium on a vacation or watch the Yankees at Miller Park every three years. The other ridiculous notion might only be ridiculous to me, but here goes: its slightly unfair to the Brewers to have to go into an AL park with a roster spot devoted to a pitcher because of a lack of DH, then essentially play short-handed against an AL team; and its unfair to the Twins to come to Miller Park with a roster spot devoted to a DH and play a pitcher down in a NL park because the pitcher has to hit. Either the DH needs to go (a stance taken by proponents of going back to more traditional baseball) or the DH needs to come to the NL (a stance taken by proponents of moving forward with the game). I'm for either. Baseball is the only professional sport that penalizes teams when crossing leagues. When the Packers play at the Titans they don't have to bench a defensive lineman because AFC teams only play the 3-4, so why should teams in baseball sacrifice roster spots merely because they're in a different stadium?

On to the numbers. I promise this will be quick. The Brewers sit at 20-24, last in the Central (on pace for a 74-88 season). They've allowed 221 runs, and have scored 193. Their offense is 12th in the 16 team NL in runs scored, tied for 14th in on-base percentage, and 11th in slugging percentage. Their pitching is 15th in runs allowed, 15th in earned run average, and tied for 13th in walks per game, which is last place with two other teams. According to their Pythagorean Win-Loss numbers, the Brewers are actually playing above their stats, as they should be 19-25 (on pace to go 71-91). Granted one game off is not above their stats, but looking at their current projections, the Brewers runs scored and runs allowed projected over a 162 game season puts them squarely at 71-91, while their current record would project them 3 games better at 74-88. All of this could change as the sample size grows, but one thing is striking, and it relates to my above made point. The Brewers give away outs, either through errors (giving the opponent more outs), or through base running blunders, stealing, bunting at inopportune times, etc. They have an on base percentage of .317. The first place Cubs (and it pains me to write that) average a full run and a half more a game than the Brewers (5.8-4.3) and their on base percentage is leading the NL at .372 (those marks lead the majors). If there is one stat that correlates directly to winning it is runs scored, and if there is one stat that correlates directly to runs scored, it is on base percentage, the one stat the Brewers are disastrous in. Fix the on base percentage, stop running and bunting out of innings, and the Brewers should improve, no matter how bad the pitching gets.

I was talking with some friends over cards the other night while watching the Brewers-Marlins game, and we all were wondering what's going on with the Brewers. As I've already posted, the Brewers could use a bit more leadership, a bit more pitching prowess, and a bit more of a focus on the little things that make winners. My major question is more directed at Doug Melvin than a general, player-oriented question. Doug, do you have an actual plan for the future of this franchise? Do you know what's going on? Do you go to games, do you keep track of your AAA and AA rosters, do you even understand the basics of your job?

Now, I'm definitely not advocating for a major move, nor am I attempting to bash Doug Melvin who has done a pretty good job lately of constructing this team. My question hinges around the future of the franchise as well as the present. One of the benefits of rooting for a team that has Billy Beane as a general manager is that the fans understand what Billy is doing at all times. Before this season, Beane traded away Dan Haren, former AL All-Star and a pitcher with exciting, electric stuff (as the Diamondbacks have discovered to their joy). Beane also shipped Nick Swisher out of town to the White Sox (who are benefiting from his presence) and will probably be making a few more moves. Most fan bases would accept this as a sign of surrender, and immediately start rooting for the prospects and kids to develop, hoping that within a few years the team can turn the corner and dominate for a few years before doing a similar trade/purge again. A's fans immediately look at the players and assume that since Beane got them, they must be good, so we should be just fine. This trust comes from understanding the plan the Billy Beane has put in place. Understanding the plan helps to understand the moves, and you can see that Beane is preparing a good young team for a move to Fremont and a new ball park with new revenue streams. The young team will come into their own right when the new revenue starts, and he can keep a core group together while filling in the blanks with veteran depth that he can afford. I love watching his moves, because seen through that prism, they make sense. So, my question to Doug is what is your plan as General Manager? I can't seem to figure it out. But just in case I'm wrong, we'll walk through what I think a GM should be doing and planning, and whether or not Doug seems to be following something like my system.

Now, my system runs counter to what most people would think a GM should be doing, as I put (influenced by both Billy Beane and Moneyball) a greater emphasis on the future and the first half of the season, instead of focusing on the present and the second half of the season. So here goes my system (five points/concepts):

1. A GM has to know what type of baseball your team is going to play. Once you determine what your offensive and defensive focuses/philosophies are going to be, you can begin to build your team. Billy Beane has decided that his team is going to be station to station, big baseball playing team on offense with an okay defense. He will never sacrifice money or leverage over a player who can't get on base consistently, and he never takes a flyer on a player who is best known for defense instead of his ability to draw walks. Part of this decision has to be where you play your home games and where you play the majority of your road games. Dan O'Dowd, the GM of the Rockies, looked around his franchise in 1999 and made a fundamental decision to change the way the Rockies play baseball. Looking at Coors Field, he determined that any player could hit home runs in the thin air of Denver, but those same players with bloated home stats were getting killed on the road. He determined that he needed to build an offensive team that was almost completely unreliant on the home run to score. He focused on speed, contact hitters, and good defensive players to man the preposterous outfield at Coors. He looked at his pitching staff an