Joe Sheehan's Hack Article

by drj on May 21, 2008 1:24 PM EDT

I saw a reference to this article in a comment in Roch's blog. I had missed it.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=867

Joe Sheehan from BaseballProsepctus has taken exception to a Peter Schmuck article on Barry Bonds. That's swell, we have different opinions. Some of us aren't all that adverse to seeing Barry do his DH thing here. Others aren't so keen on having yet another steroids "controversy" visit the O's.

This difference of opinion doesn't warrant the "hack" accusation. I actually fall on Sheehan's side, but I'm still not keen on seeing Bonds in an O's uniform.

Where Sheehan goes wrong is the cheap shots at Trembley and the O's. How do Peter Schmuck's opinions warrant a swipe at Dave Trembley and what he and MacPhail are attempting to do in Baltimore? We've known for a long long time that the O's employed the wrong kind of players (overpaid, past their prime, and too many on the wrong side of thirty). We've watched those teams mail it in season after season. I've seen the turn around brought to date by MacPhail and Trembley. Do the Orioles still have a roster with too many of the wrong type of players? Sure. So do the Yankees. Is there a marked turn around in how the O's are playing? Absolutely. Is it a blast to watch for the long suffering fans? You bet. Will the O's still end up with a winning record? Odds are stacked against them. However, BP has upped their win estimate from the beginning of the season about a dozen games for a team that was to be near historically bad.

Thank you MacPhail and Trembley, and let's keep the turn around going.

Seems to me the electrons that aren't worthy of a page are those Sheehan disgraced himself with at the tail end of his article. Get out of the sewer Joe.

FanPosts do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.

0 recs | Comment 33 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Wow

While, of course, Sheehan is entitled to disagree on the Bonds issue, the ending to that article is a lazy piece of shit. He had no reason to go after the O’s, and the fact of the matter is that he just lumped Markakis and Roberts in with players such as Huff and Millar and Mora…guys everyone knows will probably be gone the next time the O’s compete into September.

A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.

by NHZ on May 21, 2008 1:36 PM EDT 0 recs

exactly who

is the ROSTER FULL of overpaid thirty somethings?

Improving the ballclub: Not one of Peter Angelos' concerns.-SC Wed Jan 30, 2008

by dayzd toe on May 21, 2008 1:38 PM EDT 0 recs

It's especially ironic

…because Sheehan is a Yankees fan.

This article is a couple weeks old, and it annoyed me at the time. It’s one thing to criticize Peter Schmuck’s ramblings (I do it all the time), but to get angry about it and lash out at the Orioles is just unnecessary and unprofessional.

I read Baseball Prospectus every day and I’ve stopped reading Sheehan’s work for the most part.

Same thing with Will Carroll, who writes a near-daily injury column, but couldn’t be bothered to write about the Orioles.

I just did a search on the website and Carrol has written 31 full-length columns on injuries to major leaguers since opening day. He hasn’t mentioned Adam Loewen’s name once, while Posada’s name has been mentioned in 11 different columns.

There’s not much worth reading on that site anymore, especially since Dan Fox left. Nate Silver, Kevin Goldstein, and filler.

by dkdc on May 21, 2008 1:51 PM EDT up 0 recs

Ironic

He preaches about digging into the facts and numbers before speaking out about people, and then he lazily stabbed at the Orioles with bland generalizations and a small sampling of Dave Trembley’s work with the Orioles. It is why I don’t read much written by “analysts”. The best writing usually comes from fans like the ones on this site. There are not many writers, it seems, that really know what they are talking about anymore.

by PWubbs on May 21, 2008 4:12 PM EDT 0 recs

I hate chemistry

I sucked at it in high school and I think it’s overrated for sports franchises. A sportswriter I’m friendly with one time told me “show me a team where everybody gets along and I’ll show you a losing team.” Sure it’s nice if everybody is on speaking terms, but there is plenty of evidence to show that life goes on if it’s not there and shouldn’t be a major concern when putting together a roster.

I do think there is a use for Barry Bonds on the Orioles because he could provide power and walks. I don’t buy the two lines of reasoning that discounts considering him because either a) the Orioles aren’t going to win it all, so why bother? or b) magical things are happening in Dave Trembley’s clubhouse that would be disrupted if big, bad Barry Bonds showed up and the Orioles would never recover. The first complaint is ridiculously reductive and the second is borderline juvenile. If he were taking at-bats away from a player with an upside, then I wouldn’t sign him either, but I don’t think Aubrey Huff is a player with an upside.

I look at Bonds and I see a guy who led the Majors in on-base percentage and managed to hit 28 home runs and draw 132 walks in just 126 games who can be had for a song and wouldn’t take at-bats away from a developing player. He might be useful. If he doesn’t work out, toss him out with yesterday’s garbage.

by yurizanow on May 21, 2008 4:50 PM EDT 0 recs

I'm not saying Bonds wouldn't help a team

Are there quotes from Trembley on the subject that warrant Sheenan’s attack? I don’t recall Trembley saying anything about Barry Bonds. As best I can tell, Sheenan is attacking Trembley because of some columnist’s opinion. That’s the central point. This article is a hack job.

by drj on May 21, 2008 5:05 PM EDT up 0 recs

I recoginze and appreciate that

I just wanted to voice the unpopular opinion that the Orioles should sign Barry Bonds.

by yurizanow on May 21, 2008 9:31 PM EDT up 0 recs

Bonds

I’m not a Bonds hater but…

I don’t buy the two lines of reasoning that discounts considering him because either a) the Orioles aren’t going to win it all, so why bother?

I don’t see why it’s important to finish with 72 versus say 75 that you might get with Bonds. If anything, it hurts our draft position which is critical for a rebuilding team.

b) magical things are happening in Dave Trembley’s clubhouse that would be disrupted if big, bad Barry Bonds showed up and the Orioles would never recover.

I’m not a big believer in team chemistry in terms of its ability to help winning, but I am a big believer in team chemistry as a valuable goal (if that makes sense). People want to work in a collegial, pleasant atmosphere. If the Bonds won’t team the team makes the playoffs, why screw with team chemistry. Plus, I think the O’s are now super sensitive about team chemistry issues since the whole Raffy debacle in 2005

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on May 22, 2008 1:07 PM EDT up 0 recs

As I said, that's a reductive argument

You could say that about a lot of the things the Orioles do. “Why keep Jeremy Guthrie if the Orioles aren’t going to win now?” At some point the future has to be now. Bonds wouldn’t be taking anything away from a real baseball player or a player with a future, so why not? At some point the Orioles will have to sign a free agent of some consequence if they want to be an elite team. They aren’t going to get everyone through their farm system. Also, there isn’t same correlation between high-end draft picks and success that there in NFL or NBA because it takes so long for players to develop. Even if Bonds results in only one or two more wins, those wins aren’t likely to be the difference between a game-changing prospect or not.

I also have to admit that I don’t view team chemistry as important at all. I’m not saying that they should deliberately sow discord, but most of the great baseball teams that I either saw as a kid or were sort of floating around in the recent cultural memory (the 1970’s A’s, the Big Red Machine, the 1970’s Yankees, the 1980’s A’s, etc.) we’re well-known for not getting along. The same with the Orioles; Earl Weaver was an abusive prick. I heard Steve Stone say in a radio interview that he didn’t consider the Orioles a fun place to go to work when he was there and two of those teams won more than 100 games.

These guys are professionals, if they have the talent, opportunity, and coaching they’ll still develop even if the guy in locker next to them is a total asshole. Barry Bonds does seem to be a total asshole in a way that even Albert Belle (who was supposed to have been a pretty good teammate) wasn’t. However, I can imagine that seeing the greatest player since Babe Ruth on a regular basis during their formative years might have a positive effect on developing players. If Adam Jones doesn’t get better, it won’t because of Barry Bond’s recliner.

by yurizanow on May 22, 2008 1:46 PM EDT up 0 recs

Bonds

You could say that about a lot of the things the Orioles do. "Why keep Jeremy Guthrie if the Orioles aren’t going to win now?"

I’m not sure what a “reductive argument” is but you keep Guthrie because he’s kind of young and only has 1 year of service time. He will be capable of performing a useful level when the O’s are theoretically expected to compete. Bonds will not. Again, what’s the point of winning 72 games versus 75? Unless, you think Bonds will push the O’s to contender status which I also strongly disagree with.

Bonds wouldn’t be taking anything away from a real baseball player or a player with a future, so why not?

He would block Huff, which really doesn’t bother me, but you might as well play him since you’re paying him and he’s not blocking a young player. Look, if the O’s signed Bonds to DH, I wouldn’t be pissed but I see it as a waste of resources. The $3-$10 million required to sign Bonds could go to Pedro Alvarez in the June draft. You could argue, well do both, but why stretch resources unnecessarily. if the O’s could contend, then I’m fine with Bonds. Screw the team chemistry. But that’s not the case. The O’s are not close to being a contender, thus Bonds adds some (hollow) wins.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on May 22, 2008 3:05 PM EDT up 0 recs

My point about Guthrie

is that he’s 29 and there is a good chance that by the time the Orioles are any good his best days will be behind him.

It’s easy for the Orioles or any other team to simply say “well, this guy isn’t going to ultimately make a difference right now, so why bother?” As I said, I can understand that if the guy in question is supplanting a player with upside. I don’t see the point of saying that otherwise. The A’s jump on guys that are old or have something wrong with them. Sometimes they turn out like Mike Piazza and sometimes like Frank Thomas. Either way, at least their trying, which is more than the Orioles can say.

If the Orioles signed Bonds and they did better, it might create an expectation of winning which unlike team chemistry I think does have value. I don’t think players play poorly because they don’t like their teammates, but I do think they play poorly if they think there are no expectations to do otherwise.

However, this is all pointless since we both know that the Orioles aren’t signing Barry Bonds anyway.

by yurizanow on May 22, 2008 3:34 PM EDT up 0 recs

Bonds

My point about Guthrie is that he’s 29 and there is a good chance that by the time the Orioles are any good his best days will be behind him.

He’s in his prime now but he’ll be useful a few years from now, possibly very good. His best days may be behind him, but he’ll be useful when he’s 32. Bonds probably will not be useful when he’s 46. .

The A’s jump on guys that are old or have something wrong with them. Sometimes they turn out like Mike Piazza and sometimes like Frank Thomas. Either way, at least their trying, which is more than the Orioles can say.

And it was Billy Beane who said, “You’re either rebuilding for something special, or you’re on the verge of something special. To be in between is foolish.” Signgng Bonds is a class in between move. When Beane sign guys like Piazza and Thomas, it’s with the expectation of competing.

If the Orioles signed Bonds and they did better, it might create an expectation of winning which unlike team chemistry I think does have value. I

What value does winning 75 games versus 72 games? Again, see the Beane quote above. And it could be argued that those extra wins actually have negative value because it hurts your dfaft position.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on May 22, 2008 3:57 PM EDT up 0 recs

I just don't buy that

It becomes too easy to fall into a perpetual state of never trying to immediately get better because of some hazy goal of competing in the future.

I understand what you mean, but for a loser organization for the Orioles, it becomes yet another excuse for not competing.

In this regard I don’t think we see eye-to-eye.

by yurizanow on May 22, 2008 4:46 PM EDT up 0 recs

You don't buy what? The Beane quote?

So not signing Bonds symbolizes “a perpetual state of never trying”?

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on May 22, 2008 4:55 PM EDT up 0 recs

I guess I don't buy the Beane quote

At least in its entirety.

The A’s are a team with a plan that has success and have built up enough good will to be able to recharge periodically (although their version of recharging seems to take less time and involve less losing than the O’s version).

The Orioles are team that always has some reason for not winning now. Frankly, I’m sick of that attitude. I think Barry Bonds has a enough gas in the tank and to help some team. Why can’t it be the Orioles?

Although there is always a risk with an old player, I don’t think his signs of decline are along the lines of Sammy Sosa’s. You can make a pretty compelling case that Bonds was one of the best hitters in baseball last year and I just don’t think you automatically say “no thank you, we have no need for that.”

I also don’t see the same correlation between draft position and success in baseball as there is in the NFL or NBA, but even if there is, it doesn’t look like the Orioles are going to be vying for those top spots anyway.

Look, Andy MacPhail isn’t going to sign him no matter what. I disagree with that, but I still have respect and a basic faith in Andy MacPhail. I just think that there is nothing lost and possibly something gained by signing Bonds.

by yurizanow on May 23, 2008 11:01 AM EDT up 0 recs

Bonds

The Orioles are team that always has some reason for not winning now. Frankly, I’m sick of that attitude. I think Barry Bonds has a enough gas in the tank and to help some team. Why can’t it be the Orioles?

I really don’t think the attitude is the problem. Until MacPhail showed up, the O’s were looking to win (not MacPhail isn’t looking to win, he just isn’t looking to win now). If this was 2005, I think the O’s would be all over Bonds. But the team is rebuilding. It just doesn’t make any sense. I agree that there’s nothing lost (except for maybe draft position) but meaningless wins are the only thing gained snice the team is not a contender (and spending resources chasing those extra few wins are “foolish” as the Beane quote illustrates). Like I said, if the team was built to win this season, then yes, I would want Bonds. I certainly agree that he has something left in the tank. But once you factor in his legal trouble and the baggage that entails and his inability to make the team a contender, I would just rather pass.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on May 23, 2008 12:58 PM EDT up 0 recs

In 2005, it might have made sense

That team really was close, or at least had the potential to be close..

In 2008? You’re right – not so much.

"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby

by duck on May 23, 2008 1:54 PM EDT up 0 recs

"who can be had for a song"

Uh, no. That’s WHY he’s not playing right now – his salary demands are said to be delusional. I can’t recall figures, but even at $5 million, I don’t want him.

You can quote numbers, argue against chemistry, and show me what he did in 40 games less than a full season last year. And it’s not even Barry Bonds, the individual, that I object to. It’s the thought of bringing in someone who’s 40+, a defensive liability and a part-time player onto a team that is rebuilding, who, by the way, is under federal indictment.

Yes, we’re winning, and yes, winning is a lot more fun than losing. But what have we learned at the end of the year with Bonds? We’d have learned (and probably won) nothing significantly greater with Barry at $5M (or possibly more) PLUS Huff’s eaten salary than we would have learned at just Huff’s salary. And Barry Bonds won’t get this team into the playoffs.

So what did we get for our $5M? Five more wins? Eight? Still sitting out of the playoffs, with a player under federal indictment casting a cloud over the team in every market we travel to.

The cost benefit just isn’t there.

by duck on May 21, 2008 5:00 PM EDT 0 recs

well, also in fairness...

sheehan’s article predates the feds re-filed indictment which, i believe, vastly expanded the charges against bonds. i mean, while not a walk in the park a defense of a couple charges is a bit easier than a defense of 10+.

foghat goes with everything--birdman, 5/16/08

by j.q. higgins on May 21, 2008 5:13 PM EDT up 0 recs

Honestly

Both our starters and bullpen are Rockin’ like Dokken – to put it in your terminology. The weak spot is the offense. Let’s dream a little dream and say that this is still the case at the All Star Break and we actually have a shot at the Wild Card, but our offense is still sagging. In such a scenario it would make one hell of a lot of sense to pick up Bonds on a prorated contract for this season and try to make a run at it. Regardless of the outcome it would show free agents that we’re not just running a daycare center over here – that this team is serious about trying to win. And if by some grace of god we did get into the playoffs it would make it that much easier to land the FA names we will need in the future to turn this into a franchise that wins consistently.

by Jonny Pops on May 21, 2008 6:44 PM EDT up 0 recs

In that case

there would be a positive cost benefit, and you make the move.

by duck on May 21, 2008 8:34 PM EDT up 0 recs

wow

I’m sure everybody is equal in the Orioles’ clubhouse, because there’s not a single player good enough to stand out from the crowd.

What does Nick Markakis have to do to get some love? I mean, Markakis, Jones, Guthrie, Cabrera, Loewen, Olson, Sherrill, Scott, Sarfate are all currently on the roster and could be part of the next good Oriole team. Roberts too, but I think he should be traded.

I know Sheehan was pretty irritated, but that’s as amateurish as the article he was criticizing.

Librarians are hiding something

by dfa on May 21, 2008 8:28 PM EDT 0 recs

ehhh

Look, I love Nick Markakis, but he has put up Major League OPS numbers of .799, .848 and .826 so far this season. He’s a good player, but let’s be honest and start admitting that he isn’t Frank Robinson or Eddie Murray or anything, no matter how many times Jim Palmer talks about Terry Crowley (world’s foremost expert) saying that Markakis could be the greatest Orioles hitter of all time.

Camden Chat
Bad Left Hook

by SC on May 22, 2008 5:19 AM EDT up 0 recs

Right

Ultimately if the Orioles are going to win, they’re going to need a higher caliber of player than Nick Markakis. I like Markakis as a player and he certainly is the kind of player who could play on a championship team, but he isn’t the kind of player who would be the best player on a championship team. At some point the Orioles are going to need to get those Frank Robinson/Eddie Murray types to bat in the middle of the lineup and Markakis isn’t likely to turn into that. If he does, that’s great, but I don’t think it’s a good thing to bet on.

by yurizanow on May 22, 2008 9:20 AM EDT up 0 recs

He's our Trot Nixon

Probably not quite as good defensively as Trot, but he’s patient at the plate with good, but not great power. Let’s hope he stays healthy unlike Trot.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on May 22, 2008 1:00 PM EDT up 0 recs

nick

Frank Robinson > Nick Markakis > player who wouldn’t stand out from the crowd

Nick could easily be a #3 hitter and an all-star. I have no reason to believe he won’t be an AS, considering his age and success.

Librarians are hiding something

by dfa on May 22, 2008 2:58 PM EDT up 0 recs

Nick Markakis

barring some real improvement, will never be a national star, or stand out from the crowd to anyone but us. He will be an All-Star. Lots of guys are All-Stars, multiple times, without ever really standing out from the crowd. I think you’re taking the wording personally.

Camden Chat
Bad Left Hook

by SC on May 22, 2008 4:57 PM EDT up 0 recs

semantics

Maybe it is a semantics argument, but I maintain that it’s unfair to lump Markakis in with Huff, Millar, Scott, Mora, etc.

Librarians are hiding something

by dfa on May 22, 2008 5:03 PM EDT up 0 recs

Markakis is a class above Huff, Millar, Scott, Mora, etc., and certainly more valuable than them since he’s (1) better and (2) much younger, but he’s a step below the next class and two steps below the best class. He’s a damn good player and will be for a long time, and any team in the world would be happy to have him. But he probably fits in more with the aforementioned prime Trot Nixon or someone like Tim Salmon. Who wouldn’t want to have those guys? They can play some ball. It doesn’t make them superstars or EXCEPTIONAL players.

Camden Chat
Bad Left Hook

by SC on May 22, 2008 5:28 PM EDT up 0 recs

i don't think we disagree

I’m not really arguing that Markakis is a superstar. He may be, and I’m confident he’ll be an all-star, but my point was that it’s unfair to lump Markakis in with the rest of the dreck that receive regular playing time. Not sure how what I said to give you the impression that I thought we should be carving out his cooperstown plaque.

Librarians are hiding something

by dfa on May 22, 2008 5:38 PM EDT up 0 recs

no I didn't think that

Your statement was that Markakis “stands out from the crowd”—my only point is that he doesn’t, really, like guys like Nixon and Salmon didn’t. And those were good ass players. I don’t think Sheehan thinks Markakis isn’t a good player, just that you need more than one (and probably a great player or two) to go anywhere.

And “Frank Robinson > Nick Markakis > player who doesn’t stand out from the crowd” also skips a bunch of > steps between Robinson and Markakis.

Sheehan isn’t all that far off-base on this part of it. I do agree that he came off a little…unusual overall.

Anyway I think we more or less agree. You’re correct, it’s a semantics argument.

Camden Chat
Bad Left Hook

by SC on May 22, 2008 6:44 PM EDT up 0 recs

fair enough

I see how i misstated my point. Perhaps I should have said:

Frank Robinson >>>>>>> Nick Markakis >> other shit ass oriole hitters

Librarians are hiding something

by dfa on May 23, 2008 2:20 PM EDT up 0 recs

Here's an interesting take

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opzir215695392may21,0,5289058,print.story

I’m not so sure I agree, though. Of course one can’t rule out collusion. These are MLB owners we’re talking about. And while there are a few exceptions like Zirin, steroids are a sure way to bring out the self-righteous prick in most sports writers (But we don’t talk about juicing horses. Racing is 100% legit!)

However, there IS a certain logic in teams waiting until July or Aug. to see if a DH who can’t field & needs to be pinch-run for unless he hits one out is the missing piece they need to put them over the top.

Bottom line is there are at least 2 sides to this one. May be more. We should know what’s really going on in a few months.

You can't fix stupid. Stupid is forever.

by sluggo 2.0 on May 21, 2008 9:25 PM EDT 0 recs