Neftali Feliz to be handled like Joba?

Leave a comment

Much has been made about the impact that Nolan Ryan has had on the Texas Rangers pitching staff – how extending pitch counts produces positive results, how pitchers these days are babied too much, etc. However, it sounds like that mantra doesn’t apply to all Texas pitchers.

Word is the Rangers will be handling phenom Neftali Feliz similar to how the Yankees dealt with Joba Chamberlain back in 2007. No back-to-back appearances, and for every inning pitched, he gets a day off.
It’s unclear if Texas manager Ron Washington will strictly follow these guidelines as we get closer to the playoffs. It’s fine to implement restrictions in late August, but what happens during those two late-September series against the Angels if Vlad Guerrero comes up in a big spot on back-to-back nights? Or when the Rays come to town on that second-to-last weekend of the year, and the two teams are fighting for the Wild Card – do they still hold Feliz back?
It’ll be a situation worth monitoring, particularly if 1) the Rangers stay in the race and/or 2) other relievers start blowing games and Feliz turns out to be Washington’s most reliable arm in the pen.
The Yankees could afford to do what they did with Joba in 2007 because they won the Wild Card by six games. In the playoffs that year, the Joba Rules were supposedly lifted, although in part because of the spread out schedule, we never saw Joba in back-to-back nights.
Do you agree with what the Rangers are doing? Is Nolan Ryan being hypocritical at all here, or is it a different scenario? Let us know in the comments.

Report: The Yankee Stadium charity is a secretive, self-dealing boondoggle

Getty Images
1 Comment

The New York Times has a blistering report on the New Yankee Stadium Community Benefits Fund. The Fund is the charity the Yankees created in 2006 as a means of making up for the negative impact the construction New Yankee Stadium had on the surrounding community, primarily via its taking over 25 acres of parkland.

The idea of the Fund was a good one: to distribute $40 million in cash grants and sports equipment, and 600,000 free baseball tickets to community organizations in the Bronx over four decades. And it has been distributing funds and tickets. As the Times reports, however, the manner in which it has done so raises some red flags. Such as:

  • Charitable donations have, in an amazing coincidence, often gone to other charities which share common board members with the New Yankee Stadium Fund;
  • Funds have gone to many wealthy groups in affluent parts of the Bronx far away from the Stadium while the area around the stadium remains one of the most impoverished in the nation. For example, a private school in a wealthy part of the borough and a rec center in a gated community have gotten a lot money that, one would think anyway, could be and should be devoted to organizations closer to the ballpark that are in greater need; and
  • There has been almost no transparency or oversight of the Fund. Reports which were supposed to have been submitted have not been. And no one, apart from the Times anyway, seems to care. The Yankees certainly don’t seem to. Indeed, as the article notes, the team has worked hard to keep the Fund’s operations out of its hands. They just got their new ballpark and write the checks and hand out the tickets. Everything else is someone else’s problem.

Cronyism in private philanthropy is not uncommon. As is a lack of oversight. Often it’s the best connected people who receive the benefit of such funds, not the people most in need. This is especially true in charities whose creation was not born of a philanthropic impulse as much as it was born of a need to put a good face on some not-so-good business dealings.

If the Times’ report is correct — and the lack of anyone coming forward to dispute it on the record despite the Times’ requests that they do suggests it is — it appears as if the New Yankee Stadium Community Benefits Fund is one of those sorts of charities.

Who is the fastest sprinter in baseball?

Getty Images
5 Comments

We’re not talking the 100 meters here. We’re talking practical baseball sprinting. That’s defined by the StatCast folks at MLB as “feet per second in a player’s fastest one-second window,” while sprinting for the purposes of, you know, winning a baseball game.

StatCast ranked all players who have at least 10 “max effort” runs this year. I won’t give away who is at the top of this list, but given that baseball’s speedsters tend to get a lot of press you will not be at all surprised. As for the bottom of the list, well, the Angels don’t pay Albert Pujols to run even when he’s not suffering from late career chronic foot problems, so they’ll probably let that one go. I will say, however, that I am amused that the third slowest dude in baseball is named “Jett,” however.

Lately people have noticed some odd things about home run distances on StatCast, suggesting that maybe their metrics are wacko. And, of course, their means of gauging this stuff is proprietary and opaque, so we have no way of knowing if their numbers are off the reservation or not. As such, take all of the StatCast stuff you see with a grain of salt.

That said, even if the feet-per-second stuff is wrong here, knowing that Smith is faster than Jones by a factor of X is still interesting.