Texas Rangers v Baltimore Orioles

Defending Ron Washington from my cheap shots


I made a cheap joke at Ron Washington’s expense in the Power Rankings this morning regarding Neftali Feliz being in the bullpen.

I don’t apologize for it because about 87% of my jokes are cheap, but I can at least admit it was a cheap joke. Most of the comments in my Power Rankings are of the drive-by variety.

Adam Morris at Lone Star Ball has heard a lot of this stuff, however, and wasn’t too pleased with mine.  And then he defended Washington’s handling of Feliz:

How many teams would have taken one of their best relievers, a guy who had been pitching out of the bullpen virtually his entire time in the majors, and put him in the rotation, like the Rangers did with C.J. last season? And then the following year, do the exact same thing with a guy who not only had never made a start in the majors, but who was a converted outfielder who had spent his entire pitching career working as a reliever?

The Rangers have also made it clear the plan is for Feliz to transition to the rotation in 2012.  And yet, people seem to act like Texas not putting the 22 year old Feliz into the rotation and asking for 200 innings from him now is a crime against the hallowed memory of Alexander Cartwright.

See, my thing is that if anyone was going to convert a reliever into a starter it would be the Rangers given their track record with Wilson. A guy who had had more years away from starting that Feliz had when he made the jump and who had been much farther removed from substantial workloads at the time than Feliz is now.  Specifcally, Wilson hadn’t started a game since 2005 when he was converted last year; Feliz started his entire minor league career, switching to the pen in late 2009. Before last year, Wilson hadn’t pitched even 100 innings since 2003, when he pitched 123, whereas Feliz pitched 127 as a starter in 2008.

The upshot: while Feliz is younger and has fewer miles on the odometer than Wilson, he is less removed from starting than Wilson was, and his overall experience as a starter is not significantly less than Wilson’s (and his performance in that capacity was much better).  Rather than giving the Rangers the benefit of the doubt as a result of their previous track record with a reliever-to-starter conversion, I think that they should be scrutinized even more closely for their inconsistency here because unlike so many other clubs they have made the key observation and taken the chance before.  And now they’re not, and no one has ever explained it in terms other than the manager’s desire for a shutdown closer.

Yes, Morris makes the point that maybe the Rangers don’t think Feliz is ready to start games in the big leagues. And that’s a valid point, but I don’t think anyone from the Rangers has made a strong case for it. Feliz did pretty damn well starting in spring training. Washington’s quote the day he moved Feliz back to the pen was “right now, for our organization, he’s better in the bullpen.”  That “for our organization” comment suggests to me a need (i.e. there’s no one else to close) more than an assessment of what role Feliz is best suited for.

None of which is to say that Morris is wrong. He knows the Rangers way better than I do, and no, I have not cataloged everything Washington or Nolan Ryan or Jon Daniels has said about the matter. And it’s not even to say that Washington is wrong because, after all, his job is to do what’s best for the team as a whole, not one player’s development (indeed, I take greater issue with Daniels and Ryan, who are tasked with thinking more long term than Washington is, for Feliz’s handling). And, the above stuff notwithstanding,  I don’t mean to rehash the whole “should Feliz be a starter” argument in its full glory, because that ship has sailed for 2011, it seems.

But I do take issue with Morris’ characterization of those of us who do think that the Rangers are wrong in all of this.  The criticism of the Rangers’ handling of Feliz is not about failing to conform to some sabermetric orthodoxy, nor is about simply laughing and pointing at Ron Washington.  Because even if my joke was a cheap one, there are legitimate arguments in favor of using Feliz as a starter, and they’re not adequately countered by simply deferring to the Rangers’ statements about their plans for 2012 or the credibility they have in the bank because C.J. Wilson turned out OK.

Kudos to Fox for not going crazy with the curses

Getty Images

I turned on last night’s Fox broadcast fully expecting them to spend too much time on history and curses and billy goats and black cats and Steve Bartman and 1908 and 1948 and all of that jive while spending too little time on the game and the players at hand. I will admit now that I was pleasantly surprised that that was not, in fact, the case.

To be clear, the pregame show was a friggin’ train wreck in this department. There the narrative framing was basically wall-to-wall. In the first segment, Fox studio host Kevin Burkhardt used the phrase “reverse the curse” within his first thirty seconds of speaking. Then, before much if any actual game stuff was referred to, Burkhardt mentioned all of the following things in the space of a, maybe, 45 second span:

When the montage ended, Alex Rodriguez said that “every player wants to break that curse.” Then they threw it to the first commercial at 7:38 or so. In the second segment they ran a prerecorded thing about championship droughts, making liberal mention of 108 years for the Cubs and 68 years for the Indians, but then got down to some actual game breakdown.

In the third segment, Burkhardt threw it to the P.A. announcer at Progressive Field for player introductions, once again mentioning 108/68 years as he did so. After that, they ran a montage, set to Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers’ “The Waiting,” in which centenarians and other older folks talked about how long they’ve been — wait for it — waiting for an Indians or a Cubs championship. Lots of them mentioned billy goats and curses and stuff.

When that was over Fox finally threw it to Joe Buck and John Smoltz up in the booth. Buck added a punctuative “the waiting is the hardest part,” and soon after they ran a Buck-narrated pre-produced montage about what was going on in 1908 and 1948, saying who was president, noting when Model-Ts were invented and all of that, all set to “Time has come today” by the Chambers Brothers. So, yes, that was a lot to take in in the space of a half hour.

But that’s on me, right? Who in the heck needs to watch a pregame show? No one, really. Alex Rodriguez and Pete Rose are proving to be a nice combination for Fox — getting rid of C.J. Nitkowski has cleared the congestion a bit and both A-Rod and Rose are proving to be naturals after a 2015 in which they were somewhat clunky — but a pregame show is pretty superfluous. The actual baseball breakdown those guys provide can be accomplished in less than ten minutes. The rest of it practically begs for those narrative-servicing montages, and frankly, no one needs ’em.

Most notably, though: the curse and weight of history talk basically ended once the game got going. Indeed, Buck and Smoltz were shockingly and refreshingly narrative-free for most if not all of the contest. They talked about Jon Lester and his issues holding runners. Corey Kluber‘s slider. Andrew Miller being Andrew Miller. Kyle Schwarber being there at all. They did a really nice job of handling all of the Xs and Os the way you want your broadcast booth to handle it.

Smoltz in particular was outstanding, showing that Fox’s decision to make him their number one color guy while reassigning Harold Reynolds and Tom Verducci to be a fantastic one. A two-man booth is superior to a three-man booth in almost every instance, but the second man in Fox’s booth now mixes his insight and his regular conversation seamlessly. You never feel like Smoltz is talking down to you or speaking from his obviously superior place of baseball authority. His tone is as if he’s letting you in on stuff he thinks and hopes you’ll really appreciate knowing and he never plays the “I USED TO PLAY BASEBALL” card in the obnoxious ways some ex-player commentators do. And he’s right: we do appreciate what he tells us.

Beating up on Fox’s baseball broadcasts has been its own sport for many of us for several years, but there was nothing to really beat them up about last night. Sure, we could do without in-game interviews, but after the pregame show Fox showed remarkable restraint with respect to pushing history and narrative and curses and all of that baloney that has little if anything to do with the 2016 Chicago Cubs and Cleveland Indians. They kept it focused on the baseball game that was going on before us in ways they haven’t always done in the past. It was refreshing and, dare I say, downright enjoyable.

More of this please.

Republicans accuse Hillary Clinton of being a bandwagon Cubs fan

CHICAGO - APRIL 4:  Hillary Rodham Clinton throws out the first pitch before the Chicago Cubs Opening Day game against the New York Mets at Wrigley Field on April 4, 1994 in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images)
Getty Images

This was inevitable: The Republican National Committee published a ridiculously detailed and self-serious opposition-research report accusing Hillary Clinton of being a “bandwagon” Cubs fan.

If you’re of a certain age you’ll recall that Clinton, who grew up in the Chicago suburbs, spoke about being a Cubs fan as a kid. You’ll also recall that when she was running for her senate seat in New York, she gave shoutouts to a heretofore unheard of Yankees fandom. A lot of people have had fun with this at various times — we’ve mentioned it here on multiple occasions — but I wasn’t aware that anyone considered it an actually substantive political issue as opposed to an amusing “politicians, man” kind of thing.

The Republicans think it’s serious, though. Indeed, there’s more detail to this oppo-hit than there is any of the party’s candidate’s position papers. And while someone could, theoretically, have a lot of fun with this kind of material, the opposition report is not even remotely tongue-in-cheek. It reads like a poisition paper on nuclear proliferation. If the GOP had been this serious about vetting its own candidate, I suspect they wouldn’t be in the position they’re in today.

As for the substance: eh, who cares? Sports is entertainment and cultural glue. As a kid in Chicago, being a Cubs fan is both fun and makes some sense. As a senator from New York in the early 2000s, you’re gonna get to go to some Yankees games and sit in some good seats and that’s fun too. And, of course, politicians are going to say opportunistic things in order to attempt to connect with their constituents. Think of that what you will, but if you think of that as something which reveals something deep and dark within their soul about what kind of person they are, you probably need to step away from the cable news for a while and get some fresh air. Or you probably need to admit that you already believed the worse about her and that this is just an exercise in confirmation bias.

Heck, at this point I almost hope she finds a third or fourth team to root for. Indeed, I hope she makes a comic heel turn, puts on a Chief Wahoo hat for tonight’s game and claims that, deep, deep down, she had always rooted for the Indians. Then even I could get on her case about it. And we could all talk about how, in her own way, Hillary was really bringing the nation together.