New York Yankees v Detroit Tigers - Game 3

Verlander was fantastic! Um … wasn’t he?

32 Comments

Posnanski makes a great point today about how sports commentators, columnists, broadcasters and the like tend to fall in love with narratives, even if they don’t really hold up.  His example: how everyone during and after last night’s Tigers game was gushing about Justin Verlander, and sticking with that narrative even though, on the merits, the performance wasn’t all that great: eight innings pitched, four earned runs.

I agree with the general point, but I must quibble with Posnanski’s use of Verlander as an example of this.

For one thing, four runs in eight innings against an offense like the Yankees on short rest (or however you want to characterize pitching three days after Friday’s false start) isn’t anything to sneeze at.  Not otherworldly, strikeouts notwithstanding, and I agree with Posnanski that it’s way too easy to blow it out of proportion. But it’s not nothing.

More generally, I think the praise of Verlander last night and into this morning is less about his line score and more about him just being an amazing freak of nature who is outrageously fun to watch.  Posnanski himself describes it in his column: the crazy velocity, changing repertoire and control; the fact that he was still cracking 100 on the radar late in the game.  Setting aside his game score — and acknowledging that people who overstate his literal effectiveness are drinking Verlander Kool-Aid — that stuff was pretty damn remarkable, and it’s thus understandable that it is being remarked upon so much.

This all falls under a theory I’ve cited many times recently in which our friend Ken Arneson reminds us to “Remember the Beer.”  That enjoying something and wishing to honor it some way is a totally different matter than properly assessing something and wishing to praise it in a different way.

We can appreciate that Dwight Evans was objectively better than Jim Rice, but if people want to recall Jim Rice’s exploits more fondly because they took great enjoyment from them back in 1978, so be it.  We can be in awe of Wily Mo Pena’s home runs even though, by every objective measure, Wily Mo Pena sucks.  The point is that just as we should never let our fond memories of a player shake our objective assessment of his merits (no matter how much I enjoyed Jack Morris’ career, he wasn’t a great pitcher), we shouldn’t let the objective assessment of the player detract from our enjoyment of him.  Same goes for movies and records and art and stuff too, by the way, but that’s another essay.

As for Verlander: no, his performance was not “great” last night in an objective way.  But it was dazzling. And enjoyable as all hell unless you’re a Yankees fan. And if people want to talk that up to the heavens today, I see no real reason to take any issue with that.

Cubs sign Brett Anderson to a $3.5 million deal

Brett Anderson
AP Photo/J Pat Carter
Leave a comment

Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports reports that the Cubs have signed pitcher Brett Anderson to a contract, pending a physical. Anderson, apparently, impressed the Cubs during a bullpen session held in Arizona recently. According to Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports, the deal is for $3.5 million, but incentives can bring the total value up to $10 million.

Anderson, 28, has only made a total of 53 starts and 12 relief appearances over the past five seasons due to a litany of injuries. This past season, he made just three starts and one relief appearance, yielding 15 runs on 25 hits and four walks with five strikeouts in 11 1/3 innings. The lefty dealt with back, wrist, and blister issues throughout the year.

When he’s healthy, Anderson is a solid arm to have at the back of a starting rotation or in the bullpen. The defending world champion Cubs aren’t risking much in bringing him on board.

Yordano Ventura’s remaining contract hinges on the results of his toxicology report

DETROIT, MI - SEPTEMBER 24: Yordano Ventura #30 of the Kansas City Royals pitches against the Detroit Tigers during the first inning at Comerica Park on September 24, 2016 in Detroit, Michigan. (Photo by Duane Burleson/Getty Images)
Duane Burleson/Getty Images
2 Comments

Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports provides an interesting window into how teams handle a player’s contract after he has died in an accident. It was reported on Sunday that Royals pitcher Yordano Ventura died in a car accident in the Dominican Republic. He had three guaranteed years at a combined $19.25 million as well as two $12 million club options with a $1 million buyout each for the 2020-21 seasons.

What happens to that money? Well, that depends on the results of a toxicology report, Rosenthal explains. If it is revealed that Ventura was driving under the influence, payment to his estate can be nullified. The Royals may still choose to pay his estate some money as a gesture of good will, but they would be under no obligation to do so. However, if Ventura’s death was accidental and not caused by his driving under the influence, then his contract remains fully guaranteed and the Royals would have to pay it towards his estate. The Royals would be reimbursed by insurance for an as yet unknown portion of that contract.

The results of the toxicology report won’t be known for another three weeks, according to Royals GM Dayton Moore. Dominican Republic authorities said that there was no alcohol found at the scene.

Ventura’s situation is different than that of Marlins pitcher Jose Fernandez, who died in a boating accident this past September. Fernandez was not under contract beyond 2016. He was also legally drunk and cocaine was found in his system after the accident. Still, it is unclear whether or not Fernandez was driving the boat. As a result, his estate will receive an accidental death payment of $1.05 million as well as $450,000 through the players’ standard benefits package, Rosenthal points out.