Jon Morosi is trying to get it, I think

Leave a comment

I didn’t think Bryan LaHair, one of 2012’s most pleasant surprises thus far, was a polarizing figure, but apparently someone out there is slamming him, because FOXSports.com’s Jon Paul Morosi felt the need to chime in with this:

source:

OK, so what Morosi is getting at here is that the fact that LaHair has just 22 RBI to go along with his 10 homers this season isn’t his fault.

Except it kind of is.

LaHair is hitting .367/.436/.689 with seven homers in 90 at-bats with the bases empty this season. With runners on, that drops to .233/.347/.433 with three homers in 60 at-bats. With runners in scoring position, it drops further: .171/.348/.286 with one homer in 35 at-bats.

That’s why LaHair has so few RBI: the bulk of his production has come with no one on base.

Now, does that mean LaHair is a bad player? Of course, not. It hardly necessarily means he wilts in the clutch, either. Part of it is likely a fluke. Another part of it is likely that he’s had some tough left-handers brought in to face him in big spots. LaHair, a left-handed hitter, is hitting .136 against southpaws, compared to .344 against righties.

Also, when LaHair does get to face a righty with men on base, he’s probably being pitched a little differently. The spike in his walk rate suggests that pitchers are being more careful with him in those situations. I imagine Morosi was factoring that into his statement above and not just complaining that LaHair wasn’t getting the chance to hit with men on base.

My feeling on the matter is that Morosi should have just stopped seven words in: LaHair’s value can’t be measured by RBI. Because it’s stupid to try to measure anyone’s value by RBI alone. I don’t believe LaHair is here to stay as one of the NL’s better hitters, but it’s pretty crazy that anyone might think he hasn’t been an asset thus far.

Must-Click Link: Where’s Timmy?

Getty Images
2 Comments

Tim Lincecum last pitched last season for the Angels and he did not pitch well. Over the winter and into the spring there were reports that he was working out at a facility somewhere in Arizona with an aim toward trying to latch on to another team. He didn’t. And, given how his velocity and effectiveness had nosedived over the previous few seasons, it was probably unrealistic to think he’d make it back to the bigs.

But now, as Daniel Brown of the Mercury News reports, he seems to simply be gone.

He’s not missing in any legal sense — his friends and family know where he is — but he’s out of the public eye in a way that most players at the end of their careers or the beginning of their retirements usually aren’t. He’s not been hanging around his old club, even though the Giants say they’d love to honor him and give him a job if and when he announces his retirement. He’s not hanging around his high school or college alma maters even though he makes his home in Seattle, where they are. He’s gone from being one of the most identifiable and conspicuous presences in baseball to having disappeared from the public eye.

Brown’s story is an excellent one, touching on Lincecum’s professional rise and professional fall, as well as the personality traits that may suggest why he’s not eager to be making headlines or posing for pictures. A good read.

 

Major League Baseball claims it will “redouble its efforts” on expanded netting

15 Comments

Yesterday, during the Minnesota Twins-New York Yankees game at Yankee Stadium, a young girl was injured after a foul ball flew off the bat of Todd Frazier and into the stands along the third base line where she was sitting. In some parks that ball would be stopped because of netting down the line.

There was no netting that far down the line in Yankee Stadium, because (a) Major League Baseball does not require it; and (b) the Yankees have still not committed to expanding it like other teams have.

A few minutes ago, Commissioner Rob Manfred released a statement about the injury:

I’m not sure how baseball can “redouble” its efforts given that its efforts thus far have been to completely delegate the responsibility of expanded netting to the 30 clubs.

This delegation came in December of 2015 when Major League Baseball released its recommendation — not its mandate — that teams provide expanded netting. Teams were “encouraged” to shield the seats between the near ends of both dugouts (i.e., the ends of the dugouts located closest to home plate) and within 70 feet of home plate with protective netting or other safety materials of the clubs’ choice. At the same time, they launched “fan education” guidelines about where to sit and whether or not they’ll be protected.

While these recommendations were better than nothing, they also seemed far more geared toward diminishing the liability of the league and its clubs than actively protecting fans from screaming projectiles.

The stuff about fan education was obviously a creature of an assumption-of-the-risk calculus. It was, essentially, a disclaimer of the “don’t say we didn’t warn you” variety and, as such, was aimed more at shielding baseball from liability over batted ball or bat-shard injuries than at directly shielding fans from such injuries. Even the netting recommendation could be construed as MLB insulating itself from being joined in a lawsuit at a later date if a club were to get sued over a fan injury. A way of saying “hey, we told the Yankees [or whoever] that they should do more, please don’t sue us too.”

It’s one thing to do all of that and walk away, as the league seemed content to do in 2015. It’s another thing to walk back today, as Manfred is, claiming that the league will “redouble” such transparently ineffective efforts. It’s frankly insulting. Yet this is baseball’s approach to the matter. The league is, for whatever reason, afraid to tell its clubs that it has to do something that is so clearly prudent. It, apparently, is waiting for a someone to be killed by a foul ball before mandating netting rather than meekly suggesting it.

Oh, I’m sorry. Waiting for someone else to be killed. Because it has happened before. Absent prudent protections it will, inevitably, happen again.

While Major League Baseball may have been safe from being held responsible for such things due to its ticket disclaimers and assumption of the risk arguments in the past, it won’t be in the future. One would hope it will not take death or debilitating injury of a fan for the league to accept it.