Available for stream or download. Topics included the Futures Game and the idea of “untouchable” prospects in trades.
→ July 14, 2009
→ By
→ By
The collected thoughts of sportswriter, bookworm, & food critic Keith Law
Available for stream or download. Topics included the Futures Game and the idea of “untouchable” prospects in trades.
Copyright © 2011 Curtail Theme on the Genesis Framework
Keith:
I don’t think you have discussed/written about him since your prospects list, but what is your take on Desmond Jennings? He had an odd line on Sunday with two k’s and 3 sb’s.
Three quick things, Keith:
1) Thanks for doing the podcast; if it continues regularly, it’ll be in my regular rotation. Any chance of making it downloadable via iTunes? It’s just easier to get onto the iPod that way, which in turn makes it easier for me to jog while getting into imaginary arguments with you and Jason.
2) Some title ideas that came to me while listening: Twenty to Eighty; The Scouting Report; Tool Talk; On The Radar; Dim Prospects with Keith Law and Jason Churchill. Or, if you’d prefer to really confuse prospective listeners: Keith and Jason On The Minors’ Most Massive Tools.
3) Just one request as a listener: when you begin discussing a prospect, could one of you guys mention his full name and team affiliation (or college/region) and a brief synopsis of his career (i.e. “third year in the system but hasn’t delivered yet”)? I consider myself a fairly dedicated baseball fan who follows the minors more closely than, I’d guess, 90% of others, and even I have a tough time keeping up. You or Jason will mention a last name, very quickly, and I have have to stop for a sec and ask myself, “Wait, who’s that? What’d they just say? Vicente? Oh, Viciedo? Who’s that? Third base…Oh yeah, the Cuban defector in the White Sox system….” All of which could be remedied with a quick, five-to-ten word intro about the player. Anyway, just a thought from my own experience listening.
Regardless, thanks for the always entertaining and insightful analysis.
Unrelated note, but was listening to Cowherd today and he made an interesting point about ASG and home-field in the WS: basically, he was saying that it wasn’t a great idea, but it was better then the previous idea (alternating), which he equated to 8-year-old girls’ soccer, where everyone gets a turn (not sure why he needed to make it unique to girls’ soccer, but w/e). Anyway, I think I sort of agree with him. Isn’t homefield being derived from SOMETHING better than nothing? Or is this something so crappy, that it’s worse than nothing? Curious to hear your thoughts.
Also, where is the first podcast between you and Jason?
Keith – any plans to do any scouting on the Cape on Fri 7/23 or Sat 7/24? Also, please keep it up with the podcast – they’re great stuff.
@BSK: A link to the first podcast is at http://meadowparty.com/blog/?p=880.
Hey Keith,
I listened to your radio bit concerning the M’s on Brock and Salk and have a question about it if you don’t mind. You pointed out that the M’s have a negative run differential so they’ve been a bit lucky. There’s an argument on Lookout Landing that notes the M’s have had the third toughest schedule in baseball to date (Opponents Win% is .517), and the Pythagorean expectation in this case isn’t robust enough for judging the M’s season to date. Is that a possibility or more attempts at justifying the record from M’s fans?
Thanks
Keith did those additional notes on the Futures Game ever make it on the ESPN site? I’ve been looking for them but haven’t seen the link anywhere. Just curious. Love your work, and thanks for all your insight.
There’s more logic to alternating than letting a player on a (to be) 70 win team decide homefield. I don’t get why having best overall record determine it is so tough.
Hell, even having the overall interleague winner host makes more sense.
Alex-
Thanks
Dave-
I think thats the crux of the argument. Everyone wants to bash the “This time it counts” idea because it is a pretty bad idea. But no one has really looked at whether or not it’s a WORSE idea than the old idea. Neyer had a recent blog post about it. Still not sure how I feel, but it seems as if the conversation has simply been about outrage over the current idea instead of looking at whether or not it’s progress.
BSK,
True, but if the answer is so obvious as how to fix it, there is plenty to complain about even if it is marginally better than the old way.
Update on Futures Game
Alex: I never do the Cape on Fri/Sat because of traffic getting down there.
I’d be in favor of letting the team with the better interleague record have the WS home field advantage.
Jon: If you click the iTunes icon in the BTR player, doesn’t it launch the podcast in iTunes? I haven’t tried it but that was my assumption. And thanks for the suggestion on prospect names.
I just don’t understand the idea why the team with the better record can’t have homefield in the World Series. They do it in the NHL and NBA. What makes it so much more complicated in baseball?
I do think the current format is better than the previous version of alternating years, but I just don’t get the argument against better record.
“I think thats the crux of the argument. Everyone wants to bash the “This time it counts” idea because it is a pretty bad idea. But no one has really looked at whether or not it’s a WORSE idea than the old idea.”
Logical if not inspired (alternating years) trumps contrived and unrelated (ASG), atleast in my book. Heath Bell giving up the winning run last night sort of underlines the whole “players that have nothing to do with the World Series determining home field” complaint. Not saying there isn’t a better way than alternating, just that the ASG idea isn’t it.
(Although I guess it could always be worse; maybe Selig will decide to fix the problem by having the HR Derby determine the host in future years.)
Thanks Keith. The lesson, as always: I am an idiot. The plain-as-day iTunes link that I somehow overlooked does indeed make it downloadable via iTunes.
(Incidentally, the reason I thought it wasn’t available via iTunes is that a search for “Keith Law podcast” doesn’t return your podcast as a result, although maybe that’ll just get remedied on its own in time.)
Tom, the problem with using overall record is the difference in competition the teams play. Right now the AL is clearly the better league so a given NL team has an easier path to a better record (especially one in a bad division). The NBA plays 35-40% of its games against teams from the other conference making competition a little more equitable. MLB interleague only accounts for about 10% of the schedule.
IMO, home field for the WS should be decided by 1) head-to-head if the teams played that same year and 2) Interleague record
Dave and Matt-
Great points, both of you, and exactly the type of dialogue I was hoping to see. I think I tend to agree with Dave, that stupid but ordered is better than stupid and arbitrary. It’s just that there now exists massive public (read: media) outrage about the “This time it counts” when you rarely heard anyone complain publicly about the old model. I know it never made sense to me, and that it always seemed as if overall record made more sense, but I don’t remember much public discourse on it.
While there is truth to the fact that league differential can skew the difference, that is still somewhat of a reality in NBA and NHL, though, as someone pointed out, it is somewhat mitigated by more common opponents. There probably ISN’T a perfect system, outside of some intense sabremetric analysis that determines which team “deserves” it, and we all know how likely THAT is.
Keith,
I listened to the podcast with Jason and you mentioned that pitchers who throw a lot of breaking balls should be worried about elbow problems. I am wondering what the risk on Brian Matusz is since he is known for pitching backwards and throwing a lot of offspeed pitches?
Thanks, Bryan