How do I convince a player I’m writing a book so he’ll talk to me?

I’m one of those weird people. When I finish a book, I read through the “acknowledgements” section. I find it interesting who people feel the need to thank when it comes to a book. Do they thank their wife first, or save the best for last? Do they thank their high school English teacher? Who else makes the cut? Almost invariably, they thank a member of the Red Sox Public Relations Department, or a player’s personal publicist for putting them in contact with various players to be interviewed. I’ve always wondered how that worked.

Say I want to write a book. I want to focus on, say, the 2009 Red Sox and their amazing season full of ups and downs. Can I call the Red Sox offices and ask for the names and current telephone numbers of every member of that team so I can try to set up interviews? Do I have an easier time reaching one player as opposed to another? Will Manny Delcarmen be easier than Dustin Pedroia? Do I have to somehow show that I’m actually writing a book, and have a prayer of getting it published? Do I need to submit an summary or references to prove that it will be worth their time?

The authors also often thank people who knew other players. If you’re writing a book on a specific player, you often see thank yous for the player’s family, friends, teammates, first grade bus driver, and so on. Do those people need convincing? Will the Red Sox give me the number of David Ortiz’s wife?

Wouldn’t I have to at some point prove to a player that I’m not just a fan trying to set up a one-on-one drool fest? Do players get paid for their cooperation? I guess that would be one way to limit it. Or, they could only work with established writers. Although, that starts the chicken/egg problem of becoming established in order to become established. Do I need to write one strictly research book first? Do I need to write for a newspaper first? A blog?

Or, do I just get lucky? Can I ask the Red Sox to talk to Jed Lowrie, and just hope he doesn’t happen to have anything better to do with his afternoon? Just hope that he’d be willing to meet me for five minutes at a hotel restaurant just because it’s more interesting than watching TV?

How do you get that first guy to believe you?

How do Baseball Card Photographers take their pictures?

When you look through a stack of baseball cards, the variety of the shots always strikes me. You have shots in the dugout. Shots in the field. Shots at the plate. Action shots, and posed shots. I always wondered how they decided to take a picture of the third baseman backing up a throw, as opposed to the fielder making the throw, or the runner that caused the throw. Is it random? Luck? Skill? Do they just instinctively know which shot will make the best picture? How many pictures do they take each game? Do they have a system?

Being who I am, I suppose, I would have a system for myself to make sure I get a nice selection of shots of everyone. Say I went to a three-game series to take pictures. The first game, I’d focus on the home team. Every inning, I’d pick a position. In the top of that inning, I’d focus on that position in the field, taking as many shots as I could. So, if I picked left field in the first inning, I’d take shots of the left fielder all inning. If he’s standing in his ready position, click away. If he’s chasing down a flyball, click away. If he’s backing up a throw to third, click away. If he’s midair, making a diving grab, keep clicking. That would give me a nice selection of fielding shots of that player. In the bottom of the inning, take pictures of the batters. Swinging, stepping, checking, looking, shaking, whatever. So, now I have shots at the plate, and shots in the field. I’ve got every position player. Perfect.

The second game, I do the opposite. The same routine, but with the visiting team. Again, that gives me the chance to get a nice variety of shots of all the starters as they do the various things during the game. The third game of the series, I’d try to get everything else. Maybe that’s when I take some dugout shots. Or, shots of someone on-deck. Or, anyone who happens to be on base. Or, if I didn’t get many useable shots of a player before, I’d try to focus on him. Then, I’d have both teams covered, and have a great collection of shots.

Of course, I’d need a little flexibility when it came to the bench players. If a guy comes into the game late, I’d need to take advantage of the chance. Otherwise, I’d be stuck with bench/bullpen shots of the non-starters. Then, it would be off to another city to repeat the whole process over again.

I wonder if that’s how they do it.

How Do Pitchers See the Catcher’s Signals?

I like to think I have pretty good eyesight. I can read things. I can see street signs from the car. I can read posters from across the room. I can see. I don’t know if I could read catcher signals though.

60’-6” is about twenty paces. From that far, I could probably tell how many fingers a person is holding up. If you took twenty steps, and held up two fingers, I bet I could see it. But, what about when you crouch down and hold your fingers in front of you? The lack of contrast is a bit tougher. Then, put your fingers between your legs. The shadows certainly don’t help anything. Then, and this is the kicker, start flashing different signals. That’s the part that amazes me.

I can see figuring out the signals. I might be able to tell one finger from two fingers at 20 paces, even with the contrast and the shadows. But, when you start wiggling them? Come on. That’s just not fair. Even with the French manicures some catchers seem to give themselves, I’d have some trouble. That can’t be easy. But, every team and every catcher still does it. It’s a little strange really.

Can you imagine a football team calling in a play with something so basic, but easy to misread? I can just se BB getting Tom Brady’s attention, cupping his hand, and flicking up a finger really quick. Wouldn’t he at least have two other coaches doing the same thing with different signals to try and confuse? Shouldn’t the first baseman also be holding up a finger, so at least people can wonder which signal is the right one? Sometimes when a runner is on second base, they change up the signals so the runner can’t steal them…from 127 feet away. Where do these guys get their eyes? But, sometimes a catcher will use hand signals in that situation, much like a base coach would. A tap of the shoulder, then the knee, and so on. Why not use those signals all the time? They’d be much easier for the pitcher to see. Maybe that would cut down on cross-ups?

Or maybe I can’t see as well as I think I can.

36 Questions: Schedules

How do they make the schedules?

At the beginning of the year, there were some complaints about the schedule. It was felt that the Sox shouldn’t open against the Yankees. I agreed. As a Sox fan, I’d just as soon have the excitement of Opening Day be separate from the excitement of a Yankees series. I also would like the Sox to have a few games under their belt before the big series start. Ideally, I’d like to see them open against the Nationals, and then move on to other teams. Naturally, that’s not going to happen. But, the conversation got me thinking. How in the world do they manage to put a major league baseball schedule?

At first glance, I can see it being nearly impossible to set the games up for a team. The Sox need to play teams from the AL East 18 times each. You’d like to try and space those out a bit. You can’t schedule a team for too many games in a row without an off day. You need 81 games at home, and 81 games on the road. Those parameters on their own don’t make the job impossible. I can see myself with a blank calendar. I can picture placing series in until the numbers add up. Start with Baltimore, then Tampa. Then Kansas City, and so on. I can even imagine it would be easy to change it up from year to year. I’ll make the schedule for AL East Team A, and one for Team B, C, D, and E. I can change up which team is which every year, and that makes each years schedule different. That wouldn’t be awful.

But, of course, the schedule makers don’t do that. Why? Because they can’t. My schedule has left out a few criteria. The Red Sox need a homestand on Patriots day. I don’t know if other teams have similar requirements, but I bet there are a couple. That’s not too difficult to incorporate. But, I’ve left out the biggest requirement. Road trips. You can’t have a team go from LA to Minnesota, to Seattle, to Tampa. It would be too much. So, you set it up so that the Red Sox go from Seattle to Oakland to LA. At the very least, you need an off day in between. The Sox this year, for instance, have a game in San Francisco on a Sunday, and Tampa Bay on Tuesday. At least there’s a break. So, that all needs to be figured in. Not too bad either. Except, that means that Seattle and Oakland and LA need to have homestands on those days. It also means that you can’t mix up teams using the “Team A” process, because one time Team A could be Texas, and Team B Seattle. So, every year, to make things different, you need a whole new schedule.

Even with all those restrictions, I could probably put together the Red Sox schedule. Heck, I have an example to copy taped next to my computer. But, what about the next team? Just for fun, take this year’s Red Sox schedule. Without looking it up, use a blank calendar to try to create a schedule that would work for the Orioles. You’ll need to have them in Boston when the Red Sox are scheduled to be home, and in Baltimore when the Sox are scheduled to play at Camden Yards. From there, fill in the other games keeping road trips reasonable. It’s getting trickier. But, I bet it would be possible. OK. Now try Tampa. They need to be in Boston when the Sox play them at Fenway, Baltimore when the Orioles play them Camden Yards, and at the Trop when either the Red Sox or Orioles are scheduled to be in Tampa. Wowsers. It’s already getting a little crazy. I haven’t even added in Toronto or NY yet. I haven’t made you set aside time for the interleague play. If I kept going, adding teams to create schedules for, how long before you made a mess of things? When you get to Texas, could they be in Toronto when you already wanted them to be, and then in Arlington when you wanted them to be? What a mess. I have no idea how they do it year in and year out. I don’t doubt that there are computers involved, but even that’s a little crazy. Do they set a maximum number of miles between road stops? Maximum number of time zones? Maybe I need to cut the schedule makers a little slack.

How on earth do they put together a new schedule every year?

36 Questions: Why do celebrity endorsers work?

A certain golfer has put this issue a little bit in the spotlight lately. But, my question applies to Red Sox endorsers as well. Why do they work?

I can understand when Red Sox players endorse baseball equipment. If Kevin Youkilis uses a certain brand of batting glove, I can assume that it’s a decent batting glove. In reality, it’s probably the glove that offered Youk the most money…but work with me. The same goes for a bat, or cleat, or sunglasses. They use this stuff for a living, and probably know what makes a good one. If an accountant were endorsing a specific pencil, I’d listen to him too. There are even a few things that are just outside their area of expertise that I might go along with. If a Red Sox player endorsed a hotel chain, perhaps. I can assume that they spend a lot of time in hotels, and know what they’re talking about. Or a restaurant. They eat out all the time. If this is the best they’ve found, that’s probably a good idea. Although, in those cases their opinion may not apply to me. I don’t care what the room service is like in the penthouse of the Four Seasons. It doesn’t help me if a certain restaurant has a private dining room. But, in general, I would value a Red Sox player’s opinion on those types of products.

It’s the other stuff I don’t gat. Shaving cream? Delivery services? Coffee? Video games? Why would I care what a Red Sox player thought about any of those products? They might make entertaining commercials. The Dustin Pedroia commercials from EA Sports are great. I laugh every time I see them. But, does Dustin’s “endorsement” mean anything? Does he know what makes a good video game? Maybe. Maybe not. Johnny Damon did a clever spot a few years ago for DHL. Again, it was a cute commercial. But, does Johnny Damon have any inside information into the package delivery industry? Does he even send out any packages? Why do I care what he thinks?

So, why do celebrity endorsements work? Is it just name recognition? Is it just the fact that I remembered the name DHL after 4 years because of Johnny Damon? (I still ship all my stuff USPS, so it didn’t work. But, I guess I remembered the name.) Why does a player standing next to a product make me want to buy it?

It’s not like I’m a NASCAR fan.

36 Questions

Where do athletes get each other’s phone numbers?

It comes out a lot during the offseason. A free agent will get a call from someobody convincing them to join their team. Or the free agent will call a player on a team he’s interested in and ask him about the team or the city. It makes a lot of sense. But, how do they get the number?

It happened recently with the Mike Cameron signing. The asked him about the fact that he was a centerfielder, and Jacoby Ellsbury also plays center field. Cameron said that he called Ellsbury to talk it all over with him to make sure he was ok with it. Who gave him the number? Does Cameron ask Theo? Does he say, “Hey I’d like to call Ellsbury to talk it over…can you give me his digits?” Does Theo just hand them over? Does he pull the old, I’ll call him and give him your number? Is it really a conference call with Theo in the room to make it all professional? What if Jacoby doesn’t want to give his number out? What if he thinks Cameron is a jerk and doesn’t want him knowing where he is? What happens than?

And that’s a simple example involving two players with a common thread in the same sport. What about across sports? I remember when Nomar Garciaparra had his wrist surgery. It was reported that he called a member of the Bruins who had had a similar surgery to talk about the recovery with him. Who gets Nomar that number? Does he call the Bruins Customer Service number and ask? Does he happen to have a common friend? Is there a “Boston Area Sports” phone book somewhere that I don’t know about? Why does Nomar have access to this discussion when I don’t? Just because he’s famous, other famous people agree to talk to him? If I have wrist surgery, can I call Nomar up to see how he dealt with it?

My favorite example, though, is Peyton Manning. When he was a junior in college, he was trying to decide whether or not to leave school early. Tim Duncan, had faced a similar decision, and decided to play out his college career. So, Manning called Duncan to talk it over. Who on earth was the match-maker in that one? This college punk wants to call the NBA rookie of the year. Can we make that happen? Manning wouldn’t have an agent who knew people. Did the AD at Tennessee know the Wake Forrest AD and go through it that way? Again, is that option available to everyone? If I’m a college junior, and wonder if I should drop out to work on my family farm, can I call Manning? If I have wrist surgery while in college, can I set up a conference call with Manning and Nomar? If I wanted to talk to a random accountant or engineer, I wouldn’t have any idea how to get their number. How on earth do you break into the inner circle of a professional athlete?

How do I get my hands on that phone book?

36 Questions: What rights do the MLBPA hold?

I have a 2009 Fenway Park calendar…shocking as that must be. It’s an especially cool calendar in my case since I was at a few of the games they feature. The Calendar is licensed by MLB, so it has the Red Sox logo plastered everywhere. It’s the old circle logo, but I’ll give them a break since it’s the first year. The calendar is not, apparently, licensed by the MLB Players Association. It was interesting to me what I guess that means.

Most of the pictures are nice scenic shots of Fenway taken from well up in the stands. You can’t really tell who the players are unless you really think about it. That big guy in left with the long hair is probably Manny Ramirez. I assumed that was part of the lack of MLBPA license. They couldn’t have the players recognizable without their rights. The odd part was that they also airbrushed away their numbers. The May pictures us a nice action shot. There’s a batter at the plate awaiting the pitch. There are runners on at first and third, ready to pounce. But, I can’t concentrate on the action. My eyes are drawn to the solid white backs on the batter, third base coach, and the runner at third. The Players somehow own the rights to their numbers? The Red Sox don’t own the rights to the number 34 written in a Red Sox font…the player does? That seems a little odd. Does that only apply to the current player wearing the number? Can Steve Avery allow the licensing of a glut of “Red Sox 33” merchandise…or does it have to be Tek? If there is no current member wearing the number, is it up for grabs? Could the calendar have photo shopped in the number 21?

In the August photo, there’s a shot of the centerfield jumbotron. The player’s picture has been blacked out, as well as his name. The stats remain, though. So, if you really wanted to check, you could probably figure out who it would have been. But, the MLBPA has the rights to a picture that happens to be in the background? What about the fact that I can pretty easily figure out that it’s Dice-K on the mound? How is that different? In November, it got a little weirder. Again, there’s a jumbotron shot. Again the player’s picture has been blacked out. This time, there are no stats either. But, the player’s name is still there…it’s just slightly blurry. You can pretty easily tell that it’s Grady Sizemore though. So, they went through the trouble of removing everything else…but left the players name? Can they use the name as long as there’s not other identifying information? Without the picture or the stats, could it be some other “Grady Sizemore” who happened to be batting leadoff for the Cleveland Indians? Where is the line in the sand?

Who decides which rights are which?

36 Questions: What’s the difference between an excuse and a reason?

You hear a lot about excuses this time of year. When the baseball season reaches the playoffs, postgame interviews are covered with references to excuses. Mostly, it’s one team or player not wanting to use something as an excuse. Apparently, it makes you weaker to use something as an excuse. I’m just not exactly sure why.

After a poor performance, most reporters ask a player or team the same question. “What happened?” For some reason, though, the player isn’t really allowed to answer. If he does, he’s just making excuses. I just wonder, why can’t it simply be a reason, and not an excuse? If the player gives a reason, does that mean they couldn’t have done anything to prevent it? Isn’t it just an answer to a question?

Earlier in this postseason, Matt Holliday made a costly error on a fly ball. It has been suggested that he lost the ball in white towels that the fans were waving. But, he wouldn’t say that himself. That would have been making excuses. Why can’t he say, “I lost it in the little white towels. I should have done a better job of blocking them out, but couldn’t. If the towels weren’t there, I’m sure I would have made the catch.” Is that not all true? Is that somehow not taking fault for the error because he explained why he made it?

You see the “excuse” word used a lot when it comes to injuries. If a team loses it’s best player, the rest of the team will try to ignore it. Sometimes, they’ll actually say they won’t use it as an excuse? Why not? Isn’t it fair to say that if Mark Teixeira goes down with an injury during a game, that the Yankees will be at a disadvantage? Why can’t they say that? “Boy, we lost our best player, and top run producer. It really put us in a hole that we couldn’t climb out of.” Instead, Jeter will trot out something closer to “We can’t make excuses. We just need to buckle down, and get the job done.” Which begs the question, if the Yankees could just buckle down and get the job done without Teix, why give him the $150 million in the first place?

Maybe we’d get actual answer from players if they were allowed to give actual answers. If it’s 30 degrees out, so Beckett can’t grip his curveball correctly leading to control problems, I want to know that. I don’t want to know that he needed to try harder. If Drew has a pulled hamstring, and couldn’t make it to that ball in the gap in time, I want to know. It’s not an excuse. It’s a legitimate point. Why not make it? Whenever one team wins, and another loses there are plenty of reasons why.

Why can’t everyone just talk about them?　

36 Questions: Why is a season defined by a championship?

Why does one game, or one series, have the ability to negate or define an entire season? Why do sports leagues even play a regular season if the essence of the year can be defined by a one-month playoff? Especially, when the playoff structure, as I’ve mentioned before, makes the playoffs a much different animal than the regular season. Why not just start in May with a 30-team bracket, leading up to a championship? If that’s all it comes down to, make it really come down to it. Every team would start out even, with a seven game series against another random team. Last team standing wins. After all, the playoffs don’t reward regular season anyway. Let’s see how Kansas City would do in the playoffs of they could throw Grienke three times a series. Would they be able to beat many of the current playoff teams? I bet they could. So, why can’t we hail them as having a great season? If great regular seasons can be thrown out by a postseason loss, shouldn’t poor regular seasons be thrown out with playoff wins?

This came up recently with the Patriots. Sure, it’s another sport, but it’s an easier illustration. You may recall that the 2007 Patriots had an undefeated regular season, but lost the Super Bowl. Suddenly, the greatest team ever, was reduced to just another team with a decent regular season. But, explore it a little more. The Pats won 18 games, the most ever, and finished 18-1. The 1985 Chicago Bears also finished the season 18-1. They are considered one of the greatest teams ever, if not the greatest. The difference between the two? The Bears loss came in the regular season, while the Pat’s came at the end. That’s the difference? The timing of the loss? In 1985, the Bears loss came to Miami. The Bears didn’t face Miami again in the playoffs. So, they finished the season without ever having beaten the Dolphins. In the Pats case, they lost to the Giants. The difference? They had already beaten the Giants a few weeks earlier. Clearly, they were capable of beating NY. We’ll never know if Chicago was capable of beating Miami. So, if the Pats had lost the 16^th game of the season, but won the 19^th instead of the other way around, they’d be one of the greatest teams of all time? How bizarre is that?

Sure, the goal of every team, in every season, is to with the championship. But should it really define the greatness of a team? If the Yankees win 120 regular season games, but lose the ALCS because Beckett and Lester shut them out twice each, does that mean the season was a bad one? Why? Doesn’t it just mean the Sox have two better pitchers? When the Cardinals won the World Series after barely making the playoffs, does that really mean they had the best season? The best results, sure. But the best season? I’ve heard Derek Jeter say that the best teams make the playoffs, but the hottest teams win the playoffs. I know he was just using it as an excuse as to why he didn’t win. But, if that’s true, should his rings be held in the same regard?

Shouldn’t the best seasons belong to the best teams…not the hottest?

36 Questions: Why Do Rosters Expand in September?

Every September, ML teams are allowed to expand their rosters. They can add more players to help them out for the last month of the season. I’m just not real sure as to why they do it.

Because of the pitching rotations, baseball is already one of the few sports that really changes from the regular season to the post season. A football team that performs well in the regular season, probably will perform as well in the postseason. Unless someone gets hurt, most of the same players will play in each game. In baseball, that’s different. With the number of games played during the regular season, most teams use a five-man pitching rotation. So, a team with 5 pretty good pitchers will probably win more games than a team with two great pitchers, and three scrubs. In the postseason, though, the team with two great pitches can configure them so that’s really all you need. Just ask Arizona fans. So, what you get, is a team that is built for the regular season, but not the playoffs…ore vice versa. The September call-ups would look to add even another wrinkle. In the case of the Red Sox, they had a pretty deep bench, and pitching staff. They had the different qualities they’d like in bench players, and have benefited from that. Suddenly, other teams are allowed to improve their bench without trying. By sheer volume, they can have players on hand to do whatever they may find that they need. That happens in the pen too. Suddenly, the bullpen is stocked with any kinds of arms a team could want. So, what happens is to really have three seasons. There’s the regular season from April to August. In this season, teams are rewarded for depth, and careful bench selection. Then, when the playoff run starts, teams are given the advantage of quantity. Depth isn’t as important, because everyone has depth. You don’t need a guy who can play first, third and outfield. You just find a guy who can play first, one that can play third, and one that can play outfield. Not to mention, that most of these call-ups won’t be able to play in the postseason. So, for the most important month of the season, teams can use players they can’t use later. Why would baseball upset the competitive balance like that? There must be a good reason…right?

By September, many of the minor league seasons are winding down. It is nice for some of the top minor league talent to have something to do. Although, I remember the Red Sox teams of years gone by waiting to call up extra players so that they could compete in minor league playoff games. But, killing time better not be the reason. Is upsetting the league worth getting some youngster a couple extra at bats? Heck, lots of the time the call ups are on the bench anyway. It’s nice for older teams to have the extra subs on hand. It allows players to get a little extra rest after a long season of aches and pains. But, isn’t that forgiving the teams without the foresight to employ younger healthy players? Once again, a team that did a good job to obtain an advantage sees that advantage taken away. It’s nice for the call-ups. Most of them are making their ML debuts. For some of them, it will be the only time they spend on a Major League roster. But, I can’t imagine a league messing with things so players can feel good about themselves. You know, other than Joe Torre’s All-Star teams.

So, what’s the reason? What’s so important that MLB is willing to change the whole dynamic of the league. Why does it penalize smart teams when it matters the most? I don’t get it.

Why do rosters expand in September?

36 Questions: Seeing a pitcher

Question: How does Seeing a Pitcher Help a Hitter?

The Sox have hit a little snag recently against pitchers they have no business hitting a snag against. They often find themselves struggling against young pitchers who haven’t been around very long. The reasoning usually given is that the batters haven’t seen the pitcher before, so that presents problems. What exactly does that mean? I’ve also heard that term used when talking about closers. It’s been said that closers can get away with fewer pitches in their arsenal since a batter only sees them once, as opposed to a starter. Is that the same thing?

I can almost understand the young pitcher part of the equation. It takes a while to know what sorts of pitches the pitcher throws, and maybe even which arm slot those pitches come from. Scouting can tell some of that. A decent scout can tell you which pitches the guy can throw, and probably even when he likes to throw them. But, knowing exactly where the ball comes from every time probably takes actually facing the pitcher. So, when a patter faces a pitcher for the first time, I can see it taking a pitch or two just to see where the ball is coming from. But, does that mean that the batter remembers where the ball comes from for every pitcher he’s ever faced? When David Ortiz digs in against CC Sabathia, does he know instantly where to look? Does he have in his head that a curveball should come from 2 inches above his cap, or whatever? I know some golfers who remember almost every detail of golf courses they’ve only played once, a few years ago. They know which holes have doglegs left, or clumps of trees in the fairway. Are batters like that? Do they just have this photographic-like memory of every pitcher ever? If so, how do pitchers stay around? Hasn’t every batter in the majors seen Jamie Moyer by now? Don’t they all have that picture of where the ball comes from? How does he not get hit hard every time out? (Ok, maybe Moyer’s not the best example?) I assume he survives by changing things up. If so, aren’t all those mental pictures out there wrong? So, how are they helpful?

How does that apply to the difference between starters and closers? I remember people saying Derek Lowe might make a good closer since he always seemed to pitch 3 great innings at the beginning of a start. But, once the batters got a second look at him, he was hit pretty hard. So, apparently, the mental picture the batters had of Derek Lowe needed some fine-tuning, and it took a plate appearance to remember exactly wheat Lowe looked like on the mound? Why doesn’t that apply to these rookie pitchers? After an at-bat, don’t they now know what it all looks like? And, what about long-time closers like Mariano Rivera or Trevor Hoffman. Haven’t all the batters faced them enough to have the mental picture all ready to go? Is that why Rivera has so much trouble with the Red Sox? Do all the Sox have great mental pictures ready to go right out of the box?

Is “seeing a pitcher” one of those things that’s different for every pitcher and hitter? Does Manny Ramirez just need one pitch to figure it all out, while Nick Green might need three at-bats to just get a clue? Did Pedro Martinez have so much working in his favor that batters never really figured it out, while John Wasdin never fooled anybody?

What does it really mean to have seen a pitcher before?

36 Questions: Pitchers

Do Teams Baby Their Pitchers Too Much?

Right off the bat, a disclaimer. In this post, I’m assuming that pitchers aren’t people. Pretend with me that they are robots that can be treated as we see fit. If that’s the case, do we baby the pitchers too much with all the five-man rotations and pitch counts? Let’s compare, say, Cy Young, Sandy Koufax, and Pedro Martinez. Three pitchers from three completely different eras. Pitchers were handled differently in each generation. Starting with Cy Young…

Cy Young pitched from 1890 to 1911. Starting in 1890, when he was 23, Young threw at least 400 innings for 4 of the next 5 years. In those years, he won 9, 27, 36, 34, and 26 games. At this point, he entered the “prime of his career” which I will assume to be ages 28-32. In those 5 years he pitched 370, 414, 335, 377, and 369 innings, winning 35, 28, 21, 25, and 26 games. For the next five years, he has another pretty good stretch. Ages 33-37 he pitches 321, 371, 384, 341, and 380 innings winning 19, 33, 32, 28, and 26 games. So, there we have three distinct time periods. Pre-prime (23-27), he threw 1853 innings, winning 132 games. Prime (28-32) numbers were 1865 innings and 135 wins. Post-Prime (33-37) he posted 1797 innings and 138 wins. Not a bad career. He pitched a TON of innings, even when he was a youngster. He was able to give his team just over 400 wins pitching during that time.

Koufax had a much different career. He was 23 in 1959. In his pre-prime years, he pitched a total of 1078 innings, with 73 wins. Compared to Young, he was just getting his feet wet during these years. In his prime, he pitched 881 innings and won 72 games before blowing out his arm, and leaving the game at age 30. So, Koufax had a good beginning. He pitched his arm off during his prime years, and it cost him.

Pedro is another story. He was 23 in 1994. So, his pre-prime period had him pitching 1028 innings with 74 wins. The prime period consisted of 932 innings with 82 wins. Compared to Koufax, he pitched only 51 extra innings, with two extra years. Post prime, Pedro amassed 703 innings and collected 48 wins. You can see a definite drop off in the later years of his career.
So, what exactly does all this mean? I have no idea. But, you have three pitchers handled differently, and reacting differently. You can look at Young’s incredible number of innings, and say he was the exception. Not all pitchers, even in his era, could handle that kind of abuse to the arm. Which would be true. But, obviously, some could. With Koufax, you can see the opposite. He was pitched and pitched until it ended his career. One could look at him and say, if he had more rest, or was handled differently, he could have pitched longer. And, that may have been true. Just like with Pedro. They had him pitch a little less often, and his career did go longer than Koufax. But, are the years that Pedro got at the end worth saving?

Look at the Red Sox. They had Pedro in his prime…1999-2003. It’s a toss up between Pedro and Koufax as to who had the best 5-year stretch in history. But, the Red Sox babied Pedro a bit. They spaced out his starts. And, it worked. Unlike Koufax, Pedro was able to pitch 5 years of “post-prime” baseball. The thing is…four of those years were with the Mets. That didn’t help the Sox. Four of those years weren’t very good because, lets face it, older pitchers aren’t as good as younger ones. So, really, what did the Red Sox save by holding Pedro back? What if they treated him more like Koufax? When Pedro was having the greatest three-year span in history from 1998-2000, what if the Sox had pitched him to death. What if they used up all his bullets when he was the best pitcher in baseball? Sure, he may have lost a few years of his career. But, those years didn’t help the Sox anyway. Do you think the Dodgers would prefer that Koufax had pitched a few hundred fewer innings earlier on so he could pitch a few more years for the Mets? I doubt it.

So, what if we just treated pitchers like expendable machines? Just pitch them like the old days. Pitch them until their arm falls off. When it falls off, get another pitcher and try again. You may luck out and get a Young (or apparently Sabathia), who can pitch forever under those circumstances. You may get a guy like Koufax, who is brilliant, but for a short time. But, in either case, it’s better than trading Pedro’s best innings for innings that won’t help you later. That doesn’t make much sense.

Would the Sox trade eight more starts of 1999 vintage Pedro for 20 starts of 2008 Pedro?

36 Questions: Trades

Another thing I’ve always wondered about is how a trade gets started. It’s especially interesting when a big name player is involved. How do people know who is available? How do they know what they want? If Theo Epstein is reading, he’s welcome to answer.

For instance, the Red Sox reportedly made an inquiry into Hanley Ramirez earlier in this offseason. Is that how it happens? Do the Red Sox say to themselves that they have a need at short, and just start calling teams to see if, perchance, their player is available? Do they just call the Marlins to ask about Ramirez? Do they call the Phillies every few days, just to see if Rollins happens to become available? Do they call the Yankees about Jeter? Do they scour the local newspapers to see if a player is unwanted by the team? Do teams call Theo every day just to see if for some reason he’d like to trade Pedroia? Do the Cardinals just cold-call Theo and ask about Papelbon’s availability? You know at some price, every member of the team would be tradeable. So, the Cards call out of the blue and ask about Papelbon. Does Theo respond, “Sure…for Pujols?” What if they say OK? Do general managers just call each other every two days to see if anything comes out?
“Hi, Theo. How are things?”
“My leftfielder is driving me nuts. I’d trade him for a new bat at this point.”
“Really…interesting. If you tossed in a couple other players and some cash, maybe I could help”

How does a deal ever come together? There are hundreds of players in any organization. How do you decide which A-ball prospect is worth a back-up outfielder? When you have a chip to trade…say a gold glove caliber center fielder who can run…how do you find a match? Does Theo call every club and ask what they need, hoping one of them says they need an outfielder? Does he look around at teams he thinks need an outfielder and offer him to them? Does he look around for a team that has what he needs…say a middle reliever…and call them with an offer? How does it all work?

And, how does anything ever get done?

36 Questions: Pitch Location

I’ve touched on this question before, when discussing the value of a catcher like Jason Varitek to a team. But, I really haven’t quite figured out just how a pitcher knows where to throw the baseball.

I was never a pitcher or catcher, even in Little League. But I remember coaches always telling the catcher to get his glove up there, and give the pitcher a good target. Now, in Little League, that’s fairly straightforward. The catcher sticks the glove up there. The pitcher throws a fastball as close as he can to the glove. At that level, there’s not a lot more that can be done. But, what happens when you get to the Major League level? At this point, pitchers should hit the glove every time. In fact, they should be able to place their fastball right along the outside edge of the plate if it’s called for. If it’s a curveball, they should be able to place it so that it bears in on the hitter, and swoops over the inside corner. The splitter should start at the knees and dive into the dirt. When does all that information get transferred from pitcher to catcher?

We’ve all seen it. A catcher will get into a crouch, and stick his hand between his legs. He’ll hold down a finger or two. He may wiggle his fingers. He may even slap his thigh. Now, the common theory is that one finger means a fastball. Two fingers may be a curve. Three may be a changeup, or whatever. The catcher usually flashes a bunch of signs, and the pitcher has to know which one the catcher means for the pitch. So, the actual pitch selection is pretty straightforward. But, then what?
The catcher sets up, and sticks his mitt out, say at the outside corner. The pitcher then goes into his wind-up, and throws the ball at the mitt on the outside corner. But, sometimes to fool a hitter, or runner at second base, the catcher bounces around behind the plate changing the location. So, the pitcher needs to change the location of the pitch mid wind-up? Or did he already know that the catcher would change the location? What about a “move him back” fastball? Pedro would plunk a hitter or two in his day. I never saw a catcher place his mitt behind a hitter. Sometimes a pitcher will “waste” one and throw it outside hoping the batter flails at it. The catcher’s mitt is never halfway into the outside batter’s box. What about a wicked Randy Johnson slider that practically hits the right handed batter in the foot. Again, the catcher never sets the target on the ground. It’s always somewhere over the plate. Couldn’t that mean Johnson’s supposed to start the slider off the plate, but break it into the mitt? Clearly the target set by the catcher isn’t the whole story.

Somewhere, additional information is passed from catcher to pitcher. Is it something agreed upon before the game? Is it understood that no matter where Tek sets up behind the plate, Papelbon better be bouncing Mr. Splitty? Is the target where the pitcher aims the pitch, not where it ends up? I just don’t know.

Anyone know the rest of the story?

36 Questions: Throw Days

Even though I have been watching baseball for quite some time now, there are still questions that come up while I’m watching games. Most of these are probably common knowledge for anyone actually playing the games. But, since that’s not me, I question them. One has to do with a starting pitcher’s ‘throw days”

Many times, usually during the playoffs, you’ll hear that a starting pitcher is available to come in from the bullpen. Usually, the reasoning is that, since it’s the pitcher’s “throw day” he can go an inning or two. So, I’m left to wonder how exactly a throw day works.

While I’ve never seen it specifically spelled out, I think I can guess at what a throw day is. My assumption is that with a 5 man rotation, a pitcher’s workload goes something like: start, off day, off day, off day, off day, start. There may be an extra off day in there depending on the team’s schedule. My assumption is that the day following a start is probably a light day to rest the arm. I would also assume that the day before a start is also light, to save the arm for the next day’s start. But, I imagine the arm doesn’t like having four days with no activities, so there’s some throwing scheduled to keep the arm loose. So, it would seem that one of the other two off days would be designated as a “throw day.” Judging by how long these starters pitch when the come in from the pen on their throw day, they probably throw 20 or 30 pitches on their throw day. That’s enough to keep them loose, without taxing their arms. That much I think I’m pretty close on. On one of the off days between starts, pitchers throw 30 pitches to stay loose. But, when?

Playoff games start as late as possible these days. If a game starts at 8:00, it must be 10 or so by the time bullpen help would be discussed. So, if a starter is available because it is his throw day, he must not have already “thrown,” right? Would you have a starter throw his 30 pitches in the afternoon, and then another 30 pitches that night? The pitcher must have been saving his throws in case he needs them during the game. But, what if they’re not needed? He still has to throw, right? Does he do it after the game? Some of those playoff games aren’t over until midnight. Does the pitcher hang around after the game, have a bite to eat, then head out to the bullpen at 1 AM to get his throwing in? That seems weird.

So, like I said, there’s probably a very simple answer. I just don’t know it. Does anyone else know?

How does a “throw day” work?