|
|
|
 |
Jeff Fletcher | February 26, 2009
Just found this video on ESPN.com. It’s an interview Rickey Henderson did with Mike and Mike. It’s pretty entertaining, as he goes through the fact or fiction about some of those Rickey stories.
Jeff Fletcher | February 25, 2009
Today is an exciting day. It’s the start of exhibition games. From my years of covering spring training, I can tell you the first exhibition game is an eagerly anticipated event.
The second? Not so much.
In fact, the Cactus League Opener is just about the only one of these games with any redeeming qualities whatsoever.
I remember back when I was a fan, I used to make an annual trip to Arizona and watch games for a week. Although I knew they didn’t count, and I knew the players weren’t necessarily giving it 100 percent, I still enjoyed them and rooted for my team to win.
Now that I’ve been on the inside, so to speak, and I really see how different these games are from real games, I find them difficult to watch. Exhibition “games” is not the right term. The object of a game is to win, right? How about “baseball related activities.” I came to this realization one day when I was talking to a player in the morning, and he asked me: “Did we win yesterday?” Or maybe it was when a player asked me: “Who are we playing today?” Or maybe it was when I was in the clubhouse during a game interviewing a starting pitcher, and a dozen other players were in there watching the NCAA tournament.
The problem is not simply that the players don’t care, it’s the way the games are played. The pitchers generally don’t use any sort of game-like strategy against the hitters. They just throw what they want to work on. Doesn’t matter who’s hitting. Managers determine in advance which pitchers are throwing which innings, regardless of the results. When the teams are completely turning over at least once during a game, it’s difficult to have continuity. I can’t tell you how many games I’ve seen that were 6-0 in the fifth and 12-10 at the end.
There’s nothing wrong with any of that. That’s exactly the way you should approach practice. It’s just a little tiresome to watch for three hours a day.
Hopefully, most people who go down and pay money to see these games go with the right frame of mind. It’s a chance to spend some time in sun and dream about the baseball season.
It’s funny. During the regular season I’d think anyone who left a game before the final out “doesn’t get it.” During spring training, I’d say that about anyone who stayed.
Jeff Fletcher | February 24, 2009
A’s owner Lew Wolff just released the following statement:
After much consideration, today we informed Mayor Wasserman and City Council members that the Oakland Athletics will cease efforts to relocate our franchise to the City of Fremont .
I expressed my regrets and gratitude, especially to those people who shared our vision and spent endless hours in support of our proposal. However, it became increasingly clear that our ballpark project faced significant delays ahead and I could not, in good conscience, continue to lead our team down this path.
My focus now is on baseball with Spring Training and the opening of the 2009 season. I am extremely excited about the team’s prospects this year. My goal and desire for the organization is to determine a way to keep the team in Northern California . This goal has not changed.
Here you can see a copy of the letter.
Jeff Fletcher | February 24, 2009
It seems there is a little battle brewing here this spring between these two guys, even though the general consensus a month ago seemed to be that Travis Ishikawa was the guy. I still believe he is, but let’s take a look and break ‘em down a little.
They are both 25. Bowker’s about two months older. Ishikawa has much more pro experience since he signed out of high school and Bowker went to college.
Here are their career minor league lines…
Bowker .293/.347/.466
Ishikawa .260/.350/.453
And here are their major league lines…
Bowker .255/.300/.408
Ishikawa .277/.333/.445
It looks like Bowker may be a slightly better hitter. Even though he tanked in the second half in the majors last year, that could just be because he had enough at-bats to tank (326), whereas Ishikawa (119) wasn’t up for long enough for the pitchers to get a good book on him.
Defensively, there is a big difference, but not as big as you might think. Bowker’s a converted outfielder and Ishikawa is a true first baseman with a reputation for having a very good glove. According to one Giants person I talked to about them last year, though, Bowker is really better than you’d think and Ishikawa is really worse. That closes the gap, but Ishikawa is still better.
So, after all that, we’ve settled nothing.
I would go with Ishikawa unless Bowker dramatically outplays him in the spring, for a few reasons. First, defense is fairly important at first base, especially for the Giants. They are giving away enough defensively at the other infield spots, there is no reason to give away even more here. Second, Ishikawa has much more pro experience, and that makes him more likely to be able to handle the adjustments that pitchers will make to him in the big leagues. He may not hit .300 in the majors, but I don’t seem him dropping off a cliff the way Bowker did. Finally, Ishikawa is out of options. It’s no lock that the Giants would lose him if they put him on waivers, and I don’t think it would be the end of the world if they did, but it’s certainly another factor that tips the scales in his favor.
Loading ...Jeff Fletcher | February 22, 2009
I know, I know. No more steroids, please! I don’t like writing about steroids, but I felt compelled to point out an article that I discovered via Peter Gammons via John Perricone of Only Baseball Matters. It was written in Sports Illustrated almost 40 years ago and everyone should read it. It vividly described the use of performance enhancing drugs in all sports a generation ago.
I won’t get into all of it here, but the point is that athletes have been pushing the envelope since the beginning of time. There is nothing new about steroids. And the guys in the ’50s and ’60s were certainly also doing whatever they could to get an edge (an exerpt in the SI article describes Bob Gibson popping pills to allow him to pitch). They may have been doing even more back then when there were fewer teams and competition for jobs was more fierce.
I feel pretty confident that if you took 700 major leaguers out of 1952 and dropped them into 2002, the same percentage of them would have used steroids. Why wouldn’t they? Were they somehow more pure back then? They were still just a bunch of guys trying to get rich by hitting a baseball better than anyone else. Certainly everyone by now is familiar with Mike Schmidt’s quote: ”Let me go out on a limb and say that if I had played during that era I would have taken steroids… We all have these things we deal with in life, and I’m surely not going to sit here and say to you guys, ‘I wouldn’t have done that.’”
Athletes do what they have to do to get ahead. That’s in their DNA.
That’s why I have trouble getting all indignant when I hear that Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens or Alex Rodriguez cheated. I just can’t get on board with the talk-show hosts and columnists who want to make a big stink or decry the state of sports or talk about how it was “in the good old days.”
Of course it’s wrong to use steroids. Of course it’s stupid.
But if a guy wants to risk his own health in an effort to make himself more money and entertain me, that’s his problem.
Not mine.
Jeff Fletcher | February 21, 2009
A weekly look at stuff other than baseball…
Forgot to mention one interesting thing about me last week: I have only to been to one country outside of North America, and it’s Finland. Finland! I was there on a trip with my high school hockey team. Yes, I’m a hockey player, which qualifies me as a pretty rare breed out here in the Golden State.
Funny thing is, I’m a much better hockey player as a 39-year-old in California than I was as a 17-year-old in Ohio. Most of the guys I play against now are players who didn’t even start playing until they were adults.
“I may suck,” I tell them, “but I’ve been sucking at this since I was 8.”
One of the guys I have played with is none other than A’s manager Bob Geren. He’s a late-in-life convert. Started playing in Arizona in his 40s. Bob still has some work to do as a hockey player. I told him when he’s on the ice he’s like the sun: bigger than everything and everything goes around it. Once Bob and I played defense together and we locked it down.
The A’s, by the way, had a whole bunch of hockey players around recently. Canadian Rich Harden and Minnesotan Dan Johnson were hockey players, of course. Pitching coach Curt Young (Michigan) and former bullpen coach Brad Fischer (Wisconsin) were also players. Even Bobby Crosby, a SoCal native, used to play.
If you want a peek at a guy who is going to be really good, check out this.
On to other things…
Loading ...Jeff Fletcher | February 20, 2009
One of my loyal readers, so inspired by the stirring debate we had about Kevin Frandsen, wanted me to throw Nate Schierholtz out to you all for some discussion.
How good do you think Schierholtz will become?
I’ll start. I think Schierholtz is still a pretty good prospect. I like him better than just about all of the other Giants hitters, with the possible exception of Pablo Sandoval. I think Schierholtz has some tools that Sandoval does not. He is good defensively. He has a good arm. He runs OK. At the plate, I’d like to see him draw a few more walks, but otherwise he’s pretty solid. He’s even got some power potential in there.
I say Schierholtz winds up being a solid everday player, although not a star. I see him being a Jose Guillen-type player eventually. Andre Ethier. Jeff Francoer. Those kind of guys.
OK, now as Linda Richmond would say: “Talk among yourselves…”
