Shortstop: Adam Everett

There is this sense among older baseball fans that people just don’t care as much about defense as they used to. There’s also a sense that nobody can bunt nowadays and nobody catches the ball with two hands and the pitchers these days can’t throw strikes, and why is it that nobody appreciates the value of a dollar anymore, a dollar is a lot of money, and don’t get me started on those kids with their hair and the rap music and the tattoos and that Britney Spears dancing in those skimpy devil clothes and …

Oh, wait, sorry, got lost for a second.

(Speaking of catching the ball with two hands, Thursday in San Francisco I saw someone hit a long fly ball left field, and Barry Bonds chased it down, reached out his glove hand, caught the ball, and then used his left hand to make sure it did not pop out of his glove. In other words, 43-year-old Barry Bonds, the scourge of middle-America, the scapegoat of the Steroid Era, the guy Bud Selig was reportedly hoping would get hurt, caught the fly ball precisely the way fathers teach their children. And I could not help but imagine a Dad watching the game with those children, seeing Bonds catch the ball that way, and then swallowing hard and pointing at Barry and saying, “See Bob and Julie. That’s the correct way to do it.” I can’t imagine there will be another scene quite like that on this chase).

Anyway, the point of this is that an older generation of baseball fans is more or less convinced that defense is simply not appreciated the way it once was, and I have to say they may be right. Take Adam Everett. He is a defensive marvel at shortstop. Last year, when we did the first Fielding Bible Awards – ten people voting the top 10 players at each position – Everett almost scored a perfect 100. He scored higher than anyone else at any position. He is, unquestionably (in my small circle of baseball friends, anyway), the best defensive shortstop in the game.

And yet, nobody in the grand scheme of baseball seems to notice this. Or they notice but they don’t care. Everett has never won a Gold Glove (while Derek Jeter, again, has won three. Oh Justice, Sweet Justice, where art thou?). There always seems to be talk coming out of Houston that Everett will be traded (but he never is because nobody else seems to appreciate his defense either). His job always seems on the line.

All of this (including the Gold Glove snubbing) happens because Adam Everett can’t hit a lick. He’s one of the worst everyday hitters in the big leagues as his lovely lifetime 69 OPS+ demonstrates. The Astros do keep playing Everett despite his offensive impotence, which says something good about his defense, but they seem do it only grudgingly, sort of the way the Dread Pirate Roberts kept Wesley as his valet (“Good night Wesley. Good work. Sleep well. I’ll most likely kill you in the morning”).

The truth is that Everett bears a strong resemblance (as a player) to Mark Belanger.

-- In his career, Belanger hit .228/.300/.280. Everett has hit .247/.299/.357.
-- In his career, Belanger had an OPS+ of 68. Everett, as mentioned, has a 69 OPS+.
-- Both were very steady defensive shortstops who made all the plays.

But Belanger, unlike Everett, was sort of hero of his time. He won eight Gold Gloves. He was constantly being praised. He was the ultimate, “That’s how you play the game, Son” player. Why? It seems to be me Belanger had three distinct advantages:

1. He played in an era when runs were precious.
2. He played for a manager in Earl Weaver, who not only appreciated the value of defense but was creative enough to maximize his talents and minimize his weaknesses (this was in the era of eight and nine man pitching staffs, when managers had many more pinch-hitting and platooning options).
3. He played behind a world-class pitching staff and for teams that always won.

Because of these things, Belanger became an icon. It also didn’t hurt that every so often Belanger would have a sort of decent offensive year – in 1969, for instance, he had a .357 on-base percentage. He did have had a few scrappy offensive talents. Sure, Belanger had absolutely no power, and after 1977 he hit .204. But he would get you a walk now and then, and he famously had some success against the hardest throwers (he hit better than .600 against Jim Kern, he hit .421 against Goose Gossage. I’d always heard he hit Nolan Ryan well too, but apparently that’s a myth – he hit .244 against Ryan).

Everett, meanwhile, plays in an offensive era, in an offensive park, for a team that annually seems to have trouble at some point scoring runs. He doesn’t walk. He strikes out quite a bit. And, it might be worth mentioning, that he doesn’t play SMOOTH defense the way Belanger did. He’s terrific, and he’s got a great arm, but aesthetically, well, he doesn’t make the plays look very pretty. Maybe this matters. I don’t know. And I should also say I don’t know if you can have a good-defense, no-hit shortstop in today’s era and win. People I know in baseball seemed split on it.

In any case, Everett been out for weeks with a broken leg and will probably be out for a while longer. He’s only played the 63 games. But taking everything into account, I still think he’s the best defensive shortstop in the game. And I think had he played in the 1970s for Earl Weaver, he probably would have been better appreciated.

I can tell you that I watched Troy Tulowitzki play three games against the Royals, and I left feeling entirely ambivalent about him. I don’t mean that I ambivalent about how he played. I’m saying that I barely even noticed him. If someone had asked me after that series, “Hey, how good is Troy Tulowitzki defensively?” I would have had to say, “Um, no idea.” This is why I think finding defensive statistics that you can trust will be so helpful – unless a player makes a series of good plays (or one that stands out) or, conversely, makes a few terrible plays (or one that stands out), well, who the heck notices the defense of Troy Tulowitzki?

But his numbers are absolutely sensational. He goes out of his zone to make plays. He is terrific inside his zone. He has the highest range factor in baseball, he has turned more double plays, he has made only six errors. All in all, he’s probably the best defensive shortstop in the game right now, but I need to see him do it for the whole year before I jump him over Everett.

Best defensive shortstops so far (in order):
1. Adam Everett
2. Troy Tulowitzki
3. Omar Vizquel (still!)
4. Jack Wilson
5. Jason Bartlett

Worst defensive shortstops so far (in order)
1. Hanley Ramirez
2. Derek Jeter
3. Brendan Harris
4. Felipe Lopez
5. Jhonny Peralta

Second base: Chase Utley

Mark Ellis actually has the highest zone rating among second basemen, which I bring up because it turns out that Ellis ended up being the most important player in the infamous Johnny Damon deal. He was a throw-in.

Ellis is a pretty good example of all-things-Moneyball. In fact, he’s worth bringing up just to point out how much Michael Lewis’ book changed the landscape.

I remember that Damon trade very clearly. The Royals had determined that there was no way they were going to sign Johnny Damon. So they wanted to maximize his value by trading him during the off-season. Here's the context of the time in Kansas City -- the Royals were, at that moment, the best young hitting team in baseball. They had (and all of these guys were still young then), Damon (who had hit .327 and scored 136 runs), Carlos Beltran (who had an off-year), Jermaine Dye (who had been an All-Star starter), Mike Sweeney (who had driven in 144 runs) and Joe Randa (who had driven in 106 runs). They also had a young Mark Quinn, who had hit .294 with 20 homers and finished third in the Rookie of the Year vote.

What the Royals did NOT have, however, was pitching, and they especially did not have a bullpen. The Royals had set a team record for runs scored in 2000, but they had gone 77-85, in part because the bullpen had a 5.59 ERA and had blown more saves than recorded. It is true that the Royals did not have much starting pitching either, but as any fan, manager or baseball executive knows, nothing sucks the life out of you more than having a bad bullpen. Sure, in the grand scheme of things losing 5-4 is losing 5-4 no matter when the runs are scored.

But going into the ninth with a 4-2 lead and losing 5-4 just hurts more. The Royals did an awful lot of that in 2000. And there’s absolutely no doubt that thoroughly shaped general manager Allard Baird’s thinking.

The three-way trade ended up like this:

Oakland received Johnny Damon, Mark Ellis and Cory Lidle.
Tampa Bay received Ben Grieve.
Kansas City received Roberto Hernandez, Angel Berroa and A.J. Hinch.

I don’t want to break down the whole trade, though it seems pretty obvious who got the best of it. No, I want to say that Allard Baird had fallen in love with the idea of a dependable closer, and he had become convinced that Hernandez would be as dependable as he was likely to find (Roberto had 32 saves and a 3.12 ERA in 2000 though, looking back, he did give up more hits than innings pitched and a career-high nine homers).

But Baird wanted more than just Hernandez. His scouts really impressed on him the need to get shortstop Angel Berroa. Billy Beane, that shrewd Oakland general manager, made it sound like he simply could not give up on Berroa. After some haggling, Beane said, “OK, well, how about you throw in Mark Ellis.”

Allard considered this. He liked Ellis. But the Royals already had a second baseman he felt was their future (Carlos Febles) and Allard really coveted the shortstop. I think, looking back, he misjudged Ellis a little bit, and suspected the was going to be a utility infielder. A general manager simply will not hold up a deal to keep a potential utility infielder. So the deal was struck.

-- Hernandez had two blah years in Kansas City.
-- Berroa won Rookie of the Year and looked exactly like the player Baird had anticipated and then fell off the face of the earth.
-- Damon played one year in Oakland, had the worst season of his life, then signed with Boston, led the Idiots, and became a folk hero. And then signed with the Yankees.
-- A.J. Hinch will probably be a general manager someday very soon.
-- Ben Grieve imploded into himself like a dying star.

And that leaves Ellis … and the whole point of this. Why did Billy Beane want Mark Ellis? Because the guy GOT ON BASE. Remember, this was before Moneyball hit book stands, just before on-base percentage became the stat du jour. Ellis had a .400 on-base percentage at three levels with the Royals. He walked a lot. And as we know that’s precisely what Oakland wanted at that time. And that's what lots of teams want now. I suspect that these days a player with a .400 on-base percentage in the minor leagues is coveted a lot more than he might have been just seven or eight years ago.

The funny part is that Mark Ellis ended up not being especially good at getting on base. Ellis doesn’t walk a lot. His OBP this year is .327 and it was .319 last year. But they ended up getting a GOOD player when healthy – he hits some homers, he’s very steady, and he makes all the plays in his zone.

OK, back to the defensive choice. I chose Chase Utley because it seems to me he’s the best all-around defensive second baseman in the game. Ellis may be steadier. Orlando Hudson has more range and is flashier. Aaron Hill is terrific. But day-in, day-out, I think Utley’s the guy.

So how about this: Chase Utley is on pace to hit .334 with 66 doubles, 27 homers, 127 runs scored, 132 RBIs and he’s the best defensive second baseman in the game. I mean, seriously, where does THAT season rank among the greatest seasons ever. I realize he plays in a bandbox, and we’re still in an offensive era and all that. But wow.

(While I was writing this, apparently, Chase Utley broke his hand and will now be out close to a month. That's a real shame).

Note: I saw the comment from brilliant reader Daniel saying that Manny Ramirez is, at worst, below average and usually plays better than that. I’m sure Daniel as a Sox fan sees Manny a lot more than me. But I can tell you that I’ve never seen average defense from Manny, but more importantly I am looking at some defensive numbers here that make it pretty clear Ramirez is indeed quite putrid (or, if you prefer, rancid). I don’t want to give anything away until we get to left field. But I will tell you that Daniel s right about this: Adam Dunn is putrid and rancid.

Best defensive second basemen (in order):
1. Chase Utley
2. Aaron Hill
3. Orlando Hudson
4. Brandon Phillips
5. Mark Ellis

Worst defensive second basemen (in order)
1. Jeff Kent
2. Rickie Weeks
3. Craig Biggio
4. Freddy Sanchez
5. Dan Uggla

First Base: Albert Pujols

I think I have mentioned this here before ... Albert Pujols did not finish first-team All-Metro in The Kansas City Star. I don’t bring this up to mock the man responsible for this Dewey Defeats Truman blunder – though that’s always fun – but more to bring up the sad explanation he offers. He always that Pujols was a terrible defensive shortstop in high school and, as such, not worthy of making the team.

(This friend is not one who easily admits he was wrong. He has made numerous fairly remarkable statements about various Royals including, at different times, calling Zack Greinke “a genius” and “a bust.” He remains convinced that he’s right about both, and with Zack, I guess, anything's possible).

ANYWAY, it strikes me that this Pujols explanation is precisely the way people generally use defensive judgments – they use them basically to back up whatever point they intend to make. As we know, there have never been particularly trustworthy defensive statistics, and so it’s easy to pretty much whatever claim you would like to make.

For instance, a scout friend of mine called a couple of days ago and said that Manny Ramirez is an “underrated defensive outfielder.” Now, first of all, this may be true, in that MannyBeingManny is rated as “Putrid” defensively, and he’s actually “Rancid,” and “Rancid” is better than “Putrid,” so that would make him underrated. In this same way you could say that Kenny G is underrated as a musician because he’s viewed by many people as the single worst musical atrocity to hit since a meteor crashed into the earth and killed all the dinosaurs (they say the sound was a lot like the Hall & Oates comeback album). But this is patently not true. Michael Bolton is demonstrably worse than Kenny G. Also the Peter Cetera incarnation of the band Chicago. Also Starship.

Second of all, he was trying to defend Manny Ramirez as a player, and instead of saying, “OK, look, he’s a clown, he doesn’t know where he is half the time, he runs the bases like he has only a passing understanding of the rules, he chases after balls into the corner with all the enthusiasm of a janitor trying to kill a large rat in a garbage dumpster (Editor’s note: I actually saw this in the fourth grade, and it is an image I’m not likely to ever forget), but occasionally he will shock you and make a decent defensive play or throw, and man he knocks the living crap out of the ball,” he gives me this, “He’s underrated defensively” nonsense.

But that’s how it goes: People have simply used defense to cover up the shortcomings of players they like or to tear down a player they have no particular use for. It isn't necessarily that the judgments are WRONG (it is acknowledged by most of the people who saw his games that Pujols really was a bad shortstop in high school). It is just that they are overplayed or underplayed to make a point. Managers always used to say stuff like, "Well, Player X can't hit, but he will save you 100 runs every year with his defense" or "Sure, Player Y can hit a little, but he will cost you 100 runs every year on defense," or some other absurd comment.

It’s funny: Baseball is the most precisely recorded game in the history of mankind; we can tell you with some statistical clarity who the best hitters are, who the best pitchers are, how many runs players create, how many wins they help earn, how they perform compared to their peers, how they perform compared to a replacement-level player, and so on, and so on. But it's still human nature to find vacuums and delve into myths because that's where we can shout our opinions loudest. Nobody can argue with any real authority that Jason Kendall can be of any use whatsoever with the bat or with his throwing arm. But they can shout all day about how well he "handles pitchers" or how he's "a leader."

ANYWAY, tangent there, sorry, Albert Pujols is my pick right now because he makes more plays outside the usual first baseman sphere than anyone in the game. He's sort of a second baseman playing first.

Casey Kotchman is a terrific defensive first baseman as well. Kevin Youkilis gets mention since he has not made an error all year, and he's probably the best in the game right now at reliably making all the routine to slightly above routine plays.

OK, I'm going to add a bonus: Top 5, and Bottom 5 at each position for this season so far. You can thank me by clicking here:

Best defensive first basemen (in order):
1. Albert Pujols
2. Casey Kotchman
3. Todd Helton
4. Kevin Youkilis
5. Sean Casey

Worst defensive first basemen (in order)
1. Dmitri Young
2. Richie Sexson
3. Nomar Garciaparra
4. Ryan Garko
5. Ryan Howard

And I apologize to the Derrek Lee fan -- his defensive numbers are pretty brutal, and my scouts reports on him aren't any better. I'll try to watch him closely the rest of the year.

D-(fence) After 100 Games

One of the very cool things I get to do as, well, I don't really know why they let me do this. But I get to be on the panel for the Fielding Bible Awards. These is an effort by John Dewan and Bill James and others to try and create a better Gold Gloves, you know, one where Derek Jeter doesn't keep winning for his human couch act at shortstop.

I had been relatively agnostic about Jeter's defense at short -- agnostic in the sense that I suspected he wasn't particularly good but willing to concede that he had a knack for making some big plays and that perhaps watching him every day would increase my appreciation for him. Friends of mine who DO watch him more or less every day had always said that. Well, I've watched Jeter closely enough now that I'm a true non-believer. He's a brual defensive shortstop, one of the five worst in the game. Sure, he's athletic enough, and he's baseball brilliant enough to make a few nice plays, which his supporters then trumpet like he cured polio. That's the JHE (Jeter Halo Effect).

The JHE reminds me a little of the Sugar Ray Leonard-Marvin Hagler fight -- if you wouldn't mind a completely bizarre analogy. You might recall that Sugar Ray Leonard won that fight, and if you scored a replay of it, you would probably score it for Leonard by one or two rounds. However, as my friend Greg Barrett once told me, try to score it with the SOUND DOWN. That is, try to score the same fight without hearing the announcers praise every little thing Sugar Ray does, without hearing the crowd go absolutely berzerk whenever Sugar Ray lands some puff punch. I did it, and found that Sugar Ray's punches were all but worthless, Hagler landed the better shots and -- yep -- that Hagler proabably won the fight, and maybe by two or three rounds.

Ditto Jeter. If you can turn down the noise, I think he loses the fight too, and loses it convincingly.

Anyway, as part of the panel I am granted access to John Dewan's groundbreaking defensive statistics. You know John and his folks there literally chart every single defensive play on some sort of computer; if I understand it correctly (an unlikely scenario, I admit), it goes like this: Torii Hunter hits a ground ball into the hole against the Detroit Tigers. The Fielding Bible people will punch into the computer exactly where the ball went, exactly how fast it was going, etc ("What's the vector, Victor?"). He will then see if Carlos Guillen can make the play. But here's where it gets good -- he then compares Guillen's performance against other shortstops on precisely that play.

So, let's say Guillen goes into the hole, backhands it, sets, fires, and throws out Hunter. Dewan's people will then determine what percentage of shortstops made that very play this year. If, say, 47 percent of shortstops make the play, then Guillen will get a +.53 on the play (100 percent minus the 43 percent that make the play). If 12 percent make the play, he gets a +.88. And so on.

And if the reverse is true -- say Guillen does not get to the ball -- then it's a minus play. If 47 percent of shortstops make the play then Guillen gets a -.47.

I hope I'm explaining this correctly -- and I doubt I am. But I know it's SOMETHING like this. At the end of the year, each player gets a final +/- rating that compares his performance to those who play his position. I'm not smart enough to know how good this statistic is compared to what the Major League teams use, but it definitely makes a whole lot of sense to me, and while there's no doubt it is affected by context (where does the shortstop play, how thick was the grass that day, who was running, etc), well, defense IS context. The greatest play in World Series history (with apologies to Willie Mays and Vic Wertz), I think, is Brooks Robinson throwing out Lee May from foul ground in the '70 World series. Well, it's that's Bobby Tolan instead of Lee May, there's no way Robinson throws him out.

And if you prefer the Willie Mays play, well, that whole play is context. If that ball is hit in any other ballpark, it's gone, right?

ANYWAY, now that I've made a mess of explaining all that, I can tell you John sent me the midseason Fielding Bible statistics. And while I'm not allowed to pass along those stats -- and I wouldn't do that to John anyway -- I have used them, along with zone rating, range factor, a few chats with scouts and my own rough evaluations to pick a sort of tentative all-defensive team. I reserve the right to change my choices by the end of the year based on your, "YAAI," comments.

Oh yeah, one other thing: In the Fielding Bible Awards, we choose one team for all of baseball, and we break up the outfield into LF, CF, RF rather than just choosing three outfielders like they do in the Gold Gloves. That makes sense to me. A leftfielder has not won a Gold Glove since Barry Bonds in 1998. And in the American League you have to go back to ... yikes, Yaz in '77?

One other thing ... I would normally do this in one gigantic blog that would take me forever to write. But based on comments from the gallery and also comments from my wife, I will spread this out, position by position, each a new blog, over the next few of days. Supposedly this will be easier on me and also give you, the brilliant readers, some clarity. We'll see. We might never make it to right field.

A Live Blog (Sort of)

Well, the whole concept of a live blog from tonight's Giants-Braves game lost quite a bit of steam when it was announced that Barry Bonds wouldn't play. This means that in five days of being on the Barry Bonds chase, I have seen him sit more games out (2) than hit balls out of the infield (1). Not so good.

But a live blog was promised, and so we shall offer something resembling a live blog, featuring Mike Vaccaro, sports columnist at the New York Post and author of 1941: It Was A Great Sports Year Trust Me I Wrote A Whole Book About it.

Before we get started, however, I do want to say that today the Kansas City Royals released Scott Elarton, the subject of our earlier blog item. It had to happen, and Elarton handled it with grace, as you might expect. It was pointed out in the comments that he leaves before he had a chance to pull off a statistical oddity -- Elarton has struck out 13 this year and given up 12 homers. Has anyone ever given up more homers than strikeouts (minimum 10 homers?)

Yes. It's happened once. In 1923, the great Bill Hubbell pitched 55 innings, gave up 13 homers and struck out only 8.

Here are a few other close calls:

Bill Kerksiek, 1939, struck out 13, allowed 13 homers.
Armando Reynoso, 2001, struck out 15, allowed 13 homers.
Joe Haynes, 1950, struck out 15, allowed 14 homers.
Larry Pashnick, 1982, struck out 19, allowed 17 homers.
Steve Sparks, 1996, struck out 21, allowed 19 homers.

And here we go. Live blog to follow. I have absolutely no idea how this is going to read ... well, actually I do. It's raw, unfiltered nonsense. I promise not to do this to you again.

Poz (10:29:46 PM): We welcome to the TSOB Blog Mike Vaccaro. Michael it's a joy to have you here.
Michael Vac (10:29:49 PM): I want to go home, mommy
Poz (10:31:32 PM): No, really, a joy. Really. Holy cow, we're sitting here in San Francisco at a game between the Giants, who are one of the most awful-to-watch teams I have ever seen, and the Braves, who aren't exactly a thrill a minute either. And Barry Bonds isn't playing. And I just ate a Cha Cha Bowl from Orlando Cepeda's restaurant and I don't feel so well. What has happened to our lives?
Poz (10:32:19 PM): And I don't want to say nothing is happening here, but on the live broadcast they are now interviewing Craig Sager.
Michael Vac (10:32:48 PM): There have been some dreadful assignments in the history of sportswriting. This one might be the "Heavens Gate" of assignments
Poz (10:35:48 PM): Well, we did just get to watch Randy Winn pop out. So that's something. I've given up any hope that we're going to see Barry Bonds actually break the home run record ... I'm thinking at this pace he might break it on August. 12, 2011. But I am very much hoping that we will at least get to see Bobby Cox get thrown out of a game to set THAT record.
Michael Vac (10:36:27 PM): Bobby Cox: he gets voted in the Hall the moment he retires, right?
Poz (10:37:04 PM): Yes. But he gets thrown out two years later.
Michael Vac (10:37:54 PM): Good one.
Poz (10:39:05 PM): I actually think Cox is an amazing manager. As far as I can tell, nobody thinks he's a particularly good chess player. He's not exactly a baseball philosopher. He doesn't, as far as I can tell, relate well to anybody. And yet the guy wins year after year. How many other people in sports are really good at their jobs and you have absolutely no idea why.
Poz (10:39:46 PM): I guess there's Tom Glavine, who is about to win 300 games even though he last threw a strike in 1993.
Michael Vac (10:40:23 PM): in some ways, Cox seems like parcells, who was a brutal x and o guy and seemed to relish the fact that he and his players had absolutely zero in commmon
Poz (10:41:11 PM): Yeah, but at least Parcells had the intimidation factor. And he had Belichick ... we all know Parcells has absolutely sucked without Belichick.
Michael Vac (10:41:35 PM): think of how many world series the braves might have won if they had belichick
Poz (10:42:00 PM): Instead of Mazzone. And I see you have decided to stop typing with capital letters.
Michael Vac (10:42:39 PM): going from mazzone to roger mcdowell is kinda like when the pats went from parcells to pete carroll. you know, before carroll became the best coach on the planet
Poz (10:43:50 PM): You just know that if Pete Carroll went back to the NFL he’d instantly become an idiot again … Edgar Renteria is batting now. I did a blog earlier this year looking at Hall of Fame chances. You know, Edgar Renteria has a real shot at 3,000 hits. In fact, he just got an infield single, and that was his 1903rd hit. He's only 31. You voting Renteria into the Hall if he gets 3,000 hits?
Michael Vac (10:44:33 PM): i think he's been a heck of a player. but that’s still a lotta highway between here and 3,000
Poz (10:46:07 PM): It is. But I can tell you that there have only been 40 players to get 1900 hits before they turned 32. Pete Rose only had 1922.
Poz (10:46:44 PM): See this is the advantage of having a Sabermeteric Baseball Encyclopedia on your computer.
Michael Vac (10:47:18 PM): You know, it might be a good time to point out how briskly this game is moving along
Poz (10:47:47 PM): Stop. Please stop. Please. (Yesterday, Mike made prominent mention how quickly the game was going … a major press box faux pas. The Giants promptly scored four runs in the bottom of the ninth to send the game into a four-hour, extra inning deadline nightmare).
Michael Vac (10:47:51 PM): So THAT'S what a home run looks like!
Poz (10:48:44 PM): That home run was brought to you by Rich Aurillia, who is playing first base tonight. My God, is this a bad Giants team.
Michael Vac (10:48:58 PM): Where does "Barry Bonds not playing when you're here exclusively to see Barry Bonds play" rank on your list of personally anticlimactic moments?
Poz (10:50:11 PM): It's pretty high ... especially because this is the second time in five games I've had the pleasure of covering a Giants game Barry Bonds did not play in. And that’s sad because if the Giants were playing in my back yard without Barry Bonds, I wouldn't normally open the blinds to watch.
Poz (10:50:54 PM): I honestly don't see how you could built a team as bad and old as this Giants team without trying to be a bad, old team.
Michael Vac (10:51:26 PM): But what about Fred Lewis!
Michael Vac (10:51:29 PM): He's YOUNG and bad!
Poz (10:53:52 PM): Tonight's lineup:

Dave Roberts, CF
Randy Winn, RF
Ray Durham, 2B
Pedro Feliz, 3B
Rich Aurillia, 1B
Guillermo Rodriguez, C
Kevin Frandsen, SS
Fred Lewis, LF
Noah Lowry, P

Seriously, LOOK at that lineup.
Michael Vac (10:54:20 PM): With Omar Vizquel and Bonds in the lineup, that adds about 85 years too
Poz (10:55:18 PM): I have seen plenty of horrendous Royals lineups, don't get me wrong. But for some reason, this one just makes me sadder. Maybe it's because I have absolutely no idea why we're here tonight.
Michael Vac (10:55:37 PM): You have to figure our man B-squared will get a pinch hit appearance, no? I mean, do the Giants go out of their way to actively screw their fans?
Poz (10:56:28 PM): Yeah, they just announced this is a sellout crowd. And while I'm sure they're thrilled with the chance to see Kevin Frandson and all, yeah, they might at least want a moment of Barry.
Michael Vac (10:57:04 PM): You know what’s sickening? Every time you see shots of old Candlestick when the GIants had Mays and McCovey and Cepeda and Marichal, it looks like they were lucky to get 3,000 people a game in there. And now they turn ‘em away to NOT see Bonds
Poz (10:57:50 PM): Maybe they couldn't get more people back then because Cepeda was making fans eat Cha Cha Bowls. I really am not feeling great.
Michael Vac (10:57:42 PM): And hey, you have to be excited ... you're in the same ballpark with DUANE KUIPER!
Poz (10:58:29 PM): You know what's funny? I absolutely, positively had not even thought of that until you mentioned it. My God. My favorite player is HERE. I have to write a column about him. Or at least a blog.
Poz (10:58:43 PM): Hell, Kuiper hit more home runs in his career than I'm going to see Barry hit this week.
Michael Vac (10:59:18 PM): By the way, I just watched Ryan Howard on mlb.com hit one about 678 feet to give the Phil-dogs a win. How many is he gonna have before he's done?
Poz (11:00:00 PM): I predicted before the break that he would hit more homers this year than Prince Fielder. Where are they at now?
Michael Vac (11:00:31 PM): that was Howard's 28th
Poz (11:01:10 PM): The Prince has 30. I might be right on that one. I might not be right in my prediction that Todd Helton would hit .400. He might not hit .300.
Michael Vac (11:01:22 PM): or in your prediction that Barry Bonds will reach 754
Poz (11:02:18 PM): You know, I was thinking about this ... obviously Bonds will do it. I mean, there's no doubt he will do it. I'm saying this very clearly and in all capital letters: "HE WILL DO IT."
Michael Vac (11:02:30 PM): Just not in what you would call a timely fashion
Poz (11:02:42 PM): But there are a couple of points to make. One, he's 43. And two, when the home runs stop, they STOP. Remember Dale Murphy's sad effort to get to 400?
Michael Vac (11:03:30 PM): By the way, I guess our dream broadcasting team, you and I, would team up Duane Kuiper and Felix Millan
Poz (11:05:08 PM): Seventh-inning stretch here, and the guy just sang the rarely heard prelude to "God Bless America." Nice touch.
Michael Vac (11:05:49 PM): the only place i'd ever heard that was at Yankee Stadium, during the mandatory freeze-the-opposing-pitcher segment of all playoff games.
Poz (11:07:17 PM): I want to get back to that point for a second ... Dale Murphy wanted 400 home runs so badly, and he fell short ... 398. Al Kaline got 399. When the homers stop, they just stop. Barry's so close now, but let's say this thing stretches on 10, 15, 20 games. And then the pressure starts building. And he gets hurt, sits out a week. I mean, it's not impossible.
Michael Vac (11:07:57 PM): There is a large segment of American baseball fans who would embrace that with both arms.
Poz (11:09:25 PM): OK, so let's move on. Yankees ... playoffs or no?
Michael Vac (11:10:21 PM): Yup. Bank on it. The bats are starting to come around, and soon the rotation will be Wang-Pettitte-Clemens-Mussina-Hughes, which means they aren't going on any more extended losing streaks
Michael Vac (11:11:02 PM): It's astonishing how easy their schedule has been. From All Star Game through Aug 11, they’ll only have played the Devil Rays, Orioles, Royals, White Sox, and Blue Jays
Michael Vac (11:11:10 PM): Those are some truly abysmal baseball teams there
Poz (11:12:10 PM): Well, if the Yankees could play the Royals every night, they wouldn't lose again all year. I really thought that Buddy Bell was in position where he could lead the Royals to 73-75 wins and incredibly save his job. He still might. But getting destroyed three straight against the Yankees doesn't help.
Michael Vac (11:12:19 PM): It would be nice to at least be remotely competitive
Poz (11:13:21 PM): Well, the Elarton game, the Royals had no chance to even be competitive. But you would have thought with Meche on the mound they might have at least put up a fight.
Poz (11:14:13 PM): I see Joe Torre was in rare form tonight -- six pitchers in a 7-1 victory.
Poz (11:14:28 PM): He was getting this victory, dammit.
Michael Vac (11:14:39 PM): That's the one thing that makes you crazy about Torre, who I think is a tremendous manager. He has zero compunction about blowing out his bullpen
Poz (11:15:23 PM): Here's one for you: You have the Hall of Fame ballot, and you can only choose one manager. You have two on there, Bobby Cox and Joe Torre. Who do you vote for?
Michael Vac (11:17:14 PM): Torre. You can talk all you want about how loaded his teams have been, but they've gone the distance four times, and you could argue that in three of those years (1996, 99, 00) they had the inferior team. Cox's teams were just as loaded and he only one once. And that 1996 team that lost to the Yankees shouldn't only have beaten them, they should have swept them.
Michael Vac (11:18:33 PM): What do you think?
Poz (11:19:41 PM): It's an interesting debate. Because until Torre came to New York -- a marvelous marriage of words and music, as Sinatra said -- he was generally viewed as an AWFUL manager, right? Meanwhile since 1983, Cox has managed 18 full seasons and his team has won 88 games or more in 17 of them. He’s had all those first place finishes, he’s probably the best regular season manager ever.
Poz (11:21:22 PM): I'd probably say Torre though because of the World Series titles. And you can throw in he was close to a Hall of Fame caliber player. But I think all in all Cox's record as a manager is more impressive.
Michael Vac (11:21:46 PM): I would argue that no one ever said Torre was an awful manager. Those Mets teams he started with, Muggsy McGraw couldn't have won with them. He won a division with the Braves. And he had the Cardinals turned around before he got screwed by them
Poz (11:23:03 PM): I think that's a bit of revisionist history -- yes, nobody could have won with those Mets, but they sucked. He did win that one fluky year with the Braves, but I don't think anyone saw that as brilliant managing. And I think his time with the Cardinals was pretty spotty.
Poz (11:24:09 PM): By the way, we should explain that it's the bottom of the eighth and the Giants are winning 2-1. And Bonds isn't looking like he will pinch hit. Nice effort for the fans.
Michael Vac (11:25:02 PM): It’s really unbelievable. i mean what in the world would otherwise compel anytone to come here and sit in the cold? And let’s be honest with the folks: it's bloody COLD here
Michael Vac (11:25:27 PM): What's the old saying? The coldest winter I ever spent was July in San Fracisco
Poz (11:25:53 PM): Well, at least now they get to see Rich Aurillia again now.
Michael Vac (11:27:38 PM): we need three more hits to get a glimmer of a chance
Poz (11:28:08 PM): They couldn't pinch hit for Rodriguez here?
Michael Vac (11:28:59 PM): If they had, you would have missed the most feeble-looking swing of the day right there
Poz (11:31:15 PM): Here's Omar Vizquel. This is just as exciting as seeing Bonds (who is now on TV walking around the dugout with a bat).
Poz (11:32:05 PM): He just hit a routine fly ball to left -- which is more than I've seen Bonds do in five games.
Michael Vac (11:32:04 PM): We'll have to wait till the bottom of the ninth. After Jeff Francoeur hits one to that big ol' glove in left field
Poz (11:32:33 PM): Who is the Giants closer, Moon-man Minton?
Michael Vac (11:32:26 PM): Moonlight Graham?
Poz (11:34:58 PM): Apparently, Brad Hennessey. OK. Hey, your co-worker Brian Costello just made a great point -- the only thing that would be worse than covering this game tonight would be to be at the Tour de France.
Poz (11:35:18 PM): They're throwing guys out, you live in a tent, nobody cares, steroids are a way of life.
Michael Vac (11:35:13 PM): We'd probably find a way to get wretched meals in Paris somehow, too
Poz (11:35:57 PM): There’s the leadoff double by Francoeur.
Michael Vac (11:35:40 PM): of COURSE
Poz (11:36:27 PM): It's hard to believe considering that the Giants went to Brad Hennessey.
Michael Vac (11:36:38 PM): Hennessy: fine cognac, so-so relief
Poz (11:37:54 PM): OK, man on third, one out. Is there ANY chance the Giants prevent the Braves from scoring the game-tying run?
Michael Vac (11:37:54 PM): zero chance
Poz (11:39:24 PM): And the whiff!
Poz (11:39:41 PM): That's some Brad Hennessey high heat taking out Jarod Saltamacacachia
Michael Vac (11:39:50 PM): The Irish taking out the Italians. It's like Connery in "The Untouchables"
Poz (11:40:42 PM): The fans are on their feet here, Mike.
Michael Vac (11:40:33 PM): they have to stay warm somehow Joe
Poz (11:40:56 PM): And it's 2-1 to Kelly Johnson.
Poz (11:41:09 PM): There's a strike on the outside corner, 2-2.
Michael Vac (11:40:53 PM): Now we can say it as we want:
Michael Vac (11:41:01 PM): TWO AND TWO TO KELL-LEE JOHNSON
Poz (11:41:28 PM): And he fouls it straight back.
Poz (11:41:40 PM): Good swing there by Johnson, Mike. He's mad at himself, thought he should have done more with that one.
Michael Vac (11:41:45 PM): And we're full
Poz (11:42:13 PM): Pitch down in the dirt. Wanted to see if Johnson would chase.
Poz (11:42:34 PM): And Hennessey STRUCK HIM OUT.
Poz (11:42:53 PM): There's much joy in San Francisco, Mike Vaccaro, as the fans can go home without having seen Barry Bonds pinch-hit.
Michael Vac (11:42:56 PM): Barry Who?
Michael Vac (11:43:03 PM): Can we go home now?
Poz (11:43:32 PM): You betcha.