This is the House of Georges, and this is the HoG’s Midseason Baseball Report. In it we’ll examine each of baseball’s six divisions with a fan of a team in that division.
Today’s selection is the American League West, and our divisional expert is Blanche Feverpiss, fearless commenter and rising star on the series of tubes. Blanche is dedicated to two causes: decreasing the size of the federal government and the majestic glory of Angels baseball, regardless of from what geographical location those Angels hail (today is is Los Angeles of Anaheim). He's also my cousin.
Old No. 7: At the break, the Angels check in with a 57-38 record, first in the AL West and in fact the finest mark in all of baseball. You're six games clear of the pesky A's, and you're the only team in the AL with a winning road record (an unbelievable 31-18 away from the rats of the Big A). Explain this road dominance, whether you think it can continue, and if you think it can translate to big success in the postseason should you get there.
Blanche Feverpiss: The only way I can explain the road dominance is good pitching and plenty of luck. Our Pythagorean is something around +7 so yes, we are one hell of a lucky ball club! I would understand why a team with a shitty home field (like Fenway) would have a great road record (anything to get away from those asshole fans!). Our home field, however, is filled with knowledgeable fans and a winning tradition. Plus, the rock pile in center field exudes history and baseball lore. Michael Eisner, then CEO of Disney, said that the rock pile was an exact replica of one of Mordecai "Three Finger" Brown's post-game dumps.
O#7: OK, I may have to give up my Sabermetrician's card for asking this, but explain Pythagorean to me. I forget.
Feverpiss: The Wikipedia explains it pretty simply:
"Pythagorean expectation is a formula invented by Bill James to estimate how many games a baseball team "should" have won based on the number of runs they scored and allowed. Comparing a team's actual and Pythagorean winning percentage can be used to evaluate how lucky that team was (by examining the variation between the two winning percentages). The term is derived from the formula's resemblance to the Pythagorean theorem.
The basic formula is where Win% is the winning percentage generated by the formula. The expected number of wins would be the expected winning percentage multiplied by the number of games played."
In layman's, it's a formula created by math geeks that fairly accurately predicts a teams expected win/loss record via previous results based on runs scored/runs allowed. According to the Angels' P-Thag, they are playing over their collective heads.
O#7: This is a team built on pitching. John Lackey's return from the DL has fortified the rotation, but the real story is the rejuvenation of Ervin Santana's magic and the emergence of Joe Saunders. The bullpen seems fine, as Francisco Rodriguez is on pace for a record 59 saves, but digging a little deeper reveals that your relief ERA is only 11th in the AL (4.07) compared with the starter mark of 3.75 and an overall 3.84 (good for 3rd and 6th in the league respectively). What's the state of your pitching staff, and what worries you for the second half?
Feverpiss: Injuries are always a worry. Same could be said for any team though. I also tend to worry about Jared Weaver's fragile ego. That guy looks like he's going to start crying after he gives up a home run. The bullpen has been weaker this season compared with other seasons past. Not having Donnelly in there to rub down the balls with pine tar hurts. Frankie may break the record for saves this year, but he gives me pyrosis every time he toes the slab. Since you brought up Santana; I think the main reason for his re-emergence has been his ability to keep his "lifestyle" "closeted". Not that there's anything wrong with that.
O#7: You've been implying that Santana flies the rainbow flag for some time now. What's the big gay bar in Orange County?
Feverpiss: The Boom Boom Room was a famous gay bar in Laguna Beach for many decades. They closed down last year I believe. The Orange County Register had this week long tribute with all kinds of stories about dudes that met their life partner or something. A sad chapter for those fellows who like the dudes. Not implying anything, but it happened to coincide with Santana's worst year of his career. Coincidence?
O#7: What's the status of Kelvim Escobar? Can you count on him at all this season?
Feverpiss: Kelvim has been throwing the ball in Tempe all season. He's encountered set backs, but also shown that he may be able to make it back this season. It's frustrating, because when they found a tear in his shoulder, he stated that he'd just retire rather then rehab a surgery. That being said, I wouldn't count on him this season, unless it's a relief role. Don't get me wrong though, he'd be great out of the bully. The guy has great command of about 5 pitches. Late in a tight ballgame, I'd love the option of bringing him out of the pen.
O#7: Good point. Escobar was once a very effective reliever for the Blue Jays, but he also beat his woman in Toronto. You win some, you lose some.
Feverpiss: You know all the wife beating gossip. You are the baseball equivalent to Perez Hilton or something. Pedroia is your Lindsay Lohan, and Youkilis is your Brittney spears. I guess Francona is Madonna.
O#7: All that pitching however, contrasts with the standard lack of offense. Last season at this time you glossed over the Angels' diminutive power numbers by advertising the glory of Scosciaball--bunting, stealing, hustling, hitting and running, going first to third, doing the little things. The purist in me loves these aspects of the game, but I also know that the easiest way to put runs on the board is via the home run, and the second easiest way is to clog up the bases with runners and then get hits. By any measure the O is struggling: 11th in runs scored, 9th in homers, 12th in on-base percentage. You are 3rd in steals, which is nice, but unless you're stealing home you still have to find ways to drive those guys in. What are your feelings on the offense?
Feverpiss: Scosciaball works marvelously when it is accompanied by a three run dinger now and again. We had that glorious combo in 2002. This year, not so much. Scrape, hustle, scratch, claw, and glory hole your way on base, then let a monster like Vlad knock you in with a blast. Well, Vlad isn't hitting as well this season, and our hitting with runners in scoring position has been flaccid. The truth is, I'd love to rent a big bat for the remainder of the year (maybe sign to a long term deal?). Holliday and Teixeria have been rumored. Unfortunately, I can't see that happening. It's not like us. Typical response from management goes something like "We've got the bats we need, it's just a question of when they'll start hitting". Poppycock. Hunter was a good pick up but he's not a power bat. Gary Matthews Jr. is afraid of the ball, and Garrett Anderson is clearly declining. Sure, if our pitching and defense can keep games close we will have a good chance at winning, but the extra insurance of a big bat protecting Vlad would be reassuring.
O#7: I noticed that the Angels have hit the most grounders and the fewest fly balls in baseball. What gives?
Feverpiss: The result of a "contact hitting" philosophy? Truth is, (hitting coach) Mickey Hatcher has a net pulled over the infield for batting practice. It is suspended 15' above the field. The players play a game: if the ball hits the net you are fined $50. It's supposed to produce line drives, because if the ball doesn't touch the infield you win $50. I guess the wrong habits are being encouraged.
O#7: Now you and I have gone back and forth for many years on the reluctance of the Angels to part with prospects for established players. It's my feeling that this hesitation has cost you at least one more championship since 2002. Do you think this is the year you make a deadline deal for a bat? Does the organization feel that this year, a year that does not see a dominant American League club, might justify bending the rules a little?
Feverpiss: Oh, I thought we just talked about this. Um, let's see... We need a bat. Management probably won't part with prospects. I'd be pleasantly surprised if we made a big trade for offense by the trading deadline.
O#7: Now let's run around the division. The A's are once again contending after supposedly gutting their team in the off season by trading away Dan Haren and Nick Swisher. They lead the league in many pitching categories, but they just dealt another ace in Rich Harden. Can they hang around?
Feverpiss: I can't see the A's being a threat sans Harden. They are definitely a pesky team though. I hate playing them because their pitching is always tough on us and we both have weak hitters.
O#7: The success of the A's doesn't really surprise me, but the fact that the Rangers have a winning record does. I thought they'd be much, much more awful. They can't pitch for shit, of course, but the Josh Hamilton-led offense is hands down the best in baseball. Does Texas scare an Angels fan at all?
Feverpiss: The Rangers are scary for their spoil factor. They don't have the pitching to hang around the top of the division, however they have the offense that can knock a team around and rattle the playoff order. We have flirted with the best record in baseball all season. I'd hate to lose home field in the playoffs because of a bad series in Arlington. Fuck George Bush.
O#7: Finally, we have the miserable Mariners. After exceeding expectations last year they've shit the bed this season and are 20 games out. Do you see anything on their team that could hinder your playoff hopes? Or should Seattle fans settle in for a few years of suck?
Feverpiss: I love that saying "shit the bed". I've shit my bed twice. One time, my girlfriend was sleeping next to me. I tried to pull the fitted sheet off like a magician pulls off a table cloth and leaves the plates and silverware. Needless to say, she woke up.
Seattle should trade off the vets and rebuild. Use Tampa and the Marlins as examples. Hell, follow the A's model. Whatever they do, they shouldn't pay any attention to the Royals (no offense Roy F. Almania).
That was a pretty weak line a while back about buying a home to help out the economy.
O#7: It's clear that I worded that sentence poorly, since I've caught quite a bit of shit for it. I wasn't advocating a home purchase as a means of economic stimulus for the U.S. I was saying that widespread home ownership is healthy for our economy. Since we as a nation no longer save, the easiest way for families to put away money for a rainy day is to accumulate equity in their homes. Now this is not a solution for everyone--in some areas the cost of real estate makes it more sensible to rent. New York and San Francisco fall into this category, and I understand Southern California has some pricey digs as well.
But the last thing I want to do is to get into a mortgage debate with Blanche Feverpiss, lending Machiavelli. How will Bob Barr affect this race?
Feverpiss: I agree, let's not urinate on each other. Let's agree on this: most Americans do not save enough. Let's disagree that "the easiest way for families to put away money for a rainy day is to accumulate equity in their homes". The last housing bubble proved that today's Americans don't "save" their equity! They collectively use their home as an ATM card. Refi, refi, refi, 30 day late, 60 day late, 90 day late, notice of default.
Bob Barr will not affect the outcome of the 2008 presidential election. Support for Barr/Root will, however, get under the grey, wrinkled skin of John McCain and the rest of the neo-cons who think they can bomb us to world peace and use the FED to print dollars with wild abandon. Bob Barr is not the perfect candidate by any means. He voted for many, many unjust and unconstitutional laws while a congressman. My opinion is that we should do whatever we can to ensure the neo-cons do not retain power. They need to be purged. I know Cecil is a staunch supporter of the Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly faction. To this, I say you are wrong sir. Wrecking our economy with unconstitutional foreign war (paid for by the Chinese), debasing our currency via the Federal Reserve, and taking a massive wrecking ball to what is left via government bail outs should not go unpunished. I don't agree with Obama on many issues, however I wish there were more of him right now, and they would all unseat every Republican in the House and Senate (and White House) except Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel.
O#7: I'm not saying that Barr will draw much support nationally, I'd be shocked if he picked up more than 2 or 3 per cent of the popular vote. But he's polling higher than that in a few battleground states--6% in his native Georgia, 8% in my state of Colorado, 9% in Nevada. Those totals obviously come out of voters that McCain needs, and Nader is not draining similar numbers from Obama. If that holds up, he will affect the race even if he draws fewer than 2 million votes nationwide.
What I'm asking is, will it hold up or is it a temporary phenomenon? Are there broad numbers of libertarian/conservative voters in key states in this country that are, like you, fed up with the current state of the Republican party and willing to forsake the Republican candidate--even if they know that it will hand the election to someone who's far to their left? You've talked about voting for Obama anyway, but you don't get hung up on all this social/religious nonsense that some conservatives do. I also think that you recognize that while Obama is pretty liberal, he has the capacity for fiscal responsibility and common sense.
Feverpiss: Righty-O. I must rephrase my original statement. Bob Barr will not affect the 2008 presidential election the way Nader affected the 2004 race (or the way Buchanan affected the 2000 race!). Bob Barr may pull conservatives away from McCain in swing states, but I don't think national polling numbers are correct at this point. I believe Barr's numbers are higher than reality, and I think Obama will crush McCain in Colorado and Nevada anyway. My hope is that Barr's "popularity" will hold up, because I believe he has an important message that needs to get out to the average citizen. We are all so brainwashed by the mainstream media, most people don't even know that its OK to disagree with BOTH parties. Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN try to divide the public into two groups, when the real America is actually many different groups of political thought.
Obama does have the capacity for fiscal responsibility and common sense. He also has the capacity for the old school mentality of one of his heroes- FDR. FDR believed that the way out of a depression was government intervention and spending. With my opinion that we are headed toward a catastrophic depression many times worse than the 1930's, the Democrat's tendency toward government intervention frightens the shit out of me. This is why I am such a strong supporter of Ron Paul. Let's face it, I could care less about abortion or the death penalty. I don't care if there is prayer in school or dildos in sex education. I care about my money, my family's welfare, and my son's future. I don't want him to die in a war, and I don't want to live under a bridge with cardboard scraps and newspaper for blankets. If we could rid ourselves of the "world's police" moniker, cast away the federal income tax, abolish the Federal Reserve (and central banking/ fractional reserve banking), I believe we would be in better economic shape. But see, this is less government, not what I believe both candidates want- more government.
What do the politicians do when banks like IndyMac collapse? They blame the Wall Street Execs and the speculators. Why not blame themselves for setting up this ponzi scheme? Why don't they blame the idiot homeowners for overextending themselves? Same shit applies to oil, but I know you want to keep this short. Maybe oil will be the topic of the inaugural post on www.houseofblanches.blogspot.com
Here's a few questions:
Who was worse, George Bush II or Woodrow Wilson? GWB gave us the Patriot Act, Afghanistan, Iraq, and much, much more. WW gave us the Federal Reserve, the Income tax, drug prohibition, the first draft, ignored the demobilization of Germany after the war, the segregation of the Federal Government, and promoted our unnecessary involvement in WWI which led to WWII. They both loved baseball though!
O#7: I think it's a little early to assess the historical significance of Bush. We'll have to see what finally happens with democracy in the Middle East, the war on terror, the impact of his expansion of government (specifically the Department of Homeland Security but also the prescription drug entitlement and others), No Child Left Behind, and his appointments to the judiciary. I'm also curious to see how future presidents handle his doctrine on preemptive military action and his aggressive annexation of power for the executive at the expense of other branches. It's easy to say that Bush is the worst president ever, but a closer examination in twenty years may reveal that he's the worst leader in the history of humankind.
Feverpiss: Any way you slice it, it is not our "moral responsibility" to spread democracy or any of those other sound bites. That said, I'll go with Woodrow Wilson as the worst president ever. That guy sucked. Pick your most hated college professor and make him president- that was Woodrow Wilson.
What are your feelings on the FED bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? I despise Socialism, so you can imagine how angry I am. Do you think it's our government's duty to help struggling lenders during these hard times? Shouldn't the old phrase "you reap what you sow" play out here?
O#7: Once again your expertise in the financial sector swamps me, just as my skills in the arena of fantasy baseball dwarf yours. I've always thought that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were somewhat propped up by the federal government from the get-go, kind of like how we subsidize the supposedly self-sufficient operation of Amtrak. Help me out--are the two institutions completely private?
Feverpiss: They were government institutions until Nixon set them off into the private sector. They do get special treatment however. We are seeing that right now. While other publicly traded institutions have legal obligations to report earnings (10ks, etc.), Fannie and Freddie fall exempt from these types of "rules". Fannie and Freddie are currently borrowing money (Bernanke effectively turned on the printing press) at a rate of 2.5% from the FED. If you factor in inflation- F&F are borrowing at negative interest. Socialism comrades!
By the way- If I didn't have half my team on the disabled list last week, I would have beaten you.
One more: why is the government involved in our banking? Next thing you know, they'll be forcing me to contribute to some massive, socialistic retirement fund. Oh wait...
Read more
It's 09/09/09, so go buy your Beatles Rockband for your Atari boxes. While you're at it, pick up a copy of Posnanski's new book. It comes out today, except it comes out next week.
