Carl Crawford, "Street" And Prejudice

Yesterday, Rob from Bronx Baseball Daily wrote a interesting and thoughtful post about some comments that Steve Lombardi from Was Watching made in reference to Carl Crawford. Rob made some even-handed commentary on a delicate subject but more has come up since his post was written and I wanted to take a moment to highlight the issue here.

Riffing on a report from Jon Heyman about the Yankees possible interest in Crawford, Lombardi stated matter-of-factly:

Two things about Carl Crawford: One, he’s very “street.” Think Mickey Rivers meets Rickey Henderson – not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Okay, we all know "street" is a another term for "ghetto", but with a slightly less overt racial connotation. You can say that there "isn't anything wrong with that", but the fact of the matter is that you're still judging someone that you don't personally know based on a few things you've gleaned from watching them on TV. Why Steve even felt the need to point this out, I don't know, but he then went on to say:

Two, I dunno why…but… I just have this feeling that he’s one of those players who will be out of the game by the time he’s 35 years old. Granted, that’s not until 2017. And, I could be totally wrong on this… and he’ll be a Tim Raines type who plays into his late 30’s.

I’m just saying… if it were me, I’d be careful about giving him a very long term deal once he hits the free agent market. I’d be very concerned about going more than 5 years on an offer. But, that’s just me…

Lombardi has since denied that those two "points" (if you can even call them that) were connected, but if the hunch about Crawford being out of the game when he's 35 isn't related to the presumption that he's "street", then where did it come from? As Tom Tango is fond of saying, "Summary opinion without evidence is the very definition of bullsh!t". And Steve's statement is either A) prejudiced, B) bullshit, or C) both.

Additionally, given how much Lombardi criticizes Brian Cashman, I find his "analysis" of the Crawford situation to be endlessly amusing. Steve just has a feeling that Carl Crawford won't have a long career, so the Yankees should be careful about giving more than 5 years (as if any long term signing wouldn't be made with care). At least the Yankee GM bases decisions on tangible things that can be supported with evidence, as opposed to abstract feelings and hunches that admittedly can't be explained ("I dunno why... but...").

Predictably, people jumped on him in the comments about this, particularly the use of "street" and Lombardi attempted to "clarify" himself:

Just to clarify the “street” comment…

If you’ve ever heard Crawford interviewed, you probably understand this…

His communication skills are very far from polished. He’s not Jeter, Granderson, A-Rod or Teixiera like in terms of the way he presents himself verbally.

Further, have you seen the huge tattoo on the side of his neck? Somehow, I don’t think you’ll see Mariano Rivera or Andy Pettitte running out and getting one of those too.

Carl Crawford isn't under consideration to be the Yankees' next official spokesperson, so I'm not sure why his communication skills or the placement of his tattoos are relevant. CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and many other players have a ton of tattoos. Joba Chamberlain isn't very good with the media. Would you like to use those things to infer things about their respective characters, Steve?

Late yesterday, Lombardi again attempted to "clear up" his comments about Crawford by citing the fact that he is a fan of Rickey Henderson:

Yeah, Rickey Henderson – who is really no different from Carl Crawford in terms of his image or whatever you want to call it. Really, the only difference between Henderson and Crawford is that Henderson had a better batting eye and played in the majors for a quarter-century whereas Crawford just has eight season under his belt, to date.

So, if I were a racist, explain to me why I have so much respect and admiration for Rickey Henderson – and have a picture of him hanging in the rooms of all my children? Does that sound like a racist to you?

"I respect Rickey Henderson as a baseball player. HOW COULD I POSSIBLY BE RACIST?!?!"

Let's ditch the R-word. Because apparently if you respect an athlete of a certain race and hang a picture of them in your children's rooms, that absolves you from being a racist in any other capacity.

What were talking about here is prejudice, which, to be clear is, "a preconceived belief, opinion, or judgment made without ascertaining the facts of a case". The biggest problem with Lombardi's statements is not the fact that they may or may not have racial connotations. I take issue with trying to draw conclusions about a person's character based a few interviews and the placement of one tattoo.

Rob from BBD actually took the time to ask a Rays blogger about Crawford's reputation as a person, instead of just assuming he already knew what he was about. Here's a bit of what Devon Rodgers from Rise of the Rays told Rob:

From all I have seen he is a very positive person. When I am hanging around by the field before the games, he is always joking around with the players, batboys and security staff. He is very well liked by the players and he is one of the fan favorites.

Kinda makes the tattoo and the PR skills seem irrelevant, doesn't it?

Why We're Lucky To Have Brian Cashman

Our GM discussing the current free agent market for outfielders (via LoHud):

“How long it’s taking certain people to wake up and smell the coffee, that’s what surprises me,” Cashman said. “When you get on the phone with agents, they tell you one thing, and certain agents (cough)ScottBoras(cough) can’t honestly believe what they’re trying to convey. Do they think I’m stupid?”

Okay, I added the italics. But I love the fact that there is someone in charge of the Yankees who can correctly gauge the market and sees through the bullshit. He doesn't rush or panic and is impervious to the games that agents try to play.

So to answer your question, Steve, yes I think Cashman "would be an effective and successful G.M. of a major league baseball team if he had a team payroll budget to work with that was in the range of $100 to $120 million (and no more than that)".

TYU Fought The Law And, Well, You Know...

After dedicating a post to another Yankee blog for all the wrong reasons earlier today, we would like to atone for that by lending a helping hand to the fine folks at The Yankee Universe.

We link to TYU with some frequency and if you have been to the site, you've probably noticed that their name is pretty close to the Yankees' charitable organization that sells T-shirts to benefit the Memorial Sloane-Kettering Cancer Center. Well perhaps because their blog shows up higher in Google search results than the charity, or perhaps due to the fact that Randy Levine founded the organization, they received a cease and desist notice from the Yanks today:

Accordingly, demand is hereby made that you immediately cease and desist from using the YANKEE UNIVERSE name and the Logo, any other Yankees Mark and any other MLB Mark in and as the name of your Website, to promote the Website, to seek advertising any other commercial opportunities, in and as the Domain Name, and in any other manner that would cause consumer confusion, dilution of the MLB Marks, or imply any sponsorship or endorsement of your Website or its contents by any MLB Entity.

Since the Yankees are asking in the name of a charity (and since they've had the name since 2006 whereas TYU was created in 2008), the bloggers are going to step aside. Now they have asked the interwebz to help them find a new name for their blog.

There are obviously a ton of Yankee blog names already claimed, and aside from tossing out variants of existing ones like we did on Twitter today, we are trying to think of something else they could use. Here are a few (some from other places), yours in the comments or better yet, at their site.

• The Pinstripe Post
• Bronx & Beyond
• The Yank Think Tank
• Straight To Twenty Eight
• The Steinbrenner Doctrine
• The Yankee University
• The Bomber's Lounge
• The Pinstripe Universe
• Monument Cave
• The Dead Torre Scrolls
• The Moshe Pit

Wasn't Reading

Larry from the Yankeeist continued his Yankee blogger interview series yesterday with Steve from Was Watching and I'm again going to link to it. Unlike the other times though, I've got a few comments to make about this one.

As always Larry did an excellent job with his interview. He made attempted to address the things that really separate Was Watching from other Yankees blogs - the persistent pessimism towards the team and the anti-Brian Cashman bias - which many interviewers might have avoided. What I want to comment on are some of the ridiculous generalizations, comical inaccuracies and hypocritical things that the interviewee says.

Observe:

We live in a microwave society now where people want things short and quick. And, personally, I cannot stand bloggers who prattle on with 1,000 word entries. Hence why WasWatching.com is "laconic commentary from a Yankeeland zealot." Further, I'm pretty sure that studies have shown* that people who read things on the internet will not read things that take them more than a few minutes to scan through, etc.

*Studies conducted at the Was Watching Institute of Laconic Zealotry. Sample Size of (n=1).

This post is 900 words. One hundred and twenty six of them were written by Steve Lombardi, the other 674 were copied and pasted from an article by Nick Carfado. Apparently Steve thinks people will read a long post only if you quote a gigantic amount of it from another writer.

And of course the notion that people won't read 1,000 words articles on the internet is ridiculous. This post from Mike at River Ave. Blues is over 1400 words long, features only one short quote (and the rest original material) and has 186 comments on it. And ohbytheway, have you ever heard of a guy named Joe Posnanski?

People, whether they are reading on the internet or anywhere else, like things that are interesting, regardless of their length. There might be diminishing returns after a certain length but the cutoff point certainly isn't 1,000 words.

Back to point, I suspect that someday, maybe soon, we'll look at blogging as some trendy thing that was hot around 2007 and then went the way of the mood ring and the pet rock about eight years later.

Mark it down on your calendars, folks. In 2015, blogs will be like Pogs! Nevermind the fact that the two things he listed came and went because they were devoid of intrinsic value. Fairly quickly, even the dumbest people figured out that a pet rock was just a rock and a mood ring didn't actually indicate their mood. Blogs may evolve into something different eventually, but being able to provide a stream of content on a website which you can update continuously isn't a fad, it's an advance in technology.

At this time, I'm still mulling some changes to the future format of WasWatching.com -- and I may elect to have some additional writers added to the blog (to join my voice). But, I'm not certain, at all, that I will go this way. I still find myself going back to the question of: "Did Leonardo da Vinci [sic] have some others help him paint the Sistine Chapel?"

But on the contrary, look at how many people Abraham Lincoln brought in to help him write the Constitution!

Baseball Think Factory is a daily stop -- and a great source of information -- although many of the commenters there, in my opinion, are veiled ivory tower elitists who like to come across as tough guys by taking shots at others.

It's called Baseball Think Factory, it would be a pretty bad site if there were just a bunch of anti-intellectual dummies talking about how much they agreed with every Ken Rosenthal rumor or Wallace Matthews article. And don't worry, aside from what he just said about the people at BBTF, Steve never takes shots at anyone else:

On the whole, Brian Cashman took a team that was a three-peat World Champion and turned them into a team that would finish first and then lose in the LDS…and then into a team that would no longer finish first but would win a Wildcard (and lose in the LDS)…and then into a team that would not make the post-season at all. Notice the trend here?

In addition, there’s a long list of moves made by Brian Cashman that suggest he’s clueless when it comes to evaluating talent...

Listen, Steve's been in this game a lot longer than I have and I respect that, but he's like the grouchiest newspaper columnist on Earth stranded on a blogger's website. I tried reading WW regularly a while back but I frequent enough baseball sites that I don't need another one that's content with linking to stories I've already read and surrounding a 500 word blockquote with a paragraph and a half of "analysis". I'll take the one that "prattles on" for 1000 words at a time and includes some "original thought" and "research", thank you very much.

The Yankees Have A Mascot?

While watching the video of A-Rod and Jerry Hairston Jr. playing stickball with kids in the Bronx that has been circulating the Interwebz recently, I noticed an interesting spectator lurking in the crowd.

Wha, wha, whaaaat? As A.J. Burnett might say "That motherfucker?".

The Yankees with all their "class" and "tradition" and "pride" would never have a mascot, would they?

Well, yes, actually, it turns out that once upon a time, they did.

From an article in the New York Times from 1998 (h/t WasWatching), we found out that Yankees did in fact have a oversized fuzzy costume representing the franchise from 1982-85. Unfortunately Dandy did exist, despite the fact that both George Steinbrenner and Lonn Trost both denied remembering so back in '98. Steinbrenner might have had an excuse, but I'm guessing Trost was just lying.

So, back to the current fuzzy disgrace. What is that thing supposed to be? Does it have a name? Was this just an ad hoc creation? It doesn't look like a mascot designed specifically with the Yankees in mind with the red belly and all. Did someone throw that jersey on a generic mascot? It's looks kinda short though, like it was custom fit, doesn't it? Perhaps the Yanks have a mascot that goes around to events where kids will be? Are we okay with this as long as it doesn't show up at the Stadium?

It shows up aroung the 1:00 mark. Discuss.

A Good Weekend, But Not Good Enough For Some

Rise and shine, Fackers. I know it's Monday, but the good weekend that was in Yankeeland should help soften the blow. They managed to get in all three games without so much as a delay despite a tropical depression lurking just off the coast in the Atlantic which prevented some complications later in the season. Although the Yanks struggled in their first meeting with the White Sox in Chicago, they swept this three game set and might have dealt the final blow to the Pale Hose' playoff hopes for this year.

After surrendering the lead in a dramatic 7th inning on Friday, the Bombers got a walk off, homer from Robinson Cano, with runners in scoring position, no less. Saturday played host to an offensive explosion and a stellar pitching contribution from the most unlikely of places. You can't tell just by looking at the final score, but Sunday's game was more similar to Friday's than Saturday's in that it was hotly contested. The Yanks held on tight until the bottom of the seventh inning and only after that did their offense finally take over.

In their past 9 games (dating back to the beginning of the Red Sox series), the Yanks have scored an average of 8 runs per game, which has allowed them to go 6-3 during that stretch against three teams that were all in Wild Card contention when it began despite allowing almost 6 against.

Steve at Was Watching, however, is not impressed. Yesterday, he noted that the Yankees are "only" 33-30 when playing a team with a record at or above .500 and even goes as far as to label the post "possible bad news". The point of the article was apparently to insinuate that the Yankees are doomed in the playoffs:

...but, I'm thinking ahead to the post-season, for the Yankees. And, there will be no Blue Jays, A's, Orioles, Twins or Mets for the Yankees to play in October. Most likely, New York will have to deal with Detroit or Texas in the ALDS and then face someone like the Angels, Red Sox or Rays in the ALCS (should the Yankees advance past the ALDS for the first time since 2004). And, that’s a horse of another color, no?

Well yes, the postseason is different than the regular season. But the rest of that argument? Yikes. Where to begin?

How about the fact that the Twins, who Steve lumped in with the "losing" teams, as a result of winning ONE GAME, are now at .500, swinging the Yankees record from 33-30 to 40-30 against these teams, which is now the best in the AL. So his post went from spurious to irrelevant in roughly 5 hours.

Just because it's listed in a column on Baseball-Reference doesn't make it a useful stat. Aside from the perfect example provided by the Twins above (which could have been prevented by removing their 0-7 record against the Yanks), there are plenty of good reasons not to take much stock in team's play against other squads with "winning records".

For one, the teams are divided based on their cumulative record for the season, which for various reasons doesn't always accurately reflect their strength at various points within it. For instance, the Yankees took 5 of the 6 games they played against the Mets this year, but going into that 6th game, the Mets were 37-36. Now, after putting $85M on the DL, they are a shell of their former selves and 13 games below .500 so it looks like the Yankees were beating up on a cupcake.

A while back, (actually while debunking a piece on WSJ.com that claimed having a losing record against teams over .500 was actually a good thing) we determined that the average winning percentage against teams over .500 is around .430. This means that an average team would be 27-36 against teams with winning records through 63 games. Using that as a benchmark, even the 33-30 Steve was working with is quite a healthy showing.

As we have more recently discussed, the fine folks as Baseball Prospectus have studied what makes a team likely to succeed in October and at no point was the team's record against opponents with winning records even factored into the equation.

For better or for worse, over the next month, more and more emphasis is going to be placed on the Yankees odds in the postseason. There will be countless theories proposed about why the Yanks are poised to return to World Series glory or be bounced in the first round. The truth is that there are a myriad of variables that will ultimately determine how they fare, and the most important one is luck.