Baseball Mumblings

As the Spring Training inches closer and closer, I can't help but get one question out of my mind:

When will baseball be baseball again?

As most of you know, I'm a huge baseball fan. It is my favorite of the "major" sports. However, since 2003 (many will say it was before that) the word "steroid" (or any synonymous word) has been tossed around turning MLB into a Soap Opera.

And I'm ready to move on. I want to move on.

But it isn't that simple. Things have to be dealt with. What about the players that admitted steroid use and have since come clean and stopped? What about the players that juiced (according to evidence, at least) but won't admit it? What about the "average" players that juiced but nobody cares about?

Today, Deadspin accurately pointed out that everyone is the bad guy. The players, the union, the league, even the fans!

And, of course, there is the fact that an anonymous testing turned out to be not-so-anonymous. I'm glad Arod 'fessed up and told the truth, but somebody really owes ARod and apology.

So, perhaps the wrong question is being asked. Perhaps instead of asking "When can we move on?" we should be asking "Can we move on?"

I'd like to think we can, although I certainly don't have the answers as to how. I guess that's why those that have the answers are getting paid.

I'm glad we have guys like Jason Giambi, Andy Pettite, and now, Alex Rodriguez, who admit they have made a mistake and are willing to move on.

But then there is the other side, a side that knows/thinks (choose which ever you believe) that the art of escaping is with words.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. That speaks volumes considering that just one word can keep you out of jail. What word keeps you out of jail, you ask? The word, "knowingly".

We know Bonds said something that wasn't the truth while under oath. But was in an "accident?" Throughout all this Bonds drama, the question isn't if he took steroids. The question is if he knowingly took steroids. All this fuss is over that one word.

And of course I haven't even talked about this Clemens/McNamee situation.

Obviously we are learning a lesson throughout all this. One of the major reasons why the steroids era is dragging out so much is because of all the lies.

Which then leads me to a question that I'll end on. I'd also like to hear some of your thoughts on this.

Pete Rose is guilty of 2 major no-nos: Obviously there is the first one, he gambled. But then there is his second major no-no, he lied about it for over a decade.

So...we have something similar happening here with Clemens and Bonds. I'd like your thoughts on this...

Which bugs you more...Players using steroids or players lying about their steroid use? This question, of course, assumes that these players are guilty...which I suppose is another discussion.

I'll start. It bugs me more when they lie about it.

I'm getting Nervous...

I think a trade is gonna happen soon. I can't really give a good reason why, I just have this feeling....7 days left

Since the arrival of Julio Franco, Cox absolutely refuses to play Salty. Yesterday Woodward came in to pinch run for Franco...BUT WOODWARD STAYED IN TO PLAY 1B. Why not let Woodward run the bases (which might be all he's good for) then let Salty man the field? I like to give bobby the benefit of the doubt but he has this thing about not playing certain guys.

We should probably just trade Salty and Devine. Bobby isn't going to play them anyways, so why not just swap em for somebody? What if we just traded those two for an entirely new bullpen. I think Bobby Cox needs some more guys to overwork.

I'm still not sold on Texiera. If you look at his Home/Away splits you notice that he isn't the reliable hitter he needs to be when playing away from that softball field in Texas.

In other news, more Bonds/Balco mumbo jumbo.

I can't really think of anything else to say, so I'm gonna eat lunch now.

Our Message(s)

What!?! can it be? a new post from Petty's Ponderings? Sure enough. Sorry it's been awhile. The knee is better, still struggling to walk at times but right now I'm probably about 75% healed. The last 25 will come very slowly according to the doctors...quite possibly several months. But hey, as long as I'm walking.

I wanna discuss something I've been struggling with lately, and that is our message. I'm not talking about what we teach, i'm talking about our message that is indirectly communicated from our actions.

Parents teach their kids something when the kid hears mommy yelling at a telemarketer over the phone. The kids are watching what daddy looks at on TV and that sends a message. If Dave receives too much change at the cash register, Dave's kids are sent a message when Dave sneaks out of the store hoping no one realizes their mistake.

Now to take it further...What do you do if doing the right thing sends the wrong message?

I never really thought that it was possible for such a scenario to even exist. But that is kind of the dilemma I am in. I cannot release details at this time, but hopefully tings will pan out. I'm open to thoughts on the question above, What do you do when doing the right thing sends the wrong message?

Random thoughts on MLB, The Braves:
Not much to say, as usual I thought some all stars were undeserving and some were left off. I guess it is to be expected. Doesn't really matter though because either way the NL doesn't stand a chance without a miracle (1996 was the last time the NL won the Midsummer classic)

Random thoughts on the NBA draft:
I'm a Bulls fan (but one could argue a strong case that I'm not an NBA fan at all), but it will be obnoxious watching Joakim Noah play for the Bulls, a first round draft pick that I wasn't really impressed with.

Random thoughts on NASCAR:
they are loud and go zoom

Onions or Opinions?

I just read a fantastic post by my buddy and relative John regarding what could best be described as handling "COC Doctrine".

We have all of these questions about the Bible and why some churches do things different. We say "well, we take the Lord's supper everyday because...." and then we list a bunch of facts, some biblical, some just traditional. Then the other person responds..."well we dont' do it as often because...." and it seems like the discussion never ends.

Here's a question I want to ask. If you want it to be rhetorical, then it'll be rhetorical. If you don't want it to be and want to chime in on something, then that's great too. But...here's the question:

At what point to church doctrine questions simply become opinions?

Can it be that in some people's opinion, it is rebuking authority for a woman to preach, and in other people's opinion it doesn't give the woman any more authority than men? Could it be that in some people's opinion, using a greek word in sermons is speaking in tongues and in other people's opinion it isn't? And can it be just a mere opinion if we think sugar free grape juice from concentrate is not authentic fruit of the vine?

When we turn to a scripture to argue our point...are we using the scripture to state a fact about our church or are we using the scripture to support our opinions?

What is it about opinions that make life so difficult?

Hold that thought/question, and let's talk about baseball statistics for a second (wow, I just love those posts where I talk about the Bible and Baseball AT THE SAME TIME!!!). I don't really consider myself a stat head, but nor would I say I never use those "advanced stats". Some of them I absolutely can't stand (park factors, defensive measurements), some I love and use all the time (OPS+ and ERA+), and some of them I'm kind of neutral towards (pythagorean record, WPA). I guess how I feel towards them just depends on how conclusive they are. Anyways, stats are becoming more and more advanced and so is what we use these stats for.

For example, there are a number of stats to sort by to determine the "best hitter". In the old days, we would sort by average, on base percentage, homers, RBI's, slugging %, etc, to determine the "best hitter". However, times have changed. We no longer have to sort through 6-7 stats. A few people have developed their own "one stat" that determines how good someone really is. With just a few clicks you can see who is the highest above league average in total offense or you can see how many wins one player has provided for your team. Simply just click sort above that stat labeled "awesomeness" and it will sort from overall best to overall worst.

But here is where I am going with all of this...why must statheads try to turn opinions into facts? Isn't the "best hitter" supposed to be an opinion? Yet why does that very question (best hitter) seem more and more like a fact with every new stat I learn of? (By the way, no offense to you statheads. I know there are 3-4 that read this blog. FYI I find what you do very interesting and wish I was smart enough to do it myself). I mean, why don't I hire my own stathead to help me figure out which one is better tasting, BBQ ribs or lasagna?

Answer: because it is an opinion.

I think we, including myself need to sit back on ponder exactly what is and isn't an opinion. That will make life much easier and less confusing (or maybe more confusing, depending on the opinion).

Ministry is messy. This Monday I will have been a minister for a year. I wish I can put into words where my emotions have taken me this past year, but i'm just not that aesthetic. I love the Church of Christ affiliation. But I don't think we are perfect....I don't think there is a single organization/denomination/whatever your word for it is/affiliationthat is perfect simply because they are all made up of humans. I love CoC and plan on staying with them till the end. We all have our different beliefs and opinions. A lot of us have them so beat into our hearts that we aren't even aware that they are opinions...we think they are facts.

Discerning facts and opinions is something that I will always have to deal with...something that is very hard...but that is just another one of those stinking opinions.

job security anyone?

Things have been kind of hectic lately around here, so sorry for the lack of posts.

What I want to talk about right now is job security. Maybe this is just the conservative side of me leaking out, but isn't job security supposed to be important. I'd rather have a lower salary and more job security than a high salary and not very much job security. Sorry if I'm the only one that feels that way, but I believe there is value in knowing you're wanted, knowing you're in this company's/organization's/church's plans for the future.

Take the yankees for example. There was recent talk that Steinbrenner was about to dismiss Joe Torre as manager of the NY Yankees. WHAT???? Isn't this the same Joe Torre that has led the NY Yankees to a division title year after year for the past decade? Doesn't that mean something?

Days later, Cashman fired Marty Miller, the Yankees director of performance enhancement (yes, there is a job position open every MLB team with the phrase "performance enhancement" in the title). He was fired because of all the injuries the Yankees have suffered lately (he was hired for the sole purpose of injury prevention). I find this situation odd. It's not like Miller was plotting ways to hurt Phil Hughes' hamstring. He didn't attack him with a sledge hammer.

What if I were to be fired because one of my teenagers hurt himself/herself and was unable to attend church for a few weeks? I would be appalled at how little sense that makes. At what point in our lives can stop analyzing the results and start analyzing the "why". When statheads study stats, they are looking at results (some exceptions do apply). There is nothing wrong with this, it is something that I have gotten into recently. But I think the real value comes with answering the question "why do we get these results?" Great, this person hits a lot of groundballs....why? This pitcher gives up a lot of homers. That's too bad, why is that? Not many homers get hit in this ballpark. Thats neat, why?

There's more to it than just results. As former Braves broadcaster and hall of fame pitcher Don Sutton once said,

"not all good pitches produce good results, not all bad pitches produce bad results."

~Don Sutton

Results can often be a little misleading, after the question "why" is asked. That is easily seen when you look at the yankees' situation the past few weeks. I'm not a betting man, but if I was I would put a lot of money that says Torre isn't to blame for the Yankees' slow start. Nor would I say that Miller caused the hamstring injuries.

But results transfer beyond the realms of MLB. I want to do anything/everything I know to do to see that the teens here at Central Avenue are growing spiritually. I am very communicative with the elders. They know what's going on, they understand the struggles that I have gone through my rookie year of ministry. We are on the same page and I am more than positive that the Elders are committed to me for longterm ministry.

I would never take a job where there is a history of letting workers go because of results that worker might not have even had anything to do with. I'm thankful that I wake up everymorning and not have to worry about keeping my job.

Salty's Fate

There have been numerous discussions on what the destiny of Braves catching prospect Jarrod Saltalamacchia (his name always seems to get the red wavy underline). There have been talks of a position switch for either he, or Brian McCann.

MLB Trade Rumors explores different possible trades between the Braves and the Tigers (plus a few other teams mixed in), a team that is interested in a young catcher.

In case you aren't familiar with MLB Trade Rumors, it is a site that gathers all types of rumors concerning transactions of MLB players. It is simply a collection of rumors, nothing reliable.

If you are subscribed to MLBTR, you really have to be a critical reader. Sometimes they make public a rumor that is completely idiotic (for example, the article suggests a Salty for Dontrelle Willis swap, ha!). Other times, they are right on the money and a trade rumor they share happens days or even hours later. I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Don't translate this post as saying that Salty is about to be a Detroit Tiger.

So back to Salty. Really, I feel like his stock is highest as a minor leaguer. I'd like to see Salty stay a Brave, but I fear is stock dropping once he gets up here and faces tougher pitching. Some say LF is where he'll be. I've heard that the Braves aren't very high on putting him in LF (source was ajc.com I think). Outfield prospects Brandon Jones and Gregor Blanco seem to be sending a message (with their bats) that the OF is stacked in the minors for the time being.

If I had a vote on where to put Salty, I'd put him at 1B. Thorman probably will eventually be a decent major league hitter, but probably not soon enough for Braves fans' patience to stick with him. Also, 1b is the weakest position in the Braves minor league system, as far as quality of prospects goes.

Still, if the right trade offer comes, especially for pitching, I'd say jump on it. Salty's value will possibly drop when he jumps to the big club...although I've been wrong before.

So...how good are the Braves?

Some say the Braves are back to their dominant form. to back up their statement they claim the following facts:

-They are 12-7.

As Bill Parcells likes to say, "You are what your record says you are"

-They are 6-2 in games decided by 2 runs or less.

The sign of a solid bullpen (although i'd argue that it's not as solid as most people think). You can't win the close ones if you can't win the 8th and 9th innings. Record in close games is what killed the Braves in '06

-They haven't yet lost a series.

Great, so no one can play a series against us and win more games than we do...isn't that the goal of October baseball? Even more ensuring is the fact that we've already played 2 series with the Mets, going 4-2 against them.


Others claim that the Braves have not yet proven themselves. Here are the facts they use to point to their statement:


Pythagorean Record is currently at 10-9.

Winning a close one and then getting blown out the next day is a sign that maybe things aren't as good as the record indicates.

The past week or so, they've played .500 baseball.

Oh, I was hoping nobody else would notice. The first 2 weeks we go 7 - 2, now we are sitting at 12-7. Still a good record, don't get me wrong. But we have gone 5-5 the past 10 days. We won't be able to hang with the Mets for long unless we can win a bit more.

With the exception of the Mets, they've played nothing but sub .500 teams

So as we stand right now we are 4-2 against good teams (or a good team), 8-5 against bad teams. It's kind of funny. At the beginning of season, everyone was saying the first few weeks of the Braves season will really set their tone, because they start the season right off playing division opponents for almost the entire month (save chicago and colorado). Now sports writers are using the same fact to prove a different point, saying, these are weak teams, the real test is yet to come.

sidenote...I don't want to spend too much time on the last point. But has anybody looked ahead to the Month of May. May will have some fantastic matchups as the Braves play the Dodgers, the Brewers, the Redsox, oh...and the Mets of course. We play those 4 teams that have been battling for the best record in baseball. It should be fun, if I had tivo...I'd tivo those games (just trying to get into practice of using tivo as a verb). If you really want to point to strength of schedule, let's point to the Month of May, and see how the Braves do.

So, back to the back and forth discussion how good the Braves really are. Is it as good as the first few facts point to? Or are they not quite as good as the second set of facts point toward.
To me, it boils down to which record means the most. Most of those facts involve a Win-Loss record of sometype. But which one means most. Overall record? Pythagorean record? Record in close games? Record in the past 10 days?

Most of you are probably going to hate this answer, but my answer is somewhere in the middle. They probably aren't as good as the top set of facts indicate, they probably aren't as bad as the bottom set of facts indicate. Just somewhere floating in the middle (another sidenote, does anybody besides me say that we're "in the middle" way to much? Church, Politics, now sports!).

I would be a little bit more comfortable if we had a better Pythagorean record. As I've said before, I don't 100% agree with the idea of Pythagorean record...but I don't 100% disagree with it either. There needs to be a bit bigger margin between our runs scored and runs given up. Most people say that the Braves need to score more runs to accomplish this. I certainly don't have a problem with us scoring more runs, but I'm not sure I agree that our offense is the big problem. After all, we are 5th in the national league in Runs scored/game(also 5th in runs), leading the league in homers, third in the league in SLG%, well above league average in OBP (would anybody have guess that we are second in the league in walks). Although there are a few holes and a few slumps in the lineup, the offense is OK (compared to the rest of the NL).

Our pitching is however below the league average in ERA, runs surrendered/game, and WHIP. When I first noticed this, I was stunned. How could our pitching be worse than our offense? Hudson is new and improved, smoltz is smoltz, James is a quality 3 guy. Our bullpen is one of the best out there. How can this be the problem. After more browsing of the stats, i then discovered the problem. The problem can be found here.

That link is the Braves pitching broken down by inning. What you notice is that the Braves have superb pitching in innings 1-3. Braves pitching has given up 23 runs in innings 1-3 and considering that 9 of those belong to Mark Redman, that puts us in pretty good at the beginning of the game. The problem, I believe, lies in innings 4-6 (or really, just 5 and 6). The braves pitchers have given up 15 homers all year. Ten of those have come in innings 4-6. The opposition is batting .308 against us in the 4th - 6th innings(Including almost .400 in the sixth). We are just completely getting hammered in the middle of the game! So what is it about innings 4-6 that make us so vulnerable?

I guess nobody really knows, but I have a few ideas. Inning 5-6 is normally the time when your starter starts to wear down and you start to go to the pen. So maybe (a) we leave our starters in too long and they give up lots of hits/homeruns because of their fatigue or (b) we don't have anybody good enough to get us to the 7th inning, when we turn it over to Mike Gonzo, then Soriano, then Wickman to end the game. I'm thinking of a few cases when Villareal or Yates gets handed the ball in the 5 or 6th inning and they don't get us to the 7th.

Whatever the problem is, I thought it was pretty interesting, seeing the pitching stats broken down by inning. Clearly we are most vulnerable during the middle of the game. We are solid in the first few innings. We haven't necessarily been awesome in the late innings (41 of 86 walks come in the late innings). But that isn't to the fault of wickman or soriano. The problem there is when McBride or Molyer would come in and turn a 7-1 braves lead into a 7-5 wickman save. The game is pretty much decided by that time anyways, so I didn't read too much into the 7-9 inning stats, they are so different from Wickman and soriano's stats.

In case your curious, here is the runs given up compared to runs scored broken down by 3 inning segments:

Runs given up Runs scored

innings 1-3 23 29
innings 4-6 34 26
innings 7-9 30 35

I realize several will disagree with me that the pitching is more of a problem than the offense. They'll point to the LF and 1B platoons and show they're lack of production. That's not incorrect. 1b and LF should step up, i don't disagree that we need more production from those slots. We really do! However, i feel like a bigger problem is getting to the 8th and 9th after our starter comes out. Or perhaps our bullpen is not as solid as Braves fans including me think.

Anyways, sorry this one was kind of wordy (and possibly a bit on the boring side). I learned a lot while browsing around looking at the stat distribution by inning. Tonight redman goes up against the Marlins, so I'm worried this might be the first series we lose. We'll see how it goes!