An Open Letter to Tony Gwynn

by ZiK on Oct 29, 2006 1:01 AM PDT Comment 22 comments

Dear Tony Gwynn,

First of all, I will forever rememeber you as the guy in the Sega Genesis game Sports Talk Baseball who would always manage to hit the ball easily into right field, but still manage to get thrown out at first base. And really, that just makes your career .338 average all the more impressive. Thus, I do not deny your hitting ability. What I am denying, however, is your ability to be a baseball analyst.

I saw your little MLB Playoff "breakdowns" on sports.yahoo.com. I noticed how, in the Divison Series, you predicted the Yankees over the Tigers, the Twins over the A's (I don't blame you for this one), the Mets over the Dodgers, and the Padres over the Cardinals. You got ONE of these predictions right (the Mets beating the Dodgers). Even with that one correct prediction, I'm not too sure about your skills...I mean, you said that the "Dodgers will make series close," but last time I checked, getting swept and getting outscored 19-11 isn't too "close." So far, your percentage was an excellent 25%.

But then I gave you another chance in the League Championship Series. You picked the A's over the Tigers, even though you gave more checkmarks to the Tigers. You say that the Tigers have a better offense, better bullpen and better manager, but somehow the A's "better defense and 'intangibles'" mean more? Regardless, you said A's in 7, when it was Tigers in 4.

On the other side, you said Mets over Cards, and AGAIN, you gave more checkmarks to the Cardinals. My question to you, Tony, is, what in the world is the point of the checkmarks if they don't mean anything?! You say, "New York is too strong offensively and can beat you too many ways." Seeing as how you said the Mets only had the advantage in Offense and Defense, I think you meant "two ways," not "too many ways." I do have to admit, the Mets must have an awesome defense, I mean, as you say, "the Mets have many defensive weapons." Defensive weapons. Oh, I see now, the Mets have offense, defense, and oxymorons on their side. And yet, they still managed to lose. Your overall percentage was now a dismal 16.7%.

And then, the World Series. I eagerly awaited your analysis and was sorely disappointed when I saw you had picked the Tigers. For you see, I wanted the Tigers to win. I sent links to all my friends about your bad streak, telling them how scared I was that your pick would jinx the Tigers. I did this in hopes that I would ironically jinx your ability to jinx the Tigers and thus, get my wish of the Tigers winning the world series to come true. Do you see what you've done, Tony? I used to make sense! Anyway, for some ABSURD reason, you picked the Tigers even though, AGAIN, the Cardinals had more checkmarks! WHY BOTHER WITH THE CHECKMARKS?!?!

The thing that gets me about you, Tony, is that I see a trend in all your picks. I'm on to your "system." EACH and EVERY pick you made was the team with home-field advantage. You are no baseball expert. You're like Miss Cleo: you can't make accurate predictions and you're a FRAUD.

However, take pride in your overall correct prediction percentage of 14.29%. Basically, you're probably the only person in the world who has a better chance of getting a basehit than getting a 50/50 choice right.

This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.

0 recs | Comment 22 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

If you take issue with Gwynn's picks

Then you might as well take issue with everyone's picks this time. Pretty much everyone did a shit job of it, and Gywnn's picks are right in line with the rest of 'em. It was a bad year for playoff baseball analysts, not just Tony Gwynn.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 29, 2006 12:59 AM PDT reply actions

what?

How dare you imply my sample size of 7 isn't big enough for me to jump to conclusions about the idiocy of a man I don't even know.

by ZiK on Oct 29, 2006 1:08 AM PDT up reply actions

Ironic Jinxing

used to be part of Newtonian Physics until Einstein proved that it can only be done with 100% certainty when the reverse jinxing is done at the speed of light.

Stephen Hawking is too busy getting it on with hot, impressionable undergrads to investigate any further...

by Rev Halofan on Oct 29, 2006 1:01 AM PDT reply actions

Wait a second...

Are you saying Stephen Hawking could pull off a perfect prediction of 50/50 guesses, but he decides to mack on hot young coeds instead? Where are this man's priorities?

by ZiK on Oct 29, 2006 1:09 AM PDT up reply actions

in his pants

like every other dude...

by Rev Halofan on Oct 29, 2006 1:38 AM PDT up reply actions

Does Steve

have Barry White mode on that keyboard of his or something?

by eyespy on Oct 30, 2006 11:18 AM PST up reply actions

Mr. San Diego?

I'll respect his analysis any day. If you would of posted this prior to each series and why you disagreed with his analysis, I would give you more credit than doing it now. In fact he was just one series off on the Detroit defense.

I grew to admire this man while stationed in San Diego in the eaarly 90's. I'll never forget an interview he had given where the interviewer asked him why he doesn't hit more HRs. His answer was that he didn't want to be that type of baseball player; he was asked to go further and he refused, only to say that he was happy being the type of player he is.
Then I never really understood that answer, yet respected it, in hindsight I think that answer was much deeper than anyone imagined then, and my interpetation now is that he was stating that playing the game without using performance enhancing drugs was much more important to him than some stat.

by mdangel on Oct 29, 2006 4:47 AM PDT reply actions

So was eating that extra donut

playing the game without using performance enhancing drugs was much more important to him than some stat.

He showed no interest in playing the game in any kind of actual shape, however, which unnecessarily limited his effectiveness.

by mattwelch on Oct 29, 2006 10:08 AM PST up reply actions

HOF

how effective does one need to be for you?

by mdangel on Oct 29, 2006 1:17 PM PST up reply actions

Because Hall of Famers can't get better?

Tony got into the Hall not because of the donut-eating & stomach-inflating, but despite it. He could (and should) have been more effective if he cared enough about being in shape, but he didn't.

Yeah, those 85 triples are impressive, but 72 of 'em came before he was a tub of goo out there. Dude played more than 141 games just once after age 30, and stole more bases from 1986-87 than he did from 1991-2001. If you don't think having a basketball under his shirt affected any that, then more power to you (and enjoy those Pop Tarts!).

I like Tony a lot, but I don't understand the whole sainthood thing around him.

by mattwelch on Oct 29, 2006 3:06 PM PST up reply actions

I realize he got fat

But why the cherry-picking of stats? You only count his best two SB years, then discount another 4 of them entirely, and then start your count over from a year when the drop occured. That's not a way to prove a point. He still had 4 seasons of 10+ steals after 1991, so it wasn't a total loss, either. And yeah, if the guy can eat and hit, let'em. Perhaps that's where the "sainthood" comes from: the fact that he could do what he wanted off the field and still come to play everyday. anyway you cut it, he never hit under .300 in a full season. (and in fairness to the 141 game comment, he would have done it in both 1994 and 1995 if not for the strikes).

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 29, 2006 3:35 PM PST up reply actions

"every day" my arse

I take "every day" as 9 days out of 10, or 145 games over a season. Tony did that all of seven times (including '94, with 94%, but not '95, with its 87%). This for a guy who didn't exactly play the most demanding position on the diamond.

He was awesome, a higher-rung HoFer, but being fat made him measurably less valuable than he otherwise would have been.

by mattwelch on Oct 29, 2006 4:58 PM PST up reply actions

87% of 162

is 141 games, meeting the "quota" you made in the previous point. either way, i don't see how you can knock the man for being a career .338 hitter. without the extra weight, fine...he has an extra dozen hits or so a year, and plays a little more often. who cares, he played the way he personally wanted to, he didn't gripe about it, and he didn't cheat. that's pretty much all i can ask of a guy.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 29, 2006 5:11 PM PST up reply actions

no proof to this

He's a baseball player. Not a track star, not a wide receiver, not a point guard. There is absolutely no evidence to backup that he would have been a better player with abs of steal.

by thewebb on Nov 2, 2006 9:28 PM PST up reply actions

Oh, there's plenty of evidence ...

Evidence, that is, of a player who declined sharply in the "speed" and durability areas of his game. Which are precisely the areas that correlate with physical conditioning.

In the first 10 years of his career, Gwynn stole 246 bases. For the last 10, he stole 73.

In his first decade he hit 72 triples. In the last decade, he hit 13.

In his first 10 years he always made between 1.99 and 2.40 plays in right field per game. In his last 10 years his range factor started at 2.20, then 2.08, and then never saw the twos again, plummeting into cartoon territory of 1.28 and 1.12.

His first 8 seasons as a regular, he averaged 149 games a year. His last 8 seasons as a regular? 132. And that's being generous, in pro-rating to 162 games his totals in '94 and '95.

Just compare him to other Hall of Fame-caliber corner outfielders who stayed in shape. Gary Sheffield has stolen more bases between ages 31-37 than Tony Gwynn. Gwynn last played 150 games at age 29; Sheffield did it four times in his 30s. (And Sheffield's game obviously depended less on speed than Gwynn's.)

How about players with skill sets closer to Gwynn's? Paul Molitor stayed in shape, and spent his 30s being durable, stealing many bases at a high rate, and hitting triples.

A great man once said that baseball's an awful hard game to play when you're fat. It's a total credit to Tony Gwynn that he could put together an inner-circle Hall of Fame career with a basketball under his shirt, and still hit the cover off the ball well into his late 30s. And unlike Molitor, he didn't have the crutch of DH. 0But to say "there is absolutely no evidence" he would have been better had he not been fat is to ignore the red lights flashing in his numbers, not to mention basic common sense.

by mattwelch on Nov 2, 2006 10:37 PM PST up reply actions

so in his 11th year...

that's when he got fat?

by thewebb on Nov 3, 2006 2:19 PM PST up reply actions

I don't remember

He was always sort of round, but there was a time after which he just looked ridiculous (and had ridiculous defensive numbers to match). Being fat doesn't necessarily depress your triples, or even make you slow; it's effect is as much on your back and legs as anything else. It seems pretty obvious to me that certain speed- and conditioning-related numbers just tanked in his 30s, as compared to the other few people you can compare to, but that he always maintained the ability to hit the ball.

Arguing against myself for a second, I wonder if his girth had something to do with his ability to hit for power in his late 30s, compared to Rod Carew, who was skinny & had zero power after his 30th birthday....

by mattwelch on Nov 4, 2006 12:28 AM PST up reply actions

Better than Sainthood

When I was in McLeod Ganj, India in October 1995 I met a San Diego Padre season ticket holder. Immediately after a meeting with His Holiness the Dalai Lama this Padre fan proclaimed "Tony Gwynn is God!" Talk about enlightenment! Gwynn is a baseball bodhisattva!

Gwynn will be the Padres next manager. The San Diego State Aztecs' loss will be the Padres gain. Gwynn will do better with the Padres than Bruce Bochy will with the Giants.

by Yetijuice on Oct 30, 2006 12:42 AM PST up reply actions