Keith Law says...

by howiestheman on Jul 6, 2008 4:51 PM PDT

Joe Saunders doesn't deserve to be on the All-Star team, but John Lackey does.

he has an interesting article on people who should be in, but aren't, and who they should replace. Lackey over Saunders was one of those that he examined.

Personally, I think both of those guys are definitely deserving, but I can't decide who should be left off. Lackey has had an absurd start to the season after missing the first month of the season. Saunders, though, leads the team in wins and has an ERA close to 3.00.

Who makes it and who gets left off? Did they make the right choice, or do you agree with Law?

This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan and may or may not be a reflection of human evolution, divine enlightenment or nine cans into a 12-pack.

0 recs | Comment 54 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I love this quote

Jason Varitek over various multicellular organisms capable of wearing a catcher’s mitt

Where I am still waiting for Howie to take another base on balls

by hk47 on Jul 6, 2008 4:58 PM PDT 0 recs

that was classic

i pledge alliegance... to mike Scioscia
and the angels way of baseball
and to each pennant and ring we are sure to win.
one fanatic, under the halo, unwavered
with in n out and world series rings for all

by halofan4life on Jul 7, 2008 1:56 PM PDT up 0 recs

that guy is a clown........

he talks about too many “relievers” being chosen…....but then he wants to substitute one starter for another…........please…...........i dont even need to read the rest of the article….

http://www.diehard101.com/phpfox/upload/norcaliangelsbillsfan

by norcaliangelsfan on Jul 6, 2008 4:59 PM PDT 0 recs

just thought i'd throw it out there

it never hurts to spark some debate

Mike Scioscia: He provides to unlike method of your team member.

by howiestheman on Jul 6, 2008 5:05 PM PDT up 0 recs

oh no its a good link.......but.....when i read that.....

i was like…..does this guy even have any thought process when he writes up his articles? He like contradicted himself right after he made his second point.

http://www.diehard101.com/phpfox/upload/norcaliangelsbillsfan

by norcaliangelsfan on Jul 6, 2008 5:11 PM PDT up 0 recs

And who is voting for Miguel Tejada?

Where I am still waiting for Howie to take another base on balls

by hk47 on Jul 6, 2008 5:02 PM PDT 0 recs

maybe Rafael Palmeiro

Where I am still waiting for Howie to take another base on balls

by hk47 on Jul 6, 2008 5:02 PM PDT up 0 recs

The same people who are voting for Jeter

and Papi-smear

by Ajax on Jul 6, 2008 10:58 PM PDT up 0 recs

saunders is def. in

lackey should of been in too… had he dominated the jays last night i think it would of been hard to leave him out. tek is the worst all star selection ever..whether it was fans or francona’s call… awful AWFUL… napoli with one healthy shoulder is better

And you can LITE UP THAT HALO !!!

by BigBangRobbDawgg on Jul 6, 2008 5:13 PM PDT 0 recs

Tek's selection is actually the players' fault.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Jul 6, 2008 5:38 PM PDT up 0 recs

I liked how the original lead-in claimed Varitek was going to start,

it’s like Keith didn’t pay any attention when he started writing the story. Oh wait… he never does.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Jul 6, 2008 5:32 PM PDT 0 recs

yeah no kidding......no wonder why ESPN gets bashed on all the time.

http://www.diehard101.com/phpfox/upload/norcaliangelsbillsfan

by norcaliangelsfan on Jul 6, 2008 5:36 PM PDT up 0 recs

isn't there an editor for these columns? Good thing I am not paying to read this "Insider" story

Where I am still waiting for Howie to take another base on balls

by hk47 on Jul 6, 2008 5:37 PM PDT up 0 recs

yeah whenever ESPN has an "insider" story i head over CNNSI

and more often than not…....i can find that article for free anyways. SI is way better IMO

http://www.diehard101.com/phpfox/upload/norcaliangelsbillsfan

by norcaliangelsfan on Jul 6, 2008 5:38 PM PDT up 0 recs

this was a free one

im not paying for it either

Mike Scioscia: He provides to unlike method of your team member.

by howiestheman on Jul 6, 2008 5:52 PM PDT up 0 recs

By far the most annoying part though:

Joe Saunders is “a creation of the Angels defense,”

while Jon Lester is “one of the best pitchers in the majors,” and “an emerging star.” Really?

Lets see…

ERA? Saunders

Innings per start? Saunders

WHIP? Saunders

K/9? Lester

BB/9? Saunders

BAA? Saunders (This has as much to do with the fact that Joe doesn’t give up line drives as our D

Wow. It looks like despite a couple of flashy starts and a slightly higher strike total, Joe has totally dominated Lester performance-wise this year. Biased you say? Yes. Yes indeed.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Jul 6, 2008 5:54 PM PDT 0 recs

nice work

but you forgot one thing… Lester pitches for the Sawx… and nobody heard of him before last year when he came back, which means he’s the greatest player E.V.E.R. period.

don’t get me wrong, beating cancer is amazing, but we’re passed that and on to actual stats now. Saunders is clearly the better pitcher

Mike Scioscia: He provides to unlike method of your team member.

by howiestheman on Jul 6, 2008 6:14 PM PDT up 0 recs

You also forgot...

that all of the metrics you listed are defense dependent, except for walks, strikeouts, and innings (their K/BB rates are almost identical, and Saunders averages about one more out per start). Why, for example, did you ignore home runs per nine?

I’m not saying Lester is better, or has been better, or will be better, but the metrics you reference do nothing to refute Law’s claim. And you don’t provide any support for the line drives claim.

by LA Seitz on Jul 6, 2008 7:09 PM PDT up 0 recs

Sorry.

Joe’s breakdown by hit type.

League average LD rate is 19%.

Involved explanation of why not giving up line drives is good.

I didn’t list HR/9 because I didn’t think it was pertinent, and as the article on LD explains, pitchers have very little control over it beyond not giving up fly balls.

So yes. They do refute Laws claims. I didn’t provide evidence because Law is supposed to be some kind of stat wiz and should know this shit.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Jul 6, 2008 8:19 PM PDT up 0 recs

Also

If we consider the three non-BA dependent stats, we see that Joe has slightly fewer BBs slightly fewer Ks and slightly more innings per start. Joe seems to have two out of three.

But even if we assume that they are entirely equal, you still miss the point: Keith Law praised one of them as a great pitcher and dismissed one of them as a product of good defense. My point was that even a cursory examination of their stats reveals this to be entirely inaccurate.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Jul 6, 2008 8:36 PM PDT up 0 recs

Fair enough

Here’s the email I sent Keith. I’ll post a response when I get one:

Quick question – Why is Lester a snub, but Saunders undeserving? Even ignoring defense, their K/9 rate is almost identical (Lester strikes more out, Saunders walks fewer), Saunders gives up fewer line drives, and pitches deeper into games. He’s given up a few more homers, but across the board, his numbers are generally better, and he’s winning games on a team with a horrendous offense (which can’t be easy on a pitcher’s psyche).

by LA Seitz on Jul 7, 2008 7:05 AM PDT up 0 recs

I look forward to it.

Sorry if I sounded irate back there. I know you’ve talked to Keith in the past and you say he’s a good guy. It all just kind of builds up after a while. Didn’t mean to take it out on you though, so again, I apologize.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Jul 7, 2008 11:55 AM PDT up 0 recs

Response

I’m just gonna paraphrase here, since I didn’t ask for permission to reprint, but his response is as follows:

-Wasn’t really a Saunders v. Lester analysis as much as Saunders v. Lackey, but…
-Lester has a higer VORP, probably due to park adjustments;
-Saunders has “probably” had an easier road schedule both in terms of ballparks and competition;
-More homers allowed in a pitchers park doesn’t help his cause;
-Lester is more of “star” in that he’s more well known outside of Boston due to the cancer and no-hitter;
-Lester is four years younger, so he’ more of a star in terms of future interest.

He finishes with (and I believe and agree with him) a caveat that he doesn’t take the ASG particularly seriously. ESPN wanted a column for it, so he wrote. I think he believes what he writes, but he probably wouldn’t argue to the death over any of these things.

My own personal opinion, he’d probably take Lester over Saunders, but didn’t necessarily say Saunders isn’t deserving, he just thinks he’s not as deserving as Lackey (and possibly Lester). If you read the whole thing in total, he’s probably prefer all three made it with two relievers out of the picture. I think he did Saunders v. Lackey primarily because they’re on the same team and play the same position, and it illustrates his view that the ASG should be a reward for more than just three months of baseball. But that’s my reading of his piece, so keep that in mind.

by LA Seitz on Jul 7, 2008 2:21 PM PDT up 0 recs

Bloggers unite for truth and debate via email

and we, the audience, are able to see the mechanical breakdown in the though process behind the writers’ opinions.

Kudos, Seitz. Though, I don’t think reproducing email correspondence breaks DMCA.

by shiftyeyedgoat on Jul 7, 2008 3:43 PM PDT up 0 recs

Heh. Let's see:

I’ve been told that VORP is useless for pitchers by people who take that sort of thing seriously.
“Probably” had a tougher schedule is a pretty vague statement to make for a something that’s easily checkable. As it turns out, Lester’s quality of opponents OPS is .740 while Saunders is .723, which isn’t much of a significant difference.
-More homers allowed is kind of meaningless since that’s not something pitchers can control. He’s also ignoring that as a lefty in Fenway, Lester’s HR-rate benefits from the Green monster (He’s given up 26 doubles to Joe’s 13 though). Joe’s also had less run support than Lester, for whatever that’s worth.
-Lester’s “star” quality outside of Boston is entirely because of hype from ESPN. While not on the same scale, Joe has the whole “VT” thing going for him. Oh, and the Tommy John surgery at age 22.
-Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, Joe is two and a half years older, not four.

That last line is my whole beef pretty much. How hard would it have been to get that right? Was the twenty seconds it took to look that up really too much to ask of a guy who does this for a living? I realize he’d probably say it doesn’t matter, but it just seems to emphasize that he doesn’t really know anything about Saunders.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Jul 7, 2008 3:48 PM PDT up 0 recs

wow Zu,

way to fight.
stick it to the man!

Mike Scioscia: He provides to unlike method of your team member.

by howiestheman on Jul 7, 2008 3:55 PM PDT up 0 recs

Damn the man!

by TheTypingFiend on Jul 8, 2008 2:32 PM PDT up 0 recs

But ...

Aren’t you the man?
Yes
So… you’re sticking it to yourself?
Maybe

Angels fan since '67

by red floyd on Jul 8, 2008 3:18 PM PDT up 0 recs

STAR WATTAGE

Zu has a good point – ESPN makes ordinary/above-average pitchers into STARS because of their Yank-Sox connections and then defends their perpetuation of this myth by pointing out ”...HEY, the guys is a STAR…”

by Rev Halofan on Jul 7, 2008 4:00 PM PDT up 0 recs

I forgot to add that being the AL Wins leader contributes a certain amount of "star" power in its own right

since Newspapers and most of the major websites keep up-to-date top-5 lists of things like Wins and ERA. Given that Joe has been near the top of the AL in wins since the beginning of the year, he’s probably got some nifty “star” power from having people see his name and (in some cases) face every single day.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Jul 7, 2008 4:10 PM PDT up 0 recs

Or

He’s famous because he’s famous.

Angels fan since '67

by red floyd on Jul 7, 2008 4:25 PM PDT up 0 recs

He's not Paris Hilton...

by shiftyeyedgoat on Jul 8, 2008 12:13 PM PDT up 0 recs

Thanks for the follow-up

Of course, the implication of “Lackey over Saunders” implies that Law feels the Angels should only have 3 All-Stars (Unlike the Chicago Cubs getting 7) ... “oh thank you dear Key Flaw for allowing the Angels even ONE All-Star (grovel grovel SPIT)“

by Rev Halofan on Jul 7, 2008 3:57 PM PDT up 0 recs

I love this quote:

“Chicago’s John Danks is in a similar boat as Lester. Both are young left-handed pitchers and former high draft picks emerging as stars this season, pitching for contenders, with ERAs putting them in the top eight in the AL.”

There is a 3rd guy who EXACTLY matches this description (Former high draft pick, young lefty, pitching for contender, ERA in the top 8), and he’s the guy Law disses the next paragraph.

*Visiting Angels fan* Never give up, never surrender!

by TheOptimist on Jul 7, 2008 11:12 AM PDT up 0 recs

I also found this ironic.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Jul 7, 2008 11:58 AM PDT up 0 recs

Saunders over Lackey

Keith LAw’s analysis is faulty in that he favors Lackey’s spectacular performance – which is a SMALL SAMPLE SIZE (as last night evinced). So LAw’s bias against the Saunders wins and defense-assisted pitching is stupiditiy when he is blind to Lackey’s limited performance.

by Rev Halofan on Jul 6, 2008 5:54 PM PDT 0 recs

Despite it's limited size though,

It’s still pretty amazing. Duscherer only has four more starts and Lackey is still beating the crud out of anybody not name Halladay in terms of innings per start. 9 starts at a 1.44 ERA is pretty incredible. I like my complaint better. Saunders has outpitched Lester in almost every conceivable way this season, yet Lester’s ass gets a giant pucker-up while Saunders gets called overrated.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Jul 6, 2008 6:02 PM PDT up 0 recs

lester=1.35 WHIp

saunders =1.15
just adding to your stats. i saw that and i htought, no way lester is better than saunders. and takling about creating of your defense, hello no hitter. you know, its kinda hard to throw a no hitter if your D is terrrible, and IIRC the sux bailed him out like 3 times on diving catches and amazing plays. and winning in the bronx is NOT a criteria for being a great player. when you pitch 3-6 games there every year (if you are on an aLEAST) team, then chances are youll win at least 1 game.

p.s. the aLEAST was a typo, but ill leave it

I AM THOR, GOD OF THUNDER. BOW TO MY WILL AND MY HAMMER!

by anaheim angels on Jul 7, 2008 12:56 AM PDT up 0 recs

But he's not basing it solely on this year

He references last year’s performance for Lackey, and Law has always stated that he thinks the all-star game shouldn’t be dependent on three months of baseball alone. So he’s actually referencing quite a large sample size for Lackey. It’s pretty clear he thinks Lackey’s body of work over the last two years qualifies him over Saunders’ first half.

Again, you’re free to disagree with the premise, but it’s not true that he favors Lackey solely because of what he has done this year.

by LA Seitz on Jul 6, 2008 7:13 PM PDT up 0 recs

If past performance is so important to him,

then why is he kissing Lester’s ass and talking about how MLB should be “promoting it’s young talent.” Promote their young talent while also paying respect to pitching achievements of the past… those two seem to be mutually exclusive. Keith needs to pick a side and stick with it.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Jul 6, 2008 8:21 PM PDT up 0 recs

But he has

It’s the Boston/New York side. Other than the Varitek-bashing (that’s the New York part of his fanboydom shining through), he sticks with Boston throughout the article.

Light Up That Halo!

by Clutch on Jul 6, 2008 8:49 PM PDT up 0 recs

Sounds right to me.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Jul 6, 2008 9:05 PM PDT up 0 recs

Then it is LAW'S FANTASY

Law wants it both ways then – he wants the voters to insist on the reality that Saunders has great numbers for some defensive-dependent stats … fine, but then wants to ignore the reality that All-Star voters adhere to consideration of THIS SEASAON’S stats.

So he gets to enforce a reality and then deny a reality and we are supposed to ignore his inconsistencies in an articel critiquing the inconsistencies as he sees them.

by Rev Halofan on Jul 6, 2008 10:23 PM PDT up 0 recs

What's the criteria for being selected?

I thought so… there is none. Thus everyone is equally deserving. Or if you like, each voter can make up their own criteria.

by melvintoast on Jul 6, 2008 7:45 PM PDT 2 recs

excellent point

Mike Scioscia: He provides to unlike method of your team member.

by howiestheman on Jul 6, 2008 8:16 PM PDT up 0 recs

perfectly toasted

by 44FAN on Jul 6, 2008 8:41 PM PDT up 0 recs

exactly

it is POSTMODERNISM

by Rev Halofan on Jul 6, 2008 10:24 PM PDT up 0 recs

You suppose that was the defense

Bonds was cooking up in his steroids case? “No rules against it means it’s not wrong!”

by shiftyeyedgoat on Jul 7, 2008 3:46 PM PDT up 0 recs

Ummm.... He was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice.

The legality of steroids actually isn’t on trial.

by melvintoast on Jul 8, 2008 11:10 PM PDT up 0 recs

i guess keith law doesnt appreciate

stepping up and pitching way above yourself when both your teams aces are gone.

ya, joe saunders isnt a 20 game winner but he’s not supposed to make the all star game because of that?

well shit, lets just leave off all the guys who are making their first all star game because theyre clearly just flukes. Thats what the game is for, to reward those who perform the best, not the ones with the best track records.

by ihearhowie2.0 on Jul 6, 2008 9:13 PM PDT 0 recs

He does appreciate it.

But only when you pitch for the Red Sox. Or have had cancer or pitched a no-hitter or… something. Yeah… Point is, whatever it was, Joe doesn’t have it.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Jul 6, 2008 9:16 PM PDT up 0 recs