PDA

View Full Version : A Chat with Joe Sheehan...OMG is this guy an idiot...


jabrch
10-08-2005, 04:13 PM
I figured I'd break down Joe's most recent and senseless chat on BP. I'll save you about half the time I wasted that I'll never get back in my life.

Joe Sheehan: Good afternoon...you know, if the Red Sox win today, we'll have a 12-hour Division Series marathon tomorrow! Something to look forward to...

Oh Goody...I can't wait for that. Oh, wait...it looks like they didn't win. SCREW YOU JOE!



DrLivy (Charleston, WV): This is the only site on the internet that I pay to read. It's that good. That said, why do you guys consistently diss the Cardinals. Your Padres in four prediction nearly made me spit coffee on my computer screen. It's going to be a sweep. And St. Louis will score at least six runs in every game.

Joe Sheehan: I don't know that I've ever "dissed" the Cardinals, but I certainly haven't written enough about what they've been doing the last two years.

However, my call on the Division Series had more to do with Jake Peavy and a sense that the Padres were underrated. Clearly, it hasn't worked out for them, and honestly, Peavy's injury is a small part of that. The Cardinals have been very good, and have to be considered the favorite to not only get back to the World Series, but to win it.



Dr. Livy - you pay for this crap, and then call it worth while? How shameful.

Padres in 4, huh Joe? How's that working for ya? Typical crap - pick the dog, brag if you are right, but if you are wrong, you were just out on the limb. If you picked the Padres in 4, I highly doubt you have seen much baseball this year. Over the course of the past two years, the Cards have consistently been one of the 3 best teams in baseball. No other team can say that. The fact that you spend your time writing about the Depodestas, the Beanes and the Epsteins (oops, I meant the Dodgers, As and Red Sox) instead of one of the best stories in baseball is because you are a biased, short sighted, ignorant fool who is desperately seeking a way to validate the entire discipline of using statistical gyrations to manage baseball teams.



BridgeportJoe (Chicago): So the White Sox won 99 games, in the process turning aside the charge of one of the hottest young teams in recent memory, and are currently in the process of manhandling the reigning World Series champs. Precisely what do they have to do before people will recognize that this is a very, very good team?



OMG - I can't wait to hear this ninny respond to this one...


Joe Sheehan: Probably win it all.

Look, this is where both sides are a bit off. Because their run prevention is so good--pitching and defense both--they've been able to be a winning team, better than projected. But their offense is lousy, because they don't get on base. Overall, it's a good, not great team. The 99 wins has a lot to do with a great record in one-run games, and as has been pointed out repeatedly, performance in one-run games isn't a skill.

I don't know why a team's fans don't just enjoy winning, why it has to be about getting credit from everyone else. I suppose it's related to the trend towards any team that wins talking about how no one believed in them.



Well - we just might do that and go win it all. And then I'll see your stupid article about how they only have a 88% chance of having won it all.

The offense is not "lousy". The offense is good enough to win games. That's not lousy. If you know you will hold your opponent to 2 runs, 3 is good enough to win. Now 14 is an a$$whooping, but 3 is all it takes. If you can hold them to 4, 5 is enough. If you can hold them to 3 (in Fenway) 4 is still enough. That's not awful when you look at a baseball field. If all you do is stick it in a calculator to determine good, bad or "awful" that's fine. But 99 times in the regular season it was just awful enough to win. 3 of 3 in the post season, it was just awful enough to win. Now what is awful is the crap you put on your website - and the fact that buffoons will pay for it.

chrismusillo (the internet): Is Clay doing a playoff odds report?

Joe Sheehan: It's up now (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/postseasonodds.php):



If it is anything like your odds report the last few weeks of the season (Sox had an 88% chance of winning the division AFTER THEY CLINCHED THE DIVISION, then I have to go right to that website - after I give my grandmother a colonic.



billyballs (Northern Virginia): Hey Joe: Why does good pitching so often stop good hitting in the playoffs and World Series? Batters have faced most of these pitchers dozens of times before, yet they frequently put up 1 for 10, 2 for 20 types batting peformances in the playoffs or World Series. Is there more pressure on a hitter in a short series that is the key factor? Or are we seeing just "normal" mini-slumps that happen all the time but are just magnified by the time of year? Thanks.

Joe Sheehan: The latter. What was it, 2002 when the postseason seemed like a parade of 8-5 games? We had a couple of years of low-scoring postseasons prior to that, and scoring is generally slightly lower (top pitchers get a much higher percentage of the innings), but the differences are exaggerated.



The fact that you won't acknowledge that good pitching will beat good hitting more often than not shows how little you understand the game. Good hitting KILLS bad pitching. But nothing beats GREAT pitching except GREATER pitching.

Joe Torre (Brooklyn): Joe, you Yankee bashing, Red Sox loving twit. Well, no thanks to you, we made it.

I like the way this is starting


Joe Torre (Brooklyn): And we were fiscally responsible on top of that - replacing $30MM with $1MM - not bad, huh?. I think you owe me and the Big Stein a BIG apology.


Well - it quickly took a turn for the worse. A Yankee fan bragging about them being "fiscally responsible"? That's like Jeffrey Dahmer boasting that he always used a napkin to dab the side of his mouths. That's like Ted Kennedy donating money to MADD. That's like Bill Clinton preaching family values or George Bush speaking at a peace rally.

Joe's dumb response isn't important - the idiot Yankee fan made me smile.





Fishbone (St. Louis, MO): Will all of Mulder's baserunners catch up to him, sooner than later. I mean I realize he's a groundball pitcher, and any time you have a 17-1 GB ratio as he did yesterday, you're going to turn quite a few DPs, but he doesn't seem to be fooling anyone with his stuff. Would a better hitting and more patient team like the Yankees just wait for his ineveitable high fastballs and tee off on him?

Here's a case where someone just doesn't get baseball. Hey Fisbone, the Cubs would gladly give you Kerry Wood for Mark Mulder. He yields fewer baserunners, has more strikeouts, and has a great K ratio. But the fact is he sucks. Mulder is a great pitcher because in order to beat him, you have to string at least two, usually 3 hits together before getting three outs. And ya know what - most teams don't do it. Mark Mulder is a fantastic pitcher. He gets outs. He gets ground outs, DPs, and lots of poorly hit balls. So he doesn't get 175 Ks - who cares? Ks don't win games - outs do.

Anyone wonder what Dopey Joe will say?

Joe Sheehan: I think you have to make a guy like Mulder get the ball up, even if it means hitting behind in the count sometimes. It's easier said than done, of course, but the Padres did have some success in the seventh inning with that approach before the Olivo double play.

Boy Joe - that's some great analysis. Make him get the ball up... The Red Sox tried that to Buehrle - and they were 1-2, 0-2, etc. a lot. Hitting behind in the count is not easy - not against a guy like Mulder who then WONT get the ball up.

I'm sorry Joe - I don't see the great success the Padres have had. Through 2 games, in innings 1-6, the Padres have scored 0 runs. That's right Joe - 0. Once the Cards had big leads, they did what every other smart team does - throw nothing but strikes and make teams hit them. In the last 3 innings, when they were significantly behind (by 8 runs in one game and 4 in the other) they scored a few runs - but never enough...that's a success? How bout them Ricardis (I mean Blue Jays) - what a succesful season they had!


ryan (miami): joe, your world series picks? ill take a surpriser, white sox-angels. with the angels winning primarily b/c of their 'pen(donelley,shields,k-rod primarily)


Ryan, that would surprise me too. MORON



Joe Sheehan: Folks, I have to close up shop...thanks for all the great questions, answered and unanswered, and enjoy what should be a great weekend of baseball!

Bad questions...and worse answers. People pay for this drivel?



Gang, let me know if anyone enjoyed this - I'll review some of the other intellectual chat's that are out there between BP, ESPN, etc. if people actually enjoy it.

Ol' No. 2
10-08-2005, 04:48 PM
I figured I'd break down Joe's most recent and senseless chat on BP. I'll save you about half the time I wasted that I'll never get back in my life.



Oh Goody...I can't wait for that. Oh, wait...it looks like they didn't win. SCREW YOU JOE!



Dr. Livy - you pay for this crap, and then call it worth while? How shameful.

Padres in 4, huh Joe? How's that working for ya? Typical crap - pick the dog, brag if you are right, but if you are wrong, you were just out on the limb. If you picked the Padres in 4, I highly doubt you have seen much baseball this year. Over the course of the past two years, the Cards have consistently been one of the 3 best teams in baseball. No other team can say that. The fact that you spend your time writing about the Depodestas, the Beanes and the Epsteins (oops, I meant the Dodgers, As and Red Sox) instead of one of the best stories in baseball is because you are a biased, short sighted, ignorant fool who is desperately seeking a way to validate the entire discipline of using statistical gyrations to manage baseball teams.



OMG - I can't wait to hear this ninny respond to this one...



Well - we just might do that and go win it all. And then I'll see your stupid article about how they only have a 88% chance of having won it all.

The offense is not "lousy". The offense is good enough to win games. That's not lousy. If you know you will hold your opponent to 2 runs, 3 is good enough to win. Now 14 is an a$$whooping, but 3 is all it takes. If you can hold them to 4, 5 is enough. If you can hold them to 3 (in Fenway) 4 is still enough. That's not awful when you look at a baseball field. If all you do is stick it in a calculator to determine good, bad or "awful" that's fine. But 99 times in the regular season it was just awful enough to win. 3 of 3 in the post season, it was just awful enough to win. Now what is awful is the crap you put on your website - and the fact that buffoons will pay for it.



If it is anything like your odds report the last few weeks of the season (Sox had an 88% chance of winning the division AFTER THEY CLINCHED THE DIVISION, then I have to go right to that website - after I give my grandmother a colonic.



The fact that you won't acknowledge that good pitching will beat good hitting more often than not shows how little you understand the game. Good hitting KILLS bad pitching. But nothing beats GREAT pitching except GREATER pitching.



I like the way this is starting



Well - it quickly took a turn for the worse. A Yankee fan bragging about them being "fiscally responsible"? That's like Jeffrey Dahmer boasting that he always used a napkin to dab the side of his mouths. That's like Ted Kennedy donating money to MADD. That's like Bill Clinton preaching family values or George Bush speaking at a peace rally.

Joe's dumb response isn't important - the idiot Yankee fan made me smile.




Here's a case where someone just doesn't get baseball. Hey Fisbone, the Cubs would gladly give you Kerry Wood for Mark Mulder. He yields fewer baserunners, has more strikeouts, and has a great K ratio. But the fact is he sucks. Mulder is a great pitcher because in order to beat him, you have to string at least two, usually 3 hits together before getting three outs. And ya know what - most teams don't do it. Mark Mulder is a fantastic pitcher. He gets outs. He gets ground outs, DPs, and lots of poorly hit balls. So he doesn't get 175 Ks - who cares? Ks don't win games - outs do.

Anyone wonder what Dopey Joe will say?



Boy Joe - that's some great analysis. Make him get the ball up... The Red Sox tried that to Buehrle - and they were 1-2, 0-2, etc. a lot. Hitting behind in the count is not easy - not against a guy like Mulder who then WONT get the ball up.

I'm sorry Joe - I don't see the great success the Padres have had. Through 2 games, in innings 1-6, the Padres have scored 0 runs. That's right Joe - 0. Once the Cards had big leads, they did what every other smart team does - throw nothing but strikes and make teams hit them. In the last 3 innings, when they were significantly behind (by 8 runs in one game and 4 in the other) they scored a few runs - but never enough...that's a success? How bout them Ricardis (I mean Blue Jays) - what a succesful season they had!



Ryan, that would surprise me too. MORON



Bad questions...and worse answers. People pay for this drivel?



Gang, let me know if anyone enjoyed this - I'll review some of the other intellectual chat's that are out there between BP, ESPN, etc. if people actually enjoy it.

That was great. After yesterday's tension, I needed some comic relief. I'd pay to read THAT. :thumbsup:

jabrch
10-08-2005, 04:52 PM
That was great. After yesterday's tension, I needed some comic relief. I'd pay to read THAT. :thumbsup:

If enough people like it, I'll do it a bit more regularly.

Ol' No. 2
10-08-2005, 04:57 PM
If enough people like it, I'll do it a bit more regularly.It's truly amazing that these clowns just don't get it. They continue to worship OBP and OPS beyond all reason. You have to wonder what kind of screwed up thought process produces "Scott Podsednik is overrated because he doesn't hit home runs." :dunno:

gf2020
10-08-2005, 05:04 PM
If enough people like it, I'll do it a bit more regularly.

Please do so. This was a fun read.

SOXSINCE'70
10-08-2005, 05:17 PM
Best term for Sheehan:


:dumbass:

SOXintheBURGH
10-08-2005, 06:04 PM
Brilliant, keep it up man. :gulp:

Clembasbal
10-08-2005, 07:31 PM
Keep it up, I enjoyed reading it.

Sheehan stinks of Moneyball. Sorry, FOBB you might get there but you don't win there.

Hokiesox
10-08-2005, 10:05 PM
I can't wait to see the White Sox-Angels World Series!

samram
10-09-2005, 12:52 AM
Well, there may be an 88% percent chance the Sox win the division, but we know there is a 100% chance that Joe Sheehan doesn't know what the **** he's talking about.

elrod
10-09-2005, 01:07 AM
Well, look what the White Sox did in the Billy Ball department during the ALDS:

In the 2005 Division Series:
White Sox OBP: .355
Red Sox OBP: .295

White Sox slugging: .567
Red Sox slugging: .413

White Sox OPS: .922
Red Sox OPS: .708

So how did this happen? Hmm, maybe the pitching had something to do with it.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-09-2005, 08:43 AM
Well, look what the White Sox did in the Billy Ball department during the ALDS:

In the 2005 Division Series:
White Sox OBP: .355
Red Sox OBP: .295

White Sox slugging: .567
Red Sox slugging: .413

White Sox OPS: .922
Red Sox OPS: .708

So how did this happen? Hmm, maybe the pitching had something to do with it.

Pitching? Nah, it was our superior glovework. The Sox reached base more than Boston, outslugged Boston, and out MoneyBalled Boston because our guys wear super-human gloves. The hitting had nothing to do with it.

After all, pitching and defense wins championships.

:wink:

TornLabrum
10-09-2005, 09:44 AM
Let's see...

We beat the crap out of the ball when in game 1, and scored 5 runs in each of the other two games.

We scored runs on everything from a squeeze play to home runs.

We got quality starts from two of the three starters.

The bullpen (with one exception) was lights out, especially one Orlando Hernandez and one Bobby Jenks.

We had several great defensive plays.

Hmmm...hitting, pitching, defense. BALANCE. A milking stool with all three legs instead of the one or two most Sox teams have had in my lifetime. Moneyball, Billyball, BSball. It's been the same since the game first started. The teams that can do it all are the champions.

voodoochile
10-09-2005, 10:31 AM
If enough people like it, I'll do it a bit more regularly.

Please... great stuff, jabarch, heck, you could talk to George about doing something for the homepage analyzing the analyzers if you are interested. PHG makes all those decisions, but he is always looking for more material and at the least there is the Soxfans Sound off article.

MRKARNO
10-09-2005, 11:01 AM
Well, look what the White Sox did in the Billy Ball department during the ALDS:

In the 2005 Division Series:
White Sox OBP: .355
Red Sox OBP: .295

White Sox slugging: .567
Red Sox slugging: .413

White Sox OPS: .922
Red Sox OPS: .708

So how did this happen? Hmm, maybe the pitching had something to do with it.

The Red Sox made everyone in our lineup look like Andruw Jones (.347/.565/.922)! Gee, why did they lose again?

OEO Magglio
10-09-2005, 02:18 PM
I wish I could get paid for being a complete moron.