Sunday morning, I noticed a post on Barack Obama's facebook page featuring the photo above of Barack and his mother. While browsing the comments on the post, I notice something disturbing that I had never been aware of before. I found that in addition to the birthers who insist Barack Obama was born in Kenya, there are also people who insists that any photo of Barack Obama with a white relative must be photoshopped ( admittedly, there is probably a huge overlap between those people and the birthers ).
For the purposes of this post, I'll call these people "shop-ers". The fact that these shop-ers exists at all, is more disturbing to me than the existence of the birthers, the truthers, any of those other crazy conspiracy nuts out there. I don't know any shop-ers ( thank god ), so I don't know what their motivations are, but I've got to imagine that the shop-ers are white racists who can't conceive that the black President they hate could be half white. So, they make up ridiculous theories to "prove" that Obama does not have any white ancestry at all. For example, see the photo below; do you see anything wrong with it?
Of course you don't, because there's nothing wrong with it. It's just a nice photo of young Barack with his mom, his grandfather, and his sister. However, to the shop-ers, the photo above is proof of something nefarious. Shop-ers point to Obama's mother's right hand, the hand that is obscured by Obama's right arm. To an ordinary person, the hand in the photo shows up being darker than the rest of her arm because the hand is clearly in a shadow. To a shop-er, on the other hand, the "black" hand under Obama's arm is proof that this photo has been photoshopped.
The shop-ers are also not above photoshopping a real photo ( such as the photo of Obama with his grandparents below ) and claiming that the original photo was photoshopped.
This is all rather depressing, and it got me thinking about what this all says about race relations in the USA.
As a white person, I've never experienced racism directed at me, so I have no direct way to know whether racism has gotten better or worse over the course of my lifetime. However, I've certainly been a witness to racism at times, and the things I've witnessed have changed over the years.
As a adult, you largely choose the people you associate with, but as a child, the group of children you interact with is based mostly on proximity. I grew up in an area that was almost a 100% white and had a racist reputation. My neighborhood ( Ozone Park, New York ) was right next the the infamous Howard Beach. I interacted with kids from both Ozone Park and Howard Beach over the years ( school, little league, etc. ) and plenty of the kids I knew from Ozone Park had racial attitudes that probably were not very different that the attitudes of the teens who perpetrated that horrible racist beating in Howard Beach. Now I'm not saying that the majority of people in Ozone Park and Howard Beach were racist. Most people there were ( and are ) good people, and some of them are still among my best friends to this day. However, I'd be lying if I told you that I didn't hear a lot of racist stuff growing up.
As I adult, I very rarely hear any of that kind of racist stuff in person for two reasons ...
1) As an adult, you have more of a say in who you associate with, and I choose my friends wisely.
2) Society has now gotten to the point where most white people would want to hide their racist attitudes from other white people. I have no doubt that some of the people I know ( while you can choose your friends, you can't choose everyone you need to interact with ) have racist attitudes, but people do their best to hide such attitudes. ( Also, I don't want anyone to think I'm claiming to be guiltless here. I was raised to love all people, and I always got sick to my stomach growing up when I heard fellow students spew racists garbage, but children are sponges, and I'd be lying I told you I didn't absorb at least some of the racist bile that was occasionally spewed. I try my best each day to excise myself of that bile, but I'll never be completely free of it. ).
However, reason #2 often doesn't apply on the Internet, because people can be anonymous. Still, I didn't really notice a lot of racist stuff on the corners of the Internet I frequented until Barack Obama was elected; right after that happened, the racists started to come out of the woodwork.
I guess the point I'm making is that while I don't think the election of Barack Obama made the country more racist, I think it exposed a lot of racism we couldn't see before, like a UV light revealing body fluids at a crime scene. Ultimately, revealing that racism is a good thing, even if seeing it out in the open might make us uncomfortable.
In the end, I'm still optimistic. After all, Barack Obama is right when he says the the USA is the only country in the world where his story could have happened. Where else could a country consisting primarily of of people of one race, elect a leader who belongs to another race? OK, sure Obama, is half white, and Peru elected a Japanese president, but you get my point. The Germans are not going to elect a Chancellor who is not ethnically German, the Japanese are not going to elect a Prime Minister who is not ethnically Japanese. The Barack Obama story could have never happened in those places, but it did happen in the USA, because there is no such thing as an ethic American ( Well, except maybe Native Americans, but that's a can of worms to open on a different day ). The USA is still a special place, warts and all, and there is no better proof of that than President Barack Obama.
I know it's a bit late to write a story about Wilmer Flores' big homer against the Nats, but I've had a really busy month and I wasn't satisfied with any of the accounts I'd read about Flores' big night. Thus, I'm going to attempt to write a Flores story myself - a story that won't just focus on that magical Friday night - a story that will start at the beginning.
Wilmer Flores entered the world on August 6th 1991. He entered the Mets organization about 16 years later, but he didn't enter my life until about May of 2010.
In May of 2010, my Aunt Barbara invited Ruth, the boys, and me to a Lakewood BlueClaws game. The BlueClaws are a single A minor league team that plays close to where she lives. We went on May 8th; she picked that day because the BlueClaws were playing the Savannah Sand Gnats, a single A affiliate of the New York Mets. My aunt told me that the player to watch that day was Wilmer Flores, the Sand Gnats' talented 18-year old shortstop.
Looking back, I regret not taking any pictures of Flores that day, but he kinda appears in a photo Ruth took. If you take a look at the photo below, the first thing you'll probably notice is the giant fried egg to the left of the 3rd base line. However, if you look to the right of that to the sun-washed part of the photo, Wilmer Flores is represented by the handful of pixels in the shortstop position.
Flores didn't disappoint that day. He went 3 for 4 with a triple. I have no idea if the photos below were taken when the boys were celebrating Flores' triple, but why let the truth get in the way of a good story?
Anyway, Flores looked like a man playing against boys that day. From that day forward, I was sure he was going to be a major leaguer someday, and I was looking forward to the day he joined the Mets.
That day came late in the 2013 season. Unfortunately, he didn't impress much, posting a AVG/OBP/SLG of .211/.248/.295 in 27 games.
I was hoping he'd do better with more regular playing time the next year, but in 78 games in 2014, he only a .253/.287/.388 line.
It 2015, it looked like things might be falling into place, both for Flores and the Mets. Flores' defense at shortstop had been shaky, and he wasn't exactly Babe Ruth with the bat, but by the end of the day on June 12th, he'd hit a respectable 10 homers in 62 team games ( on pace to hit 26 homers for the season, which is really good for a shortstop, especially in this season that has been dominated by pitching ) and the Mets found themselves 1.5 games ahead of the Washington Nationals for first place in the National League East division.
However, soon after that, things went south for both Flores and the Mets. From June 17th to June 24th the Mets only scored 9 runs in a 7 game losing streak. The Mets and Flores's hitting woes continued into late July. By the morning of July 29th, the Mets found themselves in 2nd place and Flores had not homered since June 12th. Flores also didn't homer on July 29th as the Mets lost 7-3, but that wasn't the big story that night.
During the game, reports began to circulate that the Mets had agreed to send Wilmer Flores and Zack Wheeler to the Brewers for center fielder Carlos Gomez. Thanks to social media, most fans at the game were soon aware of the impending trade, but nobody had bothered to tell Wilmer Flores or Mets manager Terry Collins. When Flores came to bat at in the bottom of the 7th inning the Mets fans greeted him with a standing ovation. Flores was confused by this, but at some point when he got back to the dugout somebody informed him ( I've read some reports that say it was a fan behind the dugout ) that he'd been traded. It's not clear that Terry Collins was aware of the trade at this point, but he probably wasn't because he sent Wilmer out to play shortstop in the top of the 8th ( You generally wouldn't play a guy if you knew he was about to be traded because an injury suffered on the field would invalidate the trade ). It's at that point, that the night became surreal. Standing at his shortstop position, Wilmer started to cry. Wilmer had been part of the Mets organization since he'd been 16 and had said in the past he wanted to be a "Met for life". He now knew he was playing his last game as a Met, the fans had given him a standing-O to send him off, and I guess it was all too much for him.
As bizarre as all this was, things were about to get stranger. After the game, Terry Collins ( who finally got a clue and sent Flores to the clubhouse ( with clubhouse leaders David Wright and Michael Cuddyer to console him ) in the bottom of 8th ) claimed that he was not aware that any trade had been finalized and shortly after that Mets GM Sandy Alderson said that the trade was not going to happen. Initially Alderson wouldn't say why the trade had been called off, but it was later leaked that the Mets had nixed the trade because they had medical concerns about Gomez's hip ( The Brewers claimed that the trade fell through because the cheap Mets wanted the Brewers to pay a big chunk of Gomez's remaining contract and the Brewers refused. I imagine the truth is somewhere between the Mets story and the Brewers story. ).
All these events made the Mets laughing-stocks of the baseball world ( This wasn't really anything new. Things had gotten so bad for the Mets over the last decade that there was a popular hashtag called #lolmets ), but it also had a different effect on lots of Mets fans. I made the facebook post below on the night of the aborted trade, and the part in red sums up the way lots of Mets fans felt about Flores after that night.
Not really upset about Gomez trade falling through. He's a good player and would have been an updrade over an injured Lagares and Kirk, but ... 1) He's not having a good year. I haven't been paying attention to him this year, but considering that he's only stolen 7 bases this year and has been caught 6 times tells me he has not been healthy this year. He's 29 and I'm always wary about speed guys as they get close to their 30's. Reyes fell of a cliff after left the Mets at 28. 2) I'd rather have Grandy as my lead-off man rather than Gomez because Grady has an OBP of .347 this year while Gomez has an career OBP of .315. Speed doesn't help if you are not getting on base. Gomez has never scored 100 runs in a season, which seems impossible for a guy with his kind of speed. ----- I wouldn't have been that upset to see Wheeler go ( He's coming off Tommy John surgery and his reluctance to throw strikes ( seriously, I don't think it's his control - he seems afraid to throw sttikes ) has always driven me crazy. However, his trade value has got to be pretty low coming off of TJS, so I'd rather the Mets trade him when he's throwing gas in spring training next year. As for Flores, he's been slumping for a month, and it's not clear if ... 1) we'll even find him a position. 2) he'll ever hit for enough power to justify his low OBP and walk rate. Still, he might be my favorite Met now, because its clear that he *wants* to be a Met based on how he reacted tonight. Hopefully this lights a fire under him.
Yes, Mets fans fell in love with Wilmer Flores that night because it was clear that despite the Mets troubles, despite all the #lolmets garbage, he wanted to be a Met. There was a part of me that hoped that this non-trade could be the turning point in both the Flores' and the Mets season. I expressed those feelings in the post below.
If this Mets season was a baseball movie, it would end with Flores getting the game-winning hit in game 7 of the World Series.
However things would get worse before they would get better. Flores didn't cry ( or play ) the next day, and the Mets were not involved in aborted trades, but things got so bad, it prompted me to write the following facebook post.
Wow, Mets go from being a game out of first to being the laughing stock of baseball in less than 24-hours. I'm sure all of you know about the Gomez/Flores stuff, but did you hear what happened today? - Mers had a 7-1 lead after 6. - Collins then inexplicitly takes Niese out of the game after 6 ( considering how bad the Mets middle-relief is, no Mets starter who is pitching well should be removed until he has pitched at least 7. ). - middle relievers give up grand slam in top of 7th to make score 7-5. - Mets still leading 7-5 to start 9th. Familia gets first 2 batters out. Umps then decide to have rain delay rather than let Familia get last out. After short delay umps tells ground crew to remove tarp to start game again, despite the fact that radar clearly shows massive storm is on the way. - By the time the game resumes, it is raining. Familia attempts to get last out as it continues to rain harder. He gives up 2 singles followed by a 3-run HR. 8-7! - After Familia gets last out, umps call for another rain delay, but Mets ground crew can't get the fuckin' tarp on the fuckin' field. Infield is submerged and play is delayed for hours. WTF! The only way to erase this is to sweep Nats this weekend. Not 2 out of 3 - sweep.
Yes, so after a disastrous Thursday, the Mets found themselves 3 games out of first with the first-place Nats coming to town on Friday. It would be the biggest series in the history of Citi Field ( opened in 2009 ) considering that the Mets had finished with a losing record every season from 2009 to 2014 ), but as exciting as that was, I was more excited to hear the Flores would be playing that night. It would be his first appearance since he cried on the field, and I knew the night was bound to be a Wilmer love-fest. I just hoped he had a good game in him. How great would it be if Wilmer could follow-up the Crying Game with a great performance verses the Mets biggest rival in the biggest game of the year? I knew that was too much to ask, but I was hoping for it as much as you could hope for something as a sports fan.
Well, "Flores Night" got off to a great start when Flores made a nice diving play on a ground ball in the first inning. It earned Wilmer his first standing ovation of the night. Well, actually, the play itself wasn't worthy of a standing-O, but after the Wednesday night tears, the fans were ready to give Wilmer a standing-O at the drop of a hat. Wilmer got his second standing O of the night when he came to the plate for the first time in the 2nd inning. He grounded out, but the fans didn't care. Wilmer wanted to be a Met, and we all loved him for it.
After Wilmer got his first standing-O in the first, I made a facebook post which I believe expressed the sentiments of lots of Mets fans that night..
Love that Flores started his first inning back since the Gomez debacle with a nice play. I hope he homers today.
Perhaps, a homer was too much to ask for, but all Mets fans were thrilled in the 4th inning when Flores singled to give the Mets a 1-0 lead. It earned Wilmer his 3rd standing ovation of the night, and the way Matt Harvey was pitching, we all thought it might hold up as the game-winning hit in a 1-0 victory. Harvey was still cruising with a 1-0 lead in the top of the 8th when a typical Mets thing happens to the Mets. Harvey has gotten the first 2 guys out in the 8th. He had two strikes on Nats pinch-hitter Clint Robinson. He had only thrown about 90 pitches so far, so if he could end the inning on the next pitch or so, he might be given the opportunity to to complete the shutout in the 9th. However, Harvey's next pitch hit Robinson. Well actually, the home plate umpire said Harvey's pitch hit Robinson. It actually didn't hit Robinson - it didn't come close to hitting Robinson. The home plate umpire thought the ball hit Robinson's foot, but the overhead camera clearly showed that the ball hit the ground about 8 inches in front of Robinson's foot. There was no doubt that the ball hit the ground; the overhead replay showed smooth dirt before the ball passed over it, and then a baseball-sized indentation in the dirt after the ball passed by. Once you accept that the ball hit the dirt you don't have to be a Physics PhD to understand that ball would have bounced over Robinson's foot after it hit the ground. Fortunately, baseball has replay these days and after Mets manager Terry Collins challenged the call. I was certain that the replay official would overturn the call and send Robinson from first base back to home plate. After a few minutes of deliberation the umpires announced the decision and I was stunned and incensed that they let the original call stand. Every Mets fan in the world knew deep down in their bones that this bad call was going to cost us the lead, and when the Nats tied the game later in the 8th inning, I reacted with the following post.
Holy shit! Mets just got SOOOOOOOO screwed by umps, and of course it leads to us losing the lead. If we lose this game, I give up for this season. We are just so *FUCKING* snakebit. I can't believe this fucking week. Why do I watch this team anymore? I need somebody to pull some "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" shit on me so I stop loving this team.
Well, this was certainly the low point. I really meant what I wrote, and I think lots of Mets fans felt the same way. We were going to lose again, it was going to be another lost season, and I didn't see a reason to torture myself anymore.
Still, I didn't turn the TV off. I didn't turn the TV off for one reason, and that reason was Wilmer. This game wasn't over yet, and there was chance, no matter how remote, that Wilmer could still be the hero in this game. After the Mets failed to score in a 1-1 game in the bottom of the 11th inning, I posted ...
Well, at least Flores might have one more chance to be the hero today. Too bad his talent doesn't match his passion.
Yes, I didn't really think Wilmer had the talent to be the hero, but I oh so wanted it for him.
After the Mets kept the Nats from scoring in the top of the 12th, the stage was set for Wilmer. Right before Flores led off the bottom of the 12th inning, my cousin Steven posted the following.
Flores walk off.... Let's gooooo
Meanwhile, my cousin Eileen's husband Kevin ( who was at the game ) worked his way towards the stands near the Mets on-deck circle and shouted out to Flores that the Mets fans love him.
The stage was set. Millions of Mets fans were willing Flores to come up big, but I really didn't think he had it in him. Then Flores did this ...
The photo above is of Flores crossing home plate after his game-winning homer. Notice what he's doing with his right hand? He's tugging on the Mets logo on his jersey. Wilmer Flores - Met for life.
As Mets fans celebrated this moment, we hoped it would mark a turning point, both for Flores and the Mets. So far, it has. Since walking out of the on-deck circle in the 12th inning that night, Flores' AVG/OBP/SLG line is .333/.367/.587 and the Mets have gone 19 - 6 to go from being 3 games behind the Nationals to 6.5 games ahead of the Nationals ( I'm writing this on the afternoon of August 28th ).
As Terry Collins said in his post-game press conference after the Flores Homer, "I'm am sitting here looking at some guys who are outstanding writers - outstanding - and you can't write that. You guys couldn't come up with that, and you're good. Unbelievable". It's really been a storybook month for Wilmer and Mets and all of us Mets fans are hoping it's going to wind up being a storybook season.
A few weeks ago, I started watching the episodes of "Mr. Robot" I had saved on my DVR ( great show, BTW - go see it now! ). The protagonist in this show is a young man named Eliot, and early on in the first episode, we are introduced to his co-worker and childhood friend Angela. You can tell right away that the two of them have a special ( albeit platonic ) relationship, and it's clear that it's only a matter of time become the two of them become a couple. Just then, Angela's boyfriend shows up and kisses Angela on the cheek. My first thought after seeing the boyfriend kiss Angela was "Fuck that guy! Angela and Eliot are meant for each other. Fuck that guy!"
It wasn't long before we found out that Angela's boyfriend was a full-of-himself douchebag who was cheating on Angela. Fuck that guy! Really, fuck that guy!
That's when I realized that I had seen a lot of character's like Angela's boyfriend before. Lot's of movies and TV shows have a "Fuck that guy", where a "Fuck that guy" ( FTG ) is defined as a character who matches all or most of the following criteria.
1) A FTG can only exist in a movie with a male protagonist.
2) The FTG should be the boyfriend/fiance of the primary love interest of the male protagonist.
3) When the audience and/or the protagonist is first introduced to the love interest, we should not be aware that the love interest is dating FTG.
4) FTG should be a jerk. Ideally he should be cheating on the protagonist's love interest, and at the very least show show no respect for her ( or potentially him, if the male protagonist is gay. However considering how few Hollywood movies have a gay protagonist, I couldn't think of any gay examples of FTGs. ).
BTW, a movie could also have a "Fuck that Girl" ( FTGirl ). However, a FTGirl could only exist in a movie with a female protagonist. Considering how few movies pass the Bechdel test, movies and TV shows with female protagonists are few and far between. In any case, a FTGirl would have to be the asshole girlfriend of the love interest of a female protagonist. I wasn't able to come up with any FTGirls, so please send me any examples of FRGirls you might be are aware of ).
In any case, I decided to make a list of 10 FTGs ( in no particular order ) I've loved to hate over the years, along with a few honorable mention FTGs who don't quite make the cut as a FTG.
1) Bradely Cooper in "Wedding Crashers".
He might just be the perfect FTG. I don't remember his character's name and I not even going to bother to look it up, because I just think of him a Bradley Cooper, the FTG.
2) Craig Kilborn in "Old School.".
Another guy who checks all the FTG boxes. Once again, I could care less about the character's name.
3) Glenn from "The Wedding Singer".
In this case, I don't know and don't care what the actor's name is. I just know he's a great FTG.
4) Darryl from "Coming to America".
Perhaps not the best example of a FTG, because there is no evidence of cheating here, but he was a jerk who took credit for Akeem's charitable contributions, and treated Lisa like a commodity he could buy from her father.
5) Pam's Fiance from "The Office".
We all knew that Jim and Pam were meant to be until that FTG of a fiance showed up.
6) Anthony Micheal Hall from "Edward Scissorhands".
Once again I don't remember the character's name and it doesn't really matter. All I know is that Frankenstein Johhny Depp and Winona Ryder were meant to be together and that FTG Anthony Michael Hall was getting in the way.
7) Gideon from "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World".
C'mon, the guy did form a league of evil exes.
8) Tal from "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist".
Hey, you fuck with Michael Cera's love life, you get on this list.
9) John Cho in "Better Luck Tomorrow".
After he was the MILF guy and before he was Harold, John Cho played one of the most unique FTGs in the history of cinema. I don't want to give any spoilers except to say that no other FTG has a story arc quite like John Cho's FTG.
10) Charles Grodin in "The Great Muppet Caper".
OK, he doesn't really check off any of the FTG boxes, but he does try to date Miss Piggy in this movie ( and tries to frame her for a crime ) and later claimed to have a tryst with Miss Piggy in real life. Hey Grodin, Piggy is Kermit's girl! Fuck that guy, Charles Grodin! Fuck that guy!
Honorable mention
Billy Zane in "Titanic" : He was the hardest guy to leave off the top 10 list. However, he's not really a FTG because the audience knows from the start of the movie that he and Rose are a couple.
Billy Zabka in "The Karate Kid" : I could have named Billy Zabka from a bunch of 80's movies. He's not really a FTG in "The Karate Kid" because he's an ex-boyfriend rather than a boyfriend, but I'm going to give him some FTG points for trying to beat up Daniel-san for the entire movie.
Batman from "The Lego Movie" : He's not really a FTG because he's a hero and basically a good guy, but his first scene in the movie is very much a FTG moment.
Colton from "Harold and Kumer Escape from Guantanamo Bay" : He only misses out on FTG status beacause Kumar is never ignorant of the fact that Vanessa is engaged to Colton. It's also notable that he gets decked by the protagonist's best buddy at a wedding, just like the first FTG I mentioned in my top ten list.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm a helicopter parent. That's part of the reason why both my kids still couldn't ride a bike when this spring started. Well, Ruth and I resolved to change that this year, and we've practiced bike riding with the boys many Saturday mornings this spring. Peter is still really apprehensive about riding a bike, but about a month or so ago we made a breakthrough with Michael. I was holding the back of Michael's seat as he peddled on the grass and without telling him, I decided to let go. About 10 seconds later he was about 100 feet away from me and essentially knew how to ride a bike.
Today, Michael graduated to biking on a paved path. We took him to the Middlesex Greenway - a 3.5 file mile paved path which essentially looks like this ...
While Michael biked, I figured I'd try to keep up with him on foot. I haven't biked regularly since I was teen, and the only adult-size bike we own is some random bike Ruth picked-up on sale many years ago, which is currently sitting in our basement covered in drywall dust from our basement renovations.
I use a treadmill regularly, so I'm no stranger no running, For the first 2 miles I did a decent job keeping up with him, especial because he was still a little bit tentative and wasn't pedaling that fast. However, near the end of those two miles, he was starting to gain confidence; I had to practically sprint to keep up with him, and as we reached the 2-mile marker, I was feeling pretty gassed.
I chugged some Gatorade and told Michael it was best if we started to head back ( Ruth and Peter were not even going to try and keep up with us, and had headed back to the start of the path a long time ago ). On the way back, Michael was pedaling even faster, and I found myself pushing myself even harder to sprint because my helicopter-parent instincts were refusing to allow myself to let Michael get out of my sight. However, it soon became clear that I wasn't going to be able to keep up. My knees were aching, my heart was racing, and my lungs were burning. Add on the fact that I'd tweaked my lower-back a few weeks ago, had pulled a hamstring the previous weekend, and had experienced a painful night cramp in my left calf the night before, it soon became clear that my 45-year-old body was breaking down and couldn't be pushed any more.
But as I walked and panted and watched Michael fade away into the distance, it occurred to me that this was all a lot bigger than a middle-aged dad not being able to keep up with his son. As much I love him and always want to be there to care for him and protect him, Michael in the midst of turning into a young man who won't need his Dad all the time. I had asked Michael to stop and wait for me when he passed certain landmarks on the way back, but I saw Michael go right by one of those landmarks before he pulled out of my sight. For a brief moment, I was upset about this, but then I realized that Michael is growing child who needs to test his limits. He needs to go as fast as he can go and I can't be the one who holds him back. My baby's growing up, and I couldn't be prouder.
Consider the following: The New York Giants are playing San Francisco 49ers in a big game in the mid 80's. The game is tied with 2 minutes to go, and after a punt rolls into the end zone, Montana and the 49ers trot out to take the field at the their own 20-yard line. The Giants defense trots on to the field as well, but as they do, one can't help but notice that Lawrence Taylor, Harry Carson, Carl Banks, and Gary Reasons remain on the sideline. Montana easily drives down the field against a Giants' defense full of 2nd-string linebackers and the 49ers kick a game winning field goal as time expires. After the game, reporters ask Giants coach Bill Parcells, why Taylor, Carson, Banks, and Reasons were on the sideline for the critical final drive. Parcells tells the reporters "Are you kidding me? I can't use those guys late in a tie game. I only use them late in a game if we have the lead. Those guys are my closers."
While that scenario might seem ridiculous, it's not too different than what almost all major league managers do regularly. If you don't believe me, consider the following real scenario:
It's October 22, 2003. The Yankess are playing the Marlins in the 4th game of the World Series. The Yanks have a 2 games to 1 lead in the Series. The Yankees are the road team and find themselves trailing 3-1 entering the top of the 9th. However, the Yankees score 2 runs in the top of the 9th, and the half inning ends with the game tied at 3. The Yankees know they have a chance to take a commanding 3-1 lead in the series if they can manage to win the game in extra innings.
The Yankees manager Joe Torre is one of the most successful and respected managers in the game. He's led the Yankees to 4 World Championships between 1996 and 2000 and came within a few broken bat hits if winning a 5th championship in 2001. One of the reason Torre and the Yankees have been so successful is they have Mariano Rivera, who most already consider to be the greatest relief pitcher of all time. Just 6 days earlier in the 7th game of the ALCS at Yankee Stadium, Rivera had proved his worth by heroically pitching the 9th, 10th, and 11th inning of a tie game before Aaron Boone's homer in the bottom of the 11th won the pennant for the Yankees. Now Torre is facing a similar situation in Miami. It's tied in the 9th inning, and he has the greatest relief pitcher of all time in his bullpen. It shouldn't be hard to decide which pitcher to bring into the game next.
So of course, Torre brings Jose Contreras into the game.
I don't mean this as a slight against Jose Contreras. Jose Contreras was a pretty decent pitcher in his day. But I knew Mariano Rivera, I saw him on my TV so often he was practically a friend of mine, and Jose Contreras, you are no Mariano Rivera!
Contreras retires the Marlins in order in the bottom of the 9th ( as I said, pretty decent pitcher ), the Yankees fail to score in the top of the 10th, and Torre decides to keep Rivera in his holster again and sends Contreras out for a 2nd inning of work. Contreras manages to pitch another scoreless inning in the bottom of the 10th, but the Yankees again fail to score in the top of the 11th.
Keep in mind that Rivera warmed up in the top of the 9th, the top of the 10th, and top of the 11th. Torre wanted Rivera ready to go if the Yankees took the lead, but considering the Yankees failed to take the lead in the top of the 11th, Torres tells Rivera to sit down again and brings out ...
I attached a link to Weaver's name above so you could check out his stats. Go ahead, click on the link and check out those stats. Check out his ERA column for 2003. Check out the number 5.99.
Hmm, World Series, crucial game, I need a pitcher.
5.99 ERA or Greatest Relief Pitcher of All Time
...
5.99 ERA or Greatest Relief Pitcher of All Time
...
5.99 ERA or Greatest Relief Pitcher of All Time
Hmm!!!!!
Well, I guess Torre must really like those 5.99 ERAs!
Of course, Weaver winds up losing the game in the bottom of the 11th and the Yankees wind up losing the Series. As a Yankees-hater I was ecstatic about that, but that doesn't mean I can't abhor the strategic choices Torre made.
Of course, I can't just single-out Torre. Almost all major league manager make the same mistake on a regular basis. Take this Mets game for instance. The Mets played this game in St. Louis in 2010, and entered the 9th inning in a scoreless tie. Mets manager Jerry Manual warmed up his closer Francisco Rodriguez in the top of 9th, but decided to not bring him into the game for the bottom of the 9th after the Mets failed to score in the top of the 9th. Manual then asked Rodriquez to warm up in the 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th innings. Finally, when the Mets scored to take a 1-0 lead in the top of the 19th, he brought Rodriguez in for the bottom of the 19th to try and get the save. Of course, it wasn't that surprising to me that his pitches lacked zip he and failed to save the game, because he had already exhausted himself by warming up 11 times.
It just drives me crazy to see managers of the road team try to hold off using their closer until they have a lead in extra innings - a lead that they'll never have a chance to get if they don't shut down the opposing team in the bottom of the 9th or the bottom of an extra inning.
I understand that it is now "conventional wisdom" to hold off using your closer until you have a lead in extra inning and managers are afraid of being second-guessed if they use closer in a tie game and another pitcher fails to get the save later on, but in this case, conventional wisdom is completely wrong.
In a tie game on the road in the bottom on the 9th inning ( or the bottom of any extra inning to follow ), a pitcher has zero margin for error. If your pitcher gives up even a single run in that scenario, you lose 100% of the time. With that in mind, you'd better use the best pitcher you have available in those situation. It's not as important to have your closer available for an extra-inning inning save because those scenarios have a far higher margin of error than when the game is tied in the bottom of the 9th ( or any extra inning ). First of all, if you manage to get to the bottom of an extra inning with a lead, there's a chance you'll have more than a 1-run lead. That certainly gives you a bigger margin of error than a tie game. However, even if you have only a 1-run lead, you still have some margin for error. If you enter the bottom of an extra inning with a 1 run lead and give up only 1 run, on average there is still a 50% chance you'll win the game in the extra innings to follow. Let me reiterate that ...
If you are leading by 1 run in the bottom of an extra inning, you have a 50% chance of winning if your pitcher gives up just 1 run.
If you are tied in the bottom of the 9th ( or an extra inning ), you have a 0% chance of winning if your pitcher gives up just 1 run.
With all that in mind, I don't understand why manager would not use his best available pitcher in a scenario where there is no margin for error.
Of course, MLB managers have their reasons for handling their bullpen in a way that reduces their chances of winning. First of all, I think that few of them understand that that managing their closers the traditional way reduces their chances of winning ( despite the fact that 99% of 10 year-old baseball fans would be able to understand my "50% vs, 0%" analysis above ). Second, I think that most of then are afraid of being second-guessed by their team owners, general managers, sportswriters, and fans, most of whom don't realize that the traditional strategy of handling closers is wrong. Third, and perhaps most importantly, many will argue that you need to consider the human element. They'll tell you that their closers are used to the role of closing, and if you asked them to perform in a different role, it could get them out their rhythm, damage their psyche, and make them less effective going forward.
Now, I've never managed a baseball team on any level, so I'll admit I'm ignorant about things like clubhouse harmony and managing the psyche of players. But c'mon! The closer is generally the highest paid relief pitcher on a team - usually the highest paid by a rather wide margin. If you're paying a guy the type of money a MLB closer gets paid, he'd better be willing to fill any role you ask him to fill. If he isn't, he's not exactly the kind of team player want "in the foxhole" with you, and he may not have the character needed to help lead a team to a championship. I'm not saying you can't win a championship with a bunch of prima donnas who only think of themselves ( after all, Reggie Jackson does have 5 rings ), but it doesn't hurt to have a bunch of high character guys on your team. If I've got a closer on my team who is not comfortable with sacrificing his save statistics by pitching in lots of tie games, then I don't really want that guy on my team.
Of course, the save statistic is at the root of a lot of these problems. Closers are often judged based on how many games they save, and most closers ( correctly ) believe that "more saves" equals "more money". Thus, I can understand why some closers would resist pitching in non-save situations, and why managers would try to get their closers as many save as possible in order to avoid any clubhouse dissension. That's why I'd like to propose that baseball people stop paying attention to stats like saves and start paying a lot more attention to useful stats like WPA.
WPA stands for Win Probability Added. Before I scare away a bunch of people who are suspicious of the new sabermetric stats, let me explain that WPA is different from almost every new statistic you've heard of before. Most people who don't like modern statistical analysis in baseball will tell that these new stats don't measure a lot of important qualities that make a player valuable. They'll tell you these stats don't measure a player's ability to get clutch hits, or his ability to do the "little things" like advance a runner from 2nd to 3rd by hitting a ball to the right side of the infield. Well WPA does all that and more. WPA measures how much each individual play in a game increases or decreases a team's change of winning that game. For example, at the start of a game between evenly matched team, a given team has a 50% chance of winning. If the first batter of the game leads off the game with a homer, his team now how a greater than 50% chance to win the game, and the WPA stat gives the batter credit for home much the batter's homer has increase his team's chances of winning the game. For example, when Derek Jeter led off game 4 of the 2000 World Series with a home run, the Yankees chances of winning that game rose from 50% to 59%. WPA would credit Jeter with that 9% increase. Conversely, if the lead-off man strikes out to lead off the game, his team's chances of winning the game drop from 50% to 48%, and the 2% difference is subtracted from the leadoff man's WPA.
( BTW, if you are wondering where these rather exact percentages come from, see the following and consider that there have been about 400,000 MLB games played in the history of baseball. Analyzing those games alone would give a good idea of the win percentages for most possible scenarios, and computer simulations give you the ability the simulate specific scenarios millions of times to get reliable win percentages for any scenario. )
What's great about WPA is that it considers the context of each event in a game. While both traditional stats like slugging percentage and sabermetric statistics like WAR always consider a home run to be far more valuable than a single, WPA considers a solo home run with 2 outs in the 9th inning of 10-0 game to be far less valuable than a single with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th which turns a 2-1 deficit into a 3-2 victory ( Francisco Cabrera! ).
( BTW, WPA is also a great stat for football. A running back that scores a game-winning touchdown on 4th and goal from the 1 should receive a lot more credit than a running back who gains 9 yards on a draw when its 3rd and 10. WPA would give the guy who gained that 1 valuable yard proper credit, while the traditional stat of yardage says that the guy who gains 9 yards was 9 times as valuable. )
Just as WPA can be applied to batters, it can also be applied to pitchers. Let's consider how WPA could be applied to the following 2 scenarios.
It's not uncommon for managers to use their closer in the 9th inning when they have a 3-run lead at home. Statistics shows that a team will win in that situation 96.5 % of the time if they use just an average pitcher*. If closer gets a save in that situation, he's increased his team's chances of winning the game from 96.5% to 100%. So, the closer would get credit for 3.5% of WPA in that scenario.
( * See "The Book" by Tango/Lichtman/Dolphin. See Table 89 ( "Chance Of Home Team Winning, By Base/Out State, For Top Of The 9th Inning, With a Three-Run Lead" ) in Chapter 8 "Leveraging Relievers". In my edition, it is on page 222. ).
Now consider the case when a closer for the road team enters the game to start the bottom of the 9th in a tie game. How much does that closer increase his teams win probability is he gets through that inning without giving up any runs?
Well, I don't have those exact numbers in front of me, but I think I can some up with a pretty good estimate. The first thing, we should figure out how often does a home team score in the bottom of the 9th in a tie game? Well, my gut tells me that teams will score at least one run in about a quarter of the innings they hit in. This chart seems to confirm that my guess is in the right ballpark. The chart indicates that the average MLB teams scores in roughly 27.5 % of first innings. Of course, a team is less likely to score in innings other than the 1st inning ( because the best hitters always bat in the 1st inning ) but I think a team's chances to score at least 1 run in the 9th inning would be close to the team's changes to score at least one in the first inning because ...
1) Other than the 1st inning, the bottom of the 9th inning of tie game is the inning in which it is least likely that a pitcher will bat in an NL game. In many innings the pitcher is allowed to hit, but in the bottom of the 9th in a tie game you will almost certainly pinch hit for the pitcher.
2) In both AL and NL games, the bottom of the 9th inning of a close game is the inning in which a manager would be most likely to pinch hit to create advantageous match-ups.
3) The bottom of the 9th inning in a tie game is the inning in which a manager is most likely to optimize his strategy to score at least one run. For example, if your lead-off hitters doubles to start the game, the manger usually would not ask the #2 hitter to bunt the run over the third. In the bottom of the 9th in a tie game the manager would almost certainly ask the next batter to bunt after a leadoff double. While the typical strategy in the first inning ( don't bunt ) decreases the chances you'll score at least one run that inning, it increases the average number of runs you would score in the inning ( because not giving away an out away by bunting increases your chances of having a big inning ). So, some of the typical strategies employed in the first inning will actually decrease the chances that at least 1 run will be scored in that inning. However, strategies typically employed in the 9th inning will increase the team's chances of scoring at least 1 run that inning. So for now, let's assume the home team has a 25% chance of scoring in the bottom of the 9th.
So, if we assume that a home team will score 25% of the time in the bottom of the 9th, then we are assuming a home team will win 25% of the games on the bottom of the 9th. Well, what happens the other 75% of the time? The other 75% of the time, the game continues into extra inning where each team would win the game half the time on average. So, if the road team only makes it to extra inning 75% of the time in that scenario, and only wins the game half of those times, then the road team should only be expected to win 37.5 % ( 75% / 2 ) of games in which the game enters the bottom of the 9th tied.
Actually, if we go back and look at the play-by-play of game 4 of the 2003 World Series, we'll see that Marlins were given a 64% chance of winning the when the Yankess failed to take the lead in the top of the 9th, the top of the 10th, and the top of the 11th. This indicates that the Yankees only had a 36% chance of winning entering the bottom of the 9th, 10th, and 11th, and that a road team in general only has a 36% chance of winning when a game entered the bottom of the 9th tied.
So, if a closer for a road team starts the bottom of the 9th inning in a tie game and doesn't allow any runs, his team had a 36% chance of winning the game when the bottom of the 9th started and a 50% of winning the game when the inning ended ( because each team would have a 50% chance to win in extra innings. ). In this case the closer would get credit for 14 percentage points of WPA.
So, to summarize ....
When a closer for the home team gets the save after starting the 9th inning with a 3-run lead, he would earn 3.5 points of WPA ( 96.5% to 100% ).
When a closer for the road team starts the bottom of the 9th in a tie game and doesn't allow a run, he would earn 14 points of WPA ( 36% to 50% ).
So, in the second scenario the closer is 4 times as valuable as the closer is in the first scenario, but MLB managers will almost always employ their closers in the first scenario and almost never employ their closers in the second scenario.
The reason this happen is that too many baseball people judge relievers using save statistic when that stat should really be thrown away and replaced with something like WPA. I know that it might seem far-fetched that fans would accept the WPA stat when few fans would understand the details of how it works, but footballs fans accept the quarterback rating stat, even though almost nobody in the world understands how QB ratings are calculated. The QB rating is accepted by most fans, because it makes intuitive sense; if a QB throws a bunch of touchdowns his QB rating will go up, and if he throws a lot of interceptions, his QB rating will go down. In the same way, most fans would understand the concept of WPA. It would be clear that striking guys out in clutch situations would make a relief pitcher's WPA go up, while giving up home runs in clutch situations would make a relief pitchers WPA go down.
If WPA was used to evaluate relief pitchers instead of saves, closers would no longer want to come into games with 3-run leads. Instead, they'd want to be inserted into as many clutch situations as possible, so they could maximize their ability to increase their WPA. Of course, if closers were no longer used almost exclusively to close out games, we couldn't really call them "closers" anymore. Fortunately, we wouldn't need to invent a new name for ace relievers, because an old-school name is still available. Remember this trophy?
This is the Rolaids Relief Man Award, an award that used to be given to the best reliever of the year. Notice that the trophy is in the shape of a firefighter's hat, because ace relievers used to be called firemen.
"Fireman" is a fantastic name for a reliever. It signifies that's he's the guy who is supposed to save the day when other pitchers are in trouble. I think that MLB should work with Rolaids to get this award reinstated and give the award to the "fireman" who earns the most WPA points in a season. It wouldn't change how managers use ace relievers overnight, but it would be a step in the right direction.
C'mon folks! I know my quest to change how managers use relievers may see extremely quixotic, but it's something that can happen if enough of us fans start to pay attention to WPA. C'mon fans, let's start talking about WPA! Let's start calling ace relievers "firemen" again! C'mon!
At the beginning of April, my friend Tom suggested that we ( "we" in this case is a bunch of friends from the "old neighborhood" ) get together to watch a Mets game this summer. As much fun as I've had watching Mets games with Tom over the years, I had to turn him down, because as Crash Davis said in Bull Durham "a player on a streak needs to respect the streak".
As some of you may know, the boys and I entered this season a streak. I'd taken my kids to 7 Mets games over the years, and the Mets had won all 7. Here are the relevant stats:
The first 3 or 4 wins were a happy accident, but by now I'm acutely aware of this streak, and I intend to do everything in my power to keep it going.
Of course, I have no control over what the players will do on the field, but I do have control over what games we go to. I've decide that I'm only going to take the boys to games in which the Mets have an ace pitcher on the mound and the competition hasn't been playing too great. This strategy worked when we experienced "Harvey Day" in 2013, and watched eventual NL Rookie of the Year Jacob deGrom flirt with a no-hitter in 2014.
So, I had to say no to Tom because I couldn't risk getting tickets to a game a few months in advance and risk that Harvey or deGrom would not be on the mound. I figured Tom would understand - after all, you've got to respect the streak.
With the Mets playing great and Jacob deGrom looking fantastic in his first 2 starts of the season, I decided that the boys and I would go for win number 8 when deGrom took the mound against the Marlins on Saturday night April 18th, 2015.
I'm not going to leave you in suspense. As some of you may know, the Mets were in the middle of what would be an 11-game winning streak ( tying the team record ) in mid-April, and the game we went to was part of that streak. DeGrom wound up pitching 7 scoreless inning, and after some shaky bullpen work, the Mets got the win 5-4. It was kind of nice that we got to be a part of the team-record winning streak ( I wasn't at the any of the games in the 11-game winning streaks in 1986 and 1990 ), and well as the first 10-0 home-stand in team history ( one of only 7 perfect home-stands of of 10 or more games by any baseball team since 1900 ).
It goes without saying that Ruth and I ( but especially Ruth ) took plenty of pictures at the game, so I'll close by presenting some of my favorites.
Back in 2007, I decided to support Barack Obama rather than Hillary Clinton for many reason, the most important of which was I didn't think Hillary was a good enough politician to get elected president. Now, 8 years later I'm starting to have my doubts about Hillary again.
I'm not going to rehash all the details of the Hillary email controversy here, but the more I learn about the details, the worse it looks for Hillary. Using her private email address to conduct official government business? Unwise and a little bit fishy, but nothing that could keep her from becoming President. What's that? Her email account was hosted on her own private server? On her own property? Ummmm - uhhhhhh, that's really not good. Well, if she's smart, she could still do some effective damage control. She could let some 3rd party review all the emails and release only those related to official State Department business; perhaps some respected veteran Republican congressperson or governor with who cares about his/her legacy enough that he/she would not even think of releasing any personal emails. I'm sure McCain would love to be involved in something like that. He'd be so eager to find damaging emails about Benghazi, I'm sure he'd ignore that email about Bill's latest threesome. It's important that Hillary let a Republican take a look at the emails to prove she has nothing to hide. What?!? She's already deleted the emails? OK, but Hillary's attorney is telling us that all of Hillary's emails had been reviewed before they were deleted from her server and all the work-related emails were sent to the State Department. Well, that might be OK. Who did those reviews? Her own fucking attorneys did those reviews?!? Really?!? You're kidding, right? No, really, you're kidding? Seriously? No, c'mon - you have got to be fucking kidding!
Look, I don't want to hear any of my liberal friends defending Hillary. I'm you are going to defend Hillary, you'd better be ready to defend Chris Christie for doing his own George Washing Bridge investigation. You'd better to be ready defend Dick Cheney for never disclosing any details of the Energy Task Force he convened in 2001. You had better be ready to defend Richard Nixon's 18 minutes of missing tapes.
There's simply no defense of any of this. All liberals should want the government to be transparent, and Hillary was about as intentionally non-transparent as she could be about these emails. And look, this isn't going to stop me from voting for Hillary if she runs against any Republican, but it really makes me question her judgement, and makes me seriously consider whether she's be the best Democratic nominee for 2016.
The polls certainly suggest that she's still the best option, but the polls can't predict how she'll perform in a long campaign. If 2008 is any indication, she really doesn't know what she's doing. She seemed politically tone-deaf in that campaign. I mean - seriously - Mark Penn?
I know that Mark Penn worked for Bill Clinton too, but there is a huge difference between Bill and Hillary politically. The main difference is that Bill is a great liar while Hillary is a terrible liar. That's because Bill has had so much more practice. When Hillary lies she does it out of political necessity. Bill Clinton lies because he's Bill Clinton.
Now, don't get me wrong, I loved having Bill as president, and would happily elect him to a third term if I could. Politics isn't a game for Boy Scouts, and you need some serious "Slick Willie" skills to get by in this game. When Republicans were playing hardball, I was always happy to have Bill Clinton on my side.
But let's face it "likable enough" Hillary Clinton doesn't has anywhere near Bill's charisma, so If she's going to succeed in a national campaign, she's going to need to be smart. Based on what I've seen in 2008 and the last month, I'm not really sure that she is.
