Around The Web: Why I Care

Think of the picture of Meisa Kuroki (same girl as here) as an advanced apology for the long responses to some of the links below.

:o

Fan Graphs: Dave Cameron asks why we (bloggers) care about what they (mainstream media) say. It's specifically about the recent MVP discussion, but I think it applies to basically everything, and for me, that's where the problem lies.

In essence, we could all ask ourselves why we care about anything at all. I mean, in the end, what does it really matter if we disagree with one another? Is it really worth the effort to argue?

Well, I can't speak for everybody, but for me, I do find it worth the effort. I find it pretty important to hold people that wield great power (media) accountable for their words and actions. While it's completely true that we all see things from a different point of view, and that we all invent our own versions of events that transpire, I do believe that there is a place where reality lies. I also believe that not all opinions are created equal.

No, I didn't completely miss the point of what Dave was saying, but I find more and more that I can't help myself from critiquing these journalists. If somebody who held significant influence over the public point of view came out saying the world was round, you would take the effort to correct them, right? Well, in a way, I feel that bloggers have taken that role of checking the mainstream media.

At one point in time, I believe the media did actually serve as the watchdog for the people, but over time I feel that has slowly deteriorated, and more and more I think bloggers are taking over, for better or worse.

Mike Scioscia's Tragic Illness: Mike summarizes last night's bullpen debacle quite nicely.

Sons Of Steve Garvey: Could Manny's slump be caused by a sore hand? I doubt it, but I wouldn't put it in the realm of impossibility either.

True Blue L.A.: James Loney has been absolutely horrid at home for about a year now.

True Blue L.A.: Andre Ethier only seems to struggle against lefties on the road.

True Blue L.A.: Eric Stephen looks at the progression of Matt Kemp. He is indeed the team MVP.

Mike Scioscia's Tragic Illness: Mike suggests that we should stop overlooking Randy Wolf. I admit to doing so earlier in the year, but I certainly don't anymore.

Fan Graphs: Randy Wolf is getting some love whether us Dodger bloggers cover it or not.

Fan Graphs: A nice article on Charlie Haeger.

Baseball America: The Dodgers are in the bottom 10 in draft spending again. While i'm aware that the overall total is lower because they didn't have a first rounder, that doesn't mean they couldn't pay over slot for some significant talents that fell due to signability questions. Thankfully, they did snag Garrett Gould, but there were some others i'd have liked as well.

Baseball America: Not surprisingly, the Dodgers were in the bottom six in draft spending in 2007 and 2008.

Fan Graphs: R.J. Anderson defends the player's right to ask for huge money in the draft. I agree with him, at least in a general sense. However, while his point is more about how to fix the draft, i'd rather talk about the decision making on the part of the draftees.

Say what you want about the current system, but it's the reality these kids face, and I have never got the logic behind sitting out a year. Not only does this usually garner only minimal increases in bonus money, but I believe the cost/benefit risk is far too great to go through with it. In one corner, you have the ability to be comfortably set for life. In the other, you have the ability to work at Costco for the rest of your life. Yet, somehow these kids are convinced that something like a 500k difference in valuation makes it a risk worth taking. Sounds like insanity to me.

Worse yet, most of these potential holdouts are elite players who will probably make the majors at some point anyway. So sometimes I wonder if they even realize they are costing themselves huge money by wasting arbitration and free agent years.

It's not so much that i'm defending the system in place, but to risk what they do is highly illogical decision making to me. So you'll have to forgive me if I have minimal sympathy for guys like Matt Harrington.

ESPN: I agree with Jack Cust in the sense that the Mitchell Report looks more and more like a biased joke. It provided us fans with some solid insight, but it's hard to trust it when there seems to be a clear conflict of interest.

USA Today: Bronson Arroyo is sort of an idiot, but I think he is providing the first realistic portrayal of player attitudes towards performance enhancing drugs.

Yes, i've seen some journalists (moralists) bash him for just making excuses for his transgressions or whatever, but the rest of us live in the real world, and what he says in this article best represents it.

Fox Sports: The voting procedure for the MVP doesn't seem that complicated at all.

"Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense. 2. Number of games played. 3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort. 4. Former winners are eligible. 5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from one to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, and that includes pitchers and designated hitters.

Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration."

I don't get the confusion.

Viva El Birdos: An excellent swing analysis of Albert Pujols.

My only problem with analysis like this is that a lot of people research on the Internet nowadays, and those same people end up believing that their kid should swing exactly like whatever professional they saw analyzed. Sorry, but little Jimmy isn't 6'6" 260 pounds, so he should probably stop swinging like he is. Once again, mechanics don't have one set method that is the best for every individual. There are general guidelines, of course, but applying one method to every kid is a recipe for disaster, and it's rather ignorant, really.

One thing I dislike about the current baseball coaching environment is how people now believe that the past way of thinking was incorrect or outdated. I'm specifically talking about stuff like "extension", "squishing the bug", "keeping the bat flat through the zone", "using your hands", and other coaching staples that are now largely dismissed by the newer analysis.

My problem lies in the fact that while the newer analysis is absolutely correct in the literal sense of things, that's not actually what these coaches are trying to accomplish by repeating phrases like "squishing the bug". Ironically, the phrases are just devices used by the coach in order to achieve the ideal swing shown by the newer methods of analysis. For example, the phrase "squishing the bug" is meant more as a trigger to get young kids to learn to open their hips. Okay, so you don't end up drawing a full diagram for them, but so what?

Don't believe it works? I do, because I have had personal experience with it. I was one of those kids who was taught to "squish the bug", "use my hands", "keep the bat level through the zone", and a lot of the other things that are now being painted as outdated information. So what did my swing end up looking like? Probably some huge abortion, right?

Meh, not really so bad. It's not exactly the ideal picture, as I was out in front of this particular pitch, but you can see the general similarities.

For those who give a crap about this kind of stuff, the correct thing to do would have been to let the ball travel deeper into my body. If I swung perfectly on this ball down the middle, my left arm would be closer to my body. This would generate more power than letting my hands drift away from my rotation point. Blah, blah, blah.

Anyway, the thing to see is that i'm not squishing the bug, my bat is not level, there is no extension, i'm not rolling over on contact, and i'm not using my hands.

Surprised? You shouldn't be. When I was struggling, I usually told myself to concentrate on using my top hand. Is that what really occurred when I swung? Absolutely not. However, what it did help me to do was explode my hands through the zone to get the bat head around.

Look, point being, these hitting coaches are not idiots, okay? There's a reason there were great hitters for a century before any of these slow motion video analysis were even used. They know what they are doing, and their advice isn't useless just because what they say isn't exactly what actually occurs. Am I saying everybody would benefit from being taught their way? Nope. In fact, the larger theme is that the process of coaching is getting a player to achieve goals, and part of that process is effectively helping the player understand what he needs to do. Does it really matter what way that ends up being? Not to me.