There's No "I" in Blog Has Moved!

Due to some coding issues with Blogger, we've decided to pack up and move away from Blogger. You should be redirected to our new site in a few seconds. If you read There's No "I" in Blog through our RSS feed, please update your feed with this address.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

There's No "I" in Blog is going on Christmas vacation with the rest of y'alls. We'll be welcoming 2011 with some new developments, so we'll see you then in January!

There's No Such Thing as a "Fun Run"

This Saturday, my friends and I will celebrate our fourth annual holiday party. A relatively small group of us gather at a house where four of my high school friends live together outside of Boston and hold a potluck dinner. We get dressed up, take pictures, have a gift exchange, and play drinking games. It's the one time all year that we're all in the same place at the same time.

My friend Dan, who is enrolled in med school in Ft. Lauderdale, recently flew back up for winter break, and one of the first topics that came up was how excited we were for the holiday party. We discussed the custom photo cake that I ordered, amusing stories from past parties, and how amped we were to watch Ohio face off against Troy in the R+L Carriers New Orleans Bowl (wake me when it's New Year's Day).

Then he hits me with this: "I don't know how much I can drink, though. I'm running a 5K the next morning."

As it turns out, at least four or five of my friends are voluntarily getting up early on the Sunday morning after the holiday party to go run around the city streets. Did I mention it's December in Boston? This got us on the topic of 5Ks and running for sport in general, something that I admit I will never understand. Every time I've gone running in my life has been either to train for an actual sport or I was playing said sport. Running is just as tiring as playing a sport, yet there is no winner or score or dynamic aspect to it beyond the moment you realize "crap, I have to turn around and do that whole distance again to get home," and it motivates people to wear bizarre, otherwise socially unacceptable clothing.

That's not to say I can't admire people that do enjoy running. I know some people that train for and run marathons. I think these people are certifiably insane, but, damn, they are impressive too. I look at them the same way I look at snake handlers, sword swallowers, and guys who can pull tractors with their teeth—that is amazing that you can do that, but I have no interest in joining you. But a 5K is not a marathon. I asked my friend Greg, another 5K-er, how long this race on Sunday actually is.

"A 5K is 3.5 miles," he said.

"That's it?" I replied. "I could run that."

"Yeah. Anyone can do it. That's the point."

If anyone can do it, then where is the sense of accomplishment that would come with a marathon or even a half-marathon? If it's something that you can roll out of bed hungover and do, why bother?

Now, it can be worth doing something that we wouldn't usually do or might be outside our comfort zone if it raises money for a good cause. So I asked Dan if he was raising money for a foundation and he said that the race costs around $25 to run.

"What does that go to?" I asked.

"No, that's just how much it costs to participate."

So, wait. Not only are they getting up bright and early to run a moderate distance in the cold, but they're paying someone to do it? And that person isn't a charity? Why wouldn't you just walk down to the local basketball courts, play a game of pickup ball, and drop off a donation of blankets to the Salvation Army on your way home? That sounds like a far more productive morning to me than this adventure into the land of hypothermia, dry heaves, and leg cramps.

Knowing how skeptical I was of the situation, Greg, Dan, and their cohorts tried to use the one angle that they thought would convince me this was a good idea.

"Usually the 5K ends near a local bar where everyone gets together and drinks afterword," they said.

Well, that sounds a bit more enticing, adding a social aspect to the event, but after thinking about it for a moment, I asked, "Couldn't I just sleep in and meet you all at the bar instead of running there?"

"Yeah, you could."

"Better yet, I could eat and drink with my friends the night before at a holiday party rather than
pant heavily into a pint surrounded by sweaty strangers."

I suppose I can see some of the upside of running. You can do it by yourself wherever and whenever. It builds up your cardiovascular system and maybe in other people it promotes the endorphins I get from doing sports (or as I call it, running with a purpose). The summer after I finished college, I lived by the boardwalk in Long Beach, New York, one of the most beautiful places to go running that I know of, and from time to time I would jog to one end of the boardwalk and back if I didn't have the opportunity to work out any other way. But I just can't abide paying a stranger twenty-five bucks for the privilege of waking up early on a Sunday to run a few miles in the dead winter.

Especially if it might lead to a subdued holiday party the night before.

*Photo Courtesy of Slightly North via Creative Commons License

Bellevue Supersonics? Why It Wouldn't Work

A few days ago, David Aldridge published a very well-researched, informative, and overall wonderful column on NBA.com about the lingering discontent from the Supersonics' shady departure from Seattle. There's an interesting paragraph about two-thirds of the way through the story where Aldridge brings up former Sonics coach Lenny Wilkens, who then discusses the possibility of returning the Sonics to the area. Only this time, the Sonics might move to Bellevue, which Aldridge describes as "a suburb about 15 minutes from downtown [Seattle]." Aldridge writes:

Wilkens says there are groups with Eastside ties that are discussing coming together to make another run at the legislature, with the intention of buying an existing team and moving it to a new arena in Bellevue. He acknowledges that he doesn't even know all of the players, so nascent are the plans -- "I know some of them, and I know they're pretty solid," Wilkens says -- but that a plan is coalescing.

This is the point where I want everyone to pause and go ahead and back the eff up. While Aldridge cites the reasons Bellevue would make a good landing spot for a new team—most notably the fact that Bellevue is full of rich people (mostly from Microsoft money) to build the new arena the Sonics would demand—I'd like everyone to think about the reasons a team in Bellevue wouldn't work. None of the following is really about basketball, I don't think.

The primary reason it wouldn't work is simple: traffic. Only in the dreams of anyone living in the Seattle Metro area is Bellevue 15 minutes away from anything. Sure, it might not look that far on a map, but if you've ever driven on I-90 or the 520 floating bridges (the two main routes connecting Seattle and Bellevue), then you know it can take hours (yes, plural) to drive those 10 or so miles to Bellevue, especially between 5 and 7 p.m., when people will be driving to the games. A proposal to build a light rail system connecting Seattle to Bellevue has been on the table for years in order to combat the traffic, but I don't see that as a real solution. Not only would it take years to build because it would necessitate construction on one of the existing floating bridges, but the proposal has been continuously met with opposition from the same rich Bellevue-ites who don't want a fancy rail system decreasing their property values. I also don't believe the light rail would combat the culture of driving in the Seattle Metro area, especially when the markets of Everett (north of Seattle) to Tacoma (south of Seattle) and the other Eastside areas are accounted for.

The cultures of the two cities is another problem. Bellevue has been on the rise for years. To call it a suburb is a disservice in a way: it has grown to become its own city—a smaller, more compact version of Seattle. I would say a minor rivalry has been brewing since Bellevue began its ascension, and I don't think Sonics supporters would claim a team in Bellevue as their own, even (or especially) if it was still held on to the Seattle forename. I would predict a brief honeymoon period where the Bellevue Supersonics would be embraced by most of western Washington, only to see attendance decline as fans stop braving the stop-and-go traffic to see a team that would still belong to a city other than their own. Then the Sonics could find themselves in the same position that led to their departure in the first place (minus the owner publicly making the team worse so he could pack it up and skip town).

Yes, I'm getting ahead of myself, just like everyone else. I want a team to return Seattle as much as any Seattlite, but I want it to succeed.

P.S. Any Sonics post is reason enough to link to the Presidents of the United States of America song, "Supersonics" and Sir Mix-A-Lot's "Not in Our House."

Handoffs

Handoffs is a weekly roundup of sports stories and blog posts gathered from around the interwebs that we find interesting, informative, and entertaining.

Here's a fun and informative headline from The Spoiler: Burmese Dictator Wanted to Buy Manchester United.

Bernard Gilkey hasn't played for the Diamondbacks in nine years, but they'll be paying him until 2017.

Interesting story from The New York Times about athletes trying to trademark their names and catchphrases.

A pair of 10-year-old boys are reaching out to former Negro League baseball players.

Michael Wilbon's final column for the Washington Post is right here, and it's a good one. It's a reminder that before he became the Pardon the Interruption talking head, he used to be a really, really good writer.

Projecting the Red Sox

As I fire up the ol' computer to write this article, I have five tabs open in my browser from last night: Sons of Sam Horn, the best sports message board on the internet; Fangraphs; MLB Trade Rumors; and the Baseball-Reference pages for Russell Martin, Carl Crawford (for obvious reasons), and Roberto Clemente (because I was getting ahead of myself and comparing Crawford's career to Clemente's [it's not as good]). I wonder what I was doing last night?

Yeah, I was thinking about the Red Sox and Carl Crawford. The contracts may be a slight overpay, but Carl Crawford and Adrian Gonzalez add so much to the Red Sox that it's tough not to get very excited about their chances this year. Adrian Gonzalez is a premier hitter with great opposite-field power, and he's going to play with the Green Monster 310 feet away from him. Crawford may not have home run power, but he can lace hits to the gaps and his speed can turn them into doubles and triples. And even though the Monster offsets the value of his defense somewhat, he is consistently worth 10-15 runs per season in the field, which goes a long way toward making him worth his contract.

I'm quite excited about the possibilities for this team. Since I couldn't think about anything other than baseball all day, I decided to run some back-of-the-envelope projections for the team. The pitching staff is still somewhat in flux, though I expect them to pick up a reliever or two (Scott Downs is looking likely now that they are already losing their first round pick). It has the talent to be better than average, but given the new pitching coach and thus far no major bullpen upgrades, let's project it as league average. Last year this was around 716 runs per team. The Red Sox were slightly below average at 744 runs allowed. So for ease in calculation, since we're estimating and I want to be conservative, let's project them to allow 720.

Offensively, I took the Bill James projections, which are available on Fangraphs, and input them to BaseballMusings lineup run generator, which is a very neat tool. As James's projections are known to be optimistic, I adjusted them mostly downward, except for a few cases as explained below.

Leadoff: Jacoby Ellsbury, center field.
Jacoby had a tough year last year, and many question what he'll be able to do next year. But for now the Red Sox still have Mike Cameron, who is great against lefties and also one of the best center fielders of my lifetime when not in pain from a kidney stone. Bill James projects Ellsbury to have an OBP of .355 and a SLG of .409. Since Cameron would probably play any center field innings that Ellsbury isn't in the lineup, I'm comfortable with these projections, but in the interest of being conservative, let's adjust them down to .350/.400.

2nd: Dustin Pedroia, second base.
Pedroia was having a very solid year before going down with a broken foot. He had a .367 OBP and a career high .493 SLG when injured. James projects him to hit .372/.462, which seems fair, but given that he may miss ten games (likely replaced by Lowrie or Scutaro) and maybe is off his game because of the injury, we'll drop it down to .360/.450.

3rd: Carl Crawford, left field.
Crawford is an excellent hitter, but he's not exactly built for Fenway. There's also question about whether his last two years (during which he increased his walk rate and slugged .473) represents his true hitting level, or if a little less power than that should be expected. James projects him at .350/.453, which seems pessimistic to me, but I'll use it.

Cleanup: Adrian Gonzalez, first base.
Here's where I took some liberty in adapting Bill James's projections. James projects Adrian Gonzalez to hit for a .378/.512 line, which seems very pessimistic to me. I think it's possible that that projection is assuming he'd remain in San Diego, in which case it makes sense to adjust it upward. Using the wisdom of crowds, the 40 fangraphs users who have voted thus far project him at a .400/.595 line, which seems maybe a bit too optimistic. But given that he's hit about that well away from Petco Park in his last three years, and Fenway seems like a park built for him, maybe it's not too crazy. We'll take the middle ground, but the high end: .390/.580.

Fifth: Kevin Youkilis, third base.
Youkilis has been one of the most underrated hitters in the majors for the last few years. His fierce playing style can cause him to miss time, but on a per-at-bat basis here's how he ranks in the majors since 2008 (minimum 1200 PA):
OBP: 5th
SLG: 3rd
wOBA: 2nd, to Pujols

It's not hard to make the case that Youkilis is the second-best hitter in the majors, per at-bat. Not only does he have amazing patience, but he has surprising power. While Fenway has helped him a lot, he would be a solid hitter in any park and as the Red Sox #5 guy, you know this is an exceptional lineup.

James projects him for a .398/.507 line. That slugging looks low to me, but I can foresee the scenario in which Youk misses 20 or so games very easily, and those at-bats would probably be taken by Jed Lowrie. While I love Lowrie's bat, he's not quite at Youk's level, especially in the plate discipline department. So let's call this position an aggregate .385/.520.

6th: David Ortiz (and platoon partner?), designated hitter.
In the same time frame that Youkilis is the second-best hitter in baseball, Ortiz has had some well-publicized struggles. But he still has a .498 slugging percentage during that time, good for 32nd in the majors (just behind Jason Bay). His wOBA makes him 52nd in MLB during that time. This isn't great, but it would look better if he played less often against lefties, against whom he only managed a .275 OBP and .324 SLG in 2010. This is a continuing trend, and I expect Terry Francona (and Ortiz) to realize this and sit Ortiz more often than not against LHP. Against LHP, the likely DH would be Mike Cameron, who has a career .866 OPS against lefties, or if Russell Martin or another catcher is acquired, Jason Varitek could even DH against lefties.

James projects Ortiz for a .366/.509 line, and given his likely solid platoon partners, let's call it a .365/.505 aggregate from the DH slot this year.

7th: JD Drew, Right Field.
2011 is the last year of JD Drew's contract, and he had a rough 2010. After adjusting to the American League and posting a .399/.521 line for an OPS of .920 from 2008-09, he could only manage .341/.452 last year (.793 OPS) and has hinted at retiring after this year. But James projects him for somewhat of a rebound year and a .370/.460 line, so we'll go with that. Though Drew likes to miss time, his backups are likely to be Ellsbury, Ryan Kalish, or Cameron, who won't do much worse. So we'll go with a .360/.455 projection from right field.

8th: Marco Scutaro/Jed Lowrie, shortstop.
As I wrote in my offseason preview, I think Lowrie will be the starting shortstop sooner or later (I'd guess around May), while Scutaro will become a super-sub at third, second, and short. James projects Lowrie at .361/.467, and while I think he could very easily improve on that mark, let's not get too hasty. We'll do .360/.460.

9th: Jarrod Saltalamacchia/Jason Varitek/Russell Martin, catcher.
As I noted in my last post, just Saltalamcchia and Varitek could make for a solid catching tandem, given their complimentary platoon splits and Varitek's experience. Given the rumors about how the Red Sox weren't happy with Victor Martinez's dedication to the pitching staff, I think they'll mostly be looking for defense from this spot, but Saltalamacchia's youth gives me hope that this can be more than an offensive black hole. James likes Salty for a .323/.422 line, and gives Varitek a .324/.386 mark. Let's call it .325/.400.

Plugging all this into the lineup analysis tool, we get a projection of: 5.722 runs per game.

Holy crap. That works out to 927 runs for the whole season, which would be 109 more runs than last year. Is that possible? Considering that they added two all-star hitters (though, yes, one replaced an all-star) and will get three other all-stars back after missing them for half to all the year (including the man who has been the best hitter not named Pujols for the last three years), then, yes. Not to mention that the lineup model assumes the team has average speed, and the Red Sox have the two best base-stealers in the league.

Still, let's be conservative. Say on a team level this lineup estimator is optimistic, and maybe the Red Sox have some bad luck with runners in scoring position or something. So say they only score 910 runs.

With an average number of runs allowed discussed above, that projects (via the pythagorean expectation, using 1.83 as an exponent) to a 98-64 record.

Given how conservative I was in all my estimates and the ability of the pitching staff to improve upon my projection (especially with the likely bullpen help they will add and the improved defense), I'm very excited about the 2011 Red Sox.

*Photo courtesy of Albert Yau via Creative Commons License

A Little Creative Outlet

Lately my writing has been a little sidetracked by what I'll just refer to here as real-life writing and trying to get the blog moved and redesigned. In search of another creative outlet, I decided to grab a pencil and paper and attempt my first drawing in years. Well, here it is. It's not perfect; there are some crazy issues with proportion and foreshortening there, but still, not bad for shaking off the rust, if I do say so myself.