What is quality?

You don't have to listen to a lot of sports talk radio to hear someone disparaging the quality start as a useless stat. "Three runs in six innings is a 4.50 ERA! If you have a 4.50 ERA that's quality? Sandy Koufax blah blah blah."

Well, if you consider the average ERA in the A.L. last year was 4.78, yeah, 4.50 isn't too bad.

But I think the problem is the word "quality." People want quality to mean "good" or even "great," not average or even slightly above average.

Yet if you argue with the very same guy ridiculing quality starts, ask him: What's a "winnable" start? I believe most baseball fans, even the ones who find the quality start a laughable statistic, would believe that if your starting pitcher gives up 3 runs or less in the first six innings, you have a chance of winning that game. Not a guarantee, but a chance. If your team loses a game 3-0 or 3-1 or 3-2, do you blame the starting pitcher? Or the offense? If a pitcher leaves the game with the score tied at 3-3, and the closer gives up a home run in the 9th, do you blame the starter for the 3 runs, or the closer for the one?

"Winnable" start. You immediately know what I'm talking about. Hey, that was a winnable start, but we didn't score enough runs, or the bullpen blew it.

Semantics, yes. But words matter.

Bill James once argued that fans and sportswriters don't pay enough attention to outfielder assists because of the word "assist." It sounds like he just sort of helped out while someone else did the work. Nick Markakis led the league with 17 assists last year. That's 17 baserunners he took off the bases -- not to mention all the baserunners who held up instead of testing his arm. That's pretty impressive, but how many people know he led the league in assists? He didn't even win a Gold Glove. James argued that people would pay more attention to outfielder arms if the stat had a cool name like "baserunner kills" instead of "assists."

I feel the same way about quality starts. People think it's a misleading term because, well, it is, because "Quality Start" shouldn't be used to describe what is essentially slightly above average. So they don't like the term, and then they don't like the stat, and they ignore it.

"Winnable Start." Try it on your friends.

Don't call it a comeback!

On second thought, yeah, let's call it a comeback.

I understand the hatred of Carl Pavano. Anyone who had been paying attention knew it was a dumb signing -- Pavano had one good year amid lots of injuries. But, four years and $39.95 million later, now the Yankees know it too.

But I don't get the "Pavano sucks" attitude I've been hearing on sports talk radio the last couple days. Pavano hasn't sucked. He hasn't been good, he hasn't earned his $39.95 million, he hasn't been what the Yankees apparently thought they were getting when they stupidly signed him in 2005, but he hasn't sucked. He's been either mediocre or absent.

2005: 4-6, 18 BB, 56 K, 4.77 ERA, 1.47 WHIP
2006: DNP
2007: 1-0, 2 BB, 4 K, 4.76 ERA, 1.24 WHIP
2008: ?
TOTAL: 5-6, 20 BB, 60 K, 4.77 ERA, 1.45 WHIP


Remember Ed Whitson and Steve Trout? Those guys sucked. They get an F. Pavano gets an incomplete. He just hasn't been here. I'm not sure which one is worse, the guy who shows up but can't get it done, or the guy who is borderline competent on the rare occasion he feels like playing.

Well, apparently he feels like playing now. We need a starter, so it's Pavano or Phil Hughes, who has been having a tough time in Triple-A (8.47 ERA, 1.65 WHIP). And personally, if you're going to rush a guy back, I'd rather it be Pavano. Or maybe you'd rather see Kei Igawa?

(Heck, if he was still with Alyssa Milano, I'd actually be looking forward to today's start. He also was dumped by Gia Allemand after he cheated on her. Apparently this wasn't good enough for Carl. He may have problems using his arm, but apparently not his penis.)

The knock on Glass Carl was that he pitched terribly -- or not at all -- until his contract year in '04, and suddenly he was good (18-8, 3.00 ERA, 1.17 WHIP). That's not exactly fair as he wasn't terrible in '03 (12-13, 4.30 ERA, 1.26 WHIP), but Pavano hasn't done anything in his Yankee career to convince us that he is willing to play through even the slightest discomfort. (Stiff neck, tight back... Bruised buttocks, anyone?)

Now at the end of this season his contract is up. The conspiracy theorists should be expecting a good September, right? Suddenly he feels good enough to pitch again. If Carl wants another contract this off-season, he should be in line for five or six quality starts.

I'll take it.

Oh, and as I pointed out to D. Isaac yesterday -- of the five catchers Pavano has thrown to most often in his career, who has the lowest OPS allowed?

Of course -- Ivan Rodriguez. When pitching to Pudge, Pavano has allowed a .257/.307/.408 (.715 OPS) line, compared to .276/.330/.427 (.757) overall. Yes, Rodriguez caught him during his only good run ('03-'04), and yes, that was in the N.L. Still, it's something to keep in mind.

I'm not busting out the Carl Pavano jersey for today's start. I'm just saying let's wring whatever we can get out of this waste of a contract and move on.

That's just Favrevolous

As someone who roots for both the Packers and the Jets, this is a strange time for me. My favorite player has been traded from my favorite team... to my second-favorite team.

Sportswriters keep throwing around the divorce analogy when discussing the Packer situation. To carry it out a bit further, it's like your parents get divorced and you're going to keep living with your mom and her new boyfriend, Aaron Rodgers. Your mom seems to be genuinely in love with Aaron but he gives you a weird vibe. It's probably the porn 'stache. Or maybe that time he told you to "get on board now or keep your mouth shut." Awkward!

Meanwhile, on weekends, you'll be staying with dad and his hot new girlfriend, Brett Favre, who wakes up early to make you blueberry pancakes and lets you pick the radio stations and almost never wears a bra.

OK, this analogy is getting a little creepy.

But this trade does leave me with a funny feeling inside.

Objectively, I think it's a good trade for both sides. I thought before the trade the Jets would be a playoff team, probably winning 10 games, thanks to their play fairly easy schedule and revamped offensive line. I think Favre gives them one or maybe two more wins -- and they can't catch New England, but they're a dangerous team in the playoffs. Maybe they lose the AFC Championship game to the Patriots -- undoubtedly on a Favre interception in the final minute. But hey, you live by the Favre, you die by the Favre.

That would mean the Packers get a 2nd Round pick for Favre, which is a great value for a guy you had to trade. And the fact that you got him out of the NFC is a bonus.

I'm not crazy about Rodgers. As I said when this all started, I'd rather trade Rodgers and have one or two more years of Favre, then switch to Brian Brohm. Favre made that impossible, of course, so we have to move on with Rodgers. But that doesn't mean I'm rushing out to buy a No. 12 jersey.

Everyone keeps talking about that great half against the Dallas Cowboys, but remember, that was a Cowboy team with a big lead that had prepared to face Favre, not Rodger the Dodger. Aaron has happy feet in the pocket. The Packers offense is all about timing and routes; that's not going to work if Rodgers is scrambling at the first sign of pressure. I could see the Packers going 9-7, but given the strength of their conference, that might be enough to be a wild card, or even the NFC North title.

Wouldn't it be neat if the Packers played the Jets in the Super Bowl? That'd be the real test for me, wouldn't it? A week ago, no question, I'm rooting for the Packers in that scenario. Now, well... still the Packers, but the devil on my shoulder is hoping Favre sticks it to Ted Thompson one last time.

Yeah, so, in the end, I'm still living with mom and putting up with Aaron. But I'm really looking forward to the weekends.

Ted Thompson plays hard ball

Ted Thompson hasn't ruled out the possibility of Brett Favre playing for the Green Bay Packers this season, but in what he described as a messy situation the general manager remained loyal to Aaron Rodgers as the team's starting quarterback.
-- Tom Silverstein, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

And people say Brett Favre doesn't like this guy! Thompson sounds like quite the charmer.

If you had "benched for an inferior player" in your "How does Favre's consecutive game streak end?" pool, you might be in for some big bucks.

But although this is the way the story is being reported, let's not take it seriously for a minute. There is absolutely no way Favre comes back as a back-up for Aaron Rodgers. That's just silly.

So what's the point of this? To show Brett who has the hammer. And maybe, if they are exploring the possibility of trading Rodgers, it keeps his value up, at least a little. From Favre's point of view, it gives him the opportunity to say, "I'm still a good guy, I'll do what's best for the team." I'm sure his agent will play that card today or tomorrow. Even if Favre wants to be on another team, he has to do some rehab to his reputation. "Aw shucks I just wanna play football, I'll play linebacker if they need me to do that" is what everyone wants to hear.

But this may work itself out before too long anyway. Rodgers has made Nick Johnson look like Lou Gehrig, with a broken foot in 2006 and a pulled hamstring in 2007. Remember, this guy has never started a game. He's had 59 attempts in four years, almost half of those coming in the Cowboys game, and he's been hurt twice. (Both times oddly coming in weeks after Favre got hurt and was doubtful the following week.)

Would anyone be surprised if the Packers start training camp with Favre and Rodgers "sharing reps," but then Rodgers goes down with a strained oblique or a tweaked groin or Nintendo thumb? Then Peter King can do his huzzahs to the Iron Man and we won't have to hear about Rodgers again until next spring.

Not that I hate Rodgers or anything -- I really don't. I was "on board" when Favre was retired. But if my choice is the grizzle or the 'stache, I'll take the grizzle.

What to do about Brett

For the third straight season, Brett Favre has toyed with the emotions of Packer fans everywhere. Oh, Brett. I don't know how to quit you!

So, what to do in 2008? Frankly, I don't understand this argument that the Packers "owe" the starting job to Aaron Rodgers. Why do we owe anything to A-Rodge? He made a hell of a lot more money than I have since 2005, and we've started the same number of games. As I recall, some people thought Rodgers might go No. 1 in the 2005 draft, other mock drafts had him going anywhere from No. 3 to No. 5 to No. 8. Instead, after a few awkward hours of standing there like the kid picked last in kickball, he went 24th to the Packers. After three years of standing around in a baseball cap (when he wasn't on the trainer's table) and one good relief appearance in a blowout against the Cowboys last year, and now we owe him... what, exactly? Somehow more than we owe Favre?

Also, Aaron's comment about Packer fans -- "I don't think I need to sell myself to the fans. They need to get on board now or keep their mouths shut" -- didn't earn him a lot of points, either.

But then there's Favre. He obviously wants to play in the NFL for one more season (at least). But does he really want to be in Green Bay? Or has this been his plan all along, to retire and then unretire as a free agent?

There's two possibilities:

1) Brett wants out of Green Bay and nothing the Packers will do or say will get him to stay and be happy.

2) Brett will come back to the Packers, in which case you have to say screw Aaron Rodgers.

Let's explore Option 1. Can we all agree that in a Favre-less NFL, the Packers are the favorites to repeat as NFC North champs? Yes, we don't know what we have with Rodgers as our QB, but we know the Lions have Jon Kitna, the Bears have Rex Grossman and the Vikings have Tarvaris Jackson. All three of those guys had more INTs than TDs last year.

But if you put Favre on the Bears -- with Devin Hester and their defense -- and they're the division champs. Put him on the Vikings with Adrian Peterson, and they are. (You'd have to get the 1996 version of Favre to help the Lions.)

So I don't see how you let Favre just walk. He's a valuable commodity, first off, and secondly if you let him walk he very likely walks to a rival and maybe takes the NFC North title with him. If it's Option 1 and Brett won't come back, you have to trade him -- the Jets, the Texans, the Panthers, wherever. Favre has a no-trade clause, but the Packers have the hammer -- either agree to the trade, report to Packer camp, or stay retired.

If it's Option 2, and Favre can be convinced to stay in Green Bay for one more season, the answer is obvious: You trade Rodgers.

He's in the fourth year of a five-year contract, so if you bench him in 2008 to sit behind Favre, you figure he's going to be pissed -- and will walk after the 2009 season.

On the other hand, the Packers just drafted Brian Brohm, a guy some people thought would have been the first pick overall if he came out as a junior in 2007. Instead he stays an extra year in college and goes in the second round to the Pack. Now he gets a year of sitting behind Brett and gets thrown into the fire in 2009. Is there any evidence to suggest he'll be that much worse than Rodgers anyway?

Option 2: Favre starts, Brohm learns, Rodgers goes.

Here's hoping.

Same as it ever was...

Well, Yankee fans, here we are again, 20-24, 6 games out. But hey, look at the bright side - last year we had the very same record but were 10-1/2 games out.

And last year things got worse -- we'd finish the month 22-29 -- before they got better. But we went 72-39 the rest of the way.

So yeah, it's possible we'll do that again and win the wild card, maybe even the division. But wouldn't it be nice if this team could play all six months of the season, instead of only the last four?

It's just not easy to beat a guy like Oliver Perez with five lefties in the lineup (and when one of the righties is Alberto Gonzalez).


Perez vs RHB: .285 BA, .390 OBP, .398 SLG
Perez vs LHB: .094 BA, .269 OBP, .208 SLG


I don't know why Girardi left Morgan Ensberg and Shelley Duncan on the bench; you would think their only purpose in life is to mash guys like Ollie. If you aren't going to use them last night, why have them on the team? I do realize that Ensberg is hitting .214 (.179 vs LHP) and Duncan is hitting .194 (.240 vs LHP), but it's not like Giambi and Cano are hitting either. If they put Gonzalez at second, Ensberg at third and Duncan at first, do they win the game? Who knows. Maybe Duncan doesn't waste an out in the 4th inning the way Giambi did (trying to force Carlos Beltran instead of getting the easier out at first), and the Mets don't score 4 runs that inning. Maybe the offense produces more than 2 runs. Or maybe they get shut out, who knows.

All I know is this is a very frustrating team to watch right now, and when things were bleak last year, it was guys like Duncan who fired up the team and finally got them playing with some heart again.

Get them in the game, Joe. At this point, what do we have to lose?

Bobby Hill watch

I have not relented in my unhealthy obsession with Bobby Hill, not the kid from King of the Hill but rather the former can't-miss prospect who missed. Hill was a Scott Boras client who elected not to sign with the White Sox after they took him in the second round of the 1999 amateur draft; instead, he played a year with the independent league Newark Bears. The following year, the Cubs took him in the draft and he did sign. After a few years in the minors, but never really getting a shot to play, and a few injuries, he's now back where it all began, with the Newark Bears.

Through Newark's first 18 games, Bobby is still getting on base (.373 OBP) but is hitting just .246; he no longer has any speed and he never had much power. A .246 BA/.721 OPS from a second baseman wouldn't impress you if he did it in Triple-A, and this isn't even Triple-A. This is the Atlantic League, where the level of competition is uneven to say the least.

At least Bobby is out-hitting a couple other former phenoms, Randall Simon and Calvin Pickering. In fact, you could go through the Atlantic League and put together an intriguing roster of has-beens, almost-weres and never-wuzzes.

The Atlantic League's "Where Are They Now?" All-Star Team:

Starters:
C Jason Phillips (Camden) - .320/.393/.400 in 25 AB
1B Randall Simon (Newark) - .226/.258/.306 in 62 AB
2B Brent Abernathy (Long Island) - .320/.346/.360 in 50 AB
3B Brandon Larson (Somserset) - .338/.411/.508 in 65 AB
SS Alex Prieto (Bridgeport) - .191/.263/.235 in 68 AB
LF Curtis Pride (Maryland) - .212/.350/.318 in 66 AB
CF Val Majewski (Newark) - .300/.390/.400 in 50 AB
RF Carl Everett (Long Island) - .323/.440/.468 in 62 AB
DH Calvin Pickering (Bridgeport) - .161/.333/.339 in 56 AB

Reserves:
C Mike Rose (Long Island) - .156/.289/.219 in 32 AB
C/1B Matt LeCroy (Lancaster) - .129/.206/.226 in 31 AB
UT Bobby Hill (Newark) - .246/.373/.348 in 69 AB
UT Damian Jackson (Maryland) - .000/.222/.000 in 7 AB
OF Mike Vento (Camden) - .125/.200/.125 in 8 AB

Starting Pitchers:
SP John Halama (Maryland) - 2.36 ERA, 0.97 WHIP in 26.2 IP
SP Brian Lawrence (Camden) - 3.97 ERA, 1.37 WHIP in 22.2 IP
SP Eric Dubose (Bridgeport) - 4.50 ERA, 1.55 WHIP in 22.0 IP
SP Ryan Drese (Camden) - 4.87 ERA, 1.57 WHIP in 20.1 IP
SP Jason Simontacchi (Long Island) - 6.43 ERA, 1.64 WHIP in 14.0 IP

Relievers:
RP Bret Prinz (Somerset) - 0.00 ERA, 1.00 WHIP in 9.0 IP
RP Travis Wade (Maryland) - 3.12 ERA, 1.50 WHIP in 8.2 IP
RP Wayne Franklin (York) - 3.86 ERA, 1.41 WHIP in 16.1 IP
RP Jeff Farnsworth (Maryland) - 6.35 ERA, 1.59 WHIP in 22.2 IP
RP Will Cunnane (Newark) - 6.55 ERA, 1.91 WHIP in 11.0 IP
RP Brian Shackelford (Maryland) - 0.00 ERA, 3.00 WHIP in 1.1 IP