Sub-Par Analysis

Quoth the Bard:

Is Nyger Morgan that much of a horse's patoot that the Nationals don't want a guy who does a decent job getting on and steals bases?

Unfortunately, his name is spelled "Nyjer."

Equally unfortunately, last year Morgan batted .253 and had a .319 OBP - hardly a "decent job." Struck out more than he walked. He did steal 34 bases, but he also got caught 17 times - second most in the Majors in 2010 (he got caught the most times in 2009).

So Morgan is a guy who can't get on base and is doesn't steal very well. Add in those 4 career home runs, and you have a sure-fire Borsch keeper!

Stats are Significant

I was listening to Mike and Mike in the Morning on ESPN Radio the other day. They were discussing the benching of Donovan McNabb in the last 2 minutes of a game the other week. During their (predictably pro-McNabb) discussion, Mike Greenberg asked Mike Golic if the Redskins were "a better team" with McNabb, and whether they would be "as good without him." Golic replied that they would absolutely not be as good without McNabb as they now are with him.

Really?

Jason Campbell 2009-2010 Stats (16 Games)
QBRat 86.4; Comp Pct 64.5; 226.1 YPG, 7.1 Y/A, 20 TD, 15 INT

Donovan McNabb 2010-2011 Stats (8 Games)
QBRat 76.0; Comp Pct 57.4; 246.4 YPG, 7.1 Y/A, 7 TD, 8 INT

It seems like the Redskins actually got WORSE at quarterback with McNabb.

Qualify Much?

Overheard last night on 97.5 "The Fanatic." Frequent offender Dan Schwartzman, discussing Manny Ramirez:

One of the best hitters I've ever seen in the history of baseball, especially during my lifetime.

So Manny is "one of" the best hitters. Okay.

Confusion sets in when Schwartzman tosses in "I've ever seen." So now it's limited to those that the host has personally observed? Not as impressive. Confusion then mounts with "in the history of baseball" - are these players that Schwartzman has seen, including some from those grainy black-and-white-films from the 1930's or in Ken Burns's Baseball? Or is he ditching his own observations to include every hitter who has ever played the game? Then the kicker - "during my lifetime."

Any one who can successfully deduce what pool of players Schwartzman is using to gague the "best hitter" qualifications of Manny Ramirez, please let me know.

This is the same host who had a debate with himself over who deserves more money: Jason Bay or Jayson Werth. Werth wants the same money Bay got, but Schwartzman "had news" for him - he doesn't have the track record of success that Bay has. But Werth is probably still a better player than Bay. So does Werth deserve the money? Probably not. But who would Schwartzman rather have on his team? Probably Werth.

All Sports People are Dumb

Quoth Dan Schwartzman, 97.5 "The Fanatic" sports talk radio host:

(Speaking of Phillies shortstop Jimmy Rollins): He's a leadoff guy, gets on base. His On Base Percentage isn't very high.

So, despite the fact that he "gets on base," Jimmy Rollins doesn't get on base very much. Thanks, Dan Schwartzman.

Numbers Mean Things

I was listening to FM sports station 97.5 ("The Fanatic") last night. A caller asked whether the Eagles might draft a quarterback this year, since they had just traded McNabb to the Redskins. Host Jon Marks replied:

Well that's what could happen, when you have two established, veteran guys like Michael Vick and Kevin Kolb...

Kevin Kolb, Career Games Played: 12 (over three seasons)

Well done, sirs.

Jolly Time

Paul Jolovitz hosts a late-night sports talk show on location station 610 WIP. Discussing the Duke vs. Butler match-up for the national college basketball title game, a caller compared the game to David and Goliath, with Duke playing the Goliath role. Jolovitz's response:

It IS David and Goliath, but it's a Goliath people don't like.

Total simile failure.