Sports and other information

Monday, May 16, 2011

The 2011 Season thus far

My Minnesota Twins are 12-26, last place in the American League Central. Of course some of this can be attributed to the fact that Joe Mauer has only played 9 games and Justin Morneau just hasn't turned it on after his concussion last year. Some more can be attributed to the fact that Francisco Liriano, even with his no-hitter hasn't done very well either.
If you remember correctly, meaning you've read my blog, I took some flak for suggesting that the Twins were not going to have a very good season and openly questioning GM Bill Smith's move this off-season. So we'll begin looking at some of the comments that people made to me and show where I'm right and where I'm wrong.
1. "Young is not nearly as terrible as you make him out to be, he broke out last year, lost weight, and will continue to get better, oh and he's 24 with what, 4 years of experience already? Bartlett couldn't stay healthy and Garza has continued to be a headache, but a good player, ill give him that."
What is people's fascination with Delmon Young? I don't get it. He's played 19 games this year because he missed some time with an oblique injury (can we start him on the Twins calling players injury prone train yet?). Since returning from the injury, so far, he is 1-12 with seven strikeouts. In 69 at-bats he has yet to hit his first home run. His slash line is .203/.250/.246. He's done a remarkable thing so far, his on-base percentage is higher than his slugging percentage. Impressive indeed. He's hitting a higher percentage of groundballs than usual, while lowering the percentage of line drives he has hit. His batting average will improve as his BABIP is .255 and last year it was a .312 (and the years before it was .338) so it's possible he improves for the rest of the season. Meanwhile, Jason Bartlett who can't stay healthy, has played in 34 games with a slash line of .254/.307/.297 and is likely to improve that batting average as well for the rest of the season. While Matt Garza is 2-4 with a pedestrian 4.17 ERA, he is likely to improve his ERA when his FIP starts to match up with his ERA more.

We're going to play one of Rob Neyer's old favorite games. The Player A game. The players are all free agent relievers the Twins had on the team last year.
Player A: 101 ERA+, .764 WHIP, 6.9 H/9, 1.5 HR/9, 5.4 K/9, 0 BB/9. Performance in save situations: 0-2 9 games, 5 saves, 1.138 WHIP, 3.7 K/9, ERA 6.52
Player B: 147 ERA+, .900 WHIP, 5.4 H/9, 1.6 HR/9, 4.9 K/9, 2.7 BB/9. Performance in save situations: 0-1, 6 Games, 5 saves, .800 WHIP, 5.4 K/9, 5.40 ERA
Player C: 90 ERA+, 1.2 WHIP, 7.4 H/9, 0.5 HR/9, 6.9 K/9, 3.4 BB/9. Performance in save situations: 1-1, 11 games, 9 saves, .973 WHIP, 9.5 K/9, 2.92 ERA
Player D: 143 ERA+, .911 WHIP, 4.8 H/9, 0.5 HR/9, 10.1 K/9, 3.4 BB/9. Performance in save situations: 0-0, 5 Games, .667 WHIP, 10.5 K/9, 0.00 ERA.
Player A: Matt Capps
Player B: Jon Rauch
Player C: Brian Fuentes
Player D: Jesse Crain
Not shown on my blog, but the same commenter said that Jesse Crain cannot pitch to left-handers, as well as can't perform in save situations. In 2011, left-handers against Crain have gone .115/.233/.115 while against Capps: .242/.265/.455. In 2010, left-handers went .196/.281/.333 against Crain (remember he can't pitch to left-handers) while against Capps they went .248/.301/.353.

Drew Butera who the Twins are using as backup catcher (well with Mauer's injury and his injury history it's more like a starter) has managed to put up a -18 OPS+, that's a negative sign. Butera might be putting up the worst numbers in the league. Meanwhile, Wilson Ramos who was so expendable in the Matt Capps trade is putting up a slash line of .267/.333/.419, while not spectacular is so much better than Butera's numbers that I do not even have to comment on it.

Finally, my favorite player double play combination Alexei Casilla and Tsuyoshi Nishioka/Luke Hughes. I'll concede that J.J. Hardy isn't really healthy this year but in his 12 games he has put up a slash line of .325/.386/.550 and has out homered the Casilla, Nishioka, Hughes combination (although Trevor Plouffe has been doing pretty well). Nishioka's leg was broken by Nick Swisher in an effort to break up the double play, so I guess I will lay off of him. Nishioka was supposed to be an international star...I don't think that's working out.
This is what my commenter friend said: "Hardy is oft injured and costing $5m, Nishioka and Casilla are not injury prone, potential international stars (which is good for the team in every way), both play solid D at 2 positions, bring speed and combined cost less than Hardy (and I'm even a Hardy fan, that's a smart move)"

Somehow, I doubt that Casilla is an international star. He's not a star on any level. Casilla's OPS+ is a 42. I do not think I have to say anymore.
The 2011 Twins have three players with an OPS+ of over 100, Denard Span (101), Jason Kubel (145), and Trevor Plouffe (183).
It's an embarassing team right now, until Mauer gets back, until Morneau starts hitting again, Liriano pitches well again, and more players start playing better, basically. Handing out starting positions to Butera, Casilla, and Young and handing Capps a $7 million dollar contract is a recipe for disaster and we're seeing it unfold.

Friday, April 22, 2011

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Is the Hebrew Bible sexist?

One of the arguments of people to disregard the Hebrew Bible is that the Bible is sexist in nature. Clearly, there are many more prophets than prophetesses and as we have seen it has taken unique circumstances to even allow there to be female prophetesses in the first place. But it does not necessarily mean that the Bible is a sexist text. There is little likelihood that the biblical laws that reflect women's socially inferior status were relatively new, or even a particular Israelite development as it is paralleled in Mesopotamian legal codes going back to the third millenium BCE (Kugel 2008). The social roles played by women in biblical times are comparable to those found in traditional societies all across the globe (Kugel 2008). Many societies have worshiped a Great Mother goddess but it seems risky to jump from this religious way of conceptualizing fertility to any conclusions about social organization or gender-determined roles (Kugel 2008). There was also a prominent female goddess in ancient Palestine. This has suggested to some scholars that there was once a prominence in everyday lives of women, they may have once exercised a highly diverse and primary role in the economic and physical survival of ancient Palestine (Kugel 2008). The question then becomes, why did things change? There's an argument that it was brought about with a combination of plagues, wars, and famines late in the Bronze Age caused women's diverse social roles to primarily focus on child bearing and child rearing because rebuilding the population was a vital concern (Kugel 2008). Perhaps then dynamic female leaders such as Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah represent the last gasp of an ancient gender equality, perhaps remnants of a time when women were an integral part of the power structure (Kugel 2008). It's easy to merely dismiss the Bible as sexist without perhaps looking at the context of the text. Miriam seems to have been chosen as a prophetess because the male prophets, Moses and Aaron, were not leading the Israelites in a manner that they preferred. Instead of searching for another male leader, they chose Miriam. In the story of Deborah, it seems that Deborah was chosen because she was able to be a leader in a time when the social dynamics allowed her to be and led the Israelite army to victory. Huldah was chosen as a prophetess because she was able to take advantage of the dynamics to become one as well. It is possible that the Hebrew Bible is sexist, however, it seems more probable that it is trying to teach people that anyone can be a leader, especially if they take advantage of the social dynamics.

In the Hebrew Bible, most of the prophets who are mentioned are males. There are five women who get the distinction of prophet or the equivalent of prophet in the Hebrew Bible. They are Miriam, Deborah, the unnamed wife of Isaiah, Hulda, and Noadiah (Ackerman 2002). The title of prophet or the equivalence of such, was assigned to at least twenty-nine men (Ackerman 2002). This does not include the hundreds of prophets mention in II Kings or some prophets who were not given the title but wrote books that are included in the Hebrew Bible, including Joel, Amos, and Hosea (Ackerman 2002). Nevertheless, looking at prophetic literature one would have to come to the conclusion that the words and deeds of prophets are almost exclusively the words and deeds of men. However, there is a slight mention of the prophetesses so there must be an important reason for them to be included. I will be focusing on Miriam, Deborah, and Hulda. There are many reasons for each of the prophetesses to be mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. These reasons include some of the textual evidence, as well as some historical evidence.

Miriam was Moses' sister. After the crossing of the Sea of Reeds, her title was changed to Miriam the prophetess (Exodues 15:20). Her exact role as a prophetess is summed up in only a couple of verses. “Then Miriam the prophetess, Aaron's sister, took a timbrel in her hand, all the women went out after her in dance with timbrels. And Miriam chanted for them: Sing to the LORD, for He has triumphed gloriously' Horse and driver He has hurled into the sea” (Exodus 15:20-21). Moses was considered by the Israelites to be God and Aaron was considered to be Moses' prophet (Exodus 7:1). It is possible that Miriam was also considered to be a prophet in the same manner because like Aaron, she was close to Moses. However, there is no Biblical text to support this claim. However, there is a better explanation of why Miriam is considered a prophet that can be found in the text. There was a series of unusual circumstances that happened to allow Miriam to become a prophet. Normally, prophets will only be males. However, as the Exodus story begins the Pharaoh ordered that all the baby boys should be thrown into the Nile, but every girl should live (Exodus 1:22). So when Miriam is coming of age there are not that as many males coming of age, as well. The next circumstance is that after Moses and Aaron are denied by Pharaoh to go in the wilderness to sacrifice, the Israelites are ordered to make their bricks without straw without their quotas being reduced. When the Israelites did not meet their quotas the supervisors are then beaten. This leads to resentment for both Moses and Aaron. “As they [the Israelites] left Pharaoh's presence , they came upon Moses and Aaron standing in their path, and they said to them, 'May the LORD look upon you and punish you for making us loathsome to Pharaoh and his courtiers-- putting a sword in their hands to slay us'” (Exodus 5:20-21). It seems as if there is a growing resentment to both Moses and Aaron. The resentment towards Moses and Aaron grow while God hardens Pharaoh's heart which, in turn, leads to more suffering for the Israelites. Finally, the Israelites are allowed to leave Israel which also has quite a bit of strife for the Israelites. These factors led to a resentment to the prophets that were sent by the LORD and led to turning to a new person to be looked at as a new prophet. The Israelites may have at that point decided that Miriam could be a new prophet especially after she led them in song after crossing the Sea of Reeds.

The next prophetess mentioned in the Hebrew Bible is Deborah. She was also mentioned as one of the judges of Israel. She is the only judge to be mentioned as a prophet, as well. “Deborah, wife of Lappidoth, was a prophetess; she led Israel at that time” (Judges 4:4). There can be a few reasons to why Deborah may have been considered a prophet as well as a judge. Some historians argue that the time when Deborah was alive would have been an ideal time for a woman to get elevated to a higher status (Hackett 1985). The archaeological evidence suggests that the Israelite community was rural or village-based (Hackett 1985). There are no remains of palaces or large residences, no public or administrative structures, and no sanctuaries or temples (Ackerman 2003). Because of this, it is safe to assume that there was a “relatively undifferentiated and unstratified social order, with no political or religious elite and no civil bureaucracy” (Ackerman 2003). It's likely, according to the archaeological evidence, that Deborah was able to rise to some type of power in the Israelite community. Was Deborah actually a prophet though? James L. Kugel argues that the prose of the narrative of Deborah was written after the song of Deborah (Kugel 2008). It's obvious that the narrative and the song were written at different times. As the two of them have inconsistencies. Most scholars think that the song of Deborah was written before the prose was actually written, so I will agree. Kugel argues that the prophetic traits that Deborah is said to have had could have easily been placed at a much later date (Kugel 2008). In the song of Deborah, she is called by the LORD with “Awake, awake, strike up the chant! Arise, O, Barak, Take your captives, O son of Abinoam!” (Judges 5:12). This is important because most other prophets are called by the LORD in some way, which is usually recorded. There are other ideas that perhaps the battle that Deborah led the Israelites in was a holy war (Meyers 1994). If it was a holy war then that is also a role of prophets, it can be found in both I and II Kings. Some scholars even point to her being mentioned as the mother of Israel in Judges 5:7, as a sign that she was called to be a prophet much like Elijah (II Kings 2:12) and Elisha (II Kings 13:14) (Meyers 1994). This seems like a stretch to me, as they are not technically called father of Israel but are just referred to as Father in those verses. This may very easily be a translation error as I am reading it in English and not in the original Hebrew. Other scholars have indicated that the prose narrative is entirely dependent on the song of Deborah. So the indication of Deborah as a prophet in Judges 4:4 could be from the different markers in Judges chapter five (Hackett 1985). It seems likely that Deborah's role of prophetess was assigned after looking over the song of Deborah. Kugel's definition of a prophet includes a role as a divine messenger or at the very least messengers sent by God (Kugel 2008). In the song of Deborah she does not declare that she is from the LORD like most other prophets do, with their prophetic speech. This does not necessarily mean that she is not a prophet, just that she does not seem to be a divine messenger of the LORD. The only traits of a prophet that Deborah had seemed to be that she led the Israelites in the holy war, was called the mother of Israel, and she was called by the LORD. The qualifications of a prophet seem to be different when applied to Miriam and Deborah then with other male prophets.

Huldah is barely mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. Her appearance is only mentioned in a few verses. “So the priest Hilkiah, and Ahikam, Achbor, Shaphan and Asaiah went to the prophetess Huldah—the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah son of Harhas, the keeper of the wardrobe—who was living in Jerusalem in the Mishneh and they spoke to her” (II Kings 22:14). However, she finds herself mentioned as one of the few prophetesses in the Hebrew Bible. Like Miriam and Deborah, there were other factors that may have been at work that caused her to be mentioned as a prophetess. There are some scholars who seem to suggest that Huldah was mentioned as a prophetess here because of the other things that happened in Judah around the same time. During the reigns of Manasseh and Amon, the kings before Josiah, Judah must have at some point found themselves of Assyrian hegemony (Ackerman 2002). The result of this certainly could have caused some disruption of Judah's traditional religious regimes (Ackerman 2002). As we saw with Deborah and Miriam if there was any disruption of normalcy, there stands to arise a prophetess as compared to a prophet. There might be another explanation, as well. Huldah is the wife of Shallum, the keeper of the king's wardrobe (Bible cite). However, this role and Shallum, himself, are not mentioned anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible, so there is some type of mystery surrounding him. There is a notion among scholars that since she was the wife of an upper-class husband she may have been able to exert some type of individual power even though she lived in a time where females typically did not show much on their own (Ackerman 2002). It is mentioned in the text that King Josiah's subjects meet with her in the home, it is possible to suggest that because they were able to meet her there that she was able to exert even more power. If Huldah was so important, though, why is she gone from the rest of the text fairly quickly? One idea is that even though there are a few prophetesses mentioned in the Hebrew Bible none of them have much room in the text that actually talks about their roles. Deborah has the longest one but it is only a couple of chapters long and that is not even long compared to the long tomes of such male prophets like Jeremiah or Isaiah. A second idea is that this is purely coincidental. Huldah had a small role to play which was to verify the scroll was actually the book of the law and once that was done there was no real need for her. Another idea is that the very forces that led Huldah to be mentioned as a prophet were swept away quite quickly. The reforms that King Josiah undertakes seems to be in the manner of centralizing the political and religious power. Certainly bringing the priests back to Jerusalem would be cause enough for Huldah to be able to dissappear (Ackerman 2002). As normalcy is restored, the notion of a female prophet is taken away. It seems that only when there is some type of disarray or confusion that a female prophet can emerge.

Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah were three of the very few prophetesses mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. They were able to take advantage of the different social dynamics and became prophetesses however brief their appearances in the text were. It may not prove that the Bible is not sexist; it certainly gives the idea that anybody can become a leader regardless of sex or gender.

Pitcher Rankings: #250-246

250. Scott Kazmir- Career: 3.43. 5 Consecutive: 3.56. Average: 0.49. 3 Highest: 2.69. 10 Highest: 3.43. All-Star Seasons: 1. MVP Seasons: 0.

He's probably most remembered for being traded for Victor Zambrano by the New York Mets. He was also traded by the Rays to the Angels, when the Rays basically gave up on the 2009 season. His 2010 season was pretty terrible and if he continues with another bad season this year, he might fall out of the rankings which, as improbable as it could be, could happen. His best season was the 2007 season his fWAR was 5.3. He went 13-9 with an ERA of 3.48. His K/9 was 10.41 which was his highest for a full season. His BB/9 was 3.88. His FIP (fielding independent pitching) was 3.45 which was the second best season that he had. It was basically his best season by almost any measure, including WAR.

249. Andy Ashby- Career: 4.07. 5 Consecutive: 3.34. Average: 0.29. 3 Highest: 2.31. 10 Highest: 4.44. All-Star Seasons: 0. MVP Seasons: 0.

His best season was 1997. His FIP was 3.58, which was the best mark he got for any full season. I would have expected that 1995 would have been his best season. He had a better ERA, a better K/9 rate, and a better won-loss record. However, he had a better BB/9 rate, a better HR/9 rate, and he pitched 8 more innings. It appears that he was slightly more valuable in 1997 then he was in 1995. This appears in his WAR which was 3.5 compared to 3.0.

248. Mike McCormick- Career: 3.56. 5 Consecutive: 2.26. Average: 0.22. 3 Highest: 3.06. 10 Highest: 4.38. All-Star Seasons: 2. MVP Seasons: 0. While McCormick had two all-star seasons he also had 8 seasons where he was below the level of a replacement level pitcher. This severely hurt his ranking and it shows as players ranked right around him do not have as many of all-star seasons as he does but they also do not have as many season below 0 WAR. His two best seasons were 1960 and 1967. We'll compare and see where they're getting these rankings. In 1960 he was 15-12 with a league leading 2.70 ERA, he was 6^th in the league in WHIP with a 1.158 mark, 10^th in BB/9 with a 2.312 mark, a 2.369 K/BB ranked 10^th, .534 HR/9 which ranked 3^rd, and came in 5^th in ERA+ with a 130. He made the all-star team but did not get a Cy Young vote. In 1967, he went 22-10 with a 2.85 ERA, his WHIP was lower at a 1.147 but it wasn't a top 10 finish. His BB/9 was higher at a 2.8. His K/BB was 1.85 and his HR/9 was 0.9 which was higher and his ERA+ was 118, so not as good of a season. This is reflected in his WAR 5.8 in 1960 compared to 5.0 in 1967.

247. Rollie Fingers- Career: 4.88. 5 Consecutive: 2.5. Average: 0.29. 3 Highest: 2.1. 10 Highest: 4.86. All-Star Seasons: 0. MVP Seasons: 0.

His best season was 1981. His WAR was 4.1. Jon Heyman wrote in his Hall of Fame post why Bert Blyleven is not a Hall of Famer and Jack Morris is, that WAR rewards pitchers who pitch a lot of innings and strikes out a lot of hitters. Fingers pitched 78 innings in 1981 and his K/9 was only 7.0. Not exactly dominant numbers on either end. However, the rest of his numbers were pretty impressive. His ERA was 1.04, he led the league in saves with 28. He allowed 9 (!) runs in his 78 innings. His ERA+ was 333 and his WHIP was 0.872. I'd say he was rewarded with his high WAR with great pitching. The anti-WAR diatribe of Jon Heyman will be discussed later.

246. Ramon Martinez- Career: 4.71. 5 Consecutive: 2.84. Average: 0.34. 3 Highest: 2.25. 10 Highest: 4.55. All-Star Seasons: 0. MVP Seasons: 0.

His best season according to fWAR was 1990 at 5.1 and that same season got him a 4.1 rWAR. All in all a pretty good season. He won 20 games. There's many posts out there on why wins are not a good way to measure a pitcher's ability, if you haven't read it, I'd suggest using Google to search Keith Law on wins or Joe Posnanski on wins. Either one of them can explain much better than I can. When evaluating seasons by WAR, I have found that the easiest way to evaluate pitchers and judge how we used to using wins is to multiply the pitcher's seasons WAR by 3. A 5 win mark is equal to roughly what we'd consider a 15 win season (which is where we usually evaluate pitchers as having an all-star caliber season). So, if we use that mark, we average fWAR and rWAR and multiply by 3. So Ramon Martinez was really only worth about 14 win season by our regular measure. Now, this isn't an exact science (not that baseball is, in general) just something I use to approximate true value.

Right Field Rankings: #100

100. Carl Reynolds- Career: 4.22. Five consecutive: 2.87. Average: 0.32. Three Highest: 2.12. 10 Highest: 4.24. All-Star seasons: 1. MVP Seasons: 0.

I had never heard of him before I read the New Bill James Historical Abstract. It was actually that book, as well as Moneyball, and the writing on ESPN by Rob Neyer that got me back into baseball. His best season was 1930, which seems like it would be obvious, this was the same year Hack Wilson broke the RBI record. Reynolds' slash line was .359/.388/.584 with a wOBA of .424. It was his best season in each of those categories. Surprisingly he was not mentioned in the MVP voting but he was mentioned the next year, 1931, when his WAR was 1.7 (both fWAR and rWAR). He finished 20^th in the voting in 1931 but did not receive any votes in 1930. The Chicago White Sox in 1930 went 62-92 and Hack Wilson was a great hitter in the same city, but a different league, maybe Hack Wilson hurt Reynolds' chances. The 1931 Chicago White Sox went 56-97. It's hard to fathom why Reynolds was voted in the top 20 in the MVP voting in 1931 but not in 1930.

Centerfield Ranking: #100

100. Barney McCosky- Career: 4.51. Five Consecutive: 3.41. Average: 0.41. Three Highest: 2.44. 10 Highest: 4.67. All-Star Seasons: 0. MVP Seasons: 0.

His best season was 1940, with a fWAR of 5.2 and a rWAR of 4.0. His slash line was .340/.408/.491 with a wOBA of .404. It was his best season in each of those categories. He probably deserves to rank higher as his seasons from 1943-1945 were taken from him as he served in World War II. I don't move players up in my rankings based on that because that opens a can of worms for all types of what if scenarios. I'll concede that he deserves to rank higher as does most players whose careers were cut short because of the war.

Left Field Rankings: #100

100. Pat Burrell- Career: 4.2. Five Consecutive: 2.64. Average: 0.38. Three Highest: 2.28. 10 Highest: 4.34. All-Star Seasons: 0. MVP Seasons: 0.

He signed a free agent contract to play for the Tampa Bay Rays as a designated hitter. He struggled so immensely in that role that they released him.. He signed with the San Francisco Giants and won a World Series ring in 2010. He probably would rank higher had he not signed that free agent contract and continued to play left field. When he was coming out of college, he was supposed to be one of the better bats in that draft. He was selected with the first overall pick in the 1998 draft, it's up to you to decide if he lived up to that role. He'll probably move up a few more slots before his career is done. His best season was 2002, his fWAR was 5.1 and his rWAR was 4.1. His slash line was .282/.376/.544. His wOBA was .390. It was his best batting average, his 4^th best on-base percentage, his best slugging percentage, and his second best wOBA. He is a pretty patient hitter and a good slugger.