Simmons Says: Don't let the facts get in the way of a bad column

This oughtta be fun:

Not hard to figure why the Blue Jays are so middle-of-the- road. The club is 14th in batting, 17th in runs scored, 22nd in earned run average ...

I think Steve Simmons makes an enormous mistake here, which should result in him never being allowed to write about baseball ever again. In order to fully expose the true idiocy of this mistake, I must first acknowledge that Simmons is kind of right about two of the stats he cited.

By my calculations (and by my calculations, I mean their calculations), The Blue Jays are actually 19th in runs scored, but both his numbers and mine are close enough for jazz, so this one gets a pass. I don't know what Simmons means by "batting", but pretty much all of their team offensive numbers are average to just below average, so it would be safe to call the Blue Jays "batting" middle of the road.

Now we get to the good stuff. The Blue Jays team ERA is 4.01, which is good for third in the American League behind Oakland and Boston. It would also be good for third in the NL behind San Diego and the Mets. As a result, the Blue Jays have the fifth best ERA in all of baseball (using the Blue Jays' ERA+, which accounts for differences in ballparks, the Blue Jays actually move up to fourth).

So, Simmons is just about as completely wrong as can be about this one. But how could he ever come to the conclusion that the Blue Jays have the 22nd best ERA in baseball? There is only one - very illogical - explanation: There are three teams within seven percentage points of the Blue Jays (Dodgers, Diamonbacks, Giants), meaning it is possible that those teams had a better ERA than the Blue Jays within the last week. If so, the Blue Jays might have had the 8th best ERA of all 30 Major League Baseball teams when Simmons looked at the stats. Or, if you rather, the 22nd worst ERA.

Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that Steve-O doesn't know that a high ERA is "good" and a low ERA is "bad".

... J.P. Ricciardi isn't afraid to make the big move, just not necessarily the right move. He didn't care for Kelvim Escobar, but loved A.J. Burnett. Escobar is the better pitcher.

Kelvim Escobar career:
W-L: 96-89
WHIP: 1.368
ERA: 4.09
ERA+: 113
K/season: 144

A.J. Burnett career:
W-L: 66-64
WHIP: 1.280
ERA: 3.79
ERA+: 112
K/Season: 197

Those numbers are pretty equal. I like Burnett's WHIP and strike out rate better, but he compiled a lot of those numbers in the weaker NL. Burnett has spent a lot of time on the DL, and Escobar has been great since he left Toronto. So...Simmons is probably right about this one.

Did I just type that? I'm sure there is a reason why he is wrong...because he is usually wrong...so let me root around here for a second...um...here we go: Escobar signed a three-year deal with the Angels in 2003 for nearly $7 million per season. Even though the Blue Jays were in the second year of J.P's Five Year Plan (Richard Griffin, TM) - which involved cost-cutting, identifying under-valued players, and the forced collectivization of farmland north of Toronto - the team did make a competitive offer for Escobar, but he chose to sign with the Angels. Three years later, Uncle Ted opened up the bank and the Blue Jays were able to sign Burnett, who was the best pitcher available and was/is still young with a tremendous upside. The point being, this wasn't an either/or proposition between Escobar and Burnett, and making it seem like it was is unfair and dishonest.

So Simmons is wrong. And he will be wrong again.

He didn't care much for Orlando Hudson or Miguel Batista and traded them from Troy Glaus. Hudson, a defensive whiz, has more RBIs than Glaus, who has a bad back.

Told you he would be wrong again.

RBIs are probably the most meaningless stat when it comes to judging how good a player is, because they really depend on how good the people hitting in front of you are at getting on base. OPS, on the other hand, tells you how good a player is at hitting for power and getting on base himself, which are really important things in baseball.

Orlando Hudson
Age: 29
Career OPS: .773
2007 OPS: .817 (Career season)

Troy Glaus
Age: 30
Career OPS: .856
2007 OPS: .798 (Hobbled by injury)

Hudson is having a good season, and Glaus is having a poor season by his standards. They are about the same age, and unless Glaus' injuries do lasting damage, I would expect next years numbers to revert back to career norms for both players.

Ignoring stats for a minute, it is worth noting that Simmons does the same thing here that he did in his Escobar v Burnett argument: namely, refusing to provide any context in his criticism of Ricciardi. The Blue Jays needed a slugging third baseman and had a young second baseman (Aaron Hill) who was ready for the big show. As a result, Hudson was expendable. The Hudson and Bautista for Glaus trade is probably the best deal J.P. has made since becoming General Secretary of the Toronto Blue Jays politburo. No only did he add one of the best-hitting third basemen in the major leagues, he managed to dump Miguel Batista, who is not very good.

Batista has 13 wins for a Seattle team fighting for a playofff spot ...

First RBIs, now wins. It looks like Steve-O is angling for Murray Chass's job.

Miguel Batista can throw 863 different pitches, none of them for strikes, and gets paid more than $8 million per season. Batista has won 13 games this year, even though his peripherals suggest he isn't pitching nearly that well (86:51 K:BB, 1.50 WHIP, 6.0 K/9, 3.6 BB/9). Miguel Batista personifies a Seattle team that is inexplicably in the hunt for a playoff position, even though they don't hit well and their starting pitching is terrible (including Bautisita). The Seattle bullpen is lights out, and as a result they have an incredible record in close games. I have been waiting all year for Seattle to fall apart, and it is looking like it isn't going to happen.

Mark my words: If Jeff Weaver wins another World Series this year, I will stop watching baseball forever.

Have to admit I'm cheering for Milwaukee Brewers to hang on in the National League. Canadian Doug Melvin is the general manager, his assistant is the York U grad Gord Ash, and the first baseman, Prince Fielder, was born in Toronto ...

Steve Simmons likes Gord Ash more than he likes J.P. Ricciardi, which is why he is "rooting" for him, rather than pointing out that the Scott Linebrink for Joe Thatcher, Steve Garrison and Will Inman trade is much worse than anything Ricciardi has done since he arrived in Toronto

Also cheering for the Phillies in the wild-card race. I confess: Still a big Pat Gillick admirer ...

He also likes Pat Gillick more than he likes J.P. Ricciardi, which is why he doesn't mention that Bobby Abreau and Corey Lidle for C.J. Henry and Matt Smith trade from last year.

Just how valuable is Barry Bonds? The Giants are 3-12 in games in which he has hit home runs this season.

With 9 no-decisions, apparently, because Barry has hit home runs in 24 games this year.

For the sake of argument, we'll assume Simmons numbers are correct (which they aren't). The reason why the Giants are 3-12 in those games is because the Giants suck. Twelve times Barry did the best possible thing you can do in baseball, and twelve times his team did not win. Is that Barry's fault? Barry should make sure to only hit home runs in games that the Giants win.

We should also remove all of the home runs that Barry hit in a losing effort from the record books, since they were pretty much meaningless. It would take a long time to calculate the actual number of dingers that Barry hit in a game in which his team lost, so I will just use the 4 out of 5 ratio that Simmons provided for this season (which is incorrect). Let me get my calculator here...and...lets see...a staggering 608 of Barry's home runs came in games when his team lost. That means that he has only hit 152 career home runs, steroids don't work, Hank Aaron is still home run champ, and everyone is happy.

But to answer Simmons question, here is how valuable Barry Bonds is: If I managed a team of players named Barry Bonds, I would probably win 150 games. My team would score around 2500 runs on the season, and the fact that Barry Bonds was pitching wouldn't matter because we could give up 12 or 13 runs a game and still win most of the time. The highlight of my year would be when my team of Barry Bondses played Simmons' team of Josh Towerses and we won 94-0.

Simmons doesn't know anything about baseball. This isn't even fun, and I should probably stop now (but I won't). How can someone have a regular syndicated column and get away with this stuff. Just to recap:

1. He doesn't know that a low ERA is a good thing
2. All trades and signings are made in a vacuum
3. RBIs are the best stat for judging a hitter
4. Wins are the best stat for judging a pitcher
5. Gord Ash and Pat Gillick are good guys, J.P. Ricciardi is not
6. Barry Bonds is not valuable (according to some stat that Simmons pulled out of his ass)

I can't wait for next Sunday.