Culture Jammin’: Rock and roll

Occasionally I check Craiglist for bands in my area looking for a bassist. I’m rusty on the instrument and my amp is buried somewhere deep within my parents’ garage, but I miss playing shows and figure if I found the right group of area would-be rock stars it might be fun to join on as a hired gun of sorts.

So I saw an ad recently for a band seeking a bassist in my age range with his own equipment. I have that, so I sent an email. The next day, I got a response.

The guy asked me for a picture, so he could run it by his band’s manager and producer and see if I fit with the group’s image before they extended me an audition.

No, sir, you can not have my picture. First of all, this is Craigslist, so I recognize there’s a halfway decent chance you aim to cut and paste my head on some ugly naked guy’s body and sell it elsewhere on the Internet as porn, or something to that effect. I don’t know the mechanics of it, but I’m certain it’s sketchy.

Second, you just exposed yourself as about the lamest would-be rock star imaginable. Your band’s image? Bite me.

I happen to be achingly beautiful in a totally pliable way and I’m certain I could be made to fit in with whatever it is you’re trying to package, but now you don’t get to see my pretty face or hear my pretty bass playing because you and I don’t see eye-to-eye on what’s most important about being in a band at all.

Also, what band with a manager and producer is looking for a bass player with his own equipment on Craigslist? Shouldn’t a competent manager at least have access to the bulletin board at the local guitar store?

Look: I recognize that, to some extent, rock and roll has always been about the image. But… I don’t know. I hold very things to some romantic ideal, and music is one of them. I always thought the Internet would eventually emerge as this amazing instrument by which musicians would meet and collaborate and paradigms would be entirely shifted, and it just hasn’t happened yet.

And then I go out and try to find some guys to jam with, and I begin to figure out why. Image. What am I, joining Limp Bizkit?

I told the guy it didn’t sound like my scene and left it at that. I should’ve given him a good scolding though. Or better yet, I should have asked him for his picture, so I could see if the band fit with my image.

Anyway, here’s an image of me playing the bass, with a fake mustache. Fake mustaches are a big part of my image. Dig my white leather guitar strap. White leather is also a big part of my image.

I have no interest in starting a band, mind you. Organizing a band is a huge pain and not something I have anything like the time or energy to do.

I led a band in college that met with some minor amount of success for a college band, and so whenever I brag about that, people comment about how college kids playing shows for college kids must have been great for our collective love lives.

Not the case, at all. Until you get to the level of having managers and roadies, the only action you get after shows is the joy of loading hundreds of pounds of equipment into a Nissan Sentra. Plus a lot of that equipment is borrowed, so you’ve got to go about returning it to the people who lent it to you. Plus a lot more of it is “borrowed,” so you’ve got to go about returning it to your college’s music room before anyone notices it went missing.

And while all that happens, all the people who were in the bar you were rocking leave with other people from that bar, none of whom are busy playing Tetris with amps and the trunk of a Nissan Sentra. A huge percentage of them leave with my friend Dan, who, to this day, has never met better matchmakers than the members of the Moo Shoo Porkestra.

Items of note

Got to give credit where it’s due. I love to point out that too many sportswriters go after crimes of the past and not enough try to expose what’s happening now, but John Harper calls for an HGH test today.

Bengie Molina apparently flinched a little bit in the longest, slowest game of chicken. But maybe Omar Minaya flinched too. I guess we’ll know soon.

Bassett passes along some excellent Jets-related imagery. The Revis one might become my new desktop background if it weren’t for Shaq with a panda.

Craig Calcaterra thinks Dan Shaughnessy might have gone all reductio ad Hitlerum on the Mark McGwire thing.

From the TedQuarters mailbag

I’ve had some interesting emails lately, so I figured I’d answer them publicly. If you’ve got any questions you’d like me to answer on TedQuarters, send them to tberg@sny.tv. Here we go.

Steve Sidoti from Seven Train to Shea writes:

Fans were very critical of the Mets, while demanding they show backbone and set a deadline for Jason Bay while negotiations were going on, but in the end as we learned from Bay himself; there actually was an agreement in principle just before Christmas. And also, with the rumored Castillo for Lowell deal, it could have very well been something that never really had life to begin with, but we still hear people critique the deal and judge Omar Minaya as if it’s a deal on the table. So I guess my question to you is are the fans and sometimes us bloggers guilty of jumping to conclusions while most of the time not knowing what goes on in a front office?

Yes. But don’t stop at bloggers and fans, Steve. I’m pretty sure the calls for an ultimatum on Jason Bay made their way into the papers and onto the airwaves as well. I do my best to avoid throwing Omar Minaya — or anybody — under the bus for moves he hasn’t made yet, though I occasionally get ahead of myself and sneak into the realm of explaining why certain rumored moves, if made, would be bad.

Anyway, it’s a great point and something that’s important to keep in mind. There are a lot of mechanics to every move in every MLB front-office that even the most tapped-in insider never sees, so it’s not always fair to judge prematurely. But since it’s always fun to judge prematurely, it’s necessary to strike a balance somewhere in the middle.

Chris M writes:

Just wanted to get your thoughts on something, the whole idea of a pitcher’s enhanced performance in Citi Field.  I was reading Metsblog and Matt made a statement to that effect about Washburn saying “very well in the National League, in Citi Field”

I see this idea floated alot, with regards to potential pitching targets of the Mets.  Like people see the guys stats, then say “and in Citi Field he will be even better” or something to that effect. I dont disagree with the overall thought, as in terms of numbers and personal effectiveness, the pitcher is likely to do better in Citi Field.

Where I have trouble grasping the concept is how does this effect the overall team?  And how effective will this pitcher be at helping the team win?  Since the park will help the picther in question on the Mets, won’t it also effect opposing pitchers the same way, meaning the Mets will score proportionately less runs themselves?

Example using Washburn: had a 3.78 ERA, and was 9-9  on Seattle, and people say ‘he’ll be even better in Citi Field’. Fine; say he drops his ERA to 3.40 with the Mets, isn’t that offset by the Mets scoring fewer runs in Citi Field?  Meaning he would have to perform that much better individually just to produce the same amount of results (say that same 9-9) for the Mets, who we should assume are scoring less because of the park?  Point being doesn’t any benefit the pitcher might get, just get offset by the reduction in runs the Mets will see at Citi?

There’s a lot to digest here, and it’s all tough to firmly weigh in on because I’m still not certain we know enough about Citi Field and how it really plays. What you’re saying, technically, is probably correct: Any benefit to a pitcher that comes from playing his home games in a pitcher’s park is likely offset because his team’s offense plays in the same pitcher’s park. His ERA may drop, but his win-loss record will remain, as it always was, in large part dependent on his team’s lineup. Luckily, we have park-adjusted metrics like ERA+ to help us sort out how a pitcher has fared regardless of his home stadium.

Of course, that is not to say that a team cannot cash in on specific pitchers that fit their home park or play well to their defense. Since Citi Field appears to have a spacious outfield, the Mets could probably load up on rangy defensive outfielders and exploit the talents of pitchers who yield lots of flyballs, especially ones who might be available on the cheap if they’ve struggled in smaller parks.

That said, Washburn tends to be one of the more flyball-heavy pitchers in the Majors, and he wasn’t all that great pitching at Safeco Field in Seattle — one of the league’s better pitchers’ parks — until 2009, when he had an absolutely stellar defensive outfield behind him. And the Mets won’t have that.

B, in the comments section last week, writes:

Taco Bell has a new commercial in which no less than three very attractive girls work at the register at a Taco Bell. Have you seen it, and can we get your take on this?

I have seen it, B. And you’re not the first person to express some degree of incredulity about all the hot women shown working at the Taco Bell in the Taco Bell commercial in question.

But to me, that’s not what really surprised me about that commercial. There are actually multiple beautiful women that work at my local Taco Bell. Of course, I should note that my standards of feminine beauty aren’t exactly traditional; I’ve long considered “access to Taco Bell,” a woman’s most attractive potential feature.

What bothers me about the Denise Commercial in question and how it relates to my local Taco Bell is that all of the beautiful Taco Bell employees depicted therein appear competent and able to produce that man’s 89-cent Beefy 5-Layer Burrito with no trouble or confusion whatsoever. The man is smiling and confident, and appears like a man content in knowing that he’ll have Taco Bell within a few minutes.

At my local Taco Bell, the World’s Worst Taco Bell, that’s not how it goes down. At my local Taco Bell, when you order the Beefy 5-Layer Burrito, they might give you the 7-Layer Burrito, or tell you they don’t have that yet, or randomly put tomatoes in there. And like half the time when you order a Volcano Taco you don’t even get the red Volcano Taco shell. Also, it might take up to 17 minutes. Seventeen!

As attractive as the various Taco Bell employees who ultimately serve you the Taco Bell may be, they appear, unlike Denise, completely uninterested in undertaking even the most basic duties to which they are assigned, and good luck getting your hands on hot sauce if you’re at the drive-thru window.

Items of note

According to Ed Price, Carlos Delgado is not moving well at first base in Puerto Rico. I suppose it’ll take time for him to recover, but I can’t help but think he’d be better-suited to DHing at this point.

I disagree with Matt here. The Mets should retire Mike Piazza’s number regardless of which hat he wears on his Hall of Fame plaque, and I think they should do it soon. I like that the Mets are stingy with their retired numbers, but if anyone deserves the honor, it’s Piazza.

I find nothing more entertaining than the thought of professional athletes tortured by ghosts. It’s amazing how frequently this happens.

Who among us wasn’t wondering what Steve Trachsel was thinking when Mark McGwire admitted steroid use?

Range factor

Howard Megdal makes an interesting point in his weekly column for SNY.tv. Check it out:

Oddly enough, the market seems to be dictating that it will cost the least to upgrade at second base, the most at catcher, with first base falling somewhere in the middle. And given that the biggest need for the Mets is second base, this should be good news.

Luis Castillo had a good season offensively for the Mets last year, so it’s easy to forget how desperate they were to get rid of him last offseason, or how desperate they probably should be to get rid of him this offseason. Here’s the thing:

Luis Castillo, as solid as he was with the bat in 2009, was a terrible defender. He ranked last  among qualifying second basemen in UZR and third to last in plus/minus. Anyone who watched the games doesn’t need the fancy stats to rate his defense, either; to the eye, his range was abysmal.

And at his age, with his knees, it’s probably only going to get worse.

If the Mets are actually considering groundball pitchers like Joel Pineiro, they’d be wise to first upgrade defensively in their infield. Especially — especially! — if the Mets are really thinking about giving Carlos Delgado and his hip woes another go of it at first base, with Jose Reyes at shortstop recovering from a leg injury and David Wright at third base coming off a pretty miserable defensive season of his own.

It would be either hilarious or depressing to see Pineiro reprise his 60-percent groundball rate in front of that infield, but be dismissed as a one-year Dave Duncan wonder because far, far more of the weakly hit grounders he yields dribble past the Mets’ infielders for hits.

But now I’m getting ahead of myself.

We are all witnesses

Brian Bassett posted something on TheJetsBlog.com the other day that really made me wish it weren’t a Nike ad. It was this:

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

On SNY’s Jets Postgame show after the Jets win on Saturday, Adam Schein mentioned that he voted for Charles Woodson for defensive player of the year. Tom Jackson referred to Woodson as such last night on ESPN.

I don’t think awards are that important and I recognize they don’t often go to the rightful recipient, plus it sounds like a lot of voters are advocating Woodson.

And hey, he’s a great player. I haven’t seen nearly as much of Woodson this year as I have of Revis, but since Woodson’s teammate Aaron Rodgers was my fantasy’s team’s quarterback, I watched a decent portion of most Green Bay games thanks to NFL Sunday Ticket. And yeah, Woodson was impressive. It’s hard to argue with nine interceptions and three touchdowns.

But what Revis did this season was special. There’s really no other way to describe it. Revis didn’t make as many highlight-reel plays as Woodson because he was too busy shutting receivers down. Everyone’s seen the numbers at this point; they’re stunning.

I could care less if Revis gets the hardware, though it frustrates me that anyone could fail to appreciate the type of season he’s having. Jets fans are lucky to have witnessed it, and even luckier that he’s somehow still only 24 and has plenty of time to win defensive player of the year awards in the future.

UPDATE, 2:26 p.m. shamik points out that it looks like the above image is not an actual Nike ad, only Bassett’s photoshop work on top of one of Nike’s LeBron James ads. Shows how much I pay attention to stuff.

Items of note

Patrick Flood posts a Jason Bay image that I plan on stealing and using over and over and over again. But I won’t do it yet, so go check it out. Also, RSS his blog. It’s good.

The pot calls the kettle black.

Walkoff Walk offers a nice solution for one of the hiccups with UZR.

I don’t know how I feel about the idea of the Marlins locking up Josh Johnson longterm. As a Mets fan, obviously I don’t want him pitching in the same division for the foreseeable future. But as a baseball fan, I like the idea of the Marlins being more financially competitive with their new stadium opening up, if that’s what that implies. They already have Hanley Ramirez under contract for a while.

John Smoltz: Do it

Do I realize that John Smoltz is an old, old man? Of course. Do I advocate the acquisition of hordes of 42-year-old pitchers with lengthy histories of arm trouble? Not at all.

But if the Mets are really interested in Smoltz, and the old-timer isn’t really looking for much more than a few million in base salary, laden with incentives, I say do it.

Smoltz stunk with the Red Sox last season — that much is irrefutable. He allowed eight home runs and and posted a miserable 56 ERA+ in his time in Beantown.

But once he got to St. Louis, Smoltz pitched something like the old John Smoltz. Maybe not quite the young John Smoltz of his Cy Young season, but certainly similar to the old John Smoltz of the John Smoltz post-bullpen renaissance from 2005-2007. Check it out:

In those three seasons, Smoltz allowed 8.5 hits per nine innings, 0.9 home runs per nine, 2.1 walks per nine, and struck out 7.8 batters per nine. In his seven starts with the Cardinals, Smoltz allowed 8.5 hits per nine, 0.7 home runs per nine, 2.1 walks per nine, and struck out 9.5 batters per nine.

Seven starts is a small sample, mind you, and it’s not fair to entirely dismiss Smoltz’s totals from Boston. Certainly, pitching in the American League East is tougher than anything he’d be asked to do with the Mets, plus he was coming off shoulder surgery so it’s reasonable to wonder if he was still building up his strength, but Smoltz took his worst shellings in his last four starts with the Sox, so it’s not as if he was quietly getting stronger and they just gave up on him too soon.

Plus it’d be silly to mention all Smoltz’s rate stats with the Cardinals and not note that his ERA+ from 2005-2007 was a sterling 135 and was a meager 96 with St. Louis in 2009. Since the rate stats were so similar, as mentioned, and the strikeout rate actually improved, I’d say that’s most likely do to a small sample and a run of bad luck, but I’ll allow the possibility that Smoltz was getting hit a lot harder. Still, according to baseball-reference he only allowed a 17-percent line-drive rate in those starts, which is actually lower than his season rates in the 2005-2007 span.

In other words, I say do it. I don’t know that Smoltz will continue to pitch like he did with the Cardinals, or that he’ll stay healthy, but if he’s willing to be had for so little money, why not? The upside is a guy who could be a very good starter, plus he comes with the built-in hedge of being willing to pitch out of the bullpen if he somehow is healthy but can’t cut it in the rotation.

For a long time, I was convinced the Mets just needed innings, and so should go out and pick up innings-eaters like Jon Garland. But the more I think about it, I realize that what happened last year forced the Mets to acquire a slew of guys who can eat innings in unspectacular fashion. The Mets can probably get Jon Garland innings out of Nelson Figueroa. They can’t get John Smoltz innings out of Jon Garland.

I think if the Mets want to even hope to contend in 2010, they need to take small risks on upside plays like Smoltz and Ben Sheets and hope they pay off. Frankly, they’re already putting a lot of stock in Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran and Johan Santana returning healthy, and David Wright returning to form, and Jeff Francoeur’s Citi Field success not being a small sample size fluke. Simply put, they’re going to be relying on a whole lot of things falling their way.

But that’s what happens to the teams that win championships — it’s what needs to happen. Sometimes, everything just falls your way, and then you win. And when you’re operating with a limited budget, one of the best ways to make it actually come to fruition is to take bets on guys with big upside.

As I write this, I know there’s a large fraction of Mets fans who’ll say, “Smoltz!? F@#$ Smoltz! That guy’s a Brave, and I couldn’t bear to see him in a Mets uniform.” And I realize the way the Tom Glavine thing ended in Queens doesn’t bode well for his longtime teammate. But guys like Smoltz can help the Mets win, and I promise if he does, you’ll be more than happy to forgive his tenure in Atlanta.