 |
|
|
| |
« Odds & Ends: Clement, Schilling, Strasburg | Main | Marlins' New Stadium Approved »
Keith Law Q&A
Recently ESPN's Keith Law kindly answered a few questions for MLB Trade Rumors. Law formerly served as Blue Jays Special Assistant to the GM, and has spent the last few years as the lead analyst for ESPN's Scouts, Inc. branch. Essential Law links: his MLB draft blog, Stephen Strasburg analysis, his general ESPN blog, and his personal blog The Dish.
MLB Trade Rumors: On occasion, you've revealed information in chats about a player's off-the-field troubles that was not publicly known or hadn't gotten much press. How has this been received by your readers, bosses, and front office contacts?
Keith Law: Some readers get annoyed because they don't want to believe it. My bosses know that I'm meticulous about information like that - I only write about these matters if I believe they are substantially or wholly accurate. For example, the Alcides Escobar story - I have a copy of his daughter's birth certificate with his name as the father, I spoke to the attache at the U.S. Consulate in Panama who has helped Escobar's wife, and so on. I think the Brewers would just like the story to go away, frankly, but it's not going to unless it's addressed.
MLBTR: A related question: when you rank prospects, how big of a factor is makeup? What's the highest number of positions you've moved a prospect on your top 100 (either up or down) due to makeup?
Law: It's only a big factor for me if I think it's really affecting or going to affect the player's production. And even then I would be careful - Robinson Cano had major knocks on his makeup when he was in the minors, and even with his ups and downs he's been a pretty productive big leaguer. If I'd been writing at the time and had given the makeup issues major consideration (he was considered a "dog" by many scouts because he showed little effort, especially in the field), I would have grossly underrated him.
MLBTR: One scout told Buster Olney that Stephen Strasburg is better than A.J. Burnett right now. Do you agree? If not, how close is he?
Law: I think that's a bit hyperbolic, but I do think Strasburg could pitch in the majors right now and would be Washington's #1 starter if they could sign him quickly and stick him in their rotation in June. I'm not saying they have to take another starter at #10, but they could have Strasburg, Zimmerman, and another polished college arm like Kyle Gibson in their 2010 rotation. Shore up the defense a little and they could be in line for a pretty significant improvement in W/L record in 2010-11 with that jump in run prevention.
(Click here for Law's ESPN report on Strasburg, plus video of the young pitcher).
MLBTR: A few years ago you were asked which player you thought would become a star but never did, for reasons unknown. You answered Carlos Pena. Since then he's put up excellent numbers, so who takes the mantle now?
Law: I'm asked this sort of question in chats all the time, but since I didn't start scouting amateur players at all until 2003 - and it might be more accurate to say that I started seeing amateur players in 2003, but didn't learn to evaluate them for some time after that - most of my answers would come from the perspective of my old role as a stat analyst. Andy Marte's probably the best answer I can give, especially since I did see him in his first spring with Cleveland and loved his swing, so he's a case where I could offer both perspectives and still missed on him. And do we have a good idea why Jerome Williams never developed?
MLBTR: I have a feeling that your style of writing may generate more angry correspondence from readers than the average columnist. Have you been able to develop a thick skin? Is there an occasional email or comment that makes your blood boil?
Law: I'm not thick-skinned or thin-skinned, but I do believe strongly in calling out people who take advantage of the anonymity of the Internet to slander people or generally act in ways in which they wouldn't act if they had to write under their own names. Many people, perhaps most, will back off when they realize that their comments are truly public and that the target might see them and choose to defend himself. And I think most readers are unaccustomed to getting responses like that. If people wrote like they believed their targets were reading, they'd be more civil. And civility is a good thing.
That said, I'm amused by how personally some readers take my comments. Why do you care that I said that Joey Bagodonuts is only going to be a fourth outfielder or a fifth starter in the majors? What I say has zero impact on a player's career path, and if you are worried about my analyses affecting a player's trade value, well, thanks for the compliment, but I'm not sure I believe that either.
MLBTR: What's your favorite major fast food chain?
Law: Five Guys, assuming that's "major." I like In-n-Out, but their burgers are not close to Five Guys', and I like Rubio's as well (I used to like Baja Fresh, and then I tried Rubio's). Peter Reinhart, one of my favorite cookbook authors, has written about the biscuits at Bojangle's, so I need to check that out the next time I'm in the south.
All else being equal, though, I prefer to avoid fast food. I like patronizing local places; I like the challenge of finding those restaurants and I believe in supporting establishments that are serving honest, authentic food, food made from fresh ingredients that either preserves cooking traditions or tries to push cuisine in new directions. And I don't like the way major fast-food chains have sacrificed quality, both in the end product but also in the treatment of animals during the process, in the name of driving down costs. Reducing the cost of a high-definition television is one thing, but reducing the cost of a hamburger? I'd rather eat fewer burgers, pay more when I do, and get a much better end product.
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Top Stories
Search MLBTR
MLBTR Features
Recent Posts
Rumors By Team
Monthly Archives
Live Chats
Tuesdays at 2 p.m. CST
Haha, awesome. K-Law's great.
Posted by: JohnKruksWaistLine | March 24, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Few baseball writers have ever used more logical thinking in their pieces than Law. I simply love everything this guy does, and his ability to even put his own work into perspective.
With guys like Posnanski, Neyer, etc., Keith Law is definitely one of the better baseball writers we have in the industry.
Posted by: scribbletone | March 24, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Well said, scribbletone. Kieth Law really is the most intelligent writer covering sports I've ever seen.
Keep up the interviews, Tim. I love these...
Posted by: Umair | March 24, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Just wanted to echo the comments of others above.
Not only is Keith writing some of the most honest, substantive baseball content around, but he's also an extremely hard worker.
I think we'd all agree that several guys in Keith's industry kind of "mail-in" what they do. Their on-air analysis comes without research, or they don't watch enough games and yet give scouting critiques.
Keith is an exception in that industry, IMO. He could sit back on his reputation like some analysts do; instead, Keith still drives eight hours to check out the high school Area Code games and write a blog entry about the talent.
And we as baseball fans are the beneficiaries.
Thank you for the terrific interviews, Tim. Shows how the reputation of the site has spread and how indispensable your site is for fans.
Posted by: notsellingjeans | March 24, 2009 at 01:35 PM
Keith Law is one of the best there is, this interview is further proof. Love the idea of internet accountability.
Posted by: Athletic Domination | March 24, 2009 at 01:52 PM
Keith Law - genuine class.
Or is that Alec Guinness?
Posted by: Rytor | March 24, 2009 at 02:05 PM
Hooray for Five Guys!
Posted by: thehoagster07 | March 24, 2009 at 03:37 PM
Folks are entitled to their opinion but for me Keith Law loves himself some Keith Law. And ever admitting he was wrong on something is not a strong point. I'm not saying he has nothing to offer but I prefer others
Posted by: tdogg | March 24, 2009 at 04:02 PM
"Why do you care that I said that Joey Bagodonuts is only going to be a fourth outfielder or a fifth starter in the majors"
I like Keith Law, but unfortunately that's not what he says when he's critical of a player or team. He uses very hyperbolic and absolute language when assessing or projecting players. That can be funny. It can also be grating for fans when he's offering his strong opinions on their players and teams.
Posted by: billy | March 24, 2009 at 04:11 PM
Totally agree with everything notsellingjeans said. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Posted by: melonis rex | March 24, 2009 at 04:20 PM
This was a really good interview. I'd never thought much about Keith Law one way or the other before, but now I'm a fan. Even if he clearly has no taste in burgers. Five Guys can't carry In-N-Out's glove.
Posted by: VAFriar | March 24, 2009 at 05:55 PM
Cheers Tim and Keith.
Posted by: scatterbrian | March 24, 2009 at 07:52 PM
Thank you to those of you who've posted kind words. I do appreciate it and I'm glad you enjoyed the Q&A.
tdogg's comments are emblematic of the anonymity problem. He gets to hide behind an alias while making unsubstantiated claims about me, since he doesn't actually list some point where I was wrong and refused to admit it. So thanks for providing such a cogent example.
Posted by: Keith Law | March 24, 2009 at 08:19 PM
Klaw is the best baseball analyst around and pretty much the only reason I pay for ESPN Insider. Thanks for the interview.
Posted by: HBG | March 24, 2009 at 08:56 PM
I mostly agree with the general sentiment that this was an excellent interview, the interviews in general are good and Keith Law typically comes off as logical and intelligent.
That being said, as a Jays fan I have heard some of the things he has said about Jp Ricciardi etc. Typically, it isn't bad, but one particular instance comes off as totally illogical.
He was on a DJF podcast in 2008 right after John Gibbons and the hitting coaches were fired. He argued that Brad Arnsberg should have been fired along with everyone else; his main reason was that JP told him that Arnsberg was hired to convince AJ Burnett to sign in Toronto. At that point, AJ was having a terrible season, though he had been good when healthy the previous two years.
Law went on to essentially say that AJ sucked and Arnsberg should have been fired because of this. He conceded that he figured he deserved some credit for Marcum's improvement, but he generally came off as suggesting that Arnsberg should have been fired because AJ sucked and that he was no different than the other coaches (i.e. he was equally at fault for the team losing).
Now, to me, this is complete BS on Law's part. He was basically attaching himself to the anti-JP bandwagon and suggesting that because the team was sucking, everyone should be fired. For someone who relies on statistics, logic etc, this seemed like a very artificial argument. However, the pitching was solid and the pitching is mostly an amalgam of scrap heap bullpen acquisitions and low ceiling starters with good makeup (this is why publications such as Baseball America never give the Jays prospects any credit). And, of course, there was still Roy Halladay. And the Jays went on to have the best pitching staff in the majors last year while pitching 76 games against the AL East. If the Jays were in another division, it would have likely dominated in pitching by a substantially greater margin. So Arnsberg is a god based on this statistic.
Point being, Arnsberg seems to have a very nice reputation as a top pitching coach. He has gotten the most out of "makeup, average stuff" pitchers. Yet Law was suggesting that he should have been fired because the team wasn't winning and AJ sucked. I am sorry, but that is such a horrible reason to fire a pitching coach that I am sure most would consider amongst the top 5 in MLB. The anti-JP stuff seems to have toned down (I don't think Law liked it when JP called him an idiot for stating defiantly that Vernon Wells was leaving Toronto), but on this one occasion he was completely illogical and hooking on to the anti-JP sentiment.
There is absolutely no way a pitching coach should be faulted for the team not being able to hit or not being able to distribute it's high run differential more evenly in order to produce more wins. It's all on that podcast if anyone wants to hear Law's argument.
Aside from this, I like him...
Posted by: Jays2010 | March 24, 2009 at 09:13 PM
Keith, since it seems like you are responding to comments, I must qualify my post by stating that I do not remember the exact words you used in that interview - I have no interest in going out of my way to rip you and I care little about whether or not you come off as "arrogant" or whatever because I consider you one of the more insightful baseball analysts. So if I am slightly off in what I remember, I apologize. However, I am fairly confident that if I were to listen to the podcast again I would still find it illogical and that I'd find your reasoning for firing Arnsberg to be way off - whether or not I stated why you were illogical as well as I could have is immaterial if you were, in fact, illogical. There was no way, in my mind, that Arnsberg should have been fired - and his performance from that point onward (i.e. how well the BJ pitchers pitched) indicate that he should not have been fired.
Great interview though and I should also state that while I don't read you all the time or anything, I haven't heard any JP bashing in quite some time so it's not like I believe that it necessarily factors into your BJ analysis...
Posted by: Jays2010 | March 24, 2009 at 09:30 PM
Alright, not to keep harping on this, but these were the stats as of June 20, 2008 when Gibbons and some of his coaches were fired:
June 20 standings as per ESPN.com
3 AL teams allowed fewer than 300 runs
Toronto: 288/75 = 3.84
Chicago: 279/74 = 3.77
Oakland: 272/73 = 3.73
AL East excluding Toronto (average): 4.70 runs/game
AL Central excluding Chicago (average): 4.48 runs/game
AL West excluding Oakland (average): 4.57 runs/game
Toronto is +0.86
Chicago is +0.71
Oakland is +0.84
Now this does not consider how many times Toronto, Chicago and Oakland had played it's division opponents or anything - I am sure you will find flaws in my methodology and that is fine.
But the point is that Toronto's pitching when factoring in how dominant the AL east is matched up with anyone in the AL. So why should Arnie have been fired? Because Burnett "sucked"? I'm sorry, if Arnie cultivates all of these arms that BA and other publications ignore and gets them to perform exceptionally well (yes, we have excellent defense and everthing) then I do not see why the pitching coach should have been fired. The pitching was basically the best in the majors when Gibbons et al were fired and was by far the best by the end of the year. I am glad Arnie was extended, as are many other Jays fans I am sure.
And, if I remember correctly, one of your lines in that podcast was that "if AJ can't beat the Brewers"...as though one outing is indicative of his pitcher value...you seemed to praise AJ quite a bit more once the Yankees signed him for his age 32-36 seasons than for his tenure with the Jays...
Posted by: Jays2010 | March 24, 2009 at 10:07 PM
Jays2010: Take a breath. You are confusing a live unscripted chat between a couple of Jays fans and me with, say, a regular column or blog posting by me. The former was intended to be entertaining. The latter will always be more serious. The line about Burnett and the Brewers was for humor's sake, since I've been steadfast about avoiding using small samples - even half-season samples - in my regular work.
I believe I argued that firing Gibbons wasn't the right move, but if he was going to go, why was the pitching coach retained when the pitching was underachieving, notably the pitcher whom he was hired to obtain (even though said pitched was under contract to another team) and develop? The retention of Arnsberg didn't make sense to me in light of the firing of most of the staff. That's all.
Posted by: Keith Law | March 24, 2009 at 10:48 PM
KLaw - is it possible to show the Reds some love ever?
The two biggest things that come to mind are blasting Krivsky for the Kearns/Lopez(push) and Hamilton/Volquez trades (push).
Those two trades are starting to look pretty damn good now.
PS WK deserved it on Cordero
Posted by: Dave from Louisville | March 24, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Keith - I concede the Brewers comments and the fact that it was a live, unscripted chat and so comments were flying out of your mouth without you fully thinking through your words (kinda like JP's Adam Dunn comments).
However, this "take a breath" comment to open your response is kinda weak - u previously criticized commentors for not providing evidence for knocking you...so I don't think it makes sense for you to suggest that my comment was too long for you to handle.
Now, pitching and hitting are completely different enterprises. Every time I see you analysing a pitcher, I rarely see you looking at his win-loss record; rather, you are looking deeper into the stats which you feel will be a good indicator of his value going forward. Now why would you basically argue that Arnsberg should have been fired because the team was underperforming when, in fact, the hitting was massively underperforming and the pitching was stellar?
If you feel that AJ was underperforming that is fine (because he was). But haven't Marcum/Litsch/ Janssen and a host of bullpen arms severely OVERPERFORMED? So if AJ has a slow 15-20 starts to open the year following two solid years, why should Arnsberg be fired when he is turning all of these back end starters into key components of a top staff in baseball? In other words, if Arnsberg deserved a negative checkpoint with AJ, doesn't he deserve a positive checkpoint with at least 5-8 of his 12 pitchers?
Fine, it was a live chat - but that was your honest opinion, correct? If you had felt like writing a blog post on the subject you still would have written that, in your opinion, if Gibbons and Denbo were fired then Arnsberg should have been as well, right? Does this not imply that you believe that the pitching coach is as responsible for the team's poor offense as the manager and hitting coach? Does it not imply that you are suggesting that the pitching coach has some control over the hitting aspect of the game?
The pitching was overperforming - suggesting that the pitching coach should have been fired because the players couldn't hit is completely illogical - you said it, I assume you believed it and it leaves me with the impression that in that interview you were trying to knock the Jays/JP more than was warranted...when there are plenty of legit reasons to knock JP and the Jays...hence, this is why I am sure others believe that you do, in fact, have an axe to grind with your former boss and employer...
And, to be clear, I do like 95% of your stuff - I simply found this one opinion to be excessively scathing...
Posted by: Jays2010 | March 24, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Dave: The Kearns/Lopez deal would be a good example of something I got wrong and have admitted doing so. And I thought Krivsky wasn't given enough time before getting the boot. I did call Edwin Encarnacion for a breakout last year, which I guess he provided if you look hard enough.
Jays2010: Burnett had "two solid years" - really? With all those DL stints for questionable injuries, the type for which he always had a reputation before coming to Toronto?
Litsch and Janssen's overperformance was on the defense, not Arnsberg. Janssen's 2007 BaBIP was .279. Litsch's career is now .278. Unless you're arguing that Arnsberg has some magic fairy dust that helps pitchers prevent hits on balls in play, I don't see why he should get that much credit for their overperformances.
And again, I never suggested the pitching coach should be fired because the players couldn't hit. Your repetition of this claim, which you can not back up with any quotes from me, makes it clear that you're pushing an agenda rather than looking for a legitimate discussion of the matter.
Posted by: Keith Law | March 24, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Keith - I will be glad to provide you with quotes - I assume there is some type of public email where you can be contacted - if you provide ur email, I will listen to the podcast and pick out your quotes and you can be the judge of whether or not your argument was logical - I only read you every now and then so I do not know what your email is, I apologize.
And I notice that you are picking out Litsch and Jansen and not Marcum or all the bullpen arms. I have consistently been talking about the staff as a whole - isolating players such as Burnett has never been my tactic. I mention Litsch, Marcum, Janssen as representative of some of the parts of the best pitching in baseball. Are you suggesting that the defense if entirely responsible for the Jays ridiculously good pitching? I don't think you are...and at no point do you seem to be conceding that Arnsberg should not have been fired. At least now we seem to have established that you believed that Arnie should have been fired if Gibbons et al were. Now we can move on to why it makes no sense to fire the pitching coach when the hitters can't hit...
Honestly, it seems evident to me why that one commenter and others have accused you of not always admitting your mistakes. I have no interest in pushing an agenda - I don't consider having the opinion that you are excessively derogatory towards JP as an agenda...if it is, then I guess if you were excessively critical of JP that it would be an agenda as well...
And I believe that JP's 2002-2005 drafting was amongst the worst in baseball...just so you don't resort to the JP apologist tactic...
Posted by: Jays2010 | March 25, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Of all the arguments to have with Klaw you pick this trivial one? Why not Alexei Ramirez for MVP or how awesome the Nats front is?
Why do you care so much about his opinion on whether a pitching coach should/would/could be fired for various reasons? If a new manager is brought in, that manager will probably have some changes in mind so might as well hit the trifecta and punt the manager, hitting coach and pitching coach.
Posted by: Bernie Brewer | March 25, 2009 at 12:18 AM
I just wanted to echo what everyone else has been saying. There are few writers who consistently produce content that is not only relevant and important, but also take the time to meticulously comb through details to make sure their statements are logically and factually correct. Keith does this every time, which makes reading his articles a pleasure.
It's not just with baseball. Five Guys does have the best burgers of any fast food place. They are so well crafted it is almost an insult to lump them in with BK , McDonalds, and the like. Well done Keith, you got another thing right, per usual.
Posted by: mak | March 25, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Speaking of prospect's personal issues, anyone else think it is odd that Jose Tabata (20) is married to a 43 year old woman?
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-missingbabyalert&prov=ap&type=lgns
Posted by: nostocksjustbonds | March 25, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Sorry I wasn't checking back. Keith I don't quite know what I said that you think I wouldn't say to your face. That isn't an issue.
As far as your style and examples I didn't realize it would become a public debate so its not like I chose to go back and review every comment you have ever made. I read you regularly and so Im familiar with your work.
And maybe my issues with you blend into Billy's earlier comment. I enjoy sabermets and seamheads alike (subscribe to BP) but you are not always correct.
Anyway I do give you credit for responding in threads (a trait I've seen from you more than once) and you obviously have your fans.
Full disclosure I am a White Sox fan.
Posted by: tdogg | March 25, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Wow Tim. From starting up a blog as a hobby, to a couple of years later doing interviews with Josh Byrnes and Keith Law. Congratulations, I'm so happy for you, and proud that i have been a reader here since pretty much the beginning. Personally, baseball is a huge part of my life, I dedicate a lot of time to it and so in turn, MLBTR has become part of my daily routine, and a very big part of my life. You bring us the most updated baseball news that we all are dying to get, for free. I appreciate everything you do here, and keep up the excellent work.
Keith Law... my favorite baseball writer... period. I enjoy everything you have to say about baseball, I love the research and dedication you put into what you do, in a day when it seems like there are so many lazy baseball writers/analysts, you, in my opinion, are the cream of the crop with your excellent insight and dedication to your work. When it comes to prospects, you are my go to guy. I'm a huge fan.
Posted by: nrmax88 | March 25, 2009 at 02:38 PM
If this really is Keith going back and forth with some random guy who carries a grudge about something he said once in a podcase a couple years ago, he truly is about the coolest baseball writer there is.
Posted by: Aduncaroo | March 25, 2009 at 04:53 PM
I like Keith Law a lot, he is very interesting, which is more than I can say about any other sport writer.
Regarding the A Escobar "serious issue", yes in terms of his personal life, it is serious and I don't want to trivialize leaving your baby and wife, but welcome to pro sports. This behavior is common, and in fact, not extraordinary in sport, in fact, it isn't even serious. I don't see how the facts presented to me to date, would impact the Brewers much, if at all.
Posted by: BeanoCook | March 25, 2009 at 05:26 PM