Garry Templeton Interview
Josh at Jorge Says No! interviewed Garry Templeton recently, and the results are here. Templeton, who is managing the Long Beach Armada in the Golden League, holds forth on the quality of independent league lineups, talks about the most exciting play in baseball (sorry Jaffe, but he disagrees with you on what play that is, and I’m going with Templeton on this one), and provides you with the thing you wanted most in this world: a Hideki Irabu update.
Great work, Josh.
what’s funny about all of these blogs is that it is making guys like gary templeton relevent again. how low are these bloggers gonna go just to get a quote or an interview from someone who played professional sports?
i hear larvell blanks is available for an interview…..
As cool as triples and inside-the-park HRs are, in my mind, the outright steal of home is the most exciting play in baseball. There’s ALWAYS a play at the plate, it takes a great amount of luck, and it’s exceedingly rare. I don’t want players on my team trying it, ever; but seeing it happen is the most exciting thing I’ve ever seen on a baseball field.
Chuck gets the gas face.
And there’s two R’s in Garry
Oh, I tend to think the pulling-back of a sure HR is about as exciting as they come. To watch Torii Hunter scale a wall and pull one back is much more exciting (and difficult) a play than a guy motoring around the bases.
I can watch track for pure speed. But give me a guy with speed AND a glove AND the skill to time a jump/climb up a wall and I’m giddy.
Chuck: has it ever occurred to you that the primary motivation of someone wanting to interview Garry Templeton is that he’s, you know, interested in Garty Templeton as a player and person as opposed to simply wanting to say that they got an interview of someone?
Thanks for the explanation, CC.
FWIW, I lean Jason’s way on this. I love the brilliant “oh no he din’t” defensive plays. They’re awesome the first time, and they have replay value (all hail Web Gems!).
…provided the player didn’t jump/dive just to showboat (see Ordonez, Rey) or to compensate for lack of range (see Jeter, Derek). FWIW, I’ve seen a shortstop go so far to his right that he was about 10’ behind where the 3B set up (i.e. 5’ from the four line), *plant* and throw out the runner. And it was an independent-league player, too (Yuri Sanchez).
As a Mets fan, I have to disagree with Templeton about Lima Time. It’s fun to say, but I would not wish it on anyone.
Granted an ItPHR usually occurs because of some miscue in the outfield. But given how relatively small the dimensions are in most new ballparks, you could easily say the same about triples too. Sorry, I gotta agree with Sara: a triple isn’t *more* exciting than a play where the batter actually circles the bases and scores.
If that were true, then there would be *more* triples hit per ballpark in 2008 than in 1998 or 1988 or 1978. Except…
2008: 28.58
1998: 29.97
1988: 32.31
1978: 39.23
…it’s quite the opposite, isn’t it?
I’m confused. Smaller ballparks would mean fewer triples (and, I’m guessing, fewer ItPHRs), right?
Exactly. The relatively smaller ballparks are *not* seeing more triples as a result of OF miscues. The evidence does not support the delusion.
I see where you mean to be going, but the argument doesn’t make sense. You seem to be suggesting that if outfielders do make mistakes, then there should be more total triples despite the smaller park size. I’m pretty sure that Mark’s point is that a significant number of triples result from defensive miscues, and the numbers you offer do nothing to confirm or disprove that claim.
Now, if triples/ItPHRs were sorted by ‘cleanliness’ and we could compare *those* numbers, we’d be onto something…
“But given how relatively small the dimensions are in most new ballparks, you could easily say the same about triples too.”
The logical inference from the above is that the (so-called) smaller ballparks have led to more triples, which is not true. I’m not the one making any argument here, I’m merely refuting this mistaken notion.
Sara K.: I feel your pain
No, the inference is that there would be even fewer triples than there are, were defensive mistakes not a factor. Nowhere in the quoted text is the inference that there should be more total triples in smaller ballparks. For that to happen, defensive mistakes would have to increase in frequency at a rate proportionately greater than the decrease in park size. Quoting totals doesn’t tell us anything about the number of triples that were the result of defensive errors. Though now that you mention it, it is interesting that the rate of decrease between 98 and 08 is quite a bit smaller than those of previous decades.
Thanks, Hizouse. I thought I was all alone for a while there…
No sense in arguing with someone that doesn’t understand that a runner that reaches third as a result of an error did not hit a triple. Or who doesn’t fully understand what an inference is.
Depends on the park, really. A triple in San Francisco is about as boring as it gets. Hit it between the CF and the RF and it’s a triple, whether you’re Jose Reyes or Bengie Molina. An ItPHR there, though, is interesting. See Ichiro in the All-Star Game.
Oh, come now Wooden. I know that you know there are plenty of plays in which the defense makes a mistake – a bad path to the ball, an ill-timed or unnecesary dive, etc. – that isn’t called an error. I’m sure these non-error miscues are what both Craig and Mark were referring to in the discussion of triples vs. ItPHRs. And just because I disagree with your interpretation does not mean that I don’t know what an inference is.
Mark’s statement: “Granted an ItPHR usually occurs because of some miscue in the outfield. But given how relatively small the dimensions are in most new ballparks, you could easily say the same about triples too.”
He is replying to Craig’s earlier statement: “Because so often an inside the park home run requires some dunderheaded defensive play that, in a fair world, would be called an error but isn’t. Guys falling down, bad hops, etc.”
In the context of the conversation, the only way you can infer that Mark means that the total number of triples should be bigger because the ballparks are smaller is through a wild stretch of the imagination.
I must be missing something…I agree that triples are exciting, but how are they more exciting than a similar play that goes an extra 90 feet and scores a run?
Because so often an inside the park home run requires some dunderheaded defensive play that, in a fair world, would be called an error but isn’t. Guys falling down, bad hops, etc. I haven’t seen a ton of inside the park home runs, but many of them I have seen ended up with no real play or no real close play at the plate. Triples are subject to this too, but more often they are simply clean gappers hit by a guy with serious wheels, leading to a close play at third.
Excitement is in the eye (or gut) of the beholder, and this beholder has simply gets more excited by triples.
No, I don’t think that’s what he’s saying. I also don’t think that he’s saying that the number of triples will increase with smaller parks. I think what he is saying that given smaller parks in general, it seems unlikely that triples are occurring strictly due to the amazing speed of the runner. Outfielder misplays are a factor. The overall number of triples is a factor that *you* brought to the exchange. It is a tangent that really doesn’t have any bearing on the spirit of the discussion. Frankly, I am a little embarrassed that I bothered to engage with you about this, but your interpretation was just so amazingly skewed, I couldn’t resist.
Anyway, your reasoning and rhetoric is out there, as is mine. Let the populus judge us on our merits, if anyone else is still interested in this folly.
And, to repeat, which apparently is necessary for someone of your ilk, I am not making an argument, I am refuting the idea that ballpark size has any effect on the likelihood of a triple being hit as a result of an outfielder misplay.
If anything, a smaller ballpark will make it easier (read: less difficult, not as hard) for an outfielder to make a play. It is a well-known conceit, a.k.a. “given,” that today’s OFs are, on average (read: when compared to the rest of the league), bigger and faster than in years past, the idea that they’re more likely to make a mistake in a smaller space (as opposed to less) is preposterous (read: unlikely).
If that were true, then the number of triples would increase. If you had ever played the game, you’d know that ANY ball that gets past an OF, or is misplayed, will result in an at least one more base beyond what the hit would have been had it been fielded or caught.
Perhaps you need a few days to think about it. Shall I check back with you on Tuesday?
So smaller parks are, in fact, more likely to cause outfielders to make mistakes and thus this will increase the likelihood of a “triple” being hit?
(That, my dear, is a rhetorical question).