I loved Ellie. Sad what the Janks did to him. Played with dignity in Boston. Died young. Good point about how the light early years saved his career. Remember him playing the OF.

William, I think The Mick is referring to the Yankees' decision not to give Howard the managerial job in the mid-1970s, despite the fact that many players wanted him to be promoted. Howard was very well liked and respected by Yankees players and deserved a chance at managing.

I thought he might have been referring to the trade, but I've read at least one account of the Yankees sending Howard to Boston as being a reward (a chance to compete in one more pennant race), not a punishment.

1 4 5 I was thinking it was more that Howard didn't get the chance to play fulltime when he was clearly ready for it - just like Jorge. He signed in 1950, but didn't debut until 1955, and didn't top 350 MLB PAs until 1957. Maybe he doesn't have the same career if he got started in 1952 or '53. But isn't it something of accepted fact that the Yankees could have, and should have, integrated sooner?

-----------------------
Howard died of a heart ailment at age 51 in New York City and was interred at George Washington Memorial Park in Paramus, New Jersey. Broadcaster Red Barber reacted by saying, "The Yankees lost more class on the weekend than George Steinbrenner could buy in 10 years."
-----------------------------

It's unclear to me exactly what Barber was referring to but according to wikipedia, George Washington Memorial Park was established in 1939 as a "whites only" cemetery.

Did Barber object to Howard being laid to rest here? What did the Yankees do to "lose class?" Anybody know what this was about?

8 Yeah, I guess. I don't know. Its hard to make any judgments without knowing more about those mid-50s teams than b-r.com can tell me. I think we should stop speculating and just wait for The Mick to tell us what he meant. =)

Red Barber was a segregationist and a racist in his early days but became a staunch supporter of civil rights and I believe lived with a good deal of guilt about the beliefs he held in his younger and uninformed days. There is a good deal written about his support of Jackie Robinson for example and how he managed to see the light once he got to know him. He talked about it some in his days at NPR with Bob Edwards. Edwards wrote a pretty good book on Barber that is worth the read.

The reference wasn't to anything the Yankees did. He was simply saying that the Yankees had lost the class that Howard brought to the organization.

Here's his lede: "The Yankees' organization lost more class on the weekend than George Steinbrenner could buy in 10 years. Elston Howard, former catcher, outfielder, first baseman, coach and lately administrative assistant to Steinbrenner, died in Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center."

And his closing paragraphs: "Whether he ever could have been manager for George Steinbrenner is something else again. It has yet to be shown that anyone can manage a team for Steinbrenner for more than a short time. Yet it is conceivable that some of Elston Howard's class might have rubbed off on the owner of the Yankees.

"That possibility makes his death a greater loss than ever. He was a loyal friend, a polished professional in his job, a cool judge of whisky and a man of simple honesty. The world will be poorer without him, the Yankees immeasurably poorer."

Smith could write.

13 Amen brother, lets hope.

Posada was incredibly lucky in 2007. Perhaps it goes without saying that when any player puts up numbers that are both historic and out of character with the rest of his career, he had a bit of luck on his side. It was more than a bit, though; when Posada put the ball into play he batted around .390, far higher than his career norms.

Ok, I'm sorry, this is where statistician-types exasperate me.

Did you all watch the same Jorgie all year that I did? The one who actually changed his swing, went with the pitch and used the middle of the field?

The man changed his approach to batting (apparent to anyone with eyes to see) and that's somehow about luck?

Luck was maybe staying healthy, but in a high average on balls put into play? Why doesn't that mean that a higher percentage of those balls were well-struck than in previous years?

Of the Yanks, he said that at the time there was only one guy among his group who was a Yankee fan, and the others would tease this guy because of the fact that the Yanks didn't have any black players.

However, his clever retort: "Well, the Yanks don't NEED 'em like you do."

It was almost certainly luck because his BABIP was 71 points over his career rate. I did watch Jorge all year, and I didn't see any change in his approach at the plate. Jorge himself, when asked, said he was doing the same things he'd always done (I'll see if I can find the quote). Even he knew that there was luck involved.

That doesn't mean there was no skill. There is tremendous skill at work (career .319 BABIP for a slow-footed catcher? Phenomenal. Great OBP. Power...).

I think there has been work done on correlations between line drive rate and BABIP, showing that not all high BABIP is lucky. But .390? Come on now.

I understand he didn't watch day in and day out, but that's kind of my point--a pile of numbers is no substitute for watching baseball, day in, day out.

Jorgie shortened his fucking swing, why is that not even worthy of comment?

Of course, the writer tries to claim it's not luck. But look at what Jorge himself said.

"I'll tell you the truth—I don't know why it's been such a good year," he said, smiling, as he dressed in front of his locker for Monday's game against Toronto. "At the plate, I haven't been even a little bit different."

"I think I've been a little lucky this year, no question,"

But if he gives anything like his 2004-06 numbers for 3 years anyone who knows the game surely has to be happy.

I'm intrigued by the luck analysis, the .390 on balls in play etc. ... I suppose I'd have expected that over a season it levels more smoothly, that luck is a month or two (along with streaks, which CAN be luck).

Opera-lover, it would be awfully nice if you're right, that it was simply confidence, new swing (walk year?). If it happens again everyone here will cheer like mad, but it isn't just sabr-geeks who attach value to career norms and the rarity of mid-30s redefinitions.

But let's say I'm absolutely wrong about that, that it's my word against yours--why isn't that the conversation?

Why can't someone like Neyer talk about a guy's swing, his mechanics, his approach?

Of course the difference was phenomenal, but my point is, luck only explains so much, and by no means the most interesting part of why his season was so strong.

It's especially ironic that stathead types try to quantify and measure everything, but then, when push comes to shove, they throw up their hands and invoke luck rather than talking about baseball?

Kind of amusing, no?

As for Neyer... probably because Neyer isn't particularly qualified to discuss a hitter's mechanics (neither are we, of course, but we don't get paid to post on the Banter). He could, however, solicit quotes from scouts and include their comments in his articles.

anyway, thanks for the Barber insights, wsporter.

[26 - 27] For what it's worth, weeping, I take more from your analysis of Posada than Neyer's.

Hah! You know I'm fanatical about cartoons, whether age-appropriate or not, but this recent exchange reminded me of Banter in it's purest form:

Spongebob: (jumps at Patrick 3 times) C'mon Patrick, let's do something fun.

Patrick: Oh, you want to run some statistics or observe phenomenon and render hypothesis of sand phenomenon?

Spongebob: I was thinking more like jumping rope, 1-legged races, or duck-duck-hermit crab. (jumps into a hermit-crab shell)

Patrick: Doesn't feel like fun.

Spongebob: How about some jokes? (Patrick sighs) What's the difference between a guitar and a jellyfish?

Patrick: You can't strum a jellyfish.

Spongebob: Yes! (laughs. Patrick grabs a jellyfish and strums its tentacles)

Patrick: Oh my, look at the time. I really must be going. (walks off)

That's about right I imagine >;)

He has had his number retired for sure and his family are honored guests at the stadium, but he should be thought about on a level just below 42.

The Yankees under Weiss passed on Vic Power, among others, because they had swagger. I believe that Ellie's gentlemanly qualities were taken advantage of and that he toiled as a utility man under Casey because of his color, not his talent.

At some point, either in 1956 or 1955, Ellie went into the hospital for some sort of nervous disorder. Never got the story about who put pressure on him in the dugout. Hank Bauer and Yogi were supposedly big supporters, but someone, maybe just Casey and Weiss, made his skin erupt.
Houk finally let him play and that is when he became an all-star. Yanks promised him he could finish his career in pinstripes. I remember that he was devastated when they traded him to the Sox. They may have claimed they were giving him one last chance to win another ring, but then why did he almost retire rather than gleefully going?

The manager thing really still miffs me the most. He was named on the short lists. The Yankees, as well as many other teams, could have broken the color line by making him the skipper. The team loved him. The fans loved him. White ownership didn't.

Finally, the embarassment at the time of his untimely death, one hastened by the racism he faced, comes from some financial finagling by ownership that may have effected the family's ability to cover his medical bills. I am, as Casey would say, looking it up.

I don't know. I doubt it. Unless swing-shortening really does tend to improve hitting, I am reluctant (to say the least) to attribute Posada's improvement to a new swing.

Only speaking for myself, of course.

Speaking for myself, I'm not a professional hitting coach, but I have been coached in how to swing a baseball bat, both in little league and through listening to professionals on training videos, starting when I was young and that show--"The Baseball Bunch," was it?--came on weekly and major leaguers taught kids fundamentals.

I do have some idea of how to hit a baseball, as should anyone who watches baseball with any kind of attention.

Just because we disagree about Jorgie's swing, both of us having watched him day in, day out, doesn't mean we're therefore not fit to discuss it.

Did you get my point? Were you just teasing me?

Therefore, I'm sorry, but I don't believe that he did anything different. He was more fortunate (until the playoffs, anyway). I'll be shocked if Jorge ever hits .340 again. I'll be surprised if he clears .300 (barring a small sample size due to injury or somesuch). But it'll be oh-so pleasant shock or surprise :)

And with that, I'm going to bow out of this debate.

"Still, a line drive percentage of .221 should support an expected BABIP of around .341. Posada's was .389. Career is .323. So he may have made a tangible change that helped, but he was likely a bit fortunate as well."

"Still, a line drive percentage of .221 should support an expected BABIP of around .341. Posada's was .389. Career is .323. So he may have made a tangible change that helped, but he was likely a bit fortunate as well."

I guess my response was to say that I don't know about whether most players who shorten their swings lift their OPS so much.

They certainly don't look silly flailing at the baseball as much of the time.

But I don't know.

SG says he recalls Posada claiming a more level swing, and he did hit more liners (22% vs. 20%) than his career rates. I don't remember Jorge saying that, but it's possible, of course. I also don't recall seeing any difference in the swing... but again I'm no expert.

I say split the difference.

Whether his approach was truly different (as I maintain) or exactly the same (as you and Jorgie maintain) is debatable, but that is the Question, imo.

If you factor out improved approach at the plate, what's left? Luck? Inferior pitching? Generally improved health?

All of which could be factors, but I find approach the most plausible factor to account for such a spike in performance, and my eyes did in fact watch a different hitter at the plate, one who scarcely reminded me of the Jorgie I've watched step into the box in previous years.

UPDATE: The stats don't quite back up my observations. Posada's GIDP and GO/AO in 2007 were actually greater than in the past two seasons (2004 was his worst season in this regard). Another interesting stat is that 15 of Posada's additional 42 hits from 2006 to 2007 were doubles. Doubles generally do not come from luck (especially when you run like Posada).

Anyway, I am not arguing it was 100% luck (and you're not arguing it was 0%). The line drive rate indicates there was more going on.

"Why can't someone like Neyer talk about a guy's swing, his mechanics, his approach?"

I'd say its because:

-Neyer doesn't watch Posada play every day, so he doesn't know his swing
-AND Neyer hasn't watched Posada closely enough over the years to use his eyes alone to evaluate changes in his swing
-Neyer tends not to rely on things he doesn't have hard data for

My guess is, if Neyer had video of every last swing Posada took over a 3 year period of time, and exhaustively analyzed that data, then he'd talk about swing mechanics etc.

I have to say, for myself, I don't feel comfortable evaluating Posada's swing either. I don't trust my eyes enough!

46 I don't know. A 30 point swing in AVG is just an extra hit a week for the entire season; that could certainly be mostly "luck". I think I could see a 60 point swing in BABIP being mostly "luck" too. Honestly though, I don't think the cause of it matters.

As for the nervous disorder, I couldn't find any mention in a quick search. I never heard that story, so would be interested to learn the details.

No matter how you slice it the season was simply remarkable for a catcher of his age especially when you consider his stats increased after the all-star break. The season is an outlier so far as we know right now. I immagine that, despite his statement, he did alter his approach. I would also imagine that there was some luck involved. I would also immagine that Jorge knows more about hitting than he did a few years ago and that may well be showing through. Until the wheels start to fall off I think we can all agree that he'll remain an offensive force for the foreseeable future.

What's really pretty neat about Jorge is there really aren't any comps available for catchers who performed at this level at this age. I don't think we really know what last year means where he's concerned. I have a feeling it's going to be fun finding out.

And again: if it were luck, I'd expect to see 60-point swings with some regularity.

The cause is at least a little important, because it bears on what his performance this year is likely to be.

.355 in the 2nd half at his age? It's obvious. He found Andy and Roger's stash, and was blending HGH in with his protein shake and pouring them over a bowl of steroids.

Other then that, I would look at if there was any change in his conditioning routine. Also, how about his son. For many years, the boys life was in jeapordy. Did little Jorge turn a corner? Playing with that kind of stress can't make life easier.

I'll come up with an argument for my belief that Caset may have held Ellie back for reasons unrelated to his talent when I am reunited with my library.

Perhaps he expressed himself poorly, but here's what Neyer wrote:

"More obviousness: Posada was incredibly lucky in 2007. Perhaps it goes without saying that when any player puts up numbers that are both historic and out of character with the rest of his career, he had a bit of luck on his side. It was more than a bit, though; when Posada put the ball into play he batted around .390, far higher than his career norms. "

As I read that, Neyer's suggestion is that two things can account for improved performance: "a bit of luck" and "more than a bit" of luck.

To me, that's a staggering bit of myopia for a serious analyst of baseball, unless I'm misreading him.

It seems he does his best work batting 6th.

batting 5th - 1359 AB - .279/.379/.461
batting 6th - 1593 AB - .296/.402/.520
batting 7th - 1042 AB - .263/.360/.470

As opposed to 2006, and 2005 when he mostly batted 5th, and 7th in the order, last year Jorge mostly batted 6th and here's the line he produced at that spot:

.354/.441/.567

Perhaps due to the hitters before and after him, (I'd have to look all that up) he saw better pitches last year?

I usually don't read too much into where a player hits in the order, but sometimes they're more comfortable hitting in a particular spot, and there's no question it can determine how they'll be pitched to.

Perhaps batting 6th was more of a factor in 2007 than luck?

A 60 point swing isn't common at all, obviously, but I'm not convinced that's the right question. After all, increasing by 60 points isn't common, whether due to luck or to a sudden improvement in mechanics. So the real question to ask is, which is more common (and by how much): a 60 point improvement that is then sustained, or a 60 point improvement that was mainly luck and is never seen again?

Weeping, does it affect your thoughts at all to consider that it may be more FUN, as you say, to conjecture shorter swing, more level swing, more opposite field ... but more fun doesn't mean more accurate OR that other watchers (such as Rob) simply didn't see it?

And, for what it is worth, I've seen EXACTLY the same points made about Maggs' season: luck, expect regression towards mean. And exactly same reason offered ... 'obscenely' high percentage of balls in play landing safely. Way above career norms.

58 I don't have a make a smaller URL on this one but it looks pretty short. There's some interesting stuff here about Ellie's history with the Yankees. As I remembered from my Grandfather and Uncles, George Weiss was the villain and a wrong guy. The Scooter comes across as a wonderful man as do many of the guys on the team.

Reading this type of thing makes my stomach churn. It's incredible how fundamentally wrong people can be in the name of being right.

Of course I could be wrong about what I see, but I'm just confident enough about my judgment to require serious convincing that I'm wrong.

Surely that's significant.

Thanks for sharing it.

Dude, you are WASTED here!

(Teasing. Really, really teasing!)

:)

8 ball! How insulting. However, in those days, the ethnic id was the thing. JoeD was Dago. Lazieri was Spaghetti. Phil, the w--p.

I just cannot believe that the owners and management, Topping, Weiss, and crew would have a manager who wanted to cross the picket lines.

To me, swing change or no, that 60 point jump in BABIP isn't sustainable. Its one thing if Posada was entering his peak as a hitter, and had showed sequential growth. Its another thing if he is a 36-year-old catcher coming off the season of his life. No one* peaks at 36.

*Except Bonds and Aaron, but they are a whole other class of hitter viz a viz Posada.

In any event, good Christ but I can't wait for there to be games.

I hate the word luck when employed by sabermetricians and those who play at it, I wish they would use the verbage of the honest social scientist instead "factors which are not captured by the data or explained by the analysis" but be that as it may. I suppose "luck" just sounds sexier and takes up less space. What ever the hell it was we'll have a chance to see where Jorge ends up this year and form a more informed position. My suspicion is that we'll have an opportunity to agree that it was the result of a host of factors and that luck was one of them.

And yes, "luck" is a very ironic "explanation" for someone otherwise so grounded in empiricism to use.

"Factors which are not captured by the data or explained by the analysis" is a far more intellectually honest formulation.

(Chyll... please pass the bong)

Just to put this puppy in perspective, no less of a source than Jackie Robinson called Casey a "racist." He used racial epithets, calling blacks the J word. Naturally sarcastic, he was not liked by his players. He went so far to advise the Yankees to keep their lockers locked when Robinson was around.

To his credit, Casey said good things about Ellie and then didn't play him regularly. Ellie played mostly first and outfield for his early years, despited having been switched in the minors.

As for the Yankee's treating him badly, he was the first base coach when George bought the team. Relegated to the bullpen, he didn't get to the field again (at least I don't remember him doing so). He became the head of the BP and then a PR person.

On his deathbed, he said that the Boss and the Yankees put him there. According to Linn who puts the statement into quotes, the Yankees didn't pay him. Whhen and how muck, I don't know.