BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: WaPo: Boswell: Behind Plate, There’s a Bat And a Leader (RR)

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

WaPo: Boswell: Behind Plate, There’s a Bat And a Leader (RR)

Affare di amore del foxhole in testa.

“Paul Lo Duca is one of my favorite teammates I ever played with,” said 303-game winner Tom Glavine, who threw to Lo Duca the last two seasons with the Mets. “He’s a gamer, great in the clubhouse and a little underrated because of his arm. Calling a game, helping his pitcher through the rough spots, that’s the stuff he really cares about. His arm doesn’t dazzle people, but I would take his total package against most of the catchers in the league. He’s a tough out and he does all the little things to win.”

...But the total value of a tough-guy catcher with a passion for the game, the grit to grind out the sweltering days in July and August, and the brains to make everybody follow his lead and toe the line—that’s rare. Schneider had it. Few others do. Lo Duca does.

...Now, with Lo Duca in hand, the plan has come together. The Nationals have built a respectable major league offense, without sacrificing any pitching or too much defense. Anyone who wants to imagine a Nats attack without a weak hitter at any position can actually do so. And just in time to move to a park where long blasts in the gaps will land five rows up in the seats, where they belong, not in a glove on the RFK Stadium warning track.

Repoz Posted: December 11, 2007 at 01:34 PM | 43 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: mets, nationals

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. Win one for Agrippa (haplo53) Posted: December 11, 2007 at 01:59 PM (#2641142)

Yuck. Normally I'd say "good luck with that," but since existence has an anti-Mets bias, I'm sure it will work out beautifully for the Nats.

2. Belfry Bob Posted: December 11, 2007 at 02:14 PM (#2641150)

Tom hasn't been this delusional in awhile. Good to see he's still 'got it.'

3. G-String Posted: December 11, 2007 at 02:52 PM (#2641163)

Tom hasn't been this delusional in awhile. Good to see he's still 'got it.'

What was delusional about what Glavine said? Besides saying Lo Duca is a "tough out", of course.

4. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: December 11, 2007 at 02:58 PM (#2641167)

the grit to grind out the sweltering days in July and August, and the brains to make everybody follow his lead and toe the line

Lo Duca's sh*t doesn't work in September.

What was delusional about what Glavine said?

I believe he was referring to the writer, Thomas "Tom" Boswell. ;-)

5. Milon de Floss Posted: December 11, 2007 at 03:08 PM (#2641175)

Ah, the Boz. Often wrong, but never in doubt.

6. The Essex Snead Posted: December 11, 2007 at 03:21 PM (#2641189)

Now, with Lo Duca in hand, the plan has come together. The Nationals have built a respectable major league offense, without sacrificing any pitching or too much defense. Anyone who wants to imagine a Nats attack without a weak hitter at any position can actually do so.

And if you wish REALLY hard, you can make sparks shoot out your eyes!

If LoDuca slugs above .400 for the year, I'll eat his jock.

7. TerpNats Posted: December 11, 2007 at 03:22 PM (#2641190)

Boz, just come out and say it -- Lo Duca is holding the fort for Flores until he's fully ready. No more, no less. He might hit a bit better than Schneider, and perhaps he, like Piazza in his prime, is a decent handler of pitchers whose skills in that department are masked by having a relatively weak arm for throwing out basestealers. But he's only a short-term presence. He isn't going to elevate the Nats to the NL East's "big three," and, moreover, he's probably on the decline. Ideally, Washington will also sign Estrada so Acta can platoon catchers, allowing Flores to catch every day at Columbus or even Harrisburg (if that's where some of the young pitchers in the farm system end up).

8. The Essex Snead Posted: December 11, 2007 at 03:30 PM (#2641198)

So this gives the Nats a possible lineup of:

C - LoDuca
1B - MEATHOOK
2B - Belliard
SS - Lopez
3B - Zimmermann
LF - Pena?
CF - Milledge?
RF - Dukes? Kearns?

That ain't bad (assuming the old dudes don't fall off the map, and the kids step up, and LoDuca bats 8th, and Zimmermann doesn't start playing drums for Spinal Tap).

9. Belfry Bob Posted: December 11, 2007 at 03:38 PM (#2641211)

And just in time to move to a park where long blasts in the gaps will land five rows up in the seats, where they belong, not in a glove on the RFK Stadium warning track.

...and just wait till more of thsoe same long blasts by the other club ends up in those same seats. That team ERA will be really interesting.

10. Harveys Wallbangers

Posted: December 11, 2007 at 03:58 PM (#2641239)

Bob:

Excellent point. The writers always forget that the opponents get the same conditions.

And Essex, Wily Mo will DEFINITELY be in the starting lineup. He's Bowden's pet project. Wily could be hitting .154 in mid-May and he will keep his job. Jim-Bob is adamant that given 500 at bats Wily Mo will hit 35-45 home runs.

11. HowardMegdal

Posted: December 11, 2007 at 04:00 PM (#2641240)

He might hit a bit better than Schneider, and perhaps he, like Piazza in his prime, is a decent handler of pitchers whose skills in that department are masked by having a relatively weak arm for throwing out basestealers. But he's only a short-term presence.

The difference is, the Nats couldn't have traded Lo Duca for Milledge.

12. Frisco Cali Posted: December 11, 2007 at 04:10 PM (#2641265)

C - LoDuca
1B - MEATHOOK
2B - Belliard
SS - Lopez
3B - Zimmermann
LF - Pena?
CF - Milledge?
RF - Dukes? Kearns?

Who is the most likely to really suck? Belliard, Kearns?

And by the way, Spinal Tap isn't a real band, so Zimmerman couldn't ever play with them.

13. The Essex Snead Posted: December 11, 2007 at 04:19 PM (#2641273)

And by the way, Spinal Tap isn't a real band

You just totally blew my mind!

14. Chris Needham Posted: December 11, 2007 at 04:38 PM (#2641299)

And Essex, Wily Mo will DEFINITELY be in the starting lineup. He's Bowden's pet project. Wily could be hitting .154 in mid-May and he will keep his job. Jim-Bob is adamant that given 500 at bats Wily Mo will hit 35-45 home runs.

It's interesting in that the first words that Manny spoke post-trade had Pena as the 4th guy. But as has been pointed out around here, there's plenty of room (injuries, offdays, etc) to get each guy 450 ABs next season.

I imagine the only one who's a lock to do more than that is the one that everyone's trying to trade out of town: Kearns. The team (rightfully) LOVES his defense.

15. Cowboy Popup Posted: December 11, 2007 at 04:46 PM (#2641312)

Jim-Bob is adamant that given 500 at bats Wily Mo will hit 35-45 home runs.

Remember the bet thread with Joe Bivens (I think) that Pena would never hit 20 HRs? I need to find that thread so I can collect when the time comes.

Who is the most likely to really suck? Belliard, Kearns?

Lopez already sucked last year (75 OPS+, typical shitty defense I'm assuming). I think he's gotta be among the most likely to suck next year.

16. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: December 11, 2007 at 04:51 PM (#2641317)

Remember the bet thread with Joe Bivens (I think) that Pena would never hit 20 HRs? I need to find that thread so I can collect when the time comes.

Link

17. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 11, 2007 at 05:09 PM (#2641330)

And by the way, Spinal Tap isn't a real band,

They weren't, but I think after the movie they did actually tour some, even quite recently.

18. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 11, 2007 at 05:18 PM (#2641341)

And by the way, Spinal Tap isn't a real band,

Neither were the Monkees, but things happen.

19. David Wrightwing obstructionist Posted: December 11, 2007 at 05:23 PM (#2641349)

Is it time yet to warn the DC area to lockup their teenage daughters?

I wish Paulie well, mainly because he gets to face our div foes quite a bit next year, just not against us.

20. Esoteric Posted: December 11, 2007 at 06:22 PM (#2641427)

I just think it's funny/sad that Boswell ignores Nationals baseball seemingly all season long, and yet returns recently to write about Dukes (okay fair enough, hot topic), and LODUCA? Poor Tom. A bit out of touch, it seems.

And yes, the starting lineup is beginning to look pretty respectable offensively. The bullpen is solid as ever. But without good, healthy starting pitching, this team is destined for another 4th place finish next year.

21. Oriole Tragic is totally awesome in the postseason Posted: December 11, 2007 at 06:48 PM (#2641468)

The money quote from Glavine was where he said, "...I would take his total package against most of the catchers in the league."

Winner.

22. Oriole Tragic is totally awesome in the postseason Posted: December 11, 2007 at 06:52 PM (#2641472)

#15, 16:

Do either of you (or anyone else) remember the Juan Pierre bet thread, and the Matsuzaka prediction threads? Whatever happened with those?

I'm telling you, BTF is the best place to be for bet threads. In another thread, Andy was bullying people around with offers to bet a cool grand against Guiliani and/or Romney. I'm a little surprised he hasn't had a taker.

23. John Peterson Posted: December 11, 2007 at 07:31 PM (#2641526)

The Nats could take the field on opening day with Ronnie Belliard (.290), Johnson or Dmitri Young (.320), Flores and Dukes on the bench.

It took me a while to realize that Boswell was giving batting averages and not wOBA or something. Anyway, I'm just glad that these things are being said by another team's sportswriters for once. So long, Lo Duca. It was (not) nice knowing you.

24. John Peterson Posted: December 11, 2007 at 07:38 PM (#2641537)

It is no accident the Nats added Lo Duca and classy veteran Aaron Boone immediately after acquiring the flamboyant Milledge and troubled outfielder Elijah Dukes. Manager Manny Acta built a model clubhouse last year. That must stay, no matter what.

Is Lo Duca a classy veteran? From what I can tell, he's basically a total degenerate. This whole sentence is stupid, mashing together Milledge (celebrated a home run, wore large shiny cross, was late to a game once, recorded terrible rap track) and Dukes (threatened to murder his wife and her children, attacked and/or threatened multiple umpires), and then Lo Duca and Boone, who are "classy veterans" because they are mediocre role players.

25. Paul The Paranoid Android Posted: December 11, 2007 at 07:58 PM (#2641570)

then Lo Duca and Boone, who are "classy veterans" because they are mediocre white role players.

26. Best Dressed Chicken in Town Posted: December 11, 2007 at 08:00 PM (#2641574)

In English, we put the adjectives before the modified noun. "Classy veteran" obviously refers to Aaron Boone, and has nothing to do with Lo Duca. You can pretend it refers to Lo Duca if it makes you feel better to have a tantrum about it, but you should do that in your head rather than here where everyone can see your error.

27. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: December 11, 2007 at 08:15 PM (#2641598)

In English, we put the adjectives before the modified noun.

Jeepers, the whole dang tone of the article is that Lo Duca is a classy veteran. It didn't need to be said there; he just wanted to clarify Boone's attitude relative to the "scary" Milledge and the scary Dukes.

28. John Peterson Posted: December 11, 2007 at 08:24 PM (#2641607)

Lo Duca and Boone were contrasted with Milledge and Dukes. The title of the article implies that Lo Duca is "a leader." Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions?

29. Greg Franklin Posted: December 11, 2007 at 09:35 PM (#2641659)

I just think it's funny/sad that Boswell ignores Nationals baseball seemingly all season long, and yet returns recently to write about Dukes (okay fair enough, hot topic), and LODUCA? Poor Tom. A bit out of touch, it seems.

Boswell doesn't ignore Nationals baseball. He pops up about once a month, writes a column saying the Nationals are on the rise and are totally going to be relevant to MLB sooner than you think, then retreats to his lair to rework that one column for next month's appearance.

30. Loren F. Posted: December 11, 2007 at 09:48 PM (#2641673)

Boswell doesn't ignore Nationals baseball. He pops up about once a month, writes a column saying the Nationals are on the rise and are totally going to be relevant to MLB sooner than you think, then retreats to his lair to rework that one column for next month's appearance.

But one of these days it will be true. And then he'll be hailed as a Genius.

On a more serious note, how is Boswell's coverage of the Orioles? I rarely read him these days, although I liked his stuff in the early 90s (before I became aware of sabrmetrics, etc., so I don't know how well it would hold up).

31. Greg Franklin Posted: December 11, 2007 at 09:57 PM (#2641687)

Hmmm. IIRC he is now all-Nationals/national-baseball-beat after the move from Montreal. With the decline of the Orioles in the late 90s to 2005, he went about 50/50 on Orioles-bashing/Expos-pining.

I too read his early-90s books and enjoyed them for their journalism and storytelling (not looking for the sabermetrics). They would hold up today.

32. Chris Needham Posted: December 11, 2007 at 10:07 PM (#2641705)

Not really.

Boswell took 2-3 months off this season, not writing about anything besides football. There's no other columnist there who writes about baseball, so MLB basically went uncovered (on the opinion side).

When he came back, he wrote about the Orioles (after the 30-3 game). I'd say that it's about a 75/25 mix for Nats/O's when he writes.

You're right about his books holding up. The old ones really are tremendous. The guy can still turn a phrase, but he's such a happy homer, it's sometimes sickening to read!

33. zonk Posted: December 11, 2007 at 10:14 PM (#2641713)

The money quote from Glavine was where he said, "...I would take his total package against most of the catchers in the league.

This is where terminal juveniles like myself really miss the old primer and Mike Piazza jokes... it was always worth wading through the 3-4 lame ones for the one gem, IMHO.

34. Chris in Wicker Park Posted: December 11, 2007 at 11:04 PM (#2641764)

Nick Johnson is going to be 100% healthy. I have no idea what that means.

35. Greg Franklin Posted: December 11, 2007 at 11:07 PM (#2641770)

Thanks for the extra info, Chris N. I guess Andy's perennial complaint about Redskins-centric TV/radio coverage holds for the newspaper as well.

36. AJM Posted: December 12, 2007 at 12:39 AM (#2641829)

I give it two months before the fans turn on him. The writers, of course, never will.

37. Francoeur Sans Gages (AlouGoodbye) Posted: December 12, 2007 at 01:01 AM (#2641838)

Is Lo Duca a classy veteran? From what I can tell, he's basically a total degenerate. This whole sentence is stupid, mashing together Milledge (celebrated a home run, wore large shiny cross, was late to a game once, recorded terrible rap track) and Dukes (threatened to murder his wife and her children, attacked and/or threatened multiple umpires), and then Lo Duca and Boone, who are "classy veterans" because they are mediocre role players.

Milledge did rape a girl, you know.

38. ValueArb Posted: December 12, 2007 at 01:28 AM (#2641856)

Milledge did rape a girl, you know.

Did not know that. Do you? Was it alleged he had consensual sex with a 13 year old girl when he was 15 years old? Is that what you are calling "rape"?

39. Crispix Attacks Posted: December 12, 2007 at 01:39 AM (#2641861)

I thought they were 15 and 17.

40. Francoeur Sans Gages (AlouGoodbye) Posted: December 12, 2007 at 02:21 AM (#2641924)

Don't put "rape" in quotes like that. There's an age below which the law does not recognise that you can give a meaningful consent. Hence rape. Now admittedly the age of consent is something of an arbitrary line, but come on now. I don't want to discuss ethics or laws or whatever. Let's just accept that for the purposes of "are you a classy veteran or a problem child", that having sex with underage girls is, bad, mmkay. Does this thing make Milledge the worst person in the world, or even as bad as Elijah Dukes? No. But if we're going to be calling Lo Duca a "total degenerate" then I think it's only fair to point out that Milledge has done more things than celebrate a home run.

I suggest you take your "statutory rape isn't a big deal" position to the Vick thread, where they are discussing these matters.

41. Cowboy Popup Posted: December 12, 2007 at 02:33 AM (#2641931)

But if we're going to be calling Lo Duca a "total degenerate" then I think it's only fair to point out that Milledge has done more things than celebrate a home run.

If we're comparing Milledge to Lo Duca, don't those things sorta cancel out?

42. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: December 12, 2007 at 02:42 AM (#2641943)

Don't put "rape" in quotes like that. There's an age below which the law does not recognise that you can give a meaningful consent. Hence rape. Now admittedly the age of consent is something of an arbitrary line, but come on now. I don't want to discuss ethics or laws or whatever. Let's just accept that for the purposes of "are you a classy veteran or a problem child", that having sex with underage girls is, bad, mmkay. Does this thing make Milledge the worst person in the world, or even as bad as Elijah Dukes? No. But if we're going to be calling Lo Duca a "total degenerate" then I think it's only fair to point out that Milledge has done more things than celebrate a home run.

1. The rumors were investigated. No charges were filed. I'm taking a wild guess of my own that your basis of knowledge in the facts would be something you read on the internet.

Now admittedly the age of consent is something of an arbitrary line

2. Since we're being arbitrary; even if the allegations were true Milledge would not be considered a "rapist" in the state of Florida.

43. Sam M. Posted: December 12, 2007 at 02:51 AM (#2641949)

There's an age below which the law does not recognise that you can give a meaningful consent. Hence rape. Now admittedly the age of consent is something of an arbitrary line, but come on now.

The age of consent is indeed something of an arbitrary line, but an unavoidable one -- all age-based lines in the law have that quality (voting age, minimum age to get a driving license, drinking age, etc.). But what is doubly arbitrary about statutory rape laws -- and NOT unavoidable -- is the gender arbitrariness involved when both parties involved are actually below the age at which the law says they are incapable of giving "meaningful consent." It is incoherent and sexist to hold the young man criminally responsible for an act of sexual intercourse that was consensual in fact because the law renders HER consent a nullity due to age, even though he is also below the exact same age line and should (for that reason) be equally not responsible for his conduct. If she can't be reponsible for her consent -- because of age -- then how can he (also being underage) be reponsible???

In my view, there should be no statutory rape if both parties are under the age the state has identified (however arbitrary it might be) as the age at which consent is impossible. Having made that choice, the state is stuck with it as to BOTH parties. Now, if there is no consent-in-fact, it's a whole different situation.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

WaPo: Boswell: Behind Plate, There’s a Bat And a Leader (RR)

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics