2010-11 Hot Stove League Thread - Grienke is a Baller

[DeToxRox]

'Grats to the Giants.

Too bad my hope for the season goes out the window when the Tigs blow a ton of money on VMart.

[MrBug708]

Dodgers earlier resigned Ted Lilly for three years

[stevew]

I wonder how many years the Giants win will set back hitting sabremetrics.

[Chief Rum]

A couple things baseball did this year, IIRC, that means we all need to start paying attention quick.

1. No more filing for free agency--you're either under contract or you're not, I guess (rights issues, aside).
2. Instead of 13-14 days whatever it was between the end of the World Series and when free agents can sign with other teams, it's now just five. So major free agents could be signing with new teams as soon as next Monday, if I have my math right (and excluding work days).

[DeToxRox]

A couple things baseball did this year, IIRC, that means we all need to start paying attention quick.

1. No more filing for free agency--you're either under contract or you're not, I guess (rights issues, aside).
2. Instead of 13-14 days whatever it was between the end of the World Series and when free agents can sign with other teams, it's now just five. So major free agents could be signing with new teams as soon as next Monday, if I have my math right (and excluding work days).

You are correct. Sunday night is the end of the exclusive rights for clubs so Monday I can be on here bitching about the Tigers giving Victor Martinez a long term deal.

[Ksyrup]

As long as the Tigers don't pay Martinez as a catcher, I like the signing. They can use him at 1B and DH to rotate with Cabrera.

[Mustang]

As soon as the Brewers hire a manager, I can go back to not paying attention because nothing will happen with them during free agency.

[DeToxRox]

As long as the Tigers don't pay Martinez as a catcher, I like the signing. They can use him at 1B and DH to rotate with Cabrera.

That's my concern. If we pay him like a Catcher we're going to end up paying him to play 100 game at catcher for two years then DH anyway. Plus they still have hope for Avilia so it'd just fuck up his development.

[Ksyrup]

I wonder how many years the Giants win will set back hitting sabremetrics.

Within organizations, none. Within the press and among fans, a bunch, I'm assuming.

Most rational people understand that the playoffs are a crapshoot (pun intended for the Giants win!).

[lungs]

Figured I'd get this going....

Angels Bench Coach Ron Roenicke hired as Brewers manager.

[stevew]

I don't think the Pirates have a manager yet. I don't think it really matters, however.

[Sun Tzu]

Just a reminder, the Giants are the reigning World Series Champions.

I don't know if I'll ever get to say that again in my life...so I may as well take advantage of it now :)

[Butter]

I don't think the Pirates have a manager yet. I don't think it really matters, however.

I hear Lloyd McLendon is available.

[Lathum]

One already started here

2010-11 Hot Stove League Thread - Front Office Football Central (http://operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=79711)

[stevew]

I hear Lloyd McLendon is available.

That'd be the day.

[Ksyrup]

I hear Lloyd McLendon is available.

That would send shock waves throughout the baseball world.

[Logan]

Adding a post to outduel Detox's thread...



My prediction is that the Mets will make a bad move this offseason.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Haven't they already?

[lungs]

One already started here

2010-11 Hot Stove League Thread - Front Office Football Central (http://operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=79711)

Ooops, the title of that thread threw me off.

[stevew]

I'm sticking with this thread. Lungs doesn't edit thread titles.

[Ksyrup]

I went ahead and merged the 2 threads.

[stevew]

abuse of moderational authoritah

[Ksyrup]

You'll just have to trust me on this one.

[Swaggs]

I don't think the Pirates have a manager yet. I don't think it really matters, however.

Would anyone even notice if the Pirates didn't have a manager next season?

[stevew]

You'll just have to trust me on this one.

The 50th time he changes the thread title....i hope it annoys you.

[Crapshoot]

Within organizations, none. Within the press and among fans, a bunch, I'm assuming.

Most rational people understand that the playoffs are a crapshoot (pun intended for the Giants win!).

:D :D :D :D :D

[MrBug708]

Sweet! Dodgers picked up Podsendik's option!

[Poli]

The 50th time he changes the thread title....i hope it annoys you.
QFT

[kingfc22]

I hope the defending world champs :D go after Crawford. He would make a very nice addition to the outfield and add much needed speed.

[Vince, Pt. II]

I hope the defending world champs :D go after Crawford. He would make a very nice addition to the outfield and add much needed speed.

Assuming they don't get Crawford (I think someone else throws too much money at him, to be perfectly honest), what do you think should be done with the outfield? It seems you're starting Cody Ross, Andres Torres and Pat Burrell (assuming you keep those guys) - is that good enough for you? If you sign Crawford, who do you bump? Burrell?

[kingfc22]

Assuming they don't get Crawford (I think someone else throws too much money at him, to be perfectly honest), what do you think should be done with the outfield? It seems you're starting Cody Ross, Andres Torres and Pat Burrell (assuming you keep those guys) - is that good enough for you? If you sign Crawford, who do you bump? Burrell?

I'm sure somebody will throw a big chunk of money at him, but he is the #1 target if I'm Sabean. I don't really see it as bumping somebody as Bochy was mixing parts all year and likely will do the same next year. Don't forget Derosa will likely be back in the mix in LF and 3B. Plus they are not going to pick up Renteria's option (he probably retires anyway) for over $10M so that frees up some cash.

[Karlifornia]

The Giants need to stay aggressive, much like the Niners. Signing Carl Crawford would be awesome, but I just don't see that happening.

[Ksyrup]

The 50th time he changes the thread title....i hope it annoys you.

I don't get it. I actually don't mind when people update season/off-season thread titles to mention something recent that's happened, if that's what you mean. So I highly doubt it will annoy me. I didn't realize I was supposed to ban certain people from starting threads. I thought you people were against teh bannings.

[Poli]

Just a little annoying no big deal for me.

[DeToxRox]

I don't get it. I actually don't mind when people update season/off-season thread titles to mention something recent that's happened, if that's what you mean. So I highly doubt it will annoy me. I didn't realize I was supposed to ban certain people from starting threads. I thought you people were against teh bannings.

Seriously. You'd think I held steve up at gunpoint or something.

[lungs]

It's all my fault!

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I actually find it useful when the title is changed.

[MrBug708]

I like it too

[DeToxRox]

I am a man of the people, what can I say?

[DeToxRox]

•Here's a haymaker coming your way: TigerBlog reports ESPN Baseball Today podcast host Seth Everett said the Tigers are "pretty interested" in Milwaukee first baseman Prince Fielder. Fielder, 26, hit a career worst .261 with 32 home runs with 83 RBIs, and the Chicago Tribune reports the interest in Fielder -- thus far -- has been relatively quiet.

Would love this if we somehow got Prince without giving up Turner. That said it is unrealistic to think about.

The idea of Miggy/Prince though is simply incredible though.

[JPhillips]

Someone is going to be left holding a terrible contract with Fielder. List height and weight of 5'11" and 270 lbs. doesn't seem like it will age well. It will b a tough short term move, but given the money Boras will want and the high quick bust risk, I think Milwaukee should unload him while they can possibly be over paid for doing so.

[DeToxRox]

Someone is going to be left holding a terrible contract with Fielder. List height and weight of 5'11" and 270 lbs. doesn't seem like it will age well. It will b a tough short term move, but given the money Boras will want and the high quick bust risk, I think Milwaukee should unload him while they can possibly be over paid for doing so.

Fielder has about 4 quality years left in him. He'd be DHing here which may accelerate his fat assness but I think he'd be worth a gamble if we somehow kept Turner.

[JPhillips]

I expect he'll be a 900 OPS guy and then all the sudden drop to 700 one year. The game is trying to guess what year that will be.

A four year deal would be a no-brainer IMO, but I doubt he;ll sign for anything less than six. He might make it through six, but he may give you a couple years as a number 8 or 9 part-time hitter with a 18 mil salary.

[Ksyrup]

I hate the idea of Fielder and Cabrera for more than 1 year. I don't see Cabrera as the long-term 1B (at least not without sacrificing D as he ages), so you'd end up with 2 DHs.

And I'd REALLY hate the idea of my two favorite teams tying themselves down to long-term deals for Ryan Howard and Prince Fielder. UGH. Perhaps one of them could convince Andre Smith to play baseball during the off-season and give him a 10-year contract, too.

[stevew]

Sparky Anderson died today.

[BishopMVP]

Red Sox pick up Ortiz's option for next year. It's a slight overpay, but I think it's worth it to avoid having to sign a long term deal.

Beltre I wouldn't mind re-signing, but I assume he'll be gone for 1.5-2m or 1 year longer than we offer him. V-Mart I don't really want - I think someone will pay him like an elite catcher when really he'll spend half (or more) of the deal as a slightly above-average 1B/DH.

[Izulde]

Not sure if it was reported on the board, so apologies for the repeat. Omar Vizquel got a one year, $1.75 million re-signing with the White Sox. He'll probably fill utility role next year.

[Vince, Pt. II]

I'm sure somebody will throw a big chunk of money at him, but he is the #1 target if I'm Sabean. I don't really see it as bumping somebody as Bochy was mixing parts all year and likely will do the same next year. Don't forget Derosa will likely be back in the mix in LF and 3B. Plus they are not going to pick up Renteria's option (he probably retires anyway) for over $10M so that frees up some cash.

So let's say dream becomes reality, and the Giants land Crawford. They re-sign Ross and Huff, but don't re-sign Burrell or Renteria. Your lineup?

CF Crawford
RF Torres
C Posey
1B Huff
LF Ross
3B Derosa
2B Sanchez
SS Uribe

Schierholtz, Ishikawa, Whiteside and Sandoval off the bench. Think that's good enough? Definite upgrade over last year, I believe.

[DeToxRox]

FA has officially begun fyi.

I'll say the first major FA to sign is Crawford with Anaheim Sunday afternoon.

[Chief Rum]

FA has officially begun fyi.

I'll say the first major FA to sign is Crawford with Anaheim Sunday afternoon.

I thought it started tomorrow night?

In any case, I wouldn't mind your prediction being true. ;)

[stevew]

My prediction is that Crawford gets a slightly disgusting amount of money. I know he's a WAR champion, I'd just be leary that his speed goes. I guess I could do 4 years, but years 5,6 or 7 would be such a crapshoot. He also doesn't walk as much as I'd like.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hallelujah !

Jon Miller, Joe Morgan not returning to 'Sunday Night Baseball' TV broadcast - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5782045)
Jon Miller and Joe Morgan's 21-year run on ESPN's "Sunday Night Baseball" is over.

Morgan's contract is expiring and he will not be renewed. Miller's contract is also expiring though he may remain at ESPN working the "Sunday Night Baseball" series and postseason baseball for ESPN Radio.

"Jon and Joe have contributed greatly to the success of 'Sunday Night Baseball' for the past 21 seasons," ESPN executive vice president Norby Williams said in a statement Monday. "Over the last two decades, Joe went from Hall of Fame player to one of his sport's top analysts and Jon's Hall of Fame voice and tremendous knowledge of the game have connected with baseball fans everywhere. We owe them our deepest thanks for an outstanding body of work."

Miller, the play-by-play voice, received the Baseball Hall of Fame's 2010 Ford C. Frick Award. Morgan, the color commentator, was a two-time National League MVP with the Cincinnati Reds. The second baseman was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1990.

[Crapshoot]

I'm a huge Jon Miller fan (he sounds like baseball should sound), and if this means he's around for more Giants games, that's great. In Miller, Flemming, Krup and Kuip, we have the best broadcasting team in baseball.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Agreed re: Jon Miller and the SF Broadcasting team. I'm biased, but I really do think they do a great job.

As for Crawford...with all the seriously horrendous contracts out and about these days (Zito, Schmidt, Dreifort, Hampton, Soriano, Byrnes, Chavez, etc) is it realistic to think that guys will continue to get 5+ year contracts? I guess since a bunch of those contracts are quite old now, and they keep happening, that they'll continue.

[sterlingice]

I'd love to see Miller with a new partner for Sunday Night Baseball, personally.

SI

[Crapshoot]

I think Miller's never been a big fan of the travel, so I would be surprised if he is back. Still, if there is a diety, he would replace McCarver and Buck for Fox, so the World Series would have people who actually enjoy baseball.

[kingfc22]

I think Miller's never been a big fan of the travel, so I would be surprised if he is back. Still, if there is a diety, he would replace McCarver and Buck for Fox, so the World Series would have people who actually enjoy baseball.

That would be terrific.

[JS19]

Rumors are the Yanks will throw 45-60M over 3 yrs for Jeter. I hate the Yanks simply because I'm a Mets fan, grew up in Queens, and am very bitter watching them win every yr... not because they spend all sorts of money, they play within the rules. However, a deal like this, assuming it goes down, kinda makes me wish they did have some sort of cap in baseball. IMO, they are making a mockery of the system, paying a guy with Marco Scutaro stats, close to 20M a yr.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'd love to see Miller with a new partner for Sunday Night Baseball, personally.

That's what I expect will happen, although possibly with a part-time schedule.

[stevew]

People come to the ballpark to watch Marco Scutaro. He's the face of whatever team he plays for.

[Young Drachma]

It'd be more fun if he went someplace else, just to see how it'd be, but I imagine after this deal that'll happen anyway as he won't want to retire and they'll have to let him go a la Ruth.

[Logan]

Rumors are the Yanks will throw 45-60M over 3 yrs for Jeter. I hate the Yanks simply because I'm a Mets fan, grew up in Queens, and am very bitter watching them win every yr... not because they spend all sorts of money, they play within the rules. However, a deal like this, assuming it goes down, kinda makes me wish they did have some sort of cap in baseball. IMO, they are making a mockery of the system, paying a guy with Marco Scutaro stats, close to 20M a yr.

As a Mets fan...1) They're only hurting themselves. They still do operate within a budget, which may not be perfectly clear when they offer Lee a ton of money, they have money coming off the books (like Jeter's already bloated salary) and it will be less they can deploy elsewhere. Plus they'll be hurt by Jeter's subpar defense at SS.

2) I think it's good when players finish their careers with one team. Does anyone really want to see Jeter playing for $5MM a year in Houston?

[Young Drachma]

The big 'What if?' Derek Jeter doesn't sign with the New York Yankees - Daily Pitch: MLB News, Standings, Schedules & More - USATODAY.com (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/dailypitch/post/2010/11/the-big-what-if-derek-jeter-doesnt-sign-with-the-new-york-yankees-/1)

[Atocep]

Sandy Alderson is assembling the old Oakland front office. He's hired both Depodesta and Ricciardi as assistants. Ricciardi was a terrible GM in Toronto, but I like both moves. Loving the move away from the go with your gut approach Minaya had to a more Saber-oriented front office.

[MikeVic]

Derek Jeter, Gold Glove.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Baseball-Reference.com - Major League Baseball Statistics and History (http://www.baseball-reference.com/)

Baseball Reference adds a nice touch to their awards listing.

[BishopMVP]

Loving the move away from the go with your gut approach Minaya had to a more Saber-oriented front office.Reading the back of 1987 Topps cards would be more sabr-oriented than Minaya.

Reportedly the Mets "new front office" told the Wilpons that their job was to set the budget and be consulted if they need to extend that budget, but other than that they have to stay out of the baseball operations and let them do their jobs. If that doesn't happen, they'll leave. No link to an article I've seen.

[Ksyrup]

Joe Poz, brilliant as always:


Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Farewell Joe Morgan (http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2010/11/farewell-joe-morgan.html)


Joe Morgan from 1972-1976 was the best second baseman in baseball history. That's my honest opinion. There are others who have strong cases. You certainly could argue, most people probably would argue, for Rogers Hornsby from 1921 to 1925 when he hit .402 over FIVE SEASONS. I'm sure that Joe Morgan the announcer would argue that Hornsby was better.

You could argue for Eddie Collins from around 1911 to 1915, when when he hit for a high average (.347), stole a bunch of bases, played superior defense and so on.

You could argue for Jackie Robinson when he got the call to the big leagues ... you could argue for Craig Biggio in the mid-1990s ... you could argue for Chase Utley the last five or six years ... You could argue that Robinson Cano is coming into his own ...

Here's what Joe Morgan did, though: Everything.

You have to remember: Morgan was playing in one of the lower run scoring periods since Deadball. Over those five years, 1972-76, teams averaged just a touch over four runs per game. You have to go back almost 20 years -- to 1992 -- to find even a single season when offenses scored as few runs as teams did in those five years. Put it this way: Lots of people talked about 2010 being the year of the pitcher. Well, every year from 1972-76 was lower scoring than 2010.

And in that low run-scoring environment, Morgan was one of the great offensive players of all time. He hit for average (.303), hit for power (.499 slugging percentage was fifth in baseball over those years), and stole bases (only Lou Brock stole more bases in the era and Morgan stole them at a higher percentage). He walked 111 times or more every season. He led the league in on-base percentage four of the five seasons. He created way more runs than anyone -- 659 in five years. And even that doesn't tell us everything. You have to put that in context.

Considering that teams were averaging about four runs per game, that means Morgan created enough for about 162 games.

To compare, Hornsby, in his great five-year period, created a staggering 855 runs -- almost 200 runs more. But since the average runs scored during Hornsby's period was a much higher 4.81 runs per game, that comes out to creating enough runs for 177 games. So that's more than Morgan, but not so much more.

And Hornsby was, by most accounts, a lousy defensive player and a lousy teammate. You certainly can't BLAME Hornsby for the fact that his Cardinals those five years were mediocre-to-lousy, but it isn't a badge of honor. Joe Morgan, meanwhile, was a very good defender -- Gold Glove winner four of the five years, plus defensive WAR all five years -- and by most accounts a very good teammate. And his Reds averaged a decimal more than 100 wins per season, never won fewer than 95, they took three pennants and two World Series.

Would those Reds with Bench, Rose, Concepcion, Perez and the rest have won with Hornsby at second instead of Morgan? Sure, I suspect so. But the point here is that Morgan was the best player on those great Reds teams; he helped the Reds win every way an everyday player can help a team win. Bill James called Joe the greatest percentage player in the history of the game. More on that in a second.

So yes, I think for those five years, he played better than any second baseman ever.

I bring this up because, as you certainly know, ESPN has decided to part ways with Joe Morgan after 20 years of announcing on Sunday Night Baseball. And ... well, wait, before getting to the point of this, I should definitely go to the source (http://www.firejoemorgan.com/search/label/joe%20morgan) and pull out a classic Joe Morgan quote for the occasion:

"They (Red Sox) cannot beat them (Rays) by outscoring them."

OK. That out of the way ... it's weird to think the Internets won't have Joe Morgan to kick around anymore. I've been trying to think of something to say about Morgan as an announcer, but I suppose most of it has already been said. I remember thinking that Morgan was a fresh voice when he first started out as a national announcer a couple of decades ago, and whether that's just the fog of memory or that he actually was good when he first started and declined, well, I don't know.

It doesn't really matter. I don't think color commentators are built to last. Danger of the job. Sooner or later, we've heard all their stories, we've absorbed all their shtick, we have grown annoyed by their stubborn opinions, we crave surprises that never come. It's funny because when it comes to LOCAL broadcasters, we forgive many of these things -- the repeated stories, the shtick, the sameness becomes cherished after a while. The announcer becomes OURS.

But national announcers don't become OURS, not in the same way. After a while, they're like annoying uncles who know two magic tricks, which they perform at every holiday. Joe Morgan, as he grew older, as he grew more intractable in his views, as he seemed to lose his sense of humor and put less work into his broadcasting, didn't become more cherished. He became a punch line. In some ways, he was a victim of circumstance, I think. I never thought Morgan was worse than some of the other national broadcasters. Let's be honest, Ken Tremendous and the boys could have called their site "Fire Tim McCarver*" and it would have had the same meaning. It could have been called "Fire Food Metaphors" or "Fire Woody Paige," or "FIre David Eckstein" or "Fire Lots of People And Let's Be Honest You Could Be Next." The point was to find idiocy, snark at it, make everybody laugh.

*This, after all, is the description of Tim McCarver in the Fire Joe Morgan glossary: "The Fox Network’s #1 color commentator. And, without question, the worst color commentator in the history of the world, in any sport. By my estimation, Tim McCarver has said 94 of the 100 dumbest things anyone has ever said about baseball."

But they called the site "Fire Joe Morgan," and there's no question that Joe became a symbol of something ... a symbol of the past, I guess. Or, more specifically, he became a symbol of the closed-minded ballplayer-turned-announcer who believed in the power of heart, the magic of grit, and that to win you need winners, and that to become a winner you need to learn how to win, and that to learn how to win you need to win, and that to win you need winners.

Joe would go to bizarre lengths to avoid saying that teams with high on-base percentages often score a lot of runs and that pitchers who command their pitches and don't give up home runs often pitch well. With Joe, after a while, it always came down to intangibles. Which is OK, I guess. But the tangible can matter too. Also, he hated Moneyball and never seemed to figure out that it wasn't Billy Beane who wrote the darned thing.

Anyway, many national announcers -- I'd even say most national announcers -- have these same flaws. But Joe Morgan was out front. I think this is in part because he was the guy on TV every Sunday night. I also think this is in part because there has always been a weird contradiction surrounding Morgan, something that wasn't there for McCarver or the rest. While Joe Morgan the announcer railed against modern baseball statistics, Joe Morgan the ballplayer lit them up like Paul Millsap against the Heat. While Joe Morgan refused to give any credence to the new baseball ideas that were popping up all around him, Joe Morgan the ballplayer had foreshadowed many of them.

Joe Morgan the announcer seemed utterly detached from Joe Morgan the amazing ballplayer. Morgan is a smart man. He lives in the moment. But, strange, it's like he never understood his own genius for playing baseball. I've heard this same thing about a certain brilliantly funny Saturday Night Live actor who was in some of the funniest skits ever -- that he didn't entirely know WHY they were funny. He just did his part. He followed his instincts. And it worked.

Joe Morgan wasn't great because he was a "winner." He was great because he studied pitchers moves so that he could get good jumps (and steal 80% of his bases though he wasn't brilliantly fast). He was great because he made pitchers throw him strikes, he made every at-bat a war of wills, and this often led to pitchers giving in (and walking him) or making a bad pitch (which he often hit with power). He was great because he worked out in the off-season (he liked hitting the speed bag) and built up his strength and so developed good power that belied his 5-foot-7 frame and Little Joe nickname. He was great because he worked hard on his defense and made himself from a below-average, to average to good second baseman. He was great because he challenged teammates to play at their best and he lived up to his own challenges.

He was great because, as Bill James wrote, he was the best percentage player ever, and the irony is that it takes someone like Bill James -- a non-player who loves the game enough to study it intently -- to fully appreciate just how good Joe Morgan really was. I mentioned Hornsby on top. Well, I've written before that Bill ranked Joe Morgan the best second baseman ever and ranked Hornsby No. 3. Bill later told me that he had heard that someone mentioned this to Morgan who immediately said something like: "That's crazy. Rogers Hornsby hit .358. I didn't hit .358."

As if that's what all of baseball comes down to: Batting average.

Other people disliked Joe Morgan the announcer more than I did. I liked listening to his partner Jon Miller so much that Sunday Night Baseball was always fun for me (I will miss Miller, who will also leave the booth). And I kind of got a kick out of the awkward silences and weird vibes that would ring between them. Plus sometimes Joe would say something that I thought was insightful or interesting. And I always knew the silly things he said would make for funny Internet fodder the next day.

In the end, ESPN did the right thing. It was time to move on, get some new voices, trying to bring a little life to the booth. I hope at some point in the near future they find a space for the excellent announcer Jon Sciambi, who I think is terrific. Dan Shulman is very good too. There have to be some terrific young color commentator prospects out there too. Whoever they put in will provide a spark at least for a little while, sort of the way a new coach provides a spark.

And as far as Joe goes ... well, we have a huge bump at the end of our driveway. Every single day, I back out of our driveway and hit that bump. Every single day, I come in our driveway and hit that bump. It's ridiculous, and I know I should get it fixed, and I suspect sometime soon my wife will make me get it fixed. Then it will be smooth going in and going out.

And I KNOW that in a weird way I will miss the bump.

I guess that's how I feel about Joe Morgan leaving the booth.

[Logan]

Well good thing changes are coming. The Mets soon to be former clubhouse manager Charlie Samuels is facing charges of illegal gambling and has already admitted to betting on baseball. He was also taking jerseys, bats, balls etc and selling them to memorabilia companies.

Hope to god no player was stupid enough to make bets through Samuels -- he'll sing like a bird if it happened.

[Ksyrup]

Pablo Sandoval gets to work on his off-season traning regimen:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/full/190384797.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0ZRYP5X5F6FSMBCCSE82&Expires=1289407751&Signature=OKWZwfftaqhqcnEtf7OFMt2Do9s%3D

[RomaGoth]

Derek Jeter, Gold Glove.

When I heard this on the radio I spit out my coffee.....:eek:

[Atocep]

At this point I agree with Rob Neyer's assessment:

Of course, it's not just us. Nobody who really follows baseball believes that Jeter is an outstanding defensive player. The Yankees, who see him every day, don't believe that. The writers who cover the Yankees every day don't believe that. Frankly, I'm not sure the managers and the coaches who actually voted for Jeter believe that.

I think they keep giving him the award as a gesture of respect. In a different sort of society, they might simply bow in his presence, then kiss one of his World Series rings. Or cross themselves whenever Game 3 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/OAK/OAK200110130.shtml) of the Yankees' 2001 Division Series is mentioned. Instead they somewhat mindlessly give him their Gold Glove support every year, even as everyone who's actually paying attention knows the Yankees would prevent more runs if almost anyone else were playing shortstop.

[dawgfan]

Tough news for Mariners fans today as Hall of Fame announcer Dave Niehaus has died of a heart attack at age 75.

Niehaus had been with the M's from the very beginning, and aside from a few days off for his kids graduating and him recovering from bypass surgery a few years back, he'd called nearly every inning of every Mariners game played.

Niehaus was one of the greats (as his Hall of Fame induction indicates). He had a great voice, an easy manner, was a fantastic storyteller who could liven up any dull game with his good humor and great stories, and was reasonably objective about his team (as objective as most team announcers are allowed to be).

While his age was beginning to catch up to him a little over the last decade - misjudging contact off the bat and mistaking easy fly ball outs for homeruns and vice versa, he retained his best qualities.

There's going to be an empty feeling for M's fans now during broadcasts, knowing that we'll never again have Niehaus calling our games.

[DeToxRox]

Tough news for Mariners fans today as Hall of Fame announcer Dave Niehaus has died of a heart attack at age 75.

Niehaus had been with the M's from the very beginning, and aside from a few days off for his kids graduating and him recovering from bypass surgery a few years back, he'd called nearly every inning of every Mariners game played.

Niehaus was one of the greats (as his Hall of Fame induction indicates). He had a great voice, an easy manner, was a fantastic storyteller who could liven up any dull game with his good humor and great stories, and was reasonably objective about his team (as objective as most team announcers are allowed to be).

While his age was beginning to catch up to him a little over the last decade - misjudging contact off the bat and mistaking easy fly ball outs for homeruns and vice versa, he retained his best qualities.

There's going to be an empty feeling for M's fans now during broadcasts, knowing that we'll never again have Niehaus calling our games.

What a tough couple of years for iconic announcers. We're about at that point where the old guard is almost all gone.

[Ksyrup]

As and Royals make a decent swap - Royals get a starting pitcher (Vin Mazzaro) and young pitcher and As get some offense with David DeJesus. I assume Mazzaro will attempt to replace the innings eaten by Bruce Chen, who will likely price himself out of the Royals market. And the As need some offense, DeJesus only has 1 year left on his deal, and he's cheap ($6M). Not an earth-shattering trade, but one that makes some sense for both teams.

[Ksyrup]

Time for the rumors:

The Boston Red Sox (http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/_/name/bos/boston-red-sox) and Chicago Cubs (http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/_/name/chc/chicago-cubs) may be discussing a deal that would send right-hander Daisuke Matsuzaka (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=28631) to the Chicago Cubs for outfielder Kosuke Fukudome (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=28948), according to a tweet by Phil Rogers of the Chicago Tribune, (http://twitter.com/#!/ChiTribRogers/statuses/2425982354984960) who states "the Cubs are kicking around (the) idea of a Daisuke/Kosuke Fukudome swap as part of a multi-player package."

MLB.com's Peter Gammons said on Red Sox Hot Stove Live Tuesday night that he's heard the Milwaukee Brewers (http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/_/name/mil/milwaukee-brewers) may consider trading (http://www.nesn.com/2010/11/peter-gammons-speculates-boston-could-be-landing-spot-for-ryan-braun-if-brewers-shop-all-star.html) left fielder Ryan Braun (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=28721) and that the Boston Red Sox (http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/_/name/bos/boston-red-sox) could be an ideal fit.

[DeToxRox]

Gammons is an idiot. Braun has arguably the best contract for a star in baseball and it's a long term deal. Why would Milwaukee trade the face of their franchise? It'd take no less then three young stud pitchers in my estimation.

[Toddzilla]

yeah, Braun isn't a FA until, what, 2014? That shit is just ridiculous.

[Ksyrup]

After 2015, I think.

[RomaGoth]

Gammons is an idiot. Braun has arguably the best contract for a star in baseball and it's a long term deal. Why would Milwaukee trade the face of their franchise? It'd take no less then three young stud pitchers in my estimation.

While I agree that Gammons is an idiot, don't put anything past the Brewers. There is a reason they have achieved nothing more than mediocrity.

[Ksyrup]

Only thing I can think is he has no defensive position - his defense is brutal to be in the NL. But yeah, even with that factored in, his contract is reasonable for the next several years.

The fact that Gammons reports that and links him with the Red Sox tells me someone with the Red Sox "leaked" that in hopes of trying to start a fire where they could poach Braun in case they can't get Gonzalez or need to move Youk to 3rd.

[samifan24]

Peter Gammons has been on the Red Sox bandwagon for years. While I think he is well connected throughout the game, I generally roll my eyes at anything that includes the words "Peter Gammons" and "Red Sox" because I assume it to be straight from the Red Sox front office.

[Ksyrup]

Nothing better than a KLAW chat:


Mike (San Diego)
Rolen over Zimmerman is pretty bad too, right?


Klaw (1:21 PM)
It's a matter of degree, but I would have taken Zimmerman. How about Dunn throwing Zimm under the bus by talking (to John Fay) about the "bruises" he received from bad throws? Really, Adam? My daughter owns all three Tinker Bell DVDs, and they named the two male tinker fairies after your fielding skills: Clank and Bobble.

[sterlingice]

As and Royals make a decent swap - Royals get a starting pitcher (Vin Mazzaro) and young pitcher and As get some offense with David DeJesus. I assume Mazzaro will attempt to replace the innings eaten by Bruce Chen, who will likely price himself out of the Royals market. And the As need some offense, DeJesus only has 1 year left on his deal, and he's cheap ($6M). Not an earth-shattering trade, but one that makes some sense for both teams.

No one in Royalsville is really happy about that since we thought we could get a little more, even for just a (quite cheap) year of DDJ than that rare "innings eater" beast, the guy barely good enough to crack a rotation but not have any future. It's not like there aren't dozens of them out there and they don't exactly have a lot of value for a team not competing next year.

With not much going on next year at the big league level, I wish we could have been in on Maybin (supposedly we were) and Miller- at least they're some high ceiling guys who have lost some luster. Instead, it appears we're headed towards guys with a limited ceiling, the exact opposite of what GMDM did his first couple of years that netted KC the top ranked minor league system.

Also, it seems GMDM thinks that he has to make the first move every offseason. Last year it was Mark Teahen on Nov 6 and two years ago it was Mike Jacobs for Leo Nunez on October 30th.

Oh, and everyone's hoping it's not a prelude to the inevitable Frenchy signing. *sigh*

SI

[Crapshoot]

Yeah, the Royals were apparently talking about Alex Gordon for Maybin (which would be an interesting trade of can't miss prospects that did just that), but it feels like they got 90 cents on the dollar for Dejesus. Maybin was worth a gamble - I like his potential, and think San Diego made a pretty reasonable deal. PETCO makes every arm look like a bullpen gem, and I have more faith in them finding a couple of raw guys with sub 2.0 ERAS (It happens ever year :D) than a CF with plus range and plus power.

[Crapshoot]

Dola,
I would take any bet I could that Frenchy ends up in KC. Dayton's love is too strong.

[sterlingice]

We all know it's coming, we just hate it:

Guess Francoeur's Contract - Royals Review (http://www.royalsreview.com/2010/11/10/1806969/guess-francoeurs-contract)

SI

[kingfc22]

Posey takes home NL ROY! Not a bad start to his career.

[Crapshoot]

Yeah. I'm obviously a Giants fan, but gun to my head I would probably have gone for Heyward as my vote - that being said, two reasonable candidates for the top spot. This isn't Juan Gonzalez winning the MVP over A-Rod or Jimmy Rollins winning in 2007 like situation.

[RedKingGold]

Phillies resign Contreras, or close ot it anyway, to 2 years $5 million. It's risky to sign middle relief for a few years, however, Contreras was quite solid last year.

Also, Ryne Sandberg is now the coach of the AAA affiliate Iron Pigs.

[Crapshoot]

Contreras for 2 years is ... interesting. But in the end, I guess it doesn't make much of a difference for Philly's budget. Surprised they didn't give him 1 / 4 instead.

[dawgfan]

My prediction is that Crawford gets a slightly disgusting amount of money. I know he's a WAR champion, I'd just be leary that his speed goes. I guess I could do 4 years, but years 5,6 or 7 would be such a crapshoot. He also doesn't walk as much as I'd like.
My recollection is that studies show "speed" guys hold their value pretty well. Can someone verify or correct me on this?

[Crapshoot]

My recollection is that studies show "speed" guys hold their value pretty well. Can someone verify or correct me on this?

I believe that is the case - old player skills fall off relatively quickly, even thought you would expect the opposite. Carl Crawford is easily the catch of the FA market here - I'd be more comfortable giving him 5/100 than Cliff Lee, given the natural risk with pitchers.

[stevew]

hold the fucking presses......

The Pirates named CLINT HURDLE their manager today!!!!!!!

He brings with him 1 winning season in 8 seasons with the Rockies. And IIRC, the Rockies won about 20 games to end that year, which culminated in a blown save by Trevor Hoffman and a questionable safe call on Matt Holliday. The 2009 rockies were 30 games over .500 after he got fired.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Yeah. I'm obviously a Giants fan, but gun to my head I would probably have gone for Heyward as my vote - that being said, two reasonable candidates for the top spot. This isn't Juan Gonzalez winning the MVP over A-Rod or Jimmy Rollins winning in 2007 like situation.

I'm a complete homer and am aware of the fact. That being said, is OBP that important to you? In counting stats, Posey was nearly Heyward's equal in far less time in the league. I don't understand why it seemed that a large quantity of people leaned towards Heyward in this race.

Posey - 443 PA, 23 2B, 18 HR, 67 RBI, 0.55 K/BB ratio, .305/.367/.505, .862 OPS, 129 OPS+
Heyward - 623 PA, 29 2B, 18 HR, 72 RBI, 0.71 K/BB ratio, .277/.393/.456, .849 OPS, 131 OPS+

Heyward also stole 11 bases, but at a 61% clip he was pretty inefficient at it.

EDIT - I don't want to say that I didn't think Heyward was not worthy of it, or that it shouldn't be close - but the results today (20 1st place votes for Posey vs. 7 for Heyward) are what I expected/felt the numbers warranted, while it seems like many people expected a much, much closer vote.

[SackAttack]

I'm a complete homer and am aware of the fact. That being said, is OBP that important to you? In counting stats, Posey was nearly Heyward's equal in far less time in the league. I don't understand why it seemed that a large quantity of people leaned towards Heyward in this race.

Posey - 443 PA, 23 2B, 18 HR, 67 RBI, 0.55 K/BB ratio, .305/.367/.505, .862 OPS, 129 OPS+
Heyward - 623 PA, 29 2B, 18 HR, 72 RBI, 0.71 K/BB ratio, .277/.393/.456, .849 OPS, 131 OPS+

Heyward also stole 11 bases, but at a 61% clip he was pretty inefficient at it.

EDIT - I don't want to say that I didn't think Heyward was not worthy of it, or that it shouldn't be close - but the results today (20 1st place votes for Posey vs. 7 for Heyward) are what I expected/felt the numbers warranted, while it seems like many people expected a much, much closer vote.

Yeah. Posey was Heyward's productive equal in 2/3 the plate appearances, at a significantly more demanding position.

Much as I hate saying it, the right guy won the award.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I see no reason for anyone to gripe about Posey over Heyward. Hell, I'm surprised it was as close as it was.

[Crapshoot]

This is a weird argument, with the Braves and Dodgers fans arguing for Posey, and me leaning Heyward (albeit not my much). :D That being said, the basic problem with OPS (and by nature, OPS+) is that OBP and SLG work on 2 different scales - ie, a .400 OBP is significantly more valuable than a .400 slg, ceterus paribus. So Heyward's OBP advantage is significant to me, and he played about 40 more games (ie, Posey got called up late).

In the end, I think good arguments exist for both (and I think catching that staff through that September was amazing, and we are not very good at capturing C defensive value) - just throwing my 2 cents out there. Its pretty clear that whichever way it ended up, Heyward/Posey were 1 and 2 for rookies this year. This year's NL Rookie Class could be one for the ages. - just throwing out there:

- Heyward
- Posey
- Jaime Garcia
- Gaby Sanchez
- Aroldis Chapman (cheating a bit, I know)
- Stratsburg (injured, but still)
- Mike Leake (solid before running out of gas)
- Starlin Castro (playing an above average major league SS at 20)
- Neil Walker / Pedro Alvarez / Jose Tabata (decent young Pirates players)

[Crapshoot]

Dola, predictions for Cy Young? NL I expect to be Roy Halladay in a unanimous (or close to it) ballot, with perhaps a vote for Adam Wainwright and/or Josh Johnson from the local guy. AL, it should be Felix, but I wouldn't be surprised if CC or David Price ended up taking it.

[Butter]

hold the fucking presses......

The Pirates named CLINT HURDLE their manager today!!!!!!!

He brings with him 1 winning season in 8 seasons with the Rockies. And IIRC, the Rockies won about 20 games to end that year, which culminated in a blown save by Trevor Hoffman and a questionable safe call on Matt Holliday. The 2009 rockies were 30 games over .500 after he got fired.

You guys just can't lay off the marginal ex-Reds from the 80's, can you? :D

[Ksyrup]

You guys just can't lay off the marginal ex-Reds from the 80's, can you? :D

Now wait a minute - Clint Hurdle had a total of 34 ABs for the Reds in his career. Yes, you are technically correct, but that is one hell of a stretch.

[Butter]

Yet I remember him playing for the Reds. That's all I needed.

[stevew]

I can't remember Clint Hurdle playing for anyone in specific. But regardless, we loves us some cast offs in Pittsburgh.

I'm just going to be extremely naive here, but I think any one of us could have led the 2010 Bucs to at least 57 wins.

[Bad-example]

This year's NL Rookie Class could be one for the ages. - just throwing out there:

- Heyward
- Posey
- Jaime Garcia
- Gaby Sanchez
- Aroldis Chapman (cheating a bit, I know)
- Stratsburg (injured, but still)
- Mike Leake (solid before running out of gas)
- Starlin Castro (playing an above average major league SS at 20)
- Neil Walker / Pedro Alvarez / Jose Tabata (decent young Pirates players)

And Bumgarner as well. Helluva year for NL Rookies, yeah.

[cartman]

Somewhere, Ben Grieve is quietly weeping.

[Poli]

Hurdle played for the Cards as well. That's all I remember him as.

[Bearcat729]

And Bumgarner as well. Helluva year for NL Rookies, yeah.

You could also add Travis Wood.

[Crapshoot]

Forgot about Wood and Bumgarner, duh. Either way, it really is the best class in quite a while.

[ISiddiqui]

Sandy Alderson is assembling the old Oakland front office. He's hired both Depodesta and Ricciardi as assistants. Ricciardi was a terrible GM in Toronto, but I like both moves. Loving the move away from the go with your gut approach Minaya had to a more Saber-oriented front office.

Of course while Riccardi was a terrible GM for the Blue Jays, I think he'll be great in a reduced role. I just think that GM may have been too much for him (kinda like how sometimes pitching coaches are great in that role, but fall apart as managers).

[JPhillips]

Reds resign Ramon Hernandez for 1yr/3mil. Good bridge to Mesoraco in 2012 and a reasonable price.

It sure is nice having a team with a good GM.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Braves reportedly (espn & AJC) get Uggla for Infante & reliever Mike Dunn.

I assume this means the Braves have decided that they simply won't have a bench next season.

It also likely means that Uggla will hit .214 next season with 17 homers.

[Crapshoot]

Wow - ballsy move for the Braves, and I wouldn't be surprised if they beat the Phillies next year. Young team (Chipper carcass aside), who should only get better. The Marlins view this as a cost saving I guess to go out and get John Buck, but the Braves lineup actually looks decent (Heyward, McCann, Uggla, Prado, Diaz)

[SackAttack]

Braves reportedly (espn & AJC) get Uggla for Infante & reliever Mike Dunn.

I assume this means the Braves have decided that they simply won't have a bench next season.

It also likely means that Uggla will hit .214 next season with 17 homers.

I thought the whole point of Infante was that they liked him better than Gonzalez.

[Lathum]

Marlins should be contracted, what a joke of a franchise.

[Big Fo]

It also likely means that Uggla will hit .214 next season with 17 homers.

Still better than Nate McClouth at least (obviously we gave up more for Uggla though...)

So Prado to third while Chipper heals up (or doesn't), Freeman presumably playing first, I guess the infield looks pretty good for next season. Now how about getting some guys to play left and center?

edit: Ken Rosenthal has tweeted that Prado will play in left if/when Chipper returns. I'd rather we acquired two outfielders and not count on getting anything out of Chipper in 2011.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I also dislike the loss of Dunn, who showed considerable promise as a top reliever. Remember, the Braves lost both their closer Wagner & (anticipated) set-up man Saito from the beginning of 2010.

[Big Fo]

This year's NL Rookie Class could be one for the ages.

SI.com - Team of National League rookies would have been a real winner (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/cliff_corcoran/11/14/nl.rookie.team/index.html)

According to this writer and the WARP stat, a team of the best NL rookies would have won 99 games, the most in the league.

Starters

1B -- Ike Davis, Mets (147 G, 3.1 WARP)
2B -- Neil Walker, Pirates (110 G, 2.1 WARP)
SS -- Starlin Castro, Cubs (125 G, 2.4 WARP)
3B -- Chris Johnson, Astros (92 G, 1.96 WARP)
C -- Buster Posey, Giants (108 G, 4.4 WARP)
RF -- Jason Heyward, Braves (142 G, 5.1 WARP)
CF -- Jose Tabata, Pirates (102 G, 2.7 WARP)
LF -- Mike Stanton, Marlins (100 G, 2.5 WARP)

Bench

1B -- Gaby Sanchez, Marlins (15 G, 0.21 WARP)
SS/2B -- Ian Desmond, Nationals (89 G, 1.10 WARP)
3B -- David Freese, Cardinals (70 G, 2.2 WARP)
LF -- Logan Morrison, Marlins (62 G, 1.5 WARP)
CF -- Lorenzo Cain, Brewers (43 G, 1.1 WARP)
RF/CF -- Chris Heisey, Reds (37 G, 0.42 WARP)
C -- Josh Thole, Mets (54 G, 1.55 WARP)

Rotation

Jaime Garcia, LHP, Cardinals (28 GS, 4.0 WARP)
Jhoulys Chacin, RHP, Rockies (21 GS, 2.8 WARP*)
Madison Bumgarner, LHP, Giants (18 GS, 2.9 WARP)
Barry Enright, RHP, Diamondbacks (17 GS, 2.6 WARP)
Dan Hudson, LHP, Diamondbacks (11 GS, 3.6 WARP)
Travis Wood, LHP, Reds (17 GS, 1.7 WARP)
Alejandro Sanabia, RHP, Marlins (12 GS, 1.4 WARP*)
Casey Coleman, RHP, Cubs (8 GS, 1.2 WARP*)
Dillon Gee, RHP, Mets (5 GS, 1.2 WARP)

Bullpen

John Axford, CL, Brewers (58 IP, 4.1 WARP)
Jonny Venters, LHP, Braves (83 IP, 2.2 WARP)
Wilton Lopez, RHP, Astros (67 IP, 2.3 WARP)
Ryan Webb, RHP, Padres (59 IP, 1.3 WARP)
Drew Storen, RHP, Nationals (55, 1.5 WARP)
Ernesto Frieri, RHP, Padres (31 2/3 IP, 0.9 WARP)
Kenley Jansen, RHP, Dodgers (27 IP, 1.4 WARP)
Craig Kimbrel, RHP, Braves (20 2/3 IP, 1.7 WARP)
Michael Dunn, LHP, Braves (11 1/2 IP, 0.48 WARP)
Hisanori Takahashi, LHP, Mets (12 GS, 122 IP, 2.7 WARP*)

DL

Stephen Strasburg, RHP, Nationals (12 GS, 1.6 WARP)

That's 35 players, fewer than any of the 30 major league teams used during the 2010 season (the Rays came closest, using just 37 men, 35 of whom appeared in at least 10 games).

[Logan]

Says a lot about the Mets season that I never even heard of Dillon Gee.

[stevew]

I was really excited about the Pirate rookies. Walker was way better than advertised. Although 40 walk pace is horrible. Tabata reminds me of Kirby Puckett in build. Doubt his power develops though. Pedro had a really shitty stretch. Really need him to become greatness if the streak is to go.

[BishopMVP]

A bit late now, but I like the Red Sox trade of Dustin Richardson for Andrew Miller. There's a good chance Miller will get DL'd/DFA'd by the end of spring training but if we can fix what the Marlins did to his delivery (velocity dropping from upper 90's to 90-91) we could have a lefthanded Bard. So a high-reward flyer for a guy (Richardson) who quite frankly is a AAAA player (note that was still better than half our bullpen this year).

[Ksyrup]

I don't get what the Marlins are doing at all. Trading Uggla for a utility infielder and reliever, then spending $12-15M on a bad catcher? Wha?

[ISiddiqui]

I don't get what the Marlins are doing at all. Trading Uggla for a utility infielder and reliever, then spending $12-15M on a bad catcher? Wha?

Seconded... wtf?!

[Ksyrup]

Sorry - it appears to be $18M on John Buck. Wow.

[MikeVic]

Buck seems to be able to hit, but there's a reason he was platooned last year in Toronto.

[Ksyrup]

His OBP was barely .300 and he hit a few HRs because he played in Toronto. Florida had a guy like Buck a few years ago who played 1B - Mike Jacobs. Buck has a bit more value based on position, but not enough to warrant 3 years and $18M. Especially from a team as "poor" as the Marlins.

[stevew]

We probably would have given them Doumit for free.

[MikeVic]

His OBP was barely .300 and he hit a few HRs because he played in Toronto. Florida had a guy like Buck a few years ago who played 1B - Mike Jacobs. Buck has a bit more value based on position, but not enough to warrant 3 years and $18M. Especially from a team as "poor" as the Marlins.

No I agree, it's a stupid signing. Just pointing out that he has hit a bit but also isn't a great catcher. Combine that with dumping Uggla to save money, and it's just weird.

[Chief Rum]

No I agree, it's a stupid signing. Just pointing out that he has hit a bit but also isn't a great catcher. Combine that with dumping Uggla to save money, and it's just weird.

To be fair, Uggla turned down a $12 M per year deal, while Buck signed a $6 M per year deal.

I agree the signing is rather odd, but I think it's odd in its own way, not as it relates to Uggla. There is plenty of room for both moves to be consistent with the team's plan (they believe $6 M is good enough for Buck, but they don't believe Uggla is worth more than $12 M).

[Ksyrup]

To be fair, Uggla turned down a $12 M per year deal, while Buck signed a $6 M per year deal.

I agree the signing is rather odd, but I think it's odd in its own way, not as it relates to Uggla. There is plenty of room for both moves to be consistent with the team's plan (they believe $6 M is good enough for Buck, but they don't believe Uggla is worth more than $12 M).


Yes, that can be consistent, but what makes it odd is that the Marlins front office is usually smarter than that. I'm not sure Uggla IS worth $12M a year, and particularly not if it's 2014, so I don't have a problem with moving him, but then they didn't get much in return. The Buck signing is indefensible, IMO.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Between Buck and Benoit it seems the early purchasers are betting on a seller's market.

[Chief Rum]

Yes, that can be consistent, but what makes it odd is that the Marlins front office is usually smarter than that. I'm not sure Uggla IS worth $12M a year, and particularly not if it's 2014, so I don't have a problem with moving him, but then they didn't get much in return. The Buck signing is indefensible, IMO.

Agreed on all accounts. The Marlins usually are making better decisions. It seems like they have opened up their payroll a bit (this is their first multi-year deal to a free agent since 1998 or something like that, IIRC) in that they're willing to give Uggla that money and they did give big bucks to Buck. Also, didn't they sign Johnson to a pretty good sized deal last year? My point is, the quality of their decision making seems to be dropping in an inverse relationship with the amount of money they are allowed to spend.

I didn't think Uggla was worth $12 M per either, and I am stunned he turned it down. And I thought the Marlins could have gotten more for him, just like you. I dont' know enough about Buck to make a call there, except that I was surprised to see how many HRs he hit. All points that have been made about him seem on the money, though (no OBP, no defensive ability, played in an offensive ballpark, etc.). I mean, heck, the Royals gave up on him.

[Atocep]

To be fair, Uggla turned down a $12 M per year deal, while Buck signed a $6 M per year deal.

I agree the signing is rather odd, but I think it's odd in its own way, not as it relates to Uggla. There is plenty of room for both moves to be consistent with the team's plan (they believe $6 M is good enough for Buck, but they don't believe Uggla is worth more than $12 M).

Is what they got from the braves worth more than 2 draft picks though? That's a better question. Personally, I don't think it's wise for a team like the Marlins to trade away positional assets for bullpen arms.

I'm really trying to figure out what the hell the Marlins are up to, but I can't see any logic in this series of moves. Infante is a huge upgrade defensively over Uggla, but even if he duplicates his year last year he's just not the same player Uggla is. Dunn is a power arm out of the bullpen, which has its value, but he's also struggled to get the ball over the plate.

Then you look at the deal with the Padres and they got a pitcher who put up good numbers at PETCO, which really doesn't tell us anything.

In the end they gave up Uggla headed into his age 31 season and Maybin who's headed into his age 24 season. In return they got a utility infielder coming off of a career season and some arms for the bullpen. The highest upside players in the deals are Uggla (even though he's in his 30s now) and Maybin so you can't even say the Marlins are making the upside play here.

To top things off the salary saved by trading away Uggla went to a low-end staring catcher.

[DeToxRox]

Sounds like Dunn is going to be a Tiger.

I love his bat but we're going to end up paying market value of a corner OF/1B for a DH.

That I do not like.

[Ksyrup]

Great - Tigers add another injury waiting to happen to the bullpen. You'd think after so many years of Zumaya they would want a guy a little more durable than Benoit. I mean, if he can replicate last year for even 2 more years, the deal wouldn't be awful, but they are taking a big risk. The nice thing is they have an owner who is willing to take that risk. Even with all the money they wasted on Bonderman/Willis/Robertson, etc., the past few years, they still remained fairly competitive.

[Ksyrup]

Sounds like Dunn is going to be a Tiger.

I love his bat but we're going to end up paying market value of a corner OF/1B for a DH.

That I do not like.

I hope MLBT is wrong about him principally playing LF and occasionally at DH and 1B. If they sign VMart, that would give them 3 part-time DH types already (including Cabrera). I like that they are being aggressive, but signing Dontrelle Willis was "aggressive," too.

[molson]

The Jeter/Yankee negotiations are kind of ridiculous. The Yankees are willing to overpay by a ton (3 years, $60ish million dollars), but apparently Jeter wants more years than that. Who the hell is going to pay him anything close to that? I'm guessing the Yanks blink though.

[Ksyrup]

I hope they cave. The idea of Burnett, Sabbathia, ARod, Tex, Jeter, etc., being paid a combined...what, $100M+?... 3 years from now would be awesome. not that they can't afford it, but the long-term contracts for aging players means they either have to eat those contracts and dump or bench the players, or they have to find a place to play them. I'm hoping for the latter.

[Ksyrup]

Fuck Murray Chass. Fuck him right in the ass with a Feliz Hernandez fastball.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Fuck Murray Chass. Fuck him right in the ass with a Feliz Hernandez fastball.

I'm pretty sure he knew you'd say that, even went so far as to predict such a reaction in fact.

stats-freak denizens of the blogosphere into a stats-freak frenzy.

Of course, as he points out, I have to assume that you feel the same way about another guy who obviously doesn't know much about pitching. You know, that Halladay fella.

“It’s tough,” Halladay said. “Felix’s numbers are very, very impressive, but ultimately they look at how guys are able to win games. Sometimes the run support isn’t there, but you find ways to win games. Guys who are winning deserve a strong look no matter what Felix’s numbers are. When teams bring pitchers over, ultimately they want to win games.”

[Ksyrup]

Mr. Chass is an idiot, precisely because no one needs these "new-fangled" stats to figure out that Felix Hernandez was the better pitcher this year. This isn't about Wins vs. xFIP or SIERA or BABIP, it's simple Wins vs. IP and ERA and Ks. You know, those numbers that were just invented last week by a bunch of us sitting in our mom's basements.

As far as what a player has to say about awards... they are the last people I'd ask for an opinion that matters. They have no perspective since they are knee-deep in the weeds of the game, and in talking publicly, ALWAYS devolve into platitudes and cliches, anway. Except maybe Charles Barkley.

It is beyond obvious that in the past 30-40 years, won/loss records have become increasingly unimportant because of the way starting pitchers are used. Back when starters pitched 40 games, completed 30 of them, and got 38 or 39 decisions, then sure, you could read much more into what their W/L record said about their effectiveness as a pitcher. It was still an inexact and at times misleading indicator, but it meant something. In particular, it meant infinitely more in 1970 than it does in 2010.

[Ksyrup]

If you want to look at wins, at least look at the team's record in games started by a pitcher. Again, the pitcher's got very little to do with how his offense performs or how the relievers perform, but at least it's a recognition that wins and losses are teams stats, not individual stats for which a pitcher is solely responsible.

[Ksyrup]

Weekly bit 'o goodness from the KLAW Chat:


David (New York)
Dusty Baker lost by 1 point and you didn't have him on your ballot at all. I'm not saying he deserved to be on your ballot one way or the other, but even a third place vote gets him a tie. A second place vote wins it for him. You swung the vote for Black.

Klaw (1:16 PM)
Except I wasn't the only writer to omit Baker. I actually asked Mike Leake to fill out my ballot for me but he couldn't lift his arm to pick up the pen.

[jbergey22]

Amazingly in getting Uggla the Braves upgraded their 2nd base defense.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Weekly bit 'o goodness from the KLAW Chat:... I actually asked Mike Leake to fill out my ballot for me but he couldn't lift his arm to pick up the pen.

Made me laugh :)

[Crapshoot]

Congrats to Felix - its about time the dinosaurs (sportswriters) start to get it. And this dude is still only 24!

[jbergey22]

Congrats to Felix - its about time the dinosaurs (sportswriters) start to get it. And this dude is still only 24!

Great pitcher but 13 wins???

I read somewhere that Steve Carlton won 27 games one year when his team had 59 wins. He found a way to win games with a crappy team you might think Felix could have found a way as well.

Oh well its just an award I just hope this doesnt become common.

Maybe they need to rename it the "Best Pitcher Award" as I dont understand how an award named after an individual that has held the career record for wins can go to a pitcher with 13 wins. Seems odd. We might as well just give the award to the pitcher with the best ERA and take the voting out of it.

[chadritt]

Great pitcher but 13 wins???

I read somewhere that Steve Carlton won 27 games one year when his team had 59 wins. He found a way to win games with a crappy team you might think Felix could have found a way as well.


I dont even know what that means. "Found a way to win"? He had 4 losses where they scored zero runs and 5 when they could only score 1, one more was a no decision. Its not like he could go out and hit homeruns for his team, its the AL.

[jbergey22]

I dont even know what that means. "Found a way to win"? He had 4 losses where they scored zero runs and 5 when they could only score 1, one more was a no decision. Its not like he could go out and hit homeruns for his team, its the AL.

The great pitchers of the past would stay out there and pitch in the 9th and 10th innings if that is what it took. I'm not blaming Felix for the change of events that took place with limiting pitchers but I dont feel a pitcher with 13 wins deserve the "CY Young Award." The game is still about winning at last check and if it is a team award for that reason so be it.

[molson]

Great pitcher but 13 wins???

I read somewhere that Steve Carlton won 27 games one year when his team had 59 wins. He found a way to win games with a crappy team you might think Felix could have found a way as well.

Oh well its just an award I just hope this doesnt become common.


Steve Carlton had 41 starts and 30 complete games then. It was a different era.

I really don't think this is the "triumph of sabermetrics" as is being reported. 13 wins today is really 16 wins even 10-15 years ago, and while that's a lower number, Felix dominated in all other areas.

I do think some people freak the hell out a little much about wins though. They can be useful in a very limited context. And I think there's something to be said for giving players on winning teams a little boost in awards. For Cy Young voting, that's where the wins come in. Felix didn't have to play in any important games. And at the end of the day, the Mariners might as well have had John Lackey, because Felix really didn't help them do all that much, and they weren't even that good when Felix pitched. Those things matter in voting, and I think they should, but here, neither those things or the wins can overcome the guy who clearly, obviously, had the best season.

[jbergey22]

I do think some people freak the hell out a little much about wins though.

If its the difference between 21 wins and 18 wins its not a huge deal but 13 wins? Some pretty bad pitchers win 13 games in any given season. We also like to comment about how great of a season Felix had. Keep in mind that Felix pitches in a pitchers park while CC pitches in one of the most hitter friendly parks in MLB history.

With that said I have no problems with people saying Felix was the best pitcher in the AL this past year. I just dont like him getting the "Cy Young Award" as I now feel the award has been reduced to something that isnt really a big deal any more. Like you had mentioned the team played games the were meaningless half the year and Felix certainly didnt make much of a difference on this past season.

[JonInMiddleGA]

We might as well just give the award to the pitcher with the best ERA and take the voting out of it.

Oh shit, now you've really done it.

You just said "ERA" when the stat kiddies are already circling, you might as well have tied raw meat around your neck & jumped into a pool filled with baby sharks.

[jbergey22]

Oh shit, now you've really done it.

You just said "ERA" when the stat kiddies are already circling, you might as well have tied raw meat around your neck & jumped into a pool filled with baby sharks.

Just trying to make it simple. I already looked at the 3 candidates ERA+.

Felix 174
Price 145
CC 134

If I would have said ERA+ I would have been screwed as well because half the crowd wouldnt have known what I was talking about. Its just the nature of baseball stats these days.

[JPhillips]

If its the difference between 21 wins and 18 wins its not a huge deal but 13 wins? Some pretty bad pitchers win 13 games in any given season. We also like to comment about how great of a season Felix had. Keep in mind that Felix pitches in a pitchers park while CC pitches in one of the most hitter friendly parks in MLB history.

With that said I have no problems with people saying Felix was the best pitcher in the AL this past year. I just dont like him getting the "Cy Young Award" as I now feel the award has been reduced to something that isnt really a big deal any more. Like you had mentioned the team played games the were meaningless half the year and Felix certainly didnt make much of a difference on this past season.

The award is supposed to honor the best pitcher in each league.

[jbergey22]

The award is supposed to honor the best pitcher in each league.

OK. If they are awarding it on individual stats I have no argument as that was Felix this past year in the AL. Id prefer seasons like Halladay for the Cy Young Award but I guess we dont always get that lucky.

[jbergey22]

Josh Johnson must feel like crap though. He led the entire MLB in ERA+ and didnt get a single first place vote.

Im only partially kidding here. I 100 percent agree with the Halladay choice I just find it interesting the Josh got no love while Felix won it when they had similiar years.

It seems more like they vote on the best pitcher on a good team unless that pitcher has an ERA they dont like then they just pick the best pitcher. Nothing really consistent about what they do.

[Crapshoot]

If its the difference between 21 wins and 18 wins its not a huge deal but 13 wins? Some pretty bad pitchers win 13 games in any given season. We also like to comment about how great of a season Felix had. Keep in mind that Felix pitches in a pitchers park while CC pitches in one of the most hitter friendly parks in MLB history.

With that said I have no problems with people saying Felix was the best pitcher in the AL this past year. I just dont like him getting the "Cy Young Award" as I now feel the award has been reduced to something that isnt really a big deal any more. Like you had mentioned the team played games the were meaningless half the year and Felix certainly didnt make much of a difference on this past season.

This is a parody, right? :D

[BishopMVP]

This year's NL Rookie Class could be one for the ages. - just throwing out there:

- Heyward
- Posey
- Jaime Garcia
- Gaby Sanchez
- Aroldis Chapman (cheating a bit, I know)
- Stratsburg (injured, but still)
- Mike Leake (solid before running out of gas)
- Starlin Castro (playing an above average major league SS at 20)
- Neil Walker / Pedro Alvarez / Jose Tabata (decent young Pirates players)(Bumgarner/Travis Wood)Over/under on (number in the minors or out of baseball) and (number in a different organization) in 5 years. I'll go 3 and 5.5. Heyward is a no brainer, and Posey and Starlin seem destined for 10+ year careers as well, but as far as pitchers go one is out for all of next year, one threw 13 innings (some ace rookie set-up flamethrowers turn into Mariano Rivera - some Joba or K-Rod) and I'm willing to bet that either Leake or Garcia won't ever match this season's numbers.

[dawgfan]

With that said I have no problems with people saying Felix was the best pitcher in the AL this past year. I just dont like him getting the "Cy Young Award" as I now feel the award has been reduced to something that isnt really a big deal any more. Like you had mentioned the team played games the were meaningless half the year and Felix certainly didnt make much of a difference on this past season.
You're serious here? You admit Felix was the best pitcher in the AL this year, but you think giving the Cy Young award to the best pitcher reduces the value of the award?

[jbergey22]

You're serious here? You admit Felix was the best pitcher in the AL this year, but you think giving the Cy Young award to the best pitcher reduces the value of the award?

Yes, he won 13 games. It wont be long and we will have a pitcher going 9-16 and winning the CYA.

IMO it takes away from the pitchers that won 25+ games not many years ago that also won the award.

It seems you no longer have to win many games or be on a decent team to win this award. I still believe that this winner should have made a difference on the pennant races in some way.

Its just an opinion. I'm not strongly opposed to him getting it. It is basically a product how pitchers are being utilized now which I dont agree with. If Felix could have pitched a few more innings he might have had them 17-18 wins.

[dawgfan]

Fortunately, more and more people are coming around to the realization that wins are not a very good metric by which to judge pitchers, since they have no control over how much run support they get.

The funny thing about some people bitching about Felix winning the Cy Young is that they may be right - he maybe didn't deserve to win it this year. But it's not C.C. or Price that deserved to win over Felix - you could make good arguments for Cliff Lee or Francisco Liriano over Felix.

[jbergey22]

Fortunately, more and more people are coming around to the realization that wins are not a very good metric by which to judge pitchers, since they have no control over how much run support they get.

The funny thing about some people bitching about Felix winning the Cy Young is that they may be right - he maybe didn't deserve to win it this year. But it's not C.C. or Price that deserved to win over Felix - you could make good arguments for Cliff Lee or Francisco Liriano over Felix.

Yeah I seen that Liriano had a WAR of 6 which I dont really understand. I'm not seeing how Liriano was a more valuable pitcher this year than Sabathia or Price and Im a Twins fan. Liriano either won lopsided or lost lopsided it seemed like to me. He would have one great month followed by a month when he wasnt very good. It seemed odd to me his WAR was so good.

I actually thought Pavano was much better this year. Pavano kept them in most games.

[chadritt]

If Felix could have pitched a few more innings he might have had them 17-18 wins.

He pitched ten more innings than anyone else in the AL and only one less than Halladay. Realistically what do you think the best pitcher, according to you, needs to do to win the best pitcher award if hes on a bad team?

[jbergey22]

He pitched ten more innings than anyone else in the AL and only one less than Halladay. Realistically what do you think the best pitcher, according to you, needs to do to win the best pitcher award if hes on a bad team?

Win

Its still a game of wins and losses. They dont give a team bonus points for only losing 2-1 to the Yankees.

[chadritt]

Win

So throw nothing but shutouts....got it. Not realistic but at least now i see what you want.

[jbergey22]

So throw nothing but shutouts....got it. Not realistic but at least now i see what you want.

Is that what I said? Do you need to throw a shutout to get a win?

As far as I know the Mariners still got over 3 runs per game in which Felix started. He just needs to pitch a little bit better than his competition as punishment for being on such a shitty team. Maybe he needs to be a better leader and fire their lame asses up when he starts.

I think Felix Hernandez is great but I cant think of any other sport that we reward a player for being on a such a crap team. Chris Johnson had one of the best years in NFL history and was passed up for Peyton Manning despite playing on a team with an 8-8 record. Despite how so many people want to break baseball down into an individual sport it is still a team game and an award should be reflective on the team as well as the individual.

[dawgfan]

Is that what I said? Do you need to throw a shutout to get a win?

As far as I know the Mariners still got over 3 runs per game in which Felix started. He just needs to pitch a little bit better than his competition as punishment for being on such a shitty team. Maybe he needs to be a better leader and fire their lame asses up when he starts.
:rolleyes:

[jbergey22]

:rolleyes:

Would the rolling of the eyes have anything with you being a bias Mariners fan? I'm sorry that you dont agree. You have the best pitcher in the AL on your team perhaps that ownership over there will eventually get some talent around him so he can win the award without people questioning it:D

[dawgfan]

Would the rolling of the eyes have anything with you being a bias Mariners fan? I'm sorry that you dont agree. You have the best pitcher in the AL on your team perhaps that ownership over there will eventually get some talent around him so he can win the award without people questioning it:D
I would have done exactly the same had it been a pitcher on a different team. Your views on pitcher "wins" are archaic, and I'm glad those views are now clearly in the minority and getting smaller every year.

[jbergey22]

I would have done exactly the same had it been a pitcher on a different team. Your views on pitcher "wins" are archaic, and I'm glad those views are now clearly in the minority and getting smaller every year.

:banghead:

Like I said earlier lets just throw out pitching wins and give the Cy Young Awards to Felix Hernandez and Josh Johnson. Clearly the best two pitchers in baseball this year since they led each league in ERA+. Why even vote on it?

I am joking. I agree completely that wins are overrated but 13 in a season on a team that won 61 games? I mean come on. Cy Young is rolling around in his grave.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

You are arguing that the best pitcher award should be decided based on the fact that CC Sabathia signed with the Yankees whereas Felix Hernandez was signed as an amateur by the Mariners. In your world, this is the deciding action in the award given to the pitcher who pitched the best last year.

[Atocep]

Is that what I said? Do you need to throw a shutout to get a win?

Let's take a look at each of Felix's losses and see what he would have needed to do in order to get a win.

4/26 - 7 innings, 2 earned runs, and a 3-1 loss. Would have taken a shutout to get a win.

5/1 - Felix gets roughed up a bit and the Mariners lose 6-3

5/7 - Felix roughed up again, but it doesn't matter because the Mariners don't score a run and lose 8-0. Not even a shutout wins this one.

5/23 - Felix pitches 7 innings, gives up 2 earned runs, and the Mariners still lose 8-1. Shutout doesn't win this one.

6/8 - Felix gives up 7 runs over 6 but it doesn't matter as they lose 7-1. Shutout would have been needed here to win.

7/16 - 8 innings and 3 earned runs in a 3-2 loss.

7/26 - 7 innings and 2 earned runs in a 6-1 loss. Would have needed a shutout here.

7/31 - Pitches 7 innings and allows 3 earned runs in a 4-0 loss. Shutout doesn't win this one.

8/5 - 6.2 innings and 3 earned runs in a 6-0 loss. Another game where not even a shutout gets the win.

8/15 - 6.2 innings, 0 earned runs, 9-1 loss. Needed to pitch a shutout.

9/11 - 6.1 innings, 4 earned runs, 7-4 loss. Jack Morris is likely able to pitch to the score and get a win here. Felix couldn't.

9/23 - 8 innings, 1 earned run, 1-0 loss. Shutout doesn't win this game.

No decisions? Felix pitched 3 games where the Mariners only scored 1 run and in those 3 games Felix allowed a combined total of 1 run. He had 4 other no decisions where he went at least 7 innings and gave up 2 runs or less.


I think Felix Hernandez is great but I cant think of any other sport that we reward a player for being on a such a crap team. Chris Johnson had one of the best years in NFL history and was passed up for Peyton Manning despite playing on a team with an 8-8 record. Despite how so many people want to break baseball down into an individual sport it is still a team game and an award should be reflective on the team as well as the individual.

The Cy Young award is not the MVP award. It isn't meant to be a MVP award or a variation of a MVP award. It simply goes to the best pitcher in that specific league.

If you want an award from another sport to compare it to then look at the NFL's Defensive Player of the Year award where we've had such winners as:

'06 Jason Taylor - 6-10
'04 Ed Reed - 9-7 (no playoffs)
'01 Michael Strahan - 7-9
'92 Cortez Kennedy - 2-14

[Ksyrup]

Some pretty bad pitchers win 13 games in any given season.

Thank you for making our point for us. If terrible pitchers can win 13 games, and great pitchers can win 13 games, then what does that tell you about the win statistic?

I realize it's difficult to reconcile the new way of looking at the quality of baseball players - mainly because it is incongruous with the way we've treated them for 100 years - but you just can't ignore the advancements we've made in measuring what it really means to be a great baseball player, just so we can make sure that the Pete Vuckovich's of the world continue to receive awards they don't deserve simply because "that's the way we've always done it."

Yes, in another era, CC Sabbathia would probably end up with 4+ Cy Young awards. But unfortunately for him, he's just going to have to be content with $161M and (hopefully only) 1 world series.

[Atocep]

As a comparison Roy Halladay had 2 games where he pitched 7 innings, allowed 2 runs or less, and had a no decision or a loss. Sabathia had 3. Felix had 11 such games for those counting.

Rather easy for Halladay to say it comes down to winning and losing.

[Ksyrup]

Oh shit, now you've really done it.

You just said "ERA" when the stat kiddies are already circling, you might as well have tied raw meat around your neck & jumped into a pool filled with baby sharks.



Mr. Chass is an idiot, precisely because no one needs these "new-fangled" stats to figure out that Felix Hernandez was the better pitcher this year. This isn't about Wins vs. xFIP or SIERA or BABIP, it's simple Wins vs. IP and ERA and Ks. You know, those numbers that were just invented last week by a bunch of us sitting in our mom's basements.


That's what makes this so ridiculous. This isn't even about some stat invented in 2008 that is chapping everyone's ass. It's simply putting wins in their proper perspective given the modern use of the starting pitcher, and evaluating all the other numbers that have been around for decades. Feliz is easily the best pitcher in the AL.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I think Felix Hernandez is great but I cant think of any other sport that we reward a player for being on a such a crap team. Chris Johnson had one of the best years in NFL history and was passed up for Peyton Manning despite playing on a team with an 8-8 record. Despite how so many people want to break baseball down into an individual sport it is still a team game and an award should be reflective on the team as well as the individual.

Incidentally, Chris Johnson did with the Offensive Player of the Year, much like Felix winning the Pitching Player of the Year.

[Ksyrup]

Win

Its still a game of wins and losses. They dont give a team bonus points for only losing 2-1 to the Yankees.

They have an award for what you are looking for - it's called making the playoffs. Wins are a team stat, and the teams with the most of them go to the playoffs.

I don't see how this is debatable. Look at the percentage of complete games in the majors over the past 30 years. When pitchers finished what they started, then yes, you could argue they "earned" the record they received. That's still misleading because they have no control over the offense or over the quality of the fielders behind them, but I understand it. Today? Starters go 6-7 innings, maybe 8. Look at the percentage of decisions pitchers get compared to yesteryear.

Roy Halladay is a great pitcher. He completes games. But he's also pitched on decent and (now) really good teams. If you transported Roy Halladay to 1970 and put him on the San Diego Padres, and gave him the same underlying numbers adjusted for that year, he probably would have thrown 350 innings with a low 2 ERA - and went something like 14-22. There's nothing magical about Roy Halladay that makes him a "winner." he's just a great pitcher who hasn't played on terrible teams.

I don't think people understand how bad the Mariners offense was. They were last in the AL in runs scored... by 100 runs! The Orioles were next, but even they scored 100 more runs than the Mariners. That's historically awful stuff.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Feliz is easily the best pitcher in the AL.

Except for the fact that he doesn't win much. It isn't an award for "best stuff" or "best stats", it's for "best pitcher" ... and pitchers who aren't winning have a ceiling on their value afaic.

[RedKingGold]

The Cy Young award is not the MVP award. It isn't meant to be a MVP award or a variation of a MVP award. It simply goes to the best pitcher in that specific league.

If you want an award from another sport to compare it to then look at the NFL's Defensive Player of the Year award where we've had such winners as:

'06 Jason Taylor - 6-10
'04 Ed Reed - 9-7 (no playoffs)
'01 Michael Strahan - 7-9
'92 Cortez Kennedy - 2-14

This. If Felix won the MVP Award, then jbergey might have a point. The analogy to Offensive/Defensive Player of the Year awards in other leagues is accurate.

[Ksyrup]

Best pitcher means the pitcher who has demonstrated he is the best at controlling the things he can control. Otherwise, it's a team award. I don't see how you can saddle a pitcher with his team's offense or defense when he has absolutely nothing to do with either. Or conversely, how you can award a mediocre pitcher for lucking into a bunch of wins. How does that pass even the faintest amount of scrutiny? You have to consciously ignore the substance to get to that place.

This is exactly like the RBI argument - ignoring the obvious lack of correlation between the stat and the player's value and the influence the rest of the team has on the stat. There's a reason why ARod had 125 RBIs but barely made the top 40 in OPS, while Miguel Cabrera had one more RBI than him yet had the second-best OPS., nearly .200 points higher than ARod. And it ain't because ARod is clutch and knows how to win.

[Ksyrup]

" ... and pitchers who aren't winning have a ceiling on their value afaic.

Teams win, pitchers pitch. And Felix pitched better than any pitcher, including those who played on teams that won a lot of games.

[Crapshoot]

Bingo. Its like arguing with people who think the Sun revolves round the Earth.

[molson]

Why is everyone so positive what the Cy Young award is "supposed" to be? Is there an official MLB award writeup somewhere I've never seen?

It's like all-star games selection. People assume that it's supposed to be the players with the best statistical performance the first 3 months of the season (or earlier depending on when you vote), and I don't think that was ever the intention, and it's certainly not on any ballot intructions.

Players on bad teams should be penalized if, for no other reason, they played well only in glorified exhibition games all year. With Felix, I think he overcame that penalty by being so dominant, but there's more to these awards than spitting numbers into a computer and having it spit back the correct answer. Human bias SHOULD be a part of it. I think we're reaching a point where that's a minority view though, and all of these awards are eventually just going to be given out automatically via statistical analysis. Maybe soon after that we can just award the win in a game to the team that deserves it statistically.

[jbergey22]

Players on bad teams should be penalized if, for no other reason, they played well only in glorified exhibition games all year. With Felix, I think he overcame that penalty by being so dominant, but there's more to these awards than spitting numbers into a computer and having it spit back the correct answer.

Exactly!

I never claimed any other pitcher was better than Felix in the AL. My beef was giving it to a pitcher with 13 wins on a team with 61 team wins. It just bothers me that he was so unimportant to the AL last year and gets this award. In 20 years people will be asking "How the hell did Felix Hernandez win the Cy Young Award in 2010?" People will look back on this year and laugh at the guy that won 13 games and took home the CYA.

Its good that voters are looking at other things besides wins but now I believe they are leaning to far the other way. This makes is possible that a pitcher with a losing record will win the CYA.

[RomaGoth]

In 20 years people will be asking "How the hell did Felix Hernandez win the Cy Young Award in 2010?" People will look back on this year and laugh at the guy that won 13 games and took home the CYA.

You can't be serious. Felix's 13 wins would have probably counted for 25-30 wins on a good team. He was the best pitcher in the AL, and THAT is what people will be looking back on in twenty years.

[jbergey22]

You can't be serious. Felix's 13 wins would have probably counted for 25-30 wins on a good team. He was the best pitcher in the AL, and THAT is what people will be looking back on in twenty years.

:lol:

I guess we need to change everything about voting. Nothing is "as is" any more. We have to assume 9000 different scenarios to find the right answer.

My mistake for treating the award as what you actually did on the field the year before. It didnt even cross my mind to throw King Felix on the Yankees/Rays/ or Rangers.

[cartman]

It just bothers me that he was so unimportant to the AL last year and gets this award.

He was 3-0 against the Yankees this season. They finished one game behind Tampa Bay for the division title. It is a bit disingenuous to say he was unimportant to the AL.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

My mistake for treating the award as what you actually did on the field the year before.

The problem with your analysis is that you are arguing we should treat the award as what your teammates actually did on the field the year before.

[jbergey22]

I think what this thread is proving is that people dont want these awards voted on anymore. Just give it to the hitter with the highest Win Shares and the Pitcher with the highest Win Shares and throw everything else out.

[Ksyrup]

You can't be serious. Felix's 13 wins would have probably counted for 25-30 wins on a good team. He was the best pitcher in the AL, and THAT is what people will be looking back on in twenty years.

Conversely, Joe Poz ran Steve Carlton's 1972 season with Seattle's 2010 offense and even with him making 40 starts and completing 75% of them, his record suddenly drops to 20-12. Factor in modern starter usage and bullpens, and 1972 Steve Carlton probably is lucky to win 13-15 games with the 2010 Seattle Mariners.

Oh, and if you put Felix on the 1972 Phillies (a pretty shitty team, obviously), he goes 18-11 in 7 fewer starts than Carlton got that year.

And then there's this comparison between Felix and CC, when talking about the things that are not under the pitcher's control:

In the 17 quality starts which Felix did not win, the bullpen allowed runs in 12 of the 15 games in which they appeared. In those games, the Seattle bullpen had a 9.29 ERA and a 2.19 WHIP.

Meanwhile, the Yankee bullpen appeared in 20 of Sabathia's 21 wins and held opponents scoreless in 18 of those 20 games. The Yankee bullpen in those games had a 1.47 ERA and a 0.91 WHIP. And those two games when they did allow runs? The Yankees were already ahead 8-1 in the 9th and 10-5 in the 8th.

Yep, it's pretty clear that Felix "just doesn't know how to win."

[cartman]

Eric Gagne won the Cy Young in 2003 with only 2 wins!!! OMG!!! How has baseball survived that clear indignity???!!!?

[TurnerONU22]

I'm too lazy to look this up (and I really don't know where to find this), but is there a quality of competition metric that can at least show that Hernandez faced the same quality of hitters than CC or Price did?

I think wins are important, but at the same time, you're not going to see anything less than 13 wins take the Cy Young 99% of the time because you're not going to see as intrepid an offense as Seattle's come around more than once a decade or so (maybe someone more knowledgeable can put how bad their offense is in perspective). So anyone who is harping on someone with a losing record winning the trophy is crazy, because to accomplish that, their team's offense would have to be the worst in history combined with amazing stats that only come around every 10 years.

[Ksyrup]

I think what this thread is proving is that people dont want these awards voted on anymore. Just give it to the hitter with the highest Win Shares and the Pitcher with the highest Win Shares and throw everything else out.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I just want voters to use meaningful criteria to determine who to vote for.

Baseball is inherently a game of numbers. Long before I'd ever heard of sabremetrics, I was messing with stats keeping manual score of my Strat-O-Matic games. You can't expect a game so thoroughly dependent on stats to just ignore them when it's convenient.

[cartman]

I'm too lazy to look this up (and I really don't know where to find this), but is there a quality of competition metric that can at least show that Hernandez faced the same quality of hitters than CC or Price did?

I think wins are important, but at the same time, you're not going to see anything less than 13 wins take the Cy Young 99% of the time because you're not going to see as intrepid an offense as Seattle's come around more than once a decade or so (maybe someone more knowledgeable can put how bad their offense is in perspective). So anyone who is harping on someone with a losing record winning the trophy is crazy, because to accomplish that, their team's offense would have to be the worst in history combined with amazing stats that only come around every 10 years.

Here's an article on just how inept Seattle's offense was this past season:

Worst major league offenses of all time - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=5584763&sportCat=mlb)

[jbergey22]

The problem with your analysis is that you are arguing we should treat the award as what your teammates actually did on the field the year before.

Well yes I do consider baseball a team game. We could break it down a million different ways. CC plays in a sandbox with a average defensive team. Price also played on a team that wasnt consistently good at hitting especially against leftys. Liriano was crappy for 1/3 of the season. Cliff Lee went in a rutt in August but also played in the most "hitter friendly" park in the AL them months. King Felix was great but played on a crappy team that couldnt score him runs. If everyone can figure all of this stuff out why do they even need to vote on it?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I think what this thread is proving is that people dont want these awards voted on anymore. Just give it to the hitter with the highest Win Shares and the Pitcher with the highest Win Shares and throw everything else out.

Hmm, then I guess we should have given it to Cliff Lee or Justin Verlander.

[TurnerONU22]

There's just simply too much reliance on the bullpen for a W than there was 20 years ago. It simply devalues that stat, when someone else's crappy performance can cost you a W.

[RomaGoth]

:lol:

I guess we need to change everything about voting. Nothing is "as is" any more. We have to assume 9000 different scenarios to find the right answer.

My mistake for treating the award as what you actually did on the field the year before. It didnt even cross my mind to throw King Felix on the Yankees/Rays/ or Rangers.

I was making a point regarding your blanket statement:

It just bothers me that he was so unimportant to the AL last year and gets this award.

You also said:

My beef was giving it to a pitcher with 13 wins on a team with 61 team wins.

According to your logic, a pitcher whom was responsible for nearly 1/5th of the team's wins was unimportant to the AL, and I am disagreeing with you. Laugh all you want, but I fail to see your logic in this particular argument.

[Atocep]

Pedro Martinez = 76th best pitcher in baseball history. Just behind Jerry Reuss.

[Young Drachma]

I don't think the award is undeserved.

[TurnerONU22]

Just saw on Jayson Stark's blog that Felix received the worst run support of any pitcher in this millennium. Yeah, I don't think you're going to have to worry about 13 wins or less winning the Cy Young every season.

[jbergey22]

Here's an article on just how inept Seattle's offense was this past season:

Worst major league offenses of all time - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=5584763&sportCat=mlb)

Thank you! I didnt realize they were this terrible. Worst of All-time.

These threads always turn into this though. Im really not strongly against Felix winning this award but I am now lumped into the "wins are everything" crowd simply because I chose to look at another view point.

[jbergey22]

Hmm, then I guess we should have given it to Cliff Lee or Justin Verlander.

Yup.

[Chief Rum]

Heh, arguing with the sabermetricians here is a lot like arguing with the wind, only difference being that every now and then, the wind lets up.

(FWIW, I actually agree more with the sabre-folk here on this one; that said, I can emphathize with the position jbergey is taking).

[jbergey22]

I was making a point regarding your blanket statement:



You also said:



According to your logic, a pitcher whom was responsible for nearly 1/5th of the team's wins was unimportant to the AL, and I am disagreeing with you. Laugh all you want, but I fail to see your logic in this particular argument.

The Mariners had abandoned their original roster by the end of May perhaps? They had given up on their season in early July. Do you really think at the point they traded Cliff Lee they were concerned with winning games last year? That team was simply a non factor last year. They won 61 games.

[RomaGoth]

The Mariners had abandoned their original roster by the end of May perhaps? They had given up on their season in early July. Do you really think at the point they traded Cliff Lee they were concerned with winning games last year? That team was simply a non factor last year. They won 61 games.

And Felix won nearly a quarter of those games. Just sayin'.

[TurnerONU22]

Heh, arguing with sabermetricians is a lot like arguing with the wind, only difference being that everyone now and then, the wind lets up.

(FWIW, I actually agree more with the sabre-folk here on this one; that said, I can emphathize with the position jbergey is taking).

It feels like a political thread when these debates come about :)

Personally, I fall into the middle between sabermetrics and 'traditional', for lack of a better term. I think that we have developed stats that are a better measurement of a player's performance independent of other factors. As a scientist, I know how important it is to remove any variables from an experiment to measure your desired variable independent of other factors, which is similar to some of the newer stats. However, I think the 'basic' stats if you will, have a very important role as long as they're kept in perspective. For the players who are NOT outliers, they do a fantastic job of describing how good a player is. However, there are extreme cases, such as Hernandez and wins, that they fail due to exceptionally extreme external circumstances.

[Logan]

These threads always turn into this though. Im really not strongly against Felix winning this award but I am now lumped into the "wins are everything" crowd simply because I chose to look at another view point.

Wonder why.

Great pitcher but 13 wins???

I read somewhere that Steve Carlton won 27 games one year when his team had 59 wins. He found a way to win games with a crappy team you might think Felix could have found a way as well.

Oh well its just an award I just hope this doesnt become common.

Maybe they need to rename it the "Best Pitcher Award" as I dont understand how an award named after an individual that has held the career record for wins can go to a pitcher with 13 wins. Seems odd. We might as well just give the award to the pitcher with the best ERA and take the voting out of it.

[Ksyrup]

Heh, arguing with the sabermetricians here is a lot like arguing with the wind, only difference being that every now and then, the wind lets up.

(FWIW, I actually agree more with the sabre-folk here on this one; that said, I can emphathize with the position jbergey is taking).

None of us has argued for Felix using a single SABR stat.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Hmm, then I guess we should have given it to Cliff Lee or Justin Verlander.

Yup.

And yet, no one is arguing that. Is it possible that no one is the SABR-spewing automaton strawman that you are painting them to be?

[Ksyrup]

It feels like a political thread when these debates come about :)

Personally, I fall into the middle between sabermetrics and 'traditional', for lack of a better term. I think that we have developed stats that are a better measurement of a player's performance independent of other factors. As a scientist, I know how important it is to remove any variables from an experiment to measure your desired variable independent of other factors, which is similar to some of the newer stats. However, I think the 'basic' stats if you will, have a very important role as long as they're kept in perspective. For the players who are NOT outliers, they do a fantastic job of describing how good a player is. However, there are extreme cases, such as Hernandez and wins, that they fail due to exceptionally extreme external circumstances.

I still find myself gravitating towards the traditional stats, too. It's hard to undo 30+ years of what you are used to, know, and are comfortable with. But I really disagree that the basic stats do a "fantastic job of describing how good a player is" for all but outliers. When put in their proper perspective, they are fine for what they are. But when combined with decades of use to describe something more than they actually do, they end up being more problematic than they are worth.

Batting average is a good example - when used to describe the "best hitter" or "batter," it is simply not that. One cannot discount walks. Or RBIs - our favorite whipping boy around here. I know I keep coming back to it, but do you consider 80 RBIs to be an outlier? Well Pedro Feliz has driven in 80 runs 4 times in his career, and only once had an OPS+ over 85. He is a terrible hitter. His RBI totals tell you more about his teammates and his position in the batting order than they do about his abilities as a "run producer." And he's not an outlier - he's just a very bad and lucky hitter. And he threw his luck out the window when he signed with the Astros last year. Bad hitter + great offense = mucho RBI opportunities. Bad hitter + bad lineup = traded in mid-August with 30 RBIs.

The issue isn't that these stats can't be used to demonstrate something, but that they have been in use for so long and become short-hand for productivity and value that their usefulness has been compromised by people's laziness or unwillingness to understand their limitations.

[jbergey22]

And yet, no one is arguing that. Is it possible that no one is the SABR-spewing automaton strawman that you are painting them to be?

The SABR stuff came from me so Im not sure how I painted that picture on anyone. I just made a suggestion that we could eliminate the vote so everyone can agree and be happy by using Win Shares. If this award is truely about individual performance isnt Win Shares the best way to determine this at this time?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

If you believe in the efficacy of a single stat to determine who is best, and that stat is Win Shares, then yes, using Win Shares to unilaterally determine the Cy Young Award would be best.

[Ksyrup]

And he would be the only one.

[Chief Rum]

None of us has argued for Felix using a single SABR stat.

And yet the primary people arguign with jbergey are, you guessed it, the FOFC Sabremetrics Club.

Perhaps y'all aren't using sabre stats, but you all sure as heck argue in the same stubborn way.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

And yet the primary people arguign with jbergey are, you guessed it, the FOFC Sabremetrics Club.

Perhaps y'all aren't using sabre stats, but you all sure as heck argue in the same stubborn way.

Ad hominem: for when an actual argument just won't do! :D

[Ksyrup]

And yet the primary people arguign with jbergey are, you guessed it, the FOFC Sabremetrics Club.

Perhaps y'all aren't using sabre stats, but you all sure as heck argue in the same stubborn way.

I agree, we're all arguing intelligently for people to stop using wins as the primary voting factor for the Cy Young. It's a conspiracy!

[jbergey22]

I agree, we're all arguing intelligently for people to stop using wins as the primary voting factor for the Cy Young. It's a conspiracy!

I believe that battle was won years ago. You are fighting a battle you already won.

[Chief Rum]

Ad hominem: for when an actual argument just won't do! :D

Actually, no it isn't, because you have failed to note what my argument is. My argument here has nothing to do with the Felix Hernandez debate, but with the futility of arguing with the FOFC Sabre Club. And in that context, my commentary is entirely on point and valid.

Maybe make sure to look up just who and what you're arguing with before you start throwing out logical debate theorems. I have gone pages in this forum debating simple points of logic. Do you really want to go down that road? ;)

Really, my whole posting point was intended less as a message to the sabre crowd as it was to jbergey--i.e. this is not a discussion you'll win or even relish being a part of, so I advise you cease and desist. In the end, you'll save yourself the frustration.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

You are right, I shouldn't have assumed you had any actual argument to begin with. I also shouldn't have taken the bait, just to see how many more times you would have piped in with nothing to say.

[Chief Rum]

I agree, we're all arguing intelligently for people to stop using wins as the primary voting factor for the Cy Young. It's a conspiracy!

Intelligently. Stubbornly. There are many descriptives that may apply.

[dawgfan]

Thank you! I didnt realize they were this terrible. Worst of All-time.

These threads always turn into this though. Im really not strongly against Felix winning this award but I am now lumped into the "wins are everything" crowd simply because I chose to look at another view point.
You are being lumped into that crowd because you continue to press hard on the value of pitcher wins, when that stat is the one that a pitcher has the least amount of control over. Pitcher wins carry some value, but a lot less than other stats.

[Chief Rum]

You are right, I shouldn't have assumed you had any actual argument to begin with. I also shouldn't have taken the bait, just to see how many more times you would have piped in with nothing to say.

Congratulations. Now you have an ad hominem.

[jbergey22]

Really, my whole posting point was intended less as a message to the sabre crowd as it was to jbergey--i.e. this is not a discussion you'll win or even relish being a part of, so I advise you cease and desist. In the end, you'll save yourself the frustration.

Thanks for the advice CR. Im not too worked up in this case so I dont think it will go as far as me pulling my hair out or anything. Im actually a huge fan of SABR metrics but I think some of us are beginning to depend on them far too much. I honestly dont think the AL had a real great candidate this year so Im not sure why I decided to take the small stance that King Felix didnt deserve it. Perhaps I was bored:)

[Ksyrup]

I believe that battle was won years ago. You are fighting a battle you already won.

No, it wasn't. Bartolo Colon won his CY, what, in 2005? And the year before, when Clemens beat Randy Johnson was the wrong answer (IMO), too, influenced by the fact that RJ was 16-14 despite 30+ more IP, 70 more Ks, and a better ERA+ than Clemens. D-Backs that year were 51-111, Astros finished 2nd at 92-70 and scored almost 200 runs more than the D-Backs.

W/L record has been an issue for years. And arguing that relievers winning means wins don't count is bogus, because they reward another useless counting stat, saves. So you're just trading one piece of crap for another.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

No, you started this by saying that a pitcher with 13 wins shouldn't win the Cy Young. Unsurprisingly, that's also how you got lumped into the "wins are everything" crowd. If only winning 13 games should disqualify you from the award, how aren't wins everything?

Great pitcher but 13 wins???

I read somewhere that Steve Carlton won 27 games one year when his team had 59 wins. He found a way to win games with a crappy team you might think Felix could have found a way as well.

Oh well its just an award I just hope this doesnt become common.

Maybe they need to rename it the "Best Pitcher Award" as I dont understand how an award named after an individual that has held the career record for wins can go to a pitcher with 13 wins. Seems odd. We might as well just give the award to the pitcher with the best ERA and take the voting out of it.

[Karlifornia]

Felix doesn't know how to win. Simple as that. If he was a good pitcher, he would also act as hitting coach and general manager, and get some good hitters on his team.

[jbergey22]

No, it wasn't. Bartolo Colon won his CY, what, in 2005? And the year before, when Clemens beat Randy Johnson was the wrong answer (IMO), too, influenced by the fact that RJ was 16-14 despite 30+ more IP, 70 more Ks, and a better ERA+ than Clemens. D-Backs that year were 51-111, Astros finished 2nd at 92-70 and scored almost 200 runs more than the D-Backs.

W/L record has been an issue for years. And arguing that relievers winning means wins don't count is bogus, because they reward another useless counting stat, saves. So you're just trading one piece of crap for another.

You had Grienke win last year and Felix win this year. The point has obviously been made. 10-15 years ago there is no way in hell Felix or Grienke would have won these awards the past 2 years. I really think the voters have gotten the message. My only concern is it hasnt gone too far in your favor. I really dont want to see this award going to pitchers with losing records. Traditional stats in a traditional sport can still have some use;)

[Ksyrup]

Intelligently. Stubbornly. There are many descriptives that may apply.

I disagree, if by stubborn you mean that I'm making the wrong argument but won't admit it. On the contrary, I've yet to hear a halfway decent argument for why stats like wins, saves, RBIs, etc., have anything close to the value that people have mistakenly put on them for decades. If given their proper context, they are what they are, but that's not how people use them. As a result, they are mis-used as a proxy for ascribing value or productivity that may not exist (depending on other, more relevant factors).

[Ksyrup]

You had Grienke win last year and Felix win this year. The point has obviously been made. 10-15 years ago there is no way in hell Felix or Grienke would have won these awards the past 2 years. I really think the voters have gotten the message. My only concern is it hasnt gone too far in your favor. I really dont want to see this award going to pitchers with losing records. Traditional stats in a traditional sport can still have some use;)

I fee like I'm we're having two separate discussions; or else, I'm arguing with a moving target.

You said the battle over wins was decided "years ago." I pointed to two examples just 5/6 years ago to the contrary. Your response was to point to 2 awards given in the past calendar year. Wha?

[jbergey22]

No, you started this by saying that a pitcher with 13 wins shouldn't win the Cy Young. Unsurprisingly, that's also how you got lumped into the "wins are everything" crowd. If only winning 13 games should disqualify you from the award, how aren't wins everything?

Because 13 wins is so piss poor. If Felix had 16-17 wins this was a no brainer for me. Yeah, its not his fault but this is an award on pitching excellence and he wins all of 13 games. Im sorry that it bothers you that I have a problem with that.

[jbergey22]

I fee like I'm we're having two separate discussions; or else, I'm arguing with a moving target.

You said the battle over wins was decided "years ago." I pointed to two examples just 5/6 years ago to the contrary. Your response was to point to 2 awards given in the past calendar year. Wha?

I did overstate "the years ago" comment. The voters have been ripped so badly over the past few years that it has paid off so I believe you won this battle. Grienke and Felix were the products of your work so congrats:)

[Logan]

I overlooked this nugget:

Maybe they need to rename it the "Best Pitcher Award" as I dont understand how an award named after an individual that has held the career record for wins can go to a pitcher with 13 wins. Seems odd. We might as well just give the award to the pitcher with the best ERA and take the voting out of it.

Do you know who holds the career record for losses?

[jbergey22]

I overlooked this nugget:



Do you know who holds the career record for losses?

Cy Young

[molson]

Batting average is a good example - when used to describe the "best hitter" or "batter," it is simply not that. One cannot discount walks. Or RBIs - our favorite whipping boy around here. I know I keep coming back to it, but do you consider 80 RBIs to be an outlier? Well Pedro Feliz has driven in 80 runs 4 times in his career, and only once had an OPS+ over 85. He is a terrible hitter. His RBI totals tell you more about his teammates and his position in the batting order than they do about his abilities as a "run producer." And he's not an outlier - he's just a very bad and lucky hitter. And he threw his luck out the window when he signed with the Astros last year. Bad hitter + great offense = mucho RBI opportunities. Bad hitter + bad lineup = traded in mid-August with 30 RBIs.

The issue isn't that these stats can't be used to demonstrate something, but that they have been in use for so long and become short-hand for productivity and value that their usefulness has been compromised by people's laziness or unwillingness to understand their limitations.

I don't see a lot of people saying that player X is better than player Y because he had a handful of more RBIs.. This is my only annoyance with the SABR people. I don't think they get that most people do understand context. When I was a kid, I knew how to compare Marty Barrett's RBI total with Jim Rice's, and how their place in the lineup influenced things. Nobody saw RBI's as the be-all in 1986. We understand what that RBI number meant, and we knew how to read it, and we knew what other (like the strength of lineup) info you needed to get a bigger picture.

The SABR people also need to understand that all of these are just tools. I see you posting about simulating one player in someone else's teams, in different eras, as citing it as fact. Those tools are just as flawed. Next decade, our current simulation processess and tools will be discreditted and we'll have new ones. And yes, we'll judge players from two decades before based on new stats that we just came up with, stats that those players weren't encouraged to achieve at the time.

Jim Rice is maybe the best example of this but there's plenty from that era. He didn't walk all that much, but he played in an era were walks weren't gold. If he came up with the Red Sox today, he'd be coached for OBP/OPS. Did he have the SKILLS to dominate, based on new standards we use to evaluate players today? THAT'S an interesting baseball question, and you can't answer it with numbers.

A pure statistical view assumes that every player is performing as best he can to achive statistical success in whatever tool you're applying at the time. It's a false assumption, and especially when you try to compare across decades, or evaluate players for HOF entry years after the fact, there's a ton of issues.

You're really simplyfing things and trying to dumb down your opposition when you say that anyone ranks pitchers by wins. That's never happened as long as I've been a fan. Nobody is saying John Danks or C.J. Wilson had a better '10 than Felix, even though they both had 2 more wins.

[ISiddiqui]

FWIW, I'm incredibly pleased that Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young Award. I didn't have to go nuts over an undeserved award and that's good enough for me ;).

[Vince, Pt. II]

I came to the conclusion a few years ago that I personally believe that pitcher win-loss records are completely useless.

Any statistic that says this (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2010_04_20_sfnmlb_sdnmlb_1&mode=wrap#boxscore) game is bad and this (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/COL/COL201007030.shtml) game is good is completely irrelevant to the pitcher's performance. If you're too lazy to click, the first is a 7 IP, 1-hit, 3-BB, 10 K 1-0 loss and the second is a 5.1 IP, 8 ER win.

Yes, a better pitcher is more likely to get a win - but you can pitch a perfect game, and one ball bounces off an OF's head into the stands, and you lose.

[Atocep]

I don't see a lot of people saying that player X is better than player Y because he had a handful of more RBIs.. This is my only annoyance with the SABR people. I don't think they get that most people do understand context. When I was a kid, I knew how to compare Marty Barrett's RBI total with Jim Rice's, and how their place in the lineup influenced things. Nobody saw RBI's as the be-all in 1986. We understand what that RBI number meant, and we knew how to read it, and we knew what other info you needed to get a bigger picture.

This is complete bullshit. RBIs, Wins, and Batting average have long been the way a large number of people judge players. You may think differently based on your own experience and what you thought, but it absolutely isn't they the majority have thought.

I can specifically remember Fred McGriff being knocked for his low RBI totals in comparison to his home runs. Juan Gonzalez won a MVP award because of RBIs. People actually thought Joe Carter was a great player because he'd drive in 100 runs every year.


The SABR people also need to understand that all of these are just tools. I see you posting about simulating one player in someone else's teams, in different eras, as citing it as fact. Those tools are just as flawed. Next decade, our current simulation processess and tools will be discreditted and we'll have new ones. And yes, we'll judge players from two decades before based on new stats that we just came up with, stats that those players weren't encouraged to achieve at the time.

When measuring a player's impact you don't measure it based on what they were taught you measure it on their actual impact. It makes zero sense to say Jim Rice would have been better if he had been taught to work the count so we should just toss out his terrible on base percentages. Ignorance doesn't make him more productive than he actually was.



A pure statistical view assumes that every player is performing as best he can to achive statistical success in whatever tool you're applying at the time. It's a false assumption, and when you try to compare across decades, or evaluate players for HOF entry years after the fact, there's a ton of issues.

A pure statistical view in no way makes that assumption. A pure statistical view will measure a player's overall performance and leave any assumptions to the people paid to make those assumptions.


You're really simplyfing things and trying to dumb down your opposition when you say that anyone ranks pitchers by wins. That's never happened as long as I've been a fan. Nobody is saying John Danks or C.J. Wilson had a better '10 than Felix, even though they both had 2 more wins.

This is also bullshit. Jack McDowell won a Cy Young because he won 22 games. Bob Welch won a Cy Young over a clearly better Roger Clemens because he won 27 games. Jack Morris is a guy people have claimed pitched to the score and knew how to win because he racked up big win totals with terrible ERAs.

[Logan]

I don't see a lot of people saying that player X is better than player Y because he had a handful of more RBIs.. This is my only annoyance with the SABR people. I don't think they get that most people do understand context. When I was a kid, I knew how to compare Marty Barrett's RBI total with Jim Rice's, and how their place in the lineup influenced things. Nobody saw RBI's as the be-all in 1986. We understand what that RBI number meant, and we knew how to read it, and we knew what other (like the strength of lineup) info you needed to get a bigger picture.

The SABR people also need to understand that all of these are just tools. I see you posting about simulating one player in someone else's teams, in different eras, as citing it as fact. Those tools are just as flawed. Next decade, our current simulation processess and tools will be discreditted and we'll have new ones. And yes, we'll judge players from two decades before based on new stats that we just came up with, stats that those players weren't encouraged to achieve at the time.

Jim Rice is maybe the best example of this but there's plenty from that era. He didn't walk all that much, but he played in an era were walks weren't gold. If he came up with the Red Sox today, he'd be coached for OBP/OPS. Did he have the SKILLS to dominate, based on new standards we use to evaluate players today? THAT'S an interesting baseball question, and you can't answer it with numbers.

A pure statistical view assumes that every player is performing as best he can to achive statistical success in whatever tool you're applying at the time. It's a false assumption, and especially when you try to compare across decades, or evaluate players for HOF entry years after the fact, there's a ton of issues.

You're really simplyfing things and trying to dumb down your opposition when you say that anyone ranks pitchers by wins. That's never happened as long as I've been a fan. Nobody is saying John Danks or C.J. Wilson had a better '10 than Felix, even though they both had 2 more wins.

This is one massive generalization about all "SABR people." I'm nowhere near one of those, but if you can generalize, can I use my own anecdotal evidence that there are people out there who aren't as reasonable and intuitive as you, to where they don't take lineups, situations, etc into account when analyzing RBIs, as an example?

[molson]

I came to the conclusion a few years ago that I personally believe that pitcher win-loss records are completely useless.

Any statistic that says this (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2010_04_20_sfnmlb_sdnmlb_1&mode=wrap#boxscore) game is bad and this (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/COL/COL201007030.shtml) game is good is completely irrelevant to the pitcher's performance. If you're too lazy to click, the first is a 7 IP, 1-hit, 3-BB, 10 K 1-0 loss and the second is a 5.1 IP, 8 ER win.

Yes, a better pitcher is more likely to get a win - but you can pitch a perfect game, and one ball bounces off an OF's head into the stands, and you lose.

It's useless if you're looking for something that isolates completely a pitcher's role in a game. That's the trend in stats, to try to isolate that kind of performance, and I understand why that's important - but I'm not convinced you don't lose a little something in the translation about reality.

But W/L doesn't at all say one game is good and another is bad. Any fan forever recognizes that you can "get a W" when you don't pitch well and "get an L" when you have a great game. We always recognized these were team-oriented stats, it's only recently that such a thing has become profane and offensive to people. Successful players are usually going to get some help from teamates. I'm not sure we need to be so obsessed with isolating out that phenomenon.

[jbergey22]

. Jack Morris is a guy people have claimed pitched to the score and knew how to win because he racked up big win totals with terrible ERAs.

Jack Morris is also a guy the pitched 10 scoreless innings to win a World Series game 7. Perhaps he did just do whatever it took to get a win.

[Ksyrup]

Jim Rice is maybe the best example of this but there's plenty from that era. He didn't walk all that much, but he played in an era were walks weren't gold. If he came up with the Red Sox today, he'd be coached for OBP/OPS. Did he have the SKILLS to dominate, based on new standards we use to evaluate players today? THAT'S an interesting baseball question, and you can't answer it with numbers.

That's just simply incorrect. Walks have always been valuable. Look at the best players in MLB hsitory - they all walked a ton. Hell, JOE MORGAN walked a ton! He's just too stupid to realize why he's the SABR gold standard when it comes to hitters (which is the irony of his ignorance). That argument simply doesn't fly in the face of the facts.

And by and large, the vast majority of players can't "learn" how to walk. They can take pitches, sure, but it would decrease their hitting ability in terms of aggressiveness and being able to hit behind in the count and taking them out of their element, etc. Most hitters are what they are - if you tend to swing wildly at pitches outside the strike zone, that's just the type of player you are. Some guys can adapt, but most are limited by their hitting style, eye, etc.


You're really simplyfing things and trying to dumb down your opposition when you say that anyone ranks pitchers by wins. That's never happened as long as I've been a fan. Nobody is saying John Danks or C.J. Wilson had a better '10 than Felix, even though they both had 2 more wins.

Have you been a fan since the early 80s? Steve Stone, Pete Vuckovich and LaMarr Hoyt would disagree with you. And so would Bob Welch, he of the 27 wins on a dominant A's team while Roger Clemens outpitched him in circles that year. or how about Jack McDowell a few years later?

Cy Young voters have repeatedly demonstrated that above all else, they favor wins. That this may be changing is great news for baseball. I'm sorry you don't agree.

[Ksyrup]

Jack Morris is also a guy the pitched 10 scoreless innings to win a World Series game 7. Perhaps he did just do whatever it took to get a win.

He didn't fake out Lonnie Smith, that was Gagne & Knoblauch.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Jack Morris is also a guy the pitched 10 scoreless innings to win a World Series game 7. Perhaps he did just do whatever it took to get a win.

This is really the root of where I disagree with you. "Do whatever it took to get a win" has no meaning; it's just a cliche. If he had been yanked in the 9th, would that have had a negative impact on the Twins hitters who won the game? What if they don't score in the bottom of the 10th? Did he just not do enough to get the win then? What is it that he did to get this win? What is it that Felix doesn't do to get a win that means he is deficient?

[jbergey22]

He didn't fake out Lonnie Smith, that was Gagne & Knoblauch.

In pretty much every game played you can point to 1-2 great defensive games that changed the outcome.

[Atocep]

Jack Morris is also a guy the pitched 10 scoreless innings to win a World Series game 7. Perhaps he did just do whatever it took to get a win.

He could have done a better job during the '87 and '92 postseasons then.

[Atocep]

Here's a study that shows Jack Morris didn't pitch any better or worse than expected in relation to the score.

Tiger Tales: A Detroit Tigers Blog: Jack Morris and pitching to the score (http://www.detroittigertales.com/2008/12/jack-morris-and-pitching-to-score.html)

[molson]

The argument simply doesn't fly in the face of the facts.



There's no facts here, just various imperfect tools trying to express something ultimately intangible, or at least immeasurable.

It's just funny to me how you can be so condescending to people (including HOF baseball players) and then spout off someone's "simulation" about Steve Carlton pitching for the 2010 Mariners as if that guy invented time travel and could actually setup and observe this phenomenon.

[Chief Rum]

I disagree, if by stubborn you mean that I'm making the wrong argument but won't admit it. On the contrary, I've yet to hear a halfway decent argument for why stats like wins, saves, RBIs, etc., have anything close to the value that people have mistakenly put on them for decades. If given their proper context, they are what they are, but that's not how people use them. As a result, they are mis-used as a proxy for ascribing value or productivity that may not exist (depending on other, more relevant factors).

I don't disagree with your example, but I am more tlaking argumentative style, of which many of you who aspire to the SABR sorta thinkign seem to run alike for some reason. You all seem utterly convinced of correctness, and the overwhelming sense I have gotten from this crowd in general is that you guys are not open to otehr perspectives and look down on anyone who disagrees with you. In that way, you're stubborn, close-minded, even arrogant (that last less you, but some others who argue with you most certainly).

Stubborness does not require you to be wrong. You can be both stubborn and right.

[jbergey22]

This is really the root of where I disagree with you. "Do whatever it took to get a win" has no meaning; it's just a cliche. If he had been yanked in the 9th, would that have had a negative impact on the Twins hitters who won the game? What if they don't score in the bottom of the 10th? Did he just not do enough to get the win then? What is it that he did to get this win? What is it that Felix doesn't do to get a win that means he is deficient?

He would have went out there in the 11th and maybe the 12th. Point being yeah times were different but he took the bullpen out of the equation. And the twins were in position to win the game the entire game. If he wasnt able to throw more than 100 pitches he would have been out in the 6th-7th inning and not allowed himself the opportunity to get the win.

Yes I know times are different but you asked the question. If King Felix wanted to win more games last year he needed to find a way to stay on the field longer.

[Chief Rum]

I fee like I'm we're having two separate discussions; or else, I'm arguing with a moving target.

You said the battle over wins was decided "years ago." I pointed to two examples just 5/6 years ago to the contrary. Your response was to point to 2 awards given in the past calendar year. Wha?

Heh...technically, you're both right. In a comprehensive sorta way, the term "years ago" implies a measure of some length of time, certainly more than two years. So your examples from 5-6 years ago does indeed seem to go against the term he used. That said, two years do indeed qualify as "years ago", at its very limit. :D