The official 2008 MLB thread

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by molson

"Crybaby" Lackey lets loose after loss:

"It's way different than last year. We are way better than they are. We lost to a team not as good as us."

"[On Sunday]they scored on a pop fly they called a hit, which is a joke," said Lackey, referring to a popup that was misplayed into three runs. "[On Monday], they score on a broken-bat ground ball and a fly ball anywhere else in America [except in Fenway Park]. And [Pedroia's] fist-pumping on second like he did something great."

Quotes like Lackey's and Torii Hunter's make me lose respect for the Angels... blame it on your shit defense or throwing a fastball to Jason Bay when he misses every breaking ball thrown low and away. You went up twice against Lester and got beat straight up both times.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Quotes like Lackey's and Torii Hunter's make me lose respect for the Angels... blame it on your shit defense or throwing a fastball to Jason Bay when he misses every breaking ball thrown low and away. You went up twice against Lester and got beat straight up both times.

I don't really see what was wrong with Lackey's quotes there. He's correct with all of them...

I think if anything, I'm on the same page as Lackey.. they were the better team, they should have beat Boston, and they didn't which should make them feel dissapointed, it should make them feel embarrassed. If this doesn't fuel their fire, then I question if they even have the heart to play on a championship level team. Bottom line is Lackey is right, they got beat by a worse team..

[molson]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I don't really see what was wrong with Lackey's quotes there. He's correct with all of them...

I think if anything, I'm on the same page as Lackey.. they were the better team, they should have beat Boston, and they didn't which should make them feel dissapointed, it should make them feel embarrassed. If this doesn't fuel their fire, then I question if they even have the heart to play on a championship level team. Bottom line is Lackey is right, they got beat by a worse team..

The first part is debatable, but blaming the ballpark, quirky plays, and calling out Pedroia is classic crybaby stuff.

Beyond the comments, I don't see how the Angels were clearly better in '08 than the Red Sox. The Angles won 5 more games in the worst division in baseball than the Red Sox did in the best division in baseball. Huge run differential advantage to the Sox as well. The Angels did dominate head-to-head, but that's only over 9 games, and is largely cancelled out after this series in terms of the "who's better" argument.

[Alan T]

Over the course of a season, finishing with the better record, winning a division vs winning the wildcard and completely dominating the series between the two teams all add up to being the better team over the course of the series. I believe any one or even two of the above don't necessarily mean as much by themselves.. but all three combined makes it hard for me to see how anyone can believe that the Red Sox outplayed the Angels this season.

I still stand by my statement that the Angels should be ashamed that they did not show up when it mattered and they were beaten by a team that they dominated during the season when it mattered. That said, I also can easily seeing the Red Sox beat the Devil Rays this next series despite finishing behind them in the standings.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The only issue is that the first two criteria you list are largely dependent on the quality of the opposition. If you swapped out the Angels with the Blue Jays (4th in the East), then I'm positive the Blue Jays would have won the West. Their record may have even been better than the Red Sox or Angels as well. That wouldn't make them the better team. I would argue that the run differential, especially considering the opposition they faced more often, is a much better determinant for which team is better.

I am a big fan of run differential in strengths of baseball teams, and that is one reason why I have said several times before that I actually expect the Red Sox to make it to the World Series prior to the playoffs beginning.

I still don't understand how anyone that is not a red sox fan says the Angels did not dominate the head to head series with the Sox this year. The record is right there, the Angels were the better team when they played this season.

[larrymcg421]

It depends on what you mean by better, and this is a debate that always pops up in sports, as losing athletes commonly make observations like that. If you mean "better" as in more talented, well that is open to question. However, I'd define the better team as the team that performed best according to the rules of the game, which in MLB set up this postseason series to determine the team that advances to the LCS. In this case, winning a head to head series in the regular season is meaningless.

The most talented team does not always win, but I'd say the best team wins every time.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Over the course of a season, finishing with the better record, winning a division vs winning the wildcard and completely dominating the series between the two teams all add up to being the better team over the course of the series.

Originally Posted by Alan T

I am a big fan of run differential in strengths of baseball teams, and that is one reason why I have said several times before that I actually expect the Red Sox to make it to the World Series prior to the playoffs beginning.

So either you A) expected a worse team (the Red Sox) to make the WS
or B) thought the Red Sox were better (or at least equal) to the Angels before the playoffs started.

[molson]

Head to head is factor, just like the others.

Angels:
-5 more wins during regular season
-Dominated head-to-head during regular season

Red Sox
-Much stronger division
-Huge difference in run differential
-Took 3 of 4 in the playoffs

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

So either you A) expected a worse team (the Red Sox) to make the WS
or B) thought the Red Sox were better (or at least equal) to the Angels before the playoffs started.

I don't understand your points at all. The Angels and Red Sox faced each other a number of times this season. The Angels dominated that series and were the better team based on the regular season. That doesn't mean that I didn't feel that the Red Sox are not more talented or have more potential or just got unlucky or whatever.. You can't measure any of those things objectively during the regular season. You can only objectively measure who beats who.

So I am pretty sure that I am correct on all of my points..

1) I stated prior to the playoffs that I felt it would be Dodgers vs Red Sox in the World Series

2) The Angels bettered the Red Sox during the regular season

3) The Angels should be ashame of themselves for losing like they did to a team that they dominated during the regular season.

I am not really sure which of those points you're having a problem with, but I would be happy to discuss it further. Remember Run differential doesn't tell you who won or lost games in the past, but you can use it in comparison with a team's performance to try to help assume who might win games in the future to some small scale at least.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I don't understand your points at all.

You say all this

Originally Posted by Alan T

I don't really see what was wrong with Lackey's quotes there. He's correct with all of them...

I think if anything, I'm on the same page as Lackey.. they were the better team, they should have beat Boston... Bottom line is Lackey is right, they got beat by a worse team..

then say this

Originally Posted by Alan T

1) I stated prior to the playoffs that I felt it would be Dodgers vs Red Sox in the World Series

So my basic question is thus: If the Angels were a better team and should have won the series, why would you predict them to lose beforehand?

Remember Run differential doesn't tell you who won or lost games in the past, but you can use it in comparison with a team's performance to try to help assume who might win games in the future to some small scale at least.

Maybe this is where our disagreement lies - I assume the "better" team is the one that will win more often going forward while you're using it as which one performed better in the past maybe?

Either way, this is crybaby stuff and I'd be saying the same thing if Tom Brady or Randy Moss had said after the Super Bowl they were the better team than NYG.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

You say all thisthen say thisSo my basic question is thus: If the Angels were a better team and should have won the series, why would you predict them to lose beforehand?Maybe this is where our disagreement lies - I assume the "better" team is the one that will win more often going forward while you're using it as which one performed better in the past maybe?

Either way, this is crybaby stuff and I'd be saying the same thing if Tom Brady or Randy Moss had said after the Super Bowl they were the better team than NYG.

Well it is easy to be confused if you leave out all of the posts in the middle where I clarified the point. I get the impression that you are arguing only to try to call Lackey a crybaby, which I could care less about him since I have absolutely no ties to the Angels. He may be the whiniest player in the history of baseball, I have no idea.

I am sorry that MLB doesn't have a magic "Ratings" screen for me to go into like OOTP and tell you which team is more "talented", which is what I feel you are trying to find by the term better. The way I have been using it is in a past tense, the only objective way we have to measure anyone is on their past performance. During the regular season the Angels were better decidedly so than the Red Sox as I showed several times. The fact that they did not continue that during the postseason means they either choked, had no heart, Boston got lucky, or Angels got even more lucky in the regular season, or injuries or countless of other reasons.

My point with the initial post i made is that Lackey should be upset. He should be upset with himself and with his team that they decided to not show up for the series that matters much more than the regular season did. He should be upset that Boston decided to step it up and his team did not. Why you chose to argue semantics regarding one little part of my post that wasn't even the main reason for it is puzzling to me I guess.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

If the Angels were a better team and should have won the series, why would you predict them to lose beforehand?Maybe this is where our disagreement lies - I assume the "better" team is the one that will win more often going forward while you're using it as which one performed better in the past maybe?

Either way, this is crybaby stuff and I'd be saying the same thing if Tom Brady or Randy Moss had said after the Super Bowl they were the better team than NYG.

Perhaps. It is a difference in a "better team". I still think the Cubs are a better team even though they got swept by the Dodgers. I still think the Patriots were a better team though they lost to the Giants. I don't think playoffs do a good job of deciding the best team.

[Buccaneer]

I don't think playoffs do a good job of deciding the best team.

GASP! You mean a college football playoffs may not actually decide who's the best team??!!??

[ISiddiqui]

It'd probably do a better job than a bunch of writers or coaches picking the best team out of a hat though .

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Well it is easy to be confused if you leave out all of the posts in the middle where I clarified the point. I get the impression that you are arguing only to try to call Lackey a crybaby, which I could care less about him since I have absolutely no ties to the Angels. He may be the whiniest player in the history of baseball, I have no idea.

I am sorry that MLB doesn't have a magic "Ratings" screen for me to go into like OOTP and tell you which team is more "talented", which is what I feel you are trying to find by the term better. The way I have been using it is in a past tense, the only objective way we have to measure anyone is on their past performance. During the regular season the Angels were better decidedly so than the Red Sox as I showed several times. The fact that they did not continue that during the postseason means they either choked, had no heart, Boston got lucky, or Angels got even more lucky in the regular season, or injuries or countless of other reasons.

I thought Molson and Ronnie Dobbs did a good enough job pointing out the flaws in your initial argument - weaker schedule, much worse run differential - that I didn't feel like reiterating it. Beyond that I just assume that people will pick the better team in their mind to win a series, which seemed odd on your side.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Perhaps. It is a difference in a "better team". I still think the Cubs are a better team even though they got swept by the Dodgers. I still think the Patriots were a better team though they lost to the Giants. I don't think playoffs do a good job of deciding the best team.

I admit I haven't seen as much NL baseball, but I was under the impression the Dodgers were a much different/better team post-Manny, especially with Nomar and Furcal showing back up again late in the year.

I also think baseball playoffs do the best job of the major sports - low # of teams allowed in and longer series - although I wouldn't mind seeing them go 7 for the DS.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

GASP! You mean a college football playoffs may not actually decide who's the best team??!!??

That's more a product of the format than anything. Same with college basketball. One game doesn't determine the best team. However, if you wanted to play 3 or 5 game football series, that would do it. Unfortunately, that's not really possible because football players are wusses who only play once a week whereas baseball plays every day

That said, settling on a field rather than letting writers decide it is still better (NCAA football). And it's why the NBA has the most "complete" champion every year- it's not always the "best" team but it's pretty close because you have to win 4 playoff series that are 7 games long and over those 7 game series, the best team almost always wins.

Baseball and hockey aren't quite as good at it because a hot pitcher or two or hot goalie can really swing things in a way one hot basketball player can't.

SI

[stevew]

I really want to see a phils rays series. the phils won when I was 5 and honestly I can't really remember that. If that can't happen, I'd at least want to see Manny shit all over the sox and the dodgers win.

If the sox do win, which I expect, at least most of the sox players I hated are gone. Just don't try to tell me that fuck Veritek is a hof-er or something stupid.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by stevew

I really want to see a phils rays series. the phils won when I was 5 and honestly I can't really remember that. If that can't happen, I'd at least want to see Manny shit all over the sox and the dodgers win.

If the sox do win, which I expect, at least most of the sox players I hated are gone. Just don't try to tell me that fuck Veritek is a hof-er or something stupid.

I don't think anyone can make an arguement that Varitek is a hall of famer. Heck he was only an all star what, twice? I also don't know if I can statistically buy that a specific catcher effects a pitcher's performance better than another's, but I do remember reading alot of what Greg Maddux once said about catchers and why he hated Javy Lopez being back there. It does seem to make pitchers more comfortable having a good resource behind the plate versus one who only focuses on their offense.. I just wish that there was some way statistically to show that actually is the case.

Even with all of that, Varitek has always been one of my favorite players, but that probably is because he is a Tech guy.

[ISiddiqui]

The Dodgers are different with Manny and Furcal, but overall, throughout the season, the Cubs were the better team.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I don't think anyone can make an arguement that Varitek is a hall of famer. Heck he was only an all star what, twice? I also don't know if I can statistically buy that a specific catcher effects a pitcher's performance better than another's, but I do remember reading alot of what Greg Maddux once said about catchers and why he hated Javy Lopez being back there. It does seem to make pitchers more comfortable having a good resource behind the plate versus one who only focuses on their offense.. I just wish that there was some way statistically to show that actually is the case.

Even with all of that, Varitek has always been one of my favorite players, but that probably is because he is a Tech guy.

I'm pretty sure we've seen 2 HOF catchers in the last 20 years and Varitek isn't one of them (nor is Posada who I've heard some nonsense noise about, too).

SI

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm pretty sure we've seen 2 HOF catchers in the last 20 years and Varitek isn't one of them (nor is Posada who I've heard some nonsense noise about, too).

SI

Piazza and Pudge. Posada has an outside chance, but probably falls short. Varitek is just crazy talk.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm as much a Yankee hater as the next guy, but let's not slam on Posada that easily. He's a catcher with a 124 career OPS+. True that isn't Piazza level (142), but its easily better than Pudge (110), who granted was known for his defense as well, Carlton Fisk (117) and Gary Carter (115). Virtually tied with Yogi Berra (125) and not all too far from Jonny Bench [though I know the defense arguments with Bench too] (126) or Gabby Hartnett (126).

Posada is borderline, but its not nonsense to consider him. Varitek, OTOH, is nonsense (OPS+ of 100)

[gstelmack]

I didn't realise that offense was the only way someone got into the HOF.

We can debate all we want about how much someone elevates their pitchers' performance, and I'm not going to push for Varitek's candidacy by any means, but to flat-out reject him because he does not have an awesome OPS is just ludicrous.

[ISiddiqui]

Offense is pretty damned important (Hell, its the only way for Piazza to get in). Unless you are revolutionary in defense (a la, Ozzie Smith), a 100 OPS+ (ie, exact average) should NEVER get you into the Hall of Fame.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Offense is pretty damned important (Hell, its the only way for Piazza to get in).

Piazza gets such a bad rap. He was great with his pitching staff, called an excellent game and was pretty good a blocking pitches.

The only thing Piazza didn't do well was throw guys out.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Offense is pretty damned important (Hell, its the only way for Piazza to get in). Unless you are revolutionary in defense (a la, Ozzie Smith), a 100 OPS+ (ie, exact average) should NEVER get you into the Hall of Fame.

Some day we'll just rename it to the "Hall of Exceptional Stats" and you guys can put formulae on all the entrants.

I'm not one of Varitek's pitchers, so I'm not qualified to comment on how good or not he is at that, nor whether or not it's good enough for him to qualify for the Hall. And I'd agree that he needs something other than hitting to get him in, as he's not a HoF hitter.

But there is far more to being a catcher than being able to hit, as evidenced by the fact that the Sox have not tried very hard to replace him. So saying "OPS+ is 100, so no soup for you!" is a pretty narrow view.

[gstelmack]

To add to the above: feel free to say "can't hit, can't throw runners out, can't handle Wakefield's knuckleball, and there are several better catchers playing right now". Just don't leave it at "can't hit".

[larrymcg421]

What about "hits so poorly that he could only deserve to get in if he was one of the best defensive catchers in history"?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

What about "hits so poorly that he could only deserve to get in if he was one of the best defensive catchers in history"?

I'll take that. I just hate the "well, his OPS+ is 100, so he's not a HoFer" as it's such a narrow view.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'll take that. I just hate the "well, his OPS+ is 100, so he's not a HoFer" as it's such a narrow view.

Agree 101%

[ISiddiqui]

Well barring anything else... I mean it's a Hall of Fame! Yes, it is above average hitting for a catcher. But what else does he bring to the table?! He was captain of a 2 time World Series winning team? So what... I'm sure other good catchers would have loved to have Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, and the pitching staff Varitek had as well and maybe they could have been that guy.

[RedKingGold]

Well, I just found out I'm going to my first playoff game tomorrow night.

One of my friends got tickets somehow, and is taking me over his girlfriend. Just hope I won't have to do any special favors.

LETS GO PHILS!

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well barring anything else... I mean it's a Hall of Fame! Yes, it is above average hitting for a catcher. But what else does he bring to the table?! He was captain of a 2 time World Series winning team? So what... I'm sure other good catchers would have loved to have Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, and the pitching staff Varitek had as well and maybe they could have been that guy.

1. You rejected him strictly because of his hitting, blindly ignoring any other attribute someone might bring to the table. Read my agreement of larrymcg's statement. If you had said something like "OPS+ is only 100, he's an average defender, etc, what does he bring to the table that would make him a HoFer?" I wouldn't have said anything at all. I'm just tired of baseball guys looking at some stat and deciding that's the end-all be-all of a guy's career. Especially when they look at exactly one stat.
2. You are correct, it's called the "Hall of Fame", not the "Hall of Exceptional Stats" or even "Hall of Best Players". As famous as Varitek is, that makes him a lock, right?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The funniest part of all this... who is arguing that Varitek belongs in the Hall?

I was just thinking that.

I don't think Sean Casey should be in the hall of fame. I just don't. He's just not a HOF guy to me

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

1. You rejected him strictly because of his hitting, blindly ignoring any other attribute someone might bring to the table. Read my agreement of larrymcg's statement. If you had said something like "OPS+ is only 100, he's an average defender, etc, what does he bring to the table that would make him a HoFer?" I wouldn't have said anything at all. I'm just tired of baseball guys looking at some stat and deciding that's the end-all be-all of a guy's career. Especially when they look at exactly one stat.

Offense is, what, 50% of a position player's value? If you are simply average or slightly above average in it, then you have to be REAL freaking good in defense to make up for that. I don't see how that's controversial at all.

I don't see anything wrong with disqualifying most players who don't match the standard of a Hall player in OPS+.

1. You are correct, it's called the "Hall of Fame", not the "Hall of Exceptional Stats" or even "Hall of Best Players". As famous as Varitek is, that makes him a lock, right?

Welcome Albert Belle to the HoF! Eddie Gaedel, you are there too!

[DanGarion]

If all it takes is 2 World Series rings, 2 All Star appearances, and great defense then I think Mike Scioscia should be in the hall for his catching abilities.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

LETS GO PHILS!

Bzzt, wrong. Thanks for playing!

Oh, and my guess is he's taking you because the *girlfriend* isn't doing him any special favors. Bring the knee pads!

[DanGarion]

And I'm going to throw this here. Bill James 15 Questions to Ask for Hall of Fame. Credit goes to Maple Leafs for bring it to our attention back in the RWBL days. (RWBL • View topic - RWBL HOF - 15 questions to consider)

The questions are:

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

2. Was he the best player on his team?

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

[Buccaneer]

Hall of Exceptional Stats is much better than the trend (by annoying fans) to make it the Hall of Very Good. Every January I get nervous about the writers voting in one of the truly marginal players that everyone is talking about and therefore, open the floodgates for all of the rest of the marginal players. So far, the Hall is doing a good job of voting in the exceptional.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Hall of Exceptional Stats is much better than the trend (by annoying fans) to make it the Hall of Very Good. Every January I get nervous about the writers voting in one of the truly marginal players that everyone is talking about and therefore, open the floodgates for all of the rest of the marginal players. So far, the Hall is doing a good job of voting in the exceptional.

To be fair, we're splitting hairs a lot in baseball with borderline guys. It's not as if next year, they're going to vote in Steve Buechele. We're always debating guys who were borderline great, trying to decide if they were great for long enough or if they were great or just very very good.

It's not like this is football where the discussion seems to be "say, do the fans like him and does he have a ring? ok, he's in!" Or basketball where there is a lot more subjective measuring going on.

SI

[DanGarion]

Dude what's wrong with Steve Buechele!?!?!?

Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG *OPS+ TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
1985 23 TEX AL 69 219 22 48 6 3 6 21 3 2 14 38 .219 .271 .356 70 78 0 1 2 2 11
1986 24 TEX AL 153 461 54 112 19 2 18 54 5 8 35 98 .243 .302 .410 90 189 9 3 1 5 10
1987 25 TEX AL 136 363 45 86 20 0 13 50 2 2 28 66 .237 .290 .399 81 145 4 4 3 1 7

1988 26 TEX AL 155 503 68 126 21 4 16 58 2 4 65 79 .250 .342 .404 107 203 6 0 6 5 8
1989 27 TEX AL 155 486 60 114 22 2 16 59 1 3 36 107 .235 .294 .387 89 188 2 1 0 5 21
1990 28 TEX AL 91 251 30 54 10 0 7 30 1 0 27 63 .215 .294 .339 77 85 7 2 1 2 5

1991 29 TOT 152 530 74 139 22 3 22 85 0 5 49 97 .262 .331 .440 114 233 11 3 4 7 14
TEX AL 121 416 58 111 17 2 18 66 0 4 39 69 .267 .335 .447 117 186 10 2 4 5 11
PIT NL 31 114 16 28 5 1 4 19 0 1 10 28 .246 .315 .412 104 47 1 1 0 2 3
1992 30 TOT NL 145 524 52 137 23 4 9 64 1 3 52 105 .261 .334 .372 100 195 4 3 6 7 10

PIT NL 80 285 27 71 14 1 8 43 0 2 34 61 .249 .331 .389 105 111 2 2 4 2 5
CHC NL 65 239 25 66 9 3 1 21 1 1 18 44 .276 .338 .351 95 84 2 1 2 5 5
1993 31 CHC NL 133 460 53 125 27 2 15 65 1 1 48 87 .272 .345 .437 110 201 4 3 5 5 12

1994 32 CHC NL 104 339 33 82 11 1 14 52 1 0 39 80 .242 .325 .404 90 137 2 3 2 4 8
1995 33 TOT 41 130 10 23 2 0 1 9 0 0 15 22 .177 .262 .215 28 28 1 0 1 0 1
CHC NL 32 106 10 20 2 0 1 9 0 0 11 19 .189 .265 .236 35 25 1 0 0 0 1
TEX AL 9 24 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 .125 .250 .125 1 3 0 0 1 0 0

+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
11 Seasons 1334 4266 501 1046 183 21 137 547 17 28 408 842 .245 .316 .394 94 1682 50 23 31 43 107
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
162 Game Avg 518 61 127 22 3 17 66 2 3 50 102 .245 .316 .394 94 204 6 3 4 5 13
Career High 155 530 74 139 27 4 22 85 5 8 65 107 .272 .345 .440 114 233 11 4 6 7 21
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG *OPS+ TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP

[sterlingice]

To be fair, I didn't have anything against Steve Buechele except maybe an inability to spell his last name. But he's not exactly Hall of Fame material. He was just the first name that popped to mind from my 1980s-1990s baseball card file in my brain because I always seemed to get his cards

SI

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

To be fair, I didn't have anything against Steve Buechele except maybe an inability to spell his last name. But he's not exactly Hall of Fame material. He was just the first name that popped to mind from my 1980s-1990s baseball card file in my brain because I always seemed to get his cards

SI

I was just playing, he sucked...

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The Dodgers are different with Manny and Furcal, but overall, throughout the season, the Cubs were the better team.

Can't argue with that.

Originally Posted by Alan T

It does seem to make pitchers more comfortable having a good resource behind the plate versus one who only focuses on their offense.. I just wish that there was some way statistically to show that actually is the case.

The best proxy I've seen is pitchers ERA by innings caught, which BR lists somewhere down the line of pitching stats. There hasn't been a large, consistent difference between Varitek and his backups, (Some years Varitek is up .2-.3, some years the backup(s) is up by .2-.3) but due to the nature of the Sox setup, the value of these numbers is heavily dependent on your opinion of Wakefield vs. the rest of the Sox staff. I personally think his rep is overblown by fans and the media, and it will be interesting to see how hard the Sox try to resign him this winter when his bat has clearly lost a step and we have no viable starting options coming up for at least a year or two.

[miami_fan]

Tim McCarver is doing tonight's game listening to the audio of FOX is out.

So should I listen to KABC or WPHT so I can actually enjoy the game tonight?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Can't argue with that.The best proxy I've seen is pitchers ERA by innings caught, which BR lists somewhere down the line of pitching stats. There hasn't been a large, consistent difference between Varitek and his backups, (Some years Varitek is up .2-.3, some years the backup(s) is up by .2-.3) but due to the nature of the Sox setup, the value of these numbers is heavily dependent on your opinion of Wakefield vs. the rest of the Sox staff. I personally think his rep is overblown by fans and the media, and it will be interesting to see how hard the Sox try to resign him this winter when his bat has clearly lost a step and we have no viable starting options coming up for at least a year or two.

I think you just proved my point, that statistically there just never has been any proof that the pitcher's comfort with a specific catcher translates to better stats.

[RedKingGold]

w00t!

Awesome game. Phils definitely got lucky tonight.

At-game-witness accounts to come tomorrow (hopefully with cell-phone video of the final out).

But, now it's beddy-drunk time.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Tim McCarver is doing tonight's game listening to the audio of FOX is out.

So should I listen to KABC or WPHT so I can actually enjoy the game tonight?

I think Keith Law or Rob Neyer mentioned - if MLB gave us a channel with just stadium noise but the annoncers cut out, I bet the ratings would go up. I'm tired of listening to McCarver and Buck act like sanctimonious pricks.

[MrBug708]

Tough game for the Dodgers to lose, but that is how the Phils win games, one big inning. Myers is a solid pitcher, but the Phils really need to win #2

[DaddyTorgo]

yay! go phils! rooting against the dodgers (for multiple reasons)