2018 MLB Thread

[CraigSca]

is there an offseason thread yet? I have "not really that juicy" inside info.

[Atocep]

The Mets are on the verge of making one of the worst trades they could have possibly made this offseason.

After hiring an agent as GM.

All I want for Christmas is the Wilpons to sell.

[Atocep]

Deal is complete.

Mets get:
Cano
Diaz
$20 million

M's get:
Jay Bruce
Justin Dunn
Jarred Kelenic
Anthony Swarzak
Gerson Bautista


Including Kelenic could come back to haunt the Mets here. It's hard to see him worse than an average centerfielder or leftfielder. Dunn is probably a set up guy or closer long term. Swarzak and Bruce are moved to offset the Cano contract. Bautista is a live arm throw in.

Diaz is a great pitcher. A legit closer worth paying right now, but these guys tend to fall off really quick and he's about to get expensive.

What it comes down to is Cano and Diaz aren't worth this effort in a market flooded with free agent 2nd basemen and closers. This doesn't get me excited for the Brodie Van Wagenen years.

This feels like a Steve Phillips trade.

[Logan]

The deal was somewhat defensible when the rumor was that $60 million was coming back with Cano. I didn't like it personally because having the "prize" be a reliever is a huge mistake and risk for the same reasons you mention. But Cano at effectively $12 million at least offered some potential value and downside protection.

I don't know how you can pay him $20MM annually and still give up top prospects, even if you're not worried about relievers potentially falling off. You can get a legit free agent at that price point.

[stevew]

Bruce/Swhatever is almost 37M combined.

[Atocep]

Billy Hamilton is non-tendered by the Reds.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Atocep

After hiring an agent as GM.

I gotta admit, this deal made me wonder if there was a meeting where they sat around & wondered "what could we do that would have the worst optics possible"?

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Billy Hamilton is non-tendered by the Reds.

I love Billy. He's an interesting case on what MLB teams think his actual value is.

I read an interesting article that suggested Billy should be a super-sub. You start someone else with a good on-base percentage and once that guy gets on, you sub in Billy for the rest of the game. Get him on base once and then let him play from there. Roster limits probably prohibit this but it's interesting.

Either that, or you teach him how to slap-hit singles like Ichiro.

[Logan]

Seattle found a taker for that "untradeable" Swarzak contract in less than a day.

[Logan]

Corbin to the Nats, 6 for 140.

Split on this as a Mets fan...happy the Nats spent all that on him, upset it wasn't the Yankees who did.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Logan

Seattle found a taker for that "untradeable" Swarzak contract in less than a day.

Apparently they pushed for Diaz because they were afraid the Phillies would get him.

Oh, and they assured Mets fans this is only the beginning of moves this offseason. Can't wait to see the follow up moves they come up with.

[Arles]

Pretty pumped the Cards just got Goldschmidt! They gave up C Carson Kelly, P Luke Weaver, another lower prospect and a pick. Weaver is the only guy we will miss - and we have enough young SP depth. Great deal and best of all, Goldy has killed the Cubs the past 5 seasons (1.2 OPS, 11 HR in 109 ABs).

[RainMaker]

As a Cubs fan, I think they gave up a lot. It's one year of Goldschmdt for a good SP with 5 years of control plus Kelly who has 6 years of control. It only makes it worth it if they re-sign him.

[Arles]

I don't know. Kelly fell out of favor (hit .154 in 100+ ABs) and the organization really likes Andrew Knizner (hit .314 with 7 HR in AA/AAA last year). Weaver is a solid pitcher, but Reyes and Hudson are better prospects. I'm pretty shocked St. Louis got Goldy without giving up Reyes, Tyler O'Neill, Harrison Bader, Nolan Gorman, Oscar Mercado or Dakota Hudson. Those are their elite prospects.

[kingfc22]

As a Giants fan, this makes me very, very happy.

[Ksyrup]

I'm not sure what to think of baseball seriously considering a ban on shifts. It's not going to result in any big changes - it's just going to lead to a bunch of self-righteous announcers pointing out how baseball is better each time a grounder makes its way through the infield. That won't be annoying at all.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm not sure what to think of baseball seriously considering a ban on shifts. It's not going to result in any big changes - it's just going to lead to a bunch of self-righteous announcers pointing out how baseball is better each time a grounder makes its way through the infield. That won't be annoying at all.

Shifts are having major impact on baseball all the way down in to the youth levels. I'm seeing launch angle swing mechanics being taught to kids as early as middle school ages. That's not good for baseball.

I'm not sure an outright ban is the answer, but as more batted ball data becomes available for positioning defenders something needs to done. We don't need a different defensive alignment for every player in a lineup.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Atocep

We don't need a different defensive alignment for every player in a lineup.

Why not? Isn't the job of the defending team to prevent hits?

Why stop there? Let's limit how far outfielders can move to. Or, ya know, how about we just take the defenders off the field & have 162 three frame home run derbys. TV can just show the home runs via on-demand streaming, cut out all the other stuff & air it on YouTube.

God knows we can't just stop catering to the limit fucking attention span crowd & play the damned game.

[Ksyrup]

We should just ban information gathering at this point. The shift isn't causing any of this, it's just the natrual outcome of what the information says to do. What, you want batters to be forced to swing level, too?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

We should just ban information gathering at this point. The shift isn't causing any of this, it's just the natrual outcome of what the information says to do. What, you want batters to be forced to swing level, too?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm getting at.

I'm explaining the impact shifts are having is trickling down to the youth levels of baseball and what you take from that is level swings only and ban information gathering. Brilliant.

[Drake]

I support banning things that are dangerous to players, like the NFL does or like steroids. I have significantly less support for banning strategies because players won't adapt.

That said, I've never been a baseball player at a high level of competition, so my gut tends to agree with John Smoltz asking aloud during the World Series why players looking at extreme shifts don't just start dropping bunts down the third base line to defeat the shift. The fact that people aren't doing it would seem to suggest that it's more complicated than that, but the part of me that doesn't understand the nuances of top-level competitive sports feels like Smoltz makes some sense.

Otherwise, I mean, why would you ban the shift and not ban things like pitch/hit graphs?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Why not? Isn't the job of the defending team to prevent hits?

Absolutely. Given the data and the current rules they should be shifting as much as possible.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Why stop there? Let's limit how far outfielders can move to. Or, ya know, how about we just take the defenders off the field & have 162 three frame home run derbys. TV can just show the home runs via on-demand streaming, cut out all the other stuff & air it on YouTube.

What you're describing is closer to what you're going to see with a generation of kids taught to lift the ball in the air regardless of their size, strength, or ability. Ground balls have zero value because they're hitting into the shift. Line drives have little value because they most often result in singles and with shifts it's more difficult to string together multiple singles.

So what we'll end up with is extreme shifts, the vast majority if players trying to lift the ball in the air, pitchers trying to force ground outs into the shift, and a ton of flyouts, strikeouts and homeruns.

At the same time we'll the same people saying nothing needs to be done about shifts bitching that players today won't just slap the ball the other way or bunt to beat the shift and these players today strikeout too much trying to hit homers.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Arles

Pretty pumped the Cards just got Goldschmidt! They gave up C Carson Kelly, P Luke Weaver, another lower prospect and a pick. Weaver is the only guy we will miss - and we have enough young SP depth. Great deal and best of all, Goldy has killed the Cubs the past 5 seasons (1.2 OPS, 11 HR in 109 ABs).

Heck of a deal. I still can't believe that's all we gave up.

That being said.. I wanted Harper.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Drake

That said, I've never been a baseball player at a high level of competition, so my gut tends to agree with John Smoltz asking aloud during the World Series why players looking at extreme shifts don't just start dropping bunts down the third base line to defeat the shift. The fact that people aren't doing it would seem to suggest that it's more complicated than that, but the part of me that doesn't understand the nuances of top-level competitive sports feels like Smoltz makes some sense.

You have pitchers pitching to the shift. Also, most MLB players grew up as the best player in their neighborhood. How often do you think the best kid in the neighborhood is asked to bunt growing up? I'm going with almost never. Not a skill you develop and believe it or not bunting is not something everyone can do well.

On top of that you have pitchers today throwing harder than ever and pitching a specific sequence because of the shift. If you try to take 95mph fastball on the inner half and slap it down the 3rd base line you're probably going to either pop out or ground weakly back to the pitcher.

Simply put you have defenses aligned based on your tendencies and pitchers throwing pitch sequences specifically to get you to hit directly into that shifted defense.

MLB hitters explain why they can't just beat the shift

Originally Posted by Drake

Otherwise, I mean, why would you ban the shift and not ban things like pitch/hit graphs?

Why does the NFL have rules on offensive alignments? Why did the NBA ban zones? Why did the NBA unban zones? Why does the NBA now have defensive 3 seconds?

[Drake]

All good questions.

And thanks for the article. That was exactly the sort of insight I was missing.

In a strange way, it leads me back to Smoltz again, but a different point. He was talking about when he played, the generation of guys who found success had been, in essence, trained to lift the ball (i.e., uppercut swings). Guys who perfected that approach early got drafted higher, moved more quickly through the minors, etc. And then pitchers figured out that a big chunk of those guys were vulnerable to high fastballs (as a consequence of the mechanic), and so the swing went out of vogue.

In my ideal world, I'd like to think that baseball will always look like that. Somebody will come up with an idea or a mechanic that works really well. A bunch of guys will learn how to do that thing. Hitting coaches all the way down to Pee Wee ball will teach it as the hot ticket to the majors...and then there'll be a counter that invalidates it. And what that means is that for any given period of time, you'll have guys who get an opportunity to play who wouldn't have made it past AAA in another era. You'll still have those guys at the very top who can adapt and perform at a high level just based on raw talent and ability, of course, and those are generally the guys we're going to the game to watch anyway.

I like that interplay as a fan in the same way I like it that everyone knows the weaknesses of the Cover 2 or the West Coast offense in football. Doesn't mean you can always execute the solution or that you've got the right skill group to counter it effectively, but there are counters for those philosophies. So I'd like to think that there'll be a counter for the shift that gradually emerges.

That said, I also understand that I enjoy the interplay as a fan. If I was a player trying to eke out my livelihood playing the game -- especially if I was one of those middle tier guys who is more cheaply replaced by a 20 year old kid who has mastered an emerging technique -- then I'd be deeply interested in any ways I could latch onto that would mitigate changes to the game that exposed my weaknesses or invalidated my strengths.

I'm not really arguing, I guess. I just tend to enjoy the natural evolution of the game (at least until I hit the "get off my lawn" stage of my life full time, and then I'll just sit around and argue how the modern game of x is complete trash, the uniforms are too flashy, the shorts are too baggy, and nobody in the last 30 years has ever smacked the ball like Big Papi.)

[panerd]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Heck of a deal. I still can't believe that's all we gave up.

That being said.. I wanted Harper.

Does this preclude that from happening? I think he is only like 14 million. I mean I guess they want to resign him but they could.sign Harper to a monster contract and have a hell of.a.lineup for 2019.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by panerd

Does this preclude that from happening? I think he is only like 14 million. I mean I guess they want to resign him but they could.sign Harper to a monster contract and have a hell of.a.lineup for 2019.

I think this move kills any chance of signing Harper.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Drake

All good questions.

And thanks for the article. That was exactly the sort of insight I was missing.

In a strange way, it leads me back to Smoltz again, but a different point. He was talking about when he played, the generation of guys who found success had been, in essence, trained to lift the ball (i.e., uppercut swings). Guys who perfected that approach early got drafted higher, moved more quickly through the minors, etc. And then pitchers figured out that a big chunk of those guys were vulnerable to high fastballs (as a consequence of the mechanic), and so the swing went out of vogue.

In my ideal world, I'd like to think that baseball will always look like that. Somebody will come up with an idea or a mechanic that works really well. A bunch of guys will learn how to do that thing. Hitting coaches all the way down to Pee Wee ball will teach it as the hot ticket to the majors...and then there'll be a counter that invalidates it. And what that means is that for any given period of time, you'll have guys who get an opportunity to play who wouldn't have made it past AAA in another era. You'll still have those guys at the very top who can adapt and perform at a high level just based on raw talent and ability, of course, and those are generally the guys we're going to the game to watch anyway.

I like that interplay as a fan in the same way I like it that everyone knows the weaknesses of the Cover 2 or the West Coast offense in football. Doesn't mean you can always execute the solution or that you've got the right skill group to counter it effectively, but there are counters for those philosophies. So I'd like to think that there'll be a counter for the shift that gradually emerges.

That said, I also understand that I enjoy the interplay as a fan. If I was a player trying to eke out my livelihood playing the game -- especially if I was one of those middle tier guys who is more cheaply replaced by a 20 year old kid who has mastered an emerging technique -- then I'd be deeply interested in any ways I could latch onto that would mitigate changes to the game that exposed my weaknesses or invalidated my strengths.

I'm not really arguing, I guess. I just tend to enjoy the natural evolution of the game (at least until I hit the "get off my lawn" stage of my life full time, and then I'll just sit around and argue how the modern game of x is complete trash, the uniforms are too flashy, the shorts are too baggy, and nobody in the last 30 years has ever smacked the ball like Big Papi.)

I agree with all of this. The game is evolving. And I understand the need to make changes or restrictions in an effort to keep people engaged, but I'm not sure I understand what the shift directly has to do with games taking too long, too many pitching changes, launch angle, etc. Stopping the shift seems like a solution to a problem it won't fix. In fact, it feels like people are conflating the shift with all of these other problems for why people aren't watching. I'm confused by it. It's like all people see are hard grounders between 1B and 2B being turned into outs and suddenly it's not fair and needs to be changed.

Whether there's a shift on or not, hitting the ball out of the park, or hitting for extra bases, is always going to be preferable to hitting a single. So launch angle isn't going to go away. Players are so strong these days that anyone with proper launch angle mechanics can hit 20+ HRs. If you want to balance things out and make launch angle less effective, the best way to do it would be to push fences back 50 feet.

In terms of the shift, bunting isn't the only solution. As a softball dad, I'd be curious to see how slapping would work in baseball. Softball's a different game and there are certain advantages to slapping in softball that wouldn't work as effectively in baseball - 60 foot bases, all-dirt infield, etc. - but the concept would provide another strategic arrow in the quiver of a hitter. But still... at best, it's only worth 1 base. And when the 3 guys behind you are more than likely going to strike out trying to hit a HR, it's not that much of an advantage to be sitting on 1B.

I keep coming back to an 1800s quote from Wee Willie Keeler: "Hit 'em where they ain't." That still applies today. The issue is that "over the fence" is where they ain't and has been proven to be the most effective scoring strategy, even at the expense of fewer base hits and more strike outs. I'm not sure how you really change that.

[spleen1015]

How can the shift be the cause for games taking too long? The shift leads to outs happening quicker, thus speeding up the game.

All this take of pace of play. Well you know what the real issue is? The time between innings.

The shift and launch angle are 2 separate things that people want to relate to each other. Just because they both are evolving the game at the same time doesn't mean they are related.

The launch angle idea is taking over some softball programs too. One of the mid major schools recruiting my daughter loves her because she has tons of power and her hitting coach has been teaching her launch angle for 3 years. There's not crazing shifting going on in softball, yet. There is some but it is to handle slappers, not every day hitters.

Edit - I think they just need to learn to adapt and beat the shift. Do that and they will stop shifting.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Edit - I think they just need to learn to adapt and beat the shift. Do that and they will stop shifting.

If you haven't already, you should read the article Atocep linked. Even if you can learn to "beat the shift"...if the opposing teams keep on employing the shift, you can't "beat" it. Because even a guy going 3 for 4 with 3 singles in a game can result in the defense still going to the shift for the 5th at bat because they are protecting against the ball being driven into the gap for an XBH or over the fence.

Let's say beating the shift were as easy as a guy pushing a button on his bat and it would automatically be so. Would anyone be interested in watching games that were nothing but single, single, single, single...?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Logan

Let's say beating the shift were as easy as a guy pushing a button on his bat and it would automatically be so. Would anyone be interested in watching games that were nothing but single, single, single, single...?

You mean the way it was up until the late 90s?

There are a couple of competing concepts here. Everyone acknowledges that baseball is an inherently slow game. Speeding up or making the game more exciting can be accomplished in different ways. Some of those have to do with pace of the game - time between pitches, stepping out, mound visits, TV timeouts, etc. - and others have to do with encouraging (or forcing, somehow) more balls in play so that there's more action (action = excitement to the extent that people would rather watch balls be hit and fielded than swung at and missed).

But part of the action/excitement factor is HRs, obviously. And encouraging HRs goes hand in hand with launch angle, swinging for the fences, 3-run HRs, no small ball, discouraging base-to-base offense.

So, baseball really needs to pick its poison. To me, time between pitches is the most obvious first step. I'm all for a pitch clock and penalizing the Nomar/Jeter batting glove OCD crap that makes it so easy to turn off the game in between pitches and barely miss a thing. That kind of fix will at least move the game along. The other stuff, you're messing with the inner-workings of the game, IMO. I don't know how you force more batted balls and action while maintaining the excitement of the HR ball, which then encourages teams to maximize HR potential.

I don't really see where the shift factors into this all that much. Regardless of where the 2B is playing, a ball over the fence is still a HR.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Logan

If you haven't already, you should read the article Atocep linked. Even if you can learn to "beat the shift"...if the opposing teams keep on employing the shift, you can't "beat" it. Because even a guy going 3 for 4 with 3 singles in a game can result in the defense still going to the shift for the 5th at bat because they are protecting against the ball being driven into the gap for an XBH or over the fence.

Let's say beating the shift were as easy as a guy pushing a button on his bat and it would automatically be so. Would anyone be interested in watching games that were nothing but single, single, single, single...?

I did read it and I see these guys giving excuses. They are taking away something you are good at. So, get good at something else. Instead, the answer is just to outlaw the shift. I think that is pretty lame.

One of the guys in that article talked about all of the pitchers throwing 95. Well, them throwing 95 limits how well they can hit to I think they should outlaw pitchers that throw over 90.

[HomerSimpson98]

All good points and valid. But I dont see anyone mentioning the ridiculous number of strikeouts. There were more K's this past year than base hits. If I wanted to watch that, I'd go to the local little league and watch the first year of kid pitch. I think this is a bigger problem than the shifts. Here in TX, there are 4-5 guys that either strikeout or hit 600 ft dingers. And the vast majority of the time, they are striking out. It seems the contact/line drive hitter is the one that is dying out for preference of the oaf that puts it into the parking lot once out of every 20 at bats.

[Ksyrup]

Right. But strikeouts are not going away by legislating against shifts. There may be some overlap, but launch angle is independent of shift. Guys aren't automatically going back to contact hitting if fielders are required to be in certain spots. To me, the issue you're describing is an extremely difficult one to tackle.

To encourage contact, you have to limit the effectiveness of HR/power. You can do that by moving fences or (more realistically) altering the ball. But you're looking for a perfect balance. If this was OOTP, you could run simulation after simulation to find that balance. Teams know they can score more by accepting Ks and relying on HRs.

It's the same reason SBs and small ball have largely have gone away. At first, there was "effective SB %" - an acknowledgement that under like an 80% SB rate, you're costing yourself more runs than you are creating with the SB. Then came the charts that showed how many runs were expected to be scored with a runner on 1B and no outs versus runner on 2B with 1 out, which cut down on sac bunts. That info/knowledge isn't going away unless you radically change the equation.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I did read it and I see these guys giving excuses. They are taking away something you are good at. So, get good at something else. Instead, the answer is just to outlaw the shift. I think that is pretty lame.

One of the guys in that article talked about all of the pitchers throwing 95. Well, them throwing 95 limits how well they can hit to I think they should outlaw pitchers that throw over 90.

I had the same thought reading the article. They were making excuses why they weren't. One of the guys said something along the lines of, if I played to the shift, I might go 2 for 4 with 2 singles. If I play straight up, I might go 2 for 4 with a home run and a double.

And pigs might fly out of his ass as well.

He might go 4 for 4 if he learns how to slap the ball the opposite way.

[Ksyrup]

But his team might score less.

[HomerSimpson98]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Right. But strikeouts are not going away by legislating against shifts. There may be some overlap, but launch angle is independent of shift. Guys aren't automatically going back to contact hitting if fielders are required to be in certain spots. To me, the issue you're describing is an extremely difficult one to tackle.

To encourage contact, you have to limit the effectiveness of HR/power. You can do that by moving fences or (more realistically) altering the ball. But you're looking for a perfect balance. If this was OOTP, you could run simulation after simulation to find that balance. Teams know they can score more by accepting Ks and relying on HRs.

It's the same reason SBs and small ball have largely have gone away. At first, there was "effective SB %" - an acknowledgement that under like an 80% SB rate, you're costing yourself more runs than you are creating with the SB. Then came the charts that showed how many runs were expected to be scored with a runner on 1B and no outs versus runner on 2B with 1 out, which cut down on sac bunts. That info/knowledge isn't going away unless you radically change the equation.

Excellent response. I wasnt trying to defend or rail against the shift. In my eyes, if a pro ball player cant hit to where all the infielders are, he deserves to be out. Like others who posted above, the shift is a natural progression in baseball - I like it,. I was bringing up the K's as a potential cause for the declining popularity and apathy. I get that the pitchers are good, but when you have every jackass swinging for the fences, irregardless of count or game situation, this is a problem in my eyes.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by HomerSimpson98

I get that the pitchers are good, but when you have every jackass swinging for the fences, irregardless of count or game situation, this is a problem in my eyes.

This exactly.

Also, most hitters are compensated on the number of dingers they hit. More dingers means more dollars for more years.

[Carman Bulldog]

Haven't read all of the posts and just jumping in and throwing this out there (and I think it may already be what you guys are discussing but admittedly I've just kind of skimmed things)...

But, could a ban on the shift lead to a reduced number of strikeouts? The idea being that putting the ball in play becomes easier without guys always being in the spots where you have a natural tendency to drive the ball.

So, for example, right now swinging to put the ball in play or swinging for a home run has the same net result at the same frequency, that being an out, either by strikeout or ground/line out. A ban on the shift (theoretically) drives up the frequency at which you get a hit, so that becomes more appealing and people begin swinging to drive the ball again for singles and/or extra-base hits (but not just for the fence). This, in turn, reduces the number of strikeouts (again the theory being that you strikeout more when you swing for homeruns).

I'm not sure the argument is actually viable, just throwing it out there.

[Arles]

I feel like we get one of these tragedies every year in areas like Valenzuela or the Dominican Republic. Sad...

Luis Valbuena, Jose Castillo killed in car crash in Venezuela

Former Major League Baseball players Luis Valbuena and Jose Castillo were killed in a car accident Thursday night, a spokesperson for their Venezuelan team, Cardenales de Lara, confirmed.

Valbuena was 33. Castillo was 37.

The crash occurred after Valbuena and Castillo left the University Stadium at Caracas after playing a game in the Venezuelan Professional Baseball League. Venezuelan authorities said their car went to the opposite side of the road while trying to avoid a sliding rock.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Luis Valbuena, Jose Castillo killed in car crash caused by bandits

[Atocep]

In a move I actually really like, the Mets hire Jared Banner as director of player development.

[stevew]

Hall of Famer Harold Baines

[Ksyrup]

It's really weird... I'll admit that I don't follow baseball nearly as much as I used to. I buy the MLB package every year and watch quite a bit of baseball, but I don't really get deep into it like I used to. But am I crazy that baseball coverage seems to be dying out? Is this another example of ESPN setting the agenda like they did with the NHL 10-15 years ago? I know ESPN dumped their nightly Baseball Tonight show and laid off a bunch of baseball writers. Now baseball seems out of sight, out of mind.

My point is, I had no idea this first round of old timer HoF voting was happening, nor was I aware that the winter meetings started today. And I had to google it to find out - I just knew the winter meetings usually happened between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

As far as Lee Smith and Harold Baines... ugh. Yes, they are a couple of big names from my youth. HoFers? Not so sure. The fact that Lou Whitaker can't get any love even from his contemporaries is ridiculous. Biggest snub out there.

[Logan]

Baines being in the HoF feels absolutely crazy to me. I know he and Smith were both compilers but at least I have a memory of Smith being at the top, or at least very near the top, of his position when he was playing.

[Ksyrup]

Smith was a compiler, and from my strat-o-matic days, I seem to recall a fairly large number of 3+ ERA seasons, which should be unacceptable. But maybe he was just "pitching to the score..."

[Ksyrup]

Smith only lead the league in saves 4 times.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Smith only lead the league in saves 4 times.

I haven't gone deep into the numbers but is "only" the right word to use there? That actually seems pretty good to me.

Edit: Rivera led 3x. Hoffman 2x. Eck 2x. Fingers 3x.

[Butter]

Considering he was in baseball for 72 years, yes.

[Ksyrup]

I don't know. I guess that seems pretty low to me, but maybe not in context. I think that's probably part of the problem with closers - the job, by definition, is contextual from the standpoint that being great isn't as much as requirement as being on a team that provides multiple opportunities.

I just don't see much of a difference between Smith and other guys who I would assume would never make it (although I guess with this group of voters, you never know).

I'm actually not a "small Hall" guy - if this was my own OOTP league, I'd probably put guys like Smith and Baines in - but they don't fit all that well within the current membership.