The Stark Truth

[mjb2124]

Re: The Stark Truth

Anyone else remember Rafael Palmiero winning the Gold Glove at 1B in a season where he only played 1B a handful of times?

EDIT from Wikipedia: Rafael Palmeiro might be considered the only designated hitter to win the Gold Glove. Palmeiro won the 1999 award with the Texas Rangers while only appearing in 28 games as a first baseman; he appeared in 135 games as a DH that season.

[SPTO]

Re: The Stark Truth

Anyone else remember Rafael Palmiero winning the Gold Glove at 1B in a season where he only played 1B a handful of times?

That was a travesty. I wonder how the hell the people voting justified that.

[tonybologna]

Re: The Stark Truth

I agree with you guys on the Gold Glove Awards. It's an unfair thing in baseball. I compare these awards to the All-Star voting. The only difference is that the All-Star voting is by the fans & not the managers. There are sooooo many players in the All-Star game that doesn't belong for that particular year. There are also several players that win Gold Glove's when in reality there were other players that should have won instead. Thanks!

[Acid]

Re: The Stark Truth

Speaking of ESPN writers books, how is Bill Simmon's book? Is it mainly for Red Sox fans or would someone who hates the Red Sox but loves his column and writing style like it?

His book is hilarious.

I'm neither a Red Sox or Yankees fan, but it's definitely a Red Sox book. If you like his columns and writing style, you should pick it up for sure.

[snepp]

Re: The Stark Truth

Why do you think it's an awful indicator? Not saying I think you are wrong, but I don't think that it's that terrible to atleast get a guesstimate of the best player by looking at who has the fewest errors. I would think it should atleast go into the decision for gold gloves.

The very over-simplified answer is, a player can't commit an error if they don't get to the ball in the first place.

http://baseballevolution.com/keith/fbible.html - Good book

A few random articles...

http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/defeval.htm

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/what-is-zone-rating/

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/dialed_in/discussion/what_is_zone_rating/

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/2005-gold-gloves/

And my favorite whipping boy for being overrated defensively...

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1067831.html

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1415695.html

http://baseballguru.com/articles/ana...ikehoban03.htm
http://chazsports.blogspot.com/2004_10_31_archive.html

[Scottdau]

Re: The Stark Truth

Ruth was 83rd all time in K's. I wouldn't say he struck out more times than anybody. In fact, comparing his total HR's to K's, his ratio is actually very, very good. Barry Bonds is 43rd all time as a comparison.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hitting/histrk1.shtml

Personally Wins and Losses are pretty useless as a stat for a pitcher. The example has been used many times, but Pitcher A can get a loss giving up 1 run over 9 innings and Pitcher B can get a win giving up 8 runs over 6 innings. Which pitcher had better stats? Pitcher A of course. However, Pitcher B got the W because his team did more for him. So using your 300/200 200/100 W/L ratio doesn't really mean much in terms of overall pitcher ability IMO.

Sure he is now, but what place was he in when he retired. I always thought he was the leader. At least when he retire I thought he was the leader in SO and HR.

[mjb2124]

Re: The Stark Truth

Sure he is now, but what place was he in when he retired. I always thought he was the leader. At least when he retire I thought he was the leader in SO and HR.

He might have been. That's not the case now so I don't see how it's relevant in the context you initially used it (ie: Ruth is a great homerun hitter and also struckout more than anybody).

[Scottdau]

Re: The Stark Truth

He might have been. That's not the case now so I don't see how it's relevant in the context you initially used it (ie: Ruth is a great homerun hitter and also struckout more than anybody).

Granted I give you that, my point is win to loses are not the big thing. But Ok you got me. I still think Nolan was really good.

[mjb2124]

Re: The Stark Truth

Granted I give you that, my point is win to loses are not the big thing. But Ok you got me. I still think Nolan was really good.

I agree. I think wins and losses are some of the most overrated pitching stats. It's a team based stat....not individual (see my other post).

[Scottdau]

Re: The Stark Truth

I agree. I think wins and losses are some of the most overrated pitching stats. It's a team based stat....not individual (see my other post).

Yeah I agree to a point, wins are still some what important. It is the main thing they look at for the hall, but I agree, being on a great team will help a lot.

[Sandman42]

Re: The Stark Truth

Is it not awarded based on fielding percentage, or is that only in MLB: The Show?

Both Zone Rating and Fielding Runs Above Average (FRAA) are better indicators for defense than fielding percentage also. Range factor is better also, but I don't think it as good as Zone Rating or FRAA because ti can be skewed by the type of pitchers a team has (i.e. groundball pitchers will give the infielders a higher range factor and vice versa).

[mjb2124]

Re: The Stark Truth

Yeah I agree to a point, wins are still some what important. It is the main thing they look at for the hall, but I agree, being on a great team will help a lot.

The HOF does like to see 300 wins (although that seems to be changing because baseball has evolved to the point where it's going to be very rare to see a 300 game winner), but I still think W's for a pitcher don't have much individual merit. Why base how good a pitcher is mainly on what his teammates were able to provide him? My example before: Pitcher A can get a loss giving up 1 run over 9 innings and Pitcher B can get a win giving up 8 runs over 6 innings. Pitcher A obviously pitched better, but got the L because he got no run support.

[tonybologna]

Re: The Stark Truth

The HOF does like to see 300 wins (although that seems to be changing because baseball has evolved to the point where it's going to be very rare to see a 300 game winner), but I still think W's for a pitcher don't have much individual merit. Why base how good a pitcher is mainly on what his teammates were able to provide him? My example before: Pitcher A can get a loss giving up 1 run over 9 innings and Pitcher B can get a win giving up 8 runs over 6 innings. Pitcher A obviously pitched better, but got the L because he got no run support.

I agree! And, Randy Johnson isn't at that 300 mark yet either but you can count him into the HOF for sure. With his injury problems now he just may not get to that 300 win mark either. It isn't going to matter with him though. Look at his numbers to pretty much verify his HOF status. I hope he stays healthy enough to get to 300 but if he don't then it's not going to keep him out of the HOF. Thanks guys!

[taylor34]

Re: The Stark Truth

Yeah I agree to a point, wins are still some what important. It is the main thing they look at for the hall, but I agree, being on a great team will help a lot.

It definitely helps. How many people lead the league in ERA and end up 8-16? Nolan Ryan did that in '87 I believe. You look at the teams he played for when he was a starter (angels, astros, and rangers)--all terrible. If would have been playing for the best teams his whole career, his w/l would be lot different. Think of it this way--if you were playing for the modern day royals vs. playing with the red sox/yankees, how much better would your record be? A 4.00 era with the royals probably gets you 10-16, a 4.00 era with the red sox or yankees probably gets you 18-8. Repeat that for 24 years and see what record you come out with.

Taylor34

[Scottdau]

Re: The Stark Truth

The HOF does like to see 300 wins (although that seems to be changing because baseball has evolved to the point where it's going to be very rare to see a 300 game winner), but I still think W's for a pitcher don't have much individual merit. Why base how good a pitcher is mainly on what his teammates were able to provide him? My example before: Pitcher A can get a loss giving up 1 run over 9 innings and Pitcher B can get a win giving up 8 runs over 6 innings. Pitcher A obviously pitched better, but got the L because he got no run support.

Yeah I agree, it is changing now. I still think wins are important, regardless of how good the team is. You still have to be a pretty damn good pitcher to win 300 games in the majors. I look at it this way, if the players was a dominating player then they should be in the hall.