MLB - 2009 Regular Season Thread!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

"Hall of Fame" generally is interpreted to mean "Hall of the Best Players".

Otherwise there is NO reason that Mark McGwire doesn't deserve to go in by now. For that matter, there is no reason Albert Belle shouldn't get in. Which means there tends to be other values than 'fame' that allow people to enter the Hall.

Ozzie Smith was a fabulous defensive player and all the defensive matrics indicate that (his range factor is absolutely unreal).

As for Jeter, right now he has a 120 career OPS+ for a SS, which is probably one of the tops for that position (haven't checked the exact position he's in). Even though his defensive range used to be abyssmal (now its about average), the value of playing SS tends to balance that out in just about every metric used.

[snoopy369]

That somewhat sounds like an argument for accepting Intelligent Design because Evolution doesn't explain everything .

Statistical analysis is the best measure we have to judge players. If you believe it fails to include a certain effect, the course of action should be to find out how to include that effect in an objective analysis. If it cannot be converted from a subjective to an objective analysis, I'd argue that it should simply not be considered. Because subjective analyses cannot be proven and so using them to judge players introduces even more flawed measures. At the very least, objective measures have less flaws because they treat every player the same and most of them are open for your perusal (though you may sometimes have to purchase a book to see the mechanics behind it... like Win Shares).

Absolutely, statistical (objective) measures have fewer flaws. My issue is when people suggest they have NO flaws; that is flawed, every bit as much as claiming that Evolution is THE answer, and ID is impossible. ID certainly could be possible, and thousands of good, intelligent scientists support the theory. Just because the way I see things, the objective measures indicate ID doesn't make sense, doesn't mean I am 100% right.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No one has ever asserted objective measures are 100% right, but just because their are holes doesn't mean subjective measures are right.

[snoopy369]

"Hall of Fame" generally is interpreted to mean "Hall of the Best Players".

Otherwise there is NO reason that Mark McGwire doesn't deserve to go in by now. For that matter, there is no reason Albert Belle shouldn't get in. Which means there tends to be other values than 'fame' that allow people to enter the Hall.

Ozzie Smith was a fabulous defensive player and all the defensive matrics indicate that (his range factor is absolutely unreal).

As for Jeter, right now he has a 120 career OPS+ for a SS, which is probably one of the tops for that position (haven't checked the exact position he's in). Even though his defensive range used to be abyssmal (now its about average), the value of playing SS tends to balance that out in just about every metric used.

It's "Hall of Fame", not "Hall of Infamy". And certainly some performance must be there, it would be absurd to state otherwise; but Fame is many things, not just 'successful performance'. Stating otherwise is nearly as absurd.

[-Jrabbit]

C'mon Snoop, you know damn well that it's recognition for the game's top players.

By your "fame" metric, BTW, there should be even MORE Yankees and Bosox enshrined...

[snoopy369]

I think my explanation is justified by the number of Yankees and Bosox enshrined right now

[Imran Siddiqui]

Stating its about "fame" is absolutely absurd. Don Mattingly is one of the most famous players of the 80s. He'll never get in sniffing distance.

If it was about fame, then there wouldn't be any umpires enshrined, and yet there are. Or Negro League Players for that matter.

http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/about/faq.jsp

What is the Hall of Fame's mission?

The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is a not-for-profit educational institution dedicated to fostering an appreciation of the historical development of the game and its impact on our culture by collecting, preserving, exhibiting and interpreting its collections for a global audience, as well as honoring those who have made outstanding contributions to our National Pastime.

Through its mission, the Museum is committed to:

*

Collecting, through donation, baseball artifacts, works of art, literature, photographs, memorabilia and related materials which focus on the history of the game over time, its players, and those elected to the Hall of Fame.
*

Preserving the collections by adhering to professional museum standards with respect to conservation and maintaining a permanent record of holdings through documentation, study, research, cataloging and publication.
*

Exhibiting material in permanent gallery space, organizing on-site changing exhibitions on various themes, with works from the Hall of Fame collections or other sources, working with other individuals or organizations to exhibit loaned material of significance to baseball and providing related research facilities.
*

Interpreting artifacts through its exhibition and education programs to enhance awareness, understanding and appreciation of the game for a diverse audience.
*

Honoring, by enshrinement, those individuals who had exceptional careers, and recognizing others for their significant achievements.

I see exceptional careers, but nothing about being popular.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think my explanation is justified by the number of Yankees and Bosox enshrined right now

You do realize that there are only 18 Red Sox in the Baseball Hall of Fame and one is a broadcaster (Curt Gowdy) and one was an owner (Tom Yawkey), and one was a manager (Dick Williams) right?

Among those 15 left, the list includes Babe Ruth, Dennis Eckersley who achieved most of their success with other teams.

The 13 left are:

Joe Cronin
Bobby Doerr
Rick Ferrell
Ted Williams
Carl Yastrzemski
Carlton Fisk
Jimmy Foxx
Lefty Grove
Harry Hooper
Cy Young
Tris Speaker
Wade Boggs
Jimmy Collins

The only ones you can really argue with are Ferrell, Cooper, and perhaps Collins. But Ferrell was considered a great defensive catcher and had a very good range factor. Cooper seemed to get swept up by being part of a few World Series and seemed to be inducted by the Veterans Committee (and I doubt he was famous back in '71 considering he is hardly known today). Collins seemed to have great defensive skills according to his range numbers and fielding percentage (compared to the rest of the league, of course).

All the Yankees are because 1) a team that wins 26 championships has a HELL of a lot of talent, 2) unfortunately because they won so much some lackluster talent (like Phil Rizzuto) were thought to be a lot better players than they actually were. Of course he was helped by the Veterans Committee. The Scooter was, of course, very famous, but that didn't help with the writers.

[Arrian]

Yay. Yanks resign Pettitte. $5.5MM guaranteed, with incentives that could take it up to $12MM. Basically, 3 of the past 4 years he'd make $12MM. Even the other year, he'd make most of it. So if he's healthy and his usual self, he gets a decent chunk of change, but less than $16MM.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Derrick Jeter is a HOF lock, too, even though his statistics aren't necessarily at the top of the line

Jeter's case is bolstered by the rings, and his post-season performance in general (almost exactly the same level of play as during the regular season... in other words, damn good). Having said that, he probably shouldn't be thought of as he is, but many of the writers still think he is a good defensive SS.

Ozzie is a rare case of getting in b/c of his defense. He hit just well enough so it didn't wreck his case, and pretty much everyone believed that he was a fantastic defensive SS.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Interesting observation by Rob Neyer:

http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/030791.php

Beginning in 1996, the Yankees won four World Series in five years. In those five years, they averaged 97 wins.
In the eight years since, of course, the Yankees have won zero World Series. Incidentally, in those same eight years they've averaged 97 wins.

There's no question that mistakes were made after 2000. Every franchise makes mistakes. There's also no question that they've picked up some prima donnas, some of whom didn't play much defense.

But until someone can explain to me why those same factors that produce 97 wins a season work so well from April through September but suddenly fall flat in October, I'm going to assume that the Yankees were (1) overly lucky from 1996 through 2000 and (2) overly unlucky from 2001 through 2007.

[Arrian]

Duh. They got more than a couple of lucky bounces (and blown calls, too) during the dynasty years. Those bounces have been going for the other teams since. Some of it has been freak stuff. Some of it comes down to having a weaker defense. It used to be that the Yanks would take advantage of the other team's mistakes.

There was also managerial mayhem. Torre made some wacky decisions during the dynasty years that - for whatever reason - worked wonderfully. Stuff like starting Chad Curtis in a WS game, and watching Curtis hit 2 HRs, including the 10th inning game-winner. Starting Vizcaino against the Mets in 2000 and watching him go 4-4 and single home the winning run. He made some afterwards that blew up in his face (Jeff Weaver, game 3, 2003 WS... WTF, Joe? Using Gordon and Mo in game 3 of the 2004 ALCS, a 19-8 win?).

The thing is... the 2000 team was lucky to make the playoffs (87 wins). The 2001 team was lucky to be in the WS (easily could've lost in the first round to the As, or the second round to the 116-win Mariners), and very lucky to get to game 7 (back to back 2-out, 2-run HRs in the bottom of the ninth in games 4 and 5). The 2002 team, IMO, did suffer from some bad luck. That was a really, really good team, but the '02 Angles were just en fuego. The 2003 team made the WS in part due to Grady Little - they could just have easily lost that ALCS. The 2004 team had deficient starting pitching and wasn't nearly as good as their record (they were what, 10 games over their pythag?). Since then, they've been trying to find pitching and their defense has continued to deteriorate.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, but how many people are saying the Yankees started losing when they started bringing in super high prices free agents instead of building from within (as the myth goes)?

[Arrian]

Roughly the same number of people who screech about Joba belonging in the bullpen, Jeter's defensive brilliance, etc.

You and I know that failing to import those high-priced guys would've meant the Yanks would have slid out of the playoffs like any other team's success cycle.

Now, it's arguably true that a team fully of above-average but not great players is better than a team with some great players and some scrubs. I think so. It's unclear to me, however, that the 2001-> Yankees could have built such a team and done better than they did by bringing in Giambi, ARod, etc. What they clearly failed to do was:

1) Draft well, until ~2005.
2) Pick the right pitchers, both in trade and in the FA market.

I mean, look... the Javy Vasquez trade was a good idea. Really, it was. It didn't work (though I think they gave up on him too soon). Lilly for Weaver... that one still irritates me, but lots of people thought it was a good idea at the time. Pavano and Wright were bad ideas, and everyone agreed on that at the time (though IIRC the Sox made a similar, or perhaps slightly higher offer for Pavano's services). Still, it's hard to imagine Pavano being THAT useless. Contreras... remember how mad the Red Sox were when the Yanks out-bid them for him? Oops. And of course he has one flukey great year in Chi.

Oh, and they totally flailed on Beltran. Huge, huge mistake.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Meanwhile, close to Busch Field in St. Lou: