FJM is a closed forum, but we welcome reader feedback. We're especially interested in corrections of our work, and research (usually number-crunching) that we may not be able to do ourselves. Please check the comments section as well, where we often post readers' opinions, and, less frequently, announce that we were wrong about something.
You can e-mail dak,Ken Tremendous,Junior,Matthew Murbles, or Coach individually.
Apparently, Rick Hummel is in the HOF. And here is what he has to say about Tony La Russa's decision not to have the greatest hitting hitter in the history of hitting hit for a pretty good hitter in the bottom of the ninth with two outs and the bases loaded:
La Russa was both wrong and right in how he handled Pujols’ situation.
You are half right.
He basically was wrong in that a player of Pujols’ caliber -- reigning Gold Glover, former Most Valuable Player and batting champion -- should not be considered a utility player, i.e., the last position player available on the bench.
Totally agree. Maybe I should be in the Hall of Fame.
But he was right in not pinch-hitting Pujols in the ninth inning when the NL rallied and had the bases loaded with two out and Philadelphia's Aaron Rowand at the plate.
I cannot wait to hear exactly how you are wrong.
If he had used Pujols in that spot and the NL forced extra innings, he would have been in the position of needing Pujols to go to left field and defensively challenged Alfonso Soriano would have to go to center, with the distinct possibility of having a relief pitcher have to bat for himself in extra innings of an All-Star game.
This is insane. Insane. Flat insane. Dead flat weird insane, and possibly Mad Cow-ridden.
Here is the rationale: if Albert Pujols had pinch hit and tied the game or given the NL the lead, Alphonso Soriano would have to play center, and a pitcher might have to hit for himself. The horror, the horror! Alphonso Soriano not playing the perfectly ideal defensive position?! Webb has to take a few hacks? Run for the hills!!!
No doubt, those would be horrifying, "Hostel"-like NC-17-rated situations. But here's the thing, dumbass: if they happened, it would mean that the game was still happening, too.
If you are one out from elimination, you do your absolute very very best to extend the game. What in the world is the point of saving bullets if you might never get to fire them? Also, as many of you have already pointed out to me (this is an edit), and frankly I am humiliated that I didn't write this to begin with: if Pujols gets any kind of hit -- a thing he is much much much more likely to do than Aaron Rowand in that situation, about-to-be-cited small-sample-sized half-seasons of BA be damned forever to deepest darkest hell -- the NL probably scores two runs and the game is over anyway. Derrek Lee isn't the fastest dude in the world, but he's running on contact. My word, is this dumb.
The rationale for Pujols hitting for Rowand is based on history, because a check of the current averages shows that Pujols, homerless since June 14, is hitting .310. Rowand is hitting .310.
Seriously? Burn the Hall of Fame to the ground. It is worthless.
Albert Pujols is either the best hitter in baseball or he's damn close. He has 266 career HR and he's played in a total of like 65 baseball games. He has a .418 career OBP. And a walk, mind you, ties the game. He is 12 feet tall, and each of his lats weighs 80 pounds. His bat is 60 inches long and is made of Bigfoot's spine. He is a monstrous monster who eats sliders. Not balls that were used to throw sliders, mind you -- he has figured out a way to eat the concept of sliders. The dude hits with a closed stance only because Marty Barrett bet him he couldn't hit with a closed stance like Barrett did and still win the MVP and Pujols did it just to stave off the boredom that had come from solving baseball. He once hit a home run on a hit-by-pitch. He has more hits left-handed than anyone in baseball history has right-handed -- and he is right handed. He completed an MD-PhD at Hopkins in one hour and gave a graduation address (in Greek), and he had to miss a game against the Pirates in 2003, and he still went 2-4 with a double. The home run he hit off Lidge in the NLCS....justnow landed, in Banff. He is awesome.
Aaron Rowand has a career .341 OBP and once broke his nose making an awesome catch in center. Neither of these things was useful in facing K-Rod.
You don’t bat for an All-Star player with the game in the balance, unless the second player is the pitcher.
I just hit my own hand with a hammer on purpose to make myself forget I read this.
Fictional 1998 All-Star Game:
Ninth inning, AL down by one, bases loaded, two outs. Ben Grieve strides to the plate. Art Howe leans over to Mike Hargrove.
Howe: Should we hit for Grieve here? Hargrove: What? The guy's an All-Star! Howe: Well...yeah. They're all technically "All-Stars." But we have Manny Ramirez on the bench. We could hit Manny for Grieve. Hargrove: (scoffing) Apparently you've never read the works of Hall of Fame journalist Rick Hummel. Ben Grieve is an All-Star, and you don't hit for an All-Star unless it's a pitcher. Is Grieve a pitcher? Howe: No. Hargrove: Go get 'em, Grievey! Howe: He already fouled out to third. Game's over. Hargrove: What went wrong?!
And, knowing a little how La Russa’s mind works, you suspect that he didn’t want to generate any ill will by hitting for a Philadelphia player with the Cardinals to open a three-game series there Friday night.
Oh. Well, that makes perfect sense. He didn't want to alienate...another fucking team's fans?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!??!!??!!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!?!?!??!!?!??!?!!??!!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!
Reader Ken, and others, have pointed out that what he might mean by not "generating any ill will" is: he didn't want to piss off Rowand and the Phillies themselves. Which is: still insane.
Just talked to my man KT, on his way home from a rough day at Fremulon. All I can say is: if any of our readers are college seniors thinking about becoming insurance adjusters, do not put Fremulon at the top of your list of places to work. They will work you to tha bone!
(Note: This is, in no way, an indictment of Ken's boss, Rog Flavelman, who I have met several times at various F.I. barbecues and bowling parties. Rog is, simply put, a 100% stand-up, awesome dude. There are just some places that have -- I don't know -- an institutional agenda that puts the individual a distant second to the corporation itself. You know what I mean.)
Anyway, Ken tells me that we got some white hot e-mails in re: Timmy McCarvestone at the ASG, but he was too busy dealing with the usual Fremulonsense to post.
Bottom 2. Russell Martin at the dish. Timbo Mac points out that Martin (whose physical resemblance to Entourage's Turtle will be pointed out later in a riveting Fox graphic) has excellent speed for a catcher. Sixteen swipes already this year. Buck then asks Mac what his season high in stolen bases was. His answer?
A very confident: "thirteen."
Of course, the real answer, about which I am even more confident, is nine. Should we be surprised? Not really. This ain't the first time TM has exaggerated about his own abilities. Check it: July 22nd, 2005, Cardinals at Cubs: TM: "Derrek Lee is just an unstoppable force at the plate. Sometimes, you just have a season where everything goes your way." Buck: "Did you have a season like that?" TM: "I did. 1964. Set my career high in home runs for a season: 140." August 1st, 1999, Expos at Braves: TM: "Watch Jose Vidro leg out this triple on the replay. I tell ya, that is not an easy thing to do...hit a triple." Buck: "You hit many in your day?" TM: "Not too many, but when I did, I got four bases instead of three." August 18th, 2002, Mets at Padres: TM: "There we get a great look at Piazza's catcher's mitt, and how he frames the pitch. I myself never wore more than 1.8 catcher's mitts at a time." June 4th, 2006, Orioles at Yankees: TM: "Derek Jeter, of course, the fearless Captain of the Yankees." Buck: "You were a captain once, were you not?" TM: "I was indeed. I had the pleasure of being 3 captains, in fact."
The Great American Ballpark is a bandbox, a home-run haven, an almost impossible place to build a pitching staff.
True 'dat. According to ESPN's Park Factors Page, the GAP is the #1 easiest place to hit HR, and is #2 in runs. So far you have argued using reason and knowledge.
Look elsewhere: Philadelphia, Texas, Colorado or Boston, where the Curse of the Bambino lasted a million years.
And now you have ceased to do so.
Philly: #2 in HR, but only #10 in runs, and #18 in hits. Arlington: #10 in HR, #15 in runs, #13 in hits
Coors is 4th in hits, 2nd in runs, and 8th in HR even with the humidor. Fenway is 1st in runs and 1st in hits -- but 24th in HR. Fenway is a relatively hard park to hit HR in, and has been for a few years.
Oh, and one more thing: there is no such thing as curses. And hyperbole or no -- a million years?
Hitters can't wait to step to the plate in those places. They're crowding the on-deck circle, digging hard into the batter's box, rudely leaning into every pitch. And after three innings, the home team trails, 8-5.
Well, except for Arlington, yes, you are pretty much right. These parks do all favor hitters.
Houston (reached the 2005 World Series) and Minnesota are conspicuous exceptions, but you get the point: It's not a good thing when opponents mark the calendar for a really good time in your ballpark.
Houston is an exception? To what? Enron/Minute Maid Park strongly favors pitchers in every single statistical category -- H, R, HR, 2B, 3B, BB. It is a solid pitchers' park. In 2005 it skewed towards hitters for HR, but was a pitchers' park in every other category. How is this an exception?
Admit it. You just look at it and think it's small and don't do any research, don't you? Don't you, you saucy little minx?
The Metrodome, too -- except for walks, which is 1.001 (essentially dead average in the category) -- favors pitchers in every category. So if you really want to look for an exception to your imaginary rule, how about citing...
...
...
... the 2004 Boston Red Sox? Who won the World Series? And play in Fenway? Which? You? Cited? Earlier?
This may sound crazy,
Can't wait.
but I'm saying the Giants would have a better record right now if they hadn't re-signed Bonds. Not first-place better, but a better winning percentage, and I'll guarantee you some of the players in the clubhouse feel the same way. Why? Because it would be about a team, not a home-run record. About the hint of change, not the same one-act play. Bonds' at-bats remain magical, no doubt about that, and it might be decades before we see another hitter so compelling -- but the burden of his presence makes the rest of the players wonder if they even matter.
There might -- might, I say -- be something to this. But mostly because the guy costs a lot of money, and they might have been able to sign other, better players with that money. Bonds is going to be worth 9.6 wins to his team this year, so you'd have to get 10 wins of improvement over what you have now in order to have a better winning percentage than you have with him. That's a lot of wins. Granted, the Giants have some terrible players. Roberts-Winn-Durham is a pretty sad 123. But you can't just say that they'd be better on psychological grounds only, without offering possibilities for whom they might have signed with the extra $$$.
Then later, in the random notes section, we get...
Out-of-nowhere prediction: Jose Valverde, Arizona's flighty reliever, gives up a costly late-inning homer and turns into Atlee Hammaker, never quite the same ...
You think that's novel? Please. I've been predicting Valverde-becomes-Hammaker for months.
Here's a handy summer reminder for all the managers and pitching coaches so lamely obsessed with pitch counts ("I know he's pitching a two-hitter, but hold on just a minute here -- 103 pitches!"): In the 1968 season, the Cardinals' Bob Gibson was never removed from the mound. Made 34 starts, completed 28. The other six times, he was removed for a pinch-hitter (twice in the seventh inning, three times in the eighth and once in the 11th, notes Bill Arnold of Sports Features Group). Not once did he make that walk to the dugout, usually a humbling and discouraging experience.
I wholeheartedly encourage you to visit this page, and poke around the web and read the scientific/medical basis for pitch counts. If you don't want to, I will coarsely summarize: it is not the amount of rest between outings that matters most to a player's arm's health. It is the number of pitches per individual outing above a certain benchmark -- roughly 100. Granted, science and reason cannot hold a candle to good ol' fashioned horse sense, the like of which you are demonstrating here.
Try to imagine this as you recall Tony La Russa crafting relief for the seventh, eighth and ninth innings before the game even starts, or Felipe Alou making six changes in five minutes. It's a different game today (the pitching-dominated '68 season forced a lowering of the mound), but Gibson's feat could be repeated. Same ball, same human arm. All it takes is a little integrity and common sense.
Integrity. And common sense. That's what it takes to make a guy throw 28 complete games.
Seriously. "Integrity." And "common sense."
Integrity, to me, and to the dictionary, means something along the lines of: adherence to an ethic, or a set of moral principles. It can also mean honesty. It escapes me how any of this has anything to do with MLB pitch counts.
I suppose he could be using "integrity" in the sense of "maintenance of a whole." Like in Star Trek when a Klingon laser destroys the Enterprise's hull's integrity. That would make sense -- all it would take for someone to replicate Gibson's 300+ IP and 28 CG in 1968 would be, by definition, the maintenance of his physical integrity. But I don't think he meant that.
Let me also add here that he is actually arguing, seemingly, for a CG qua a CG -- like, it doesn't matter what the game situation is. People should just throw more complete games. Bud Black should send Peavy out there and have him toss 145 pitches no matter if he's up by 9 or down by 6. Because that would be better...for...someone?
And as for the "it could happen today" argument. Well, maybe it could. But why would you want to try? Gibson was a freak -- a once-in-a-generation pitcher with a killer arm. Saying you could have someone replicate his longevity feat today is like the child's argument that he shouldn't study because "Einstein dropped out of school in 8th grade," or "Bill Gates dropped out of college!" The antecedent in question is not the norm, thus the results of the experiment in question should not be counted on to be repeated.
But what do I know? Have Barry Zito throw 307 innings this year. Maybe that will help your Giants turn things around.
Next time you get upset when a sportswriter paints a picture of bloggers as big fat nerdy nerds who sit in front of their computers all day in their mom's basement, remember that you just referenced the Starship Enterprise's hull integrity.
If people didn't know better, they'd think we were frakkin' losers!
This is why my blood boils when people cite All Star Game Appearances as a measure of a player's abilities. Take it away, Bruce Jenkins:
One of the game's most astute writers, Jayson Stark of espn.com, marveled this week at the National League's candidates to start the All-Star game at shortstop. Narrowing it down to a statistical analysis of his top five candidates -- J.J. Hardy, Jose Reyes, Hanley Ramirez, Jimmy Rollins and Edgar Renteria -- he still found it a difficult choice. No kidding. Here's an even better way to go: Omar Vizquel. He's the greatest defensive shortstop in the history of the game. He may well wind up with 3,000 hits. The game is in San Francisco. And not one of those guys would have a problem with it. They all bow to the master.
First of all, Omar is 40 years old and has 2508 hits. If he gets 3000, I will buy Bruce Jenkins a new car -- his choice of model -- and I will personally chauffeur him to the game when Vizquel reaches the milestone. I will pay for the tickets to the game, all the hot dogs Jenkins can eat, and I will perform a striptease for him after the game. I will then hang myself in the public square of Jenkins' choosing, with "I'm an Idiot" spraypainted across my chest.
But back to the main thesis of this piece of nonsense.
Omar Vizquel has a .213 EqA. .213. His traditional stats are a sparkling .242/.283/.282. And you want him to start the All-Star Game.
I mean, I get that he's a great SS, and his career should be held in very high esteem. But come the fuck on, man.
23 year-old Jose Reyes has a .334 EqA, and is already at 8 FRAA. That translates to an 11.3 WARP3 for the year. He might be the most exciting and talented all-around player in baseball.
23 year-old Hanley Ramirez has a .344 EqA. .344!!!
24 year-old J.J. Hardy has a .319 EqA and a SLG of .601.
28 year-old Jimmy Rollins has a .296 EqA with 9 HR.
Edgar Renteria has a .316 EqA and is pounding the ball.
This is an absolute golden age of NL SS. Baseball should make it mandatory that all of these guys be on the All-Star team. They should make videos of them playing and give them away free at all MLB games. Bud Selig should learn how to play the lyre so he can write paeans to each of these men, who are baseball's best chance to get kids hooked on their product.
And Bruce Jenkins wants 71 year-old Omar Vizquel to start the All-Star Game.
I understand the desire to celebrate the careers of great players. But seriously. Bruce. That's batshit insane.
Tony Gwynn Anybody who votes against this man should be embarrassed. If Tony Gwynn isn't a Hall of Famer, why do we even have a Hall of Fame?
ITA, my friend. I. T. A.
Gwynn's career batting average (.338) is better than any player's since Ted Williams (.344). Among men whose careers began in the expansion era (1961-present), Gwynn is out there at least 20 points ahead of everybody -- except two Hall of Famers (Wade Boggs and Rod Carew).
Yes, he was a very good hitter. BA is like the eleventeenth-best stat to use to prove his worthiness, but I still TA that he should be in.
Tony Gwynn hit .350 or better five years in a row -- a streak unmatched by any hitter since Rogers Hornsby. This guy won eight batting titles (tied with Honus Wagner for the most in National League history). He finished in the top 10 in the batting race in every full season of his career -- and finished in the top five in all but two.
Dude. Stop talking about Batting Average. Seriously. .306 career EqA. Career 132 OPS+, including 169 in 1994. Toss something fun in, like his four years of 10+ WARP3.
He was a 15-time All-Star.
All-Star appearances are exactly as good an indication of a player's abilities as are the number of pets he has, or the number of floppy hats his wife owns, or the fucking number of times he ate fucking skinless chicken breast in ninth grade. Do you people hear me? It's a goddamn popularity contest voted on by drunk idiots and 9 year-olds at Reds-Giants games in early May. Stop using it as a barometer of anything. He won five Gold Gloves.
Gold Gloves are worth less than All-Star appearances. Derek Jeter has won 3 straight GG at SS, despite being -5 FRAA in 2004. His fielding cost his team a half win, and they gave him a GG. Raffy Palmeiro won a Gold Glove at 1B in a season in which he played like 7 innings there all year. Gold Gloves are often the baseball equivalent of Grammies -- they are given to veterans with famous names whose best days are far behind them.
He batted .500 (8-for-16) in the '98 World Series.
This guy went 12-27 in the 1996 NLCS. .444/.516/.630. Vote him in!
He was a total class act.
Marginally relevant.
...if Tony Gwynn isn't unanimous, I can't wait to hear the rationale of the folks who voted against him. They obviously weren't watching the same player I was watching.
Despite the fact that you did not mention any of the top like 6 reasons he belongs in the Hall...I continue to TA.
Cal Ripken Jr. It's sure tough to think of any other negatives on this guy's report card. I've heard people say the streak was overrated. And in a vacuum, most iron-man streaks really are. But when you consider what this streak meant to the sport, what the night of 2,131 meant to the sport, how could we ever claim this particular streak was overrated?
The fact is, though, that Cal Ripken would be a Hall of Famer whether he'd played in two games in a row or 2,000 in a row. That streak made him an icon, but he was already a Hall of Famer. The streak was just a frame around a great career.
You're right on here, man. I mean, the guy put up some truly insane numbers for SS. He had a 17.0 WARP3 in 1991. Do you realize that is higher than any one of Barry Bonds's years? Even 2001? That's crazy. Think about that. Cal Ripken was worth more wins to the 1991 Orioles than Barry Bonds was to the Giants the year he hit 73 HR and walked a million times.
Ripken had six years of 10+ WARP3 and two more above 9.0. He had a .339 EqA in '91 and a .284 overall, for a guy who played 2600 straight games at physically demanding positions. BP has him at 130 FRAA career, which is pretty damned good. And many of his negative years came after he had switched to 3B. The guy redefined a position. He is the greatest power-hitting SS ever, considering ARod's ill-conceived switch to 3B. There is no legitimate argument to keep him out and a million reasons to vote him in. What do you choose, Starky m'boy?
Did you know that no player was elected to start the All-Star Game more times than Ripken (17 times in 18 years)?
I want to slap you.
(To be fair, he then goes on to talk about some legitimate stuff. But that is the first thing he cited.)
Mark McGwire
It's going to require quoting a lot of this section in order to get to the part where I get angry. Hang in there.
There are a million reasons not to vote for McGwire. But of all the reasons people have dredged up lately, the one I find most amazing is the revisionist history that he wasn't that good -- except for those four years (1996-99) when he morphed into Babe Ruth.
Well, hold on. Ask any scout who saw him at USC, and they'll all tell you the same thing: This guy was a big-time masher from the day he was drafted until the day he quit.
I'm not sure, but I don't think college scouts' thoughts on "mashing" count towards Hall of Fame candidacy. Can we get someone to check on that? Julie? (Julie is my Exec. Asst. here at Fremulon Insurance, Inc.) Julie? Can you real quick just stop filing those claims adjustments and figure out if college scouts' thoughts on "mashing" count towards HOF inclusion? No? They don't? And it's a stupid question? Thanks, Jules. Take the rest of the day off.
If it took Jose Canseco's magic potion to make him any good, how come he had a .618 slugging percentage in his rookie season? Andruw Jones, Adam Dunn and Jeff Kent have never slugged .618 in any season, if that tells you anything.
A fine point.
And if McGwire wasn't any good until 1996, how did he manage to put up six seasons with at least 32 homers and 90 RBI in his seven healthy seasons before that? That's as many seasons of 32-90 as Chipper Jones and Moises Alou have, combined.
You're kind of cherry-picking stats here, with the 32-90 thing, which is weird, but still, it's a good point, kind of. I hate using RBI for anything, but whatever, the point is: he was good.
If he wasn't any good, how did this man make 12 All-Star teams -- as many as Mike Schmidt?
No. No no no no no. No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no.
Everyone? Say it with me:
All-Star Game Appearances are Meaningless.
Do I need to keep saying this?
This guy was an All-Star twice. This guy was an All-Star. This guy had an ERA+ of 85 the year he was an All-Star. This guy is one of the worst hitters in baseball, and he was an All-Star.
And before you write me e-mails and tell me that it's the number of times that counts, that that is in some way a good representation of a player's value, Fred Lynn was an All-Star 9 times. Darryl Strawberry was an All-Star 8 times. Neither of them will ever sniff the Hall of Fame.
Stop using All-Star Game Appearances as a stat when you talk about a player's career value. It is dumb to the power of retarded.
The other shaky argument here is that McGwire just had one song on his jukebox, that all he could do was hit home runs, kind of like Dave Kingman. But if he was so one-dimensional, how did he win a Gold Glove? How did he compile that .394 career on-base percentage? And even if he had just one superior dimension, he had the best home run ratio of any player who ever lived (one every 10.6 at-bats).
See? Those are good arguments. I knew you had it in you.
The Many-Timers
Goose Gossage The Goose has more than doubled his vote totals since 2000. So he's going to get in one of these centuries. But I have no idea why it has taken him this long. None.
Have the people who don't vote for him actually looked at his stats? In this guy's first 10 years as a closer, he spun off ERAs of 0.77, 1.62, 1.82, 1.84, 2.01, 2.23 and 2.27 twice. And he racked up those numbers while absorbing double the workload of today's closers. The guy threw 130 innings three times, and 99 or more two other times.
Good arguments.
No closer in history made more All-Star teams than Gossage (nine).
Bad argument.
And according to Retrosheet, he held right-handed hitters to a .211 batting average, .285 on-base percentage and .311 slugging percentage over a 22-year career.
Good arguments.
Andre Dawson I covered the National League in the 1980s. And every debate about the best player in the National League back then included Dawson's name.
Neutral-to-bad argument.
He won an MVP award,
So did Terry Pendleton.
and finished second twice.He was a rookie of the year.
So was Walt Weiss.
He won eight Gold Gloves.
So did Mark Belanger, Dwight Evans, Garry Maddux, Frank White, George Scott, and Bobby Shantz, just to name a few. (BTW: based on these dumb arguments, why doesn't Dewey get more consideration? I don't think he should be in, but he's every bit as good as Hawk, and better than a lot of the other people considered "borderline.") Also, Gold Gloves are stupid and meaningless.
He had one of the most spectacular throwing arms of his era.
The same could be said of Cory Snyder.
And even though he needed to run his knees into more ice than the Titanic just to get out there, he still racked up 2,774 hits, 438 homers and 314 stolen bases. The only other players in history who can match that combination are Willie Mays and Barry Bonds.
This is one of the most egregious cherry-picks of all time. "The only other players with as many as 2774 hits, 438 homers and 314 SB are..." My goodness. (Although, now that I think about it, why is it any less arbitrary than like 3,000, 500, 300?)
So consider his whole package of credentials -- power and speed, defense and award votes, and the all-important non-statistical side of him, the leadership and the respect he commanded among his peers. Consider all that, and it's tougher to figure out why Dawson shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame than why he should.
I did consider that whole package, even the silly meaningless stuff, and I saw a guy who was very very good, but not great enough. If you don't believe me, read any of the previous posts where I break down the numbers. There's like fifteen of them.
Dale Murphy ...if we're entering an age when voters feel compelled to make moralistic statements against the cheaters, maybe those voters should think about making a more positive statement -- by voting for a guy so pure and clean, he made David Eckstein look like Albert Belle.
Even mentioning Eckstein in an article about the HOF makes my skin crawl. Because you know he's going to get like 40 votes in 2017, and there will be 1000 articles with titles like,
"Small Man, Big Heart, Why Not?"
and
"Cooperstown Should Open Its Big Doors to the Little Man Who Hustled"
and
"What the Eck? Why Not Cast a Big Vote for the Smallest Man With the Biggest Heart?"
and
"Little Man with the Big Heart Has a Tiny Chance of a Huge Honor"
and
"Big, Small, Big, Small, Small, Big, Small: Those Are the Sizes of David Eckstein's Heart, David Eckstein Himself, David Eckstein's Hustle, David Eckstein's Chances to Get Elected to Cooperstown, David Eckstein's Skin Pigment Count, David Eckstein's 'Talent,' and the number of Reasons David Eckstein Should Not Be Elected to the Hall of Fame Today, Respectively"
and maybe
"Smig: That is Small Plus Big, Which is What Eckstein Is"
Also, in re: making a positive statement by blah blah blah voting for clean people blah blah...I say to this: no.
Murphy's stats may not look so dazzling stacked up against the numbers of today. But in his heyday -- the decade of the '80s -- Murphy got more hits and scored more runs than anyone in the National League, tied Mike Schmidt for most RBI and was second to Schmidt in homers. He was also a back-to-back MVP, a five-time Gold Glove winner, a proud member of the 30-Homer, 30-Steal Club and a big enough star to lead the entire sport in All-Star votes in 1985. So he sure deserves to be getting more than 56 stinking votes.
He got 50 yesterday. Sorry, dude. He wasn't that awesome.
Jack Morris Five years ago, Morris wasn't collecting even 100 votes. Now he's over 200. But you have to wonder if enough of these voters will ever be able to look past his 3.90 career ERA to get him to the podium.
Well, if you toss out that ERA (which is lower than Jason Schmidt's career ERA, by the way), what more evidence of this man's perpetual ace-hood could a voter ask for?
Jason Schmidt isn't a HOFer, so that's meaningless. Also, Jason Schmidt's career ERA+, which is an ERA-based stat that was invented in order to compare players of different eras, is 110, and Jack Morris's is 105. So, your comparison actually hurts your argument. So, you're a dummy for using it.
This is about more than just Game 7, 1991.
I should hope so. You don't elect HOFers based on one game.
Jack Morris pitched a no-hitter.
So did Eric Milton. Len Barker pitched a perfect game.
He started three All-Star Games.
I hate you.
He was a huge figure on three World Series pitching staffs.
He was a huge figure?! Hold the phone. Call Cooperstown! Did they know he was a huge figure?!
He always started Opening Day.
I just threw up in my mouth.
And consider this: From 1979 to '92, when Morris and Nolan Ryan were both doing their thing, Morris had 65 more wins than Ryan (233-168).
That's a very very very good indicator. Of how good the offenses of the teams Morris pitched for were. And how bad the offenses of the teams Ryan pitched for were. It is a very poor indicator of how good they were at pitching.
Jim Rice The biggest reason I vote for him: The fear factor.
Insert Joe Rogan joke here. Or, if you're me, get sleepy and bail on it.
In the 11 seasons from 1975 to '85, Anerican League pitchers would have been happier to see Jack the Ripper heading up their driveway than Jim Rice heading toward home plate.
This is a very weird thing to write. I am tired. Pass.
Bert Blyleven If Blyleven ever makes it to Cooperstown -- and he might, now that he's finally over 50 percent of the vote -- he'll owe it to men like Bill James, Rob Neyer and the bright statistical minds who now look at baseball in so many insightful new ways.
Until last year, I was one of those people who thought of Blyleven as a not-quite candidate, 287 wins or no 287 wins. But James did an incredible start-by-start study of Blyleven's career that convinced me it was only bad luck that kept him out of the 300-win club.
And Lee Sinins' indispensable Complete Baseball Encyclopedia proved just how dominant Blyleven was by computing how his Runs Saved Above Average compared to the greatest pitchers of modern times.
Blyleven gave up 344 fewer runs in his career than the average pitcher of his time. In the entire live-ball era, the only eight pitchers who beat him in that department are Roger Clemens, Lefty Grove, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Tom Seaver, Carl Hubbell and Bob Gibson.
Does a guy who hangs out with that crowd sound like a Hall of Famer to you? He sure did to me -- finally.
Out of nowhere, he ends with a rational, intelligent bang. Kudos.
And congrats to Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken. They deserve it. More than Andre Dawson.
A reader with the made-up name of Alasdair adds a few points re: Stark's comments on Gwynn:
He batted .500 (8-for-16) in the '98 World Series.
True, which is pretty impressive. Here were all of his career postseason stats, in the interest of full disclosure... '84 NLCS: .368/.381/.526 '84 WS: .263/.364/.263 (love it when BA and slugging are identical...) '96 NLDS: .308/.308/.385 (and when BA and OBP are identical...) '98 NLDS: .200/.200/.333 '98 NLCS: .231/.259/.269 (ouch...) '98 WS: .500/.529/.688
You've got to cherry-pick that one series, plus possibly the '84 NLCS, to make any kind of postseason-based argument. Much as I don't think postseason stats have great predictive quality, they do, like ERA, give a good measurement of performance in that specific situation, and Gwynn didn't generally seem to be all that special in the playoffs.
And his greatest talent was one that no player in any of our lifetimes could match: It was just about impossible to make this man swing and miss.
[Note: I did not include this point in my own analysis. --KT]
That's true - in terms of career AB/K, he's 87th, which is the best of any recent player. His career rate of 21.40 is excellent. Still, I'm a little dubious about this stat as a true indicator of quality. Take a look at the active top ten, from tenth to first:
Bengie Molina, Ichiro Suzuki, Orlando Cabrera, Jason Kendall, Lenny Harris, David Eckstein, Paul Lo Duca, Eric Young, Placido Polanco, and...drum roll...Juan Pierre. How many of those guys do you really want on your team? (P.S. #11 is Neifi Perez.)
To respond to many readers who had the same or similar criticisms of this post:
Yes, I do realize that pitchers are not voted on in the All-Star balloting. I also realize that while each of a player's individual honors (ROY, All-Star games, etc) might be relatively meaningless, that the accumulation of dozens of such honors all put together could indicate a very good player. I realize these things. Promise.
However. My point here is this.
There are many different ways to evaluate a player's career. Many good ways. Like stats that take into account a player's era and home ballpark effects. Or stats like EqA, which measure a player's total offensive output per out recorded -- a far, far better average to use than batting average. And what bugs me like few other things on God's green earth is when people make hysterical arguments for a player's candidacy based on bad ways.
All-Star game selections are stupid. I'm sorry. They are voted on by the fans. The balloting starts in May, after like 40 games. Often, the ballots don't even contain the names of deserving players, because those players break into the league in April or fill in for an injured player or something. And even if they are deserving, they are theoretically only being judged on the first half year. This is the reason a pitcher's appearance can be misleading -- lot of pitchers tire in the second half and their year-end stats aren't great, when all is said and done.
Should I go on, with reasons ASG appearances aren't a good way to evaluate players? Okay.
There are tons of considerations for the squads -- only a certain number of guys at each position, for example. Granted, Joe Torre did take four SS one year, but that is rare. Much was made (pre-steroid-scandal) in the Raffy Palmeiro should-he-shouldn't-he debate about how he didn't have that many ASG selections. Who cares? There were a lot of awesome 1Bmen in his era, who maybe played for more popular teams or something, or just had better first-halfs (halves?), so Raffy didn't often get elected to start. It didn't mean he wasn't putting up great numbers.
And, as if it needs to get any less meaningful, there is a rule that at least one guy from each team has to be on the squad. If you are a decent KC Royal right now, you can knock off 5 or 6 ASG appearances before you reach free agency. It doesn't mean you are a great baseball player.
More reasons? Okay. How about that the managers are incredibly biased, and they now pick the reserves. (Torre used to pick every Yankee that wasn't nailed down.) They still count as ASG appearances. Also, many guys who have been very good, or popular, or both, for many years often just get elected again, year after year, regardless of whether they deserve it.
An ASG selection is simply a coarse and silly way to judge whether a guy had a good season, and therefore, even in aggregate, a career. It suggests quality. It does not define it in any way.
The same is true of Gold Gloves -- perhaps even moreso. Gold Gloves are completely phony. Was Ozzie Smith really the best fielding SS in the NL in 1992, at age 38? Or did the voters just check his name off like they'd done so many years before? Was Greg Maddux really the best fielding NL pitcher last year? Really?
The GG voting is no different from the Emmy voting or Oscar voting. Certain names just ring in voters' ears, and instead of watching the players' performances closely and making an informed decision, they just say, "Judi Dench is wonderful. I shall vote for her!"
All I ask, when someone makes an argument for or against a player, is that the argument be as informed as possible. There are many good weapons an arguer can use. Why wield a dull sword?
Here is a fun and nicely-presented argument from Owen, who insists I am being, in this case, too tough on our old friend the Batting Average:
"Yes, he was a very good hitter. BA is like the eleventeenth-best stat to use to prove his worthiness, but I still TA that he should be in."
Look, we all know batting average isn't nearly as related to actual production as the yokels like to think. But this is Tony friggin' Gwynn. His value was almost exclusively predicated upon his ability to hit for average year after year -- the last accomplished guys to be so average-dependent were probably Sisler and Terry. Boggs would take a walk; Ichiro runs and fields brilliantly. Gwynn ran well at times, fielded well at times... but basically he was just a cherubic little fat guy who could sneak one through the infield a couple hundred times a year. Batting average isn't a great stat, but it's *exactly* what proves the worthiness of Tony Gwynn.
That's why he was good, and that's why he was fun. Let's celebrate that.
This is a rare spot where the mainstream folksy dopes have it right...Tony Gwynn was very good in terms of WARP3+ -- but he was absurdly good, even sublime, in terms of batting average. Batting averages got him into the bigs in the first place, and they carried him all the way to the Hall of Fame. In the rare case where a weak statistic can do that for a brutha, let's don't fight it. Let's freak out and party, because baseball's weird and varied and awesome. Hail batting average, and hail Tony Gwynn.
Brad Penny has struck out the first two batters by throwing nothing but fastballs. He's throwing hard. Your announcers are Joe Buck and Tim McCarver.
Buck: "Almost a riding fastball because it's taking off from the hand of Penny." McCarver: "A Mark Wohlberg fastball. Catch me if you can."
Mark Wohlberg. Not Mark Wohlers. Or Mark Wahlberg. Tim McCarver clearly said a word that sounds like "wole-berg." You know, Mark Wohlberg.
So what was going on in the ol' McBean? FJM breaks it down:
(1) McCarver meant to say "Mark Wohlers." Knowing that we were all collectively prepared to never think about Mark Wohlers again, McCarver wanted us to think back 11 years to a time when Wohlers was relevant. "Catch me if you can" meant "catch this fastball if you can."
(2) McCarver meant to say "Mark Wahlberg," and believes that Mark Wahlberg was the star of the film "Catch Me If You Can." He was either confusing Wahlberg with DiCaprio, or "Catch Me If You Can" with "The Italian Job."
(3) McCarver meant to say "Mark Wahlberg," but was actually trying to refer to TV personality Mark L. Walberg, who, amazingly, has hosted not only Temptation Island but also Antiques Roadshow. "Catch me if you can" was something that made sense very briefly in -- and only in -- McCarver's brain.
(4) McCarver intentionally split the difference between pitcher Mark Wohlers and rapper-turned-actor Mark Wahlberg. He then added the cryptic "catch me if you can" as a way of saying something like: "catch my reference if you can, suckers -- it is a name I made up and is basically nonsense."
(5) McCarver was not watching the game. He was flipping through the Encore / Starz type channels on a small TV in the booth. "Boogie Nights" was on, and this caused McCarver to just blurt out the name Mark Wahlberg. Only McCarver was born in Memphis, and not necessarily as a result, speaks with a crazy accent. So he said "Mark Wohlberg." Then he changed the channel, and came across the movie "The Terminal," which he believed to be the film "Catch Me If You Can." (Starring, he believes, Marisa Tomei, Joe Pantoliano, and Dan Quisenberry.) After McCarver said what he believed to be the name of the new movie he was watching, someone from FOX sauntered into the booth and offered Tim a Kit-Kat bar and a $10 Borders gift card if he'd just watch the All-Star game.
I'd put the chances (in percent) of each being the actual case at 55/44/.5/.5/0 respectively.
If you still haven't seen Texas center fielder Gary Matthews Jr.'s catch Saturday night in which he went up and over the center-field fence to rob Houston's Mike Lamb of a home run, drop what you're doing right now and go find the clip...Not much of a stretch to say Matthews Jr. deserves his spot on the AL All-Star team for this catch alone.
Where were you in 1994 when I was arguing for John Valentin after his unassisted triple play?
It didn't take long for Ozzie Guillen's phone to ring Sunday. Then again, the White Sox manager knew it was only the first wave of a potential weeklong tsunami.
"I already had a couple of phone calls, not nice ones,'' Guillen said. "A couple of teams called, but I could care less what they think.
Anybody want to take my bet that this guy will either be out of baseball or beaten to a pulp within the next five years?
"Whoever is not on this team, they have my number. They have my PR department's number. Whoever doesn't like it, play better next year.''
Oh, but see, Ozzie, I'm guessing that the reason they were angry, whoever they were, is because their guys did play better, and you chose your own players instead. For example, you kind of can't play better than Travis Hafner has, since he leads the AL in OPS, and yet you took Paul Konerko, even though the other 1B/DH type on your own team was already going, and even though Hafner's OPS is more than 100 points higher than Konerko's, and even though Hafner leads Konerko is every single meaningful (and most unmeaningful) categories.
I know Konerko is good, but you have two guys who play the same positions from the same team -- your team -- instead of, say, one guy from your team and one guy from another team who is better.
You also decided to take Bobby Jenks, who is good and has a lot of "saves," instead of Francisco Liriano or Jeremy Bonderman or even John Lackey (anyone seen his OPS against recently?). These people all arguably "played better" than your guy, but you took your guy, so they got upset.
Guillen had been promising all along that when it came time to put together the American League All-Star team, he would take as many Sox players as he could.
Oh. So, it had nothing to do with "playing better." He actually already announced that the fix was in. "You want to win the election?" asked Boss Tweed. "Campaign better!"
He also knew his decision would come under a lot of scrutiny. By the time the fan and player voting ended, Guillen was left with getting an AL-leading six Sox players into the July 11 midsummer classic in Pittsburgh -- none of whom was voted in by the fans as a starter.
Sox right fielder Jermaine Dye, designated hitter Jim Thome and pitcher Jose Contreras were selected through the players' vote. First baseman Paul Konerko, pitcher Mark Buehrle and closer Bobby Jenks were selected by Guillen. Jenks and Contreras are first-timers to the game.
"I don't like it,'' Guillen said of the difficulty he faced in putting the team together. "But I do hope that I get to do it again next year. There are a lot of rules that fans and players have to know about. The manager really ends up picking two guys.
You picked three guys. And they were all from your team.
"It's a shame to have your hands tied like that. I didn't even get three of my favorite players on the ballclub.''
Oh, the humanity! You didn't even get your three favorite guys on the team? Ye Gods! What has the Major League Baseball All Star Game come to when Ozzie Guillen only gets to have six of his own players on the team -- and not even three of his "favorites?"
By the way, if I were on his team and was not one of these "favorites," I would be pissed off right now.
Guillen said catcher A.J. Pierzynski, second baseman Tadahito Iguchi and third baseman Joe Crede should have made the team. Pierzynski still has a chance as one of five AL candidates for one spot via Internet fan voting.
Pierzynski is actually deserving. He has a 2.8 WARP1 and a .281 EqA this year. Pudge is 3.0 and .263 (the higher WARP attributed to his defense). Iguchi...well, he has a .779 OPS, which isn't bad for a 2B (better than Loretta's, and he's starting). But he also has a 1.5 WARP1, thanks to some sub-par defense (-5 FRAA). He also has 66/23 K/Bb ratio. Which stinks. And a .257 EqA. Crede is a very good 3B, with a 3.5 WARP1 and .287 EqA.
But here's the problem. There's a guy named Travis Hafner. He plays for the Indians.
OPS: 1.084 WARP1: 4.6 EqA: .364 (!)
And there's a guy named Jason Giambi, who is a dirty dirty cheater, but he also has done this:
OPS: 1.054 WARP1: 3.4 EqA: .347
And as far as Iguchi, specifically, goes, there is a guy named Brian Roberts, who plays for the Orioles.
OPS: .787 WARP1: 2.2 EqA: .278
So, you can see that Crede and Iguchi are not quite--
"The one guy that I was really pushing [Crede] was the one guy that didn't make it,'' Guillen said. "I'm going to tell Joe, 'You can go, I'll stay. I've been to a few already.'''
Ozzie Guillen, career:
OPS: .625 K/BB: 511/.239 EqA: .229
I retroactively protest Ozzie's inclusion in all-star festivities. Unless he was there as a manager or coach, in which case, I doubly protest it.
Guillen, however, said he is not done campaigning to get Crede on the roster.
"It will be one week, and if someone gets hurt, I don't care -- pitcher, catcher, outfielder -- Crede is going,'' Guillen said. "That's the way it's going to be. If anything happens to those 32 guys on the field and they can't make it, Crede is going and I don't care who gets mad.''
Mad people will include: Hafner, Giambi, Verlander, Roberts, Bonderman, Robertson, Liriano, Mussina, Schilling.
To say nothing of Tremendous, dak, Murbles, Junior, Coach. Even Spinoza might freak a little, and he's a very calm guy.
Guillen had said two weeks ago that Contreras likely would be the AL starter, but with the right-hander now scheduled to start on the Sunday before the All-Star Game, Guillen already was coming up with a Plan B. Though Guillen wouldn't confirm it, Detroit Tigers left-hander Kenny Rogers is thought to be the front-runner.
Oh my God oh my God oh my God oh my God.
Rogers has a 61/25 K/BB ratio and a DIPS ERA over 4.00. Johan Santana is so much effing better than Kenny Rogers it's like they're playing different sports. Liriano is a million times better, and Ozzie won't even put him on the team.
Kenny Rogers is 31st in the majors in VORP. And he's going to start an all-star game.
While all six of the selections were excited to be going, there seemed to be equally as much sympathy for their teammates who didn't make the team.
"The system's flawed,'' Konerko said.
Yes it is. Travis Hafner isn't on the team. Nor is Giambi. I'm glad you said it.
"I've been on the short end of it before because of the way the voting works out. They try to do it the best way they can, and I'm not sure there's a perfect way to do it.
No, there isn't. Deserving people like Mike Mussina and Francisco Liriano don't get to go because Ozzie chose Bobby Jenks, who is fine, but not as good as Mussina or Liriano. This is really mature of you, Paul, to be saying this.
"Every year, there's so many guys that do well and there's just so many spots. It's just bad when it happens to somebody close to you or yourself, and that's the case with Joe. The numbers speak for themselves. He should be there."
Oh.
Just to review, here's how Ozzie would like the 2006 AL All-Star Starting Line-Up to look:
C Pierzynski 1B Konerko 2B Iguchi 3B Crede SS Who Cares RF Dye CF Who Cares LF Who Cares DH Thome
Question from Karl Ravech: who should start the game for the A.L?
Krukie: Roy Halladay. H.R.: Johan Santana. Steve Phillips: Jose Contreras. Because "He hasn't lost a game this year. You need to win a game? Give the ball to the guy who hasn't lost a game." (Slight paraphrase.)
Now, I am a reasonable guy. I love the give-and-take of reasonable arguments from reasonable people. But there is an answer to this question, and the answer is Santana.
And where's the Tiger love? Verlander, Bonderman, and Robertson all have better numbers than Buehrle (to say nothing of their selected teammate, Kenny Rogers). In fact, Bonderman's DIPS is 2.85. Why did I break down Mussina and Schilling instead of Bonderman? Oh well. Too late now. My computer has no delete key.
But the real crime is Liriano.
9-1, 1.99 ERA. in 81.1 IP, he's allowed 59 H, and has a 94/20 K/BB ratio. His WHIP is .97. The league is slugging .292 against him, with a .256 OBA. His DIPS is 2.44. He might be the best pitcher in the AL right now.
Look.
The All-Star Game is stupid. Every year, this one included, there are about a dozen crazy choices made, for starters and reserves. It's half popularity contest, quarter meaningless exhibition, quarter "this time it counts" MLB nonsense-fest. It doesn't know what it is. The fans vote! The players vote, too! The manager from last year's World Series team gets to do stuff! The C.E.O. of the concessions company who has the contract with the stadium where the game is played gets to choose one reserve third baseman! The soldiers in Iraq design the uniforms! The Royals don't have anyone in the game?! Get Mark Redman in there!!!
The whole thing is a mess.
I know that managers take their own guys. I know there are already too many Yankees and Red Sox on the roster, so I'm fine with no Schilling or Mussina. But Mark Buehrle is mediocre. The Tigers are good. Liriano is blisteringly awesome. Ozzie is a moron.
Get it? Jay "Snore"? Does anyone know who I'm talking about? Hello? Forget it. I hate everyone. Anyway, Jay Mohr has a new article up called "A giant snore," and he's not talking about the pun in the title of a an Internet blog post written long after his article was published. No, he's talking about the very serious issue of NBA All-Star Weekend, and how this Grandaddy of All Important Sporting Events just ain't what it used to be, back in the good ol' days, back when players didn't jump while they shot and everyone played in loafers and top hats.
Hey, here's his subhead:
NBA All-Star Game and 'events' have become a joke
Okay, the Shooting Stars thing was pretty much a joke. Also, the celebrity game. It's not like I loved every second of All-Star Weekend. Come on -- the events included Clyde Drexler shooting half-court shots and Bow Wow and Christopher Meloni playing a game of pickup. The point is -- for the most part, it's not even supposed to be NOT a joke. Let's get to the article.
Was the NBA All-Star Game on this year?
Yes. You either watched it or read about it extensively, enough so that you gathered a bunch of facts that you wrote about in this article. Plus, you cared about it so much you decided to write an indignant, old-bitter-sportswriter-style column about how it has to change to be more like it used to be in some hypothetical dream world universe that you made up.
I must have missed it. Maybe it was because there was just too much great television to watch instead of the NBA's mid-winter classic. Like reruns of 30 Minute Meals with Rachael Ray on theFood Network or that show on Telemundo where the guy dresses up in a bumblebee costume.
Very current reference. How many years has The Simpsons been doing the Channel Ocho Bumblebee Guy? My uniformed guess is 13 years. Possibly more.
For years the NBA All-Star Game has been completely irrelevant.
I agree, except I would take out the words "for years." All All-Star Games are irrelevant, unless you count the sort of stupid rule in baseball where the league that wins an exhibition game gets to host the World Series. They're All-Star games. They're shows. They're exhibitions. Complaining about their relevance is like going to the circus and saying "I didn't learn anything and nothing was at stake even though I really enjoyed the lions!"
Long ago, fans began tuning out the league's best players playing bad basketball. For too long the stars have embraced an all-offense and no-defense approach, and this is one of the many reasons it has become unwatchable.
All offense and no defense, huh? Mohr must remember all those All-Star Games of yore, where Michael locked down Magic like his life depended on it and Cousy played airtight defense on George Mikan or that one time that Dr. James Naismith made the guys play with the lid still on the peach basket. Unwatchable? When has it been watchable? This year the final score was East 122, West 120. Did Mohr prefer the classic 1998 tilt, when Michael Jordan was MVP and the final was 135-114, East? Or perhaps he enjoyed Magic Johnson's performance in 1992, when the West won 153-113? Oh, he's probably an 80's guy. How about 1987, when the final was West 154, East 149? Phenomenal defense in that one. More of a 70's aficionado? Great. In 1970, the East beat the West 142-135, and Willis Reed won the MVP. 1961: 153-131. 1958: 130-118. That's pretty much the entire history of the game.
Jay Mohr: the NBA All-Star Game is not about defense.
At the end of the game this year, guys buckled down and tried to win. That happens every year. It's not a surprise. LeBron even fouled Tracy McGrady on the last shot while trying to play tight defense on him. They just didn't call it. Everyone knows the first 43 minutes or so are the time to throw alley-oop dunks off the backboard to yourself. Then you play some defense. Hey, in 24 minutes, Ben Wallace had 8 rebounds, 3 steals, and 2 blocks. He was playing some D.
If you disagree with me, then explain why the All-Star Game was shown on TNT, sandwiched between Steven Seagal movies. It's because it stinks.
There are a variety of factors. Every major sport is declining in television ratings (except maybe football). There are a lot more options out there, and people are availing themselves of them. NASCAR is more popular than a lot of the sports that you, Jay Mohr, probably think are bigger and more important. The Daytona 500 got better ratings than some of the World Series games. Does that mean that auto racing is better than baseball? No. People like different things. And yes, I'm aware that you're sort of, kind of making a joke because you mentioned the name Steven Seagal. My point is: popularity does not equal quality, and I don't care what network a show is on.
The "events" that lead up to the game stink too. The slam dunk contest is a perennial snore.
The dunk contest was insanely popular when Michael and Dominique were trading 50's in the 80's. Then it sucked for awhile. Then Vince Carter was amazing in 2000. Then it sucked for awhile again. I thought it was pretty entertaining this year. Iguodala's off-the-backboard dunk would have broken people's brains in the 80's. Seriously, if he had done that in 1989, I believe the city of Houston would have been burned down by people running out of the arena thinking they had just seen an alien.
Why do we celebrate a dunk contest, anyway?
Because it's fun to watch guys dunk. If you don't agree, I think you are borderline crazy. Tell me it's not entertaining to see a 5'9" guy jump over a 5'7" previous dunk champ and hammer down. Why do we go to a museum to look at fucking paintings of a pond of lily pads or whatever the fuck? That last sentence didn't really prove my point.
Aren't these players paid to make dunks?
Ugh. No, they're paid to play basketball. Some guys in the league can dunk, and a smaller number of those can do it in a really entertaining way over and over again. Does this really have to be explained? Rhetorical questions with easy answers do not equal comedy.
Isn't the slam dunk contest akin to the NHL having an "open net" contest?
Yes, if NHL players could shoot at the net while jumping in the air and turning 360 degrees and throwing the stick between their legs twice. Or if Sidney Crosby jumped over Bobby Orr and then took a shot. I think people would pay to see that.
I would much rather watch a three-point shootout, and I am sure Spud Webb would also.
Spud Webb probably loves watching dunk contests. I mean, loves. Did you see how happy everybody was watching the dunk contest on Saturday? He won one, remember? Jesus.
After all the concerts and uncontested three-pointers and dunks, the actual "game" was played. What a thrill this must have been to the fans who slapped down hundreds of dollars of hard-earned money to watch Kevin Garnett shoot 1-for-9 and the West and East shoot (with no defense) a whopping 46 and 50 percent, respectively.
First of all, All-Star Games are filled with media and businessperson-types who go see like one game a year. Who cares if they didn't get their money's worth? Most of them didn't pay anyway. And again, who the hell wants to see defense in an All-Star Game? People always complain about this, but NO ONE LIKES SEEING 84-79 NBA GAMES.
The NBA needs to spend less time putting together rap concerts at halftime and more time putting together a great game.
This makes him sound like a racist.
Maybe the league needs to follow in the footsteps of Major League Baseball and give home court advantage to the winner. Maybe then the players would guard someone. Maybe then the dunk contest and three-point shootouts would return to what they were intended to be -- entertaining events that precede a basketball classic.
How would that change make the dunk contest or the three-point shootout better? I don't understand. Maybe the guy's team who wins the three-point shootout should get an extra win in the standings? No, wait, that would be terrible.
Now what we are forced to watch is something very different. Each year we have to sit through somewhat entertaining events that lead up to a basketball snore. If the league continues to endorse the shoot-first, -second and -third version of the All-Star Game, they will be lucky to have TNT as its network. Maybe next year the All-Star Game could be on Telemundo right after that guy in the bumblebee suit.
BOOM -- CALLBACK!!! (Mohr throws down his microphone and stalks off the stage)
If Mr. Mohr wants to see "team play" and defense, he is cordially invited to watch the Bucknell-Princeton first-round match-up in this year's NCAA tourney, which, I am guessing, will be a 38-35 affair. The very idea that there should be more defense in the NBA All-Star Game is so gargantuanly stupid. Almost as stupid as that Bumblebee guy on Telemundo -- what is the deal with that guy?
"Baseball wants the All-Star game to have meaning? I don't get it."
>> Yes, baseball thinks more people might want to watch if the game has some real-world (or at least real-baseball-world) impact. Is that so hard to get?
"If the game means so much, why are some of baseball's best players not in the game?"
>> The system for selecting All-Stars has some pretty large flaws. I agree, Rob.
"[C]an you imagine an NBA All-Star game without Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson?"
>> Yes, the last two NBA All-Star games have not involved either Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson. Neither did the three NBA All-Star games from 1999-2001.
"And Michael Young is more deserving than Jeter??? Don't make me laugh."
>> Well, hold on, now, Rob. The question is a good one. Young has a higher raw OPS than Jeter this year and as anthony baseball pointed out, more runs, RBI, and home runs. But he plays in Texas. A check on Baseball Propectus reveals the following for the first half of 2005:
Jeter WARP2: 4.8 Young WARP2: 3.5
Ugh. By that metric, Jeter appears to be more deserving than Young.
Anyway, I'm sure that Dibble did exactly the same legwork I just did before jumping to any conclusions.
On PTI yesterday, Harold Reynolds said something along the lines of "Derek Jeter should be in the All-Star Game because he's the face of the game. They wouldn't play an NBA All-Star game without Michael Jordan, and the same thing applies here."
I think the best players should play in the All-Star Game. This year, Miguel Tejada and Michael Young have been better than Derek Jeter. They're both shortstops. Hence, unless you want three shortstops (which apparently, the NL did), Jeter's out of luck.
If there were a season where somehow Michael Jordan was outperformed in the first half of the year by Reggie Miller and Craig Ehlo, then by all means he should have been left off the team. But I don't think the "Face of the Game" exemption ever came into play with Michael Jordan. (Even when he was limping around in Washington for two embarrassing years.)
Michael Jordan is one of, if not the greatest basketball player ever. Derek Jeter is a good shortstop who is wildly, disproportionately famous.
i like how the fans have come to the realization that derek jeter is not one of the best shortstops in the league, but the sportswriters can't figure it out.
Tony DeMarco, MSNBC.com, on the All-Star Game Selections -- a few gems:
The subtitle of the column is:
Fans did fine job, but rules left some deserving players out
With the combination of fan balloting, voting by players, managers and coaches, a handful of selections by the game’s two skippers, the sticky one-representative-per-team rule, and even a popularity contest to determine the final man on each roster, the All-Star selection process has become more complicated than a presidential election.
It’s how Derek Jeter can (temporarily, we hope) be left off the American League squad, while Justin Duchscherer is on it. It’s why Morgan Ensberg will be at home next Tuesday, while Cesar Izturis and Felipe Lopez will be in Detroit...
Okay. There's his thesis -- that the voting process has led to some deserving players being left off the team. Cool? Let's see some of his examples.
American League Catcher: The fans got it right with Jason Varitek, the most-complete package behind the plate in the game. You can make cases for Bengie Molina and Joe Mauer as the backup, but this is the right time for hometown hero Ivan Rodriguez to make what could be a swan-song appearance as an All-Star before the Mauer era begins in earnest.
First of all, Bengie Molina only had 155 AB in the first half, and Joe Mauer is having a sub-par year. The only person you can really make an argument for as a back-up is Posada, who hasn't been great, but has more HR, a higher OBP, and higher OPS than Pudge. But the real point is, after telling us that the voting system was screwed up and led to deserving players off the team, you then immediately turn around and say that Pudge should be on the team because it's his "swan song" and he's a "hometown hero?" What the fuck kind of voting process is that, Tony?
First base: Where have all the sluggers gone? They’re not playing first base in the American League, that’s for sure. Mark Teixeira thankfully overtook a hot-in-April, dreadful-ever-since Tino Martinez as the obvious choice to start. The fact that the players picked Paul Konerko, a .245 hitter, as the backup speaks to the success of the White Sox.
No, it doesn't. It speaks to the success of Paul Konerko. Only Teixeira has a higher OPS among AL first basemen. Only Teixeira has more HR. You could make an argument for Sexson, but he's underperforming a little. Konerko isn't tearing it up, but he's a fine choice for a back-up. Except, damn, Tony DeMarco points out that he is hitting .245. So, that meaningless, luck-based statistic will have to triumph over logic and reason.
Mark Sweeney was added as the Royals' lone representative, and that was a better way to go than journeyman outfielder Emil Brown or rookie reliever Andy Sisco, two other Royals possibilities who emerged while Sweeney was on the disabled list.
First of all, it's Mike Sweeney. (Are you sure you're a baseball columnist?) Second of all, why is it a "better way to go?" You can't just say things like that. You have to defend them. Is it a "better way to go" because you're heard of Mark/Mike Sweeney, but you haven't heard of Emil Brown? Who cares if he's a "journeyman?" What does that have to do with anything? That's like saying, "Let's put Sweeney on this team -- Brown is allergic to peanuts." It's completely irrelevant. Emil Brown has an .827 OPS with 8HR hitting clean-up. Mark/Mike Sweeney has been injured, and has a .834 OPS with 9 HR. Seems pretty close to me. I'd rather see Emil Brown.
Shortstop: It’s an all-Oriole double-play combination, and rightfully so, as Miguel Tejada — another MVP candidate — was the fans’ choice over Jeter. And as much as Jeter deserves to be in Detroit, so does Texas’ Michael Young. Was there a bit of Yankee-hating going on with the other players, coaches and managers? Who knows? But it’s not a true American League All-Star team without Jeter, and he should be the choice in the internet voting for the final AL spot.
