Share this Post

Comments

  1. GW

    josh wrote:

    Yeah, but they had better defensive 3B options. He basically pitched a fit at the prospect of being DH and effectively hurt his team overall.

    You know what’s sad? I don’t think this is true at all. First of all, Fielder would have DH’ed had it come to that (something he expressed distaste for on the FA market). And they wanted to prepare for next year when Vmart came back.

    Better 3B options? Inge was completely done, and was accordingly cut. Ramon Santiago? Ryan Raburn? Don Kelly? These guys were so incompetent that they traded for Omar Infante and Jeff Baker midseason. Nick Castellanos isn’t ready yet. I’ll grant you that Peralta would have been a better option. Unfortunately, he is their starting shortstop.

    Moreover, if you are going to play the “they had better defensive options” card, it should be noted that the Angels have a better CF option, crazy as that may seem.

    I think Trout probably deserves it, but I would also be happy to see Cabrera get it. I’m certainly not going to start shitting all over Cabrera’s season just to stick it to a handful of sportswriters. And fuck all of you, I’m excited as hell about the triple crown.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  2. josh

    @ GW:
    Well the argument goes that forcing Delmon Young to DH forced them to play the guys you mentioned. Maybe they didn’t have a better 3B option on hand, but that could have been something they targeted in trades, but there was no space.

    Meh, I guess I don’t give a shit. I think Trout was a much better player this year overall. Nuff said.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  3. GW

    josh wrote:

    Well the argument goes that forcing Delmon Young to DH forced them to play the guys you mentioned

    I don’t see how this makes any sense. The guys I mentioned are utility infielder types, and Delmon is a (terrible) outfielder.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  4. GW

    josh wrote:

    Maybe they didn’t have a better 3B option on hand, but that could have been something they targeted in trades, but there was no space.

    You could make the case that they should have signed Aramis instead of Prince. Other than that, I understand that Ian Stewart was available.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  5. josh

    @ GW:
    I’m not basing my argument on that, I’m just parroting what I read on the NET. Truth be told, I just think Trout was better. I disagree with the selfless argument as even being valid.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  6. GW

    @ josh:

    I give him a lot of credit for making it work and performing merely at a youkilis-type level at third. When I heard he was moving there, I would have bet on it not lasting twenty games.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  7. Suburban kid

    @ Rice Cube:
    My video game rotation is Tim Hudson, Cliff Lee, RA Dickey, Derek Lowe and Randy Wells. (dying laughing)

    My game also has a glitch where a foul ball to the Bartman seats is a home run.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  8. Rice Cube

    josh wrote:

    BECAUSE: It’s people making up narratives about behind-the-scenes events without really knowing if they are true.

    That’s sort of the way I feel about the PED/steroid thing. I mean, they probably help and all, but the expert opinions seem to be just opinions and good inductive reasoning skills…

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  9. Suburban kid

    Rice Cube wrote:

    Do you try to avoid using your #5 starter if at all possible? 😉

    This is a video game. Wells is good and Andrew McCutcheon is on the bench. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  10. mb21

    GW wrote:

    I think Trout probably deserves it, but I would also be happy to see Cabrera get it.

    Trout deserves it, but I don’t really care who wins it. It just doesn’t matter to me who wins the MVP. As for the triple crown, I also don’t care. It has one team dependent statistic in RBI and another statistic that’s of little value.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  11. Rice Cube

    Actually one of my favorite games was in 2010 when both teams also sucked. Dempster had gotten shelled and the Cubs were down 7-1 at one point before the offense went completely nuts. Ended up winning 14-7. That was a recent game I enjoyed.

    /cool story bro

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  12. Mish

    mb21 wrote:

    Trout deserves it, but I don’t really care who wins it. It just doesn’t matter to me who wins the MVP. As for the triple crown, I also don’t care. It has one team dependent statistic in RBI and another statistic that’s of little value.

    I enjoy the MVP debates; it’s a good foundation for talking adv. stats with people who are unfamiliar (I don’t mean curmudgeony old writers, but people who just generally aren’t aware) and I’d be lying if I didn’t say I enjoy saber-vangelizing.

    As for caring about the MVP – I care insofar as its important to the Hall of Fame, and I do like to see the right people get in. As an example, Chase Utley at this point may be considered a borderline HOF candidate based on WAR; he’s only 32 (33?) so if he stays healthy and productive, he should easily surpass 60 WAR. However, thinking of the Hall voters (I realize not the same group as MVP ones), how many people would honestly think he’s shrine worthy? Not many, probably. Chase Utley could have a couple of MVPs to his credit, but several times its been awarded to lesser players ON HIS OWN TEAM; Rollins because he did some 20-20-20-20 thing and Howard because ZOMG RBIs AND HRS. If Utley took the MVP both those years (he was a good candidate each year, if not the best), he’d be a lock amongst writers given back-to-back MVPs.

    So in concluson: I really like Chase Utley. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  13. Mish

    I also don’t give a shit at all about the TC. Cool feat, bro, but it’s just an arbitrary selection of stats. No one has been able to explain to me why Runs aren’t included, for example. And as said, RBI is worthless and AVG has some value but is incomplete. Why should we then herald someone for this?

    I get its a rarity and all that, but that in itself doesn’t make it awesome. It’s about as cool to me as a story about how Gavin Floyd and Brian Bannister pitched against each other 20 years after Floyd Bannister retired, or something like that.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  14. GW

    @ Mish:

    I think Utley will be fine (provided he bounces back, which is a big if). By the time he becomes eligible, all the voters will have played fantasy baseball and remember what a monster he was, big media market, etc…

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  15. Berselius

    @ GW:

    I’m not so sanguine about Utley bouncing back. He’s on the part of the age curve that gives extremely limited returns. Given how much of his WAR is due to defense, the lack of Gold Gloves is probably going to hurt him a lot more with the HOF voters. But I don’t really care if he gets in or not. It’s the same as with MVP, it’s a vaguely defined and subjective criteria for who is recognized.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  16. Mish

    Yeah, his defense has been criminally underrated, so that hurts him too. GGs specifically, though some of those probably went to Brandon Phillips, who is just as deserving of them.

    It is worth pointing out (SSS warning) that Utley has been worth 3.2 WAR in 81 games so far. I think health is the biggest issue with him; if he can play 140 games, I still think he can put up 5-6 WAR seasons for the next few years.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  17. Berselius

    Mish wrote:

    I think health is the biggest issue with him; if he can play 140 games, I still think he can put up 5-6 WAR seasons for the next few years.

    I’d be shocked if he can do that though. The guy has some crazy injury history, and IIRC whatever is going on with his knees is not something that is expected to get better.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  18. GBTS

    Mish wrote:

    It’s about as cool to me as a story about how Gavin Floyd and Brian Bannister pitched against each other 20 years after Floyd Bannister retired, or something like that.

    I think the Triple Crown is cooler than this.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  19. SVB

    @ GW:
    As I was looking at the stats this morning for the my comment on the previous thread, one of the most surprising things I saw was that Cabrera actually played 150+ games at 3B. My prediction at the beginning of the season was that he’d be pushed to LF by May 15.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  20. mb21

    Mish wrote:

    I enjoy the MVP debates; it’s a good foundation for talking adv. stats with people who are unfamiliar (I don’t mean curmudgeony old writers, but people who just generally aren’t aware) and I’d be lying if I didn’t say I enjoy saber-vangelizing.

    I used to enjoy MVP debates, but I think it’s the worst possible time to use advanced metrics in order to convince anyone of their merit. I don’t know anyone who has ever been convinced by those arguments in such a debate.

    I just figure that they’ve picked enough wrong MVPs over the years that nobody should really care if they do it again. And picking Cabrera over Trout is the wrong choice. I agree with what Tangotiger said here:

    Mike Trout is so massively ahead of the pretenders that I cannot believe a discussion is even possible. But if someone wants to try, go ahead. But, please, don’t be myopic or political. That means not to just look at those things that support you, while dismissing or diminishing those things that work against you.

    I don’t think it’s even possible. In the AL this just isn’t even close this year. In 20 years I don’t think there will even be a debate when one person is so far ahead of another. Trout is 3.2 fWAR better than Cabrera (Cabrera is 3rd in the AL, also behind Cano). He’s 3.9 rWAR ahead and Cano is once again the best in the AL (a win better than Cabrera).

    Cano isn’t deserving of the award so neither is Cabrera.

    That said, my guess is that Cabrera gets it and people will erupt with anger for no reason whatsoever.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  21. mb21

    Rice Cube wrote:

    @ josh:
    I don’t run your blog, but it may be because your blog software has a hard cutoff for image width.

    Images should be shrunk and not cutoff. The css for cutting content off is overflow:hidden, but we don’t use that for content. Instead, we use max-width:98%, height:auto. This forces the image to resize itself based on the browser it’s being viewed on. The maximum width is 98% of the content area and the height automatically resizes to keep the image from distorting.

    Josh, the image doesn’t appear cutoff to me.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  22. Mish

    In probably his last game as a Ray, James Shields strikes out 15 while pitching a CG (assuming this doesn’t go extras). And they are losing, 1-0. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  23. josh

    @ mb21:
    This is like in Office Space, where has to explain himself to 6 different bosses. I messed up exporting the file, so Illustrator cut it off on the edges. I then reexported it and fixed it within 5 minutes of the original post.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  24. SVB

    @ GW:
    So tomorrow we will see history repeat itself.

    According to STATS, LLC, the last time two teams with 100 losses or more played was yesterday.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  25. SVB

    @ GW:
    I was thinking more along the lines of: What is the overall record of teams when leading after 7 innings. If it is 92% or something, maybe 74-0 isn’t so impressive. What’s the 95% CI?

    (Sorry, I’ve been editing a research manuscript tonight.)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  26. Suburban kid

    Aisle424 wrote:

    @ GBTS:
    I didn’t read every word until just now. I was there with Harry Pav, too bad we couldn’t have an impromptu OV Con in the bathroom under the bleachers

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  27. Suburban kid

    GW wrote:

    According to STATS, LLC, the last time two teams with 100 losses or more played was Sept. 30, 1962.

    I remember that game.

    /Alv-
    ah fuck it
    /SK

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  28. SVB

    A few days ago I saw one of the division leading managers whining about how they are at a disadvantage with the wildcard playoff because the top seed wouldn’t know their opponent until later than the #2 seed. (Might have been Davey Johnson complaining–don’t think it was Dusty.)

    Since the NL top seed will be determined today, I wonder if folks think this is valid.

    To me, it’s not. The decision on playoff roster only comes down to a bullpen arm, 4th starter, and maybe a bench guy or two. The 4th starter isn’t going to pitch right away. I’d want the wildcard winner because they will have had to use their best pitcher, or second best, in the play-in game and have less rest.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  29. josh

    Wouldn’t it make more sense if the Triple Crown were steals, BA, and Fielding%?

    The thing with the Triple Crown is that I’d never even heard of it before last year. I wasn’t alive in Ted Williams’s day.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  30. Berselius

    SVB wrote:

    A few days ago I saw one of the division leading managers whining about how they are at a disadvantage with the wildcard playoff because the top seed wouldn’t know their opponent until later than the #2 seed. (Might have been Davey Johnson complaining–don’t think it was Dusty.)

    For my part, I’m annoyed that the only series that’s set in stone right now is Braves-Cardinals for the NL Wild Card play-in game. Don’t these teams understand that I have previews to write? Sheesh.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  31. Berselius

    @ Rice Cube:

    It was two years ago (dying laughing). FWIW they do get snow in Dallas, though nothing like the midwest. What I found even more baffling was how much everyone freaked out when it went below freezing for a few days. None of the houses here are built to deal with it. Exposed pipes everywhere, the plumbers made a mint that week.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

Leave a Comment