If Miguel Cabrera Wins the Triple Crown, is he the MVP?

by JohnBowen

Short Answer: No.

Long Answer:

As of today, Tigers third baseman Miguel Cabrera is leading the American League in both batting average (.333) and RBI’s (129). He is second in home runs with 40, just 2 behind Texas outfielder Josh Hamilton. Cabrera is also leading the league in slugging percentage, OPS+, and total bases. He’s having an MVP season. A season that win would MVP most years, which is hardly surprising from a player that has dominated the American League since coming over in 2008 and is looking at a fourth consecutive top-5 placing.

The question that has arisen in many places: if Miguel Cabrera wins the triple crown – does that make him MVP over Angels rookie center fielder Mike Trout?

1) Are those statistics really all-encompassing enough to make them an automatic MVP-winner?

First off, you’ve got batting average. Not a complete garbage statistic by any means. Most of the most ardent stat-lovers lead off with it in the rate-stat triple slash line. But it looks like an arbitrary sample of a player’s plate appearances, while completely ignoring some number of positive plate appearances. It also rates doubles and triples the same as singles. So, it combines the worst aspects of both on-base percentage and slugging percentage which both (when looked at together) tell a bigger story. Now, Cabrera is leading the league in slugging percentage and is third in on-base percentage.

Next, you have  home runs which are fine. Moving on…

Finally, you have RBI’s, a hotly contested statistic, far less in-vogue now than in the past. For one thing, RBI’s have almost as much to do with who your teammates as they do your own personal skill; Miguel Cabrera would not be leading the league in RBI’s as a Seattle Mariner, and he would have about 150 as a Texas Ranger. And on-top of that, why are RBI’s any more significant than runs scored? Both are largely dependent on teammates and both are a direct reflection of the creation of a run that crosses that plate. Mike Trout, as a lead-off hitter, has been scoring runs at a historic pace – due to both his own skill (.396 OBP, 46/50 in SB) and his teammates (four Angels have OPS+’s over 120, in addition to Trout). And yet, due to the under-valued role of the lead-off hitter, RBI find their way into the triple crown equation and runs scored do not.

Now: it’s basically impossible to win the triple crown and have had a year that wasn’t MVP-caliber. In fact, anyone who finishes top-5 in all three categories will likely deserve to be in the discussion, provided their name isn’t Dante Bichette.

2) If he barely misses the Triple Crown, what would that change?

The question posed was: would winning the triple crown make Miguel Cabrera league MVP?

I counter with: what if he leads in home runs and RBI, but loses the batting average title by one point? In the grand picture, would one more hit have fundamentally transformed his season? What about three hits? Five hits? What if he’s one hit short and smashes a double in the eighth inning of a 10-0 blowout against a scrub call-up with the Tigers already eliminated to seize the fabled triple crown. Was his season un-MVP worthy in the seventh inning of that meaningless blow-out, but suddenly MVP-worthy because of that garbage double?

The MVP should be about the big picture, not about a single hit here or there. The difference between .334 and .333, or 137 RBI and 136 is negligible in the grand scheme of things, and the difference between those figures should not mark the difference between and MVP season and an also-ran.

3. Fielding counts in baseball.

This discussion has thus-far revolved solely around offensive prowess. What about fielding? Shouldn’t that matter? The MVP is an award given to the most valuable player, not hitter (note: yes, pitchers are players, because they play baseball). We have the Hank Aaron Award for the best hitter – MVP takes the whole player into account, so defense is part of the equation. Mike Trout is 21 years old, and is already the best defensive center fielder in the game, excelling at a defensive position like nobody’s business. Miguel Cabrera has never been a particular strong fielder as a first baseman and isn’t strong at third either.

This leaves Trout with a positional advantage at a harder position and a skill advantage as a much better fielder. This has resulted in Trout amassing 4 Wins Above Replacement more than Cabrera. WAR should not be in the end-all be-all, but, unlike batting average, home runs, and RBI, it looks at the whole player – and the difference between Trout and Cabrera. In fact, that difference is roughly the same as the difference between Cabrera and the league average regular player.

4. Yes, this has been done before.

In both 1942 and 1947, Ted Williams won the traditional triple crown and was denied the MVP, with pennant winners edging him both times (he was also denied the MVP when he hit .406 with a mind-blowing 235 OPS+). So, it wouldn’t exactly set a precedent if the MVP was denied to a triple crown winner.

The difference, of course, was that Williams was clearly wronged, leading the league in on-base percentage, slugging percentage, OPS+, total bases, walks, and runs scored in both years with soul-shattering leads in every one of those categories. It’s like he was playing a different game – but of course, the adage at the time was that the MVP could only go to a member of a contending team.

Which brings us to our final point:

5) Don’t let a playoff appearance be the deciding factor.

At this juncture, both Trout and Cabrera would find themselves on the outside looking in if the season ended tonight.

If Cabrera’s efforts put the Tigers over the edge, that won’t make him MVP either, triple crown notwithstanding.

The MVP shouldn’t be denied to a player having a historically great season just because his teammates didn’t outperform another player’s teammates. Rank the players according to their own merits, and let the standings rank the teams.

In a way, we should feel sorry for Cabrera – at least as sorry as we possibly can for a man making over 20 million dollars a year. He has played well enough to win an MVP in each of the last three seasons and been edged each time – and just barely in 2010 and 2011. I’m confident that, at some point, he’ll get his – this kind of consistent dominance tends to yield the game’s highest honor at least once in a while.

But 2012 is Mike Trout’s year – no matter what three arbitrary statistics say.

521 Responses to “If Miguel Cabrera Wins the Triple Crown, is he the MVP?”

  1. Chuck Says:

    “So, it combines the worst aspects of both on-base percentage..”

    Walks don’t count towards batting average.

  2. Raul Says:

    They should do away with the voting and just give the MVP to whomever the computer says has the highest WAR.

    Then the whole world will be happy.

  3. JohnBowen Says:

    “Walks don’t count towards batting average.”

    Which is precisely why it’s mind-fuckingly stupid statistic.

    What I meant by the statement was that batting average, like OBP, weights everything equally. And like slugging percentage, it ignores a large number of good, positive plate appearances.

    “They should do away with the voting and just give the MVP to whomever the computer says has the highest WAR.”

    As opposed to giving it to the person the computer tells us has the most RBI’s for a playoff team?

  4. Raul Says:

    It doesn’t matter what it’s opposed to.

    It’s what you want.

  5. Chuck Says:

    “Which is precisely why it’s mind-fuckingly stupid statistic.”

    Finally!!!

    John admits walks are overrated.

  6. Bob Says:

    Chuck, I think he meant BA is overrated as a stat, not on-base%

  7. Raul Says:

    I don’t know why he keeps insisting that batting average is so stupid when its the overwhelmingly most important factor in OBP.

  8. Chuck Says:

    Right….

  9. Chuck Says:

    Thanks Bob. :)

  10. Bob Says:

    No problem

  11. Bob Says:

    LOL @ post 2 and Raul

  12. Bob Says:

    Does anybody here read Florida papers, or listen to sports radio in Florida? (Patrick, looking at you.) What is going on with Stanton and his injury? Do not recall any discussion about him. Perhaps my bad, and if so, sorry.

  13. Chuck Says:

    Oblique

  14. Bob Says:

    Thank you.

  15. JohnBowen Says:

    “I don’t know why he keeps insisting that batting average is so stupid when its the overwhelmingly most important factor in OBP.”

    Because it’s an arbitrary sampling of plate appearances?

  16. Chuck Says:

    “Because it’s an arbitrary sampling of plate appearances?”

    Like outs?

  17. Chuck Says:

    So, on dictionary.com, it says the mathematics reference to arbitrary means “unassigned, a non-specific value”.

    Like the “replacement” part of WAR.

  18. Bob Says:

    Detroit is losing 6-4 in the 7th. A loss today will cause tremendous hardship for them.

  19. Raul Says:

    How many games left in the season? Like 10?

  20. Raul Says:

    John might be furious if Cabrera wins the MVP.
    Wouldn’t bother me too much.

    But if Kimbrel wins the Cy Young, that’s bullshit.

  21. Chuck Says:

    13

  22. Chuck Says:

    I can’t imagine Kimbrel getting it, he does have some video game-ish numbers but it’s not like there aren’t any other candidates.

  23. Chuck Says:

    If Gio gets his 20th, they shouldn’t even vote.

  24. Bob Says:

    1. Gio. Dickey and Cueto are all more deserving, and this is on the top of my head on Friday.

    2. TGIF!!!

  25. Raul Says:

    I really want Dickey to win it.

    When is the last time a knuckleballer won it? Before I was born, no doubt.

  26. Mike Felber Says:

    Very nice article John. I agree with most everything, & there is no substantive criticism to levy on any of your claims.

    Though Williams would have likely won both of those MVPs had he been more popular with the writers. The bias against giving it to non-contenders was not inviolate-a monster year could overcome that, certainly along with the traditionalist’s bias towards the arbitrary triple crown. But he was famously temperamental & arrogant, it was near the end of his career when sentimentality turned towards him.

  27. Raul Says:

    The Rays pitchers have broken the American League record for most strikeouts in a season.

    That’s more a reflection of the free-swinging times than anything else though.

  28. Chuck Says:

    “Though Williams would have likely won both of those MVPs had he been more popular with the writers.”

    I don’t agree with that at all.

    Both situations were early enough in his career where he hadn’t really cemented his “reputation” as yet.

    And from what I’ve read and researched, the Yankee “bias” was much more prevalent then than now, the fact a TC winner would lose out to a hitting streak says as much.

    Even at that, if, for example, it was Charlie Keller who had put together the 61 gamer, I would wager Williams would have won.

  29. Mike Felber Says:

    You mean 56 gamer-though I read Joe D. did have a longer streak in the minors.

    I had forgotten about that obvious reason for Williams losing in ‘41. The whole nation watched it, though Ted had a much better year overall.

    But I do believe that at least by ‘47, Williams had that bad reputation, & it has been cited many times as the reason for him not winning the triple crown.

  30. Mike Felber Says:

    I forgot that 2 links need moderation. So I post what i tried to last night, in two posts:

    Which of these stories is A) more surprising, & B) more likely to happen again in the 1st case, B) happen at all the 2nd?

    http://aol.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2012-09-21/pittsburgh-pirates-navy-seal-training-method-email-kyle-stark-boot-camp?modid=recommended_4_5

    Or….

  31. Mike Felber Says:

    http://aol.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2012-09-21/derek-jeter-leave-new-york-yankees-captain-pinstripes-3000-baseball-playoffs?modid=recommended_3_5
    Raul Says:

  32. Mike Felber Says:

    Duhhh, I meant to say that William’s reputation has been many times cited as the reason the writers did not vote him the MVP when he won the triple crown.

  33. Bob Says:

    1. Kevin McClatchy saved the Pittsburgh Pirates
    2. That is all.

  34. Chuck Says:

    1) The Pirates aren’t the only team who does this. Maybe they take it further within the drills..(apparently Jameson Taillon got hurt in one of them, which should enough of a warning), but in the big picture who cares.

    2) Perfect example of what I’ve been saying all along..if a player of Jeter’s stature says something, it will end up in print. From a media standpoint, it’s about the story, not the content. I got paid for articles getting printed, not for it’s content.

    3) There’s a player on the Rangers right now who is gay..I respect McClatchey for coming out, but, so?

    4) That is all.

  35. Chuck Says:

    Is it just me, or is this Melky Cabrera thing getting way too much attention than it deserves.

    He’s a fourth OF who juiced his way (connection to ARod noted) to a batting title, and he “voluntarily” gives up the award?

    Bud Selig and whomever is the guy in charge of the PA: “Melky, in the best interest of the game, we strongly suggest you issue a statement voluntarily giving up the batting title”.

    Melky: “Screw you guys, you can’t do that, you can’t just erase numbers and stats no matter what happens or how they came about”.

    Selig/PA: “Ever hear of Pete Rose?”

    Selig/PA: Understand something here, Ese’, we’re not ASKING you. If you EVER want to wear a ML uniform again, if you ever want to be a scout, front office guy, etc, you will do this. Otherwise, have a nice life”.

    Melky: “OK, where do I sign?”

  36. John Says:

    Does the “batting” champion get a special plaque or something? Who really cares?

    Miguel Cabrera homered today and is now tied with Hamilton for the HR lead. Hamilton, meanwhile, has some nebulous vision issue and isn’t playing.

    It would still be ridiculous if he beat Trout, but it’s hard to be upset about a guy like Miggy winning MVP – he’s so consistently dominant with the bat.

  37. Raul Says:

    No. Miguel Cabrera wouldn’t be a “ridiculous” MVP choice.

    Ridiculous would be Matt Wieters.

  38. John Says:

    There are varying degrees of ridiculousness to describe any American League player not named after a fish winning MVP. Cabrera is the least ridiculous of those choices.

  39. Chuck Says:

    “Sabermetrics have had an enormous impact on baseball..in a negative way. When I travel to various parks and talk to people, it’s shocking how little they actually know about the game”.

    Harold Reynolds.

    “I agree, it’s amazing to me, really, how much stock gets put into things that have nothing to do with what happens on the field”.

    John Smoltz

  40. John Says:

    Anyone who goes to a game and immediately disregards fielding and baserunning isn’t presenting one sort of in-depth knowledge about the happenings on the field.

  41. Raul Says:

    Anyone who yaps about range factor and DWAR without even knowing what a crow hop is should shut the fuck up.

  42. Chuck Says:

    “Anyone who goes to a game and immediately disregards fielding and baserunning isn’t presenting one sort of in-depth knowledge about the happenings on the field.”

    Anyone who uses UZR or FIP or stolen bases to justify a player’s greatness is clueless about a player’s greatness.

    See how this works?

    Minority, brother.

  43. John Says:

    You ignore almost half the game. You realize that, right?

    Also, how is batting average and RBI something you get from watching the game in person?

    “Oh he’s hitting .300, he must be good” is exactly the kind of thing said by someone who doesn’t watch the game but attempts to justify his opinion with some bullshit about how he’s watching while other people are nerding it up in their mom’s basement.

    Get a clue. You’re just as much of a stat nerd as anyone else, you just look at statistics that tell you less than nothing about a player.

  44. Chuck Says:

    “You ignore almost half the game. You realize that, right?”

    No one is ignoring anything John..you do understand that, right?

    Jeter’s supposed inefficiencies are because his 3B sucks and he’s 38 years old..neither of which have anything to do with HIM..

    You do understand that, right?

    Adam Dunn is 6′7″ 280 and doesn’t run well. He doesn’t get to as many balls as Brett Gardner does, but he makes the play on those he does get to.

    Unlike Manny Ramirez who would routinely fuck up plays right at him.

    You do understand there’s a difference between the two, right?

    You can tell me all day long how much baseball you have watched or played, but your words betray you, and since I don’t know you personally, that’s all I have to go on.

    So, sorry if I instinctively think you’re full of shit.

  45. John Says:

    Oh, so all those doubles Adam Dunn gave up as an OFer don’t matter because he’s slow?!

    What an insane way of judging talent.

    Also for the millionth time, Jeter having a bad 3b has NOTHING to do with his own deficiencies. You would know that IF YOU WATCHED THE ACTUAL GAME.

  46. Chuck Says:

    “you just look at statistics that tell you less than nothing about a player.”

    You don’t have the foggiest fucking clue what statistics tell you about a player, or which ones to look at.

    No disrespect John, but if defense mattered to you, you’d never support Raines as a HOFer.

    A walk driven OBP and SB% isn’t enough, combined with below average defense at a non-prime position, sorry, but by rights he should have already been voted off the island.

    The fact Raines is still on the ballot shows the negative to sabermetrics.

    That’s what I mean by words betraying you.

  47. John Says:

    Raines batted .294. 2-3 more hits PER YEAR and he’d be a .300 hitter and you’d be creaming your pants to vote for him.

  48. Chuck Says:

    http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120921/OPINION03/209210445

  49. Chuck Says:

    Listen, numbnuts..Biggio has 3000 hits and he’s not a HOFer, so not understanding the sarcasm.

    (The fact he was better than Raines or juiced, notwithstanding).

  50. John Says:

    But if either had hit .300? Well then that makes them great!

    By the way, you couldnt tell the difference between a .275 hitter and a .300 hitter just by watching every day, no matter what you think.

  51. Chuck Says:

    “By the way, you couldnt tell the difference between a .275 hitter and a .300 hitter just by watching every day, no matter what you think.”

    What do you think those numbers on the screen are for?

  52. John Says:

    Oh, but you shouldn’t need them! Just watch the game and you’ll totally know.

  53. Chuck Says:

    There are 77 players in the HOF with a lifetime average of .300 or better.

    “But if either had hit .300? Well then that makes them great!”

    Tell that to the 123 players who disagree.

  54. Chuck Says:

    “Oh, but you shouldn’t need them! Just watch the game and you’ll totally know.”

    How long have we been telling you that?

    You have a half dozen minor league teams (at least) within an hour drive of Groton..go watch a game.

    If you can’t tell who has it from those who don’t..without numbers or a broadcaster, then you shouldn’t be watching at all.

    Seriously.

    Give me the name of one Milwaukee minor league player below AAA who you think will be a regular player.

    That will impress me.

    Telling me Ryan Braun is good isn’t news.

  55. John Says:

    I wish I watched more minor league games. I went to some River Dogs games this year, but it was more of a social event than me actually trying to analyze future Yankees.

    Only in Groton through next month (temporary orders)…there’s a minor league team up on Yawkey Way I could go see…

    My point, however, is that this whole old school vs. New school thing hint about watching the game vs. Stats. We all watch the game. We all love it. Most of us nerds even played it, even if high school varsity was as far as we got. No one gets pulled into loving the game as much as we do by spreadsheets and WAR.

    Rather, the debate is between old stats vs. New stats. The old stats were fine before we could correlate and quantify data; now we have better ones. Batting average, RBI … these are just numbers like anything else. And just by watching (at Wrigley of course) you could never differentiate between a .275 hitter and a .300 hitter.

    It’s 15 hits a year. 2.5 per month, an extra hit every ten days….you could watch every game and not notice a difference.

    You should be able (by watching) that Piggy is a tremendous, almost transcendent hitter who contributes very little on the basepaths or in the field while while Trout does everything very well. WAR just compares theirrelevant net contributions based on how their contributions historically correlate with winning. Nothing more nothing less.

  56. John Says:

    *Miggy lol…autocorrect, not a Freudian slip

  57. Chuck Says:

    I’ve presented this here LONG ago..Ichiro and Pujols have virtually identical lifetime averages.

    If you look at just average, then you would believe them to be the same player.

    If you WATCHED them, then the differences would become clear.

    The eyes prove it, the stats justify it.

    If you pick up a stat sheet and say Jeter sucks and you don’t have the ability to see him play, then you’re lying to yourself.

    No one is arguing Jeter is Omar Vizquel, but the stats say he’s the worst SS in the game, which is flat out wrong.

  58. Raul Says:

    It’s just 15 hits a year.

    Just.

    That’s the problem. 15 hits is more significant than people think.
    Hell, a third of a run per game probably means several wins a year. And probably a playoff spot.

  59. John Says:

    Agreed, but would you be able to notice it?

  60. Raul Says:

    Me? Probably not. But you do get a sense of that sort of thing.

    Look, there’s a difference between identifying a .275 and .300 hitter…..and identifying a poor defensive play.

  61. Mike Felber Says:

    Some thoughts about the above matters.

    1) Much is seen by watching, & those 15 hits make a difference. But how we evaluate players is shaped by measurements, we could not notice those average differences reliably without them. And opinions are shaped by what we value, in the post too much by empty averages & context dependent stats.

    2) Big Donkey is 6′ 6″.

    3) Would Cabrera really be talked to that way by MLB? He could reveal the threat, dpon’t know that they would risk that exposure.

    3) Chuck, you are wrong about what SM folks should think about Raines, by their own lights. You should understand that they/we compute total value, & support many iron gloved candidates if they were good enough overall. And 2D is a pretty valuable position, Raines is seen as ~ average at it by the defensive metrics.

    4) Any observation or comprehensive view of stats, traditional or SM, shows how different players are Pujuls & Suzuki.

  62. Mike Felber Says:

    Many problems with the logic in that article Chuck. The author does not seem to well understand modern metrics.

    1) Tony Paul said that if WAR made sense Trammell would be a 1st ballot man, not Ozzie. Huh? He referred to fangraphs version below, so I checked to see if that one was different, knowing it would be ~ the same. Oz had a HIGHER lifetime WAR, despite playing in 3 strike seasons. So that comment is irrational.

    2) He describes Trout’s WAR value in part by describing runs, which are also somewhat context dependent & WAR does not directly measure.

    3) It is dumb to not distinguish WHAT SM & most folks now actually say about the value of RBIs. Not that they are irrelevant, save for determining how much value an individual player adds.

    4) He directly implies RBIS show “clutch” play, when they do nothing of the sort. Usually players are around the same in the clutch, & opportunities vary. Though curiously both were better w/RISP.

    5) He computes how many times both players drive in runs in regular & crucial situations). But you ALSO need to look at how the players add to SCORING runs, OBP related play, to gauge offensive value.

    6) It “matters” whether their team makes the playoffs for the MVP? It does for who is given more credit. But Paul makes no effort to distinguish whether this SHOULD matter: & it should not.

    7) Cabrera being better in the home stretch is a fair point to make on his behalf.

    8) He said advanced stats MATTER & are NOT rubbish. But he does a poor job of analyzing what they mean & are trying to say. He does not even address the reason for Trout’s advantage-defense mostly, to a degree position & less so base running.

    9) He does not say why Cabrera is worth more than approaching 7 wins above replacement, 6.5 on rWAR so far. A 170 OPS + now, just above Pujols career average, with less of a glove & running, both high GIDP. He looks like he is getting ~ what he deserves.

  63. Raul Says:

    Here’s the issue people have with “modern metrics”:

    Guy stands up and says Mike Trout is the MVP.
    Why?
    Because his WAR is 10 point something and Miguel Cabrera’s is 6 point something.
    Based on what?
    Well, Trout runs the bases well, he scores runs, he hits, he steals bases, he plays great defense relative to his peers.
    True.

    Why does he do those things well? How does he do those things? Can you identify the things he doesn’t do well? Why does he struggle with that? Are there potential holes in his game?

    If you’re going to call someone a great base runner or a horrible fielder, you’re gonna have to do a lot better than “the numbers say so”.
    To say Jeter is horrible because he doesn’t get to the same number of grounders as Y-player…you need to tell me why that is.

    “Because he sucks” isn’t good enough.

    Why is Mike Trout a good base runner? Because he steals bases? That may be true. But base stealing isn’t necessarily what makes someone a good base runner.

    Just saying.

  64. Raul Says:

    Let’s go Dolphins.
    Beat those Jets!

  65. Mike Felber Says:

    Raul, you act like those who make these claims do not have explanations for these things. Nothing could be further from the truth. 1st let us get rid of the ambiguity inherent in the phrase “why” does someone do something well. What you mean is not the reason-genetics, training…But what is the evidence for it.

    You should know that with elements like fielding they use balls gotten to relative to peers, UZR considers how & where a ball is hit/zones, etc…Now one can argue about how accurate they are, but not that they are not laid out.

    Does he have deficits in his game? Yes, that his offensive production has dramatically declined. But are there flaws in certain aspects of his overall game? Nothing substa=ntive has been detected. One can still be excellent good enough at just hitting-like Teddy Ballgame-but Cabrera is still sub par defensively, runs little leads the league in GIDP…

    So common sense should tell you if there offense is very close, given these factors & position, Trout has been better. Modern stats just flesh this out.

    Yes, stealing many bases at a high RATE is a major reason why Trout is a great base runner. You must know that. You will perhaps be unsurprised to know that how one runs after a ball is hit/how well one advances on the basepaths is also measured. Which is a skill & a matter of raw speed.

    Jeter getting to significantly fewer balls with many different defensive constellations around him-declining as he ages-is excellent evidence of his limitations in the field. Which outweigh sure hands, since he cannot do much better than the average SS in errors compared to how many balls he does not field. And defense in itself is easily outweighed by his offense relative to his position in terms of overall career value.

    *

  66. Chuck Says:

    “Raines is seen as ~ average at it by the defensive metrics.”

    Which should prove beyond a doubt the flaws in said metrics.

  67. Chuck Says:

    “Yes, stealing many bases at a high RATE is a major reason why Trout is a great base runner.”

    When speaking of someone as a good (Trout) or poor (Ramirez) baserunner it is NOT at all reflective of stolen bases.

    Being a good baserunner and a good base stealer are not the same thing.

    You can be one without the other.

  68. Chuck Says:

    ” how one runs after a ball is hit/how well one advances on the basepaths is also measured. Which is a skill & a matter of raw speed.”

    “Raw speed” is not a skill.

  69. Mike Felber Says:

    Supporting evidence Chuck. Is it just your eyes that tell you Raines was poor at his position? Not even the consensus? There are measures of range factor besides those you do not favor. We need evidence. It prima fascia is unlikely-not impossible, but quite unlikely-that someone so fast would have a sub par range factor

    Stolen bases are PART of base running.

    We have a definitional issue with your last point. Are abilities that are natural considered skills, or it needs be how those abilities are applied with learned behavior?

    Speed, strength, reflexes…are generally considered skills. Though how well that translates into accomplishing tasks like hitting & SB is most relevant.

    Though admittedly it is fair to also distinguish an at least overwhelmingly native talent from developed ability.

  70. Mike Felber Says:

    Actually the advanced metrics show Raines to have been more than marginally bel;ow avergae in the field for his career. Not terrible, but his range factor is below average-while his fielding % is 6 points over average. I do not think that you will have anything substantive to disagree with here.

    Jeter has had almost as many games, & almost as much negative rating defensively, though a range factor lower relative to league average.

  71. Raul Says:

    Why hasn’t Phil Hughes developed into the front line starter he was projected to be, Mike?

    Enlighten me. Because I don’t think you have the first damn clue.
    Though I expect a response with xFIP and HR rate. Neither of which answers the question.

    If you really think you understand the game better than traditionalists.

  72. Mike Felber Says:

    That does not address my specific responses to you Raul, so I will copnsider those points conceded.

    I only consider I know the game better than traditionalists 1) if they believe boneheaded or unsupported ideas, not all do. 2) In those matters, not necessarily in all aspects.

    But your case is a Category Error Raul. There is a big difference between evaluating what WAS done, & projections-which even its advocates openly acknowledge is only a likelihood at best.

    Those who looked at Hughes mechanics tended to be more conservative in their assessments anyway.

    If I used those stats & showed how Hughes was below what he seemed early, that would well answer the question. Though I do not think those stats would make the case as far as he is concerned.

  73. Raul Says:

    LOLOLOL.

  74. Chuck Says:

    “Stolen bases are PART of base running.”

    No, they are not.

  75. Chuck Says:

    ” if they believe boneheaded or unsupported ideas”

    Like sabermetrics?

  76. Cameron Says:

    Hey guys, got a post awaiting moderation it seems. Seems I misspelled my email address… Anyway, lemme just repost so you can ignore it.

    Ah, tearing into each other yet again are we? I miss this.

    Still working on getting back on my feet. We’ll see what happens. For the record, I’d vote for Miggy, but the MVP will likely be decided in these last couple of weeks in the season.

    After all, it looked like Pittsburgh was gonna post a winning record for the first time in nineteen years how long into the season? John said the season for the Brewers was already lost before they traded Zack (by the way, you lost more to get him than what you got back for him) and now they’re having a winning season. The O’s and A’s are where in the standings right now despite a total lack of preseason faith?

    I ain’t gonna make any statements with certainty until the season’s over. Weird shit can happen.

    Also, I just have a gut feeling the Dodgers will not only sneak into the second wildcard, but all the way to the WS where they will most likely beat the Rangers because the Rangers are turning into the Buffalo Bills of the World Series.

    Be back when I can y’all.

  77. John Says:

    Cam good to hear from you buddy.

  78. Raul Says:

    Speaking of Cam,

    Looks like Jake Odorizzi made his debut today.
    Hope to catch the highlights. Box score looks like he did “okay”

  79. Mike Felber Says:

    Great to hear from you Cam! Update us soon & what is going on with you.

    Those are bold predictions. If Dodger Blue is King we will all need to prostrate before you.

    Whether stolen bases are part of base running is a simple definitional question.

    Repeated LOLs are not an argument. Instead, mockery that does not even specify to which part of a few points it applies to. Not exactly debate champion material there Raul…

  80. Raul Says:

    Dude I could care less if you think you’re winning arguments here.

  81. Mike Felber Says:

    That is not what I said. You have twisted this into something about my ego, when it is not.

    You never would nor should accept such lazy arguments from someone, say who is more conservative than you on politics.

    You often WANT to believe something, & when you do not address a case in a substantive way, it is clear that your own egoistic need to support your case trumps pride at looking closely at the facts to determine honestly what is true.

  82. Raul Says:

    Mike, it’s not that I can’t prove you wrong.

    It’s that I don’t even read what you write in the first place.
    I start skimming and the utter wrongness of it just gives me a headache.

  83. John Says:

    “John said the season for the Brewers was already lost before they traded Zack (by the way, you lost more to get him than what you got back for him) and now they’re having a winning season.”

    It’s funny actually.

    If you had told me in March that the Brewers would be 6 games over .500 and a couple games off the last wild card by this point in the season…I would’ve said yeah, that sounds about right.

    I could never have imagined the blown-save riddled path that they took to get there.

  84. Mike Felber Says:

    You have called me very naive Raul. But I bet you are telling the truth.

    But you are wasting both of our time if you do not even exercise the small effort & human consideration of reading content, yet still presume to disagree.

    You are a self imposed victim of delusion. You at least have no idea whether you can prove me wrong. But you safely stay disengaged, smugly assuming you are right without even testing yourself. That way lies complacency & arrogance.

    While I have been a straight shooter with you. Not so cool.

  85. John Says:

    “Why does he do those things well? How does he do those things? Can you identify the things he doesn’t do well? Why does he struggle with that? Are there potential holes in his game?”

    Sure, and that’s a great discussion to have.

    It just gets me how batting average, RBI’s, and the like *are statistics* but citing those means that you’re “actually watching the game.” Citing WAR means that you’re not watching the game and are playing dungeons and dragons in your mom’s basement. That doesn’t make any sense. There’s no reason why that would be the case.

    Lord forbid you cite statistics which look at the whole player…that must mean that you never played, because if you had played, you would have an appreciation of batting average for some reason.

    In the current discussion, we’re comparing Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout, who are two outstanding, but very different player. Cabrera is a dominant hitter, Trout is a great all-around player who does everything extremely well.

    You don’t need any statistic, old or new, to tell you that.

    But we’re comparing these guys. If we were comparing Miguel Cabrera to, say, Josh Hamilton, it’s not that tough. Neither is going to win an award based on defense or baserunning (even if Hamilton’s a bit better in both), and both are great hitters, so we could just read off their offensive numbers and see that Cabrera is having the better year. Easy.

    But we’re comparing Cabrera to Trout here. They both dominate in their own way, and we know that Trout dominates in more ways, but how do we adequately compare the net total of their contributions?

    Well, one way is to make estimates based on correlative data. Or you could just make a wild-ass guess. I know which one I’d prefer.

    No one’s saying you pick the MVP by clicking “sort-by WAR.” And look, if one guy was at 7.2 WAR and the other was at 6.4, it’s close enough that you could choose either guy and be right. There’s a certain amount of error here. But the difference is 4 WAR which is huge. Mike Trout is one borderline all-star player better than his closest competitor.

  86. Raul Says:

    The Reds are one win away from being 33 games over .500.
    Something they apparently haven’t done since 1976.

    #smug.

  87. Raul Says:

    I’m just saying I’m not getting my panties in a bunch if Cabrera wins it.
    I’d cast my vote for Trout.

    #MoreSmug

  88. John Says:

    Cabrera is having an MVP-caliber season, no question about it.

  89. Chuck Says:

    Trout SHOULD win the MVP.

    If he does, the saber crowd will claim victory, when in reality it isn’t a saber victory.

    He’ll win the award because he had the better year.

    If the Tigers somehow make the playoffs, and whether he wins the TC or not, then Cabrera likely will win because, unlike Trout, he didn’t collapse over the last month and his team wouldn’t have made the postseason without him.

    If he does, then the saber crowd will piss and whine about how meaningless batting average and RBI’s are.

    It’s a no-win.

    Ryan Braun could very well win the NL MVP for the exact same reason, yet both McCutchen and Posey have had more consistent seasons and are better defensive players.

    How come we’re not hearing that argument?

  90. Chuck Says:

    “You have called me very naive Raul. But I bet you are telling the truth.”

    Of course he is..

  91. Chuck Says:

    “Why does he do those things well? How does he do those things? Can you identify the things he doesn’t do well? Why does he struggle with that? Are there potential holes in his game?”

    Sure, and that’s a great discussion to have.

    We’ve already had it.

  92. Chuck Says:

    Mike,

    John Autin’s recent article on HHS http://www.highheatstats.com/2012/09/calling-all-umpires-knotty-balk-question/ shows exactly what I mean about the stat group not knowing the game.

    Rules are sometimes gray and are always open for interpretation, but the questions being asked in that thread are elementary.

    Why must there always be a justification for everything?

    Read the rule and make your own determination, then either agree or disagree with the umpire’s call.

    Or better yet, do your own research and find your own supporting data..asking for links is a sign of illiteracy.

  93. Bob Says:

    2 71. Shit coaching.

  94. Bob Says:

    I’s cast my vote for trout. I do too. Though walleye and perch are also good to catch.

  95. Bob Says:

    Meant to sat @ post 71.

  96. Bob Says:

    The Marlins intend to lower their payroll in 2013. The Red Sox should attempt to get creative there. Take on a shit contract or two ( by Miami standards) plus Stanton in exchange for some minor-league talent. If they take on Buehrle or Johnson, the Sox can throw Doubrant as part of the deal. No Stanton, no deal. Actually, every team should tell that to Loria. No Stanton, no deal.

  97. Chuck Says:

    You have some imagination, Bob.

  98. Bob Says:

    Thank you

  99. Chuck Says:

    Ben Cherington: “Hi, Larry? Ben Cherington here.” “Hear you’re looking at cutting some dollars off your payroll for next year and just wondering what it would take to pry Giancarlo off your hands”.

    Larry Beinfest: “Haha, Ben, I’ve seen your farm system and I wouldn’t take your five best prospects for Stanton, but even if we were to work something out, you’d also have to take what’s left of El Caballo’s contract.”

    Cherington: “Well, don’t think that fits, we already have a fat DH”.

  100. Bob Says:

    Chuck, does that imply you have no faith in Bogaerts and Barnes? And if so, that’s fine, though I still submit that teams should not bail out the Marlins just cuz they have a spare dime or $260 million lying around.
    Sox taking on Heath Bell, Buehrle and Stanton should help the Malins stave off bankruptcy for at least one more season.
    Or just contract the Marlins. Probably the most honest solution.

  101. Raul Says:

    With MLB moving the Astros to the AL West to make two 15-team leagues, I don’t see any contraction coming soon.

  102. Raul Says:

    Also, with the Astros in the AL West, maybe the Rangers or Angels win 105 games next year…after they go 16-1 against Houston.

  103. Raul Says:

    …17-1.

  104. John Says:

    “Ryan Braun could very well win the NL MVP for the exact same reason, yet both McCutchen and Posey have had more consistent seasons and are better defensive players.”

    LOL at either of those guys being “more consistent”

    Braun has OPS’d between .948 and 1.009 in every single month. He has slugged between .573 and .646 each month. He has been a freaking MODEL of consistency.

    McCutchen, meanwhile, OPS’d under .700 for the month of August, and has slugged under .500 for the second half. His second half OPS is 150 points lower than his first half.

    Posey took off in the second half; he had a bad May. Overall, his second half OPS is about 200 points higher than his first half.

    Any one of those guys, along with Yadier Molina, would make a fine MVP choice. You could pick any of those guys and be right.

    Kind of like in 2006, when you had Jeter, Mauer, Santana, Guillen, and Sizemore all having basically equally great years. Any of those guys would’ve been the right choice, so naturally, Justin Morneau got it because he had a bunch of RBI’s.

  105. Chuck Says:

    Bogaerts as a 3B or OF maybe, and I do like Barnes.

    But we’re talking a top ten ML player here, not Nyjer Morgan.

    The rule of thumb when taking on a player’s contract is you don’t get much, if anything, in return, so if the Marlins do insist on the Sox, or anyone, taking salary, there should be no expectation of getting players also.

  106. Bob Says:

    Braun will not get it. John, I owe you a 6-pack for Wisconsin beating Michigan State. Naturally, I have not paid you.
    So, double or nothing? Braun will not win the MVP. You disagree?

  107. John Says:

    I don’t think he will either; I think I’d vote for McCutchen over him.

  108. Bob Says:

    Fair enough.

  109. Chuck Says:

    “Any of those guys would’ve been the right choice, so naturally, Justin Morneau got it because he had a bunch of RBI’s.”

    No, like Cabrera, Morneau got hot in September and it was fresher in the mind of the voters.

    Arguably one of the worst MVP selections ever.

  110. John Says:

    At least Miguel Cabrera is the most valuable player on his own team.

    Morneau was the #3 most valuable player on his own team.

    He didn’t even finish that great. .879 OPS in August, .884 in September. 6 home runs in the last two months.

  111. Chuck Says:

    In what can only be described as tragic and unfortunate, “Clubhouse Confidential” returns on November 12th.

    Sadly, the circus monkey MLBNetwork hired to replace Brian Kenny was eaten by a lion in a sad case of mistaken identity..he thought he was eating Kenny.

  112. Bob Says:

    I saw that. I am assuming it is an off-season program. Either that or it was brought back by “Popular Demand.”

  113. Chuck Says:

    Has to be an off-season program, no would demand that nonsense.

    I will miss Reynolds and the other guys laughing at him, though.

  114. Raul Says:

    Brought by popular demand? Or they just didn’t want to let Kenny go?

  115. Raul Says:

    NL Cy Young:

    1. RA Dickey
    2. Clayton Kershaw
    3. Gio Gonzalez

  116. Chuck Says:

    NL Cy Young

    1) Dickey
    2 Gio
    3) Cueto
    4) Kershaw

  117. Raul Says:

    If Dickey wins it, he would be…what? The 3rd Mets pitcher to win it? After Seaver and Gooden?

    Tom Seaver was elected to the HOF with 425/430 votes.
    The five who didn’t vote for him should have been taken out back behind the HOF and publicly flogged.

    Depending on your view, Seaver might well have been the best pitcher of the last 60 years. And certainly top 5.

  118. Chuck Says:

    I like Dickey, he’s had a really weird career path and he’s been through a lot and happy to see it’s paying off.

    That said, I don’t think he’ll win it.

  119. Raul Says:

    It would be a lovely story for MLB if Dickey won it.

  120. Chuck Says:

    Lovely? :)

  121. Raul Says:

    Watching boxing classics.

    They’re showing George Foreman vs Gregorio Peralta
    February 16, 1970.

    Good competitive fight.
    It’s insane how big and powerful Foreman was. It’s like a shorter Wilt Chamberlain in the ring.

  122. Chuck Says:

    Mike probably thinks Tyson could have beaten Foreman in his prime.

    He would have gotten a standing eight during the national anthem.

  123. Bob Says:

    Harper has 15 swipes this year. METhinks he wins the ROY in the NL.

  124. Raul Says:

    I think Tyson was better than you give him credit for, Chuck.

    But I don’t think he was better than Foreman.
    That said, Foreman had a habit of getting sloppy in some fights. But he could take a punch.

  125. Raul Says:

    I don’t think Harper is gonna run away with it as much as people thought he would back in May/June.

  126. Chuck Says:

    Harper’s not winning ROY.

    He probably won’t get top three.

    Sorry, Bob..but four year old SI covers don’t matter.

  127. Bob Says:

    It will not be a runaway, but look at the age disparity between hom and Frazier and Miley. Look at how he dealt with stupid questions from dumbfuck reporters in Toronto. look at how he dealt with getting drilled by Hamels.

  128. Bob Says:

    It is not one bit related to a puff piece on SI or BA. It is his stats as a 19 year old.

  129. Chuck Says:

    I don’t know, Raul.

    It’s like being the MVP of the Atlantic League.

    It’s not his fault he was the heavyweight champ in one of the worst era’s ever for heavyweight fighters, but we shouldn’t give him credit either.

    I bet his career WAR would suck if it took into effect “strength of schedule”.

  130. Chuck Says:

    Age don’t mean shit, Bob.

    At the ML level, the numbers on the field matter, not the numbers on your birth certificate.

  131. Bob Says:

    Still better than Holmes.

  132. Chuck Says:

    “Look at how he dealt with stupid questions from dumbfuck reporters in Toronto.”

    All reporters are dumbfucks and they all ask stupid questions.

    “look at how he dealt with getting drilled by Hamels.”

    What about the two times he’s been ejected for throwing equipment?

  133. Chuck Says:

    “Still better than Holmes”

    Yeah, I’d say so.

    Ever drive through Easton, PA?

    It’s like he owns the town.

    “Larry Holmes Shopping Center”

    “Larry Holmes Dry Cleaning”

    Larry Holmes Elementary School”

    His name is literally everywhere.

  134. Bob Says:

    And other players have been ejected for throwing equipment. If throwing equipment once or twice prevents you from winning awards, shit. Shit, that is what Valentine wanted Youk to do, though Manny did not.
    And is Ventura disqualified form the MOY race for being ejected?

  135. Chuck Says:

    But you think Harper should get brownie points for getting hit with a curveball and not charging the mound????

  136. Bob Says:

    Not get Brownie parts for not charging the mound. Get Brownie parts for Hamels saying he meant to hit him cause he was worried he might hit a dinger off him. That is respect.
    Also, I emailed you something

  137. Chuck Says:

    “Get Brownie parts for Hamels saying he meant to hit him cause he was worried he might hit a dinger off him.”

    That’s not at all what Hamels said.

    He said he was welcoming him to the major leagues.

  138. Bob Says:

    And I am choosing not to believe him. You do not hit somebody purposely unless you think he is capable of doing better than a base hit, or you are responding to your own player getting beaned.

  139. Chuck Says:

    OK, Bob..I won’t likely check email until tomorrow..have a busy afternoon.

  140. Chuck Says:

    Ken Harrelson on the Sox/Angels game the other day was complaining that Trout had only been hit five times.

    He said if, as a rookie, he was running wild on the bases like that when he played, he’d have “25 or 30″ by now.

  141. Bob Says:

    @ 139 Fair enough

  142. Chuck Says:

    “You do not hit somebody purposely unless you think he is capable of doing better than a base hit, or you are responding to your own player getting beaned”

    If you took me deep and stood at home posing, you’d get drilled next time up. And if you acted all whiny, I’d drill you the NEXT time just on principle.

  143. Bob Says:

    Fine, but Harper has not shown up anybody, let alone Hamels.

  144. Chuck Says:

    Harper’s the most publicized rookie..he’s not the best rookie.

    His age is irelevant, as is his attitude.

    Getting called out on strikes and throwing your helmet is showing up the umpire, btw.

    Or spiking your helmet at first.

    So, yes, he HAS shown people up.

    He’s a punk, sorry.

  145. Chuck Says:

    If Morse, Bernadina or Werth hadn’t been injured, Harper wouldn’t have come up when he did.

    I DO BELIEVE, however, that calling him up was an attempt to mature him.

    He just needed to be put in his place.

  146. Bob Says:

    Blame the media for prasing him, do not blame Harper.
    Blame the mainstream media for ignoring Trout until 3 months ago. Though it should be duly noted that BA, Law and Sickles all had Trout ahead ahead of Harper.
    Is/was Chris Speilman an asshole because he was on the cover of wheaties while still in high school? The correct answer is no.
    Is/was Bobby Carpenter an asshole for being on the cover of SI as a school kid. Again, no. Blame the media for doing stuff, puff pieces, unfair pressure on people undwer 18. Stop blaming the athletes for the slightest infraction.

  147. Bob Says:

    And 19 year olds need to mature. I was eating Cap N Crunch with beer instead of milk.

  148. Chuck Says:

    I never met Carpenter or Speilman when they were in high school.

    I have met Harper.

    And there is a difference between “being immature” and “being an asshole”.

  149. Bob Says:

    Post 145. “I do believe, however that calling him up was an attempt to mature him.” It probaly was. And it probably worked.

  150. Chuck Says:

    Mind you, I have nothing personal against the kid.

    Fame, especially sudden, does weird things to you.

    It’s been my experience that kids who grow up in the environment Harper do have a tendency to be behind their peers in life experiences and are generally naive.

    Harper, like some, apparently believed that money equates respect, and he could do what he wanted, when he wanted, regardless of what situation he was in, or who was telling him not to.

    Hanging around 25 teammates older and more experienced than he was as opposed to the same age group or some other guys jealous of his status only antagonized the situation, and getting him out of there was the right thing to do.

    “Though it should be duly noted that BA, Law and Sickles all had Trout ahead ahead of Harper.”

    So did I.

    Thanks for remembering.

  151. Mike Felber Says:

    forget the macho nonsense about beaning guys who do wrong. Pitchers who do that are lucky they have been able to do that without getting beaten up/down-not all old school culture is great. There are other ways to “mature” folks that are not in themselves immature.

    Chuck, you have a basic misapprehension of why proof/links are asked for. Everything does not need to be justified? But, but…These sites are mostly about advocating for & well representing a position! I read that thread-when they & most ask for evidence, it is not at ALL due to laziness. The level of debate there is high. They do not agree with what is being claimed, & they are reasonably asking for evidence that a claim is factually true.

    Yes, you do not need WAR to show you Trout was better, & I agree about him fading, though early games count as much. WAR just helps establish & quantify that.

  152. Chuck Says:

    Stupid comment moderation bullshit.

    Sorry Bob..both BA and Sickels had Harper higher.

    http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospects/2012/2612998.html

  153. Chuck Says:

    http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/2/24/2821479/minor-league-ball-baseball-top-120-prospects-for-2012

  154. Chuck Says:

    “They do not agree with what is being claimed, & they are reasonably asking for evidence that a claim is factually true”

    So, look it up yourself.

  155. Mike Felber Says:

    Tyson vs. Foreman. While any good heavyweight will win sometimes in, say, 10 theoretical match ups, I would favor George. For several reasons.

    Chuck rates Tyson insanely low. I gave him 5 quality guys he beat in there prime before, & while it was not a great era for HWs, neither was The Brown Bomber’s fighting “the bum of the month club”. Neither was Marciano, who was always knocked for fighting old/washed up guys-though he fought all available-& only a couple were even north of 200 lbs.!

    They were all still great. Tyson had excellent power, speed, defense-he was a student of the game & very dedicated then. That irregular bob & weave stle & speed was concussive. Though boxers could extend him the distance sometimes.

    Foreman: look at his height & weight Raul, he was not actually that big, especially compared to guys in the last generation. Many are lean & somewhat heavier/more muscle without being taller.

    But he had tremendous power in both hands, just unnaturally “heavy” punches, a better boxer than given credit for, good chin. He was fairly slow.

    But he had more heart than Tyson. Read the comments on youtube videos, often you see the story about Tyson ducking the old George. Supposedly his trainer told him he could not beat Big George.

    Tyson said Foreman was “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”, & I agree. He acted all loveable & friendly, & was in his 2nd incarnation-but in the ring is another story. Tyson would fair a little better than Frazier likely, being faster & a less predictable movement.

    But the swarmer style of Tyson was well, if not tailor made, for the taller slugger Foreman. Even as a fat old man NOBODY could come right at George & survive. You need to outbox him & tire him on the outside-when he lost before he retired & ’saw God”, his opponent got away with a lot of holding too in the early rounds.

    Tyson could take a punch too. But I would have Foreman knocking him out in a tough fight around the 8th.

  156. Mike Felber Says:

    Chuck, again the point is that those asking for proof do NOT think that there is valid evidence for claims, factual or interpretive. So if there is an unsupported claim, it is very reasonable to ask for links. To see what the other considers evidence, so it can be debated, & hopefully light shed on the subject at hand.

  157. Chuck Says:

    “I gave him 5 quality guys he beat in there prime before,”

    I just looked at his Wiki page and can’t see five.

    Maybe you could enlighten me.

    (Don’t worry, no link required, I can spell Google)

  158. Mike Felber Says:

    I did it before, Chuck, & you never replied.

    Forget about his comeback even, though Holyfield & Razor Ruddock were very good by any reasonable standards.

    1) Trevor Berbick
    2) Tony Tucker
    3) Mitch Green (insane, but very talented)
    4) James “Bone crusher” Smith
    5) James “Quick” Tillis
    6) Bonus round: Pinklon Thomas.

    Now you can find flaws with ANY boxer by only focusing on his flaws. What would you think of a HW who was only a head hunter, could/did not fight inside, broke all orthodox boxing rules, & had no great power or knockout punch?

    A bum, right? Or, call him Muhammad Ali.

    Compare those that Tyson fought in 3 years with any 3 years of Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano. There was not a great difference-if you look at there skills, size, & WHERE they were in their career.

    Note I did not even count a 38 year old Larry Holmes, though some of Rocky’s best opponents were around that age. Back later to see your unbiased response.

  159. Raul Says:

    No way Tyson would have fared better against Joe Frazier.

    Joe Frazier is one of the best heavyweights in history…and he made his bones with one eye.

  160. Chuck Says:

    James Tillis: Three years after he LOST the heavyweight title, his loss to Tyson was his fourth in a row and six of seven. He was well past his prime.

    Mitch Green: Never had a prime, and Tyson couldn’t knock him out.

    Trevor Berbick: Bum. Was 34-5 when they fought. Product of the era.

    Pinklon Thomas: I’ll give you this one..underrated fighter.

    Tony Tucker: See Mitch Green.

  161. Chuck Says:

    Mike likes Tyson the way John hates Jeter.

  162. Mike Felber Says:

    Ha! No, my opinion is conventional amongst boxing experts. He was great in his prime.

    That was the record of Tillis at the time? Ok, I will give you that one.

    Green & Tucker were certainly good,big HWs.

    Berbick-check who did he lose to & when? There were some excellent fighters who lost early in their career.

    You did not contest Bonecrusher, he was a legitimate contender.

    More importantly, virtually ALL fighters, certainly HWs, fight some “bums”. You cannot deny the bum of the month club for 12 year(!) HW champ Joe Louis.

    Could you really say that Marciano fought better competition than Tyson, at least considering where they were in their career? Maybe comparable, often older, almost always somewhat smaller.

    I forgot to mention Michael Spinks. While he seemed to intimidated to fight Tyson effectively, & Tyson blew him away at his absolute peak, you cannot say he was not good. Don’t tell me blown up LH-he was taller & heavier, lean, than most of the old HWs when they fought.

  163. Mike Felber Says:

    As I wrote a while back, close between Tyson & Smokin’ Joe. Any edge goes to Tyson only because he was so fast + pretty elusive. Joe was tougher w/better endurance, but a slow starter. Both are swarmers. Goes into the late rounds, likely goes to Frazier. But Foreman showed that Joe could be overpowered. Same height & reach, Tyson had a good 20 lbs. of muscle & bone on Joe. You forgot (or did not know) that Frazier also could not extend his famous left all the way due to an early injury.

    Few separate who they like, what they WANT to believe, with any rigor from what is likely true. I would root for Frazier Raul.

  164. Chuck Says:

    If Tyson’s prime was anywhere before 1975, he never would have had a title fight.

    There were easily a dozen contenders who would have wiped the floor with him.

    Keeping in mind though that at the time there was only one true title, there wasn’t any of this WBC, WBA, IABF, USBC crap.

    And you didn’t get hand-outs, either.

    You had to work your way up and beat the guys ahead of you.

    Tyson rang up a 25-0 record fighting a bunch of YMCA guys and got a title fight.

    You think Tyson gets by guys like Frazier, Foreman, Bonavena, Page, Ellis and guys like that?

    No way.

    If you can convince someone to buy that Mike, your the reincarnation of Billy Mays.

  165. John Says:

    “At the ML level, the numbers on the field matter, not the numbers on your birth certificate.”

    Harper has pretty damn good numbers with the bat.

    I think Miley should win it, and then it’s between Harper and Frazier for 2nd. But they’re all having nice years. I guess I like Frazier because of how he’s basically filled in everywhere for the Reds this year.

    Harper may be a punk, but I love the way he plays…balls out, all the time.

  166. Chuck Says:

    “balls out, all the time.”

    Please tell me there are other things you look for when evaluating a player.

  167. John Says:

    “Please tell me there are other things you look for when evaluating a player.”

    I’m just referring to his attitude.

    Clearly, he needs to mature.

    But he doesn’t have any problems with hustle.

  168. Chuck Says:

    I was referring to his actual balls.

    Geez, get a sense of humor.

  169. Mike Felber Says:

    I thought you were just doing an ironic turnabout is fair play on the “grit factor” too Chuck.

    The division was much tougher in the 70’s. You could make a good argument about who would win in each of these cases, either way-Quarry, Page, Shavers, Bugner, Chuvalo,Lyle, even Wepner…Though it does not make sense to assume he would never get a title fight. You can just watch his skill,speed & power & know he would be in the mix at the very least.

    The extreme nature of you claims is made evident when you say that his 1st 25 fights were all YMCA quality fighters. Nobody would describe Green or Ferguson that I looked up “The Boogie Man”, recalling him, folks were afraid to fight him. Tillis had more problems, including a severe allergy to foods he ate, then I knew.

    Tyson would get title shots, likely would get past most but could lose to some, though I agree Foreman would likely beat him.

  170. Raul Says:

    Any guy who would be a 6′3, 220-230 pound heavyweight is playing football these days.

    Boxing has changed…at least in America.

    That said, the old days are certainly better than the new.
    As great as Mayweather is defensively, he wouldn’t have been able to duck fighters like he did in the early 2000s. And he wouldn’t be able to cherry pick smaller fighters to impose that stupid shoulder roll on.

    And regarding a guy like Lennox Lewis, I doubt he’d even beat George Chuvalo. Much less a George Foreman or Ken Norton.

  171. Mike Felber Says:

    There are still a lot of HWs, but while athleticism & size is up Raul, skill & will tends to be down. Some are much bigger than that-had a HW in my gym a few years ago who was just 6′ 2″, but 265 or so. And some are much taller.

    I agree about Mayweather. I do not kow how much he actually ducked, but that is a part of toughness & legitimacy, fighting all contenders.

    You underrate Lewis. He was a skilled boxer with a great reach, 6′ 5″, got up to ~ 250…He could space as he did against McCall, did not have the greatest chin, did not train seriously so got nailed by a motivated training for 1 punch knock out power Rahman.

    But the more I watch fights, the more I see that though some guys are clearly better, a great deal depends upon match ups, & the training & motivation of the individual fighter at particular points in time.

    Sa a documentary on Chuvalo, you can find it on youtube. He lost some fights unexpectedly, but was skilled, & as Marciano said, un-knockoutable! But at their peak, Lewis would likely outpoint him, Chuvalo was flat footed, Lewis was fast & a great reach.

    I do not know about Norton, he had that confounding style. Would be a good fight or fights.

    Foreman would cut off the ring & beat him. But he could beat most anyone at his peak, took all of Ali’s craft & those loose rings & he outsmarted & tired George. Lewis was a great fighter at his peak, you can hear big George exaggerating as a commenter when he beat Tyson I believe about being the greatest ever. But he was no joke, neither was Holyfield, who was tough, fast & a skilled counter puncher with a great heart-though there are rumors that he juiced.

  172. Raul Says:

    Evander Holyfield is a joke.
    Skilled fighter. But I’ve never seen a man headbutt so many opponents in my life.

  173. John Says:

    Well.

    No one should ever criticize Bud Selig for anything ever again.

    And that’s all I’m ever going to say about that.

  174. Mike Felber Says:

    OK John…But I dunno if anyone knows what you are referring to, approving, or being sarcastic about.

    Holyfield was great. He did head butt sometimes, but I am unsure how much it was intentional. He did have a style where that certainly at least sometimes happened unintentionally.

    Though his religious zeal did not prevent him from having many kids from different Moms. Also one of those guys who is trying to fight forever. Not unlike Larry Holmes. But with his tendency to mix it up & slowed reflexes, it is dangerous for him to have stayed in the game for so long.

    Do that against barrom bruisers or toughman competitions, you may be fine & still be good enough to win. Not against top pro fighters.

  175. Mike Felber Says:

    I suspected him due to hearing things like this…But this info from wikipedia is pretty damning.

    Allegations of steroid and HGH use

    On February 28, 2007, Holyfield was anonymously linked to Applied Pharmacy Services, a pharmacy in Alabama that is currently under investigation for supplying athletes with illegal steroids and human growth hormone (HGH). He denies ever using performance enhancers.[34]

    Holyfield’s name does not appear in the law enforcement documents reviewed. However, a patient by the name of “Evan Fields” caught investigators’ attention. “Fields” shares the same birth date as Holyfield—October 19, 1962. The listed address for “Fields” was 794 Evander, Fairfield, Ga. 30213. Holyfield has a very similar address. When the phone number that, according to the documents, was associated with the “Fields” prescription, was dialed, Holyfield answered.[35]

    On March 10, 2007 Holyfield made a public announcement that he would be pursuing his own investigation into the steroid claims in order to clear his name.[36]

    Holyfield was again linked to HGH in September 2007, when his name came up following a raid of Signature Pharmacy in Orlando, Florida.[37] As of September 2007, Signature Pharmacy is under investigation for illegally supplying several professional athletes with steroids and HGH.[38]

  176. Bob Says:

    The reason for Hamilton’s blurred vision? Too much caffiene.

  177. Raul Says:

    How much coffee is he having? 12 cups a day?

  178. Chuck Says:

    “I suspected him due to hearing things like this..”

    Based on what, exactly?

  179. Chuck Says:

    It wasn’t coffee, it was Red Bull.

  180. Raul Says:

    Red Bull, Monster, 5 Hour Energy…

    Bullshit.

  181. Raul Says:

    Yankees extend AL East lead to 1.5 with 9 to play.

  182. Chuck Says:

    So, I guess I shouldn’t have turned off the MNF game with six minutes to go?

  183. Raul Says:

    Lol.
    Well I don’t know. Maybe John wishes he DID turn the tv off. That way his blood pressure would have remained normal.

  184. Chuck Says:

    I was flipping back and forth between football and the Rangers game, once that game was over I went to take a shower, when I got out my daughter had confiscated the remote.

    I guess I need to find some highlights..if you want to call it that.

  185. Mike Felber Says:

    I vaguely recall hearing that phone call related story before-whispers that he moved up through LH through Cruiserweight & to HW due to drugs are not enough.

    Those energy drinks tend to be bad news. There can be much worse side effects. Well over 100 folks died, perished, due to the now banned ephedrine. And just because something is natural or is a derivative of a plenty does not make it good for you. Cocoa = OK & delicious, cocaine no. Some mushrooms delicious, others deadly.

    The energy drinks are ultimately enervating to the endocrine system. They keep you in a jazzed up, jittery state. A man with past substance abuse problems probably is more prone to take more of these “legitimate”, speedy drinks.

  186. Mike Felber Says:

    See Chuck, you were not being “lazy” to ask me what made me think Holyfield was dirty. Even if you Googled all rumors & evidence, that does not say what I thought might be valid, both the claims & why it might count as evidence.

    Though that was about the worst name & address cover ever. I am surprised they did not throw in “The Real Deal” Boulevard for good measure.

  187. Mike Felber Says:

    Derivative of a “plant”, not a “plenty”. Gremlins highjacked that word.

  188. Bob Says:

    For the record, mushrooms are never delicious. They can, however, be deadly.

  189. Chuck Says:

    ” Even if you Googled all rumors & evidence, that does not say what I thought might be valid, both the claims & why it might count as evidence.”

    Remember that the next time we tell you Bagwell’s dirty.

  190. Chuck Says:

    This is why we don’t pay much attention or give much respect to what you say about this subject.

    For a guy who claims to be around the weightlifting/boxing/bodybuilding scene as much as you say and to not be able to recognize the basic warning signs of steriod use doesn’t justify what you claim to be.

    The evidence is the person themselves.

  191. Bob Says:

    Dusty Baker had a stroke last week.

  192. Raul Says:

    This Parmalee kid on the Twins has a short swing.

  193. Raul Says:

    What is Ichiro hitting this month? Like .340?

  194. Raul Says:

    Tonight’s trivia question:

    Who is the only Hall of Famer to win the AL MVP but never appear in a World Series game?

  195. Raul Says:

    The Yankees ran into strike em out, throw em out double plays in consecutive innings.

  196. Chuck Says:

    Jim Rice

  197. Raul Says:

    The answer to the trivia question:

    Rod Carew.

  198. Raul Says:

    That must have been a trivia question before Rice got elected.

    Jim Rice is correct as well.

  199. Raul Says:

    Wait. No.

    Rice was in the 86 World Series.

  200. Raul Says:

    On this date in 1968, Mickey Mantle plays his last game, and gets the only Yankees hit off Luis Tiant.

  201. Chuck Says:

    Nice touch on your Twitter avatar, Raul, wearing your prison uniform. Ha.

  202. Chuck Says:

    Hopefully all those sabermetric FIP, pitch count assholes are watching Phil Hughes tonite.

    That, my friend, is efficiency.

  203. Raul Says:

    Hahaha.

    Well I’m not married yet.

    Hughes did look good today. Sucks that they lost the lead.
    Lost a chance to extend lead on Baltimore

  204. Raul Says:

    Andruw Jones hits a 2 out HR to cut the lead to 5-4.
    Then Jayson Nix comes up, and your heart just sinks.
    Lol.

  205. Mike Felber Says:

    Nooooo-you & Raul are an almost insepoarable Amen chorus & disagreed with me, others including John have vehemently disagreed with you. The issue of not giving “respect” is a character flaw that some get away with in this forum Though folks have been better lately.

    Do you see how irrational it is to insist that someone does not know much about these subjects if they do not agree with you here? Let me correct some indisputable mistakes you made:

    How much did I claim to be into the boxing “scene”? I spout opinions like you do, having watched much film, read & thought some, & talked to some in the biz.

    I do know exponentially more than you about lifting. What I have read, observed for years, talked to innumerable folks clean & juiced.

    When I provided arguments & SPECIFIC evidence re: how much muscle someone clean can add & how fast: you had zippo to say. I can happily re-post the links to authoritative, expert sources. But you likely will ignore inconvenient facts.

    Let me make it simple for you. Not being patronizing Chuck, but you do NOT engage details well when you have no answers.

    1) Folks look shorter when bulky, let alone a crouched batting stance. All indications are Baggy is 5′ 11″, not a 5′ 10″ “midget”, as you said.

    2) There is no indication that he was more than a fairly cut/lean muscular 215. Big for sure, but not so much so that the total size shows he must have been using.

    2 a) I have a bunch of times seen folks who can hit ~ 6′ 2″, 250 @ 10% body fat. It is UNCOMMON, like being over 6′ 6″, but not rare, like being over 7′. Baggy only approached that amount of bulk.

    3) He had tons of money for the best training/trainers & nutrition, + much of the year off to bulk up more effectively.

    4) Ask again for sources, but the evidence shows that one can reach the vast majority of their genetic potential. 88% is one plausible # cited.

    So he COULD have used Chuck, but if you & I hit the muscle heads, clean & juicers, & said can you know with any degree of confidence…

    They would say no way Jose (Canseco).

  206. Raul Says:

    You’re an art guy.
    You are not a weightlifting expert. You didn’t go to school for it. You aren’t certified in it. You haven’t done scientific studies in it.

    With those facts out of the way, your arrogance and pompous-ness in speaking about Bagwell just because you spent some time in a gym…well…it is staggering.

  207. Mike Felber Says:

    One omission: I meant to write that in 3 years one can attain 88% of their clean genetic potential if training effectively. 97% in 5. Fastest gains at start/1st 6 months.

    Chuck, there is much OVERLAP between what a clean guy w/good/great potential & well trained can do & a juicer. Unless you show unusually fast gains after the 1st year of intense lifting-or a total mass anywhere in the broad ballpark of a Ronnie Coleman, or even Schwarzenegger’s upper body when lifting-you do not know from “looking”. if you show severe acne & rage: that makes it more likely.

    A guy I keep seeing around the ‘hood, 60, saw him at a Gold’s gym in Midtown years ago. Nerd, aggressively unattractive, nice guy. He has been getting bigger, but even at his age, many COULD reach his size- 43″ chest, 16 1/4″ biceps: you could not know by looking…

    But he is free about saying his Dr. disagrees, but he gets from him “limited” courses of old line steroids. HE would never get even his size-with a big belly now-absent PEDs.

    But most others could. You just cannot know so definitely either way, unless someone is an outlier in size &/or speed of gains.

  208. Mike Felber Says:

    Huh? All I said is that there is no reason to conclude by appearance rapidity of gains that Baggy is a juicer. That is a VERY circumspect claim Raul.

    You & I make tons of claims about things we did not formally study. For years I did social work-does that mean only I can have an opinion about Foster Care & the developmentally disabled. No-we all need to refer to evidence.

    The burden on someone making a + claim & finding someone guilty is on the accuser.

    There is nothing at all arrogant & pompous about giving evidence, anecdotal & citing experts: YOU could do the same, if you had anything substantive evidence or would engage, & I would agree or disagree, but despite not having my experience with it, I would not call you venturing an opinion arrogant.

  209. Raul Says:

    There is tons of evidence that show it is more than likely that he juiced.

    You can’t even admit THAT much.

    Chuck has mentioned that at least two people told him directly that they witnessed Bagwell juicing. And that isn’t good for you either.

    But you read a few articles and you expect someone to think that a 20-something year old athlete who has been playing baseball his entire life can suddenly gain 20-30 pounds of muscle naturally?

    …excuse me, but suck my dick.

  210. Mike Felber Says:

    No, I will not excuse your nasty abuse Raul. Why do you do that? Nobody has been impolite to you, you can be calm & intelligent, then you have this unintegrated perpetually angry, tough=-acting & mean persona. Would you do that in the street to folks & risk an assault? Would you consider that at all DECENT when folks disagree?

    Now to the facts.

    Actually there is very little-& no substantive-evidence he juiced. An athlete & avid lifter getting that shoulder injury is not one, nor is speculation, nor is there any official report or Holyfield-like association with PEDs.

    Now what Chuck said: 1st get straight what I said. He COULD have juiced, but do you think one should take as definitive 3rd hand evidence that could be at least mistaken?

    Even Chuck did not take it as a personal affront that I did not do so. And as I said before, I do not doubt Chuck’s HONESTY, but you should know how many ways this sentiment about him using could have gone wrong.

    CAN a long time baseball player who has NOT gotten very bulky gain 20-30 lbs. of muscle over several years?

    YES, undoubtedly. It is WAY more than “a few articles” I have read.

    Dude, you are in NYC. Pick your serious gym, we can go together & ask trainers there. Or I invite you to my Mid City Gym, went to the 50th anniversary party this summer, supposed to be the oldest continually operating gym in the nation.

    Name your bet. We will ask if a Pro athlete who was listed at ~ 175 coming up could gain 20-30 lbs. of muscle within 2 years. (I do not know if he did it this fast, but that should cover it).

    There have been athletes from minor leagues through pro boxers to football & Dennis Rodman (I met)who go there at least occasionally.

    I am sure they would be more polite than you, & not laugh in your face while they set you straight.

  211. Raul Says:

    I love that your expertise hinges on conversations with people at the gym.

    I go to a lot of bars. Just call me Jon Fucking Taffer from now on.

  212. Bob Says:

    1. Felix pitches tonight.
    2. The Angels will most likely decline options on Haren and Santans and focus on Greinke to team up with Weaver and Wilson.
    3. Jason Varitek is close to being hired by the Sox in some capacity.
    4. Weather permitting, the season ends one week from tonight, and only 3 teams, San Fran, Washington and the Reds are in the playoffs.

  213. Raul Says:

    Ervin Santana should have been traded years ago.

  214. Chuck Says:

    “I do know exponentially more than you about lifting”

    I know exponentially more than you about baseball, but that hasn’t prevented you from arguing, has it?

    “All indications are Baggy is 5′ 11″, not a 5′ 10″ “midget”, as you said.”

    You’re arguing an inch? Are you fucking serious? You did the same earlier with Adam Dunn.

    “unless someone is an outlier in size &/or speed of gains.”

    Bingo. Bagwell qualifies on both points.

    So, again, the question is why do you consistently insist “no way, Jose”?

  215. Bob Says:

    Today’s question. Should Melky be on the Giants post-season roster?

  216. Raul Says:

    It’s up to the Giants.

    If the Athletics had called up Manny Ramirez, he could be on pace to be in the playoffs.
    And because his suspension ended months ago, people would have forgotten all about it. And I don’t think anyone would have been making a big deal about him.

    I think Melky would create too big a distraction.

  217. Bob Says:

    80% of the Dodgers used PED’s while Eric Gagne was with them, so he claims in his new book. Now that I know that, I have no need to purchase the trash.

  218. Raul Says:

    LOL and the Dodgers weren’t anywhere near the steroids factory that Houston and Arlington were.

  219. Chuck Says:

    The Giants said two weeks ago they wouldn’t activate Melky at all during the post-season.

    Why is this news now?

  220. Chuck Says:

    Wait until it comes out, and it will, that Bagwell used.

    Then Felber will be all over it, “I’m not surprised, the signs were there”, just like he did with McGwire.

  221. Bob Says:

    Cause I missed the initial story, and saw them talking about it last night on the MLB network. My bad

  222. Chuck Says:

    No worries, Bob, it’s all over Twitter this morning, so I guess the decision has some room for debate.

    Smells like the PA didn’t like what the Giants said.

  223. Raul Says:

    Lol @ like he did with McGwire. I remember that shit.
    He’s like the Skip Bayless of Dugout Central.

  224. Raul Says:

    NFL takes in 10 billion in revenue each year.
    The referees are asking 3.3 million for pension.

    Would cost each team another 100k.
    The owners can’t afford 100k a season.
    It’s not even 0.00001 % of revenue.

  225. John Says:

    Frankly, I think the Packer shareholders should just chip in 10$ each and resolve this shit.

  226. Chuck Says:

    I wouldn’t give a part time employee pension rights.

    That’s dumb.

  227. Raul Says:

    Refs work 36 hours a week. In this day in age, that is full time.

  228. Chuck Says:

    I just saw the replay of the final play on Monday night.

    That may have been the most obvious offensive pass interference I’ve ever seen. How does that not get called?

    Two referees..standing next to each other.

    One signaling touchdown, the one next to him signaling touch back.

    I don’t get it.

  229. Chuck Says:

    They work one game..how is that 36 hours?

  230. Raul Says:

    That’s what the reports are.

    I mean 3 hour game but I don’t know what other prep work or what they do during the week.
    I don’t think these guys are throwing back beers all week and showing up 10 minutes before game time.

  231. Raul Says:

    Just to piss John off, Tony LaRussa said he would vote for Miguel Cabrera today.

  232. Raul Says:

    The Braves clinched a playoff spot last night.
    Will Chipper Jones go out with a title?

  233. John Says:

    I don’t take Tony LaRussa seriously.

    Fun Tony story:

    In his memoirs, he bitched about Keith Law costing Adam Wainwright the 2010 Cy Young award by leaving him off his ballot completely (and how Wainwright comforted him or something). It was a good anecdote, with just three problems:

    1) It was 2009
    2) It was Chris Carpenter
    3) Giving Carpenter the 2nd place vote he gave to Javy Vazquez wouldn’t have made a difference.

    So aside from the entire story, it was a true story.

  234. Raul Says:

    Hahaha
    Don’t they have to fact check when they write books?

  235. Bob Says:

    Tom Osborne will retire as AD of Nebraska in January.

  236. Raul Says:

    It obviously wasn’t doing any good. Nebraska fell off the map when he retired.
    How old is he now? Like 80?

  237. Bob Says:

    75

  238. Raul Says:

    75? No way. That guy is wrinkled as hell.
    He looks like Lo Pan from Big Trouble in Little China.

  239. Bob Says:

    The lockout could be over for the NFL refs.
    It continues for the hockey players.

  240. Mike Felber Says:

    NO, I did not do that at all. If I did, you could easily find it amongst the archives we still have. I never ever said anything like “the signs were all there”. After Big Mac refused to give relevant testimony when he appeared before Congress, I concluded that he must have used.

    You are not lying guys, but the lack of attention to detail amounts to being defamatory.

    Now then. Chuck, YOU contradicted me when you said Bagwell is a 5′ 10″ midget, as I had already discussed his height & weight re: what muscle gain was plausible. That does not make you petty either: God is in the details, meaning we should aim for precision to support our claims.

    Now if I said something like: you are an effing idiot, he is 5′11″, then you would have a valid complaint,then you would have a valid complaint. But like Raul saying it is arrogant to even argue Baggy was clean-as if we all do not have a right to an opinion on a harmless matter-there is no reason to moan here.

    You know & follow much more about baseball Chuck. I do not begrudge Raul arguing, it is when he or anyone gives no substantive reply & tries to argue someone is wrong for even making a CASE that I say that is censorious & malign.

    The archives are also organized by topis like PEDs. Easy to check what I said. Either I or you two owe the other a big apology. I SPECIFICALLY described how Big Mac could have been clean throughout, discussed his size at 6′ 5″ always said I did not have evidence either way & that legal Andro in his locker meant nothing.

    Naive or not, I believe neither of you is lying. But this shows the fallibility of memory, & how folks believe what they want/what is convenient.

  241. Raul Says:

    The only thing that is convenient is how you make excuses for juicers only to try and throw in a little caveat at the end to try and absolve yourself.

    Baseball players don’t gain 25 pounds of solid muscle. Does not happen. Ever.

    Though if Juricksok Profar turns into Albert Belle naturally in 2 years, I’ll eat my hat.

  242. Raul Says:

    It’s gonna suck if there is no hockey this year.
    I feel like NYR are on the cusp and another lost season closes the window faster on Lundqvist’s dominance.

  243. Mike Felber Says:

    HOW did I throw in any caveat ever to “excuse myself”: Raul? You recently admitted skimming my E-Mails, YOU have had the arrogance not to even try to hear or engage details, then get insulting or laughably try to say I should not even dare manke an argument somebody is clean. Not remotely peaceful, rational or cool.

    Now is your big chance to show I am wrong & you are not just lazy & willing to defame someone carelessly, at best. DO ya need a “man up” macho provocation to try? I volunteered on my own that he was dirty when he would not “discuss the past” in front of Congress.

    That is TOTALLY different in obvious ways from 1) not doping this, 2) saying when he was proved/admitted guilt that “the signs were all there”.

  244. Chuck Says:

    We all know what you said, Mike.

    Spin it how you want, but the implications were there.

    You don’t believe anyone used unless you have the needle and DNA.

    Matt Williams got busted for PED’s because the DEA intercepted a package sent to his house by DHL.

    No needle, no DNA, no admission, no suspicion, but he’s guilty.

    Right?

  245. Chuck Says:

    “but the lack of attention to detail amounts to being defamatory.”

    Careful, Mike.

  246. Bob Says:

    Heath Bell is gone from Miami.
    Mike, Gagne just said that 89% of the Dodgers did some form of PED’s while he was there. That seems indicitive of every clubhouse, though I could see some players doing it more than others. 80% ( 4 out of 5 players for the math challenged) seems fair. Do you think that # is too high? I think it is spot-on.
    Also, it allows me to believe that Griffey, Jeter and Wakefield were clean.

  247. Chuck Says:

    Astros having tryouts on Friday for their new mascot.

    On-line registration ends today at 4pm.

    Cameron?

  248. Raul Says:

    Lol dude you are always wrong.

    You go off on 400 word diatribes about how a guy like McGwire and Bagwell could gain 25 lbs of solid muscle and cite your gym buddies and at the very end, you try to insert some stupid shit like “he COULD have juiced…”

    It’s your friggin MO to do that silly shit.

    Constantly wrong and you’ve never once admitted to being wrong ever. Ever dude.

    Even Shaun, by virtue of leaving the site admitted to being full of shit.
    You remain on your high horse.

  249. Chuck Says:

    “Even Shaun, by virtue of leaving the site admitted to being full of shit.”

    Word.

  250. Mike Felber Says:

    Now as for “baseball players do not gain 25 lbs. of muscle, ever” comment:

    You are just very wrong. Please engage the particulars if you answer.

    1) Bagwell was fairly lean when he came up. He was NOT like Bonds in his mid 30’s, who had trained for years, & though a couple of inches taller, 206 @ 8% body fat. Bonds could not have gained significant muscle. Bagwell was fit & fairly strong, but there is EVERY indication that he had not even tried to max out his muscular potential by his mid 20’s, & he came up ~ 175.

    2) With a long off season & great training, trainers & nutrition, baseball players can add as much bulk as any other person-& they have the above advantages. Harder during the season, not impossible, certainly not hard to maintain gains.

    3) I did not say my expertise relies on folks I speak to at the gym. I said both experts online, in books, folks in the gym, trainers & professional athletes AND my observations dovetail to show what is possible.

    4) My offer stands, & I am sure in your heart you know if we asked at any serious gym, well credentialed trainer, or you bothered to check the links, you know you would be proven wrong.

    Again: a player who is not big & has not even attempted to lift for maximum bulk absolutely can add 25 lbs. of muscle, & in a couple of years.

    I added a lot of fat & 25 lbs. of muscle after 30. I was in my 170’s before, but not untrained-I could do up to 18 chin ups at up to 180 dressed, & bench that/my weight 10X. Hard to tell when you are heavy, but based upon what you told me, YOU could add 25 lbs. of muscle too-maybe a little less if your legs are already strong-if you worked out & ate right intensively & effectively for a couple of years.

  251. Chuck Says:

    “Heath Bell is gone from Miami.”

    Yeah, what the heck is up with that?

  252. Mike Felber Says:

    You are not a liar either Chuck, you also are not paying attention. I have written “mea cupla” or my mistake a few times. You are projecting, As raul wrote, you never admit you are wrong. Actually you do, when facts show a prediction is wrong, but that is different.

    I always said anyone could have juiced. I NEVER made my gym buddies the central part of my argument. I gave many examples & links to many web sites about natural muscular potential. You do not ask for them again, since you never bothered to test your preconception, never did any research.

    Shaun was wrong about some things, & stubborn. Him leaving shows NOTHING like he acknowledged that-he was tired of the conflict, which often shaded over to verbal abuse over a long period, which you tried to justify-

    And he got nasty too at the very end. The whole thing was sad & juvenile.

  253. Bob Says:

    @ 251. Bell said he does not respect Ozzie. Ozzie responed by saying Bell does not respect his pitching coach, his teammates or me.

  254. Chuck Says:

    For the 2,179th time, baseball is not a sport of bulk. Even gaining 10% of your NATURAL body weight through training would in most cases be detrimental to performance.

    Would it be possible for a 180 pound athlete to gain 18 pounds throughout his career..a pound or two a year?

    Sure it would.

    Is it possible for him to gain 35-40 pounds in two years?

    No way, Jack.

  255. Chuck Says:

    Shaun was wrong about everything he wrote.

    I’ve never come across anyone who not only was wrong as often as he was, but was so ignorantly stubborn about it.

    You guys have some things in common.

    “You do not ask for them again, since you never bothered to test your preconception, never did any research.”

    My research is hanging on the wall in my wife’s office.

  256. Chuck Says:

    The problem wasn’t that Shaun was wrong about things, we all have been at some point.

    It’s that he KNEW he was wrong, and twisted and turned and spun everything back towards who he was talking to at the time.

    He CLEARLY didn’t understand sabermetrics at the time, he admitted as much, and yet had the cajones to believe what he knew was more than any of us and enough to support his argument.

    I have no regret or remorse to anything I said to him.

  257. John Says:

    Shaun once argued that the Reds lost a game because Dusty Baker went with Francisco Cordero instead of Arthur Rhodes. This was back a couple years ago, when Cordero didn’t totally suck. His argument was that Rhodes was the better pitcher, based on his April ERA of like 0.69, which would be really really good if it had been over the course of more than 11 innings.

    There are a large number of statistics-based principles out there, but probably the best, and most consistently indisputable one is that of small sample size, and he was clueless about it.

    He also wrote a weird article about Chipper Jones’s morality, as if any of us gave a shit.

  258. Mike Felber Says:

    Can you take the truth Chuck? I will try to be gentle.

    1) You have conflated what you said about John with Shaun. You have admitted being mean. You SHOULD regret doing that, you were sometimes schoolyard cruel.

    2) He may have twisted things consciously & known it. But he may have been like you claiming that I said I saw the signs re: Big Mac after the fact. I said no such thing, ever, but folks recall what they WANT to believe, or delude themselves about being right, do not admit to themselves how they twist things.

    3) He was not always wrong. You & he had extreme opinions, you always saying that SM has no possible value.

    4) You do not have a degree that shows any expertise related to weight training/how much bulk one can gain, right? Nutrition is not the same at all. Like all experts in lifting would disagree with you.

    5) If you were correct 7 confident in it, you would have read & addressed the links I sent that showed what is possible, naturally.

    6) The #s you run NOW are DIFFERENT than you & Raul have kickjed around before. I am sure you did not MEAN to bait & switch, so let us dissect them.

    Possible to gain 35-40 lbs. naturally in 2 years? I know you meant just muscle, (though most gain some fat, are bulked w/more food in system too) so I AGREE with that statement Chuck…

    7) Problem is, nobody here has claimed before that it was 35-40 lbs of pure muscle in no more than 2 years flat!

    Show me that, this totally NEW claim, I will concede that he must have been dirty. Someone not at all underweight nor muscular & with Shaq’s size & bone structure could likely gain that much pure muscle in 2 years, not Bagwell.

    But I have no indication he did that.

  259. Mike Felber Says:

    You are right about sample size of course John, but someone trying to help a moribund site need not be flamed for writing an article that he found diverting & you/we did not. In respectable life we usually cannot & should not try to get away with attacking folks personally. Not that I recall you ever doing that.

  260. Chuck Says:

    “Truth” isn’t exactly a strong suit of yours either, Mike. As far as what I said to Shaun, you’re right. I was on occasion mean and cruel, doesn’t mean he didn’t deserve it or I should be regretful, right?

    Yes, you did. You argued just as vehemently about McGwire then as you are about Bagwell today, then when he got caught, you acted like you knew it all the time.

    ” You do not have a degree that shows any expertise related to weight training/how much bulk one can gain, right?” Neither do you, right? And they do go hand in hand to some degree anyway.

    It’s like our argument about hitting theories. You don’t know anything about it, so how can you do proper research? Just because you talked to some numbers guy and some minor league player and did a 30 second Google search doesn’t mean the evidence you presented was in any way accurate.

    I know more about weight training than you know about hitting, I can tell you that without question.

  261. Chuck Says:

    “should not try to get away with attacking folks personally.”

    We’re strangers talking on the internet. If you take personally anything anyone says to you, then you shouldn’t be on the internet to begin with.

  262. Mike Felber Says:

    Truth is my strong suit Chuck. I am very honest, & you disagreeing, largely because you are biased against anything related to new metrics, does not show I am wrong.

    You were mean & cruel more often than on occasion. Of course he does not “deserve” that. No humane & rational analysis shows you need to be vicious.

    You could disagree without getting upset & personally triggered. You can ignore or decline politely to argue. But to be nasty only accomplishes alienating & hurting folks, including those who left due to this tone.

    I NEVER, EVER acted like I knew Mcliar used. And I did not change my tone when he got “caught”: I keep saying I volunteered he was guilty due to clamming up in front of Congress.

    PERFECT opportunity to show me up as a fool or deluded. I said several times it is easy to research the archives, listed by subjects like PEDs, & you can go back to that Congressional testimony time to.

    Nutrition does not at all show you know what much about lifting & natural muscular potential. I do not say you NEED one to voice a valid opinion, & you COULD be right despite me having much experience, observation, numerous conversations, & reading much about it.

    But you do not look closely at or engage the details.

    I dunno if you know more ’bout hitting than I do about weight training. Anyone can do proper research Chuck, with some discernment. But when I made an argument about the arc of a swing, you did NOT make a good faith argument, & I showed videos too. You wrote “hahahahahahaha”.

  263. Mike Felber Says:

    By that logic it is OK to use the worst racism, goad a fragile person to despair or suicide, threaten & humiliate them…

    Cruelty is indefensible & destructive to the social fabric. It is blaming the victim to say they should have been tougher.

  264. Chuck Says:

    “But when I made an argument about the arc of a swing, you did NOT make a good faith argument, & I showed videos too. You wrote “hahahahahahaha”.”

    Because you were so obviously and blatantly wrong it was funny. Therefore, I laughed.

    What else did you want?

    “But when I made an argument about the arc of a swing, you did NOT make a good faith argument, & I showed videos too”

    Did you not actually read my comment?

    “You don’t know anything about it, so how can you do proper research?”

  265. Chuck Says:

    “By that logic it is OK to use the worst racism, goad a fragile person to despair or suicide, threaten & humiliate them”

    Have you ever seen any of that here, Mr. “Truth is my strong suit”?

  266. Mike Felber Says:

    Chuck, some intellectual rigor here please: you can clearly see I was not claiming that this was done. I was using a logical technique where you reduce something to the absurd: if you excuse a anything due to it being the Internet, that is not just a slippery slope, it exculpates all any would do.

    That it would be best if all had Rhino skin does not remotely establish that being cruel does not cause harm to those targeted & to the overall society.

    I answered your comment Chuck. Anyone can do research & be right: if I was misguided, if “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”, you could have politely corrected me.

    Even if after that seemingly denigrating laugh, you had responded, it would show you cared enough to show why you thought something. Instead only I dunno a year or so later, you referred in another context to 3 stages of a swing.

    If you cared about transmitting your/the truth rather than Ego or insults, you simply make the case, as common in all respectable forums.

  267. Bob Says:

    I long for the days when boxing was the topic.

  268. Bob Says:

    Andy Williams passed away. RIP

  269. Bob Says:

    The Yankees won 8-2.

  270. Raul Says:

    1) You have conflated what you said about John with Shaun. You have admitted being mean. You SHOULD regret doing that, you were sometimes schoolyard cruel.

    Who the fuck do you think you are to come in here policing people? Telling people what they should regret? If anyone should feel anything, it’s you feeling ashamed for trying to tell people how they should feel or act. You think people are mean? You think people are unfair? You have a problem with how words are used? Leave.

    2) He may have twisted things consciously & known it. But he may have been like you claiming that I said I saw the signs re: Big Mac after the fact. I said no such thing, ever, but folks recall what they WANT to believe, or delude themselves about being right, do not admit to themselves how they twist things.

    Like how you want to believe that you were saying McGwire was likely a user? Everyone here clearly remembers you defending him. It was the most laughable thing ever, until that touchdown ruling on Monday night.

    3) He was not always wrong. You & he had extreme opinions, you always saying that SM has no possible value.

    Shaun was always wrong. It wasn’t a debate about sabermetrics. It was a debate about his stupid application of them. Apparently you chose to forget that Chone Figgins was worth 18 million dollars. His words, brah.

    4) You do not have a degree that shows any expertise related to weight training/how much bulk one can gain, right? Nutrition is not the same at all. Like all experts in lifting would disagree with you.

    He has a degree in nutrition with close to 30 years of experience. You have nothing. You really want to challenge him with YOUR credentials?

    5) If you were correct 7 confident in it, you would have read & addressed the links I sent that showed what is possible, naturally.

    Unlike you, not everyone else feels the need to respond to everything, all the time. Especially if it’s stupid. If a hobo tells you grapes are filled with tiger blood and you spend 15 minutes arguing with him that it’s not true, the dumb ass is you, not the hobo.

    6) The #s you run NOW are DIFFERENT than you & Raul have kickjed around before. I am sure you did not MEAN to bait & switch, so let us dissect them.

    Incorrect.

    7) Problem is, nobody here has claimed before that it was 35-40 lbs of pure muscle in no more than 2 years flat!

    If it was 20, it’d still be bullshit. Baseball players don’t bulk up that way.

  271. Chuck Says:

    “I long for the days when boxing was the topic.”

    Sorry, Bob, just trying to prove a point.

  272. Bob Says:

    No prob. I actually said it somewhat tongue-n-cheek

  273. Chuck Says:

    The A’s just set the AL record for most strikeouts by batters.

    This team’s a bigger fluke than the Orioles.

  274. Chuck Says:

    OK, egg on my face, eating crow, not recognizing draft beer..whatever.

    Have to give credit where credit is due.

    Cespedes has had a better year than I thought he would.

    I’m not going to go so far as to say this is repeatable, but he’s hit numbers across the board I never thought he would.

    See what happens next year when he’s subjected to drug testing.

  275. John Says:

    “This team’s a bigger fluke than the Orioles.”

    At least the A’s have outscored their opponents. Although, one could argue that that in itself is flukish.

  276. Mike Felber Says:

    The bold type looks like you are shouting & upset Raul. You have nothing to be worked up about. You go ballistic just due to me reserving judgement on Baggy, as if I do not agree with someone, that is arrogant.

    It is surprising how an intelligent person can be in such denial & use such anemic reasoning about things. Not THAt you disagree, but how you gyrate to convince yourself you are thinking reasonably.

    1) The primary indication of your irrationality is me merely saying, after someone even admits being mean, that this is wrong. Like the above example, it is crazy for you to call that at all wrong or presumptuous.

    Calling someone on that SHOULD be done, is only “policing” in the moral sense. You do not like it-do not be nasty to the messenger. Stay-I will-but stop being a hair trigger anger management junkie.

    If you instinct is to reply to this w/eff you you effing eff..That is more than a warning sign of a problem.

    2) I DID defend big Mac. Which was very reasonable. You amazingly have changed what you just said, & cannot get straight what I said in a few simple words.

    TRY to pay attention Raul. It is only decent & makes you look better.

    I properly said there was no good evidence he used based purely upon his size/weight for 6′ 5″, I have seen a few guys with his potential, he set the rookie HR record: & there was no specific evidence against him, using andro i did not like but was fully legal.

    AND some who use precursor/pro-hormones get quite big, & THEN he could do it legally. And use Creatine.

    What Chuck was absolutely wrong about & you “remembered” is me saying I saw the warning signs after he admitted guilt. TWO problems with that:

    A) I VOLUNTEERED that his non-answer made him almost certainly guilty, I did not wait for any vague I am sorry for whatever apologies.

    B) I never said all the warning signs were there later. If I DID any of these things you said, you could FIND it, I said a few times where you could see my comments in the archives.

    3) You gave a judgement call where Shaun was wrong. He said other stuff you guys would say “no duh” about, & other things Chuck would not accept due to his paradigm. Do you understand how senseless it is to show one or even a few things someone said as wrong, & extrapolate then that they were “always” wrong?

    4) A degree in nutrition gives no authority at all in weight training. And someone need not HAVE a degree to speak correctly: experts differ all the time. I am not even saying I am correct due to just having exponentially more experience & contact & reading about lifters.

    Linus Pauling won to Nobel prizes buit was roundly (& correctly) condemned for his pushing mega-doses of vitamins. His kno0wledge of Chemistry did not = authority on nutrition-he did not have the evidence to back up his claims.

    5) You & Chuck DID RESPOND to me, aggressively, about how much muscle could be gained. The hobo/tiger’s blood analogy is insane. It was merely an empirical & well studied issue of how much muscle can be gained by an athlete who had not done much weight training/not tried to bulk up, let alone max out his potential.

    6) Once again, like about what I said, just CHECK the record. Show me anywhere where either of you said Baggy gained 35-40 lbs. within 2 years. You are honestly mistaken here.

    7) I have addressed at length how baseball players can & do gain 20 lbs. of muscle. I can give you many examples, & it would be silly for you to assume they are all using. One example:

    Barry Bonds. BEFORE the ‘99 pre-season, he was, again, 206 at 8% body fat. He came into the league at 185, & he could hardly have been leaner. He resented how you know which bashers were stealing his glory & less talented, then juiced.

    He was strong but short of very bulky, described as a “fitness fanatic”. Look at images from him then, AND he was heavily investigated. We know when he was likely to have used & why, & have great evidence.

    Many guys have done this, more so since lifting got popular in the 80’s. Jordan is in a much more aerobic sport, stayed EXTREMELY low body fat, & also is listed as gaining 21 lbs.: 195-216 lbs.

    Why you get so angry at folks who nicely disagree with you…is personal. But I am pointing out how you are wrong, INCLUDING being abusive occasionally, AND misquoting what was said & what I said…

    And am not blowing a gasket. This would serve you & your blood pressure well Raul. It is not healthy to get upset if someone has an honest difference of opinion about an academic matter.

    But when I deal with details, you guys tend to bail, cannot cope with it. You had a bunch of links, the body recomposition web site itself has a bunch of different theoretical models with interesting & varying systems, backed by years of observation.

    You. Would. Not. Even TEST you prejudices. About a subject you know little about.

  277. Patrick Says:

    @ 273 (omg @ most of the rest)

    I was studying the A’s earlier this week to try and understand how this happened. The A’s are about 5th to 7th in most major pitching categories but…

    15 out of 16 pitchers who have thrown at least 31 innings have had GREAT years. The one who hasn’t is Tyson Ross.

    His numbers are 73 IP, 6.50 ERA, 1.81 WHIP

    The A’s are 4-14 in games in which he has pitched.

    If you subtract Ross out of the A’s pitching totals, the A’s are 31 games over .500 and have a 3.08 ERA and 1.21 WHIP which would both be 1st in the majors. Their surge began when they farmed Ross.

    They did this with the bargain basement and not one pitcher over 200 and only 3 over 120 innings.

    15 pitchers having great years? Wow.

  278. Patrick Says:

    BTW, I would have to vote Miggy at this point regardless of the Triple Crown.

  279. Len Says:

    A.L. MVP:

    1-M. Trout
    2-J. Verlander
    3-M. Cabrera
    4-R. Cano
    5-A. Beltre
    6-D. Price
    7-C. Sale
    8-Au. Jackson
    9-A. Gordon
    10-B. Zobrist

  280. Chuck Says:

    There is no way anyone can look at a picture of Jeff Bagwell in 1990, one in 2001, and one today and NOT have steriods be the first word that pops into your head.

    What you think you know and what you say you know is betrayed by what is the most damning evidence of all..the person himself.

    Which is what I said way back 89 comments ago.

    You don’t get 8% body fat by lifting weights, especially a pro athlete whose sport is stamina than strength.

    You have to eat an abnormally restrictive diet while still consuming a higher % of calories because to get that body fat percent you’re also doing much more cardio then say a defensive lineman.

    I’ve been married 22 years, and in that time have gained maybe 17-18 pounds. I’m in my mid-fifties, have sat behind a desk for the last 17, and lead a very sedentary lifestyle and for someone with my background don’t eat very well most of the time.

    And I’ve gained less than 20 pounds.

    It was Michael Jordan’s profession to be as strong as possible while remaining flexible and to have better stamina than his opponents. Weight gain, even natural, would have been counter-productive, and he likely would have worked harder to keep his playing weight consistent throughout his career.

    I saw him on TV last night and it’s pretty clear he hasn’t seen a gym in awhile and I doubt he weighs 220. His body won’t allow it.

    To suggest Jordan willingly gained 21 pounds during his 15 year playing career is naive, to believe that possible gain was done naturally in a gym environment, all the while knowing it would be a detriment to his career, is ignorant.

    I’ve made the statement before, and so have Patrick and Raul and others; you can claim to have all the knowledge, but your words betray you.

    We didn’t fly down here with Robin Williams from the Planet Ork, today isn’t our first day on earth, we’ve been there, done that.

    It’s like our hitting debate, you never played, so how could you possibly know, and even if you tried to prove me wrong, you’re not knowledgeable enough about the subject to do a basic google search. How would you know the videos and comments you’re getting back are correct or not, or in what context?

  281. Raul Says:

    Give it up, Chuck.

    You can’t argue with pedantic dumb asses. Especially those who think they have the moral high ground to tell people what they should feel.

    RA Dickey going for win #20.

  282. Chuck Says:

    Yep, I know.

  283. Raul Says:

    David Wright passed Ed Kranepool to become the all time mets hits leader.

    Kranepool spent 18 seasons, his entire career, with the Mets.

  284. Raul Says:

    Grounder to Wright.
    He should have thrown home to get the runner. He double clutched. Went to 1st.

    Everybody safe.
    2-0 Pirates.

  285. Chuck Says:

    Last night, on Twitter, the question was asked if being the all-time hits leader meant Wright was now the Mets’ all time best player.

    I guess so, if you consider Kranepool to be the greatest before.

  286. Raul Says:

    That title still belongs to Tom Seaver.
    Wright still has to pass The Straw.

    I’m pretty sure Mookie Wilson would still get more cheers than Wright at Citi Field.

  287. Chuck Says:

    Kerry just posted something on the Retrolist message board.

    At least we know he’s still kickin’ it.

  288. Raul Says:

    Kerry’s a goddamn rocket scientist.

  289. Chuck Says:

    Holy shit.

    Not that it matters, but Wright and Strawberry have the same career WAR.

  290. Raul Says:

    Ike Davis with a rocket.

    2-1 Pirates lead.

  291. Raul Says:

    Travis Snider with the catch of the year.

  292. Chuck Says:

    You know, going back and looking over his career, Strawberry wasn’t that good.

    He only had 150 hits in a season twice, and only had two seasons where he walked 80 times or more.

    His career high in that meaningless RBI stat was only 108, and he scored 100 runs in a season twice.

    Nine consecutive seasons of 20+ homers is impressive, especially considering the era, but absent of that he wasn’t anything special.

  293. Raul Says:

    Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

  294. Raul Says:

    Mets fans were upset the team didn’t make an offer to Jose Reyes.
    But he hasn’t been that great.

    Ruben Tejada might not be a star, but he’ll be good enough.

  295. Chuck Says:

    Yeah, I know, but you can’t blame his career on cocaine.

    If he was hitting like Lucas Duda fine, but he was hitting 30 bombs a year.

    Not sure where to draw the line, but it’s not that high.

  296. Raul Says:

    Yeah. The Straw wasn’t exactly stirring the drink on Reggie Jackson’s level.

  297. Chuck Says:

    If you had told me Travis Snider made the catch of the year, I would have guessed maybe someone threw a baby out of a burning building.

    I would never think he’d actually have a glove on his hand.

    http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=25129115&partnerId=aw-7392092916300736057-996

  298. Raul Says:

    Lol that catch was impressive!
    I’m watching the game now. Just hoping the mets can give dickey a shot to win

  299. Raul Says:

    Damn. Rod Barajas took Dickey deep.
    3-1

  300. Raul Says:

    Andres Torres is terrible. A liner that bounced like 10 feet past the SS nearly bounced by him in CF.

  301. Raul Says:

    6 k thru 4 for dickey.

  302. John Says:

    Raul: “I’m pretty sure Mookie Wilson would still get more cheers than Wright at Citi Field.”

    Mookie Wilson: “Holy shit, my career OBP was .314 and I never walked more than 35 times in a season, despite being a friggin’ leadoff hitter!”

    Chuck: “His [Strawberry's] career high in that meaningless RBI stat was only 108″

    Consider the dots connected.

  303. Raul Says:

    Lol really John?
    You know damn well I wasn’t saying Mookie Wilson was better than David Wright.

  304. Raul Says:

    David Wright hit a grounder up the middle that must have taken 6 bounces. And went through for a single.

    I’m pretty sure Derek Jeter wasn’t on the field for the Pirates though.

  305. Raul Says:

    Hairston with a single to right to cut the deficit to 3-2.

  306. John Says:

    @304, but no error was charged to the SS, right? So a player can reach base due to poor defensive play with no error being charged?

    I wonder if this game is on here…

  307. Chuck Says:

    #303,

    More RBI, not less.

  308. Raul Says:

    It’s on SNY. Which if you have Cablevision in CT would be channel 60.

  309. Raul Says:

    9 strikeouts for Dickey

  310. Mike Felber Says:

    CHuck was not arguing with me Raul, you were.

    You cannot face the truth: your self image is of a decent fellow-which you likely are personally. But you have problems with rage & being abusive.

    You projected YOUR issues onto me. You are the one who was trying to tell me how to think & feel: just because I reserved judgement on a player using PEDs!

    So just by being human(e) one has the moral high ground. For the record, you could not answer me, attributed comments to me repeatedly I did NOT make….

    And my comments were based upon not being verbally abusive & vicious, NOT “how to feel”.

    But you want to not take responsibility for your conduct & issues. OK, let us see if at least you follow your own advice & stop arguing.

  311. Raul Says:

    Camera cuts to a shot of the Pirates’ bullpen and 5 pitchers are loosening up by making big circles with their arms.
    Keith Hernandez says “the only thing missing out there is Richard Simmons to lead em on”

    Hahahaha

  312. Raul Says:

    Mike, I have a big problem with your holier than thou attitude.
    Especially when you try and tell people how they should feel and act.

    That’s when I’m going to tell you to fuck yourself. Every time. Because you’re in no position to dictate other people’s behavior.

    The part of you thinking a baseball player can gain 20 pounds of muscle in 2 years…that’s just ignorant nonsense.

    Frankly, I’m fucking exhausted of talking about it.

  313. Raul Says:

    Mets tie the game.

    3-3

  314. John Says:

    Ah, no SNY for me. I do have YES though. Yankees square off against Toronto at 7 tonight.

  315. Raul Says:

    HR with a 3-run shot to right center

    6-3.
    Dickey in line for #20

  316. Raul Says:

    Oh yeah? Could have sworn the Yankees were off.
    Usually have off days on Mondays or Thursdays.

  317. Chuck Says:

    Four game series against the Jays starts today.

  318. Raul Says:

    The Orioles haven’t made it easy on the Yanks.
    Baltimore has been winning all month.

  319. Len Says:

    I seem to remember Strawberry being hurt and being on the disabled list quite a bit. I went back and checked and he only appeared in 140+ games Four times in his career so durability was a real problem for him. That cost him with seasonal counting stats.

    I think he batted 5th for the first part of his career which probably cost him some rbi’s. He still hit 100+ 3 times which is pretty good. Mantle did it 4 times by comparison. He still finished in the top 10 in RBI’s 6 times.

    He was power hitter so judging him by hits per season isn’t really the fairest way to judge him.

    Very good power numbers especially when you consider he played in a pitcher’s park during low offensive era in the late 80’s/early 80’s.

    9 times finished in the top 10 in HR, top five 5 times, led the league once
    8 times finished in the top 10 in Slg, led the league once
    6 times finished in the top 10 in Rbi’s,
    5 times finished in the top 10 in ops, led the league once.

  320. Raul Says:

    Oh. How about that?

    Doug Fister sets an AL record with 9 consecutive strikeouts.

  321. Raul Says:

    Manny Acta is out.
    Sandy Alomar Jr managing the Indians.

    Wasn’t his father a manager?

  322. Raul Says:

    The last knuckleball pitcher to win 20 games in a season:

    Joe Niekro in 1980.

    Dickey just struck out his 13th batter of the game.

  323. Raul Says:

    7.2 innings
    128 pitches
    13 strikeouts

    Dickey is out of the game.

  324. Chuck Says:

    “Doug Fister sets an AL record with 9 consecutive strikeouts.”

    I can’t fathom that.

    If I was in a room with Shaun, Felber, John, Keith Law and Joe Sheehan and had to listen to them talk about Tim Raines for ten hours I’d understand that better than how the fuck a stiff like Doug Fister could pull off something like that.

  325. Chuck Says:

    Sandy Alomar Sr. never managed.

    He was a long time coach (still is..White Sox?) but never managed.

    Except in PR.

  326. John Says:

    Ah yes, Doug Fister. The man who was 3-12 last year with the Mariners, but learned how to be a winner from Jim Leyland or something.

  327. Chuck Says:

    AP 1987 New York

    The New York Mets today announced they have placed Darryl Strawberry on the DL with a minor knee sprain. This marks the third time this season and the second this month he has seen DL time.

    Translation: He’s in rehab.

    I get the drugs, I get the cancer (direct relation from cocaine use to colon cancer, btw).

    I’m an advocate of guys with obvious HOF resumes getting the same consideration as anyone else if their careers ended due to injury or illness.

    Puckett, Addie Joss, Munson, Tony C., etc, should get some type of career progression curve.

    Guys who self medicate, like Sam McDowell, like Steve Howe, like Strawberry or Gooden, should not.

    One is a choice, one is not.

    Simple as that.

  328. Chuck Says:

    I’m the manager.

    Fister strikes out the side in the first and second innings, consecutively.

    Raul leads off the third inning and strikes out.

    $500 fine.

    John hits second, and strikes out.

    $1000 fine.

    Cameron hits third, and strikes out.

    $1500 fine.

    Not rocket science.

  329. Raul Says:

    Hahaha

  330. Raul Says:

    Rauch gives up a 2 run homer in the 9th.

    Mets lead 6-5.
    1 out and Rauch threw 20 pitches.

    In comes Bobby Parnell to try and close it.

  331. Raul Says:

    Parnell gets it done.
    20 wins.

  332. Mike Felber Says:

    You are lying to yourself about what we each do Raul. DELUDED.

    1) You got mad at me based upon nicely stating there is no real evidence Bagwell used. Then calling me names like arrogant & pompous when I was not. That is YOU being a bully.

    2) I only tell folks that they should not be MALICIOUS & verbally ABUSIVE like you. That is NOT telling you how to think & feel.

    You have taken no responsibility for your out of control anger, so focus on vague ideas of me being controlling, when only you attempt to be a bully.

    You also will not & cannot address either theoretical arguments nor specific evidence of ballplayers gaining 20 lb. of muscle (when not either bulky NOR below average weight or bulk to start.

    That’s OK, You could not function this way & have any respect, peace or joy in daily life, & even with your denial, on some level the truth of the message gets through.

  333. Raul Says:

    Jesus fucking Christ.

    Dude. The only one who is deluded is YOU.
    I’ve never seen anyone throw labels at people the way you do.

    Don’t you ever just say your piece and shut the fuck up?
    Do you always have the last word?

    You’re the most petty person in the world dude. Seriously. You need counseling. Or some weed.
    Chill the fuck out. Lay back and stop trying to fight the fucking world with your pretentious righteous attitude.

  334. Mike Felber Says:

    That is correct Len.

    Chuck, Mantle Foxx, Ruth to a degree, Alexander, many others…self medicated with alcohol. So many others like Mays took greenies/stimulants.

    If a player was not changing his basic talent &/or body with PEDs-& most of the time these substances were both encouraged & legal in baseball-& they often hurt a players capacity, why on earth not base their HOF chances on performance only?

  335. Raul Says:

    Oakland down 9-4 in Texas.
    Blackley lasted just 1 inning.

  336. Mike Felber Says:

    You have no substantive defense Raul. Nada. Any “labels” are qualified & supported by evidence of what you say or do.

    If I am petty for responding, you must be too. Wrong “dude”. I am actually addressing details. It is not petty to correct your putting words in my mouth.

    YOU are “unchill”. I am NOT getting upset, though only you has been verbally abusive. I am NOT trying to get the last word: but maybe you are, ’cause you are trying to stop me from replying!

    I am also not fighting the world. I am opposing your being abusive at a distance.

    Don’t like it? Admit it & apologize. We know your Ego will not let you do this.

    So take your own advice & stop arguing. Stop provoking & blaming.

  337. Raul Says:

    No wonder you wife left you dude.

  338. Chuck Says:

    “You got mad at me based upon nicely stating there is no real evidence Bagwell used.”

    No, he got mad at you for being ignorant of the evidence Bagwell used..Bagwell himself.

    Let me ask you something…do you believe OJ killed his wife?

  339. Mike Felber Says:

    Wow, that is a new low you Raul.

    Not that you deserve an explanation. But do you know who left who & why, or if we remained friends? Not a clue.

    I am sure you do not want to be this kind of a person. So look inside.

  340. Len Says:

    Mike,

    I wasn’t trying to make a HOF case for Strawberry, I was just refuted the point that Strawberry wasn’t a good player. Using 150 hits per season as some kind of barometer really doesn’t make any sense for the type of player he was. Willie McCovey only hit 150+ hits 3 times in his career, you wouldn’t use that as any type of gauge to judge him as a player. Strawberry was an 8 time all star who was one of the top 10-15 position players from 1985-1990.

    What’s interesting is he had 280 HR after his age 29 season, that’s more than Mays, Snider, Banks, Gehrig, and R. Jackson had after their age 29 seasons. Babe Ruth had 284 after his age 29 season by comparison. I’m not saying he was going to hit 700+hr but he only needed to average 22 HR from the ages of 30-39 to get to 500.

    But he had a serious drug problem plus a bunch of other personality problems and struggled with nagging injuries and wasn’t a durable player.

    Playing in New York probably wasn’t the best thing for him. Also the Mets were so God-awful during the late 70’s-early 80’s that he was brought to NYC as some sort of baseball messiah or something. He probably should have stayed in the minors another year. I’m not really sure why the Mets had the #1 pick in 1980 because the Jays and the A’s had the worst record in 1979.

  341. Bob Says:

    Good question. The first 15 picks in 1980

    1. Mets
    2. Jays
    3. Braves
    4. Athletica
    5. Padres
    6. Mariners
    7.Giants
    8. White Sox
    9. Dodgers
    10.Indians
    11.Cubs
    12 Twins
    13 Phillies
    14.Rangers
    15. Cardinals
    16 They alternated between NL and Al.

  342. Mike Felber Says:

    He got mad for a host of reasons Chuck, all irrational. Including me politely not agreeing with him on a purely academic matter. Assigned me statements I did not make, did address arguments, called names…

    Why am I not mad or abusive, though only I have been mistreated? It is a personal issue.

    Yes of course. Do you seriously think all the folks-most I would say-who do not conclude Bagwell was a dirty liar are like those deluded that OJ is innocent? They are not remotely comparable.

    I agree with you completely Len. And his swing was a thing of beauty.He was just a very screwed up individual, also with major anger issues, abusive to his wife.

  343. Chuck Says:

    They are absolutely comparable, Mike.

    Where’s the evidence OJ is guilty?

    There isn’t any..just like with Bagwell..it’s all circumstantial.

    Can’t have it both ways.

    So, you’re either a delusional hypocrite, or just full of shit.

    Either way, it should be pretty obvious why you’re the target of our wrath.

  344. Bob Says:

    Manny Acta was fired by the Indians.
    See you guys tomorrow

  345. Chuck Says:

    On BR’s list of most similar batters to Pablo Sandoval is an interesting name.

    Cliff Lee.

    Would love to be a fly on the wall during his arb hearing.

    “We think you’re a good hitter Pablo, but your most similar hitters are Martin Prado, some old dude named Smead Jolley, and a fucking pitcher.”

    “Have a nice day”.

  346. Chuck Says:

    Keith Law has this personal blog in which he fancies himself as some kind of gourmet, and, for whatever reason, seems to think people would interested in reading about his opinion of things like “Top Chef”.

    Anyway, he wrote this (he posted the link) which I find interesting, as it relates to his own inefficiencies as a qualified baseball person.

    ” I also enjoyed the snippets of the three chefs’ discussion on critics who don’t have kitchen experience or a culinary education, pointing out that knowledge can be acquired in multiple ways…Obviously, I side with the critics in a sense, since I evaluate baseball players, teams, and even front-office personnel, but never played the game (and couldn’t, in fact). It probably took me longer to learn how to evaluate than it might have taken someone with field experience, but I think I’ve at least figured it out enough to do my job.”

    I actually agree with him.

    There are things about baseball, pretty much everything really, that you can’t possibly understand without actually playing the game.

    Obviously, the basic fundamentals can be mastered at a young age, but the older a player gets, the more it’s the unmeasured aspects which take over.

    I think Law’s deficiencies have more to do with why he couldn’t cut it with the Blue Jays than they do in his current job, because as a writer he’s not offering facts, just opinion. Hopefully he’s able to support with facts if the need arises, but usually it’s, “Bryce Harper is Jesus because he hits the ball far”.

    If you don’t know anything yourself when reading, and think that’s all there is to being a good player, then Law is right, and is why he’s held in such high regard.

    It’s just a matter of sometimes finding your niche’.

  347. Chuck Says:

    An amazing article

    http://sports.yahoo.com/news/from-prospect-to-priest–grant-desme-leaves-the-a-s–becomes-a-monk-and-tries-to-find-his-peace.html

  348. Len Says:

    @341 Bob,

    Did they alternate between N.L. and A.L. teams for the #1 pick back then? It was the N.L. turn so that’s why the Mets got the #1 pick even though the Jays and A’s had worse records?

    It kind of amazing to go back and look at the first round of the 1980 draft and so few players have any kind of major league career. Strawberry was the only star, Kelly Gruber, Glen Wilson and Dennis Rasmussen had some major league success. Then you had guys like Ken Dayley, Ron Robinson, Cecil Espy, Jeff Reed, Jim Acker, Frank Willis, Billy Beanne, and Terry Francona who were pretty mediocre for a few years. 7 guys didn’t even make the majors, 4 guys who had cups of coffee.

  349. John Says:

    @345, wrong Cliff Lee

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/leecl01.shtml

  350. Mike Felber Says:

    Chuck, do you realize you have just said that anyone who thinks OJ is guilty (almost all), & Bagwell is innocent (most), is a liar or delusional?!

    That is a trip to Crazytown my friend.

    Your (before), & Raul’s (now) wrath are personal problems, even if you were right, there is not the fainest reason to be abusive to someone who politely disagrees with you.

    The evidence against OJ was not only copious, but not just circumstantial. Problem is, there were procedural questions about the blood test being contaminated, fatally flawed strategies like the glove being tried on (very foolish even if it had not shrunk or been tampered with, the latter a recent charge), & other screw ups & technical problems. And a jury that was swayed by theatrics.

    OJ was later found guilty of the murder of Nicole Simpson in a civil trial & ordered to pay many millions in compensation. He is serving essentially a life sentence now for his later gun related hijinks.

    Bagwell had an injured & arthritic shoulder, which could easily have ocurred just from years of heavy lifting & wear & tear. He COULD be guilty, you could well have good inside info…

    But that is nothing at all like there being any substantive evidence that he is. Comparing it to OJ is just…

    The mind reels, boggles & finally must just snap.

  351. Chuck Says:

    “@345, wrong Cliff Lee”

    No shit, really?

    I’ll be damned.

  352. Chuck Says:

    Mike, you’re unbelievable.

  353. Chuck Says:

    You know, I was watching the White Sox/Rays game last night and I didn’t get any playoff feel from it. Maybe because MLBNetwork picked up the local broadcast (Sox), not sure, maybe it’s even me, but it just seemed like another game to me.

  354. Chuck Says:

    #280,

    Way to go, Len.

    Just copy BR’s top ten WAR list.

  355. Bob Says:

    @ 348& Len. They must have rotated picks. Just looked at 1979 with Seattle selecting Al Chambers first and this time they went from AL to NL. Rick leach and Steve Howe were in that draft.

  356. Len Says:

    @354 Chuck,

    I didn’t “just copy BR’s top ten WAR list,”

    They have it:

    Trout
    Verlander
    Cano
    Cabrera
    Price
    Beltre
    Sale
    M. Harrison
    Gordon
    T. Hunter

  357. Len Says:

    @Bob 355,

    That’s pretty bizarre that they would alternate picks like that back then, doesn’t make much sense.

    I looked at the 1981 draft, The Mariners and the Cubs had the worst records in 1980 and The Angels, Mets and Jays all finished with 95 loses in 1980 yet the Angels only played 160 games that year so they gave the Angels the 3rd overall pick. I kind of forgot that sometimes teams back then wouldn’t play 162 games.

    Overall pretty unimpressive 1rst round in ‘81. K. McReynolds was the best player from that group, then you had guys like Ron Darling, Joe Carter, Mike Moore, Dick Schoefield who had pretty good major league careers. Then there were a few guys like B. Meacham, D. Boston, J. Cerutti, D. Anderson and S. Lyons. Then there are about 12-13 guys who had cups of coffee in the majors and then 7 guys who never made it to the majors.

  358. Chuck Says:

    I know the draft rules were changed at some point, but can’t find when exactly.

    It used to be alternate, worst record, now it’s just cumulative worst record.

    About 30% off all first round picks don’t make the majors, and the percentages get progressively worse the deeper you get into the draft.

    Overall, it’s about 9% who make at least one ML appearance.

  359. Chuck Says:

    19 of the 26 players selected in the first round made the majors, which is 73% and is pretty much right on the 46 year average.

    The actual order of the top ten in 1981 was:

    Mariners (1)
    Cubs (2)
    Angels (3)
    Mets (5)
    Blue Jays (4)
    Padres (7)
    White Sox (6)
    Cardinals (8)
    Rangers (9)
    Giants (11)

    The numbers in parenthesis is where they would have picked under today’s rules.

  360. Len Says:

    I think they’re much more insistent on all teams playing 162 games which would have affected the Angels.

    How do they or did they settle tie schedules?

    It seems like Teams are doing a much better job in drafting players now than they did back then. If you take 1980-1981 it looks like about 1/3 first round picks didn’t make the majors and another 1/3 basically have a cup of coffee type career with less than 75 games in the majors.

    Take a look at 2005 where you had, J. Upton, A. Gordon, R. Zimmerman, J. Ellsbury, J. Bruce, A. McCutchen, R. Braun, T. Tulowitski, M. Garza, C. Rasmus and C. Buchholtz. Then you even had guys like R. Romero, M. Pelfry, J. Mayberry, C. Maybin, J. Lowrie, C. Pennington. They’ve had 25 out of the top 48 picks play at least 100 game in the majors. Only 10 players out of 48 didn’t make the majors as of 2012.

  361. Chuck Says:

    So, on HHS, this guys goes,

    “HHS needs more situational hitting statistics that don’t suck.”

    Then he proceeds to use something called “Base-Out Runs Added (RE24)”.

    I guess my Webster’s has a different definition for “suck”.

  362. Chuck Says:

    First tiebreaker is winning percentage, a team with a 70-92 would have a lower percentage than a team that was 70-91 and would pick first.

    I did find out that prior to 1999 tiebreakers were assessed/settled by league first.

    So, say the Cubs had a better division record than the Mariners (first tiebreaker) then they would have picked after Seattle even if their W/L were exact.

  363. Mike Felber Says:

    Yes you have to incentivize winning. And you gotta believe!

    Good article about Desme, thanks Chuck.

  364. Bob Says:

    1.Incentivize winning? Winning equals getting laid and getting meals comped.
    2. TGIF!!!

  365. Mike Felber Says:

    Ballplayers will not have a much difference in getting laid if they are on non-championship teams, likewise it is the tops dogs who might get comped, or start players. They usually have plenty of money, do not need meals comped, & are doing more than OK with the ladies by virtue of being in MLB.

    It is making sure teams that are not making the PS scramble for every victory that can be incentivized, including team policy & strategy.

  366. Chuck Says:

    I have no idea what you just said.

  367. Mike Felber Says:

    I was referring to which teams, non-PS, which need motivation to give the proverbial 1000% each game, & what Bob described what Bob referred to as not motivation, since they usually have enough money & sex.

  368. Chuck Says:

    Sorry, Mike, but it’s pretty clear when they taught grammar and sentence structure in school you were out sick that day.

  369. Chuck Says:

    So Ryan Braun goes 30/30 for the second straight season and gets bumped off the back page by Homer Bailey’s no-hitter.

    Homer Bailey has great stuff, but has big time command issues.

    Only walked one, so maybe he’s gotten it together, even if for just one day.

    You know who else is like that?

    Phil Hughes.

    I bet he throws one before it’s all said and done.

  370. Mike Felber Says:

    No offense taken. But my grammar is fine: I sometimes do not review posts, since I am not trying to impress but express idea(l)s, believe it or not. Though I knew that last sentence was a slight monstrosity when i typed it! Yet if you read them, it is clear from most of my many paragraphs-long posts that…

    Me write words good, most of usually-times well sense make! ;-)

  371. Bob Says:

    Congrats to Homer Baley.

  372. Cameron Says:

    6 days, 300 posts, absolutely no change. Good to be home.

    I just got a job with a newsletter publisher as a sales rep, I report on Monday. I’ll be getting an apartment in about a month. Studio, good neighborhood, $275 a month utilities included.

    …Life’s pretty good.

  373. John Says:

    Great news Cam! Good to see you’re doing well.

  374. Chuck Says:

    Congrats Cameron.

    Way to go, bud.

  375. Bob Says:

    Ditto @ 373. Still in Niles?

  376. Cameron Says:

    Staying at a Mission (Christian homeless shelter) in Warren right now, gonna be moving to Austintown next month. Nice little town.

  377. Mike Felber Says:

    GREAT man! $275, that would get you a utility closet with mops included here in NYC!

  378. Chuck Says:

    “6 days, 300 posts, absolutely no change. Good to be home.”

    Sorry, my bad.

    Long week, baiting the fish was my only entertainment option.

  379. Mike Felber Says:

    Ah, here I am thinking you were being sincere, (not) my bad. You might try media/friends, playing with family, anything other than aggravating a situation/disturbing the peace. Especially when you see others are prone to anger management problems/issues, being cruel only makes it more miserable for them.

  380. Cameron Says:

    Chuck, I’ve lived in a homeless shelter filled with nothing but heroin addicts and preachers for two months. Believe me, this is an upgrade.

  381. Bob Says:

    Mike, I think everyone here is being sincere toward Cameron. Have no idea who post 379 is directed at. Was it me?

  382. Chuck Says:

    Wow, that derailed fast..seems like we need John to moderate some missing posts so everyone’s numbers match up.

  383. Chuck Says:

    Back when Pags was around, one of the writers here was John Paciorek.

    Today marks the 49th anniversary of his claim to fame.

    On this date in 1963 John Paciorek of the Houston Colt .45s goes 3 for 3 in his only major league game, ending his big league career with a perfect 1.000 batting average.

  384. Bob Says:

    One of my dad’s former co-workers knew both Paciorek brothers. Neat story about John. And Mike, please ignore post 381.

  385. Chuck Says:

    “One of my dad’s former co-workers knew both Paciorek brothers.”

    There’s three who played MLB..Jim, John, and Tom.

  386. Bob Says:

    The guy probably knew all three. I never met any of them.

  387. Chuck Says:

    I met Jim once..at a RL game in Peoria..he was a minor league hitting instructor with the Brewers at the time.

  388. Bob Says:

    Cool.

  389. Bob Says:

    1. The Orioles claimed Steve Pearce from the Yankees.
    2. The Indians will interview Francona next week.
    3. See you guys on Monday.
    4. And by then will 1 AL team be in?

  390. Chuck Says:

    Scrolling through the TV listings and came across the National Collegiate Paintball Championship match between Long Beach State and Tennessee.

    Any college that whines about finances and cuts money making or life worthy activities should fucking lose their charters forever after that shit.

  391. Mike Felber Says:

    OK Bob. Since I answered soon after a post I did not list a name. My post #s do not match up either.

    We all like R. A. Dickey. Who do we think deserves the Cy Young? Here is the current ‘12 NL Pitcher rWAR list. What do yu guys think of how it reflects value, close? Any major exceptions?

    1. Kershaw (LAD) 5.8
    2. Cueto (CIN) 5.5
    3. Dickey (NYM) 5.2
    4. Gonzalez (WSN) 4.6
    5. Zimmermann (WSN)4.4
    6. Lee (PHI) 4.3
    7. Medlen (ATL) 4.1
    Hamels (PHI) 4.1
    9. Lohse (STL) 4.0
    10. Latos (CIN) 3.7
    Cain (SFG)

  392. Mike Felber Says:

    A chance for Chuck to slam WAR, but lemmee see what folks think:

    After they adjusted WAR, Yaz has the highest WAR for a position player except for Ruth, & tying Rajah at 12.0. Now I should say John was making a fuss re: Kemp having the highest since Mays, & he is down to 7.8 in the new reckoning (still lead league).

    But is this possibly fair for Yaz? He had 3 monster years. ‘67 he had a 193 OPS + & missed just 1 game, & excellent LF. In fact, Iam surprised how very high he is rated by total zone: his Rtot per year is 9, 1 over Mays, in the 2nd longest career ever.

    Was he that good in the field, those who saw him before old? Do you think he could have been slightly more valuable in ‘67 than anyone since Ruth?

    And: do you think WAR, or other total rating systems, would be a bit or sometimes at all significantly different if they adjusted for strength of LEAGUE? Would Yaz have done about exactly as well in the NL is ‘67?

    Also, should not a player, especially when the league was smaller, get up or down graded a bit if he did not face the great or terrible pitching of his own team? And my avatar: would he not have been even a little better in a small league if he got to face the Senator’s batters?

  393. John Says:

    Mike,

    When doing Cy Young award, you can look at WAR if you want, and it’s certainly more reliable than W/L, but as there’s just a pitching component to it (as opposed to position players, who are evaluated on hitting, fielding, and base-running, not to mention positional scarcity), there’s not a lot of extra information you get.

    Where pitching WAR comes in handy is comparing pitchers on a scale with position players to assess their relative value.

    Unlike the AL MVP race, where one guy is leaps and bounds better than the competition, the NL Cy Young race (along with the NL MVP race) is wide-open with several close candidates. A feel very comfortable about saying that an 11-WAR player is better than a 7-WAR player, but I’m not going to say that a 5.8 WAR pitcher is definitely better than a 5.2 WAR pitcher. For what it’s worth, Dickey would have my vote.

  394. John Says:

    Fun fact: Giancarlo Stanton is now leading the league in slugging, even with some hitless at-bats added for ranking purposes.

  395. Mike Felber Says:

    Right John, I know, though pitchers generally do not do much in other components, in a case race at least should have figured in the other components. I do not know how Clayon, #1 in WAR< does not get the advantage. almost the same runs saved as Dickey, but no errors to 4. A "better" hitter. League lead in ERA (& WHIP) despite less than average defense by his team (like Dickey).

    We like Dickey, but he seems at best #2. Cueto may well be better too, though he is even a worse hitter.

  396. John Says:

    Why would we look at hitting for the Cy Young?

  397. Mike Felber Says:

    This is a philosophical question. As I said, there is not usually much variation in these other components, so it overwhelmingly could only make a practical difference in a close race. Mostly because there is not so much fielding for them, & most are roughly similar as terrible hitters.

    But why automatically NOT consider things a pitcher does to help his cause? In a close race, would you not give Gibson extra credit for his relatively excellent hitting? How about my avatar, with a “great” 76 OPS + for his career?

    And if you do not use hitting, why now give it to Dickey over Kershaw just based upon hurling, other than you/we like him & his story more?

  398. John Says:

    Nope, wouldn’t look at it at all.

    For MVP, it can be worth a little bit of a bounce (as much as a guy can do in 75-100 PA’s, which is to say, not much).

    Cy Young is for the best pitcher, not the best athlete who is on the mound.

  399. John Says:

    Mike Napoli didn’t come close to repeating his dominance from last year, but continues to dominate the team that traded him. 6 home runs and 16 RBI on the year against the Angels. By comparison, Vernon Wells has 11 home runs and 29 RBI total on the year.

  400. John Says:

    Yankees, Orioles, and Rangers all clinch with the Texas victory over LA.

    Any Tiger win (vs. KC) or White Sox loss (vs. CLE) will mean a Detroit playoff berth.

    An A’s win will eliminate the Rays and they’ll make it with any combination of 2 wins or Angels losses. A sweep of the Rangers would make the A’s division champs.

  401. Mike Felber Says:

    I agree it is for best pitcher. But that does not necessarily mean that all that a pitcher does during a game should be discounted. The overwhelming amount of value will be added on the mound. But it is at least ambiguous whether you should look at the little else a pitcher does: The words best pitcher do not specify only hurling, they are at least as likely to mean best overall performance by a pitcher.

    If you give me a good reason why Dickey deserves the Cy Young, I will gloam onto it. I would like him to Be the most valuable. He will have 1 more start. But even discounting anything but pitching, I see no reason that he is now #1.

  402. Mike Felber Says:

    A certain Bill Chuck showed why Dickey will likely win the Cy Young-not his words, & I will add at least if he has a decent last start. I also did not know that he threw his K-ball that fast, even after hearing a few interviews with him!

    http://www.baseballanalytics.org/baseball-analytics-blog/2012/9/28/ra-dickey-20-game-winner.html

  403. Mike Felber Says:

    Strange anomaly concerning Dr. K. He led the league in pitcher rWAR in his rookie season, despite having the lowest todatl in decades, 5.2. Seems nobody in the NL had a very big year then. And the next year he led too, with a monster 11.9 (helped by 1.1 oWAR), the highest for the CENTURY except for my avatar in ‘13, & Cy Young in ‘01. With “only” 276.2 IP.

    Imagine just how good Gooden could have been. That was no fluke, he could have been a top 10 ever pitcher.

  404. Chuck Says:

    The Cy Young is a pitching award, hitting has nothing to do with it.

    The leagues are different, you can’t consider RA Dickey’s hitting because you can’t consider Justin Verlander’s.

    Craig Kimbrel has zero PA’s…for his career.

    You CAN’T consider his hitting because he hasn’t.

    Considering offense for a pitching award is silly.

  405. Chuck Says:

    Sean Forman’s normally a pretty calm dude, so this qualifies as pissed off for him.

    http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/2012/09/how-many-baseball-writers-have-called-or-e-mailed-to-talk-to-me-about-what-goes-into-war-zero/

  406. Chuck Says:

    LOL..This is gonna be good.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/sabr-geeks-stiff-a-dickey-miguel-cabrera-nl-cy-young-al-mvp-voting-means-war-article-1.1171008

  407. Chuck Says:

    On this date in 1961: #61

  408. Bob Says:

    Joel Sherman
    MVP AL
    1. Trout
    2. Cabrera

    Al Cy
    1. Verlander

    NL MVP
    1. Braun
    NL Cy
    1. Dickey

    I was busy yesterday and forget his entire rankings. Will do his 1-5 tomorrow

  409. John Says:

    RA Dickey is a perfectly acceptable choice for Cy Young, but his W/L record is roughly as relevant as his cousin’s dog’s middle name.

  410. John Says:

    “yet there is this clamor from the sabermetrics gallery that Cabrera must be penalized for his slowness afoot and supposed defensive shortcomings”

    Okay, seriously. It really shouldn’t be just some new-agey fad to evaluate all aspects of a baseball player. Regardless of how you feel about the statistics themselves, it fucking boggles my mind that people are like “hey, just look at his hitting numbers, okay?”

  411. John Says:

    “And as for Cabrera’s defense, I would also submit the fact that he willingly moved from first base (where he’d become a fairly accomplished defender) to third so Detroit could sign Prince Fielder — and, as long as we’re going to deal in hypotheticals here, how many extra wins did that give the Tigers?”

    1) Cabrera sucked at first
    2) The Tigers could have signed Prince anyway, because of the DH.

  412. John Says:

    And here’s the author’s chief complaint: ” this growing infatuation with WAR (wins above replacement) is, in my opinion, turning baseball into an inhuman board game.

    He has referenced no fewer than 15 statistics in the writing of this article. His arguments for Dickey and Cabrera are almost 100% statistically based.

    This happens every time. “These stat geeks are ruining baseball, and now let me tell you about player X’s batting average, home runs, RBI, etc.” Again: those are statistics.

  413. Chuck Says:

    “This is a stat that even its inventors can’t agree on an established formula, other than when all of these various factors of offense and defense are put into a blender and shaken well, out comes the player’s value to a team in wins above and beyond the “replacement” value of a player taken off the waiver wire for nothing. In other words, one big hypothetical.”

  414. Bob Says:

    Teams with protected 1st round picks.
    1. Astros
    2. Cubs
    3.Rockies
    4. Marlins
    5. Twins
    6. Red Sox
    7. Indians

  415. Bob Says:

    Sherman gives Harper the ROY as well.

  416. Bob Says:

    Best wishes to Chuck Pagano, who is battling leukemia.

  417. Chuck Says:

    “If you are going to read one article on Trout vs. Cabrera, here’s a good choice, by the country’s greatest active sportswriter”…referring to Joe Posnanski.

    Can’t make this stuff up.

  418. Mike Felber Says:

    It is good to question the accuracy of any total value stats like WAR, & to try to have them. Hard to compare ttal value of pitchers fairly between leagues due to batting only in the NL,though since it is rare a pitcher hits even marginally, a small bump for that guy seems fair.

    It remains fully ambiguous whether evaluating pitchers should include the small contrinution of teir non-pitching. If it is really close otherwise, I think we should include differnces in batting…

    If Gibson & The Left Arm of God had virtually the same pitching value, & their usual years at te plate, i would definitely give the Vy Young to Gibby, not Sandy.

  419. Chuck Says:

    OK, then.

  420. Mike Felber Says:

    I know, typos galore. Sorry if it is hard to read.

  421. Chuck Says:

    Didn’t even notice.

  422. Chuck Says:

    This little 50 comment thread about WAR on the BR site is pretty interesting.

  423. Chuck Says:

    On this date in 1932, Babe Ruth pretended to call his shot.

  424. Chuck Says:

    Happy Birthday to my buddy Jon Warden.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/wardejo01.shtml

    One of the funniest people I’ve ever met. He’s the official MLB Alumni emcee..he makes his living traveling around the country doing introductions and stuff at MLB events.

    He’s the anti-Ernie Banks.

    Warden played one year in the major leagues..for the 1968 Detroit Tigers.

    One year, one World Series ring.

    I give him crap all the time because my minor league alumni ring is bigger than his WS ring.

    He was the only guy on the Tigers roster that did not appear in a WS game, although he did (seriously) warmup for five of the seven games.

    He said he thought he was coming into (I think) Game four in relief of Joe Sparma.

    Mayo Smith came out of the dugout to make a pitching change, and raised his left hand..Warden was a lefty.

    He said he got all excited and started to come in, then realized Smith raised his left hand to cover his mouth because he sneezed, and really wanted the righthander.

  425. Chuck Says:

    Ryan Braun leads the NL in homers with 41. He’s played 156 games and has 665 PA’s.

    Giancarlo Stanton is second with 36..in 120 games and 488 PA’s.

    He doesn’t have enough to qualify for the league leaders.

    With the same PA’s, Stanton would have 49.

  426. Chuck Says:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/not/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/WARwiki.png

  427. Bob Says:

    There we have it. Wikipedia formally endorses Cabrera.

  428. Bob Says:

    The 5 teams from the AL.
    1. Yankees
    2. Baltimore
    3. Detroit
    4. Rangers
    5. Oakland

    The Nl
    1. Washington
    2. Cincinnat
    3. San Fran
    4. Atlanta
    5. Last spot betwwen St Louis and the Dodgers

  429. Bob Says:

    Shane Victorino left Aces. Wonder if he retains Boras.

  430. Bob Says:

    C.J Wilson is having elbow surgery.

  431. Chuck Says:

    So is Manny Banuelos…TJ.

    Another one bites the dust…Dexter Fowler has fired Scott Boras.

  432. Chuck Says:

    It’s these type comments which frustrate me to no end and have essentially killed what little enjoyment I get from internet interactions;

    “I think that Kent is HOF-worthy, roughly as qualified as Roberto Alomar”

    This is what Harold Reynolds meant by sabermetrics having a negative effect on baseball, when people not only believe that shit but have no problem saying so publicly.

  433. Bob Says:

    What if Kent wins “Survivor?”

  434. John Says:

    I don’t think anyone actually thinks Kent and Alomar are comparable.

    Alomar’s got over 10 WAR on him and didn’t benefit from hitting in front of the most dominant hitting force in 75 years. No question when it comes to defense either.

  435. Chuck Says:

    Well, I’d say at least one person does, John.

  436. Mike Felber Says:

    Duly noted on wikipedia. A cheeky editorial comment, of course that saber-slam is just one persons opinion too.

    Why on earth would seeing opinions you find wrong headed let you get frustrated or hinder your Internet interactions Chuck? It is a harmless academic matter, always there will be all kinds of opinions, & you can politely argue &/or set them straight. Be like Humphrey, the Happy Warrior.

    WAR seems about exactly right on them. Kent had enough total & peak value to justify the HOF, & Kent contributed a lot, was a very good player indeed, but seems to fall short on both counts.

  437. Chuck Says:

    Jeff Kent shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same sentence as Roberto Alomar (I just did?).

    It’s mindboggling to me someone would believe otherwise.

    It has nothing to do with being right or wrong, Mike.

    You know, the statheads want to believe that the traditionalists can’t see how much better Mike Trout has been this year than Miguel Cabrera. They (mistakenly) believe the anti-stat crowd only sees homers and RBI’s and don’t care much for defense and baserunning.

    And, yet, these same people believe Jeff Kent to be a HOFer based on homers and RBI alone and get offended when the Old Fart Community says they’re all idiots?

    If Joe Mauer was hitting .330, and if Josh Hamilton had 47 homers, there wouldn’t even be a discussion on MVP.

    The TC is the ONLY reason why Cabrera’s in the conversation, and will be the ONLY reason why he wins it.

    Turning this into a WAR/stat debate is embarrassing for you, all you’re doing is taking the opportunity to hang on to your 15 minutes.

    Sean Forman’s rant on BR yesterday makes him look like David Hasselhoff on Dancing with the Stars.

  438. Shaun Says:

    Does anyone think Cabrera was a better defender or baserunner than Trout this season?

    How in do Cabrera’s deficiencies in those areas make up for the difference in offensive value of those two players (if there is a difference)?

    Even if we completely ignore WAR, it’s still obvious that Trout is the MVP.

  439. Chuck Says:

    Holy crap….Jimmy Hoffa lives…

  440. Chuck Says:

    “Even if we completely ignore WAR, it’s still obvious that Trout is the MVP”

    My point exactly.

    If you need WAR to convince you Trout had the better year, then you should be doing something else with your time.

    I think the vast majority of people realize this, the WAR infusion is just a way of getting some media time.

  441. Mike Felber Says:

    I agree with some of what you said Chuck. It is unclear if you meant ME when you said turning this into a WAR debate. That would make zero sense. 10 I did not bring up WAR in this context, John did. 2) I agreed he fell short. 3) Nothing at this site is getting anyone any fame.

    But you are right if you say SOME SM guys act like traditionalists only see big raw & batting #s, that is unfair & patronizing. Though no, those #s are NOT why some like Kent for HOF. Decent 2B & asjusted #s are.

    Though why NOT mention them in the same breath? If I/they/you are saying Kent is very good but falls short, & Alomar is worthy?

    I agree that is why Cabrera is in the MVP conversation.

    Welcome back Shaun. You & Chuck agree, must be a Solar Eclipse.

  442. Mike Felber Says:

    I agree with some of what you said Chuck. It is unclear if you meant ME when you said turning this into a WAR debate. That would make zero sense. 10 I did not bring up WAR in this context, John did. 2) I agreed he fell short. 3) Nothing at this site is getting anyone any fame.

    But you are right if you say SOME SM guys act like traditionalists only see big raw & batting #s, that is unfair & patronizing. Though no, those #s are NOT why some like Kent for HOF. Decent 2B & adjusted #s are.

    Though why NOT mention them in the same breath? If I/they/you are saying Kent is very good but falls short, & Alomar is worthy?

    I agree that is why Cabrera is in the MVP conversation.

    Welcome back Shaun. You & Chuck agree, must be a Solar Eclipse.

  443. Mike Felber Says:

    Tried to make a spelling change too late, sorry for double post, feel free to strike the 1st one lacking the correction.

  444. John Says:

    “If you need WAR to convince you Trout had the better year, then you should be doing something else with your time.”

    That’s the thing, you really shouldn’t.

    It shouldn’t be an outrageous notion that a player who hits great is less valuable than a player that hits great, and runs great, and fields great.

    The difference is that nobody from the “nerd” crowd is trying to make Cabrera MVP.

  445. Chuck Says:

    It is, however, an outrageous notion that the statheads think they’re the only one’s who recognize it.

    The “nerd” crowd isn’t big enough to have influence either way, John.

  446. John Says:

    They aren’t the only ones, but it’s *only* the RBI crowd who thinks that Cabrera should be MVP.

  447. Chuck Says:

    So, are you going to whine all off-season about it?

  448. John Says:

    Meh.

    A player of Cabrera’s caliber should really be an MVP at some point, and Trout will be dominating the AL for a generation. Cabrera’s having a tremendous year. It won’t cut me up inside. But it will be unquestionably wrong.

  449. Chuck Says:

    You’re over-analyzing this John, just like the other stat guys.

    Cabrera’s winning the MVP for one reason.

    That’s it.

    It’s not about offense, defense, post-season..nothing.

    It’s about the Triple Crown.

    Period.

    It’s not even worth talking about.

  450. Bob Says:

    Who wins tonight, the A’s or Rangers?

  451. Chuck Says:

    For starters, it’s a day game, so if you’re planning on watching might want to re-program your DVR.

    Hate to say it, but the A’s.

    I still see the Rangers in the ALCS though, because they’re going to bitch-slap the Yankees silly.

  452. Bob Says:

    That’s right. I believe it starts at 3:30. Thanks, Chuck

  453. Bob Says:

    Jonah Hill on Twitter

    “If the Oakland A’s go all the way Pitt and I better get rings.”

  454. Chuck Says:

    Great, so he’s an idiot on top of being a bad actor.

    Good to know.

  455. Bob Says:

    The Mariners are going to move in their fences for next year.

  456. Chuck Says:

    250 feet down the lines, 275 to the gaps and 300 to straightaway center.

    They want dimensions Ackley and Montero can reach.

  457. Chuck Says:

    From the WAR flameWAR on BR yesterday..

    “#91 It’s extremely important to understand that park factors aren’t an ability adjustment. They’re an attempt to put values in context. We don’t need to know the reasons why, we just need to know that quite a few more runs have been scored in Angel road games than in home games.”

  458. Mike Felber Says:

    The SB rate is up. Do you folks think that teams will start to catch up to the running game with better defense here?

  459. Chuck Says:

    Up from where?

  460. Chuck Says:

    “What cap will Curt Schilling wear into the HOF”

    The HOF doesn’t have a dress code, so he can wear any cap he likes.

  461. Bob Says:

    If he gets elected, he will wear a Sox cap. Or so I assume.

  462. Chuck Says:

    Rangers knocked out AJ Griffin after an inning and two thirds, dropped a five spot on Oakland in the second. Still batting with runners on first and third.

  463. Chuck Says:

    As a Yankee fan, I want them to avoid Texas at all costs..that team scares me.

    No one else does.

    So if that means not winning the division, so be it.

  464. Bob Says:

    Oakland is now up 7-5. Have a good night.

  465. Chuck Says:

    Oakland knocked out Dempster in the fourth..Washington not messing around..Holland in relief.

    7-5 after four.

    Gonna be drinking early today, I see.

  466. John Says:

    The Computers the Billy Beane pays to play baseball for him have nerded their way to the AL West Crown.

  467. Mike Felber Says:

    Lol! Up from the rates they have been at for years Chuck. Right around 3/4 SB/CS. I did question a comment on High Heat Stats that 70.5% is the break even point, I understood though varying based upon the run environment, it normally is not less than ~ 2/3.

  468. Mike Felber Says:

    Oh you are gonna love this post Chuck. It segues into a respectful & considered political philosophy argument, but the commenters are unanimous in agreeing with the article. The case made is airtight, even without deciding how much credit should go to him for historically low rates of unearned runs.

    http://www.highheatstats.com/2012/10/lets-talk-about-curt-schilling/#more-7054

  469. Chuck Says:

    Moneyball is dead John, and if it isn’t, it applies more to Baltimore than Oakland.

    Thanks for justifying my point, though.

  470. Chuck Says:

    “The case made is airtight..”

    It’s a player’s HOF case based off sabermetric principles, which makes it anything but airtight.

  471. Chuck Says:

    Comment #461 was copied from that article, btw.

  472. Chuck Says:

    I have to tell you, this has turned into the most fascinating WAR discussion I’ve read, from both sides.

    http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/2012/09/how-many-baseball-writers-have-called-or-e-mailed-to-talk-to-me-about-what-goes-into-war-zero/

  473. John Says:

    That post illustrates why Chuck has no business talking about WAR.

    He’s never researched it. Never read about it. Has no idea what goes into it. And has made no effort to ask questions about it, despite knowing Sean personally.

    You could at least try.

  474. John Says:

    Also, there’s a reason Billy Beane can do this every so often and Dayton Moore can’t.

  475. Chuck Says:

    #474

    Hyperbole.

    Billy Beane didn’t do shit.

  476. Bob Says:

    He got Reddick for Bailey. Score that one for Oakland, much to my chagrin.

  477. Chuck Says:

    Theo dumped Reddick.

    He wasn’t going to start with Boston this year.

    I think things would have been a lot different for them this year if Bailey didn’t get hurt.

    There’s no way Beane looked at Reddick and saw 32 homers..no way.

    That’s a complete fluke.

  478. Bob Says:

    You mean Cherington.

  479. Chuck Says:

    Yeah, sure.

  480. Chuck Says:

    Keith Law: “Cabrera shouldn’t appear in the top three spots on any ballot.”

  481. John Says:

    Seems like every time you call a season flourish, the player goes on to be a perennial all-star.

  482. Bob Says:

    How does Law rank them?
    1. Trout
    2. Cano
    3.?????

  483. John Says:

    Cabrera hit better in both 2010 and 2011 and was elevated to triple crown status by his teammates (protection from Prince, improvement from AJax – .377 OBP).

  484. John Says:

    Every argument for Cabrera cites:

    1) How stat nerds are too busy in their mom’s basement to watch the game
    2) A laundry list of Cabrera’s offensive stats.

    Irony at its finest.

    Congratulations to Miggy on a rare, remarkable accomplishment. Even more congratulations to Mike Trout on an even rarer season.

  485. Bob Says:

    Curt Schilling maybe forced to sell his bloody sock to cover his losses from the loan his company received. Any takers?????

  486. Chuck Says:

    You got it, John.

    Triple Crown=MVP.

    That bothers you, tough shit.

    No one cares what you (or anyone else) thinks.

  487. Chuck Says:

    Mike Trout was first in the AL in oWAR.

    You know who was second?

    Miguel Cabrera.

    What?

  488. John Says:

    Love that even if we ignore fielding, Trout has the advantage.

  489. Bob Says:

    Yup. He was fired!!!!

  490. Chuck Says:

    Two words.

    Triple Crown.

    That’s it.

    Anything else you say is a waste of time.

  491. Mike Felber Says:

    The case for Schilling was made in a saber-way & traditionally Chuck. Though it is invalid to dismiss either one without looking at & answering its details. I will make it very simple absent even referring to SM.

    Overview: Schilling had a decent length career with an ERA that was excellent for his era & parks. He also had a puzzling, historically low rate of unearned runs.

    Components of pitching performance view: He had a decent rate of HRs given up for the era & park contexts, but in the other 2/3s of what a pitcher has any significant control over that leads to runs, Ks & BB, he was the best EVER, except for some 19th Century, 3 alternate leagues dude, Bond, not James Bond.

    It is a bit like the case of Nolan Ryan. He also did 2 very important things extremely well. His Ks, especially when you look at the eras he pitched, were incredible. So were his hits allowed per game.

    Difference is he was deficient in walks allowed, while Schilling was not similarly below par in any stat. Though given the length of Ryan’s career, with all the debate about how good he was, virtually all say he is a solid HOFer.

    It would be very hard to have a moderate length career & be so great in Ks/BB & NOT be worthy of the Hall. Not counting the post season.

  492. Mike Felber Says:

    In fact they are very close in career WAR. Schilling better at his peak, Both good late.

    OK Chuck, WAR is supposed to have more flaws or questions for pitchers. Here is the career list. It looks pretty close to where these guys SHOULD be ranked.

    Tell us WHO is over or underrated. But before you do, recall 2 things:

    1) As I told you a few times, it is NOT a list of who is the best ever, since you need to account for peak value too. This rates who contributed how much over their whole career.

    2) It only considers pitching. While there is little adjustment for most when you look at hitting, a few lose something due to an incredibly bad bat, & folks like Gibson, your BFF Drysdale, Lefty, & esp. my avatar, gain value from hitting.

    Bearing these factors in mind, WHO does WAR rank unfairly in total career pitching value?

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_pitch_career.shtml

  493. Chuck Says:

    I’m not going there again, Mike.

    Curt Schilling’s not a HOFer..to me…and since I don’t have a vote, my opinion is meaningless.

    If I had a vote, I wouldn’t vote for him..I wouldn’t consider his postseason for one, and the era he played in overrated his strikeout totals.

    So, in the minds of many, those are the two biggest selling points to his candidacy, I reject them openly.

    I wouldn’t vote for Edgar Martinez because he was a part time player, I wouldn’t vote for Mariano Rivera for the same reason, and I wouldn’t vote for Jeff Bagwell because he juiced.

    Using a fabricated convolution of stats based entirely on the performance of a non-existent fictional player as the basis of an argument against me makes you look bad, not me.

    So, no thank-you, I’ll pass.

  494. Mike Felber Says:

    You just DID “go there” Chuck, you just avoided all my specific arguments entirely.

    But 1st I must say that my argument just above was NOT based upon WAR/a fictional player-though that is also a valid case to make.

    You did not engage my non-WAR case, & you wrongly described my arguments as merely WAR based.

    So I will just answer what you wrote.

    Don’t need the post season for him, though he deserves that credit.

    His Ks were very good even for his era. But his Ks/BB are virtually the best ever! That & his excellent relative ERA over decent IP are the ceux of his case to most.

    How great he was at avoiding giving up unearned runs is something new to me & most. Gilding the Lilly.

  495. Chuck Says:

    Yeah, I kinda did, didn’t I…:)

  496. Chuck Says:

    “But his Ks/BB are virtually the best ever!”

    Big fucking deal.

  497. John Says:

    “the era he played in overrated his strikeout totals.”

    It also made his ERA, WHIP, OPS-against, etc quite inflated as well.

    Think he has an ERA above 3 in the 1960’s or 1970’s?

    Good joke.

  498. Raul Says:

    Curt Schilling would have been a reliever in the 60s and 70s.
    His injuries, steroid use, lack of durability…guys were going 250-300 innings without a sweat.

    Ol Curt would have been out of the league by age 30. Maybe 32.
    Maybe sooner if he talked that shit to players in those days when they didn’t get warnings for pitches 2 inches inside.
    Pretty sure Marichal would have put a few in his ear….just for Schilling having a big fucking mouth.

  499. Mike Felber Says:

    Whaaa—>aaaa—>aaa…

    1) Nobody was going as long when Curt started dominating in the 90’s. He was durable later, you think his early relative struggles would have had him out of the league?

    Well it is possible, but unlikely. He had an excellent year at 25, & then started to be consistently good-great at 29.

    Of all the smack he talked, I am unfamiliar with what you are referring to. Though if so, he would have either talked less, or kept it up regardless. Being thrown at would not make or break him. And the violence wish-fulfillment is not heartening.

    But steroids? We have been over this re: Schilling. I do not recall anyone saying anything more skeptical than (you 2 who do not like him) saying “I would not be surprised if he used”. because anyone can, & he was very good late.

    But he was THE most outspoken player against them, fell over himself to testify before Congress. In case I missed something, checked his long wikipedia page to see if there was any whisper of steroid use. Nope.

    How can anyone get from “anyone good could theoretically have used PEDs”, to saying that someone with not even a rap against him was a huge hypocrite & ‘roid head? That does not seem right at all.

  500. Len Says:

    Wasn’t there just a 200 post thread about Schilling/HOF about 2-3 months ago??

    He’s getting in the HOF, it’s a waste of energy to argue about it. The only thing that might keep him out is some steroid finding. It might take him a few attempts but he’s getting in the HOF.

    The best thing to look at is his HOF monitor because that’s one of the best gauges to tell someone’s likelihood for election. Schilling’s at 171, a likely HOF is 100. The closest post 1901 eligible pitcher not in the HOF is Lee Smith at 135. A score of 120+ post 1901, is a virtual lock for a starting pitcher. Kaat @ 130 and Jack Morris @ 123 are the only eligible starters not elected and Morris will probably be elected this year.

  501. Chuck Says:

    “Wasn’t there just a 200 post thread about Schilling/HOF about 2-3 months ago??”

    Yep, and that’s why I’m not going there again.

    “He’s getting in the HOF, it’s a waste of energy to argue about it.”

    I wouldn’t bet on that.

    If he does, he’ll wait like Blyleven did and it will take a weak ballot too.

    Your chances of getting elected are roughly the same as Morris’.

  502. Bob Says:

    The Bravea and Orioles win tonight. Any other guesses?

  503. Bob Says:

    Braves.

  504. Chuck Says:

    Cardinals and Rangers win tonite…full predictions later.

  505. Len Says:

    @501 Chuck,

    Schilling’s has a 170 HOF monitor which is basically first ballot HOF territory. No Way he waits 14-15 years like Blyleven. He’ll get in the HOF, no more than 3-5 chances. Blyleven had a 120 HOF monitor by comparison.

    Schilling has all the things the writers are looking for in a HOF candidate:

    He has (3) 20+ win seasons, (8) 15+ win seasons.

    He has (3) 300K seasons, a 293K season and a 203K season.

    He has (3) seasons with 20+ wins and a .750 win % and a 15 win season with a .700%.

    He was selected to 6 AS games, won the TSN pitcher of the year twice, finished 2nd in the Cy Young (3) times, was the MVP of the WS and the LCS, won the Clemente award, the Gehrig award, the Ruth award and the Rickey award.

    He led the league in Wins twice, w/l % once, GS three times, CG four times, Innings pitched twice, K’s twice, Whip twice, H/9 once, BB/9 twice, and K/bb 5 times.

    He won 216 games with a .597 win%

    He finished with 3116 K’s

    He started 7 WS games and went 4-1 with a 2.06 ERA and a 0.896 whip.

    Overall he made 19 post season starts and went 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA and a 0.968 whip.

    On a side note he has a 40 black ink, and 205 gray ink which are virtual lock numbers for HOF election.

  506. Chuck Says:

    Whatever you say, Len.

  507. Mike Felber Says:

    You could call it ALL a waste of energy Len, since it is merely academic & hardly any ever shift their position. Even factual corrections are often not acknowledged, as Ego limitations prevents acknowledgement of truth. But we still might do so for fun, wit sharpening, interest in the game. All can decide when they have enough.

    When Raul mentions steroids with someone their has been zero argument anywhere or here that he likely used, no evidence, & he was had the strongest voice against it, that should be corrected in the name of fairness & common sense.

    I agree with you about his odds of becoming a HOFer. Though it might not be as automatic as it should be due not to wins-that is one thig he does not have that is still looked for by the writers-though add his PS glory, it would normally get him in. His problems with some writers & others from an abrasive & outspoken personality could well delay his entry.

  508. Len Says:

    It’s not whatever I say, I could give a crap if Schilling gets into the HOF. It’s 60+ years of baseball HOF voting patterns. Barring some sort of steroid scandal, he’s getting in the HOF and no more than 5 attempts.

    Here’s the lock pitchers for the HOF:

    R. Johnson
    G. Maddux
    M. Rivera
    P. Martinez
    T. Glavine
    C. Schilling
    J. Smoltz
    T. Hoffman

    Position Players, (much more tricky because of steroids, also more tricky because of Coors field Helton/Walker):

    D. Jeter
    A. Pujols
    K. Griffey jr.
    Ichiro
    Vlad
    F. Thomas
    Chipper
    C. Biggio
    J. Thome
    M. Cabrera

  509. Raul Says:

    This 5-game playoff series is bullshit.

    Yanks win their division and have to be on the road for 1st two games at Baltimore/Texas.

    Schilling juiced.
    That’s all there is to it. I’m not getting into another debate about it after all these years.
    Believe what you want or go fuck yourselves. But I’m not reading another fucking dissertation on it.

  510. Len Says:

    @Mike,

    My point wasn’t whether he should or shouldn’t be elected but rather whether he will or won’t. I wasn’t a fan of Schilling so I could really care less whether he makes it or not. I’m just talking about the probability of his HOF election and it’s really a mute point to argue whether he will or won’t be elected. If you want to argue whether he should or shouldn’t that’s another question. And really I can’t see a strong argument against his election.

    The HOF monitor is an excellent gauge to test the likelihood of someone’s candidacy. It tests what the writers value not necessarily whether the candidate deserves it or not. Schilling has a score of 171, A likely HOF is 100. There’s never been a post-1901 starting pitcher with a score over 131 that hasn’t been elected. Basically a score of 115 is a virtual lock for a post 1901 starting pitcher. I think Jim Kaat is the only post 1901 starter with a score of 115+ not in the HOF. Plus you add the post season heroics with the D-backs, with the Phillies against the heavily favored Braves in 1993 plus the bloody sock and the Red Sox winning their first WS in 80 odd years, lock HOF selection.

  511. Len Says:

    Raul,

    So my option is to, A. Believe what I want or B. Go Fuck Myself…..tough choice but I think I’ll take option A.

    Schilling’s was never proven to take steroids or implicated in using steroids by a former player or coach or trainer. Maybe he did, how the hell do I know? There’s about as much proof that Schilling took steroids as there is that Nolan Ryan took steroids.

    Your case that Schilling took steroids is basically……He took steroids because I say so, if you don’t like it go Fuck Yourself.

    Again, I can give a shit whether he’s elected or not but barring some finding that he actually took steroids he’s going to get elected to the HOF.

  512. Mike Felber Says:

    Raul you NEVER presented any evidence Schilling juiced, you just said before that you would not be surprised if he did. Which could apply to most anyone in the modern era. You totally changed what you claimed, you only debated his HOF worthiness before.

    That is not remotely cool. Why. Would. You. Be. So Nasty? Sure, this is one of the few forums you can get away with it, but why do it? Nobody mistreated you now, so why suggest the option of self-buggering? Funny phrase…

    Yes, I know you are arguing whether Curt will make the HOF Len. And I agree on all counts, though his abrasive personality & conflicts with the writers may delay his entry, especially during the strong fields coming up.

  513. Chuck Says:

    Ask Albert Belle if being an asshole can impact your HOF chances.

  514. Mike Felber Says:

    Fair point Chuck. Though he did have a short career, & while an excellent hitter, the era & park exaggerated how good, 143 OPS + in a fairly short career playing unremarkable corner outfield/without other tools is not a great HOF resume.

  515. John Says:

    I’ll ask him if having a 9 year career impacts HOF chances.

  516. Mike Felber Says:

    Checked, & they seem to have upgraded him to 144 OPS +. Still just 12 years with pretty bad defense. Richie Allen was similar in temperament & besides decent running, similar skill set. But better hitter factoring in era/park adjusted #s, he deserves it.

  517. Chuck Says:

    Maybe you should ask him how to count.

  518. Raul Says:

    I was a bit more sad about Omar Vizquel’s retirement than Chipper Jones’ impending one.

    Mostly because Jones is a dick.
    The Braves will probably win tonight though.

  519. Chuck Says:

    Omar Vizquel retired five years ago, someone just forgot to tell him.

  520. Mike Felber Says:

    I do not think they can find anything here due to the state of medicine then, though concussions are really a problem in football, especially for kids with their small weak necks & developing brains.

    http://aol.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2012-10-04/minn-lawmakers-want-lou-gehrig-s-medical-records?ncid=webmail3

  521. Mike Felber Says:

    What do you guys think of this mess?

    http://aol.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2012-10-05/braves-cardinals-wild-card-game-delayed-after-controversial-call?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D216499

Leave a Reply


RSS
Categories
Fan Duel
FanDuel - Daily Fantasy Baseball
YardBarker
Advertisement