CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
To be fair to Shawn, I think he recognizes that. All his comments indicate that the GMs are at their position in the rankings largely due to external factors or timing issues. That does seem to call into question the purpose of the system, though, if you can write off each ranking as being due to this or that factor that the GM was not necessarily responsible for.
This leads to the obvious question, Jay. . . how'd you do in Hacking Mass last year?
Newsense. . . he wes a triple-Lutz shy of the cycle.
Zobrist could have played in the 2009 All-Star Game if he had hit in the majors when he first got there the way he has this year (and if he continued to do so for the intervening years).
I know Joe is taking a lot of flak for the Zobrist critique, but here's how I see it: Ben Zobrist has an OPS+ of 97 in 4 partial seasons in the bigs (220 games). If that is what anyone here thinks of when he or she thinks of All-Stars, then I will take my team of players with 2-inch thick resumes over your team of "All-Stars" any time.
I'm with Tim. I don't get why people hate Win Shares so much. To me, this seems like the perfect place to use them, because you can compare the proportion of a player's offensive value to his defensive value, across historical eras, with much more accuracy than with other tools (such as WAR or PBP-based metrics, which are really only good for the past few years, as far as I can tell).
I would agree that the conclusion seemed to be forced to fit the title, but was not particularly supported by the evidence as I understood it.
Hi Kevin, love your work.
With Short-season leagues starting this week, is there anything special there to look for (guys who signed too late last year, early signees from this year)? I'm especially interested in the NY-Penn League.
The DH may have had more impact on offensive levels than PEDs, but that impact was implicitly endorsed by the approval of the rule allowing the DH. PEDs, on the other hand, are explicitly outlawed. The stain on the records comes from the record-breakers doing something that was prohibited by the rules (not to mention in violation of federal law). In contrast, DHs who may have prolonged their careers (or been given a chance at a career in the first place) have benefited from the rules as they existed at the time, which should not be held against them (and isn't).
Similarly, spitballers prior to 1920 were able to succeed with a pitch that is illegal today, but there is no stain on Burleigh Grimes' record due to his use of the pitch, while there is on Gaylord Perry's record, because he violated the rules while using the spitter.
To put words in Joe's mouth:
He'll pick the "best players in the game" but by "best," his criteria is the player's established body of work. So Randy Johnson once was one of the best (or Jason Giambi, to use a position-player example), but clearly has not been for several years.
On the other hand, to let the established body of work for, say, Jeter be ignored in favor of 2 good months from Marco Scutaro, when the established body of work for Scutaro shows that he is no where near All-Star caliber as a player, that goes hand-in-hand with paying too close attention to early-season success, which Joe has been harping about all year.
As Bill James once wrote, they don't call it the "All-Mediocore-Players-having-Good-First-Halves Game."
Funny, I ran a Daktronics board for two summers with the Hudson Valley Renegades. Didn't win any awards, though, and didn't submit anything this good to the contest, either (didn't submit anything at all, in fact). Good job. I liked it.
But how about ironic exclamation points, which acknowledge the "laughing-at-one's-own-joke" quality while simultaneously mocking those who are unaware of that quality and take their own excitement so seriously (that's how I'd interpret Geoff Young's premier post's punctuation, at least)?
Or is that all to post-modern hipster to contemplate?
For the sake of Pirates\' fans, I sure hope that Nyjer Morgan isn\'t getting 70% of playing time in Steven Pearce\'s place.
You underrate Littlefield, Brian.
He\'d trade the quarter for two dimes.
Or two nickels. Whichever were shinier.
Joe, you\'ve written a few times about the foolishness of replacing a manager midseason and then removing the \"interim\" from the title without doing a comprehensive managerial search.
I understand that Yost may made tactical decisions that might have cost the team the playoff spot, but with 12 games to go, can you really learn anything about the interim manager that would make you choose him? However, if the Brewers go on to the playoffs, and especially if they win a round in the playoffs (very possible, given that they would not be facing the best NL team, the Cubs), I can\'t imagine that Melvin would undertake a real interview process. He\'d be forced to hire Sveum.
I suppose if you have already made up your mind to fire Yost, you might as well do it, but I do have to question the timing of it. If you were going to fire Yost, either do it after the season ends when you can conduct a real search, or before there are only 12 games left, when the change may actually have a chance to impact the season. Firing him at this moment, after a four-game sweep and after losing seven of eight, seems to show that Melvin is putting too much emphasis on a week\'s worth of baseball, which maybe isn\'t the best evaluative techinique (another theme of recent articles).