Today, I’ll run through my NL All-Star ballot, again keeping consistent with the idea that I’m trying to pick the very best player at each position, and specifically not giving much weight to the last six weeks relative to the body of work and established level of play. It’s pretty clear that many, many people want to see the All-Star Game reward a big six, eight, or 10 weeks, and while it’s a popular view, it’s a tough one to defend, not least because it would mean that July, August, and September never matter in choosing All-Star teams.
First Base: Albert Pujols, Cardinals. One method of selecting All-Stars that I will give credence to is selecting favorites, whether that’s the guys on your team, your favorite players irrespective of laundry, or the guys you want to see play in the All-Star Game for personal reasons. Those kinds of ballots are the only ones for which a vote other than for Albert Pujols as the NL’s first baseman is valid. Just because Adrian Gonzalez or someone like that-an All-Star-caliber player-has a higher EqA or VORP or something for six weeks doesn’t change Pujols’ status as the game’s best baseball player.
Don’t get me started on Ryan Howard.
Second Base: Chase Utley, Phillies. This is arguably an easier choice than voting for the best player in baseball. Pujols has more worthy competition in most years; Utley has Orlando Hudson and Brandon Phillips, good players who don’t reach his level.
Shortstop: Hanley Ramirez, Marlins. He’s continued to separate himself from Jose Reyes, a fine player in his own right. Ramirez’s power makes up for Reyes’ superior defense, and will likely continue to do so through the two players’ primes.
Third Base: David Wright, Mets. This has been one of the toughest calls on the ballot for a few seasons now, as Chipper Jones‘ second, late peak coincides with the meat of Wright’s career. I don’t think you can go wrong with either player, and to some extent, this pick is me throwing up my hands and flipping a coin. (This is a case where current-season performance served as a tiebreaker.) It will be interesting to see if Ryan Zimmerman makes this more complicated in future seasons.
Catcher: Brian McCann, Braves. There was a debate between him and Russell Martin for a while there. It’s not a debate any longer, and even had Martin sustained his 2008 line, there wouldn’t be. McCann increasingly reminds me, as much as someone born in 1971 can say this, of Yogi Berra. I wouldn’t mind seeing Yadier Molina make the team; he’s good enough defensively that he doesn’t have to take a back seat to anyone in the league other than McCann.
Outfield: Carlos Beltran, Mets; Manny Ramirez, Dodgers; Adam Dunn, Nationals. It looks like a protest vote, or that I’m making a statement, or what have you. It’s not. Even with missing eight weeks due to a suspension for violating the drug policy-a presumed use of steroids-Ramirez keeps this spot for me. I do not see any argument that steroids are the reason for his performance, this year or previously; I also don’t see where a suspension makes you ineligible for an All-Star berth. Finally, the NL outfield pool is not what it was a few years back. As in the AL, there’s a drop-off after the top two guys to a group of comparably valued players with limited track records or a flaw of some kind. I couldn’t take two from the pool ahead of Ramirez. He’s just that much better than the field, especially if you want to just look at NL performance.
Looking back, I think Ryan Braun might have been a better choice than Dunn was, though Dunn isn’t an unreasonable pick. The two are similar players, Braun growing into a better version of what Dunn has been for the last eight years, with fewer walks, more contact, and a bit better outside the batter’s box. Dunn over Braun is the one pick on the ballot that I wouldn’t mind having back, and what bugs me is that I missed Braun last year as well. I think I’m mentally overcorrecting for his move from third base to left field, downgrading the value of his performance too much. Ryan Ludwick, Carlos Lee, and Alfonso Soriano all caught my eye here as well.
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
Very disappointing you wasted a vote on a cheater though. You may not like rewarding current season performance, but there is a guy hitting .349/.410/.724 in the NL OF that is way more deserving than someone that was probably cheating for years, defrauding the fans.
He's still a cheater. He still defrauded the fans. If a player is going to take fans money to play a game that every fan would love to be playing instead of their 9-5 job, they have a duty to play the game honestly and to the best of their abilities.
Manny, lived up to neither of those. We always knew he was a slacker ... we know he's a dishonest cheater now too.
A: entertain us
B: do his best to compete
I gotta say, I think its safe to say that Manny is not only an excellent baseball player, but has succeeded beyond all expectations at A as well as B.
There is no reasonable justification for expecting any baseball player to adhere to the personal moral standards of any fan, journalist, etc. While what Manny did may (did) violate his contract employment terms, those isses are between him and his employer and his agent: If Frank McCourt wants to persue recompense from Manny for his violations, or John Henry or any other person actually paying his salary, they are quite free to do so (and clearly not doing so).
You do not pay Manny Ramirez's salary: you pay to watch the Los Angeles Dodgers/Boston Red Sox/insert your team playing one of those two teams.
My opinion is that Ramirez is a cheater, for who knows how long, and by cheating has deprived fans everywhere of having an honest game of baseball, like all the other cheaters have. This wasn't a case of "oops, I accidently took a prescription that made me test positive." This was a masking agent that is used to prevent you from failing a steroids test.
However, you have absolutely no idea (nor I, nor anyone else, not even Manny Ramirez or the players on the other team, more than likely)of any of the following:
1: When did and didn't he take things?
2: Did what he took actually impact his performance outside the vagaries of random chance?
3: What, and when, were his opponents taking?
4: What about the Pitcher? (And, pitching for the Yankees .. Roger Clemens/Andy Pettite!)
5: What about the outfielder climbing the wall to bring back the HR (Gary Matthews Jr)
With all of that lack of information and obfucation, all we can really say is 'we know manny did it too'. We don't know how it impacted games, or whether it deprived people of these experiences, etc .. Do you think Red Sox fans suddenly feel jilted about 2004 and 2007?
Do you think Yankees fans have any right to feel that way (pointing at Clemens and Pettite again, and Giambi and A-Rod and ..)
But hey, that's why the all-star game is (sort of) a democracy! If you don't like Manny, don't for him. I will.
Ryan Howard's 2008 line against southpaws: .224/.294/.451 for a .746 OPS; 96K:23BB in 265 PA.
Ryan Howard's 2009 line against southpaws: .196/.274/.304 for a .578 OPS; 22K:5BB in 62 PA.
Put those numbers with a (charitably) below-average glove, and you have the living definition of a platoon player - and that doesn't change just because a fanboy wishes it weren't so.
If Howard didn't take walks, he'd be a lefty Marcus Thames.
But, if you're waffling on an OF in the NL, how about the guy who ... just yesterday ... you said was "Top 12" and who you were "irrational about ... at a .97 Adam Jones level", and who, not coincidentally, is hitting at a 306/382/612 level thus far this season? If you tell me he's in the "group of comparably valued players with limited track records", I guess I'll believe you, but ... what's a 22-year-old gotta do?
He goes for the best players, not the best 200 at bats.
.380 OBP, 40 HR;
would you want him in your ASG?
Does it matter if Dunn has more home runs than Braun if Braun has a higher SLG because of a higher batting average and more doubles/triples?
I suppose that that puts a disproportionate emphasis on the first half-season, but don't we play this game every year? And isn't it likely that the best players in the game are also likely to have had an All-Star-worthy first half? Maybe they should stick the ASG at the end of the season or something.
But if you're going to put the best players in the game in there, when do you decide who the "best" is? Is one great rookie year (e.g. Ryan Braun) enough? Or do they have to have good resumes (in which case, do we let rookies play in the ASG?)?
It just brings up a host of other questions.
Its not like Pujols is gonna get more than 1 PA and probably 2 innings in the field (ok, bad example, the game's in his hometown and he's likely to be one of the only starters who plays the whole game for that reason).
Its not like the 2nd place finishers are automatically reserves, after all.
The ASG voting has been dissatisfying for a long time now. I think MLB should make the process a bit more interesting or coherent, instead of encouraging us all to be fanboys.
Oh sure, we can use OPS... except that doesn't tell the whole story...
So we can use VORP... except that doesn't tell the whole story (and calculations for VORP changed since the last BP Annual).
Recommendations on which metric we should use before it goes the way of fielding percentage and becomes obsolete?
That was a simple one. :)
I agree with Joe's method of choosing All-Stars: eight weeks doesn't mean much in the face of full seasons worth of evidence.
Ibanez is a decent OF with a sparkling two months here in 2009. I don't think he's AS-worthy.
Ryan Howard career: 1.065 OPS vs. RHP, .771 OPS vs. LHP
nope, not a platoon guy.
But I have to see if that can be researched.
If there is a decent list of available guys, then it is what it is. But then it becomes an issue of do you want to give up the 1.050 OBP against RHP, which is probably at least 2/3 of the league, when Howard signs somewhere else that won't platoon him, which I'm prett sure would happen.
If platooning Ryan Howard makes him sign with the Mets for 17 million a year to replace Delgado, then the Phillies should start platooning him ASAP even if he magically learns to hit lefties for a couple months.
Jeff Bailey .429/.529/.857
Tony Clark .250/.455/.625
Billy Butler .302/.434/.581
Ryan Garko .333/.419/.519
Utility guys:
Jeff Keppinger .400/.483/.640
Willie Bloomquist .349/.453/.465
Even Russell Branyan (lh) is hitting lefties so far this year: .310/.362/.595.
Could also put Coste .267/.313/.533 at catcher and use Ruiz .300/.462/.500 at first (or vice versa...Coste has played there in the past I believe), or Werth at first and another outfielder who hits lefties...
Heck, put a 1b glove on Gary Sheffield's .407/.515/.593!
Again, none of this may not be worth a roster spot or Howard's disgruntlement now...
but this year: 230/272/356 628 OPS (but he starts slow)
I'd prefer Beltran, Braun, Dunn, or Ibanez. And, yes, I agree Manny is superior to all of them, but sometimes you have to make adult decisions.
1. He's not retired
2. His body of work over the last several years is without equal
3. He hasn't been convicted of using steroids
Im half-kidding, but I'm also curious as to how long a player should perform at an All-Star level before being considered an All-Star. Looking at guys like Braun, it seems the answer is 3+ years.
I'm not judging these picks, but if you're going to pick All-Stars using their career as a benchmark, well, isn't that what the Hall of Fame is for? Joe's All-Star picks are basically just a list of guys expected to be in the HOF someday. It seems like the question "Which player at position X will most likely make it to the Hall of Fame?" would produce the same list.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, but that seems to take some of the fun out of picking All-Stars...
soBC
That's part of what makes the All Star game fun!
And since the All-Star game is ONE game, we'd pick Pujols.
It happens to be that body of work over the last several years is a pretty good indicator of how good a player is (luck factors aside), but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone to say Barry Bonds is one of the best OFs alive today.
Which I agree with, based on only offensive stats.
My guess is that the negative opinion on his contract (for the record, I agree it was a bad deal) are outweighing the actual merits of his production. Say what you will about both the deal and the flukiness of his hitting right now, but you can't pretend the production doesn't exist. It's real, and it's a huge reason the Phillies are in 1st place despite terrible pitching.
Personally, I think Ibanez will come crashing down to earth soon. Which doesn't mean that I don't think he should be in the ASG.
Of course, my Adam Dunn bobblehead and I totally support this movement.
Captain Puppykicker .266 3 hr 13 rbi
The top line is Bengie Molina, bottom one is Brian McCann. These are the stats most people will look at.
At some point, Reyes has to show the improvement people have always been expecting to come with age, right? Or maybe this is just the player he is, a good SS, but by no means an elite-level talent that people continually praise him as.
I was comparing them at their presently established value. Both get on base around .350-.355. Yet Reyes is considered one of the top talents in the game, and Rollins is barely mentioned. At some point, the assumption that Reyes is young and thus will get so much better has to coincide with what's actually happening. And what's actually happening is that he isn't getting better.
These guys ahead of Hunter Pence? That doesn't make much sense.
1) Having a better season at the plate than any of those three.
2) A much better defender than any of them.
3) Actually a right fielder
I think it's pretty legitimate to pick Pence over Soriano, Ludwick, and Lee. And, because of his defense and position, there's a good argument to be made that he'd deserve a vote over at least one of the LFs Sheehan has down.
Adrian Gonzales 3 year vs LHP : .255 .315 .441 .756
Fielder: .249 .329 .463 .792
Todd Helton: .292 .388 .372 .760
Howard: .241 .329 .498 .827
Berkman: .269 .363 .434 .797
Howard has over 60% of his PAs against righties and still hits better against lefties than most top 1st basemen in the NL. Someone please point out the article where Joe harps on Fielder, Gonzales and Berkman being platoon players because they have lower OPS against lefties. I am sure it exists because I can't imagine someone would ignore all of that and focus on Howard.
Joe hates mainstream sportswriters, and since they love Howard, perhaps more than they should based on his performance, Joe uses Howard as a proxy to bash on. Thus, we have to cringe through his unwarranted Howard-hating. But those numbers on the those other studs really illuminate things. Thanks for that.
Of course, it's not Howard's fault that he's so damn likable...
I can see arguing that steroids should be permitted. I can see arguing that McGwire should be in the Hall of Fame. I can see arguing that the media is leading this issue in the wrong direction. I can't see this.
Well, here's an argument -- "Manny's performance was substantially helped because of steroids, both this year and previously." Look, the arguement is so basic that I simply don't believe Joe when he writes that.
First, we have no idea, at all, how long he was doping. He could have been for years; Manny's suspension was because of a drug which helped mask the side-affects of long term steriod use. To claim "we have no evidence of prior use" is a little naive, at best. We have lots of evidence, some of it DIRECT evidence.
Second, Joe's argument is also like saying "I don't think the drugs help." Please, let's banish this argument forever, once and for all. If they did not help they 1) would not be banned, and 2) would not be used despite the consequences of using. Doping has been improving athlete's performance in all sports for years. Baseball is no different. Ask Canseco. Or Bonds. Or Sosa. Or anybody.
Third, the argument that "the all-star game" has a history of putting little used players on a team does not make the decision a good one.
Look, if Joe truly loves baseball, he would not vote for Manny. Only football allows its cheaters (see Merriman, Shawne) to make the all-star game.
I'll be voting for Manny because I think he's one of the top three outfielders in the National League. I'm "rewarding" him with my All-Star vote based on his insane second half last season, his status as one of the best hitters in baseball, and his slam-dunk Hall-of-Fame career.
Different strokes, etc etc.
My only qualm is that there isn't even a mention of Ibanez. I agree with the selection philosophy, but he's having such a great start that I wouldn't mind overlooking it for him.
Btw, by that criteria, Braun's body of recent work from an OPS standpoint has been better than Dunn's.
2) I think that the Brian McCann/Russell Martin debate is far from over. Again per WAR and WARP, Martin was about 3 wins better in '07, only about 1.5 wins worse last year, and is performing better so far this season. Not sure why Joe sees this as a slam dunk.
3) Adam Dunn has been behind Manny Ramirez, Ryan Braun, Alfonso Soriano, and Carlos Lee every year since 2006, often by several wins.
4) Anybody notice how good Jayson Werth has been the last few years? Probably not one of the top three, but he certainly belongs in the conversation. Look it up.
2009 327/401/541
Jayson Werth career 264/357/455
2009 272/371/500
closer than I expected, but Markakis is clearly better.
The last 2 years, the difference has been greater (15.8 vs. 16.7). It's very close, and I think I lean Chipper.
1. He's not retired
2. His body of work over the last several years is without equal
3. He hasn't been convicted of using steroids
Im half-kidding, but I'm also curious as to how long a player should perform at an All-Star level before being considered an All-Star. Looking at guys like Braun, it seems the answer is 3+ years.
I'm not judging these picks, but if you're going to pick All-Stars using their career as a benchmark, well, isn't that what the Hall of Fame is for? Joe's All-Star picks are basically just a list of guys expected to be in the HOF someday. It seems like the question "Which player at position X will most likely make it to the Hall of Fame?" would produce the same list.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, but that seems to take some of the fun out of picking All-Stars...
soBC
I could've sworn reading somewhere before that Joe didn't care about the All Star Game, but then he makes some very weird picks. Perhaps he's just yanking our collective chains?
The "snub" pieces and talk always strikes me as quite silly for the most part. There is no single criteria for making an All-Star selection. Career achievement is a good reason to select a guy; a guy having a great start of the year like Ibanez -- that's fine too. How about a guy like Fukodome last season? Sure, why not? There's no reason to ever get all buggy regarding All-Star selections ever.
There may have been a handful of selections over the years that have defied any logic. But for the most part, guys who go to the game are selected for a good reason -- the reasons aren't always the same. If Toby Harrah has a great first half some year and starts an All-Star game instead of George Brett I think that's just fine. As far as I know Toby was a fine man and I like that had a chance to be All Star starter over George Brett one time. (I'm not sure that actually happened but I remember that was a debate thing one time -- should Harrah start over Brett based on a half season of near greatness?).
It would be a good thing for the Phils to get a good right handed hitter for the bench and to sit Howard vs. lefties once in a while. Willingham is a great example of the type.
Howard, by the way is not big and fat right now (well he'll always be big but he looks rather svelte now) and has also been pretty sparkling in the field this season -- and the no errors thing is only part of it. His defensive improvement looks very real -- he worked hard to do so and it took I believe. Dewan's +/- system has him at +5 -- tied for 2nd in the big leagues. Dewan's system is far from flawless and might not be as good regarding first base defense, but it's something that shouldn't be ignored either I don't think. His defense, his throwing and his digging out throws and snagging the other wild tosses has resulted in a miniscule number of infield errors for the Philas as a team.
Further, Howard is pretty unique. He hits many home runs to the opposite field, which makes him a different type of hitter compared to the big, fat guys that tend to go south soon after turning 30.
Howard has been over rated by some -- I don't think there's much doubt about that. But when he gets on a roll, he can nearly carry a team by himself. I think there's some value to that. He is not a platoon player any more than Gonzalez is.
I think the system goes hand in hand with watching the games. The two (stats like +/-; UZR, et. al. and watching the players) go hand in hand I believe. Visually, the difference between Howard this season and previous ones is pretty remarkable. Howard has always been pretty athletic but he was clumsy and tentative in the field. He worked very hard in the off-season with Sam Perlozzo and it seems to have made a big difference this season. He also dropped some pounds which helps. I think the stats are bearing it out. He is, in my view, a much improved fielder.
LOL!
I just wish someone would write a piece on someone who takes a mid level steroid and how that effects their body physically. The amount of strength that can derive from one cycle of steroids is simply amazing. And, I might add, the average meat head at your local gym does not have access to the same quality of steroid millionaire baseball players do. Regardless, we are not talking about a one or two percent increase off a normal max potential here. Results are significant. So to say that an already large framed man would not benefit from steroids is absolutely ludicrous. This is not even touching on the injury recovery benefits of the cycles.
"I do not see any argument that steroids are the reason for his performance, this year or previously;"
You are right Joe, you don't because the raw data doesn't exist in numerical fashion. You have to create it or find it. Get out of the box that you are thinking in as it relates to this issue. I have a couple male friends who were prescribed female fertility drugs and we all think it's normal. *sarcasm*
In summary, I could care less if the entire league was on steroids. It really doesn't bother me. Maybe it is because I know the effects of steroids, maybe it's because I know that there is no way they can EVER be stopped. I have no problem with him playing in the all star game and he would get my vote as well. My biggest issue is that just throw his steroid usage out the window as if there is not compelling evidence that he takes them.