EVIL~! alkeiper

Do you really want one player making 1/5 of the teams total payroll? Max Kellerman was making a point today of how the Blue Jays are going to be like the Cardinals. Being that they are going to have a core of 5 players who make the most money while the rest of the teams is going to be average. The Cardinals are able to get away with it because they play in the NL Central. Well first off, the Cardinals have made the playoffs six of the last seven years. Second, has anyone researched to prove that this is a bad way to build a roster?

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball? No. Thome was one of the best hitters in baseball in his prime, but no one truly considered him the very best, due to his relative lack of defensive value. Moyer as well has never been among baseball's elite. 2. Was he the best player on his team? Moyer ranked behind Ken Griffey, Randy Johnson, Alex Rodriguez and Edgar Martinez at least during the Mariners' best seasons. Jim Thome was never the best player on the Indians, but he was always in the top three. 3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position? Thome was the third best first baseman in the American League in the 1990s behind Frank Thomas and Mark McGwire. If you add the National League Thome drops behind Jeff Bagwell as well. Into the new decade, Todd Helton and Albert Pujols have outproduced Thome. Moyer was never the best pitcher in baseball or the league. 4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races? Thome played on six divisional champion Cleveland Indian squads. It's hard to measure his pennant race impact because the Indians frequently won their division by double digits. That's a point in Thome's favor. Moyer's Mariners won the AL West twice, and he went 9-3 in the second half of 1997. 5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime? Yes in both cases. Moyer in fact has made 30+ starts every year since turning 40. You might say he could play regularly ONLY after passing his prime. 6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame? No in either case. 7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame? Of the six players comparable to Thome who are eligible, three are in the Hall. Carlos Delgado, Manny Ramirez, Mark McGwire and Juan Gonzalez are the other four. You can say then that about half the players with Thome's comparable stats are in. Only one of Moyer's comps is in the Hall, Catfish Hunter. Hunter is in for his five consecutive 20 win seasons, something Moyer can not claim. 8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards? Thome scores well on the HOF standards test, but surprisingly low on the black/gray ink tests. That gives an indication that Thome piled up high numbers due to his era, but he wasn't among the best. Moyer's numbers, frankly, do not meet Hall of Fame standards. 9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics? Not really. 10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame? Thome yes if you rank him above Don Mattingly and Keith Hernandez. That might be close. Moyer doesn't have a prayer. 11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close? Thome's highest MVP finish was 4th, in 2003. He cracked the top ten four times. Jamie Moyer has a 4th, 5th and 6th place Cy Young finish to his credit. 12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame? Thome played in five All-Star games, Moyer one. Most players with these totals are not in the Hall. 13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant? In Thome's case, yes. The Indians won with players not that much better than Thome. In Moyer's case, no. Moyer was a supporting member of his playoff squads. 14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way? None. 15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider? Yes, in both cases. Jim Thome won both the Lou Gehrig and Roberto Clemente memorial awards. Moyer won both awards, plus the Branch Rickey award. Moyer we can dismiss right away. Thome's intriguing. I always figured he'd reach 500 home runs and be a lock. But his showing here is not impressive at all. Thome will get in with his counting stats, and I don't think he'd be a black mark on the Hall at all.

I'll take the next two requests, and get them done by Sunday morning.

Since baseball news is slow, you do you guys want to see for a Keltner List?

He had one good year, one bad year, and one year where he missed time (so I assume he was injured). I've rarely seen a pitcher sustain a 6+ ERA over an extended period of time who was of Major League quality. He's got to be better than this.

The funny thing is, I really don't think the Marquis deal is that bad. 2006 was almost certainly an off year.

If there's anything at fault for that, it's free agency. I've always defended the institution, but there's no denying that the process started a culture of arms building that persists to this day. If you want to throw another one out there, blame Peter Ubberoth. It was the '84 Olympics that demonstrated how much money you could make if you sold every dollar of a sporting event. And to add something to the other aspect, people have said statistics will be the ruination of the game since the 19th Century.

I just thought it would be fun to post this snippet from the 2002 version of Baseball Prospectus... Riiiight.

I thought the Dusty Rhodes dvd was very, very good. There's a ton of matches on there most fans haven't seen.

I think it is based on Innings pitched. I remember hearing on Mike and the Mad Dog that it is illegal for them have bonuses based on performance Wins, Batting Average, Rbi's and Homeruns. Thats why all the bonuses are based on innings and plate appearances. Al can you please offer your knowledge on this issue. I can't confirm that it is the case. I can say that I can not recall a contract offering an incentive for batting average, wins, etc. Clauses are almost always either playing time, or making an All-Star team, winning MVP, etc.

And for the heck of it, the Keltner List... I figured this was worth running. This is one of those instances where a computerized baseball encyclopedia really comes in handy. 1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball? Doubtful, unless you count Bagwell's 1994 MVP. Barry Bonds was widely considered the best baseball player during the 1990s, along with Ken Griffey Jr. Bagwell's MVP is dubious since it occured in a strike-shortened season, making rate stats look more impressive than usual. 2. Was he the best player on his team? Yes. Craig Biggio comes awfully close, but Bagwell beats him in RCAP (Runs Created Over Position) over the stretch of their tenures. 3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position? Bagwell was the best first baseman in the National League in the 1990s, and it is not close. Bagwell had the highest OBP, Slugging Percentage, OPS, Offensive Winning Percentage, and created the most runs per game. In the entirety of baseball, Frank Thomas and Mark McGwire were more impressive on a per/game basis, but both played less games. 4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races? Yes. Bagwell played every game of the season for the '97 Astros, slugging .612 in September. The Astros won by 12 games in 1998. The 'Stros won their division by just 1.5 games in 1999. Bagwell hit 42 home runs and stole 30 bases for that club. The Astros won via tiebreaker in 2001 and Bagwell again slugged .612 in September. The Astros won the wild card in 2004 with Bagwell on the decline, but he still hit 27 home runs. So yes, Bagwell played a meaningful role on at least four playoff teams. 5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime? Yes, up to the point where injuries curtailed his career. With his shoulder injury limiting his production, Bagwell missed eight games total over two years from 2003-04. 6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame? If he were eligible and not in, he would have 388 win shares, more than any player not currently eligible and inducted. Tim Raines might take the honor if not elected next year. 7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame? Bagwell's comp list includes five players not yet eligible for the Hall of Fame, and five Hall of Famers. The Hall of Famers are Willie Stargell, Orlando Cepeda, Mickey Mantle, Willie McCovey and Duke Snider. Of the five not yet eligible, three are likely to make the Hall, one is borderline (Gary Sheffield, due to PED rumors) and the other is Andres Galarraga. 8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards? Black Ink: Batting - 24 (78) (Average HOFer ≈ 27) Gray Ink: Batting - 157 (75) (Average HOFer ≈ 144) HOF Standards: Batting - 59.0 (31) (Average HOFer ≈ 50) HOF Monitor: Batting - 149.5 (78) (Likely HOFer > 100) Yes. 9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics? His raw statistics are adversely effected compared to others in his era due to having played his prime in the Astrodome, an extreme pitchers' park. 10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame? Yes. 11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close? Bagwell won the MVP once, finished in the top five three times, and in the top ten six times. 12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame? Bagwell played in just four All-Star games. One would assume that once the McGwire explosion hit, McGwire received all the All-Star nods. 13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant? Yes. 14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way? None that we know of. 15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider? There are PED rumors but no substantial evidence, either tangible or circumstantial. Bagwell usually carried himself with class and dignity.

Take these with a grain of salt. Baseball Prospectus translates numbers, and estimates that in today's environment, Rice would hit 488 home runs and 1,524 RBIs. Dawson jumps to 616 home runs, a number I find frankly preposterous (and I said I would vote for Dawson in the HOF thread). Bagwell's given 511 home runs in his own right when they adjust his numbers. Baseball Prospectus's numbers in this regard are heavily inflated, and I find it hard to figure out what to make of them. Andre Dawson isn't discriminated against because of his era. He's discriminated against because of the players who accumulated 3000+ plate appearances from 1976-96, Dawson ranks 271st in On Base Percentage. Rice is kept out because his numbers are borderline, and that's not counting that he played in a ballpark that inflated offense to the same level that Arlington does today. I can't emphasize that enough. Yes, Rice hit for a lot of power. He also wasn't a good fielder, basestealer, grounded into more double plays than any player in history, and the left field wall stood 310 ft. away. Rice is a player who looks superficially impressive, but less so when you dig into the numbers. Bagwell is the opposite.

I'm not quite sure you understand the concept. The OPS is computed over the league OPS. So a guy producing the exact same raw OPS would receive a higher OPS+ in Rice's era than he would in Bagwell's era. Jim Rice. His RBI totals are indeed impressive. The problem is that he had three great years and tailed off. That's the real issue with his candidacy, not his peak. And again, there's more to computing statistics than just RBIs. Let me focus on something important here. If you look at baseball in the 1970s/80s, nearly every team played in a park built for baseball/football. Lots of foul territories, deep power alleys, etc. Fenway Park was the exception, a park with a short left field fence and not a lot of space. Guys like Jim Rice teed off that wall. Part of the offensive explosion today is that every park resembles Fenway more than the multi-purpose stadiums. The switch from '70s Fenway to '90s Fenway is not as significant as it would be for any other team. After all, the Red Sox scored more runs in 1977 than they did this year! That's due in many ways to personnel, but it illustrates a point.

OPS+ is different. It takes OPS and expresses it as a percentage of the league average. Bagwell was better at home than on the road, but that's not the point. I think we would both agree that in different contexts, different achievements are similar. A 30 home run season in one era might be just as good as a 40 home run season era in another season. Just as you can't automatically think every player in an offensive era is a great hitter, you can't think that every great hitter in that era was simply a product of their environment. Two things. One, Bagwell was impressive even for his era. His numbers stand above most of his peers, who played under similar conditions. Second, Bagwell's case is not built on home runs and RBIs. Bagwell walked 100+ times a year, hit doubles, and stole over 200 bases. Bagwell contributed in virtually every facit of the game, so while his raw totals in counting stats don't stand out, he truly excelled.

I did. Remember these averages are adjusted for home park. Bagwell's Era: .267/.337/.420 Rice's Era: .270/.336/.406 Yes, you have '70s/'80s vs. '90s/'00s. You also have American League vs. National League and Fenway Park vs. the Astrodome. First, players of those eras took steroids. Tom House admitted so. Second, home runs and RBIs are not the only way to judge players. Jeff Bagwell drew over 600 more walks than either player. That is a HUGE, significant factor. Again you mention the slippery slope of Hall of Fame candidates. How many times do we have to point out that Bagwell was noticebly better than his peers before you dig your head from the sand and actually listen?

Mattingly was shit outside of those years. Bagwell was excellent for about 15 years. Not that numbers will influence you, but Bagwell's OPS+ of 150 is better than Mattingly's mark of 127, Bagwell has 388 win shares, 680 Runs Created Above Average, and an Offensive Winning Percentage of .704. The only first basemen clearly better at the plate than Bagwell in the '90s were Frank Thomas and Mark McGwire, both of whom weren't very mobile. And the three of them would have outranked Mattingly had they played in the 1980s. Perhaps you're right. After all, no player ever broke down physically in his late 30s. Except of course Babe Ruth. And famously Lou Gehrig. And injuries got to Mickey Mantle. And Joe Dimaggio broke down in his mid 30s. Must have been the steroids. As for impact, Bagwell played regularly for five playoff teams. Bagwell's best month was September/October, where he hit .314 during his career. McGriff? If push came to shove, I'd put him in too. Let's see. Bagwell's OBP was over 50 points higher and his slugging percentage was 30 points higher. Plus he ran better. Bagwell stole 140 more bases. Rice grounded into 90 more double plays. Differences in eras? The average OBP in Bagwell's context was one point higher, and the average slugging percentage was 14 points higher. Bagwell exceeds the differences. Remember that despite the difference in eras, Rice played in a ballpark that inflated offense by 10%. Just out of curosity, what numbers of Rice's are just as good? And again, WHAT PROOF?

Ok, lets open the door for Mattingly, McGwire, Palmeiro, Dawson, Jim Rice, Dale Murphy, Fred McGriff and Andres Gallarga. Lets not also forget that it is beyond Obvious that Bagwell was on the Juice. I wonder how many homeruns 1983-1989 SKINNY Mattingly could have hit if his prime years were from 1993-1999 instead. Also, lets not act that Palmeiro and McGwire cant get in but give Bagwell a free pass. Of those players you mentioned, only McGwire was in Bagwell's league as an impact player. You can't namedrop players and pretend they're comparable. As for the steroid issue, where is the evidence? It's one thing to accuse McGwire, who waifed before congress, or Rafael Palmeiro, who failed a drug test. Is there ANYTHING to accuse Bagwell besides performance? There isn't even any circumstancial evidence.

Welcome to reality.

You can't give up on rookies that quickly. I've seen Pedroia play often live and he has real talent. Tremendous plate discipline. He won't hit for much power, but all the Sox need is someone to get on base for the big bats.

Do you honestly think the presence of 12 second basemen on the roster would stop the Cubs from acquiring another one?

The SWB Red Barons are now the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Yankees. May god help us all.

Jason Hirsh? Taveras is way overrated and Buchholz is nothing special, but that's a big chip to lose. Jason Jennings will do well though.

Like others pointed out, Bagwell's numbers are clearly superior to the borderline candidates. Bagwell is 44th all time in OBP, 35th in slugging, 24th in OPS, 54th in runs, 52nd in doubles, 34th in OPS+, 33rd in runs created. Contrast that with Fred McGriff, who's not top 100 in OBP, 75th in slugging and OPS, etc. And McGriff's not a bad candidate himself. On top of that, Bagwell played in a tough hitters environment, was speedy and had a decent glove. Unless steroid acquisations emerge, I can't see leaving him out. NYankees, of the players you mentioned, Rafael Palmeiro has HOF numbers. He'll be excluded because of other factors. The rest besides McGriff had OBPs 50 points lower than Bagwell. They're not comparable.

Kyle's brother or no relation? He is Kyle's older brother.

Is that former Royals manager John Wathan's kid? Yes he is. John Wathan holds the MLB single season record for steals by a catcher (36). Dusty has stolen 21 in thirteen seasons, and is one of the more awkward baserunners I've seen. He's got a career .361 OBP in the minors though, and is a good professional player. There's another Wathan (Derek) who's kicked around the PCL as an infielder.