Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
EVIL~! alkeiper

MLB Game Chatter

Recommended Posts

Boston sports fans are obsessed with the Red Sox and yet don't seem to grasp the big picture. Think about it, the Celtics have won god knows how many NBA titles. The Patriots have won 2 Super Bowls recently. I don't know much about hockey but I'd assume the Bruins have won the Stanley Cup as well, maybe not recently but they have won it. Yet all Boston fans can think of is the Red Sox and the curse.

 

I've joked that the Red Sox will eventually beat the Yankees in the ALCS....only to then lose Game 7 of the World Series.

We know the big picture and we don't take for granted that as a city we suck. In fact we've been up among the better cities amongst titles won in all four sports. Boston has had dynasties in the NBA(1980's Celtics), NHL(The Bobby Orr era) and the NFL(The current 2000's era). Boston has ALWAYS been a baseball city. Ever since the early 1900's baseball has been the big thing in Boston and the fact that the Sox haven't won a WS since 1918(despite getting there over the years) only fuels the passion that Boston fans have for the Red Sox. We acknowledge when our other teams are doing great but nothing can compare to the Sox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kageho
AS, what happens if the Yankees don't make the playoffs?

He'll want his team decimated and remade so that it wins games and divisions, and all that good stuff that comes with winning games and divisions.

Edited by Kageho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GreatOne

The Mariners have won five in a row and are a win in the next two against the Jays fron winning back-to-back-series for just the second time this season. They're actually playing better ball in the second half with the callup-dominated lineup than they were with the regulars in the first half, go fig.........

 

That might lead me to a whole 'nother thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault
Well, the reason the Yankees have a problem in the first place is because of the Anglesault "win at all costs" attitude, instead of building depth for long term health.

And what's your solution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good stuff by Omar Vizquel 6-7. This guy's career is so underrated IMO, if he has 3 more solid years like this one, and wins atleast 2 more Gold Gloves, IMO, he's a Hall of Famer.

 

He's 37 years old. I highly doubt he's got much left in the tank. Even at this point, he's not a HOFer.

He looks better than ever, still plays a great short, and doesn't rely on power. Pesky hitters like him can stay a while longer. He's batting .310, doesn't look like he's got nothing left in the tank.

 

If Ozzie Smith is in the hall, I don't see why Vizquel shouldn't be. Vizquel, heck, with 2 more solid years would have more runs, hits, right now has a better average, on base percentage, slugging percentage and OPS. He should win a Gold Glove this year, and possibly two more in the next 2 years. If it does happen, he's got my vote. I just find it odd that Ozzie gets all this acclaim because of his charisma and some flips. Vizquel even has the best fielding percentage for a shortstop in the history of the game for a minimum of 1000 games, he has over 2000 games played there. He has more doubles, triples, and even has better postseason numbers in close to the same amount of games.

 

Well, that's my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the reason the Yankees have a problem in the first place is because of the Anglesault "win at all costs" attitude, instead of building depth for long term health.

And what's your solution?

Don't be so quick to pick up mediocre free agents. Middle relievers such as Steve Karsay cost draft picks which kills the minor leagues, for performance which really doesn't help the team. Pour more money into scouting and development. Be wary of multi-year contracts. If Derek Jeter were on any other team, his contract would be the worst in baseball. It might cost you short term dominance, but it means less dependancy on Tanyon Sturtze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault
Well, the reason the Yankees have a problem in the first place is because of the Anglesault "win at all costs" attitude, instead of building depth for long term health.

And what's your solution?

Don't be so quick to pick up mediocre free agents. Middle relievers such as Steve Karsay cost draft picks which kills the minor leagues, for performance which really doesn't help the team. .

I'm pretty sure no one expected THIS to happen when they signed him.

 

Be wary of multi-year contracts.

 

Multi-year contracts tend to attract the better players. They like the security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good stuff by Omar Vizquel 6-7. This guy's career is so underrated IMO, if he has 3 more solid years like this one, and wins atleast 2 more Gold Gloves, IMO, he's a Hall of Famer.

 

He's 37 years old. I highly doubt he's got much left in the tank. Even at this point, he's not a HOFer.

He looks better than ever, still plays a great short, and doesn't rely on power. Pesky hitters like him can stay a while longer. He's batting .310, doesn't look like he's got nothing left in the tank.

 

If Ozzie Smith is in the hall, I don't see why Vizquel shouldn't be. Vizquel, heck, with 2 more solid years would have more runs, hits, right now has a better average, on base percentage, slugging percentage and OPS. He should win a Gold Glove this year, and possibly two more in the next 2 years. If it does happen, he's got my vote. I just find it odd that Ozzie gets all this acclaim because of his charisma and some flips. Vizquel even has the best fielding percentage for a shortstop in the history of the game for a minimum of 1000 games, he has over 2000 games played there. He has more doubles, triples, and even has better postseason numbers in close to the same amount of games.

 

Well, that's my case.

Ok. Time for me to pick this apart. Keep in mind this is coming from someone who was a huge Ozzie Smith fan, although I think I keep his performance in perspective.

 

Let's start with the defense. Many compare Vizquel as on par with Ozzie. He's not. Ozzie Smith was a truly exceptional fielder. You quote fielding percentage. That's not a good stat to compare across eras, because they have steadily risen over time. Recent players will almost always have better fielding percentages. The league average fielding percentage for a SS was .968 in Ozzie's time, compared to a .972 percentage in Vizquel's time. In perspective, Ozzie's is one point better. But fielding percentage only measure how often you did not screw up. Look at Range Factor. Range factor measures the plays a player made per game. 5.03 for Ozzie, and 4.45 for Vizquel. That is a large discrepancy. I have yet to see a reliable fielding metric that places Vizquel in Ozzie Smith's league. Ozzie is noticed for the backflips, but the fact is he made a TON of plays at shortstop. Nothing got by him.

 

Hitting. The reasoning is that Vizquel is almost as good with the glove, but much better with the bat. That is not true. Vizquel hit in a hitters' era and a hitters' park. Smith played in a balanced era and a pitchers' park. OPS+ adjusts OPS for park and era. Smith beats Vizquel with the bat, 87 to 83. Smith hit 262/337/328 when the league average was 261/328/390. Vizquel hit 273/340/356 when the league average was 270/340/424. So Vizquel's edge with the bat is merely an illusion of the big hitting 90s.

 

Vizquel's HOF argument entirely consists of this imaginary link with Ozzie Smith. If it weren't for Ozzie, Vizquel would have no argument whatsoever for the Hall. Ozzie wins in GGs, 13 to 9. Ozzie made 15 All-Star squads, compared to just three for Vizquel. Vizquel has NEVER finished top ten in MVP voting. Vizquel's hitting well this year, but his last three OBPs were .323, .341, and .321. There is every indication that this season is just an outlier. I might be wrong, but Vizquel needs to have a hell of a good few years to earn HOF consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boston sports fans are obsessed with the Red Sox and yet don't seem to grasp the big picture. Think about it, the Celtics have won god knows how many NBA titles. The Patriots have won 2 Super Bowls recently. I don't know much about hockey but I'd assume the Bruins have won the Stanley Cup as well, maybe not recently but they have won it.

B's are like the Flyers, strong in the regular season, crappy going for the Cup. Montreal especially seems to have some kryptonite effect on the Bruins, as in 2002 and 2004, they botched huge leads to get beaten in 7 by low-ranked Habs teams. I think their last Stanley Cup must've been 70s, because 80s was all Long Island and Edmonton. They did lose a couple Cups to the Oilers though, but that loss in 1990 looks like it's as close as they're going to get for a long time because their management is starting to resemble some sort of Blackhawks Lite.

 

But anyway, the Red Sox are the team in Boston. Thing about the Patriots is that I don't recall they had any real superstar players until Bledsoe. In fact, I think the Patriots really just had a lot of crappy years while the other three were good. You NFL diehards are gonna have to prove me wrong on this, though, I'm out of my element on this one. But when you've got Ted Williams, Bobby Orr, Ray Bourque, Larry Bird, John Havlicek, all these Boston sports heroes of the past, it's really hard to warm up to the rather faceless New England Patriots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the reason the Yankees have a problem in the first place is because of the Anglesault "win at all costs" attitude, instead of building depth for long term health.

And what's your solution?

Don't be so quick to pick up mediocre free agents. Middle relievers such as Steve Karsay cost draft picks which kills the minor leagues, for performance which really doesn't help the team. .

I'm pretty sure no one expected THIS to happen when they signed him.

 

Be wary of multi-year contracts.

 

Multi-year contracts tend to attract the better players. They like the security.

This is where the Moneyball principle can help all teams. Karsay was a good pitcher, and should have been an effective reliever. The problem is there are a ton of pitchers out there capable of pitching as well as Karsay did. There's no reason to pay a middle reliever a boatload of cash.

 

Second, multi-year contracts do attract better players. And if you pick up a star (Gary Sheffield for example), than they are well worth the money. But when you pick up role players like Rondell White and Sterling Hitchcock via free agency and surrender draft picks, you hurt your club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. You can't take someone and put them in this park and this era and say he would have done better. Vizquel's is this era's Ozzie with a better bat. Like Tejada would be this era's Cal Ripken? You have to keep in mind that pitchers, just like batters, got stronger as time went by as well. Ozzie never had to face a Randy Johnson, much, or a Pedro Martinez, or a Curt Schilling, or a Roger Clemens (seperate league).

 

And I don't like this range stat. According to that, yes they were in the same league. Ozzie averaged more errors with one more attempt, if you take that ratio, Vizquel with less attempts did just as good.

 

And heck, even with the Vizquel bat adjust park and era, even though I don't agree with, shows you that like Ozzie, Vizquel was as good as him according to his ERA. Vizquel like Ozzie hit for the league average, had nearly the same on base percentage (in Vizquel's case, the same), and a bit below in slugging.

 

All these stats, even though I don't agree with some, because it's all hypothetical, just show that like Ozzie, Vizquel did just as good in his era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. You can't take someone and put them in this park and this era and say he would have done better. Vizquel's is this era's Ozzie with a better bat. Like Tejada would be this era's Cal Ripken? You have to keep in mind that pitchers, just like batters, got stronger as time went by as well. Ozzie never had to face a Randy Johnson, much, or a Pedro Martinez, or a Curt Schilling, or a Roger Clemens (seperate league).

 

You can't assume what a player would have done in a different era, of course. What you can measure is their relative value at the time. For example, Ozzie contributed this many runs when the average team scored this many, and so on. In other words, how many runs did it take to win a game in each era?

 

And I don't like this range stat. According to that, yes they were in the same league. Ozzie averaged more errors with one more attempt, if you take that ratio, Vizquel with less attempts did just as good.

 

It measures plays, not attempts. Fielding percentage makes no allowance for plays that get by you to your left or right. Ozzie covered more ground than most shortstops, but fielding percentage doesn't pick that up. Range factor does.

 

And heck, even with the Vizquel bat adjust park and era, even though I don't agree with, shows you that like Ozzie, Vizquel was as good as him according to his ERA. Vizquel like Ozzie hit for the league average, had nearly the same on base percentage (in Vizquel's case, the same), and a bit below in slugging.

 

Vizquel was as good a hitter. But Ozzie was a far superior fielder. And to support his HOF case, Vizquel needs to be superior at the bat. Its also worth noting that Ozzie had nearly twice as many stolen bases, at a far superior success rate. That contributes to his offensive value.

 

All these stats, even though I don't agree with some, because it's all hypothetical, just show that like Ozzie, Vizquel did just as good in his era.

 

At the plate, yes. But his argument rests on fielding. And he needs something more substantial than fielding percentage to build his argument. In raw stats, Ozzie made 1,000 more putouts, and over 2,500 more assists. That's over 3,500 more outs with the glove. I don't need to tell you, that's alot of ground to make up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Staravenger

And now Olerud smack ones out of the park to make it 3-1. Finally the sleeping giants woke up. Is it still 5-5 Angles/Red Sox?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I'm really beginning to loathe Moises Alou. Aside from leading the league in flyball double plays, this idiot just got picked off first base after three pickoff attempts. First off, this guy never steals, so his lead shouldn't have been this big. Second of all, if he's trying to pick you off, you're going to hold close to the bag. The game's not on here, so I'm not sure of the details, but lord, he sucks on the basepaths. Additionally, the Cubs' offense is back to looking anemic as hell. They haven't scored since the fourth inning on Monday. Changes certainly need to be made during the off season, for I fear this incarnation of the Cubs are more concerned with petty feuds with announcers and players than play solid ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if nothing else, Moises' wacky hijinx on the basepaths allow us to be treated to some great biting sarcasm from Steve Stone. Grudz was up when Alou was just picked off and consoled us with:

 

"Look on the bright side, Grudz will get a chance to bat again."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Yanks are winning 4-1.

 

I hope the RS Nation doesn't get their hopes up with this 3.5 behind, because only bad things can happen that way.

 

I sure as hell am not going to get my hopes up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×