Mike cammeron and the seattle mariners

[Guest franchise632]

Mike Cameron has just hit his fourth home run in tonights game. This is part of the current 13 to 2 score in the bottom of the 5th inning. Cameron as well as Bret Boone both went deep twice in the 1st setting a major league record. Even more amazing is that Mike Cameron became just the forth person to hit four home runs in as many consecutive at bats. WOW!!!!!!

[Guest treble charged]

Being a Jays' fan, I find it hard to have sympathy for any baseball team right about now.

 

The countdown to Buck Martinez' firing starts.... now.

(It's too bad, too, since he's never real been give too much of a chance)

[Guest franchise632]

and talk about presidents getting old while in office, poor Buck has added about ten years in about a 1 and half years.

[Guest Human Fly]

I'm still hoping the Reds pull out another big win in L.A. tonight. We're up to the 14th inning 2 - 2.

[Guest Human Fly]

Crap, we lost. Oh well. Now to try and tie it in to the subject. Maybe if we had the guy we traded Mike Cameron for (Ken Griffey Jr.) We would've pulled it out. Hopefully he'll be back soon.

[Guest Choken One]

We can't win them all my friend. However Junior will be back in about a week or two. Here's the real question...What trade do we make? A big rumor is "Encarcion/Graves for C.C Sabitha"...I dunno but Yankees and Braves NEED a premiere outfielder and Juan/Junior/Dunn/Kearns/Mo Pena are all viable options. The reds could live without Graves arm (Williamson can cover)..also...we can trade Casey and move Dunn to 1st and keep the Kearns/Junior/Encarciaion outfield. Then again why not just trade Aaron Boone and move Casey to 3rd? I dunno but Mr. Bowden has alot of fun options to play around with to get that ACE starter we need. (Hamilton isn't the ideal ACE pitcher) and looks like Jeff Shaw will return to the reds...so that means we can go ahead and deal Graves...however...He is a very popular figure...may piss off players.

[Guest DrTom]

Cameron should have swung at that 3-0 pitch in his fifth at-bat.  I'm a fan of taking 3-0, but when you have a chance to add your name to the record books like that, you have to take it.  Still an amazing performance, though.

 

Ken Who?

[Guest Choken One]

Peter Gammons or someone else from Baseball Tonight made mention of that but like he said "Mike Cameron is a Consumate Professional"...You don't swing at a 3-0 pitch. Something my Hitting coach often yelled at me about.

[Guest franchise632]

I said it in a different thread, but it is appropriate here. Give me a choice between Griffey Jr. and Mike Cameron and I take Cameron everytime.

[Guest Human Fly]

"Give me a choice between Griffey Jr. and Mike Cameron and I take Cameron everytime"

 

And I'll give you that deal anytime. Cameron is a good player, capable of All-Star if he has a good year. Griffey Jr. may go down as an all time great. An average year for Griffey is a great year for Cameron.

 

We need to make the trade with Cleveland though. Juan Encarnacion is hot, now is the time to deal him. Who knows how long he can keep it up. We'll get a quality starter, and if we sign Jeff Shaw there is our closer. Scott Williamson could also step in there. Graves is popular, but so were Pokey and Dmitri. If we did ship Graves though I doubt he would rag the team like those two did.

[Guest DrTom]

"You don't swing at a 3-0 pitch. Something my Hitting coach often yelled at me about."

 

Mine too, and I honestly can't remember a time when I swung at a 3-0 pitch.  But how often do you get a chance to become the only player in the 120-year history of MLB to do something?  If I were him, I would have come out of my shoes swinging at that meatball.

[Guest ant_7000]

And I am a Big White Sox fan too, too bad they gave up on cameron they werent patient with him when played here (sox) but at least they got Konerko for him thou.

[Guest franchise632]

"Give me a choice between Griffey Jr. and Mike Cameron and I take Cameron everytime"

 

And I'll give you that deal anytime. Cameron is a good player, capable of All-Star if he has a good year. Griffey Jr. may go down as an all time great. An average year for Griffey is a great year for Cameron.

 

We need to make the trade with Cleveland though. Juan Encarnacion is hot, now is the time to deal him. Who knows how long he can keep it up. We'll get a quality starter, and if we sign Jeff Shaw there is our closer. Scott Williamson could also step in there. Graves is popular, but so were Pokey and Dmitri. If we did ship Graves though I doubt he would rag the team like those two did.

I would rather have a team of really good players all the way around, as opposed to one superstar and a bunch of ok players. Cause as we are winning pennents the Reds will hope for a wild card and will likely finish closer to the bottom then the top.

[Guest Choken One]

To the guy who picked Cameron over Junior, you're an idiot business man. Like Human Fly said, When Junior’s not injured (only twice in his 12 years) he is hitting 40-58 home runs, driving in 145 RBI’s and don’t forget he is one the best CF’s of all time.

 

Also, he would increase interest in your ball club and bring in the much desired family of four’s to your ball park and that means more cash.

 

Don’t get me wrong here, Mike Cameron is a great fielder and could become a very big star but still his 4 home runs won’t amount to Junior’s career at this moment. Cameron is in his late twenties/early thirties and Junior is 31, so the age difference is out of the window. In the end, a healthy Junior is better deal then Mike Cameron. Besides, how do you how that when Cameron’s contract expires and he is a free agent that he won’t pull an A-ROD on you and go for the money or if he will continue to imitate his predecessor and take a huge paycut, return to be closer to his family and even defer his money to the team so that they can resign the team leader and it’s rising stars?

 

I’m not saying that Junior is the nicest guy in the world and he is so friendly because he’s not, that’s why the reds have Sean Casey for. However, Junior is a big time superstar that will still draw your family of fours when he is back healthy again. Mike Cameron is a potentially superstar in the guise of Sammy Sosa, a slow build until they each hit age 32 and explode.

[Guest alkeiper]

Very flew stars explode after 32.  Sosa was the exeption.

[Guest franchise632]

Last time I checked the whole point of this game is to win. The M's have won a helluva lot more since we got rid of Junior. I have never once said that he isnt a great player, in fact he used to be my favorite player. I have the opinion that a winning ball club with alot of very good players is gonna sell out a helluva lot more games then a so-so ballclub with one big superstar. And you may want to check you Junior injury report, he has been hurt almost the entire time he has been in Cincy, plus he missed an almost an entire season when he broke his wrist with the M's, ask most experts and the are going to refer to Junior as injury prone. If you want a superstar who MIGHT be healthy, and then could help you win. Altough the team in question lacks starting pitching and a bullpen and whos best players are a consistent yet aging shortstop, and unproven rookie outfielder and a poetentially good first basemen. They are much better with Junior, but they still arent that great.

 

Again I would rather have a great TEAM then a good team with a GREAT superstar. So if im a stupid buisnessmen, so be it, but the formula is proven, pitching and team defense win championships. One man can't win anything alone.

[Guest alkeiper]

So if im a stupid buisnessmen, so be it, but the formula is proven, pitching and team defense win championships.

 

Let's look at the 2001 Mariners, shall we?  They allowed only 627 runs.  Best in the majors.  So they won with pitching and defense right?  Well, they also SCORED 927 runs, best in the majors, better than the Colorado Rockies.  They did this playing in one of the toughest hitters parks in baseball.  When will people realize that the Mariners are a great HITTING team and not just a pitchers team.  The point is, pitching and defense accounts for 50% of your success.  The other half is hitting.

 

As for Griffey and Cameron, the idea is that teams can achieve success by spreading money around.  Griffey is a better player than Cameron, but by not having Griffey's salary, the Mariners were alble to build a team with almost no weaknesses.  And that's how they achieved success.

[Guest franchise632]

So if im a stupid buisnessmen, so be it, but the formula is proven, pitching and team defense win championships.

 

Let's look at the 2001 Mariners, shall we?  They allowed only 627 runs.  Best in the majors.  So they won with pitching and defense right?  Well, they also SCORED 927 runs, best in the majors, better than the Colorado Rockies.  They did this playing in one of the toughest hitters parks in baseball.  When will people realize that the Mariners are a great HITTING team and not just a pitchers team.  The point is, pitching and defense accounts for 50% of your success.  The other half is hitting.

 

As for Griffey and Cameron, the idea is that teams can achieve success by spreading money around.  Griffey is a better player than Cameron, but by not having Griffey's salary, the Mariners were alble to build a team with almost no weaknesses.  And that's how they achieved success.

Couldnt agree more!!!

 

As the Rockies <and others> have proven when you dont have good pitching and defense you don't win no matter how many runs you score.

[Guest alkeiper]

It works vice versa as well.

[Guest Choken One]

I agree. Home Runs are simply novelties. Something alot of people neglected to mention after Mike Cameron’s “Historic” 4 homer performance was that all 4 were Solo shots. An four run deficient can be made up almost instantly.

 

While Barry Bonds 73 home runs were important during the Giant’s close finish last season, look at Mark McGwire’s 70 home run season. Where did his team wind up?

Nearly last place. His home runs did not help the team win games. Sammy Sosa is the same thing, save for the 1998 season, Sammy Sosa’s home runs has not propelled his

team to any post-season play. So as good as Home Runs are for the individual, for the most part it won’t do your team all that much help unless you have one critical aspect of

the game. Pitching.

 

  Pitching is the most important thing in BASEBALL

period. A great pitching willallow your team to curb your adversaries run total. With a great pitcher, such as Roger

Clemens, Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Mark Mulder, Pedro Martinez, Freddie Garcia and many others you can limit you opponent’s runs from

0-3 runs and allow those home runs to be meaningful. Home Runs are worthless unless you got Great pitching to back it up.

 

 

The other day I attended my cousin’s High School game. As I sat there, I was in dismay. Batter after Batter consistently aimed for the Home Run. Hardly anybody looked

for the more effective line drive to outfield. After watching a dreadful game of nothing more then Pop ups and ground outs. I asked the coach “Why do you allow them to keep

letting them aim for homers when most of them aren’t even powerful enough to take a ball 300 feet?” and he responded, sternly and absurdly “It makes them score quicker”. I

chuckled and laughed. Shocked by his answer.

 

Look at The Atlanta Braves and New York Yankees. They have the model teams. Neither team had the Powerful home run hitters (Matinez and Jones aren’t known for

home runs) but what do they have? A deadly combination of quality efficient pitching and solid base hitters. They use the skilled pitchers they have (Clemens, Mussina, Pettite,

Maddux, Smoltz, Galvine and many others) and the great base hitters they have. None of the hitters will give you 40-60 home runs a seasons but they will give important base hits

that will lead to the wins that will take you to the highest level of success. That’s why New York and Atlanta have 10 World Series appearances in the last 10 years.  

 

Home Runs can help your team out but without good sound pitching, Home Runs are rendered meaningless.

[Guest alkeiper]

look at Mark McGwire’s 70 home run season. Where did his team wind up?  Nearly last place.

 

Thanks to the magic of statistics, a quick glance at the 1998 standings reveals that the Cardinals finished 14 games over the last place Pirates, and 7.5 games under the Wild-Card Cubs.  That makes them closer to the PLAYOFFS than to last place, doesn't it?  And Mark McGwire posted an OBP of .470, meaning that he only made an out 53% of the time he came to bat.  That's an outstanding percentage.  If your aforementioned high school team only made outs 53% of the time, they'd be undefeated, regardless of their pitching.  As for the Cardinals, I'd be inclined to believe that if their fourth and fifth starters weren't Manny Aybar and Donovan Osborne, they might have had a shot at the playoffs.  The Cardinals DID win games thanks to Mark McGwire, probably 7 or 8 games more than they would have with an average player at first base.

 

So as good as Home Runs are for the individual, for the most part it won’t do your team all that much help unless you have one critical aspect of the game. Pitching.

 

Its not home runs that are important, its RUNS.  If you're going to look at individual batting statistics, look at On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage.  As for pitching, look at last years AL standings.  The Red Sox allowed the 4th least runs in the league, and finished 13.5 games out of first.  The Anaheim Angels allowed the 5th least runs in the league, and finished 41 games out of first place.  A lot of good pitching did them huh?  The Cubs allowed the 4th least runs in the NL, and failed to make the playoffs.  The Mets allowed the 5th least runs and failed to make the playoffs.  Why?  Because they were LAST in the league in runs scored.  Otherwise known as OFFENSE.

 

Look, the great teams win because they have BOTH hitting and pitching.  If you have enough pitching, you can win in spite of bad hitting.  If you have enough hitting, you can win in spite of bad pitching.  Everyone will point to the Yankees, but if they didn't have Bernie Williams, Derek Jeter et al, they still wouldn't win anything.  The Braves have terrific pitching but if they didn't have Chipper Jones, they wouldn't have made the playoffs last year.

 

Right now, the Arizona Diamondbacks, despite having Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling, are 9th in the NL in runs allowed.  They also have the best record in the league.  The Texas Rangers are 3rd in runs allowed, yet they are 7.5 games behind Seattle.  The Orioles are 4th and they're 6 games out.  The Angels are 5th and they're 6.5 games back.  A lot of good pitching's done them huh?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

So if St.Louis finished closer to the Cubs that doesn't mean they where in contention at any point during the season. If I recall they finished well when it didn't matter.

 

Home Run's are overrated. Pitching is what wins.You really can't look at team pitching yet, but by the end of the season the teams that are either contending or in the playoffs will rank high in pitching.

[Guest alkeiper]

*sigh*  not home runs, RUNS, period.  Are home runs overrated?  Yes.  So is batting average.  If you look at the standings, most teams that lead the league in pitching will make the playoffs.  But guess what?  It works the same way for teams that lead the league in runs.  Pitching AND hitting, its a 50/50 proposition.

[Guest Choken One]

never said runs weren't important just HOME RUNS.

[Guest Some Guy]

"Pitching AND hitting, its a 50/50 proposition."

 

I disagree Pitching is about 65-70% of the game, look at the D-Backs and Yanks last year and then look at the Rockies and Texas the Pitching of the Former is comprble to the hitting of the latter yet the latter teams ended up in last place or close to it.  BTW the Rangers suck again and so do the Rockies, while the Yanks and D-Backs are near the top of their divisions.  

Pitching is FAR more important than hitting, ask anybody who knows the game.  Who would you rather have?  A healthy Pedro or Giambi?  Randy Johnson or Manny?  Mussina or Helton? Schilling or A-Rod?  etc... Ask any club (save the retarded Rangers) and they'll pick the Pitchers every time (provided their healthy, of course)

I'll take a rotation of Pedro, Johnson, Mussina, Schilling, and Maddux over a lineup of Sosa, Bonds, Manny, Helton etc.. any day of the week.  If a team had that rotaation and a lineup that could average about 4.5 runs per game (729 runs a year, which is not a whole lot) they would win 120 games, I'd bet.  If they had the All Star line up and a a staff ERA of 5.00 they's win about 90 games because good pitching beats good hitting 9 times out of ten.

[Guest alkeiper]

look at the D-Backs and Yanks last year and then look at the Rockies and Texas the Pitching of the Former is comprble to the hitting of the latter yet the latter teams ended up in last place or close to it.

 

You're comparing teams with great pitching and good hitting with teams that have good hitting and bad pitching.  C'mon now.  Shouldn't the Angels have had a better record last year.  They had great pitching.  Seriously, how is a run prevented more valuable than a run scored?

 

The Rangers have allowed the 4th least runs in the league.  Their pitching is improved, and they still suck.  Why?

 

Schilling or A-Rod?

Let's see, the best hitting shortstop in baseball vs. one of the better pitchers......Did I mention the shortstop will bat 4 times a game, while the pitcher will pitch every 5 days?

 

If they had the All Star line up and a a staff ERA of 5.00 they's win about 90 games because good pitching beats good hitting 9 times out of ten.

Ok, lets take a look at that.  A team with league average pitching AND hitting would win 81 games, cause they're average, right?  Well, how bout average pitching, plus that all-star lineup.  Total Baseball has a stat that calculates how many wins above average a player is worth.  I'm using 2000 stats here.

 

Piazza     3.8

Giambi     5.1

Alomar     3.8

A-Rod      7.7

Glaus       4.7

Bonds      7.3

B. Williams 3.9

Sosa        4.8

TOTAL     41.1

 

Lets see, 41.1 + 81 is 121 wins.  Not bad.  Now the pitching.....once again, we start at 81 wins.

 

Martinez   8.5

Maddux    5.5

Johnson    5.1

Mussina    2.5

Schilling    1.9

TOTAL      23.5

 

23.5 plus 81 is about 104 wins.  17 LESS than the all-star hitting teams.

 

Honestly, do you guys have any evidence that pitching is REALLY more important than hitting, besides the same old tired baseball cliches?

[Guest Some Guy]

How is that stat calculated?  randy Johnson only provides 5.5 wins over the avg pitcher?  That's bull shit.  Johnson is a consistant 18-20 game winner, so the average for MLB pitchers is 12.9-14.9 wins?  I don't think so.  A 14 game winner is a $10 million player now.

 

Troy Glaus is a more productive player than Curt Schilling and Mike Mussina?  Giambi is equal to Johnson?  i don't agree.

[Guest alkeiper]

Its basically calculated by figuring out how many runs a person scored/prevented over an average player.  It's also affected by the quality of his peers, so that players at weak positions (i.e. Glaus) rank higher, cause its harder to fill that position with a quality player, making him more valuable.

[Guest Some Guy]

Then it's a stupid stat.  Glaus becomes vastly overrated because 3b in MLB sucks right now and he had one great power year while Schilling had a poor year in 2000 and has Pedro, Johnson, Maddux, etc... to mess up the curve and lessen his value.

 

You seemed to have picked the top guys from each postition from 2000, did you pick the top pitchers as well?

 

The Yankees have won 4 WS in the last 6 years, before the 2000 season they could have gotten Manny or Mussina, they chose  Mussina.  Now this year they felt that their pitching staff was good enough and that they lost a lot of their lineup from 2000 that they could afford to spend/waste on Giambi.  I say waste because they are going to have a $17 mil DH in 3 years.  While Oakland is going to have a very good rotation to keep them winning for years to come.

 

EDIT: They also signed Giambi because the only above avg. Pitcher on the market was Chan Ho Park who really isn't great outside of Dodger Stadium.

[Guest El Hijo Del Lunatic]

Ooh, the old "pitching vs. hitting" debate.  This should be fun.

 

Something alot of people neglected to mention after Mike Cameron’s “Historic” 4 homer performance was that all 4 were Solo shots. An four run deficient can be made up almost instantly.

Well, it's kinda tough to hit a grand slam when Boone's in front of you clearing the bases.  They hit back-to-back homers TWICE.  That means that two of Cameron's homeruns had to be solo shots.  And if you don't think that an individual performance like that, that comes around once every ten years, isn't historic, then I can't help you.

 

As for pitching, look at last years AL standings.  The Red Sox allowed the 4th least runs in the league, and finished 13.5 games out of first.  The Anaheim Angels allowed the 5th least runs in the league, and finished 41 games out of first place.  A lot of good pitching did them huh?

The Red Sox are an anomaly.  They didn't lose ballgames because they couldn't hit (they hit .266 as a team, about the AL average) but because they couldn't get along with each other, with the owner, and with management in the clubhouse.  The Angels are a different story, however, as their batting average was below the league average by a few percentage points.  Of course, they finished 41 games out of first because they were in the same division as the Mariners and A's.  By the way, the top three AL teams in pitching last year?  The Yankees, Mariners, and A's - three of the four playoff teams, and both ALCS representatives.

 

The Cubs allowed the 4th least runs in the NL, and failed to make the playoffs.  The Mets allowed the 5th least runs and failed to make the playoffs.  Why?  Because they were LAST in the league in runs scored.

Actually, the Cubs would've made the playoffs last year if their pitching hadn't failed them in August.  They also finished 14 games above .500, which is nothing to sneeze at.  The Mets are, of course, the extreme case, but even they finished above .500 with the atrocious hitting they got last year.  And the top three pitching teams in the NL were Atlanta, Arizona, and St. Louis last year - again, three of the four playoff teams, and both NLCS representatives.

 

Everyone will point to the Yankees, but if they didn't have Bernie Williams, Derek Jeter et al, they still wouldn't win anything.

To be honest, the Yankees' lineup last year doesn't necessarily scare me.  When I look at that lineup they had last year (and this year too), I don't think, "look at all the great hitters".  I think "look at all the tough outs".  The Yankees 2001 lineup isn't Murderer's Row by any stretch of the imagination, but they are not afraid to MANUFACTURE runs.  The Yankees bunt, they work pitch counts, they walk often, they hit and run more than any team in the AL in years, and they move runners over.  That's what they do better than anyone else - and that's not stellar hitting, that's fundamental baseball.  It's not that they're better hitters than the rest of the league, but they know how to get opportunities so that when they DO get a hit, it usually counts.  The Yankees last year hit .267 as a ballclub.  This year, they're hitting .271 (5th overall), but their strikeouts have gone up as a team, their walks have gone down, and they're now chasing the Red Sox.

 

Right now, the Arizona Diamondbacks, despite having Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling, are 9th in the NL in runs allowed.  They also have the best record in the league.  The Orioles are 4th and they're 6 games out.  The Angels are 5th and they're 6.5 games back.  A lot of good pitching's done them huh?

The Diamondbacks are now 12th in the league in ERA, and have the best record in the league.  Know why?  Because when Schilling and Johnson are on the mound, the D-Backs are 12-2.  When they're not, Arizona is 8-10.  The Orioles are fourth in ERA and six games out because the Red Sox are first in ERA and lead the AL East.  The Angels are stuck behind the Mariners and A's again.

 

The Rangers have allowed the 4th least runs in the league.  Their pitching is improved, and they still suck.  Why?

Because actually, they are 22nd in the league in ERA this year, and only 13th in hitting, as of May 7th.  

 

You're comparing teams with great pitching and good hitting with teams that have good hitting and bad pitching.  C'mon now.  Shouldn't the Angels have had a better record last year.  They had great pitching.  Seriously, how is a run prevented more valuable than a run scored?

Because it's easier to score a run than it is to prevent one.  Like I said above when talking about the Yankees, there are ways to score runs without hitting particularly well, and there are things you can do as a ballclub to break a collective hitting slump.  I can draw a walk, steal second, get moved over to third on a sacrifice bunt, and score on a sacrifice fly.  One run, no hits, no errors.  You can't fake pitching like that, regardless.  If your pitcher is struggling, the only thing you can do is tell him to hit the showers and try another arm.  You either get good pitching or you don't.  And personally, if it's me as a manager, I'd rather have the good pitching, because I can get my players to do the little things and squeeze out some one-run games if I can keep the games close and low-scoring.  It's easier to win 3-2 than 11-10.

 

Total Baseball has a stat that calculates how many wins above average a player is worth.  

The stat is bogus though, and the way you're using it is bogus.  First off, you've got 8 hitters vs. five pitchers in your calculations.  You've neglected a reliever and at least a pair of middle relievers - I'm thinking your stats would be much less skewed with the addition of a couple of ballplayers.  (The averages there:  5.3 wins for the top hitters, 4.7 wins for the top pitchers)  Second, you can't truly know how many wins a guy will equate to.  There're too many variables involved.  For example, you can have all the starting pitching you want, but without a good reliever, you're just going to blow a bunch of leads and struggle because of it.  You can have the greatest #3 hitter in the game, but if there's nobody batting fourth, nobody's going to pitch to him.  Third, that stat is skewed toward hitters, because every time Curt Schilling faces the Giants, he's going to have to pitch to Barry Bonds four times, but every time Barry plays the D-Backs, he's not going to see Curt Schilling.  So some of those wins for hitters come against the Ron Villones of the world, and the pitchers don't have the luxury of facing second-string lineups every night.  There's a reason why baseball has SOOOOO many statistics - because with all the variables involved in the game, it's impossible to boil down a player's impact on a team into one nice neat little number.

 

LUNATIC

Of course, arguments like this are why baseball kicks SO MUCH ASS.