What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Interesting also, he's going it alone. The MBPLA statement:

“The MLBPA strongly disagrees with the award issued today in the grievance of Alex Rodriguez, even despite the Aribtration Panel’s decision to reduce the duration of Mr. Rodriguez’s unprecedented 211-game suspension. We recognize that a final and binding decision has been reached, however, and we respect the collectively-bargained arbitration process which led to the decision.

“In accordance with the confidentiality provisions of the JDA, the Association will make no further comment regarding the decision.”

A really weak statement -- "Sorry Alex, lip service is all you get from us. Enjoy pariah-hood"
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Hammer said:
25.2 in 2014, 35.9 in 2013, 36.5 in 2012. Trending the wrong way as well. Veterans Committee as well, but I don't think he gets in there, either. When your entire body of work is as a hitter (as a DH), his final grand totals probably come up a little short. There's a whole lot of "really good" there, but nothing to really put him over the top.
Click to expand...

Agreed. He may have a shot in a few years if the ballot clears up a bit, but I don't see the BBWAA voting him in. As you said, his numbers are "really good," but you need to be better than really good to get into the Hall these days. Now, I could definitely see the VC putting him in eventually...especially if he can start to reverse course and garner more support in the next 5 years. He's a .300/.400/.500 guy, and they generally get into the Hall of Fame. That being said, Todd Helton, Larry Walker, and Manny Ramirez were all .300/.400/.500 guys as well, and I don't see the writers voting them in (with perhaps the exception of Helton). However, I do see the VC putting them all in at some point in time.
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

I guess my point with Martinez was, all his resume consists of comes from his hitting. He did not play the field. There's no Gold Gloves to add to the resume, no fielding prowess to speak of. His career is completely one-dimensional. Now, that's just fine, but if you're going to make a case for a one-dimensional player, it had better blow your shorts off. I mean, 3000 hits or 500 home runs good, or .340 average. Martinez' totals simply come up short.
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Hammer said:
I guess my point with Martinez was, all his resume consists of comes from his hitting. He did not play the field. There's no Gold Gloves to add to the resume, no fielding prowess to speak of. His career is completely one-dimensional. Now, that's just fine, but if you're going to make a case for a one-dimensional player, it had better blow your shorts off. I mean, 3000 hits or 500 home runs good, or .340 average. Martinez' totals simply come up short.
Click to expand...

I agree, and I think that's why the writers never put him in. I do think the VC puts him in eventually though.
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Hammer said:
In my mind, 3,000 K's isn't about just hanging around long enough to get to that number. That's the equivalent to 200 K's for 15 years. You've got to be a helluva pitcher to put that number up. Yes, even Phil Niekro. 3,000 K's is even more automatic to me than 3,000 hits, if there is such a thing, the two 3,000 hit guys not being in notwithstanding (and I do not wish to discuss that last part at this time).
Click to expand...
I disagree with this completely. The 3,000 K number does nothing for me in terms of determining hall of fame credentials for a pitcher. Why not 3,000 ground ball outs club? It's just a form of out the batter made. Sometimes it's more favorable for the pitcher to strike out a batter, but sometimes it might have been more favorable for the pitcher to get the batter to ground into a double play.

For pitchers it's got to be about wins and losses, ERA, innings/games pitched, and how that pitcher measured up against his peers during given years (annual awards) and how he measured up during his career (was he one of the best in the game during that time period).
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

SJHovey said:
For pitchers it's got to be about wins and losses, ERA, innings/games pitched, and how that pitcher measured up against his peers during given years (annual awards) and how he measured up during his career (was he one of the best in the game during that time period).
Click to expand...
GAAAAAAAH NOOOO PITCHER WINS AND LOSSES ARE STUPID AND MISLEADING

Sorry, but I mean, they're just horribly dependent on how good the team is as opposed to how good the pitcher is. And how the pitcher measured up against his peers is important, but annual awards are far from the best way to evaluate that, because awards voters are often stupid and biased.
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

jmh said:
GAAAAAAAH NOOOO PITCHER WINS AND LOSSES ARE STUPID AND MISLEADING

Sorry, but I mean, they're just horribly dependent on how good the team is as opposed to how good the pitcher is. And how the pitcher measured up against his peers is important, but annual awards are far from the best way to evaluate that, because awards voters are often stupid and biased.
Click to expand...
If strikeouts are the be all end all in baseball, then why aren't they a black mark against hitters? You consider the thousands of people who have played major league baseball, guys like Mantle, Mays, McCovey, Robinson, R. Jackson, M. Schmidt, these are the 50 worst hitters in terms of strikeouts.

Strikeouts are just a form of out.

A pitcher's job is to win the game. You get a guy who goes nine innings but wins a 6-5 game, and then does it 300 times, those are the guys who should be in the hall of fame.

To minimize wins and losses because of how good or bad a team he has around him is shortsighted, in my opinion. First, the pitcher controls the game. The other team can't beat you unless they score, no matter how pathetic your team is.

Second, isn't it the same way with hitters. Aren't a hitters numbers like, RBI's, runs scored, batting average, etc..., dependent upon the quality of the team around him; good or bad hitters ahead of or behind him in the order, the number of times a lineup turns over, etc...?

Didn't Steve Carlton win something like 27 or 28 games playing for a horrible Phillies team that won less than 60 total one year?
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

SJHovey said:
If strikeouts are the be all end all in baseball, then why aren't they a black mark against hitters? You consider the thousands of people who have played major league baseball, guys like Mantle, Mays, McCovey, Robinson, R. Jackson, M. Schmidt, these are the 50 worst hitters in terms of strikeouts.

Strikeouts are just a form of out.

A pitcher's job is to win the game. You get a guy who goes nine innings but wins a 6-5 game, and then does it 300 times, those are the guys who should be in the hall of fame.

To minimize wins and losses because of how good or bad a team he has around him is shortsighted, in my opinion. First, the pitcher controls the game. The other team can't beat you unless they score, no matter how pathetic your team is.

Second, isn't it the same way with hitters. Aren't a hitters numbers like, RBI's, runs scored, batting average, etc..., dependent upon the quality of the team around him; good or bad hitters ahead of or behind him in the order, the number of times a lineup turns over, etc...?

Didn't Steve Carlton win something like 27 or 28 games playing for a horrible Phillies team that won less than 60 total one year?
Click to expand...

I completely disagree.

What pitcher would you rather have on your team for the upcoming season?

Pitcher A:
Started 35 Games, 20-9 record, 3.90 ERA (108 ERA+), 226.1 IP, 4 CG, 1.325 WHIP

or

Pitcher B:
Started 32 Games, 17-11 record, 1.89 ERA (215 ERA+), 233 IP, 5 CG, 0.944 WHIP
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Fighting Sioux 23 said:
I completely disagree.

What pitcher would you rather have on your team for the upcoming season?

Pitcher A:
Started 35 Games, 20-9 record, 3.90 ERA (108 ERA+), 226.1 IP, 4 CG, 1.325 WHIP

or

Pitcher B:
Started 32 Games, 17-11 record, 1.89 ERA (215 ERA+), 233 IP, 5 CG, 0.944 WHIP
Click to expand...
I'd take either one of them. If either go 15-18 years in their career they will be hall of fame potential.

The point I was making the past few posts was that K's are grossly overrated as a determining statistic for hall of fame eligibility. Hammer wrote that to him 3000 K's should be more automatic than 3000 hits for a batter, and that was the point about which I disagreed.
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Fighting Sioux 23 said:
You wouldn't have a preference for one over the other?
Click to expand...
I guess there would be a lot of other information that I'd like to know. How old are they? Is the reason the one only started 32 games because of injury? What league do they pitch in, and what is their home field?

I assume your point is that the pitcher with the fewer wins and more losses seems to have better "stuff", to use a baseball term, based upon ERA, walks, hits, etc... But again, there are a lot of factors that go into that.

The object is to win the game, and if you told me pitcher A was going to win 20 and lose 9 every year, and pitcher B was going to win 17 and lose 11 every year, I know which one I'd take, I don't care how few hits or walks B gives up, or how many guys he strikes out.
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Wins and Losses are no more over valued than any other stat we use to compare players against each other. Which is to say, almost all of them are overvalued.

We talk about playing for bad teams effecting a pitchers W-L record, but that's a pretty broad statement. Why were they bad? Did they not hit, were all of their (other) starting pitchers terrible, was the bullpen unreliable, etc.?

For example: Twins starters ERA in 2013 was 5.26 (30th), but their bullpen ERA was a much more respectable 3.50 (14th). So if their starter had a good outing and got it to the bullpen with a lead he had a good chance of getting a win.

The reverse was true for the Tigers. Their starters ERA was 3.44 (4th) and the relievers were 4.01 (24th).

Obviously other things play in to that, like the Tigers offense (1st in team Avg.) covering up some of their back end pitching problems and the Twins offense (25th in Avg) being completely inept.
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

SJHovey said:
I guess there would be a lot of other information that I'd like to know. How old are they? Is the reason the one only started 32 games because of injury? What league do they pitch in, and what is their home field?

I assume your point is that the pitcher with the fewer wins and more losses seems to have better "stuff", to use a baseball term, based upon ERA, walks, hits, etc... But again, there are a lot of factors that go into that.

The object is to win the game, and if you told me pitcher A was going to win 20 and lose 9 every year, and pitcher B was going to win 17 and lose 11 every year, I know which one I'd take, I don't care how few hits or walks B gives up, or how many guys he strikes out.
Click to expand...

Let's assume they are the same age, and the 32 games was actually 35 games (or the 35 games was actually 32 games) started. Let's also assume that they both pitched in the American League for the same team (that's what ERA+ tries to help us with), and you are the GM of an American League team.

My main point was that Pitcher B's stats were from what is largely considered one of the best season's ever pitched by a pitcher. Pitcher A's stats come from what is considered one of the luckiest season's ever pitched by a pitcher.

I understand the object of the game. The object of the game for the pitcher is to allow the fewest batters to get on base and the fewest runs to score. A pitcher, especially for an American League GM, doesn't have a whole lot of say in the overall outcome of the game.

My guess is that if you asked all 30 Major League GMs who they would rather have, all 30 would pick Pitcher B.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top