MrRain422

Fuck Pete Rose. Screw the players who took PEDs and didn't get in, too. They took the gamble, and lost.

What about a guy like Jeff Bagwell, for whom there is no evidence of steroid use at all, not even any real allegations, but still seems to be blocked from the HoF because some writers decided that he is suspicious simply for because of the era in which he played?

The fact is, none of us have any idea who did or who didn't use steroids, or what effect, if any, PED use had on their game. In light of that, players who were the best players of their era should be inducted into the Hall.

I think the problem is that it's an awful song

And there won't be! Go Tigers!

Why does it matter when it was called?

The rule does stipulate that the umpire should call it "Immediately" when it is apparent that it is an infield fly, though I suppose one could argue when exactly it became apparent.

I think that the rule was applied correctly by the wording of the rule, though contrary to the spirit of it. The shortstop was clearly camped underneath the play, making it applicable according to the definition in the rulebook. However, the whole point of the rule is to protect the hitting team from the infielder intentionally dropping the ball so as to get a double play by getting force outs against the runners that were hanging back at the base in anticipation of the catch. In this instance, the play was so deep that there was no real possibility of such a double play working out, even if they did drop it on purpose, as there'd only be enough time to maybe get the lead runner, but not both.

I thought I understood the infield fly rule but now I'm not so sure.

The Soviet Union and China understood the principle of M.A.D. Does Iran? They may be able to destroy Israel, but not the U.S. Does Ahmadinejad care? Iran with nukes causes more problems than the direct threat of a direct attack from Iran on Israel or other U.S. interests. It poses the real danger of nukes in the hands of jihadists.

 

I am not advocating war. This country cannot afford (fiscally, emotionally, militarily) another war. But, damn, this sure is a pickle. It'll sure be a mess if Israel takes this on their own, but it may be the best option.

You know Ahmadinejad can't do anything without the Ayatollah, right? Whether or not Ahmadinejad understands MAD means jackshit because he couldn't drop any hypothetical bombs anyway. He's a nutbar who is easily vilified in the west but he isn't actually very powerful at all.

I spent a bunch of time in my car this weekend listening to sports talk radio (two things I don't normally do) and heard some talk about this. The arguments for Cabrera (some of which I agree with and some of which I don't) were:

• Cabrera's hot and Trout is not. Cabrera is hitting over .350 over the past two months and Trout is hitting in the .270s. Cabrera has 48 RBIs in August/September and Trout has 23, inlcuding only 4 in September.
  
• They have similar average and OBP numbers but in almost every other category Cabrera has better numbers.
  
• One area where Trout has significantly better offensive numbers is steals and with rare exception (Maury WIlls in 1962) that is not a category that MVP voters care about.
  
• Similarly, defense has rarely swayed MVP voters.
  

Based on the people I heard talking, they seemed to think Trout had been the favorite but that Cabrera's current hot streak - and the fact that Cabrera's numbers in the big three categories are better - make him the favorite.

All of these are fine explanations for why Cabrera may win the MVP, but none of them are compelling reasons why he should. The first point implies that playing well late in the season is more valuable than playing well early in the year, which is just nonsense -- every game counts the same in the standings. The second point isn't even really true (there are several stats that Cabrera does not have have better numbers at all, and some of those where Cabrera leads can easily be explained away by the month that Trout spent in the minors at the beginning of the year, as well as line-up construction). Also, just because MVP voters often don't consider defense doesn't mean they shouldn't.

I can't believe how strongly I'm arguing against one of my favorite players in the game, and the best player on my favorite team.

Although I favor Trout, I'll concede that if the Tigers make the playoffs and the Angels don't, Cabrera should win the MVP. We all thought Detroit would walk away with the division, but they're struggling to compete for the wild card. The Tigers most likely are. 500 or worse without Miggy. They have holes in their lineup and they're slow defensively. The Angels are finishing third mostly because the A's have played well beyond anyone's expectations. To me the A's success does not lessen the impact Trout has had on the Angels and the American League. He's been tremendous.

Actually the Tigers are well out of the wild card but can win the division. Also, you say that the Tigers are slow defensively as if Cabrera himself is not one of the culprits in that regard. I also think the Angels are below .500 without Trout, and (yes, small sample size) they were not very good before he was called up.

If Cabrera wins the triple crown and doesn't win the MVP, then they ought to stop giving the damn thing.

 

The hitting Triple Crown in one of the rarest accomplishments in Professional sports. People are STILL talking about Ted Williams not winning the MVP in 1941.

Does the fact that it is rare automatically make him more valuable though? Why do those 3 stat categories (two of which are outdated and very overrated in terms of assessing overall value) mean more than all the other stat categories? And doesn't defense matter at all?

What's the argument against Mike Trout winning? He is roughly the same as Cabrera with the bat this year, but with much better defense at a more important position.

I'm a Tigers fan who would love to see Miggy win it, but clearly Trout has had a better season.

You can get a pretty decent 1 bedroom place in that range. Not in the neighborhood that you'll be working in. My wife and I just moved out of a 2 bedroom place in Logan Square that we paid $1230/month for, and that was to live right on the boulevard -- there were definitely some less expensive places in that neighborhood as well. Now we're in Uptown paying a little more for a nicer 2 bedroom place. There are some so-so neighborhoods where you could find a 2 bedroom place in your price range, and many areas where you could find a really nice 1 bedroom place for that. So long as you're close to a train or an express bus, you'll be able to get downtown for work pretty easily.

 

If Wash doens't win manager of the year this year, they should stop giving out the award.

I wouldn't really care if they did stop giving that award out, but so long as they are going to, I think Buck Showalter and Robin Ventura have pretty good cases to be made for them over Wash.

Comerica Park

Tiger Stadium

US Cellular Field

Comiskey Park

Wrigley Field

Dodger Stadium

Joe Robbie/Pro Player Stadium

Three Rivers Stadium

AT&T Park

Camden Yards

Fenway Park

Riverfront Stadium

Miller Park

Coors Field

Cleveland Municipal Stadium

Sky Dome

Minors:

Buffalo

Toledo (old park)

West Michigan

Lansing

Mid-Michigan (Battle Creek)

Indianapolis

Schaumburg (independent minor league)

I don't think they'll move Profar. I think it's more likely that Profar stays at SS and Andrus moves over to 2B.

Hard to believe that with Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver and Doc Gooden having pitched for this team during the long and storied past, Johann Santana throws the first no-hitter in Mets history.

 

Bravo!

Indeed. Also surprising for when this happened on Johan's personal career arc.

A lot of those guys aren't even really big leaguers.

Good riddance to Inge. It's been years since he was good, and even then he wasn't that good. It's amazing to me that there are only 2 guys left on the team from the '06 World Series team, but there's no question that the team is better without Inge.

 

NL ROY: john farrell

AL MOY: jays

Very bold to pick the same guy to win both of these awards.

Oops. Dodgers should be in 4th. Will edit it back in.

I think the Marlins are probably a little better than last year, but I still don't think it's enough to catch the Phillies or Braves, and I think the Nationals are a team on the rise. It's a tough division. I also think the Blue Jays will be a pretty good team, but in a good division a good team can still be way out of it.

The season starts in 2 days (for a couple of teams anyway) so I think it's prediction time.

AL East

Rays

Yankees (WC)

Red Sox (WC)

Blue Jays

Orioles

AL Central

Tigers

Indians

Royals

White Sox

Twins

AL West

Rangers

Angels

A's

Mariners

NL East

Phillies

Braves (WC)

Nationals

Marlins

Mets

NL Central

Cardinals

Reds (WC)

Brewers

Pirates

Cubs

Astros

NL West

Diamondbacks

Giants

Padres

Dodgers

Rockies

Yankees beat Red Sox

Reds beat Braves

Rangers beat Yankees

Rays beat Tigers

Reds beat Phillies

Cardinals beat Diamondbacks

Rangers beat Rays

Reds beat Cardinals

Rangers beat Reds

AL MVP: Miguel Cabrera

AL Cy Young: Felix Hernandez

AL ROY: Matt Moore

NL MVP: Justin Upton

NL Cy Young: Cole Hamels

NL ROY: Yonder Alonso

This article explains pretty well what is actually known about the failed test and why it's being disputed

http://deadspin.com/5867318/a-guide-to-the-medical-semantic-mess-of-ryan-brauns-ped-case

I'm sure the Brewers aren't happy with the big salary they'll be paying him, but it's only one year, they're better with him on the team than not (though certainly they'll be paying him a lot more than what he'll be contributing) and he could be a pretty valuable trade chip by midseason if it comes to it. Not the ideal result for the Brewers but they're far from screwed by it.

Also, park effects can make those traditional stats a little deceptive as well. For example, it's hard to contextualize Coors Field and compare the statistics compiled there to those in the Polo Grounds. They may as well have been playing the game on different planets.

Though the rules have generally stayed the same, the game has changed a whole lot since the mound was lowered. Steroids aside, there have been huge advances in what we know about nutrition and physical health, and the ever increasing strength and abilities of the players has dramatically changed how the game is played. Also, a lot of the traditional stats make less sense than they used too, both due to changes in how the game is played (errors made more sense as a way to evaluate fielders back when the stat was invented back in the late 1800s). Our understanding of the game has changed dramatically and has shed light on how deceptive some of the traditional stats are. Sure, we all understand what RBI are, and there's 120 years worth of data that can help us to understand what is a lot of RBI historically and what is not a lot, but that doesn't mean that we should keep giving deceptive stats like RBI as much credence as we used to, just because the guys who first started tracking stats didn't grasp the game as well as we do now, with decades upon decades of research and new innovations in how we interpret what happened on the field.

There are two common formulas for WAR (Fangraphs and Baseball-Reference), and although neither is perfect, I think it's still pretty useful. Certainly isn't the be-all-and-end-all of evaluating a player, but it's a pretty nifty little shortcut to simplifying all of the many stats that should be considered and combining them into a single number that is easy to understand. The trickiest part is still evaluating defense (and this accounts for the differences between the two versions of WAR). I agree that it shouldn't be the only thing we look at, but I think its probably one of the most useful stats in evaluating a player as a whole.

Also -- and this is just a general question for anybody -- anyone care to speculate on why advanced metrics are more controversial in baseball than in other sports? I can't think of a single stat in all of sports that is more complex than QB passer rating, but it still seems to be a pretty widely accepted measure of QB effectiveness.