bjorn_skurj Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Mmmmm, Reggie bars. Them shits was good. If A-Rod had a candy bar, it would taste like failure. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 What I love is that you can show people mountain's of evidence as to why Arod isn't "not clutch" or why Jeter isn't "clutch" or any number of things, and it doesn't matter, because people refuse to believe anything but what they see, or more accurately, what they think they see. If Arod strikes out 2 times in a nationally televised game with runners in scoring position, he's going to be labelled a choker, no matter how many times he gets an extra base hit in the same situation during any other game. Baseball is not a game where you can determine a player's worth based on a handful of atbats. I mean Reggie Abercrombie hit a 500+ foot home run last season and hit another about 400 feet off Roger Clemens, that doesn't mean he should be the starting center fielder in the All Star game. Baseball, more than any other sport, is a game where a player fluctuates from game to game. This is why you have to look at the entirety of a player's output to judge them, and not 4 games at the end of the season. It's ridiculous. It's the same reason teams have gotten suckered into paying guys ridiculous amounts of money for their post season production. Carlos Beltran added a good 20 million dollars to his pay in the offseason by having a historic post season. Jeff Weaver probably doubled his pay this season by pitching well last post season, even though he hasn't pitched well in the regular season since like 2003. It's crazy. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 I think sometimes people confuse baseball for, say, basketball. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 In basketball the very, very best players generally win championships because they can take over a game. There are only five players on the court for their team and the best ones can elect to be involved on every shot. Not so easy to take over a game in baseball--a pitcher can do it, but they can only pitch once every three games or so in a playoff series. How many homeruns did Carlos Beltran hit v. the Cardinals in 2004? And yet his team still lost the series. Here, have some vodka. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 In basketball the very, very best players generally win championships because they can take over a game. There are only five players on the court for their team and the best ones can elect to be involved on every shot. Not so easy to take over a game in baseball--a pitcher can do it, but they can only pitch once every three games or so in a playoff series. How many homeruns did Carlos Beltran hit v. the Cardinals in 2004? And yet his team still lost the series. Here, have some vodka. That's kind of my point on the whole Arod thing. And I'm not thirsty, but thank you. Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 What I love is that you can show people mountain's of evidence as to why Arod isn't "not clutch" or why Jeter isn't "clutch" or any number of things, and it doesn't matter, because people refuse to believe anything but what they see, or more accurately, what they think they see.If you can provide some evidence for why someone should like, say, the Devil Rays, rather than, say, the Padres (outside of regional loyalties), and you can probably provide some evidence for why someone should like (or dislike) a particular player over another. It is, by it nature, irrational. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Baseball has a lot more of a human element to it than other sports. It doesn't move at a quick pace like basketball or hockey. There's a lot of time when the ball is not in play that a viewer has to notice a lot of details about the game and the players. Also, you can actually see the player's faces, unlike in football or hockey (for the most part) while they're playing. I don't think compiling a stack of numbers/stats to show how better on paper a particular player might be is going to change people's opinions on players. People do remember if a player comes up short in a particular big game or two, because it does matter. The grand slam in May isn't the same as the grand slam in October. Technically, it is. But in terms of relevance, it isn't. Player's get pigeonholed as certain types of players- whether it's a choker, under performer in the post-season, horse, gritty, whatever- usually because of a few key instances. Stats tell us how a player has performed and may help determine future progress but they're not going to change how people feel about particular players for whatever reason. Pete Rose is known as the Hits King. A guy who played tough, played hard, and never gave up. All admirable qualities. In my eyes, he's an over rated douche bag that deserves everything he's got because of his actions both on and off the field. Show me the stats on him and I will not be convinced otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 What I love is that you can show people mountain's of evidence ... and it doesn't matter, because people refuse to believe anything but what they see, or more accurately, what they think they see. It's also funny how you keep arguing with them, as if this one next point you make or stat you show is going to set off a light bulb and bring them to the good side of the force. Link to post Share on other sites
rareair Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 The Big Z has a prety tall mountain to climb if he is going to win the Cy Young this year. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted June 2, 2007 Author Share Posted June 2, 2007 Mmmmm, Reggie bars. Them shits was good. If A-Rod had a candy bar, it would taste like failure.Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites
jenbobblehead Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 "Best Tantrum Ever" http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=...&id=5361557 Link to post Share on other sites
rareair Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 "Best Tantrum Ever" http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=...&id=5361557 "and crawled around the field. Near the mound, Wellman picked up the rosin bag, pretended to bite the top off of it and threw it as if it were a grenade." wow. Link to post Share on other sites
jenbobblehead Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 i liked how he completely covered home plate with dirt and then drew another home plate around it with his finger. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 I think histrionic manager night is the new hip minor league promotion. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 If you can provide some evidence for why someone should like, say, the Devil Rays, rather than, say, the Padres (outside of regional loyalties), and you can probably provide some evidence for why someone should like (or dislike) a particular player over another. It is, by it nature, irrational. But I don't really care if you like him more than Jeter. But don't blame him for the Yankees losing every year anymore than you blame Jeter, or Damon, or any of the other 24 guys on the Yankees roster who are worse than Arod. I understand not liking him as a person, because he is, inarguably, an asshole. He apparently cheats on his wife, he tried to elbow the 5 foot tall 19 year old shortstop of the Red Sox, etc. But my problem is when people blame him for not winning a World Series, or for not being a "true Yankee" and all that crap that he gets. If you want to hate him because he's probably a douchebag, by all means. But at least acknowledge that while he cheats on his wife, he leads the Yankees to numerous victories, and hits the shit out of the ball. And he's easily the most valuable player on that team (inasmuch as he is the only player to actually win an MVP while on the team). And that the reason the Yankees consistently lose in the playoffs is because their hopes are riding on guys like Wang, who while he is a good pitcher, is dangerous because he can be inconsistent if his sinker is off. I really don't care if people like Arod (Though it might seem like I do), as I don't really like him myself (As a person). Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 You really don't want an inconsistent Wang on your team. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 No you don't. Sometimes Wang is really hard to get to and other times you can take advantage of him early and often. Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 it's time for the White Sox to start punching people in the face, because that's what you do when you suck at baseball. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted June 2, 2007 Author Share Posted June 2, 2007 "Best Tantrum Ever" http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=...&id=5361557It's fun to squint and pretend that's David Wells. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 it's time for the White Sox to start punching people in the face, because that's what you do when you suck at baseball. The Cubs already did that one yesterday. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Has anyone noticed that while Youk's is having an insane year, his walks are way down? Last year he walked 10% of the time, but now he's only walking about 7.7% of the time. But he's also cut down on the strikeouts. Any of you Sox fans see a change in his approach, or is he just swinging really well and not bothering with walks so much? I only ask because he can't hit .350 all year, and eventually he's going to fall back down to earth and probably finish the season at .300 and if his walk rate isn't there he's much less valuable. Basically, he's going to need to hit .300 in order to be as valuable as he was last season, and judging by his history, I'm not certain he can do it. I can see him falling off big time, I just hope he starts walking again. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 His pitches per plate appearance are significantly down--which explains the decreased walks and Ks. He's swinging more. Link to post Share on other sites
jenbobblehead Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 from SoSH "Is Youk the Greek God of Everything?" from a few days ago...1. He is hitting ahead of Papi so may be seeing more fastballs and better pitches to hit. 2. He is not leading off. Leading off an inning last year, which he did 33% of the time, he was 263/352/412, this year he has lead off an inning only 20% of the time and is hitting 242/359/364. 3. He seems to be putting the ball in play more more on hitters counts or the first pitch where most hitters have their best outcomes (18.3% in 2006,22.3% in 2007). 4. He is at an age when hitters tend to break out power wise. One of arguments in favour of Youk batting 2nd as opposed to leading off is he could get out of that leadoff mentality and develop his power hitting ahead of Papi. There is no reason he should not be a 20-25 HR guy, especially at Fenway. 5. He has a high BABIP on his GB's, .312, which is well above average (5 of the hits were IF hits, more than Coco) which explains in part his high BABIP of .368 despite having a slightly lower LD rate than last year (22.0% vs 24.5%) when he had a lower BABIP (.336). Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 That last part sounds like he's due for some major regression. Lower line drive rate + high BABIP seems unsustainable. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts