MLB 2012

Raj, it isn’t quite equitable to compare Molina’s defensive stats to Posey’s based solely on this year. Posey’s first couple weeks were pretty shaky since he hadn’t caught a regular season game in almost a year. Since the end of April he’s been MUCH better defensively.

As far as his caught stealing rate goes, that says much more about Giants pitchers than it does about him. None of their starters are good at holding runners on and Lincecum and Zito (who allow the most base runners) are downright horrendous at it.

Also, don’t forget that Posey calls a better game than Molina does. Has Molina ever called a perfect game? I don’t think so. The Giants pitch well on the road and at home and I can’t remember the last time I saw a pitcher shake him off.

Now, regarding Cabrera, I don’t think he is necessarily due for much of a regression just because his BABIP is well above the mean. The fact is, some hitters are better than others and some are better than the average hitter, so their BABIP will naturally remain higher than average. .391 is well above average, but Melky Cabrera is a well above average hitter. He had 201 hits last year and batted something like .330 in the second half. He has an insane line-drive rate that he’s sustained since last year. He has excellent speed, he’s tough to strike out but he only walks at about an average rate because he puts the ball into play so much. He’s a switch-hitter. He’s a gap-to-gap hitter who plays in a ballpark with a huge gap in rightcenter.

Basically, he’s EXACTLY the type of hitter, in exactly the type of park, who IS likely to sustain a high BABIP. He gets more hits on balls in play than most players because he hits a lot of line drives and hard grounders; he makes solid contact on a regular basis and when a hitter does this he’s going to get more hits. The grounders are hit just a little harder and find that much more holes. The balls into the outfield are hit harder and on a line more often, giving outfielders less chance to get to it. With good speed on top of that, he can put pressure on a defense on balls that aren’t hit that hard, leading to even more hits. I don’t think it’s a fluke at all that Cabrera is playing this well. He was a highly-touted prospect with the Yankees and apparently he just took a little longer than others to figure how to succeed at the major league level. But I don’t see any reason why he can’t continue to hit well above .300 or even above .350. Shit, who says his season is unsustainable? Some pencil-pushing fagot who thinks that two BABIPs of equal value from two different hitters actually have equal value?

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Raj, it isn’t quite equitable to compare Molina’s defensive stats to Posey’s based solely on this year. Posey’s first couple weeks were pretty shaky since he hadn’t caught a regular season game in almost a year. Since the end of April he’s been MUCH better defensively. [/quote]

That’s great. Molina has been tremendous defensively his whole career though.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

As far as his caught stealing rate goes, that says much more about Giants pitchers than it does about him. None of their starters are good at holding runners on and Lincecum and Zito (who allow the most base runners) are downright horrendous at it.[/quote]

The gap is not even close though. It can’t all be the pitchers fault.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Also, don’t forget that Posey calls a better game than Molina does. Has Molina ever called a perfect game? I don’t think so. The Giants pitch well on the road and at home and I can’t remember the last time I saw a pitcher shake him off.[/quote]

A perfect game is your test for who calls a better game?

Molina has 2 championship rings while playing all star defense his practically his whole career. He’s widely regarded as the best defensive catcher in baseball for a reason.

You actually think a 25 year old with 1.5 seasons experience calls a better game than a guy whose won 4 straight gold gloves ('08-'11) and has 7+ years experience?

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

but Melky Cabrera is a well above average hitter.
[/quote]

Well above this year. Over his career he’s been slightly above average.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

But I don’t see any reason why he can’t continue to hit well above .300 or even above .350. Shit, who says his season is unsustainable? Some pencil-pushing fagot who thinks that two BABIPs of equal value from two different hitters actually have equal value? [/quote]

It’s possible just unlikely. Sabermetric theories are based historic trends. Chances are, Melky is performing way over his head and will regress back to his career totals.

I’ll be extremely surprised if he doesn’t regress. If not this year, surely next year. I used the same sort of rationalization with Ricky Romero, ignored his ridiculous low BABIP and LOB%, and this year it’s all evening out.

Sadly Romero’s 2011 numbers are looking like nothing more than random variation across a sample.

A nice Visual of Melky’s career BABIP

I know it was in Arizona, but Maybin hit a 485 foot bomb.
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=22789511&c_id=sd&partnerId=aw-6231929820164740886-1042

^Wow!

Colby Rasmus had a ridiculous homer last night too, hit the 5th deck

Top 120 prospect list put out today

Remember how I said you shouldn’t look at any advanced stat in a bubble? Well I should listen to my own advice.

It doesn’t look like BABIP is Romero’s problem. He had a higher BABIP in 2010 and it was arguably his best year.

Upon closer inspection:

-Walk rate up

  • Strikeout rate down

-Swing and miss rate down

-First pitch strike rate down

-velocity down

-ground ball rate down

None of these things are dramatic but all these things combined are likely the cause.

Check out the Mets GM’s tweet on Sandoval.

I guess he’s a little pissed Giants fans stuffed the ballot box to get Panda in there ahead of Wright.

Wright has been the superior hitter and 3B this season.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Check out the Mets GM’s tweet on Sandoval.

I guess he’s a little pissed Giants fans stuffed the ballot box to get Panda in there ahead of Wright.

Wright has been the superior hitter and 3B this season.[/quote]

It’s still a stupid fucking thing to say. What, Giants fans are supposed to NOT vote for him? It’s just an exhibition game and let’s be honest, what little value there is placed on the outcome of the game won’t be affected by who starts and who comes off the bench. Wright will probably play more innings and get more at-bats than Sandoval.

This stuff from Alderson just comes across as whiny and immature. Sandoval got shafted out of an All-Star spot in 2009 and no one from the Giants organization flipped out like Alderson is. And I’d feel the same way regardless of who was voted in.

If anything, he should be pissed off that the Mets have been so fucking horrible in general for the last 20 years that, in a city of 8 million people, there are probably more Giants fans in that city than Mets fans.

So who’s going to win the home run derby tomorrow?

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What, Giants fans are supposed to NOT vote for him? [/quote]

Its still typical dbaggery/asshattery from SF fans.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
So who’s going to win the home run derby tomorrow?[/quote]

Well, my money would have been on Stanton but now I’m not sure. Who else is in it? Kemp, Carlos Gonzalez, McCutchen, Beltran, Trumbo, Cano, Bautista and Fielder, right?

I don’t think anyone from the NL will win it this year. I guess I’d go with Bautista or Fielder. I’m pulling for Bautista. I was a little harsh on him last year during our many MVP debates, but that doesn’t diminish from the fact that I still think he’s one of the best hitters in the game today. I’ll never root for Kemp simply because he’s a Dodger (although I still think it’s bullshit he’s participating in it while he’s still on the DL), I’m pretty much ambivalent toward the rest of the NL squad. I generally don’t root for anything Yankees-related unless they’re playing an NL West team other than the Giants, or the Red Sox. Trumbo plays for the Angels, who I’ve loathed since late October of 2002 for reasons that don’t need to be rehashed here, Prince Fielder is a fucking classless jerk, so Bautista is my man by default. Go Jose.

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What, Giants fans are supposed to NOT vote for him? [/quote]

Its still typical dbaggery/asshattery from SF fans.

[/quote]

Whatever you want to call it, it’s the same with every team’s fan base. The Giants just happen to have an extremely large fan base (probably one of the largest) of pretty hardcore fans. Other factors were involved as well. The team’s PR department made a large push toward the end of voting for fans to vote for Melky Cabrera since he had slipped out of the 3rd spot. There’s nothing douchey about making a large push for a player hitting well over .350 for the entire season on a team that was in first at the time voting ended. Fans were also encouraged to vote for Posey, who is also well-deserving of the starting nod. Not that Molina or Ruiz isn’t, but Posey starting is far less egregious than most of Ripken’s or Jeter’s starts in the latter half of their careers.

Sandoval benefited from that push. He also benefited from the fact that the push for more voting was so successful. The Giants were lucky enough to be playing at home for the final week of voting. Their stadium is filled with places where fans can access the Internet, and they also have wireless access there, which is to be expected in a city just north of Silicon Valley. They also draw more fans than almost every team in MLB and they’re sold out every night.

All that happened was the perfect confluence of circumstances, none of which include douchebaggery or asshattery. Every team probably has as many fans as the Giants who would vote for their favorite players regardless of merit if these same circumstances were present in their case. But who cares about any of this? It’s a totally subjective argument. We’ll never how other fanbases might have voted and it doesn’t really matter. Personally, I vote based strictly on merit and I’m sure a lot of people here do the same. It means nothing. Sandoval will start and Wright will play the majority of the innings.

The fact is, if people think it’s bullshit that Sandoval is the starter since he’s not better than Wright, that argument is moot. If people are concerned that Wright not starting is an affront to the NL’s chances of winning the game, they are wrong. Wright will play more than Sandoval and therefore the better player will spend more time on the field.

In a perfect world, we’d have a mix of regulars and up and coming players. I’m glad Harper, Stanton, McCutchen and Trout are all in the game.

Personally, I’d rather have my team’s stars sit out All Star weekend and get the extra rest. Unless it’s their first ASG of course…

And as I said earlier in the thread, ASG’s are popularity contests. Jeter doesn’t deserve to be at the ASG this year (or last year) let alone start. If Jeter is on the team Pujols should be as well - if you’re putting players on for their iconic status he should also be there, especially over Trumbo (Trumbo is a disaster defensively).

Zach Greinke’s omission is also atrocious.

What do you guys think of Reggie Jackson’s comments in Sports Illustrated? What has caused a stir (no pun intended) are his comments about the Hall of Fame. He said that players like Don Sutton, Bert Blyeleven, Phil Niekro, JIm Rice and a couple others (I think he mentioned Santo as well) don’t belong because they weren’t good enough and that the Hall has cheapened itself by allowing these sorts of players in it. He also said that anyone attached to steroids don’t belong because their numbers are tainted by cheating.

I agree with the first part wholeheartedly. I’m sorry, but a player like Don Sutton doesn’t belong in the same Hall as a player like Koufax. Fuck the career numbers some of these guys have accumulated from sheer longevity. Longevity is one thing, but I don’t think it’s enough to simply last for a long time if you weren’t an absolutely dominant player during any of those years, or perhaps for just a few of them. I don’t know, it’s hard to put into words, but certain players just don’t pass the smell test. Maybe they should have a Hall of Fame with multiple levels, like Olympic medals. Mays, Ruth, Aaron, Musial, Gehrig, Mantle, Griffey, Maddux and the like would be Gold Hall of Famers, guys like Campanella, Whitey Ford, Bob Feller, Ralph Kiner, George Brett, Mike Schmidt, Roberto Alomar, Robin Roberts, and so on would be SIlver, and guys like who Jackson mentioned would be Bronze.

The other thing I don’t get is why players can consistently be voted on year after year without making it. You’re either a Hall of Famer or you’re not and if you aren’t voted in during your first year of eligibility, after 5 years to evaluate your career, what the fuck could possibly happen that would justify your inclusion ten years later that didn’t already hold true during your first year of eligibility? All that happens is that the players who miss out every year but come relatively close stay in the national conscious for so long that people start voting for them out of sympathy rather than out of merit, especially when certain supporters of theirs practically start a PR campaign to get them in.

As far as the steroid thing goes, I totally disagree with Jackson. Yes, steroids are cheating and they effect performance. But the same thing could be said about the use of greenies back in the day. Many current Hall of Famers used them, and they constitute cheating under the rules the same as steroids. It isn’t for the Baseball Writer’s Association to decide which performance-enhancing drugs have what impact on players’ numbers and all that. Cheating is cheating, and breaking the rules is breaking the rules. The fact is that the steroid era also saw a huge increase in players using strength-training without steroid use to get stronger. So I don’t think that players who used steroids necessarily had any larger advantage over their peers than players who used greenies years ago had over THEIR peers.

Now, I understand that players 30-50 years ago didn’t get caught for using amphetamines, but their use was still against the rules and there are numerous players attached to their use in the Hall of Fame. That’s no different than players who have been attached to steroid use but never officially “caught” by MLB. As for the ones who WERE caught, that only happened as a result of a major FBI investigation set into motion for reason wholly unrelated to baseball. Hell, by Jackson’s standards, if he isn’t hypocritical, Gaylord Perry should be out as well since he was a notorious doctorer of the ball when he pitched. He was caught and he also admitted to as much in a biography of his during his career, although he has subsequently claimed that he was exaggerating quite a bit for the mental effect it had on opposing hitters. But it was still cheating under the rules of baseball at the time.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
In a perfect world, we’d have a mix of regulars and up and coming players. I’m glad Harper, Stanton, McCutchen and Trout are all in the game.

Personally, I’d rather have my team’s stars sit out All Star weekend and get the extra rest. Unless it’s their first ASG of course…

And as I said earlier in the thread, ASG’s are popularity contests. Jeter doesn’t deserve to be at the ASG this year (or last year) let alone start. If Jeter is on the team Pujols should be as well - if you’re putting players on for their iconic status he should also be there, especially over Trumbo (Trumbo is a disaster defensively).

Zach Greinke’s omission is also atrocious.

[/quote]

What I like about this year’s team is that it seems to be almost devoid of players who aren’t deserving of a spot on the team, regardless of whether they start or not. Sandoval doesn’t deserve to start, but I think he’s still a legit All-Star at his position this year. And he’s young (25). It seems like in years past there would be a lot more players who were pretty entrenched in some positions no matter what their numbers were. As big a star as Pujols is, I like seeing a young player having a great year like Trumbo get the spot. I might be wrong on the actual numbers or whatever, but it seems to me like the last couple years, this year included, the rosters are reflecting a LOT more young talent in both leagues and on both sides of the ball than they have in a long time.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Zach Greinke’s omission is also atrocious.

[/quote]

Yeah, Cueto, Vogelsong, Bumgarner, and James McDonald have legitimate gripes as well, although I think Cueto and McDonald both threw today so they wouldn’t be able to throw on Tuesday anyway.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What do you guys think of Reggie Jackson’s comments in Sports Illustrated? What has caused a stir (no pun intended) are his comments about the Hall of Fame. He said that players like Don Sutton, Bert Blyeleven, Phil Niekro, JIm Rice and a couple others (I think he mentioned Santo as well) don’t belong because they weren’t good enough and that the Hall has cheapened itself by allowing these sorts of players in it. He also said that anyone attached to steroids don’t belong because their numbers are tainted by cheating.

I agree with the first part wholeheartedly. I’m sorry, but a player like Don Sutton doesn’t belong in the same Hall as a player like Koufax. Fuck the career numbers some of these guys have accumulated from sheer longevity. Longevity is one thing, but I don’t think it’s enough to simply last for a long time if you weren’t an absolutely dominant player during any of those years, or perhaps for just a few of them. I don’t know, it’s hard to put into words, but certain players just don’t pass the smell test. Maybe they should have a Hall of Fame with multiple levels, like Olympic medals. Mays, Ruth, Aaron, Musial, Gehrig, Mantle, Griffey, Maddux and the like would be Gold Hall of Famers, guys like Campanella, Whitey Ford, Bob Feller, Ralph Kiner, George Brett, Mike Schmidt, Roberto Alomar, Robin Roberts, and so on would be SIlver, and guys like who Jackson mentioned would be Bronze.[/quote]

I’m not too knowledgeable about players pre-1990, but I think they really need to come up with firm criteria for what constitutes a HOFer. There’s way too much grey area in these selections.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

The other thing I don’t get is why players can consistently be voted on year after year without making it. You’re either a Hall of Famer or you’re not and if you aren’t voted in during your first year of eligibility, after 5 years to evaluate your career, what the fuck could possibly happen that would justify your inclusion ten years later that didn’t already hold true during your first year of eligibility? All that happens is that the players who miss out every year but come relatively close stay in the national conscious for so long that people start voting for them out of sympathy rather than out of merit, especially when certain supporters of theirs practically start a PR campaign to get them in. [/quote]

There’s a certain level of politics involved with HOF voting. Some players do not get 1st ballot selection for this reason.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

As far as the steroid thing goes, I totally disagree with Jackson. Yes, steroids are cheating and they effect performance. But the same thing could be said about the use of greenies back in the day. Many current Hall of Famers used them, and they constitute cheating under the rules the same as steroids. It isn’t for the Baseball Writer’s Association to decide which performance-enhancing drugs have what impact on players’ numbers and all that. Cheating is cheating, and breaking the rules is breaking the rules. The fact is that the steroid era also saw a huge increase in players using strength-training without steroid use to get stronger. So I don’t think that players who used steroids necessarily had any larger advantage over their peers than players who used greenies years ago had over THEIR peers.

Now, I understand that players 30-50 years ago didn’t get caught for using amphetamines, but their use was still against the rules and there are numerous players attached to their use in the Hall of Fame. That’s no different than players who have been attached to steroid use but never officially “caught” by MLB. As for the ones who WERE caught, that only happened as a result of a major FBI investigation set into motion for reason wholly unrelated to baseball. Hell, by Jackson’s standards, if he isn’t hypocritical, Gaylord Perry should be out as well since he was a notorious doctorer of the ball when he pitched. He was caught and he also admitted to as much in a biography of his during his career, although he has subsequently claimed that he was exaggerating quite a bit for the mental effect it had on opposing hitters. But it was still cheating under the rules of baseball at the time.[/quote]

Honestly, it makes no sense to me that players like Bonds aren’t in the HOF. He’s the greatest hitter of all time, kinda illegitimizes the HOF in a sense. Same with Clemens, he was the best pitcher of his era.

At the end of the day I really don’t put a lot of value in the HOF. My opinion of players is defined by what I saw them do on the field. Even if Alomar was omitted from the HOF, it wouldn’t change my opinion of him.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I might be wrong on the actual numbers or whatever, but it seems to me like the last couple years, this year included, the rosters are reflecting a LOT more young talent in both leagues and on both sides of the ball than they have in a long time.[/quote]

It’s probably the first time in a long time we’ve had budding superstar type talent. Harper, Trout and Lawrie will all eventually be superstars, it’s only a matter of time.

Of course I think they’re all far (relative to what the average fan expects) from reaching that level of play. Soon enough we’ll see Trout and Harper struggle like all young players do.

Oh and if this doesn’t kill your belief in RBI being a good stat nothing will.

Colby Rasmus has more RBI than:

Joey Votto
Mike Trout
Carlos Ruiz
Melky Cabrera
Jason Heyward
Aaron Hill
Paul Konerko
Bryce Harper