January 10, 2012 at 5:39 am
Ray K (1/9/2012)
Larkin elected to Hall of Fame
While we're happy that local (Cincinnati) talent Barry Larkin has made it to the HOF, we are happier that Ron Santo FINALLY was chosen. The sad thing is that it took WAY too long for this to happen.
Now, if TPTB would lighten up and select Pete Rose...
Ronna Williams
January 10, 2012 at 7:50 am
Good for Larkin.
BTW, we report for first practice Sun. For once we're ahead of the big leagues!
January 10, 2012 at 9:25 am
RWims-123290 (1/10/2012)
Ray K (1/9/2012)
Larkin elected to Hall of FameWhile we're happy that local (Cincinnati) talent Barry Larkin has made it to the HOF, we are happier that Ron Santo FINALLY was chosen. The sad thing is that it took WAY too long for this to happen.
Now, if TPTB would lighten up and select Pete Rose...
That's a good discussion. Pete Rose's ban from the hall of fame was justified (in their minds at that time). Now the real can of worms comes when you justify NOT banning known/admitted steroid users and what to do with those already in. Also what to do with records held by the same users.
With the era of steroids and performance enhancers, does it make Pete Rose any less of a villain? Perhaps remove the ban on his hall of fame chances because others have done something even worse?
Where do you draw this fuzzy fuzzy grey line?
January 10, 2012 at 11:45 am
calvo (1/10/2012)
That's a good discussion. Pete Rose's ban from the hall of fame was justified (in their minds at that time). Now the real can of worms comes when you justify NOT banning known/admitted steroid users and what to do with those already in. Also what to do with records held by the same users.With the era of steroids and performance enhancers, does it make Pete Rose any less of a villain? Perhaps remove the ban on his hall of fame chances because others have done something even worse?
Where do you draw this fuzzy fuzzy grey line?
The steroid era affects the numbers for sure, but so many people used steriods. I don't think it's fair to have a 10-15 year black hole of no one getting in. Do you assume someone not mentioned in the Mitchell report was clean?
The players still had to perform. Barry Bonds, enhanced or not, had to watch ball after ball after ball come by and then swing, hit, and lift a strike over the fence. He had a few that barely made it but a ton that weren't even close to a fence.
Pick some number, say 20%, and reduce their numbers by that and see if they still would be at HOF levels. If so, vote them in. Bonds, Clemens were Hall of Famers before their bodies changed, so let them in.
Rose is different. He didn't "cheat" per se, but he gambled, potentially affecting the game in a way that isn't related to performance. It's also, IMHO, a much worse offense than taking a banned substance.
My vote on Rose: let him into the HOF. His numbers and records qualify him, but keep the ban in place. He's not allowed to be a part of baseball, and I might not invite him to an induction ceremony at the HOF, either.
January 10, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/10/2012)
calvo (1/10/2012)
That's a good discussion. Pete Rose's ban from the hall of fame was justified (in their minds at that time). Now the real can of worms comes when you justify NOT banning known/admitted steroid users and what to do with those already in. Also what to do with records held by the same users.With the era of steroids and performance enhancers, does it make Pete Rose any less of a villain? Perhaps remove the ban on his hall of fame chances because others have done something even worse?
Where do you draw this fuzzy fuzzy grey line?
The steroid era affects the numbers for sure, but so many people used steriods. I don't think it's fair to have a 10-15 year black hole of no one getting in. Do you assume someone not mentioned in the Mitchell report was clean?
The players still had to perform. Barry Bonds, enhanced or not, had to watch ball after ball after ball come by and then swing, hit, and lift a strike over the fence. He had a few that barely made it but a ton that weren't even close to a fence.
Pick some number, say 20%, and reduce their numbers by that and see if they still would be at HOF levels. If so, vote them in. Bonds, Clemens were Hall of Famers before their bodies changed, so let them in.
Rose is different. He didn't "cheat" per se, but he gambled, potentially affecting the game in a way that isn't related to performance. It's also, IMHO, a much worse offense than taking a banned substance.
My vote on Rose: let him into the HOF. His numbers and records qualify him, but keep the ban in place. He's not allowed to be a part of baseball, and I might not invite him to an induction ceremony at the HOF, either.
If I assume anything it is innocence until proven guilty. Right now the MLB can't look at players from that time period and correctly determine who did or didn't use steroids or enhancement medicine. So to ban players during that age of steroids would be a little far in my opinion.
You're right. The players still had to perform. Decide which pitches to hit and make contact. But the outcome of the hit could be directly linked to performance enhancers and have a direct impact on the result of the game whether it's running faster to steal more bases, hitting harder for more home runs or throwing faster for more strikeouts/pickoffs. There's just too many close plays in baseball to say performance enhancers didn't determine a win/loss.
My second point would be that performance enhancers not only ... enhance performance (sorry) but they also improve recovery time (I have no hard data for this claim. It is an assumption on my part that they would help you heal faster.) Sore shoulder, bruised knee, or rolled ankle, how many players played in games they otherwise wouldn't have because of a quicker recovery time.
I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions. Don't get me wrong, if you paid me millions I would have no problem deciding what to do 😀
As for Pete Rose, his numbers are outstanding. If you believe what he says about only betting on his team and never against it, it would only serve as more motivation to win. 25 years later, his indefinite suspension serves less of a purpose than it ever has and I say let the guy in.
January 10, 2012 at 12:53 pm
calvo (1/10/2012)
My second point would be that performance enhancers not only ... enhance performance (sorry) but they also improve recovery time (I have no hard data for this claim. It is an assumption on my part that they would help you heal faster.) Sore shoulder, bruised knee, or rolled ankle, how many players played in games they otherwise wouldn't have because of a quicker recovery time.
Totally true. Amphetamines in the 70s/80s, private planes, nutricion experts and engineered foods/supplements, all have changed the game and made it possible to play more. We also have specialists that have made it hard.
Without a doubt PE drugs have a big effect, but there are other things that work in a similar way, albeit a slower and potentially less of an impact in the short term. I say don't try to figure it out and assume everyone took PE drugs, then decide what to do based on numbers.
January 12, 2012 at 10:51 am
Interesting Sports Illustrated article discussing the steroid era and hall of fame voting. McGwire, Sosa, and Clemens will all be on the ballot next year.
HoF chairman puts the era in the context of its history, good or bad it was still a part of baseball's history and shouldn't be stricken from the record/stat books.
It can be likened to the dead ball era. Records and stats of that time are not omitted but time frame is usually mentioned because of the impact the rules/equipment had on the game.
January 18, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Whew -- I've been busy -- been a while since I posted here!
So, I see the hot stove has been busy! Yanks trade Montero to Seattle for Pineda, and sign Kuroda. Texas signs Darvish. Fielder is still in limbo (not that that's news).
Only a month until pitchers and catchers report!
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Check out my blog at https://pianorayk.wordpress.com/
January 23, 2012 at 11:09 am
Do you know how much they signed Darvish for?
And Fielder, last I heard, was rumored to be pursued by the Nationals. People here would love that. Fielder, Strausburg, and that other guy they signed down in the minors. That's a start for a solid base, perhaps get people's hopes up for a post season birth.
Scutaro is gone to Colorado, yay for Mr. Jones and boo for me. It was more of a salary dump to free up some cash for a starting pitcher.
Salty signed a one year dear and so did Ellsbury (finally). Ortiz still waiting.
January 23, 2012 at 11:15 am
January 23, 2012 at 11:16 am
Finally saw "Moneyball", very entertaining. Anyone know (have an opinion on) how accurate it was?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento SQL Server users group - http://sac.sqlpass.org
Follow me on Twitter - @SQLDCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 23, 2012 at 11:23 am
Here is the latest on Prince F.
Prince Fielder: Monday
By Ben Nicholson-Smith [January 23 at 10:47am CST]
It's hard to imagine that anything's holding back the market for Prince Fielder at this point. Albert Pujols signed more than a month ago, Yu Darvish and the Rangers worked out a deal, and agent Scott Boras has taken the time to introduce Fielder to some MLB owners. It doesn't seem likely that a new suitor for the powerful free agent first baseman will emerge if Boras continues waiting, since the sale of the Dodgers won't be completed on time to convince the new ownership group of Fielder's value. We're left with rumors linking Fielder to the Nationals, Rangers, Mariners, Dodgers, Cubs and Orioles, but not much certainty. Here are the latest updates on Fielder, with the most recent notes up top:
One GM told Rosenthal that the Rangers are in on Fielder "hard," though others say the Rangers won't go heavy on years (Twitter link).
The Orioles are "definitely in on" Fielder and there's plenty of motivation to sign him, Jim Duquette of MLB Network Radio and MLB.com tweets. Duquette is a former Orioles GM who's the cousin of current GM Dan Duquette. Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports points out that interest from the Orioles and Nationals gives Boras leverage (Twitter link).
The Nationals are a finalist for Fielder, Bob Nightengale of USA Today tweets. The Rangers and at least one other club are still in the running for him.
There's now "something close to a final four" for Fielder, tweets Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com.
The Rangers' management team is in the Dominican Republic for the next week, so it's doubtful the team will sign Fielder in the near future, Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News tweets.
The Nationals continue to work on a deal for Fielder, but there was no agreement as of last night, tweets Jim Bowden of MLB Network Radio and ESPN.com. Tom Haudricourt of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel repeats (on Twitter) that there's no deal at the moment.
January 23, 2012 at 11:33 am
SQLDCH (1/23/2012)
Finally saw "Moneyball", very entertaining. Anyone know (have an opinion on) how accurate it was?
It's close to the book, but there's much more in the book.
In terms of accuracy, the book covers a couple drafts and seasons, and it goes into the reasoning behind the moves. Like the Blind Side, the book is drier, but has more details on what happened. The movie has a bit more sensationalism.
I have read some stories and heard interviews that it's fairly accurate, but it didn't completely succeed. Bean came out later to say that his method works well, but it doesn't guarantee anything since it's based on stats. When you get to the playoffs, it's too short to be that successful. However for a number of years, he competed against the AL with payrolls that were much higher.
Epstein in Boston subscribed to a similar philosophy. Bean tried to get Youklis and couldn't.
Also, a few of the people chronicled in the book had some short term success, but a number dropped out after a few years in the bigs.
Kind of shows that neither letting the traditional scouts do their thing, nor the stats, work completely. It's still an art trying to pick talent that will actually transition and succeed.
Read the book. Worth it.
January 23, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Re: Moneyball....
The lessons applied were not just in talent evaluation, but also tactical decisions while playing the game. Statistical analysis showed that outs are often under-valued and so Oakland would go against tradition by forgoing sacrifice bunts, and would pound the concept of patience at the plate. Haven't seen the movie, but the book is a great read for those fasinated by the behind the scenes aspects of the game. (Just thought of another such book: George Will's "Men at Work". Give it a try!
January 23, 2012 at 12:26 pm
john.arnott (1/23/2012)
Re: Moneyball....The lessons applied were not just in talent evaluation, but also tactical decisions while playing the game. Statistical analysis showed that outs are often under-valued and so Oakland would go against tradition by forgoing sacrifice bunts, and would pound the concept of patience at the plate. Haven't seen the movie, but the book is a great read for those fasinated by the behind the scenes aspects of the game. (Just thought of another such book: George Will's "Men at Work". Give it a try!
I remember that. It also downgraded steals.
Not sure that applies at my level, but it makes sense in the majors. An out is way more valuable than a base, IMHO.
Viewing 15 posts - 796 through 810 (of 1,970 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply