Nick’s Comments (group member since Jun 25, 2009)

Nick’s comments from the baseball, baseball, baseball :-) group.

You have to throw out the entire era or it muddies every other year ante steroids and post...."

I'm not sure you have to throw out the entire era. Not everybody was juicing and of those who were, hitters were not the only ones (so there's a balance of sorts) As far as small/hitters parks go, there are metrics that take this into consideration.

As always, context is key

Steve wrote: "All I know is what the #'s tell me, look at the amount of guys that hit 40+ homers the last few years, in smaller parks with (in my opinion) smaller strike zones. Remember that stat I posted about..."

But you are overlooking the fact that home run numbers were up across the board, so in context, these power numbers don't mean too much.

Take a look at the 1930 season. Both Boston and Cincinnati had offensive numbers that put the past severa decades to shame. Either team would easily lead the league in total offense. But the fact remains that both those teams finished last in offense that year.

Whenh it comes to statistics in baseball, context is everything.

Lance wrote: "Harold is correct. Even though he may have been right Jose Canseco's accusations were not enough to simply taint whoever he named. Same goes cor Schilling and his accusations about A-Rod's Seattl..."

So the fact that Canseco's assertions turned out to be correct means nothing? Really? While it may not meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" legal test, it sure as hell ought to meet the "benefit of the doubt" test.

As far as ARod's HoF credentials go, you might well be correct, save for the fact that we don;t know how long he's been taking PED's. His last decade is already in question from what he's admitted to (not including his latest "difficulties") This may call his previous career stats simply by the fact that his pre-PED career might well not have been long enough.

The whole thing is vaguely reminiscent of Hal Chase, generally a despicable human being, who was thought to be the non-pareil of first basemen in the early 20th Century. here's a guy who, basically, got away with everything, yet nobody believed he was a crook. After the fact, he turned out to be a stone-cold crook and a cancer to every team he was ever on. But, of course, that was fater the fact. For virtually his entire career, he was thought of as a terrific player (althoguh analysis of his stats shpwed otherwise)

Lance wrote: "He was another of those players that even if you took out his steroid years you could make a case that he could be Hall-worthy. Bonds and especially Clemens are two others. I would have to crunch..."

Not if you believe Curt Schilling, who has postulated that Alex was juicing his entire career

Harold wrote: "Well, it's true it was a 3 game series but he did help the team blow it. He also lost the first game in the 1947 World Series and I believe in 1949 as well.
In other wordds, he tired by the playo..."

Well, I think your idea of "blowing" it is certainly different from mone. Did he pitch badly? Yes. But it was only one game - the Dodgers didn't hit well in the playoffs, period and were essentially run out of town by a terrific Cardinal team. There was certainly more than enough blame to go around for the Dodgers' loss so I think he can hardly be accused of "blowing it."

In the '47 Series, Branca had one bad (okay, terrible) inning but other than that, he pitched well and was the winning pitcher in Game 6. In the 49 WS, he made one appearance and pitched 8 2/3 inning. He probably should have been pulled after eight (and these days, he would have been gone before that) but until the ninth, he was quite effective. The Dodgers lost the '49 Series 4-1 although, other than Game 7, the remainder were all tight games.

Bteween 19547-49, Branca was the stud of the Dodger staff and a big reason for their success. It took a big toll on his arm because he was never the same pitcher after that.

Was he a great pitcher? Absolutely not, save maybe for that three year stretch.

Harold wrote: "He also blew the 1946 playoff game against the Cardinals that gave St.Louis the pennant and thereafter the Series"

Not quite. There was a two-out-of-three games playoff. Branca lost the first game (only), giving up three runs (in three innings), then being removed. the Dodgers lost the game 4-2, then went on to get blown out in the second game 8-4 (Branca did not appear)

So while he lost the first game (as much through the Dodger lack of offense), it can hardly be said that he blew the pennant

Harold wrote: "All true, but you forgot to compare the stats for both men in September where Cabrera was far superior and led Detroit past the Sox.
You could also make the argument for rodney ray if a pitcher w..."

I would point out that streaks are random (statistically, it has been proven that there really is no such thing as a "clutch hitter") and that a game won in July is worth just as much as a game won in September; it may not be as dramatic but it counts the same. If Detroit had been in the AL West, they would have finished third. Would Cabrera have been a shoe-in then?

There is no doubt in my mind that Cabrera will get the MVP and probably by a large margin. But there is no way that an analysis of the seasons would justify that margin and, it might not justify Cabrera at all! That's all I'm saying

Harold wrote: "http://bleacherreport.com/articles/13..."

I find the arguments less than convincing. Fielding percentage is a poor measure of a fielder's ability since it only measures the fielding ability of balls the player can get to. So a more mobile thord baseman may have an inferior FP to a statue, simply because he can get to more balls. (we also note, as does the author, that Trout's FP is higher and he plays center field, which is a more diffuclt position than 3B) We also note that the Angels did win more games than did the Tigers, playing in a tougher division. unmentioned in the article is the fact that the Angels were awful until Trout was brought up, when they "mysteriously" caught fire. Ain't no mystery about it - it's called Mike Trout.

That's what's so interesting about all this. you have two players with valid claims to the title of most valuable player (and I'm not sure Verlander should be ignored here, either). There's no right and no wrong

Harold wrote: "P.S. I just researched this and found a well- balanced article by Jon Heyman.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/20..."

Well, I'll see you Jon heyman and raise you a Joe Posnanski

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2012...

Harold wrote: "I think when Cabrera is finished his career he may very well surpass Yaz's stats if he plays as long as the Sox legend.It really is an amazing feat. He should be a shoe in for the MVP as well"

You'd think so but there are a lot measures out there that demonstrate that Mike Trout actually had a better year. (Interestingly, Cabrera, himself, had a better year ,i>last year) Voters are swayed by "traditional" stats, even when those stats are less meaningful (RBI's, for instance). We did see a shift away from that, a little, last year with the AL Cy Young so the newer stats are gaining some traction.

This is not to minimize Cabrera's accomplishment. And it also depends upon your definition of what an MVP is. But if you take a look at some of the metrics, Cabrera is, by no means, a lock.

<< I'll never understand what happens with the Mets. They always get the players. I was really jealous when they got Beltran, but then it doesn't seem he ever panned out for them. >>

The Mets get two or three ace players and figure they've done enough. The end result is that when these players get hurt or go into a slump, so does the team because there is no depth.

Had Beltran, Reyes, and Delgado not been hurt, the Mets would still not be in first place because the rest of the team doesn't hit (nor pitch that well).

The other night was a perfect example. Bases loaded and your first pinch hitter off the bench is only hitting .118?

This is why they have collapsed the past several years and why, until they get a new regime and a new attitude, they will continue to flounder.

<I wonder if the fact that the NY taxpayers are picking up a good chunk of the bill for the new stadium affects their thinking. I say that, but do not know the facts.>

Well, they are. And they aren't.

The way I understand it, the City issued bonds, which are tax exempt (and therefore carry smaller interest rates) that are secured by the revenues. Now the Yankees could have done this directly but then, of course, it would have cost them additional interest expense.

In effect, it's as broad as it is long, save for the fact that the bonds go against the City's credit rating, rather than that of the yankees.

Marc wrote: "I will be the first to claim the Pirates as my team. I have been a big fan since the late Clemente days. It is tough seeing the current ownership let every thing fall apart the way it has but I w..."

If it makes you feel any better, Yankee fans have been staying away in considerable numbers. of course, this may have more to do with the ridiculous price of tickets than anything else. if you watch Yankee games, the seats adjacent to the field, running from one dugout to the other, are largely empty.

I don't believe the Yankees have sold out one game this year