Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:53 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 200 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The All-Encompassing Other Teams Thread...
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:59 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5632
bucco boy wrote:
Nice degrading loss for the Cards. 16 innings. Used 10 pitchers. And there was a play at the plate where the Cards missed the tag, the Rockie player missed the plate and the Cards catcher didn't react and the Rockie got back to the plate. SAFE! Cards blew a 1-run lead in the 8th. 1-run lead in the 9th.


This story sounds strangely familiar.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The All-Encompassing Other Teams Thread...
PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 3:33 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:27 am
Posts: 1444
Location: Eastern Shore
Andy Pettite is retiring. Again.

One of my favorite players to watch, mostly because he passed the eye-test of my obnoxiously critical ex-brother-in-law, and so watching Yankees games, which was de rigeur when Kirk was in town, was not as dramatically loud as games when other Yankee pitchers were tossing the ball.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/blog/_/name/star ... ooperstown

Quote:
I think, too, of Andy Pettitte's durability. Only nine left-handed pitchers in the expansion era started more games than he started (519). Only eight started at least 20 games in more different seasons than he did (16). And none of them could say what he can say -- that he never had a losing season, over this many seasons. Not one.

But that durability doesn't make him a Hall of Famer, either.

And obviously, I think of the special presence Andy Pettitte brought to October. No pitcher who ever lived made more postseason starts than he did (44), or won more postseason games than he did (19). He won the clinching game in six postseason series, including the clincher in all three rounds of the Yankees' last run to the Canyon of Heroes, in 2009. And that's a very special claim to fame.

But those October numbers, in and of themselves, don't make him a Hall of Famer, either.

Not. Quite.

<<snip>>

On the other hand, we're talking about a guy with a .627 winning percentage, the ninth best of any left-hander in the expansion era. I get that.

We're talking about one of 26 pitchers in history who are 100 games or more over .500 (103, in Pettitte's case).

We're talking about a guy who pitched and won some massively important October baseball games, for a team where anything less than winning was unacceptable (although his career postseason ERA, of 3.81, doesn't spell d-o-m-i-n-a-t-i-o-n, either).

But is all that enough? I'll say this one more time: Not. Quite.



Pettite is a classic good player on a team that had one of the great runs in modern baseball. He belongs in the Hall of Very Good.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The All-Encompassing Other Teams Thread...
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:15 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:27 am
Posts: 1444
Location: Eastern Shore
More on Mike Trout, just because I am so enjoying his follow-up year...

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/971 ... jor-league

Quote:
Trout had one of the greatest rookie seasons of all time in 2012. Despite missing the first three weeks of the season, his 129 runs scored rank behind just four other rookies: Lloyd Waner, Joe DiMaggio, Vada Pinson, and Ted Williams. His .326 batting average was the sixth-highest by a rookie since World War II, as was his .564 slugging average. And remember, he did this playing in Angel Stadium of Anaheim, which is a hitter's graveyard. After adjusting for ballpark, Trout's 168 OPS+ is the second-highest of any rookie in major league history, behind only Shoeless Joe Jackson in 1911. And that doesn't account for his league-leading stolen base totals and Gold Glove–caliber defense in center field. Trout's 10.9 WAR is the highest of any rookie in history.

But here's the thing: Categorizing Trout as a rookie in 2012 does him a disservice. What was remarkable about Trout last year wasn't his inexperience, it was his youth. Trout turned 21 on August 7; by baseball protocol, a player's season is categorized by his age on June 30 (i.e., the midpoint of the season). By that standard, Trout was 20 years old in 2012, several years younger than the typical rookie. Hitters develop so quickly in their early 20s that a difference of even a year or two has an enormous impact on career expectations. Back in 1987, Bill James estimated that if two rookies have identical seasons, on average the 20-year-old rookie will go on to hit 61 percent more homers in his career than the 21-year-old rookie.


So...

Quote:
Here is the list of the 10 best seasons by a rookie hitter since 1901. We'll use offensive Wins Above Replacement, which ignores position and defense, stripping away one of Trout's greatest assets but allowing us to compare him directly to players throughout baseball history:

Year/Player/oWAR

2012 Mike Trout 8.8
1964 Dick Allen 8.8
1911 Shoeless Joe Jackson 8.5
1972 Carlton Fisk 7.3
1959 Vada Pinson 6.7
1914 Benny Kauff 6.7
1975 Fred Lynn 6.5
1939 Ted Williams 6.5
1964 Tony Oliva 6.4
2001 Ichiro Suzuki 6.2

It's an impressive list of players, but only Fisk and Williams are in the Hall of Fame, and only Suzuki is likely to join them.


Quote:
By comparison, here is the list of the best seasons by a 20-year-old hitter since 1901:

Year/Player/oWAR

2012 Mike Trout 8.8
1996 Alex Rodriguez 8.4
1955 Al Kaline 7.1
1929 Mel Ott 6.8
1959 Vada Pinson 6.7
1939 Ted Williams 6.5
1907 Ty Cobb 6.5
1952 Mickey Mantle 6.4
1956 Frank Robinson 6.1
1916 Rogers Hornsby 5.6

Despite a smaller pool to choose from — there are far fewer 20-year-olds playing regularly in the majors than there are rookies — the list is significantly more impressive. The only retired player on this list who is not in the Hall of Fame is Pinson, who retired with 2,757 career hits. Rodriguez may be denied entry on account of his history with PEDs, but he'd be a first-ballot Hall of Famer if performance were the only consideration. And these aren't just ordinary Hall of Famers — most of these players are all-time greats at their position.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The All-Encompassing Other Teams Thread...
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:00 am
Posts: 3138
TheShark wrote:
With Houston (37-80) inevitably on pace for a third straight 100-loss season, it got me thinking how historically bad that stretch is. To put that into perspective, the Pirates have only had two 100-loss seasons during the "streak."

If my quick research is correct, outside of a 3-year stretch by the Royals in the mid-2000s, you'd have to go all the way back to mid-60s and late-70s expansion years for the Mets and Blue Jays who each had three and four consecutive 100-loss seasons, respectively. In the modern era, Tampa was also a victim of the expansion woes by having two in the beginning, and the Tigers in 02-03, with the infamous 43-119 season in 2003 which is the worst modern era record by a wide margin. And one that surprised was me was Washington with two in 08-09.


Down the stretch, the Astros have currently lost 10 straight, most recently a 12-0 loss to clinch not only a third consecutive 100-loss season, but a third straight season with at least 106 losses. They face Yu Darvish tonight and conclude the season with a series against the Yankees.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The All-Encompassing Other Teams Thread...
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:48 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:27 am
Posts: 1444
Location: Eastern Shore
I missed this, but gotta love Cano's bunt double in the face of a shift.

Why don't more players do it? They're wusses....

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-l ... --mlb.html


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The All-Encompassing Other Teams Thread...
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6209
Location: Keystone State
Awesome. Love Cano. It's amazing more don't do it. If you do, your BA and OBP go up. If they take the shift off, your BA and OBP go up. Get rid of the egos and get on base.

_________________
The Bucs are going all the way, all the way this year!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The All-Encompassing Other Teams Thread...
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
bucco boy wrote:
Awesome. Love Cano. It's amazing more don't do it. If you do, your BA and OBP go up. If they take the shift off, your BA and OBP go up. Get rid of the egos and get on base.

I suspect that most players don't attempt it because it is difficult and would require practice. And honestly, do you really want your best power hitters taking time to practice bunting?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The All-Encompassing Other Teams Thread...
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6209
Location: Keystone State
Willton wrote:
bucco boy wrote:
Awesome. Love Cano. It's amazing more don't do it. If you do, your BA and OBP go up. If they take the shift off, your BA and OBP go up. Get rid of the egos and get on base.

I suspect that most players don't attempt it because it is difficult and would require practice. And honestly, do you really want your best power hitters taking time to practice bunting?


I don't think Cano's power numbers will be affected by him doing it and what's an extra 20 minutes practice it if it helps your numbers and your team win. It's not like his power is going away.

_________________
The Bucs are going all the way, all the way this year!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The All-Encompassing Other Teams Thread...
PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:15 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:27 am
Posts: 1444
Location: Eastern Shore
So, I guess the early money (pun intended) is on Cano going to the Dodgers since Cano "only" wants $305 million for 10 seasons.

http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_ ... llion-deal


Here's the the players to receive 10-year contracts over the past 10 years (stat lines represent seasonal averages before/after signings):

Season / Player, age when signed / Team / Contract value

2007-08 Alex Rodriguez, 32 New York Yankees $275 million
Prv. 7 years: .304 avg., 47 HRs, 130 RBIs 6 seasons since: .279 avg., 23 HRs, 78 RBIs
2011-12 Albert Pujols, 32 Los Angeles Angels $240 million
Prv. 11 years: .328 avg., 40 HRs, 121 RBIs 2 seasons since: .275 avg., 24 HRs, 84 RBIs
2011-12 Joey Votto, 28 Cincinnati Reds $225 million
Prv. 4 years: .312 avg., 29 HRs, 96 RBIs 2 seasons since: .317 avg., 19 HRs, 64 RBIs
2010-11 Troy Tulowitzki, 26 Colorado Rockies $157.75 million
Prv. 2 years: .305 avg., 30 HRs, 90 RBIs 3 seasons since: .304 avg., 21 HRs, 71 RBIs

I like the guy. But even with the major TV money now flowing into the game, that is still an exorbitant salary.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The All-Encompassing Other Teams Thread...
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:27 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Posts: 2499
Location: Tejas
The sad thing is, some team will gladly ignore that he's already 30 and give him a long deal for way too much money. I just hope they're in the NL.

And honestly, as ridiculous as that deal sounds, I'd be pretty damn okay with giving it to Mike Trout. He's younger and better, but he's probably the only guy I can readily think of that's worth a 300M deal and has a good chance to live up to it.

_________________
Moneyball Saves.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The All-Encompassing Other Teams Thread...
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:47 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:27 am
Posts: 1444
Location: Eastern Shore
StarlingArcher wrote:
The sad thing is, some team will gladly ignore that he's already 30 and give him a long deal for way too much money. I just hope they're in the NL.

And honestly, as ridiculous as that deal sounds, I'd be pretty damn okay with giving it to Mike Trout. He's younger and better, but he's probably the only guy I can readily think of that's worth a 300M deal and has a good chance to live up to it.

Oh yeah, Trout would deserve something like that. He's only the owner of the two best seasons in ML history for a 21-year old.

Problem is, studs are underpaid in their peak and then way overcompensated on the basis of their reputation. Case in point: Albert Pujols.

And I share your hope that it's an NL team. Only thing is, the Dodgers can afford it if he's not the Robinson Cano of the past 5 years...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The All-Encompassing Other Teams Thread...
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:50 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5632
Because Jeffrey Loria can't fire himself:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/97334 ... lar-finish

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The All-Encompassing Other Teams Thread...
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:00 am
Posts: 3138
TheShark wrote:
TheShark wrote:
With Houston (37-80) inevitably on pace for a third straight 100-loss season, it got me thinking how historically bad that stretch is. To put that into perspective, the Pirates have only had two 100-loss seasons during the "streak."

If my quick research is correct, outside of a 3-year stretch by the Royals in the mid-2000s, you'd have to go all the way back to mid-60s and late-70s expansion years for the Mets and Blue Jays who each had three and four consecutive 100-loss seasons, respectively. In the modern era, Tampa was also a victim of the expansion woes by having two in the beginning, and the Tigers in 02-03, with the infamous 43-119 season in 2003 which is the worst modern era record by a wide margin. And one that surprised was me was Washington with two in 08-09.


Okay here's my last post of the season regarding my fascination with Houston's fiasco season. If swept by the Yankees starting tonight to conclude the season, the Astos will have dropped 15 straight to end the year (111 total losses). Can you officially mark that down as being amongst the lowliest optimistic a fanbase has likely ever felt at any point in time during their franchise's history? Three consecutive 106+ loss seasons, ending the third by not winning a game for half a month. As Pirates fans, you look to the 2010 season as the lowliest of the 20-year streak (perhaps not fundamentally as the second half featured Alvarez, Tabata and Walker promoted, but W/L statistically), and they played around .500 through September with the young core at least. I completely agree with what Jeff Luhnow has been doing with the Astros the past few years, but man has this rebuilding probably been taxing on that fanbase.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The All-Encompassing Other Teams Thread...
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:10 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:06 pm
Posts: 1583
TheShark wrote:
TheShark wrote:
TheShark wrote:
With Houston (37-80) inevitably on pace for a third straight 100-loss season, it got me thinking how historically bad that stretch is. To put that into perspective, the Pirates have only had two 100-loss seasons during the "streak."

If my quick research is correct, outside of a 3-year stretch by the Royals in the mid-2000s, you'd have to go all the way back to mid-60s and late-70s expansion years for the Mets and Blue Jays who each had three and four consecutive 100-loss seasons, respectively. In the modern era, Tampa was also a victim of the expansion woes by having two in the beginning, and the Tigers in 02-03, with the infamous 43-119 season in 2003 which is the worst modern era record by a wide margin. And one that surprised was me was Washington with two in 08-09.


Okay here's my last post of the season regarding my fascination with Houston's fiasco season. If swept by the Yankees starting tonight to conclude the season, the Astos will have dropped 15 straight to end the year (111 total losses). Can you officially mark that down as being amongst the lowliest optimistic a fanbase has likely ever felt at any point in time during their franchise's history? Three consecutive 106+ loss seasons, ending the third by not winning a game for half a month. As Pirates fans, you look to the 2010 season as the lowliest of the 20-year streak (perhaps not fundamentally as the second half featured Alvarez, Tabata and Walker promoted, but W/L statistically), and they played around .500 through September with the young core at least. I completely agree with what Jeff Luhnow has been doing with the Astros the past few years, but man has this rebuilding probably been taxing on that fanbase.



As a Pittsburgher now living in Houston, I have enjoyed pointing out that, while we haven't won in 20 years, we were NEVER this bad (105 plus losses) for any three year stretch. :D


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The All-Encompassing Other Teams Thread...
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:46 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Posts: 2499
Location: Tejas
Corsair wrote:
TheShark wrote:

Okay here's my last post of the season regarding my fascination with Houston's fiasco season. If swept by the Yankees starting tonight to conclude the season, the Astos will have dropped 15 straight to end the year (111 total losses). Can you officially mark that down as being amongst the lowliest optimistic a fanbase has likely ever felt at any point in time during their franchise's history? Three consecutive 106+ loss seasons, ending the third by not winning a game for half a month. As Pirates fans, you look to the 2010 season as the lowliest of the 20-year streak (perhaps not fundamentally as the second half featured Alvarez, Tabata and Walker promoted, but W/L statistically), and they played around .500 through September with the young core at least. I completely agree with what Jeff Luhnow has been doing with the Astros the past few years, but man has this rebuilding probably been taxing on that fanbase.



As a Pittsburgher now living in Houston, I have enjoyed pointing out that, while we haven't won in 20 years, we were NEVER this bad (105 plus losses) for any three year stretch. :D


Sent you a PM, but yeah this is about as beaten down as I've ever heard a fanbase.

What's even worse, is they REALLY ramped up ticket prices for this Yankees series coming up. Talk about sticking it to your fans after putting that product on the field.

To be fair, they're going about this rebuild process in the totally correct fashion (if you aren't going to contend and your young guys aren't up, tank and get great draft picks) but for the fans who just like the Astros it seems like it's been torture.

They don't look like they'll be down for 20 years, though, that's for sure.

_________________
Moneyball Saves.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The All-Encompassing Other Teams Thread...
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:06 pm
Posts: 1583
StarlingArcher wrote:
Corsair wrote:
TheShark wrote:

They don't look like they'll be down for 20 years, though, that's for sure.



Yeah, that's what we said in '97, '99, '03, '06, '09. You never can tell. A few failed draft picks, a few veteran busts, some poor personnel management and before long, you can be looking a long period of suckage. :D


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The All-Encompassing Other Teams Thread...
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:00 am
Posts: 3138
StarlingArcher wrote:
What's even worse, is they REALLY ramped up ticket prices for this Yankees series coming up. Talk about sticking it to your fans after putting that product on the field.


They increased ticket prices for the Rivera thing? Yikes. Guess I'm naive but I didn't realize that was something teams did in regular season games when big moments have the potential to occur. I guess it's admirable that they're still outdrawing the usual attendance woe subjects (Cleveland, Miami) but it will still never not shock me that attendance in Tampa still hasn't improved at all.

Another thing that's kind of shocking is that the Astros benefited from a highly disappointing AL East this year. It was supposed to be an even tougher AL transition for them, but in reality they left the NL Central which went from one of the weakest divisions to arguably the best. IIRC they actually played fairly well against the Angels and swept them in Anaheim at one point. Without the Angels tanking they could have been looking at '03 Tigers, "worst in the modern era" level bad.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The All-Encompassing Other Teams Thread...
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:18 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Posts: 2499
Location: Tejas
Giants sign Hunter Pence to a 5 year, 90M deal.

That's one NL team out of the way for the next several years.

_________________
Moneyball Saves.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The All-Encompassing Other Teams Thread...
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:32 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5632
StarlingArcher wrote:
Giants sign Hunter Pence to a 5 year, 90M deal.

That's one NL team out of the way for the next several years.


The move seems less terrible when you remember that they finally had money to spend with Zito off the books.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The All-Encompassing Other Teams Thread...
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:46 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Posts: 2499
Location: Tejas
True, although with a weak farm system, an aging roster, and a team based around pitchers you'd think they'd want payroll flexibility.

I'm more shocked that they paid a guy who produces at a Pence level 18M than the actual contract itself. At his current production level and age, that'll wind up being a terrible contract for a team headed to a rebuild.

_________________
Moneyball Saves.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 200 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits