Mets get Shawn Green

[Guest martin]

Edgy DC wrote: Broad characterization. Really broad. And I know about Galileo. A lot. Disrespecting peoople is disrespecting people.

i should be more careful to point out that i mean that irrational beliefs should be disprespected, not necessarily the people who have them. certainly people better than i have some wild beliefs about various types of magic. i dont mean that we should be anything other that perfect gentlemen and ladies to each other, just that i think we give some beliefs a free pass mostly based on the number of people that have the beliefs, not the actual merit of those beliefs.

ok, i am out of here.

[Guest Hillbilly]

Edgy, Good then you exactly what I mean. Facts are facts and history is history and I'm not trying to disrespect any individuals, I'm pointing out the short comings of religious faith as an institution (again you know what I'm talking about - on the broadest terms) when you starting reference point is 'truth' you have no where to go. That's all I'm saying.

[MFS62]

Is there any doubt that this thread is worthy of archiving?
But maybe that should wait until we resolve how many Angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Later

[Guest Edgy DC]

I've got work to do.

Not for the first time.

[Frayed Knot]

Back to Shawn Green the ballplayer for a second;

I've now read two different pieces over the last day or two (Hardball Times & Baseball Prospectus) that have referred to him as a defensive liability, even "albatross" in the words of BP.

That's never been my impression but it's not liked I've watched him a whole lot lately. It's a situation that bears watching in any case. We should keep our eyes out for any clues of defense-related crimes being committed in Shea;
Mr Green ... in RightField ... with the mitt

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

Considering that he's replacing Lastings Milledge, our standards for defense in right field are currently pretty low.

[Guest Edgy DC]

For what it's worth, most of Lastings' fuzzheadedness has been in left.

Hasn't it?

Anyhuck, the issue will come up in the postseason. Assuming we have both Green and Floyd healthy and starting, which one do you pul Chavez in for when it comes time for late-inning defense?

[metirish]

My gut says Floyd but when he has his legs he can be more than decent in LF,I never thought of Green as a great right fielder but certainly he plays decent defence......although after reading the post from FK we'll have to watch him over the rest of the season.

[Guest Hillbilly]

When healthy Cliff is a good outfield. He's not so good when he's gimpy. So if you mean 100% heathy, you pull Green. But in practice it will be more likely be based on a double switch and be situationally dependent.

[metirish]

We can only pray that Cliff will be healthy.....

[Guest Edgy DC]

Floyd hasn't had legs most of this year (or been half the defender he was last season). And he's unlikely to have them when he comes back from an achilles strain.

So I hope Green doesn't need protection.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Edgy DC wrote: Anyhuck, the issue will come up in the postseason. Assuming we have both Green and Floyd healthy and starting, which one do you pul Chavez in for when it comes time for late-inning defense?

If Floyd and Green turn out to have the same defensive skills, you might make the decision based on who's due up for the opponents in the 9th inning? Lefties? Put Endy in right. Righties? Put Endy in left.

You can also factor in Floyd's and Green's lineup positions. If one of them isn't likely to bat again and it's doubleswitch time, you can let Endy replace the guy whose turn is furthest away.

[Frayed Knot]

Shawn Green is 17 HRs away from matching Hank Greenberg's record for lifetime Jewish HR hitters.


P.S. Green's grandfather changed the family name to Green from ... Greenberg.

[nymr83]

Frayed Knot wrote: Shawn Green is 17 HRs away from matching Hank Greenberg's record for lifetime Jewish HR hitters.

modern-era homerun inflation at its finest.

[Frayed Knot]

Well, Greenberg came up in the '30s which was a pretty inflated era of offense itself.
Green's impending breaking of the record owes itself to WWII and Hank's missed near 4 years as much as anything.

[nymr83]

in the 1935 NL there were 662 homers hit, there were 663 that year in the AL, thats 1325 homers or 82.8 per team (there were then 16 teams).

in the 2005 NL there were 2580 homers hit, there were 2437 in the AL, thats 5047 homers, or 167 per team, twice as many homes per team as the 1935 level.

edit- i realize this is only a snapshot of two years and that if i really wanted to i'd do 1930-1940 and 1995-2005 but i think this snapshot alone helps make my point.

[dinosaur jesus]

I can't dispute your point--home runs are much, much more common now than in the 1930s (though teams scored somewhat more runs then). But I think it's a little misleading to use team home runs. In those days, only a few players hit very many home runs, but they hit them at a rate that compares very well with the best home run hitters today. The real difference is the rest of the team. The Tigers in 1938, for instance, when Greenberg hit 58 home runs, also featured Rudy York, who hit 33, and Charlie Gehringer, who hit 20--those would still be pretty good numbers for a catcher and a second baseman. But no one else on the team hit more than 7, and the team total was 137 (which was a lot for the time, but didn't lead the league). So it's true that hitting 300 or 400 home runs in a career isn't nearly the distinction that it was then. But that's not quite the same thing as saying that it was harder for Greenberg.

[nymr83]

dinosaur, look at the NL league leaders in the 1930's, the leader often had under 35 and even under 30 homers.

[dinosaur jesus]

That's true in the National League, which was the pitcher's league. Here are the home run leaders in the American League, 1930-1939:

1930: Ruth, 49; Gehrig, 41
1931: Ruth, 46; Gehrig, 46
1932: Foxx, 58; Ruth, 41
1933: Foxx, 48; Ruth, 34
1934: Gehrig, 49; Foxx, 44
1935: Foxx, 36; Greenberg, 36
1936: Foxx, 49; Trosky, 42
1937: Dimaggio, 46; Greenberg, 40
1938: Greenberg, 58; Foxx, 50
1939: Foxx, 35; Greenberg, 33

The leaders hit about as many as they do now, but the rest of the league took another 60 years to catch up. You could say, though, that this is a very small group of exceptional hitters: just six of them. And the really remarkable thing is that four were first basemen.

[Frayed Knot]

Here's your main difference:
Greenberg ABs = 5,193
Green = 6,106 + whatever he's had this season

That's two+ seasons more ABs and Green is still the better part of a year away (maybe more) from equaling this somewhat trivial "record".

I think I can live with this without feeling that it's been tainted by HR inflation.

[nymr83]

well certainly the "record" itself is pretty meaningless, it probably fits in somewhere between the record for career batting average by a left-handed relief pitcher and the record for how many times rickey henderson has reffered to himself in the 3rd person in an interview.
but, if you're going to talk about the record at all, it is fair game to reference the conditions under which it was set.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

="Frayed Knot"] I've now read two different pieces over the last day or two (Hardball Times & Baseball Prospectus) that have referred to him as a defensive liability, even "albatross" in the words of BP. That's never been my impression but it's not liked I've watched him a whole lot lately. It's a situation that bears watching in any case. We should keep our eyes out for any clues of defense-related crimes being committed in Shea; Mr Green ... in RightField ... with the mitt

Gary Cohen just said on tonight's broadcast that Green is a former Gold Glove winner. That doesn't sound too criminal.

I find it amusing how his cap always falls off when he's running to make a play. I don't know why, but I think it's funny.

[Gwreck]

ScarletKnight41 wrote: I find it amusing how his cap always falls off when he's running to make a play. I don't know why, but I think it's funny.

He deliberately gets it a size too big so that it'll shrink to better fit him.

As per Gary on yesterday's (?) broadcast.

[Frayed Knot]

The implication in the pieces I read isn't that he never was a good fielder, but that he no longer is.

[MFS62]

Some writers get an impression of a player and never let it go.

When Green was in Toronto, he was a plus fielder with a very good arm.
Later, he hurt his throwing arm, which necessitated his move to first base.
Now, it has healed enough for him to play the outfield again. Maybe they think his arm is still bad.

Later