Vic Sage

bmfc1 wrote: Joe Nathan to the Texas Rangers. seawolf17 weeps. crap. yeah, i'm an alumni too.

i went with Cabrera, narrowly over Bautista, Ellsbury and Verlander, but felt Verlander's candidacy was totally legit. Vic Sage wrote: MVP AL: M.Cabrera (det) - with Bautista, Ellsbury and Verlander close behind; edge to the everyday player on a post-season team Aaron AL: Bautista (Tor) - HRs and BBs are a potent combo; AL WAR leader, tied with Cabrera in OPS+ and Runs Created I wouldn't argue if either or both of these guys won the MVP, too. But, while in the past i rejected the criteria of "playing on a post-season team" that had crept into MVP voting over time, I have, since the creation of the "Aaron" award, been willing to consider team success as an additional criteria for the MVP, and have given players on post-season teams a slight edge over the comparable AARON winners above, due to their impact on teams that made it to the post-season, as well as the additional pressure of playing for a playoff spot. The establishment of the AARON award also allowed me to consider pitchers more seriously for MVP (though the award's rules and past results always required voters to do so), since hitters have come to have their own award like pitchers do, and so there is no need to hijack the award (as i had often recommended in the past) to remedy the problem of there being no award for the best hitter in each league (That the AARON lacks the history and cache of the Cy Young does not mean the award doesn't exist). So i view Verlander's MVP candidacy as totally justifiable, too.

fun with math. sorry, FK, but i have absolutely no problem with the Mets playing 12 more IL games. And i think Selig, while providing dubious leadership on a host of issues, has data to suggest that its generally popular with fans. You have only your own rationalizations in reinterpreting the data to the contrary. Mets vs Athletics in 2013: ya gotta believe, baby!

reread what I said. no thanks. I didn't say he was leaving money on the table. I simply suggested that he might not be after trying to milk absolutely every last penny out of the situation. When the Marlins make a real offer, Reyes goes back to the Mets and says 'give me more'. They give him more. Does he then run back to the Marlins and ask them for more? Maybe he just takes it. Substitute Marlins for 'market value'. He finds the best deal, then asks the Mets to top it. Does he then start all over again? Go back to each team and see if they'll give him another million annually? no, he doesn't do that. HIS AGENT DOES THAT. And that's how you figure out what "market value" is... what the market is willing to pay him. If he didn't do that, one would have to ask "why"? you seem to think he won't necessarily do that, but i don't know why he wouldn't. If the agent failed to do it, he should be fired. As to "loyalty", i offered some contrary (albeit hypothetical) factors that might weigh against it. You dismiss all of them with no more basis than i had in offering them. Does he actually care about South Beach/proximity to DR? He makes his home in Long Island. It's not like he bolts the second the season ends, hell he even goes to Islanders games. I have no idea about his emotional connection to the DR. But it is where he's from, and i'm sure he still has family there, and i know he does visit in the off-season. But the notion that his "home" is LI is just silly. Its where his HOUSE is... his HOME is wherever he decides it is, and that's often where the heart is. LI is where he commutes to work from. He's not counting the Wilpons pennies, beyond what they give him. And while players may try to get on a team that's playoff bound, they rarely are projecting that team based on prospects and whispers. No one's picking the Marlins to make the playoffs, no matter what they do before Reyes signs. They probably don't even finish about .500. No, YOU'RE the one who doesn't consider budgets relevant. It's not farfetched to think that Jose may prefer to be in a winning situation, which it hasn't been around here in years. His advisors may suggest a move to a franchise on the rise would bring him closer to winning than one whose fortunes, both literally and metaphorically, are falling. Whatever you believe Jose Reyes priorities are, they are just what you believe, with no basis in fact. All we have is statements that he wants to be here, and vague quotes from the "Reyes camp" that he wants to be sold on the overall direction of the team. That's a much easier sell in NY than in Miami. You really think Reyes, who just played three years in the new Citi Field in NY, is going to buy the "Marlins stadium will solve everything!" argument? He's played road games down there, he knows how empty it is But neither is there any "basis in fact" to believe that Jose's "loyalty" will lead him to take less than the very most he can possibly get, regardless of who pays it. That's just your typically Ceetardian optimism blathering on, based on standard PR statements and your own hope. I was simply pointing out some factors that might not cut our way, not claiming any knowledge as to Jose's priorities. What experience has taut us is that FAs, with some exceptions, take the deal that pays the most guaranteed cash.

no need to resort to quote Joel Douchebag, when you've got the NYTimes article stating: They added that there were strong buyer commitments for as many as seven of the shares. Wilpons simply can't sell them until they have commitments for all ten units. If true, they're actually further along than i thought.

If you don't want your team in a one-game do-or die situation then they'll have to win the division. It's a great incentive, as opposed to now where there's essentially no difference between a division winner and a WC. This. my problem with the WC was that the WC team didn't have a sufficient disadvantage vs division winners. There should be greater incentive to win a division if possible, and not just cruise into a WC slot. This 1-game play-in doesn't INCREASE the value of the WC, it diminishes it, even as it gives another team (and fan base) a chance at a brass ring. But then the winning WC team gets less rest, more travel, and has used its best pitching option already, and doesn't get to set up its rotation against the subsequent Divisional series, like the division winner does. Also, everything that MM said about interleague play. We've crossed the Rubicon on that issue; let the bridge be burned behind us.

Ceetar wrote: well it's rare that that many teams get involved, and once they do, it easily prices out most of the tepid interest anyway. the worry was always that one team would do something completely ridiculous, but if Reyes is serious about wanting to stay, if he gives the Mets the counter opportunity on the reasonable (right now, Marlins), he might just accept it, not go back to the bidding team and get them to increase it too (like Beltran did), and then come back to the Mets again. why would he leave money on the table? Loyalty? Please. When you consider FLA's state tax situation, and its proximity to the DR, and the team's solvency and competitive role in the division (no worse, certainly, than the mets and probably better, with a new stadium), it will likely require the mets to not just match but meaningfully exceed the Marlins offer to persuade him to stay. And if the agent doesn't play the mets off the marlins to get the best possible deal, he should get fired.

I blew this one because i didn't realize it was based on a formula: *2 points for a win *3 points for a save *4 points for a "tough save" (reliever enters a game with the tying run already on base and gets the save) *-2 points for a loss *-2 for a blown save what do we think of using a formula, and of this formula in particular? thoughts?

MFS62 wrote: Holy Gears and Sprockets, Batman! Have we all mised this? While the baseball world has for years been trying to come up with a fair measure for "clutch", it appears m.e.t.b.o.t has come up with a way to quantify the "anti-clutch". I can see it all now. Instead of just saying a player is a "gagging motherfucker", we will now be able to say how the player ranks on m.e.t.b.o.t's scale of suckitude. Get an oil change and a lube, you mechanical marvel, and send the bill to SABR. You've earned it. Later i think you misunderstand the SABRmetric understanding of "clutchiness". It is not a matter of debate that, in retrospect, a given player may have hit better than his standard production in variously defined "clutch" situations. The problem is, this analysis is (1) dependent on the definitions of clutch situations, and (2) retrospective. "Clutch" is a way of characterizing past performance, not a projection of future performance. That there is little consistency from season to season of a particular player's production in "clutch" situations is indicative of the influence of sample size and luck, i.e., randomness, in their production. In other words, with few exceptions, "clutch" is not a character trait (that would therefore be predictable and repeatable) but randomness (therefore irrelevant to future performance). so while its entirely appropriate to say "that guy got a clutch hit last night" or "he was clutch in that series" or even "what an amazingly clutch year he had", it requires real proof to demonstrate that "that guy is just clutch".

next up, CYs and MVPs

ROLAIDS winners = AXFORD (NL) and VALVERDE (AL) Rolaids -- NL: Kimbrel (Atl) - the SV leader also lead NL closers with WAR of 3; Hanrahan, Axford and Putz were close behind. Best setup guy was Kimbrel's teammate, Venters with a WAR of 3.7! He should get some consideration, but he won't. AL: Rivera (NY) - though Valverde had a few more SVs, Rivera led in all other categories, including ERA+, WHIP and WAR. I blew this one because i didn't realize it was based on a formula: *2 points for a win *3 points for a save *4 points for a "tough save" (reliever enters a game with the tying run already on base and gets the save) *-2 points for a loss *-2 for a blown save what do we think of using a formula, and of this formula in particular?

2011 Silver Sluggers: [u:16njc4ei]NL[/u:16njc4ei] McCann © Fielder (1B) Phillips (2B)* A.Ramirez (3b) Tulowitzki (SS)* j.Upton (OF) Kemp (OF)* Braun (OF) Hudson (p) [u:16njc4ei]AL[/u:16njc4ei] Avila © A.Gonzalez (1B)* Cano (2B) Beltre (3B)* As.Cabrera (SS) Granderson (OF) Ellsbury (OF)* Bautista (OF) D.Ortiz (dh) * = also a GG winner

2011 GGs: (NL) Kershaw (P) Molina © Votto (1B) Phillips (2B) Polanco (3B) Tulowitzki (SS) Parra (LF) Kemp (CF) Ethier (RF) (AL) Buehrle (P) Wieters © A.Gonzalez (1B) Pedroia (2B) Beltre (3B) Aybar (SS) Gordon (LF) Ellsbury (CF) Markakis (RF)

congrats, too, to the COMEBACK PLAYERS OF THE YEAR: Jacoby Ellsbury (Bos) and Lance Berkman (Stl)

Congrats to David Freese, for winning both the WS MVP and the NLCS MVP (Nelson Cruz won in the ALCS)

Aaron Award -- NL: Kemp (LA) - practically won the triple crown; leader in almost every meaningful stat (with Braun close behind) AL: Bautista (Tor) - HRs and BBs are a potent combo; AL WAR leader, tied with Cabrera in OPS+ and Runs Created yeah, i got that one, too: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20111024&content_id=25776912&vkey=pr_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Vic Sage wrote: ROY NL: Kimbrel (atl) - this likely Rolaids winner should have the edge over teammate Freddie Freeman AL: Hellickson (TB) - Hellickson's 4.2 WAR and solid numbers should edge out pre-season fave 1bman Hosmer (KC) and slugger Mark Trumbo (LAA), and LAA closer Walden. I suppose Ivan Nova will get some support, too. I called it: Kimbrel and Hellickson, and it wasn't even close. http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_2011.shtml

Kemp is younger, healthier, better all-around 5-tool player. Kemp's career numbers, as well as his peak numbers, are all way better than Reyes, and he's likely to win the MVP this year, to boot. I'd give him that deal too. I just don't know what it has to do with Reyes.

Mike Matheny hired by St.L to replace LaRussa. http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7230926/st-louis-cardinals-name-mike-matheny-team-new-manager

the cup-adjusting, chaw spitting, pinetar gripping, noodling around by either hitter or batter is not the real issue, despite that it may exascerbate the problem (if it IS a problem, and i really don't think it is). By and large, the difference between current length of a game and pre-80s length can be directly blamed on bullpen specialization, especially in the AL, where there is no consequence (to the lineup) of calling in guys to throw 1 pitch to to 1 hitter, then replacing him with another, and another.

Joe Imabigfatcock, NY Yankees, 1942-1944

TransMonk wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm coming to accept that he'll be gone, and if it doesn't work out that way, I'll be very pleasantly surprised. I adopted that line of thinking earlier this season. Now I'm just hoping that he'll leave the division so we don't have to see him 19 times a year. well, that means he won't actually play against us more than 12-14 times a year. And if he's had a good season, we might not see him at all at the end.

thank you. thank you very much.

Ceetar's got ya smokin the coolaid. or drinkin the crack. or somethin. Actually, if they re-sign Reyes (and don't trade Wright), i think the O will likely be ok. Not great, but adequate, especially with a wall-shortened boost for Wright, Davis and Bay. But if they don't bring back reyes, then the dropoff to Tejada is steep, and the rest of the lineup seems that much more exposed. With Tejada at SS, Does Murphy at 2b create more runs than he costs? Duda had a great late-season run, but he's a butcher in RF, and i have no more faith in him repeating (much less improving) as a hitter than I do Murphy. Both their performances seem fluky, compared to their career minor league numbers. Bay is still a "?", and so is thole and Pagan. In fact, the only offensive contributors i have confidence in to produce next season are Reyes, Wright and Davis, and they're all coming off significant injuries. Still, whatever success they have next year will be based on health of Santana, and development of Niese and other young arms, and figuring out the bullpen.

I say well established because it's based, not only on his 2011 batting champ campaign, but on Reyes's last six seasons (06-11). No it's not. Our "MVP" evaluation of his talent rests entirely on 2 great full seasons out of 9 years he's played to date: 2006 and 2008, with a great 2011 marred (to some extent) by missing 1/4 of season. These great years are supported by 2 other good (non-MVP type) full seasons in 2005 and 2007, and some decent and less-than-decent partial years, all well short of "MVP all-star caliber". So, no i don't think that its actually "established" that he's a perennial MVP all-star type player. I think he has been that intermittently, and there is no guarantee that paying him like one going forward will change his inconsistency. That's why i suggested a proposal that only paid him like a superstar when he was healthy enough to play every day. He's still only 28 and won't turn 29 until about the middle of next season. And if you believe that a baseball player's prime begins at 30, as many do, well then Reyes' prime won't begin until ... ah, do the math. i don't think chronological age is the risk factor here. sure, the next contract buys him from age 29-34 or 35, and those are (theoretically) still productive years, even if just past the prime ages of 25-29 (nobody thinks a player's prime begins at 30... at least not since the juice era ended). But insofar as his game is his legs, and legs are the first to go, and his have been going consistently, with his last 3 years all marred by injuries (to a greater or lesser degree), I don't think it's AGE that is at issue with him. But while realizing the injuries shouldn't be "discounted", you then go on to do so, in effect, by blaming any potential met failure to resign him on a pre-ordained secret strategy to NOT sign him due to their poverty (or penuriousness), rather than a rational decision not to over-invest in a high-risk/high-reward player coming off 3 consecutive seasons of significant leg injuries, who has been a "superstar" in 3 years out of 9, but wants to be guaranteed superstar salary over many years to come.