User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 1.2265 seconds
81 querie(s) executed
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Sunday, July 06, 2008
ESPN: Law: Varitek? Tejada? All-Star Game rosters somewhat of a mess
Jason Varitek over various multicellular organisms capable of wearing a catcher’s mitt
Is it more of an insult to the All-Star Game to put someone playing as horribly as Varitek is on the AL roster, or to Varitek himself by drawing even more presumably unwanted attention to his hitting woes?
Varitek has been so bad at the plate this season that he’s below replacement level for catchers—that theoretical player who any team could grab from Triple-A to fill that roster spot. And it’s not as if Varitek is a perennial All-Star who fans would expect to see in the game; he hasn’t made the squad at all since 2005 (and hasn’t deserved to), and only appeared in one other All-Star Game before that, in 2003.
The obvious alternative here would be A.J. Pierzynski, who is hitting reasonably well and is having a season comparable to his 2006 season, the last year he made an All-Star team. The players could also have chosen Ivan Rodriguez, who is having a good enough year in a weak crop of AL catchers, has made 14 All-Star teams and is one of the most recognizable names in the game.
Support BBTF
My Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: NYT: Kilgannon: Why Short Al From Brooklyn, Talkative Fan, Calls No More
(20 - 3:17pm, Jul 05)
Last: Jeff K.
(20 - 3:17pm, Jul 05)
Last: Jeff K.
Newsblog: tampabay.com: Tampa Bay Rays minor-league affiliate's Ladies Night promotion causing a stir
(8 - 3:07pm, Jul 05)
Last: Justin Zeth
(8 - 3:07pm, Jul 05)
Last: Justin Zeth
Newsblog: seattlePI.com: Buhner 'still bleeds Mariners blue'
(15 - 2:43pm, Jul 05)
Last: Vander Wal Generator (Juan V)
(15 - 2:43pm, Jul 05)
Last: Vander Wal Generator (Juan V)
Newsblog: Plain Dealer/Pluto: Matt LaPorta is still in the minors because of Grady Sizemore's cranky elbow
(8 - 2:35pm, Jul 05)
Last: Tripon
(8 - 2:35pm, Jul 05)
Last: Tripon
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2008 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
also his anus.
The Ludwick argument shouldn't be the focus of him over Burrel, but how about instead focusing on the ridiculous selections of Fukodome and Soriano, instead of misleading the Burrel over Ludwick argument.
It's a shame that Giambi is probably going to win the voting in the AL for the final player, because Longoria deserves to go. If Varitek does withdraw (and I think it's possible) hopefully Francona will add him, since it's questionable whether there really is a need for three catchers on the roster anyway.
I don't think Ludwick is an All-Star either (though he's had a nice half season to be sure), but I don't get why his defense was disparaged - I think he's pretty solid for a corner OF.
Perhaps that's a tacit acknowledgement that Navarro is a more worthy back-up at C, or perhaps (less likely) it foreshadows Varitek honorably bowing out, thus leaving Francona with much more room to select a replacement player (instead of being constrained by the need to carry a second catcher, he can pretty much pick anybody he wants). If it's latter case - if Tek actually withdraws - then I'll have to tip my cap to Tito for gaming the roster selection process very intelligently.
Can't see the forest for the trees?
but what is the mistake, assuming you are a voter that votes based upon this season, even by prospectus standards they are equal players 4.6 warp for Ludwick 4.7 warp for Burrell. They are basically similar players up to this point in season (although I can't imagine Burrell being close to Ludwick defensively)
Mind you, I'm the type of guy that would vote for a guy with the history over the guy without, but that is a personal opinion. His opinion is history counts to bash a Cardinal, but it's meaningless to prop up his pet projects like Lester. I had Burrell over Ludwick and Ludwick missing out, but barely, and mostly because the fans are stupid enough to vote for Soriano and Fukodome. (seriously I doubt Soriano would be be the third best outfielder for the Cardinals this season)
Hmmm...if only there were a C with 5 previous All Star selections, 2 Top 6 MVP showings, and 5 Silver Slugger awards (demonstrating his pedigree) in the midst of a solid offensive season (despite some admitted defensive shortcomings due to a shoulder injury) to select. Oh well, even if he existed he would probably get passed over for some undeserving Yankee because God knows there team gets so much unfair recognition.
agreed, that was the part that bothered me about his comments, burrell is a profesional butcher who's defense isn't so bad because in comparison to other professional butchers he doesn't compare badly, but when guys like Chris Duncan is a better defender than you, then there is no way Burrell is on par or even comparable to Ludwick defensively.
Not at all. What it implies IMO is that a lot of managers don't want to disrupt their rotations at this point in the season by having a starter pitch in the All-Star game.
-- MWE
Burrell 34.8 (12th in NL)
Ludwick 26.1 (32nd)
Baaahahahahaha
What's most outrageous is that he didn't even touch on the worst snub of all. FREE YADIER!!
Why does anyone give a toss about who plays in it?
History suggests otherwise. As bad as we like to think the BBWAA is when it comes to handing out awards, players and managers are usually worse.
Because this time, it counts!
whats wrong with warp 4.6 vs 4.7 (in favor of Burrell) everyone knows that b-pros defense stats are a joke, and if Ludwick was playing left field his vorp would be much higher because he's significantly better defender than the average left fielder. Ludwick is significantly better defender than Burrel, and if he played more games in left most of that gap would be covered.
Again, I actually agree with the historical perspective (which is why you ignore Lester) but the comment about Ludwicks defense, the throwing out of Journeyman comment, and the ignoring of the superior snubs like Wright/Ramirez, Soriano or Fukodome being on the roster, shows his decided bias. (he likes the term Journeyman with guys who played for the cardinals, and ignores that when it's his guys that have been doing the journeying (Hamilton, Soriano))
The selection process and the ramifications thereof are much more interesting than the game itself.
Except that I believe most of those relievers were voted in by the players, not selected by the two managers.
I only pointed out Soria to say that Greinke would have been a better token Royal.
VORP measures offense only. WARP includes defense. You appear to believe the opposite is true.
That's because you're, well, a fanboy (which I feel to be a more polite term than "idiot"). Ludwick's had an excellent half season, before which he'd never done anything remotely noteworthy in the major leagues. Ankiel's got a terrific arm, and profiles similarly to Soriano as an offensive player (ordinary OBP, good power), but he doesn't have his track record, either. And I don't know who this mysterious third Cardinal OF is who's better than Soriano (Schumaker? Please.).
As others have said, it's the All Star game--not all-mediocrities-who-had-a-good-first-half game. (And even with all his injuries, it's not as if Soriano's having a bad year. You make it sound like picking Soriano's like picking Sandy Alomar v. 1991.)
He probably wasn't any worse than Greg Olson...
As others have said, it's the All Star game--not all-mediocrities-who-had-a-good-first-half game. (And even with all his injuries, it's not as if Soriano's having a bad year. You make it sound like picking Soriano's like picking Sandy Alomar v. 1991.)
Page 1 of 1 pages
and you missed the part that I posted.
(seriously I doubt Soriano would be be the third best outfielder for the Cardinals this season)
The last word is season, and Schumaker vs Soriano is a decent fight this season. Ludwick and Ankiel are both having a better year than Soriano. I would take Soriano over Schumaker for the rest of the season. I understand that most people would take Soriano over Ludwick and Ankiel also for the rest of the season, and I'm fine with that, but I don't honestly think either one of those guys are performing that much over their head, if at all.
That said, the ASG is a complete joke in so many ways it's hard to get too worked up about it, really.
I hate to disagree with CFB because his optimism about the Cards tends to be right but this pretty ridiculous. You really think that Ludwick is as good a hitter as Mark Teixeira? No way.
Except Soria's not really a "token" anything. He's been extraordinary, and I don't see any reason to believe that's a fluky first half.
No, it isn't. Call me in October and let's see if you still think that.
I think Ludwick is a legit 130+ ops+ player.
Not bloody likely.
you mean Schumakers higher eqa this season isn't indicative that up to this point in time this season that he's been as good as Soriano?
um, ok.
as to call you in October, I guess you missed the point where I said I would take Soriano over Schumaker for the rest of the season. My point has been that up to this point in time, right now in this season, on this very date, for the season that all three of the Cardinals outfielders have been as good if not better than Soriano, and that includes Schumaker.
I hate to disagree with CFB because his optimism about the Cards tends to be right but this pretty ridiculous. You really think that Ludwick is as good a hitter as Mark Teixeira? No way.
I guess we'll see when the season ends, is all I can say.
No game with "All-Star" in it's title should have Ryan Ludwick in it.
I was thinking the same thing about a game with Fukodome in it.
I think Ludwick is a 110-115 OPS+ hitter who had a hot first half.
In both goodness and starness.
Ludwick had a funny quote this weekend that this ASG would be a little different from the one in Toledo that he played in a couple years ago.
I think you poo-pooed the ASG last year too. The MLB ASG is actually quite enjoyable and it is usually played at a high level. Go wax your rims if you don't want to watch it.
How so? Please explain?
Fukudome. He's started there a number of times for the Cubs this season. He's pretty good there, actually.
I see Ludwick as a 115-120 OPS+ player with good rightfield defesne going forward. If he had been picked up by the A's, Sox, Indians, whatever, this board would be raving about what a good frree talent find he was. He's a former top prospect who has hit well in the minors when healthy. I don't think he's a Tex level of hitter, but he's likely as good a Fukudome. He is likely to finish this season better than Soriano, even if Soriano out hits him the rest of the way(Soriano's first month was both brutal and injured). He's a feather in Walt Jocketty's cap, and one of the last ones of his tenure (the other being the surprisingly decent Izturis this year, though I don't expect that to last).
Schumaker's been the bigger surprise this season, and I don't expect him to keep up his numbers. He's a fourth/fifth outfielder based on his minor league stats, though he's always hit for good average.
I don't really get baseball fans who ##### about the All-Star game. Looking for ways to make the All-Star Game better, of course. But saying, who cares, it's stupid, that I don't understand. All the best players in baseball on one field, playing hard, having fun, I frickin' love the All-Star Game. It's baseball! Hooray baseball!
The second sentence might be true, but I don't think this thread shows it. Saying Ludwick hasn't been as good as Burrell or that he's not really a 130 OPS+ hitter (both of which you seemingly agree with) isn't a knock on Jocketty. Ludwick's been a great pickup for the Cards. For example, Jack Cust has the same EQA as Manny this year--and finished in the top 10 in the AL in EQA last year--and no one is touting him as an All-Star. I don't see that as a knock on Beane.
On a side note, I don't know if Ludwick was ever a top prospect. He made on BA top 100 list (81st in 2001), and, IIRC, he was considered the third best prospect (after Jason Hart and Mario Ramos) in the package for Carlos Pena.
The AL players voted for Rivera, Papelbon, and FRod; Francona selected Sherrill, Soria, and Nathan. The players voted for one reserve at each position, five starters, and three relievers.
-- MWE
B-ref has the offensive difference as 7 runs, +26 for Burrell and +19 for Ludwick. Fielding can easily make up that difference, as Burrell is typically -15 to -20 per year. If Ludwick is average in the field, they are pretty close. Fukudome is +7 hitting so far, so even if he's considered a great fielder he's probably a bit short of these guys, but closer than it looks at first glance.
Don't know about the Sox, but I think the A's and Indians already had Ludwick and passed him on.
Varitek is an exceptionally poor choice, but I'm not sure the players deserve the blame as much as the voting method. I haven't seen any vote totals but it was reported that the players agreed with the fans on Mauer's selection. If Mauer received 70 - 80% of the players vote, the 2nd place candidate could prevail with a narrow plurality of the votes scattered among less deserving candidates by players who don't vote very wisely. Maybe the vote totals don't vote jibe with the example, but there are undoubtedly years when some positions have very few player votes disagreeing with the fans obvious choice. MLB should have the players vote for 2 or 3 players at each position using a weighted vote formula.
The NL players voted in Lidge, Wilson, and Wood. Hurdle added Wagner. That's a majority of relievers (six of ten) chosen by the players.
I could have criticized Francona over Sherrill, too. He's 7th among Baltimore pitchers in VORP, and he's not even the top reliever (James Johnson is over 11 runs of VORP ahead).
Just surprised.......
I'm stunned
Not at all. What it implies IMO is that a lot of managers don't want to disrupt their rotations at this point in the season by having a starter pitch in the All-Star game.
I actually think both of these are circling around the truth but not getting there. The All-Star team is not constructing a roster for playing a season; it's constructing a roster for playing a single game. If you have 12 pitchers on your team and most of them are going to play in that single game, then most of them are going to pitch one inning at most. And if they're only pitching one inning, then a top quality reliever is as valuable as a top starter.
Took the words out of my mouth. At one time, when All-Star pitchers would often go three innings each, and when there were few top flight relievers, it would have made no sense to overload the roster with pitchers. In the first All-Star game I ever went to, the NL used but three of them, with Johnny Antonelli finishing up the game with a four inning stint. There were only six pitchers on the NL roster that year (1956), all starters.
But now, when it's rare for more than one pitcher to go even two innings, why not put out one closer after another? Especially if you're Francona, who will likely be trying to win the game.
The funny thing is that now, when there's at least a nominal tangible incentive to win the game, we're seeing more players actually used than we did when the game was a 100% exhibition. There have actually been All-Star games where as few as twelve players on one side participated.
He's a very good free talent find; I don't think anyone here disputes that. He's just not a legitimate 130ish OPS+ player.
What benefit is there from giving players a say? Do they make better selections than the manager would? No reason to believe so. Do they take the game more seriously because they participate in selecting the team? No reason to believe so. (The problem with taking the game seriously has never been that players don't do so, but that the manager doesn't.) Are they more likely to show up if they're voted on by players rather than fans or the manager? No reason to believe so. Help me out here.
(*) I say "his," based on the fiction that the manager used to pick the roster, but of course the league used to play a key decisionmaking role. Of course, there aren't really leagues anymore -- thanks, Bud! -- so I guess that's out.
I agree wholeheartedly. Tito said that after all of the various spots were taken by fans, players, one-from-each-team rules, he had one choice, which he used on Navarro (because he figured the best team in the AL should have more than one representative).
I'd do away with the player vote, but if you must have it, then there's no reason that the player's second choice needs to go if they agree with the fans. In that case, turn that choice back over to the manager to allow for the best roster construction.
He's clutch.
But he has had a very nice 1st half.
There's a minor off chance he could be late bloomer, he's 29, he could be peaking/spiking now and might be a legit 130-150 hitter for a year or so...
His minor league numbers (adjusted for context) are pretty flat from 2001 onward.
His CAREER MLB numbers: .263/.333/.485, look about right in conjunction with his minor league numbers. He's likely a true talent 110-115 guy, and they can certainly have a 150 half or even a 130 year now and then.
He's probably no better a ballplayer than
this guy, but he's got more PT and his team is winning.
WRT Burrell, given how brutal Burrell's dee is, if Ludwick is average, Burrell needs a 10-15 point OPS+ edge to be clearly ahead- IOW I don't think Burrell (career 120) is a better "true talent" player than Ludwick anyway.
Burrell has a 130 OPS+ from 2005-2008, including 160 in the second half last year and 155 so far this year. I'd put his true talent at about 135 OPS+.
How would MLB react if Francona selected this type of player to the all star game: 000/000/000 who couldn't field AT ALL, but was the greatest base runner of all time.
In terms of a full season, said player is by no means an "all star", but for one single game, when the rest of the bench is completely solid, such a player would have some decent value.
If the game "counts", then should a manager contruct his team to win?
Well, obviously. I'll give cardsfanboy the benefit of the doubt and say that even he wouldn't think Ludwick's a 130-ish OPS+ player if he hadn't had a good first half.
For me it's not so much that the game has become boring as my fandom has evolved. When I was young I loved to see all me heroes together on one field. My favorite part was actually the introductions, of all things. (Which were kind of a big deal before cable and uniquitous coverage because it was the only time you'd get to SEE a lot of these guys.) Now that I'm older and I don't worship ballplayers anymore but am more interested in how teams get built and the nuances of the game as it's played and its history, I've lost interest in the all star game. It's cool to see who made it, but I'm not interested in seeing it actually contested. I thinnk it's perfectly cool if people still get jacked up over it, though. It's my loss that I can't anymore.
Ludwick has had an OPS+ from 2005-2008 of 127...
So I still doubt that Burrell is a better "true talent" ballplayer (given Burrell's lack of defensive prowess)
... and I'm not a Cardinals' fan
I just can't generate any interest in the game now that it counts. Interleague play killed whatever I had left.
This is my opinion as well, and why I think Burrell > Ludwick for the purposes of this discussion. Burrell's been sitting at a pretty high level the last 3+ years, although he seems to be blamed for anything that goes wrong in Philly.
I think you poo-pooed the HR Derby last year too. The MLB HR Derby is actually quite enjoyable and it is usually played at a high level. Go wax your rims if you don't want to watch it.
Not if you include his minor league performance.
I don't get this. You said you think Ludwick is a 110-115 OPS+ true talent. Why do you doubt that Burrell is a 130 OPS+ TT? That's what he's averaged over the past 3 1/2 years unweighted, and it would be even higher if you weighted the more recent performance more heavily.
I don't have any particular feelings about either team.
From the Star Tribune: "The 25-year-old Mauer became the first Twins player since Torii Hunter in 2002 to be voted by fans into the starting lineup. He is second in the AL with a .325 batting average and second with a .415 on-base percentage. He beat Boston's Jason Varitek by more than 600,000 votes on the fans' ballot and was ahead 554-159 on players' ballots."
159 players preferred Varitek to Mauer? Wow.
Things have really changed in the last year or so. Brett Myers has surged into the lead over Adam Eaton as the current bete noire, with Tom Gordon getting only the slightest of passes in deference to his age and wear and tear.
And calling Pat Burrell a "butcher" in the field is unkind. So Taguchi is a butcher, wrong routes, dropped flies, et al. When Burrell actually gets to the ball, he invariably does the right thing with it. It's just that Burrell has quantum physics range -- no matter how hard or far he runs, he can only ever get halfway to a fly ball.
I think that's 159 votes for all catchers other than Mauer.
554 + 159 = 713, which is about 24 votes per team.
I'd guess Varitek had 50 or so votes - mostly from his teammates and lifelong NLers who don't know any better.
Zeth has me pegged.
neither is Soriano or Fukodome, didn't know you had to be a legitimate 130 ops+ talent to be an all star.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main