User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets. |
We have baseball tickets, the NFL schedule, college football tickets and Cowboys tickets. We have NBA tickets like Celtics tickets and Lakers tickets. Plus, buy Giants tickets, Patriots tickets and Colts tickets. Also check out our MLB baseball schedule |
Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers |
Page rendered in 0.8113 seconds
81 querie(s) executed
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.
I was pointing out that if you weight the more recent years more heavily to say that Burrell is a 130-135 true talent player (career 120) you have to do the same for Ludwick- who has hit 127 in teh MLB over the span someone else chose for Burrell.
Plus by virtually all advanced defensive metrics Burrell gives up 15 or so runs a year with his glove.
An OPS+ of 135 means about 115-120 RC per 650 PAs
An OPS+ of 120 means about 100-105 RC per 650 PAs
Assuming Ludwick is average defensively, and Burrell is -15 and a TT 135 hitter, then Ludwick needs to be a 120 TT hitter.
Neither runs much, Ludwick is 8-5 the last 2 years, Burrell 0-0
Burrell has GDp'd 152 times the last 2 years (955 PAs)
Ludwick 6/650- noting major there...
anyway, All I said (conclusion wise) was:
and
I wasn't definitively stating that Ludwick was better than Burrell. (trust me, when I think one player is definitively better than another- I'm not so shy in saying it)- I just don;t think we should so blithely dismiss the notion that Ryan Ludwick 2008 IS as good a ballplayer as Pat the Bat.
not really, didn't look at Fukodome numbers at all, went to eqa because I figured that any counting stat woud be unfair to Soriano because of his injury, I was actually surprised to see Schumaker ahead of Soriano(not .002 isnt a deal, so we should say even instead) in Eqa. And I was really surprised to see the massive difference between Ludwick and Soriano.
I was living in Buffalo when Carlos played for the Buffalo Bisons, I recall being vaguely disappointed his MLB career didn't turn out better.
I'm guessing that comment had more to do with you saying you believe Ludwick is a true 130 OPS+ player than the criteria for making an all star team.
Ludwick has had an OPS+ from 2005-2008 of 127...
Good lord, we're certainly getting carries away with adjusted rate stats. Over that period, Burrell has out-homered Ludwick 112 to 35. RBI - 362 to 115.
I realize that "true talent" is being used as the odd standard here, but players are signed to contracts, make all-star teams, and win games with actual production.
And, even if you want to stick to "true talent" or rate stats, Burrells OBP (which is unfairly weighted in OPS relative to its relation to scoring runs) gives him a bigger advantage anyway.
Heh, that's good. But wouldn't it be Xeno's Paradox range?
Again my problem is calling this a snub of Ludwick over Burrell when nobody has even attempted to give a argument that Burrell is vastly, notably or even having an obvious better year. Ludwick never should have been brought into the discussion as long as Fukodome and Soriano are taking up roster space. Snubs are about clearly superior players getting snubbed by an obvious inferior player and sorry but Burrell /Ludwick is not a snub. It's a debate depending on a persons criteria. (again I usually attempt to weigh previous seasons into my voting, but not everyone believes that)
Heck I'm still not sure how the players voted for Adrian Gonzalez over Albert Pujols.
A lot of people think there's more to being an All-Star than having good numbers over the first three months of the year.
I have no problem saying that Pat Burrell is a better player than Ryan Ludwick, even if Ludwick's numbers are slightly better so far in 2008.
Say something like:
Current Year: 67%
Prior Year: 22%
Year -2: 11%
Regression geeks can figure out the exact percentages. :)
Who are you removing then? JD Drew, Quentin, and Sizemore all deserve to be there. Ichiro! is probably the one that deserves it the least, but he was voted by the fans, and he is a genuine star. Milton Bradley's iffy, and Carlos Guillen probably is, too.
Even if you can find the guy to remove, there's a lot of OFs that didn't make it having nice seasons like Jermaine Dye.
You can choose any reasonable way to judge Burrell's current talent, and he'll always come out ahead of the 120 career OPS+. Look at this year, 1+ years 2+ years, 3+ years, etc. Weight it properly, and he'll be above 130. Don't weight it and he'll be around 130 There's no cherry picking going on here.
Look at Ludwick's performance (not just using his limited MLB time while ignoring his minor league time) over a reasonable timeframe, and he's nowhere near 127.
and I have zero problems with that comment, once again my problem is implying this is a snub that is a result of some form of stupidity. Heck I have Burrell ahead of Ludwick on my "all star" depth chart, but Ludwick is the name immediately after Burrell, and I don't think I have Soriano, Fukodome or Braun ahead of either. Heck I don't think I have any of them ahead of Ankiel who I don't for the life of me think is an all star this season even with the defense.
Pointing out Ludwick as the snubbee is silly. And if this is about the players vote, why point to Ludwick and not McClouth? basically there are clearly 5 outfielders in the NL all star team that are clearly having inferior seasons to Burrell, and Law decides to pick on the only guy on the Roster that has any argument being there (based upon this season only...again people vote differently, but a vast majority prefer to go based upon the season to date)
Not according to BBREF PI:
report
Actually, Francona had 2 non-team-specific picks: Navarro and Nathan. Duchsherer, Sherill, Soria and Guillen were the other ones he named. So he gets the blame for overstocking the relievers.
Hurdle only had 2 picks to represent teams - Wagner and Guzman. His others were Cook, Haren, Zambrano, McCann and Pujols. (There's another point for you - the players voted Adrian Gonzalez ahead of Pujols. All hail the RBI.)
Uh, nobody's saying that either, idiot. We're disputing, on its face, your statement that Ludwick is an 130 OPS+ talent (which you're now apparently backing away from). The all star team is completely irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of that statement.
Heh, that's good. But wouldn't it be Xeno's Paradox range?
I confess, I'm standing on the shoulders of some giant on this one. Somebody had written something similar about some speed-challenged OF in the hazy past. And it probably was by someone who knew something about quantum mechanics and Xeno's Paradox sounds right. Burrell's only OF problem is his legs. I have always been a slow-footed, thick-legged slug and at a similar age, I think PtB* and I would have been a good race.
*That's the common abbreviation for Pat the Bat over at Beerleaguer.
This wasn't Selig's idea, at least not directly. The MLBPA bargained for the right to choose 50% of the AS selections when Selig had his "This time it Counts!" epiphany after the 2002 AS tie.
I don't mind being wrong on this, it's why I prefer to use a spreadsheet so that I can check what's going on.
as to the guy that keeps insisting include Ludwicks minor league numbers in that assessment, I have no problem with including his healthy Cardinal minor league season, and even his Detroit minor league season, but not sure what a sore hip season for Cleveland really figures into this discussion. Also find the comment about his minor league numbers from up thread being pretty funny. He broke a leg, had hip problems, he was playing injured from 2002 to 2005.
Or they could have added another OF, and removed, say, the inexplicable (to me) choice of Joe Crede.
Hey, I invented that! Seriously. Haven't been to Beerleaguer in a while, but nice to know it's still in use.
Edit - "It's Zeno of Elea who came up with the famous paradox, not Xeno, which is either Lucy Lawless after a sex change or Tom Cruise's supreme overlord."
Oh yeah. Bit of a mixup with Xenophon, who most def was not the type of sophist to play word games.
:-)
OK
Ludwick majors and minors 2006-2008: 119
Ludwick majors and minors 2007-2008: 128
Pat the Bat, 2006-2008: 132
Pat the Bat, 2006-2008: 137
And Burrell gives away 15 or so runs with his glove
They're having almost the same season except that Markakis has 20 point more on average (carrying over into OBP), and Quentin has 30 points more in slugging, due to his having more HR. Quentin's also on a 1st place team, which shouldn't matter, but you know it does. Dye's more deserving than both of them.
Or they could have added another OF, and removed, say, the inexplicable (to me) choice of Joe Crede.
This one confused me, too. So did Carlos Guillen. They should be both gone with Longoria in their place and just have A-Rod and Longoria as the 3B. That'd give space for Dye or Markakis, which, if you chose Markakis could give you John Danks or Bobby Jenks.
Yeah, I'm a White Sox fan. I still think it's dumb Crede made it when Danks, Jenks, and Pierzynski were all more deserving.
It's not really too much of a stretch vice versa either, Markakis is probably more "deserving", but not by a huge margin...
Nice young player you Orioles fans have there, too bad his odds of staying past his FA eligibility are slim, but who knows maybe Angelos will get bored and l;eave or something
nope not backing away from that comment, you inbred(sorry figure one insult deserves another).
My whole point has never been about Ludwicks true talent level or not, I'm fine with people having their own opinion on this issue and let time sort that out. My problem is the idiocy of pointing to the best outfielder season to date on the all star team and claiming it's a snub. Law has a well publicized dislike for the Cardinals and cannot go a league wide article without finding someway to belittle them.
There is no argument for Laws position here. If he is just talking general snubs then he can grab any of the five outfielders in the nl that are having inferior seasons to Burrell and list that. If he is talking the players vote then McLouth would be the guy he should point to. But of course him being a cub fan he finds ways to again pick on the Cardinals (remember this is the expert that picked the Tigers in 3 for the World Series, Mess in 4, and Padres in 4 for the playoffs---then you know calling Suppan a number 4 journeyman, and of course the fact that his success in Toronto speaks volume and cements his knowledge when he bags on TLR, I mean you would imagine a guy this wrong, this often about a team would attempt to avoid the completly, but he can't resist, I'm sure he still thinks the Cardinals will finish below 76 wins.---well not think, but hopes)
Did you know that if a starter (i.e., fan selection) gets hurt and can't start, the guy who starts in his place must be one of the player selections, rather than one of the manager/league selections on the roster?
Another not insignificant point against Burrell is that EqBR has him as a truly awful baserunner, as bad as negative 7.5 runs one year.
Is Keith a Cub fan? I just assumed his having worked in the industry would ahve blunted his fandom for a particular team. Also, all those instances of Card hate you cite were the consensus opinions at the time. IOW, I think you're picking on Keith here and taking this all way too personally.
BTW, I've always like Ludwick as a player. He's someone I though could be a 25-30 HR guy with a .330 or so oba if he were allowed to play a full season. Guys like that make 10 million a year so it's too bad it's taken so long for him to get a shot. Good for him that he's taken advantage of his opportunity.
Who said Matt Holliday was snubbing someone?
ok, don't focus on Burrel vs Ludwick, but how about Burrell versus the field. If you were voting and for some reason you are limited to 7 spots, and these are the candidates Burrell, Ludwick, Braun, Soriano, Fukodome, McLouth, and Holliday, what is your listing?
Mine would go.
1. Holliday
2. Burrell
3. Ludwick
4. McLouth
5. Soriano
6. Braun
7. Fukodome
and there are probably close to 10 people ahead of Fukodome (Nady, Bay, Dunn, Ankiel, Hart, Hawpe, Beltran, Rowand, Giles, Schumaker)
I hate the Braves, but when analyzing their players I don't think I'm biased against them (well maybe Frenchy...)
I'm a Met fans, but if anything I've been biased against them when evaluating (some teams I assume know what they are doing- ie the Braves, wrt the Mets- I assume they don't know what they are doing most times)
I've probably been biased against the ChiSox- but I've been working on that.
The Cardinals of recent years? I can't really see anyone being biased against them.
Is Law biased against them?
He hated the 2006 Cardinals winning the WS- so did I and many others- they were 83-78- they shouldn't ahve been there- I'd say the same thing about any 83-78 team- except the 73 Mets :-)
I don't think picking on Ludwick versus Burrell is remotely the "snub" that Law makes it out to be- but my position seems to be in a small minority on that one- is EVERYONE biased against the Cards? I don't think so...
That's really your argument? That the players' ballots mandate 3 relievers per league, and because the managers only added a total of 4 additional relievers, the players are the ones favoring relievers over starters?
really? why did Chris Jaffe tear Keith apart about the Suppan number 4 starter comment? And it may have been consensus about the Cardinals in the playoffs, but basically Keith mailed the review in, by pointing to pyth, and basing his conclusion on that. It wasn't even an effort and was mean spirited review to be honest. I actually think he's a Mess fan, and hates the Cardinal because of the 80's more than anything else, but it's hard for me to read his stuff, when he is talking about the Cardinals and not sense a massive axe to grind. He completly forgets objectivity, comes up with a conclusion, then writes based upon that conclusion.
Again, why Ludwick over McLouth as the snubbee? Ludwick is better neither guy has history to draw from, and Ludwick is actually an important piece for a good team so his name is more out there. Heck why McLouth over his own teamate, Nady?
I mean if you are pointing to snubs shouldn't you grab the worse (fukudome) player on the team and compare him to the snub? or if you are pointing to the players vote grab their worse vote (McLouth) and compare him, but of course that doesn't help Keith and his axe.
1. Holliday
2. Burrell
3. Braun
4. Soriano
5. Ludwick
6. McLouth
7. Fukudome
EDITED to reverse Ludwick and McLouth, who I initially arranged as 6/5 just to get a rise out of CFB.
23rd if you lower the bar to 200 PAs.
It looks like the criteria for "biggest mistake" didn't count fan voting (or else Ichiro and Fukudome would have made it surely), so to go by your list, if you want to include Burrell, you have to drop Ludwick or McLouth. Considering you might want to have at least one legit CF on the roster, Ludwick was the choice.
It's hardly of the Wilson/Tejeda/Varitek variety though, so I could see how it's inclusion would irk cards fans.
As a St Louisan, you speak with some authority on the subject.
Soriano is at 124 in 51 games, he was 123 last year (135 and 109 the two prior years)
Braun is at 124 (and I assume a better OF than 3B)
maybe Cardsfanboy has a point about anti-redbird bias...
Is Law biased against them?
Yes, he is. He's probably the biggest one out there, and the one with the least justification for his opinion. he's not local so he should be able to overcome his hatred, ---removed comment due to objections.-----
He hated the 2006 Cardinals winning the WS- so did I and many others- they were 83-78- they shouldn't ahve been there- I'd say the same thing about any 83-78 team- except the 73 Mets :-)
I understand that, but think people are making too much about the Cardinals because of their record, they lost something like 8 out of their last nine to make the playoffs, and that is because it was pretty impossible for them to not make the playoffs, so they weren't really giving the best effort, weren't healthy etc. That Cardinals team was arguably a 88-90 win team(yes I know what pyth says) that got healthy for the first time in months the day the playoffs started. If healthy all season long (yes I know baseball is a marathon, and roster depth is important, but I'm pointing to their talent in the post season) they easily clear 95 wins. Factor in key injuries to the Mets and any analyst worth his salt wouldn't think it's going to be a walk over, and I'm sorry but nobody should have thought the Padres had a chance against a healthy Cardinal team.
IIRC, Marvin Miller and the MLBPA weren't happy when the vote was given back to the fans in 1969.
you're trying to ruin my post # 142...
That's uncalled for and completely inappropriate. Stick to the discussion at hand.
And if history tells us anything, no one is more qualified to judge someone's objectivity than a fellow named fanboy.
cfb, you have no basis for this opinion. Honestly, you sound incredibly whiny in this thread and I usually enjoy your posts. I don't mean to attack you and hope you won't take it that way, but I'd recommend taking a step back from this one.
Nobody pays any attention to Pittsburgh, exhibit #5,268. Garcia wasn't a great player, and he probably shouldn't have been an All Star, but he had a ten-year career in the bigs, spending half of that as an everyday player. How many guys with that profile playing in NY or Boston or Chicago or whatever would be so totally forgotten?
Hey, my edit was up before your post. As for Soriano and Braun, I give credit for past accomplishment when I fill out my ASG ballot. You know, if I were to fill out an ASG ballot, which I actually haven't done in at least a decade.
Roberts has the 6th highest VORP among AL position players.
because it's you, I fixed that comment. Well that, and you were right(as usual)
And if history tells us anything, no one is more qualified to judge someone's objectivity than a fellow named fanboy.
At least I wear my fanboyishness(word?) in my name. I try to be somewhat objective until I feel that my team is being unfairly criticized. Heck talent wise, I still think the Mess, Cubs and Brewers are more talented than the Cardinals, and if my team doesn't make the World Series, I'm hoping for the Cubs to defeat the Rays (in 6 games if the NL wins the all star game, in 5 if the AL does) I just don't see the argument for Ludwick as a snub when you look at the entire roster and can find a more obvious snub at the same position. (for the record Ludwick plays average Centerfield)
I actually vaguely remembered him. My first thought was, "Second base, right?" Good for me. I deserve a beer!
Other people have touched on this already, but Nate (McLouth, not McClouth, btw) is a CF, and Ludwick is a corner OF. As such, the offensive baselines for the two are vastly different.
When I look at Ludwick, the thing that amazes me is his gigantic 2008 BABIP split. Probably no real predictive value or anything like that, just an interesting oddity, but still: .390 on BIP against RHP, .216 against LHP.
not sure where whiny comes in, but again, my argument has been all about the concept that somehow Ludwick is the guy on the roster that clearly doesn't belong there taking more deserved position from Burrell, when there are 4 outfielders on the roster all having worse seasons this year, two of which have no more of a career than Ludwick to justify their inclusion based upon some concept of history.
comments from Law like this implies that their is nearly an equal comparison between the two on defense, and of course that isn't remotely the case.
or comments like this means that he doesn't know Ludwicks history but is making assumptions just because he bounced around in the minors, that he isn't a legitimate major leaguer. He is basically reading BB-ref and not once looking at the story of Ludwick. It would be like looking at guys like Ankiel and Hamilton and saying they are playing over their heads because they don't have the minor league track record or whatever, without knowing the stories of these guys, you are always going to err on the side of caution.
"Shouldn't Beltran be in this conversation anyway? He's second among NL CF in vorp, 3 runs behind McClouth, and I think he probably makes that up in defense. Even if he doesn't, he's more of a star anyway."
You could maybe make a case, but we're talking about 10 points of OPS+, not a trivial edge for Nate on offense. I could see Beltran closing that gap with the glove, since Nate's not a killer defender... but the Pirates need a rep somewhere, and if it's not Nate then the most plausible candidates are Bay (outfielder), Nady (outfielder), and Doumit (catcher - and NL C is just jammed right now). If Capps weren't hurt, you could maybe punt and take him... but he is, so you can't. Such is life.
And I did remember Carlos Garcia. But had no idea he was ever an all-star. Saying his was a "ten-year career" is stretching it. He had fewer than a month in the bigs in half of those years. He never came anywhere near his full MLB pension.
but when the players were voting, that wasn't their choice. Using the criteria of the vote and I don't see the case for McLouth over Ludwick. And if Keith were using that argument, shouldn't that have been expressed in the article?
What criteria? if you like Ludwick over Burrell because of his defensive superiority, then McLouth is defensively superior to Ludwick. In fact, so superior that he plays in a completely different part of the outfield, one generally reserved for superior defensive players.
I wonder who the single most obscure player is (that was a starter for 4 years) since 1990. Carlos Garcia is a good starting point.
snip while he talks of Posada and Victor
Except, you know, they're playing above replacement level. When you have a team of All-Stars, shouldn't one of the criteria be that they are above replacement level?
Not that cfb needs someone to speak for him, but he did put Burrell ahead of Ludwick.
Cfb, you still aren't acknowledging that for the purposes of the article, Soriano, Braun and Fukudome are off the table. But, your point about equivocating between Burrell's defense and Ludwick's is right; while neither one is excellent, there is a big gap in their respective levels of "badness."
Maybe Varitek will pull a Steinbach on the all star game!
Yeah, I wasn't necessarily talking just Beltran vs McClouth, just in general. Beltran is a better candidate than both Mclouth and Ludwick (in the more general sense of an all star, though you can probably make at least a decent argument he's had a better year than both guys) and Ludwick wasn't the only Cardinal taken or anything. Whatever.
EDIT: Also, note that Roberts can still make the team. Markakis can't, barring a string of injuries.
What about Kurt Suzuki?
Hell I'd take Kelly Shoppach over 2008 Tek
Hell I'd take Kelly Shoppach over 2008 Tek
I bet the Red Sox would, too.
Pierzynski's the best option, but he's a red ass and everyone hates him.
There are lots of people here in Chicago who love him. Who hates him? Maybe we could start a list:
1. Angels fans (made their team look foolish)
2. Giants fans (made their team's GM look foolish)
3. Michael Barrett (?)
4. That trainer dude he allegedly hit in the nuts
5. Joe Sheehan (I assume, since Sheehan isn't crushing on/angling for a job from Kenny Williams)
Am I missing anyone?
There are lots of people here in Chicago who love him. Who hates him? Maybe we could start a list:
1. Angels fans (made their team look foolish)
2. Giants fans (made their team's GM look foolish)
3. Michael Barrett (?)
4. That trainer dude he allegedly hit in the nuts
Am I missing anyone?
People who hate AJ:
1. Players not on the White Sox
2. People that aren't fans of the White Sox
3. Probably 50% of White Sox players
4. Probably 50% of White Sox fans
There's the list.
I'll always love him for that strikeout in the playoffs in 05
I'm pretty sure you're missing most of the rest of the league. A.J. has never been well-liked outside his own clubhouse, dating back to his Minnesota days.
i, on the other hand, will just about make up stuff if i have to, so tend to shy from the stats debates.
i'd rather see chris duncan on the allstar team than any cub. i'd rather see the cards trade for so taguchi over the weekend and somehow put him on the AS squad than any cub, ever.
and i say that with all due respect.
now THAT's a fanboy.
OK. Assuming you are correct, so what? It's an All-Star Game, not an All-Good Guys With Intangibles Game. If that's the game we're playing, why not Sean Casey as an All-Star selection? I've heard he's VERY chatty at first base, and is occasionally referred to as "The Mayor."
Really? The Phils could use an extra bag of sunflower seeds.
I can not see any inkling of any talent that Taguchi may have. He can't hit, can't bunt, can't pinch run, can't judge fly balls. I suppose he throws the ball straight. There, that's it, that's what he does. Abraham Nunez was more useful last year than Taguchi is this year.
He's not saying that it's necessarily right, just that it's understandable. If your peer group hates you, then you aren't going to get much benefit of the doubt when it's their turn to hand out honors.
Now I am, yes. But I've had cardsfanboy set to "ignore" for a while now, so I just caught this. I wasn't aware I was a Cub fan, though. That was news to me. I should go to the mlb.com shop and buy some gear or something.
BTW, Ichiro and Fukudome are a completely separate argument - they're there because an entire country is voting for them. Too much of a tangent for an article due two hours after the announcement.
And I thought you had taste.
well, that was my point. i was just being a real fanboy.
Navarro incidentally seems to me to be the obvious second choice.
On behalf of Cubs fans everywhere, Keith, welcome! Once you've gotten your merchandise, stop over at that table and they'll give you your starting ration of hopelessness and disappointment.
It'd be really easy to fix. Just have players name a first choice and a second choice, and if the first choice is voted in by fans, go with the second choice in the player voting.
really? After seeing the way the players vote, I view it as a total negative. At least when the managers loaded the team with guys from their own team, it was usually a solid team because the manager was on the pennant winner. Here, you just get everyone's friend.
Francona would've never chosen Varitek
It'd be really easy to fix. Just have players name a first choice and a second choice, and if the first choice is voted in by fans, go with the second choice in the player voting.
Yeah, that's what they do. Mauer was first by fans and players, so Varitek was chosen because he was second as voted by the players
Yes, but the players voted only for their 1st choice. So Varitek was selected by a plurality of the relatively small number of players that didn't vote for Mauer. If the players listed their 2nd and/or 3rd choices, probably would have been different.
You don't need third choices. In my system, guys who pick Mauer with their first choice have their alternate used as their vote, and guys who pick someone else with their first choice have that guy used as their vote.
Right now, as YC notes, the players only vote for one candidate, and players who have the misfortune of choosing the same candidate as fans don't get a vote at all.
and that means you missed me praising your great pre-draft (yes an actual compliment, probably one of the better pre-drafts out there)
And, he missed you saying it again.
And since Mauer is pretty obviously the best catcher in the AL at this point, that means the choice for the second all-star catcher was left up to a pool of players who clearly aren't paying very close attention to what's going on.
I don't think having the players pick produces clearly worse results than the managers; it's just a different kind of bad. From my perspective, it's all good, because bad/weird selections make for good content. I never even got to Crede because there were more egregious (in my opinion) errors there.
Most of us don't write blogs, so we don't have that perspective. Of course, we do just come here and moan about it, so I guess there's that.
As for me, the farcical 2006 ASG fan vote for Jason Bay and Freddy Sanchez (the players weren't a farce, the over-orchestrated hometown voting was), combined with the year a Sox fan tried to electronically rig the vote for Nomar, combined with the 2008 Varitek selection, is really distasteful. The player vote, the manager selections, the 32nd-man voting, This Time It Counts™ -- it's epicycles on top of epicycles. It's the sporting equivalent of Joel Schumacher's Batman. It's awful.
I've read what Keith's written for nearly 15 years and I've never got the sense that he has it in for any team. I think you're reading too much into him not thinking much of the 2006 Cardinals. A lot of people still don't think much of that team, myself included.
I've read what Keith's written for nearly 15 years and I've never got the sense that he has it in for any team. I think you're reading too much into him not thinking much of the 2006 Cardinals. A lot of people still don't think much of that team, myself included.
ok, I recant.
I still think he is wrong for picking Ludwick as the bad pick, I also do think he had the best pre-draft article that I read(on ESPN)
I don't think having the players pick produces clearly worse results than the managers; it's just a different kind of bad. From my perspective, it's all good, because bad/weird selections make for good content. I never even got to Crede because there were more egregious (in my opinion) errors there.
as to the players pick, I agree with many on here, automatically giving it to the second most popular choice doesn't seem to be working that well. (and I'm guessing Pujols is a bigger ####### than is known here in St Louis for him to finish behind Adrian Gonzalez---wouldn't surprise me) From what was posted on here the cba gives the players the vote, but I'm sure the methodology is allowed to be tampered with. (I like the idea of two votes and if the first vote is the winner use the second vote instead of just going with the second most popular)
I acknowledge it's entirely a matter of opinion. My take on the rosters is that they should be about much more than just this season's stats. If you weight current-season performance more heavily than I do, then Ludwick's a defensible choice.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main