Wednesday, December 12, 2012
2013 Results: Bonds, Clemens, Piazza and Biggio are elected to the Hall of Merit!
(bbtf)
Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mike Piazza and Craig Biggio have been elected to the Hall of Merit!
The timing for our first year electing 4 candidates could not have worked out better, since class of 2013 is the strongest in terms of electees that we’ve ever had. The top of the 1934 ballot included Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Eddie Collins, Pop Lloyd, Smokey Joe Williams and Cristobal Torriente, but only 2 were elected.
Bonds and Clemens were each unanimous at 1 and 2. I believe that’s the first ...
Read More...
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.
Page 5 of 6 pages
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 >how is that different than the regular season?
It's not.
That.
I would argue this is societal, not "Seligian." I know he's driving the bus on a lot of these changes but he's making these changes because of a belief that it is what fans want.
Is your entire argument this thread that the devaluation of the regular season is bad? I have to be honest, I don't think many people here would argue that point.
I would disagree with the last third of this statement. If he was a scapegoat the Sox wouldn't still be waiting for compensation, they'd have kicked him to the curb.
That was my one very minor demurrer, also. Selig set out to add more teams and make more money, not to create October Madness at the expense of the regular season and true baseball accomplishment. October Madness was an unanticipated side effect.
I think Selig and the other Lords realize it has now become October Madness, and their ideas (**) and planning going forward will be with that as a template.
(**) They're obviously happy they lucked into a method by which they can overstate "competitive balance" and "negate" the Yankee payroll advantage. The October Madness model gives them an avenue to do that.
If Francona could've negotiated with another team, while still under Sox control and with the other team willing to offer compensation, they wouldn't have scapegoated him either.
I recommend it very highly, and without qualification. Quite simply, in my view it's great content that you can't really get in other places, it comes regularly (easily, by email), and there's a lot of it. Of course, if you don't like Sheehan's work, you won't care for it; I can't do anything about that. But I think it's great.
It's also pretty inexpensive, and he donates a portion of the proceeds out of the subscription fees to cancer research. And some of his readers match.
He's also very accessible via email and Twitter. He regularly responds to my "I can't believe Joe Girardi just did that" messages.
They claim not to, but their treatment of the postseason, in attaching extreme significance to it, betrays that. That's my complaint.
I think we can trace this back to Selig because the wildcard was his obsession.
And the wildcard is what led to the regular season being devalued. Teams now don't care about winning their division per se, but simply about getting into the playoffs. So whether they qualify for the tournament via a division title or via a wildcard is of no moment to them. Division races get sapped of their excitement and energy and meaning.
We've lost a lot here, and it WAS all anticipated, and for confused people to consider the postseason the sundae instead of the cherry just fuels the nonsense.
Well then who is your "best" team of 2011? And what level of confidence do you have in that choice? You've been arguing for this the whole time and what's the answer?
But this argument cuts as much against your pt. as in favor. No one is drawing any deep meaning from the regular season either, are they? Are you? Because every time someone accuses you of awarding plaques to the Year End Best Team or some such, you back off.
Do you think that with the data we have available today, we could run 10,000 simulated seasons and then conclude which team was the best one this year? Is that more of the standard that you are suggesting when you say "best" team or some such?
It's part of it. I stopped watching the regular season after the 94 strike I guess. Part of it was tediousness of regular season in general and part of it is the 3 divisions and part of it is the wild card. The only thing holding my interest now is the drama of the playoffs, the team match ups, and stuff.
Furhermore, I'm not sure I would be drawn in any more if they went back to 2 leagues and one round of playoffs. Most likely some team has it wrapped up with a few weeks to go and there is no drama. Late season pennant chases have proven to be fun, but they dont occur very often. And I'm not sure that watching say the Red Sox battle a cellar dwelling team the last day of the season would still have the same charm as it did back then.
I haven't figured out which team I think was the best of 2011. Perhaps that's because I don't care about that, other than as some academic exercise I have no real interest in unless asked? It's utterly irrelevant to the points I've been making.
The extreme significance is because winning the World Series is the ultimate on-field goal of virtually everyone associated with the sport. The players, management, fans, media...they all want to win a World Series. I sincerely doubt anyone in the Marlin locker room in 1997 was saying "well, this great, but I wish we had won the division."
You may not like it, but that significance exists and more importantly has ALWAYS existed. I won't dispute that the regular season has been devalued for and by many but the truth is that the goal has always been to win the World Series.
I thought it was relevant because the whole time you've been saying that the regular season is the best indicator that we have of the best team. Is it so obvious? I would have thought if it was the best indicator then the answer would be obvious and you could quickly produce it. But then you started to talk about division winners and maybe you think the regular season is only good at telling us who is the best in the division, w/o telling us who is best in the league. Is that it?
I thought "best in the league" was one of your main pts in all this. Gee whiz, I didnt think it would take much work to answer.
That's true, but before the split into divisions, winning the league pennant was a huge thing, almost as important as winning the World Series. It's not that way anymore.
I say this as someone who likes the current playoff format, and likes the idea of another wild card with a one game play-in.
Because the Yankees make the playoffs 90% of the time, and the Diamondbacks 20%
Because winning baseball is fun, and generates more revenue?
If you enjoy baseball, why does the chance element bother you?
Those are odd examples. The Diamondbacks have five playoff berths, all of them as division champions and all with 90 wins or more. On the other hand, the Red Sox have runner-upped their way into the postseason more than any other club. This September shows they haven't quite perfected the "just get to the postseason and see what happens" process, but no one does it better.
And that is evidence that most fans are stupid when it comes to this issue, and, as Ray has said, don't understand what they're seeing.
The fact that most people think something doesn't make it true. At one time most people thought the sun revolved around the earth. Did that make it true?
It is unfair. How can it not be unfair that the winners of 162-game seasons have to be subjected to short series not against teams from other, completely different 162-game seasons that they played in other leagues, but against teams that they themselves have already defeated?
I come back to the idea that the one game playoff system eliminates the incentive to be a 90-93ish win team. There will be incentive to be a 100-win team, because that guarantees a division win (except in the AL East, where there could be two such teams--it can't be ignored that the Red Sox are the team that's the most screwed by the new system) and a real playoff spot. But the only thing winning in the low 90s will guarantee is a coin flip which could be achieved by winning in the mid to high 80s instead. The new system will increase regular season competitive imbalance, and at the same time--for precisely that reason--make the random character of the post-season even more maddening.
Ray answered this in another thread, and if I'm not mistaken, he said that players are not playing for this, they are primarily playing for better numbers to make more money and the World Series is secondary.
I will accept and apologize if my memory is incorrect, but I'm pretty sure that was the size of it.
The fact that most people think something doesn't make it true. At one time most people thought the sun revolved around the earth. Did that make it true?
This does not seem particularly in the same zip code as a fair analogy.
But this is like asking why it should bother someone if Shoeless Joe is throwing games.
I want to see a higher level of skill and talent be rewarded. That doesn't happen in the postseason, which rewards luck above all else. And so we should be careful about which teams we let into the postseason. Also-rans have no business being there.
And that is evidence that most fans are stupid when it comes to this issue, and, as Ray has said, don't understand what they're seeing.
The fact that most people think something doesn't make it true. At one time most people thought the sun revolved around the earth. Did that make it true?
No, the winner of the World Series is most definitely the champion. It may not be just. It certainly doesn't make it the best team. But it is the champion.
Your memory is indeed correct, that was the size of it, and I utterly cannot comprehend why anyone would dispute this.
First the players care about their livelihoods and careers and numbers. Second they care about winning the World Series. This is completely natural, normal, and expected.
At its most basic level, they cannot win the World Series if they are out of the league.
They'd trade a little performance or money or career for a World Series win, but not much.
Do players retire immediately after winning the World Series, their goal having been accomplished? I must have missed that.
When do they retire? When they can no longer play the game up to their standards. When they can no longer make money playing the game. When they can no longer play the game. All of this has nothing to do with winning the World Series. By and large, players have to be dragged kicking and screaming off the field and into the twilight. Whether they have won a World Series or not.
Right, but the fact that there's one champion and only one champion -- and most people think of it in those terms -- is a product of the wild-card, postseason tournament era. Bug, not feature.
And to reiterate, the tournament at 8 teams that include non-divison winners makes no more principled sense than a tournament at 12, 18, or 24 teams that includes non-division winners. It simply doesn't.
What I meant was what I laid out at the bottom of 221. Notwithstanding what's happened in three of the past four seasons, the Red Sox and Yankees have been able, under the one wildcard system, to come as close as is possible to guaranteeing themselves the right to play in a best-of-five playoff series after the regular season's conclusion. They've been able to do that by spending a lot of money and spending it wisely, but they've had the incentive to bother doing it, because they've known that if they won 95 games they were in. The new playoff system will eliminate that incentive, because now the one that didn't win the division will get put not into a best-of-five series against a division winner, but into a one-game playoff against a team that won fewer games . Thus, there will be no point in winning 95 games when 89 wins would do just as well to get the team into the one-game playoff against the 87-win or 90-win team. I know that they'll both be "trying" to win the division, which theoretically would make them still try to win as many games as possible, but honestly, it seems most likely that
the Yankees will simply ramp their spending up to a level that makes trying to seriously compete against them for the division title all but pointless, which will remove the Red Sox incentive to do anything but win about the same number of games as the Blue Jays or Angels or whoever is the other main wildcard contender in a given season.
This is precisely my view as well.
But this is like asking why it should bother someone if Shoeless Joe is throwing games.
In what way is being bothered by chance like being bothered by cheating? I request clarification.
Not always. Through the first decade of the modern WS, the NL teams tended to treat it as an afterthought. Case in point: in both 1907 and 1908 against the Tigers, Chance hardly used Mordecai Brown at all (two starts, one relief appearance), while Orval Overall started four games of the 10 played. Overall was generally spotted during the regular season against lesser teams; in 1908, for example, he started 27 times, 20 against the second-division teams. It wasn't until the AL started beating the NL teams like a drum in the teens that the NL took it seriously.
-- MWE
I'll echo Lassus' question?
I want to see a higher level of skill and talent be rewarded. That doesn't happen in the postseason, which rewards luck above all else. And so we should be careful about which teams we let into the postseason. Also-rans have no business being there.
Skill and talent is still rewarded, it's just a slightly smaller factor.
At the end of the day, it's entertaining baseball, played by the best teams, for the highest stakes.
Setting these two things up as competing, ordinal interests in the answer is not fair or logical. If someone says: "They play to win the World Series" and your answer is: "No, they play for money", it is nonsensical as there is no competition in those two activities, they are not on similar enough levels enough to be pitted against each other.
I also think that the bolded portion is where you are overselling with your armchair psychology of professional athletes.
But it's not "just a slightly smaller factor"; it's basically non-existant. Luck swamps everything in the postseason.
And I've acknowledged that, and it's precisely why I enjoy the postseason. But people are confused in thinking that the postseason means something, when it doesn't mean anything except "this team got lucky to win the tournament."
Ray, do you not recall Curt Schilling risking his career (and costing himself a lost season) on an experimental medical procedure and Keith Foulkeshredding his arm, and basically ending his career at age 31, to win a World Series for your team?
That certainly seemed like they cared, a lot.
If you have incredibly evenly matched teams, sure, it plays a large role.
The Sox were just lucky they had those guys, that's all.
By the way, above I was referring to how Girardi started Martin over Montero in the playoffs. Now, I don't expect someone who Knows Baseball like Girardi to actually start Montero in playoff games (the horror), but at the least Girardi could have sent Montero up to hit for Martin with the game on the line, and he didn't.
The Schilling thing gets brought up a lot (mostly by SoSH), which basically shows the weakness of using him as your data point. The reason he's the go-to for this is precisely because what he did was so rare.
Maybe that's why he mentioned two guys.
They were misguided in caring that much.
Though I'm not surprised that you failed to notice, these are two different arguments Ray. I bring up Schilling when arguing against your position that postseason stats shouldn't be considered when weighing a player's Hall of Fame resume. My position is that if you completely ignore postseason stats, you're allowing the players to take the risks that come with these additional games (most notably, Schilling's injury that cost him all of 2005) without gaining any of the rewards of their play in those games.
Here, snapper was pointing out that Schilling's willingness to risk his careeer in pursuit of a World Series ring (his second), is evidence that players will put that goal ahead of monetary concerns.
?
I find it unfortunate that players are so wrapped up in the idea of winning the World Series, over which they have so little control, that they would risk their careers for the chance to do it, with "chance" being very much the operative word. It's tantamount to risking their careers to spin a roulette wheel. It's perfectly good for them to go out and play as hard as they can, but taking risks of that kind exposes their misunderstanding of the relative importance of subsequent regular seasons and the current post-season. It's also unfortunate that players consider themselves to have somehow "failed" if they don't win the World Series. But the fact that they really are thinking thoughts like that, and really do regard the playoffs and winning the World Series as the most important thing, makes it more difficult to watch the sport the more the element of chance in making and winning in the playoffs is increased.
I think you are imagining things and putting your personal biased perception onto other peoples comments. Not one person on this thread or probably ever in the history of BBTF, has stated that the World Series determines the best team. Heck this weeks issue of Sports Illustrated flatly states that this post season put the nail into the coffin of anyone thinking that the World Series is about the best team.
The post season is a tournament, simple as that, you have eight teams go into this tournament, and the winner takes the trophy. Nobody thinks that it is the best tool for picking out the best team, heck even in the most famous tournament in the U.S., March Madness, nobody really claims the best team is going to win(mind you it does happen sometimes) but nobody thinks a tournament is the best tool for determining the best team, it's just one way to grab an audience, create a sense of urgency/extreme importance to a limited number of games to ramp up the excitement level and buzz.
You are right, but at the same time there has to be a cutoff, and right now it's eight, and it will probably soon be ten. It's always been a balancing act, between rewarding the regular season, and creating a tournament that people will follow. More rounds mean more teams, more teams mean more teams are competitive longer in the season allowing teams to make more money. At some point too many teams completely devalues the regular season(see NHL) but it's up to each major sport to work on it's balancing act for the best interest of the majority of the fans.
Randy Johnson pitched on zero days rest in the WS, which certainly could have risked his future.
It's rare simply because it's rare for pitchers to sustain arm injuries in the World Series. It's difficult to think of comparable examples for position players. Maybe Gibson?
It's not uncommon at all for position players to play while dinged up in the playoffs.
It's probably not all that rare that postseason pitching plays a part in arm injuries. It's just difficult for us to identify that as the specific cause, particularly with the lengthy break that follows.
Yep. I'm not sure what the "caring" proves beyond the fact that guys want to play in the postseason and win in the postseason. Professional athletes want to do well when everyone's watching. The same phenomenon applies to Monday Night Football.
Not news. You put the Royals in the 2011 postseason with 20 odd other teams, and Alex Gordon's rushing back to play and Luke Hochever's taking the ball, "bloody sock" be damned.
Page 5 of 6 pages
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.