User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.7321 seconds
47 querie(s) executed
| ||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Saturday, July 07, 2012Barra: Pablo Sandoval Over David Wright In All-Star Game? It’s All Your Fault, New YorkMerely a fece in the crowd…
Repoz
Posted: July 07, 2012 at 09:24 AM | 132 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: all-star game, giants, mets |
Login to submit news.
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsNewsblog: OT - 2017-18 NBA thread (All-Star Weekend to End of Time edition)
(2820 - 10:57pm, Apr 26) Last: SPICEY WITH A SIDE OF BEER ON A BABYYYYYYY Newsblog: That's my secret, Captain. I'm always OMNICHATTER, for April 26, 2018 (109 - 10:51pm, Apr 26) Last: cardsfanboy Newsblog: OT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (April - June 2018) (466 - 10:45pm, Apr 26) Last: Gch exhales the vast drunken folly of Epicurus Newsblog: OT - 2017 NFL thread (2132 - 10:39pm, Apr 26) Last: stevegamer Newsblog: Today's Phillies-Diamondbacks game available only on Facebook (1 - 10:24pm, Apr 26) Last: stevegamer Newsblog: BBTF ANNUAL CENTRAL PARK SOFTBALL GAME 2018 (70 - 10:16pm, Apr 26) Last: Ray (CTL) Newsblog: Raissman: Mike Francesa returning to WFAN in the 3 pm - 7 pm time slot, sources tell News (114 - 9:57pm, Apr 26) Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Newsblog: Brewers first baseman Eric Thames goes on DL with torn thumb ligament (19 - 9:35pm, Apr 26) Last: Greg Pope Newsblog: Ronald Acuna hits first homer | MLB.com (8 - 8:45pm, Apr 26) Last: flournoy Newsblog: Tampa Bay Rays promote LHP Jonny Venters (14 - 7:49pm, Apr 26) Last: Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Newsblog: OTP 2018 Apr 23: The Dominant-Sport Theory of American Politics (1002 - 7:34pm, Apr 26) Last: Spahn Insane Newsblog: Kyle Schwarber hits 2 homers in Cubs' win (62 - 7:31pm, Apr 26) Last: Walt Davis Newsblog: Jung Ho Kang Receives Visa, Set To Rejoin Pirates (4 - 7:18pm, Apr 26) Last: This is going to be state of the art wall Newsblog: OT: Winter Soccer Thread (1649 - 5:51pm, Apr 26) Last: J. Sosa Newsblog: Taking Back the Ballparks - Marlins voting thread (19 - 4:56pm, Apr 26) Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2014 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.7321 seconds |
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.
He's also right about the myth of a bias towards New York players. That may apply to how many national telecasts New York teams get**, but not to awards voting or HoF selections. In this case, I wouldn't be surprised if it has something to do with the bizarre practice of allowing multiple votes.
**Which besides demographics and ratings, has a lot to do with the fact that the Yankees are always among the game's best teams.
David Wright:
2011 WAR: 1.9
2010 WAR: 2.5
2009 WAR: 2.9
This is one of the NL's best players? Does Allen Barra not realize that you can look this stuff up?
Why? That it's a process you object to and this is a result you don't agree with doesn't mean the two are in any way connected. We know Pablo got more votes than David Wright. We also know that Giants fans have been a hell of a lot more likely to show up at Telecommunications Park than Mets fans have at Banking Corporation Field. If I had to pinpoint a culprit for the end result, I'd start with that inconvenient fact.
But he is one of the NL's best players.
2011 WAR: 1.9
2010 WAR: 2.5
2009 WAR: 2.9
This is one of the NL's best players? Does Allen Barra not realize that you can look this stuff up?
You can also look this up:
David Wright's 2012 WAR to date: 4.6
Pablo Sandoval's 2012 WAR: 0.9
David Wright's two best WAR seasons: 8.1, 6.7
Pablo Sandoval's two best WAR seasons: 5.9, 4.1
-------------------------------------------------
In this case, I wouldn't be surprised if it has something to do with the bizarre practice of allowing multiple votes.
Why? That it's a process you object to and this is a result you don't agree with doesn't mean the two are in any way connected. We know Pablo got more votes than David Wright. We also know that Giants fans have been a hell of a lot more likely to show up at Telecommunications Park than Mets fans have at Banking Corporation Field. If I had to pinpoint a culprit for the end result, I'd start with that inconvenient fact.
That's a fair point about attendance, and the rules are the rules, even though the idea of openly encouraging ballot box stuffing by multiple voting is one of those curious and somewhat insane practices that can only be defended on marketing grounds. There's absolutely no other reason for its existence.
Since the 2011 ASB:
David Wright:
AVG/OBP/SLG
.315/.401/.501 (OPS .912)
Sandoval:
.319/.369/.550 (OPS .919)
Are we supposed to forget about last year now?
Edit: also, dWar is broken right now. You really shouldn't use it anymore.
Brandon Belt came in second place among 1Bs, and Brandon Crawford, who is much closer to the league's worst shortstop than he is to the best, came withing 300,000 votes of starting, and Freddy Sanchez, who has proudly not set foot upon a baseball field this year, came in 4th place at his position.
In mid-June Wright had a 380,000 vote lead on Sandoval. In late June Wright had a 400,000 vote lead. Somehow, in the last week of voting, Sandoval made up that gap and ended up with a 1,600,000 vote lead! What the ####? How is that possible?
Since the 2011 ASB:
Wright:
623 PA
Sandoval:
461 PA
also
Yes. It's the 2012 all star game, not the first half of 2012 and second half of 2011 all star game.
Actually, there's no reason to get worked up about it. This isn't bringing democracy to some troubled African nation. The whole idea is to generate interest in baseball. And if some kid (or basement-dwelling adult) demonstrates his interest in the game by repeatedly punching out his favorite players' names, it doesn't actually do the sport a disservice.
I get so sick of the whining about the A-S game because it's not exactly the game some fan wants it to be. Some fans think it should be about the guys having the best season. Others about the stars. Some want the teams to go all out in pursuit of victory, substituting infrqeuently. Others like to see players they don't see often during the regular season (hint: not every baseball fan has the extra TV package or an online subscription). The end result is the game is a blend of all those things, which is the only sensible way to handle it, despite the incessant caterwauling of the Barras of the world.
This is most likely just due to a delay in counting. If several weeks of ballots weren't counted right away, it looks like a huge leap-frog, but just an artifact of collection.
This POV is bizarre to me. You start voting in April. David Wright has been thoroughly mediocre for three years. Why wouldn't that affect how I vote for the 2012 ASG--after all, I don't want to see a bunch of first half flukes.
Oh yeah, forgot to note: Angel Pagan was #5 in the voting for outfield, and Aubrey Huff, he of the .155 average in 58 ABs, was 14th.
Tshipman, do you still dare to defend Sandoval vs Wright with arguments about, you know, baseball? This was a triumph of marketing and absolutely nothing else.
Well, as I pointed out, even if you do want to use the bizarre "since last all star game" numbers, once you adjust for playing time, Wright has clearly been better than Sandoval. It's no contest. Wright is a better player over the past year, has been a much much better player in the past, and is a much much better player right now. Really though, I'm glad all the clowns in San Francisco voted in Sandoval, cause I'm a Yankee fan and I want the AL to win.
David Wright:
AVG/OBP/SLG
.315/.401/.501 (OPS .912)
Sandoval:
.319/.369/.550 (OPS .919)
Are we supposed to forget about last year now?
Edit: also, dWar is broken right now. You really shouldn't use it anymore.
I see. This year's gap is meaningless, previous peaks are meaningless, defensive metrics are meaningless, but whatever shows Sandoval in the best possible light is what we should be looking at.
Look, I don't care if Sandoval starts. I'll probably be at a pool tournament that night, anyway. And while I think Wright's clearly the more deserving player, Sandoval's choice isn't exactly the scandal that Barra seems to find so monstrous. But going forward I would love to see ballot stuffing eliminated as an offered option, whether or not it can ever be eliminated completely. If magazines can prevent you from easily renewing your subscriptions at the come-on introductory rate, surely baseball can get rid of the sort of ballot stuffing that makes farces like this a not-all-that-infrequent occurrence.
Then have the vote after the year is over. It's silly/moronic to base the 2012 all star game based upon 2 months of stats(and yes I look at it as two months, since voting starts after one month)
Besides, why should NY fans be upset when Jeter is in the All star game? Jeter makes up massively for the Wright snub.
Which is exactly what the All-Star game is all about, and absolutely nothing else. Not that there's anything wrong with that, since it's little more than an exhibition showcase. But winning the game is so far down on the list of priorities that it barely qualifies as an afterthought.
Unfortunately that's true. It's just annoying to see these wacky results defended as if they were, well, worth defending.
Which is why your outrage over the atrocity that is all-star ballot stuffing is so bizarre.
I'm not completely serious in any of this, but you really should ignore dWar right now. It's quite broken.
What a guy did in 2007 is not really that relevant. Over the last four years, Sandoval has been a better player. I don't see why it's bizarre to base your vote on how a guy has played since the last ASG.
Well, first of all, both guys made the team and both guys deserved to, so it's not really a big deal, imo (although I do think Mets fans are silly for whinging about it).
My point was originally more that Barra was pretending that Wright's been a star since he's been in the league was wrong, as his three year malaise actually put him squarely outside of "star" territory. Btw: he can still fall off significantly in the second half. He has a .384 BaBiP right now.
In which case you should have voted for Wright, since once you account for playing time, he has clearly been better than Sandoval since the last all star game.
(It would have been funny if Brandon Crawford had been elected the starting All-Star shortstop. I'm sure you would have heard a lot of people talk about taking away the vote if that had happened.)
Anyway, it's irrational to be mad at people who decided that the All-Star Game isn't important enough to get involved in doing that. It's like being mad at them for not voting for "American Idol", or for which Wal-Mart Pitbull should perform at. (BTW, vote for Kodiak, Alaska). If they have no interest in participating in this particular PR campaign, then they have no interest in participating in this particular PR campaign.
EDIT: And if fans start acting like homers to the point of fielding a team full of lousy players, then take away their vote.
Selective endpoints I guess.
Since 2010 Wright has a 138 ops+ to Sandoval's 126. Has a 9.0 war to Sandoval's 8.1. Why is 2007 irrelevant, but 2009 is all the sudden so important? Is that because, it's the one of two possible time frames available for Sandoval to come out ahead... let's see
2012 only. Sandoval 145 ops+ Wright 179
2011-2012 Sandoval 155 Wright 144 (extra 130 pa from Wright makes up some of the difference, defense is the real tie breaker)
2010-2012 Sandoval 126 Wright 138. (the 180 pa advantage for Wright doesn't figure in)
2009-2012 Sandoval 132, Wright 134.
2008-2012 Sandoval 131 to Wrights 136.
I'm not even seeing how someone can say Sandoval has been the better player over the past four years, it's hard enough to argue over the last year and a half for Sandoval.
Barra was overselling his point, but you are overselling yours. Wright has been an All-Star in every year but 2011, when he missed most of May and all of June. That alone gives lie to the idea that he was ever squarely outside of "star" territory, and you have to put a lot of credence in his fielding numbers in 2009-2010 to swipe those years into "malaise" territory.
On your "Btw," of course, nobody is as good as their best half.
Wouldn't argue that. Just pointing out, that if the original poster would have said "last three years" and it would have been clear that Wright has been the better player over the past three years, past one year, past five years, it's just the four year listing that puts Sandoval in the discussion.
Evan Longoria 23.1
Adrian Beltre 18.3
Ryan Zimmerman 15.2
Alex Rodriguez 12.8
Pablo Sandoval 12.2
David Wright 11.9
Scott Rolen 9.5
Chipper Jones 8.8
Alex Rodriguez 42.6
Adrian Beltre 34.9
David Wright 34.3
Chipper Jones 30.4
Evan Longoria 27.6
Ryan Zimmerman 25.2
Scott Rolen 21.2
Aramis Ramirez 18.7
This really shows what a beast Longoria is.
Sandoval has been the better player since his first full season--as you see in post 27.
So your argument is that his undeserved selections in 2010 and 2009 justify his selection in 2012? That's an interesting argument.
Actually, that's not true---it's also about home-field advantage in the World Series, which is a big deal.
Also, didn't the commissioner's office step in after the fans' voting in like, 1960 or so, when all 8 NL starters were Cincinnati Reds after a civic ballot-stuffing campaign? Ladies and gentlemen, your starting All Star Second Baseman, Eddie Kasko!!
Top Players by bWAR (2005-2012)
Albert Pujols 57.7
Chase Utley 48.2
Alex Rodriguez 42.6
Miguel Cabrera 37.1
Mark Teixeira 37.0
Matt Holliday 35.2
Adrian Beltre 34.9
David Wright 34.3
Carlos Beltran 33.8
Joe Mauer 33.7
Utley has a whopping 15 dWAR over that period of time. It is also depressing to see that the Mets had two top ten WAR players during that time and very little to show for it.
12.2 to 11.9 WAR is well within the margin of error. And you still have not addressed the fact that, by your own standards(performance since last all star game), Wright should be the starter once you account for playing time.
Ugh. You said that Wright was not a star for three years. I pointed out that in two of those years he was selected to the All-Star team.
By oWAR only, Wright has outperformed Sandoval 14.8 to 12.5 over that time as well.
Basically, since Sandoval came into the league, he has been roughly Wright's equal. Wright's having the much better year and deserves to start the All-Star game, but taking a wider view of the two, picking one over the other isn't really that big of a deal.
And since 2009, Zimmerman's been better than both of them.
ASG voters typically have not penalized guys for getting hurt.
I seem to be getting off-track, though. It's never been my position that Sandoval unequivocally deserves to be the ASG starter. My position is that both guys should probably be in the game, but that Mets fans (including Allen Barra) are being unnecessarily histrionic when discussing Wright not being the ASG starter.
As a secondary position, basing your ASG voting solely on this year is, in my opinion, bad voting. Citing this year's stats and ignoring last year's to claim that Wright is the victim of some kind of conspiracy is also stupid, and ignores the fact that many votes are cast early in the year.
Finally, I also think that dWar is broken and I don't know enough to know how that is affecting these two players right now because I have no idea how much the Giants shift compared to other teams in the league.
I don't see that at all. I see by one metric, war, that Sandoval and Wright are effectively even(I thought it was understood that war is not accurate to a decimal point) since Sandoval has joined the league. Which of course, would then be another argument for Wright, if you want to argue their careers and they are equal since Sandoval's career started, Wright get's the bonus points for having the extra years.
It is? Has it ever really made a difference? Last time I looked it up, I think the team that won the world series in seven games, had homefield advantage like 3 more times than the visiting team. Heck, I still think the true advantage goes to what's considered the visiting team. That 3-4-5 games at home, is the big deal, split one on the road with your two best pitchers, come home with your 3-4 guys, use the home crowd to pump them up, and bring back your aces for the final games if need be. Your aces shouldn't need the crowd to pump them up, or have to take advantage of the unique stadium as much as your scrub pitchers.
Here's what you're missing. It's not about last year's stats. It's about two things: this year's stats, and fame. That's what the voting is usually about, and IMO, it's even what it should be about. That's why it matters what Wright did in 2007 and 2008, and why it matters that Wright was an All-Star in 2009 and 2010 despite substandard seasons. Those things contribute to, and reflect, his fame.
When you consider those two factors, it is clear that under normal circumstances Wright would have won the vote. Wright is more famous and he's been better this year. But he didn't win the vote. Why? Probably because the Giants enacted some crazy voting campaign the likes of which no other team in baseball even approached. The proof is the fact that every single Giants player vastly outperformed voting expectations, from Buster Posey and Melky Cabrera to Aubrey Huff and Freddy Sanchez. Or maybe the Giants fans were all just nuts. Regardless, there is no baseball reason for this outcome, and all of the arguments about WAR or endpoints are completely irrelevant to the question of why it happened.
Is it a silly thing for us Mets fans to get all huffy about? Sure it is, but that's what we do on this website, we debate minutiae.
Great point. The entire comment was good, but I liked this point so highlighted it. There really is no reason for Sandoval to have beaten out Wright for the other points you mentioned, other than some type of organized campaign on the parts of the Giants.
How about David "The" Wright "Stuff" or David "Do" Wright?
You think?
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/02/sports/la-sp-all-star-balloting-20120703
http://www.sfgate.com/giants/article/Posey-Cabrera-Sandoval-Cain-are-NL-All-Stars-3677369.php
http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/SF-Giants-All-Star-push-for-Posey-Cabrera-3612228.php
Try telling that to Mets fans who hate the Yankees, which is most of them!
I dont think that there is a general belief that is an bias towards New York for any of those things, except for media coverage. So I'm not sure what myth he's busting.
I also don't think there's a general belief that New York is the best baseball town.
So that's two-for-two on making up myths and them busting them.
Seriously, you can't put together an argument that makes Sandoval a credible starter over Wright. It requires desperate cherry picking and repeatedly flipping your criteria for selection. The fact of the matter is that the Giants put together an epic ballot stuffing initiative the likes that we probably won't see again because it's going to get banned by MLB. That results in Pablo starting. That's the only reason Sandoval is starting.
Also, it's fun that he cites Wright's 3 most lackluster years, but ignores that by that tally Wright still leads Superstar Sandoval.
I'd be surprised if MLB banned it.
The rest of it is kosher, in my book. But once you start having teams giving away product to get votes, that's slightly different and might lead to other teams around the league getting irritated. Which is the only way any of the stuff gets shut down.
As for the Giants fans, good on them. I don't mind the actual ballot stuffing so long as I get to ##### and moan when a player I really like gets screwed. I'd like to think if I were around for the 1950's great Reds caper I'd be pretty amused by it.
edited for clarity.
Sure you can. It's as easy as pie.
Sandoval received more votes in the popularity contest that determines the AS game starters.
See, not so hard. And that result is frankly undebatable. That you don't like the way that AS starters are determined -- at least when it doesn't turn out how you want -- doesn't change the fact that Sandoval deserves to start.
It's the same reason that Wright started the 2009 and 2010 AS games over Zimmerman even though Wright was a clearly inferior player. I assume you guys complained and complained and complained about that injustice.
But there's no reason to think that bit of the promotion had that big of an impact. It's the opportunity to enter a draw for a single (?) prize worth, what, maybe $500 tops? You might be surprised how little interest such offers often generate.*
I agree MLB might decide you can't offer incentives for AS voting.
* In the literature on survey participation, studies suggest that prize draws are the least effective incentive. Paying people to complete is, somewhat surprisingly, also not that effective. In a favorite, offering people $50 to complete the survey was substantially less effective than simply paying everybody $2 whether they participated or not ... and was much less expensive. In essence, incentives seem to work best when they generate feelings of reciprocity rather than reward. And, in any cses, all they do is push across people who are already on the threshold of participation.
I think Wright had a better first half of 2009 than Zimmerman, if you just want to look at it like that. (Wright hit 324/410/462 vs 288/354/473). Zimmerman is clearly better with the glove, but I don't think enough to where it makes it clear that Wright was an inferior player. And if you look 2008 or 2007 then Wright was clearly the superior player.
2010 is a different story; since Zimmerman was the better player in the second half of 2009 you can start to make the argument he was becoming a better player than Wright, but Wright still had an incredibly strong track record. Just looking at the first half, Zimmerman had a 909 OPS vs 924 for Wright. Wright really struggled in the second half of 2010 and a lot of 2011, but that was obviously after the team was picked. Zimmerman is the better glove; so I think just looking at the first half of the year essentially makes it a toss up. And as I said, Wright's track record at that point was still so strong that I don't think you can say Zimmerman was clearly the better choice.
So I think in 2009 Wright was clearly the choice. Better first half, and a much better track record. 2010 I think is more of a toss up, can see the argument either way. I usually tend to vote for A) the people I like, and B) the guys with the strong track records, so I would've gone with Wright, but I can see it either way. But I don't think Zimmerman was necessarily clearly the better choice in either year.
That's not the discussion we're having. But thanks for moving the goalposts of the debate from on field performance to simple voting tallies so your point is correct.
In 2010, Wright had a .924 first half OPS over 378 PA vs. Zimmerman's .904 over 337. In 2009 Wright had an .872 first half OPS over 378 PA vs. Zimmerman's .827 over 387. As opposed to the starter being a guy who's missed half the season. You could have a discussion about whether Zimmerman deserved to start over Wright, and maybe Zimmerman was the better choice in one or both years. But let's not pretend that it's the same thing.
eta: didn't mean to come off so combative or snarky. I'm just frustrated by the "count the votezzzz" response after saying repeatedly that it's perfectly legitimate that SF voters made Pablo the starter, but that from a performance perspective it's a tall task to defend.
That's fascinating. I'll have to look up the survey one.
I like to see stars in the ASG, and Wright is a star, with basically one year (2011) where he was injured/didn't produce much. And he's having a monster 2012. Sandoval hasn't been good enough long enough healthy enough.
This is the single craziest thing in the entire thread.
But in 1957 Baseball had integrity - today with have Selig. I am sure his only question is does it make more money for everyone?
Hardly. And even if I were inclined to forget 1957, Andy makes absolutely certain that every Primate remembers it.
As IRW notes, this is Selig. Rather than ban the practice, I think he'd simply encourage the other teams to follow the Giants' lead. But don't take my word for it. This is from a story in the LA Times about San Fran's campaign:
The Giants are the top team in thoroughly organizing their passionate fan base," MLB spokesman Matthew Gould said. "They encouraged activation at every turn and through whoever had a platform to talk to its fans — sponsors, rights-holders, social [media], etc."
MLB wants to drive hits to the website, drum up interest in the All-Star game, etc. Putting the clamps on organized efforts from the clubs or instituting a one fan, one vote rule runs counter to that, and thus is unlikely to be executed.
I don't know about other parks, but the Giants park also has wifi. And the whole town has iPhones. I'm surprised someone didn't write an "All Giants All-Star App" that just submits your info to mlb.com every 5 seconds.
I didn't do any such thing. You said there was no credible reason for Sandoval to start. I pointed out the credible reason.
You can't put together a credible case that Wright has been substantially better than Sandoval over any recent significant time period. They're close by pretty much any measure. And you can't put together a credible case that Wright is a "star" while Sandoval isn't precisely because Sandoval just got more votes.
Wright vs. Zimmerman and their first halves -- what, you guys only rate players based on their first half offensive performances? I thought your "goalposts" were "objectively superior player."
The rest of it is kosher, in my book. But once you start having teams giving away product to get votes, that's slightly different and might lead to other teams around the league getting irritated. Which is the only way any of the stuff gets shut down.
Well, they didn't say you had to vote for Giants, they just said you had to vote.
This is the single craziest thing in the entire thread.
In what way? Are New York players disproportionately represented in questionable awards votes or HoF selections? Give me some examples of that.
And the pro-New York "media bias" as it exists in coverage is almost completely due to three factors: New York is the biggest media market; The Yankees are the most successful team in baseball, with the largest national fan base; and most people don't get a chance to see the ends of night games played on the West Coast, for the simple reason that they always end well after midnight in the East, and near or after midnight in the Central time zone. That last factor is more of an "East Coast bias" than a "New York bias", and it's a "bias" that's grounded mostly in geography.
In 2009 Wright was coming off seasons of 8.9 and 7.1 fWAR in 2009. While Zimmerman was pretty good, he wasn't that good. Defensively, their reputations are similar though the metrics have Zimmerman as better. In 2010 you have a better case, but once again Wright has a colorable argument for being named to the ASG. In comparison, we're talking about a player in Sandoval who might have had a case had he played the full season given that he's been comparable with Wright over the last few years (but not even a patch on him over their respective careers) but then he missed over a month of games this year. It simply isn't a comparable situation. I don't get why this is a contentious issue, other than people wanting to gasbag. Wright is an MVP candidate. Sandoval's played 50 games. Of course the former is the better choice for this season's ASG starter.
At the 2009 All star break what is the case for Zimmerman being an "objectively superior player" to David Wright? If you don't just look at the first half, then there's no argument in his favor. The two prior years Zimmerman had a 103 and 107 OPS+, Wright had a 149 and 142. Wright was outhitting him in the first half of the season. I don't think anyone would debate that Zimmerman is a better glove than Wright, but I don't think nearly enough to make up that kind of difference.
As I said before, 2010 is a different issue than 2009, just because you have a little more time where they were closer as players. But in 2009 Wright was probably playing just as well, if not better, than Zimmerman, and had a track record that was miles better. As I said before, I think 2009 was clearly Wright and 2010 a toss up.
Just to be clear, I think Zimmerman had a better 2009 season than Wright. An extra 75 PA, 9 points better in OPS+, and a better glove. But that was because Zimmerman had a much better second half than Wright, which is irrelevant when picking the All star team, since it hadn't happened yet when the team was picked. And also I agree with Scott; this isn't really comparable to the Sandoval situation anyway.
Wright's a better pick, no doubt. But at the end of the day, it's the All-Star Game. Other than sportswriters who need column topics, who cares?
I don't know about other parks, but the Giants park also has wifi. And the whole town has iPhones. I'm surprised someone didn't write an "All Giants All-Star App" that just submits your info to mlb.com every 5 seconds.
I like your second explanation, and I'm convinced that's what happened. Just the mere fact of living near SF gives people mystical app-authoring abilities inaccessible to those of us who live further away. It's like living near converging ley lines or something.
Boy are they going to be screwed when the Rifts open.
Thanks to some forward-thinking Bay area residents, they're already beta-testing RiftClose for iOS.
I don't care that much, I was just annoyed by the idea that Sandoval won for any reason other than the enthusiasm of the Giants marketing department.
Boy are they going to be screwed when the Rifts open.
And out comes a Splugorth slave barge and they are only equipped with a vibrating smartphone that only does 1D4 of SD when thrown.
MD FTW
I don't think it's crazy to care enough to disagree with particular snubs, since ballplayers who deserve to go to the All-Star Game should go to the All-Star Game, but this doesn't seem a "snub" to any meaningful degree.
That is one powerful smartphone. Is that a new Apple iPhone or something?
It's not about who's on the field, it's about advertisers paying for mouse clicks.
LTE. Not available on Apple devices.
It's not about who's on the field, it's about advertisers paying for mouse clicks.
That point's already been mentioned several times, and I doubt if anyone here doesn't agree with it. Hell, what other rational reason could there be for multiple voting?
Dude. Catfish Hunter's in the Hall of Fame. Derek Jeter's got five Gold Gloves. In Don Mattingly's first year on the HOF ballot, he got more votes than Bert Blyleven. Gil Hodges, a first baseman with a 120 OPS+ in a not-particularly-long career (plus nine seasons as a manager, only one of which was any good), made eight All-Star teams and peaked at 63.4% in the writers' voting for the Hall. 1939 All-Star Frank Crosetti (ahead of the infinitely-more-deserving Cecil Travis). The corrupt and venal VC of the late '60s and early '70s that undeservingly packed gobs of second- and third-tier NY players into the Hall: Rube Marquard, Dave Bancroft, Travis Jackson, Freddie Lindstrom, etc. The continuing mystery of how Paul O'Neill played in five All-Star games, and the even greater mystery of how Joe Pepitone played in three. 1976 AL MVP Thurman Munson. Do you really need me to keep going?
Especially as the only plausible All-Star on the Padres, watching LaRussa choose instead the closer who's been injured for half the season.
All-Star voting: A player is elected to the ASG based on 1) the quality of his play, 2) hometown attendance, and 3) fan fervor. The Yankees have historically been very high in all three, so they get lots of guys elected to the team. The Mets have often lacked #1 and #3, so they usually don't get a player elected unless he is also the nationwide choice or the team is doing great. Given the size of NY and the one person/hundreds of votes system, I don't see anything unusual here. (Also note that frequent All-Star manager Joe Torre pioneered the now-standard practice of filling up the All-Star roster with your own players given the slightest excuse.)
Hall of Fame: The problem here is that the Yankees and NY Giants both won a whole lot of championships, and HOF voters love championships. How would you suggest we separate the guys whose questionable elections were based on championships, from the guys whose questionable elections were due to simply playing in NY? (Because, of course, Travis Jackson got a huge media push and was famous worldwide 45 years after his retirement.)
Mattingly didn't win a championship, so evaluating his voting doesn't present that problem. I don't doubt that if Mattingly were the hero of Milwaukee rather than the hero of New York, he would be getting 5% or less of the vote rather than 15%. Phil Rizzuto is a marginal (but not indefensible) choice who would have stayed outside with the other marginals if he were a beloved Brewer announcer? Very likely true. (Also very likely true that he still wouldn't have gotten in had he not won all those championships.) So I can kind of give you those two, but you see what we're looking at: NY really gets behind a guy, and the result was Mattingly doing a little better than he should have, and Rizzuto getting pushed over the borderline (which I still don't think would have happened without the championships).
I don't think you would find that, controlled for championships, there is a generic effect.
MVP: Citing one vote, of course, means nothing. As a counterpoint, citing that neither Derek Jeter nor any New York Met has ever won the MVP means a little more, but not much. What you need to do is not difficult: a comparable-player study. And I'm 99% sure that I recall such studies being done and revealing no NY bias. If you wanna do the study yourself, I bet you a plugged nickel that's what you're gonna see.
Wouldn't say he pioneered it, but he did take it to a whole new level.
Couldn't that be said about a host of players? I mean if there was a true New York bias, wouldn't Keith Hernandez at least stayed on the ballot for the full 15 years? Wouldn't Jeter have won an MVP award, in 2006 instead of being beaten out by that big market Minnesota player? Heck Gary Carter is possibly evidence against a bias, since it took 6 years for him to get in.
I think that there is a bias against position players from Detroit/Chicago//Montreal, beyond that,(and even that is a small handful of examples) it's really hard to say there is a bias towards a particular city, while separating the success of the teams from the player. Arguably the ultimate pro-bias is still towards RBI.
Dude. Catfish Hunter's in the Hall of Fame. Derek Jeter's got five Gold Gloves. In Don Mattingly's first year on the HOF ballot, he got more votes than Bert Blyleven. Gil Hodges, a first baseman with a 120 OPS+ in a not-particularly-long career (plus nine seasons as a manager, only one of which was any good), made eight All-Star teams and peaked at 63.4% in the writers' voting for the Hall. 1939 All-Star Frank Crosetti (ahead of the infinitely-more-deserving Cecil Travis). The corrupt and venal VC of the late '60s and early '70s that undeservingly packed gobs of second- and third-tier NY players into the Hall: Rube Marquard, Dave Bancroft, Travis Jackson, Freddie Lindstrom, etc. The continuing mystery of how Paul O'Neill played in five All-Star games, and the even greater mystery of how Joe Pepitone played in three. 1976 AL MVP Thurman Munson. Do you really need me to keep going?
Ivan has already answered the points about Hunter, Hodges, O'Neill and the dubious VC picks, which also included several questionable Cardinals.
But to "keep on going":
---Mattingly was a beneficiary of the same thinking that got Dizzy Dean (also a Cardinal) inducted, an obvious HoF level offensive talent with a strong reputation for fielding ability in the era before the new fielding metrics, whose career got sidetracked by injury. But of course unlike Dean (or Blyleven), he never came close to actually being inducted.
---Until the lobbying campaign got underway for Blyleven, he was hurt by the Old School thinking about 300 wins, just one 20-win season, and a winning percentage that was barely distinguishable from the teams he played on. This sort of bias is ongoing, it affects lots of players, but there's zero correlation to any "New York bias".
---In 1939 Frankie Crosetti was a reserve roster choice by Yankees' manager Joe McCarthy, who started six Yankees, but who also let Joe Cronin play the entire game at shortstop. The bias over Travis was real, but it was the product of one manager, one year, in a game played in his home stadium. Four years later, no member of the defending AL champion and soon-to-be World Champion Yankees saw or threw a single pitch in the All-Star game, though the same Joe McCarthy was the AL manager.
---Joe Pepitone was selected as a starter in 1963 by the players, and IIRC players were not allowed to vote for their teammates. In 1964 he was selected by his manager Al Lopez. And in 1965 he was a last minute replacement for the injured Bill Skowron, also chosen by Al Lopez. Maybe Lopez was a victim of the Stockholm Syndrome or something, but he never wore a Yankee uniform.
So yeah, keep going. Maybe you'll come up with something more substantial the next time around.
And kept Munson on the ballot for several years.
I do think there is a relatively recent(post 1970) historical bias in the media for AL East players(and conversely a lack of coverage for the west coast players---It's really hard to find evidence of it affecting the voting without squinting really hard.
At the same time, the rest of the country, generally speaking, hates New York. So getting all the way to 75 percent of the vote may be more difficult for a NY-based player than a random player without the built in anti-New York sentiment.
Whatever East Coast bias there might be would be as much explained by the time zone factor as anything else. There are times when I don't think that people in the Pacific and Mountain time zones have a clue as to how invisible their live games are to people on the other end of the continent, relative to games in the Eastern and Central time zones. I'm actually kind of amazed that this relative lack of live exposure doesn't show up in the voting results.
---------------------------------------------
In HOF voting, I believe it's possible there can be both a pro-NY bias and anti-NY bias, often at the same time. The pro-NY bias, due to the large percentage of writers who work/worked in NY, is able to keep a Don Mattingly on the ballot longer than someone with the same career who played in Milwaukee.
That makes intuitive sense, but what player with a career that's truly comparable to Mattingly's** has been unable to stay on the ballot as long as he has?
**in traditional Old School metrics, which are what most writers still use in the absence of a Blyleven-level lobbying campaign
Agreed that it is a factor. At the same time, look at the number of Red Sox/Yankee games that get prime coverage. You don't see as many Mets/Braves games or Braves/Phillies games. (Yes I realize that the Mess are a New York team, but they are clearly the step child) There is clearly a media bias to promote the Yankee/Red Sox rivalry. And that will ultimately lead to some overrating of their players or underrating of other players. It's not linear though, it's not like all Yankee players get the boost and all non-Yankee stars get the shaft. And in some respects players who weren't born Yankee(Arod) get unfairly overcriticized based upon their past performance relative to the performance as a Yankee(You hear the comments about struggling to play in New York, because of the atmosphere/pressure or whatever, and not as much people noting that he's no longer 28 years old)
Ultimately though I have been convinced that for the most part, even the excessive over saturation of the Yankees(and Red Sox) hasn't really led to any across the board advantages conferred to their players.
Whenever a player joins the Yankees there's all this marsh gas in the media about how oh, he was good elsewhere but let's see if he can put up with the pressure of playing for the Yankees. Then when someone like Kyle Farnsworth or Javier Vazquez has a subpar season, every Yankee fan says "He's the kind of guy who just can't deliver under pressure". As if signing Kyle Farnsworth would have been a smart move for any other team, but the Yankees have to factor in this additional "Can He Play For The Yankees?" variable.
I don't think fans of the Mets or the Red Sox have this belief that it takes special guts and gumption to play for their team, despite the media pressure on their high-profile players being just as heavy.
No, but Red Sox fans do have this belief that the rest of the country cares about their team. If anyone outside of the "Red Sox" nation cares about the Red Sox, it's not because they are fans of the team, it's a backlash of hatred against the Yankees.
No, he wasn't. That's part of the reason why Hunter elected to go without an insignia on his cap for his HoF plaque - he felt that he was just as much a Yankee as an A'.
Ted Kluszewski was pretty decent, and he didn't make the team in 1950 (124 OPS+) or 1952 (146 OPS+), even though he was right there with Hodges in both years. (And even though, in 1952, New York Giants 1B Whitey Lockman also made the team - with a 109 OPS+). Earl Torgeson led the league in runs scored in 1950, putting up a 138 OPS+ in the process, but he sat at home while Hodges went to the game with a 125. Dale Long had a 132 in 1955 (while leading the league in triples) and a 134 in 1957, better than Hodges both years (127 and 125 respectively), yet he didn't go to the game either time.
It's interesting, isn't it, how amid this big gaggle of mediocre 1Bs, the same guy kept getting the benefit of the doubt every time? And how it was the guy who happened to play in New York? It's almost as if there were some secondary effect at work...
So it doesn't count as a pattern of questionable HoF votes because the NY team wasn't the only one that benefited from it? Bullshit.
Not to mention that Frisch wouldn't have gotten away with it if not for the compliance of the other members of the committee - including New York sportswriters like Fred Lieb and Dan Daniel.
Paul O'Neill was a solid complementary star who routinely made the All-Star team over more accomplished players who didn't happen to wear pinstripes. For example, in 1998 O'Neill hit .317/.372/.510 (130 OPS+). That's a perfectly decent batting line, and nothing to be ashamed about... but it's not as good as Eric Davis (.327/.388/.582, 151 OPS+ in his last top-shelf season) or Jim Edmonds (.307/.368/.506, 123 OPS+ as a top defensive CF - he won the GG that fall). The year before, O'Neill hit (.324/.399/.514, 137 OPS+). Again, that's a pretty good year... but not as good as Manny Ramirez (.328/.415/.538, 144 OPS+) or Jeromy Burnitz (.281/.382/.553, 140 OPS+), and not really appreciably different than Tim Salmon (.296/.394/.517, 134 OPS+) or Bobby Higginson (.299/.379/.520, 133 OPS+) or Jay Buhner (.243/.383/.506, 132 OPS+) or Rusty Greer (.321/.405/.531, 138 OPS+). Yet again, somehow, it's the New York player out of that seething mass of humanity who just coincidentally happens to end up with the All-Star spot. Again.
Mattingly got more than a quarter of the writers to vote for him, even though he was only a top-level performer for four years (six if you're generous), and barely sneaked across 7,000 AB for his career as a whole. He wasn't nearly as accomplished as Will Clark, an exact contemporary who peaked just as high and had significantly more career value, but who got 4.4% in his first time on the ballot and was gone.
And this is, in your eyes, evidence that there wasn't a pro-NY bias in the distribution of awards and honors?
I don't understand why you think it matters who picked Pepitone. The important consideration here is that he ended up on three All-Star teams, when the correct total for a player of his skills on a team that didn't need a mandatory representative would've been "none".
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main