User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.6151 seconds
55 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.
Last year OPS= of 136, this year it's 130.
Last year he put up a .494 against lefties, this year it's a .762.
He's also striking out less and walking more.
The conventional wisdom is wrong.
I dunno, maybe I'm just biased against Granderson. I like him as a player, just not as the 17th most valuable commodity in baseball.
Hey, I'm not arguing with you. I'm just explaining why a lot of people are likely to question Granderson's place on the list. He's also likely to be hurt by the broad base of his talents, as he's good at pretty much every aspect of the game except contact (and even that has improved hugely this year - his strikeouts are down by about 20%), but not obviously great at any aspect either.
Hanley Ramirez's defense could improve if he's moved to centerfield.
I think they are being conservative with the guys who have broken out this year after giving indications that they might not be all that great. This is why Quentin and Lester aren't ranked. You can debate this more with Lester, where the cancer recovery makes him hard to project, but they are very conservative with the pitchers.
As for "honorable mention" snubs, I don't think it's worth mentioning. First of all, who cares? But more importantly, if you look at the list of HMs, it's clear that they are using it as a way to mention various unusual cases: the one closer on the list, guys with injury problems (Bedard, Tulo), guys experiencing unpredictable years (Cano, Lee, Verlander, Buchholz).
With respect to Webb, what would you say are the odds that his performance level suddenly shifts, and he throws together a full season (or string of seasons) with ERA+ of 200 or greater, or a string of 300+ K seasons? Because that's what I was talking about when I referenced the inner circle of Maddux, Pedro, Clemens, and Johnson.
I'd say the odds of Webb doing it are better than the odds of Peavy, Sabathia and quite possibly, Santana.
The odds of any of these current crop of pitchers putting up a 200 ERA+ season are pretty lousy. Hell, Randy never even put together a 200 ERA+ season, but it hasn't seemed to hurt him. Webb doesn't need to drastically increase his K's to get better. If anything, when his stuff his working really well he gets fewer strike outs as a paints sinker after sinker at the knees and on the corner. The strikeouts are what he accumulates when he can't control his sinker and is forced to go to his changeup as an out pitch.
If Webb went an entire season where he's able to consistently find the release point on a day-in day-out basis he could put up a 180-190 ERA+. It may not be likely to happen, but there's no reason to think it's not as likely as just about anyone else in the game.
Chad Billingsley had an ERA+ of 138 as a 22 year old.
I think King Felix is overrated at this point. He has all the potential in the world, and has pitched fairly well, but there are quite a few other guys in the same age range who have outpitched him by a significant margin. At some point he has to put together a great full season to justify the hype. I know he's only 22, but people give him far too much credit for not having done whole lot.
He's 26.
Post a 127 ERA+ as a 22 year old.
Fair enough.
Verlander put up a 126 and 127 at 23 and 24. Bad year so far this year, but still a top 50 property IMO.
Granderson plays good D. Hamilton and Bruce are probably more bat first, let's tolerate their D because they hit very well type CFs.
Troy Tulowitzki isn't in the Top 50 - and given his face plant at the beginning of the season, I'm not arguing he should be - but I think he's a more valuable commodity than Hardy. Tulowitzki is two years younger, plays better defense, and was as good a hitter last year, at age 22, as Hardy is this year at age 25. There are a lot of good young players out there.
Tulo is also hitting .340/.403/.453 since he came off the DL. I think he'll be back in the Top 50 next year.
Then you should be arguing with the BP guys rather than with my comments since, as previously noted, I wasn't commenting on the relative rankings of Peavy, Sabathia, and Santana on the list - my original comment merely discussed the relative rankings of Lincecum and Webb, and my follow up agreed with your position that Webb was probably ranked too low.
Well, he did put together full seasons with ERA+ of 192, 196, 186, 181, 188, and 197, as well as striking out more than 300 on 6 occasions.
If my Aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
Seriously, is there any reason to expect Webb to take a big step forward? His strikeout, walk, HR, and ERA+ numbers have basically been flat for the last four years (albeit at a very high level). I can't see a good reason to expect him to suddenly jump up to a higher level of performance. To do so would be to expect him to turn into one of the greatest peak pitchers in history.
I was under the impression that Ramirez's defense had improved this year. The ZR and RZR numbers have him middle of the pack.
A projection system also obviously can't discount performance that has been impacted by injury such as both Quentin and Lester have had.
Very nice. I'd say count da rings, but it wouldn't take long...
The team I support is sitting at 2. It looks like it's going to be quite a while before they get to three. I'm not exactly in a position to brag.
Would be worth an e-mail request to Nate. He's seemed pretty forthcoming with that stuff over the years.
And to state that Hardy isn't any good is a curious remark given that among his peers he compares more than favorably. You have Hanley and Jose, gap, and then most likely JJ. National League of course.
And I am a big fan of TT but looking at things right NOW Hardy has more of a track record.
Regarding Hart I never used the highly charged connotative term "snub". Just pointed out that other than the OBP being low the lad has a pretty broad set of skills and is fairly young.
The last 6 months has made a big difference for many players, but this should give you an idea of the players that were manually tweaked.
1. Hanley Ramirez (1)
2. Albert Pujols (3)
3. David Wright (2)
4. Johan Santana (10)
5. Alex Rodriguez (8)
6. Jose Reyes (6)
7. Ryan Zimmerman (30)
8. Evan Longoria (4)
9. Scott Kazmir (19)
10. Miguel Cabrera (14)
11. Jake Peavy (12)
12. Brandon Webb (18)
13. Cole Hamels (20)
14. Robinson Cano (HM)
15. Ryan Braun (17)
16. C.C. Sabathia (9)
17. Troy Tulowitzki (HM)
18. Erik Bedard (HM)
19. Grady Sizemore (5)
20. Russell Martin (26)
21. Felix Hernandez (24)
22. Jimmy Rollins (33)
23. Jhonny Peralta (HM)
24. Josh Beckett (22)
25. Dan Haren (31)
26. Chase Utley (13)
27. Jay Bruce (23)
28. B.J. Upton (46)
29. Adam Jones (HM)
30. Curtis Granderson (16)
31. Brian McCann (11)
32. Dustin Pedroia (40)
33. Joba Chamberlain (28)
34. Yovani Gallardo (NR)
35. Justin Verlander (HM)
36. Prince Fielder (35)
37. Corey Hart (NR)
38. Javier Vazquez (NR)
39. Billy Butler (NR)
40. Hunter Pence (NR)
41. Chipper Jones (HM)
42. Brian Roberts (NR)
43. John Lackey (49)
44. Carlos Beltran (45)
45. Jamie Shields (NR)
46. A.J. Burnett (NR)
47. Tim Lincecum (15)
48. Ian Kinsler (29)
49. Mark Teixeira (38)
50. Daisuke Matsuzaka (NR)
Others that were ranked by Nate:
54. Matt Kemp (50)
60. Nick Markakis (34)
66. Justin Upton (25)
68. Carlos Zambrano (43)
70. Roy Halladay (39)
71. Dan Uggla (48)
73. Howie Kendrick (44)
78. Geovany Soto (47)
79. Matt Holliday (27)
81. Matt Cain (HM)
86. Clay Buchholz (HM)
98. Chad Billingsley (41)
108. Rich Harden (37)
113. Ben Sheets (HM)
127. Lance Berkman (36)
162. Jonathan Papelbon (HM)
187. David Price (HM)
311. Joe Mauer (7)
421. Cliff Lee (HM)
781. Josh Hamilton (21)
879. Matt Wieters (32)
The rankings have Hanley and Jose, gap, then Jimmy Rollins, gap. The next group would be Tulo, Drew, and Hardy, and I think you can make arguments to put those guys in any order, but there's not a whole lot to spearate them. I'd put them in the order I just gave, but who's to say?
The biggest shock to me in the raw PECOTA listings posted in No. 127 is Javier Vazquez at No. 38. How could anyone have him as more valuable than Zambrano, Halladay, Lincecum, etc., etc.?
Wow.
Seriously, is there any reason to expect Webb to take a big step forward? His strikeout, walk, HR, and ERA+ numbers have basically been flat for the last four years (albeit at a very high level). I can't see a good reason to expect him to suddenly jump up to a higher level of performance. To do so would be to expect him to turn into one of the greatest peak pitchers in history.
I don't think Webb will turn the corner and become a true talent 200 ERA+ pitcher. I'm saying that the guy who has logged three straight season of 150-165 ERA+ is capable of having one or two magic seasons where everything clicks for 35 starts and he manages an ERA+ in the 180-190 range. In the same way he's also likely to have a "down" year where he's never really comfortable and only manages an ERA+ in the 120-130 range.
I'm talking about a jump in results that is not necessarily indicative of a substantial jump in performance level.
Perhaps the two lists had different sets of criteria, but it's hard to imagine that Chipper Jones did anything in the past six months to hurt his standing. He is unique enough to merit a special sort of case; he's the only guy his age or older who has any place in this discussion.
I think the Feb 1 spreadsheet had some bugs in it (or I screwed up something in the data).
I tracked down the April 21 PECOTA upside, and a few of the rankings were quite different:
Joe Mauer 311->4
Josh Hamilton 781->127
Matt Wieters 879->142
David Price 187->271
-Felix Hernandez is 22 years old. Is the fact that he was good enough to get promoted as a teenager supposed to be evidence that he has less room to grow than the average 22-year-old prospect?
-Felix Hernandez pitches in the upper nineties with a pair of plus secondary offerings. Is there some reason that we should think that his current command of those pitches is the best he can achieve? He's not being limited by his stuff, but by command and pitchability (and defense, as NJ pointed out).
Felix Hernandez had Hall of Fame upside the moment he came to the majors, and I don't see that he's lost it. Do you have an argument based on observation, or are you saying that pitching in the majors should be counted against a prospect?
Just quickly eyeballing it through PI, I think the name being overlooked in the NL SS discussion is Yunel Escobar:
Cnt Player OPS+ PA From To Ages
+----+-----------------+----+-----+----+----+-----+
1 Hanley Ramirez 134 1976 2006 2008 22-24
2 Jose Reyes 113 2067 2006 2008 23-25
3 Edgar Renteria 113 1216 2006 2007 30-31
4 Yunel Escobar 108 855 2007 2008 24-25
5 Jimmy Rollins 106 1999 2006 2008 27-29
6 J.J. Hardy 101 1259 2006 2008 23-25
7 Rafael Furcal 100 1532 2006 2008 28-30
8 Troy Tulowitzki 93 1077 2006 2008 21-23
9 Stephen Drew 91 1356 2006 2008 23-25
10 Ryan Theriot 91 1286 2006 2008 26-28
11 Khalil Greene 89 1542 2006 2008 26-28
Of course if Rollins is on the list- and he's 4 years older than Hardy...
But then I'm with whoever thought Rollins was rated way too high on this list - I think Hardy likely does have more future value from this point on- but I'm not sure Hardy belongs either.
Hernandez' K/9:
2006: 8.3
2007: 7.8
2008: 8.1
And BB/9:
2006: 2.8
2007: 2.5
2008: 3.5
And his groundball rate:
2006: 57.7%
2007: 60.8%
2008: 51.2%
Maybe I should defer to the scouts, but these do not strike me as the ratios of an improving pitcher. They strike me as typical of a pitcher vascillating around his established level. I don't know NEARLY as much about him as many of you do; maybe there's some valid explanation for why I should be ignoring the statistical trends. He's adjusting his mechanics, learning how to fish for strikeouts more, things like that. I don't know.
I don't see how I'm 'writing off' Hernandez. He's among the 10 pitchers I'd most want to have on my team, because he's young, he has electric stuff and he's headed to his third straight season of right around 190 innings.
I just don't see why I should think Hernandez is any MORE likely to put it all together and turn into Roger Clemens than, say, Matt Cain, who's a year older and whose stats are also more or less stable over the past three years, or Dan Haren, whose ratios have been steadily improving the past several years.
This is to say, I don't think he's overrated in the general sense; he's not, and in fact is probably underrated in terms of how good he is right now. I just think his future potential to become a hall of fame-quality pitcher is perhaps a little overstated. If you have two pitchers, one 27 and the other 22, who have both been pitching at about the same high level in the major leagues for three years... I don't know whether the 22 year old is really a better bet to turn into a superstar later. Pitchers aren't as predictable as hitters when it comes to these kinds of things.
The thing is, you look at the stuff--my god, the stuff!--and think, yeah, this guy's just a tweak away from being Pedro Martinez, I can SEE it, I can SMELL it. I watch Hernandez pitch and think the same thing. But I don't know what the evidence is. Is there evidence that Hernandez, after three years in the major leagues of mostly holding steady or even slightly regressing, is nevertheless a very strong bet to turn into vintage Bret Saberhagen by virtue of his being so young?
Maybe he is, simply because he has more time. Maybe he'll finally turn into Curt Schilling -- when he's 29. That idea makes some sense to me, considering the raw talent that's there. But is he really more likely to turn into a superstar next year than five or ten other pitchers by virtue of figuring out how to pitch?
Cain: Felix has better stuff
Haren: Felix has much better stuff
A: Give Felix's stuff to Haren and you'd get a few Pedro years
B: Give Haren's command (and knowledge of how to pitch) to Felix- and you'd get a few Pedro years
A is not going to happen (barring some miracle PED)
B is within the realm of possibility.
Pedro Martinez's perihperals did this over 3 years 1993-95:
k/9:
10.01
8.83
8.04
k/bb
2.09
3.16
2.64
the next year he had a k/9 of 9.22 and k/bb of 3.17
and the next year after that he exploded, 11.37 and 4.55
I hope you guys understand that I throw stuff out there and solicit your assistance in explaining stuff to me I don't know in my ignorance. Just the way I am :P
-Is Felix that much more likely to break out than Matt Cain? Not much. Felix's upside is a little higher, but not a ton. But if we're discussing the relative break-out opportunities of the best under-25 pitchers in the game, we're discussing something very different than I thought we were. You said Hernandez "is what he is", and I took this to mean you doubted he would improve much. I expect both Hernandez and Cain to get better, because they're young pitchers with great stuff and room to fine-tune their command. They're among the most likely pitchers in baseball to break out.
<edit: I'm responding to Zeth.>
22. Josh Beckett, P, Red Sox, Age 28 (--)
21. Josh Hamilton, CF, Rangers, Age 27 (--)
17. Ryan Braun, LF, Brewers, Age 24 (--)
16. Curtis Granderson, CF, Tigers, Age 27 (HM)
14. Miguel Cabrera, 1B, Tigers, Age 25 (4)
11. Brian McCann, C, Braves, Age 24 (9)
9. CC Sabathia, P, Brewers, Age 27 (17)
7. Joe Mauer, C, Twins, Age 25 (2)
6. Jose Reyes, SS, Mets, Age 25 (7)
5. Grady Sizemore, CF, Indians, Age 25 (5)
4. Evan Longoria, 3B, Rays, Age 22 (HM)
2. David Wright, 3B, Mets, Age 25 (8)
1. Hanley Ramirez, SS, Marlins, Age 24 (6)
At least a couple of those guys will show me up of course.
Sabathia -- I'm probably over-paranoid about all those innings already on his arm, but I do not want the Cubs to sign him to a long-term contract. I would not build a team around him.
C'mon, this is wrong. First, a weighted average will incorporate the 'trend' as Zeth described it anyway. You want to use a different term for it, but c'mon...you are going to end up in the same place...because I know you understand how to calculate a weighted average and thus, that the numbers that occur most recently will (in fact) be more important than the prior ones in projecting.
Second, suggesting that a consistent movement in the numbers does not have value is totally unsupportable. What you can say is that small changes of any type Y2Y are (by themselves) not very relevant. Or that in Felix's case, the numbers aren't moving consistently enough to have predictive significance. But you went beyond that, and to the point of saying something that's simply not right, imo.
BTW, I say this as someone who thinks you are very much right and Zeth very much wrong on Felix's future, too.
149,
Strasberg has no shot at next years, he will be the number one pick in the draft and has a great arm but I'd be shocked if they picked a guy who had pitched between 0 and "very few" pro innings for their list.
As for Alvarez, count me as doubtful. Wieters was the only '07 guy to make the cut and Wieters is a better hitter than Alvarez.. not to mention a worlds better player when you factor in D and position. If they start him in high-A next year though I'm sure Alvarez's stats will look great at this point though.
Sizemore is mainly a gut feeling. His OPS+s the last 4 years are 123, 132, 122, 136. That's just nice, consistent production. He's added walks over that time while losing a little BA. His K-rate is lower than usual this year but about where it was in 2005. So mainly he looks like somebody whose true talent is somewhere around a 130 OPS+ with random fluctuation. He could take a reasonably large step up in power but probably only by bulking up which will hurt his defensive/positional value. But my gut tells me he's just one of those guys who will put up about 130 OPS+ every year until he's about 35.
Longoria though ... he's hitting 380/728 on-contact. He's very unlikely to maintain those numbers but, even if he does, he'll have to increase the walks (which will probably happen) or decrease the Ks (which could happen) to hit better than this overall. Most likely, his on-contact "true" talent is lower than that (say 360/680 which is still really good) so he'll have to improve the BB and/or K rates just to maintain at this level. Still a really good player even in that worst-case scenario.
I assume Sabathia/ARod/Pujols drop out of the top 10, while minor leaguers and rookies would be much better represented.
The biggest knock on Rollins is a pedestrian OBP. How well you think Rollins will age is based in large part of how legitimate you believe his 2006-2007 power spike to be. Is he a 10-15 HR hitter or a 25-30 HR hitter?
I still see Rollins as a good defensive SS who you can expect a slugging-heavy 750-800 OPS from with good speed. That's certainly not a bad player to have, but it's not a superstar. There's also not a lot of room to drop off before he goes from average or average-plus (like he probably is in 2008) to below-average. Age-wise, he's past the point where he's very likely to establish a new level of ability, although he's not old. For him to get substantially better he'd have to dramatically improve in plate discipline or develop the next tier of power without bulking himself out of the position.
Jose Reyes has some of the same issues as Rollins, but he's a lot younger and he has better plate discipline. If Reyes was 29 instead of 25, I'd rank him a lot lower.
For one year, Rollins seems a pretty clear 3rd choice for my starting SS in the majors, behind Ramirez and Reyes. (With 2007 offense and defense, Reyes is my first choice... with 2008 offense and defense, Ramirez.) If I'm thinking about the next 5 years, I might consider a guy like Stephen Drew or Tulo as better choices at the position.
I don't think the Pirates have anyone either.
I hadn't read that, so I went and found it. His top 5 is Longoria, Hanley, Sizemore, Wright, Pujols. Published on July 7, 2008.
top 5
intro and #50 to #46
Edit: Here is more or less all 50
They ranked him in the top 10. How much higher could they really rank him, as a 29 year old pitcher?
Besides, he's a two time Cy Young winner, who is now in the weaker league (for whatever that's worth), playing for a team that is likely to be competitive for the duration of his contract (based on both current players and potential resources). Assuming he doesn't suffer a catastrophic injury, he'll have enough for him to make the HoF.
So, they're basically gambling against a career ending injury, which doesn't happen too often in the age of Tommy John surgery.
C'mon, this is wrong. First, a weighted average will incorporate the 'trend' as Zeth described it anyway. You want to use a different term for it, but c'mon...you are going to end up in the same place...because I know you understand how to calculate a weighted average and thus, that the numbers that occur most recently will (in fact) be more important than the prior ones in projecting.
I believe you are responding to a different point than the one he made. What he actually said was this:
-There is no evidence that I know of showing "trends" to be statistically useful as supplements to weighted averages.
MCoA understands the importance of weighted averages -- what he disagrees with is this contention: the lack of a "trend" means that Hernandez will not get any better.
The weighted average does not pick out the ordinality in this way. For instance, consider the following "trends" of some arbitrary statistic, which we may think of as OPS+:
Player A
Year 1 | 130
Year 2 | 115
Year 3 | 100
Player B
Year 1 | 101
Year 2 | 107
Year 3 | 115
Using a 3:2:1 weight, both players have a weighted average of 110. MCoA (I believe) is saying it is reasonable to conclude that both of these are at roughly a 110 "talent" level currently, whereas one following a trend approach would conclude that the first player is likely to be sub-100 in the following year, and the second right around 120.
EDIT: I should add that I believe it's been shown, Marcel-style, that weighting is the proper approach rather than considering the trendlines as valid, although I'm not really positive on this point.
I love Webb, but he's not the best of the bunch. I really don't see how anybody could pick out the best, really.
Career ERA+ really helps Webb for two reasons. First, he hit the ground running, while the other guys needed time to develop. That is impressive, but when talking about who is the best pitcher now or going forward, I don't see why I should hold the rough early seasons by Santana, Peavy and Halladay against them. I mean, all of those guys were developing in the majors at 21-23, while Webb debuted at 24; those guys were all elite from age 24 on.
Second, as Dan R says in post 150, Webb is overrated by ERA and ERA+ because he gives up so many unearned runs. Unearned runs are ignored because they are supposed to be a measure of poor defense; but this is not so. Groundball pitchers give up many more unearned runs, and those shoul be held against them. Webb gives up more than twice as many unearned runs as the league average, and three times as many as Peavy. This year, Webb's RA+ is 15 points lower than his ERA+ (164-149).
I happened to be looking at starting pitchers over '05-'08 recently. The top ten in RA+ over that time (75 start minimum):
146 Johan Santana
145 Roy Halladay
144 Jake Peavy
140 John Smoltz
137 Brandon Webb
135 Roy Oswalt
128 Ben Sheets
127 Carlos Zambrano
126 John Lackey
126 C.C. Sabathia
I don't think that RA+ is a be-all, end-all, either. Webb is durable and throws a ton of innings, so that helps him relative to that list.
It strikes me that the extra unearned runs ground ball pitchers give up are of the latter variety, happening because errors are more likely on ground balls than fly balls. Now, a pitcher who gets more balls of the type that errors are more likely to be made on is more prone to errors being made behind him, and thus more prone to allowing unearned runs, but that's not his problem. His job is to get outs--which is really to get balls that are supposed to become outs. Not making errors is the defense's job.
I saw Cameron's list, but it seems like it's pretty similar to Nate's list and it's not putting enough weight on contracts/service time.
I'm not sure a player who's getting paid market value like ARod or players 2 years from free agency like Halladay/Beckett should be anywhere near the top 50.
Even if this is so, its a matter of luck. How is the error that should have been the inning's third out any different from a bloop single or seeing eye grounder that should have been the inning's third out?
Surrendering errors (and therefore unearned runs) is just part of the package with groundballs. Just like GDP are, and extra-base hits are for flyballs. The pitcher and fielders share responsibility.
The earned run/unearned run idea essentially assumes that hits are 100% the responsibility of the pitcher and errors are 100% the responsibility of the fielders (and then it does a sloppy job of allocating runs into each group on top of it).
I believe in attempting to separate pitching from fielding, and taking into account defensive support when evaluating a pitcher. I just think that ignoring unearned runs and counting all earned runs is an extremely weak attempt at that.
Even so, I think it's better than no distinction at all.
I disagree. At least when we're talking about the long haul. Over a few seasons (or more), the defensive support and luck even out some, and the differences between pitchers (or between a given pitcher and the average) are due to the pitcher.
In other words, I'm not saying that Webb is responsible for all 13 unearned runs that he gives up per season. But compared to Peavy giving up 5 per season, or Santana averaging 6 per season, I do think that that difference should be taken into account. And when one uses ERA/ERA+, it is completely ignored.
But part of that thinking in PECOTA, and I, being so high on Rollins being able to maintain a good performance for the next 6 years is that is great power/speed combo makes him pretty unlikely to face any kind of real dropoff over that time span.
I'd prefer to not count the runs Vaux is referring to either, but absent the necessary data to take out those runs I think you're much better off counting all UER against a pitcher than none.
Another chance to haul out my favorite idiot scorer story.
Back in 2000, the Jays were in Seattle for a day game, sometime around Labor Day. This was the same year that Frank Castillo decided to be a good pitcher, and he was plugging along quite nicely. Around the 3rd inning, John Olerud (not Edgar Martinez, as I'd always remembered - he was on 1st) came to bat with two outs and a couple men on and hit a lazy fly out to left field. Shannon Stewart came running in to catch it, then lost sight of it in the sun. The ball then bounced directly off of Stewart's face, smashing his sunglasses, and knocking him to the ground. By the time someone gets to the ball and throws it back into the infield, a couple runs have scored, and Olerud is standing at second.
The home town scorer ruled it a double, with 2 RBI.
Apparently, the scorer felt it was Stewart's intention to try and catch the ball with his nose.
This doesn't strike me as unusual at all. Whether or not it's correct (I don't think I've ever seen a thread with a debate on this issue, which would be fun) balls lost in the sun of the lights are often ruled as hits, aren't they? As opposed to balls lost in incompetence. I always thought the feeling was that due to the circumstance, the fielder wasn't trying to catch it, because he couldn't try, because he can't see the ball anymore.
Or am I just thinking that because one was scored that way 2 days ago on Delgado's 5-5 night? Am I totally wrong?
Really? If a player just completely misplays a ball so that he never comes in contact with it, then the scorer can't really do much and has to score it a hit. In this case, however, the player did come in contact with the ball - he was in position, had his glove up, lost it, and it hit his face. Given that he clearly came in contact, and that there was obviously no deliberate intention to catch the ball with his mouth, I don't see how this could realistically be scored as anything other than an error.
It is a skill to not lose the ball in the sun, using your glove to shade it, etc.
That's part of the problem. The idea of what constitutes "normal" effort has changed hugely over the years. In the modern game, "normal" has moved from "normal" to "so easy, even the guy in the first row could have made that play" - scorers have become increasingly unwilling to hand out errors for anything, if it can at all be avoided.
As an example, it is not at all unexpected for a scorer to give a hit for any throw which pulls the first baseman off the bag, provided the runner is within about 3 or 4 strides - even if it was a largely routine play by the thrower - whereas during my youth (and I'm not very old), that same play was routinely called an error on the SS, 2B, 3B, or whoever. The idea of "normal" has changed too much in favour of the hitter.
It was, and I found that unfathomable. I don't think Canseco lost that ball in the lights. He just misplayed a rather catchable ball.
You are correct. Most balls that fall within 10 feet of the fielder as he stands there giving a "where is it?" sign are ruled a hit. And balls lost in the ceiling at the metrodome.
Its ridiculous that the Canseco ball was ruled a HR. If he wasn't there, it never would have left the park. Even if it was an acceptable misplay, magically turning a double into a "HR" shouldn't give the batter a HR.
This is a very good point. There is a similar sense today that any play in which a player is running, or even in motion, while trying to make a play, is beyond normal effort. An outfielder on the run who drops a ball is deemed to have done his best and not credited with an error. It's a fairly absurd standard for major league players.
This doesn't even get into the absurdity of the idea that one must touch a ball to make an error on it. Misjudging a fly ball by 10 feet should not be considered a 'better' play than misjudging a ball by 1 foot.
It amazes me how many people still believe this is true.
From Rule 10.13
NOTE (2) It is not necessary that the fielder touch the ball to be charged with an error. If a ground ball goes through a fielder's legs or a pop fly falls untouched and in the scorer's judgment the fielder could have handled the ball with ordinary effort, an error shall be charged.
Well, I think the reason that most people believe that a fielder must touch a ball for it to be an error is that no one can remember the last time that a fielder was charged with an error in the above circumstances. It's an understandable oversight, as it's become the standard treatment, sort of like how the enforced speed limit isn't actually the speed limit.
I'm not sure why scorers follow half of rule 10.13.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main