Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, July 03, 2012

WaPo - Bryce Harper on making the ‘Final Five’ All-Star ballot: Go vote for Chipper Jones instead

Get a load of this smug entitled punk kid and his disrespect for The Game.

“It’s an accomplishment [to make the Final Five fan-vote ballot for the All-Star Game], I guess, but you got Chipper up there,” he said. “So, I think a Hall of Famer should be able to go to all-star game his last year. If I was going to make a vote, I’d go vote for Chip.”

Harper has often talked about veteran players and some of the greats he admires such as Mickey Mantle, Pete Rose and George Brett. Given the chance to state his case, Harper did so but not without constantly deferentially stumping for Jones.

“He should have already been in the all-star game no matter what,” he said. “He’s an all-star and has been an all-star for twenty years. I think Chip should be there.”

Asked if he ever thought about making the all-star team this season, Harper acknowledged it crossed his mind: “When my numbers were better, I think so. But been struggling a little bit for the past two and half weeks or so.”

Some pitcher needs to throw at this little whelp to teach him a thing or two about ‘old school’ baseball values.

Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: July 03, 2012 at 01:40 AM | 92 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: atlanta, braves, hall of fame, nationals, washington

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.

   1. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: July 03, 2012 at 09:23 AM (#4171953)
Get a load of this smug entitled punk kid and his disrespect for The Game.

"The Documentary was cool, but I never really liked LAX," said Harper.
   2. The Long Arm of Rudy Law Posted: July 03, 2012 at 09:48 AM (#4171965)
I voted for Chipper for the same reason Harper said to, but it was hard not to vote for Harper.
   3. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 03, 2012 at 09:48 AM (#4171966)
He's not fooling anyone with this.
   4. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 03, 2012 at 10:06 AM (#4171978)
Whatever. I'm voting 25 times for Harper.

Also, no more of this false-modesty, respect-the-game ####, Bryce. Boring. Be more of a cocky entitled jerk, that's what America wants from you.
   5. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 03, 2012 at 10:15 AM (#4171991)
He's not fooling anyone with this.

That's the yelp of a beaten tomahawk who's living in the past.
   6. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: July 03, 2012 at 10:29 AM (#4172014)
Whatever. I'm voting 25 times for Harper.


I just did. Peavy too.
   7. Tippecanoe Posted: July 03, 2012 at 10:45 AM (#4172032)
Went to the Braves-Nats game Sunday with my 4-year-old son. I'm hoping that in the year 2102 he'll be telling the neighborhood kids about the time that he saw Chipper Jones and 19-year-old Bryce Harper BITGOD (and get off my lawn).
   8. chisoxcollector Posted: July 03, 2012 at 10:47 AM (#4172037)
I voted 25 times for Peavy, 13 times for Chipper, and 12 times for Harper.
   9. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 03, 2012 at 10:48 AM (#4172038)
That's the yelp of a beaten tomahawk who's living in the past.


It's not my fault that today's players suck.
   10. shoewizard Posted: July 03, 2012 at 10:56 AM (#4172046)
So you're saying Aaron Hill doesn't stand a chance, huh ?
   11. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: July 03, 2012 at 11:03 AM (#4172054)
I refuse to vote for a forty year old grown man who insists on being called "Chipper" instead of his real name of Larry.
   12. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 03, 2012 at 11:08 AM (#4172062)

Chipper doesn't really deserve it, does he? Haven't looked that closely but I'm not sure he even deserves to be on the ballot.
   13. JE (Jason) Posted: July 03, 2012 at 11:12 AM (#4172065)
The final results:
1. Chipper
2. Freese (!)
3. Harper

EDIT: Sorry, I had meant to say the "final vote" results. Yes, the polls are still open.
   14. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: July 03, 2012 at 11:12 AM (#4172066)
No, of course not. He needs a day off like every three or four days and isn't even really close to having the minimum number of qualifying plate appearances.
   15. base ball chick Posted: July 03, 2012 at 11:33 AM (#4172095)
yeh i remember BITGOD when i took my sons to see baseball games and they WANTED to go too!!! now they disremember roger roy and biggio - they completely lost any teensy bit of interest they had left when they got rid of bourn and bourgeois and yes i know that one is not exactly the same as the other

enjoy it while they still WANT to go
   16. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: July 03, 2012 at 06:19 PM (#4172633)
According to this, Chipper has been named as Kemp's replacement. So, if he wins the fan vote, will it then go the the second place guy?
   17. JJ1986 Posted: July 03, 2012 at 06:25 PM (#4172639)
I saw Freese in a commercial (yesterday so the teams were already selected) for the All Star game. It seems odd that he would be featured when he's not even on the team.
   18. Justin T., Director of Somethin Posted: July 03, 2012 at 06:31 PM (#4172648)
Somebody go get Chan Ho Park!
   19. Srul Itza Posted: July 03, 2012 at 06:43 PM (#4172668)
Chipper doesn't really deserve it, does he?


You don't really like baseball, do you?
   20. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 03, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4172670)

You don't really like baseball, do you?

I love baseball, which is why I'd rather see the best baseball players in the All-Star Game. If you want to honor Chipper in his final season there are plenty of other ways to do that. It would be different if he were still an All-Star caliber player just having a bad season, but I don't think that's the case.
   21. DA Baracus Posted: July 03, 2012 at 06:59 PM (#4172678)
You'd be okay with a routine All Star who isn't having a good year making the team but not with a HOFer having a very good final year (when healthy)?
   22. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: July 03, 2012 at 07:39 PM (#4172706)
I love baseball, which is why I'd rather see the best baseball players in the All-Star Game

Uh, but last time I checked it was still called the ALL-STAR game..not the best players at each position game. I'm with Srul on this, you get the guy on team no matter what.
   23. AJMcCringleberry Posted: July 03, 2012 at 07:56 PM (#4172715)
#### Chipper.
   24. Tom Nawrocki Posted: July 03, 2012 at 08:01 PM (#4172719)
If BBTF had been around in 1975, I'm sure there would have been people complaining that Hank Aaron had no business being on the All-Star team.
   25. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 03, 2012 at 08:24 PM (#4172732)
You'd be okay with a routine All Star who isn't having a good year making the team but not with a HOFer having a very good final year (when healthy)?

I don't know what a "routine All Star" is, by definition All Stars should not be routine players (unless they're only on the roster because their team needs a representative). I'm not advocating including Aaron Hill, but I can't see any argument for Chipper over Johan Santana or Matt Holliday, just to name two guys who are undeniably "stars" and are having great years but weren't even on the final ballot.
   26. McCoy Posted: July 03, 2012 at 08:30 PM (#4172737)
I love baseball, which is why I'd rather see the best baseball players in the All-Star Game.

Why? I mean this isn't gymnastics or even basketball. 99% of the time the guys just stand there off screen doing nothing. I'll pretty much bet anything that the spectacle of this being Chipper's send off will be way more memorable than anything some other final man on the roster would have done in this all-star. It is the all-star game afterall, the boringest game of the year.
   27. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 03, 2012 at 08:30 PM (#4172738)
If BBTF had been around in 1975, I'm sure there would have been people complaining that Hank Aaron had no business being on the All-Star team.

Chipper ain't Hank, and of course, Aaron didn't actually make the team in his final season. Chipper hasn't been an All-Star caliber player for about four years now, and he already had his equivalent of "Aaron in 1975" last season.
   28. Tom Nawrocki Posted: July 03, 2012 at 08:44 PM (#4172745)
Aaron made the team in 1975 as a DH with a 95 OPS+, which is much worse than Chipper was last season any way you slice it. But you're right, Chipper Jones, Hall of Famer though he may be, is no Henry Aaron. So who is he like, maybe Carl Yastrzemski? Yaz made it as a 43-year-old DH with a 106 OPS+. Brooks Robinson? Robinson made it every year from age 35 to 37, and didn't hit nearly as well in any of those years as Chipper has this year.

One reason there's always so much discussion over who should be on the All-Star team is that no one quite agrees on the definition of "2012 All-Star." But both history and popularity seem to argue for having soon-to-be Hall of Famers on the team. I can't really see the point in arguing for the exclusion of someone who is undeniably a huge star.
   29. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 03, 2012 at 08:48 PM (#4172747)
Why? I mean this isn't gymnastics or even basketball. 99% of the time the guys just stand there off screen doing nothing. I'll pretty much bet anything that the spectacle of this being Chipper's send off will be way more memorable than anything some other final man on the roster would have done in this all-star.

Maybe I just missed it when Chipper Jones became one of our beloved national treasures? He's certainly had a great career and is a no doubt Hall of Famer, but he's been voted onto the All Star team once in the last decade. I never really got the sense that fans outside of his hometown really liked him; in fact I generally got the sense that he was underrated by mainstream fans during his career. Chipper's good enough that his presence in the game won't be a travesty, but I was just surprised by all of the sudden public adulation. Is this something we do for all great players in their final seasons (looking up Jeff Bagwell, the answer is no)? Like I said, if you want to give him a royal send-off during All Star weekend, that's easy to do without having him take up a roster spot.
   30. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 03, 2012 at 08:56 PM (#4172751)

I can't really see the point in arguing for the exclusion of someone who is undeniably a huge star.

Well, my point is there are huge stars who are better than Jones who aren't on the roster. I'd be arguing for their inclusion, I agree simply arguing for Chipper's exclusion doesn't make sense.
   31. DA Baracus Posted: July 03, 2012 at 08:57 PM (#4172752)
I don't know what a "routine All Star" is, by definition All Stars should not be routine players (unless they're only on the roster because their team needs a representative).


I mean someone who is routinely good enough to be an All Star. I should have said "All-Star caliber" player.

I can't see any argument for Chipper over Johan Santana or Matt Holliday, just to name two guys who are undeniably "stars" and are having great years but weren't even on the final ballot.


Chipper's having a really good year and this is his final year. That's reason enough to take him over Matt Holliday, who's also having a really good year but is not going into the Hall of Fame in 5 years.
   32. Srul Itza Posted: July 03, 2012 at 09:01 PM (#4172755)
Like I said, if you want to give him a royal send-off during All Star weekend, that's easy to do without having him take up a roster spot.


Given the dross that is taking up roster spots in general, I would rather have Chipper here. And since his "Indian Summer" of 2007-08, a lot more people have realized just how good a player Chipper has been, and for how long.

And hell yes, I'd rather see him than Johan Santana or Matt Holliday.
   33. chisoxcollector Posted: July 03, 2012 at 09:23 PM (#4172769)
I am definitely not a Braves fan. However, I do consider Chipper to be about as close to a "national treasure" as any active baseball player. In fact, among those that have never played for the White Sox, Chipper is probably my all-time favorite player.
   34. Mike A Posted: July 03, 2012 at 10:57 PM (#4172805)
Chipper had one of the best games of his career tonight...5 hits, a steal, and an amazing defensive play at third (seriously).

Not saying he was quieting the All-Star doubters...but...
   35. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: July 03, 2012 at 11:16 PM (#4172809)
And since his "Indian Summer" of 2007-08, a lot more people have realized just how good a player Chipper has been, and for how long.


And without those 2 seasons at ages 35-36, he would have "literally" no black ink at all. With a couple fewer singles in 2008, he loses both the batting title and the OBP title to Pujols. And with a couple fewer hits in 2007, he loses the OPS and OPS+ title to Fielder. And that is the sum total of his black ink. Yes, he's still a HOFer had he fallen a strategically placed handful of hits short in his career, but that's remarkable.
   36. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 12:10 AM (#4172832)

I mean someone who is routinely good enough to be an All Star. I should have said "All-Star caliber" player.

Truly All Star caliber players (i.e. players who are good enough to do it for multiple years, not just one-year wonders) are really good. They are usually potential Hall of Famers. The main difference between "routine All Stars" and "future Hall of Famers" is that the latter kept doing it for a longer period of time.

Given the dross that is taking up roster spots in general, I would rather have Chipper here. And since his "Indian Summer" of 2007-08, a lot more people have realized just how good a player Chipper has been, and for how long.

Perhaps, but each year since then he's been beaten in the All Star voting -- by Wright, then Rolen, and then Sandoval. I can't find the full vote results for this year but Jones finished at best third in the voting this year.

By contrast, looking at the examples from post #28:

- When Aaron made the All-Star game in 1975, he was coming off a run of 20 straight All-Star appearances and 10 straight years being voted in as a starter.
- Brooks Robinson, from 1972-74, was voted in by the fans, and that was part of a 15-year All Star run in which he was voted to start 11 times. In 1983, Yaz
- Yaz, when he made the team in 1983, was coming off a run of 17 All-Star appearances in 20 years.

Those guys who seem to have a better claim on "beloved national treasure" than Chipper Jones. And on the other side of the ledger, we have guys like Craig Biggio (didn't play an AS game in his last 9 seasons), Bagwell (7 seasons), Frank Thomas (11 years), George Brett (5 years), etc. Plenty of great players who didn't get any special treatment in their final seasons.

And hell yes, I'd rather see him than Johan Santana or Matt Holliday.

Why? Not saying your viewpoint is wrong, but just curious why you care about seeing Chipper in the game? I think it's pretty easy to explain why I want to see the best baseball players play in the All Star game, because seeing all of the game's best players in the same game is not something you can see any other time. But you can see Chipper play any night you want, and it's not like he needs the accolades or recognition.
   37. Howie Menckel Posted: July 04, 2012 at 12:16 AM (#4172836)

I am not an All-Star Game fan, but I guess it's because Chipper Jones' HOF resume is already more than sufficient, and Santana and Holliday aren't there yet?
   38. SoSH U at work Posted: July 04, 2012 at 12:16 AM (#4172837)
Those guys who seem to have a better claim on "beloved national treasure" than Chipper Jones. And on the other side of the ledger, we have guys like Craig Biggio (didn't play an AS game in his last 9 seasons), Bagwell (7 seasons), Frank Thomas (11 years), George Brett (5 years), etc. Plenty of great players who didn't get any special treatment in their final seasons.


In a lot of those cases, it wasn't known that it was a guy's final season when the all-star game was played. If Chipper hadn't announced before the season that he was hanging them up at year's end, there wouldn't be the same kind of push for him here. But since we know this is the last time a sure-fire Hall of Famer could play in the all-star game, it's natural to want to see him suit up. And I'm sure many of those guys you mention would have gotten similar pushes if the circumstances were similar.

   39. Baldrick Posted: July 04, 2012 at 12:16 AM (#4172838)
And without those 2 seasons at ages 35-36, he would have "literally" no black ink at all. With a couple fewer singles in 2008, he loses both the batting title and the OBP title to Pujols. And with a couple fewer hits in 2007, he loses the OPS and OPS+ title to Fielder. And that is the sum total of his black ink. Yes, he's still a HOFer had he fallen a strategically placed handful of hits short in his career, but that's remarkable.

And if he played his whole career in Coors Field he'd have like 600 homeruns.

He's a third baseman, who spent most of his career in a league with Bonds and Pujols. It's not remotely surprising that he didn't lead the league very often in the major categories.

And his 1999 was an all-time great season regardless of whether it produced any black ink.
   40. DA Baracus Posted: July 04, 2012 at 12:17 AM (#4172839)
Truly All Star caliber players (i.e. players who are good enough to do it for multiple years, not just one-year wonders) are really good.


Yes they are. In #20, are you saying you would rather see one having a bad season in the All Star Game than a HOFer having a good season? Because that what it reads like to me.
   41. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: July 04, 2012 at 12:31 AM (#4172845)
Well, Chipper's in for Matt Kemp now so go vote for Harper without reservation.
   42. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: July 04, 2012 at 12:33 AM (#4172849)
It's not remotely surprising that he didn't lead the league very often in the major categories.


Actually, it is. Look, I'm not dissing the guy. Of course he's a no brainer HOFer. But he came 'this close' to never having any black ink. How many HOFers, other than VC middle infielders and catchers, can say that?
   43. Tom Nawrocki Posted: July 04, 2012 at 12:37 AM (#4172857)
Yogi Berra never had any black ink at all. He finished second once in RBIs.
   44. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: July 04, 2012 at 12:42 AM (#4172859)
Yogi Berra never had any black ink at all. He finished second once in RBIs.


I believe he was a catcher. I might be wrong.
   45. Tom Nawrocki Posted: July 04, 2012 at 12:46 AM (#4172865)
I couldn't tell whether you meant "VC middle infielders and VC catchers," or "VC middle infielders and any catchers." I thought it was the former.
   46. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 12:56 AM (#4172880)

#40, I'm saying that I'd rather see a guy who is an everyday 140-150 OPS+ talent but happens to be putting up a 120 and maybe missed some time with an injury, than a guy who has a HOF resume but is now a 120 OPS+ talent and can't play everyday.

If Chipper hadn't announced before the season that he was hanging them up at year's end, there wouldn't be the same kind of push for him here.

Fair enough, but everyone knew he was retiring when they voted in the fan vote, right? He still didn't do that well, which is why I was surprised by the attitude here.

I am not an All-Star Game fan, but I guess it's because Chipper Jones' HOF resume is already more than sufficient, and Santana and Holliday aren't there yet?

But again, so what? Chipper's had a HOF resume for years. That's what his HOF induction will be for. A-Rod, Pujols, and Jim Thome also have HOF resumes at this point too but I don't think any of them made the team this year...
   47. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: July 04, 2012 at 12:57 AM (#4172881)
Understandable. The latter.
   48. DA Baracus Posted: July 04, 2012 at 01:00 AM (#4172883)
#40, I'm saying that I'd rather see a guy who is an everyday 140-150 OPS+ talent but happens to be putting up a 120 and maybe missed some time with an injury, than a guy who has a HOF resume but is now a 120 OPS+ talent and can't play everyday.


Fair enough, although I'd say we don't know if a player who fits the former is actually now the latter.

Fair enough, but everyone knew he was retiring when they voted in the fan vote, right? He still didn't do that well, which is why I was surprised by the attitude here.


Well, he is leading the final vote. Do we know how many votes behind Sandoval he was?
   49. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: July 04, 2012 at 01:08 AM (#4172894)
How many HOFers, other than VC middle infielders and catchers, can say that?

Among non-catcher BBWAA inductees, just eyeballing them...

Barry Larkin has no black ink; he's a middle infielder. It's unclear whether VC is intended as a descriptor to middle infielders in your question or a separate category. Similarly, Ozzie Smith led the league in at bats once, and that's it.

Among players at harder-hitting positions, Pie Traynor led the league in triples once and sac bunts twice. The aforementioned Brooks Robinson led in RBI once, and no other major categories (minor ones include AB once, GDP twice, and sac flies 4 times).

Of course, they were still both defensive aces. But then, Dave Winfield led the league in RBI, total bases, and OPS+ all in the same year, and never in anything else. Eddie Murray led in HR and RBI in a strike year, BB and OBP in a different year, and if you want to count them, IBB three times, with nothing else. Tony Perez led the league in GDP once and nothing else.

So it's been done before.
   50. Tom Nawrocki Posted: July 04, 2012 at 01:15 AM (#4172898)

But again, so what? Chipper's had a HOF resume for years. That's what his HOF induction will be for. A-Rod, Pujols, and Jim Thome also have HOF resumes at this point too but I don't think any of them made the team this year...


I'd be happy to see Pujols and Jim Thome in the All-Star game this year. They're big stars. (I'd rather not see any Yankee at any time, anywhere.) It makes much more sense to me to have guys like that in the game than the flashes in the pan like Bryan LaHair and Ryan Cook.

It seems like they used to rely a lot less on current-season stats in picking the team, and a lot more on reputation. Willie Mays was hitting .280 with 9 homers at the halfway point in 1969, but he still made the All-Star team. And well he should have: He's Willie Mays. Al Kaline was hitting .251 with 4 homers at the break in 1974, but still made the team.
   51. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 10:34 AM (#4173443)
Fair enough, although I'd say we don't know if a player who fits the former is actually now the latter.

True, but we can be pretty confident that Jones isn't the former (he's averaged around a 120 OPS+ for the last 3 years and has missed about 40 games a season, including this season), which was my original point. And we don't have to look for a guy who's the former because we have veterans who didn't make the roster who are clearly still performing at an All-Star level.

To be fair, Jones has played well enough over the last week or so that he's made a pretty good case for himself. And he's now on the roster anyway now.
   52. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: July 05, 2012 at 10:39 AM (#4173447)
Freese apparently still leading the voting with a few hours left to go.

You really do have to give it to these Cardinals fans, they are true fanatics, and there are an awful lot of them.
   53. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 10:44 AM (#4173451)
Just noticed that he refers to Jones twice as "Chip." Which normally would make perfect sense as shorthand for "Chipper," but oddly enough I don't think I've ever seen or heard it before.

Clearly, he's subtly disrespecting Chipper!
   54. The District Attorney Posted: July 05, 2012 at 10:50 AM (#4173461)
Rob Neyer makes what certainly seems to be a fair point:
the funny thing about making Chipper Jones a "legacy pick" is that he's already been one. A year ago on this date, Chipper was batting just 256/343/418, with seven home runs. And was an All-Star. As a fan, I don't mind this happening once. But twice is a bit much, don't you think?
   55. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 05, 2012 at 11:00 AM (#4173468)
#40, I'm saying that I'd rather see a guy who is an everyday 140-150 OPS+ talent but happens to be putting up a 120 and maybe missed some time with an injury, than a guy who has a HOF resume but is now a 120 OPS+ talent and can't play everyday.

If two players are performing at roughly an equal level, I might give the future HoFer a preference. But when you've got a rookie who's clearly outperforming that future HoFer in the first half of the year, I'd go with the rookie every time. I absolutely hate the idea of selecting players whose current performance doesn't merit it, because I want to see the best players of today, not the best players of 2 or 12 years ago. Chipper's earned his spot, but if he were around a 105 OPS+ rather than 135, it wouldn't matter to me in the slightest that he's a slam dunk HoFer six years from now.
   56. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: July 05, 2012 at 11:03 AM (#4173471)
I'd be happy to see Pujols and Jim Thome in the All-Star game this year. They're big stars. (I'd rather not see any Yankee at any time, anywhere.) It makes much more sense to me to have guys like that in the game than the flashes in the pan like Bryan LaHair and Ryan Cook.

I agree with this. Maybe not Jim Thome because he's not playing full-time. Willie Mays's All-Star appearances in his last two years look kind of weird.

Chipper Jones, sure. Hanley Ramirez, sure, why not. The again one might say "How will Ian Desmond ever become a so-called "STAR" if he can't get elected to the All-Star team until he is already a star? Kind of a Catch-22."

As for Ryan Cook it seems that the A's are specializing in having apparent flashes in the pan as All-Stars.

2008 - Justin Duchscherer in his first year as a starter
2009 - Andrew Bailey, rookie relief pitcher
2010 - Andrew Bailey again, Trevor Cahill in his second season
2011 - Gio Gonzalez in his second full season
2012 - Ryan Cook, rookie relief pitcher

The last time the A's had an All-Star over 30 years old was John Jaha (a flash in the pan of a different sort). Before that it was Mark McGwire. Before that it was ... you guessed it, Steve Ontiveros.
   57. Tom Nawrocki Posted: July 05, 2012 at 11:32 AM (#4173501)
But when you've got a rookie who's clearly outperforming that future HoFer in the first half of the year, I'd go with the rookie every time. I absolutely hate the idea of selecting players whose current performance doesn't merit it, because I want to see the best players of today, not the best players of 2 or 12 years ago.


But that brings up the question: Is first-half performance really enough to decide that one player is better than another? All-Star Bryan LaHair is hitting .293/.371/.536, while non-All-Star Albert Pujols is hitting .273/.335/.463. For some people, that's ample evidence that the right person will be at the game, but I highly doubt that LaHair is really any better than Pujols. I expect Pujols' numbers will surpass LaHair's long before the season is over.
   58. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 05, 2012 at 11:46 AM (#4173522)
The idea that anyone could complain about Chipper Jones as an AS in his last season (where he's actually still one of the better 3B in the league when he's able to play) is just absurd. I assume you people hated the Ozzie Smith good will tour too?
   59. DA Baracus Posted: July 05, 2012 at 11:54 AM (#4173535)
But when you've got a rookie who's clearly outperforming that future HoFer in the first half of the year, I'd go with the rookie every time.


But Harper isn't clearly outperforming Chipper.
   60. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 05, 2012 at 12:02 PM (#4173541)
But Harper isn't clearly outperforming Chipper.


Hell, Harper's not clearly outperforming Andrelton Simmons. (Actually, he's clearly not at this point in the season.)
   61. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 05, 2012 at 12:05 PM (#4173544)
As a fan, I don't mind this happening once. But twice is a bit much, don't you think?


But multiple legacy picks happen repeatedly, Jeter, Ripken, O. Smith (and that's just at short). Why should we begrudge Chipper going this route (particularly when we know that his legacy selections will be capped at 2?)
   62. Lassus Posted: July 05, 2012 at 12:17 PM (#4173558)
...when he's able to play

Looking at his numbers, I'm fine with Chipper's inclusion. This little bit, however, is not entirely inconsequential.
   63. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: July 05, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4173564)
But that brings up the question: Is first-half performance really enough to decide that one player is better than another? All-Star Bryan LaHair is hitting .293/.371/.536, while non-All-Star Albert Pujols is hitting .273/.335/.463. For some people, that's ample evidence that the right person will be at the game, but I highly doubt that LaHair is really any better than Pujols. I expect Pujols' numbers will surpass LaHair's long before the season is over.

This is a good point. And is there any doubt at all that if Pujols was producing the same exact numbers he is now but was still on the Cardinals, that he would be in the game again? If the ultra-rabid hyperfanatic Cardinals fans hadn't voted him in, which they almost certainly would have, LaRussa would certainly have put him in.
   64. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 05, 2012 at 12:27 PM (#4173571)
Looking at his numbers, I'm fine with Chipper's inclusion. This little bit, however, is not entirely inconsequential.


Well, I'm pretty sure that if Chipper were on the shelf he wouldn't have been selected at Kemp's injury replacement.

(That is to say, the calculus for his being an All Star is "can he play in this one game and produce if needed." It's not like he's signing a two year extension or something.)
   65. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 01:08 PM (#4173606)

But multiple legacy picks happen repeatedly, Jeter, Ripken, O. Smith (and that's just at short). Why should we begrudge Chipper going this route (particularly when we know that his legacy selections will be capped at 2?)


I don't begrudge Chipper anything, there are just other players I would prefer to see on the squad this year instead. Johan Santana, for example. There's probably someone on the squad worth bumping in favor of both of them, although I haven't looked at it the team closely enough.
   66. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: July 05, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4173617)
In 1983, Yaz and Bench made the all-star teams as special exceptions - they didn't take the spot of another player. With both players having already announced they were retiring at the end of the season, one from each league, they had them both named to the team, get an at-bat, tip their hat to the crowd at the game, etc.

Does anybody announce that "this season will be my last season" anymore? Did Brett Favre destroy this concept forever?
   67. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 05, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4173632)
Does anybody announce that "this season will be my last season" anymore?


Chipper Jones.
   68. DA Baracus Posted: July 05, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4173655)
I don't begrudge Chipper anything, there are just other players I would prefer to see on the squad this year instead. Johan Santana, for example.


Both teams have 13 pitchers, they had 13 pitchers last year as well. If you want to include Santana, it wouldn't be at the expense of a position player, because MLB is clearly only taking 13 pitchers.
   69. Srul Itza Posted: July 05, 2012 at 01:55 PM (#4173667)




Rob Neyer makes what certainly seems to be a fair point:


Rob makes another fair point at the end of the article:

Given all of the above, if I had a fan vote I would vote for the player who gives Tony La Russa the best chance to win. Who wins this voting probably won't play until late in the game, and might be used as a pinch-hitter. Aaron Hill has the highest OPS+ on the ballot, but I still don't believe he's quite this good and he's a right-handed batter.

Which is why I'm choosing Chipper Jones. Not because he's old. Because he can still hit, and hits both ways.
   70. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 05, 2012 at 02:45 PM (#4173743)
But when you've got a rookie who's clearly outperforming that future HoFer in the first half of the year, I'd go with the rookie every time. I absolutely hate the idea of selecting players whose current performance doesn't merit it, because I want to see the best players of today, not the best players of 2 or 12 years ago.

But that brings up the question: Is first-half performance really enough to decide that one player is better than another?


Of course not, but for the All-Star game I'd rather see new talent that's performing at a high level over old talent that's not. I've got all the memories I need of former greats who are playing out the string**, and I'd like some new memories of (possibly) great players who are just starting out. For instance, for sentimental and fanboy purposes, I might want to see Derek Jeter make an appearance, but since I see Jeter play every day already, I don't have any particular need to see him play in the All-Star game when Asdrubal Cabrera is having a better year.

**Jeter's not quite in that category yet, but he's been showing his age again lately.
   71. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 02:59 PM (#4173759)

Both teams have 13 pitchers, they had 13 pitchers last year as well. If you want to include Santana, it wouldn't be at the expense of a position player, because MLB is clearly only taking 13 pitchers.

In the AL, the Final Vote candidates were all pitchers, indicating (unless I'm missing something) that MLB is fine not only with having 14 pitchers on the roster, but on having different numbers of pitchers on the two squads.
   72. bachslunch Posted: July 05, 2012 at 02:59 PM (#4173761)
It seems like they used to rely a lot less on current-season stats in picking the team, and a lot more on reputation. Willie Mays was hitting .280 with 9 homers at the halfway point in 1969, but he still made the All-Star team. And well he should have: He's Willie Mays. Al Kaline was hitting .251 with 4 homers at the break in 1974, but still made the team.

True enough for a few elite HoF-ers of the 50s-60s-70s at the ends of their careers. Besides Mays and Aaron, this also happened with Ted Williams, Stan Musial, and Mickey Mantle despite their not necessarily being the best possible options available at their positions late in their careers every season. Most were admittedly above replacement level with their OPS+ by season's end, though.
   73. PreservedFish Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:43 PM (#4173799)
Given all of the above, if I had a fan vote I would vote for the player who gives Tony La Russa the best chance to win.


If you're the fan of an AL team, should you be voting for the player that least helps La Russa?
   74. DA Baracus Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:58 PM (#4173816)
In the AL, the Final Vote candidates were all pitchers, indicating (unless I'm missing something) that MLB is fine not only with having 14 pitchers on the roster, but on having different numbers of pitchers on the two squads.


Fair point, but the Final Vote is an addition, not a replacement. So I would amend my statement to say they want at least 13 pitchers.
   75. Srul Itza Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:06 PM (#4173820)

Of course not, but for the All-Star game I'd rather see new talent that's performing at a high level over old talent that's not. I've got all the memories I need of former greats who are playing out the string**, and I'd like some new memories of (possibly) great players who are just starting out. For instance, for sentimental and fanboy purposes, I might want to see Derek Jeter make an appearance, but since I see Jeter play every day already, I don't have any particular need to see him play in the All-Star game when Asdrubal Cabrera is having a better year.


And really, at the end of the day, it's all about you, isn't it?
   76. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:56 PM (#4173905)

Fair point, but the Final Vote is an addition, not a replacement. So I would amend my statement to say they want at least 13 pitchers.

Yep, and adding one more pitcher to the roster obviously wouldn't reduce the number of pitchers, so I'm not sure what the problem is, especially when the AL already has one more pitcher than the NL.
   77. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:46 PM (#4173966)
Given all of the above, if I had a fan vote I would vote for the player who gives Tony La Russa the best chance to win.


I would vote for whichever players have had the best stats during the week prior to the All Star game. Gotta play the hot hand and all.

I'll take Justin Ruggiano and Alexi Amarista against your Josh Hamiltons and Prince Fielders all day long.
   78. Famous Original Joe C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:55 PM (#4173974)
David Freese? Really, America?
   79. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:05 PM (#4173986)
David Freese? Really, America?


Don't blame America. It's St. Louis' fault.
   80. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:42 PM (#4174017)
If they're going to keep the fan vote, which obviously they are, they really need to do away with this unlimited voting on the internet nonsense. It's so damn stupid to have these things determined by the biggest group of hayseeds with no lives and the most free time on their hands.
   81. Zipperholes Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:54 PM (#4174023)
And really, at the end of the day, it's all about you, isn't it?
Huh? Yeah, on the subject of what he wants to see, yeah, it is all about him. Do you think there's some objective truth to this or something?
   82. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 05, 2012 at 07:06 PM (#4174038)
It's so damn stupid to have these things determined by the biggest group of hayseeds with no lives and the most free time on their hands.


Ah yes, the time-to-kill hayseed factor, which explains the previous fan vote winners from New York (2), Boston (3), Philadelphia (3) and Chicago (3).

Your guy lost because their team has many more fans than your team. Get over it.

   83. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:01 PM (#4174109)
Your response doesn't change the simple fact that the guy who was the least deserving of the four remaining candidates ended up winning the vote. If this was intended to change my mind, you failed miserably.
   84. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:15 PM (#4174113)
There's still plenty of time for Harper to get named as a replacement for someone else who gets hurt or otherwise begs off, right?
   85. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:22 PM (#4174118)
Harper's not going to play no matter what.

And I should make it absolutely clear that even though I'm a huge fan of the guy, Harper certainly wasn't the one who deserved to win the vote either. On pure merit it definitely should have been either Bourn or Hill, and probably Bourn.
   86. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 05, 2012 at 10:16 PM (#4174159)
I'm not sure David Freese was a worse choice than Harper. Worse than Micheal Bourn, yes, but Harper doesn't bring much defensively and there's already a ton of outfielders. Bourn brings more offense, defense and base-running than either, of course. (And Martin Prado would have brought better offense and positional flexibility, but what the hell.)
   87. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 05, 2012 at 10:41 PM (#4174190)
If they're going to keep the fan vote, which obviously they are, they really need to do away with this unlimited voting on the internet nonsense. It's so damn stupid to have these things determined by the biggest group of hayseeds with no lives and the most free time on their hands.

Hayseeds come from all parts of the country, but I also can't quite understand the rationale behind multiple voting. I suppose if the only purpose of the All-Star game is to drive page hits and sell advertising, it makes sense to let people with more time on their hands outvote those who don't, but somehow that doesn't seem to make for much of a meritocracy.

BTW I thought it actually was limited to 25 votes per person, but even that's absolutely nuts.
   88. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 05, 2012 at 10:47 PM (#4174202)
I thought it actually was limited to 25 votes per person . . .

That applies for the regular vote, but apparently you can vote as often as you like for the Final Man.
   89. Spahn Insane Posted: July 06, 2012 at 12:29 AM (#4174238)
If they're going to keep the fan vote, which obviously they are, they really need to do away with this unlimited voting on the internet nonsense. It's so damn stupid to have these things determined by the biggest group of hayseeds with no lives and the most free time on their hands.

Never have I agreed more with a Joey B post. Low bar, but still.
   90. Spahn Insane Posted: July 06, 2012 at 12:33 AM (#4174240)
For some people, that's ample evidence that the right person will be at the game, but I highly doubt that LaHair is really any better than Pujols. I expect Pujols' numbers will surpass LaHair's long before the season is over.

Yeah, but Pujols isn't the only (or virtually only) semi-good player on a sh1tty team. LaHair is. (Well, was until Rizzo was called up. That Rizzo was instantly the Cubs' best hitter speaks volumes about how bad they've been.)
   91. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 06, 2012 at 12:47 AM (#4174248)
Your response doesn't change the simple fact that the guy who was the least deserving of the four remaining candidates ended up winning the vote. If this was intended to change my mind, you failed miserably.


Why do you think that limiting the number of votes per voter, while a worthwhile cause in itself, would have had any effect on this year's vote? You've offered no evidence that the too-much-time-on-their-hands ballot stuffers were responsible for this electoral travesty. So if your original post was intended to connect vote flooding with the results of this year's NL election, you failed miserably. If that wasn't the point, why did you bring up the fact that the least deserving candidate won?

   92. Cooper Nielson Posted: July 06, 2012 at 03:31 AM (#4174275)
As for Ryan Cook it seems that the A's are specializing in having apparent flashes in the pan as All-Stars.

2008 - Justin Duchscherer in his first year as a starter
2009 - Andrew Bailey, rookie relief pitcher
2010 - Andrew Bailey again, Trevor Cahill in his second season
2011 - Gio Gonzalez in his second full season
2012 - Ryan Cook, rookie relief pitcher


I don't know exactly what "flash in the pan" is supposed to mean, but shouldn't it be something that only happens once?

In this case, Duchscherer made two All-Star teams (2005 and 2008) and never really had a bad season -- he was just injured all the time. Bailey made two All-Star Games in a row, in his first two seasons, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him in more if he gets his health back. Gio Gonzalez is back at the ASG this year, his second in a row. Trevor Cahill probably peaked in 2010, but he's only 24 and he seems to be at least a better-than-average pitcher, maybe he'll be an All-Star again.

Ryan Cook might truly be a flash in the pan, I guess.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2770 - 4:48am, Oct 21)
Last: BrianBrianson

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8367 - 3:29am, Oct 21)
Last: Randomly Fluctuating Defensive Metric

NewsblogHitting coaches blamed for lack of offense - Sports - The Boston Globe
(16 - 3:26am, Oct 21)
Last: ptodd

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(71 - 1:20am, Oct 21)
Last: Jacob

NewsblogCalcaterra: So, if you’re not a fan of the Royals or Giants, who ya got?
(93 - 12:26am, Oct 21)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(15 - 12:12am, Oct 21)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(33 - 11:52pm, Oct 20)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogBrisbee: The 5 worst commercials of the MLB postseason
(133 - 10:26pm, Oct 20)
Last: zonk

NewsblogCould the Yankees ever be Royals? Young and athletic K.C. is everything that Bombers are not - NY Daily News
(28 - 10:18pm, Oct 20)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

NewsblogPitch from Zito helped sell Hudson on Giants | MLB.com
(6 - 9:15pm, Oct 20)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogWhy Royals great Frank White no longer associates with the team whose stadium he built - Yahoo Sports
(19 - 9:06pm, Oct 20)
Last: A New Leaf (Black Hawk Reign of Terror)

NewsblogAngell: Gigantic
(38 - 8:22pm, Oct 20)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(272 - 7:27pm, Oct 20)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogMorosi: Could Cain’s story make baseball king of sports world again?
(97 - 6:24pm, Oct 20)
Last: BDC

NewsblogESPN: Brian Roberts retires
(22 - 6:19pm, Oct 20)
Last: Captain Supporter

Page rendered in 0.8731 seconds
52 querie(s) executed