MLB: August 2012

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by Southern Yankee

Well, it's a cool thing to learn. The Reds have some great history, even before the Big Red Machine.

Oops, shoulda multi-quoted. But yeah. I've breezed though the Reds Hall Of Fame/Museum once...I need to go again and really take my time. I know literally nothing of baseball before the 90's other than the names and positions of some of the Hall Of Famers from the 1960's, 70's and 80's.

[dalej42]

For almost the next month, the D-backs have nothing but NL West opponents. This is going to be a very fun month as they make their run for another NL West title.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by dalej42

For almost the next month, the D-backs have nothing but NL West opponents. This is going to be a very fun month as they make their run for another NL West title.

Are you being sarcastic? Aren't the D-Backs like a game under .500?

ETA: checks standings...well, they are 8.5 games back so its possible I guess, but my Reds aren't doing you guys any favors today...up 6-2 in the bottom of the 8th...

[Marley23]

Interesting thing about Rijo: he's one of the very few players to appear in a major league game after receiving a Hall of Fame vote. He received a vote (I think it was exactly one) after five years of inactivity and then made a brief comeback in 2001 and 2002. But I think giving the Cy Young award to a closer is ridiculous.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Interesting thing about Rijo: he's one of the very few players to appear in a major league game after receiving a Hall of Fame vote. He received a vote (I think it was exactly one) after five years of inactivity and then made a brief comeback in 2001 and 2002. But I think giving the Cy Young award to a closer is ridiculous.

Thanks, I didn't know that either. My baseball acumen sucks...I've always been more of an NFL guy but I am really getting into the Reds now that they have assembled a roster worth a shit (the old fashioned way...developing their own players in-house, by and large) and are playing well.

Why do you think its ridiculous to give it to a closer? I think Gagne and his 55 saves in 2003(??) deserved his. Aroldis Chapman is absolutely dominant. Is it just because they don't "pitch enough innings" or something?

[Asimovian]

Sorry if this should be in its own thread, but I think I have a misunderstanding of blackout rules. I have MLB TV Premium, and I had always been under the impression that you could watch archives of games that were in your home market. But every time I try to look at a game from the 13th of this month, I keep getting old that the game is blacked out. Why is that even relevant after the live broadcast is over?

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by Asimovian

Sorry if this should be in its own thread, but I think I have a misunderstanding of blackout rules. I have MLB TV Premium, and I had always been under the impression that you could watch archives of games that were in your home market. But every time I try to look at a game from the 13th of this month, I keep getting old that the game is blacked out. Why is that even relevant after the live broadcast is over?

MLB blacks out games? I thought that was an NFL thing.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

Why do you think its ridiculous to give it to a closer? I think Gagne and his 55 saves in 2003(??) deserved his. Aroldis Chapman is absolutely dominant. Is it just because they don't "pitch enough innings" or something?

I suspect that is exactly it. Relief pitchers pitch fewer than half as many innings as a starting pitcher. Giving them a Cy would be like giving the MVP to a hitter who only played for two months. It's theoretically possible someone could be tha good, but it's never happened.

Eric Gagne was awesome in 2003, but he still wasn't as valuable as Jason Schmidt or Mark Prior. He was a part time player.

[Tom Scud]

Originally Posted by RickJay

I suspect that is exactly it. Relief pitchers pitch fewer than half as many innings as a starting pitcher. Giving them a Cy would be like giving the MVP to a hitter who only played for two months. It's theoretically possible someone could be tha good, but it's never happened.

Eric Gagne was awesome in 2003, but he still wasn't as valuable as Jason Schmidt or Mark Prior. He was a part time player.

For what it's worth, Win Probability Added disagrees; it has Gagne at 6.6 wins added, to Scmidt's & Prior's 4.something.

(I don't think it's an end-all and be-all stat, because players don't really have control over the leverage of the situations they come into - it currently has Kyle Lohse as the #1 pitcher in the NL, which seems wrong.)

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by Tom Scud

For what it's worth, Win Probability Added disagrees; it has Gagne at 6.6 wins added, to Scmidt's & Prior's 4.something.

(I don't think it's an end-all and be-all stat, because players don't really have control over the leverage of the situations they come into - it currently has Kyle Lohse as the #1 pitcher in the NL, which seems wrong.)

That's funny...Lohse isn't even the #1 pitcher on his team, let alone the league.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by RickJay

I suspect that is exactly it. Relief pitchers pitch fewer than half as many innings as a starting pitcher. Giving them a Cy would be like giving the MVP to a hitter who only played for two months. It's theoretically possible someone could be tha good, but it's never happened.

Eric Gagne was awesome in 2003, but he still wasn't as valuable as Jason Schmidt or Mark Prior. He was a part time player.

I would personally agree with you. However, rightly or wrongly, practically the entire baseball world has decided that a closer is almost as important as a starter. And it especially has rejected the notion that a pitcher's worth is highly correlated with innings pitched, otherwise long relievers would be ranked below starters in value, but well above closers.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

Why do you think its ridiculous to give it to a closer? I think Gagne and his 55 saves in 2003(??) deserved his. Aroldis Chapman is absolutely dominant. Is it just because they don't "pitch enough innings" or something?

They don't make enough of a difference in the game, which is reflected by the small number of innings and maybe more importantly by the situations they pitch in. A high number of saves sounds impressive, but saves are a bad statistic: they don't reflect the fact that closers are usually brought into situations where the team is almost guaranteed to win anyway. In those situations a dominant performance is nice but it's largely wasted. Chapman has 33 saves, and by my count, 11 of them came in one-run games and the other two-thirds came in games where the Reds were already up by two or three runs (and in one case, four runs). Do you need someone who throws 100 mph and strikes out a bunch of guys to get your team through the last inning of a game where they're up two or three or four? No. In most cases even a totally mediocre pitcher can get you through one inning without giving up one run, nevermind two to four. As far as the innings pitched thing goes: since Chapman became the team's closer in May, he's pitched more than one inning two times. Granted that he's been overpowering when he's out there, but how can you give the award to a guy who pitches one inning every couple of games when the team already has something like an 85 percent chance of winning? Chapman has converted 89% of his save opportunities this year.

Baseball award-givers have learned that wins aren't that important and I'm thinking they may have figured out the same thing about saves. Mo Rivera finished third in the AL Cy Young voting in 2004 and Rodriguez finished third the year he broke the saves record (2008), but they were both distant thirds with around 20 percent of the vote. No other reliever has come close since Gagne.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Thanks for the replies, guys. I have a question: what is considered to be the most prestigious individual award a baseball player can receive? Obviously the Cy Young can only be won by a pitcher...but is a Silver Slugger or Golden Glove or even an MVP worth more than the other? And is it possible for one person to win all or most of them? Has anyone ever been a league MVP, a golden glover and silver slugger all in the same year? Has a pitcher ever won any of the other awards? I'd assume MVP...

[Marley23]

The MVP has to be the most prestigious award, and a couple of pitchers have won the Cy Young and MVP in the same year- Verlander just did it last year. A bunch of guys have won gold gloves, silver sluggers and MVP awards in the same season even though the silver slugger is a newer award. I can see Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly, Barry Bonds, Jeff Bagwell, Ichiro, Jimmy Rollins, and Dustin Pedroia did it, and Pedroia's wikipedia entry says he was the eighth AL player to win all three awards in the same year. I'm guessing Pujols and Griffey Jr. are among the others who've done it.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Baseball award-givers have learned that wins aren't that important and I'm thinking they may have figured out the same thing about saves. Mo Rivera finished third in the AL Cy Young voting in 2004 and Rodriguez finished third the year he broke the saves record (2008), but they were both distant thirds with around 20 percent of the vote. No other reliever has come close since Gagne.

This would certainly be progress.

[pricciar]

I think most people look at the Gold Glove as a good award, in theory, but in practice it's often pretty much a joke. It's often said that a good bat will win a player a Gold Glove award. This was shown to a ridiculous extreme in 1999 when Rafael Palmeiro won the award, while playing most of the season as a DH. I hear far less complaints about the Silver Slugger.

Basically, in my estimation, a guy winning a Gold Glove is perhaps a little bit more impressive than being on an All Star team, but not by much.

[Southern Yankee]

Huge series in the Bronx this weekend with the O's coming to town. Who would have thought that this weekend would be so critical at the beginning of the season?

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Southern Yankee

Huge series in the Bronx this weekend with the O's coming to town. Who would have thought that this weekend would be so critical at the beginning of the season?

Indeed. Much as I'm used to rooting against the Orioles, my dislike of the O's only goes back to when Angelos fired Dave Johnson, signed Albert Belle as a free agent, and committed a few more minor abominations. My hatred of the Yankees goes back to the beginning of time.

IOW, if the O's swept the Yankees and tied them for the lead, it would really be quite cool.

Meanwhile, in the more important league , the Nats continue to host the Cards (nice game last night!), and the Braves host the Phils.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Indeed. Much as I'm used to rooting against the Orioles, my dislike of the O's only goes back to when Angelos fired Dave Johnson, signed Albert Belle as a free agent, and committed a few more minor abominations. My hatred of the Yankees goes back to the beginning of time.

IOW, if the O's swept the Yankees and tied them for the lead, it would really be quite cool.

Meanwhile, in the more important league , the Nats continue to host the Cards (nice game last night!), and the Braves host the Phils.

And hopefully the Reds bolster their lead with a series against that AA team down in Houston, the Sinking Fastros.

Also, in Albert Belle's defense, by all accounts he was a really swell guy.

[Asimovian]

Quick poll-type question as we get ready to head into September. Imagine a world where your team doesn't make the playoffs (easier to imagine for some of us than others). Who are you rooting for other than your team to win it all this year? To be fair, the team you choose should still be in reasonable contention as of today.

I'm somewhat torn between the Nats and Orioles, but if pressed, I'd probably go with the Nats.

Thoughts?

[Ulf the Unwashed]

I don't have strong preferences among the major NL contenders. Probably the Pirates. After that, Braves, then Nationals.

I root for the NL (Cardinals fan), but if the winner must be an AL team, I'd go for 1, White Sox, 2, Tigers, 3, Rays.

[Hawkeyeop]

Astros hire BP writer Kevin Goldstein, which is sad for people who enjoy 3 hour weekly podcasts and his outstanding and prolific writing, but likely very good for him and the Astros.

[silenus]

Originally Posted by Asimovian

Quick poll-type question as we get ready to head into September. Imagine a world where your team doesn't make the playoffs (easier to imagine for some of us than others). Who are you rooting for other than your team to win it all this year? To be fair, the team you choose should still be in reasonable contention as of today.

I'm somewhat torn between the Nats and Orioles, but if pressed, I'd probably go with the Nats.

Thoughts?

The Padres.

Nobody. If the Dodgers don't make it I stop watching altogether. I haven't watched a World Series in decades (except the ones with the Red Sox, because the wife used to be a fan.)

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by silenus

The Padres.

Nobody. If the Dodgers don't make it I stop watching altogether. I haven't watched a World Series in decades (except the ones with the Red Sox, because the wife used to be a fan.)

I'm the same way. Once my team is out of it, I am done. Almost zero interest.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Asimovian

Quick poll-type question as we get ready to head into September. Imagine a world where your team doesn't make the playoffs (easier to imagine for some of us than others). Who are you rooting for other than your team to win it all this year? To be fair, the team you choose should still be in reasonable contention as of today.

I'm somewhat torn between the Nats and Orioles, but if pressed, I'd probably go with the Nats.

Thoughts?

Because of my wife's loyalties, I'd make a show of rooting for the Braves, but in my heart I'd be rooting for the Reds. They've really won me over during the past couple of months.

If there's a Nats-Reds NLCS, it's gonna be fun. And there's no way I'd place a bet on the outcome.

And as we finish off the August thread, boy howdy, have the Nats dismantled the Cards the past two nights, 8-1 last night, and 10-0 tonight. Meanwhile, the Braves succumbed to the Phils in 10, so the lead's back up to 6.5 games.

And in the junior circuit, the O's kicked some Yankee butt, and at 15 games over .500, are only 2 games back. Despite having no business being over .500 at all, but this is a team that laughs at its Pythagorean.

[etv78]

(member of the Nation)

AL: Tigers or Angels
NL: Nats or Bucs

[Suburban Plankton]

I'm pulling for the Giants all the way. In the AL, I don't really have any great preference, but I'll root for the A's out of Northern California loyalties.

[RTFirefly]

Got a September thread cued up for everyone.