QUOTE (Andrik the Unsmiling @ Jul 2 2008, 01.05)

DAMN that Giants-Cubs game tonight was something.

What about that Sox game? (for anyone that actually saw it). 1-1 pitcher's duel til the end. Tribe takes the lead with a solo shot in the 10th. Sox come back in the bottom, 2 outs, noone on, with an umpire's strike zone that's expanding like the national debt cause he wants to get to bed early...tied up with a home run by a guy who looks smaller than a starving Ethiopian, one that JUST BARELY makes it over the wall. Outfielder may have even got a part of the glove on it.

Konerko's call-up replacement singles. Steals second. Driven in by a game-winning RBI single. Extends the Sox streak to 6 in a row and keeps us 2 1/2 games above the Piranha Twins.

The Rays are a great story and I'm glad they're finally getting some coverage on ESPN and talk radio. Years of pure futility for most of their existence now surging with the best record in baseball in what is traditionally the strongest division in baseball. Everyone's wondering when they're gonna fade. But overachieving or not, you go half a season at this level and it generally ain't a fluke that's gonna right itself anytime soon. If the Sox (my sox) were on an off year and non-competitive, I could definitely see myself pulling for the Rays come playoff time. But since I expect my team to be there as well, not a chance.

Side note, Sox win their second game in a row in the bottom of the 10th. Tribe fought valiantly with their Ace on the mound but couldn't avoid the sweep. Sox got 7 in a row going now. Lets extend that shit. Minnesota ain't slacking off either.

I'm sure some of this shit has been covered but...

How the fuck does Jason Varitek become an All-star batting .220 with below average power?

I can find 4-5 DH's who are having substantially better years than David Ortiz.

Not a single pitcher from baseball's best bullpen and full pitching staff.

Happy to see Crede on there, but I don't really think his year has warranted it. His power is good, average a tad below the crowd, but the insane amount of errors he's made this year. Totally uncharacteristic and unless his offensive stats are above and beyond everyone else's at the position, which they're not, I don't see how they place him.

Jermaine Dye has been insane the last month or so. Hopefully he takes the last spot voting. Going by past practice, he quite possibly will.

A number of other wrongs were righted with the reserve staff. Sizemore, Kinsler, Bradley and a few others all deserved to be on there.

Wooo Hooo...I get to vote for Jermaine Dye and Aaron Rowand. Double bonus!

Shit, I can even go another former Sox in Carlos Lee.

White Sox make no trades. White Sox need no trades.

QUOTE (Caliban @ Jul 8 2008, 22.13)

"Twenty-four hours ago, the Oakland Athletics had no serious action on Rich Harden, no serious suitors, no reason to think they would move the talented pitcher who seems to have spent most of his major league career on the disabled list. An Oakland official spoke with confidence that he didn't think Harden would be traded. And 24 hours ago, the Cubs were not deep into talks on any pitcher."

I'll back Caliban on this. Baseballwise, I've been hearing about nothing but Cubs going for Harden for the last few days on the local talk radio. For a nationally renown baseball writer to completely miss that and report the opposite is pretty damned lazy and oblivious.

And Mariotti is a fucking tool who needs to go. We already got rid of one obnoxious jackass in this town (you won't be missed Mike North), time to ship out the other.

Not exactly as big as all the monster trades, but the White Sox recently dropped popular utility-man Pablo Ozuna to make way for the DL returning (and thoroughly pathetic thus far this season) Paul Konerko. Now you can't exactly say seeya to you 12 million per year 30-40 home run team captain...even if he is batting .220 with minimal power.

But would it have been so hard to drop the much less productive, less popular, and overpaid Juan Uribe whose been living off one monster half season 4 years ago for the entirety of his Chicago career? You know, the guy we've been trying to replace for at least 2 seasons now? The one batting .200 with 3 home runs? Sure he's got a great infield arm and he's prone to the occasional great play, but he's also prone to the occasional mistake with his semi-awkward fielding style.

Sending down Juan Uribe would not cause the clubhouse uproar that the Ozuna move has. We've got minor league guys who can patch holes if it becomes necessary. Yeah, Uribe is versatile and can play the whole infield, but he's a HUGE liability with the bat and ain't exactly an irreplaceable defender.

Not a fan of this move.

QUOTE (Ser Hippie @ Aug 24 2008, 20.45)

Which, of course, is a somewhat disingenuous argument. Sandberg won the MVP also because of his outstanding defense, and also because the Cubs hadn't been to the playoffs since, what, 1945 I think? In any case, I still haven't seen any reason to consider the two seasons 'comparable' once you adjust for era effects, even ignoring defense (which is a huge advantage for Sandberg), as well as the relative quality of the sides (this year's Cub team being quite better than 1984's was)

Sandberg was a hack who wasn't good enough to play third base. Or shortstop for that matter. Second base in the majors is like right field in little league. Its where you put the kids who can't catch or throw in hopes that they won't fuck up the rest of the team. Record home runes for a second baseman? 277? Does that even make a top 50 list at any other position? Best defensive second basemen? Ain't that like saying the tallest midget? Does he make half as many all star games at a competitive position? Does he sniff the Hall of Fame at third base or anyplace else?

Not a fucking chance. Ryno is one of the most overrated players in baseball history.

QUOTE (Weekapaug @ Aug 31 2008, 18.27)

And the Yankees are all but mathematically out of the playoffs. It is a good day for baseball.

I can join you in a toast to this. Now if only Boston would follow them.

Semi-serious we'll call it. Fact is, his numbers would not be as impressive at a more competitive position. Nor would he make all the all-star games nor most likely the hall of fame. And second base, no matter the added importance of the double play, is still one of the weakest and least important defensive positions on the field.

I think we can all agree that shortstop is tops or close to it. Many of your most talented, dexterous, and athletic defenders played there. Third base? The realities of that position still have not changed from what was described in your link. Most of the hardest hit balls go there. The reaction time is often split second. And you often need a damned good arm to get that ball to first to catch a quick runner.

Outfield you got more time to react, but you still got to judge fly balls (the majors make it look easy, but check some World Baseball Classic games...alot of teams have not mastered that), must have speed and must have an arm.

1st base is where you put the big men who are supposed to slug you homeruns. They get alot of errant balls thrown their way, but probably a less demanding defensive position than anything else. But 2nd base is where you dump the weak arms. Ryno did not have a good arm. It also is less demanding defensively than shortstop (they're in those double plays half the time as well and get more balls their way), and doesn't take the split second leaps and reactions that third base does. (nor the arm) 2nd base still remains probably the weakest infield position outside of first. (or pitcher, but they're not there to field) It certainly has many less notable hitters than third, first, outfield, and probably slugging it out with shortstop.

If Ryno was better, they'd have put him at third or short. But he wasn't. He didn't have the arm and they didn't think the fielding skill either.

Juan Uribe is a hack. His hitting goes from average to really bad. His fielding can be exceptional, but its quirky (non-traditional defensive style) and at times inconsistent. He has a job in the majors because he has a monster fucking infield arm. He can play the whole infield competently. Ryno would most likely fail pretty badly at any position but second.

He only compares favorably numbers-wise because there have been so few other decent offensive second basemen out there. Look, the NFL doesn't put alot of kickers into the hall of fame because lets face it, they're fucking kickers. I think MLB Hall should be a bit more selective at those weaker, less demanding and less competitive positions as well.

Congrats to Z.

In other news the Twins lost and Sox took both in a double-header. It'd be a perfect sports day if the Bears had won.

QUOTE (Caliban @ Sep 16 2008, 22.59)

Ok Vets committee, If Santo isnt announced in on Dec 8th, im done with the Hall of Fame. The BBWAA and the Vets committee both suck ass.

Meh...marginal. A number of players with better numbers who aren't even being considered.

I'm against most position considerations when it comes to the Hall of Fame. How well you fielded versus someone at the same position is a legitimate consideration, but how good your bat was compared to other 3rd basemen is or should be irrelevant. It doesn't matter what part of the field you were in the half inning before, everyone's the same in the batter's box. And the offensive statistic comparisons should be made across the league at all positions, not just against those who played your spot. Otherwise we're essentially operating on a position-based handicap that punishes achievement at over-producing spots while undeservedly rewarding lesser hitters at other spots.

If there's an argument for Santos that disregards position (except for defense, which with 5 Gold gloves would certainly be a consideration), fair enough. But top 10-15 third basemen is fairly meaningless to me if that only translates into top 250 or so actual hitters.

QUOTE (Ser Hippie @ Sep 17 2008, 18.46)

Indeed. You need to consider defensive position when comparing hitters because otherwise you'll tend to have only corner outfielders and first basemen appearing as the best players ever.

So? We don't need to affirmative action the Baseball Hall of Fame. Yeah, good hitters at those positions may be rarer and valuable in the sense that they're harder to find, but that doesn't make them better hitters than the 2,000 other guys putting up better numbers at other positions. For an All-Star game you're required to field a full team with backups, so someone with an ounce of power and a decent average at a poor hitting position gets selected more. But the Hall of Fame is under no such practical restrictions. If there's no third or second basemen that can sniff the jock strap of 200+ 1st basemen and outfielders offensively, there's no reason for them to get in over the other guys unless their numbers are close and their defense puts them over the top. If you weigh the defense that importantly, fair enough. But their numbers should be considered against everyone elses numbers, not just those at their position.

QUOTE (Lord O' Bones @ Sep 17 2008, 19.12)

I would say that C, 3B, SS, and 2B, are quantifyably more difficult postions to play than 1B, or OF. It's not all about hitting either. There is a middle ground.

No I'd agree. I think their defensive play and the fact that they are more difficult defensive positions should factor in. As well as a catcher's ability to call a good game, insofar as such things can be measurable. I'm just against unofficial quotas or 'he's a great hitter for a second basemen' rationales. The offensive statistics should be judged independently of everything else and against the offensive statistics of everyone else. I'm not saying that good defense at a tougher position can't put someone close offensively over the edge, but if their statistics are only remarkable due to their position, than they're not remarkable enough for the Hall.

QUOTE (Ser Hippie @ Sep 17 2008, 19.17)

They are considered against everyone else - it's a matter of adjusting their numbers to compare them in the right context. Derek Jeter, for example, has only finished in the top 10 for OPS+ once in his entire career, yet the general public considers him a good hitter. Why? Because he puts up great numbers for a shortstop - we recognize that his performance is more unique than if it came from a rightfielder (as his defense isn't what makes him so good).

The public considers him a good hitter because he's the fricken Yankees mascot and MLB + ESPN is forever on New York's dick.

QUOTE (Ser Hippie @ Sep 17 2008, 19.17)

The average first baseman has over a 100 OPS, while the average SS will have an OPS+ under 100, which differentiates the two quite distinctly. Unless the defense makes up for it (and in my example it wouldn't), the shortstop is clearly a more valuable player.

If its that close, than yeah position difficulty + quality of defense can be the edge. But if its not close, than he waits behind the better hitters unless you rate defense exponentially higher than most.

QUOTE (Ser Hippie @ Sep 17 2008, 19.48)

People like Sandberg and Kent who are "great hitters for second basemen" are not scrubs getting in/support only because of positional bonus - they're guys who would be above average, maybe minor stars, as OFs or first basemen who are inherently more valuable because they were producing at a position where offense is not easy to come by.

This is the Hall of Fame we're talking about and if they'd only be above average or minor stars at OF or 1st than they ABSOLUTELY are getting in due to positional bonus. Again, defense and position difficulty should be factored in, but their offensive production should be compared to everyone's, not just their position.Value to the team is a factor some Hall voters might consider, but its never been a dominant one.

QUOTE (Lord O' Bones @ Sep 17 2008, 20.04)

If true, this is a shame IMO.

Alot of factors that go into Hall voting. No reason for something like this dominate if it means putting lesser players in over better ones.

QUOTE (Jaxom 1974 @ Sep 17 2008, 20.23)

I think a lot of EHK's desire to eliminate some of the fielding importance in HoF admitance is his desperate destire to garuntee Frank Thomas might be a first ballot guy.

Something that should be far from certain seeing as he spent, what? More than half of his career as a DH.

Frank Thomas was the 1st or second most dominant hitter in the game for a decade. And he did it without a whiff of roid-stench on him in an era filled with it. He is absolutely a first-balloter. If there weren't so many fucking cheats around that time, he'd have a legacy to match some of the greats in the game. A nice little blurb on his dominant decade.

QUOTE

Frank Thomas, Chicago White Sox

The Big Hurt could do it all. He hit for average; topping .300 in nine out of ten seasons during the 1990s. He hit with power; cracking at least 29 homers and 100 RBI a year from 1991 through 1998. He also walked at least 100 times in each of those years. Like Albert Belle, who is discussed below, Thomas had his best season in 1994, when he won his second straight MVP award on the strength of a .353 batting average, 38 home runs and 101 RBI. For the decade, he won two MVPs, made five All Star teams, won three Silver Slugger awards, and hit over .320 while averaging 30 homers and 111 RBI a season. Thomas is a future first ballot Hall of Famer, and he did most of his great work in the '90s.