This is a post to show the active players who rank in the top 100 at their individual position, except for pitchers, as their rankings take too long to update and fix. This is inspired from a Fangraphs post that was looking to see which active players have a chance at the Hall of Fame.
Catcher:
Jason Kendall (22)
Brian McCann (44)
Jorge Posada (16)
Jason Varitek (60)
Joe Mauer (11)
Yadier Molina (80)
A.J. Pryzinski (89)
Russell Martin (63)
Victor Martinez (34)
Ramon Hernandez (56)
Mike Napoli (65)
Ivan Rodriguez (5)
First Base:
Albert Pujols (3)
Todd Helton (15)
Jim Thome (17)
Derrek Lee (62)
Jason Giambi (19)
Ryan Howard (84)
Prince Fielder (80)
Mark Teixeira (37)
Miguel Cabrera (31)
Adrian Gonzalez (49)
Kevin Youkilis (57)
Travis Hafner (91)
Lance Berkman (22)
Adam Dunn (88)
Joey Votto (65)
Second Base:
Luis Castillo (65)
Robinson Cano (43)
Dustin Pedroia (42)
Chase Utley (14)
Michael Young (60)
Orlando Hudson (73)
Rickie Weeks (91)
Brandon Phillips (81)
Brian Roberts (58)
Dan Uggla (70)
Kelly Johnson (80)
Ian Kinsler (46)
Aaron Hill (92)
Shortstop:
Alex Rodriguez (2)
Derek Jeter (10)
Omar Vizquel (53)
Jimmy Rollins (40)
Miguel Tejada (33)
Troy Tulowitzki (54)
Edgar Renteria (61)
Jose Reyes (45)
Hanley Ramirez (32)
Carlos Guillen (73)
Jhonny Peralta (94)
Third Base:
Chipper Jones (6)
Adrian Beltre (21)
David Wright (28)
Ryan Zimmerman (67)
Evan Longoria (33)
Aramis Ramirez (79)
Chone Figgins (89)
Pablo Sandoval (100)
Scott Rolen (9)
Eric Chavez (38)
Left Field:
Jose Bautista (89)
Jacoby Ellsbury (94)
Jason Bay (85)
Matt Kemp (66)
Alfonso Soriano (62)
Carl Crawford (53)
Bobby Abreu (16)
Center Field:
Aaron Rowand (98)
Curtis Granderson (86)
Vernon Wells (89)
Jayson Werth (96)
Josh Hamilton (78)
Mike Cameron (34)
Grady Sizemore (47)
Carlos Beltran (13)
Andruw Jones (9)
Johnny Damon (48)
Torii Hunter (76)
Right Field:
Nick Markakis (94)
Matt Holliday (55)
Ryan Braun (100)
Shin-Soo Choo (98)
Ichiro (20)
Vladimir Guererro (17)
J.D. Drew (35)
Magglio Ordonez (59)
Manny Ramirez (16)
Friday, December 30, 2011
Monday, December 26, 2011
Happy Holidays!
From us at Ron Coomer is an All Star, happy holidays!
We'll be back at full force soon with some of the following posts:
Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes
Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Hall of Fame Case: Barry Larkin
Hall of Fame Case: Brad Radke
Hall of Fame Case: Lee Smith
Hall of Fame Case: Bernie Williams
(We'll note already that when we write these Hall of Famce cases, we don't necessarily think that each of the players is a Hall of Famer).
Playoff Predictions: NFL Edition
Thoughts on Basketball
What people mean when they talk about the weather
Have a great rest of 2011, if we're not back by then.
We'll be back at full force soon with some of the following posts:
Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes
Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Hall of Fame Case: Barry Larkin
Hall of Fame Case: Brad Radke
Hall of Fame Case: Lee Smith
Hall of Fame Case: Bernie Williams
(We'll note already that when we write these Hall of Famce cases, we don't necessarily think that each of the players is a Hall of Famer).
Playoff Predictions: NFL Edition
Thoughts on Basketball
What people mean when they talk about the weather
Have a great rest of 2011, if we're not back by then.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
The Obligatory Jack Morris Post
It's Hall of Fame voting season, again. This means that you will be subjected to countless writers who are writing about who they think is worthy of the Hall of Fame. One of the players a lot of these writers will mention is Jack Morris. Obviously, since I'm writing on the internet, I do not support Jack Morris' Hall of Fame qualifications. I actually believe that when people argue about Jack Morris and the Hall of Fame, they are actually arguing about two completely different views on the Hall of Fame, which I'll touch on later. However, since people still want to write things like Jack Morris is a very worthy candidate for the Hall of Fame. We are here to poke holes in the argument.
The first argument for Jack Morris is that he was the ace of three World Championship teams. What does that really mean? Usually, when people talk about being an ace that means that they are a) the best pitcher on the team and b) the one the teammates look to to beat losing streaks or otherwise be the most important pitcher on the team. This argument doesn't mean that much to me, if you look at the supposed aces of different World Championship teams. You would have a list of good but not great pitchers or pitchers who are great for one season. This is not even addressing the idea that it takes more than one pitcher to win the World Series. In fact, it takes 25 players, maybe more.
But I digress. In 1984, the Detroit Tigers won 104 games and the World Series. There has been talk of Jack Morris being the ace of that great team. It is important to note that that the writers of that time didn't consider Morris the best pitcher on the team. This is important to bring up because often these same voters who argue about Morris' greatness will say something to the effect of everyone who watched him play knew how great he was. Anyways, Willie Hernandez was voted by the writers as the winner of both the American League Cy Young Award and the MVP award. There have been claims by writers, nowadays, that only revisionist history has shown Morris not to be the ace of this team. However, we can clearly see that the writers during that time didn't consider Morris to be the best pitcher on his team, much less the league. If we decide, then, that relief pitchers are not worthy of being the ace of the team or that Morris was clearly the best starting pitcher on that team, then we must look at the statistics of the different pitchers. We can see that there is another pitcher who might be worthy of the ace role.
Jack Morris: 19-11 3.60 ERA 240.1 IP 148 K 87 BB 109 ERA+ 1.282 WHIP
Dan Petry: 18-8 3.24 ERA 233.1 IP 144 K 66 BB 121 ERA+ 1.275 WHIP
Even without going to far into advanced statistics, it looks like Petry is ahead of Morris. In fact, with rWAR Petry is at 3.2 and Morris at 2.3. It certainly would appear that Petry had a better season than Morris for that season thus being more deserving of the "ace" status. Morris did have a particularly good postseason so I suppose you could give him extra points for having a good postseason but it would certainly seem that Morris was not the ace of that particular team.
In 1991, the Minnesota Twins won 94 games and won the World Series in seven games over the Atlanta Braves. Was Morris the ace of that team?
Jack Morris: 18-12 3.43 ERA 246.2 IP 163 K 92 BB 125 ERA+ 1.289 WHIP 4.1 rWAR
Kevin Tapani: 16-9 2.99 ERA 244.0 IP 135 K 40 BB 143 ERA+ 1.086 WHIP 6.0 rWAR
Scott Erickson: 20-8 3.18 ERA 204 IP 108 K 71 BB 135 ERA+ 1.278 WHIP 4.2 rWAR.
Either way you look at, through traditional stats of wins and ERA or with advanced statistics, Morris is not the ace. If you're more inclined to look at the tradtional stats, you would be inclined to say Erickson was the ace. With advanced statistics, you would probably say that Tapani is the ace. Of course this was the season where Morris pitched so brilliantly in the postseason and had his virtuoso Game 7 appearance.
In 1992, the Toronto Blue Jays became the first team not located in the United States to win the World Series. Morris is now being considered the ace of this team, as well.
Jack Morris: 21-6 4.04 ERA 240.2 IP 132 K 80 BB 102 ERA+ 1.255 WHIP 2.8 rWAR
Jimmy Key: 13-13 3.53 ERA 216.2 IP 117 K 59 BB 117 ERA+ 1.218 WHIP 3.6 rWAR
Juan Guzman: 16-5 2.64 ERA 180.2 IP 165 K 72 BB 156 ERA+ 1.146 WHIP 5.2 rWAR
Duane Ward: 7-4 1.95 ERA 101.2 IP 103 K 39 BB 211 ERA+ 1.135 WHIP 3.2 rWAR
While Morris won 20 games during this season, he had an extremely high ERA and it looks unlikely that Morris was any more than an average pitcher throughout the season. Morris had a terrible postseason, this year, so if you give him extra points for his postseason performances you would have to discount it here because of the terrible postseason.
It's important to note that the 1993 Toronto Blue Jays won the World Series. However, Morris 7-12 6.19 ERA and did not pitch in the postseason, at all.
In my ruling, even if the claim that Morris was the ace of three World Series chamionship teams meant anything, which I assert it doesn't, it does not even appear that Morris was the ace of those teams. The only one that an argument could really be made that he was the ace is 1991 and that's if you gave him lots of extra points for his postseason performance. Even if he was the ace of that team, history is filled with World Series champion teams who had good pitchers on their team but nowhere near Hall of Fame quality.
The next argument that is typically made is that Morris won 254 games, most pitchers who won 250+ games are in the Hall of Fame. If we ignore the obvious problem, which is that pitcher wins are essentially useless. As Keith Law has stated that if a pitcher has won 20 games, all it says is that the pitcher appeared in 20 games. Pitcher wins are among the most useless stats in the history of baseball.
However, if we ignore this, we can focus on a different line of reasoning. There is no benchmark for the Hall of Fame in terms of wins. Although most pitchers who have won 250+ games are in the Hall of Fame, it does not mean that this is a benchmark. It is only ther until pitchers stop getting elected at that number, which might be happening already.
If you claim that Morris is worthy because of his 250 wins, then you must also recognize that other pitchers who have won 250+ games belong in the Hall of Fame. If that is the case, then they must have supported Blyleven (to give one example) which for the most part they did not. Other pitchers who have won 250+ games not in Hall of Fame that this reasoning would say is worthy of the Hall of Fame. Gus Weyhing (264), Jim McCormick (265), Jamie Moyer (267 and counting), Mike Mussina (270, although I think Mussina is a Hall of Famer), Jim Kaat (283), Tony Mullane (284), Tommy John (288), and Bobby Mathews (297). Since most would argue that at the very least Kaat and John are not Hall of Famers and they are close enough to contemporaries to Morris, that it appears that this reasoning is also wrong.
The third argument is that Morris was such a terrific postseason pitcher that he belongs in the Hall of Fame. This argument goes hand in hand with the fourth argument which is the Game 7 argument. This is the final line for Morris' postseason performances:
7-4 3.80 ERA 64 K's 32 BB's 1.245 WHIP.
Morris had some great post-season performances. We'll break it down year-by-year.
1984 ALCS: Morris had one start, 7 innings, 5 hits, 1 Earned run 4 K's 1 BB's.
1984 World Series: 2-0 2.00 18 IP 0.889 WHIP
1987 ALCS: Morris pitched in one game which was game 2. He pitched 8 innings and had 6 earned runs. He lost the game.
1991 ALCS: 2-0 4.05 ERA 13.1 IP 7 K's 1 BB
1991 World Series: 2-0 1.17 ERA 23 IP 1.174 WHIP
1992 ALCS: 0-1 6.57 ERA 12.1 IP (It would have been two losses but the Blue Jays scored 5 runs in the last two innings to send the game into extra innings, which thy won).
1992 World Series: 0-2 8.44 ERA 1.781 WHIP. He lost the only two games that the Blue Jays lost in that World Series.
Morris had two great post seasons and two awful post-seasons. It's hard to see how that it's a good argument for Morris being such a great post-season pitcher.
The other argument focuses on Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. The argument basically states that since Morris pitched arguably the greatest game in post-season history, he should be in the Hall of Fame. Well, then Don Larsen should be in the Hall of Fame because he pitched a perfect game in the World Series. Johnny Podres had a very similar post-season in 1955 that Morris had in 1991, Podres also pitched a great game 7, which led the Brooklyn Dodgers to their first World Series victory during that time. After Game 7 of the 1975 World Series, Sparky Anderson said that Don Gullet would go to the Hall of Fame. Livan Hernandez had a great post-season performance in 1997. Josh Becket had a great World Series performance in 2003 over the Yankees. There are a lot of players who had great post-seasons but are not good enough to be in the Hall of Fame. It's hard to see how great post-season performances are good enough to get you into the Hall of Fame.
The next argument is that Morris had a stunning moustache. There is no argument here.
The final arguments are that Morris' statistics don't capture him because he pitched to the score and that he was such a great pitcher that statistics do not necessarily capture him accurately. This is a risky argument because you are effectively discrediting any evidence against your argument and only accepting the evidence which proves your argument. In doing so, you leave others to be able to discredit your argument by claiming that it is weak. If you accept that certain records do not encapsulate a player fully but other records do, you are leaving the historical record up for debate. These are the same claims conspiracy theorists make when they talk about the assasination of John F. Kennedy, the Roswell incidents, etc. In these cases, people accept only aspects of the historical record that prove their argument or that do not show up in the official historical record but in their own revisionist or unofficial records.
If Jack Morris was able to pitch to the score, there should be records of that somewhere. While Morris had high innings total relative to the rest of the league and finished routinely in the top 10, it is not enough evidence that pitching to the score even exists. If that is all the evidence that you need, then pitchers who finish in the top 10 in innings pitched each year routinely pitch to the score.
Pitching to the score implies that a pitcher will save his best stuff for when he really needs it. This also implies that his best stuff will only be used during that time. If the best stuff will be saved during this time and a pitcher can routinely turn it on and off, it would seem that a pitcher would have a higher winning percentage and a lower ERA because he would use better stuff to allow less runners to score.
Pitching to the score is a dangerous argument because in theory if a pitcher who had a higher ERA because he pitched to the score, it would imply that he is giving up runs when he does not need to. If this is the case, there is a higher chance that a higher leveraged situation will come up with a lesser pitcher because of the whole pitching to the score. For example, if Morris' team was up 5-0 in the 7th inning, he pitches in the 7th and gives up 3 runs because he is taking stuff off of his pitches. It is now 5-3 in the 8th or in the 9th. Do you really think the manager is going to let Morris finish out the game or is he going to bring in the closer? Wouldn't it have been better if Morris kept pitching hard at 5-0.
The last argument against pitching to the score is Occam's razor. When presented with two competing theses, you should choose the simpler one. In this situation, Morris has a high ERA because he is simply not an outstanding pitcher. If you believe in pitching to the score, it is because he is giving up runs because he is pitching to the score and he is actually a pitcher who can turn it on and off consistently. Occam's razor states that we should accept the simpler thesis. The simpler thesis is that Morris is not an outstanding pitcher.
All in all, I don't think Morris is a Hall of Famer. I hope this post will help you in case you run into someone who thinks Morris is a Hall of Famer and uses one of these arguments. There are other arguments that people use to try and convince you that Morris is a Hall of Famer but they run along the same lines that we've focused on, already.
The first argument for Jack Morris is that he was the ace of three World Championship teams. What does that really mean? Usually, when people talk about being an ace that means that they are a) the best pitcher on the team and b) the one the teammates look to to beat losing streaks or otherwise be the most important pitcher on the team. This argument doesn't mean that much to me, if you look at the supposed aces of different World Championship teams. You would have a list of good but not great pitchers or pitchers who are great for one season. This is not even addressing the idea that it takes more than one pitcher to win the World Series. In fact, it takes 25 players, maybe more.
But I digress. In 1984, the Detroit Tigers won 104 games and the World Series. There has been talk of Jack Morris being the ace of that great team. It is important to note that that the writers of that time didn't consider Morris the best pitcher on the team. This is important to bring up because often these same voters who argue about Morris' greatness will say something to the effect of everyone who watched him play knew how great he was. Anyways, Willie Hernandez was voted by the writers as the winner of both the American League Cy Young Award and the MVP award. There have been claims by writers, nowadays, that only revisionist history has shown Morris not to be the ace of this team. However, we can clearly see that the writers during that time didn't consider Morris to be the best pitcher on his team, much less the league. If we decide, then, that relief pitchers are not worthy of being the ace of the team or that Morris was clearly the best starting pitcher on that team, then we must look at the statistics of the different pitchers. We can see that there is another pitcher who might be worthy of the ace role.
Jack Morris: 19-11 3.60 ERA 240.1 IP 148 K 87 BB 109 ERA+ 1.282 WHIP
Dan Petry: 18-8 3.24 ERA 233.1 IP 144 K 66 BB 121 ERA+ 1.275 WHIP
Even without going to far into advanced statistics, it looks like Petry is ahead of Morris. In fact, with rWAR Petry is at 3.2 and Morris at 2.3. It certainly would appear that Petry had a better season than Morris for that season thus being more deserving of the "ace" status. Morris did have a particularly good postseason so I suppose you could give him extra points for having a good postseason but it would certainly seem that Morris was not the ace of that particular team.
In 1991, the Minnesota Twins won 94 games and won the World Series in seven games over the Atlanta Braves. Was Morris the ace of that team?
Jack Morris: 18-12 3.43 ERA 246.2 IP 163 K 92 BB 125 ERA+ 1.289 WHIP 4.1 rWAR
Kevin Tapani: 16-9 2.99 ERA 244.0 IP 135 K 40 BB 143 ERA+ 1.086 WHIP 6.0 rWAR
Scott Erickson: 20-8 3.18 ERA 204 IP 108 K 71 BB 135 ERA+ 1.278 WHIP 4.2 rWAR.
Either way you look at, through traditional stats of wins and ERA or with advanced statistics, Morris is not the ace. If you're more inclined to look at the tradtional stats, you would be inclined to say Erickson was the ace. With advanced statistics, you would probably say that Tapani is the ace. Of course this was the season where Morris pitched so brilliantly in the postseason and had his virtuoso Game 7 appearance.
In 1992, the Toronto Blue Jays became the first team not located in the United States to win the World Series. Morris is now being considered the ace of this team, as well.
Jack Morris: 21-6 4.04 ERA 240.2 IP 132 K 80 BB 102 ERA+ 1.255 WHIP 2.8 rWAR
Jimmy Key: 13-13 3.53 ERA 216.2 IP 117 K 59 BB 117 ERA+ 1.218 WHIP 3.6 rWAR
Juan Guzman: 16-5 2.64 ERA 180.2 IP 165 K 72 BB 156 ERA+ 1.146 WHIP 5.2 rWAR
Duane Ward: 7-4 1.95 ERA 101.2 IP 103 K 39 BB 211 ERA+ 1.135 WHIP 3.2 rWAR
While Morris won 20 games during this season, he had an extremely high ERA and it looks unlikely that Morris was any more than an average pitcher throughout the season. Morris had a terrible postseason, this year, so if you give him extra points for his postseason performances you would have to discount it here because of the terrible postseason.
It's important to note that the 1993 Toronto Blue Jays won the World Series. However, Morris 7-12 6.19 ERA and did not pitch in the postseason, at all.
In my ruling, even if the claim that Morris was the ace of three World Series chamionship teams meant anything, which I assert it doesn't, it does not even appear that Morris was the ace of those teams. The only one that an argument could really be made that he was the ace is 1991 and that's if you gave him lots of extra points for his postseason performance. Even if he was the ace of that team, history is filled with World Series champion teams who had good pitchers on their team but nowhere near Hall of Fame quality.
The next argument that is typically made is that Morris won 254 games, most pitchers who won 250+ games are in the Hall of Fame. If we ignore the obvious problem, which is that pitcher wins are essentially useless. As Keith Law has stated that if a pitcher has won 20 games, all it says is that the pitcher appeared in 20 games. Pitcher wins are among the most useless stats in the history of baseball.
However, if we ignore this, we can focus on a different line of reasoning. There is no benchmark for the Hall of Fame in terms of wins. Although most pitchers who have won 250+ games are in the Hall of Fame, it does not mean that this is a benchmark. It is only ther until pitchers stop getting elected at that number, which might be happening already.
If you claim that Morris is worthy because of his 250 wins, then you must also recognize that other pitchers who have won 250+ games belong in the Hall of Fame. If that is the case, then they must have supported Blyleven (to give one example) which for the most part they did not. Other pitchers who have won 250+ games not in Hall of Fame that this reasoning would say is worthy of the Hall of Fame. Gus Weyhing (264), Jim McCormick (265), Jamie Moyer (267 and counting), Mike Mussina (270, although I think Mussina is a Hall of Famer), Jim Kaat (283), Tony Mullane (284), Tommy John (288), and Bobby Mathews (297). Since most would argue that at the very least Kaat and John are not Hall of Famers and they are close enough to contemporaries to Morris, that it appears that this reasoning is also wrong.
The third argument is that Morris was such a terrific postseason pitcher that he belongs in the Hall of Fame. This argument goes hand in hand with the fourth argument which is the Game 7 argument. This is the final line for Morris' postseason performances:
7-4 3.80 ERA 64 K's 32 BB's 1.245 WHIP.
Morris had some great post-season performances. We'll break it down year-by-year.
1984 ALCS: Morris had one start, 7 innings, 5 hits, 1 Earned run 4 K's 1 BB's.
1984 World Series: 2-0 2.00 18 IP 0.889 WHIP
1987 ALCS: Morris pitched in one game which was game 2. He pitched 8 innings and had 6 earned runs. He lost the game.
1991 ALCS: 2-0 4.05 ERA 13.1 IP 7 K's 1 BB
1991 World Series: 2-0 1.17 ERA 23 IP 1.174 WHIP
1992 ALCS: 0-1 6.57 ERA 12.1 IP (It would have been two losses but the Blue Jays scored 5 runs in the last two innings to send the game into extra innings, which thy won).
1992 World Series: 0-2 8.44 ERA 1.781 WHIP. He lost the only two games that the Blue Jays lost in that World Series.
Morris had two great post seasons and two awful post-seasons. It's hard to see how that it's a good argument for Morris being such a great post-season pitcher.
The other argument focuses on Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. The argument basically states that since Morris pitched arguably the greatest game in post-season history, he should be in the Hall of Fame. Well, then Don Larsen should be in the Hall of Fame because he pitched a perfect game in the World Series. Johnny Podres had a very similar post-season in 1955 that Morris had in 1991, Podres also pitched a great game 7, which led the Brooklyn Dodgers to their first World Series victory during that time. After Game 7 of the 1975 World Series, Sparky Anderson said that Don Gullet would go to the Hall of Fame. Livan Hernandez had a great post-season performance in 1997. Josh Becket had a great World Series performance in 2003 over the Yankees. There are a lot of players who had great post-seasons but are not good enough to be in the Hall of Fame. It's hard to see how great post-season performances are good enough to get you into the Hall of Fame.
The next argument is that Morris had a stunning moustache. There is no argument here.
The final arguments are that Morris' statistics don't capture him because he pitched to the score and that he was such a great pitcher that statistics do not necessarily capture him accurately. This is a risky argument because you are effectively discrediting any evidence against your argument and only accepting the evidence which proves your argument. In doing so, you leave others to be able to discredit your argument by claiming that it is weak. If you accept that certain records do not encapsulate a player fully but other records do, you are leaving the historical record up for debate. These are the same claims conspiracy theorists make when they talk about the assasination of John F. Kennedy, the Roswell incidents, etc. In these cases, people accept only aspects of the historical record that prove their argument or that do not show up in the official historical record but in their own revisionist or unofficial records.
If Jack Morris was able to pitch to the score, there should be records of that somewhere. While Morris had high innings total relative to the rest of the league and finished routinely in the top 10, it is not enough evidence that pitching to the score even exists. If that is all the evidence that you need, then pitchers who finish in the top 10 in innings pitched each year routinely pitch to the score.
Pitching to the score implies that a pitcher will save his best stuff for when he really needs it. This also implies that his best stuff will only be used during that time. If the best stuff will be saved during this time and a pitcher can routinely turn it on and off, it would seem that a pitcher would have a higher winning percentage and a lower ERA because he would use better stuff to allow less runners to score.
Pitching to the score is a dangerous argument because in theory if a pitcher who had a higher ERA because he pitched to the score, it would imply that he is giving up runs when he does not need to. If this is the case, there is a higher chance that a higher leveraged situation will come up with a lesser pitcher because of the whole pitching to the score. For example, if Morris' team was up 5-0 in the 7th inning, he pitches in the 7th and gives up 3 runs because he is taking stuff off of his pitches. It is now 5-3 in the 8th or in the 9th. Do you really think the manager is going to let Morris finish out the game or is he going to bring in the closer? Wouldn't it have been better if Morris kept pitching hard at 5-0.
The last argument against pitching to the score is Occam's razor. When presented with two competing theses, you should choose the simpler one. In this situation, Morris has a high ERA because he is simply not an outstanding pitcher. If you believe in pitching to the score, it is because he is giving up runs because he is pitching to the score and he is actually a pitcher who can turn it on and off consistently. Occam's razor states that we should accept the simpler thesis. The simpler thesis is that Morris is not an outstanding pitcher.
All in all, I don't think Morris is a Hall of Famer. I hope this post will help you in case you run into someone who thinks Morris is a Hall of Famer and uses one of these arguments. There are other arguments that people use to try and convince you that Morris is a Hall of Famer but they run along the same lines that we've focused on, already.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Movie Review: Donnie Darko
Donnie Darko follows Donnie, a troubled teenager, who might be schizophrenic, who doesn't get along with just about anybody. He befriends a man dressed in a bunny costume, who may or not be real. He's involved with some type of mischief after narrowly escaping death. It's also about time travel, coincidences, and probably the meaning of life.
Story writing: Donnie Darko gets awakened by Frank the Bunny who allows him to escape what would be his certain death. After following Frank, he has conversations with Frank who makes him do a series of mischeivous actions. Donnie tries to figure what the meaning of all this is before Frank's apocalyptic message comes true. Or you know, none of that happened. Score: 9.5/10.
Dialogue writing: Beyond the awesome phrases of "fuck ass" and "suck a fuck", there were some periods of dead dialogue or at least dialogue that was supposed to be deep but ultimately failed. Well, there was the very thorough Smurfs discussion that some of my friends have labeled as Tarantinoesque. Some of the examples of dead or forced dialogue, could be found mainly in Drew Barrymore's scene where she forces Gretchen to choose what boy she thinks is the cutest will be the one she sits by. Score: 8.5/10
Characters: Donnie was a certainly well-developed character, there was some mystery surrounding Donne but it contributed heavily to the movie. Drew Barrymore's character, while a minor character, wasn't very good. The minor characters were for the most pretty interesting, including the pedophilic Jim Cunningham but could have been described better or at least better acted for more development. Score: 7.5/10
Directing: The movie really portrayed Donnie's sickness and allowed us to get inside Donnie's sick mind. It also allowed us to have questions at the end of the movie. While we've been taught that movies are supposed to wrap up nicely at the end of them, it's somewhat more satisfying to figure out what really happened after the movie was over and overanalyze it.
Score: 10/10.
Suspension of disbelief: It kind of depends what you think happened in the film. If you believe that Donnie was shizophrenic and that the majority of the movie is him coping with his impending death, you are able to believe a lot of the movie could actually happen. If you believe that the movie is literal and that he is explaining how to travel through time, that requires for a lot of suspension of disbelief
Score: 9/10.
Timing: I never felt like the movie was dragging and for the most part almost every scene contributed in some way to the film. This applies even moreso if the movie is a set of coincidences all needing to happen in this particular order. Score: 10/10.
Genre specific: I'm not sure where to classify this movie in a specific drama. I guess that that the genre would be a dramatic sci-fi, since I can't list many movies in the genre, it's a high score. Score: 10/10.
Theme/Pseudo-philosophical questions: Of course this is going to be a high score. Ask any 20 something year old stone and they'll tell you of the relative importance of this movie. Score: 10/10.
Acting: Like I said before, some of the characters could have benefitted from better acting. This applies mainly to Drew Barrymore. I didn't really buy her acting in this movie. It seemed like she was intentionally acting like she had never acted before. I didn't think that the mother or father were particularly well acted. Jake and Maggie Gyllenhaal, I thought did, fantastic. Especially Maggie. (Weird crush alert). Score: 10/10.
Re-watchability: This movie actually gets better the more times you watch it. You start to notice the little details that you missed the last time. Score: 10/10
Total Score: 91/100.
Story writing: Donnie Darko gets awakened by Frank the Bunny who allows him to escape what would be his certain death. After following Frank, he has conversations with Frank who makes him do a series of mischeivous actions. Donnie tries to figure what the meaning of all this is before Frank's apocalyptic message comes true. Or you know, none of that happened. Score: 9.5/10.
Dialogue writing: Beyond the awesome phrases of "fuck ass" and "suck a fuck", there were some periods of dead dialogue or at least dialogue that was supposed to be deep but ultimately failed. Well, there was the very thorough Smurfs discussion that some of my friends have labeled as Tarantinoesque. Some of the examples of dead or forced dialogue, could be found mainly in Drew Barrymore's scene where she forces Gretchen to choose what boy she thinks is the cutest will be the one she sits by. Score: 8.5/10
Characters: Donnie was a certainly well-developed character, there was some mystery surrounding Donne but it contributed heavily to the movie. Drew Barrymore's character, while a minor character, wasn't very good. The minor characters were for the most pretty interesting, including the pedophilic Jim Cunningham but could have been described better or at least better acted for more development. Score: 7.5/10
Directing: The movie really portrayed Donnie's sickness and allowed us to get inside Donnie's sick mind. It also allowed us to have questions at the end of the movie. While we've been taught that movies are supposed to wrap up nicely at the end of them, it's somewhat more satisfying to figure out what really happened after the movie was over and overanalyze it.
Score: 10/10.
Suspension of disbelief: It kind of depends what you think happened in the film. If you believe that Donnie was shizophrenic and that the majority of the movie is him coping with his impending death, you are able to believe a lot of the movie could actually happen. If you believe that the movie is literal and that he is explaining how to travel through time, that requires for a lot of suspension of disbelief
Score: 9/10.
Timing: I never felt like the movie was dragging and for the most part almost every scene contributed in some way to the film. This applies even moreso if the movie is a set of coincidences all needing to happen in this particular order. Score: 10/10.
Genre specific: I'm not sure where to classify this movie in a specific drama. I guess that that the genre would be a dramatic sci-fi, since I can't list many movies in the genre, it's a high score. Score: 10/10.
Theme/Pseudo-philosophical questions: Of course this is going to be a high score. Ask any 20 something year old stone and they'll tell you of the relative importance of this movie. Score: 10/10.
Acting: Like I said before, some of the characters could have benefitted from better acting. This applies mainly to Drew Barrymore. I didn't really buy her acting in this movie. It seemed like she was intentionally acting like she had never acted before. I didn't think that the mother or father were particularly well acted. Jake and Maggie Gyllenhaal, I thought did, fantastic. Especially Maggie. (Weird crush alert). Score: 10/10.
Re-watchability: This movie actually gets better the more times you watch it. You start to notice the little details that you missed the last time. Score: 10/10
Total Score: 91/100.
Monday, December 5, 2011
The Hall of Fame Ballot part 1
Here at RCIAAS, we would like to announce our excitement that Ron Santo finally got into the Hall of Fame. We also would like to say that for every Hall of Fame ballot, we would vote for tha maximum of 10 people as long as they were close to being worthy of being enshrined. We would like the players who are close to being Hall of Fame worthy to be investigated further, so that the best players can finally be enshrined. Without further ado, we present the RCIAAS Hall of Fame ballot.
1. Jeff Bagwell- It's sad to say that Bagwell wasn't elected into the Hall of Fame on his first ballot. Accordint to the Hall of Fame score, that we use, with 38 being a Hall of Famer, he got a 56.43. Of course, our Hall of Fame score is based primarily around using WAR, both Fangraphs version and Baseball Reference's version. Hopefully, most of you accept the basic premises of WAR, but if not, we'll break it down even more.
Pro: Triple slash of .297/.408/.540 with an OPS+ 149. Those are fairly impressive career numbers. He had 6 seasons with a batting average of .300 or higher. He had seven seasons of OBP of .400 or higher. He had 10 seasons of .500 SLG % of .500 or higher and two seasons of a slugging percentage of .600 or higher. He had 9 seasons of OPS of .900 or higher. He had six seasons of OPS+ of 150 or higher. Look at his 1994 season, just look at it. 8.9 rWAR, .368/.451/.750, that's nearly Ruthian or Bondsian. Just a fantastic season and a great career. If you want to compare him with the other players in his league well, here we go. 3 top 10 finishes in Batting Average, 8 top 10 finishes in On-base percentage, 6 top 10 finishes in slugging percentage, 7 top 10 finishes in OPS. He led the league 3 times in runs scored, once in total bases, doubles, RBI's, and walks. He led the league once in OPS+ with a total of 9 top 10 finishes (including every year from 1993-2000). He also stole a total of 202 bases. According to the standard of 5 WAR being all-star caliber, he had 8 all-star caliber seasons and three MVP caliber seasons.
Cons: PED accusation, although never linked once during his playing career, there have been rumors from journalists that Bagwell used PED's. Even though there is no justifiable evidence. His counting numbers are not there, finished short of 500 homeruns (at 449) and never led the league in home runs. Despite numerous players hitting 50 home runs in a season, Bagwell never did. He also only made one World Series and didn't exactly light the world on fire during the post-season. He only made four All-Star teams.
2. Edgar Martinez- 46.6 RCIAAS HOF Score. 10 All-Star caliber seasons.
Pro's: .312/.418/.515 with a 147 OPS+. 11 seasons with a .300 batting average or higher. He had 11 seasons with a .400 OBP or higher. He had 9 seasons with a Slugging Percentage of .500 or higher. He also had 9 seasons with OPS of .900 or higher. In addition, he had 9 seasons with an OPS+ of 150 or higher.
He finished top 10 in rWAR in four seasons. He finished top 10 in batting average seven times, leading the league in average twice. He finished top 10 in on-base percentage 11 times, leading the league three times. He finished top 10 in slugging percentage six times. He finished top 10 in OPS eight times, leading the league once. He led the league once in runs scored, doubles twice, RBI's once, and OPS+ once. He finished top 10 in OPS+ 9 times including (1995-2001).
Cons: He was a designated hitter. The Mariners didn't win the World Series.
3. Mark McGwire- RCIAAS HOF score: 46.41. All-Star caliber seasons: 8. MVP caliber seasons: 1.
Pro's: Homeruns, lots of them, 583 to be exact. He led the league 4 times in home runs and 1 more time that he led the major league while being traded from one league to the other. Triple slash: .263/.394/.588. One full season of .300 batting average or higher. He had 5 full seasons with .400 OBP or higher. He had seven full seasons of .500 slugging percentage or higher. He had six full seasons of .600 slugging percentage or higher. He had seven full seasons of .900 OPS or higher, including 5 seasons of 1.000 or higher. He had seven full seasons of 150 OPS+ or higher. He had two seasons of 200 OPS+ or higher. He finished top 10 in rWAR four times.
He had four seasons of top 10 in OBP including leading the league twice. He had 8 top 10 finishes in slugging percentage and led the league four times. He led the league in OPS twice and finished top 10 seven times. He led the league once in RBI's. He led the league twice in walks. He had 6 top 10 finishes in OPS+ and led the league four times.
Cons: Admitted PED user. He also was a bit injury prone so his counting stats are a little lower than they would be if he was healthy for his entire career. He wasn't exactly the best fielding first baseman. Despite his prolific slugging, he never won the MVP award.
1. Jeff Bagwell- It's sad to say that Bagwell wasn't elected into the Hall of Fame on his first ballot. Accordint to the Hall of Fame score, that we use, with 38 being a Hall of Famer, he got a 56.43. Of course, our Hall of Fame score is based primarily around using WAR, both Fangraphs version and Baseball Reference's version. Hopefully, most of you accept the basic premises of WAR, but if not, we'll break it down even more.
Pro: Triple slash of .297/.408/.540 with an OPS+ 149. Those are fairly impressive career numbers. He had 6 seasons with a batting average of .300 or higher. He had seven seasons of OBP of .400 or higher. He had 10 seasons of .500 SLG % of .500 or higher and two seasons of a slugging percentage of .600 or higher. He had 9 seasons of OPS of .900 or higher. He had six seasons of OPS+ of 150 or higher. Look at his 1994 season, just look at it. 8.9 rWAR, .368/.451/.750, that's nearly Ruthian or Bondsian. Just a fantastic season and a great career. If you want to compare him with the other players in his league well, here we go. 3 top 10 finishes in Batting Average, 8 top 10 finishes in On-base percentage, 6 top 10 finishes in slugging percentage, 7 top 10 finishes in OPS. He led the league 3 times in runs scored, once in total bases, doubles, RBI's, and walks. He led the league once in OPS+ with a total of 9 top 10 finishes (including every year from 1993-2000). He also stole a total of 202 bases. According to the standard of 5 WAR being all-star caliber, he had 8 all-star caliber seasons and three MVP caliber seasons.
Cons: PED accusation, although never linked once during his playing career, there have been rumors from journalists that Bagwell used PED's. Even though there is no justifiable evidence. His counting numbers are not there, finished short of 500 homeruns (at 449) and never led the league in home runs. Despite numerous players hitting 50 home runs in a season, Bagwell never did. He also only made one World Series and didn't exactly light the world on fire during the post-season. He only made four All-Star teams.
2. Edgar Martinez- 46.6 RCIAAS HOF Score. 10 All-Star caliber seasons.
Pro's: .312/.418/.515 with a 147 OPS+. 11 seasons with a .300 batting average or higher. He had 11 seasons with a .400 OBP or higher. He had 9 seasons with a Slugging Percentage of .500 or higher. He also had 9 seasons with OPS of .900 or higher. In addition, he had 9 seasons with an OPS+ of 150 or higher.
He finished top 10 in rWAR in four seasons. He finished top 10 in batting average seven times, leading the league in average twice. He finished top 10 in on-base percentage 11 times, leading the league three times. He finished top 10 in slugging percentage six times. He finished top 10 in OPS eight times, leading the league once. He led the league once in runs scored, doubles twice, RBI's once, and OPS+ once. He finished top 10 in OPS+ 9 times including (1995-2001).
Cons: He was a designated hitter. The Mariners didn't win the World Series.
3. Mark McGwire- RCIAAS HOF score: 46.41. All-Star caliber seasons: 8. MVP caliber seasons: 1.
Pro's: Homeruns, lots of them, 583 to be exact. He led the league 4 times in home runs and 1 more time that he led the major league while being traded from one league to the other. Triple slash: .263/.394/.588. One full season of .300 batting average or higher. He had 5 full seasons with .400 OBP or higher. He had seven full seasons of .500 slugging percentage or higher. He had six full seasons of .600 slugging percentage or higher. He had seven full seasons of .900 OPS or higher, including 5 seasons of 1.000 or higher. He had seven full seasons of 150 OPS+ or higher. He had two seasons of 200 OPS+ or higher. He finished top 10 in rWAR four times.
He had four seasons of top 10 in OBP including leading the league twice. He had 8 top 10 finishes in slugging percentage and led the league four times. He led the league in OPS twice and finished top 10 seven times. He led the league once in RBI's. He led the league twice in walks. He had 6 top 10 finishes in OPS+ and led the league four times.
Cons: Admitted PED user. He also was a bit injury prone so his counting stats are a little lower than they would be if he was healthy for his entire career. He wasn't exactly the best fielding first baseman. Despite his prolific slugging, he never won the MVP award.
Movie Review: Paranormal Activity 2
I know I'm a little bit late on reviewing most of the movies that I post on here for reviews. This is mainly because I don't actually go out to movies all that often. I believe that if you see a movie in theatres, it should enhance your viewing pleasure of the movie. This is probably why I get suckered into seeing the big blockbusters every summer, or at least try to get suckered into them. Anyway, it has been awhile since Paranormal Activity 2 came out in theatres and even awhile since it's been out on DVD. That's right, I watch movies on DVD, still. It took me a little bit for me to watch the first Paranormal Activity, as well. So let's break it down.
Story/writing: If you've ever heard of Paranormal Activity, you know the basic story. I'll explain it, anyways. A family moves into a new house or there is a new baby born. For whatever reason, weird/creepy things begin to happen at the house. The family also chooses to videotape these eerie occurences. In this one, they place the security cameras up because they are concerned after a break-in. Of course, during the break-in, almost nothing was taken. These security cameras begin to tell the story of the overall creepiness that takes place in the house. It also shows what a terrible baby-sitter the daughter is. Considering, it's supposed to be the true story of this house, there are a lot of things that happen in the movie that do not illustrate how a family would handle the situation. Score: 3/10. I guess, I don't know, I'm not really a fan of the storyline of Paranormal Activity.
Characters: You have the skeptical father. There is the mother who believes that all of these "paranormal activities" are really happening. There is the daughter who is at first skeptical but ultimately tries to convince the father that what is happening is really ghosts or demons. There is the baby, Hunter, who is the target of all this "paranormal activity." There's more about him but if you want to learn about him, you can watch the movie. There's also the maid who unsuccessfully tries to get rid of the evil spirits from the house. There's the two main characters from the first Paranormal Activity, they're not that great in this movie, either. Characters: 3/10.
Directing: I wasn't a fan of the directing. There were constant views from the security cameras that didn't add anything to the movie. There were better options available to explain some of the story, either with the camera that the family uses or with the security camera, yet the director chose the worse of the two options, consistently. Score: 2.5/10.
Suspension of disbelief: This movie would require a lot of suspension of disbelief and it doesn't pull it off, at all. 1. The family doesn't react as a family would probably react given the situations that occur in the movie. The first Paranormal Activity had the same problems. 2. I'm not sure Hunter's room is accurately reflected in the mirror that is shown on the security camera. 3. The father could explain most of the "paranormal activity" by saying things such as the windows were open, etc. however, it doesn't take place. 4. The family doesn't systematically watch the security cameras, if you have them installed, why the hell are you not watching them?
Score: 0/10.
Acting: Poor. The acting wasn't very good, overall. Noboy did a real good job at their particular roles. I wasn't impressed by any of them. The only ones that even did a decent job was the daughter, the baby, and the dog. Score: 1/10
Dialogue: Well, like I said they don't react like a family would really react given these situations. This has to do with suspension of disbelief and the story writing, as well. However, it's still pretty bad.
Score: 2/10.
Genre Specific: I guess the movie was somewhat scary. I'm not really a fan of scary movies and wasn't overly impressed by the scariness of this movie. It made me almost jump once but didn't give me the lasting scare effect. Score: 5/10.
Timing: This movie felt like the longest movie I've ever seen. It was a LONG hour and a half. Score: 0/10.
Pseudo-philosophical/theme: Was there a theme? I guess the theme was that you can't really pass blame from one person to another. Or it was that you should be careful what you wish for. I'm not sure. Score: 2/10.
Re-watchability: I will not watch this move again. I don't really recommend seeing this movie, once.
Score: 0/10.
Total Score: 18.5/100.
Story/writing: If you've ever heard of Paranormal Activity, you know the basic story. I'll explain it, anyways. A family moves into a new house or there is a new baby born. For whatever reason, weird/creepy things begin to happen at the house. The family also chooses to videotape these eerie occurences. In this one, they place the security cameras up because they are concerned after a break-in. Of course, during the break-in, almost nothing was taken. These security cameras begin to tell the story of the overall creepiness that takes place in the house. It also shows what a terrible baby-sitter the daughter is. Considering, it's supposed to be the true story of this house, there are a lot of things that happen in the movie that do not illustrate how a family would handle the situation. Score: 3/10. I guess, I don't know, I'm not really a fan of the storyline of Paranormal Activity.
Characters: You have the skeptical father. There is the mother who believes that all of these "paranormal activities" are really happening. There is the daughter who is at first skeptical but ultimately tries to convince the father that what is happening is really ghosts or demons. There is the baby, Hunter, who is the target of all this "paranormal activity." There's more about him but if you want to learn about him, you can watch the movie. There's also the maid who unsuccessfully tries to get rid of the evil spirits from the house. There's the two main characters from the first Paranormal Activity, they're not that great in this movie, either. Characters: 3/10.
Directing: I wasn't a fan of the directing. There were constant views from the security cameras that didn't add anything to the movie. There were better options available to explain some of the story, either with the camera that the family uses or with the security camera, yet the director chose the worse of the two options, consistently. Score: 2.5/10.
Suspension of disbelief: This movie would require a lot of suspension of disbelief and it doesn't pull it off, at all. 1. The family doesn't react as a family would probably react given the situations that occur in the movie. The first Paranormal Activity had the same problems. 2. I'm not sure Hunter's room is accurately reflected in the mirror that is shown on the security camera. 3. The father could explain most of the "paranormal activity" by saying things such as the windows were open, etc. however, it doesn't take place. 4. The family doesn't systematically watch the security cameras, if you have them installed, why the hell are you not watching them?
Score: 0/10.
Acting: Poor. The acting wasn't very good, overall. Noboy did a real good job at their particular roles. I wasn't impressed by any of them. The only ones that even did a decent job was the daughter, the baby, and the dog. Score: 1/10
Dialogue: Well, like I said they don't react like a family would really react given these situations. This has to do with suspension of disbelief and the story writing, as well. However, it's still pretty bad.
Score: 2/10.
Genre Specific: I guess the movie was somewhat scary. I'm not really a fan of scary movies and wasn't overly impressed by the scariness of this movie. It made me almost jump once but didn't give me the lasting scare effect. Score: 5/10.
Timing: This movie felt like the longest movie I've ever seen. It was a LONG hour and a half. Score: 0/10.
Pseudo-philosophical/theme: Was there a theme? I guess the theme was that you can't really pass blame from one person to another. Or it was that you should be careful what you wish for. I'm not sure. Score: 2/10.
Re-watchability: I will not watch this move again. I don't really recommend seeing this movie, once.
Score: 0/10.
Total Score: 18.5/100.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Top 5 Catchers in the National League 2001-2010
2001
1. Mike Piazza
2. Paul Lo Duca
3. Charles Johnson
4. Kelly Stinnett
5. Chad Kreuter
2002
1. Mike Piazza
2. Mike Lieberthal
3. Eli Marrero
4. Mike Redmond
5. Paul Lo Duca
5 (t.). Jason Kendall
2003
1. Javy Lopez
2. Jason Kendall
3. Ivan Rodriguez
3(t.). Mike Piazza
5. Mike Lieberthal
2004
1. Jason Kendall
2. Johnny Estrada
3. Ramon Hernandez
4. Michael Barrett
5. Todd Greene
2005
1. Javier Valentin
2. Michael Barrett
3. Jason LaRue
4. Ramon Hernandez
5. Brian Schneider
2006
1. Josh Bard
2. Brian McCann
3. David Ross
4. Chris Coste
5. Paul Lo Duca
2007
1. Russell Martin
2. Ryan Doumit
3. Josh Bard
4. Brian McCann
5. Chris Snyder
2008
1. Brian McCann
2. Chris Iannetta
3. Ryan Doumit
4. Geovany Soto
5. John Baker
2009
1. Brian McCann
2. Miguel Montero
3. Yadier Molina
4. Carlos Ruiz
5. Russell Martin
2010
1. Buster Posey
2. Geovany Soto
3. Carlos Ruiz
4. Brian McCann
5. Ryan Hanigan
1. Mike Piazza
2. Paul Lo Duca
3. Charles Johnson
4. Kelly Stinnett
5. Chad Kreuter
2002
1. Mike Piazza
2. Mike Lieberthal
3. Eli Marrero
4. Mike Redmond
5. Paul Lo Duca
5 (t.). Jason Kendall
2003
1. Javy Lopez
2. Jason Kendall
3. Ivan Rodriguez
3(t.). Mike Piazza
5. Mike Lieberthal
2004
1. Jason Kendall
2. Johnny Estrada
3. Ramon Hernandez
4. Michael Barrett
5. Todd Greene
2005
1. Javier Valentin
2. Michael Barrett
3. Jason LaRue
4. Ramon Hernandez
5. Brian Schneider
2006
1. Josh Bard
2. Brian McCann
3. David Ross
4. Chris Coste
5. Paul Lo Duca
2007
1. Russell Martin
2. Ryan Doumit
3. Josh Bard
4. Brian McCann
5. Chris Snyder
2008
1. Brian McCann
2. Chris Iannetta
3. Ryan Doumit
4. Geovany Soto
5. John Baker
2009
1. Brian McCann
2. Miguel Montero
3. Yadier Molina
4. Carlos Ruiz
5. Russell Martin
2010
1. Buster Posey
2. Geovany Soto
3. Carlos Ruiz
4. Brian McCann
5. Ryan Hanigan
Top 5 catchers in the American League 2001-2010
2001
1. Ivan Rodriguez
2. Jorge Posada
3. Robert Fick
4. Shawn Wooten
5. Einar Diaz
2002
1. Ivan Rodriguez
2. Jorge Posada
3. A.J. Pierzynski
4. Jason Varitek
5. Dan Wilson
2003
1. Jorge Posada
2. Greg Myers
3. Jason Varitek
4. A.J. Pierzynski
5. Ramon Hernandez
2004
1. Ivan Rodriguez
2. Jorge Posada
3. Javy Lopez
4. Jason Varitek
5. Victor Martinez
2005
1. Victor Martinez
2. Jason Varitek
3. Joe Mauer
4. Ivan Rodriguez
5. Jorge Posada
2006
1. Joe Mauer
2. Jorge Posada
3. Victor Martinez
4. Ramon Hernandez
5. Mike Napoli
2007
1. Jorge Posada
2. Victor Martinez
3. Joe Mauer
4. Mike Napoli
5. Kenji Johjima
2008
1. Joe Mauer
2. Mike Napoli
3. Kelly Shoppach
4. Dioneer Navarro
5. Kurt Suzuki
2009
1. Joe Mauer
2. Victor Martinez
3. Jorge Posada
4. Mike Napoli
5. Kurt Suzuki
2010
1. Joe Mauer
2. Victor Martinez
3. John Buck
4. Jorge Posada
5. John Jaso
1. Ivan Rodriguez
2. Jorge Posada
3. Robert Fick
4. Shawn Wooten
5. Einar Diaz
2002
1. Ivan Rodriguez
2. Jorge Posada
3. A.J. Pierzynski
4. Jason Varitek
5. Dan Wilson
2003
1. Jorge Posada
2. Greg Myers
3. Jason Varitek
4. A.J. Pierzynski
5. Ramon Hernandez
2004
1. Ivan Rodriguez
2. Jorge Posada
3. Javy Lopez
4. Jason Varitek
5. Victor Martinez
2005
1. Victor Martinez
2. Jason Varitek
3. Joe Mauer
4. Ivan Rodriguez
5. Jorge Posada
2006
1. Joe Mauer
2. Jorge Posada
3. Victor Martinez
4. Ramon Hernandez
5. Mike Napoli
2007
1. Jorge Posada
2. Victor Martinez
3. Joe Mauer
4. Mike Napoli
5. Kenji Johjima
2008
1. Joe Mauer
2. Mike Napoli
3. Kelly Shoppach
4. Dioneer Navarro
5. Kurt Suzuki
2009
1. Joe Mauer
2. Victor Martinez
3. Jorge Posada
4. Mike Napoli
5. Kurt Suzuki
2010
1. Joe Mauer
2. Victor Martinez
3. John Buck
4. Jorge Posada
5. John Jaso
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The RCIAAS MVP Ballot: 10th Place AL
I'll be revealing who I would have voted for for the American League and National League MVP over the next several days with one place being revealed at a time.
10th- Alex Gordon OF Kansas City Royals
Gordon had a great comeback season for the Royals, showing why he was so highly touted coming out of college. Although, he did make the move to the outfield. His quadruple slash was .303/.376/.502/.382. He had a pretty solid season.
Much of his defensive value came from his outfield arm, which is unlikely to duplicate, but has no bearing for why I would've voted for him here.
There were many worthy candidates for the bottom half of the ballot but only a few strong contenders for the first couple of spots. (Spoiler alert: I do not have the real AL MVP in the top 3).
Why Alex Gordon at 10? Well, he posted a fWAR of 6.9, which actually placed him in 9th place in the American League for that particular stat. He had a good offensive season and had positive value for his defense in the outfield for last season. He had a better season then some realize and I think he's a worthy top 10 selection for the AL MVP.
10th- Alex Gordon OF Kansas City Royals
Gordon had a great comeback season for the Royals, showing why he was so highly touted coming out of college. Although, he did make the move to the outfield. His quadruple slash was .303/.376/.502/.382. He had a pretty solid season.
Much of his defensive value came from his outfield arm, which is unlikely to duplicate, but has no bearing for why I would've voted for him here.
There were many worthy candidates for the bottom half of the ballot but only a few strong contenders for the first couple of spots. (Spoiler alert: I do not have the real AL MVP in the top 3).
Why Alex Gordon at 10? Well, he posted a fWAR of 6.9, which actually placed him in 9th place in the American League for that particular stat. He had a good offensive season and had positive value for his defense in the outfield for last season. He had a better season then some realize and I think he's a worthy top 10 selection for the AL MVP.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Third Baseman of the Year
Taking a look around the infield, we're here to introduce the George Brett and Mike Schmidt Awards.
George Brett Award Finalists:
1. Adrian Beltre .296/.331/.561/.379
2. Evan Longoria .244/.355/.495/.365
3. Alex Rodriguez .276/.362/.461/.361
Honorable Mention:
Adrian Beltre- But he only has good seasons when he is about to be a free agent. That's the narrative, right? All inall, Beltre had a good season. He definitely had an all-star caliber season. According to fWAR he put up 5.7. He had a much better season in 2010 but still, it was a good season. His OBP wasn't great, only .331 but still managed to put a respectable wOBA up. He had the highest wOBA for third basemen (well minus Brett Lawrie, but he only had 171 plate appearances. He finished first for third basemen in slugging percentage. His defense was still spectacular.
Evan Longoria- A sub-par season by his standards, but still finished 3rd in wOBA (4th if you count Michael Young). He finished 2nd in slugging percentage. He finished 4th among third basemen with more than 400 plate appearances in On-base percentage. His defense was great, yet again. He missed quite a few games because of an injury but still played more than Beltre (133 to 124).
Alex Rodriguez- Only played 99 games but put up respectable numbers during that time. His slugging numbers were slightly down compared to other third basemen, as well as his own career. None of the top third third basemen played the full season, so you can't discount Rodriguez on that reason alone.
Voting: 1. Evan Longoria 2. Adrian Beltre 3. Alex Rodriguez
Mike Schmidt Awards Finalists:
1. Pablo Sandoval .315/.357/.552/.379
2. Aramis Ramirez .306/.361/.510/.373
3. Ryan Roberts .249/.341/.427/.338
Honorable Mention: Chase Headley .289/.374/.399/.344
Pablo Sandoval- led NL thirdbasemen in batting average, sluggin percentage, and wOBA. He finished 3rd in On-base percentage. He only played 117 games, though. His defense was pretty good.
Aramis Ramirez- Third basemen in both leagues this year had down years. Ramirez finished 2nd in batting average, on-base percentage, and wOBA. He finished 3rd in slugging percentage. His defense was getting a little bit worse, probably due to age.
Ryan Roberts- He was a beneficiary because of his defense and baserunning that fangraphs give him credit for in their WAR calculations. He also played more games so he got some extra points in his WAR calculations, as well.
Chase Headley- He led NL 3b in OBP which is my favorite offensive stat.
1. Pablo Sandoval 2. Aramis Ramirez 3. Ryan Roberts
George Brett Award Finalists:
1. Adrian Beltre .296/.331/.561/.379
2. Evan Longoria .244/.355/.495/.365
3. Alex Rodriguez .276/.362/.461/.361
Honorable Mention:
Adrian Beltre- But he only has good seasons when he is about to be a free agent. That's the narrative, right? All inall, Beltre had a good season. He definitely had an all-star caliber season. According to fWAR he put up 5.7. He had a much better season in 2010 but still, it was a good season. His OBP wasn't great, only .331 but still managed to put a respectable wOBA up. He had the highest wOBA for third basemen (well minus Brett Lawrie, but he only had 171 plate appearances. He finished first for third basemen in slugging percentage. His defense was still spectacular.
Evan Longoria- A sub-par season by his standards, but still finished 3rd in wOBA (4th if you count Michael Young). He finished 2nd in slugging percentage. He finished 4th among third basemen with more than 400 plate appearances in On-base percentage. His defense was great, yet again. He missed quite a few games because of an injury but still played more than Beltre (133 to 124).
Alex Rodriguez- Only played 99 games but put up respectable numbers during that time. His slugging numbers were slightly down compared to other third basemen, as well as his own career. None of the top third third basemen played the full season, so you can't discount Rodriguez on that reason alone.
Voting: 1. Evan Longoria 2. Adrian Beltre 3. Alex Rodriguez
Mike Schmidt Awards Finalists:
1. Pablo Sandoval .315/.357/.552/.379
2. Aramis Ramirez .306/.361/.510/.373
3. Ryan Roberts .249/.341/.427/.338
Honorable Mention: Chase Headley .289/.374/.399/.344
Pablo Sandoval- led NL thirdbasemen in batting average, sluggin percentage, and wOBA. He finished 3rd in On-base percentage. He only played 117 games, though. His defense was pretty good.
Aramis Ramirez- Third basemen in both leagues this year had down years. Ramirez finished 2nd in batting average, on-base percentage, and wOBA. He finished 3rd in slugging percentage. His defense was getting a little bit worse, probably due to age.
Ryan Roberts- He was a beneficiary because of his defense and baserunning that fangraphs give him credit for in their WAR calculations. He also played more games so he got some extra points in his WAR calculations, as well.
Chase Headley- He led NL 3b in OBP which is my favorite offensive stat.
1. Pablo Sandoval 2. Aramis Ramirez 3. Ryan Roberts
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Pumping out Movie Reviews: Slackers
Slackers (2002) focuses on a group of three friends Dave (Devon Sawa), Sam (Jason Segel), and Jeff (Michael Maronna) who are caught cheating on a physics test by Ethan (Jason Schwartzman). He then blackmails them into helping getting the girl that he so desperately stalks Angela (Jamie King). While the movie is similar to other teen movies in the same genre such as American Pie; it's actually pretty funny.
Story/writing: The story wasn't too bad. But it wasn't entirely complicated or complex, either. I'm kind of torn on how much of it, I should credit the story as opposed to the acting and the characters. The blackmail angle was sort of contrived, I thought, but what do I know? Grade: 6/10.
Characters: Now here comes the fun part. Every teen movie has the lovable slacker who doesn't try but is incredibly intelligent but is not focused on the normal success (Dave, in this movie).
You have the girl who will undoubtedly make him question his whole life and maybe make him change, Angela in this movie.
The main girl's best friend, played by Laura Prepon, in this movie.
You have the strange kid who's intelligent but crazy, Jeff.
You have the main character's true best friend who helps with the antics and shenanigans, Sam.
Then there's the bad guy. Typically, this is a jock frat boy nerd. Usually it's one of those three things, sometimes all three. This time, it's the nerd, Ethan.
Grade: 3/10. It hurts to be stereotypical.
Directing: The strange flashbacks or daydreams are great. While they don't contribute much to the storyline other than to re-enforce the idea that Ethan is a true creeper. I don't know how the director could have improved but the pacing wasn't terrible. Grade: 8/10.
Suspension of disbelief: For four years of college, I have never experienced anything close to what the teen movies about colleges have tried to show me would happen. Also, I never really bought into the whole blackmail cheating premise. But that's just me. Grade: 2/10.
Acting: This is the strength of the movie. Jason Schwartzman is perfect as Ethan. I don't know of another actor who could've pulled that off, outside of maybe Zack Braff. Jason Segel is always phenomenal. Devon Sawa pulls off the cockiness of the character, perfectly. Michael Maronna was good, as well. All of the main charactes were great. Angela was merely good. Grade: 9.5/10.
Dialogue: I didn't get the seed of doubt angle that Dave kept saying. Ethan's lines were delivered and written perfectly. Most of the characters' lines were funny and delivered well. Grade: 8/10.
Genre specific: If we compare it to teen comedies, I thought it was funnier than most. I also thought the acting was better than most. It wasn't funny enough to dominate the comedy genre but if we place it in with the other teen comedies, then the score is higher. Grade: 8/10.
Timing: The movie kind of dragged at parts, especially the I saw the sign part. The comedic timing was there for the most part and it wasn't a long movie. Grade: 8/10.
Pseudo-philosophical questions/theme: I'm not 100% sure of what the theme was. What I took from the movie was, it's better to be skillful at things that don't matter because ultimately those things that don't matter will be what gets you out of trouble.
In all seriousness, I'm not sure what the theme was.
Grade: 0/10.
Re-watchability: I've seen the movie twice, now. I saw it once on Comedy Central and began searching for a way to watch it again, much later. I finally found it on Crackle, years later. It was still funny.
Grade: 5/10.
Score: 57.5/100
See, I don't give great grades all the time.
Story/writing: The story wasn't too bad. But it wasn't entirely complicated or complex, either. I'm kind of torn on how much of it, I should credit the story as opposed to the acting and the characters. The blackmail angle was sort of contrived, I thought, but what do I know? Grade: 6/10.
Characters: Now here comes the fun part. Every teen movie has the lovable slacker who doesn't try but is incredibly intelligent but is not focused on the normal success (Dave, in this movie).
You have the girl who will undoubtedly make him question his whole life and maybe make him change, Angela in this movie.
The main girl's best friend, played by Laura Prepon, in this movie.
You have the strange kid who's intelligent but crazy, Jeff.
You have the main character's true best friend who helps with the antics and shenanigans, Sam.
Then there's the bad guy. Typically, this is a jock frat boy nerd. Usually it's one of those three things, sometimes all three. This time, it's the nerd, Ethan.
Grade: 3/10. It hurts to be stereotypical.
Directing: The strange flashbacks or daydreams are great. While they don't contribute much to the storyline other than to re-enforce the idea that Ethan is a true creeper. I don't know how the director could have improved but the pacing wasn't terrible. Grade: 8/10.
Suspension of disbelief: For four years of college, I have never experienced anything close to what the teen movies about colleges have tried to show me would happen. Also, I never really bought into the whole blackmail cheating premise. But that's just me. Grade: 2/10.
Acting: This is the strength of the movie. Jason Schwartzman is perfect as Ethan. I don't know of another actor who could've pulled that off, outside of maybe Zack Braff. Jason Segel is always phenomenal. Devon Sawa pulls off the cockiness of the character, perfectly. Michael Maronna was good, as well. All of the main charactes were great. Angela was merely good. Grade: 9.5/10.
Dialogue: I didn't get the seed of doubt angle that Dave kept saying. Ethan's lines were delivered and written perfectly. Most of the characters' lines were funny and delivered well. Grade: 8/10.
Genre specific: If we compare it to teen comedies, I thought it was funnier than most. I also thought the acting was better than most. It wasn't funny enough to dominate the comedy genre but if we place it in with the other teen comedies, then the score is higher. Grade: 8/10.
Timing: The movie kind of dragged at parts, especially the I saw the sign part. The comedic timing was there for the most part and it wasn't a long movie. Grade: 8/10.
Pseudo-philosophical questions/theme: I'm not 100% sure of what the theme was. What I took from the movie was, it's better to be skillful at things that don't matter because ultimately those things that don't matter will be what gets you out of trouble.
In all seriousness, I'm not sure what the theme was.
Grade: 0/10.
Re-watchability: I've seen the movie twice, now. I saw it once on Comedy Central and began searching for a way to watch it again, much later. I finally found it on Crackle, years later. It was still funny.
Grade: 5/10.
Score: 57.5/100
See, I don't give great grades all the time.
Movie Review #2: Idiocracy
In Mike Judge's movie Idiocracy, the future is a lot dumber than it is currently. People in fact, are quite dumb. The premise is that those people who are dumber than average are reproducing much quicker than the smarter people. Private Joe Bauers (Luke Wilson) accidentally goes into the future to see that humanity is being destroyed by stupidity. He is forced to help out when they discover that he is the smartest person in the world. Hilarity ensues.
Story/Writing: When I'm drinking I like to argue that the world is heading towards an Idiocracy future or a Gattaca future. While this isn't necessarily part of my best drunken argument repertoire, such as my propensity to argue that the best show on television ever was Seinfeld. Which is blatantly obvious, in my opinion. Nevertheless, Idiocracy isn't a perfect story but it simply paints the picture that the future may not be all that it is cracked up to be. Or to quote Southland Tales, "the future is going to be more futuristic, then originally thought." In most movies and books, the future is always painted to be this perfect utopia or just at least smarter than the present. Grade: 8/10.
Characters: The various characters in the movie were pretty hilarious. They were over the top stupid. Which understandably has rubbed people the wrong way, but the main characters Joe and Rita (Maya Rudolph) were not perfect or even close to it. Joe Bauers was going to be a tough character to pull off, regardless, but I think it could have been done better. It's hard to fault the writers too much for Bauers. Grade: 8/10.
Directing: Not an expert but the jokes were spot on. Further, all of the little things that happened in the movie just added to the hilarity. I particularly enjoyed the cars just driving straight off the bridge, the name changes, the product placements, etc. Mike Judge is hilarious. Grade: 10/10.
Suspension of disbelief: Once you get past the part that you're unsure of how Private Bauers and Rita had enough food and water to survive in their comatose state for hundreds of years. You also have to get past the part of whether the world would really get this stupid or not. If you can't get past that, you're not going to enjoy the movie. It took awhile to get past the first part. The second part wasn't as hard to get past. Grade: 8/10.
Acting: Let's get this out of the way right here. I'm not a fan of Luke Wilson. I didn't think Luke Wilson was particularly good in this movie, in Old School, in the cell phone commercials where he's fat, etc. I didn't think he was very good in this movie, either. In part, I guess, it's because I didn't like the characters. Maya Rudolph was ok, nothing spectacular. Dax Shepard was hilarious. Terry Crews was good. Justin Long provided me with lots and lots of laughs. His scene was my favorite. It doesn't matter if all the minor characters are fantastic if the major ones were nothing to talk about. Grade: 5/10.
Dialogue: If you buy the premise, then the dialogue is spot on. I bought into the premise and thought the dialogue was fantastic. Grade: 10/10.
Genre specific: I've been a fan of all of Mike Judge's movies, so it's hard for me to be objective. I thought it was hilarious. Grade: 10/10.
Timing: My girlfriend does not enjoy the last twenty minutes of the movie, saying that it moves too slow. I tend to agree with her on this point, the last couple parts of the movie kind of drag. That being said, the comedic timing of the rest of the movie is great and the first 45-50 minutes of the movie fly by. How much do I dock for the last twenty minutes? Grade: 7/10.
Pseudo-philosophical/theme: The theme of the movie I guess is to avoid stupidity try reading a damn book once in a while. Also to smart people- have unprotected sex more often.
The real theme I would say is that we are getting dumber. We need to correct this. Otherwise this is going to happen.
It's just a hilarious public service announcement.
Grade: 6/10 (I agree with the theme just I wish there was something more to it. I couldn't find it).
Re-watchability: Of course, I would watch this again. I watch it a lot. Just ask my friends.
Score: 10/10
Final Score: 82/100
Story/Writing: When I'm drinking I like to argue that the world is heading towards an Idiocracy future or a Gattaca future. While this isn't necessarily part of my best drunken argument repertoire, such as my propensity to argue that the best show on television ever was Seinfeld. Which is blatantly obvious, in my opinion. Nevertheless, Idiocracy isn't a perfect story but it simply paints the picture that the future may not be all that it is cracked up to be. Or to quote Southland Tales, "the future is going to be more futuristic, then originally thought." In most movies and books, the future is always painted to be this perfect utopia or just at least smarter than the present. Grade: 8/10.
Characters: The various characters in the movie were pretty hilarious. They were over the top stupid. Which understandably has rubbed people the wrong way, but the main characters Joe and Rita (Maya Rudolph) were not perfect or even close to it. Joe Bauers was going to be a tough character to pull off, regardless, but I think it could have been done better. It's hard to fault the writers too much for Bauers. Grade: 8/10.
Directing: Not an expert but the jokes were spot on. Further, all of the little things that happened in the movie just added to the hilarity. I particularly enjoyed the cars just driving straight off the bridge, the name changes, the product placements, etc. Mike Judge is hilarious. Grade: 10/10.
Suspension of disbelief: Once you get past the part that you're unsure of how Private Bauers and Rita had enough food and water to survive in their comatose state for hundreds of years. You also have to get past the part of whether the world would really get this stupid or not. If you can't get past that, you're not going to enjoy the movie. It took awhile to get past the first part. The second part wasn't as hard to get past. Grade: 8/10.
Acting: Let's get this out of the way right here. I'm not a fan of Luke Wilson. I didn't think Luke Wilson was particularly good in this movie, in Old School, in the cell phone commercials where he's fat, etc. I didn't think he was very good in this movie, either. In part, I guess, it's because I didn't like the characters. Maya Rudolph was ok, nothing spectacular. Dax Shepard was hilarious. Terry Crews was good. Justin Long provided me with lots and lots of laughs. His scene was my favorite. It doesn't matter if all the minor characters are fantastic if the major ones were nothing to talk about. Grade: 5/10.
Dialogue: If you buy the premise, then the dialogue is spot on. I bought into the premise and thought the dialogue was fantastic. Grade: 10/10.
Genre specific: I've been a fan of all of Mike Judge's movies, so it's hard for me to be objective. I thought it was hilarious. Grade: 10/10.
Timing: My girlfriend does not enjoy the last twenty minutes of the movie, saying that it moves too slow. I tend to agree with her on this point, the last couple parts of the movie kind of drag. That being said, the comedic timing of the rest of the movie is great and the first 45-50 minutes of the movie fly by. How much do I dock for the last twenty minutes? Grade: 7/10.
Pseudo-philosophical/theme: The theme of the movie I guess is to avoid stupidity try reading a damn book once in a while. Also to smart people- have unprotected sex more often.
The real theme I would say is that we are getting dumber. We need to correct this. Otherwise this is going to happen.
It's just a hilarious public service announcement.
Grade: 6/10 (I agree with the theme just I wish there was something more to it. I couldn't find it).
Re-watchability: Of course, I would watch this again. I watch it a lot. Just ask my friends.
Score: 10/10
Final Score: 82/100
Monday, November 14, 2011
A stab at a movie review: Go
Reader's discretion advised: This post will contain some bad language. Just a heads up.
The movie Go came out in 1999 and it attempts to tell what happens after a drug deal from three different characters' points of view. It follows Ronna Martin (played by Sarah Polley) who is a down on her luck cashier at a grocery store, who needs money to avoid eviction. She attempts to buy and re-sell drugs from the drug dealer Todd Gaines (Timothy Olyphant). It also follows Simon (Desmond Askew) andhis escapades with his friends in Las Vegas. Finally, the story focuses on Adam (Scott Wolf) and Zack (Jay Mohr) two gay actors who are atttempting to avoid getting in trouble with the law by helping to participate in a drug sting with Burke (William Fichtner).
"Wow, I didn't know we'd become such good friends, because if we had, you'd know that I give head before I give favors and I don't even give my best friends head so your chances of getting a favor are pretty fucking slim. " -Todd Gaines
I have 10 categories for how I rank movies and the total score is equal to the final score I give the movie. Feel free to disagree with me, if you want. I'm not exactly an expert on films but I certainly know what I like.
Story: It's at the very least a creative way to tell the story of the aftermath of a drug deal. It was interesting that it followed three different stories to figure out what was actually happening in the movie. Each of the three stories were entertaining and infromative to the rest of the movie. The best one, at least in my opinion, was the story focusing on Simon and his friends. Grade: 9/10.
Characters: Most of the characters were fully developed, I would hope so with the three different stories focusing on the main characters. The characters that I didn't particularly enjoy were Simon's friend Singh (who wasn't integral to the rest of the story), Victor Jr., Victor Sr., and Claire Montgomery (played by Katie Holmes). The reason for my distaste for Claire was simply because she morphs from one type of person at the near beginning of the movie (afraid and distrustful of Todd) to the exact opposite at the end. It seems likely that if you are going to be distrustful of a drug dealer at one point, you will remain distrustful until the drug dealer does something to gain your trust, which to be honest, we don't see. Grade: 7.5/10
Directing: Like I said at the beginning of this, I'm not an expert at film or filmmaking. So, I might not be the best person at judging for this particular category. However, I think that you should be able to tell a difference between good directing and bad directing. It's the in-between that'll probably cause me the most grief. However, the director in this movie does a great job in telling the three different stories. There's not that much discontinuity between the different stories so it actually feels like they are telling the same basic story. My favorite part for choice of directing was the music in the chase scene between Simon and his friends and the two Victors. Grade: 8/10.
Suspension of disbelief: I should be able to suspend my disbelief for the entire movie without running into a situation where I say, "there's no damn way this could happen in real life." There's not that many times where I think that throughout the movie, except at the very end. Once you see the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. Although the commitment to have Jay Mohr throw the tape recorder so girlish was just fantastic. Grade: 9.5/10
Acting: Sarah Polley was pretty good as Ronna (some people think she's better than that). William Fichtner was fantastic as the police officer who is obsessed with an Amway-esque products. Timothy Olyphant was great as a drug dealer. Katie Holmes was good despite the character's complete change. Nathan Bexton was great as strung out on drugs Mannie. Jay Mohr was the same as he is in every movie. Grade: 8/10. Only because I thought Polley could have been better, as well as Jay Mohr. When two of your could be played by better actors, then there is a slight problem.
Dialogue: The dialogue was occasionally funny and witty. Some of the dialogue was integral to the rest of the story and some of it was just there to be there. My favorite scene for dialogue was with Mannie and the cat. There wasn't anything that was glaringly awful. The scene about Confederated Products is fantastic, as well. Grade: 9/10.
Genre specific attributes: The movie was supposed to be a comedic crime movie in the same vein of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels or Snatch. Both of which succeed at a level Go cannot approach. Grade: 7/10.
Timing: A movie should have a certain pace to it so that you never feel like the movie is dragging. That is one of Go's best features. There's not a point in the movie where you really think that the movie is draggging except near the very end. Just when you get tired of one character, they move to a different one. Grade: 9/10.
Pseudo-philosophical question and answer: What exactly is the theme of Go? If pressed, I would say that the theme of Go is what Claire states at the beginning of the movie about the best part of Christmas is the fact that there is a giant surprise even if you are pretty sure what's going to happen or know what's inside, when you finally open it, it's always a surprise. An even bigger answer to the theme question is what Jay Mohr states near the end. It's an attempt to find out what the right thing is to do, even if it's just an approximation or if it is the half-assed thrown together kind of way. It also addresses the justification people might have to try and convince themselves that the wrong things that people do aren't really that bad. Interesting theme, I guess. The movie also attempts to answer the question of what exactly is justice? Grade: 8/10.
Re-watchability: This is where I decide if I can watch the movie again. Since, I have watched this movie a couple of times, now, I would say that yes I would be able to watch it again. There's not that many glaring holes in the movie that bother me, no (overly)annoying characters, and bad dialogue. There is enough funny lines, a certain sense of unpredictiability, as well an overall sense that you might need to watch it again to get everything out of the movie. But it's not a movie I would immediately want to watch again or that I would feel like I would definitely need to. Grade: 8/10.
The movie ends with a pretty high score of 83/100. This is pretty in-line with what IMDB has it ranked as (7.3). Mine's higher probably because I like this specific genre of movies.
The movie Go came out in 1999 and it attempts to tell what happens after a drug deal from three different characters' points of view. It follows Ronna Martin (played by Sarah Polley) who is a down on her luck cashier at a grocery store, who needs money to avoid eviction. She attempts to buy and re-sell drugs from the drug dealer Todd Gaines (Timothy Olyphant). It also follows Simon (Desmond Askew) andhis escapades with his friends in Las Vegas. Finally, the story focuses on Adam (Scott Wolf) and Zack (Jay Mohr) two gay actors who are atttempting to avoid getting in trouble with the law by helping to participate in a drug sting with Burke (William Fichtner).
"Wow, I didn't know we'd become such good friends, because if we had, you'd know that I give head before I give favors and I don't even give my best friends head so your chances of getting a favor are pretty fucking slim. " -Todd Gaines
I have 10 categories for how I rank movies and the total score is equal to the final score I give the movie. Feel free to disagree with me, if you want. I'm not exactly an expert on films but I certainly know what I like.
Story: It's at the very least a creative way to tell the story of the aftermath of a drug deal. It was interesting that it followed three different stories to figure out what was actually happening in the movie. Each of the three stories were entertaining and infromative to the rest of the movie. The best one, at least in my opinion, was the story focusing on Simon and his friends. Grade: 9/10.
Characters: Most of the characters were fully developed, I would hope so with the three different stories focusing on the main characters. The characters that I didn't particularly enjoy were Simon's friend Singh (who wasn't integral to the rest of the story), Victor Jr., Victor Sr., and Claire Montgomery (played by Katie Holmes). The reason for my distaste for Claire was simply because she morphs from one type of person at the near beginning of the movie (afraid and distrustful of Todd) to the exact opposite at the end. It seems likely that if you are going to be distrustful of a drug dealer at one point, you will remain distrustful until the drug dealer does something to gain your trust, which to be honest, we don't see. Grade: 7.5/10
Directing: Like I said at the beginning of this, I'm not an expert at film or filmmaking. So, I might not be the best person at judging for this particular category. However, I think that you should be able to tell a difference between good directing and bad directing. It's the in-between that'll probably cause me the most grief. However, the director in this movie does a great job in telling the three different stories. There's not that much discontinuity between the different stories so it actually feels like they are telling the same basic story. My favorite part for choice of directing was the music in the chase scene between Simon and his friends and the two Victors. Grade: 8/10.
Suspension of disbelief: I should be able to suspend my disbelief for the entire movie without running into a situation where I say, "there's no damn way this could happen in real life." There's not that many times where I think that throughout the movie, except at the very end. Once you see the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. Although the commitment to have Jay Mohr throw the tape recorder so girlish was just fantastic. Grade: 9.5/10
Acting: Sarah Polley was pretty good as Ronna (some people think she's better than that). William Fichtner was fantastic as the police officer who is obsessed with an Amway-esque products. Timothy Olyphant was great as a drug dealer. Katie Holmes was good despite the character's complete change. Nathan Bexton was great as strung out on drugs Mannie. Jay Mohr was the same as he is in every movie. Grade: 8/10. Only because I thought Polley could have been better, as well as Jay Mohr. When two of your could be played by better actors, then there is a slight problem.
Dialogue: The dialogue was occasionally funny and witty. Some of the dialogue was integral to the rest of the story and some of it was just there to be there. My favorite scene for dialogue was with Mannie and the cat. There wasn't anything that was glaringly awful. The scene about Confederated Products is fantastic, as well. Grade: 9/10.
Genre specific attributes: The movie was supposed to be a comedic crime movie in the same vein of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels or Snatch. Both of which succeed at a level Go cannot approach. Grade: 7/10.
Timing: A movie should have a certain pace to it so that you never feel like the movie is dragging. That is one of Go's best features. There's not a point in the movie where you really think that the movie is draggging except near the very end. Just when you get tired of one character, they move to a different one. Grade: 9/10.
Pseudo-philosophical question and answer: What exactly is the theme of Go? If pressed, I would say that the theme of Go is what Claire states at the beginning of the movie about the best part of Christmas is the fact that there is a giant surprise even if you are pretty sure what's going to happen or know what's inside, when you finally open it, it's always a surprise. An even bigger answer to the theme question is what Jay Mohr states near the end. It's an attempt to find out what the right thing is to do, even if it's just an approximation or if it is the half-assed thrown together kind of way. It also addresses the justification people might have to try and convince themselves that the wrong things that people do aren't really that bad. Interesting theme, I guess. The movie also attempts to answer the question of what exactly is justice? Grade: 8/10.
Re-watchability: This is where I decide if I can watch the movie again. Since, I have watched this movie a couple of times, now, I would say that yes I would be able to watch it again. There's not that many glaring holes in the movie that bother me, no (overly)annoying characters, and bad dialogue. There is enough funny lines, a certain sense of unpredictiability, as well an overall sense that you might need to watch it again to get everything out of the movie. But it's not a movie I would immediately want to watch again or that I would feel like I would definitely need to. Grade: 8/10.
The movie ends with a pretty high score of 83/100. This is pretty in-line with what IMDB has it ranked as (7.3). Mine's higher probably because I like this specific genre of movies.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Basketball
Basketball is finally back. Well, at least, college basketball is back. I'm so glad that there is something that is happening in the week so I don't have to follow football 24/7 each week.
Without further ado, we'll do a quick preview for college basketball.
National Championship pick: North Carolina. I'm afraid it's going to be a wire to wire season for North Carolina. I'm not the only one who thinks that they're going to win the national championship. I've looked at what both ESPN and Sports Illustrated has been saying and the consensus is that North Carolina is the best bet to win the championship. Every North Carolina fan that I talk to is very happy that Larry Drew doesn't play at UNC anymore and will turn it over full-time to Kendall Marshall. I'll be very surprised if North Carolina doesn't at least make it to the Final Four. I think it's entirely possible that they might lose before then but overall they're the best team, in my opinion.
Best thing to happen to college basketball this season: The NBA lockout. Not only do you have a series of underclassmen who came back to their schools but now everyone who needs a basketball fix is forced to watch college basketball, instead. I would imagine that basketball's ratings are going to be higher than they have been for awhile. Last year, it looked we were going to be getting closer to a 16 seed finally beating a 1 seed. This year, I would be surprised if we have very many upsets, at all. It seems probable that we'll have a final four with only the #1 seeds.
Pre-season player of the year: Jared Sullinger. I think with a down year in the Big Ten that Sullinger will have an even better season than he did last year. While I don't think Ohio State is in the same class as North Carolina, I think Ohio State will only have a few losses at the end of the season.
Thing that worries me: Vanderbilt's high ranking and there are a couple of writers who think that Vanderbilt is going to make the Final Four.
Without further ado, we'll do a quick preview for college basketball.
National Championship pick: North Carolina. I'm afraid it's going to be a wire to wire season for North Carolina. I'm not the only one who thinks that they're going to win the national championship. I've looked at what both ESPN and Sports Illustrated has been saying and the consensus is that North Carolina is the best bet to win the championship. Every North Carolina fan that I talk to is very happy that Larry Drew doesn't play at UNC anymore and will turn it over full-time to Kendall Marshall. I'll be very surprised if North Carolina doesn't at least make it to the Final Four. I think it's entirely possible that they might lose before then but overall they're the best team, in my opinion.
Best thing to happen to college basketball this season: The NBA lockout. Not only do you have a series of underclassmen who came back to their schools but now everyone who needs a basketball fix is forced to watch college basketball, instead. I would imagine that basketball's ratings are going to be higher than they have been for awhile. Last year, it looked we were going to be getting closer to a 16 seed finally beating a 1 seed. This year, I would be surprised if we have very many upsets, at all. It seems probable that we'll have a final four with only the #1 seeds.
Pre-season player of the year: Jared Sullinger. I think with a down year in the Big Ten that Sullinger will have an even better season than he did last year. While I don't think Ohio State is in the same class as North Carolina, I think Ohio State will only have a few losses at the end of the season.
Thing that worries me: Vanderbilt's high ranking and there are a couple of writers who think that Vanderbilt is going to make the Final Four.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Veterans Committee Quick Look
As explained in our previous post, we assume that anyone with a score of 30 or up on our Hall of Fame score should at least be debated. We think a 38 or higher is a surefire Hall of Famer, so we'll look at those who are on the Veterans Committe ballot.
Jim Kaat: 28.72
Luis Tiant: 39.54
Allie Reynolds: 20.59
Ron Santo: 57.81
Ken Boyer: 43.64
Gil Hodges: 32.28
Minnie Minoso: 40.47
Tony Oliva: 35.25
Jim Kaat: 28.72
Luis Tiant: 39.54
Allie Reynolds: 20.59
Ron Santo: 57.81
Ken Boyer: 43.64
Gil Hodges: 32.28
Minnie Minoso: 40.47
Tony Oliva: 35.25
Quick Look on the Potential 2012 Hall of Fame Ballot
We have developed a WAR based rankings when it is added together, a typical Hall of Famer will score around a 38. Anything above 30 is something we should really look at as a Hall of Famer.
The rankings are the average WAR per season + 0.2*Career WAR+ 0.2 * Highest Five Consecutive Seasons WAR+ 3 Highest Seasons WAR * 0.2 + 10 Highest Seasons WAR * 0.2 + bonus points for seasons of 5.0 WAR and higher. If a player had 10 seasons, all with 5 WAR each season their score would be 38. Hence, we got the 38 score.
So we'll do a quick look at the 2012 potential Hall of Fame Ballot and look at who might deserve votes.
Pitchers:
Mike Remlinger: 7.06
Felix Rodriguez: 5.12
Rick Helling: 13.2
Brad Radke: 30.4
Terry Mulholland: 13.96
Jose Lima: 7.49
Tim Worrell: 5.88
Jeff Fassero: 20.03
Scott Erickson: 19.3
Danny Graves: 5.13
Jeff Nelson: 7.56
Lee Smith: 16.91
Jack Morris: 27.73
Catchers:
Mike Matheny: 4.12
Javy Lopez: 21.99
First Basemen:
Rafael Palmeiro: 41.74
Fred McGriff: 36.46
Don Mattingly: 33.45
Mark McGwire: 46.41
Jeff Bagwell: 56.43
Second Basemen:
Eric Young: 13.86
Tony Womack: 3.5
Edgardo Alfonzo: 26.72
Third Basemen:
Bill Mueller: 17.84
Joe Randa: 14.84
Vinny Castilla: 14.41
Edgar Martinez: 46.6
Shortstops:
Alan Trammell: 43.56
Barry Larkin: 42.81
Outfield:
Carl Everett: 15.9
Brian Jordan: 25.32
Phil Nevin: 15.56
Tim Salmon: 26.08
Jeromy Burnitz: 16.79
Reuben Sierra: 15.89
Bernie Williams: 33.2
Juan Gonzalez: 23.48
Dale Murphy: 35.55
Larry Walker: 44.58
Tim Raines: 42.39
The rankings are the average WAR per season + 0.2*Career WAR+ 0.2 * Highest Five Consecutive Seasons WAR+ 3 Highest Seasons WAR * 0.2 + 10 Highest Seasons WAR * 0.2 + bonus points for seasons of 5.0 WAR and higher. If a player had 10 seasons, all with 5 WAR each season their score would be 38. Hence, we got the 38 score.
So we'll do a quick look at the 2012 potential Hall of Fame Ballot and look at who might deserve votes.
Pitchers:
Mike Remlinger: 7.06
Felix Rodriguez: 5.12
Rick Helling: 13.2
Brad Radke: 30.4
Terry Mulholland: 13.96
Jose Lima: 7.49
Tim Worrell: 5.88
Jeff Fassero: 20.03
Scott Erickson: 19.3
Danny Graves: 5.13
Jeff Nelson: 7.56
Lee Smith: 16.91
Jack Morris: 27.73
Catchers:
Mike Matheny: 4.12
Javy Lopez: 21.99
First Basemen:
Rafael Palmeiro: 41.74
Fred McGriff: 36.46
Don Mattingly: 33.45
Mark McGwire: 46.41
Jeff Bagwell: 56.43
Second Basemen:
Eric Young: 13.86
Tony Womack: 3.5
Edgardo Alfonzo: 26.72
Third Basemen:
Bill Mueller: 17.84
Joe Randa: 14.84
Vinny Castilla: 14.41
Edgar Martinez: 46.6
Shortstops:
Alan Trammell: 43.56
Barry Larkin: 42.81
Outfield:
Carl Everett: 15.9
Brian Jordan: 25.32
Phil Nevin: 15.56
Tim Salmon: 26.08
Jeromy Burnitz: 16.79
Reuben Sierra: 15.89
Bernie Williams: 33.2
Juan Gonzalez: 23.48
Dale Murphy: 35.55
Larry Walker: 44.58
Tim Raines: 42.39
Thursday, November 3, 2011
The Veterans Committee Ballot
Gil Hodges
Ron Santo
Ken Boyer
Jim Kaat
Luis Tiant
Minnie Minoso
Tony Oliva
Allie Reynolds
Buzzie Bavasi
Charlie Finley
There will be a post tomorrow explaining who should be put in.
Ron Santo
Ken Boyer
Jim Kaat
Luis Tiant
Minnie Minoso
Tony Oliva
Allie Reynolds
Buzzie Bavasi
Charlie Finley
There will be a post tomorrow explaining who should be put in.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Breaking away from traditional awards
In the traditional BBWAA there are only awards for the Most Valuable Players, Cy Young Award, Rookie of the Year, and Managers of the Year. But there's not really a position by position award for each league, like we think there should be. Each award will be named after a former baseball player who best embodies what we are looking for each award.
The Yogi Berra Award (American League Catcher of the Year)
The contenders (in alphabetical order):
1. Alex Avila- fWAR: 5.5 rWAR: 5.4 .295/.389/.506/.383 143 OPS+
2. Mike Napoli- fWAR: 5.6 rWAR: 5.5 .320/.414/.631/.444 171 OPS+
3. Matt Wieters- fWAR: 4.3 rWAR:.4.0 .262/.328/.450/.339 113 OPS+
4. Carlos Santana- fWAR: 3.8 .239/.351/.457/.349
5. Russell Martin- fWAR: 3.1 .237/.324/.408/.325
In the American League, I think Avila had a better season than Napoli at being a catcher primarily because he was the main catcher for much of the year. I'd vote 1. Avila 2. Napoli 3. Wieters
The Johnny Bench Award (National League Catcher of the Year)
The contenders (in alphabetical order):
1. Nick Hundley- fWAR:3.3 rWAR: 3.4 .288/.347/.477/.354 132 OPS+
2. Chris Iannetta- fWAR: 3.3 rWAR: 2.6 .238/.370/.414/.347 102 OPS+
3. Brian McCann- fWAR: 3.7 rWAR: 2.5 .270/.351/.466/.348 124 OPS+
4. Yadier Molina- fWAR: 4.1 rWAR: 3.9 .305/.349/.465/.349 126 OPS+
5. Miguel Montero- fWAR: 4.3 rWAR: 4.5 .282/.351/.469/.351 121 OPS+
6. Wilson Ramos- fWAR: 3.1 rWAR: 2.5 .267/.334/.445/.332 113 OPS+
For the National League, it comes down to Molina vs. Montero. I'd be more inclined to give it to Montero because he had a slightly better offensive season than Molina although it is very close. For 3rd place, I'd be tempted to place Hundley there based on his overall numbers and the general weaknesses of the other catchers listed. Although, McCann wouldn't be a bad choice in 3rd place either.
1. Miguel Montero 2. Yadier Molina 3. Nick Hundley
The Yogi Berra Award (American League Catcher of the Year)
The contenders (in alphabetical order):
1. Alex Avila- fWAR: 5.5 rWAR: 5.4 .295/.389/.506/.383 143 OPS+
2. Mike Napoli- fWAR: 5.6 rWAR: 5.5 .320/.414/.631/.444 171 OPS+
3. Matt Wieters- fWAR: 4.3 rWAR:.4.0 .262/.328/.450/.339 113 OPS+
4. Carlos Santana- fWAR: 3.8 .239/.351/.457/.349
5. Russell Martin- fWAR: 3.1 .237/.324/.408/.325
In the American League, I think Avila had a better season than Napoli at being a catcher primarily because he was the main catcher for much of the year. I'd vote 1. Avila 2. Napoli 3. Wieters
The Johnny Bench Award (National League Catcher of the Year)
The contenders (in alphabetical order):
1. Nick Hundley- fWAR:3.3 rWAR: 3.4 .288/.347/.477/.354 132 OPS+
2. Chris Iannetta- fWAR: 3.3 rWAR: 2.6 .238/.370/.414/.347 102 OPS+
3. Brian McCann- fWAR: 3.7 rWAR: 2.5 .270/.351/.466/.348 124 OPS+
4. Yadier Molina- fWAR: 4.1 rWAR: 3.9 .305/.349/.465/.349 126 OPS+
5. Miguel Montero- fWAR: 4.3 rWAR: 4.5 .282/.351/.469/.351 121 OPS+
6. Wilson Ramos- fWAR: 3.1 rWAR: 2.5 .267/.334/.445/.332 113 OPS+
For the National League, it comes down to Molina vs. Montero. I'd be more inclined to give it to Montero because he had a slightly better offensive season than Molina although it is very close. For 3rd place, I'd be tempted to place Hundley there based on his overall numbers and the general weaknesses of the other catchers listed. Although, McCann wouldn't be a bad choice in 3rd place either.
1. Miguel Montero 2. Yadier Molina 3. Nick Hundley
First Basemen of the Year Awards
Continuing our fake awards series with first basemen of the year.
Lou Gehrig Award (Best American League First Baseman):
Contenders:
- Miguel Cabrera-.344/448/.586/.436
- Adrian Gonzalez-.338/.410/.548/.406
- Mike Napoli- .320/.414/.631/.444
Miguel Cabrera- While most of the talk this year about the Detroit Tigers, focused on Justin Verlander being an incredible pitcher who was willing his team to victories even when he wasn't pitching, people tended to forget that Cabrera was having yet another MVP-esque season. Cabrera's fWAR was 7.3 which led all American League First Basemen. While WAR shouldn't be treated as an end-all, be-all stat it's hard not to see his dominance this season. He led the American League in both batting average and on-base percentage. Finished 2nd among qualified batters for slugging percentage (Napoli did not qualify). He also finished 2nd in OPS among qualified batters in the American League. He finished tied for first in OPS+ and tied for first in runs created. About the only negative thing you can say about Cabrera is that his defense well below average which limits his value somewhat. I don't really have that big of a problem with it, as first base is not where you put your best defender anyways. Further, if anyone can put up this kind of offense, it almost off-sets the fact that he can't play defense.
Adrian Gonzalez- He was my pick pre-season pick for the American League MVP, while the historic Red Sox collapse and the rise of Jacoby Ellsbury as a star player will make sure he does not get the MVP award, he still put up a great season in his first season in Boston. He finished 2nd in batting average, 3rd in On-Base percentage, and 7th in slugging percentage among qualified batters in the American League. His OPS was 3rd as was his OPS+ and he finished 4th in Runs Created. Unlike Cabrera, Gonzalez can handle first base defensively, as well. His defense is appreciated by both stats nerds (or whatever we're called) and traditionalists, alike. Side note: it's amazing that traditionalists and sabremetricians can agree on defense on so many people (Cabrera, Gonzalez, etc.) but yet as soon as they disagree on one player it's as if neither of them agreed on even one player.
Mike Napoli- Napoli had a great season. There is no doubting that. It's just a matter of how you much do you value someone who is playing 40 games less than those he is competing against. Had Napoli qualified he would have led the league in slugging percentage and came in second in OPS assuming the same type of play. Even if his slugging percentage dipped 25 points, he still would have led the league. It's hard for me to look past the fact that he played 40 less games than Cabrera and Gonzalez.
Who I'd vote for: 1. Miguel Cabrera 2. Adrian Gonzalez 3. Mike Napoli
Jeff Bagwell Award (will be re-named Albert Pujols Award once he retires):
Contenders:
- Prince Fielder- .299/.415/.566/.408
- Albert Pujols- .299/.366/.541/.385
- Joey Votto- .309/.416/.531/.403
Prince Fielder- The National League's top two contenders are a little bit closer than it was in the American League. Fielder had a great season at the plate finishing 2nd in the league in On-base percentage and 3rd in slugging percentage. He finished 3rd in OPS, 4th in OPS+, and 3rd in Runs Created. However, his defense was lacking. It doesn't bother me that he's worse defensively than most first basemen. It's just that if I was voting for the best first basemen and one is a worse defensive player than another I do have to account for that somewhere. In the American League, it wasn't a problem because Cabrera had a much better season on offense than Gonzalez did. Whereas, in the National League Votto and Fielder had nearly identical offensive seasons. The main difference being that Fielder had a higher slugging percentage.
Albert Pujols- With all due respect to Albert Pujols, this was the worst season of his career. Most players would kill to have one season this good but for Pujols this was a down year. It was still an all-star caliber year but yet the worst for him.
Joey Votto- We'll compare him directly to his only competitor in this fake award process, Prince Fielder.
Joey Votto: .309 AVG
Prince Fielder: .299 AVG
Votto: .416 OBP
Fielder: .415 OBP
Votto: .531 SLG%
Fielder: .566 SLG%
Votto: .403 wOBA
Fielder: .408 wOBA
Votto: 155 wRC+
Fielder: 162 wRC+
Votto: .947 OPS
Fielder: .981 OPS
Votto: 156 OPS+
Fielder: 164 OPS+
Votto: 133 Runs Created (per Baseball-reference)
Fielder: 135 Runs Created (per Baseball-reference)
Defense- Advantage: Votto
I won't go through the numbers on defense but everything I've seen has Votto demonstrably better defensively compared to Fielder. Fielder has a slight advantage over Votto in terms of offense but I think Votto makes up for it in defense. Either one would be a good choice to win first basemen of the year.
How I'd vote: 1. Joey Votto 2. Prince Fielder 3. Albert Pujols
Friday, October 21, 2011
Top 100 Catchers of All-Time
100. Brian Harper
99. Mike LaValliere
98. Hank Gowdy
97. Babe Phelps
96. Ron Hassey
95. Jerry Grote
94. Dan Wilson
93. Shanty Hogan
92. Hank Severeid
91. Mike Macfarlane
90. Doggie Miller
89. A.J. Pryzinski
88. Harry Danning
87. Duke Farrell
86. Todd Hundley
85. Johnny Edwards
84. Steve Yeager
83. Jody Davis
82. Phil Masi
81. Muddy Ruel
80. Yadier Molina
79. Brad Ausmus
78. Don Slaught
77. Brandon Inge
76. Chief Zimmer
75. Frankie Hayes
74. Gus Triandos
73. Deacon McGuire
72. Bob O'Farrell
71. Johnny Bassler
70. Paul Lo Duca
69. Stan Lopata
68. Ernie Whitt
67. Bubbles Hargrave
66. Steve O'Neill
65. Mike Napoli
64. Rick Dempsey
63. Russell Martin
62. Ray Schalk
61. Benito Santiago
60. Jason Varitek
59. Spud Davis
58. Andy Seminick
57. Rick Ferrell
56. Ramon Hernandez
55. Fred Carroll
54. Johnny Kling
53. John Roseboro
52. Terry Kennedy
51. Joe Ferguson
50. Tony Pena
49. Charles Johnson
48. Chief Meyers
47. Bob Boone
46. Butch Wynegar
45. Jack Clements
44. Brian McCann
43. Earl Battey
42. Mike Scioscia
41. Terry Steinbach
40. Tim McCarver
39. Walker Cooper
38. John Romano
37. Darren Daulton
36. Smoky Burgess
35. Manny Sanguillen
34. Victor Martinez
33. Ed Bailey
32. Del Crandall
31. Sherm Lollar
30. Tom Haller
29. Javy Lopez
28. Mickey Tettleton
27. Ernie Lombardi
26. Charlie Bennett
25. Jim Sundberg
24. Wally Schang
23. Lance Parrish
22. Jason Kendall
21. Elston Howard
20. Darrell Porter
19. Buck Ewing
18. Gabby Hartnett
17. Roger Bresnahan
16. Jorge Posada
15. Gene Tenace
14. Thurman Munson
13. Roy Campanella
12. Bill Freehan
11. Joe Mauer
10. Ted Simmons
9. Mickey Cochrane
8. Bill Dickey
7. Carlton Fisk
6. Joe Torre
5. Ivan Rodriguez
4. Yogi Berra
3. Mike Piazza
2. Gary Carter
1. Johnny Bench
99. Mike LaValliere
98. Hank Gowdy
97. Babe Phelps
96. Ron Hassey
95. Jerry Grote
94. Dan Wilson
93. Shanty Hogan
92. Hank Severeid
91. Mike Macfarlane
90. Doggie Miller
89. A.J. Pryzinski
88. Harry Danning
87. Duke Farrell
86. Todd Hundley
85. Johnny Edwards
84. Steve Yeager
83. Jody Davis
82. Phil Masi
81. Muddy Ruel
80. Yadier Molina
79. Brad Ausmus
78. Don Slaught
77. Brandon Inge
76. Chief Zimmer
75. Frankie Hayes
74. Gus Triandos
73. Deacon McGuire
72. Bob O'Farrell
71. Johnny Bassler
70. Paul Lo Duca
69. Stan Lopata
68. Ernie Whitt
67. Bubbles Hargrave
66. Steve O'Neill
65. Mike Napoli
64. Rick Dempsey
63. Russell Martin
62. Ray Schalk
61. Benito Santiago
60. Jason Varitek
59. Spud Davis
58. Andy Seminick
57. Rick Ferrell
56. Ramon Hernandez
55. Fred Carroll
54. Johnny Kling
53. John Roseboro
52. Terry Kennedy
51. Joe Ferguson
50. Tony Pena
49. Charles Johnson
48. Chief Meyers
47. Bob Boone
46. Butch Wynegar
45. Jack Clements
44. Brian McCann
43. Earl Battey
42. Mike Scioscia
41. Terry Steinbach
40. Tim McCarver
39. Walker Cooper
38. John Romano
37. Darren Daulton
36. Smoky Burgess
35. Manny Sanguillen
34. Victor Martinez
33. Ed Bailey
32. Del Crandall
31. Sherm Lollar
30. Tom Haller
29. Javy Lopez
28. Mickey Tettleton
27. Ernie Lombardi
26. Charlie Bennett
25. Jim Sundberg
24. Wally Schang
23. Lance Parrish
22. Jason Kendall
21. Elston Howard
20. Darrell Porter
19. Buck Ewing
18. Gabby Hartnett
17. Roger Bresnahan
16. Jorge Posada
15. Gene Tenace
14. Thurman Munson
13. Roy Campanella
12. Bill Freehan
11. Joe Mauer
10. Ted Simmons
9. Mickey Cochrane
8. Bill Dickey
7. Carlton Fisk
6. Joe Torre
5. Ivan Rodriguez
4. Yogi Berra
3. Mike Piazza
2. Gary Carter
1. Johnny Bench
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Retroactive Awards 1901
We're going to catch you up on who should be regarded as the best player at each position for each season starting with 1901.
American League Catcher of the Year:
1. Mike Grady
2. Boileryard Clarke
3. Ossee Schrekengost
Notes: Not the strongest year for catchers. Grady gets the nod for first place despite playing only 30 games at catcher for the season because his offensive stats completely dwarf any other catcher for that year. There were only 4 players who had more than 100 plate appearances at catcher who were better than league average at offense.
National League Catcher of the Year:
1. Heinie Peitz
2. Deacon McGuire
3. Klondike Douglass
Notes: Douglass would have ranked 2nd but McGuire had 140 more plate appearances as catcher so I think he was slightly more valuable than Douglass. Peitz far and away was the best catcher in the National League that year.
American League First Baseman:
1. Buck Freeman
2. Mike Donlin
3. John Anderson
Notes: Donlin has a higher WAR because of his superior defensive numbers. I thnk Freeman had a slightly superior offensive season so I'll put Freeman 1st.
National League First Baseman:
1. Ed Delahanty
2. Joe Kelley
3. Jake Beckley
Notes: Ed D. was pretty clearly the best first baseman in the league that season.
American League Second Baseman:
1. Nap Lajoie
2. Jimmy Williams
3. Sam Mertes
Notes: Lajoie had 9.5 fWAR nearly double what Jimmy Williams had. There were only three above average offensive second baseman in the league that year.
National League Second Baseman:
1. Tom Daly
2. Sammy Strang
3. Claude Ritchey
Notes: Heinie Peitz was in consideration for the top 3 in this spot, as well. I have Strang over Ritchey despite their fWAR's because Strang had a better wOBA, wRC+, and OBP. Again, I don't know how accurate defensive rankings are from that long ago.
American League Shortstop:
1. Kid Elberfeld
2. Freddy Parent
3. Bill Keister
Notes: Keister would rank higher but he was apparently a terrible defensive shortstop. Elberfeld wasn't fantastic either but his offensive season was much better than Parent's.
National League Shortstop:
1. Honus Wagner
2. Bobby Wallace
3. George Davis
Notes: Wallace was apparently a fantastic defensive shortstop, but his offensive season was nothing to sneeze at either. Davis and Wallace's season were almost equal 126 to 122 in wRC+. My heart's not in it but I'll put Wallace over Davis.
American League Third Baseman:
1. Jimmy Collins
2. John McGraw
3. Lave Cross or Fred Hartman
Notes: John McGraw's offensive season was so good that it doesn't matter that he only played 73 games. Cross and Hartman are tied in my opinion for third, I can't decide between the two.
National League Third Baseman:
1. Tommy Leach
2. Sammy Strang
3. Harry Wolverton
Notes: Strang was the 2nd best second baseman according to me, too. This was the closest one so far. Leach's fWAR: 3.0 Strang: 2.5 Wolverton: 2.6. Batting average: Leach: .305 Wolverton: .309 Strang:.282. OBP: Leach: .347. Wolverton: .356. Strang: .364. SLG%: Leach: .422 Wolverton: .369. Strang: .341. wOBA: Leach: .360. Wolverton: .346. Strang: .353. wRC+: Leach: 117 Wolverton: 112 Strang: 115. You couldn't go wrong with either of those three.
American League Left Fielder:
1. Mike Donlin
2. Herm McFarland
3. Jack McCarthy
Notes: Donlin almost won for best first baseman, too. Left field not a strong position for the American League that year. Besides McFarland and Donlin.
National League Left Fielder:
1.Jesse Burkett
2. Jimmy Sheckard
3. Topsy Hartsel
Notes: Would be even tougher if Delahanty hadn't won for best first baseman already. I should probably make a rule that you can only compete at one position. Delahanty probably would have been the best left fielder, too.
American League Centerfielder:
1. Dummy Hoy
2. Chick Stahl
3. Ollie Pickering
Notes: It's a close one but Hoy beats Stahl in the important categories of OBP, wOBA, and wRC+.
National League Centerfielder:
1. Roy Thomas
2. Emmet Heidrick
3. Ginger Beaumont
Notes: Sometimes my rankings are just the fWAR leaderboard, sorry. But George Van Haltren probably deserves to be in the top 3.
American League Right Fielder:
1. Socks Seybold
2. Fielder Jones
3. Ducky Holmes
Notes: Jones might be a better fielder but Seybold was a much better hitter.
National League Right Fielder:
1. Elmer Flick
2. Sam Crawford
3. Lefty Davis
Notes: Flick, by far, the best right fielder in the National League that year. I have Davis over Keeler because of his edge in wOBA and wRC+.
American League Pitcher of the Year:
1. Cy Young
2. Clark Griffith
3. Roscoe Miller
4. Eddie Plank
5. Joe McGinnity
Notes: Cy Young was the best pitcher by far. 2-5 could almost be in any order depending on what you were looking for. Griffith had the highest ERA+ of the four left.
National League Pitcher of the Year:
1.Vic Willis
2. Christy Mathewson
3. Al Orth
4. Noodles Hahn
5. Jack Chesbro
Notes: Mathewson has a slight edge in rWAR but Willis beats him in ERA+ and adjusted pitching wins. Hahn threw a lot of innings and struck out a lot of batters but I can't in good conscience place him above Al Orth, much less Mathewson and Willis.
American League Catcher of the Year:
1. Mike Grady
2. Boileryard Clarke
3. Ossee Schrekengost
Notes: Not the strongest year for catchers. Grady gets the nod for first place despite playing only 30 games at catcher for the season because his offensive stats completely dwarf any other catcher for that year. There were only 4 players who had more than 100 plate appearances at catcher who were better than league average at offense.
National League Catcher of the Year:
1. Heinie Peitz
2. Deacon McGuire
3. Klondike Douglass
Notes: Douglass would have ranked 2nd but McGuire had 140 more plate appearances as catcher so I think he was slightly more valuable than Douglass. Peitz far and away was the best catcher in the National League that year.
American League First Baseman:
1. Buck Freeman
2. Mike Donlin
3. John Anderson
Notes: Donlin has a higher WAR because of his superior defensive numbers. I thnk Freeman had a slightly superior offensive season so I'll put Freeman 1st.
National League First Baseman:
1. Ed Delahanty
2. Joe Kelley
3. Jake Beckley
Notes: Ed D. was pretty clearly the best first baseman in the league that season.
American League Second Baseman:
1. Nap Lajoie
2. Jimmy Williams
3. Sam Mertes
Notes: Lajoie had 9.5 fWAR nearly double what Jimmy Williams had. There were only three above average offensive second baseman in the league that year.
National League Second Baseman:
1. Tom Daly
2. Sammy Strang
3. Claude Ritchey
Notes: Heinie Peitz was in consideration for the top 3 in this spot, as well. I have Strang over Ritchey despite their fWAR's because Strang had a better wOBA, wRC+, and OBP. Again, I don't know how accurate defensive rankings are from that long ago.
American League Shortstop:
1. Kid Elberfeld
2. Freddy Parent
3. Bill Keister
Notes: Keister would rank higher but he was apparently a terrible defensive shortstop. Elberfeld wasn't fantastic either but his offensive season was much better than Parent's.
National League Shortstop:
1. Honus Wagner
2. Bobby Wallace
3. George Davis
Notes: Wallace was apparently a fantastic defensive shortstop, but his offensive season was nothing to sneeze at either. Davis and Wallace's season were almost equal 126 to 122 in wRC+. My heart's not in it but I'll put Wallace over Davis.
American League Third Baseman:
1. Jimmy Collins
2. John McGraw
3. Lave Cross or Fred Hartman
Notes: John McGraw's offensive season was so good that it doesn't matter that he only played 73 games. Cross and Hartman are tied in my opinion for third, I can't decide between the two.
National League Third Baseman:
1. Tommy Leach
2. Sammy Strang
3. Harry Wolverton
Notes: Strang was the 2nd best second baseman according to me, too. This was the closest one so far. Leach's fWAR: 3.0 Strang: 2.5 Wolverton: 2.6. Batting average: Leach: .305 Wolverton: .309 Strang:.282. OBP: Leach: .347. Wolverton: .356. Strang: .364. SLG%: Leach: .422 Wolverton: .369. Strang: .341. wOBA: Leach: .360. Wolverton: .346. Strang: .353. wRC+: Leach: 117 Wolverton: 112 Strang: 115. You couldn't go wrong with either of those three.
American League Left Fielder:
1. Mike Donlin
2. Herm McFarland
3. Jack McCarthy
Notes: Donlin almost won for best first baseman, too. Left field not a strong position for the American League that year. Besides McFarland and Donlin.
National League Left Fielder:
1.Jesse Burkett
2. Jimmy Sheckard
3. Topsy Hartsel
Notes: Would be even tougher if Delahanty hadn't won for best first baseman already. I should probably make a rule that you can only compete at one position. Delahanty probably would have been the best left fielder, too.
American League Centerfielder:
1. Dummy Hoy
2. Chick Stahl
3. Ollie Pickering
Notes: It's a close one but Hoy beats Stahl in the important categories of OBP, wOBA, and wRC+.
National League Centerfielder:
1. Roy Thomas
2. Emmet Heidrick
3. Ginger Beaumont
Notes: Sometimes my rankings are just the fWAR leaderboard, sorry. But George Van Haltren probably deserves to be in the top 3.
American League Right Fielder:
1. Socks Seybold
2. Fielder Jones
3. Ducky Holmes
Notes: Jones might be a better fielder but Seybold was a much better hitter.
National League Right Fielder:
1. Elmer Flick
2. Sam Crawford
3. Lefty Davis
Notes: Flick, by far, the best right fielder in the National League that year. I have Davis over Keeler because of his edge in wOBA and wRC+.
American League Pitcher of the Year:
1. Cy Young
2. Clark Griffith
3. Roscoe Miller
4. Eddie Plank
5. Joe McGinnity
Notes: Cy Young was the best pitcher by far. 2-5 could almost be in any order depending on what you were looking for. Griffith had the highest ERA+ of the four left.
National League Pitcher of the Year:
1.Vic Willis
2. Christy Mathewson
3. Al Orth
4. Noodles Hahn
5. Jack Chesbro
Notes: Mathewson has a slight edge in rWAR but Willis beats him in ERA+ and adjusted pitching wins. Hahn threw a lot of innings and struck out a lot of batters but I can't in good conscience place him above Al Orth, much less Mathewson and Willis.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Baseball Awards American League Cy Young Award Edition
The contenders:
Justin Verlander: fWAR: 7.0 rWAR: 8.6 ERA: 2.40 FIP: 2.99 K/9: 8.96 BB/9:2.04 IP: 251 ERA+: 170
CC Sabathia: fWAR: 7.1 rWAR: 6.9 ERA: 3.00 FIP: 2.88 K/9: 8.72 BB/9: 2.31 IP: 237.1 ERA+: 147
Dan Haren: fWAR: 6.4 rWAR: 4.0 ERA: 3.17 FIP: 2.98 K/9: 7.25 BB/9: 1.25 IP: 238.1 ERA+:120
C.J. Wilson: fWAR: 5.9 rWAR: 5.0 ERA: 2.94 FIP: 3.24 K/9: 8.30 BB/9: 2.98 IP: 223.1 ERA+: 152
Jered Weaver: fWAR: 5.6 rWAR: 6.6 ERA: 2.41 FIP: 3.20 K/9: 7.56 BB/9: 2.14 IP: 235.2 ERA+: 158
Doug Fister: fWAR: 5.6 rWAR:5.7 ERA: 2.83 FIP: 3.02 K/9: 6.07 BB/9: 1.54 IP: 216.2 ERA+: 137
Felix Hernandez: fWAR: 5.5 rWAR: 4.7 ERA: 3.47 FIP: 3.13 K/9: 8.55 BB/9: 2.58 IP: 233.2 ERA+: 111
Notes: First place comes down to Verlander vs. Sabathia. The difference in fWAR is miniscule, the term statistically significant doesn't even really do it justice. In Verlander's defense he has the edge in ERA, K/9, BB/9, and innings pitched. I think the decision should be a little closer than it probably will be but Verlander deserves my first place, non-existent vote. Second place by a landslide would be Sabathia.
Third place is basically Weaver vs. Fister. Fister's ERA during home starts: 2.35, away: 3.36. Weaver comes in third place.
Fister in fourth. 5th place I have C.J. Wilson.
Ballot: 1. Justin Verlander 2. CC Sabathia 3. Jered Weaver 4. Doug Fister 5. C.J. Wilson
Justin Verlander: fWAR: 7.0 rWAR: 8.6 ERA: 2.40 FIP: 2.99 K/9: 8.96 BB/9:2.04 IP: 251 ERA+: 170
CC Sabathia: fWAR: 7.1 rWAR: 6.9 ERA: 3.00 FIP: 2.88 K/9: 8.72 BB/9: 2.31 IP: 237.1 ERA+: 147
Dan Haren: fWAR: 6.4 rWAR: 4.0 ERA: 3.17 FIP: 2.98 K/9: 7.25 BB/9: 1.25 IP: 238.1 ERA+:120
C.J. Wilson: fWAR: 5.9 rWAR: 5.0 ERA: 2.94 FIP: 3.24 K/9: 8.30 BB/9: 2.98 IP: 223.1 ERA+: 152
Jered Weaver: fWAR: 5.6 rWAR: 6.6 ERA: 2.41 FIP: 3.20 K/9: 7.56 BB/9: 2.14 IP: 235.2 ERA+: 158
Doug Fister: fWAR: 5.6 rWAR:5.7 ERA: 2.83 FIP: 3.02 K/9: 6.07 BB/9: 1.54 IP: 216.2 ERA+: 137
Felix Hernandez: fWAR: 5.5 rWAR: 4.7 ERA: 3.47 FIP: 3.13 K/9: 8.55 BB/9: 2.58 IP: 233.2 ERA+: 111
Notes: First place comes down to Verlander vs. Sabathia. The difference in fWAR is miniscule, the term statistically significant doesn't even really do it justice. In Verlander's defense he has the edge in ERA, K/9, BB/9, and innings pitched. I think the decision should be a little closer than it probably will be but Verlander deserves my first place, non-existent vote. Second place by a landslide would be Sabathia.
Third place is basically Weaver vs. Fister. Fister's ERA during home starts: 2.35, away: 3.36. Weaver comes in third place.
Fister in fourth. 5th place I have C.J. Wilson.
Ballot: 1. Justin Verlander 2. CC Sabathia 3. Jered Weaver 4. Doug Fister 5. C.J. Wilson
Monday, October 3, 2011
The Official RCIAAS Baseball Awards Ballot- Rookie of the Year edition
Each year the BBWAA votes on a set of awards which include the MVP, Cy Young Award, and Rookie of the Year award. Each year people have debates over who should win each award (the debates are mainly about either the MVP vote or the Cy Young Award). We will break down each award and see who the rightful winners should be (well according to us).
We'll start with the Rookie of the Year in the American League first.
The top contenders (in no particular order):
Jeremy Hellickson: 2.95 ERA 4.44 FIP 126 ERA+ 1.4 fWAR 4.2 rWAR 189 IP
Ivan Nova: 3.70 ERA 4.01 FIP 119 ERA+ 2.7 fWAR 3.5 rWAR 165.1 IP
Brett Lawrie: .293/.373/.580/.413 152 OPS+ 163 wRC+ 2.7 fWAR 2.8 rWAR
Dustin Ackley: .273/.348/.417/.340 117 OPS+ 117 wRC+ 2.7 fWAR 2.5 rWAR
Eric Hosmer: .293/.334/.465/.342 118 OPS+ 114 wRC+ 1.6 fWAR 1.3 rWAR
Mark Trumbo: .254/.291/.477/.327 113 OPS+ 105 wRC+ 2.3 fWAR 2.1 rWAR
Michael Pineda: 3.74 ERA 3.42 FIP 103 ERA+ 3.4 fWAR 2.8 rWAR 171 IP
Desmond Jennings: .259/.356/.449/.361 128 OPS+ 131 wRC+ 2.4 fWAR 2.3 rWAR
Notes: The debate basically boils down to how much you want to rely on FIP which Fangraphs ses to determine WAR. In their version of WAR they normalize BABIP (Batting Average of Balls in Play) but Baseball-Reference does not so there is a big differenece between the effectiveness of Hellickson, Nova, and Pineda. Should Hellickson be punished in his WAR for the better defense behind him or should Pineda and Nova be penalized because they do not have as good as defense behind them. The best hitters in the group Lawrie and Jennings did not play anywhere near a full season, so how much more value do they have over the players who played more? Trumbo's On-base percentage was below .300 which is horrendous. Hosmer did not have a particularly great season either. We're going with Pineda in first because of the superior FIP and it is hard to seperate the luck fairies from the ERA. In second place, we're placing Brett Lawrie because of his superior offensive numbers despite the lack of games played. In third place, we would vote for Jennings because of the overall quality of his work. 4th place would be Nova and 5th would be Hellickson.
Ballot: 1. Michael Pineda 2. Brett Lawrie 3. Desmond Jennings 4. Ivan Nova 5. Jeremy Hellickson
We'll start with the Rookie of the Year in the American League first.
The top contenders (in no particular order):
Jeremy Hellickson: 2.95 ERA 4.44 FIP 126 ERA+ 1.4 fWAR 4.2 rWAR 189 IP
Ivan Nova: 3.70 ERA 4.01 FIP 119 ERA+ 2.7 fWAR 3.5 rWAR 165.1 IP
Brett Lawrie: .293/.373/.580/.413 152 OPS+ 163 wRC+ 2.7 fWAR 2.8 rWAR
Dustin Ackley: .273/.348/.417/.340 117 OPS+ 117 wRC+ 2.7 fWAR 2.5 rWAR
Eric Hosmer: .293/.334/.465/.342 118 OPS+ 114 wRC+ 1.6 fWAR 1.3 rWAR
Mark Trumbo: .254/.291/.477/.327 113 OPS+ 105 wRC+ 2.3 fWAR 2.1 rWAR
Michael Pineda: 3.74 ERA 3.42 FIP 103 ERA+ 3.4 fWAR 2.8 rWAR 171 IP
Desmond Jennings: .259/.356/.449/.361 128 OPS+ 131 wRC+ 2.4 fWAR 2.3 rWAR
Notes: The debate basically boils down to how much you want to rely on FIP which Fangraphs ses to determine WAR. In their version of WAR they normalize BABIP (Batting Average of Balls in Play) but Baseball-Reference does not so there is a big differenece between the effectiveness of Hellickson, Nova, and Pineda. Should Hellickson be punished in his WAR for the better defense behind him or should Pineda and Nova be penalized because they do not have as good as defense behind them. The best hitters in the group Lawrie and Jennings did not play anywhere near a full season, so how much more value do they have over the players who played more? Trumbo's On-base percentage was below .300 which is horrendous. Hosmer did not have a particularly great season either. We're going with Pineda in first because of the superior FIP and it is hard to seperate the luck fairies from the ERA. In second place, we're placing Brett Lawrie because of his superior offensive numbers despite the lack of games played. In third place, we would vote for Jennings because of the overall quality of his work. 4th place would be Nova and 5th would be Hellickson.
Ballot: 1. Michael Pineda 2. Brett Lawrie 3. Desmond Jennings 4. Ivan Nova 5. Jeremy Hellickson
Friday, September 23, 2011
Fantasy Football- Intro to projection analysis
Like most Americans, I spend way too much time devoted to my two fantasy football teams. The most frustrating part about fantasy football is the fact that everybody that has a team wants to tell you a story about their particular team. I've listed this as one of the most annoying things about sports. Nobody really cares that who's on your team.
A favorite thing of mine to see for each week is the different projections that each fantasy expert has. From there, I like to see the players that different fantasy writers tell you to start and sit. It's entertaining to see how they actually do. Grantland has decided to look at what some of the experts are saying.
I bet, as a stumbler onto this blog, that you're wondering what this has to do with anything. However, I'm going to do a study where I'll try and figure out which projections are the ones to be trusted and which ones aren't or how to make reliable projections.
Brief explanation: I'll be looking at three different sites that project fantasy stats. They are ESPN, nfl.com, and Sports Illustrated. I'll look at them as individuals, averaged together, and a weight that I've been messing around with.
A favorite thing of mine to see for each week is the different projections that each fantasy expert has. From there, I like to see the players that different fantasy writers tell you to start and sit. It's entertaining to see how they actually do. Grantland has decided to look at what some of the experts are saying.
I bet, as a stumbler onto this blog, that you're wondering what this has to do with anything. However, I'm going to do a study where I'll try and figure out which projections are the ones to be trusted and which ones aren't or how to make reliable projections.
Brief explanation: I'll be looking at three different sites that project fantasy stats. They are ESPN, nfl.com, and Sports Illustrated. I'll look at them as individuals, averaged together, and a weight that I've been messing around with.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Alliterative Text Designed to show creativity, well not yet.
When Rob Neyer wrote for ESPN, he used to put the list of links on Friday under the heading of Friday Filberts. Well, I can't think of a creative way to put a title for my links. But today, it will be called Friday Fun.
At the beginning of the year, I got into a lengthy argument on the ESPN comment section about whether or nor the Twins would compete this year. Well, I was right. Who know how long it will take to fix?
You can read some of the points I brought up on my old blog, well most of my points where about how terrible I thought (and think) Bill Smith is.
Fangraphs has another take on the Twins.
Sometimes, well actually about 33% of the time, I'll post something that is political in nature. I have a lot of Facebook friends who say things like "we should drug test all those people on welfare, everyone on welfare is a drug user, they're costing the state so much money!" Well, to that I have this to say and also this.
At the beginning of the year, I got into a lengthy argument on the ESPN comment section about whether or nor the Twins would compete this year. Well, I was right. Who know how long it will take to fix?
You can read some of the points I brought up on my old blog, well most of my points where about how terrible I thought (and think) Bill Smith is.
Fangraphs has another take on the Twins.
Sometimes, well actually about 33% of the time, I'll post something that is political in nature. I have a lot of Facebook friends who say things like "we should drug test all those people on welfare, everyone on welfare is a drug user, they're costing the state so much money!" Well, to that I have this to say and also this.
Annoying Things about sports
Here's a quick list of 10 things that are annoying about sports, sportswriting, watching sports, etc. It's not in any particular order. The #1 thing is no more annoying than the #10 thing. Well it's possible that it is to you, it's not necessarily what is meant by this list.
10. Watching sports with somebody who thinks they're better than professional athletes. It makes it even worse when the person saying this has never played beyond the level of where 14-15 year olds play and even more worse when they have never played the sport competitively.
9. Hearing people talk about their fantasy sports teams. The first rule of fantasy sports: Nobody cares about your fantasy team except you.
8. When people think the sports games are too important. People sometimes watch games thinking the outcome is life or death.
7. Hearing or reading sportswriters debate the meaning of the phrase "most valuable". Every damn year. Every damn sport.
6. Hearing or reading sportswriters start off their debates about the phrase of "most valuable" by saying that there's so many articles about what this phrase means.
5. Ultimately unsatisfying results in crowning champions, which happens in every sport almost every year. The biggest offenders: college sports. Joe Posnanski has written about this before, if I find the post, I'll link it on here.
4. Narratives of athletes not matching with the statistics. This is the second most annoying thing to me. I hate when sportswriters will write something similar to such and such hitter can't hit in the clutch (usually Alex Rodriguez) but all the stats indicate that they can or at least don't have problems.
3. Sportswriters who flat-out ignore statistics. This is the most annoying thing to me. There's always sportswriters who will say something that flies in the face of what the statistics say. Then they'll back what they were saying by quoting intangibles.
2. The never-ending money arguments. For whatever reason, fans always decry athletes for making too much money but never stop to think about the billions of dollars that sports owners make that don't make it into the athlete's hands (or ummmm bank accounts, I guess).
1. The lack of accountability for predictions. Sportswriters and analysts at the beginning of each sports season will make predictions not only of how teams will do but players, as well. Often these sports analysts and writers will make predictions that don't make sense like the wins and losses of all the teams not adding up correctly. More likely, they'll ignore simple regression to the mean analysis.
10. Watching sports with somebody who thinks they're better than professional athletes. It makes it even worse when the person saying this has never played beyond the level of where 14-15 year olds play and even more worse when they have never played the sport competitively.
9. Hearing people talk about their fantasy sports teams. The first rule of fantasy sports: Nobody cares about your fantasy team except you.
8. When people think the sports games are too important. People sometimes watch games thinking the outcome is life or death.
7. Hearing or reading sportswriters debate the meaning of the phrase "most valuable". Every damn year. Every damn sport.
6. Hearing or reading sportswriters start off their debates about the phrase of "most valuable" by saying that there's so many articles about what this phrase means.
5. Ultimately unsatisfying results in crowning champions, which happens in every sport almost every year. The biggest offenders: college sports. Joe Posnanski has written about this before, if I find the post, I'll link it on here.
4. Narratives of athletes not matching with the statistics. This is the second most annoying thing to me. I hate when sportswriters will write something similar to such and such hitter can't hit in the clutch (usually Alex Rodriguez) but all the stats indicate that they can or at least don't have problems.
3. Sportswriters who flat-out ignore statistics. This is the most annoying thing to me. There's always sportswriters who will say something that flies in the face of what the statistics say. Then they'll back what they were saying by quoting intangibles.
2. The never-ending money arguments. For whatever reason, fans always decry athletes for making too much money but never stop to think about the billions of dollars that sports owners make that don't make it into the athlete's hands (or ummmm bank accounts, I guess).
1. The lack of accountability for predictions. Sportswriters and analysts at the beginning of each sports season will make predictions not only of how teams will do but players, as well. Often these sports analysts and writers will make predictions that don't make sense like the wins and losses of all the teams not adding up correctly. More likely, they'll ignore simple regression to the mean analysis.
The initial post
The best part about the Major League Baseball All-Star game every year is that a random player will eventually make it onto the roster. Thanks to the rule that every team has to have an All-Star. Actually, the absolute best part about the All-Star game is that years later when a player retires, people will tout for that player's Hall of Fame candidacy by quoting how many All-Star games that player had. But I digress.
In 1999, Ron Coomer of the Minnesota Twins made the All-Star game. Nothing personal against Ron Coomer or anything but he had to be one of the least deserving players to make an All-Star game. His stats for the first half of that season were as follows. .282/.312/.458 with an OPS+ of 110. However, his sOPS+, which makes this relative to the league's OPS for that split was 95. If you're unaware, an OPS+ of 100 is supposed to be league average. Coomer was slightly below average in terms of OPS+ which takes into account the player's home ballpark, as well. This OPS+ would be fine if Coomer was performing at a premium defensive position such as shortstop, second base, centerfield, or catcher. Coomer was playing third base and first base and was doing quite alright at it, for that season Coomer was able to put up 1.0 dWAR (WAR is Wins above replacement) according to baseballreference.com.
This blog's intention is not to poke fun at Ron Coomer. He played at the Major League Baseball level for 9 seasons, something I wish I could do. This blog will try to beat stupididty, inconsistencies in logic, flaws in logic, and downright hypocrisies where it can. It will also discuss sports, movies, books, and basically anything the authors find particularly interesting.
Why is the blog titled Ron Coomer is an All-Star? Why thank you for asking, clumsy literary device. The answer to this question is the phrase Ron Coomer is an All-Star will forever be associated with the authors thinking that somebody did something quite illogical.
In 1999, Ron Coomer of the Minnesota Twins made the All-Star game. Nothing personal against Ron Coomer or anything but he had to be one of the least deserving players to make an All-Star game. His stats for the first half of that season were as follows. .282/.312/.458 with an OPS+ of 110. However, his sOPS+, which makes this relative to the league's OPS for that split was 95. If you're unaware, an OPS+ of 100 is supposed to be league average. Coomer was slightly below average in terms of OPS+ which takes into account the player's home ballpark, as well. This OPS+ would be fine if Coomer was performing at a premium defensive position such as shortstop, second base, centerfield, or catcher. Coomer was playing third base and first base and was doing quite alright at it, for that season Coomer was able to put up 1.0 dWAR (WAR is Wins above replacement) according to baseballreference.com.
This blog's intention is not to poke fun at Ron Coomer. He played at the Major League Baseball level for 9 seasons, something I wish I could do. This blog will try to beat stupididty, inconsistencies in logic, flaws in logic, and downright hypocrisies where it can. It will also discuss sports, movies, books, and basically anything the authors find particularly interesting.
Why is the blog titled Ron Coomer is an All-Star? Why thank you for asking, clumsy literary device. The answer to this question is the phrase Ron Coomer is an All-Star will forever be associated with the authors thinking that somebody did something quite illogical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)