But two of those three - Anaheim and Florida - took a "small-ball" approach, with the latter also having a stolid starting four (much like this year's W. Sox). Only the Red Sox used a (modified) moneyball scheme.

I just read that article about 2 minutes after you posted this.

I'm sorry, but if you can't beat a team best 4 out of 7 in an important playoff series, you don't deserve to be called the best team of anything.

I wasn't saying anything about the quality or make-ups of the team, just that those teams didn't prove themselves the best of 162, but just in the playoffs.

Also, to Elvis Fu's comment about never breaking in a glove, does that mean they can't be interested. You can't have opinions on baseball if you never played? You can't have opinions about music if you've never composed or played it yourself? You can't have opinions about movies if you don't work in Hollywood?

Which article is this?

hey

That's not the point. It's the fact that a bunch of these stat peons take all the fun out of the game. There's a lot more to any sport than a bunch of numbers and calculations. There's a lot of sweat and heart and determination that are much more worthwhile.

My Cal Ripken post is a perfect example. This fucking dweeb probably doesn't know which hand goes on top if he were to step in a batter's box, yet he will pontificate endlessly about Cal Ripken being nothing more than a mediocre shortstop along the lines of Roy Smalley or Toby Harrah.

I'm saying that a player or former player can appreciate the level of skill and hard work that factor into making a great play or great season or great career, much in the same way a guitarist like Squirrgle can appreciate a particular make and model of guitar run through certain amps and pedals, etc. to get special sound that blows your socks off.

If Squirrgle were to go on some detailed explanation involving the circuitry and wiring and resistors and all this other shit as to why it makes a particular sound, it wouldn't be fun anymore.

Okay, I misunderstood then.

I think the problem with people's opinions of Ripken is that they see him only as the streak, and I think you agree. But he was a great player. A power-hitting shortstop before that became the norm (and context is important in judging players historically).

I used to do a lot of research on sabermetrics and while some of it really does work, but I can tell you that the whole business of pythagorean W-L is a bunch of bullcrap.

For me this is a big part of what makes baseball fun. I enjoy crunching numbers and trying to get behind what's going on on the surface of the game. It doesn't always predict the final outcome or determine who should/shouldn't be in the HOF but it's something baseball has that most other sports don't. I enjoy everything else about the game too but think the statistical part of baseball gives it an interesting dynamic.

I skimmed that article and there is one thing I agree with them about: Podsednik is overrated. 80 R and 25 RBI on a first place team? That is not a star.

Well, that also goes back to my earlier post. Baseball is a haven for stat geeks. I myself enjoy digging around baseball-reference.com or shit like that from time to time.

But it just gets taken too damn far, usually for the sole purpose of finding just one statistical way to shit on your opponent. Given enough time, you can dig up stats to prove your point.

I just feel oversaturated with statistics. Last night: the Steelers are 10-0 on Monday Night Football. So what? How does that impact the outcome of the game? It doesn't.

Right. But also, just watching Ripken play was always so damn impressive. Part of him is not human. Not to detract from hard throwers like Bobby Jenks or Kerry Wood, but Nolan Ryan was simply awesome to see pitch in person. He would be the last person I would want to dig in against.

You can tell the really great players just by watching. They are just that special, and while some numbers are useful in comparing different players, I don't find it to be the be all and end all. Shit, remember Don Mattingly around 1987? Guys put up numbers like that for breakfast these days.

being a "star" has nothing to do with contributing to a teams success.

Tad Iguchi is the best example of this. The guy only hit .278 with like 15 home runs. I'm almost positive he led the league in productive outs though. For the first two months of the season, Pods got on, stole second and iguchi hit a ground ball to the right side. This will never show up in statistics, but he moved the runner to third with less than 2 outs and did his job.

RBIs and HR are not the most important stat on every team. As long as you score runs SOMEHOW (and the White Sox scored plenty enough runs to support that pitching staff), you will win a lot of games. The White Sox did it in some pretty unconventional ways.

Also, let's say a team like the White Sox has a dominant 1-4 pitching staff but a terrible number 5 starter. In fact, their fifth starter is SO bad that he gives up an average of 5 runs every start in 5 innings pitched. Meanwhile, the other four give up 3 runs or less in 7 innings, and the White Sox win 3/4 of those games. They lose the fifth almost every time by a big margin.

The point? You win games 3-2, 3-1, 2-0, lose a game 4-2 and lose a game 6-2. You score 12 runs, your opponents score 13. Awful team, right?

The trouble with pythogorean WL is that it generalizes team performance without regarding things like starting pitching matchups. The fact that backups play certain regular season games and fifth starters never being used in the playoffs (neither will some long and short relievers) is overlooked. Injuries are hidden. Blah blah blah.

OMG HE NOT HIT HOME RUN WHY DAT!?!

I said nothing about home runs. I was just talking about scoring. That's what hitters are supposed to do: score, or help someone else score. 105 is a decent number, but that's not a star.

Best post in this thread.

E-fu makes some long winded and salient points, especially about Mattingly.

Jesus, just look at dudes that were "sluggers" when we were kids, half of their power numbers don't stack up to Rafael Furcal.

You're right, LF is a power position(worst term of all time). Trade him for Sosa.

PLEASE.

It's okay man, he's a free agent. Not our problem anymore.

Now what to replace him with...

Jeromy Burnitz, clearly.

I think you can some up any discussion of stats by bringing up Palmeiro, a guy who will give you .300, 40 and 125 every year, as soon as you team is mathematically eliminated

To trade him for Sosa would be a pathetically bad move.

And I disagree with the whole concept of LF, or any outfield spot in general, being solely a power position. Some really good OF's have not been power hitters.

Examples:

Lou Brock
Sam Rice
Richie Ashburn
The Waner brothers
Curt Flood
Tim Raines
Milt Thompson
Mule Haas
Kenny Lofton
Jim Eisenreich
Milt Thompson
Willie McGee
Willie Wilson
Bob Zupcic
Milt Thompson

Well, my list seems to lose luster as it continues, but you get the idea. Not exclusively a power position (at least thats how I see it)

(that was my point)