Yeah, I wasn't sure I bought that story when I heard it this morning either.

Ugh. Bengie's been doing great, but he's a 33 year old C in offensive decline - I expect him to be back to .280/.310/.450 by year end (though I would love to be wrong). I hate the "Gamer" tag - it generally applies to players who aren't good but look like they're "hustling" - Erstad, Eckstein being the prime examples.

I think Tim Wakefield had sex with Wallace Matthews' daughter or something. Thats about the only way I can explain the amount of hate he has for a guy that has been consistently above league average for what seems like forever.

hxxp://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-spwally225224683may22,0,7559777.column?coll=ny-yankees-print

Tim Lincecum = awesome.

Yup, "gamers" are generally the antithesis of the field of sabermetrics. It must really bug ya when they actually are okay ballplayers, because you can't find a rational, mathematical explanation for it. ;)

Just goes to show numbers don't play the game.

"Gamer" is a term used for guys that are generally liked in the clubhouse, but are league-average players, at best. Its also usually attached to the "scrappy" and "hustle" attributes.

Erstad - one of the worst players in baseball since '01
Eckstein - the very definition of league average
Molina - pretty solid the past 2 years. Sucked before that.

Numbers don't play the game, but they are much better measure of a player's perfmance than token titles handed out to "good clubhouse guys".

I don't deny those guys aren't the best players in baseball. I am just pointing out that stat-centric baseball fans tend to miss that there's more to the game than the numbers.

There's two extremes and my, admittedly biased view, favors the stats side of the game. As a fan of baseball, however, there are guys that aren't the best sabermetric players that I like. Endy Chavez is a good example. He's a weak centerfield bat playing a corner outfield spot for the Mets, yet he's one of my favorite Mets because he's fun to watch play.

My personal issue with the "gamer" tag is when people try to lead us to believe that guys such as Erstad are good players because they do things the average person just can't understand or when people try to say the Eckstein is a "winner".

I can appreciate players that are fun to watch or others think are fun to watch. But sometimes people need to cut the BS and admit that a player can be a good guy, a fun player to watch, and still suck at baseball.

I can definitely agree with that. I actually follow and generally agree with the logic in the numbers as well. I just try to meld it into a view that takes into account that numbers are just numbers, but no actual human being can be so quantified. Not saying you do that, but I have seen some who do, and go way too far with it.

I don't consider gamers to be "winners". I consider gamers to be smart, tough players who play the game the right way and are never a problem in the clubhouse. You don't see guys like that quail under the pressure of the postseason, which is the only way I would equate them with "winners". In and of itself, being a "winner" means nothing in baseball. Being able to raise the level of your game when it matters, though, is a tangible quality that certainly has an effect.

And, yes, gamers are usually more fun to watch, too, and that only adds to it. Eckstein may have little to no actual quality skills (other than good hands and some speed and baserunning instincts), but it's damn fun watching a little guy who obviously plays as hard as he does be a catalyst on two World Series champs.

BTW, for all the gamers the Angels had in 2002, we couldn't have won without K-Rod's wicked stuff, the power of Glaus and GA (and Salmon, who had skills on top of being a gamer), and a steady pitching staff. Those aren't gamer qualities, but actual talent. I find you don't usually get by in baseball without a decent helping of both talent and "gamer" mentality.

Oh god - want to throw in a "baseball's played on the field, not on the computer NERDZ" line while you're at it? People who run away from sabremetrics are the same people who look at data and reject it, because it doesn't fit their preconcieved notions - being educated about a subject apparently doesn't fit into the worldview :rolleyes:

Darrin Erstad is a bad player. He's been an bad player ever year since 2000 - which is the last year he had an OPS+ over 100 - 1b who are below league average offensively are not assets, no matter how much "hustle" and "grit" (and other cliches) you throw out there. He did have some value because he was a great CF, but even that isn't true anymore.

Dola,
that's meaner than I intended to CR (who's a decent guy), but I really hate the fact the fact that people ignore the data because it doesn't match their perceptions.

I had a much meaner response in place until I saw this. I deleted it.

I think if I had your devotion to these numbers, it would frustrate me, too, that others don't accept it as an end-all as you may. I know it frustrates me when I see people who appear to be blind to the beauty of the game and all the unquantifiable elements that are a part of it, simply because they can't put a number to it.

I never said Erstad was a great player. He wasn't even an average player after 2000. It killed me that we were paying him so much for so long. But that doesn't mean I can't love having him on the team for all he meant to the guys in that clubhouse and to the fans, and even to the game of baseball.

I don't dismiss sabermetrics. It just appears that way because A) strong proponents of sabermetrics on this board (in particular) are so married to their precious formulae that they automatically reject anyone who doesn't accept it as a worldview hook, line and sinker, and B) my favorite team, of which I am a well known and impassioned advocate, runs quite contrary to sabermetric theorems and succeeds in spite of them, often putting me at odds with sabermetricians because they don't "like" my players or my team.

I actually enjoy the theories of sabermetrics and the math behind them. This sorta thing interests me a lot. I just believe there is much more to the game than numbers, and I believe I see the evidence every day I watch a baseball game.

Yes.

Seeing Lincecum in person and standing about 15 feet away from him warming up in the pen prior to the game was awesome. He has incredible pop on his fastball for such a slender guy. Almost felt bad for Molina having to catch all those throws.

Cain
Zito
Lowry
Morris
Lincecum

That is a pretty nice rotation there, with Morris the only one over 30.

Wasting your time Chief. Can you imagine trying to watch a game with one of these sabr guys?

I like Erstad and don't consider him a bad player. Can you imagine a manager who won a world series actually having a bad player leadoff day after day? What a dumbass! Doesn't he know what sabr says about Erstad? :rolleyes:

Erstad, hitting like he did for the past few years, at his salary and playing first base, was pretty much useless. Good teams can win with useless players in the lineup. They just can't have a team full of them. So that really doesn't say much about Erstad as it does about the strength of the team. That's not to say he wasn't a plus in the clubhouse or with fans, which I don't discount like some do, but purely for what he gave on the field, he was a waste.

I know! It would probably involve learning things you never knew before, and that would be horrible!

Can you imagine a manager that took his team to the world series using Neifi Perez in the leadoff spot during a time that coincided with the team's near historic collapse!?! Oh wait, that did happen.

A manager's job is to not screw things up. They don't win games so pointing out managers that have won a world series is rather pointless.

As for Erstad, you don't even have to use those uber geek Sabr stats to see he's one of the worst everyday players in baseball. His traditional stats are horrible, its actually been a Saber stat (OMG!) thats showed he has some value. His fielding runs above average have been among the best in baseball going all the way back to '99.

Here's his BA/OBP/SLG/OPS the past 7 years. Traditional stats. No funny Saber voodoo here.

.258 .331 .360 .691
.283 .313 .389 .702
.252 .309 .333 .642
.295 .346 .400 .746
.273 .325 .371 .696
.221 .279 .326 .605 - just 95 ABs
.270 .320 .352 .672

I challenge anyone to find a player that has been this consistently bad over the past 7 years and still managed to get over 500 plate appearances 4 times. To top it off this guy was playing a premium offensive position after being moved out of center. I know, he played football at Nebraska so its difficult to imagine him being a bad baseball player, but I'm asking everyone to try really hard and at least consider the posibililty.

It must also kill you to see that Sabermetrics have had an impact on just about every team in baseball and even people that don't agree with the ideas presented in Moneyball are adapting them. The price for players with high OBP continues to go up, there's been less high school hitters and pitchers drafted the past several years, and stolen bases continue to decline. Sabermetrics are changing the way the game is played and the way front offices are run. One day you might stop and think that all of these sabr dorks with their pocket protectors, protractors, and notebooks might just be onto something.

I know its completely irresponsible to use facts and statistical analysis to base your arguements on rather than blindly making claims that are impossible to back up. My apologies for using facts in a discussion about a sport that is based on stats.

LOL.

Hate to change the subject (lol), but I just saw Todd Linden hitting for the Marlins. Kind of bummed he didn't make it in SF as I thought he could break out with enough time.

Nice game last night for Benji to cap a sweep of the Astros.

Gold :). Preach on, brother Atocep!

Exactly. The D-Backs won a WS with Tony Womack leading off, but the point isn't so much that they won because of him, but despite him. That doesn't make Tony Womack a good lead off hitter, nor does it make Brenly right for using him in that way.

8 out of 10 now!

Ahh, we have to enjoy these runs while they last. They are few and far between.

Looking good though, the bullpen finally shaping up a bit with Greinke and Perez moved back there.

I still think I'd stick with Soria over Dotel for closer for a while, I just don't trust Dotel but I guess that's where the money went. Rather see them build someone up who's going to be around for a few years.

Yep, actually the hottest team in baseball now. The indicators have been there that they could play well. I can't believe how improved our pitching is this year. We've dropped our team ERA by over a run when compared to last year's team ERA. We finished last in the league a year ago and are right in the middle of the pack this year. Amazing improvement for just one off-season.

Bats are finally waking up as well. Even Alex Gordon has come alive. They're going to have some monster crowds out at Kauffman Stadium this weekend. Friday night will likely be sold out and the weekend games and fireworks should draw well too. Hopefully the rain doesn't stop our run tonight.

Magglio Ordonez is 3-3 vs Anaheim today with 4 RBI, now putting him at 46 RBI, and the new leader in AL. He is hitting over .340 with 12 HR too boot. Definetly should be in the early season MVP talks.

Ervin Santana's inability to pitch well on the road is bordering on comical. He's Johan Santana at home, and Julio Santana on the road.

It's like Bondermans ability to pitch first innings.

He did OK today!

Hey, zero runs, I'll take it.

Thanks Garry Matthews Jr!

As I posted in a thread earlier, Ernie Harwell is doing the TV broadcast today for the Tigers and it's just such an awesome stroll down memory lane. Even at 89 years old, Ernie is light years ahead of anyone else calling a game.

Actually, according to ESPN (up-to-date), he's hitting .361 with 12 HR and 45 RBI.

Wow. Magz is on a tear. Hope he continues it this weeked with the big Indians series looming tomorrow.

I see what you're talking about. He did struggle, but escaped, then was lights out after that.

For anyone watching the Mets - Braves right now, that was the worst check-swing/called 3rd strike call I've ever seen.

Wright just got punched out with the bases loaded when his bat didn't even go more than 45 degrees across the plate.

As an Angels fan, personally it's killing me what this guy does on the road. I am sick of waiting for him to figure out how to pitch on the road. I want the first ever home-road platoon rotation spot. It's not like we don't have the starting pitching depth. Mosely and Saunders would be starting for most teams, and Carrasco and Bootcheck could start, too.

It's not like Stoneman's going to trade any of them away for a hitter anyway.

If the Mets lose this game 2-0 my remote may end up going through my TV.

So you can put an object about the weight of a baseball through a two-foot by two-foot square from some 15 feet away? I'm sold--wanna start on the road for Santana?

Julio Franco has a striking resemblance to Pedro Cerrano while swinging at breaking balls.

So what options will Bud Selig be considering in the Giambi case? I don't see where the Commissioner can do anything of substance.

Selig is pretty much in the same position Goodell is right now. Based on their actions, they're setting the stage for boxing themselves in on future issues of this nature. If he does nothing, then can anyone expect any action based on the Mitchell Report (which may name names, but I seriously doubt it will have anything more than "he said" proof)? And if he acts, then he's basically got to act on everything Mitchell reports.

He's screwed. I would not want to be in his shoes. I'd be hella pissed with Giambi right now for forcing this issue so soon.

Interesting follow-up on the Radomski thing. This could be a huge story over the summer. Certainly will be huge whenever information starts getting out.

hxxp://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/jon_heyman/05/23/kirk.radomski/index.html

A couple of injury issues in the NL east.

A manager has 3 main jobs. Make sure players have a clearly defined role, manage the bullpen, fill out a lineup card.

The last one is such a joke that it shouldn't even be included, but there's quite a few managers out there that still screw it up. Good players win games, managers don't. I don't know how you could possibly argue otherwise. If you want to, I'm all for listening.

It has nothing to do with divorcing numbers from reality, it is reality. A manager's job is to simply not screw things up. Your post was nothing more than "I don't agree, your statement was idiotic". I'd like to hear some examples of managers winning games.

Actually, I haven't seen either of you put up evidence to back your suppositions.

I don't think anyone can argue the 3 roles for managers I mentioned above. You may want to add some things, but I'd be willing to bet just about anything mentioned really falls in one of the three categories (one that could be added is handling starters, but you really could just expand bullpen to pitching staff). In-game strategy in today's world isn't something terribly difficult to do. Its just a question as to whether or not a manager uses the data available and if he do

I think its pretty clear when you look at the managerial careers of Dusty Baker (thought to be a genius until his 2nd year with the Cubs) and Lou Pinella (though to be a genius until he went to Tampa Bay and fared just as well as everyone else had) that a manager's impact is rather minimal.

Here's a fantastic article on managers, which is made even better when you look at the manager featured:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...?articleid=166

Goooooooooooooooooooooo

Go Dodgers!