|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 28, 2013 15:21:39 GMT -5
A while back it was pointed out that today's game is lacking in the best of Super Stars. As was mentioned at that time, we didn't yet know who some of the Super Stars of this current decade and beyond would be.
Looking backward, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez and Barry Bonds could be considered among la creme de la creme.
And now we have Miguel Cabrera, Albert Pujols, Clayton Kershaw, Mike Trout and Buster Posey.
Pujols' decline the past three seasons is alarming, but I believe his .321 career average is second only to Babe Ruth among players who have hit as many as his 492 home runs.
We have talked here for perhaps as much as four or five years about the many career records Cabrera had a chance to break, and his .321 average has equalled Pujols' as he moves along at or near a record pace in several areas.
Kershaw's 1.91 road ERA this season is lower than any posted by Sandy Koufax in Sandy's great years, and it is at least 0.40 lower in all but one of Sandy's great campaigns. Even as Clayton is just entering his prime pitching seasons, his ERA after his rookie season is just 2.26.
Trout has had arguably the best combined age 20 and 21 seasons of any player in history. (The Giants' own Mel Ott is probably the only player who could give him a run.)
Posey won the Rookie of the Year Award, two World Series and an MVP award in his first two qualifying seasons, although he has dropped of a bit this season. I believe he was also the first catcher to bat cleanup in a World Series game.
Suddenly the high-level stars are beginning to materialize. And one of them is even a Giant.
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Aug 29, 2013 0:47:48 GMT -5
Listening to some of the other team's announcers and they came up with something somewhat interesting. Eckersly on the Boston game tonight said he thought Dwight Evans should be in the HOF, while Al Leiter on the Yankee game the previous night said he thought Alfonso Soriano deserved a serious look. Your thoughts?
As for your post above, you do realize that five of the players you named either used or have been accused of using PEDs. (Clemens, Bonds, Pujols, Johnson, Pedro).
When Kershaw strikes out 382 hitters in one season, call me.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 29, 2013 9:40:25 GMT -5
Allen -- Listening to some of the other team's announcers and they came up with something somewhat interesting. Eckersly on the Boston game tonight said he thought Dwight Evans should be in the HOF, while Al Leiter on the Yankee game the previous night said he thought Alfonso Soriano deserved a serious look. Your thoughts? Rog -- My own Hall of Fame qualifications are higher than the ones in use by the Hall voters themselves (as a group). So, no, I wouldn't put either in the Hall. As for the standards of today's Hall, I still don't think either qualifies. If you go to near the bottom of each player's record on Baseball-Reference.com, you will see that there are 7 Hall of Fame average measures. Evans doesn't make any of them, and Soriano just makes one and falls far short on the other six. Soriano is still playing, of course, but I would be shocked if he reached any of the six plateaus he falls short on. The guy who is championed -- correctly, I think -- as the best player not in the Hall of Fame who is both eligible and not directly under steroid scrutiny is Tim Raines. Just his nickname of "Rock" should get him in, although he might then be behind Walt (No Neck) Williams. Tim also falls short of the average in each of the 7 categories -- but not by a whole lot. And since those are the AVERAGE for Hall of Famers, Tim would seem to be good enough under the specs used by the Hall. Tim had a .294 average and, more importantly, a .385 OBP. That's very high for a leadoff man. He stole 808 bases while being caught only 146 times, and I believe his 85% success rate is the highest for anyone with over 500 steals. Tim's not good enough to make my tougher Hall, but I think he's plenty good enough to make the Hall as it exists. Going to be tough for players to make it the next several years. The list of those waiting at the door is pretty impressive, so the votes will likely be split quite a bit. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1983&page=1#14441#ixzz2dMraosjH |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 29, 2013 9:48:54 GMT -5
Allen -- As for your post above, you do realize that five of the players you named either used or have been accused of using PEDs. (Clemens, Bonds, Pujols, Johnson, Pedro). Rog -- OK. Allen -- When Kershaw strikes out 382 hitters in one season, call me. Rog -- I guess you're referrring to Sandy Koufax above. My rejoinder? When Sandy Koufax's ERA through his age 25 season is 2.60, call me. Sandy's ERA was actually well over a run higher, although he was about to enter Dodger Stadium and put up five of the top consecutive seasons ever. It's highly unlikey I'll be calling you, and it's impossible that you will be calling me. Through their 25-year-old season, Sandy's LOWEST full-season ERA was 3.52. Kershaw's HIGHEST is 2.91. By the way, I'm not saying Kershaw will be as great as Koufax. But he is off to a nice start. Whether he can sustain it, who knows? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1983&page=1#ixzz2dMxEeTKB |
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Aug 29, 2013 10:36:37 GMT -5
Clayton Kershaw is the best pitcher in the game, and it's not even close. And this is coming from the guy who saw his first two starts and deemed him overrated. I've been wrong a lot, but never as wrong as I was on this one! I saw a pitcher who didn't throw as hard as advertised, and couldn't control his curve. Needless to say, he still threw very hard, and learned to command his curve and everything else. He's about to sign a 7 yr 210 million dollar deal, although the Dodgers are slightly hesitant to go 7 years with a pitcher as they should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Aug 29, 2013 12:34:01 GMT -5
Wow, Rog. We actually agree! I never thought of Dewey as even being close. Good player, but not a HOFer. Soriano's career isn't over yet, and he's pretty likely to get to 500 HRs. Most players who have done that are in, no? For my money though, Soriano isn't a HOFer. For most of his career, I've thought of him as an underachiever.
I also agree with you about Raines. Probably the second best leadoff hitter ever. He had some cocaine issues when he played, (Rumor has it he wouldn't slide on one side because of vials in his back pocket). I don't know if that's affecting him.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 31, 2013 9:34:32 GMT -5
Mark -- Clayton Kershaw is the best pitcher in the game, and it's not even close. And this is coming from the guy who saw his first two starts and deemed him overrated. Rog -- I remember that, Mark. You're rarely wrong, but at the time I wondered why you felt that way. I respect your opinion, so it did provide a little wave for me about a pitcher I had long been fearing. Before you get feeling TOO bad, we were also told this spring we shouldn't be paying attention here to Yasiel Puig, that he hadn't really shown all that much. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1983&page=1#14449#ixzz2dYc081Lo |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Aug 31, 2013 10:38:29 GMT -5
Honestly, at first look at Clayton it would be easy to not be that impressed. It would be easy to doubt that herky-jerky motion, and the fact that he uses a curveball as his out pitch. I'm not sure what my first impression of Clayton was, but I knew pretty early on that at some point he would be able to go head to head with Lincecum and Cain...little did I know he would actually turn out better.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 2, 2013 10:54:47 GMT -5
Boagie -- Honestly, at first look at Clayton it would be easy to not be that impressed. It would be easy to doubt that herky-jerky motion, and the fact that he uses a curveball as his out pitch. I'm not sure what my first impression of Clayton was, but I knew pretty early on that at some point he would be able to go head to head with Lincecum and Cain...little did I know he would actually turn out better. Rog -- Despite Tim Lincecum's struggles of late, there are very few players chosen ahead of him who have turned out better. Kershaw at #7 would be one, and Evan Longoria at #3 would be the other. I'll make this really quick, but both the Dodgers and Rockies contributed to Tim's falling to the Giants. First, the Dodgers were unable to sign Luke Hochevar in 2005, and he became the #1 pick in Tim's draft. Second, the Rays at #3 were expecting the Rockies to draft Longoria #2 and were poised to take Tim at #10. In a way, one could say the #1 and #2 overall picks were what allowed Tim to drop to #10. And that the Dodgers and Rockies were significantly responsible for its happening. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1983&page=1#14495#ixzz2dkcpOPxr |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 2, 2013 11:27:25 GMT -5
Rog -- Despite Tim Lincecum's struggles of late, there are very few players chosen ahead of him who have turned out better. Kershaw at #7 would be one, and Evan Longoria at #3 would be the othe
Boagie: Lincecum has fallen off from what he once was, but up to this point I think you could still make a case for Lincecum being the most influential pick for the 3 different franchises. After all, since that draft Lincecum and the Giants have won two Championships while the other two teams haven't won any. You could also make the argument that Timmy has been more marketable, thus leading to more revenue. Just something to think about when judging the picks up to this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 2, 2013 12:32:16 GMT -5
Rog -- Despite Tim Lincecum's struggles of late, there are very few players chosen ahead of him who have turned out better. Kershaw at #7 would be one, and Evan Longoria at #3 would be the othe Boagie: Lincecum has fallen off from what he once was, but up to this point I think you could still make a case for Lincecum being the most influential pick for the 3 different franchises. After all, since that draft Lincecum and the Giants have won two Championships while the other two teams haven't won any. You could also make the argument that Timmy has been more marketable, thus leading to more revenue. Just something to think about when judging the picks up to this point. Rog -- You make some very good points here, Boagie. I suspect if a team had its choice of the three players, right now it would take Kershaw #1, Longoria #2 and Lincecum #3. In addition to recent performance, Kershaw still has time before becoming a free agent, Longoria is still in his initial, team-friendly contract, whereas Tim is just coming up for free agency. Regarding Tim though, I'm still a little baffled by why someone wouldn't jump on him at 3/$33. What will be intriguing will be what he actually WILL wind up with. I liked the idea that he might sign with the Giants for two years for something like $30 million. If we consider Tim to be a league-average starter (and despite his past two seasons, I don't see he could be considered much less), a 2/$30 contract would usually be considered pretty fair for the acquiring team. That gives them more than a season for sure, yet limits their risk to just two seasons. Being able to sign a league-average 29-year-old pitcher for just two seasons of risk would be considered by most to be a nice investment. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1983&page=1#14537#ixzz2dl0qea1s |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 2, 2013 12:52:01 GMT -5
Those would say that Tim Lincecum is a loser, referring to his won-loss record the past three seasons, might want to consider his last outing, where he turned just one run into a win.
Tim's 8-13 won-loss record this season actually is fairly good for a pitcher whose run support is more than a run less than his ERA. At 3.81, Eric Stults has an ERA that is 0.57 runs lower than Tim's, yet Stultz is only 8-12, or nearly identical to Tim.
Of course, Stults' 3.11 runs of support are one of the few that are worse than Tim's 3.29.
If one wants to look at a pitcher whose won-loss record is truly poor for his run differential, Jeff Samardzija is just 8-11 despite a 4.18 ERA and 3.74 runs of support.
Samardzija has had three runs of support or fewer in 12 starts, while Stults has had three runs of support on 19 occasions, and it has happened to Tim 17 times.
Samardzija's won-loss record is less explained by run differential than any pitcher I can remember. Some of that must be due to his losing no fewer than five games by one run. But whereas Lincecum's and Stults' won-loss records are very much in concert with their ERA's to run support, Samardzija's record is a bit worse than would be expected.
Going into this season, Jeff's won-loss record of 21-22 with a 4.11 ERA was pretty close to what we would expect. And indeed, in his only other season where he started most of his games, Jeff went 9-13 with only 3.23 runs of support.
As the sample size grows, there just aren't many pitchers whose won-loss record is pretty much what would be expected given their ERA and their run support.
An average pitcher with good run support will likely have a wining record. An average pitcher with average run support will usually be right around .500. And an average pitcher with poor run support will likely have a poor record.
You could look it up.
|
|
