2009 Baseball Season/Off-Season Discussion

[faldor]

7. Rivera as greatest pitcher ever?  No way.  Closers don't exactly have a short shelf life.  Lee Smith did it for 14 years.  Trevor Hoffman for 15.  John Franco for 14.  Even the non-elite get a good 7-10 years (Bob Wickman, Rod Beck, Tom Henke, Ugueth Urbina). I could go on.  Plus closers 15+ years ago were used much differently than they are now.  In Bobby Thigpen's old record season of 57 saves, he averaged more than an inning per appearance, including nine appearances of 2 innings or more, two of which were three-inning appearances.  Closers these days don't do that; it's considered a heavy workload when a guy like Rivera or Jon Papelsmear goes two innings.  Plus, a lot of closers are one-trick ponies.  Most rely on one to two pitches and just overpower hitters.  If they had to face a lineup two to three times like a starter, they would get shelled in the middle innings.  To me, great pitchers have a wide arsenal that they can choose from and use it effectively.  They keep batters guessing rather than straight-up overpower them.  He'll be a first ballot HOF'er, but I wouldn't say he'll get 100% of the vote.  The HOF has been ridiculously tough on voting in closers in the past, though I'd be surprised at less than 90%.

All those names you mentioned don't come anywhere close to Rivera.  Rivera has been the best closer in the majors for a decade.  Tom Henke, Rod Beck, Lee Smith, Trevor Hoffman.  Those guys may have held their jobs for close to or as many years but none of them were THE BEST CLOSER in the game during their entire careers.  So I think Rivera does deserve mention in the best PITCHER ever conversation. 

[GypsySoul]

everyone have fun at the parade! great day for one too - beautiful Fall Friday.

It was cool how they gave keys to all the behind-the-scenes people too!!! 



Glad to hear you're ok, sandman. 

[tim_m]

7. Rivera as greatest pitcher ever?  No way.  Closers don't exactly have a short shelf life.  Lee Smith did it for 14 years.  Trevor Hoffman for 15.  John Franco for 14.  Even the non-elite get a good 7-10 years (Bob Wickman, Rod Beck, Tom Henke, Ugueth Urbina). I could go on.  Plus closers 15+ years ago were used much differently than they are now.  In Bobby Thigpen's old record season of 57 saves, he averaged more than an inning per appearance, including nine appearances of 2 innings or more, two of which were three-inning appearances.  Closers these days don't do that; it's considered a heavy workload when a guy like Rivera or Jon Papelsmear goes two innings.  Plus, a lot of closers are one-trick ponies.  Most rely on one to two pitches and just overpower hitters.  If they had to face a lineup two to three times like a starter, they would get shelled in the middle innings.  To me, great pitchers have a wide arsenal that they can choose from and use it effectively.  They keep batters guessing rather than straight-up overpower them.  He'll be a first ballot HOF'er, but I wouldn't say he'll get 100% of the vote.  The HOF has been ridiculously tough on voting in closers in the past, though I'd be surprised at less than 90%.

All those names you mentioned don't come anywhere close to Rivera.  Rivera has been the best closer in the majors for a decade.  Tom Henke, Rod Beck, Lee Smith, Trevor Hoffman.  Those guys may have held their jobs for close to or as many years but none of them were THE BEST CLOSER in the game during their entire careers.  So I think Rivera does deserve mention in the best PITCHER ever conversation. 

And none of them have done what he's done when it matters most, October. You look at his postseason stats and have to think is this guy human?

[Mal Brossard]

I'll take 7 innings of Greg Maddux every five games over one inning of Rivera in games where the team is winning every and any time.

[tim_m]

I'll take 7 innings of Greg Maddux every five games over one inning of Rivera in games where the team is winning every and any time.

Maddux is a starter though you can't compare them.

[Mal Brossard]

But yet, someone can crown Rivera the best pitcher ever?

[faldor]

I'll take 7 innings of Greg Maddux every five games over one inning of Rivera in games where the team is winning every and any time.

Maddux is a starter though you can't compare them.

Oh you can compare them though, and I'll continue to say I'd take Rivera over any starting pitcher any day of the week.  Not to bring up the fact that Greg Maddux sucked in the post-season.  Rivera has been and will continue to be a constant reliable source.  You can't downplay the importance of a closer.  So many teams blow games because they have bad bullpens/unreliable closers.  Not the Yankees.  I HATE the Yankees, but I would love to have a guy like Rivera on my team for 10+ years.  You can take all the Lee Smith's, Dan Quisenberry's, Jeff Rierdon's, and Rick Aguilera's you want.  None of them come close to Rivera.

[Mal Brossard]

The "closer" as they're used now is such an overrated position.  Why save a pitcher to work the 9th inning if a better spot to use him would be to shut down a bases loaded, no out situation in the 6th?

I'd agree that if I could have any pitcher to go for just one batter, or even one inning, I'd probably take Rivera, but there's a lot more to being a great pitcher than just one batter, one inning, or even one trip through a lineup.

[tim_m]

I'll take 7 innings of Greg Maddux every five games over one inning of Rivera in games where the team is winning every and any time.

Maddux is a starter though you can't compare them.

Oh you can compare them though, and I'll continue to say I'd take Rivera over any starting pitcher any day of the week.  Not to bring up the fact that Greg Maddux sucked in the post-season.  Rivera has been and will continue to be a constant reliable source.  You can't downplay the importance of a closer.  So many teams blow games because they have bad bullpens/unreliable closers.  Not the Yankees.  I HATE the Yankees, but I would love to have a guy like Rivera on my team for 10+ years.  You can take all the Lee Smith's, Dan Quisenberry's, Jeff Rierdon's, and Rick Aguilera's you want.  None of them come close to Rivera.

You're right and that was proven true this postseason. There were 8 teams with 8 closers. 7 of the 8 teams closers faltered at one point or another. Can you guess which one didn't even with pitching the entire world series with bruised ribs? 

[pilferk]

The only reason I can think of for not talking to Manuel is... well... have you heard the guy talk?  He's not quite to Grady Little level, but he is exactly whatever the opposite of eloquent is.

I read somewhere (and now I'll have to try to hunt it down) that Charlie refused to talk between innings this WS.  Don't know if it's true...but I'd be surprised if Fox didn't offer his a chance, too.

[pilferk]

I give credit where it is due. A Rod redeemed himself but to say he wasn't a choker before this is being untruthful and an apologist.

he answered the critics and did what he SHOULD do. So he doesn't get tons of credit for doing what he gets 28 million a year to do.

Really?

D..what were his career numbers prior to this post season?

You continue to spout the media line, rather than actually looking at his NUMBERS. 

He had a bad stretch, yes.  Now he's had a good one.  It's the ultimate display of the "law of averages", something baseball fans know all about.

[pilferk]

He did what he "should do" before, hitting .300 and OPS'ing over .800 in over half of his previous playoff series.  He went above and beyond in the ALDS and ALCS this year before falling silent in the WS.

A-Rod got the team to the WS.  It was the rest of the Yankees that won it.

MMMM, not exactly 100% true.  Or, rather, it doesn't tell the full story.

A-rod had a bad first 2 games (0-8, 6k's), for sure.

The Yanks went 1-1.

He had a very good next 4 games (5-12 with an OB% > .600, 6 RBI,  3 doubles and 1 HR...and only 2 more k's). 

The Yanks went 3-1 over that 4 game stretch.

He was overshadowed, for sure, by Matsui's amazing stretch and some of Damon's moments.  But to say he "fell silent" might be overstating, a bit.

[pilferk]

Still am disgusted how McGwire and Bonds are disgraced from the game but Pettite and A Roid are celebrated.

Difference is:

They admitted it, took their lumps, and moved on. 

They were wrong...sure thing.  They cheated...also a sure thing.

But like I tell my kids:  You tell me the truth, you're going to get in a LOT less trouble, in the long run, than if you try to hide it, or lie to me about it.  I think a LOT of people feel the same way.  Don't like what they've done, for sure...but are willing to be more forgiving when they admit it.

I'm more "concerned" with people like Bonds and Clemens and Manny (who's never really been honest about his positive test) and Ortiz and Sosa and Big Mark mostly because they HAVEN'T been open/honest about things.  Truth be told, though...its tough to muster much genuine outrage over ANYONE, anymore.  Disdain, maybe....but given how prevelant we know it was, and how much we hear about it constantly....outrage takes too much effort.

[pilferk]

as for the spending issue, it's true, the yankees bought this title. it's as black and white as it gets. but that doesn't mean it counts any less. that's the system MLB chooses to live by. you almost have to be a full-blown Republican to cheer for the yankees - they are as Republican as it gets.

and i include the phils in that. since they got a new stadium and have had success, they are spending more and more. it's satisfying to know that we won a title with our core nucleus that came up through our system (Hamels, Myers, Howard, Utley, Rollins). that is how you build truly great teams (much like the yankees 10 years ago). but now we have turned into one of those big spenders.

Really look at the Yanks, though:

Pettite, Jeter, Mariano, Posada, Cano, Melky, Joba, Hughes, Robertson, Gardner.....all home grown talent.  At any given time...that's potentially 5 of the 9 guys out there...4 of the 9 in the lineup basically every day. 

The Yanks pay a good chunk of change to those folks, to KEEP them.  So keep that in mind when looking at the Yanks Payroll.

The Yanks bought a front half of the rotation this year...and that helped tremendously.   But again, I think "bought and payed for" is the way people use to minimize the Yanks win, rather than simply acknowledging they were the best team.  It smacks of sour grapes...and you certainly didn't hear the complaints the past years when the Yanks were NOT winning the World series (but still led the league in payroll).   I think a good deal of the sentiment stems from "the Yankee Effect" rather than any real objective evaluation. 

There are many formulas for success.  100% tapping the free agent market, 100% home grown, and some mixture of the two (which actually seems to be the most successful).  It's hard to argue that, so long as you're putting talented players out there from somewhere, one gains you a marked advantage over all but the LOWLIEST of spenders (who, FYI, get plenty of revenue sharing and luxury tax proceeds to increase their payroll if they should choose to.  But the owner's don't...they pocket it, instead). 

Do the Yanks run up the prices on good players?  Absolutely.  Guilty as charged...and the Yanks have been a victim of their own market pricing in recent years, too.  They have often not gotten good value from their signings.  But that's just the point in all this:  Simply paying a high priced player a lot of money doesn't instantly ensure they'll actually be worth their contract.  THIS year, the Yanks got pretty good value from their $$.  But in years past, they haven't (Brown, Giambi, Pavano).  So what, exactly, is the complaint? 

I just don't see it.

[pilferk]

A-Rod's effort at coming clean over steroids was exposed as a lie as well-- remember how he said he only used as a member of the Rangers, then it was exposed that he did it as a Yankee and while in high school?  Admitting to 10% of something isn't exactly coming clean.

Not true. Unsubstantiated CLAIMS were made to that effect in Robert's book. ONE "unnamed friend of a friend of a coach's friend" claimed a coach said that Arod used in High School.  The coach patently denied EVER saying any such thing.  Offered to take a polygraph to that effect.  The claims were also denied by a bunch of his high school team mates (some of which are current pros), other coaches, etc. The Yankee claims were also denied (and proved factually incorrect) by a STRING of passed tests while on the Yanks AND denial's by OTHER team mates.  Remember, those claims came from ONE former unnamed team mate.  And everyone has a pretty good guess as to who that was....and the guy was pretty disgruntled when he left NYC (and is a suspected user, himself).

Not EVERYTHING Selena Roberts wrote was true.  A LOT of what was in there was a salacious hatchet job to fill pages and sell books.  That's not just MY opinion...but the opinion of some pretty objective reviews of her book. 

Remember, just because you "heard" something, doesn't make it true.  There WERE issues with A-rod's "confession", right from the get go.  But the two things you mention were complete and utter crap.  Take issue with his "young and stupid" bent.  Take issue with his lack of recall when it came to some of the finer details.  Both valid (and not the only) criticisms.  But at least stick to the ones that haven't been proven to be patently untrue.

I also have my questions as to how truthful Pettitte is about his use, and really about any player's use, whether admitted, exposed, or even just suspected.  Steroids in baseball are, in my mind at least, a guilty until proven innocent proposition.  The use was far too widespread for anyone to say anyone is 100% clean.  But still, McGwire, Clemens, Sosa, Bonds, and Palmeiro are the worst in the whole group.  Bonds would have been a hall of famer without them, the rest all are questionable at best.

If you take that bent, then everyone in the league is guilty.  Period.  Because, like you said, it was so prevelent you have no way of knowing one way or the other and EVERYONE could be said to be suspected.  Which means everyone on your favorite team, my favorite team, etc.  If that's the road you're going down...it would be tough to condemn anyone, wouldn't it?  Unless you're ready to give up baseball, completely.

[Mal Brossard]

If the claims are so far-fetched and unsubstantiated, why no claims of libel against Roberts or slander against those she quoted?

A LOT of what was in there was a salacious hatchet job to fill pages and sell books.  That's not just MY opinion...but the opinion of some pretty objective reviews of her book.

People said the same thing about Jose Canseco and his book at one point too.

Which means everyone on your favorite team, my favorite team, etc.

And I accept that.  Travis Hafner was probably on something when he was pounding the bell in the mid 00's, then off whatever it was when he started swinging like a gimp the past few years.  The entire mid-to-late 90's Indians playoff stretch was likely powered by PED's (Matt Williams, Juan Gonzalez, Manny Ramirez, David Justice, David Segui, and David Bell each were on those teams and proven as users, either via admission, positive test, or other proven accusation; Jim Thome, Albert Belle, Eddie Murray, Carlos Baerga, Sandy Alomar Jr., Brian Giles, Jeromy Burnitz, Julio Franco, Jeff Kent, Richie Sexson, Omar Vizquel, Kevin Mitchell, Chad Curtis, John Smiley, Geronimo Berroa, Cecil Fielder, Wil Cordero... none would shock me if they admitted to, or were accused of, using PED's.  And that's just hitters (aside from Smiley).).

[Falcon]

A couple thoughts..

Unfortunately for ARod, perception will probably always outweigh reality.  A great player with a less than great reputation.  Justified or not, he's (generally speaking)just not "well liked" so to speak which has obviously magnified his prior missteps - PED's, post season woes, etc.  I think his play in this years post season helps his cause to a degree but I'm not sure if it's "enough" to change opinion widerange/long term. 

Personally speaking,  I never once this post season (hell, throughout his entire career for that matter) thought "Uh oh, ARod's up!"  Though his numbers speak for themselves, I just don't think he's ever had a "strike the fear of God in you" MO - people still think they can get him out in most game changing situations. 

It'll be interesting to see if his great playoff run this year will change the way he's pitched (and perceived) in the future.

On a much "lighter" note, has anyone else caught Sammy Sosa's latest??

If not, here ya go..



http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2009/11/08/sammy-sosas-skin-just-rejuvenation/?icid=main

[pilferk]

If the claims are so far-fetched and unsubstantiated, why no claims of libel against Roberts or slander against those she quoted?

Because it would be futile to do so.  She's a reporter.  She's going to protect her sources.  You can't sue HER, since she had a source.  You can't sue the source, because you'll never find out exactly who they were.  Then you have to prove intent.  With the high school source, who was simply relaying what they understood of a string of hearsay..that would be impossible.  In the case of the Yanees source, you might have a better chance.  But all they'd have to do is say something like "Oops, I was wrong...I misunderstood what I'd seen" and the case would be over.   

On top of all that, you have to prove damages.  Given A-rods admission, it would be hard to quantify how much MORE damaging these new accusations were to his reputation....again, especially since they were pretty quickly called into question.  No...lawsuits would be completely and utterly useless.

The rest of the media, however, did the digging right after the book came out.  And every shred of evidence points to the fact that the single sources cited, in each case, were wrong.  One (the high school source) was spreading hearsay that they seem to have come by 3rd or 4th hand (at best).   The supposed ORIGINAL person (one of A-rod's coaches) who allegedly said it flatly denies it was EVER said, and that there was never any sign A-rod was using...and A-rod's other team mates all deny there was any evidence of PED use, as well.  The other (the Yankee source) is suspected to have a real issue with A-rod in the club house, and an axe to grind with the team to boot.  In addition, NO other source has ever corroborated that person, and many have come forward to refute it.  Simple as that. 

People said the same thing about Jose Canseco and his book at one point too.

See, that's pretty much irrelevant.  They're two completely unrelated things, other than they both have covers and pages.  It's like saying that since Us Weekly is right then so must be the National Enquirer.   And that's not the case.

Second, there is a fundamental difference between Canseco writing about the things he saw and experienced first hand and Selena Roberts writing about things she has zero first hand knowledge of, and shaky sourcing on.  In fact, if you read the book...she writes pieces of it almost as if she's omnicient.  She actually writes the book like she's inside A-rod's head and narrates his thought process.  That's utterly absurd, not to mention impossible.  She can't possibly know any of it.  She can speculate..but it's not written as opinion.  It's written as a narrative....more like a work of fiction, or an autobiography, rather than a piece of investigative journalism or even biography.

And last, by your logic...Roberts must also have been right about her reporting on the Duke LaCrosse story.  Remember, she broke that one, too.   And we know how that played out.

Look, if you want to believe the tabloid style hatchet job she did on A-rod...that's certainly your perogative.  But if you look around you'll find a NUMBER of unbiased reviews of the book out there that call her credibility, her narrative style, her facts, and almost everything OTHER than the Mitchell report account into question.  Basically, the general concensus is she had ONE good piece of info, and built the rest to fill pages.  And while Jose's claims later proved to be true, after investigation...so far Robert's claims have gone the other way.

I'm not going to sit here and say A-rod is a choir boy.  He's not.  But there is far more evidence that Roberts claims were untrue than there is that they were true.

In journalism, single unnamed sources, without any sort of other corroboration, is crappy journalism.  Plain and simple.

And I accept that.  Travis Hafner was probably on something when he was pounding the bell in the mid 00's, then off whatever it was when he started swinging like a gimp the past few years.  The entire mid-to-late 90's Indians playoff stretch was likely powered by PED's (Matt Williams, Juan Gonzalez, Manny Ramirez, David Justice, David Segui, and David Bell each were on those teams and proven as users, either via admission, positive test, or other proven accusation; Jim Thome, Albert Belle, Eddie Murray, Carlos Baerga, Sandy Alomar Jr., Brian Giles, Jeromy Burnitz, Julio Franco, Jeff Kent, Richie Sexson, Omar Vizquel, Kevin Mitchell, Chad Curtis, John Smiley, Geronimo Berroa, Cecil Fielder, Wil Cordero... none would shock me if they admitted to, or were accused of, using PED's.  And that's just hitters (aside from Smiley).).

You forgot Gary Sheffield.

You may now connect the dots as necessary.

[pilferk]

A couple thoughts..

Unfortunately for ARod, perception will probably always outweigh reality.  A great player with a less than great reputation.  Justified or not, he's (generally speaking)just not "well liked" so to speak which has obviously magnified his prior missteps - PED's, post season woes, etc.  I think his play in this years post season helps his cause to a degree but I'm not sure if it's "enough" to change opinion widerange/long term. 

Because he's a dick, plain and simple.  He's been LESS of a sanctimonious dick this year...but a dick he is.  He's not very personable, he comes across as very fake (this year, again, was better) and his personal life is more than a little bit odd.  He's just not likeable, like Jeter is.  And I don't think he ever will be.

I'm OK with that, and I realize that's a lot of the reason why people kick the guy around.  I don't expect my ball players to be stellar human beings who I want to go have dinner with or hang out with.  I don't need them to be idols or be role models (I'm with Barkley on that one).  I just need them to hit the damn ball, play by the rules of the game, and do their job.

A-rod has done that, more or less.  The cheating with PED's bothers me, but I'm willing to "forgive" a bit and give him a 2nd chance..since he (relatively) came clean about it. 

Personally speaking,  I never once this post season (hell, throughout his entire career for that matter) thought "Uh oh, ARod's up!"  Though his numbers speak for themselves, I just don't think he's ever had a "strike the fear of God in you" MO - people still think they can get him out in most game changing situations. 

YOU might not have, but the Twins and the Angels certainly did.  They were walking the guy in spots reserved for people like Bonds.  2 outs, nobody on...and you intentionally walk the guy?  That's reserved for "baseball royalty" level players...and that's what happend a couple times this post season.

I think the Phillies felt like you did...and got burned a couple times by it.  Those first two games seemed to lull them into thinking A-rod had cooled off and wasn't going to come up in big spots.  Look at the results.

It'll be interesting to see if his great playoff run this year will change the way he's pitched (and perceived) in the future.

I think he'll have to perform the same way for a bit longer for it to carry forward.  If he starts '10 off super hot....you might start seeing that kind of treatment going forward.  It's tough to sustain the kind of numbers he put up in the post, though....those are CRAZY numbers.

[Mal Brossard]

You forgot Gary Sheffield.

You may now connect the dots as necessary.

Kind of hard to forget Sheffield from that list when he never played for the late 90's/early 00's Indians that I was naming off.