# Joe Mauer: AL MVP



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

Just heard the news on KTLK-FM.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 23, 2009)

No Brainer


----------



## Paulie (Nov 23, 2009)

I guess NL is announced tomorrow.

Looks like a toss-up between Fielder and Pujols.  Both their numbers are pretty similar, with Pujols having a higher average and OBP.  Both have good gloves.

I'm almost inclined to think Fielder wins just because it was close enough that it was worth picking someone other than Pujols for once.  But then again, it was obvious at ballot time that St. Louis was going to be in the post season and Milwaukee wasn't.

Pujols probably gets another one 

I can't wait til he's outed on the juice.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 23, 2009)

> I can't wait til he's outed on the juice.



Being around Tony L and now Mark McRoid does make you wonder about Albert.


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 23, 2009)

Paulie said:


> I guess NL is announced tomorrow.
> 
> Looks like a toss-up between Fielder and Pujols.  Both their numbers are pretty similar, with Pujols having a higher average and OBP.  Both have good gloves.
> 
> ...


*"Looks like a toss-up between Fielder and Pujols"*

Judging from this statement, you are either a Brewers fan, or someone who doesn't watch much baseball.

Albert Pujols IS the MVP of the NL. It's a slam-dunk, easy choice.

Albert Pujols 2009: *124 R* ... *47 HR* ... 135 RBI ... *16 SB* ... *115 BB* ... *.327 BA* ... *.443 OBP* ... *.658 SLG* ... *1.101 OPS* ... 2009 *St. Louis Cardinals 91-71, 1st place in NL Central*

Prince Fielder 2009: 103 R ... 46 HR ... *141 RBI *... 2 SB ... 110 BB ... .299 BA ... .412 OBP ... .602 SLG ... 1.014 OPS ... 2009 Milwaukee Brewers 80-82, 3rd place in NL Central

*"Both have good gloves."*

No, that's really NOT the case. Pujols has a GOOD glove. Fielder has a mediocre glove.

Fielder had a great 2009 season. But Pujols was better! 

*"I'm almost inclined to think Fielder wins just because it was close enough that it was worth picking someone other than Pujols for once." *

Yeah, because we should start voting accolades to players, just because we are tired of one player being dominant. Yeah, that makes sense! Every MVP award Pujols has won, he's deserved.

*"I can't wait til he's outed on the juice."*

Sure, Pujols probably has done/is on, some kind of performance enhancing drug. But so are most of the players in major league baseball. As a baseball fan, it's something you have to come to terms with. Performance enhancing drugs and baseball, go hand-in-hand!


----------



## Paulie (Nov 23, 2009)

Slam dunk easy choice???

Those numbers you show are almost identical except for Fielder's lower average and OBP, _which I mentioned_.  And Pujols had more steals.  WOW.

As far as glove, Fielder's percentage this past season actually beat Pujols by .003, Fielder's glove has gotten much better.  He had 7 errors all year, compared to Pujols' 13.  But it's ME who doesn't watch much baseball???  

Sorry buddy, but this year Pujols is not as much of a lock as he has been in years past.  The numbers are close enough that I would be willing to consider Fielder if I was a writer with a vote.  The only thing Pujols had going for him over Fielder that would make the vote go his way was what I also mentioned, that St. Louis was already figured to be making the playoffs and Milwaukee wasn't.  To me, that's more valuable than the individual numbers.  And like I said, it would probably go to Pujols because of that fact alone.  Even with Fielder, the Brewers don't make the playoffs.  But without Pujols, the Cardinals definitely don't.

Funny how you admit he's probably juicing, but somehow still 'deserves' the award though.


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 23, 2009)

Paulie said:


> Slam dunk easy choice???
> 
> Those numbers you show are almost identical except for Fielder's lower average and OBP, _which I mentioned_.  And Pujols had more steals.  WOW.
> 
> ...


"*Those numbers you show are almost identical except for Fielder's lower average and OBP, which I mentioned.  And Pujols had more steals.  WOW."*

Your argument would be valid if it was just one or two categories in which Pujols had better numbers than Fielder in. But the reality is, Pujols has better numbers than Fielder in EVERY category, except RBI's, for which Fielder has 6 more than Pujols.

Oh, and I almost forgot...

Pujols team = 1st place, and made the playoffs

Fielder's team= losing record

Like I said, Albert Pujols IS the MVP of the NL. It's a SLAM-DUNK!

*"As far as glove, Fielder's percentage this past season actually beat Pujols by .003, Fielder's glove has gotten much better.  He had 7 errors all year, compared to Pujols' 13.  But it's ME who doesn't watch much baseball???"*

Wanna spot the out of touch baseball fan in the room? He's the guy who thinks that fielding percentage, and the amount of errors a player has, distinguishes his defensive ability, LOL. Pujols is a much better defensive 1st baseman than Fielder. Even after Fielder's good UZR numbers. Come on man, get it together!

*"Funny how you admit he's probably juicing, but somehow still 'deserves' the award though"*

Although he hasn't been caught yet, I feel like Pujols has done some sort of performance enhancing drug. But so what? Fielder has probably done them too. Players like Fielder, Bonds, Helton, Utley, Tejada, Pujols, ARod,.... I can keep going all day, have all probably done some sort of performance enhancing drug. The majority of players in baseball have done it. Pitchers, hitters, it doesn't matter. It's a game where people have been breaking the rules for over 100 years.


----------



## Xenophon (Nov 23, 2009)

An obvious pick.


----------



## Paulie (Nov 23, 2009)

SenseCommon said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Slam dunk easy choice???
> ...


2 posts in here so far for you, and 2 posts where you've parroted something I already said.  I've said TWICE so far that Pujols would probably get it because the Cardinals were a lock for the playoffs.  WTF?

And since when does fielding percentage and error total not distinguish a player's defensive ability???  Fielder stepped up his defense HUGE this year.  But he doesn't have the body-type of most other 1st basemen so he can't move around with as much agility.  For his size he played a damn good 1st base this year.  If you want to take that away from him, be my guest.  I simply don't agree.

Worth mentioning is that Fielder's UZR was better than Tex's this year, and Tex has never been accused of having a bad glove.  Food for thought, my man.


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 24, 2009)

Paulie said:


> SenseCommon said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


 I love how you've already bailed on the fact that you said it was a "toss-up" between Pujols and Fielder for the NL MVP, LOL.

Pujols wins the NL MVP, by a UNANIMOUS vote. IT WASN'T EVEN CLOSE! 

Oh, and Prince Fielder finished FOURTH in the MVP voting, LOL!

I'm guessing that's the last we hear from you!


----------



## Paulie (Nov 25, 2009)

SenseCommon said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > SenseCommon said:
> ...



I bailed on _nothing_, newbie.

Go back and read my first fucking post you idiot.  The tone of my post eventually lead to me alluding to the fact that it seemed obvious that the vote would lean more towards Pujols, and for the same damn reasons you continued to parrot me on.  Please stop being a retard.

As far as Fielder finishing fourth, ESPECIALLY the fact that he finished after Howard, is beyond me.  But it's not like it's the first time someone was snubbed for votes for an award.

Let's hear again about how UZR is the only determining factor in a player's defensive ability   And then explain how that can possibly be so when Tex's was lower than Fielder's and Tex won the gold glove.

By the way NEWBIE, I'm not a Brewers fan.  I'm a Phillies fan and I STILL think Fielder got snubbed for votes over Howard.  

Put some time in around here before you run your mouth and look like a fucking moron.


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 25, 2009)

Paulie said:


> SenseCommon said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


LOL, I love how you try to use the fact that I'm new to this board, as some sort of insult. LOL, what a nerd! A life doesn't begin once you join a message board, douche!

Wow, you've backpedaled so much, I can barely see anymore! The fact remains, you made the following statement: *"The MVP is a TOSSUP between Pujols and Fielder"* And what happened? Pujols was a UNANIMOUS pick for the MVP award, while Fielder finished FOURTH! LOL, you are an idiot!

UZR isn't the only defensive saber-metric to define a players defensive ability. FRAR, SFR, and WARP, are a few of the others. Only an out of touch baseball fan thinks that something as trivial as fielding percentage, and the amount of errors a player has, distinguishes his defensive ability. I'm sitting here embarrassed at your naivety!


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 25, 2009)

Twins better make sure to throw a lot of money at Mauer....because he will look quite good yankee pinstripes


----------



## Paulie (Nov 25, 2009)

SenseCommon said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > SenseCommon said:
> ...



The fact that you are new to this board is what had you thinking I was a Brewers fan simply because I advocated Fielder.

Fielder had better numbers all around over Howard.  If I was a voter, even though I'm a Phils fan, I would still vote Fielder.  Howard has some things about his game that need improving before he gets consideration for such a prestigious award again.

Why can someone not say it's a PERSONAL toss up, and then in the same breath say that the WRITERS will probably lean towards Pujols?  What is it that you don't seem to fucking understand about that?

Btw, talk about _backpeddling_...don't fucking use UZR as your only justification and then BACKPEDDLE to other stats when you've been shown up on your ignorance of it.

And yeah, you're an uninformed newbie trying to pop shit against someone you don't know well enough to pull such a thing off on.  Call it nerd if you want, but you still look like a fucking idiot.

Go talk about baked goods in the "Food" subforum where you belong.


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 25, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Twins better make sure to throw a lot of money at Mauer....because he will look quite good yankee pinstripes



I thought the Twins were the Yankees farm team. Who HAVEN'T they sold to the Yankees?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 25, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Twins better make sure to throw a lot of money at Mauer....because he will look quite good yankee pinstripes


They may not need to throw as much as you think...Remember guys like Ripken and Puckett?


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 25, 2009)

hes going to want a minimum of 25 a year


----------



## Paulie (Nov 25, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> hes going to want a minimum of 25 a year



No way.  If you guys would be willing to pay him that, be my guest 

A-rod has inflated salaries to a level that are unrealistic, if you ask me.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 25, 2009)

i will be more then happy to give one of the best hitters in baseball who plays the most difficult position that money.

Go ahead and put mauer behind A-rod

Tex-Arod-Mauer


----------



## Paulie (Nov 25, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> i will be more then happy to give one of the best hitters in baseball who plays the most difficult position that money.
> 
> Go ahead and put mauer behind A-rod
> 
> Tex-Arod-Mauer



So you're throwing Posada out like yesterday's trash, huh?  I see how it is 

Do you know how hard it was to come to terms with the loss of Darren Daulton? 

No loyalty with you guys.  Plus you buy your championships


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 25, 2009)

Posada is getting old...he is at the end of his years...Mauer would be the perfect replacement for him.  Not like I am throwing away a posada at his prime


----------



## Paulie (Nov 25, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Posada is getting old...he is at the end of his years...Mauer would be the perfect replacement for him.  Not like I am throwing away a posada at his prime



Don't mind me, I'm drinking for the first time in a month.  just trying to have some fun.

Keep Mauer in the AL, _PLEASE_, lol


----------



## Xenophon (Nov 25, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Posada is getting old...he is at the end of his years...Mauer would be the perfect replacement for him.  Not like I am throwing away a posada at his prime


Cervelli is the heir apparent, Mauer is the one Twin who they will resign in Minny I believe.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 25, 2009)

They didn't let Santana and Hunter get away because they were saving up for a new Schwinn Stingray.


----------



## Xenophon (Nov 25, 2009)

Dude said:


> They didn't let Santana and Hunter get away because they were saving up for a new Schwinn Stingray.


Santana hasn't exactly set the world on fire as a Met.

In fact it looks like the Twins did the right thing trading him instead of paying through the nose for him.


----------



## Paulie (Nov 25, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > They didn't let Santana and Hunter get away because they were saving up for a new Schwinn Stingray.
> ...



The Mets got Santana for one main reason, and that was to shut Philly down.

And they've accomplished that, because he usually DOES shut us down.

Granted, it hasn't gotten them to the post-season, but they had and still HAVE, more issues than just needing a #1 in the rotation.

It doesn't help when half your lineup is banged up at one point or another throughout the season.

I feel all dirty now, making excuses for the Mets


----------



## Xenophon (Nov 25, 2009)

They got Santana to be an ace, his numbers are hardly overwhelming as a Met:

2008 NYM W16 L7 ERA2.53 
2009 NYM W13 L9 ERA3.13


----------



## Paulie (Nov 25, 2009)

you can't tell me part of their motivation wasn't to try and shut down "the team to beat" in their division.

What are his numbers against Philly, just out of curiosity?


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 25, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> > Posada is getting old...he is at the end of his years...Mauer would be the perfect replacement for him.  Not like I am throwing away a posada at his prime
> ...



agreed...hes a native and they are going to throw a lot of money at him with the new stadium coming


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 25, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> They got Santana to be an ace, his numbers are hardly overwhelming as a Met:
> 
> 2008 NYM W16 L7 ERA2.53
> 2009 NYM W13 L9 ERA3.13



2.53 era is pretty sick
and he got hurt in 09

he is still a top 3 pitcher when healthy.

mets actually have a good team on paper when they aren't all on wheelchairs


----------



## Xenophon (Nov 25, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > They got Santana to be an ace, his numbers are hardly overwhelming as a Met:
> ...


The W-L is an issue, and I have been following him because I have him in a keeper league, he isn't the pitcher he was in Minny.

Mets have some serious holes, LF, 1B, Cat and a very weak Starting staff, and that is when they are 100%.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 25, 2009)

ehh i'll argue this all day with you.  The wins and losses aren't his fault.  If he is pitching to a 2.53 era then he isn't getting run support.  Thats not his problem.


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 25, 2009)

Paulie said:


> SenseCommon said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


Let me go over the facts one more time. I'll type slow so you can keep up....

*"Looks like a toss-up between Fielder and Pujols. Both their numbers are pretty similar, with Pujols having a higher average and OBP. Both have good gloves"*

This is what you said. Stop trying to hide from your own ignorance! It's just stupid!

*"Btw, talk about backpeddling...don't fucking use UZR as your only justification and then BACKPEDDLE to other stats when you've been shown up on your ignorance of it."*

Here's the statement you were referring too....

"Wanna spot the out of touch baseball fan in the room? He's the guy who thinks that fielding percentage, and the amount of errors a player has, distinguishes his defensive ability, LOL. Pujols is a much better defensive 1st baseman than Fielder. Even after Fielder's good UZR numbers. Come on man, get it together!"

Where in that statement did I say that UZR was the only justification for a players defensive ability? I simple brought up UZR in passing, as I called you out for your very dated, very naive, baseball knowledge.  Furthermore, Pujols had an obviously better UZR than Fielder. On all accounts, you're just dumb!

Then, when you made this statement...

*"Let's hear again about how UZR is the only determining factor in a player's defensive ability  And then explain how that can possibly be so when Tex's was lower than Fielder's and Tex won the gold glove."*

I replied, giving you more defensive saber-metrics, which judge a players defensive ability. NOBODY uses the amount of errors a player makes, nor his fielding percentage, as a distinguishing factor among players at the same position. It's just stupid! You're the same type of idiot baseball fan, who thinks that the amount of wins a starting pitcher has, is important! 

*"The fact that you are new to this board is what had you thinking I was a Brewers fan simply because I advocated Fielder."*

This is that statement you were referring too....

"Judging from this statement, you are either a Brewers fan, or someone who doesn't watch much baseball."

Now that very clearly states that there are only two reasons for your incredibly stupid initial post. Those reasons are that you're either a Brewers fan, or that you're someone who doesn't watch much baseball. I think I made my point about which one you are!

You've been called out on your lies. You've been called out on your dumb statments. And you've been called out on your backpedaling. Man up, admit that you're an idiot, and make yourself a better person from all this. If not, I will be forced to continually call you out on your idiocity!

Thanks!


----------



## Paulie (Nov 25, 2009)

Their starting staff certainly isn't in need because of Santana though.  When you're relying on guys like Maine, Perez, and Pelfrey, what else do you expect?

And Brian Schneider is another guy who kills the Phillies.  It seems like every time he's up he's getting a hit or knocking someone in.

I agree about 1st though, Delgado is finished.


----------



## Paulie (Nov 25, 2009)

SenseCommon said:


> I will be forced to continually call you out on your *idiocity*!


I'm not even going to comment on any of your other blather than this.

  you fucking moron.


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 25, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...


 Are you seriously judging a starting pitcher, by his W-L record?

Santana has been GREAT with the Mets! He's the same pitcher with the Mets, than he was with Twins.

Are you all baseball retarded?


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 25, 2009)

Paulie said:


> SenseCommon said:
> 
> 
> > I will be forced to continually call you out on your *idiocity*!
> ...


This is what you call "the cowards way out". Instead of focusing on the substance of what was written, you hide behind a mistyped word. Yeah, take the slow, pussy way out. If I wanted to pick apart your grammar, I'd still be correcting words!


----------



## Xenophon (Nov 25, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> ehh i'll argue this all day with you.  The wins and losses aren't his fault.  If he is pitching to a 2.53 era then he isn't getting run support.  Thats not his problem.


Actually they are, and that is wrong with a lot of modern followers of the game.

The ENTIRE point of starters is TO WIN GAMES.

The fact that there are a number of picthers who won on bad teams proves it IS about the pitcher, not the team around him.

If it was 'the team' Tom Seaver would have been just another player, Steve Carlton forgotten, Jake peavy a bum, Randy Johnson a stiff and so on.

Claiming that W-L doesn't matter is bullshit.

We both know the two Cy Youngs this year where wrong, they used 'other criteria' to pass over more deserving pitchers based on new age stats like the laughable 'quality start'.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 25, 2009)

Zack Greinke totally deserved the Cy Young.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 25, 2009)

xeno


it's not the pitchers problem if he is giving up an average of 2 runs per game and isn't getting wins becuase his team isn't giving him the run support


that is idiotic logic.

You can't expect pitchers to throw shut outs every game.  Give Santana run support of 3.5+ and he probably wins over 20 games that year.


----------



## Paulie (Nov 25, 2009)

_Christ...
_
Here we go with this elitist know it all idiot calling EVERYONE out now.

You're out of your league chump.


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 25, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> > ehh i'll argue this all day with you.  The wins and losses aren't his fault.  If he is pitching to a 2.53 era then he isn't getting run support.  Thats not his problem.
> ...


Things like his own teams lack of offense, defense, and a bullpen, cost starting pitchers something as trivial as a win, all the time. 

A win is a team thing. It is NOT a starting pitcher thing!

You are an idiot, LOL!


----------



## Xenophon (Nov 25, 2009)

SenseCommon said:


> Things like his own teams lack of offense, defense, and a bullpen, cost starting pitchers something as trivial as a win, all the time.
> 
> A win is a team thing. It is NOT a starting pitcher thing!
> 
> You are an idiot, LOL!


We are talking about something you don't understand here, its called baseball.

Now go back to playing with your dick, the adults are busy.


----------



## Xenophon (Nov 25, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> xeno
> 
> 
> it's not the pitchers problem if he is giving up an average of 2 runs per game and isn't getting wins becuase his team isn't giving him the run support
> ...


No, its idiot logic to claim 'W-L' is nOT a starter's most important stat, and in fact its HIS JOB to win the game no matter what the team behind him.

There are years when good pitchers suffer from a bad team, but they OVERCOME IT career wise.

If the criteria is now NOT going to be is he a winner, why bother keeping stats at all?

If you suck you won't win no matter how good the rest of the team is, but if you are good you will win no matter what.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 25, 2009)

Tom Seaver started 35 games and managed to win 25 of those starts. Seaver received 148 runs from his offense in those 35 starts: *4.23 *runs per game.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 25, 2009)

of course wins/losses are important...but the pitchers ultimate job is to give up as few runs as possible and to give his team a chance to win the game.

If a pitcher is giving out 2 runs a game on average and only has 16 wins....you can't fault him..

thats his offense not producing for him plain and simple.

I'll take a 15 game winner with a 2.00 era over a 25 game winner with a 4.5 era


Put that 15 game winner on a team that will produce runs and he will be dominant


----------



## Oddball (Nov 25, 2009)

Do I gotta move a sports thread to the Flame Zone?


----------



## Paulie (Nov 25, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> > xeno
> ...



I don't think there's a better example of that these days than Lincecum.

Greinke this past year is certainly another one.


----------



## Paulie (Nov 25, 2009)

Dude said:


> Do I gotta move a sports thread to the Flame Zone?



Please don't.  Just move the idiot newbie out of it that has no idea what the fuck he's talking about


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 25, 2009)

In 2008 the Mets have scored 12 runs in Santana&#8217;s six starts. 2 runs a game. In the three games Santana has not allowed an earned run, the Mets have scored three runs. Three runs. Three games. Like last year, the Mets aren&#8217;t hitting when Santana is throwing up zeros. In the 20 games this year not started by Santana, the Mets have scored 107 runs (5.35 runs per game)


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 25, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> They got Santana to be an ace, *his numbers are hardly overwhelming as a Met:*
> 
> 2008 NYM W16 L7 ERA2.53
> 2009 NYM W13 L9 ERA3.13



You seriously made this statement?


2008: 66 ER in over 234 innings equaling a 2.53 ERA ... 206 hits and 63 BB in over 234 innings equaling a 1.148 WHIP ... 206 K to 63 BB 

2009: Missed 9 starts due to injury ... 58 ER in over 166 innings equaling a 3.13 ERA ... 156 hits and 46 BB in over 166 innings equaling a 1.212 ...  146 K to 46 BB

That's called a top 3 pitcher in baseball!


----------



## Xenophon (Nov 25, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Tom Seaver started 35 games and managed to win 25 of those starts. Seaver received 148 runs from his offense in those 35 starts: *4.23 *runs per game.


Which means if he had an ERA of 4.22 (which we both agree sucks) he would still win.

See what i mean now?


----------



## Xenophon (Nov 25, 2009)

Paulie said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew2382 said:
> ...



Both were bad picks.

The kid in seattle had three more wins and was only .15 higher in ERA then Grinke, he was clearly the winner.

And the two Card pitchers were BOTH better then Tim and didn't get the nod.

A lot of the awards were questionable, like manager of the year in the AL.

Socia wins it when he had no compition in his devision and lost in the playoffs?

Giradi or Gardenhire both did better.

It was like retrads voted this year.


----------



## Paulie (Nov 25, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> In 2008 the Mets have scored 12 runs in Santanas six starts. 2 runs a game. In the three games Santana has not allowed an earned run, the Mets have scored three runs. Three runs. Three games. Like last year, the Mets arent hitting when Santana is throwing up zeros. In the 20 games this year not started by Santana, the Mets have scored 107 runs (5.35 runs per game)



The lineup gets complacent when he's throwing.  It's just psychological bullshit that keeps them from being contenders.

I know full well, I dealt with it as a Phils fan for YEARS.

And you're right about the lineup in a wheel chair.  They didn't have their opening day lineup in tact almost the entire year.  No Delgado, no beltran for a while, No Reyes for a while, no Wright for a while...

I get where you're coming from.  Even still though, he shut us down just about everytime he faced us.

He can get zero run support all year long and if it comes down to the last game of the season and we're playing for the division, if he shuts us down he earned his money for the year.  I still believe he was brought in MAINLY to beat us.


----------



## Paulie (Nov 25, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...



I think those votes are in before the postseason starts though, no?  So how a team fared in the postseason isn't part of consideration for these awards.

But yes, retards DID vote this year.  Fielder finished 4th, behind Ramirez and Howard, and I'm clueless as to how.  I guess it's because I don't know anything about baseball according to the new fish.


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 25, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...


 You do realize that knowledgeable baseball fans think people like you are clueless?

Wins and losses are the last thing that reflects upon a starting pitcher. There are too many variables that can prevent a starting pitcher from attaining a personal win. A starting pitcher does not have control over how his defense plays, how his offense hits, or how his bullpen pitches.

I can't believe this is a real discussion! I feel like I'm teaching 5 year olds the game of baseball.


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 25, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...


 Did you really just bring up the playoffs?


----------



## Xenophon (Nov 25, 2009)

Paulie said:


> I think those votes are in before the postseason starts though, no?  So how a team fared in the postseason isn't part of consideration for these awards.
> 
> But yes, retards DID vote this year.  Fielder finished 4th, behind Ramirez and Howard, and I'm clueless as to how.  I guess it's because I don't know anything about baseball according to the new fish.



In theory its not supposed to include the post season, but they vote AFTER that happens, so human nature can tell us about that.

A lot of people today don't understand the game the way we do, look at the silly fool in this thread calling everyone idoit, he's the kind of moron that believes Joe torre is a hall of fame manager and that modern players don't cheat, they are just 'better.'


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 25, 2009)

The Angels used 14 starting pitchers and played without sluggers Torii Hunter and Vladimir Guerrero for long stretches due to injuries. The team's biggest challenge was moving past the sorrow it felt after Adenhart's death.

I have no problem with him wining MoY

I myself would have chosen Gardenhire.

Girardi shouldn't be in the same discussion as these guys.  Girardi threw the best team on the field day in and day out and got the results that were expected.


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 25, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > I think those votes are in before the postseason starts though, no?  So how a team fared in the postseason isn't part of consideration for these awards.
> ...


Yes, Joe Torre is a hall of fame manager.

Modern players cheat, just like players from the past cheated. Who cares?

Are you really this baseball ignorant?


----------



## Xenophon (Nov 25, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Girardi shouldn't be in the same discussion as these guys.  Girardi threw the best team on the field day in and day out and got the results that were expected.


Not only is that not fair its not true.

Giradi arranged his pitchers so that his bullpen was rested and his three starters would be his ONLY starters all through the playoffs.

It was one of the BEST handling of a staff overall i have seen in years and he deserves full credit for it working.

If money was the issue, the yankees would be chanps every year after beating teh Mets in teh World series, and they have the biggest payrolls.

And remmeber, Torre would have LOST with this Yankee team.


----------



## Paulie (Nov 25, 2009)

SenseCommon said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



Says the guy who thinks Fielder had a 'mediocre' glove this year, while putting up a better UZR than the AL gold glove winner, and posting identical if not better numbers than Adrian Gonzalez in the main fielding categories.

I'd be willing to give you a pass on that ridiculous retarded bullshit if you admitted you fucked up by bringing up UZR as an indicator of Fielder's so-called 'mediocre' glove in the face of Tex's UZR.


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 25, 2009)

Paulie said:


> SenseCommon said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...


I stated that Fielder had a good UZR this season before you did. Go back in the thread moron. You stole that from me.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 25, 2009)

first of all you can't say that Torre isn't a hall of fame manager in one breath and say that wins/losses are the most important stat for a pitcher.

THe most important stat for a manager as well you can argue is wins/losses and Torre has one of the best percentages in baseball

he is for sure a hall  of fame manager

Girardi is a fucking too.

It's not that difficult to rest your pitchers like CC toward the end of the season when you have a comfortable lead in the division.

Girardi is a fucking moron regardless if he won the series.  The Yanks won despite his stupidity because they had the mos talent.


----------



## Paulie (Nov 25, 2009)

SenseCommon said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > SenseCommon said:
> ...



The sheer _IRONY_ of you claiming anything was 'stolen' 

You only said he had a 'better' UZR this season compared to others.  You obviously NEVER took into consideration that his better-than-Tex's UZR made your statement of 'mediocre' look ridiculous.

Just shut the fuck up and quit while you're behind, bitch


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 25, 2009)

Paulie said:


> SenseCommon said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


 You have yet address anything I've ripped you to shreds with. Please, continue to hide!


----------



## Paulie (Nov 25, 2009)

SenseCommon said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > SenseCommon said:
> ...



Ripped me to shreds?  Hey, if nothing else, you're giving me a good laugh.  I'll take what I can get from someone like you.

You made yourself look like a fool.  You're new, it's not too late to save face and move on.  Next week, no one will remember but me.


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 25, 2009)

Paulie said:


> SenseCommon said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


Ahhhh, the ignorance of the retarded, truly is blissss!

You state that the amount of errors, and a players fielding percentage, are what distinguishes him from other defenders.

You state that it was a toss-up between Fielder and Pujols for the NL MVP. Pujols UNANIMOUSLY wins, while Fielder finishes FOURTH.

Then you say that Wins are what distinguished good starting pitchers.

Is this a real debate, or am I just dreaming this non-sense?


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 25, 2009)

Where's your idiot friend Xenophon hiding?

He's stated that Joe Torre isn't a hall of famer...

That Wins are what makes a starting pitcher good....

That Johan Santana has underperformed with the Mets...

That Zack Greinke and Tim Lincecum shouldn't have won the CY Young award for their respective leagues, because they lacked Wins....


----------



## Xenophon (Nov 25, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> first of all you can't say that Torre isn't a hall of fame manager in one breath and say that wins/losses are the most important stat for a pitcher.
> 
> THe most important stat for a manager as well you can argue is wins/losses and Torre has one of the best percentages in baseball
> 
> ...


It still cracks me up how you hate Giradi! 

You know why i say that about Torre, without Zimmer he's nothing.


----------



## Paulie (Nov 25, 2009)

SenseCommon said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > SenseCommon said:
> ...


Since when does how the writers vote really make or break what someone actually deserved?

How many fucking years has there been where someone completely deserving got snubbed for votes?

Do we REALLY have to debate such nonsense?

Pujols deserved the award you fucking douche.  All I was trying to do was state a case for Fielder to be considered.  That the WRITERS didn't agree means jack fucking SHIT to me.

Apparently you've got baseball writer penis envy, because GOD FORBID a fucking WRITER didn't agree 

Go to bed, junior.  It's getting late, even on a non-school night.


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 25, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> > first of all you can't say that Torre isn't a hall of fame manager in one breath and say that wins/losses are the most important stat for a pitcher.
> ...



I'm actually praying that this a a joke. Based from all that you've stated so far, I can see it being a serious statement on your part, however.


----------



## Paulie (Nov 25, 2009)

_ANYWAY..._

Now that the lil one has apparently been put down in his crib...

Congrats on the MVP, Dude.  It's not the WS trophy, but it gets you through an offseason.  It got me through the remainder of '06 with Howard, until pitchers and catchers


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 25, 2009)

Did this thread really take place? It couldn't have, could it? I'm not really debating baseball with two guys who think "Wins" are the most important stat for a starting pitcher, am I? Two guys who think fielding percentage and errors, are important stats in determining good defensive players? Guys that thought the NL MVP was a "toss-up" between Albert Pujols and Prince Fielder? Am I really talking to guys who think Joe Torre isn't a hall of fame manager? Guys that think Zack Greinke and Tim Lincecum, didn't deserve to win the CY Young award for their respective leagues?

Na, none of this could have taken place, could it?


----------



## Paulie (Nov 26, 2009)

Yeah dude, you go ahead and latch onto your new-fangled stats like UZR that come complete with _margins for error_ , and others that have been created in more recent times, probably by players union and agents so that the stats can be used as ammo to negotiate even _more_ inflated salaries for a contract. 

I'll stick with the simple mathematical formula of put outs divided by total chances to come up with a definitive number of how affective a player is at getting outs.  

Do you want to continue latching on to UZR in Fielder's case in light of how that blew up in your face?  

Please do while it's still got humor value.


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 27, 2009)

Paulie, I'm embarrassed at your desperation! I've ripped every silly, naive, uneducated baseball statement you've made in this thread. Any knowledgeable baseball fan will look at the things that've you written in this thread, and laugh. It's embarrassing how out of touch you are with baseball. At least that other idiot, xenophon, realized how dumb he sounded, and shut-up. But you desperately keep trying to go on....

As for your UZR statement, for which you keep trying to hold on to...

You stole Fielder's UZR from me, LOL. I'm the one who first mentioned that Fielder's UZR was good. You don't even know what UZR is. Furthermore, UZR is not the only defensive efficiency measurement. I listed the others that helped judge that.

Your original statement was that "Pujols and Fielder both have good gloves". I told you how mediocre Fielder's glove is, despite having a good UZR this season. Check out Fielder's other defensive sabermetrics, and compare. Besides, Pujols UZR and defensive sabermetrics are much better than Fileder's this season anyway.

As for Teixeira, he did not deserve his gold glove. The voters continue to have trouble handing out the gold glove to deserving players. They just simply give it out to the players they are used to giving it to. Tori Hunter and Derick Jeter, WERE NOT deserving winners this season. Voters just went back to giving it to the same old names. Players like John McDonald and Franklen Gutierez get robbed, because they aren't as good offensively, and aren't as sexy names. Again, Teixeira did NOT deserve the gold glove. He was actually very average defensively this season. It's a shame that the voters can't get the gold gloves right, year after year.

So Paulie, stop embarrassing yourself. Stop being so desperate. You are an out of touch baseball fan, who doesn't know how to qualify the good, and the bad. You are uneducated on the entire subject, and need to take my advice, and stop while you are ahead! Read up, and learn the game!


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 27, 2009)

I will agree that Jeter didn't probably deserve his gold glove but I will say that Tex deserved his.

The scouting report on Teixeira is that of a Gold Glove caliber first baseman, and this incongruence between the numbers and the scouts brings me to my point. I love statistics, and use them liberally when it comes to hitting. However, in regard to defense, they are best used in conjunction with scouting reports, with neither element holding greater weight. Defensive metrics are surprisingly subjective, as they often include judgments made by an official scorer. Because they are a very inexact science, treating them as definitive or significantly better than scouting reports seems a bit silly. To some degree, we have to trust our eyes to properly place Teixeira on the spectrum of defensive ability.

it&#8217;s worth noting that ZR and UZR don&#8217;t capture a 1B&#8217;s ability to scoop bad throws or to chase down foul popups, which are probably worth a few runs.

 I know that Derek Jeter is bad defensively because I can easily observe his lack of range, and the numbers confirm that. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that Brett Gardner is the second coming of Willie Mays given his poor routes to balls, and I think that the defensive metrics probably overrate him a bit. Ultimately, it is important to find some sort of balance between the scouting reports and the metrics. Otherwise, there is no way that you can form an accurate conception of a player&#8217;s defensive ability.


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 27, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> I will agree that Jeter didn't probably deserve his gold glove but I will say that Tex deserved his.
> 
> The scouting report on Teixeira is that of a Gold Glove caliber first baseman, and this incongruence between the numbers and the scouts brings me to my point. I love statistics, and use them liberally when it comes to hitting. However, in regard to defense, they are best used in conjunction with scouting reports, with neither element holding greater weight. Defensive metrics are surprisingly subjective, as they often include judgments made by an official scorer. Because they are a very inexact science, treating them as definitive or significantly better than scouting reports seems a bit silly. To some degree, we have to trust our eyes to properly place Teixeira on the spectrum of defensive ability.
> 
> ...


 You are right, defensive sabermetircs still have plenty of holes. But for now, they are the best way possible to judge a players defense. To rely of scouts or fans opinion would be naive. Because in the end, those scouts, and those fan, are only able to really see one (using our example) first baseman play the entire season. Maybe, at most, they get to see a hand-full of games by another 1B. So a scout, or anyone for that matter, can only have a large sample of one player per position. Nobody is watching every game, of every team.

Tex is solid at 1B, but he's not a gold glover anymore. As dumb as it sounds, and it's a negative reflection on the voters, Tex got the gold glove because of his bat. And Jeter getting the gold glove is a flat out joke. I'll give you credit for admitting that, and not being a homer. Most baseball fans aren't that way!

It's a shame, but it always seems like the wrong guys get the gold glove. Oh well!

What big moves do you think the Yankees have up their sleeve this off-season, Andrew?


----------



## Paulie (Nov 27, 2009)

I love how the voters choose the wrong players for gold gloves, but somehow they apparently always make the RIGHT choices for MVP...right NoCommonSense?

Stole...that's fucking rich, dude.  YOU'RE the idiot who used UZR and got nutted in the face by your own stupid logic.  I didn't even have to DO anything, you dug that hole yourself.

I'll go fucking toe to toe with you on baseball any fucking day of the week, son.  Go finish your cotton candy, sweet heart.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 27, 2009)

I like Matt Holliday.  he's young, above average fielder with an above average arm.

Yankees outfield blows ass as is.

I'd like to see an offer of 90-100 mill over 6 years (15-17  a year) you can throw in incentives with an option.  

I'd like to see him batting behind A-rod giving him some protection...even though his stints in the AL are far from stellar I still like him.  Just my personal opinion.

I don't see the Yanks going after Halladay, apparently Blue Jays want Jesus Montero and Hughes and/or Joba

Not worth it to me for a guy who is reaching the twilight and is going to demand 20 mill+ a year.  Thats the old yankee thinking (2000-08) which got us nothing.

I'd like to see how much money Lackey wants to see thrown his way.

I think the Joba experiment needs to end.  He does not have the arm strength to be a reliable starting pitcher.  He had arm trouble in the minors and is still showing it.  Joba was starting to get back to form towards the end games of hte playoffs coming out of the pen hitting 95-97 a few times on the gun.

I would like to see them work Hughes back into the rotation as a #4 starter preferably. He has the stuff, I don't think anyone questions that...he needs to get his head right and have Joba set it up for Mo to make it a 7/8 inning game.

Damon- Last I heard Boras is asking for Jeter type money for Damon.  Not gonna happen, sorry Johnny.  He wants a big pay day cause he lost millions in a ponzi scheme in texas but he isn't getting 18-20 mill a year.  

I read Yankees are really interested in Aroldis Chapman which from what I read on him, he is an absolute stud.

I don't know where Halladay is going to go.  I don't think the Red Sox are stupid enough to trade Bucholz and Casey kelly for 1 year of Halladay plus a long term deal of 20 mill a year plus.  

Be a bad move long term


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 27, 2009)

paulie said:


> i love how the voters choose the wrong players for gold gloves, but somehow they apparently always make the right choices for mvp...right nocommonsense?
> 
> Stole...that's fucking rich, dude.  You're the idiot who used uzr and got nutted in the face by your own stupid logic.  I didn't even have to do anything, you dug that hole yourself.
> 
> I'll go fucking toe to toe with you on baseball any fucking day of the week, son.  Go finish your cotton candy, sweet heart.



lol


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 27, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> I like Matt Holliday.  he's young, above average fielder with an above average arm.
> 
> Yankees outfield blows ass as is.
> 
> ...


 Yeah, Joba just isn't a starter. Although the closer position is the most overrated position in baseball, the Yanks should look at Joba as Rivera's eventual replacement. 

I can see the Yanks making a strong play at both Lackey and Holliday. My money is on them coming away with one of them, probably Holliday.

Yeah, half of baseball is all over Chapman. He's got a scary arm!

As a Cubs fan, the player I want most it Curtis Granderson. He's a great defensive CF, solid hitter, and still in his prime! Give me Uggla and Granderson, and I'd be a very happy man.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 27, 2009)

i'm gonna disagree and say the closer position isnt over rated
 but vital
look at these past playoffs as the best evidence.

Every closer with the exception of Mo blew a game 

Nathan
Papelbon
Fuentes
Street
Lidge

Knowing the game is over when the 9th comes around is a huge advantage


----------



## Paulie (Nov 27, 2009)

SenseCommon said:


> paulie said:
> 
> 
> > i love how the voters choose the wrong players for gold gloves, but somehow they apparently always make the right choices for mvp...right nocommonsense?
> ...



That's what the fuck I _thought_, pussy


----------



## Xenophon (Nov 27, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> I will agree that Jeter didn't probably deserve his gold glove but I will say that Tex deserved his.
> 
> The scouting report on Teixeira is that of a Gold Glove caliber first baseman, and this incongruence between the numbers and the scouts brings me to my point. I love statistics, and use them liberally when it comes to hitting. However, in regard to defense, they are best used in conjunction with scouting reports, with neither element holding greater weight. Defensive metrics are surprisingly subjective, as they often include judgments made by an official scorer. Because they are a very inexact science, treating them as definitive or significantly better than scouting reports seems a bit silly. To some degree, we have to trust our eyes to properly place Teixeira on the spectrum of defensive ability.
> 
> ...


You believe Jeter lacks range and didn't deserve his gold glove and you call yourself a Yankees fan?

Hah, name a better SS going to his right and throwing from the hole.

You can't, because there is none.

People have been trying to say Jeter lacks range since he came up, yet he remains the best defense SS in the AL, as voted on by the guys that watch the game.


----------



## Xenophon (Nov 27, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> I like Matt Holliday.  he's young, above average fielder with an above average arm.
> 
> Yankees outfield blows ass as is.
> 
> ...


NY isn't going after Holiday or Haliday.

Cashman wants to bring up the kid CF this year, and he's keeping a spot open for Crawford.

Lacky makes a lot of sense for the Yankees, get him and you can keep Jaba where he belongs in the pen, and maybe work Hughes in as the #4 or 5 depending on whether pettit re ups.

Damon will be lucky if he's offered 5 mil by anybody with his rotten glove, look at what happened to Abreau last year, a better hitter and nobody wanted him.

The Red Sox seem to want to dump Burkett so they see Haliday as their new Curt Schilling so I think they will over do it with players.


----------



## Xenophon (Nov 27, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> i'm gonna disagree and say the closer position isnt over rated
> but vital
> look at these past playoffs as the best evidence.
> 
> ...



Since the 70s the closer spot has ben vital to a championship, lack of one cost Atlanta so many possible championships, think of it, 3 HoF starters and they only won the big one once in 14 tries.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 28, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> > I will agree that Jeter didn't probably deserve his gold glove but I will say that Tex deserved his.
> ...




Xeno, you don't know what you are talking about bro.

Yes I am a Yankee fan and quite frankly the most knowledgable Yankee and Baseball fan you know.

Jeter's range is no longer what it used to be and even in his prime it was above average.  His 8 errors are meaningless when his range isn't good...

No one is a bigger Jeter fan then me...I got over 5 grand in memorabilia by him a lone.

(1) Hardly anyone is arguing that Jeter was a lousy fielding shortstop. While he did have a number of weak years at SS, his play improved substantially this year and he would clearly rank in the top half of shortstop in 2009 in the AL based on fielding.

(2) Let's use Andrus as a comparison. Andrus got to 67 more balls (while playing five fewer games) and also had 55 more put-outs. He made 14 more errors. Putting aside the put outs,on 67 chances, Andrus got outs 53 times and had error 14 times. 

(3) We don't know how many ground balls each team gave up but I do know what percentage of hit balls were ground balls. The Yankees had the 9th lowest percentage of ground balls while the Rangers had the 10 lowest -- virtually the same. So chances are Jeter has as many ground balls go through to his area as did Andrus. That means Jeter simply got to 67 fewer ground balls.

(4) Which would you rather have: Andrus getting to 53 of 67 ground balls or Jeter getting to zero of 67? Seems pretty clear, doesn't it?

(5) The UZR (ultimate zone rating) takes into account range AND errors. Andrus was clearly better when both are considered - a UZR of 10.7 v. 6.6.

(6) Ozzie Smith is widely regarded as the best defensive shortstop ever. He averaged more than 20 errors a year per 162 games during the prime of his career. He also got to more balls than anyone else. 

Just because I say that other people may have deserved the gold glove doesn't mean I'm not a Yankee fan...it means I'm not a homer who thinks my team is infalliable like some Yankee fans out there


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 28, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew2382 said:
> ...


 Good points! There's no hope for these guys, Andrew. They haven't caught up to the times with baseball. They are simply out of touch!


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 28, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> i'm gonna disagree and say the closer position isnt over rated
> but vital
> look at these past playoffs as the best evidence.
> 
> ...


 Here's why the closer, and the save stat, are overrated...

Closers, ALL closers, are failed starters. Even the greatest closer of all time, Mariano, was a failed starter. 

Closers, for the most part, only pitch one inning a game. That inning is pitched with a lead of more than one run a lot of the time. The closer also doesn't face the heart of the order half of the time. The setup man may face the 2-3-4 hitter of the opposing teams lineup in the 8th inning, while the closer will face the 5-6-7 hitters. Who really got the job done there? 

So, the closer can have a 3 run lead, pitch one inning(the 9th), face the opposing teams 7-8-9 hitters, and get a save. The stat, and the role, are extremely overrated!

On a season, a closer has an affect over 60 or so innings. That's it. And none of those innings are when his team is trailing. He has the comfort of having a lead. Sure, sometimes a blown save costs a team, but you can't let that be the example.. Errors, lack of hitting, middle relief men, all contribute to losses, yet we don't stress those things, because there isn't a silly stat hung next to them. 

What is the difference between the setup man in the 8th inning, who faces the opposing team up by one, and faces the opposing teams 2-3-4 hitters. And the closer being up by one run, facing the opposing teams weaker 5-6-7 hitters? It happens all the times. Yet it's the same situation!

Don't let the dramatics of a stat fool you. Closers are overrated, and always are failed starters. The closer position is filled by mediocre pitchers all over the league. Finally, the closers impact on a game is minimal, and usually takes place while his team has the lead!


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 28, 2009)

SenseCommon said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> > i'm gonna disagree and say the closer position isnt over rated
> ...



I hear ya and it's a valid argument however the closer also sees the heart of the lineup many times.  

Like I said look at this past post season and see how many games were blown because of a bad closer.

Fuentes gave up a huge home run to A-rod to tie the game in the 9th that the Yankees went on to win.  

Nathan blew a game to A-rod as well that the Yanks went on to win.

Street blew a game

Lidge blew a lead to make a game go into extra innings

Papelbon blew game 3 to let the Angels go and sweep.

Mariano is the only one who not only didn't blow any games/leads but also had more appearances then all the other pitchers.  Mariano recorded 6 out saves, came in the 8th inning with runners on the corners and 1 out and gave up 1 run in the whole postseason. 

That in itself is amazing.  

Baseball has changed from the older days....

Goose Gossage, pitched when relievers actually worked for a living and were called firemen, not closers. Back then, a team's relief ace came to the rescue when needed, regardless of the inning. They didn't need a "save situation." If the alarm bells were ringing, smoke was filling the stadium and mothers were ready to toss their babies from the upper deck, they raced to the mound. No wonder they needed bullpen carts back then -- they were in such a hurry to douse the flames, they should have had Dalmations riding with them. 

In Goose's first season as a closer he recorded at least 10 outs in 17 different games, including three outings of seven innings or more. Yes, seven innings. If a manager tried using a closer for that many innings today, the reliever, his agent, the Players Association and the Teamsters would file an injunction before his 20th pitch.

However, thats the way it is...the game has changed and will always continue to change. 

The reason the closer is important in my opinion is because the shorter you can make the game the more vital it is.

Knowing that if you take a lead into the 8th or 9th inning with a 1-3 run lead and victory is 99.9% assured is a reassuring feeling.  Example...Ask an Angels fan...every time Fuentes is on the mound no lead was big enough, they shit themselves.  Ask the Met fan about Armando Benitez...Like Xeno said ask the Braves fan during their great years in the 90's.  The name Jim Leyritz still strikes fear into their heart.  Ask a Yankee fan if he ever has a bead of sweat with Mo on the mound.  I never do, regardless if he blows the game...he is an anamoly and  can do no wrong in my eyes.  

Also, most closers are "failed starters" but it's also two totally different styles of pitching.  

I like Beane's quote on closer's

""Having lived both sides of it, a closer doesn't seems so important until you don't have one," Beane says. "I know that sounds contradictory but a lot of emotions are tied in with the game. If there's a three-run lead in the ninth and the stats show that you win 97 percent of those games and you're upgrading to only 98 percent with your closer, well, that 1 percent increase is worth it because losing is so painful in that situation." 


Closers may be overrated in the world of numbers and stats...however in today's game when you have a dominant one they are just one of those intangible pieces of success that helps a team to rings


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 28, 2009)

I think in todays game, a bullpen is important. But not a closer specifically.

Is the "pressure" different for the 8th inning setup man who's pitching with a one run lead, and facing the opposing teams 2-3-4 hitters, than it is for a closer pitching in the 9th, facing the opposing teams 5-6-7 hitters, with a one run league? In that scenario, which happens more often, the setup man would deserve a "save". In that case, that's where the "save" took place.

A closer comes into the game, always with a lead, facing hitters who haven't seen his "stuff" all game. 

A starter faces the opposing teams lineup 3, sometimes 4 times a game. Thus, constant adjustments, and baseball strategy is always in motion. 

The number 5 starter on a baseball team, is more important than the closer. The starter is responsible for more innings, has more of an impact on the game, and has to make constant adjustments.

Here are the mediocre pitchers who were closers last season....

Brad Lidge
Mike MacDougal
Jim Johnson
Chad Qualls
Bobby Jenks
Kevin Gregg
Matt Lindstrom
Leo Nunez
Brian Fuentes
Brian Wilson
Matt Capps
Fernando Rodney
David Aardsma
Ryan Franklin

I mean, look at some of these guys career numbers!

Many teams even had their best relievers stay out of the closers role on purpose, because they realize that the most important parts of a game, are in the 7th and 8th inning.....

The Cubs had Carlos Marmol as their setup man, while they left Kevin Gregg as closer..

The Braves used Mike Gonzalez is tougher spots, while they let Soriano close....

The White Sox left Matt Thorton as a setup man, while Bobby Jenks closed....

The Phillies had Ryan Madson pitch the tough spots, while Brad Lidged closed....

The Giants had Jeremy Affeldt pitch in tough spots, while Brian WIlson closed...

Most teams in baseball had setup men who were more valuable than their closers....


----------



## Paulie (Nov 28, 2009)

SenseCommon said:


> The Phillies had Ryan Madson pitch the tough spots, while Brad Lidged closed....



"pitch the tough spots" ??

What the fuck is THAT supposed to mean?  He was simply our 8th inning set-up man when Lidge wasn't hurt and was still the closer.  He filled in the closer role when Lidge was out, and also when Charlie shut Lidge down those last couple weeks at the end of the season.

Stop talking baseball.  PLEASE.


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 29, 2009)

Paulie said:


> SenseCommon said:
> 
> 
> > The Phillies had Ryan Madson pitch the tough spots, while Brad Lidged closed....
> ...


 You're not able to understand this, are you?

My point, which you couldn't understand, was that relievers who pitch in the 7th and 8th inning, are often more valuable than closers. Hence, I stated that Ryan Madson pitched in tougher spots than Brad Lidge, spots that called for him to inherit runners, something closers rarely do,  while Lidge even struggled to handle the easy saves in the 9th. As TERRIBLE as Lidge was all season, why do you think Charlie Manuel left him as the closer? Because Ryan Madson, the teams best reliever, would have been wasted as the closer. By not having Madson as closer, Charlie Could use him in tough jams with runners in scoring positions, or to face the opposing teams 3-4-5 hitters in the 8th. 

Brad Lidge 09': 7.21 ERA ... 1.807 WHIP
Ryan Madson 09': 3.26 ERA ... 1.228 WHIP

The tough spots were reserved for the better, more productive pitcher!

Look Paulie, I'm sorry you are so out of touch with baseball. I really am. I suggest you read some Bill James, and look at baseball from a more intelligent point of view. 

Besides, I'm getting tired of taking you to the shed!


----------



## Paulie (Nov 30, 2009)

SenseCommon said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > SenseCommon said:
> ...


This is bullshit.

You made a list of several closers, and mentioned other relievers in there with them.

on some of the closers, you specifically mentioned a reliever as a "set up man" and then on others you simply said "pitch the tough spots".

Madson was our fucking set-up man all season long, unless he closed for Lidge when Lidge was out hurt, or when Lidge was finally shut down for ineffectiveness.  I watched _AT LEAST_ 100 Phillies games this year and I don't think I saw the kid come out any earlier than the 8th inning in ANY FUCKING ONE OF THEM.  That's called a SET UP MAN.  _PERIOD_.  You want to try to kick knowledge about some other team I don't spend my entire baseball season scrutinizing, be my guest.  But you aren't going to get away with it with the Phillies.

You made an attempt to save yourself from your stupidity again, and it failed.  AGAIN.

I don't even suggest that you READ a book.  I suggest that you simply shut the fuck up about a sport you're trying desperately to pretend you know jack SHIT about.


----------



## SenseCommon (Nov 30, 2009)

Paulie said:


> SenseCommon said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


 Are you really this retarded? You really can't follow my very simple point?

I'm actually sitting here feeling embarrassed for you. I'm watching a man struggle to come to terms with the fact, that he doesn't know the game of baseball. It's sad, really!


----------



## Paulie (Nov 30, 2009)

Dude, when you say "pitch the tough spots" for some, and then say "set up man" for others, the English language dictates that as something called a DISTINCTION.  Or for a layman like yourself, a DISTINGUISHABLE DIFFERENCE.

You can try and back peddle all you want.  You made a moronic statement and were taken to task for it. 

The fact remains that Madson was our set up man in '09.  He established himself in that role most specifically because of how well he did there down the stretch in '08, and his postseason performance thereafter.  If you want to talk about '08, then yes, he played a different role where he "pitched the tough spots".  In '08 there was no clearly defined set up man for us.

Wipe your tears and fucking move on, dummy.


----------



## SenseCommon (Dec 1, 2009)

Paulie said:


> Dude, when you say "pitch the tough spots" for some, and then say "set up man" for others, the English language dictates that as something called a DISTINCTION.  Or for a layman like yourself, a DISTINGUISHABLE DIFFERENCE.
> 
> You can try and back peddle all you want.  You made a moronic statement and were taken to task for it.
> 
> ...


LOL, so you really didn't understand. Wow!

The point dumb-ass, is that setup men pitch in more "tough spots" than closers, most of the time. It was very simple. You are so out of touch, that you think the only tough spots pitched by relievers, are by the closer. That how retarded you are, LOL.

You are officially the most desperate retard on this board.

Let's keep going round-in-round, making you look stupid is getting fun!


----------



## Paulie (Dec 1, 2009)

SenseCommon said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, when you say "pitch the tough spots" for some, and then say "set up man" for others, the English language dictates that as something called a DISTINCTION.  Or for a layman like yourself, a DISTINGUISHABLE DIFFERENCE.
> ...



A set-up man starts the 8th inning off.  A closer starts the 9th inning off.  Either way, the pitcher is opening the inning with no runners on base.  How 'tough' the spot is in either inning depends on who's due up.  But being responsible for getting the last 3 outs of the game with a 2 or 1 run lead is typically a much tougher spot than opening the 8th.  I'm not sure there's a baseball fan alive that would disagree with that, other than YOU apparently.  In fact, Madson himself said this during a postgame on-field interview after closing a game out this season.

You're trying to back peddle out of your stupid ass post about "tough spots'.  Just admit that you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about.

You're obviously getting a set up man EXTREMELY confused with a _specialist_ who more often than not comes into a game with inherited runners.

Everyone knows you're a moron but you.  But that's understandable, being that you're a MORON.


----------



## SenseCommon (Dec 2, 2009)

Paulie said:


> SenseCommon said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


No genius, setup men inherit runners all the time. *All the time*. Closers very rarely do.

Look, I'm beyond feeling bad for you and your simplistic, childish views of baseball. You haven't evolved with the game. Your views are of an older guy who hasn't caught up, and is desperately trying to hold on. 

I feel bad for you. It's not easy dealing with the fact that you are terrible at something, in which you thought you were good at. Denial is a powerful thing, and you are great at it!

Discussing baseball with you is like discussing philosophy with a caveman. You are baseball retarded. I no longer get joy out of beating the shit of you in debates. I seriously feel terrible for you. So, I'm gonna lay off. Because desperation is one of the saddest things in life. I wish you well, and hope logic creeps into your life someday. 

PS: You are seriously one of the dumbest fucks I've ever encountered!


----------



## Paulie (Dec 2, 2009)

SenseCommon said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > SenseCommon said:
> ...



Sorry brotha, but you're not going to win this one.  The only time Madson inherited runners this season was if the starter went into the 8th and then got yanked in the middle of it.  Sometimes it happened, most times it DIDN'T.

We had very few starters take a game into the 8th inning this year until Lee came aboard.  These days, especially in the NL, it's considered a successful start to go 7 innings.  The optimal game plan is 7 innings from your starter, the 8th from your set up man, and then your closer.  This is fucking baseball 101 these days.

But yeah, this discussion is definitely over.  I've grown tired of you.


----------



## Xenophon (Dec 2, 2009)

Paulie said:


> Sorry brotha, but you're not going to win this one.  The only time Madson inherited runners this season was if the starter went into the 8th and then got yanked in the middle of it.  Sometimes it happened, most times it DIDN'T.
> 
> We had very few starters take a game into the 8th inning this year until Lee came aboard.  These days, especially in the NL, it's considered a successful start to go 7 innings.  The optimal game plan is 7 innings from your starter, the 8th from your set up man, and then your closer.  This is fucking baseball 101 these days.
> 
> But yeah, this discussion is definitely over.  I've grown tired of you.


According to modern sports, 6 innings and three runs is a 'quality start'.

Of course that is bullshit, that is a 4.50 ERA, but the new age stat gurus think they know it all, while they know nothing, as this thread shows.


----------

