So my posting of the results of this poll has been pretty delayed, but it looks like it's going to work out because of some more recent events that I can talk about in this post that I wouldn't have been able to talk about had I posted these results on time. Anyway, here are the results from the last poll:
Are Umpires doing a good job for the most part?
Yes 8 (61%)
No 5 (38%)
The majority of you, albeit not an incredibly powerful majority, seem to think umpires are doing a good job for the most part. Part of the reason I posted this was because I was curious to see how much Jim Joyce's mistake would effect people's votes. I'm sure last year's post-season blunders also helped contribute to 38 percent of the voters not thinking the umpires are doing a good job.
Interestingly, ESPN ran a poll of players to see how they felt umpires were doing, and also to see who the players felt the best umpires in the game were. 65 percent of players (which is actually close to the results of this poll) seem to think that the umpires are doing an average job or better. More interestingly, they found that Jim Joyce was the bes tumpire in the major leagues according to the players, and this poll was done after the Galarraga game.
Overall, I have to agree that umpires are doing their job. They do make their share of mistakes, but so do officials in every other sport. Umpires are right the majority of the time, unless they are CB Bucknor, in which case the strike zone seems to change on every pitch.
Showing posts with label poll results. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poll results. Show all posts
Monday, June 14, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Poll Results: Stephen Strasburg
Is Stephen Strasburg over-hyped?
Yes. 7 (70%)
No. 3 (30%)
Who's Stephen Strasburg? 0 (0%)
The majority of you seem to feel that Strasburg is certainly an overhyped player, and you're probably right. With the amount of attention he has received, it would be pretty hard for him not to be overhyped, unless he manages to put up an ERA of like 2.50 for the rest of his career.
However, all signs seem to indicate that Strasburg can definitely be an immediatley serviceable major league pitcher. So far in his minor league career, between the Washington Nationals AA and AAA affiliates, Strasburg has has 10 starts. Over those starts, he has put up a 6-2 record with a 1.43 ERA. What's scary is that his peripherals indicate that his numbers could be even better. Strasburg has put up a .795 WHIP, a 10.7 K/9, and a 2.1 BB/9. Those numbers, especially the WHIP, really indicate that Strasburg is way above the skill level of everyone else in the minor leagues. While it's hard to see him posting numbers even close to that in the major leagues (starting pitchers rarely have a WHIP below 1.00), it really indicates that he is going to be a solid pitcher, even right away. I would not be shocked to see Strasburg, who is rumored to make his first start in the major leagues next week, manages to put up an ERA right around 4.00 and have a K/9 of close to 9. Those numbers may not be overwhelming, but they certainly are for a rookie who was drafted last year.
But yes, Strasburg is likely overhyped. Many people will probably be dissapointed if Strasburg puts up a 4.00 ERA during his first major league season simply because of the amount of hype he has received, and some people may be expecting far too much from him. Hopefully he can find a way to handle that scrutiny, and just let his talent carry him.
Yes. 7 (70%)
No. 3 (30%)
Who's Stephen Strasburg? 0 (0%)
The majority of you seem to feel that Strasburg is certainly an overhyped player, and you're probably right. With the amount of attention he has received, it would be pretty hard for him not to be overhyped, unless he manages to put up an ERA of like 2.50 for the rest of his career.
However, all signs seem to indicate that Strasburg can definitely be an immediatley serviceable major league pitcher. So far in his minor league career, between the Washington Nationals AA and AAA affiliates, Strasburg has has 10 starts. Over those starts, he has put up a 6-2 record with a 1.43 ERA. What's scary is that his peripherals indicate that his numbers could be even better. Strasburg has put up a .795 WHIP, a 10.7 K/9, and a 2.1 BB/9. Those numbers, especially the WHIP, really indicate that Strasburg is way above the skill level of everyone else in the minor leagues. While it's hard to see him posting numbers even close to that in the major leagues (starting pitchers rarely have a WHIP below 1.00), it really indicates that he is going to be a solid pitcher, even right away. I would not be shocked to see Strasburg, who is rumored to make his first start in the major leagues next week, manages to put up an ERA right around 4.00 and have a K/9 of close to 9. Those numbers may not be overwhelming, but they certainly are for a rookie who was drafted last year.
But yes, Strasburg is likely overhyped. Many people will probably be dissapointed if Strasburg puts up a 4.00 ERA during his first major league season simply because of the amount of hype he has received, and some people may be expecting far too much from him. Hopefully he can find a way to handle that scrutiny, and just let his talent carry him.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Poll Results: Salary Cap
Here are the results from this week's poll.. a day late. I got a little distracted by the Roy Oswalt post, apparently.
Should there be a salary cap in baseball?
Yes 7 (63%)
No 3 (27%)
Undecided 1 (9%)
The majority of readers seem to think that a salary cap is necessary, but there is still a fairly sizable minority that seems to think a salary cap shouldn't happen.
This is a hot topic right now because Bud Selig's "special committee" may recommend such a thing, and during the next collective bargaining agreement (after the 2011 season, I believe) it may become an issue. Currently, baseball salaries are the highest of any sport, and that's because it's the only major American sport without a salary cap. Every other sport functions with a salary cap, why can't baseball?
The main reason for that the Major League Baseball Player's Union, which seems to carry considerably more weight than any other player's union in any other sport. As players, the Union obviously wants to insure that players get the most money possible, and really this seems to be their primary concern. The MLB Player's Assocation would have a hard time agreeing to a salary cap.
Would a salary cap help baseball? I think in many ways it would. It's probably the easiest way to bring parity back to the game, and put everyone at the same (or close to the same) level. People would no longer be able to complain about the Yankees and Red Sox "buying championships". All teams would have the same amount of resources to pay their players. The question gets more complicated when you consider whether or not signing bonuses paid to draft picks and international signees, as well as money put into the scouting department, counts towards the salary cap. If those things don't count, the major league teams with deeper pockets would still have an advantage, albeit a smaller one that they have ever had.
Another major question about it is where a cap would be set. Currently, only 8 teams in major league baseball have a payroll over $100 million, meaning 22 teams are already underneath that. One could probably set the salary cap at around 100 million, but there are a lot of teams that can't even afford that (see: Pittsburgh Pirates, Oakland Athletics), that's the reason they don't approach $100 million anyway. Although, it's conceivable that in a world where everyone had to be under a salary cap, GMs would have an easier time asking their managers for money because the over-powering teams in each division would not be as powerful, for the most part. I think a reasonable place to set the salary cap is somewhere in the middle, something like $80million. Only 12 teams in the major leagues seem unable to reach $80 million at this point, and the extremely deep-pocketed teams would be on the same playing field.
Should there be a salary cap in baseball?
Yes 7 (63%)
No 3 (27%)
Undecided 1 (9%)
The majority of readers seem to think that a salary cap is necessary, but there is still a fairly sizable minority that seems to think a salary cap shouldn't happen.
This is a hot topic right now because Bud Selig's "special committee" may recommend such a thing, and during the next collective bargaining agreement (after the 2011 season, I believe) it may become an issue. Currently, baseball salaries are the highest of any sport, and that's because it's the only major American sport without a salary cap. Every other sport functions with a salary cap, why can't baseball?
The main reason for that the Major League Baseball Player's Union, which seems to carry considerably more weight than any other player's union in any other sport. As players, the Union obviously wants to insure that players get the most money possible, and really this seems to be their primary concern. The MLB Player's Assocation would have a hard time agreeing to a salary cap.
Would a salary cap help baseball? I think in many ways it would. It's probably the easiest way to bring parity back to the game, and put everyone at the same (or close to the same) level. People would no longer be able to complain about the Yankees and Red Sox "buying championships". All teams would have the same amount of resources to pay their players. The question gets more complicated when you consider whether or not signing bonuses paid to draft picks and international signees, as well as money put into the scouting department, counts towards the salary cap. If those things don't count, the major league teams with deeper pockets would still have an advantage, albeit a smaller one that they have ever had.
Another major question about it is where a cap would be set. Currently, only 8 teams in major league baseball have a payroll over $100 million, meaning 22 teams are already underneath that. One could probably set the salary cap at around 100 million, but there are a lot of teams that can't even afford that (see: Pittsburgh Pirates, Oakland Athletics), that's the reason they don't approach $100 million anyway. Although, it's conceivable that in a world where everyone had to be under a salary cap, GMs would have an easier time asking their managers for money because the over-powering teams in each division would not be as powerful, for the most part. I think a reasonable place to set the salary cap is somewhere in the middle, something like $80million. Only 12 teams in the major leagues seem unable to reach $80 million at this point, and the extremely deep-pocketed teams would be on the same playing field.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Who is the Best Player in the Major Leagues?
Who do you view as the best position player in the major leagues?
Albert Pujols 9 (56%)
Alex Rodriguez 2 (12%)
Hanley Ramirez 1 (6%)
Miguel Cabrera 1 (6%)
Prince Fielder 0 (0%)
Joe Mauer 3 (18%)
Other (specify in a comment on the blog) 0 (0%)
I did this poll because (obviously) I was curious to see who people thought the best player in the Major Leagues is. The overwhelming numberof votes for Pujols is fairly typical of what I was suspecting, but there are some interesting things that can be found in this poll.
The fact that Joe Mauer received the next highest number of votes (albeit, he was behind by a lot) indicates to me that people really view him as great. Understandably, the man hit .365 last year, which is higher than anything Pujols has ever done, although not by much since Pujols hit .359 in 2003. If Mauer continues to hit around .360 every year with about 30 home runs, like he did last season, it would be much easier to argue for him as the best player in the Major Leagues. The real problem is the fact that he hasn't done this consistently. He bats north of .300 pretty much every year, but he only developed power last year, and hasn't shown that he is going to around 30 home runs again this year. Mauer is undoubtedly the best Catcher in the Major Leagues, though.
I think, as do most of the people who voted on the poll, that Pujols is easily the best player in baseball because of his consistent excellence. At this point, Pujols looks like he is probably the best player of this generation. He is only 30, and looks to be pretty close to a lock for 600 Home Runs with a career batting average over .330. This is something that hasn't been done since the days of Babe Ruth. Just be sure to take in every Pujols at-bat you can, because he's truely remarkable.
Albert Pujols 9 (56%)
Alex Rodriguez 2 (12%)
Hanley Ramirez 1 (6%)
Miguel Cabrera 1 (6%)
Prince Fielder 0 (0%)
Joe Mauer 3 (18%)
Other (specify in a comment on the blog) 0 (0%)
I did this poll because (obviously) I was curious to see who people thought the best player in the Major Leagues is. The overwhelming numberof votes for Pujols is fairly typical of what I was suspecting, but there are some interesting things that can be found in this poll.
The fact that Joe Mauer received the next highest number of votes (albeit, he was behind by a lot) indicates to me that people really view him as great. Understandably, the man hit .365 last year, which is higher than anything Pujols has ever done, although not by much since Pujols hit .359 in 2003. If Mauer continues to hit around .360 every year with about 30 home runs, like he did last season, it would be much easier to argue for him as the best player in the Major Leagues. The real problem is the fact that he hasn't done this consistently. He bats north of .300 pretty much every year, but he only developed power last year, and hasn't shown that he is going to around 30 home runs again this year. Mauer is undoubtedly the best Catcher in the Major Leagues, though.
I think, as do most of the people who voted on the poll, that Pujols is easily the best player in baseball because of his consistent excellence. At this point, Pujols looks like he is probably the best player of this generation. He is only 30, and looks to be pretty close to a lock for 600 Home Runs with a career batting average over .330. This is something that hasn't been done since the days of Babe Ruth. Just be sure to take in every Pujols at-bat you can, because he's truely remarkable.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Slotted Draft Poll Results
Hey everyone, sorry for another kind of weak week of blog posts. Luckily the semester is almost over.
Anyway as has come a pretty regular Monday activity around here, here are the results from last week's poll:
Do you think the MLB should force teams to only pay slotted amounts to draft picks to increase parity?
Yes 8 (61%)
No 5 (38%)
As some of you may know, Bug Selig's Special Committee has had discussions about making it so that teams could not pay over certain amounts for picks in the draft, depending on where they are drafted. It seems that the majority of you, although deifnitely not a strong majority, seem to be interested in this system being implemented. I think I'll list the basic arguments for each system as I see it now.
Arguments for forcing teams to pay slotted amounts:
-Teams with less money will definitely be able to sign high draft picks. The Royals frequently shy away from the players who should really be taken high in the draft because of the amount of money they demand. Sometimes players slip extremely far to big-market teams because of their demands (Clay Buchholz is the first person that comes to mind).
-As is kind of suggested above, big market teams will not have a draft advantage. The draft is intended to award the best players to the teams with the worst records so they can improve over time. The way the system works now, that isn't really happening, especially for teams like the Royals and the Pirates.
Arguments for keeping things the way they are:
-The Tampa Bay Rays and the Florida Marlins. The Rays and Marlins, despite having two of the loewst payrolls in the majors, are perennial contenders as of late, and always seem to manage to grab good players in the draft. This appear in large part to be due to their scouting, since they don't sign too many players for ludicrous amounts of money, they just grab undervalued players who seem to develop really well. Of course, both of these teams are also helped by some brilliant non-draft front office moves (Carlos Pena for the Rays, and Hanley Ramirez for the Marlins).
-Many argue that there is plenty of parity in the game today, especially since even in a big market dominated division like the AL East, there have been three different AL East champions the last three years. This is indicative of things all over the major leagues, as most divisions (with the exception of the AL West) don't seem to be dominated by any one team when looking at the last 10 years or so.
Personally, I'd like to see this plan implemented, because I thinkt he way the draft works is unfair to small market teams, because the deeper pockets of big market teams are making it so they essentially get the players that the smaller-market, perenially losing teams are really supposed to get.
It should be noted that a change like this would have to be implemented after 2011, when a new Collective Bargaining Agreement has to be made with the Player's Union. Should be interesting to see what the Union's resposne is to something like this. It's somethign that means players make less money, so I can see it being a challenge for Selig.
Anyway as has come a pretty regular Monday activity around here, here are the results from last week's poll:
Do you think the MLB should force teams to only pay slotted amounts to draft picks to increase parity?
Yes 8 (61%)
No 5 (38%)
As some of you may know, Bug Selig's Special Committee has had discussions about making it so that teams could not pay over certain amounts for picks in the draft, depending on where they are drafted. It seems that the majority of you, although deifnitely not a strong majority, seem to be interested in this system being implemented. I think I'll list the basic arguments for each system as I see it now.
Arguments for forcing teams to pay slotted amounts:
-Teams with less money will definitely be able to sign high draft picks. The Royals frequently shy away from the players who should really be taken high in the draft because of the amount of money they demand. Sometimes players slip extremely far to big-market teams because of their demands (Clay Buchholz is the first person that comes to mind).
-As is kind of suggested above, big market teams will not have a draft advantage. The draft is intended to award the best players to the teams with the worst records so they can improve over time. The way the system works now, that isn't really happening, especially for teams like the Royals and the Pirates.
Arguments for keeping things the way they are:
-The Tampa Bay Rays and the Florida Marlins. The Rays and Marlins, despite having two of the loewst payrolls in the majors, are perennial contenders as of late, and always seem to manage to grab good players in the draft. This appear in large part to be due to their scouting, since they don't sign too many players for ludicrous amounts of money, they just grab undervalued players who seem to develop really well. Of course, both of these teams are also helped by some brilliant non-draft front office moves (Carlos Pena for the Rays, and Hanley Ramirez for the Marlins).
-Many argue that there is plenty of parity in the game today, especially since even in a big market dominated division like the AL East, there have been three different AL East champions the last three years. This is indicative of things all over the major leagues, as most divisions (with the exception of the AL West) don't seem to be dominated by any one team when looking at the last 10 years or so.
Personally, I'd like to see this plan implemented, because I thinkt he way the draft works is unfair to small market teams, because the deeper pockets of big market teams are making it so they essentially get the players that the smaller-market, perenially losing teams are really supposed to get.
It should be noted that a change like this would have to be implemented after 2011, when a new Collective Bargaining Agreement has to be made with the Player's Union. Should be interesting to see what the Union's resposne is to something like this. It's somethign that means players make less money, so I can see it being a challenge for Selig.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Poll Results: Giant Contracts
Hey everyone, here are last week's poll results:
Which of these giant contracts is the worst?
Alfonso Soriano (8 years, $136 million) - 11 (61%)
Vernon Wells (7 years, $126 million) - 5 (27%)
Barry Zito (7 years, $126 million) - 1 (5%)
They are all so bad, I don't know how to choose. - 1 (5%)
Total votes: 18
Thanks to everyone who voted!
The results for this are very interesting indicate that the vast majority of the people who read my blog think Alfonso Soriano has the worst of these three contracts, which basically means he has the worst contract in baseball. I'm going to do an analysis of what all three of these players have done since signing their massive contracts with their respective teams, and then come to a conclusion of my own.
Note: For anyone not familiar with "slash lines" for stats, they indicate Batting Average/On Base Percentage/Slugging Percentage
1. Alfonso Soriano - Since signing his 8 year, $136 million contract with the Cubs before the 2007 season, Soriano's numbers have essentially been going downward. His first year with the Cubs, in which he managed to hit near .300 with 33 home runs was his best season, and his OBP was pretty terrible that year. He has also become a defensive liability.
Here are Soriano's numbers since he signed his contract before the 2007 season:
.276/.330/.512 with 86 Home Runs and 213 Runs Batted In. He also has 366 Strike Outs and only 122 Walks in that time span.
While Soriano's numbers are not exactly horrible, he is definitely not performing the way someone being paid as much as he is should be. His downward trend in every single offensive category is also alarming. In the first three years of the contract he hit 33 home runs, 29 home runs, and 20 home runs respectively. His average has also dropped from .299, to .280, to .240 last year. He has never had a great deal of patience, and seems to be getting worse at drawing walks as his career progresses. The good news is, as if in response to the poll I posted at the beginning of last week, Soriano had a big week. Maybe he can find some consistency this year and make the Cubs not look as bad for signing him. If Soriano can find a way to get back to how he was with the Yankees and the Nationals, this contract might look a lot better. The chances of that are pretty low though, considering he is 34 years old.
2. Vernon Wells - Since signing his 7 year, $126 million dollar contract before the 2007 season, Wells has really only had one good season (2008, when he hit 20 home runs in 108 games), and it was cut short by injury.
Here are Wells' numbers from 2007-2009:
.268/.321/.440 with 59 Home Runs and 241 RBI.
Wells' numbers are worse than Soriano's in quite literally every way but RBI, and that can be explained by the fact that Soriano was mostly leading off while Wells was mostly hitting in the middle of the order. His ceiling is also not as high as Soriano's, in that Soriano has hit 40 home runs in his career among other impressive feats. Like Soriano, Wells is off to a good start this year, and might finally put all of his talent together. However, as poorly as Wells performed in the first three years of his contract, it is going to be pretty difficult for this to ever look like a good contract.
3. Barry Zito - Since signing his 7 year, $126 million dollar contract before the 2007 season (how crazy was the free agent market that year?!), Zito had what could be characterized as two completely horrible years (2007, 2008) and one rebound year (2009). Like the other two, he is off to a good start this year.
Here are his numbers from 2007-2009:
Zito has gone 31-43 with a 4.56 ERA and only a 6.4 K/9.
There's no denying how horrible those numbers are. The one difference that Zito has from the other two guys on the poll is the fact that he actually had a rebound year last year, while last year was a low point in the careers of both Soriano and Wells. This probably accounts for the fact that Zito's contract only received one vote, despite the fact that he had two horrible seasons in a row before last year. One could even argue that his two horrible seasons were even more horrible that Soriano's and Wells' worst seasons, but it's hard to compare position players and pitchers.
If Zito can carry his momentum into this year (which he has done so far) he could very easily prove his worth to the Giants, and he is also only 32 years old, meaning the possibility is certainly there.
-------------------------------------------
Well, now I have to choose which of these under-achieving athletes with massive contracts actually has the worst contract. After analyzing all of their numbers, I think I have to come to the conclusion that Vernon Wells is the least valuable to his team, especially for the amount of money he is being paid. He has only hit 20 home runs once in the three seasons since signing his contract, where Soriano has done it every year since signing his contract. As stated in the earlier analyses, Wells also has a lower Batting Average, On Base Percentage, and Slugging Percentage in that span. While it's true that Soriano has an additional year on his contract, and $10m more invested in him than Wells, Soriano still seems able to produce more in his down seasons than Wells can.
Zito, while having some horrible years in San Francisco, has still managed to make 100 starts in the span from 2007-2009, meaning he has missed very few starts, and has at least been an innings-eater for his team even when he has underperformed. He also seems to have the most potential to rebound of these three players.
I find it interesting that Wells received as few votes as he did, but I think this is probably due to the amount of his press his giant contract gets when compared to Wells, who plays in a considerably smaller market. And there is also no doubt that Soriano's contract is only slightly less bad than Wells'.
Well, that's it for now. Don't forget to vote on the new poll!
Which of these giant contracts is the worst?
Alfonso Soriano (8 years, $136 million) - 11 (61%)
Vernon Wells (7 years, $126 million) - 5 (27%)
Barry Zito (7 years, $126 million) - 1 (5%)
They are all so bad, I don't know how to choose. - 1 (5%)
Total votes: 18
Thanks to everyone who voted!
The results for this are very interesting indicate that the vast majority of the people who read my blog think Alfonso Soriano has the worst of these three contracts, which basically means he has the worst contract in baseball. I'm going to do an analysis of what all three of these players have done since signing their massive contracts with their respective teams, and then come to a conclusion of my own.
Note: For anyone not familiar with "slash lines" for stats, they indicate Batting Average/On Base Percentage/Slugging Percentage
1. Alfonso Soriano - Since signing his 8 year, $136 million contract with the Cubs before the 2007 season, Soriano's numbers have essentially been going downward. His first year with the Cubs, in which he managed to hit near .300 with 33 home runs was his best season, and his OBP was pretty terrible that year. He has also become a defensive liability.
Here are Soriano's numbers since he signed his contract before the 2007 season:
.276/.330/.512 with 86 Home Runs and 213 Runs Batted In. He also has 366 Strike Outs and only 122 Walks in that time span.
While Soriano's numbers are not exactly horrible, he is definitely not performing the way someone being paid as much as he is should be. His downward trend in every single offensive category is also alarming. In the first three years of the contract he hit 33 home runs, 29 home runs, and 20 home runs respectively. His average has also dropped from .299, to .280, to .240 last year. He has never had a great deal of patience, and seems to be getting worse at drawing walks as his career progresses. The good news is, as if in response to the poll I posted at the beginning of last week, Soriano had a big week. Maybe he can find some consistency this year and make the Cubs not look as bad for signing him. If Soriano can find a way to get back to how he was with the Yankees and the Nationals, this contract might look a lot better. The chances of that are pretty low though, considering he is 34 years old.
2. Vernon Wells - Since signing his 7 year, $126 million dollar contract before the 2007 season, Wells has really only had one good season (2008, when he hit 20 home runs in 108 games), and it was cut short by injury.
Here are Wells' numbers from 2007-2009:
.268/.321/.440 with 59 Home Runs and 241 RBI.
Wells' numbers are worse than Soriano's in quite literally every way but RBI, and that can be explained by the fact that Soriano was mostly leading off while Wells was mostly hitting in the middle of the order. His ceiling is also not as high as Soriano's, in that Soriano has hit 40 home runs in his career among other impressive feats. Like Soriano, Wells is off to a good start this year, and might finally put all of his talent together. However, as poorly as Wells performed in the first three years of his contract, it is going to be pretty difficult for this to ever look like a good contract.
3. Barry Zito - Since signing his 7 year, $126 million dollar contract before the 2007 season (how crazy was the free agent market that year?!), Zito had what could be characterized as two completely horrible years (2007, 2008) and one rebound year (2009). Like the other two, he is off to a good start this year.
Here are his numbers from 2007-2009:
Zito has gone 31-43 with a 4.56 ERA and only a 6.4 K/9.
There's no denying how horrible those numbers are. The one difference that Zito has from the other two guys on the poll is the fact that he actually had a rebound year last year, while last year was a low point in the careers of both Soriano and Wells. This probably accounts for the fact that Zito's contract only received one vote, despite the fact that he had two horrible seasons in a row before last year. One could even argue that his two horrible seasons were even more horrible that Soriano's and Wells' worst seasons, but it's hard to compare position players and pitchers.
If Zito can carry his momentum into this year (which he has done so far) he could very easily prove his worth to the Giants, and he is also only 32 years old, meaning the possibility is certainly there.
-------------------------------------------
Well, now I have to choose which of these under-achieving athletes with massive contracts actually has the worst contract. After analyzing all of their numbers, I think I have to come to the conclusion that Vernon Wells is the least valuable to his team, especially for the amount of money he is being paid. He has only hit 20 home runs once in the three seasons since signing his contract, where Soriano has done it every year since signing his contract. As stated in the earlier analyses, Wells also has a lower Batting Average, On Base Percentage, and Slugging Percentage in that span. While it's true that Soriano has an additional year on his contract, and $10m more invested in him than Wells, Soriano still seems able to produce more in his down seasons than Wells can.
Zito, while having some horrible years in San Francisco, has still managed to make 100 starts in the span from 2007-2009, meaning he has missed very few starts, and has at least been an innings-eater for his team even when he has underperformed. He also seems to have the most potential to rebound of these three players.
I find it interesting that Wells received as few votes as he did, but I think this is probably due to the amount of his press his giant contract gets when compared to Wells, who plays in a considerably smaller market. And there is also no doubt that Soriano's contract is only slightly less bad than Wells'.
Well, that's it for now. Don't forget to vote on the new poll!
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Poll Results and Comments
Hey everyone, sorry for the infrequency of posts last week, my last semester of undergrad is coming to a close and is of course ending with a massive work load, so I haven't had as much free time as I would like to.
But anyway, here are the results from last weeks poll:
If you were a Hall of Fame voter, would peformance-enhancing drug allegations effect your voting "yes" on guys like Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire?
Yes, I wouldn't vote for them. 8 (61%)
No, I would vote for them based on their numbers. 2 (15%)
I am waiting to see how many other players from their generation turn out to be involved with PEDs to make a decision. 3 (23%)
Obviously, the overwhelming sentiment of the readers of this blog is to not let anyone who is associated with PEDs into the Hall of Fame. I can certainly see people's points in regard to this, especially because various things written about the Hall of Fame talk about how the players in it have upheld the integrity of the game. Certainly people who have done things to improve their numbers that were outside of the rules of baseball go against this. The problem is that the monitoring of steroids during that period were pretty horrible, and a lot of people would argue no actual rules were broken, especially those who used androtestosterone, which was not a banned substane according to the MLB.
It's also important to note that the official election rules for the Hall of Fame don't actually say anything regarding players who do something against the rules of baseball, but then again, it also doesn't say anything about certain types of numbers a guy would have to put up to be put into the Hall. Really, it's all just based on what the electors think, and I don't think there will ever be a rule that says guys who have been attatched to steroids can't be elected. If the electors change their mind about steroids (obviously they have a negative view of them right now because McGuire hasn't been able to get into the Hall) as a whole, guys who have been connected to steroids will get in. The only way guys like that can't be voted on for the Hall of Fame is if they are banned from baseball like Joe Jackson or Pete Rose (and Pete Rose is a whole other blog topic).
I was a little shocked to see so few say they would vote for them based on their numbers, although as I said, I certainly understand the sentiment. There are a fairly large number of baseball writers, such as Buster Olney and Peter Gammons, who try and distance themselves as much as possible from any emotional response they feel in looking at a player's career, and vote for them based purely on their numbers. Both of those men have voted for Mark McGuire every year he has been elligble.
I also thinks it reasonable to have voted that you would have to wait to see how many players turn out to be involved with PEDs. It would be pretty debilitating if guys like Derek Jeter and Albert Pujols turned out to be involved with them. And what about guys who are already in, like Cal Ripken, Jr.? I'm not saying I suspect either of these guys have been involved with them, I'd just like to point out that there was also a time where guys like Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez were believed to be rare great players from the era who never used steroids. That all blew up last year.
Anyway, like last week (and it will be like this every week now) a new poll is up, so vote away!
Also, I'll hopefully be better about blog posts this week.
But anyway, here are the results from last weeks poll:
If you were a Hall of Fame voter, would peformance-enhancing drug allegations effect your voting "yes" on guys like Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire?
Yes, I wouldn't vote for them. 8 (61%)
No, I would vote for them based on their numbers. 2 (15%)
I am waiting to see how many other players from their generation turn out to be involved with PEDs to make a decision. 3 (23%)
Obviously, the overwhelming sentiment of the readers of this blog is to not let anyone who is associated with PEDs into the Hall of Fame. I can certainly see people's points in regard to this, especially because various things written about the Hall of Fame talk about how the players in it have upheld the integrity of the game. Certainly people who have done things to improve their numbers that were outside of the rules of baseball go against this. The problem is that the monitoring of steroids during that period were pretty horrible, and a lot of people would argue no actual rules were broken, especially those who used androtestosterone, which was not a banned substane according to the MLB.
It's also important to note that the official election rules for the Hall of Fame don't actually say anything regarding players who do something against the rules of baseball, but then again, it also doesn't say anything about certain types of numbers a guy would have to put up to be put into the Hall. Really, it's all just based on what the electors think, and I don't think there will ever be a rule that says guys who have been attatched to steroids can't be elected. If the electors change their mind about steroids (obviously they have a negative view of them right now because McGuire hasn't been able to get into the Hall) as a whole, guys who have been connected to steroids will get in. The only way guys like that can't be voted on for the Hall of Fame is if they are banned from baseball like Joe Jackson or Pete Rose (and Pete Rose is a whole other blog topic).
I was a little shocked to see so few say they would vote for them based on their numbers, although as I said, I certainly understand the sentiment. There are a fairly large number of baseball writers, such as Buster Olney and Peter Gammons, who try and distance themselves as much as possible from any emotional response they feel in looking at a player's career, and vote for them based purely on their numbers. Both of those men have voted for Mark McGuire every year he has been elligble.
I also thinks it reasonable to have voted that you would have to wait to see how many players turn out to be involved with PEDs. It would be pretty debilitating if guys like Derek Jeter and Albert Pujols turned out to be involved with them. And what about guys who are already in, like Cal Ripken, Jr.? I'm not saying I suspect either of these guys have been involved with them, I'd just like to point out that there was also a time where guys like Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez were believed to be rare great players from the era who never used steroids. That all blew up last year.
Anyway, like last week (and it will be like this every week now) a new poll is up, so vote away!
Also, I'll hopefully be better about blog posts this week.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Poll Results and Some Comments
Hey everyone, I figured I'd post the results of the poll, and comment on the results as well as my feelings about each of the reforms and my opinions on their likelihood.
Poll Question: Which of the potential reforms that Bud Selig's "special committee" is considering would you most like to see?
Reforms to increase the pace of game - 2 (16%)
Removal of the Designated Hitter in the American League - 6 (50%)
Some kind of change to divisional alignment - 3 (25%)
I don't like any of them - 1 (8%)
Obviously we're only going on 12 votes here (heck, I'm glad I have 12 readers, haha), but I still think this is a very interesting poll, especially if it reflects the general public's view of these potential reforms.
As you can clearly see, half of the voters want the DH removed in the American League. This came as kind of a shock to me, because I know a lot of people who love the DH and the extra runs it produces. So I'm not sure if it indicates the majority of my readers are NL fans, or if there are really lots of AL people who want to get rid of the DH. I can see a lot of benefits to the removal of the DH. The managers would have to work more, bench players would serve more of a purpose and see more playing time, and the speed of American League games would increase. From a GM standpoint, I can see them liking it because it creates an even playing field and more symmetry between the leagues, making it easier to predict what a player will do in one league or the other. It would also probably lead to a decrease in average payroll in the American League. I am interested to see if this type of change would have to pass through the Players Association, because if it does, I could see them not wanting it to happen. A lot of players view the DH as a way of creating more longevity in their careers, and the Players Association might agree. I kind of feel like this is the least likely of all the reforms to happen, but that's just my opinion.
In second place (with 25 percent of the vote) was a change to divisional alignment. I am sure there are some readers whose teams get buried underneath other teams in their division, or some readers who feel the fact that the AL West only has 4 teams is unfair. I can see the point of both of these arguments, because a team like the Marlins or the Rays or the Rangers could really benefit from a change in division. I think if any type of change happens, it will probably be a fairly small one, and not the "floating alignment" that has been rumored on and off, just because I can't see that working. One or two teams may move around (kind of like when the Brewers moved in 1994), but I don't think it will be a major move. I think this is kind of likely, but like I said, only in a small-scale form.
In third place (with 16 percent) was improvements to the pace of game. I can understand wanting this to happen, especially because baseball is apparently losing some audience because of the slow pace of game. I think some reforms definitely need to happen, as I made clear in an earlier post of mine, but i also think it will be pretty difficult to institue some of the rules hat would lead to an increase in pace of game. Despite that, I think that this reform is probably the most likely to happen, in part because I think it's a perfect storm of interest. The MLB would be happy to decrease the length of the games because it will increase their ratings, and the fans would obviously be happy if the games got shorter. It would also be a good PR move, since so many people complain about the length of baseball games.
That's all for now. If you haven't noticed, I have also posted a new poll, and will post my comments on the new topic and the results next week, so vote away!
Poll Question: Which of the potential reforms that Bud Selig's "special committee" is considering would you most like to see?
Reforms to increase the pace of game - 2 (16%)
Removal of the Designated Hitter in the American League - 6 (50%)
Some kind of change to divisional alignment - 3 (25%)
I don't like any of them - 1 (8%)
Obviously we're only going on 12 votes here (heck, I'm glad I have 12 readers, haha), but I still think this is a very interesting poll, especially if it reflects the general public's view of these potential reforms.
As you can clearly see, half of the voters want the DH removed in the American League. This came as kind of a shock to me, because I know a lot of people who love the DH and the extra runs it produces. So I'm not sure if it indicates the majority of my readers are NL fans, or if there are really lots of AL people who want to get rid of the DH. I can see a lot of benefits to the removal of the DH. The managers would have to work more, bench players would serve more of a purpose and see more playing time, and the speed of American League games would increase. From a GM standpoint, I can see them liking it because it creates an even playing field and more symmetry between the leagues, making it easier to predict what a player will do in one league or the other. It would also probably lead to a decrease in average payroll in the American League. I am interested to see if this type of change would have to pass through the Players Association, because if it does, I could see them not wanting it to happen. A lot of players view the DH as a way of creating more longevity in their careers, and the Players Association might agree. I kind of feel like this is the least likely of all the reforms to happen, but that's just my opinion.
In second place (with 25 percent of the vote) was a change to divisional alignment. I am sure there are some readers whose teams get buried underneath other teams in their division, or some readers who feel the fact that the AL West only has 4 teams is unfair. I can see the point of both of these arguments, because a team like the Marlins or the Rays or the Rangers could really benefit from a change in division. I think if any type of change happens, it will probably be a fairly small one, and not the "floating alignment" that has been rumored on and off, just because I can't see that working. One or two teams may move around (kind of like when the Brewers moved in 1994), but I don't think it will be a major move. I think this is kind of likely, but like I said, only in a small-scale form.
In third place (with 16 percent) was improvements to the pace of game. I can understand wanting this to happen, especially because baseball is apparently losing some audience because of the slow pace of game. I think some reforms definitely need to happen, as I made clear in an earlier post of mine, but i also think it will be pretty difficult to institue some of the rules hat would lead to an increase in pace of game. Despite that, I think that this reform is probably the most likely to happen, in part because I think it's a perfect storm of interest. The MLB would be happy to decrease the length of the games because it will increase their ratings, and the fans would obviously be happy if the games got shorter. It would also be a good PR move, since so many people complain about the length of baseball games.
That's all for now. If you haven't noticed, I have also posted a new poll, and will post my comments on the new topic and the results next week, so vote away!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)