2012 MLB Season

[GFB]

My only real issue with SABR stats is that some people think those stats are all you need to assess a player. The truth is, you can't learn all there is to know about baseball from books and a stat sheet. If it were that simple, we'd all be GMs. Old fashioned and antiquated as it may seem, some of us still use our eyes to watch baseball. And my eyes tell me that Omar Vizquel is a HOF player. Screw top 20 whatever, screw "individual dominance" etc. The guy was hands down the best defensive SS of his era. And he could hit a little too. As Tank said, if Luis Aparicio is a HOFer, then Omar Vizquel has to be.

Where does Alan Trammell fall in your eye test in comparison to Visquel? Many Tigers' fans feel that he is the biggest SS snub from the HoF... I never saw him play, so I can't comment one way or the other.

[Billy B]

I didn't know this earlier, but I just read that teams in the wild card game get to set their 25 man roster for that game only then can reset it for the rest of the playoffs if they win. There was a pretty good Wall Street Journal article about some interesting things managers can do with that flexibility. Can't link to it right now because I'm in phone, but it's an interesting, quick read.

[infrared41]

Where does Alan Trammell fall in your eye test in comparison to Visquel? Many Tigers' fans feel that he is the biggest SS snub from the HoF... I never saw him play, so I can't comment one way or the other.

That's a tough one. Alan Trammell is one of my favorite players ever. I had the good fortune to live just down the road in Toledo during most of his career. I went to more Tigers games than I can remember (including game five of the 1984 World Series.)

Trammell had pretty much the same career as Barry Larkin. In my book, Larkin was a tad better than Trammell but not so much better that Trammell shouldn't be considered for the HOF. On paper, they were pretty much the same player. So to answer your question; at first glance, I'd say that Trammell falls just short of the HOF. But when you compare him to Barry Larkin, Tram certainly deserves another look.

Again, I had the good fortune to see most of Trammell's career up close. As much as I liked him as a player, he just never struck me as a hall of famer. In my opinion, he's one of those players that you could argue either way. It's easy to make a case for him. But...my opinion has always been that if you have to make a case for a player, he probably doesn't deserve to be inducted. It pains me to say it, but I think he falls just short. Then again, if he does get voted in, you won't hear me complaining about it.

It wouldn't take much to convince me to vote him in. How about it, pmoehrin?

[Epiphanic]

My only real issue with SABR stats is that some people think those stats are all you need to assess a player. The truth is, you can't learn all there is to know about baseball from books and a stat sheet. If it were that simple, we'd all be GMs. Old fashioned and antiquated as it may seem, some of us still use our eyes to watch baseball.

I can see how the existence of advanced metrics make it seem that we can have baseball played by computer simulations in a cesium vacuum, but that's not the point. The classic methods of player evaluations, our eyes, triple crown stats, have their flaws. That isn't to say that sabermetric stats are perfect. Far from it. They are created by people that are trying to dig deeper into the nuances of the game. They're just more tools to evaluate players. It doesn't mean that the old ways are obsolete (nerds in their mothers' basements still love watching web gems), it just means we have an opportunity for greater understanding on facets that aren't as easily quantifiable.

[pmoehrin]

I didn't know this earlier, but I just read that teams in the wild card game get to set their 25 man roster for that game only then can reset it for the rest of the playoffs if they win. There was a pretty good Wall Street Journal article about some interesting things managers can do with that flexibility. Can't link to it right now because I'm in phone, but it's an interesting, quick read.

Pretty sure this is it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443768804578034760959252372.html

The two most intriguing points to me are #3 and #1. If I was a manager I would look into carrying one guy on the 40-man roster just as a pinch runner, bring him up August 30th if I had a chance at the playoffs and then use him on the 25 man roster in the postseason.

I wouldn't do what Oakland did with Herb Washington back in '74 which was have a pinch runner on the 25 man roster all year, because I would want that 25th roster spot for the regular season. But for the playoffs, where you only need a 4 man rotation, and you don't need as much bench depth because your starters are going out there almost every game say for a lefty/righty or defensive platoon, yeah I would at least look into doing it, and a little teams haven't done so more often. I highly doubt a situation would even come up where you could use a pinch runner, but the one game it does happen may very well be a game seven. I'm sure the Red Sox were happy to have Dave Roberts on the ALCS roster back in '04.

In terms of starting your closers depends on how the team is built as is the case with any strategy, but if I were Baltimore or Atlanta where I really wouldn't have much faith in giving the ball to any starter for a one game situation, but I have a nasty closer in Jim Johnson and Craig Kimbrel respectively, I might be tempted to do it. The only time I can call a reliever starting a big game was back in 1950 when the Phillies started Jim Konstanty in game one and he actually pitched great. Went 8 innings and only gave up a run but still lost.

The only thing is if the Orioles or Braves did that, and Johnson or Kimbrel got bombed, Showalter or Gonzalez would be ripped to no end and I don't think any manager is willing to put his neck out on the line to that extent, so I would be pretty surprised if it happened.

[GFB]

Where does Alan Trammell fall in your eye test in comparison to Visquel? Many Tigers' fans feel that he is the biggest SS snub from the HoF... I never saw him play, so I can't comment one way or the other.

That's a tough one. Alan Trammell is one of my favorite players ever. I had the good fortune to live just down the road in Toledo during most of his career. I went to more Tigers games than I can remember (including game five of the 1984 World Series.)

Trammell had pretty much the same career as Barry Larkin. In my book, Larkin was a tad better than Trammell but not so much better that Trammell shouldn't be considered for the HOF. On paper, they were pretty much the same player. So to answer your question; at first glance, I'd say that Trammell falls just short of the HOF. But when you compare him to Barry Larkin, Tram certainly deserves another look.

Again, I had the good fortune to see most of Trammell's career up close. As much as I liked him as a player, he just never struck me as a hall of famer. In my opinion, he's one of those players that you could argue either way. It's easy to make a case for him. But...my opinion has always been that if you have to make a case for a player, he probably doesn't deserve to be inducted. It pains me to say it, but I think he falls just short. Then again, if he does get voted in, you won't hear me complaining about it.

OK... like I said, he was before my time. Thanks for the insight. I was just curious about the point that Visquel will probably make it and it doesn't look like Trammell will.

[NJTank]

And in shocking news the Boston Red Sox have axed Bobby V.

[pmoehrin]

And in shocking news the Boston Red Sox have axed Bobby V.

Only thing surprising was that I thought they were at least going to wait until the playoffs were over to do it.

Probably the last time you'll ever see Bobby Valentine manage a Major League team again. It may have been the worst managerial job in Major League history when you take into account and how many people on the club he alienated, not just the 25 man roster and how much talent that team had coming into the season.

[Lights Out]

My only real issue with SABR stats is that some people think those stats are all you need to assess a player.

Well, no, they aren't the ONLY way to assess a player, but they are the most comprehensive and least flawed of all the methods we have (sabermetrics, traditional stats, and the eye test). Are they perfect? No... but sabermetrics is a constantly-evolving field, and sabermetric statistics are often replaced with more accurate formulas and supplemented with adjustments for various outside factors.

The truth is, you can't learn all there is to know about baseball from books and a stat sheet. If it were that simple, we'd all be GMs. Old fashioned and antiquated as it may seem, some of us still use our eyes to watch baseball.

And if the eye test was infallible, MLB general managers would have the easiest jobs in the world.

And my eyes tell me that Omar Vizquel is a HOF player. Screw top 20 whatever, screw "individual dominance" etc. The guy was hands down the best defensive SS of his era.

Ironically, TZ and UZR back you up on Vizquel's defensive prowess. Vizquel's 2007 season in particular was one of the best defensive performances I've ever seen. A TZ of 23 and UZR of 23.1 is damn near unheard of.

[Seadragon76]

And in shocking news the Boston Red Sox have axed Bobby V.

Considering what happened in Boston this year (Isn't this the first 90-loss season in a long time for Boston?), it doesn't shock me.

At this point, you need to be either a masochist or the most patient man in the world to take this job now.

[infrared41]

For 's sake people. All I said was my only real issue (one issue, not several) with SABR stats is that some (some, not all) people think they can assess a player using only SABR stats. Now please stop treating me like I'm Tank. C'mon people, it isn't that difficult to read and comprehend a post around here.

[infrared41]

The truth is, you can't learn all there is to know about baseball from books and a stat sheet. If it were that simple, we'd all be GMs. Old fashioned and antiquated as it may seem, some of us still use our eyes to watch baseball.

And if the eye test was infallible, MLB general managers would have the easiest jobs in the world.

Care to show me where I said the eye test was infallible? Jesus, this SABR stuff is almost as bad as the political stuff around here. You people are like Pit Bulls with this . For the last -ing time, I AM NOT AGAINST SABR STATS! All I said was there is more to assessing a player than looking at a stat sheet. Note I said stat sheet. Not SABR stat sheet. Not traditional stat sheet. Just a stat sheet.

[BrySmalls]

Rumors are swirling that Ozzie Guillen is done in Miami after one season.

[Cujo]

And in shocking news the Boston Red Sox have axed Bobby V.

I still don't understand why the Red Sox canned Terry Francona after one bad season, especially when you consider he helped bring a pair of titles to Boston after 80some years. The Red Sox have no loyalty, nor do they have any patience. You can't blame Bobby for past mistakes made by the GM. The Sox pretty much deserve this.

[njmeadowlanders]

I didn't know this earlier, but I just read that teams in the wild card game get to set their 25 man roster for that game only then can reset it for the rest of the playoffs if they win. There was a pretty good Wall Street Journal article about some interesting things managers can do with that flexibility. Can't link to it right now because I'm in phone, but it's an interesting, quick read.

Yeah, it's BS. They'll put 1 starting pitcher on the roster and fill the rest with other specialists (i.e. a super fast pinch runner or something). They should have to go with the 25 they're going with for the entire LDS as well.

[pmoehrin]

Rumors are swirling that Ozzie Guillen is done in Miami after one year.

Jeffrey Loria fired Joe Giradi after he won manager of the year, so nothing would shock me down there in terms of who got hired and/or fired. But I would give Ozzie the boot if I were running things down in Miami.

Alot of the same criticisms against Bobby V you can apply to Ozzie. Very hard line in his approach bordering on dictatorial which works when your winning, but the second you start losing you start alienating guys.

I could see a team bringing him back in the future, but if he's fired I think he's going to be out of a managing job for awhile. His main problem I think is that he needs to calm down. Gets way too worked up over things that don't really matter in the course of a game or season. How can you respect someone like that?

I didn't know this earlier, but I just read that teams in the wild card game get to set their 25 man roster for that game only then can reset it for the rest of the playoffs if they win. There was a pretty good Wall Street Journal article about some interesting things managers can do with that flexibility. Can't link to it right now because I'm in phone, but it's an interesting, quick read.

Yeah, it's BS. They'll put 1 starting pitcher on the roster and fill the rest with other specialists (i.e. a super fast pinch runner or something). They should have to go with the 25 they're going with for the entire LDS as well.

My main criticism of the new playoff format was that it was a best one play in for the Wild Card. It completely takes starting pitching depth out of the equation. If I'm coming into this game, I'm grabbing maybe two or three starters to use out of the pen and every left handed arm I can get my hands on.

It just completely changes the way you would normally manage a game. And I agree your LDS roster and your roster for this game should be exactly the same.

[TheOldRoman]

I could see a team bringing him back in the future, but if he's fired I think he's going to be out of a managing job for awhile. His main problem I think is that he needs to calm down. Gets way too worked up over things that don't really matter in the course of a game or season. How can you respect someone like that?

I can't see him getting another managerial job. He did a poor managerial job his last four years, including last year where he pretty much gave up and tanked the season because he already had an agreement in place to coach the Marlins the next year. He did a good job managing in his first two seasons, but then he got too full of himself and changed his methods. His biggest attribute, that he "keeps guys loose" only lasted for a short time, and then he became a grating personality in the clubhouse. I don't think the Marlins were very loose playing for him this year. He routinely calls players out and cusses about misques/not hustling, but continues to put them in the lineup every day instead of disciplining them. He has already scorched the earth to the point where an owner who viewed him like a son decided to give up on him. He wore out his welcome in Miami within two months. He is also likely to say something stupid and embarass the franchise at some point. And that doesn't even account for his horrible, degenerate, trust-fund partyboy sons who regularly take to Twitter and air dirty laundry about the players. He is just not worth it.

The only way I can see him getting another managerial job is someone hiring him ten years down the road, in an drastic attempt to shake-up the team. Sounds familiar. I imagine that tenure would be just as fruitful as Valentine's was in Boston.

[Epiphanic]

For 's sake people. All I said was my only real issue (one issue, not several) with SABR stats is that some (some, not all) people think they can assess a player using only SABR stats. Now please stop treating me like I'm Tank. C'mon people, it isn't that difficult to read and comprehend a post around here.

Then your problem is with those people, not with the SABR stats themselves.

Some people's kids, amirite?

[NJTank]

The truth is, you can't learn all there is to know about baseball from books and a stat sheet. If it were that simple, we'd all be GMs. Old fashioned and antiquated as it may seem, some of us still use our eyes to watch baseball.

And if the eye test was infallible, MLB general managers would have the easiest jobs in the world.

Care to show me where I said the eye test was infallible? Jesus, this SABR stuff is almost as bad as the political stuff around here. You people are like Pit Bulls with this . For the last -ing time, I AM NOT AGAINST SABR STATS! All I said was there is more to assessing a player than looking at a stat sheet. Note I said stat sheet. Not SABR stat sheet. Not traditional stat sheet. Just a stat sheet.

For 's sake people. All I said was my only real issue (one issue, not several) with SABR stats is that some (some, not all) people think they can assess a player using only SABR stats. Now please stop treating me like I'm Tank. C'mon people, it isn't that difficult to read and comprehend a post around here.

Then your problem is with those people, not with the SABR stats themselves.

Some people's kids, amirite?

Oh hell :censored:ing yes!!!

Look I understand wanting to look at other stats buut this SABR has reached a level of annoyance to me, I personally believe the traditional stats are one of the things that make baseball great and too many SABR fans want to disgard them as atiquated. I want to watch the game and understand stats with some scratch paper and leave the calculas in math class. If you are a scout and a GM these stats matter because they are predictive, but it does not tell the story of the game that is being played. However, say something bad about SABR numbers and its like you insult Jesus Christ, Moses, Budah and Allah all at the same time

[njmeadowlanders]

So then you can look at average and RBI and leave it at that. If you don't want to know a players OPS or whatever just don't look at it. It's that simple. If you don't care, fine, but what if someone else likes that it's displayed? It's there if you want it, if you want to ignore it than do with it as you wish.