***OFFICIAL*** FFA MLB Draft (1 Viewer)

[Koya]

Any input on my Frankie Frisch pick? No one said anything when I took him.To me it's like having an Ozzie Smith at second base (great range, average arm), which should help with all these great left handed hitters. Also helps that he can be used in the top of the lineup offensively and NEVER strikes out.

It's true that Frisch rarely struck out, but his OBP wasn't terrific, at least not high enough (369) to really rate as a top of the order guy in an all-time lineup. Other teams can counter with a Raines (389), Henderson (401), ECollins (424), Morgan (392), etc. And to boot, those other guys weren't playing in their prime during an explosive offensive era like Frisch was.On the plus side, Frisch was known as fiery competitor, a hard worker, a big-game player, and a catalyst for his teammates. Great traits on any team.I just suspect that he's better suited for the 7 or 8 hole on an all-time team.

If I get the guys I am targeting, he will be in the 7th or 8th slot. But it's nice that I don't feel I HAVE to get this guy or that guy by a certain round or else I won't have a guy to work with Gwynn and set the table. That's why I said "it also helps that he can be used in the top of the lineup".To answer Koya's question, in every round I've passed on "best available" players because I am drafting specific types of players. I would call it a role, like "clean up hitter", but more that the way they play "fits" within the "team". As we get deeper into the draft, I may take a "best available" if his style wouldn't disrupt the team makeup.

That is what it looks like... and as the Yanks have shown, just throwing the best overall hitter out there with no plan or roles doesnt always work.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

3.12 funkley -- 3B Harmon Killebrew4.04 Kraft -- 1B George Sisler4.13 Capella -- OF Roberto Clemente5.04 Capella -- C Johnny Bench5.05 Nipsey -- Bob Feller

Best value picks so far. Sisler at 4.04 is unreal - even better than Bench at 5.04.

 

[oso diablo]

Sisler at 4.04 is unreal - even better than Bench at 5.04.

To each his own i guess. Sisler was the 52nd player picked, and Bill James ranks him at #24 all-time. That's #24 all-time at 1B, not overall. With Sisler, you get a slap hitter, albeit a darn good slap hitter. But no pop from 1B? When other teams are trotting out Gehrig, Foxx, McGwire, etc?Compare Sisler with a sample of 1B yet to be picked, with OBP/SLG/OPS/OPS+Sisler: 379 / 468 / 847 / 1241B A: 408 / 542 / 951 / 1501B B: 377 / 509 / 886 / 1341B C: 399 / 465 / 864 / 1301B D: 384 / 497 / 880 / 1381B E: 379 / 476 / 854 / 137Note 1B E, with an identical career OBP, but higher SLG. And after adjusting for era (OPS+), 1B E grades out as a better overall threat at the plate. And i would bet the house that 1B E is not picked in this draft.

 

[UCONN]

I wanted to take part in this draft but didn't have the time. Just gave the thread a quick read through, tough to say which team stands out at this point (but how can you not like a Ruth-McGwire tandem!)......Another thing stood out. UCONN, I think you're way out of line here. Funny, I thought the same thing Nipsey was thinking in terms of positional eligibility. I think his question was fair. What I thought wasn't fair was the position of superiority you took with him. He's right, you aren't running this draft. Why in reading this thread does it seem like you think you are? (?) Every other post you make is about moving the draft along, updating picks, etc....What you don't know is (and he'll be pissed a bit for me saying this) poor guy paid for your ham. He wanted to send you one as a thank you for running the NBA draft.  To tell him that he was a bother to you in that draft, I know hurt his feelings a bit.Nipsey's the funniest guy I know, and generous to a fault. I don't think you should treat someone the way you did because your OCD seems to be flaring up. Besides, no man alive should take #### from anyone who has a WNBA player as their avatar.

:rotflmao: Nipsey's a grown man. It's a computer. If we were in a bar we'd hit each other and move on. On here you use words. I don't back down much...maybe that's a fault. Nipsey's been on a fishing trip or two or stepped over the line in an arguement on here himself. I'm sure he'll come back and be cool about it. If not I won't lose any sleep over it. If you want to coax an apology out of me fine. I'm sorry.edited to add, pm's down? I sent you one that can be forwarded to Nipsey. I don't plan on posting much other than my picks from here on out. The NBA draft was dragged down by the constant "technicality" type questions. We had a sign-up thread and a rules discussion thread...both were lengthy. I doubt if I'm the only one who wants a speedy draft and feels the time for rules "discussion" (not clarification...clarification is fine) is long since past. Anything else I wanted to share is more apropriate in a pm so that's how I sent it. I hope Nipsey comes back and have never had anything against him. He's not shy about sharing his opinion or wit (even at others expense)...I took him for somebody w/ thicker skin who wouldn't mind the sparring. Hell, LarryBoy takes 10x's as much crap and comes across as somebody who's much less equipped to deal w/ it. That said...this doesn't mean much to me. If I can say something that'll make somebody happy or fix something cool...I'm all for that and will be the first to admit I may have overstepped my bounds/ran my mouth in a less than appropriate way.edited to also add you know damn well Nipsey likes to stir #### up. He loves that ####. He could have pm'd cappy and said, "hey man, how's this rule work". I've done that. I pm'd him about the "match the season up w/ the career avg." thing way back when we were doing the rules thread cuz I didn't understand it (how do you find an "average" year for ba, obp, slg, hr, rbi, steals, defense...ect....near impossible and WAY too subject to imterpretation). I got excitable because that is why you do the rules thread...so you can get that #### out of the way before hand and then just make picks and talk baseball and HAVE FUN once the draft starts. When I take time away from my day to constantly check if this thing is updated I get worked up when I come back to "this aint fair it messes my team up" posts for 4 pages. We had the rules thread...now it's time to have some fun. I hope Nipsey comes back and joins us in it.also adding thanks for the ham pal. I figured one of you worked for a ham company or something. That's insane if you're going out of pocket to send those out randomly but I appreciate the gesture.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

OSO Diablo - Can you PM me 1B E? I'd like to see who that masked man is!

 

[UCONN]

See the previous page if you want your apology Nips. Or pm me if more is required. Come on back and have fun w/ this thing pal. Nice team so far. You swiped up my pitcher w/ your last pick you ####er, .

 

[lastresort66]

I wanted to take part in this draft but didn't have the time. Just gave the thread a quick read through, tough to say which team stands out at this point (but how can you not like a Ruth-McGwire tandem!)......

Smart man. And don't forget, the both have absolute hitting machines batting ahead of them (Eddie Collins, who hit .333 for his career and was an absolute monster on the basepaths, and Wade Boggs, who hit .328, most by any 3rd baseman in the 20th century and one who could hit a double in his sleep)

Now I just need to get a pitcher, dammit. Or two. Or three.

 

[Capella]

I wanted to take part in this draft but didn't have the time. Just gave the thread a quick read through, tough to say which team stands out at this point (but how can you not like a Ruth-McGwire tandem!)......Another thing stood out. UCONN, I think you're way out of line here. Funny, I thought the same thing Nipsey was thinking in terms of positional eligibility. I think his question was fair. What I thought wasn't fair was the position of superiority you took with him. He's right, you aren't running this draft. Why in reading this thread does it seem like you think you are? (?) Every other post you make is about moving the draft along, updating picks, etc....What you don't know is (and he'll be pissed a bit for me saying this) poor guy paid for your ham. He wanted to send you one as a thank you for running the NBA draft.  To tell him that he was a bother to you in that draft, I know hurt his feelings a bit.Nipsey's the funniest guy I know, and generous to a fault. I don't think you should treat someone the way you did because your OCD seems to be flaring up. Besides, no man alive should take #### from anyone who has a WNBA player as their avatar.

:rotflmao: Nipsey's a grown man. It's a computer. If we were in a bar we'd hit each other and move on. On here you use words. I don't back down much...maybe that's a fault. Nipsey's been on a fishing trip or two or stepped over the line in an arguement on here himself. I'm sure he'll come back and be cool about it. If not I won't lose any sleep over it. If you want to coax an apology out of me fine. I'm sorry.edited to add, pm's down? I sent you one that can be forwarded to Nipsey. I don't plan on posting much other than my picks from here on out. The NBA draft was dragged down by the constant "technicality" type questions. We had a sign-up thread and a rules discussion thread...both were lengthy. I doubt if I'm the only one who wants a speedy draft and feels the time for rules "discussion" (not clarification...clarification is fine) is long since past. Anything else I wanted to share is more apropriate in a pm so that's how I sent it. I hope Nipsey comes back and have never had anything against him. He's not shy about sharing his opinion or wit (even at others expense)...I took him for somebody w/ thicker skin who wouldn't mind the sparring. Hell, LarryBoy takes 10x's as much crap and comes across as somebody who's much less equipped to deal w/ it. That said...this doesn't mean much to me. If I can say something that'll make somebody happy or fix something cool...I'm all for that and will be the first to admit I may have overstepped my bounds/ran my mouth in a less than appropriate way.edited to also add you know damn well Nipsey likes to stir #### up. He loves that ####. He could have pm'd cappy and said, "hey man, how's this rule work". I've done that. I pm'd him about the "match the season up w/ the career avg." thing way back when we were doing the rules thread cuz I didn't understand it (how do you find an "average" year for ba, obp, slg, hr, rbi, steals, defense...ect....near impossible and WAY too subject to imterpretation). I got excitable because that is why you do the rules thread...so you can get that #### out of the way before hand and then just make picks and talk baseball and HAVE FUN once the draft starts. When I take time away from my day to constantly check if this thing is updated I get worked up when I come back to "this aint fair it messes my team up" posts for 4 pages. We had the rules thread...now it's time to have some fun. I hope Nipsey comes back and joins us in it.also adding thanks for the ham pal. I figured one of you worked for a ham company or something. That's insane if you're going out of pocket to send those out randomly but I appreciate the gesture.

everybody quit the ####ing arguing now, unless baseball related.send ham.nipsey get back in here you whore."ouch"

 

[Mr. Pickles]

where the #### is bogart?

 

[Politician Spock]

Who posted in: ***OFFICIAL*** FFA MLB DraftPoster Posts Capella 286 UCONN 227 Nipsey 211 Koya 184 Mr. Pickles 125 Funkley 106 mrharrier 84 larry_boy_44 77 Doug B 71 lastresort66 64 IndividuallyWrapedKraftSingles 63 Politician Spock 61 KingAir 50 Spartans Rule 46 Bogart 45 Sammy3469 43 Pumpnick 22 shuke 21 oso diablo 14 higgins 12 Joe T 8 Statorama 8 mayday 5 [icon] 5 dlux 4 Captain Quinoa 3 trefor3 3 Hosstetler 2 Truckasaurus II 2 Furps 2 Gatorman 1 Yo Mama 1 Mr. Ham 1 RedRaiders 1 Habeeby 1

 

[lastresort66]

Who posted in: ***OFFICIAL*** FFA MLB DraftPoster Posts Capella 286 UCONN 227 Nipsey 211 Koya 184 Mr. Pickles 125 Funkley 106 mrharrier 84 larry_boy_44 77 Doug B 71 lastresort66 64 IndividuallyWrapedKraftSingles 63 Politician Spock 61 KingAir 50 Spartans Rule 46 Bogart 45 Sammy3469 43 Pumpnick 22 shuke 21 oso diablo 14 higgins 12 Joe T 8 Statorama 8 mayday 5 [icon] 5 dlux 4 Captain Quinoa 3 trefor3 3 Hosstetler 2 Truckasaurus II 2 Furps 2 Gatorman 1 Yo Mama 1 Mr. Ham 1 RedRaiders 1 Habeeby 1

Bored?BTW, anyway we could impose a rule stating that if bogart doesn't show up by 12:00 PM tomorrow, we skip him?

 

[Capella]

quick thoughts on the teams, just general impressions, I'm not breaking the stat books out (yet)

Pump

Thought Johnson was a bad pick at #1, but he's obviously one of the best pitchers ever. Didn't like the Maddux pick with guys like RJ and Carlton around, but thought Lajoie was solid value. Snyder and Hubbell were very, very nice value in round 4 and 5. Nice looking rotation, not enough in your lineup to judge off of.

Spock

Obviously didn't like the Koufax pick, but you've defended it well enough, so that's cool. Still don't see how you've could made that selection there, but to each his own. Ryan and Carlton round out what is the best rotation so far. Frisch and Gwynn were nice picks as well (considered Gwynn myself), and you do seem to have a clear plan for your team, but winning with small-ball and pitching with these teams is going to be tough.

lastresort

Babe and Big Mac are a hell of a 1-2 punch, although Big Mac did have quite the hole in his swing, and I personally think would be exploited by the best pitchers of all-time. Collins and Boggs are nice table-setters, and Simmons is probably one of the most overlooked players in baseball history. No pitching. Good luck with that.

nipper

Cy Young never once won a Cy Young, so it was a bit early to take him here ( ). Loved the Morgan and Shoeless Joe picks (probably would've taken Rose over Morgan, but it can be debated). Greenberg and Feller were steals where they were selected, especially Feller, despite the fact that he is one of the nastiest and hate-filled human beings I have ever had the misfortune to meet, and I hope he

Sammy

Ted Williams is obviously one of the greatest hitters ever, don't even need to comment..Matthews and Banks are arguably the best players ever at their positions and I'm about as big of a Rod Carew fan as there is. Absolutely loved the man's game. Real good looking lineup, like it a lot.

Pickles

Love Gehrig and Ott, big Robinson fan, completely underrated (as seen when Harrier said it was still the 2nd round). Thought you jumped early on Yogi but Whitey was good value. Obvious Yankee-homerism here.

Harrier

Bonds is Bonds, top-5 value. Alexander and Three-Finger are a nice way to start up your rotation, and Walsh rounds it out very well. Thought Piazza was the second-worst pick of the draft so far..tremendous on offense, but horrible on defense. Not only did you leave the better catcher on the board, I think you could have had Mike later. I may be wrong on that last point. Still thought the pick was a big reach, especially with Bench there.

part 2 coming up

 

[lastresort66]

lastresort

Babe and Big Mac are a hell of a 1-2 punch, although Big Mac did have quite the hole in his swing, and I personally think would be exploited by the best pitchers of all-time. Collins and Boggs are nice table-setters, and Simmons is probably one of the most overlooked players in baseball history. No pitching. Good luck with that.

Good point about Mac, however, I do recall him pretty much owning the Big Unit during his career. I think they're still talking about a homer he hit off of him about a decade ago in Seattle.Just thought I'd point that out.

 

[Politician Spock]

you do seem to have a clear plan for your team, but winning with small-ball and pitching with these teams is going to be tough.

I'll probably get my ### handed to me, but this would be pretty boring if we were all just using OPS to put our teams together wouldn't?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

you do seem to have a clear plan for your team, but winning with small-ball and pitching with these teams is going to be tough.

I'll probably get my ### handed to me, but this would be pretty boring if we were all just using OPS to put our teams together wouldn't?

I for one am very interested to see how your team fares. Definitely making things interesting.

 

[lastresort66]

you do seem to have a clear plan for your team, but winning with small-ball and pitching with these teams is going to be tough.

I'll probably get my ### handed to me, but this would be pretty boring if we were all just using OPS to put our teams together wouldn't?

Ahem, Win Shares over here. No OPS for me.

 

[Koya]

you do seem to have a clear plan for your team, but winning with small-ball and pitching with these teams is going to be tough.

I'll probably get my ### handed to me, but this would be pretty boring if we were all just using OPS to put our teams together wouldn't?

Ahem, Win Shares over here. No OPS for me.

Is there something wrong with a little of both?

 

[lastresort66]

you do seem to have a clear plan for your team, but winning with small-ball and pitching with these teams is going to be tough.

I'll probably get my ### handed to me, but this would be pretty boring if we were all just using OPS to put our teams together wouldn't?

Ahem, Win Shares over here. No OPS for me.

Is there something wrong with a little of both?

No, I just decide to go with the road less traveled:Win Shares + hunchesEx: McGwire was a hunch entirely. Ruth was common sense. Everyone else: Win Shares (with a bit of hunch).

 

[Capella]

Doug B

Musial was a reach at 1.9, but you said you wanted him for your stadium..still, Mantle was the better player, and you left Aaron and Wagner there as well. But still, you can't argue selecting Musial too much. Brett and Raines are solid. Never really considered Raines that early, as I still think there are better leadoff hitters left, but he had a stretch that was pretty amazing. Always overshadowed by Henderson's greatness, and the fact he played in Montreal. I want to like your team, but I'm not sure yet.

Bogart

Kind of scratching my head as to why you didn't take Wagner over Hornsby..if you're going to take a MI that early, why not take Honus? Still, you got Henderson who is a first-round type player in round 2, so that was solid. Hamilton isn't going to play well with the FFA crowd at all and I thought there were some better players available. Cochran pick was solid enough. Still, baffled by the Hamilton pick..you already had Ricky and Hornsby to set the tables..kind of overkill. Two guys with multiple 100-steal seasons. I dunno..definitely going to be fast, but you needed somebody else there, imo. You and Spock seem to have the same smallball ideals.

Koya

Lefty shouldn't have been selected there. Schmidt was pretty amazing, he'll be a nice fit in the middle of your lineup. Thought Griffey would catch more abuse, but he was the dominant player of the 90s, so you can't really sweep his accomplishments aside. The greatness of Seaver is lost on a lot of people. Another under-the-radar guy. Still, thought you forded your first-rounder up a bit.

Funkley

Cobb was pretty exceptional value, loved that pick there, as was Foxx and even Killebrew. Marichal went around the right spot. Lots of good value picks here, nice team so far.

Kraft

Getting Aaron at pick 13 was insane, as was Joe D at pick 20. I mean, good lord, that outfield is stacked (almost as stacked as Mays-Clemente ). Gibson was a nice selection in round 3, and the Sisler pick was fine. Not sure how James has him where he does..but that's not the first time I would have disagreed with something he said. Still..he is a slap hitter at 1B, which could be a problem.

UCONN

Mantle and Tris are a nice way to start any team..Robinson is a great player to have at the top of your lineup, but didn't like the Arky pick. Just not good value there. He'll work out well as a guy to move players around, etc. I'd put him #2 in my lineup and he'll be fine knocking singles left and right and moving guys over. Just thought it was early for him.

Spartans

Wagner was an awesome pick, disagreed with Pedro there..big time. You could've had Joe D there man. Still, you did get Yaz later on, who is also a bit overlooked in the all-time perspective. Not sure if I like the Newhouser selection either. Guy did have a pretty sick 3-year run from 44-46, but like somebody mentioned, that was during the War and he really only had two other top of the line seasons after that...not really enough to justify him there. Just my

larryboy

Nice rotation so far with Christy and Roger, but I thought the Thomas selection was the worst one of the draft so far. Others have agreed and some have disagreed, but he's basically a DH in a hitter's era who is a team cancer and hasn't won anything. If you wanted a 1B, Greenberg was the much better selection, IMO. Gehringer was a great player and a nice selection.

 

[Koya]

you do seem to have a clear plan for your team, but winning with small-ball and pitching with these teams is going to be tough.

I'll probably get my ### handed to me, but this would be pretty boring if we were all just using OPS to put our teams together wouldn't?

Ahem, Win Shares over here. No OPS for me.

Is there something wrong with a little of both?

No, I just decide to go with the road less traveled:Win Shares + hunchesEx: McGwire was a hunch entirely. Ruth was common sense. Everyone else: Win Shares (with a bit of hunch).

That works. I am looking at a number of issues. hunch first and then narrow down by a little win shares, some OPS (or adj. ERA) - and often how players compared in their era. Times in top 3, or 10 in the important category. That tells me more than the numbers themselves. Some great numbers from 1929-1932, for example, that may have a player seem a bit better than they really are. Of course win shares is neutral on that as it compares players from the same year. Some players were hamstrung by the teams they played on, however.

 

[Capella]

you do seem to have a clear plan for your team, but winning with small-ball and pitching with these teams is going to be tough.

I'll probably get my ### handed to me, but this would be pretty boring if we were all just using OPS to put our teams together wouldn't?

yes it would be.not knocking that at all, I think it could work..but hopefully you're planning on adding at least one or two bats to the middle of the lineup. But with your rotation, I guess you could win a few 2-1 games.

 

[Koya]

Cap - Curious to know why you think Lefty was a reach. It seems you are a bit against taking pitching early, which is fine... but maybe that is more strategy than anything else?Do you agree Lefty is, arguably, the second best picther ever, and even moreso the best Lefty pitcher ever (9 straight ERA titles and two triple crowns plus and MVP is like an even more dominant Randy Johnson in my mind)?I suppose it came down to this: Koufax and Cy were lower in my estimation than Lefty, and I knew pitching would be important to me. If there was to be an early run and I wanted a top 5 guy, I had to take that player first round.Is it more you dont like the player I chose, or that I went pitcher (it was hard to pass up the awesomeness that is Honus Wagner, but hopefully when the draft is a couple more rounds complete, it will show why).I think the teams with no pitching or only one pitcher at this time may have trouble personally... but we will see how it all fills out. I for one thought it was ballsy but maybe a nice idea to take Walter Johnson first, by the way. (PS, I just realized, its because he has no Cy Youngs. Sorry to bother you. )(PPS - I saw a site where they went to "give out" Cy Youngs before the award. It was pretty cool. Cy Himself won like 4 or something, maybe 5, Lefty had 3 or 4, as did Matty and Alexander.)

 

[Doug B]

wanted to share a nice article I found about rules changes throughout MLB history. There's a lot of food for thought when you think about how 1880s pitchers might be simmed:

1) The mound moves back (1893)Baseball spent most of 1850-90 changing the pitcher's role from simple deliverer of offerings for the hitter to hit to a legitimate weapon of the defense. Restrictions were gradually lifted on curving pitches (1872), overhand deliveries (1883-84) and running starts (1887). The last major change took place in 1893, when instead of delivering the ball from a 50-foot line the pitcher had to keep his back foot on a rubber slab 60 feet, 6 inches from home plate. The resulting five- or six-foot lengthening of pitching distance sent offense through the roof for a few years but soon thereafter afforded the equilibrium we know today....10) Four balls, three strikes (1889)Umpires began calling balls and strikes in 1863. By 1874 a walk was nine balls, but it dwindled down to four by 1889. One year, 1887, saw batters granted four strikes. Imagine how long A's and Yankees games would have taken under these old rules.

Two more of interest that help explain some of early-20th-century baseball's statistical trends:

5) The foul strike rule (1901 and 1903)Foul balls didn't count as strikes until 1901 in the National League and 1903 in the American League. (Ever wonder how Nap Lajoie hit .426 for the 1901 Philadelphia Athletics? There's your answer.) After this rule's adoption, offense plummeted, strikeouts zoomed and a pitching-dominated decade was born.2) Abolition of spitball (1920-21)Until this time, baseballs were allowed to be slathered with spit and discolored with everything from tobacco to licorice juice, even by infielders, all to keep the batter from getting a good look at the ball. Teams in 1920 were allowed to designate only two spitball pitchers apiece -- imagine Gene Orza's grandfather's reaction to that one -- but the long-running debate continued before the seminal moment arrived: a pitch from Yankees submariner Carl Mays, not believed to be a spitball but still a dreary, brown ball that was hard for the batter to pick up, crashed into the skull of popular Indians shortstop Ray Chapman and killed him. Rules were changed the next offseason to allow only 17 pitchers (whose livelihoods were in the balance) to continue throwing spitballs, and umpires were instructed to introduce new white balls far more often. Several factors helped usher in hitter's offensive boom of the 1920s; being able to actually see the ball was one of the biggest.

 

[Koya]

Cap - I went to read everyone elses review again. You do not seem to be a proponent of early pitchers. Mind giving your thoughts regardless of that. i.e. some people thought pitchers had more value, so what do you think about Pedro going before Clemens, or Ryan going before Feller? As opposed to ryan before bench or something like that.

 

[Koya]

wanted to share a nice article I found about rules changes throughout MLB history. There's a lot of food for thought when you think about how 1880s pitchers might be simmed:

1) The mound moves back (1893)Baseball spent most of 1850-90 changing the pitcher's role from simple deliverer of offerings for the hitter to hit to a legitimate weapon of the defense. Restrictions were gradually lifted on curving pitches (1872), overhand deliveries (1883-84) and running starts (1887). The last major change took place in 1893, when instead of delivering the ball from a 50-foot line the pitcher had to keep his back foot on a rubber slab 60 feet, 6 inches from home plate. The resulting five- or six-foot lengthening of pitching distance sent offense through the roof for a few years but soon thereafter afforded the equilibrium we know today....10) Four balls, three strikes (1889)Umpires began calling balls and strikes in 1863. By 1874 a walk was nine balls, but it dwindled down to four by 1889. One year, 1887, saw batters granted four strikes. Imagine how long A's and Yankees games would have taken under these old rules.

Two more of interest that help explain some of early-20th-century baseball's statistical trends:

5) The foul strike rule (1901 and 1903)Foul balls didn't count as strikes until 1901 in the National League and 1903 in the American League. (Ever wonder how Nap Lajoie hit .426 for the 1901 Philadelphia Athletics? There's your answer.) After this rule's adoption, offense plummeted, strikeouts zoomed and a pitching-dominated decade was born.2) Abolition of spitball (1920-21)Until this time, baseballs were allowed to be slathered with spit and discolored with everything from tobacco to licorice juice, even by infielders, all to keep the batter from getting a good look at the ball. Teams in 1920 were allowed to designate only two spitball pitchers apiece -- imagine Gene Orza's grandfather's reaction to that one -- but the long-running debate continued before the seminal moment arrived: a pitch from Yankees submariner Carl Mays, not believed to be a spitball but still a dreary, brown ball that was hard for the batter to pick up, crashed into the skull of popular Indians shortstop Ray Chapman and killed him. Rules were changed the next offseason to allow only 17 pitchers (whose livelihoods were in the balance) to continue throwing spitballs, and umpires were instructed to introduce new white balls far more often. Several factors helped usher in hitter's offensive boom of the 1920s; being able to actually see the ball was one of the biggest.

cool stuff. there is definately a little question before 1910 about records and such, although players before then are certainly good for debate. even afterward as noted, there have been major changes - from no spitballs, to the new baseballs, to park sizes to mound height.

 

[Doug B]

Doug B

... Never really considered Raines that early, as I still think there are better leadoff hitters left, but he had a stretch that was pretty amazing. Always overshadowed by Henderson's greatness, and the fact he played in Montreal.

Raines is not that far from Henderson, stastically. After Henderson went, I was anticipating a run on similar lead-off guys. I was happy to get Raines where I got him, though I see now that I might have been able to wait a round or two. I am surprised that Raines was on no one's short list after Henderson was taken.

 

[Doug B]

bogart has an appropriate name right now

Beat me to it! :rotflmao:

 

[Koya]

Doug B

... Never really considered Raines that early, as I still think there are better leadoff hitters left, but he had a stretch that was pretty amazing. Always overshadowed by Henderson's greatness, and the fact he played in Montreal.

Raines is not that far from Henderson, stastically. After Henderson went, I was anticipating a run on similar lead-off guys. I was happy to get Raines where I got him, though I see now that I might have been able to wait a round or two. I am surprised that Raines was on no one's short list after Henderson was taken.

I dont think Raines gets NEAR the respect he should. Damn MTL Expos.

 

[Capella]

Cap - I went to read everyone elses review again. You do not seem to be a proponent of early pitchers.

Mind giving your thoughts regardless of that. i.e. some people thought pitchers had more value, so what do you think about Pedro going before Clemens, or Ryan going before Feller?

As opposed to ryan before bench or something like that.

not that I'm against pitchers going early, just against some of the pitchers going where they went.Lefty was a great pitcher..obviously. But is there that big of a difference between him and some of the other guys that went afterwards? I certainly don't see him as the 2nd-best pitcher ever, like you seem to.

and he didn't win 9 straight ERA titles..did win 9, but not in a row.

ERA

1926-2.51-1

1927-3.19-9

1928-2.58-3

1929-2.81-1

1930-2.54-1

1931-2.06-1

1932-2.84-1

1933-3.20-4

1935-2.70-1

1936-2.81-1

1937-3.02-5

1938-3.08-1

1939-2.54-1

Anyways, it's not that I don't like Lefty, he was obviously tremendous. But EVERYBODY selected in the first few rounds of a draft like this is going to be tremendous. Not only do I think you may have been able to get lefty in rd 2, but you passed on some tremendous position players like Wagner and Mick. And even if you didn't get lefty..is there really that big of a difference between him and somebody you could have taken in rounds 2-3 (carlton, RJ, spahn, etc)?

 

[Koya]

Cap - I went to read everyone elses review again. You do not seem to be a proponent of early pitchers.

Mind giving your thoughts regardless of that. i.e. some people thought pitchers had more value, so what do you think about Pedro going before Clemens, or Ryan going before Feller?

As opposed to ryan before bench or something like that.

not that I'm against pitchers going early, just against some of the pitchers going where they went.Lefty was a great pitcher..obviously. But is there that big of a difference between him and some of the other guys that went afterwards? I certainly don't see him as the 2nd-best pitcher ever, like you seem to.

and he didn't win 9 straight ERA titles..did win 9, but not in a row.

ERA

1926-2.51-1

1927-3.19-9

1928-2.58-3

1929-2.81-1

1930-2.54-1

1931-2.06-1

1932-2.84-1

1933-3.20-4

1935-2.70-1

1936-2.81-1

1937-3.02-5

1938-3.08-1

1939-2.54-1

Anyways, it's not that I don't like Lefty, he was obviously tremendous. But EVERYBODY selected in the first few rounds of a draft like this is going to be tremendous. Not only do I think you may have been able to get lefty in rd 2, but you passed on some tremendous position players like Wagner and Mick. And even if you didn't get lefty..is there really that big of a difference between him and somebody you could have taken in rounds 2-3 (carlton, RJ, spahn, etc)?

my mistake about the ERAs. So Its ONLY 9 out of 10 ;- ) I think Clemons is second, with 6. what would be your top five pitchers ever Cap? curious to know. they actually had a poll about it at a site with baseball fanatics (I guess like fbg but baseball talk) and it was between lefty and Alexander, then a bit of a distiction to Matty and then the rest. Obviously that was not based on building a team like this, but just "best of all time" criteria.

Checking their votes help me get an idea where guys might go over here actually, although they seem to know a lot more than we do, on average. More than I know for sure.

 

[Koya]

Cap - I went to read everyone elses review again. You do not seem to be a proponent of early pitchers.

Mind giving your thoughts regardless of that. i.e. some people thought pitchers had more value, so what do you think about Pedro going before Clemens, or Ryan going before Feller?

As opposed to ryan before bench or something like that.

not that I'm against pitchers going early, just against some of the pitchers going where they went.Lefty was a great pitcher..obviously. But is there that big of a difference between him and some of the other guys that went afterwards? I certainly don't see him as the 2nd-best pitcher ever, like you seem to.

and he didn't win 9 straight ERA titles..did win 9, but not in a row.

ERA

1926-2.51-1

1927-3.19-9

1928-2.58-3

1929-2.81-1

1930-2.54-1

1931-2.06-1

1932-2.84-1

1933-3.20-4

1935-2.70-1

1936-2.81-1

1937-3.02-5

1938-3.08-1

1939-2.54-1

Anyways, it's not that I don't like Lefty, he was obviously tremendous. But EVERYBODY selected in the first few rounds of a draft like this is going to be tremendous. Not only do I think you may have been able to get lefty in rd 2, but you passed on some tremendous position players like Wagner and Mick. And even if you didn't get lefty..is there really that big of a difference between him and somebody you could have taken in rounds 2-3 (carlton, RJ, spahn, etc)?

didnt see that part at the bottom... to answer your question, yes, I thought there would be a big difference between Lefty and someone I would have had even in the second, if there was a run. I thought about Pedro - his adjusted ERA is just so crazy... but not enough innings and I didnt want to go with a new guy. I even thought about Randy, but with his dominance came down years. Clemons, for all those Cy Youngs, is not in my mind the best pitcher on any given day - its Randy or even Pedro. So, I had Christy Matthewson and Grover Alexander before a drop where even Bob feller should be mentioned (he was a bargain) and that is where I would have had Cy and Koufax.In my instance, Christy and Grover might both have been gone, and only Alexander did I have really on par (I think) with Lefty at the time. Did not want to lose out on BOTH.

The drop to a Spahn or something, temping has Wagner/Schmidt would have been, was far too much for me. We have to stop George Sisler on an EASY day. Babe Ruth and then Big Mac on a tough one.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

So, I broke down and bought the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract today.. you know, cuz I was at B&N and all.. and perusing it for a bit, I noticed some really odd things that need some insight from you, the loyal reader:

1. James usually gives a little blurb about each player in his rankings section, but under Jeff Bagwell, he simply writes, "Pass." I did a search to see if I could find anything about this, but it wasn't very telling. There was some chat interview where a guy asked James about this and all he said was that he probably couldn't offer the guy anymore insight about Bagwell than he had already. WTF? Gotta be some kinda grudge..

2. Perhaps related to the above, James has moments where he seems to lose his f'ing mind. To wit, there was a blurb in the rather extensive write-up on Joe Morgan regarding some comment Joe made on ESPN. The entry reads as follows:

In April 2000, Major League Baseball aired a promotional spot in which Peter Gammons pitching, struck out Harold Renolds. Boadcasting on ESPN on April 19, Joe Morgan was frothing at the mouth about this commercial. "Harold Reynolds was a major league baseball player," Morgan said over and over... I may be paraphrasing a little, because my VCR wasn't running. "Harold Reynolds was an all-star. Peter Gammons does not strike him out. It's just wrong, and I'm not going to keep quiet about it. It's wrong. Peter Gammons does not strike out Harold Reynolds."

Dear Joe:

Does the phrase "Get over yourself" mean anything to you? This is not to deny that you were a major league player, and even that you were a better player than Harold Reynolds, who I suppose must have been an All-Star sometime; what the hell, Dave Chalk made two All-Star games. This is not to deny that you were a brilliant player, Joe, but you are becoming a self-important little prig. Grow up, you little weenie. People make fun of one another; this is called friendship. This is life; only self-important twits take offense at that kind of thing. Jeez, man, get a life. Preferably not on television.

Your friend, Bill James

I mean, seriously.. how much of a ball buster do you have to be to call someone out in your book? Sheesh. He's right that Joe Morgan was being obnoxious, but damn if it required not only penning a letter to Morgan, but publishing the letter in your book to boot.This kind of annoyed tone is quite pervasive in many sections of the book. I'm not sure I like it. I'd love to see Bill take a cut at a curve ball.

3. He practially disembowels George Sisler's career, which I found to be a little unfair. There's a good bit there about how Sisler's OBP was horrible, but nearly all of the guys listed for comparison with worse career batting averages (McGwire, Schmidt, McGriff, etc.) are power hitters and would be expected to have a lot more walks just by intimidation alone. It's not like Sisler has a bad career OBP (.387), but it is maybe a bit low for a guy who hit .340. In fact he was often an OBP leader for many years until he tailed off later in his career. Seems like another grudge.

4. James writes in great length to justify Eddie Collins ahead of Rogers Hornsby at 2B all-time (about five pages worth.. defensive much?). What particularly struck me about this dialogue was his comment that he wasn't rating Hornsby below Collins out of spite, but that he did in fact "dislike" Hornsby. I guess I'm a little confused, but I'm fairly sure that Bill James and Rogers Hornsby never crossed paths. How can you dislike someone you've never met? It's odd. Very odd.

I'm sure there's lots of other weird things about this book, but these are some random things I've encountered. I'd be interested to read others' impressions.

 

[Koya]

So, I broke down and bought the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract today.. you know, cuz I was at B&N and all.. and perusing it for a bit, I noticed some really odd things that need some insight from you, the loyal reader:

1. James usually gives a little blurb about each player in his rankings section, but under Jeff Bagwell, he simply writes, "Pass." I did a search to see if I could find anything about this, but it wasn't very telling. There was some chat interview where a guy asked James about this and all he said was that he probably couldn't offer the guy anymore insight about Bagwell than he had already. WTF? Gotta be some kinda grudge..

2. Perhaps related to the above, James has moments where he seems to lose his f'ing mind. To wit, there was a blurb in the rather extensive write-up on Joe Morgan regarding some comment Joe made on ESPN. The entry reads as follows:

In April 2000, Major League Baseball aired a promotional spot in which Peter Gammons pitching, struck out Harold Renolds.  Boadcasting on ESPN on April 19, Joe Morgan was frothing at the mouth about this commercial.  "Harold Reynolds was a major league baseball player," Morgan said over and over... I may be paraphrasing a little, because my VCR wasn't running.  "Harold Reynolds was an all-star.  Peter Gammons does not strike him out.  It's just wrong, and I'm not going to keep quiet about it.  It's wrong.  Peter Gammons does not strike out Harold Reynolds."

Dear Joe:

Does the phrase "Get over yourself" mean anything to you?  This is not to deny that you were a major league player, and even that you were a better player than Harold Reynolds, who I suppose must have been an All-Star sometime; what the hell, Dave Chalk made two All-Star games.  This is not to deny that you were a brilliant player, Joe, but you are becoming a self-important little prig.  Grow up, you little weenie.  People make fun of one another; this is called friendship.  This is life; only self-important twits take offense at that kind of thing.  Jeez, man, get a life.  Preferably not on television.

Your friend, Bill James

I mean, seriously.. how much of a ball buster do you have to be to call someone out in your book? Sheesh. He's right that Joe Morgan was being obnoxious, but damn if it required not only penning a letter to Morgan, but publishing the letter in your book to boot.This kind of annoyed tone is quite pervasive in many sections of the book. I'm not sure I like it. I'd love to see Bill take a cut at a curve ball.

3. He practially disembowels George Sisler's career, which I found to be a little unfair. There's a good bit there about how Sisler's OBP was horrible, but nearly all of the guys listed for comparison with worse career batting averages (McGwire, Schmidt, McGriff, etc.) are power hitters and would be expected to have a lot more walks just by intimidation alone. It's not like Sisler has a bad career OBP (.387), but it is maybe a bit low for a guy who hit .340. In fact he was often an OBP leader for many years until he tailed off later in his career. Seems like another grudge.

4. James writes in great length to justify Eddie Collins ahead of Rogers Hornsby at 2B all-time (about five pages worth.. defensive much?). What particularly struck me about this dialogue was his comment that he wasn't rating Hornsby below Collins out of spite, but that he did in fact "dislike" Hornsby. I guess I'm a little confused, but I'm fairly sure that Bill James and Rogers Hornsby never crossed paths. How can you dislike someone you've never met? It's odd. Very odd.

I'm sure there's lots of other weird things about this book, but these are some random things I've encountered. I'd be interested to read others' impressions.

I like this draft.Bill James is a genius when he agrees with ya, and a crack when he dont. but entertaining all around.

classic about morgan.

 

[Kraft...]

So, I broke down and bought the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract today.. you know, cuz I was at B&N and all.. and perusing it for a bit, I noticed some really odd things that need some insight from you, the loyal reader:

1. James usually gives a little blurb about each player in his rankings section, but under Jeff Bagwell, he simply writes, "Pass." I did a search to see if I could find anything about this, but it wasn't very telling. There was some chat interview where a guy asked James about this and all he said was that he probably couldn't offer the guy anymore insight about Bagwell than he had already. WTF? Gotta be some kinda grudge..

2. Perhaps related to the above, James has moments where he seems to lose his f'ing mind. To wit, there was a blurb in the rather extensive write-up on Joe Morgan regarding some comment Joe made on ESPN. The entry reads as follows:

In April 2000, Major League Baseball aired a promotional spot in which Peter Gammons pitching, struck out Harold Renolds.  Boadcasting on ESPN on April 19, Joe Morgan was frothing at the mouth about this commercial.  "Harold Reynolds was a major league baseball player," Morgan said over and over... I may be paraphrasing a little, because my VCR wasn't running.  "Harold Reynolds was an all-star.  Peter Gammons does not strike him out.  It's just wrong, and I'm not going to keep quiet about it.  It's wrong.  Peter Gammons does not strike out Harold Reynolds."

Dear Joe:

Does the phrase "Get over yourself" mean anything to you?  This is not to deny that you were a major league player, and even that you were a better player than Harold Reynolds, who I suppose must have been an All-Star sometime; what the hell, Dave Chalk made two All-Star games.  This is not to deny that you were a brilliant player, Joe, but you are becoming a self-important little prig.  Grow up, you little weenie.  People make fun of one another; this is called friendship.  This is life; only self-important twits take offense at that kind of thing.  Jeez, man, get a life.  Preferably not on television.

Your friend, Bill James

I mean, seriously.. how much of a ball buster do you have to be to call someone out in your book? Sheesh. He's right that Joe Morgan was being obnoxious, but damn if it required not only penning a letter to Morgan, but publishing the letter in your book to boot.This kind of annoyed tone is quite pervasive in many sections of the book. I'm not sure I like it. I'd love to see Bill take a cut at a curve ball.

3. He practially disembowels George Sisler's career, which I found to be a little unfair. There's a good bit there about how Sisler's OBP was horrible, but nearly all of the guys listed for comparison with worse career batting averages (McGwire, Schmidt, McGriff, etc.) are power hitters and would be expected to have a lot more walks just by intimidation alone. It's not like Sisler has a bad career OBP (.387), but it is maybe a bit low for a guy who hit .340. In fact he was often an OBP leader for many years until he tailed off later in his career. Seems like another grudge.

4. James writes in great length to justify Eddie Collins ahead of Rogers Hornsby at 2B all-time (about five pages worth.. defensive much?). What particularly struck me about this dialogue was his comment that he wasn't rating Hornsby below Collins out of spite, but that he did in fact "dislike" Hornsby. I guess I'm a little confused, but I'm fairly sure that Bill James and Rogers Hornsby never crossed paths. How can you dislike someone you've never met? It's odd. Very odd.

I'm sure there's lots of other weird things about this book, but these are some random things I've encountered. I'd be interested to read others' impressions.

Damn!, now I gotta go out and buy this thing.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

So, I broke down and bought the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract today.. you know, cuz I was at B&N and all.. and perusing it for a bit, I noticed some really odd things that need some insight from you, the loyal reader:

1. James usually gives a little blurb about each player in his rankings section, but under Jeff Bagwell, he simply writes, "Pass." I did a search to see if I could find anything about this, but it wasn't very telling. There was some chat interview where a guy asked James about this and all he said was that he probably couldn't offer the guy anymore insight about Bagwell than he had already. WTF? Gotta be some kinda grudge..

2. Perhaps related to the above, James has moments where he seems to lose his f'ing mind. To wit, there was a blurb in the rather extensive write-up on Joe Morgan regarding some comment Joe made on ESPN. The entry reads as follows:

In April 2000, Major League Baseball aired a promotional spot in which Peter Gammons pitching, struck out Harold Renolds. Boadcasting on ESPN on April 19, Joe Morgan was frothing at the mouth about this commercial. "Harold Reynolds was a major league baseball player," Morgan said over and over... I may be paraphrasing a little, because my VCR wasn't running. "Harold Reynolds was an all-star. Peter Gammons does not strike him out. It's just wrong, and I'm not going to keep quiet about it. It's wrong. Peter Gammons does not strike out Harold Reynolds."

Dear Joe:

Does the phrase "Get over yourself" mean anything to you? This is not to deny that you were a major league player, and even that you were a better player than Harold Reynolds, who I suppose must have been an All-Star sometime; what the hell, Dave Chalk made two All-Star games. This is not to deny that you were a brilliant player, Joe, but you are becoming a self-important little prig. Grow up, you little weenie. People make fun of one another; this is called friendship. This is life; only self-important twits take offense at that kind of thing. Jeez, man, get a life. Preferably not on television.

Your friend, Bill James

I mean, seriously.. how much of a ball buster do you have to be to call someone out in your book? Sheesh. He's right that Joe Morgan was being obnoxious, but damn if it required not only penning a letter to Morgan, but publishing the letter in your book to boot.This kind of annoyed tone is quite pervasive in many sections of the book. I'm not sure I like it. I'd love to see Bill take a cut at a curve ball.

3. He practially disembowels George Sisler's career, which I found to be a little unfair. There's a good bit there about how Sisler's OBP was horrible, but nearly all of the guys listed for comparison with worse career batting averages (McGwire, Schmidt, McGriff, etc.) are power hitters and would be expected to have a lot more walks just by intimidation alone. It's not like Sisler has a bad career OBP (.387), but it is maybe a bit low for a guy who hit .340. In fact he was often an OBP leader for many years until he tailed off later in his career. Seems like another grudge.

4. James writes in great length to justify Eddie Collins ahead of Rogers Hornsby at 2B all-time (about five pages worth.. defensive much?). What particularly struck me about this dialogue was his comment that he wasn't rating Hornsby below Collins out of spite, but that he did in fact "dislike" Hornsby. I guess I'm a little confused, but I'm fairly sure that Bill James and Rogers Hornsby never crossed paths. How can you dislike someone you've never met? It's odd. Very odd.

I'm sure there's lots of other weird things about this book, but these are some random things I've encountered. I'd be interested to read others' impressions.

I like this draft.Bill James is a genius when he agrees with ya, and a crack when he dont. but entertaining all around.

classic about morgan.

I don't think my agreement/disagreement has a damn thing to do with it. I can handle if James rates guys differently than I would, but I would expect him to keep his petty differences with people to himself, especially if he's trying to maintain this image as guy who rates players objectively.Somethings tells me, after reading his book for no more than an hour, that Bill James is either a very angry man or just completely off his rocker at times.

Or maybe this is just his shtick..

 

[Spartans Rule]

Spartans

Wagner was an awesome pick, disagreed with Pedro there..big time. You could've had Joe D there man. Still, you did get Yaz later on, who is also a bit overlooked in the all-time perspective. Not sure if I like the Newhouser selection either. Guy did have a pretty sick 3-year run from 44-46, but like somebody mentioned, that was during the War and he really only had two other top of the line seasons after that...not really enough to justify him there. Just my

I still haven't heard a good argument against Pedro. 7 years of dominance unmatched by any pitcher in any era. Starters shouldn't have ERAs under 2 these days. And he's got a 13 year career so its not like the longevity isn't there.It doesn't help that Pedro is active and has zero charisma. Yeah, DiMaggio was an icon, and Pedro picks fights with 70 year olds. But if you keep an objective eye, you gotta admit he pitches as well as anyone ever has.

As for Newhouser, the War aspect kinda slipped my mind when I made the pick, so it isn't as great as I thought. But the war was over by 1946, DiMaggio and Williams were back and he still matched his 44-45 greatness.

It kind of reminds me of my McAdoo pick in basketball. Not as famous or highly regarded, but the best there was for a time. I'm a sucker for dominant performances and mind-boggling stats, even if only for a short time.

Yaz sort of goes the opposite direction, but then again his 1967 was one of the best all-around seasons ever.

 

[Capella]

So, I broke down and bought the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract today.. you know, cuz I was at B&N and all.. and perusing it for a bit, I noticed some really odd things that need some insight from you, the loyal reader:

1. James usually gives a little blurb about each player in his rankings section, but under Jeff Bagwell, he simply writes, "Pass." I did a search to see if I could find anything about this, but it wasn't very telling. There was some chat interview where a guy asked James about this and all he said was that he probably couldn't offer the guy anymore insight about Bagwell than he had already. WTF? Gotta be some kinda grudge..

2. Perhaps related to the above, James has moments where he seems to lose his f'ing mind. To wit, there was a blurb in the rather extensive write-up on Joe Morgan regarding some comment Joe made on ESPN. The entry reads as follows:

In April 2000, Major League Baseball aired a promotional spot in which Peter Gammons pitching, struck out Harold Renolds.  Boadcasting on ESPN on April 19, Joe Morgan was frothing at the mouth about this commercial.  "Harold Reynolds was a major league baseball player," Morgan said over and over... I may be paraphrasing a little, because my VCR wasn't running.  "Harold Reynolds was an all-star.  Peter Gammons does not strike him out.  It's just wrong, and I'm not going to keep quiet about it.  It's wrong.  Peter Gammons does not strike out Harold Reynolds."

Dear Joe:

Does the phrase "Get over yourself" mean anything to you?  This is not to deny that you were a major league player, and even that you were a better player than Harold Reynolds, who I suppose must have been an All-Star sometime; what the hell, Dave Chalk made two All-Star games.  This is not to deny that you were a brilliant player, Joe, but you are becoming a self-important little prig.  Grow up, you little weenie.  People make fun of one another; this is called friendship.  This is life; only self-important twits take offense at that kind of thing.  Jeez, man, get a life.  Preferably not on television.

Your friend, Bill James

I mean, seriously.. how much of a ball buster do you have to be to call someone out in your book? Sheesh. He's right that Joe Morgan was being obnoxious, but damn if it required not only penning a letter to Morgan, but publishing the letter in your book to boot.This kind of annoyed tone is quite pervasive in many sections of the book. I'm not sure I like it. I'd love to see Bill take a cut at a curve ball.

3. He practially disembowels George Sisler's career, which I found to be a little unfair. There's a good bit there about how Sisler's OBP was horrible, but nearly all of the guys listed for comparison with worse career batting averages (McGwire, Schmidt, McGriff, etc.) are power hitters and would be expected to have a lot more walks just by intimidation alone. It's not like Sisler has a bad career OBP (.387), but it is maybe a bit low for a guy who hit .340. In fact he was often an OBP leader for many years until he tailed off later in his career. Seems like another grudge.

4. James writes in great length to justify Eddie Collins ahead of Rogers Hornsby at 2B all-time (about five pages worth.. defensive much?). What particularly struck me about this dialogue was his comment that he wasn't rating Hornsby below Collins out of spite, but that he did in fact "dislike" Hornsby. I guess I'm a little confused, but I'm fairly sure that Bill James and Rogers Hornsby never crossed paths. How can you dislike someone you've never met? It's odd. Very odd.

I'm sure there's lots of other weird things about this book, but these are some random things I've encountered. I'd be interested to read others' impressions.

hmm..I'll have to go dig mine out, read it a while ago..I remember him talking about how he has modern players ranked as low as they can reasonably be ranked, which I liked. In fact, IIRC he had Bonds as the third-best LF of all time, behind Ted and Musual (?).. I also liked how he went through each period of the game and described how it was played in that era, etc. and yes, he's been known to have grudges. I don't know why.

his rankings are pretty good, as well..for the most part.

that's a damn good book..going to look for mine.

 

[Capella]

So, I broke down and bought the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract today.. you know, cuz I was at B&N and all.. and perusing it for a bit, I noticed some really odd things that need some insight from you, the loyal reader:

1. James usually gives a little blurb about each player in his rankings section, but under Jeff Bagwell, he simply writes, "Pass." I did a search to see if I could find anything about this, but it wasn't very telling. There was some chat interview where a guy asked James about this and all he said was that he probably couldn't offer the guy anymore insight about Bagwell than he had already. WTF? Gotta be some kinda grudge..

2. Perhaps related to the above, James has moments where he seems to lose his f'ing mind. To wit, there was a blurb in the rather extensive write-up on Joe Morgan regarding some comment Joe made on ESPN. The entry reads as follows:

In April 2000, Major League Baseball aired a promotional spot in which Peter Gammons pitching, struck out Harold Renolds.  Boadcasting on ESPN on April 19, Joe Morgan was frothing at the mouth about this commercial.  "Harold Reynolds was a major league baseball player," Morgan said over and over... I may be paraphrasing a little, because my VCR wasn't running.  "Harold Reynolds was an all-star.  Peter Gammons does not strike him out.  It's just wrong, and I'm not going to keep quiet about it.  It's wrong.  Peter Gammons does not strike out Harold Reynolds."

Dear Joe:

Does the phrase "Get over yourself" mean anything to you?  This is not to deny that you were a major league player, and even that you were a better player than Harold Reynolds, who I suppose must have been an All-Star sometime; what the hell, Dave Chalk made two All-Star games.  This is not to deny that you were a brilliant player, Joe, but you are becoming a self-important little prig.  Grow up, you little weenie.  People make fun of one another; this is called friendship.  This is life; only self-important twits take offense at that kind of thing.  Jeez, man, get a life.  Preferably not on television.

Your friend, Bill James

I mean, seriously.. how much of a ball buster do you have to be to call someone out in your book? Sheesh. He's right that Joe Morgan was being obnoxious, but damn if it required not only penning a letter to Morgan, but publishing the letter in your book to boot.This kind of annoyed tone is quite pervasive in many sections of the book. I'm not sure I like it. I'd love to see Bill take a cut at a curve ball.

3. He practially disembowels George Sisler's career, which I found to be a little unfair. There's a good bit there about how Sisler's OBP was horrible, but nearly all of the guys listed for comparison with worse career batting averages (McGwire, Schmidt, McGriff, etc.) are power hitters and would be expected to have a lot more walks just by intimidation alone. It's not like Sisler has a bad career OBP (.387), but it is maybe a bit low for a guy who hit .340. In fact he was often an OBP leader for many years until he tailed off later in his career. Seems like another grudge.

4. James writes in great length to justify Eddie Collins ahead of Rogers Hornsby at 2B all-time (about five pages worth.. defensive much?). What particularly struck me about this dialogue was his comment that he wasn't rating Hornsby below Collins out of spite, but that he did in fact "dislike" Hornsby. I guess I'm a little confused, but I'm fairly sure that Bill James and Rogers Hornsby never crossed paths. How can you dislike someone you've never met? It's odd. Very odd.

I'm sure there's lots of other weird things about this book, but these are some random things I've encountered. I'd be interested to read others' impressions.

Damn!, now I gotta go out and buy this thing.

like him or hate him, I think he's one of the brightest baseball minds alive.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I still haven't heard a good argument against Pedro. 7 years of dominance unmatched by any pitcher in any era. Starters shouldn't have ERAs under 2 these days. And he's got a 13 year career so its not like the longevity isn't there.

He's pitched 2,300 innings and is only 32. I don't think I'm ready to vault him into the upper echelon just yet. His arm could fall off tomorrow, and then what do you have? Longevity is definitely part of this draft, and frankly, Martinez doesn't quite have that under his belt. He's getting there, but needs more innings. There's no disputing his dominance, however. His adjusted ERA is the highest of any pitcher in history by a pretty substantial margin. Let's see if he can keep it up. I think he's going to fall off the shelf very soon, but it remains to be seen.

 

[Capella]

Spartans

Wagner was an awesome pick, disagreed with Pedro there..big time. You could've had Joe D there man. Still, you did get Yaz later on, who is also a bit overlooked in the all-time perspective. Not sure if I like the Newhouser selection either. Guy did have a pretty sick 3-year run from 44-46, but like somebody mentioned, that was during the War and he really only had two other top of the line seasons after that...not really enough to justify him there. Just my

I still haven't heard a good argument against Pedro. 7 years of dominance unmatched by any pitcher in any era. Starters shouldn't have ERAs under 2 these days. And he's got a 13 year career so its not like the longevity isn't there.It doesn't help that Pedro is active and has zero charisma. Yeah, DiMaggio was an icon, and Pedro picks fights with 70 year olds. But if you keep an objective eye, you gotta admit he pitches as well as anyone ever has.

As for Newhouser, the War aspect kinda slipped my mind when I made the pick, so it isn't as great as I thought. But the war was over by 1946, DiMaggio and Williams were back and he still matched his 44-45 greatness.

It kind of reminds me of my McAdoo pick in basketball. Not as famous or highly regarded, but the best there was for a time. I'm a sucker for dominant performances and mind-boggling stats, even if only for a short time.

Yaz sort of goes the opposite direction, but then again his 1967 was one of the best all-around seasons ever.

I personally don't think Pedro is even the best RHP of his generation..Maddux has him every way from main street as far as I'm concerned. Take a look at his '92-95 seasons if you want to see the truly dominant RHP of our time. 1992-2.18

1993-2.36

1994-1.56

1995-1.63

In 94-95 he walked just a shade over 50 batters combined in over 400 innings. WOW. Think about that.

Not a knock against Pedro at all..he's sensational, I just don't think he deserved to go there..I could reasonably argue he's not a top-10 pitcher all-time, and you took him at pick 18 in an all-time draft.

EDIT: Hell, this doesn't even take Clemens into account.

Good era for righties.

 

[Capella]

Cap - I went to read everyone elses review again.  You do not seem to be a proponent of early pitchers.

Mind giving your thoughts regardless of that.  i.e. some people thought pitchers had more value, so what do you think about Pedro going before Clemens, or Ryan going before Feller? 

As opposed to ryan before bench or something like that.

not that I'm against pitchers going early, just against some of the pitchers going where they went.Lefty was a great pitcher..obviously. But is there that big of a difference between him and some of the other guys that went afterwards? I certainly don't see him as the 2nd-best pitcher ever, like you seem to.

and he didn't win 9 straight ERA titles..did win 9, but not in a row.

ERA

1926-2.51-1

1927-3.19-9

1928-2.58-3

1929-2.81-1

1930-2.54-1

1931-2.06-1

1932-2.84-1

1933-3.20-4

1935-2.70-1

1936-2.81-1

1937-3.02-5

1938-3.08-1

1939-2.54-1

Anyways, it's not that I don't like Lefty, he was obviously tremendous. But EVERYBODY selected in the first few rounds of a draft like this is going to be tremendous. Not only do I think you may have been able to get lefty in rd 2, but you passed on some tremendous position players like Wagner and Mick. And even if you didn't get lefty..is there really that big of a difference between him and somebody you could have taken in rounds 2-3 (carlton, RJ, spahn, etc)?

my mistake about the ERAs. So Its ONLY 9 out of 10 ;- ) I think Clemons is second, with 6. what would be your top five pitchers ever Cap? curious to know. they actually had a poll about it at a site with baseball fanatics (I guess like fbg but baseball talk) and it was between lefty and Alexander, then a bit of a distiction to Matty and then the rest. Obviously that was not based on building a team like this, but just "best of all time" criteria.

Checking their votes help me get an idea where guys might go over here actually, although they seem to know a lot more than we do, on average. More than I know for sure.

JohnsonAlexander

Young

Grove

Spahn/Seaver/Clemens maybe (after last year, he has to be on the list)

I don't keep a running list, but that's sort of the idea for me. I don't think there is much of a drop-off from Grove to Spahn at all. You do. That's why you took him there and that's why I'm being a loudmouth and knocking it.

 

[Spartans Rule]

I still haven't heard a good argument against Pedro. 7 years of dominance unmatched by any pitcher in any era. Starters shouldn't have ERAs under 2 these days. And he's got a 13 year career so its not like the longevity isn't there.

He's pitched 2,300 innings and is only 32. I don't think I'm ready to vault him into the upper echelon just yet. His arm could fall off tomorrow, and then what do you have? Longevity is definitely part of this draft, and frankly, Martinez doesn't quite have that under his belt. He's getting there, but needs more innings. There's no disputing his dominance, however. His adjusted ERA is the highest of any pitcher in history by a pretty substantial margin. Let's see if he can keep it up. I think he's going to fall off the shelf very soon, but it remains to be seen.

He's got more longevity than Koufax who went at #2. 13 seasons to 12 (really 12 full seasons to 10), 7 great seasons to 5. Both have 5 ERA titles and 3 Cy Youngs. And Koufax went 2nd overall.I don't want to hang my hat on the "he's as good as Koufax" thing too much because I do think Koufax was a reach, but I do see some bias against the active here. (Bonds should have gone much higher than #8 as well). If Pedro's arm fell off tomorrow, he's first ballot HOF material and takes a place in history right next to Sandy. This definitely wasn't like the LeBron pick where I'm anticipating the future. IMO, he's done enough to justify that pick. And if he keeps doing it, he'll pass 'em all.

 

[Capella]

Doug--I edited what I said about Spahn in your team comments..I really forgot how God #### good he was.that's all.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Doug--I edited what I said about Spahn in your team comments..I really forgot how God #### good he was.that's all.

I remember when I was 12 or so I had this big box of sports trivia cards, and that was where I learned about Warren Spahn. Guy was the answer to every question about pitchers. Incredible career.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

He's got more longevity than Koufax who went at #2. 13 seasons to 12 (really 12 full seasons to 10), 7 great seasons to 5. Both have 5 ERA titles and 3 Cy Youngs. And Koufax went 2nd overall.

No question he compares very favorably to Koufax. However, Koufax at #2 was not a good choice. You're using a flawed selection to justify your pick. Koufax suffers from the same lack of innings that Pedro does.If Pedro continues on his present trend (I'd wager he won't, but that's entirely debatable), he will absolutely be one of the top pitchers of all time. As it stands now, he's probably not near the top 10, but this is purely on his lack of total innings, not his current stats (which are extraordinary).

 

[Capella]

Doug--I edited what I said about Spahn in your team comments..I really forgot how God #### good he was.that's all.

I remember when I was 12 or so I had this big box of sports trivia cards, and that was where I learned about Warren Spahn. Guy was the answer to every question about pitchers. Incredible career.

yup..you tend to forget some of what he did (or at least I do), since he never gets any real run during conversations of all-time greats. 17 straight seasons where he had 14+ wins, and only twice in that span did he have less than 17 wins (14 and 15).sick.spahn and sain and pray for rain.

 

[Koya]

Spartans

Wagner was an awesome pick, disagreed with Pedro there..big time. You could've had Joe D there man. Still, you did get Yaz later on, who is also a bit overlooked in the all-time perspective. Not sure if I like the Newhouser selection either. Guy did have a pretty sick 3-year run from 44-46, but like somebody mentioned, that was during the War and he really only had two other top of the line seasons after that...not really enough to justify him there. Just my

I still haven't heard a good argument against Pedro. 7 years of dominance unmatched by any pitcher in any era. Starters shouldn't have ERAs under 2 these days. And he's got a 13 year career so its not like the longevity isn't there.It doesn't help that Pedro is active and has zero charisma. Yeah, DiMaggio was an icon, and Pedro picks fights with 70 year olds. But if you keep an objective eye, you gotta admit he pitches as well as anyone ever has.

As for Newhouser, the War aspect kinda slipped my mind when I made the pick, so it isn't as great as I thought. But the war was over by 1946, DiMaggio and Williams were back and he still matched his 44-45 greatness.

It kind of reminds me of my McAdoo pick in basketball. Not as famous or highly regarded, but the best there was for a time. I'm a sucker for dominant performances and mind-boggling stats, even if only for a short time.

Yaz sort of goes the opposite direction, but then again his 1967 was one of the best all-around seasons ever.

My only thing about Pedro is not longevity, but stamina. How many IP does he have, and can he go 9 Innings on short rest... or even get you 8 innings on most nights? As for your point on ERA, you are right one. Pedro is actually #1 in ERA adjusted for League/Time and Ballpark... thats as objective a measure as you can find. His ranking may go down a little as he winds down his career, but Pedro has a bit of a cushion over #2.

#2 on that list is Lefty Grove (go lefty) - who, like Pedro, played in an offensive era.

I think Pedro would have been amazing late second early third, but Lefty would have been better early second (if I knew he would be there).... when you value picthing, you do not want to miss out on what you think is a very strong advantage.

Ruth is up... an in his prime Pedro is one of maybe 10 pitchers you could send up there and feel good about things.

 

[Koya]

I still haven't heard a good argument against Pedro. 7 years of dominance unmatched by any pitcher in any era. Starters shouldn't have ERAs under 2 these days. And he's got a 13 year career so its not like the longevity isn't there.

He's pitched 2,300 innings and is only 32. I don't think I'm ready to vault him into the upper echelon just yet. His arm could fall off tomorrow, and then what do you have? Longevity is definitely part of this draft, and frankly, Martinez doesn't quite have that under his belt. He's getting there, but needs more innings. There's no disputing his dominance, however. His adjusted ERA is the highest of any pitcher in history by a pretty substantial margin. Let's see if he can keep it up. I think he's going to fall off the shelf very soon, but it remains to be seen.

Even if he falls of the shelf, his numbers over a longer than Koufax period speak for themselves. Pedro is as dominant as they come - if he can go the distance.

 

[Koya]

Cap - I went to read everyone elses review again.  You do not seem to be a proponent of early pitchers.

Mind giving your thoughts regardless of that.  i.e. some people thought pitchers had more value, so what do you think about Pedro going before Clemens, or Ryan going before Feller? 

As opposed to ryan before bench or something like that.

not that I'm against pitchers going early, just against some of the pitchers going where they went.Lefty was a great pitcher..obviously. But is there that big of a difference between him and some of the other guys that went afterwards? I certainly don't see him as the 2nd-best pitcher ever, like you seem to.

and he didn't win 9 straight ERA titles..did win 9, but not in a row.

ERA

1926-2.51-1

1927-3.19-9

1928-2.58-3

1929-2.81-1

1930-2.54-1

1931-2.06-1

1932-2.84-1

1933-3.20-4

1935-2.70-1

1936-2.81-1

1937-3.02-5

1938-3.08-1

1939-2.54-1

Anyways, it's not that I don't like Lefty, he was obviously tremendous. But EVERYBODY selected in the first few rounds of a draft like this is going to be tremendous. Not only do I think you may have been able to get lefty in rd 2, but you passed on some tremendous position players like Wagner and Mick. And even if you didn't get lefty..is there really that big of a difference between him and somebody you could have taken in rounds 2-3 (carlton, RJ, spahn, etc)?

my mistake about the ERAs. So Its ONLY 9 out of 10 ;- ) I think Clemons is second, with 6. what would be your top five pitchers ever Cap? curious to know. they actually had a poll about it at a site with baseball fanatics (I guess like fbg but baseball talk) and it was between lefty and Alexander, then a bit of a distiction to Matty and then the rest. Obviously that was not based on building a team like this, but just "best of all time" criteria.

Checking their votes help me get an idea where guys might go over here actually, although they seem to know a lot more than we do, on average. More than I know for sure.

JohnsonAlexander

Young

Grove

Spahn/Seaver/Clemens maybe (after last year, he has to be on the list)

I don't keep a running list, but that's sort of the idea for me. I don't think there is much of a drop-off from Grove to Spahn at all. You do. That's why you took him there and that's why I'm being a loudmouth and knocking it.

But at least now we know each others reasoning. if we werent all loudmouths this would be a boring thread. You are right... I see a big drop. If Lefty and two others went before it got to me, I would be looking at missing out on a top 5 all time pitcher. Thats a cool thing to have.

 

[Spartans Rule]

I think Pedro would have been amazing late second early third, but Lefty would have been better early second (if I knew he would be there).... when you value picthing, you do not want to miss out on what you think is a very strong advantage.

That's sort of how I felt too. I'm all about pitching and wanted at least one there since it was gonna be another 28 picks before I got to go again. I would have liked Mathewson but with him off the board, Pedro looked best to me.I had Maddux right with him and Pumpnick definitely got better value getting him in the 3rd. The tiebreaker between the two was probably the adjusted ERA stat, and some style points. I'd rather take someone more overpowering against the great ones, especially in my big park. Don't want too many balls rolling around out there if I can help it.