Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Not much has changed about the pitching matchup since last night's rainout. Doc dominated the Orioles last year, and tries to extend his club record to ten straight wins, on his way to a possible start in the All-Star game. Omar Daal has been hittable all year, allowing opponents a .323 average, and hasn't faced the #1 attack in the majors yet.

I'm still very optimistic about the Jays' chances, though I won't be surprised if it isn't a Halladay masterpiece; it's hard to say in advance how sharp he'll be after two extra days of rest. If you can trust the Internet forecast, there should be time to get this one in, but it does not look good for tomorrow afternoon's scheduled finale, with thunderstorms predicted for Baltimore overnight and in the morning. If that one is cancelled, the disruption to the Toronto rotation, which Carlos Tosca had set up all the way to the break, will be considerable. I'm guessing Doug Davis is in the bullpen tonight, and Mark Hendrickson will almost certainly be bumped in Montreal, at least back to Sunday. It's also possible that Doc (already the AL leader in IP) might make his next start on short rest. If he gets a comfortable lead tonight, and a quick hook, that may be the plan.
Game 71 (Take Two): Weather Permitting | 50 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_Donkit R.K. - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 07:03 PM EDT (#13587) #
http://www.easports.com/platforms/games/mvpbaseball2003/seasonsim.jsp?article_id=seasonsim
HIJACK!

I was looking into what new baseball video game to buy this year and was browsing the EA Sports website for info on this year's MVP Baseball (my eventual choice, though I haven't picked it up yet). There was an article where they simmed every game of the season and the playoffs. I definitely reccomend it to any Jays fan out there :-)Unfortunately, they don't show much stats except the major award winners. Of course, it's kind of silly, but as a Jays fan, I think it's a grrrrreat read ;-) Just click on my homepage. Enjoy!
Gitz - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 07:15 PM EDT (#13588) #
If you're looking for a video baseball game, I insist you purchase Sega's World Series Baseball 2K3. If anyone out there owns the game, you may have recognized a certain "prominent" member of the ZLC who is available as a free agent. Further, if you don't use the joystick for a little while and leave the game running, you'll be treated to the correct pronunciation of this certain member of the ZLC's name ...

But back to baseball. Coach, I respectfully submit that Jamie Moyer or Mike Mussina will start the for the American League in the mid-summer "classic."
Mike D - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 07:34 PM EDT (#13589) #
Donkit, as you choose your video game, let us know if it includes Cory Lidle. As a replacement player, I think that makes him ineligible for the MLBPA...which might mean they can't use his likeness in the game.
Coach - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 07:41 PM EDT (#13590) #
Gitz, I was just throwing it out there, and I'm sure Scioscia will give the honour to a deserving pitcher. Doc will certainly make the staff, and one of these years, he'll start.

Doc actually looks better than usual. His curveball is simply amazing. Roberts did flare an opposite-field leadoff single, stole second and went to third when Wilson made a horrible throw into center field, but Mora threw his bat at strike three on that pitch, Segui was mystified for another K, and Conine grounded harmlessly to third.

The Jays squandered a bases-loaded opportunity in the first, and went down 1-2-3 in the second, as did the O's. Through two innings, it's a scoreless pitcher's duel, of all things, but you get the feeling the Jays will explode the second time through the order.
Coach - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 08:05 PM EDT (#13591) #
Weird inning -- a leadoff walk to Delgado was followed by a sharp single up the middle by Wilson. Then, Batista made an apparent throwing error on a Phelps roller, but the run didn't count, as Carlos was called out for interfering with the third baseman. Next, O-Dog grounded into an inning-ending double play, except the first-base ump incorrectly called him safe. Woodward walked, so the bases were loaded for Bordick. Mike singled, and finally, it's 2-0 Jays.
Coach - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 08:08 PM EDT (#13592) #
Make it 3-0, on a frozen-rope double by Reed Johnson, the California Peach.
Coach - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 08:19 PM EDT (#13593) #
It's obvious that the scouting report on Mora is to get in his kitchen with fastballs and curve him away, but Doc let a 3-1 heater catch a bit too much of the plate, and Melvin steered it up the middle for a single. After a fielder's choice and a popup, Gibbons crushed a Halladay cutter for a monster 2-run homer. That's the 16th long ball Roy has given up already this year, and we have ourselves a ball game.

Scoreboard watching: Victor Zambrano and Roger Clemens have tossed duelling no-hitters through four. Sammy Sosa has "uncorked" his first homer since early May, according to Jamie Campbell.
Coach - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 09:13 PM EDT (#13594) #
Quiet in here tonight...

Halladay may be done after just 91 pitches, because they do intend to start him again on Sunday. If the bullpen blows it, there will be plenty of second-guessing. I'd stay with my ace tonight, and worry about his next start when it comes.

Delgado led off the eighth with his third walk of the night. Pinch-hitter Myers struck out, but back-to-back singles by Phelps and Hudson made it 4-2, giving whoever pitches the bottom of the eighth a bit more cushion to work with.
_Dr B - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 09:18 PM EDT (#13595) #
I'd stay with the ace too, unless they get a few more cushion runs. By my calculation they need to be up by about 7 runs before Tosca will trust most of his pen...
_Dr B - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 09:28 PM EDT (#13596) #
Lopez gets it done. I am hoping for lots of rain in the next few weeks so that Lopez' arm doesn't fall off. I can't remember who suggested it but Lopez as a starter would be an interesting idea. Of course then you'd need to find someone decent for the pen (Juan Acevedo anyone?) but that would be easier to find than another starter.
Coach - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 09:39 PM EDT (#13597) #
I was only nervous about the 'pen because it's a game that Doc "should" have finished under normal circumstances; advance managing for Sunday's game has altered Tosca's strategy tonight, and that's tempting fate. No problem for Aquilino Lopez, who confidently mowed down the top third of the order in the eighth, but I was holding my breath. If Cliff Politte works the ninth, it won't even be a save situation any more, because Reed Johnson singled, then Wells and Myers hit RBI doubles to make it a comfortable 6-2 margin.
_Dr B - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 09:51 PM EDT (#13598) #
Lopez gets it done in the 9th. Yay!

I have no real problem with Doc being removed early in general as I don't want his arm to fall off either (same goes for Escobar). Some of the relievers other than Miller/Lopez/Politte need to step it up enough so that Tosca will actually use them and take some of the pitching load. I can't really argue with the usage of Lopez tonight as long as he gets some rest the next couple of days.
Coach - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 09:54 PM EDT (#13599) #
Sweet. By leaving Lopez in, Tosca gets the rookie his first big-league save, and Doc has won his tenth consecutive start, which no pitcher has done since Chuck Finley in 1997.

Dr. B., Aquilino made several starts in AAA last year, so it's not that much of a stretch, but why mess with success? He hasn't allowed an earned run in 13 straight appearances. Unlike some relievers, Lopez is durable enough to pitch 100+ innings out of the bullpen in a season, and he's notched 39 so far, so he's not being overused.
_Jonny German - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 09:56 PM EDT (#13600) #
This from Jerry Howarth:

June 18, 2003, Blue Jays win their 40th against 31 losses.
July 18, 2003, Blue Jays win their 40th against 54 losses.

Another round of applause for J.P. et al.
_Jonny German - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 09:57 PM EDT (#13601) #
And of course that second line should say July 18, 2002... lousy copy & paste...
_Dr B - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 10:21 PM EDT (#13602) #
Dr. B., Aquilino made several starts in AAA last year, so it's not that much of a stretch, but why mess with success?

Yep, fair enough. The only reason you'd mess with it is because if your fourth and fifth starters suck badly enough then Lopez might be your best bet. No need to do it right now of course.

39 innings already is a lot, btw. Poster-boy for over use, Bob File threw 74 innings in 2001. To put it into perspective, I picked some random half decent relievers

Thurman 2002 65IP (as a reliever a few more as starter)
Tam 2000 85IP (That's his peak IP)
Politte 2002 73IP (Peak IP)

Apologies for the small sample size, I was simply trying to pick relievers who I believed were worked quite hard. Aquilino is on a pace for high 80's IP, which is more than Tam at his peak. That doesn't mean Aquilino is going to get injured, and his age and previous experience as a starter would help him no doubt. Seems a bit of a risk to take with a valuable player mind you, and sometimes you feel it would be better to use one of your lesser arms to eat some of those innings.
_Cristian - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 10:26 PM EDT (#13603) #
Thank goodness that was a typo. I was bracing myself for a 23 game losing streak.
Coach - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 11:07 PM EDT (#13604) #
Last year, Lopez pitched 109.1 innings, including 11 starts and 23 relief appearances, for Tacoma. He struck out 103 and walked just 27, with a 2.39 ERA in a hitter's league. He was fresh enough after that workload to play winter ball, where he also excelled, and his arm has looked this lively since the first day of training camp. He's obviously resilient, so there's no reason to assume he will suddenly hit some sort of fatigue wall. However, Aquilino did have two brief stints on the DL (back in 2000 and 2001) with elbow irritations, bouncing back to finish strong both years. Like any pitcher, he's not indestructible, but I'm confident that Tosca, Patterson and the trainers will take very good care of their valuable asset.
_Jurgen - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 11:32 PM EDT (#13605) #
I was looking into what new baseball video game to buy this year and was browsing the EA Sports website for info on this year's MVP Baseball (my eventual choice, though I haven't picked it up yet

If you're looking for a video baseball game, I insist you purchase Sega's World Series Baseball 2K3


I'm actually a big fan of High Heat 2003 for the PS2. Gotta love a game that includes RC27 as one of its stats.
_King Rat - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 11:41 PM EDT (#13606) #
I'm a fan of Season Ticket Baseball; it seems slightly unrealistic at times but is by and large very good. For the statistically inclined, it also offers RC/27, as well as several other stats I don't entirely understand.

Huzzah for the Jays! Halladay was on tonight, and if Escobar can give another good performance tomorrow (weather permitting) I may lose my head and go from 'cautious optimism' to 'exasperating, pig-headed boosterism.' Think of the anti-Griffin, lauding the Prokapec trade as a dazzling success, and you'll have the general idea. But, as my beleaguered friends and family can attest, it doesn't take much to get me excited about the Jays; I thought they were in it in 2001.
_Dr B - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 11:42 PM EDT (#13607) #
Given how good Lopez is, and how good Lopez was, you do have to wonder why the Mariners let him go. They'd probably be grinding their teeth if they weren't so good anyway. The Jays were probably right to send Gary Majewski back, btw. He's been getting shelled in AAA. ERA of 7.32 with poor peripheral stats.

Yankees hold on for a 1-0 win over the mighty Devil Rays in 12. Meanwhile, Cy Loaiza polishes off the Red Sox for his 10th win. Esteban, you rock! (when you're playing the Bosox or Yankees anyway :-)).
Joe - Wednesday, June 18 2003 @ 11:46 PM EDT (#13608) #
Two questions are on my mind:
1) Where was this Halladay in April;
2) Why has this Halladay given up so many home runs?

Clearly I don't expect that he would have gone 6-0 in April, particularly considering the offence hadn't yet hit its stride. But to emerge from a month without a win (and IIRC this is the second year in a row it's happened) seems a bit odd. Maybe Halladay's pre-season work needs fine-tuning?

As for homers, maybe he's just been unlucky or maybe he's victimized by a very poor April. His control is good, as far as I can tell - walks are nearly nonexistent - but still, the home runs keep coming.
Gitz - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 01:30 AM EDT (#13609) #
ESPN's Rob Dibble said tonight that Roy Halladay should start the all-star game for the AL. This is odd, considering:

1) Halladay isn't in the top 10 in the E.R.A. race. E.R.A. can be misleading, but pitchers like Nate Cornejo, Ryan Franklin, and Kyle Lohse have better E.R.A.'s than Halladay. Plus Halladay has given up nine unearned runs.
2) The man leading the AL E.R.A. race, Esteban Loaiza, also got his 10th win. Tonight. The same night Halladay got his 10th win. Look, I know I've defended journalists and analysts in the past, but does Dibble have any idea how good Loaiza's been this year? Nearly all of Loaiza's peripheral numbers are better than Halladay's. I could excuse this, somewhat, if Loaiza didn't get his 10th win tonight, the same evening Dibble made his pitch for Halladay. That's not merely ignorance at work; that's stupidity.
3) There are other pitchers, Mike Mussina, Gil Meche, and Jamie Moyer among them, who are also pitching better than Halladay.

Loaiza may or may not come back to the pack, but you have to give him credit. In this instance, that credit should be in the form of an all-star start. Above I indicated that Moyer or Mussina will start the all-star game. I stand by that prediction. But Esteban Loaiza should get the nod.
Gitz - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 01:43 AM EDT (#13610) #
In fact, one could argue -- and statheads certainly would take this route -- that Halladay shouldn't even make the team; his gaudy 10-2 record is mainly a product of superior run support. Tim Hudson has been the better pitcher this year, but because Keith Foulke has chosen to blow his saves with Hudson on the mound, Tim only has five wins. One of the A's will go, possibly two, and Hudson won't be among them. So here's a list of starers who should go instead of Halladay:

Mike Mussina
Mark Mulder
Gil Meche
Jamie Moyer
Esteban Loaiza
David Wells
Barry Zito
Tim Hudson
Kyle Lohse

That's nine pitchers, by my count, who have peripheral numbers (I would list the numbers if I had any clue how to format them) better than Halladay's. Check it out for yourself. One could even loosely argue for Ryan Franklin or C.C. Sabathia. Roy's a tremendous pitcher on a nice run right now, but, taking an objective look at the starters in the American League, Halladay should not only not start the all-star game, but, at this point, he also shouldn't even make the team.
Craig B - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 02:11 AM EDT (#13611) #
Add last year and this year, and there's a persuasive argument that Halladay has been the best or second-best pitcher in the AL, with Zito possibly ahead of him... but those 25 or so extra innings loom large in a comparison that close.

Saying that Kyle Lohse should make the All-Star team instead of Roy Halladay is patent nonsense. Lohse isn't an All-Star yet, he's a guy having a good half-season (he may well be an All-Star soon, though).

statheads certainly would take this route

No, they wouldn't, because "statheads" would understand the impact of using a sample size of 14 starts to decide who an All-Star is. This is one aspect, by the way, where the ordinary fan has it right and the baseball intlligentsia has it all wrong. Look at the All-Star voting and you will see a distinct reluctance to do what the media does, rushing to anoint the latest flash in the pan as an All-Star.
Gitz - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 02:39 AM EDT (#13612) #
Oh, I agree, I would throw Halladay on the team for sure. Looking at the numbers by themselves -- through today, as I stated -- an argument could be made for Halladay not being there. He'll make it, he should make it, and he'll be good. I wasn't claiming Halladay shouldn't be there.

That said, Dibble is an idiot. Halladay should not start the game, I am sorry, and it doesn't matter that Halladay has been as good as Zito in the last full year. By your logic, Loaiza should not make the team, since he's been wretched in the past. Are you saying, then, he should not be an all-star based on his performance THIS YEAR? Rightly or wrongly, isn't the all-star team based solely on small-sample sizes?
_R Billie - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 02:50 AM EDT (#13613) #
The fact that Roy has pitched the most innings in baseball and has posted an unearthly K/BB ratio in doing so should be taken into account too. Being a workhorse counts in this pitching poor ERA.

Whether or not he should make the All-Star team is a different argument entirely, since I've never actually been clear on what the actual criteria for making the team is. What I do know is that most people would prefer Halladay to most of the pitchers on the list above.
Gitz - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 02:57 AM EDT (#13614) #
I don't know if people would prefer Halladay over anyone, since the "average fan" does not really know how good Roy has become. Like it or not, they'd rather see Wells and Mussina and Mulder and Zito. Halladay is not demonstrably worse than those pitchers, but his numbers this year, especially the fact he's surrendered more than a hit per inning and all those homers, don't look as good as the other guys. That's my thesis, and I'm sticking to it!

R Billie, you also raise an excellent point about what consitutes an all-star, which, as you say, is a separate argument. Supposedly it's a fan's game, and, in that case, it will be nice for them to get what will surely be, for many, their first glance at Halladay.

Good night, kids. (Craig, you should have been in bed hours ago!)
robertdudek - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 09:06 AM EDT (#13615) #
"Rightly or wrongly, isn't the all-star team based solely on small-sample sizes?"

Certainly, that is the prevailing mood among managers who have selected players for some time (that and favouritism). It isn't, however, how the fans generally vote. Were I selecting the AL All-Star team, Loaiza would not be on it.

No to Loaiza! No to Mora!

Here is how I would weigh each inning/PA: 2001: 25%, 2002: 35%, 2003: 40%.
Mike D - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 11:14 AM EDT (#13616) #
I say yes to Loaiza, yes to Mora. No to the poster boy of past performance, Vince Carter, even though I'm usually in the role of defending VC. If you use the Dudek Formula, Paul Konerko is damn near an All-Star, and he's been as single-handedly responsible as one hitter could possibly be for the White Sox' 2003 suckitude.

Simply put, there are guys in baseball that just have career years, and with the half-season those two have had...their CV's upon retirement should rightfully include "One All-Star Appearance (2003)."

Loaiza and Mora have each been so good that even mediocre second halves would leave them with numbers that are all-star worthy -- especially given the performances of their teammates.
_dp - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 11:20 AM EDT (#13617) #
Loiza has been amazing this year- if we had him instead of Sturtze, the team would be in first place (not saying we should have kept him). You have to reward the kind of year he's having.

10-2, 2.15 era, 7.53 k/9, 1.03 WHIP, 1 BB every 4 IP, 6 HR in 100 IP. He keeps pitching well, and I keep waiting for him to tank, figuring b/c he's on my batter's box team, it has to happen soon, but he's still dominating every start.
_Brady Anderson - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 11:23 AM EDT (#13618) #
Robert, that's got some serious issues. You'd have guys playing spot time in 2003 deserving all-star slots, based on past performance. Guys past their prime - on the decline - on the roster. Players having break-out or career years getting left off.
What you would end up doing is rewarding consistency, which I don't agree with. The Hall of Fame rewards great consistency. The All-Star game rewards great single seasons. Could you justify the 1996 AL All-Star team leaving off 50 homerun man and leadoff specialist Brady Anderson? He was a KILLER that season. Thus, that season I want to see him crunch NL pitching.
And this inning per plate appearance formula is bizarre. Take Kevin Mitchell for example: You'd have him as a 1991 all-star, although he only hit 27 homers and hit a paltry .256. But he was great in 1989 and 1990!
Statistics and formulas and analyses are great and have their place, but let's not go overboard. The game is for the fans. All the fans. Not only the guys with engineering graphical super-calculators in their pocket. Mora and Loaiza are on there.
Coach - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 11:45 AM EDT (#13619) #
Loaiza and Mora have the "mandatory representative" spots all locked up with their brilliant half-seasons, so the debate about whether they deserve to be named is moot. Who else are you gonna take? Magglio Ordonez is playing like Carlos Lee this year, and if not for Mora, either Ponson or Gibbons would be a pseudo-star. Don't get me started on Dmitri Young, Rocco Baldelli, Milton Bradley, Mark Loretta or Rondell White and any Brewer (Richie Sexson, I guess) possibly deciding home field advantage in the World Series.

The Jays, who not so long ago were in the same "who can we pick?" boat, have evolved to where they will probably have a legitimate all-star like Wells stay home to make room for an inferior player.
_Jonny German - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 12:10 PM EDT (#13620) #
The 2003 American League All-Star Starting Pitchers

As told by Jonny German, with help from John Gizzi and Robert Dudek

I took Gitz's list of possible AL All-Star starters, and Robert's formula of 25% 2001, 35% 2002, 40% 2003 in considering their performances. I added Pedro Martinez to the mix, just because he's Pedro, and ran the numbers. The chart below shows what I came up with, in the order that I would pick them as All-Stars.
										
W W% IP IP/GS K/9 K/BB ERA WHIP BAA

Moose 18.8 65.5 223 6.79 8.4 4.8 3.40 1.08 0.236
Pedro 12.4 75.7 161 6.43 10.6 5.2 2.44 0.97 0.204
Zito 18.7 69.2 226 6.52 6.9 2.1 3.00 1.14 0.213
Roy 17.0 77.2 213 6.99 7.0 3.8 3.34 1.19 0.253
Mulder 20.1 71.3 221 6.96 6.1 2.7 3.40 1.18 0.247
Hudson 14.3 66.5 238 6.93 5.7 2.3 3.12 1.20 0.246
Moyer 18.7 72.6 212 6.45 6.0 2.5 3.22 1.13 0.231
Boomer 16.1 72.8 189 7.06 5.2 4.4 3.79 1.21 0.270
Esteban 15.0 65.0 192 6.40 6.3 2.9 4.11 1.31 0.270
Meche 11.6 69.3 127 6.09 6.4 1.8 3.76 1.32 0.239
Lohse 11.0 57.3 172 6.21 6.4 2.4 4.19 1.29 0.255

Notes: I didn't consider any other stats than the ones shown, and I didn't consider any other players. 2003 counting stats were projected to a full season before applying the weighted average formula, using a somewhat debatable 71/162 across the board as the current place in the sched. Raw data came from bigleaguers.com.
Pepper Moffatt - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 12:14 PM EDT (#13621) #
http://economics.about.com
Loaiza and Mora have the "mandatory representative" spots all locked up with their brilliant half-seasons, so the debate about whether they deserve to be named is moot. Who else are you gonna take? Magglio Ordonez is playing like Carlos Lee this year, and if not for Mora, either Ponson or Gibbons would be a pseudo-star. Don't get me started on Dmitri Young, Rocco Baldelli, Milton Bradley, Mark Loretta or Rondell White and any Brewer (Richie Sexson, I guess) possibly deciding home field advantage in the World Series.

Mora has been the best hitter in the AL. I think you'd have to take him, even if you didn't need an Oriole. You could take Ponson instead, who has pitched pretty well.

As far as bad teams go:

K.C.: Sweeney has been one of the best first basemen in the league for the past few years. I think you'd have to take him.

Florida: Mike Lowell is having a big year and has had some good ones in the past. He's in.

Cleveland: Milton Bradley has been the 2nd best CF in the AL this year. It's not like he's come out of nowhere: he was a very highly touted prospect a few years ago. I'd take him... I have a feeling he'll be going to a few of these by the time his career is up. C.C. Sabathia has pitched pretty well but hasn't gotten a whole lot of support. He's a bit more of a star as well.

Tampa: Aubrey Huff has been the best of a very weak crowd of AL right fielders. Again, he's another possible future star, so why not take him? Jay Gibbons has probably been the 2nd best right fielder, if you want a different Oriole.

White Sox: You could also take Frank Thomas if you weren't comfortable with Loaiza.

Pittsburgh: Brian Giles isn't having his best season but he's still mashing the ball and he's a legitimate star

Arizona: I guess you take Luis Gonzales given that their pitching has been hurt.

Detroit: Ugh. I wouldn't take anyone from Detroit. Dmitri Young, I guess. It's cases like this where I don't like the rule.

Milwaukee: Double Ugh. Sexson or Jenkins I guess. Estrella has had a pretty good year in the pen and might be just as useful. I'd say none of them should go.

Padres: Triple Ugh. I guess Ryan Klesko on name value, but he's not having an all-star year. Mark Loretta has been arguably their best hitter. Again, I say none of them should go.

Mets: Gotta go with Piazza, tho Cliff Floyd isn't having a horrible year.

Mike
robertdudek - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 12:19 PM EDT (#13622) #
Mike D,

How on earth would Konerko make it at a position with lots of great hitters, when his 2003 PA get weighted at 40%? He's probably behind Delgado, Giambi and Sweeney based only on 2001 and 2002!

I would chose those 3, with honourable mention to John Olerud (also ranking well ahead of Konerko, with defence and a porr pitcher's park being a huge plus for Ole).
robertdudek - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 12:25 PM EDT (#13623) #
Mike D,

How on earth would Konerko make it at a position with lots of great hitters, when his 2003 PA get weighted at 40%? He's probably behind Delgado, Giambi and Sweeney based only on 2001 and 2002!

I would chose those 3, with honourable mention to John Olerud (also ranking well ahead of Konerko, with defence and a porr pitcher's park being a huge plus for Ole).

Brady,

What I reward is established performance. If someone was great in 2001 and 2002, but has been a bench player in 2003, then that is obviously evidence that the player is no longer the player he was only a year ago (and he would not be on the team). Who exactly is in that category?

When/if Mora and Loaiza continue to play well this year and for the first half of next year, it will be time to include them on next year's team. All I am doing is rewarding people who've proven they are all-stars. If Mora and Loaiza are legit (as Mike Scott turned out to be for about 3 years) then they'll get their rewards. If not, we avoid looking back and wondering things like: "What were they smoking when they put Jerry Mumphrey in the lineup with Mike Schmidt and Andre Dawson?"

This is supposed to be an All-STAR game.
robertdudek - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 12:27 PM EDT (#13624) #
Coach,

I would take Magglio. He clearly is the best player on the team until proven otherwise.
robertdudek - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 12:35 PM EDT (#13625) #
I would take the first 7 on Coach's chart (Moose, Pedro, Roy, Big 3 and Moyer - with Moose probably starting). Possibly Colon or Buerhle would be #8 among starters (so we now have 3 White Sox more deserving than Loaiza).

Among relievers, I'd thing Rivera and Foulke would be shoe-ins.
Coach - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 12:54 PM EDT (#13626) #
That's Jonny's chart, Robert, as I'm sure you know. More research than I like to do. I agree that Magglio is by far the best White Sock, and the game being in his home park is another (illogical) reason he might get named, but I doubt it will be at Loaiza's expense -- more likely, as I said before, it will be Vernon Wells who gets squeezed by the convoluted selection process.
_Spicol - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 12:54 PM EDT (#13627) #
Here is how I would weigh each inning/PA: 2001: 25%, 2002: 35%, 2003: 40%.

Mandatory reps aside, I think that what's generally been happening with the assigned spots, without anyone really meaning to, is something like 50% consideration of a player's career and 50% the year in question. That's why guys like Giles, Ordonez and Piazza have been and should again become All-Stars despite crappy 2003s. Then there are those, like Cal Ripken later in his career, who transcend any formula and slide by on Star status. I have no problem with that. As Robert says, this is supposed to be an All-Star team, not a Who-Precisely-Is-Having-The-Best-Season-Statistically-Team.

Like many others, I have huge issues with the mandatory rep rule. But, if you're going to eliminate that rule, you'd have to take the power to assign remaining roster spots away from the All-Star manager or else he's likely to appoint all of his own players. I say ditch the reps and either let the players vote on the subs or let ALL of the managers in that league vote on them, instead of just one.
robertdudek - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 01:04 PM EDT (#13628) #
I apologize to Jonny German - it is a very informative chart.
Gitz - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 01:22 PM EDT (#13629) #
I have formatted chart envy.
_dp - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 02:37 PM EDT (#13630) #
i still don't see how you can just turn a blind eye to Loiza's dominance, esp. in favor of Burhle. Loiza's been the best pitcher in the AL this year, and it isn't an accident- his stuff has been damn good. Burhle's been inconsitent at best. I hate the idea of guys making the All-Star game on rep. or last year's performance. Magglio's an awesome hitter, but he hasn't shown it this year, so he stays home. If the guy is on the bubble based on this season, then you can factor in reputation and last year's performance, but Loiza's been the league's best since his first start, so he goes regardless of what he did last year. No big deal, and certainly not worth making a formula just to justify the exclusion of a pitcher Blue Jays fans have come to vehemently dislike:-->
_Lurch - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 03:15 PM EDT (#13631) #
The logic that keeps Loazia out would keep Vernon out too.
_Jonny German - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 04:00 PM EDT (#13632) #
What format did you use for chart envy Gitz?

I definitely wouldn't say I vehemently dislike Esteban Loaiza. I'm more of a well-wisher, in that I don't wish him any specific harm. I absolutely do dislike David Wells, and vehemently dislike Roger Clemens. By rights he should probably be included in the discussion. I'm just glad Torre isn't the AL manager this year, so Roger can take a break. It's a long grinding season when you're completely full of it.

At any rate, as stated I made up the chart using Gitz's list and Robert's formula, with the exception that I added Pedro. I of course chose the statistical categories, and I ranked the players according to those categories and my biases. I did try to suppress the bias as much as possible - I'm unimpressed that a Yankee came out on top.

I would probably revise the formula to be more weighted to the current year. Or, as long as we're making choices solely on numbers, maybe I introduce an OR statement in the formula such that a certain level of single-season performance is enough to make us ignore past mediocrity.

To wit: Players are ranked for All-Star consideration based on the maximum of

20% 2001 + 30% 2002 + 50% 2003
OR
85% 2003.

To me this formula says that if your 2003 is better than what the perennial stars are doing even with a 15% discount, you get to go.

And to think I get annoyed with people like Lee Sinins for focusing solely on numbers...
robertdudek - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 04:04 PM EDT (#13633) #
Yes,

I agree that Vernon should not be on the 2003 All-Star Team.
robertdudek - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 04:10 PM EDT (#13634) #
dp,

You don't seem to understand that my formula isn't designed to exclude or include anybody. If Loaiza has a great this year and a pretty good one next year, the formula will work in his favour next year and against whoever the latest flash in the pan is.

The practical upshot is that guys with no history of success and a great half-year do not get in. Their spots are taken by guys who've established a level of excellence over a larger sample.

I'm never going to agree with a proposition like this:

"... but Loiza's been the league's best since his first start, so he goes regardless of what he did last year."

I attach a lot less meaning to a half-season of baseball than you do, apparently.
Mike D - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 04:34 PM EDT (#13635) #
Robert, you can say what you want about "half-seasons"...but with the relatively weak crop of AL starters this year, it would take a whole slew of Bad Esteban outings (admittedly possible, but not necessarily likely) for his ultimate numbers at the end of the season coming out as non-All-Star-worthy. He'd have to give up a *lot* of hits and runs to make his numbers merely decent.
robertdudek - Thursday, June 19 2003 @ 05:01 PM EDT (#13636) #
Mike D,

One solid season for Esteban gives him a leg up for next year's All-Star game. Fluke seasons do exist (hello Brady Anderson). I don't consider a player having a fluke year to truly be an all-star, and therefore such a player does not belong in a game for all-stars (which is not to say that E.L won't eventually prove that he's no fluke).

Have you taken a look at Joe Mays' 2001? Is he the kind of pitcher people 20 years hence will be taking about in awe?
Game 71 (Take Two): Weather Permitting | 50 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.