A Realistic View of 2024: Part II

[moonslav59]

You did get your wish on Ref.

 

So far, he has not cooled off, that much.

 

Fingers crossed.

 

.853 last 5 games.

.865 last 12

.848 last 18

 

[moonslav59]

Yup, and D Smith sure shut me the hell up.

 

1.039 last 9 games (34 PAs) w 6 rbi (.848 last 62 PAs)

[Randy Red Sox]

well it looks like we are about to go down 1 game below .500 which should guarantee a win tomm

[Duran Is The Man]

I stand by my longstanding view that Scott Cooper is the worst player in MLB history with multiple All Star appearances…

 

more like an "All Star". he was probably the Sox lone representative that year.

[moonslav59]

more like an "All Star". he was probably the Sox lone representative that year.

 

2 years in a row, on a team that had Boggs, Clemens, Mo Vaughn and a couple others.

[Duran Is The Man]

2 years in a row, on a team that had Boggs, Clemens, Mo Vaughn and a couple others.

 

Boggs played for the Skankees '93-'97. Clemens had a couple sub-par years there but Mo did well, especially in '93.

[moonslav59]

Boggs played for the Skankees '93-'97. Clemens had a couple sub-par years there but Mo did well, especially in '93.

 

I mistakenly looked at 92 not 93

[Larry Cook]

Now that Cooper had been voted off the island, who should be next to be voted off the island???

[notin]

more like an "All Star". he was probably the Sox lone representative that year.

 

He was the lone team rep twice. Still he went to multiple All Star games and might be the worst ever player to do so…

[notin]

2 years in a row, on a team that had Boggs, Clemens, Mo Vaughn and a couple others.

 

No Boggs, who left after 1992. But the Sox did still roster Clemens, Mo Vaughn, and Mike Greenwell…

[Hugh2]

He was the lone team rep twice. Still he went to multiple All Star games and might be the worst ever player to do so…

 

I'm sure you can find worse players than Scott Cooper, he wasn't great but he was a pretty good player the two seasons he went and he actually contributed in the 1994, didn't he bat in either the tying or go ahead run at one point in that game???

 

Yeah he ain't no hall of famer that's for sure, but he had a .786 OPS that year and had really good defense. We could use a player like that on this team.

[Hugh2]

coincidentally Scott Cooper was my first favorite player........I was 10 and he played 3B.

[Bellhorn04]

He had a great name.

[moonslav59]

Now that Cooper had been voted off the island, who should be next to be voted off the island???

 

Smith or Dalbec, when Casas returns, but maybe Keller, Horn or Mata.

 

I think we see I Campbell called up, real soon: Keller or Kelly demoted.

[notin]

I'm sure you can find worse players than Scott Cooper, he wasn't great but he was a pretty good player the two seasons he went and he actually contributed in the 1994, didn't he bat in either the tying or go ahead run at one point in that game???

 

Yeah he ain't no hall of famer that's for sure, but he had a .786 OPS that year and had really good defense. We could use a player like that on this team.

 

I don't think we need to bring Cooperstown into it. Despite the similarity in their names, Scott's career wasn't even long enough to qualify getting on the ballot. He was a below-league average hitter with an absolute cannon for an arm - he easily threw harder than every pitcher in MLB. I'd put money on it. But despite that, he was not really a good defensive player. At least, unlike Boggs, he willingly moved to 1b for the 1992 season. It negated his best talent (throwing), but he probably just wanted to get on the field.

 

Free agency was unkind to Cooper, who managed to turn his glorious All Star seasons into contracts with the Seibu Lions and a minor league deal with the Texas Rangers. After the latter, he retired at age 29.

 

Cooper's career lasted about 5 seasons with an OPS+ of 91. Finding a player with multiple All Star appearances with a lesser career would be really difficult...

[Bellhorn04]

Cooper's career lasted about 5 seasons with an OPS+ of 91. Finding a player with multiple All Star appearances with a lesser career would be really difficult...

 

Probably so, but the "every team is represented" thing watered down the significance of All Star appearances.

[mvp 78]

Probably so, but the "every team is represented" thing watered down the significance of All Star appearances.

 

That rule goes back to pre-expansion days I believe.

[notin]

Probably so, but the "every team is represented" thing watered down the significance of All Star appearances.

 

Exactly, but it was also how Cooper got to go to two games…

[Bellhorn04]

Exactly, but it was also how Cooper got to go to two games…

 

At's what I was tryin' to say.

[moonslav59]

At's what I was tryin' to say.

 

The choice made to make the AS game, also does not really mean he was the best player on his team, those years.

 

He was not. It often comes down to position of least overload.

[Duran Is The Man]

Probably so, but the "every team is represented" thing watered down the significance of All Star appearances.

 

probably had to do it because fans got tired of seeing all-star teams loaded with yankees and dodgers.

[notin]

probably had to do it because fans got tired of seeing all-star teams loaded with yankees and dodgers.

 

Not sure when that rule got added, but fan voting has been around since 1933, so it was always up to them to set the starting lineup. Of course, they only had 8 teams per league to choose from until 1961, so it probably wasn’t too hard to get at least one player from every team…

[notin]

Probably so, but the "every team is represented" thing watered down the significance of All Star appearances.

 

To revisit, this is only true when coupled with expansions, since getting at least one player from 8 teams probably wasn’t so tough.

 

Of course, MLB has countered this by adjusting the roster size. Right now it stands at 32 players per side, which is plenty for one freakin’ game..

[mvp 78]

Not sure when that rule got added, but fan voting has been around since 1933, so it was always up to them to set the starting lineup. Of course, they only had 8 teams per league to choose from until 1961, so it probably wasn’t too hard to get at least one player from every team…

 

Fan voting has not been around every season.

 

All-Star teams were originally selected by the managers and the fans for the 1933 and 1934 games. From 1935 through 1946, managers selected the entire team for each league. From 1947 to 1957, fans chose the team's starters and the manager chose the pitchers and the remaining players. From 1958 through 1969, managers, players, and coaches made the All-Star Team selections. In 1970, the vote again returned to the fans for the selection of the starters for each team and remains there today.

[notin]

Fan voting has not been around every season.

 

All-Star teams were originally selected by the managers and the fans for the 1933 and 1934 games. From 1935 through 1946, managers selected the entire team for each league. From 1947 to 1957, fans chose the team's starters and the manager chose the pitchers and the remaining players. From 1958 through 1969, managers, players, and coaches made the All-Star Team selections. In 1970, the vote again returned to the fans for the selection of the starters for each team and remains there today.

 

So they took it away? Wow.

 

Probably because the first All Star game was supposed to be the only one, but the rules changed when it became an annual thing.

 

But when did the “every team represented” stuff start?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

So they took it away? Wow.

 

Probably because the first All Star game was supposed to be the only one, but the rules changed when it became an annual thing.

 

But when did the “every team represented” stuff start?

 

The reason MLB took away the fan vote is because the freaking Reds fans stuffed the ballot boxes in '57 and every player from Cincinnati made the starting line-up (except maybe Stan the Man). I think the commissioner inserted Aaron and Mays into the batting order to make the NL look respectable.

 

The Reds stars didn't even win the pennant. Milwaukee went all the way.

[moonslav59]

The reason MLB took away the fan vote is because the freaking Reds fans stuffed the ballot boxes in '57 and every player from Cincinnati made the starting line-up (except maybe Stan the Man). I think the commissioner inserted Aaron and Mays into the batting order to make the NL look respectable.

 

The Reds stars didn't even win the pennant. Milwaukee went all the way.

 

The fans are no better than the players, coaches, managers and owners, especially with all these lofty and unreasonable expectations.

[dgalehouse]

I was at a game at Yankee Stadium many years ago. They gave all the fans one of those old IBM punch cards with the players names. You were supposed to push the tabs for your All Star Game selections and drop it off in a barrel on your way out. When I dropped mine in the barrel, I saw thousands of cards . They were wrinkled, folded , spindled ,mutilated , beer soaked , mustard covered and crumpled , with hanging chads everywhere. There was no way those cards were ever counted , either by machine or by hand. That was my first lesson in becoming cynical.

[notin]

The reason MLB took away the fan vote is because the freaking Reds fans stuffed the ballot boxes in '57 and every player from Cincinnati made the starting line-up (except maybe Stan the Man). I think the commissioner inserted Aaron and Mays into the batting order to make the NL look respectable.

 

The Reds stars didn't even win the pennant. Milwaukee went all the way.

 

That’s not why they took it away in 1935. This ambiguity’s on me, as I wasn’t specific about which time…

Edited June 12, 2024 by notin

[mvp 78]

So they took it away? Wow.

 

Probably because the first All Star game was supposed to be the only one, but the rules changed when it became an annual thing.

 

But when did the “every team represented” stuff start?

 

Since 1933?