example1

Alright folks. I was one of the guys who was ready to reload this team in early May and now I've been back on the train for about a month and this team looks really good. They have been hounded by injuries but have had honorable fill-ins. At this point they are tied for the Wild Card and only one game behind the Yankees. They just look like they're the best team against nearly every opponent right now. Despite all of the concern about their offensive woes, the Sox have the highest SLG in baseball (.468), and the 2nd best OBP (tied with the Braves at .353), giving them the highest OPS. As if to support the correlation, they are also leading baseball in runs with 390. There are 7 teams who have scored 100 fewer runs than the Sox at this stage in the season. That's while missing their leadoff hitter, starting CF, and using a number of pretty marginal fill-ins more than anyone anticipated.

There are plenty of arguments about why Jordan was better. Few about why Kobe was better, and it sounds like the best you have is that the competition he plays against is better, mostly because they have more shiny muscles. Subjectively, Jordan was the more dominant, better all around player and most people who saw them both agree. You apparently don't agree, and assuming that you are old enough to have watched both extensively I think your opinion is as valid as mine. I commend you for your obvious basketball knowledge but I think your arguments are a stretch. I am fresh from watching Kobe nearly choke-away the most important game of his career. It wasn't just that he didn't play well, he really sucked. I don't think Kobe is even the best Laker of all time so I'm not going to be convinced that he's the best player of all time. You keep going back to the argument that if stats are to be compared between them then Wilt Chamberlain is the best of all time because his stats were better than Jordan's. That's like saying that because there are generational differences, comparing Ken Griffey Jr. and Albert Pujols is as invalid as comparing Ty Cobb and Albert Pujols. The stats aren't completely valid to compare across eras, but when the eras are close enough that there are common players who span both generations, and when the same coach is able to coach both players, I think that argument becomes absurd. Furthermore, I don't even need the common players argument. Jordan and Kobe played at the same time for a few years. Do you really think that Kareem would have been shut down against Dwight Howard, or that Magic Johnson would have been overwhelmed by Chris Paul? I think all those player are really good, no matter what generation we're talking about. They are the best players in the world at their time, that's about all that could be asked about them at the time.

You make some great points, but its funny how you argue that I'm wrong about things while pointing out that the margins actually were different in Jordans favor. Just sayin'. If Jordan actually averaged more assists and rebounds and points and steals then don't argue that he didn't by saying that he only barely did. Yeah, I call Jordan a better leader. His teams just won. All talking aside. And all the revisionist history in the world won't write away the fact that people who watched those teams knew that Jordan was the reason they won. Rodman and Pippen were great pieces, but the unworldly talent that Jordan had allowed him to average 30 points per-game and carry his teams, every year. Likewise, Ron Artest is widely seen as one of the best defenders in the league and Gasol (and Shaq) were two of the best centers at their times. I call him a better shooter because he didn't take shots he couldn't make. Taking 3 pointers is a choice, not a necessity, and it hasn't led to more points or wins for Kobe's team so the decision making is questionable. Kobe entering the league at 18 wasn't forced on him. It was something he chose to do. Jordan won a national championship in college, which Kobe could have done if he didn't go to the NBA. It was Kobe's choice. As for defense, I think it is something that Jordan came into the league doing better than Kobe and which Kobe really had to work at. Don't get me wrong, Kobe is an excellent defender but how do you account for their significant difference in steals over the years? Jordan led the league 3 times. Not something that happens by accident. As for the players being bigger, faster and better I think I would dispute that, and the numbers seem to back me up. 1993-94: Average height: 6'7.34 Average weight: 221.68 2007-2008: Average height: 6'6.98 Average weight: 221.00 http://www.nba.com/news/survey_height_2007.html http://www.nba.com/news/survey_2004.html I don't have 2009-10 in front of me, but 07-08 is close enough in my book. When I think back about the teams that Jordan had to beat throughout the league I remember a number of very good, long and athletic players. I think of Larry Bird, Kareem, Magic, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Clyde Drexler, Hakeem, Ewing, Reggie Miller, John Stark, David Robinson, etc., who were all really good players and would be elite talent in today's game too. By the end players like Shaq, Tim Duncan, Jason Kidd, Kevin Garnett, etc., were all at full speed. I just don't see a drop off in quality, particularly if you look at the various "dream teams" and how they might stack up against today's players. For context, I'd put Dream Team 1 up against the 2010 version for sure. David Robinson Patrick Ewing Larry Bird Scottie Pippen Michael Jordan Clyde Drexler Karl Malone John Stockton Chris Mullin Charles Barkley Magic Johnson Christian Laettner (?) vs. Carlos Boozer Jason Kidd LeBron James Deron Williams Michael Redd Dwayne Wade Kobe Bryant Dwight Howard Chris Bosh Chris Paul Tayshaun Prince Carmelo Anthony I just don't see the huge differences between players 15 years ago and today, all in all. There might be a bit more influence of athleticism than there was then, but that might come with a loss in "fundamentals" and quality play.

Nobody is saying Jordan wasn't surrounded by talent. I think that any NBA championship caliber team has lots of talented players. Look at win shares. From 1986-87 to 1996-1997 Jordan led the NBA in Win Shares 7 years in a row, and 9 out of 10 years. His low season was 16.9. Kobe has never had 16.9 in a season. I would ask, where wasn't it better? He was a better natural defender and a better natural leader. He took better shots, turned the ball over less, dealt the ball better, rebounded better and ultimately scored more points. His numbers were even better in the playoffs when he was playing against the best in the league. The only area where Kobe is obviously better is 3PT%. I think there is reasonable argument about whether Kobe is even the best Laker ever, let alone the best player of all time.

An excellent use of overreach. In the playoffs Jordan 32.4pts/6.4reb/5.7ast, Kobe 25.5/5.2/4.8 In 179 playoff games Jordan scored 5987 pts, had 1022 assists and 1152 rebounds In 198 playoff games Kobe scored 5052 pts, had 955 assists and 1027 rebounds In 19 fewer playoff games Jordan scored more than 900 more points, had 67 more assists and 135 more rebounds. I realize there are differences but nobody is arguing the qualatative greatness of Joradan. Just about everyone who watched him sees him as the unanimous best player of all time. The stats back him up. Kobe would have a better argument if his numbers were better but he didn't seem better. That's not the case. Kobe is a tremendous player, in the top 5 all time. Jordan just seemingly never failed when it mattered. He was all over the place on the floor and dominated just about every game he played. If you had to a choice between Jordan and Kobe in their primes for one game would you really take Kobe?

There is no comparing Jordan and Kobe. Those who try are just trying to fill up space. Look at their stats... per-game, in the playoffs, per-minute, Jordan was the superior player by a lot. Kobe is very good, don't get me wrong, he just can't touch Jordan. As for the Celtics, I watched the game intently and was biting my nails and swearing loudly down to the very end. Now that a few hours have passed I'm mostly just thankful that they had the run that they did against teams that were superior in many ways. The Lakers deserved this game and I think they won it because of home court advantage and a shot here or there. The Celtics made it very close, even after the Lakers turned it on at the end, and it ultimately required the Lakers to sink their FTs to win. All in all, a great playoff series and a well-deserved victory for those s*** eating Lakers.

I don't know if they will have a better option than Nava, when trade-cost is taken into account. He's a switch hitter with good OPB skills and a better than avg arm. I think he can probably go .800+ OPS, which would be sufficient as a replacement. I don't see many better options out there, though someone like DeJesus would be okay if he didn't cost too much.

I hit the panic button, pretty uncharacteristically for me actually. They were like a plane in free fall, heading toward the ground and I pulled the parachute to eject. I did that probably a week before I had to, but after a long time of waiting. They were really, really, really bad for awhile there and then lots of things started clicking the right way and other teams fell back to Earth. I still don't think this is the best team in baseball, but they're pretty good. I agree that much of this team is as it will be for the next few years, which is a good thing. I also think that there is reason to believe they can add a substantial bat that will really change the tenor of the team. They're close, but they're not there yet.

What about their acquisition of short term guys like Cameron, Beltre, Scutaro, etc., makes you think that they didn't already have this in mind? It seems pretty obvious to me and that their additions actually gave them the chance to be competitive this year while not investing in anybody for too long. Jacko is right. They will have some great young players to offer over the next two years and I expect them to go after some more big young bats with that talent.

For future reference and comparisons sake: Billy Wagner = Kolbrin Vitek and Anthony Ranaudo (if they sign Ranaudo) Jason Bay = Bryce Brentz and Brandon Workman 4 college players who could have an impact within maybe 3 years. It will be interesting to see how this all works out.

I like the idea of Ranaudo getting the Dan Bard treatment. Get him, work him out, rework his mechanics and conditioning, let people complain that he's a bust and then wait a bit. He may be something special, maybe not. I can also see the Sox just setting their price and letting Boras and Ranaudo figure out if he wants to pitch in the pros or in an independent league.

How anybody could watch him pitch and not see what all the excitement was about is beyond me. His stuff is great and his ability to command the zone with multiple good pitches has definitely improved. When he has to throw a FB it usually has a wrinkle to it and when it doesn't it is hitting 94-95 in his spots. The most impressive thing to me is how he has changed from a strikeout pitcher to a pitcher who makes hitters hit his stuff. That will get him deeper into games. I think the strikeout numbers will go up over the next few years though as he gets into fewer deep counts and ahead more often. All in all, good stuff from Clay.

Thanks for the update! I like hearing reports of games seen first hand.

bad wakefield is intolerable. Good wakefield is good. No excuse for him to stay in that inning.

Why does this surprise you? Thru age 25 seasons (for Buchholz that is the 2010 season, not finished): [TABLE] YEARS | PITCHER | IP | ERA | ERA+ | K | WHIP | H/9 | BB/9 | SO/BB | 2002-2004 | CLIFF LEE | 241.2 | 4.88 | 90 | 211 | 1.423 | 8.8 | 4.1 | 1.94 | 2007-2010 | BUCHHOLZ | 246.1 | 4.49 | 103 | 205 | 1.474 | 9.2 | 4.1 | 1.85 | [/TABLE] They look like pretty similar pitchers thru the same age to me. Buchholz is younger and considerably cheaper. To a team like Cleveland he would be worth more than the 1.5 years of Lee. Buchholz + anything probably seemed like too much to the Sox. I like Lee a lot, but I can understand not wanting to part with Buchholz for him.

I don't think anyone should be blamed for not having faith that Ortiz would turn it around. He was absolutely horrible for a good portion of 2009, and really putrid for the beginning of 2010 with an inibility to hit the ball hard in any direction. Those who bailed on him were justified in noticing a change in his capabilities as a player. Part of me is suspicious about his sudden resurgence, but without further information it remains just suspicion. That said, I'm extremely thankful that he came back around and that the only person whose opinion on this subject matters--Terry Francona--stuck by his slugger. We're all better off for it.

The guy deserves his own thread, especially this season. Obviously 2010 is somewhat of a make-or-break season for Buchholz but I don't think he has to put it all together this season or else. The Buchholz we are seeing so far in 2010 is a different pitcher than the kid who came up a few years ago. His strikeout rate is lower but the results are much better and he has added multiple wrinkles to his three primary pitches (developing his 2FB and slider) that really seems to have hitters guessing. I get the sense by watching him that he is just figuring out how to use these pitches consistently. One of the things that makes Buchholz a potentially very special pitcher is that he throws hard. I don't think his FB gets enough credit. He's the 8th hardest-thrower (93.8) of pitchers with more than 40 IP, has the hardest avg among starters in the AL East, and at 88.6 he also throws the hardest slider among all MLB starters. With such a good FB it is understandable why the Sox would want to work to change his repetoir to match his strengths. He is throwing his FB 10% more than he did in 2008, and his slider 9% more often. He throws his curveball 14% less than he did that year. In the past he would get behind in the count with his secondary stuff and hitters would sit on his FB. Now he throws a majority of FB and Sliders. In fact, in 2010 he is throwing about 73% either FB or slider. In 2008 he threw only 55% FB or Slider. That's a huge difference in the type of pitcher he is. He deserves a lot of credit for reworking his arsenal and being willing to largely forego a very good pitch (his curveball) in the name of being MLB-effective.

I think it is reflective of it, not a manifestation of it. People undervalue him so the topic comes up regularly. The contract issue may be debatable, but the fact is that his $14m salary is what it costs to have him so the question is always 'is he worth it?' I think the resounding answer is yes, especially for this team in this situation. They are in the playoff hunt year after year so a 3-5 WAR season is worth at least his salary.

Is this a real poll? Should I really vote?

The great thing isn't so much the diving catches, but the running grabs in the gap and the consistent ability to field the hard hit line drives hit his way. He's an impressive fielder and I would say, gasp, that he is undervalued in that regard.