Jayhawk Bill

Thanks for the kind explanation.

Overall, at the same salary, in 2008? Sure: Manny can hit a little bit. The point is that it's possible to play league-average (or better) defense as Boston's left fielder. Manny's gotten most of the playing time, but even scanning through these "career backups" a whole bunch have proven that it's possible to play a good left field for Boston, most recently Eric Hinske this year. Eric Hinske isn't a Gold Glove outfielder, just a hard-charging four corners guy, and he's way better than Manny in left field. Every time I post that Manny's defense costs the Red Sox about 40 runs each year, I get people complaining that it's all the Park Factor of the Green Monster. It's not: it's that Manny is a really bad defender. That's why I post this list of left fielders who manage to play defense just fine. Let's look at it differently: who are the worst ten left fielders of the past five years, again by UZR? [table]Name | runs total | runs per 150G Cabrera, Miguel | -15 | -11 Biggio, Craig | -15 | -31 Bonds, Barry | -16 | -6 Burrell, Pat | -17 | -5 Guillen, Jose | -20 | -17 Gonzalez, Luis | -27 | -8 Lee, Carlos | -28 | -7 Matsui, Hideki | -47 | -14 Dunn, Adam | -48 | -13 Ramirez, Manny | -110 | -29[/table] Manny has cost his team twice as many runs on defense as any other left fielder in MLB over five years. The only guy from the top ten with a worse rate was Biggio, an old second baseman playing out of position, and even Biggio's rate is better than Manny's in any of the past three seasons. How much is Manny's hitting worth? FWIW, his VORPr (VORP per Game) this year was 0.268. Over 150 games, he's worth 40.2 runs (0.268 x 150) more than a AAA call-up left fielder. His defense, though, is worth 40 runs less than such a player. This is why I don't see Manny as being worth $20 million. Of course, YMMV. :dunno:

That's an insult. I was a boy decades ago. Let's use Lichtman's UZR. UZR was unavailable for years, but Lichtman has published the 2003-2007 UZR now that his contract with the St Louis Cardinals is done. Here are the Boston left fielders, 2003-2007: [table]Year | Name | runs per 150G 2006 | Mohr, Dustan | 76 2003 | Jackson, Damian | 37 2004 | Kapler, Gabe | 26 2005 | Payton, Jay | 9 2006 | Hinske, Eric | 1 2006 | Stern, Adam | 1 2004 | Hyzdu, Adam | 1 2004 | Crespo, Cesar | 1 2006 | Harris, Willie | 1 2007 | Hinske, Eric | 0 2005 | Kapler, Gabe | -2 2003 | Ramirez, Manny | -11 2006 | Kapler, Gabe | -13 2005 | Millar, Kevin | -14 2004 | Ramirez, Manny | -14 2006 | Pena, Wily Mo | -21 2003 | Millar, Kevin | -25 2006 | Youkilis, Kevin | -26 2004 | McCarty, David | -29 2006 | Ramirez, Manny | -37 2007 | Pena, Wily Mo | -38 2004 | Millar, Kevin | -39 2007 | Ramirez, Manny | -42 2005 | Ramirez, Manny | -42 2003 | Giambi, Jeremy | -68 2006 | Murphy, David | -74 2004 | Daubach, Brian | -130 2006 | Pena, Carlos | -149[/table] Some of these are clearly small sample sizes, but a few things come out: 1) Manny costs Boston about 40 runs per year of full-time play per Lichtman's UZR. UZR was so good that the Cardinals bought it and pulled it off the market so that they'd be the only ones having it for player evaluation--it's a pretty sophisticated metric. 2) The only "left fielders" who approach that level are Kevin Millar 2004 (his bad season on defense, and he was really a first baseman), Wily Mo Pena 2007 (his bad season, and he's really a center fielder who struggles at either corner) and David Murphy 2006 (who made one catch in 20 innings). 3) Putting a guy who had no business being in left field out there had demonstrably worse results than putting Manny there: Jeremy Giambi, Brian Daubach and Carlos Pena were all worse than Manny in left field in their respective small samples of play. 4) All of these guys were average or better in left field for Boston at least one year: Mohr, Dustan Jackson, Damian Kapler, Gabe Payton, Jay Hinske, Eric Stern, Adam Hyzdu, Adam Crespo, Cesar Harris, Willie It's not impossible to play LF in Fenway--it's just that it takes skill as a defender, and a little speed never hurts when playing outfield. Betcha that Jason Bay signs for less than $20 million a year. David Ortiz seems to have greater OBP and lower BA without Manny batting behind him, but his value seems pretty much the same. Frankly, it's reached the point where Manny isn't such a dominating presence as he used to be--they're intentionally walking Papi to face Manny. Manny had 10.3 runs created per game in 2006; he only had 6.6 RC/G in 2007, tied with his rookie season for his worst mark ever. FWIW, he also missed his career high in GIDP by just one, despite having dozens fewer opportunities than he had in 2003 when he had his career high. I think that it's roughly as easy as saying, "What's the best way to use $20 million in payroll to help this team?" and rationally analyzing what player gives the best return for that money. One superior option is probably Jason Bay; there are others. Mantle's career split home-away in SLG is less than Dunn's--it is still a big edge for Mantle, too, as you suggest. If one defines power by distance of the farthest shot, well, when I was a kid Mantle allegedly had the longest home run in history (565 feet). I don't think that Dunn has hit one that far. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricaRosenthal.shtml

Mantle had hit 42 more home runs than Dunn at Dunn's age; Dunn has a better home-field advantage than Mantle. Dunn has played in an era much better for hitting than Mantle did. Their isolated power numbers aren't dissimilar, but given all these other factors I'd have to think that Mantle was a little bit better at power hitting than Dunn is.

I think that the source meant to say "Boog Powell."

Through trade or free agency. My turn: How many runs per 150-game year do you think that Manny's glove costs the team?

Relative to what I would've looked at anyway, given my curiosity? Maybe 30 minutes for something like this, organizing my research so that it's something that I might share. Overall? Less time than you'd think: I research and analyze pretty quickly. I think that that concept and research for this took no more than another hour, tops, multitasking as I went along with data collection. I guess that I try to post original article-quality research because I believe that sites I frequent deserve the support. It takes time. :dunno:

As what? As a guy who points out that players' using steroids helps teams win? I'm not claiming motivation; I'm claiming effect. You refuse to accept that after repeated clarification, relying upon your semantic inference to try to call me a liar. And you consider it worth your time to spew entire paragraphs, off-topic, strictly for the purpose of attempted personal insult as a tangent. Have a good evening, Rician Blast.

Which players of the Steroid Era should make the Hall of Fame? First, one reasonable answer is that proof of steroid/hGH use should disqualify a player from the HOF. Another reasonable standard is that presumption of steroid/hGH use on the part of the BBWAA voter would be reason for disqualification. For a moment, let's consider two other standards: 1) Using MVP Award shares as a metric of excellence that balances generations and standards, who from the Steroid Era would qualify, accepting that PED use was very much a part of the game; and 2) Again using MVP Award Shares, which players, if any, could qualify strictly on their excellence OUTSIDE the Steroid Era, disqualifying their Steroid Era accruals due to questions regarding PEDs? Let's start with definitions. Let's call the Steroid Era 1995-2004, from after the strike when McGwire and Sosa rejuvenated baseball with their home run record race up to the institution of effective (albeit later to be improved) steroid testing in 2005. An MVP Award Share is the fraction of the points required for a unanimous first-place pick received by a player in a given annual voting cycle. (Ted Williams won the 1946 MVP with a 0.67 Award Share because nobody scored higher; he lost in 1941 and 1942 with higher Award Shares to the Yankee-of-the Year because DiMaggio and Gordon got slightly more votes despite having OPS over 200 points lower in each case). Here are the top MVP Award Shares earned in MLB history: [table]Rank | Player | MVP Award Shares 1 | Barry Bonds# (7 wins) | 9.30 2 | Stan Musial* (3 wins) | 6.96 3 | Ted Williams* (2 wins) | 6.43 4 | Willie Mays* (2 wins) | 6.06 5 | Mickey Mantle* (3 wins) | 5.79 6 | Hank Aaron* (1 win) | 5.45 7 | Lou Gehrig* (2 wins) | 5.44 8 | Joe DiMaggio* (3 wins) | 5.43 9 | Alex Rodriguez# (3 wins) | 5.02 10 | Mike Schmidt* (3 wins) | 4.96 11 | Frank Robinson* (2 wins) | 4.83 12 | Frank Thomas# (2 wins) | 4.79 13 | Jimmie Foxx* (3 wins) | 4.21 14 | Albert Pujols# (1 win) | 4.07 15 | Yogi Berra* (3 wins) | 3.98 16 | Eddie Collins* (1 win) | 3.86 17 | Hank Greenberg* (2 wins) | 3.69 | Brooks Robinson* (1 win) | 3.69 19 | Pete Rose (1 win) | 3.68 20 | Charlie Gehringer* (1 win) | 3.55 21 | Rogers Hornsby* (2 wins) | 3.33 | Eddie Murray* | 3.33 23 | George Brett* (1 win) | 3.30 | Willie Stargell* (1 win) | 3.30 25 | Reggie Jackson* (1 win) | 3.28 26 | Harmon Killebrew* (1 win) | 3.22 27 | Ken Griffey# (1 win) | 3.20 28 | Dave Parker (1 win) | 3.19 29 | Mike Piazza# | 3.15 | Jim Rice (1 win) | 3.15 31 | Joe Morgan* (2 wins) | 3.04 32 | Al Kaline* | 2.92 33 | Jeff Bagwell (1 win) | 2.89 34 | Paul Waner* (1 win) | 2.86 35 | Vladimir Guerrero# (1 win) | 2.84 36 | Ernie Banks* (2 wins) | 2.83 37 | Carl Hubbell* (2 wins) | 2.82 38 | Roberto Clemente* (1 win) | 2.80 | Dizzy Dean* (1 win) | 2.80 40 | Johnny Bench* (2 wins) | 2.77 41 | Juan Gonzalez (2 wins) | 2.76 42 | Mel Ott* | 2.75 | Manny Ramirez# | 2.75 44 | Bill Terry* | 2.72 45 | Mickey Cochrane* (2 wins) | 2.69 46 | Lou Boudreau* (1 win) | 2.66 47 | Frankie Frisch* (1 win) | 2.58 48 | Kirby Puckett* | 2.56 49 | Walter Johnson* (2 wins) | 2.54 50 | Roy Campanella* (3 wins) | 2.52 | Gabby Hartnett* (1 win) | 2.52[/table] * HOF player # active player I cut this off at 2.50 Award Shares because right below that one gets into players such as Steve Garvey and George Foster who clearly aren't HOF-caliber players. Above 2.50, of HOF-eligible players we have these exceptions: Pete Rose: gambling; considered very unsportsmanlike and reviled by many during his career Dave Parker: cocaine use; mid-career performance reduced due to drugs Jim Rice: very short on league-leading years in key metrics for a player considered best in his sport for a while; declined badly in his mid-30's, leaving him short on career counting stats Let's look at just the Steroid-Era players: [table]Rank | Player | MVP Award Shares 1 | Barry Bonds (7 wins) | 9.30 9 | Alex Rodriguez (3 wins) | 5.02 12 | Frank Thomas (2 wins) | 4.79 14 | Albert Pujols (1 win) | 4.07 27 | Ken Griffey (1 win) | 3.20 29 | Mike Piazza | 3.15 33 | Jeff Bagwell (1 win) | 2.89 35 | Vladimir Guerrero (1 win) | 2.84 41 | Juan Gonzalez (2 wins) | 2.76 42 | Manny Ramirez | 2.75[/table] Any of these players may later be accused of PED abuse, but the two bolded players--Bonds and Gonzalez--look to be the nexus of controversy. Note that there are several great players of the Steroid Era not listed here. The Steroid Era's 20 greatest by MVP Award Shares 1995-2004: [table]Rank | Player | MVP Award Shares 1 | Barry Bonds | 5.32 2 | Alex Rodriguez | 3.18 3 | Mike Piazza | 2.72 4 | Sammy Sosa | 2.46 5 | Albert Pujols | 2.35 6 | Manny Ramirez | 2.33 7 | Juan Gonzalez | 2.25 8 | Jason Giambi | 2.15 9 | Chipper Jones | 2.06 10 | Ken Griffey | 1.93 11 | Jeff Bagwell | 1.87 12 | Vladimir Guerrero | 1.70 13 | Gary Sheffield | 1.66 14 | Frank Thomas | 1.66 15 | Nomar Garciaparra | 1.63 16 | Albert Belle | 1.60 17 | Jeff Kent | 1.54 18 | Mo Vaughn | 1.48 19 | Miguel Tejada | 1.36 20 | Larry Walker | 1.24[/table] Sammy Sosa and Jason Giambi don't make the 2.50 cutoff; McGwire and Palmeiro don't even make the list. But here's the thing: Bonds earned 3.98 MVP Award Shares before 1995--he'd racked up HOF stats in that respect before his alleged steroid use began. No other steroid-era position player is in that situation; among pitchers, only Roger Clemens might be in similar circumstances. *** I mentioned four possible standards. By two, no PED user would qualify, with differing standards of proof. By a third, Bonds is overwhelmingly eligible and Juan Gonzalez probably makes the cut, but not most of the other known PED abusers. By the fourth standard, disqualifying Steroid Era MVP Award Shares, Bonds still ranks in the "Inner Circle" of HOF members.

Did you enjoy insulting me personally because you ran out of logical arguments? Let's look at what positions you did present before reverting to insults: You posted: "I suppose you believe Andy Pettitte's story that he felt an obligation to get back and help his team?" You jumped to represent a belief on my part. I responded: "I never mentioned Andy Pettitte in this thread; I've previously pointed out with respect to Pettitte that hGH use for joint injury recovery is illegal." That's a very rational response. *** You also posted: "I disagree with your assertion that players primarily use PEDs to help their teams...rather I believe players who use PEDs generally do so to help themselves in terms of stats, adulation, and money." That's where I demanded a direct quote. I never said that players use PEDs PRIMARILY to help their teams. I had posted: "I don't know what they were thinking. I suspect that you don't, either: you feel that you know, but that's an opinion. I do know that gaining muscles to play better aids better play, and that better play aids winning." and "I had thought that Bonds et al had used steroids and other PEDs to help their teams win, while Rose had, by his actions, questioned the integrity of the game as a contest where both sides were trying their utmost to win." I suspect that you jumped to conclusions from the latter quote, posted first. I never said that magnanimous caring for the team was the motivation. It might've been; it might've been what you suggest. The point was, and is, that good playing stats and achievements help one's team, and that gambling doesn't. I took an article that referenced explicitly that fans hated Rose in the 1970's, booing him from ballpark to ballpark. Once again: "The Fosse play, as well as a play in the 1973 National League Championship Series in which Rose bowled over New York Mets’ shortstop Bud Harrelson in an attempt to break up a double play, fueled criticism of Rose in some quarters. Following 1973, he was regularly booed for several years, not just in Shea Stadium, but by a significant segment of fans in many National League parks. These fans apparently considered Rose a “dirty” player. Treder supports Pete Rose for the HOF, but the excerpt demonstrates my point: Rose was despised by many for his style of play long before the gambling scandal broke." I am misrepresenting nothing. Your implication that Treder's support for Rose, despite the facts he cites, turns those facts into falsehoods "Being despised for playing hard, which is supported by the article you referred to, is much different than being viewed as short on HOF integrity." is where I called ********. You are misrepresenting my original post, reposted for clarity right above here. My point was that people despised Rose's character as far back as the cited incidents. I'm the guy who posted, for those who didn't know, that character is explicitly a HOF voting criteria. Needlessly injuring other players reflects on Rose's character. I disagree with your bolded words above. Your atempt to claim that my disagreement with Treder makes me wrong is both faulty logic and, um, misdirection. Quote me. I said that it helped their teams to win--I didn't make any claim with respect to motivation, be it personal gain or altruism. My position, if you'll go back, was: "I had thought that Bonds et al had used steroids and other PEDs to help their teams win, while Rose had, by his actions, questioned the integrity of the game as a contest where both sides were trying their utmost to win." I'm not wavering: use of steroids helps a player's team win. Gambling does not. http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/story/9701288 The show was taped October 2, 2006. "Greenies" weren't then outlawed by MLB, but using them without a personal prescription was illegal. From just before amphetamines were added to the tested drugs: http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2005/05/01/selig_seeks_tougher_steroid_rules/ And from the first season thereafter: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/24/AR2006082401584.html

Counting the past? Willis, I expect. Looking only at the future? Lester, I expect.

If you're going to quote me, use the actual words. I never mentioned Andy Pettitte in this thread; I've previously pointed out with respect to Pettitte that hGH use for joint injury recovery is illegal. If one tries to improve one's performance, though, it doesn't necessarily call into question the game's integrity. Gambling on one's own games does. ********. Character matters for HOF selection. From the official instructions to the voters: Bold added. http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/bbwaa.jsp Destroying two other All Stars' careers through nasty play is a factor in assessing sportsmanship and character (as is gambling). Most players never inflict a serious injury upon another player through the entire course of their careers. Rose inflicted two, and the fans booed him as they booed Bonds as a result. Now you're presuming to know better than the fans who booed Rose, and the BBWAA voters, and the owners of the HOF, just as you presume to know the exact motives of those who used PEDs. And as you presume to know better than I do. Incorrect assumption. I do recall him being hated by many for the Fosse hit and for his never-quit style. My apologies. I shouldn't question your memory, given your choice to ignore fans, baseball writers, and the actual voting guidelines. All others' opinions excluded, your personal choice to champion Rose is rational within your personal code of ethics.

I'm pretty sure, then, despite your handle, that you're not old enough to remember the first couple of years after Rose's retirement as a player, then, before the gambling scandal broke. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pete-rose-the-ballplayer/ Treder supports Pete Rose for the HOF, but the excerpt demonstrates my point: Rose was despised by many for his style of play long before the gambling scandal broke. It's tough finding other articles to link from those pre-Internet days, but trust me, there were many. *** You wanted to focus on playing career: my point is that Rose's playing career was marked by controversy, in contrast to Mark McGwire's. I've demonstrated that point. Got anything on McGwire, except for those steroids he may have used OFF the playing field? I don't know what they were thinking. I suspect that you don't, either: you feel that you know, but that's an opinion. I do know that gaining muscles to play better aids better play, and that better play aids winning. MLB banned Rose because gambling calls into question the integrity of the game. Steroid use may be bad, but guys who cheated to get an edge are already in the Hall of Fame. That's been regarded differently by HOF voters and MLB Commissioners for years than gambling. I can see a case for all three of the players you cite, as well as Joe Jackson, Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens. Can we just make Bud Selig a scapegoat and forgive all of the players in history? :dunno:

The All-Star Game is an exhibition game...at least it was until the infamous tie game. Hitting Fosse with enough force to cause severe injury, when simply sliding home was the option most MLB players would've used in any game, was a dirty trick intended to cause harm. At the time, fans nationwide questioned Rose's character for doing such a thing. BTW, what makes you think that Rose never used PEDs?

I would submit that achieving athletic excellence through PED use had more to do with winning than betting on games involving one's own team.

I am absolutely ecstatic to see Kevin Cash back on a minor league contract, no longer encumbering the 40-man roster. Kevin Cash is, perhaps, the best defensive catcher I have ever seen play for the Red Sox. For those who understand what I'm talking about, he had a 111 BP DFT defensive rate while serving as Tim Wakefield's caddy. That's mind-boggling. For contrast, Doug Mirabelli averaged a 90 DFT fielding rate the past two years (21 runs worse per 100 games). Josh Bard had a 33 DFT fielding rate while serving as Wakefield's catcher (yes, 78 runs worse per 100 games...0.78 runs per game worse than Cash defensively). There is, of course, the minor point that Cash has a career batting line of .167/.223/.265. He'll be 30 next year; he's not going to learn how to hit. What he does offer is the opportunity to promote Kottaras or a different catching prospect who still has option years for a tryout. He offers insurance in case Mirabelli injures himself, perhaps by crashing through the floorboards after the players' buffet. (Have any of you here ever read the song parody "The Wreck of the Doug Mirabelli?") Kevin Cash is a bad hitter but an adequate overall catcher, and he's one of only two catchers on earth proven to be able to catch Tim Wakefield. Again, I am beyond happy. I am ecstatic.

That would be a good start.

Check the hits I posted for Google searching a key phrase suggesting that somewhere in cyberspace somebody might've posted something suggesting that Clemens or Bonds got what they deserved with respect to steroids. 204/3760 = 5.4% I rounded up.