floplag

yes... you are right... but applying today's standards, to Morris, is part of the problem im referring to. As for this rest this isnt just a Morris argument, only using him as the example... the idea of specialization and evolution of the game is the problem, using those to judge guys that played in a different time, under different rules and expectations... is silly

Based on much of the conversation of late regarding Morris and others.. and some comments ive read about the writers.. something occurred to me that i wonder what some of you might consider... So, a lot of people are talking about the new stats... the new standards... and replacing the older writers with the newer more stats knowledgeable ones... and i use that term loosely. I wonder if you consider a guy like Morris... a guy that was more worried about doing the job... saving the bullpen... pitching 9 innings win or lose... versus the so-called specialist of today, and these guys that want to get out of a game after 5 innings if they have kept it to a so-called quality start, which guys like Morris would have laughed at. So what we end up with is a bunch of guys more worried about their stats for their next contract... or consideration for the hall etc... than guys that go out there and get it done. To me it has damaged the game with all the so-called specialization, and placing the sole measuring stick on the box score... than actually watching the player. Think about it, do you think for one minute half these guys voting have even seen an Angel game in the last 5 years? oh sure maybe if they were playing the Yankees or something but aside from coincidence you think any of the so-called national writers watching anything more than highlight reels? and reads the box score? Is that the game you guys want to watch? is that truly how we are to measure these players? Don't get me wrong I'm not against stats and use them myself, but i also try to temper it with actually making an effort to research, watch, and read more than a box score. Here is a stat to think about... Morris had 175 COMPLETE Games in his career... from 1980 to 1991 he had 10 or more CG every year but once, 9 in '84. The league leader last year had 5... only 2 guys have had 10 or more since 2000. The de-evaluation of Jack Morris to me is the thesis of what has changed in the game in the last couple of decades and i cant say i like where its going. Starting pitchers are to the point where if they go 5 and dont give up 5 runs they get applauded... to Morris that would have been a disgrace. Grit and the so-called intangibles have become a punch line... but we an Angel fans know we dont win a title without them. We are on our way to nothing but specialization players in the game... and i tell you what when it gets to that point is the day i stop watching the game.

This is the thesis statement on where SABR and the pure stats guys fail. Morris was a stud, plain and simple.. guy had more complete games than a lot of guys had wins, lol As said he just won.. didnt care about the score.. didnt care about his own shit.. just wanted to pitch 9 and get the win... nothing else mattered. The statheads of the world have to stop watching box scores more than the games... they are the one killing it and creating all these selfish asshat players that care more for thier stats than anything else... they have to, or it costs them money and such... its a joke as far as im concerned. Stats have their place.. i too am a stats guy, but there is more to the game than pure stats, period.

Fixed...

Jeff.. I wonder your thoughts on the whole "rule of 10" thing... I see a lot of writers stating it as an issue in why this guy or that didn't get in, but how would voting him 11th have helped there or justify it? Adding 11-15 doesn't seem to help that to me or make a lot of sense as a reason why a guy was left off a top 10 list to justify inclusion.

i wanna know who the tard that voted JT Snow was?

of course not, he point in this case is that the stats you mentioned were not the ones that tell the story as they were negligible in comparing the 2 offenses. i listed all the stats and my conclusions so... i dont know what else to say to that.

unless it is... getting it when you need it most and always with runners on... come on your not going to tell me that not a bit of a statistical anomaly are ya ? i hear what you are saying... but there is no way that roster should have put up the numbers is has over the last 2 years with lesser stats than other teams for examples.. last year, some stats from last year comparing them to our equivalents: runs: 4th, 767 (we were 7th and had 733) -34 in their favor hits: 13th 1403 (we were 5th, 1473) +70 in our favor HR: 3rd 186, (we were 12th at 164) -24 in their favor TB: 6th 2312 (we were 5th at 2316) +4 in our favor avg: 14th 254 (we were 5th 264) +0.10 in our favor OBP: 8th 327 (we were 5th at 329) +0.002 in our favor SLG: 4th 419 (we were only 6th at 414) -0.005 in their favor OPS: 3rd 745 (we were 5th at 743) -0.002 in their favor so, by your logic a team that scores 30 more runs should have a higher OBP and SLG, but in this case, they do not. its split with us winning on and they the other by a very small margin on both cases. the only numbers that are largely different are HR and runs scored in their favor and hits in ours add to that the fact that we had a higher # of hits, total bases, a better average, only only .002 lower in total OPS... they hit 22 more HR than us, and scored 34 more runs.... and it comes down to one thing, HR with men on base. or, as i said, luck and timely bombs. its easy to play the moneyball card but the stats that dont back up your position and in this case fail the logic. This is more like Earl Weaver Orioles than Beane Moneyball

and the sun could turn into a bran muffin.... of course these things are possible im simply stating my opinion... The A's perplex me anyway... they have been riding one of the luckiest streaks i can recall in baseball history. They have great pitching, no question... the biggest reason they win but they have had an uncanny knack for getting bit hits when they need them the most out of a bunch of cast offs and relative no names that always seem to get hits when it matters. Every night on ESPN it was late inning heroics and come from behind 3-2 wins on a late 2 run homer or some shit. We had a higher team average than they did last year, of course we have on base issues. They had a higher slugging percentage even than Colorado in a park that isnt supposed to support those kind of numbers. They hit more HR than Boston for christs sake. You can say what you will but i would defy anyone to tell me they predicted the offensive output of that team over the last 2 years.. its nonsensical. i simply cant believe that streak keeps going forever... if it does it wont matter what we do, but luck eventually runs out.

going out on a limb arent ya? lol the answer to your question is that we were in the race and finished 5 back at the end even with a 9-13 5+ERA Santana.. who became Cy young again after leaving. i stand by my comments.. well see how it ends up

Rosenthal isnt defending him, hes defending his right to the opinion... bit different. Still, i find it laughable how the media and baseball want to throw these guys under the bus after all those years turning the blind eye and being duplicitous in the whole of it.

you can tell yourself that if it makes you feel better but if those 3 guys all deliver that kind of offense we will score enough runs that i could win 10 games or more.

Craig Biggio Barry Bonds Roger Clemens Tom Glavine Greg Maddux Mark McGwire Jack Morris Mike Piazza Tim Raines Lee Smith i gave it to Raines over Bagwell for the last spot due to time on ballot etc... one of the most talented ballots ive ever conceived of that should net the largest class ever. you can talk steroids all you want but until MLB takes responsibility for its duplicity throwing those associated with it is hypocritical.

#1 Trout wins MVP #2 Pujols and Hamilton both hit more than 30 HR #10 the A's finally win a WS. if he is right on numbers 1 and 2, then #10 wont happen.

not true if the player does not want to sign. for example, if he decides he wants to play in Phi.. he will, its pretty much that simple, the club has only so much ability to affect that. this is what the front office needs to be gauging and have a very clear idea on, very soon.

bottom line is does he want to be here long term... no amount of money is going to change that if he doesnt. i would hope by now that ownership has inquired about the long term intent considering he is an east coast guy when not in season... i dont know how that will afect the long term plans but i hope ownership has some ideas if he doenst plan to stay long term then we cannot miss out on what might be the trade of the century... though i hope it doesnt come to that

Rosenthal made some good points and the logic isnt bad, clearly not 100 up on the angels but still... I just wish i felt better about the players that we would be signing that would push us over that threshold.... makes the deals look even worse... unless we assume them to be part of Trout, lol

the new posting system gives him the right to go wherever he wants... then again there was probably some back door dealings to let him post after the Japanese leagues got screwed out of posting fees so.... all that equals he will probably be in Seattle anyway so its moot, lol either that or the Dogs or Yanks... noone else we be a serious player... not that they cant, only that it wont matter if they do or not, unless the go way over the top.

fine, i think you are overvaluing tanaka in that assumption... simple, right?

Let me be clear.... IF the cost on Garza is 18 mil or IF the term is 5 years, im not interested in him either... just for the record... im betting it wont be. if it gets that high he also is too big a risk. If it comes down to lets say 5/90 on Garza, or 6 110-120 for Tanaka, i would go with Tanaka.. my point is i dont like either one of those ideas. The bottom line is you guys in desperation mode on Tanaka... be honest... everything i keep getting hit back with is about the desperate need we have for pitching that justifies over paying etc... talk of upside without any concern for the down.. thats fine, i get that, i just dont agree. Im not saying anyone is wrong about our need... trust me im well aware of it... i just dont like how this puzzle fits together.

...and this is acceptable at any number after the noone will lose speech? its going to go down in history as a bigger blunder than read my lips... what a joke

Easily replaceable for us.. not so much for some other teams in need of those spots. we have some depth at MIF still.. i would be ok with Romine at either spot if it meant upgrading the staff. Remember, we dont need an ace here.. we need a legit #3. Drew, like many others is still out there due to draft pick compensation, which makes our guys more attractive... you call call it nonsense all you like but bringing drew into it suggest you may not know as much as you think as they are in a totally different place due to the draft picks.

no, that is NOT my opinion.. i hae stated my opinion on what i think we should do and standing pat is not on that list. and lets be honest, Kendrick and/or Aybar are not that irreplaceable... a drop of fsure but isnt the upgrade in the pitching likely to offset that? Im not afraid of spending, im afraid of spending so much we tie or hands when something comes along mid season or elsewhere that can help us as much or even more look i get itt isnt quite apples to apples... but i would rather pay garza 3 or 4 years as lets say 12 mil, than i would tanaka 12-15 over 6... and even that may not get it done so... i dont want to take a 6 year risk... we have enough of that already. i dont knowwhya thats so hard to get. i know he cloud help.. he could also be average,, 6 years of average kill this club right now in my opinion.

gee, you think? problem with your analogy is that Tanaka is NOT rolled up quads... you are on top pair facing both a straight and a flush draw, how do you like it now?

too late for us to wait... lol