PDA

View Full Version : Brad Lidge needs help



Falls City Beer
04-24-2006, 11:42 PM
The Stros don't have many weaknesses at all. But Brad Lidge is going to be a permanent problem for them I'm afraid. Grand salami to Nomar tonight against the Dodgers.

(1/2 game back?)

Heath
04-24-2006, 11:44 PM
13-7 vs. 13-6 0 yep FCB.... 1/2 back.

CTA513
04-24-2006, 11:46 PM
The Stros don't have many weaknesses at all. But Brad Lidge is going to be a permanent problem for them I'm afraid. Grand salami to Nomar tonight against the Dodgers.

(1/2 game back?)

Lidge hasnt been pitching to good lately... time to get him while his stock is low. :p:

Falls City Beer
04-24-2006, 11:48 PM
He's been walking a very fine line so far. He's already surrendered three dingers on the young season.

Buckaholic
04-24-2006, 11:51 PM
He's not dominating so far this season, but before tonight he still only had like a 3.50 ERA and 1.17 WHIP or something right around there, so he wasn't struggling too bad.

He's not pitching as well as he usually does, but I don't expect him to continue his mediocrity for too long.

Matt700wlw
04-24-2006, 11:53 PM
This weekend could (and should) be the battle for first place!! :thumbup:

RedsMan3203
04-25-2006, 12:06 AM
I'll take Mr. Lidge on my team anyday.

As Tracy Jones says -- If someone is throwing 97 mph they are very very hard to hit and should be in the big leagues.

The Baumer
04-25-2006, 12:10 AM
Everytime I've seen Lidge he has been totally nasty, yet I always seem to hear this growing grumbling about him. Has he been sketchy since the Pujols hr or what?

Falls City Beer
04-25-2006, 12:10 AM
Sure, it may be too early to tell, but he's got like 7 BBs in 10 2/3 innings. The K's are there, but you can tell just watching the guy that he's nibbling against the big hitters.

The brain is a funny thing. One slight doubt or hesitation on the part of a pitcher can reduce the hardest throwers to ashes. Mark Wohlers, for example.

MWM
04-25-2006, 12:30 AM
I've always thought he threw too many sliders. That's tough on an arm over long periods of time. Few arms can handle that. It's too early to tell if this is abberation or pattern, but I've always thought he's a serious injury risk.

Crash Davis
04-25-2006, 12:36 AM
You had to figure there was a reason they were shopping him not so secretively this past offseason. I couldn't believe it when I first heard it, but his value was not going to get much higher, and they appear to really like Dan Wheeler & Chad Qualls.

He's still dominant at times, but he's also been vulnerable at a much higher rate.

M2
04-25-2006, 10:46 AM
IMO, the Astros are in major trouble. The club's off to a flying start, but I agree that Lidge looks like a shell of his former self and that an implosion seems imminent. Qualls has been horrible so far. In fact, the Houston bullpen is carrying around 6.96 ERA at the moment and I'm not convinced it's got the personnel to get itself righted.

Beyond that, Wandy Rodriguez, Brandon Backe and Taylor Buchholz are going to fall apart soon enough in the rotation.

Also, Craig Biggio and Morgan Ensberg will cool off and there's no one in that lineup to pick up the slack when they do.

IMO, the Astros have got a glass jaw this season.

BigDonkey44
04-25-2006, 10:55 AM
This weekend could (and should) be the battle for first place!! :thumbup:


Me and the Fiance and my little sis are going friday night!!!!

BTW Coffey should be the closer from now on, the guy is throwing 96 on the gun. He is nasty.

Astrobuddy
04-25-2006, 11:04 AM
M2, you havent been watching too many Astros/ Reds games the last 5 years have you.

You said that after Ensberg and Biggio there is no one to pick up the slack?

1 name.. Reds fans know it well... L A N C E B E R K M A N This guy owns the Reds, period.

Biggio will cool off, But Morgan Ensberg is the real deal, he wont hit 90 homers but he is on his way to 40+ this season.


Ya'll keep taking the Astros lightly.

danforsman
04-25-2006, 11:13 AM
Lidge is not locating his fastball for strikes and not trusting his fastball to start off hitters anymore. It seems like hitters can distinguish his slider from his fastball much better now, and they are laying off the slider and waiting for him to leave a heater up. Of course that still doesn't explain allowing a HR to Podsednik in the WS.

M2
04-25-2006, 11:14 AM
M2, you havent been watching too many Astros/ Reds games the last 5 years have you.

You said that after Ensberg and Biggio there is no one to pick up the slack?

1 name.. Reds fans know it well... L A N C E B E R K M A N This guy owns the Reds, period.

Biggio will cool off, But Morgan Ensberg is the real deal, he wont hit 90 homers but he is on his way to 40+ this season.


Ya'll keep taking the Astros lightly.

Berkman's a constant and he carries that offense, but he's already doing all he can. It's not like he's going to get significantly better than his current 1.091 OPS when Biggio and Ensberg come back to earth.

So then you've got Berkman being Berkman and who's going to fill the void to make up for what Biggio and Ensberg (who, as you noted, isn't finishing anywhere near a 1.477 OPS) are currently providing? I don't see where the auxiliary power supply is on that team when the main generators cycle down.

Astrobuddy
04-25-2006, 11:22 AM
Teams dont need alot of power to win. Hell, the Reds have had Power for years and cant win. Pitching, Defense and timely hitting is what you need. Baseball is a team game and the Astros hitters learned about OBP over the winter. Ensberg will hit for Power, Wilson will hit (streaky) with Power, Lane will hit for Power and the others will get on base alot more than they did the previous year.

This team doesnt have a glass jaw. They are all, with the exception of Preston Wilson, a group of patient hitters who will get their knocks.

Berkman and Ensberg barring injury will be in the top 5 for the MVP this season.

MattyHo4Life
04-25-2006, 11:26 AM
I agree with M2 on this one. The Astros are flying high now, because everybody is on fire now. Lance Berkman is a great hitter, but do you still think that he is as good as Albert Pujols? I been beat over the head with the Berkman is better than Pujols from you for years. The Astros are playing as good as they can play, and they are barely ahead of the Reds and Cardinals. The Cardinals offense hasn't even started producing yet. Astrobuddy...you are known for making predictions...so here is one of my own. The Astros will finsih behind both the Cardinals and the Reds this season. At the end of the season, the Astros will have an average offense and an average starting rotation. The Reds may not have the best pitching staff, but they will always produce a ton of runs.

M2
04-25-2006, 11:40 AM
Teams dont need alot of power to win.

Teams need some modicum of offense to win and WHEN Biggio and Ensberg cool down I don't see where the Astros will be getting it from.


Hell, the Reds have had Power for years and cant win. Pitching, Defense and timely hitting is what you need.

When Wandy Rodriguez, Brandon Backe and Taylor Buchholz comprise the 3-5 pitchers on your staff and you've got a bullpen that's getting torched, you'd best not assume you've got the kind of pitching that can contend over the course of 162 games. Seems to me that barring a return of Roger Clemens, the arrival of Jason Hirsh and the wholesale rebound of that pen, the Astros have got themselves some mound problems


Baseball is a team game and the Astros hitters learned about OBP over the winter. Ensberg will hit for Power, Wilson will hit (streaky) with Power, Lane will hit for Power and the others will get on base alot more than they did the previous year.

How did they learn about it? Were they issued copies of Bill James books?

Anyway, no one's disputing that Ensberg will hit for power, but he sure as shooting won't keep up his current pace. Lane's not going to add a lot more than he's already adding (largely because he's never been very good vs. RHPs) and if Wilson was on the opposing team from you during a Little League game, you'd be shouting "Easy out!" at your pitcher.


This team doesnt have a glass jaw. They are all, with the exception of Preston Wilson, a group of patient hitters who will get their knocks.

Since when are Adam Everett and Willy Tavares patient hitters? I actually think Tavares has his uses at the plate, but, like Brad Ausmus, Everett isn't there for his bat. Add in Wilson, who looks like he's toast and Lane, who's never done a damn thing against RHPs. Then factor in that Biggio and Ensberg will cool off, 100% guaranteed. So what are you left with? Lance Berkman carrying one of the less talented offenses in the NL.

westofyou
04-25-2006, 11:41 AM
So what are you left with? Lance Berkman carrying one of the less talented offenses in the NL.But offense doesn't win this game M2.....

Astrobuddy
04-25-2006, 11:42 AM
I have never said that Berkman was better than Pujols. What I have said and still maintain is that Berkman is in the same class. The difference isnt as great as you make it sound. If I had to choose between the 2, I pick Lance Berkman because he bats lefty and he isnt an arrogant ass.

The Astros finish behind the Reds? Come on.. quit playing to the home crowd.

This team is ALOT better than any of you think. Thats fine. What will you be saying a month from now when the Astros are still leading the division and nothing has changed?

The win/loss records are not that big a deal now. Wait until after the Astros, Reds and Cards all play head to head a few series. Thats when we will see.

Matty, do you really expect the Cards to just run away with again?

Pujols
Rolen

Then WHO ????????

Suppan has come back to earth

Marquis will be an average #4 starter, he isnt Roy Oswalt.

Mulder is inconsistent and isnt dominant.

Ponson is too many hotdogs or a DUI away from imploding.

Carpenter will be Carpenter.

Then WHO?

Cards bullpen.. nothing automatic there.

How are they so good? The Cards had their run and they didnt win a WS. The Astros are the Braves of the NL Central. They have a good Minor league system and just wont go away.

MattyHo4Life
04-25-2006, 11:45 AM
Matty, do you really expect the Cards to just run away with again?

I never said that, but I do think they will win the division again. There is a lot of competition in this division. Even the Pirates aren't as bad as people think they are.

westofyou
04-25-2006, 11:47 AM
This board needs one more thread about the Stros and the Cards for a Trifeca.

MattyHo4Life
04-25-2006, 11:49 AM
I have never said that Berkman was better than Pujols. What I have said and still maintain is that Berkman is in the same class. The difference isnt as great as you make it sound. If I had to choose between the 2, I pick Lance Berkman because he bats lefty and he isnt an arrogant ass.

You can have Lance. I'll take Pujols over Berkman anyday.

paintmered
04-25-2006, 11:49 AM
You can have Lance. I'll take Pujols over Berkman anyday.

I second that.

Blimpie
04-25-2006, 11:49 AM
I have never said that Berkman was better than Pujols. What I have said and still maintain is that Berkman is in the same class. The difference isnt as great as you make it sound. If I had to choose between the 2, I pick Lance Berkman because he bats lefty and he isnt an arrogant ass.Sounds reasonable to me....

Blimpie
04-25-2006, 11:51 AM
You can have Lance. I'll take Pujols over Berkman anyday.I'll take Pujols over any player in the league over the last twenty years. That's right, even Koby Clemens.

Astrobuddy
04-25-2006, 11:52 AM
Of course you would Matty and I'd take Lance for some of the same reasons you take Pujols. They are on our repsective teams, but the numbers arent that much different all the hype aside.

Look at the numbers..

Cards fans made a huge deal out of Pujols 1000th hit. Berkman is right there and with not that many more AB's.

Pujols is better, I will give you that. But it isnt by that much.

westofyou
04-25-2006, 11:53 AM
Arrogance is a funny word for this thread.

paintmered
04-25-2006, 11:54 AM
Arrogance is a funny word for this thread.

Ironic too.

M2
04-25-2006, 11:58 AM
The Astros are the Braves of the NL Central.

I must have read this a dozen times already and it still hasn't failed to make me laugh.

MattyHo4Life
04-25-2006, 11:58 AM
Of course you would Matty and I'd take Lance for some of the same reasons you take Pujols. They are on our repsective teams, but the numbers arent that much different all the hype aside.

It has nothing to do with what team he is on. Pujols is a better player any way you look at it.

traderumor
04-25-2006, 12:03 PM
What I want to know is if Albert's daddy can whip Lance's daddy?

Astrobuddy
04-25-2006, 12:05 PM
.. and I said that Matty. But the difference isnt that great.

Hype baby, hype. LOOK AT THE STATS.


M2 , ask yourself this. Which team would you rather have? The Reds or the Astros? I thought so....

PuffyPig
04-25-2006, 12:09 PM
I have never said that Berkman was better than Pujols. What I have said and still maintain is that Berkman is in the same class.

Berkman is a great, great player.

But please don't embarass him by trying to compare him to Pujols.

There is no major league hitter in Pujols class.

That's just the way it is.

westofyou
04-25-2006, 12:10 PM
M2 , ask yourself this. Which team would you rather have? The Reds or the Astros? I thought so....
You kill me, 35 years of watching the Astors has cemented the fact that I'd rather be the 1982 Reds than any Astro team.

BRM
04-25-2006, 12:11 PM
What I want to know is if Albert's daddy can whip Lance's daddy?

:laugh:

M2
04-25-2006, 12:13 PM
M2 , ask yourself this. Which team would you rather have? The Reds or the Astros? I thought so....

Dude, have you once heard me mention the Reds as a viable contender in this or any other thread?

Wayne Krivsky inherited an unqualified mess two months ago and it's going to take time and hard work to turn it around.

So, if you think some silly "my team is better than your team, nyah, nyah, nyah" argument is going to have any effect on me, guess again.

Fact remains that the Astros offense will cool off and the starting pitching is then and the bullpen looks lousy and there isn't much help from the system that the club could plug in to fill those numerous holes.

I don't think the Astros will be a lousy team, but they sure don't look like a viable contender to me either.

registerthis
04-25-2006, 12:15 PM
It has nothing to do with what team he is on. Pujols is a better player any way you look at it.

...and everyone knows it, only some of us are loathe to admit it.

registerthis
04-25-2006, 12:16 PM
You kill me, 35 years of watching the Astors has cemented the fact that I'd rather be the 1982 Reds than any Astro team.

The Astros Franchise = Mediocrity Personified

Falls City Beer
04-25-2006, 12:17 PM
Berkman is absolutely in Pujols' class. To say otherwise is just to pick on Astrobuddy. Without Bonds, they are #1 and #2 in MLB.

redsfanfalcon
04-25-2006, 12:20 PM
Even with Bonds and his creme, they probably still are 1 and 2.

M2
04-25-2006, 12:21 PM
Berkman is absolutely in Pujols' class. To say otherwise is just to pick on Astrobuddy. Without Bonds, they are #1 and #2 in MLB.

Berkman over A-Rod? I don't think so.

I like Berkman a lot, but there's a dozen-plus players I'd rather have and the Cardinals happen to have two of them.

vaticanplum
04-25-2006, 12:22 PM
Berkman is absolutely in Pujols' class.

I agree with this, but I don't think that Pujols is more famous because he is a product of a "hype machine". I think it is because he plays for a better team that has had greater success throughout the entirety of his (still relatively short) career.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2006, 12:23 PM
Berkman over A-Rod? I don't think so.

I like Berkman a lot, but there's a dozen-plus players I'd rather have and the Cardinals happen to have two of them.


Ok, maybe A-Rod.

But a dozen-plus? Come on. Rolen? Pshht. If you like averaging 300 ABs a season.

westofyou
04-25-2006, 12:25 PM
Albert has topped 85 EBH 3 times, Berkman once (in 2001) and since then he's averaged 69 a year.

He walks way more and hits for a lower average, but if he has a year like 2001 then he's in Alberts class, he just has to do it some more.

Yaz was great, but he was no Ted Williams.

blumj
04-25-2006, 12:25 PM
Well, it's tough to not include A-Rod in anyone's class, isn't it?

Blimpie
04-25-2006, 12:27 PM
Berkman is absolutely in Pujols' class. To say otherwise is just to pick on Astrobuddy. Without Bonds, they are #1 and #2 in MLB.You can give Berkman # 2 if you want. But that's not the same as "# 1 and # 1A" which is what Astrobuddy is contending. My problem is when people start using ambiguous phrases like "close to" Pujols. In this case, there is a freakin ocean separating Pujols and whomever you place in slot # 2.

Hey, there was a horse that finished second to Secretariat at the 1973 Belmont Stakes, but I don't hear anybody saying that they were "close to" being the same caliber horse.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2006, 12:27 PM
For the record, I still think the Astros walk away with the division. They get more out of little, while the Cards are getting their first taste of life without a surfeit of talent. I don't think the Cards are as resourceful as the Astros.

And Buchholz and Rodriquez are performing a hell of a sight better than most of the Cardinals' back end.

registerthis
04-25-2006, 12:28 PM
Berkman is absolutely in Pujols' class. To say otherwise is just to pick on Astrobuddy. Without Bonds, they are #1 and #2 in MLB.

In his class, sure. Better than? Not in any way, shape, or form.

Berkman
OPS (2003 - 2005): .927, 1.016, .934
RC/27: 7.63, 9.36, 7.67
HR (2003 - 2005): 25, 30, 24
RBI (2003 - 2005): 93, 106, 82

Pujols
OPS (2003 - 2005): 1.106, 1.072, 1.039
RC/27: 11.60, 10.09, 9.84
HR (2003 - 2005): 43, 46, 41
RBI (2003 - 2005): 124, 123, 117

Falls City Beer
04-25-2006, 12:32 PM
You can give Berkman # 2 if you want. But that's not the same as "# 1 and # 1A" which is what Astrobuddy is contending. My problem is when people start using ambiguous phrases like "close to" Pujols. In this case, there is a freakin ocean separating Pujols and whomever you place in slot # 2.

Hey, there was a horse that finished second to Secretariat at the 1973 Belmont Stakes, but I don't hear anybody saying that they were "close to" being the same caliber horse.

I don't think there's "oceans" separating them. I think that is also hyperbole on the other side of the argument. They're two players in the stratosphere of baseball, separated by 75 OPS points for their career.

Blimpie
04-25-2006, 12:37 PM
I don't think there's "oceans" separating them. I think that is also hyperbole on the other side of the argument. They're two players in the stratosphere of baseball, separated by 75 OPS points for their career.
Berkman
OPS (2003 - 2005): .927, 1.016, .934
RC/27: 7.63, 9.36, 7.67
HR (2003 - 2005): 25, 30, 24
RBI (2003 - 2005): 93, 106, 82

Pujols
OPS (2003 - 2005): 1.106, 1.072, 1.039
RC/27: 11.60, 10.09, 9.84
HR (2003 - 2005): 43, 46, 41
RBI (2003 - 2005): 124, 123, 117
Even if you consider the OPS comparison a wash (which is isn't), then just take a glance at the other numbers Registerthis posted and you might reconsider 'hyperbole' as a strong choice of word.

Johnny Footstool
04-25-2006, 12:43 PM
For the record, I still think the Astros walk away with the division. They get more out of little, while the Cards are getting their first taste of life without a surfeit of talent. I don't think the Cards are as resourceful as the Astros.


I think you've got it backwards. The Cardinals tend to "get more out of little" and actually were not as talent-ridden last season as they are being made out to be. Mark Grudzeilanek? Abraham Nunez? 396 ABs of So Taguchi? They won 100 games last season with those three getting tons of playing time and without Scott Rolen. They're used to hardship.

Meanwhile, the Astros benefitted from a two world-class trios on the mound (Clemens, Pettite, Oswalt starting; Lidge, Wheeler, Qualls on the back end). I don't know how that qualifies as "getting more out of little."

traderumor
04-25-2006, 01:01 PM
Berkman is a great, great player.

But please don't embarass him by trying to compare him to Pujols.

There is no major league hitter in Pujols class.

That's just the way it is.You know, I heard someone say something very similar to that about 30 years ago in a comparison of catchers.

Newman4
04-25-2006, 01:23 PM
Ok, maybe A-Rod.

But a dozen-plus? Come on. Rolen? Pshht. If you like averaging 300 ABs a season.

Ok, Pujols is better than Berkman, but Rolen? Nah.

Newman4
04-25-2006, 01:27 PM
Since you guys are making predictions, I predict once Rolen gets on the DL, Pujols gets the ol' IBB with regularity and the offense is anemic as those pasty white uniforms the Card trot out there.

RBA
04-25-2006, 01:31 PM
Okay, time to pipe in. The Reds are taking the Central. Astros and Cards will need to fight it out for the wild card.


thank you!

MWM
04-25-2006, 01:37 PM
Assuming Rolen is player #2, I don't agree that I'd take him over Berkman, but it wouldn't be that easy a decision. IMO, Scott Rolen is the best defenseive third baseman to ever play the game. His defense combined with career .891 OPS makes him comparable to a guy like Berkman.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2006, 01:39 PM
Assuming Rolen is player #2, I don't agree that I'd take him over Berkman, but it wouldn't be that easy a decision. IMO, Scott Rolen is the best defenseive third baseman to ever play the game. His defense combined with career .891 OPS makes him comparable to a guy like Berkman.

Sure, he's comparable, in the same way Berkman is comparable to Pujols.

My point exactly.

Who's not comparable is Rolen and Pujols. ;)

Astrobuddy
04-25-2006, 01:43 PM
I have said that Pujols is the better hitter. Saying Berkman is close and in the same class is not the same as saying 1 and 1A.

As the stats have shown, Pujols is the better hitter, but is isnt by an Ocean.

A State maybe, but not a big one. IN the National League... there is Pujols, Berkman and everyone else.

As a hitter Scott Rolen doesnt even figure into the discussion. Just like Edmonds and Caminiti before them, the body will only take so much and it starts giving out. Any wonder why Pujols and Berkman are at 1st base now? Their careers will be alot longer.

Heath
04-25-2006, 01:47 PM
I think you've got it backwards. The Cardinals tend to "get more out of little" and actually were not as talent-ridden last season as they are being made out to be. Mark Grudzeilanek? Abraham Nunez? 396 ABs of So Taguchi? They won 100 games last season with those three getting tons of playing time and without Scott Rolen. They're used to hardship.

Just look what the 2004 Cardinals did for Tony Womack!

That should end ANY argument.

Heath
04-25-2006, 01:48 PM
You know, I heard someone say something very similar to that about 30 years ago in a comparison of catchers.

I'm afraid that Carlton Fisk and Thurman Munson never could quite understand either.

Astrobuddy
04-25-2006, 01:50 PM
Ted Williams and Ty Cobb may NOT have something to say if Albert Pujols continues at his current pace and never wins a WS.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2006, 01:54 PM
Just look what the 2004 Cardinals did for Tony Womack!

That should end ANY argument.

Just because one crap player gets fat on the table droppings of the greatest offense on earth doesn't end any argument.

vaticanplum
04-25-2006, 01:55 PM
As the stats have shown, Pujols is the better hitter, but is isnt by an Ocean.

A State maybe, but not a big one. IN the National League... there is Pujols, Berkman and everyone else.

As a hitter Scott Rolen doesnt even figure into the discussion. Just like Edmonds and Caminiti before them, the body will only take so much and it starts giving out. Any wonder why Pujols and Berkman are at 1st base now? Their careers will be alot longer.

Astrobuddy, occasionally you make good points and I do like having other teams' fans on this board; they remind me of things I sometimes forget. But you sometimes fall into one of two (or both, as above) methods of arguing: 1) the crystal ball method (stating what you think will happen in the future as absolute fact -- you're totally entitled, but anybody can respond in kind and it doesn't make for very compelling argument) or 2) the "look at the stats" argument. You seem to make this one an awful lot without providing any actual stats. I know they're out there, but I need to know exactly to what stats you are referring and how they support your argument.

westofyou
04-25-2006, 01:58 PM
2) the "look at the stats" argument. You seem to make this one an awful lot without providing any actual stats.

And it also comes from someone who said the other day:


Winshares is another one of Bill James' BS stats. You can find stats for anything.

So what is it?

Look at the stats or you can find stats for anything?

Cyclone792
04-25-2006, 02:03 PM
Ted Williams and Ty Cobb may NOT have something to say if Albert Pujols continues at his current pace and never wins a WS.

Cobb and Williams are two of the five greatest players ever to play the game. As great as Albert Pujols is, the chances of him landing among the top five players ever is still a tall order, and likely taller than even Pujols has a shot to claim.

Does Pujols have a shot to be the greatest right-handed hitter ever? Sure. But Cobb and Williams is another territory altogether.

MattyHo4Life
04-25-2006, 02:07 PM
I have said that Pujols is the better hitter. Saying Berkman is close and in the same class is not the same as saying 1 and 1A.

I would put Adam Dunn in the same class as Lance Berkman. I wouldn't put Adam Dunn in Pujols' class though.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2006, 02:11 PM
Cobb and Williams are two of the five greatest players ever to play the game. As great as Albert Pujols is, the chances of him landing among the top five players ever is still a tall order, and likely taller than even Pujols has a shot to claim.

Does Pujols have a shot to be the greatest right-handed hitter ever? Sure. But Cobb and Williams is another territory altogether.

How can you make a claim either way?

If Pujols becomes the greatest RH hitter ever, then he's among the top five ever, particularly when you consider that he's doing it against contemporary pitching/the modern bullpen. I know you don't like the time machine argument, but frankly, the game evolves. Otherwise, guys like Williams and Cobb never get challenged or dethroned because the argument fixes them (Williams and Cobb) in time relative to their peers of old, who aren't as skilled as today's peers.

If Pujols outpaces Aaron, he becomes the greatest hitter ever, IMO. But THAT is a tall order.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2006, 02:12 PM
I wouldn't put Adam Dunn in Pujols' class though.

That's silly.

I would put him in Pujols' class without thinking twice.

MattyHo4Life
04-25-2006, 02:16 PM
That's silly.

I would put him in Pujols' class without thinking twice.

Then you would put a lot of players in that class. I would have a hard time putting anybody that isn't named ARod in Pujols' class. There would be a huge class next to his though.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2006, 02:20 PM
Then you would put a lot of players in that class. I would have a hard time putting anybody that isn't named ARod in Pujols' class. There would be a huge class next to his though.

Usually, when I speak of class in baseball, I'm talking about a grouping of about ten or twenty players, usually the .950+ OPS club; I suspect that there are about 15-17 in that grouping in MLB last season, the top ten of whom constituting a class.

MWM
04-25-2006, 02:21 PM
A State maybe, but not a big one. IN the National League... there is Pujols, Berkman and everyone else.

And before this year, I'd take the previous five seasons of Jim Edmonds over Berkman anyday. He was every bit as good offensively and superior defensively. Now if you're talking this year (which I'm sure you'll now say you are), it might be those two and everyone else. But prior to this year, Edmonds was the better player, IMO. And you can't forget about Miguel Cabrera when saying Berkman and Pujols and everyone else. And a healthy Derek Lee is also in the conversation and might even be ahead of Berkman.

Cyclone792
04-25-2006, 02:23 PM
How can you make a claim either way?

If Pujols becomes the greatest RH hitter ever, then he's among the top five ever, particularly when you consider that he's doing it against contemporary pitching/the modern bullpen. I know you don't like the time machine argument, but frankly, the game evolves. Otherwise, guys like Williams and Cobb never get challenged or dethroned because the argument fixes them (Williams and Cobb) in time relative to their peers of old, who aren't as skilled as today's peers.

If Pujols outpaces Aaron, he becomes the greatest hitter ever, IMO. But THAT is a tall order.

The game does evolve, but you have to compare players to how well they dominated their peers. Sure, Felipe Lopez the actual player in 2005 vs. Arky Vaughan the actual player in 1935 is possibly a greater player, but Lopez did not come close to dominating his peers last season like Vaughan did in 1935. Additionally, if using the argument that the game evolves, your Aaron comparison suddenly becomes a moot point since Aaron's peak occurred 40 years ago. Yes, the game evolved from 1926 to 1966, but it's also evolved greatly from 1966 to 2006.

Claiming that modern players have no shot to compare to older players using the basis that they can't dominate their peers at such a high level is false, because plenty of modern players are very high in the ranks (Bonds, Clemens, Maddux, Piazza, Martinez, Rodriguez, Thomas, Bagwell, soon to be Pujols, just to name a few). There are several modern players that have played in the last dozen years who are greater than most people are willing to acknowledge.

FWIW, Honus Wagner was a right-handed batter, and he surely belongs in the top five. The difference is Honus Wagner A) played shortstop, and B) is worlds ahead of any other shortstop the game has ever seen.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2006, 02:30 PM
Claiming that modern players have no shot to compare to older players using the basis that they can't dominate their peers at such a high level is false, because plenty of modern players are very high in the ranks (Bonds, Clemens, Maddux, Piazza, Martinez, Rodriguez, Thomas, Bagwell, soon to be Pujols, just to name a few). There are several modern players that have played in the last dozen years who are greater than most people are willing to acknowledge.

.

But modern players don't and probably can't dominate their peers to the degree that players of past eras did.

Surely, no one ever will replicate Walter Johnson's monumental seasons relative to Johnson's peers--but that doesn't mean, necessarily, that in themselves there won't be pitchers whose accomplishments aren't as miraculous as Johnson's; they'll just reflect different statistics as evidence. If that makes any sense. But if we're sitting around waiting for another player to dominate his peers in the way Johnson did, then we're waiting for Godot. But that doesn't mean Johnson's the greatest ever because he dominated a bunch of 5' 8" former plumbers.

LincolnparkRed
04-25-2006, 02:52 PM
In an attempt to take this thread back to where it started you have to look at the Astros schedule to start the year before you start printing playoff tickets. Home series with FLA,WSH,MIL,PIT,&LAD and one quick 5 game road trip to SF & ARI so that means they have had 14 homes games and have not played the Stl, CHc or CIN who happen to represent the three teams closest to them in the standings.

I give them credit for the hot start but they are having issues with Lidge, Pettite has not been consistent and they have to be near the bottom of the barrel in starters with Backe hurt. I just can't see them mainting this through even the next month.

rdiersin
04-25-2006, 03:24 PM
I would have to say Albert Pujols is pretty much in a class by himself.


2005 2004 2003
OPS RC/27 OPS RC/27 OPS RC/27
PLAYER STD/AVG STD/AVG STD/AVG STD/AVG STD/AVG STD/AVG
Albert Pujols 2.17 2.37 2.07 1.42 2.42 2.53
Todd Helton 1.58 2.05 2.20 2.24 2.27 2.28
Lance Berkman 1.13 1.08 1.59 1.53 0.92 1.00
Jim Edmonds 0.97 0.91 1.97 1.68 1.55 1.08


STD/Avg is the number of standard deviations above the mean.

M2
04-25-2006, 03:54 PM
Ok, maybe A-Rod.

But a dozen-plus? Come on. Rolen? Pshht. If you like averaging 300 ABs a season.

Rolen in a heartbeat. In the eight seasons prior to last year he averaged 622 plate appearances. And, unlike Berkman, he's an elite defender, one of the best ever at his position in fact.

So that's Pujols, Rolen and A-Rod.

I'll also take Manny (better bat), Jeter (plays a critical position), Vlad, Teixeira (younger, Gold Glove skills at 1B), Miguel Cabrera, David Wright (five tools, takes his walks and he's just 23), Todd Helton and Victor Martinez (a catcher with MVP-potential in his future),

I'd stick Berkman in with hitters like Papi, Travis Hafner, Jason Bay and Jim Thome. All are great bats, but top two players in baseball? I don't think so.

Cyclone792
04-25-2006, 04:07 PM
But modern players don't and probably can't dominate their peers to the degree that players of past eras did.

Surely, no one ever will replicate Walter Johnson's monumental seasons relative to Johnson's peers--but that doesn't mean, necessarily, that in themselves there won't be pitchers whose accomplishments aren't as miraculous as Johnson's; they'll just reflect different statistics as evidence. If that makes any sense. But if we're sitting around waiting for another player to dominate his peers in the way Johnson did, then we're waiting for Godot. But that doesn't mean Johnson's the greatest ever because he dominated a bunch of 5' 8" former plumbers.

Not necessarily.

Nobody is going to match the wins totals of pitchers of yesteryear, but anybody using wins as evidence to superiority isn't making a valid argument anyway. Clemens is arguably the greatest pitcher of all-time, and while I wouldn't place him first, I would place him second behind only Johnson. Maddux is another top 10, arguable top five pitcher, and Pedro Martinez is getting up there himself. That's three pitchers right there who all played last season that could end up among the 10 greatest pitchers ever. Randy Johnson isn't far behind, either.

We can go position by position here if you'd like, FCB, as it's obvious there's plenty of modern players that rank very favorably with players from the past. I would place a currently active player amongst the top five at their position at five of the eight positions on the diamond, with the other three positions having active players just outside the top five.

And some of those guys, such as Alex Rodriguez and Mike Piazza, belong higher than just barely in the top five.

Highlifeman21
04-25-2006, 04:14 PM
I have never said that Berkman was better than Pujols. What I have said and still maintain is that Berkman is in the same class. The difference isnt as great as you make it sound. If I had to choose between the 2, I pick Lance Berkman because he bats lefty and he isnt an arrogant ass.

You build a franchise around Albert Pujols. No one in their right mind would build a franchise around Fat Elvis, Lance Berkman. Albert Pujols is in the same breath as Alex Rodriguez in terms of best overall hitters/players in the game right now, Lance Berkman is LUCKY to be consider at the top of the next tier of players.

Take a look at this:


Career Totals

Player G XBH TB/162 OBP SLG
Berkman 927 439 316 .415 .561
Pujols 809 455 380 .418 .628

Pujols owns him in all those categories, and has played in 118 LESS games. While you gladly will take Berkman over Pujols, anyone else with a pulse prefers Pujols.

KronoRed
04-25-2006, 04:30 PM
Ted Williams and Ty Cobb may NOT have something to say if Albert Pujols continues at his current pace and never wins a WS.
Lets hope that happens for all the teams in our division ;)

Falls City Beer
04-25-2006, 04:43 PM
Not necessarily.

Nobody is going to match the wins totals of pitchers of yesteryear, but anybody using wins as evidence to superiority isn't making a valid argument anyway. Clemens is arguably the greatest pitcher of all-time, and while I wouldn't place him first, I would place him second behind only Johnson. Maddux is another top 10, arguable top five pitcher, and Pedro Martinez is getting up there himself. That's three pitchers right there who all played last season that could end up among the 10 greatest pitchers ever. Randy Johnson isn't far behind, either.

We can go position by position here if you'd like, FCB, as it's obvious there's plenty of modern players that rank very favorably with players from the past. I would place a currently active player amongst the top five at their position at five of the eight positions on the diamond, with the other three positions having active players just outside the top five.

And some of those guys, such as Alex Rodriguez and Mike Piazza, belong higher than just barely in the top five.

I'm sorry, I must be mistaking your argument then, Cyclone. And if so, I apologize. I thought you took the following position: that players must only be compared against their contemporaries, and that they be ranked according to how distantly they overtowered their peers.

So, for instance, Pedro should only be compared to Clemens or Maddux, etc.

And Johnson can only be compared to Ruth, et al.

Further, then to rank them along an ahistorical continuum, you judge based upon how far each pitcher outranked his contemporaries.

So because Walter Johnson outpaced his contemporaries to SUCH a degree, he ranks first.

And though Clemens ranks quite a bit above his nearest competitors, not as much as Johnson, so he ranks 2nd.

Is that something like your criteria?

I guess, and this is only if the above is your argument, that my argument says that the competition for those top spots is considerably fiercer and more competitive nowadays than in the days of those chasing the heels of Johnson.

But you seem to be suggesting otherwise, that Johnson faced a similar degree of pitching talent/competition in the 1910s.

I hope I'm not butchering your argument--but if that is your argument I heartily disagree with it.

Cyclone792
04-25-2006, 05:31 PM
I'm sorry, I must be mistaking your argument then, Cyclone. And if so, I apologize. I thought you took the following position: that players must only be compared against their contemporaries, and that they be ranked according to how distantly they overtowered their peers.

So, for instance, Pedro should only be compared to Clemens or Maddux, etc.

And Johnson can only be compared to Ruth, et al.

Further, then to rank them along an ahistorical continuum, you judge based upon how far each pitcher outranked his contemporaries.

So because Walter Johnson outpaced his contemporaries to SUCH a degree, he ranks first.

And though Clemens ranks quite a bit above his nearest competitors, not as much as Johnson, so he ranks 2nd.

Is that something like your criteria?

I guess, and this is only if the above is your argument, that my argument says that the competition for those top spots is considerably fiercer and more competitive nowadays than in the days of those chasing the heels of Johnson.

But you seem to be suggesting otherwise, that Johnson faced a similar degree of pitching talent/competition in the 1910s.

I hope I'm not butchering your argument--but if that is your argument I heartily disagree with it.

I'm not at all suggesting that Johnson faced similar competition in the 1910s as we've got today, just like I believe the level of competition today is far greater than it was 35-50 years ago when Hank Aaron was in his peak. But it is only fair to compare players to how well they dominated against their peers, be it Hank Aaron, Walter Johnson, Roger Clemens, anybody. It's not Walter Johnson's fault he was born in 1887 instead of 1987. He played against who he played against. He was elected into the Hall of Fame based on how he dominated his peers, not because people thought rightfully or wrongfully that Johnson would still dominate the game at that level in the late 1930s like he did 25 years earlier.

If Johnson dominated his peers at a higher degree than Clemens dominated his peers, then absolutely I rank Johnson higher. At the same time, if Clemens dominated his peers at a higher level than Lefty Grove, Grover Alexander, Cy Young and Christy Mathewson did in their time, then absolutely I'll rank Clemens higher than those players.

When voters decide who they vote into the Hall of Fame, "most" voters have their main criteria as how much did that player dominate their peers (I'll say most because I'm sure we can agree that there's some morons voting).

Your suggestion that it being considerably more difficult to dominate today is just something that I cannot at all agree with, however, and only at the very highest level amongst the top five or 10 players of all-time could one hold that assumption, but it's on shaky ground especially considering what Clemens and Maddux have done. Players in today's game are most definitely dominating the game today at a similarly high level that players 70 years ago dominated.

Here, I'll go position by position ... I'll count active players and recently retired players who haven't even been out of the game long enough to find the BBWAA ballot ... these are the guys I'd rank amongst the top 10 at their position right now (i.e. if they never played another game, they'd still hold this ranking) ...

Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas, Albert Pujols, Mark McGwire, Craig Biggio, Roberto Alomar, Chipper Jones, Alex Rodriguez, Barry Larkin, Cal Ripken Jr., Barry Bonds, Rickey Henderson, Tim Raines, Ken Griffey Jr., Gary Sheffield, Tony Gwynn, Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux.

That's 19 players. Then add in players who are already close and may end up in that list by the time they retire: Ivan Rodriguez, Jeff Kent, Scott Rolen, Derek Jeter, Miguel Tejada, Nomar Garciaparra, Manny Rameriz, Jim Edmonds, Brian Giles, Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson.

That's 11 more players, a total of 30 guys, and I may have even missed a few, who knows. That doesn't even include younger players such as Guerrero, Berkman, Teixeira, Cabrera, Helton, Martinez, Wright, Dunn, anybody else who may explode onto the scene within a few seasons, etc.

The list goes on and on. Absolutely there are players in today's game who have or who will dominate at a level with the all-time greats. The problem is most fans just don't recognize it.

Albert Pujols, for example, has dominated his peers in only his first five seasons on an equal or possibly even greater level than Jimmie Foxx did in Foxx's best five seasons period. At the rate Pujols is going, in about one or two more seasons he'll wipe Foxx off the map for peak value as a first bagger and will have put up a level of domination over his best five seasons similar to Lou Gehrig.

After Gehrig, there is nobody else at first base. If Albert Pujols really is the age we think he is, and if he has a typical career path, the argument will come down to Gehrig vs. Pujols as the greatest first baseman in the history of the game.

If that doesn't show an ability to dominate today, I don't know what will.

registerthis
04-25-2006, 05:31 PM
Pujols owns him in all those categories, and has played in 118 LESS games. While you gladly will take Berkman over Pujols, anyone else with a pulse prefers Pujols.

I don't know if I'd say Pujols "owns" him in all those categories. The only one he has a distinct advantage in is Slugging, which is a testament to his power over Berkman's.

Berkman is very, very good...one of the elite players in the NL, no doubt. There's also no doubt that Pujols is better, although--as some have mentioned--it's not by that huge of a margin.

Highlifeman21
04-25-2006, 05:40 PM
I don't know if I'd say Pujols "owns" him in all those categories. The only one he has a distinct advantage in is Slugging, which is a testament to his power over Berkman's.

Berkman is very, very good...one of the elite players in the NL, no doubt. There's also no doubt that Pujols is better, although--as some have mentioned--it's not by that huge of a margin.


I'll concede that they are a wash in career OBP, but Pujols has more XBH in less games, and is averaging 64 more TB in a 162 game span average, and b/c of both of those numbers is just walking all over him with career SLG. As far as tiers go, Pujols is in the same category as Alex Rodriguez, whereas like I've said before, Berkman would be lucky to be considered at the top of the next tier of players. Berkman has talent, don't get me wrong, but I think "elite" is being very kind as Berkman's not the best 1B or LF in the NL, so if you're not the best at your main position, how can you be considered elite? At best, Berkman has an argument for best LF in the NL, but he's spending a lot of time at 1B now since physically he's a mess.

MattyHo4Life
04-25-2006, 05:47 PM
There are a lot of players that you can compare Berkman to. M2 mentioned most of them in his post. There are very few players that you can compare Pujols to. The only one that comes to mind is ARod. ARod has long been thought of as the best player in the game. Now Pujols is in his class. When I say class... I don't mean the top 10 players in the game.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2006, 05:50 PM
Your suggestion that it being considerably more difficult to dominate today is just something that I cannot at all agree with, however, and only at the very highest level amongst the top five or 10 players of all-time could one hold that assumption, but it's on shaky ground especially considering what Clemens and Maddux have done.


My suggestion is based on a couple of things:

In 1913, the barest sliver of the baseball talent pool was being tapped. No blacks, no Hispanics, no Asians, and frankly, not enough of the Anglo/European population. Therefore, the league comprised not enough talent to give a genuine competitive cross-section. Therefore, to suggest that Johnson faced a similar degree of competition over which to dominate, is fallacious, IMO.

Don't think I'm suggesting that you don't appreciate modern skill or talent, or are some antiquarian or something. I fully understand that you're not. But I really fail to see how my argument that the competition for the top spot is fiercer now than it was then is on "shaky ground." Did Johnson really have a bunch of Madduxes to his Clemens, or Pedros to his Clemens? Seems to me it was Johnson vs. greatly lesser talent. And what I'm saying is that what lies behind that talent dropoff is simply the smallness of the overall talent pool being reflected.

Cyclone792
04-25-2006, 06:12 PM
My suggestion is based on a couple of things:

In 1913, the barest sliver of the baseball talent pool was being tapped. No blacks, no Hispanics, no Asians, and frankly, not enough of the Anglo/European population. Therefore, the league comprised not enough talent to give a genuine competitive cross-section. Therefore, to suggest that Johnson faced a similar degree of competition over which to dominate, is fallacious, IMO.

Don't think I'm suggesting that you don't appreciate modern skill or talent, or are some antiquarian or something. I fully understand that you're not. But I really fail to see how my argument that the competition for the top spot is fiercer now than it was then is on "shaky ground." Did Johnson really have a bunch of Madduxes to his Clemens, or Pedros to his Clemens? Seems to me it was Johnson vs. greatly lesser talent. And what I'm saying is that what lies behind that talent dropoff is simply the smallness of the overall talent pool being reflected.

Some of Johnson's peers ... Cy Young, Grover Alexander, Christy Mathewson, Ed Walsh, Three Finger Brown, Eddie Plank, Addie Joss then guys such as Lefty Grove and Dazzy Vance later in his career. Alexander is to Johnson as Maddux is to Clemens. Are all those guys as great some people make them out to be? Possibly not. But were they all outstanding pitchers for their time? Of course.

I will agree that the talent level is higher, and I'll even go so far as to say I believe the talent level is always increasing, with some spikes during times such as when black players entered the majors and when Latin players became a major force.

But still, it's not at all fair to pull the evolution of the game theory out to downgrade the older players, especially when players of today can still dominate at much the same level as players of the past. If you're going to that level, you might as well suggest to reshape the Hall of Fame and eliminate anybody who played in an earlier time period since their accomplishments came in a time when the average player was far less skilled than the average player of today.

Using the evolution theory as a criteria, then He Who Shall Not Be Named, Rodriguez, Pujols, Clemens, Maddux and Martinez are right now the six greatest players ever to play the game, and that's that. No Ty Cobb, no Babe Ruth, no Ted Williams, no Willie Mays, no Hank Aaron. If that was the case, then the uproar over He Who Shall Not Be Named chasing a certain record while on his last legs wouldn't be anything but a small whisper.

I'd say that 99 percent of fans aren't willing to accept that.

Buckaholic
04-25-2006, 06:50 PM
I'll add my worthless two cents to this discussion.

In my book, Albert Pujols is currently in a class of his own. I agree with the idea that after him, there are probably 10-20 players very closely compact and not a head and shoulders difference with those players.

In fact, I would even put Lance Berkman in that very next category with Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds (pre-2005) and Vladimir Guerrero, etc.

But when it comes to Pujols, I really feel this guy is the best pure hitter in many years. Whether he ends up playing for 8-10 more years at the current level he's on is anyone's guess, and I can't guarantee his whole career will end up so great he will be a top 5 player of all time, but as of this moment, I really feel he's head and shoulders above any other hitter.

He's got enormous power, great plate discipline, a good command of what he wants to hit and he can drive the ball to all fields. To top it off, he's becoming a tremendous fielding first baseman. I really think Pujols is in a class by himself.

Berkman is right up there with any other hitter after Pujols, but I think the difference between 1 and 2 is much greater than 2 to 10.

RedsManRick
04-25-2006, 06:55 PM
If Albert Pujols really is the age we think he is

You mean 32? :evil:

Fullboat
04-25-2006, 07:20 PM
All I know is that Pujols & Berkman should never be pitched too,by anyone that has a
C on his chest and that doesn't have 5-6 run lead.

butlerbulldogs
04-25-2006, 07:43 PM
in 100 out of 100 drafts, any mlb team would take Pujols ahead of Berkman guarenteed, no doubt about it!

Reds Nd2
04-25-2006, 08:06 PM
But it is only fair to compare players to how well they dominated against their peers, be it Hank Aaron, Walter Johnson, Roger Clemens, anybody.

Cyclone, you've probably mentioned this before, but I'm curious how you make the comparisons, not only for each era but overall.

Cyclone792
04-25-2006, 08:47 PM
Cyclone, you've probably mentioned this before, but I'm curious how you make the comparisons, not only for each era but overall.

Various methods, statistical and anecdotal, though I lean heavily to the statistical side. Statistically, I'll use tools such as win shares, runs created (and RC/27 adjusted for league), WARP, OPS+ to name a few. I look at peak as well as career, though I weigh career a bit higher at roughly a 60/40 clip or so. Rate of production and quantity of production are both very important. I'll also try to take a glance and see if the park effects may have unfairly given a player too much credit or not enough credit, such as Yankee Stadium being known to be tough on right-handers historically.

Ranking pitchers is more complicated because of the paradigm shift in pitching usage, and it's tough to apply a stat such as win shares for pitching, I think. It's not the fault of the stat since the total innings were spread throughout fewer arms, thereby creating more win shares for each pitcher that did pitch regularly. I generally look at ERA+ and total innings workload compared to other pitchers in the same league for a solid idea. I'll also probably rely on anecdotal evidence a bit more for pitchers than position players.

For example, I recently came across some evidence that Lefty Grove preferred to avoid some of the better hitting teams during his peak, instead forcing his manager to send out someone else to face teams such as the Yankees on short rest while Grove sat on the bench with longer rest. Interestingly enough, it was the biographer of Wes Ferrell (Ferrell was a teammate of Grove's) who provided that information, claiming that Ferrell was called upon to pitch against high-powered offenses on short rest so Grove could avoid having to face those squads. He only provided the information for a few seasons, but it was interesting, that's for sure. Prior to knowing that, I had Clemens and Grove ranked very close to one another, but that information was enough to sort of break the tie, if you will, between those two in my mind. Nothing major, but enough for me to move Grove down a spot.

I will say this ... I end up changing my mind somewhere in my rankings everytime I learn something new, be it new statistical measures or new anecdotal evidence.

KronoRed
04-25-2006, 09:30 PM
in 100 out of 100 drafts, any mlb team would take Pujols ahead of Berkman guarenteed, no doubt about it!
99/100, always be an astro fan somewhere ;)

Reds Nd2
04-25-2006, 11:03 PM
Thanks for the explanation Cyclone. I didn't know if you relied on a single metric like win shares or WARP, or some combination of available stats. Checking the park effects is interesting too. Nothing quiet like getting to hit in the Baker Bowl.

You mentioned the problems of comparing pitchers. How do you adjust for defense across several era's or heck, even in this one? Since players will often move to less demanding positions late in their career, or play multiple positions like Rose, how do you adjust for that?

Cyclone792
04-25-2006, 11:39 PM
You mentioned the problems of comparing pitchers. How do you adjust for defense across several era's or heck, even in this one? Since players will often move to less demanding positions late in their career, or play multiple positions like Rose, how do you adjust for that?

For fielding itself, it's a very inexact science, and that's the aspect I rely on anecdotal evidence more than anything else. The win shares letter grades are a good idea to start to get a rough idea, and most contemporary opinion agrees with the ballpark letter grade win shares gives, but there's always players here and there where there's a discrepancy. There was an interesting small convo in the game thread about Rolen's defense and where it ranks all-time. I honestly have no idea how great Rolen is defensively, except that he is great. Whether or not he was better than Robinson or Schmidt, I don't know, so I just resort to calling all three of them magicians with the glove and leave it at that.

There's always a "positional adjustment" I take into consideration. For example, Barry Larkin. He was a great offensive player, but if he played first base or corner outfield then obviously his offense isn't spectacular. But since he's among some of the greatest shortstops ever, his overall value and ranking is much, much higher, and he should be a HOF lock, IMO. The positional adjustment is another inexact science on specifically where I rank a player (say Bench vs. Greenberg, for example). Hank Greenberg was a better hitter than Johnny Bench, but after accounting for defense and a positional adjustment, I believe Bench was the better player.

For guys who move to less demanding positions later in their career, I generally just consider them where they played the most games or the position they were known to play. I'll probably always consider Alex Rodriguez a shortstop overall, unless he ends up playing more games at third base. I may not rank him as high because he moved, but there won't be a drastic shift.

fisch11
04-25-2006, 11:46 PM
Check out Lidge tonight! Starting the save op with a 4 pitch walk. Could blow this one run game tonight too.

RBA
04-25-2006, 11:48 PM
Check out Lidge tonight! Starting the save op with a 4 pitch walk. Could blow this one run game tonight too.


I'm watching too. :beerme:

fisch11
04-25-2006, 11:49 PM
I'm watching too. :beerme:

C'mon Dodgers!

jesusfan
04-25-2006, 11:49 PM
Lidge in trouble!

jesusfan
04-25-2006, 11:50 PM
ah, Furcal K's... Repko on 2nd with Lofton up....

fisch11
04-25-2006, 11:51 PM
Lidge can't throw strikes. Tying run on 3rd, 1 out. When did Kenny Lofton start stroking the ball?!

jesusfan
04-25-2006, 11:51 PM
wild pitch by Lidge... Repko to 3rd...

jesusfan
04-25-2006, 11:51 PM
cmon sqeeze plaY!

jesusfan
04-25-2006, 11:52 PM
another pitch in the dirt.. wow~!

jesusfan
04-25-2006, 11:52 PM
Lofton Walks...

Heath
04-25-2006, 11:53 PM
Ut oh....here it goes again...

columbusbrian
04-25-2006, 11:55 PM
5 strikes, fifteen balls after the IW

Heath
04-25-2006, 11:56 PM
Bases full of Dodgers. Kent up.

jesusfan
04-25-2006, 11:57 PM
Yeah! Kent baby!

columbusbrian
04-25-2006, 11:57 PM
Guess they could use some of that David Weathers magic about now. Suckers

fisch11
04-25-2006, 11:57 PM
Lidge blows it again! Wow, rough week.

jesusfan
04-25-2006, 11:57 PM
Sac fly!

jesusfan
04-25-2006, 11:57 PM
cmon garciaparra

MattyHo4Life
04-25-2006, 11:58 PM
Check out Lidge tonight! Starting the save op with a 4 pitch walk. Could blow this one run game tonight too.

Lidge blows another :laugh: 3-3

I'm starting to like this guy :)

Heath
04-25-2006, 11:58 PM
0-2 to Kent - sacrifice fly ties it at 3.

Heath
04-25-2006, 11:58 PM
another hit is another run.

But Nomar flies out.

3-3 - going to the ninth.

RBA
04-26-2006, 12:04 AM
Ausmus got tossed for arguing balls/strikes with the ump. ;)

Falls City Beer
04-26-2006, 12:05 AM
Tossmus the Ausmus.

MattyHo4Life
04-26-2006, 12:05 AM
Where is Astrobuddy? ;)

CTA513
04-26-2006, 12:06 AM
Ausmus got tossed for arguing balls/strikes with the ump. ;)


:laugh:

NastyBoy
04-26-2006, 12:06 AM
I can smell first place.

Patrick Bateman
04-26-2006, 12:07 AM
Where is Astrobuddy? ;)

Searching for more evidence to prove that Berkman is Babe Ruth.

Astrobuddy
04-26-2006, 12:07 AM
Man oh man... Lidge is having a very very bad 2 days.

The Astros really need to end this thing in the bottom of the 9th.

MWM
04-26-2006, 12:08 AM
Where is Astrobuddy? ;)

He's probably arguing over on a Yankees forum that Berkman is better than Babe Ruth and that this year's Astros are better than their '27 team; and that A-Rod is dying to play for the Astros.

Patrick Bateman
04-26-2006, 12:14 AM
He's probably arguing over on a Yankees forum that Berkman is better than Babe Ruth and that this year's Astros are better than their '27 team; and that A-Rod is dying to play for the Astros.

Boy oh boy, if we are starting to think alike...........:laugh:
(see my post above yours)

RBA
04-26-2006, 12:14 AM
Man oh man... Lidge is having a very very bad 2 days.

The Astros really need to end this thing in the bottom of the 9th.

Extra Innings we go! Free Baseball!!! :devil: :beerme:

columbusbrian
04-26-2006, 12:16 AM
This is great for the Reds. I don't think you can write a better scenario for having the Astros coming to GABP. The 'stro's may yet get over this, but giving away two in a row at home has got to be tough. It'd be great to see them give this one away and then get pounded tomarrow. Here hoping for catastorphe

fisch11
04-26-2006, 12:23 AM
Bottom 10 we go. Lidge still hasn't paid for it yet.

MattyHo4Life
04-26-2006, 12:26 AM
The Babe is up now. ;)

NastyBoy
04-26-2006, 12:27 AM
The next homestand with Houston and St. Louis should give us an idea how good the Reds are.

fisch11
04-26-2006, 12:28 AM
The next homestand with Houston and St. Louis should give us an idea how good the Reds are.

I concur. We've beaten the teams we should have beaten. And lost the the best in the NL. We'll see this weekend how we match up against proven perenials.

fisch11
04-26-2006, 12:32 AM
DP to send it to 11. LA avoids another game winner.

fisch11
04-26-2006, 12:33 AM
Lidge has gotta be going insane.

CTA513
05-11-2006, 06:54 PM
Lidge is still walking a bunch of people. He gave up 3 walks and 1 run so far and they now replaced him with Dan Wheeler. Hes walked 16 batters in about 17 innings this year. :eek:

Bottom 9TH B:0 S:0 O:0
Pitcher Change: Brad Lidge replaces Chad Qualls, batting 7th.

Bottom 9TH B:0 S:0 O:0
Defensive Substitution: Joe McEwing remains in the game as the second baseman.

Bottom 9TH B:3 S:2 O:1
Jeff Kent pops out to second baseman Joe McEwing.

Bottom 9TH B:4 S:2 O:1
Bill Mueller walks.

Bottom 9TH B:4 S:2 O:1
Jose CruzJr. walks. Bill Mueller to 2nd.

Bottom 9TH B:0 S:0 O:1
Offensive Substitution: Pinch hitter Andre Ethier replaces Russell Martin.

Bottom 9TH B:2 S:3 O:2
Andre Ethier strikes out swinging.

Bottom 9TH B:0 S:0 O:2
Offensive Substitution: Pinch hitter Willy Aybar replaces Jonathan Broxton.

Bottom 9TH B:0 S:0 O:2
Willy Aybar singles on a ground ball to right fielder Jason Lane. Bill Mueller scores. Jose CruzJr. to 3rd.

Bottom 9TH B:4 S:2 O:2
Rafael Furcal walks. Willy Aybar to 2nd.

Bottom 9TH B:0 S:0 O:2
Pitcher Change: Dan Wheeler replaces Brad Lidge, batting 7th.

Astrobuddy
05-11-2006, 06:58 PM
Lidge is going to get sent down to AAA to work it out if he cant get it together.

Something is wrong with this guy.

CTA513
05-11-2006, 07:01 PM
Lidge is going to get sent down to AAA to work it out if he cant get it together.

Something is wrong with this guy.

Does he just throw a fastball and slider or does he have a 3rd pitch?
I havent seen him pitch much this year, but do you know if people are laying off the slider or is he just missing his spots?

If he gets ahead in counts it would seem to be pretty hard to lay off the slider, unless hes tipping his pitches.

kyred14
05-11-2006, 07:07 PM
He's still waiting for Pujols' ball to land. Once it does, he'll be fine.