PDA

View Full Version : All Decade Team



RedlegJake
02-10-2012, 07:03 AM
I was looking at Baseball Almanacs rosters for the past decade just for f un and I started an all decade Reds team - here were my limits: A 15 man roster of All Decade Players. 8 starters 1 at each position, a LH and RH starter and a closer. Then 2 position subs - the best of the rest at any position left off the starting list, and the same for 2 pitchers/relievers or starters - the best remaining. The years I limited it to were 2001 through 2010.

LHSP - nothing but nothing here so Eric Milton wins by default. The Reds were absolutely horrible the past decade at lefty starters. Bruce Chen was here one year but he was used solely in relief so I can really count him.
RHSP - Johnny Cueto. Harang was a close second but Johnny is better.
Closer - Cordero. Weathers over Graves as the runners up.

Catcher - LaRue. Jason has to be the catcher of the decade for the Reds but that's not saying a lot.

1B - Joey Votto hands down.
2B - Brandon Phillips - again no one else close.
SS - Barry Larkin 2001 to 2004 at the end, out of his prime still better than anyone else we saw in the decade even comparing him as he was at 40 not looking back.
3B - Scott Rolen - I gave him the nod for his 1 and a half years at the end of the decade over Encarnacion and Boonie. IMO, there was no title in 2010 without him. That's enough to get him the nod.

CF - Junior. Despite being hurt and at the end he was still better than anyone else on the Reds until his last two years when he really faded.
RF - Bruce. Had Hamilton played even two years instead of just one he'd have gotten the nod here.
LF - Dunn. I don't care about his collapse with the Chisox, while here he was an on base machine who slugged homers.

I picked Hamilton and Sean Casey as the two position players who were the best players left off the list and Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo as the best pitchers left off to round out my 15 player All Decade Reds Team.

Players I considered and didn't pick included pitchers Ryan Dempster, Lohse, Graves, Scott Williamson, Scott Sullivan, Pete Harnisch, Gabe White and Denny Reyes and position players like Deion Sanders, Drew Stubbs, Ryan Hanigan, Ramon Hernandez, Felipe Lopez, Scott Hatteberg, Juan Encarnacion, Norris Hopper, Aaron Boone and Alex Gonzalez.

When I look at the this team and look at the 2012 Reds - well I think the 2012 Reds could probably beat the all Decade team and that's pretty sad. I'm glad to see the end of that period of futility and a new decade ahead of us!

camisadelgolf
02-10-2012, 08:02 AM
My starting lineup:
CF Drew Stubbs - before last year, people were a lot more encouraged about his future
3B Aaron Boone - solid regular
LF Adam Dunn - historic player
RF Austin Kearns - seemed to get worse every year, but it's easy to forget how hot he started out
1B Joey Votto - I would've loved Casey, but Votto is just that good
2B Brandon Phillips - the numbers speak for themselves
SS Rich Aurilia - Larkin is one of my all-time favorite players, but at the end of his career, he just wasn't very good; also considered Felipe Lopez
C Jason LaRue - Hanigan and Hernandez have been good, but LaRue has accomplished more as a Red last decade

BN Ryan Freel - in his prime, could play almost anywhere very well
BN Sean Casey - good pure hitter

RHSP Harang - it's a toss-up between Harang and Arroyo, but Harang deserves it for longevity
LHSP Livingston - no one deserves this "honor", but I think he was better in 10 games than any LHSP was as a Red during the decade; let me rephrase that--"wasn't as bad as . . . "
CL Francisco Cordero - Dave Weathers deserves it, but I went with Cordero because he was only used as a closer whereas Weathers started as a set-up man
RHRP David Weathers - an unsung hero who put together some very solid years in the pen
LHRP Arthur Rhodes - was simply awesome for two years

Honorable mention: Elmer Dessens. He was phenomenal in 2001-02, but he didn't get to rack up many Reds milestones as a result of being traded.

tommycash
02-10-2012, 09:19 AM
My starting lineup:
CF Drew Stubbs - before last year, people were a lot more encouraged about his future
3B Aaron Boone - solid regular
LF Adam Dunn - historic player
RF Austin Kearns - seemed to get worse every year, but it's easy to forget how hot he started out
1B Joey Votto - I would've loved Casey, but Votto is just that good
2B Brandon Phillips - the numbers speak for themselves
SS Rich Aurilia - Larkin is one of my all-time favorite players, but at the end of his career, he just wasn't very good; also considered Felipe Lopez
C Jason LaRue - Hanigan and Hernandez have been good, but LaRue has accomplished more as a Red last decade

BN Ryan Freel - in his prime, could play almost anywhere very well
BN Sean Casey - good pure hitter

RHSP Harang - it's a toss-up between Harang and Arroyo, but Harang deserves it for longevity
LHSP Livingston - no one deserves this "honor", but I think he was better in 10 games than any LHSP was as a Red during the decade; let me rephrase that--"wasn't as bad as . . . "
CL Francisco Cordero - Dave Weathers deserves it, but I went with Cordero because he was only used as a closer whereas Weathers started as a set-up man
RHRP David Weathers - an unsung hero who put together some very solid years in the pen
LHRP Arthur Rhodes - was simply awesome for two years

Honorable mention: Elmer Dessens. He was phenomenal in 2001-02, but he didn't get to rack up many Reds milestones as a result of being traded.

Stubbs at CF? Come on, you have to give that to Griffey.

1B - Joey Votto - Casey had good years mixed with some disappointment, but Votto has been good to great each year he has played.

2B - Phillips

SS - Platoon - Larkin and Aurilia - Aurilia had two good comeback years with the Reds and Barry Larkin is the man. I know it does not mean much, but he was an All-Star his last year.

3B - A. Boone - he was better than Edwin and gave us more productive years than Rolen has.

C - Larue - Stalwart behind the plate.

LF - Dunn - no argument can be made here.

CF - Griffey - even though we did not get what we expected, Griffey put up some numbers here as a Red in this decade.

RF - Platoon - Kearns and Bruce - Kearns has a higher OBP and OPS in a Reds Uniform, but Bruce is still young and maturing in his power numbers - I included Bruce in the platoon because of his much improved 2010 season numbers. Honorable metion goes to Jose Guillen - 27 HR 79 RBI .363 OBP .929 OPS as a Red.

SP Bronson Arroyo - 70 W 60 L 3.97 ERA Over 200 IP each season
RP David Weathers - Best used as a middle relief pitcher, was a good leader out of the pen.
CP - Cordero was the best we had - he was a better closer than Weathers and Graves.

Bench - Sean Casey

Manager - Dusty Baker was the only one to take us to the playoffs, so he wins.

Tony Cloninger
02-10-2012, 10:02 AM
My starting lineup:
CF Drew Stubbs - before last year, people were a lot more encouraged about his future
3B Aaron Boone - solid regular
LF Adam Dunn - historic player
RF Austin Kearns - seemed to get worse every year, but it's easy to forget how hot he started out
1B Joey Votto - I would've loved Casey, but Votto is just that good
2B Brandon Phillips - the numbers speak for themselves
SS Rich Aurilia - Larkin is one of my all-time favorite players, but at the end of his career, he just wasn't very good; also considered Felipe Lopez
C Jason LaRue - Hanigan and Hernandez have been good, but LaRue has accomplished more as a Red last decade

BN Ryan Freel - in his prime, could play almost anywhere very well
BN Sean Casey - good pure hitter

RHSP Harang - it's a toss-up between Harang and Arroyo, but Harang deserves it for longevity
LHSP Livingston - no one deserves this "honor", but I think he was better in 10 games than any LHSP was as a Red during the decade; let me rephrase that--"wasn't as bad as . . . "
CL Francisco Cordero - Dave Weathers deserves it, but I went with Cordero because he was only used as a closer whereas Weathers started as a set-up man
RHRP David Weathers - an unsung hero who put together some very solid years in the pen
LHRP Arthur Rhodes - was simply awesome for two years

Honorable mention: Elmer Dessens. He was phenomenal in 2001-02, but he didn't get to rack up many Reds milestones as a result of being traded.


Stubbs did not really even play in the last decade? What 1 year?

camisadelgolf
02-10-2012, 10:10 AM
Stubbs at CF? Come on, you have to give that to Griffey.
Drew Stubbs had 5.4 WAR in less than two full seasons. Griffey had a total of 6.2 WAR as a Red from 2001 to 2008. It would've been more had he not insisted on playing center field, but I won't fault him too much for that. His last four years in Cincinnati, he was so immobile that he would've been an epicly terrible fielder no matter where you put him. That's also not to mention how often he was pinch-ran for or ran less than 100% on the basepaths for fear of injury. And not that it's relevant imo, but his albatross salary would be enough for me to eliminate him from a tiebreaker.

kaldaniels
02-10-2012, 11:26 AM
Drew Stubbs had the best year by a center fielder in the 00's and Jr had the most production by a center fielder in the decade. Any argument there?

Now how does that info get applied to this "team"?

tommycash
02-10-2012, 11:33 AM
Drew Stubbs had 5.4 WAR in less than two full seasons. Griffey had a total of 6.2 WAR as a Red from 2001 to 2008. It would've been more had he not insisted on playing center field, but I won't fault him too much for that. His last four years in Cincinnati, he was so immobile that he would've been an epicly terrible fielder no matter where you put him. That's also not to mention how often he was pinch-ran for or ran less than 100% on the basepaths for fear of injury. And not that it's relevant imo, but his albatross salary would be enough for me to eliminate him from a tiebreaker.

Stubbs had a 5.2 WAR in 2010. His WAR in 2009 was 1.8. According to the OP, we should be looking at the years 2001-2010. THat only gives us one year of Stubbs, and it was not a bad year but he had a .329 OBP and .773 OPS.

Griffey as a Red:
210 HR
602 RBI
.362 OBP
.876 OPS
I think that merits Griffey getting the nod, as opposed to just one year of Stubbs (because Stubbs did not have a full year in 2009). Yes Griffey was overpaid and injured, but to put Stubbs over him because of one year is not really fair. By that logic, then Jose Guillen is the best RF the Reds had in the same decade, because of one year.

I do understand your viewpoint, and hopefully Stubbs will be a better Red than Griffey, but I can't give him the nod in this case. JMO.

RedsManRick
02-10-2012, 11:37 AM
I like these lists better when you got to pick a person at a specific point in time. So for my lineup, I'd go:

SS Lopez (2005)
1B Votto (2009)
CF Griffey (2000)
LF Dunn (2004)
RF Kearns (2002)
2B Phillips (2007)
C Ross (2006)
3B Aurillia (2006)

Man, C and 3B were tough. We really didn't have any big standout seasons from those positions during the 2000s.

If I was doing a representative for the whole decade together, I'd keep it simple -- a balance of effectiveness and playing time, WAR:



1st Team 2nd Team
Player WAR Player WAR
C LaRue 10.5 Ross 4.3
1B Casey 13.7 Votto 8.6
2B Phillips 13.5 Jimenez 5.4
SS Larkin 6.6 Lopez 5.9
3B Boone 8.7 Encarnacion 5.2
LF Dunn 22.6 Young 3.6
CF Griffey 11.8 Freel 10.9
RF Kearns 11.1 Ochoa 3.7

That probably rings truest to most people -- and with the exception of Phillips, it's all first half of the decade guys on the 1st team.

RedlegJake
02-10-2012, 11:47 AM
I really like RMR's approach to putting a team together, both the WAR for the whole decade and a year in time approach. The overall WAR gives credit for service time which I think is important to a degree when you're talking about a team representing a whole period in time.

LegallyMinded
02-10-2012, 02:30 PM
My starting lineup:

SS Rich Aurilia - Larkin is one of my all-time favorite players, but at the end of his career, he just wasn't very good; also considered Felipe Lopez



I think I'd give the nod to Lopez over Larkin or Aurilia. While Aurilia had a couple solid seasons, he only played 56 games at short in his time with the Reds. Comparing Larkin and Lopez, meanwhile, we have:

Lopez: .265/.340/.421
Larkin: .266/.334/.385

Interestingly enough, between 2001 and 2011, they played exactly the same number of games with the Reds. Also, according to UZR, at least, both were subpar with the glove, which I suppose isn't surprising given this was the end of Larkin's career. With that in mind, I'll take Lopez for the extra pop.

On a side note, it's hard to remember just how promising Lopez was at one point. His 2005 seasons was actually one of the best by an NL shortstop in the last decade or so, and as recently as 2009, he showed some signs of being a quality player. This year, however, it looks like he might not even find a job.

MikeThierry
02-10-2012, 02:57 PM
It's kind of shocking that LaRue would be the catcher of the decade. I always thought he was an average catcher. I guess longevity has a lot to do with it.

RedlegJake
02-10-2012, 02:59 PM
It's kind of shocking that LaRue would be the catcher of the decade. I always thought he was an average catcher. I guess longevity has a lot to do with it.

That and the fact that the Reds had squat for catchers in the decade.

*BaseClogger*
02-10-2012, 03:11 PM
Shouldn't it be 2000 to 2009?

MikeThierry
02-10-2012, 04:02 PM
Shouldn't it be 2000 to 2009?

If you want to get technical, the decade didn't start until 2001. I think 2000-2010 is a good time frame.


That and the fact that the Reds had squat for catchers in the decade.

I think most teams not named the Yankees have a certain position in which there was a gapping hole for a decade. I know the Cards for example, the second base play has been pathetic looking at that list. Their best 2nd baseman in the decade was Fernando Vina. :laugh:

RedsManRick
02-10-2012, 05:31 PM
If you want to get technical, the decade didn't start until 2001. I think 2000-2010 is a good time frame.

I went 2000-2009. It's all arbitrary, but in my mind, the decade is defined by the number in the tens place. 200x is the 2000s, 201x is the 2010s, etc.

MikeThierry
02-10-2012, 05:41 PM
I went 2000-2009. It's all arbitrary, but in my mind, the decade is defined by the number in the tens place. 200x is the 2000s, 201x is the 2010s, etc.

Lord... we're getting into the whole when did the new millenium start.


:beerme: :laugh: :lol: :p

RedlegJake
02-10-2012, 05:47 PM
OK - to be technical about it - there is never a year 0. So every decade begins in the year 01. The first day of the first year was January 1 01. The millenium officially started January 1st, 2001. You can look it up. That is the official word as I understand it from all the hysteria at the turn of the century. Decades run from January 1st 2001-December 31 2010 and so on. When you think about it there could not have been a year 0. It was started with the first year.

AtomicDumpling
02-10-2012, 06:00 PM
OK - to be technical about it - there is never a year 0. So every decade begins in the year 01. The first day of the first year was January 1 01. The millenium officially started January 1st, 2001. You can look it up. That is the official word as I understand it from all the hysteria at the turn of the century. Decades run from January 1st 2001-December 31 2010 and so on. When you think about it there could not have been a year 0. It was started with the first year.

Technically you are correct mathematically. But would you consider the year 1980 as being in the 70's? Is the year 2000 in the 1990's? I don't think so. When people talk about a decade in modern usage they are talking about the 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's, etc.

tommycash
02-10-2012, 10:56 PM
OK - to be technical about it - there is never a year 0. So every decade begins in the year 01. The first day of the first year was January 1 01. The millenium officially started January 1st, 2001. You can look it up. That is the official word as I understand it from all the hysteria at the turn of the century. Decades run from January 1st 2001-December 31 2010 and so on. When you think about it there could not have been a year 0. It was started with the first year.
From dictionary.com:

dec·ade   /ˈdɛkeɪd; Brit. also dəˈkeɪd/ Show Spelled[dek-eyd; Brit. also duh-keyd] Show IPA
noun
1. a period of ten years: the three decades from 1776 to 1806.
2. a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero: the decade of the 1980s.
3. a group, set, or series of ten.

When I posted though, I went by what the OP stated as the guidelines. So I can go either way, but I do believe that when talking about modern decades, we should start with 2000-2009.

*BaseClogger*
02-11-2012, 03:52 AM
^^^ Yeah what these guys are saying.

Haha I love the debate I sparked. Like they've said, just as 1990 was the first year of the 1990s, 2000 was the first year of the 2000s...

RedsManRick
02-11-2012, 11:41 AM
OK - to be technical about it - there is never a year 0. So every decade begins in the year 01. The first day of the first year was January 1 01. The millenium officially started January 1st, 2001. You can look it up. That is the official word as I understand it from all the hysteria at the turn of the century. Decades run from January 1st 2001-December 31 2010 and so on. When you think about it there could not have been a year 0. It was started with the first year.

Who says that we have to select a decade sequentially? Sure, 2001 was the 2000th year AD, but the question was not "who were the best Reds in the 2000th year through the 2009th year?" Afterall, those year numbers are arbitrary anyway. According to the Jewish calendar, it's currently the year 5772. According to the Chinese calendary, it's currently 4710.

If we're talking about a decade, we're simply talking about a series of 10 contiguous years. We can select whatever starting point we want and common parlance of such discussions says the decade starts in a year ending with a 0.

MikeThierry
02-11-2012, 11:56 AM
I think this is easier to figure out than the discussion we are having now:

http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic4.html