Blogcritics: Comments on Peter Gammons is a Homer

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:49:38 EST

Ok, well Bonds V. Pujols is one of the most understandably close races that I have ever heard of. I think Pujols has slightly better offensive numbers this year than Bonds, but if you take into account that Bonds was walked almost 2 to 1 to Pujols, it makes Bonds all the more impressive. I think you could make an argument for either one of these guys and be absolutely right. My gut in this case says go for Bonds. I love Pujols and I love his game, but just the domination with which Barry plays the game is impressive to me.

Comment by ClubhouseCancer

Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:38:09 EST

The international draft is an interesting idea, but baseball has discovered that it's untenable for now. For one reason (among many), the thought is that having an international draft would lead to a decrease in scouting — why would the Yankees spend money scouting the Venezuelan league if the players they scout can be plucked away from them by, say, the Phillies, who have no regular scout in South America at all? I too think there should be an international draft of some kind. But none of that has anything to do with the Jackie Robinson Award. I'm not sure how all of your fine distinctions make for a "better" award, or one that better measures who the "rookie of the year" is. Maybe you're just applying some of your (valid) criticisms of the baseball PTB to a hapless, unassuming award that never did anything to hurt anyone. I ask again, what are we measuring here? And, more to the point, is it Halladay in a runaway today, or does anyone give Loaiza a chance in the Cy Young? Plus, I still wana know people's thoughts on Bonds/Pujols.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:06:46 EST

I just refuse to compare a player like Jackie Robinson at the end of segregation to a guy who is welcomed in with open arms and a fatass contract. It seems wrong. Jackie Robinson and the other Negro League players never should have been left out of the game to begin with so of course they should have been honored when they entered. The Japanese players are not at a disadvantage. If anything they come in with a higher profile than their other fellow "rookies." Plus, the whole never-been-drafted thing is really difficult for me to swallow and still classify a guy as a rookie. If it looks, smells and acts like a free agent, it must be a rookie. Huh?

Comment by ClubhouseCancer

Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:49:31 EST

Nope, Bill Ballou of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette and Jim Souhan of the Minneapolis Star Tribune are the buffoons who believe themselves above the rules. I think a case can be made for Berroa over Matsui on baseball terms, but to mkae up your own criteria is ridiculous. I don't get C's point about comparing the influx of Japanese players to the Negro Leaguers. I'm just saying that Jackie Robinson was a top player in a top league for several years, and then came into the majors and won the rookie-of-the-year at age 27. And Eric, I didn;t misread, I don't think. You allow that their rookie status can't be denied them, but you declare the situation "unreasonable." Why is it unreasonable? Berroa, says you, played in a better league in 2002 than Matsui did.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:13:33 EST

I am very happy that Berroa won. Someone earlier stated that two writers left Matsui off of their ballots completely and I GUARANTEE you that one of the writers was Paul Hoynes of the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:00:27 EST

The Negro Leagues are a non-comparison. Those leagues were wrong from the start and represented segregation. If you want to draw comparisons to the end of the Negro leagues and the influx of Japanese players, have a blast, but I am not biting.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:57:40 EST

by the way, Berroa won

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:56:41 EST

you misread

Comment by ClubhouseCancer

Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:28:55 EST

Yes, Craig, he sounds like a rookie to me. See, a rookie is someone who's never played in a particular league before. Matsui's stats in Japan and his nickname aren't really germane. Who will determine which are the other "major leagues" for the purpose of the rookie of the year award? And what about the Negro Leaguers? Should Jackie Robinson not have been eligible for the award that now bears his name? Plus, I'm not sure why you want the criteria to change. What exactly are we trying to measure here? I think it's just the best newcomer to the league, that's all. Why should it matter where the player comes from? What do you mean by "not really a rookie?" What ML benefit did the Yankees or the AL get from Matsui's homers in Japan? The same benefit they got from Juan Rivera's AAA homers: none. I think your criteria is "it just doesn't seem right." And Eric, your post contradicts itself. The Japanese Leagues aren't as good as AAA, but its players aren't rookies anymore, while AAA players still are. Huh? Do you want an age limit? What does the rookie-of-the-year award measure?

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:23:12 EST

The one big difference you can make about all these players is that their entrance into the league was that of a free agent. Going to the highest bidder should take you out of the running for rookie of the year. It's just another of the inequities in baseball. Better yet, let's make them available for the award and put them in a draft with a set salary structure for rookies. Then let's see how Matsui feels about being a rookie.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 11 Nov 2003 07:55:16 EST

The rookie status of Matsui and El Duque, etc is unreasonable but I don't see any way around it. Estimates of the quality of the Japanese and Cuban "major leagues" are somewhere between AA and AAA, so it wouldn't be fair to deny them either. Until there is a literal "world league," we are stuck with the inequity I fear.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 11 Nov 2003 07:27:03 EST

332 home runs and 889 RBI's over 9 seasons in Japan. Does that sound like a rookie to you? He had the nickname Godzilla. Does that sound like a rookie to you? He went to the highest bidder in a bidding war. Does that sound like a rookie to you? Sounds more like a free agent to me. The guys from the Japanese leagues shouldn't be considered rookies until they are put in a draft so that the Yankees don't get them all. (Matsui, El Duque, Contreras)

Comment by ClubhouseCancer

Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:16:56 EST

And who will be in charge of the annual ranking of leagues that qualify as good enough to invalidate a player's rookie status? They're pretty good in Cuba, you know, and the Dominican, and Korea too. It's a slippery slope. Think of what you're saying on its face: "That guy played in a really good league before, so he's not really new to our league." I could argue that Berroa, with more than 110 ABs in the majors over two years, is less of a rookie than Matsui, who had never even seen the US before he came here. Remember, Jackie Robinson himself, for whom the rookie of the year award is named, played in the Negro Leagues before the majors, and many others from the Negro Leagues won rookies-of-the-year. A rookie is someone who has never played in the league before (or at least not enough to really count.)

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:45:38 EST

Literally, you are correct, but actually he has played at a high level for too long to be a rookie in my book. I don't think the Japanese leagues should be overlooked the way triple and double a are as far as professional status.

Comment by ClubhouseCancer

Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:39:05 EST

Of course Matsui is a rookie. If he isn't, there's no such thing as a rookie. What other definition would we use besides "he hasn't played (enough) in the majors before"?

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:26:01 EST

I bet one of the writers was Paul Hoynes from Cleveland. Matsui isn't a rookie and his inclusion is offensive. Not his fault, just a shitty system. I am glad Berroa got it. As for the Ortiz thing, I will refocus and say that this post was about Peter Gammons being a homer and I think that is at least proven (if nothing else) by the fact that nobody else with a vote chose David Ortiz on ESPN's page.

Comment by ClubhouseCancer

Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:08:45 EST

Berroa won the rookie race in a squeaker — but two writers left Matsui off their ballots entirely (we can guess, I think, that they don't think Matsui's a rookie).

Comment by Justin

Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:40:24 EST

Craig, you'd be a perfect Red Sox fan. Like most of the people here, you can't see beyond the numbers. Statistics are fun and helpful, but if they were all the game is about, we wouldn't need to play games. We could just throw the numbers in some computer and let it figure out the winner for us. Ortiz had at least 100 fewer at bats than any of the guys you mentioned. He was the MVP of the Sox without a doubt, and if anyone from the team deserves consideration, it's him. He's a defensible pick for MVP; Ramirez and Garciaparra aren't. Baseball isn't the sum of the remainder of some far-off equation. I can't say Ortiz is the MVP of the league because I probably saw a dozen games all season that didn't involve the Red Sox. I wouldn't presume to know who the real MVP of the league is. But I know for sure if it's anyone from Boston, it's Poppy Ortiz.

Comment by ClubhouseCancer

Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:36:06 EST

So how did he get his picture on the twenty? It's a weird hairdo, but it's definitely him. And anyone care to express a Bonds/Pujols opinion from the other league?

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:19:41 EST

CC, you're probably right about the reporting, which makes him all the more annoying and in need being used for at least pepper if not full-on BP

Comment by ClubhouseCancer

Mon, 10 Nov 2003 19:45:54 EST

Also, Peter Gammons is annoying and his opinions are astonishingly stupid at times — not worth a damn. But you know what is worth a damn? His reporting. No one in baseball is more connected than Gammons, and he is able to scoop everyone, including beat writers for teams, very very often. It is not for nothing that his portrait appears on the twenty dollar bill. (Check it out.)

Comment by ClubhouseCancer

Mon, 10 Nov 2003 19:41:24 EST

Eric, I'm sure you're not suggesting that MVP voters consider salary in their voting. I'm afraid we'd never be able to figure out who's most valuable without an economics degree and a case of Labbatt's tall boys. And Criag's assumptions about the economics of baseball are unverified, and reflect only his guesses based on the economy as a whole. Actualy, most major revenue sources for most owners are up, including TV money and attendance. I suspect there has never been a more profitable season for major league baseball than last year.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:56:03 EST

It is bad for the game, but the owners know who to blame and it isn't A-Rod. It's really funny to hear the players talk about collusion on the salary front because the bubble burst after Manny Ramirez. It's not actual collusion, it's called a trend. People have less money. They spend less on baseball. Owners have less money to spend on players. Not collusion. Trends.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:52:49 EST

It wouldn't kill me if A-Rod won - he suffers under contract backlash, which is perceived as bad for the game, which it is

Comment by ClubhouseCancer

Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:47:45 EST

For the fifth year in a row (arguably), ARod had the best offensive season of anyone in the league. He is also the finest fielder at his position, which is the second most important defensive position. Again, he is the MVP. Baseball is really quite easy to understand — the best player is probably the one who produces the most runs for his team — especially if that player also prevents runs on D. Folks who demand a certain number of wins for the team of the MVP are just muddying the waters, IMHO. It will be fascinating if ARod continues like this. Three more years like the last five and it will be hard to argue that he's not one of the all-time greats. Eight more and he'll be hard to top as BEST EVER, period. But he might never win the MVP. http://www.baseballreference.com/r/rodrial01.shtml