PDA

View Full Version : Another one bites the dust...


OfficerKarkovice
03-12-2002, 10:59 PM
White Sox notes:

Mark Johnson, trying to beat out Josh Paul for the backup catcher's job, strained his left hamstring trying to beat out a single.

kermittheefrog
03-12-2002, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by OfficerKarkovice
White Sox notes:

Mark Johnson, trying to beat out Josh Paul for the backup catcher's job, strained his left hamstring trying to beat out a single.

This might not be half bad. This way when the Sox get stupid and think Josh Paul and Sandy Alomar can play they can just slip Mark Johnson onto the DL. Then when they finally realize Johnson would be the second best catcher in the division if they just let him play they just take him off the DL rathwer than risk losing him to waivers.

Bmr31
03-12-2002, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


This might not be half bad. This way when the Sox get stupid and think Josh Paul and Sandy Alomar can play they can just slip Mark Johnson onto the DL. Then when they finally realize Johnson would be the second best catcher in the division if they just let him play they just take him off the DL rathwer than risk losing him to waivers.

Kermie why do you like MJ? Just curious. I havent seen much from him but id be interested in your opinion...

kermittheefrog
03-12-2002, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


Kermie why do you like MJ? Just curious. I havent seen much from him but id be interested in your opinion...

Johnson has a solid batting eye and good defense. He's not the ideal catcher but he's no worse than a lot of regulars behind the plate. He's better than the Mike Matheny-Brad Ausmus-Joe Girardi class of "proven veteran" catchers. He's also better than Sandy Alomar and Josh Paul.

Bmr31
03-12-2002, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Johnson has a solid batting eye and good defense. He's not the ideal catcher but he's no worse than a lot of regulars behind the plate. He's better than the Mike Matheny-Brad Ausmus-Joe Girardi class of "proven veteran" catchers. He's also better than Sandy Alomar and Josh Paul.

uhhh i wouldnt consider any of those guys proven. THere are only a few "proven" catchers in baseball right now. No MJ aint much worse, but the guy hasnt proven he can hit a lick....

Jerry_Manuel
03-13-2002, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Then when they finally realize Johnson would be the second best catcher in the division if they just let him play they just take him off the DL rathwer than risk losing him to waivers.

What makes you think this organization will realize that?

foulkesfan11
03-13-2002, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Johnson has a solid batting eye and good defense. He's not the ideal catcher but he's no worse than a lot of regulars behind the plate. He's better than the Mike Matheny-Brad Ausmus-Joe Girardi class of "proven veteran" catchers. He's also better than Sandy Alomar and Josh Paul.

Where do you get off saying that MJ is better than Brad Ausmus??? Can I have some of what you're smoking?

Konerkofan
03-13-2002, 08:45 AM
yeah right, what we need is someone like Brad Ausmus on this team. Brad blows away all 3 catchers we have.

RedPinStripes
03-13-2002, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Konerkofan
yeah right, what we need is someone like Brad Ausmus on this team. Brad blows away all 3 catchers we have.

I think you left out the teal in that post.

kermittheefrog
03-13-2002, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes


I think you left out the teal in that post.

Wow I've been persuaded, we do in fact need a guy who hit .232 and slugged .341 in ENRON last year.

foulkesfan11
03-13-2002, 12:09 PM
Ausmus is God!!!

I agree Konerkofan!

Sandy = old

MJ = Pop Out

JP = Strike out.

Konerkofan
03-13-2002, 12:33 PM
ha ha Foulkesfan glad someone agrees
Sandy's old and washed up.... Mark Johnson never hits, and Josh Paul hit's once and a great while.
Not one of them can throw anyone out trying to steal.
Give us Brad or CJ :smile:

foulkesfan11
03-13-2002, 12:39 PM
CJ was good too. I was sad to see him go.

Brad Rules!

delben91
03-13-2002, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Konerkofan

Not one of them can throw anyone out trying to steal.


Maybe I'm wrong here, hopefully one of the stat wizards around here can back me up, but I'm pretty sure MJ was around or above the league average for throwing out base stealers last year.

kermittheefrog
03-13-2002, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by delben91


Maybe I'm wrong here, hopefully one of the stat wizards around here can back me up, but I'm pretty sure MJ was around or above the league average for throwing out base stealers last year.

For the last couple years Mark Johnson has been at or above league average but it's not like they care. They want Brad Ausmus and his .232 ENRON batting average with just 31 extra base hits in 128 games. Really, he's a great player...

Paulwny
03-13-2002, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by delben91


Maybe I'm wrong here, hopefully one of the stat wizards around here can back me up, but I'm pretty sure MJ was around or above the league average for throwing out base stealers last year.

MJ is underrated defensively by most people on the board. They only look at the offensive stats.

kermittheefrog
03-13-2002, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


MJ is underrated defensively by most people on the board. They only look at the offensive stats.

I think it's funny because generally catchers with weak offense get good defensive reps. It's the law of catcher offense, remember how Brook Fordyce came over as a defensive catcher and when he hit his rep became a bad defensive catcher?

Paulwny
03-13-2002, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


I think it's funny because generally catchers with weak offense get good defensive reps. It's the law of catcher offense, remember how Brook Fordyce came over as a defensive catcher and when he hit his rep became a bad defensive catcher?

Yea, quite true. Before Fordyce came to the sox I remember him as good behind the plate but bad throwing out base runners.

kermittheefrog
03-13-2002, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


Yea, quite true. Before Fordyce came to the sox I remember him as good behind the plate but bad throwing out base runners.

I wonder if baseball will ever advance past the stage where a catcher's perceived offensive value is equal to the inverse of his perceived defensive value?

Paulwny
03-13-2002, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


I wonder if baseball will ever advance past the stage where a catcher's perceived offensive value is equal to the inverse of his perceived defensive value?


LOL, I don't forsee any mathematical manipulation helping J. Paul.

cooperstown
03-13-2002, 03:19 PM
Kermit, how right you are and hopefully one of these days MJ will be appreciated for his talents. Stats speak for themselves.

baggio202
03-13-2002, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by delben91


Maybe I'm wrong here, hopefully one of the stat wizards around here can back me up, but I'm pretty sure MJ was around or above the league average for throwing out base stealers last year.

johnson's fielding pct is 993..the league average for a catcher is 990...johnson threw out 35% of the runners stealing against him..anything above 30% is considered good...

compare this to josh paul and his 980 fielding pct and he throws out runners at a 17% rate..

for 250k a year..sox are getting a real bargin in johnson

foulkesfan11
03-13-2002, 04:59 PM
OK Guys. Maybe Mark has a good percentage, but how many times does he actually throw on a steal?

I will quote from Majorleaguebaseball.com

Brad Ausmus "earned his first Rawlings Gold Glove Award, started 120 of 162 games behind the plate.... threw out 41 of 86 runners attempting to steal (.477) the second highest rate in Major Leagues behind Cincinnati's Jason LaRue..."

So, all of you guys talking about MJ's defense TOP THAT!

cooperstown
03-13-2002, 05:06 PM
enough said.....couldn't have said it better myself

cooperstown
03-13-2002, 05:18 PM
To make things perfectly clear, I was NOT AGREEING with "foulkesfan11" in reference to Brad Ausmus. I was agreeing wholeheartedly that the Sox are getting a tremendous bargain with Johnson

Daver
03-13-2002, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by cooperstown
To make things perfectly clear, I was NOT AGREEING with "foulkesfan11" in reference to Brad Ausmus. I was agreeing wholeheartedly that the Sox are getting a tremendous bargain with Johnson

Try using the quote feature,that way people will know what you are replying to.:redneck

delben91
03-13-2002, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by foulkesfan11
OK Guys. Maybe Mark has a good percentage, but how many times does he actually throw on a steal?

I will quote from Majorleaguebaseball.com

Brad Ausmus "earned his first Rawlings Gold Glove Award, started 120 of 162 games behind the plate.... threw out 41 of 86 runners attempting to steal (.477) the second highest rate in Major Leagues behind Cincinnati's Jason LaRue..."

So, all of you guys talking about MJ's defense TOP THAT!

We weren't, or at least, I wasn't saying that Ausmus was a bad defensive catcher. I took issue with a post (I don't think it was one of yours) that said neither Sandy, MJ, or Josh could throw out any runners. I just wanted it noted that Mark is no slouch in gunning guys down.

RichH55
03-13-2002, 11:58 PM
And how much is Ausmus making? If we are going to have a blackhole behind the plate at least do it cheaply.....finding a good catcher is never an easy proposition...any chance of getting Toby Hall? I cna hope

bc2k
03-14-2002, 12:29 AM
The Twins drafted some catcher with the first pick last year. Hopefully they will be contracted and then we can get him. But now I want Mark Johnson behind the plate. He might not have a big bat, but he is clutch. Many times I see him come to the plate in rbi situations and just assume, "Oh this guy sucks, inning over." He suprised me many times by driving in runners, or advancing them. Even in non-rbi situations, he gives quality at bats. Add that to his defense and we got a winner.

Sandy should just rest and revover for the entire year. His knees are messed up. I would buy the versatile Josh Paul bit if we had a CJ as our starting catcher starting about 150 games. Then his versatility as a pinch runner could be utilized. That is pretty odd to have a speedster/pinch runner at the catcher position. That is intriging, but flat-out nauseating as a starting catcher.

Konerkofan
03-14-2002, 08:44 AM
nicely said foulkesfan!!!

RichH55
03-14-2002, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
The Twins drafted some catcher with the first pick last year. Hopefully they will be contracted and then we can get him. But now I want Mark Johnson behind the plate. He might not have a big bat, but he is clutch. Many times I see him come to the plate in rbi situations and just assume, "Oh this guy sucks, inning over." He suprised me many times by driving in runners, or advancing them. Even in non-rbi situations, he gives quality at bats. Add that to his defense and we got a winner.

Sandy should just rest and revover for the entire year. His knees are messed up. I would buy the versatile Josh Paul bit if we had a CJ as our starting catcher starting about 150 games. Then his versatility as a pinch runner could be utilized. That is pretty odd to have a speedster/pinch runner at the catcher position. That is intriging, but flat-out nauseating as a starting catcher.

I believe Joe Mauer is the kid you are talking about......though High School Catchers don't have the best track record as first round picks and if the Twins were contracted I'm betting Florida State would look alot better to Joe......There are quite a few players I would rather have from the Twins before going with Joe...especially when you throw the talent the Expos have into the mix

Randar68
03-14-2002, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
There are quite a few players I would rather have from the Twins before going with Joe...especially when you throw the talent the Expos have into the mix

Funny, but out of all the minor leaguers between the two, I can't think of one I would even consider before Joe. He may be the best hitting catching prospect I have EVER seen. I'm not voting anyone into the HOF when they haven't played above A ball, but he definitely has the tools and a great head on his shoulders...

czalgosz
03-14-2002, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by foulkesfan11
OK Guys. Maybe Mark has a good percentage, but how many times does he actually throw on a steal?

I will quote from Majorleaguebaseball.com

Brad Ausmus "earned his first Rawlings Gold Glove Award, started 120 of 162 games behind the plate.... threw out 41 of 86 runners attempting to steal (.477) the second highest rate in Major Leagues behind Cincinnati's Jason LaRue..."

So, all of you guys talking about MJ's defense TOP THAT!

Well, Brad Ausmus is just about at the end of his rope as a catcher - he's 33, and he's caught over 1000 games in his career. He is a very good defensive catcher, but if the Sox brought him in, there's a very good chance they'd be looking for someone else next season.

RichH55
03-14-2002, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


Funny, but out of all the minor leaguers between the two, I can't think of one I would even consider before Joe. He may be the best hitting catching prospect I have EVER seen. I'm not voting anyone into the HOF when they haven't played above A ball, but he definitely has the tools and a great head on his shoulders...


I wasnt talking minor leaguers....For contraction we would get a shot at all the major leaguers and adding an arm like Radke or Milton or any number of Expos would outrank Mauer on my proirity list

Tragg
03-15-2002, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by foulkesfan11
Ausmus is God!!!

I agree Konerkofan!

Sandy = old

MJ = Pop Out

JP = Strike out.

Apparently you guys haven't seen ausmus hit. Well, neither have I because he can't.

Johnson is fine, certainly as good if not better than alomar.

ma-gaga
03-16-2002, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
The Twins drafted some catcher with the first pick last year. Hopefully they will be contracted and then we can get him.

I only have one beef with your statement, and that is the word "hopefully". Contraction is a bad idea which is based on lies and greed. It's rotten, and anyone who thinks otherwise better have a better reason besides, "it'll help out my team".

kermittheefrog
03-17-2002, 04:21 AM
Wow the thread that made me cringe not once but *twice* first at the thought of Brad Ausmus behind the plate for the Sox then at the thought that bc2k thinks contraction is good. I hope this thread dies.

BTW Randar - I'd take Michael Cuddyer and Justin Morneau over Mauer.

foulkesfan11
03-17-2002, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by Tragg


Apparently you guys haven't seen ausmus hit. Well, neither have I because he can't.

Johnson is fine, certainly as good if not better than alomar.

Hey Traqq, Ausmus can hit! Don't post when you obviously can't back up your facts. Ausmus hits better than Paul & Johnson.

Have a nice day! :) :) :)

czalgosz
03-17-2002, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by foulkesfan11


Ausmus hits better than Paul & Johnson.



You forgot your teal... Ausmus's value as a hitter has been steadily declining for the past several years. He had some sort of eye problem last season that supposedly he's over now, so probably he'll be better than he was last season, but that won't be hard to be.

If Brad Ausmus is your starting catcher right now, it's time to be very, very afraid.

foulkesfan11
03-18-2002, 08:19 AM
I'll say it again, Ausmus hits better than MJ and Paul. We'll see who has the better average this year. No teal required. Konerkofan, where are you?

Konerkofan
03-18-2002, 09:36 AM
hey Foulkesfan, I'm here! They just don't get it.
Brad can hit better than MJ and JP.
He can also throw out more players.
They'll never learn and this isn't supposed to be in teal!

czalgosz
03-18-2002, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Konerkofan
hey Foulkesfan, I'm here! They just don't get it.
Brad can hit better than MJ and JP.
He can also throw out more players.
They'll never learn and this isn't supposed to be in teal!

If Brad Ausmus has better numbers than Mark Johnson and Josh Paul this season, it will be either because something is wrong with Johnson and Paul, or because he plays at Enron (or whatever they're calling it these days.)

Saying someone is a better hitter doesn't make it so. You need something to back that up.

foulkesfan11
03-18-2002, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz


If Brad Ausmus has better numbers than Mark Johnson and Josh Paul this season, it will be either because something is wrong with Johnson and Paul, or because he plays at Enron (or whatever they're calling it these days.)

Saying someone is a better hitter doesn't make it so. You need something to back that up.

You want back up? Here it is.

Brad
Career AVG. .259
2001 in 128 games .232
2000 in 150 games .266

MJ
Career AVG .227
In 2001 & 2000 he didn't play in half of the games Brad did.

Paul
Career AVG .268
In 2001 & 2000 he didnt' play in half of the games that Brad did either.

All in all, Brad's stats are better. Fielding & batting. You can put it on the board, Oh wait, I just did. YESSSSSS.

czalgosz
03-18-2002, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by foulkesfan11


You want back up? Here it is.

Brad
Career AVG. .259
2001 in 128 games .232
2000 in 150 games .266

MJ
Career AVG .227
In 2001 & 2000 he didn't play in half of the games Brad did.

Paul
Career AVG .268
In 2001 & 2000 he didnt' play in half of the games that Brad did either.

All in all, Brad's stats are better. Fielding & batting. You can put it on the board, Oh wait, I just did. YESSSSSS.

Two points -

1) batting averages are a terrible way to measure hitting prowess. That's been proven. Mike Caruso hit .300 one year, so did Chris Singleton. That doesn't mean they were ever good hitters.

2) And even if I grant you that Brad Ausmus was a better hitter from 1997-2000, that certainly isn't the case now. Ausmus is washed up.

foulkesfan11
03-18-2002, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Two points -

1) batting averages are a terrible way to measure hitting prowess. That's been proven. Mike Caruso hit .300 one year, so did Chris Singleton. That doesn't mean they were ever good hitters.

2) And even if I grant you that Brad Ausmus was a better hitter from 1997-2000, that certainly isn't the case now. Ausmus is washed up.

Singleton did have a couple very good years here. That's starting a whole new argument. I really don't think Brad is washed up. Talk to me again in October. We'll see about that.

czalgosz
03-18-2002, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by foulkesfan11


Singleton did have a couple very good years here. That's starting a whole new argument. I really don't think Brad is washed up. Talk to me again in October. We'll see about that.

Well, I guess you and I have different definitions of what a good hitter is. Because of that, we'll never agree on this issue.

But, my main point is that Mark Johnson is at least almost as good as Brad Ausmus is, and he's 7 years younger, which in a catcher is a big difference, and he's much cheaper.

Konerkofan
03-18-2002, 11:49 AM
This thread has become quite humorous....

I guess we'll never agree, czalgosz you stick w/ your Mark Johnson and foulkesfan and I will stick w/ wishing Brad would come to Chicago.
and you can put that on the board!
Cheers! :gulp: :gulp: :gulp:

foulkesfan11
03-18-2002, 12:14 PM
Ok, done deal. Let's just all have a beer!

:gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :gulp:

14 days til the regular season!

FarWestChicago
03-18-2002, 12:20 PM
Ahhh, it was so refreshing to see a disagreement that didn't involve Buddy. :smile:


:buddylee

That's easy for you to say, West. I felt left out.

voodoochile
03-18-2002, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Ahhh, it was so refreshing to see a disagreement that didn't involve Buddy. :smile:


:buddylee

That's easy for you to say, West. I felt left out.

And none of that acrimonious name calling that usually accompanys a Choice V Manos thread... Very tame stuff...


:buddylee
"What do you mean? I think tension and acrimony can be quite constructive. I use those in the clubhouse all the time, when I'm not sitting by myself or whining to the press about playing time and other players."

For the record, I hope that MJ gets the job unless Paul can prove he is mature enough and ready to perform up to his "expectations".

bc2k
03-18-2002, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga


I only have one beef with your statement, and that is the word "hopefully". Contraction is a bad idea which is based on lies and greed. It's rotten, and anyone who thinks otherwise better have a better reason besides, "it'll help out my team".

Contraction is a fabulous idea. It is not based on greed. Expansion is based on greed. More teams to bring in more money. Less teams bring in less money.

Fear not ma-gaga, I have plenty of reasons why I welcome contraction-the first being the competition. Bud Selig should contract not only Minnesota and Montreal, but 8 more teams as well. I want to see a higher level of play. Every game would be like watching an all-star game. It would be much easier to accept a loss because your team was outplayed than on an error caused by weak skills. Or Josh Paul making the final out on the basepath. I'm not saying it will be errorless ball but definately a much more sound game.

I would much rather go to Comiskey and see a 1-0, 2-1 game than a slugfest. I like old-time baseball. Playing for one run, bunting, advancing, defense. Some of you play fantasy baseball. Well imagine taking away 10 teams and spreading out the talent. Every team will have an ace. With less Navarros and more Pedros pitching, more lower scoring games will happen. You might counter this by saying, "The pitching level is better but so are the hitters." I agree, but we all know great pitching beats great hitting, and the end result is great baseball.

Although if you like high scoring games, you would disagree with me and oppose contraction.

RedPinStripes
03-18-2002, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by foulkesfan11
I'll say it again, Ausmus hits better than MJ and Paul. We'll see who has the better average this year. No teal required. Konerkofan, where are you?

Personal favorites don't make a great team. they just brainwash you into thinking they are better then they are capable of doing. Are you thinking about winning or putting your favorites out there?

RedPinStripes
03-18-2002, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by bc2k


Contraction is a fabulous idea. It is not based on greed. Expansion is based on greed. More teams to bring in more money. Less teams bring in less money.

Fear not ma-gaga, I have plenty of reasons why I welcome contraction-the first being the competition. Bud Selig should contract not only Minnesota and Montreal, but 8 more teams as well. I want to see a higher level of play. Every game would be like watching an all-star game.


I see where you're coming from. I'm for dropping 2 teams, but not 8 and that will never happen.

Daver
03-18-2002, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by bc2k


Contraction is a fabulous idea. It is not based on greed. Expansion is based on greed. More teams to bring in more money. Less teams bring in less money.

Fear not ma-gaga, I have plenty of reasons why I welcome contraction-the first being the competition. Bud Selig should contract not only Minnesota and Montreal, but 8 more teams as well. I want to see a higher level of play. Every game would be like watching an all-star game. It would be much easier to accept a loss because your team was outplayed than on an error caused by weak skills. Or Josh Paul making the final out on the basepath. I'm not saying it will be errorless ball but definately a much more sound game.

I would much rather go to Comiskey and see a 1-0, 2-1 game than a slugfest. I like old-time baseball. Playing for one run, bunting, advancing, defense. Some of you play fantasy baseball. Well imagine taking away 10 teams and spreading out the talent. Every team will have an ace. With less Navarros and more Pedros pitching, more lower scoring games will happen. You might counter this by saying, "The pitching level is better but so are the hitters." I agree, but we all know great pitching beats great hitting, and the end result is great baseball.

Although if you like high scoring games, you would disagree with me and oppose contraction.


Contraction helps nothing,it has been documented.

http://users.pandora.be/p0p0/youare.swf

bc2k
03-18-2002, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by daver



Contraction helps nothing,it has been documented.

http://users.pandora.be/p0p0/youare.swf

So there is no difference between Pedro and Navarro?

voodoochile
03-18-2002, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by daver



Contraction helps nothing,it has been documented.

http://users.pandora.be/p0p0/youare.swf

That's a lie - it helps Pohlad put an extra $150 million above and beyond the bluebook value of his franchise in his pocket. And to think, all it cost him was a few million in "loans"...

voodoochile
03-18-2002, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
I would much rather go to Comiskey and see a 1-0, 2-1 game than a slugfest. I like old-time baseball. Playing for one run, bunting, advancing, defense. Some of you play fantasy baseball. Well imagine taking away 10 teams and spreading out the talent. Every team will have an ace. With less Navarros and more Pedros pitching, more lower scoring games will happen. You might counter this by saying, "The pitching level is better but so are the hitters." I agree, but we all know great pitching beats great hitting, and the end result is great baseball.

Although if you like high scoring games, you would disagree with me and oppose contraction.

You don't need to contract to see closer games, just raise the mound back to 1960's levels and presto, less runs...

This is a short term solution at best, if it solves anything at all...

Daver
03-18-2002, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


That's a lie - it helps Pohlad put an extra $150 million above and beyond the bluebook value of his franchise in his pocket. And to think, all it cost him was a few million in "loans"...

You forgot the teal.

voodoochile
03-18-2002, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by daver


You forgot the teal.

I wasn't being sarcastic... Everything in that post is the truth...

kermittheefrog
03-18-2002, 11:56 PM
Okay where the hell does the idea contraction will help pitching come from? Logically wouldn't pitching and hitting be equally more concentrated and nothing be changed?

bc2k
03-18-2002, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


You don't need to contract to see closer games, just raise the mound back to 1960's levels and presto, less runs...

This is a short term solution at best, if it solves anything at all...

I'm all for that as well. I shouldn't have said to contract 10 teams. I would like to see however many teams there were in 1920 in 2002 and beyond. Contract the rest.

voodoochile
03-18-2002, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by bc2k


I'm all for that as well. I shouldn't have said to contract 10 teams. I would like to see however many teams there were in 1920 in 2002 and beyond. Contract the rest.

WHY? I mean give us one good reason why?

kermittheefrog
03-19-2002, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by bc2k


I'm all for that as well. I shouldn't have said to contract 10 teams. I would like to see however many teams there were in 1920 in 2002 and beyond. Contract the rest.

I'm sorry but where the hell do you get such stupid ideas? The Talent pool is RIDICULOUSLY bigger than it was in 1920. Why should there be only 16 teams?

RedPinStripes
03-19-2002, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


You don't need to contract to see closer games, just raise the mound back to 1960's levels and presto, less runs...

This is a short term solution at best, if it solves anything at all...

Now that is something that needs to be done before there is any talk of contraction.

bc2k
03-19-2002, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Okay where the hell does the idea contraction will help pitching come from? Logically wouldn't pitching and hitting be equally more concentrated and nothing be changed?

I anticipated someone saying this which is why I stated the old adage of how good pitching beats good hitting in my original post.

I will now attempt to further explain my theory. With around 20 mlb teams, Barry Bonds wont be able to feast off of weaker pitching. His stats would be lower. Let good hitting face good pitching and what happens? Lower offensive stats with lower scoring games. Barry Bonds is a great hitter, but will not hit the same off of Sean Lowe as he would off Bob Howry.

So lets review. The less teams existing, more competition to make a team. So better pitchers pitching against better hitters. Bonds would rather face Howry and Osuna (who probably wouldn't have jobs) than Lowe and Glover.

bc2k
03-19-2002, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


WHY? I mean give us one good reason why?

Good Lord! I just checked my e-mail and I didn't realize how much of a response this would garner.

Anyway, one good reason, like I said, is I prefer old-time baseball. I want to see closer games with better talent.

kermittheefrog
03-19-2002, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by bc2k


Good Lord! I just checked my e-mail and I didn't realize how much of a response this would garner.

Anyway, one good reason, like I said, is I prefer old-time baseball. I want to see closer games with better talent.

You "prefer" old-time baseball? How many games from the pre expansion era have you seen? You could easily make an arguement that talent is better now than ever before. What do you know about old-time baseball? You say the games were closer but in the 20s and 30s league average ERAs were in the 4.00s just like they are now. The difference is the leaders had much better ERAs because the stars then were a lot better than the average player than the stars now. That's because scouting and player development are much more evolved and more major league talent can be identified.

It's a lot easier to identify the Barry Bondses out the pack than the Brain Daubachs. Do you really want a league where the stars dominate, average players are nonexistant and seocond place teams finish 10 games out? That's old time baseball.

bc2k
03-19-2002, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


I'm sorry but where the hell do you get such stupid ideas? The Talent pool is RIDICULOUSLY bigger than it was in 1920. Why should there be only 16 teams?

Side note: How do I quote different people and respond in one post?

Osuna, Howry, Parque, Julio Ramirez, Josh Paul, Royce Clayton, scrambling to find three starters and fill out more holes in the bullpen. These are problems for a competing team, imagine the weaker teams.

Kermit, bear with me for a moment and imagine baseball where teams wont have to put up with mediocrity (Clayton) or less (Howry) and are able to fill spots with that excess of talent you're talking about. Just think about Carlos Lee. We keep him because of his bat, but not in a 1920 format. There is someone with more talent, a 5 tool prospect waiting leaving C Lee expendable. The talent level would only allow 5 tool prospects to be drafted. College players are more sound than high school players, and pros are more sound and efficient than college. Now think of this format as just another higher level of play.
Barry Bonds wouldn't have no 73 home runs in this league. I will happily trade inflated stats and mediocrity for contracted teams.

kermittheefrog
03-19-2002, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by bc2k


Side note: How do I quote different people and respond in one post?

Osuna, Howry, Parque, Julio Ramirez, Josh Paul, Royce Clayton, scrambling to find three starters and fill out more holes in the bullpen. These are problems for a competing team, imagine the weaker teams.

Kermit, bear with me for a moment and imagine baseball where teams wont have to put up with mediocrity (Clayton) or less (Howry) and are able to fill spots with that excess of talent you're talking about. Just think about Carlos Lee. We keep him because of his bat, but not in a 1920 format. There is someone with more talent, a 5 tool prospect waiting leaving C Lee expendable. The talent level would only allow 5 tool prospects to be drafted. College players are more sound than high school players, and pros are more sound and efficient than college. Now think of this format as just another higher level of play.
Barry Bonds wouldn't have no 73 home runs in this league. I will happily trade inflated stats and mediocrity for contracted teams.

Oh I get it, you're just on drugs or something. I think baseball is very interesting the way it is and trying to cut it down into an even smaller group of elite few would take away from the variety of players and abilities we see. Furthermore it would strictly impair any team who is the victim of an injury as level of regular talent will greatly increase over the freely available talent.

Mathew
03-19-2002, 12:47 AM
Although this is great on the surface. We know the real world three things drive up this equation.

#1 It would only be a matter of time before another league formed and competed only to be taken by the superior league.

#2 People and equipment are bigger,better stronger and faster.

#3 Money talks. If you look at baseball then, it was still bought and paid for. The cash teams won and such would happen regardless, I would root for the dog, and they might win sometimes but that would be an upset like now. The only balence we have now is disparity.

bc2k
03-19-2002, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


You "prefer" old-time baseball? How many games from the pre expansion era have you seen? You could easily make an arguement that talent is better now than ever before. What do you know about old-time baseball?

I was guessing someone would get on me for talking about old-time baseball. I haven't seen a single game of it, but that doesn't mean I have no knowledge of it.

Originally posted by kermittheefrog

You say the games were closer but in the 20s and 30s league average ERAs were in the 4.00s just like they are now.
Maybe the games are just as close, but there is a difference between a close 2-1 game and a close 7-6 game.

Originally posted by kermittheefrog

It's a lot easier to identify the Barry Bondses out the pack than the Brain Daubachs. Do you really want a league where the stars dominate, average players are nonexistant and seocond place teams finish 10 games out? That's old time baseball.
Thats the thing! By subtracting bad players, the talent level between players shrink. The difference between Greg Maddux and Navarro is eliminated to Maddux to Ritchie. The overall talent level increases which would impede stars from dominating over the weak.

FarWestChicago
03-19-2002, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
Maybe the games are just as close, but there is a difference between a close 2-1 game and a close 7-6 game.
If ERA's were in the 4's just like now, it's mathematically impossible for the games to have been typically 2-1.

bc2k
03-19-2002, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
If ERA's were in the 4's just like now, it's mathematically impossible for the games to have been typically 2-1.

Well let me ask you this: If baseball contracted down to 1920 standards today, would we more likely see more scoring or less?

Mathew
03-19-2002, 01:11 AM
Less. What were the home run crowns then? Pitchers pitching on 3 days rest at best? No Roids, big bats? Eh?

FarWestChicago
03-19-2002, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by bc2k


Well let me ask you this: If baseball contracted down to 1920 standards today, would we more likely see more scoring or less? One thing you are forgetting is only White guys could play in the 20's. The talent pool is much larger now. The league should be at the same level with more teams because of the larger talent pool. Voodoo's mound raising suggestion would be best if you just want to reduce scoring.

RedPinStripes
03-19-2002, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by bc2k


Well let me ask you this: If baseball contracted down to 1920 standards today, would we more likely see more scoring or less?

Add the factor in that just about every ball park back then was basicall a quarry. The polo grounds were very short down the lines, but over 460 to cf with a very big wall. Old Comiskey was 440 with a near 20ft wall. Yankee stadium was the same way until everything was moved in. Bonds would never have hit near 70 with those dimentions and the ball was much different. it wasnt wound as tight and i'm pretty sure it was heavier. Players are also buit like brick ***** houses now and train year round. There is really no way to compare these times to the 20's. It was a different game.

bc2k
03-19-2002, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes


Add the factor in that just about every ball park back then was basicall a quarry. The polo grounds were very short down the lines, but over 460 to cf with a very big wall. Old Comiskey was 440 with a near 20ft wall. Yankee stadium was the same way until everything was moved in. Bonds would never have hit near 70 with those dimentions and the ball was much different. it wasnt wound as tight and i'm pretty sure it was heavier. Players are also buit like brick ***** houses now and train year round. There is really no way to compare these times to the 20's. It was a different game.

???????? I was making a comparision of the amount of teams in mlb in 1920 to 2002. So in 2002, would there be more scoring or less if mlb contracts around 10 teams?

RedPinStripes
03-19-2002, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by bc2k


???????? I was making a comparision of the amount of teams in mlb in 1920 to 2002. So in 2002, would there be more scoring or less if mlb contracts around 10 teams?

I just used that quote instead of searching for one of you previous posts.

I don't think the runs would cut down much. Eery great hitter can take care of a great pitcher and a pop up for guys like soso , bonds, Thomas ect. is a home run now in some of these cheap parks

.do you think it would be best to lose 10 teams? i don't think so. Baseball would be pretty damn boring watching the same damn teams play over and over again. I get sick of seeing kc and detroit with the new schedule. I'm with you on contracting 2 teams. This way guys like Navarro won't find a job, but i don't think the twins should be gone. They just need a stadium and an owner. The Expos and Rays need to go though.

Think of the money they will lose too. To lose 10 teams is just rediculous though. That's 250 roster players, many good coaches, and many farm teams without a job then. The way the farm is set up now is the best way to find tallant.

bc2k
03-19-2002, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes


I just used that quote instead of searching for one of you previous posts.

I don't think the runs would cut down much. Eery great hitter can take care of a great pitcher and a pop up for guys like soso , bonds, Thomas ect. is a home run now in some of these cheap parks

.do you think it would be best to lose 10 teams? i don't think so. Baseball would be pretty damn boring watching the same damn teams play over and over again. I get sick of seeing kc and detroit with the new schedule. I'm with you on contracting 2 teams. This way guys like Navarro won't find a job, but i don't think the twins should be gone. They just need a stadium and an owner. The Expos and Rays need to go though.

Think of the money they will lose too. To lose 10 teams is just rediculous though. That's 250 roster players, many good coaches, and many farm teams without a job then. The way the farm is set up now is the best way to find tallant.

Fair enough RPS. I respect your opinion. I realize that contracting 10 teams is unrealistic, just what I would like to see. I could settle for the contraction of two teams and a raised mound. :smile:

RedPinStripes
03-19-2002, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by bc2k


Fair enough RPS. I respect your opinion. I realize that contracting 10 teams is unrealistic, just what I would like to see. I could settle for the contraction of two teams and a raised mound. :smile:

Yup . Rays and Expos gone and the mound raised to what it was and should be would make me a happy camper.

ma-gaga
03-19-2002, 08:47 AM
Raise the mound, move the fences back 10 feet, and call the strike zone. Suddenly era's across the league drop.

Contraction solves nothing. It won't help competetive balance. It won't help the revenue disparity between KC and NYY. It won't help make the game be better than it is. If I believed the owners that they are losing money, it might make some sense. But all we get from the owners are lies, threats, coverups, and blackmail.

BTW: my favorite games are 2-1 or 1-0 pitchers duels.

kermittheefrog
03-19-2002, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by bc2k


Fair enough RPS. I respect your opinion. I realize that contracting 10 teams is unrealistic, just what I would like to see. I could settle for the contraction of two teams and a raised mound. :smile:

You still haven't shown an once of reasoning in this! If the talent pool is much larger now then the amount of teams shouldn't make a difference. I mean I completely disagree with the stuff foulkefan and konerkofan were saying about Aumus earlier in this thread but they could back it up. You're just saying "baseball was better back then, the only way to make baseball like that is to contract 10-14 teams."

What about the fact that something like that now would create enough free talent to open an entire new league to compete and I'm sure they could fish some of the stars over too. Would you like to see something like that happen? How about the fact that only white americans could play baseball back then, now we have black players, hispanic players, players from Latin America, more and more Asians players and even a few guys from Australia. The talent pool is bigger, the number of teams shouldn't matter. If you want every game to look like an allstar game get over it or at least come up with some line of logic that will back it up. I'm still not convinced you know anything about baseball in the 20s.

ma-gaga
03-19-2002, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
I want to see a higher level of play. Every game would be like watching an all-star game. It would be much easier to accept a loss because your team was outplayed than on an error caused by weak skills.

Baseball is about outplaying your opponent. Yes, flukes happen, baseballs happen to hit bats lying in foul territory, but over 162 games, they even out. The good teams win, the bad teams lose.

So, if every game was like an all-star game, what would the all-star game be like?

kermittheefrog
03-19-2002, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga


Baseball is about outplaying your opponent. Yes, flukes happen, baseballs happen to hit bats lying in foul territory, but over 162 games, they even out. The good teams win, the bad teams lose.

So, if every game was like an all-star game, what would the all-star game be like?

Well if he logically thinks that out of the 6 billion plus humans on this planet that the 750 or so that play baseball isn't weeding out the weak players enough for his taste then I'm just going to file him in the fool cabinet and give up on his posts.

Mathew
03-19-2002, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes


Yup . Rays and Expos gone and the mound raised to what it was and should be would make me a happy camper.


Save the Expos!!! Just move them to somewhere or get them to move back to Jerry Park!