biggentleben

Stanek scares me because he throws so many breaking pitches. He just screams future reliever and/or surgery guy to me.

Um, Beltran had a better season in 2011 than he is in 2012.

So you acknowledge advanced stats for Harper and Frazier, but you truly believe two guys who pitch over 100 innings less the starters are somehow more valuable? Yes, because the same metrics that err and create overvaluation for Harper's defense overvalue mediocre innings pitched. I'm not saying that I'd ever vote for a good closer over a good starter, but when two closers are both having historic seasons and no NL starter has even been dominant, there's a good case to be made.

I think we're on the same page but I was talking about the pitchers adding strength while also not adding flexibility similar to what occurs in most weight rooms/gyms. Too many people are busy bulking up (including baseball players) and then straining muscles because they only concentrate on bulking up. Additionally by bulking up and being able to throw harder you are also putting more stress on ligaments that might not be able to proportionately increase their ability to take the stress. Baseball players today are significantly different than the skinny guys from 25+ years ago. Yeah, that's where I'm coming from. New muscle needs to be put through extensive flexibility to continue to provide the same range of motion as previous muscle did. It's why we can all touch our nose to our knees when we're little tykes, but few continue to do that as teenagers, let alone adults. What I was saying is that S&C guys are running a "beef 'em up" program without coordination to ensure the joints remain as flexible as they were previously. There is no reason a guy couldn't be very physically strong and maintain a healthy arm, but it requires focus on pliability of the joint along with strength of it.

The strengthening thing is something I've looked into extensively (as much as I can get anyway) through college S&C coaches that will respond to my queries. Very few have specific programs for pitchers, instead focusing on a total team strengthening plan and leaving flexibility/range of motion training to the pitching coach. I'm not a fan of that program at all. That certainly doesn't explain high schoolers, although if the strength and conditioning is poor or substandard at the collegiate level, you can bet that it's drastically worse than that at the high school level, even the "good" high schools.

How in the hell can you argue that two guys who have throw a combined 105 innings are more valuable then starters who are gonna throw 200+ innings? Frazier WAR-2.1 Harper WAR-2.0 Way ahead? In the absence of a dominant starter, I'll go with one of the two relievers posting historic numbers. Harper's WAR is drastically influenced by large variances in defensive metrics as is Frazier's. I'll take the value of playing multiple positions and nearly doubling the offensive value (per Fangraphs) of Harper in Frazier's favor.

So he's part of the next wave after they lose either Stras or Zimmerman to free agency. Still a tremendous talent. Hopefully he comes back 100%.

MVP: Trout CY: Verlander ROY: Trout MOY: Showalter AL has minimal debate this year in comparison to the NL.

MVP: McCutchen CY: Kimbrel/Aroldis Chapman pick 'em ROY: Miley (basically he and Frazier way ahead of anyone else) MOY: Davey Johnson

Tony Scott, director of Top Gun and Days of Thunder, died of an apparent suicide at 68.

http://www.thegoldensombrero.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/victorinohitbythrow1.gif

I would love for the field to be completely outdoors. The Met was the best homefield advantage a team could ever have, even if it was mostly psychological (much like the Mile High oxygen thing for 90% of athletes).

I love what Trout is doing but nobody can be both Williams and Henderson. You can't hit for that high a BA and still hit that many 2B/3B/HR and steal that many bases. At some point, all those things start to conflict with one another. Rickey Henderson was able to steal that many bases because he didn't have a great BA but had decent power. He had a fantastic OBP, though... All those times being walked to first helped him steal a veritable crap-ton of bases at second. If he would have had Williams' BA, more of those appearances would have been on second, third, or homers... A much more difficult way to get a stolen base. (by the way, you've now touched on one of my other favorite players... I think Henderson deserves top ten all-time status but rarely gets a mention, the dude was a straight-up menace in so many ways) Ugh. Rickey Henderson. Hate his personality, playing style, and not popular for me. I like big power players due to my affection for OPS and OPS+ and you can imagine my discomfort with the Twins from that statement. He is a top 15 *gulp* top 10 hitter (Painfully and slowly typed), but not overall player for me. I could go on and on about my top 10 batters and my all-time dream team. The most under-appreciated player is by far Mike Piazza. He's without a doubt the greatest catcher of all-time because of how immensely better he was as a batter than anyone else behind the plate. The sports media ruled by older generations just refuses to give any historical credit to the players of today's game. Maybe 10 or 15 years down the road the public will finally realize it. Chipper Jones also actually could give Schmidt a VERY good run for his money as the greatest 3B. I love Chipper (how about that night last night?!), but he struggles to be the best 3B in his own team's history. That's not a knock on him, as I honestly believe the top 4 3B of all time are (in no particular order) Schmidt, Chipper, Eddie Mathews, and Brooks Robinson, so to say Chipper is even 4th in that group is saying something. Here's something to ponder with Chipper: he will retire leading more career qualified average categories all time for switch hitters than Pete Rose and Mickey Mantle combined. Ridiculous.

I love me some Piazza but he wasn't even the best catcher of his generation (but he was one of the best hitters). Pudge holds that title easily, IMO. He's a higher WAR player and despite that metric's inability to capture the catcher's position, Ivan was a much better player. When it comes to catchers, you basically have Pudge, Yogi, and Johnny. And McCann /sarcasm In all seriousness, we were blessed to see some tremendous hitting from catchers in the 90s-early 2000s, but we have seen the pendulum swing back the other way to defensive emphasis, as it has at SS and CF. A guy providing plus-plus defense, but hitting .240/.290/.375 wouldn't sniff starting jobs in the 90s, but that's not an outlandish line for an up-the-middle player now. That defensive emphasis just makes what Trout is doing as a CF-type all the more impressive.

It has been a remarkable year for rookies. Some years Diamond's performance would have won it. This year, you're right - he might be completely overlooked. In 2010, the NL had a rookie class for the ages: Buster Posey, Jason Heyward, Giancarlo Stanton, Starlin Castro, Neil Walker, Ike Davis, Gaby Sanchez, Jaime Garcia, Steven Strasburg, John Axford, Jon Niese, Ian Desmond, and David Freese.

Could end up not being top 5 at all with Yoenis Cespedes, Chris Carter, Will Middlebrooks, Matt Moore, Wei-Yin Chen, Jose Quintana, Jarrod Parker, and more all in the mix. Diamond is 4th in WAR among AL rookies right now, according to ESPN, behind Trout, Quintana, and Chen, but I could see Darvish and Cespedes creeping above him in voting, along with Carter or Moore if they help their team to the playoffs.

The Braves never want to win anything? What in the heck does that mean?! LOL

So you're saying I'm above average? "Ma, ma, the man on the computer says I'm ABOVE AVERAGE! I know! I couldn't believe it either!"

Many happy returns!

Exactly. What I am uncomfortable with in anything Ryan has ever said or proposed is the drastic cuts in dollars right off the top. Now, I'm not saying that there wouldn't be a lowering in dollars required after some changes in the programs at hand, but making the initial goal money-saving is exactly what has gotten the programs to where they are now as far as enforcement because people go ballistic about a baby living in filth and its mommy not having the money for formula, but they don't worry a bit about how the person who's supposed to keep that baby fed and clothed and the mom just trying to exploit the system separated paid and happy. Those overseeing the programs are the easy cutbacks in a money-saving initiative. They're rewarded in a program-enhancing initiative, which likely would end up saving nearly the same money with better results.

More like mainlining it, with a slight mix of cocaine to keep him up for more FoxNews.

Sometimes unions hold back the ability for people to be paid for their performance. Teaching is a perfect example of this - not that pay for performance is the way to go either, but we damn sure need to better hold people accountable. A lot of bad teachers collecting the same checks the good ones are. As for your larger point - it's true that the substandard wages in social services hurt. The problem still stands that much of the funding that goes to these programs is horribly wasted - we overly regulate some ways these entities act but then we horribly ignore regulations on many of the cost controls. Which is really a double-pounding to many of the non-profits or social services organizations. The left-wing "blank check" approach to funding forces regulations, but since the "don't shoot the bunny!" argument prevent funding conversations - we over-regulate conduct instead to "ensure" that we're "getting our money's worth". It's horribly circular. I get the performance/union issue, but it'd be nice to move from one state to another, or even one town to another with consistent idea of what benefits for a job look like. $25K in my area of the world is a passable entry salary, but it'd never suffice in the Twin Cities. Of course, that doesn't state whether health insurance, vacation, etc. are provided in a standard way from one similar job to another. The other issue is that it's not the same on a federal level. What Nebraska's standards are for mental health care are different than South Dakota's or Minnesota's or Iowa's, and the proximity of those states says there are more than a few people who will move from one to the other in their lifetimes that are receiving mental health services. I work for a level of mental health services that exists only in 5 other states in the same level of intensity provided. It's ridiculous how fractured the system is on a national level and why truly helping those receiving services make honest efforts in change toward independent living is so difficult. Social Security has offered some solid programs, but there's a tremendous fear out there because of what's known as the "cliff" where SSI benefits discontinue alongside income and where a person needs to be to make up for where they were $1 before the benefits discontinued. The amount is right around $1,200 per month of gross pay, nothing amazing, but a decent wage, and there are still some benefits provided at that point (along with medical coverage). Moving to $1,201 makes that salary the only thing they can use. That's just a for instance, and I completely grasp that someone could live decently off of $1200 per month, but it's an example of some of the stuff out there and where the holes in the system really are.

Same problem with teachers. True, but in most states, teachers have established unions to work on their behalf. Not entirely all-encompassing, I understand, but still...

Part of the issue in Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, welfare, and the like are the people managing these programs and assisting those who are on them. You force organizations that help those who rely on these programs to pay below-average wages, based on their funding, to someone and continue to put restrictions on who they can hire, requiring more and more specified and extensive education for those below average wages. Many states now require a master's degree to work in mental health, for instance. Those jobs, even in the best case scenario, top out around $50K per year. Not that $50K is anything to snort at, but for that to be the ceiling of a job that requires a master's degree of college costs shows little societal value placed on the work done, and therefore, those in the job probably aren't going to feel bad about helping their clients get whatever they can from the system. Not saying it's right, but it's a cyclical thing. You want the best effort, you pay for that effort. You don't pay for it, you don't get it.

Sweet you'are a 100% their there they're expert. I'd rather be an expert on economics and math, but thatare'is my problem. Never claimed to be an expert, but you want people to pay attention to what you say, take the 0.001 seconds it takes to ensure you're not ALWAYS using the wrong version. I'd also take the math and economics, and have done so, but I tend to enjoy people listening to what I say when I utilize that expertise.