Curt

Two topics... one thread. Dunn won Comeback POY. A dubious honor perhaps. Still, I think Mauer should have won. I saw this article, "Jerks of the Year: Worst Batters, Pitchers, Teams in the 2012 MLB Season." Only one Twins mention that I noticed, Ben Revere hitting an MLB worst zero home runs. I did take note of the worst attendance: Tampa Bay drew 1,559,681 (19,255 average per game). That would have led the AL in 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1970 and 1974 (and very often prior to '61). I imagine both leagues measure the same way now but, back in the day, one league (I think the AL) counted the turnstiles which included give-aways like Knothole Day (among others) while the other counted tickets sold, including no-shows. The NL numbers were always higher than the AL but nobody was really sure which league actually drew more.

Bottom of the fourth inning, game 2, 1987 World Series. Twins come into the inning with a 1-0 lead. They load the bases with one out and Randy Bush up. Bush lines an 0-2 pitch into the right-field corner for a double, plating Kirby Puckett and Kent Hrbek, to give the Twins a 3-0 lead. Two batters later, again with the bases loaded, Tim Laudner lines a single into left field. Gaetti scores easily from third-base and Bush tries to follow him from second. Cardinals' left-fielder Vince Coleman has a weak arm but, this time, his throw is right on the money. Bush makes a great head-first slide to the outside of the plate, reaching in to touch home, barely eluding Tony Pena's tag. 5-0 Twins. The Twins plate two more in the inning, giving starter Bert Blyleven a 7-0 lead.

Angels had a better record than the Tigers. Tigers were geographically better situated. Angels were 6-14 when Trout was inserted into the lineup, 83-59 after (95 win pace which would tie Yanks for best in AL). Not knocking Cabrera. I would vote for him too. Just sayin'...

No. I predict not one person thinking it is a good idea.

Why might a player choose a 90+ loss team over a WS contender? "PT baby!" to quote Dick Vitale. If he still thinks he is starting material (regardless of whether he actually is or not) he might go where he thinks he can play. If it turns out he is right, it could lead to a bigger payday. If he thinks his starting days are behind him (and everyone besides him thinks they are), the Yanks are just the place to be.

I agree with all concerns about Youk and add this: [TABLE] [TD=width: 86]Split[/TD] [TD=width: 34]BA[/TD] [TD=width: 34]OBP[/TD] [TD=width: 34]SLG[/TD] [TD=width: 34]OPS[/TD] Fenway .304 .400 .512 .911 Elsewhere .264 .371 .456 .828 [/TABLE] Now, .828 OPS is pretty good. But he is getting old, he appears to be declining, etc. All that should be considered when evaluating him.

I like the idea. Pretty cheap option too. [TABLE] [/TD][TD=width: 78] [TD=width: 43][/TD] [TD=width: 43]BA[/TD] [TD=width: 43]OBP[/TD] [TD=width: 43]SLG[/TD] [TD=width: 43]OPS[/TD] Caroll vs Lefties [/TD] .338 .405 .434 .839 Schumaker vs Righties .295 .357 .385 .741 Combined [TD] .311 .375 .403 .777 [/TABLE]

The Twins have four deep holes to fill. Two starting pitchers (#1 and #2 type) as well as shortstop and second base. The situation is both tantalizingly close and impossibly far. Things seemed pretty dreary in 1990 too.

Compared to the league average for shortstops of .674? Or the Twins shortstops' .580?

This is a little off topic but slightly on so I thought I would relay it. Several years ago (probably 20 now that I think about it) I was driving through my parents' neighborhood. I saw some kids playing ball in a front yard up ahead. I slowed down in case someone ran into the street. As I was neared, I noticed they were about seven years old, give or take, and playing whiffle ball. I slowed down further as I passed and watched the batter hit a pop-up. I was stunned when about five of the kids yelled "Infield Fly Rule" at about the same time. It made me feel really good.

How would you interpret "immediately" in the rule? The call is ALWAYS made once the umpire determines an infielder can catch it. It often takes time to determine that. Now you are into determining how much time is too much time. Preposerous. I am not stretching the meaning of the word "ordinary." I have stated twice why I felt the shortstop's effort was "ordinary" which is that that play should be made EVERY time by EVERY shortstop. It included no extra-ordinary (the definition of not ordinary!) effort whatsoever. As for the rationale of the rule, I agree. That is, in fact, why my position is that it should not have been called. However, the rationale is not part of the rule in ANY way shape or form. It should be. It should be the overriding determinant. But it isn't there. If it is, point it out please.

"Injury prone" J.J. Hardy led major league shortstops in innings, putouts, assists, and double plays. Baltimore shortstops committed six errors all season long (Hardy played all but 44 innings). Next best were Seattle and Arizona with ten. The major league average was 19 errors and Twins' shortstops had 25. Hardy's stint with the Twins in 2010 wasn't so wonderful as that but, that year, he committed his first error in his 30th game and committed only 3 in his first 63 games. He then committed 8 more in the final two months of the season.

Running 50 feet from your usual position and almost colliding with an outfielder is "ordinary effort?" From the rule: When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare “Infield Fly” for the benefit of the runners. Now, if it was ordinary effort why did it take 6 seconds for the umpire to call it an infield fly? It wasn't an ordinary play. It wasn't an ordinary call. It was ordinary effort. Any shortstop not under that ball would be justifiably criticized if not benched. The umpire immediately calls infield fly when he determines it. What should the time limit be? Maybe it should be in the rule. But that would be preposterous. I'm not saying it was a great call. First thing I wrote was that I didn't think it should have been called. But arguing against it based on the rule book is nonsense. It is hard to argue when the umpire follows the rule book. It can be annoying... like when they never call a strike at the letters until you don't want them to and they do and "Fox Track" confirms it. Or when they always call the runner out at second during a "phantom" double play... until they don't and you don't get a critical out. If the umpire had not called it, I doubt there would be much discussion that he should have. But he did and it was justified based on the rule book.

How is it stretching the language of the rule? The language of the rule may be bad. It might not represent the intent adequately but how would you know that? Certainly not by anything in the rule book. The word "ordinary" is open to interpretation. I didn't see the shortstop even sprint. He sidestepped the whole way, tracking the flight of the ball. He was under it in plenty of time. He would not have had to dive or lunge. How would you feel if he had not got under it and it fell in? Would you have felt that was "ordinary" effort on the shortstop's part? Perhaps the rule should include wording to the effect that, in the umpires opinion, the fielder dropping the ball intentionally would put the runners at a disadvantage. But it doesn't.

My first reaction was that it should not have been called. After looking up the rule, I still feel it would have been better not to call it. However... Here is the rule book: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2012/Official_Baseball_Rules.pdf Here is the rule: An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. The pitcher, catcher and any outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for the purpose of this rule. When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare “Infield Fly” for the benefit of the runners. If the ball is near the baselines, the umpire shall declare “Infield Fly, if Fair.” The ball is alive and runners may advance at the risk of the ball being caught, or retouch and advance after the ball is touched, the same as on any fly ball. If the hit becomes a foul ball, it is treated the same as any foul. If a declared Infield Fly is allowed to fall untouched to the ground, and bounces foul before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball. If a declared Infield Fly falls untouched to the ground outside the baseline, and bounces fair before passing first or third base, it is an Infield Fly. Rule 2.00 (Infield Fly) Comment: On the infield fly rule the umpire is to rule whether the ball could ordinarily have been handled by an infielder—not by some arbitrary limitation such as the grass, or the base lines. The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire’s judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder. The infield fly is in no sense to be considered an appeal play. The umpire’s judgment must govern, and the decision should be made immediately. When an infield fly rule is called, runners may advance at their own risk. If on an infield fly rule, the infielder intentionally drops a fair ball, the ball remains in play despite the provisions of Rule 6.05(l). The infield fly rule takes precedence. The rule was applied correctly, as far as I can tell. Distance is not a factor. "Camping" under the ball is not a factor. "The umpire's judgement must govern" and that judgement is "a fair fly ball... which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort." There is nothing about the "intent" of the rule. "ordinary effort" is the only criteria in question that is to be judged. I don't see any extra-ordinary effort on the part of the shortstop though he did go pretty far to be in position to catch it. He clearly was in position to catch the ball before he stepped out of the way.

Does anyone know what time the press conference is or if anyone will be streaming it?

For those who disregard BA, Williams' triple slash was .406/.553/.735 for an OPS of 1.287 and an OPS+ of 235. He led the league in homers with 37. He came in fourth in RBI with 120 (DiMaggio led the league with 125) though he had only 456 official at bats due mainly to being walked 147 times. Oh yeah, he struck out 27 times.

For the record, '41 was the year DiMaggio hit in 56 straight games. Williams only hit .406 that year. But DiMag did win the MVP in '41 too.

Compare this with the buffoonery that went on when McGwire hit his 62nd.

Albert Pujols hit his 50th double last night. This marks the third time Pujols has reached the mark tying him with Paul Waner, Stan Musial and Brian Roberts for second place. Tris Speaker did it five times.

3/4/59 8/20/60 --------- 1 year, 5 months, 16 days

Seven times in baseball history, the AL or NL batting championship was decided by less than one point. [TABLE] Year[TD=width: 39]Lea[/TD] [TD=width: 117]Player[/TD] [TD=width: 53]BA[/TD] [TD=width: 53]BA[/TD] [TD=width: 53]Diff[/TD] 1982 AL Willie Wilson .332 .33162 [/TD] Robin Yount .331 .33071 .00092 1935 AL Buddy Myer .349 .34903 Joe Vosmik .348 .34839 .00064 1970 AL Alex Johnson .329 .32899 Carl Yastrzemski .329 .32862 .00037 1931 NL Chick Hafey .349 .34889 Bill Terry .349 .34861 .00028 2003 NL Albert Pujols .359 .35871 Todd Helton .358 .35849 .00022 1949 AL George Kell .343 .34291 Ted Williams .343 .34276 .00016 1945 AL Snuffy Stirnweiss .309 .30854 Tony Cuccinello .308 .30846 .00009 [/TABLE] Trout, Beltre and Jeter are still in the race but for this post, I'm counting them out and I'm focusing on Cabrera and Mauer. Both players' teams have three games left. Obviously, and for the record, we don't know how many of those games they will play or many at-bats or hits they will get. Suppose though that Cabrera goes 3 for 11 and Mauer goes 4 for 11. Then they will finish: [TABLE] Year[TD=width: 39]Lea [TD=width: 117]Player[/TD] [TD=width: 53]BA[/TD] [TD=width: 53]BA[/TD] [TD=width: 53]Diff[/TD] 2012 AL Miguel Cabrera .324 .32424 [/TD] [TD]Joe Mauer .324 .32418 .00006 [/TABLE] It would be the closest finish in history.

Well, Cabrera did his part by going 0 for 4 but Mauer did the same and made up no ground. In fact, because he has fewer at-bats than Cabrera, he lost ground (0.3 points). Trout went 0-3 and closed in on both. [TABLE] [/TD] 9/26[TD=width: 52]9/27 [TD=width: 52][/TD] Cabrera .329 .327 [/TD] [TD]Mauer .326 .323 (.3232) Trout .324 .323 (.3226) [/TABLE] However, another 0-4 by Cabrera coupled with a 2-4 by Mauer would still put Joe ahead of Cabrera by seven hundredths of a point. But the Twins are off today. The Tigers and the Angels are both playing. After today, all three teams will have six games left.

I actually agree with the folks who believe BA is over-rated. How could it not be? It has been the dominant measurement of hitters for over a century though it has been shown to have lower correlation to success than OBP, SA or OPS (not necessarily a conclusive list). I imagine though, if BA had not historically been the dominant measure, those same folks would now be pushing BA as not only the main driver behind OBP but a critical component of SA too. They might complain that the media narratives ignore it too much.

Last Night's Results: [TABLE] Cabrera[TD=width: 49]0-3[/TD] [TD=width: 47].329[/TD] Mauer 3-4 .326 [/TABLE] Mauer is, effectively, 2 hits behind. If he goes 2-4 and Cabrera goes 0-4, Mauer will take over the lead. [TABLE] Cabrera[TD=width: 49]0-4[/TD] [TD=width: 47].3266[/TD] Mauer 2-4 .3270 [/TABLE]