Tracer Bullet

and a no hitter. and a record breaking HR. and a 21 K game. and... I'm not saying he shouldn't do it, but it's something that would be referenced for anything that someone wants reviewed by the commish in the future. So Galarraga should be screwed out of a perfect game that he rightfully earned because other people may use replay so they won't get screwed out of other things that they rightfully earned as well? Really? A - reading is good B - calm the F down C - I was disputing that this wouldn't or couldn't set a precedent. It's naive to think that someone (media, coaches, players, etc) wouldn't claim that some future event was historically significant and the commish should step in. AGAIN, I'm not saying Selig should or shouldn't do it here. Frankly, I don't care that much one way or the other, it's an interesting part of baseball history anyway. But it's certainly a decision not to be taken lightly, if you're the commissioner of baseball and not a complete moron.

If Selig was willing to let the 03 All-Star Game end in a tie, I don't see why he wouldn't want to do something that was truly good for the game. It really seems like everyone universally wants this reviewed and fixed...the player, the ump, the fans, the media... There's no downside, and I don't think it would set a precedent for anything other than the final out of a perfect game. and a no hitter. and a record breaking HR. and a 21 K game. and... I'm not saying he shouldn't do it, but it's something that would be referenced for anything that someone wants reviewed by the commish in the future.

Stealing Boxes impressive

You shouldn't feel bad for Joyce. He deserves everything he gets. Something like this is unforgivable. I really think in a situation like this Selig (or somebody in his office, such as Bob Watson) should have the authority to overrule the umpire's incompetent call and award Galarraga with the perfect game he in reality did pitch. It's not a judgment call, like the ball 4 call in Milt Pappas' almost-perfect game. In this case the batter was clearly, objectively out; no judgment involved whatsoever. The umpire was factually wrong. I wouldn't call it "unforgivable". Sure, people would say it was a crappy call if it came, say, in the 5th inning of a tie game, but it wouldn't be "unforgivable." However, I agree with the rest of your post. Yeah, "unforgivable" is perhaps a bit too strong of a term. Still a horrible call which requires action to keep from happening again. you realize this was a human making a mistake. you can't prevent it from ever happening again unless you literally kill every human. look at the football - ever seen a replay official blow a call? replay should help reduce errors, but errors are a part of life. i wish the people on this board could handle this situation as well as galarraga and joyce have.

yeah right, old times complained all the time that he took BP with his hat on backwards and didn't tuck in his jersey during warmups. my HS baseball coach hated it when we all started wearing our hats backwards to look like Junior. I'll always love him (KGJr) for that.

time doesn't heal all wounds

I'm trying to reconcile the first sentence of each of your first two paragraphs. I'll do it for you then. It's a difficult debate that is very complex based on many factors. However, my OPINION is that a consistent hitter would be better. But my OPINION is not based on any statistical reference, only my experience. Better? not really. we're talking in preferences. that implies subjectivity. So your first sentence doesn't really make sense. You don't need to tell me its your opinion (and certainly not in all caps), you've said as much by saying it's your preference. But then again, so has everyone else, whose opinion is based on their experience (whether as a player, coach, fan, whatever).

Oh, if only. I would love it if they fired Lou, let Trammel finish the year and then signed him up for at least one full year with Sandberg as the bench coach. I've resigned myself to the inevitability of Sandberg as manager at some point, so at least with that outcome he spends some time with the big league club under someone else as opposed to jumping right in. That's been my hope, and given Ryno's good soldier status maybe he'd go along with it. But then would Trammel? Would he take a gig where he's essentially a lame duck already just keeping the spot warm for the chosen one? maybe if it earns him another shot somewhere else. I doubt he wants his managerial career to consist entirely of his tenure in Detroit. So if he can be a manager again here, even for just a few months, it might be enough to get him a shot with another team next year. Who knows. He'd almost definitely take the actual interim tag for this year, but I was referring to taking the gig next year with Ryno as his bench coach. He's going to want a 3 year deal. Oh, yeah. If his choice is bench coach somewhere else or 1-year gig as manager, I'd guess he'd take the manager role (unless it was bench coach with handshake deal to be next manager).

I'm trying to reconcile the first sentence of each of your first two paragraphs.

Oh, if only. I would love it if they fired Lou, let Trammel finish the year and then signed him up for at least one full year with Sandberg as the bench coach. I've resigned myself to the inevitability of Sandberg as manager at some point, so at least with that outcome he spends some time with the big league club under someone else as opposed to jumping right in. That's been my hope, and given Ryno's good soldier status maybe he'd go along with it. But then would Trammel? Would he take a gig where he's essentially a lame duck already just keeping the spot warm for the chosen one? maybe if it earns him another shot somewhere else. I doubt he wants his managerial career to consist entirely of his tenure in Detroit. So if he can be a manager again here, even for just a few months, it might be enough to get him a shot with another team next year. Who knows.

are you looking at his totals for each year or just his numbers even for partial years (as BR has them set out)? 107, 74, 145, 72, 68, 121, 100, 61, 66. 5 years of suck. 2 years of average or better. a really good year. and a great year. A lot of those are partial seasons, but 3 of his best seasons were full seasons. I'd say his career has been pretty much a roller coaster. I didn't look at B-A, but MLB.com which doesn't split it up like that. 107 74 145 72 68 121 100 61 66 That's not a roller coaster, that's a railroad of suck with a couple of bumps in it. 8 years (not including this one): 4 bad, 2 average or slightly better, 2 really good/great. I guess you've been on different roller coasters than I have. The first season was only 90 innings. So its closer to 4+ bad, 1 1/2 average, 1 good, 1 great. and he threw 103 innings in '05 (72 ERA+), and 112 in '06 (68) and 66 innings last year (66). Like I said, most of those are partial seasons and his 3 best seasons (by ERA+) are the 3 seasons in which he pitched the most innings. Which is cause and which is effect, I do not know. But his career ERA+ is 92. Suggests the balance of his IP were average, even though he only had 1 calendar season where he was close to an "average" ERA+. So again, several years of suck, several years of good or great. On balance, close to average. You don't like roller coaster, call it whatever you want.

are you looking at his totals for each year or just his numbers even for partial years (as BR has them set out)? 107, 74, 145, 72, 68, 121, 100, 61, 66. 5 years of suck. 2 years of average or better. a really good year. and a great year. A lot of those are partial seasons, but 3 of his best seasons were full seasons. I'd say his career has been pretty much a roller coaster. I didn't look at B-A, but MLB.com which doesn't split it up like that. 107 74 145 72 68 121 100 61 66 That's not a roller coaster, that's a railroad of suck with a couple of bumps in it. 8 years (not including this one): 4 bad, 2 average or slightly better, 2 really good/great. I guess you've been on different roller coasters than I have.

seriously? You wouldn't rather have a guy that puts up a .900 OPS every month than a guy that goes .700 to 1.100 to .700 to 1.100 to .700 to 1.100 over the course of the 6 months? You realize you don't just add up the runs at the end of the season and the teams with the best run differential makes the playoffs, right? I'd rather have the inconsistent one, and just sub in another player when he's on a cold streak. Math'd coaches are always great at identifying streaks and making the switch. That's a mark against the coach, not the player. Why is that relevant. The question isn't which is the better player, it's which would you prefer. Knowing that coaches dont tend to sit superstars during cold streaks (maybe an extra day off here or there, but nothing too significant), I'd prefer the consistent guy.

seriously? You wouldn't rather have a guy that puts up a .900 OPS every month than a guy that goes .700 to 1.100 to .700 to 1.100 to .700 to 1.100 over the course of the 6 months? You realize you don't just add up the runs at the end of the season and the teams with the best run differential makes the playoffs, right? It's not like everyone on the team goes through the same peaks and valleys. Of course not, but don't fight the hypo. It's not logical; the 2 players I set forth don't actually exist. But if they did, I'd prefer the consistent one. Though, if tango can prove that the inconsistent one produces more wins, I'd be interested in reading that.

seriously? You wouldn't rather have a guy that puts up a .900 OPS every month than a guy that goes .700 to 1.100 to .700 to 1.100 to .700 to 1.100 over the course of the 6 months? You realize you don't just add up the runs at the end of the season and the teams with the best run differential makes the playoffs, right? One of the popular sabermetric sites (can't recall which one) did an analysis that showed that the streaky player generates more wins. I'd like to see that.

seriously? You wouldn't rather have a guy that puts up a .900 OPS every month than a guy that goes .700 to 1.100 to .700 to 1.100 to .700 to 1.100 over the course of the 6 months? You realize you don't just add up the runs at the end of the season and the teams with the best run differential makes the playoffs, right? I'd rather have the inconsistent one, and just sub in another player when he's on a cold streak. Math'd coaches are always great at identifying streaks and making the switch.

Cause I'd pick up every guy on free agency that was DLd before the season started. you and half the other managers in your league.

are you looking at his totals for each year or just his numbers even for partial years (as BR has them set out)? 107, 74, 145, 72, 68, 121, 100, 61, 66. 5 years of suck. 2 years of average or better. a really good year. and a great year. A lot of those are partial seasons, but 3 of his best seasons were full seasons. I'd say his career has been pretty much a roller coaster.

And he's owed: 10:$12M, 11:$12M (Cot's) Omar Minaya is giving Hendry a run for stupid contracts to bad pitchers. Hendry's biggest issue with pitchers is overpaying for "proven" relievers, like Grabow and Howry. But even then, he's paying Howry less than $500k total (assuming they buy him out at the end of the year). The Grabow contract is bad, but even that is $7m over 2 years, which isn't anywhere near the $24m the Mets are paying Perez. Maybe we should have co-GMs. Hendry can be in charge of signing SPs and trades with the Pirates and the other guy can be in charge of everything else. Big Z's contract is looking worse than Perez's at the moment. That's ridiculous. Z's ERA+ ('03-'10): 139, 160, 135, 136, 117, 118, 119, 74 (through 2 months, 1 of which was spent in the pen). Worth $18m/year the last 2 years and the next 2? No. But you can at least see why you would pay a guy that much money based on his first 6 full seasons. And you can at least argue that they're paying Z in part for the cheap, high quality innings he gave them during those early years (not a sound economic argument, but a touchy-feely one; plus it might lift the organization in the eyes of other players who see some loyalty there). Perez has oscillated among solid, great, and terrible over his 8 or so years. Nothing about him says "pay me $12m a year."

that would be so awesome. maybe getting out of KC and working with a good hitting coach could help Gordon adjust to the majors. Wed probably have to give up something good for Gordon, but he may very well be worth it. The goop thing about Gordon is that even if Ramirez starts playing, and we end up keeping him next year, he could also play 1B in 2011, and then after the 2011 season we could send him back to third and go after Adrian or Fielder. Unrealistic trade proposal: Cubs get: Alex Gordon Zack Greinke Royals get Josh Vitters Brett Jackson Jay Jackson Casey Coleman Randy Wells Now might be the worst time you could possibly trade for Greinke. He's a very good SP, but his ERA+ for 07, 08, 09, 10 are: 124, 126, 205, 123 (yes, through 2 months). You really want to buy high and pay him $27m for the next 2 years?

seriously? You wouldn't rather have a guy that puts up a .900 OPS every month than a guy that goes .700 to 1.100 to .700 to 1.100 to .700 to 1.100 over the course of the 6 months? You realize you don't just add up the runs at the end of the season and the teams with the best run differential makes the playoffs, right?

And he's owed: 10:$12M, 11:$12M (Cot's) Omar Minaya is giving Hendry a run for stupid contracts to bad pitchers. Hendry's biggest issue with pitchers is overpaying for "proven" relievers, like Grabow and Howry. But even then, he's paying Howry less than $500k total (assuming they buy him out at the end of the year). The Grabow contract is bad, but even that is $7m over 2 years, which isn't anywhere near the $24m the Mets are paying Perez. Maybe we should have co-GMs. Hendry can be in charge of signing SPs and trades with the Pirates and the other guy can be in charge of everything else.

that would be so awesome. maybe getting out of KC and working with a good hitting coach could help Gordon adjust to the majors.

I don't know why the DL spots should be limited. If you're so unlucky as to have 3+ guys on the DL (let alone 8), why should you have to pick between dropping a guy that's going to be out a month and giving up a roster spot to a guy that's injured? You're already unlucky enough to have a bunch of guys on the DL, why compound it?

I don't know that I'd do the trade, but Brian Wilson isn't elite. He may get there, but a year and a quarter of very good numbers isn't elite territory. And Haren's second half slides are as dependable as the sun. He's elite in the first half and an albatross in the playoffs. So he may make that trade, but I'm not sure Haren is who you want as your ace in the 2nd half.