Arguably the most interesting part of All-Star weekend to hardcore baseball fans is the futures game, featuring the best minor leaguers. I didn't get a chance to watch it, because I had a game yesterday evening, but Justin Upton (D-Backs CF prospect, brother of B.J. Upton) was the biggest star, showing why he's absolutely ready for the Show. Here's a link to Nate Silver's live-blog of the game.
Anyways, tonight is the Home Run Derby, which may be the most popular part of the All-Star weekend. Of course, trying to predict what will happen in the Derby is impossible and completely based on luck, but I'll try to do it anyways. But first, a quick tangent explaining the so-called HR Derby curse...
Bobby Abreu won the Derby in 2005, hitting an amazing 41 taters for the contest. Before the Derby, Abreu had hit 18 home runs. After the Derby, Abreu managed just six more homers for the year. Some people pointed to this as evidence that Abreu "messed up his swing" in the Derby, or that participating was a bad thing for Abreu. Some other previous winners had seen their production drop off also, so people began to think that it was bad for people to be in the Derby. Ryan Howard hit 30 homers in the second half last year, but that was labeled an "exception". I know of Yankee fans that were glad that A-Rod declined to take part in the Derby, because they feared he might mess up his swing also.
So, is this Derby curse real? In a word, no. I will explain this through a simple example:
Player A, Player B, and Player C are all "true" 30-HR hitters; that is, they will all hit exactly 30 homeruns every year. (Obviously, this is impossible in real life, but this is just a hypothetical example.) In one particular year, here's how they hit their homers:
Player A hits 23 homers in the first half of the season, and hits just 7 in the second half.
Player B hits 15 homers in the first half and 15 in the second half.
Player C hits just 7 homers in the first half, but 23 after.
Guess which one gets invited to the Homerun Derby? Only player A would be there, because he has 23 homeruns. So he hits only 7 homers after, and people say it's because the Derby messed up his swing, when it actually is just that he was doing what he was supposed to do.
To summarize, almost all the people selected to participate in the Derby are hitting more homers than they were expected to, so it makes sense that they'd hit less after the break. It doesn't go beyond that.
Okay, then...now, who will win the Derby tonight? The contestants are: Vlad Guerrero, Justin Morneau, Magglio Ordonez, and Alex Rios from the AL, and Prince Fielder, Ryan Howard, Albert Pujols, and the newly added Matt Holliday (subbed for the injured Miguel Cabrera) from the NL.
First of all, in my opinion, you have to pick a righty. It is only 309 feet down the right-field line, but right-center is as deep as 421 feet, and that wall is really high...home runs will just die out there. The lefties certainly add to the drama, as they are the ones who will be hitting balls into the water, but I think the righties are much more likely to win. If you really want to pick a lefty, you may want to go with a guy like Morneau, who hits a lot of homers to the opposite field. So, first of all, Morneau, Howard, and Fielder are eliminated.
After that, there's no real key to picking things. There's a trend that I identified last year, and that is that underrated players tend to win the Derby. In 2003, Garrett Anderson was underrated (that was back when he was actually good), and he won the thing. In 2004, Miguel Tejada was still somewhat underrated (not really anymore), and he won. And in 2005, Abreu was very underrated, although obviously getting traded to New York last year helped him get more than his due. Last year, Howard didn't really fit the bill; he wasn't thought of as a superstar, but he did win the ROY in 2005.
So, of the five righties, who is the most underrated? Pujols and Vlad have been superstars for years; it would be ridiculous to say he's underrated. Magglio is getting some love this year, and he really hasn't been that good the last couple years. Alex Rios is a little underrated, but he's also not that good. The obvious choice here is Matt Holliday - the average baseball fan may know his name, but probably doesn't know who he is. Holliday is much more of a batting-average-type hitter than a homerun hitter, but I'm still picking him. My next choice is Vlad, by the way.
I'll have an All-Star game preview up later today, if I can.
Showing posts with label home runs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label home runs. Show all posts
July 9, 2007
June 21, 2007
News of the Day: Sosa's 600th
Well, it finally happened - Sammy Sosa hit his 600th homer last night. Don't worry if you didn't hear about it; it isn't really big news. But, since people like big round numbers and because people seem to want to make a story about it, I'll write.
Sosa's 600th homer has made people revisit his Hall of Fame candidacy, because baseball's HOF is still the only one that matters. Seven of eight ESPN experts said yes, although I'm not sure you should try to extrapolate to all the writers, as ESPN's guys have been more reasonable about the steroid era than some of the other BBWAA writers. Jerry Crasnick was the lone no vote, although Steve Phillips has been the target of most of the blog community for saying that Sosa probably didn't use steroids because, I quote, "Why would a player on steroids cork his bat? He wouldn't." But, Steve Phillips aside, I think most of the ESPN guys have it right.
Will Sosa actually get into the Hall? I think the biggest plus for him at this point is that he still has five years until the voters have to make a decision. By 2012, the steroids thing will be a little easier to handle, in the sense that either we'll know better who used and who didn't or we won't know anything at all and therefore won't use it as a big factor in HOF voting. Still, public opinion of Sosa still needs to change. There was a poll just a couple years back about whether or not Sosa would get in, and only something like 25% of the voters said they'd put him in. Now, I believe that poll was taken just after the Congressional hearings, when the steroid witch hunt was at an all-time high, but I can't imagine that number would have tripled in the past two years. Still, I think he gets in eventually, as I think time will heal all the wounds inflicted by the Steroid Era.
I definitely think he should be in. His numbers are HOF-worthy, and there isn't nearly enough evidence for me to keep him off my hypothetical ballot for steroid use. Really, what evidence to we have that he juiced, besides the fact that he grew as he got older and that he hit home runs? He was called in front of Congress...that was just because he was one of the biggest names in baseball, not because Congress had some evidence that he used steriods. He wasn't named in Canseco's book or anywhere else. All we have is speculation, and that's the biggest problem with HOF voting in the steroid era - people will speculate and will randomly decide who they put in and who they keep out. Personally, I wouldn't keep anybody out of the Hall for suspected steroid use (McGwire and Bonds included), but that's a discussion for another day.
That being said, it's not like his 600th home run has anything to do with my hypothetically voting him in to the Hall. What, 588 wasn't enough for him to be a Hall of Famer, but 600 is? Frankly, this season has kind of tarnished his reputation, for me. Sure, Sosa has 12 homers, but he really hasn't been helping the Rangers at all. His OBP is just .297, 160th out of 180 qualifiers. And that isn't what you want from your DH. I haven't really watched Sosa enough to be sure, but scouts have said that he's just sitting on fastballs, trying to find something he can hit out of the park and boost his HR total. Hopefully, now that he's reached his milestone, the Rangers will stop playing him; they're currently 27-44 and have no shot at the playoffs, so they need to be looking ahead to the future. Plus, getting someone in the lineup who can actually get on base should help them today.
Edit: I suppose all this teaches us is that people are dumb, but here are some of the results to today's ESPN poll about Sosa:
1) Is Sammy Sosa a Hall of Famer?
70.3% Yes
29.7% No
4) If Sosa had retired with 588 home runs, would he be a Hall of Famer?
56.4% Yes
43.6% No
Uh...so one out of every seven voters feels that the extra 12 homers makes Sosa a Hall of Famer? In 1998, Sosa hit 66 homers and had an OPS+ of 160 (100 is league-average). In 2000, he hit 50 homers and had an OPS+ of 169. In 2001, he hit 64 homers, had an OPS+ of 201 (one of the 50 best OPS+es of all-time), and slugged a ridiculous .737. But, apparently, to a fairly large percentage of America, it was this season (93 OPS+, .297 OBP) that made him a Hall of Famer.
Sosa's 600th homer has made people revisit his Hall of Fame candidacy, because baseball's HOF is still the only one that matters. Seven of eight ESPN experts said yes, although I'm not sure you should try to extrapolate to all the writers, as ESPN's guys have been more reasonable about the steroid era than some of the other BBWAA writers. Jerry Crasnick was the lone no vote, although Steve Phillips has been the target of most of the blog community for saying that Sosa probably didn't use steroids because, I quote, "Why would a player on steroids cork his bat? He wouldn't." But, Steve Phillips aside, I think most of the ESPN guys have it right.
Will Sosa actually get into the Hall? I think the biggest plus for him at this point is that he still has five years until the voters have to make a decision. By 2012, the steroids thing will be a little easier to handle, in the sense that either we'll know better who used and who didn't or we won't know anything at all and therefore won't use it as a big factor in HOF voting. Still, public opinion of Sosa still needs to change. There was a poll just a couple years back about whether or not Sosa would get in, and only something like 25% of the voters said they'd put him in. Now, I believe that poll was taken just after the Congressional hearings, when the steroid witch hunt was at an all-time high, but I can't imagine that number would have tripled in the past two years. Still, I think he gets in eventually, as I think time will heal all the wounds inflicted by the Steroid Era.
I definitely think he should be in. His numbers are HOF-worthy, and there isn't nearly enough evidence for me to keep him off my hypothetical ballot for steroid use. Really, what evidence to we have that he juiced, besides the fact that he grew as he got older and that he hit home runs? He was called in front of Congress...that was just because he was one of the biggest names in baseball, not because Congress had some evidence that he used steriods. He wasn't named in Canseco's book or anywhere else. All we have is speculation, and that's the biggest problem with HOF voting in the steroid era - people will speculate and will randomly decide who they put in and who they keep out. Personally, I wouldn't keep anybody out of the Hall for suspected steroid use (McGwire and Bonds included), but that's a discussion for another day.
That being said, it's not like his 600th home run has anything to do with my hypothetically voting him in to the Hall. What, 588 wasn't enough for him to be a Hall of Famer, but 600 is? Frankly, this season has kind of tarnished his reputation, for me. Sure, Sosa has 12 homers, but he really hasn't been helping the Rangers at all. His OBP is just .297, 160th out of 180 qualifiers. And that isn't what you want from your DH. I haven't really watched Sosa enough to be sure, but scouts have said that he's just sitting on fastballs, trying to find something he can hit out of the park and boost his HR total. Hopefully, now that he's reached his milestone, the Rangers will stop playing him; they're currently 27-44 and have no shot at the playoffs, so they need to be looking ahead to the future. Plus, getting someone in the lineup who can actually get on base should help them today.
Edit: I suppose all this teaches us is that people are dumb, but here are some of the results to today's ESPN poll about Sosa:
1) Is Sammy Sosa a Hall of Famer?
70.3% Yes
29.7% No
4) If Sosa had retired with 588 home runs, would he be a Hall of Famer?
56.4% Yes
43.6% No
Uh...so one out of every seven voters feels that the extra 12 homers makes Sosa a Hall of Famer? In 1998, Sosa hit 66 homers and had an OPS+ of 160 (100 is league-average). In 2000, he hit 50 homers and had an OPS+ of 169. In 2001, he hit 64 homers, had an OPS+ of 201 (one of the 50 best OPS+es of all-time), and slugged a ridiculous .737. But, apparently, to a fairly large percentage of America, it was this season (93 OPS+, .297 OBP) that made him a Hall of Famer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)