oira61 (San Francisco): Joe, you and Keith Law agree about the All Star Game that it should have "stars" who produced more in the past than players having great years like Ryan Ludwick. I simply don't understand how forward thinkers can believe this. How do you justify rewarding the entrenched old boys on reputation over objective performance? It seems to me the same argument as the one that got Rafael Palmeiro a Gold Glove with only 28 games at first base, which I believe you have mocked. How can you justify it? Isn't it out of line with everything else BP stands for, which is generally merit over hype?
Joe Sheehan: You're confusing "objective performance" with "200 good at-bats." If Ryan Ludwick is now a .300/.400/.600 player, he'll make the 2009 All-Star team. If he's not--he's not--he won't. If you don't get that BP isn't about glorifying two months' worth of work, then you have absolutely no idea how to evaluate "merit over hype."
--------------------------------------------------------
costa24 (Montreal): Considering how far ahead of the pack he is at his position, is it fair to call Brooks Robinson the best defensive player in history?
Joe Sheehan: Ozzie Smith is, and it's not close. Followed then by Bill Mazeroski, then probably Willie Mays.
Baseball Prospectus
No comments:
Post a Comment