Rex Hudler Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 And before anyone jumps on Torry for the choosing of Westbrook..... Westbrook was invited because he was next on the list of voting by players, coaches and managers. Pedro Martinez was first invited to replace Schilling, who wants to rest a deep bone bruise in his right ankle, but declined. Taken from ESPN.com...... http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1837627 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 By Torre putting Matsui up against two teammates a Twin and an Indian, he essentially names Matsui to the AS Team People are missing the point. Hawk was making it sound as if Torre pulled all 8 selections out of his ass. That's just ridiculous. He conveniently forgot to mention most of them were voted in by players and fans. Others deserve to be there. And what's wrong with Matsui? 903 OPS to Carlos's 828. His 'Close and Late' OPS is almost 200 points higher than Caballo as well. And that considering that Carlos plays in a hitter's paradise. Yankees have a much better record, too last time I checked. No, Matsui was a marginal all-star and Torre was right to put him as a 32nd man candidate. Take up the rest with Japanese folk who voted for him. Konerko/Thomas failed to make it because fans got to vote and because each team has to have at least 1 rep, NOT because Torre was too biased when choosing the reserves. Shingo - should thank KW for sticking with Koch. Uribe - shouldn't have sucked so bad the last 3 weeks of June. Buerhle? If Westbrook got that much run support, he'd be 10-1. Magglio was injured. Hawk's outrage couldn't be more misplaced. He's just not as fun this year as he used to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BridgeportHeather Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't A-Rod, Jeter, Giambi, Matsui and Rivera voted in? If so, then it's not Torre's fault entirely. I mean, Yankees are on pace to win 105, shouldn't they have AT LEAST 4 reps anyway? That doesn't mean that CLEVELAND should have 5 all star representatives. NO team with an under .500 deserves many at all!!! The Sox and Twins COMBINED have 3 less than that, and both of us are way better than Cleveland. The Sox should have 3 reps, Twins 2, and Cleveland deserves no more than ONE!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 That doesn't mean that CLEVELAND should have 5 all star representatives. NO team with an under .500 deserves many at all!!! The Sox and Twins COMBINED have 3 less than that, and both of us are way better than Cleveland. The Sox should have 3 reps, Twins 2, and Cleveland deserves no more than ONE!!!!! The twins are not way better than the indians by any means, next year they are gonna be the team to beat imo. Once they get another 2-3 starter and some desperately needed bullpen help. They will be dangerous not just in the a.l.central but all of baseball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHarris1 Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 That doesn't mean that CLEVELAND should have 5 all star representatives. NO team with an under .500 deserves many at all!!! The Sox and Twins COMBINED have 3 less than that, and both of us are way better than Cleveland. The Sox should have 3 reps, Twins 2, and Cleveland deserves no more than ONE!!!!! While it seems strange that the Tribe have 5 who doesn't deserve it? Belliard-yes. Martinez-for sure. Lee-Yes, 9 wins, top 10 era. Westbrook-3rd in AL in ERA... Lawton-Over .300, high OBP, only questionable one. Even though they are in 3rd they have 4 or 5 deserving players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 While it seems strange that the Tribe have 5 who doesn't deserve it? Belliard-yes. Martinez-for sure. Lee-Yes, 9 wins, top 10 era. Westbrook-3rd in AL in ERA... Lawton-Over .300, high OBP, only questionable one. Even though they are in 3rd they have 4 or 5 deserving players. Exactly i could see if some of them made it that should have not made like the yankees do. But since they are all deserving i have not a got a problem with it at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 That doesn't mean that CLEVELAND should have 5 all star representatives. NO team with an under .500 deserves many at all!!! The Sox and Twins COMBINED have 3 less than that, and both of us are way better than Cleveland. The Sox should have 3 reps, Twins 2, and Cleveland deserves no more than ONE!!!!! Sorry Redbird, that's not now it works. There is this thing we like to call "individual merit", and the Indian 5 happen to score higher on that. When the selections were made (early Sunday before Mark lowered his ERA against Cubs and Seattle), both Sabathia and Westbrook were having better seasons than Mr. Run Support Buerhle. By a good margin, too. Belliard was kicking Uribe's ass. Lawton - Caballo's. Since the ASG picks were made, Lee has gone on a big streak while Lawton's numbers took a dive, but Lawton is STILL better than Lee this season. Carlos has noone to blame but himself - had he picked up where he left off in the 2nd half of 2003 this year, then maybe he wuuld have been the one going to Houston. Victor Martinez is Victor Martinez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 I'll gladly keep first place whilr the Jndjans enjoy their 5 All-Stars. Notice no Tribe relievers are on the AS team - their bullpen is THE reason that they're not gonna contend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 I don't understand why it is so hard to grasp the concept that what place a team in does not have to equate with how many all-stars they have. Sure the Yankees have a team full of all-stars, but their payroll allows them to do that. Other teams win games playing as just that, a TEAM. Yes, it takes great individual performances to do that, but if a team is well-balanced, no superstars are necessary. I believe either Kong or Frank could have gotten into the game this year. I also think the fact they essentially play the same position hurt both of their chances. I think Shingo deserves to be in it, but when all of this voting took place, he was pretty much still a setup guy. I see reasonable arguments for why the Sox only have one player when looking at the others that made it. I don't see any type of bias at all. s*** happens.... get over it..... time to look toward the 2nd half! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasywheels121 Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 I don't understand why it is so hard to grasp the concept that what place a team in does not have to equate with how many all-stars they have. Sure the Yankees have a team full of all-stars, but their payroll allows them to do that. Other teams win games playing as just that, a TEAM. Yes, it takes great individual performances to do that, but if a team is well-balanced, no superstars are necessary. I believe either Kong or Frank could have gotten into the game this year. I also think the fact they essentially play the same position hurt both of their chances. I think Shingo deserves to be in it, but when all of this voting took place, he was pretty much still a setup guy. I see reasonable arguments for why the Sox only have one player when looking at the others that made it. I don't see any type of bias at all. s*** happens.... get over it..... time to look toward the 2nd half! Well the cool thing about all this, our biggest complaint about the 2004 season going into the All-Star Break is the All-Star Game..... I'll take it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wedge Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 My biggest thing with the whole way it played out is that I can accept that there's either 5 Indian all-stars OR that Wedge should be considered for manager of the year. I think they're exclusive. If you take the 5 Indian All-stars, then that should put Wedge on the hotseat for having a club that is underachieving and apparently not playing well as a team. That's my beef. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 My biggest thing with the whole way it played out is that I can accept that there's either 5 Indian all-stars OR that Wedge should be considered for manager of the year. I think they're exclusive. If you take the 5 Indian All-stars, then that should put Wedge on the hotseat for having a club that is underachieving and apparently not playing well as a team. That's my beef. Your argument doesn't make sense. Specifically not if you consider the Indians bullpen is largely responsible for them losing so many games and none of their all-stars are from the bullpen. More generally, a team could have two starting pitchers that are all-stars and the rest of the rotation average at best. They could have 2 or 3 great hitters in the middle of their lineup but no leadoff hitter and weak 7-9 hitters. That scenario would give you a team with 5 all-stars, yet still not being a great team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Well the cool thing about all this, our biggest complaint about the 2004 season going into the All-Star Break is the All-Star Game..... I'll take it! Good perspective Greaser! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wedge Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Your argument doesn't make sense. Probably not... but it just says something weird about a team if it's got 5 all-stars AND the "best manager" in baseball. Something doesn't add up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Can't argue the fact trhe Sox should have had folks like Buerhle, Takatsu and Konerko on the all-star team, but really all the ranting annd gnashing of teeth, etc, doesn't do a thing. The system is unfair and always has been. Plus it is difficult to narrow down the team to the best 25 or 27 desrving players. We need two all-star games a year like they used to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerhead johnson Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Probably not... but it just says something weird about a team if it's got 5 all-stars AND the "best manager" in baseball. Something doesn't add up... Well, what about the Texas Rangers of a couple years back? Pudge Rodriguez, Rafael Palmiero, Alex Rodriguez, Juan Gonzalez, etc. And that team absolutely SUCKED. Actually, all of those guys are hall of fame candidates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wedge Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Well, what about the Texas Rangers of a couple years back? Pudge Rodriguez, Rafael Palmiero, Alex Rodriguez, Juan Gonzalez, etc. And that team absolutely SUCKED. Actually, all of those guys are hall of fame candidates. Their manager got fired, right? He deserved it. If you can't win with those guys, you should be fired. That's sort of my point. I'm pissed off about hearing that Wedge should be considered for manager of the year when his team has 5 all-stars and is tied with the Tigers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Their manager got fired, right? He deserved it. If you can't win with those guys, you should be fired. That's sort of my point. I'm pissed off about hearing that Wedge should be considered for manager of the year when his team has 5 all-stars and is tied with the Tigers. Why knock Wedge? You don't think he has got that team playing to a higher level than anyone expected? Hell, they would be in first place right now were it not for a crappy bullpen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerhead johnson Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Their manager got fired, right? He deserved it. If you can't win with those guys, you should be fired. That's sort of my point. Nobody could have won with those guys. That is the point. All stars are nice to have, but we're talking about 25 man rosters here. This ain't the NBA where a couple all stars in your starting lineup will take you places. That Rangers bullpen was beyond sorry. Same with Cleveland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 the players and writers have to do all the voting. Or some independent commision. Or me. Randall Simon, perennial All-Star!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wedge Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Why knock Wedge? You don't think he has got that team playing to a higher level than anyone expected? Hell, they would be in first place right now were it not for a crappy bullpen. I dunno. It's just that the whole Cleveland thing irritates me and Wedge is an extension of that. Plus, that line-up looks like murder's row. and they've got some solid starters (featuring arguably 2 of the top 5 pitchers in the division). Pitching changes are a big part of a manager's job. Knowing his bullpen is so weak, shouldn't Wedge be held accountable somehow? I mean, every time anybody but Marte or Takatsu enter a game, people want Ozzie's head. If you've got a team with 5 all-stars on it, you shouldn't be tied with Detroit for 3rd. Maybe it's a case where the sum is less than the parts, which seems like something that would be the manger's fault (it got Jerry Manual fired, anyways). Oh well, it's not too big of a deal, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 I dunno. It's just that the whole Cleveland thing irritates me and Wedge is an extension of that. Plus, that line-up looks like murder's row. and they've got some solid starters (featuring arguably 2 of the top 5 pitchers in the division). Pitching changes are a big part of a manager's job. Knowing his bullpen is so weak, shouldn't Wedge be held accountable somehow? I mean, every time anybody but Marte or Takatsu enter a game, people want Ozzie's head. If you've got a team with 5 all-stars on it, you shouldn't be tied with Detroit for 3rd. Maybe it's a case where the sum is less than the parts, which seems like something that would be the manger's fault (it got Jerry Manual fired, anyways). Oh well, it's not too big of a deal, I guess. Don't think........ it can only hurt the ballclub! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 I dunno. It's just that the whole Cleveland thing irritates me and Wedge is an extension of that. Plus, that line-up looks like murder's row. and they've got some solid starters (featuring arguably 2 of the top 5 pitchers in the division). Pitching changes are a big part of a manager's job. Knowing his bullpen is so weak, shouldn't Wedge be held accountable somehow? I mean, every time anybody but Marte or Takatsu enter a game, people want Ozzie's head. If you've got a team with 5 all-stars on it, you shouldn't be tied with Detroit for 3rd. Maybe it's a case where the sum is less than the parts, which seems like something that would be the manger's fault (it got Jerry Manual fired, anyways). Oh well, it's not too big of a deal, I guess. Any manager has to go to the bullpen or he wouldn't have any healthy starters. He's forced to go to the pen, even if he knows it will blow up in his face. What choice does he have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.