Face of MLB

[lasttriptotulsa]

Didn't see this posted anywhere else. Apparently MLB Network is doing a "Face of MLB" contest and Paulie is up against Kershaw in Round 1. Here's a look to MLB Network's facebook post regarding it and how to participate.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=101...1694&type=1

Edited February 5, 2014 by lasttriptotulsa

[Feeky Magee]

The Sox have been spamming this on their Twitter whilst the Dodgers haven't mentioned it at all and Paulie still leads just 52-48. Gotta think one tweet from the Dodgers and Paulie's f***ed.

[AJUribe]

Eric Sogard is on this list

[witesoxfan]

Eric Sogard is on this list

 

He is very cute.

[Jose Abreu]

If PK wins he faces Bryce "Overrated" Harper. In other words Paulie's f***ed

[justBLAZE]

It'd be nice if he can beat Kershaw, it's 51% vs 49%... help him out folks~

[Willard Decker]

Joey Votto gets a bye in the first round because he won the competition last year, but that doesn't explain why Ortiz also gets a pass. Are they giving him the benefit of the doubt because the Red Sox won the World Series?

 

--Captain Decker

[ptatc]

Didn't see this posted anywhere else. Apparently MLB Network is doing a "Face of MLB" contest and Paulie is up against Kershaw in Round 1. Here's a look to MLB Network's facebook post regarding it and how to participate.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=101...1694&type=1

old guy rant/

 

I know I'm old but I really don't like this idea. Too many sports are becoming obsessed with the individual athlete and not the team. I know it helps the average fan become interested and identify with them (again hero worship of athletes is a bad thing IMHO). However, I prefer the promotion of the team not the individual. I root for the game of baseball and the White Sox not an individual on the team.

Now that I think about it, this is the problem I have with too many of the "advanced stats." They were created so the player could get paid through arbitration to show that even if the team did poorly, I deserve more money. Pitchers worry more about a quality start or the K/BB ratio instead of focusing on the team win.

 

Interesting that this just occurred to me. Thanks for starting the thread.

 

/old guy rant

[Feeky Magee]

old guy rant/

 

I know I'm old but I really don't like this idea. Too many sports are becoming obsessed with the individual athlete and not the team. I know it helps the average fan become interested and identify with them (again hero worship of athletes is a bad thing IMHO). However, I prefer the promotion of the team not the individual. I root for the game of baseball and the White Sox not an individual on the team.

Now that I think about it, this is the problem I have with too many of the "advanced stats." They were created so the player could get paid through arbitration to show that even if the team did poorly, I deserve more money. Pitchers worry more about a quality start or the K/BB ratio instead of focusing on the team win.

 

Interesting that this just occurred to me. Thanks for starting the thread.

 

/old guy rant

young guy polite reply/

 

The pitcher concentrating on his K/BB ratio will help his team to have a better chance of winning

 

/young guy polite reply

[Willard Decker]

old guy rant/

 

I know I'm old but I really don't like this idea. Too many sports are becoming obsessed with the individual athlete and not the team. I know it helps the average fan become interested and identify with them (again hero worship of athletes is a bad thing IMHO). However, I prefer the promotion of the team not the individual. I root for the game of baseball and the White Sox not an individual on the team.

Now that I think about it, this is the problem I have with too many of the "advanced stats." They were created so the player could get paid through arbitration to show that even if the team did poorly, I deserve more money. Pitchers worry more about a quality start or the K/BB ratio instead of focusing on the team win.

 

Interesting that this just occurred to me. Thanks for starting the thread.

 

/old guy rant

 

I agree and admit that I don't know a solution to the problem. It's been suggested that contracts include incentives and bonuses tried to wins as opposed to individual statistics, but that arrangement comes with problems as well. How does a particular team deal with a player whose team reached the World Series if said player was acquired at the trade-deadline and played in only a fraction of his new team's games?

 

young guy polite reply/

 

The pitcher concentrating on his K/BB ratio will help his team to have a better chance of winning

 

/young guy polite reply

 

In theory. The problem with K/BB ratio is that it says nothing about a pitcher's ability to retire hitters without striking them out. It also favors pitchers who rely on power pitches designed to make hitters swing and miss instead of hitting groundballs or popups that are easy to field and unlikely to advance base-runners. Strikeouts are preferred because they prevent men on base from advancing or scoring, but a groundball pitcher who induces double-plays at a high rate can be an effective starting pitcher and deserving of a long-term contract.

 

--Captain Decker

 

[ptatc]

young guy polite reply/

 

The pitcher concentrating on his K/BB ratio will help his team to have a better chance of winning

 

/young guy polite reply

Show me how the K/BB is correlated to wins.

[Willard Decker]

Show me how the K/BB is correlated to wins.

 

My review of 2013 statistics from Baseball Reference shows that of the ten pitchers who finished with the highest K/BB ratio, four (Wainwright, Price, Kershaw and Scherzer) played on teams that reached the postseason. A fifth (Haren) was a member of a team with a winning record during the regular season. I don't know if these findings support or refute his argument. What I would be interested in seeing is if the teams with the highest K/BB ratio finished with winning records or postseason berths.

 

--Captain Decker

 

Edited February 6, 2014 by Willard Decker

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

If PK wins he faces Bryce "Overrated" Harper. In other words Paulie's f***ed

 

Bryce Harper is 100x more the "Face of MLB" than Konerko is. Same with Kershaw. If I cared enough for vote, I'd be voting for Kershaw.

[Willard Decker]

Bryce Harper is 100x more the "Face of MLB" than Konerko is. Same with Kershaw. If I cared enough for vote, I'd be voting for Kershaw.

 

I've no problem with Kershaw winning the voting as he's earned the respect of everyone in and around the game of baseball. Bryce Harper has the talent of Ken Griffey Jr. and the maturity of Royce Clayton.

 

--Captain Decker

 

[ptatc]

My review of 2013 statistics from Baseball Reference shows that of the ten pitchers who finished with the highest K/BB ratio, four (Wainwright, Price, Kershaw and Scherzer) played on teams that reached the postseason. A fifth (Haren) was a member of a team with a winning record during the regular season.

That's not bad, sounds like an aberration that one pitcher having that will cause the entire team to go to the post season but it's worth keeping an eye on.

Wainwright had 19 wins, Scherzer had 21, Hershaw 16, Price 10 and Haren 10. I'm not really sure it's a real accurate measure of wins.

 

Edit: I'm being slightly facetious if you haven't guessed. My point is that I think too many are worried about individual things and not the teams and this "Face of the MLB" will only increase this

Edited February 6, 2014 by ptatc

[Jake]

I think the MLB at its best had individuals with more appeal than basically anyone in today's game.

 

Ken Griffey Jr. had notoriety that so far exceeds anyone playing right now that it isn't even worth bringing up a player to compare to. Big Frank was internationally known. McGwire/Sosa was a larger than life time for the sport. You had pitchers like Randy Johnson that everybody knew.

 

How many people are out there that could tell you everything about Griffey, Frank Thomas, and the McGwire record but not have a clue who the hell Clayton Kershaw is? I think it is an astonishing amount.

 

Puig is a guy who generated a lot of buzz but this time it never felt like it had a ton of merit. It was a lot more Linsanity-esque than anything else, like ESPN was bored and needed something to talk about while baseball was the only game in town. We need people that are really likable and give fans, average and otherwise, the sense that they are watching something really great. I think the steroid era to some extent is responsible for this. We like teams, but investing your emotions/fandom in a particular player feels like an easy way to get burned by a positive test later on.

[Willard Decker]

That's not bad, sounds like an aberration that one pitcher having that will cause the entire team to go to the post season but it's worth keeping an eye on.

Wainwright had 19 wins, Scherzer had 21, Hershaw 16, Price 10 and Haren 10. I'm not really sure it's a real accurate measure of wins.

 

One would have to look at statistics from additional seasons to discern if there's a pattern. It's not hard to believe that teams having the best pitchers win consistently, but deciding a pitcher's worth based on a single statistical measure is shortsighted. The K/BB ratio is helpful in analyzing trends, particularly when evaluating power pitchers. But I hesitate to use only a single piece of information to gauge a player's effectiveness.

 

--Captain Decker

Edited February 6, 2014 by Willard Decker

[Jose Abreu]

One would have to look at statistics from additional seasons to discern if there's a pattern. It's not hard to believe that teams having the best pitchers win consistently, but deciding a pitcher's worth based on a single statistical measure is shortsighted. The K/BB ratio is helpful in analyzing trends, particularly when evaluating power pitchers. But I hesitate to use only a single piece of information to gauge a player's effectiveness.

 

--Captain Decker

Who would use a single piece of info to measure effectiveness?

 

--Captain Abreu

[ptatc]

One would have to look at statistics from additional seasons to discern if there's a pattern. It's not hard to believe that teams having the best pitchers win consistently, but deciding a pitcher's worth based on a single statistical measure is shortsighted. The K/BB ratio is helpful in analyzing trends, particularly when evaluating power pitchers. But I hesitate to use only a single piece of information to gauge a player's effectiveness.

 

--Captain Decker

The best pitchers, yes, a single pitcher with a single stat no. It maybe a good stat to analyze some type of trend and intuitively it makes sense that if you strike out more and walk less you will be successful. However, my original point remains: people focus too much on individual stats and players and not enough on the team and wins.

[caulfield12]

That's not bad, sounds like an aberration that one pitcher having that will cause the entire team to go to the post season but it's worth keeping an eye on.

Wainwright had 19 wins, Scherzer had 21, Hershaw 16, Price 10 and Haren 10. I'm not really sure it's a real accurate measure of wins.

 

Edit: I'm being slightly facetious if you haven't guessed. My point is that I think too many are worried about individual things and not the teams and this "Face of the MLB" will only increase this

 

 

The whole reason for this is marketing, and baseball's about 20 years behind.

 

One of those recent Harris "popularity" polls had NFL football at 35% and MLB at only 14%, with NBA and NHL also trailing.

 

The NFL and especially NBA have been tremendously successful marketing individual players...and their agents, connecting them to "win win" marketing/sponsorship opportunities.

 

I'm pretty sure other than Mike Trout there are ZERO major league players earning more from product endorsements than their actual playing contract (Boras even famously said sponsorship deals aren't worth it, his players need to concentrate 98% of their time with on-field/physical development/training activity).

Edited February 6, 2014 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

I think the MLB at its best had individuals with more appeal than basically anyone in today's game.

 

Ken Griffey Jr. had notoriety that so far exceeds anyone playing right now that it isn't even worth bringing up a player to compare to. Big Frank was internationally known. McGwire/Sosa was a larger than life time for the sport. You had pitchers like Randy Johnson that everybody knew.

 

How many people are out there that could tell you everything about Griffey, Frank Thomas, and the McGwire record but not have a clue who the hell Clayton Kershaw is? I think it is an astonishing amount.

 

Puig is a guy who generated a lot of buzz but this time it never felt like it had a ton of merit. It was a lot more Linsanity-esque than anything else, like ESPN was bored and needed something to talk about while baseball was the only game in town. We need people that are really likable and give fans, average and otherwise, the sense that they are watching something really great. I think the steroid era to some extent is responsible for this. We like teams, but investing your emotions/fandom in a particular player feels like an easy way to get burned by a positive test later on.

 

Not only MLB players (steroids), but the fall of Tiger Woods and Lance Armstrong, to name just a couple.

 

 

[Feeky Magee]

Show me how the K/BB is correlated to wins.

My point was more that a player who concentrates on himself individually will be more likely to help the team to win, but in a general sense, out of the 81 qualified starting pitchers, the top 10 in K/BB finished 8th, 4th, 5th, 15th, 9th, 66th, 6th, 1st, 18th and 2nd in WAR. Dan Haren (battling shoulder injuries) aside, that's pretty strong correlation between K/BB and wins. The only pitchers to make the top 10 in WAR outside of the top 10 in K/BB were Anibal Sanchez (17th of 81), Justin Verlander (42nd) and Yu Darvish (24th).

[Willard Decker]

Who would use a single piece of info to measure effectiveness?

 

--Captain Abreu

 

The same people who believe that home runs are more important than any other baseball statistic.

 

--Captain Decker

 

[Texsox]

It's a chicken and egg argument. I agree that one of the (probably) unintended consequences of a statistical analysis of baseball players is they can be used to "sell and player".

 

At the extreme, in my old guy opinion, is rejecting the idea that the players around you, the locker room, the coaching, are somehow not important. Some people seem to believe that if every player just focused on producing the best stats possible for himself that a team can be successful. That rejects a whole theory of sports and what it teaches us about character, sacrifice, team play, cooperation, etc.

 

teIam?

[Willard Decker]

It's a chicken and egg argument. I agree that one of the (probably) unintended consequences of a statistical analysis of baseball players is they can be used to "sell and player".

 

At the extreme, in my old guy opinion, is rejecting the idea that the players around you, the locker room, the coaching, are somehow not important. Some people seem to believe that if every player just focused on producing the best stats possible for himself that a team can be successful. That rejects a whole theory of sports and what it teaches us about character, sacrifice, team play, cooperation, etc.

 

teIam?

 

The pragmatist in the room would argue that there is in win.

 

--Captain Decker